SUNSTONE

YEA, YEA NAY, NAY key to the nature of reality. The same words may have a very different yield depending on where you plant them and the care you take of them. is notable for figuring this out at the beginning of his prophetic ca- DETERMINING WHAT IS “REAL” reer: “The different teachers of religion un- derstood the same passages of scripture so By Kevin Christensen differently as to destroy all confidence in set- tling the question by an appeal to the Bible” (Joseph Smith—History 1:12). This is the postmodern dilemma, the uncertain relation- HE MOMENT I be- use of Thomas Kuhn’s insights ship between the signs of language and the came a published au- about the nature of scientific signified beyond language. thor, I became fair “paradigm shifts” in Book of When I explained what I was finding in T 5 game for criticism. So Dan Mormon apologetics. He my studies to my then sister-in-law, she rec- Vogel decides to challenge my claims that my motive “seems ommended that I read Kuhn’s The Structure of views in his March 2005 to be to create a space for . . . Scientific Revolutions. I took her advice and SUNSTONE essay, “Is a W apologetic claims by arguing soon read, and loved, the book. And I con- ‘Paradigm Shift’ in Book of that if science is actually a tinue to use it because I love his insight and Possible?”1 subjective enterprise, then clarity of thought and expression. I later Welcome to the arena. believing that the Book of chanced upon Ian Barbour’s wonderful 1974 Vogel claims that “contro- Mormon is historical is nei- book, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A versy rages between Book of ther more nor less ‘scientific’ Comparative Study of Science and Religion, and Mormon apologists and critics than not believing” (Vogel, I continue to use and recommend it as well.6 mainly because both are 69). I have never made the ar- I remain impressed that Alma 32 and seeking the unconditional ac- gument that Vogel describes Kuhn describe the same epistemology for quiescence of the other.” here for the simple reason paradigm decisions, the same values that Indeed? All of the apologists I that I find it silly. provide rational constraints on meaning. know are very much aware I have it on good authority That is, Kuhn explains that there are no rules that a “So what?” is sufficient what my actual motives are that determine paradigm choice, there are to brush off our best arguments. To cite for using Kuhn’s insights. While serving my constraining values independent of partic- Nibley: mission, I wanted to understand what I saw ular paradigms. One can give rational rea- When is a thing proven? When you happening every day: Why is it that different sons for a paradigm choice—for preferring personally think so and that’s all people can look at the same things and have Copernicus to Ptolemy, or Einstein to you can do. . . . Then you have such different experiences? Why do the Newton—based on values like accuracy of your testimony, and all you can do things I find exciting and compelling not key predictions, comprehensiveness and co- is bear your testimony and point to touch others the same way? Why do things herence, simplicity and aesthetics, fruitful- the evidence. That’s all you can do. that others find devastating and shattering ness and future promise.7 Just so, Alma 32 But you can’t impose your testi- not bother me at all? describes faith decisions in terms of the suc- mony on another. And you can’t I began looking in the Bible and LDS cess of key experiments, mind-expanding make the other person see the evi- scriptures, examining the many different enlightenment, the delicious appeal of ideas, dence as you do.2 ways people responded to prophets anciently fruitfulness and future promise.8 I cannot, Similar perspectives regarding the role of and comparing that with my own experi- however, recommend Vogel’s brief summary scholarship have been repeatedly affirmed, ences. It became clear to me that believers and paraphrase of my arguments. I have lately by John W. Welch3 and by LDS Apostle and skeptics notice different things about published several long articles on the topic, Dallin H. Oaks. Oaks specifically said: Jesus and the prophets and make their judg- and presented on the theme of “Paradigm In fact, it is our position that sec- ments from different criteria. At times they Debate in Mormon Studies” at the 2004 Salt ular evidence can neither prove nor interpret the same words in different ways. Lake Sunstone Symposium.9 disprove the . Its Hence, the profound observation that Jesus authenticity depends, as it says, on made in explaining the key significance of OGEL claims that apologists (and es- a witness of the Holy Spirit. Our the Parable of the Sower. “Know ye not this pecially me) misuse Kuhn “to justify side will settle for a draw, but those parable? How then will ye know all parables?” V mixing religious values with scien- who deny the historicity of the (Mark 4:13, emphasis mine.) tific criteria, privileging positive over nega- Book of Mormon cannot settle for a The Parable of the Sower provides both tive evidence, creating ad hoc question- draw.4 an epistemological key and an ontological begging responses to counter evidence and, In this recent go-round, Vogel attacks my key—that is, both a key to knowing and a ironically, resisting paradigm shift” (p. 69). Indeed? KEVIN CHRISTENSEN, B.A. English, is a technical writer living in Bethel Park, In a previous online response to me, Pennsylvania. He has published in Dialogue, SUNSTONE, several FARMS publications, Vogel kindly explains the true order of things and is currently writing a series for Meridian magazine called “Plain and Precious Things with respect to valuing negative evidence: Restored.” He can be contacted at [email protected]. Christensen should keep in mind

PAGE 66 NOVEMBER 2005 SUNSTONE

that no matter how many correla- tions one perceives in a text, one negative evidence cancels them all. N MANY OCCASIONS, I have found In other words, it is the apologists O who are obliged to answer every that when viewed from another negative evidence, while those who perspective, a seemingly powerful, decisive, doubt only need present evidence for rejecting Book of Mormon his- and final “negative evidence” becomes very toricity.10 I find this a most enlightening statement. powerful positive evidence. Vogel is free to value evidence as he sees fit. So are we all. So it is worth my asking: pect later references to Melchizedek Angel and Paradigms Regained in the Spring of Should a single negative experience be to retain some memory of the cult 2002, would not have contacted me, and I grounds for leaving the Church, dropping of Elyon. . . . This accounts for the would have not been in position to coordi- my belief in the historicity of Book of Melchizedek material in Hebrews, nate Reynolds’s visit with Barker during his Mormon, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the ex- and the early Church’s association trip to England that fall. Without me, he istence of God? Or is a much broader per- of Melchizedek and the Messiah. probably would have contacted her, and she spective called for? The arguments of Hebrews presup- would still have come to BYU for a May 2003 On many occasions, I have found that pose a knowledge of the angel seminar and still presented memorably on when viewed from another perspective, a mythology which we no longer the historicity of the Book of Mormon at the seemingly powerful, decisive, and final “neg- have.12 Joseph Smith Conference in Washington ative evidence” becomes very powerful posi- In contrast to Wright’s conclusion, Barker’s D.C. in May of 2005. I am convinced that tive evidence. Let me cite one example. work connects the Melchizedek traditions to these were meant to be. But I would have In an essay published in 1993, David P. the First Temple, which not only moves them known nothing about it. Wright, an eminent critic of Book of Mormon back 700 years from the writing of Hebrews Knowing my personality, had I caved to historicity, argues that the Melchizedek mate- but also argues that the source of the unity in Wright’s challenge rather than having put it rial in Alma 13 is anachronistically derived the traditions that Hebrews relies on is the on a back burner, I’d likely be off reading from Hebrews in the New Testament, thus Temple.13 novels, playing computer games, and negating the claim that Joseph was trans- But suppose that when I read Wright’s watching TV, not bothering with matters of lating from a record that pre-dated the for- essay in 1993 I had let Wright’s argument be faith. I would not even have known what I mation of the biblical canon: the one negative evidence sufficient to cancel was missing. And that would have been Scholarship recognizes that out all positive experiences in my faith? thanks to what appeared to be “a single nega- Hebrews does not create all of its • Then I would not have read the Review tive evidence” that is, from my current per- argument by itself but relies on tra- of Books on the Book of Mormon in 1995 and spective, dead wrong. dition and perhaps even on some seen the essays by Ross David Baron and Vogel opines, “If anachronisms and lack unknown written sources (in addi- Martin S. Tanner that each quoted an in- of evidence are not considered counter-evi- tion to the Bible) in some of the triguing passage from Margaret Barker’s im- dence, what is? Isn’t there a point at which places where we have seen the portant 1992 book, The Great Angel: A Study resistance becomes unreasonable and irra- epistle parallel elements in Alma of Israel’s Second God. tional” (p. 71). Surely. But as I have discov- 12–13. But these traditions and • Then, early in 1999, I would not have ered, many of the critics’ favorite sources are in general relatively re- had the recognition and interest during an anachronisms aren’t what they appear at first, cent developments for the author impromptu visit to a half-price bookstore in and a great many have been transformed into of Hebrews, not traditions going Dallas to pick up The Great Angel, the only positive evidences.14 There may be a point at back 700 years. Moreover, the tra- copy of any of Barker’s books I had ever seen. which resistance becomes unreasonable and ditions and sources founded or And upon reading The Great Angel, I would irrational, but time is the ultimate arbiter of supposed by scholars for the pas- not have gotten excited enough to track that—each individual is responsible for his sages in Hebrews relevant to Alma down the rest of her books, including a li- or her own judgments, and appearances at 12–13 are diverse. . . they are not brary copy of the then out-of-print The Older any given time are subject to change without likely to be found in one traditional Testament containing the passage I quoted warning. source.11 above, and which, because of my familiarity For an example, let’s turn to evidence However, writing in England, Margaret with Wright’s argument, I immediately recog- Vogel himself uses in an essay on the Book of Barker, an Old Testament scholar who is nized as significant for Latter-day Saints. Mormon witnesses as victims of Joseph trying to understand the background of • I would not have contacted Barker in Smith’s hypothesized skill at hypnotism. Christianity, observes: September of 1999 nor delivered papers on Vogel cites as evidence an 1857 letter— Melchizedek was central to the old her work at two Sunstone symposiums. found in the official Church archives and full royal cult. We do not know what Neither would I have written Paradigms of all sorts of details involving the correspon- the name means, but it is quite clear Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker’s dents—that contains a second-hand report that this priesthood operated within Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon of a rumor to the effect that Joseph Smith the mythology of the sons of Elyon, Studies, which was published by FARMS in learned hypnotism “from a German ped- and the triumph of the royal son of January of 2002. dler.”15 But why would Vogel, a rigorous and God in Jerusalem. We should ex- • Noel Reynolds, after reading The Great dedicated historian who has taken the

NOVEMBER 2005 PAGE 67 SUNSTONE

after the manner of the things of the Jews” (2 Nephi 25:5). We cannot see all at once READ WITH DIFFERENT contexts, but have to study things out in our minds, I search diligently, prepare our minds, different perspectives—and I come to ponder, experiment, and nourish—all as part of an ongoing process. different valuations. I plant the seed in The section of Vogel’s essay that at- different soil, and I nourish it differently, tempts to define responsible Kuhn/irre- sponsible Kuhn is rhetorical sleight of and I get a very different harvest. hand. The issue ought to be my actual use of Kuhn and the content and structure of trouble to gather five volumes of valuable of the rumor in the 1857 letter. Not only the actual arguments I make, regardless of early Mormon documents, even bother to does Vogel cite a late rumor as evidence, but who said it first, and regardless of the irre- cite a late rumor? Why notice and why value in this case, without realizing it, he docu- sponsible use someone else might make in an a rumor? I can only surmise he does it be- ments the fictive pedigree of the rumor. He unrelated debate. Only if my use corre- cause the firsthand early accounts do not makes a human mistake. Should one “nega- sponded to the hypothetical irresponsible support his hypothesis about Smith being a tive evidence” cancel out Vogel’s entire body Kuhn could the criticism apply. I have never skilled hypnotist while the late rumor does. of work? I think not. used the three-step “fallacy from Kuhn” that Does the notice and value that Vogel assigns Now let’s consider the matter of paradigm Vogel identifies as common among some to these documents derive from the canons shifts. Read how Vogel explains Kuhn: Creationists. of the historian’s trade—which favor first- Kuhn argues . . . that the historical hand, contemporary reports over second- progress of science is best under- HE selection of any method presup- hand accounts, and far less for late, stood as punctuated by mass con- poses a problem field and a standard un-pedigreed rumors—or from the demands versions to new understandings, T of solution. So what should a Book of of his hypothesis? Even more instructive is sudden “paradigm shifts.” (p. 69) Mormon archaeologist or scholar look for, by that in a previous footnote on the same page It so happens that Kuhn never describes what method, and with what acceptable that Vogel quotes the 1857 letter, he cites a community paradigm shifts as either standard of solution? When our standard ex- BYU Studies article on “Mormonism and “sudden” or as “mass conversions.” Instead of amples and background assumptions differ, Mesmerism” that quotes from an 1856 novel a single group conversion, what occurs is an so do our methods, problem fields, and stan- by Maria Ward that depicts Joseph Smith as “increasing shift in the distribution of profes- dards of solution. For example, Brent having learned hypnotism from a German sional allegiances.”17 An individual may have Metcalfe claims that: peddler.16 Vogel apparently fails to notice a sudden change to a different perspective, Despite the popularity of their the- how the date and content of the 1856 novel but this is not typical. What Kuhn describes ories, Book of Mormon geogra- should have crucial significance for the value as a paradigm shift takes time and involves phers have been unable to deliver a overcoming resistance for both individuals single archeological dig that can be and paradigm communities: verified by reputable Mesoameri- Looking at a contour map, the stu- canists as the ruins of an ancient dent sees lines on paper, the cartog- Near Eastern culture, much less of rapher a picture of a terrain. Lehites and Jaredites.19 Looking at a bubble-chamber pho- This statement makes clear what Metcalfe tograph, the student sees confused demands—”the ruins of an ancient Near and broken lines, the physicist a Eastern culture”—and to whom he will grant record of familiar authority to dispense what Kuhn calls “a li- subnuclear cense for seeing”: only “reputable events. Only Mesoamericanists.” One would think, for in- after a stance, that he’d note a most obvious number of problem: that of looking for the ruins of an such trans- ancient Near Eastern culture in Mesoamerica formations of given the conspicuous tendency of ancient vision does the Near Eastern cultures to occur in the ancient student become an Near East.20 inhabitant of the sci- Arguing similarly, Vogel claims that my Mentist’s world, seeing appreciation for Brant Gardner’s method of what the scientist sees, and “looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of responding as the scientist does.18 Mormon instead of the Book of Mormon in Kuhn’s observations about the time and Mesoamerica” is misplaced, for Gardner’s ap- processes involved in entering a paradigm is proach “looks only for similarities in the text, precisely akin to Nephi’s observation that instead of comparing the text as a whole “there is none other people that understand against what is known about Mesoamerica” the things which were spoken unto the Jews with the effect that “historical anachronisms like unto them, save it be that they are taught become invisible to researchers and falsifica-

PAGE 68 NOVEMBER 2005 SUNSTONE

tion becomes impossible” (71). [that is, with a range of Arabian he does not quote me in support of this Here is what Gardner actually says he is and Mesoamerican cultural charge. I’ll just say, no, I don’t believe that. doing, and he provides a powerful example specifics], what do we have that He continues though, saying that “This al- of the difference that a change in perspective might be counter-indications? We lows . . . Christensen to arbitrarily assign can bring to the questions one asks and the have the specific descriptive prob- greater significance to positive, rather than evidence, or lack thereof, that one finds: lems of swords, silk, horses, char- negative evidence” (70). Would it be more The difference came when I started iots, etc. I find those much easier to reasonable, scientific, scholarly, and objective looking for Mesoamerica in the explain as labeling problems than I to let Vogel assign the proper evidential sig- Book of Mormon instead of the do finding an alternate explanation nificance for me? On this point, I think of Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. for the type of detailed correlation John Clark’s presentation at the Joseph Smith Oddly enough, there is a huge dif- listed above.22 Library of Congress seminar this past May in ference, and the nature of the cor- Notice that Gardner openly notices and which he showed trends in evidence. He relations and the quality of the discusses potential “historical anachro- viewed the existence of sixty unresolved is- correlations has changed with that nisms,” demonstrating that Vogel’s charge sues against the clear trend of a rising single change in perspective. that such things “become invisible” is false. number of issues that are being resolved— When I started my examination, And instead of making “falsification impos- changing from two or three in 1830 to fifty- I had no expectation of what I sible,” as Vogel claims many Book of eight percent by 2005. To this we could add would find. Some of the correlation Mormon apologists do, Gardner is openly the very successful Book of Mormon correla- I have found came not from at- putting the text at risk via his methods—and tions with Jerusalem and 600 BCE and the tempting to find some specific openly stating his perspectives on the results. Arabian journey that are just now being thing, but in realizing that the text noted.24 Such things do have implications for did not say what I had thought it ERE is the crux of my impasse with the possibilities of the New World portions of said—and that it really didn’t make Vogel: I interpret the text differently, the Book of Mormon. As a critical incanta- any sense until I saw it in the con- H and I value the problems differently. tion, “DNA!” does nothing to explain how text of Mesoamerican culture. In many cases, where Vogel sees problems, I Joseph Smith managed them. It is our per- When people ask for one thing see no problems at all.23 Yes, I am aware of spective that helps us assign significance to that is the most important correla- the kind of “Chicken Little” panic some of correlations, puzzles, and counter-instances. tion, I have a hard time coming up these problems have raised in various circles, with one, because it isn’t a single and I acknowledge a number of unresolved HE thing to do, Vogel tells us, is to thing. It is that the entire text of the issues that I keep on my back burners. adopt the paradigm of the Book of Book of Mormon works better in a Nevertheless I do, in fact, read the text differ- T Mormon as a pious fraud and to see Mesoamerican context. Speeches ently on those very issues than Vogel reads it. Joseph Smith as a liar who meant well suddenly have a context that makes I read with different contexts, different per- (72–73). As I consider this solution, I them relevant instead of just spectives—and I come to different valua- imagine a new dialogue between Jesus and preachy. The pressures leading to tions. I plant the seed in different soil, and I this kind of disciple in response to the Bread wars are understandable. The wars nourish it differently, and I get a very dif- of Life sermon. The text notes that because of themselves have an explanation for ferent harvest. I do not say that my readings the doctrine Jesus taught, “Many therefore of their peculiar features. All of those are the only ones possible, but I strive to his disciples, when they heard this, said, things happen with a single inter- show that they are plausible and, from my ‘This is an hard saying; who can hear it?’” pretive framework that is in the perspective, better and more promising. (John 6: 60). Jesus then offers other sayings right place at the right time. Even But according to Vogel, “Christensen be- which are even harder, and, as a conse- the demise of the Nephites hap- lieves Kuhn’s thesis gives Mormon scholars quence, “many of his disciples went back, pens at “the right time.”21 permission to corrupt the scientific method and walked no more with him” (John 6:66). Contrasting Metcalfe’s approach, Gardner with religious values” (71). Not surprisingly, Jesus then says to the twelve, “Will ye also re-defines the problem field, method, and standard of solution. Instead of looking for a conspicuously transplanted ancient Near Eastern culture in the Americas that accounts for the population and history of the entire hemisphere, he’s looking at a limited geog- raphy in Mesoamerica as a context against which to read the Book of Mormon. So has Gardner “verified” the Book of Mormon? To a degree, he has, but only tentatively, and in re- lation to the questions he asks and the ap- proach he takes. And contrary to what Vogel writes about “looking only for similarities,” Gardner recognizes the need to balance his emerging correlations against currently un- solved puzzles: Against these correspondences JEANETTE ATWOOD

NOVEMBER 2005 PAGE 69 SUNSTONE

go away?” The disciples of modernity answer preconceptions). These sacrifices are required Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, him: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast of the listeners in 3 Nephi 8:20 to prepare Brent Lee Metcalfe, ed. (Salt Lake City: Signature the most inspiring lies. Of course we don’t them for moving to the next stage of the Books, 1993), 205. 12. Margaret Barker, The Older Testament: The literally believe that Son of God business. Temple experience described in 3 Nephi 11. Survival of Themes from the Ancient Royal Cult in We’re not stupid. After all, such claims are We experiment and consider the real re- Sectarian Jerusalem and Early Christianity (London: extraordinary and are not verifiable or repro- sults: the mind-expanding enlightenment, the SPCK, 1987), 257. This volume was reprinted by ducible scientifically.” delicious taste, the fruitfulness, and the future Sheffield Phoenix Press in 2005. I have previously discussed the inspired- promise. “Is this not real?” Alma asks (Alma 13. See the discussion of First Temple themes in fiction paradigm as a potentially viable ap- 32:35). My answer is yes. Alma 13 in my “Paradigms Regained: A Survey of proach for some but not for me, nor do I Margaret Barker’s Scholarship and Its Significance for 25 Mormon Studies” FARMS Occasional Papers, no. 2, believe for the community as a whole. I (Provo: FARMS, November 2001) 54–56. have never yet seen it presented in an in- SunstoneBlog.com 14. See for example, Kevin Christensen, “The spiring way. Rather, what we get is what I To comment on this essay or read comments Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old identified in a Dialogue essay as “spiritual by others, please visit the Sunstone blog: Testament” in FARMS Review 16, no. 2 (2004): 59–90. This paper responds to charges that the Book masochism,” a substitute for religious experi- www.SunstoneBlog.com. ence where one publicly demonstrates one’s of Mormon is too Christian for something purport- edly written before Christ. It draws on First Temple capacity to face the abyss without flinching. teachings that come from Jerusalem in 600 BCE. It’s an exercise in disillusion masked in pride. NOTES 15. Dan Vogel, “The Validity of the Witnesses Public dissection and commentary on a ca- Testimonies” in Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe, daver instead of feasting on the words of life. 1 “Dan Vogel, “Is a Paradigm Shift in Book of American Apocrypha (Salt Lake City: , Joseph Campbell once explained that Mormon Studies Possible?”, SUNSTONE March 2005, 2002), page 115, note 50. Buddhist temples are guarded by two figures 69–74. 16. Gary L. Bunker and Davis Bitton, “Mesmerism 2. Hugh Nibley, in Of All Things: Classic and Mormonism,” BYU Studies 15 (Winter 1975): that represent Fear (what we think) and Desire Quotations from Hugh Nibley, Gary Gillum, ed. (Salt 146–61. (what we want). To enter into the Real, we Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1993), 14–15. 17. Kuhn, 158. have to be willing to leave what we think and 3. John W. Welch, “The Power of Evidence in 18. Ibid., 111. what we want, what we fear, and what we de- Nurturing Faith” in Echoes and Evidences of the Book of 19. Brent Lee Metcalfe, “Apologetic and Critical sire.26 In my mission studies of the accounts of Mormon, Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, and Assumptions”, citing Deanne G. Matheny, “Does the people who reject Jesus or the prophets, I John W. Welch, eds. (Provo: FARMS, 2002) 17–55. Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec 4. Dallin H. Oaks, “The Historicity of the Book found more than seventy arguments that all Geography,” in New Approaches to Book of Mormon of Mormon” in Historicity and the Latter-Day Saint Study, 158, note 19, and Glenna Nielson, “The boil down to these same two forces. Scriptures, Paul Y. Hoskisson, ed. (Provo: Religious Material Culture of the Book of Mormon,” May 1992 Entering the Real is not about what I think Studies Center, 2001), 239. Sunstone Book of Mormon Lecture. or what I want. To enter the Real, we must be 5. See Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific 20. It happens that certain ancient Near Eastern willing to put our wants and desires at risk, to Revolutions, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago ruins dating to 600 B.C. and found in the Arabian be willing to sacrifice them for something of Press, 1996). Peninsula in 1998 include inscriptions in the proper greater worth and lasting value. This is the 6. Ian G. Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: location to be relevant to the Nahom story in the A Comparative Study in Science and Religion (New York: Book of Mormon. See Warren P. Aston, “Newly precise meaning of the sacrifice of a broken Harper & Row, 1974). Found Altars from Nahom,” in Journal of Book of heart (our desires) and a contrite spirit (our 7. See Kuhn, 185–86, 199–200; also Barbour, Mormon Studies 10, no. 2 (2001): 56–61. 110–11. 21. Brant Gardner, quoted in Kevin Christensen, 8. See my “Paradigms Crossed,” in Review of “Truth and Method: Reflections on Dan Vogel’s Books on the Book of Mormon, vol. 7, no. 2 (1995): Approach to the Book of Mormon,” 309–312. See the 161–87. essay for the full quotation. 9. See Kevin Christensen, review of Dan Vogel, 22. Brant Gardner, as quoted at http:// Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake: pub26.ezboard.com/bpacumenispages (accessed 8 A FLIGHT OF GEESE Signature Books, 1986) in Review of Books on the Book June 2002). Notice that Gardner deals with “puzzles” of Mormon, vol. 2 (1990): 214–57; Kevin the way Kuhn would, assessing them in a network of The most reluctant leaves have let go, Christensen, “New Wine and New Bottles: Scriptural assumptions and evidences and not in Vogel’s posi- rattle on the roof like crabs Scholarship as Sacrament” in Dialogue: A Journal of tivist/empiricist manner. Gardner reports that “As I and lose color in the gutter. Mormon Thought, vol. 24, no. 3, (Fall 1991): 121–29; have noted before, the important facet of all of these A shed, tin-clad, gives in the wind, Kevin Christensen, “A Response to David Wright on touchpoints is that they all stem from a single ex- Historical Criticism” in Journal of Book of Mormon planatory model. Each of them is dependent upon a relaxes south toward mouths of rust. Studies, vol. 3, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 74–93; Kevin single geographic area, and a particular time period.” Light at the earth’s edge disappears, Christensen, “Truth and Method: Reflections on Dan 23. A few of the problems Vogel identifies are the rain is falling and there’s rain coming. Vogel’s Approach to the Book of Mormon” in FARMS “narrow neck” passages, the issue of directions, DNA, Review, vol. 16, no. 1 (2004): 287–354; and Kevin and “First Reader” authority. See Vogel, “Is a Paradigm Into gray afternoon I walk, Christensen, “Paradigms Crossed,” 144–218. At the Shift in Book of Mormon Studies Possible?”, 67; also not sent out, but restless and hurting Salt Lake City 2004 Sunstone Symposium, I pre- Vogel and Metcalfe, American Apocrypha, viii–xiii. sented on “Paradigm Debate in Mormon Studies: A 24. See note 20. for a letter, blue sky or anything green. Brief Guide for the Perplexed” (Tape SL04–252). 25. See my “Paradigms Crossed,” 212–14; also I walk though there’s no place to go, 10. See response at http://www.xmission.com/ Kevin Christensen, “Wagging the Dog,” SUNSTONE, looking for some sign there was ~research/central/reply.htm (accessed 6 November May 2004, 8. 2005). 26. Joseph Campbell, The Inner Reaches of Outer summer, 11. David P. Wright, “‘In Plain Terms That We Space: Metaphor as Myth and as Religion (New York: looking for any sign at all. May Understand’: Joseph Smith’s Transformation of Harper and Row, 1986) 79–81; also Joseph Hebrews in Alma 12–13,” in New Approaches to the Campbell, The Power of Myth (New York: Doubleday, —MARCIA BUFFINGTON 1988) 107.

PAGE 70 NOVEMBER 2005