Mayan Lamanites

[juliann]

Brant mentions the fact that Spanish documents written at the time of the conquest are so ethnocentric that they cannot be completely trusted in terms of providing facts about historical events, and should be tempered with other, more reliable, documents. This renders the document “flawed” in terms of a reliable source of plain historical information.

Exhibit 1. Here we go again...talk, talk, talk, talk. Uh huh. Yes, yes, yes. No one would disagree with much of this so it is completely unnecessary but it sure sounds good, eh? So maybe it will bury the real problem regarding the conclusions you were drawing from this? This isn't a matter of establishing a viable theory...it is matter of drowning everyone else out in the hopes that they will give up. You always get soooo peevish when someone won't.

I mentioned the syncretism that occurred after the conquest to demonstrate one point – that points of similarity exist between the Mesoamerican religion and Christianity.

Exhibit 2: Beastie seems to think that "points of similarity" prove what she wants it to prove when there are "points of similarity" in all religion. What about all of those "points of similarity" between all religions? Are they going to count, too? Do you have any understanding at all that you cannot pick out the ones that you like and pretend there aren't others that point in another direction? Kind of like Brant said, "Where an argument might appear valid in isolation, when you place it into the greater context it simply won't fit."

Exhibit 3:

[beastie responds to Brant]

[juliann]

you, and your Greek Chorus of Juliann,

I just can't pass by yet one more example of how you have no understanding of the terms you throw around. You just gave me a compliment as being the ideal spectator.

[beastie]

Exhibit 1. Here we go again...talk, talk, talk, talk. Uh huh. Yes, yes, yes. No one would disagree with much of this so it is completely unnecessary but it sure sounds good, eh? So maybe it will bury the real problem regarding the conclusions you were drawing from this? This isn't a matter of establishing a viable theory...it is matter of drowning everyone else out in the hopes that they will give up. You always get soooo peevish when someone won't.

What conclusions was I drawing from this, Juliann? And will you ever even recognize the fact that I was directing this comment to a believer who commented on what Nephite "lying" would be?

Exhibit 2: Beastie seems to think that "points of similarity" prove what she wants it to prove when there are "points of similarity" in all religion. What about all of those "points of similarity" between all religions? Are they going to count, too? Do you have any understanding at all that you cannot pick out the ones that you like and pretend there aren't others that point in another direction? Kind of like Brant said, "Where an argument might appear valid in isolation, when you place it into the greater context it simply won't fit."

Good grief. You demonstrate no comprehension of this thread. You ignore the fact that I have stated over and over that Brant's main point throughout this thread was that Mesoamerican religion and Christianity are too dissimilar to expect to see syncretism. Obviously, they are not.

Note: I do not expect Juliann, or probably even Brant, to ever, ever, ever concede that Brant did contradict himself on this thread.

Which catacombs? Where were they? What time period? What about other sites? Who else used the site? You are now stepping into a completely different realm of study and still thinking you can talk and talk and talk your way through it. This is a picture perfect example of how you operate since it only takes a few flips through the widely used Anchor Bible Dictionary to cut through your talk. Here are your biggest problems ( s.v., "Art and Architecture")

I'm not going to take this rabbit trail. We discussed it extensively, and pointlessly, on a previous thread (Hamblin's challenge is flawed). What's funny is that Brant insisted he didn't want to go down that trail again, either, but yet couldn't resist bringing it up twice on this thread.

Let's talk through this.

First problem: The "Bible" was not in existence during the first 150 years so you have a rather painful circular argument on your hands if you are going to drag it in as proof. It is only helpful after the fact.

Second problem: As with all historical things, Christian art can only be talked about in stages which will require dating. You cannot talk about it as if it all fell out of the sky Monday morning in one big chunk.

Please go read the thread if you're interested. The BoM didn't exist for centuries after the events occured, either, yet we have that to guide our search for Christianity in Mesoamerica.

just can't pass by yet one more example of how you have no understanding of the terms you throw around. You just gave me a compliment as being the ideal spectator.

I am guessing that is exactly how Brant views you, Juliann, which is why I said you were HIS Greek Chorus.

[juliann]

I am guessing that is exactly how Brant views you, Juliann, which is why I said you were HIS Greek Chorus.

Perhaps the best example of all since you remain oblivious to what any first year student of religion would be aware of. What you are now describing is not a Greek Chorus. It may be something else but backing up only one character is not a function of a Greek Chorus. Now how hard could that be to understand? Yet here we go agaaaaiiinnnn......terms only mean what Beastie wants them to mean so you must concede that in order to have the privilege of talking to her. Otherwise you get.....

talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk

talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk

[juliann]

Which catacombs? Where were they? What time period? What about other sites? Who else used the site? You are now stepping into a completely different realm of study and still thinking you can talk and talk and talk your way through it. This is a picture perfect example of how you operate since it only takes a few flips through the widely used Anchor Bible Dictionary to cut through your talk. Here are your biggest problems ( s.v., "Art and Architecture")

Another example of Beastie's idea of giving a simple answer to a simple question asking for evidence of her claims:

She was asked for specific information based on her own statement. Does she give the information? No. Does she modify her position? No. Does she acknowledge that her position is problematic without that information. No. What does she do? She....talks and talks and talks.

For Beastie, this is all it takes when she is asked to give elementary information such as dates and places to back up her rather surprising claim about "catacombs":

1. I'm not going to take this rabbit trail.

2. We discussed it extensively, and pointlessly, on a previous thread

3. Hamblin's challenge is flawed

4. Brant insisted he didn't want to go down that trail again, either, but yet couldn't resist bringing it up twice on this thread.

I sure can't find a date or place in any of this. But it is reassuring to know that such things are just completely goofy and unnecessary because it is a "rabbit trail", she discussed it somewhere in time, it's "Hamblin's" fault even though there is no Hamblin in the thread, and my personal favorite...what she said requires absolutely no clarification and evidence because that rasty Brant brought the topic up twice! Twice mind you!

Beastie, if there ever was a time that you needed a rent-a-mob chorus it is now.

[beastie]

Juliann,

You remind me of college students newly enamored of their own knowledge, and convinced that the rest of the world is clueless.

Greek Chorus, one more time - given the fact that Brant has couched insults to me in every conversation I remember having with him, I made the assumption that Brant would view your running commentary on this thread as accurate, since your running commentary has largely consisted of insults to me. That is why Brant would view you as the Greek Chorus, ie, why I said you were "Brant's" Greek Chorus. Of course I don't view you in that way, (I view you as someone who is deliberately trying to derail or kill a thread) but I didn't identify you as "beastie's" Greek Chorus, or the "thread's" Greek Chorus. If you don't get it, you're not going to. If you prefer, "Brant's cheerleader" is adequate.

Regarding the rest of your silliness - I referred you to the thread on which we discussed the catacombs in detail, and your questions are answered therein. Also in that thread you will discover why the points you've been making are irrelevant. "Hamblin's Challenge: Why It Is Flawed" is the name of the thread. Once again I made the mistake of not being painfully explicit with you, although I was pretty clear with the statement: "We discussed it extensively, and pointlessly, on a previous thread (Hamblin's challenge is flawed)." There is no reason why I should repeat information on this thread when I already provided that information on a readily accessible thread, and I don't want to further derail this thread, particularly since that appears to be your intent.

Here is the link to the thread, since apparently Juliann is incapable of finding it by the name alone:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=5892

I do suggest reading the entire thread before commenting. If your comments are pertinent and meaningful, perhaps you will resurrect interest in the thread, but in my opinion, it was at a total impasse.

Now, if only Brant's cheerleader could rescue him from the fact that:

1) On ZLMB, he insisted that my saying that the Tikal event initiated the type of war in which the victor completely took over the vanquish's polity by installing their own ruler was a "misreading of data", much as he has done here on other topics, yet here, on this thread, he casually made the same statement as if it were a known, accepted fact. (on p 8 of this thread "What was different after Teotihuacan was the replacement of the rules (should be rulers) from an outside polity.")

2) On this thread, Brant has insisted we should not expect to see syncretism occur between Mesoamerican religion and Christianity in the BoM, because they were too "dissimilar", but after being reminded of the syncretism that occured post conquest, Brant stated that points of similarity must exist for syncretism to occur even under forced conditions. This clearly contradicts his earlier statement.

So far, the rebuttals to this have been attempts to build straw men, ie, to pretend I stated that the circumstances of the Conquest were no different than two religions bordering each other, or to pretend that I stated the "exact same results" would occur in the BoM. Juliann complains when I do not respond to straw men, but instead point out that they are, in fact, straw men, but I feel no responsibility to defend arguments I never made.

[Quinn]

. . . Now, if only Brant's cheerleader could rescue him from the fact that:

1) On ZLMB, he insisted that my saying that the Tikal event initiated the type of war in which the victor completely took over the vanquish's polity by installing their own ruler was a "misreading of data", much as he has done here on other topics, yet here, on this thread, he casually made the same statement as if it were a known, accepted fact. (on p 8 of this thread "What was different after Teotihuacan was the replacement of the rules (should be rulers) from an outside polity.")

2) On this thread, Brant has insisted we should not expect to see syncretism occur between Mesoamerican religion and Christianity in the BoM, because they were too "dissimilar", but after being reminded of the syncretism that occured post conquest, Brant stated that points of similarity must exist for syncretism to occur even under forced conditions. This clearly contradicts his earlier statement.

So far, the rebuttals to this have been attempts to build straw men, ie, to pretend I stated that the circumstances of the Conquest were no different than two religions bordering each other, or to pretend that I stated the "exact same results" would occur in the BoM. . . .

Yes, and if anyone is still "confused" or in denial, beastie crows about this in more detail here:

Brant Finally Admitted I Was Right!

[Brant Gardner]

beastie:

1) On ZLMB, he insisted that my saying that the Tikal event initiated the type of war in which the victor completely took over the vanquish's polity by installing their own ruler was a "misreading of data", much as he has done here on other topics, yet here, on this thread, he casually made the same statement as if it were a known, accepted fact. (on p 8 of this thread "What was different after Teotihuacan was the replacement of the rules (should be rulers) from an outside polity.")

Except that this wasn't the conversation, nor was this particular point that beastie is making at all relevant to the point of the other conversation which was, as I recall, an issue of the change in the nature of warfare. While I was speaking of how the entrada of Teotihuacan into Tikal added new types of warfare, beastie insisted that the whole issue must be related to the imposition of external rule (a point that is still somewhat ambiguous since subsequent kings of Tikal justified their position through their Maya lineage rather than the Teotihuacan connection, even though the still referenced the "western lords" who were those in Teotihuacan.). Beastie is continuing the interesting habit of misreading what someone wrote, picking out a sentence and adapting it to the preconceived argument.

If anyone is having trouble sleeping, they may check through that thread to verify this information.

2) On this thread, Brant has insisted we should not expect to see syncretism occur between Mesoamerican religion and Christianity in the BoM, because they were too "dissimilar", but after being reminded of the syncretism that occured post conquest, Brant stated that points of similarity must exist for syncretism to occur even under forced conditions. This clearly contradicts his earlier statement.

Yet another creative reading. Beastie insists that he/she understands that different circumstances ought to lead to different results, but somehow misses the point that this changes the logic of his/her argument. We have the contention that something completely dissimilar should result in precisely the argument he/she presents. The admission that different conditions yield different results therefore invalidates the proposition unless it can be demonstrated how such things would have taken place. That analysis is entirely missing. We have analysis based on random proof-texting rather than any examination of text of cultural contexts. That violates most principles of ethnohistorical research and is done by fiat rather than even appeal to authority. Given the number of times that beastie has managed to misread or misapply his/her reading, I can't imagine why I should accept "because I said so" on such a controversial statement.

When I pointed out that this particular logic places beastie in the mutually contradictory position about the nature of parallels and what should exist in the Book of Mormon we got a refusal to even deal with the issue - it was simply an appeal to a rabbit trail. Somehow, that was supposed to make it all better. Ignoring contrary evidence never makes it all better.

[juliann]

You remind me of college students newly enamored of their own knowledge, and convinced that the rest of the world is clueless.

I guess that makes two of us then, eh? Oh, right...you have no college training in the study of religion.

Greek Chorus, one more time - given the fact that Brant has couched insults to me in every conversation I remember having with him, I made the assumption that Brant would view your running commentary on this thread as accurate, since your running commentary has largely consisted of insults to me.  That is why Brant would view you as the Greek Chorus, ie, why I said you were "Brant's" Greek Chorus

Besides your hilarious misunderstanding of the function of a Greek Chorus, what I find most interesting is how many times you say "I made the assumption..."

I didn't identify you as "beastie's" Greek Chorus, or the "thread's" Greek Chorus.  If you don't get it, you're not going to.  If you prefer, "Brant's cheerleader" is adequate.

Hey....yer gettin' there! Unless you can point out a one man Greek play, the Chorus would have to be for the entire play, i.e., the thread! Which means you have identified me as the perfect man on the street spectator of the thread. But cheerleader is just fine. May I call you the court jester?

Regarding the rest of your silliness - I referred you to the thread on which we discussed the catacombs in detail, and your questions are answered therein. 

That is rather bad form to use an issue to make your point and then appeal to another thread. Sorry...you made it an issue here.

There is no reason why I should repeat information on this thread when I already provided that information on a readily accessible thread, and I don't want to further derail this thread, particularly since that appears to be your intent.

What foresight! You answered my explicit list of details that you need to supply to even hope to make your wacky analogy fly on an earlier thread! Perfect! Just cut and paste the post! Ta da!

I do suggest reading the entire thread before commenting.  If your comments are pertinent and meaningful, perhaps you will resurrect interest in the thread, but in my opinion, it was at a total impasse.

Juliann complains when I do not respond to straw men, but instead point out that they are, in fact, straw men, but I feel no responsibility to defend arguments I never made.

You are now claiming that you never made this argument right here and now?

[beastie responds to Brant]  You also ignore the fact that the evidence in the catacombs included far more than borrowed isolated iconography, too vague to recognize as being used in a “different” context, and, with the help of the bible, as a Christian context. There are specific Biblical scenes depicted therein, as well as the isolated iconography. There is the context of these images occurring in conjunction with one another.

If not...who did? Would you please ask the Greek Chorus to get going on the narration?

[juliann]

Yes, and if anyone is still "confused" or in denial, beastie crows about this in more detail here:

Brant Finally Admitted I Was Right!

You have to be kidding. Now we know what this is really all about. I loved this response: "Congratulations... or something "

[juliann]

Beastie, nice thread but your proof regarding the Christian symbols in the catacombs is a Catholic website with Catholic interpretations. I mention this to demonstrate how you grab at anything that you think is helpful to you.

Now..let's get on with those catacombs, should we? Dates please?

[beastie]

Aside from the nonsense that has multiplied lately, there have been a couple of points that deserve attention.

1) Juliann

[juliann]

1) Juliann’s apparent assertion that it is not possible for lay people to educate themselves enough to ever be able to have enough background information to evaluate the possible validity of various theories suggested by scholars.

[Quinn]

2) Quinn

[beastie]

Juliann,

This confirms my suspicion you don't really read thoroughly on this thread, you pick isolated sentences and take them out of context.

Brant brought up the iconography thread. In your own response, you recognized this fact with "beastie responds to Brant". The iconography thread is discussing something different than we are discussing here. The iconography thread was discussing if we could expect to be able to identify Christianity in the Old World prior to 320 AD. This thread is about whether or you not we can expect to identify suggestive elements of the native Mesoamerican religion in the text of the Book of Mormon. These are entirely different topics, and I have no interest in revisiting the iconography topic. The details you ask for are on that thread. All of your yes/no answers are therein. I refuse to answer your questions on this thread for two reasons: all the answers are on the thread you linked, and I consider a detailed discussion of that to be off topic on this thread. Your continued insistence that I go find all these answers for you because, apparently, you're not willing to go find them yourself and post about it on the relevant thread is of no interest to me, neither is it that you will predictably use my refusal to derail this thread as evidence I am "backing out". Nor am I surprised that you do not seem to grasp why these two issues are different topics. Here is Brant's post wherein he admits that he is reverting to the different thread:

Brant Gardner Posted: Dec 31 2004, 07:02 PM 

Centinarian

Group: Members

Posts: 287

Member No.: 60

Joined: 28-November 03

beastie:

QUOTE 

He noted that even under a forced conquest, points of similarity are required for syncretism to occur. Hence, points of similarity exist between the Mesoamerican religion(s) and the Christian religion.

Once again your response it to reassert your original thesis. You haven't dealt with the issue of forced conquest except to agree that the conditions are very dissimilar. Now please deal with the question of why you think that completely unrelated circumstances will yield the exact same results.

However, since you want to talk about syncretism along lines of similarity, we might return to an earlier discussion about the nature of symbols. What was the nature of Mesoamerican syncretism? The expressive culture is dominantly Catholic. What happened in much of the syncretism is that certain ritual procedures were grafted on to Christian symbols and frequently pagan meanings were attached to the overtly Christian symbols. This is precisely the kind of influence in iconography that I have been talking about. The religion that must exist inside the more dominant religion adopts the visual/iconographic culture of the dominant religion. This happened from with the Mesoamericans adopting/adapting Christian iconography. It happened with the Christians adopting/adapting Greek iconography. It is precisely the reason I suggested that we might not be able to see a Christian symbol if it were adopted from a non-Christian source.

So here we have one of your arguments completely contradicting a different one. The problem with trying to make arguments based on limited data is that you tend to hit problems like this. Where I an argument might appear valid in isolation, when you place it into the greater context it simply won't fit.

You have two incompatible theses. I have no idea how you mighit reconcile them.

I responded to Brant's assertion that I have two "incompatible theses". If you want to discuss the catacombs and the Bible in particular, you are off topic. If you want to give examples of syncretism within the text of the Bible, that is on topic. Are you capable of seeing the difference? If not, I give up and simply don't have the time anymore to figure out how to say something as explicitly as possible so Juliann will understand.

Oh, boy...here we go! Here I thought that I was talking to you and you have applied global significance to it. How predictable. ZZZzzzzz

Oh, I see. There's just something about me that renders me incapable of obtaining enough information to evaluate various topics. That makes so much sense, and was so clear from your post.

BTW, if I seem to "bark" questions to Brant, it is due to the fact that he often ignores straight forward questions. Not that I would expect you to notice this in someone other than a critic, of course.

Now go about your business of killing this thread with your inane comments which are often based on careless reading of the posts on this thread.

[juliann]

This confirms my suspicion you don't really read thoroughly on this thread, you pick isolated sentences and take them out of context.

[Addictio]

Hi, Brant. I've been busy and haven't been able to respond to your last post directed to me.

Using provisional hypotheses to generate testable assertions is part of the structure of scientific inquiry. If your generalized "criticism" of this form of inquiry, reasoning and argumentation were sound, the practice of modern science couldn't occur as it does. Use of a provisional hypothesis in scientific work does not ipso facto make for circular reasoning or bad science. Like any other provisional hypothesis, one can't judge how the ancient authorship or JS authorship hypotheses function in a particular argument before considering it. Consider Bushman's article on Lamanite ideology. He assumes ancient authorship, but not in a way that makes his assertions about the content of the narrative incorrect, or question-begging. Now, if I make exactly the same assertions about the content of Lamanite ideology in the text, but now in support of an argument favoring JS authorship, according to you I would merely be "assuming" what the text means, and hence begging the question.

For example, you say:

I understand that I could take your assumed meaning for the text and create an argument that at least appeared to read the data consistently.

What you apparently don't understand is just how tendentious (and hence silly) these kinds of declarations are. When people make arguments in favor of modern, JS authorship, Brant, they are not "assuming" the meaning of the text, any more than Bushman was "assuming" the meaning of the text when he wrote about the content of Lamanite ideology with the understanding that he was interpreting and commenting on an anciently-authored text.

Similarly, if your position were adopted, Vogel's arguments about anti-masonic language in the BoM could be adequately addressed simply by saying: "I disagree with your assumptions." One wouldn't even have to read his article in order to dismiss it, since it must obviously assume modern rather than ancient authorship. The dialogue between Ben M. and Dan V. on the subject didn't go like that because the former understands that adopting a hypothesis provisionally doesn't turn every argument adopting that point of view into a logically circular one. If you want to argue for something along the lines of the theoretical/conceptual approaches Alan Goff or Kevin Christensen advocate, fine, be my guest. That would be an improvement over the conceptual confusions you've been pronouncing here.

So the hypothesis that the BoM is ancient and was written in mesoamerica could, obviously, also function in some particular argument as an assumption that creates logical circularity, but it needn't and typically doesn't. In any event, one can't begin to judge that until one sees how it functions in a particular argument. The same is true about uses of the JS-author hypothesis.

At the end of your post you say:

Please, rather than restate your position, would you explain how the method you are proposing could possibly come up with any other conclusion? What kind of control are you using on your data and analysis? I certainly understand beginning with a hypothesis, but please tell me how yours could possibly change? What stops you from inventing arguments to cover contrary data that would otherwise discredit the hypothesis? How do you know when you have a real explanation for a variance or an excuse for the variance?

I am well aware that I must answer the same questions and I assure you that I have. I am interested in how you handle those issues for the method you are suggesting?

The fact that you can write this is a further indication that you don't understand the nature of the conceptual disagreement we've been having. In sound argumentation, a hypothesis like ancient or modern authorship of the BoM doesn't function as a question-begging premise. Your contention that it always does -- or that we can generally assume it does -- is simply wrong. So your questions are directed at an imaginary problem of your own creation. Nevertheless, plowing on, with respect to your first sentence, as I've said above, the provisional adoption of an authorship hypothesis by either party doesn't itself dictate or determine conclusions about the meaning of statements in the text or seek to establish historicity or modernity by mere assumption. Begging the question in a particular argument does. That you don't appreciate the difference isn't my concern, though it makes conversing with you less interesting.

With respect to your third sentence, .there isn't any objective test for determining when a hypothesis as complex as modern (or ancient) authorship of the BoM becomes so discredited that it gets abandoned. So, in short, the underlying pseudo-problem you've framed, which you now pretend to solve merely by pronouncing that your arguments are in accordance with various generalized truisms about the nature of historical inquiry (I am familiar with their content -- or rather lack of it -- from previous discussions with you), doesn't exist.

Regarding your last two questions, this rhetorical, roundabout characterization of your own set of arguments for BoM historicity does provide some ongoing entertainment value, I suppose, but not much else. We've been through this before, as in the "Coxoh" thread over on ZLMB. Errors in methodology are a species of error in reasoning that are rooted in the precise form of argumentation involved. Hence, the methodological issues and potential concerns raised by, for example, Thomas's analysis of parallels between the BoM and 19th Century revival language, Wright's arguments about Isaiah in the BoM, or Vogel's about anti-masonic language in the BoM, or parallels between the BoM and the moundbuilder myths, can't be helpfully characterized in general terms which do not address the specific assumptions and inferences contained in and necessary for those arguments.

One of the things you attempted above was to mischaracterize, in completely mistaken and rather childish terms, what someone, anyone, who adopts the hypothesis of JS authorship is committed to arguing regarding the significance of his statements about the nature of the narrative and/or the relationship between BoM peoples and Amerindians. (There isn't some deep mystery, Brant, about how to determine the relevance or weight of authorial statements about the contents of a text. And again, by way of reminder, offering such an account doesn't "beg the question" any more than does Roper's account, which presumes that JS was the translator, rather than the author.) Your unfocused comments do illustrate what results from being inattentive to how methodological positions and problems are specific to the forms of argumentation actually being advanced.

Further regarding your final two sentences: the difference between us is that I recognize that, given their generality (1) there is no single, general response to the types of questions posed, at least one which does not involve conclusory question-begging, and (2) whether a particular argument involving BoM historicity is vulnerable to the charge that it is actually something being "invented" to cover what you refer to (infelicitously) as "contrary data," or is creating some ad hoc explanation for a "variance" in the text, can't usefully be answered in the abstract. For example, "translation errors" as a group must be handled differently from purported explanations of, say, reported Lamanite ancestry or ideology.

Sidebar: We've discussed at some length elsewhere your "methodology" as it relates to JS translation errors, and I find it to be a minority position among apologists, and highly idiosyncratic. Minority both because Skousen's position after his study of the manuscripts is that JS functioned as reader of a displayed English test, and because many other apologists, John Clark, for example, actually think that when the BoM refers to horses or metals, the words should be taken at face value. Idiosyncratic because there is no way to justify the kinds of inferences and analogies you want to make in your speculations about what was going on in JS's brain or mind as he, a person who did not know the source language, nevertheless turned it into English.

Or take the more relevant example of what the BoM says about Lamanite ancestry and ideology. Note that any disagreement you and I have about the passages Bushman interprets do not occur at the summarizing, descriptive level he's operating at. So when Bushman or I provide an identical, purely descriptive account of what the Book says on this topic, why would you think that either one of us perforce must be, in doing so, ignoring the sort of pseudo-issues you want to project on that descriptive process in your last two sentences? Simply put, it is your position, not mine, which has a problem with, and hence needs to explain (away), the uniformity and consistency of the text.

You can't actually dispute, for example, the number or consistency of instances in which the ancestry of individual Lamanites is reported with reference to his ancestors coming from Jerusalem, or by reference to an identified New World Israelite. (Contrary to what you sometimes argue, a descriptive account of such uniformities in the text preceeds, and obviously its accuracy or inaccuracy can be determined separately from, your explanation(s), or mine, for the occurrence of such uniformities.)

Similarly, I expect we don't have a disagreement about the accuracy of Bushman's summary of what the text reports about the content of Lamanite ideology. Given its similar uniformity, in my affirmative (as opposed to rebuttal) discussion and argument regarding the "others" reading as it relates to those two features of the text, there isn't any need for me to provide the same sort of "explanations" you must resort to. That's not because I'm unaware of the logical structure of and resulting arguments your position requires, but only because my affirmative arguments with respect to the occurrence of those features of the text don't require the same sort of (potentially ad hoc) explanations.

So, when I turn to rebuttal of your alternative account of the occurrence and contextual interpretation of those same textual features about Lamanites, I address them on the merits. These rebuttal arguments include, but are by no means limited to, contentions about their ad hoc nature. (Anyway, even on a message board, let's not simply beg the question on this issue, Brant, as you do above, by assuming that your arguments and assumptions about the text provide the sorts of justifying "controls" on your analysis you want to assure the reader they do.) Those particular rebuttal arguments, notice, also are different from the rebuttal directed at other apologetic contentions regarding the text and the "others" reading, which have already been articulated by Roper and Sorenson. I find these, btw, to be considerably less ad hoc (and idiosyncratic) than yours.

I'll let you have the last word in this here discussion, Brant, if you'd like. Given my schedule and other commitments, I won't be offering anything more on this thread.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio:

I understand that you will be busy - I don't know that we will get much further in any case. We seem to be pretty far apart in a rather fundamental issue.

Most of the post restates things that have already been discussed - and are probably hopelessly confused. I will try to trim responses to some new issues.

Hence, the methodological issues and potential concerns raised by, for example, Thomas's analysis of parallels between the BoM and 19th Century revival language, Wright's arguments about Isaiah in the BoM, or Vogel's about anti-masonic language in the BoM, or parallels between the BoM and the moundbuilder myths, can't be helpfully characterized in general terms which do not address the specific assumptions and inferences contained in and necessary for those arguments.

It is good to get to some specifics. These are very interesting because they demonstrate the problem of initial assumptions.

1) Thomas's analysis of parallels in vocabulary: I believe that the data indicate that there are non-arbitrary parallels. I don't agree with the conclusion the suggests what those parallels mean because the meaning of vocabulary is entirely dependent upon the issue of the translation method. Since this issue is typically set by assumption rather than analysis of the data, it becomes another case of the assumptions dictating the conclusion.

2) Wright's analysis of the Isaiah variants: I agree with much of his analysis - but not the overall conclusion - for the same reasons as above. He provides important data. The conclusion that the data disavow a translation presumes a definition of the translation. Rather than accept the assumption, I assume that they are data that should inform the analysis.

3) Vogel's anti-Masonic data: I think this is a fundamental misreading of the intent of the text. The function of the secret combinations in the text works internally but doesn't match the supposed external model. When the data tell us that the external model is overdrawn, then I don't see much analytical value in it.

4) parallels to the mound builder myths: There are some good superficial resemblances, but they don't go very deep in the text. You find better data in external statements. I can't agree that what is said about the text should take precedence over what the text says. As a simple non-parallel, neither the word "mound" or "mounds" is found in the Book of Mormon. If the text is so intent on paralleling language from Masons and revivalists, why does it ignore the vocabularly of its putative "historical" source?

You suggest that these issues: "can't be helpfully characterized in general terms which do not address the specific assumptions and inferences contained in and necessary for those arguments."

I cannot agree more. I would not suggest otherwise. It is precisely in the initial assumptions that I see problems. In the case of Thomas and Wright the assumptions lead to a particular conclusion from the data. I think much of the data are correct, but the conclusions are not. In the case of anti-Masonry and mound-builders, I see the assumptions coloring the way the data are examined. The assumptions lead to use of the data that are not consistent with the internal evidence of the text.

In both types of cases, the assumptions themselves lead to issues in the data or conclusions drawn from the data.

Sidebar: We've discussed at some length elsewhere your "methodology" as it relates to JS translation errors, and I find it to be a minority position among apologists, and highly idiosyncratic.

I certainly won't disagree. At present, I am not aware of anyone else arguing the same case as I am. I don't think that the uniqueness of my position is an a priori suggestion that there is no appropriate methodology behind it. If you are going to discuss my opinions, then you are kind of stuck with my opinions. I don't feel compelled to defend anyone else's ideas if I don't agree with them.

Minority both because Skousen's position after his study of the manuscripts is that JS functioned as reader of a displayed English test

You are correct that I disagree with Skousen.

and because many other apologists, John Clark, for example, actually think that when the BoM refers to horses or metals, the words should be taken at face value.

From my conversation with him I don't think he is quite as adamant on that position as you suggest. I do acknowledge that I see the problem differently from Sorenson - with whom I have not had a conversation to discuss any differences.

I am also open to the terms being taken at face value. Currently tests are being run on horse bones found in pre-Columbian strata dating to either Book of Mormon or post-Book of Mormon times. Hard data will easily change my mind and not alter the general principles of my arguments.

Idiosyncratic because there is no way to justify the kinds of inferences and analogies you want to make in your speculations about what was going on in JS's brain or mind as he, a person who did not know the source language, nevertheless turned it into English.

We appear to differ. I am not making guesses. I am looking at the available data and using known human experience to interpret the data. When I talk about the translation method I am doing so from the position of examining a large quantity of text to determine whether or not it can be concluded that there is a tight connection to the underlying text. I conclude that it cannot be supported. The contrary data outweigh the positive data.

Now, discussing the data for a translation certainly presumes a translation. Therefore the question of whether or not there was a translation has to be answered on the basis of issues that cannot be involved in the problem of translation - if I don't make that separation in data then I am begging the question - using my assumption to interpret the data. Only when I can segregate the types of data used to come to certain conclusions and assure myself that I haven't come to a conclusion because of the assumption do I feel I have a strong position.

Or take the more relevant example of what the BoM says about Lamanite ancestry and ideology.

Neither of us differs on what the text says. What does the text mean when it says what it says? Making the assumption that you know what it means without analyzing all of the data that may or may not support that meaning short-circuits the analysis. For instance, you provide a suggestion of what the text must mean. How may one judge whether or not that is the meaning?

I suggest that one way is to examine the text itself to see if it supports the assumed meaning. When there are contrary data in the text, I see the text as denying the assumed reading.

You can't actually dispute, for example, the number or consistency of instances in which the ancestry of individual Lamanites is reported with reference to his ancestors coming from Jerusalem, or by reference to an identified New World Israelite.

Nor have I. We have data. It is the meaning of the data that is always at question. How do we analyze the data? In what framework is it of value? If the same data have two equally acceptable explanations, and the explanations are mutually incompatible, how do we judge? The only way I know is to examine other data and keep looking.

If we have a consistent representation of Lamanites or Nephites in connection to Israel, that is a datum. Does that datum indicate that there are no others? That question can only be answered by examining a larger set of data. If the response to every statement in the text that implies others is that it must be the result of an authorial mistake, we have to posit a number of errors on the part of the author.

Part of the problem that I have with the assumption of authorial error is it is precisely the authorial errors that should contradict history, not support it. When someone intentionally creates a historical text, the authorial errors show up in the locations where the author loses focus on the intended story and makes an error. The problem with the Book of Mormon is that it is precisely in the places where the putative modern author isn't paying attention that we find the greatest correspondence to external history.

[juliann]

Using provisional hypotheses to generate testable assertions is part of the structure of scientific inquiry. If your generalized "criticism" of this form of inquiry, reasoning and argumentation were sound, the practice of modern science couldn't occur as it does.........................

If you want the short version of this rambling rhetoric, here are the salient points that were made. We now know that Brant :

Uses childish terms

Is silly

Doesn't understand the nature of the conceptual disagreement

Doesn't appreciate the difference (which Addictio does, of course)

Brant does provide some ongoing entertainment value

He has unfocused comments presumable from being inattentive

The difference between us [brant and Addictio] is that I [Addictio]recognize...

Now...this should sum up the depth of Addictio's understanding of scholarship:

We've discussed at some length elsewhere your "methodology" as it relates to JS translation errors, and I find it to be a minority position among apologists, and highly idiosyncratic. Minority both because Skousen's position.....

There is a very popular movement amongst the wannabe a religious scholar but don't wannabe a student crowd...just say apologist! and a page of excruciatingly tortured sentences of insults and trivia will win the day. Addictio would be laughed out of any conference if he called Skousen's work on the JS MSS apologetic. He was on at least one (non-LDS) lecture series because of the high interest in testing textual criticism theory on such a recent find. Picture him referring to Metzger's apologetic work on the NT at the next SBL and you will get the idea of how charmingly ignorant it sounds.

If these guys cannot even figure out the difference between an apologetic work and mainstream scholarship....well....

[Addictio]

My good intentions about walking away from this discussion are so ultra-compelling, why, it would bring tears to your eyes. just to imagine them.

Yes, well.

I write this as a form of social commentary.

I have made it a habit not to respond to Juliann because, based upon years of observing her verbal behavior, and interacting with her, I am persuaded that she truly doesn't know the difference between substance and mere rhetoric, between analysis and name-calling.

Is anyone unclear about the difference? Anyone interested can compare Brant's response to my last post with Juliann's. Which one is addressed to the substance, the merits? I don't think Juliann knows the difference.

After cataloguing in excruciating detail my alleged rhetorical sins, Juliann doesn't know what else to add. Nothing of substance? Sensing this may not be quite enough, in her dual role as clueless interloper and triumphant cheerleader, Juliann, sadly impaired but (yet, let's have some sympathy) so-deeply, so-truly sincere, must fasten on a single word.

The word is "apologist." Juliann's fundamental (yet rousing cheerleader) misunderstanding is that the merits of anything I said to Brant turned on whether I used the term "apologist" or "LDS apologist" or some other mere placeholder. But it's too late to stop Juliann, she's winding up for the embarrassing, elabiorate pitch. Here it is:

Now...this should sum up the depth of Addictio's understanding of scholarship:

Get the clue, folks? I'm about to embarrass myself. I did that when I said to Brant:

We've discussed at some length elsewhere your "methodology" as it relates to JS translation errors, and I find it to be a minority position among apologists, and highly idiosyncratic. Minority both because Skousen's position.....

In Juliann's world, gut Gott, how could I have been so careless? I managed to refer casually to my interlocutors as "apologists." Help! Suddenly the merits don't matter anymore, and (worse yet) I have to endure this pointless, prim lecture from Juliann, yet again:

There is a very popular movement amongst the wannabe a religious scholar but don't wannabe a student crowd...just say apologist! and a page of excruciatingly tortured sentences of insults and trivia will win the day.

At what point does this get deeply (and merely) embarrassing? I don't know. It's hard to tell. But my theory is that somehow Juliann must have confused my casual use of the term "apologist" with something that mattered, on the merits. That would be consistent with her inability to distinguish between mere word usage and substance.

No, actually it's worse than that. What we're dealing with here is Juliann's imaginary, triumphant ego-trip, in which:

Addictio would be laughed out of any conference if he called Skousen's work on the JS MSS apologetic.

Returning to planet Earth, any conference in which mere word usage ("apologetic") drove the discussion, rather than substance, would surely be fitting, for Juliann. In fact, that's the kind of demented "conference" in which she imagines herself on top, triumphant, laughing about others. (The need for that empty, superior laughter, you understand, is what drives Juliann's rather boring participation here, in case you hadn't noticed. )

Referring to Skousen's position, Juliann says:

He was on at least one (non-LDS) lecture series because of the high interest in testing textual criticism theory on such a recent find. Picture him referring to Metzger's apologetic work on the NT at the next SBL and you will get the idea of how charmingly ignorant it sounds.

Juliann has lost track, again. It's quite pitiful, actually, truth be told. Back at planet Earth, I was suggesting to Brant that Skousen's position about the text was better reasoned than his. In response, in her role as ultra-confused, yet ultra-willing cheerleader, Juliann "responds" to me by touting Skousen's credentials.

That's (part of ) why I don't bother responding, anymore, to Juliann.

[Brant Gardner]

Addictio, re Juliann:

I have made it a habit not to respond to Juliann because, based upon years of observing her verbal behavior, and interacting with her, I am persuaded that she truly doesn't know the difference between . . . between analysis and name-calling.

Now I feel so much better about Addictio's name-calling. At least he says he knows the difference.

What is the name-calling comparison?

Juliann says that Addictio (included in a larger set) is a "wannabe religious scholar." Ouch.

Addictio says that Brant is: silly, uses childish terms, and is unfocused.

If name-calling is the determining factor in responding, I think I would rather respond to Juliann.

[Brant Gardner]

I was doing some reading this morning that has relevance to the topic of this thread.

In 2001 I suggested that one of the interesting indications of "others" in the land was the sermon Nephi directed Jacob to give (recorded in 2 Nephi 6) that uses a passage from Isaiah concerning the salvation of Israel by gentiles. In my FAIR paper that year (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2001GarB.html) I suggested that the relevance of this sermon was seen in the tensions occasioned by the new Nephite combination of Old World and New World peoples.

John Gee and Matt Roper presented virtually the same argument at the Sydney B. Sperry Symposium in 2003 (published as Gee and Roper "'I did Liken All Scriptures unto Us:' Early Nephite Understandings of Isaiah and Implications for 'Others' in the Land," The Fulness of the Gospel: Foundational Teachings from the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City:Deseret Book, 2003), 58-60.

In addition to this possible confirmation of "others" in the land (another in the number of textual passages that build the case) Gee and Roper present another argument that I had not fully appreciated until I read it after this thread. Addictio, following Metcalfe, argue that the exclusive indication of Israelite identity must perforce deny any "others." Gee and Roper addressed that issue by indicating how 2 Nephi 6 shows the transformation of the lineage names into religio-political designations that include and subsume other classifications:

"Some have wondered why, if other people were present in the land during Book of Mormon times, they are not mentioned more frequently in the record. This teaching, delivered by the Nephites