It never ceases to amaze me that critics insist that the Book of Mormon read like a doctoral dissertation with an extensive introduction and massive references explaining all of the details relative to the culture and environment in which the history takes place.
Brant Gardner explains something about this in his introductory chapter to volume one of “Second Witness” He references Bible scholars who point out that our modern culture is what is called a “low context environment” culture. This means that we expect the writer to explain every detail of the environment in which the story takes place. An example is the need for an extensive introduction to a doctoral dissertation with massive amounts of references and extensive explanations of what has already been done in the field. The Bible and other ancient writings, however, are written in what is classified as a “High context” environment. In this environment the reader is expected to have a broad and concrete knowledge of the common cultural context of the culture that the writer is talking about.
If, indeed, the Book of Mormon is an ancient document then one should not expect it to explain every detail of the culture and environment related to the recorded history. In fact, the lack of detail is a hallmark of an ancient document and gives further support to the historicity of the book.
Well, I won’t ask for a doctoral dissertation. I am just an Idaho spud.
But I do have lots of questions.
I just finished I Nephi tonight.
Questions are always good but in order to understand the context in which the Book of Mormon took place we need to search outside the book. This is just as true for the Bible. Fortunately with the Bible we have massive amounts of literature describing the context of the Biblical account.
In the case of the Book of Mormon, we are just beginning to learn about the context of Ancient American cultures. Unfortunately this is an ever changing milieu of information that changes as new information is brought to light by Archaeology, anthropology and linguistics.
If you want to understand the context in which the Book of Mormon took place, I suggest that you get a copy of Brant Gardner’s “second Witness” or you can access a prelininary version at
http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/commentary.htm
Larry P
What would we say to the person who think’s lack of detail can mean it’s a fraud? And do we have any agreement between the limited detail’s and the known culture? Are these agreement’s lucky co-incidence?
———-
Todd i am also in Idaho. I live in Nampa, Idaho. I am Community of Christ/RLDS. But it’s nice to see someone from my state here.
Todd
Brant has six volumes of comment on the limited details showing that they agree with the known cultures. Coincidence, claim of fraud and lucky guesses are the response of those who do not wish to even consider the possibility of truth and are desperate to come up with justification for their position and beliefs.
Larry P
That’s interesting. That can be the case.
This post is a joke right?
Patrick
The biggest problem with critics of Book of Mormon historicity is their insistance on reading the Book of Mormon as though it were written in the last 50 years. They even refuse to consider the fact that the English language, into which it was translated, has changed in the last 200 years.
Concepts that Joseph Smith was familiar with are totally foreign to them and they insist on using modern cultural concepts to find fault.
An example was the commonly used method of plotting a homestead plot in Joseph Smith’s day in contrast to our modern survey based on the US Geological Survey. Using the method of Joseph Smith’s day the land was divided into four quarters based on diagonal lines drawn from the four corners. This resulted in the commonly referenced “south quarter” often mentioned in western cowboy literature. Using the modern method based on North-south and east-west lines drawn through the centers of the sides, there is no south, east, west or north quarters as used in the Book of Mormon.
Even in Joseph Smith’s day this concept was understood even though it was not explained in the “high context” writings of Mormon’s abridgement of the Nephite records.
Larry P
Larry P,
Your response is a joke, right?
Larry, I don’t see your posts as a joke, but I can see where Patrick is coming from. It’s not so much that every detail needs explaining, but to many of us the general picture that comes across from reading the BoM is nothing like the picture of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica that comes from traditional archeology. Even if Brandt Gardner has six volumes explaining how details *can* match mesoamerican life, most of us are left scratching our heads over seemingly forced explanations of horses, steel, multiple Cumorahs, and whatnot. Relying on changes to the English language in the past 200 to explain the problems comes off as forced as well. I think most of us have no trouble getting meaning and context out of letters written by the founding fathers and their contemporaries. The directional thing is interesting, but it hardly captures the real difficulties with finding a historical narrative of pre-Columbian Americans as described in the BoM.
Zax
My point is to ask “Why should the Book of Mormon sound like it was about the culture described by traditional arcaeology?” Most of traditional archaeology as commonly available to the public is about the lowland Maya culture. According to Robert J Sharer in his book “The Ancient Maya” page 54, the lowland culture did not exist until near the end of the preclassic. It did not reach its peak until well after the distruction of the Nephite culture.
Unforntunately cultures, languages and architecture change with time. Archeological remains tell us about culture through language and architecture and even though we can read Mayan texts, the interpretation is based on the modern form of the language. In addition all the readable texts are post BofM time.
Geography, however does not change as rapidly and the geological record shows little singnificant change since BofM times. The geography of the BofM fits, and does so extremely well, an area in the Mesoamerican highlands centered on the border of Mexico and Guatemala. How far north and south it extended is still a debatable question. Earlier members and leaders, including Joseph Smith were in agreement with this proposal although there were differences in opinion even back then.
One of the factors which in my opinion influenced much of the early leaders interpretation of the BofM was the political doctrine of Manifest destiny. This doctrine was espoused by not only politicians but by many religions of Joseph’s time. It proposed that European immigrants were destined to occupy and govern the New World and both the Bible and the BofM were interpreted to support this concept.
Larry P
Larry, thanks for the response, but I’m still scratching my head a bit over your line of reasoning. If I am reading you right, you are saying that we should expect the BoM to reflect 19th thought on the pre-Columbian Americas (culture, context, etc). So we shouldn’t be alarmed that it comes across as much more connected to 19th century thought than the picture archeology paints of Mayan or other pre-Columbian new world cultures, especially when coupled with the ‘extremely’ good fit of BoM geography to Guatemala.
If that is close to a reasonable read, I think you will only be preaching to the choir with this line of thought – particularly when the ‘extremely’ good fit to Guatemala/Mexico is quite subjective and seems ‘extremely’ forced to many of us. Of course, those outside the choir might not be your intended audience anyway. :not sure: