Rajah Manchou Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 10 hours ago, sunstoned said: Show me the quote where they talk of others. Over a 1000 year history and not one reference to all anyone else except the other phantom groups of the Jaredites and mulekites. Not one reference to the vast number of native people who really populated this hemisphere. Not one direct reference. I have read the apologetic spin on this and it is weak sauce. An uninhabited promised land across the great waters at the far ends of the earth set apart for Israelites that had been led by God from Jerusalem in the 6th century BC is a common theme in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Nobody talks about this.
mfbukowski Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 28 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: Really, it all comes down to a choice between what I think, what I desire, and beyond them, what is ultimately real. To get to what is real, I have to be willing to offer up what I think (that is, offer a contrite spirit) and what I desire (offer a broken heart) to enter the real, rather than huddle down behind what I think now and what I desire now as though they ought to be inviolate, as though I have nothing important to learn, as if my map is perfect now, and as though my personal desires should determine the cartography used in creating my map, as though no sacrifice of desire in the now could ever lead to anything better tomorrow and in eternity. Wonderful, wonderful stuff. Thanks! Requirements to enter the real. Wonderful way to put it! Through a glass darkly . Maps are never BEING THERE.
Kevin Christensen Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 11 hours ago, sunstoned said: Show me the quote where they talk of others. Over a 1000 year history and not one reference to all anyone else except the other phantom groups of the Jaredites and mulekites. Not one reference to the vast number of native people who really populated this hemisphere. Not one direct reference. I have read the apologetic spin on this and it is weak sauce. This blanket assertion and rhetorical peppering does not strike me as persuasive as Roper's careful analysis. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1126&index=10 Just saying. Of course, I'd been looking at the same sort of thing before Roper. But he did a more thorough job than I. Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 3
CV75 Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, sunstoned said: Show me the quote where they talk of others. Over a 1000 year history and not one reference to all anyone else except the other phantom groups of the Jaredites and mulekites. Not one reference to the vast number of native people who really populated this hemisphere. Not one direct reference. I have read the apologetic spin on this and it is weak sauce. 2 Nephi 1:6 allows for others to be brought into the land; verse 7 says that the land is consecrated unto the faithful; verse 8 allows that only a few other nations were brought. As the Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekites, and Jaredites demonstrated, not all nations remain faithful, and this typically results in becoming overrun by yet other nations. Granted, we miraculously only have a record of the Nephite experience (Enos 1:13-17); we cannot tell with whom the Lamanites, Mulekites, and Jaredites mingled. But we do have something of a pattern: Looking at 2 Nephi 1:10-11 and Alma 50:20-22 together, the first mention of dwindling in unbelief among the Nephites is around 70 AD, but it occurred among the Lamanites much earlier (around 569 BC). Where the dwindling in unbelief of one nation is punished by other nations having power over them, and we have a record of that happening around 70 AD with regards to the Nephites, it is reasonable that it happened with regards to the Lamanites as early as 569 BC (see 2 Nephi 5). This allows for other nations to be on the land to subsume the Lamanites, as the promise to those who dwindle in unbelief is that other nations will overrun them, and we know the Nephites never overran the Lamanites. Edited June 14, 2018 by CV75 2
Exiled Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: This blanket assertion and rhetorical peppering does not strike me as persuasive as Roper's careful analysis. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1126&index=10 Just saying. Of course, I'd been looking at the same sort of thing before Roper. But he did a more thorough job than I. Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Historicity will always be possible along with pretty much anything. Probability is another question and that keeps shrinking like the hemisphere model did to become the limited geography model. I predict it will shrink further and will disappear entirely, like lamanite dna has seemingly disappeared. In 50 years, inspired fiction will dominate.
Kevin Christensen Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 18 minutes ago, Exiled said: Historicity will always be possible along with pretty much anything. Probability is another question and that keeps shrinking like the hemisphere model did to become the limited geography model. I predict it will shrink further and will disappear entirely, like lamanite dna has seemingly disappeared. In 50 years, inspired fiction will dominate. The problem with the "shrinking hemisphere" model is that what shrunk it in the first place was a close and much expanded view of the text. The history of historicity makes it clear that the first serious attempt to consider all of the geographic clues within the text did not appear until 1937 (the Washburn's book), which means that the hemispheric model did not have viable textual support. No one had done the work behind the question. It was the details of the text, not the arguments of the skeptics that changed the model. Another problem in challenging the overall historicity model is that the New World portion of the Book of Mormon is only a portion of the Book of Mormon. The scales of balance that I consider has a lot of significant weight on the Old World side that the "What about DNA!" hysterics don't touch. Consider, Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, and In the Footsteps of Lehi and such. And there is the problem that in the first generation in the Book of Mormon narrative, "Lamanite" goes from being a lineage designation to a political one (Jacob 1:14), and for those of use who accept the presence of others in the New World from the beginning (see Roper for the best survey), the whole question has a very different frame. Quote An interesting study reported in the June 2003 issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics leads me to believe that it is possible for Book of Mormon peoples to be ancestors of modern Native Americans and yet not be easily detected using traditional Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests. This study, conducted by a group of scientists from a company called deCODE Genetics, used the extensive genealogies of people from Iceland combined with probably the most massive population study ever performed. They traced the matrilineal and patrilineal ancestry of all 131,060 Icelanders born after 1972 back to two cohorts of ancestors, one born between 1848 and 1892 and the other between 1742 and 1798.6 Examining the same Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA markers used in other genetic studies, these 131,060 Icelanders “revealed highly positively skewed distributions of descendants to ancestors, with the vast majority of potential ancestors contributing one or no descendants and a minority of ancestors contributing large numbers of descendants.”7 In other words, the majority of people living today in Iceland had ancestors living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests being performed and yet the genealogical records exist showing that these people lived and were real ancestors. To the point at hand, if many documented ancestors of 150 years ago cannot be linked to their descendants through Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests from modern Iceland, then it certainly seems possible that the people who are reported in the Book of Mormon to have migrated to the Americas over 2,600 years ago might not have left genetic signatures that are detectable today. That's John Butler, a believing LDS and DNA scientist. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1446&index=6 And there is the issue of knowing what to look for, not only of a tiny group entering a pre-existing population of millions 2600 years ago, but on this side of the genetic bottleneck that killed 90% of the indigenous population by the beginning of the 20th century. Roper (and Gardner about the same time) noticed the importance of Jacob lecturing his people on this passage: Quote Wherefore, my beloved brethren, thus saith our God: I will afflict thy seed by the hand of the Gentiles; nevertheless, I will soften the hearts of the Gentiles, that they shall be like unto a father to them; wherefore, the Gentiles shall be blessed and numbered among the house of Israel. Wherefore, I will consecrate this land unto thy seed, and them who shall be numbered among thy seed, forever, for the land of their inheritance; for it is a choice land, saith God unto me, above all other lands, wherefore I will have all men that dwell thereon that they shall worship me, saith God. (2 Nephi 10:18–19) It's reasonable to assume that the mixing started from the beginning, both based on indications in the text, and the clear evidence of archeology. There were already millions of people around when Lehi and company arrived. And there is the issue about whether anything some LDS authority or teacher once said, whether that should be binding, whether it sets up stakes and bounds, saying, "hitherto thou shalt come and no further" as Joseph Smith stated was in contrast to his intent to continue to learn all things. What should be our formal position regarding the authority of LDS authorities? Quote Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants ... Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. 25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; 26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; 27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; 28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time. That is D&C 1. If you have a more authoritative source, let's see it, and account for how it overrules this. Now if someone wants to approach the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction,. if that is the particle of belief that you choose to plant and nurture, fine. Go ahead. I cannot help but notice that Ostler's "Expanded" text approach was published in 1987, the same year that Barker's The Older Testament appeared, and began setting a the foundation of her work. I know lots of people who were helped by Ostler's work. I liked it myself, but Barker's work changed everything. I saw that Ostler's critieria for text being an expansion was if it was too Christian before Christ. And Barker's work makes that sort of argument obsolete, and indeed, suggests that historicity rather than expansion is the stronger argument. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4 Just trying to point out that perspective makes a difference. As N.R. Hanson famously observed, "All data is theory laden." Change the theory, and that also changes the significance and interpretation of the data. And learning that is part of the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth. Here, as food for thought, are positions 6 and 7 of 9. Quote POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen. FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT. Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right. He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it. He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief. He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength. He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth. He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition. He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical. The TRANSITION position between Position 6, "Commitment Foreseen", and position 7, "Commitments in Relativism developed" is as follows: Besides the above, the person feels he is lost if he doesn't decide, that if he can once make one decision, everything else will be OK. POSITION 7. Commitments in Relativism developed. The person makes first commitment while being aware of Relativism, and has a vivid sense of CLAIMING AND POWER. He now more fully feels that agency is within him and foresees responsibility with excitement and anticipates more empowering as he makes more commitments and choices. The TRANSITION between Position 7 and Position 8, sees the person having made his first commitment but feeling that everything else is still in limbo and he is foreseeing problems coming from trying to juggle responsibility. He senses need to be: wholehearted--but tentative, to be able to fight for his own values--yet respect others. Now, besides the other ways of studying, the person begins to read not to conciliate Authority, but to learn on his own initiative. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 3
cinepro Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) On 6/13/2018 at 8:16 AM, Kevin Christensen said: This is a good example of what happens when you combine presentist, context-free reading with narrow proof-texting. Really? I can understand that you have to argue for the idea of "others" in The Book of Mormon, but it's a little disingenuous to pretend that reading it as "exclusive" is some sort of flawed combination of "presentism" or lacking context and proof-texted. My eyes rolled so hard they still hurt a little. The Book of Mormon teaches (clearly, simply and obviously) that there were no "others" here when the Jaredites landed, and no non-Jaredites or non-Mulekites when the Lehites landed. Now, with enough creativity we may be able to squint our eyes and see "others" in the story, but that is only done once someone realizes that the science demands that there were others here, and that the only way to maintain any sort of belief in the BoM is to somehow, someway reconcile those two ideas. I'm all for creativity, and can tolerate as much squinting as is needed (because, again, I know why it's done). But to pretend that the plain, obvious and traditional teaching is some sort of critical or unusual concoction is just too much. Edited June 14, 2018 by cinepro 3
Kevin Christensen Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) 38 minutes ago, cinepro said: Really? I can understand that you have to argue for the idea of "others" in The Book of Mormon, but it's a little disingenuous to pretend that reading it as "exclusive" is some sort of flawed combination of "presentism" or lacking context and proof-texted. My eyes rolled so hard they still hurt a little. The Book of Mormon teaches (clearly, simply and obviously) that there were no "others" here when the Jaredites landed, and no non-Jaredites or non-Mulekites when the Lehites landed. Now, with enough creativity and creative reading we may be able to squint our eyes and see "others" in the story, but that is only done once someone realizes that the science demands that there were others here, and that the only way to maintain any sort of belief in the BoM is to somehow, someway reconcile those two ideas. I'm all for creativity, and can tolerate as much squinting as is needed (because, again, I know why it's done). But to pretend that the plain, obvious and traditional teaching is some sort of critical or unusual concoction is just too much. Yep. Blanket assertions, appeals to authorities (and not considering the nature of those human authorities as formally stated in D&C 1 which makes no exception for the Wentworth letter, which was based on a Pratt letter rather than a completely original composition by Smith, Marion G. Romney in 1976, and Jeffery Holland also in 1976) , rather than carefully responding to Roper (and others) who have also read the passages in question as well as many other Book of Mormon passages that are not discussed by those authorities, nor questions that those authorities did not address. My eyes did not roll because, after years of this, I am used to such things from you. Have you noticed Elder Holland in the years since 1976 every telling us that he has learned nothing since then, especially from the Maxwell Institute, which did not exist in 1976? It's not that they read the plain and obvious meaning of the text, people like Gardner and Roper and me come along and interpret it. They also interpreted it, and the question is, who has the best interpretation. Being first, having a calling, does not automatically make an interpretation correct and beyond question or further light: Quote Alma is especially instructive on the nature and extent and sources for prophetic knowledge: Now as to this thing I do not know. . . . But behold, the Spirit hath said this much unto me. (Alma 7:8-9) Now I unfold unto you a mystery; nevertheless, there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself. But I show unto you one thing which I have inquired diligently of God that I might know. . . . Now when this time cometh no one knows. . . . Now, whether there shall be one time, or a second time, or a third time, . . . it mattereth not; for God knoweth all things; and it sufficeth me to know in this case . . . what becometh of the souls of men is the thing which I have inquired diligently to know; and this is the thing of which I do know. . . . Behold it has been made known unto me by an angel. . . . Now, whether . . . I do not say; let it suffice, that . . . I do not say that . . . but behold, I give it as my opinion.” (Alma 40:3-5, 9, 11, 19-20) Has Holland taken the time, for instance, to rebuke me for giving a different reading than does to the Ether passage, back in 1990. Quote Yet Ether says nothing about the New World being uninhabited, let alone barren of life. Vogel sees Ether 13:2 as supporting the “notion of a universal flood” (p. 49). “After the waters had receded from off the face of this land [America], it became a choice land above all other lands” (ibid.). But are these waters from the Noah flood or from the creation? (see Genesis 1:7; Moses 2:6-10; Abraham 4:9). Ether is ambiguous. Nowhere does Ether describe the animals on the Jaredite barges as necessary for repopulating an uninhabited world. Vogel cites a claim by W. W. Phelps that Ether’s “deseret” answered the debate over the origin of the honeybee in America (p. 93 n. 94). Yet Vogel should know that all seven references to bees or honey in the Book of Mormon occur in the Old World.28 Moses 7:52 (translated in 1830) described how Enoch received a promise “that a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations.” Noah was a descendant of Enoch. A remnant would hardly be described as “found among all nations” if the remnant comprised all nations. At the very least, the Moses text removes any requirement that the New World be unpopulated after the flood. Vogel acknowledges in a footnote that the Ether 2:5 reference to “that quarter where there never had man been” can be understood as referring to an Old World location (p. 93 n. 94). Nothing in the text rules out the presence of other inhabitants in the New World. The silence of the text regarding non-Jaredite populations must be balanced against its brevity and the possibilities suggested by Enoch’s blessing and must be acknowledged as ambiguous. So, this is not a real argument, a real confrontation with the information and arguments available, but an attempt to control the narrative, a story. It's not intellectual, but political. Not spiritual, but ideological. Not not based on a close and careful examination of evidence, but a socially constructed meme about apologetics. It's like Trump's tweets about a Witch Hunt! that ignore the publicly available information in Russian Roulette and the statements of the intelligence agencies. Is "Surely the President would know!" a good enough reason to dismiss the critics and experts? "Creeds set up stakes, and say, “Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.” Joseph Smith, TPJS, 327. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited June 14, 2018 by Kevin Christensen 2
CA Steve Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 Couldn't we put together some sort of translation committee who could go though the Book Of Mormon and insert italicized words where clarification is needed? For example 2 Nephi 1:9 could be written like this: Quote Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from almost all other nations, that they may posses this land, in a very small area, mostly unto themselves. 1
cinepro Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 31 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: Yep. Blanket assertions, appeals to authorities (and not considering the nature of those human authorities as formally stated in D&C 1 which makes no exception for the Wentworth letter, which was based on a Pratt letter rather than a completely original composition by Smith, Marion G. Romney in 1976, and Jeffery Holland also in 1976) , rather than carefully responding to Roper (and others) who have also read the passages in question as well as many other Book of Mormon passages that are not discussed by those authorities, nor questions that those authorities did not address. My eyes did not roll because, after years of this, I am used to such things from you. Have you noticed Elder Holland in the years since 1976 every telling us that he has learned nothing since then, especially from the Maxwell Institute, which did not exist in 1976? My point isn't which interpretation is right or wrong (like I said, I totally agree with you that the "exclusive" interpretation is most likely wrong). You're preaching to the choir when you say that it is unrealistic and impractical to read The Book of Mormon as if it were an actual history of everyone who migrated to the New World before ~420 AD. I'm simply defending those who read it as being exclusive from your characterization of them as being "presentist", "context-free" and "proof-texting." I fully admit that if one gives the book enough careful study, you can find the "others" in it. I'll also fully admit that if you study the movie "Grease" enough, the entire movie is actually a dream Sandy has from being in a coma and she dies at the end. This doesn't make it the correct interpretation of the plot of the film of course, but it is the more studied and nuanced one. I didn't cite the Wentworth Letter and those talks as an appeal to authority. I cited them as an appeal to show that even if the obvious reading is the wrong one, it's not a reading borne from "presentism", lack of "context" or "proof-texting." It's borne from that being what the book very clearly claims. And whether it claims it because the original ancient authors didn't know there were others there, or Joseph Smith didn't know, doesn't matter. It's still possible (and even likely) for someone to read it and think it's telling an "exclusive" story because that's what it clearly is teaching. And just so we're all on the same page on this, here's a list I put together a while back of reasons a person might understand the Book of Mormon to be describing a story without "others" around the Nephites and Lamanites: -For a book that is so focused on Christ and bringing people to him (and missionary work in general), it seems odd that they wouldn't mention the conversion of whole cultures of natives in the first few decades of their colonization. The mass conversion of such people (who didn't even share a common language upon Lehite Landfall) would be one of the greatest miracles in the history of Christianity, and hopefully worth mentioning somewhere between the lengthy transcriptions of Isaiah and descriptions of Nephite coinage weights and measures. The Lehite conversion of the indigenous pagans would also offer an interesting precedent for missionary work throughout the rest of the BoM. At the very least, I can imagine the Sons of Mosiah being inspired by the story of their ancestors long ago converting whole populations at the same time they were learning their language. -Jacob 1 (~40 years after Lehite landfall) presents a "laundry list" of the existing population, naming each group by name. There is no "other" category. This may be explained by having every existing native aligning with a Lehite sub-group, but that kind of destroys the "small sub-culture" theory of Lehite integration. Quote 13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites. 14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings. - Intermarriage. Traditionally, the God of the Old Testament takes a dim view towards his chosen people intermarrying with the pagan natives in designated promised lands. - 2 Nephi describes the Promised Land as being "kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance." This would seem to be at odds with the idea of a land already populated by numerous pagan cultures. It would be like someone inheriting a house from a grandparent and being told the house had been "preserved" for them as a special place of sanctuary and peace. Then, when the family shows up, they find it overrun with a bunch of squatting Canadian illegal immigrants. They then look at the fine print in the will, and see that the grandparents knew about the squatters, and that it was intended for the two families to intermarry and get along sharing the house. - When Nephi catalogs what they find in the New World, he includes cows, horses, goats, wild goats, and "all manner of wild animals". He also includes gold, silver, and copper. But no mention of...unusually dark skinned, loin-clothed people who speak an odd language but are particularly susceptible to conversion to pre-Christianity? 2
clarkgoble Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 4 hours ago, Exiled said: Historicity will always be possible along with pretty much anything. Probability is another question and that keeps shrinking like the hemisphere model did to become the limited geography model. I predict it will shrink further and will disappear entirely, like lamanite dna has seemingly disappeared. In 50 years, inspired fiction will dominate. I can't see too many people bothering to remain Mormon if all revelation is nothing but inspired fiction. What's the point? 2
Exiled Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I can't see too many people bothering to remain Mormon if all revelation is nothing but inspired fiction. What's the point? I was only talking about bofm historicity and not all the claimed revelations. However, I think there is the fear that once one admits to a non-historical bofm, one doesn't stay. That's why we see such a fight to preserve belief in historicity despite the evidence against it. 1
clarkgoble Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 (edited) 40 minutes ago, cinepro said: -For a book that is so focused on Christ and bringing people to him (and missionary work in general), it seems odd that they wouldn't mention the conversion of whole cultures of natives in the first few decades of their colonization. If most of the initial intermixing was Lamanites with others, why would they? And then that group would still be designated Lamanite which as the passage you later quote has explicitly come to mean those "that seek to destroy the people of Nephi" (Jacob 1:14) The passage you sight explains why we wouldn't have explicit reference to "others" as they call them Lamanites. 40 minutes ago, cinepro said: - Intermarriage. Traditionally, the God of the Old Testament takes a dim view towards his chosen people intermarrying with the pagan natives in designated promised lands. It's actually much more complex than that. There are after all rather significant books in the Old Testament that deal with intermarriage with pagans such as Ruth among others. There are rather prominent people who marry outside of Judaism including prominently Joseph of Egypt who married Asenath. There are passages in Deuteronomy where at least some tribes of Canaanites are forbidden (Deut 7:3-4) but there are compelling reasons to think Lehi and Nephi had at best problems with elements of the Deuteronomist tradition and the centralization of the cult. (The place of Deuteronomy in the Book of Mormon again is complex since some portions get quoted and some traditions viewed approvingly) The main moves against intermarriage come with Malachi in the exile and then Ezra in the post-exilic period and then become stronger in the later Rabbinical period. (Indeed many scholars think Ruth was written against Ezra) It is interesting that some of the positions of Ezra do parallel some of the traditions of Nephi & Jacob. So it's quite possible Ezra is drawing on a tradition that was present prior to the exile and that Nephi may have had access to. Although it's also quite possible that the Deuteronomist position is the influence. The D position largely comes from a worry that intermarriage leads to idolatry - although oddly idolatry isn't really mentioned in the Book of Mormon although there are hints of competing religions. It's likely that the D tradition is the basis for Ezra and Malachi and would have become an issue with the centralization of the cult against Canaanites and Egyptians during the period for Josiah up through Lehi's leaving. Now there are obvious xenophobia elements to the Book of Mormon that do echo elements of the Bible - particularly towards the Lamanites. However it's also quite clear that in the narrative of the text this doesn't remain long. (Meaning length of the text since most of the text takes place in the 50 years after the initial Babylonian invasion of Israel and then 100 years prior to the coming of Christ) So at best I think we have to be pretty cautious here. It's complex and not a simple issue. Made more complex since we don't know what was on the brass plates. (There are hints it may represent the northern tradition rather than Jerusalem and the Judea/Josiah tradition) 40 minutes ago, cinepro said: - 2 Nephi describes the Promised Land as being "kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance." This would seem to be at odds with the idea of a land already populated by numerous pagan cultures. Why would that apply to groups that came over the land bridge 10,000 years earlier or more? I'm not following your logic here. Especially given that the Jaredites had arrived 1000 years earlier. By many nations I assume he's referring to governments back in the ANE or possible if there's 19th century expansion aspects to the translation to European governments prior to Columbus. That doesn't exclude small migrations. 40 minutes ago, cinepro said: When Nephi catalogs what they find in the New World, he includes cows, horses, goats, wild goats, and "all manner of wild animals". He also includes gold, silver, and copper. But no mention of...unusually dark skinned, loin-clothed people who speak an odd language but are particularly susceptible to conversion to pre-Christianity? I'd note two things. First the texts from 1 Nephi - Jacob we have are primarily religious not historical and the historical texts were lost by Martin Harris. We have at best only hints of what were on them. So we don't even know if Nephi mentioned others. (See 2 Nephi 5:33-34) We just know he didn't in his religious writings. Second it's quite plausible that the Nephites didn't encounter others but that the Lamanites did. The main focus on Nephi after Lehi's death is protecting his family from the Lamanites. (Here meaning literally Laman's family and Lehites allied with him) To my eyes there are hints that there are others, but nothing explicit (beyond the Muelikites and Jaredites). However we have Lehi's odd prophesy to Joseph which analogizes his life to Joseph in Egypt. Some read this as primarily about Joseph Smith but Lehi is pretty explicit it's about his son Joseph. There's similar stuff in Jacob's pesher and prophesies in 2 Nephi where there are lots of analogies to being a group in a foreign land of foreign peoples. Now again it's not explicit. Everything gets flattened into Nephites and Lamanites. Those who already presume it's fiction will thus read the text only in terms of a 19th century context and require very explicit description for others in the land. That is they'll privilege the 19th century readings (despite the fact that 19th century readings of the Bible they'll consider wrong - something I've long considered ironic). Those who think there's some degree of historicity to the Book of Mormon will first off presume wherever they went there were already lots of people. Then they'll tend to read these allegories, analogies and odd references accordingly. Edited June 14, 2018 by clarkgoble 4
Exiled Posted June 14, 2018 Posted June 14, 2018 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Those who already presume it's fiction will thus read the text only in terms of a 19th century context and require very explicit description for others in the land. That is they'll privilege the 19th century readings (despite the fact that 19th century readings of the Bible they'll consider wrong - something I've long considered ironic). Those who think there's some degree of historicity to the Book of Mormon will first off presume wherever they went there were already lots of people. Then they'll tend to read these allegories, analogies and odd references accordingly. How do you explain those who once believed in historicity and then changed their mind after analysis of the available data? Is it possible in your mind for someone to rationally doubt what historicity apologists claim? Also, how often do people who reject historicity change back to viewing the book as historical? I'm unaware of anyone. It seems to me that once one realizes it isn't historical, there is no going back but people are going from the historicity camp to the fiction camp all the time.
Okrahomer Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Exiled said: Also, how often do people who reject historicity change back to viewing the book as historical? I'm unaware of anyone. It seems to me that once one realizes it isn't historical, there is no going back but people are going from the historicity camp to the fiction camp all the time. I wonder if Don Bradley would be someone who at one time rejected historicity; and then later came back to it? I just re-watched this presentation of his at the FairMormon Conference from a couple of years ago. His reasearch into the content and significance of the lost 116 pages changed my thinking about the earliest LDS concepts of temple worship. It seems those concepts did not originate in Nauvoo, but much earlier. Edited June 15, 2018 by Okrahomer 2
Rajah Manchou Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 4 hours ago, cinepro said: And just so we're all on the same page on this, here's a list I put together a while back of reasons a person might understand the Book of Mormon to be describing a story without "others" around the Nephites and Lamanites: Might add that the remains of the extinct Jaredite populations in the Land Northward which had been peopled (past tense) were left undisturbed for hundreds of years. Mosiah 21:26 "Nevertheless, they did find a land which had been peopled; yea, a land which was covered with dry bones; yea, a land which had been peopled and which had been destroyed; and they, having supposed it to be the land of Zarahemla, returned to the land of Nephi, having arrived in the borders of the land not many days before the coming of Ammon." It seems safe to assume that Limhi's party wasn't strolling through the Mayan heartland past inhabited Mayan villages. If the land was populated with millions of others, how did Limhi's party not find anything but dry bones? 1
Rajah Manchou Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Exiled said: How do you explain those who once believed in historicity and then changed their mind after analysis of the available data? Is it possible in your mind for someone to rationally doubt what historicity apologists claim? Also, how often do people who reject historicity change back to viewing the book as historical? I'm unaware of anyone. I did, or at least I oscillate between historicity and fiction...a lot. This happened as I stopped reading the Book of Mormon as a historical text of the Americas, but rather as a historical text of historical groups of Israelites (eg. Cochin, Lemba, Kaifeng and Bnei Mensahe Jews) that have historical claims to having departed Jerusalem in the 6th century BC and scattered far and wide. Their traditions often line up with the Book of Mormon narrative. Nobody talks about this. Edited June 15, 2018 by Rajah Manchou 2
sunstoned Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 13 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: This blanket assertion and rhetorical peppering does not strike me as persuasive as Roper's careful analysis. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1126&index=10 Just saying. Of course, I'd been looking at the same sort of thing before Roper. But he did a more thorough job than I. Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA I just said there is no reference to other peoples in the BoM. A straight forward reading of the text clearly states this land was preserved for god's people. As mentioned in my first post, one thousand years of history and not one reference to other people, neighbors or other tribes. If a person is to believe in the BoM, then they should take what is said at face value. Most people did until advances in DNA complicated things 2
Rajah Manchou Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 2 hours ago, sunstoned said: A straight forward reading of the text clearly states this land was preserved for god's people. What land? The text says they were on an island in the sea, almost completely surrounded by water. That's the straight forward reading of the text.
CV75 Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 9 hours ago, sunstoned said: I just said there is no reference to other peoples in the BoM. A straight forward reading of the text clearly states this land was preserved for god's people. As mentioned in my first post, one thousand years of history and not one reference to other people, neighbors or other tribes. If a person is to believe in the BoM, then they should take what is said at face value. Most people did until advances in DNA complicated things But a straightforward reading (granted, depending on one’s perspective) of the text has been shared for you Posted 22 hours ago (edited) . Another couple of examples: Alma’s wish in Alma 29 (76 BC) to “cry repentance unto every people” upon the face of the earth was answered with, “the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word.” I think Alma’s straightforward understanding of what “all the earth” entailed was fairly limited to the lands he was familiar with, and where he acknowledged nations and tongues that were not his own (and recall that his and the sons of Mosiah’s first wish was to visit only his lost brethren, the Lamanites). Nephi mentions the heathen a few times, and these are upon the isles of the sea as are his people (see 2 Nephi 10:20; 26:33; Zephania 2:11, who was living in the Old World at the same time). Who were they, if not the Jews and Gentiles who are listed separately? Could they have also been black and white, bond and free? Mormon was abridging the record of his people hundreds of years later, and from his perspective his world was only comprised of warring Lamanites (from whomever they were comprised) and Nephites (from whomever they were comprised), yet he took the time to remind us of the exceptions in several places: that he was a pure descendant of Lehi (3 Nephi 5:20; Mormon 1:5 and 8:13); and that Alma the elder was a descendant of Nephi (Mosiah 17:2); and identified actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel (Alma 24:29; Alma 56:3; Helaman 11:24). I think it great that people can advance their appreciation of the text when valid questions arise. 1
RevTestament Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 9 hours ago, sunstoned said: I just said there is no reference to other peoples in the BoM. A straight forward reading of the text clearly states this land was preserved for god's people. As mentioned in my first post, one thousand years of history and not one reference to other people, neighbors or other tribes. If a person is to believe in the BoM, then they should take what is said at face value. Most people did until advances in DNA complicated things The thing with this is that the BoM doesn't even mention other people in Arabia, where it would have been a miracle not to meet other people. The name Nahom seems to be a name they picked up from the locals rather than a name they gave to the place, and yet no local people are mentioned. I can see why a reader might assume that the Lehites peopled all the land they arrived at, but that really is a huge assumption - especially since we know essentially nothing of the Lamanites once they arrived in the promised land. Did these four families have mostly boys, and were they forced to marry locals or go extinct? How did their numbers increase faster than the Nephites? There is a lot which is not explained. The assumption that the Lehites and Mulekites people all the Americas really is not a sound one. The area described in the book is no bigger than ancient Israel. We can reasonably assume that the book took place in an area away from other nations at the time, but that seems not to favor a Mesoamerican setting where other nations clearly existed. It doesn't say there were no other natives - maybe they were just later assumed to be Lamanites. 1
CV75 Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 16 hours ago, cinepro said: I'm simply defending those who read it as being exclusive I appreciate this sentiment, but if that is the best of their reasoning, it is very easily countered (I was going to start but that wasn't your point). As @sunstoned pointed out, science has helped those with a modern scientific inclination to ask some good questions, and as @Kevin Christensen pointed out, those who weren't scientifically inclined even in the early days of the Restoration came to the conclusion that there were "others" while reading pretty much the same text we do (and from a very inferior edition!).
clarkgoble Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, Exiled said: How do you explain those who once believed in historicity and then changed their mind after analysis of the available data? Is it possible in your mind for someone to rationally doubt what historicity apologists claim? Also, how often do people who reject historicity change back to viewing the book as historical? I'm unaware of anyone. It seems to me that once one realizes it isn't historical, there is no going back but people are going from the historicity camp to the fiction camp all the time. That seems an orthogonal issue. But as others have noted people do return to activity. Further the reason people leave are complicated and are not necessarily purely due to whether apologetics can answer historic questions. 17 hours ago, Exiled said: I was only talking about bofm historicity and not all the claimed revelations. However, I think there is the fear that once one admits to a non-historical bofm, one doesn't stay. That's why we see such a fight to preserve belief in historicity despite the evidence against it. I think this is mostly right, although I'd say the evidence against it is weaker than usually portrayed. Which isn't to say there aren't some big unresolved problems. However that tends to be primarily about metals. Even the horse issue, which I'd argue is the second biggest issue, I think is largely resolved due to semantic drift. However I'd also recognize that for people who haven't read early documents trying to give words to things like tapirs, macuahuitl, atatl, and other such entities or examples in the opposite direction just don't see that as persuasive. Once you read those documents and see how common using a common word to apply to a novel object then the horse issue becomes less salient. So I think what's a strong argument and what's persuasive should be recognized as different. Indeed as the whole "fake news" phenomena of the past couple of years demonstrates what's most persuasive to many groups often isn't exactly tied to good argumentation. My own personal opinion is that the biggest issue isn't whether there are reasonable answers (again recognizing the problem of metal as a big issue) but rather people being committed to the folk traditions they grew up with. My experience is that people expect a kind of infallibility of folk traditions - particularly folk traditions embraced by GAs even if the GAs never remotely claim revelation for such traditions. I thus think adjusting expectations is an important issue. Edited June 15, 2018 by clarkgoble 3
Exiled Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: My own personal opinion is that the biggest issue isn't whether there are reasonable answers (again recognizing the problem of metal as a big issue) but rather people being committed to the folk traditions they grew up with. My experience is that people expect a kind of infallibility of folk traditions - particularly folk traditions embraced by GAs even if the GAs never remotely claim revelation for such traditions. I thus think adjusting expectations is an important issue. I think you are right about folk traditions. I would include historicity in there as well. Like it or not, people grew up believing the nephites/lamanites were the only peoples in the americas and the bofm text along with pronouncements from Joseph Smith himself back up that "folk" tradition. However, dna and the lack of a good answer to Mr. Jenkins' question to Mr. Hamblin years ago plague faithful adherence to the "folk" tradition of historicity. One needs to simply disregard the glaring lack of evidence one would expect to find in order to still believe in historicity. It's as if one needs to believe the nephite/lamanites were so small so as they left no trace yet still believe in the numbers claimed in the bofm text itself. I guess it's just too hard for me to rationalize. How about the church using its billions to find the evidence? I bet a lot of us would reconsider our path if the church could answer Prof Jenkins with clear unimpeacable evidence tying some american indigenous group to the 600 b.c. era middle east. Seems like a good use of tithing to me.
mfbukowski Posted June 15, 2018 Posted June 15, 2018 22 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: The problem with the "shrinking hemisphere" model is that what shrunk it in the first place was a close and much expanded view of the text. The history of historicity makes it clear that the first serious attempt to consider all of the geographic clues within the text did not appear until 1937 (the Washburn's book), which means that the hemispheric model did not have viable textual support. No one had done the work behind the question. It was the details of the text, not the arguments of the skeptics that changed the model. Another problem in challenging the overall historicity model is that the New World portion of the Book of Mormon is only a portion of the Book of Mormon. The scales of balance that I consider has a lot of significant weight on the Old World side that the "What about DNA!" hysterics don't touch. Consider, Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, and In the Footsteps of Lehi and such. And there is the problem that in the first generation in the Book of Mormon narrative, "Lamanite" goes from being a lineage designation to a political one (Jacob 1:14), and for those of use who accept the presence of others in the New World from the beginning (see Roper for the best survey), the whole question has a very different frame. That's John Butler, a believing LDS and DNA scientist. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1446&index=6 And there is the issue of knowing what to look for, not only of a tiny group entering a pre-existing population of millions 2600 years ago, but on this side of the genetic bottleneck that killed 90% of the indigenous population by the beginning of the 20th century. Roper (and Gardner about the same time) noticed the importance of Jacob lecturing his people on this passage: It's reasonable to assume that the mixing started from the beginning, both based on indications in the text, and the clear evidence of archeology. There were already millions of people around when Lehi and company arrived. And there is the issue about whether anything some LDS authority or teacher once said, whether that should be binding, whether it sets up stakes and bounds, saying, "hitherto thou shalt come and no further" as Joseph Smith stated was in contrast to his intent to continue to learn all things. What should be our formal position regarding the authority of LDS authorities? That is D&C 1. If you have a more authoritative source, let's see it, and account for how it overrules this. Now if someone wants to approach the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction,. if that is the particle of belief that you choose to plant and nurture, fine. Go ahead. I cannot help but notice that Ostler's "Expanded" text approach was published in 1987, the same year that Barker's The Older Testament appeared, and began setting a the foundation of her work. I know lots of people who were helped by Ostler's work. I liked it myself, but Barker's work changed everything. I saw that Ostler's critieria for text being an expansion was if it was too Christian before Christ. And Barker's work makes that sort of argument obsolete, and indeed, suggests that historicity rather than expansion is the stronger argument. https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4 Just trying to point out that perspective makes a difference. As N.R. Hanson famously observed, "All data is theory laden." Change the theory, and that also changes the significance and interpretation of the data. And learning that is part of the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth. Here, as food for thought, are positions 6 and 7 of 9. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Thanks Kevin, great post that puts it all together. This line of thinking is a paradigm changer, suggest you should expand it if you have not done so already. In little nuggets, it's all here.
Recommended Posts