DiscussMormonism.com

One of the problems that any historian has in approaching the Book of Mormon is parallel to the Bible. It is a religious text and the religious beliefs about it at times transcend the production by human beings. Even when we know that humans were involved, the religious desire it make the text extra-human.

This tendency is seen in cryophil's assumption that it "seems to me to be accurate." That statement applies all kinds of modern assumptions to a text that was written with entirely different assumptions. Let's begin with the idea that Mormon abridged an existing record. He tells us that he is editing them for a purpose, so that shouldn't surprise us at all. Now what of the originals? Were they "accurate." That is always an issue with historical texts. We have both the Egyptian and Hittite descriptions of one of their massive battles. Both declared victory. It was probably a draw. Are they "accurate"? For the time, yes. However, no good historian looks at a source without questioning what is behind the source.

If you are going to attempt to analyze the Book of Mormon again history and science, then we have to actually use those tools to set up the problem correctly, and not simply tilt against the religious use of the text.(Brant Gardner Oct 2011)

He's providing an out for the Book of Mormon. Basically, he is saying that historically everything can be wrong with the Book of Mormon and it was still written in good faith.

The idea is that Mormon and Moroni wrote in good faith and were completely honest. They just looked at the records and abridged what they saw. Thus if what is happening in Mesoamerica doesn't correlate with what is happening in the Book of Mormon, don't blame Mormon and Moroni, they were just abridging/editing to the best of their ability. How does this provide an out?

1) If the underlying record was inaccurate, then the abridgement of this will also necessarily also be inaccurate.

2) Moroni and Mormon necessarily tried to interpret events in light of what they knew. Thus they will provide explanations and draw causal connections which while logical to them are historically completely wrong. It also allows for them to mistakenly insert anachronisms in good faith because they would not have known them to be anachronisms.

This means that the Book of Mormon can get all kinds of things wrong and still be valid as scripture. Does this work? In one sense it works because it's perfectly fine to allow humans to make mistakes and still say they are inspired. I think this model actually does work pretty well for explaining some historical anomalies in the Bible. I think it works less well for the Book of Mormon because it's clear that the Book of Mormon wasn't really translated in any conventional sense of the term. Thus Joseph Smith is providing a "loose translation" of a text with historical anomalies. One wonders why God could not have made those seer stones also give good history while providing a "translation." Of course the idea of a loose translation with the plates not present in the room begs the question of why bothering with etching the history on plates in the first place, but I'm willing to give Brant the benefit of the doubt on this one.

However, this only really accounts for the historical anomalies in Words of Mormon through Moroni. It doesn't account for the historical anomalies in 1 Nephi through Omni, because those are not an abridgement, but clearly a series of first person accounts which neither Mormon nor Moroni touched.

We have really strayed from the "most correct book" doctrine.

One further point, this is all part of a three stage process of separating the Book of Mormon from any historical context and making it impervious to any and all challenges from history and archaeology.

Stage #1 is to separate the Book of Ether from actual history. This record is clearly the most severe abridgement of a record furthest removed from the actual editors (Mormon and Moroni). Thus it's an easy sell to say that the Book of Ether gets all kinds of things wrong, but that it doesn't matter. This stage also provides the most "bang for the buck" because not only is it the easiest sell, the Book of Ether also contains the easiest targets for a critic of the Book of Mormon.

Stage #2 is to separate Words of Mormon through Moroni from any historical context by saying that Mormon and Moroni were unwitting victims of presentism and bad records used for their abridgement. This is the stage that Brant is currently operating in. Thus Words of Mormon through Moroni can get all kinds of things wrong, but still be edited in good faith by Moroni and Mormon.

Stage #3 is to declare the Book of Mormon as a whole an inspired 19th century mythology created through inspiration by Joseph Smith. This means that the entire book can get everything wrong from a historical and archaeological perspective, but still be inspired scripture.

Final point.

These apologetic techniques were pioneered in the study of the Bible, where in most cases they were not invented as apologia for the Bible, but as attempts to understand the Bible. In fact these techniques of textual criticism, source criticism, redactional criticism, etc. have caused a good many scholars to lose their faith in Judaism and Christianity.

For whatever reason, Book of Mormon apologists are gleefully repurposing them as Book of Mormon apologia. I really don't see why they are doing what they are doing. For one, it's not going to save all that many testimonies. Second, the techniques don't work all that well when applied to the Book of Mormon because of the claims that the Book of Mormon makes for itself, the claims that Joseph Smith makes for the Book of Mormon, the claims the modern LDS church has made for the Book of Mormon, and so on.

The bottom line is that one can logically not take a fundamentalist and inerrantist approach to the Bible and still be a Christian or a Jew. There are many reasons for this, the most obvious being that historically most Christians and Jews have not been fundamentalists, nor taken an inerrantist approach to the Bible. Having looked at this from several angles, I don't think this approach will work for the LDS church, nor its apologists.

Aristotle Smith wrote:He's providing an out for the Book of Mormon. Basically, he is saying that historically everything can be wrong with the Book of Mormon and it was still written in good faith.

That is exactly what is taking place. In my opinion, it’s a move that is trying to move the Book of Mormon away from more precise tools, and into a realm that is a bit more nebulous, such as Literary Criticism.

It’s not a bad idea, you don’t get today’s Mormonism from the Book of Mormon anyways, so you can be super liberal with the text and much of the important doctrine remains untouched.

MrStakhanovite wrote:

Aristotle Smith wrote:He's providing an out for the Book of Mormon. Basically, he is saying that historically everything can be wrong with the Book of Mormon and it was still written in good faith.

That is exactly what is taking place. In my opinion, it’s a move that is trying to move the Book of Mormon away from more precise tools, and into a realm that is a bit more nebulous, such as Literary Criticism.

It’s not a bad idea, you don’t get today’s Mormonism from the Book of Mormon anyways, so you can be super liberal with the text and much of the important doctrine remains untouched.

So, what is the important doctrine?

Does this mean that the church is going to pick up on this and run with it? Does anyone think they'll stop teaching that God cursed people with dark skin and that it really was wrong of the fictional Nephi to behead a passed out man?

I would love to see this happen!

just me wrote:So, what is the important doctrine?

Anything that commonly gets talked about, take anything you learn in the Temple for example. The pre-existence is found in the Book of Abraham, the notion of spirit prison isn’t in the Book of Mormon, and so on.

just me wrote:Does this mean that the church is going to pick up on this and run with it?

Oh no, the Chapel Mormons will continue to be fed the typical pablum, this is purely Internet Mormonism, with a twinge of Mopologetics.

This makes sense in response to certain problems that the Book of Mormon presents. For example, the inflated military numbers. The idea that as many people fought and died in Book of Mormon battles as claimed is ludicrous, and Brant and anyone with even a cursory understanding of history knows that very well. But if one views the Book of Mormon as religious propaganda rather than an historically accurate text, one can excuse those sort of errors. I don't have much of a problem with that approach, as long as it doesn't destroy the context of the Book of Mormon itself.

The problem of the Book of Mormon is much deeper than a numerical issue. It is the fact that the text describes a highly complex society, one with multiple layers, a class structure, and bureaucracy. The exaggerated propaganda text cannot resolve that issue, because the authors would have to be able to see into the future, to see and understand what socially complex socities are like, from the context of a far more primitive society, in order to create the background in the Book of Mormon. Human beings just don't do that.

So the problem in the Book of Mormon isn't numbers: the problem is lawyers. The problem is the upper class neglecting the poor. The problem is rich clothes and pride going before the fall. The problem is extended polities working together in warfare. The Book of Mormon, at the very least, describes a complex chiefdom - and that's making generous allowances. Without those generous allowances, it is describing a city-state.

That is a problem that must be avoided at all costs, because that would mean that the Book of Mormon polities were the most powerful and massive in that time period and region. And such powerful and massive polities would have dramatically affected the cultural and religious evolution of the entire region. So to suggest that such a powerful polity could have realistically disappeared without a trace is laughable. Even if the polity were hidden in a jungle, we'd still know it existed. There would be a Book of Mormon shaped hole in mesoamerica.

There isn't. So Brant and his cohorts must do everything in their power to minimize the size and complexity of the polities described in the Book of Mormon. But to focus on proganda exaggeration is very shallow and doesn't touch the real problem.

Qualifier: I only read the OP one time and did not have the time to parse and analyze it. I'm very tired and hoepfully I didn't misunderstand what brant was talking about. I don't think I did, because I've had so many conversations like this in the past with him, but it is possible.

Thanks for stopping by beastie.