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

[Gervin]

9 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

 hypothesis: " a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. " That is what I suggest one must do. You create a supposition based on some limited evidence and it is the starting point.

What limited evidence that the Book of Mormon is ancient did you use as a starting point?

[Rajah Manchou]

16 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

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.

I know, too much speculation by people who seemingly had no idea where the Book of Mormon took place. Its the reason why we're stuck in this endless loop. We need to shelve all the commentary and look only at the Book of Mormon text, and the Book of Mormon txt says nothing about location. All we know is the Lehites were on an isle in the sea, and there were others isles also inhabited by their brothers. 

We have to look at the world as it was known in 420 AD. There were no continents. There was no America or Asia or Europe. There were only islands in the sea. That's where the Lehites said they were. 

16 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

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.

I don't think it is odd to assume that the author(s) of the Book of Mormon had access to Biblical texts. 6th century Jewish and Christian texts have been found as far away as China. There is substantial evidence that Jewish and Christian traders had traveled great distances reaching as far as the "islands of the blessed" well before the closing of the Book of Mormon. However, I agree that it is improbable that these traders reached America.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just trying to follow your logic here- I have my own ideas about this, but you are saying that somehow Mormon or Moroni had access to the later Isaiah material?   Through inspiration, by natural means, or directly from Jesus?

Natural means, in my opinion. I think its as simple as gentiles carrying texts with them to the Land of Promise before the closing of the Book of Mormon. We can see hints of this contact between the Old World and the Isles of the Blessed in other ancient texts such as the Narrative of Zosimus and the Alexander Romance. 

The Book of Mormon fits nicely into Judeo-Christian history if we do nothing more than say the Lehites were the inhabitants of the Islands of the Blessed. Problem solved, and the channels are opened to dialogue with non-Mormon scholars.

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Gervin said:

What limited evidence that the Book of Mormon is ancient did you use as a starting point?

Start with what the Book of Mormon claims for itself, that it is an ancient document. A translated document, etc.

Glenn

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Start with what the Book of Mormon claims for itself, that it is an ancient document. A translated document, etc.

Actually, the scientific method would have you start with the hypothesis that it is a modern document.  You then see if you can scientifically reject that hypothesis.  Technically one cannot prove a hypothesis, only reject statistically the negative.

For example, does it contain information or evidence of an ancient origin (e.g. words or names) which would have been unavailable to Joseph Smith.  Rejecting the hypothesis does not "prove" that it is ancient, because there may be other explanations, such as "just a coincidence".
Wordprint studies would test whether it was written by a single author.

Edited November 19, 2016 by cdowis

[churchistrue]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I always wondered how the Lamanites could get their butts kicked, lose thousands of soldiers, and then come back later with a whole bunch more. If they lost a huge percentage of their men who were of an age to be able to fight a war, it would take at least a generation for them to replenish their armies with soldiers. But it doesn't. They come back in even greater numbers surprisingly fast. This suggests to me they were drawing from other warlike populations around them who wanted in on the plunder. The Nephites didn't seem to have this ability to recuperate losses.

There are quite a few numbers related things that are unlikely when it comes to BOM.  Span of years over two generations Lehi to Enos.  Ages of Amos-Amos-Ammaron.  The fact that the only female in the Book of Mormon that is named has unrealistic number of sons live to adulthood.  The numbers of casualties in wars.  The population changes.  etc.  The best way to deal with these is probably NOT to keep hold tightly to its literalness and look for implausible outside-the-text explanations.

 

[cdowis]

19 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

  The fact that the only female in the Book of Mormon that is named has unrealistic number of sons live to adulthood.  The numbers of casualties in wars.  The population changes.  etc.The best way to deal with these is probably NOT to keep hold tightly to its literalness and look for implausible outside-the-text explanations.

The "others", which has been discussed in detail on this forum.

Edited November 19, 2016 by cdowis

[Brant Gardner]

9 hours ago, Gervin said:

What limited evidence that the Book of Mormon is ancient did you use as a starting point?

When you test a hypothesis, the beginning point could be anything based on any amount of data. I know little about you, but I could test a hypothesis that said that you might know something about archaeology. I could test a hypothesis that you don't. For the first, I would find confirming evidence. For the second, I would find disconfirming evidence. The only problem with any hypothesis is if I preclude any statement you have made that would indicate what you knew because I thought you were lying and conspiring to mislead. That would be completely dishonest and certainly would be attempting to prove by beginning hypothesis. However, in that case, I wasn't testing the hypothesis, but simply going through motions to confirm a prejudice. (And so everyone is clear, I do not believe this second one at all and use it because it is obviously incorrect).

Even though the second hypothesis could be posited and explained according to a prejudice, the first could just as well. Were I willing to use evidence incorrectly, I could still use prejudice to disconfirm the first. So what does all of that mean? It means that when we focus only on the beginning and not the analysis, we miss the point. The hypothesis is to be tested, and the methodology and honesty with which it is tested is the real question.

[Marmonboy]

This is the primary issue with trying to prove the Book of Mormon--because Mormon scholars are trying to put forth their agenda, they are not to be be trusted, and any evidence they uncover may be discounted. That leaves only the non-LDS scholars, who don't know what to look for, have no interest in looking, or have their own agendas (and believe me, they do), to sift through the piles of data to find those scraps of evidence that would at least suggest the the BoM might be an actual record, in order to convince other disbelievers. Never gonna happen, at least in the eyes of the doubters.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

There are quite a few numbers related things that are unlikely when it comes to BOM.  Span of years over two generations Lehi to Enos.  Ages of Amos-Amos-Ammaron.  The fact that the only female in the Book of Mormon that is named has unrealistic number of sons live to adulthood.  The numbers of casualties in wars.  The population changes.  etc.  The best way to deal with these is probably NOT to keep hold tightly to its literalness and look for implausible outside-the-text explanations.

Having known relatives born in the 1800s who did not know their own birthdays and ages, I don't get much heartburn over ages and dates. There are several females named in the book. The number of Sarah's surviving sons is an issue? To me it is not unreasonable to conclude population and battle casualties were not precisely counted numbers but rather indications of large groups of people. I will ask Mormon when we meet if the Nephites had a good census system.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

21 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

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.  

We don't have the best source for Mark, so the issue will have to remain undecided.

[Bernard Gui]

38 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

This is the primary issue with trying to prove the Book of Mormon--because Mormon scholars are trying to put forth their agenda, they are not to be be trusted, and any evidence they uncover may be discounted. That leaves only the non-LDS scholars, who don't know what to look for, have no interest in looking, or have their own agendas (and believe me, they do), to sift through the piles of data to find those scraps of evidence that would at least suggest the the BoM might be an actual record, in order to convince other disbelievers. Never gonna happen, at least in the eyes of the doubters.

I think the primary issue is that a non-Mormon scholar looking at the Book of Mormon cannot give Joseph Smith a millimeter of credibility. It is not in their job description. I don't expect they would have to, but any kind of verification they might find could not possibly be attributed by them to verify his story.

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I see it more in terms of "There could have been Nephites among the Maya, the ancestors of whom migrated from the Near East and who had records"

For those who need to believe that, I cannot disprove it.  There might have been Chinese among the Maya or Hindus as well, who knows?

I see those kinds of beliefs as religious beliefs not unlike "The person Jesus died and then resurrected"

I cannot disprove it.   I cannot disprove that aliens have landed on this planet and perhaps started human culture as we know it.   I cannot disprove that visitors from Kolob came down and organized the first human of our type, who was named "Adam" and we are all his descendants from him along with his wife "Eve"

I can see these ideas as possibly literal.   I am not the one to limit what God can do.  For all I know, we evolved.  For all I know God created everything five minutes ago and all our memories are implants- Bertrand Russel the great atheist philosopher even admitted to that possibility.

I can see these ideas as figurative, symbolic, or allegorical as well- that the fall symbolizes our personal falls from innocence. 

I condemn no one who has these beliefs, as far as I am concerned these are all equally valid because none can be proven either way.

In essence, for me, that means that all these are also irrelevant to the "truth" as I experience it.

All I know for sure is that in my heart of hearts I know through my own experience that when I pray "Someone out there" is there.

What if that "someone" is my own unconscious longing for there to be someone out there?   I cannot prove nor disprove that either!  No one else can prove or disprove it either.

So all I have is my consciousness and experience to go by.   I only have my own internal compass to tell me what is right.  I do my absolute best to follow that compass because that compass also tells me I should do that.  If I cannot trust my own mind- there is no reason to stay alive, and that is the final instinct after I strip away as much as I can.

For me, I see myself as an agent acting on my environment, as a kind of cogito and that implies that I must do that- for me, that defines life itself.   Even one celled animals move toward food and away from pain and are on some level agents unto themselves.

What others see and feel and tell me, must match what is inside me or I am not an agent unto myself, I am a robot doing the bidding of others, being acted upon instead of acting.

And that thought is itself LDS doctrine as it turns out, and so is virtually everything else I have come to believe on my own anyway, so here I am.  I have doubted it all, and doubted my doubts and organized matter unorganized in parallel to LDS doctrine even before I got here.   Now I have this wonderful fellowship, and praise God, the temple- the wonderful temple- the source of mystic revelation and symbology that is at the bottom of it all.   I think I could not live without it.

Which is perhaps the best description, explanation, and apology of agency I have ever read. Anything less and we would not be agents who are made completely free in order to discover what it is we truly desire. And the little personal nudges given along the way that hint we are not alone, but when built upon each other they become both a liahona and a rod on which we can rely.

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, Gray said:

I always scan your posts for two names: Khun and Barker. I've never been disappointed yet!

It's also helpful to read the posts to see why those names appear. That hasn't been disappointing.

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I greatly admire and long for finding a comfortable place again in a spiritual community.  I'm an optimistic person, and I think it can happen in my lifetime and I think it might even happen for me within active Mormonism.  I have to get to a place where I feel like I'm being true to myself and true to what value.  

My hopes are for a religious community that doesn't look down on non-literal beliefs.  A community that doesn't worship its leaders and instead encourages people to think for themselves and follow their inner light.  A community that values people over dogma, including the marginalized, that doesn't twist the gospel into an obedience is the first law of heaven nonsense, but instead focuses on the great commandments of love.  If some real progress can be made on these fronts in my lifetime, I can see myself coming back to the community that I have loved and devoted so much of my heart, might, mind and strength to.  

We all must wrestle with the two great laws....justice and mercy.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Marmonboy said:

This is the primary issue with trying to prove the Book of Mormon--because Mormon scholars are trying to put forth their agenda, they are not to be be trusted, and any evidence they uncover may be discounted.

"Mormons are liars"

That leaves only the non-LDS scholars, who don't know what to look for, have no interest in looking, or have their own agendas

"Atheists  and evangelists tell the truth because they have no agenda.  Specifically, they accept the possibility that angels appeared to Joseph Smith and that an angel showed him the gold plates."

(and believe me, they do), to sift through the piles of data to find those scraps of evidence that would at least suggest the the BoM might be an actual record, in order to convince other disbelievers. Never gonna happen, at least in the eyes of the doubters.

"Non-LDS scholars have studied the Book of Mormon in detail and are in a position to objectively evaluate the evidence.  They created a detailed comprehensive checklist to verify or refute the claims of the BOM."

"You can believe everything I have said.  Just trust me -- I know what I am talking about."

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/18/2016 at 9:33 AM, 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.

A good deal of what you said here is true, but this last assertion ignores substantial evidence of contact with the Old World in a plethora of ways.  We have very important linguistic evidence of contact with Semitic and Egyptian languages in the American Southwest and Mesoamerica, and this evidence was first discovered by non-Mormon scholars.  We have multiple and complex archeological synchronisms with the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica which are outside the bounds of coincidence.  We have strong evidence of South American contact with early Japanese, Pacific islanders, and Austronesians (which you yourself have recently noted), not to mention the proven presence of Vikings in northeastern North America -- at a variety of sites, such as L'Anse aux Meadows and Pointe Rosee (Newfoundland) -- including the production of bog iron (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160331-viking-discovery-north-america-canada-archaeology/ ) -- with additional possible sites at Nanook on Baffin Island, and perhaps even somewhere in Labrador (http://www.livescience.com/54439-three-possible-viking-outposts-discovered.html ).

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I think the primary issue is that a non-Mormon scholar looking at the Book of Mormon cannot give Joseph Smith a millimeter of credibility. It is not in their job description. I don't expect they would have to, but any kind of verification they might find could not possibly be attributed by them to verify his story.

I think the primary issue is archaelogical evidence. The only thing in my mind that would work, is God made it unseen, to build faith. That's all we have is that to work on, IMO.

[Marmonboy]

I agree. The idea is not to have a perfect knowledge, but perfect faith.That doesn't mean that there can't be at least a little evidence, since faith in something without even the tiniest shred of evidence is just wishful thinking. Faith is what fills in the huge gaps in what we know.

[Bernard Gui]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think the primary issue is archaelogical evidence. The only thing in my mind that would work, is God made it unseen, to build faith. That's all we have is that to work on, IMO.

Which may be the case. I see it as preserving our agency.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We have strong evidence of South American contact with early Japanese, Pacific islanders, and Austronesians (which you yourself have recently noted), not to mention the proven presence of Vikings in northeastern North America -- at a variety of sites, such as L'Anse aux Meadows and Pointe Rosee (Newfoundland) -- including the production of bog iron (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160331-viking-discovery-north-america-canada-archaeology/ ) -- with additional possible sites at Nanook on Baffin Island, and perhaps even somewhere in Labrador (http://www.livescience.com/54439-three-possible-viking-outposts-discovered.html ).

Correct, I do believe the evidence is strong that there was contact with East Asia during this time period. I should have been more careful to say that we have no solid evidence of Semitic contact with the New World in that time period.

Although I am very impressed with Brian Stubb's recent research on Semitic and Uto-Aztecan language families and I also believe advancements in admixture testing will offer many surprises within the next few years. 
 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I think the primary issue is archaelogical evidence. The only thing in my mind that would work, is God made it unseen, to build faith. That's all we have is that to work on, IMO.

Let's look at another possibility.  There are hundreds of Nephite/Lamanite artifacts -- in plain view, displayed in museums.  God has "hidden" nothing.

But let's pretend that the archaeologist picks up a jade necklace made by a Nephite, or he is walking and exploring an authentic Nephite city.  Please tell us how he would be able to identify it.  Will he find a crucifix, an icon of the Madonna,  a road sign "Welcome to Zarahemla"?

Plus, the Christians, in general, were in the minority, so you will find heathen gods (which is exactly what we find).

Now remember that virtually ALL of the codices were destroyed, so we won't find a codex copy of the brass plates, or any record of the Christian religion.   There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Nephite/Lamanite artifacts == but NO WAY TO IDENTIFY THEM.

HELP US == tell us how to identify them.

Edited November 19, 2016 by cdowis

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think the primary issue is archaelogical evidence. The only thing in my mind that would work, is God made it unseen, to build faith. That's all we have is that to work on, IMO.

I have developed a list of approximately 24 archaeological points of veracity in the Book of Mormon - that is archaeological findings which directly support what the Book of Mormon says, which I believe there is no way Joseph Smith could have known. There are more archaeological findings which also tend to support the Book of Mormon, but the Book of Mormon does not itself bring up. Literally, the earth itself is bringing forth the evidence to support what the Book of Mormon says.

[Marmonboy]

I would love to see that list.

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Natural means, in my opinion. I think its as simple as gentiles carrying texts with them to the Land of Promise before the closing of the Book of Mormon. We can see hints of this contact between the Old World and the Isles of the Blessed in other ancient texts such as the Narrative of Zosimus and the Alexander Romance. 

The Book of Mormon fits nicely into Judeo-Christian history if we do nothing more than say the Lehites were the inhabitants of the Islands of the Blessed. Problem solved, and the channels are opened to dialogue with non-Mormon scholars.

One of the problems have have with this theory of yours is how did Moroni get from some South Pacific island to New York all by himself to drop off the plates? Seriously, how did he cross the Pacific ocean by himself with a bunch of metal records (witness accounts of a hidden room in Cumorah filled with metal plates)?  Also, what about the verses about in the BoM about this land being chosen for the righteous?  It this chosen land really some island or an area in southeast Asia?