- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SilentStruggle brought up some things about the Book of Mormon that he struggles with. So, I want to quote his comments, and add some commentary to his thoughts. I welcome others to join in as well. Quote:I found that I really struggled with the Book of Mormon. While I agree it’s an amazing book, and I cannot account for it’s being written by someone of Joseph Smith’s background, a number of things bother me about the B of M that I will briefly mention here. There is the inherent racism that church leaders have tried to backtrack on. There are the anacronisms that are unexplainable to modern archeological knowledge (horses, swine, cattle, silk, flax, metalwork, honeybees, grain, bread, etc….). There is the problem of Deutero-Isaiah and the timing of the work to name a few.
Ok, I agree that there is some inherent racism. However, I think that actually argues for its authenticity. If the BoM is an ancient document, we shouldn’t expect it to have the same morals regarding race relations that we do in 2009. Certainly the Bible has its share of race problems as well, so I would state that the BoM has some nice company here, even if it is racist.
As for the anacronisms, I agree as well. However, I did come across an interesting theory that the BoM didn’t actually take place in the Americas at all. The author, Ralph Olson, tries to use science to find a better narrow neck of land, and comes up with the Malay Peninsula. If he’s right, it sure takes away all the problems with elephants, cattle, silk, metal, etc. Check out my review of the theory at
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/04/09/a-radically-different-book-of-mormon-geography-theory/ Go to
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/04/18/my-first-scoop-the-unpublished-malay-theory/ Quote:In all my studies of history, I find that the logistics of the warfare described in the B of M to be unlikely, especially on a pan-continental scale, and while much fighting has taken place because of religion over the course of history, I find it highly unlikely that whole civilizations destroy each other over religion.
Ok, I have to point out an excellent website called Warfare and the Book of Mormon by Morgan Deane. He has a Master’s Degree in Military History and has some amazing insights into warfare and the BoM. Check his site out at
http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/
Quote:
I find it illogical that the B of M was written in ‘Reformed Egyptian’, a language for which there has never been found a second instance of, when the Jews at the time of Lehi had several choices of excellent written languages to choose from.There are several languages it could have been written in. The Gospel of Judas was written in Coptic, which could be considered “reformed Egyptian”. Coptic seems to date from the 16th to 11th century BC, which would pre-date Lehi by at least 400 years. Even if it is not Coptic, I think Demotic (650 – 400 BC) is a possibility for reformed Egyptian. Hieratic is another possible form of reformed Egyptian, though it appears in the 2nd century AD, so it is probably too late. (I did a post on the Gospel of Judas, which is tangentially related to this topic.
This opening post is long enough–perhaps we can discuss some other issues here.
MoHer – I really enjoyed your posts on the Malay Peninsula theory. I got into a bit of a squabble (as I recall) with someone on one of the discussion threads who was very invested in a MesoAmerican model and he was upset about the idea of how plates got to NY from Malay. It just made me laugh, in a strain at a gnat but swallow a camel way. He was willing to accept that God sent an angel to miraculously give plates to a farm boy, but not that the plates could get there through some miraculous means from Malay. I’m not saying I buy the Malay theory per se, but it is still amazing to me how much people accept while holding to so many other limitations. I think since we’re already out on a limb here I thought I’d throw in something I found interesting while listening to the BofM on mp3. Mosiah 7:31 says, “And again he sayeth: If my people shall sow filthiness they shall reap the east wind, which bringeth immediate destruction.
I heard that and made a note to look up what the prevailing winds were in South America, (still assuming that’s where Lehi’s people settled.) I haven’t done that and I probably won’t but I thought it would be interesting to find out if when the wind blows from the East there would be some sort of destruction from it, you know, the freak East wind storm that kills everything, maybe like a hurricane.
Instead I did a word search on my The Scriptures computer program to find out there are 22 references to the East wind in the scriptures, most in the Old Testament, which the Nephites would of already had most of them. They all contain warnings of destruction or dearth. There was 1 reference to a West wind, and interestingly enough it brought favorable conditions.
Just as a side note, if the BofM is a fake, why would the author make the effort to include the 2 such phrases at all? These references aren’t even Isaiah quotes per se. The whole East wind thing seems so obscure, and it just goes to show how in depth the author really was of the Bible.
I am a FIRM believer in evaluating the BofM ONLY on what it actually says(says the resident parser) – and that includes not holding it to things that Joseph Smith said about it. I’ve said this elsewhere, but I don’t think Joseph understood the contents of the book very well – and, given his description of the transmission process, I’m totally fine with that. I also think it’s fascinating to consider other locations for it. There really isn’t ANYTHING in the book itself that dictates any particular location – just a lot of assumptions by the early leaders of the Church, including Joseph. There are LOTS of ways it could fit many of the statements that were made about it generically without having occurred across the continental Americas. In fact, I believed in a Limited Geography Model and cultural assimilation pattern when I was very young – LONG before I heard those official phrases. It’s really the only thing that made sense to me when I read it – and it’s still the only thing that makes sense to me all these years later.
Finally, the old world descriptions and cultural nuances are spot on in many ways – and it would have taken a real scholar to have done that. Nibley’s treatment of the beginning of the BofM and the Book of Ether are fascinating. “Lehi in the Desert” and “The World of the Jaredites” are very interesting, enlightening reading. I read them when I was very young, and they opened my eyes to how people can take the same text and, based on their existing assumptions, come to radically different conclusions – and I think Nibley’s take on many of the things he discusses fits the parsed words of the book itself FAR better than the commonly believed assumptions.
Summary: I choose to believe the BofM is an inspired transmission of a real history, but I also believe the general view of it within the Church is greatly flawed and incorrect in MANY ways. I think the misconceptions of the early leaders has influenced the general view greatly.
I am going to continue the thread on “Elephants in America” in this discussion. Modern archeology has begun to advance to the point where new techniques have developed. One such technique was the ability to identify horse genetic material on the spear or arrowhead that was used to kill wild animals for food. A new theory of pre-Columbian equine (horse) extinction has been formulated – that horses were hunted for food by ancient Americans.
There is so much we do not know about the ancient American flora and fauna. I once saw a wonderful film (that I highly recommend called, “Wild America”). The ancient wild America was, apparently, much richer and more diverse than ever previously thought. Many large, free-range-roaming herbivores once grazed the plains of the Americas. The theories and timing of their ancient extinction will be reexamined using modern technology.
What I get out of this is that it is important to protect our animals from extinction and that man can be a factor in directly causing extinctions, not just climate changes such as the end of the ice age. We can all be better stewards of this earth and its non-humane inhabitants.
I’m a big believer in the idea/ideal of scripture as a narrative construct with spirituality as it’s “ends” rather than the current model of most evangelicals and TBM’s idea/ideal of scripture as a historical construct with “proof of…” as it’s “ends”. I can’t remember who it was (wordsleuth or spacious maze, I think) who mentioned the book “1491” in another thread. The book is strictly scientific/anthropological and has no relationship whatsoever with mormon or anti-mormon elements for pre-columbian history of the americas. It is astonishingly well-written for the non-scientific reader and delves mostly into the huge controversy surrounding the population levels of pre-columbian aboriginal peoples of the americas.
So, it tackles the human history of the americas from a scientific place of uncertainty (around population), giving the reader a very unvarnished look at the complexity of life that was found throughout this hemisphere while leaving unexplainable things unexplained.
The resounding elements of the book for someone with a TBM background is the sheer impossibility of the historical claims both big and small of the BoM. At least as a documenting artifact of life in the americas.
I had always wondered about transposing the BoM’s historical claims to some other region, like say, Australia, and what that would look like. So, I love the work done around creating a test case from some other region (like Malay).
Molecular Biology didn’t develop the DNA probe or the Polymerase Chain Reaction until about 3 decades ago. At first, these technologies were used to identify bacteria, such as TB and human DNA. They also began to use these techniques for forensic science, criminology and paternity testing.
Recently, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and DNA probes has been applied to ancient archeology, population genetics and biology. We will have to be able to “UNLEARN” everything we thought we knew about elephants, oxen, horses etc. in Precolumbian America. We are and will be discovering new species and reclassifying old species. Old theories of extinction will be supplanted as new theories are advanced.
One note is that these techniques are extremely expensive and few technicians can apply them correctly without contaminating DNA during PCR. This has impeded the work. Federal funding for these projects has dried up with the poor economy.
Modern Molecular Biology meets Book of Mormon is a great topic. Some scientists are already starting to use the BOM for dates and places. One said to me, “We don’t know that the BOM is not true, so we might as well use it for clues”. They have been able to find some very interesting things using the BOM for “clues”. I have to rush to work, so I will have to discuss this later. Bye for now.
I am with Ray (and Hugh Nibley and most of Farms so that is reasonable company) in that we have to look at ONLY what we find in the Book of Mormon. Even Quote:(D&C 54:
8 And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.
I think is simply Joseph getting a sense of an idea that God was transmitting and assuming it was the border with the Lamanites because of his own preconceptions and God wasn’t going to mess with him about it, you “study it out in your mind” and then get it down, it would accomplish what the commandment wanted which was have people go into Missouri.
So I don’t think that we need to worry much about horses and chariots and such because if you read the Book of Mormon battle scenes carefully, not making any assumptions beforehand, you are looking at infantry engagements, and people always moving by foot in order to get to the right spot to have battles or escape. I will go and look at that warfare site.
Yes, Hawkgrrrl, I remember that conversation quite well. Some really like the Meso theory, and I think Sorenson has done some really good scholarly work for those believing in a Limited Geography Model. There are other theories as well, such as a South American one at http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/05/21/a-south-american-model-for-the-book-of-mormon/ There’s also an interesting one in Baja California, which would hold a better narrow neck of land at
http://www.achoiceland.com/geography I agree with Bill and Ray that even Joseph may have had some misconceptions on the location of the BoM.
It was actually SilentStruggle who made the reference to 1491. I’ll have to check it out as I am not familiar with it.
Old-Timer wrote:I am a FIRM believer in evaluating the BofM ONLY on what it actually says
Remember the controversy over the book
A Million Little Pieceswhen Oprah found out the guy fudged the whole story of his drug problems. A lot of people were inspired by his story. When they found out it was bunk, they had to re-evaluate everything. I would agree with Ray’s perspective if the church didn’t claim to be the holder of the fullness of the gospel and the BoM to be the most perfect book in existence. Without this claim, I can look at the stories as merely tropes, which I truly believe leads to truth just as easily.
I think the importance of looking at scientific evidence and historicity is a natural response to those that respond to facts with the usual rhetoric of: “well, in the end, you just have to take it on faith.” Faith in what? Faith in God, faith in JS, Moroni, the first vision, the BoM stories, temple ordinances, all the parts of mormon theology that originated outside the BoM?
I’ve been reading up on B.H Roberts, he compiled a long listed of concerns with the origin of the BoM. He presented it to the 12, as a response to his concerns, they all just stood up and tearfully expressed their testimony of the truth of the church. Well, that’s all fine and dandy but it never answered any of Roberts’ questions. This reticence haunted Roberts til the end of his life.
The BoM is supposed to be a history book, so I think it’s fair game for criticism.
Quote:The BoM is supposed to be a history book, so I think it’s fair game for criticism.
I agree, sm – but I also believe it should be criticism of the claims of the actual book. I am fine with criticism of what I consider to be incorrect claims ABOUT the book, but the vast majority of complaints I have heard in my lifetime aren’t about what the book itself says but rather about things people believe about the book. I just believe those two categories (or targets) need to be differentiated and addressed separately – and that rarely happens, because most people tend to think their view of what it says are as canonical as what it actually says. It’s the same issue that we face when disagreeing with others about what the Bible says, because it simply is a manifestation of the natural (wo)man.There are issues to be addressed about what the book actually says, but there are SO many things that simply are unanswerable right now given what we can ascertain about location and the transmission process.
In all honesty, if it was a work of fiction, Joseph wrote it brilliantly as such. There are multiple disclaimer in the book itself; there are multiple linguistic and cultural patterns interwoven into the narrative; it changes voice and style repeatedly; etc. Add the description of the “translation” (what I like to call “transmission”) process, and the absolute flexibility it provided him to “use” words that would be understood in his time that might or might not have been exactly what fit from a purely historical perspective . . . As I said, if he made it up, it was a brilliant literary construct.
I love the book, and I am fascinated by what it actually says, so I choose to believe it was an inspired translation of an actual historical compilation – knowing fully how much of a leap of faith that is and how different it is than my view of the PofGP. However, as I said previously, that doesn’t mean my view of what it actually says has to match the commonly held view. There are quite a few things I think it says that are heterodox and not “sharable” in Sunday School or even High Priests Group.
spacious maze wrote:Old-Timer wrote:I am a FIRM believer in evaluating the BofM ONLY on what it actually says
Remember the controversy over the book
A Million Little Pieceswhen Oprah found out the guy fudged the whole story of his drug problems. A lot of people were inspired by his story. When they found out it was bunk, they had to re-evaluate everything…..I can look at the stories as merely tropes, which I truly believe leads to truth just as easily.
If something isn’t “actually” true, but it still helps people, is it okay? How did Church leaders, and Church members, respond to Paul Dunn? His image was forever tainted, even though lots of people were truly inspired by what he said. In spite of the help his stories provided, the Church did not condone Dunn’s behavior–while I’m not aware of specific punishments, Dunn claimed in his apology letter to have been given a “heavy penalty”. So I guess my question is, what’s the difference? The Church didn’t condone/accept Dunn’s dishonesty even though it inspired people, but in spite of plenty of “accuracy” issues with the BoM, the Church seems okay with that.
As all of you know, Joseph, son of Jacob (Israel) was sold into Egypt by his own brothers. You will remember him as the Joseph with the coat of many colors. As a young man sold as a slave into Egypt, Joseph was a “quick study”. He was highly intelligent and so insightful and spiritual that he was summoned by Pharaoh to interpret a dream. Joseph did, interpret the dream correctly and became a trusted adviser in Egypt. It was there that he learned and became proficient in the language of the Egyptians. He likely read and wrote fluently in Egyptian and taught that language to his own children.
When we speak of the “Stick of Joseph” or the BOM, we have to remember that Joseph was separated from his brothers (his brother Judah included) and that there would be a significant language divergence between Joseph and Judah at that time. This was actually very important because the Egyptians were so far advanced scientifically, medically and even linguistically (in certain respect).
It is no surprise that the BOM was written in reformed Egyptian given the history of Joseph in Egypt.
As far a the language of Reformed Egyptian, I forgot to mention that the Prophet, Moses was also raised in Egypt, in the palace. Abraham’s wife, Hagar was an Egyptian princess and had also been raised in the palace. My understanding is that Moses, Hagar and Joseph would have had opportunities to learn Egyptian. Abraham may have learned Egyptian from Hagar.
Jesus Christ was also exiled into Egypt as a young child. “From Egypt I have called my Son”.
I think that there may be a reason why many major Prophets and even the Savior Himself where reared in Egypt and allowed to learn the Egyptian language – it was so far advanced for its time. It is possible that the Lord wanted these Prophets and even the Son of God to have an excellent education, to learn to read and write proficiently. These skills were likely just as important anciently as they are today.
I also found this interesting: # Late Egyptian (1300 BC 700 BC)
Records of this stage appear in the second part of the New Kingdom, considered by many as the “Golden Age” of ancient Egyptian civilization. It contains a rich body of religious and secular literature, comprising such famous examples as the Story of Wenamun and the Instructions of Ani. It was also the language of Ramesside administration. Late Egyptian is not totally distinct from Middle Egyptian, as many “classicisms” appear in historical and literary documents of this phase. However, the difference between Middle and Late Egyptian is greater than that between Middle and Old Egyptian. It’s also a better representative than Middle Egyptian of the spoken language in the New Kingdom and beyond. Hieroglyphic orthography saw an enormous expansion of its graphemic inventory between the Late Dynastic and Ptolemaic periods.
COPY AND PASTE FROM:
http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptlanguage.html The article states that the period of 1300 BC to 700 BC (about 100 years before Lehi set sail for the Americas) was the “Golden Age” in Egypt and that Egyptian writings contained
a “rich body of religious and secular literature”.
My sister is an English and Spanish teacher and has always told me that in order for students to become proficient in language, they must read a wide variety of quality literature.
I am so saddened when people criticize the concep that the BOM was written in Egyptian (reformed, or shorthand Egyptian to fit on plates) because the language was so rich and spiritual at the time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.