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

[champatsch]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I think it's totally possible that JS wrote the  BoM; I believe he was very smart, was great at telling stories, and had a remarkable memory.  He loved to read and most likely had access to other books that he could have used for inspiration, IMO.  Since I am a Mark Twain fan, look at his review of the BoM:

http://www.online-literature.com/twain/roughing-it/17/

I think the BoM has some inspirational verses/stories -- I just don't believe that these verses/stories actually happened.  

You're not trotting out the tired witticisms of Mark Twain, are you?  Look, he didn't know what he was talking about, and sadly, neither do you.  Why don't you read Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, 2016, and get back to us with an informed view.  Otherwise, you're just commenting on things without any knowledge.  And that is exactly the situation with JSJr.  He didn't have the knowledge of non-biblical archaic English that was necessary to produce the form and structure of the English-language text.  It has nothing to do with whether he was very smart or a genius or a great storyteller.

[mfbukowski]

OH MY GOSH!

I just found out there are is no evidence for Eskimos!!   How could that be???

I researched it and found this:

 

Quote

 

Below is a full list of the different Alaska Native cultures, which are largely defined by their historic languages. Within each culture are many different tribes.

• Alaskan Athabaskans
  • Ahtna
  • Deg Hit’an
  • Dena'ina
  • Gwich’in
  • Hän
  • Holikachuk
  • Koyukon
  • Lower Tanana
  • Tanacross
  • Upper Tanana
  • Upper Kuskokwim (Kolchan)
• Eyak
• Tlingit
• Haida
• Tsimshian
• Eskimo
  • Iñupiat, an Inuit group
  • Yupik
    • Siberian Yupik
    • Yup'ik
      • Cup'ik
    • Sugpiaq ~ Alutiiq
      • Chugach Sugpiaq
      • Koniag Alutiiq
• Aleut (Unangan)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Natives

NOT A SINGLE ESKIMO!

So much with the truth claims of the existence of Eskimos!!  Tell the word it is a lie!!   It's a vast conspiracy!!!  There are just a bunch of Native Americans up there!!  

EDIT: yes this is sarcasm.  Eskimo is a an alternate name for a group of Native American just as "Nephite" is an alternate name for Mayans and other mesoamerican tribes.  It is a sarcastic analogy.   Phew.

Edited November 17, 2016 by mfbukowski

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

OH MY GOSH!

I just found out there are is no evidence for Eskimos!!   How could that be???

I researched it and found this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Natives

NOT A SINGLE ESKIMO!

So much with the truth claims of the existence of Eskimos!!  Tell the word it is a lie!!   It's a vast conspiracy!!!  There are just a bunch of Native Americans up there!!  

It's hard to know if you're being serious. The name eskimo was not a word used by the Inuit peoples of Arctic Canada, Greenland and Alaska to describe themselves. 

The word "eskimo" is a pejorative, used by southern First Nations to describe the people they called "raw meat eaters". 

Your list includes many First Nation groups that definitely do not belong or describe themselves as Inuit.

No single eskimos? Learn to call the Inuit by their name and you'll find lots. Call them eskimos to their face and it will be like using other arcaic descriptors of groups of people. Your personal safety may come into question.

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, champatsch said:

You're not trotting out the tired witticisms of Mark Twain, are you?  Look, he didn't know what he was talking about, and sadly, neither do you.  Why don't you read Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, 2016, and get back to us with an informed view.  Otherwise, you're just commenting on things without any knowledge.  And that is exactly the situation with JSJr.  He didn't have the knowledge of non-biblical archaic English that was necessary to produce the form and structure of the English-language text.  It has nothing to do with whether he was very smart or a genius or a great storyteller.

Mark Twain is regarded by many as one of the greatest American authors of all time and I agree with some of his opinion on the BoM.  I have read a good amount of FAIR's explanations, along with other apologetic articles, the vast majority of which I do not agree with.  I already posted this below for somebody else, but I'll send it to you as well; JS was very smart and had a remarkable memory, IMO.

https://archive.org/stream/biographicalsket00smit_0#page/92/mode/1up

"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them."

- Lucy Mack Smith

"Despite limited schooling Joseph Smith loved to study and learn. In part he was influenced by schoolteacher associates. His father once taught school. His maternal grandmother, a schoolteacher, taught his mother the rudiments of 'sums, 'write-o-hand' and spelling.' Joseph's wife was a schoolteacher, 'a woman of liberal culture and insistent on education.' And his primary scribe during the translating of the Book of Mormon was schoolteacher Oliver Cowdery."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/09/joseph-smith-and-nauvoos-youth?lang=eng

[mfbukowski]

32 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

It's hard to know if you're being serious. The name eskimo was not a word used by the Inuit peoples of Arctic Canada, Greenland and Alaska to describe themselves. 

The word "eskimo" is a pejorative, used by southern First Nations to describe the people they called "raw meat eaters". 

Your list includes many First Nation groups that definitely do not belong or describe themselves as Inuit.

No single eskimos? Learn to call the Inuit by their name and you'll find lots. Call them eskimos to their face and it will be like using other arcaic descriptors of groups of people. Your personal safety may come into question.

Of course I was being sarcastic

Let me spell it out for you.  It is an analogy

"Eskimo" is a NAME for a whole variety of Native American tribes

"Lamanite/Nephite" are also NAMES for a whole variety of Native American tribes also KNOWN BY OTHER NAMES within a given culture

The argument that there is no evidence for Nephites is like saying there is no evidence for Eskimos because Nephites are known to us today as "Mayan Culture" of which they were participants

The point was that there is evidence for the Maya- but we Mormons know that culture as "Nephite" just as "Eskimos" are known by their individual cultural names. 

[champatsch]

Again, Ouaga, you mention irrelevancies.  Granted, Twain was a literary giant, but he didn't know linguistics and didn't know earlier English usage.  If you don't do some serious reading in Skousen, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, 2016, then you have no knowledge of or background in the language of the BofM.

Letter published in the 10 September 2012 issue of The New Yorker

Dear Editor,

After a lifetime of serious study of the Book of Mormon, as a textual and literary critic, I can come to no other conclusion than that it is an amazingly complex, deep, and sophisticated book—one that contains important, and in places, even profound spiritual messages. Like many critics, Gopnik reads the book through the biography of its assumed author, Joseph Smith, and thus sees it as a product of a deluded visionary. In addition to alluding to Mark Twain’s tired witticisms about the book, Gopnik faults it for being “compulsively biblical,” a charge that seems strange for a book claiming, in fact, to be biblical—written by Israelites who emigrated to the New World during the time of Jeremiah, and who brought the Hebrew scriptures with them as both heritage and model. Whether one sees the Book of Mormon as an ancient or a modern text, as history or fiction, like all sacred books, it deserves to be read with both an open heart and an open mind.

Robert A. Rees

Graduate Theological Union 

Berkeley, Calif.

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

Where is it on your map?  Joseph Smith went to the hill where the plates were buried, so we need to get some idea how far the farm house was from the hill where the plates were buried.

The Meso model makes the following claims:

Jaredites sail to Guatemala around 2500 BC 
Lehites sail to Guatemala in 600 BC
Mulekites sail to Mexico in 600 BC 
Moroni walks to New York

The Asia Model makes the following claims:

Jaredites sail to Asia around 2500 BC 
Lehites sail to Asia in 600 BC
Mulekites sail to Asia in 600 BC 
Moroni (or possibly another person) sails to New York with the records between 420 AD and 1823 AD

If you believe the first model is more probable, that's fine. But you cannot discredit the second model simply because you find the distances to be too far. The distances from Jerusalem to the farm house are the same in every Book of Mormon model.

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Joseph failed to mention the Concorde 2 he kept in the barn which got him from the south pacific to home in a few hours

Didn't you know that?

The plates (and the other artifacts from Jerusalem) were buried in the hill next to Joseph's farmhouse. The distances between Jerusalem and that farmhouse are the same for every model.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course I was being sarcastic

Sarcasm doesn't work very well over text.  I too have been having a difficulty figuring out which of your comments are sincere.

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The plates (and the other artifacts from Jerusalem) were buried in the hill next to Joseph's farmhouse. The distances between Jerusalem and that farmhouse are the same for every model.

I think we have a misunderstanding.  No problem.

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Sarcasm doesn't work very well over text.  I too have been having a difficulty figuring out which of your comments are sincere.

Thanks for the tip- seriously.  I will try to make it clearer.  I think the old hands here understand me but I really should be pitching myself to the relative newbies so they can also get the full benefit of my brilliance. 

(sarcasm)

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Disagree.  Not sure why anyone would think it'd cease to exist. 

I did not say that it would cease to exist. It will cease to be the Church of Jesus Christ.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

I tried to make it plain, but it might require advanced training in archeology or anthropology to get the point.

What I am saying is very direct and simple:  Brant Gardner is a mainstream anthropologist, and he and non-Mormon anthropologists receive the same training at the same universities, and understand the field in the same way.  The standard data are published in peer-reviewed journals, and utilized by all.  There is no fundamental disagreement on the basics.  You are confusing the application of the data with the nature of the data itself.  Physicists all speak the language of physics, just as all anthropologists speak the language of anthropology.

There are indeed kooks and fringey people out there, but they are immediately discernible through their misuse of professional data.

When I say that it should be impossible for there to be solid archeological backing for the Hobbits of Middle Earth, perhaps you think I'm joking, but the point I am making is a very serious one.  If the Book of Mormon is fiction, it should be impossible to find solid correlations between that book and archeology anywhere on the planet.  If you adhere to the accidental theory of everything, of course, that won't make any sense to you.  But professionals don't believe that everything is just an accident, and that correlations always just automatically fall into place.  That is sheer nonsense.  I did not get a 3.9 gpa in my extensive archeological and anthropological work at UCLA by just responding to my exam questions and research papers with off the wall nonsense.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

You mean from a position of complete ignorance?  That is not a very promising way to make a decision about anything, except perhaps agnosticism.

Lots of professionals and students currently do anthropology and archeology in Mesoamerica today, just as they have for over a century, and the field has become very advanced.  I suppose that, if someone told them that the Hobbits of Middle Earth had once existed in Mesoamerica, they might guffaw and regard you as quite mad -- even if they hadn't read the book or even seen the movie.  Rumor alone would probably be enough to have them make an absolute declaration of disbelief (on a par with rejection of flat earthers), as is the case with your kneejerk rejection of the Book of Mormon.  You don't want to get confused by the facts, as it were.  However, that does not at all change the facts on the ground, and the archeological data remain solidly in place for those willing to observe it.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours 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

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.

I have always been intrigued by your very clever and well-informed jaunts into Asian loci for the Book of Mormon, but I never said that I buy into them -- simply because I am assuming that the Book of Mormon takes place primarily in the New World, Rajah.  Just considering the New World, there can be only one locus for BofM events, both Jaredite and Lehite-Mulekite, and that is Mesoamerica  If I wished to broaden my purview, of course I might accept your correlations as well.

[Rajah Manchou]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have always been intrigued by your very clever and well-informed jaunts into Asian loci for the Book of Mormon, but I never said that I buy into them -- simply because I am assuming that the Book of Mormon takes place primarily in the New World, Rajah.  Just considering the New World, there can be only one locus for BofM events, both Jaredite and Lehite-Mulekite, and that is Mesoamerica  If I wished to broaden my purview, of course I might accept your correlations as well.

Thanks Robert. That's fair. But the reality is that the Meso model hasn't convinced most people. I think most people would say something similar to what you have said. The attempts are clever and well-informed, but they just don't buy it. When active LDS members begin shifting to a belief that the Book of Mormon is fiction because the dominant models aren't convincing enough, then it is time to broaden purview. I acknowledge Asia is a stretch for most, but there's a lot of useful information packed in there that has potential to unlock some of the problems with Book of Mormon geography. If it is not useful, tell me why. If my map is wrong, tell me where. If the whole thing is wrong, explain where it is wrong. That's what models are for.

[Boanerges]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Thanks Robert. That's fair. But the reality is that the Meso model hasn't convinced most people. I think most people would say something similar to what you have said. The attempts are clever and well-informed, but they just don't buy it. When active LDS members begin shifting to a belief that the Book of Mormon is fiction because the dominant models aren't convincing enough, then it is time to broaden purview. I acknowledge Asia is a stretch for most, but there's a lot of useful information packed in there that has potential to unlock some of the problems with Book of Mormon geography. If it is not useful, tell me why. If my map is wrong, tell me where. If the whole thing is wrong, explain where it is wrong. That's what models are for.

Really? You don't think most members believe the BoM took place in Meso-America? Could have fooled me, I think most members absolutely believe that's where it took place, with a (somewhat vocal) minority believing it took place in North America, and a tiny minority believing otherwise. That assumption is not based on any scientific research, just an observation of what I hear and see in my own church experience. We have a huge picture of Christ visiting the Nephites hanging front and center in our foyer - you know the one with the very jungle-like setting. I personally dislike it, and I especially dislike where it hangs and would put a different picture of the Savior there.

That said, since I don't believe the BoM to be an ancient history of any people I couldn't care less where it took place (because it didn't take place).

Edited November 17, 2016 by Boanerges

[Anijen]

Q. Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon fiction?

 

Simple answer:

A. Yes. Almost every non-member (those who know about the Book of Mormon) more than likely do not think the Book of Mormon was real.

As far as members go, I am sure there are some, but why would they think that? I would venture to say if there are members who believe the Book of Mormon to be a work of fiction then I would also guess that they didn't start off with that belief or have never had a testimony of it in the first place. The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. Take away a keystone and there is a collapse.

Here is a link on the importance of the Book of Mormon.

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by Anijen

[Atheist Mormon]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ring a bell ??

 

Actually it does, I can speak six languages.....

But, how "Jerdite" & "Olmec" have any connection, do you know any Smithsonian or any reputable archaeologist have any clue about   "Jerdites"?

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I did not say that it would cease to exist. It will cease to be the Church of Jesus Christ.

I'm sure there's a significant difference to you in that, but not to me.  Either way...interesting take. 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

But, how "Jerdite" & "Olmec" have any connection, do you know any Smithsonian or any reputable archaeologist have any clue about   "Jerdites"?

Please give us a list of Smithsonians who have read the the Book of Mormon, or even the book of Ether. They should then be able to give us a checklist on how to specifically  identify Jaredite artifacts.

We can then compare that checklist with actual artifacts.

I think you are full of baloney in making this request, but let's see what you got.

Edited November 17, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The plates (and the other artifacts from Jerusalem) were buried in the hill next to Joseph's farmhouse. The distances between Jerusalem and that farmhouse are the same for every model.

I guess you missed the point.  How far would Moroni have go travel to deposit the plates near JS's home.  

I guess I have to spell everything out for some individuals.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, champatsch said:

You've mischaracterized the position in order to dismiss it more easily.  It's not a 16c translation.  The text has elements from the 14c, the 15c, the 16c, the 17c, the 18c, and perhaps even the 19c.  The theory of a divine English-language translation is a very strong one, since it agrees with the dictation witnesses and rests on thousands of data points, concrete textual data, that cannot be denied, except by those who are ideologically dug in.

There is a large amount of archaic and obsolete usage in the text, and much arcane matching with earlier usage as well.  That leads to the philologist assertion.  There are dozens of instances of archaic, non-biblical vocabulary in the earliest text, there is plenty of archaic morphological form, and the syntax is deeply and broadly archaic.  Can you find an 18c book that uses periphrastic did the way the BofM does?  Can you find a pseudo-biblical text that does?  How about the broad array of agentive "of" in the BofM?  What about the heavy use of personal which?  How about the syntactic complementation of the text?  How about the syntax after the conjunction "save"?  How about the nearby variation of was and were, mediated by the syntax?  How about the clear use of Scotticisms in the text?  How about all the well-formed literate language?  Etc.

The fact that you're finding language from 6 different centuries, not to mention Scottish language, tells me that there may be something amiss with your methodology. Here's a question - have you attempted to do the same analysis on other 19th century texts? How many?

But again, none of that is evidence for an ancient Book of Mormon. 

[hope_for_things]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You mean from a position of complete ignorance?  That is not a very promising way to make a decision about anything, except perhaps agnosticism.

Lots of professionals and students currently do anthropology and archeology in Mesoamerica today, just as they have for over a century, and the field has become very advanced.  I suppose that, if someone told them that the Hobbits of Middle Earth had once existed in Mesoamerica, they might guffaw and regard you as quite mad -- even if they hadn't read the book or even seen the movie.  Rumor alone would probably be enough to have them make an absolute declaration of disbelief (on a par with rejection of flat earthers), as is the case with your kneejerk rejection of the Book of Mormon.  You don't want to get confused by the facts, as it were.  However, that does not at all change the facts on the ground, and the archeological data remain solidly in place for those willing to observe it.

I'm confused by your answer because it doesn't sound like you're addressing my critique of the idea that an archeologist or anthropologist should know the BoM to effectively do research in MesoAmerica.  On one hand it sounds like you agree with me when you compare this to a scientist needing to be familiar with Tolkien's work.  But you lost me with your next statements.

I assert that scientists don't need to be familiar with the BoM or with any other religious books to make observations about their findings in Mesoamerica.  If at some point scientists found evidence that connected these cultures to the Middle East, then I'm sure every Mormon scholar would jump on those findings so fast that they could then engage with the scholarship and publish findings in respected peer reviewed journals.  

[Gray]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What's in a name?

Sigh.

....Only an interpretation- I don't have to say it all again do I ?

A rose is a rose is a rose.

Odd from one who allegedly believes this:

 

A Lamanite is a thing pervaded by Aztec-ness.

We're using different language in this discussion because we're talking about the academic study of scripture, not the spiritual study of scripture. I believe you can understand well the need to switch between different modes of communication depending on the context. I doubt you bring up Rorty when discussing your electricity bill, although it might be interesting to try to tell your power provider that their claim that you owe them $72 is an interpretation, not a fact.