Decapitating Laban to steal his clothes:a perfect crime?

[_Redefined]

Hi "just me", I liked what you added to the discussion. LOL! It makes me feel bad that no one acknowledged your comments so far, because I thought they were really great insights. I guess the moral of the story is that a person can break every single commandment if it is for perserving those commandments for their descendents WTF!. . . I guess that idea is what Joseph Smith wanted to set up for his own intentions.
Also excellent literary analysis of the symbolism. How very profound!

[_Enuma Elish]

Here's the thing, Ben: your argument is pretty terrible because it is taking a huge departure from traditional LDS interpretations of the Book of Mormon. Treating the Book of Mormon as a "literary" text is really a pretty recent phenomenon, and it's probably no surprise that the chief advocates of that reading are apologists.

I was not aware that the validity of an argument depended entirely upon how well it agrees with traditional views. That seems a rather silly way to approach the issue from my perspective.

Clearly the mere fact that most readers of the text have not picked up upon Ben's approach to the story (and even to the Book of Mormon as a whole) as a literary work does not mean that Ben's position is "pretty terrible."

If the Book of Mormon is what it claims, then the book stems from a unique ancient cultural/religious environment. From a literary perspective, Israelite scribes/authors were schooled in specific conventions that when recognized by contemporary readers, make the biblical text come alive with meaning.

In the process of producing a story, biblical authors did not write their accounts like occidental authors, filling in every detail pertaining to something so trivial as Odysseus' scar. Consider, for example, how unique something like the story of Eden proves in terms of world literature. What did Eve look like? Did she have blond hair? Did she have brown skin? Was she physically attractive? Despite the fact that women almost always appear in literature as the victim of the male eye (even in fairy tales), the author of Genesis 2-3 fails to provide readers with even these basic details.

One of the primary issues that did concern ancient Israelite storytellers was allusion to religiously authoratative texts. Considerable scholarly work has been done on this issue in recent years, including Benjamin Sommer's A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66, and Michael Fishbane's Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel.

As a result, Ben's approach to this Book of Mormon story is certainly not "terrible." It's actually quite profound. It's true that the account doesn't tell us that Nephi removed the armor before beheading Laban, but given the way biblical literary conventions work, readers shouldn't expect those details anymore than they should expect the specifics concerning Eve's physical appearance. More importantly, as Ben points out, the author is clearly drawing an allusion to David's slaying of Goliath which fails to discuss the victim's bloody carcass.

For those interested in understanding the way biblical narrative works as literature (and by extension, what appears in the Book of Mormon), I would highly recommend starting the exploration by reading chapter 1 of Erich Auerbach's classic study, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature:

"What he [the biblical author] produced, then, was not primarily oriented toward 'realism' (if he succeeded in being realistic, it was merely a means, not an end); it was oriented toward truth. Woe to the man who did not believe it! One can perfectly well entertain historical doubts on the subject of the Trojan War or of Odysseus’ wanderings, and still, when reading Homer, feel precisely the effects he sought to produce; but without believing in Abraham’s sacrifice, it is impossible to put the narrative of it to the use for which it was written. Indeed, we must go even further. The Bible’s claim to truth is not only far more urgent than Homer’s, it is tyrannical—it excludes all other claims. The world of the Scripture stories is not satisfied with claiming to be a historically true reality—it insists that it is the only real world, is destined for autocracy. All other scenes, issues, and ordinances have no right to appear independently of it, and it is promised that all of them, the history of all mankind, will be given their due place within its frame, will be subordinated to it. The Scripture stories do not, like Homer’s, court our favor, they do not flatter us that they may please us and enchant us—they seek to subject us, and if we refuse to be subjected we are rebels."

[_zeezrom]

Did someone mention that maybe Laban's sword was actually the original "flaming sword" of "an angel with a flaming sword said he'd kill me if I didn't bone you!" fame, and it cauterized the entire neck of Laban as it cut off his head?

If you put the sword in a hot bed of coals until the metal was red hot, do you think it would cauterize the wound?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Here's the thing, Ben: your argument is pretty terrible because it is taking a huge departure from traditional LDS interpretations of the Book of Mormon. Treating the Book of Mormon as a "literary" text is really a pretty recent phenomenon, and it's probably no surprise that the chief advocates of that reading are apologists.

I was not aware that the validity of an argument depended entirely upon how well it agrees with traditional views. That seems a rather silly way to approach the issue from my perspective.

Well, Dave, here's the thing: by "traditional views" I'm referring to treating the Book of Mormon as if it is real history. As Dr. Shades mentioned above, there seems to be a very non-traditional approach among some apologists whereby the Book of Mormon is being treated like a work of imaginative literature. My .02 is that Ben's article falls into this latter category. Yes: you guys can say that he's engaging in compare-and-contrast with the Bible, but to what end? Merely to show that the Book of Mormon has textual features akin to the Bible's? And if that's the case, will we next get to see how the Book of Mormon has textual features that are akin to View of the Hebrews, The Lord of the Rings, A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and the Kama Sutra?

Obviously, we will never, ever see those kinds of arguments in the FARMS Review, because the fundamental purpose of that journal is to argue (both explicitly and implicitly) that the Book of Mormon and Mormonism writ large are true.

My principal beef with Ben's article is that he is trying to argue in favor of the Book of Mormon's authenticity in this tricky and roundabout way, and that his complaints about its implausibility are both hypocritical and invalid.

If the Book of Mormon is what it claims, then the book stems from a unique ancient cultural/religious environment. From a literary perspective, Israelite scribes/authors were schooled in specific conventions that when recognized by contemporary readers, make the biblical text come alive with meaning.

It's interesting that you put it that way, Dave---interesting that you began your statement by saying, "If the Book of Mormon is what it claims...." But let me come back to this in a moment.

In the process of producing a story, biblical authors did not write their accounts like occidental authors, filling in every detail pertaining to something so trivial as Odysseus' scar. Consider, for example, how unique something like the story of Eden proves in terms of world literature. What did Eve look like? Did she have blond hair? Did she have brown skin? Was she physically attractive? Despite the fact that women almost always appear in literature as the victim of the male eye (even in fairy tales), the author of Genesis 2-3 fails to provide readers with even these basic details.

So what? Contemporary authors like Raymond Carver and Lydia Davis tend to skimp on the details, too. Will we see a comparison of the Book of Mormon with them?

One of the primary issues that did concern ancient Israelite storytellers was allusion to religiously authoratative texts. Considerable scholarly work has been done on this issue in recent years, including Benjamin Sommer's A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66, and Michael Fishbane's Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel.

As a result, Ben's approach to this Book of Mormon story is certainly not "terrible." It's actually quite profound. It's true that the account doesn't tell us that Nephi removed the armor before beheading Laban, but given the way biblical literary conventions work, readers shouldn't expect those details anymore than they should expect the specifics concerning Eve's physical appearance. More importantly, as Ben points out, the author is clearly drawing an allusion to David's slaying of Goliath which fails to discuss the victim's bloody carcass.

Okay, you're really stretching things here, and this cuts to the heart of my objection with Ben's argument (esp. his argument here in this thread). You guys are essentially saying, "You can't expect the little details concerning how this happened." That's fine. I don't think that The Dude and others on this thread are complaining about details like that. There is a difference, I think you'll agree, between details and plausibility, and it's the latter that critics are objecting to. Because, really, what "details" do you imagine would render the story believable? The same holds true for the tales of miracles in the Bible. Do you really think that microscopic observations about Noah's beard, or the aroma of the wind, or the feel of the air would render the Flood Story any more plausible?

For those interested in understanding the way biblical narrative works as literature (and by extension, what appears in the Book of Mormon), I would highly recommend starting the exploration by reading chapter 1 of Erich Auerbach's classic study, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature:

"What he [the biblical author] produced, then, was not primarily oriented toward 'realism' (if he succeeded in being realistic, it was merely a means, not an end); it was oriented toward truth. Woe to the man who did not believe it! One can perfectly well entertain historical doubts on the subject of the Trojan War or of Odysseus’ wanderings, and still, when reading Homer, feel precisely the effects he sought to produce; but without believing in Abraham’s sacrifice, it is impossible to put the narrative of it to the use for which it was written. Indeed, we must go even further. The Bible’s claim to truth is not only far more urgent than Homer’s, it is tyrannical—it excludes all other claims. The world of the Scripture stories is not satisfied with claiming to be a historically true reality—it insists that it is the only real world, is destined for autocracy. All other scenes, issues, and ordinances have no right to appear independently of it, and it is promised that all of them, the history of all mankind, will be given their due place within its frame, will be subordinated to it. The Scripture stories do not, like Homer’s, court our favor, they do not flatter us that they may please us and enchant us—they seek to subject us, and if we refuse to be subjected we are rebels."

Lol. That's actually a great quote, but it doesn't solve the problem that is posed to defenders of the Book of Mormon. After all, Auerbach is arguing that the hegemonic "truth" of scripture trumps everything: including the facts and laws of nature. I find his argument a lot more straightforward and honest than Ben's. I mean, can you imagine an essay in the FARMS Review in which the author argues that the truth of the Book of Mormon is "tyrannical," and that the findings of science are irrelevant?

In the end, EAllusion has it exactly right. You guys would be better off labeling the Laban story a "miracle." Trying to claim that it is plausible as material fact on the basis of a few undisclosed details or plot developments is silly.

[_Analytics]

It's not completely separate though - because I am talking about the rhetorical strategies of the text of the Book of Mormon - of this particular narrative in the Book of Mormon.

The principal "rhetorical strategy" of the Book of Mormon has *always* been, ever since the translation first emerged via Joseph Smith, to convince people of its authenticity as an ancient text. Everything else, including the smaller, ancillary, "literary" things you're referring to, are subsidiary to that main goal.

I'm going to disagree with you hear, Dr. Scratch. The principal rhetorical strategy used to be that the Book of Mormon was a "true" book, meaning that it told the truth about real events. Now, the rhetorical strategy is morphing into what you claim--that it is an authentic ancient text, meaning that it is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript.

There is a huge difference between being accurate history and merely being an ancient text.

To illustrate the point, give me your take on a mind experiment. Say it was somehow proven in an incontestable way that the Book of Mormon was an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript. But to put a twist on it, let’s say that it was also proven that Moroni made the whole thing up; it is incontestably proven that the Book of Mormon isn’t fiction written by Joseph Smith, but rather fiction written by a crazy 5th Century Mayan that went by the pen name Moroni.

If that were proven then FARMS would be forced to back peddle on a several things, but on the whole do you think they’d embrace the newly understood story that the Book of Mormon is the accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript that contained nothing more than fables?

[_Doctor Scratch]

The principal "rhetorical strategy" of the Book of Mormon has *always* been, ever since the translation first emerged via Joseph Smith, to convince people of its authenticity as an ancient text. Everything else, including the smaller, ancillary, "literary" things you're referring to, are subsidiary to that main goal.

I'm going to disagree with you hear, Dr. Scratch. The principal rhetorical strategy used to be that the Book of Mormon was a "true" book, meaning that it told the truth about real events. Now, the rhetorical strategy is morphing into what you claim--that it is an authentic ancient text, meaning that it is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript.

There is a huge difference between being accurate history and merely being an ancient text.

I think that we more or less agree, actually, Analytics. However, I believe that the "morphing" is merely a new means of dealing with the same old problem---i.e., the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

To illustrate the point, give me your take on a mind experiment. Say it was somehow proven in an incontestable way that the Book of Mormon was an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript. But to put a twist on it, let’s say that it was also proven that Moroni made the whole thing up; it is incontestably proven that the Book of Mormon isn’t fiction written by Joseph Smith, but rather fiction written by a crazy 5th Century Mayan that went by the pen name Moroni.

If that were proven then FARMS would be forced to back peddle on a several things, but on the whole do you think they’d embrace the newly understood story that the Book of Mormon is the accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript that contained nothing more than fables?

Okay, first of all---Lol. That's freaking hilarious. I'd love to see this tested out at FARMS!

In all seriousness, though, my answer is, "No. No way in hell." I don't think there is any way that FARMS would even "accept" that the Book of Mormon is somehow actually "fiction." (Despite what Ben and others have been publishing.) It seems as if your thought experiment could be broken down into different scenarios:

1. The Book of Mormon is a legitimate translation of an ancient historical document. The things described in the Book of Mormon really happened. (This is the traditional, orthodox take on the Book of Mormon, and it's what I believe the Mopologists are trying to defend, however obliquely.)

2. The Book of Mormon is a legitimate ancient document that was written by people living hundreds of years ago, *BUT* the whole thing is fiction (or it might be fiction). This seems to be what you're proposing above, but I still don't think this is what apologists like Ben are aiming for.

3. The Book of Mormon is a legitimate ancient document; whether or not is "fiction" or "fable" is irrelevant. The point is simply that its text contains features that are similar to the textual features found in the Bible and other scriptural documents. The question of whether or not the Book of Mormon is real history can be shelved for the moment, since the question of the Book of Mormon as an ancient text is interesting in its own right. *This,* I believe, is what Bokovoy and Ben are going for. They probably think that, if they can make a convincing case that the Book of Mormon has textual features that are reminiscent of the Bible (Cf. chiasmus), they can persuade people that it really is an ancient document.... Which will help those who have been doubting the book's authenticity.

So, ultimately I think that the so-called "Gadianton Turn" is basically a case of, "Ask the question he should have asked." The apologists here are through with trying to deal with the Book of Mormon's status as legit history. They are tired of trying to provide explanations for its plot holes (such as the Laban decapitation). Instead, they seem to be concentrating their energies on the book's "literary" features, though as I have pointed out from the outset, doing this is going to open them up to criticism on the grounds that they are treating the Book of Mormon just like any other work of fiction or epic poetry. If they're genuinely comfortable with that, then I say, "Fine." But I'm willing to be that they're not.

[_just me]

Hi "just me", I liked what you added to the discussion. LOL! It makes me feel bad that no one acknowledged your comments so far, because I thought they were really great insights. I guess the moral of the story is that a person can break every single commandment if it is for perserving those commandments for their descendents WTF!. . . I guess that idea is what Joseph Smith wanted to set up for his own intentions.
Also excellent literary analysis of the symbolism. How very profound!

Aw, thanks Redefined. :) It is so twisted it is practically comical.
I can't believe it took so long for my eyes to be opened!

[_Gadianton]

So much substance to dig into on this issue! And boy, do I find it fascinating given I received a masters degree for my research in this very scholarly area of study.

I've found quite a bit of agreement with David B., The Dude, Doctor Scratch, EAllusion, and Analytics. I agree with David that what is left out can be a calculated matter in harmony with Hebraic tradition. I believe that a "greenhorn" decapitator would likely have to swing a sword several time to get a full severe from the spinal column of such a large individual and blood would be spurting all over the place. This would not be mentioned -- and Brant Gardner has also argued this point as Analytics says; in relation to exaggerating numbers, for instance, in the Book of Mormon the authors lie about how powerful they are yet this is part of an ancient practice of lying which authenticates antiquity -- because it would not glorify the moral right of the righteous savage to subdue the entire earth with ease and agility, practice and effort are penalized (innocence conquers pride and experience).

I do disagree with David about Ben, however. David is looking for causal literary connections to antiquity but we need to bear in mind that Ben is of the postmodern schools of literary theory. David's form of literary analysis is really just a speculative and less reliable form of scientific scrutiny, it's like a literary "stratographic dating". But this has nothing to do with what Ben is ultimately arguing and David is bringing his presuppositions to Ben's argument in a naïve way. A purely literary critique has no ultimate regard for context, has David read Jacques Derrida's The Pit and the Pyramid? Everything that Ben eats and drinks from his Postmodern English studies is heavily connected to Derrida, as filtered from a philosophical approach to a literary approach. The Book of Mormon, like the pyramid, stands without context to the weary traveler who happens upon it. There is no author's voice that imbues the symbols with intent and meaning, and this makes the parallels to the Bible a matter of the readers own interests and it's sort of a weird synthesis between an abstract possibility within a nebulously defined text and the reader's imagination. This doesn't invalidate the approach, I for one think it's quite interesting. However, it doesn't buy the Book of Mormon any credibility in the way David might imagine as one could equally apply Ben's tools to reading the Book of Mormon through Moby Dick.

I think that Doctor Scratch has drawn out this point in his scholarly, substantial contributions here, though he has taken a different route than I have.

[_moksha]

Did someone mention that maybe Laban's sword was actually the original "flaming sword" of "an angel with a flaming sword said he'd kill me if I didn't bone you!" fame, and it cauterized the entire neck of Laban as it cut off his head?

Are you sure the flaming sword was not just a metaphor for something far more earthy? Laban's sword seems more like an element of the story.

[_Calculus Crusader]

If you or Quentin Tarantino had written the Book of Mormon...

LOL! I would love to see the Laban story rendered in Kill Bill fashion, especially if it featured Nephi snatching out Laban's eyes before he lops his head off!