BoM as metaphor

[VideoGameJunkie]

Excuse my French, but the BOM better damn well be historical because I've spent my whole life defending that it is and would hate to be made a liar.

[VideoGameJunkie]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Jesus appears to lots of people and actively demonstrates his physical nature after the resurrection and making a big deal about how important it is that they know he lives again in a physical body and it is recorded in the founding scriptures of the faith. Most Christian faiths believe he is incorporeal.

Joseph gets literal plates and shows them to people in both religious and mundane circumstances. An angel testifies that they are authentic. Mormons try to argue it is all metaphor.

I just imagine God banging his (literal) head against the wall wondering if it is possible to convince his children of anything.

Amen! I wonder how Heavenly Father deals with such calmness over things I would be going nuts over. I'd be like "Come on kids, get it together!"

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Jesus appears to lots of people and actively demonstrates his physical nature after the resurrection and making a big deal about how important it is that they know he lives again in a physical body and it is recorded in the founding scriptures of the faith. Most Christian faiths believe he is incorporeal.

Joseph gets literal plates and shows them to people in both religious and mundane circumstances. An angel testifies that they are authentic. Mormons try to argue it is all metaphor.

I just imagine God banging his (literal) head against the wall wondering if it is possible to convince his children of anything.

Nah.

He had it all figured out when he set up Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. 

Heck, he had done it all himself eternities and eternities before.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, volgadon said:

Elder Nelson, not Oaks.

Nelson where?  smac was referring originally to Elder Oaks' chapter in the Paul Hoskisson volume on Historicity.

[Robert F. Smith]

46 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Excuse my French, but the BOM better damn well be historical because I've spent my whole life defending that it is and would hate to be made a liar.

The BofM has all sorts of concrete historical features which give it the ring of truth, but not all scholars are in agreement on that.  The same strictures apply to the Bible.  What others might think on such matters should not be of too much concern to you, as long as your defenses of the Book of Mormon are well-based or authentic.  A liar is someone who knowingly bears false witness.

[smac97]

Robert,

> As professor Rust has pointed out, the Book of Mormon is a metaphor.  It does not claim to be a metaphor.

==With respect, I am not sure you are accurately representing Professor Rust (and my previous post did not address his views).  My previous post pertains to the historicity of The Book of Mormon.  My comment about The Book of Mormon not claiming to be a metaphor pertains to the issue of historicity.  So it would be fine to characterize the Iron Rod in Lehi's dream as a "metaphor".  It is intended to be taken as such.  But I utterly reject the notion that Lehi is a metaphor (that is, a symbolic figure rather than a historical, flesh-and-bone one).

> You go on at great, unnecessary length, smac, making arguments which are quite beside the point.

==Oh, I don't know about that.  This board frequently discusses the topic of The Book of Mormon as "Inspired Fiction", that it lacks historicity, that the people described in it are fictional rather than actual people having once existed or lived in the real world.  Dan Peterson's article, linked in the OP, starts out by saying that "one way of explaining the Book of Mormon, if Joseph Smith’s own explanation is rejected, is to regard it as merely the product of Joseph’s subjective imagination".  So when Gray comes along and utterly discounts the relevance of historicity, ("the question of its historicity has nothing to do with its value as scripture. It's pretty irrelevant..."), I responded with a number of thoughts and arguments which directly relate to the issue of historicity as raised by Dan Peterson's article, by Gray, and by various posters in previous threads.  And I quoted a number of General Authorities who have likewise been rather emphatic about the importance of "historicity" (the concept if not the term).

==So I think comments and arguments about historicity are quite on point.

> B. H. Roberts did not hesitate to invite secular scholarship to examine the Book of Mormon in every way possible.  

==Yes.  And your point is . . . what, exactly?  That I think "secular scholarship" should not be used?  Where did you get that idea?  And what does that have to do with my comments/arguments about the historicity of The Book of Mormon?

> There is nothing wrong with that, nor with any unwelcome conclusions which they might reach.  

==Are you suggesting that Latter-day Saints are bound to accept "unwelcome conclusions" stemming from "secular scholarship" about The Book of Mormon?  If so, I disagree.  Secular scholarship is helpful, of course, but it is not the principal means whereby God wants us to evaluate The Book of Mormon.  Moroni's Promise does not say "And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you to to rely on secular scholarship as the primary and ultimate means of discerning whether these things are true".  Rather, the Promise says . . . something else.  

==We have been commanded to "study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people" (D&C 80:15).  But I don't think we are obligated to uncritically accept the conclusions of secular scholars about The Book of Mormon.  I think you are I very likely agree on this point, and are perhaps simply not understanding each other well.

==I am not an intellectual luddite.  Neither, I think, is Dan Peterson.  To the contrary, Peterson's point is that the "historical evidence" described in his article undermines ("seems lethal to") arguments that The Book of Mormon is fictional ("the product of Joseph’s subjective imagination").  I was agreeing with, and expounding upon, that idea.

==In a later post Gray remarks that "if the BOM really is ancient, there is little chance of it being an accurate history".  I would submit that there's quite a bit of wiggle room in the phrase "accurate history".  The Book of Mormon authors may have had some cultural biases against the Lamanites.  They may have overrepresented the numbers of combatants in wars and conflicts.  They may have left out important (from a "secular scholarship" standpoint) details.  So I am quite willing to concede that the text of The Book of Mormon is not a purely objective, clinical recitation of historical fact.  But that is a far, far cry from saying that it is not historical at all, that it is "inspired fiction", that Lehi and has descendants never existed, that the events described in the text never occurred at all, that there were no histories compiled by Mormon's forbearers, that there was no abridgment of those histories, that there were no Gold Plates, that there was no Angel Moroni, that Joseph Smith either fabricated the plates or was duped by specious artifacts, that the Three Witnesses either lied or were collectively deceived when they testified that an angel descended from heaven and showed them the plates and that the voice of God commanded them to testify to that effect, and on and on and on.

> Roberts insisted that they have a right to do their secular inquiry.  He knew that the book would hold up under the most searching critical examination.

==I was not referring in my previous post to B.H. Roberts, or "secular scholarship", nor did I suggest that scholars do not "have a right to do their secular inquiry".

> You appear to have confused history with historicity.  

==Not really.  I said: "I do not think that 'belief in The Book of Mormon as history' is important in and of itself. It is an abridgment. It is probably not free of cultural bias. It is missing all sorts of important pieces of 'history'. Most of all, it is not intended to be a history book as much as a religious book.  However, I think the underlying issue is about historicity, that the events in the text actually, really happened (even though they may not be perfectly and accurately recorded in all respects). Some folks want to propagate the idea that The Book of Mormon can be a work of fiction, a fabrication, that there never was an actual person named Lehi, or that he and his family migrated to the Americas, etc."

==I think I have a fairly firm grasp of the distinction between "history" ("the branch of knowledge dealing with past events") and "historicity" (defined as "historical authenticity" or "the quality of being part of history as opposed to being a historical myth, legend, or fiction").

> In his recent book, Traditions of the Fathers (Kofford, 2015), Brant Gardner uses the subtitle The Book of Mormon as History.  By that subtitle, Gardner does not mean that the Book of Mormon is a piece of professional historiography, but rather that he examines its historicity.  He uses all the secular learning at his command to critically examine the BofM, including some revisionist understanding of parts of it.

==I have not commented on The Book of Mormon as "a piece of professional historiography".  I agree that it is not that.  My comments pertained to "historicity".  And I'm glad that Brant Gardner has used his "secular learning" to examine that issue.

> You cite religious educators to the effect that it is crucial to have faith in a real Jesus, one who was in fact baptized and resurrected from the dead, without however telling them that we have no secular evidence that Jesus was baptized nor that he was resurrected.

==First, it appears you are attempting to disparage prophets and apostles by characterizing them as merely "religious educators".  That's weird, as I have quite a bit of respect for "religious educators" who are extremely knowledgeable about The Book of Mormon (Brant Gardner would fit this label well).  But Gordon B. Hinckley, Ezra T. Benson, Dallin H. Oaks and the rest are much more than merely "religious educators".

==Second, I readily admit that my position is that "it is crucial to have faith in a real Jesus".  That is the position of the LDS Church and its leaders from Joseph Smith on down.

==Third, I found it rather unnecessary to state that "we have no secular evidence that Jesus was baptized".  Most participants of this board do not need to be told such things.

==Fourth, the Biblical narrative constitutes "evidence", but probably not sufficient to constitute "secular" expectations.  But so what?  Since when are Latter-day Saints required to believe or not believe a given precept based on the presence or absence of "secular evidence"?  Who set that standard?  

> You come down hard on fictional and real characters who may preach another Gospel, without bothering to reflect on the power of their lives, and certainly missing the point which Joseph Smith himself saw in other religions (he thought that we could accept truth regardless of the source).

==I do nothing of the sort.  I said this: "So can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Him as nothing more than an admirable but fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save."  I do not disparage fictional characters like Atticus Finch and Gandalf when I state that they have no power to atone for or save us, or that Jesus Christ (if reduced to a merely fictional character rather than an actual being who really was the Son of God who was born of Mary and grew up and preached His gospel and then was crucified and resurrected and ascended to heaven) likewise has no power to atone for or save us.

> Thus, figures as powerful as Gandhi and Mother Teresa appeal to us precisely because they are so authentic.

==First, I was speaking of fictional characters (Atticus Finch and Gandalf), not historical ones.

==Second, even historical figures like Gandhi and Mother Teresa (both of whom I admire) are, at best, only role models.  They have, as I said, "no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save".

==Third, my point pertained to those who want to fictionalize Jesus Christ, to turn him into an admirable-but-fictional role model like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. My point was that a fictional Jesus Christ does not work.  If He was just an ancient Jew with some nice things to say about loving one's neighbor, then I can take or leave His counsel.  I can accept Him as simply a role model, but nothing more.  I can choose other paths other than following and obeying Him.  A fictional Jesus is an unimportant Jesus.  In contrast, an authentic, actual Jesus who was what He claimed to be is a vital and life-saving and salvation-giving Jesus.  

==Fourth, my previous remarks about the relative values of a fictional Jesus versus an authentic Jesus were intended to correlate to the current discussion of The Book of Mormon and what value, if any, it has if it is fictional.  My position is that a fictional Book of Mormon is deeply problematic.  Such a concept renders Joseph Smith a fraud and a liar, and the book itself a fraud and a lie. A fictional Book of Mormon has no real power, and renders it as nothing more than a quirky self-help book. It becomes no more relevant to the salvation of men than Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins or How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. These are useful books, to be sure. For some, they are even life changing.  But they are not "essential" at all.  Plenty of people get by just fine without them.  All of us will end up in the Kingdom of God, or not, without any regard to these books.  But The Book of Mormon has - by its own terms - more ambitious plans. Consider the Title Page from an I'm-rejecting-the-historicity-of-this-book point of view.  Under the "Inspired Fiction" there was no Mormon, hence no plates or ancestors like Nephi and Lehi.  Hence no abridgment of these records. Hence no Gold Plates. Joseph Smith lied about these plates ever existing. Or he fabricated them and then actively deceived eleven eyewitnesses with faux relics.  The Book of Mormon, if fictional, becomes a fraud and a lie.  That is why I reject the "Inspired Fiction" concept rather vigorously.

> Their lives have real meaning.

==I agree.  But their lives have "no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save".  Nor does mine.  Nor does yours.  There is only one life that has yielded an infinite atonement, and that is the life of Jesus Christ.  But that is only true if Jesus Christ was an actual, not a figurative/literal, Savior and Son of God.  Faith in Jesus Christ while rejecting His divinity is empty and ultimately meaningless (unless, of course, it is a temporary interim step on the way toward faith in Him as the Son of God).  

==As a corollary, faith in The Book of Mormon while rejecting its central claims about itself, rejecting Joseph Smith's claims about it, and rejecting the claims of Joseph's successors about it, is also empty and meaningless (unless, I suppose, it is a temporary interim step toward faith in The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be).  

> Just so, fictional characters can have a powerful appeal as well.

=="A powerful appeal", yes.  But "power to atone, power to forgive, power to save"?  Nope.

> You need to think more broadly and expansively about these matters, smac.

==I think you did not give much consideration to my remarks, as you appear to have significantly misunderstood them.  I have many flaws, but failing to think "broadly and expansively" about The Book of Mormon is not one of them.

> We Mormons need the open-eyed courage of B. H. Roberts, and the tenacious learning of Hugh Nibley.  Nothing less.

==I have not said anything suggesting that we should not follow the examples of these men.  But if you are implicitly suggesting that "the open eyed courage of B.H. Roberts" and "the tenacious learning of Hugh Nibley" somehow led these men to conclude that The Book of Mormon is a fictional narrative, then I think you seriously misrepresent their legacies.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 5, 2015 by smac97

[volgadon]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nelson where?  smac was referring originally to Elder Oaks' chapter in the Paul Hoskisson volume on Historicity.

Oh, never mind then. I was thinking of Elder Nelson's conference talk a few years ago.

[Gervin]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The BofM has all sorts of concrete historical features which give it the ring of truth, but not all scholars are in agreement on that.  The same strictures apply to the Bible.  

False parallel.

Only people who first believe in the Book of Mormon can see all sorts of historical features which give it the ring of truth.

People who believe in the teachings of the Bible [Old Testament, NT, variations] may also see all sorts of historical features which give it the ring of truth ... but so also do people who who have no religious affiliation to the Bible. 

All non-Mormon scholars are in agreement that the Book if not a history.

 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

At least Elder Oaks understands that the Book of Mormon is not a history book, and it was not meant as such.  Many readers get confused when told that Gen 1 - 3 is not history, but rather symbolic ritual which is set in a temple -- this from non-Mormon scholars who look closely at such things (like Tom Wright).  Mormons tend to flail about tilting at windmills, as though in defense of the faith.  There is a better way.

The Bible documents a lot of everything, but not any one type of thing defines the nature of the entire collection. It may be historical “enough” for some and not for others. The history of Jews is backed up (or not!) in other secular documents and research, but there are Jews today, and their identity came from actual people and formative events. The Book of Mormon hasn’t this advantage (of congruent sources) because it is part of a restoration of that which was lost to Jewish history. But if the Bible is to be used to point out that the Book of Mormon is just as made up as the Bible, it can also be used to point out that the Book of Mormon is just as historical as the Bible.

Conversations like these remind me of Elder Holland’s connecting an actual Creation, Eden and Adam to an actual Atonement. Maybe his is a different kind of history, or he isn’t a historian, but wherever the idea of an actual Creation, Eden and Adam came from constitutes a witness that these things happened in the flesh—and in prehistory! And without understanding them as actual events, the actual Atonement is not well understood.

Of course the Book of Mormon is very different from the Bible in many ways, and these peculiarities may offer additional clues to its degree of historicity independent of conclusions that it is pretty much like the Bible.

Something that keeps popping up for me (in addition to the consistency with which the Book of Mormon was referred to as a history from 1823 – 1827) is the matter of “cause and effect” and “feedback loops” in the way history plays out. If one looks at history as a science (there’s a good book about this, and there is probably updated support for it by now, “Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" by Jared Diamond), the conditions and events of the past formulate the present and the present formulates the future. The theory goes that history is based in history even when it hasn’t happened yet, and so it can be forecast.

My religious take on that idea is that prophets can apply this science with divine help (don’t we all get help with our temporal pursuits from the Holy Ghost?); prophecy is nothing more than bearing witness of a future effect arising from past and present circumstances. Some of the Book of Mormon prophecies about the post-1830 future of its people have been fulfilled; they are history from our frame of reference, and so indicate that the incipient and instigating sources of these completed events were also historical. Events yet to be effected by past causes are only as historical as those leading to them.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Gervin said:

False parallel.

Only people who first believe in the Book of Mormon can see all sorts of historical features which give it the ring of truth.

People who believe in the teachings of the Bible [Old Testament, NT, variations] may also see all sorts of historical features which give it the ring of truth ... but so also do people who who have no religious affiliation to the Bible. 

All non-Mormon scholars are in agreement that the Book if not a history.

 

A great many false statements here, Gervin, which suggests that our previous discussions have had no impact on your mind or memory.  Each of your false statements here has been refuted in the past, yet you are making your usual formulaic comments -- instead of engaging in discourse on the subject in a serious way.  Why?  Is it cognitive dissonance which drives you to deny what you have read here (with full documentation)?  Do you fear real dialogue (frank exchange of authentic views)?

The literature is rife with notorious Bible difficulties, anachronisms, aporias, and problems.  Many more than can be found in the Book of Mormon.  You appear to be completely unfamiliar with that literature.

Belief in the Book of Mormon is not required for seeing authentic historical items in it, and the opinions expressed by non-Mormon scholars such as Margaret Barker demonstrate the falsehood of your claim that "all non-Mormon scholars are in agreement that the Book is not a history."  Again, you are completely unfamilar with the literature on that subject.  Explanations vary, of course, Dan Vogel opting for Joseph having been familiar with a tremendous amount of otherwise unavailable information (which Bill Hamblin snidely attributes to Joseph's "Harvard years").  The Bible has the advantage of long transmission, instead of preposterous recent discovery, so is assumed to contain references to historical figures the same way the Iliad and Odyssey contain valid historical references.  Both believers and non-believers accept those historical references, but disagree on the miracles.

Real world archeology is the great arbiter in such matters, even though you have buried your head in the sand out of fear that the Book of Mormon is scientifically verifiable.

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, Gervin said:

False parallel.

Only people who first believe in the Book of Mormon can see all sorts of historical features which give it the ring of truth.

People who believe in the teachings of the Bible [Old Testament, NT, variations] may also see all sorts of historical features which give it the ring of truth ... but so also do people who who have no religious affiliation to the Bible. 

All non-Mormon scholars are in agreement that the Book if not a history.

 

IF this was true, how is this relevant to the discussion?

Yes Jerusalem exists today and it is mentioned in the Bible.  "Zarahemla" perhaps has been "discovered" perhaps not. There are many other such instances.  So what?  There are cities, with unknown names, right where they are supposed to be, according to certain interpretations.

If you actually have read the thread you would understand that it is about why "history" as you are using the term is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is sad to think that some people may actually think that because Jerusalem exists, they must be "saved" by the person "Jesus" because both words occur in the Bible, therefore the entire bible is proven "true" including its religious content.

Such people need training in critical thinking skills so that they understand the meaning of "faith".

Edited December 5, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Gervin]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

IF this was true, how is this relevant to the discussion?

You'll have to ask Robert Smith; he was making the distinction.  He provided a false parallel.  If you think I'm wrong feel free to contribute with something cogent.

Quote

 

Yes Jerusalem exists today and it is mentioned in the Bible.  "Zarahemla" perhaps has been "discovered" perhaps not. There are many other such instances.  So what?  There are cities, with unknown names, right where they are supposed to be, according to certain interpretations.

If you actually have read the thread you would understand that it is about why "history" as you are using the term is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is sad to think that some people may actually think that because Jerusalem exists, they must be "saved" by the person "Jesus" because both words occur in the Bible, therefore the entire bible is proven "true" including its religious content.

Such people need training in critical thinking skills so that they understand the meaning of "faith".

Not sure who you're trying to insult here, but if it's me then you've failed; you honestly don't make a lick of sense.  

Quote

It is sad to think that some people may actually think that because Jerusalem exists, they must be "saved" by the person "Jesus" because both words occur in the Bible, therefore the entire bible is proven "true" including its religious content

Who actually believes or teaches this?  CFR.

[Gervin]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A great many false statements here, Gervin, which suggests that our previous discussions have had no impact on your mind or memory.  Each of your false statements here has been refuted in the past, yet you are making your usual formulaic comments -- instead of engaging in discourse on the subject in a serious way.  Why?  Is it cognitive dissonance which drives you to deny what you have read here (with full documentation)?  Do you fear real dialogue (frank exchange of authentic views)?

The literature is rife with notorious Bible difficulties, anachronisms, aporias, and problems.  Many more than can be found in the Book of Mormon.  You appear to be completely unfamiliar with that literature.

Belief in the Book of Mormon is not required for seeing authentic historical items in it, and the opinions expressed by non-Mormon scholars such as Margaret Barker demonstrate the falsehood of your claim that "all non-Mormon scholars are in agreement that the Book is not a history."  Again, you are completely unfamilar with the literature on that subject.  Explanations vary, of course, Dan Vogel opting for Joseph having been familiar with a tremendous amount of otherwise unavailable information (which Bill Hamblin snidely attributes to Joseph's "Harvard years").  The Bible has the advantage of long transmission, instead of preposterous recent discovery, so is assumed to contain references to historical figures the same way the Iliad and Odyssey contain valid historical references.  Both believers and non-believers accept those historical references, but disagree on the miracles.

Real world archeology is the great arbiter in such matters, even though you have buried your head in the sand out of fear that the Book of Mormon is scientifically verifiable.

Why you don't you provide a quote that proves my premise wrong rather than your vagaries and insults?  My guess is that you're presenting your best defense.

[RevTestament]

12 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Excuse my French, but the BOM better damn well be historical because I've spent my whole life defending that it is and would hate to be made a liar.

While I am finding many things which are quite literal and "historical," I also know that it sometimes speaks in allegory, etc. Visions of a vineyard, or great and spacious building and the like are obviously metaphorical. The "dark skin" also seems to be metaphorical. 

I have been somewhat surprised to find how many things really were quite literal tho. For instance there really were Elephants in the Americas until quite recently - not just mammoths. I believe some of these things will now fall in favor of the veracity of the Book of Mormon rather than being points of ridicule of the critics.

[volgadon]

someone please find Ziklag for me.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Gervin said:

Why you don't you provide a quote that proves my premise wrong rather than your vagaries and insults?  My guess is that you're presenting your best defense.

Again you show yourself uninterested in serious discussion, and deliberately ignore the fact that you have been given full documentation in the past.  Do I need to put together a special "Gervin repeat file" for you?  So that I can trot it out each time you make such blatantly false claims?

Is that the level of discourse you are capable of, and no other?  Really?!

I'd prefer to see you grapple with reality, regardless of your conclusions, pro or con.  That's what makes a worthwhile exchange.  If you are sincerely interested in such a conversation, read my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, Aug 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf , or read Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Kofford, 2015), in which he brings his secular anthropological scholarship to bear.

Meantime, here is that quote from Margaret Barker which you have seen before re the Book of Mormon:

Quote

“This revelation to Joseph Smith is the ancient wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE.”

in her “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” paper delivered in 2005, at Library of Congress in Washington, DC., published in J. Welch, ed., The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress (Provo: BYU Press, 2006), 69-82.

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

While I am finding many things which are quite literal and "historical," I also know that it sometimes speaks in allegory, etc. Visions of a vineyard, or great and spacious building and the like are obviously metaphorical. The "dark skin" also seems to be metaphorical. 

I have been somewhat surprised to find how many things really were quite literal tho. For instance there really were Elephants in the Americas until quite recently - not just mammoths. I believe some of these things will now fall in favor of the veracity of the Book of Mormon rather than being points of ridicule of the critics.

CFR on Elephants in the Americas within BoM time.  I would really like to see a credible reference on this.

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, sunstoned said:

CFR on Elephants in the Americas within BoM time.  I would really like to see a credible reference on this.

Not sure what Rev Testament has in mind, but mammoths, mastodons, Indian elephants, and African elephants are all merely subspecies of the elephantidae family, most of whom are extinct.  There were once many megafauna in the Americas, most of them becoming extinct after the arrival of humans.  When did the last mammoths become extinct?  We find skeletal remains dated to 5,725 bp (= 3,750 B.C.) on St Paul Island, Alaska,* and to 1,650 B.C. on Wrangel Island, Russia.**  See generally, Claudine Cohen, The Fate of the Mammoths: Fossils, Myth, and History, trans. W. Rodarmor (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2002). 

However, “DNA Shows That Last Woolly Mammoths Had North American Roots,” ScienceDaily, Sep 5, 2008, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145058.htm , which says: 
“In a surprising reversal of conventional wisdom, a DNA-based study has revealed that the last of the woolly mammoths—which lived between 40,000 and 4,000 years ago—had roots that were exclusively North American,” i.e., as late as 2,000 B.C., which is well within Book of Mormon times (see the Sept 2008 issue of Current Biology).

“Mammoths Hung On Longer? Late-Surviving Megafauna Exposed by Ancient DNA in Frozen Soil,” ScienceDaily, Dec 15, 2009, online at  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091214151946.htm . 
Extinct woolly mammoths and ancient American horses may have been grazing the North American steppe for several thousand years longer than previously thought, i.e., near Stevens Village, situated on the bank of the Yukon River, we find sedimentary DNA (sedaDNA) indicating that "mammoth and horse populations would have dwindled to a few hundred individuals by 8,000 years ago" (= 6,000 BC).  Thus, we do not know when the last elephantidae went extinct in the Americas, but it must have been quite late.

*  https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_2/j24_2_6-7.pdf .

**  http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/woolly-mammoths/story?id=15648648 .

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Damien the Leper]

On 12/4/2015 11:11:01, halconero said:

My views on the historicity of the Book of Mormon aside, I think it would be interesting to analyze the 'literalist' paradigm with regards to scripture. This is the notion that  it's true or not, that the reality of it matters, etc etc.

Such a paradigm is actually rather recent in Christian memory, and only began with the rise of Evangelicalism in North America (well...one could make an argument that Reformation-era Protestants were proto-literalists). There is a far older paradigm in the Christian tradition which doesn't require such strenuous requirements. Developed by the Early Church Fathers and gathered by Augustine, early Christians used reason and love as standards against which they measured the literalness of scripture. To put it simply, August said that if a scripture coincided with the standards of rationality and Christlike love it was literal. If it did not it was figurative and symbolic.

There might be something useful in studying the scriptures with such a mindset from time to time.

Marcus Borg discusses this in his book, "Reading the Bible Again he First Time". 

[Tony Frank]

The Book of Mormon was written for our time and every word of it is true.

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure what Rev Testament has in mind, but mammoths, mastodons, Indian elephants, and African elephants are all merely subspecies of the elephantidae family, most of whom are extinct.  There were once many megafauna in the Americas, most of them becoming extinct after the arrival of humans.  When did the last mammoths become extinct?  We find skeletal remains dated to 5,725 bp (= 3,750 B.C.) on St Paul Island, Alaska,* and to 1,650 B.C. on Wrangel Island, Russia.  See generally, Claudine Cohen, The Fate of the Mammoths: Fossils, Myth, and History, trans. W. Rodarmor (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2002). 

However, “DNA Shows That Last Woolly Mammoths Had North American Roots,” ScienceDaily, Sep 5, 2008, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145058.htm , which says: 
“In a surprising reversal of conventional wisdom, a DNA-based study has revealed that the last of the woolly mammoths—which lived between 40,000 and 4,000 years ago—had roots that were exclusively North American,” i.e., as late as 2,000 B.C., which is well within Book of Mormon times (see the Sept 2008 issue of Current Biology).

“Mammoths Hung On Longer? Late-Surviving Megafauna Exposed by Ancient DNA in Frozen Soil,” ScienceDaily, Dec 15, 2009, online at  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091214151946.htm . 
Extinct woolly mammoths and ancient American horses may have been grazing the North American steppe for several thousand years longer than previously thought, i.e., near Stevens Village, situated on the bank of the Yukon River, we find sedimentary DNA (sedaDNA) indicating that "mammoth and horse populations would have dwindled to a few hundred individuals by 8,000 years ago" (= 6,000 BC).  Thus, we do not know when the last elephantidae went extinct in the Americas, but it must have been quite late.

*  https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_2/j24_2_6-7.pdf .

**  http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/woolly-mammoths/story?id=15648648 .

 

Thanks for providing this information Robert.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/5/2015, 8:37:44, smac97 said:

Robert,

> As professor Rust has pointed out, the Book of Mormon is a metaphor.  It does not claim to be a metaphor.

==With respect, I am not sure you are accurately representing Professor Rust (and my previous post did not address his views). ................................

.......==I have not said anything suggesting that we should not follow the examples of these men.  But if you are implicitly suggesting that "the open eyed courage of B.H. Roberts" and "the tenacious learning of Hugh Nibley" somehow led these men to conclude that The Book of Mormon is a fictional narrative, then I think you seriously misrepresent their legacies.

Thanks,

-Smac

On Friday at 3:08 pm, in this thread, I said the following, with which you seem to disagree, without any foundation:

Richard Rust says that the Book of Mormon is a metaphor, i.e., "The Book of Mormon is itself a tree of life--a work of beauty and purity, with its words to be feasted upon."  Rust, Feasting on the Word (FARMS/Deseret Book, 1997), 4.

Indeed, on p. 121-122, Rust quotes Alma 5:34-35,

Quote

34 Yea, he saith: Come unto me and ye shall partake of the fruit of the tree of life; yea, ye shall eat and drink of the bread and the waters of life freely;
35 Yea, come unto me and bring forth works of righteousness, and ye shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire—
36 For behold, the time is at hand that whosoever bringeth forth not good fruit, or whosoever doeth not the works of righteousness, the same have cause to wail and mourn.

Aside from that mistake (you need to read Rust), once again you have gone on at far too great a length, and actually accomplished nothing for it, except to repeat yourself.

It may be, at the same time, that I am responsible for you completely misunderstanding me, but your inability to adequately understand the life's work of Roberts and Nibley is a real problem.  It seems to me that you grievously miss the point, but that might just be fiction . . .  

[Bernard Gui]

On December 4, 2015 at 8:51:52 AM, stemelbow said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865642903/Literally-hard-facts-at-the-beginning-of-Mormonism.html

I think Dan makes some good points here.  But I question the all or nothing approach--meaning if the plates were tangible and were ancient that means the story Joseph dictated was that which was found on the plates.  Sadly all the effort concerning the BoA and papyri seem to suggest it's possible the plates might not have contained the BoM story as we have it.  Or if they did, perhaps in our hands the story is much different than from the perspective of the Nephites, which could have been different from those who remained after Moroni, if ever they could have seen the writings.  I would suggest it's possible the BoM is authentically scripture and yet much of it originated in Joseph's conception, or spiritual imaginings.  Perhaps there was a Nephi and Alma, and perhaps in their language their names were so different from Nephi and Alma.  Perhaps Nephi did come with his family from Jerusalem to "the new world".  But perhaps there's more metaphor in the story of their travels than history.  I think it possible. 

 

Why not?

As my grampa used to say, "If we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs, but we don't have any eggs."

 

[RevTestament]

23 hours ago, sunstoned said:

CFR on Elephants in the Americas within BoM time.  I would really like to see a credible reference on this.

There are lots although I don't think there is an actual fossil dated quite as late as 2500 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomphothere  Gomphotheres were a 4 tusked type of elephant - one was about the size of a mastodon or even bigger. This is probably the curelom of the BOM.

Wiki says there was one fossil in Colombia of a Stegomastodon dating to about 4000 BC which is pretty darn close to 2500 BC or the time of the Jaredites. It has also been proven in the fossil record that a species can live on for thousands of years after the last known fossil of the creature in an area. For instance the soil in Alaska shows horse DNA in layers dating thousands of years later and above the last fossil of a horse found in the Alaskan soils. I also saw a scientific journal of a site in New Mexico or perhaps Mexico which had a Clovis point in a Mastodon rib. I think the problem for the elephants was that there is not as much savannah habitat in the tropic zone for them in the Americas as there is in Asia - and obviously man was hunting them.

[stemelbow]

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2015‎ ‎4‎:‎25‎:‎21‎, Nevo said:

For what it's worth, Marc Zvi Brettler, in his book, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, surveys various definitions of "history" (including Halpern's) and then offers the following thoughts:

Undoubtedly, the Book of Mormon is "a narrative that presents a past" and, speaking for myself, I can readily assent that the waters of Mormon are no less real than the waters of Noah. So count me in the Book of Mormon-as-history camp

That's pretty interesting.  But the question remains, must the existence of the plates, the testimony of them, require us to view the story as history rather than metaphor?  I tend to think a believer can have either view.  I'm not sure the reason we demand that all believers must accept it as history, type of thinking.