Critics Confront Jeff Lindsay at "Mormanity"

[Symmachus]

lol I think that was the same podcast where he claimed to have read the entirety of Aquinas' Summa Theologica in Latin. That is over 3,000 double columned pages of scholastic learning written for an audience that no longer exists. So unless you are a scholar dedicated to thomism like Étienne Gilson or an actual Dominican Monk, odds are you are not reading the entire Summa in English, much less scholastic Latin.

That reminds me of the old Woody Allen joke about taking a speed-reading course, after which he read War & Peace in only 10 minutes: "It's about Russia," he summarized.

It's funny you mention Aquinas—I don't think I got that far into the interview—but I had seen that claim mentioned here, and it crossed my mind when I happened upon a gem a few months ago that led me to further treasures. The gem was Roy Deferrari's A Lexicon to the Works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, which was in immaculate condition, only $35. I knew hardly anything about Aquinas, but I'd heard of this lexicon, and it really is a monumental piece of scholarship. Some of the entries feel like works of philosophy in their own right. It sparked curiosity, and I thought of trying to read Aquinas more seriously. I had read a little scholastic Latin in an old primer of ecclesiastical Latin (called, plainly enough, "Second Latin"), but nothing else until this. I don't like to read things in translation or on a screen, but Latin copies of the Summa start around $400. So imagine what at miracle it felt to find the complete Summa (published by Biblioteca de autores cristianos) for $100. Truly, this was a sign of god's grace shining upon me. I'll give it a try, I thought. But the set is 5 volumes (including the last bit of the Summa compiled and tacked on after Saint Thomas's death), in very small type.

I have been working through it as I get the chance at it, but I have so far not found the Latin to be the hardest things about it. Saint Thomas's Latin is really quite lucid, I find. Maybe it's because I lack the raw intelligence of a polymathic ex-paleontologist theologian moonlighting as a tax attorney in the intermountain west, but reading the Summa is an experience of watching a surgeon meticulously dissect reality into its constituent parts right at the sinews before reassembling them in such a way that you can see how it all goes together. Learning from such a surgeon is not easy. I can't say that I'm joining the Blackfriars any time soon—not that they'd have me!—but I have started to understand the origin of his reputation. What I don't understand is how somebody could really give the full study due a text like that without devoting decades to it. The Latin isn't the problem, really, especially with an aid like Deferrari to help with some of the oddities of the scholastic idiom and to elucidate some of the peculiar terminology. No, the hard part is internalizing the system that he constructs, which is at the very least a reflection of the organizational precision of his own peerless memory. It seems to me that you have to imprint that on your own mind as go through each article, otherwise I can't imagine what the point is. I am sure that somebody could read it all in Latin over a summer or, let's say, over a couple of years. But unless that were the only thing you were doing, I don't think you'd get much out of it at all. You might as well speed read it: "it's about God," Mr. Ostler summarized.

Edit To Add: Also I think there was a story he told that during his undergrad years he and Stephen Gould came to the same conclusion about some aspect of paleontology, but Stephen beat him to the punch and got published first.

Yes, well who hasn't had that same experience? I feel like we've all been there.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I would be remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to compliment Blake on his gorgeous head of “natural” hair. Without a doubt, Blake has the most luxurious hair of all the Mopologists:

[Doctor Scratch]

The thing that gets me about him isn't his hairdo; it's that damned red shirt. He looks like Joey Buttafuoco's dirtbag Long Island lawyer friend circa 1988. He needs to pay a visit to Mr. Mac and tell them that he's tired of looking like an anachronism.

[Lem]

Speaking of being confronted by critics, I read this exchange tonight:

DanielPeterson Mod Chapstick • 4 days ago • edited

CS: "I think this really nails why a non-historic view of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham is gaining more traction and acceptance within the church."

I don't know that such a view is gaining more traction and acceptance in the Church.

CS: "Much of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham directly conflict with scientific consensus in many different disciplines."

Neither the physical nor the biological sciences have much of relevance to say. But if, by "scientific consensus," you intend history and archaeology, the conflict may actually be less now than at any prior time.

I am nonplussed by this. This is an exchange between educated adults, right? Have I been out too long? How is it possible to give an answer like that about "science" with a straight face? Or is this what the Mormon church has become? Because it is simply not believable that an educated person would actually say that and think it was actually true.

[Gadianton]

"Neither the physical nor the biological sciences have much of relevance to say. But if, by "scientific consensus," you intend history and archaeology, the conflict may actually be less now than at any prior time."

Wow, Lem, this is a strange statement. For starters, if you were to tell me the scientific consensus is the Sputnik V vaccine results are questionable, what kind of a moron would you think I am if I responded:

"Neither the physical nor the archaeological sciences have much relevance here, but if by "scientific consensus" you mean 'medical science'..."

And then he's put himself in a real fork with his conclusion about "the conflict may be less than at any prior time". Remember, this is the same person who unashamedly promoted the "greatest guesser" paper, although he promoted it in very nonspecific, and uncertain terms regarding accuracy.

Is he a thousand percent certain that science says the Book of Mormon is fifty-one percent probable, or fifty-one percent certain that science says the Book of Mormon is a thousand percent probable?

I suppose technically, his positions are compatible, it's true that if the Book of Mormon could only have occurred by chance with near infinity-to-one odds, that the conflict between science and the Book of Mormon is less now than at any prior time. But the only people who talk like this, meandering around the case so widely, are closet doubters, or disbelievers who misrepresent their actual beliefs. I'd like to see an example of any expert in any field who has argued the latest theory promoted is less in conflict with the evidence than at any other time, while at the same time promoting papers claiming that it's been proven with near absolute certainty.

[IHAQ]

Speaking of being confronted by critics, I read this exchange tonight:

DanielPeterson Mod Chapstick • 4 days ago • edited

CS: "I think this really nails why a non-historic view of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham is gaining more traction and acceptance within the church."

I don't know that such a view is gaining more traction and acceptance in the Church.

CS: "Much of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham directly conflict with scientific consensus in many different disciplines."

Neither the physical nor the biological sciences have much of relevance to say. But if, by "scientific consensus," you intend history and archaeology, the conflict may actually be less now than at any prior time.

I am nonplussed by this. This is an exchange between educated adults, right? Have I been out too long? How is it possible to give an answer like that about "science" with a straight face? Or is this what the Mormon church has become? Because it is simply not believable that an educated person would actually say that and think it was actually true.

I read it as Daniel Peterson MOD saying that the fields of history and archeology are closer to affirming the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham than ever before. I'd like to see the peer reviewed reports from those fields which have led to that conclusion.

[malkie]

Speaking of being confronted by critics, I read this exchange tonight:
I am nonplussed by this. This is an exchange between educated adults, right? Have I been out too long? How is it possible to give an answer like that about "science" with a straight face? Or is this what the Mormon church has become? Because it is simply not believable that an educated person would actually say that and think it was actually true.

I read it as Daniel Peterson MOD saying that the fields of history and archeology are closer to affirming the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham than ever before. I'd like to see the peer reviewed reports from those fields which have led to that conclusion.

I wonder if BYU courses on Book of Mormon Archeology and Book of Abraham History are available online. I'm sure you'd find the (faithful) answers to your questions there.

[dastardly stem]

Blake wrote:
The problem cowardly anonyomuse is that exactly the work explaining how, where and why anachronistic material appears in the Book of Mormon. You are just too lazy and pompous to deal with the actual evidence of genuinely ancient literary prophetic call forms, prophetic lawsuit forms, covenant renewal (Suzerain Treaty forms occurring at least 5 times in the text), ancient political ideas, genuinely ancient understanding of robber bands complete with Hebraic word-play on the notion of robbers and stones, resemblances between Israelite law, international treaties, and laws governing war and oath forms (Rasmussen 1982; R. Johnson 1982; Morise1982).2. Hebrew, Egyptian, and classical names which appear in the Book of Mormon but not in the Bible (Nibley 1973, 192-96; Nibley 1957, 242-54;Nibley 1948, 85-90; Carlton and Welch 1981; Tvedtnes 1977). Though many of these names could be biblical variants, others are difficult to explainas Joseph Smith's inventions. Paanchi, Pahoran, and Pacumeni, for example,are Egyptian names which are sometimes transliterated exactly as they stand in the Book of Mormon, while Korihor is a close variant of Herihor, predecessor to 'Amon-Pi'ankhy in about 734 B.C. (Baer 1973).3. Description of military, social, and political institutions of sixth-century Israel corroborated by the Lachish letter and other recently discovered sources (Nibley 1982b; Nibley 1952, 4-12, 20-26, 107-18; Nibley 1957, 47-111;R. Smith 1984).4. Accurate and consistent geographical detail (England 1982; Nibley1952,123-28).5. Ancient forms of government (Bushman 1976; Nibley 1973, 281-82;Nibley 1952, 20-26; Nibley 1957, 82-86).6. Evidence that the Book of Mormon assigned value to the cardinal directions with south representing the sacred and north the profane (Alma 22;46:17; Eth. 7:6). It also presents a social organization revolving around a ritual center from which government, territorial order, and communal sanctity flowed. The moral order of life and understanding of the covenant were also linked to territoriality (Olsen 1983). These symbolic aspects of territoriality are common in ancient societies.Some studies also conclude that the Book of Mormon's literary structure is uniform, not one that reveals expansions. For example, many of the book's messages are, like Hebrew scripture generally, imbedded in its structure rathert han in its discursive doctrines, as impressive as they may be. Some studies have demonstrated an ingenious structure characterized by literary typologies,or exposition of symbolic similarities between peoples, places and events (Tate,Rust, and Jorpensen, all 1981). Other unifying structures are the various forms of parallelism (synthetic,antithetic and synonomic) that are the basis of Hebrew poetry (Welch 1969and 1981). Steven Sondrup (1981) has demonstrated that the poetic paral1lelism of 2 Nephi 4 resembles poetic structure in the Psalms. Noel Reynolds(1982) has argued that chiasmus (inverted parallelism) is the organizing principle for the entire book of 1 Nephi.

You get to the end of his list, at least I did, and wonder what he thinks he's listing evidence for? "Since the Book of Mormon peoples are said to have left Jerusalem in 600 BC anything we can squint hard enough at hoping to make it fit something, I mean anything, is evidence the Book of Mormon is ancient."

Number 6 is cute. "The land towards the north was desolation as they saw it, so that means the south is sacred. And since Alma was written 5-600 years after they left Jerusalem that means they wanted desolation to be in the north. I makes perfect sense. And that is some hefty evidence."

I mean, giving him credit in a sense. After all these years he's still trying. Mentioning Blake Ostler and Jeff feels like we're setting the clock back 20 years. But they have staying power, even though it feels like both of them fell off the radar for a couple of decades.

[DrStakhanovite]

I am sure that somebody could read it all in Latin over a summer or, let's say, over a couple of years. But unless that were the only thing you were doing, I don't think you'd get much out of it at all. You might as well speed read it: "it's about God," Mr. Ostler summarized.

To me, that is the entire crux of the issue. Spending time in a text like that is taxing and slow going, you have to deliberately read and reread passages and even more importantly, also spend time thinking about what you have read. You have to try and enter Aquinas' world and do your best to think as he tries to do on the page. When a person has expended that kind of energy, it becomes apparent in interactions with them.

The only impression I've ever gotten from Blake is that he reads exactly like he comments on blogs and social media.

[simon southerton]

Speaking of being confronted by critics, I read this exchange tonight:

DanielPeterson Mod Chapstick • 4 days ago • edited


CS: "Much of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham directly conflict with scientific consensus in many different disciplines."

Neither the physical nor the biological sciences have much of relevance to say. But if, by "scientific consensus," you intend history and archaeology, the conflict may actually be less now than at any prior time.

I am nonplussed by this. This is an exchange between educated adults, right? Have I been out too long? How is it possible to give an answer like that about "science" with a straight face?

Peterson is playing the shrinking geography game. In his mind, the Book of Mormon cannot be proven false because its people lived in an undiscovered corner of the New World. That corner gets smaller and smaller all the time, thus fitting better and better with the science. Daniel Peterson once proudly claimed that he rejoiced in the DNA evidence because it proved his theories regarding the Book of Mormon true. The conflict between what the Book of Mormon actually claims (as opposed to the apologetic lies), and the scientific consensus, is alive and well.