A genuine, unbiased analysis of the Book of Mormon

[t2t2]

Sounds like you went into it not expecting anything to be legit or not an obvious stretch. THat kind of approach is problematic, to say the least.

On the contrary - I desparately was looking for reasons to stay. *shrug* - you may not believe that. But it's true.

Do you realize place names are about all there is to verify the Bible? How many of the characters have been "proven" to exist? Also, I've heard that Egypt has no record of the Israelites being there. How many stories from the Bible have been proven? How many stories are fairly commonly considered to be false?

As I've said - I don't believe the Bible to be factually correct all that often. You're not talking to a bible thumper - sorry. I'm just pointing out the differences between it and the BOM.

Nice pics, by the way. Is that your baby? You rock. Good thinkers are becoming younger and younger.

Thanks! Someday I'll post the brunt of my life in pics. I'm slowly scanning my 32 years into the laptop.

"Good" thinking is relative. I don't consider myself dumb. But, as you said, I'm young. Lots to learn. Lots to know.

[Israel1216]

For all we know, the Book of Mormon took place in a tiny island of the coast of Honduras that now lies 200 feet below the ocean floor. Nobody can point and say "it happened here."

Nobody.

The most curious bit of evidence for me?

Salalah Dhofar, Oman.

That is an interesting point PWalters. So many people nowadays are focused on the Yucatan Pennsula and Panama (which they think is the 'narrow neck of land', which is just silly). The Land Northward and the Land Southward People are jumping at the bit to put on a map of mexico or somewhere else. This is dangerous without having archeaoligical evidence.

[YH8]

Sounds like you went into it not expecting anything to be legit or not an obvious stretch. THat kind of approach is problematic, to say the least.

On the contrary - I desparately was looking for reasons to stay. *shrug* - you may not believe that. But it's true.

Again you have intimated that you disbelieved when you were looking: desparate, reasons to stay, anything legit, anything not a stretch.

[t2t2]

No, I'm intimating that I was wanting to believe. See the difference? What is the first part of faith? Come on now, you can do it. What's the passage in the BOM (um....Mosiah? Maybe?) where it talks about the seed and just having the desire to believe IS having faith? Then you plant the seed, etc. That's where I thought I was. I had no witness, yet I truly wanted one.

See...this is what I'm talking about. Mormons can so get desparate to show error in those that fault the church. I'm used to it. Bring it on!

[Katherine Adams]

Sounds like you went into it not expecting anything to be legit or not an obvious stretch. THat kind of approach is problematic, to say the least.

On the contrary - I desparately was looking for reasons to stay.  *shrug* - you may not believe that.  But it's true.

Again you have intimated that you disbelieved when you were looking: desparate, reasons to stay, anything legit, anything not a stretch.

I'm going to stand up for t2t2 on this one.

You rock, YH8.

I, too, went through a period of seriously wanting to stay. I recognize that period in t2t2. This period is usually accompanied by lots of prayer and fasting.

We could translate his comments as, more or less, "I was looking for what I believed were solid arguments. Not just a war of biased muck from either side."

[YH8]

No, I'm intimating that I was wanting to believe. See the difference? Was is the first part of faith? Come on now, you can do it. What's the passage in the BOM (um....Mosiah? Maybe?) where it talks about the seed and just having the desire to believe IS having faith? Then you plant the seed, etc. That's where I thought I was. I had no witness, yet I truly wanted one.

See...this is what I'm talking about. Mormons can so get desparate to show error in those that fault the church. I'm used to it. Bring it on!

Maybe you should phrase it differently then. Looking for a reason to stay, etc. infers that you had come to some sort of negative conclusion and thus were looking for a reason to stay.

[YH8]

You rock, YH8.

Give it a rest, pwalters.

It seems to me that you speak out of both sides of your mouth.

[t2t2]

We could translate his comments as, more or less, "I was looking for what I believed were solid arguments. Not just a war of biased muck from either side."

More or less. That's why I left in the first place. Or finally left, I should say. I thought that, since nothing else was working, I would step outside the happy valley and see what I see from the other side. I'm past looking for the "right" answer...which is what I was looking for then. Now I just look for "the" answer, which I open myself to coming from anywhere...not just Utah.

[Katherine Adams]

You rock, YH8.

Give it a rest, pwalters.

It seems to me that you speak out of both sides of your mouth.

Sorry to have offended you, YH8.

I will give my comments to you a rest, if that's what you are referring to.

[t2t2]

Maybe you should phrase it differently then. Looking for a reason to stay, etc. infers that you had come to some sort of negative conclusion and thus were looking for a reason to stay.

You can look at it that way. But I could turn around and say "See, you're looking for a negative aspect to my quest, and thus you find one.", which is what seems to be happening. On the contrary, you will think you are just seeing things as they are (a common excuse for just about anything.)

In the end - we ALL find what we are looking for. It can certainly be argued that I found no answer because somewhere deep down inside I either didn't want one or knew I wouldn't find one. Personally, if I were to introspect and chose between the two I would say it's the latter. And I know me better than you do, I assure you.

Just be careful when you open that door. If you accuse me of discounting the BOM because deep inside that's what I wanted to have happen...I can turn around and say you find evidence for the BOM because that's what you want to hear. All we can do is stay as open minded as we possibly be. I still try and keep an open mind. People say all the time "awww...even if they found real proof you'd not believe" to which I can only assure you - you're wrong. Call me a doubting Thomas. That's my namesake, for sure. But we ALL need to see before we believe. You do, I do. The difference is in how much we need to see (see, feel, etc.).

[YH8]

1) In the end - we ALL find what we are looking for.

2) It can certainly be argued that I found no answer because somewhere deep down inside I either didn't want one or knew I wouldn't find one. Personally, if I were to introspect and chose between the two I would say it's the latter.

3) And I know me better than you do, I assure you.

4) But we ALL need to see before we believe. You do, I do. The difference is in how much we need to see (see, feel, etc.).

1) Are you sure about this?

2) Is it just me or did you just say that you knew you wouldn't find an answer? This infers a decision made before searching, thus influencing your search. At least at that point of your search.

3) I'm sure you do.

4) Good point, particulalry about seeing including seeing, feeling, etc.

[YH8]

You rock, YH8.

Give it a rest, pwalters.

It seems to me that you speak out of both sides of your mouth.

Sorry to have offended you, YH8.

I will give my comments to you a rest, if that's what you are referring to.

Your superficial compliments are what I am hoping you'll give a rest. For example: "You rock, YH8."

[Beowulf]

Just jumping in here...

I like PWalters. I think we would be good friends if we ever met out in the real world. (And hope you have a nice trip to China.)

Regarding our other poster here...

Until recently I lived in the same ward where Tom Ferguson, the renowned amateur archeologist who spent so many years in MesoAmerica looking for BofM artifacts, lived for most of his adult life. No doubt due to his influence, many of the older (and wealthier) ward members take annual excursions to MesoAmerica for BofM tours.

I have asked about him, and most of these older members acknowledge that Bro. Ferguson was overly zealous, in wanting to find the "Ah Ha" item that would prove the BofM forever to the world. When it didn't happen, he became discouraged and let down.

I suggest trips to MesoAmerica should be made in the spirit of the area. Envision BofM scenes if you want. But I suggest it is better to take the places for the architectural grandeur that they are, on their own. Their secrets will be revealed soon enough....

Beowulf

[toon]

Looking for a reason to stay, etc. infers that you had come to some sort of negative conclusion and thus were looking for a reason to stay.

I don't believe that's necessarily the case. Take a person, born and raised in the Church, but who despite sincere efforts, never received a witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. That person may have never concluded tha it's untrue. He just doesn't know. The person is now evaluating his life, a major part of which includes whether to remain in a somewhat demanding religion that might only be true. But at the same time, some other religions, or no religion at all, may be the proper course. So the person has to decide which course to take. Should he stay in the religion, in light of his failure to reach a conclusion, or should he move on?

[Daniel Peterson]

Has any reputable science group (Smithsonian, etc.) ever conducted a serious, independent analysis of the Book of Mormon, including history, geography, theology, writing styles, names, consistency, wars. etc.?

I'm unaware of any such study.

What are your opinions for or against such a study?

I'm pretty skeptical that a truly unbiased study of such a controversial text is really possible. People always come to it with preconceptions about the existence of God, the possibility of revelation, etc.

However, I share your wish that more serious attention were given to the Book of Mormon. Jacob Neusner, the eminent rabbinic scholar, has complained in print about the neglect of the Book of Mormon among non-LDS academics, and he is not alone. Mormonism in general is neglected as a scholarly topic to a surprising degree. Year after year I've participated in the annual national joint meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature -- by far the largest gathering of scholars of religion (not necessarily religious scholars) in the world. Generally, there are no sessions and few if any individual papers on Mormonism -- I typically present on Islamic topics -- though there are routinely entire panels and sessions devoted to (and I'm not making any of these up) the religious significance of Madonna's music videos; ecofeminism, food, and pets; theological defense of pedophilia; and minutely detailed sociological studies of religious groups with relatively tiny memberships and very ephemeral lifespans. This has long puzzled me, even though, truth be told, sometimes I'm pretty happy that we aren't being pawed over by some of the folks at the AAR/SBL.

I think that Terryl Givens's Oxford University Press book By the Hand of Mormon may be a minor breakthrough in terms of outside interest in the Book of Mormon, although he himself is a Latter-day Saint. (It's Oxford, after all. And the publisher requested the book.) It's also possible that the upcoming Doubleday edtion of the Book of Mormon will help a bit. But I don't see a revolution on the horizon. Alas.

[YH8]

Looking for a reason to stay, etc. infers that you had come to some sort of negative conclusion and thus were looking for a reason to stay.

I don't believe that's necessarily the case. Take a person, born and raised in the Church, but who despite sincere efforts, never received a witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. That person may have never concluded tha it's untrue. He just doesn't know. The person is now evaluating his life, a major part of which includes whether to remain in a somewhat demanding religion that might only be true. But at the same time, some other religions, or no religion at all, may be the proper course. So the person has to decide which course to take. Should he stay in the religion, in light of his failure to reach a conclusion, or should he move on?

"some sort of negative conclusion" can be pretty broadly defined, if need be. Serious.

[Moxy]

For all we know, the Book of Mormon took place in a tiny island of the coast of Honduras that now lies 200 feet below the ocean floor. Nobody can point and say "it happened here."

Nobody.

The most curious bit of evidence for me?

Salalah Dhofar, Oman.

Umm...Joseph Smith, yes the Prophet, yes the one who saw God and Jesus Christ, yes the one who restored the LDS church, yes the one who translated the Bom, has stated with complete clairity where hill cumorah is located.

You cannot have it both ways and expect people to take you seriously.

I want you to say..we know where Hill Cumorah is and the proof is there as to the validity of the BoM.

Cant you just say that? Cant you just be consistent? And if it proves to be wrong cant you simply just say...well we were wrong? Sheesh...talk about flip floppers...

[Daniel Peterson]

Umm...Joseph Smith, yes the Prophet, yes the one who saw God and Jesus Christ, yes the one who restored the LDS church, yes the one who translated the Bom, has stated with complete clairity where hill cumorah is located.

That's not actually true. We know for sure where the plates were recovered in the 1820s. Beyond that, things get a bit less certain.

[t2t2]

2) Is it just me or did you just say that you knew you wouldn't find an answer? This infers a decision made before searching, thus influencing your search. At least at that point of your search.

I was playing devil's advocate and opted to throw out an attack I knew was coming (I'm a sweet guy like that. I know it's better to address attacks before you get them then have to do so out of the blue). I figured that would be obvious from the context of "it could be argued that". I was not saying "I knew I wouldn't find an answer." How many times do I have to explain this? Talk about seeing what you want to see. Sheesh.

[Katherine Adams]

For all we know, the Book of Mormon took place in a tiny island of the coast of Honduras that now lies 200 feet below the ocean floor. Nobody can point and say "it happened here."

Nobody.

The most curious bit of evidence for me?

Salalah Dhofar, Oman.

Umm...Joseph Smith, yes the Prophet, yes the one who saw God and Jesus Christ, yes the one who restored the LDS church, yes the one who translated the Bom, has stated with complete clairity where hill cumorah is located.

You cannot have it both ways and expect people to take you seriously.

I want you to say..we know where Hill Cumorah is and the proof is there as to the validity of the BoM.

Cant you just say that? Cant you just be consistent? And if it proves to be wrong cant you simply just say...well we were wrong? Sheesh...talk about flip floppers...

I'll forgive you, Moxy, because I think you are ignorant to what I was posting.

I don't know why are talking about Cumorah and Joseph Smith and flip-flopping.

For those interested in Book of Mormon geography, the Arabian desert, and the bountiful region of Salalah Dohfar on the coast make a great case for the land of Irreantum mentioned in First Nephi.

Do we have an understading?

[Ray Agostini]

I keep repeating this, but I'm not sure how many take note. The most serious analysis I've read is Reflections on Mormonism (Truman Madsen, ed, published by the BYU Religious Studies Center). Although Mormon produced, it contains the papers and commentary from a conference organised by Truman Madsen but contibuted to by about a dozen reptuable non-LDS scholars, including James H. Charlesworth, who is considered to be the most reputable authority on the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. Now although this does not deal strictly with hardcore archaeological evidence, etc, what these scholars say is very significant.

Read in particular what Charlesworth says at the end of his essay. He vitually says that the Book of Mormon is not only scripture, but that God continued to speak to mankind through prophets after the 66 books known as the Bible were completed. He might easily just as well have come out and said that the Book of Mormon is equal to the Bible as authentic scripture.

I'd like to give a list of those non-LDS scholars who participated in the conference, but it's too long, and their degrees and accomplishments would take me more time than I have. Every one was favourable, though most said that the BoM is more in the mold of apocrypha and pseudepigrapha.

Go read, and have fun!

I think that until more serious projects involving the archaeology and geography are undertaken, in the same way that the above conference has in regard to content, we will not really know just how reputable the external evidence for the Book of Mormon is. Hauck and Sorensen, et. al, as thorough as they are, only establish from an LDS perspective that we have something that needs a lot of serious non-LDS attention. But I think that Dr. Peterson is absolutely correct that there will be much prejudice in approaching this study because of the nature of the claims of how the BoM was produced. Just look at Charles Anthon, quite prepared to take it seriously - until he heard how it was produced.

[Calm]

pwalters and t2t2, have you checked out Brant Gardner's website? He's LDS and it is founded on the assumption that the BoM is an ancient history (he follows the same procedure for examining the BoM text as he would examining other ancient texts--start out with the assumption that the work is what it says it is and see if it fits into that context); it goes into extensive detail correlating known aspects of the Mesoamerican context with the BoM text. He has the academic training to do this well.

What makes it very appealing to me is that it goes through the text chapter by chapter as opposed to hitting it in a general sense or just focusing on a couple of aspects. He is planning on publishing a multi-volume (possibly 10) commentary on the BoM some time in the near (we hope) future.

[leeuniverse]

There's more evidence I think than you realize.

I've seen them all. Believe me. When I was searching I tried my darndest to find anything that was legit and not an obvious stretch.

Forgive me if I don't believe you....

For example, have you read the book and watched the videos at http://www.nephiproject.com ???

It's the first and most vast collection of "evidences" for the Book of Mormon yet in my book.

It fully validates 1 Nephi....

Let me share something else.

In my late teens I left the Church myself, and I was sure I knew the Church entirely, and nothing about it was new. As you say, I had seen it all.

But after a four hour argument with a High Priest in my old Ward, I realized that fighting against Faith was wrong, so I stopped being anti-religion and anti-mormon.

3 years later and I came back to really learn, and everything was answered.

Anyway, don't say you've seen it all, because maybe you haven't.

[Katherine Adams]

Thanks guys.

Dan, Ray and cal.

And everyone else, too.

[t2t2]

Forgive me if I don't believe you....

Of course you won't. I forgive you. You have been hardwired into believing that anyone who seriously investigates the BOM will walk away convinced.

For example, have you read the book and watched the videos at http://www.nephiproject.com ???

I have read many books that cover the same details. They're all up in my 'library to be' mound of boxes of books up in the attic. I have looked over all the content online at nephiproject.com. I have no interest in buying any more LDS books. sorry. Why should my money go to support research into something I consider false? Would YOU buy a book or a 6 video set that purports to prove the Catholic church true? Not likely. Back in the day I read lots and bought plenty of them. Not any more.

It's the first and most vast collection of "evidences" for the Book of Mormon yet in my book. It fully validates 1 Nephi....

Yes, I'm sure it does to you. I've gone over every single piece of evidence you guys have on this board before and every single bit was a major stretch to me. Really....if you want to find a valley or a river in a GIANT country and say "this could have been where Lehi stopped to pee" you can do that all you want. But unless you have something better than that.....sorry. It does nothing for me.

But after a four hour argument with a High Priest in my old Ward, I realized that fighting against Faith was wrong, so I stopped being anti-religion and anti-mormon.

3 years later and I came back to really learn, and everything was answered.

Yeah - we're very different. I was there to "really learn" in the beginning. Growing up sacrificing my morning sleep for seminary was really learning. Spending 2 years as a missionary was really learning. Coming home wanting to devour any and all LDS literature I could find was really learning. Your experiences are great for you. You've told them to me before at length. But mine are completely different.