Nephites! Yea Or Nay?

[canard78]

No, I am not a fundamentalist with respect to the Bible, for the simple reason that it's origin and method of transmission places far too many human hands between first setting down (or first telling), and the form it takes on a modern printing press (or device of your choice). The Bible has endured an enormously long and complicated chain of custody, marked by scribal errors, errant translations, questionable interpolations by the hand of man, and possible fraud. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, has an astonishingly short path of transmission, compared to the Bible, and an astonishingly close relationship to those who first wrote it down and us. Nephi wrote "I was born of goodly parents", and that writing was filtered by human hands only twice: once through Mormon, and once through Joseph Smith. And that final filter was assisted by divine inspiration and revelation. How could you NOT take the Book of Mormon fundamentally? Besides the fact that there is much in the Bible which is intentionally figurative, you better come to it with a large grain of salt sometimes. About the only figurative thing in the Book of Mormon is Jacob 5. The rest is cold, hard, narration of facts and doctrine.

Given your comprehensive take down of the reliability of the Bible, does it not concern you at all that the Book of Mormon text ends up quoting the Bible so extensively?

[Nevo]

The Bible has endured an enormously long and complicated chain of custody, marked by scribal errors, errant translations, questionable interpolations by the hand of man, and possible fraud.  The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, has an astonishingly short path of transmission, compared to the Bible, and an astonishingly close relationship to those who first wrote it down and us.  Nephi wrote "I was born of goodly parents", and that writing was filtered by human hands only twice: once through Mormon, and once through Joseph Smith.  And that final filter was assisted by divine inspiration and revelation.  How could you NOT take the Book of Mormon fundamentally?

 

As it happens, I've recently been reading Jared Hickman, who takes a somewhat different view. He sees the Book of Mormon as a self-deconstructing text that resists a literalist hermeneutic:

 

The irony, of course, is that precisely the formal features—artless first-person narratives, methodical charting of its provenance, and incessant reminders of its materiality—through which the narrative wants to claim an unassailable objectivity on par with or even superior to the Bible can only highlight its overwrought subjectivity. By drawing attention to rather than away from the human medium of scripture, The Book of Mormon makes literalist hermeneutics in its particular case and in general a more difficult proposition. . . . A certain friction is generated by the narrative’s frank embeddedness in particular viewpoints and memory practices. Any theological authority accorded to the content is intimately bound up with the identity of the author-narrator. . . .

 

The Book of Mormon’s replication of the process of canon formation does not simply function as a critique of the existing canon and justification of its own inclusion therein; it draws our attention to the partiality of any process of canon formation, including its own. Bushman (2005, 87) is much closer than Givens to the mark when he deems The Book of Mormon "almost postmodern" in its concern with the conditions of its own production. The Book of Mormon’s metatextual navel gazing profoundly destabilizes its self-canonizing narrative, opening it to ethical critique from without and within (Jared Hickman, "The Book of Mormon as Amerindian Apocalypse," American Literature 86, no. 3 [2014]: 446–448).

 

Hickman notes, for example, that "when Lamanite voices are heard in The Book of Mormon, they offer a coherent and convincing counterreading of Book of Mormon history. In an epistle to a Nephite military leader, the Lamanite Ammoron writes back—a rare Lamanite primary document, as it were [see Alma 54:17–24]. . . . Ammoron’s rhetorical questions powerfully interrogate Nephite self-righteousness. They more than suggest a sophisticated Lamanite worldview that Nephite accusations of savagery would deny. Most importantly, this relativizing perspective suggests that the Nephites are not simply pure vessels of sacred truth but purveyors of the 'traditions of their fathers,' hamstrung by 'custom' no less than the Lamanites to whom the Nephite narrative typically attaches these derogatory terms (Alma 9:16–17; 17:9,15, 20, 25; 47:17, 23). In sum, The Book of Mormon suggests it is not its own 'whole story'" (Hickman, 449–450).

Edited June 14, 2015 by Nevo

[thesometimesaint]

Given your comprehensive take down of the reliability of the Bible, does it not concern you at all that the Book of Mormon text ends up quoting the Bible so extensively?

 

It doesn't. Yes there are a few indirect quotes from the KJV of the Bible, but nothing extensive.

[Nevo]

It doesn't. Yes there are a few indirect quotes from the KJV of the Bible, but nothing extensive.

 

Perhaps your definition of extensive is different than mine. As you undoubtedly know, long passages of KJV Isaiah and Matthew are quoted word-for-word. There are also quotations from Micah and Malachi, the Gospel of John, Hebrews, Revelation, etc. As Philip Barlow has observed, "the Book of Mormon narrative bulges with biblical expressions. More than fifty thousand phrases of three or more words, excluding definite and indefinite articles, are common to the [KJV] Bible and the Book of Mormon. . . . iblical phases constitute the vocabulary building blocks of much of the Book of Mormon" (Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion [New York: Oxford University Press, 1991], 27–28).

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Perhaps your definition of extensive is different than mine. As you undoubtedly know, long passages of KJV Isaiah and Matthew are quoted word-for-word. There are also quotations from Micah and Malachi, the Gospel of John, Hebrews, Revelation, etc. As Philip Barlow has observed, "the Book of Mormon narrative bulges with biblical expressions. More than fifty thousand phrases of three or more words, excluding definite and indefinite articles, are common to the [KJV] Bible and the Book of Mormon. . . . iblical phases constitute the vocabulary building blocks of much of the Book of Mormon" (Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion [New York: Oxford University Press, 1991], 27–28).

Yes, Barlow had access to our FARMS printouts of phrases in common between Bible and Book of Mormon back in the 1980s (John Hilton and Kenneth Jenkins generated them with a computer in Berkeley).  We used them in the FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text, while Barlow used them in his dissertation.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Nevo]

Yes, Barlow had access to our FARMS printouts of phrases in common between Bible and Book of Mormon back in the 1980s (John Hilton and Kenneth Jenkins generated them with a computer in Berkeley).  We used them in the FARMS Book of Mormon Critical Text, while Barlow used them in his dissertation.

 

He cites it as Kenneth D. Jenkins, "Common Phrases Between the King James Version and the Book of Mormon" (3 vols., 1983; housed in the F.A.R.M.S. collection, BYU). I wondered if it might show up in the FARMS Preliminary Reports that were recently made available online, but I don't see it there. I guess three volumes of computer printouts would be a lot to digitize.

[thesometimesaint]

 

Perhaps your definition of extensive is different than mine. As you undoubtedly know, long passages of KJV Isaiah and Matthew are quoted word-for-word. There are also quotations from Micah and Malachi, the Gospel of John, Hebrews, Revelation, etc. As Philip Barlow has observed, "the Book of Mormon narrative bulges with biblical expressions. More than fifty thousand phrases of three or more words, excluding definite and indefinite articles, are common to the [KJV] Bible and the Book of Mormon. . . . iblical phases constitute the vocabulary building blocks of much of the Book of Mormon" (Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion [New York: Oxford University Press, 1991], 27–28).

 

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Mormon_and_the_King_James_Bible

[bcuzbcuz]

Corn and maize are interchangeable in Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador. If you order a corn tortilla for your taco they will certainly bring you a taco with a maize tortilla from local shop. There is no distinction between the 2 words, present day.

True, but corn and maize are not interchangeable in the references from the Bible.

[Robert F. Smith]

He cites it as Kenneth D. Jenkins, "Common Phrases Between the King James Version and the Book of Mormon" (3 vols., 1983; housed in the F.A.R.M.S. collection, BYU). I wondered if it might show up in the FARMS Preliminary Reports that were recently made available online, but I don't see it there. I guess three volumes of computer printouts would be a lot to digitize.

These computer printouts (of various types) were not published, but were used internally for the projects mentioned.  So they will not be made available on the Maxwell Institute website.  However, much more sophisticated programs now exist (BYU WordCruncher, for example) with which to generate such lists.

[Stargazer]

Given your comprehensive take down of the reliability of the Bible, does it not concern you at all that the Book of Mormon text ends up quoting the Bible so extensively?

 

No, why should it?  I mean, do I believe that the Nephites had the KJV verbiage included as part of their source text?  Not at all.  I will grant that it would have been charming if the translation that the Lord gave Joseph had hewed more closely to the actual source, but if the Lord chose to give him a translation that closely fit the KJV, then who am I to gainsay Him?  Nephi's inclusion of Isaiah material, for example, was completely unnecessary in one sense, because we have the material already; it's not like it was lost and is now restored.  But in another sense, and the one which is more important, we are treated to the information that the particular Isaiah material chosen by Nephi was of special value, in comparison to the rest (otherwise, why would he have quoted it?).  If I were to make an extensive study of Isaiah, I would pay particular attention to those parts which Nephi quoted.

 

When the Father and the Son visited Joseph, and when Moroni visited Joseph, they quoted scriptures.  Joseph reports that their quotations varied only a little from that which was in the KJV.  What does this do for you?  Do you think that they used the KJV versions because KJV was particularly awesome, or because that was the form that Joseph was accustomed to?  I say it was because of the latter, although YMMV. 

 

I do not believe the Bible as we have it contains a bunch of fatuous lies flying in formation with a few good truths.  I believe that the Bible is correct, as far as it is translated correctly (and as far as it was transmitted correctly!).  But we definitely know that there were mistakes made, and omissions.  And unlike I-delight-in-plainness Nephi, the Biblical authors used a lot of poetry, allusion, and figures, all of which were part of the Hebrew world-view and culture.  So when Nephi says something flat-out, I take him at his word.  When the author of Joshua says the sun and moon hung in the sky more than one would expect for heavenly bodies correctly moving according the Newtonian mechanics, well, I take it that the author was using a figure to indicate that it was a bloody long fight.

 

And, by the way, I wasn't trying to say that the Bible is unreliable, by and large; I was trying to say that we best know what we are about when we try to understand some of its murkier or more literary portions.  And look out for the interpolations by the hand of men (prime example: the Johannine Comma).

 

This is the problem with those who choose to get all intellectual, and "I know better because I'm educated and sophisticated and a member of modern rocket-science society" -- they get all wrapped around their own axle, and then blame the Lord for the confusion.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

As it happens, I've recently been reading Jared Hickman, who takes a somewhat different view. He sees the Book of Mormon as a self-deconstructing text that resists a literalist hermeneutic:

 

The irony, of course, is that precisely the formal features—artless first-person narratives, methodical charting of its provenance, and incessant reminders of its materiality—through which the narrative wants to claim an unassailable objectivity on par with or even superior to the Bible can only highlight its overwrought subjectivity. By drawing attention to rather than away from the human medium of scripture, The Book of Mormon makes literalist hermeneutics in its particular case and in general a more difficult proposition. . . . A certain friction is generated by the narrative’s frank embeddedness in particular viewpoints and memory practices. Any theological authority accorded to the content is intimately bound up with the identity of the author-narrator. . . .

The Book of Mormon’s replication of the process of canon formation does not simply function as a critique of the existing canon and justification of its own inclusion therein; it draws our attention to the partiality of any process of canon formation, including its own. Bushman (2005, 87) is much closer than Givens to the mark when he deems The Book of Mormon "almost postmodern" in its concern with the conditions of its own production. The Book of Mormon’s metatextual navel gazing profoundly destabilizes its self-canonizing narrative, opening it to ethical critique from without and within (Jared Hickman, "The Book of Mormon as Amerindian Apocalypse," American Literature 86, no. 3 [2014]: 446–448).

I will self-quote a short passage:

 

This is the problem with those who choose to get all intellectual, and "I know better because I'm educated and sophisticated and a member of modern rocket-science society" -- they get all wrapped around their own axle, and then blame the Lord for the confusion.

I have no idea who Hickman is, maybe later I'll look him up. But this frothy passage of Hickman's is a precision-tooled example of wrapping oneself around the axle trying to look like one knows more than one's audience. "...to claim an unassailable objectivity on par with or even superior to the Bible can only highlight its overwrought subjectivity." "The Book of Mormon’s metatextual navel gazing profoundly destabilizes its self-canonizing narrative..." Thankyou, Mr. Hickman.

I suppose this passage you quote was written for "professionals", and must therefore contain as much jargon as possible. Has he ever read R. Buckminster Fuller at his most florid, I wonder?

 

Hickman notes, for example, that "when Lamanite voices are heard in The Book of Mormon, they offer a coherent and convincing counterreading of Book of Mormon history. In an epistle to a Nephite military leader, the Lamanite Ammoron writes back—a rare Lamanite primary document, as it were [see Alma 54:17–24]. . . . Ammoron’s rhetorical questions powerfully interrogate Nephite self-righteousness. They more than suggest a sophisticated Lamanite worldview that Nephite accusations of savagery would deny. Most importantly, this relativizing perspective suggests that the Nephites are not simply pure vessels of sacred truth but purveyors of the 'traditions of their fathers,' hamstrung by 'custom' no less than the Lamanites to whom the Nephite narrative typically attaches these derogatory terms (Alma 9:16–17; 17:9,15, 20, 25; 47:17, 23). In sum, The Book of Mormon suggests it is not its own 'whole story'" (Hickman, 449–450).

Yes, Hickman notes a lot, but in his assiduous and expansive noting, did he ever take note of the fact that Ammoron isn't a Lamanite at all, but a renegade Nephite from the Kingmen Party? Evidently not! Ammoron's so-called "primary document" is nothing more nor less than his own attempt to claim a Lamanite heritage he doesn't own in the least sense. I am reminded of the current poseur, Rachel Dolezal, the (now former) NAACP chapter presdient who is about as black as a flag of surrender.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Stargazer

[Nevo]

.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Nevo

[Gray]

Much of what we read concerning those really outstanding miracles in the Bible seem more figurative than literal.  But there are some which are absolutely necessary, and if they're not literally true, then fundamentals are utterly broken.  The most prominent one of these is the Resurrection of Christ.  Lesser in prominence but still vitally important are the miracles of healing, the miracles of feeding, and the miracles of the raising of the dead.  These MUST be literally true.  But the parables do not necessarily have to have described real events. 

 

Why must these be literally true?

 

I am actually not denying that there is a fundamentalist point of view that requires everything in the Bible to be interpreted literally, including creation ex nihilo within six 24-hour days.  There is definitely such a view.  But the Bible does not stand or fall based upon that view, so the fundie POV is irrelevant, except to the fundies. 

 

On the other hand, if the Nephites never actually existed, then Moroni was a fictitious person, and fictitious persons cannot enter the real world (which is why I brought up Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny).  Therefore, if the Nephites never actually existed, then Joseph Smith was lying about the Book of Mormon, and it follows that he was lying about the First Vision as well.  This makes the Church very much a false religion.  Thus the Church lives or dies based on the reality of the Book of Mormon.

 

Lying? That certainly doesn't follow. But it's largely accepted that the story of exodus has no historical basis. At some point someone "made up" the story of Moses. And yet within that sacred literature are important spiritual truths. Whether or not Moses existed has no bearing on them - and I can't see why Nephi's existence should be more important than Moses' to anyone's faith. 

 

It is not fundamentalism to insist that the Book of Mormon describe real events involving real people.  It is utterly necessary. 

 

Actually it is fundamentalism. But from the fundamentalist viewpoint, historicity of ancient scriptures (a contradiction in terms, to be sure) may seem necessary. 

[thesometimesaint]

 

Much of what we read concerning those really outstanding miracles in the Bible seem more figurative than literal.  But there are some which are absolutely necessary, and if they're not literally true, then fundamentals are utterly broken.  The most prominent one of these is the Resurrection of Christ.  Lesser in prominence but still vitally important are the miracles of healing, the miracles of feeding, and the miracles of the raising of the dead.  These MUST be literally true.  But the parables do not necessarily have to have described real events. 

 

Why must these be literally true?

 

I am actually not denying that there is a fundamentalist point of view that requires everything in the Bible to be interpreted literally, including creation ex nihilo within six 24-hour days.  There is definitely such a view.  But the Bible does not stand or fall based upon that view, so the fundie POV is irrelevant, except to the fundies. 

 

On the other hand, if the Nephites never actually existed, then Moroni was a fictitious person, and fictitious persons cannot enter the real world (which is why I brought up Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny).  Therefore, if the Nephites never actually existed, then Joseph Smith was lying about the Book of Mormon, and it follows that he was lying about the First Vision as well.  This makes the Church very much a false religion.  Thus the Church lives or dies based on the reality of the Book of Mormon.

 

Lying? That certainly doesn't follow. But it's largely accepted that the story of exodus has no historical basis. At some point someone "made up" the story of Moses. And yet within that sacred literature are important spiritual truths. Whether or not Moses existed has no bearing on them - and I can't see why Nephi's existence should be more important than Moses' to anyone's faith. 

 

It is not fundamentalism to insist that the Book of Mormon describe real events involving real people.  It is utterly necessary. 

 

Actually it is fundamentalism. But from the fundamentalist viewpoint, historicity of ancient scriptures (a contradiction in terms, to be sure) may seem necessary. 

 

 

If the Jews of 2000 years ago didn't exist Christianity is just a collection silly stories.

[Robert F. Smith]

If the Jews of 2000 years ago didn't exist Christianity is just a collection silly stories.

Aside from the fact the legend of a dying & rising god is one of the most ancient myths, one could argue, with René Girard, that the importance of Christianity is not in whether it is ultimately true (that Jesus was the literal Son of God, and that he allowed himself to be killed as an infinite expiation for sin), but rather that Christian literature so effectively unmasks the pagan scapegoat mechanism in which the cultural claptrap of myth, ritual, and taboo originates in a crisis for which the catharsis is a scapegoat.  Naturally, the one to be blamed must be "different," perhaps supernatural, and probably carrying some sort of mimetic signa diaboli, and needing to be killed.

 

Lack of belief in that very Christian teaching has led in recent times to escalating levels of violence by otherwise "civilized" peoples.  See Tobin Siebers, Mirror of Medusa (1983), and Girard, Violence and the Sacred (1977).

[Gray]

If the Jews of 2000 years ago didn't exist Christianity is just a collection silly stories.

 

The stories being silly would have nothing to do with the question of the existence of ancient Hebrews. Do you think the Bible is just a collection of silly stories based on some silly but real events?

Edited June 16, 2015 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

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

it's largely accepted that the story of exodus has no historical basis. At some point someone "made up" the story of Moses. And yet within that sacred literature are important spiritual truths. Whether or not Moses existed has no bearing on them - and I can't see why Nephi's existence should be more important than Moses' to anyone's faith. 

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

Depends on what you mean by "no historical basis."  My own take on the matter finds considerable basis in actual history for the biblical Exodus:   “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu .

[thesometimesaint]

Aside from the fact the legend of a dying & rising god is one of the most ancient myths, one could argue, with René Girard, that the importance of Christianity is not in whether it is ultimately true (that Jesus was the literal Son of God, and that he allowed himself to be killed as an infinite expiation for sin), but rather that Christian literature so effectively unmasks the pagan scapegoat mechanism in which the cultural claptrap of myth, ritual, and taboo originates in a crisis for which the catharsis is a scapegoat.  Naturally, the one to be blamed must be "different," perhaps supernatural, and probably carrying some sort of mimetic signa diaboli, and needing to be killed.

 

Lack of belief in that very Christian teaching has led in recent times to escalating levels of violence by otherwise "civilized" peoples.  See Tobin Siebers, Mirror of Medusa (1983), and Girard, Violence and the Sacred (1977).

 

The Scapegoat model is indeed far older than Christianity, as the world knows it. Though I do believe Adam accepted the Gospel of Christ(To come). Which the philosophies of men have changed(Corrupted) to the Scapegoat model.

 

I don't believe anyone "converted" against their will, by the sword(Violence), is ever really converted.

[thesometimesaint]

The stories being silly would have nothing to do with the question of the existence of ancient Hebrews. Do you think the Bible is just a collection of silly stories based on some silly but real events?

 

Actually it has everything to do with the existence/nonexistence of ancient Hebrews. Founding myths establish a people as distinct from others. Would the absence of evidence for the existence of ancient Troy establish the Greek Gods?

[ProfessrCox]

The Hopewell Indians are the Nephites. There's a guy named Wayne May who talks about this kind of thing. The idea that the Nephites existed in Central America is a heresy. 

[hagoth7]

Hi Professor,

The Hopewell Indians are the Nephites. There's a guy named Wayne May who talks about this kind of thing. The idea that the Nephites existed in Central America is a heresy. 

While I currently favor a North American model, it is quite out of place to call those who disagree heretics, since there is no official Book of Mormon geography in the church.

 

(Or was your comment tongue in cheek?)

Edited June 17, 2015 by hagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

The Hopewell Indians are the Nephites. There's a guy named Wayne May who talks about this kind of thing. The idea that the Nephites existed in Central America is a heresy. 

Prof. John A. Price, an anthropologist at York University in Downsview, Canada (and an erstwhile Mormon), has argued that Joseph Jr used local Indian lore in putting together the substratum of the Book of Mormon story, concluding that the Iroquois were the Lamanites, while the Moundbuilders (= Susquehannocks) were the Nephites whom they destroyed – at least as far as young Joseph's creative imagination was concerned.  See Price,  Indian Historian, 7/3 (Summer 1974):35-40; cf. Price, Native Studies:  American and Canadian Indians (1978); Vernal Holley, Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look (1983), 10, 34, 38.

 

Ake V. strom suggested that Joseph must have had a Lenni-Lenape (Delaware-Algonquian) nanny as a child.  Ake V. Ström, "Red Indian Elements in Early Mormonism," Temenos, V (1969):120-168; cf. Daniel G. Brinton, The Lenape and Their Legends: With the Complete Text and Symbols of the Walam Olum, Brinton's Library of Aboriginal American Literature V (1884/1969).

 

The main problem with such correlations is that no North American tribes ever had writing, math, and a systematic calendar.  None had a large enough population base.

[Stargazer]

Much of what we read concerning those really outstanding miracles in the Bible seem more figurative than literal. But there are some which are absolutely necessary, and if they're not literally true, then fundamentals are utterly broken. The most prominent one of these is the Resurrection of Christ. Lesser in prominence but still vitally important are the miracles of healing, the miracles of feeding, and the miracles of the raising of the dead. These MUST be literally true. But the parables do not necessarily have to have described real events.

Why must these be literally true?

Why must the resurrection of Christ be literally true? You're OK with it being science fiction, then. OK, I guess I see where you're coming from.

And I guess I know now what a "Progressive Mormon" is.

[Kenngo1969]

The Hopewell Indians are the Nephites. There's a guy named Wayne May who talks about this kind of thing. The idea that the Nephites existed in Central America is a heresy. 

I'm always suitably impressed (read, "not at all") by folks who come on here without waiting beyond choosing a screen name to trumpet their academic credentials, presumably expecting that readers will be so awed by those credentials that they will defer to the holder of the credentials (whatever the subject, whether within or outside the holder's (conveniently unstated) area of expertise).  So ...

 

Thanks fer playin'!

 

Oh, by the way: welcome to the Board.

 

P.S.: Perhaps I should get in on the game by listing my own credentials in my screen name?

Edited June 17, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[churchistrue]

But in another sense, and the one which is more important, we are treated to the information that the particular Isaiah material chosen by Nephi was of special value, in comparison to the rest (otherwise, why would he have quoted it?).  If I were to make an extensive study of Isaiah, I would pay particular attention to those parts which Nephi quoted.

Has anyone figured out what is so special about those Isaiah chapters Nephi quoted?  I've yet to figure it out.  Nephi didn't really clarify.  Modern prophets and apostles don't appear to understand why, either.