Someone sent me an explanation by Jasmine Rappleye (a fine scholar, exemplary Latter-day Saint, wonderful person, etc.) of the channel "Informed Saints" that changed my perspective on the channel.
All along, I assumed the channel was intended to inform Latter-day Saints. But now I realize the name refers not to the audience, but to the hosts and their guests.
Now it all makes sense.
Of all the various podcasts, channels, and social media outlets, the most aptly named is "Informed Saints."
That name is reminiscent of the Interpreter. The name Interpreter is apt for a group of scholars who purport to "interpret" the scriptures "correctly" so the rest of us aren't misled by such things as the prophets, where those teachings contradict the theories of the scholars.
What I realized about "Informed Saints" is that the name does not refer to viewers and listeners.
It refers to the hosts and their like-minded guests.
Like the "Interpreters," the "Informed Saints" position themselves as so well "informed" that they can tell their viewers and listeners what to think. Like the Interpreters, the "Informed Saints" do not want people to be misled by such things as the teachings of the prophets, where those teachings contradict the theories of the scholars.
In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, I assessed Jasmine's statement on my blog
But because that blog is new to some people, I'll post the main content here as well:
_____
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1386433376646974
This is my very brief crash course on why I think the Book of Mormon most likely took place in Mesoamerica.
This is a bit of a euphemism that conceals a major point. Jasmine is not merely saying that it took place in Mesoamerica, but also that the Hill Cumorah/Ramah must be in southern Mexico. That's why, to be clear, it is called M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory). Anyone who; promotes the "Mesoamerican theory" without clarifying by using the M2C acronym is obfuscating.
There are other theories that include Mesoamerica which also include the New York Cumorah/Ramah, so they don't repudiate the teachings of the prophets the way the M2Cers do.
This is not doctrine. This is just my opinion.
Yet she presents herself as one of the "Informed Saints" who host and appear on this channel. By implication, anyone who disagrees with their opinions is "not informed."
But here it is.
First, what the text of the Book of Mormon says about its geography—the distances, the geological features, the relationships between cities—fits far, far better in Mesoamerica than any other proposed model.
Obviously, what the text of the Book of Mormon "says" about its geography is how the reader interprets it. People read the text to fit their pre-conceived ideas.
In Baja, the distances are too small, in the Heartland, they’re really large, but Mesoamerica is just right.
This is a good example. To an M2Cer such as Jasmine, "many days" can mean only a limited geography in Mesoamerica extending at most 1,000 km. But every reader can see that Nephi described the 3,000 km journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful as a trip of "many days." IOW, Lehi's family traveled farther in one journey than anyone in the M2C Nephite society traveled in 1,000 years.
The M2Cers simply assume that Nephi and his descendants were fine crossing 3,000 km of desert but did not venture out of the jungles of Mesoamerica because it was "too far" to go elsewhere.
Worse, we can all see that even sailing many thousands of kilometers to the promised land also took "many days." (1 Nephi 18:23) But again, the Nephites limited themselves to the "just right" distances in Mesoamerica.
Like other M2Cers, Jasmine doesn't apparently see the inconsistency of their interpretation of the text, such as the term "many days," because their entire theory consists of interpreting the text to fit Mesoamerica.
I think you can more logically and methodically place pins on the map for Book of Mormon sites in Mesoamerica, but with the other models, you more often have to stretch or outright contradict the text of the Book of Mormon to make it work.
It is difficult to imagine how one can "stretch" the text more than by saying "many days" means only what we want it to mean at various places in the text. That "rubber band" interpretation extends to the entire M2C model. This is what I used to call the "Sorenson translation" which has become the "M2C interpretation" because they've added so many qualifiers and terms to the text.
Here are two obvious examples. The Nephites did not mention the flora and fauna of Mesoamerica, so the M2Cers retranslate the text to substitute Mesoamerican plants and animals. Nephi predicted "earthquakes" in the last days (2 Ne. 27:2) but not in his time. The failure of any other Nephite to mention "earthquakes" in the entire 1,000 years of Mesoamerican existence is solved by M2Cers retranslating 3 Nephi to mean they had massive "earthquakes" but inexplicably forgot the term Nephi used.
Second, the archaeology in Mesoamerica supports the kind of civilization the Book of Mormon talks about from 600BC to 400AD—large cities, fortifications, armies, social stratification, large battles, government.
This points to the basic misdirection at the foundation of M2C. There are civilizations all around the world that include "large cities, fortifications, armies, social stratification, large battles, government." These did not exist only in Mesoamerica during this time period.
And the text never mentions Mesoamerica.
So why do M2Cers look in Mesoamerica?
Solely because of the teachings of the prophets that the events took place in "the Americas." [Note: "the Americas" is a modern spin on the historical record. Joseph and Oliver referred to "this country" and "this continent" but never to "the Americas."]
Without the teachings of the prophets, the Book of Mormon could have taken place anywhere in the world reachable by boat from the Arabian peninsula. In fact, applying the M2C interpretation of "many days" meaning a limited area in Mesoamerica, to be consistent we should be looking for a site within 1,000 km, say in east Africa or maybe India.
But the M2Cers look in Mesoamerica because of the teachings of the prophets.
And at the same time, they explicitly reject what these same prophets said about Cumorah/Ramah in New York.
So again, like they do with terms such as "many days," the M2Cers apply inconsistent logic to achieve their outcome-determined interpretation by accepting the teachings of the prophets that they think corroborate their theory, while rejecting the teachings of the prophets that contradict their theory.
This is one reason why we love our fellow Book of Mormon scholars. We only ask that they be more clear about their positions.
The available scholarship agrees that other models severely lack in this area.
This may be the most telling statement in this entire piece. What scholarship is "available" to the "Informed Saints" and other M2Cers?
I once made a video of the Lee Library on the BYU campus. There are several shelves of books about Mesoamerica, each roughly 40 feet wide. Regarding the archaeology in North America, there was a small section about a foot wide.
What Jasmine is referring to here is the "scholarship" produced by the M2Cers themselves. It is axiomatic that they "agree" the other model "lack" because otherwise they would have changed their minds. (And there are many former M2Cers who have changed their minds, but Jasmine and the other "Informed Saints" would never consider having them on the podcast.)
Worse, the "available scholarship" about Mesoamerica soundly refutes the claims of the M2Cers. Zero non-LDS Mesoamerican experts believe the Book of Mormon describes ancient Mesoamerica. For example, one well-known General Authority told me his brother, an actual Mesoamerican scholar, left the Church over M2C because he knew M2C was absurd but he felt that the Church had endorsed it.
Anyone who reads the work of John Sorenson, Brant Gardner, or the other M2Cers can see that their "interpretations" of the text are pure bias confirmation. Then they treat their interpretations as equivalent to a new, more correct translation, and tell everyone that this is what the text means.
And we can all see that the M2C bias they are confirming is that the prophets lied about the New York Cumorah/Ramah, which they try to frame as merely ignorant speculation.
But third, understanding the PreClassic maya cultural background of the Book of Mormon actually helps me understand the doctrine of Book of Mormon better.
Stop and think about this for a moment. Jasmine is saying that we can "understand the doctrine of the Book of Mormon better" by understanding the Mayan culture, which we should do along with rejecting the teachings of the prophets.
There are two obvious fallacies here. First, no matter what "cultural context" you assume for the Book of Mormon, you will gain new "insights." This is the basic human psychology of pattern recognition. Second, if we remember that the Nephites came from a Hebrew/Egyptian background, including the scriptures they brought with them, we don't need to look elsewhere to understand the text.
And corroborating, instead of repudiating, the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah/Ramah provides plenty pf useful extrinsic context.
Understanding Maya kingship rituals helps me understand the blood of Christ’s atonement discussed in King Benjamin’s speech.
Without resorting to Mayan culture, each of these examples can be understood profoundly by considering the Bible and the works of Christian authors familiar to Joseph Smith as translator. Getting into detail is beyond the scope of this post, but consider these examples: "Type" and "types" are nonbiblical terms.
And many signs, and wonders, and types, and shadows showed he unto them, concerning his coming; and also holy prophets spake unto them concerning his coming; and yet they hardened their hearts, and understood not that the law of Moses availeth nothing except it were through the atonement of his blood... so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins...salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ
. (Mosiah 3:15)
Jonathan Edwards:
The doctrine of Christ's satisfaction and righteousness, his ascension and glory, and the way of salvation was under the Old Testament in a great measure hid under the veil of types and shadows and more obscure revelations, as Moses put a veil over his face to hide the shining of itthe reason is plain: the blood of Christ did as much show his righteousness as his propitiation, and appeared as mainly in his blood as his propitiation did. So of old, in all the sacrifices, those great types of Christ, what they had that was to be offered to God was their blood
'Tis evident that God chose the blood or life of the creature to be offered to make atonement for the soul rather than the hair, because it has a greater resemblance of the life of a surety, which is a true atonement for the soul, as the prophecies of the Old Testament do represent.
it demonstrates clearly that these shadows of atonement are appointed out of respect to the resemblance they have to the real atonement , and that they might be instead of it and as standing representations of it; or, which is the same thing, that they might be types of it. God appointed the suffering of the creature, rather than the feeding or fatting of it, for the making atonement, because the suffering of the creature has a greater resemblance of that suffering that makes a real atonement for sin. God in thus calling these shadows from time to time by the name of the thing resembled,
Understanding Maya execution tactics helps me understand the power of Abinadi’s final testimony.
Understanding the Mayan pun in the Korihor story helps me understand stay strong in my testimony of Christ.
No other model has been able to provide the same level of explanatory value for enriching our understanding of the scriptures.
There are two obvious fallacies here. First, no matter what "cultural context" you assume for the Book of Mormon, you will gain new "insights." If someone placed the Book of Mormon in ancient China or India, similar "insights" would ensue. This is the basic human psychology of pattern recognition.
Second, if we remember that the Nephites came from a Hebrew/Egyptian background, including the scriptures they brought with them, we don't need to look elsewhere to understand the text.
So while everyone is welcome to their own opinions, and the church does not take a position on geography, this is why I have come to the conclusion that Mesoamerica is the most likely location for the primary events of the book of Mormon.
If we think of the podcast title "Informed Saints" as referring to the audience, then Jasmine's statement doesn't work because she does not allow other opinions on the podcast (except as caricatures).
But if we think of "Informed Saints" being the hosts and guests of the podcast, assuming for themselves the title of being "Informed Saints" by contrast to the "uninformed Saints" who have different perspectives, then her statement makes perfect sense.
A more accurate term would be "Dogmatic Saints" or "Partly Informed Saints," but we can't expect that degree of clarity.
Yet.
To learn more about the compelling reasons to take this model seriously, watch this episode of Informed Saints.
Drop the mic.
There is not even a pretense of seeking to "inform" the audience. This channel is pure propaganda that uses the "documentary effect" to persuade the audience to agree with the hosts and guests.
We love our fellow Book of Mormon scholars.
No comments:
Post a Comment