Maximalists vs. Minimalists

[xtbm]

Interestingly, as far as I can tell, although there were pro-Mormon Maximalists in the past, now all Mormons arguing here are Minimalists, while (as far as I can tell) all anti-Mormons arguing here are Maximalists.  Furthermore, the anti-Mormons consistently insist that pro-Mormons must prove Maximalists claims.  If Mormons fail to sustain Maximalists interpretations of the text (which they actually don't hold), then the Maximalists conclude that the BOM has failed rather than concluding that the Maximalist interpretation is faulty.  They furthermore generally refuse to directly engage Minimalists' claims.  (Witness Vogel recently refusing to even consider the possibility of the LGT theory on the 'Not so easy' thread.) 

I hope that you're not implying that pro-Mormon Maximalists are a thing of the past. Outside of the world of Apologetics, my experience has been that the average Mormon is more Maximalist than Minimalist. And, using the guidelines you provided, I would say the CES is much more Maximalist than Minimalist, too.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I don't recall ever seeing a picture in Seminary (both as a student and as a teacher), church, or anywhere else for that matter, of a Nephite holding a macahuitl as a weapon. I can recall, however, many instances of Nephites using steel swords in pictures and movies. And it wasn't more than a few years ago that I was teaching. I would definitely classify my own education from the Mormon church as Maximalist (although I've never had Dr. Peterson as a teacher - if I did perhaps my response would be different... )

Logically, however, the battle for the BOM must be fought on the Minimalists' turf, since even if a Maximalist argument is proven false, it will not necessarily disprove the Minimalist interpretation.  What usually happens, however, is that the argument degenerates into an endless cycle of arguing over the relative superiority of the Maximalist vs. Minimalist models. 

And for people like myself, who once used to believe in the truthfulness of Mormonism, the dilemma occured when I realized that I didn't agree with the Minimalist arguments. Then, on a personal level, the argument is over - or at least it was for me (though that is certainly a simplified version of the process).

The point the Maximalists must grasp is that for the BOM to be true, only the Minimalist model need be true.  We have no logical interest in debating the relative merits of Maximalists claims because they are not OUR claims, and do not undermine OUR arguments.  Once again, anti-Mormons are trying to force Mormons to argue in favor of positions we do not, and indeed need not maintain to sustain the historicity of the BOM.

And the point that the Minimalists must grasp is that there are a lot of people out there who have read what the Minimalist position is and still don't agree with Mormonism's claims that it represents God's restored church here on earth. When I read this type of statement, it may well apply to some critics and non-believers, but I hope you leave room for those who have educated themselves on the positions and still don't believe...

[YH8]

but I hope you leave room for those who have educated themselves on the positions and still don't believe...

Of course there is. Have you left room for those "educated" or not that still believe? Or will all those that become sufficiently educated wind up not believing? ANd those uneducated are just dupes?

[xtbm]

but I hope you leave room for those who have educated themselves on the positions and still don't believe...

Of course there is. Have you left room for those "educated" or not that still believe? Or will all those that become sufficiently educated wind up not believing? ANd those uneducated are just dupes?

Personally, I'm not out to convince anyone they are right or wrong in any position. If there's one thing that's been a constant throughout recorded history it's that most people are usually wrong - even when it comes to religion and religious experiences. I realize that can include me just as well as it can include anyone else, so I'm not one to act as if any of my beliefs are infallible.

That being said, I've also been told "I don't want to know if it's true or not" in regards to Mormonism - the person was in effect saying that they would still be an active member regardless of whether or not it actually is true. I believe there are many people who operate that way - I don't relate to it, but at the same time, I'm not going to force my point of view on anyone who is unwilling.

[Samurai Jack]

That being said, I've also been told "I don't want to know if it's true or not" in regards to Mormonism - the person was in effect saying that they would still be an active member regardless of whether or not it actually is true. I believe there are many people who operate that way - I don't relate to it, but at the same time, I'm not going to force my point of view on anyone who is unwilling.

I lean more towards the "I don't care if its not true" attitude.

Because I choose to be Mormon so I don't rock the family boat.

[Tchild2]

Bill Wrote:

Now logically speaking, for the BOM to be historical all that is required is that the Minimalists are right. If there really were Nephites, but they only lived in a part of Mesoamerica and fought with macahuitls, then the BOM is still true no matter how many Mormons (and anti-Mormons) might have interpreted it as hemispheric

I think you have done a fine job of concisely describing the two general camps regarding the theories of the BoM geography. Obviously, if the minimalists are proven right and the BoM is shown to be historically correct, then there is no harm done to the Maximists at all.

If the minimalist position becomes the prevailing theory in the church and amongst its members, and that it was possible for the Nephites/Lamanites to have lived in a limited section of Mesoamerica and to have fought with macahuitls, then what could ever tie those interpretations to the Book of Mormon as proof...that is if physical proof is ever needed or wanted by its members?

Is it possible that a reading of the Book of Mormon by future investigators will render the reader unable to correlate the book with the very liberal (liberal to the maximist) theories and interpretations tying it to those same Mesoamerican peoples?

[miked]

...Now logically speaking, for the BOM to be historical all that is required is that the Minimalists are right. If there really were Nephites, but they only lived in a part of Mesoamerica and fought with macahuitls, then the BOM is still true no matter how many Mormons (and anti-Mormons) might have interpreted it as hemispheric...

Logically, however, the battle for the BOM must be fought on the Minimalists

[kolobian]

I think Dr. Shades's post is very important, above. It shows an all too frequent point of impasse for LDS and secular discussion, but gives me hope that we might actually be close to figuring this out. He asks:

I understand your point--I honestly do--where do we draw the line between "subsequent modifications" and "ad hoc hypotheses?"

The argument here is about falsification. If a scientist makes claims that are non-falsifiable, they fail to contribute to progress within the paradigm because they don't prove anything. Thy don't move the dial of belief one way or the other. I imagine most people here are familiar with this, but I will draw out the point using Popper's analogy because I think this understanding is essential. Lets say I make an ambitious claim like "all swans are white." No matter how many white swans I count, I never get to something that looks like evidence for the proposition. Only by finding the black swan can I make an interesting discovery, because falsification is possible, while proving the "truth" isn't. That is where progress happens. So it is critical that scientific propositions be falsifiable.

The reason is because scientists are in the buisness of persuasion. They want to craft evidence such anyone who fails to agree with the proposition forwarded is making a mistake. Good arguments mean that, to a limited extent anyway, our rationality is on the line when we confront them. If we reject an argument that is compelling, something is wrong with us.

So Dr. Shades now asks, if someone forwards a theory that is patently non-falsifable, should others be forced to submit to it:

And on and on it goes. Surely, Dave might be 100% correct with every explanation he gives. But, again, at what point is Jeff justified in becoming a "critic" of Dave's claims? At the beginning? Somewhere in the middle? Never?

And the answer is: at the beginning. Of course! at the beginning. To my knowledge, FARMS et al are engaged in a very different kind of project. What they are not attempting to do is provide a Lakatosian justification for why LGT of the Book of Mormon provides the optimal model for representing Mesoamerican history. Look always to the terminal link in the argument: What position does the author want? Do mormon apologists say things like, "therefore, part of being rational entails believing in the Book of Mormon"? Far from it.

My point here is that there is no particular reason why apologists should have to come up with non-falsifiable arguments with the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is true, because their project is not of that ambition. Now, it may be that Dr. Peterson is making inroads on this point for this particular issue (ie LGT is not "curve fitting" the Book of Mormon onto new data). But at some level, I suspect most of us believers pretty much think that when we are bearing our testimony, we are not saying things that are carefully crafted falsifiable, testable propositions that, if understood properly, should command belief in all listeners. That isn't the project.

I am not sure if it is the absolute bottom line, but near the bottom of the line is this observation: The statment "I believe X" and the statement "you should believe X, if you are rational," are radically different, and cause the spaker to incur radically different burdens. In Dr. Shades's story, Jeff can say at the beginning that he doesn't believe becasue all Dave's argument can do is show that it is not irrational for Dave to believe, which is very different than an argument to show why Jeff should believe.

Not to belabor this, but this is what I think is happening: Mormons say, we believe X. Non-mormons say, X is implausible. Mormons say, there is nothing irrational about believing X. Non-mormons say, no no, you have failed to prove X.

But that was not the intent. The game was just to say that is was rationally permissible, not compulsory. These are different questions. If critics could say, "alright, as long as you realize that you cannot intellectually coerce me to believe, I will concede that I cannot prove your set of propositions are false."

We could be friends?

PS--I am unusually hopeful that people might read this post, just to put in a plug.

Thanks.

[Daniel Peterson]

I understand your point--I honestly do--where do we draw the line between "subsequent modifications" and "ad hoc hypotheses?"

You can tell by the actual circumstances of its genesis that the Limited Geography Theory is not an ad hoc hypothesis. The fact that it predates the data to which it is suspected of being an ad hoc response -- e.g., studies of Amerindian DNA, purportedly contrary information from archaeology -- and that the actual reasoning behind it is quite transparent demonstrates that beyond reasonable dispute.

[Bill Hamblin]

But that was not the intent. The game was just to say that is was rationally permissible, not compulsory. These are different questions.

That's basically right. But the problem here is that we do not get to formulate historical experiments which lend themselves to falsification as scientists can. We are entirely dependent on what data has survived and been discovered. We must formulate questions based on the data available rather than an idea data set. If we had the phonetic pronunciation of 1000 pre 400 AD place names from Mesoamerica we could probably falsify the BOM if we found no matches whatsoever with the BOM. That sample would be statistically significant and allow a reasonable test. But don't have that database. In fact, we have a couple dozen inscriptions, and the ancient pronunciation of perhaps a couple of place names (actually based on post-400 AD Maya texts rather than pre-400 texts). That is simply insufficient to make any type of significant test or draw any conclusion. Thus, this particular test is simply meaningless because of lack of data. When we look at the Near East, for which we have thousands of times as much textual data for pre-400 AD than we do in Mesoamerica, we in fact find the BOM scoring hits with both place names and personal names. This data the anti-Mormons consistently dismiss as irrelevant.

[Daniel Peterson]

Since no critic has stepped forward to do the honors, please permit me to intone the ritual mantra:

So, simply because it can't be falsified, you're free to believe in the Book of Mormon . . . as well as in leprechauns, alien abductions, the Completely Separate Religion of Internet Mormonism, unicorns, the deity of Zeus, your giant invisible rabbit friend, and any other crazy idea that happens to swim across your radar screen. Logic and rationality go out the window.

There is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon.

(Actually, I'm just trying to bump this thread up from the limbo of the second page. Inanity seems as good a method as any.)

[Stormin' Mormon]

I can only speak from my own experience, but I don't recall ever seeing a picture in Seminary (both as a student and as a teacher), church, or anywhere else for that matter, of a Nephite holding a macahuitl as a weapon. I can recall, however, many instances of Nephites using steel swords in pictures and movies. And it wasn't more than a few years ago that I was teaching.

Uhhhm. What about "The Testaments?" That movie has got tons of Meso-American motiffs. Watch it, and you'll see a Lamanite using a macahuitl as a weapon, jaguar worship by an apostate, Meso-American temple structures, and so forth. This was a movie produced by the Church and shown on Temple Square. It seems to indicate to me that "someone" is trying to shift popular Mormon sentiment into Meso-America, and thus into a minamalist and LGT framework.

[xtbm]

I can only speak from my own experience, but I don't recall ever seeing a picture in Seminary (both as a student and as a teacher), church, or anywhere else for that matter, of a Nephite holding a macahuitl as a weapon.  I can recall, however, many instances of Nephites using steel swords in pictures and movies.  And it wasn't more than a few years ago that I was teaching.

Uhhhm. What about "The Testaments?" That movie has got tons of Meso-American motiffs. Watch it, and you'll see a Lamanite using a macahuitl as a weapon, jaguar worship by an apostate, Meso-American temple structures, and so forth. This was a movie produced by the Church and shown on Temple Square. It seems to indicate to me that "someone" is trying to shift popular Mormon sentiment into Meso-America, and thus into a minamalist and LGT framework.

Is that the movie that shows in the JSMB? I don't live anywhere close to Utah (although I grew up there and still have family there), so I've never seen the Testaments. As I stated, I can only speak from my own experience and that's the first time I've ever heard of anything produced by the Mormon church that actually shows a Nephite or Lamanite using a macahuitl as a weapon as opposed to a sword... Will seminary videos soon follow suit?

[Calm]

Check out the BoM Reader (produced by the Church for children or illiterate adults) or whatever it is called these days (i'm thinking that's around 20 years old as I got it for my 20+ son as a young one). There is at least one picture in the Gospel Art Kit (Mormon Abridging the Plastes-306) that has the macahuitl, I believe there are more but don't have the time to look through them. Also the videos that are produced to go along with the Gospel Doctrine lessons have definite Mesoamerican touches, including IIRC the macahuitl.

[kolobian]

Since no other critic has stepped forward to do the honors, please permit me to intone the ritual mantra:

So, simply because it can't be falsified, you're free to believe in the Book of Mormon . . . as well as in leprechauns, alien abductions, the Completely Separate Religion of Internet Mormonism, unicorns, the deity of Zeus, your giant invisible rabbit friend, and any other crazy idea that happens to swim across your radar screen. Logic and rationality go out the window.

There is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon.

(Actually, I'm just trying to bump this thread up from the limbo of the second page. Inanity seems as good a method as any.)

That is the argument. I will take this up tonight (I am very busy for the present, but want to make sure I will reply).

Preliminarily, though, I don't want to be seen as implying above that I think the work of FARMS et al. to be of no utiltiy or limited utility. That is not my purpose. Rather, I am attempting to show that categories are belief are different than they are assumed to be in the debate. I do think FARMS has produced appropriate tests, but these arguments don't have the terminal conclusion that "the Book of Mormon [or the church] is true." I think this is in harmony with our conventional mode of opinion formation, and should not be confused with the leprechans and abuctions blather. I think I can elucidate this, but not in the five minutes preceding my next task.

Thus, goodbye for now.

Thanks,

kolobian.

[Ray Agostini]

Since no critic has stepped forward to do the honors, please permit me to intone the ritual mantra:

So, simply because it can't be falsified, you're free to believe in the Book of Mormon . . . as well as in leprechauns, alien abductions, the Completely Separate Religion of Internet Mormonism, unicorns, the deity of Zeus, your giant invisible rabbit friend, and any other crazy idea that happens to swim across your radar screen.  Logic and rationality go out the window.

There is absolutely no evidence for the Book of Mormon.

(Actually, I'm just trying to bump this thread up from the limbo of the second page.  Inanity seems as good a method as any.)

I don't have any reason to believe in leprechauns, but I lived in Ireland for a year and I can tell you the legend is entrenched in the national psyche. With the recent discovery of the "hobbit" some scientists have been wondering if there might not be some substance to the Irish legend, and why it arose. Likewise, I've studied the UFO phenomenon since about 1969, and what I can most categorically say is that it's official - UFOs do exist. We just don't now what they are. And I have seen some incredible videos of witnesses to close encounters of the third kind, whom I would find as difficult to disbelieve as the BoM witnesses.

Having said that, I don't consider myself "fringe" in any way, nor do those who know me. I don't believe in unicorns or giant invisible rabbits.

What I find amusing is the lumping of the fringe phenomena into the BoM category. The BoM is something concrete which you can hold on to and scrutinise to your heart's content. It's an open book which says "examine me", "test me", "try me". Having done that it is what persuades me, and convinces me it's the Keystone of Mormonism. No, everything doesn't fit nicely and neatly, and if it did I'd be even more suspicious. It is the fact that so many people have misread it and misunderstood it, even among the faithful, that attests to its anythng but pedestrian nature. It challenges both the intellect and the spirit. If it was just a "good read" I would find it amazingly boring, but it's something that builds your intellectual and spiritual muscles like few books do.

[Beowulf]

I don't have any reason to believe in leprechauns, but I lived in Ireland for a year and I can tell you the legend is entrenched in the national psyche. With the recent discovery of the "hobbit" some scientists have been wondering if there might not be some substance to the Irish legend, and why it arose. Likewise, I've studied the UFO phenomenon since about 1969, and what I can most categorically say is that it's official - UFOs do exist. We just don't now what they are. And I have seen some incredible videos of witnesses to close encounters of the third kind, whom I would find as difficult to disbelieve as the BoM witnesses.

Ray, you don't have to go to Ireland for legends of "little people". They exist everywhere, in all cultures.

The Japanese certainly have them. They are called kappa. And whether the Japanese believe in them or not, they certainly have incorporated them into daily culture.

But to the main point of this thread...

Bill has hit it very well, I think, in dichotomizing (is that a word?) between minimalists and maximalists.

Beowulf

[Bertram]

Gentlemen,

Do not mock the Leprehaun. Otherwise you will not find your 'crock of gold' at the end of the Rainbow!!

Begorrah,

Bertram (alias Darby O' Gill).

[sidewinder]

Dr. Shades,

Great illustration. I hope you don't mind if I turn it around a little, to fit some new comments on this thread.

Dave: My cousin Alberto sent me a letter saying he has raised a fire breathing dragon in his garage. The span of its wings can shade a hundred men. He says he's the most powerful magician in the land.

Thomas: But I've seen Alberto's garage, such a beast wouldn't fit.

Mahonri: I for one believe him, the most powerful magician in the land cannot be wrong. Besides, scientists who try to understand the world logically have been wrong on a number of occasions.

Protagoras: I agree Alberto is a great magician, and I believe his story. But Thomas has a good point, Alberto's claim must be internally consistent and reasonable. So lets see, which parts shall we pick and choose to take literally? Well, since no one has seen it outside, it must be in the garage. And we know how big the garage is, so...Aha, it's common for magicians to exagerate the size of their dragons. I think we are dealing with a dragon, but limited in size. The dragon is literal, but the description metaphorical. Common practice among magicians.

Thomas: C'mon Protagoras, that guy is always telling tall tales! Can't you see he just contradicted himself? Well heck, Why don't we have a look in the garage?

Protagoras: Great idea!

{After a long journy, Dave opens albertos garage door. No one sees anything, but Mahonri has a good feeling.}

Thomas: There's no dragon here! And not a cinder in sight!

Protagoras: Oh he's here, he just must be very, very small. His breath too weak.

Thomas: What? You can't just make up explanations ad hoc like that?!

Protagoras: Oh but I didn't. I said from the beginning he was small.

Thomas: Yeah but, you made that up because his story was inconsistent! You had no idea that in the future, this door would be opened, and no evidence at all for a dragon would be found, you were rather, expecting the very opposite!

Dave: Wait guys, maybe we need to search the garage more carefully?

{a cat jumps out of a box and coughs up a hairball}

Protagoras: There he is! Alberto gets it right yet again!

Thomas: What are you talking about?

Protagoras: Look Thomas, there are maximalists and minimilists. You want to take the largest, and broadest possible meaning of Alberto's words. Just because he says a "dragon," you project your own expectations on what that means rather than trying to understand what it meant to a magician who's of a very different culture than you. A minimalist makes no such unwarrented assumptions. Further, I realize, that I did in fact try to find the dragon in the garage. But now, I've found the garage in Alberto's letter. This new paradigm clearly places the words Alberto spoke, right here in this garage as it is,"dragon" and all.

Mahonri: The "learned" opinions of niether of you make the slightest difference to me. I have felt the dragon here in this garage, exactly as described by Alberto.

[VEL]

Fortunately, that question can be easily answered. The Limited Geography Theory has been around since decades before Crick and Watson deciphered the structure of DNA, and, really, since before the rise of serious Mesoamerican archaeology -- that is, prior to the arrival of "the current body of archaeological, documentary, genetic and other evidence." Moreover, advocates of the theory have laid out the textual grounds for their position, so that there is no reason to invoke mysterious extraneous factors or hidden secret agendas to account for their holding it.

I posted this in another thread but is seems apropriate here as well.

Joseph Fielding Smith stated:

"Within recent years there has arisen among certain students of the Book of Mormon a theory to the effect that within the period covered by the Book of Mormon, the Nephites and Lamanites were confined almost within the borders of the territory comprising Central America and the southern portion of Mexico; the Isthmus of Tehuantepec probably being the "narrow neck" of land spoken of in the Book of Mormon rather than the Isthmus of Panama...This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years... In the light of revelation it is absurd for anyone to maintain that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess this northern land... In the face of this evidence coming from the Prophet Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, we cannot say that the Nephites and Lamanites did not possess the territory of the United States and that the Hill Cumorah is in Central America."

('The Deseret News', Church Section, Feb. 27, 1954, pp. 2-3)

Do you think Joseph Fielding Smith was a Minimalist or a Maximalist?

[Tchild2]

Do you think Joseph Fielding Smith was a Minimalist or a Maximalist?

Whatever he was, he was only speaking as a man as were the other prophets and church leaders who taught the Hemispherical model, "for upwards of 100 years... In the light of revelation".

For a book brought to light by the power of revelation, you would think that someone, somewhere in the church would know how a revelation works and who is having them?

[noahnoah]

QUOTE (Daniel Peterson @ Nov 17 2004, 09:19 AM)

Mr. Shades insists that the most na

[cinepro]

Wouldn't that be weird if many faithful LDS adopted a "Maximalist" view of the Book of Mormon (based, in part, on teachings of past prophets and apostles, and these members also had many of the other indicators of "Chapel Mormon"?

And what if the "Minimalist" approach was most frequently encountered in apologetic discussions, which nowadays take place most frequently on...the internet? Could we call them "Internet Mormons"?

Imagine, both Bill Hamblin and Dr. Shades recognizing the same phenomenon, but giving it different names.

What if that happened?

[Ray Agostini]

Joseph Fielding Smith stated:

JFS, like his son-in-law Bruce McConkie, both now deceased, was the expert on everything. Whatever they said or wrote was gospel truth and must take precedence over the scriptures.

How could we have forgotten that? Shame.

[Bill Hamblin]

And what if the "Minimalist" approach was most frequently encountered in apologetic discussions, which nowadays take place most frequently on...the internet? Could we call them "Internet Mormons"?

Imagine, both Bill Hamblin and Dr. Shades recognizing the same phenomenon, but giving it different names.

What if that happened?

It hasn't and it won't. This is because most of us have a life outside the internet, and recognize than none of this has anything to do with the internet, per se.

[Dr. Shades]

And what if the "Minimalist" approach was most frequently encountered in apologetic discussions, which nowadays take place most frequently on...the internet? Could we call them "Internet Mormons"?

Imagine, both Bill Hamblin and Dr. Shades recognizing the same phenomenon, but giving it different names.

What if that happened?

It hasn't and it won't. This is because most of us have a life outside the internet, and recognize than none of this has anything to do with the internet, per se.

Of course we all have a life outside the Internet. That wasn't Cinepro's point.

Isn't it interesting, however, that such advocacy of "minimalism" is easiest to find on the Internet, as opposed to in the chapel, as he pointed out?