In need of convincing LDS Scholarship

[Hamba Tuhan]

Can't the LDS Living Prophet just ask God for an answer, so that we know what the Book of Helaman is telling us?

Two days ago, on this very thread, I made the following statement: 'I have harboured for some time the suspicion that a sizable number of true apostates are those who desperately needed prophets to be some kind of infallible supermen with the correct answers to absolutely every conceivable question on demand.' In reply to which, beastie accused me of having crafted a straw man. Methinks there may be a bit more than just straw in this particular man.

[Uncle Dale]

Two days ago, on this very thread, I made the following statement: 'I have harboured for some time the suspicion that a sizable number of true apostates are those who desperately needed prophets to be some kind of infallible supermen with the correct answers to absolutely every conceivable question on demand.'

In reply to which, beastie accused me of having crafted a straw man.

Methinks there may be a bit more than just straw in this particular man.

In other words the Book of Helaman is not reliable as scripture.

It can not tell us in plain words, what it purports to be revealing unto us.

That's enough for me.

Unless the Mormons can explain it otherwise, its message

at this point is useless.

UD

[Hamba Tuhan]

In other words the Book of Helaman is not reliable as scripture. It can not tell us in plain words, what it purports to be revealing unto us.

That's enough for me.

Unless the Mormons can explain it otherwise, its message at this point is useless.

I hadn't realised that the message was in the commas, but, if that's truly enough for you, I'm OK with it. To each his own.

[Hyrum Page]

I suppose, what really happened.

Good luck with that.

[Uncle Dale]

Good luck with that.

Gee -- I really have not been a BoM Geography critic. I have degrees both in

Geography and Religion, but I've never combed the Book of Mormon, trying to

reconcile those two disciplines, or trying to pit one against the other.

The Helaman text is really the only one I've ever bothered to ask questions

about. But I continue to get no decent answers. I'm no closer to understanding

the meaning, then when I was a young guy in Sunday School.

Here's the text:

[p. 412]

BOOK OF HELAMAN.

CHAPTER II.

And now it came to pass that in the forty and third year of the reign of the Judges, there was no contention among the people of Nephi, save it were a little pride which was in the church, which did cause some little dissentions among the people, which affairs were settled in the ending of the forty and third year. And there was no contention among the people in the forty and fourth year; neither was there much contention in the forty and fifth year. And it came to pass in the forty and sixth, yea, there were much contentions and many dissentions; in the which there were an exceeding great many which departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward, to inherit the land; and they did travel to an exceeding great distance, insomuch that they came to large bodies of water, and many rivers; yea, and even they did spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatsoever parts it had not been rendered desolate, and without timber, because of the many inhabitants which had before inherit the land. And now no part of the land was desolate, save it were for timber, &c.; but because of the greatness of the destruction of the people which had before inhabited the land, it was called desolate. And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people which went forth, became exceeding expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell. And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward, to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south, to the sea north, from the sea west, to the sea east. And the people which were in the land northward, did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land, that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings.

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/bm.htm#412a

It isn't a long passage. It doesn't seem that complicated.

If it is meant as God's revelation to latter day readers,

then what does it mean?

Is this really an edifying example of the Mormons' BoM

"Limited Geography Explanation"

????????

UD

[Hyrum Page]

It isn't a long passage. It doesn't seem that complicated.

If it is meant as God's revelation to latter day readers,

then what does it mean?

Is this really an edifying example of the Mormons' BoM

"Limited Geography Explanation"

Uncle Dale,

Your literal mindedness is, in a way, a real strength. At times, however, it can be a real stumbling block for you (at least in a sense).

I don't give a rodent's hind parts about Book of Mormon geography. I am also not overly concerned about whether the Flood covered "the whole earth" either.

There is a distinct difference between western "scientific" history and sacred history. I would recommend that you learn to appreciate how the theological message of the Book of Mormon impacts its historical information. You may just find that there is very little that is straightforward history in accordance with your apparent expectations.

Where theology takes priority over history, we enter into the realm of mythology, not in the sense of falsehood, but in the sense of placing meaning before details.

[Hamba Tuhan]

If it is meant as God's revelation to latter day readers, then what does it mean?

Is this really an edifying example of the Mormons' BoM "Limited Geography Explanation"

????????

Option A) Mormon had four specific bodies of water in mind when he used the phrases 'sea south,' 'sea north,' 'sea east,' and 'sea west.'

Suboption A1) The four specific bodies of water were the Antarctic, the Arctic, the Atlantic, and the Pacific Oceans.

Suboption A2) The four specific bodies of water were other 'seas' (lakes? gulfs? other waterways?) local to the area where Mormon lived.

Option B) Mormon was speaking metaphorically, possibly even formulaically--akin to when someone uses the phrase 'four corners of the earth' to mean 'all over the place.'

Being a professional historian who works in early modern (sixteenth-century) texts, I lean toward Suboption A2 and Option B just because they fit more into patterns of historical geographical understanding and historical writing with which I'm familiar, but I could be wrong.

I still don't see how any of these options, though, have any impact whatsoever on Mormon's central purpose(s) in abridging the Book of Helaman.

[Uncle Dale]

...I lean toward Suboption A2 and Option B just because they fit more into patterns of historical

geographical understanding and historical writing with which I'm familiar, but I could be wrong.

...

Or, you may well be correct.

If you are correct, then "and they did travel to an exceeding great distance,"

should probably be thought of on a scale of a few kilometers, rather than many

days' of coastal ocean travel.

At this point, I don't care whether Nephites wrote it; or Smith wrote it;

or Rigdon wrote it --- I just want to know what people think it means.

One of my few remaining obsessions from nearly four decades ago.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

how the theological message of the Book of Mormon impacts its historical information

...

God's people dwindle in unbelief and thus no longer prosper upon the land;

just like our ancestors did when they got kicked out of Zion in 1838?

Or -- is the theological message, that God upholds His end of the Covenant,

even after centuries of transgression, so as to restore the Lamanites to

their rightful place in the literal gathering of Israel in America?

Either it's about human sin or it's

about God's righteousness -- or both.

None of which tells me what it means to say that Nephites "did travel to an

exceeding great distance," -- perhaps even to the Sea North and to the

Sea South.

The only theological tie-in I can fathom, is that the "Land of Promise"

is all of North and South America, and not just the land of the Lehites'

"first inheritance," tucked away in some tiny corner of Guatemala.

All of which edges me over into Meldrum's camp, as to what the

Book of Mormon MEANS -- (even if Solomon Spalding wrote its text).

UD

.

[Hyrum Page]

Option B) Mormon was speaking metaphorically, possibly even formulaically--akin to when someone uses the phrase 'four corners of the earth' to mean 'all over the place.'

That is exactly the kind of thing I am getting at. The theology of righteousness and prospering works hand in hand with these poetic metaphors about filling the land from sea to shining sea and whatnot.

[mfbukowski]

I suppose, what really happened.

Oh, THAT.

What really happened with that guy who caught himself on fire on the plane last week? What really happened in the Kennedy Assassination? Who really wrote the plays of Shakespeare? Did Jonah really get swallowed by a whale?

What really happened with Moses and the Pharaoh? The ark?

It's all his-story.

[mfbukowski]

There is a distinct difference between western "scientific" history and sacred history.

Not too different really, I think.

Where theology takes priority over history, we enter into the realm of mythology, not in the sense of falsehood, but in the sense of placing meaning before details.

I think that anyone who believes ANYONE knows "what really happened" has never counseled divorcing couples.

EVERY story is told from someone's point of view. An "objective view" is the biggest mythology of all, because people actually believe it is the truth.

[mfbukowski]

Either it's about human sin or it's

about God's righteousness -- or both.

Either the professed history of the House of Joseph in preColumbian

America is important to true doctrine, or it is not....

Or, is my logic wrong here?

UD

Well, I could be wrong, but I think these pictures could use a little more grey

[Hyrum Page]

Not too different really, I think.

Is that so? Well, why don't you tell us all about it. I am dying to learn from an expert.

[mfbukowski]

Is that so? Well, why don't you tell us all about it. I am dying to learn from an expert.

Hey, don't pick a fight with me, I'm on your side! Cheesh.

[Hyrum Page]

Hey, don't pick a fight with me, I'm on your side! Cheesh.

No, seriously, I want you to tell me how history and sacred history are alike and how they are different. I apologize for coming across as snide.

[beastie]

Your reliance on creating false straw-man arguments would almost be shocking if I hadn't seen so much of it.

Here is a link to the table of contents of the "Articles of Faith".

http://books.google.com/books?id=JecQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR5&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false

As you can see, the table of contents alone is voluminous. The book covers practically ever area of gospel knowledge conceivable. When it was published, I am sure it was "state of the art", as WAS the study guide we have already discussed in some detail.

Are you trying to tell me that it is our belief that we should take this volume, as wonderful as it is, as inerrant scripture, when we do not even take the Bible as inerrant scripture? That there is no part of this book that has been supplanted by better scholarship on any topic it covers whatsoever? If that is what you are saying, you are sorely mistaken.

And unless I am sorely mistaken, I never said anything about "First Presidency approval" automatically constituting infallible doctrinal facts which are never ever subject to reinterpretation.

What I believe I said was that these letters and faxes did not constitute "doctrine", and I stand by that statement. IMO church publications may or may not be "doctrinal" regardless of if they are commissioned by the FP, especially after a hundred years or so, especially when they contain scholarship which as we all know changes over time.

If there are statements of a scientific nature in this volume (I can't remember) should we take those as "gospel" as well? What about biblical scholarship? Should we take those statements about the bible in this volume as infallibly true and unchangeable?

I think you are really not understanding ongoing revelation which is a cornerstone of the gospel.

Oh, I see. In your paradigm, not even a text deliberately solicited by the First Presidency, with the intent of the information in the text being used by church members is a reliable reference source for the educational arm of the LDS church

Let

[beastie]

Many of whom, it seems to me--and, admittedly, I'm still struggling to see things from their perspective--had a very different understanding of what it means to follow men who are genuinely called of God.

Here

[beastie]

No, seriously, I want you to tell me how history and sacred history are alike and how they are different. I apologize for coming across as snide.

Someone on the Board That Cannot Speak Its Name has just about convinced me of this. I

[Uncle Dale]

...

Even the LGT in Mesoamerica necessitates a different understanding of the background

information

...

I've found that it can all make sense if we just think of the Nephites as being

very small people -- in a "Honey I shrank the Nephites" scenario, a voyage of

a mile or two along the Mexican coastline would indeed be a journey of extreme

distances.

The span of dry ground between two rain puddles would be the whole face of the

earth, between a "sea north" and a "sea south."

Tiny Nephite artifacts would obviously be overlooked by the archaeologists,

whether in Guatemala or at "Tower Hill" by Adam-ondi-ahmen. Zelph, having

"the curse" partly removed, grew up to normal human size. Easy to imagine.

A very tiny MesoAmerican Cumorah could have been transported to New York in

a wind-storm of no great proportions.

The tiny Nephites just wrote in very big characters, on huge metal plates;

for our latter day benefit -- that's all.

Problem solved.

UD

[mfbukowski]

Oh, I see. In your paradigm, not even a text deliberately solicited by the First Presidency, with the intent of the information in the text being used by church members is a reliable reference source for the educational arm of the LDS church

[mfbukowski]

No, seriously, I want you to tell me how history and sacred history are alike and how they are different. I apologize for coming across as snide.

I am not a historian and don't pretend to be, but I have some opinions based on epistemological issues. I think all that is available to anyone is their particular experience of any event, and then their characterization in language of their event, and then we have our interpretation of what it is that they said. I think historical events can be very nebulous things.

Obviously when you have a hundred people experiencing a battle all of whom write about it in detail, you are going to have a better idea of "what really happened" than if you have one individual having a spiritual experience who writes about it and the writings are discovered thousands of years later and interpreted in a language which is far removed from the original culturally and in every other way.

If you have ever played the game where you set up in advance several "eyewitnesses" to a staged event and have them tell you what happened afterwards, you have an idea of what I mean.

How objective is today's news cast? What happened in the Kennedy Assassination? (witnessed by at least hundreds) Nobody really knows.

And then you have the account of Jonah and the whale.

Obviously when you have scientists making detailed notes about the results of an experiment and it is replicable, you have one level of "truth" and when you have some idiot looking at the rings of three trees and generalizing the results into a theory which changes world policy, you have another thing. (I am not even well informed on this issue, so don't come back to me on that- I am just using it as an example-- I admit right now I could be totally wrong)

Very clearly the "history" of sacred events taken on the word of one individual is totally subjective and subject to interpretation spiritually and by spiritual confirmation only. That doesn't mean that the event did not happen, just that it cannot be proven in any conventional sense of the word.

Not that it is not historical- it is just not verifiable. It is subjective, conflicting, and infused with emotional perception and who knows, human imagination. In short, it is one person's story of what happened just like all all witnesses everywhere.

If we could drag all the witnesses into court and get their testimonies by a jury of their peers, maybe we would get somewhere, but how successful is THAT process?

Is the BOM historical? Yes. And there is more evidence daily being found by scholars all the time. I used to frankly have very little intellectual testimony of the historicity of the BOM, but now I have a very strong intellectual understanding of that due to the work of people like David Bokovoy etc. I have had a very strong spiritual testimony from the time I joined the church, however, despite my intellectual doubts at the time.

But how do we verify it? By faith and testimony. That's the best we can do. If that doesn't make if for you, I suppose you don't have to believe it. It's your privilege. Nobody is forcing you.

That's MY story (as opposed to his-story) and I'm sticking to it

Edit: And while I am at it, I personally do not believe that angels moved the hill Cumorah, though that is possible. I was using it as an example of one theory which would reconcile the two views- I came up with that in about 14 seconds without thinking about it. I think there is another completely different understanding possible which I am working on. But the critics won't like that one either.

[beastie]

I am not a historian and don't pretend to be, but I have some opinions based on epistemological issues. I think all that is available to anyone is their particular experience of any event, and then their characterization in language of their event, and then we have our interpretation of what it is that they said. I think historical events can be very nebulous things.

Obviously when you have a hundred people experiencing a battle all of whom write about it in detail, you are going to have a better idea of "what really happened" than if you have one individual having a spiritual experience who writes about it and the writings are discovered thousands of years later and interpreted in a language which is far removed from the original culturally and in every other way.

If you have ever played the game where you set up in advance several "eyewitnesses" to a staged event and have them tell you what happened afterwards, you have an idea of what I mean.

How objective is today's news cast? What happened in the Kennedy Assassination? (witnessed by at least hundreds) Nobody really knows.

And then you have the account of Jonah and the whale.

Obviously when you have scientists making detailed notes about the results of an experiment and it is replicable, you have one level of "truth" and when you have some idiot looking at the rings of three trees and generalizing the results into a theory which changes world policy, you have another thing. (I am not even well informed on this issue, so don't come back to me on that- I am just using it as an example-- I admit right now I could be totally wrong)

Very clearly the "history" of sacred events taken on the word of one individual is totally subjective and subject to interpretation spiritually and by spiritual confirmation only. That doesn't mean that the event did not happen, just that it cannot be proven in any conventional sense of the word.

Not that it is not historical- it is just not verifiable. It is subjective, conflicting, and infused with emotional perception and who knows, human imagination. In short, it is one person's story of what happened just like all all witnesses everywhere.

If we could drag all the witnesses into court and get their testimonies by a jury of their peers, maybe we would get somewhere, but how successful is THAT process?

Is the BOM historical? Yes. And there is more evidence daily being found by scholars all the time. I used to frankly have very little intellectual testimony of the historicity of the BOM, but now I have a very strong intellectual understanding of that due to the work of people like David Bokovoy etc. I have had a very strong spiritual testimony from the time I joined the church, however, despite my intellectual doubts at the time.

But how do we verify it? By faith and testimony. That's the best we can do. If that doesn't make if for you, I suppose you don't have to believe it. It's your privilege. Nobody is forcing you.

That's MY story (as opposed to his-story) and I'm sticking to it

Edit: And while I am at it, I personally do not believe that angels moved the hill Cumorah, though that is possible. I was using it as an example of one theory which would reconcile the two views- I came up with that in about 14 seconds without thinking about it. I think there is another completely different understanding possible which I am working on. But the critics won't like that one either.

Let me try to explain this with a simple analogy.

On December 30, 2009, I went to the grocery store.

That is a statement about something that happened in the past. That statement is either an accurate portrayal of an actual event, or it is not.

Of course, as time passes, my memory may fade of that event, and perhaps I may no longer remember that I went to the grocery store on December 30, 2009. My fading memory does not change the past event, in which I really did go to the grocery store on December 30, 2009. If someone asked me why I went to the grocery store, what my motivation was, of course I may not accurately portray that other than in the most generic terms

[Nofear]

Now, if revelation

[beastie]

No revelation about Cumorah has been changed because none has been received. I'm not aware of any latter prophet coming out and saying that God told him that the NY hill is the hill of the last Nephite battle.

I'm certain that there are plenty of things that have made it into official Church curricula which are interpretations of and extrapolations from revelation but which are not revelation themselves and hence subject to error.

I find it odd that you're willing to assume that none of the people involved - Talmage, the prophet, the church leaders assigned as the committee to review the work and check for accuracy - ever sought guidance from the Holy Ghost in this process.

Or perhaps you believe they sought guidance from the Holy Ghost, who just did not give the requested guidance?