Value of Textual Analysis?

[_Cicero]

Reading Bokovoy's preview of Don Bradley's upcoming work on the lost 116 pages prompted me to post a question for all of you on a topic that has bugged me for years.

How valuable have any of you found textual analysis of Mormon scripture to be in promoting (or destroying) faith? Apologists for the church love to find parallels between the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham and ancient Semitic or Egyptian texts and critics of the church like to find parallels between Mormon scripture and the America of Joseph Smith's childhood (or to sources Smith may have had access to). My reaction to most of these arguments over the years (at least in terms of whether or not these arguments promote or harm my faith) has been pretty much . . . "meh." I just can't get past more fundamental issues enough to find textual analysis particular compelling one way of the other. To list a few of my "fundamental" issues: lack of archaeological evidence (and please don't bring up NHM again), DNA, and the translation issues (to put it mildly) surrounding the Book of Abraham and Kinderhook plates.

I also have found it interesting that apologists over the years that have engaged in serious textual analysis of the Book of Mormon in particular have come to wildly different conclusions. I read Blake Ostler's expansion theory article in Dialogue a long time ago where he argued that Joseph Smith expanded upon an ancient text. Now apparently Royal Skousen (who has probably spent more time analyzing the original text of the Book of Mormon than anyone alive or dead) is now arguing that it was a very literal translation . . . that was somehow completed in the 1600s?? I fully admit that I haven't read Skousen's work and I would more than happy to correct my description of his theory if I am wrong.

I should admit that I tend to dislike and mistrust academic literary criticism. I enjoy reading great literature as much as the next person, but in my school days I always felt like having to read a great work of literature in order to prepare a paper for my English or Spanish lit class pretty much ruined the reading experience for me. I learned how to be good enough at it in order to get a good grade but I never really enjoyed it.

I'm not saying that textual analysis of the Mormon scripture has no value. The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are highly complex works and any critic of the church that suggests otherwise is delusional. I just don't think it does much to promote faith. To me, textual analysis of Mormon scripture is kind of like reading arguments over whether or not there were two or more people responsible for the works attributed to William Shakespear. In both cases, reading the analysis of the text is not nearly as enjoyable as reading the actual text itself . . . and in both cases the textual analysis is of a fictional work.

[_MCB]

Textual analysis of Mormon scripture is only effective as an invalidation of such scripture. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=24628 I am getting deep into the prototype for the Gadiantons.

The Book of Mormon is very critical of much of what much of Mormonism has become, and the D&C, JoD, and PoGP record that evolution. As for William Shakespeare, they borrowed even from him for the Book of Mormon.

[_Joe Geisner]

Reading Bokovoy's preview of Don Bradley's upcoming work on the lost 116 pages prompted me to post a question for all of you on a topic that has bugged me for years.

Cicero,

Where do I find David's comments?

One of the great experiences of my life and my favorite conference was Restoration Studies Conference in April 2011. I was overwhelmed at the serious discussion and analysis of Restoration scriptures by extremely bright people. I wrote about it here: http://mormonmatters.org/2008/04/17/a-c ... ther-zion/

As for me and my money I will follow Metcalfe's New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, Vogel and Metcalfe's American Apocrypha, and Marquardt's The Joseph Smith Revelations

These are serious works by serious scholars.

[_Uncle Dale]

Reading Bokovoy's preview of Don Bradley's upcoming work on the lost 116 pages prompted me to post a question for all of you on a topic that has bugged me for years.

How valuable have any of you found textual analysis of Mormon scripture to be in promoting (or destroying) faith?
...

I can only give you examples from the Reorganized LDS prespective.

Years back, a visiting seventy-scholar from Independence was lecturing
at an RLDS branch I attended. He mentioned the textual situation of
"1st Isaiah," "2nd, Isaiah," and "3rd Isaiah;" -- upon which an elderly
sister in the audience remarked: "That isn't what our Book of Mormon
says, Sir!"

The speaker paused for a moment -- then informed the audience that
"Lehi could not possibly have carried the full text of Isaiah to America."

A thoughtful silence fell upon the room. Then, finally, a young fellow
ventured: "That's OK by me. I don't think there was a Father Lehi."

The lecture then went on without any visible problems.

Again, in a class I attended at the Reorganized LDS College in Lamoni,
Iowa, the professor mentioned that the Book of Mormon text supplies
various "corrections" for the italicized words encountered in reading
passages copied over from the King James Bible into the Nephite Record.

The professor explained that these "corrections" must have been made
by an editor who did not understand Hebrew, and who had no real
knowledge of how language translation works. His conclusion was that
the changes to these words, made in the Book of Mormon text, were
carried out as a "theological venture" -- by a person not well schooled
in Jewish or Christian theology. -----> The implication was that the
biblical passages reproduced in the Book of Mormon were not the
product of ancient Nephites, reading from plates of brass; but were
instead the work of a 19th century writer, attempting to fabricate
authentic-sounding "scriptures;" while at the same time infusing that
text with religious innovations, not found in the original Bible passages.

There were no protests from the Reorganized LDS students in the
room -- some of whom were seasoned ministers from far away branches,
who depended upon such college instruction, in order to teach classes
of their own back home.

The elderly lady who protested "That isn't what our Book of Mormon
says, Sir!" represents a minority of the members, who are ready to
speak their fundamentalist/literalist minds on textual controversies.
They are a fading few in a generation that is slowly dying out.

How any of this relates to Utah Mormonism, I can't say.

UD

[_robuchan]

I think textual analysis is very important and very interesting. I believe in the future as more study is done and more discoveries are made, it will be the method that finally shows exactly how the Book of Mormon came about.

[_Drifting]

Textual orientation is a choice you know...

[_MCB]

Thanks, Dale. If it weren't for your support in this exploration, who knows what would have happened.

[_Cicero]

Reading Bokovoy's preview of Don Bradley's upcoming work on the lost 116 pages prompted me to post a question for all of you on a topic that has bugged me for years.

Cicero,

Where do I find David's comments?

One of the great experiences of my life and my favorite conference was Restoration Studies Conference in April 2011. I was overwhelmed at the serious discussion and analysis of Restoration scriptures by extremely bright people. I wrote about it here: http://mormonmatters.org/2008/04/17/a-c ... ther-zion/

As for me and my money I will follow Metcalfe's New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, Vogel and Metcalfe's American Apocrypha, and Marquardt's The Joseph Smith Revelations

These are serious works by serious scholars.

Joe: It was on the MD&D board. I can't figure out how to make their search feature work so I'm having a hard time finding it. I'll have more time this evening and will try again to find it.

[_Garbo]

Reading Bokovoy's preview of Don Bradley's upcoming work on the lost 116 pages prompted me to post a question for all of you on a topic that has bugged me for years.

Cicero,

Where do I find David's comments?

One of the great experiences of my life and my favorite conference was Restoration Studies Conference in April 2011. I was overwhelmed at the serious discussion and analysis of Restoration scriptures by extremely bright people. I wrote about it here: http://mormonmatters.org/2008/04/17/a-c ... ther-zion/

As for me and my money I will follow Metcalfe's New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, Vogel and Metcalfe's American Apocrypha, and Marquardt's The Joseph Smith Revelations

These are serious works by serious scholars.

Before I first came here back in late 2010, I really didn't know much at all about all the controversies that so many of you people know so much about.

Since then I have tried to catch up and educate myself about some of these things. I've read Grant Palmer's An Insider's View, Charles Larson's book about the Book of Abraham stuff (I forget the title right off hand. I borrowed it from a friend and then returned it, so I can't put my hands on it right at the moment), and I also read most of Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History (great title!). Right now I am reading another recommended (by one of my evil apostate friends) book called Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith. I'm about half way through it, and I like it the best of all the books I've read so far. I've also promised a TBM friend of mine that I will read Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling, which she has loaned to me.

So I know more now than I did two years ago, but still don't know anywhere near as much as most of you guys do.

What are New Approaches to the Book of Mormon and American Apocrypha and Joseph Smith's Revelations and who are Metcalf, Vogel, and Marquardt? Why would these be good books to read?

Thanks for your help.

Incidentally, I studied a little text criticism during my undergraduate years. I thought it was very interesting and I can certainly see how text criticism could be used to understand better the origins of the Book of Mormon, especially if it can be shown that the Book of Mormon draws upon contemporary sources.

[_Cicero]

Garbo: To grossly oversimplify, all 3 of the authors and books recommended by Joe are examples of what I was talking about in my OP (in the case of these 3, they are mainly trying to prove that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon by using various forms and textual analysis). New Approaches was a collection of essays edited by Metcalfe. The FARMS review of this book (at least the original version) is somewhat infamous in Mormon Studies circles because the author of the review (Bill Hamblin) purposefully wrote such that the first letter of each paragraph in the review would collectively spell "Metcalfe is Butthead." True story.

Anyway, as I mentioned in my OP I am simply not a huge fan of these approaches (either pro- or anti-). They just don't move the needle for me. If you like Mormon Enigma, I would recommend that you also read Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness next. Another personal favorite of mine that not many people seem to know of is Tom Alexander's biography of Wilford Woodruff. It was abundantly clear to me after reading that book that Woodruff had absolutely no intention of permanently ceasing polygamy or that polygamy was no longer "doctrinal." That's why OD 1 doesn't really read like a revelation.