Where are we with the Book of Mormon

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

stemelbow,

    Did you look at the number of ... ellipses used to make that chiasmus??? The "Late War" is available on line at https://ia802609.us.archive.org/22/items/latewarbetween_00hunt/latewarbetween_00hunt.pdf. Did you actually read the text from which it was derived?

Chiasmus all have ellipses.  It appears that's what Alma 36 is.  You have phrases that are similar or the same with other words in between.  Here's a small sampling:

Quote

My son, give ear to my words; for I swear unto you, that inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land.

 2 I would that ye should do as I have done, in remembering the captivity of our fathers; for they were in bondage, and none could deliver them except it was the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and he surely did deliver them in their afflictions.

 3 And now, O my son Helaman, behold, thou art in thy youth, and therefore, I beseech of thee that thou wilt hear my words and learn of me; for I do know that whosoever shall put their trust in God

 

Quote

and I do put my trust in him, and he will still deliver me.

 28 And I know that he will raise me up at the last day, to dwell with him in glory; yea, and I will praise him forever, for he has brought our fathers out of Egypt, and he has swallowed up the Egyptians in the Red Sea; and he led them by his power into the promised land; yea, and he has delivered them out of bondage and captivity from time to time.

 29 Yea, and he has also brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem; and he has also, by his everlasting power, delivered them out of bondage and captivity, from time to time even down to the present day; and I have always retained in remembrance their captivity; yea, and ye also ought to retain in remembrance, as I have done, their captivity.

 30 But behold, my son, this is not all; for ye ought to know as I do know, that inasmuch as ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall prosper in the land; and ye ought to know also, that inasmuch as ye will not keep the commandments of God ye shall be cut off from his presence. Now this is according to his word.

 

Quote

 

My son, give ear to my words (1)

Keep the commandments and ye shall prosper in the land (1)

Do as I have done (2)

Captivity of our fathers—their bondage (2)

He surely did deliver them (2)

Trust in God (3)

 

Trust in him (27)

He will deliver me (27)

Egypt—captivity (28–29)

Know as I do know (30)

Keep the commandments and ye shall prosper in the land (30)

This is according to his word (30)

 

I'm not that concerned about it though.  If the Late War is worse than the chiasmus in Alma 36, I wouldn't know.  They both represent words and phrases picked out.  Some seem to match better than others.  Whatever the case, it's possible for someone to write a book in the early 19th century and have some form of chiasmus in there.  I don't know that this requires the Book of Mormon to be of ancient origin.  It doesn't seem like it does.  It helps to create complexity, sure.  And that's a step.  I grant that. 

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Chiasmus is not the be all and end all for the Book of Mormon, and I am amazed that anyone would think that.

Nobody does. 

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 it is merely one among many rhetorical modes of organizing parallel texts.  It does help in eliciting meaning from some texts, but is not strictly a Hebraism, because such rhetorical form was used widely throughout the ancient world.  Moreover, although we sometimes find Hebraisms in non-Hebrew texts (such as the Greek New Testament), the Book of Mormon was engraved in Egyptian, not Hebrew.  So, we should presumably be looking for Egyptianisms, which can be very diagnostic of the true origin of the book.  Not sure what Skousen & Carmack have to do with that.

Me either.  That's why I started this thread.  It feels like with differing explanations of the Book, including Skousen's, there are cans of worms opened and such difficult logic to maintain.  It feels easier to just assume the book is not ancient. 

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Would be nice if someone could supply the page numbers (and edition) in Late War from which that large chiasm was taken.  I would like to evaluate it myself.

Aside from that, the source you give here bollixed and falsified their "It came to pass" analysis, because they didn't bother to read mine (or ignored it), and made other serious errors, as noted in http://www.exploringsainthood.org/the-late-war-the-book-of-mormon-and-rare-n-grams/ , and in Interpreter (cited there).

Thanks for the link.  The rare 4grams or whatever they are, is a weird position from the Late War folks.  I don't get it.  There are far more matches between the BoM and the Bible than between the Late War and the Book of Mormon.  This quote from the link is interesting:

Quote

For anyone who wants to claim that Joseph was translating word for word, preserving as much of the grammar of the original as possible, this could be a blow. It is abundantly clear that whatever the source, Joseph was using a style of language prominent in the religious discourse and writings of the 19th century.

 

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I indicated, we need to be speaking of Egyptianisms, not Hebraisms (although some of the latter can be found).  They would be of value in any translation from an Egyptian document, simply because some of the original mode of expression can come through, and could be diagnostic of the original language -- that is what I have found in my as yet unpublished "Egyptianisms in the Book of Mormon."

The archeological and linguistic bases for an ancient Book of Mormon are legion, and have been increasing in value and detail ever since 1830.  Most people don't know about them, and few really care.  Most people base their testimony upon the witness of the Holy Spirit, not on Nahom.  Thus it has always been and will continue to be.  However, if you are really interested in scientific evidence for the BofM, see a sampling in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

Thanks again.  I realize I have a ways to go. 

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Why would anyone, holding such a stance be even slightly interested in entering the temple?

If you say that the Book of Mormon is not historical, basically this is the logic that follows from that statement.  When I try to engage in a conversation with such an individual, and show him/her what it actually means, they simply do not respond.

They have compartmentalized the "believing" Mormon from their inner "unbelieving" Mormon.  They go to the temple, pretend that the BOM is somehow divine to satisfy their believing Mormon, while they satisfy their unbelieving Mormon very carefully with this "unhistorical BOM" construct.  "I'm not denying the BOM.  It is true, just not historical."

Now, someone please point out my flawed logic.

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Chiasmus all have ellipses.  It appears that's what Alma 36 is.  You have phrases that are similar or the same with other words in between.  .......

Actually, most ancient chiasms do not have any ellipses, even if there are some key-word structures which do so at the macro-level.  For example, no ellipses are  necessary in the chiasms in 1 Nephi 22:2, 2 Nephi 1:5-7, 28:21, Mosiah 3:18-19, 5:10-12, Alma 50:14, Leviticus 24:14-23 (J. Milgrom laid out numerious chiasms throughout Leviticus in his three-volume translation commentary for Anchor Bible), etc.

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not that concerned about it though.  If the Late War is worse than the chiasmus in Alma 36, I wouldn't know.  They both represent words and phrases picked out.  Some seem to match better than others.  Whatever the case, it's possible for someone to write a book in the early 19th century and have some form of chiasmus in there.

Not so.  If there was cheating in the chiastic analysis of the Late War, that should concern you.  There are specific rules for distinguishing chiasms at the macro-level, including not glossing over multiple uses of the same phrase or key word out of sequence.  Otherwise one would be able to create chiasms from the phone book, and that is dirty pool.

33 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

  I don't know that this requires the Book of Mormon to be of ancient origin.  It doesn't seem like it does.  It helps to create complexity, sure.  And that's a step.  I grant that. 

One should understand the internal rhetorical structure of the BofM for a number of reasons, because it helps in the analysis in a wide variety of ways.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm surprised that you don't seem to recognize the comparisons between the translation of the BoA and the BoM.

I think I recognize them.  I just find one to be materially distinguishable from the other.

Quote

In defense of the BoA NOT being exactly what Joseph claimed it to be, or brought forth in the way Joseph claimed it was, you make the same basic argument that I'm making with the BoM.

I don't think so.

Quote

You continue to present a false dichotomy that Joseph either is perfectly accurate in his description of his translations/process or he is a complete fraud.

I have said nothing like this at all.  I have been juxtaposing the "Historicity" argument for The Book of Mormon against the "Inspired Fiction" argument for The Book of Mormon.  The former does not require a "perfectly accurate" translation process.  At all.  We don't know what that process was.  However, we don't really need to know the particulars of the process in order to differentiate the former argument (Historicity) from the latter (Inspired Fiction).  In my view, the latter is hugely problematic as a position asserted by a faithful, observant Latter-day Saint because it requires us to accuse Joseph Smith of being a liar, or of being deluded/insane, or some combination thereof.  

Quote

But for the BoA you're willing to accept that he was wrong about it being written by the hand of Abraham upon papyrus.

That is not what I said.  The Church's essay addresses this (emphasis added):

Quote

Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments. Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived.

Of course, the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies. The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers much as the Book of Mormon prophet-historians Mormon and Moroni revised the writings of earlier peoples.28 

...

28. Joseph Smith, or perhaps a colleague, introduced the published translation by saying that the records were “written by his [Abraham’s] own hand, upon papyrus.” The phrase can be understood to mean that Abraham is the author and not the literal copyist. Hugh Nibley and Michael Rhodes, One Eternal Round (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2010), 20–22; Michael D. Rhodes, “Teaching the Book of Abraham Facsimiles,” Religious Educator 4, no. 2 (2003): 117–18.

So we are talking about a single, very ambiguous phrase.  Which may or may not have been written by Joseph Smith.  And which is not part of the BoA text.

In contrast, there are huge numbers of statements, including canonized elements, by Joseph Smith and the Witnesses made over a span of many, many years which are cumulatively fatal to the "Inspired Fiction" concept.

Back to you:

Quote

He seems to have literally believed the scrolls were Abraham's personal writings.

Again, we are talking about a single, very ambiguous phrase.  Which may or may not have been written by Joseph Smith.  And which is not part of the BoA text.

Quote

He was wrong.

Not necessarily.  Your interpretation ("He seems to have literally believed the scrolls were Abraham's personal writings") is not the only viable option here.  Again from the Church's essay:

Quote

Of course, the fragments do not have to be as old as Abraham for the book of Abraham and its illustrations to be authentic. Ancient records are often transmitted as copies or as copies of copies. The record of Abraham could have been edited or redacted by later writers much as the Book of Mormon prophet-historians Mormon and Moroni revised the writings of earlier peoples.28 

...

28. Joseph Smith, or perhaps a colleague, introduced the published translation by saying that the records were “written by his [Abraham’s] own hand, upon papyrus.” The phrase can be understood to mean that Abraham is the author and not the literal copyist. Hugh Nibley and Michael Rhodes, One Eternal Round (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2010), 20–22; Michael D. Rhodes, “Teaching the Book of Abraham Facsimiles,” Religious Educator 4, no. 2 (2003): 117–18.

At this point we are not talking about The Book of Abraham.  We are instead talking about A) your interpretation of B) a single ambiguous statement which C) may or may not have been written by Joseph Smith, which is D) about The Book of of Abraham, and which E) can also "be understood to mean that Abraham is the author and not the literal copyist."

Back to you:

Quote

He can be wrong without being a complete fraud.  I view it as very possible that he didn't understand the translation process himself.

I'm not particularly interested in debating the translation process.  We just don't know much about it.  What we do know, however, is that Joseph Smith presented The Book of Abraham as being a translation of an ancient historical text written by Abraham.  So . . . historicity, not "inspired fiction" is the position taken by Joseph Smith and the LDS Church.

Quote

If the scrolls were a catalyst (leading his mind to be inspired by God) then why couldn't the stone also be the catalyst for the BoM translation coming from God?

Again, I'm not particularly interested in debating the particulars of the translation process.  It's just too speculative an exercise.  

I have been speaking of the "Historicity" v. "Inspired Fiction" debate.

Quote

By sticking with this false dichotomy you are essentially pushing people away who are trying to maintain some hope in the restoration and Joseph as a prophet. What's the point in doing that?

I reject the assertion that I am presenting a false dichotomy.  I am speaking of the "Historicity" v. "Inspired Fiction" debate.  This is not a false dichotomy.  

Either Lehi existed, or he did not.  

Either Lehi's descendants existed, or they did not.  

Either the events described in The Book of Mormon occurred, or they did not.  

Mormon either abridged the records of his ancestors into a set of plates, or he did not.  

Either Mormon's son, Moroni, buried those plates in the ground, or he did not.

Either Moroni returned to earth as a resurrected angelic being and appeared to Joseph Smith, or he did not.

Either Moroni directed Joseph Smith to the location of the buried plates, or he did not.

Joseph Smith either obtained an ancient artifact, gold plates, or he did not.

The Three Witnesses either witnessed an angel descend from heaven and show them the plates, or they did not.

The Eight Witnesses either examined the above-referenced plates in mundane circumstances, or they did not.

These are not false dichotomies.  

Quote

You state that you believe the BoA was translated by divine means but you stop short of accepting that it was done in the way Joseph claimed.

First, I am not particularly interested in discussing the particulars of the translation process.  It's just too speculative an exercise.

Second, I disagree that Joseph Smith has described "the way" he translated the BoA.

Quote

Likewise, why couldn't a person believe that the BoM was translated by divine means- but stop short of accepting it was done in the way Joseph claimed?

Again, I'm not particularly interested in debating the particulars of the translation process.  It's just too speculative an exercise.  

I have been speaking of the "Historicity" v. "Inspired Fiction" debate.

Quote

You seem to be really hung up on the plates,

Yes.  They are an extremely important piece of evidence in the "Historicity" v. "Inspired Fiction" debate, and yet the "Inspired Fiction" folks are not addressing them.  Sidestepping, yes.  Ignoring, yes.  Obliquely and vaguely referencing, yes.  But that's about it.

Quote

expecting that if they didn't exist Joseph is a complete fraud.

I don't understand your position.  Was there an actual, ancient artifact in Joseph Smith's possession, or not?  What is your position on that issue?

If your position is that "they didn't exist," then just say so and we can proceed from there.  

Quote

But is it possible Joseph was inspired to produce the BoM 

What does this mean?  We have Joseph's explanation as to how he "produce{d} the BoM."  It involves prayers, numerous angelic visitations, ancient artifacts buried in the earth, Joseph Smith being led to them by revelatory visions, Joseph Smith translating them "by the gift and power of God" (whatever that means), and so on.  And we also have testimony from percipient witnesses, some of which examined the plates in miraculous circumstances, and some some which examined them in mundane circumstances.  All of this is the explanation given by Joseph Smith, and that is the explanation taught by the LDS Church.

Do you have an alternative explanation for the origins of The Book of Mormon?  If so, what is it, and what is the evidentiary basis for it?

Quote

but was also just a man who felt insecure and concerned that no one would believe him.

No one would believe what?  That he had been visited by angels?  That he experienced divine dreams and visions?  That an angel told him about "a book deposited, written upon gold plates?"  That the angel told him where these plates were located?  That he was eventually allowed to take physical custody of these ancient records?

What are you talking about here?

Quote

What if he created a story about the provenance of the BoM coming from ancient plates because he thought a little deception would be warranted for the greater good?  If Joseph lied/misled people about that, does that automatically disqualify him from being used by God in other ways? If he lied about the plates, would that be the only time in Joseph's life he was dishonest for what he may have considered the greater good? (Think polygamy)

Is that your position?  I'd just like to pin that down.  If it is, then let's continue the discussion.  If it's just a throwaway hypothetical, I'll treat it as such.

Quote

On the other hand, I think it is possible Joseph was inspired by God but was also one of the "weak things" of the world and lied about some of the particulars. It's the pious fraud theory while also recognizing inspiration from God.

So it sounds like you are of the "Inspired Fiction" school of thought.  Let's go with that.

I suppose I understand your basic conclusions about Joseph Smith's description of the origins of The Book of Mormon.  Your conclusion is that . . . he lied.  About the whole thing.  No Lehi.  No Nephi.  No Mormon.  No Moroni.  No abridgment of records.  No plates.  No angelic visitations to Joseph Smith by Moroni about the plates.  No plates buried in the ground and obtained by Joseph.  And he lied about these things because, in your view, God told him to.  God inspired Joseph Smith to lie about "the keystone of our religion."

Is that correct?  If not, please clarify your position.

But Joseph Smith's say-so is not the only consideration here.  There was an actual, physical artifact, the Gold Plates, which was attested to by Joseph Smith, Emma, the Three Witnesses, and the Eight Witnesses.  So we have to account for that.  How do you account for the Plates?  If, as you seem to think, there were no such ancient records, then were all these people lying about there being plates at all?  Or were they all collectively deluded/insane about the existence of the plates?  

Consider Emma Smith's statement: 

Quote

“The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him [Joseph Smith, Jr.] to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book. … I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so. … I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.” (The Saints’ Herald, 1 Oct. 1879, p. 290; spelling modernized.)

How do you account for this statement?  Was Emma Smith lying when she described the physical object sitting on the table?  

Was she deluded/insane about feeling the plates, about how they "seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb?"  

Or is your position that Joseph Smith fabricated a fake set of plates (or colluded with others in doing so), and that it was this fraudulent artifact which Emma was feeling?

If none of the foregoing options approximates your assessment of Emma's statement, then what is your assessment?

And what about the Three Witnesses and their testimony?  Let's take a look at it (emphases added):

Quote

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

How do you account for the emphasized statements above?  Were these witnesses lying?  Collectively deluded/insane?  Duped by Joseph Smith?

I would really appreciate your assistance here.  At this point I am less interested in debating the merits of the "Inspired Fiction" theory as I am in simply comprehending it, and its reasoning, and its evidentiary basis, and its explanation for rejecting the statements of Joseph Smith, rejecting the testimonies of the Witnesses, rejecting that there existed an ancient artifact (the Plates) which was referenced by Joseph Smith and the Witnesses, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[churchistrue]

2 minutes ago, cdowis said:

If you say that the Book of Mormon is not historical, basically this is the logic that follows from that statement.  When I try to engage in a conversation with such an individual, and show him/her what it actually means, they simply do not respond.

They have compartmentalized the "believing" Mormon from their inner "unbelieving" Mormon.  They go to the temple, pretend that the BOM is somehow divine to satisfy their believing Mormon, while they satisfy their unbelieving Mormon very carefully with this "unhistorical BOM" construct.  "I'm not denying the BOM.  It is true, just not historical."

Now, someone please point out my flawed logic.

How many different ways could you interpret the question "do you have a testimony of the restoration?"  I'm guessing if you asked 1,000 people to write a one page essay on what that means, you would get 1,000 different answers.  Luckily, for bishops they don't have to grade an essay.  And luckily for slightly unorthodox members, the brethren do not require stict orthodoxy on a long list of doctrinal points for a temple recommend.   

[cdowis]

27 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

 And luckily for slightly unorthodox members, the brethren do not require stict orthodoxy on a long list of doctrinal points for a temple recommend.   

And fortunately for all of us, a loving, all knowing Heavenly Father will be the one who judges us at the Last Day.  We need to be careful to answer the question truthfully.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

How many different ways could you interpret the question "do you have a testimony of the restoration?"  

Several, I suppose. Some are going to be more correct than others, and I am perfectly fine with that.  I'm not as interested in accuracy as I am in honesty (for myself, that is).

For example, let's say I am asked the following question in a Temple Recommend interview: "Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?"  I could think to myself the following:

Quote

"Well, let's see.  I reject the teachings of the LDS Church that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  

I think he was just an itinerant preacher with some nice things to say about loving one's neighbor.  

I do not believe he had any divine or prophetic powers.  

I do not believe he performed any miracles.  

I do not believe he atoned for the sins of the world.  

I do not believe he resurrected from the dead, or visited and taught his disciples, or ascended into heaven, or visited the Nephites as described in 3 Nephi.  

I reject any and all claims in scripture and in talks given by modern prophets and apostles that claim Jesus was the 'son of God' in any unique sense.  

I reject the notion that we must have faith in him as the son of God.  

However, I am fine with professing 'faith' in the sense that he said some things which will help people treat others with kindness.  

So that, in my view, merits an affirmative response to this temple recommend question."

There may be some people that would feel comfortable with the above exercise in rationalization and deception.  I would not be.

Quote

I'm guessing if you asked 1,000 people to write a one page essay on what that means, you would get 1,000 different answers.  Luckily, for bishops they don't have to grade an essay.  And luckily for slightly unorthodox members, the brethren do not require stict orthodoxy on a long list of doctrinal points for a temple recommend.   

I think characterizing the "Inspired Fiction" theory of The Book of Mormon as "slightly unorthodox" is absurd.

Nevertheless, I will restrict my comments on this issue to what I would do for myself, and to those within my stewardship.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cdowis]

The actual phrase is "patently absurd".  
Also, " with great reluctance,  I restrict my comments...."

Don't hold back.

Edited August 19, 2016 by cdowis

[Glenn101]

On 8/19/2016 at 11:05 AM, stemelbow said:

Chiasmus all have ellipses.  It appears that's what Alma 36 is.  You have phrases that are similar or the same with other words in between.  Here's a small sampling:

 

 

I'm not that concerned about it though.  If the Late War is worse than the chiasmus in Alma 36, I wouldn't know.  They both represent words and phrases picked out.  Some seem to match better than others.  Whatever the case, it's possible for someone to write a book in the early 19th century and have some form of chiasmus in there.  I don't know that this requires the Book of Mormon to be of ancient origin.  It doesn't seem like it does.  It helps to create complexity, sure.  And that's a step.  I grant that. 

   I am not going to take this very much further. I am not an expert in chiasmus, or any other literary form. However, I can do a bit of research and understand a bit on the subject. And I do believe that Calm's analysis has pretty well taken the "Late War" example put of the realm of an intentional, or even unintentional chiasmus. I do not know of any LDS scholar that is hanging their hat on the fact that this literary device is found in the Book of Mormon. It is interesting because this literary form was little known and very seldom used in Joseph's time. They add a layer of complexity that no one in Joseph Smith's time, and no one for many years, caught onto. None of the erudite authors of Joseph's day paid very much attention to it, if Samuel Clemens and his famous "chloroform in print" quote is any indication.

Of course, since Jack Welch's discovery of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, there has been an unconcerted but strenuous effort by critics to find chiastic structures intentional or not, in just about any and everything.

Glenn

 

[Honorentheos]

Whether or not the Book of Mormon is accurate history or not is one of many possible questions to be asked. Is it a false dichotomy to ask if Lehi was a real person or not? Well.

Let's rephrase it to ask how binary believers on this board are in regards to their views about what the Book of Mormon has to say about itself generally. 

Do people assume that either the Book of Mormon must be taken at face value or discarded when it describes Nephite culture? Population sizes? The number of people killed during military exchanges? The number of days Alma the Younger was in hell? Or is there more of a spectrum of thought on these among LDS that, while people may have strong feelings (and be very proud of their perceived accuracy of their own position I assume), I'd guess no one is bringing daggers in their suit jackets on Sunday to rid the Church of the infidels who don't believe in Nephite coins.

Is Job a work of literal history? Is it necessary that in order to see Job as scripture one must read it as word-for-word accurate as to what may or may not have occurred? People the world over who hold it sacred as a text do not occupy binary positions of "Either Job is real or not", so that seems more of an individual demand for a fundamentalist perspective of scripture than a characteristic of scripture itself.

Just watching the discussion from an outsider's perspective, it seems to be that this debate is between many different dichotomies. Each person comes to it with an expectation that it's their version of scripture that is true, or it can't be held as scripture. Stepping back and accepting that where one is at isn't the only valid position available seems like the better path, IMO. But hey, fundamentalism is compelling for reasons all its own.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Honorentheos

[Glenn101]

On 08/18/2016 at 11:00 AM, stemelbow said:

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 just wanted to get back to the main point stemelbow seemed to be trying to make. I do not believe that he made his case. I do not believe that the case has been made by anyone that the Book of Mormon is "far more modern" i.e. a product of a 19th century author. To make the case, one has to only focus on the elements that are considered of 19th century origin. I am not going to delve deeply into any of the points. They have been and are being hashed out in various forums etc. already. I am not going to be arguing for or against any of the things I note as to evidence of truthfulness or historicity. Just as evidence that the Book of Mormon is not the product of a 19th century author.

Take the case of the names in the Book of Mormon. Critics have proposed several different methodologies that Joseph could have used to produce the more unusual names found in the Book of Mormon. They include name splicing, i.e. combining different biblical names and/or parts of names to form a new name. And using maps available at the time for some of the place names such as Cumorah from the Comoros Islands and the name Moroni from their capital. That would have involved a prodigious amount of research, in that there are something like 188 names unique to the Book of Mormon. Plausible, if not convincing etymologies have been found or proposed for many of those names. This is not a proof, but does add another layer of complexity to the text.

The Nahom problem. It adds another layer of complexity to the text. One that hardly seems the product of a 19th century author.

The problem of the prevalence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon that has been uncovered by Royal Skousen in his Book of Mormon critical text project and further investigated by Stanford Carmack.  Much of the EmodE predates the KJV. No evidence that this EmodE was fossilized in any of Joseph's formative environments.  This adds another layer of complexity to the Book of Mormon text that points away from a 19th century author. (Of course that opens up the door more questions for which we have no answers.)

The cement commentary in the Book of Helaman also points away from an early 19th century author, if President Heber J. Grant's interaction with a leaned man while he was much younger than his 1929 address.

Then there are the Semitic grammatical structures in the Book of Mormon. I am taking about the ones that were not common in the Bible or in the English language of Joseph Smith's day and environment. If a person were attempting to imitate Biblical language, the presence of Hebraisms in the author's text would be expected. However, phrases, idioms, and constructs that are found in the Bible or in common language usage would be what one would expect to find. This is a sort of gray area in my mind, because it does not necessarily point away from a 19th century author as it does to a person with a background in Semitic languages.

Those are just a few things off the top of my head. There have been many other points brought up by scholars in various disciplines. I will link to just one, which has links to others.

Now, if someone can point out valid arguments why the Book of Mormon can only fit a 19th century model, please do so. I think it would still be on topic with the OP.

 

Glenn