The Value Of The Book Of Mormon As An Independent Textual Witness

[tagriffy]

Simple indeed. As simple as the demand that the Exodus will be taken seriously when one finds a graffito saying "Moses was here," which can be verified.

That simply paints a false picture of what biblical scholarship is all about, and that approach would tend to get you laughed out of the room at SBL and at any other learned society. If you want a picture of how real Book of Mormon scholarship proceeds, see the entry on "Textual Criticism of the Book of Mormon" on Wikipedia at section 8.2 online at http://en.wikipedia....xtual_criticism . Or read anthropologist Brant Gardner's 6-volume commentary on the Book of Mormon.

Does it really paint a false picture of biblical scholarship? Let's take the Exodus. Are biblical scholars generally talking about the Exodus as a historical account of a million-plus people escaping from Egypt, marching around the Sinai for forty years, followed by a rapid conquest and settlement of Canaan? Nope. And why not? Because the archaeological evidence we have paints an entirely different picture about how the Israelites settled and wound up dominating the land. No problems with angels and gold plates; lots of problems with the evidence.

I really would like to get a copy of Brant's commentary. Unfortunately, the cost is too prohibitive for me at this time. I remember well seeing his "Book of Mormon Interactive Commentary" posts in another forum and thinking this exactly what environmentalists should be doing. We had many conversations that I considered very fruitful. Those conversations were irenic discussions where we simply respected the positions the other had taken. I consider Brant one of my role models for doing Book of Mormon studies.

The same applies to the Resurrection of Jesus. While one cannot verify the Resurrection via logic or archeology, a great many other things can be said about the world in which Jesus lived and what he may have meant by what he said and did. An excellent example is James H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and Archaeology (Eerdmans, 2006). Understanding the context goes far toward helping us see what may have been the real thrust of Jesus' efforts.

You seem to be mistaking what I do and do not expect archaeology to do. I don't expect archaeology to somehow prove the Resurrection, a (so far) unique, supernatural event. Nor would I expect archaeology to confirm every event depicted in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon, however, does paint a picture of at least two civilizations holding sway over some patch of land somewhere on the American continents. Unless you are contending that patch of land was part of supernatural dimension sealed off from the real world, I do expect archaeology is able to find evidence of said civilizations, that proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign. I do not think I am being unreasonable here.

The upshot is that, precisely due to that thing with the angel and gold plates, the Book of Mormon is so improbable that the "impossible" evidence adduced from its internal contents as compared to external realities can only argue its authentic historicity. So much so that it ends up buttressing the Bible, which has no angels and gold plates as an albatross to drag it down, but also has no evidence of the Resurrection or of the Exodus. Each one has something the other does not.

It ought to be fairly easy to settle the matter of why scholars in general don't accept the Book of Mormon as an independent textual witness of biblical texts (the point of my OP). Is it really a simple matter of an a priori rejection based on "that thing with the angel and gold plates?" If so, it should be a simple matter to adduce evidence for that accusation. For example, while Michael Coe may well have a problem with the angel with the gold plates thing, in the end his discussions center around the evidence (or in this case lack of evidence) verifying the existence of the Nephites. That is hardly an a priori rejection. And what of Evangelical scholars? They don't reject angels and hidden documents (they accept Daniel after all) on principle. What recourse would they have then but the evidence? For that matter, has any work ever actually been done to gauge what biblical scholars actually think about the topic?

Of course you don't want to discuss the historicity of the BofM with someone serious. You prefer to keep it simple, tidy, and unscholarly. Only then can you be safe, tagriffy.

You mischaracterized what I said. I said I don't wish to debate Book of Mormon historicity. First, such a debate would throw the issue I am discussing in this thread off topic. Second, I have said what I need to say on that topic. I am determined to move forward rather than going back and reinventing the wheel. Third, I have stated what it would take to change my mind on the topic, and if you can't provide that, such a debate would be pointless.

That does not, however, translate into an unwillingness to discuss Book of Mormon historicity at all. I find the work of many historicists fascinating and useful. Insofar as I can, I try to evaluate such works on the basis of taking historicity as a given. If you want to discuss hisoricity as an interpretive lens for developing the meaning of the text, then I'm there with you. If you want to debate historicity as such, talk to an apologist.

[Darren10]

Actually, it has nothing to do with that "angel thing."

Sigh. Fine. Modify to harder to deny rationally if that is any more helpful.

As S. Kent Brown points out, the NHM inscription is in reference to a tribal name, not a spatial reference. While it is not unreasonable to suppose the NHMites named their home after their tribe, there is, so far as I know, no indication that the place the inscription was found is within that home. Suppose we dug around the Jewish temple and found an inscription saying something was donated by so-and-so, "a Zebulonite." We would not automatically conclude the temple is located in Zebulonite territory. If LDS scholars want to identify the location of the inscription as "the place which was called Nahom," they need to nail it down.

Identifying any location as the "right place" (I've seen some enthusiasts say "exactly where Joseph Smith said it would be") is itself problematic. The only definitive markers in Lehi's journey are Jerusalem and the Red Sea (and even then ...). The rest of the descriptions consists of X many days travel this way, Y many days travel that. As a result, even a cursory review of the Maxwell Institute's online library of articles reveal that there are a number of plausible models for Lehi's route. To resolve that issue, something would have to be discovered that definitively places the Lehite party at a given place. Given that the party was relatively small, such a find would be very unlikely. I don't expect anything to happen on that front.

The link you provided from S. Kent Brown is about Lehi's cave, not Nahom. Here's a link to Brown regarding Nahom:

http://www.nephiproj...m/on__nahom.htm

In that we read, Brown writes:

There is another piece that one should add to the NHM issue. It concerns Nephi’s note that “we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth,” following events at Nahom (1 Ne. 17:1). This geographical notice is one of the few in Nephi’s narrative and invites examination. One observes that northwest of Marib, the ancient capital of the Sabaean kingdom of south Arabia, almost all roads turn east, veering from the general north-south direction of the incense trail. Moreover, the eastward bend occurs in the general area inhabited by the NHM tribe. (I add parenthetically that I assume that Lehi’s party had been following or shadowing the incense trail because wells were located at more or less regular intervals along the route. This view would fit most naturally with the observation in the Book of Mormon that Lehi’s party traveled in a generally south-southeast direction, an observation which matches the direction of the incense trail [see 1 Ne. 16:13-14, 33].)

An important question is whether Joseph Smith could have learned about this eastward turn in the main incense trail. As far as I have been able to discover, no written source, Classical or contemporary, mentions it. It is my view, therefore, that only a person who had traveled either near or along the trail would know that it turned eastward in this area...

It seems to me Brown very much argues in favor of NHM inscriptions found in Arabia as the geographic location identified by Nephi.

Here's what I see as the heart of your argument. After a location in Arabia is found which is right along the lines of travel time, name, and purpose (a burial) as what a farm boy in upstate New York wrote regarding an even which involved a mere few travelers all the way across the world is not good enough for you to use as an independent verification of the historical accuracy of that boy's account than what in the world needs to happen in order for the Book of Mormon to be used as an independent source for Isaiah?

Edited June 4, 2013 by Darren10

[crixus]

The various scholarly debates, and some not so scholarly are interesting, but will never be a conversion maker. The witness of the Holy Ghost is the real key, always was, and always will be.

Glenn

If Mormons truly believe this, then why offer apologetics at all?

[Kenngo1969]

First, let me point out that this argument has no bearing on whether the Book of Mormon can be used as an independent witness for biblical texts. I already pointed out that without verifying evidence the BoM is authentically ancient, any attempt to assert the text is such an independent witness can only be taken on faith.

If the Book of Mormon is a then-modern creation from the mind of Joseph Smith, then why all of these embellishments related to the story of its supposed coming forth: ad hoc visitations of the Father and the Son, ad hoc visitations of imaginary angels with names that came from Joseph's made-up book (when Joseph was able to induce shared hallucinations in Sydney, Oliver, Martin, David, et al), ad hoc plates, et cetera? Why didn't Joseph follow the KISS rule (Keep It Simple, Stupid!)? How many people had to be in on the scam? How many people gave time, money, resources, and even their lives for the scam? Even the smallest possible conspiracies, those which involve only two people, tend to collapse under their own weight, and yet here we have a much larger conspiracy that's still taking millions of people in, 193 years later? Should I be checking my watch, expecting the conspiracy to collapse any minute now?

Edited June 4, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[tagriffy]

The link you provided from S. Kent Brown is about Lehi's cave, not Nahom. Here's a link to Brown regarding Nahom:

http://www.nephiproj...m/on__nahom.htm

In that we read, Brown writes:

There is another piece that one should add to the NHM issue. It concerns Nephi’s note that “we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth,” following events at Nahom (1 Ne. 17:1). This geographical notice is one of the few in Nephi’s narrative and invites examination. One observes that northwest of Marib, the ancient capital of the Sabaean kingdom of south Arabia, almost all roads turn east, veering from the general north-south direction of the incense trail. Moreover, the eastward bend occurs in the general area inhabited by the NHM tribe. (I add parenthetically that I assume that Lehi’s party had been following or shadowing the incense trail because wells were located at more or less regular intervals along the route. This view would fit most naturally with the observation in the Book of Mormon that Lehi’s party traveled in a generally south-southeast direction, an observation which matches the direction of the incense trail [see 1 Ne. 16:13-14, 33].)

An important question is whether Joseph Smith could have learned about this eastward turn in the main incense trail. As far as I have been able to discover, no written source, Classical or contemporary, mentions it. It is my view, therefore, that only a person who had traveled either near or along the trail would know that it turned eastward in this area...

It seems to me Brown very much argues in favor of NHM inscriptions found along in Arabia as the geographic location identified by Nephi.

I had my original link right. Keep scrolling to the section "'The Place That Was Called Nahom': New Light from Ancient Yemen." There, he wrote:

A German archaeological team under the leadership of Burkhard Vogt has been excavating the Baran temple in Marib, the ancient capital of the Sabaean kingdom that lies about 70 miles due east of modern San‘a, the capital of Yemen. (It is likely that the queen of Sheba began her journey to visit King Solomon from Marib.) Among the artifacts uncovered at the temple, the excavators turned up an inscribed altar that they date to the seventh or sixth centuries BC, generally the time of Lehi and his family. A certain "Bi'athar, son of Saw ad, son of Naw'an, the Nihmite" donated the altar to the temple. The altar has been part of a traveling exhibit of artifacts from ancient Yemen that appeared first in Paris and has most recently been shown in Vienna.

The inscribed reference to the tribe of Nihm on this altar is the earliest known mention of this name, or a variant of it. It predates by almost 1,500 years the Arabic sources cited by the Astons which refer to such a term. Moreover, the inscription establishes that a tribe by this name had produced a person of means who could donate a finely carved altar to the temple. Although we cannot determine that at that time there was a place called Nihm or Nehem, it is reasonable to surmise that the tribe gave its name to the region where it dwelt, evidently a few dozen miles north of modern Sana, in the highlands that rise to the north of Wadi Jawf. Was it this name that Nephi rendered Nahom in his record? Very probably.

I should have noted in the post I cited the information that Brown went on to say something about inferring a place name from the tribal name, instead of just responding "it is not unreasonable to suppose the NHMites named their home after their tribe, there is, so far as I know, no indication that the place the inscription was found is within that home." Heck, I should have said in the original that you need to scroll down to the appropriate section. I have obviously caused some confusion, and for that I apologize.

In any case, I don't find Brown's move from inference to assertion very troubling, because he still hasn't nailed the case down. Brown it making the assumption the Lehite party tracked the incense trail because that's where the oases were. Though not an unreasonable assumption, it is still an assumption. I would assume if the party were tracking the trail, Nephi would have just said so rather than given vague notices of X many days this way, Y many days that. That is still an assumption, but also not an unreasonable one.

Based on that assumption, Brown asks whether Joseph Smith could have known that the incense trail turned where it did. I would contend that we have to deal with what the text actually says, and the text says nothing about an incense trail. In fact, the most notable thing about Nephi's description is its vagueness and lack of detail. It generally fits what the Lehite party would have had to do to cross the Arabian peninsula, but one only needs knowledge about the general shape of the land to write Nephi's account.

The NHM case is interesting. Unfortunately, identifying it as "the place that was called Nahom" still involves too many shaky inferences and outright assumptions. Unless that case is somehow nailed down, people will have to be forgiven if they dismiss the NHM inscriptions as, at best, coincedence.

Here's what I see as the heart of your argument.After a location in Arabia is found which is right along the lines of travel time, name, and purpose (a burial) as what a farm boy in upstate New York wrote regarding an even which involved a mere few travelers all the way across the world is not good enough for you to use as an independent verification of the historical accuracy of that boy's account than what in the world needs to happen in order forthe Book of Mormon to be used as an independent source for Isaiah?

I already said what it would take: verifiable, authentic evidence the Nephite civilization actually existed, the proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign.

[tagriffy]

If the Book of Mormon is a then-modern creation from the mind of Joseph Smith, then why all of these embellishments related to the story of its supposed coming forth: ad hoc visitations of the Father and the Son, ad hoc visitations of imaginary angels with names that came from Joseph's made-up book (when Joseph was able to induce shared hallucinations in Sydney, Oliver, Martin, David, et al), ad hoc plates, et cetera? Why didn't Joseph follow the KISS rule (Keep It Simple, Stupid!)? How many people had to be in on the scam? How many people gave time, money, resources, and even their lives for the scam? Even the smallest possible conspiracies, those which involve only two people, tend to collapse under their own weight, and yet here we have a much larger conspiracy that's still taking millions of people in, 193 years later? Should I be checking my watch, expecting the conspiracy to collapse any minute now?

I don't believe there were any grand conspiracies involved. Partly it is for the reason you cite--the tendency of even small conspiracies to collapse under their own weight.

Your questions basically assume the "embellishments" dropped into place right from the beginning. This actually isn't so. The stories, and sometimes the significance of those stories, actually developed over time. Many of the stories we do have don't actually come from Joseph's hand (though obviously he would have had to have been the ultimate source for some of them). For example, Joseph himself was reluctant to divulge detailed information on the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Sometimes Joseph adopted terminology he didn't originally use (such as referring to the interpreters and/or seer stone as the Urim and Thummim). As another example, our Joseph Smith--History seems to be dependent on Orson Pratt's An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records. The stories as we have them now are actually an accretion of tales that were told, retold, and embellished.

So, no need to worry about a conspiracy that is about to collapse any time now.

[Kenngo1969]

... So, no need to worry about a conspiracy that is about to collapse any time now.

Whew! I was worried! My testimony, like the Sword of Damocles, was hanging by a thread, ready to collapse at the faintest hint of a whisp of wind! Thanks for shoring it up!

[Robert F. Smith]

Does it really paint a false picture of biblical scholarship? Let's take the Exodus. Are biblical scholars generally talking about the Exodus as a historical account of a million-plus people escaping from Egypt, marching around the Sinai for forty years, followed by a rapid conquest and settlement of Canaan? Nope. And why not? Because the archaeological evidence we have paints an entirely different picture about how the Israelites settled and wound up dominating the land. No problems with angels and gold plates; lots of problems with the evidence.

You make my point for me, tagriffy, by pointedly ignoring what biblical scholars actually do with the Exodus question -- instead of demanding that a sign saying "Moses was here" be produced. Now, of course, you may mean that "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign to be taken as metaphorical, and your openly stated respect for Brant Gardner's ethnographic approach suggests that your instincts can't be all bad. However, if your level of understanding of the Exodus question entails evangelicals versus Richard Dawkins, then there is indeed no point in carrying on a conversation about anything.

I really would like to get a copy of Brant's commentary. Unfortunately, the cost is too prohibitive for me at this time. I remember well seeing his "Book of Mormon Interactive Commentary" posts in another forum and thinking this exactly what environmentalists should be doing. We had many conversations that I considered very fruitful. Those conversations were irenic discussions where we simply respected the positions the other had taken. I consider Brant one of my role models for doing Book of Mormon studies.

Irenic is good, but what does the Gardner role model in BofM studies actually mean in practice? For example, what did you mean in your post#21, in dealing with "whether the Book of Mormon can be used as an independent witness for biblical texts. I already pointed out that without verifying evidence the BoM is authentically ancient, any attempt to assert the text is such an independent witness can only be taken on faith." So are you sweeping aside that issue a priori by assuming that the answer is negative? Do you want to have your cake and eat it too?

You seem to be mistaking what I do and do not expect archaeology to do. I don't expect archaeology to somehow prove the Resurrection, a (so far) unique, supernatural event. Nor would I expect archaeology to confirm every event depicted in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon, however, does paint a picture of at least two civilizations holding sway over some patch of land somewhere on the American continents. Unless you are contending that patch of land was part of supernatural dimension sealed off from the real world, I do expect archaeology is able to find evidence of said civilizations, that proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign. I do not think I am being unreasonable here.

I don't believe in magic and the supernatural, and they tend to be difficult to deal with via textual and archeological evidence. However, that still doesn't tell me whether you are able to assemble or review the sorts of evidence which might apply to the fabled existence of a couple of New World cultures described in the BofM -- just the way Schliemann once addressed the fabulous Homeric stories about a Hellenic Heroic age in which seige was laid to Ilium. After all, you are explicitly saying that, in order to to assert that the BofM text can act as an independent witness, one must first find verifying evidence that the BoM is authentically ancient.

It ought to be fairly easy to settle the matter of why scholars in general don't accept the Book of Mormon as an independent textual witness of biblical texts (the point of my OP). Is it really a simple matter of an a priori rejection based on "that thing with the angel and gold plates?" If so, it should be a simple matter to adduce evidence for that accusation. For example, while Michael Coe may well have a problem with the angel with the gold plates thing, in the end his discussions center around the evidence (or in this case lack of evidence) verifying the existence of the Nephites. That is hardly an a priori rejection. And what of Evangelical scholars? They don't reject angels and hidden documents (they accept Daniel after all) on principle. What recourse would they have then but the evidence? For that matter, has any work ever actually been done to gauge what biblical scholars actually think about the topic?

Perhaps, if a competent interviewer had asked Mike Coe a meaningful series of questions (assuming the interviewer had actually read some of Coe's most important works), we might have had an interesting series of answers. Instead, both interviewer and Coe stumbled through the interview like drunks on holiday, as John L. Sorenson's response should have indicated to you -- http://www.fairlds.o...-dr-michael-coe . At point after point, Coe selectively forgot nearly everything he had ever written on topics of interest to serious students of the Book of Mormon.

You mischaracterized what I said. I said I don't wish to debate Book of Mormon historicity. First, such a debate would throw the issue I am discussing in this thread off topic. Second, I have said what I need to say on that topic. I am determined to move forward rather than going back and reinventing the wheel. Third, I have stated what it would take to change my mind on the topic, and if you can't provide that, such a debate would be pointless.

It is not at all clear to me here what that might be, even if the sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" is meant by you as metaphorical. Seems to me that your mind is made up a priori, and that further discussion would be too risky for you -- based on your complete lack of understanding of biblical scholarship (as indicated by your comments above on the Exodus). After all, you yourself maintain that only after the BofM is shown to be authentic and historical can the discussion of it as a textual witness begin. The discussion ends before it starts.

That does not, however, translate into an unwillingness to discuss Book of Mormon historicity at all. I find the work of many historicists fascinating and useful. Insofar as I can, I try to evaluate such works on the basis of taking historicity as a given. If you want to discuss hisoricity as an interpretive lens for developing the meaning of the text, then I'm there with you. If you want to debate historicity as such, talk to an apologist.

Does this indicate bracketing of the ultimate question, the way Grant Hardy so effectively does in his Understanding the Book of Mormon? What does this mean in practice? Can textual criticism be done in that context? Did you find my discussion of Ramath flawed in some way? Are you foreclosing anything?

Edited June 5, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Glenn101]

Glenn101, on 02 June 2013 - 11:26 PM, said: The various scholarly debates, and some not so scholarly are interesting, but will never be a conversion maker. The witness of the Holy Ghost is the real key, always was, and always will be.

If Mormons truly believe this, then why offer apologetics at all?

First of all, apologetics, or rather scholarly research on the origins of Mormonism, the bookf of Mormon, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abrham, etc. is an end in and of itself.

Secondly, it gives those who may have questions a place to look for answers. However, I think that you will not find even one LDS scholar who would say that a testimony could safely be gained by apologetics or scholarly research,

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

.......................................................

In any case, I don't find Brown's move from inference to assertion very troubling, because he still hasn't nailed the case down. Brown it making the assumption the Lehite party tracked the incense trail because that's where the oases were. Though not an unreasonable assumption, it is still an assumption. I would assume if the party were tracking the trail, Nephi would have just said so rather than given vague notices of X many days this way, Y many days that. That is still an assumption, but also not an unreasonable one.

Based on that assumption, Brown asks whether Joseph Smith could have known that the incense trail turned where it did. I would contend that we have to deal with what the text actually says, and the text says nothing about an incense trail. In fact, the most notable thing about Nephi's description is its vagueness and lack of detail. It generally fits what the Lehite party would have had to do to cross the Arabian peninsula, but one only needs knowledge about the general shape of the land to write Nephi's account.

You are correct of course, tagriffy. The incense trail is not mentioned. However, right from the outset, Clan Lehi skirts that main route and hews to the lowland coastal plain (the Tihama), as in I Ne 2:5, " . . . traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea." And they remain in that isolated area (I Ne 2:8ff) along the Red Sea for a long time. Nothing indicates a change of behavior during later parts of the trek into Arabia, except when they have to bury Ishmael "in the place which was called Nahom" (I Ne 16:34), i.e., already carrying that very appropriate name (does etymology mean anything?). It is at that point that they cross the incense trail as they turn eastward (17:1). How did Joseph accidentally/fortuitously just happen to coordinate a name with just the right meaning at just the right location where the party would need to turn eastward in order to reach a rare "Bountiful" coastal area along the Arabian Sea? The true difficulty is in believing that it was all purely coincidental. And that without bringing into the discussion relevant literary topoi.

The NHM case is interesting. Unfortunately, identifying it as "the place that was called Nahom" still involves too many shaky inferences and outright assumptions. Unless that case is somehow nailed down, people will have to be forgiven if they dismiss the NHM inscriptions as, at best, coincedence.

I should have thought that pure coincidence might seem an extreme judgment in light of the existence of Nihm as the name of a still extant Yemenite tribe and also the name of a cemetery in Yemen, 100 miles east of Luhaiya and 25 miles south of Sanˁa, the current capital of the Yemen. That taken together with the existence of the name carved on altars in Marib dating to ca. 630 - 580 B.C. might at least suggest that this might not all be pure happenstance, even if it doesn't prove the case. Mightn't it at least keep at bay those who insist that there is not and never has been even one scintilla of evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon? Would you prefer to take such instances only in combination with a myriad of other instances?

I already said what it would take: verifiable, authentic evidence the Nephite civilization actually existed, the proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign.

Your demand sounds reasonable to me. Something like the Israel Stele of Merneptah, perhaps, or is that expecting too much?

Edited June 6, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[tagriffy]

You make my point for me, tagriffy, by pointedly ignoring what biblical scholars actually do with the Exodus question -- instead of demanding that a sign saying "Moses was here" be produced. Now, of course, you may mean that "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign to be taken as metaphorical, and your openly stated respect for Brant Gardner's ethnographic approach suggests that your instincts can't be all bad. However, if your level of understanding of the Exodus question entails evangelicals versus Richard Dawkins, then there is indeed no point in carrying on a conversation about anything.

I think we are talking past each other. I'm not ignoring what biblical scholars are doing with the Exodus question. I'm saying there are reasons why biblical scholars (Evangelicals and Fundamentalists excepted, of course) aren't talking about the Exodus as a straightforward historical account anymore.

Yes, I am using the "Welcome to Zarahemla" sign metaphorically. That's why I usually (but not always) add the modifier proverbial. I use it to refer to verifiable, authentic evidence the Nephite civilization actually existed without having to keep repeating "verifiable, authentic evidence the Nephite civilization actually existed." It's a shortcut term, if you will. Maybe I should include the term sign within the quotes?

Irenic is good, but what does the Gardner role model in BofM studies actually mean in practice? For example, what did you mean in your post#21, in dealing with "whether the Book of Mormon can be used as an independent witness for biblical texts. I already pointed out that without verifying evidence the BoM is authentically ancient, any attempt to assert the text is such an independent witness can only be taken on faith." So are you sweeping aside that issue a priori by assuming that the answer is negative? Do you want to have your cake and eat it too?

No, I am emphatically not sweeping the issue aside a priori. If that proverbial sign were to show up, I'd be among the first to insist that the BoM be taken seriously as an independent witness for biblical texts. I am saying that right now, given the available evidence, we should not expect scholars in general to accept Mormon-specific assertions (I know I'm probably not being clear here) about, say, Isaiah.

For me, following Brant's model means stating what the position you are taking, why you are taking it, and then simply doing it. During the time he was posting his "Interactive Commentary" he rarely, if ever, paused just to score a polemical point. He was moving beyond apologetics. He was doing the sort of thing I thought environmentalists should be doing.

If I were to write a commentary on the Book of Mormon, that is exactly how I would approach it. I'd probably start with something like my "Environmental Theory" essay. In that part, I'd still be as even-handed as I tried to be, pointing readers to historicist arguments against the points I make. Then I'd simply start exploring what Joseph was trying to achieve in the Book of Mormon text. Oh, and since I am an environmentalist, I'd keep Todd Comton's admonition to engage the text in a "warm, convincing" way in mind.

I don't believe in magic and the supernatural, and they tend to be difficult to deal with via textual and archeological evidence. However, that still doesn't tell me whether you are able to assemble or review the sorts of evidence which might apply to the fabled existence of a couple of New World cultures described in the BofM -- just the way Schliemann once addressed the fabulous Homeric stories about a Hellenic Heroic age in which seige was laid to Ilium. After all, you are explicitly saying that, in order to to assert that the BofM text can act as an independent witness, one must first find verifying evidence that the BoM is authentically ancient.

I think I can read an archaelogical report detailing a new dig of a place, identified as "Zarahemla" through its inscriptions, populated by a people who called themselves Nephites, who wrote (and probably spoke) in a language that resembles either Hebrew or Egyptian, and whose legends resemble stories that we find in the Book of Mormon. I assert that we need something like that before we can use the BoM text as an independent witness of blblical texts.

Perhaps, if a competent interviewer had asked Mike Coe a meaningful series of questions (assuming the interviewer had actually read some of Coe's most important works), we might have had an interesting series of answers. Instead, both interviewer and Coe stumbled through the interview like drunks on holiday, as John L. Sorenson's response should have indicated to you -- http://www.fairlds.o...-dr-michael-coe . At point after point, Coe selectively forgot nearly everything he had ever written on topics of interest to serious students of the Book of Mormon.

Actually, I haven't seen the Coe interview. I actually had in mind his old Dialogue article. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it at all. You seem to have missed my main point, which was addressing the accusation scholars in general reject the Book of Mormon simply because of the angel and the gold plates. Exactly what proof is there that scholars in general are doing this?

It is not at all clear to me here what that might be, even if the sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" is meant by you as metaphorical. Seems to me that your mind is made up a priori, and that further discussion would be too risky for you -- based on your complete lack of understanding of biblical scholarship (as indicated by your comments above on the Exodus). After all, you yourself maintain that only after the BofM is shown to be authentic and historical can the discussion of it as a textual witness begin. The discussion ends before it starts.

Hopefully, things are a little more clear. Something like the hypothetical archaeological report I described above would be what it takes to convince me the Book of Mormon is genuinely ancient.

Does this indicate bracketing of the ultimate question, the way Grant Hardy so effectively does in his Understanding the Book of Mormon? What does this mean in practice? Can textual criticism be done in that context? Did you find my discussion of Ramath flawed in some way? Are you foreclosing anything?

I'm not entirely clear about your meaning. I'm going to answer what I think you are asking. If I've misunderstood you, please be patient and try again, OK?

I remember reading Don Peterson's "Nephi and His Asherah" back when it came out in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. I thought it was a really fascinating and insightful article. However, when he made his application to the Book of Mormon, I thought he was hanging too great a weight on threads that were too slender. That thought did not come to me because I am an enviornmentalist. It came to me because I simply couldn't see what he was describing in the Book of Mormon. This is what I mean when I say I try to evaluate historicist works on the basis of taking historicity as a given. I would consider what I did with Peterson's article bracketing the ultimate question. Does this agree with how you are using the phrase?

On your question of whether textual criticism can be done in that context, I'm afraid I'm going to have to answer with another question. Are we talking about textual criticism of Isaiah or biblical texts? Or are we talking about textual criticism of the Book of Mormon? If we are talking about the former, then I would say no, because in order to do that, historicity has to be established first. If we are talking about the latter, then I would say of course. In fact, I would express confusion textual criticism of the BoM even became part of the discussion in the first place.

I am not foreclosing anything. As I said in another post, given that proverbial sign, I will gladly eat almost everything I've said about it being a modern work. Meanwhile, I will focus my own work on the Book of Mormon elsewhere. Hopefully, that work will prove useful to Book of Mormon students, whether or not they agree with my environmentalist viewpoint.

I originally started a response to your Ramath discussion. Then I realized that would probably get us into the sort of debate I wanted to avoid. Even now I still hesitate to say anything. So I will try to answer the question as diplomatically but bluntly as I can and hope that doesn't get us into an argument.

I would consider the Ramah:Ramath variant in 2 Ne. 20:29 a simple dictation error. Joseph probably said "Ramah" but the scribe heard and wrote "Ramath." If there is a flaw in your discussion, it is that you failed to consider a dictation error or other possibilities. I know my answer doesn't exactly bracket the historicity issue, but a dictation error doesn't have anything to do with historicity as such. Are we still on safe ground here?

[tagriffy]

I should have thought that pure coincidence might seem an extreme judgment in light of the existence of Nihm as the name of a still extant Yemenite tribe and also the name of a cemetery in Yemen, 100 miles east of Luhaiya and 25 miles south of Sanˁa, the current capital of the Yemen. That taken together with the existence of the name carved on altars in Marib dating to ca. 630 - 580 B.C. might at least suggest that this might not all be pure happenstance, even if it doesn't prove the case. Mightn't it at least keep at bay those who insist that there is and never has been even one scintilla of evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon? Would you prefer to take such instances only in combination with a myriad of other instances?

Note: I'm not ignoring the first paragraph of your post. For me, it raises more questions than it answers, and should probably be displaced to another thread. If you wish, I will start that new thread. I want to start at the beginning, with Nephi's account and go from there. It will probably take me a couple days to order my thoughts and questions.

Meanwhile, I only want to answer this question: "Mightn't it at least keep at bay those who insist that there is and never has been even one scintilla of evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon?"

Yes, it might. However, it would still have to overcome a number of objections in order to be fully accepted.

That is all I'm going to say at this point on this topic.

Your demand sounds reasonable to me. Something like the Israel Stele of Merneptah, perhaps, or is that expecting too much?

Something like that, yes.

[Kevin Christensen]

tagriffy asked:

You seem to have missed my main point, which was addressing the accusation scholars in general reject the Book of Mormon simply because of the angel and the gold plates. Exactly what proof is there that scholars in general are doing this?

Besides McMurrin's famous declaration to Blake Ostler, "You don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation. It's just that simple." there is this survey by Nibley, addressing the first 130 years:

http://maxwellinstit...d=73&chapid=884

When non-LDs scholars actually read the Book of Mormon, which a few do now and then, it's interesting to note how they read it. Robert Price, in American Apocrypha begins by establishing the metaphor of pious fraud. On the other hand, when Margaret Barker read it, she asked whether it fit the context of Jerusalem 600 BCE. The stance they take on approaching the text had a profound influence on what their investigations subsequently uncover. It's also interesting to compare the essays in Madsen's collection of essays, "Reflections on Mormonism." Stendahl puts the Book of Mormon in a pseudopigragha category somewhat like Price. He says some interesting things, makes some useful observations, but not as useful or perceptive as we get from John Welch and Richard L. Anderson. Charlesworth's essay does offer some interesting comparisons and suggestions, if gingerly and tentatively. Barker is the only one who really takes the plunge and asks whether it fits Jerusalem 600 BCE. Coe spends far more time interacting with 50s pop scholarship than exploring the actual text.

The real question is whether the Book of Mormon contains details that are best explained as coming from eye-witnesses. And the only way to test that proposition to make the effort to "stand where they stood in order to see what they saw" which just happens to describe Margaret Barker's approach to the Bible. That means taking the accounts seriously enough to be able to make the test. McMurrin never bothered to read it through, let alone carefully. Nor did Harold Bloom, as is evident from the inaccuracy of the few things he says, and his admission to a student that he had not read it.

I noticed the word "verifiable" being tossed about, which strikes me as indicating positivism, rather than a more viable critical realism approach.

Brant Gardner famously describes his approach as "looking for the Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon, rather than the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica." That is, instead of deciding beforehand what one should be able to find, and quickly announcing that there is "no evidence for the Book of Mormon," one gets a grasp of the context, and then considers how that context sheds light on the text. The dangers of the former approach are evidenced in the recent Coe interview, in which Dehlin and Coe talk about the lack of evidence for brass helmets and iron arrowheads, neither of which are mentioned in the text. If a person is looking for something on the basis of misreading, or misunderstanding, they are not likely to find anything meaningful. If an investigator puts the most weight on finding something small, and mentioned only rarely, and only a few locations (horse bones, say), they are less likely find it than if they are looking for something larger, much more important, and easier to find like an appropriate Sidon candidate, or how a specific geographical correlation casts light on specific details in the narrative (See Poulson's website and recent FAIR presentation, for instance). Looking for a Zarahemla sign is a much dicier proposition than looking for civilizations in the right place and time. (See John Clark on correlations in general trends, and trends in correlation over time.) And if it happens that a small group of migrants moved into a already populated area, it's likely that the everyday language would change by the second generation. (The branches from scattered Israel are grafted on pre-existing wild plants). And if the written language was based on concepts rather than sounds, the verbal language could shift underneath the written. See the FARMS article on Oral and Written Cultures in the Book of Mormon. There might be traces, as Stubbs has demonstrated.

The trend should be of increasing convergence, increasing "cause to believe," not instant coercive certainty, absolute "knowing."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited June 5, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Calm]

tagriffy, you might want to keep an eye out for Sorenson's latest book (coming hopefully in Sept). He gives a FAIR presentation on some of the research he's gathered for the book here: http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-reading-mormons-codex Sorenson makes the claim that "[a]t no less than 420 points the text corresponds to characteristic Mesoamerican situations, statements or allusions, and history" so it will be a very significant work, in my view, if as advertised (which I have no reason to discount).

Sorenson's son, who posts as "cursor" on the board, is keeping us current with the work and posts tidbits from it now and then if you are interested in knowing more about it.

More info on the Dehlin-Coe interview and its problems can be found here: http://www.fairlds.org/authors/sorenson-john/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe

[tagriffy]

tagriffy asked:

Besides McMurrin's famous declaration to Blake Ostler, "You don't get books from angels and translate them by revelation. It's just that simple." there is this survey by Nibley, addressing the first 130 years:

http://maxwellinstit...d=73&chapid=884

Thanks. I was looking for this last night, but obviously couldn't find the right combination of words to Google.

When non-LDs scholars actually read the Book of Mormon, which a few do now and then, it's interesting to note how they read it. Robert Price, in American Apocrypha begins by establishing the metaphor of pious fraud. On the other hand, when Margaret Barker read it, she asked whether it fit the context of Jerusalem 600 BCE. The stance they take on approaching the text had a profound influence on what their investigations subsequently uncover. It's also interesting to compare the essays in Madsen's collection of essays, "Reflections on Mormonism." Stendahl puts the Book of Mormon category, somewhat like Price. He says some interesting things, makes some useful observations, but not as useful or perceptive as we get from John Welch and Richard L. Anderson. Charlesworth's essay does offer some interesting comparisons and suggestions, if gingerly and tentatively. Barker is the only one who really takes the plunge and asks whether it fits Jerusalem 600 BCE. Coe spends far more time interacting with 50s pop scholarship than exploring the actual text.

The real question is whether the Book of Mormon contains details that are best explained as coming from eye-witnesses. And the only way to test that proposition to make the effort to "stand where they stood in order to see what they saw" which just happens to describe Margaret Barker's approach to the Bible. That means taking the accounts seriously enough to be able to make the test. McMurrin never bothered to read it through, let alone carefully. Nor did Harold Bloom, as is evident from the inaccuracy of the few things he says, and his admission to a student that he had not read it.

So we do have some scholars who have put aside the angel and plates thing enough to look at it, and even treat it with appreciation. Do you think they would accept BoM Isaiah as an independent witness to the biblical text? Why or why not?

I noticed the word "verifiable" being tossed about, which strikes me as indicating positivism, rather than a more viable critical realism approach.

If the simple establishment of a fact makes me a positivist, then so be it. Either the Nephites existed or they didn't. And I'm not asking for anything historicists wouldn't use to rightly declare a clear-cut victory in the debate. Point in case is how the NHM inscriptions are being used--don't forget, you used it yourself in this thread. Nail the case down by, for example, finding Ishmael's grave, and Latter-day Saints everywhere will be bragging about it--again, rightly so.

Brant Gardner famously describes his approach as "looking for the Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon, rather than the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica." That is, instead of deciding beforehand what one should be able to find, and quickly announcing that there is "no evidence for the Book of Mormon," one gets a grasp of the context, and then considers how that context sheds light on the text. The dangers of the former approach are evidenced in the recent Coe interview, in which Dehlin and Coe talk about the lack of brass helmets and iron arrowheads, neither of which are mentioned in the text. If a person is looking for something on the basis of misreading, or misunderstanding, they are not likely to find anything meaningful. If an investigator puts the most weight on finding something small, and mentioned only rarely, and only a few locations (horse bones, say), they are less likely find it than if they are looking for something larger, much more important, and easier to find like an appropriate Sidon candidate, or how a specific geographical correlation casts light on specific details in the narrative (See Poulson's website and recent FAIR presentation, for instance). Looking for a Zarahemla sign is a much dicier proposition than looking for civilizations in the right place and time. (See John Clark on correlations in general trends, and trends in correlation over time.) And if it happens that a small group of migrants moved into a already populated area, it's likely that the everyday language would change by the second generation. (The branches from scattered Israel are grafted on pre-existing wild plants). And if the written language was based on concepts rather than sounds, the verbal language could shift underneath the written. See the FARMS article on Oral and Written Cultures in the Book of Mormon. There might be traces, as Stubbs has demonstrated.

Thanks again for Brant's quote. I was looking for it last night, but I was obviously looking in the wrong place. That was one of the reasons I could appreciate the approach. To a certain extent, it sidesteps the debate and gets on with the work of interpreting the Book of Mormon. Obviously if Sidon is found in a place like Chile, the work becomes obsolete overnight, but that is a risk worth taking in service of the more important goal.

The trend should be of increasing convergence, increasing "cause to believe," not instant coercive certainty, absolute "knowing."

Please elaborate.

[tagriffy]

tagriffy, you might want to keep an eye out for Sorenson's latest book (coming hopefully in Sept). He gives a FAIR presentation on some of the research he's gathered for the book here: http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-reading-mormons-codex Sorenson makes the claim that "[a]t no less than 420 points the text corresponds to characteristic Mesoamerican situations, statements or allusions, and history" so it will be a very significant work, in my view, if as advertised (which I have no reason to discount).

Sorenson's son, who posts as "cursor" on the board, is keeping us current with the work and posts tidbits from it now and then if you are interested in knowing more about it.

More info on the Dehlin-Coe interview and its problems can be found here: http://www.fairlds.org/authors/sorenson-john/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe

Are we to expect an updated Ancient American Setting or is Sorenson doing something entirely new?

I never saw (heard?) the Dehlin-Coe interview and never had reference to it, so I'm not sure how it the FAIR response would be relevant.

[Calm]

Please elaborate.

I have chosen to follow a research model that had recently been used in studying the relationship between the Old Testament and archaeology, an obviously parallel case. William Dever used it in his 2003 book entitled What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It? He vigorously disputed the view held by some modern scholars that the Hebrew scripture was first written in the last few centuries BC on the basis only of oral traditions and historical conjectures that were projected back by anonymous writers on the previous several thousand years. Dever, an eminent archaeologist who was once a Christian minister but later converted to Judaism, in the last sentence in his book, insists, “these people, this Israel, must not be written out of history.” His book successfully redeems the status of the Old Testament as a broadly reliable history. He documents by reference to concrete archaeological finds that important (although not necessarily all) historical facts asserted by the scripture are correct.

He proceeds by identifying “convergences.” That is what he calls specific points of agreement between statements in the text and finds by archaeologists. When the written source is supported on a given point by this sort of external evidence, no explanation for the similarity makes sense except that the archaeological datum and the scripture refer to the same moment in time, and that the author of the written account could not have put down what he did without contemporary knowledge of the circumstances and history of that area of the world.

For example, Dever explains that “The many biblical passages that mention city gates—not as part of any deliberate propaganda but simply offhand—fit remarkably well with [what is known from] excavated gates at a number of sites of the tenth to seventh centuries, and only of this period. . . . No writer living [several centuries later] could have ‘invented’ [references to] city gates like [these], known only long before.” Using numerous instances of such logic, the author shows in convincing fashion that the historical skeleton whose bones, as it were, show through in the Old Testament was real. The original books of the scripture had to have been written by men who were eyewitnesses of the particular cultural features and historical events their accounts report.

I follow the same logic in identifying what I call “correspondences” between the archaeological record for Mesoamerica and the text of the Book of Mormon. While Dever identified a few score of “convergences” to support the historicity of the Old Testament, I have identified some 420 correspondences that tie the Book of Mormon to the picture of ancient Mesoamerican civilization constructed by archaeologists and other researchers.

A vital step in this procedure was to identify Book of Mormon lands. It was a simple matter for Professor Dever to specify the Syro-Palestine area in the centuries before about 400 BC as the setting where he found his Old Testament parallels. Everyone knows that Palestine is where the Israelite narrative took place. But the where of the Book of Mormon account is not obvious. First it is necessary to establish the location correctly or else any references to potential Book of Mormon comparisons to archaeology would be in error.

Two steps are required to settle Book of Mormon geography. The first is to reconstruct an internal map that accommodates all 500 passages in the Book of Mormon that state or imply geographical facts. I did this in previous books, determining that all of those statement in the scripture fit consistently into what I call “Mormon’s map.” The second step was to compare that mental map based entirely on statements in the text with the geography of the Americas to find the best fit. That task is simplified by the fact that the Nephites are said to have dwelt in many “cities” and to have had many “books” that contained their written records. There is only one area in the New World meeting those conditions: Mesoamerica.

The remaining question, then, is, in what portion of Mesoamerica do the details of “Mormon’s map” fit? Again in several published formats I have addressed that question. All the possible geographical correlations Latter-day Saints have come up with except one display fatal flaws that rule out their identification as the territory Mormon had in his mind. The one satisfactory answer toes like this: the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in southern Mexico is the narrow neck of land of the Nephites, the highlands of southern Guatemala contained the land of Nephi, the basin of the Grijalva river and adjacent areas in extreme southern Mexico is the land of Zarahemla, and areas immediately north and west of the isthmus are the land northward. This, then, defines the area where it makes sense to look for correspondences between the Book of Mormon and the archaeological/cultural record.

From the link I gave above

From the Larry Poulsen talk:

Convergence

Two years ago Brant Gardner introduced this conference to William Dever’s concept of convergence as it relates to the Bible and Biblical Archeology.

Whenever the two sources or “witnesses” happen to converge in their testimony. A historical “datum” (or given) may be said to be established beyond reasonable doubt. To ignore or to deny the implications of such convergent testimony is irresponsible scholarship, since it impeaches the testimony of one witness without reasonable cause by suppressing other vital evidenceiii

In an Internet discussion, Brant extended that definition to include geography in addition to archeology.

The concept of a convergence is much more useful because it understands that there is no single geographic feature or location that really shows anything. What is required are multiple points of simultaneous and interconnect comparisons. The more you have multiple geographic features that are unique and interconnected in non-random ways, the more likely that there is a connection.

In other words

Convergence between geography and the Book of Mormon story is a necessary requirement in order for any definition of Book of Mormon geography to be useful and/or convincing.

And from Brant Gardner: http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2006-Brant-Gardner.pdf

Convergence

He calls it a convergence so rather than a parallel, we are going to talk about a convergence. His comment, “Whenever the two sources or ‘witnesses’ [text and archaeology] happen to converge in their testimony, a historical ‘datum’ (or given) may be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. To ignore or to deny the implications of such convergent testimony is irresponsible scholarship, since it impeaches the testimony of one witness without reasonable cause by suppressing other vital evidence.” (William G. Dever, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know it? 107)

What he is talking about in that case is the text of the Bible and the dirt archaeology to which it is being compared. The difference is, when he is creating a convergence rather than a parallel, he is taking a large quantity of material and he is saying, “Here are things that come together in a similar description.” And we have to have location, we have to have time, we have to have the content of the information and in essence what he is saying is the more pieces of information that interrelate with each other and all depend upon the same location, same place, same time, same people, same concept; the more of those you get, the more you are converging the two types of testimonies of information, and the more chance then you have that one of these datums is now going to be something you can establish.So that is what I want to talk about is a convergence. To give you an idea of how a convergence works, here is my favorite example. (Shows picture)

First impression, you look at this, and what you really should see is just a bunch of dots. Okay. First impression should be a bunch of dots. Now, after that you should see something. What are you seeing? You’re seeing a dog. I can actually see a few hands out here so, how many people don’t see a dog? That happens every once in a while because there are so many dots on there that you don’t see it. That’s an important piece of information to remember because even though there is a whole bunch of us that see a dog there, it isn’t as absolutely clear as it might be if it were cleanly defined lines. Nevertheless, the location, the placement of the spots, all of the information, there is a dog standing over there. So for those of you who aren’t seeing it—that’s the head of the dog. You’re looking at a Dalmatian that’s drinking something from the ground. Foreleg, left hind leg, right hind leg, body— there’s even kind of a tail hooked around here.

We, as human beings, have minds that are capable of creating cohesive patterns out of incoherent information. How many of you have stared at a tree, a cloud, a carpet and seen a face in it? Is the face there? Absolutely not. The reason that we see it is because we have a mind that creates things and it tends to create faces because we are so chemically wired to see the face. It is so important for us that we tend to create faces.

The difference is, if you blink two or three times, sometimes you look back and you can’t find it. Once you’ve seen the dog, you cannot “unsee the dog.” It actually is there. It may be difficult; we may not have all the data that we need to be able to clearly define it. But once you see the dog, that dog is there and you cannot “unsee the dog.”

That is the kind of evidence that we’re going to be talking about. We will not have a complete picture. We will not have a jigsaw puzzle where every single piece of the puzzle is there and there will not be any gaps, but what we will have is a sufficient picture that we can “see the dog.” And I will tell you that having been through the Book of Mormon in detail over the last several years that it is now impossible for me to “unsee the dog.” This is a text that took place with real people in a real time and there is no way I can see it any other way, because I have “seen the dog” and I understand that it’s there.

Now here is the next problem we have with seeing the dog, we will start talking about the evidence for the dog and someone will say, “That spot,” (showing only a few dots) “there is no reason why that spot is unique to this dog. I’ve seen things that have had a spot like that that weren’t a dog.” Well, yes. Which is why when you look at all this kind of evidence, you can’t take one piece and say, well this

one thing is going to prove it. It isn’t a single thing. In any good historical argument, you are not going to find the one single thing where you say, okay here is the smoking gun; this is the one thing that does it. We only have one way of coming up with a single action that we could take that will prove the Book of Mormon and that is prayer and revelation. You pray and get revelation. That is the only single thing that will demonstrate it. If you are looking at an historical argument, you need to have an argument that has a lot pieces together, not worrying about the single thing. Now, we do have to make sure that that really is a dot and not something that we’re not looking at. It really does have to be real information. So that’s where we are, is trying to move on from that.

So here is the kind of thing that we would like to take a look at, I’m going to run through a lot of this stuff pretty quick. Some of the stuff I’m not even going to mention hardly at all and then I’ll try to end up with some of the things that I kind of find most fascinating about “seeing the dog” in the Book of Mormon.

He goes on to identify the types of convergences he's looking for.

[Calm]

Are we to expect an updated Ancient American Setting or is Sorenson doing something entirely new?

Did you look at the link I gave for his talk, it makes it pretty obvious what the book will be about there.

Kevin referred to the Dehlin - Coe interview as an example of some problematic approaches. The Open Letter to Michael Coe from John Sorenson gives specific examples.

The dangers of the former approach are evidenced in the recent Coe interview, in which Dehlin and Coe talk about the lack of evidence for brass helmets and iron arrowheads, neither of which are mentioned in the text.

Edited June 5, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Also:

My forthcoming book, Mormon’s Codex (in prolonged editing at Maxwell Institute; I hope it will appear in print shortly after the first of the year), will be my ultimate contribution to presenting and establishing truth in relation to the scripture. It will establish that nearly 400 “correspondences” are found between Mormon’s volume and the scholarly literature on Mesoamerica (based on a 133-page bibliography). The book will be bulky, of course (hence the lengthy editorial process). It will represent (almost) all the truth I have been able to establish in my scholarly effort. I believe it will establish beyond reasonable question to both Latter-day Saints and non-LDS scholars as well that Joseph Smith had in his possession, and translated, a Mesoamerican codex written by Mormon in the late fourth century AD. I do not directly comment much on alternative “theories” of how the text of the scripture came to be; I simply, straightforwardly lay out what the text tells me: Joseph had a codex written on metal plates. There is no other explanation for the “Mesoamericanisms” found in the scripture.

[tagriffy]

Did you look at the link I gave for his talk, it makes it pretty obvious what the book will be about there.

I haven't had time yet to do more than just glance. That's why I asked a bottom line question. If he is mostly updating An Ancient American, then I only need get the new instead having to obtain another copy of the former.

[tagriffy]

Also:

http://www.mormondia...entry1209139026

Thanks.

[Calm]

It has been a long time since I read his AA book, I can't remember exactly what it covers...plus the new book hasn't come out and may have stuff in it not covered in the talk besides additional convergences. I would suggest PMing cursor and getting his POV as to whether he duplicates his work or not.

[tagriffy]

From the link I gave above

From the Larry Poulsen talk:

And from Brant Gardner: http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2006-Brant-Gardner.pdf

He goes on to identify the types of convergences he's looking for.

Okay. Good look at the methodology. I have my reservations here, but I want to focus on a more important meta-question.

Do you agree with Kevin's statement that, "The trend should be of increasing convergence, increasing "cause to believe," not instant coercive certainty, absolute "knowing" (emphasis added)? Why or why not?

[tagriffy]

It has been a long time since I read his AA book, I can't remember exactly what it covers...plus the new book hasn't come out and may have stuff in it not covered in the talk besides additional convergences. I would suggest PMing cursor and getting his POV as to whether he duplicates his work or not.

Based on the material you've provided, it looks like he is covering much of same ground as AA, but I'm going by memory myself. I'll get the new book first and then worry about whether I should get a new copy of AA.

[Calm]

Do you agree with Kevin's statement that, "The trend should be of increasing convergence, increasing "cause to believe," not instant coercive certainty, absolute "knowing" (emphasis added)? Why or why not?

There are very few things in life that I believe we can know in absolute terms, especially if they deal with relationships. History and other 'soft' sciences don't work well in absolutes either, imo.