Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide

[LifeOnaPlate]

Unfortunately, I think Hardy's attempt to forge a middle ground ends up shorting each side too much. On the non-believer's side I think he doesn't open enough room for non-believers to discuss Joseph Smith's literary genius.

I saw room for it. Hardy didn't bang me over the head with that idea, but he left open the possibility (which will undoubtedly draw some criticism from other quarters!). I think that's sufficient.

On the other hand, I think he doesn't push the believer's side far enough in assuming that Mormon and Nephi were historical narrators. He wants them to be human, but not fully human. The authors of the BofM are always the good guys. For example, I just read the section on Zeniff. Hardy completely avoids the problems of Zeniff's account.

He doesn't address all problems for all sections of the book. He divided up approaches, including problematic aspects of various narratives, between different parts of the Book of Mormon. His discussion on Mormon's editing of history, including convenient editing, etc., can be applied to other narratives of the book. Again, it feels like you wanted Hardy to take you by the hand more than I think he needed to. But that's a subjective judgment all the way. Sort of like how I wished he had analyzed such-and-such more.

From the brute facts reported by Zeniff, it seems clear to me that his own account is not entirely honest. These brute facts are: Zeniff originally said that the Lamanites were good. Zeniff went into their land with a massive army. King Laman exiled his people from two lands to make room for Zeniff's people. The Lamanites and Zeniff's colonies lived in peace for 12 years. When the Lamanites did attack, they attacked some of Zeniff's people who had taken their herds beyond their own borders into Lamanite territory (aka expansionism). Zeniff responded by sending on a massive attack into Lamanite territory, slaughtering thousands of Lamanites. From these brute facts, it seems to be pretty clear that Laman gave up lands to Zeniff's people under threat of violence, and that the Lamanites only attacked after Zeniff's expansionism.

Zeniff, however, paints himself retrospectively as some poor victim of wicked Lamanites (which he already said were good) and their 12 year plan to oppress his people--which is not just completely ludicrous, but is never shown to be attempted. Hardy is unwilling to explore this possibility and instead takes Zeniff's word and constantly makes claims about Zeniff, as a historical person, being a good and just fellow.

The problem with your analysis is that it assumes that the Zeniff colony actually existed.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hardy got that for Captain Moroni, but not Noah.

I got the feeling Hardy selected when and about what to make certain observations. He very well may have overlooked the Noah bit, but the fact that he noticed a similar phenomenon later in regards to Moroni should be considered, imo.

[the narrator]

Nevertheless he freely acknowledges that such

[LifeOnaPlate]

Perhaps you still don't get what I am saying. His literary analysis assumes Nephite authorship. Rather than not compelling belief, his literary analysis comes from belief. I just don't think that non-believers will be able to take the book seriously because he doesn't give the non-believer enough room to take it seriously.

Perhaps you don't get what I am saying. Readers who try to play by Hardy

[the narrator]

I saw room for it. Hardy didn't bang me over the head with that idea, but he left open the possibility (which will undoubtedly draw some criticism from other quarters!). I think that's sufficient.

Except his hermeneutics itself didn't leave room for it. He constantly talks of Mormon and Nephi as the minds behind the texts. He never really explores Joseph as the mind behind the mind of Nephi. Those are two very different things.

Again, it feels like you wanted Hardy to take you by the hand more than I think he needed to. But that's a subjective judgment all the way. Sort of like how I wished he had analyzed such-and-such more.

Far from it. I wanted Hardy to balls up and be more open to human authorship of the texts. I made this same criticism when he was here at Claremont and he affirmed that he has a strict prophetic reading of the text. In his view, the authors can have biases, but they must be biases of uber-righteous men. Whether from the perspective of fiction or reality, Hardy's hermeneutics still leave the characters in the second dimension.

The problem with your analysis is that it assumes that the Zeniff colony actually existed.

It's not a problem when I acknowledge my hermeneutics is form and for faith.

[the narrator]

Anyway, what do you propose would have been better assumptions for Hardy, and how could he have written a similar book that would appeal in the way you think it fails?

I think you have to have two different books, or at least two different approaches in the same book. Writing from the mind of Joseph and writing from the mind of Nephi are two too different in their essence to combine. Hardy's book is a noble attempt, but in the end I think it fails.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Except his hermeneutics itself didn't leave room for it. He constantly talks of Mormon and Nephi as the minds behind the texts. He never really explores Joseph as the mind behind the mind of Nephi. Those are two very different things.

Which he said he would do from the outset. He offers alternate perspectives in the footnotes, including references to Vogel, Metcalfe, Wright, and others. He noted that, real or not, taking Mormon and Nephi as "real" can still be beneficial. I agree.

Far from it. I wanted Hardy to balls up and be more open to human authorship of the texts. I made this same criticism when he was here at Claremont and he affirmed that he has a strict prophetic reading of the text. In his view, the authors can have biases, but they must be biases of uber-righteous men. Whether from the perspective of fiction or reality, Hardy's hermeneutics still leave the characters in the second dimension.

I don't know that his hermeneutics leave the characters in the second dimension, but his assumptions governing the hermeneutics could. Unless you want to include assumptions under hermeneutics (I'm not aware that is necessary. Disabuse me if I'm wrong and point me in the right direction. Indeed, I think people can use similar hermeneutics and arrive at different conclusions based on differing assumptions.) But all along I believe Hardy recognizes that, imo, so it doesn't bother me as much. I may disagree with the assumptions and some of the conclusions, or find some conclusions less rigorous, but still find the hermeneutical approach useful (which I do). Hardy doesn't delve too far into his assumptions of prophets needing to be uber-righteous, etc. (He also notes that all writers in the BoM don't seem to be uber-righteous anyway, mostly from the small plates). Maybe Hardy could have outlined that aspect of his assumptions, the character of prophets etc., more fully. Still, I see him noting shortcomings in people like Capt. Moroni, so when you say prophets do you mean to restrict that to record keepers?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think you have to have two different books, or at least two different approaches in the same book. Writing from the mind of Joseph and writing from the mind of Nephi are two too different in their essence to combine. Hardy's book is a noble attempt, but in the end I think it fails.

It seems to me what fails for you are his assumptions, not his conclusions, no? Based on the conclusions he outlines and recognizing the limits of space, what is an example of a reading does Hardy offer that you think fails? If we have a specific case we can analyze it and see. As it stands, it seems to me you just disagree with the assumptions, thus the assumptions make the book fail from the get-go.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It's not a problem when I acknowledge my hermeneutics is form and for faith.

That's a horse of a diff. color; do you think Hardy was not clear enough that he believes the BoM is an historical account (speaking loosely)?

[the narrator]

Which he said he would do from the outset. He offers alternate perspectives in the footnotes, including references to Vogel, Metcalfe, Wright, and others. He noted that, real or not, taking Mormon and Nephi as "real" can still be beneficial. I agree.

Perhaps my perspective is tainted by what he told me he was trying to do with the book.

Still, I see him noting shortcomings in people like Capt. Moroni, so when you say prophets do you mean to restrict that to record keepers?

Yeah.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Perhaps my perspective is tainted by what he told me he was trying to do with the book.

Yeah.

OK that makes sense. I think some of the disconnect may be with what the book says and what Hardy said he hopes for the book when you heard him at Claremont.

Anyway, thanks for hammering it around, an interesting topic. Maybe worth a blog post sometime, if only I had time!

[the narrator]

It seems to me what fails for you are his assumptions, not his conclusions, no?

no

Based on the conclusions he outlines and recognizing the limits of space, what is an example of a reading does Hardy offer that you think fails? If we have a specific case we can analyze it and see. As it stands, it seems to me you just disagree with the assumptions, thus the assumptions make the book fail from the get-go.

The problem is that his assumptions are directly tied to his methodology and conclusion. Talking of the mind of Nephi and the mind of Nephi in the mind of Joseph are too drastically different that they cannot be interpreted the same. The two cannot be conceptually approached in the same way. I don't know how else to drive this point.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The problem is that his assumptions are directly tied to his methodology and conclusion.

In my view this is so only by choice. In other words, you could analyze the BoM using the "Hardy Machine," change some of the assumptions, use the same basic methods, and come up with differing conclusions. Not that it is mathematically precise or anything, but I think you get the idea.

Talking of the mind of Nephi and the mind of Nephi in the mind of Joseph are too drastically different that they cannot be interpreted the same. The two cannot be conceptually approached in the same way. I don't know how else to drive this point.

I don't think they have to be interpreted the same way, I haven't argued that they must or should be, any more than Hamlet v. Shakespeare. I recognize the difference, but see it as a choice by Hardy that he made at the outset, openly, and accounted for.