Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm confused by your answer because it doesn't sound like you're addressing my critique of the idea that an archeologist or anthropologist should know the BoM to effectively do research in MesoAmerica.  On one hand it sounds like you agree with me when you compare this to a scientist needing to be familiar with Tolkien's work.  But you lost me with your next statements.

I assert that scientists don't need to be familiar with the BoM or with any other religious books to make observations about their findings in Mesoamerica.  If at some point scientists found evidence that connected these cultures to the Middle East, then I'm sure every Mormon scholar would jump on those findings so fast that they could then engage with the scholarship and publish findings in respected peer reviewed journals.  

You can do scientific research to determine connections between Mesoamerica and the Middle East.  But only by understanding the BOM completely can you make assertions about whether any scientific evidence supports or doesn't support the BOM.  And I think the key here is not scientists who understand the BOM but scientists who understand and accept the LGT and mixing populations theories for the BOM where Middle East culture, language, and DNA quickly vanished into thin air once it arrived in America, and the text which may seem anachronistic can not be relied upon until you run it through the Brant Gardner translating machine, which generally removes any and all meaning to the text.  

Link to comment
13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course I was being sarcastic

Let me spell it out for you.  It is an analogy

"Eskimo" is a NAME for a whole variety of Native American tribes

"Lamanite/Nephite" are also NAMES for a whole variety of Native American tribes also KNOWN BY OTHER NAMES within a given culture

The argument that there is no evidence for Nephites is like saying there is no evidence for Eskimos because Nephites are known to us today as "Mayan Culture" of which they were participants

The point was that there is evidence for the Maya- but we Mormons know that culture as "Nephite" just as "Eskimos" are known by their individual cultural names. 

Question, are you saying Mormon's connecting the Mayans with ancient Nephites/Lamanites is just an ANALOGY?  I know you carefully choose your words, so I want to understand what you're saying.  

Many Mormons including many apologists would not call this just an analogy, but believe that they have actual scientific evidence to support this connection.  I just want to make sure I'm reading you correctly.  

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm confused by your answer because it doesn't sound like you're addressing my critique of the idea that an archeologist or anthropologist should know the BoM to effectively do research in MesoAmerica.  On one hand it sounds like you agree with me when you compare this to a scientist needing to be familiar with Tolkien's work.  But you lost me with your next statements.

I assert that scientists don't need to be familiar with the BoM or with any other religious books to make observations about their findings in Mesoamerica.  If at some point scientists found evidence that connected these cultures to the Middle East, then I'm sure every Mormon scholar would jump on those findings so fast that they could then engage with the scholarship and publish findings in respected peer reviewed journals.  

Scientists do not need to be familiar with the Book of Mormon in order to work in Mesoamerica, any more than they need to be Bible scholars to dig in the Middle East. But in order to find parallels between the Book of Mormon (or the Bible, for that matter) and the archaeology on the ground, they need to have an understanding of what those parallels might be. This is why non-LDS archaeologists don't see any evidence of the Book of Mormon in the archaeological record--they don't know what to look for. Those of us who do know, see them in lots of places. You find what you're looking for.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

You can do scientific research to determine connections between Mesoamerica and the Middle East.  But only by understanding the BOM completely can you make assertions about whether any scientific evidence supports or doesn't support the BOM.  And I think the key here is not scientists who understand the BOM but scientists who understand and accept the LGT and mixing populations theories for the BOM where Middle East culture, language, and DNA quickly vanished into thin air once it arrived in America, and the text which may seem anachronistic can not be relied upon until you run it through the Brant Gardner translating machine, which generally removes any and all meaning to the text.  

I don't think there are any connections between Mesoamerica and the Middle East.  Robert Smith and others use this critique to try and discredit scholars who don't find the Mormon internal scholarship even credible.  This goes back to the Jenkins/Hamblin debates.  I just don't think this critique holds any water.  Mesoamerican researchers don't need to understand the BoM to do their research.  The burden of proof is on Mormon scholars to find any material that would be accepted as legitimate by the wider scholarly community.  To date, they haven't done so.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, cdowis said:

I guess you missed the point.  How far would Moroni have go travel to deposit the plates near JS's home.  

I guess I have to spell everything out for some individuals.

I guess you aren't reading my answers or following the links I provide, so I'll just spell it out for you.

Nobody knows. 

We don't even know if Moroni was a real person or not. That is the whole point of this thread. So questions like yours are not possible to answer. But if I had to guess I'd say the distance covered by Moroni was roughly the same as the distance covered by the Jaredites, Mulekites and Lehites. Give or take 12,000 miles.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

Scientists do not need to be familiar with the Book of Mormon in order to work in Mesoamerica, any more than they need to be Bible scholars to dig in the Middle East. But in order to find parallels between the Book of Mormon (or the Bible, for that matter) and the archaeology on the ground, they need to have an understanding of what those parallels might be. This is why non-LDS archaeologists don't see any evidence of the Book of Mormon in the archaeological record--they don't know what to look for. Those of us who do know, see them in lots of places. You find what you're looking for.

No they don't need to.  This is a red herring argument that makes no sense to me.  All they need to do is follow the evidence where it leads.  They don't need to be looking for these loose parallels that all kinds of people find connecting all kinds of non related things.  This is how the human mind works.  Whether the mound builders or this Asia thing that Rajah is talking about which is new to me, or I also heard Blake Ostler once speculate some island off the coast of Africa may have been the BoM location.  Humans are extremely creative with finding all kinds of weird parallels.  

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

You can do scientific research to determine connections between Mesoamerica and the Middle East.  But only by understanding the BOM completely can you make assertions about whether any scientific evidence supports or doesn't support the BOM.  And I think the key here is not scientists who understand the BOM but scientists who understand and accept the LGT and mixing populations theories for the BOM where Middle East culture, language, and DNA quickly vanished into thin air once it arrived in America, and the text which may seem anachronistic can not be relied upon until you run it through the Brant Gardner translating machine, which generally removes any and all meaning to the text.  

Snarky 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Anijen said:


Q. Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon fiction?

 

Simple answer:

A. Yes. Almost every non-member (those who know about the Book of Mormon) more than likely do not think the Book of Mormon was real.

As far as members go, I am sure there are some, but why would they think that? I would venture to say if there are members who believe the Book of Mormon to be a work of fiction then I would also guess that they didn't start off with that belief or have never had a testimony of it in the first place. The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. Take away a keystone and there is a collapse.

Here is a link on the importance of the Book of Mormon.

 

Have you read any of the posts answering that question here?

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Whether the mound builders or this Asia thing that Rajah is talking about which is new to me, or I also heard Blake Ostler once speculate some island off the coast of Africa may have been the BoM location.  Humans are extremely creative with finding all kinds of weird parallels.  

You make a great point. The Book of Mormon makes no claim to a specific geography, leaving the question wide open for a broad discussion. But LDS immediately narrow the scope by insisting it could only be Mesoamerica. Its there, or nowhere...and the conversation stops. We are then left with only two options: (1) a Mesoamerican history, or (2) a 19th century fiction. Yet neither of those two options can fully explain the complexity of the Book of Mormon.

I've never heard Blake's theory about the island off Africa. Does anybody have a reference for that?

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Thanks Robert. That's fair. But the reality is that the Meso model hasn't convinced most people. I think most people would say something similar to what you have said. The attempts are clever and well-informed, but they just don't buy it. When active LDS members begin shifting to a belief that the Book of Mormon is fiction because the dominant models aren't convincing enough, then it is time to broaden purview. I acknowledge Asia is a stretch for most, but there's a lot of useful information packed in there that has potential to unlock some of the problems with Book of Mormon geography. If it is not useful, tell me why. If my map is wrong, tell me where. If the whole thing is wrong, explain where it is wrong. That's what models are for.

Most people often or usually believe things other than what I believe.  I can't be responsible for that.  I have  never accepted the notion that the word of the people is the word of God (vox populi vox dei).  I am after all an anthropologist and biblical scholar with very broad interests and experience.  Thus, I enjoy seeing someone like you bring other considerations to the fore, and then to see K. C. Kern actually give you formal recognition for that on his website.  I think that  we all need to be as fair as possible.  So, keep up the good work, Rajah.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Education is the gasoline that powers the engine of genius.

Probably so. Nevertheless, the "uneducated boy" thing doesn't play with me. Fact is he was probably of average education for his time and place but probably of higher intellect. A "free and appropriate" education was not a thing yet at that time, and most children, like Joseph, were educated more at home than anywhere else. His parents were also literate and apparently had some intelligence as well. The text of this time was often the Bible because that's the only book most people owned. We know Joseph read from the Bible. He also demonstrated a thirst for learning and did apparently avail himself to resources at hand throughout his life. He did not need an education to be intelligent, his intelligence was a gift from God just as is everyone else's. This gives credence to the idea that not every gift is given to every person. ^_^

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Boanerges said:

Really? You don't think most members believe the BoM took place in Meso-America? Could have fooled me, I think most members absolutely believe that's where it took place, with a (somewhat vocal) minority believing it took place in North America, and a tiny minority believing otherwise. That assumption is not based on any scientific research, just an observation of what I hear and see in my own church experience. .......................................................................................

That said, since I don't believe the BoM to be an ancient history of any people I couldn't care less where it took place (because it didn't take place).

But do you understand why a scholar (aside from what the hoi polloi think) might find it particularly interesting that 

Quote

When the Spaniards made their first landings in Mexico early in the 16th century, they encountered a world much more sophisticated than the one they had met with up to this time in the Caribbean.  Kings and lords ruled over dense populations of farmers who supported them with taxes and tribute.  Well-tended agricultural landscapes, often ingeniously irrigated and terraced, produced lush yields of maize, beans, and many other crops (Whitmore and Turner 1992; 2001).  Lavish stone palaces, temples, and ball courts dominated impressive towns or political centers, the grandest of which were populous urban places comparable to the major cities of, for instance, Europe and North Africa.  Professional merchants brought feathers, gold, jade, chocolate, and other costly goods to great urban markets.  Scribes recorded the tribute of empire in brightly painted books, along with genealogies of kings, the histories of peoples, and accounts of world creation.  Priests scrutinized elaborate calendars for propitious times to celebrate a bewildering variety of rituals.  Presiding over all were the powerful gods of war, rain, maize, and the sun, whose visages, along with  those of kings, graced countless carved and painted monuments.

* * * *

Writing especially impressed the Spaniards as an essential hallmark of civilization (Boone 2000), and the Classic Maya are famous for their use of the mathematical concepts of “zero” and “place,” which formed the basis for their highly accurate Long Count calendar (Sharer 1994) [see box: The Mesoamerican Calendar, pp. 606-07].  -- David Webster and Susan Toby Evans, “Mesoamerican Civilization,” chapter 16, in C. Scarre, ed., The Human Past: World Prehistory and the Development of Human Societies, 2nd ed. (Thames & Hudson, 2009), 595

That was not the world of illiterate woodland Amerindians with which Joseph Smith was familiar, and who would be entirely alien to the Book of Mormon.  You do understand that, right?

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But do you understand why a scholar (aside from what the hoi polloi think) might find it particularly interesting that 

 

 

Undoubtedly. Even if I believed the Book of Mormon to be a historical record (and I once did), I had no interest in scientific "proof" of that idea. In former times I "knew" the Book of Mormon to be true and that was enough. I now believe it to be the word of God, and that's still enough. No amount of scientific or other evidence changes that for me. But I'm fine with those who do desire that kind of proof.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Actually it does, I can speak six languages.....

But, how "Jerdite" & "Olmec" have any connection, do you know any Smithsonian or any reputable archaeologist have any clue about   "Jerdites"?

No more than they do about "Eskimos" or "Redskins" or "Injuns".

No evidence for any of these either.

Link to comment
Just now, churchistrue said:

I know. I'm sorry. I really don't like LGT-mixing populations-case of the shrinking Lamanite theories.  I think they take away from the power of the Book of Mormon.

That is fine. I appreciate your contributions, but while it's perfectly fine that you might disagree with Brant's methodology or conclusions, based on my interactions with him I think he and his work deserve a little more respect 

Link to comment
Just now, Boanerges said:

Undoubtedly. Even if I believed the Book of Mormon to be a historical record (and I once did), I had no interest in scientific "proof" of that idea. In former times I "knew" the Book of Mormon to be true and that was enough. I now believe it to be the word of God, and that's still enough. No amount of scientific or other evidence changes that for me. But I'm fine with those who do desire that kind of proof.

I don't deal in "proof," and I don't know of any scholars who do.  Most people have no idea what science is for, nor how it is to be applied.  I think that the only kind of "proof" worth having in religious debate is the testimony of the Holy Spirit.  That said, if you are sitting on a jury considering the case against an accused person, I would hope that your understanding of the scientific, forensic evidence from the crime scene would be fair and impartial, and that you would not automatically ignore it out of discomfort with science.  Reasonable doubt is very important, but should not be applied in kneejerk ways just out of exasperation.

Link to comment
Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't deal in "proof," and I don't know of any scholars who do.  Most people have no idea what science is for, nor how it is to be applied.  I think that the only kind of "proof" worth having in religious debate is the testimony of the Holy Spirit.  That said, if you are sitting on a jury considering the case against an accused person, I would hope that your understanding of the scientific, forensic evidence from the crime scene would be fair and impartial, and that you would not automatically ignore it out of discomfort with science.  Reasonable doubt is very important, but should not be applied in kneejerk ways just out of exasperation.

I am confused by this post.  Are you saying that proof means nothing to scholars?  That you rely on a testimony of he spirit than any facts at all?  Somewhere..there has to be a connect don't you think??  That is how one side should sustain the other??

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

You make a great point. The Book of Mormon makes no claim to a specific geography, leaving the question wide open for a broad discussion. But LDS immediately narrow the scope by insisting it could only be Mesoamerica. Its there, or nowhere...and the conversation stops. We are then left with only two options: (1) a Mesoamerican history, or (2) a 19th century fiction. Yet neither of those two options can fully explain the complexity of the Book of Mormon.

I've never heard Blake's theory about the island off Africa. Does anybody have a reference for that?

The discussion was in the comments of this interesting post from a few years back, and its been a while since I read the full comments, but they contain some interesting speculation about which islands may be a good fit for a BoM model.  I'm not sure if any of this ever made its way into published books or essays.  

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/04/updating-the-expansion-theory/

 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

Probably so. Nevertheless, the "uneducated boy" thing doesn't play with me. Fact is he was probably of average education for his time and place but probably of higher intellect. A "free and appropriate" education was not a thing yet at that time, and most children, like Joseph, were educated more at home than anywhere else. His parents were also literate and apparently had some intelligence as well. The text of this time was often the Bible because that's the only book most people owned. We know Joseph read from the Bible. He also demonstrated a thirst for learning and did apparently avail himself to resources at hand throughout his life. He did not need an education to be intelligent, his intelligence was a gift from God just as is everyone else's. This gives credence to the idea that not every gift is given to every person. ^_^

And from reading about Joseph Smith, he was an avid learner, an example of this is https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V03N02_43.pdf .

And before T.V. and media, people would read and memorize, and were great poets and story tellers as in Joseph's day. We have it on record that he was a great storyteller, by his mother, and some of them sound like the storyline of the BoM.

And then there is this quote from a site that may have temple content:

"First, translation of the Book of Mormon did not take place in less than three months; it spanned a time period of over a year and Joseph may have been working on the text for years before the date reported as when he started."

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am confused by this post.  Are you saying that proof means nothing to scholars?  That you rely on a testimony of he spirit than any facts at all?  Somewhere..there has to be a connect don't you think??  That is how one side should sustain the other??

Proofs are only meaningful in geometry. Everything else is based on evidence for a theory. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And from reading excerpts about Joseph Smith, he was an avid learner, an example of this is https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V03N02_43.pdf .

And before T.V. and media people would read and memorize and were great poets and story tellers as in Joseph's day. We have it on record that he was a great story teller by his mother, and some of that sounds like the storyline of the BoM.

And then there is this quote from a site that may have temple content:

"First, translation of the Book of Mormon did not take place in less than three months; it spanned a time period of over a year and Joseph may have been working on the text for years before the date reported as when he started."

That is time involved in the translation. He also had a farm to work, and other duties.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am confused by this post.  Are you saying that proof means nothing to scholars?  That you rely on a testimony of he spirit than any facts at all?  Somewhere..there has to be a connect don't you think??  That is how one side should sustain the other??

Scientific theories are malleable constructs designed to account for as much of the observable data as possible.  New or conflicting data often require a reformulation of those theories.  The theories are not facts, but merely statistical likelihoods.  The only place within science in which we can truly speak of "proof" is within the circular nature of math (including geometry), which only really proves itself.   Such tools give us great power, and we can often find amazing correlations.  The general public thinks of those things as "proofs," and they can be very convincing.  But  they can as easily be used to whipsaw us in nearly any direction, when our faith may be the only steadying influence.  Only scientists should play with science.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...