The State of the Evidence

[Rajah Manchou]

13 hours ago, Nevo said:

The "Hebrews" of the title, of course, refer to the American Indians. The review goes on to explain that the book's fourth chapter "is a commentary on the 18th chapter of Isaiah, which the writer supposes is an address to the American nation, calling upon them . . . to go as swift messengers to assist with their ships in gathering the dispersed of Judah and the outcasts of Israel, and bringing them up as a present to the Lord of Hosts to Mount Zion; and connecting, as is usual in the prophets, the return of the Jews and the introduction of the Millennium" (149). The review also mentions a curious Native tradition: "They tell you that Yohewah once chose their nation from all the rest of mankind, to be his peculiar people. That a book which God gave, was once theirs; and then things went well with them. But other people got it from them, and then they fell under the displeasure of the Great Spirit; but that they shall, at some time, regain it" (147).

Then there's the interesting fact that Samuel L. Mitchill—yes, that Samuel L. Mitchill—"believed that both North and South America had been formerly populated fundamentally by two great races, not only the 'hyperborean or inhabitants of the north,' but also the 'australasian, or inhabitants of the south." ... "Thus a scientific belief in warring ancient American peoples, some from the north, others from the Polynesian islands, wherein the former exterminated the latter in a series of great battles in upstate New York, was very much in vogue among many respected observers at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon" (Richard E. Bennett, "'A Nation Now Extinct,' American Indian Origin Theories as of 1820: Samuel L. Mitchill, Martin Harris, and the New York Theory," Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 20, no. 2 [2011]: 42, 47).

Worth mentioning?

I fell down this rabbit hole about a year ago. Still trying to crawl out. Here's the short version in case anyone else might be interested.

In 1806, a Scottish missionary named Claudius Buchanan travelled to India and wrote extensively about the ancient Jewish groups he found there. He gathered the oral histories of both the "White Jews" of Craganore and the "Black Jews" of Cochin, described the records that they buried in the ground, and mentioned the brass plates that they had preserved. All this was written up in a number of publications, including one based on a sermon he delivered in 1809 called "The Star of the East". This sermon became very popular in New England, and inspired Elias Boudinot to write a similar book in 1816 called "The Star in the West, or a Humble Attempt to the Long Lost Ten Tribes of Israel", wherein we find some of the first published 19th-century references to the native Americans being descended from the lost tribes and the legends of copper plates and lost books. Richard Bennet names Boudinot as an influence on Ethan Smith.

Around the same time that The Star in the East was making the rounds in New England, Dr. John Smith (cousin to Joseph Smith's grandfather) was teaching Hebrew and other oriental languages at Dartmouth. He was also responsible for writing the curriculum at Dartmouth, which included his ideas that the native Americans were descendants of two groups: Phoenicians and NE Asians. Both Ethan Smith and Solomon Spaulding were students at Dartmouth and most likely were familiar with Dr. Smith's ideas. Around the same time Dr. Mitchill started lecturing about his theories that native Americans are descendants of darker skinned Malays in the south and the fair-skinned Tartars in the north. According to Mitchill, the Malays are responsible for the mounds found throughout North America, and also were the ancestors of the Aztecs. Mitchill claimed that the Malays and Tartars battled it out in upstate New York. Bennet summarizes Mitchill's theory as follows:

1.   that three races of Malays, Tartars, and Scandinavians contributed to make up the American population;
2.   that the Tartars eventually overwhelmed and destroyed the other two races over a fairly long period of time; and finally
3.   that the final battles of extermination were fought in upstate western New York not too far south of Lake Ontario.

There are also some interesting parallels between the formation of the American Baptist mission to India and Burma by a group that included Levi Spaulding (Solomon's nephew and Hyrum's classmate at Dartmouth) and the formation of the Mormon Church in upstate New York. I believe many of these similarities are a result of pulling inspiration from Christianity, Masonry and Buchanan's tracts on the Jews of India. One relic of this relationship can be found in the oral histories of 90% of the hilltribes of Southeast Asia about a lost golden book that they will, at some time, regain when their younger brother(s) return from the west.

The Malay BOM model may seem ridiculous at first glance, but the Malay/Tartars were without a doubt a topic of discussion during the formative years of the early church.




 

Edited July 9, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[jkwilliams]

It might also be worth mentioning that the concept of secret combinations doesn't derive from the Biblical world but was a rather hot topic at the time the Book of Mormon emerged. See, for example, the usage of the term over time. 

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=secret+combination&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Csecret combination%3B%2Cc0

[rongo]

It's interesting to think about how the Book of Mormon translation, temple ceremony, etc. might have been different if it had been restored instead in Africa, say, or Finland. I think there are lots of different cultural items that could have been drawn upon to couch and frame the concepts and ideas while adhering to the narrative. 

In other words, using Finland as an example, perhaps the Kalevala would have had an effect similar to the effect of freemasonry, or other artifacts of Joseph Smith's milieu of upstate New York in the early 19th century. That Joseph Smith's environment informed his translation is to be expected, I think.

Edited July 9, 2016 by rongo

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's interesting to think about how the Book of Mormon translation, temple ceremony, etc. might have been different if it had been restored instead in Africa, say, or Finland. I think there are lots of different cultural items that could have been drawn upon to couch and frame the concepts and ideas while adhering to the narrative. 

In other words, using Finland as an example, perhaps the Kalevala would have had an effect similar to the effect of freemasonry, or other artifacts of Joseph Smith's milieu of upstate New York in the early 19th century. That Joseph Smith's environment informed his translation is to be expected, I think.

The problem is that major plot lines in the narrative derive from Joseph Smith's milieu. If it were just informing the translation, it wouldn't be an issue. 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

The problem is that major plot lines in the narrative derive from Joseph Smith's milieu. If it were just informing the translation, it wouldn't be an issue. 

Please give an example of what you are talking about along with your thoughts of how that was done.

I can see some of Mormon's own thoughts added to what he translated from some prophets before him, putting things into context of his own days, so maybe it's just not an issue for me to see some of Joseph's own thoughts in what he translated as well.  Like Joseph's use of the word adieu, for example, which neither Mormon or any previous prophet used.

[Kevin Christensen]

17 hours ago, Nevo said:

Kevin,

Sorry for the delay, but I'm just now getting around to responding to your post here. It's a bit long so I'll divide it into two parts.
 

Sure there are differences. Joseph was a bricoleur. He wasn’t simply copying the Bible, he was (to use Hardy’s phrase) creatively adapting it—reinterpreting and expanding it (with midrashic abandon at times).
 

By "this sort of thing," I take it that you mean that I should consider that Joseph Smith may have actually been the Messiah ben Joseph/Ephraim of ancient tradition. Leaving aside for the moment whether we should expect an apocalyptic figure from the Second Temple Period to correspond to a historical person and whether Joseph Smith really was an Ephraimite, I have to say that I don’t really see it. The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, perhaps one of the earliest sources to describe this figure, "mentions in passing that the Messiah ben Ephraim is a descendant of Joshua and that he will defeat Gog and Magog at the end of time." R. Dosa says that he will be killed. "The rabbis add that the Messiah ben David, when he sees that the Messiah ben Joseph has been killed, asks God to spare him this fate, and God grants his request" (see Peter Shäfer, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012], 236–237). Joseph Smith, you will recall, was assassinated in jail in 1844. And let’s be honest: Joseph Smith embedding prophecies of himself in the Book of Mormon (and again in his translation of the Bible) is convenient. Joseph thought of himself as a prophet and wanted others to see him that way too. 
 

I’ve never heard or seen anyone make that claim, not on my mission and not since. I certainly haven’t made it. But I take Robert’s point. Joseph Smith could easily have gotten the idea from Job or any number of other places. People have described death in similar terms in widely different times and places.
 

I’ve also spent some time looking at anti-Universalist rhetoric as well and I happen to think that the case for anti-Universalist rhetoric in the Book of Mormon is quite strong. 

A central tenet of Universalist belief was that "God, whose nature is Love . . . will finally restore the whole family of mankind to holiness and happiness." That’s was exactly the doctrine that Alma was trying to refute in his speech to Corianton in Alma 41: "Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness . . . O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just . . . therefore, the word restoration more fully condemneth the sinner, and justifieth him not at all" (Alma 41:10-13, 15; emphasis added). As Grant Underwood has observed, Alma’s admonition would have struck nineteenth-century readers as a "particularly pointed" reference to Universalism, "in light of the Universalist slogan about the restoration of all to 'holiness' and 'happiness'" ("The Earliest Reference Guides to the Book of Mormon: Windows into the Past," Journal of Mormon History 12 [1985]: 78).

Alma then addresses Corianton’s concern about God’s justice in punishing sinners—a misgiving we don't encounter anywhere in the Bible: "And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind . . . concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery" (Alma 42:1). This was a question of crucial importance to the Universalism debate: how can God as a loving and merciful Parent condemn any of his children to endless misery? Alma’s response follows the traditional orthodox position. Adam and Eve became subject to death in order that "a time [might be] granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time" (Alma 42:4). However, because man had brought upon himself his fallen state by his own disobedience, "according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state . . . for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God. . . . Do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit" (Alma 42:12–13, 25). 

Compare this to the pulpit rhetoric against Universalism, which emphasized this life as a "state of probation" as a corrective to Universalist claims that one might still repent after death. John Cleaveland declared in 1776, for example, that "the time of life here on earth is our probation-time for eternity." Cyrus Mann’s 1818 pamphlet, The Future Punishment of the Wicked Certain and Endless, averred that "throughout the whole bible, the present is represented as our only state of probation." A sermon published in a New York Methodist periodical in 1823 lays particular emphasis on this idea: "The present is a probationary state for the kingdom of heaven. The future is a state of retribution . . . none can be saved in the future state who are not prepared for the kingdom of heaven in this."

Alma’s discussion of God’s justice and mercy in Alma 42 also resembled nineteenth-century orthodox treatments. In an 1822 sermon attacking Universalism, Timothy Merritt, a Methodist minister, argued that "if mankind are under the law of God, there must, in the very nature of things, be a penalty for the breach of the law . . . If we incur the penalty of the law by transgression, that penalty must be executed either on us or on our substitute. If on us, then no favor is shown us; but if on our substitute, the way is opened, and mercy may be extended to us." Christ’s suffering for us, in our stead, "[gave] exercise to that mercy and grace which otherwise would have been prevented by the unsatisfied demands of the law upon us." Thus, "the atonement was not made to render God merciful to us, but to satisfy the claims which his justice had against us as transgressors, and open the way by which he might extend mercy to us consistently with his character as Lawgiver and Judge." 

The idea that God’s mercy cannot destroy his justice or he would cease to be God (Alma 42:13, 22, 25) is also echoed in orthodox writings. An article appearing in the Utica Christian Magazine in 1813, for example, argued that "God’s justice is essential to his nature; therefore, God can no more disregard his justice in his conduct toward his creatures, than he can deny his own name, or destroy his moral perfection. If God had saved sinners from threatened and deserved punishment without an atonement, he would have sacrificed his justice, and have ruined his character and government." Or as Cyrus Mann put it: "Future punishment . . . is as certain to the finally impenitent, as that God is possessed of justice, or as certain as the existence of God." Josiah Priest argued along similar lines in 1826: "If God’s attributes are essential to his nature, and if God is just, [can] a being necessarily just, suspend his justice? . . . If mercy can overcome justice, what is become of Omnipotence by which justice is supported? And if it cannot, how can man be rescued from impending woe without an atonement."

The Bible, it should be noted, contains no language about this life being a "state of probation" or mercy "satisfying" God's justice or God ceasing to be God if he were to deny his justice. But all of these themes figured in anti-Universalist sermons in western New York in the 1820s. The 1820s saw a massive increase in Universalists, and Methodists and others correspondingly stepped up their attacks. The historian Whitney Cross, in his classic study of the "Burned-Over District," notes that Universalism "developed rapidly . . . with the increased tide of hill-country New Englanders who migrated in the years following 1815," so that "by 1823, there were nearly ninety Universalist congregations in western New York alone." Although, anti-Universalist hostilities weren't unique to western New York, Cross writes, "they were unique in intensity, in the same proportion that revivalism and the benevolent operations concentrated in this region" (The Burned-Over District: The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800–1850 [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1950], 18, 43–45).

There is no rush in this sort of thing.  I've often seen the benefit of taking several years to mull things over and watch for further developments.

A few points about the environmental approach.  The way that God could have ensured that no one would or could develop environmental arguments against the Book of Mormon would be to have Joseph Smith produce a book that was irrelevant and incomprehensible, and therefore without significant parallel.  But as irrelevant and incomprehensible,.. what does it do for, or to, the readers?

Another key point to me remains Nibley's case from his 1953 essay on the methods of the Renaissance Scholars developed over long experience in dealing with purportedly ancient manuscripts.

Quote

To begin with, says Blass, “We have the document, and the name of its author; we must begin our examination by assuming that the author indicated really wrote it.” You always begin by assuming that a text is genuine. 4 What critic of the Book of Mormon has ever done that? One can hear the screams of protest: “How unscientific! How naive! How hopelessly biased!” Yet to the experience of the centuries Blass adds perfectly convincing reasons for his shocking rule. It is equally biased to accept or reject a text at first glance, but still one must assume at the outset that it is either spurious or genuine if one is to make any progress.

...

Thus, while we can never prove absolutely that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, we are justified at the outset in assuming that it is what it claims to be. If one assumes that it is true, its features at least become testable.

Whoever refuses to accept the original claim of a document’s origin “is under obligation,” says Blass, “to supply in its place a credible explanation” of its origin. 

...

But how can we be certain about anything in criticizing the Book of Mormon? To this Blass gives us the answer: the nearest we can get to certainty, he says, is when we have before us a long, historicaldocument, for it is “improbable in the highest degree, and therefore to be regarded at all times as inadmissible that any forger coming later [than the pretended date of authorship] can have the knowledge and diligence necessary to present any quantity of historical data without running into contradictions.” In this, the one sure way of detecting a falsifier, according to our guide, is by those things which he cannot well have succeeded in imitating because they were too trifling, too inconspicuous, and too troublesome to reproduce.⁹

In Lehi in the Desert we said: The test of an historical document lies, as we have so often insisted, not in the story it tells, but in the casual details that only an eyewitness can have seen.¹⁰ It is in such incidental and inconspicuous details that the Book of Mormon shines. Blass, then, notes that when these details occur in considerable numbers (as they certainly do in the Book of Mormon), we can confidently assume a genuine text; and, above all, when the large numbers of details fit together and prove each other, we have the strongest proof of all, for difficulties increase not mathematically with the length of a document, but geometrically.¹

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1112&index=5

In The Grab Bag, Nibley noted that wide range of contradictory interpretations of the Book of Mormon fell from the reading background of the readers.  

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1112&index=8

And in Paradigms Crossed, I explored various parallels to Universalism:

Quote

Universalism was not a phenomenon confined to Joseph Smith’s time. Vogel does notify the reader that the notion of universal salvation has had a long history, and that some of the key figures in the modern movement based their teachings in part on writings they found in Origen and 1 Clement (both of whom spent a lot of their days in the library).¹⁵⁶ The Universalists and their critics were biblically oriented people who debated Bible issues in a vernacular heavily influenced by Bible language. Bible language is, in turn, heavily formulaic, with authors widely separated in time freely quoting and paraphrasing each other. The Bible is, among other things, a history of people saying the kinds of things people say, and doing the kinds of things people do. Because of this, even after thousands of years, even across many cultural gaps, we find many of the stories comprehensible and relevant.

For example, in introducing the reader to rhetorical criticism, Vogel quotes Leland Griffen on the “crystallization of fundamental issues . . . [and] a time, very likely, when invention runs dry, when both aggressor and defendant rhetoricians tend to repeat their stock of argument and appeal” (pp. 22-23). Nibley’s essays on the Sophic and Mantic should serve as powerful notice of just how far back certain stock arguments can go and how constant they can remain.¹⁵⁷

Vogel cites “Nephi’s characterization of a latter-day group with the motto, “eat, drink, and be merry’ (p. 29) as typical anti-Universalist rhetoric,” and in this case Vogel includes references to 1 Kings 4:20; Ecclesiastes 8:15; Isaiah 22:13; Luke 12:19; and 1 Corinthians 15:32. The attitude is an ancient one (I believe it appears in Gilgamesh),¹⁵⁸ but Vogel nevertheless wants us to see it as a distinctive feature of Universalists as perceived by their opponents during Joseph Smith’s time.

Vogel reminds us that even the earliest Latter-day Saint commentaries on the Book of Mormon called Nehor a Universalist, “likening” what they saw to themselves. Yet nothing that Nehor does in the Book of Mormon would seem unusual to Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, all of whom vent considerable anger against rival teachers, particularly those who preached for profit.

I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of the evildoers that none doth return from his wickedness. . . .

They say still unto them that despise me, The Lord hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you. (Jeremiah 23:14, 17; cf. Isaiah 1; Jeremiah 7:8-9; 11:8; 18:8-12, 20; 21:8, 14; Ezekiel 7:3; 11:21; 13:22; 18:21-32).

Likewise, little or nothing in Corianton’s arguments and behavior seems out of place in his immediate Hebrew heritage. The story of Eli’s sons reported in 1 Samuel 2:22-25 provides a good example

There is more, for those curious (I have other things to do this afternoon). But the main point is that the test that Blass proposes is actually a far more rigorous test of the Book of Mormon than is just claiming a 19th Century Origin.  The degree of fit against an alien background, including against sources and settings for which neither Joseph Smith, nor, say Alexander Campbell, a fellow restorationist, had any access.

For instance, Robert Smith's essays on the "land of no return" essay show that not just Job is an equally good source as Hamlet, but the whole discourse, not just a single line, fits the ancient world.  I've long thought of the essay as an excellent demonstration of how "better" actually should be argued.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

 

[James Tunney]

On 7/8/2016 at 5:18 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

So, you are saying, for instance, that the information in my little Meridian essay on King Benjamin's discourse provides evidence that should lead me to believe that the Book of Mormon is best explained as as 19th century fiction, whether an inspired fiction or pious or impious fraud?  If that is the "best" explanation of the evidence I provide and cite, how, I wonder, are you measuring best?

I've repeatedly cited Kuhn on how paradigms are best valued comparatively in how each generates testable puzzles, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness (that is, leading to insight and observation that otherwise, from a rival paradigm, would have been overlooked), simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise towards guiding research on open problems.

In Paradigms Crossed I referred to Metcalfe's essay in New Approaches

And I've been linking my Meridan essay that goes into more detail:

http://ldsmag.com/article-1-1644/

I notice that Grant Palmer in An Insider's View of Mormon Origins cited the same four step pattern, without attribution, and did not bother to cite any of the studies that Metcalfe did.  It is certainly legitimate for him to argue for a 19th century origin, and claim Joseph Smith was influenced by a speech by an outgoing minister, but since I have numerous studies he does not mention, and likely did not even consider, I have to consider which overall  explanation is better.

As another good example, take Coe's explanation of the Book of Mormon for the PBS interview.

At this point, I expect that the reason that some people are having a hard time dealing with Kuhn has less to do with the explanations and examples I have provided and more to do with Positions on the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth.

For a helpful survey of the 9 Positions, see http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22100469/Perry Scheme.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Kuhn and Perry seem to work equally well with a transition out of the mormon paradigm to a "better" non-authority controlled paradigm.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, Nevo said:

I’m not arguing that View of the Hebrews “accounts for” the Book of Mormon. The two books are quite different and it’s entirely possible that Joseph and Oliver never saw a copy of View of the Hebrews. But the similarities are worth considering. Take, for example, the opening line of a review of View of the Hebrews that appeared in the Utica Christian Repository newspaper in May 1825: "Every thing relating to the Hebrews demands the attention of the Christian world. The signs of the times, as well as the predictions of the prophets, seem to indicate their speedy restoration. Those branches which have so long been broken off for their unbelief, are about to be grafted into their own olive tree again" (143). The "Hebrews" of the title, of course, refer to the American Indians. The review goes on to explain that the book's fourth chapter "is a commentary on the 18th chapter of Isaiah, which the writer supposes is an address to the American nation, calling upon them . . . to go as swift messengers to assist with their ships in gathering the dispersed of Judah and the outcasts of Israel, and bringing them up as a present to the Lord of Hosts to Mount Zion; and connecting, as is usual in the prophets, the return of the Jews and the introduction of the Millennium" (149). The review also mentions a curious Native tradition: "They tell you that Yohewah once chose their nation from all the rest of mankind, to be his peculiar people. That a book which God gave, was once theirs; and then things went well with them. But other people got it from them, and then they fell under the displeasure of the Great Spirit; but that they shall, at some time, regain it" (147).

Then there's the interesting fact that Samuel L. Mitchill—yes, that Samuel L. Mitchill—"believed that both North and South America had been formerly populated fundamentally by two great races, not only the 'hyperborean or inhabitants of the north,' but also the 'australasian, or inhabitants of the south." The northern, more warlike, race (Mitchill believed they were Tartars) eventually destroyed the more civilized southern race, the "final battles of extermination [being] fought in upstate New York not too far south of Lake Ontario." New York Governor DeWitt Clinton was another prominent advocate of this "New York theory." This, as I'm sure you already know, is all spelled out in some detail in Richard Bennett's JBMORS article. Bennett concludes: "Thus a scientific belief in warring ancient American peoples, some from the north, others from the Polynesian islands, wherein the former exterminated the latter in a series of great battles in upstate New York, was very much in vogue among many respected observers at the time of the publication of the Book of Mormon" (Richard E. Bennett, "'A Nation Now Extinct,' American Indian Origin Theories as of 1820: Samuel L. Mitchill, Martin Harris, and the New York Theory," Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 20, no. 2 [2011]: 42, 47).

Worth mentioning?

Certainly worth mentioning, Nevo (thanks for parts 1 & 2), while understanding that there is nothing new here -- only that many are unaware of it.  However, I recommend going still further, in order to acknowledge that restorationism had been a constant theme in America since the arrival of the Puritans (who strongly hoped for it), and millenarianism was another powerful theme in Joseph's day.  Impossible to ignore those influences.

In addition, Prof. John A. Price, an anthropologist at York University in Downsview, Canada (and an erstwhile Mormon), had long ago 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.  Price in Indian Historian, 7/3 (Summer 1974):35-40.

Edited July 10, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Rajah Manchou]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

However, I recommend going still further, in order to acknowledge that restorationism had been a constant theme in America since the arrival of the Puritans (who strongly hoped for it), and millenarianism was another powerful theme in Joseph's day.  Impossible to ignore those influences.

A uniquely nationalist form of restoration millenarianism, with the role of Native Americans at the heart of the discussion.

"In 1816, Elias Boudinot published A Star in the West, in which he claimed that the American Indians were the lost tribes of Israel. Boudinot saw the relationship between American Protestants and Native Americans as integral to the advent of the millennium. Rational calculations, he wrote, indicated that “these are the latter times” and that “the last times of the scriptures” were approaching “with rapid strides.” He also argued that in order to make good with God, the Native Americans must returned “to their own land and the ancient city…the city of Zion,” or Jerusalem...Boudinot intended A Star in the West to initiate the American-led millennium. As soon as the implications of the fact that the Native Americans were the lost tribes of Israel became clear..."

The Origins of American Religious Nationalism
 

Edited July 10, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Kevin Christensen]

20 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Kuhn and Perry seem to work equally well with a transition out of the mormon paradigm to a "better" non-authority controlled paradigm.

It's in paying close attention to how a person argues "better" that the difference between assertion and demonstration becomes clear.  

All paradigms involve authorities.  Even a paradigm that there is no authority must be based on some standard example from which the proponents of that paradigm argue.  "There are no authorities," he proclaimed authoritatively, and therefore silencing all subsequent dissent.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[James Tunney]

54 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

It's in paying close attention to how a person argues "better" that the difference between assertion and demonstration becomes clear.  

All paradigms involve authorities.  Even a paradigm that there is no authority must be based on some standard example from which the proponents of that paradigm argue.  "There are no authorities," he proclaimed authoritatively, and therefore silencing all subsequent dissent.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

You're correct in that it is hard to escape authority.  There certainly needs to be an organizational head.  However, power can be diffused among those at the top and those not, and a little more democracy in ideas and power seems to be a good thing.  One needs critics in order to flesh out strengths and weaknesses in ideas.  Changing local leadership seems to have worked.  Granting emeritus status to the Q12/FP might help in avoiding mistakes that men make?

Now, about defining "better" in terms of Kuhn, how does one get away from a predetermined conclusion?  It seems that taking the evidence as it is, trying to avoid bias through peer review or some other mechanism, and putting in as many safeguards as necessary in order to reach an unbiased conclusion or as close to it as possible, that this is the paradigm to find "truth."  Sure one needs to look at the evidence from many different angles, but that can be taken to the absurd.  At a certain point the evidence is what it is and paradigm shift seems to be used in order to avoid or discount certain anomalies that under Kuhn should lead to a conclusion against historicity.  Could you ever define "best" in a way that discounts historicity or proves historicity false?  Shouldn't the "best" paradigm be independent of whatever conclusion is reached?   

[sunstoned]

On 7/9/2016 at 11:43 AM, jkwilliams said:

It might also be worth mentioning that the concept of secret combinations doesn't derive from the Biblical world but was a rather hot topic at the time the Book of Mormon emerged. See, for example, the usage of the term over time. 

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=secret+combination&year_start=1500&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Csecret combination%3B%2Cc0

Thanks for the like John. This is interesting.  It seems the term was very popular around the time that JS was a young man.

[Kevin Christensen]

And there are things like Welch on the distinction in Jewish Law concerning Theft and Robbery:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2839&index=106

Daniel Peterson's study of the Gadianton Robbers as Guerilla Warriors:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1108&index=9

And Brant Gardner's case of a specific Mesoamerican Correlation.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2002-fair-conference/2002-the-gadianton-robbers-in-mormons-theological-history-their-structural-role-and-plausible-identification

NIbley, in The Grab Bag wrote:

Quote

The Book of Mormon critics have made an art of explaining a very big whole by a very small part. The game is to look for some mysterious person or document from which Joseph Smith might have got the few simple and obvious ideas and then cry triumphantly, “At last we have it! Now we know where the Book of Mormon came from!”

“If someone will only show me how to draw a circle,” cries the youthful Joseph Smith, “I will make you a fine Swiss watch!” So Joachim or Anselm or Ethan Smith or Rabelais or somebody takes a stick and draws a circle in the sand, and forthwith the adroit and wily Joseph turns out a beautifully running mechanism that tells perfect time!

This is not an exaggeration. The Book of Mormon in structure and design is every bit as complicated, involved, and ingenious as the works of a Swiss watch, and withal just as smoothly running. With no model to follow and no instruction of any kind (Where was the model? Who could instruct?), the writer of that book brought together thousands of ideas and events and knit them together in a most marvelous unity. Yet the critics like to think they have explained the Book of Mormon completely if they can just discover where Joseph Smith might have got one of his ideas or expressions!

This sort of thing shows me the just how correct Nibey was, in 1953, to argue that the best way to test the claims of the Book of Mormon is against the context that it claims for itself, to see whether it contains interwoven details that make the most sense as an eye-witness account.  A sole focus on 19th century parallels contains no build-in check on whether or not such parallels might arise in authentic account, and no check on whether a 19th century focus simply fails to notice significant information on the grounds that is it unparalleled in Joseph Smith's context. And no check on the implications of translation factors.

For instance, in the discussion of the Restoration theme in Alma's discussion with Corianton, we get comparison's to Universalist debates, but not of Alma as NDE experiencer, where restoration is conspicuous in accounts of the Life Review,

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1382&index=2

nor of the aspects of Jewish Passover themes.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=56

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

 

  

Edited July 12, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[jkwilliams]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Thanks for the like John. This is interesting.  It seems the term was very popular around the time that JS was a young man.

Earlier in the thread, someone suggested that it was just unsupported assertion to believe that the Book of Mormon is pretty much what you would expect to see coming out of Joseph Smith's frontier American environment. Obviously, that's not the case, as the broad story lines, as well as the details, dovetail quite nicely with 1830 American mythology and religion. What some apologists seem to be doing is trying to divert attention away by pointing out tenuous parallels, such as the alleged presence of Hebrew feasts in King Benjamin's address (of course, which feast it is depends on the apologist). It's sort of like someone finding a menu from a Chinese restaurant and claiming it's an ancient Egyptian religious document. You point out the Chinese characters, the names of the dishes, and the prices, and they will point to a grease stain and say, "That looks exactly like Anubis! Explain that!"

Edited July 11, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Kevin Christensen]

On 7/10/2016 at 3:55 PM, James Tunney said:

You're correct in that it is hard to escape authority.  There certainly needs to be an organizational head.  However, power can be diffused among those at the top and those not, and a little more democracy in ideas and power seems to be a good thing.  One needs critics in order to flesh out strengths and weaknesses in ideas.  Changing local leadership seems to have worked.  Granting emeritus status to the Q12/FP might help in avoiding mistakes that men make?

Now, about defining "better" in terms of Kuhn, how does one get away from a predetermined conclusion?  It seems that taking the evidence as it is, trying to avoid bias through peer review or some other mechanism, and putting in as many safeguards as necessary in order to reach an unbiased conclusion or as close to it as possible, that this is the paradigm to find "truth."  Sure one needs to look at the evidence from many different angles, but that can be taken to the absurd.  At a certain point the evidence is what it is and paradigm shift seems to be used in order to avoid or discount certain anomalies that under Kuhn should lead to a conclusion against historicity.  Could you ever define "best" in a way that discounts historicity or proves historicity false?  Shouldn't the "best" paradigm be independent of whatever conclusion is reached?   

You're moving to abstract ideology and insinuations about bias, prejudice and such on my side, without addressing the specific details that I and others bring up.  I have been through peer review for publication, and not just in LDS journals, but an an essay published through Oxford University Press.  It is absurd to suggest that the kinds of details my little essay points out regarding King Benjamin's speech, the ritual context, the literary forms, the physical setting, Mesoamerican context, and the power and relevance ought to be accounted for by those arguing for a 19th century composition?   Margaret Barker wrote her first seven books having "NO IDEA" that what she was doing had relevance for Mormon studies. 

You say:

Quote

At a certain point the evidence is what it is and paradigm shift seems to be used in order to avoid or discount certain anomalies that under Kuhn should lead to a conclusion against historicity.

That's what David Wright thought in his essay about the Melchizedek material.   He thought he was being honest, bold, courageous, following the evidence where it led.  But his evidence, like everyone else's evidence, demonstrated selectivity, subjectivity, contextualization, and was subject to revision due to the arrival of unforeseen information, like that contained in Barker's The Older Testament.  It's why Hugh Nibley and Matt Roper have been interested in "Howlers in the Book of Mormon" and "Boomerang Hits", where evidence that had been taken as final and telling turns out to have the opposite significance in light of further information.  This is why Kuhn says: 

Quote

There are, I think, only two alternatives: either no scientific theory ever confronts a counterinstance, or all such theories confront counterinstances at all times.⁷⁸

To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted.⁷⁹

If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all theories ought to be rejected at all times.⁸⁰

Most anomalies are resolved by normal means; most proposals for new theories do prove to be wrong. If all members of a community responded to each anomaly as a source of crisis or embraced each new theory advanced by a colleague, science would cease. If, on the other hand, no one reacted to anomalies or to brand-new theories in high-risk ways, there would be few or no revolutions. In matters like these the resort to shared values rather than shared rules governing individual choice may be the community’s way of distributing risk and assuring the long-term success of its enterprise.⁸¹

During periods of normal science, the object is to “solve a puzzle for whose very existence the validity of the paradigm must be assumed. Failure to achieve a solution discredits only the scientist and not the theory.”⁸²

Since the business of science is to solve puzzles that have not yet been solved and all science and scholarship confront problems that have not yet been solved, a general application of Vogel’s attitude that “one negative evidence” suffices would demand the rejection of all science and scholarship. Vogel’s empiricism overlooks the following points:

1. Theory influences observation. “The procedures for making observations, and the language in which data are reported” are “theory-laden.”⁸³ For example, when Vogel offers up nineteenth-century descriptions of Native American fortifications, he sees them as direct evidence of his position rather than as data that any theory should acknowledge and explain. He ignores the issue of whether such descriptions would be present in an authentic text because of a combination of a common stimulus (similar fortifications being present in Book of Mormon times) and translator vocabulary. His theories permeate the language in which he reports his data. For example, Vogel claims that “Lehi’s blessing on his sons speaks of preserving America for his posterity and that the land would not be ‘overrun’ by other nations until after his seed should ‘dwindle in unbelief’ (2 Ne. 1[:10]).”⁸⁴ The word America does not appear in the Book of Mormon, but Vogel’s interpretive language remedies the lack.
2. Theories are assessed and replaced by alternatives rather than falsified. “The empiricists,” Barbour explains, “had claimed that even though a theory cannot be verified by its agreement with data, it can be falsified by disagreement with data. [Note that this is Vogel’s express position!] But critics showed that discordant data alone have seldom been taken to falsify an accepted theory in the absence of an alternative theory; instead, auxiliary assumptions have been modified, or the discrepancies have been set aside as anomalies.”⁸⁵ Barbour demonstrates that in practice, theories are neither verified, nor falsified, but assessed by a variety of criteria. “Comprehensive theories are indeed resistant to falsification, but that observation does exert some control over theory; an accumulation of anomalies cannot be ignored indefinitely.”⁸⁶

So, how much control do we grant to any particular observation and interpretation? In practice, this relates both to how an investigator chooses to value that particular observation and to how it rests within a network of theories and observations.⁸

There is no escape from either ideology, or faith.   Even those who can't seem to drum up faith in the absence of absolute proof, are demonstrating a naive faith in positivism, which, as Mark observes, is dead, a headstone on a beach.  We all suppose that our conclusions are best in light of our present knowledge.  But what happens when we remove the beams from our own eyes, and take the time to nurture the seed?  And placing a seed on a rock and pounding it with a hammer shouting, "Grow.., produce, I am hungry now" is not a particularly productive method of nurture.   I've been waiting for an explanation of King Benjamin's discourse that best accounts for what I see in it.  I have noticed that Grant Palmer doesn't even try. And so he fails to account for many details I think are important, and does not measure up to "best."

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

 

Edited July 26, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
word

[jkwilliams]

54 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

You're moving to abstract ideology and insinuations about bias, prejudice and such on my side, without addressing the specific details that I and others bring up.  I have been through peer review for publication, and not just in LDS journals, but an an essay published through Oxford University Press.  It is absurd to suggest that the kinds of details my little essay points out regarding King Benjamin's speech, the ritual context, the literary forms, the physical setting, Mesoamerican context, and the power and relevance ought to be accounted for by those arguing for a 19th century composition?   Margaret Barker wrote her first seven books having "NO IDEA" that what she was doing had relevance for Mormon studies. 

You say:

That's what David Wright thought in his essay about the Melchizedek material.   He thought he was being honest, bold, courageous, following the evidence where it led.  But his evidence, like everyone else's evidence, demonstrated selectivity, subjectivity, contextualization, and was subject to revision due to the arrival of unforeseen information, like that contained in Barker's The Older Testament.  It's why Hugh Nibley and Matt Roper have been interested in "Howlers in the Book of Mormon" and "Boomerang Hits", where evidence that had been taken as final and telling turns out to have the opposite significance in light of further information.  This is why Kuhn says: 

There is no escape from either ideology, or faith.   Even those who can't seem to drum up faith in the absence of absolute proof, are demonstrating a naive faith in positivism, which, as Mark observes, is dead, a headstone on a beach.  We all suppose that our conclusions are best in light of our present knowledge.  But what happens when we remove the beams from our own eyes, and take the time to nurture the seed?  And placing a seed on a rock and pounding it with a hammer shouting, "Grow.., produce, I am hungry now" is not a particularly productive method of nurture.   I've waiting for an explanation of King Benjamin's discourse that best accounts for what I see in it.  I have noticed that Grant Palmer doesn't even try. And so he fails to account for many details I think are important, and does not measure up to "best."

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

 

I don't see anyone looking for "absolute proof." The problem I have with your use of paradigms is that you seem to be doing what Kuhn warned against in using your paradigm to reach a specific goal: 

Quote

 

It is now time to notice that until the last very few pages the term ‘truth’ had entered this essay only in a quotation from Francis Bacon. And even in those pages it entered only as a source for the scientist’s conviction that incompatible rules for doing science cannot coexist except during revolutions when the profession’s main task is to eliminate all sets but one. The developmental process described in this essay has been a process of evolution from primitive beginnings—a process whose successive stages are characterized by an increasingly detailed and refined understanding of nature. But nothing that has “been or will be said" makes it a process of evolution toward anything. Inevitably that lacuna will have disturbed many readers. We are all deeply accustomed to seeing science as the one enterprise that draws constantly nearer to some goal set by nature in advance. 

But need there be any such goal? Can we not account for both science’s existence and its success in terms of evolution from the community’s state of knowledge at any given time? Does it really help to imagine that there is some one full, objective, true account of nature and that the proper measure of scientific achievement is the extent to which it brings us closer to that ultimate goal? If we can learn to substitute evolution-from-what-we-do-know for evolution-toward-what-we-wish-to-know, a number of vexing problems may vanish in the process.

 

It seems to me you are using Kuhn to assert that every paradigm is hopelessly biased and, therefore, your approach to the Book of Mormon is no more or less biased than anyone else's. Where you are open to the evidence supporting your end goal (validation of Book of Mormon historicity), people like Michael Coe and David Wright are closed-minded because they are wedded to a paradigm that doesn't include angels and gold plates. But again, Kuhn is pretty clear that paradigm shift happens because even the most closed-minded eventually acknowledge that the current paradigm doesn't account for everything that is observed. Kuhn suggests that two conditions must be met before a particular paradigm overtakes the previous one:

Quote

First, the new candidate must seem to resolve some outstanding and generally recognized problem that can be met in no other way. Second, the new paradigm must promise to preserve a relatively large part of the concrete problem-solving ability that has accrued to science through its predecessors.

The paradigm I see from apologists meets the second condition in that it uses the language and procedures of scientific inquiry, but where it falls down is in the first: it doesn't resolve an outstanding problem, generally recognized or not, that can be met in no other way.

Note, finally, that Kuhn defines "truth" only in the sense of " the scientist’s conviction that incompatible rules for doing science cannot coexist except during revolutions when the profession’s main task is to eliminate all sets but one." You dismiss the work of Coe and Wright as naive positivism (and you've accused me of it, as well, but that's neither here nor there). I do not know about you, but I am not looking for "some one full, objective, true account of nature," nor do I believe science (or religion, for that matter) provides that account. I am dubious of your paradigm not because I don't believe in angels or God (I actually do believe in those) but because it doesn't fulfill the most basic requirement of a valid paradigm: it must solve identifiable problems that are not accounted for by the prevailing paradigm.

Edited July 11, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Kevin Christensen]

34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't see anyone looking for "absolute proof." The problem I have with your use of paradigms is that you seem to be doing what Kuhn warned against in using your paradigm to reach a specific goal: 

It seems to me you are using Kuhn to assert that every paradigm is hopelessly biased and, therefore, your approach to the Book of Mormon is no more or less biased than anyone else's. Where you are open to the evidence supporting your end goal (validation of Book of Mormon historicity), people like Michael Coe and David Wright are closed-minded because they are wedded to a paradigm that doesn't include angels and gold plates. But again, Kuhn is pretty clear that paradigm shift happens because even the most closed-minded eventually acknowledge that the current paradigm doesn't account for everything that is observed. Kuhn suggests that two conditions must be met before a particular paradigm overtakes the previous one:

The paradigm I see from apologists meets the second condition in that it uses the language and procedures of scientific inquiry, but where it falls down is in the first: it doesn't resolve an outstanding problem, generally recognized or not, that can be met in no other way.

Note, finally, that Kuhn defines "truth" only in the sense of " the scientist’s conviction that incompatible rules for doing science cannot coexist except during revolutions when the profession’s main task is to eliminate all sets but one." You dismiss the work of Coe and Wright as naive positivism (and you've accused me of it, as well, but that's neither here nor there). I do not know about you, but I am not looking for "some one full, objective, true account of nature," nor do I believe science (or religion, for that matter) provides that account. I am dubious of your paradigm not because I don't believe in angels or God (I actually do believe in those) but because it doesn't fulfill the most basic requirement of a valid paradigm: it must solve identifiable problems that are not accounted for by the prevailing paradigm.

There is a difference between hopelessly biased and being open about the critical implications of one's bias. That is one of Alan Goff's main themes.  My issue with David Wright on Mechizedek in Alma 13, for instance, is not that he has bias but I do not. We both do.  But I think I can make a good case that his conclusions, methods, and evidence in that case were subverted by information that he did not consider, notably Barker's The Older Testament but also including studies by Welch and Tvedtnes.  The issue with Coe is that while he did actually read the Book of Mormon in the past, he did not read it carefully (as evidenced by his discussion with Dehlin about iron arrowheads, brass helmets, etc. despite their not being mentioned in the Book of Mormon), and his responses over time become more and more out of touch with the actual content of the Book of Mormon and the best LDS scholarship.  And scholarship on things like the Hebrew Goddess, which he did not seem aware of when contrasting the what he supposes to be the exclusively patriarchal and radically monotheistic Hebrews with the Mesoamerican concern for the Great Mother.  And we had Harold Bloom even publishing The American Religion, claiming that the Book of Mormon is about the Lost 10 Tribes, an response to what was in the air Joseph Smith breathed, so certain, so obviously not a generally recognized problem needing a solution, that he didn't bother to read it to make sure that it was about the Lost 10 tribes.  So whose paradigm is "better"?   How do we measure?  What if different communities measure in different ways?  How to make sense of that?

And Kuhn points out "no paradigm" accounts for everything.  And in many cases, he reports the closed minded don't ever accept the new paradigm, but rather die off, while a new generation students find themselves attracted to a rising paradigm that to them seems more promising and accurate and significant.  For individuals, a paradigm shift may be fairly rapid, but for communities, it can often be generational and a matter of shifting demographics.

Kuhn points out that solving problems of a dominant paradigm, notably some outstanding and generally recognized problem. is ONE of the most important values that historically have been pragmatically applied towards resolution, an important one, often the most important, but not the only one, and that there are no rules for applying the criteria.  He does mention that sometimes things like nationalism, and the prestige of teacher matter, things which do not actually signify what is "Best" but rather, what is familiar and/or desirable.  A value-based decision rather than a rule based decision that could coerce everyone to the same conclusion leads to a "distribution of risks" that he says is healthy for science.

The use of values in deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved" means you get to decide for yourself which problems you care more about, and people being social creatures, that means you will find it easiest to communicate with and work among people who agree with you. Just as I find it easier to communicate with people who agree with me.

This also means that I can cite my little essay on a wide range of interesting things about King Benjamin's discourse, or my work on Barker compared to the Book of Mormon, or NDE research and the Book of Mormon, or Welch on a range of topics, or Gardner, or Poulson, or Nibley, of Peterson or Tvedtnes, or Goff, Gee,  or McGuire, or Thomasson, or Bob Smith, or Sorenson, Wright, or Clark or Wirth, and other parties can completely ignore such things without even trying to solve the puzzles they represent for 19th century composition.  Just because neither the puzzles nor the solutions are generally recognized does not mean that they do not exist. If the Hebrew origin of Native American populations was in the air, typically in concert with the Lost 10 tribes, seems sufficient, then disregarding the both the differences with the Book of Mormon (not the lost 10 tribes, and two groups coming away from Jerusalem 100 years later, with implications for the difference that a 700 BCE setting and a 600 BCE setting may or may not make, particularly in light of the increasing attention given to the radical reforms of Josiah and the Deuteronomists), then a high level of abstraction ("the plot") solves the problem both of the Book of Mormon, and the need to address untidy details.   If all you need to know about secret combinations and the Book of Mormon is the Morgan Affair and anti-Masonry in Jacksonian America, and the two English words, "secret" and "combination" then some people are happy and know all they need to know.  But where such people see no problem at all, I see no serious engagement with Welch, Nibley, Peterson, Sorenson, and Gardner.  How to best measure best in such situations?

I have noticed a general trend that LDS scholars, due to the nature of the debates, where we are often the targets in a very public way and must wrestle with the issues that critics see as most decisive.  But critics are much less involved with the best evidence and best thinking of the defenders.  A few things like chiasmus or Nahom get mentioned now and then.  We get something like The New Mormon Challenge at times, but at this remove, it feels more like a one-off hit and run episode, than the start of an ongoing serious engagement.  When I ran across and read The Great Angel in 1999, I ran across something that for me changed everything, not only resolving some questions I had, but also raising questions and I didn't know existed.  And eventually, as I read and read more carefully, many many answers.  My paradigm shifted as an individual, and I shared what I found with a community.  Many people agreed with me.  A few publicly disagreed. And a great many more have no clue and no interest whatsoever.  Which paradigm is best?  Which community's problems and solutions are best?

Most scholars who accept the Deutero Isaiah hypothesis, for instance, don't recognize that Barker's "The Original Setting of the Fourth Servant Song" presents a challenge for at least Isaiah 53 as exilic, whether or not the information she published has been generally recognized.  I recognize it, I think it is outstanding.  But that's just me, my perception, my perspective, weight for my personal choice of paradigms.

Joseph Smith, I notice, started out raising questions that for him were not settled, no matter how settled things may have been for many of his family, his neighbors and teachers.  He set out to find answers to his own questions, and to not let others decide for him, "Which problems are more significant to have solved?"  As a consequence, we have something atypical operating in our community, and not easily explained in detail, though amazingly easy to explain at a high level of abstraction, with a few broad strokes, if you choose to ignore the telling or at least, challenging, details.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[jkwilliams]

20 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

There is a difference between hopelessly biased and being open about the critical implications of one's bias. That is one of Alan Goff's main themes.  My issue with David Wright on Mechizedek in Alma 13, for instance, is not that he has bias but I do not. We both do.  But I think I can make a good case that his conclusions, methods, and evidence in that case were subverted by information that he did not consider, notably Barker's The Older Testament but also including studies by Welch and Tvedtnes.  The issue with Coe is that while he did actually read the Book of Mormon in the past, he did not read it carefully (as evidenced by his discussion with Dehlin about iron arrowheads, brass helmets, etc. despite their not being mentioned in the Book of Mormon), and his responses over time become more and more out of touch with the actual content of the Book of Mormon and the best LDS scholarship.  And scholarship on things like the Hebrew Goddess, which he did not seem aware of when contrasting the what he supposes to be the exclusively patriarchal and radically monotheistic Hebrews with the Mesoamerican concern for the Great Mother.  And we had Harold Bloom even publishing The American Religion, claiming that the Book of Mormon is about the Lost 10 Tribes, an response to what was in the air Joseph Smith breathed, so certain, so obviously not a generally recognized problem needing a solution, that he didn't bother to read it to make sure that it was about the Lost 10 tribes.  So whose paradigm is "better"?   How do we measure?  What if different communities measure in different ways?  How to make sense of that?

And Kuhn points out "no paradigm" accounts for everything.  And in many cases, he reports the closed minded don't ever accept the new paradigm, but rather die off, while a new generation students find themselves attracted to a rising paradigm that to them seems more promising and accurate and significant.  For individuals, a paradigm shift may be fairly rapid, but for communities, it can often be generational and a matter of shifting demographics.

Kuhn points out that solving problems of a dominant paradigm, notably some outstanding and generally recognized problem. is ONE of the most important values that historically have been pragmatically applied towards resolution, an important one, often the most important, but not the only one, and that there are no rules for applying the criteria.  He does mention that sometimes things like nationalism, and the prestige of teacher matter, things which do not actually signify what is "Best" but rather, what is familiar and/or desirable.  A value-based decision rather than a rule based decision that could coerce everyone to the same conclusion leads to a "distribution of risks" that he says is healthy for science.

The use of values in deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved" means you get to decide for yourself which problems you care more about, and people being social creatures, that means you will find it easiest to communicate with and work among people who agree with you. Just as I find it easier to communicate with people who agree with me.

This also means that I can cite my little essay on a wide range of interesting things about King Benjamin's discourse, or my work on Barker compared to the Book of Mormon, or NDE research and the Book of Mormon, or Welch on a range of topics, or Gardner, or Poulson, or Nibley, of Peterson or Tvedtnes, or Goff, Gee,  or McGuire, or Thomasson, or Bob Smith, or Sorenson, Wright, or Clark or Wirth, and other parties can completely ignore such things without even trying to solve the puzzles they represent for 19th century composition.  Just because neither the puzzles nor the solutions are generally recognized does not mean that they do not exist. If the Hebrew origin of Native American populations was in the air, typically in concert with the Lost 10 tribes, seems sufficient, then disregarding the both the differences with the Book of Mormon (not the lost 10 tribes, and two groups coming away from Jerusalem 100 years later, with implications for the difference that a 700 BCE setting and a 600 BCE setting may or may not make, particularly in light of the increasing attention given to the radical reforms of Josiah and the Deuteronomists), then a high level of abstraction ("the plot") solves the problem both of the Book of Mormon, and the need to address untidy details.   If all you need to know about secret combinations and the Book of Mormon is the Morgan Affair and anti-Masonry in Jacksonian America, and the two English words, "secret" and "combination" then some people are happy and know all they need to know.  But where such people see no problem at all, I see no serious engagement with Welch, Nibley, Peterson, Sorenson, and Gardner.  How to best measure best in such situations?

I have noticed a general trend that LDS scholars, due to the nature of the debates, where we are often the targets in a very public way and must wrestle with the issues that critics see as most decisive.  But critics are much less involved with the best evidence and best thinking of the defenders.  A few things like chiasmus or Nahom get mentioned now and then.  We get something like The New Mormon Challenge at times, but at this remove, it feels more like a one-off hit and run episode, than the start of an ongoing serious engagement.  When I ran across and read The Great Angel in 1999, I ran across something that for me changed everything, not only resolving some questions I had, but also raising questions and I didn't know existed.  And eventually, as I read and read more carefully, many many answers.  My paradigm shifted as an individual, and I shared what I found with a community.  Many people agreed with me.  A few publicly disagreed. And a great many more have no clue and no interest whatsoever.  Which paradigm is best?  Which community's problems and solutions are best?

Most scholars who accept the Deutero Isaiah hypothesis, for instance, don't recognize that Barker's "The Original Setting of the Fourth Servant Song" presents a challenge for at least Isaiah 53 as exilic, whether or not the information she published has been generally recognized.  I recognize it, I think it is outstanding.  But that's just me, my perception, my perspective, weight for my personal choice of paradigms.

Joseph Smith, I notice, started out raising questions that for him were not settled, no matter how settled things may have been for many of his family, his neighbors and teachers.  He set out to find answers to his own questions, and to not let others decide for him, "Which problems are more significant to have solved?"  As a consequence, we have something atypical operating in our community, and not easily explained in detail, though amazingly easy to explain at a high level of abstraction, with a few broad strokes, if you choose to ignore the telling or at least, challenging, details.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

So, again, which problems does apologetics solve in a way that no other paradigm can? You said yourself in an earlier post that you realized the evidence wasn't going where you wanted it to go, but rather than "bail," you simply decided that other evidence was more important--not because it solved observable problems but because it got you to the conclusion you wanted. Maybe you really do believe this is simply being more open-minded than everyone else, but it isn't.

ETA: And it goes without saying that David Wright's courage wasn't in dismissing alternative paradigms but in refusing to retract his conclusions because of ideological pressure from his church leaders. I'm not sure what motivates the disdain for David Wright in particular, but it's palpable.

Edited July 11, 2016 by jkwilliams

[morgan.deane]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

And there are things like Welch on the distinction in Jewish Law concerning Theft and Robbery:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2839&index=106

Daniel Peterson's study of the Gadianton Robbers as Guereilla Warriors:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1108&index=9

And Brant Gardner's case of a specific Mesoamerican Correlation.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2002-fair-conference/2002-the-gadianton-robbers-in-mormons-theological-history-their-structural-role-and-plausible-identification

NIbley, in The Grab Bag wrote:

This sort of thing shows me the just how correct Nibey was, in 1953, to argue that the best way to test the claims of the Book of Mormon is against the context that it claims for itself, to see whether it contains interwoven details that make the most sense as an eye-witness account.  A sole focus on 19th century parallels contains no build-in check on whether or not such parallels might arise in authentic account, and no check on whether a 19th century focus simply fails to notice significant information on the grounds that is it unparalleled in Joseph Smith's context. And no check on the implications of translation factors.

For instance, in the discussion of the Restoration theme in Alma's discussion with Corianton, we get comparison's to Universalist debates, but not of Alma as NDE experiencer, where restoration is conspicuous in accounts of the Life Review,

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1382&index=2

nor of the aspects of Jewish Passover themes.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=56

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

 

  

And me on a dozen military history topics: https://www.amazon.com/Bleached-Bones-Wicked-Serpents-Ancient/dp/1456622862?ie=UTF8&creativeASIN=1456622862&linkCode=w00&linkId=DFU3R5J6R56UAF4L&ref_=as_sl_pc_ss_til&tag=legsavnin-20

I loved Peterson's article on the Gadianton Robbers as guerrilla warriors, but as I've read the seminal texts on the matter and looked at the historical practice of that kind of warfare, I think we can go into even more detail, and find better comparisons that more firmly ground the BoM in a pre modern setting. I understand I'm not as well known, as Dr. McCoy from Star Trek might say, I'm a historian not a publicist. Thanks for letting me add an item. Keep an eye out for some of my forthcoming articles and my favorite Conference presentation in a few weeks. 

Edited July 11, 2016 by morgan.deane

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, James Tunney said:

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

Now, about defining "better" in terms of Kuhn, how does one get away from a predetermined conclusion?  It seems that taking the evidence as it is, trying to avoid bias through peer review or some other mechanism, and putting in as many safeguards as necessary in order to reach an unbiased conclusion or as close to it as possible, that this is the paradigm to find "truth."  Sure one needs to look at the evidence from many different angles, but that can be taken to the absurd.  At a certain point the evidence is what it is and paradigm shift seems to be used in order to avoid or discount certain anomalies that under Kuhn should lead to a conclusion against historicity.  Could you ever define "best" in a way that discounts historicity or proves historicity false?  Shouldn't the "best" paradigm be independent of whatever conclusion is reached?   

Of course the "best" paradigm should "be independent of whatever conclusion is reached" via that paradigm, but it is not true at all that "evidence is what it is."  Evidence is always interpreted by humans (although the data is now being independently evaluated by machines in some areas).  There is no objective evaluation of the facts, and academicians will frequently disagree on what the facts mean.

One can only "get away from a predetermined conclusion" through the communal application of the scientific method -- in which, over time, a variety of scholars bring their analytic skills to bear, not only on the facts, but also on the various biases and prejudices which precede the discussion.  In the midst of all that, it is hard for some non-scholars to avoid summary judgments or to make harsh declaratory statements as to what the facts mean.  Impatience with the scientific method is frequently used as an excuse to circumvent it, and that is not what Kuhn and other scientific philosophers have been advocating.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Quote

The Book of Mormon critics have made an art of explaining a very big whole by a very small part. The game is to look for some mysterious person or document from which Joseph Smith might have got the few simple and obvious ideas and then cry triumphantly, “At last we have it! Now we know where the Book of Mormon came from!”

“If someone will only show me how to draw a circle,” cries the youthful Joseph Smith, “I will make you a fine Swiss watch!” So Joachim or Anselm or Ethan Smith or Rabelais or somebody takes a stick and draws a circle in the sand, and forthwith the adroit and wily Joseph turns out a beautifully running mechanism that tells perfect time!

This is not an exaggeration. The Book of Mormon in structure and design is every bit as complicated, involved, and ingenious as the works of a Swiss watch, and withal just as smoothly running. With no model to follow and no instruction of any kind (Where was the model? Who could instruct?), the writer of that book brought together thousands of ideas and events and knit them together in a most marvelous unity. Yet the critics like to think they have explained the Book of Mormon completely if they can just discover where Joseph Smith might have got one of his ideas or expressions!

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA  

Thanks for that, Kevin.  Your Nibley quote is particularly relevant due to the way in which Dan Vogel so often misses the point by simply declaring that some ideas in the Book of Mormon were in the 19th century air, and that, therefore, Joseph immediately imbibed them and utilized them -- thus avoiding the  full context and meaning.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thanks for that, Kevin.  Your Nibley quote is particularly relevant due to the way in which Dan Vogel so often misses the point by simply declaring that some ideas in the Book of Mormon were in the 19th century air, and that, therefore, Joseph immediately imbibed them and utilized them -- thus avoiding the  full context and meaning.

To be perfectly frank, the Book of Mormon is neither as simple as some of its critics believe nor as complex as some of its defenders believe. Nibley's comparison of the text to a Swiss watch is absolutely an exaggeration, IMO. 

[Kevin Christensen]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

So, again, which problems does apologetics solve in a way that no other paradigm can? You said yourself in an earlier post that you realized the evidence wasn't going where you wanted it to go, but rather than "bail," you simply decided that other evidence was more important--not because it solved observable problems but because it got you to the conclusion you wanted. Maybe you really do believe this is simply being more open-minded than everyone else, but it isn't.

ETA: And it goes without saying that David Wright's courage wasn't in dismissing alternative paradigms but in refusing to retract his conclusions because of ideological pressure from his church leaders. I'm not sure what motivates the disdain for David Wright in particular, but it's palpable.

Other paradigms can solve the problems that apologetics does.   "Who cares?"  That solves the problem of Mormonism for a great many people.  That is a solution.  "Whatever..." is another solution.   Brodie's ne'er do well con-man who meant well is a proposed solution.  Pederast and serial adulterer is another, and prejudiced against gays is another problem definition and solution.   I don't think God exists, is one, and I don't think God cares is one, and Heresy and non-Christian are others.  "Eat drink and be merry is one, and Pascal's wager is another.  We have a range of paradigms competing for our minds, and loyalties, all with problems and issues and proposed solutions, so calling for a circumstance that directly parallels the crisis in Ptolomeic astronomy before Copernicus, where a great many people are struggling with making sense of the same planetary movements, is not the most applicable model.  Rather, we have lots of competing paradigms and social groups and subgroups, methods, and proposals to choose from, and no rules for doing so.  But, the insights I like from Kuhn is that there are constraints we can apply, ways to judge in which "better" makes sense, and can mean something more than "Not us" or "Not what I want."   As Joseph Campbell tells the story, the Buddha under the Bo tree is tempted by Maya, the God of Illusion via appeals to fear and desire, the views we have that constrain our thinking, and our passions that press against all boundary and restraint.  But orthodoxy always resists further light and knowledge, and all knowledge puts our desires at risk.  After all, what if I learns something that calls on me to sacrifice something I want?  But we all have to offer up what we desire and fear, offer a broken heart and a contrite spirit, to see the Real.  In Alma 32, its a process of experiment, assessment, expansion of the mind, enlightenment of the eyes, enlargement of the soul, fruitfulness, deliciousness, and future promise.

But which is better?  How to measure?  And how to measure how we measure?  And how to decide what to measure and why?  All we have is a process, nurture for the seeds at hand to see what grows, and comparing our garden with others.

Kuhn says that all paradigm choice involves deciding which problems are more significant to have solved.  I've repeatedly quoted N. R. Hanson that "All data is theory-laden."  It's why Kuhn says "Paradigms differ in more than substance, for they are directed not only to nature but also back upon the science that produced them. They are the source of the methods, problem-field, and standards of solution accepted by any mature scientific community at any given time.^"

The evidence not only does not speak for itself, it also does not define, select, or interpret itself.   Evidence cannot be separated from theory, subject and object, but theory defines what counts as evidence, what experiments to perform, and how to define it.  And it strikes me as significant that you've shifted your complaint from a discussion of paradigms to a discussion of evidence.  It's rather akin to shifting the definition of a word in the middle of an argument, equivocation.

And I haven't claimed to be more open-minded.  I noticed that I have not yet included "open-minded" as one of the pragmatic criteria for judging paradigms that Kuhn has listed.  I have claimed that King Benjamin's discourse presents, from a variety of perspectives, a different problems and different solutions to different people.  In the 1957 Priesthood Manual, Nibley introduced the Ancient Coronation pattern as what to him was the best evidence to date for him, but understood that other people might not see it the same way.  Grant Palmer, drawing on Brent Metcalfe proposed a four step pattern and revival experience as a sufficient problem definition and solution.  Which is better?

I don't have disdain for David Wright.  Indeed, I am all the more impressed Barker's observations compared to his New Approaches article because I considered his contribution to be the most formidable entry in that book.  For me, it's just a really good example of how a technically rigorous, courageous, well-informed and formally trained approach can be so completely blindsided and subverted in its conclusions by other work, in this case, work that had already been published, but not seen.  I'm not disdainful of the responses in RBBM 6:1 by Welch and Tvedtnes which made all sorts of interesting observations on Melchizedek texts, but at that point, they hadn't read The Older Testament and made the connection.  It's just a very clear demonstration that even the people who know the most, who take pride in being able to face the hard evidence, face the abyss bravely, and deliver the cold conclusions can miss something crucially important that undermines their case.

There are lots of other examples of that sort of thing.  Any student or scholar will have their own experiences if they pay attention.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 11, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
a typo, and a thought completed.

[jkwilliams]

Rereading my posts here, I hope I don't sound like I'm personalizing this at all. My focus is on ideas and evidence, not personalities, though I do have kind of a reflexive reaction whenever someone quotes Massimo Introvigne. I'm still not sure why Mormon apologists have hitched their wagon to him, especially understanding the neo-Francoist ideology behind his disdain for historiography. I first read Introvigne's take on Mormon apologetics many years ago when I was still very much a believer, and even then I thought his attempt to upgrade apologetics into some kind of postmodern rejection of Enlightenment positivism was ridiculous. I still think so.

You are of course correct that evidence doesn't speak for itself, and deciding which evidence is important is part of every paradigm. What I see lacking here is any reason to assert that the tenuous parallels and so on we see in apologia should be given more weight than other evidence. 

But I do appreciate you bringing up Kuhn, as I hadn't read SoSR since I wrote my series on postmodernism several years ago, and before that I hadn't read Kuhn since my oral exam for my MA. I reread the book again over the weekend and thoroughly enjoyed it. Say what you will about Kuhn, that book is well-written and concise and has been hugely influential. 

Edited July 11, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Nevo]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

This also means that I can cite my little essay on a wide range of interesting things about King Benjamin's discourse, or my work on Barker compared to the Book of Mormon, or NDE research and the Book of Mormon, or Welch on a range of topics, or Gardner, or Poulson, or Nibley, of Peterson or Tvedtnes, or Goff, Gee,  or McGuire, or Thomasson, or Bob Smith, or Sorenson, Wright, or Clark or Wirth, and other parties can completely ignore such things without even trying to solve the puzzles they represent for 19th century composition. Just because neither the puzzles nor the solutions are generally recognized does not mean that they do not exist. . . .

I have noticed a general trend that LDS scholars, due to the nature of the debates, where we are often the targets in a very public way and must wrestle with the issues that critics see as most decisive.  But critics are much less involved with the best evidence and best thinking of the defenders.

I understand how frustrating it must be that non-believers seem to ignore what you see as "the best evidence and best thinking of the defenders." I expect Bigfoot and UFO and hollow-earth enthusiasts feel the same way. The puzzles and solutions that they see are not, alas, generally recognized either.

Because the Book of Mormon can be read as a nineteenth-century work, with no difficulty at all really, most non-believers obviously don't feel that apologetic arguments (which are generally published by and for believers) are something that they need to bother with. The only people that have any skin in the game are current and former Mormons and Christians trying to proselytize Mormons. 

This is where Book of Mormon defenders have the advantage. There are now so many apologetic books and articles and blogs out there that probably no person alive has read all of it and only a small number of people have read most of it. Thus, it is now fashionable for defenders to argue that critics must engage with several dozen, if not hundreds, of apologetic books and articles if they are to "honestly" deal with the question of historicity. Conveniently, most "critics"—that tiny subset of non-believers who care enough about Mormon truth claims to even entertain the notion of an ancient origin for the Book of Mormon—don't have the time or inclination or expertise to do so.

I have read and carefully considered a good deal of the apologetic scholarship in support of Book of Mormon historicity, including much of what has been cited in this thread. I have engaged this material as a believer, as a doubter, and as an unbeliever. In my experience, the arguments supporting historicity lose much of their force once you stop taking for granted that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Nevo