Loan shifting the anachronisms away

[Benjamin McGuire]

So, do you see any explicit pushback on that kind of reading from the leaders of the LDS Church?

Well, I certainly have never been quoted by any leader of the LDS Church. I think that I am probably considered mostly harmless. I think that in general, there is a lot less dogmatism these days in this area - things might be different if I were wildly popular, had my own successful blog, my own video channel, and if it were still the early 1990s.

but the thrust of your argument here seems to strive to accommodate or even assist people who invest a lot in their belief in the antiquity of the text.

Well, I did note that I find that argument much more interesting. There isn't going to be much interaction if I were to argue from the position that the Book of Mormon is a modern work of fiction. The very idea of an anachronism requires us to assume (for the sake of the argument) that the text is some authentic representation of history - if only to poke holes (i.e. anachronisms) into that claim. As far as the rest goes, I am not generally a fan of critiquing an argument simply by pointing out what's wrong with it - when we get into these sometimes complicated issues, it works better if we can point out what would have worked better. Much of my published material has been about laying groundwork and moving forward - providing methodology, and applying it. I hope that at least to a small extent, I have tried to show that here. I think that I have also been quite open to the fact that if we start with the assumption of the text as a translation, then there are real issues with the narrative (my incongruities) that cannot simply be dismissed or waved away.

That certainly suggests you equate the assumption that the Nephites are a historical people with a believing position.

Working with narrative readings does a bit of this. If you have read the essay that I linked earlier, you would see that I talk about how we read and participate with a text as a reader. And probably I have too much of an academic style baked into me - even on a forum post. Whether or not there were real Nephites, the author of the Book of Mormon wanted us to read it as if there were. I am willing to go along with this when reading it - and I explain a bit as to why that is in that essay.

I really like the Book of Mormon. Separate from any personal faith I have, I find that in places it is an incredibly thoughtful text - even if I don't always agree with everything in it. It tries to answer some very complex questions. And it's section on reading and writing texts is, for me, thought provoking. It's sections on a just war are interesting. It's notions on free will, on human nature, and how it tackles the issue of civil government and politics are all also interesting. What is provided in Sunday School (especially now that there are two 45 minute classes a month one year out of four devoted to the Book of Mormon text) is mostly useless. It makes an interesting companion to my other readings (for example, I just finished some time with Burke, and am moving on to some Hegel).

What on earth are you suggesting here? You tell me that you are not interested in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but you compare the Book of Mormon as an "authentic" text with The Travels of Marco Polo. Presumably, you accept that Rustichello da Pisa, using stories he had heard from/about Marco Polo concerning his travels, wrote this work in the 13th century. Now, we can be fairly confident that there was a Marco Polo who either traveled to China or heard accounts of others who had, and that Rustichello created his narrative based in some sense on what Marco Polo claimed he experienced, albeit with some embellishment and borrowing from well known legends.

There is a section in my essay titled The Unreliable Narrator. I won't disagree with anything you say here. I would add, though, that for parts of the Old Testament - a text which is clearly ancient and has a lot of traditions - we have texts that are fiction. Esther is absolutely fictional. Job is almost certainly fictional (even if there was a real Job, the narrative doesn't have historicity - there wasn't a real Esther). Perhaps there were real Nephites. And if there were real Nephites, then we can discuss how any ancient text relates to our modern text. But, I think that we can read the text without worrying about that historicity - and I think that in some ways, the over-concern with that historicity becomes a barrier to reading the text the way it was meant to be read.

At the same time, I am also suggesting here that if an LDS apologist tries to claim that there is space for something like loan-shifting (or, in my opinion what should be called lexical expansion), then there are real corollaries for that sort of thing. That doesn't mean that we should see them everywhere. In pointing to these real world examples - things that we can identify with relative certainty, what we do is point out how the text leads us to that conclusion and how arguments for this sort of thing should be structured (both for and against). I think that if there was a serious effort to approach the text in a way that is really required by these kinds of arguments, the discussion would be quite different. When all we are trying to do is score points, the arguments naturally aren't that interesting (I thought they were much more interesting when I was much, much younger).

Of course, you have told us that the historicity does not matter. And yet, you bring up The Travels of Marco Polo as a "good parallel" to an "authentic" Book of Mormon. What do these two very different texts arising from very different circumstances have in common that makes them both "authentic"? I would be very interested to know.

I had to think about this for a little bit (which is a good thing). What makes a text authentic is that it is written to a particular audience with a particular purpose in mind. I would say that for much of Mormonism, that purpose is not taken from the text but from a sort of canned opinion of what that purpose should be. We look in the text for the purpose - in the rhetoric that the text offers us. We look at the audience the text is meant for - these are things I discuss in that essay. We can identify all of that in other texts too. I am not going to say that pure entertainment isn't a purpose and an audience who is willing to cough of money isn't an audience - but - I think what I mean about this is that if our discussions are not aimed at the purpose of a text or in understanding the audience the author was writing to, we aren't really discussing the authenticity of the text. I no longer care much about historicity because in the long run, my understanding of the text isn't dependent on the answer to that question. Similarly, I have little concern over anachronisms because that question of historicity isn't all that interesting to me. I am interested in incongruities in the text (and some of those may overlap with our set of alleged anachronisms) because they create interesting discussions about the text - and they are a way to engage the question of purpose and audience.

I don't know if this answers your questions, but, I hope it moves the discussion in the right direction.

[Gadianton]

I am also trying to point out that the critical claims about anachronisms are in part responsible for the apologetic approach. The back and forth represented here and in the link in the OP suggest to me that the arguments (on either side) aren't really going to help anyone understand the text.

I'm sure I'm missing something here, but can you explain what you mean by this? On the most superficial level, this is true. The Book of Mormon says horse, critics say "no horse" and the obvious response, if not the only possible response is to either say, "yah huh horse" or that horse means something else. I mean, yes, critics should prepare themselves for the reality that humans aren't going to sit back and be told that they are wrong, and the comeback probably isn't going to be earthshakingly honest in a case like this. What would you suggest would make a 'better' critic? Instead of looking for anachronisms, which will trigger the obvious, what should they be looking for?

[Kishkumen]

Fascinating. I find myself in complete agreement with you regarding much of what you wrote. I don’t know why it feels like we are not on the same page. The passage about authenticity leaves me feeling underwhelmed, however. Any text might be rated authentic if it fulfilled its rhetorical purpose, but there are particular aims or demands in the case of scripture, no? I think the Book of Mormon’s power is in its success at following in the Biblical genre and yet striking out in some unique, more modern theological directions. It works great as an American scripture, and I think it deserves serious attention for that reason.

I don’t think I could do what you are doing, and I am glad you are doing it. Hopefully, your work will create more thoughtful readers of the Book of Mormon. I was confused by some of your own rhetorical framing, but I am at the very least still interested of what you have to say and generally supportive of your approach.

[Moksha]

I think claiming that an item is not an anachronism because Joseph simply copied it out of the Bible is a very clever use of apologetics.

[drumdude]

I think this subtle discarding of the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon is the only way forward for thinking Mormons with a functional brain.

It allows space for the believing Mormons to continue to think that there might have been a Hebrew civilization in the pre Columbian Americas, and at the same time gives breathing room to everyone else who is increasingly uncomfortable with the lack of evidence for such a ridiculous claim.

In a matter of decades, I think a large percentage of Mormons have gone from expecting archeological evidence any day, to now expecting to never find any evidence whatsoever.

[MG 2.0]

So now, I am going to return to that question that started this post - what do I suppose is an expansion that may work better? Ostler's expansion theory isn't at this level of linguistic information. His position is that the Book of Mormon starts with this ancient narrative and in a sense, it takes the texts own advice and likens it unto ourselves - Joseph Smith's translation is, in this sense, a reworking of the ancient source - a reinterpretation of that narrative to make it applicable to a modern context. It's a topic I have thought about at length. I think that my essay that best relates to this was my essay: "Nephi: A Postmodernist Reading". I started that essay describing an incongruity that I observe:

Nephi, of course, could not have been a postmodernist. No matter what conclusions we may draw from the text, even from the perspective of a book published in 1830, his work simply stands outside the postmodern time period. Yet as I, a postmodernist, read Nephi, I find that he reflects that perspective. In this sense, I am providing both a postmodern reading of Nephi and illustrating how Nephi anticipates that reading. My goal in this essay is to offer a new perspective on the narrative of the Book of Mormon — a perspective that changes not only the way we read the text but also the way the text changes us and our perceptions of our faith.

But, to answer that question, I would say this - when our discussion of the text helps us better understand the text - that is when a discussion of an expansion is better. I am not critical of good apologetic arguments. I can be critical of arguments that I think aren't very good. But my aim in that criticism is to help build better arguments. Dan Peterson and Matt Roper are certainly not targets for me - Dan's interactions with me have always been respectful and insightful. This doesn't mean that we agree on everything. Having experiences discussing Mormonism with both critics and believers, I think that the real goal should be about encouraging engagement with the text. And while I think that my own idiosyncratic views are unlikely to ever be broadly accepted, I think that sometimes I can provide a valuable counterpoint that aims at helping people read the text in different ways.

Benjamin, are you and Grant Hardy aligned, generally speaking, in the way you approach the Book of Mormon text? Also, to be clear, are you saying that with a few modifications (and are they critical in regards to historicity vs. non-historicity) you are supportive of the general thrust of Ostler's Expansion Theory?

As a member of the church that is interested in some of these topics/issues but not having the in depth training that you have I...many years ago...came to believe that if the Book of Mormon was anywhere in the ballpark of 'true' it had to be a hybrid product of some kind. A simple (Joseph Smith)...and yet complex (Hardy's analysis)...product out of the mind of Joseph Smith and Co., AND a composite (God, other contributors, existing canon/scripture) piece of 'inspired' (with actual plates being the catalyst source material) that meets the qualification of "translated through the gift and power of God".

Grant Hardy tackles the text in the Book of Mormon from what appears to be a very honest and straightforward literary exegesis of the text and doesn't seem to pull any punches. You seem to take that same approach. Hardy, when he goes home at night and away from his academic 'tower' has said, to the best of my knowledge, that he believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. That is, there were Lehites. There were brass plates. The Jaradite colony exisited, etc.

When you take your academic hat off and you go to church on Sunday are you on the same page as those, whom as you've said really don't give this stuff much thought, who read and see the Book of Mormon as an actual book of scripture that has its origins as stated on the title page?

An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

I've enjoyed reading your posts in this thread.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

So, do you see any explicit pushback on that kind of reading from the leaders of the LDS Church?

Well, I certainly have never been quoted by any leader of the LDS Church. I think that I am probably considered mostly harmless. I think that in general, there is a lot less dogmatism these days in this area - things might be different if I were wildly popular, had my own successful blog, my own video channel, and if it were still the early 1990s.

but the thrust of your argument here seems to strive to accommodate or even assist people who invest a lot in their belief in the antiquity of the text.

Well, I did note that I find that argument much more interesting. There isn't going to be much interaction if I were to argue from the position that the Book of Mormon is a modern work of fiction. The very idea of an anachronism requires us to assume (for the sake of the argument) that the text is some authentic representation of history - if only to poke holes (i.e. anachronisms) into that claim. As far as the rest goes, I am not generally a fan of critiquing an argument simply by pointing out what's wrong with it...

Well, "critiquing an argument simply by pointing out what's wrong with it" is a pretty standard academic approach, so I'll have to disagree there!!

Whether or not there were real Nephites, the author of the Book of Mormon wanted us to read it as if there were. I am willing to go along with this when reading it...

This is defined as a suspension of disbelief, which I do frequently in Sci fi fiction in order to consider the concept and discuss its implications. But I would never imply that my suspension of disbelief means I do believe. This strategy may muddy the waters with apologetics.

[drumdude]

His argument seems close to the Straussian myth argument of the 1830s. The idea is that Christianity is a true myth - it may not be historical but that isn’t the value. The value is in the truth of the message.

[Marcus]

His argument seems close to the Straussian myth argument of the 1830s. The idea is that Christianity is a true myth - it may not be historical but that isn’t the value. The value is in the truth of the message.

That's a great point. Why doesn't the official LDS church position go that route?

[drumdude]

His argument seems close to the Straussian myth argument of the 1830s. The idea is that Christianity is a true myth - it may not be historical but that isn’t the value. The value is in the truth of the message.

That's a great point. Why doesn't the official LDS church position go that route?

DCP has written that the implications are too dangerous. If Joseph Smith was intentionally deceiving others into thinking it was historical, or if God was deceiving Joseph, then the whole church falls apart. His case in point is the Community of Christ.