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

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good comments.  Joseph Smith clearly viewed the Native Americans in his backyard as Lamanites, he called them Lamanites, he sent people on missions to them, he had revelations to build a temple among them.  Joseph, the author of the BoM whether you want to call it translation or dictation or invention, Joseph is still the author.  I think it matters what Joseph thought about the Lamanites.  I think this is always going to be a challenge to those promoting the limited geography model, and I don't see how this can be explained away, its just too obvious what Joseph thought and Joseph's opinion about a book that he authored really matters on this subject.  

Even in a limited geographic model the descendents of the lamanites likely would have contributed to many of the native Americans in the eastern United States. While the further north groups like the Huron likely had less influence I'm not sure that means the promises don't apply. But even for those accepting the limited geographic model it doesn't follow that Joseph Smith understood all the nuances of whatever Moroni conveyed to him. A lot of understanding we take for granted about genetic diffusion was almost certainly not understood by him. Those broad theoretical backgrounds affect deeply how a person interprets the data.

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

You are correct if Joseph is the author. If he conceived and created the text, then of course his ideas about the text are definitive. That changes, however, if he is the translator. Then he is producing a text that he didn't know about beforehand, and therefore his opinions cannot inform the text. For example, we have the famous statement about walls around Jerusalem. As the story is told, he was surprised by that, not placing the information in the text.

If someone else wrote the text and Joseph translated it, then it is possible that he knew very little about it (as the story of the walls of Jerusalem suggests). What then do we do with his ideas of who the Lamanites were? It is very clear that he thought that all Amerindians were Lamanites. The designation of who might be a Lamanite has shifted in the Church over time. Armand Mauss's All Abraham's Children has a good summation of that history.

Sometimes, it is suggested that since Joseph saw visions of the Book of Mormon peoples that he must have known everything (including geography). I took an Internet quizz that showed pictures and had you answer where in the world they were. Our modern world has a lot better way of visualizing the world, including places where I have never been, so I didn't do poorly--but I certainly had problems identifying locations based on the visual of that place. I can't imagine why it would have been different for Joseph. The best evidence that we should be cautious with Joseph's opinions about the book is that he changed his mind about the location of the book with the discovery of new ruins. If he changed his opinion that easily, it clearly wasn't founded on revelation of specifics about the history or geography of the text.

That leaves us with the question of whether Joseph's opinion about the text is definitive for the text. I can't see it, unless he wrote it and there was no actual ancient people behind it.

Even assuming that the BOM is ancient, his translation bears so many marks of Joseph's immediate environment that Joseph should at least get credit as co-authoring it along with Moroni et al. 

Even the description in the D&C sounds like a creative process, not a means to translate a text into a different language. 

Edited March 21, 2017 by Gray

[hope_for_things]

55 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

You are correct if Joseph is the author. If he conceived and created the text, then of course his ideas about the text are definitive. That changes, however, if he is the translator. Then he is producing a text that he didn't know about beforehand, and therefore his opinions cannot inform the text. For example, we have the famous statement about walls around Jerusalem. As the story is told, he was surprised by that, not placing the information in the text.

Two problems with this that I see.

1.  This sounds like a tight translation model, in which case a person believes that Joseph is more of a passive vessel than an active participant.  I thought you personally don't find the tight translation model persuasive.  

2.  If tight translation, then Joseph's other revelations are on equal playing field with the BoM text, therefore the revelations of preaching to the Lamanites, building a temple among them, even the Zelph story, all have equal revelatory weight.  How can you dismiss them? 

55 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

If someone else wrote the text and Joseph translated it, then it is possible that he knew very little about it (as the story of the walls of Jerusalem suggests). What then do we do with his ideas of who the Lamanites were? It is very clear that he thought that all Amerindians were Lamanites. The designation of who might be a Lamanite has shifted in the Church over time. Armand Mauss's All Abraham's Children has a good summation of that history.

I haven't read the book by Mauss yet, its on my too read list though, I will give it a try.  You might find Gina Colvin's recent blog post interesting on this topic as well.  She talks about some of the problems we have today with our legacy of labeling peoples in the pacific region specifically, but also all native peoples in the Americas as Lamanites.  The church's quiet and uncomfortable moving away these specific references, still leaves a complicated legacy of misappropriating the cultural identities of so many people.  What will we do today to clean up the messes that past actions as a church community have caused.  

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2017/03/book-mormon-complicated/

Edited March 21, 2017 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

50 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Even in a limited geographic model the descendents of the lamanites likely would have contributed to many of the native Americans in the eastern United States. While the further north groups like the Huron likely had less influence I'm not sure that means the promises don't apply. But even for those accepting the limited geographic model it doesn't follow that Joseph Smith understood all the nuances of whatever Moroni conveyed to him. A lot of understanding we take for granted about genetic diffusion was almost certainly not understood by him. Those broad theoretical backgrounds affect deeply how a person interprets the data.

Certainly Joseph didn't have access to the knowledge we posses today, there is no question there.  We can only speculate how our 21st century understanding about the world, science, archaeology, etc, would have influenced Joseph.  

The problem I see is that many apologetic arguments sound like very strained attempts to try and explain how Joseph wasn't actually materially wrong, there is still an element of truth to what he said or did, but its completely different than how we've understood it or how it looks on paper.  

Personally these kinds of apologetic arguments undermine the credibility of many of those who promote them.  Its a conundrum because I recognize when people put forth theories to explain things they are doing so in good faith because of their love for and devotion to their convictions.  What I find refreshing is when people are willing to openly acknowledge the errors in Joseph's ideas, and early church perspectives.  To admit the errors and mistakes which are prevalent in any organization administered by mortals.  

[clarkgoble]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Two problems with this that I see.1.  This sounds like a tight translation model, in which case a person believes that Joseph is more of a passive vessel than an active participant.  I thought you personally don't find the tight translation model persuasive.  

One has to distinguish between two aspects of translation that can be tight/loose. The first is the relation between the texts. The second is the methodology in Joseph seer stone use. The two aren't related. So one can be tight while the other loose.

Quote

If tight translation, then Joseph's other revelations are on equal playing field with the BoM text, therefore the revelations of preaching to the Lamanites, building a temple among them, even the Zelph story, all have equal revelatory weight.  How can you dismiss them?

Note that the textual basis for all these things (and even whether they are a revelation) are not of equal weight. So even many of the revelations that end up in the later part of the D&C in the Utah period are themselves based upon extremely fragmentary notes and not a complete text Joseph had approved. One has to keep this in mind when dealing with the hermeneutic issues.

 

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

One has to distinguish between two aspects of translation that can be tight/loose. The first is the relation between the texts. The second is the methodology in Joseph seer stone use. The two aren't related. So one can be tight while the other loose.

Can you expound on this distinction, I'm not sure I follow.  I was referring to the Skousen model for tight translation that assumes that Joseph is reading English words right off the seer stone.  What could still be loose in that model, and how would that apply to this discussion of a limited geographic model?  

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Note that the textual basis for all these things (and even whether they are a revelation) are not of equal weight. So even many of the revelations that end up in the later part of the D&C in the Utah period are themselves based upon extremely fragmentary notes and not a complete text Joseph had approved. One has to keep this in mind when dealing with the hermeneutic issues.

If you believe in tight translation, then you believe that Joseph's words are inspired by God, that he wasn't adding his personal thoughts and opinions.  I'm not advocating this model and I personally don't believe it.  I'm just trying to represent how those who do believe in a more fundamentalist idea of how revelation works, that God is speaking through his prophet, would view the D&C revelations and other statements that have been canonized.  For these people, the way these words got canonized or the evidence for their historicity and the context of the revelations, doesn't matter.  What is in the scripture at this moment is God's word irrespective of those elements you mention.  

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem I see is that many apologetic arguments sound like very strained attempts to try and explain how Joseph wasn't actually materially wrong, there is still an element of truth to what he said or did, but its completely different than how we've understood it or how it looks on paper.  

I think the problem I see with critics is that they judge right and wrong in these contexts by the standards of 20th century objective history and a kind of de facto infallibility on the part of Joseph. That is if Joseph correctly restores an ancient text, the text should be judged by the standards of similar ancient texts not 20th century histories.

The problem of course, as you allude, is that many members have a more fundamentalist interpretation scripture and prophets. However the problem is not with the apologists so much as it is with an incorrect model of scriptural hermeneutics. Fortunately it has been changing the past decade or two. In no small part due to the influence of apologists on the larger project of writing about scriptures intended for a popular audience.

 

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said:

Nephi is pretty clear that he didn't see much of the land, but that he claimed that he was on an "isle of the sea." That designation only lasts through his writing. No one else uses that designation.

Later information speaks about various seas, but only actually interfaces with seas on the east and the west. We only get the north and south seas in the context of the "whole earth." With zero action taking place near the north or south seas, and with the very specific context in which they appear, it is pretty clear that they have become symbolic representations. That is the Mesoamerican definition of the nature of the earth--but it is not a physical description. It is also not an indication of an isle of the sea. Nephi has very little geographic information. They land on a coast (which we get by obvious assumption, not his statement). Then he goes "up" to the land of Nephi. He mentions that he is on an "isle of the sea," which is more a reference and connection to Isaiah than to geography.

 

When I speak of Nephi's idea of the scope of BOM geography and historical significance, I'm primarily speaking of his vision of the future of the Lamanites and Nephites.  And also of his talk of being led to the Promised Land, and how that has been previously defined by the Jaredites, and how that is referenced in further visions and prophesies.  

[churchistrue]

2 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

I take recourse to the real world and known history. First, reading a text as saying that the entire population lived in perfect unity as Christians is a modern anachronistic reading of what an ancient text says and means. That difference between the way we approach the text shows up frequently, and clearly will continue to show up. Once you accept that the text was written anciently, you have to accept that it follows ancient canons and does not subscribe to what a modern reader believes that it should say. Christ sent his apostles into all the world--but the world they went to wasn't all that large. Nevertheless, later readers who knew of a larger world assumed that they had reached other locations, which is how the Spanish fathers thought that St.Thomas had arrived in the New World. That is the same kind of anachronistic reading-back into the text that you are suggesting. I might note, however, that it is entirely unclear what material evidence New World Christianity would leave. All of the symbology we associate with Christianity was developed long after the Lehites left the Old World, and many of the symbol systems were borrowed from Greek culture, which was an influence in the Old World, but not the New.

As for the destructions, that is also a pretty simple issue. We haven't done enough archaeology to find all destroyed cities, but there is very good evidence of the explosive eruption of a volcano at the appropriate time, along with a slippage along fault lines, that caused widespread destruction. There is at least one city that was sunk (into Lake Atitlan) about this time period. So for the things that can be checked against history, there is really no problem. For the issues that depend upon particular readings of the text--that is a reading question and not one amenable to archaeology.

The more we talk, the more I'm unsure who has a more "metaphorical" type view of the BOM.  The one who takes the text literally but views it all as a metaphor.  Or the one who views the text as scripture, but with all the words and meaning twisted into something that ends up looking more like a metaphor than the actual metaphorical view.  

This would be a great thought experiment.  Take someone who's read the BOM 100 times from the 1830's and then show them the LGT-Mixing Populations theory with all the explanations and twists and turns that Brant Gardner does, turning nearly every verse into something totally different than what one originally thought.  Then give them the "sacred story" (I'm replacing "inspired fiction" with "sacred story") version of it where all the meaning is preserved, but it's viewed as a long, complex non-historical metaphor.  Then tell they have to accept one.  I wonder which they choose.  I wonder which one they would think leads them more to Christ.  This might give insight into why I think the "sacred story" testimony of the Book of Mormon should be considered every bit as equal as a testimony of the actuality of the BOM, twisted and turned seven degrees through the LGT-Mixing Populations Theory.  

  

Edited March 21, 2017 by churchistrue

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

The more we talk, the more I'm unsure who has a more "metaphorical" type view of the BOM.  The one who takes the text literally but views it all as a metaphor.  Or the one who views the text as scripture, but with all the words and meaning twisted into something that ends up looking more like a metaphor than the actual metaphorical view.  

This would be a great thought experiment.  Take someone who's read the BOM 100 times from the 1830's and then show them the LGT-Mixing Populations theory with all the explanations and twists and turns that Brant Gardner does, turning nearly every verse into something totally different than what one originally thought.  Then give them the "sacred story" (I'm replacing "inspired fiction" with "sacred story") version of it where all the meaning is preserved, but it's viewed as a long, complex non-historical metaphor.  Then tell they have to accept one.  I wonder which they choose.  I wonder which one they would think leads them more to Christ.  This might give insight into why I think the "sacred story" testimony of the Book of Mormon should be considered every bit as equal as a testimony of the actuality of the BOM, twisted and turned seven degrees through the LGT-Mixing Populations Theory.    

Note that this is exactly what fundamentalist hermeneutics consists of when applied to the Bible. That the meaning of the text in it's original context doesn't matter but all that matters is someone reading the text as if it were written by a member of their community. So all you're really arguing is that the only correct interpretation is a fundamentalist one of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I wonder if you're willing to apply the same hermeneutic principle to the Bible's historicity? That is should Biblical historicity be judged only in terms of fundamentalist readings of the Bible? After all by your standard all the readings archaeologists and historians make of the near east are metaphoric. (Note again here merely pointing to historicity not accuracy)

Edited March 21, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think the problem I see with critics is that they judge right and wrong in these contexts by the standards of 20th century objective history and a kind of de facto infallibility on the part of Joseph. That is if Joseph correctly restores an ancient text, the text should be judged by the standards of similar ancient texts not 20th century histories.

I'll admit that this is how I judge Joseph through my modern lens of understanding.  I'm not sure how to judge him otherwise.  I can't force my way into a 19th century mindset no matter how hard I try.  What I do find persuasive are voices like the Marcus Borg's of the world who honestly acknowledge the problematic elements of our religious history, don't try to explain it away, and still find great inspiration in the Christian message.  Right now, thats the model that I find as a persuasive path forward.  

I'm willing to cut Joseph some slack as far as his motivations are concerned, but I'm not willing to cut him slack for things I find unethical and I don't like it when apologists try to excuse behaviors I find morally unacceptable, as inspired by God.  This BoM topic is not one that I find morally problematic, I'm referring to other things, but this BoM topic I do find intellectually challenging to try and believe in from a historical perspective.  If you're familiar with Borg and his approach to the Bible, that is an approach I find possible to apply to the BoM and D&C as well for myself personally.  

[churchistrue]

4th Nephi:

Sacred Story version:

Jesus Christ comes.  The wicked are destroyed.  (something to learn there)  The faithful remain.  (something to learn there)  Sixteen cities are destroyed and rebuilt.  The conversion of the people to Jesus' visit is so strong (something to learn there)  that they have four generations of unity and peace (something to learn there).

I view it as a metaphor, but I just learned a lot.  The Holy Ghost is teaching me in every verse on every page.

 

LGT-Mixing Populations Theory:

There might have been a volcano.  The faithful probably didn't endure in any material percentage difference than the wicked Lamanites (or else we'd know from their DNA), so the text probably didn't mean what it says (ancientism-presentism-expectations, etc). Jesus comes.  But it didn't make any impact on the people, nor should we expect it to.  Four generations of unity.  Unity, schumity, presentism, you just don't know how to read ancient texts.  They obviously weren't really unified because we can look at Mesoamerica history and prove they weren't.  We don't know how many actually believed in Jesus.  Since the historical record suggest none, it's probably pretty close to that number.  Turns out Jesus visiting America's not that big of a deal.

I view it as actual history, but I'm not sure I learned anything except that Mesoamericans didn't do anything people in the BOM do.  Did I even need the Holy Ghost for that?

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

There might have been a volcano.  The faithful probably didn't endure in any material percentage difference than the wicked Lamanites (or else we'd know from their DNA), so the text probably didn't mean what it says (ancientism-presentism-expectations, etc). Jesus comes.  But it didn't make any impact on the people, nor should we expect it to.  Four generations of unity.  Unity, schumity, presentism, you just don't know how to read ancient texts.  They obviously weren't really unified because we can look at Mesoamerica history and prove they weren't.  We don't know how many actually believed in Jesus.  Since the historical record suggest none, it's probably pretty close to that number.  Turns out Jesus visiting America's not that big of a deal.

I view it as actual history, but I'm not sure I learned anything except that Mesoamericans didn't do anything people in the BOM do.  Did I even need the Holy Ghost for that?

That seems a caricature of the apologetic position.

[churchistrue]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Note that this is exactly what fundamentalist hermeneutics consists of when applied to the Bible. That the meaning of the text in it's original context doesn't matter but all that matters is someone reading the text as if it were written by a member of their community. So all you're really arguing is that the only correct interpretation is a fundamentalist one of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I wonder if you're willing to apply the same hermeneutic principle to the Bible's historicity? That is should Biblical historicity be judged only in terms of fundamentalist readings of the Bible? After all by your standard all the readings archaeologists and historians make of the near east are metaphoric. (Note again here merely pointing to historicity not accuracy)

I'm not exactly following you.  Sorry.  I think I would be consistent with the logic that I apply to both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.  ftr, I take a modern view of the Bible.  I think you might be telling me I'm not taking a similarly modern view of the BOM?  

[churchistrue]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That seems a caricature of the apologetic position.

I'd like to hear more detail on the apologetic position then.  Because what Brant just described sounds a lot like that.

 

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I'd like to hear more detail on the apologetic position then.  Because what Brant just described sounds a lot like that.

To be fair there typically isn't a single apologist position but a range of positions.

That caveat noted, I'd say to his points the following would be more accurate. The apologetic position is that populations rarely are totally wiped out by war but that the Nephites were destroyed as a political entity and the believers all died. That is an identifiable group they were wiped out and only the political lamanites remained. Jesus came and had a transformative effect on a relatively geographically small group of people but not on the Americas as a whole. This led to a strong period of peace and unity lasting more than 100 years. We don't know how many believed but imagine it would have been at least tens of thousands. Jesus visiting the Americas was a huge deal.

[churchistrue]

Brant (or anyone else keen on the LGT--I don't meant to badger Brant).  How would you generally answer the question as to why the translation of the Book of Mormon either was done so poorly by Joseph Smith or has been received so incorrectly by its audience?  I think we could spend a week going through page by page of the BOM, and find something material on every page that LGT'ers would interpret differently, many times the difference being HUGE substantially changing the meaning.  I think the LGT persepective is so totally off the traditional view, many members wouldn't even recognize it as the same book.  My question is why do you think that is?  Intended by God?  If so, why?  Is God disappointed in us?  If so, where did it go wrong?  Joseph?  The readers?  Can you pinpoint the main reason why it's received so vastly differently than how you believe it should be?

  

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I'm not exactly following you.  Sorry.  I think I would be consistent with the logic that I apply to both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.  ftr, I take a modern view of the Bible.  I think you might be telling me I'm not taking a similarly modern view of the BOM?  

Basically. I'm just saying that it's unfair to apply fundamentalist hermeneutics to either the Bible or Book of Mormon when judging the relative accuracy. So if we can dismiss as unlikely say the numbers Luke gives for conversions at the day of pentacost, the nature of the killing the firstborn at Jesus' birth, and so forth yet accept there's a historic Christ we should also reject fundamentalist hermeneutics for the Book of Mormon.

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, churchistrue said:

Brant (or anyone else keen on the LGT--I don't meant to badger Brant).  How would you generally answer the question as to why the translation of the Book of Mormon either was done so poorly by Joseph Smith or has been received so incorrectly by its audience?  I think we could spend a week going through page by page of the BOM, and find something material on every page that LGT'ers would interpret differently, many times the difference being HUGE substantially changing the meaning.  I think the LGT persepective is so totally off the traditional view, many members wouldn't even recognize it as the same book.  My question is why do you think that is?  Intended by God?  If so, why?  Is God disappointed in us?  If so, where did it go wrong?  Joseph?  The readers?  Can you pinpoint the main reason why it's received so vastly differently than how you believe it should be?

Again, doesn't Ether 12 already answer this? (I've mentioned it before here)

[Kevin Christensen]

33 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

The more we talk, the more I'm unsure who has a more "metaphorical" type view of the BOM.  The one who takes the text literally but views it all as a metaphor.  Or the one who views the text as scripture, but with all the words and meaning twisted into something that ends up looking more like a metaphor than the actual metaphorical view.  

This would be a great thought experiment.  Take someone who's read the BOM 100 times from the 1830's and then show them the LGT-Mixing Populations theory with all the explanations and twists and turns that Brant Gardner does, turning nearly every verse into something totally different than what one originally thought.  Then give them the "sacred story" (I'm replacing "inspired fiction" with "sacred story") version of it where all the meaning is preserved, but it's viewed as a long, complex non-historical metaphor.  Then tell they have to accept one.  I wonder which they choose.  I wonder which one they would think leads them more to Christ.  This might give insight into why I think the "sacred story" testimony of the Book of Mormon should be considered every bit as equal as a testimony of the actuality of the BOM, twisted and turned seven degrees through the LGT-Mixing Populations Theory.  

  

Notice the rhetorical function of the choice of words "twists and turns" rather than "careful contextualization." 

The Book of Mormon authors themselves observe that cultural context makes a difference (2 Nephi 25), that first hearers may "suppose they understand" and subsequently "not ask" and therefore misread (Jesus commenting on the Old World disciples misunderstanding "other sheep").  In 3 Nephi, Jesus tells his audience that they are weak, and cannot understand all his words, and must go and "prepare their minds", that is, to stop being mental couch potatoes and do the exercises it takes to become mental gymnasts. 

Or should we privilege the first impression of Nicodemus on what it means to be "born again" or the accusers of Jesus who offered their initial interpretation of what it means to "tear down this temple" and raise it again?   D&C 1 expressly warns against such privileging.

Back in the Review 16/1, I had this:

Quote

Is it possible to tie the meaning of words, particularly translated words, to a single cultural background? Frankly, no. When I went to England in 1973, I quickly learned that while many things are what they appear to be, the words for those things were sometimes not what I first thought. The roads looked the same, but I had to look a different direction when crossing them. Cars were much smaller and not only had the steering wheel on the opposite side but had boots and bonnets instead of trunks and hoods. There were no trucks, but there were lorries, no elevators but lifts. There were no french fries, but there were chips (which were also similar to fried potatoes). They had something like potato chips, but only if I asked for crisps. There were no cookies; what they called biscuits resembled cookies but were different from what I thought of as biscuits. And what was it to be cheeky? That sticks in my mind because I had to learn the concept of cheeky from within the culture because it could not be translated precisely from their English to mine.

The point is that what Vogel and Metcalfe call “ad hoc,” Sorenson and Gardner base on a general principle that cultural contexts can make a difference in meaning.¹⁶² Some concepts travel across cultures more easily than others, but cultural context raises issues that apply to all translations across all cultures. Their insistence that a nineteenth-century context suffices, and that an appeal to the “plain meaning” is all that is necessary to understand the text, is itself an ad hoc defense because it cannot be generally applied to critical study of any translation of any purported ancient document or, for that matter, to the study of any culture by any outsider.

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

[churchistrue]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

To be fair there typically isn't a single apologist position but a range of positions.

That caveat noted, I'd say to his points the following would be more accurate. The apologetic position is that populations rarely are totally wiped out by war but that the Nephites were destroyed as a political entity and the believers all died. That is an identifiable group they were wiped out and only the political lamanites remained. Jesus came and had a transformative effect on a relatively geographically small group of people but not on the Americas as a whole. This led to a strong period of peace and unity lasting more than 100 years. We don't know how many believed but imagine it would have been at least tens of thousands. Jesus visiting the Americas was a huge deal.

Interesting. And sorry if I sound emotional on this.  I'm pretty cool on most topics, but for some reason, LGT-Mixing Populations becomes emotional to me.  I need to talk to my therapist about that.  Childhood issues I'm sure.  Anyway.  So, the Nephites with Nephite DNA were all destroyed prior to Jesus coming?  And so then the only people left when Jesus came were Lamanites (ie native Mesoamericans who 600 years prior had blood Lamanites intermarry but quickly integrated and lost any Lehite identity).  These Lamanites then split into Nephites and Lamanites, I guess due to that's how they traditionally divided between believers and non-believers?

[churchistrue]

19 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Notice the rhetorical function of the choice of words "twists and turns" rather than "careful contextualization." 

The Book of Mormon authors themselves observe that cultural context makes a difference (2 Nephi 25), that first hearers may "suppose they understand" and subsequently "not ask" and therefore misread (Jesus commenting on the Old World disciples misunderstanding "other sheep").  In 3 Nephi, Jesus tells his audience that they are weak, and cannot understand all his words, and must go and "prepare their minds", that is, to stop being mental couch potatoes and do the exercises it takes to become mental gymnasts. 

Or should we privilege the first impression of Nicodemus on what it means to be "born again" or the accusers of Jesus who offered their initial interpretation of what it means to "tear down this temple" and raise it again?   D&C 1 expressly warns against such privileging.

Back in the Review 16/1, I had this:

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

<redacted> I know this is not going to be fruitful.  

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by churchistrue

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

So, the Nephites with Nephite DNA were all destroyed prior to Jesus coming?

I'd say that'd be unlikely. Although we haven't a clue what Nephi's DNA was so I'm not sure we can say anything there. 

Quote

 And so then the only people left when Jesus came were Lamanites (ie native Mesoamericans who 600 years prior had blood Lamanites intermarry but quickly integrated and lost any Lehite identity).

No I'm not saying that. I was assuming the destructions originally mentioned were those at 400 AD not 0 AD. So my comments reflected that. I assume the destructions at the coming of Christ killed a lot of people but that a fair number of Nephites and converted lamanites survived.

Quote

 These Lamanites then split into Nephites and Lamanites, I guess due to that's how they traditionally divided between believers and non-believers?

Yes, the later split of 4 Nephi 1:35-38 is politically oriented, determined by the Lamanites and not the Nephites, and roughly is between believers and non-belivers at that time. 4 Nephi is pretty short and vague, so it's hard to get too much from the text. It does seem like after a hundred more years or so even many of the Nephites, originally divided based on belief, now are non-believers (See 4 Nephi 1:43-45) So what 4 Nephi recounts is largely an apostasy from the Nephite beliefs over the space of a few centuries. It seems by the time of Mormon there are relatively few believers among the Nephites.

 

 

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

So, Mormon must be disappointed that most of us misunderstand his version of 3rd and 4th Nephi?  We didn't study enough all that stuff that you and Brant Gardner studied?  

Moroni was. Again read Ether 12.

Quote

Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them; And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them. Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.

Seems like his fears were well founded. The Lord's response is worth reading since it is rather pertinent to how the book is the most correct book.

Quote

Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness; And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them. Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness.

In terms of the details of the translation we receive, it's a very imperfect book. As God put it to Mormon, the translation is a weak thing. If we read it the way the Lord asks, in meekness, and look to what we can learn even if in the details there are problem, then the Lord can do great things with us.

Edited March 21, 2017 by clarkgoble

[churchistrue]

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Moroni was. Again read Ether 12.

Seems like his fears were well founded. The Lord's response is worth reading since it is rather pertinent to how the book is the most correct book.

In terms of the details of the translation we receive, it's a very imperfect book. As God put it to Mormon, the translation is a weak thing. If we read it the way the Lord asks, in meekness, and look to what we can learn even if in the details there are problem, then the Lord can do great things with us.

OK, that's fair.  I feel that kind of view has less power than the non-historical "sacred story" version.  But I'm happy whenever someone reads and studies the Book of Mormon.