Well said Adam Ford: I finally got around to that Mormon Interpreter piece Literacy and Orality in the Book of Mormon. I think some suggested that it might refute my conclusion that the lack of literary evidence in the archological record is strong proof that there were no Nephites. The article makes the point that the Nephites were a highly literate people. It does not contradict this point. The author tries a couple of times to narrow the literacy to a higher caste, but makes no attempt to claim that there were lots of Nephites over many centuries that were highly literate. The article tries to uncover an oral tradition, which is fine--Im sure there was an oral tradition. But it goes wrong in a couple of places when he tries to minimize the literary tradition in hopes of bolstering his claim to have found an oral tradition. For instance, when Christ commanded the multitude of the Nephites at the temple in Bountiful to search the words of Isaiah, Behold they are written, ye have them before you, therefore search them (3 Nephi 20:11), the author tells us that Christ was really only speaking to an unnamed literate elite and not all the multitude. There is no evidence for this idea at all and it contradicts the plain text. Similarly, the author cites Almas admonition to the poor cast out by the Zoramites I would ask if ye have read the scriptures? If ye have, how can ye disbelieve on the Son of God? (Alma 33:14) The author admits that these low class poor people should be the illiterate masses if there were any illiterate masses. But Alma clearly things they should be able to read. with trepidation the author asserts that the scripture is wrong or the translation of the scripture is wrong and the text should read differently. Again there is no evidence for this idea and it contradicts the plain text. The author does honestly cite the Book of Mormon which plainly contradicts his thesis admitting that all the people in King Benjamins realm were literate (Mosiah 2:8). But then suggests that when King Benjamin says that his words should be written down for the people, what he actually means is that the elite should take a written copy of his words and read it to them later. A major problem is that the author assumes that because large populations in the Old World were literate in only a small percentage, that therefore the Nephites would also only be literate in a small percentage. But the Nephites are all descendants of on literate family. It is one thing for a population of laborers whose ancestors were all illiterate to remain illiterate through time, it is quite another to assume a fully literate family would stop teaching their children to read and write--especially when that family placed in the very highest regard the written scriptures. The bulk of the paper is defending the idea that the Nephites liked a good speech. Ok. No one said that they didnt. It has nothing to do with whether they were also literate, which they clearly broadly were. The author want sto use the term primarily oral and secondarily literate, but these terms are largely meaningless. They were literate. Period. This is going long so Ill stop here. Suffice it to say that this article, like most nearly everything put out by the Mormon Interpreter, is either a much-too-long statement of the obvious (the Nephites, like all educated civilizations prior to the printing press, had a strong oral tradition) or apologetics approached from the defensive position, seeking to jam the evidence into the approved narrative instead of seeking to understand what happened by looking at the evidence (which is a dishonest approach to history). This piece is clearly the first and when applied to the problem of the lack of literary evidence in the historical record, the latter too. Did the Nephites communicate orally? Of course they did. Before the printing press the creation of books was a difficult and slow process. Therefore information was often conveyed by town criers and storytellers would memorize long stories. No one disputes this. Im sure the Nephites did this. It does nothing to destroy the reality of their widespread literacy. Why does the author spend 38 pages and 88 footnotes to undermine the idea of Nephite literacy? Maybe it is because literate societies leave literary evidence for following generations to find. And no evidence of the Nephites has ever been found. Or maybe it is just because he wants to convince the reader that ancient societies communicated by verbal means. I dont know who would argue with that thesis. When a temple complex is discovered in the jungle or a Mississippi mound is excavated modern Mormons get all excited thinking it might be Nephite. But there is never writing found at these sites. The only way they could be Nephite is if the Nephites were not literate. So the modern apologist must dismantle the plain evidence in the Book of Mormon regarding the widespread Nephite literacy. This article can be seen as an admission that no Nephite civilization as described in the Book of Mormon existed. So if you cling to the idea that it must have existed, you have to twist the text to change what you are looking for in the historical record. This author tries his best to minimize the importance of Nephite writing, but even in its minimized form, the writings should still be found. And they arent. After reading this study, I remain confident that the lack of literary evidence found makes it extremely likely that there were no Nephites.
Posted on: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:47:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015