The State of Mormon Apologetics

[Ryan Dahle]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

To your list I'll add the following: soteriology, atonement theory, Garden of Eden story, Satan, Gadianton Robbers (I'm currently working on a paper on this subject), ideal forms of governmental, church-state relationship, and theory of ethical warfare. Actually I don't know of anything in the Book of Mormon that can't be dated to before about 1650 (with the exception of the first sentence of 2 Nephi 3:15 which I theorize was added by Joseph or Oliver). I've issued this challenge and I will again here: I'd like someone to find me something in the Book of Mormon that can't be dated prior to about 1650.

If you find a horde of coins in 1829 and the latest coin in the bunch dates to 1650 and the coins are all western European, then there's a pretty good chance the horde was buried in or soon after 1650 by a western European. There would be only a very small chance it was buried in, say, 1827 by an American. The horde of coins is the Book of Mormon content which tells me it was very likely produced in Europe before 1650.

I think my fundamental problem with your theory is that it seems to be doctrine heavy, deals mostly with general thematic content, and significantly relies on the expression of content, rather than the content itself to make its case. The fact that true doctrines were swirling in the air after the Apostasy isn't surprising from an orthodox LDS view. It was the correct combination of these doctrines, stripped of their impurities and elaborated upon through modern revelation, that was the key to the Restoration. The idea that prophets in the New World received revelations that would significantly overlap with Old and New Testament  teachings, as well as later Christian interpretations of those teachings, is also to be expected, as the text itself claims that its writings would merge with the writings in the Bible. So no matter how many theological connections can be made, or how extensively these theological concepts are articulated using EModE expressions, it really doesn't matter much in my view. This type of method is not ideal for dating the content of the text. 

[Late edit: This type of method is *not ideal for dating the content of the text.]

As for the challenge, let's just take some of the issues you brought up and see where it goes from there. 

The Book of Mormon consistently designates between thieves and robbers as two distinct groups. Is there an EmodE text that, like the BofM, departs from the KJB's tendency to inappropriately use these terms interchangeably. 

See https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/what-is-the-difference-between-robbers-and-thieves-in-the-book-of-mormon

As for coins, the BofM's system of weights and measures (as well as its noticeable absence of coins) nicely adheres to ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian systems of weights and measures. Is there a system generally known to the EModE speaking world that is as similar to the BofM as these ancient systems were?

John W. Welch, “Weighing and Measuring in the Worlds of the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8, no. 2 (1999): 36–45.

John W. Welch, “The Laws of Eshnunna and Nephite Economics,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 147–149.

John W. Welch, “The Law of Mosiah,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 158–161.

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[jkwilliams]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

Before freemasonry there was Rosicrucianism. From wikipedia:

The term "secret combination" was used at this time in the same way as it is used in the Book of Mormon as we can see from this snippet from a 1623 book about the history of England.

I don't think this is precisely the same usage as in the Book of Mormon. The usage in the book you cite suggests a secret alliance, whereas the Book of Mormon uses the phrase to refer to secret societies, with their own oaths and rituals, etc. Minor quibble, I know.

[Ryan Dahle]

31 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You seem to believe that's merely coincidental. Fair enough.

I'm not necessarily saying it is a complete coincidence. My translation theory assumes that the translation utilized words and phrases that were popular in both the EModE period and the 19th century to convey the ancient content of the Book of Mormon. My rationale is that when two competing theories can adequately explain the same phenomenon, then that phenomenon is not significant evidence for either one. Only those pieces of evidence that a theory can't easily explain should be seen as significant threats to that theory's credibility.

[champatsch]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Champatsch was distinguishing between content (Ideas and concepts) and language & grammar (EmodE).  I'm talking about content, and with respect to content, we have a lot of ideas that last for many generations, especially in religion.  We frequently talk about 19th century ideas in the 21st century in Mormonism.  Its to be expected that 16th and 17th century theology would still exist in the 19th century.  The opposite is not true, we would not expect to see uniquely 19th century theology to be found in a 16th century book.  That's the question I'm asking is how do people explain that, using their dynamic translation model.

If there is theology in the Book of Mormon that is strictly 19c, then it was the Lord who chose to incorporate it. The words are ultimately his: 3n2111.

[champatsch]

46 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Also, is it 16c or 17c? I thought we were targeting the time period after the finalizing of the KJV in early 1600's?

It looks like the biblical language corresponds to editions after about 1630.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, champatsch said:

It looks like the biblical language corresponds to editions after about 1630.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading that the text of the Book of Mormon shows a high dependence on the 1769 (IIRC) edition of the KJV, which is the Bible the Smiths had in their home. 

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, champatsch said:

If there is theology in the Book of Mormon that is strictly 19c, then it was the Lord who chose to incorporate it. The words are ultimately his: 3n2111.

Ok, thanks for clarifying, so essentially if God is the source of all the 19c material, that also makes God the source of the racists ideas and any other troubling theology of the BoM.  Odd, because there are multiple quotes in the text of the BoM that say the mistakes of the book are the mistakes of men.  However, with a tight control model, aren't you essentially putting the blame on God?  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What does this have to do with flaxen cords?

There have been secret societies throughout history.

One could simply hold that that verse was a 19th century intrusion into a 16th century text, but you were dogmatic that there were NO such intrusions. Clearly there are.

So as not to link to anti Mormon or Masonic sites:

https://www.amazon.com/Koch-5560415-48-Feet-Braided-Mason/dp/B004Y75N7K

But this IS an exception I think to your point quoted here, flaxen cords in masonry can't be dated prior to 1650.

"Actually I don't know of anything in the Book of Mormon that can't be dated to before about 1650 (with the exception of the first sentence of 2 Nephi 3:15 which I theorize was added by Joseph or Oliver). I've issued this challenge and I will again here: I'd like someone to find me something in the Book of Mormon that can't be dated prior to about 1650."

 

I hereby retract this, and I should have remembered better

Binding with cords as a religious ritual goes back to Rosicrucianisn and even farther, arguably to Zoroastrianism, perhaps itself an ancient dispensation yet unknown to LDS scholars.

But dang, I will never see this reference in the BOM as anything other than anti-Masonic. 

In the context of the recent death of William Morgan at the time and place The Book of Mormon was translated I can't see it any other way.

Theoretically though it is possible that it was earlier, but I ain't buyin' it. !!

 

[champatsch]

Has anyone looked at Skousen, Grammatical Variation (2016)?  If not, then before coming to final conclusions about the source for the text, it would be important to look at that, as well as The Nature of the Original Language (2018), which is in the bindery.

One chapter from GV is Subordinate Conjunctions. It has the details of the that editing after conjunctions like after, before, because, etc.  Take before.  The original Book of Mormon had eight "before that S" (all but one edited out), along with 34 "before S". If you look at pseudo-biblical texts, you don't find any "before that S".  The King James Bible has five. The Book of Mormon has two with "before that <subject> shall", the King James Bible has one. "Before that S" was less common than "after that S" historically. This is one example of how Book of Mormon archaism goes beyond what unserious analyses pick up on.

The Book of Mormon also has 116 original cases of "after that S", along with 132 instances of "after S". I invite any to compare this with what is found in pseudo-biblical texts. I have placed four of these in the WordCruncher Library. They are freely available so anyone can study these minutely. Besides "before that S", I haven't looked for any of these in the pseudo-biblical texts.  Just now I looked for "after that he".  There are 26 in the Book of Mormon and 0 in these 4 pseudo-biblical texts. Other conjunctions to try are because, for, how, lest, notwithstanding, since.

[champatsch]

55 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall reading that the text of the Book of Mormon shows a high dependence on the 1769 (IIRC) edition of the KJV, which is the Bible the Smiths had in their home. 

It's looking like a 1630 edition would be the earliest that would work, but that doesn't necessarily preclude correspondence with a much later 18c or early 19c edition. No one that I've seen besides Skousen has exhaustively compared the differences, noting italics, etc.  His analysis will be published next year or the year after. Few have the stomach for this kind of tedious work.

Here's a pivot table I made from some of his recent analysis, finalizing work from years earlier:

I should have added that the above analysis covers the lengthy biblical passages found in the Book of Mormon.

Edited August 14, 2018 by champatsch

[champatsch]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, thanks for clarifying, so essentially if God is the source of all the 19c material, that also makes God the source of the racists ideas and any other troubling theology of the BoM.  Odd, because there are multiple quotes in the text of the BoM that say the mistakes of the book are the mistakes of men.  However, with a tight control model, aren't you essentially putting the blame on God?  

I'm not really interested in racist argumentation surrounding the Book of Mormon — it's too emotionally charged and speculative for my taste.

But I will note, and it has been noted before, that the purported racism arises between brothers, which defangs the initial argument for racism. And I think that a lot of the word meanings in the text should be taken from a 16c or 17c perspective.  So for skin color, black can just mean slightly darker than what it's compared with, and white can just mean slightly lighter than what it's compared with. If you don't believe me, then take a look at what the OED has on black and white skin color. And haven't most cultures been racist? And Jacob clearly condemns a rising racism. Etc.  Good luck.

[champatsch]

Why do I take seriously the possibility of 16c or 17c word meanings?

First, the Book of Mormon uses a lot of biblical vocabulary, which is basically 16c vocabulary, since the 1568 Bishops' Bible was the base text, and much of that came from Tyndale, who grew up in the early 16c in Gloucestershire.

Second, Book of Mormon NPs are enveloped in mostly 16c and 17c syntax.

Third, there is a lot of doctrinal language used in the Book of Mormon that arose in the 16c and 17c.

Fourth, there are 50 or so vocabulary items and short expressions that appear to convey non-biblical, obsolete 16c and 17c meanings.

[MosiahFree]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In short, not even physics is "objective".  Math doesn't "correspond" to reality except with several "shoehorns" pushing and shoving the observations into shape.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Logical-positivism-a-dead-philosophy

Do you vouch for the guy, Keinosuke Johan Miyanaga, who wrote that Quora answer?

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, MosiahFree said:

Do you vouch for the guy, Keinosuke Johan Miyanaga, who wrote that Quora answer?

I don't know him but I have no problem with what he wrote- it's on the money as far as I can see

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Binding with cords as a religious ritual goes back to Rosicrucianisn and even farther, arguably to Zoroastrianism, perhaps itself an ancient dispensation yet unknown to LDS scholars.

But dang, I will never see this reference in the BOM as anything other than anti-Masonic. 

It's in the Bible too we should note. Ez 3:16-21. Being bound isn't exactly uncommon and something we need to find Masonic ties to. (Pardon the pun)

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, thanks for clarifying, so essentially if God is the source of all the 19c material, that also makes God the source of the racists ideas and any other troubling theology of the BoM.  Odd, because there are multiple quotes in the text of the BoM that say the mistakes of the book are the mistakes of men.  However, with a tight control model, aren't you essentially putting the blame on God?  

Just to point out that narratively the racism in the Book of Mormon is much more complex than it appears by people who read primarily as proof texting. Jacob warns of it's rise in Jacob 2-3. Arguably through most of the narrative stretch it's Lamanite converts who are the most righteous. I'm not sure racism is portrayed as something defensible in the text. Further, as others note, racism or other forms of tribalism is ubiquitous in the ancient world. It's really just the last 50 years or so that people have started rising above it. 

With regards to tight control, of course that just talks about Joseph's role and note where the particular phraseology and presuppositions originated. If this was something more akin to the Koran purportedly dictated by God I think you'd have a point. But the text is primarily narrative with sections of Biblically inspired sermons and self-identified as written by very flawed people. Even a very accurate translation in the modern sense we are used to would transmit those aspects of the underlying text.

If under tight control there's expansions or explanations by way of 19th century social or theological notions, I'm not sure that's attributable to God. Except in the sense he'd always have some sort of veto power rarely exercised. So I'm not sure I can agree with Stanford there.

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm quite familiar with that argument, and I read the information you linked to. My point is that there is a correlation between the use of "secret combination" both as a phrase and as a concept around the time of the emergence of the Book of Mormon. You seem to believe that's merely coincidental. Fair enough.

I doubt it's a coincidence. But I'm not sure we should assume the connotations are exactly the same. I know people like to raise anti-Masonic hysteria here. However it's worth noting that these conspiracy theories worked only because of pre-existing narratives people were scared of. There were writings at the time of Joseph Smith using the phrase "secret combination" that focused primarily on early Islamic conspiracies - especially the assassins. There's then many well known at the time Byzantine conspiracies and let's not forget Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. All of which parallel better than Masons. So I confess, despite the anti-Masonic fervor of the time or earlier Rosicrucian conspiracies, that's not the parallel I would go for were I pushing naturalistic parallels.

14 hours ago, blueglass said:

He did try to build an alphabet and grammar primer for the book of mormon.  he sent Martin Harris to philadelphia to get a translation from likely members of the APS.  

My understanding was he just made a list of characters not an A&G. Later on with the Book of Abraham it seems clear he thought both the Book of Mormon and the papyri were standard Egyptian. However looking at the characters that's hard to believe. I think it shows what his beliefs were. I also think it shows his ignorance of what was at hand, undermining him as author (IMO).

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

An aside:  ....

Did anyone know that Enoch is Zoroaster except me, intuitively and without evidence?    <<=== Good topic for some researcher guy, not me.

But I think one could make quite a case for that.....

 

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's in the Bible too we should note. Ez 3:16-21. Being bound isn't exactly uncommon and something we need to find Masonic ties to. (Pardon the pun)

I am not seeing that in that reference?

And besides I think what is important here is a reference to "cords"- not just being "bound".

The BOM has both cords and secret combinations in the same verse- within a few years of that being highly important in Joseph's neighborhood- so I am not seeing the relevance here

Edited August 14, 2018 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not seeing that in that reference?

And besides I think what is important here is a reference to "cords"- not just being "bound".

"And, behold, I will put cords upon you, and you shall not turn yourself from one side to another, till you have ended the days of your siege"

Also Jer 38:6 "Then took they Jeremiah, and cast him into the dungeon of Malchiah the son of Hammelech, that was in the court of the prison: and they let down Jeremiah with cords. And in the dungeon there was no water, but mire: so Jeremiah sunk in the mire."

Lots of other places. I like the one with Samson (Judges 15:13-14) as Lehi is in that verse.

Point is that there's lots of references to these sorts of things outside of Masonry. Go to broader texts than the Bible and you'll find even more. It's too generic a parallel to be that significant.

I'm all for raising Masonic parallels as I think they're important for early Mormonism. But this isn't one I give much credence to. Even 2 Nephi 26:22, which is what most refer to, has tons of parallels in the Psalms like 140:4-5. Yes the phrase secret combinations is used, which isn't Biblical. However what gets described in many of these Biblical verses are conspiracies. You can say it's significant to have the words together, but of course if "secret combination" is just an archaic term for conspiracy, that doesn't say much. And if you search for that you'll find lots of early 19th century examples independent of Masonry.

The main issue is that Dan Vogel had argued that "secret combination" had a nearly exclusive Masonic connection. However these days when one can do a quick Google search based upon year, it's not hard to find that's not true. Don't get me wrong. I do think Masonry shaped Joseph's environment and likely affected the translation of the Book of Mormon. I just don't think this is a good example. If anything Nephi is more apt to alluding to the initial conquest of Jerusalem prior to the start of the narrative. The leaders of Jerusalem, including Jehoiakim, were led away by the Babylonians. (See the prophecy in Jer 22) I've long thought the "great and spacious building" was an allusion to Jehoiakim's wealth - particularly in that chapter. (Verse 14 is often translated as spacious although the KJV uses wide)

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think this is precisely the same usage as in the Book of Mormon. The usage in the book you cite suggests a secret alliance, whereas the Book of Mormon uses the phrase to refer to secret societies, with their own oaths and rituals, etc. Minor quibble, I know.

Secret combinations have many descriptions in the Book of Mormon. I think people are so accustomed to associating them with masonry that they overlook their other aspects. For instance, we have secret combinations in 3 Nephi 7. They basically form a nation-state with a king over them. This is nothing like masonry. But it is similar to the secret combination I referenced which shows nations with kings making war on other nations. I think the primary characteristic of secret combinations is their desire to overthrow the government. This is done sometimes through intrigue and sometimes by military engagement. I see masonry as being only a partial match. Masons weren't a military nation ruled by a king attempting to overthrow the government.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, champatsch said:

I'm not really interested in racist argumentation surrounding the Book of Mormon — it's too emotionally charged and speculative for my taste.

But I will note, and it has been noted before, that the purported racism arises between brothers, which defangs the initial argument for racism. And I think that a lot of the word meanings in the text should be taken from a 16c or 17c perspective.  So for skin color, black can just mean slightly darker than what it's compared with, and white can just mean slightly lighter than what it's compared with. If you don't believe me, then take a look at what the OED has on black and white skin color. And haven't most cultures been racist? And Jacob clearly condemns a rising racism. Etc.  Good luck.

I don't want to debate whether people think the content is racist.  I want to know if you think God was responsible for that controversial content as we have it in BoM text.  It sounds like since you chose to focus on what the meanings of those words are, that you are essentially saying God is responsible for all of the content.  

I only bring this out, because I don't think many people who look at the BoM as more of an expansion model believe God was responsible for problematic elements.  I think they largely believe that culture and a flawed Joseph was contributing to those elements in the text, and they don't blame those elements on God.  

 

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think my fundamental problem with your theory is that it seems to be doctrine heavy, deals mostly with general thematic content, and significantly relies on the expression of content, rather than the content itself to make its case. The fact that true doctrines were swirling in the air after the Apostasy isn't surprising from an orthodox LDS view. It was the correct combination of these doctrines, stripped of their impurities and elaborated upon through modern revelation, that was the key to the Restoration. The idea that prophets in the New World received revelations that would significantly overlap with Old and New Testament  teachings, as well as later Christian interpretations of those teachings, is also to be expected, as the text itself claims that its writings would merge with the writings in the Bible. So no matter how many theological connections can be made, or how extensively these theological concepts are articulated using EModE expressions, it really doesn't matter much in my view. This type of method is not ideal for dating the content of the text. 

Part of my theory is based on doctrine. What makes it so significant is that you see all of the doctrinal equivalents with one man and his immediate environment in a narrow time frame. It's not like the 19th Century model where you have to look here, there, and everywhere to find all the pieces and put them together. In this context I think these doctrinal equivalents are more significant than you believe them to be.

My model also has much more than doctrine, though. The theory of ethical warfare is a prime example with a distinct early modern source showing numerous similarities. Also, the theory of ideal governments and the relationship between church and state have close equivalents. . . equivalents that were pretty much dead in 19th Century America. The portrayal of atheists is another one I forgot to mention earlier.

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

As for the challenge, let's just take some of the issues you brought up and see where it goes from there. 

The Book of Mormon consistently designates between thieves and robbers as two distinct groups. Is there an EmodE text that, like the BofM, departs from the KJB's tendency to inappropriately use these terms interchangeably. 

See https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/what-is-the-difference-between-robbers-and-thieves-in-the-book-of-mormon

I'm currently writing a paper on a very similar topic. I believe I can show an ancient Roman source that has numerous, detailed similarities to the Gadianton Robbers described in the Book of Mormon. My proposed author was familiar with this source as he cited it in some of his works.

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

As for coins, the BofM's system of weights and measures (as well as its noticeable absence of coins) nicely adheres to ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian systems of weights and measures. Is there a system generally known to the EModE speaking world that is as similar to the BofM as these ancient systems were?

John W. Welch, “Weighing and Measuring in the Worlds of the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8, no. 2 (1999): 36–45.

John W. Welch, “The Laws of Eshnunna and Nephite Economics,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 147–149.

John W. Welch, “The Law of Mosiah,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon: A Decade of New Research, ed. John W. Welch (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1992), 158–161.

 

Thanks for the challenge on this topic. I don't have an answer for you right now but I will do some research. My proposed author closely studied ancient history, particularly that of ancient Greece and Rome. I believe there many parallels in the Book of Mormon that can be taken from these histories including examples of secret combinations. The point is that it may not be an early modern source we're looking for but an ancient source. 

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Also, is it 16c or 17c? I thought we were targeting the time period after the finalizing of the KJV in early 1600's?

The extensive Early Modern English is from the 16th century. I was asking how did that get into Joseph's brain. Stanfor has done a lot of searching Joseph's environment and has not found any extensive EmodE in Joseph's environment.

Glenn

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Secret combinations have many descriptions in the Book of Mormon. I think people are so accustomed to associating them with masonry that they overlook their other aspects. For instance, we have secret combinations in 3 Nephi 7. They basically form a nation-state with a king over them. This is nothing like masonry. But it is similar to the secret combination I referenced which shows nations with kings making war on other nations. I think the primary characteristic of secret combinations is their desire to overthrow the government. This is done sometimes through intrigue and sometimes by military engagement. I see masonry as being only a partial match. Masons weren't a military nation ruled by a king attempting to overthrow the government.

Just a note of clarification: the secret combination you mention in 3 Nephi 7 is tied to secret oaths and covenants "given them by them of old, which covenant was given and administered by the devil":

Quote

 

27 Now it came to pass that those judges had many friends and kindreds; and the remainder, yea, even almost all the lawyers and the high priests, did gather themselves together, and unite with the kindreds of those judges who were to be tried according to the law.

28 And they did enter into a covenant one with another, yea, even into that covenant which was given by them of old, which covenant was given and administered by the devil, to combine against all righteousness.

29 Therefore they did combine against the people of the Lord, and enter into a covenant to destroy them, and to deliver those who were guilty of murder from the grasp of justice, which was about to be administered according to the law.

30 And they did set at defiance the law and the rights of their country; and they did covenant one with another to destroy the governor, and to establish a king over the land, that the land should no more be at liberty but should be subject unto kings. (3 Nephi 6:27-30)

 

 

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, champatsch said:

It looks like the biblical language corresponds to editions after about 1630.

This is very interesting to know. My model has the Book of Mormon originally being produced (probably in Latin, maybe in French) between 1635 and 1645 with an English translation coming sometime after. So this information fits my model very well.

[JarMan]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Just a note of clarification: the secret combination you mention in 3 Nephi 7 is tied to secret oaths and covenants "given them by them of old, which covenant was given and administered by the devil":

 

I understand that. That's the partial match to masonry I was talking about. My theory about secret combinations is that the 17th Century writer combined ideas from Rosicrucianism and historic events, some from Roman history involving conspiracies to overthrow the government, to develop the idea of secret combinations we see in the Book of Mormon. Additionally, the link to Gadianton Robbers, which I also think has a direct link to ancient Roman sources shows that a 17th Century model (using ancient sources) is a far better match for the secret combinations in the Book of Mormon than masonry in the 1820's.