Maximalists vs. Minimalists

[juliann]

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

What if that happened?

I think that it can easily happen. Since too many were coming out as chapel Mormons, Shades had to revise his questions. Thus, if you score as a chapel Mormon you are likely to think as he does. Which means that scoring as a chapel Mormon is meaningless as far as Mormonism goes...but it can be a good prognosticator for those who will be leaving the church because of their fundamentalistic tendencies.

[Dr. Shades]

I think that it can easily happen.

[Bill Hamblin]

Ahh yes, there's that word again, "fundamentalistic." You say "Fundamentalist," Bill Hamblin says "Maximalist," I say "Chapel Mormon." You say "Liberal," Bill Hamblin says "Minimalist," I say "Internet Mormon." You say "To-MAY-to," I say "To-MAH-to."

Medical alert! We are seeing a serious case of hardening of the categories. Fundamentalist, Maximalist and Chapel Mormon are separate categories describing different phenomena. They may in part overlap on the old Venn diagram, but they are quite distinct issues. But alas, manichaean Shades cannot grasp a universe that does not neatly resolve itself into his pet dualistic categories.

[Benjamin McGuire]

The real problem with some of these issues is this -

For those of us who tend to be non-traditionalists, our range of experience can be far different from the picture which Dr. Shades tries to paint. Sunday night, I spent some time with my parents (who came up to help for a couple days - we just had a new addition to the family) visiting Mack and Dixie (Bill will know who I am talking about). This gentleman is anything but an "internet" Mormon. (Getting him to use a computer regularly may never be a possibility). Yet, our gospel conversations are anything but tradition based.

The most interesting thing by my calculations is that the early leaders of the church would fall solidly on the opposite side of the line (no matter where you drew it) from Dr. Shades. The reality is that statements like those made by Dr. Shades create caricatures of my faith, and are not representative of the scope of my experience or my knowledge.

Of course, on the flip side of the coin, there are always two groups of mormons. Those who divide mormons into two groups, and those who don't.

Ben

[cinepro]

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.

Interesting that one would need to make that choice in the first place.

Cinepro, have you obtained Dr. Peterson's permission to carry him around with you?

[Calm]

such advocacy of "minimalism" is easiest to find on the Internet

Easiest for whom? People who don't attend church? Big surprise there!

As for others, it would depend on the situation. I've been in some cases that the easiest way to find advocates was to tap the shoulder of the guy sitting next to me in class or walk down the hall knocking on doors.

Logically speaking, "minimalists" are faithful, church going people. The vast majority of them attend chapel services. OTOH, there are to my knowledge a number of them that avoid the Internet. So you have less numbers of them on the Internet than you have in Church.

Shades' conclusion is based on the idea of percentages. Since, in his mind, there are way more Chapel Mormons in the chapel than there are on the internet, even with the less numbers of so-called 'Internet Mormons" on the Internet, there is still a higher percentage of them on the net than there are in Chapel.

Personally I think that's a very sloppy definition as it neglects several conditions:

1) it ignores the real percentages of the Internet and ends up pushing the entire Internet into the very limited world of message boards (and perhaps elists) that he has frequented. If he were to truly take a survey of Internet accessibility, the percentages of so-called Chapel Mormons just from those genealogy sites would overwhelm the so-called Internet ones.

2) Any definition that on the surface rejects as members a significant, perhaps even a majority of those the definition applies to is inappropriate. If one were to take a survey of known "Internet Mormons" or better yet since the definition is much more precise, Dr. Hamblin's minimalists, what percentage of them can be found discussing things on the Internet? I don't see many well-known names. In fact, in my experience, the majority of minimalists that I am aware of do not interact on message boards and elists, at least the elists that are "easiest to find". If the majority of known minimalists can't be easily found on the Internet, then why should anyone assume that the unknown minimalists will be?

3) And last, according to Shades' latest version of his definitions, arrived at because those pesky Internet Mormons were "playing stupid" in his view as opposed to their own view of presenting their views accurately, the percentage of Mormons that are actual Chapel Mormons is likely quite small as even one 'deviation' from the traditionalists views qualifies as "Internet Mormonism" and even the prophets, with all their disclaimers of infallibility and encouragement of the members to seek the Spirit for themselves rather than completely relying on the prophets, qualify as his "Internet Mormons."

Thought of one more: The ones drawing these conclusions of the dicotomy of Internet/Chapel Mormon pretty much all define themselves as former Chapel Mormons in my experience if they claim to have been faithful members. Those who don't make the claim of faithfulness still admit to viewing the Church's teachings in the traditionalist view. One aspect of the traditionalist view that seems to have been ignored is the assumption by most traditionalists that this is the only way that one can look at it. In my own experience, the vast majority of those who have heexpressed the traditionalist view of the HGT for the most part have not considered any other options. They hold the opinion that there is no other option and that therefore all around them must agree with them. It is therefore logical that even when they change their viewpoint, that many may retain this sense that others still remain entrenched in their former traditionalist views. OTOH, those of us who have approached the other members with an expectation of a variety of viewpoints, actually listen to what people say to determine what we think they believe rather than relying on assumptions and thus we are aware of the actual variety of thought.

Got interrupted in the middle of that thought and I suspect it's incoherent, so let me condense the point to this--If one has assumed that everyone sees things the same way (which is a natural result of traditional views of all communities), then generally one doesnt' go looking for disagreement so the community seems monolithic in its opinion. In this case, former "Chapel Mormons" carry this assumption with them and thus arrive at conclusions not based in reality. Inaccurate assumptions won't help one arrive at accurate definitions.

[VEL]

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.

JFS may be deseased but could you please show me where any prophet or apostle has disagreed with his statement.

He was a sitting apostle when he made the statement in the church news. He made it very clear that he's was well informed on the LGT and he still denounced it. Did he just not "get it" like you do?

[Calm]

The real problem with some of these issues is this -

For those of us who tend to be non-traditionalists, our range of experience can be far different from the picture which Dr. Shades tries to paint.

As I said above, this is hardly surprising since the ones applauding this categorizing are the ones that aren't attending church any more or who, by their own admission, aren't communicating openly with other members.

Those of us comfortable with the state of things seem to have no problem with finding a variety of thought within and without chapel walls among the faithful.

[Dr. Shades]

Bill Hamblin writes:

Fundamentalist, Maximalist and Chapel Mormon are separate categories describing different phenomena. They may in part overlap on the old Venn diagram, but they are quite distinct issues.

"[M]ay in part overlap?" Do you not see the strict correlation?

But alas, manichaean Shades cannot grasp a universe that does not neatly resolve itself into his pet dualistic categories.

That rings rather hollow, coming from the one who invented the "Maximalist/Minimalist" duality.

Benjamin McGuire writes:

For those of us who tend to be non-traditionalists, our range of experience can be far different from the picture which Dr. Shades tries to paint.

Which is precisely what makes you a non-traditionalist.

Sunday night, I spent some time with my parents . . . This gentleman is anything but an "internet" Mormon. (Getting him to use a computer regularly may never be a possibility). Yet, our gospel conversations are anything but tradition based.

Congratulations! Now you're only two years behind the rest of us. As I clearly explained on the website, "I also acknowledge that Internet Mormonism--at least in its embryonic form--has been around much longer than the Internet itself has. Again, the name 'Internet Mormonism' merely calls attention to the place at which one is most likely to encounter this brand of Mormon thought. It also pays tribute to the fact that the Internet was the catalyst for the recent explosion of this particular brand of Mormonism. "

The most interesting thing by my calculations is that the early leaders of the church would fall solidly on the opposite side of the line (no matter where you drew it) from Dr. Shades.

Examples, please.

The reality is that statements like those made by Dr. Shades create caricatures of my faith, and are not representative of the scope of my experience or my knowledge.

In what way are my observations not representative of the scope of your experience or your knowledge?

[Marcelo]

Let me share with you my perception of the Book of Mormon as a convert. I didn’t grow up with the Mormon tradition, my parents were not members and when I read the Book of Mormon I always thought in some part of Ancient Meso America. The no mention of snow and the narrow neck of land where the land divided the seas, to me was a clear reference to some point near the Panama Channel.

I had at the time some doubts to visualize Cumorah in Palmyra as the place of the last battle, it was too far from my narrow lack of land.

When I read the explanations of the Limited Theory to the Book of Mormon it made much more sense to me, it was exactly how I always thought where the events took place according to my reading and knowledge of geography and history got at school. As a convert I was not biased to the Continental Theory.

By the way, another counter point for the DNA controversy and the Bering Theory:

The most ancient Brazilians were negroids, black men!

Source in Portuguese:

http://www.lagoasanta.com.br/homem/

Regards!

[juliann]

When I read the explanations of the Limited Theory to the Book of Mormon it made much more sense to me, it was exactly how I always thought where the events took place according to my reading and knowledge of geography and history got at school. As a convert I was not biased to the Continental Theory.

Good observation....and those outside of the US like you are fast becoming the majority. The rest of us who have been raised with assumptions rather than the text of the BOM will not be far behind.

[Marcelo]

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.

There is an obvious fallacy in the Dragon at the Garage argument (popularized by Carl Sagan), indeed a derivation of the Invisible Gardner of Anthony Flew, which was refuted by R. Hare, B. Mitchell & J.Hick, with the help of other parables like the psychotic, the revolutionary and the traveler. The faulty point is that if you didn’t apply the correct method to identify which you want to identify, you never will identify it, no matter how well intentioned you are.

If I say that there is a positron in my Garage, it’s useless to spread flour in the floor, to put some cameras or conventional moving detectors, none of this would be able to detect my positron, they’re only effective to detect common persons. If you really want to detect God, the positron or a Nephite, you have to elaborate and build you device to properly detect it, your inability to detect the positron doesn’t prove that the positron doesn’t exists, it only proves your incapacity to properly detect it.

Regards!

[YH8]

Dr. Shades,

Great illustration.

[Daniel Peterson]

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?

I don't believe that I've ever heard a discussion of the geography of the Book of Mormon in any church meeting, except for a few conducted by myself . . . which have always been both brief and overtly "minimalist."

Oh yes. There was one other instance when Book of Mormon geography came up during a discussion that occurred in the hallway after a Sunday School class that I had taught back in the late 1980s or so: A now-deceased General Authority, very conservative in every way, came up to me and, in the course of the conversation, mentioned, out of the blue, that he had been bumping around in a Jeep on the Hill Cumorah down near Veracruz, Mexico, the previous week. I don't think it's much of a leap to conclude, from his placement of the Hill Cumorah in Mexico, that he held to a limited geographical model of the Book of Mormon. I have solid reasons to believe that several current members of the Twelve do, as well.

[Joey]

Let me share with you my perception of the Book of Mormon as a convert. I didn

[Daniel Peterson]

8 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.

1 Nephi, 11

1 Nephi 11 records an experience had not far from Jerusalem by a young man who had grown up in Jerusalem, from the period of the Book of Mormon story prior to the arrival of Lehi in the New World. Though not a regular annual event, snow is a relatively familiar phenomenon in Jerusalem (which sits at the top of a mountain ridge that receives precipitation from the Mediterranean Sea to the west). There is winter skiing on Mount Hermon, in the north of Israel, and on the mountains just inland from Beirut, not far to the north. (I recall trying once, in vain, to figure a way to get the Mediterranean and the snow into a single shot from the roof of the Jesuit dormitory in Beirut. Quite spectacular.)

Mesoamerica is a different matter, and there is no mention of snow in the American portions of the Book of Mormon. In fact, according to Alma 51:33-52:1, the last day of the year was fatiguingly hot -- which isn't exactly reminiscent of a typical New Year's Eve near Buffalo, New York.

[D. Charles Pyle, 32]

...JFS may be deseased but could you please show me where any prophet or apostle has disagreed with his statement.

He was a sitting apostle when he made the statement in the church news. He made it very clear that he's was well informed on the LGT and he still denounced it. Did he just not "get it" like you do?

Why would any leaders of the Church take the time to contradict him? The official position of the Church was and is that it has no position on Book of Mormon Geography. Period. So, whatever JFS said on the matter was his opinon--no more nor less. The same goes for everyone else. Anything, until the Church changes its official position on the matter, is just so much speculaton.

And, I think JFS was not as well informed on the matter as you desperately wish to think. Much of the information that we now have on the matter came a decade and more AFTER JFS made his pronouncements over the pulpit. What's more. a statement, made under Joseph Smith's editorial watch, forever blasted to a horrible death the credibility of the HGT and set the stage for the LGT. That article flatly placed Zarahemla in southern Mexico. Zarahemla was on the land southward in the Book of Mormon and this eliminates the HGT because South America was removed from the picture. This leaves North and Central America and that itself is an LGT of sorts all its own.

[YH8]

  Let me share with you my perception of the Book of Mormon as a convert. I didn

[Olavarria]

bump

[cdowis]

>the beauty in the minimalist approach is that it can't be disproven, whereas the maximalist approach can largely be refuted

I remember when I changed my view of the BOM text. What convinced me was when I considered the question "What does the BOM text actually say". In the previous view, I read "horse" and see men riding horses into battle. I see chariot and see Ben Hur, armor and swords and see steel plated armor with swords as I have seen them on TV. I see visions of BOM text produced by modern TV, books, and school books.

I have another way of stating your Minimalist view ==>> "what does it actually say". Put aside knights, Ben Hur, etc and investigate the text itself.

The maximalist approach is not so much disproved as I have grown up from a childish view of the BOM to a realistic one.

[cksalmon]

>the beauty in the minimalist approach is that it can't be disproven, whereas the maximalist approach can largely be refuted

I remember when I changed my view of the BOM text. What convinced me was when I considered the question "What does the BOM text actually say". In the previous view, I read "horse" and see men riding horses into battle. I see chariot and see Ben Hur, armor and swords and see steel plated armor with swords as I have seen them on TV. I see visions of BOM text produced by modern TV, books, and school books.

I have another way of stating your Minimalist view ==>> "what does it actually say". Put aside knights, Ben Hur, etc and investigate the text itself.

The maximalist approach is not so much disproved as I have grown up from a childish view of the BOM to a realistic one.

If one has been taught a maximalist view of BoM, does that make his view "childish" or just unrealistic?

Curious.

Best.

CKS

[Luigi]

A Thus, if a horse is mentioned one in a text, all Nephites in all periods of Nephite history must have had many, many horses. Furthermore, the horses must have been ridden just like those of the 19th century (even if the text does not mention horse riding); if one metal sword is mentioned, all Nephite swords in all periods of history must be metal swords;.

First on this I would just say that the BoM mentions horses more than once and in Enos for example it says that they raised 'many horses'. Now if they were in fact raising horses one has to ask-why? For meat? If it was only for meat then why does Alma prepare Lamoni's horses and chariots for Lamoni's journey? So you are saying we should accept some minimalist interpretation that this group had a very few horses(even though the text itself says they had 'many') and assume that they used them for some other purpose besides riding (though one has to wonder why it would never occur to them if they were domesticated horses and if they came from a land where horses were ridden).

Similarly you suggest that the BoM mentions one metal sword. It does mention one metal sword-the sword of Laban-and Nephi says he makes many swords after the manner of the sword of Laban and the BoM also suggests that metal production exists of copper, iron, etc. So a minimalist approach would suggest that despite these people continuing to practice metallurgy and the apparent ability of Nephi to make metallic swords like Laban's and the continual warfare between these groups somehow the Nephites chose not to make metallic swords-even though that would give them a decisive advantage in warfare. Therefore we must assume swords are simply a reference to clubs with obsidian blades?

There may be arguments which are valid for the BoM on these points of concern but I certainly don't see how one can somehow justify these minimalist interpretations-as least on these particular points.

[cksalmon]

The Minimalist school interprets the text by assuming the narrowest interpretation consistent with the text.

Well, I wasn't around when Bill first posted this in 2004. But I think it's an interesting topic, and one that has been touched on in numerous threads which I have read since I joined.

It would seem that Bill is suggesting the following hermeneutic: What is the narrowest and most constricted, and thus least historically-testable, version of BoM events that one can subscribe to while still affirming that BoM is true?

I do see his point from a logical standpoint. Narrow the playing field and, correspondingly, you narow the arena of criticism. If a maximalist interpretation of a given BoM phenomenon can be reasonably shown to be in error, a constricting of the terms of debate toward a minimalist interpretation may avoid the problems associated with said maximalist interpretation.

It works logically, but I'm not at all sure if this approach does much to solidify faith in BoM as an anciently-revealed text. It's a bit like asking, What is the least we can claim evidentially for BoM while still affirming that we believe BoM to be an ancient text?

My thoughts.

Best.

CKS

[Jerubaal]

It works logically, but I'm not at all sure if this approach does much to solidify faith in BoM as an anciently-revealed text. It's a bit like asking, What is the least we can claim evidentially for BoM while still affirming that we believe BoM to be an ancient text?

My thoughts.

Interesting thoughts indeed. My feelings on it would be like Bill's, followed by a "after we have established the minimal requirements, what is the most 'maximalist' interpretation we can adopt that stays within the evidence?"

[Benjamin McGuire]

And of course minimalist readings are those which will by nature tend to include less of ourselves in the reading of the text. That is, we always read and interpret from a position based on our own language, our own culture and our own society. We are preconditioned to read in certain ways, and minimalist readings tend to downplay (at least to an extent) ourselves as the creator of meaning in the text.