Where are we with the Book of Mormon

[stemelbow]

Quote

In the late 1960s, a young Latter-day Saint discovered that an ancient form of Middle Eastern poetry was found throughout the Book of Mormon, suggestive of its ancient Semitic origins. This poetical form, chiasmus, a type of inverted parallelism, reaches highly artistic heights in the Book of Mormon and is difficult to ascribe to chance.

Go to Jeff Lindsay's page and you see this at the top of the page for Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

But don't we have to go away from the Hebraisms are found in the Book of Mormon and they couldn't have gotten there unless it was an authentic translation due to Skousen and Carmack's work? 

Not to mention:

Quote

Chiasmus

While chiasmus is a pattern that shows up in many English texts, some consider it to be an important marker that differentiates modern and ancient styles of writing. We don't believe this is the case—The Late War contains several significant chiastic structures. For instance:

From those dudes who compared the book of the Mormon with the Late War.

https://wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/

There's a multi-line chiasmus found in The Late War.  But, I thought such a long structured chiasmus was strong evidence in favor of the notion that the Book of Mormon was of ancient origin. 

Quote

The most powerful and beautiful example of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon - and perhaps anywhere! - is Alma 36. The structure is strongly chiastic, but there are some very sophisticated and elegant perturbations which have been the subject of careful and lengthy analysis (Welch, 1991, Welch, 1989, and Brown, 1988).

From Lindsay's website http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml#alma36

If what were the plates was translated pre-Joseph Smith into an English form that is most common with English of centuries earlier than Joseph, Joseph just dictated what was given him based on that previous translation, then what do hebraisms have to do with the BoM?  Add to that mix the notion that a large portion of the Book was written, and edited, by a guy 1,000 years removed from Hebrew culture, it makes any existence of hebraisms seem pointless. 

Is the only thing going for the Book of MOrmon Nahom?  Because let's face it, that's not winning any converts.  See Hamblin's discussion with that professor from somewhere in Texas, whome I can't remember now from a year or two ago.  It seems like Nahom or some verison of it could have been found on a map in Joseph Smith's time.  And even if not, one tiny allusion to a place makes the whole state of the Book's history seem bleak. 

I'm curious if we're ever going to get away from having to conclude the Book is not of ancient origins.  It is far more modern and is fiction when it comes to history.  What if in all this effort and analysis that is what we have to end up concluding? 

[James Tunney]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Go to Jeff Lindsay's page and you see this at the top of the page for Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

But don't we have to go away from the Hebraisms are found in the Book of Mormon and they couldn't have gotten there unless it was an authentic translation due to Skousen and Carmack's work? 

Not to mention:

From those dudes who compared the book of the Mormon with the Late War.

https://wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/

There's a multi-line chiasmus found in The Late War.  But, I thought such a long structured chiasmus was strong evidence in favor of the notion that the Book of Mormon was of ancient origin. 

From Lindsay's website http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml#alma36

If what were the plates was translated pre-Joseph Smith into an English form that is most common with English of centuries earlier than Joseph, Joseph just dictated what was given him based on that previous translation, then what do hebraisms have to do with the BoM?  Add to that mix the notion that a large portion of the Book was written, and edited, by a guy 1,000 years removed from Hebrew culture, it makes any existence of hebraisms seem pointless. 

Is the only thing going for the Book of MOrmon Nahom?  Because let's face it, that's not winning any converts.  See Hamblin's discussion with that professor from somewhere in Texas, whome I can't remember now from a year or two ago.  It seems like Nahom or some verison of it could have been found on a map in Joseph Smith's time.  And even if not, one tiny allusion to a place makes the whole state of the Book's history seem bleak. 

I'm curious if we're ever going to get away from having to conclude the Book is not of ancient origins.  It is far more modern and is fiction when it comes to history.  What if in all this effort and analysis that is what we have to end up concluding? 

I think the church is tied to historicity due to authority concerns. If the book of mormon is fiction, like it appears to be, then Joseph Smith was deluded or worse. He repeatedly acted and made statements as if it was historical. So regardless of how implausible the pretranslation theory sounds or the limited geography theory sounds, there must be some historicity theory to support mormon authority claims.

[Gray]

I'm not sure where we are, but as soon as we definitively hash it out here, we can let the church leaders know and they can announce our decision to the church. 

 

[Buckeye]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 

If what were the plates was translated pre-Joseph Smith into an English form that is most common with English of centuries earlier than Joseph, Joseph just dictated what was given him based on that previous translation, then what do hebraisms have to do with the BoM?  Add to that mix the notion that a large portion of the Book was written, and edited, by a guy 1,000 years removed from Hebrew culture, it makes any existence of hebraisms seem pointless. 

Is the only thing going for the Book of MOrmon Nahom?  Because let's face it, that's not winning any converts.  See Hamblin's discussion with that professor from somewhere in Texas, whome I can't remember now from a year or two ago.  It seems like Nahom or some verison of it could have been found on a map in Joseph Smith's time.  And even if not, one tiny allusion to a place makes the whole state of the Book's history seem bleak. 

I'm curious if we're ever going to get away from having to conclude the Book is not of ancient origins.  It is far more modern and is fiction when it comes to history.  What if in all this effort and analysis that is what we have to end up concluding? 

I'm agnostic as to the historicity of the BOM. That said, I do find the hebraisms to be compelling evidence that Joseph did not perform a "translation" in any normal sense of the word. He may easily had made a tight dictation. But a native english speaker such as Joseph would not have included "if and" clauses and other hebraims that are foreign to the english language. So for me, the hebraism don't solve the translation dilemma, but they do add to the other weighty evidence pointing against Joseph being the sole author and just making the whole thing up.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

11 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I think the church is tied to historicity due to authority concerns. If the book of mormon is fiction, like it appears to be, then Joseph Smith was deluded or worse. He repeatedly acted and made statements as if it was historical. So regardless of how implausible the pretranslation theory sounds or the limited geography theory sounds, there must be some historicity theory to support mormon authority claims.

Unless our notion of authority changes from "angels from heaven" to a more protestant "people of the book(s)" view.

Edited August 18, 2016 by Buckeye

[Storm Rider]

As a LDS I don't sit around wondering about the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  It seems to be the domain of the critic and the exMos.  

When I read the Book of Mormon I am challenged to live my life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.  I read about man's struggle for faith, to live by faith, and the utter feebleness of man.  When I learn so much and I am benefited by reading it I see no need to constantly revisit a question that has been answered countless times in the past to my satisfaction.  

With all the whining that goes on the challenge remains the same - read it, pray about it, and then live your life accordingly.  

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

When I read the Book of Mormon I am challenged to live my life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.  

You are applying scripture correctly. The historicity is an academic concern - it has nothing to do with the value of scripture. 

[stemelbow]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure where we are, but as soon as we definitively hash it out here, we can let the church leaders know and they can announce our decision to the church. 

 

That's what I was thinking. 

[stemelbow]

33 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

I think the church is tied to historicity due to authority concerns. If the book of mormon is fiction, like it appears to be, then Joseph Smith was deluded or worse. He repeatedly acted and made statements as if it was historical. So regardless of how implausible the pretranslation theory sounds or the limited geography theory sounds, there must be some historicity theory to support mormon authority claims.

Mm...probably.  But, it's possible Joseph, being just another who only sees what we want to see, or is as if he looks through a glass darkly, it's possible he confused it and thought the story had to be history.  To me, there's too much wiggle room on this.

[ksfisher]

To answer the OP, this statement by an early church leader would seem to sum things up:

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I'm agnostic as to the historicity of the BOM. That said, I do find the hebraisms to be compelling evidence that Joseph did not perform a "translation" in any normal sense of the word. He may easily had made a tight dictation. But a native english speaker such as Joseph would not have included "if and" clauses and other hebraims that are foreign to the english language. So for me, the hebraism don't solve the translation dilemma, but they do add to the other weighty evidence pointing against Joseph being the sole author and just making the whole thing up.

So "if-and" clauses are found else in say, 16th century English, or other works that try to sound biblical like The Late War where does that get us?  I mean it seems chiasmus might be less compelling seeing they are found with some degree of elegance, complexity, and duration in other books, like the Late War, afterall.  It feels way too early to be able to conclude one way or another in some ways. 

[hope_for_things]

There is a lot we can learn still when looking at the BoM as a 19th century document.  I've probably found more value in my life through non-historical works than anything else.  I don't like using the word fiction because of the negative connotation associated with calling someone's scripture a fiction.  I also don't like using the blanket word inspired because I think there are many elements that are morally unacceptable to me, and I don't like calling the whole document as inspired.  

 

Edited August 18, 2016 by hope_for_things

[stemelbow]

46 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

As a LDS I don't sit around wondering about the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  It seems to be the domain of the critic and the exMos.  

When I read the Book of Mormon I am challenged to live my life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.  I read about man's struggle for faith, to live by faith, and the utter feebleness of man.  When I learn so much and I am benefited by reading it I see no need to constantly revisit a question that has been answered countless times in the past to my satisfaction.  

With all the whining that goes on the challenge remains the same - read it, pray about it, and then live your life accordingly.  

I'm fine with that.  But, there's a question out there irrespective of it being scripture, as to whether it is historical. 

On top of that, some seem to suggest if you don't view it as history it's impossible to apply it as scripture, or so it seems.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There is a lot we can learn still when looking at the BoM as a 19th century document.  I've probably found more value in my life through non-historical works than anything else.  I don't like using the word fiction because of the negative connotation associated with calling someone's scripture a fiction.  I also don't like using the blanket word inspired because I think there are my elements that are morally unacceptable to me, and I don't like covering the whole thing as inspired.  

 

Great post!! 

[Buckeye]

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So "if-and" clauses are found else in say, 16th century English, or other works that try to sound biblical like The Late War where does that get us?  I mean it seems chiasmus might be less compelling seeing they are found with some degree of elegance, complexity, and duration in other books, like the Late War, afterall.  It feels way too early to be able to conclude one way or another in some ways. 

I'm not well-informed on 16th century English, but I would be surprised if "if-and" clauses were used then. Again, I don't view the hebraism as necessarily indicating a 16th century translation (in the typical sense), they just point away from Joseph as author.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Great post!! 

Thanks Tacenda.  

[Kevin Christensen]

For relevant discussions on the significance of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon,

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1099&index=11

Welch on how much was known in 1830:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1456&index=6

If Hunt learned about chiasmus from some contemporary source, more power to him, but there is still no evidence that his book was ever adopted for use by schools, let alone seen by Joseph Smith.

For " Is the only thing going for the Book of MOrmon Nahom?"

No.  There is lot more to it than Nahom, and Nahom is not just a stand alone point, but is interconnected with a great many other details.  It has to be in the right place and time, relative to a great many other things that tend to overlooked by superficial readers and not mentioned or accounted for by superficial critics.   It also happens that anything believers can provide can be dismissed with minimal effort, a simple "So what?" suffices.  But for those who really want to learn, there is a great deal to consider.  Try Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, or In the Footsteps of Lehi, or the Journey of Faith.

Small details, such as this:

http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF

And large, such as this:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-great-and-terrible-judgments-of-the-lord-destruction-and-disaster-in-3-nephi-and-the-geology-of-mesoamerica/

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited August 18, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

You are applying scripture correctly. The historicity is an academic concern - it has nothing to do with the value of scripture. 

I disagree.  I think historicity has much to do with the value of The Book of Mormon as it does with the value of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.  Consider these remarks by Elder Oaks (emphasis added):

Quote

 "There is something strange about accepting the moral or religious content of a book while rejecting the truthfulness of its authors' declarations, predictions, and statements. This approach not only rejects the concepts of faith and revelation that the Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship. ... The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, p. 244.)

See also Kent Jackson's remarks (same link) (emphasis added):

Quote

In his article "Joseph Smith and the Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Kent P. Jackson asks, "what credibility could any of these sources have if the book is not historical?" He goes on: "Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (pp. 137-38)

I concede that there are true and correct principles to be found in stories that do not need to be historically authentic to have value.  For example, the historicity of a particular parable spoken by Christ is, I think, largely immaterial to its spiritual/moral value. However, the historicity of the existence of Christ is a markedly different issue. If Christ never existed, then belief in Him has no salvific power. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" has no meaning or relevance. In fact, it is a lie and a fraud which must be affirmatively rejected if there is no historicity underlying it. I think the same must be said for The Book of Mormon. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is, in my view, a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship."  A fictional Jesus Christ does not work as pertaining to our salvation, nor does a fictional Book of Mormon.

For those who claim to have looked at "the evidence" and concluded that The Book of Mormon is fictional, I'd like to see you folks address the witnesses to The Book of Mormon.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 18, 2016 by smac97

[salgare]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure where we are, but as soon as we definitively hash it out here, we can let the church leaders know and they can announce our decision to the church. 

 

They are loving givens/hardy scouting ahead.

[salgare]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

As a LDS I don't sit around wondering about the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  It seems to be the domain of the critic and the exMos.  

When I read the Book of Mormon I am challenged to live my life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ.  I read about man's struggle for faith, to live by faith, and the utter feebleness of man.  When I learn so much and I am benefited by reading it I see no need to constantly revisit a question that has been answered countless times in the past to my satisfaction.  

With all the whining that goes on the challenge remains the same - read it, pray about it, and then live your life accordingly.  

I think the question becomes, can one testify on fast Sunday that they don't believe the BoM is historical and remain a member in good standing? i.e. Bishop roulette on who gets a court of love out of the deal.  I think some here are ready to come out of the closet

 

Edited August 18, 2016 by salgare

[smac97]

1 minute ago, salgare said:

I think the question becomes, can one testify on fast Sunday that they don't believe the BoM is historical and remain a member in good standing? i.e. Bishop roulette on who gets a court of love out of the deal.  I think some here are ready to come out of the closet

I don't think rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon would warrant discipline.  I could see it as precluding a temple recommend, however.

Thanks,

-Smac

[salgare]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Mm...probably.  But, it's possible Joseph, being just another who only sees what we want to see, or is as if he looks through a glass darkly, it's possible he confused it and thought the story had to be history.  To me, there's too much wiggle room on this.

no history, no gold plates, no angle Moroni etc.  big can of worms

 

eta:  here is a link to a good summary of the debate where Bill ended up looking so bad. 

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/debating.htm

Horrible beat down

Edited August 18, 2016 by salgare

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, salgare said:

no history, no gold plates, no angle Moroni etc.  big can of worms

History, gold plates, angel Moroni etc.  Big can of worms.  Big can of worms either way, it seems like to me. 

[churchistrue]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think rejecting the historicity of The Book of Mormon would warrant discipline.  I could see it as precluding a temple recommend, however.

Thanks,

-Smac

There's no temple recommend question on BOM historicity.

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Go to Jeff Lindsay's page and you see this at the top of the page for Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon.

But don't we have to go away from the Hebraisms are found in the Book of Mormon and they couldn't have gotten there unless it was an authentic translation due to Skousen and Carmack's work? 

Not to mention:

From those dudes who compared the book of the Mormon with the Late War.

https://wordtreefoundation.github.io/thelatewar/

There's a multi-line chiasmus found in The Late War.  But, I thought such a long structured chiasmus was strong evidence in favor of the notion that the Book of Mormon was of ancient origin. 

From Lindsay's website http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml#alma36

If what were the plates was translated pre-Joseph Smith into an English form that is most common with English of centuries earlier than Joseph, Joseph just dictated what was given him based on that previous translation, then what do hebraisms have to do with the BoM?  Add to that mix the notion that a large portion of the Book was written, and edited, by a guy 1,000 years removed from Hebrew culture, it makes any existence of hebraisms seem pointless. 

Is the only thing going for the Book of MOrmon Nahom?  Because let's face it, that's not winning any converts.  See Hamblin's discussion with that professor from somewhere in Texas, whome I can't remember now from a year or two ago.  It seems like Nahom or some verison of it could have been found on a map in Joseph Smith's time.  And even if not, one tiny allusion to a place makes the whole state of the Book's history seem bleak. 

I'm curious if we're ever going to get away from having to conclude the Book is not of ancient origins.  It is far more modern and is fiction when it comes to history.  What if in all this effort and analysis that is what we have to end up concluding? 

It doesn't matter if there is never evidence found or not, if God tells us it is true, then it is true. The Book of Mormon itself tells us:

"4  And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5  And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."
Moroni 10:4-5

If we just try to wait until everything is proven then why be religious at all?