Book of Mormon only spiritual

[tld]

You err in suppsoing that you provide a controversial issue. Controversy only exists where proof exists. YOu provided none. You think too much of yourself in that matter. Indeed I do not shy away from the controversy of the Book of Mormon, but that would be legitimate controversy, not pipe dreams or in your case, "spiritual" pipe dreams. You provide nothing in the sense of prophetic endorsement to your idea, nor apostolic, nor even a hint of scriptural direction. In a sense I elevate you when I see the comparisons to Korihor. He at least was able to mold some sort of argument. You have not even done that.

I would suggest you go back and do more research regarding our church before you make such specious claims.

Now, now, calm down. I have just been making a suggestion.

Would over 50 years do?

[sansfoy]

Occams razor would have to be extremely dull to accept the premise.

<snip>

No. It is simpler and much more clear to place the Book of Mormon as a document that was written during historical times in this life. To have the Lord reveal his desires to the prophets in this life. And to reflect that as time goes by, it seems more and more physical (not spiritual) evidence reflects on what is written in the Book of Mormon, not less.

Actually, Occam's Razor would suggest that the Book of Mormon was written by a human in the 19th Century. There may, indeed, be a supernatural explanation, but I don't think it's reasonable to lean on Occam's Razor to prove it.

[Jeff K.]

Now, now, calm down. I have just been making a suggestion.

Would over 50 years do?

For some, it would not be enough. The issue of some kind of spiritual manifestation for an entire history of God in the Americas. 50 years would not be enough to put one on a sane footing.

[Jeff K.]

Actually, Occam's Razor would suggest that the Book of Mormon was written by a human in the 19th Century. There may, indeed, be a supernatural explanation, but I don't think it's reasonable to lean on Occam's Razor to prove it.

You make two errors. First you misconstrue the comparison of Occams Razor between what is believed and what is suggested in the in this somewhat spiritual farce.

Second you seem to think the simplest explanation for the BooK of Mormon is a relatively uneducated man creating a very complex book which accurately described, among other things, Lehi's journey through the Arabian Peninsula to an area unknown to the Americas at the time. Occams Razor would not support that either.

[sansfoy]

You make two errors. First you misconstrue the comparison of Occams Razor between what is believed and what is suggested in the in this somewhat spiritual farce.

Could you edit this sentence? It is not parsing.

Second you seem to think the simplest explanation for the BooK of Mormon is a relatively uneducated man creating a very complex book which accurately described, among other things, Lehi's journey through the Arabian Peninsula to an area unknown to the Americas at the time. Occams Razor would not support that either.

I don't agree that it accurately describes any such thing and of course no non-Mormon archeologists or historians use the Book of Mormon as a source document, which shows that I'm not alone. I think a non-literal interpretation of the BoM is more plausible. That's just my opinion, of course.

BTW, this:

"relatively uneducated man creating a very complex book"

is the identical argument used by Islamic apologists re: the Quran, except that they maintain that their prophet was even more illiterate and the book even more perfect.

[tld]

For some, it would not be enough. The issue of some kind of spiritual manifestation for an entire history of God in the Americas. 50 years would not be enough to put one on a sane footing.

You may want to edit this some more. I have a feeling it has something to do with me, but I'm not sure.

[Jeff K.]

Could you edit this sentence? It is not parsing.

BTW, this:

"relatively uneducated man creating a very complex book"

is the identical argument used by Islamic apologists re: the Quran, except that they maintain that their prophet was even more illiterate and the book even more perfect.

I don't see your argument regarding Mohammed and the Qu'ran. Mohammed could not read or write, so he had a scribe. The argument is valid in the sense that it ranks as a strong point. However one must add to the idea that Mohammed was also well traveled, and exposed to multiple cultures and distinct religions (Judaism, carious forms of Paganism, Christianity). Joseph Smiths exposure prior to writing the Book of Mormon was significantly limited by comparison. So within that context the point still retains its strength.

I don't agree that it accurately describes any such thing and of course no non-Mormon archeologists or historians use the Book of Mormon as a source document, which shows that I'm not alone. I think a non-literal interpretation of the BoM is more plausible. That's just my opinion, of course.

Nor could archeologists or historians use the bible if they found it in say London, and the civilizations in the Old Testament had ceased to exist. Your point is almost non sequitur since it seems you seek to apply different standards to different books.

No one knew in the US of the Saudi Peninsula during Joseph Smiths time, more specifically the one area that was rich and fertile. And yet Joseph Smith accurately described the land that exists there to this day. I know, an amazing coincidence, the odds of correctly suggesting such an area geographically when popular culture and knowledge listed it as a dry and barren desert is amazingly coincidental.

Of course there are other things too. At one time there was a hew and cry that nothing in the Book of Mormon holds true, and yet as we learn more of the South American cultures and civilizations and what they had, we see more that paralells.

Occams razor takes into account the concidence I mentioned and others.

Of course we can run with the OP idea and say that even to this day the land Bountiful is a spiritual place on the spiritual Arabian Peninsula.

[sansfoy]

I don't see your argument regarding Mohammed and the Qu'ran. Mohammed could not read or write, so he had a scribe.

He wasn't the only one.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 02 August 2010 - 02:57 PM, said:

You make two errors. First you misconstrue the comparison of Occams Razor between what is believed and what is suggested in the in this somewhat spiritual farce.

Could you edit this sentence? It is not parsing.

There are two comparisons.

Which is more complicated? The spiritual manifestation of an entire history and people, with no real consequences in the world. No scriptorial backing, no prophetic backing, no scholarly backing, no apostolic backing, indeed no backing at all. The last I have heard of such a strange spiritual manifestation is Scientology, in fact the aspect of it all being spiritual is a key similarity.

And you state that Occams razor would not apply given the Book of Mormon actually having occurred? I say that Occams razor does apply.

Your comparison is that of the Book of Mormon being actual compared to Smith writing it. I have refuted your interpretation of Occams razor given the "coincidences" of accuracy versus the writing of distinct cultures on a frontier with no assets by which to research such "lucky" descriptions.

[Jeff K.]

He wasn't the only one.

Non sequitur. My point remains valid. Unless you are stating that those people were aware of the small fertile valleys near the tip of the Arabian Peninsula. Mohammed on the other hand, as I have made you aware (since I presume you weren't given your statement), knew of the religious doctrine of several religions beyond mere Christianity.

[sansfoy]

Non sequitur. My point remains valid. Unless you are stating that those people were aware of the small fertile valleys near the tip of the Arabian Peninsula.

Are there any countries anywhere, that don't have at least a few small, fertile valleys somewhere?

[Jeff K.]

I take it you think such psses for legitimate debate?

You have rejected Occams razor with that remark.

I suggest you read "Lehi's Journey".

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Are there any countries anywhere, that don't have at least a few small, fertile valleys somewhere?

Back in the 1830s it was common knowledge that Arabia did not have any rivers coming out of it or any fertile valleys over there. That the description of Lehi's trail that now is seen to have closely followed the historic Frankinsense trail is miraculous indeed.

The area where Lehi and his family went into the great waters, was far from being its own country.

[Jeff K.]

Wadi Sayq/Khor Kharfot

Lehi Trail Aston concluded that the Wadi Sayq/Khor Kharfot site meets all of the requirements to qualify as Nephi's Bountiful (Reynolds 1997, p. 383). Most LDS researchers now believe that the Wadi Sayq (River Valley) and Khor Kharfot (Fort Inlet or Port) site is the most viable candidate, and discount other potential sites as they lack key aspects of the "Bountiful" described by Nephi (Chadwick 2005). Reynolds describes how only this location meets the requirements described by Aston (Reynolds 1997, p. 384-7):

1.Khor Kharfot is situated less than one degree from due east of Nehem (Nahom).

2.The valley of Wadi Sayq leads to the ocean from the desert interior, and is the only wadi that flows from the high desert eastward toward the coast. The coast is accessible by traveling through the bottom of Wadi Sayq.

3.Khor Kharfot is the most fertile site on the southern Arabian coast. The region of fertility extends two miles into the Wadi Sayq.

4.There is evidence of inhabitation and use as a small seaport during the Islamic period. Water was available through freshwater springs and an ancient river.

5.A number of sizable trees exist in the area, with evidence of ancient forests. These trees could have provided sufficient lumber to build a ship (Reynolds 1997, p. 385).[5]

6.Khor Kharfot has the largest permanent flow of fresh water of any site on the coast.

7.A large mountain overlooks the west end of the beach.

8.Cliffs rise above the ocean in this area.

9.Iron in the form of specular hematite is available in the Marbat plain, within a few days' hike to the east of Khor Kharfot.

10.A form of flint is available on the surface in large quantities.

11.Ancient ruins show that Khor Kharfot was occupied intermittently, although it is currently uninhabited.

12.The coast is well suited to sailing, with seasonal winds in the fall blowing east.

Salalah

In Mormon culture, the most popular traditional location of Bountiful is Salalah in modern Oman. LDS scholar Hugh Nibley first proposed this location as Nephi's Bountiful in an article published in the Improvement Era in 1950. Nibley's conclusion was based upon early writings describing life in Arabia, including an account describing the fertile Salalah area written by English explorer Bertram Thomas (Aston 1998).

Khor Rori

Khor Rori is an Iron Age port about 40 kilometers east of Salalah (Phillips 2000), and is now known to have not been used as a seaport until hundreds of years after the account of Nephi took place. Thus, no local people with sailing expertise could have assisted Nephi with the building and sailing of his ship.

wikipedia

Lucky geuss by Joseph Smith eh?

[tld]

No one knew in the US of the Saudi Peninsula during Joseph Smiths time, more specifically the one area that was rich and fertile. And yet Joseph Smith accurately described the land that exists there to this day. I know, an amazing coincidence, the odds of correctly suggesting such an area geographically when popular culture and knowledge listed it as a dry and barren desert is amazingly coincidental.

I accept this as a hit. Do you accept the misses - the anachronisms - in the BoM, or do you attempt to explain them away, as some do the hit in the Saudi Peninsula?

[Jeff K.]

Where there anachronisms in the other translations of the Bible?

Or is that simply part of the translation process?

Do you have some examples?

[sansfoy]

4 And it came to pass that ahe *departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness.

5 And he came down by the borders near the shore of the aRed Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea; and he did travel in the wilderness with his family, which consisted of my mother, Sariah, and my elder brothers, who were Laman, Lemuel, and Sam.

6 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a avalley by the side of a briver of water.

Three days in the wilderness? To get here:

Edit: I see that it was only 3 days to get to that first location. The rest is a somewhat indeterminate time period. I withdraw the comment.

[tld]

Where there anachronisms in the other translations of the Bible?

Or is that simply part of the translation process?

Do you have some examples?

Google Book of Mormon anachronisms. I would think that you would already know about them.

[LeSellers]

[Mohamed] wasn't the only one [to have had a scribe].

But Joseph tried to write for himself, and could not make it work effectively. He often complained that any prophet needed a scribe because the thoughts came to fast for the man to transcribe them himself.

It was not because he could not write, as was the case with Mohamed.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

Google Book of Mormon anachronisms. I would think that you would already know about them.

I certainly have. I suggest you read them.

[tld]

Royal Skousen, a BoM scholar, is known for his proposal that the vocabulary of the BoM is in 16th and 17th century English. I recently came upon an article by him from which I take the following:

Joseph Smith was literally reading off an already composed English-language text. Taken as a whole, the evidence in the manuscripts and in the language of the earliest text supports the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon was a precise text. I do not consider this conclusion apologetic, but instead as one demanded by the evidence.

The opposing viewpoint, that Joseph Smith got ideas and translated them into his own English, cannot be supported by the manuscript and textual evidence. The only substantive argument for this alternative view has been the nonstandard nature of the original text, with its implication that God would never speak ungrammatical English, so the nonstandard usage must be the result of Joseph Smith putting the ideas he received into his own language. Yet with the recent finding that the original vocabulary of the text appears to date from the 1500s and 1600s (not the 1800s), we now need to consider the possibility that the ungrammaticality of the original text may also date from that earlier period of time, not necessarily from Joseph

[tld]

I certainly have. I suggest you read them.

But there is also this site. Not all of the anachronisms have satisfactory explanations.

[Jeff K.]

Not all phenomenon have satisfactory explanations. Not all scriptures in the Old and New Testaments have satisfactory explanations when they contradict each other. Does it mean they don't exist in this world? Or that the explanation isn't forth coming and yet with the plethora of other evidences the balance seems to be more in favor (significantly and substantially more) than "it was all a dream" (which hasn't worked since Patrick Duffy showed up in the shower in Dallas).

Nor do anachronisms explain "the spiritual" Book of Mormon you seem to be proposing.

In essence you are somewhat exposed as someone who disdains our religion in the guise of a member.

[tld]

Not all phenomenon have satisfactory explanations. Not all scriptures in the Old and New Testaments have satisfactory explanations when they contradict each other. Does it mean they don't exist in this world? Or that the explanation isn't forth coming and yet with the plethora of other evidences the balance seems to be more in favor (significantly and substantially more) than "it was all a dream" (which hasn't worked since Patrick Duffy showed up in the shower in Dallas).

Nor do anachronisms explain "the spiritual" Book of Mormon you seem to be proposing.

In essence you are somewhat exposed as someone who disdains our religion in the guise of a member.

Rather than diatribe and personal attack on me, I encourage you to present evidence that disproves Skousen's observations, who is BTW a professor at BYU.

[selek]

Not all phenomenon have satisfactory explanations. Not all scriptures in the Old and New Testaments have satisfactory explanations when they contradict each other. Does it mean they don't exist in this world? Or that the explanation isn't forth coming and yet with the plethora of other evidences the balance seems to be more in favor (significantly and substantially more) than "it was all a dream" (which hasn't worked since Patrick Duffy showed up in the shower in Dallas).

Nor do anachronisms explain "the spiritual" Book of Mormon you seem to be proposing.

In essence you are somewhat exposed as someone who disdains our religion in the guise of a member.

To adopt the rather nonsensical pose that the Book of Mormon took place "in spirit only" is to concede the field to the critic, the apostate, the fool, and the pretender.

It is to grant them a victory that they do not deserve, have not earned, and quite frankly, are unworthy of.

To do so is to ignore the very real flaws in the critic's arguments (and they are legion).

To do so is to ignore the very real evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon's claims.

To do so is to demand proof, rather than evidence, and to demand a sign, rather than to exercise faith.

To do so is to deny the very clear teachings of the Church.

To do so is to pursue the approval of Babylon and to adopt the attitudes and conceits of the doubters and the skeptics- even in the face of very real evidence to the contary.

To do so is to embrace false doctrine in order to satisfy itching ears, rather than to pursue truth wherever it might lead.

To do so is to acquiesce- to surrender the argument instead of striving for what it true.

It is inescapable that TLD's position indicates that he has come to believe the charges of the critics- and has tired of arguing. He is therefore seeking an accomodation which allows him to accept their arguments while retaining his faith.

It is equally inescapable that adopting such a poise- let alone advocating passionately for it- is to contradict the explicit teachings of the Church and to attack the underpinnings of both the Church and the Gospel.

It is a slippery slope that will end in intellectual and moral decay and spiritual bankruptcy.

TLD- it is not necessary that we disprove Skousen, for his position does not support yours.

Skousen himself shoots your argument in the foot. Your "own" expert murders your premise:

My own personal witness of this book dates from 1979, when I was reading the book during a time of difficulty. I was reading the words that king Lamoni