DiscussMormonism.com

I listened to a Sunstone presentation by Michael Walton today on Joseph Smith and natural theology. The presentation pointed out a couple very interesting verses in the Book of Mormon. Walton's commentary was minimal, and I think actually understates the significance of these verses. Here they are with my comments:

Alma 30:44 reads, “But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.”

If you’ve read any nineteenth century natural theology, you’ll realize that the above is fairly typical of arguments from design in that period. Nineteenth-century apologists were very impressed by the orderliness of the Newtonian cosmos, which seemed to be held in regular equilibrium by invisible, supernatural forces.

Helaman 12:15 says, “And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.”

A common criticism of the Bible in the post-Copernican era was that Joshua 10:12-3 had said the sun stood still. Copernicus revealed to the world that the sun was stationary all the time, and that in fact the apparent motion of the sun was due to the rotation of the earth. Bible-believers usually rejoined that Joshua was writing from an earthly perspective, and that “the sun stood still” was not to be taken as a scientific statement. Here Joseph Smith has his ancient writers pre-empt the modern critics by offering this apologetic a few thousand years in advance of the controversy.

Just in case anyone is wondering why it says "the earth goeth back," think about the moon orbiting the earth. We never see the so-called "dark side" of the moon because as it revolves around the earth, it rotates backwards at just the right rate for the same side always to be facing us. (This is called synchronous orbit.) This is basically the solution Joseph Smith is proposing to the sun-standing-still problem. Of course, what Joseph Smith didn't realize is that the earth already rotates backwards. It just rotates backwards at a very fast rate. In order to obtain the effect he wants, all he'd need is to slow down its backwards rotation. A lot. I suppose I don't have to point out that such a dramatic change in the earth's rotation would probably kill everything. (Shhh! Don't tell the Mormons!)

-Chris

CaliforniaKid wrote:I listened to a Sunstone presentation by Michael Walton today on Joseph Smith and natural theology. The presentation pointed out a couple very interesting verses in the Book of Mormon. Walton's commentary was minimal, and I think actually understates the significance of these verses. Here they are with my comments:

Alma 30:44 reads, “But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.”

If you’ve read any nineteenth century natural theology, you’ll realize that the above is fairly typical of arguments from design in that period. Nineteenth-century apologists were very impressed by the orderliness of the Newtonian cosmos, which seemed to be held in regular equilibrium by invisible, supernatural forces.

I've presented this argument in apologetic formats a few times. As I see it, there are two distinct problems for LDS with this passage. The first is that it is transparently a design argument that is pretty bad. The second is that it is a design argument distinctly popular in J. Smith's era. It's as if the Book of Mormon was "translated" in 2008 and just happened to contain the modern expression of the fine-tuning design argument in KJV language. This is more readily explainable in terms of 19th century authorship than ancient authorship.

Happily, sharing these arguments has given me some experience with likely responses.

To the first argument, I've seen two kinds of reply. The first is to simply defend the design argument. After all, the vast majority of LDS buy into design arguments, so the fact that this argument is awful probably isn't going seen as a fact by a good many of LDS. The second is to argue that a bad design argument is precisely the sort of reply you'd expect from a member of an ancient pre-scientific people, and to use the appearance of invalid arguments in this section of the text as a case against the veracity of the Book of Mormon is improper, "fundamentalist" reasoning.

To the second argument, I've only seen one reply, but then again, I haven't gotten much in the way of response. The reply is that you are reading into that passage your prior assumptions about the authorship of the Book of Mormon. In reality, this is just a generic cosmic design argument common across cultures and times. Your interpretation of it in terms of 17th, 18th, 19th century natural theology is determined by your bias. While I have not seen this reply, a Brant Gardner or Blake Ostler might argue that the variation of the cosmic design argument found in the Book of Mormon is an artifact of J. Smith's influence on the translation. J. Smith, not you or I, read into a generic cosmic argument one popular in his time, hence it taking the form of a natural theology argument from his era.

EAllusion wrote:The second is to argue that a bad design argument is precisely the sort of reply you'd expect from a member of an ancient pre-scientific people, and to use the appearance of invalid arguments in this section of the text as a case against the veracity of the Book of Mormon is improper, "fundamentalist" reasoning.

I think you are Dan Peterson in disguise!

I'm 100% positive he's not. :)

(Shhh! Don't tell the Mormons!)

- 8th-9th century BC Vedic Sanskrit texts have the sun at the center.

- 5th century Philolaus postulated that the earth was not the center of the universe.

- 4th century BC Heraclides of Pontus described the motions of the Celestial sphere via the rotation of the earth.

- 3rd century BC Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric model.

- 2nd century BC Seleucus of Seleucia adopted the heliocentric model.

etc.

So how is it unreasonable that ancient Mesoamericans might have known the same?

Shhh! Don't break Chris' heart by telling him he still lives in the geocentric epicyclical Dark Ages.

bcspace wrote:- 8th-9th century BC Vedic Sanskrit texts have the sun at the center.

- 5th century Philolaus postulated that the earth was not the center of the universe.

- 4th century BC Heraclides of Pontus described the motions of the Celestial sphere via the rotation of the earth.

- 3rd century BC Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric model.

- 2nd century BC Seleucus of Seleucia adopted the heliocentric model.

Wow! Who knew that so many ancient Hebrews were heliocentrists? :-P

wasn't there three days of darkness in exodus for the Egyptians - except for the hebrews as they had light.

- 8th-9th century BC Vedic Sanskrit texts have the sun at the center.

- 5th century Philolaus postulated that the earth was not the center of the universe.

- 4th century BC Heraclides of Pontus described the motions of the Celestial sphere via the rotation of the earth.

- 3rd century BC Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric model.

- 2nd century BC Seleucus of Seleucia adopted the heliocentric model.

etc.

So how is it unreasonable that ancient Mesoamericans might have known the same?

Shhh! Don't break Chris' heart by telling him he still lives in the geocentric epicyclical Dark Ages.

Wow! Who knew that so many ancient Hebrews were heliocentrists?

Who says they have to be?