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

Tacenda · November 18, 2016

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

I think they should name the Doctrine and Covenants as the book that does that or the Pearl of Great Price, since the BoM doesn't seem to mention temple ordinances, unless I'm missing something.

Tacenda · November 18, 2016

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

This is a good point, maybe for another thread. If I'm willing to stay in the church, without believing the BoM is historical, how can you or many others on the board, walk away? Sorry if I've assumed this position for you. But I've heard others mention the same scenario. What if God works His magic in several faiths? What if He did breath through JS, and this is how JS relayed His thoughts best?

Bernard Gui · November 18, 2016

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think they should name the Doctrine and Covenants as the book that does that or the Pearl of Great Price, since the BoM doesn't seem to mention temple ordinances, unless I'm missing something.

Well, you are missing something. It's there if you look, but without the BoM there would have been no D&C or PoGP. It's the foundation of it all.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Bernard Gui

Kevin Christensen · November 18, 2016

One inevitable result that goes along with a decision to prove one's intellectual integrity by publicly facing problems such as "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon is that the goal is met by doing so, and therefore, there is need to go any further. Kuhn has observed that the same information that one paradigm sees as a counter-instance can be seen from another perspective as a puzzle.

An interpretation of counter-instance means, the game is over, pack your tents and go home. An interpretation as puzzle means, it's okay to take some time and effort to consider possible resolutions.

And there is the problem of knowing you have actually found a significant anachronism in light of the unavoidable problems of 1) the realities of translation across culture and language which regularly produces translation anachronism, and 2) the limits of individual and social knowledge at any moment when we evaluate evidence available. For the first Brant Gardner has been particularly helpful on the notion of translation anachronism, citing such precedents from the New Testament as the "candlestick under a bushel" when there were neither candlesticks nor bushels in the original setting and language. For the second, there has been a long tradition of what Nibley called Howlers in the Book of Mormon, and Matt Roper calls "boomerang hits" where something that seemed outrageously wrong in the Book of Mormon turns out to be astonishingly apt. Several of my own discoveries on that line came through my appreciation of Margaret Barker's work. For instance, Professor David Wright's formidable scholarship on the Melchizedek material in Alma 13 compared to the New Testament was completely undercut by a book Margaret Barker wrote in 1987, The Older Testament. And there should be more recognition that New Testament writers and Mormon and Moroni do have a common source available. Jesus. John Welch observed that Isaiah 54 is quoted by Jesus, and may not have been on the Brass plates. And if that is reasonable, like his quote of the post-exilic Malachi is reasonable, why not some of the other supposedly New Testament passages as well. After all, Mormon and Moroni are both post New Testament in their time frames. So what makes a passage that post dates Mark or Paul decisively anachronistic, particularly when Mormon has records from the post-resurrection ministry, and Moroni reports face to face conversations with Jesus?

I want to emphasize that even a formidable and favorable reader like Joseph Spencer, in An Other Testament, reading Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, and giving credit to Barker's Temple Theology, does not mention her essay on Isaiah 53 as inspired by Hezekiah's bout with the plague, which makes that chapter, typically assigned to the exilic second Isaiah, more likely composed in light of eye-witness reporting and interpretation by Isaiah of Jerusalem, and therefore, reasonable as part of the Brass Plates. What I find particularly annoying not just that I overlooked it myself when writing Paradigms Regained in 2000-2001, but that my own later citation of the significance of that issue, and Margaret's higher profile in Mormon intellectual circles, has not let to any discussion or consideration of the evidence.

Sometimes the people who pride themselves on facing the problems are themselves overlooking important things that could provide important perspective. I agree that facing and discussing things is important, but as part of a process of learning and discovery, not as an end goal.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited November 21, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
grammar

Oliver_Cowdery · November 18, 2016

43 minutes ago, cdowis said:

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.

I was speaking about Moroni quoting a portion of Mark. What does Paul have to do with this?

Quote

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.

Can you point me to that source? Is it just speculation that such a source exists? I wonder why on that page I linked to FAIR did not mention the shared source that you have suggested.

Quote

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.

Let's not throw around accusations of lies, anti-mormon, and deceit. You seem to think I am somehow not acting in good faith. I'd prefer if we'd keep it about the issue and not make any of this about individuals. If we differ in option let us debate the issues not the person. Calling people "antis" does little but to otherize people you disagree with. If a little background helps, I independently found the issue of Mark being quoted in the Book of Mormon. I've read my share of bible scholarship and found that FAIR also seemed to agree that the end of Mark is a late edition. I found that problematic given that the same words are shared in Moroni and Mark. I'm not sure why that matters, but I guess you think that my remarks are an attempt to deceive the uninfomed. If you have anymore information about that speculative shared source I'd like to see it. But please don't make any of this personal.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

Tacenda · November 18, 2016

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, you are missing something. It's there if you look, but without the BoM there would have been no D&C or PoGP. It's the foundation of it all.

I sure did show my lack of knowledge of the scriptures in the BoM. Found it pretty easily through Google. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/temple-house-of-the-lord?lang=eng You were right!!

Rajah Manchou · November 18, 2016

2 hours 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 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.

But you're also falling into the trap of geography. The Book of Mormon was sealed in 420 AD, long after Isaiah and Jesus and synagogues and baptisms.

All these so-called anachronisms existed long before the Book of Mormon was sealed.

cdowis · November 18, 2016

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think they should name the Doctrine and Covenants as the book that does that or the Pearl of Great Price, since the BoM doesn't seem to mention temple ordinances, unless I'm missing something.

2 Ne chapter 2.

Oliver_Cowdery · November 18, 2016

5 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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

5 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But you're also falling into the trap of geography. The Book of Mormon was sealed in 420 AD, long after Isaiah and Jesus and synagogues and baptisms.

There was so much said by Joseph Smith about the american continent. Large and small geography theories at least still stick with the american continents. The Wentworth Letter comes to mind, and prophecies about Columbus coming to the land. But I guess if one discounts a few thing Joseph said one could make a non-American model work.

But doesn't seem a little odd that Moroni would have some New testament papyrus, learn how to translate it, and then never mention any of that, only to slip in some verbatim unattributed text into his own record? Sure I guess its not impossible. But it seems like there would be so many improbabilities in that sequence of events.

Brant Gardner · November 18, 2016

5 hours ago, churchistrue said:

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

This comment is worth some discussion. One of the difficulties in dealing with the Book of Mormon is that is so seldom examined as though it were an ancient text. We often talk about historicity, but most of those discussions are decidedly from the standpoint of a text that is modern--that includes both those who defend it and those who do not. In the case of this comment, we can discuss what "the text says about the Nephites," but if that comment comes from a modern viewpoint, then we expect that what the text says must be precisely what we think we know about wherever we place the action of the text.

What we ought to be saying, when we examine what the text says about the Nephites, is what the modern expectation ought to be based on the way ancient texts talk about themselves. The Egyptians and Hittites both described an extremely important battle that was probably a military and political draw. Both sides declared a lopsided victory. The Bible has Hebrews playing an important part in a certain part of Egyptian history--which Egyptian history doesn't really notice. All of that is quite common, well known, and to be expected. If we know that what a text says about the people who wrote it could be viewed very differently by other people at the very same time period, we begin to realized that we must be careful in what we ascribe to what the text says.

The Book of Mormon doesn't fit history very well when we assume it is a modern text. However, as a text from history--it works just as it should and fits quite nicely.

hope_for_things · November 18, 2016

8 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?

I find it curious that you so strongly push the concepts of the philosophical community and are dismissive of those who aren't up to speed on the evolution of that discipline, yet you are willing to accept theories on the fringe of archaeology/anthropology that aren't accepted by the mainstream elements of that community. Do you not see an inconsistency of approaches here?

This theory that the Nephite subculture was completely absorbed and all evidences of it have disappeared I find to be completely absurd. From my perspective its akin to a conspiracy theory. I'm not trying to be rude at all. I just don't understand how someone who is PHD level educated in scientific methodologies can convince themselves that this is a reasonable conclusion to make. (Personally speaking from the perspective of a non PHD educated individual)

churchistrue · November 18, 2016

53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What text? Please elaborate.

I do not know what you are talking about

The text of the Book of Mormon. The BOM doesn't support the following:

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 Book of Mormon never mentions anything like this. In fact it goes out of its way to say this was not the case. The Nephites were the kings, the judges, the military leaders, the spiritual leaders. They occasionally take inventory and make mention of all the people and their lineage, and only Lehites are identified. They interact with the Lamanites, who also are characterized the same way, their kings and military leaders are Lehites. Occasionally it is notable that they are non-Lamanites, when they are identified as Nephite dissenters. The Nephites and Lamanites take turns being predominantly "righteous" or "church people". Their mass conversions are noted. The wicked or non-church goers were all destroyed in catastrophic events at the time of Christ's death. We then enter nearly 200 years of peace and unity when they all lived together as one culture with it specifically mentioned there was no subculture. Then again they split up and their heritages are noted, all Lehites. Nothing at all to support this mixing populations, sub-culture concept.

mfbukowski · November 18, 2016

21 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

The text of the Book of Mormon. The BOM doesn't support the following:

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 Book of Mormon never mentions anything like this. In fact it goes out of its way to say this was not the case. The Nephites were the kings, the judges, the military leaders, the spiritual leaders. They occasionally take inventory and make mention of all the people and their lineage, and only Lehites are identified. They interact with the Lamanites, who also are characterized the same way, their kings and military leaders are Lehites. Occasionally it is notable that they are non-Lamanites, when they are identified as Nephite dissenters. The Nephites and Lamanites take turns being predominantly "righteous" or "church people". Their mass conversions are noted. The wicked or non-church goers were all destroyed in catastrophic events at the time of Christ's death. We then enter nearly 200 years of peace and unity when they all lived together as one culture with it specifically mentioned there was no subculture. Then again they split up and their heritages are noted, all Lehites. Nothing at all to support this mixing populations, sub-culture concept.

Take that up with those who teach it. I was making a crude and rough approximation of their position as I understand it

To me this is one among many paradigms, none of which I accept as "true" alone. I see too many sides to these questions and have no need to expect any of them to be consistent.

Those who take this view find many references to others, ask them. There have been threads about that here

HappyJackWagon · November 18, 2016

9 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

The text of the Book of Mormon. The BOM doesn't support the following:

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 Book of Mormon never mentions anything like this. In fact it goes out of its way to say this was not the case. The Nephites were the kings, the judges, the military leaders, the spiritual leaders. They occasionally take inventory and make mention of all the people and their lineage, and only Lehites are identified. They interact with the Lamanites, who also are characterized the same way, their kings and military leaders are Lehites. Occasionally it is notable that they are non-Lamanites, when they are identified as Nephite dissenters. The Nephites and Lamanites take turns being predominantly "righteous" or "church people". Their mass conversions are noted. The wicked or non-church goers were all destroyed in catastrophic events at the time of Christ's death. We then enter nearly 200 years of peace and unity when they all lived together as one culture with it specifically mentioned there was no subculture. Then again they split up and their heritages are noted, all Lehites. Nothing at all to support this mixing populations, sub-culture concept.

I think you're overstating.

But the text does suggest that the Nephites/Lehites weren't alone. Nephites and Lamanites intermingled with the native peoples. The BoM doesn't claim to give an exhaustive history of every group. It seems easy to imagine that it would be possible for a group of Lamanites or Nephites separated from the larger group and joined with others. Why would we think that because Nephites were kings and judges etc that they were the only ones?

If there was no mixing with the subcultures wouldn't we expect to find different DNA evidence?

From the Gospel topics essay-

Quote

The Book of Mormon provides little direct information about cultural contact between the peoples it describes and others who may have lived nearby.

The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied. In fact, cultural and demographic clues in its text hint at the presence of other groups.6 At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”7

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

mfbukowski · November 18, 2016

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I find it curious that you so strongly push the concepts of the philosophical community and are dismissive of those who aren't up to speed on the evolution of that discipline, yet you are willing to accept theories on the fringe of archaeology/anthropology that aren't accepted by the mainstream elements of that community. Do you not see an inconsistency of approaches here?

This theory that the Nephite subculture was completely absorbed and all evidences of it have disappeared I find to be completely absurd. From my perspective its akin to a conspiracy theory. I'm not trying to be rude at all. I just don't understand how someone who is PHD level educated in scientific methodologies can convince themselves that this is a reasonable conclusion to make. (Personally speaking from the perspective of a non PHD educated individual)

Words

I never said I accept it.

I have no need to believe that any scripture is history

Edited November 18, 2016 by mfbukowski

Brant Gardner · November 18, 2016

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I find it curious that you so strongly push the concepts of the philosophical community and are dismissive of those who aren't up to speed on the evolution of that discipline, yet you are willing to accept theories on the fringe of archaeology/anthropology that aren't accepted by the mainstream elements of that community. Do you not see an inconsistency of approaches here?

Some clarification is required here. There is a difference between saying that the mainstream archaeologists don't accept the Book of Mormon and saying that the very evidence they are looking at supports the Book of Mormon. In many cases, it is a question of definitions and assumptions. First, it would be very out of character for secular academics to support a particular religion. That makes the Book of Mormon a different academic question because everyone understand that one can deal with biblical history without accepting Judaism or Christianity. That happens because there is a known connection to the archaeology and therefore dealing in archaeology doesn't inherently support any religion.

That changes for the Book of Mormon, so it would be unusual for a secular archaeologist to accept the Book of Mormon. Of course, that isn't all of the issue. The next question is whether or not LDS proponents of the Book of Mormon use archaeology responsibly and in a way that secular archaeologists and anthropologists do. The answer to that is an increasing yes--with the more distance we put between past interpretations and modern. There were a lot of interpretations that were based on folklore and pre-modern archaeology. To the degree that some of those ideas are still around, we still have a problem with modern archaeologists. However, there is a lot of work that has been done that fully accepts archaeology and uses is responsibly. Most of that isn't of any interest to secular archaeologists who have a lot to do--and don't bother with it.

So finally, does Book of Mormon archaeology rely on fringe archaeology? I know there are interpretations which do. I wish they wouldn't, because ultimately it is unhelpful for as much as it feels good. Nevertheless, what I consider the best work being done doesn't rely on fringe archaeology at all--and in fact depends upon the way secular anthropologists and archaeologists understand both their data and the relationship of field data to texts.

Quote

This theory that the Nephite subculture was completely absorbed and all evidences of it have disappeared I find to be completely absurd.

I can understand why you would think this, and many have echoed that idea. Usually it comes from reading the later text and missing the critical issue of how things began. We read about important cultures and wars and we think they should not have disappeared--and we are correct. The problem comes in the expectation of what they should look like. For example, we "know" that a really buff Ammon used a pretty Roman-looking metal sword to guard sheep. We don't find that. However, that is reading the text as influenced by an artist, and it isn't actually in the text.

The acculturation didn't happen late when there were a lot of people, but virtually immediately when the Lehite ship landed. They were soon adopted into a much larger culture (and yes, I understand that the text doesn't mention it--but that is a different issue for another post). When a group of perhaps 30 people enters a region with a minimum of thousands of people, what cultural norms prevail? We can assume that since they were from the Old World that they must have been superior and therefore everyone deferred to them--but that is precisely the problem that secular archaeologists so adamantly oppose. There is really no reason to assume superiority of material or intellectual culture.

So, if we as the question a different way, we get a different answer. If you come to a completely new area, how do you learn what plants are useful for clothing and which you should eat? If form follows function, shouldn't clothing adapt to the current climate rather than reflect a completely different region? If you learn to tend new agricultural crops, do you do it with the tested methods of those who know, or try to implement methods that come from a different climate zone?

If you start with what the Book of Mormon says was the initial group (and the named people are less than 30), then you have a people who merges material culture early. What of religion? Well, we do know that they retained Old World religion, so what about finding that? How do you find religion archaeologically? In particular, what do you find for a religious tradition that is adamantly aniconic--that says you should not have idols? In the Old World, we find elements of non-Hebrew religion in Hebrew areas. We have some art depicting what we know are biblical themes, but most of those post-date the departure of the Nephites.

How do we find Christians archaeologically? We know certain things to look for, but those are not only after Book of Mormon people left, but specifically culture-bound to the region in which the religion grew up. Many (for example a number of savior/lamb representations) are borrowed from Greek art and mythology. If the early Christians borrowed pagan symbols and repurposed them, what would New World Christianity look like if they did the same thing, but based on a different symbology?

Everything depends on the way you understand the problem. Fortunately, none of it requires pseudo archaeology.

cdowis · November 18, 2016

1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I was speaking about Moroni quoting a portion of Mark. What does Paul have to do with this?

Sorry, I jumped to another text from Paul. My mistake.

Anyway, I do not have a difficulty that Moroni was quoting something that Christ said. I do not see any justification for your assumption that he was quoting from the book of Mark. Just curious, was Jesus "quoting" from the book of Matthew when He gave his sermon in 3 Nephi 12?

Can you point me to that source? Is it just speculation that such a source exists?

Is it speculation/assumption that Moroni was quoting the text from Mark. I see no attribution by Moroni. Was he quoting from an unknown Nephite record, or from a direct revelation to himself. As I mentioned on the techniques of the antiMormons, I am demonstrating additional options, rather than the "There is only ONE conclusion/possibility"

I wonder why on that page I linked to FAIR did not mention the shared source that you have suggested.

If you really wonder, why don't you ask them???

Let's not throw around accusations of lies, anti-mormon, and deceit.

You are putting words into my mouth, antiMormon technique #3. You are the one making it personal by misrepresenting what I have written.

Edited November 18, 2016 by cdowis

churchistrue · November 18, 2016

10 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

Some clarification is required here. There is a difference between saying that the mainstream archaeologists don't accept the Book of Mormon and saying that the very evidence they are looking at supports the Book of Mormon. In many cases, it is a question of definitions and assumptions. First, it would be very out of character for secular academics to support a particular religion. That makes the Book of Mormon a different academic question because everyone understand that one can deal with biblical history without accepting Judaism or Christianity. That happens because there is a known connection to the archaeology and therefore dealing in archaeology doesn't inherently support any religion.

That changes for the Book of Mormon, so it would be unusual for a secular archaeologist to accept the Book of Mormon. Of course, that isn't all of the issue. The next question is whether or not LDS proponents of the Book of Mormon use archaeology responsibly and in a way that secular archaeologists and anthropologists do. The answer to that is an increasing yes--with the more distance we put between past interpretations and modern. There were a lot of interpretations that were based on folklore and pre-modern archaeology. To the degree that some of those ideas are still around, we still have a problem with modern archaeologists. However, there is a lot of work that has been done that fully accepts archaeology and uses is responsibly. Most of that isn't of any interest to secular archaeologists who have a lot to do--and don't bother with it.

So finally, does Book of Mormon archaeology rely on fringe archaeology? I know there are interpretations which do. I wish they wouldn't, because ultimately it is unhelpful for as much as it feels good. Nevertheless, what I consider the best work being done doesn't rely on fringe archaeology at all--and in fact depends upon the way secular anthropologists and archaeologists understand both their data and the relationship of field data to texts.

I can understand why you would think this, and many have echoed that idea. Usually it comes from reading the later text and missing the critical issue of how things began. We read about important cultures and wars and we think they should not have disappeared--and we are correct. The problem comes in the expectation of what they should look like. For example, we "know" that a really buff Ammon used a pretty Roman-looking metal sword to guard sheep. We don't find that. However, that is reading the text as influenced by an artist, and it isn't actually in the text.

The acculturation didn't happen late when there were a lot of people, but virtually immediately when the Lehite ship landed. They were soon adopted into a much larger culture (and yes, I understand that the text doesn't mention it--but that is a different issue for another post). When a group of perhaps 30 people enters a region with a minimum of thousands of people, what cultural norms prevail? We can assume that since they were from the Old World that they must have been superior and therefore everyone deferred to them--but that is precisely the problem that secular archaeologists so adamantly oppose. There is really no reason to assume superiority of material or intellectual culture.

So, if we as the question a different way, we get a different answer. If you come to a completely new area, how do you learn what plants are useful for clothing and which you should eat? If form follows function, shouldn't clothing adapt to the current climate rather than reflect a completely different region? If you learn to tend new agricultural crops, do you do it with the tested methods of those who know, or try to implement methods that come from a different climate zone?

If you start with what the Book of Mormon says was the initial group (and the named people are less than 30), then you have a people who merges material culture early. What of religion? Well, we do know that they retained Old World religion, so what about finding that? How do you find religion archaeologically? In particular, what do you find for a religious tradition that is adamantly aniconic--that says you should not have idols? In the Old World, we find elements of non-Hebrew religion in Hebrew areas. We have some art depicting what we know are biblical themes, but most of those post-date the departure of the Nephites.

How do we find Christians archaeologically? We know certain things to look for, but those are not only after Book of Mormon people left, but specifically culture-bound to the region in which the religion grew up. Many (for example a number of savior/lamb representations) are borrowed from Greek art and mythology. If the early Christians borrowed pagan symbols and repurposed them, what would New World Christianity look like if they did the same thing, but based on a different symbology?

Everything depends on the way you understand the problem. Fortunately, none of it requires pseudo archaeology.

Brant, I've learned a lot from you over the years and respect your knowledge. I said this in a snarky way earlier in the thread. I get too excited about this issue sometimes, because for some reason I get emotionally invested in this LGT-mixing populations-disappearing subculture notion. Not sure why. Maybe I need a counseling visit or two to figure that out. My criticism of your logic like this is that you seem to reduce the text to virtually nothing of substance and can end up bending it to just about anything you seem to want. For example, by applying the same concepts, I think you could probably make a case that Tom Sawyer, Grapes of Wrath, The Godfather films, or even the 2016 US presidential election all could be reinterpreted in an ancient Mesoamerican setting in the same way the BOM is. I think others probably have this criticism of your work. Have you addressed this kind of criticism?

Oliver_Cowdery · November 18, 2016

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Anyway, I do not have a difficulty that Moroni was quoting something that Christ said. I do not see any justification for your assumption that he was quoting from the book of Mark. Just curious, was Jesus "quoting" from the book of Matthew when He gave his sermon in 3 Nephi 12?

I too did not have any difficulty that Moroni could quote Christ or the Gospel of Mark. The BoM is full of New Testament Bible text. As a believer I would have said that Christ simply revealed the exact same words to two different prophets on different continents. That is not an issue. Likewise the same explanation works for a believer in third Nephi. However, it becomes a lot more challenging if you also come to believe that the end of Mark was not spoken or inspired by Christ in the first place. The best sources of Mark do not have the ending we read today. There is good evidence that the end of Mark was a late addition; added well after Mark would have been dead. That ending was mostly likely added to make the story better by late scribes. And if you follow the scholars (even FAIR) that far then you kind of have to wonder how is it that God would reveal what appears to be uninspired words (about handling snakes and drinking poison) to Moroni. The more one digs into biblical scholarship the more questions it raises about explanations for the BoM text.

Simple explanations (like God revealed the same text to two places) don't work in some cases. At some point one has to wonder if Joseph Smith didn't just unwittingly copy a bit of forged text out of the end of the Gospel of Mark into the BoM.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

hope_for_things · November 18, 2016

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In both instances, the two groups of tribes are known by different names in different cultural contexts. And yes there is much evidence to support these connections.

First you said that there is much evidence in support of it.

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I never said I accept it.

I have no need to believe that any scripture is history

Now you say that you don't accept it, and thats fine, but it sounded like you were arguing for a particular perspective that you must find convincing on some level, but you don't want to be definitively held to that position. I'm guessing this is because you are open to alternative positions being correct as well, and this question of historicity is not important to your position.

I appreciate the honesty. Thanks

ERayR · November 18, 2016

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

The text of the Book of Mormon. The BOM doesn't support the following:

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 Book of Mormon never mentions anything like this. In fact it goes out of its way to say this was not the case. The Nephites were the kings, the judges, the military leaders, the spiritual leaders. They occasionally take inventory and make mention of all the people and their lineage, and only Lehites are identified. They interact with the Lamanites, who also are characterized the same way, their kings and military leaders are Lehites. Occasionally it is notable that they are non-Lamanites, when they are identified as Nephite dissenters. The Nephites and Lamanites take turns being predominantly "righteous" or "church people". Their mass conversions are noted. The wicked or non-church goers were all destroyed in catastrophic events at the time of Christ's death. We then enter nearly 200 years of peace and unity when they all lived together as one culture with it specifically mentioned there was no subculture. Then again they split up and their heritages are noted, all Lehites. Nothing at all to support this mixing populations, sub-culture concept.

I think you are not paying close enough attention to what you are reading. Example: The account of the destruction at the time of Christ's crucifixion speaks as if it is reporting what happened to the whole Nephite nation but in reality is reporting on a group of only 2,500 people.

Brant Gardner · November 18, 2016

54 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

My criticism of your logic like this is that you seem to reduce the text to virtually nothing of substance and can end up bending it to just about anything you seem to want. For example, by applying the same concepts, I think you could probably make a case that Tom Sawyer, Grapes of Wrath, The Godfather films, or even the 2016 US presidential election all could be reinterpreted in an ancient Mesoamerican setting in the same way the BOM is. I think others probably have this criticism of your work. Have you addressed this kind of criticism?

I can understand how it can seem like I reduce the text to whatever I want it to say. I promise you that it is very different. I approached this entire question as though I were working with the types of texts that I had to work with when I did secular work on Aztec religion. I had have texts and Spanish texts--and learned that the "truth" was always somewhere in between. One couldn't take anything at simple face value and lots of data had to be taken into account. Sometimes, the problems were in the way the Spanish translated certain things. Sometimes, there were problems because Spanish texts read native texts according to Spanish categories and adapted the information into neat contemporaneous Spanish-culture boxes. Even native texts would vary from location to location. That was when I had Central Mexico to deal with--and even in Central Mexico there is a paucity of texts.

So when I approached the Book of Mormon, I did so as just such a text. One of the main problems for interpreting the Book of Mormon in history is that it it is a history, it is a history in translation. I knew that creates unique problems, but there is the question about the nature of the translation--so I had to come to an understanding of what type of translation it was before I could reasonable infer historical data. For example, if I assume a literal translation, then I can't suggest images of threshing wheat as a translation anachronism. However, if I can build a firm base on a reasoned hypothesis of the nature of translation, then I can look at the text as a translation and peer beneath the translation (as much as possible).

From that point, it becomes a question of reading the text through the lens of what we know of how ancient cultures wrote--and augmented by examples from later in Mesoamerica.

Even though it might seem that I keep reducing the text, what I have done is accept the initial premise of the text--that it is an ancient document in translation--and analyze it against known history based on its internal evidence rather than modern assumptions of what it should have said if it were a history.

Marmonboy · November 18, 2016

I can't vouch for others, but as a student of archaeology, everything Brant Gardner says makes perfect sense to me.

James Tunney · November 18, 2016

21 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

Even though it might seem that I keep reducing the text, what I have done is accept the initial premise of the text--that it is an ancient document in translation--and analyze it against known history based on its internal evidence rather than modern assumptions of what it should have said if it were a history.

Assuming a conclusion is my main problem with this. What happens when you take the evidence where it leads? Does it lead to a non-faithful result? Is there a way to escape the circular reasoning and still have a faithful conclusion? Or is assuming the faithful conclusion the only way to analyze the evidence and stay faithful? If so, then what's the point of analyzing the evidence if the conclusion is already reached?

mfbukowski · November 18, 2016

48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

First you said that there is much evidence in support of it.

Now you say that you don't accept it, and thats fine, but it sounded like you were arguing for a particular perspective that you must find convincing on some level, but you don't want to be definitively held to that position. I'm guessing this is because you are open to alternative positions being correct as well, and this question of historicity is not important to your position.

I appreciate the honesty. Thanks

I am speaking for those who accept the "evidence"

I have no need for anything but the evidence in my heart.

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

Tacenda

Tacenda

Bernard Gui

Kevin Christensen

Oliver_Cowdery

Tacenda

Rajah Manchou

cdowis

Oliver_Cowdery

Brant Gardner

hope_for_things

churchistrue

mfbukowski

HappyJackWagon

mfbukowski

Brant Gardner

cdowis

churchistrue

Oliver_Cowdery

hope_for_things

ERayR

Brant Gardner

Marmonboy

James Tunney

mfbukowski

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content

Ojibwe Chief Testifies of Book of Mormon and Calls the Church Out 1 2

Hypothetical Holiday Inn Missionary Work 1 2

The Long Ending of Mark and it's Implications on the Book of Mormon 1 2 3 4 5

Why does jesus confirm the universal flood myth? 1 2 3 4 10

A statement that believers of the book of mormon cannot make.

Activity

Browse