Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[DeepShadow]

Speaking as non-resident and non-Mormon, applying my personal standards, I find the fruits mixed.

So do I. I said so several pages back.

 

[DeepShadow]

Alright then, that settled, the BoM says that Lamanites and Nephites were quite populous, enough to have tens of thousands of them die in battle, that they lived in many large cities, and inhabited the land from sea to sea and from sea to sea, and that they are the ancestors of today's American Indians, right?

Things to watch out for here:

1) the Lamanites at the end are not the same ones at the beginning. In the middle of the book, the -ites are discarded and all the ethnic groups combine. Later they redivide, but on ideological grounds, not geneological. Therefore, the tens of thousands who die at the end probably included lots of indigenous people who were adopted into the ideology. No population boom necessary. In another thread, I lay out a case first proposed over fifty years ago that the vast majority of the Mulekites (by far the most populous subgroup) were of Asiatic descent, which would render the DNA analysis moot.

2) the listed "ten thousands" at the end are military battalions, which creates another problem. Roman battalions were called "centuries" long after they had given up grouping them in batches of one hundred. It was actually typical for a century to consist of sixty soldiers, because that number was divisible by 2,3,4,5,6,12, and 15. A "legion," therefore, was rarely an even thousand, but usually ten "centuries" or six hundred men. The Romans weren't the only ones that this happened to, either. It's found in military records the world over. Taking that into account, the list at the end of the book can be seen as a roll of legions--"XXXXX and his ten legions, XXXXX and his ten legions"-- and we suddenly have to deal with a precipitous drop in bodies. How does losing 40% of those corpses change things?

3) On top of this, we have to consider that a unit in battle is considered "fallen" even if all the men have not expired. The unit is fallen if all the men are fallen, fled or surrendered. In Roman annals, a unit was often considered "fallen" if it had been "decimated," that is, a tenth of its men were dead. Casualties up to 50% were often recorded as the unit having been totally destroyed. If Moroni were surveying the dead and saw nothing but corpses and fallen banners, that would have been enough to say that all those units had "fallen." It's not fair to assume that he went around and verified every single death, even if we assume he knew everyone there personally, which he couldn't.

Add to this the frequent BoM custom of throwing all the dead from battles into the sea...and we've got some seriously shaky ground for saying there ought to be bodies today from that final battle. Let's recall Victor Von Hagen's lament for the rainforest swallowing up everything.

This is why it's so important to include paleolinguistics into the analysis of the Book of Mormon. We have the book today in its original translation by Joseph; any linguistic patterns we find there are evidence that are safe from the ravages of time. I'll bring some of these up in my next few posts.

 

[nutshell]

DS, you seem very knowledgeable. How do you explain the "principle ancestors" part of the introduction.

 

[DeepShadow]

First, put it in context. After a roll call of the various lineages--this is an introduction, after all, and should be very basic--it says that the Lamanites are the last ones left, and they "are the principal ancestors of the Native Americans."

So there are several ways to handle this. First, that one-page summary glosses over several crucial events that could help understand this better. First, the term "Lamanite" at the end is an ideological term, not a geneological one. It basically means "non-believer." Taken that way, this could include all the people in the Americas after the death of Moroni, whether they knew they were "Lamanites" or not.

But let's say the Lamanites referred to, while being an ideological label, is still a distinct ethnic group. Let's say that the Lamanites referred to are not just those who don't believe the teachings of Christ, but who know about them and actively reject them. That seems to fit better with the exterminations, after all. Even then, we have to wonder if the writer of the introduction should honestly be expected to say "and OF THE GROUPS LISTED, these are the principal ancestors..." I mean, is that really necessary, to include the qualifier that we are only talking about the groups listed? Apparently so, based on the number of people who bring this up in internet chats. Hopefully in the future this point will be clarified, which brings us to....

...the introduction page is not doctrinally binding, AFAIK. At the very least, it was not part of the original translation, as the title page was. It was written by a well-meaning person who was just trying to summarize a very convoluted geneologic/ideologic history in a single page. The intrusion of a non-doctrinal concept that was very prevalent among Mormons at the time of writing should not be considered binding upon the church.

The introductory page is like the footnotes or the chapter headings. It's a guide to scripture, but it's not scripture. Me, I yell at chapter headings all the time. My biggest beef is with the one in Alma that says "Nephite coinage is laid out" when the chapter doesn't say these were coins. Based on the archaeology, I think they were weights and measures, but not coins.

There's a lesson there, though. I betcha the guy who wrote that chapter heading really didn't think those could be anything but coins. It seemed so obvious, an alternative never even entered his head. What kinds of assumptions do we make at the outset of reading, failing to consider even the possibility of an alternative?

This is what makes archaeology of the Book of Mormon so confusing, and why I doubt that any solid (i.e. forensic) archaeological evidence will ever be found.

 

[SoyLeche]

There's a lesson there, though. I betcha the guy who wrote that chapter heading really didn't think those could be anything but coins. It seemed so obvious, an alternative never even entered his head. What kinds of assumptions do we make at the outset of reading, failing to consider even the possibility of an alternative?

This is what makes archaeology of the Book of Mormon so confusing, and why I doubt that any solid (i.e. forensic) archaeological evidence will ever be found.

Which is why I think reading a book like "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" is a pretty good idea - even if it turns out that Sorenson is dead wrong in his analysis. It at least gets you thinking closer to the correct context.

 

[DeepShadow]

Which is why I think reading a book like "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" is a pretty good idea - even if it turns out that Sorenson is dead wrong in his analysis. It at least gets you thinking closer to the correct context.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I love reading archaeological findings about the Book of Mormon. I find them fascinating at an intellectual level, though, not a faith level. It's a brain-stretch, if nothing else.

Here's a great one: the horses in the Book of Mormon. It's been brought up that they weren't actually horses, but some other animal for which the "horse" ideograph was appropriated. Is there any way to confirm that, though?

I didn't think so, until a critic brought to my attention how Joseph told stories to his family about his visions, even before he got the plates. Talking about Joseph's fanciful gift for spinning yarns, and his years of practice inventing details for his stories, the critic pointed out that Joseph described in detail the houses, manner of dress, customs, and the animals on which they rode...

Why would a person of Joseph's era ever have to describe a horse? If he was describing horses in detail, why wouldn't it say, "the horses on which they rode..."? Needless to say, the critic didn't realize the value of the information to me, but rather thought it was an argument in the other direction.

Very interesting....

 

[SoyLeche]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I love reading archaeological findings about the Book of Mormon. I find them fascinating at an intellectual level, though, not a faith level. It's a brain-stretch, if nothing else.

I wasn't even trying to get you wrong

I agree with pretty much everything you have said.

 

[DeepShadow]

The first of the promised paleolinguistics, pardon the c&p from another thread:


To examine the complexity of BoM chiasmus, it stands to reason we should look at the most complex sample we can find. Unfortunately, it's over forty pages long, so I'll have to stick to the high points.

In 1st Nephi chapter one, at the end of the last verse, Nephi says he will show the reader "that the tender mercies of the Lord are all over" his chosen people. This frames his intent in writing this book, and lines things up for his thesis, as stated in 1 Nephi 3:7: "I will go and do the things that the Lord hath commanded for I know that he giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them."

This thesis kicks off the quest for the Brass Plates of Laban, at the end of which we have a repetition of Nephi's thesis, this time voiced by his mother Saria at the end of verse 5:8: "...the Lord hath protected my sons, and delivered them out of the hands of Laban, and given them power whereby they could accomplish the thing which the Lord hath commanded them...."

These two statements form the endpoints of a chiasmus that stretches through the quest for the brass plates. I have discovered eight pairs in this chiasmus, which can be arranged thus:
a 3:7 Thesis 1--"...the things which the Lord hath commanded..."
-b 3:9 they take their tents and go traveling
--c 3:15 Bedoin oath "...as the Lord Liveth, and as we live..."
---d 3:19 Brass plates are valuable because they hold the language
----e 3:25 Laban takes away their property
-----f 3:28 Laman and Lemuel murmur
------g 3:29 An angel appears
-------h 3:31 "Laban...can command fifty..."
-------h' 4:1 "...Laban and his fifty..."
------g' 4:3 Nephi reminds them of the angel
-----f' 4:4 Laman and Lemuel continue to murmur
----e' 4:11 Nephi recalls Laban stole their property
---d' 4:15 Brass plates are valuable because they contain the Law
--c' 4:32 Bedoin oath "...as the Lord liveth, and as I live..."
-b' 4:38 they return to the tent of their father
a' 5:8 Thesis 2--"...the thing which the Lord hath commanded..."
Now we know that a and a' are major teaching points of any mnemonic chiasmus, and so it is here, but the real test is the center of the chiasmus, which is always the most important point. Here again this chiasmus passes the test: the center of the chiasmus is Nephi testifying that the Lord is "mightier than Laban and his fifty, or even than his tens of thousands".
Nephi's thesis returns in chapter 17, as the beginning of another chiasmus. Here are all the pairs I've found; please forgive me that I don't write out all the references this time:
A 17:3
-B 17:18
--C 17:19
---D 17:24
----E 17:30
-----F 17:33
------G 17:35 (beginning)
-------H 17:35 (end)
-------H' 17:38
------G' 17:40
-----F' 17:41
----E' 17:42
---D' 17:44
--C' 17:47
-B' 17:49
A' 17:50


As you might have already guessed, these two chiasm are mirror images of each other, thereby forming part of a larger chiasmus over the entire book. The end arrangement looks something like this:
a
-b
--c A
---d B
----e C,C'
-----fB'
----A'g
-------h
--------i
---------j
----------k
-----------l-D
------------m--E
-------------n---F
--------------o----G
---------------p-----H,H'
----------------q--G'
-----------------rF'
----------------E's
--------------D'---t
--------------------u
---------------------v--H
----------------------w----I
-----------------------x------J
------------------------y--------K
-------------------------z----------L
-------------------------z'---------L'
------------------------y'-------K'
-----------------------x'-----J'
----------------------w'---I'
---------------------v'-H'
--------------------u'
--------------D*---t'
----------------E*s'
-----------------r'F*
----------------q'--G*
---------------p'-----H*,H**
--------------o'----G**
-------------n'---F**
------------m'--E**
-----------l'-D**
----------k'
---------j'
--------i'
-------h'
------g'A*
-----f'-B*
----e'---C*,C**
---d'--B**
--c'-A**
-b'
a'

 

[Melissa G]

Ok, as advised, the Tanner Post has been withdrawn in the interest's of impartiality.

Melissa

 

[Bishka]

"

Chiasmus and the Book of Mormon
By Sandra Tanner​

I'm going to assume you don't know who Sandra Tanner is. Let me introduce you to this women. This women has devoted her life to 'proving the Mormons wrong', her husband did the same until he died recently. You call Hugh Nibley a biased source? Sandra Tanner is just as biased (if not more) as he is. I suggest you try finding another source that isn't as 'biased'. This isn't an attack on you, because I doubt you really knew who they were.

 

[Bathsheba]

You call Hugh Nibley a biased source? Sandra Tanner is just as biased (if not more) as he is.

Agreed, Mormons and non Mormons should not use Nibley or Tanner as a resource.

 

[Melissa G]

Ok, I didn't know that, I'll stratch the post out. If everybody is agreed, Tanner and Nibly can be excluded.

Melissa G

 

[Bathsheba]

Ok, I didn't know that, I'll stratch the post out. If everybody is agreed, Tanner and Nibly can be excluded.

Melissa G

It is tricky picking the right resource when challenging lds on their beliefs. For many, the challenge alone is suspect. I can't think of one debate I've had with non-believers and lds believers where there wasn't somebody questioning *why* the debate. It doesn't take much to invoke the response, "what a loser, you have no life, don't you have anything better to do other than hate us, attack us, smear us, distort us ... and on and on and on." I think the persecution complex is so firmly put in place by the words of jesus and the human response to those words that it is just a reflex to complain about the legitimacy of the discussion. When you are told from the pulpit Sunday after Sunday that you are a "peculiar people" (Deut 14:2) and that this is a GOOD thing, I believe it sets up a persecution complex and establish an US vs. THEM mentality. (Please deduct 50 merit points off my argument for a liberal dash of hyperbole, not every Sunday talk is about being an odd bunch and not every believer is hysterical. Apologies up front to the non-hysterical types, you know who you are. And finally, I get it how being "peculiar" isn't all bad, you have your standards, they are not the worlds standards and I see no reason why people shouldn't have their values. I'm patient, god isn't finished with you yet and one day the world will learn to live as one - pass the pepsi and praise to the man.)

 

[Katzpur]

Agreed, Mormons and non Mormons should not use Nibley or Tanner as a resource.

Agreed? Who agreed? I’m not sure how much you know about Hugh Nibley, Bathsheba, so please don’t be offended by this brief commentary:

From his biography on Wikipedia: Nibley began his studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, graduating summa cum laude, and earned a doctorate as a University Fellow at the Universary of California, Berkely…. He [has been] praised by Evangelical… his ability to draw upon historical sources to provide evidence for Latter-day Saint beliefs. Nibley’s research ranges from Egyptian, to Hebrew and early Christian histories, and he often took his notes in a mix of Gregg shorthand, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, and Egyptian. Nibley "insisted on reading the relevant primary and secondary sources in the original and could read Arabic, Coptic, Dutch, Egyptian, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Latin, Old Norse, Russian and other languages at sight."

Nibley's methodology draws inspiration from the work of the Myth and Ritual School centered at Cambridge University, most notably represented by J. G. Frazer in his famous work The Golden Bough. He also took inspiration from the work of University of Chicago professor Mircea Eliade, who likewise allegedly expressed approval of Nibley's ability.

In their 1998 paper entitled Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?, which was published in the Trinity Journal in the fall of 1998, non-LDS scholars, Carl Moss and Paul Owen made the following observation:

Nibley is a scholar of high caliber. Many of his more important essays first appeared in academic journals such as the Revue de Qumran, Vigilae Christianae, Church History, and the Jewish Quarterly Review.12 Nibley has also received praise from non-LDS scholars such as Jacob Neusner, James Charlesworth, Cyrus Gordon, Raphael Patai and Jacob Milgrom.13 The former dean of the Harvard Divinity School, George MacRae, once lamented while hearing him lecture, "It is obscene for a man to know that much!"14 Nibley has not worked in a cloister. It is amazing that few evangelical scholars are aware of his work. In light of the respect Nibley has earned in the non-LDS scholarly world it is more amazing that counter-cultists can so glibly dismiss his work.

When LDS posters are questioned about their beliefs, we are often requested to provide evidence for the Book of Mormon and LDS doctrines. Obviously, this request is justified. Would you be so kind as to tell me why you don't believe Hugh Nibley to be a legitimate resource for us to use?

 

[nutshell]

Agreed? Who agreed? I’m not sure how much you know about Hugh Nibley, Bathsheba, so please don’t be offended by this brief commentary:
From his biography on Wikipedia: Nibley began his studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, graduating summa cum laude, and earned a doctorate as a University Fellow at the Universary of California, Berkely…. He [has been] praised by Evangelical… his ability to draw upon historical sources to provide evidence for Latter-day Saint beliefs. Nibley’s research ranges from Egyptian, to Hebrew and early Christian histories, and he often took his notes in a mix of Gregg shorthand, Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, and Egyptian. Nibley "insisted on reading the relevant primary and secondary sources in the original and could read Arabic, Coptic, Dutch, Egyptian, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Latin, Old Norse, Russian and other languages at sight."
Nibley's methodology draws inspiration from the work of the Myth and Ritual School centered at Cambridge University, most notably represented by J. G. Frazer in his famous work The Golden Bough. He also took inspiration from the work of University of Chicago professor Mircea Eliade, who likewise allegedly expressed approval of Nibley's ability.
In their 1998 paper entitled Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?, which was published in the Trinity Journal in the fall of 1998, non-LDS scholars, Carl Moss and Paul Owen made the following observation:

Nibley is a scholar of high caliber. Many of his more important essays first appeared in academic journals such as the Revue de Qumran, Vigilae Christianae, Church History, and the Jewish Quarterly Review.12 Nibley has also received praise from non-LDS scholars such as Jacob Neusner, James Charlesworth, Cyrus Gordon, Raphael Patai and Jacob Milgrom.13 The former dean of the Harvard Divinity School, George MacRae, once lamented while hearing him lecture, "It is obscene for a man to know that much!"14 Nibley has not worked in a cloister. It is amazing that few evangelical scholars are aware of his work. In light of the respect Nibley has earned in the non-LDS scholarly world it is more amazing that counter-cultists can so glibly dismiss his work.

While I agree with you, we also cannot deny that Nibley viewed his work through LDS-tinted glasses - the church was a party of who he was.

 

[KingM]

This highlights the difference between science and apologetics. Science looks at the information and sees what answers can be drawn from it. Apologetics starts with the answer and looks for information to support that answer.

Hugh Nibley was an apologist for the church. He knew the church was true before he did the least bit of research. No surprise that his findings supported that world view.

It would be more convincing if you could point to a few Mesoamerican archeologists/anthropologists who joined the church as a result of their studies. Even a few of the above who are non-Mormons who also believe that people of that area have historic ties to the Middle East would be a start.

 

[nutshell]

It would be more convincing if you could point to a few Mesoamerican archeologists/anthropologists who joined the church as a result of their studies.

People don't join the church based on physical studies, but based on the spirit confirming Truth to them.

 

[Bathsheba]

Agreed? Who agreed? I’m not sure how much you know about Hugh Nibley, Bathsheba, so please don’t be offended by this brief commentary:

Hi Katzpur,

No offense taken (ps, I have a warm spot in my heart for you because I know how kids can break your heart)

I was winking at becky when she said "Sandra Tanner is just as biased (if not more) as [Nibley] is." It was more playful than anything when I said "agreed" in response to her dismissal of Nibley.

I know that Nibley was/is one of the most popular defenders of the faith. I suspect (wild guess) that most mormons that have Nibley on their book shelf haven't read Nibley (or they picked up that Christmas present and tried to wade through it without much success). In the end it might be enough for them to know that a really smart guy has an answer to the detractors. This doesn't take into account the learned lds capable of consuming Nibley, I have no idea how many of those folks exist, but I know they are out there.

Nibley obviously did lots of learning, but when it comes to making his case, I can't help be reminded of the The Woolly-Thinker's Guide to Rhetoric - Using Obscurity, see
The Woolly-Thinkers Guide to Rhetoric

Cheers,
-b

 

[Bathsheba]

People don't join the church based on physical studies, but based on the spirit confirming Truth to them.

True enough, from the LDS point of view, no quarrel. But tell me, if a scientist did join the church based on physical studies, would you not use that fact to support the Book of Mormon from a scientific point view? What KingM suggested is that the Book of Mormon would be more compelling from an intellectual standpoint if previously unbiased scientists found evidence that supported the books claims.

 

[nutshell]

True enough, from the LDS point of view, no quarrel. But tell me, if a scientist did join the church based on physical studies, would you not use that fact to support the Book of Mormon from a scientific point view? What KingM suggested is that the Book of Mormon would be more compelling from an intellectual standpoint if previously unbiased scientists found evidence that supported the books claims.

I certainly understand that and won't argue with it. In fact, I remember being a missionary and showing some LDS archaeology video about the BoM to an investigator who had expressed interest in such a thing.

Didn't work, BTW.