mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said: Barker is obscure enough to have 17 books in print (and I have actually read them all), to have jacket blurbs written by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Patriarch Bartholomew of the Greek Orthodox church, to receive more invitations to speak than she can fill, and to be on the committee of scholars involved in publishing the Jordan Lead books. http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Temenos2017.pdf I saw her speaking to the Greek Orthodox Seminary in Yonkers, with Metropolitan Jonah in the audience. I am obscure, despite dozens of publications for a range of editors and audiences, including a piece from Oxford University Press. Barker is something else again. She is not part of the mainstream, obviously, but that is also the point. There is a huge difference between labeling to dismiss and actually reading. https://aeon.co/essays/why-its-as-hard-to-escape-an-echo-chamber-as-it-is-to-flee-a-cult I will never forget a moment at a Sunstone in SLC when I saw a woman, a professional lawyer, that I thought was a friend passing by. She asked what I was doing there, and I held up a copy of my just published "Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies" She said, "Before you say anything, the Book of Mormon is a 19th century fiction, and nothing you say could ever change my mind. I never read anything from FARMS. It makes me mad." I asked whether my NDE article had made her mad, and she admitted that it hadn't but would say no more, but with me wondering, how it is she could know that FARMS material makes her mad without needing to confirm her opinions by actual examination. This was a professional lawyer, on the board at Sunstone. She relied on socially mediated gossip, rather than personal inquiry. And it happens, I remember her admitting that she had never personally read the Book of Mormon. I will also never forget when I read a blog comment by a post graduate student saying that he dismissed Barker because "No one I know takes her seriously." Amazing, I think. Echo chambers as dominant and curiously insular paradigms. And it's easy to see the difference between echo chamber dismissals and actual paradigm debate. Paradigm debate requires serious comparison as well as standards of judgement that are not completely paradigm dependent. Dismissing an opponent on grounds that they are "Not us, don't use our group-certified methods to reach our group certified conclusions" without ever putting the assumptions behind those methods to the test, is only a slight step above labeling and dismissing. John Gee commented that in academia, “This conversion marked by the acceptance of the historical critical method’ is expected by professors at many graduate schools, who believe “that after only two weeks in the program, all our doctoral students would assent’ to its assumptions and methods,” citing Jon D. Levenson, “The Bible: Unexamined Commitments of Criticism,” First Things 30 (February 1993): 24-25. The positivistic heritage of the historical-critical method permeates most scholarly work in Near Eastern studies." I quoted in Paradigms Crossed to show that schools of thought that perpetuate specific ways of thinking, doing exploring, and most of all, concluding, do exist and exert an influence that largely depends on labeling and dismissing alternatives. Barker got got her Masters at Cambridge, but decided that something was amiss in the paradigm, in the fundamental assumptions, the whole approach. So she went her own way, and has provided something deliberately different. That is Barker, being personal from the wonderful "Mormonism and the Temple" volume from the 2012 Temple Studies group in Logan. Worth downloading. Welch's presentation on the Sermon on the Mount as Temple text is breathtaking. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Is it possible to teach people to advance in the Perry Scheme? This is the root problem of all apologetics, imo. I have finally realized that this is what I am trying to do and it's not working. That probably means I'm not far advanced enough myself. Something is amiss in this paradigm. Edited June 28, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
stemelbow Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: The strongest linguistic argument for sheum, as being Akkadian for various types of grain, has been disputed by some LDS linguists. https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/SHEUM A much better singular evidence, specifically Mesoamerican related, would be Kerry Hull's insights into the title of liberty as a Mesoamerican war banner. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1570&context=jbms In this case, what the Book of Mormon describes as well as the way it describes it, makes especially good sense in an ancient Mesoamerican context. Is this single piece of evidence a smoking gun? No. But it is strong. I have to say I'm pretty perplexed by theclaim that this title of liberty piece from Hull provides much evidence for the historicity claim. Here's his conclusion: Quote Moroni pulled out all the stops with the title of liberty. He provided legitimization for the covenant-entering ceremony by hearkening back to an apocryphal story of Jacob with a remnant of his son Joseph’s coat. Since Lehi was a descendant of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:14), the archaic nature of the rite by their lineage ancestor would have garnered Moroni additional support. The innovative use of a standard to display the rent garment shows Moroni adapting to the circumstances and culture in which he lived. A banner, well-known as a symbol of warfare, motivation, and leadership in battle in societies around the world, was an eminently appropriate way to rally others to his cause. As I have shown, many aspects of the title of liberty ceremony are illuminated when placed in a Mesoamerican context. The use of such banners in ritual and warfare settings—often in fact the same thing in ancient Mesoamerica—is remarkably consistent with nearly all the details in the title of liberty story. The ritual context for the raising of the title of liberty is reminiscent of the later Aztec Panquetzaliztl (lit. “raising of the banner”) ceremony that has an underlying military theme. What is more, the close association and parallels with the Maya concept of a lakam to the title of liberty cannot be easily overlooked. The title of liberty was for all intents and purposes a lakam, a battle standard meant to inspire and lead Moroni’s army into victory. Expressing himself in highly poetic forms, Moroni shows his complete familiarity with several of the key rhetorical devices common to all Mesoamerican ritual discourse. Furthermore, the precise correspondence between the couplet hoist—plant in the Book of Mormon with the title of liberty banner finds a near exact linguistic parallel in Classic period Maya hieroglyphic texts also referring to a banner or banner stone. Convergence to this degree of linguistic and cultural data is a striking endorsement for the validity of the text as an ancient document and provides evidence of a Mesoamerican cultural background for the Book of Mormon. 1. If the LGT, then why would Moroni say "Behold, we are a remnant of the seed of Jacob; yea, we are a remnant of the seed of Joseph, whose coat was rent by his brethren into many pieces; yea, and now behold, let us remember to keep the commandments of God, or our garments shall be rent by our brethren, and we be cast into prison, or be sold, or be slain." I thought the assumption is the a more native peoples mixed with and in numbers dominated the immigrating Lehi's party? Thus, if the native people dominated in number Lehi's party then by the time of Moroni (some 5-600 years later) we'd expect most of the people to have more roots from those not of Lehi's party. I suppose with serious intermixing they all might have ancestry from both by then. This then would suggest that the place more import on their affiliation to Lehi than to their native heritage. And it also would suggest Moroni was more native then Lehi, in ancestry. 2. Alma 46 is said to be pre-Christ, why does it speak in terms of taking upon them the name of Christ, which is a post Christ thing? 3. If a banner is a "well-known as a symbol of warfare, motivation, and leadership in battle in societies around the world" how does this event support historicity for the book of Mormon? 4. I was not convinced by his piece that "many aspects of the title of liberty ceremony are illuminated when placed in a Mesoamerican context". It seems to me he offered a few parallels which are meaningless if the same exists in societies around the world. Flying a flag in battles isn't just a Maya thing. If his piece is so convincing and I missed it, care to offer some help? 5. "Expressing himself in highly poetic forms, Moroni shows his complete familiarity with several of the key rhetorical devices common to all Mesoamerican ritual discourse. " Is expressing himself in highly poetic forms unique to all Mesomaerican ritual discourse? I'm confused by this point. I'm certainly not qualified to say this is straight up bs, of course. But I'm suspicious since poetic forms could be had elsewhere. 6. "the precise correspondence between the couplet hoist—plant in the Book of Mormon with the title of liberty banner finds a near exact linguistic parallel in Classic period Maya hieroglyphic texts also referring to a banner or banner stone" I cannot imagine the concept of plant a flag is unique to classic period Maya. Says he (earlier) "The text on the Marcador describes the setting up of the banner stone itself with the verb tz’ahpaj, “it was planted/erected.” " Planted/erected? What else do people do with flags on poles beside plant and erect them? Raise them? I guess. I don't find this all that impressive, as he does though. Any more insight? 7. "Convergence to this degree of linguistic and cultural data is a striking endorsement for the validity of the text as an ancient document and provides evidence of a Mesoamerican cultural background for the Book of Mormon." Yes...just perplexed. I've read his piece and am left wondering how he makes this claim of striking endorsement for it being from an ancient document. I simply can't see a flag being erected in a story finding its only home in Mesoamerica. Edited June 28, 2018 by stemelbow
Kevin Christensen Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Is it possible to teach people to advance in the Perry Scheme? This is the root problem of all apologetics, imo. I have finally realized that this is what I am trying to do and it's not working. That probably means I'm not far advanced enough myself. Something is amiss in this paradigm. Actually, while first reading the essay on Echo Chambers and Information Bubbles, I also had thoughts of the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Development come to mind. Yes...so I also see the connections and find the implications interesting, but the problem of trying to institutionalize human development runs into the wall that humans, at different positions of development are involved, and tend to both resist and develop, and the Perry Scheme does not observe predictable inevitable progress. Some people retreat from complexity to simplicity by resorting to hierarchy. (The other night, a segment on Trevor Noah had an interviewer asking Trumpians about what the Space Force would do. Not awe inspiring... ) Now in CAE (Computer Aided Engineering), hierarchy works wonders, but that is because there is more to the hierarchy than a surface label like "President". Rather, there are all sorts of gritty details and development teams and research and programmers and equations and real world applications, and even sales guys, application engineers, project managers, and documentation. We all really do something in the hierarchy, the hierarchical approach to complex issues has substance at every level, and does not just put up a Web page, a face, that makes claims. It would be nice if the Perry Scheme were better known, and widely discussed and taught and offered as a map of the territory. I find it very useful for navigating all sorts of nooks and crannys. But there are people who prefer followers who do not think for themselves, but who simply defer to authority. Then there is Terry Pratchett, whose Tiffany Aching (introduced in The Wee Free Men) has not only first thoughts, but second thoughts and third thoughts. Thoughts about thoughts, and then thoughts about thoughts about thoughts... FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA
champatsch Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: That would be the reason I'm not arguing with you. Yes, we're not arguing with each other — just discussing ideas and viewpoints. I favor a non-19c view of the Book of Mormon, so my tendency is to set the bar lower in the evidence I'll accept for that. You favor a 19c view of the Book of Mormon, so your tendency is to set the bar lower in the evidence you'll accept for that. So both the apologist and the critic have to be on guard about these tendencies. But both of us have probably been rigorous about certain things we have studied in relation to the Book of Mormon, and we've tried to be careful in our judgments. Speaking for myself, I can say that I have been rigorous in my study of the English linguistics of the book, describing the usage. I use the best available databases, make some of my own, and know the data. In terms of the specific case I brought up here first, more-part phraseology, I have studied this periodically since 2014. I know the main variant, "the more part", was moribund by the year 1700. It is hard to find original instances in the 1700s. Also, "for the more part" ='mostly' persisted into the 1700s to a small degree. The two other variants I mentioned either dropped out well before 1701 or in the early 1700s. I know the strengths and weaknesses of the Ngram Viewer and Google Books. They give an unreliable picture of the usage of almost anything before 1751. ECCO has recently improved but is problematic, with a large amount of duplication. I have let others know about these things here in the last few months. The Ngram Viewer shows this about "the more part", but it almost all represents the usage of the 1600s and earlier: We can see that the usage of "the more part" increases in the graph — a totally inaccurate, unreliable picture of original 18c and early 19c usage. Back in the old days before huge amounts of digitized data were available, linguists used to make well-constructed corpora, lacking duplication, and representing a variety of registers and genres. We don't have that with Google Books or ECCO. We have a huge amount of duplication and millions of OCR errors, especially the further back in time we go. If we look at an EEBO1 graph of "the more part", we get a more reliable picture, but even here it isn't totally reliable: All but one of the eight 1690s examples are not original to that decade (by which I mean 1691 to 1700). So that last dot should actually rest on 0.03%! If we go to the Google Books advanced search and look for the phrase "more part" before the year 1830, a little over 20 books currently come up. This is some unknown (proper) subset of what's in the Google Books database. Of these five can't be previewed. The rest are pre-1701 examples. All this speaks to obsolescence. So what's the point of all this? This is a good example of setting the bar at different levels. I've done my due diligence in describing the Book of Mormon linguistically. I look at usage from the 1400s to the 1800s. I use my background in textual analysis and historical syntactic studies to come to accurate appraisals of usage patterns and tendencies. I did that in the case of the more part, and wrote up what is probably an accurate summary of Joseph Smith's achievement in dictating what he did in 1829. Because you don't trust that any English linguistic data in the Book of Mormon actually represents genuine archaism, you set the bar low and discard possibilities with a cursory examination. This may lead others who also see things the way you do to think that such quick investigations are accurate and trustworthy. 1
jkwilliams Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, champatsch said: Because you don't trust that any English linguistic data in the Book of Mormon actually represents genuine archaism, you set the bar low and discard possibilities with a cursory examination. This may lead others who also see things the way you do to think that such quick investigations are accurate and trustworthy. I don't think that's a fair statement. I spent a good deal of time a few years back looking at the linguistic data you sent me. At the time, I reached two conclusions: these archaic usages were not used consistently enough to be statistically significant, and even if they were, I wasn't sure what we could conclude from the data. I suppose my examination was quick and cursory compared to the time you have spent, but I did not just wave off what you had with a glib dismissal. ETA: My reasons for preferring a 19th-century production are not limited to linguistic data but also to thematic dependence on 19th-century concepts and KJV religious ideas, both of which serve as jumping-off points for the Book of Mormon. Edited June 28, 2018 by jkwilliams 1
Ryan Dahle Posted June 28, 2018 Author Posted June 28, 2018 19 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 5. "Expressing himself in highly poetic forms, Moroni shows his complete familiarity with several of the key rhetorical devices common to all Mesoamerican ritual discourse. " Is expressing himself in highly poetic forms unique to all Mesomaerican ritual discourse? I'm confused by this point. I'm certainly not qualified to say this is straight up bs, of course. But I'm suspicious since poetic forms could be had elsewhere. 6. "the precise correspondence between the couplet hoist—plant in the Book of Mormon with the title of liberty banner finds a near exact linguistic parallel in Classic period Maya hieroglyphic texts also referring to a banner or banner stone" I cannot imagine the concept of plant a flag is unique to classic period Maya. Says he (earlier) "The text on the Marcador describes the setting up of the banner stone itself with the verb tz’ahpaj, “it was planted/erected.” " Planted/erected? What else do people do with flags on poles beside plant and erect them? Raise them? I guess. I don't find this all that impressive, as he does though. Any more insight? 7. "Convergence to this degree of linguistic and cultural data is a striking endorsement for the validity of the text as an ancient document and provides evidence of a Mesoamerican cultural background for the Book of Mormon." Yes...just perplexed. I've read his piece and am left wondering how he makes this claim of striking endorsement for it being from an ancient document. I simply can't see a flag being erected in a story finding its only home in Mesoamerica. I said the evidence was good. I didn't say it was beyond doubt. There certainly are other possible reasons that Joseph Smith could have used this idea in this context. Still, the whole thing fits very well in an ancient American context. There are a LOT of smaller details like this in the text when it comes to Mesoamerica. Here are a few: 1. state level society, when most people of Joseph Smith's day considered Native Americans to be uncultured "savages." 2. cement being in the right place at the right time 3. the widespread practice of human sacrifices 4. prophetic warfare 5. the fact that the Jaredites and Olmec, and Lehites and Maya seem to correlate generally in space and time (in Sorenson's model) 6. material culture: major towers, fortifications, highways, markets, weapons of warfar, etc. 7. the prominence of burial rituals (speaking of items, not people) similar people of Ammon burying their weapons 8. bactun and hotun prophecies 9. chiasmus and other Book of Mormon parallelisms playing a large role in Maya writing 10. temple worship/deity complexes etc. None of them are very powerful on their own, but together they at least show that the shoe fits for many features. There is a reason that Mesoamerican stuff wasn't on my list of items in the first place. I think there are some remarkable correspondences in many cases, but they are typically less convincing to those who don't already believe in the text's historicity. And they work better as a cumulative set than in isolation. I understand that there are absences of evidence and alleged anachronisms, but those have had a history of not going so well for the critics. And some things sort of just equalize out. Yes there is no conclusive evidences for horses yet, BUT horses also are never talked about in warfare contexts, which is very peculiar for Joseph Smith to not include and this detail fits a Mesoamerican context. Yes, there is no conclusive evidences for wheel chariots (except for toys), BUT the KJV term is broader than most realize AND the chariot scene in Alma 18 and 20 makes a lot of sense in a Mesoamerican context, all things considered. Yes there is no presence of steel working in Mesoamerica, BUT we don't know how widespread the Book of Mormon practice was, how migrations affected their access to necessary ore, or why other things in Mesoamerica (like the wheel) weren't hardly used even though the concept was certainly known. Generally speaking, I think that other evidences are typically more persuasive, but these types of correspondences, especially when looked as as a whole, aren't without merit. One can always propose that Joseph got these ideas from some place or another, which in most cases he could, but just because he could possibly have put all this stuff together in one document, it doesn't mean that was likely for him to do.
jkwilliams Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: I said the evidence was good. I didn't say it was beyond doubt. Generally speaking, I think that other evidences are typically more persuasive, but these types of correspondences, especially when looked as as a whole, aren't without merit. One can always propose that Joseph got these ideas from some place or another, which in most cases he could, but just because he could possibly have put all this stuff together in one document, it doesn't mean that was likely for him to do. The problem here is that you're looking out from the text to find matches in Mesoamerica, not going the other way and looking at what the historical record tells us about Mesoamerica and then seeing if the text is a match. I suppose that's why I am left cold by these correspondences: I studied the history before I started trying to make the Book of Mormon fit into it. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 6 hours ago, Gray said: Can loose translation solve the anachronism of Christianity hundreds of years before its time? If the translation is that loose, than the Book looses its theological significance for Mormons. And actually if it's that loose it ceases to be a book about anything in particular.................................................... That is an understandable surface impression frequently mentioned by those who cannot read Hebrew and Greek, and who do not realize the very tight relationship between the OT and the NT, without even considering intertestmental literature. What, for example, do you make of this KJV direct quote? Is it an anachronism? Psalm 2:2.....................................................................................Acts 4:26 The kings of the earth set themselves,....................................The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers take counsel together,.......................................and the rulers were gathered together against the LORD,......................................................................against the Lord, and against his anointed,..........................................................and against his Christ. When prophecy in Scripture becomes too exact, some scholars dismiss it as “prophecy ex eventu,” i.e., prophecy written after the event, or wrongly interpreted so as to apply to some later event. When, for example, Jesus and his disciples claim that the Bible (Old Testament) is filled with specific predictions of Jesus’ coming, many scholars dismiss that as wishful thinking on a par with Talmudic interpretation of the Old Testament by the Rabbis, or that made in Pesharim by Essene/ Qumran sectarians. The Book of Mormon itself is even conscious of the seeming anachronism: “Behold, you marvel why these things should be known so long beforehand” (Alma 39:17). Micah 5:2-4 is interpreted in Matthew 2:6 and John 7:40-43 to be a prediction of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem as King of Judah – and that was over 700 years before the fact!! Micah is also known for his prediction in 3:12 of the fall of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 26:18), along with the eventual restoration of Judah in 4:1 - 5:15. Prophecies which came true. When I Kings 13:2 predicts the reign of righteous King Josiah by name, or when Isaiah (44:28, 45:1) predicts the name of a ruler far into the future (Cyrus), are these examples of prophecy ex eventu? Is it possible to name kings so far in advance? Thus, when Jesus is named by an angel many months before his birth (Matthew 1:21, Luke 1:31,69, 2:21,30, 3:6 – including the puns on his name), and when John the Baptizer is likewise specifically named by an angel before his birth (Luke 1:13), what is the reader to conclude? Moreover, when just such predictions are based on texts at least 600 years prior and well-established, in which the very name of Jesus is repeatedly used, what is one to conclude? For example, the pun on Jesus’ name at Luke 2:30 and 3:6 is a direct quote from Isaiah 52:10 – in which Salvation is easily capitalized as the translation of the name of Jesus. The same applies to Isaiah 12:2-3 (quoted at II Nephi 22:2-3), 25:9, Psalm 35:9, 38:23, and numerous other such Scriptures. Indeed, Jesus himself said that we should “search the Scriptures; . . and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39), and that “Moses . . . wrote of me” (5:46): “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27; cf. Acts 3:18, 28:23). Unless you master these biblical features, Gray, everything will seem like an "anachronism" to you. 3
Ryan Dahle Posted June 28, 2018 Author Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) 26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: The problem here is that you're looking out from the text to find matches in Mesoamerica, not going the other way and looking at what the historical record tells us about Mesoamerica and then seeing if the text is a match. I suppose that's why I am left cold by these correspondences: I studied the history before I started trying to make the Book of Mormon fit into it. The method of discovery is really mostly irrelevant, considering the narrow spiritual focus of the Book of Mormon's content. Major absences of evidence can be expected no matter what direction or order you search in. What really matters is that after a possible parallel has been identified, that it is weighed and measured accordingly. Most of them from Mesoamerica really act more like consistencies than they do as compelling evidences of historicity. It's the ANE stuff and the literary features that, when looked at cumulatively, really impress me. Edited June 28, 2018 by Ryan Dahle
jkwilliams Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said: The method of discovery is really mostly irrelevant, considering the narrow spiritual focus of the Book of Mormon's content. Major absences of evidence can be expected no matter what direction or order you search in. What really matters is that after a possible parallel has been identified, that it is weighed and measured accordingly. Most of them really act more like consistencies than they do as compelling evidences of historicity. It's the ANE stuff and the literary features that, when looked at cumulatively, really impress me. I'm just saying it's difficult to make a case for correspondence to Mesoamerica if you haven't actually studied Mesoamerica. I recognize that many people have done this (Brant, John Sorensen, et al.), but too often the correspondences are considered without an understanding of the context in which they are supposed to have appeared. 1
Ryan Dahle Posted June 28, 2018 Author Posted June 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I'm just saying it's difficult to make a case for correspondence to Mesoamerica if you haven't actually studied Mesoamerica. I recognize that many people have done this (Brant, John Sorensen, et al.), but too often the correspondences are considered without an understanding of the context in which they are supposed to have appeared. That's why in this area I generally trust the scholars who are calling attention to the parallels. I look carefully at the parallels myself and occasionally source check them or look into the literature to see what it says. If Stephen Houston, David, Stuart, Michael Coe, Nikolai Grube or some other notable is saying the same types of things, then that is a good sign you aren't being misled.
jkwilliams Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 Just now, Ryan Dahle said: That's why in this area I generally trust the scholars who are calling attention to the parallels. I look carefully at the parallels myself and occasionally source check them or look into the literature to see what it says. If Stephen Houston, David, Stuart, Michael Coe, Nikolai Grube or some other notable is saying the same types of things, then that is a good sign you aren't being misled. I am not saying you're being misled. I just look at the lists of correspondences you have provided and come away pretty nonplussed. My guess is that you're more impressed than I am because you are only looking at this from one side without the context. For me, Book of Mormon historicity was never an essential part of my beliefs, so it was never difficult to acknowledge that it doesn't fit much at all in an ancient American setting. When I was in college, my mom was really excited that I was studying ancient America because she thought I might be able to give her some insight into Book of Mormon peoples. I told her that what I was studying wasn't particularly relevant, as it didn't shed much light on anything in the Book of Mormon. She was disappointed, but I never had that expectation in the first place.
Analytics Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 In response to the question, "If you think you have something that could qualify as a single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon, then we can discuss here." 4 hours ago, smac97 said: Okay. Let's start with sheum. Thanks, -Smac Okay, here is what we are working with (and if I'm wrong about anything please correct me gently--I don't know anything about any of this stuff--I'm just trying to analyze the evidence as my unqualified eyes see it). According to the Book of Mormon, around the year 200 B.C. a group of Nephites lead by Zeniff were given some land by the Lamanite king. They settled in, started to build... "And we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum, and with seeds of all manner of fruits; and we did begin to multiply and prosper in the land." (Mosiah 9:9) As it turns out, the word sheum is a name from the Akkadian word for barley. Akkadian is an extinct language that was spoken from about 3,000 BC until about AD 200 in ancient Mesopotamia, perhaps a couple hundred miles away from Jerusalem. When the Akkadian language died around AD 200, it was lost until it was deciphered in the mid 1800's. Also, it's worth pointing out that barley didn't exist in the New World until after the 15th Century. So in support of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, Matthew Roper asks the question, "If Joseph Smith was really the author of the Book of Mormon, how did he come up with the word sheum? How did he just happen to choose this particular name and just happen to use it in an agricultural context " ______________________________________________________________________________________ Analysis: My first reaction is this seems like an example of blindly shooting an arrow at the side of a barn, and then drawing a bulls-eye around wherever the arrow happens to land. Why would we expect a Mayan who is writing a record in reformed Egyptian and is the descendent of somebody who came from Jerusalem 400 years earlier to use Akkadian words? Further, they didn't have barley in this time or place. The translator using the word "barley" to mean something other than barley is evidence of a loose translation. But using the word "sheum" to mean whatever sheum meant in the New World is evidence of a tight translation. So which is it? My from-the-hip impression is that the 19th Century author intended this to be read as a tight translation where "barley" meant "barley" and "sheum" meant an unspecified exotic food. If somebody casts their net wide enough, something like "sheum" is going to mean something in some language. For people who want to use this as evidence for historicity, what is the testable hypothesis? That Nephi spoke Akkadian, used Akkadian words to describe things he found in the new world, and that these words stuck so that 400 years after Nephi's emigration, Akkadian words had become a part of the local languages? Or is the testable hypothesis that Akkadian words were systematically used in the Book of Mormon whenever a tight translation for an unknown word was needed? What is the testable hypothesis, and what is the test? Is neas an Akkadian word? Cureloms and cumoms? If Akkadian words were systematically used in the Book of Mormon in a way that makes sense, we would be on to something. Or if Akkadian words were discovered to be systematically woven into the Mayan language, that would be remarkable, too. So what is the testable hypothesis? As an example of a testable hypothesis, David P. Wright had the hypothesis that Joseph Smith was suspicious of the KJV italicized words in the Bible, so that when he was rewriting the Book of Isaiah, he liberally "corrected" the translation by changing things involving italicized words. He then tested that hypothesis by counting the changes in Isaiah, and seeing whether or not a disproportionate number of them were around italicized words. It turns out there were. This exercise provided insight into how Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. So what is the testable hypothesis regarding sheum? What is the test? 1
Analytics Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 19 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said: That's why in this area I generally trust the scholars who are calling attention to the parallels. You should also see whether these scholars were able to convince the qualified scholarly community that these parallels deserve attention.
hope_for_things Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: If saving the whales gives you purpose, it is your religion I thought I did not have to mention that. For some Trump is literally Satan, from who's control we seek salvation. Missionaries for science are everywhere, including you, but you don't see that. You are a missionary for your present paradigm. It's not that you are wrong, you just don't see it. You need to take what you are thinking up a level of abstraction to see how your enthusiasm for science contributes to your life. I was also talking about secular religions like yours. https://www.the-american-interest.com/2014/03/17/the-rise-of-secular-religion/ I'm more of anti-conformist that challenges the prevailing ideologies of most of the groups I encounter. I honestly don't fit the reductionist stereotypes crafted in that Goldman piece. Although he makes some interesting observations. I identify more as a skeptical thinker, and I try to apply this skepticism to all sides along the religious and political spectrum. For example, humans are clearly contributing to climate change, but I don't automatically think every recommendation for how to solve this problem is a good one. Nor do I agree with the prioritization often given to climate related issues, this seems to be almost a religion for some people, and I'm sympathetic and in agreement that this is important, but I don't just follow the group think that frequently happens. So when it comes to my critiques of religion, and of Mormonism, I try to make these critiques specific and substantive. I don't accept appeals to authority or tradition without questioning them. I eschew dogmas in all groups where I encounter them. That's not to say that I'm perfect by any means. I feel personally like many of my ideas are less examined than they should be, and I recognize that many of my positions would likely need to change significantly under close scrutiny. Because of this I try to be humble about what I believe I understand and I try to follow the strength of evidence I encounter. I try to honor truth, but I also recognize that truth is often contextual. I am more of a relativist, but I have an odd sense that there are foundational principles that we ought to try to align with. However, I'm skeptical of the abilities of humans to fully understand these foundational principles because of our limited understanding, perception and comprehension of the universe and our relationship to it. This may sound something like a concept of deity, I'm not sure what it is exactly, but its really not a belief for me as much as its the way I have evolved to orient in my life at this time. That said, I don't believe any one tradition or one person has special access to understanding these foundational principles. Ideas worth promoting can be found in odd places. I can't comprehend God as an entity that plays favorites with tribes or that created mortality as some elaborate testing ground for humans. Those kinds of concepts for God I find to be very shallow. Anyway, probably rambling a bit here in an attempt to be better understood in my quirkiness. Even though I don't fully agree with the way you've described religion and science, I think I better understand where you're coming from, and that alone is worthy of consideration. Thanks
jkwilliams Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Analytics said: You should also see whether these scholars were able to convince the qualified scholarly community that these parallels deserve attention. I mentioned my experience looking into John Clark's article about "points of convergence" (I think there were 12), which was suggested to me by Daniel Peterson as a solid piece of scholarship supporting Book of Mormon historicity. He's a scholar, a credentialed and published anthropologist, but it took me just a couple of hours after work to realize that none of the points held up to scrutiny. Our friend beastie told me that she had emailed him because she wondered how he could have published such an untenable article. According to her, he responded that it was a transcription of an off-the-cuff talk he gave at BYU, and that he couldn't vouch for its validity. I wrote out my findings on my blog, and to my knowledge, no one has disputed my conclusions. It's been 10 years since then, and yet that article is still being touted as "cutting edge" scholarship. So, yes, I have learned not to trust these scholars until I have verified the claims. Edited June 28, 2018 by jkwilliams 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 5 hours ago, Analytics said: And it also posits things that contradict what we know about the naturalistic universe. QED? 5 hours ago, Analytics said: The book I recommended overviews some of science with a big focus on Quantum Mechanics, but the main reason I recommended it was because of the philosophical position it articulates. The point here isn't to have an authentic scholarly discussion of LDS theology. It is to explain why Mormons are politely ignored when they present evidence of the Book of Mormon being ancient history. Another cop out cum ad hominem. 5 hours ago, Analytics said: Can you clarify what we are talking about? Are we talking about "authentic scholarly discussion of LDS theology", or are we talking about what actually happens at Church? I just went to lds.org and started drilling down on lesson manuals to see what the manuals say their purpose is. I found myself at the first Sunday School lesson taught each year to youth. According to the manual, "Throughout the ages, prophets have revealed truths about the nature of God. As we diligently study their testimonies in the scriptures, we can learn about Heavenly Father’s attributes and increase our faith and testimonies. The better we understand the nature of our Heavenly Father, the better we understand our own divine potential as His spirit children." That's the explicit purpose. It then goes into all sorts of teachings about God. "The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone...God created all things and is the ruler of the universe, being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent (through His Spirit), mankind has a special relationship to Him that differentiates man from all other created things: man is literally God’s offspring, made in His image, whereas all other things are but the work of His hands..." (from the Bible Dictionary entry of "God", which is linked to from the lesson manual as a primary resource). I cut my teeth on C. P. Snow, Bertrand Russell, and the best scientific philosophers, and have no problem with any of that (including Quantum mechanics), but you completely misconceive the nature of philosophical inquiry if you approach it with the automatic assumption that everyone associated with a particular tradition of belief is therefore deeply tainted by that belief-system and cannot extricate themselves from it -- thus requiring that we flop around in a muddy slough of despond. I see no commitment on your part to the actual scholarly discussion of religious belief. Instead you seem to be making excuses why you can never deal with the hard questions -- due to your a priori belief that no religious system can be meaningfully discussed. In my book, all systems of belief are equally subject to searching inquiry, including your very narrow beliefs (C. P. Snow lamented that bifurcation into Two Cultures). So, the only concern you find relevant is presumably the existence of, say, Methodist sunday school manuals which teach nice Christian principles, and must therefore be the sole and only source of Methodist theology. That would. come as a surprise to the Wesleys, who had far more substantive issues in mind for their new version of Anglicanism -- including free will. Theology is just not discussed in sunday school -- not by Mormons and not by Methodists. Scholars know the difference. Why don't you? The official purpose of the LDS Church is "to bring to pass the salvation and exaltation of His children" (https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-principles/2.2?lang=eng&_r=1#22 ). The three-fold mission of the LDS Church is 1. proclaim the gospel, 2. perfect the Saints, and 3. redeem the dead. (https://history.lds.org/event/three-fold-mission-of-church?lang=eng ) Praxis is the focus of church organizaton and sunday school manuals, not theology. 5 hours ago, Analytics said: To me, those seem like theological claims, but also claims that have bearing on the real world and are thus within the purview of science. Further, an explicit main point of the lesson is how we can "know" these things about God. If we are talking about how we know things, it is fair to compare the epistemology of science to the epistemology of the religion that's being taught in the class. What I think is really going on here is that you compartmentalize everything. While all of this dogma is being taught, it is with a wink-wink and is intended to remain in a nice little box, and the only thing meant to really be taken away from it is being socialized and a sense of camaraderie with the people you are spending your time with as you go through the ritual. The point isn't to really believe those things, much less deeply consider how what's taught in the lesson stacks up to scientific knowledge and scientific ways of learning things such as evolution, genetics, the second law of thermodynamics, how science knows what it knows, cognitive biases, etc. And you probably have different mental boxes for scholarly discourse and what you really believe is going on. People have religious beliefs, and if we are talking about religious beliefs as religious beliefs, that's all fine. We can be all academic post-modern and pretend all cultures are equally fascinating and virtuous and try to describe everything with nonjudgmental wonder and appreciation. I am an anthropologist, and that academic discipline does indeed take the view that "all cultures are equally fascinating and virtuous and try to describe everything with nonjudgmental wonder and appreciation." That is not mere pretense, but rather a respectful approach to the manifold cultures of humankind. So, when you have finished with your contemptuous and reptilian ad hominems, you might want to seriously consider the substantive issues with dispassionate scientific detachment. That is how scholars approach the hard questions. Can you? 5 hours ago, Analytics said: But when we start talking about trying to persuade people with actual evidence, then gloves have to come off. I have been waiting for you to take the gloves off, and have so far been very disappointed in your lack of analytics. You seem far more interested in unrelated side issues. 1
Analytics Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: That is an understandable surface impression frequently mentioned by those who cannot read Hebrew and Greek, and who do not realize the very tight relationship between the OT and the NT, without even considering intertestmental literature. What, for example, do you make of this KJV direct quote? Is it an anachronism? Psalm 2:2.....................................................................................Acts 4:26 The kings of the earth set themselves,....................................The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers take counsel together,.......................................and the rulers were gathered together against the LORD,......................................................................against the Lord, and against his anointed,..........................................................and against his Christ. When prophecy in Scripture becomes too exact, some scholars dismiss it as “prophecy ex eventu,” i.e., prophecy written after the event, or wrongly interpreted so as to apply to some later event. When, for example, Jesus and his disciples claim that the Bible (Old Testament) is filled with specific predictions of Jesus’ coming, many scholars dismiss that as wishful thinking on a par with Talmudic interpretation of the Old Testament by the Rabbis, or that made in Pesharim by Essene/ Qumran sectarians. The Book of Mormon itself is even conscious of the seeming anachronism: “Behold, you marvel why these things should be known so long beforehand” (Alma 39:17). Micah 5:2-4 is interpreted in Matthew 2:6 and John 7:40-43 to be a prediction of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem as King of Judah – and that was over 700 years before the fact!! Micah is also known for his prediction in 3:12 of the fall of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 26:18), along with the eventual restoration of Judah in 4:1 - 5:15. Prophecies which came true. When I Kings 13:2 predicts the reign of righteous King Josiah by name, or when Isaiah (44:28, 45:1) predicts the name of a ruler far into the future (Cyrus), are these examples of prophecy ex eventu? Is it possible to name kings so far in advance? Thus, when Jesus is named by an angel many months before his birth (Matthew 1:21, Luke 1:31,69, 2:21,30, 3:6 – including the puns on his name), and when John the Baptizer is likewise specifically named by an angel before his birth (Luke 1:13), what is the reader to conclude? Moreover, when just such predictions are based on texts at least 600 years prior and well-established, in which the very name of Jesus is repeatedly used, what is one to conclude? For example, the pun on Jesus’ name at Luke 2:30 and 3:6 is a direct quote from Isaiah 52:10 – in which Salvation is easily capitalized as the translation of the name of Jesus. The same applies to Isaiah 12:2-3 (quoted at II Nephi 22:2-3), 25:9, Psalm 35:9, 38:23, and numerous other such Scriptures. Indeed, Jesus himself said that we should “search the Scriptures; . . and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39), and that “Moses . . . wrote of me” (5:46): “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27; cf. Acts 3:18, 28:23). Unless you master these biblical features, Gray, everything will seem like an "anachronism" to you. Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, here is an example of an alleged anachronism of Christianity in the Book of Mormon: 13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel. 14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me. (2 Nephi 31: 13-14) To me, the comprehensive message here sounds like Christianity and it sounds distinct from what somebody from Jerusalem in 545 BC would have plausibly believed. And it sounds like you are arguing, "no, this Pauline Christianity didn't exist in 545 BC--that would be silly. It only appears to be Christianity as an artifact of the translation process. What was really being taught was something much closer to Judaism, where 'repent of your sins' is a confusing translation of 'don't engrave any images,' and 'follow your Lord and Savior down into the water' is a confusing translation of 'circumcise your newborn males on the eighth day,' etc. If you master the way these ancient languages are translated, the apparent anachronisms disappear!" That isn't really your point, is it? Edited June 28, 2018 by Analytics 1
Ryan Dahle Posted June 28, 2018 Author Posted June 28, 2018 28 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I am not saying you're being misled. I just look at the lists of correspondences you have provided and come away pretty nonplussed. My guess is that you're more impressed than I am because you are only looking at this from one side without the context. For me, Book of Mormon historicity was never an essential part of my beliefs, so it was never difficult to acknowledge that it doesn't fit much at all in an ancient American setting. When I was in college, my mom was really excited that I was studying ancient America because she thought I might be able to give her some insight into Book of Mormon peoples. I told her that what I was studying wasn't particularly relevant, as it didn't shed much light on anything in the Book of Mormon. She was disappointed, but I never had that expectation in the first place. I think it probably has less to do with looking at both sides and more to do with methods of evaluation. I am perfectly fine when the evidence doesn't fit, and to be quite honest, I would be perfectly fine if none of the Mesoamerican evidence fit well. I'm not that worried about it.
jkwilliams Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 Just now, Ryan Dahle said: I think it probably has less to do with looking at both sides and more to do with methods of evaluation. I am perfectly fine when the evidence doesn't fit, and to be quite honest, I would be perfectly fine if none of the Mesoamerican evidence fit well. I'm not that worried about it. I think it goes beyond looking at one side. It is looking at the evidence without context. I'm with you that these issues are pretty immaterial to one's faith. I guess I've just heard too many times about some strong evidence that turns out not to be at all.
Ryan Dahle Posted June 28, 2018 Author Posted June 28, 2018 17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: He's a scholar, a credentialed and published anthropologist, but it took me just a couple of hours after work to realize that none of the points held up to scrutiny. I think I get where you are coming from now.
stemelbow Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said: Generally speaking, I think that other evidences are typically more persuasive, but these types of correspondences, especially when looked as as a whole, aren't without merit. One can always propose that Joseph got these ideas from some place or another, which in most cases he could, but just because he could possibly have put all this stuff together in one document, it doesn't mean that was likely for him to do. Yes these are all circumstantial it seems to me. One first has to assume the historicity position of the BoM in order for any of your list, including the title of liberty, to mean anything. Yet, there remains no reason to make the first assumption, other than faith. How are people supposed to engage these points of evidence if the premise is yet to be shown to have value? The outstanding question is how is one supposed to take the book as representing an actual history? You seem to be asking people to assume it is history then we can read into the story possible parallels of what we might expect to see. That doesn't seem to be addressing the outstanding question.
jkwilliams Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 Just now, Ryan Dahle said: I think I get where you are coming from now. Like I said, I've heard so many times that there's this amazing evidence, and it invariably turns out to be extremely weak sauce. I'm reminded of a song: "Every girl that I've seen since looks just like you when I squint." That's pretty much how I see the state of Book of Mormon scholarship; things look compelling only if you look at them in a certain way.
jkwilliams Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Yes these are all circumstantial it seems to me. One first has to assume the historicity position of the BoM in order for any of your list, including the title of liberty, to mean anything. Yet, there remains no reason to make the first assumption, other than faith. How are people supposed to engage these points of evidence if the premise is yet to be shown to have value? The outstanding question is how is one supposed to take the book as representing an actual history? You seem to be asking people to assume it is history then we can read into the story possible parallels of what we might expect to see. That doesn't seem to be addressing the outstanding question. Yup. It's not hard to find political and military banners in history throughout the world. Why is the title of liberty more of a match to ancient Mayan battle banners than it is to Revolutionary War liberty poles? 1
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2018 Posted June 28, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm more of anti-conformist that challenges the prevailing ideologies of most of the groups I encounter. I honestly don't fit the reductionist stereotypes crafted in that Goldman piece. Although he makes some interesting observations. I identify more as a skeptical thinker, and I try to apply this skepticism to all sides along the religious and political spectrum. For example, humans are clearly contributing to climate change, but I don't automatically think every recommendation for how to solve this problem is a good one. Nor do I agree with the prioritization often given to climate related issues, this seems to be almost a religion for some people, and I'm sympathetic and in agreement that this is important, but I don't just follow the group think that frequently happens. So when it comes to my critiques of religion, and of Mormonism, I try to make these critiques specific and substantive. I don't accept appeals to authority or tradition without questioning them. I eschew dogmas in all groups where I encounter them. That's not to say that I'm perfect by any means. I feel personally like many of my ideas are less examined than they should be, and I recognize that many of my positions would likely need to change significantly under close scrutiny. Because of this I try to be humble about what I believe I understand and I try to follow the strength of evidence I encounter. I try to honor truth, but I also recognize that truth is often contextual. I am more of a relativist, but I have an odd sense that there are foundational principles that we ought to try to align with. However, I'm skeptical of the abilities of humans to fully understand these foundational principles because of our limited understanding, perception and comprehension of the universe and our relationship to it. This may sound something like a concept of deity, I'm not sure what it is exactly, but its really not a belief for me as much as its the way I have evolved to orient in my life at this time. That said, I don't believe any one tradition or one person has special access to understanding these foundational principles. Ideas worth promoting can be found in odd places. I can't comprehend God as an entity that plays favorites with tribes or that created mortality as some elaborate testing ground for humans. Those kinds of concepts for God I find to be very shallow. Anyway, probably rambling a bit here in an attempt to be better understood in my quirkiness. Even though I don't fully agree with the way you've described religion and science, I think I better understand where you're coming from, and that alone is worthy of consideration. Thanks Thanks. Take a look at Kevin's comment above. I suggest you look up the Perry Scheme. Edited June 28, 2018 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts