Must The Book Of Mormon Be A Historical Text?

[Gervin]

 

On Sept 17, 2013, in reply to you and bcuzbcuz, I said:

 

 

 

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer ,

 

 

 

 

J.V. Luce, Homer and the Homeric Age (Harper & Row, 1975), 15, addresses the question of the historicity or reliability of the Homeric tradition.

See also the Jan 2007 review by Victor Davis Hanson of Barry Strauss, The Trojan War: A New History (Simon & Schuster, 2007), online at http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Homer---history-2572 , where he covers the doubts and more recent acceptance of the factual basis.

 

Thanks for the links.

 

I was curious because I've seen Troy mentioned many times on this and other boards as some kind of correlation with the lack of information about Book of Mormon cities.

 

However, I don't think the information helps your claims.

 

You claim that "Everyone also knew that Ilium (Troy) was fictional."  The link provides no evidence to support this.  In fact, the link for Schliemann states that, "At the time Schliemann began excavating in Turkey, the site commonly believed to be Troy was at Pinarbasi, a hilltop at the south end of the Trojan Plain."  So it isn't correct that everone "knew" Troy was fictional.  There was even speculation as to where it might exist.  And if "everyone" knew it was fictional, then why were people speculating as to its location and even digging to try and find it. 

 

Interestingly, the same link says that "Schliemann began work on Troy in 1871. His excavations began before archaeology had developed as a professional field."  So, Troy was discovered in a nascent period of archaeology without the benefit of tried and true methodologies, findings from other excavations, or the kind of professional coordination that is found today in the field.  This, cetainly, also led to a myriad of problems and false findings.

 

I can't find any evidence in the link for your claim that there are no inscriptions from this period. If you believe I've missed something, please direct me to the right information.  There was this: "The decipherment of Linear B in the 1950s by Ventris (and others) convinced many of a linguistic continuity between 13th century BC Mycenaean writings and the poems attributed to Homer."  And this: "an inscription from Ischia  in the Bay of Naples, ca. 740 BC, appears to refer to a text of the Iliad; likewise, illustrations seemingly inspired by the Polyphemus episode in the Odyssey are found on Samos, Mykonos and in Italy, dating from the first quarter of the seventh century BC."

[cdowis]

I reserve the right to be ridiculous (I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not). Assuming you aren't, I was calling it a history of the nineteenth century because it is a nineteenth century commentary on nineteenth century ideas written by a nineteenth century man/men living in nineteenth century America. 

 

Can we assume that you have never actually read the entire BOM text?  Your comment above clearly leads me to that conclusion.

 

I have read it over 30 times, spent my entire adult life reading and discussing its contents, and have come to a very different conclusion.  

 

For example, the narrative regarding the Gadianton robbers is clearly from a writer describing events in the 21st century -- robbers having a standing army, the government attacking them in their strongholds in the mountains, etc.  The culture of the modern Christian church, viz. the TV preachers, the prosperity theology.

 

The author makes a telling error when he gives a clear reference to Darwin and the concept of survival of the fittest.

 

Many of the names are specifically from ancient middle east -- Paanchi, Pahoran, sheum.  The geographical locations of NHM, the Valley of Lemuel, the land of Bountiful (where they built the ship). 

 

This book was clearly written with a 21st Century perspective, and including 21st century events and culture, having an extensive knowledge of the language, history and geography of the ancient middle east.

 

To assert that this was written in the 19th century is sheer nonsense.

Edited September 29, 2013 by cdowis

[Billy the Law]

Can we assume that you have never actually read the entire BOM text?  Your comment above clearly leads me to that conclusion.

 

I have read it over 30 times, spent my entire adult life reading and discussing its contents, and have come to a very different conclusion.  

 

For example, the narrative regarding the Gadianton robbers is clearly from a writer describing events in the 21st century -- robbers having a standing army, the government attacking them in their strongholds in the mountains, etc.  The culture of the modern Christian church, viz. the TV preachers, the prosperity theology.

 

The author makes a telling error when he gives a clear reference to Darwin and the concept of survival of the fittest.

 

Many of the names are specifically from ancient middle east -- Paanchi, Pahoran, sheum.  The geographical locations of NHM, the Valley of Lemuel, the land of Bountiful (where they built the ship). 

 

This book was clearly written with a 21st Century perspective, and including 21st century events and culture, having an extensive knowledge of the language, history and geography of the ancient middle east.

 

To assert that this was written in the 19th century is sheer nonsense.

Sheer nonsense? I can't tell from your comment what side of the debate you are on because your comment was all over the place. First off, Darwin didn't publish his work on evolution until 1859. His research on evolution didn't even begin until after the BOM was published (as a side note, survival of the fittest is not the same as natural selection, as the fittest don't always survive). Second, of course you would believe the BOM was written for the 21st century because you live in the 21st century and you have a 21st century bias. You naturally connect the text to event in your life and time. You're no different that the people that think Nostradamus was a real prophet because they see subtle parallels between his babble and current events. I bet you interpret every fortune cookie you read as written specifically for you.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Billy the Law

[omni]

 

This book was clearly written with a 21st Century perspective, and including 21st century events and culture, having an extensive knowledge of the language, history and geography of the ancient middle east.

 

To assert that this was written in the 19th century is sheer nonsense.

So of all the great lessons God could have used specifically for 21st century and he chose Gadianton robbers? How pray tell, does a story about guerrilla warfare help lead us 21st century inhabitants back to Christ? One of the great things I love about the modern church is its focus on the families, unfortunately this focus seems to be missing from the BoM. Where among its pages do we learn how families can be together forever?

Early Mormonism theology and the BoM have 19th century written all over it. Blacks as an inferior race not qualified to hold the priesthood-check, women's subjugation to men and the inability to hold the priesthood-check, Native American's dark skin as the result of a curse (or for those of us who are more progressive, a mark of the curse)-check, no death before six thousand years ago-check, the most specific confirmed prophesies (discovery of the American continent, founding of America, etc.) in all of scripturedom and they conveniently happened before the BoM was written-check. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

[mfbukowski]

Sheer nonsense? I can't tell from your comment what side of the debate you are on because your comment was all over the place. First off, Darwin didn't publish his work on evolution until 1859. His research on evolution didn't even begin until after the BOM was published (as a side note, survival of the fittest is not the same as natural selection, as the fittest don't always survive). Second, of course you would believe the BOM was written for the 21st century because you live in the 21st century and you have a 21st century bias. You naturally connect the text to event in your life and time. You're no different that the people that think Nostradamus was a real prophet because they see subtle parallels between his babble and current events. I bet you interpret every fortune cookie you read as written specifically for you.

Uh, no, I think they call that "sarcasm". 

 

The point was that it is universally applicable and that you can see any century you like in it.

[mfbukowski]

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

I think you are the one who missed it.

[canard78]

So of all the great lessons God could have used specifically for 21st century and he chose Gadianton robbers? How pray tell, does a story about guerrilla warfare help lead us 21st century inhabitants back to Christ? One of the great things I love about the modern church is its focus on the families, unfortunately this focus seems to be missing from the BoM. Where among its pages do we learn how families can be together forever?

Early Mormonism theology and the BoM have 19th century written all over it. Blacks as an inferior race not qualified to hold the priesthood-check, women's subjugation to men and the inability to hold the priesthood-check, Native American's dark skin as the result of a curse (or for those of us who are more progressive, a mark of the curse)-check, no death before six thousand years ago-check, the most specific confirmed prophesies (discovery of the American continent, founding of America, etc.) in all of scripturedom and they conveniently happened before the BoM was written-check. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

You're talking about stuff Joseph didn't even teach. Joseph ordained blacks and is on record chastising one of the apostles for their racist views. The racists influence on priesthood didn't kick in until after 1844. (The year Joseph ran on an anti-slavery presidential ticket).

I still take a (very) 'loose' translation perspective and see some of Joseph's environment in the final text, but that doesn't prove there was never a Nephi.

[canard78]

In case anyone's interested, here what I was referring to about the response to a racist comment (was Hyde an apostle?)

In a journal entry where Orson Hyde is complaining about black people's aspirations. Joseph replies:

If I raised you to be my equal & then attempt to oppress you, would you not be indignant?

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-1-21-december-1842-10-march-1843?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=48&s=undefined&sm=none#14033105138890139062

Edited September 29, 2013 by canard78

[omni]

I think you are the one who missed it.

 

Care to expound on any of my points expressed?  And please include how stories about guerrilla warfare leads me closer to Christ.

[omni]

You're talking about stuff Joseph didn't even teach. Joseph ordained blacks and is on record chastising one of the apostles for their racist views. The racists influence on priesthood didn't kick in until after 1844. (The year Joseph ran on an anti-slavery presidential ticket).

I still take a (very) 'loose' translation perspective and see some of Joseph's environment in the final text, but that doesn't prove there was never a Nephi.

 

Please reread my original post, I was careful in choosing the words "early Mormon theology and BoM".  While I believe that many of Joseph's attitudes towards race were quite progressive for his time, the teachings in the BoM of dark skin being the mark of a curse which could then be made "white and delightsome" by accepting the gospel--was not one of Joseph's more enlightened teachings.

 

Where are the teachings that went contrary to contemporary science, but have since been confirmed by modern science?  Instead we have the aforementioned explanations for race, the American continents being inhabited by ancient sea-faring Hebrews instead of Asians crossing an ancient land bridge, the BoA teaching that our sun received it's light from Kolob instead of nuclear fusion and in the D&C we are taught that death didn't enter this world until six thousand years ago--which according to science is off by about a billion years.  These teachings are not simply prophets "speaking as a man", but canonized scripture.

[cdowis]

 

So of all the great lessons God could have used specifically for 21st century and he chose Gadianton robbers? How pray tell, does a story about guerrilla warfare help lead us 21st century inhabitants back to Christ?

 

 

 

 

Have you actually read the Book of Mormon?  It is quite clear from the text.

 

One of the great lessons of the BOM is what happens when the people abandon Christ.

Edited September 29, 2013 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

Care to expound on any of my points expressed?  And please include how stories about guerrilla warfare leads me closer to Christ.

I suppose where you live they do not have the crips vs the bloods and drive-by shootings, or terrorist acts in this worldwide church.  It's good to know how to deal with all that.

[omni]

 

Have you actually read the Book of Mormon?  It is quite clear from the text.

 

One of the great lessons of the BOM is what happens when the people abandon Christ.

 

 

Not quite your 30, but about a dozen times ain't bad.

Edited September 30, 2013 by omni

[omni]

I suppose where you live they do not have the crips vs the bloods and drive-by shootings, or terrorist acts in this worldwide church.  It's good to know how to deal with all that.

 

You obviously haven't been to Utah County lately, it's straight up gangsta!

[mfbukowski]

You obviously haven't been to Utah County lately, it's straight up gangsta!

Actually I was there a few weeks ago stocking up on... weaponry.

[Robert F. Smith]

...............................   

I was curious because I've seen Troy mentioned many times on this and other boards as some kind of correlation with the lack of information about Book of Mormon cities.

The first time I heard that invidious comparison was from Wesley P. Walters who said that the Book of Mormon was fictional in the same way the legend of Tory was.  Brant Gardner has used it the opposite way on this board.

 

However, I don't think the information helps your claims.

I appreciate your comments, thus forcing me to search for sources.

 

You claim that "Everyone also knew that Ilium (Troy) was fictional."  The link provides no evidence to support this.  In fact, the link for Schliemann states that, "At the time Schliemann began excavating in Turkey, the site commonly believed to be Troy was at Pinarbasi, a hilltop at the south end of the Trojan Plain."  So it isn't correct that everone "knew" Troy was fictional.  There was even speculation as to where it might exist.  And if "everyone" knew it was fictional, then why were people speculating as to its location and even digging to try and find it. 

Simply based on the ancient tales, one could surmise that Troy (Ilium) was in that area, and even anciently a location was known for the site.  Frank Calvert was the modern discoverer, or rediscover of Troy in 1865, even though Schliemann later got the credit.

You are correct.  I should have said that the Homeric tale of Troy was considered to be fictional:

Encyclopaedia Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/606871/Troy ,

 “A large mound, known locally as Hisarlik, had long been understood to hold the ruins of a city named Ilion or Ilium that had flourished in Hellenistic and Roman times. In 1822 Charles Maclaren suggested that this was the site of Homeric Troy, but for the next 50 years his suggestion received little attention from Classical scholars, most of whom regarded the Trojan legend as a mere fictional creation based on myth, not history.”

***********************   

“Beginning in 1988, Korfmann’s team investigated the terrain surrounding the citadel site in search of wider settlement. Korfmann’s findings at Hisarlik, drawn from geomagnetic surveying and isolated excavations, led him to conclude in favour of a greater Troy—that is, a settlement of some size and prosperity.”

 

 http://www.travelsignposts.com/Turkey/destinations/troy ,

“Homer’s epic poem The Iliad sets Troy as the scene of the Trojan War. His story of the 10-year skirmish between the Trojans and the Greeks is interlaced with Greek legends and involved mythical gods, leaving many to assume that The Iliad is fictional, and to wonder if Troy ever existed.”

 

http://history.answers.com/ancient/unearthing-history-ancient-troy-and-the-trojan-war ,

“....by the mid -19th century most historians believed that the city and battle described in Homer's famous Iliad were simply fiction. This changed when, in the mid 19th-century, an excavation unearthed a city that was undeniably Troy. Now, historians and archeologists believe that Troy did exist, and that ‘the Iliad’ likely describes many wars, political uprisings, and heroes from that era of history.”

 

I had provided you with a good example of that sort of thinking in the review you read on Strauss:

"M. I. Finley, the late distinguished ancient historian, had long argued that Homer’s fictive world was largely drawn from the so-called Dark Ages (1100–800 B.C.). The small kernel of truth about a great war that had survived the end of the Mycenaean world was hopelessly embedded in centuries of oral transmission, exaggeration, and fabrication."

 

The review  went on to say:

"Lately, however, the controversy has shifted once again back toward historical authenticity. With much more extensive excavation in the late 1980s and 1990s, we now know that Homer’s Troy—currently known as Troy VIi—was much larger than earlier thought, and, as it should be, more Anatolian than Greek in character. The newly explored citadel and its environs have grown from less than an acre to over seventy, and may have supported a population of several thousands. The names of some of Homer’s heroes appear not only on Mycenaean documents, but also in Hittite as well. And when we compare Homeric battle scenes to those found in contemporary art, wall painting, and Hittite documents of the thirteenth century B.C., an eerie semblance emerges."

 

 

Interestingly, the same link says that "Schliemann began work on Troy in 1871. His excavations began before archaeology had developed as a professional field."  So, Troy was discovered in a nascent period of archaeology without the benefit of tried and true methodologies, findings from other excavations, or the kind of professional coordination that is found today in the field.  This, cetainly, also led to a myriad of problems and false findings.

True enough, but you failed to note that the review covered all that:

"Lately, however, the controversy has shifted once again back toward historical authenticity. With much more extensive excavation in the late 1980s and 1990s, we now know that Homer’s Troy—currently known as Troy VIi—was much larger than earlier thought, and, as it should be, more Anatolian than Greek in character. The newly explored citadel and its environs have grown from less than an acre to over seventy, and may have supported a population of several thousands. The names of some of Homer’s heroes appear not only on Mycenaean documents, but also in Hittite as well. And when we compare Homeric battle scenes to those found in contemporary art, wall painting, and Hittite documents of the thirteenth century B.C., an eerie semblance emerges."

 

I can't find any evidence in the link for your claim that there are no inscriptions from this period. If you believe I've missed something, please direct me to the right information.  There was this: "The decipherment of Linear B in the 1950s by Ventris (and others) convinced many of a linguistic continuity between 13th century BC Mycenaean writings and the poems attributed to Homer."  And this: "an inscription from Ischia  in the Bay of Naples, ca. 740 BC, appears to refer to a text of the Iliad; likewise, illustrations seemingly inspired by the Polyphemus episode in the Odyssey are found on Samos, Mykonos and in Italy, dating from the first quarter of the seventh century BC."

There were no known inscriptions from the Heroic Age (Late Bronze Age) in Greece, until the modern excavations at Pylos, Mycenae, and Knossos uncovered thousands of Linear B inscriptions.  If you know of some, please advise me.  I can't find a claim to that effect just now, but it has been common knowledge among scholars for centuries, and was the main reason that Classicists insisted that Homer was inventing writing among the fictional Heroic Age Greeks.

[cdowis]

Not quite your 30, but about a dozen times ain't bad.

 

 

OK, then I'm sorry you missed the lesson on the Gadianton robbers.  Perhaps you thought it was just filler.