All Activity

I think I wasn't clear. There isn't good scholarship arguing for a 6th century Book of Daniel. That argument has already been lost and there is broad consensus that Daniel dates ot the apocalyptic period of Jewish literature. I was trying to say that good scholars can be biased, so long as they strive to leave their bias out of their scholarship. Yes, and all indications are that the Book of Mormon is a thoroughly modern work. Which is why scholars only treat it seriously as a piece of 19th century literature. It's not rare - secular scholarship looks at all variety of literature for analysis, religious or not. The Book of Mormon is so transparently modern that I think this hypothetical that seems to be fantasizing about the academy being embarrassed a genuine ancient BOM is just that - a personal fantasy. It's not taken seriously as an ancient work because it is so obviously modern, from start to finish. There's no argument to be made or someone would have made it already.

For sure, it's possible to explain and/or understand the gospel in a way that makes it very similar to the idea of ritual magic. Both outside of the church and definitely inside of it. But in terms of the gospel as it actually is (and the ordinances thereof), I still think the line between ordinances and ritual magic is pretty solid. Calm already brought up one obvious difference and that is that baptism and confirmation doesn't actually do anything. It's the sealing of the Holy Spirit of promise that provides the blessing, not the act itself. If an unrepentant sinner insincerely decided to be baptized, it would do absolutely nothing for them (and might even cause some spiritual harm). Same for temple ordinances. None of it happens "regardless". I think it was Elder Bednar that reiterated that point this last weekend in GC (but it might have been another apostle, I can't remember for sure). I think D&C 130 is one of those verses that gets us into trouble, probably because we so badly want the gospel to be transactional sometimes (speaking mostly for myself). Who hasn't wanted to believe you could guarantee the outcome of an event or experience by saying the right combination of words, or doing a certain number of good deeds, or paying a certain amount in tithing? But I think deep down we know it doesn't work that way. Maybe not at first but the pool gets pretty deep the further you go (to steal Elder Christofferson's? pool analogy from GC) and eventually it becomes crystal clear. We can only A) obey God's laws because of the Atonement and B) we have no say over what or when the blessings will be. From my perspective D&C 130 is just another example of the teachings in Mosiah 3:19. Follow Christ, submit to His will and leave your will behind, and He will bless you to become like He is. He provides the way and He chooses the blessings. We exert no control over anything, not the doing and not the getting.

The KJV is based on the Tyndale Bible, which was based on a certain Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The Book of Mormon is its own creative work that borrows from the KJV Bible and other literature available to someone like Smith. We know the BOM doesn't derive from a genuine ancient text itself because it's brimming with concepts and literary dependencies that would require time travel for the Nephites to have access to them. I'm not sure how much more simple I could make this for you. There was no Christianity in 400 BCE, but the Book of Mormon has Christianity before Christ. An insurmountable anachronism. There is no evidence that the BOM is layered text. If you disagree, point me toward all the secular historical analyses of the Book of Mormon that make that case. The only layering in the text are the many changes made to it since it was first dictated in the 1820s.

You accused the minor who was talking with his siblings about why he was leaving the church and encouraging them to also leave the church as subverting their parents efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction. Missionaries do the exact same thing: talking to minors about why they should leave their church behind the parents back, not asking parental permission. The goal being to convince them to also leave their church and join the LDS religion. If it is subversive to the first example, it is also subversive when missionaries do the exact same thing. So YES, using your own criteria. The fact that you seem to be completely clueless that the similarities have little daylight between them tells me you are completely blinded by your own religious point of view.

The church filed its own Notice of Supplemental Evidence - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.77.0.pdf It basically says what I speculated on. It says there is a difference between a book having the title "Bad Mormon" vs requesting a trademark to sell other goods under the name "Bad Mormon". It also says that Open Stories Notice of Supplemental Evidence violates rules and that it is irrelevant at this stage. The Court has set a date for a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss for November 24. So we will wait till then for any new information.

Time to break into song…

But these are all invalidated or useless if one is not worthy or sincere, so not sure how it can be said that something happens regardless. I agree the language does sound quite a bit like you do A and get B. I think that is one issue with approaching faith from an economic view (debt and redeem, contracts, etc)

I think we are in agreement. So not sure what we are talking about at this point. I thought you were saying that any one who argued for a 6th century origin of Book of Daniel is obviously theologically biased and so bad scholarship. But I definitely agree that someone who argues for a 6th century origin with good scholarship is a good scholar even if they are theologically biased. So? We don't have the original text of a lot of documents from their original languages. That's one of the purpose of textual analysis, to try and find translation artifacts or other things that show it was a translation versus a forgery. The entire reason I started this discussion is because I was trying to show you why it would be rare for secular scholarship to even be involved. The origin of the Book of Mormon is complicated. It is either 1828 or supernatural. Why would an impartial scholar want to devote years of their life to show that the Book of Mormon was supernaturally revealed? I'm not talking about the contents of the Book of Mormon, I'm talking about its origin. Because if the scholar actually did show that it was a real ancient text, now what? How do they explain its origin? If the Book of Mormon had a natural origin (a found manuscript, Joseph saying he found a set of plates one day while digging in the woods, anything that doesn't include angels or magical stones), an impartial scholar would be much safer to look into this.

Yes, as pointed out in the article, you have the people of Ammonihah burning records of the righteous, which is way after the days of Enos. And then we have Lamanites hunting down Nephites after the final battle, unless they renounced their religion. So you get this strong sense of intentional religious suppression and erasure up to the very end. It wasn't just control the Lamanites wanted. It was total annihilation of the Nephite religious worldview and traditional beliefs. Which seems to be partly why Mormon was hiding the records at the very end.

Thanks for reminding me. I checked out the obvious chapters by memory. Should have searched. Though that was from an earlier time period,, seems unlikely that kind of attitude would change, especially since it’s consistent with other cultures reacting to former rulers, those they viewed as outsiders, etc https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0671-x? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23076995/ https://lugares.inah.gob.mx/en/node/5511?

It's not pure speculation. The text explicitly says the Lamanites wanted to destroy Nephite records: "And they swore in their wrath that, if it were possible, they would destroy our records and us, and also all the traditions of our fathers" (Enos 1:14). Here is an article on the plausibility of records being lost through intentional destruction: https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-destruction-of-records

I actually think that can be quite so easily separated. It would be unexpected for anyone in 1829 to have implemented the Egyptian wordplays, since it was still in the beginning process of being recovered. And Smith very likely didn't not have adept Hebrew linguistic knowledge in 1829. Perhaps someone else could have implemented the Hebrew wordplays from his time period, but then you would need to look for a plausible historical candidate. In context, I think it is evidence that Smith didn't write the text and also comports very well with its claimed ancient Hebrew/Egyptian literary origins. But your point is noted. Sophisticated knowledge of Hebrew-style paronomasia alone does not necessitate antiquity. It just strongly invites that interpretation, once the contextual historical data is accounted for.

Pure speculation, but given the history between the Lamanites and Nephites, where the Nephites made a big deal at times as how they were the chosen ones, the establishment and the Lamanites were the rebels, the barbarians, it would make sense to me that the Lamanites would want to remove any suggestions they were not the superior people, that they did not have the divine right to rule, were usurpers, etc. Possibly even more so since they were a minority within a larger culture and we know how well that can go for a minority. Not surprising if they chose to erase their “Lamanite” identity out of existence, which probably wasn’t too hard to do if there was intermarriage from the beginning as is suggested by the accelerated growth. added: the text itself says they were seeking out any remnants of Nephites and destroying them. It makes sense to me that any family that had traces of a Nephite connection, even just suggestions of the shared Lehite culture between the Nephite and Lamanite groups from having been once a single family identity such as family names and heirlooms, would change them to unrecognizable as Lehite if possible and destroy them otherwise. Even in the religious identity of Nephites according to the BoM, there is no expectation of the Nephites coming back, so why maintain that identity given how dangerous it was? Any Old World names could easily be altered. I suppose one might claim a treasure as a souvenir picked up in the war and brought home, but if paranoia and hate was strong enough, would the risk be worth the lives of the entire family? After the genocide of the Nephites, the area became a nonstop battleground among the winners. (Mormon 8 )Sounds like a very good idea to keep one’s head down removing any sign of ‘difference’, any excuse to slaughter.

I think we might expect both because there would be both the religious tradition that was preserved likely among the priestly/ruling families, those with the responsibility of caring for and recording on the plates and the surrounding culture, much like how Israel kept its traditions, but also picked up on surrounding culture. Has anyone fluent in Zoquean names and wordplay studied the Book of Mormon seriously looking for such?

Thanks for the info. Like you, I find it interesting (though not enough to dig into myself at this point ), but nothing hinges on it. I just like learning about the process and purpose of this.

Actually, I specifically asked him whether his missionary efforts "were framed to {him} as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction," and he said "YES." If all he is saying is that Latter-day Saint missionaries sometimes give lessons to minors without first obtaining express consent from their parents, I will acknowledge that openly. It's the subversion stuff that I found problematic. I'll take what you have said here into consideration. Thanks, -Smac

No clue, tbh. I think it's interesting and probably relevant to Joseph's ever-growing doctrine on Priesthood that, in Joseph's revelations, Enoch and his father Jared were the first to be blessed by Adam, and that Enoch's blessing coincides both with the establishment of Zion and his walking with God. Also that almost everyone else (save Mahalaleel) has to wait until the gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman. We also don't really know much about the nature of the blessing. Was it a Patriarchal Blessing? Something pertaining to priesthood office? No clue! Seems important, though!

But your line of reasoning could apply just as easily (and just as fallaciously) to any other modern translation of a genuinely ancient text. You couldn't reasonably say, for example, that we know the KJV version of Genesis is "a post-New Testament text because time is, in fact, linear." That obviously doesn't work, because even though time is indeed linear the KJV version of Genesis derives from a genuinely ancient Hebrew text. In other words, simply asserting that the BofM isn't a layered text is pointless in this discussion, because that is the very thing that is being debated (i.e., whether it has a genuinely ancient origin or whether it is strictly a modern hoax). You don't win debates or persuade others by just assuming your favored conclusion and then doubling down on that conclusion when specific lines of reasoning fail. Instead, you do what @Analytics is trying to do. You discuss actual evidence, whether pro or con.

Do you mean changed the ages of the Patriarchs (I'm using that term loosely here to refer to the father-son outlined from Adam to Jacob (Israel), rather than just Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) or why they changed OT1 versus OT2? I feel pretty confident about the answer to the second. Put briefly, Joseph Smith began his work of translating the Old Testament in June 1830 (side note: I'm always struck by just how *early* the Book of Moses emerged in the early Restored Church, given how dense it is theologically), with Oliver Cowdery as a scribe. Cowdery leaves for his mission in October 1830, and Joseph cycles through John Whitmer, Emma Smith, John Whitmer again, and then Sidney Rigdon. In March 1831, Joseph switches over to translating the New Testament and John Whitmer makes a copy (OT2) of the original translation efforts (OT1). When Cowdery gets back from his mission, he and Joseph go back revise the ages of the some of the Patriarchs (shown in the graph above), but do so in OT2. When Joseph finishes his work on the New Testament in July 1832, he goes back to the Old Testament, and picks up with Whitmer as his scribe, who uses the OT2 (without the revised ages) instead of the OT1. Exceedingly long story short, because of manuscripts and excerpts being all over the place between the Church and the Community of Christ, and lack of a good understanding (at the time) of the Bible translation process from an administrative point of view, the Church ended up relying on OT2 for our current version of the Pear of Great Price. That isn't a slight on anyone, historical contingencies, and my impression is that the Church and the Community of Christ have been very earnest to work with each other on matters of historical records and archiving as it pertains to overlapping histories. As to first question: why did they change the ages of the Patriarchs, they did not add an explanation as far as I'm aware (I might be wrong on that, obviously). Symbolic, in my opinion. The ages diverge from those in Genesis, and I can't identify any particular event with which they were trying to tie the ages of the Patriarchs. Note that I don't think symbolic has to imply that they didn't think the stated ages they were writting in where fake in some ways. God represents things symbolically with real, material things all the time (e.g., the water of baptism representing cleansing; baptism itself representing death, burial, and resurrection). So Adam being 1,000 years old can, at least to Joseph (as Brigham asserts), simultaneoulsy be real, and symbolic of a mortal 'day' of life. This is just a hunch, but Zion persisting 365 years has a 'year of years' feel to it. My guess is that it was revelation, which doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't also symbolic. The only reason I say revelation is that the timeline for the age changes lines up with the rest of the translation work Joseph was doing, which he did consider revelatory. Likewise, Joseph always seemed comfortable with the idea that previously published work was open to further revelatory editing, even the Book of Mormon. Ultimatley, I might be wrong about the above, and I'm not too emotionally attached to it if I'm wrong. Most of this stuff just has me like 🤷‍♂️ .

No, there are good scholars who are theologically biased. They remain good scholars because they don't let their bias influence their scholarship. Scholarship that is theologically biased is bad scholarship (within the discipline of history) by definition. Great Where's the the non-English source text? It doesn't exist. The text has all the hallmarks of a native English speaker, and is literarily dependent upon other English language works, not to mention post enlightenment ideas. Given that time is linear, that means it was composed in English. There simply is no case to be made otherwise. There are no hallmarks that this is a real ancient text - if there were it would be taken seriously by secular scholarship as a potential ancient work. Instead it's treated as 19th century American literature by secular scholarship.

That is one possible interpretation. But one could just as easily turn to scriptural analogs to explain these same details. You might want to check out Don Bradley's analysis of symbolism of the cache of artifacts, the hill from which they were dug, the timing of their retrieval, and the mode of translation. One could find the set of objects and circumstances as being suspiciously beyond what Smith himself likely would have contrived, and also remarkably in line with ancient patterns and symbolism. More importantly, though, is that even if one were to view this scenario as suspicious in the opposite direction (the one that you gravitated towards), that wouldn't itself take away from the speed of the translation or the complexity of the text. It just introduces another tangentially-related topic that would need to be fully debated on its own terms before assigning it a probability value.

Your argument is invalid because the Book of Mormon is not a layered text - but instead an American text composed within a short time period, in English. We know it's a post-New Testament text because time is, in fact, linear.

But this is merely an assumption. What I was trying to get at is that you haven't yet established that your assumption ("we’d expect Zoquean linguistic evidence") has a significant probability advantage over competing assumptions that could explain the same data. It just doesn't seem very hard to explain to me. For instance, based on a limited sampling of patterns of prayer in contemporary American Christian society, one might expect Latter-day Saints to use modern speech patterns. Instead, our religion has preserved certain archaic speech forms (pronouns, verbs, etc.). Are Later-day Saints a minority in this regard? Yes. But it is hardly an unattested phenomenon, historically speaking. In other words, it may be somewhat surprising but is not exactly hard to believe. Likewise, one might be surprised at how Jewish people throughout history have retained their Hebrew language and culture. Here is an AI response when I asked it about this phenomenon: So, how do you go about determining how improbable it would be for a group of dislocated Israelites to perpetuate the languages and literary conventions of their Hebrew ancestors, especially if they were highly religiously motivated to do so, and especially when we only have evidence that this applies to their religious scribal cultural and not necessarily their everyday speech or literary patterns? You also have to acknowledge that the text explicitly recognizes diachronic shift (Mormon 9:32-34) and that we are only getting it in an English translation. There are also a number of names that still are unaccounted for, as far as their etymology and origin. And, finally, some scholars have proposed linguistic correspondences with indigenous cultures. Here is one example of this much more limited line of evidence: https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/korihor-and-dumb-puns

I dunno... put yourself in the robots' shoes. It's got to be stressful for them too.

The same reason that Christians in general think ‘good’ people go to hell. They were wrong. Also add in not having performed certain ordinances or sacraments or whatever depending on the branch of Christianity in general. A better question is why does God have a hell at all?