Loan shifting the anachronisms away

[Dr. Shades]

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?

I don't see any incongruity. They are simply different questions. There's no more incongruity between them than asking, "Ben, does 2 + 2 = 4?" and "Hey Ben, does prime rib cost more than fried chicken?"

You can easily answer both questions separately from each other.

Anyway, if Moroni never existed, then he never buried any golden plates, and thus Joseph Smith didn't dig anything up and didn't translate anything. If the message "counts," then it doesn't count for anything more than, say, the Lord of the Rings counts. One need not be baptized into the LDS church, pay any tithing, undergo rituals in its temples, do any missionary work, or pay any heed to anything the prophets or apostles say.

Likewise, the entire concept of loan shifting anachronisms away means nothing, because there was no loan shifting to begin with--it's all made up. If Moroni never existed, then this entire thread is meaningless and is nothing more than extended mental masturbation on your part.

No Moroni, no restoration.

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[.]

Belief may not be a litmus test for mere membership, but Moroni's existence or non-existence is of BEDROCK, PARAMOUNT importance toward whether membership makes any sort of difference in the first place.

[A]nd 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.

Right, but if Moroni never existed, then Mormonism is just another apostate church, just like all the rest, and membership is completely unnecessary.

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).

Well, my encounter with The Lord of the Rings has left me a better person, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay 10% of my income to J.R.R. Tolkien's estate, for example.

But if you can somehow convince me that your way of thinking is superior to mine, then by all means, I'm all ears.

[Kishkumen]

I think an interesting question is why changing those specific theological beliefs had such a negative impact on the CoC. The Brighamite branch has had its own massive theological changes over the years and hasn’t suffered similarly. If we could roll the clock back, was there a change that the CoC could have made to increase their share of the restorationist movement, or was the Brighamite branch always bound to dominate?

Lots of tangents here but I’m happy to have so many interesting discussions and welcome them. Thanks especially to Ben for so many thought producing ideas.

My guess is that Brighamite Mormonism has had geographic, economic, and demographic advantages that the CoC simply never had. The "kingdom" was a kind of economic monopoly that benefited the future LDS Church in ways that would have been impossible for the Midwestern Mormons to replicate. At the same time, all of the colonizing, capture of resources, and space to reproduce and flourish multiplied Brighamite Mormonism's growth. Only inasmuch as Brighamite Mormonism is an explicitly colonial theology--and it is--could it be said to add to the LDS Church's success.

[Benjamin McGuire]

But if you can somehow convince me that your way of thinking is superior to mine, then by all means, I'm all ears.

Seriously though, why should I care about convincing you?

[Dr. Shades]

But if you can somehow convince me that your way of thinking is superior to mine, then by all means, I'm all ears.

Seriously though, why should I care about convincing you?

Because that's the whole point of discussion. Did you, or did you not, make your initial post in order to convince us that your views on loan shifting are accurate, truthful ways of explaining the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon?

[Marcus]

Interesting. I think you are discussing a very different concept than the actual point of the paper quoted in the OP. First, this:
"...[this idea that] history is the best way in which to evaluate the truth claims of the text...especially in the absence of any discussion about what those truth claims are, and what they mean..."

I am not sure what you are referring to. The essay linked int he OP (the summary of Matt Roper's material) is clearly about evidence and history. The article that I linked to (if that is what you are referring to) is about the quest for the historical Jesus - and the problems that come with the (much like Joseph Smith) accumulating versions of Jesus Christ. As Johnson goes on to write:

Not surprisingly, the quest for Jesus was driven most by those deeply dissatisfied with a Christianity that grounded its supernaturalism and sacramentalism in the figure of Jesus, and who therefore sought in a purely rational Jesus the basis for a Christianity purged of its superstitious elements.

And I think that this is a significant observation about both Christianity more broadly and about Joseph Smith. Anyway, depending on what you meant, we can take the conversation in that direction. At the time, I wrote a blog post that I never published on a comparison between the many lives of Jesus versus the many lives of Joseph Smith - and I reflected a bit on the reality that if my comparison is at all accurate, we should stop looking at the lack of historical data about Jesus as the cause - because there is no absences of historical data about Joseph Smith. But that's a different discussion.

If your point is that that should not even be the question, I'd love to see that in a different thread.

I think that it is okay to have that discussion - but - it needs to have real context. This summary explains all of this as a dialogue - an interaction as "a review of over 1,000 critical sources printed since 1830, with the anachronisms they cite". Without getting into the merits of the argument, I just want to point out that the dialogue has become familiar enough that the summary can also mention "the 'tapir crowd'". The argument has become about the argument and not about the text. The purpose of the historicity argument is to push back against the critics. The only thing that comes out of it (at least in this summary) is a scored battleground over historicity - and this will only feel valuable to those who are vested in the debates, and those who are vested in the question of historicity as the measure of truth.

For myself, I think that there are a lot of corollaries to this. Some of this would be an appropriate re-framing of the text if we were to look at the idea that the Book of Mormon is a prediction about future discoveries about the historical peoples it represents. But, the inability to actually point to that place and time in history becomes problematic for such a claim. Some of this is about the idea that there are only two kinds of problems with Book of Mormon in the anachronisms found in the Book of Mormon: those that we can verify through appropriate application of research, and those things that we can't verify yet. I think that all of this may be helpful to some believers - but it is a set of believers that has already bought into the idea that history is the best way to validate all of the claims of the text (religious as well as historical) - and this also spreads the flawed thinking that the text was primarily written as a history - instead of as a theological text that is meant to illustrate theological principles and beliefs.

Yes, lots of corollaries, including several you mention that include beliefs. That was my point about your previous request to leave your beliefs out of it. That isn't really possible, when it is your beliefs, beliefs that seem quite different from the standard LDS position, that are behind your position that historicity doesn't matter. For example, your statement that "the text was primarily written as a history - instead of as a theological text that is meant to illustrate theological principles and beliefs" is an example of "flawed thinking." "

That "flawed thinking" is exactly the LDS position that is taught by prophets. We are moving outside the realm of LDS belief to argue that, which is fine with me, but people are going to ask for a justification of that opinion that is very different from the belief taught by the LDS. You'll notice I didn't say fact, because it's not. I'd love to hear more about why you think that."the text was primarily written ... as a theological text that is meant to illustrate theological principles and beliefs." I agree it was man-made and has 19th century opinions and biases, but i don't agree it qualifies as a divine theological text.

[Marcus]

...Brighamite Mormonism has had geographic, economic, and demographic advantages that the CoC simply never had. The "kingdom" was a kind of economic monopoly that benefited the future LDS Church in ways that would have been impossible for the Midwestern Mormons to replicate. At the same time, all of the colonizing, capture of resources, and space to reproduce and flourish multiplied Brighamite Mormonism's growth..

Excellent summing up. Couldn't agree more.

[Marcus]

But if you can somehow convince me that your way of thinking is superior to mine, then by all means, I'm all ears.

Seriously though, why should I care about convincing you?

[Kishkumen]

Well, my encounter with The Lord of the Rings has left me a better person, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pay 10% of my income to J.R.R. Tolkien's estate, for example.

But if you can somehow convince me that your way of thinking is superior to mine, then by all means, I'm all ears.

Does Lord of the Rings present itself as scripture in the style of the Bible? Is its intent, as the Book of Mormon's clearly is (Bob Price the atheist New Testament scholar made a strong argument for this), to lay the foundation for a church? I can think of all kinds of reasons why your hypothetical is a nonstarter. So, not sure why you think this is any kind of valid comparison.

ETA: Tolkien's religious purpose was to buttress Catholic faith through his novel, not to provide a new scripture.

https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articl ... istianity.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Because that's the whole point of discussion. Did you, or did you not, make your initial post in order to convince us that your views on loan shifting are accurate, truthful ways of explaining the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon?

I did (well sort of). What I actually said was that there is no real evidence of loan-shifting in the Book of Mormon - because, even if we take the position of a believer, the idea of loan-shifting doesn't fit the text.

Everything else in my discussion was explicitly argued from the perspective of a believer. Now, if you don't take that position, then everything I said is rather meaningless. Buy my goal here was never to convince someone that they should be a believer. It was to look at the way that the critical and believer arguments are constructed (and why).

I have pointed out, also, that accusations of anachronisms themselves only make sense from the perspective of a believer. If you want the criticism of anachronisms to be taken seriously, then you need to take the claims of the text seriously - and that means that if the text is a translation of an ancient source, there has to be some mechanism used to distinguish between something that is attributable to that alleged source text that could be called anachronistic, and something that should be attributed to the translation, which wouldn't an anachronism. If you never take it seriously, then the arguments that there are anachronisms don't work - because there aren't any anachronisms in the modern text. I am trying to make the dialogue between critic and believer more meaningful.

For those who don't want to take the position of a believer, there isn't much to say. I have serious reservations about the claims involving early modern English, I have reservations about the claims made about chiasmus, and so on (arguments that the modern text could be considered anachronistic). And this means that if I started from that perspective, there would be nothing to discuss. I can certainly argue from that perspective. But ... why?

The thing is, I am not particularly interested in having a discussion here about my personal religious beliefs and faith. The only thing I will get here (and I speak from experience) is abuse. And I am old enough now that I just don't feel the need to put up with it. If you don't want me posting here, I am happy go and find something else to do with my time. This is a just a bit of a break from my current routine in any case ...

[Marcus]

...I have pointed out, also, that accusations of anachronisms themselves only make sense from the perspective of a believer. If you want the criticism of anachronisms to be taken seriously, then you need to take the claims of the text seriously - and that means that if the text is a translation of an ancient source, there has to be some mechanism used to distinguish between something that is attributable to that alleged source text that could be called anachronistic, and something that should be attributed to the translation, which wouldn't an anachronism. I am trying to make the dialogue between critic and believer more meaningful...

Interesting take. As a nonbeliever, I would disagree. To me, the discussion about anachronisms makes sense because they are just another piece of evidence that the story that the LDS religion puts forward about the book is not true. (What doesn't make sense is the endless, illogical twisting and turning to explain and justify, but that's a different matter.) If the story were true, anachronisms linked to a time centuries in the future would not be recorded in the past. Anachronisms are just another in a very long list of elements that means the LDS religion's claims about the text cannot be taken seriously.