Inspired Fiction - Did Joseph Smith Believe He Was Translating Real Records?

[the narrator]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

48 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Early saints were literally punching and choking invisible evil spirits.

Could you provide some references for this?

It's been a while since I've read it. I believe Mark Staker discusses it some in Hearken, O Ye People. IRCC, this largely occurred in a community with new converts, and Joseph put a stop to it when he found out. So I'm not saying it was condoned, but instead pointing to it as an example of persons physically interacting with the unseen world. I believe Chris Smith has done some work on this as well, but I don't know if he published on it.

 

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you suggesting they were/are delusional in believing this?

Not at all. I probably believed it at the time as well. "Delusion" is dependent on cultural context--meaning that a believe is only delusional if it exists contrary to cultural beliefs and expectations. For this reason, I have long objected to Dan Vogel's use of the term to describe those who claimed to have seen plates, visions, etc.

 

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• "I had actually seen a light..."
• "{I}n the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me..."
• "I have actually seen a vision..."
• "I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it..."

Joseph also specifically compared himself to Paul, and the "reality of his vision."

As I pointed above, this also needs to be read in the context of 1. the invisible world being just as real as the mundane world; 2. retellings of these kinds of experiences becoming more concrete over time; and I should add two more: 3. (related to #2) kabbalistic practices of exploring past experiences for new meanings and expansion (which I think is normal human behavior, regardless of any knowledge of kabbalism); and 4. the common claim that what can be seen with the mind's eye or "spiritual eyes" being more real than what is seen with the natural eyes.

 

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Also "his words" at other times:

Yeah, the later his retellings (especially when second hand), the more natural and mundane it becomes--just like with so many other accounts of spiritual manifestations. So, sure, secondhand accounts reported 35-60 years after his death (and 90-120 years after the event) portray it more concretely than much earlier accounts.

[brownbear]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

That said, he, and many other Jewish (and Christian) scholars still find divine value and inspiration in the scriptures despite them not accurately or even remotely describing the historical past.

This reminds me of a quote from David P. Wright, the former BYU professor.

Quote

The evidence became so clear to me that a new crisis of faith ensued. My option was to throw away my belief altogether or to develop a new model for understanding the divinity of Mormonism and the scriptural value of the Book of Mormon and other scriptures for myself. Fortunately, several of the teachers that I had in graduate school and many of the biblical scholars whose works I had read provided personal examples indicating that the critical (meaning the careful historical) study of scripture and the acceptance of nontraditional historical conclusions resulting from this study need not lead one to deny the religious value of scriptural texts. For example, many of my professors were Jewish, and religiously devout, but accepted the critical conclusion that Moses did not write the Pentateuch or Torah (the first five books of the Bible). This is a view, by the way, which is well supported by evidence and is a conclusion I accept, teach, and work with every day in my professional activity. For a Jewish scholar to make this conclusion is the equivalent of a Mormon scholar making the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is not ancient but written by Joseph Smith. Despite these historical conclusions about the Pentateuch or Torah, these Jewish scholars viewed it as the foundation of their religious tradition and devoted much of their work to explicating it and interpreting it in what they considered to be its real historical context. They and a large number of Jews generally viewed their work—their historical critical work—as fulfilling the religious obligation of studying, interpreting, and teaching Torah.

I found that these Jewish, as well as similarly oriented Christian scholars, provided a model that I could employ to escape the requirement of rejecting Mormon tradition. I developed a view of Joseph Smith’s scriptural works that allowed me to read them critically and be true to what the evidence indicated but to appreciate them as scripture. I came to see revelation as a more ambiguous matter, involving a significant amount of interpretation on the part of the human recipient of the revelation. I concluded that prophets "translate" revelation into their own words in terms of their cultural situation. Thus a revelation, or rather a product of revelation—a statement, text, etc.—has a certain amount of humanness. This can account for error and even misperception on the part of a prophet. This interpretive aspect of revelation for me applied not only to matters of spiritual impression but to visionary and auditory phenomena as well.

Wright, David P. “Statement for Disciplinary Council.” Case Reports Volume 3, Part 5, Chapter 23, April 5, 1994. Accessed July 9, 2024. URL: www.mormon-alliance.org/casereports/volume3/part5/v3p5ch23.htm

[Kevin Christensen]

There is a clear difference between those who examine the Book of Mormon carefully, in the context that it claims for itself, to at least test the fit in light of current knowledge, and those who tell stories about Joseph and his environment and insinuate a conclusion from there, without ever dealing with either the substantial text or the findings of the best believing scholars.

By me, the best explanation of the Book of Mormon actually addresses and explains the content.  For example, I listened to Michael Coe and John Dehlin talking about how the lack of any evidence in ancient Mesoamerica for brass helmets and iron arrowheads is a devastating reality that the LDS will eventually have to face and accept.  But if it happens that someone like me points out that the Book of Mormon never mentions brass helmets and iron arrowheads, and Dehlin's response is to boldly delete my comments, then the question of who is actually facing reality radically shifts.  If I read in Ann Taves's book and find that she actually sees the composition of stories like "Noddy in Toyland" by Enid Blighton as a valid comparison to account for Joseph Smith's production of the Book of Mormon, and the only point of notable authentic detail that she names in a single line, without either defining, or providing sources or examples is "chiasmus", I come away astonished at she can then purport to explain Joseph Smith in an authoritative way.  this is how she defines the problem.

Quote

Based on this reconstruction, a naturalistic account would need to explain (1) the rapid flow of words that were “known” but seemed like they were not their own; (2) their ability to control the process, specifically to stop and start and shift modalities; and (3) their execution of a complex overall plan without evident planning. (250)

There is nothing in her approach that even considers the possibility of any authentic details supporting the text.  That is why I quoted the difference with Nibley's approach.  That is why I cited Barker as the sole example of an outside scholar actually taking up Nibley's approach.

Then we have talk about how "Early saints were literally punching and choking invisible evil spirits", apparently a reference to an  early court account, but that kind of story does not actually go far in accounting for details in the Book of Mormon like this:

https://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_139-2.PDF

Sorenson expanded his findings over the years, culminating in his Mormon's Codex.  John Clark gave an important presentation in Washington DC on how the general trend for arguments raised against the Book of Mormon has been towards resolution, rather than away from them.

And we have things like Gardner here:

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/gardner/2016-03-16/brant_gardner_the_gadianton_robbers_in_mormons_theological_history_2002.pdf

As to the problem of composition, Robert Rees noted how Joseph Smith stands out in comparison his contemporary American writers, such as Melville, Emerson, and Hawthorne.

https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/uip/dial/article/35/3/83/242166/Joseph-Smith-the-Book-of-Mormon-and-the-American

He later updated this approach.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-smith-the-book-of-mormon-and-the-american-renaissance-an-update/

Quote

Each of the writers of each of the masterpieces under consideration here, with the exception of Joseph Smith, had a long gestation period during which he “tried out” his ideas, metaphors, allusions, coloring (tone), points of view, personae, and rhetorical styles before tackling a larger, more complex, and more sophisticated form, whether as a collection of poems and essays (Emerson), an extended personal narrative (Thoreau), a novel (Hawthorne and Melville) or a major poem (Whitman). There are no parallel try works for Joseph Smith, nor any evidence of his apprenticeship as a writer. In fact, all evidence points in the opposite direction. Unless and until some hitherto undiscovered record demonstrating that Joseph Smith did in fact leave evidence of the reading, thinking, writing, and imaginative expression — the try works — required to write a book like the Book of Mormon, we are left with the choice of accepting his explanation of the book’s origin or making the case for some alternative explanation, which to my mind no one has done satisfactorily.

Taves and a few others have tried to sidestep this sort of thing by comparing Joseph's production of the Book of Mormon to examples of Spirit Writing, such as Pearl Curran.  While she mentioned an essay by Rees on the topic, she overlooked the implications of Richard L. Anderson's incisive comparison of the Book of Mormon to a range of other texts purporting to be new revelations about Christ. 

Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Imitation Gospels and Christ’s Book of Mormon Ministry,” in Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-day Saints, ed. C. Wilfred Griggs (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1986), 53–107, https://rsc.byu.edu/apocryphal-writings-latter-day-saints/imitation-gospels-christs-book-mormon-ministry  

 I referred to Anderson at length in my detailed response to Taves at Interpreter.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/playing-to-an-audience-a-review-of-revelatory-events/

Kuhn explains that 

Quote

Particularly persuasive arguments can be developed if the new paradigm permits the prediction of phenomena that had been entirely unsuspected while the old one prevailed. (Kuhn 153)

The point in talking about evil spirits and magic world views and ignorance and superstition is to direct attention away from the actual, testable claims of the Book of Mormon by offering an ideological approach in which the notion of considering even for a moment, that there might be something to Joseph's story and the book itself, is deemed self-evidently absurd.

Quote

Paradigms provide scientists not only with a map but with some of the directions essential for map-making. In learning a paradigm the scientist acquires theory, methods, and standards together, usually in an inextricable mixture. Therefore, when paradigms change, there are usually significant shifts in the criteria for determining the legitimacy both of problems and of proposed solutions. (Kuhn 109)

Quote

“[T]he decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus and to use it in a particular way carries an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.” (Kuhn, 59)

But as Kuhn says, "Which paradigm is better?"  And he says the best measures of better are not "Does it conform to my skeptical ideology?" but rather puzzle definition and testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.

I have read a great many attempts to explain, or rather to explain away Joseph Smith.  Joseph's own story accounts for much more of what has been found using sources and resources that no one on earth had access to when the Book of Mormon came to be.  For instance, no critic has ever seriously engaged this kind of thing or explained why this pattern appears in the Book of Mormon:

https://scripturecentral.org/archive/presentations/report/i-only-am-escaped-alone-tell-thee-survivor-witnesses-book-mormon

Nor this:

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-1644/

Nor literally hundreds of different kinds of findings reported by a wide range of specialists across a broad range of fields, examining the Book of Mormon in a variety of ways.  A valid accounting of the Book of Mormon ought to acknowledge and confront this sort of thing, if the proponents actually want to provide a "better" accounting, instead of a convenient, easy, and ideologically based dismissal.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited July 16, 2024 by Kevin Christensen
style, extra word

[brownbear]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I don't believe Joseph was a conman. I believe he heard things in the revivals (finally remembered) that shocked or worried him to the point he wanted to help those listening and himself to have another option. 

He was very concerned with the religious beliefs of his mother, his father, and the world around him. I am sure that all of this weighed heavily on his mind, which led him to "ask of God".

[brownbear]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

In my view, the Inspired Fiction theory creates far more problems than it solves.

I think it does cause problems, but not ones that can't be overcome.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

If The Book of Mormon is fictional, then the people described in it never existed.  That being the case, there could not have been any gold plates to be viewed by the Witnesses, nor any resurrected Nephite named Moroni to facilitate Joseph's acquisition of them.

If one believes that Joseph thought the record was a genuine historical account, even if he had to fabricate the plates (see Taves), it can be seen as an example of God having someone create something holy. For instance, in Exodus 31-34, after Moses smashed the tablets given to him by God, he had to create two new tablets which the Lord then "wrote on". Similarly, perhaps Joseph had to build something which the Lord then consecrated.

If someone loses faith or doubts the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon but remains fully committed to the Church, what should they do?

[Rain]

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

And vice versa, which is kind of a big problem for the biblical narrative and historical record, where it seems incredibly unlikely that anything from Genesis through Kings and Chronicles is more than very loosely "inspired by a true story"--where in reality there was likely never any Abraham (which should be the primary and simplest argument against a historical BofA), Moses, Exodus, Conquest, united Kingdom of Israel, etc. A jewish friend of mine recently joked that the biggest problem for BofM apologetics is that the biblical narrative it piggybacks on is harder to defend than the BofM's own narrative.

I struggled with my faith in different ways for a long time, but it was diving into the Old Testament where it really became unraveled so I can totally see what you are saying here. 

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

That said, he, and many other Jewish (and Christian) scholars still find divine value and inspiration in the scriptures despite them not accurately or even remotely describing the historical past.

Yes.  I still find value and inspiration in the bible and Book of Mormon despite no longer seeing them as "scripture".

[brownbear]

13 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

There is a clear difference between those who examine the Book of Mormon carefully, in the context that it claims for itself, to at least test the fit in light of current knowledge, and those who tell stories about Joseph and his environment and insinuate a conclusion from there, without ever dealing with either the substantial text or the findings of the best believing scholars.

I always appreciate your detailed responses and replies. This has given me a lot to chew on, thank you.

16 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

That is why I quoted the difference with Nibley's approach.  That is why I cited Barker as the sole example of an outside scholar actually taking up Nibley's approach.

I think Nibley's approach is interesting. It is fair to test Book of Mormon assumptions understanding it to be authentic, however, it is equally fair to test those assumptions understanding it to be a work of 19th-century scripture. Additionally, would those assumptions change if Joseph believed it was in fact an ancient record, even if it were not? That is why it is appropriate to have multiple working hypotheses.

Additionally, in the broader academic sphere, it seems like Barker is considered a fringe player within the broader academic sphere of biblical and theological studies.

When we take the critical approach, building blocks of the Book of Mormon such as Deutero and Trito-Isaiah, its reliance on the KJV, and the Documentary Hypothesis, its authenticity can severely be questioned, IMO. Unfortunately, when big building blocks like this are considered, smaller evidences in favor of the Book of Mormon are hard to accept.

However, when we take the believing approach, some elements seem to support its ancient setting (including the ones you have cited), complex literary elements that seem beyond Joseph Smith, as well as the validity of a potential trans-oceanic journey (see the Phoenician Ship Expedition).

[brownbear]

6 minutes ago, Rain said:

Yes.  I still find value and inspiration in the bible and Book of Mormon despite no longer seeing them as "scripture".

Historical or not, those books have value and can be inspiring. It depends on your definition of scripture. Some may cite your finding "value and inspiration" as the definition of scripture. Why is the Book of Job considered scripture, if it likely isn't "historical"? What is the line?

[Kevin Christensen]

7 minutes ago, brownbear said:

I think it does cause problems, but not ones that can't be overcome.

If one believes that Joseph thought the record was a genuine historical account, even if he had to fabricate the plates (see Taves), it can be seen as an example of God having someone create something holy. For instance, in Exodus 31-34, after Moses smashed the tablets given to him by God, he had to create two new tablets which the Lord then "wrote on". Similarly, perhaps Joseph had to build something which the Lord then consecrated.

If someone loses faith or doubts the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon but remains fully committed to the Church, what should they do?

How about this approach to nourish faith:

Quote

And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true. (Alma 32:21)

Alma does not ask his listeners to take an "all or nothing" approach, to say, "How can I have faith in the absence of absolute certainty?" but rather, to start with a promising portion for experiment.

Quote

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

He does not specify the portion.  But one ought not then decide which portions other people select either.  I don't mind if a person wants to personally adopt an inspired fiction approach to the Book of Mormon, but I tend to push back if they insist that I and the Saints in general ought to do the same.

Sometime back, I got interested in the basis of spiritual belief in a comparative religious context.  

https://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/A-Model-of-Mormon-Spiritual-Experience.pdf

And incidentally, I have responded to David Wright on a few occasions.  First here:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol3/iss1/6/

And later, on Melchizedek, after I read Barker's The Older Testament, which is very relevant, and such in a few places like this:

https://scripturecentral.org/archive/periodicals/journal-article/deuteronomist-de-christianizing-old-testament

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[the narrator]

9 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

There is a clear difference between those who examine the Book of Mormon carefully, in the context that it claims for itself, to at least test the fit in light of current knowledge, and those who tell stories about Joseph and his environment and insinuate a conclusion from there, without ever dealing with either the substantial text or the findings of the best believing scholars.

There are also plenty who do both. I have probably read the text closely a couple dozen times at minimum.

 

11 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

As to the problem of composition, Robert Rees noted how Joseph Smith stands out in comparison his contemporary American writers, such as Melville, Emerson, and Hawthorne.

I like Bob and consider him a friend, but he (and many others) are wrong to compare Joseph to other writers. The BofM was not a written book; it was an oral production that is filled with evidence of it being such. Writing and speaking extemporaneously use different parts of the brain and structure language differently--particularly due to writing leaving the text in place to review and remember and speaking requiring different ways for the brain to retrieve information. For this reason, while it was long thought that parallelisms and chiasmus were utilized to make memorization and recitation easier, there is new research arguing that those instead reflect the ways in which the brain retrieves information. This is based on how our brains are, for many reason, wired to see and experience the world through symmetry, and thus for millennia when humans told their stories, they would do so as the brain was prone to, by recollecting it in a symmetrical pattern that pulled the memory to its climax and then rescinded from it. Other parallel prose would be similar as well. Music and poetry generally reflects this cognitive symmetry. The reason, then, why chiasmus seemed to drop from most cultures is due to the way in which writing changes the way we recollect. Now, instead of our brains relying on what we just said to inform what we say next, we are able to look at what we have written and use that to determine what our brain should retrieve next, or what we ought to say next. I’m sure you have experienced this in your writing, as it can be very easy to talk about something, but then while writing you find yourself constantly looking back at what you had just written rather than just continuing to allow words to flow out of your mouth. (If you haven’t experience this, then I will tell you that I certainly have!)

Thus, if chiasmus is a natural result of cognitive symmetry in oral storytelling, then we ought to expect the BofM as a product of oral storytelling to contain chiasmus—especially in an account like Alma 36 that is literally recounting a narrative from memory. Of course, this would also be true if Alma Jr. were providing the narrative here. However, with Joseph Smith we have a clear and direct understanding of how this chiasmus exists in a written account. If Alma Jr. were the source, we are still left with the question of why the golden plates contained a chiasmus. Was a stenographer present? Did Alma Jr. repeat this to Helaman over and over again until he memorized it and passed it on? Did Alma Jr. later write it down—if so, how did this aspect of orality continue in the written form (as opposed to other recorded chiasmus that had previously been refined over generations of oral retellings?) Because of this the best explanation for Alma 36 is that the chiasmus present in it was Joseph's. And had that chapter been memorized and retold for generations, it would likely have also become more refined and pretty. 

25 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The point in talking about evil spirits and magic world views and ignorance and superstition is to direct attention away from the actual, testable claims of the Book of Mormon by offering an ideological approach in which the notion of considering even for a moment, that there might be something to Joseph's story and the book itself, is deemed self-evidently absurd.

No, but sure go ahead and have fun battling a straw man. As a former apologist, I am fully aware of all the supposed testable claims of the BofM, and there is not a single one that I now find satisfactory. (There really hasn't been much new since Nibley anyways, and the newer ones tend to just be attempts to modify or tighten his when they began to fail--like the constant goal post shifting of Nahom.) I don't think anything I have said here goes against the BofM possibly being a "translation" of the history of an ancient people--but at any bare minimum, I think such a belief must accept that "translation" be understood as "loosely based on real story."

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, brownbear said:

I think it does cause problems, but not ones that can't be overcome.

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

17 minutes ago, brownbear said:

If one believes that Joseph thought the record was a genuine historical account, even if he had to fabricate the plates (see Taves), it can be seen as an example of God having someone create something holy.

And the ministrations of Moroni (JS—H 1:30–49; D&C 20:6; 27:5)?  How does one account for those under the "Inspired Fiction" theory?

17 minutes ago, brownbear said:

For instance, in Exodus 31-34, after Moses smashed the tablets given to him by God, he had to create two new tablets which the Lord then "wrote on". Similarly, perhaps Joseph had to build something which the Lord then consecrated.

The historical record does not support this theory.  There is no evidence for it, and ample evidence against it.

17 minutes ago, brownbear said:

If someone loses faith or doubts the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon but remains fully committed to the Church, what should they do?

Exercise faith and keep moving forward.  And, I suppose, refrain from attempting to influence other Latter-day Saints in ways that are at odds with the doctrines and teachings of the Church (which, I think, is that the Inspired Fiction Theory does).

I have a few ideas about the Restored Gospel that are A) very speculative/conjectural, and/or B) not compatible, in varying ways and degrees, with the published teachings/doctrines of the Church.  I generally refrain from sharing the former except with some few close friends and relatives, and I am even more reticent as to the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[the narrator]

13 minutes ago, Rain said:

Yes.  I still find value and inspiration in the bible and Book of Mormon despite no longer seeing them as "scripture".

Perhaps you need to just expand what it means for something to be scripture. At its heart, scripture is literature or other forms of media and art that a community embraces for inspiration, moral guidance, etc. My wife and I have religiously watched It's a Wonderful Life  every Christmas Eve for the last 18 years (besides the one Xmas we were broken up before getting back together and getting married). I cry each time and find new messages and meaning and power.

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The point in talking about evil spirits and magic world views and ignorance and superstition is to direct attention away from the actual, testable claims of the Book of Mormon by offering an ideological approach in which the notion of considering even for a moment, that there might be something to Joseph's story and the book itself, is deemed self-evidently absurd.

Yes, this is where I thought @the narrator was going with the references to early Saints "literally punching and choking invisible evil spirits."  

42 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

But as Kuhn says, "Which paradigm is better?"  And he says the best measures of better are not "Does it conform to my skeptical ideology?" but rather puzzle definition and testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.

I have read a great many attempts to explain, or rather to explain away Joseph Smith.  Joseph's own story accounts for much more of what has been found using sources and resources that no one on earth had access to when the Book of Mormon came to be.  For instance, no critic has ever seriously engaged this kind of thing or explained why this pattern appears in the Book of Mormon:

https://scripturecentral.org/archive/presentations/report/i-only-am-escaped-alone-tell-thee-survivor-witnesses-book-mormon

Nor this:

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-1644/

Nor literally hundreds of different kinds of findings reported by a wide range of specialists across a broad range of fields, examining the Book of Mormon in a variety of ways.  A valid accounting of the Book of Mormon ought to acknowledge and confront this sort of thing, if the proponents actually want to provide a "better" accounting, instead of a convenient, easy, and dismissive ideologically based dismissal.

We sure do seem to slip on past the text of The Book of Mormon more often than we should.

Thanks,

-Smac

[brownbear]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Who said I am a reasonable mind? Jk  

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Exercise faith and keep moving forward.  And, I suppose, refrain from attempting to influence other Latter-day Saints in ways that are at odds with the doctrines and teachings of the Church (which, I think, is that the Inspired Fiction Theory does).

I hope I am not influencing others negatively, I am just trying to figure things out following a massive crisis of faith. I have seen some amazing conversations here on Mormon Dialogue, I enjoy the perspectives and intelligent conversation.

Edit: I am someone who holds "multiple working hypotheses". However, certain lines of reasoning seem to be stronger than others (at least currently).

Edited July 9, 2024 by brownbear

[webbles]

17 minutes ago, the narrator said:

There are also plenty who do both. I have probably read the text closely a couple dozen times at minimum.

 

I like Bob and consider him a friend, but he (and many others) are wrong to compare Joseph to other writers. The BofM was not a written book; it was an oral production that is filled with evidence of it being such. Writing and speaking extemporaneously use different parts of the brain and structure language differently--particularly due to writing leaving the text in place to review and remember and speaking requiring different ways for the brain to retrieve information. For this reason, while it was long thought that parallelisms and chiasmus were utilized to make memorization and recitation easier, there is new research arguing that those instead reflect the ways in which the brain retrieves information. This is based on how our brains are, for many reason, wired to see and experience the world through symmetry, and thus for millennia when humans told their stories, they would do so as the brain was prone to, by recollecting it in a symmetrical pattern that pulled the memory to its climax and then rescinded from it. Other parallel prose would be similar as well. Music and poetry generally reflects this cognitive symmetry. The reason, then, why chiasmus seemed to drop from most cultures is due to the way in which writing changes the way we recollect. Now, instead of our brains relying on what we just said to inform what we say next, we are able to look at what we have written and use that to determine what our brain should retrieve next, or what we ought to say next. I’m sure you have experienced this in your writing, as it can be very easy to talk about something, but then while writing you find yourself constantly looking back at what you had just written rather than just continuing to allow words to flow out of your mouth. (If you haven’t experience this, then I will tell you that I certainly have!)

Thus, if chiasmus is a natural result of cognitive symmetry in oral storytelling, then we ought to expect the BofM as a product of oral storytelling to contain chiasmus—especially in an account like Alma 36 that is literally recounting a narrative from memory. Of course, this would also be true if Alma Jr. were providing the narrative here. However, with Joseph Smith we have a clear and direct understanding of how this chiasmus exists in a written account. If Alma Jr. were the source, we are still left with the question of why the golden plates contained a chiasmus. Was a stenographer present? Did Alma Jr. repeat this to Helaman over and over again until he memorized it and passed it on? Did Alma Jr. later write it down—if so, how did this aspect of orality continue in the written form (as opposed to other recorded chiasmus that had previously been refined over generations of oral retellings?) Because of this the best explanation for Alma 36 is that the chiasmus present in it was Joseph's. And had that chapter been memorized and retold for generations, it would likely have also become more refined and pretty. 

No, but sure go ahead and have fun battling a straw man. As a former apologist, I am fully aware of all the supposed testable claims of the BofM, and there is not a single one that I now find satisfactory. (There really hasn't been much new since Nibley anyways, and the newer ones tend to just be attempts to modify or tighten his when they began to fail--like the constant goal post shifting of Nahom.) I don't think anything I have said here goes against the BofM possibly being a "translation" of the history of an ancient people--but at any bare minimum, I think such a belief must accept that "translation" be understood as "loosely based on real story."

You are very focused on the oral idea.  How do you see the evidence that Joseph either plagiarized someone (such as the spaulding theory)?  Do you find those ideas a non starter?

[Rain]

24 minutes ago, brownbear said:

Historical or not, those books have value and can be inspiring.

 

Yes, this is what I said in what you quoted from me.  

24 minutes ago, brownbear said:

It depends on your definition of scripture. Some may cite your finding "value and inspiration" as the definition of scripture. Why is the Book of Job considered scripture, if it likely isn't "historical"? What is the line?

Some may.  When putting quotes on I meant to say that I find as much or more value in other writings than the canon the church defines as canon. 

[Rain]

22 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Perhaps you need to just expand what it means for something to be scripture. At its heart, scripture is literature or other forms of media and art that a community embraces for inspiration, moral guidance, etc. My wife and I have religiously watched It's a Wonderful Life  every Christmas Eve for the last 18 years (besides the one Xmas we were broken up before getting back together and getting married). I cry each time and find new messages and meaning and power.

I have, through I do struggle with the word scripture now. I find some art and music also fits in that category.  When writing that I was referring to the canon that the church considers as scripture. 

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, brownbear said:

I think it does cause problems, but not ones that can't be overcome.

If one believes that Joseph thought the record was a genuine historical account, even if he had to fabricate the plates (see Taves), it can be seen as an example of God having someone create something holy. For instance, in Exodus 31-34, after Moses smashed the tablets given to him by God, he had to create two new tablets which the Lord then "wrote on". Similarly, perhaps Joseph had to build something which the Lord then consecrated.

If someone loses faith or doubts the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon but remains fully committed to the Church, what should they do?

To answer the last question, I would say to remember that Jesus Christ is (at least supposed to be) the primary object of their faith. High expectations for historical accuracy and institutional commitment (obligation, loyalty) alone are barriers to faith in Christ in the first place, and will produce unhappiness eventually.

[the narrator]

5 minutes ago, webbles said:

You are very focused on the oral idea.  How do you see the evidence that Joseph either plagiarized someone (such as the spaulding theory)?  Do you find those ideas a non starter?

I find the plagiarism arguments to be unnecessary and largely arising from a disdain of Joseph Smith. There is a weird hand holding between apologists and critics, who both want to maintain that Joseph was essentially a flesh bag filled with rocks rather than explore the relationship that Joseph and his culture and history contributed to the text. Apologists want to paint Joseph as a nit-witted barely sentient farm boy to distance himself from the BofM construction, and some critics can't possibly allow anything positive to be said about Joseph, and so can't allow him the intelligence and genius required to dictate it himself.

I, on the other hand, see plenty of evidence that Joseph was incredibly intelligent, gifted, well-read, likely neurodivergent, and who was deeply interested in religious issues, the origins of Native people, esotericism, Masonry, and many of the topics surrounding him that found their way into the narrative of the BofM. I see the BofM weaving biblical passages (and possibly other phrases from other books) seemlessly into the text, just as he would in personal letters, revelations, and histories (almost all of which were also dictated rather than written by him), and not dissimilar to the likely hundreds of sermons he paid attention to as he explored which sect to join. And we would see this happening again when composing the books of Moses and Abraham (both of which could not have been written by those men, who did not exist as described in the Bible)--though by then he was already becoming more interested in a broader Masonic-lore inspired understanding of a primal religion given to Adam and revived through multiple dispensations.

(One of the reasons I still hold that Joseph sincerely thought he was tapping into an ancient history with the BofM is that he very much seemed to believe that the Egyptian Papryi ended up in his hand for divine reasons, to "translate" once again.

[brownbear]

1 minute ago, the narrator said:

One of the reasons I still hold that Joseph sincerely thought he was tapping into an ancient history with the BofM is that he very much seemed to believe that the Egyptian Papryi ended up in his hand for divine reasons, to "translate" once again.

This answers my OP.

[Kevin Christensen]

On 7/9/2024 at 3:56 PM, brownbear said:

I always appreciate your detailed responses and replies. This has given me a lot to chew on, thank you.

I think Nibley's approach is interesting. It is fair to test Book of Mormon assumptions understanding it to be authentic, however, it is equally fair to test those assumptions understanding it to be a work of 19th-century scripture. Additionally, would those assumptions change if Joseph believed it was in fact an ancient record, even if it were not? That is why it is appropriate to have multiple working hypotheses.

Additionally, in the broader academic sphere, it seems like Barker is considered a fringe player within the broader academic sphere of biblical and theological studies.

When we take the critical approach, building blocks of the Book of Mormon such as Deutero and Trito-Isaiah, its reliance on the KJV, and the Documentary Hypothesis, its authenticity can severely be questioned, IMO. Unfortunately, when big building blocks like this are considered, smaller evidences in favor of the Book of Mormon are hard to accept.

However, when we take the believing approach, some elements seem to support its ancient setting (including the ones you have cited), complex literary elements that seem beyond Joseph Smith, as well as the validity of a potential trans-oceanic journey (see the Phoenician Ship Expedition).

You are welcome.

The test of historicity ought not to be, "Have any of the rulers, or of the Pharisees believed on him?"   As in "If she was correct, then the cool kids at the cool table whose approval all must seek, would have accepted her because they have no agenda or prejudice or ideology but the pursuit of truth at all costs, personal, social, and covenantal and they never ever make mistakes but are indeed the Authorities."   She spoke tellingly on the topic of the churches and the Universities and scholarship at the turn of the century.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/ReflectionsOnBiblicalStudies.pdf

In the case of Barker, it happens that the label of "fringe player" never seems to go with acknowledgement that she was elected to the Presidency of the Society for Old Testament Study in 1999, and that he was awarded her Lambeth Doctor of Divinity by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that he has been invited by a wide range to Universities to come and speak (several of her books had their origins in this kind of invitation), and that the introduction to her book on Creation was written by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and that N.T. Wright cites her in History and Eschatology, and much else.  That is, she has a great many contacts and collaborators and advocates in high places.  I provided a detailed account in Interpreter not long ago.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/twenty-years-after-paradigms-regained-part-1-the-ongoing-plain-and-precious-significance-of-margaret-barkers-scholarship-for-latter-day-saint-studies/

 Indeed, she is featured in the LDS produced Temples through Time, speaking first after an LDS apostle, and last before he closes.  To say she it not mainstream is to simply report the obvious.  She deliberately set out to challenge the mainstream notions she learned at Cambridge.  She did not deliberately set out to impress the LDS.   That came as a complete surprise to her and to us.  She did set out to "redraw the map of Biblical studies."  And that, as Kuhn reports does not happen all at once, but is a generational thing.  She understands this very clearly.

https://christpantokrator.blogspot.com/search/label/Barker%3A 'Being an Independent Scholar'

I have no serious problems with Deutero and Trito Isaiah in general, nor the relation of the KJV to the Book of Mormon (it being, unquestionably the "language" for scripture in Joseph Smith's day), nor do I have problems with both facing and using the Documentary Hypothesis.  I have made use of that sort of thing for decades in my own publications.  When I question some of the conclusions, I give actual reasons for doing so, and cite relevant evidence.  Not just deference to Authority.  Kevin Barney and John Sorenson and other LDS scholars have taken a far more interesting approach to the DH and Isaiah the Book of Mormon than Wright. 

Regarding what is bigger and smaller, I think this observation in an art book by Betty Edwards is one of the most important things I have ever read:

Quote

Most of us lend to see parts of a form hierarchically. The parts that are important (that is, provide a lot of information), or the parts that we decide are larger, or the parts we think should be larger, we see as larger than they actually are. Conversely, parts that are unimportant, or that we decide are smaller, or that we think should be smaller, we see as being smaller than they actually are. (Edwards, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, 134

If a person decides that Deutero Isaiah is all you need to know to debunk and explain Joseph Smith the Book of Mormon, fine.  Let me see  exactly how that accounts for the details of Lehi's Journey, and how the retreat of the Lamanites in Alma 2:27 and ends "reached the wilderness, which was called Hermounts; and it was that part of the wilderness which was infested by wild and ravenous beasts" correlates geographically  with a real world location in Tehuantepec where "Tehuantepec is a Nahuatl word meaning “hills” or “mountains of the man-eating beast.” 

On that, see Larry Poulson, 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

And for interest, how Joseph's supposed ignorance of the complex composition of the Bible as we have it accounts for Ben McGuire's observation that the complex allusions to the story of David and Goliath in the account of Nephi and Laban all happen on one side of two different David stories spliced together in the Bible?   And much much more.

And incidentally, critical and discerning ought to be seen as synonyms.  A person who aspires to be "critical" also ought do demonstrate discernment, rather than just reflexive skepticism and doubt.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited July 12, 2024 by Kevin Christensen
typo, grammar

[brownbear]

11 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

And incidentally, critical and discerning ought to be seen as synonyms.  A person who aspire to be "critical" also ought do demonstrate discernment, rather than just reflexive skepticism and doubt.

Again, thank you for this detailed reply. My OP is not advocating for the “inspired fiction” approach. Rather, I am exploring an interesting position and gaining insights.

With regard to a “humble deference to authority”, I think that many do that by nature. We trust doctors when we are sick. We trust lawyers when we need advice on the law. As I am just beginning (compared to many) my foray into historical and scriptural criticism, I have to rely on the authorities, while I am informing myself to make an opinion of my own.

Even though I have spent a lifetime reading scriptures, attending seminary and institute, and serving a mission, I did not know about Isaiah authorship debates or the documentary hypothesis until a year ago. I am digging in and trying to find things out for myself. I am seeking out “the best books”. A good proxy (sometimes) for “best” can be academic authority or widespread academic consensus.

Edited July 9, 2024 by brownbear

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Some will insist that that which is not real to them in their minds was nonetheless very real to Joseph Smith in his, and that he operated in good faith. So, they say he was not lying, but that he held to a different paradigm and preconception about spiritual matters than they do. Both they and Joseph simply have a different sets of experiences and working models; no one is necessarily lying.

I get that's what they are saying, but what I'm saying is that the evidence (which is all we have to go on) doesn't really support that premise.  You can't say that Smith believed the plates were invisible to the eye or only existed spiritually and also believed that he could sell them for actual money because they were made of actual, visible, gold.

 

[InCognitus]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I get that's what they are saying, but what I'm saying is that the evidence (which is all we have to go on) doesn't really support that premise.  You can't say that Smith believed the plates were invisible to the eye or only existed spiritually and also believed that he could sell them for actual money because they were made of actual, visible, gold.

That would be way way different in today's world, where we can sell things invisible to the eye (or intangible - like software?) with invisible money (electronic transfers)  

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I get that's what they are saying, but what I'm saying is that the evidence (which is all we have to go on) doesn't really support that premise.  You can't say that Smith believed the plates were invisible to the eye or only existed spiritually and also believed that he could sell them for actual money because they were made of actual, visible, gold.

 

That makes sense to me. But I bet someone will figure out a way to make that contradiction work  (for them!)... And I don't think they will get much of a following out of it.