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

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The difference is between the reality of resurrection and eternal life and whatever else there may be out there without a God.

That is significant. 

I disagree.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, champatsch said:

This is a naive and misleading view of things by people who have every right to publish in this domain, but who work with relatively weak evidence, do not present things even-handedly, do not give a full picture, and are largely unqualified to comment on these matters in a conclusive fashion.  Yet they do.

The strongest evidence, the hard English linguistic evidence, tells us that the remix hypothesis is a woefully insufficient one.  I'm working on an article that shows how the English language of the BofM cannot be explained by contemporary writings or by the King James Bible.  Two different versions of this article will appear next year in two different publications.

Great, I'm always open to the BoM being true, or historical. I've not completely shut the door on it. Just not a believer yet, convince me!

 

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, champatsch said:

This is a naive and misleading view of things by people who have every right to publish in this domain, but who work with relatively weak evidence, do not present things even-handedly, do not give a full picture, and are largely unqualified to comment on these matters in a conclusive fashion.  Yet they do.

The strongest evidence, the hard English linguistic evidence, tells us that the remix hypothesis is a woefully insufficient one.  I'm working on an article that shows how the English language of the BofM cannot be explained by contemporary writings or by the King James Bible.  Two different versions of this article will appear next year in two different publications.

You still didn't answer Gray's question, and its the same question I have.  How does all this English linguistic evidence point to an ancient historical BoM?  All it seems to do is complicate the 19th century origins theory, but it doesn't seem to help the historicity argument.  

[cdowis]

Quote

III Nephi 18:29, Jesus quotes a line that Paul had not yet written, in I Corinthians 11:29, with regard to the Eucharist. 

A final example: In III Nephi 28:8, Jesus quotes I Corinthians 15:52-53 with regard to the Resurrection."

 

Simple, Paul was quoting the teachings and words of Christ.  Acts 1:3.

 

Edited November 17, 2016 by cdowis

[Boanerges]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well, the Book of Mormon as written for our time!

I have heard that somewhere before. I'm not sure how much I believe it.

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That was not the world of illiterate woodland Amerindians with which Joseph Smith was familiar, and who would be entirely alien to the Book of Mormon.  You do understand that, right?

Indeed.

There is little Northeast/Woodland, Plains Native American culture to be found in the Book of Mormon. Terms commonly used by Joseph Smith's contemporary writers such as Adair, Cooper, Longfellow, Irving, Spaulding, E. Smith to describe it play no part in the story of the Nephites and Lamanites. For example, no feathers, beads, shells, silver ornaments, baskets, pottery, tobacco, rum, corn/maize, berries, gourd, squash, wampum, arrow head, tomahawks/hatchets, knives, canoes, drums, flutes, rattles, music, chanting and dancing before battle, peace pipe, body paint, medicine/ bags/man, Manitou, ceremonial fires and dancing, story telling, quoits, moccasin, leggings, snow shoes, animal horns as ornaments, blankets, lodges, furs, turkey, deer, wolves, fishing, bear, beaver, buffalo/bison, elk, eagles, braves/warriors (the 2000 stripling soldiers), squaw, scout, excellent horsemen, scalping (taking coup), red/copper/tawny skin (never black, black hair, paleface, Mississippi River, Great Lakes, Plains, forest/conifers/pines/cedars/oak/acorn/maple, mounds, ubiquitous division into tribes, tribes named for animals.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Great, I'm always open to the BoM being true, or historical. I've not completely shut the door on it. Just not a believer yet, convince me!

 

That would be a task better accomplished by the Holy Spirit.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Boanerges said:

I have heard that somewhere before. I'm not sure how much I believe it.

Probably from the Title Page of the Book of Mormon, where Moroni references its future application (“Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord …to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile…”), especially in the second paragraph, which also acknowledges any “faults” or “mistakes” about “the record of the people of” Nephi and Jared.

And of course Nephi (2 Nephi chapters 26 - 29) and Moroni (Mormon chapter 8 ) refers to its future coming forth, with Moroni saying things like, “…I write …that perhaps they may be of worth unto my brethren, the Lamanites, in some future day,” and “the Lord hath shown unto me… concerning that which must shortly come, at that day when these things shall come forth among you. Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.”

Edited November 17, 2016 by CV75

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you include the resurrection of Jesus Christ among those stories that didn't actually happen?

No, not on the same level with the BoM.  I have hope that the events of the resurrection occurred.  

[Atheist Mormon]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

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.

The list could be endless...Why Smithsonian could bother with a word "Jeredite" when they never heard of it? There are thousands of names like "Jeredite" leads absolutely nowhere, one of them is "General Hatonn", A galactic Capitain, which has Armies, Commands everywhere in the galaxy,  http://www.abundanthope.net/pages/    It is not only BYU who creates an imaginary branch of Archaeology.....

There is or there was never "Jaredite artifacts."....Just because somebody slaps names on them does not make so.

[champatsch]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You still didn't answer Gray's question, and its the same question I have.  How does all this English linguistic evidence point to an ancient historical BoM?  All it seems to do is complicate the 19th century origins theory, but it doesn't seem to help the historicity argument.  

I'll spell it out for you briefly here.  All the English linguistic evidence strongly supports what the dictation witnesses said happened: JSJr received an already prepared English-language text, word for word. So, if God caused to be sent to JS 270,000 (mostly) English words, not ideas, does that not point to an ancient historical BofM?

Edited November 17, 2016 by champatsch

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

Written language -- codices, sophisticated calendar, towers used for religious purpose, human sacrifice, cement, government with hierarchy of kings, extensive trade.

For additional details, and refences, see Sorenson's "Mormon Codex"  
https://www.amazon.com/Mormons-Codex-Ancient-American-Book/dp/1609073991/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479409544&sr=8-1&keywords=mormon's+codex

 

So you are saying that the Mayans are, in fact, ancient Israelites, who, upon arriving in the Americas, somehow unlearned their native tongue within ~1,000 years or so (given the 600 B.C to 420 A.D. timeline); left no record of any Hebrew/Semitic (reformed Egyptian in any writings, art, oral traditions); created a new calendar; and then just learned and/or adopted the Mayan languages (which are indigenous to  that region).  

That goes against what some verses in the BoM say pertaining to the overall importance of "preserving the language of their fathers."  

For example:

1 Nephi 3 :19

"19 And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers." 

Omni 1:17-18

 "17 And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.

 18 But it came to pass that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language. And it came to pass that after they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory; and they are written, but not in these plates."

Isn't' the Hill Cumorah suppose to be in New York not Central/South America?  

"The great and last battle, in which several hundred thousand Nephites perished was on the hill Cumorah, the same hill from which the plates were taken by Joseph Smith, the boy about whom I spoke to you the other evening."

Apostle Orson Prat, Feb. 11, 1872

Journal of Discourses Vol. 14, pg. 331

“Both the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations fought their final great wars of extinction at or near the Hill Cumorah (or Ramah as the Jaredites termed it), which hill is located between Palmyra and Manchester in the western part of the state of New York.”

- Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 175

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

No, not on the same level with the BoM.  I have hope that the events of the resurrection occurred.  

I am a Book of Mormon historicity skeptic that is also reluctant to let go of the idea that Christ rose bodily from the dead. Yet I must acknowledge a certain inconsistency here. As the Bible Dictionary points out in its entry on miracles: "Christianity is founded on the greatest of all miracles, the Resurrection of our Lord. If that be admitted, other miracles cease to be improbable." 

If Jesus Christ rose from dead—literally—then we live in a world where the Book of Mormon is possible: gold plates, angels, miraculous sea voyages, pre-Christian Christians, mass extinctions, and all the rest. Conversely, if Christ is only alive in people's hearts and didn't physically return from the dead, then the Book of Mormon cannot be a literal history.

For consistency's sake, if I'm going to keep an open mind about the Resurrection, I think I also need to keep an open mind about the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Nevo

[Boanerges]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Probably from the Title Page of the Book of Mormon, where Moroni references its future application (“Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord …to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile…”), especially in the second paragraph, which also acknowledges any “faults” or “mistakes” about “the record of the people of” Nephi and Jared.

And of course Nephi (2 Nephi chapters 26 - 29) and Moroni (Mormon chapter 8 ) refers to its future coming forth, with Moroni saying things like, “…I write …that perhaps they may be of worth unto my brethren, the Lamanites, in some future day,” and “the Lord hath shown unto me… concerning that which must shortly come, at that day when these things shall come forth among you. Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.”

My statement was of course tongue-in-cheek. I am very well aware of hundreds of times and places I've heard it. I'm still not sure I believe it. Using the canon as a cannon and testifying at me changes nothing about that.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Boanerges

[Boanerges]

55 minutes ago, champatsch said:

I'll spell it out for you briefly here.  All the English linguistic evidence strongly supports what the dictation witnesses said happened: JSJr received an already prepared English-language text, word for word. So, if God caused to be sent to JS 270,000 (mostly) English words, not ideas, does that not point to an ancient historical BofM?

Not necessarily. It could very well still be allegory, parable, whatever. In fact, the idea that it came directly from God to Joseph Smith (which I will again reiterate I do believe) makes it easier for me to believe it is more allegorical than historical. God could have chosen a linguist to translate it but instead chose someone He knew could not possibly know the meaning of anything on the plates.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

I'll spell it out for you briefly here.  All the English linguistic evidence strongly supports what the dictation witnesses said happened: JSJr received an already prepared English-language text, word for word. So, if God caused to be sent to JS 270,000 (mostly) English words, not ideas, does that not point to an ancient historical BofM?

I still don't get the logic here.  How does this point to historicity?  This doesn't do anything to say whether or not Nephites and Lamanites existed.  It might bolster the arguments for a tight translation model, but says nothing about historicity, unless I'm missing something.  

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

My statement was of course tongue-in-cheek. I am very well aware of hundreds of times and places I've heard it. I'm still not sure I believe it. Using the canon as a cannon and testifying at me changes nothing about that.

Sorry you took it that way; it was not intended to blow you away (get it?). I know nothing of your background, beliefs and sensitivity level. It was a post for the "record."

Are you saying our conversation should have ended with you saying, "I have heard that somewhere before. I'm not sure how much I believe it" (which is kind of a testimony, mind you...!), without me sharing where I've heard it before?

[Boanerges]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Sorry you took it that way; it was not intended to blow you away (get it?). I know nothing of your background, beliefs and sensitivity level. It was a post for the "record."

 

Are you saying our conversation should have ended with you saying, "I have heard that somewhere before. I'm not sure how much I believe it" (which is kind of a testimony, mind you...!), without me sharing where I've heard it before?

No offense taken, I'm pretty thick skinned (and yes, I get it). Am I saying you shouldn't have posted "for the record?" No, you're welcome to share your opinion and records and respond to anything anyone says. I'm just saying that for me, and at least some others, using the canon as a cannon and testifying at me is unconvincing and unproductive (on your part). That doesn't mean that others here might not have gained from it.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Boanerges

[Marmonboy]

I think I see part of the problem here--some of us are still going off the hemispherical model of BoM geography. Which means that if some part of that model is disproven, or is clearly out in left field, the BoM can't be true. That mkes sense, unless it's the model that's wrong. That's the premise that Bruce R. McConkie and Orson Pratt were operating from. That model, with apologies to Sam, et al., is clearly wrong. We also have the issue of scriptural inerrancy--how could any book from God have errors in it? Mormon covers that in the preface, "errors of men." Remember, this is a translation into English of an abridgment of over 1000 years of history, written in a language totally unlike English. Of course there will be odd translations and a few anachronisms. Nne of this means that the BoM can't be an ancient record.

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

No offense taken, I'm pretty thick skinned (and yes, I get it). Am I saying you shouldn't have posted "for the record?" No, you're welcome to share your opinion and records and respond to anything anyone says. I'm just saying that for me, and at least some others, using the canon as a cannon and testifying at me is unconvincing and unproductive (on your part). That doesn't mean that others here might not have gained from it.

Weird that you took my remarks as a cannon and testimony and can't let it go after I explained it. Seems like you can't take a very objective look at this subject!

Edited November 17, 2016 by CV75

[Boanerges]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Weird that you took my remarks as a cannon and testimony and can't let it go after I explained it. Seems like you can't take a very objective look at this subject!

If that's not what it was, what was it? Just about everybody here knows where to find it and if they've ever been active in the church they've heard it. Not knowing me or my history, etc., as you state, you have no room to say what I have looked at objectively. Just because it says that in the title page and hundreds of parrots have repeated it doesn't mean I have to believe it. I'm not sure I believe it turned around also means I'm not sure I don't believe it. The idea it is written for our day is itself usually used as a hammer. It actually makes no difference to me whom it was written for if it was written for anybody at all. I also believe the Bible to be the word of God, no necessity for it to be written for our time.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Boanerges

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

I am a Book of Mormon historicity skeptic that is also reluctant to let go of the idea that Christ rose bodily from the dead. Yet I must acknowledge a certain inconsistency here. As the Bible Dictionary points out in its entry on miracles: "Christianity is founded on the greatest of all miracles, the Resurrection of our Lord. If that be admitted, other miracles cease to be improbable." 

If Jesus Christ rose from dead—literally—then we live in a world where the Book of Mormon is possible: gold plates, angels, miraculous sea voyages, pre-Christian Christians, mass extinctions, and all the rest. Conversely, if Christ is only alive in people's hearts and didn't physically return from the dead, then the Book of Mormon cannot be a literal history.

For consistency's sake, if I'm going to keep an open mind about the Resurrection, I think I also need to keep an open mind about the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I think you make an interesting point about how we can't be selective with certain miracles.  As it relates to the resurrection, I would said that my hope is that we will live again as beings after this life (I think we are eternal); however, I don't know if Christ was risen from the dead on the third day.    

[Calm]

On 11/14/2016 at 11:56 PM, Ouagadougou said:

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Boanerges said:

If that's not what it was, what was it? Just about everybody here knows where to find it and if they've ever been active in the church they've heard it. Not knowing me or my history, etc., as you state, you have no room to say what I have looked at objectively. Just because it says that in the title page and hundreds of parrots have repeated it doesn't mean I have to believe it. I'm not sure I believe it turned around also means I'm not sure I don't believe it. The idea it is written for our day is itself usually used as a hammer. It actually makes no difference to me whom it was written for if it was written for anybody at all. I also believe the Bible to be the word of God, no necessity for it to be written for our time.

I said, “It was a post for the "record,"– part of the posting exchange. I also said, “I know nothing of your background, beliefs and sensitivity level.” I made no assumptions, which is why I find it quite parochial of you to say, “Just about everybody here knows…”

Why can’t you handle that? Why do I have to repeat it?

In a thread specifically about the canon, why are you offended by pertinent comments from the canon, such as its purpose and target audience? Why can’t you handle that? What’s this “hammer” hang-up all about? LOL

And why do you keep “bearing witness” of your disbelief and making opposing statements without backing them up? The thread is about something altogether different. Why can’t you handle that?

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

That would be a task better accomplished by the Holy Spirit.

I don't need the Book of Mormon to be factual to believe the church has a lot of value!