Skousen's Introduction to Book of Mormon

[_Kishkumen]

This comes from his defense of the controversial pleasing/pleading bar conjecture. I went to two public lectures of his in March 2015 and in April 2016 at BYU, and I believe that I heard him say at those that he regretted that sentence, that it had simply led people to speculate that he had said Tyndale was a translator. His position was that there's no way of knowing, that there is language found in the writings of many authors of the past -- famous and obscure. In fact, he's mentioned some questionable Book of Mormon language that is found in the writings of More, who despised Tyndale, and who was partly responsible for Tyndale's 1536 execution. So a month ago Skousen simply said, If I recall correctly, that the Lord did the translation or had it done (and I imagine he's inclined to the latter, given the above ATV statement). And I seem to recall him showing some thematic or phrasal matching with writings of a lesser-known Quaker, making two points: that pinpointing who might have translated is problematic, and that most phrases that have been thought to be 19c are found earlier as well. That's all for now. Going on holiday to LA till Monday. Cheers!

The upshot is that God has a thing for Early Modern English. Go figure.

[_Kishkumen]

I agree the Book of Mormon is a remarkable text, but I also have to confess I have in the past fallen into the trap of arguing from that basis that it must be inspired of God.

Over the years, I have come to see this argument is not well-founded, and falls into the same general category of Erich von Daniken arguing that because ancient civilizations did remarkable things, they must have had help from aliens.

Many of us here have been there at one time or another, consiglieri. Perhaps one can also look at it like this: it is more important that the text be inspiring in the right way than it is important to show it was inspired by God.

[_Symmachus]

This has been an interesting discussion to (attempt to) follow. If nothing else, it shows the epistemological shadow that hangs over traditional Mormonism. Even the believers live under the anxious shade of knowing that everything hinges on history. The discussion of language is interesting to me because it shows how everything eventually has to go back to the historical question. The discussion about language is not really a discussion about language. I mean, one can be an expert in New Testament Greek and be an atheist or a believer, since the focus on language will remain simply the focus on language and won't go to history (and a lot of fundamentalist scholars go the linguistic route precisely because they will never have to face any historical issues). But even text criticism or syntax poses problems for Mormonism.

By way of contrast, I have been trying to drink in the Talmud for the past few weeks. Every line of that obscure text is a an overflowing cup of meaning. I came across a commentator on one of the famous stories, where a non-Jew comes first to the great teacher Shammai and sarcastically (or perhaps seriously) claims he will become a Jew—which of course means in antiquity having an unpleasant operation without anesthesia—if Shammai can tell him the whole Torah while he stands on one foot. Shammai says nothing and pushes him away. Then the non-Jew goes to the other great teacher of the era, Hillel, and makes the same request. Hillel says: "whatever you hate to have done to you, don't do to your neighbor; the rest is commentary on that. Now go and study."

This introduces all sorts of questions: what is Torah? Is Shammai or Hillel's approach the right one? What is each really saying? Is Hillel minimizing the importance of study? etc. etc. etc.

This kind of Rabbinic discourse is the oral Torah (as opposed to only the written Torah). There was a short bit on the commentary I was reading that talked about the fact that Hillel's words are in Aramaic, which some had taken as evidence that it should not be considered part of the oral Torah (broadly defined), or even that it had no authority. Some apparently had alleged that it wasn't historical, but the commentator was quick to point out that this was totally irrelevant. The story is a vehicle for a message, and the brilliance of the Talmudic story is that it leads readers directly to the message.. It doesn't mean it's fiction; it just means that fiction vs. non-fiction is a totally irrelevant category to apply. The story is terse and sparse in detail; no one who reads the Aramaic comes away thinking about whether it really happened, because one is so instantly and so forcefully confronted by the message. It forces you to think about what Torah means. People who aren't part of this culture think the story is just: be good. Actually, it's far more complex than that. Shammai's response is also recorded for a reason. The story is told in the way it is for a reason, so his silence is meaningful. And Hillel doesn't just say, be good. He also says: go and study. The amazing thing about the Talmud is how this kind of commentary grows out of what are otherwise very bland and uninteresting legal propositions. And it is the commentary more than even the "laws" that are so central to Judaism. Historical questions are interesting, but they're not central and nothing hinges on them. It wouldn't change anything if there were no such person as either Hillel or Shammai or this anonymous non-Jew.

I can't imagine any story in the Book of Mormon where I could say that it wouldn't matter if so-and-so had never existed. It would change everything.

I think Christianity, or at least Western European Christianity, has gone a long way in a similar direction since Ruldolf Bultmann and others emphasized paramount importance of the kerygma—the message—of Jesus over and above a historically dependent soteriology, but even before Bultmann there were ways of thinking about Christianity as a message rather than just a series of footnotes to some great historical event.

According to its own traditional theology and the kind preached every General Conference, the history of Mormonism since Joseph Smith is just such a series of footnotes. English syntax and Book of Mormon textual history are more footnotes. They are interesting questions in themselves, but the fact that you can't avoid wringing grand theological conundrums out of English syntax or Book of Mormon textual history should tell you there is a problem with the message. Discussions like this are very interesting, but, as interesting as they can be, they remind me of why Mormonism is so intellectually unappealing. If everything hangs on some English syntax or the archaeological correspondence of NHM to Nahom, then by definition the cosmic pretensions of Mormonism can't escape concerns that are actually quite local and provincial. Believers can say that these things don't matter, but the honest ones know they do, even if sometimes they have to be dishonest in tackling the issues.

I used to listen to Mormon Matters a few years back and sometimes found the discussions lunging away from historicism but, for all their intellectual elasticity, the realities of Sunday Mormonism will always snap such discussions back into the historical basis of Mormonism. It's not enough to say, "it's just a metaphor" or "well, history doesn't matter." It's not enough to just say that. It's got to have a message that all this is pointing to. Until Mormons can wrestle with their texts into some greater message, it's all just going to come back to Elizabethan English and NHM. How can you build a community on that? If nothing else, this thread reminds me that Mormonism's intense historicism is built on sand, and if English syntax or Elizabethanisms or spellings in the manuscripts etc. or NHM or Native American DNA are hinges on which cosmic truth hangs, then Mormonism has bigger problems than the torrent of information that Google has unleashed. It's biggest problem is surely that it has no message.

Believers have a hard task.

[_Runtu]

I used to listen to Mormon Matters a few years back and sometimes found the discussions lunging away from historicism but, for all their intellectual elasticity, the realities of Sunday Mormonism will always snap such discussions back into the historical basis of Mormonism. It's not enough to say, "it's just a metaphor" or "well, history doesn't matter." It's not enough to just say that. It's got to have a message that all this is pointing to. Until Mormons can wrestle with their texts into some greater message, it's all just going to come back to Elizabethan English and NHM. How can you build a community on that? If nothing else, this thread reminds me that Mormonism's intense historicism is built on sand, and if English syntax or Elizabethanisms or spellings in the manuscripts etc. or NHM or Native American DNA are hinges on which cosmic truth hangs, then Mormonism has bigger problems than the torrent of information that Google has unleashed. It's biggest problem is surely that it has no message.

Believers have a hard task.

Well said. The message of Mormonism, for all its novel additions to Christian doctrine, is about the restoration of authority. Everything that happened in the early church, from the First Vision to the priesthood to temple ritual, was meant to cement the authority of the church and its leaders. The Book of Mormon, for its part, does not introduce any real doctrinal innovations, but exists as proof that its translator was authorized by God to reveal it. In short, the scriptures themselves exist primarily to reinforce the authority of those who produced them. If the Book of Mormon has no historical basis, its producers have no authority because the things they sad happened must not have happened, and the beings who they said appeared must never have existed.

So, yes, there is no real message other than authority.

[_Lemmie]

I used to listen to Mormon Matters a few years back and sometimes found the discussions lunging away from historicism but, for all their intellectual elasticity, the realities of Sunday Mormonism will always snap such discussions back into the historical basis of Mormonism. It's not enough to say, "it's just a metaphor" or "well, history doesn't matter." It's not enough to just say that. It's got to have a message that all this is pointing to. Until Mormons can wrestle with their texts into some greater message, it's all just going to come back to Elizabethan English and NHM. How can you build a community on that? If nothing else, this thread reminds me that Mormonism's intense historicism is built on sand, and if English syntax or Elizabethanisms or spellings in the manuscripts etc. or NHM or Native American DNA are hinges on which cosmic truth hangs, then Mormonism has bigger problems than the torrent of information that Google has unleashed. It's biggest problem is surely that it has no message.

Believers have a hard task.

Well said. The message of Mormonism, for all its novel additions to Christian doctrine, is about the restoration of authority. Everything that happened in the early church, from the First Vision to the priesthood to temple ritual, was meant to cement the authority of the church and its leaders. The Book of Mormon, for its part, does not introduce any real doctrinal innovations, but exists as proof that its translator was authorized by God to reveal it. In short, the scriptures themselves exist primarily to reinforce the authority of those who produced them. If the Book of Mormon has no historical basis, its producers have no authority because the things they sad happened must not have happened, and the beings who they said appeared must never have existed.

So, yes, there is no real message other than authority.

This brings up a related issue that I find puzzling. Given that there is no real message in the book, and the actual LDS positions are practically nonexistent within its pages, what is the source of the testimonials where people say things like -- 'every thing I need to know about life is contained in the pages of the Book of Mormon,' 'reading it brings great understanding,' 'I feel the spirit so strongly when I read it,' etc. etc.?

Is that just a new version of testimony phrasing, and I left before it came into vogue? (I know I've missed a lot--for example, tender mercies just sounds flat out like a phrase a snake-handling, speaking in tongues Pentecostal might come out with when really in the throes of.... something. It's really disconcerting for me to read the phrase in a Mormon missionary blog.)

[_Runtu]

This brings up a related issue that I find puzzling. Given that there is no real message in the book, and the actual LDS positions are practically nonexistent within its pages, what is the source of the testimonials where people say things like -- 'every thing I need to know about life is contained in the pages of the Book of Mormon,' 'reading it brings great understanding,' 'I feel the spirit so strongly when I read it,' etc. etc.?

Is that just a new version of testimony phrasing, and I left before it came into vogue? (I know I've missed a lot--for example, tender mercies just sounds flat out like a phrase a snake-handling, speaking in tongues Pentecostal might come out with when really in the throes of.... something. It's really disconcerting for me to read the phrase in a Mormon missionary blog.)

I am not sure about the first statement about "everything I need to know," but the thing about the spirit is something that I've experienced all my life. I was taught that the Book of Mormon was a second witness of Christ, that its "mission," so to speak, was to prove that the Bible was true and Jesus really is the son of God, and so on. Moroni tells us that, if we pray about it, we'll feel the spirit and know it's true, and by extension, we will know that Jesus and God and everything in the Bible are true. So, its mission is to testify by the spirit, which means you are supposed to feel the spirit strongly when you read it.

I'm reminded of a time on my mission when I was struggling. I had an interview with my mission president and told him I didn't feel the spirit with me. He asked if I was studying the scriptures. I said yes. He asked, "Which scriptures?" I told him I was reading the New Testament. He told me I should keep reading the New Testament, but I should also read the Book of Mormon daily because it would invite the spirit in ways the other books of scripture can't.

So, this is the attitude, at least it's how I experienced it.

[_sock puppet]

the thing about the spirit is something that I've experienced all my life. I was taught that the Book of Mormon was a second witness of Christ, that its "mission," so to speak, was to prove that the Bible was true and Jesus really is the son of God, and so on. Moroni tells us that, if we pray about it, we'll feel the spirit and know it's true, and by extension, we will know that Jesus and God and everything in the Bible are true. So, its mission is to testify by the spirit, which means you are supposed to feel the spirit strongly when you read it.

I'm reminded of a time on my mission when I was struggling. I had an interview with my mission president and told him I didn't feel the spirit with me. He asked if I was studying the scriptures. I said yes. He asked, "Which scriptures?" I told him I was reading the New Testament. He told me I should keep reading the New Testament, but I should also read the Book of Mormon daily because it would invite the spirit in ways the other books of scripture can't.

So, this is the attitude, at least it's how I experienced it.

JSJr did not have the benefit of the Book of Mormon or Moroni's promise. He just relied on the New Testament, and James 1:5--and voila, he supposedly got a divine answer. Why I wonder would your MP think that god would not giveth liberally and upbraideth not you based just on the New Testament when that is exactly what was supposed to have occurred with JSJr?

[_Lemmie]

This brings up a related issue that I find puzzling. Given that there is no real message in the book, and the actual LDS positions are practically nonexistent within its pages, what is the source of the testimonials where people say things like -- 'every thing I need to know about life is contained in the pages of the Book of Mormon,' 'reading it brings great understanding,' 'I feel the spirit so strongly when I read it,' etc. etc.?

Is that just a new version of testimony phrasing, and I left before it came into vogue? (I know I've missed a lot--for example, tender mercies just sounds flat out like a phrase a snake-handling, speaking in tongues Pentecostal might come out with when really in the throes of.... something. It's really disconcerting for me to read the phrase in a Mormon missionary blog.)

I am not sure about the first statement about "everything I need to know," but the thing about the spirit is something that I've experienced all my life. I was taught that the Book of Mormon was a second witness of Christ, that its "mission," so to speak, was to prove that the Bible was true and Jesus really is the son of God, and so on. Moroni tells us that, if we pray about it, we'll feel the spirit and know it's true, and by extension, we will know that Jesus and God and everything in the Bible are true. So, its mission is to testify by the spirit, which means you are supposed to feel the spirit strongly when you read it.

I'm reminded of a time on my mission when I was struggling. I had an interview with my mission president and told him I didn't feel the spirit with me. He asked if I was studying the scriptures. I said yes. He asked, "Which scriptures?" I told him I was reading the New Testament. He told me I should keep reading the New Testament, but I should also read the Book of Mormon daily because it would invite the spirit in ways the other books of scripture can't.

So, this is the attitude, at least it's how I experienced it.

Thanks, Runtu, so it's more a testimony of the book supporting other religious truths, not a testimony of a contained (as in, detailed strictly within the book) message? To me, that fits in with the discussion above about 'no real message other than authority.'

My question came about because I have read, lately, in written testimony, a more specific use of the term 'its message,' and I think I am assuming too literal of an interpretation applying to that word.

[_Runtu]

Thanks, Runtu, so it's more a testimony of the book supporting other religious truths, not a testimony of a contained (as in, detailed strictly within the book) message? To me, that fits in with the discussion above about 'no real message other than authority.'

Yes, the confirmation about the spirit is that the book is the word of God, not specifically about any of the teachings within it but as a whole. I always thought it was interesting that my MP treated it as an automatic invitation of the spirit.

My question came about because I have read, lately, in written testimony, a more specific use of the term 'its message,' and I think I am assuming too literal of an interpretation applying to that word.

I think the message boils down to this from D&C 20:

8 And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon;

9 Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;

10 Which was given by inspiration, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels, and is declared unto the world by them—

11 Proving to the world that the holy scriptures are true, and that God does inspire men and call them to his holy work in this age and generation, as well as in generations of old;

Notice the phrase "fulness of the gospel." As Ezra Taft Benson explained it:

"The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation" (Benson, pp. 18-19).

[_Lemmie]

Thanks, Runtu, so it's more a testimony of the book supporting other religious truths, not a testimony of a contained (as in, detailed strictly within the book) message? To me, that fits in with the discussion above about 'no real message other than authority.'

Yes, the confirmation about the spirit is that the book is the word of God, not specifically about any of the teachings within it but as a whole. I always thought it was interesting that my MP treated it as an automatic invitation of the spirit.

My question came about because I have read, lately, in written testimony, a more specific use of the term 'its message,' and I think I am assuming too literal of an interpretation applying to that word.

I think the message boils down to this from D&C 20:

8 And gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon;

9 Which contains a record of a fallen people, and the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;

10 Which was given by inspiration, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels, and is declared unto the world by them—

11 Proving to the world that the holy scriptures are true, and that God does inspire men and call them to his holy work in this age and generation, as well as in generations of old;

Notice the phrase "fulness of the gospel." As Ezra Taft Benson explained it:

"The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation" (Benson, pp. 18-19).

Thanks, Runtu, excellent exposition, interesting your MP's treatment, but I always feel MPs lean toward black and white descriptions, if for no other reason than that they have the impossible task of wrangling a bunch of 12-year-olds in semi-grown up bodies.

It brings up another interesting situation for me. I have 5 brothers and 1 sister. All 5 boys are Eagle Scouts and all 5 went on missions, and all 5 have told me about talks with mission presidents, etc. similar to your stories. My sister and I never had those experiences, and although I don't envy my brothers their tough times on their missions, I really do feel the sting of being treated differently for no reason other than my gender. Plus I really liked those science merit badge projects I only got to enjoy from afar.

By the way, I am thoroughly enjoying your 'Incidental Prophet' installments! thank you.

(of the 7, in case you're curious, my sister and I and my two youngest brothers are fully out, we have one Jack Mormon (out but not when Dad's around), one who is out but so laid back and easy going on his anti-depressants that his wife hasn't even noticed, and one Bednar wanna-be.)