Monday, November 30, 2015

Great Western Trade Route

Brent K.S. Woodfill and Chloe Andrieu published an article in the September 2012 journal Ancient Mesoamerica entitled "Tikal's Early Classic Domination of the Great Western Trade Route: Ceramic, Lithic, and Iconographic Evidence." They describe a well-known trail that led from the Pacific coast of Chiapas up to Kaminaljuyu on the continental divide, then down the Motagua drainage, up over the Sierra de las Minas, through the Salama Valley and around the Cahabon River to modern Coban, then down to Cancuen on the Pasion, through Dos Pilas near the head of the Usumacinta, then down the Usumacinta past Yaxchilan and Piedras Negras, down the San Pedro to Moral-Reforma, then down the Usumacinta and Palizada to Aguacatal on the western edge of Laguna de los Terminos, and finally along the western coast of Campeche. Important points on the trail were the confluence of the Pasion with the Salinas to form the Usumacinta, and the confluence of the San Pedro with the Usumacinta.
Great Western Trade Route with Tikal Extension
The Tikal extension went through Seibal and around Lake Peten Itza to Tikal on the continental divide between the San Pedro and Belizean drainages.

Many Book of Mormon scholars believe Kaminaljuyu was the city of Nephi. Following the Great Western Trade Route from Kaminaljuyu to Moral-Reforma takes you right to our land of Gideon across the Sidon from our lesser land of Zarahemla. This is of some interest because the Book of Mormon says Alma, wishing to travel south from Zarahemla to Manti, first crossed over the river and began his southward journey from Gideon Alma 17:1.
Trade Route Linking Proposed Nephi and Zarahemla
Archaeologists believe the Great Western Trade Route was used in late pre-classic times and well-established by the early classic period ca. AD 250. This corresponds nicely with our current understanding of Book of Mormon geo-political history.
  • ca. 592 BC The Lehites landed on the west coast of the land southward and established the land of first inheritance Alma 22:28. In our correlation, the land of first inheritance corresponds with the Soconusco region in the general vicinity of Izapa. The Great Western Trade Route began on the Pacific coast of Chiapas in this region. 
  • ca. 588 BC Nephi took those who were willing to follow him and traveled many days eastward to the city of Nephi 2 Nephi 5:7-8. In our correlation, he traveled from the Izapa area to Kaminaljuyu, precisely following the first leg of the Great Western Trade Route.
This map shows the section of the Great Western Trade Route running eastward from the Chiapas coast to Kaminaljuyu.
Proposed First Inheritance Eastward to Nephi
It is about 180 air kilometers from Izapa to Kaminaljuyu. This distance certainly qualifies as "many days" travel according to our derived metric of 15 air kilometers per day. See the blog article "Land Southward Travel Times."

The Nephites maintained their capital at the city of Nephi for generations. Then, ca. 200 BC, Mosiahled the Nephite faithful on an exodus down from Nephi to the local land of Zarahemla. This was a long and arduous trip. The Nephites did not know the way beforehand. They were guided by divine revelation Omni 1:13. There is a concept in geo-spatial modelling called the least-effort path. This is a route through the topography that gets you from point A to point B with minimal expenditure of energy. A few years ago I came up with an idealized route from proposed Nephi to proposed Zarahemla This was my attempt to create a least-effort path, shown in black on the map below.
Proposed Nephi to Zarahemla via Least-Effort Path
On the map above, red represents the streamflows of the Usumacinta drainage basin. White is the Great Western Trade Route attested by archaeology. Black is a hypothetical least-effort path from Nephi to Zarahemla.Under the best of circumstances, the trip from Kaminaljuyu to Moral-Reforma was long and arduous. The fact that a known travel corridor connected them adds to the viability of our Nephi and Zarahemla candidates.

From ca. 200 BC to ca. 121 BC travel between Nephi and Zarahemla was sporadic. Most groups got lost en route. This is consistent with the archaeological record which reports the Great Western Trail little used during this time period. Between ca. 121 BC and ca. 90 BC Manti was established as the southernmost outpost of Nephite influence along the central Sidon corridor. That was a turning point in Nephite affairs. After the settlement of Manti, the text never reports another group getting lost and travel between Nephi and Zarahemla became routine Alma 17:1. This corresponds precisely with the picture we see from archaeology. Travel along the Great Western Trail became standardized during the late pre-classic and by the early classic ca. AD 250 the route was well-established.

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Aztec Garrisons

The husband and wife team of Arlen F. and Diane Z. Chase of the University of Central Florida have spent much of their professional lives investigating the site of Caracol, Belize. In a 1998 paper entitled "Late Classic Maya Political Structure, Polity Size, and Warfare Arenas" they posit "the 60 kilometer rule" that armies supplied from various late classic Maya capitals were effective within a 60 kilometer radius of their home. They marshall data from several lines of inquiry to support their idea that because of logistical limitations, Maya armies did not venture much past this hypothetical limit around their capitals.
Late Classic Maya Capitals with 60 Kilometer Circles
If armies on the march in this part of the world really did stay this close to home, it has profound implications for potential Book of Mormon correlations. It means the capital cities Nephi and Zarahemla were probably located within 100 - 150 air kilometers of each other. I am indebted to Dave Gray of Queensland, Australia for sharing the Chase's paper with me.

There is another way to look at things, though. We know the post-classic Aztec Empire maintained military garrisons throughout their territory. This is a map showing known Aztec military outposts at contact.
Aztec Troop Garrisons AD 1518
The distance from Oztoman in the Aztec NW to Xoconochco in the SE is approximately 900 air kilometers. From their capital at Tenochtitlan, the Aztecs supplied armies deployed throughout their vast realm. They also used their garrisons as forward operating bases to project force and maintain supply lines.

The Aztecs fought a lengthy, well-documented battle at the site we now call Tehuantepec, Oaxaca. A sizable Aztec force laid siege to the town for several months.The blog article "Isthmuses" has details about this famous battle. Tehuantepec is 160 air kilometers from the nearest Aztec military base at Huaxyacac and 535 air kilometers from the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan.
Aztec Battle Site - Tehuantepec
The Aztecs clearly operated much further afield than a 60 mile radius from their capital.

The text of the Book of Mormon makes it clear the Nephite military also had a tiered logistical system with multiple sources of resupply. In his epistle to Captain Moroni, Helaman describes his army operating on the SW front being resupplied from both Melek and Zarahemla Alma 56:27-28. The Nephites also opportunistically resupplied Judea from Cumeni Alma 57:11. So, the Nephite military operated like the documented Aztec model rather than the Chases' hypothetical Maya model. This means the Nephites could have projected force and maintained supply lines throughout territory hundreds of kilometers distant from their capital at Zarahemla.

In a 2009 Ancient Mesoamerica article entitled "States and Empires in Ancient Mesoamerica," the Chases and Michael E. Smith provide more nuanced context behind their "60 kilometer rule." They derive a sixty kilometer radius from the distance they believe an army could march in 3 days at the rate of 20 air kilometers per day. This metric compares favorably with our derived value - 15 air kilometers per day - for the Nephite standard unit of distance measure "one day's journey." See the blog article "Land Southward Travel Times." They also recount known conquests of Tikal documented both epigraphically and archaeologically.
Neighboring Sites that Invaded and Conquered Tikal
Calakmul (100 air kilometers), Caracol (73 air kilometers) and Dos Pilas (112 air kilometers) all conquered Tikal militarily at various times in its turbulent history.

In addition, Tikal is known to have had very strong trade and political relationships at times with distant Copan (268 air kilometers) and Kaminaljuyu (304 air kilometers).
Relationships between Tikal and Distant Copan, Kaminaljuyu
These data points make our proposed Nephi - Zarahemla distance (326 air kilometers from Kaminaljuyu to Boca del Cerro) seem plausible.
Proposed Distance Nephi to Lesser Land of Zarahemla
The Chases and Smith also make a strong point about "hegemonic" states being very different from "territorial" polities. A territorial state exercises exclusive sovereignty over the land within its borders via centralized political and military power. A hegemonic state is a looser, more decentralized alliance of polities. According to their analysis, most state-level cultures in Mesoamerica were hegemonic rather than territorial. This is good news for the Book of Mormon because it explicitly describes a relatively loose, decentralized alliance where city-states took themselves out of the confederation at will Alma 2:9, Alma 43:4.

Friday, November 27, 2015

Thanksgiving

Yesterday was Thanksgiving in the U.S. Two of our children, in from Minneapolis and Los Angeles, celebrated with us. We spent time with my mother-in-law who is feeling the effects of her 86 wonderful years. We visited my brother who entertained 44 guests in his new home. We are thankful for our eternal, family. We began by offering prayers in all the languages spoken by the six people around our table - German, Spanish, Russian, French and English. We are thankful for the Church's missionary program and for educational opportunities. Our meal was splendid. We are thankful for adequate nutrition. We ended by singing the 1927 song "Bless This House" written by Helen Taylor (UK) and composed by May Brahe (Australia). We are thankful for a happy home and for the role music plays in our lives. Our other children shared reports of their celebrations in Houston and Chicago. I spent two hours on Skype with a terrific Book of Mormon scholar who lives in the Australian outback. The connection was so clear I could hear his young children playing in the background. We are grateful for the blessings of technology, for the Book of Mormon, and for the bond the Gospel creates among the worldwide fellowship of Saints. We saw photographs from our son's recent visit to one of our ancestral homelands just south of Copenhagen's Kastrup Airport. We are thankful for things which are at home and things which are abroad as D&C 88:79 says.

George Washington proclaimed that a "Day of Thanksgiving" be held on November 26, 1789. His words sound like something from Captain Moroni. "...A day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." "...The service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us." - George Washington, October 1789.

The Book of Mormon uses the term "thanksgiving" six times.
  • In 2 Nephi 8:3 (citing Isaiah 51:3) the term is associated with the redemption of Zion and the return of the House of Israel in the latter days.
  • Alma 19:14 describes the great missionary Ammon in the court of King Lamoni.
  • Ammon himself used the term in his exultation at the conclusion of his mission Alma 26:37.
  • Amulek used the term in his preaching to the Zoramites in the land of Antionum Alma 34:38.
  • Mormon used the term to describe his hero, Captain Moroni Alma 48:12.
  • The term is used to describe the Nephites' reaction to the calming voice of the resurrected Savior following the vast destruction at His crucifixion 3 Nephi 10:10.
George Washington associated thanksgiving with prayer to God in gratitude for divine providence. This is precisely how Book of Mormon prophet/authors employed the term.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Mosquitia

The October 2015 National Geographic magazine contains an intriguing article entitled "Lure of the Lost City" by Douglas Preston with photographs by Dave Yoder. Airborne LIDAR remote sensing has located large ancient urban complexes previously unknown to science in a remote part of Honduras near its border with Nicaragua. The Mosquitia area is approximately 100 air kilometers from the Honduran town of Catacamas.
National Geographic Map of Mosquitia Area
Ground reconnaissance has verified the existence of large sites, but intense field work and excavation are still needed to establish dates and cultural relationships. The Mosquitia area is about 300 air kilometers distant from the traditional eastern boundary of Maya civilization which roughly follows the Ulua River. This Maya boundary has often been used to demarcate the eastern and southern limits of Mesoamerican high culture which many Book of Mormon scholars in turn have equated with the Lehite land southward border. Cultural remains from eastern Honduras and Nicaragua are generally regarded as significantly less advanced than those coming from western Honduras, Guatemala and Belize. If evidence of high culture or strong Maya affinities are found at Mosquitia sites, our maps of southern Mesoamerica may have to be re-drawn.
Maya Region and Newly-Discovered Mosquitia Area
Garth Norman has made the keen observation that if Mosquitia turns out to have occupation layers dating to Book of Mormon times, our notion of the land southward nearly surrounded by water Alma 22:32 may have to move further south into the narrower parts of Central America.
One Interpretation of the Land Southward Nearly Surrounded by Water
Many students of the Nephite text will be following developments in the Mosquitia area with interest.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Deuteronomy in the Book of Mormon

On November 18, 2015, I attended a lecture by Prof. David Rolph Seely entitled "Deuteronomy in the Book of Mormon" sponsored by BYU's Ancient Law Foundations Association (ALFA). This was an expanded version of a presentation Seely will give next week at the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) annual conference in Atlanta. Seely is on the ancient scripture faculty at BYU. His PhD is in biblical studies and Hebrew from the University of Michigan where he studied under renowned biblical scholar David Noel Freedman (1922-2008). Seely has worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls. He co-edited the 2004 Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem (Maxwell Institute) with Jo Ann Seely and Jack Welch. He co-authored the 2007 Solomon's Temple: Myth and History (Thames and Hudson) with Bill Hamblin.

Lehi had first-hand experience with Josiah's reforms. The book of the law referenced in 2 Kings 22:8 was some form of Deuteronomy. The Book of Mormon has many examples of Deuteronomic language, themes, and laws. The Book of Mormon is steeped in King James Version (KJV) language. Mark Twain observed that the Book of Mormon has the quaint and old-fashioned structure of the KJV. The Book of Mormon contains 21 chapters - 478 verses - of Isaiah. On intertextuality between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, Seely referenced Philip Barlow's 2013 Mormons and the Bible (Oxford) and the anti-Mormon Skeptic's Annotated Book of Mormon.which emphasizes passages from Isaiah and Exodus. Nick Frederick has found 670 New Testament quotations in the Book of Mormon. (For my notes on a presentation Nick Frederick gave in March, 2015, see the article "English in the Book of Mormon"). BH Roberts in his 1907 2 volume Defense of the Faith and the Saints was beginning to address the issues of biblical intertextuality. Biblical quotations generally follow KJV language.

Seely then mentioned the two schools of thought regarding translation methodology: A) Joseph read word-for-word from text displayed in the seer stone (Royal Skousen) and B) Joseph dictated an open rendering of thoughts in his own words (Brant Gardner). Seely favors Skousen because the literal rendering theory has a great deal of evidence to support it.

Seely shared two humorous anecdotes:
A) When he first hired on at BYU, the department chair asked him never to use the term "cult." It is such a useful word in the study of ancient religion that Seely has used it as often as possible since that day. B) Seely once visited Jerald and Sandra Tanner at their Lighthouse Ministry home office in Salt Lake. A little barking dog greeted him furiously at the door. Sandra said, "Our dog has been trained to bite Mormons."

Critics of the Book of Mormon generally raise two issues regarding biblical intertextuality. A) Joseph Smith simply plagiarized the Bible, and B) Joseph copied from the Bible so clumsily that the Book of Mormon is full of anachronisms. Possible answers include A) Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon share certain ancient texts in common, B) The Book of Mormon is fiction or divine fiction, and C) The Book of Mormon is a mixture of ancient texts and modern inspired expansions from Joseph Smith. Seely sees both the Book of Mormon and the book of Deuteronomy descending from common ancient sources.

Characteristics of both the book of Deuteronomy and the Book of Mormon:
  • Ancient authorship
  • Lost, hidden, buried for centuries
  • Re-discovery led to covenant renewal
  • Re-discovery led to centralization of cult
  • Re-discovery led to religious reforms
  • Covenant renewal ceremonies
  • Sacrifices at temples
  • Prophet authors speak as voices from the dust
  • Authors expected their text to transform the world
  • Book with a mission
  • Authors wrote for their own time and the future
  • Recitation of past history
  • Emphasis on the Exodus motif
  • Blessings and curses
  • Prophecies
  • Messiah
  • Ultimate destruction
  • Authoritative copy of the law (in the case of the Book of Mormon, the law was on the Plates of Brass) used to measure the people
  • Self-referential literature
The story of King Josiah and the discovery of the book of the law is in 2 Kings 22 - 23. The discovery was in 622 BC, within Lehi's lifetime. The book, or Torah, was delivered to King Josiah. As the king read, Moses was literally speaking to him from the dust. Josiah recognized his nation's apostasy and immediately instituted reforms. He led a covenant renewal ceremony and repaired the temple.

The Plates of Brass contained the five books of Moses 1 Nephi 5:11. Therefore, the Pentateuch was in the canon by 600 BC. This contradicts the documentary hypothesis which sees part of Deuteronomy as exilic or post-exilic. The documentary hypothesis sees sources J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), J-E, D (Deuteronomist), R (Redactors) and P (Priestly)  all coming together to form the Torah. Moses wrote Deuteronomy on Mt. Nebo, then placed the book of the law in the ark of the covenant.

Seely showed an image of the Warka Vase from Mesopotamia which includes a depiction of itself. This is an example of self-referential art.
Warka Vase with Representation of Itself Highlighted in Red
Deuteronomy is an example of self-referential literature. The Book of Mormon is a book about itself as a book.

If you read the opening of the Book of Mormon carefully, you realize Nephi wrote these lines about 30 years after 600 BC. He began his narrative by recounting past history. Noel Reynolds showed in a Journal of Book of Mormon Studies JBMS article that both Lehi and Nephi are types of Moses.

Dueteronomic words, phrases and allusions in the Book of Mormon include:
Joshua is part of Deuteronomic history. "Remember" is a central theme of Deuteronomy as it is in the Book of Mormon Mosiah 4:30, Helaman 5:6. Noel Reynolds found 14 themes from Dueteronomy in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon sounds Deuteronomic in many places due to the language but also because of thematic clustering. Lehi, Nephi and Abinadi are all Moses figures. Deuteronomy 12-26 is a lengthy legal document. Deuteronomic law is theoretical. The Book of Mormon documents actual legal cases. There are more than 100 discrete laws in Deuteronomy. After reading Deuteronomy, Josiah centralized the cult at the Temple of Jerusalem. Lehi did not follow all of Josiah's reforms. In the Book of Mormon we see serial temples at Nephi, then Zarahemla, and finally at Bountiful. There is documentary evidence that certain Mosaic laws were only obligatory within a distance of 3 day's journey from the Temple at Jerusalem. The Jewish diaspora built other temples such as the one at Elephantine in upper Egypt.
Known Jewish Temples at Jerusalem and Elepantine
Deuteronomy means copy of the law, not 2nd law. Many laws were humanitarian, having to do with the manumission of slaves and lending to the poor.
--
Q & A
Paul Hoskisson asked about the practice of law in the Book of Mormon, versus the legal theory recorded in Deuteronomy. Is there evidence that the law recorded in Deuteronomy was actually practiced? Jack Welch responded with a handful of examples from ancient Near Eastern sources.
--
Kirk Magleby asked if the discrete end of the law of Moses recorded so explicitly in the Book of Mormon 3 Nephi 15:5 was foreshadowed in the text of Deuteronomy. Seely thought not.
--
Dana Pike asked why Jesus in the NT quotes primarily from Deuteronomy while the Book of Mormon quotes primarily from Isaiah? The question was left unanswered.
--
Stephen Smoot asked about the documentary source criticism that divides Deuteronomy into two sections, one pre-exilic and the other exilic or even post-exilic. Seely responded that the D (Deuteronomic) and P (Priestly) sources are combined in the Book of Mormon. Seely said he would like to know if any part of the book of Leviticus shows up in the Book of Mormon. Jack Welch cited a passage from Leviticus 19:18 quoted almost verbatim in Mosiah 23:15. The 2003 book Testaments: Links Between the Book of Mormon and the Hebrew Bible by David E. Bokovoy and John A. Tvedtnes (Heritage) shows that themes and theme clusters may be even more significant than shared language.

Zander Sturgill asked where the prophet Zenos would most likely fit in the Old Testament. Seely responded that the Book of Mormon describes the plates of brass containing the five books of Moses, the history of the Jews up to the reign of King Zedekiah, and prophecies up to and including Jeremiah. Zenos was probably among the prophets.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Dean's Tax

There was a time when a donor could give money to BYU and expect most of it would support some pet project. That doesn't happen much anymore. The university administration is anxious to build up their endowment. Annual college rankings place a lot of emphasis on the size of an institution's endowment. In the US, Harvard leads the pack with a $36 billion fund, followed by the University of Texas at $25, Yale at $24, and Stanford and Princeton at $21 billion each. Even lesser-known schools such as Bowdoin, Grinnell and Swarthmore have billion dollar endowment funds. BYU's fund is much smaller, but growing, and current university policy reserves a high percentage of many donations to grow the endowment.

So, for instance, I belong to a family who recently donated $3 million to BYU. We were feted with a lovely luncheon and heard a rousing speech from the dean. Then we found out how much good this generous gift would accomplish in 2015 - it would provide four students with half-tuition scholarships. BYU tuition for LDS students in 2014 - 2015 was $2,500, so the 2015 beneficiaries received a total of $5,000 in value from a $3 million fund. That is a yield rate less than 2/10 of 1%. Donors have a colloquial name for this huge amount that gets siphoned off from a bequest to fund the endowment. They call it the "dean's tax." Growing the BYU endowment is a laudable goal, but industry-standard overhead metrics typical of charity ranking services (e.g. Charity Navigator, GuideStar) make BYU look terrible because of it. This harsh reality makes it unlikely that donations to BYU will fund expensive Book of Mormon projects in the future. Work like FARMS did in the 1980's and 90's will probably have to be done off-campus.

Monday, November 16, 2015

Apologetics or Mormon Studies?

I attended a panel discussion at Utah Valley University on November 6, 2015 entitled "Faith, Reason, and the Critical Study of Mormon Apologetics." My notes:

Moderator: Blair G. Van Dyke. PhD BYU 1997. Teaches philosophy & religious studies at UVU, is on the faculty of the Orem Institute of Religion. Co-editor of a forthcoming book on Mormon Apologetics (Kofford, 2016). Heads the Mormon Chapter, Foundation for Religious Diplomacy.

Brian D. Birch. PhD Claremont 1998. Director of Religious Studies Program & Director of the Center for the Study of Ethics at UVU. Co-editor Perspectives on Mormon Theology series (Kofford). Senior Research Fellow, Foundation for Religious Diplomacy. Author of a forthcoming book entitled Mormonism Among Christian Theologies (Oxford).

Ralph C. Hancock. PhD Harvard. J. Reuben Clark Fellow at BYU. American and French political history, the history of political thought. Editor, America, the West and Liberal Education (Rowman and Littlefield, 1999). Co-editor with Gary Lambert, The Legacy of the French Revolution. Author, Calvin and the Foundations of Modern Politics (Cornell, 1989). Director, John Adams Center for the Study of Faith, Philosophy and Public Affairs, BYU.

Brian M. Hauglid. Director, Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies. Senior Research Fellow, Maxwell Institute. Associate Professor, Ancient Scripture, BYU. Co-editor with Robin Scott Jensen, Abraham and Egyptian Papers (Joseph Smith Papers Project, vol. 4 in the Revelations and Translations Series, 2018). Co-author with Terryl Givens A Cultural History of the Pearl of Great Price (Oxford). Author, A Textual History of the Book of Abraham(2011).

Benjamin E. Park.  PhD Cambridge. American cultural and political history. 4 articles have won awards from the Mormon History Association. Post doctoral fellow, Kinder Institute on Constitutional Democracy, U of Missouri. Associate Editor, Mormon Studies Review.

Julie M. Smith.  MA Graduate Theological Union (Berkeley). Board member, Mormon Theology Seminar. Steering Committee, BYU New Testament Commentary. Author, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark in progress. Author, Search, Ponder, and Pray: A Guide to the Gospels. Book Review Editor and Blogger, Times and Seasons.
--
Brian Hauglid. The shift from FARMS to the Maxwell Institute is part of a broad shift at BYU from apologetics to academics. Apologetics is the rational defense of faith. The persistence of questions and external attacks makes it imperative that faith must be defended rationally.  Hauglid based most of his presentation on the book Five Views on Apologetics edited by Steven B. Cowan (Zondervan, 2000). Apologetics, done well, can bolster faith, aid evangelism, refute objections, and defend against attacks. Defensive apologetics are reactionary. Offensive apologetics are positive – they offer evidence for the existence of God or the authenticity of a text. Cowan’s 5 types of apologetics are:
1)      Classical, a combination of natural philosophy and evidence
2)      Evidential, theism and Christ’s resurrection are common themes
3)      Cumulative case, this is neither inductive nor deductive, but a series of briefs supporting a theory as an explanation of selected data. C.S. Lewis used this method
4)      Pre-suppositional assumes the existence of certain truths and builds arguments based on that foundation
5)      Reformed epistemology assumes evidence is not required
No matter which apologetic form we are using, we should avoid humiliating our enemies, warring, using emotionally charged rhetoric, or castigating others no matter how opprobrious we find them. He advocated being empathetic and showing academic humility, in cooperation with other scholars, the majority of whom will not be of our faith. He painted a picture of the academy as an ideal bastion of civil discourse and mutual respect where everyone plays nice in the sandbox and where irony and satire have no place.  We should do relational apologetics – striving for mutual affirmation on both sides. We should do good work, but "we just feel like there needs to be a change in the way we do apologetics." We should be collegial with scholars outside of BYU. Apologists generally preach to the choir and publish in-house.

Ralph Hancock. Apologists defend beliefs using arguments. Modern scholars bifurcate the truth into secular and religious. They assume secular truth can be investigated and defended rationally. They relegate religious truth into a metaphysical world of mysticism and irrationality. By definition, most scholars assume religious truths and personal experiences with faith are indefensible. In reality, truth is unitary. Faith and reason are two sides of a single whole. Hancock referenced Arthur Henry King’s observation on Joseph Smith’s First Vision account in the Pearl of Great Price – it has the ring of truth. Most people on earth today believe faith and miracles are reasonable. Irony and satire do have a place in negative apologetics because the antagonists attacking our faith are so humorless. Tone and style vary greatly in effective apologetics. Humility is over-rated. The academy is not nearly as civil and tidy as idealists would have you believe. Straight forwardness is a better goal than humility in apologetics which by its very nature is advocacy literature.

Brian Birch. Examples of sea changes in modern Mormonism include the B.H. Roberts debates with Joseph Fielding Smith over evolution, the new history advocated by Leonard J. Arrington and Eugene England, and the Maxwell Institute shift away from apologetics to Mormon Studies which is generally concerned with history, including reception history, and theology. Birch applauds the shift because it tones down the debate over truth claims and makes it more comfortable for him to interact with scholars not of our faith. Mormonism has many more potentially contentious issues than mainstream Christianity. Mormonism is more thoroughly suffused with revelatory discourse. Satire and irony should be non-existent. Humility has been lacking over the years in Mormon apologetics and it is necessary in the academy. The ideal Mormon apologist would be humble, able to receive criticism, and willing to change based on that criticism.

Julie Smith. Apologetics are necessary as long as there are missionaries teaching investigators, 14 year olds going to Seminary for the first time, and members doing Google searches. Regardless of personal desire to retreat from the messiness and clamor, apologetics will never go away. The only question is whether they will be done well. Apologetics are like fire – necessary but dangerous. Some of the risks of apologetics done poorly are:
·         Fossilized mindsets
·         Women victimized as collateral damage in the debates
·         People alienating themselves from the church as they discover defects in previously-held apologetic arguments
·         Cultural truth being substituted for doctrine
Smith advocates inclusive, high-quality apologetics. Not everything can be rationally explained. Faith allows for awe and wonder. We should avoid incivility. Weak apologetics injure Church doctrine. Smith likes lists with multiple explanatory options. “We don’t know” is OK as one of the options. The Bible is the new frontier in Mormon apologetics.  We have a lot to say about the Bible. We should not abandon apologetics. Rather, we should raise the bar and hasten the work in Mormon apologetics. FARMS did top-notch work. The Maxwell Institute is still doing apologetics at some level, although the word itself and the idea behind it have fallen out of favor. Smith then gave 3 examples of what she considers high quality Mormon apologetics:
1)      Lynne Hilton Wilson, “The Confusing Case of Zacharias”
2)      Mark Wright and Brant Gardner, “The Cultural Context of Nephite Apostasy”
3)      Jonathan Stapley and Kristine Wright, “Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism”
Faith and reason are and always have been yoked. We should strive for civility and non-Mormon peer review. Good apologetics inoculates against the betrayal narrative “I was never taught that.” Apologetics should be multi-layered, letting the reader decide which arguments have more explanatory power. The Gospel of Mark is a good example of apologetics done well. Mark shows Jesus Christ with mortal limitations. If even the Savior of mankind was limited by his mortality, how much more should we cut Joseph Smith some slack? The scriptures are not mystical, divine objects to be venerated for their own sakes. They are texts to be analyzed and understood.  We should do pre-emptive apologetics so young Mormons reverence the awe but do not grow up with unrealistic expectations.  

Ben Park. Apologetics, done right, is good for both the academy and religious institutions as long as a wall separates them. Park likes the Jeffersonian concept of a wall separating church and state. The new Mormon history is a good example. Mormon Studies is emerging as a viable field of inquiry. We see Mormon Studies programs at Claremont and the University of Virginia in addition to the Utah schools. Programs are emerging at USC and the Graduate Theological Union (Berkeley). This is a wonderful development because it provides employment for scholars of Mormonism. Mormon Studies is now integrated in academics. In the long run, this will be good for Mormon apologetics. There are virtually no jobs for Mormon apologists while there are many options for Mormon Studies scholars. Graduate students cannot advance in academic careers doing apologetics.  These practical reasons alone explain the FARMS to Maxwell Institute shift.  Continuing with the wall metaphor, there should be a wall between Mormon Studies and apologetics.  We should exude positivism as we tell the great story of Mormonism.

My observations:
Utah State, the University of Utah, and now UVU are all doing Mormon Studies. The Maxwell Institute is moving rapidly in that direction, trying to relegate its apologetic FARMS' roots into an object of historical curiosity rather than a living, breathing current enterprise. I asked Brian Hauglid after the formal presentation "Is there a place on BYU campus for the kind of work FARMS used to do?" He replied that FAIR Mormon and Interpreter Foundation are both doing that kind of work. I reminded him that both of these are independent, off-campus entities and repeated my question, "Is there a place at BYU for an organization like FARMS in its heyday?" "Well," he replied, "We're doing what we can." I took that for a no.

I find it pathetically ironic that my tithing dollars support an institution where the kind of swash-buckling defender of the faith tradition practiced by the Pratt brothers, B.H. Roberts, Hugh W. Nibley, John L. Sorenson, John W. Welch, and Daniel C. Peterson is no longer welcome. It should come as no surprise, though, to anyone familiar with contemporary academic trends. Since WWII, ideas of universal truth, Judeo-Christian values, and even right and wrong have been supplanted on most college campuses with vague notions that diversity and tolerance are the highest virtues. Most academics worship at the altar of pluralism and decry exceptionalism whether Western European - American or Christian - Mormon. Joseph Smith's testimony that the Book of Mormon is a revelation from God and the most correct of any book on earth is a tough sell in today's climate of moral relativism. Why can't we just all get along and play nice in the sandbox? Being Unitarian or B'nai B'rith is much less stressful than knocking on doors or street contacting.

The publish or perish incentives at most universities today, including BYU, practically guarantee that young LDS scholars will treat the Book of Mormon in a watered-down, non-controversial way if they deal with it at all. Traditional defender of the faith approaches are academic suicide in most departments if one's career goal is a coveted tenure-track faculty position in a mainstream institution.

Straight-up Book of Mormon Studies of the apologetic FARMS variety will continue, although much of the leadership and institutional support will come from independent organizations such as FAIR Mormon, Interpreter Foundation, and the newly-created Book of Mormon Central.

Many have asked why FARMS, which began in 1979 as a private non-profit in southern California, allowed itself to be acquired by BYU. Some key reasons included:
  • By the late 1990's, over 100 BYU faculty members were participating in FARMS projects in some way. The FARMS/BYU connection ran deep. FARMS was increasingly being drawn into the sometimes byzantine world of BYU departmental politics.
  • FARMS was raising quite a bit of money. LDS Philanthropies was anxious that those donations channel through them.
  • FARMS owned property adjacent to campus that figured in BYU's master plan. The BYU Life Sciences Building, completed in 2014, sits where the FARMS office used to be.
  • Merrill J. Bateman was inaugurated President of BYU in 1996. One year later Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley invited FARMS to become part of the university and voila, several of Pres. Bateman's problems were solved with a phone call.
An excellent treatise extolling apologetics is Dan Peterson's classic "An Unapologetic Apology for Apologetics."

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan

Brian D. Stubbs' long-awaited book is now available. Entitled Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan, this 436 page tour de force published by Jerry D. Grover, Jr. in Provo goes far beyond cognate pairs in its analysis of comparative linguistics between the Ancient Near East and the Americas. Grover's website explains how to purchase a copy.
Brian Stubbs' Latest Book
See the article "Uto-Aztecan" for additional context.

This is a photo of Stubbs, recently retired as a professor of English and linguistics.
Brian D. Stubbs, Semiticist and Uto-Aztecanist