Van Hale - Book Of Mormon Historicity

[Cobalt-70]

You say here that the Book of Mormon is fiction, that Joseph believed it to be a real history, and that he made a mistake. Will the real Cobalt please stand up?!

That it is fiction does not mean that it is false, any more than the books of Job and Jonah are "untrue" simply because they are fiction.

[Cobalt-70]

Really? It conflicts? What do you say, then, to a rather famous and influential example of angel who was once a mortal man?

I say that it conflicts with the traditional view of angels as reflected in the bible. Given the two perspectives, I think that the Mormon view is better than the Judeochristian view. Mormonism has no place for creations of God that have no possibility of progression.

[Cobalt-70]

Teleportation indeed!!

The teleportation element of the golden plates story is preserved by Joseph Knight, Lucy Mack Smith, and Smith's sister Katharine Smith Salisbury. The three of them first heard the story prior to 1827.

[volgadon]

I say that it conflicts with the traditional view of angels as reflected in the bible. Given the two perspectives, I think that the Mormon view is better than the Judeochristian view.

You still don't seem to get it. If you mean the Bible, say the Bible. If you mean Judeo-Christian tradition(s), then say so. While one can argue about the often vague information in the Bible, there are several examples in Jewish tradition of angels that were mortal men at one point. Enoch-Metatron is the most famous, but off the top of my head there is also R. Gadiel the Child, Pinehas-Elijah-Sandalfon, and one of the three angels visiting Abraham, who then became Isaac.

Mormonism has no place for creations of God that have no possibility of progression.

I agree with you there. Well said.

[MormonMason]

... Mormonism has no place for creations of God that have no possibility of progression.

Actually, yes, it does. See sections 131 and 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Consider also the following:

109 But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;

110 And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever;

111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the mansions which are prepared;

112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

(Doctrine and Covenants 76:109-112)

Edited September 25, 2012 by MormonMason

[volgadon]

Actually, yes, it does. See sections 131 and 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Consider also the following:

They have the possibility of progression. That does not mean they will progress unless they make the right choices.

[MormonMason]

They have the possibility of progression. That does not mean they will progress unless they make the right choices.

Once the judgment is past the door is shut on them, "worlds without end." It is a nice theory that people will still be able to progress from kingdom to kingdom but it is just that--theory. There is no real scriptural warrant for the idea. "Time Immemorial" and "forever" do not necessarily mean what people often think (hence the need for doubling in phrases when one wants to posit a longer period of time) but "worlds without end" would seem to put the stop in it.

In my view, there is no real progression without God and Christ and those who go to the telestial kingdom will not enter their presence "worlds without end." That is as much as scripture informs us. Anything outside of that is sheer speculation without scriptural warrant.

[volgadon]

Once the judgment is past the door is shut on them, "worlds without end." It is a nice theory that people will still be able to progress from kingdom to kingdom but it is just that--theory. There is no real scriptural warrant for the idea. "Time Immemorial" and "forever" do not necessarily mean what people often think (hence the need for doubling in phrases when one wants to posit a longer period of time) but "worlds without end" would seem to put the stop in it.

In my view, there is no real progression without God and Christ and those who go to the telestial kingdom will not enter their presence "worlds without end." That is as much as scripture informs us. Anything outside of that is sheer speculation without scriptural warrant.

I meant before the final judgement, sorry, should have been clearer.

[Robert F. Smith]

The teleportation element of the golden plates story is preserved by Joseph Knight, Lucy Mack Smith, and Smith's sister Katharine Smith Salisbury. The three of them first heard the story prior to 1827.

Yeh, but what I want to know is where do the Cylons, Sith Lords, and the Force figure into this science-folklore melange?

[Cobalt-70]

You still don't seem to get it. If you mean the Bible, say the Bible. If you mean Judeo-Christian tradition(s), then say so. While one can argue about the often vague information in the Bible, there are several examples in Jewish tradition of angels that were mortal men at one point. Enoch-Metatron is the most famous, but off the top of my head there is also R. Gadiel the Child, Pinehas-Elijah-Sandalfon, and one of the three angels visiting Abraham, who then became Isaac.

Metatron, Sandalphon, and the like are exceptions to the rule.

To clarify, I mean Judeochristian traditions as reflected in the bible.

[Cobalt-70]

Yeh, but what I want to know is where do the Cylons, Sith Lords, and the Force figure into this science-folklore melange?

If you think the word "teleportation" sounds too sci-fi, then let's agree to use the word "apportation" instead.

[volgadon]

Metatron, Sandalphon, and the like are exceptions to the rule.

Rather significant execptions, and rather more frequent than often imagined.

[Cobalt-70]

Rather significant execptions, and rather more frequent than often imagined.

I guess that depends on whether or not you are a Kabbalist. But it's not at all representative of the older, biblical tradition regarding angels, within which Metatron & Co. are apocryphal exceptions.

[volgadon]

I guess that depends on whether or not you are a Kabbalist. But it's not at all representative of the older, biblical tradition regarding angels, within which Metatron & Co. are apocryphal exceptions.

The Bible doesn't tell us nearly as much as we would like to know of the various divine or semi-divine beings that fulfilled the roles of mal'achim. While I'm not saying that examples of people ascending to the heavens is common in the Bible, there is Enoch and there is Elijah. There are more examples by the time of the NT. When you say Kabbalists, first off, the idea of Enoch becoming an angel or divine being predates the medieval forms of Jewish esotericism known as Kabbalah. I know this thread is long, but there is some good information in there. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/55385-did-joseph-smith-restore-theosis-part-four-esoteric-jewish-theology/

The Alpha-Beta of Rabbi Akiva, predating the Kabbalah, uses the same phrases for the deification of the righteous as it does for Enoch's transformation into Metatron. During the later medieval eras, all Jewish esotericism became part of Kabbalah, so almost all aspects of Judaism became connected to it.

[Robert F. Smith]

If you think the word "teleportation" sounds too sci-fi, then let's agree to use the word "apportation" instead.

Sorry, Cobalt,

I was just having fun with the subject. "Teleportation" is fine and very futuretech. Just keep that principle in mind, however, when considering the full range of Mormon issues. Could be that you'll need to think outside the box in other ways was well.

[DBMormon]

I thought this thread was on Van Hale????

Can you guys make a new thread please.

[DBMormon]

Do we know if Van Hale open to changing his opinion of the BOM based on things like Sorenson's recent work Mormon Codex??

[Dcharle]

This is one major reason why the RLDS Church became the Community of Christ -- essentially a mainstream Protestant Church led by some very nice people.

However, the basis for that decision by the RLDS hierarchy was flawed by their lack of knowledge of the ancient world (archeology, ancient languages, and religions). Many of them had been trained in theology at a nearby Methodist seminary (St. Paul School of Theology) and the result was predictable. I have nothing against that seminary, and spent many happy hours there using their huge library. I have read the documents written by RLDS scholars explaining why they do not consider the Book of Mormon to be authentically historical, and have found their work filled with direct contradictions of fact and a multitude of fallacies.

It is silly to expect that someone can pass judgment on the secular historicity of the Book of Mormon without knowing anything at all about the ancient world.

It is the knowledge of archeology, anthoplogy, DNA, reasoned thought, ancient languages that has brought the BoM into question in the first place. The Community of Christ just made the move sooner than Mormonism The Utah church will be forced into a corner and will have to concede, as they are already doing (title page change no longer stating "primary ancestors of the American Indian"), I will give them props however for their tenacity to hang on to clearly problematic doctrines. Their is always the hope that a multitude of horse bones will be found in a Mexican tar pit somewhere.

[Kevin Christensen]

It is the knowledge of archeology, anthoplogy, DNA, reasoned thought, ancient languages that has brought the BoM into question in the first place. The Community of Christ just made the move sooner than Mormonism The Utah church will be forced into a corner and will have to concede, as they are already doing (title page change no longer stating "primary ancestors of the American Indian"), I will give them props however for their tenacity to hang on to clearly problematic doctrines. Their is always the hope that a multitude of horse bones will be found in a Mexican tar pit somewhere.

Actually the Book of Mormon has been facing questions from the first, when it was welcomed with charges of Blasphemy and Alexander Campbell's criitique. Kuhn pointed out that tenacity in exploring a paradigm is essential for developing its potential. Those who reject a paradigm out of hand never seem to be the ones to exploit any potential. And John Clark has demonstrated in 2005 that the trend has been toward, rather than away from reconciliation on open issues.

Many things mentioned in the book still have not been verified archaeologically, but this was true just a few years ago for some items just reviewed. The trend over the last 50 years is one of convergence between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology. Book of Mormon claims remain unaltered since 1830, so all the accommodation has been on the archaeology side. If the book were fiction, this convergence would not be happening. We can expect more evidence in coming years.

http://maxwellinstit...14&num=2&id=376

The sense I get from that is far from being "forced into a corner." Rather I get a sense of continual unfolding. A change in interpretation of a text, particularly when justified by a close reading in context is a far different thing that being backed into a corner. What the denomination formerly known as RLDS did was way premature. A few cynical essays written in the 1960s by non-specialists that did nothing to antipate the kind of work that has appeared since then, to say nothing of their failure to acknowledge some of what went before. They have power to corner only those predisposed to think themselves inside those corners. Focused in corners, they ignore the panoramic vistas opening elsewhere. It got no better in the 1980s. See my essay on William Russell's arguments for instance:

http://maxwellinstit...22&num=2&id=810

And the notion that continued faith in the Book of Mormon depends on finding a multitude of horse bones would make sense only if the Book of Mormon ever described a mulltitude of horses and if horse were the only important and testable element in the book. (Does reasonable thinking mean that cynical exaggeration and uncritical supposition trumps close reading, or the other way around?) It mentions horses only rarely, a few verses in a few limited settings, in connection with royal ceremonial transport or food supplies. There are no mentions of herds, no calvary, no use in agriculture, no noble steeds like Shadowfax, and no faithful pack animals like Bill. Many of the things that it does describe have been found. (See Gardner, Sorenson, Wright, Clarke, Wirth, Stubbs, and others on the New World portions, and Nibley, Peterson, Welch, Aston, Tvedtnes and others on the Old World settings.) Many of the things that less than careful readers think it requires appear to be artifacts of misreading. Even Southerton admitted that it would be difficult or impossible to find traces of DNA for a small group entering a populated continent. The LDS experts on DNA, actual scientists with publications, patents, and hands-on knowledge, are not at all impressed with the dismissals.

http://maxwellinstit....php?cat_id=488

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited October 8, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Dcharle]

The Horses, domesticated animals and tilling the ground are very problematic for the BoM. The statement that these animals “are rarely mentioned” does not save the BoM. Let me illustrate:

Ether 9:19 (Approx: 2100 BC)

19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.

1 Ne 18:25 (Approx: 589 BC)

25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

Enos 1:21 (Approx: 420 BC)

21 And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did till the land, and raise all manner of grain, and of fruit, and flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also many horses.

3 Ne 6:1 (Approx: 26 AD)

1 AND now it came to pass that the people of the Nephites did all return to their own lands in the twenty and sixth year, every man, with his family, his flocks and his herds, his horses and his cattle, and all things whatsoever did belong unto them.

These are a few of the references where Smith writes about horses, this represents a conservative estimate of approximately a 2000 year time period when horses where supposedly on the American continent. Now according to the text these animals “were for the use of men” which means they were used for food and work like plowing and tilling:

Ether 10:25

25 And they did make all manner of tools to till the earth, both to plow and to sow, to reap and to hoe, and also to thrash.

This technology of using tools to till the earth and utilizing animals “for the use of man” would have been such a game changer as far as food production and general economic support. It is unreasonable to claim that this supposed small band of Nephites could have contained this food production technology along with horse populations within a “limited geography”.

We know that when the horse was actually introduced into the American continent by the Spaniards in the 1500’s, within a relatively short period of time (few hundred years) horse populations exploded, they covered the lands!

We have the BoM mentioning horses over a 2000 year period of time, the book even states “many horses” so one could assume that during this period of time, if there were horses here like Smith claims, horse populations would have followed similar patterns and covered the face of the land. The horse and other domesticated animals were just too important of an asset to not be utilized content wide!

If Smith were correct we would find an abundance of evidence for horses and domesticated animals that could be dated during the BoM time frame, not just a few one-off examples. The “plausible deniability” claims of the apologists are just not strong enough to overcome modern day science.

[Kevin Christensen]

The Horses, domesticated animals and tilling the ground are very problematic for the BoM. The statement that these animals “are rarely mentioned” does not save the BoM.

It's not about saving the Book of Mormon, but of accurately defining the problem. That process is supposed to improve the accuracy of interpretation. It helps to read carefully and in context so as to avoid presentism and conclusion jumping.

I very much like the approach in this article. It may not be the last word, and is not the only word, but it does pay close attention to the words and contexts:

Ted Dee Stoddard: "The Issue of the Word Horse in the Book of Mormon"

http://www.bmaf.org/node/198

Another approach will be Daniel Johnson's here, "Ancient Horses and the Book of Mormon"

http://www.bmaf.org/node/479

Incidentally, Johnson will be speaking at this year's forum on the topic of "Hard Evidence of Horses in America."

http://www.bmaf.org/

These are a few of the references where Smith writes about horses, this represents a conservative estimate of approximately a 2000 year time period when horses where supposedly on the American continent.

This is not just a few, but a substiantial portion of the where the Book of Mormon mentions horses. Stoddard's essay quotes all of them. And all of them together could fit on less than two pages, including the ones passages that are Old World quotations, rather than New World description. And as Stoddard observes: "The words horse and horses occur fourteen times in the Book of Mormon in connection with thirteen different verses and five situations or events."

If you think of the Book of Mormon as a soap bubble that you can destroy with a pin prick, horses make a useful pin. But that still does not account for the other 519 pages.

Now according to the text these animals “were for the use of men” which means they were used for food and work like plowing and tilling:

Not necessarily. If the text actually had any descriptions of horses being used for work like plowing and tilling, or if it were safe to assume that anything that the Jaredites did or may have done, that the much later Nephites living in different locations, must have also done, perhaps. But more than that is building your argument not on texts, but on assumptions.

Ether 10:25

25 And they did make all manner of tools to till the earth, both to plow and to sow, to reap and to hoe, and also to thrash.

This technology of using tools to till the earth and utilizing animals “for the use of man” would have been such a game changer as far as food production and general economic support.

See how easy it is to go from Jaredite records to Nephites and beyond in a verse that does not mention horses? Indeed, where, in the Nephite record, is a description of any animal being used for agricultral purposes?

It is unreasonable to claim that this supposed small band of Nephites could have contained this food production technology along with horse populations within a “limited geography”.

We know that when the horse was actually introduced into the American continent by the Spaniards in the 1500’s, within a relatively short period of time (few hundred years) horse populations exploded, they covered the lands!

We have the BoM mentioning horses over a 2000 year period of time, the book even states “many horses” so one could assume that during this period of time, if there were horses here like Smith claims, horse populations would have followed similar patterns and covered the face of the land. The horse and other domesticated animals were just too important of an asset to not be utilized content wide!

Seals are quite important to the Eskimo, just as Bison were important to the Lakota, just as Alpaca and Lama are important to the Incas.

It's important that the expression "face of the land" was not generated by a Geosynchronos satellite, but rather a human observer with a culturally, physically, and temporally limited perspective.

If Smith were correct we would find an abundance of evidence for horses and domesticated animals that could be dated during the BoM time frame, not just a few one-off examples. The “plausible deniability” claims of the apologists are just not strong enough to overcome modern day science.

What about those instances (as John Clark, for example) observes when current evidence suggests that Joseph Smith was actually correct? Does such information count? Or does it fall under the general brush of of "some things he may have got right among so many."

Science is a word with many meanings. If you are talking about methods, LDS scientists of various kinds, can and do learn and apply the methods, and many make valuable contributions. If you are talking about generally accepted bodies of knowledge, getting general acceptance with respect to something as unusal as the Book of Mormon involves quite a bit more than just doing the science, or collecting evidence. But that does not mean that we because haven't overturned general concensus on this or that topic does not mean that we can't do the science or collect evidence and practice our faith with respect to open issues in the meantime.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited October 11, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Cobalt-70]

Actually the Book of Mormon has been facing questions from the first, when it was welcomed with charges of Blasphemy and Alexander Campbell's criitique. Kuhn pointed out that tenacity in exploring a paradigm is essential for developing its potential. Those who reject a paradigm out of hand never seem to be the ones to exploit any potential. And John Clark has demonstrated in 2005 that the trend has been toward, rather than away from reconciliation on open issues.

http://maxwellinstit...14&num=2&id=376

On John Clarke's notion that "Book of Mormon claims remain unaltered since 1830," I'd have to strongly disagree. Since 1830, and until just a few decades ago, the Book of Mormon was understood to be a history of the origins of Native Americans, who (together with Polynesians) were the descendants of the Lamanites. Cumorah was in New York. Swords were swords and scimitars were scimitars. Horses were horses. Cattle, goats, and swine were cattle, goats, and swine. Barley and wheat where barley and wheat. Elephants were elephants.

It's absurd to say that "all the accommodations have been made on the archaeology side." Essentially all the accommodations have been in the form of apologists redefining the Book of Mormon away from its original and literal reading, so as to make it almost unfalsifiable as a historical record.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Tacenda]

On John Clarke's notion that "Book of Mormon claims remain unaltered since 1830," I'd have to strongly disagree. Since 1830, and until just a few decades ago, the Book of Mormon was understood to be a history of the origins of Native Americans, who (together with Polynesians) were the ancestors of the Lamanites. Cumorah was in New York. Swords were swords and scimitars were scimitars. Horses were horses. Cattle, goats, and swine were cattle, goats, and swine. Barley and wheat where barley and wheat. Elephants were elephants.

It's absurd to say that "all the accommodations have been made on the archaeology side." Essentially all the accommodations have been in the form of apologists redefining the Book of Mormon away from its original and literal reading, so as to make it almost unfalsifiable as a historical record.

I know, can't they just have faith that what is said in the BoM is what it is. A horse isn't a tapir, I repeat a horse is not a tapir.

[nealr]

On John Clarke's notion that "Book of Mormon claims remain unaltered since 1830," I'd have to strongly disagree. Since 1830, and until just a few decades ago, the Book of Mormon was understood to be a history of the origins of Native Americans, who (together with Polynesians) were the ancestors of the Lamanites. Cumorah was in New York. Swords were swords and scimitars were scimitars. Horses were horses. Cattle, goats, and swine were cattle, goats, and swine. Barley and wheat where barley and wheat. Elephants were elephants.

It's absurd to say that "all the accommodations have been made on the archaeology side." Essentially all the accommodations have been in the form of apologists redefining the Book of Mormon away from its original and literal reading, so as to make it almost unfalsifiable as a historical record.

You are conflating what others claim for the Book of Mormon versus what the text claims for itself. No where does the text claim that Cumorah is in New York, for example. In Clark's study and comparison, he looks at the archaeological evidence for items mentioned in the text, without consideration of possible loan-shifts and illustrates that since 1842, several items the Book of Mormon claimed, which were then unknown through archaeology, are now confirmed through archaeology to have been in America at the time the Book of Mormon says they were. So actually, as far as Clark's study is concerned, all accommodation has been on the side of archaeology.

[Dcharle]

So here is where the “defenders of the faith” go very wrong. This idea that because it is not expressly stated in the text no assumptions can be made. This idea has also been championed by Brant Garnder.

So using this argument we cannot assume that Nephi had arrows with his steel bow since it does not expressly state that he had, and used arrows with his steel bow, since we cannot make logical assumptions are we left to assume Nephi used his steel bow as a club?

1 Ne 16:18

18 And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food.

Yes, you are correct we do not have an actual verse where Smith writes that oxen and horses were yoked and used to a plow and till the ground. It is of course silly to assume otherwise, bows use arrows, and oxen are for pulling and tilling the ground, and horses are used to pull chariots.

1 Ne 18:25 (Approx: 589 BC)

25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

1 Ne 18:24

24 And it came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance.

The second problem with your argument is in your statement “you are conflating what others claim for the Book of Mormon versus what the text claims for itself”.

This idea that the church is not accountable to the claims of “others” regarding the BoM again is just baffling??

So here are the claims of others:

Joseph Smith, March 1, 1842 Times and Seasons

". . . the principal nation of the second race [i.e., the Nephites and Lamanites] fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century [A.D.]. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country."

Spencer W. Kimball, "Of Royal Blood," Ensign, July 1971, 7 (In the "Special Lamanite Section")

"Not until the revelations of Joseph Smith, bringing forth the Book of Mormon, did any one know of these migrants. It was not known before, but now the question is fully answered. Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand.

Spencer W. Kimball, “Of Royal Blood,” Ensign, July 1971, 7

The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people.

So these “others” you claim are “Prophets” of the Lord. They got it wrong very wrong. This cannot be excused away by the weakness of prophets – I would expect prophets to know this, about the keystone of their religion!