cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Religious Studies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-18-2011, 02:03 PM   #11
ghardy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4
ghardy is on a distinguished road
Default

Thanks for the detailed report from the fireside. Terryl Givens is one of the most engaging and thoughtful LDS scholars around.

I would like to clarify one issue in the thread, however. I am still a believer (in fact, I'm currently serving in a stake presidency), and I most certainly think that the Book of Mormon is historical. In writing my book for Oxford, I tried to leave some room for non-Mormons to engage seriously with the contents of the Book of Mormon from the perspectives of literature, world scripture, and religious studies. Even so, reviewers at the press complained that I took Nephite history far too seriously. In academic contexts, polarizing issues such as historicity can sometimes be temporarily bracketed, but when I speak in church or go out with the missionaries, I am more than happy to bear testimony that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be.

Grant Hardy
ghardy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 02:18 PM   #12
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Let's take this for a moment.

Scripture of the ancient variety provides insights into man's interaction with divinity. Some parts, such as the Gospels, form part of the genre of Greco-Roman biographies but are not written as modern histories.

So are you saying the BoM is religious narrative with historical details, or what are you claiming it is in terms of narrative development in light of some historical claims? Do you adopt the Sorenson model for geographical discussion?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 02:44 PM   #13
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

It may be B. Carmon Hardy of whom I was thinking, the writer of Solemn Covenant.

There was a BYU professor, who later migrated to Cal State Fullerton. If that is the man, then that's who I was considering.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 03:56 PM   #14
ghardy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4
ghardy is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm not exactly sure that I understand your question, but perhaps I haven't been clear enough myself. So I'll try again.

I believe that Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni were actual ancient prophets who wrote from their own experiences and inspiration. The Book of Mormon that we have today is a translation of their words, though as a translation it may be rather loose compared to what a scholarly translation would look like. (In scripture, conveying spiritual truths in an understandable, motivating way may be more important to God than historical, linguistic precision.) In any case, I think that the translation was given fairly directly to Joseph Smith through the Urim and Thummim (or the seer stone). That is to say, I find Royal Skousen's arguments pretty persuasive.

It is sometimes helpful to keep in mind that the difference between historical fiction (which may include a lot of accurate facts) and actual histories (which often include inaccurate information) is largely one of intent. Novelists make things up; historians try to get the facts straight, though they always work from within some limited cultural perspective. I think that the Book of Mormon is an actual history rather than a novel, but I understand that non-members see the book differently.

I don't claim any special knowledge about where Book of Mormon events took place, and for that reason I don't spend a lot of time trying to put the narrative in a Mesoamerican context, but I think that Sorenson's limited geographical model is by far the most plausible that has been put forward so far.
ghardy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 04:11 PM   #15
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Grant:

Thank you for your response. However, I disagree that the BoM should be considered a history.

It should be considered a theological document laden upon either some historical events as perceived by certain individuals, or inspired fiction. It's one or the either.

It is not written as a traditional, ancient or modern history, so I fully disagree with the concept it's a history, even if it says so. It's compilation of religious events strung together in a quasi-chronological sequence. That's not a history.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 05:47 PM   #16
ChinoCoug
Senior Member
 
ChinoCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
ChinoCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Prof Hardy:

Since you're right there why don't you come speak at the Duck Beach Symposium?
__________________
太初有道
ChinoCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 07:22 PM   #17
ghardy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4
ghardy is on a distinguished road
Default

Archaea:

"History" is a wide-ranging and sometimes loaded term. Would you consider Eusebius or the Deuteronomist to have written histories? I agree that Mormon's primary motivation is theological rather than historical in the modern academic sense (the Book of Mormon's lack of attention to political, economic, social, and even cultural factors can be frustrating for historically-minded readers), but I don't think that the Nephite record is simply a theological treatise illustrated with a few historical anecdotes. Mormon really seems to be trying to piece together a coherent account of past events based on primary sources, though of course his writing is thoroughly influenced by his own (theological) interests and biases.

ChinoCoug:

Thanks for the invite, but I'm not really "right there." Asheville is about an eight-hour drive from Duck Beach (NC is a really long state, and we're talking about opposite ends). But you'll be in good hands with Terryl Givens. Have a great time.
ghardy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 08:48 PM   #18
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghardy View Post
Archaea:

"History" is a wide-ranging and sometimes loaded term. Would you consider Eusebius or the Deuteronomist to have written histories? I agree that Mormon's primary motivation is theological rather than historical in the modern academic sense (the Book of Mormon's lack of attention to political, economic, social, and even cultural factors can be frustrating for historically-minded readers), but I don't think that the Nephite record is simply a theological treatise illustrated with a few historical anecdotes. Mormon really seems to be trying to piece together a coherent account of past events based on primary sources, though of course his writing is thoroughly influenced by his own (theological) interests and biases.

ChinoCoug:

Thanks for the invite, but I'm not really "right there." Asheville is about an eight-hour drive from Duck Beach (NC is a really long state, and we're talking about opposite ends). But you'll be in good hands with Terryl Givens. Have a great time.
The reason I could never consider the BoM as a history is that I don't see enough of the necessary elements of a history, even an ancient one. Neither of us arguing that Eusebius or Mormon was Tacitus, Thucydides or Herodotus.

In answer to your question, no I do NOT consider Eusebius a historian, but rather I consider him a theologian with a very heavy agenda, to prop up the basis for the orthodox position in terms of its authority clinging to orthodox claims to historical authority.

No, I most certainly do NOT consider the Deutoronomist a historian.

Mormon, assuming the character is what he claims to be, was a leader, a compiler of theological records, in a sequential method.

I also don't consider the Bible a history but a compilation of theological records which make reference to their perceptions of historical events, real and sometimes fictional (Job or Jonah).

Mormon's "historical" references are to political events which affected the spiritual welfare of the people about which he testified. It explained the benefit of the fall, the individuality of dialogical revelation, and the nature of God. Although Mormon ascribes spiritual cause and effect, and many ancient historians tried to describe causes and effects, it is not written in the true historical manner.

However, any work which follows a traditional sequential timeline could be called a history, but that's not how I view it. Somebody such as in the tradition of Ibn Khaldun is a historian. http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/klf.htm

I don't mean to be disagreeable, but it seems to be a disservice of treating or discussing the BoM as if it were a history. It's not that in any classical sense. So when we as members throw that around, it devalues the testament for what it really is. It's another testament of Christ, that he has interacted with men, that he died and resurrected.

What people are asking is, did any of the events set forth therein really happen? That's a different question to couching in terms is the BoM historical. And I know traditional members do not wish to consider this possibility because it lessens their fervor, but so long as the BoM brings people to Christ, whether the events really happened is less important. If the Spirit of the Book convinces people of Christ, then it has achieved its stated purpose.

So in my mind, the BoM is a theological testament of Jesus Christ. It should not be considered a history despite Mormon's labeling it as such. He was no trained historian and really wasn't familiar with classical histories.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

Last edited by Archaea; 05-18-2011 at 08:56 PM.
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 06:19 PM   #19
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

About Dr. Hardy's BoM reader book...

I only read blurbs about it, but I find the idea very interesting, and one that I had been thinking of.

I've posted here on CG before re: what I consider one of the real mysteries and peculiarities of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon essentially starts off with the story of the murder of Laban (Chapter 4).

There's something about the voice of Nephi that has, at times, grated on me. I noticed many years after first reading the Book of Mormon, that the account of Laban contains many more details and explanations than anything else Nephi writes about. Recounting this story many years after the fact, it appears that Nephi felt compelled to carefully document and justify his actions (i.e. murder). He seems to want to ensure that when the account is remembered, that he is blameless.

Is this the kind of thing that Joseph Smith would start with, in fabricating new scripture?

Anyway, this idea of getting into the heads of the authors/editors of the Book of Mormon has been interesting to me, before I had heard of Dr. Hardy's book. So I will take a look for sure.

I've also long been intrigued by what the Sword of Laban meant. It was obviously a treasured object. Isn't it believed that it was included with the Golden Plates? Plates, Urim and Thummim, Sword.

******

"Grant Hardy" was mentioned in Terryl Givens' talk, but I don't remember what the context was. I too, had a brief moment where I thought "the guy who was involved in the Book of Mormon DNA controversy?" but I thought that couldn't be right because the context of what Givens' was saying was on the faith-promoting side of things. Must be very annoying to Dr. Hardy to be confused with Grant Palmer!
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 07:11 PM   #20
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

or B. Carmon Hardy.

That's who I thought he was. Sadly, our visitor came one day and not again.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

Last edited by Archaea; 05-20-2011 at 02:28 AM.
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.