Scholarship Versus Apologetics

[Robert F. Smith]

Questing Beast, on 02 March 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

Okay, this is a bit more convoluted than I want to think about again, for now.

I noticed "ages" ago that Isaiah as used in the BoM was in trouble; the only, ONLY way that "second Isaiah" could be in the BoM was through revelation, as none of it could have been on the Brass Plates. I lived with that tidbit on the back burner for literally decades. As cognitive dissonance mounted over the years so too did the heat from the back burners. When I read "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman the BoM of course took a fatal hit as literal history. The literal biblical history preached in the BoM was concocted by the priests in the generation immediately preceding Lehi's departure, ergo it was not history at all. So why would the BoM history be any different by the time Mormon and Moroni got hold of it? When I accepted that all scripture is a mishmash of redactors, benign and malignant (i.e. with agendas to convey history deliberately to suit their own ends), it became much easier for me to remove myself from being dogmatic about religion. I confess that I live inside my own skin much more peacefully in the last c. nine years than I ever did before....

I know exactly what ya mean here Beast. I have been in the same track, with the same thoughts, and same discoveries. Interesting how that works with some, and not with others. As I see it, the claim that Mormonism stands or falls on the Book of Mormon is exactly backwards. It all rides on whether the Bible is what is claimed for it (since what is claimed for it is how Joseph Smith accepted and used), not on whether the Book of Mormon is true. The foundation of all western organized religion is the Bible. No amount of rhetorical skills can change that fact. IF the Bible is what it is supposed to be, then other things are or at least can be in the clear. If it is not, then all else fails since it is the Bible that is the foundation, not the Book of Mormon. And, I have discovered for myself that the Bible is simply not what it is claimed or what has been claimed for it.

Kerry & QB,

What you say only makes sense if you buy into the gospel according to Finkelstein & Silberman. However, there are other points of view among the non-Mormon biblical scholars, and reading one book does not an education make.

Indeed, as others here have pointed out, you both have it backward: It is precisely because the Bible has been passed down through time and is a well-accepted piece of literature, subject to all manner of entirely naturalistic analyses which places it in harm's way (calls into question its authenticity as testimony of God and His agents). Only a document like the Book of Mormon, which has no such naturalistic form of transmission, can authenticate the Bible -- if, and only if, it can be shown that the Book of Mormon is authentic and can be shown by naturalistic means to accurately describe ancient historical events.

Do either of you understand that aspect of the Book of Mormon debate? Or do you base your judgment about that on the apriori conclusions of others?

[Alvino]

There are many, many things in apologetics that one does not have to accept by faith but can change one's mind on, that is not core doctrine but simply a matter of interpretation.

So?

The wide variations of understandings and interpretations are evidence of such. Are therefore apologetics scholarship right up to the point where one comes to a foundation truth?

The idea wasn't that scholarship doesn't come to foundational truths. It might, it might not. However, these truths are open to criticism within the field. Not so in apologetics by definition.

And if one's faith is open to change, if one is even willing to reject what he has believed is true in the past...such as willing to put his faith up to the test and put it aside if it is found wanting, is that then scholarship?

It might or it might not, but it wouldn't be apologetics. I'm not putting forth a dichotomy; something is not just either scholarship or apologetics and if you read what I personally think the distinction comes down to you will see why (my first post here).

And how would this type of writing look different than that of a faith that is locked in beyond any change if they were discussing the same thing?

This is a good question. The answer is that it wouldn't, but my actual position is not what you are responding to here. What you are responding to here is something I wrote as a criticism to someone else's position from the point of view of someone who took the distinction using DB's definitions. I was basically answering for DB though I probably shouldn't have but couldn't help myself.

My actual position is that the distinction comes down to one of quality, productivity, simplicity, etc.

Let's say I am an ardent LDS believer and a history professor. Let's say I publish a history article that has apparently nothing to do with LDS issues but that is extraordinarily good by any competent historian and meeting the highest standards of research.

Now, let's say that, in reality, I wrote and published the article with the intention of publishing something that would help in defending the faith though my motives might have been very subtle and refined for anyone to see.

Is that work I published apologetics? It certainly was my intention to be apologetic since I wanted to defend the faith all along yet the article's scholarship can't be questioned.

I imagine that all sides could agree that this work, being so effective in its area, is scholarship and not apologetics. The reason is because, I think, such a work is more directly fruitful to academics than for defending the faith.

If one holds a significant scientific position on faith that the universe works a certain way without final proof that it does (say a certain belief that quantum mechanics does not describe reality), does that render the rest of his scientific work apologetic?

Of course not automatically and no one here is suggesting that what determines whether a work is apologetics or scholarship is whether the person writing it is an apologist or a scholar.

What about his efforts to demonstrate his position in that one case correct?

We were using the more restricted definition of apologetics. The apologetics described by DB isn't just "a defense of any position in any way."

Edited March 3, 2013 by Alvino

[Glenn101]

Questing Beast, on 02 March 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

Okay, this is a bit more convoluted than I want to think about again, for now.

I noticed "ages" ago that Isaiah as used in the BoM was in trouble; the only, ONLY way that "second Isaiah" could be in the BoM was through revelation, as none of it could have been on the Brass Plates. I lived with that tidbit on the back burner for literally decades. As cognitive dissonance mounted over the years so too did the heat from the back burners. When I read "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman the BoM of course took a fatal hit as literal history. The literal biblical history preached in the BoM was concocted by the priests in the generation immediately preceding Lehi's departure, ergo it was not history at all. So why would the BoM history be any different by the time Mormon and Moroni got hold of it? When I accepted that all scripture is a mishmash of redactors, benign and malignant (i.e. with agendas to convey history deliberately to suit their own ends), it became much easier for me to remove myself from being dogmatic about religion. I confess that I live inside my own skin much more peacefully in the last c. nine years than I ever did before....

Kerry & QB,

What you say only makes sense if you buy into the gospel according to Finkelstein & Silberman. However, there are other points of view among the non-Mormon biblical scholars, and reading one book does not an education make.

Indeed, as others here have pointed out, you both have it backward: It is precisely because the Bible has been passed down through time and is a well-accepted piece of literature, subject to all manner of entirely naturalistic analyses which places it in harm's way (calls into question its authenticity as testimony of God and His agents). Only a document like the Book of Mormon, which has no such naturalistic form of transmission, can authenticate the Bible -- if, and only if, it can be shown that the Book of Mormon is authentic and can be shown by naturalistic means to accurately describe ancient historical events.

Do either of you understand that aspect of the Book of Mormon debate? Or do you base your judgment about that on the apriori conclusions of others?

Examining a document, book etc. with a naturalistic origin using naturalistic means is a given. Higher criticism should work pretty well there. But I would have some reservations about applying such techniques to material produced under Divine inspiration. We just do not know what biases linguistically and otherwise that such influence would have on the literary and linguistic properties of a series of texts produced and melded together, such as the Bible.

Glenn

[TAO]

But if apologetics is, by definition, the defense of the faith, then it already holds its position strongly. Then, it isn't scholarship.

That's my point though. One can choose to either consider both criticism and apologetics scholarship, or consider neither of them scholarship. In other words, the divide cuts both ways, or it doesn't cut at all.

Personally, I actually don't think there is a difference between apolgetics, criticism, or scholarship. They are all just opinons.

[mathonihah]

Only a document like the Book of Mormon, which has no such naturalistic form of transmission, can authenticate the Bible -- if, and only if, it can be shown that the Book of Mormon is authentic and can be shown by naturalistic means to accurately describe ancient historical events.

I don't think that that is right either. A document like the Book of Mormon can only be authenticated by spiritual means, not by “naturalistic means;” and ultimately, that applies to the Bible too.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Unless all spirit is matter and there is no contradiction between "spiritual" and "natural", in which case we're back to a false [linguistically-based] dichotomy.

[mathonihah]

Unless all spirit is matter and there is no contradiction between "spiritual" and "natural", in which case we're back to a false [linguistically-based] dichotomy.

There is a “contradiction between spiritual and natural,” otherwise Romans 8:6: “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” would be a false and meaningless phrase.

[Questing Beast]

On the other hand, Joseph Smith (who believed in the Bible only insofar as it was "translated correctly") claimed that it was quite "apparent that many important points [...] had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled", and that "ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors" into the fallible record.

Yes, and the Dead Sea Scrolls contain all the books of the Old Testament except Esther. This makes a pre-Christian era check on the accuracy of transmission of the Old Testament possible: the same scriptures that Jesus of Nazareth quoted from. As any changes occurred centuries before Jesus of Nazareth came on the scene, those "designing and corrupt priests" had already committed their crimes against the written record of Jewish history. The creation of that history, along with the assertion that Moses and Abraham actually existed and that Abrahamic religion was the true faith, was already a fact. I forget at the moment where I read that biblical scholarship has been identifying the various redaction and alteration that went on in and around the Middle East amongst the "warring" Jewish sects; how they changed the OT in strategic ways to justify their own exclusive claims to authority, etc. So the process begun in earnest by Josiah and his priests continued on for generations afterward. By the time the Christian era was a fact, scripture was more or less solidified for the "West" at least. So that is why there is little or no difference in our Bibles compared to the scriptures we identify as the "Dead Sea Scrolls"....

Edited March 3, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

...

If you are sceptical of the Bible, the remedy is not to stop at the Bible, but to look beyond the Bible to the Book of Mormon (and the rest of LDS scripture), because they provide a spiritual witness not only of themselves, but also of the Bible. You are “looking beyond the mark” as Paul says. The key to obtaining a testimony of the Bible is in the Book of Mormon. You will never gain a spiritual witness of the Bible (which is the only way to really know that it is true), by disregarding the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is what holds the key to that.

True it is that the Church's program requires the BoM to bolster the Bible. This was my approach for decades, since it was what was asked of me. But when you discover that the Bible is in fact concocted, rather late in the day compared to the purported time frame of the Old Testament, and that the OT underwent massive alteration/concoction centuries before Jesus of Nazareth came on the scene, the entire world view is altered beyond recognition. Then, as I already pointed out above, the Dead Sea Scrolls uphold the current OT scriptures, which means that by Jesus' time the version in existence was overwhelmingly the same as we possess. This could not be Joseph Smith's understanding of what the "abominable church" had perpetrated upon scripture. Right up to the time of McConkie that church was understood to have been the RCC, the "mother of harlots", etc. That was the religious history tradition that JS grew up understanding, and everything asserted in the BoM is built on that understanding, which is patently false, as the Dead Sea Scrolls prove: the RCC did not change anything, it only brought together and canonized the scripture, leaving out the parts that were less reliable and sensational and doctrinal, etc. In effect, the RCC gave us our scriptures, which the King James edition took verbatim, and merely excised the "Catholic" parts. JS's King James formed the source material for his BoM biblical passages, including the 18th century errors....

[why me]

I don't think that that is right either. A document like the Book of Mormon can only be authenticated by spiritual means, not by “naturalistic means;” and ultimately, that applies to the Bible too.

The difference is that the book of mormon has 11 witnesses who had very spiritual experiences with the book of mormon. We can see this in verse 10 and 11 in section 20 of the d & c. We have no such witnesses to the new testament. We have only the writers.

Why do exmembers seem to ignore these testimonies?

Edited March 3, 2013 by why me

[Questing Beast]

...

Indeed, as others here have pointed out, you both have it backward: It is precisely because the Bible has been passed down through time and is a well-accepted piece of literature, subject to all manner of entirely naturalistic analyses which places it in harm's way (calls into question its authenticity as testimony of God and His agents). Only a document like the Book of Mormon, which has no such naturalistic form of transmission, can authenticate the Bible -- if, and only if, it can be shown that the Book of Mormon is authentic and can be shown by naturalistic means to accurately describe ancient historical events.

Do either of you understand that aspect of the Book of Mormon debate? Or do you base your judgment about that on the apriori conclusions of others?

As I already pointed out, I took the BoM at face value, as confirmation that the Bible is true. That appears to have been JS's original motivation in coming forth with the BoM, to increase faith in the Bible, which was beginning to be widely doubted already (and this before any real head of steam in biblical archaeology).

But the inherent problems and anachronisms in the BoM only heighten the belief that biblical history was already concocted long before JS came on the scene. BoM history is OT history. There is nothing in the BoM that contradicts the OT history, as literal, and as given in our Bibles. Yet that history is not shown to be literal but rather concocted itself, and rather late, even just before "Lehi" comes into the story....

[Questing Beast]

Examining a document, book etc. with a naturalistic origin using naturalistic means is a given. Higher criticism should work pretty well there. But I would have some reservations about applying such techniques to material produced under Divine inspiration. We just do not know what biases linguistically and otherwise that such influence would have on the literary and linguistic properties of a series of texts produced and melded together, such as the Bible.

Glenn

I actually hold to the notion that God works in "scripture" that way. Literal history is not necessary to convey. In fact, there is no such thing as literal history and never has been. People redact and adapt history to their needs constantly. Religious history is no different, because it necessarily passes through the hands of mortal beings.

But the LDS Church has an adjustment to go through, probably in the not too distant future. Pulling away from the stories of its founding, and all religious stories preceding, will put the Church's "faith promoting history" on more firm ground. Trying to defend every event and detail in the scriptures as literal history, and how we got the scriptures as literal history (i.e. the visions and revelations as empirical events as literal as a stroll through the mall), cannot be upheld when one uses "naturalistic" means to examine them. And yet the largest part of our current existence is naturalistic, including how we learn facts about our existence. We are not going to dispense with naturalistic studies just because they don't agree with or support what scriptures assert about "history"....

[Questing Beast]

The difference is that the book of mormon has 11 witnesses who had very spiritual experiences with the book of mormon. We can see this in verse 10 and 11 in section 20 of the d & c. We have no such witnesses to the new testament. We have only the writers.

Why do exmembers seem to ignore these testimonies?

The "witnesses" were handed two hand written "testaments" to sign, after the fact of any witnessing. The usual, accepted form for witnessing to a fact is for the single witness to write/dictate his/her own statement, usually under some kind of affidavit formality, and then to collect these into a single body of witnesses, e.g. Mormonism Unvailed (sic) used this format by collecting the statements/affidavits of those who had known the Smiths formerly. But JS's approach, to avoid contradiction, imho, was to submit his own worded "testimony" and then have his friends/family sign below. That none of them later rejected their participation as witnesses is not unique: the Strangites, for example, collected similar witnesses to their own revealed scriptures, who also never denied their "testimonies". One does not readily sign something then later go against it blatantly, or else one's reputation for integrity suffers. We have Martin Harris' later elucidation in Kirtland that his vision of the angel and BoM was not a vision seen with only his physical eyes. The way he tried to put it clearly called into question in some minds the literalness of the vision. He tried to explain that it was more real than just seeing with physical eyes, but critics fastened upon the metaphysical emphasis, that Harris was denying having seen literal angels, plates and etc. That what he had seen and experienced was more like some sort of waking dream. This damaged JS's "witnesses" in the view of the less credulous, the ones who demanded a literal and empirical angel and plates, with no metaphysical mental state involved. And so the debate continues to this day. Except that the LDS Church continues to portray all the "restoration events" as empirical ones and not metaphysical at all. They point to the purported "grove" and attic bedroom in a rebuilt cabin and the pulpit in the Kirtland "temple", and say that "this is where" the visions took place. "Where" is not and never was important, but the Church's insistence upon locating time and place makes them into literal historical events, rather than the "waking-dream" kind of events that they actually were. Literal history, as physical and exclusive, is not and cannot ever be determined. And religious history more than any other kind ought to be realized as inseparably bound up with the "other realm" that our five sense cannot detect....

Edited March 3, 2013 by Questing Beast

[volgadon]

Yes, and the Dead Sea Scrolls contain all the books of the Old Testament except Esther. This makes a pre-Christian era check on the accuracy of transmission of the Old Testament possible: the same scriptures that Jesus of Nazareth quoted from. As any changes occurred centuries before Jesus of Nazareth came on the scene, those "designing and corrupt priests" had already committed their crimes against the written record of Jewish history. The creation of that history, along with the assertion that Moses and Abraham actually existed and that Abrahamic religion was the true faith, was already a fact. I forget at the moment where I read that biblical scholarship has been identifying the various redaction and alteration that went on in and around the Middle East amongst the "warring" Jewish sects; how they changed the OT in strategic ways to justify their own exclusive claims to authority, etc. So the process begun in earnest by Josiah and his priests continued on for generations afterward. By the time the Christian era was a fact, scripture was more or less solidified for the "West" at least. So that is why there is little or no difference in our Bibles compared to the scriptures we identify as the "Dead Sea Scrolls"....

First of all, there were different textual traditions, even the DSS consists of different kinds, not to mention the LXX, and Samaritan Pentateuch. Second, we don't know the shape of the canon, that is, what books, what order, what status. There are reasonable conjectures, but nothing entirely conclusive. Third, as things like the Pesher Nahum show, the written text was understood through the prism of oral tradition, and did not stand alone without being interpreted by an authoritative figure. Fourth, our knowledge of the meaning attributed to different textual variants, our even how the text itself was vocalised, is minimal at best.

[Kevin Christensen]

True it is that the Church's program requires the BoM to bolster the Bible. This was my approach for decades, since it was what was asked of me. But when you discover that the Bible is in fact concocted, rather late in the day compared to the purported time frame of the Old Testament, and that the OT underwent massive alteration/concoction centuries before Jesus of Nazareth came on the scene, the entire world view is altered beyond recognition. Then, as I already pointed out above, the Dead Sea Scrolls uphold the current OT scriptures, which means that by Jesus' time the version in existence was overwhelmingly the same as we possess. This could not be Joseph Smith's understanding of what the "abominable church" had perpetrated upon scripture. Right up to the time of McConkie that church was understood to have been the RCC, the "mother of harlots", etc. That was the religious history tradition that JS grew up understanding, and everything asserted in the BoM is built on that understanding, which is patently false, as the Dead Sea Scrolls prove: the RCC did not change anything, it only brought together and canonized the scripture, leaving out the parts that were less reliable and sensational and doctrinal, etc. In effect, the RCC gave us our scriptures, which the King James edition took verbatim, and merely excised the "Catholic" parts. JS's King James formed the source material for his BoM biblical passages, including the 18th century errors....

I gather that you have not read this:

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

Read that account of the tranmission of the Hebrew scriptures, and see if it reminds you of the story in 1 Nephi 13 at all.

Barker arguesin The Great Angel, p 26, that

the restructuring of Israel's traditions and writings during the exile and the years which followed must always be borne in mind when reading the Old Testament. So too must the fact that many traces of the older ways survived, as can be seen in Dan. 7, and

were still being removed at the beginning of the Christian era,

as can be seen from the significant differences between the Qumran versions of certain Hebrew texts and those we now use. Such traces of the older ways as escaped the ancient scribes are often removed by modern readers as they read, since we have all been steeped in one particular view of the Old Testament and its monotheism.

8

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[William Schryver]

Yes, and the Dead Sea Scrolls contain all the books of the Old Testament except Esther. This makes a pre-Christian era check on the accuracy of transmission of the Old Testament possible: the same scriptures that Jesus of Nazareth quoted from. As any changes occurred centuries before Jesus of Nazareth came on the scene, those "designing and corrupt priests" had already committed their crimes against the written record of Jewish history. The creation of that history, along with the assertion that Moses and Abraham actually existed and that Abrahamic religion was the true faith, was already a fact. I forget at the moment where I read that biblical scholarship has been identifying the various redaction and alteration that went on in and around the Middle East amongst the "warring" Jewish sects; how they changed the OT in strategic ways to justify their own exclusive claims to authority, etc. So the process begun in earnest by Josiah and his priests continued on for generations afterward. By the time the Christian era was a fact, scripture was more or less solidified for the "West" at least. So that is why there is little or no difference in our Bibles compared to the scriptures we identify as the "Dead Sea Scrolls"....

Questing Beast continues to confirm my assertion that everyone, and perhaps especially those who appeal to Biblical Scholarship, is an apologist.

[Bill Hamblin]

It's really perfectly clear:

If an atheist reads the Bible, remains an atheist, and explains why, he's a scholar.

If a believer reads the Bible, remains a believer, and explains why, he's an apologist.

[mathonihah]

True it is that the Church's program requires the BoM to bolster the Bible. This was my approach for decades, since it was what was asked of me.

The Church’s “program” doesn't “require” any such thing, and if that was your “approach,” then it was a wrong approach, and no such thing is “asked” of anybody. Gaining a spiritual witness of the Bible is a natural consequence of gaining a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon. The two go together. You can't have one without the other. If you have never had the first, you cannot be expected to have the second either. And it is a spiritual witness or confirmation, not a scholarly one. If you are looking for a scholarly confirmation, you are looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place.

But when you discover that the Bible is in fact concocted, rather late in the day compared to the purported time frame of the Old Testament, and that the OT underwent massive alteration/concoction centuries before Jesus of Nazareth came on the scene, the entire world view is altered beyond recognition. Then, as I already pointed out above, the Dead Sea Scrolls uphold the current OT scriptures, which means that by Jesus' time the version in existence was overwhelmingly the same as we possess. This could not be Joseph Smith's understanding of what the "abominable church" had perpetrated upon scripture. Right up to the time of McConkie that church was understood to have been the RCC, the "mother of harlots", etc. That was the religious history tradition that JS grew up understanding, and everything asserted in the BoM is built on that understanding, which is patently false, as the Dead Sea Scrolls prove: the RCC did not change anything, it only brought together and canonized the scripture, leaving out the parts that were less reliable and sensational and doctrinal, etc. In effect, the RCC gave us our scriptures, which the King James edition took verbatim, and merely excised the "Catholic" parts. JS's King James formed the source material for his BoM biblical passages, including the 18th century errors....

The “great and abominable church” is not the RCC, and the “changes” in scripture that the Book of Mormon says was made by that “church” relates to the NT, not the OT.

Edited March 4, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

The difference is that the book of mormon has 11 witnesses who had very spiritual experiences with the book of mormon. We can see this in verse 10 and 11 in section 20 of the d & c. We have no such witnesses to the new testament. We have only the writers.

Why do exmembers seem to ignore these testimonies?

Nobody gets converted to Mormonism by the testimony of the witnesses alone, be they “ex-mos” or not. Conversion comes through a personal spiritual experience with the Book of Mormon, not of somebody else's.

Edited March 4, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

As I already pointed out, I took the BoM at face value, as confirmation that the Bible is true.

The Book of Mormon is not a “face value” confirmation of anything. It is a spiritual experience with the Book of Mormon that provides the confirmation.

Edited March 4, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

But the LDS Church has an adjustment to go through, probably in the not too distant future. Pulling away from the stories of its founding, and all religious stories preceding, will put the Church's "faith promoting history" on more firm ground.

Ummm. I see a lot of wishful thinking going on in there.

[William Schryver]

But the LDS Church has an adjustment to go through, probably in the not too distant future. Pulling away from the stories of its founding, and all religious stories preceding, will put the Church's "faith promoting history" on more firm ground.

Sounds to me like a wolf encouraging a little piggie to demolish his nice current house built of bricks and replace it with a house built of straw. Thank goodness the nursery rhymes of our culture have managed, so far, to survive the revisionist assault that has been primarily focused on our more treasured scriptures.

[why me]

Nobody gets converted to Mormonism by the testimony of the witnesses alone, be they “ex-mos” or not. Conversion comes through a personal spiritual experience with the Book of Mormon, not of somebody else's.

This is true. And yet, their testimonies stand as a witness of the truthfulness of the book of mormon and that god lives. But yes, one must find their own spiritual witness.

[Calm]

Sounds to me like a wolf encouraging a little piggie to demolish his nice current house built of bricks and replace it with a house built of straw. Thank goodness the nursery rhymes of our culture have managed, so far, to survive the revisionist assault that has been primarily focused on our more treasured scriptures.

http://www.anvari.org/fun/Language_and_English/The_Three_Little_Politically_Correct_Pigs.html

[Questing Beast]

The Church’s “program” doesn't “require” any such thing, and if that was your “approach,” then it was a wrong approach, and no such thing is “asked” of anybody. Gaining a spiritual witness of the Bible is a natural consequence of gaining a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon. The two go together. You can't have one without the other. If you have never had the first, you cannot be expected to have the second either. And it is a spiritual witness or confirmation, not a scholarly one. If you are looking for a scholarly confirmation, you are looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place.

The “great and abominable church” is not the RCC, and the “changes” in scripture that the Book of Mormon says was made by that “church” relates to the NT, not the OT.

The Church still asserts, quoting JS, that the BoM is the Keystone of our religion. Taken that way, it looks back at the Bible and proves that it is true, along with the history that Nephi knew to be true literally. When all of that gets recast as altered history and not in any way literal, the world view of religious "history" gets unmade and for some/many it cannot be remade....