- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have been re-reading Nibley’s “Lehi in the Desert”, and, rather than post a review of it in the Book section, I want to use it to illustrate a general issue I have with how many things are discussed and debated in many places. I will use the Book of Mormon as the central example, but the core principle flows across all possible discussion topics, imo. The VAST majority of discussion time and effort on the internet that I read concernin the Book of Mormon is focused on things that, essentially, are unknowable right now. Where did the account take place in the promised land? (Where is it placed geographically?) Were there other narrative influencers or authors in the creation of the book? (From whose mind did the account spring?) etc.
Nibley makes a point in the book that is fascinating – and it gets almost no attention when the BofM is discussed. He says, in essence:
Quote:Those who argue endlessly about the last 490 pages of the book usually overlook entirely the first 40 pages – [or focus only on the controversial aspects of the first 40 pages, like the killing of Laban by Nephi].
He makes a VERY compelling argument that the first 40 pages (essentially 1 Nephi) CAN be analyzed – and that analysis can be done very thoroughly. He also makes the claim that those 40 pages are packed with solid evidence that Joseph could not have come up with it on his own – and neither could anyone else who lived at the time it was written.
The focus of this post is NOT about that claim necessarily, although I am fine with a discussion of it, but rather it is meant to highlight our tendency to focus on the “cutting edge” – the “speculative” – the “exciting” – the “controversial” – the “interesting” – the “unknowable” over the “simple” – the “mundane” – the “common – the “knowable”. SO many conversations I read around the Bloggernacle could be resolved, imo, if people simply were willing to acknowledge the unknowable, remember and discuss the more easily researchable, and not stake their ego or standing or any other element of their selves on being right – especially in areas where certainty simply is not possible right now.
Iow, there are things I believe we CAN analyze, understand, believe and even know – and it is critical to find those things individually and ground our attempts to learn more of the others things of which we are uncertain with the things of which we are certain, even though our uncertainties outnumber our certainties.
The problem is that frequently the issue is confused to make what one may reasonably assume is knowable into something that cannot be knowable. The apolgists frequently confuse the issue when the facts appear to be against their preconceived notions, therefore it must not exist within the realm of the knowable because the answer is against their “truth”. DNA evidence is one such example. I do not expect DNA evidence to ever prove the BoM true, and apologists will always find ways in which the answer science is giving us is incorrect and addressing something unknowable. Apologists started seeking out DNA because it would answer question in the realm of the knowable, when the answer wasn’t what they wanted, it suddenly became unknowable. I’m not sure I follow completely what you’re attempting to engage, Ray. I love Nibley and his ability to “live” in the illusion of life. But I feel the absolute opposite, as far as the first 40 pages are concerned. The “sailing” to the new world, the Liahona, Lehi’s Dream/Joseph Sr.’s Dream, killing Laban for the plates, bringing Ishmael’s family, Nephi’s relationship with his brothers, overt obsession with riches/gold/family status. It all screams Joseph Smith, Jr.(in my mind) I think a more fascinating examination is the possibilities that the first 40 pages were mostly Joseph’s and the rest of the BoM was more collaborative/plagiarized/inspired. That makes a ton of sense to me.
As a writer myself, I feel like the best way to examine the BoM is to try to understand the narrative conceptualization. We tend to write what we know. And, regardless of how “other-worldly” the setting, basic human condition and psychology will be present. Just like when you read posts here on staylds.com. You begin to recognize the “voice” of the writer, understand what they may be thinking, intuiting where an idea comes from, etc.
With that in mind, I think there may be something to the differences after the first 40 pages. I’d love to hear others ideas.
swim, read the book. Maybe I will post a review with quotes and summaries in the Books section, but if you really want to understand the argument Nibley makes, read the book. What are these analyzable things of the first 40 pages? I know I don’t have time to find and read this book right now. Are we talking about geography? The point of scriptures are not to learn the easy surface things that can easily be “proven.” IMO Although it can be very helpful to do so, if that is where your path takes you.
For me, it has been through reading the scriptures without my preconceived notions and trying to see what I’m supposed to learn. What I learned was that the places in geography don’t matter, they are to be understood best symbolically. The names are all symbolic. The people are all symbolic. The whole point of scripture is to bring me to Christ. Oneness with God. Love.
The best thing that ever happened to me was discovering the power of the myth. Reading the scriptures taught me God doesn’t command killings.
People who think that there is no other way that JS could have come up with the BoM other than translating them directly from plates of Gold discount all the amazing literature that has been written. I haven’t read the Koran, but it seems to be pretty incredible, too. The myths the ancients came up with were totally awesome, too. Nostradamus is another person off the top of my head who wrote amazing things-prophesies.
Anyway, I’m just saying that it doesn’t have to be a historical journal for it to be complex, true and spectacular.
As a seeker of truth my journey is to follow truth wherever it leads me. So I know that the unknowable is also there to teach me something true. I’m sure there is a paradox in there somewhere.
I agree that these conversations shouldn’t be about being right-which is near impossible for the natural man. But, they are so important to our learning, growth and understanding. I’m amazed at some of the truths I glean from seemingly pointless never-ending debates about some of these things. When we are able to not be right is when the learning begins.
Apologies if I wasn’t on topic. I was free flowing with my thoughts. LOL
That’s fine, justme. The point I was making, at its core, is simply that sometimes we get so caught up in trying to figure out the unknowable and reconcile the unreconcilable that we forget what we can know and can reconcile – and there actually is a lot of that stuff.
It is important for many of us to explore the universe, but we can’t lose sight of our front porches in the process.
Ray, I love this thread and it speaks to a question I’ve been grappling with for some time. This may go a bit off topic, and it is late, so I hope I will make sense. Quote:The focus of this post is NOT about that claim necessarily, although I am fine with a discussion of it, but rather it is meant to highlight our tendency to focus on the “cutting edge” – the “speculative” – the “exciting” – the “controversial” – the “interesting” – the “unknowable” over the “simple” – the “mundane” – the “common – the “knowable”. SO many conversations I read around the Bloggernacle could be resolved, imo, if people simply were willing to acknowledge the unknowable, remember and discuss the more easily researchable, and not stake their ego or standing or any other element of their selves on being right – especially in areas where certainty simply is not possible right now.
Where does the adversary fit into these discussions, and more importantly into our personal concerns about the church? This is not to say that I think every intellectual/historical question or doubt is promoted by the adversary, or that we should be so fearful of intellectual exploration that we never delve into these problems, as I am sure my previous posts have proven, I am hardly rank-and-file. But, there has to be a “fine line” (at least for me as I know I’ve edged so close to it) between questioning and seeking “truth” and getting lost in the search. Does anyone have thoughts on this? (Or am I still way too stage 3?
I guess I just don’t see the problem. I agree that we can’t stop feeding our children or cleaning the toilets-there does have to be a balance between living life in the present and seeking deeper meaning. I admit I probably just don’t know what you mean when you say “analyze.” Are you saying that we shouldn’t seek to understand those things that can’t be proven scientifically? Maybe you could explain what you consider the front porch. I’d love to better understand your concerns. The scriptures are pretty clear that we can have all knowledge and know the mysteries. We told to seek, to knock, to ask. These things are encouraged.
Of course the answers I receive may not be applicable to everyone else, but at least I can know what is truth (until I am taught something new).
I’d also like to know what can be “analyzed” about the first 40 pages of the BoM that can’t be done with the rest of the book. Again, I don’t think I really get it.
I see what you’re saying, Ray. It almost sounds like a “half-empty” or “half-full” argument…just depends where your focus is and what you value. Seeking knowledge is a good thing…seeking it beyond the mark is wasted effort, IMO. Many things about the gospel only lead to the mark (Christ and His teachings), and so there are parts that can be analyzed to help one get to the mark, but there are many things not meant to be analyzed past that mark towards historical facts, scientific proofs, or winning bloggernacle debates. You can analyze some things, you can’t analyze other things (some things are meant to be taken on faith or other methods of understanding them)…and so if using analytical approach to gaining knowledge is a hammer, not everything in the BoM is a nail. Just because everything is not a nail, doesn’t mean that if I really like using hammers and whacking things…I can find some nails to satisfy that need to whack away. So do I get focused on continuing to try and hammer the screws to my frustration, or do I focus on hammering the nails that are there and going to the toolbox for the other areas that aren’t nails?
It does seem to me that many are drawn to the sensational because they are interesting and make you think, which is a fun exercise. Just look at the entertainment or sports talk radio…people are drawn to contraversial topics because they’re stimulating.
And having said that, I don’t think just me is wrong:
just me wrote:The scriptures are pretty clear that we can have all knowledge and know the mysteries. We told to seek, to knock, to ask. These things are encouraged.
I like to seek…but have found some topics on the Internet (like anything regarding polygamy or homosexuality) interesting but unfulfilling because I don’t think we can really fully understand these things in this life without more knowledge from above.
Until then, some people just love to hammer away at them, regardless of whether it is of value to one’s soul or not.
Heber, thanks for elaborating. I would say that spiritual knowledge should come from spiritual means. But, if someone thinks that the BoM, or Bible, is a history book they might need to pound around awhile to figure out that it’s not (meaning, that is not where the importance lies). I have found that we can know the truth about polygamy. I have been guilty of asking annoying questions to try to get others to see the answers I plainly see. I should probably hold my fingers.
Was it bad for me to spend hours searching the scriptures and praying for an answer about polygamy? Not to me. Is is a waste of time to try and show others what I discovered? No, because others are struggling with the same exact questions. All we see are the 3-4 active commenters on a hot topic. There are others silently reading who are benefiting from the scriptures and insight that is shared. I’ve seen others express gratitude for these types of forums and blogs.
One thing I do is try to have the Spirit guide me. I try to take my questions as they come. I study, pray, ponder and wrestle with an issue until the inspiration comes. I try not to get ahead of myself by delving into an issue just because it is a hot topic. I wait until it is time for me to tackle it.
Anyway, this is just what has worked for my journey. It’s not one size fits all.
swimordie wrote:I love Nibley and his ability to “live” in the illusion of life.
I love the way you put that! That is the way I view him as well. I had Prof. Nibley for a class…in the beginning I thought he was absolutely brilliant! By the end I thought he was crazy. I’m sure he vacillated between the two….
We had to read one of his papers and analyze it. It was called “Zeal without Knowledge.” Of course he was referring to non-Mormons…and later when I re-read it, it fit Mormons perfectly. Figure that one out?!
😮 
Quote:But I feel the absolute opposite, as far as the first 40 pages are concerned. The “sailing” to the new world, the Liahona, Lehi’s Dream/Joseph Sr.’s Dream, killing Laban for the plates, bringing Ishmael’s family, Nephi’s relationship with his brothers, overt obsession with riches/gold/family status. It all screams Joseph Smith, Jr.(in my mind) I think a more fascinating examination is the possibilities that the first 40 pages were mostly Joseph’s and the rest of the BoM was more collaborative/plagiarized/inspired. That makes a ton of sense to me.
Me too. I think there’s enough evidence that it is just that. (or a collaberation of works by a few authors, like Spalding, Rigdon et al). So I see Nibley’s work exactly how many outsiders have critiqued him — “taking simple things and confusing them enough to ensure nobody understands!”
(Sorry Ray, that’s just how I see it…I certainly could be wrong!)
Rix wrote:“taking simple things and confusing them enough to ensure nobody understands!”
This is largely how I see many apologist arguements, particularly in the field of genetics, where I have enough background to see where they are overly confusing the field.
Rix wrote:
Quote:But I feel the absolute opposite, as far as the first 40 pages are concerned. The “sailing” to the new world, the Liahona, Lehi’s Dream/Joseph Sr.’s Dream, killing Laban for the plates, bringing Ishmael’s family, Nephi’s relationship with his brothers, overt obsession with riches/gold/family status. It all screams Joseph Smith, Jr.(in my mind) I think a more fascinating examination is the possibilities that the first 40 pages were mostly Joseph’s and the rest of the BoM was more collaborative/plagiarized/inspired. That makes a ton of sense to me.
Quote:Me too. I think there’s enough evidence that it is just that. (or a collaberation of works by a few authors, like Spalding, Rigdon et al).
I’m still struggling with my views on the historicity of the BoM, but I know it is a good book. While I can’t testify as Elder Holland did that alternative theories are “pathetic”, I can testify that I have seen the BoM change lives and touch peoples hearts. I cling to that goodness. . .
MisterCurie wrote:While I can’t testify as Elder Holland did that alternative theories are “pathetic”, I can testify that I have seen the BoM change lives and touch peoples hearts. I cling to that goodness. . .
Me too. I cling to that goodness too, sometimes like to check out the other theories as interesting thoughts…but put my interest in the book as a symbolic and spiritual text and I still love reading from it.Old-Timer wrote:The focus of this post is NOT about that claim necessarily, although I am fine with a discussion of it, but rather it is meant to highlight our tendency to focus on the “cutting edge” – the “speculative” – the “exciting” – the “controversial” – the “interesting” – the “unknowable” over the “simple” – the “mundane” – the “common – the “knowable”. SO many conversations I read around the Bloggernacle could be resolved, imo, if people simply were willing to acknowledge the unknowable, remember and discuss the more easily researchable, and not stake their ego or standing or any other element of their selves on being right – especially in areas where certainty simply is not possible right now.
Ray, your call to common sense may not just be a thing of the bloggernacle, but can be seen in today’s society in other areas like politics. While i don’t intend to get into any politics, I find the similarity being made with what you are suggesting, would you agree? Here is an article from CNN today:
Quote:Extremism in danger of acceptanceNEW YORK (CNN) — We are witnessing a wingnut war break out in American politics, organized on the Internet and fought out in airwaves and in town halls, wingnuts firing their shots from the outer reaches and strafing the common sense center.
…
The Internet has made it easier for wingnuts to congregate across state lines, to form an army from the fringes.
This has increased their influence and amplified their voice, making them, in effect, the loudest lobbying block.
No longer are they just cranks to be tolerated — the fringe is blurring with the base, creating leverage on the party leadership.
…
The wingnuts’ increasing influence in our politics should be a wake-up call.
It is a challenge to the idea that what unites us is greater than what divides us as Americans.
We need to keep an eye on their efforts, remembering something President Eisenhower said a half-century ago:
“The middle of the road is all the usable surface. The extremes of left and right are in the gutters.”http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/07/avlon.civility/http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/07/avlon.civility/” class=”bbcode_url”>
In some ways, I think the church is faced also with what political parties are faced with. You can’t just ingore the arguments of what we used to call “wingnuts” in the church. They have a voice through the Internet, and can analyze the tenets (see D&C 19:31) and share analysis with others (including apologetics, disaffected, or anti).
I’m certainly interested in learning, and have enjoyed having access to information on the Internet. I think it has broadened my view and my testimony. I just think there are certain topics that I see over and over again where the arguments just can’t be proven or analyzed to present a winning argument. Some things are just good or not of value to me…not right or wrong, any more than Republican or Democrat is “right”, just different ways of looking at things. That’s my view.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.