Loan shifting the anachronisms away

[Gadianton]

Ben,

Maybe I'm starting to get it. if it really were loan shifting, as you point out, we'd be learning things that we aren't.

I think it's a good point, in fact, I'm flagging this for some potential follow-up reading. If apologists are misusing linguistic terminology, it does show how little they care about understanding the material and are just desperate to plug up the holes with whatever they can find. It also keeps focus narrow, on holes, on getting back to square one rather than ever advancing to square two.

However, there have been lots of other apologist writings, especially the LGT "internal consistency" stuff that gets really technical, that I think does meet your interest in understanding the text outside of noise from the positivist critics. It doesn't go very far because believers in general side with critics in simpler, more accessible evidence that goes one way or another. Meldrum gives believers exactly the kind of easy evidence they expect to see but they are smart enough to simply ignore the existence of critics.

Something else for you to consider. And that's the huge investment Interpreter has made into the Early Modern English stuff. Roper is small potatoes. I think the apologists get the problem more than we'd realize when focusing on writing like the Ropers.

The apologists have slowly shifted from "historically accurate" to "ancient text" to "Early Modern English (modern) text". There's something all these have in common, however, the "how could he have known?!" argument. From the apologist perspective, history only really matters as a way to say Joseph Smith couldn't have written it. But many now bracket history. In the extreme, Gardener points out that embellishing history was an ancient thing to do. In other words, yes, much of content may be a fabrication, but how could Joseph Smith have known that embellishing history was precisely what an ancient scribe would have done?! Early Modern English also crescendos with "Joseph Smith couldn't have written it", the only explanation must be "translation committee in the spirit world". But think about that: In a tight translation, Joseph is reading English words from the stone, there is no reason to believe the Early Modern English was a translation of anything, it could have been Shakespeare dictating a novel. Harold Bloom was impressed with the writing, right? Why not?

So the two points here. The first is that while the apologists might believe it's real history, they've unwittingly relaxed the requirements. The Book of Mormon is no longer necessarily an accurate historical account. And with Early Modern English, the Book of Mormon is no longer necessarily even an ancient account. It could be both, but it doesn't need to be. The requirement seems to be that Joseph Smith 'couldn't have known!' (Early Modern English in this case) and as long as that is respected, the path to fiction is a real one, even for them.

And on this point, there is some crossover between old and new MI. If you look at it from the standpoint that "history" was always just a step in the argument that Joseph "couldn't have known" therefore he's a prophet, the new MI is smart enough to know it's a losing battle to focus on history, they don't have less faith, they just want to avoid being sitting ducks and looking like complete and utter fools. But all their research celebrating the literary complexity of the Book of Mormon reduces to "How could Joseph have known?" How could Joseph have produced such a complex literary work without being a prophet?

[Marcus]

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.

I really don't follow this logic. If Joseph Smith copied something out of the Bible it is be definition not an anachronism.

That's part of what makes this discussion so odd in its own ways - and the reason why I keep having to make that statement about the believer's perspective. The only way something in the Book of Mormon can be anachronistic is if we start from the assumption that the Book of Mormon is in fact a translation of an ancient text - and that the anachronistic material should be assigned to the alleged ancient source.

If that is the believer's viewpoint, then by definition you are saying the assumption is not open to being questioned.

That's a good point, and to me is the dividing line. If you allow assumptions to be evaluated, then finding anachronistic elements means that the assumption that it is a translation of an ancient text can be overturned. Taking a step further back and saying the ancient source put it in would not be a logical step, unless of course the assumption can not be overturned. Kerry Muelestein made that argument, didn't he?

To me, it's simply not logical, but Mormon apologists keep tilting at that windmill.

[Benjamin McGuire]

To explain my take further, in the Catholic way of thinking (which I studied slightly after leaving the LDS religion) I see much more of that mindset where historicity is not a significant issue, nor even addressed in any regular or specific way, and certainly not the way Mormon apologists do. I no longer read much in the way of contemporary catholic apologetic works, however, so maybe I'm missing it.

This is one area where I envy Catholicism. They have a separate space for theologians - apart from the church hierarchy. Mormonism may get there - but it will not be in my lifetime, I think.

Comparatively, I grew up LDS, where in every possible setting, the historicity of the Book of Mormon was inextricable from the meaning of the text. Is Book of Mormon historicity no longer taught like that in LDS settings? I suppose it would have to be played down, but to me the text having meaning simply requires it.

I think in Mormonism, historicity is simply assumed. This isn't bad - but in Mormonism, everything is tied to that experience that really happens as opposed to the fact that we all experience it differently. There is always a certain irony (back before it largely gets removed because everything is scaled back) in the Sunday School lesson on the vision that Lehi has in the beginning of the Book of Mormon. (I talk about this in that essay). The best response that is portrayed by the text is to go and do what Nephi does - which is to receive the vision for oneself. And in the process we recognize (as Nephi does) that the vision is unique to everyone who receives it because it is experienced. And then as a second best option, Nephi suggests that someone who has received it is able to explain the vision (as they received it) to those who don't receive it (and in the case of the Book of Mormon, this is Laman and Lemuel). And so then, in the lesson manual we get a bunch of material from various LDS General Authorities explaining all the things in the vision - and so we become (as the class participants) equivalent to Laman and Lemuel, being encouraged to listen to the General Authorities rather than seeing the text as encouraging us to go and receive the vision (differences and all). There is an epistemological gap between the text and the way that the LDS Church presents it that is a wide chasm. In a way, it is this focus on the historicity of the text that leads in this direction. The perfect text doesn't need improvement - and if Lehi/Nephi received the vision and accurately recorded it, that view of scripture would suggest that there shouldn't need to be any effort to receive it - rather it just requires the effort to understand it as it was given, and so on. What happens, when the LDS Church adopts the inerrant scripture belief with regards to the Book of Mormon is that we also adopt the implications this has for meaning, for history, and so on. And all of this is completely foreign in its own way to the whole notion of likening scripture unto ourselves that Nephi offers.

Without the historicity it is simply fiction, and calling it a narrative doesn't blur the line as to whether or not it is fictional. If anything, attaching divine meaning to a fictional narrative draws even more attention to the human author. Finding inspiration in what this author wrote, an author who expressed beliefs that were very representative of his time and derivative of many other contemporary works, would still require a significant suspension of disbelief for me.

I think I will disagree with you on this point. Historicity means, simply, the idea that a specific thing happened at a specific point in time in a specific place. It is, as you note, as much about the way that we read. We can choose to read the Garden of Eden narrative in Genesis as having historicity (that is, it accurately describes a historical truth in its description). To deny the historicity of Genesis isn't to make it "simply fiction". It isn't a dichotomy in my view. I know this is a relatively simply answer to a much more complicated issue - but, it is perhaps a necessary starting point. Mormonism doesn't have anything that approaches uniformity on these issues. Mormonism has a strong literalist streak that leans towards this reading of historicity. The flood was universal, etc. But the denial of a universal flood - does this make the Genesis narrative simple fiction? And there are Mormons who are willing to accept a limited flood who, at the same time, will argue that the LDS temple liturgical retelling of the Garden narratives should be viewed as having historicity. At any rate, it may be best to simply agree to disagree - but, just so that you are aware, I use the term historicity as a relatively technical term with a specific meaning - and not as a more general reference to something being historical. You may think that the every time the New Testament puts words into the mouth of Jesus, that this means that He actually said all of those things. I don't believe this. But again, I also don't believe that this makes the New Testament a simple fiction either.

[Marcus]

...Historicity means, simply, the idea that a specific thing happened at a specific point in time in a specific place...
but, just so that you are aware, I use the term historicity as a relatively technical term with a specific meaning - and not as a more general reference to something being historical...

First, let me say I loved your explanation of how the SS lesson approaches the vision. That was fascinating!

As for what I quoted above, I have no argument with your statement.

...You may think that the every time the New Testament puts words into the mouth of Jesus, that this means that He actually said all of those things. I don't believe this. But again, I also don't believe that this makes the New Testament a simple fiction either.

I don't believe it either, and my limited foray into catholic studies supports it.

What I don't believe is that discussions about historicity and the Book of Mormon fall into the same category as the types of New Testament discussions you mention above. I don't see the Book of Mormon as being equivalent to or even in the same category of scripture as the New Testament.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Something else for you to consider. And that's the huge investment Interpreter has made into the Early Modern English stuff. Roper is small potatoes. I think the apologists get the problem more than we'd realize when focusing on writing like the Ropers.

You would probably enjoy reading through all of the correspondence I have had with Carmack. But I want to point something out that he wrote on the MD&D forum. I had written this:

I am confident though that you would agree with me that the idea that the Book of Mormon was written by Hugo Grotius int he early 18th century, was translated in EME, and then redacted and updated by an unknown contemporary of Joseph Smith (perhaps even Joseph Smith himself) as put forward by Jarman is unsupportable.

This was his response:

I don't know about Grotius, but the text could have been elaborated in the early modern period and then updated later. Perhaps it was first elaborated around the time of Malory and Caxton, in the late 1400s.

It left me more than a little stunned really. The thing about EME is that the discussion that we have about it is purely apologetic in nature. It is about how Joseph Smith couldn't have written it. That's as far as it has ever gotten. It provides minimal information to help with reading the text. Not long afterward, Carmack made this statement:

Book of Mormon English-language authorship is either (1) Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith or (2) Jesus Christ.

And there we go. There are a lot of questions I raise about the text that I don't think he wants to answer (asked both privately and publicly). Why would God use the archaic language that he does? Who is the primary audience of the Book of Mormon? As I pointed out way back in my FairMormon presentation about translation (2016) when I made my first formal push against the EME theory:

At the risk of taking some liberties, this is something like suggesting that while the translation was quite fluent, it simply could not be helped that this translation would not be read for a significant period of time, and that its first readers would not appreciate the fluency of the text – because they did not resemble the audience envisioned by the translator.

And then there is the way that this all fits into my larger issues. We have to remember that if the Book of Mormon is translated by Jesus Christ (God) - then the translation itself is more important than the gold plates would be (or any discussion of original language or content). And so the effort isn't about trying to understand the gold plates or that ancient context, it is about making sure that we preserve the Book of Mormon as that revelation from God - recovering that original manuscript. As I also noted in that presentation:

And when we find this information in the text, it tends to create something of a gap between the reality we see and our expectations – expectations drawn from our attempts to make the Book of Mormon as much like the Bible as possible. Some of you might be aware of the response to David Bokovoy’s suggestion that the Book of Mormon could be considered at least in part pseudepigraphical. This isn’t an unreasonable conclusion if we adopt the tool kit of biblical studies as our primary approach, and we conflate the modern text of the Book of Mormon with its ancient sources. In a sense, it is perhaps similar to the conclusions we might see from Biblical Studies if they only used the text of the King James Bible, and had no access to archaeological information or original language sources.

At any rate, I probably shouldn't let myself get too worked up here. I think that the whole EME discussion fails to help us understand the text - and that's because its primary goal isn't to help us understand the text but to demonstrate the argument that Joseph Smith could not have been the author of the Book of Mormon.

I think that there is some overlap with your views about this.

And on this point, there is some crossover between old and new MI. If you look at it from the standpoint that "history" was always just a step in the argument that Joseph "couldn't have known" therefore he's a prophet, the new MI is smart enough to know it's a losing battle to focus on history, they don't have less faith, they just want to avoid being sitting ducks and looking like complete and utter fools. But all their research celebrating the literary complexity of the Book of Mormon reduces to "How could Joseph have known?" How could Joseph have produced such a complex literary work without being a prophet?

You know, one of the most marvelously enjoyable and complex texts I have read in recent years was Ready Player One (Ernest Cline). I wouldn't say that it was a vehicle for discussions about truth, but, for what it was, it was brilliant. I am not a fan of an argument like this about the Book of Mormon. From time to time, I run across books that I find to be brilliant. It is about how they change the way that I think. The Book of Mormon is one of these books. I have tried to write some things about what makes it brilliant - and it is brilliant in part because of the way that it interacts with other texts. Could Joseph have produced it? I would need to talk to Joseph Smith to know if what I see in the text is what was intended. But I can find other examples of brilliance. Srinivasa Ramanujan serves as one such example of what a largely uneducated genius can provide. I think though, that if our focus is on what Joseph could or could not have done, then we are inevitably going to miss the message of the text.

[Moksha]

Benjamin, what if you said, "Forget whether it happened or not (or even my motives for writing it), it is the message that counts."?

[Dr. Shades]

Benjamin: In your opinion, was Moroni an actual human being who really did live and who really was resurrected?

[Benjamin McGuire]

I hope that you all can see the incongruity from these last two posts - one right after the other:

Benjamin, what if you said, "Forget whether it happened or not (or even my motives for writing it), it is the message that counts."?

Benjamin: In your opinion, was Moroni an actual human being who really did live and who really was resurrected?

To be honest, I am not here to bear my testimony. Most of you already have strong opinions. At least officially, belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not a litmus test for membership - and none of the questions for a temple recommend ask about the Book of Mormon. So, I think that you can be a believer and go either way on this question. Is it the message that counts? Part of me thinks that yes, the message matters. But a part of me also recognizes that the purpose of scripture should be to help us transform our lives - to help us become better people. And I can say with some certainty that my encounter with the Book of Mormon has left me a better person. (And yes, these are deliberate non-answers).

[Fence Sitter]

Ben,

From the peanut gallery and one who does not believe, your participation here is greatly appreciated.

I ordered three books yesterday. Ready Player One, The Man Who Knew Infinity: A Life of the Genius Ramanujan, and, for my grandkids who love math, How a Quiet Kid Changed Math Forever: The Story of Srinivasa Ramanujan For Kids.

[I Have Questions]

At least officially, belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not a litmus test for membership - and none of the questions for a temple recommend ask about the Book of Mormon. So, I think that you can be a believer and go either way on this question.

You think a person can hold an opinion that Moroni wasn't a real person but still answer "Yes" to the following questions and genuinely think they're being honest to the spirit of the question in doing so?
"Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?"
"Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

In my opinion there's some serious (and dishonest) mental gymnastics going on for a person to claim a testimony of The Restoration whilst quietly holding the belief that Joseph made it up and that Moroni was a figment of Joseph's imagination.

I get why someone would want to put all the discussion about the veracity of the historicity of the Book of Mormon etc to one side and instead concentrate solely on some of the messages that they can clean from the book. It avoids discussing all the problems with Joseph's and The Book of Mormon's claims of historicity with one wave of the hands. The source of a message is important. The Book of Mormon's messages have different importance depending on whether they came from an ancient record of God's dealings with the inhabitants of the Americas, or from a 19th Century fantasists imagination. The implications of the latter are massive, regardless of the message.