Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Right, I'm getting at something more tangible than just brilliant creativity, like the 1837 Edgar Allen Poe story I linked to earlier about a lost whaling ship out of supplies who elect to canabalize a boy named Richard Parker. Then 46 years later an actual event occurs where a shipwrecked group of a few men canabalize the 17 year old cabin boy named Richard Parker.

You might want to study carefully the analysis of this coincidence at http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/27480/did-edgar-allan-poe-predict-a-shipwreck .  Those circumstances are not going to convince a scholar that the actual future was predicted by Poe, nor that such abilities exist.  For that you would need extraordinary evidence.

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The second example is what Poe considered his greatest work, a poem titled Eureka!, which correctly describes various aspects of our universe, including the expanding nature of the universe and the Big Bang (some 80 years before it was conceived in the scientific community). Eureka also describes the nature of the human soul and its relationship to God in ways that scholars have compared with JS' teachings. Finally, the poem also promotes intuition as a better way of arriving to truth than the scientific method, which general importance of intuition was a significant belief for Poe, and I'm hypothesizing that Poe followed a kind of creative intuition while writing.  The above are potential examples of creativity producing verifiable truth, fact, or even events that were unknowable to Poe. I'm suggesting something similar in the dictation of the BOM, with a notable exception being that JS sincerely believed creativity had nothing to do with it.

Such a suggestion by you requires extraordinary and systematic evidence, instead of the by-gosh-and-by-golly approach you display here.

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

This comes back to a question you posed to me earlier, which is couldn't this process that I'm hypothesizing contribute actual history? I have to acknowledge that yes, it could! However, one of the Book of Mormon's primary premises, that native Americans are descendants of Israelites, hasn't panned out yet, so while it would be wonderful and amazing if the BOM turned out to be historical, my hypothesis covers the likelihood that it isn't as well as the possibility that it is. That being said, either way I believe that God was involved in the translation or authoring, depending on your view, of the Book of Mormon.

Circular reasoning, Benjamin.  But based on a false premise:  The BofM does not claim "that native Americans are descendants of Israelites," so your conclusion of flawed.  It should not matter what one's apriori view of the BofM is.  The same standards of rational, scientific inquiry should apply regardless.

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

My concepts of verifiable fact and noise you address here come from distance or remote viewing, which is the idea that humans can view distant places accurately in their mind's eye. This was employed by the military at Ft. Meade for a number of years. The group did produce some important intel. For example, they produced sufficiently accurate info to put a rescue team within a mile of a downed military aircraft someplace in Africa I believe, and were publicly thanked and recognized by the federal government on the occasion. However, they also produced inactionable data that was unverifiable or false. The Wikipedia article is worth browsing. One impressive feat, not related to the military, included an accurate description of Jupiter's rings prior to their discovery. I use distance viewing as an example of a self-directed revelation-like process that has produced verifiable facts and noise, just like the BOM contains authentic ancient elements and other elements that appear to be of more modern fabrication.

If I were to try and produce a secular hypothesis and methodology to test it, I'd have to remove God entirely from the picture, as all of the examples I've givenseem to suggest something about human perception and not necessarily suggedt anything about God.

I have no problem with you removing God and fantasy from the equation when inquiring into the BofM question, but I don't see you doing that here.  The efforts put into past psychic research have not to my knowledge come up with any verifiable intel, except perhaps by an occasional accident -- which can be accounted for via statistics.  Moreover, scholars will not give you the time of day when you start making those sorts of claims.

[Benjamin Seeker]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might want to study carefully the analysis of this coincidence at http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/27480/did-edgar-allan-poe-predict-a-shipwreck .

 I provided this link in an earlier post in the thread, which perhaps you're aware of and are including the link here just to be cheeky. I'm not suggesting that any single event be taken in isolation. I do have Poe also correctly describing the nature of the universe, and I wonder if someone undertook a study of Poe's writing from the angle I'm suggesting what else might be found. Of course these events could coincidence, but coupled with evidence of authentic ancient elements from the Book of Mormon of text, I have plenty of fodder to form a hypothesis.

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Those circumstances are not going to convince a scholar that the actual future was predicted by Poe, nor that such abilities exist.  For that you would need extraordinary evidence.

Such a suggestion by you requires extraordinary and systematic evidence, instead of the by-gosh-and-by-golly approach you display here.

By gosh and golly gee correlations are a fine way of coming up with a hypothesis, however.

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Circular reasoning, Benjamin.  But based on a false premise:  The BofM does not claim "that native Americans are descendants of Israelites," so your conclusion of flawed.  It should not matter what one's apriori view of the BofM is.  The same standards of rational, scientific inquiry should apply regardless.

You missed my point here. I wasn't saying anything should or shouldn't apply. I was sharing my testimony that I believe God was involved whether the book is a product of translation or if it an inspired fiction more along the lines of what I'm suggesting. It was only meant to demonstrate our spiritual common ground and extend the hand of friendship.

We'll have to just disagree on the Book of Mormon and native Americans.

If you're not willing to explore some of the interesting coincidences of distance/remote viewing and look for new possibilities in human experience, I'm not sure why you're so willing to believe in stone-in-hat translation.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Gervin]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Brant Gardner has his master's degree in anthropology from the State Univ of New York, and his books utilize standard, peer-reviewed mainstream anthropology.  Other LDS anthropologists do the same on a regular basis.  The same is true of Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Atheist anthropologists throughout the world. 

You'll note that most conspiracy theorists have degrees and use existing data to support their claims.  It's a flawed definition.  Perhaps Brant is willing to defend himself here as a mainstream anthropologist since you made his credentials a subject of discussion.  

Quote

 

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since you don't know anything about anthropology, Gervin, that may not make any sense to you.  You are too busy choosing up sides and engaging in polemics.

How are you able to ignore board guidelines and engage in personal attacks?

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Non-Mormon anthropologists tend not to be interested in Mormon Scripture, and that is understandable since there is no money or academic advancement in it -- instead there is high risk to their careers

Exactly.  If you wish to have academic credibility with your research or position, there is indeed s a high career risk associated with publishing findings that have no basis in reality. 

It's why you don't see BYU anthropology profs making any attempt to engage the larger mainstream academic community in a discussion of the Book of Mormon as history.  They'd be laughed at.

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Any evil and despicable means to an end -- the destruction of Mormonism.

  A Knight of Faith, you ain't.

[Glenn101]

16 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

 I provided this link in an earlier post in the thread, which perhaps you're aware of and are including the link here just to be cheeky. I'm not suggesting that any single event be taken in isolation. I do have Poe also correctly describing the nature of the universe, and I wonder if someone undertook a study of Poe's writing from the angle I'm suggesting what else might be found. Of course these events could coincidence, but coupled with evidence of authentic ancient elements from the Book of Mormon of text, I have plenty of fodder to form a hypothesis.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that Poe was inspired?

Glenn

[ERayR]

8 hours ago, Gervin said:

It's why you don't see BYU anthropology profs making any attempt to engage the larger mainstream academic community in a discussion of the Book of Mormon as history.  They'd be laughed at.

 

A tried and true scholarly method of rebuttal.  Some times it seems the only thing the scientific community knows how to do.

[Gervin]

29 minutes ago, ERayR said:

A tried and true scholarly method of rebuttal.  Some times it seems the only thing the scientific community knows how to do.

Well, it was probably an insensitive remark. But I don't believe the mainstream scientific community is intent on razing the LDS Church or ridiculing beliefs outside of the mainstream. Robert F. Smith seems to subscribe to some kind of conspiracy theory about the evil intent of non-LDS anthropologists.  I hear they're making a movie.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Gervin

[ERayR]

50 minutes ago, Gervin said:

Well, it was probably an insensitive remark. But I don't believe the mainstream scientific community is intent on razing the LDS Church or ridiculing beliefs outside of the mainstream. Robert F. Smith seems to subscribe to some kind of conspiracy theory about the evil intent of non-LDS anthropologists.  I hear they're making a movie.

Yes it was/is an insensitive remark and offensive to believers in the Church.  The truthfulness or lack of truth for the claims of the LDS church, or any other church, is not a matter that can be proven or dis-proven by scientific means and to continue along either path is but an exercise in futility.

What is making a movie supposed to prove and why is it important?

Edited November 29, 2016 by ERayR

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

 I provided this link in an earlier post in the thread, which perhaps you're aware of and are including the link here just to be cheeky. I'm not suggesting that any single event be taken in isolation. I do have Poe also correctly describing the nature of the universe, and I wonder if someone undertook a study of Poe's writing from the angle I'm suggesting what else might be found.

I wasn't being cheeky, and it does not seem to me that you read the article carefully -- I do suggest that what you are doing is consonant with what people sometimes claim for seances, astrology, and other psychic phenomena.  The Great Houdini spent some serious time looking closely at such things, and found nothing there but hokum.  Scholars generally share the same view.  An occasional coincidence does not validate a hair-brained notion.

Quote

Of course these events could coincidence, but coupled with evidence of authentic ancient elements from the Book of Mormon of text, I have plenty of fodder to form a hypothesis.

By gosh and golly gee correlations are a fine way of coming up with a hypothesis, however.

Scholars generally reject this approach for any purpose whatever, even though any wild-eyed notion can be tested -- and it is the testing which you should be focusing on.  Neglecting that aspect is the whole ball game.

Quote

You missed my point here. I wasn't saying anything should or shouldn't apply. I was sharing my testimony that I believe God was involved whether the book is a product of translation or if it an inspired fiction more along the lines of what I'm suggesting. It was only meant to demonstrate our spiritual common ground and extend the hand of friendship.

We'll have to just disagree on the Book of Mormon and native Americans.

Once again, scholars do not share your formulation on native Americans and the BofM.  A scientific inquiry can only take place within scientific parameters.  That means careful reading of the text.  It is no accident that biblical archeology cannot be pursued by non-scholars, even if they have the best of intentions.

Quote

If you're not willing to explore some of the interesting coincidences of distance/remote viewing and look for new possibilities in human experience, I'm not sure why you're so willing to believe in stone-in-hat translation.

You really ought to read my paper on the preposterous nature of the Book of Mormon (the stone in the hat is the least of the absurdities).  You entirely miss the true nature of scientific inquiry, which is more interested in hard scientific study and testing of the detailed product that with claims about how it came about.  In any case, the notion of a solid-state device with an LED screen is hardly absurd in our day and age, even though it might have seemed "magical" to Joseph and his friends.  If you lack perspective, you can miss the really important correlations.  See my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 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 .

Edited November 29, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Gervin said:

You'll note that most conspiracy theorists have degrees and use existing data to support their claims.  It's a flawed definition.  Perhaps Brant is willing to defend himself here as a mainstream anthropologist since you made his credentials a subject of discussion.  

Actually, that is contrary to fact, and those conspiracy theorists with so-called degrees got them from diploma mills which do not require actual study or learning.  Real scholarship shows itself in the quality of the work produced, and it is there for all to see and check -- something that you are unwilling to do.  You substitute ad hominems for actual discussion of substantive issues, showing once again your polemic intent.

Quote

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

Exactly.  If you wish to have academic credibility with your research or position, there is indeed s a high career risk associated with publishing findings that have no basis in reality. 

Once again you beg the question (a classic fallacy) instead of engaging the actual issues.  There is no indication here of any interest in reality or what scholarly findings show.

Quote

It's why you don't see BYU anthropology profs making any attempt to engage the larger mainstream academic community in a discussion of the Book of Mormon as history.  They'd be laughed at.

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

Again a claim contrary to fact:  BYU and other Mormon profs have often published detailed scientific analyses on the Book of Mormon, and some have been published by top publishers.  Anyone from the academic community can freely examine and comment on them.  This has not been done in a closet or in hiding somewhere under a pseudonym.  Perhaps you laugh at it because you don't know what is being said, nor whether it meets with academic scrutiny.  Easier to throw around polemics, eh Gervin?

Edited November 29, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Benjamin Seeker]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I wasn't being cheeky, and it does not seem to me that you read the article carefully -- I do suggest that what you are doing is consonant with what people sometimes claim for seances, astrology, and other psychic phenomena.  The Great Houdini spent some serious time looking closely at such things, and found nothing there but hokum.  Scholars generally share the same view.  An occasional coincidence does not validate a hair-brained notion.

Scholars generally reject this approach for any purpose whatever, even though any wild-eyed notion can be tested -- and it is the testing which you should be focusing on.  Neglecting that aspect is the whole ball game.

Once again, scholars do not share your formulation on native Americans and the BofM.  A scientific inquiry can only take place within scientific parameters.  That means careful reading of the text.  It is no accident that biblical archeology cannot be pursued by non-scholars, even if they have the best of intentions.

You really ought to read my paper on the preposterous nature of the Book of Mormon (the stone in the hat is the least of the absurdities).  You entirely miss the true nature of scientific inquiry, which is more interested in hard scientific study and testing of the detailed product that with claims about how it came about.  In any case, the notion of a solid-state device with an LED screen is hardly absurd in our day and age, even though it might have seemed "magical" to Joseph and his friends.  If you lack perspective, you can miss the really important correlations.  See my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 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 ,

No matter how many ways you call out my idea as idiotic, it certainly doesn't change the fact that "scholars" will not take a translation via seer stone completed without consulting the text any more seriously. It would be grouped with your list of seances, astrology, and other psychic phenomenon. I'm not sure why your so hell bent on attacking a simple idea, that creativity fosters revelation or something like it. It certainly is no worse than the idea that a seer stone fosters revelation.

Of course, the hypothesis I'm suggesting would need to be tested, but coming out of the gate it already has equal or even more explaining power in terms of the Book of Mormon text than does a translation theory. A creativity+revelation theory allows for authentic ancient elements and modern fabrication to coexist. My hypothesis has some common ground with Blake Ostler's ancient core and modern expansion theory. I think it's safe to say that in his theory, the modern expansion is a product of JS's culture and knowledge. It wouldn't be a stretch to see these modern elements that Ostler describes as "creative" expansion of the ancient text. His approach layers creativity onto revelation. My approach layers revelation onto creativity. 

On Native Americans, JS's revelations demand that at least some groups of Native Americans be considered Lamanites and thus descendants of Israel. I believe every revelation that JS recieved that addresses native Americans calls them Lamanites. The Book of Mormon introduction aknowledges this general idea. As Wikipedia points out, "Smith reported that when the golden plates were revealed to him in New York, an angel told him that the plates contained "an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.""

If we expand to a more general claim of Israelite lineage for Native Americans, I would think that there are many scholars who side that the BOM and JS' revelations claim a general Israelite lineage for Native Americans. At the very least, Dan Vogel makes a case (http://signaturebookslibrary.org/indian-origins-and-the-book-of-mormon-03/). Certainly JS's various statements point to an understanding that the Lamanites were the ancestors of native Americans generally, as do other contemporary early saints. I'm sure there are a few scholars who would argue that JS is the best source for understanding the texts he produced.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

"Smith reported that when the golden plates were revealed to him in New York, an angel told him that the plates contained "an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.""

If we expand to a more general claim of Israelite lineage for Native Americans, I would think that there are many scholars who side that the BOM and JS' revelations claim a general Israelite lineage for Native Americans.

The Book of Mormon makes no claims to location. There are plenty of living tribes that claim Israelite lineage. Israel recognizes them as such, and as we debate whether the Book of Mormon is fiction or not, they are returning to Israel.

It hardly matters where the Book of Mormon happened. Its the wrong question. The question is, does the Book of Mormon speak to those who claim to be the House of Joseph? I know a guy who traces his lineage back to the Samaritans of northern Israel. Since Assyrian captivity, his family has lived in Italy, Dalmatia, France, Louisiana and now Indonesia. He's not a Native American but he's from the House of Joseph nevertheless.

The Book of Mormon is not so much a book about Guatemala or Michigan as it is a book about the House of Joseph. That's the paradigm shift that will allow us to finally examine the book as an authentic spiritual document.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The Book of Mormon makes no claims to location. There are plenty of living tribes that claim Israelite lineage. Israel recognizes them as such, and as we debate whether the Book of Mormon is fiction or not, they are returning to Israel.

It hardly matters where the Book of Mormon happened. Its the wrong question. The question is, does the Book of Mormon speak to those who claim to be the House of Joseph? I know a guy who traces his lineage back to the Samaritans of northern Israel. Since Assyrian captivity, his family has lived in Italy, Dalmatia, France, Louisiana and now Indonesia. He's not a Native American but he's from the House of Joseph nevertheless.

The Book of Mormon is not so much a book about Guatemala or Michigan as it is a book about the House of Joseph. That's the paradigm shift that will allow us to finally examine the book as an authentic spiritual document.

And given the realities of all those from whom we are descended, the idea that nearly all of us are descended from at least one, if not more of the 12 sons of Jacob/Israel. is not at all far fetched.  Every living person of European ancestry for example is a descendant of Charlemagne.  https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford

Given that there were 12 brothers who were sons of Israel,- not one individual like Charlemagne, but 12 individuals,  and given that they had about a 2100 year "head start" on Charlemagne, for producing descendants,  and considering that God promised them that their posterity would fill the earth, I think it is highly probably that virtually all of us pretty much everywhere could be literal descendants of at least one brother.

The DNA results could be irrelevant - The DNA of a few ancestors that far back would be so diluted as to have insignificant testable results.  I have taken the Ancestry.com DNA test and got some surprising results, but they are so generalized in percentages as to be virtually useless in defining individual ancestors.  It is nice to know that I am 73% from "Eastern Europe" and 1% Finnish and have even some Irish in there, but how many people comprise the Finnish 1% for example and who they are is unknown.  Were perhaps a few of of that Finnish 1% of my ancestors literal descendants of Ephraim, say, ?  Who knows!  It's possible.

How about that 73% from "Eastern Europe" which almost certainly contained some Jews?  Far more likely that could be a real possibility.  But who and what brother(s)?

Unknowable.

Yet the fact that I could actually be a descendant of Joseph is still there and resonates with me spiritually.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

No matter how many ways you call out my idea ias diotic, it certainly doesn't change the fact that "scholars" will not take a translation via seer stone completed without consulting the text any more seriously. It would be grouped with your list of seances, astrology, and other psychic phenomenon. I'm not sure why your so hell bent on attacking a simple idea, that creativity fosters revelation or something like it. It certainly is no worse than the idea that a seer stone fosters revelation.

I did not say that you were idiotic, but rather than you are specifically and unapologetically unscientific.  You continue to talk nonsense instead of science.  Scholars don't find that to be a productive approach, even though a lot of ordinary people favor acceptance of psychic phenomena.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Of course, the hypothesis I'm suggesting would need to be tested, but coming out of the gate it already has equal or even more explaining power in terms of the Book of Mormon text than does a translation theory. A creativity+revelation theory allows for authentic ancient elements and modern fabrication to coexist. My hypothesis has some common ground with Blake Ostler's ancient core and modern expansion theory. I think it's safe to say that in his theory, the modern expansion is a product of JS's culture and knowledge. It wouldn't be a stretch to see these modern elements that Ostler describes as "creative" expansion of the ancient text. His approach layers creativity onto revelation. My approach layers revelation onto creativity. 

Scientific inquiry into the text of the BofM does not favor your ideas -- they are certainly not on an equal footing with scientific study.  I am astonished that you believe that, but it may merely reflect that you are completely unfamiliar with academic study of the BofM.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

On Native Americans, JS's revelations demand that at least some groups of Native Americans be considered Lamanites and thus descendants of Israel. I believe every revelation that JS recieved that addresses native Americans calls them Lamanites. The Book of Mormon introduction aknowledges this general idea. As Wikipedia points out, "Smith reported that when the golden plates were revealed to him in New York, an angel told him that the plates contained "an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.""

Here you begin to temper your unqualified former view by acknowledging that only some Amerinds could possibly be considered Lamanites.  As such they would specifically be descendants of both Judah and Manasseh, and not likely of any of the other tribes.  That is a good scholarly first step, although you abandon that excellent approach immediately by citing the Intro to the BofM (Psst, it isn't Scripture, and was not part of the dictated text), and then below.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

If we expand to a more general claim of Israelite lineage for Native Americans, I would think that there are many scholars who side that the BOM and JS' revelations claim a general Israelite lineage for Native Americans. At the very least, Dan Vogel makes a case (http://signaturebookslibrary.org/indian-origins-and-the-book-of-mormon-03/). Certainly JS's various statements point to an understanding that the Lamanites were the ancestors of native Americans generally, as do other contemporary early saints. I'm sure there are a few scholars who would argue that JS is the best source for understanding the texts he produced.

The anti-Mormon Dan Vogel does say something along those lines, and we have frequently butted heads here on this board, but he desperately wants all the Amerinds to be Lamanites so that he can then deny that it is true anthropologically (Tom Murphy takes the same anti-academic approach).  Other apostates do the same thing, but the text does not support that claim.  For one thing, the distances used explicitly in the BofM don't allow a hemisphere- or continent-wide Book of Mormon lands. Those of us who once took that lame approach in our youth did so out of ignorance of the BofM.  And there is no reason to credit Joseph Smith's personal views on the matter as more authoritative than anyone else's.

[bcuzbcuz]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And given the realities of all those from whom we are descended, the idea that nearly all of us are descended from at least one, if not more of the 12 sons of Jacob/Israel. is not at all far fetched.  Every living person of European ancestry for example is a descendant of Charlemagne.  https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford

 

 

 

What utter nonsense. If you go back to the original article, by Peter Ralph and Graham Coop, you´ll find they use the modifier "most", which the Guardian changed to "all" and then the Guardian title states "every" European. It´s all utter nonsense. Follow the development of the Finnish (Balkan)-Hungarian language, for example. There are no, zero, zilch, nothing at all, links between French language and the Finnish-Hungarian languages. There are no common words, nothing that even sounds similar. 

France was not France at the time of Charlemagne. It was divided up into small, village like, people groups and language groups. The idea that somehow people who didn´t share a single word could somehow share offspring is ludicrous, unless you´ve got Charlemagne raping and pillaging up in the Finnish north. (Which he didn´t)  

Somehow you think the article in the Guardian implies there is a genetic bottleneck that goes back to 8th century Charlemagne.

What we do know is that our records are partial and insufficient as to who was related to whom. Genetics is also an incomplete lineage line. It only shows or eliminates possiblities.

Nice try.

[Rajah Manchou]

Charlemagne aside, its not far-fetched to say that many of us could share ancestry with 12 founding fathers. I wouldn't say all, but somewhere around 37.8% or more.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2930277/Eleven-fathers-Asia-800-million-modern-men-descended-ancient-leaders-including-Genghis-Khan.html

[Benjamin Seeker]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not say that you were idiotic, but rather than you are specifically and unapologetically unscientific.  You continue to talk nonsense instead of science.  Scholars don't find that to be a productive approach, even though a lot of ordinary people favor acceptance of psychic phenomena.

Isn't any theory that incorporates a revelatory method of translating ancient texts equally unscientific?

Quote

Scientific inquiry into the text of the BofM does not favor your ideas -- they are certainly not on an equal footing with scientific study.

I believe that there are lots of scholarly publications that demonstrate two different sets of evidence found in the BOM, one set consisting of ancient elements present in the text and the other consisting of elements that are of modern fabrication. Translation theory deals with some of the modern elements rather weakly by itself, and so we get Blake Ostler augmenting translation theory. Again, you can call my hypothesis unscientific as much as you'd like, but it will do an equal job to Ostler's theory at accounting for the data, and both revelation accompanying creativity and revelation accompanying seer stone use are equally unscientific hypotheses.

Quote

 I am astonished that you believe that, but it may merely reflect that you are completely unfamiliar with academic study of the BofM.

No, I'm just looking for a way to account for all the elements of the text. You and other apologists use revelation to account for the ancient elements in the BOM text. I'm doing the same thing, just suggesting a different enabling mechanism.

Quote

Here you begin to temper your unqualified former view by acknowledging that only some Amerinds could possibly be considered Lamanites.  As such they would specifically be descendants of both Judah and Manasseh, and not likely of any of the other tribes.  That is a good scholarly first step, although you abandon that excellent approach immediately by citing the Intro to the BofM (Psst, it isn't Scripture, and was not part of the dictated text), and then below.

Here I lay out the spectrum of possibilities, something good scholars typically do.

Quote

The anti-Mormon Dan Vogel does say something along those lines, and we have frequently butted heads here on this board, but he desperately wants all the Amerinds to be Lamanites so that he can then deny that it is true anthropologically (Tom Murphy takes the same anti-academic approach).  Other apostates do the same thing, but the text does not support that claim.  For one thing, the distances used explicitly in the BofM don't allow a hemisphere- or continent-wide Book of Mormon lands. Those of us who once took that lame approach in our youth did so out of ignorance of the BofM.  And there is no reason to credit Joseph Smith's personal views on the matter as more authoritative than anyone else's.

There are a number of justifications for privileging JS's personal views. I'm surprised you're not at least acknowledging their existence. Again, a good scholarly approach would be to acknowledge the possibilities, not ignore them.

I won't be participating in any further public debate on this thread. If anyone sincerely wants to discuss any of these issues with me, please send a private message. I get the feeling that this public forum is currently too polarized to have a productive discussion.

In closing, Robert, you've made some great points, but you seem to ignore a fundamental contradiction, which is that as revelation is the primary mechanism for explaining ancient elements in both translation theory and a creativity+revelation hypothesis, both are based on equally unscientific premises.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Brant Gardner]

21 hours ago, Gervin said:

You'll note that most conspiracy theorists have degrees and use existing data to support their claims.  It's a flawed definition.  Perhaps Brant is willing to defend himself here as a mainstream anthropologist since you made his credentials a subject of discussion.  

Mainstream as opposed to conspiracy theorist? That is my choice? 

Economic circumstances kept me from finishing my degree and therefore I have not been employed as an anthropologist. As a graduate student, I had two papers published, both of which have been cited favorably in the literature.

As for my proposed conspiracy theorist status, can you suggest anything I have said about anthropology or archaeology that is not mainstream? Have I suggested any methodology that is not common in ethnohistory? I understand that you don't agree with the application of the information, but disagreeing is a long way from suggesting that I misuse data.

[Gray]

On 11/23/2016 at 4:12 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Agreed.  However, I was merely pointing out the real issue, since all historians agree on that much.  At the same time, evangelicals will not accept those strictures.

Of course they are.  Mike Coe has been very open about his belief that Southeast Asians in fact came to Mesoamerica, and many other non-Mormon scholars accept that view for very specific reasons.  And it is not simply the Vikings, but southern Japanese whom the late Betty Meggars (Smithsonian archeologist) claimed certainly came to South America.  There must also have been Polynesian contact with South America.

Yes, and a prime exemplar is John Tvedtnes, whose work on Book of Mormon names and Hebraisms is well-known to Israeli scholars, and who have repeatedly invited him to publish with them.  I have had the same experience with my own Israeli colleagues:

Tvedtnes, John A., “Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon,” in G. Khan, et al., eds., Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, 4 vols. (Brill, 2013), II:787-788, available online at http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics .

 

Tvedtnes, John A., “Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon,” in G. Khan, et al., eds., Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, 4 vols. (Brill, 2013), II:195-196, available online at http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/browse/encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics .

Overweening prejudice is a big problem, but only scientists would understand consensus -- which always concerns matters subject to research.  Since hardly any non-Mormon scholars do BofM research, we can hardly expect a consensus to have developed.  Hence, no filtration.  What we all can do is use actual peer-reviewed research on the basic questions (how to describe ancient American cultures).  That is the base from which we must work.

Thanks for your thoughts as always Robert. I'll check out Tvedtnes. Is it safe to say, however, that research papers with explicit claims of Lehites in the Americas have been limited to Mormon publications only? 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Gray

[ERayR]

13 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

No matter how many ways you call out my idea as idiotic, it certainly doesn't change the fact that "scholars" will not take a translation via seer stone completed without consulting the text any more seriously. It would be grouped with your list of seances, astrology, and other psychic phenomenon. I'm not sure why your so hell bent on attacking a simple idea, that creativity fosters revelation or something like it. It certainly is no worse than the idea that a seer stone fosters revelation.

Of course, the hypothesis I'm suggesting would need to be tested, but coming out of the gate it already has equal or even more explaining power in terms of the Book of Mormon text than does a translation theory. A creativity+revelation theory allows for authentic ancient elements and modern fabrication to coexist. My hypothesis has some common ground with Blake Ostler's ancient core and modern expansion theory. I think it's safe to say that in his theory, the modern expansion is a product of JS's culture and knowledge. It wouldn't be a stretch to see these modern elements that Ostler describes as "creative" expansion of the ancient text. His approach layers creativity onto revelation. My approach layers revelation onto creativity. 

On Native Americans, JS's revelations demand that at least some groups of Native Americans be considered Lamanites and thus descendants of Israel. I believe every revelation that JS recieved that addresses native Americans calls them Lamanites. The Book of Mormon introduction aknowledges this general idea. As Wikipedia points out, "Smith reported that when the golden plates were revealed to him in New York, an angel told him that the plates contained "an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.""

If we expand to a more general claim of Israelite lineage for Native Americans, I would think that there are many scholars who side that the BOM and JS' revelations claim a general Israelite lineage for Native Americans. At the very least, Dan Vogel makes a case (http://signaturebookslibrary.org/indian-origins-and-the-book-of-mormon-03/). Certainly JS's various statements point to an understanding that the Lamanites were the ancestors of native Americans generally, as do other contemporary early saints. I'm sure there are a few scholars who would argue that JS is the best source for understanding the texts he produced.

In case you missed it

15 hours ago, ERayR said:

Yes it was/is an insensitive remark and offensive to believers in the Church.  The truthfulness or lack of truth for the claims of the LDS church, or any other church, is not a matter that can be proven or dis-proven by scientific means and to continue along either path is but an exercise in futility.

What is making a movie supposed to prove and why is it important?

 

[ERayR]

6 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

What utter nonsense. If you go back to the original article, by Peter Ralph and Graham Coop, you´ll find they use the modifier "most", which the Guardian changed to "all" and then the Guardian title states "every" European. It´s all utter nonsense. Follow the development of the Finnish (Balkan)-Hungarian language, for example. There are no, zero, zilch, nothing at all, links between French language and the Finnish-Hungarian languages. There are no common words, nothing that even sounds similar. 

France was not France at the time of Charlemagne. It was divided up into small, village like, people groups and language groups. The idea that somehow people who didn´t share a single word could somehow share offspring is ludicrous, unless you´ve got Charlemagne raping and pillaging up in the Finnish north. (Which he didn´t)  

Somehow you think the article in the Guardian implies there is a genetic bottleneck that goes back to 8th century Charlemagne.

What we do know is that our records are partial and insufficient as to who was related to whom. Genetics is also an incomplete lineage line. It only shows or eliminates possiblities.

Nice try.

But you somehow think it can be used to disprove the Book of Mormon. 

[Gray]

On 11/24/2016 at 1:35 PM, LittleNipper said:

Parables are stories that reveal truth. They maybe fictional or they maybe factual. I believe Jesus being God had a treasure trove of human incidents to choose from and didn't have to make up anything. It would be like me saying, :There once was a great vessel which was claimed to be unsinkable. It was said the God Himself could sink that vessel... Unfortunately, God didn't need to ---- a great mountain of ice did it for Him. And because this vessel was revered to be unsinkable there were not enough lifeboats available for all the passengers on board. And many didn't even attempt to enter any of the lifeboats until it was nearly too late. This resulted in more drowning then should have. True story with a message. The story is known to me and it suits a purpose intended.  

Another question might be ---- would God lie to inspire? I don't believe this is impossible it would undermine truth by making it appear trite.

I think first we must clarify that God does not write scripture. People do. Scripture is not "the word of God" in any literal sense. 

[Gervin]

15 hours ago, ERayR said:

Yes it was/is an insensitive remark and offensive to believers in the Church.  The truthfulness or lack of truth for the claims of the LDS church, or any other church, is not a matter that can be proven or dis-proven by scientific means and to continue along either path is but an exercise in futility.

What is making a movie supposed to prove and why is it important?

My comments on this thread have nothing to do to the truthfulness or lack of truth for the claims of the LDS Church.  Just to be clear.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

What utter nonsense. If you go back to the original article, by Peter Ralph and Graham Coop, you´ll find they use the modifier "most", which the Guardian changed to "all" and then the Guardian title states "every" European. It´s all utter nonsense. Follow the development of the Finnish (Balkan)-Hungarian language, for example. There are no, zero, zilch, nothing at all, links between French language and the Finnish-Hungarian languages. There are no common words, nothing that even sounds similar. 

France was not France at the time of Charlemagne. It was divided up into small, village like, people groups and language groups. The idea that somehow people who didn´t share a single word could somehow share offspring is ludicrous, unless you´ve got Charlemagne raping and pillaging up in the Finnish north. (Which he didn´t)  

Somehow you think the article in the Guardian implies there is a genetic bottleneck that goes back to 8th century Charlemagne.

What we do know is that our records are partial and insufficient as to who was related to whom. Genetics is also an incomplete lineage line. It only shows or eliminates possiblities.

Nice try.

I don't recall the discussion being about who speaks Hungarian or the history of "France".

And I will be happy to settle for "most" Europeans being descendants from just a "few" common ancestors.  I don't give a fig about Charlemagne, that was not the point.

As usual, you missed the point by not seeing the forest for the trees.  You seem to like to zoom in on an extraneous, irrelevant detail and presume it defeats the entire proposition.

And no, this reply is not about trees either so don't bother to reply about the nature of forests.

The fact remains that it is possible that vast portions of humanity could be, and actually are, descended from just a few common ancestors.  The Charlemagne example was just that- an example.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Charlemagne aside, its not far-fetched to say that many of us could share ancestry with 12 founding fathers. I wouldn't say all, but somewhere around 37.8% or more.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2930277/Eleven-fathers-Asia-800-million-modern-men-descended-ancient-leaders-including-Genghis-Khan.html

I agree and that was my point!  This seems to be especially the case among white Mormons with "pioneer" ancestors since clearly those pioneers were by definition in the country when America was young and the population small. Most of the pioneers were perhaps only removed from the founding fathers by one or two generations.,  Many Mormons, like my wife for example, are related to people on the Mayflower- and not surprisingly if you are related to a Mayflower passenger you are probably also related to one of the founding fathers, and then also many prophets and general authorities, since they are also likely to be related to pioneers.  Of course Mormonism itself as a group has a lot of intermarriage because of the tendency for Mormons to marry other Mormons.

Oddly, my wife is related to Thomas Jefferson is of the same generation as Thomas Jefferson, even though he lived hundreds of years ago.  Family history can be very strange!

How is that possible? Because one line reproduces at a slower or faster rate than another line. The length of time between "generations" can be as fast as simply the average age of puberty, assuming that in  given culture the age when one reproduces may be 15 years, say, or in others as today, a "generation" might be 30 years or even longer.  So my wife and Thomas Jefferson are actually the same generation counting from the common ancestor because Jefferson's ancestors reproduced faster than her ancestors.  Very strange!

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Isn't any theory that incorporates a revelatory method of translating ancient texts equally unscientific?

Of course, and you once again miss my point:  I have no problem with those who use revelatory or inspired means to obtain knowledge, but I do not ever confuse that with scholarship.  Science and revelation are simply two separate means, and are not to be mixed.  To my mind, both are valid, but only one is subject to factual affirmation.

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I believe that there are lots of scholarly publications that demonstrate two different sets of evidence found in the BOM, one set consisting of ancient elements present in the text and the other consisting of elements that are of modern fabrication. Translation theory deals with some of the modern elements rather weakly by itself, and so we get Blake Ostler augmenting translation theory. Again, you can call my hypothesis unscientific as much as you'd like, but it will do an equal job to Ostler's theory at accounting for the data, and both revelation accompanying creativity and revelation accompanying seer stone use are equally unscientific hypotheses.

Again you miss the point:  All scholarship sees that any 19th century translation will of necessity include current language patterns and culture.  That goes without saying.  Many non-scholars imagine that those instances of 19th century language and culture mean that the item being translated was at least partially fabricated in the 19th century.  A scholar (most of whom are multilingual) understands that the language and culture of translation is frequently misinterpreted as indicating partial origin in that era.  This is usually false, and in the case of the Book of Mormon is a vast misunderstanding of what takes place during translation (which can include a midrashic expansion of a text).  Why?  Because the BofM was actually translated in the 1500s by a person or persons unknown, and Joseph merely read that translation off of his stone.

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

No, I'm just looking for a way to account for all the elements of the text. You and other apologists use revelation to account for the ancient elements in the BOM text. I'm doing the same thing, just suggesting a different enabling mechanism.

No, that is not what I do, although I cannot speak for the non-scholars out there who depend solely on revelatory explanations.  I depend on standard scholarship to account for the ancient elements in the BofM.

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Here I lay out the spectrum of possibilities, something good scholars typically do.

There are a number of justifications for privileging JS's personal views. I'm surprised you're not at least acknowledging their existence. Again, a good scholarly approach would be to acknowledge the possibilities, not ignore them.

Most scholars I know see Joseph Smith as subject to the same human frailties which impinge on the rest of us humans.  He himself preferred that to be how he was perceived.  Read Richard Bushman's bio of Joseph (actually he has two such books).

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I won't be participating in any further public debate on this thread. If anyone sincerely wants to discuss any of these issues with me, please send a private message. I get the feeling that this public forum is currently too polarized to have a productive discussion.

In closing, Robert, you've made some great points, but you seem to ignore a fundamental contradiction, which is that as revelation is the primary mechanism for explaining ancient elements in both translation theory and a creativity+revelation hypothesis, both are based on equally unscientific premises.

Again, you entirely missed my point, which is that scholarship can be used without any appeal to revelation or the creative impulse to account for the ancient elements in the BofM.  Scholars generally use the scientific method.  I don't know where you got the false impression that I have ignored that important fact.