The State of Mormon Apologetics

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As for details that Joseph couldn't have known about, things like chiasmus, I just haven't found any of those arguments persuasive. 

My point exactly. Recently, for some reason I started reading up on the whole NHM/Lehi in Arabia thing, which I had always considered a rather remarkable bit of evidence, but I ended up really disappointed. It turns out you have to do a lot of fudging with the text and the geography to make it work. Alas, that's pretty much par for the course.

[hope_for_things]

44 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My point exactly. Recently, for some reason I started reading up on the whole NHM/Lehi in Arabia thing, which I had always considered a rather remarkable bit of evidence, but I ended up really disappointed. It turns out you have to do a lot of fudging with the text and the geography to make it work. Alas, that's pretty much par for the course.

Yes, I totally agree.  After looking at a few of these things, the next flavor of, Joseph couldn't have possibly known this, just doesn't get me interested.  Besides there are so many more evidences that tie the BoM directly to the 19th century, that coming up with some complicated proofs for it being something else really strains credibility.  

[Glenn101]

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, I am familiar with everything you're talking about and just don't find it compelling at all. But this kind of evidence works for you, and that's great.

Since you are familiar with everything I have pointed out, can you explain those things with something that is not a 'somehow" narrative to make it less compelling for me?

Take the Egyptian names that William F. Albright found surprising to be in the Book of Mormon (Paanchi and Paharoan). Why was he surprised and it makes no impression on you?  Albright was surprised because the study of Egyptian hierglyphics was in its infancy when the Book of Mormon was produced.

Also, the presence of extensive Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon. Stanford Carmack noted that a person may include occasional Early Modern English phrases in written texts. There is some in the Bible itself. But a person would have to speak/write Early Modern English as second nature for it to show up in a text to the extent that it does in the Book of Mormon. Stanford has analysed pesudo-Biblical texts of the era and they do not have such usage levels. Not even close. He also has analysed Joseph's own personal writings and has not found it to contain significant amounts of Early Modern English. Do you have an evidence based explanation for this that would make this Early Modern English usage fit comfortably in a nineteenth century text?

I am also interested in your comments on the Nehem/Nihm information. Why do you think that people have to fudge the geography, etc. to get it to work?

Glenn

[jkwilliams]

20 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Since you are familiar with everything I have pointed out, can you explain those things with something that is not a 'somehow" narrative to make it less compelling for me?

Take the Egyptian names that William F. Albright found surprising to be in the Book of Mormon (Paanchi and Paharoan). Why was he surprised and it makes no impression on you?  Albright was surprised because the study of Egyptian hierglyphics was in its infancy when the Book of Mormon was produced.

I've not seen anything on this subject other than that 1966 letter from Dr. Albright cited and some speculations from Nibley that Ed Ashment dealt with 25 years ago. Albright's letter, devoid of context, isn't all that helpful.  

Quote

Also, the presence of extensive Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon. Stanford Carmack noted that a person may include occasional Early Modern English phrases in written texts. There is some in the Bible itself. But a person would have to speak/write Early Modern English as second nature for it to show up in a text to the extent that it does in the Book of Mormon. Stanford has analysed pesudo-Biblical texts of the era and they do not have such usage levels. Not even close. He also has analysed Joseph's own personal writings and has not found it to contain significant amounts of Early Modern English. Do you have an evidence based explanation for this that would make this Early Modern English usage fit comfortably in a nineteenth century text?

I'm not going to get into this again, as I respect Stan and his work. I will just say that I do not find the EModE hypothesis compelling or significant. I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks this matters.

Quote

I am also interested in your comments on the Nehem/Nihm information. Why do you think that people have to fudge the geography, etc. to get it to work?

The Book of Mormon text has Lehi et al. following the "borders near the Red Sea" until the death of Ishmael at the place they call Nahom, at which point they turn roughly east-southeast. Thus, according to the text, Nahom should be at or near the coast of the Red Sea. If you look at where NHM is on the map, it's nearly 200 miles to the east of the coast, on the other side of the mountains that run the length of western Arabia. So, Warren Aston's map, to take one example, has Lehi's group traveling the length of the Arabian peninsula to the east of the mountains, some 140-200 miles east of where the text says they traveled. That way he can have them traveling in the direction indicated and making their turn east at NHM. 

But to your main question, I'm just not seeing a lot that requires much of an explanation, "somehow" or not. You have a text that looks pretty much like a 19th-century production in its content and style, so the default position is that it's probably a 19th-century production. That there are these little tidbits that seem interesting if you squint a little doesn't change much, at least not for me. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

When I say transcendent, I'm essentially saying that it was something special, not an ordinary experience for me.

Ah. That makes more sense. I thought you meant a feeling of universality or oneness that's often characteristic of spiritual or mystical experiences. (As well as certain drugs like LSD, mushrooms, or even ketamine) I certainly wouldn't deny that we treat some experiences as more significant than others. Although I think the reasons why vary. I'm also not sure I'd want to tie that essentially to religion. For instance I've had very meaningful experiences I still recall in banal settings. And many of my most significant experiences aren't really religious at all. That's not to say that religion can't be significant. It clearly can. I'm just a bit uncomfortable with how some try and define religion and religiosity along those lines. (You see that frequently in the phenomenology of religion)

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

From what I've learned about the ayahuasca trends, many of these people really blend a supernatural almost religious meaning to the experiences. 

Yes, and that's exactly the sort of thing I think needs to be questioned. And by the same line of questioning I think Mormon experiences of the spirit should be questioned. I rather suspect a bit of skepticism would avoid false claims of when God was telling someone something. (Which again is not me doubting that God does speak and empower people)

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not thinking that religious metaphorical truths are the same thing as lies to get people to do something, like to exit a burning house.  That is connoting some kind of master plan to religious prescriptions, and some kind of reward at the end, I don't believe any of that personally.

I don't think that's the goal. Rather it's the idea that some truths are abstract or hard to understand accept. So you have these trappings that lead people to the real truths. There's not necessarily some reward beyond understanding. It actually is a pretty common view.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

What I do think is happening with religious truth, is I think people have been telling stories about the experiences of their lives throughout time.

Yes and that tradition has a long history as well. It's arguably behind the move in Greece towards seeing myths as allegories about more philosophical truths. With the rise of what was called structuralism around the beginning of the 20th century you see that move in psychology. Myths represent these common experiences and underlying psychological structures. Effectively Jordan Peterson is just following that model with a more Jungian twist in his popular videos and books. (I'm not a Peterson fan, I should add - it just seems like reasonably well established psychology wrapped up in religious and Jungian ambiguous language) 

If religion is just a "house" for such common structures of experience, again I confess I'd not find it terribly interesting.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I would question whether materiality and historicity really matters for religious congregations.  The power in the narratives doesn't seem to change from my vantage point. 

For some people that's definitely true. For most people I don't think it is. Go to your typical congregation and I think you'll find they think it matters whether there was a real historic Jesus or not, or whether there will be a real resurrection or life after death. The irony is that often their preachers and leaders adopt more of what you outline. The move towards atheism, agnosticism, or a very stripped down undemanding conception of God really is, I think, a result of people needing that materiality towards religion. If it's not there, then most of religion becomes pointless.

Really this is Nietzsche's whole point about the madman yelling about how God is dead. He's speaking of how God was (then) viewed. By allegorizing away God or treating him just as some metaphysical source of being the elites had killed God. They just didn't realize it yet.

• "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves. 

  It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

So I tend to agree that people attempt to maintain religion even after they've killed God. The type of secularism we see in Europe seems evidence of that. While the Nones in America really aren't following the same line yet, I do worry that something similar is happening here to a degree.

 

 

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Kevin, can you expound on what you mean when you say Joseph got things right that Campbell was wrong about?  Are you talking about theological concepts that you believe Joseph has the correct theology on, and is this correctness in the sense that these were somehow in alignment with deity?  

I'm not sure what you're saying about Joseph being more busy than Campbell, "cutting down 5000 trees and splitting rails, and fencing property, among other things."  He certainly had enough time to dictate the BoM.  I don't get the impression that he was producing very much from the earning a living perspective, he was living with his in-laws part of the time, and other family members the rest of the time.  Joseph never really developed a profession/trade during his lifetime, he ended up being supported by the religious community he formed.  

I don't know about Campbell, perhaps he was also supported by his religious community as well.  But I'm not sure why this is relevant.  But I imagine Campbell was much more formally educated that Joseph.  They were both part of the restorationist movement in the 2nd great awakening.  It seems like they had quite a few theological ideas in common being part of that movement.  I haven't studied Campbell much though.  

As for details that Joseph couldn't have known about, things like chiasmus, I just haven't found any of those arguments persuasive. 

For the environmental theory, Campbell is a good test because he was very close to that environment, and he wrote Delusions, one of the first substantial attacks on the Book of Mormon, even taking the trouble to read it.

Kevin Barney wrote a very good comparison of Smith and Campbell for FAIR, "A Tale of Two Restorations."

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-1999/a-tale-of-two-restorations

Some specifics in Delusions I notice are Campbell's complaint about Nephi building a temple.  Yet, on this the Book of Mormon is correct.  There were other Hebrew temples besides Solomon's temple, (Elephantine, for example) and it was a specific group, the Deuteronomists, who thought there could be only one.  And Campbell thought that the Book of Mormon was "too Christian before Christ."  So he clearly did not see Margaret Barker coming.

Quote

The original temple tradition was that Yahweh the Lord was the son of God Most high, present on earth in the Messiah. This means that the older religion in Israel would have taught about the Messiah, and so, finding Christ in the Old Testament is exactly what we should expect, but something obscured by incorrect reading of the scriptures. And this, I suggest, is one aspect of the restoration of the “plain and precious things” which have been taken away.

The greatest lost has been the temple and the angels and everything they represented. There can be no doubt that the central theme of Jesus’ teaching was the restoration of the true temple and what it meant. He was proclaimed as the Melchizedek Priest, the expected Messiah—described as Melchizedek in the texts found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. But what had happened to the Melchizedek priesthood?

http://oneclimbs.com/2016/03/30/margaret-barker-transcript-from-the-worlds-of-joseph-smith-conference/

Campbell also claims that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, though, it happens, there is a lot more to consider in the Bible that Campbell did not bring to the discussion:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

John Welch points to Oliver Cowdery's 1835 Response to Campbell:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1092&index=18

And much has been learned since then.  For instance, this on Benjamin, whom Campbell mocks.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1087&index=8

And Mark Wright on the Mesoamerican side of things:

http://www.bmaf.org/node/462

And of course, Campbell famously dissed the Book of Mormon as "not having one good sentence in it."

Read An Other Testament by Joseph Spencer, or Understanding the Book of Mormon by Hardy.   And there is not just chiasmus, but the range of poetic forms noted by Parry, but the allusive artfulness noted by Alan Goff.

And it is worth mentioning that after writing Delusions, claiming that it was obviously all Joseph Smith, that Campbell went all in on the Spaulding theory.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

 

 

[clarkgoble]

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I totally agree.  After looking at a few of these things, the next flavor of, Joseph couldn't have possibly known this, just doesn't get me interested.  Besides there are so many more evidences that tie the BoM directly to the 19th century, that coming up with some complicated proofs for it being something else really strains credibility.  

Some evidences I've never found persuasive in the least and never understood why they were so hyped. Stylometry, as I've argued, makes no sense just based upon the claimed nature of the text. NHM I'll confess I didn't see the issue with when it started getting hyped in the 90's and remain of that view. However when it comes to the big picture of a poor relatively uneducated kid in the country being able to write the text, I confess it's just very, very hard to believe he could do it. So I actually am quite convinced with Kevin to that point.

I think part of the problem is that people see the 19th century elements and think that's compelling reason to think Joseph wrote it. I'm not sure that follows. For one an authentic but loose translation would be expected to have strong 19th century elements. For an other, even if the text is fraudulent, it doesn't follow that Joseph wrote it.

There are clear elements that I confess I've just not seen an adequate explanation for. The 17th century grammar elements being a big one. Why Joseph's conception of the Book of Mormon doesn't match the internal logic (such as distances) of the text. If Joseph were unconscious writing (as say in Taves model) why it's so internally consistent. (This is why most unconscious writing doesn't give narratives - coherent narratives often requires rewriting and/or preplanning and structures. Narratives that are given tend to be very simple ones) 

There are also elements that while there are explanations, I'm not really satisfied with. Things like why Joseph would maintain his story and religion despite the persecutions and so forth. (I understand why some don't see that as a problem, but I confess I just can't make my doubts on the issue go away) Things like why the witnesses never renounced their "visions" when you'd expect there to be big incentives to do so especially if Joseph was rejected. I can see a few maintaining their witness out of fear or embarrassment. But you'd expect at least a few to seriously downplay it. Then there's the issue of how given their well known poverty he'd get all the paper and the resources to make fake plates. Again, there are answers but none I'm really fully satisfied with.

 

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Don't worry, I'm enough of a schmuck to forget and keep responding to you.     I'm sure I'm impatient and flawed often enough with my comments as well, and I hope people will forgive me for those flaws.  

My Dad used to say:  "Don't be too hard on yourself."  😎

[Analytics]

On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 11:42 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know that I would trust your cherry picking of quotes, and I don’t look forward to the task of contxtualizing them when you do, so I’d just as soon you not bother. The book, to my knowledge, is still in print, so let those who are interested get a copy and come to their own conclusions. 

I'm pretty sure you really would enjoy cynically reading my quotes and then explaining how dastardly I cherry picked, so as a gift to you...

Quote

As Gordon worked his way through the university and made the transition from dependence upon his parents to personal responsibility, he, like many of his peers, began to question assumptions about life, the world, and even the Church. His concerns were compounded by the cynicism of the times. “Only those who lived through that era could really ever understand the depth of the economic catastrophe that hit the nation,” he later explained. “It was a time of terrible discouragement, and it was felt strongly on campus. I felt some of it myself. I began to question some things, including perhaps in a slight measure the faith of my parents. That is not unusual for university students, but the atmosphere was particularly acute at that time.” 

[and then on his mission]

...After he had taken as much as he felt he could, Elder Hinckley wrote his father that he wasn’t getting anywhere with missionary work, and that he couldn’t see the point in wasting his time and his father’s money. Responding as both father and stake president, Bryant Hinckley sent a reply that was brief and to the point: “Dear Gordon, I have your recent letter. I have only one suggestion: forget yourself and go to work.”

 

Earlier that day he and his companion had studied the promise recorded in the Gospels: “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it” (Mark 8:35). That scripture, combined with his father’s counsel, seared his soul. With the letter in hand, he went into his upstairs bedroom at 15 Wadham Road and got on his knees. As he poured out his heart to the Lord, he promised that he would try to forget himself and lose himself in the Lord’s service. Many years later he indicated the significance of that series of events: “That July day in 1933 was my day of decision. A new light came into my life and a new joy into my heart. The fog of England seemed to lift, and I saw the sunlight. Everything good that has happened to me since then I can trace back to the decision I made that day in Preston.”

 

Dew, Sheri L.. Go Forward With Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley (Kindle Locations 896-901, 1179-1188). Deseret Book Company. Kindle Edition.

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by Analytics

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Ah. That makes more sense. I thought you meant a feeling of universality or oneness that's often characteristic of spiritual or mystical experiences. (As well as certain drugs like LSD, mushrooms, or even ketamine) I certainly wouldn't deny that we treat some experiences as more significant than others. Although I think the reasons why vary. I'm also not sure I'd want to tie that essentially to religion. For instance I've had very meaningful experiences I still recall in banal settings. And many of my most significant experiences aren't really religious at all. That's not to say that religion can't be significant. It clearly can. I'm just a bit uncomfortable with how some try and define religion and religiosity along those lines. (You see that frequently in the phenomenology of religion)

Yeah, personally I don't think I've ever had what others describe as mystical experiences before.  My meaningful spiritual experiences seem more mundane from how I've heard others describe the more intense experiences as a loss of self and a connection to the universe, I can't say I've ever felt that way.  I have experienced what I would call awe, but I think this is different.  

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, and that's exactly the sort of thing I think needs to be questioned. And by the same line of questioning I think Mormon experiences of the spirit should be questioned. I rather suspect a bit of skepticism would avoid false claims of when God was telling someone something. (Which again is not me doubting that God does speak and empower people)

I agree here, and would welcome more skepticism.  That skepticism has led me to believe that God is an experience, but not an external entity.  I see the God experience as something that happens in our mind, that there likely has been an evolutionary adaptive advantage to.  I would recommend this book, its not anti religion, the authors are quite respectful.  

https://www.amazon.com/How-Changes-Your-Brain-Neuroscientist/dp/0345503422/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1533920702&sr=8-1&keywords=god+and+the+brain

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's the goal. Rather it's the idea that some truths are abstract or hard to understand accept. So you have these trappings that lead people to the real truths. There's not necessarily some reward beyond understanding. It actually is a pretty common view.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.  Then I would agree with you that I don't believe these metaphorical truths contain intentionally hidden meaning that can be unlocked through following certain behaviors and that religions are justified in deceiving people in order to lead them to the greater meaning.  

19 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes and that tradition has a long history as well. It's arguably behind the move in Greece towards seeing myths as allegories about more philosophical truths. With the rise of what was called structuralism around the beginning of the 20th century you see that move in psychology. Myths represent these common experiences and underlying psychological structures. Effectively Jordan Peterson is just following that model with a more Jungian twist in his popular videos and books. (I'm not a Peterson fan, I should add - it just seems like reasonably well established psychology wrapped up in religious and Jungian ambiguous language) 

If religion is just a "house" for such common structures of experience, again I confess I'd not find it terribly interesting.

I have some problems with Peterson, but I think what he's trying to by meaning making through biblical myths is interesting and is an attempt to mine value from ancient religious texts.  Now, I think this same thing can be done for numerous stories and it isn't unique to ancient myths, humans are pretty good at creating meaning out of all kinds of disparate information.  Whether with personal stories we tell or stories created for us by our cultures.  This gets me back to my point that all we have at the end of the day are these narratives, we don't have access to the factual history from generations past.  So if religious stories have value it can't be in a materialist sense.  

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

For some people that's definitely true. For most people I don't think it is. Go to your typical congregation and I think you'll find they think it matters whether there was a real historic Jesus or not, or whether there will be a real resurrection or life after death. The irony is that often their preachers and leaders adopt more of what you outline. The move towards atheism, agnosticism, or a very stripped down undemanding conception of God really is, I think, a result of people needing that materiality towards religion. If it's not there, then most of religion becomes pointless.

Really this is Nietzsche's whole point about the madman yelling about how God is dead. He's speaking of how God was (then) viewed. By allegorizing away God or treating him just as some metaphysical source of being the elites had killed God. They just didn't realize it yet.

• "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves. 

  It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

So I tend to agree that people attempt to maintain religion even after they've killed God. The type of secularism we see in Europe seems evidence of that. While the Nones in America really aren't following the same line yet, I do worry that something similar is happening here to a degree.

I agree that the base assumptions for most conservative Christians are that these events are historically accurate.  People have a hard time with changing their assumptions.  If they started with different basic assumptions then there wouldn't be a problem.  

It sounds like you want to hold onto materiality in religion, not only because it resonates with you, but because you don't see any other way to preserve thriving religious communities.  However, I see the problem a little differently.  Since we live in an information age, it will be increasingly difficult to shield people from evidence that contradicts the materialist message.  And I would argue this secular wave forward is inevitable.   

So the path forward has to be something different than holding on to materiality, that is where I think Peterson and some others are going.  Unless you can think of a realistic way forward that reconciles the evidence against materiality and our increasing access to information and scientific learning.  

 

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

But to your main question, I'm just not seeing a lot that requires much of an explanation, "somehow" or not. You have a text that looks pretty much like a 19th-century production in its content and style, so the default position is that it's probably a 19th-century production. That there are these little tidbits that seem interesting if you squint a little doesn't change much, at least not for me. 

Maybe the problem is that you never STOP squinting! 

If your eyes were all the way open, you might be more impressed. 

[clarkgoble]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It sounds like you want to hold onto materiality in religion, not only because it resonates with you, but because you don't see any other way to preserve thriving religious communities.  However, I see the problem a little differently.  Since we live in an information age, it will be increasingly difficult to shield people from evidence that contradicts the materialist message.  And I would argue this secular wave forward is inevitable.   

So the path forward has to be something different than holding on to materiality, that is where I think Peterson and some others are going.  Unless you can think of a realistic way forward that reconciles the evidence against materiality and our increasing access to information and scientific learning.  

Well I think that people who accept materiality of religion will persist. I suspect in the US we'll reach a new stable equilibrium. (Just a guess - but it might be that the post-Millennial generation is even less religious than Millennials) I don't know enough about Peterson to say much there. Jung clearly had an underlying materiality to his conceptions - a kind of mystic almost neoplatonic conception of the universe. That is he took "universal unconscious" as something real akin to the old neoplatonic nous. I don't know if Peterson's view of God lines up that far with Jung.

I'd also add that while belief in organized Christianity dropped, you end up with older religions making a somewhat chaotic comeback. So in among the various forms of alternative medicine or vague "spirituality" you often have a reemergence of folk traditions. Those end up being religious and having pretty distinct materialist conceptions of religion. The organized part just is missing. That's what I suspect will grow in the US - much more than agnostics/atheists. Water diviners might not really be a part of Europe or the US except in some rural areas, but that basic materialist conception of the world does remain reasonably strong. These movements, perhaps because they are so loose, unorganized and frankly frequently incoherent in belief haven't been well analyzed. Yet I think they are growing in both the US and Europe. Ironically this in turn ends up closer to Joseph Smith's more esoteric environment. (Minus more organized groups like the Masons) 

What I suspect you'll then have is an ability to deny the materiality when speaking to elites/skeptics yet in practice accepting and believing in materiality. I tend to think that the real issue is the organized part of religion that's become more at odds with people in the US. This is different from Europe where you had competitors to religion in various forms of Marxism or other ideologies during the crucial evolution to secularism.

Edited August 10, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Glenn101]

56 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've not seen anything on this subject other than that 1966 letter from Dr. Albright cited and some speculations from Nibley that Ed Ashment dealt with 25 years ago. Albright's letter, devoid of context, isn't all that helpful. 

What kind of context does one neeed? Did Joseph Smith have access to any documents from which to extract those names?

58 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not going to get into this again, as I respect Stan and his work. I will just say that I do not find the EModE hypothesis compelling or significant. I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks this matters.

The EmodE is more than a hypothesis. All one has to do to confirm it is to check Stanford's articles for the EmodE he has found and check it against the sources such as the Oxford English Dictionary to confirm or refute. It may fall outside the paradigms that you have formed. The only recuring mantra that I have seen in opposition is that it has peer reviewed. But this was a bit of serendipity, as it were, because Royal Skousen was not looking for it. He assumed as did just about everyone else that the language was pretty much KJV in nature. This matters because it is something that would be/was foreign to Joseph Smith's dialect and something that he would not have used while dictating the text.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

The Book of Mormon text has Lehi et al. following the "borders near the Red Sea" until the death of Ishmael at the place they call Nahom,

The Book of Mormon text does not have Ishmael dying at Nahom. It has him being buried there. Where they were located at the time is still a bit of an unknown.

But, as I said earlier, if one focusses only on the elements that he or she believes to be of ninetenth century origin and ignores all of the rest, then nineteenth century is what he or she will see.

Glenn

 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

What kind of context does one neeed? Did Joseph Smith have access to any documents from which to extract those names?

Again, the suggestion is that these are Egyptian names. If they aren't, who cares how they got into the Book of Mormon? A private letter from 1966 is not compelling evidence.

Quote

The EmodE is more than a hypothesis. All one has to do to confirm it is to check Stanford's articles for the EmodE he has found and check it against the sources such as the Oxford English Dictionary to confirm or refute. It may fall outside the paradigms that you have formed. The only recuring mantra that I have seen in opposition is that it has peer reviewed. But this was a bit of serendipity, as it were, because Royal Skousen was not looking for it. He assumed as did just about everyone else that the language was pretty much KJV in nature. This matters because it is something that would be/was foreign to Joseph Smith's dialect and something that he would not have used while dictating the text.

Oh, trust me, Stan and I have had a lot of conversations about this. But let's just say, for argument's sake, that my paradigm is wrong, and there really is significant EModE usage in the Book of Mormon. Does that tell us anything about whether it's a translation of an ancient record? If it does, I am not seeing it. If anything, it might suggest an earlier author than Joseph Smith.

Quote

The Book of Mormon text does not have Ishmael dying at Nahom. It has him being buried there. Where they were located at the time is still a bit of an unknown.

I misspoke. Either way, the relevant passages are in 1 Nephi 16. They are in the "valley of Lemuel" in verse 6, which we are told empties into the Red Sea. The Liahona appears, and they continue in "nearly a south-southeast direction" (v. 13) for four days, and then 

Quote

And we did go forth again in the wilderness, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea. 

Nephi breaks his bow and then makes one of wood. 

Quote

 

And it came to pass that we did again take our journey, traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning; and after we had traveled for the space of many days we did pitch our tents again, that we might tarry for the space of a time.

And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom.

 

To recap, to this point they have been in the more fertile parts in the borders near the Red Sea. They continue in the "same direction" ("nearly a south-southeast direction") and "nearly the same course as in the beginning") until Ishmael dies, and then he's buried in Nahom, which may or may not be the same place he died.

But it is not until after Nahom is dead and buried that they turn east:

Quote

And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth. (1 Nephi 17:1)

So, the text appears to say they followed the same direction along the coast until Nahom, at which time they turned east. Again, the only way NHM works is if you have Lehi's family traveling east of the Hijaz mountains, which would make their journeys not in the borders near the Red Sea but on the other side of a mountain range some 150 miles to the east.

Quote

But, as I said earlier, if one focusses only on the elements that he or she believes to be of ninetenth century origin and ignores all of the rest, then nineteenth century is what he or she will see.

Now, that's just annoying. Why would you assume that I or anyone else has focused on the nineteenth century and ignored everything else? 

Edited August 10, 2018 by jkwilliams

[blueglass]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

My point exactly. Recently, for some reason I started reading up on the whole NHM/Lehi in Arabia thing, which I had always considered a rather remarkable bit of evidence, but I ended up really disappointed. It turns out you have to do a lot of fudging with the text and the geography to make it work. Alas, that's pretty much par for the course.

I thought the latest on NHM was that Joseph would have a hard time obtaining copies of the best maps from D'Anville 1751, and Niebuhr, 1771, maps which included Nehem, or Hehhm.   If you look at these maps republished by John Gee in 2008, they really have incredible detail - really beautiful. 

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol17/iss1/6/ 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, blueglass said:

I thought the latest on NHM was that Joseph would have a hard time obtaining copies of the best maps from D'Anville 1751, and Niebuhr, 1771, maps which included Nehem, or Hehhm.   If you look at these maps republished by John Gee in 2008, they really have incredible detail - really beautiful. 

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol17/iss1/6/ 

Good point. Even if you could prove Joseph (or perhaps the earlier author/translator) didn't have these maps, you'd still have the problem with fudging the text to make it work.

[Ryan Dahle]

54 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, the text appears to say they followed the same direction along the coast until Nahom, at which time they turned east. Again, the only way NHM works is if you have Lehi's family traveling east of the Hijaz mountains, which would make their journeys not in the borders near the Red Sea but on the other side of a mountain range some 150 miles to the east.

There is plenty of interpretive room for this to not be a problem. This is from nealr from another thread a while back:

Quote

There are a ton issues that need to be unpacked. To assume that "boarders" means coast runs into problems since the text also mentions "borders near the shore of the Red Sea" and more confusedly still "the borders which are nearer the Red Sea" (1 Nephi 2:5). To most people, "coast" would mean "shore", so how do you have a coast which is near the shore? And what is a coast that is near vs. nearer? I see a lot of problems with equating "borders" with "coast". Robert is the only scholar I know that interprets this as meaning that Lehites were on the coast. Since Hugh Nibley (long before the NHM altars were discovered), most LDS scholars have understood Lehi and his family to be on the east side of the mountains. In any event, 1 Nephi 16:14 is soon after they left Shazer, which is in northern Arabia and on the order of ~1000 miles north of wherever Nahom must be. That would allow for plenty of time for them to slip through a mountain pass (which would probably only take a few days to a week) and then continue along in the same general direction as before (south-southeast), thus leaving Nephi no reason to mention a major shift in course when remembering his 8-year journey some 30 or so years later. 

Also:

Quote

I explain this a little bit in my last post. If they are already traveling on the east of the mountains (as most scholars believe, i.e., Nibley, the Hiltons, Potter and Wellington, and Aston), there is no need to turn east before getting to Nahom. If they were traveling along the coast at this point (as Robert Smith would have it) then they could have passed through the mountains in a matter of days to perhaps a week or so, and then continued generally south-southeast. And they may have still been traveling generally southeast-ward while traveling through the mountains. They don't need to take a hard east turn to eventually have made their way across the mountains. A more gradual shift slightly more eastward, while still moving southeast generally, or perhaps even east-southeast, could certainly qualify as maintaining "nearly the same course" as before (1 Nephi 16:33). In any event, if I were writing about an 8-year-long journey 30 or so years later, I probably wouldn't mention a short week's worth directional shift.

 

[why me]

19 hours ago, ttribe said:

You can't possibly believe this universally true, or even for the majority of members.

I  think that the lds church has clipped the sails of the critics because of the new openness about church history. The critics can no longer claim the hidden history line. However, I will be the first to admit that the critics and their use of the internet has made the church change its tactics and address the problematic history. But what to moan about now? Social issues and abuse seems to be the strategy for the critics.

[champatsch]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Oh, trust me, Stan and I have had a lot of conversations about this. But let's just say, for argument's sake, that my paradigm is wrong, and there really is significant EModE usage in the Book of Mormon. Does that tell us anything about whether it's a translation of an ancient record? If it does, I am not seeing it. If anything, it might suggest an earlier author than Joseph Smith.

It tells us indirectly that it's a translation of an ancient record. What it tells us directly is that Joseph Smith was not the author or translator.  So the Lord is the source for the text, since other naturalistic possibilities are extremely unlikely (based on corroborating dictation witnesses such as Morse), which Skousen has published since the 1990s.  From that, accepting that the Lord doesn't lie, we get that the translation is of an ancient record.

The Early Modern English view, or more accurately the extrabiblical archaic view, of Book of Mormon language is in part systematic and chiefly based on two things: the more than 50 obsolete meanings conveyed by the earliest text's vocabulary and expressions, and the descriptive linguistic fact that the verbal system of the earliest text is extensively archaic and extrabiblical. It isn't biblical, modern, or pseudo-biblical (a weak biblical–modern hybrid).

Nonlinguists tend to focus on noun phrases and think that NPs can tell us something about the time-depth of the Book of Mormon's language. But we must focus on the verb phrase, in all its complexity, since that is the core of grammar and VP syntax is much less contextual and mostly produced subconsciously.  NPs can have syntax, but it is simple, and NPs are content-rich and mostly produced consciously.

Of course, there are exceptions, such as the Book of Mormon's "more part" usage: 26 instances, four variants, two of them rare, no pseudo-biblical support.  This is an example of the tidbits, of which hath been spoken. 😉  Yet bear in mind that the view is systematic as well, covering the verbal system and beyond to obsolete vocabulary and expressions.

But is the Book of Mormon a homogeneous archaic text?  No.  So the dilettante that isn't thorough, either willfully or innocently, can point to various modern elements, disregarding large numbers of archaic elements, and assert that it shows Joseph could have been the author or translator.  This, of course, is far from being accurate, since such a cherry-picking maneuver ignores a very large amount of systematic and individual extrabiblical archaism that Joseph didn't have implicit knowledge of.  Such an approach would be an example of the bias of omission.

Edited August 10, 2018 by champatsch

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, champatsch said:

It tells us indirectly that it's a translation of an ancient record. What it tells us directly is that Joseph Smith was not the author or translator.  So the Lord is the source for the text, since other naturalistic possibilities are extremely unlikely (based on corroborating dictation witnesses such as Morse), which Skousen has published since the 1990s.  From that, accepting that the Lord doesn't lie, we get that the translation is of an ancient record.

The Early Modern English view, or more accurately the extrabiblical archaic view, of Book of Mormon language is in part systematic and chiefly based on two things: the more than 50 obsolete meanings conveyed by the earliest text's vocabulary and expressions, and the descriptive linguistic fact that the verbal system of the earliest text is extensively archaic and extrabiblical. It isn't biblical, modern, or pseudo-biblical (a weak biblical–modern hybrid).

Nonlinguists tend to focus on noun phrases and think that NPs can tell us something about the time-depth of the Book of Mormon's language. But we must focus on the verb phrase, in all its complexity, since that is the core of grammar and VP syntax is much less contextual and mostly produced subconsciously.  NPs can have syntax, but it is simple, and NPs are content-rich and mostly produced consciously.

Of course, there are exceptions, such as the Book of Mormon's "more part" usage: 26 instances, four variants, two of them rare, no pseudo-biblical support.  This is an example of the tidbits, of which hath been spoken. 😉  Yet bear in mind that the view is systematic, covering the verbal system and beyond to obsolete vocabulary and expressions.

But is the Book of Mormon a homogeneous archaic text?  No.  So the dilettante that isn't thorough, either willfully or innocently, can point to various modern elements, disregarding large numbers of archaic elements, and assert that it shows Joseph could have been the author or translator.  This, of course, is far from being accurate, since such a cherry-picking maneuver ignores a very large amount of systematic and individual extrabiblical archaism that Joseph didn't have implicit knowledge of.  Such an approach would be an example of the bias of omission.

I'm not going to argue with you, Stan, about the occurrence of EModE in the text. As I said, for argument's sake, I'm conceding that the EModE theory is valid, but it's a long way from saying it's a translation of an ancient record or that the Lord is the source. That's a huge leap, IMO.

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I think that people who accept materiality of religion will persist. I suspect in the US we'll reach a new stable equilibrium. (Just a guess - but it might be that the post-Millennial generation is even less religious than Millennials) I don't know enough about Peterson to say much there. Jung clearly had an underlying materiality to his conceptions - a kind of mystic almost neoplatonic conception of the universe. That is he took "universal unconscious" as something real akin to the old neoplatonic nous. I don't know if Peterson's view of God lines up that far with Jung.

My impression from listening to Peterson's podcast is that he doesn't believe in a theistic God.  But that he does look at the archetypes in myth as a collective evolution of the greatest moral ideas that humanity has produced.  I've listened to most of his archive of podcasts and some other material, and I can't recall him ever clearly addressing how he views God.  He doesn't consider himself atheist, and I've heard him critique atheists, but I don't get the impression that he believes in an intervening God, that is why I say non-theistic God.  But I might be wrong on this, if anyone else wants to weigh in on Peterson's interpretation of God.  

He doesn't really answer the question directly from what I've heard.  In the video below he says he "acts as if God exists".  But that he doesn't like to answer the question about God because its too binary.  Then he goes on to talk about metaphorical approaches.  

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/69zw6q/jordan_petersons_belief_in_god/

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd also add that while belief in organized Christianity dropped, you end up with older religions making a somewhat chaotic comeback. So in among the various forms of alternative medicine or vague "spirituality" you often have a reemergence of folk traditions. Those end up being religious and having pretty distinct materialist conceptions of religion. The organized part just is missing. That's what I suspect will grow in the US - much more than agnostics/atheists. Water diviners might not really be a part of Europe or the US except in some rural areas, but that basic materialist conception of the world does remain reasonably strong. These movements, perhaps because they are so loose, unorganized and frankly frequently incoherent in belief haven't been well analyzed. Yet I think they are growing in both the US and Europe. Ironically this in turn ends up closer to Joseph Smith's more esoteric environment. (Minus more organized groups like the Masons) 

What I suspect you'll then have is an ability to deny the materiality when speaking to elites/skeptics yet in practice accepting and believing in materiality. I tend to think that the real issue is the organized part of religion that's become more at odds with people in the US. This is different from Europe where you had competitors to religion in various forms of Marxism or other ideologies during the crucial evolution to secularism.

I think there is a risk that western culture will retreat back towards superstitious beliefs in the future.  Carl Sagan talks about this risk in his book Demon Haunted World and gives the example of the Soviet Union and how when they lost power, since they had outlawed most religion but hadn't effectively educated their populace on the way science works, that many people gravitated back toward superstitious beliefs.  

I think we see some evidence of this happening in other ways too with the younger generations eschewing traditional organized religions in large numbers, but gravitating towards some other spiritual outlets that are sometimes based on psuedoscientific thinking.  

I'm fairly optimistic in that I think as long as we have transparency of information that the long term trajectory will be towards greater understanding for society as a whole, which in my opinion leads us away from fundamentalist religion, and even materialist concepts for religion.  I think the best way to reconcile this and keep the good in religion is to move away from the materialist concepts and into a metaphorical approach.  But you are standing in the way of that progress Clark!   

Just joking of course, you're A-Okay in my book even if we somewhat disagree about this.  I really appreciate the exchange.  

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

For the environmental theory, Campbell is a good test because he was very close to that environment, and he wrote Delusions, one of the first substantial attacks on the Book of Mormon, even taking the trouble to read it.

Kevin Barney wrote a very good comparison of Smith and Campbell for FAIR, "A Tale of Two Restorations."

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-1999/a-tale-of-two-restorations

Some specifics in Delusions I notice are Campbell's complaint about Nephi building a temple.  Yet, on this the Book of Mormon is correct.  There were other Hebrew temples besides Solomon's temple, (Elephantine, for example) and it was a specific group, the Deuteronomists, who thought there could be only one.  And Campbell thought that the Book of Mormon was "too Christian before Christ."  So he clearly did not see Margaret Barker coming.

http://oneclimbs.com/2016/03/30/margaret-barker-transcript-from-the-worlds-of-joseph-smith-conference/

Campbell also claims that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, though, it happens, there is a lot more to consider in the Bible that Campbell did not bring to the discussion:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

John Welch points to Oliver Cowdery's 1835 Response to Campbell:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1092&index=18

And much has been learned since then.  For instance, this on Benjamin, whom Campbell mocks.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1087&index=8

And Mark Wright on the Mesoamerican side of things:

http://www.bmaf.org/node/462

And of course, Campbell famously dissed the Book of Mormon as "not having one good sentence in it."

Read An Other Testament by Joseph Spencer, or Understanding the Book of Mormon by Hardy.   And there is not just chiasmus, but the range of poetic forms noted by Parry, but the allusive artfulness noted by Alan Goff.

And it is worth mentioning that after writing Delusions, claiming that it was obviously all Joseph Smith, that Campbell went all in on the Spaulding theory.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I'll have to read up some more on the Campbell links you've provided, thanks for adding those in, it sounds interesting.  I know we disagree on the Taves approach, but thats ok.  

What's surprising to me about Campbell is how much of his critique seems quite relevant considering I doubt he spent that much time and didn't have access to the resources we have today.  The over the top rhetoric notwithstanding.  

I have the Understanding the BoM by Hardy, and the Spencer books, but haven't read them yet, slowly working my way through things.  I still haven't seen anything that really jumps out at me that says, this couldn't possibly have been created by Joseph.  But I'm sure people will continue to come up with creative theories.  It would take something ground breaking to cause me to question, because I don't believe in the supernatural, so if Joseph couldn't have produced something, then that means another 19th century author produced it, and I think the simplest answer is that Joseph did, and I'm not inclined towards conspiracy type theories.  I would try to follow the evidence of course, but I would be very skeptical of evidence to suggest another author produced BoM content.  

[Ryan Dahle]

34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not going to argue with you, Stan, about the occurrence of EModE in the text. As I said, for argument's sake, I'm conceding that the EModE theory is valid, but it's a long way from saying it's a translation of an ancient record or that the Lord is the source. That's a huge leap, IMO.

As soon as you concede that Joseph wasn't responsible for the text, you are the one who has to make some very huge leaps trying to come up with a valid historical argument for someone else who was responsible. Those who believe the English text of the BofM was divinely revealed to Joseph Smith have the clear advantage in that they don't have to try to come up with elaborate theories about who created the text, how it got to Joseph Smith, and how Joseph dictated it in the manner described by the witnesses. The historical sources work perfectly if God simply revealed the text to Joseph in the manner he described, through the translation instruments. 

Can you present a coherent theory about how such a text got into Joseph's possession and how he produced it without making "huge leaps" of pure speculation at almost every turn?

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not going to argue with you, Stan, about the occurrence of EModE in the text. As I said, for argument's sake, I'm conceding that the EModE theory is valid, but it's a long way from saying it's a translation of an ancient record or that the Lord is the source. That's a huge leap, IMO.

Totally agree, if it was a 17th century text, then Joseph obtained it and dictated it to scribes.  That doesn't make the source an ancient text, thats still a question that requires answering all the modern Christian theology, dependence on the KJV, anachronisms.  It just pushes things back a few hundred years.  Unfortunately there is just too much of Joseph and contemporary 19th century material in there for it to be a 17th century text.  Unless someone is suggesting its a combination of 17th century produced material and 19th century produced material.  Which is a huge stretch anyway.  And then you still have to try and prove its ancient.  Way too convoluted.  

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Ryan Dahle said:

As soon as you concede that Joseph wasn't responsible for the text, you are the one who has to make some very huge leaps trying to come up with a valid historical argument for someone else who was responsible. Those who believe the English text of the BofM was divinely revealed to Joseph Smith have the clear advantage in that they don't have to try to come up with elaborate theories about who created the text, how it got to Joseph Smith, and how Joseph dictated it in the manner described by the witnesses. The historical sources work perfectly if God simply revealed the text to Joseph in the manner he described, through the translation instruments. 

Can you present a coherent theory about how such a text got into Joseph's possession and how he produced it without making "huge leaps" of pure speculation at almost every turn?

I said I was conceding the presence of EModE (and only for the sake of argument), certainly not that Joseph wasn’t responsible for the text. Nothing I said suggests any theory of authorship.