The Great Tower and the Confounding of the Languages

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

And yet due merely to the passage of time since Joseph uttered words to Oliver and had them put to paper, you immediately accept that the Brother of Jared, who came allegedly from a mythical place that did not exist, was once a real breathing human being.

I also accept that the universe was created by God, that he came down from Heaven bro f conceived of the spirit, walked on water, healed the sick, caused the blind to see, and raised the dead. I also believe Moses created plagues and disasters to free his people and split the Red Sea, Joseph predicted a 7 year famine, Uziah was struck dead for touching a box, Joseph Smith spoke with god and angels face to face, the prison walls collapsed around Alma and Amulek and they were unharmed, Paul healed a man with a handkerchief, and many other things. I assume after you try to convince us the Tower of Babel was a myth, you will start on trying to convince us Uziah didn’t really die from touching a box. Or perhaps that Joseph didn’t really predict a 7 year famine.

[Fair Dinkum]

6 minutes ago, SteveO said:

So….we discussing something else now?

You're contending that we should accept the Book of Ether despite the fact that much (I contend that it is all myth) of it is based on myth.  So which parts do we accept?

[Fair Dinkum]

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

I also accept that the universe was created by God, that he came down from Heaven bro f conceived of the spirit, walked on water, healed the sick, caused the blind to see, and raised the dead. I also believe Moses created plagues and disasters to free his people and split the Red Sea, Joseph predicted a 7 year famine, Uziah was struck dead for touching a box, Joseph Smith spoke with god and angels face to face, the prison walls collapsed around Alma and Amulek and they were unharmed, Paul healed a man with a handkerchief, and many other things. I assume after you try to convince us the Tower of Babel was a myth, you will start on trying to convince us Uziah didn’t really die from touching a box. Or perhaps that Joseph didn’t really predict a 7 year famine.

Amazing how miracles seemed to have disappeared in the age of the iPhone and verifiable evidence.  But that doesn't stop believers from still proclaiming miracles it just stops them from being verifiable. 

[SteveO]

11 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

You're contending that we should accept the Book of Ether despite the fact that much (I contend that it is all myth) of it is based on myth.  So which parts do we accept?

Would knowing change how you view the BoM?

[Fether]

26 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Amazing how miracles seemed to have disappeared in the age of the iPhone and verifiable evidence.  But that doesn't stop believers from still proclaiming miracles it just stops them from being verifiable. 

If you studied and pondered this topic for even a moment, you would understand. But because you don’t ask, you don’t understand 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not real sure what you are saying in the use of this quote about fundamentalism. Fundamentalists believe in the principles of Biblical interpretation. It would be a mistake to say that they believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. They understand the concepts of metaphors and similes, and to some degree of myths and parables as a truth bearing story or account. There is diversity among fundamentalists just as there is among members of the LDS church and especially among the broader Mormon community. I am sure we could come up with a fancy definition for fundamentalist Mormons, but it might not include the Fundamentalists within the COJCOLDS. I often hear interpretations in our ward that are as Fundamentalist as anything said by a Fundamentalist Baptist. 

Yes I understand.

I was not trying to define who is Fundamentalist and who is not, to me it is a general inclination toward literalism, LDS or not.

I am anti-literalism.

I believe that whether or not a given scripture Story actually happened is irrelevant to its spiritual value. 

I look at everything as if it is poetic philosophy;  that makes it all true, and makes literalism an open question but not really relevant to spiritual content.

 

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

If you want to own the myth that the earths languages were confounded at the tower of Babel, be my guest. 

The key word there being "if."

Also, "the earth's languages."

I encourage you to not be so absolutist in your thinking.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Question: At the beginning of the Tower of Babel story, we read that “the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.”[ii] Later, we are told that “the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth.”[iii] But the scientific history of languages tells us that the diverse tongues of the world did not originate from the splitting of a single language. Must we choose between science and scripture?

Summary: To begin with, the Hebrew word eretz used in Genesis 11:1 (and also in the story of Noah’s flood[iv]) can mean either “earth” or “land,” and it is impossible to know which except from context.[v] Here, the phrase probably just means that the people in the land where the story took place originally spoke a common language.[vi] 

Read the whole thing here: Does Science Support the Idea of the Splitting of an Original Language at the Tower of Babel?

And here: The Tower of Babel Reexamined

Further, consider this story published yesterday: Did archaeologists find the Trojan Horse?

Quote

Archaeologists who claimed they had unearthed remnants of the legendary Trojan Horse in Turkey have now found significant evidence that further supports their claim, according to an article by the Greek Reporter.

 

Turkish archaeologists excavating the site of the city of Troy on the hills of Hisarlik have discovered a large wooden structure that they believe are the remains of the Trojan Horse. These excavations include dozens of fir planks and beams up to 15 meters (49 feet) long, assembled in a strange form. 

 

The wooden structure was found inside the walls of the ancient city of Troy. 

 

Now, Boston University professors Christine Morris and Chris Wilson believe that "the carbon dating tests and other analyses have all suggested that the wooden pieces and other artifacts date from the 12th or 11th centuries BC."

 

Morris and Wilson believe with a "high level of confidence" that the structure is linked to the iconic horse. They say that tests have only confirmed their theory. 

 

“This matches the dates cited for the Trojan War, by many ancient historians like Eratosthenes or Proclus. The assembly of the work also matches the description made by many sources. I don’t want to sound overconfident, but I’m pretty certain that we found the real thing!”

 

The Trojan Horse is associated with the Trojan War, written about by Homer in his epic poems the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Iliad closes right before the war ends, so it does not feature the legendary horse. 

 

The Trojan Horse was used to seize Troy and win the war. The story was prominently featured in the Aeneid by Virgil. Historians have suggested that the horse was an analogy for a war machine or natural disaster. 

I assume you are familiar with Virgil's Aeneid  and Homer's Odyssey, both of which reference the Trojan Horse?  However, both also reference intervention of the Greco-Roman gods.  The narrative in The Aeneid speaks of Juno's anger at not being chosen by Paris, and also of the predicted destruction of her favorite city, Carthage, by the descendants of Aeneas.  Aeolus, Jupiter, Neptune, Venus, Cupid, Apollo also play significant roles.  Athena, Zeus and Poseidon figure heavily into the narrative of the journey of Odysseus in Homer's poem.

By your reasoning, though, the above story must be rejected.  There cannot have been a Trojan Horse because there was never a Trojan War, and there was never a Trojan War because the ancient narratives about it include elements you do not accept.  So, for you, an ancient story must be 100% literally historical or else rejected altogether.  Because the ancient narratives include some elements you cannot accept, you reject the narratives in their entirety.  Is that a fair summary of your reasoning?

Is it possible, though, for the specific contours of a historical event to become obscured or misunderstood over time?  Or embroidered over time?  Must we therefore reject the entirety of an ancient narrative because some of its constituent parts, or our grasp of them, are flawed in some sense?

I have commented on Troy vis-à-vis its historicity previously:

Quote

Some folks familiar with the LDS Church like to compare and contrast the relative "scientific" (read: archaeological) evidences for the Book of Mormon as compared to the Bible. One of the points that frequently gets noted is that evidence of antiquity or historicity doesn't necessarily (or even probably) translate into evidence of divinity.
...
William Hamblin was on a radio program and had the following exchange with a caller:

Quote

William Hamblin: Let me give you an example for instance. The name Alma in Joseph Smith's day was a typical woman's name. Joseph Smith uses it in the BoM for a male. And since that time we have discovered in Hebrew manuscripts that Alma was in fact a perfectly decent name for a Hebrew male. Now, how would Joseph Smith know this? Same thing with Mosiah and Nephi,. All these names have been discovered. They are nonbiblical and yet they are authentic in the setting which the text claims to come from. So there are all sorts of histroical analyses you could do, I don't think you could prove it that way. We're not claiming proof for the Book of mormon. We are claiming some level of plausibility.

Caller: What I'm saying is that in the Bible I can see the maps of Israel, I can see the maps of of, all types of maps.

William Hamblin: Suppose that, well I could show you map where Troy was. Does that prove that Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

Caller: Well, that has nothing to do with our subject.

William Hamblin: It is precisely to do with our subject. I mean Homer claimed that he had wrote a book about the doings of all the Greek gods. We have now autheticated that in fact the city Homer talked about existed. All the cities Homer talked about existed. It is perfectly good history. Now does that prove Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

 

And here:

Quote

Plenty of ancient books are scrutinized by scholars without having "dramatic physical evidence supporting [their] historicity."  Consider the use of Homer's Iliad in the search for Troy.  One of the candidates for Troy, Hisarlik, has been debated about for a while.  Hence we get items like this:

Quote

Many scholars were skeptical about Hisarlik being Troy because it was so small, and Homer's poetry seems to suggest a large commercial or trading center. But excavations by Manfred Korfmann discovered that the small central hilltop location supported a much larger population, perhaps as many as 6,000 living in an area estimated to be about 27 hectares (about one-tenth of a square mile) lying adjacent to and stretched out 400 m (1300 ft) from the citadel mound.

Scholars used Homer's poem about Troy as a source of data points about Troy.  And yet I don't think any of these scholars subscribe to the Iliad's references to Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Thetis, Hermes, etc. playing prominent and pivotal roles in the narrative.

Put another way, I think we need to be reasoned and reasonable in how we approach the confluence of faith with purportedly "empirical" data points.  We ought not ignore these points, but we do need to contextualize them.

19 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

But even BYU linguists accept that languages evolved over 10's of thousands of years and certainly not at a central point in the middle east/Asia minor. 

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."  (Luke 2:1)

How do you construe "all the world" in this verse?  

19 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Towers were certainly built, but was there a tower where the languages of the earth were confounded per Biblical claims?  Nope didn't happen.

Here are some additional thoughts I have posted previously (from here) :

1) Ahistorical Stories, or Stories Where Historicity is Immaterial

There are some "stories in the scriptures" that are helpful and valid even if they never "actually happened."  The Parable of the Talents, for example.  Historicity is not necessary for such stories to be instructive and "true."

The Parable of the Talents.    The Good Samaritan.  Zenock's Allegory of the Olive Tree.  The story of Job (maybe - I'm sort of conflicted on this one).  These are stories that may have actually happened, or may be purely fiction.  We'll never really know, I suppose.  But it doesn't matter, since these stories are intended to preach moral precepts, not establish the reality of the events described.  So they can be historical or ahistorical.  It doesn't matter.  

2) Stories that are "True" (Historical) but Particulars and Details are Missing or Misunderstood

Then there are some stories that happened, but about which we lack the particulars, or about which we may harbor erroneous notions.  For example, I think it's sort of hard for an observant Latter-day Saint to deny that Noah's Flood happened at all, but I think the scope of it (local rather than literally every square inch of dry land in the world covered) is open for principled, reasoned discussion.  We must, in the end, construe/interpret scripture.  We should seek to understand it both in the way it was originally intended, and also in ways that reconcile the narrative with observable things.  Consider, for example, Luke 2:1, which states: "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."  Dan Peterson noted:

Quote

Augustus was much too savvy to have invited the Persians and the Chinese -- or even the Germanic tribes of Scandinavia, the Picts of Scotland, or the ancient Irish -- to pay taxes to him. He wasn't savvy enough to have demanded taxes from the Japanese, the Maya, the Hawaiians, the Tibetans, and the Congolese. Augustus, a competent and realistic ruler, sought to collect taxes from all of those who were subject to him. Which, though many, wasn't exactly "all the world." It wasn't even all the known world.

In other words, even though the text says "all the world should be taxed," nobody interprets this verse in an absolutist, literal way.

For this category of narratives from scripture we really need to remember the Church's teachings on A) inerrancy (we reject it), B) continuing revelation (we are big into this), and C) seeking knowledge and wisdom from the "best books" (we are big into this, too).

For me, I view Noah's Flood through this lens.  I believe there was a literal flood, but I have real reservations about the notion that I am required to believe that the flood was global.  

I like this comment by William Hamblin (responding to Brent Metcalfe) :

Quote

Historicity and Truth

Thus the real historical problem is quite different from the one Metcalfe claims is central to the "apologist" enterprise.  Metcalfe would have us believe that I (whom he would place squarely in the camp of the apologists) am arguing that "the Book of Mormon is only true if the personalities and events it describes were objectively real (p. 154). In fact, this is simply Metcalfe 's own faulty presentation of the argument. He is thereby obscuring the real issue of the connection between the antiquity and historicity of the Book of Mormon and the prophet hood of Joseph Smith. by shifting the grounds of the argument from the historical truth of the events of the book, to the ethical or doctrinal truth of statements that are made in the text. While it is quite true that doctrinal statements made in the Book of Mormon-such as "Jesus is the Christ"-may be true even if the book is not ancient, the prophethood of Joseph is still compromised. Furthermore, the authoritative power of the statement that "Jesus is the Christ"--even if it is true-is greatly diminished when we realize that the stories of the power, prophecy, and miracles of God, and of the resurrection of Jesus and his visitation to the New World, are simply pious fictions.

Let me state my position on the question of the relationship be tween historicity and truth. First, it is quite possible for scripture to be ahistorical. For example. the parables of Jesus are true, and yet entirely fictional. Likewise the story of Job may well be an extended parable. Second, I make no claim that everything in the Book of Mormon itself is in fact historical. For example, I doubt that anyone would argue that Zenos' allegory of the olive tree (Jacob 5) ever really happened. Likewise, it is possible that there may be historical or scientific mistakes in the Book of Mormon.

Thus, the issue is not, as Metcalfe would have us believe, that the Book of Mormon must be historical for it to be considered scripture. The argument is that the Book of Mormon must be historical for Joseph to be a prophet. Those who would argue that Joseph is the prophetic author of a nineteenth-century pious forgery must provide a cogent explanation for why Joseph's prophetic claims should be taken seriously in light of the falsity of his visionary claims-a falsity which necessarily follows from the nonexistence of the plates and Moroni. 

3) Stories that Require Historicity

I will note that there are major portions of the scriptures that must be "historical" (meaning that the persons described were real, and that the events described really happened).  

Consider, for example, these comments by Daniel C. Peterson:

Quote

It is vastly important that the scriptures be reliable guides to salvation and to the nature of God and His purposes. It is far less important that they be entirely accurate on the numbers of Israelites who left Egypt, or on the magnitude of the number it in the construction of Solomon’s temple. Historicity is essential. Inerrancy is not. And the two are not the same. Some skeptics want us to abandon our belief in the historicity of the scriptures because the scriptures do not appear to be infallible. But this is a leap we need not take. Some among those skeptics want us to believe that the scriptural stories can still be religiously meaningful even if they are purely fictional. In some cases, of course, this is true. The story of Job illustrates various answers to the problem of evil just as well if it is fictional as it does if it is an accurate historical account. In this regard, it rather resembles Plato’s Republic, or his Symposium, where we really do not care whether Thrasymachus or Alcibiades really said or did the things Plato relates. But Jesus is not Job, and it matters very much whether the story of Christ really happened as the Gospels say it did. Even here, though, we must distinguish the essential from the nonessential.

And these remarks by Kent Jackson (regarding the historicity of the origins of the Book of Mormon) :

Quote

Given all the clear and consistent claims in favor of historicity made by the Book of Mormon itself, by Joseph Smith, by other witnesses, and by the revelations of God to Joseph Smith, what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?

Can the Book of Mormon indeed be “true,” in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?

This is not an invitation for anyone to leave the Church. It is, instead, an invitation to abandon the fallacious and logically impossible argument that the Book of Mormon can be true, though not historical, while Joseph Smith, the revelations of God, and the book itself claim in clear and unmistakable terms the opposite.

And these remarks by then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks (also regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon) :

Quote

The Book of Mormon’s major significance is its witness of Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God the Eternal Father who redeems and saves us from death and sin. If an account stands as a preeminent witness of Jesus Christ, how can it possibly make no difference whether the account is fact or fable—whether the persons really lived who prophesied of Christ and gave eye witnesses of His appearances to them?

Professor John W. Welch pointed out to me that this new wave of antihistoricism “may be a new kid on the block in Salt Lake City, but it has been around in a lot of other Christian neighborhoods for several decades.” Indeed! The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived.

I highly recommend Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul H. Hoskisson, and available online for free.

As Daniel Peterson put it: "{W}e must distinguish the essential from the nonessential." 

I have no problem with construing Luke 2:1 is a non-absolutist, 100% literal way.  "All the world" requires contextualization and reasoned analysis.  In fact, I think it is facile, even foolish, to insist on a black-or-white, hyper-literal interpretation.  "The New Testament can only be true if Caesar taxed the Japanese, the Maya, the Hawaiians, the Tibetans, the Congolese, etc.  Since reason requires us to reject that Caesar taxed every human being on the planet, the entirety of the New Testament is a fabrication and falsehood."  That doesn't really work for me.

Similarly, I don't really approach the Tower of Babel in a 100% literal way either.  See, e.g., here: Is the Tower of Babel historical or mythological?  

I also feel quite at ease viewing the Flood as possibly-but-unlikely-to-have-been "global."  I don't really need to know whether the Flood every square inch of dry land, or whether it was a localized event.  As I have said previously:

Quote

I believe Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God.  I believe in the miracles described in the scriptures.  I believe in angels and heavenly manifestations.  I believe in Joseph Smith's theophanies and the reality of the Gold Plates and Joseph's translation of them.  I believe in all sorts of things that are amazing, and that are treated with scorn, disbelief, etc. in many quarters.  But I have real reservations about the idea that Noah's Flood necessarily encompassed the whole earth, up to fifteen cubits above Mount Everest.

If I am wrong to harbor such reservations, I believe the Lord will forgive me. 
...
I think the Flood happened, but I doubt it was global.  Meanwhile, I think we need to spend more time and effort to focus on loving God, loving our neighbor, and keeping our covenants.

Robert Millet put it well:

Quote

An Evangelical Christian colleague, Craig Blomberg, once observed: “You know, it’s ironic: The Bible considers it praiseworthy to have a faith that does not require evidence. Remember how Jesus replied to doubting Thomas: ‘You believe because you see; blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.’ And I know evidence can never compel or coerce faith. We cannot supplant the role of the Holy Spirit, which is often a concern of Christians when they hear discussions of this kind.

“But I’ll tell you this; there are plenty of stories of scholars in the New Testament field who have not been Christians, yet through their study of these very issues have come to faith in Christ. And there have been countless more scholars, already believers, whose faith has been made stronger, more solid, more grounded, because of the evidence—and that’s the category I fall into” (Cited in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan) 1998), 52-53).

In writing of faith in the unseen, a Roman Catholic New Testament scholar, Luke Timothy Johnson, explained: “Belief in the existence of God is already an act by which one ‘entrusts’ oneself to a world that is not entirely defined by what can be seen and counted, heard, and accounted for.” Further: “Christians need to begin by insisting, first of all to themselves, then to each other, and finally to the world, that faith itself is a way of knowing reality. They need to insist that faith establishes contact with reality in a way different from, but no less real than, the very limited (though, in their fashion, extremely impressive) ways of knowing by which the wheels of the world’s empirical engine are kept spinning.” As an illustration, “If religion can hold as true only what is ‘within the bounds of reason,’ and if ‘reason’ is defined in terms of the empirically verifiable, then the resurrection is excluded by definition. But if the resurrection is excluded, why should Christians continue to revere Jesus, who is then only one of many figures from antiquity worthy of attention and honor?” (The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why It Matters (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 45, 101, 180).

True believers will always be challenged by those who refuse to see. In a very real sense, believing is seeing. No member of the Church need feel embarrassed when they cannot produce the golden plates or the complete Egyptian papyrus. No member of this Church should ever feel hesitant to bear testimony of those verities that remain in the realm of faith, that are seen only with the eyes of faith. Elder Neal A. Maxwell has written: “It is the author’s opinion that all the scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, will remain in the realm of faith. Science will not be able to prove or disprove holy writ. However, enough plausible evidence will come forth to prevent scoffers from having a field day, but not enough to remove the requirement of faith. Believers must be patient during such unfolding” (Plain and Precious Things (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983), 4.).
...
Those who choose to follow the Brethren, believe in and teach the scriptures, and be loyal to the Church—no matter the extent of their academic training or intellectual capacity—open themselves to ridicule from the cynic and the critic. Ultimately, doctrinal truth comes not through the explorations of scholars, but through the revelations of God to apostles and prophets. And if such a position be labeled as narrow, parochial, or anti-intellectual, then so be it. I cast my lot with the prophets. I am one who sincerely believes that education need not be antithetical to conversion and commitment; it all depends on where one places his or her trust. “True religion,” Elder Bruce R. McConkie testified, “deals with spiritual things. We do not come to a knowledge of God and his laws through intellectuality, or by research, or by reason. . . . In their sphere, education and intellectuality are devoutly to be desired. But when contrasted with spiritual endowments, they are of but slight and passing worth. From an eternal perspective what each of us needs is a Ph.D. in faith and righteousness. The things that will profit us everlastingly are not the power to reason, but the ability to receive revelation; not the truths learned by study, but the knowledge gained by faith; not what we know about the things of the world, but our knowledge of God and his laws” (Conference Report, April 1971, 99).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 11, 2021 by smac97

[bOObOO]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I understand.

I was not trying to define who is Fundamentalist and who is not, to me it is a general inclination toward literalism, LDS or not.

I am anti-literalism.

I believe that whether or not a given scripture Story actually happened is irrelevant to its spiritual value. 

I look at everything as if it is poetic philosophy;  that makes it all true, and makes literalism an open question but not really relevant to spiritual content.

 

Talking about confounding of languages, have you seen how hard it can be for others to understand you and how you say things, even though you may still be able to find some people who do.

I sure have. , Applying that to myself, personally.  It sometimes seems as if we are all different kinds of people, different cultural or ethnical groups or whatever, who sometimes (fortunately) run into some people who do understand us.  Or unfortunately, do not.

As if the whole world is a new Babylon, or Babel, with a LOT of different towers that people build or go in to try to get to their own ideas of heaven.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

I also accept that the universe was created by God, that he came down from Heaven bro f conceived of the spirit, walked on water, healed the sick, caused the blind to see, and raised the dead. I also believe Moses created plagues and disasters to free his people and split the Red Sea, Joseph predicted a 7 year famine, Uziah was struck dead for touching a box, Joseph Smith spoke with god and angels face to face, the prison walls collapsed around Alma and Amulek and they were unharmed, Paul healed a man with a handkerchief, and many other things. I assume after you try to convince us the Tower of Babel was a myth, you will start on trying to convince us Uziah didn’t really die from touching a box. Or perhaps that Joseph didn’t really predict a 7 year famine.

What he cannot "get" is that BELIEVING THESE THINGS by faith changes our lives, which is what is relevant.

Can we prove that "all men are created equal?" No.

Can we prove "inalienable human rights"? No.

Yet people DIE for these beliefs daily and ridicule the idea that "God exists"

To me that is pure ignorance.

Belief in principles that cannot be "proven" empirically is what gives life purpose and meaning.

Without that we are mindless slaves.

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Fair question.  So your contention is that despite the obvious use of myth in the story of the Brother of Jared, we should conclude that the over arching story is based in realty?  But then I ask, how do we separate the myth parts from the reality parts?  Did the Brother of Jared really have Jesus touch stones to make the glow?  Did the Jaredites really build barges that submerged and floated to America?  Where do we separate the myth from the reality?

By this standard, much of recorded ancient history would be inadmissible because monumental narratives which discuss real kings and people usually originate in events which are regarded as mythological in nature. A reasonable heuristic is to look at the time depth of the events described relative to the production of the source. More recent events can usually be regarded as better sourced or more reliable. In any case, it is known that great stories regarded as "myths" often have their genesis in real events, so the declaration that the categorization of "myth" impugns the entirety of its content is unfounded. 

For my part, my thinking is as follows. Determining the relative trustworthiness of a story with mythological elements is a balancing act between the elements of the story which you have reason to believe, the elements of the story which are undetermined but permissible, and the elements of a story which you have reason not to believe. 

Another critical observation is that mythological narratives can embellish upon real events or adopt real subjects into their narratives. 

I'll illustrate with the case of the fall of Troy. I do not have reason to believe that Athena or Zeus exist. I think they could (since I believe in the divine council and the existence of rogue spirits) but I don't particularly have reason to believe they exist in the form described in the Iliad (since I have neither experiential confirmation of their existence, nor sources that are reasonably provenanced), and I have some reason to believe that they don't exist (natural reservations + my experientially-based belief in Christianity which denigrates such beings.) I do have reason to believe that Troy exists as the scholars proclaim that they have found it. Even before the scholars found it, the existence of Troy would have been in the realm of the "undetermined but permissible" as it is not implausible for a prominent city named Troy to have existed in the Aegean. I have very good reason to believe that Athens and Sparta and other relevant Greek kingdoms exist. A war between a league of Greek cities and Troy, independent of any archaeological confirmation or disconfirmation, is a plausible occurrence. The existence of specific people such as Hector, Priam, Achilles, Odysseus, etc. is "undetermined but permissible". The existence of their supernatural attributes or adventures is less so because their plausibility depends on entities which I have no to middling reason to believe exist and some reason to believe do not exist. 

Now, factor in the idea that mythological narratives can be and often are based on original events which are embellished, which I shall refer to by the term PROTO-EVENT. PROTO-EVENT could also be summarized as "giving historical narratives the benefit of the doubt", which I find to be an essential part of historical thinking. Presuming that your histories are lying to you is a great way to delete the entire field of history and end up with nothing at all, since all recorded history is testimonial and, the further back you go, the less confirming evidence exists as a matter of course. Thus, applying PROTO-EVENT, I come to the following conclusions. 

1) Some of the content of these stories can be confidently believed to be real (Greek kingdoms). 

2) It is plausible that Troy existed, that the cast of human characters existed (or prototypes of them existed), and that the war between them existed.

3) Given PROTO-EVENT, it is reasonable to believe that the subjects of Premise 2 existed. 

4) It is less likely that the non-plausible elements of the story existed.

Which leaves me with the reasonable belief that there was a war between a Greek league and Troy and the named characters existed in some form, though the account of them has been altered beyond recognition.

Applying the same formula to the book of Ether:

I believe in Jesus Christ based on experiential evidence and what I view as reasonably provenanced testimony. Therefore, I have reason to believe that He exists and events and effects attributed to Him are "undetermined but permissible." I take the view that a confederation of ancients desiring to build a tower/false temple near the dawn of history is "undetermined but permissible." I take the view that the existence of Jared and his cohort is "undetermined but permissible." I take the view that the creation of the multiplicity of the world's languages from Babel is unpermissible, as I have good reasons to believe that it is not possible. I do take the view that the Lord could shatter a lingua franca and leave behind the remnants of languages, or else corrupt the understanding of those present, so I regard that as  "undetermined but permissible." Apply PROTO-EVENT. 

Therefore, what I come out with is the belief that ancients built a tower, the Lord cursed them for it and pulled the Jaredites out. This, coupled with my belief in the Book of Mormon based on experiential evidence, gives me a reasonable belief which does not require the excesses of a traditional interpretation of the Genesis Babel narrative while permitting what I, Hugh Nibley, and many others see the Book of Ether as describing: a proto-Babel tower which the Lord cursed and from which Jared fled, which was the ancestor of the legendary Genesis Babel narrative. 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by OGHoosier
Refined it a bit

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Fair question.  So your contention is that despite the obvious use of myth in the story of the Brother of Jared, we should conclude that the over arching story is based in realty? 

As happens so many times in these discussions, I think we need to first define terms.  What do you mean by "myth?"  How do you define that word?

Hamba provided this one from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Quote

A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.

See also Dictionary.com:

Quote

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2. stories or matter of this kind:realm of myth.

3. any invented story, idea, or concept:His account of the event is pure myth.

4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

I assume you are using "myth" primarily for its use as to definitions 3-5, is that correct?

That is to say, in your view a "myth" is necessarily and by definition a fabrication.  An "invented story."  An "imaginary or fictitious thing."  A "false collective belief."  Is that a fair statement of your position?

6 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

But then I ask, how do we separate the myth parts from the reality parts? Did the Brother of Jared really have Jesus touch stones to make the glow?  Did the Jaredites really build barges that submerged and floated to America?  Where do we separate the myth from the reality?

I address to some extent here.  In particular, I encourage you to read Daniel Peterson's essay: Notes on Historicity and Inerrancy.  I think it could provide some very useful insights/thoughts responsive to your foregoing questions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 11, 2021 by smac97

[Fair Dinkum]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The key word there being "if."

Also, "the earth's languages."

I encourage you to not be so absolutist in your thinking.  See, e.g., here:

Read the whole thing here: Does Science Support the Idea of the Splitting of an Original Language at the Tower of Babel?

And here: The Tower of Babel Reexamined

Further, consider this story published yesterday: Did archaeologists find the Trojan Horse?

I assume you are familiar with Virgil's Aeneid  and Homer's Odyssey, both of which reference the Trojan Horse?  However, both also reference intervention of the Greco-Roman gods.  The narrative in The Aeneid speaks of Juno's anger at not being chosen by Paris, and also of the predicted destruction of her favorite city, Carthage, by the descendants of Aeneas.  Aeolus, Jupiter, Neptune, Venus, Cupid, Apollo also play significant roles.  Athena, Zeus and Poseidon figure heavily into the narrative of the journey of Odysseus in Homer's poem.

By your reasoning, though, the above story must be rejected.  There cannot have been a Trojan Horse because there was never a Trojan War, and there was never a Trojan War because the ancient narratives about it include elements you do not accept.  So, for you, an ancient story must be 100% literally historical or else rejected altogether.  Because the ancient narratives include some elements you cannot accept, you reject the narratives in their entirety.  Is that a fair summary of your reasoning?

Is it possible, though, for the specific contours of a historical event to become obscured or misunderstood over time?  Or embroidered over time?  Must we therefore reject the entirety of an ancient narrative because some of its constituent parts, or our grasp of them, are flawed in some sense?

I have commented on Troy vis-à-vis its historicity previously:

And here:

Put another way, I think we need to be reasoned and reasonable in how we approach the confluence of faith with purportedly "empirical" data points.  We ought not ignore these points, but we do need to contextualize them.

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."  (Luke 2:1)

How do you construe "all the world" in this verse?  

Here are some additional thoughts I have posted previously (from here) :

1) Ahistorical Stories, or Stories Where Historicity is Immaterial

There are some "stories in the scriptures" that are helpful and valid even if they never "actually happened."  The Parable of the Talents, for example.  Historicity is not necessary for such stories to be instructive and "true."

The Parable of the Talents.    The Good Samaritan.  Zenock's Allegory of the Olive Tree.  The story of Job (maybe - I'm sort of conflicted on this one).  These are stories that may have actually happened, or may be purely fiction.  We'll never really know, I suppose.  But it doesn't matter, since these stories are intended to preach moral precepts, not establish the reality of the events described.  So they can be historical or ahistorical.  It doesn't matter.  

2) Stories that are "True" (Historical) but Particulars and Details are Missing or Misunderstood

Then there are some stories that happened, but about which we lack the particulars, or about which we may harbor erroneous notions.  For example, I think it's sort of hard for an observant Latter-day Saint to deny that Noah's Flood happened at all, but I think the scope of it (local rather than literally every square inch of dry land in the world covered) is open for principled, reasoned discussion.  We must, in the end, construe/interpret scripture.  We should seek to understand it both in the way it was originally intended, and also in ways that reconcile the narrative with observable things.  Consider, for example, Luke 2:1, which states: "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."  Dan Peterson noted:

In other words, even though the text says "all the world should be taxed," nobody interprets this verse in an absolutist, literal way.

For this category of narratives from scripture we really need to remember the Church's teachings on A) inerrancy (we reject it), B) continuing revelation (we are big into this), and C) seeking knowledge and wisdom from the "best books" (we are big into this, too).

For me, I view Noah's Flood through this lens.  I believe there was a literal flood, but I have real reservations about the notion that I am required to believe that the flood was global.  

I like this comment by William Hamblin (responding to Brent Metcalfe) :

3) Stories that Require Historicity

I will note that there are major portions of the scriptures that must be "historical" (meaning that the persons described were real, and that the events described really happened).  

Consider, for example, these comments by Daniel C. Peterson:

And these remarks by Kent Jackson (regarding the historicity of the origins of the Book of Mormon) :

And these remarks by then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks (also regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon) :

I highly recommend Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul H. Hoskisson, and available online for free.

As Daniel Peterson put it: "{W}e must distinguish the essential from the nonessential." 

I have no problem with construing Luke 2:1 is a non-absolutist, 100% literal way.  "All the world" requires contextualization and reasoned analysis.  In fact, I think it is facile, even foolish, to insist on a black-or-white, hyper-literal interpretation.  "The New Testament can only be true if Caesar taxed the Japanese, the Maya, the Hawaiians, the Tibetans, the Congolese, etc.  Since reason requires us to reject that Caesar taxed every human being on the planet, the entirety of the New Testament is a fabrication and falsehood."  That doesn't really work for me.

Similarly, I don't really approach the Tower of Babel in a 100% literal way either.  See, e.g., here: Is the Tower of Babel historical or mythological?  

I also feel quite at ease viewing the Flood as possibly-but-unlikely-to-have-been "global."  I don't really need to know whether the Flood every square inch of dry land, or whether it was a localized event.  As I have said previously:

Robert Millet put it well:

Thanks,

-Smac

As usual you make it impossible to respond.  But to this point:

Quote

By your reasoning, though, the above story must be rejected.  There cannot have been a Trojan Horse because there was never a Trojan War, and there was never a Trojan War because the ancient narratives about it include elements you do not accept.  So, for you, an ancient story must be 100% literally historical or else rejected altogether.  Because the ancient narratives include some elements you cannot accept, you reject the narratives in their entirety.  Is that a fair summary of your reasoning?

That is not what I said.  I asked where one draws the line between fact and fiction, how does one separate the the myth from what could actually be accepted as truth. the gold from the panning sand.  Yes there can be elements of truth sprinkled within a myth, stories are often based on elements of a truthful story and then embellished, we was demonstrated with the recent discussion on President Nelson, but  given the passage of time it is nearly impossible to separate truth from reality.  Unless there is evidence that can be scrutinized it is not possible beyond feelings

[Fair Dinkum]

31 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

By this standard, much of recorded ancient history would be inadmissible because monumental narratives which discuss real kings and people usually originate in events which are regarded as mythological in nature. A reasonable heuristic is to look at the time depth of the events described relative to the production of the source. More recent events can usually be regarded as better sourced or more reliable. In any case, it is known that great stories regarded as "myths" often have their genesis in real events, so the declaration that the categorization of "myth" impugns the entirety of its content is unfounded. 

For my part, my thinking is as follows. Determining the relative trustworthiness of a story with mythological elements is a balancing act between the elements of the story which you have reason to believe, the elements of the story which are undetermined but permissible, and the elements of a story which you have reason not to believe. 

Another critical observation is that mythological narratives can embellish upon real events or adopt real subjects into their narratives. 

I'll illustrate with the case of the fall of Troy. I do not have reason to believe that Athena or Zeus exist. I think they could (since I believe in the divine council and the existence of rogue spirits) but I don't particularly have reason to believe they exist in the form described in the Iliad (since I have neither experiential confirmation of their existence, nor sources that are reasonably provenanced), and I have some reason to believe that they don't exist (natural reservations + my experientially-based belief in Christianity which denigrates such beings.) I do have reason to believe that Troy exists as the scholars proclaim that they have found it. Even before the scholars found it, the existence of Troy would have been in the realm of the "undetermined but permissible" as it is not implausible for a prominent city named Troy to have existed in the Aegean. I have very good reason to believe that Athens and Sparta and other relevant Greek kingdoms exist. A war between a league of Greek cities and Troy, independent of any archaeological confirmation or disconfirmation, is a plausible occurrence. The existence of specific people such as Hector, Priam, Achilles, Odysseus, etc. is "undetermined but permissible". The existence of their supernatural attributes or adventures is less so because their plausibility depends on entities which I have no to middling reason to believe exist and some reason to believe do not exist. 

Now, factor in the idea that mythological narratives can be and often are based on original events which are embellished, which I shall refer to by the term PROTO-EVENT. PROTO-EVENT could also be summarized as "giving historical narratives the benefit of the doubt", which I find to be an essential part of historical thinking. Presuming that your histories are lying to you is a great way to delete the entire field of history and end up with nothing at all, since all recorded history is testimonial and, the further back you go, the less confirming evidence exists as a matter of course. Thus, applying PROTO-EVENT, I come to the following conclusions. 

1) Some of the content of these stories can be confidently believed to be real (Greek kingdoms). 

2) It is plausible that Troy existed, that the cast of human characters existed (or prototypes of them existed), and that the war between them existed.

3) Given PROTO-EVENT, it is reasonable to believe that the subjects of Premise 2 existed. 

4) It is less likely that the non-plausible elements of the story existed.

Which leaves me with the reasonable belief that there was a war between a Greek league and Troy and the named characters existed in some form, though the account of them has been altered beyond recognition.

Applying the same formula to the book of Ether:

I believe in Jesus Christ based on experiential evidence and what I view as reasonably provenanced testimony. Therefore, I have reason to believe that He exists and events and effects attributed to Him are "undetermined but permissible." I take the view that a confederation of ancients desiring to build a tower/false temple near the dawn of history is "undetermined but permissible." I take the view that the existence of Jared and his cohort is "undetermined but permissible." I take the view that the creation of the multiplicity of the world's languages from Babel is unpermissible, as I have good reasons to believe that it is not possible. I do take the view that the Lord could shatter a lingua franca and leave behind the remnants of languages, or else corrupt the understanding of those present, so I regard that as  "undetermined but permissible." Apply PROTO-EVENT. 

Therefore, what I come out with is the belief that ancients built a tower, the Lord cursed them for it and pulled the Jaredites out. This, coupled with my belief in the Book of Mormon based on experiential evidence, gives me a reasonable belief which does not require the excesses of a traditional interpretation of the Genesis Babel narrative while permitting what I, Hugh Nibley, and many others see the Book of Ether as describing: a proto-Babel tower which the Lord cursed and from which Jared fled, which was the ancestor of the legendary Genesis Babel narrative. 

 

 

I agree with many of your points, but it was the discovery of an actual location that archeologists conclude is the actual ancient Troy that confirmed its existence.  Prior to that discovery it was a myth.  We now know that those who believed it was a myth were wrong.  And I guess until evidence can be provided that the claimed events of Babel and the myths surrounding that claimed event is found, I will continue to believe it is a myth. 

[Fair Dinkum]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As happens so many times in these discussions, I think we need to first define terms.  What do you mean by "myth?"  How do you define that word?

Hamba provided this one from the Oxford English Dictionary:

See also Dictionary.com:

I assume you are using "myth" primarily for its use as to definitions 3-5, is that correct?

That is to say, in your view a "mythI is necessarily and by definition a fabrication.  An "invested story."  An "imaginary or fictitious thing."  A "false collective belief."  Is that a fair statement of your position?

I address to some extent here.  In particular, I encourage you to read Daniel Peterson's essay: Notes on Historicity and Inerrancy.  I think it could provide some very useful insights/thoughts responsive to your foregoing questions.

Thanks,

-Smac

ok I will thanks for sharing

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said:

As usual you make it impossible to respond. 

Well, no.  You can respond to whatever points you like.

1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said:

But to this point:

Quote

By your reasoning, though, the above story must be rejected.  There cannot have been a Trojan Horse because there was never a Trojan War, and there was never a Trojan War because the ancient narratives about it include elements you do not accept.  So, for you, an ancient story must be 100% literally historical or else rejected altogether.  Because the ancient narratives include some elements you cannot accept, you reject the narratives in their entirety.  Is that a fair summary of your reasoning?

That is not what I said. 

But that seems to be your reasoning, hence my request for confirmation.

1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I asked where one draws the line between fact and fiction, how does one separate the the myth from what could actually be accepted as truth. the gold from the panning sand. 

I addressed that in my post.  For me, I generally divvy up scriptural narratives into the following three categories:

(1) Ahistorical Stories, or Stories Where Historicity is Immaterial
(2) Stories that are "True" (Historical) but Particulars and Details are Missing or Misunderstood {or Embellished}
(3) Stories that Require Historicity

Examples of Category 1: The parables of Jesus.  Job.  The Tower of Babel.

Examples of Category 2: The Flood.  The Tower of Babel.

Examples of Category 3: The divine sonship of Jesus Christ.  The miracles He performed (cumulatively).  His resurrection and ascension into heaven.  The Gold Plates.  The Lehites/Jaredites/Mulekites.

1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Yes there can be elements of truth sprinkled within a myth, stories are often based on elements of a truthful story and then embellished, we was demonstrated with the recent discussion on President Nelson, but  given the passage of time it is nearly impossible to separate truth from reality. 

I assume you mean "separate truth from fiction" or some such, yes?

If so, I think your conundrum demonstrates why acceptance of the Restored Gospel is, in the end, not a matter of empirical testing, but rather a matter of revelation and faith.

1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Unless there is evidence that can be scrutinized it is not possible beyond feelings

I think revelation is "beyond feelings."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[OGHoosier]

10 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I agree with many of your points, but it was the discovery of an actual location that archeologists conclude is the actual ancient Troy that confirmed its existence.  Prior to that discovery it was a myth.  We now know that those who believed it was a myth were wrong.  And I guess until evidence can be provided that the claimed events of Babel and the myths surrounding that claimed event is found, I will continue to believe it is a myth. 

I suppose that just boils down to our rules of analysis. You appear to reject PROTO-EVENT. I see PROTO-EVENT as necessary for the progress of historical inquiry. Your mileage may vary. 

For what it's worth, I see a subtle distinction between "confirmed belief" and "reasonable belief." Troy wasn't confirmed to have existed but reasonable belief that is existed based on historical benefit-of-the-doubt was permissible, and historians throughout the centuries  held differing views. Of course, now that we have done more research into Hisarlik, we can move Troy into the "confirmed" pile, but even without that belief in the existence of Troy was not unreasonable. 

Edited August 11, 2021 by OGHoosier

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I understand.

I was not trying to define who is Fundamentalist and who is not, to me it is a general inclination toward literalism, LDS or not.

I am anti-literalism.

I believe that whether or not a given scripture Story actually happened is irrelevant to its spiritual value. 

I look at everything as if it is poetic philosophy;  that makes it all true, and makes literalism an open question but not really relevant to spiritual content.

 

I tend to agree with you. I am not sure I am anti-literalism, maybe I am a "literalism doesn't make a difference" kind of a guy. And a lot of the Scriptures are indeed poetic in their literary style. Earlier on a thread - maybe this one - someone posted about something that Zephaniah said related to the millennium. I tend to think that Zephaniah wrote about his reality right there in Jerusalem, no need to expand it out to a 1000 year time frame thousands of years in the future, which in and of itself might not even be meant literally. Historically most Mennonites are amillennial - not believing in a literal thousand year reign. Historically most Mennonites were categorized as fundamentalists (small f) by virtue of the literal way in which they have interpreted worldliness. It can be very confusing and of not much purpose to debate such things. Perhaps Zephaniah was more of a forthtelling prophet as are LDS prophets. Take care my friend.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Navidad

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I agree with many of your points, but it was the discovery of an actual location that archeologists conclude is the actual ancient Troy that confirmed its existence. 

"Archaeologists conclude..." doesn't quite seem perfectly congruent with "confirmed its existence."

I encourage you to give Troy a bit more thought, as it is an interesting case study.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Until the late 19th century, modern scholars regarded the Trojan War as entirely fictional. However, starting in 1871, Heinrich Schliemann and Frank Calvert excavated the site of the classical era tourist trap, under whose ruins they found the remains of earlier settlements. Several of these layers resemble literary depictions of Troy, leading some scholars to conclude that there is a kernel of truth to the legends. Schliemann's legacy remains controversial due to his excavation methods, which included dynamiting layers he considered insignificant. Subsequent excavations by others have added to our understanding of the site, though the exact relationship between myth and reality remains unclear.

I am reminded of previous discussions we have had about "confirmation" of ancient events, persons, etc.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Yes, it would be nice to have evidence that "indisputably" establishes the presence of Pre-Columbian horses at the right time and place.

My point is that I think it is useful to examine not only the present state of the evidence regarding Pre-Columbian horses (which, I think, is not particularly robust), but also our expectations about the probative weight and relevance of the evidence.  How far can the evidence take us in proving or disproving the existence of Pre-Columbian horses?  How relevant is the presence or absence of competent, testable evidence regarding Pre-Columbian horses?

Johnson suggests that "the question of horses in the Book of Mormon has not been decisively answered and may never be resolved to anyone’s complete satisfaction."  Is he correct?

Regarding our expectations, I am reminded of a concept that has been dubbed the "CSI Effect," described here:

Quote

The CSI effect, also known as the CSI syndrome and the CSI infection, is any of several ways in which the exaggerated portrayal of forensic science on crime television shows such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation influences public perception. The term was first reported in a 2004 USA Today article describing the effect being made on trial jurors by television programs featuring forensic science. It most often refers to the belief that jurors have come to demand more forensic evidence in criminal trials, thereby raising the effective standard of proof for prosecutors. While this belief is widely held among American legal professionals, some studies have suggested that crime shows are unlikely to cause such an effect, although frequent CSI viewers may place a lower value on circumstantial evidence. As technology improves and becomes more prevalent throughout society, people may also develop higher expectations for the capabilities of forensic technology.

William Hamblin also addressed this generalized concept in his important 1993 article: Basic Methodological Problems with the AntiMormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon.  Hamblin also addresses the specific topic of horses, and of basic methodological problems associated with it.  

I wonder if you may have a "CSI effect"-esque set of expectations regarding the Restored Gospel.  See, e.g., here: Much left to discover between archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Quote

Some critics dismiss the Book of Mormon because, they say, no archaeological evidence directly supports it. Archaeological evidence, though, is spotty, and it seldom shows up on cue.

Until Conrad Schick found the pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem’s Muslim quarter in the 19th century, for example, only the Gospel of John suggested the pool ever even existed. Some scholars used that fact to argue that John was late and at least partially fictional, written by an author unacquainted with the city.

Yet Palestine is far more intensively studied and easier to work in than Mesoamerica, with much better textual resources and a continuous tradition of geographical names.

Moreover, that word “directly” is problematic. Archaeology seldom “directly” settles controversial issues. Rocks don’t speak for themselves; decisive, unambiguous inscriptions are rare.

The first nonbiblical allusion to Pontius Pilate was found by Italian archaeologists at Caesarea Maritima, on the Mediterranean coast, in 1981.

The first nonbiblical reference to David and the House of David — and just the fourth ancient inscription mentioning “Israel” at all — was found only during the 1993-1994 archaeological season at northern Israel’s Tel Dan. In some circles, it remains controversial.

A bulla or clay seal, the first tangible ancient artifact demonstrating the existence of biblical Bethlehem, was discovered just three years ago.
...
Real archaeology bears little resemblance to an Indiana Jones movie; overwhelmingly, it’s a matter of painstakingly drawing inferences from such things as pottery fragments and partial building foundations. And authors who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, such as John Clark, Brant Gardner, John Sorenson and Mark Wright, who very much believe the Book of Mormon to have solid footing within Mesoamerican archaeology, have long been engaged in such efforts. I commend their work to anybody who’s interested.

See also this 1993 article by William Hamblin: Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon

An excerpt:

Quote

There are several notable examples where precise reconstruction of archaic geographies has proven difficult if not impossible.

The Bible itself is a case in point. For example, modern sites for only 55 per cent of the place names mentioned in the Bible have been identified2—and this from the most carefully scrutinized and studied book in the world. For example, where is Mt. Sinai? There are over twenty candidates. What is the route taken by the Israelites in the Exodus? Again, there are many different theories. These and many other issues of biblical geography are all hotly disputed. Furthermore, the fact that there is widespread agreement on many questions of geography is simply an indication that scholarly consensus has been achieved but not necessarily that the consensus is correct.

...

{W}ithout the continuity of place names between biblical and modern times, only about 36 of the 475 biblical place names could be identified with certainty. But in fact those 36 are identifiable largely because it is possible to triangulate their relationship to known sites, moving from the known to the unknown. It is only because there are numerous biblical sites known with certainty through the continuity of place names that these other 36 sites can be located.

...

The reconstruction of Book of Mormon geography thus faces several difficulties not found in biblical geography. In Mesoamerica there is a discontinuity of toponyms, whereas there is strong continuity in Palestine; inscriptional evidence from Mesoamerica uses symbolic glyphs for cities rather than phonetic transcriptions of the names, whereas inscriptional evidence in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Palestine usually contains a phonetic component; and finally, there is no Pre-Classic onomasticon (place-name list) for Mesoamerica, whereas Palestine has Eusebius’s detailed Onomasticon, as well as those of later pilgrims.  These items allow historians to create a map grid based both on names and distances between sites for key biblical toponyms.  As noted above, a more accurate comparison to Book of Mormon geography is that for Bronze Age western Anatolia, where similar problems of reconstruction exist. Thus, while Wilson’s point that biblical geography is better documented than Book of Mormon geography is readily conceded, that point by no means proves that the Book of Mormon is ahistorical, as Wilson concludes.

I wonder if you should re-visit your expectations about whether matters of belief, including supposedly "testable" things, can or ought to be accepted only after supposedly empirical confirmation.

8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Prior to that discovery it was a myth. 

I don't understand what you are saying here.  An event either happened, or it did not.  Later "discovery" of it does not transmute it from "myth" (your synonym, I think, for a fabricated/fictitious event) to history of fact.  Wouldn't you agree?

8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

We now know that those who believed it was a myth were wrong. 

Huge room for shading here.  World War II happened, but that doesn't mean that Captain America: The First Avenger did.

8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

And I guess until evidence can be provided that the claimed events of Babel and the myths surrounding that claimed event is found, I will continue to believe it is a myth. 

So you only believe in ancient events that have been empirically and indisputably verified by modern archaeologists?  That's the metric?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Amazing how miracles seemed to have disappeared in the age of the iPhone and verifiable evidence. 

I don't see that as amazing.  To the contrary, I would expect that matters of faith be circumscribed so as to preclude "verifiable evidence."  Empirically testing and confirming, say, the existence of God, the miracles of Jesus Christ, the antiquity of the Gold Plates, etc. would negate the need for faith, and would fundamentally undermine our agency.

Imagine a college professor handing out a final exam, to the back of which is stapled all the answers to it.  How would that be a "test" of the student's knowledge and effort and growth in mastering the subject matter?

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

But that doesn't stop believers from still proclaiming miracles it just stops them from being verifiable. 

Ah.  "Verifiable."  What a wonderful word.

Thanks,

-Smac

[OGHoosier]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  "Verifiable."  What a wonderful word.

Thanks,

The words of Yale philosopher John Pittard may be of value here, with dashes of Kierkegaard. 

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Jeffrey Bradshaw has some interesting thoughts on this, drawing from broader Christian scholarship. Robert Boylan summarizes here. Basically, the Genesis account doesn't make much of a fuss of the plurality of language after the Confounding. It's not written as an origin story for the plurality of languages - rather, the focus is on the destruction of language as a method of communication between diverse peoples. Bradshaw, following the lead of other scholars, argues that the Babel pericope refers to the destruction of a Sumerian, Akkadian, or (at a stretch) Aramaic lingua franca among the builders of Babel. No need for a massive proliferation of languages if they already existed beside the now-defunct lingua franca. 

I'm open to the Babel narrative having been inflated over time after originating with a somewhat smaller scale event. I'm also frankly okay with Moroni reading later Israelite stories into the book of Ether: I think Grant Hardy's arguments that Moroni forcibly Christianizes the Jaredite history have some merit. 

Edit: I've always been intrigued by the book of Ether's reticence in actually naming the "great tower". It doesn't attach the name Babel to it. Moroni just says that it was "the great tower of which hath been spoken." To me that indicates that we should probably consider the name Babel to be a later name attached to it for poetic/polemical purposes. This opens a volume of plausible interpretations of the chronology in my mind. 

I believe it is an allegory which shows that it is prideful to "build a tower to God" by using words to make an "accurate" description of God.

To a Wittgensteinian (late W. at least) meaning is found in context and the "reality" of objects and people cannot be discussed because of the inadequacy of words to express direct human experience.  Words cannot substitute or even adequately "represent" what is "real" outside of human experience.

Again, it is like trying to describe the experience of "blue" to a blind man.   If you have not experienced "blue" there are no words which will convey the experience of the color blue to you.  So too with all other human experiences- scientific descriptions of say, the moon ,do not convey, (perhaps as a silly example,) what a love song may try to convey about the romantic nature of "the moon in June".  Yet both the scientific aspects and the romantic aspects of the moon may very well be different areas of human perception.

So I believe that the experience of God and His presence are ineffable and therefore it is not possible to put an "accurate" or objective statement of the nature of God into words.

It is prideful to expect that such greatness could be conveyed by a few- or for that matter- thousands - of squiggles on a page.

And so it can be said that "God confounded language" in order to disallow exact descriptions of his greatness in words, because we are here to walk by faith- with no objective descriptions of God even possible.  THAT ability to give objective descriptions would destroy the "walk by faith" test of the plan of salvation.

Seriously.  Suppose God was a person who would show up at your door when you had a problem, or waved his magic want and stopped natural disasters- picture a kind of "Superman" character that was always around and had billboards saying "Got Problems?  Call God! " (just like a personal injury lawyer)

And so we have no tower to get to heaven and no words to describe it.

We're stuck with faith I guess. 

But that's what He wanted all along.

 

These beliefs about language of course are part of the whole "postmodern" millieu- which I pretty much accept

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

The words of Yale philosopher John Pittard may be of value here, with dashes of Kierkegaard. 

I've previously commented on this here:

Quote

As a Latter-day Saint, I have a set of values and beliefs that I have accepted and utilize as a matter of faith.  I believe the "truth" is that God lives, that He has a relationship with us, that He communicates through revelation and through prophets and apostles, and so on.  But although I accept these things as "truth," my acceptance is a matter of faith.  Of belief.  Hope.  They are, I suppose, subjective truths.  At least for now.  We are told that at some point the Spirit "will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."  (John 16:13).  But for now, I think we need to give each other room to disagree about things that are necessarily categorized, for the time being, as "subjective truths."  Whether God exists or not is a "truth," but not one we can immediately and definitively discern.  "For we walk by faith, not by sight."  (2 Cor. 5:7).
...
I think our claims are better categorized as subjective, with the proviso that they will ultimately be borne out as objective.  See D&C 188:104:

Quote

And this shall be the sound of his trump, saying to all people, both in heaven and in earth, and that are under the earth—for every ear shall hear it, and every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess, while they hear the sound of the trump, saying: Fear God, and give glory to him who sitteth upon the throne, forever and ever; for the hour of his judgment is come.

 

Until the day of sure knowledge comes, the day when "every knee shall bow" and "every tongue shall confess," our lot is to "walk by faith, not by sight."

And I'm okay with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So you only believe in ancient events that have been empirically and indisputably verified by modern archaeologists?

I'm even worse than that!   I only believe in paradigms which even atheist philosophers admit are "true", like "God lives, and Christ is His Son who came to earth to save us, his children, from eternal death and give us eternal life"

I mean what do archaeologists know about religion?  

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Where do we separate the myth from the reality?

LOL!

No that's not the "problem".  You CANNOT separate the reality from the myth- THAT is the non-problem.   Is light a particle or wave?  Can you explain the color blue to a blind man?  How can you love someone with all your heart, yet more each day? 

THOSE are the realities you cannot separate from myths.

Edited August 11, 2021 by mfbukowski

[ttribe]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  "Verifiable."  What a wonderful word.

Thanks,

-Smac

Pretty sure you frequently use that word in litigation.