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

[Boanerges]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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?

 

I don't seem to be the one getting bent out of shape. 

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, Marmonboy said:

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....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.

This is an important point. There are zero anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. The anachronisms surface only when we speculate about Book of Mormon locations. For example, there were elephants in 2500 BC. There were domesticated horses in 600 BC. There was silk in 2500 BC. There were iron swords, cimiters and chariots in 600 BC. There were Israelite migrations in 600 BC. Just because these things are not found in Mexico or New York does not make them anachronisms.

Maybe the Book of Mormon is ancient, and our models are wrong.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Boanerges said:

Apples and oranges. The Book of Mormon isn't on trial here. I agree that reasonable doubt is very important, and in this case I clearly express my reasonable doubt. Given the evidence presented here, were the Book of Mormon to be on trial I would still have this reasonable doubt. I don't believe the evidence is there for any of the models. Since it's not on trial and since I was not speaking earlier from that point of view, I'm sticking to my belief that the book is the word of God and not historical.

I wasn't suggesting that the BofM is on trial, but I did like the idea that we should all be fair and impartial in these debates.  You also made my point:  Most people do not have any idea what evidence exists pro or con in such religious matters, and most couldn't care less.  Hence their judgments are deeply flawed.  Without training in science it is very difficult to render fair judgment on scientific matters, and we shouldn't expect people to be competent in such matters.  A personal testimony (via the Holy Spirit) is an entirely different matter.

10 hours ago, Boanerges said:

......................................

(Except I'm not sure what she means by "temple content.")

This board has rules against using sites which disclose sacred temple content.  That is what Tacenda is referring to.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What evidence exists to support a connection between Nephite/Lamanite and Maya or other Mesoamerican cultures?  Specifically I'm asking for evidence that is accepted by scholars and journals outside of the kind of scholarship that happens within the Mormon believing community.  

If you do not believe in Nephites there is no need to even attempt to find evidence for their links to other cultures.

Mark Wright has done a lot of work in this area.  Just google "Mark Alan Wright Mormon"

I do not have much interest in these questions but for those that do, they are convincing.   I think it is an interesting hypothesis that the Nephites lived among the Maya as perhaps a subculture as the LDS people live among- let's just say American culture but of course it is world culture.  The parallel works best in the US I think because Mormon culture is really a subculture of American culture more than any other.

So academic archaeologists are so busy studying only Mayan culture, they do not notice the Nephite subculture.   A subculture after 2500 years leaves no pots or artifacts different than the major culture, so they could be totally missed.  What "LDS artifacts" today would show up after 2500 years, among "American" artifacts if we turn back the clock 2500 years and presume primitive conditions for "American" culture?  

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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

The Book of Mormon testifies they did. That's the reason the book exists.

[Bernard Gui]

9 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.

This is a reasonable response. It all hinges on the resurrection. The Book of Mormon is a witness to that event. It is the reason the book was preserved. A witness that the Book of Mormon is historically true is also a witness the resurrection actually happened. It is the foundation of the Church and the basis for hope and faith.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

But because of the Book, the Church is much, much more than that. It's real value is the ordinances that provide the means to achieve God's purpose for us, our immortality and eternal life. This is far more valuable than anything else the Church has to offer. If the Book is not a true history, none of the rest means anything.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[churchistrue]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If you do not believe in Nephites there is no need to even attempt to find evidence for their links to other cultures.

Mark Wright has done a lot of work in this area.  Just google "Mark Alan Wright Mormon"

I do not have much interest in these questions but for those that do, they are convincing.   I think it is an interesting hypothesis that the Nephites lived among the Maya as perhaps a subculture as the LDS people live among- let's just say American culture but of course it is world culture.  The parallel works best in the US I think because Mormon culture is really a subculture of American culture more than any other.

So academic archaeologists are so busy studying only Mayan culture, they do not notice the Nephite subculture.   A subculture after 2500 years leaves no pots or artifacts different than the major culture, so they could be totally missed.  What "LDS artifacts" today would show up after 2500 years, among "American" artifacts if we turn back the clock 2500 years and presume primitive conditions for "American" culture?  

Except that's not what the text says about the Nephites. 

[James Tunney]

26 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

Except that's not what the text says about the Nephites. 

Insignificant details right?

[Rajah Manchou]

19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The discussion was in the comments of this interesting post from a few years back, and its been a while since I read the full comments, but they contain some interesting speculation about which islands may be a good fit for a BoM model.  I'm not sure if any of this ever made its way into published books or essays.  

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2005/04/updating-the-expansion-theory/

Many interesting comments in that thread. Thanks for sharing. It only strengthens my hope that some day Mormon scholars will be content just saying the Book of Mormon likely took place on some unidentified island, just like Jacob says in 2nd Nephi, and leave it at that.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Boanerges said:

I don't seem to be the one getting bent out of shape. 

To me you are! LOL -- have a nice weekend!

[HappyJackWagon]

"Fiction" is often muttered as a derisive term as if it has less value than non-fiction.

But there's a quote I like from Kenton Sparks.

Quote

"On this point all New Testament scholars agree. Jesus' favorite teaching genre was the parable. Or to put this more brashly, Jesus' preferred genre for conveying truth was fiction."  Kenton L. Sparks- God's Word in Human Words http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/review-gods-word-in-human-words.php

 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

9 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

This is an important point. There are zero anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. The anachronisms surface only when we speculate about Book of Mormon locations.

I can think of a few textual anarchism that don't depend on a particular Book of Mormon location.  For example, even if we abandon all that Joseph Smith and other prophets said about the Book of Mormon's location we still have to grapple with the Deutero Isaiah anachronism. It appears as though Nephi was quoting from parts of Isaiah that were not yet written in 600 B.C.  

Edited November 18, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[cdowis]

8 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I can think of a few textual anarchism that don't depend on a particular Book of Mormon location.  For example, even if we abandon all the Joseph Smith and other prophets said about the Book of Mormon's location we still have to grapple with the Deutero Isaiah anachronism. It appears as though Nephi was quoting from parts of Isaiah that were not yet written in 600 B.C.  

You are mistaken  ==>> you have the tail wagging the dog.

 This theory has been disproven by the BOM text.

Edited November 18, 2016 by cdowis

[Kevin Christensen]

6 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I can think of a few textual anarchism that don't depend on a particular Book of Mormon location.  For example, even if we abandon all the Joseph Smith and other prophets said about the Book of Mormon's location we still have to grapple with the Deutero Isaiah anachronism. It appears as though Nephi was quoting from parts of Isaiah that were not yet written in 600 B.C.  

And then there is this take on that topic:

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=7

Which I now would supplement with with this essay arguing that Isaiah 53 was composed by Isaiah of Jerusalem in response to Hezekiah's bout with the plague.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/FourthServantSong.pdf

So far, I have not seen any acknowledgement of this Barker essay by anyone who tosses off the Deutero Isaiah issue.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Oliver_Cowdery]

17 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You are mistaken  ==>> you have the tail wagging the dog.

 This theory has been disproven by the BOM text.

I try not to use the words "proven" and "dispoven" unless there is a preponderance of evidence.  The Book of Mormon quoting from Deutero Isaiah does not disprove that  Deutero Isaiah was written later than 600 B.C.  

Whatever one believes about the Book of Mormon, we can probably all agree that the Book of Mormon's origin has not been proven. So the Book of Mormon can't be used to prove that Deutero Isaiah was written earlier than 600 B.C. 

Edited November 18, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[cdowis]

10 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I try not to use the words "proven" and "dispoven" unless there is a preponderance of evidence.  The Book of Mormon quoting from Deutero Isaiah does not disprove that  Deutero Isaiah was written later than 600 B.C.

 

Quote

we still have to grapple with the Deutero Isaiah anachronism. It appears as though Nephi was quoting from parts of Isaiah that were not yet written in 600 B.C. 

The sword cuts both ways.

Edited November 18, 2016 by cdowis

[Oliver_Cowdery]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

 

The sword cuts both ways.  Let's see your proof that this is an anachronism.

I don't think the timeline of Deutero Isaiah has been conclusively proven. Sorry if my language led anyone to believe that I was making the claim that Deutero Isaiah has been proven.  

Rajah made the claim that there are zero anachronisms in the BoM so long as one doesn't assign the book a location.  I disagree I think there are many textural anachronism that one has to grapple with that do not rely on a Book of Mormon location.  I brought up Deutero Isaiah an example of such an anachronism.  

There are also other examples of suspected anachronisms that I could have used that also have nothing to do with the BoM location. 

Another example is that Moroni quoted from the end of Mark. Moroni would not have had access to the Mark in the first place.  So a believer has to posit that God must have revealed the exact same words to Moroni.  (That is no problem for a believing Mormon.  A believer has to do that in other parts of the BoM text too. Although to an unbeliever that looks like goal-oriented reasoning.) But then it gets weird when you consider that the end of Mark has the markings a forgery. Virtually all bible scholars are in agreement that the end of Mark is a late edition to the text. Why would God reveal to Moroni the exact words of a forgery?

Quote

"Mark 16:9-20 does not exist in the earliest and best manuscripts. Virtually all scholars believe it was a later addition, added by scribes who felt the original ending was unsatisfactory."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_Bible/Textual_criticism

And yet Mormon 9:24 and Mark 16:17-18 are word for word identical.

Quote

"And these signs shall follow them that believe—in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover;" (Mormon 9:24 & Mark 16:17-18)

There are yet still other non-geography related examples.   Dealing with anachronisms in the BoM is a bigger problem than just geography.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"Fiction" is often muttered as a derisive term as if it has less value than non-fiction.

But there's a quote I like from Kenton Sparks.

 

Would a non-fictional Resurrection have more value than a fictional one? 

Edited November 18, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[cdowis]

59 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I don't think the timeline of Deutero Isaiah has been conclusively proven. Sorry if my language led anyone to believe that I was making the claim that Deutero Isaiah has been proven.  

Happy to help you in this clarification.

Rajah made the claim that there are zero anachronisms in the BoM so long as one doesn't assign the book a location.  I disagree I think there are many textural anachronism that one has to grapple with that do not rely on a Book of Mormon location.  I brought up Deutero Isaiah an example of such an anachronism.  

There are also other examples of suspected anachronisms that I could have used that also have nothing to do with the BoM location. 

Another example is that Moroni quoted from the end of Mark. Moroni would not have had access to the Mark in the first place.  

Having used the #1 antiMomon argument, you now go to #2 == "There is only ONE conclusion/alternative/explanation...."

Actually, Nibley points out that Moroni AND Paul are quoting the same source.  Paul often quotes other sources without giving an attribution, so, clearly, both are quoting the same prophet whose writings are no longer extant.  As a knowledgeable Mormon, you should know about those missing books mentioned in the Bilbe, some of which are actually quoted in the BOM.

 

So a believer has to posit that God must have revealed the exact same words to Moroni.  (That is no problem for a believing Mormon.  A believer has to do that in other parts of the BoM text too. Although to an unbeliever that looks like goal-oriented reasoning.) But then it gets weird when you consider that the end of Mark has the markings a forgery. Virtually all bible scholars are in agreement that the end of Mark is a late edition to the text. Why would God reveal to Moroni the exact words of a forgery?

And yet Mormon 9:24 and Mark 16:17-18 are word for word identical.

Yep, the are quoting the same source, word for word.  Again, happy to help you to pull you of the morass o the antiMormon arguments.

There are yet still other non-geography related examples.   Dealing with anachronisms in the BoM is a bigger problem than just geography.

Actually, the problem lies in flawed arguments and rhetorical fireworks which are designed to deceive the uninfomed (with some exceptions).  It helps to have thirty years experience talking with the antis.

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Except that's not what the text says about the Nephites. 

What text? Please elaborate.

I do not know what you are talking about 

[Boanerges]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I wasn't suggesting that the BofM is on trial, but I did like the idea that we should all be fair and impartial in these debates.  You also made my point:  Most people do not have any idea what evidence exists pro or con in such religious matters, and most couldn't care less.  Hence their judgments are deeply flawed.  Without training in science it is very difficult to render fair judgment on scientific matters, and we shouldn't expect people to be competent in such matters.  A personal testimony (via the Holy Spirit) is an entirely different matter.

 

But the reason people don't care is important. Sure, some of it is just plain ignorance or being sheeple. But the reason many don't care doesn't have anything to do with scientific facts or evidence, it is because they have received a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon. I may well have proven your point because whatever evidence exists is inconsequential. My observation is that a minority care about those facts and not because we lack the scientific training and education you do but because we simply don't care because that's not how the truth of the book has been established for us. Flawed? Maybe, but again inconsequential. That's why it's apples and oranges - scientific evidence does not matter to spiritual testimony.

That said, there is no doubt that perceived spiritual testimony can be influenced by all sorts of other things like confirmation bias and emotion, which is more limited but not absent from scientific evidence.

I agree, we should all be fair and impartial. Nevertheless, from the psychological and spiritual point of view impartiality is unlikely.

[Boanerges]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

To me you are! LOL -- have a nice weekend!

I likewise hope your weekend is great and that you may find peace and delight in the Sabbath.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Boanerges

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Rajah made the claim that there are zero anachronisms in the BoM so long as one doesn't assign the book a location.  I disagree I think there are many textural anachronism that one has to grapple with that do not rely on a Book of Mormon location.  I brought up Deutero Isaiah an example of such an anachronism.  

There are also other examples of suspected anachronisms that I could have used that also have nothing to do with the BoM location. 

There are yet still other non-geography related examples. Dealing with anachronisms in the BoM is a bigger problem than just geography.

We have discussed this in other threads, but its worth another look.

IMO these textual anachronisms (eg. mention of Jesus, baptism, synagogues, Greek and Roman personal names etc.) are still dependent on the geography models. Old World models allow for inputs from Old World sources. To find references to Isaiah in the Far East or the isles of the sea before 420 AD would be surprising, but hardly impossible. There is substantial evidence of Greek, Roman, Jewish and Christian (Nestorian) trade activity in Asia before the sealing of the Book of Mormon. This introduction of books and new beliefs fits well into the 3rd Nephi account of a proliferation of trade and churches.

However, these references become anachronisms in New World models because there is no evidence of contact between 589 BC and 1492 AD.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Marmonboy]

11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Maybe the Book of Mormon is ancient, and our models are wrong.

I'm perfectly willing to accept this. I personally think that Mesoamerica is the best fit, but I've been wrong before.