DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=40201

Our friend Analytics is causing quite a stir over on the FAIR/MAD board. Doctor William Hamblin, Kevin Christensen, Brant Gardner --- the whole gang is in a froth over the schooling they are receiving from Analytics.

Among my favorite parts are where the "multiple promised land" theory is introduced. LOL! And everyone's favorite lesson on fallibility, that because the Book of Mormon is a load of exaggerated hogwash just like the Old Testament, it has to be true.

No kidding, Gad. Brave Analytics is like a lone Spartan holding off the surging Persians. They aren't just moving the goalposts, they are throwing them at him.

Like this retort from an especially doltish apologist:

Are you [Analytics] saying that no one lived in mesoamerica until after 400AD???????? Please cfr that there were no inhabitants in mesoamerica during the Book of Mormon time period. Are you completely ignorant of mesoamerican archeology? Let's see proof of your idiotic claim.

The next post like this and I will simply stop wasting my time with you.

Yeah, Analytics based his challenge on the idea that nobody lived in Mesoamerica until >400AD. Let's see him CFR that one, baby!

Although I continue to believe that Joseph Smith is the author of the Book of Mormon, I really don't see Analytics getting much traction on his argument. I think he is correct when he points out that these verses he is quoting contribute to past LDS perceptions about the scope of Book of Mormon civilization and landscape. It is obvious, however, that the apologists are correct when they point out that his leap to the conclusion of 19th century origins is simply him reading his preexisting assumptions into the text.

His use of Livy is fundamentally flawed. One cannot simplistically use a first century BC Latin history to judge what one should expect from a text that purportedly comes from quite a different cultural tradition and predates it by centuries. His argument is completely backwards in this respect. He should look for similarities between these other traditions and the Book of Mormon to determine the Book of Mormon's dependence on them. The easiest choice is of course the Bible, which like the Book of Mormon is divided into books by different authors and has an exodus portion at the beginning, the epiphany of Jesus more than half way through, and even has some epistles and images of extreme violence and destruction tucked in at the end.

Trevor wrote:Although I continue to believe that Joseph Smith is the author of the Book of Mormon, I really don't see Analytics getting much traction on his argument. I think he is correct when he points out that these verses he is quoting contribute to past LDS perceptions about the scope of Book of Mormon civilization and landscape. It is obvious, however, that the apologists are correct when they point out that his leap to the conclusion of 19th century origins is simply him reading his preexisting assumptions into the text.

His use of Livy is fundamentally flawed. One cannot simplistically use a first century BC Latin history to judge what one should expect from a text that purportedly comes from quite a different cultural tradition and predates it by centuries. His argument is completely backwards in this respect. He should look for similarities between these other traditions and the Book of Mormon to determine the Book of Mormon's dependence on them. The easiest choice is of course the Bible, which like the Book of Mormon is divided into books by different authors and has an exodus portion at the beginning, the epiphany of Jesus more than half way through, and even has some epistles and images of extreme violence and destruction tucked in at the end.

Just a couple of clarifications.

Regarding 19th Century origins, to me it’s incredibly obvious that it is of 19th century origins, and to the extent I've considered them, I find all of the various arguments to the contrary uncompelling. But if they can convince mainstream anthropology that it is of ancient origins, I’ll reconsider. Until then, the rational thing to do is follow mainstream scientific thinking.

Regarding Livy, Gardner had said something pretty bizarre: “You expect a literal reading of a text that no historical document supports.” I didn’t know what he meant by that, but I was pretty sure it was false. I brought up Livy as a counter-example to his claim that no historical document can “support a literal reading”.

If Gardner would have said something like the following, I wouldn’t have taken issue with it: “it’s possible that the story of the Jaradites is an ancient myth that was based on some real events relating to the Olmec. Several of the details of the Jaradite story are obviously mythical, but a few of the details are loosely coincide with what we know about the Olmec….”

Analytics wrote:Regarding 19th Century origins, to me it’s incredibly obvious that it is of 19th century origins, and to the extent I've considered them, I find all of the various arguments to the contrary uncompelling. But if they can convince mainstream anthropology that it is of ancient origins, I’ll reconsider. Until then, the rational thing to do is follow mainstream scientific thinking.

To me, 19th century origins are most likely. On the face of it, one must accept with faith Joseph Smith's story about the book as a first step toward accepting its antiquity. I don't see that anyone has an obligation to take it seriously otherwise. I am a little more extreme than you. I say show me the plates, translate them, and confirm that Joseph's translation was correct, or show me another ancient American text in ancient artifact form that explicitly confirms elements of the Book of Mormon. The latter case would be made by identifiable reference to some of the same people, places, events, etc. Mormon scholars know they do not have that, so they do what they can with what they do have. I see no problem with that. I just don't find it persuasive.

Analytics wrote:Regarding Livy, Gardner had said something pretty bizarre: “You expect a literal reading of a text that no historical document supports.” I didn’t know what he meant by that, but I was pretty sure it was false. I brought up Livy as a counter-example to his claim that no historical document can “support a literal reading”.

I speak from a position of some expertise when I say that ancient sources are extremely tricky. History was born as a rhetorical art (persuasion, not literalness and objectivity), which the Greeks invented in the 5th century BC. Just because Livy expresses reservation about a particular anecdote or source does not mean that he is extremely reliable when he does not express those reservations. I once heard the eminent Roman historian Richard Saller say that he does not believe that there is Roman history (in the modern sense) before the third century BCE. That means that we have a number of books of Livy that are essentially fairytales--from the founding of Rome to the beginning of the Republic and down to roughly the time of the invasion of Pyrrhus of Epirus.

Analytics wrote:If Gardner would have said something like the following, I wouldn’t have taken issue with it: “it’s possible that the story of the Jaradites is an ancient myth that was based on some real events relating to the Olmec. Several of the details of the Jaradite story are obviously mythical, but a few of the details are loosely coincide with what we know about the Olmec….”

I may be totally wrong here, but it seems to me that the new breed of Book of Mormon scholars treats the text as ancient but not as a 'literal history.' That actually cuts in their favor and it is a really smart move. The very notion that the Jaredites fled a mythical Tower of Babel would continue to pose problems for the credibility of the usual LDS presentation of the text (to name but a single example). What they are doing is identifying its genre as something other than history in the predominant Western sense, and interpreting it through other genres like epic and those that we find in the Bible.

The simple reading of the Book of Mormon becomes part of the conscious design of its author/redactor. The presence of others can be hypothesized when you start with the assumption that they had to be there, since ancient America was full of different peoples at the time. Mormon just edited them out to make his particular theological point. It is a brilliant move, but not at all cynical. They are doing this because they believe it. I have no problem with them doing this. I think it is pretty cool, and it will generate interesting discussion. At the same time, I don't believe it is right. Once one accepts the Book of Mormon on faith, it is possible to perform all kinds of interesting interpretive gestures while preserving and bolstering a sense of the text's antiquity. If that makes the book more rich for them, great. But there is no reason why anyone outside of Mormonism would be compelled to take it seriously on anything other than the same faith that makes one believe in Joseph Smith's claims.

Absent a Mormon testimony, I think the best explanation for the Book of Mormon is that Joseph Smith composed it in the 19th century. There is no evidence that would, at this point, lead me to believe anything else.

Interesting thread, Analytics. There are many comments I would like to make in the discussion, but obviously can't. It does seem to be particularly light for people arguing to support you; is it just the timing, or are there really that many fewer critics on the MADB these days?

Anyhoo, I think the strength of your argument is your referencing to the actual Book of Mormon verses for the description of the "promised land(s)". It only works to derail the thread if they can get you talking about something else. And I've never understood the willingness that some people have to totally disregard the "text" when they feel it is needed (*cough*BRANT*cough). It's great to argue for "limited perspective/ fallible historian/ biased editor/ uneducated translator", but there is a point where you just have to look at the Book of Mormon and say "If that's the case, then what's the point?"

If the Book of Mormon is just as hashed as the Bible and every other "historical" book in its reporting of events, then it isn't a reliable source of anything, and shouldn't be viewed with confidence by anybody.

Among my favorite parts are where the "multiple promised land" theory is introduced.

Poppycock! My simple answer was enough to shoot him down in flames.

But Trevor, don't you think it's just a little bit odd that the Nephies would have this arcane form of record keeping for which there is no modern day example that is so --- selective? A record keeping that tortures the intellect of modern man as he comes to grips with a mind so inaccessibly foreign that he can only throw hands in the air, defeated, when encountering talk about tens of thousands going into battle or entire civilizations being destroyed save two, but find perfect clarity on the parts that talk doctrine?

When it comes to covering the whole face of the land from sea to sea, OMG, what intractable idioms the author speaks in. There's an entire realm of cultural underpinnings we can't possibly understand at work, and wow, we'd be helpless to crack it all if it weren't for the scholarly training of the apologists. But then, amidst all that are say, the sacrament prayers, word for word uttered by Moroni as every priest reads it off the card 1500 years or so later. And this is a great blessing, you know, because of all the plain and precious truths stripped from the Bible by careless and vindictive scribes. Thank God for the Book of Mormon that keeps every word in english the same as the 16 year olds read them off on Sunday because the precision is so important that one missed word means a do-over. Fortunately, the language of the Nephites in these selective incidents translate perfectly into english and every phoneme picks out the right universal concept at work in order to rightly sanctify the water both for the Nephites and modern-day Mormon.

It's just fascinating, you know, that the plain english of the Book of Mormon in the places where reality can cast doubts on its viability is all nuanced, hermetically sealed, foreign, figurative, metaphorical, and meaning so impossible to pin down with certainty. But when it comes to the parts that essentially no one could prove one way or another -- the theology and statements of divinity -- then it's to the point of being word for word precise and perfectly understood. So much though that its simple trouths confound the understanding of the learned (of competing religions).

Gadianton wrote:But Trevor, don't you think it's just a little bit odd that the Nephies would have this arcane form of record keeping for which there is no modern day example that is so --- selective?

First of all, I do not believe that Nephites ever existed. I have no good reason to believe they ever did, and that is good enough for me. If someone else has decided to believe in them, who am I to convince them otherwise?

Sure, I can try to prove a negative, but it is clear that this is an untestable hypothesis. How does one go about disproving the existence of a lost civilization (or, even worse, lost subculture--think LGT), the only purported evidence of which exists in an English text produced in the 19th century? Any interpretation that Mormon scholars find persuasive, and that supports their starting assumption, will be good enough for them. The LDS prophet and apostles have decided that the book is either what it says it is--an ancient text--or it is a fraud, so the line has been drawn, and the apologists will hold the line.

But, of course, it is not so simple as that. They believe it is ancient. They see antiquity in it. Many of them are much smarter than I am. What can I say? Just because you are smart, does not mean you are right. Absent a belief in the supernatural and an acceptance of Joseph Smith's claims, there is no reason to begin testing Joseph Smith's claims, because to the outsider the answer is so obvious. If a known con artist tells me that a leprechaun has revealed to him the location of a pot of gold in the mountains of West Virginia, I simply don't need to ask whether the claim is true. So much depends on perspective, however. Mormons believe Joseph was called as a prophet, so they do not see what I see.

How many of us hold beliefs that have not been and cannot be verified? How many of you believe in aliens? How many of you think Graham Hancock has made some interesting historical discoveries? Sure, there are a few of us hardcore skeptics out there, and there may be an especially high percentage on this board, but smart, everyday folks not so different from you and me simply do believe in the bogus. It is a human weakness which none of us are completely free of. I am not convinced that humans, as social creatures, can be free of things like religion.

I’m going to come out of retirement for this thread.

Apologists for the historical Book of Mormon commit the very sin they are so fond of accusing of others: parallelomania. The only way that believers who have a familiarity with the real history of ancient Mesoamerica can make statements like this one of Gardners:

Really? I haven't had that problem at all. In fact, I find that it does a very good job of reflecting precisely the cultural changes and pressures that history tells me would have been in that area at that time.

is because they have predetermined, ahead of time, that the Book of Mormon must have taken place in ancient Mesoamerica, hence, they are ultra-sensitive to any possible parallel. They jump upon even the hint of a parallel and exaggerate its meaning. The parallels they leap upon to make a statement like Gardner’s are so universal and basic to be meaningless, because they are shared by most cultures. I’ve joked in the past that the parallels are basically along the lines of: the people in the Book of Mormon walked on two feet, and so did the ancient Mesoamericans!! Bingo!!!

Of course, they would object to this characterization, but really, stressing that ancient Mesoamerica was torn apart by war, and so was the Book of Mormon culture is pretty much the equivalent of my joke. Gardner has to be thinking of something as vague and generic as this, because no details fit. Ancient Mesoamerican warfare, particularly during the time of the Jaredites, was not based on one culture or group trying to annihilate the other. It was based in the attempt to obtain (preferably royal) captives that were taken alive and later sacrificed. Moreover, the ancient Olmecs were not destroyed but rather provided the “seed” for the later Maya culture. For those interested in why the Jaredites are incompatible with the Olemcs, see my website here:

http://mormonmesoamerica.com/holylord.h ... Candidates


Gardner gets away with making statements like the above because the vast majority of believers (and critics) really have almost no background knowledge about the history of ancient Mesoamerica in the first place. I view his statements the same way I view Clark’s statements: neither would make such dramatic statements in front of a room full of fellow scholars of ancient Mesoamerica. They would only make such statements in front of a bunch of eager believers who know next to nothing about ancient Mesoamerica but are willing and eager to accept the reassurances of apologists who have studied ancient Mesoamerica.

Having predetermined that the Book of Mormon is actual history of some location in ancient America, the only option is ancient Mesoamerica due to the fact that it was the only ancient culture that had even close to the prerequisite population density and social complexity to qualify. Having made that determination, then of course it’s going to be natural to “see” others in the text. I agree that if one reads the text without such a predetermination then one would not see any “others” in the text. They see “others” in the text because they know they must be there to fit in ancient Mesoamerica. But, as others have pointed out, given the unreliable and propagandist nature of any historical written text, it is not impossible to justify such a reading. It just requires some extraordinary leaps of logic. One such leap is that there were really two places in the Book of Mormon text in which Nephi would have met up with unmentioned “others” and these foreign “others” – who did not share Nephi’s language or religion – suddenly and enthusiastically made him their king. Remember, as well, that these “others” came from a culture in which kinghood was inextricably enmeshed within their religious beliefs as well as past leadership lineage. It would have been truly miraculous for these “others” to first, accept the Jews as part of their own tribe, and second, to declare one of these Jews their “king”. Of course scripture is full of miracles, but when the purpose of the text is to convert readers to Jesus, the authors tend to dwell on those same miracles. The authors of the Book of Mormon spend a lot of time dwelling on miraculous conversions for that reason, and yet the most miraculous conversions of all go unmentioned. I say that this would have happened in two places because Nephi and his group separated from the bad Laman and Lemuel, at which point Nephi mentions “all who go with me”, which apologists insist is hard evidence of the others. But then they travel until they get to the City of Nephi. In the Book of Mormon, it sounds like Nephi and his group found the City of Nephi, but actually, if the Book of Mormon is real history, and the City of Nephi is Kaminaljuyu, or any other ancient Mesaomerican city, they really happened upon an already firmly established community, so this is the second point at which the “others” not only accept the Nephites but adopt their religion and make Nephi their king. Kaminaljuyu, for example, was already socially complex enough that they had made an irrigation system long before the arrival of Nephi.

So I agree with Trevor that the apologists’ point that historical texts are unreliable in general, given to exaggeration and out-right lies due to the agendas of the human authors is actually justified. But even accepting that fact, knowing the ancient Mesoamerican’s obsession with kinghood and the sacred nature of leadership lineage, and how the king was actually the primary religious leader makes it so unlikely that these “others” would have made Nephi their king that it could be comparable to the likelihood that aliens actually helped ancient Egyptians build the pyramids.

Apologists accept the unreliability of written text, with which scholars in general would agree. However, they should then also accept that it is the dirt archaeology that helps us detect the propaganda and exaggerations contained in written text. In theory, they might say they accept that. But in practice, believers frequently declare that the lack of written text from ancient Mesoamerica means that critics cannot prove the Book of Mormon is incompatible with ancient Mesoamerica in the first place. The two positions are in conflict. But being blind to the conflicts and contradictions in their own arguments is part and parcel of Book of Mormon apologetics (see: loose versus tight translation).

by the way, Addict is the real expert in terms of the subject of the “others”. I wish he were around to comment.

I discuss the “others” in more detail in my website here:
http://mormonmesoamerica.com/politiesan ... g%20Others

Realistically speaking, no critic should expect any apologists to admit that the actual text of the Book of Mormon does not naturally lend itself to seeing “others”, and, in fact, often seems to preclude the existence of “others”, because to admit such a simple reality would be opening Pandora’s box. It is impossible for them to open this box because of all the terrors contained within.