Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

[Darren10]

15 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I think if the Smithsonian Institute and National Geographic Society both comment that there is no evidence to support the BoM narrative, then that is pretty important.  

I can virtually guarantee that hardly anyone at the Smithsonian or National Geographic knows the Book of Mormon narrative and I can absolutely guarantee that neither organization lead any archaeological expeditions with the purpose of finding Book of Mormon evidence.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Accept, tolerate and love, of course. 

Of course. There are other meanings. Do you mean embrace, accept, and support their rejection of the foundations of the Church? 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I don't know what part of Jeredites mentioned in Mesoamerican history but I never heard of it outside of Mormon circles.

Let me educate you.

Quote

The Olmec civilization presents something of a mystery, indeed, we do not even know what they called themselves, as ‘Olmec’ was their Aztec name and meant ‘rubber people’. Due to a lack of archaeological evidence their ethnic origins and the location and extent of many of their settlements are not known.  http://www.ancient.eu/Olmec_Civilization/

So, as a matter of convention, many LDS consider the Jaredites as what scientists have called the Olmecs, since they lived in about.the same geographic area and time period.  So, ignorance is no longer an excuse.

Edited November 16, 2016 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

From what I understand of the kinds of evidence that John has presented, mainstream mesoamericanists do not interpret any of this as evidence for the existence of Nephites or any other unknown group of Semitic immigrants. Depending on how you interpret the BOM, of course, you can interpret existing archaeological finds as being consistent with Book of Mormon cultures, but that's not quite the same thing as there being evidence that Nephites existed. One could do the same with any number of other cultures around the world. And indeed many have done just that. 

John Sorenson is a mainstream anthropologist, and he and mainstream non-Mormon archeologists interpret the scientific evidence in virtually the same way:  Same dates, demographics, etc.  The evidence is published in regular, peer-reviewed academic journals.  Whether one applies that evidence to Jaredites, Nephites, Lamanites, or some other named culture (archeologists come up with a variety of made-up names when there is no written record) is really beside the point.  And you are correct, in that such correlations are applied worldwide to any number of cultures.  National Geographic does it all the time, accompanied by wonderful photos. However, in order for anyone to apply something to Jaredites, one would first have to  know something about Jaredites from reading the actual text of Ether in the Book of Mormon.  Non-Mormon archeologists do not do that, and so cannot be expected to draw any sort of correlations.  The same applies to Egyptologists who do not read the Bible.  How could they correlate any discovery in or near Egypt with ancient Israel, if they knew nothing of Israel?  Indeed, if a Muslim Egyptologist wanted to write about correlations with Jews, he might well find himself out of a job or worse.  It isn't the politically correct (or religiously correct) thing to do.

As professional anthropologist Brant Gardner has pointed out many times on this board (and in his books, in detail), there is plenty of archeological evidence for the existence of the Nephites, etc.  That should not be possible, any more than if we are merely talking about an imaginary civilization of Hobbits in Middle Earth and drawing real-life correlations with them.  Your observation that one "can interpret existing archaeological finds as being consistent with Book of Mormon cultures" should be astonishing, even flabbergasting.  If the Book of Mormon is fiction, that should be impossible.

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Gervin]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Welcome back, Gervin.  Haven't heard from you in a while.  Nice to have my own words quoted back to me.  Thanks.  However, you violated board rules in editing my quote:

I always recommend that you actually quote the person to whom I was responding.  You may not care, but it is important for those who take scholarship seriously.

"Battles in Mesoamerican regularly involved just such numbers"

There's your quote.  What do you mean by "regularly" and "such numbers"? 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Let me educate you.

So, as a matter of convention, many LDS consider the Jaredites as what scientists have called the Olmecs, since they lived in about.the same geographic area and time period.  So, ignorance is no longer an excuse.

Correct.  What is more, the Olmec civilization is the only culture in the New World which can be correlated with the Jaredites (by the way, the Jaredites themselves never use the term "Jaredites" to describe themselves).  If the Jaredites are not the Olmec, then they never existed anywhere.  Or, as Tom Murphy says:  "The events [of the Book of Mormon] never took place anywhere!"  --  “Archaeology, the Bible and the Book of Mormon” (Living Hope Ministries, Summer 2005); www.lhvm.org .  The same applies to the Nephites.  Only in Mesoamerica do we find an equivalent culture existing during the same time period.  And that is crucial.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, Gervin said:

"Battles in Mesoamerican regularly involved just such numbers"

There's your quote.  What do you mean by "regularly" and "such numbers"? 

Let me respond to that CFR for you.  Have a lot of responses to fulfill here.  May take a few minutes, Gervin.  But nice to see you back.

[stemelbow]

34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course. There are other meanings. Do you mean embrace, accept, and support their rejection of the foundations of the Church? 

I don't consider the BoM being true history as the foundations of the Church.  I think the Church is best off to change it's attitude on this. 

[Ouagadougou]

6 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

Wouldn't you think that if the Aztecs were that much later, and engaged in probably more wars than the Nephites, that we would have found their battlefields and bones?

 

The problem is, they have already found a considerable amount of evidence to verify that the Aztecs existed.  For example, archeologists have found bones, artifacts, calendars, structures, weapons, pottery, etc.

http://www.archaeology.org/issues/138-1407/features/2173-mexico-city-aztec-buried-world

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100810-science-archaeology-ancient-mexico-human-bones-teotihuacan/

If you agree that the Aztecs are not descendants from ancient Israelites, then how is pointing to their culture/existence any evidence at all that the BoM actually took place?  The Aztecs existed, so this, in turn, must mean that the people in the BoM existed?  IMO, that is counterproductive because:

1). Archeologists have found lots of evidence to support the Aztecs existed (a few of many available sources listed above)

2). Archeologists haven’t found any credible evidence to support the historicity of the BoM, IMO

If the BoM talks about wars with millions of people; yet, no archeological evidence has been found to support this, then that is problematic, especially when they have found so much in areas like Mexico City (Aztecs).  It’s also problematic when you take into consideration that archeologists have found evidence for much smaller-scale wars/skirmishes throughout the world. 

For example, archeologists are able to find the remains of 471 Legionnaires (link below); yet, they haven't found anything for the thousands/millions that died in the BoM.  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3670663/Eight-gold-coins-discovered-Germany-mark-site-ancient-Roman-massacre-archaeologists-say.html

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/ireland-archaeologists-discover-remains-of-massacred-roman-legionnaires/

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I don't know what part of Jeredites mentioned in Mesoamerican history but I never heard of it outside of Mormon circles. Maybe you are thinking of an alternative Universe of ours these events happened but not in this one. We have no evidence of BoM.

Contrary to your plea I must act totally ignorant of BoM Archaeology...

The general point I was making applies to all endeavors and to all knowledge of whatever kind:  One can not automatically know something.  One must study it.  Formally.  It is easy to be an atheist based on complete lack of knowledge.  Much harder to be an atheist who obtained that title through hard study, as Oxford don C. S. Lewis once did (before he became a Christian).  For example, declaring that you do not believe that Jesus is God is fine if you have made a careful study of the Bible and drawn that conclusion, and can give a set of rational reasons for it.  You deserve respect.  But, to declare that there is no evidence of the Book of Mormon is absurd if you have no knowledge of the book nor of archeology.

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

If I were taking it seriously then I must also be open all other conjectures of Erich von Daniken, Charles Berlitz', not to mention "Abduction stories".....These speculations are conjectures without a shred of evidence.

You definitely need to stay away from the UFO and von Daniken stuff.  People who read that stuff seem to become demented at an accelerated rate, being unable to distinguish fantasy from reality.  Perhaps that is why you became an atheist . . .

[Ouagadougou]

46 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I can virtually guarantee that hardly anyone at the Smithsonian or National Geographic knows the Book of Mormon narrative and I can absolutely guarantee that neither organization lead any archaeological expeditions with the purpose of finding Book of Mormon evidence.

Because they have already come to the conclusion that it did not happen, IMO.  Do you really think that these organizations might think the BoM is non-fiction; however, they don't want to leverage it in any of their research?  

"The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archaeological research, and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology/Smithsonian_statement

If they don't use it (and have never used) in their research, then this speaks volumns, IMO.  

[Ouagadougou]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't consider the BoM being true history as the foundations of the Church.  I think the Church is best off to change it's attitude on this. 

I agree.  However, as I wrote in my original post, how do you reconcile the story of Moroni if he never actually existed?  It changes the entire narrative significantly...

[Gray]

44 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

John Sorenson is a mainstream anthropologist, and he and mainstream non-Mormon archeologists interpret the scientific evidence in virtually the same way:  Same dates, demographics, etc.  The evidence is published in regular, peer-reviewed academic journals.  Whether one applies that evidence to Jaredites, Nephites, Lamanites, or some other named culture (archeologists come up with a variety of made-up names when there is no written record) is really beside the point.  And you are correct, in that such correlations are applied worldwide to any number of cultures.  National Geographic does it all the time, accompanied by wonderful photos. However, in order for anyone to apply something to Jaredites, one would first have to  know something about Jaredites from reading the actual text of Ether in the Book of Mormon.  Non-Mormon archeologists do not do that, and so cannot be expected to draw any sort of correlations.  The same applies to Egyptologists who do not read the Bible.  How could they correlate any discovery in or near Egypt with ancient Israel, if they knew nothing of Israel?  Indeed, if a Muslim Egyptologist wanted to write about correlations with Jews, he might well find himself out of a job or worse.  It isn't the politically correct (or religiously correct) thing to do.

As professional anthropologist Brant Gardner has pointed out many times on this board (and in his books, in detail), there is plenty of archeological evidence for the existence of the Nephites, etc.  That should not be possible, any more than if we are merely talking about an imaginary civilization of Hobbits in Middle Earth and drawing real-life correlations with them.  Your observation that one "can interpret existing archaeological finds as being consistent with Book of Mormon cultures" should be astonishing, even flabbergasting.  If the Book of Mormon is fiction, that should be impossible.

 

My apologies Robert, I mean no offense whatsoever, but I don't find it astonishing or flabbergasting. I would be astonished if such parallels could not be found. Of course I am not the expert here, but I would certainly expect parallels to be found between a non-historical Nephite or Jaredite culture and real world cultures (Maylay, Maya, etc), especially factoring in the various and subjective ways that the Book of Mormon can be interpreted in order to drive the parallels home. 

Do you suppose mainstream Mesoamericanists would see the same things as you and Brant Gardner were they to become more intimately familiar with the Book of Mormon? I seriously doubt they would. I also doubt that they are all so ignorant of the Book of Mormon to begin with. Some people read Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon, but the reverse doesn't seem to be true. The evidence in the field is not making anyone wonder whether or not ancient Hebrews established a civilization in the Americas. 

Like it or not, this is fringey stuff. That doesn't mean that you're wrong, but it should make interested observers cautious about accepting the plausibility of a historical Book of Mormon.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Gray

[champatsch]

A serious problem with your position, Ouagadougou, is that the English-language text would almost certainly have required an English philologist to compose it. I don't know of any such person who has been proposed as its author. In other words, in order to maintain your position, you have to show that Joseph Smith was capable of fashioning the form and structure of the language (setting aside the content).

I believe that you rely on pseudo-biblical writings in this regard. The problem with that, of course, is that a linguistic study of their syntax and morphology tells us is that pseudo-biblical writings are only somewhat archaic. The KJB, especially in its original 1611 form, is of course the standard by which we typically judge things, but it hardly represents the whole range of usage of the early modern English period. The BofM turns out to be deeply and broadly archaic when we examine its form and structure, against all naturalistic expectation. It matches the earlier period in many different ways, some of them arcane, and contains a broad form of early modern English with many archaic and obsolete features that independent linguists have studied, many of which are not found in the KJB. The BofM far outshines pseudo-biblical texts like The Late War in true archaism, not in fake archaism. We do not find these same features in Joseph Smith's American dialect. There is no heavy use of did, there is no personal which, there is no heavy use of agentive of, there is no {-th} plural, there is no singular ye, etc.

This is strong, concrete evidence that you will have to confront if you want to make a determination based in reality.

[Ouagadougou]

2 minutes ago, champatsch said:

A serious problem with your position, Ouagadougou, is that the English-language text would almost certainly have required an English philologist to compose it. I don't know of any such person who has been proposed as its author. In other words, in order to maintain your position, you have to show that Joseph Smith was capable of fashioning the form and structure of the language (setting aside the content).

I believe that you rely on pseudo-biblical writings in this regard. The problem with that, of course, is that a linguistic study of their syntax and morphology tells us is that pseudo-biblical writings are only somewhat archaic. The KJB, especially in its original 1611 form, is of course the standard by which we typically judge things, but it hardly represents the whole range of usage of the early modern English period. The BofM turns out to be deeply and broadly archaic when we examine its form and structure, against all naturalistic expectation. It matches the earlier period in many different ways, some of them arcane, and contains a broad form of early modern English with many archaic and obsolete features that independent linguists have studied, many of which are not found in the KJB. The BofM far outshines pseudo-biblical texts like The Late War in true archaism, not in fake archaism. We do not find these same features in Joseph Smith's American dialect. There is no heavy use of did, there is no personal which, there is no heavy use of agentive of, there is no {-th} plural, there is no singular ye, etc.

This is strong, concrete evidence that you will have to confront if you want to make a determination based in reality.

And there are still KJB errors in the BoM...how is that possible if it is an ancient text?  

The FAIR response to this question, IMO, does not provide a valid answer.  

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Translation_Errors_from_the_KJV

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The general point I was making applies to all endeavors and to all knowledge of whatever kind:  One can not automatically know something.  One must study it.  Formally.  It is easy to be an atheist based on complete lack of knowledge.  Much harder to be an atheist who obtained that title through hard study, as Oxford don C. S. Lewis once did (before he became a Christian).  For example, declaring that you do not believe that Jesus is God is fine if you have made a careful study of the Bible and drawn that conclusion, and can give a set of rational reasons for it.  You deserve respect.  But, to declare that there is no evidence of the Book of Mormon is absurd if you have no knowledge of the book nor of archeology.

I'd like to better understand your argument that a researcher would need to have any knowledge of the BoM in order to properly evaluate evidence.  I can imagine a scenario where an archeologist or anthopologist has never heard of the BoM and is researching central American sites and making observations and discoveries those ancient civilizations.  This researcher has found no evidence to connect these civilizations to the middle east.  

Why would understanding the BoM be necessary to make any valid observations in this scenario?  

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Hey PaPa, I have nothing but good memories of that period of my life, I lived in Biel 5 yrs, a beautiful country, then it got even better I moved to Utah, the best place to live on Earth.

I gave you a rep point, but everyone knows Georgia is the center of the universe.  However since my son moved home, I do miss visiting that beautiful State. 

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, champatsch said:

A serious problem with your position, Ouagadougou, is that the English-language text would almost certainly have required an English philologist to compose it. I don't know of any such person who has been proposed as its author. In other words, in order to maintain your position, you have to show that Joseph Smith was capable of fashioning the form and structure of the language (setting aside the content).

I believe that you rely on pseudo-biblical writings in this regard. The problem with that, of course, is that a linguistic study of their syntax and morphology tells us is that pseudo-biblical writings are only somewhat archaic. The KJB, especially in its original 1611 form, is of course the standard by which we typically judge things, but it hardly represents the whole range of usage of the early modern English period. The BofM turns out to be deeply and broadly archaic when we examine its form and structure, against all naturalistic expectation. It matches the earlier period in many different ways, some of them arcane, and contains a broad form of early modern English with many archaic and obsolete features that independent linguists have studied, many of which are not found in the KJB. The BofM far outshines pseudo-biblical texts like The Late War in true archaism, not in fake archaism. We do not find these same features in Joseph Smith's American dialect. There is no heavy use of did, there is no personal which, there is no heavy use of agentive of, there is no {-th} plural, there is no singular ye, etc.

This is strong, concrete evidence that you will have to confront if you want to make a determination based in reality.

I think before making this argument you'd have to first establish firmly and clearly that no one but an English philologist could have composed the Book of Mormon - I'm not sure how you'd demonstrate that assertion. 

The idea of a 16th century translation of the BOM certainly doesn't advance case for the historicity of the book. At its most successful it would perhaps point to a 16th century author, but from what I've seen of the theory so far even that seems like a stretch. I use the word theory loosely. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Gray

[Atheist Mormon]

59 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Let me educate you.

So, as a matter of convention, many LDS consider the Jaredites as what scientists have called the Olmecs, since they lived in about.the same geographic area and time period.  So, ignorance is no longer an excuse.

You are not going to convince me with the connection of Jeredites and Olmecs, as I wrote nobody even has a clue what Jeredites are....Besides putting link from NG magazine bones & pots mean absolutely nothing.

Besides if this BoM is Lord's work, why does He make it so hard for us to understand get a clue? How come I'm all of sudden called ignorant (not offended) when the evidence is lacking in its entirety? I invested most of my life (since 1976) getting a clue, I see none, but this is not an isolated lamentation toward Mormon Church, the Bible is equally a fiction in its entirety.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't consider the BoM being true history as the foundations of the Church.  I think the Church is best off to change it's attitude on this. 

The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. Without it we are just some weird Christian cult. Just ask the Community of Christ.

[thesometimesaint]

19 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

You are not going to convince me with the connection of Jeredites and Olmecs, as I wrote nobody even has a clue what Jeredites are....Besides putting link from NG magazine bones & pots mean absolutely nothing.

Besides if this BoM is Lord's work, why does He make it so hard for us to understand get a clue? How come I'm all of sudden called ignorant (not offended) when the evidence is lacking in its entirety? I invested most of my life (since 1976) getting a clue, I see none, but this is not an isolated lamentation toward Mormon Church, the Bible is equally a fiction in its entirety.

IOW My mind is made up, and no facts will change it.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

I agree.  However, as I wrote in my original post, how do you reconcile the story of Moroni if he never actually existed?  It changes the entire narrative significantly...

It was vision.  Who knows how that crap works? 

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. Without it we are just some weird Christian cult. Just ask the Community of Christ.

Perspective matters on this, it seems most already consider some weird Christian cult.  No one is saying we do away with the BoM, though. 

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Only in Mesoamerica do we find an equivalent culture existing during the same time period.  And that is crucial.

After well over a year discussing alternative BOM models with you on this board, I can only draw one conclusion from your statement. You aren't paying attention to the evidence.

For example, the geography of the Malay Peninsula lines up almost perfectly with the Book of Mormon geography.

Land Northward
Land of Zarahemla
Land Southward

There are also equivalent cultures in this geography during the same time period as the Book of Mormon. And there is genetic evidence of Middle Eastern groups being mixed in with these cultures.

You may not believe that the Book of Mormon happened outside Mesoamerica. That's fine, and expected. But its incorrect to say that we don't find equivalent cultures, parallel histories and similar geographies anywhere else. I thought we had established this long ago.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[cdowis]

28 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

After well over a year discussing alternative BOM models with you on this board, I can only draw one conclusion from your statement. You aren't paying attention to the evidence.

For example, the geography of the Malay Peninsula lines up almost perfectly with the Book of Mormon geography.

Land Northward
Land of Zarahemla
Land Southward
 

Show us the location of the Smith farmhouse, and the  hill where the plates were buried and retrieved by Joseph Smith. Or is that just a small detail, "almost perfect".

"Common sense is very uncommon"  Mark Twain

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by cdowis