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

[Ouagadougou]

13 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

It's one thing to read something. It is still quite another to refute. It is okay to say that you do not concur with their opinions. However, that does little to enlighten those of us who have read the same material. Of course all LDS scholars are not of the same opinions as all others.

You are the last, as of today (but not for long), in a long line of critics who feel the Book of Mormon is fiction. I was hoping that you would have something more to add to the discussion except just expressing the same thoughts that all of the others have.

I am not really sure of your purpose in starting this thread.

I do have a question. Do you think that you could produce such a text using only the resources that Joseph Smith was known to have, without the use of computers and modern communications?

 

Glenn

 

I personally couldn't produce it, but there are numerous authors in history that could.  I think JS was very smart and had a remarkable memory.  

[Benjamin Seeker]

 

8 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Maybe it would help if you could find a connection between Joseph Smith and Free Masonry prior to 1829. His current known contacts happened well after the production of the Book of Mormon.

 

Glenn

Joseph Smith Sr. was made a Master Mason in 1818(?) in Canandaigua. Hyrum Smith was member of the Palmyra Mount Moriah lodge contemporary with the Book of Mormon dictation. Oliver Cowdery was a freemason, though I haven't found a source dating when he joined. Also, the antimasonic movement started in 1826 in Batavia New York (60 miiles distant), and exploded throughout the area and the country. There were various publications sharing masonic ceremonies, etc., and it's easy to imagine that in such an environment that it would have been easy for non-masons to learn masonic lore. In fact, the movement started with a kidnapping, allegedly performed by masons, and the a petition by the wife, Lucinda Pendleton Morgan (later married name of Harris) of the man who was kidnapped, bears the name Joseph Smith. Whether this is JS jr or sr or some other Joseph Smith is impossible to say. However this same lady does join the church in 1834 and becomes one of the polyandrous wives of JS jr.

Another early evidence pointing to JS' knowledge of Freemasonry can be found in Joseph Smith Sr's 1828 interview with a newspaper reporter, as presented by Don Bradley at a past Fair Conference. JS Sr. tells the story of a Nephite leader finding the Urim and Thummim and taking it into the Tabernacle where he talks to God about it, The conversation between God and the leader uses language that is a close match to masonic ceremony of the time period, and Mormon temple goers recognize the language from the endowment as well.

Generally it's thought that JS doesn't become associated with freemasonry until 1842, but there is at least one other evidence pointing to his knowledge of freemasonry in 1834(5). In his translation of Princess Kitumen from the Egyptian papyrus he uses masonic dating for the two or three dates given in the short text (found on JSP). Masonic dating consists of counting forwards from a 4000 B.C. Adam's fall start date (3000 B.C. becomes 1000), and is used generally in freemasonry, but not so much in Egyptian.

[Benjamin Seeker]

Also, I forgot to mention that in some versions of the legend, Enoch can only enter the vault once a year. Sorry, I know this is somewhat off topic, but I guess I am still helping substantiate the idea that JS was partially inspired by Enoch's seeing a gold plate and being commanded to make it.

[Glenn101]

13 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I personally couldn't produce it, but there are numerous authors in history that could.  I think JS was very smart and had a remarkable memory.  

Being personally smart and having a remarkable memory does not come close to solving the riddle of how a person, or any person in Joseph's circle of acquaintances could have produced that book. That is reductionism to the extreme. Just dealing with the names in the Book of Mormon would have been a gargantuan task. There are over three hundred and forty proper names in the Book of Mormon. Of that number, over half are not attested to in the Bible. Some are Egyptian (at a time when no one could decipher Egyptian). Keeping track of those names as they entered and exited the narrative and then sometimes re-entered would require a lot of work, paper work. How many books do you know that involve that many proper names? Especially from that era and locale? Can you name even one???

Glenn

[Ouagadougou]

31 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Being personally smart and having a remarkable memory does not come close to solving the riddle of how a person, or any person in Joseph's circle of acquaintances could have produced that book. That is reductionism to the extreme. Just dealing with the names in the Book of Mormon would have been a gargantuan task. There are over three hundred and forty proper names in the Book of Mormon. Of that number, over half are not attested to in the Bible. Some are Egyptian (at a time when no one could decipher Egyptian). Keeping track of those names as they entered and exited the narrative and then sometimes re-entered would require a lot of work, paper work. How many books do you know that involve that many proper names? Especially from that era and locale? Can you name even one???

Glenn

Because in my opinion, much in the BoM came from other sources.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Plagiarism_accusations/The_Late_War

I like how Marin Twain summed it up:

"The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James's translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel—half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern—which was about every sentence or two—he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as "exceeding sore," "and it came to pass," etc., and made things satisfactory again. "And it came to pass" was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet."

- Mark Twain, Roughing It.

 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all!

I was recently having a discussion with my sister (who is an active member of the church) and we discussed the BoM.  I let her know that I think the BoM contains some inspiring, faith-promoting verses; however, I consider it to be a fiction.  She was visibly upset and said I can't be a faithful member without accepting that it actually took place.  This made me think:

- Can you be an active, faithful member in the church and still believe the BoM is a fictional book?  

- For those who consider the BoM to be fiction, how do you reconcile Moroni and other vital characters/individuals who participated in the restoration narrative? 

I'm generally interested to read your opinions about this subject.  

Lots of people consider the BofM to be fiction.  Many of them are ex-Mormons, although many members of the Community of Christ (RLDS Church) likewise consider it fiction.  However, most of those considering the BofM to be fiction do not actually understand how to take the measure of the book -- for the same reasons that many are unable to evaluate the Bible fairly.  For a brief examination of some issues, see my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

For a scholarly appraisal of the Bible, see Amihai Mazar, “Archaeology of Israel,” parts 1 and 2, video ca 2012, in Hebrew with English subtitles, online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7a7owLWYR8&list=PLv7i51wIRn2dc5-tQfqlrjVEMwQ3SovHF&index=107 , and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRuqJJlFD0A .

 

[Robert F. Smith]

36 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Because in my opinion, much in the BoM came from other sources.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Plagiarism_accusations/The_Late_War

I like how Marin Twain summed it up:

"The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James's translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel—half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern—which was about every sentence or two—he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as "exceeding sore," "and it came to pass," etc., and made things satisfactory again. "And it came to pass" was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet."

- Mark Twain, Roughing It.

Twain's satire aside, how do you account for the things which Glenn mentioned?  The names, for example:  The late William F. Albright noted in writing that both BofM names Pahoran and Paanchi were clearly ancient Egyptian.  How did Joseph just pull those names out of mid air?  Along with many other such names.

As to phony comparison with The Late War, see Benjamin L. McGuire, “The Late War Against the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter, 7 (2013): 323-355, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-late-war-against-the-book-of-mormon/ .

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

-Can you be an active, faithful member in the church and still believe the BoM is a fictional book?  

- For those who consider the BoM to be fiction, how do you reconcile Moroni and other vital characters/individuals who participated in the restoration narrative? 

You can be an active member, but we would have to agree on what "faithful" means. Attending regularly? Holding callings? Paying tithing? IMO, a faithful member bears witness to the reality of both the Restoration and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, repents of his/her sins, is baptized by immersion and receives the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by one who has authority, subscribes to all the Articles of Faith, and is worthy of or desires to be worthy of a temple recommend. A faithful member could teach a Book of Mormon class without qualifying the narrative. If you can do all that and still believe the Book of Mormon is fiction, then you may be a faithful member.

I am interested in hearing your definition of a faithful member in the Church.

Since I believe it is not fiction, I cannot imagine how one could reconcile a visit by an angel with unbelief in angels or this:

Quote

...Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God....and also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself to all nations.

How would you reconcile this with unbelief and still be a faithful member?

[Ouagadougou]

19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You can be an active member, but we would have to agree on what "faithful" means. Attending regularly? Holding callings? Paying tithing? IMO, a faithful member bears witness to the reality of both the Restoration and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, repents of his/her sins, is baptized by immersion and receives the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by one who has authority, subscribes to all the Articles of Faith, and is worthy of or desires to be worthy of a temple recommend. A faithful member could teach a Book of Mormon class without qualifying the narrative. If you can do all that and still believe the Book of Mormon is fiction, then you may be a faithful member.

I am interested in hearing your definition of a faithful member in the Church.

Since I believe it is not fiction, I cannot imagine how one could reconcile a visit by an angel with unbelief in angels or this:

How would you reconcile this with unbelief and still be a faithful member?

Faithful as in attends regularly; goes to the temple; pays tithing; holds a calling, etc.  I am a less active member and attend every once every few months (sometimes more or less) and usually just attend sacrament meetings.  I think somebody could reconcile this unbelief and still be a faithful member by going through the motions and just remaining silent when it comes to his/her true opinions/beliefs.  I, on the other hand, cannot go through the motions and pretend to believe in something that I truly don't -- that's why I have very limited participation in the church.  

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

- Can you be an active, faithful member in the church and still believe the BoM is a fictional book? 

If such a belief becomes a central focus of attention and a big deal in relating to the saints and their leaders (past and present), it can certainly at the very least challenge and detract from your faith in Christ and His earthly kingdom.

[Brant Gardner]

12 hours ago, mapman said:

I think that there should be room in the church for people that believe that think the Book of Mormon isn't an ancient book or is fictional.

Of course there should--and is. There is room for those who don't believe in anything, but are willing to give place to the seed. There is room for the sinner in the middle of repentance. There is room for those who have no idea about the historicity of any scripture. There should be room for everyone at any level of faith. 

 

[Gray]

17 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Hello all!

I was recently having a discussion with my sister (who is an active member of the church) and we discussed the BoM.  I let her know that I think the BoM contains some inspiring, faith-promoting verses; however, I consider it to be a fiction.  She was visibly upset and said I can't be a faithful member without accepting that it actually took place.  This made me think:

- Can you be an active, faithful member in the church and still believe the BoM is a fictional book?  

- For those who consider the BoM to be fiction, how do you reconcile Moroni and other vital characters/individuals who participated in the restoration narrative? 

I'm generally interested to read your opinions about this subject.  

Fiction is the wrong word for it. The Book of Mormon is scripture. Some people believe it is also historical. I do not. Nothing in the temple recommend says anything about your beliefs about the BOM.

I also believe the Bible is largely ahistorical (ancient yes, historically accurate, no), although many of its stories deal with historical figures. Both books are scripture, however.

Regarding the Moroni experiences, I regard such accounts as visionary in nature (IE not a physical visitation), or in some cases just stories that grew in the telling. The latter is something that has happened a lot in church history, such as the accounts of the transfiguration of Brigham Young, the miracle of the seagulls, and so forth.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Gray

[Brant Gardner]

14 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

- Can you be an active, faithful member in the church and still believe the BoM is a fictional book?  

This is a little different question from "is there room." While there is room, the question is place. I suspect the answers will always be personal and in conjunction with the Bishop. Should someone who believes that the Book of Mormon is fictional be teaching a class about the Book of Mormon? Since the classes are designed to bring out the spiritual meaning of the text and don't deal with history--I could see where that would be possible. It certainly depends upon the person and the nature of what they teach. Would I want someone actively teaching that the Book of Mormon is fiction? No, I don't think that fits with the current definition of orthodoxy. If the topic didn't come up and the discussions were about the powerful life lessons in the text--that wouldn't be different from most any other class.

Might such a person serve in a Bishopric? I think that would be problematic, though I do know a case where it has happened (with full knowledge of the person's beliefs).

[Benjamin Seeker]

6 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

This is a little different question from "is there room." While there is room, the question is place. I suspect the answers will always be personal and in conjunction with the Bishop. Should someone who believes that the Book of Mormon is fictional be teaching a class about the Book of Mormon? Since the classes are designed to bring out the spiritual meaning of the text and don't deal with history--I could see where that would be possible. It certainly depends upon the person and the nature of what they teach. Would I want someone actively teaching that the Book of Mormon is fiction? No, I don't think that fits with the current definition of orthodoxy. If the topic didn't come up and the discussions were about the powerful life lessons in the text--that wouldn't be different from most any other class.

Might such a person serve in a Bishopric? I think that would be problematic, though I do know a case where it has happened (with full knowledge of the person's beliefs).

It will be interesting to see how this is handled in the future. Just from my personal experience and as a guess from the trends resulting from the internet making more data on problematic points of the BOM and early Mormonism more widely available, I would think there is some increase in members who are declaring an active faith while seriously questioning BOM historicity. I hope that if this number ever becomes significant enough to illicit some type of policy, it will be more lenient than punitive.

[Peppermint Patty]

The Bible was never meant to be taken as a completely historical or literal account by it's writers, but rather as an amalgamation of folk traditions, symbolism, parables, lessons, teachings and warnings.  The ancient Hebrews understood this about scripture.

It must be remembered that scripture (in most world religions) is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith, and not a book of history or science.

The BoM is no different in that it contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and man.

Just like the Bible, the BoM is a religious book, not a completely historical document, which is readily apparent from numerous parts in both content and context.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Peppermint Patty

[Benjamin Seeker]

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

This puts you and waveslider on opposite sides of the divide. waveslider has had to adjust his beliefs because of a spiritual experience that he has had and feels that he cannot deny. II ma pretty much in the same boat as waveslider.)

Whether or not there is "room in the church" for those who believe the Book of Mormon to be fiction is really up to those individuals. They will not be excommunicated for those beliefs, unless they should cross a line into actively and publicly preaching/teaching those beliefs. I would wonder why such an one would stay though. Doesn't seem rational. I am aware of family problems etc. but I could not remain with an organization I felt was a lie.

By the same token, I have yet to have a critic offer those who believe in the Book of Mormon as a historical text as well as scripture a coherent and cogent and plausible explanation of how the Book of Mormon was produced, providing an explanations for the many things that Book of Mormon scholars have found inside and outside its covers. They can only repeat the same things over and over that you have enumerated, some of which are not factually correct, such as the linguistics, as to reasons they do not believe, but have not dealt with what is actually in the book in any coherent fashion. There are a lot of ad hoc theories on this one thing or another, but none propped up by any credible evidence.

Maybe you could take on the task??? Just browse through the old F.A.R.M.S./Maxwell Institute articles as well as the current Interpreter stuff to see what you have to deal with and have at it.

Until someone can provide me with something rationally plausible, I am really comfortable in my beliefs.

 

Glenn

The Book of Mormon is definitely an enigma. I recognize that there are both many aspects that appear authentic and ancient and others that are anachronistic. Some of these anachronisms are not explainable as artifacts of a translation process (example below), so I am most tempted to take a middle way that defines the BoM as inspired fiction though I do at least admit the possibility of the text being a modern expansion of some type of legitimate ancient document similar to Blake Ostler's suggestion. I prefer an inspired fiction model because various bodies of evidence suggest that the whole narrative is mythological (though I'm excited to see how Brian Stubb's research develops), and inspiration could account for the ancient elements that litter the text (if we want to talk why this would be that's another discussion).

As promised, here is a quick anachronistic intertextuality not easily explainable as an artifact of translation. Events surrounding King Omer in Ether 8-9 appear to be an allusion to King Omri's ascent and reign in 1 Kings 16. Parallel elements include: 

• Civil wars associated with both Omer's and Omri's reigns
  • 1 Kings 16:21: "half of the people followed Tibni the son of Ginath, to make him king; and half followed Omri")
  • Ether 8:1-3: "1 And it came to pass that he begat Omer, and Omer reigned in his stead. And Omer begat Jared; and Jared begat sons and daughters. 2 And Jared rebelled against his father, and came and dwelt in the land of Heth. And it came to pass that he did flatter many people, because of his cunning words, until he had gained the half of the kingdom. 3 And when he had gained the half of the kingdom he gave battle unto his father, and he did carry away his father into captivity, and did make him serve in captivity;
• Secret combinations or conspiracy, which are condemned in the text.
  • 1 Kings 16:9-16: "9 And his servant Zimri, captain of half his chariots, conspired against him... 16 And the people that were encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king: wherefore all Israel made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp."
  • Ether 8:8-26.
  • Omer and Omri are on the opposite side of the conspiracy in both cases.
• In case you didn't catch it yet, the names Omri and Omer are similar.
• Lastly, both kings are associated with hills.
  • Ether 9:3 "And the Lord warned Omer in a dream that he should depart out of the land; wherefore Omer departed out of the land with his family, and traveled many days, and came over and passed by the hill of Shim, and came over by the place where the Nephites were destroyed, and from thence eastward, and came to a place which was called Ablom, by the seashore, and there he pitched his tent, and also his sons and his daughters, and all his household, save it were Jared and his family." 
  • 1 Kings 16:23-24: "¶In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years: six years reigned he in Tirzah. And he bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver, and built on the hill, and called the name of the city which he built, after the name of Shemer, owner of the hill, Samaria."
  • So, hill owned by Shemer bought by Omri with city named Shemer is a good match for the hill Shim mentioned in the Omer narrative.

     

     

[thesometimesaint]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I choose to stay despite my belief that Book of Mormon is fiction. It definitely puts me at odds with the mainstream membership, but I just keep quiet about it and things move along smoothly. I stay because first, I do believe the Joseph Smith was inspired by God, and second, having been born into this faith and loving many parts of it, it's my home.

To briefly address your second question, I believe that revelation generally is a product of human understanding and our greatest potential. In the BoM, I see the ideas of Indians descending from Israelites as a 19th century idea (human understanding) that provide a compelling narrative to Joseph Smith and followers for doctrines of discipleship, divinization, etc. (human potential with God's help). The concept of Moroni obviously fits hand and glove with a whole host 19th century ideas, including Indian Israelite heritage, treasure hunting, and restoration expectations. Frankly, I don't think there was a physical being named Moroni, though I do believe that Joseph Smith and others had visions of this being. In other words, I think he was a product of revelation created in the minds of Joseph Smith and others. This is arguably supported by the fact that all accounts of Moroni have visionary elements to them. For example, he stands in the air, somehow floating through the ceiling in Joseph's first encounter. He appears out of nowhere surprising Joseph at the hill. Even in the mundane accounts of Moroni by David Whitmer and Mary Whitmer, where he appears without glory, there is still a visionary element. In each Moroni suddenly and mysteriously disappears at the end.

You also have to deal with the plates. I side with Dan Vogel and Ann Taves in their suggestion that JS probably made some plates. As Ann Taves suggested, I bet JS believed he was commanded by God to make them. There is even a highly related precedent in the masonic legend of Enoch, which has so many strong correlations with the Book of Mormon. Enoch sees a vision of a gold plate in a vault in a mount, and God then commands him to make the plate. This by itself isn't much to go on, but if you put it beside all of the similarities between the early mormonism and the legend of Enoch, it quickly becomes apparent that JS was inspired by the legend. Just a quick sampling to provide a little meat to my suggestions here: The masonic legend has Enoch learning the name of God and forseeing the flood and Noah. By comparison, JS' Enoch learns the name of God "Man of Holiness," and forsees the flood and Noah. Masonic Enoch makes a gold plate with God's name written in Hebrew on it, and places it in a stone vault with arches serving as the opening to each chamber complete with a stone cover in a mount along with pillars engraved with Egyptian hieroglyphics. One of the pillars is brass and has the creation account written on it among other things. The pillars have spheres on top of them, which contain the maps of the universe, and act as oracles. By comparison, the gold plates of the Book of Mormon are written in reformed Egyptian which, according to the text, is some amalgamation of Hebrew and Egyptian. The Brass plates have the five books of Moses (including the creation). The Liahona is a sphere that gives directions and divine instruction. JS discovers the plates in a concrete box with stone cover in hill CuMORAH (moriah is similar), Oliver Cowdery and Lucy Mack Smith describe pillars in the box, and Lucy describes the lid as having an arch. Masonic Enoch's plate has precious stones encrusted on it and is in the shape of a triangle. By comparison, JS gets the Urim and Thummim with the plates, which Lucy describes as triangles set in glass. Some versions of the legend have Enoch making a larger plate and a smaller plate, both with the name of God written on them, which provide a possible parallel to the larger and smaller plates of the BoM. There is still a fair bit more of correlation between the masonic legend and early mormonism, which has been written about for the past half century starting with Reed C. Durham's infamous "Is there no help for the widow's son" address. Anyways, I think I've shared enough to suggest that Enoch's vision of his gold plate and then being commanded to make it, could have been a precedent and inspiration to JS.

So God inspired Joseph Smith to lie?

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

So God inspired Joseph Smith to lie?

I would need to know what you mean by lie. I believe that JS was sincere in his beliefs. Could you be a little more specific, so I can respond more clearly?

[Peppermint Patty]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

So God inspired Joseph Smith to lie?

I think God inspired Joseph Smith to write "scripture."

 

[Ouagadougou]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Twain's satire aside, how do you account for the things which Glenn mentioned?  The names, for example:  The late William F. Albright noted in writing that both BofM names Pahoran and Paanchi were clearly ancient Egyptian.  How did Joseph just pull those names out of mid air?  Along with many other such names.

As to phony comparison with The Late War, see Benjamin L. McGuire, “The Late War Against the Book of Mormon,” Interpreter, 7 (2013): 323-355, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-late-war-against-the-book-of-mormon/ .

Almost half of the names came from the Bible, right?

Many of the other names could have been available to Joseph Smith in his time / area.  For example:

- Moroni is the capital of Comoros
- Enos is in the Bible
- Zenos was the name of a man who was a member of the church in the 1800's
- Nephi is listed in the Apocrypha
- Levi, Ephraim, and Aaron (along with other names) are listed in the Book of Ether; however, this group of people came around the time of the Tower of Babel, right?  Wouldn't those be anachronisms?  
- "On the other hand, it is worth noting that virtually all of the above names or ones closely comparable, even with their peculiar BoM-like pronunciations, are found in John Walker’s Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scriptural Proper Names, published and sold in the Northeast throughout the early 19th century. Rick Grunder notes that Lehi, Lemuel, and Lah’man are found on the same page, while Nephi, Ishmael, Zeorim, Saraiah, and Sami are close nearby, as well as Laban and Na’ham/Na’hum. [8] " http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2014/05/the-book-of-mormon-as-myth-and-more-on-the-name-alma/

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

This is a little different question from "is there room." While there is room, the question is place. I suspect the answers will always be personal and in conjunction with the Bishop. Should someone who believes that the Book of Mormon is fictional be teaching a class about the Book of Mormon? Since the classes are designed to bring out the spiritual meaning of the text and don't deal with history--I could see where that would be possible. It certainly depends upon the person and the nature of what they teach. Would I want someone actively teaching that the Book of Mormon is fiction? No, I don't think that fits with the current definition of orthodoxy. If the topic didn't come up and the discussions were about the powerful life lessons in the text--that wouldn't be different from most any other class.

Might such a person serve in a Bishopric? I think that would be problematic, though I do know a case where it has happened (with full knowledge of the person's beliefs).

If you don't mind me asking Brant, I kind of know the answer, what do you believe? You've done your homework and then some.  

[Ouagadougou]

Why was the change in the introduction necessary?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html?pg=all

"The new introduction reads much the same, but says the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians."  

Changing "principal" to "among" is a fairly significant change. IMO, the reason this change was implemented is because there is no DNA evidence to support that any Native American groups/tribes originated from Israel (Middle East).  

[thesometimesaint]

14 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Why was the change in the introduction necessary?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html?pg=all

"The new introduction reads much the same, but says the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians."  

Changing "principal" to "among" is a fairly significant change. IMO, the reason this change was implemented is because there is no DNA evidence to support that any Native American groups/tribes originated from Israel (Middle East).  

No it was not. It was the classical misunderstanding of the word "principle". 

[JulieM]

47 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

No it was not. It was the classical misunderstanding of the word "principle". 

You mean "principal"?  That's the word that was used.  I would think whoever wrote the introduction knew the difference and made sure the correct spelling was used for something that important.

By the way, do we know who wrote the introduction?  

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

It will be interesting to see how this is handled in the future. Just from my personal experience and as a guess from the trends resulting from the internet making more data on problematic points of the BOM and early Mormonism more widely available, I would think there is some increase in members who are declaring an active faith while seriously questioning BOM historicity. I hope that if this number ever becomes significant enough to illicit some type of policy, it will be more lenient than punitive.

That is assuming that most people in this church don't rely on the Holy Ghost as the ultimate bar as to it's truthfulness, but instead rely upon the conclusions that people come up with, while still missing a whole bunch of data.