Is Historicity Important To The Book of Mormon?

[LifeOnaPlate]

That's a bit, er, presumptious. Anderson has examined the accounts of the key witnesses, and published them in Investigating Book of Mormon Witnesses.

Here is your stated aim:

So Anderson, et.al, missed something? If he felt an account was vital to bolstering Joseph Smith's claims, he would have left it out? I also note his Wiki entry:

I presume you're going to better this, which "isn't comprehensive"? Well at least no one can accuse you of lacking ambition. I presume you'll have full access to the Church Archives, and will spend the next 20-30 years looking for things other scholars missed?

Good luck.

It isn't presumptuous, it's in the very fabric of historical inquiry itself. New stuff can be found. Has been found. Likely will yet be found. Historians should seek to gather all that has been revealed, all that is now revealed, and they even believe they might yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the historical event in question. Are you aware of any one source that has attempted to compile and publish all known witness statements of the process of translation? I'm not talking about an article that draws from witness statements, I am talking about a collection of them, presented in full and in one accessible location. I know of one such attempt, found in the book Opening the Heavens. I also know people involved wit h that work who have since discovered more that could have been included. It is a fun project, and one that needs to be done IMO.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Anderson does not only cover the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, that is, the three main witnesses and the eight, though the three are obviously the highlight. But if LoaP can come up with something far more comprehensive than this: Translation of the Book of Mormon, then I await to be impressed. I think it's going to require a significant amount of time in the Church Archives.

Prepare to be impressed.

[Ray Agostini]

It isn't presumptuous, it's in the very fabric of historical inquiry itself. New stuff can be found. Has been found. Likely will yet be found. Historians should seek to gather all that has been revealed, all that is now revealed, and they even believe they might yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the historical event in question.

Or perhaps just slap another apologetic twist on what's discovered. I've already learned from this thread that Kevin places a very positive light on things that are far more controversial, and no where near as neat, as he assumes. But he can reply when he gets back from his "vacation". Reading what he wrote, then reading what Ostler wrote, was quite "illuminating".

Are you aware of any one source that has attempted to compile and publish all known witness statements of the process of translation? I'm not talking about an article that draws from witness statements, I am talking about a collection of them, presented in full and in one accessible location. I know of one such attempt, found in the book Opening the Heavens. I also know people involved wit h that work who have since discovered more that could have been included. It is a fun project, and one that needs to be done IMO.

So what exactly are you looking for, hoping to find? What is your aim in undertaking this project? Vindication of your view of Joseph Smith? Or a real openminded attitude to any possibilties that may arise from your inquiry? Just curious.

[LifeOnaPlate]

This link might also be of interest: Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates.

Particularly the Bibliography.

A map with no usable compass, imo.

[Ray Agostini]

A map with no usable compass, imo.

The debate includes critic and apologetic responses and sources.

[LifeOnaPlate]

So what exactly are you looking for, hoping to find? What is your aim in undertaking this project? Vindication of your view of Joseph Smith? Or a real openminded attitude to any possibilties that may arise from your inquiry? Just curious.

Ray, I have to confess that I haven't enjoyed our exchange. You seem to want to fight, or to bother, or maybe it is simply the difficult nature of communication through the Internet. Whatever it is, I'll just end the conversation with a simple explanation of what my project is. Then you can go ahead and dismiss it as "apologetic."

We are attempting to gather all known witness account descriptions of the translation of the Book of Mormon into one convenient place (with some possible analysis in addition, though apart from the collection itself). Some of this work is already done but we would like to update it and make it as complete as possible.

Why is the project needed?

There are numerous explanations of the Book of Mormon translation method, whether it was done by the gift and power of God or by the cunning of men. Even among those who accept that book as an ancient record translated by revelation different theories exist. Moreover, it seems a solid understanding of the translation is necessary in order to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of internal evidences or anachronisms. Evidence from the internal text must be considered along with actual witness statements of those who participated in the translation or knew those who did. While many explanations exist, there is no single place to review all of the known published witness explanations of the translation of the Book of Mormon. This project seeks to provide a comprehensive source where any recreation or analysis of the translation process can be measured against witness statements.

[Ray Agostini]

Ray, I have to confess that I haven't enjoyed our exchange. You seem to want to fight, or to bother, or maybe it is simply the difficult nature of communication through the Internet. Whatever it is, I'll just end the conversation with a simple explanation of what my project is. Then you can go ahead and dismiss it as "apologetic."

It's the nature of the Internet. It's not about fighting; it's about opposing ideas, theories, etc. But frankly, I don't have much faith in apologetics, no more than I have in Spalding theorists. To me they're almost both in the same boat - trying to vindicate their beliefs first, seeking truth second.

We are attempting to gather all known witness account descriptions of the translation of the Book of Mormon into one convenient place (with some possible analysis in addition, though apart from the collection itself). Some of this work is already done but we would like to update it and make it as complete as possible.

Why is the project needed?

There are numerous explanations of the Book of Mormon translation method, whether it was done by the gift and power of God or by the cunning of men. Even among those who accept that book as an ancient record translated by revelation different theories exist. Moreover, it seems a solid understanding of the translation is necessary in order to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of internal evidences or anachronisms. Evidence from the internal text must be considered along with actual witness statements of those who participated in the translation or knew those who did. While many explanations exist, there is no single place to review all of the known published witness explanations of the translation of the Book of Mormon. This project seeks to provide a comprehensive source where any recreation or analysis of the translation process can be measured against witness statements.

Well I haven't seen everything in one publication, and maybe in that sense it will be worthwhile. But that doesn't mean I haven't weighed witness accounts (and I'm talking about the families/friends of those who witnessed the "translation"), and I think from the outset one premise is faulty:

There are numerous explanations of the Book of Mormon translation method, whether it was done by the gift and power of God or by the cunning of men.

How are you going to conclude whether it was either/or, God/cunning of men (such terminology isn't befitting scholarly works, anyway), from witness statements of the "translation" (or is that even your aim?). We know what the witnesses said, and they essentially agreed on how it was done. So how is this going to establish (from essentially believer testimonies), that it was anything other than "from God"? Isn't it sort of like going to a F&T meeting and expecting the bishop to say something other than "I know the Church is true?"

(Or maybe you'll find a dissenter who swears he saw a manuscript on Joseph's lap. Now that would be a novelty, and Der Unk would be beside himself with joy.)

Anyway, carry on, and I'll await the outcome of your project, and if necessary qualify my criticisms.

[paulpatter]

I think a lot of people misunderstand the view of those who hold the Book of Mormon as inspired scripture but not historical. Some commenters seem to think that this view would make the Book of Mormon as no different than any inspiring story. But those that hold this view do not see it this way, those that I have talked to that hold it believe that Joseph Smith was a real prophet and that God inspired and directed the Joseph in the dictation of the Book of Mormon.

Upshot: God conspired with Joseph Smith to create a plot line to explain the coming forth of the BoM--a plot line that was patently false.

Yeah, sure.

[mfbukowski]

Did they handle physical plates or have a vision in which they handled plates? In the context of this thread, this would seem to be an important question.

I agree. I know you are not saying this, but if you were going to fake some plates, would it be easier to make up some bogus ones or cause people to have a vision of them?

[LifeOnaPlate]

It's the nature of the Internet. It's not about fighting; it's about opposing ideas, theories, etc.

I don't mind opposing ideas. I sometimes mind when opposing ideas are actually veiled insults, though.

But frankly, I don't have much faith in apologetics, no more than I have in Spalding theorists. To me they're almost both in the same boat - trying to vindicate their beliefs first, seeking truth second.

Interesting apologetic you have crafted.

We know what the witnesses said, and they essentially agreed on how it was done. So how is this going to establish (from essentially believer testimonies), that it was anything other than "from God"? Isn't it sort of like going to a F&T meeting and expecting the bishop to say something other than "I know the Church is true?"

For one thing, not many people DO know what witnesses said. (You, for example, have shown an obvious lack of awareness in a few aspects of the situation. But you'll have to do more research on your own or wait until our project is done to find out more.) Also, the "whether" isn't meant to be an either/or, but it boils down to whether God was involved in the process or not. That's a dichotomy that can actually be stated quite rightly. No matter what the difference of involvement, either God was involved or God wasn't involved. How can we know just from the witness statements? I don't think we can. But people have been interested in the question and the witness accounts are yet another component, another piece of the puzzle to examine. Hence the project. I think the project is difficult for you to grasp because you are viewing it through your distorted idea of apologetics, and assuming the project falls into that distorted category.

(Or maybe you'll find a dissenter who swears he saw a manuscript on Joseph's lap. Now that would be a novelty, and Der Unk would be beside himself with joy.)

And if we did it would be included in the statements.

[mfbukowski]

Varieties is not what I'm referring too (I may do a separate thread on this later on). And yes, the source of the "revelation" is open to question/interpretation, and whether it's from God or some other source (which may also be benign). I don't see a problem with it being from God, though that isn't necessarily my conclusion (I really don't have one, but can easily accept the "God factor", with qualifications I will later make in another thread). Once again, I have studied this for many years, and of course I'm biased like everyone else, but nothing has altered my opinion that AW is the best fit for all the evidence (and I'm including the manner of "translation", eyewitness accounts, etc). It doesn't have the failings of the Spalding Theory, except this one huge one: It supposes a "supernatural" production. But even there they allow for the possibility of it still being from God:

I meant to respond to this earlier, but I got sidetracked. I am really having trouble imagining any possible scenario which escapes the "infinite regress" that a explanation involving automatic writing would entail. We are just replacing one unsolvable problem with another.

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=635

The Book of Mormon as Automatic Writing: Beware the Virtus Dormitiva

Richard N. Williams

Because Dunn offers nothing more than a virtus dormitiva, the difficulty faced by a reviewer centers around two conclusions toward which an astute reader is drawn: (1) If Dunn is right and the Book of Mormon is the product of automatic writing, the reader of the Book of Mormon is left to decide whether the source of the book is God or some other source, and whether the content of the book is true (doctrinally and historically). (2) If Dunn is wrong and the Book of Mormon is not the product of automatic writing, the reader of the Book of Mormon is left to decide whether the source of the book is God or some other source, and whether the content of the book is true (doctrinally and historically).

[Ray Agostini]

I don't mind opposing ideas. I sometimes mind when opposing ideas are actually veiled insults, though.

I'm not aware of any "veiled insults". I'm usually quite liberal in handing them out unveiled when necessary.

Interesting apologetic you have crafted.

"Crafted."? There goes your either/or mentality again. Do you "craft" an apologetic? Bear in mind I didn't say I don't have beliefs and biases. I do. All I'm stating is that there are two extremes I try to avoid. And I see one of them in you. An unhealthy zeal for the apologetic side, IMO.

For one thing, not many people DO know what witnesses said. (You, for example, have shown an obvious lack of awareness in a few aspects of the situation. But you'll have to do more research on your own or wait until our project is done to find out more.) Also, the "whether" isn't meant to be an either/or, but it boils down to whether God was involved in the process or not. That's a dichotomy that can actually be stated quite rightly. No matter what the difference of involvement, either God was involved or God wasn't involved. How can we know just from the witness statements? I don't think we can. But people have been interested in the question and the witness accounts are yet another component, another piece of the puzzle to examine. Hence the project. I think the project is difficult for you to grasp because you are viewing it through your distorted idea of apologetics, and assuming the project falls into that distorted category.

You don't know what I've read. You don't know what I know, other than what I've briefly posted here. To get a better grasp of what the major witnesses said you'd need to read David Whitmer Interviews (and I don't know if you have, and I'm not suggesting you haven't) and study the nuances of his statements, the responses to them, by both believers and unbelievers. You have 262 pages (excluding the index) of primary sources and firsthand statements by the most vocal witness for the BoM there is. Analysis of that would be paramount. You can pull all the one page statements by other witnesses you wish, but neglecting a serious analysis of Whitmer would be a fatal flaw. It is no happenstance that Anderson focused heavily on them, because if anyone was going to blow the lid on Joseph Smith, it would be them. Not some auntie baking pancakes who happened to view one or two "translation" sessions.

And if we did it would be included in the statements.

If any such lucid statements existed, Uncle Dale would have found them by now. He has been at this for 30 years. And the fact that you don't know that such statements don't exist is telling.

To be blunt, I think you're just an enthusiastic amateur who is unaware of all the work and scholarship that has gone into this. But if you can collate statements to make them more readable to us in "one package", fine. Make sure your head can squeeze through the doorway when you're finished.

[Ray Agostini]

I meant to respond to this earlier, but I got sidetracked. I am really having trouble imagining any possible scenario which escapes the "infinite regress" that a explanation involving automatic writing would entail. We are just replacing one unsolvable problem with another.

Not really. It still comes down to a subject interpretation. And as I said before, I'm not disinclined to accept that "God inspired it". But not literally.

[mfbukowski]

Those doctors/medical scientists who studied the research notes of Dr. William Harvey went on to substantiate Dr. Harvey's monumental finding about the human circulatory system; i.e., the heart acts as a pump. They found stunning value in the "historic contents" of Dr. Harvey's science-based writings--value that revolutionized medicine.

No, that the "heart is a pump" is a scientific statement, not a historical one. Of course it was made in the past, but even "current" research was made days weeks or months in the past as well; the fact that it was hundreds of years ago does not make it a historic statment. Historic statements are ABOUT historic events, not about scientific observations.

Ah, but you were referring to religious writings; specifically, to the BoM. If I understand your position (which could be a leap), there is no value in attempts to prove the historicity of the BoM using any form of science-based methodology. That is your position, isn't it?

No, it is not my position. There is a difference between a statement not being able to "prove" something, and not being "of value". I think that the attempt to offere evidence for the BOM through apologetics etc is indeed very valuable. And yes, I was referring to religious writings but others as well- virtually any historic statement which requires understanding complex issues is pretty much unprovable using scientific evidence. Human motivations, beliefs, and emotional issues in general are difficult to evaluate even when they are happening around us much less when we are looking through history to discover what "really" happened.

What then is the role of LDS apologists? Why does FARMS exist? What then do our missionaries have to offer investigators that every other religion cannot likewise offer? Are we to ignore serious, faith-eroding, science-based challenges to the BoM, when--in fact--we have science-based data that can be brought to bear in the book's defense, including the DNA issue?

The role of an apologist is not to "discover the truth"-- if you look up the word, you will see that it means to "defend a position" and THAT is the role of the apologist. By definition, it is not an "objective observer". You yourself cite using science to "defend" the BOM. So what is it- do you want to be "scientific" in your pursuit of "truth", or do you want to defend your beliefs using whatever evidence you can find? I have no problem with the latter approach, since that is what apologetics is. I know the church is true and I am out to defend it. Period. We are all here to argue what we believe, and if anyone here thinks they are "objective" they are fooling themselves.

Moreover, what is the rationale for the Church's unprecedented emphasis on record-keeping, including family histories, journals, letters, and notes taken of the Prophet Joseph's speeches? Are you aware that there is remarkable congruence in eyewitness accounts of pivotal moments in Church history. Do you really find no value in that?

Of course I do. I don't know what this has to do with the argument at hand.

It seems to me that you advocate a position that would seriously jeopardize 1) the Church's missionary effort, and 2) the Church's membership retention rate.

Well of course I don't see how that is possible. I represent a position that has turned me as an atheist into a member of the LDS church who is very committed to his calling and the truth of the gospel. I just read a paper I wrote about ten years before I joined the church, and I was advocating the exact same philosophical positions I do now, and it was those philosophical positions which ENABLED me to join the church. I think Mormons do not understand the strength of their own positions philosophically, and it seems to me that what you are saying is that Mormons are "too stupid" to understand epistemology as most philosophers have seen it since the beginning of the last century and before. I totally disagree.

If I have misrepresented your position in this post, please provide clarification.

Honestly? I think we should just sit down and talk sometime, because you are misunderstanding me big time.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I meant to respond to this earlier, but I got sidetracked. I am really having trouble imagining any possible scenario which escapes the "infinite regress" that a explanation involving automatic writing would entail. We are just replacing one unsolvable problem with another.

I was trying to get him to answer that earlier, mfbukowski, and he quickly became sidetracked.

Ray: this isn't a project I am tackling alone. It is a group effort, and yes it involves a lot of work, and yes a lot of the work has been done by folks like Richard Anderson and Dan Vogel and Jack Welch and Larry Morris etc.

[LifeOnaPlate]

All I'm stating is that there are two extremes I try to avoid. And I see one of them in you. An unhealthy zeal for the apologetic side, IMO.

That's weird. Some folks call me a crazy liberal based on some of the things I've written.

If any such lucid statements existed, Uncle Dale would have found them by now. He has been at this for 30 years. And the fact that you don't know that such statements don't exist is telling.

All I said was that any such statements would be included, contra your assertion that this is "merely" an "apologetic" effort. But why am I getting sidetracked with these arguments? They are futile.

To be blunt, I think you're just an enthusiastic amateur who is unaware of all the work and scholarship that has gone into this. But if you can collate statements to make them more readable to us in "one package", fine. Make sure your head can squeeze through the doorway when you're finished.

Well, to be blunt you don't know what you're talking about. Though I do feel very silly for having engaged you to this point.

[Ray Agostini]

Ray: this isn't a project I am tackling alone. It is a group effort, and yes it involves a lot of work, and yes a lot of the work has been done by folks like Richard Anderson and Dan Vogel and Jack Welch and Larry Morris etc.

Then I will wait to see your group product, and judge it fully then. As you may appreciate, I'm not a novice at this.

Best.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Then I will wait to see your group product, and judge it fully then. As you may appreciate, I'm not a novice at this.

Best.

Then don't act like one.

What projects have you got cooking right now?

[Ray Agostini]

What projects have you got cooking right now?

I'm cooking Life on a Plate.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm cooking Life on a Plate.

[paulpatter]

No, that the "heart is a pump" is a scientific statement, not a historical one.

It is much more than that (scientific statements are commonplace). Dr. Harvey's finding that blood moves through the body by means of the pumping action of the heart was an historic statement, to wit: "historic--

important, famous, or decisive in history"; also, "having considerable importance, significance, or consequence"

(Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 2002). Resorting to the "shifting ground" argumentive fallacy via semantics serves you poorly.

: . . . the fact that it was hundreds of years ago does not make it a historic statment.

Obviously (and I never said it did).

: Historic statements are ABOUT historic events, not about scientific observations.

Dr. Harvey's finding wasn't a scientific observation. Rather, the announcement of his finding ("event," if you wish) was historic and revolutionized (though it took awhile) the practice of medicine (please refer to the definitions above). Would you say that Darwin's On the Origin of the Species was a compilation of "scientific observations" and not historic?

: No, it is not my position. There is a difference between a statement not being able to "prove" something, and not being "of value".

How do you know you are not "able to 'prove' something" if you don't make the effort to do so?

: I think that the attempt to offere evidence for the BOM through apologetics etc is indeed very valuable. And yes, I was referring to religious writings but others as well- virtually any historic statement which requires understanding complex issues is pretty much unprovable using scientific evidence. . . .

Using DNA technology to liberate "murderers" convicted by a jury in an historic verdict--"murderers" who have been wrongly imprisoned for 15 years--renders your "point" pointless.

: The role of an apologist is not to "discover the truth"-- if you look up the word, you will see that it means to "defend a position" and THAT is the role of the apologist. By definition, it is not an "objective observer".

Correct.

: You yourself cite using science to "defend" the BOM. So what is it- do you want to be "scientific" in your pursuit of "truth", or do you want to defend your beliefs using whatever evidence you can find? I have no problem with the latter approach, since that is what apologetics is. I know the church is true and I am out to defend it. Period. We are all here to argue what we believe, and if anyone here thinks they are "objective" they are fooling themselves.

I'm not sure why you insist that the historicity of the BoM can be examined only by using a monolithic approach. You appear to refuse to even consider the fact that science could be useful in such an undertaking. That position is difficult to defend in view of the astounding advancements science has made in just the last decade across a wide spectrum of disciplines.

. . .

I represent a position that has turned me as an atheist into a member of the LDS church who is very committed to his calling and the truth of the gospel. I just read a paper I wrote about ten years before I joined the church, and I was advocating the exact same philosophical positions I do now, and it was those philosophical positions which ENABLED me to join the church. I think Mormons do not understand the strength of their own positions philosophically, and it seems to me that what you are saying is that Mormons are "too stupid" to understand epistemology as most philosophers have seen it since the beginning of the last century and before. I totally disagree.

I enjoyed this paragraph (and was sympathetic to it) until I read your next-to-last sentence. BTW, "most philosophers" is a less than convincing citation. When was the last time you heard a General Authority quote Kant or Hegel or Pascal or Spinoza, etc., in General Conference?

Honestly? I think we should just sit down and talk sometime, because you are misunderstanding me big time.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. All the best to you.

[mfbukowski]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. All the best to you.

Thanks. Same to you!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Can you guys feel the love up in here?

[mfbukowski]

Can you guys feel the love up in here?

Yes, it's just so..... thick.

[mysteryman]

Upshot: God conspired with Joseph Smith to create a plot line to explain the coming forth of the BoM--a plot line that was patently false.

Yeah, sure.

You still don't get what the inspired scripture camp thinks, many don't. There was no conspiracy, where did you get that? Radio talk show host, Van Hale, was the first I know of that believed the inspired scripture theory. He believes the only reason plates were provided was to give a tangible peace of evidence that witnesses could see. But, the plates weren't even used when the translation took place.