Non-lds Scholars And The Book Of Mormon

[Rommelator]

In doing some research for some youtube videos I hope to put together soon, I came across this article:

http://www.ldsmag.com/bookofmormon/080729non.html#top

Thoughts?

[Rommelator]

Bumpa de bump.

Anyone?

[Cold Steel]

That's a very nice article. Someone probably should mention it in the Solomon Spalding thread, but I think the critics are too intent on proving the Book of Mormon is pious fiction. Still, it is worth a read. Thank you for posting it.

[Uncle Dale]

In doing some research for some youtube videos I hope to put together soon, I came across this article:

http://www.ldsmag.com/bookofmormon/080729non.html#top

In the first century and a half after its publication in 1830, the Book of Mormon was the object of attacks by non-Latter-day Saint laymen, clergy, and scholars alike. That most of them were unacquainted with the book is evident from the various straw men they set up and then demolished, claiming to have debunked the volume...

Thoughts?

Thus he begins his article -- with "most of them."

This generalization can mask just about any controversial argument that winds up in the popular

press. We could today make the generalization, that "most bloggers" who comment on Sarah Palin's

motivations are unacquainted with her personally, etc. etc.

It is more useful to isolate out those mid-19th century commentators who actually had read the

book and had some measure of knowledge concerning Mormons.

There are perhaps a dozen such articles, out of several hundred I've browsed through in the

19th century US/Canadian/British publications. A few of them can be found at my web-sites.

Looking only at that more substantial sub-set of writers on the BoM, their general consensus was

that they were not much impressed by their examination of the volume. So far as I can tell, the

only such investigator of that sort who ever joined the Mormons was W. W, Phelps.

Which means --- what?

Not much. We can always create our own straw-men, when saying other people have done the same.

UD

[Smith]

Thus he begins his article -- with "most of them."

And so you miss the point of his article... "But there are changes in the wind and though the number of critics seems to be increasing exponentially because of the internet, some serious non-LDS scholars have begun seeing the Book of Mormon as a valid topic of investigation...."

[Uncle Dale]

And so you miss the point of his article... "But there are changes in the wind and though the number of critics seems to be increasing exponentially because of the internet, some serious non-LDS scholars have begun seeing the Book of Mormon as a valid topic of investigation...."

Actually, I did read that part -- but I'll be more impressed with the idea

when I begin to see those "serious non-LDS scholars" converting to LDS.

So long as they remain "serious non-LDS scholars," they are obviously

holding open the probability that the text is not an authentic ancient

document -- a production of the once mighty, Christian Nephite nation.

Show me one of these "serious non-LDS scholars" who is now saying

that the book is quite possibly an authentic production of PreColumbian

Americans, inscribing their history and religion on metal plates, and I

promise not to "miss that point."

UD

[thesometimesaint]

Uncle Dale:

Yours is a non sequitur. Whether one or a thousand non LDS scholars agree that the BoM is an authentic ancient document has nothing to do with the fact that it is.

[Hoops22]

Uncle Dale:

Yours is a non sequitur. Whether one or a thousand non LDS scholars agree that the BoM is an authentic ancient document has nothing to do with the fact that it is.

or isn't.

[Olavarria]

I think someone can accept the BoM as ancient history while not being LDS,CoC or anything else.

Ever heard of the Whitmers, Hyrum Page or Oliver Cowdery?

[John Larsen]

I think Uncle Dale makes a good point. If an academic non-LDS takes the Book of Mormon "seriously" as a piece of 19th Century fiction, will LDS agree that it is serious scholarship or will the writing be brushed off as more anti-Mormon writing?

Like Uncle Dale, I would believe that to take the book seriously as anything but fiction would entail conversion.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think Uncle Dale makes a good point. If an academic non-LDS takes the Book of Mormon "seriously" as a piece of 19th Century fiction, will LDS agree that it is serious scholarship or will the writing be brushed off as more anti-Mormon writing?

Like Uncle Dale, I would believe that to take the book seriously as anything but fiction would entail conversion.

I don't have a problem taking serious academic approaches seriously. I also have no problem pointing out where I agree, disagree, believe they made mistakes, or believe better paradigms are offered.

[Rommelator]

Show me one of these "serious non-LDS scholars" who is now saying

that the book is quite possibly an authentic production of PreColumbian

Americans, inscribing their history and religion on metal plates, and I

promise not to "miss that point."

Did you even read past the first paragraph?

He [Professor David Flusser] explained that Joseph Smith's first vision was not a unique experience, that it was shared by a number of early Christians in the centuries after the time of Jesus. Flusser accepted Joseph's account of the visit of the Father and the Son as authentic and also believed that he had been inspired in his translation of the Book of Mormon, which Flusser saw as an authentic Israelite record from the New World.

There, I have shown you "one of these "serious non-LDS scholars" who is now saying

that the book is quite possibly an authentic production of PreColumbian

Americans". Now do you promise not to "miss that point"?

[sethpayne]

I think Uncle Dale makes a good point. If an academic non-LDS takes the Book of Mormon "seriously" as a piece of 19th Century fiction, will LDS agree that it is serious scholarship or will the writing be brushed off as more anti-Mormon writing?

Like Uncle Dale, I would believe that to take the book seriously as anything but fiction would entail conversion.

My professors at Yale Divinity (at least those I wrote papers on the BoM for) were interested in the Book of Mormon as 19th century apocryphal writing. These scholars in no way saw value in the BoM as an ancient text.

I can't imagine that any serious non-LDS scholar will treat the BoM as anything other than a very important reflection of 19th century religious mores.

[sethpayne]

Did you even read past the first paragraph?

There, I have shown you "one of these "serious non-LDS scholars" who is now saying

that the book is quite possibly an authentic production of PreColumbian

Americans". Now do you promise not to "miss that point"?

Sorry... but I don't think David Flusser's view on Pre-Columbian America holds much weight as he is a Jewish and Early Christianity scholar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Flusser

Now, if Michael Coe made this statement, I would certainly be impressed.

Also, I think Tvedtnes makes a good point in the article notes:

1 From time to time, I am asked to provide the names of non-LDS archaeologists who believe there is evidence for the Book of Mormon. My response is always twofold: 1) There are no non-LDS archaeologists who fit this description; the ones who have come to accept the Book of Mormon have joined the Church, so they are no longer non-LDS. 2) I ask them to give me the name of a Buddhist or Hindu archaeologist who accepts the archaeological evidence for the Bible; only believers accept this kind of evidence for their own scriptures.

[Rommelator]

Sorry... but I don't think David Flusser's view on Pre-Columbian America holds much weight as he is a Jewish and Early Christianity scholar.

Why not? Does one really have to be an expert in Mesoamerican archaeology in order to have an opinion on Book of Mormon historicity?

Good thing then, since critics like Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcafle are, last I checked, not Mesoamericanists when compared to Brant Gardner, John Sorenson and Mark Alan Wright.

[Rommelator]

Another question I ask is:

So what? So what if Non-LDS scholars do not consider the Book of Mormon historical? Does this disprove the Book of Mormon? I would venture to say... no, it doesn't.

[sethpayne]

Why not? Does one really have to be an expert in Mesoamerican archaeology in order to have an opinion on Book of Mormon historicity? Good thing then, since critics like Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcafle are, last I checked, not Mesoamericanists when compared to Brant Gardner, John Sorenson and Mark Alan Wright.

Exactly.... which is why Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe tend to stick to textual criticism -- an area with which they are familiar. Also, David Wright is a good example... he analyzes from the point of view as a Hebrew scholar and does not venture into areas of Mesoamerican archeology as a general rule.

Another question I ask is:So what? So what if Non-LDS scholars do not consider the Book of Mormon historical? Does this disprove the Book of Mormon? I would venture to say... no, it doesn't.

Of course it doesn't disprove the book's historicity. Belief in BoM historicity is a pure matter of faith IMO.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Exactly.... which is why Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe tend to stick to textual criticism -- an area with which they are familiar.

They aren't (well Metcalfe anyway) particularly adept at textual criticism.

[sethpayne]

They aren't (well Metcalfe anyway) particularly adept at textual criticism.

You don't think so? I'm no expert but I've always found his work insightful.

Didn't Metcalfe argue that resumption of the BoM translation began with Mosiah? That is even included in the Church history institute manual.

[phaedrus ut]

My professors at Yale Divinity (at least those I wrote papers on the BoM for) were interested in the Book of Mormon as 19th century apocryphal writing. These scholars in no way saw value in the BoM as an ancient text.

I can't imagine that any serious non-LDS scholar will treat the BoM as anything other than a very important reflection of 19th century religious mores.

I had the basically same experience at Harvard Divinity. I did write a few papers about the BOM in the beginning. However in looking back I can see how I misread their positive comments as agreement when now I can see they were just being nice.

Phaedrus

[sethpayne]

I had the basically same experience at Harvard Divinity. I did write a few papers about the BOM in the beginning. However in looking back I can see how I misread their positive comments as agreement when now I can see they were just being nice.

Phaedrus

LOL. Yes, when I first started discussing atonement theory in the BoM, I got some funny looks and then some polite smiles.

[phaedrus ut]

They aren't (well Metcalfe anyway) particularly adept at textual criticism.

I can't say I agree with you. It's been a while since I read his "New approaches" stuff but his critical work on the Book of Abraham has been very interesting. The back and forth Brian Hauglid and Brent had regarding the KEP here should show that both are very bright and skillful in their critical work.

Phaedrus

[LifeOnaPlate]

I can't say I agree with you. It's been a while since I read his "New approaches" stuff but his critical work on the Book of Abraham has been very interesting. The back and forth Brian Hauglid and Brent had regarding the KEP here should show that both are very bright and skillful in their critical work.

Phaedrus

He isn't a fool, that is certain. It's his underlying assumptions I find lacking.

[phaedrus ut]

LOL. Yes, when I first started discussing atonement theory in the BoM, I got some funny looks and then some polite smiles.

Probably like the funny look I gave someone when they started talking about "eschatology and the passion narrative in the synoptic gospels."

Phaedrus

// It took me a while to get over my institute vocabulary and to figure out what everyone else was saying.

[Cold Steel]

Actually, I did read that part -- but I'll be more impressed with the idea when I begin to see those "serious non-LDS scholars" converting to LDS.

This would be a good thread all on its own.

How many 1) people would join the LDS church, even if they knew without a doubt that it was true; and how many 2) scholars would join the LDS church, even if their research indicated that there were many things that Joseph Smith could not have known? Margaret Barker comes to mind. So does Father George McRae, both whom have seen enough to know that Joseph Smith couldn't have produced what he did; yet neither, to my knowledge, has joined the church.

I can see these things helping people who might be on the edge to join the church, but they, of themselves, will never cause anyone to change his or her mind.