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

[Garden Girl]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

People did have to remember more, and Joseph was known to have an impressive faculty for memory. And he could have easily hid a slip of parchment in his sleeve or pocket and burnt it when finished.

 

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe he could have written or used a sort of shorthand on notes in the hat, along with an incredible memory of things he'd read or learned.

C'mon Tacenda... notes in the hat?  Surely you jest...  And Meadowchik... parchment up the sleeve?   Really?

I think of Emma's description of the time when she acted as scribe for Joseph... how he would dictate for hours without notes.  When they would stop for a break, etc., and he would come back and resume translating, he did not ask... Where was I? or ask her to read back the last few sentences, etc... he simply began again and continued, without missing a beat... 

GG

Edited March 13, 2017 by Garden Girl

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

 

C'mon Tacenda... notes in the hat?  Surely you jest...  And Meadowchik... parchment up the sleeve?   Really?

I think of Emma's description of the time when she acted as scribe for Joseph... how he would dictate for hours without notes.  When they would stop for a break, etc., and he would come back and resume translating, he did not ask... Where was I? or ask her to read back the last few sentences, etc... he simply began again and continued, without missing a beat... 

GG

Wasn't it Emma who later testified that Joseph never practiced polygamy?  Maybe she isn't the most reliable witness when it comes to JS. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

 

C'mon Tacenda... notes in the hat?  Surely you jest...  And Meadowchik... parchment up the sleeve?   Really?

I think of Emma's description of the time when she acted as scribe for Joseph... how he would dictate for hours without notes.  When they would stop for a break, etc., and he would come back and resume translating, he did not ask... Where was I? or ask her to read back the last few sentences, etc... he simply began again and continued, without missing a beat... 

GG

Well then maybe he had a photographic memory, I guess there could be a multitude of scenarios out there.

[Garden Girl]

28 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Wasn't it Emma who later testified that Joseph never practiced polygamy?  Maybe she isn't the most reliable witness when it comes to JS. 

Hello sunstoned... I disagree when it comes to her report of the translating.  In fact, to my knowledge, she always maintained her testimony regarding the BoM and her part as a scribe... 

GG

[Garden Girl]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well then maybe he had a photographic memory, I guess there could be a multitude of scenarios out there.

That would have to be some photographic memory... to be able to dictate as long as he did without a break... and after they did have a break for him to be able to pick right up without asking to be refreshed as to where he left off... 

GG

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

 

C'mon Tacenda... notes in the hat?  Surely you jest...  And Meadowchik... parchment up the sleeve?   Really?

I think of Emma's description of the time when she acted as scribe for Joseph... how he would dictate for hours without notes.  When they would stop for a break, etc., and he would come back and resume translating, he did not ask... Where was I? or ask her to read back the last few sentences, etc... he simply began again and continued, without missing a beat... 

GG

And why not? The point is that there is much we know and much we don't. Joseph Smith was a treasure hunter claiming it could move by itself undergound. So why not cheat on other things in whatever way worked?

Joseph's character is not beyond reproach. Producing a book that makes people feel good is not proof of divine power or authority. And yet, he was clever enough and the conditions were ripe enough that he convinced people it was.

I have experience witnessing a pathological liar manipulate his family and somehow they go along with his falsehoods. I do not know every step of his process but surely his first job is to convince his wife. Of course Joseph knew that Emma being convinced was of primordial importance and would have considered his performance before her as key to his narratives' success.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Meadowchik

[readstoomuch]

I think Emma was quite consistent in her statements about Joseph's prophetic role.  She struggled with polygamy.  It was her sorest trial.  Interesting how every thread seems to deteriorate to polygamy.

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well then maybe he had a photographic memory, I guess there could be a multitude of scenarios out there.

Tacenda, You might wantt do a bit of research on photographic memory. I linked to one article in an earlier response to Meadowchik. It is not the "perfectly remembering everything and anything" ability that is the popular notion. The article notes "Sorry to disappoint further, but even an amazing memory in one domain, such as vision, is not a guarantee of great memory across the board. That must be rare, if it occurs at all. A winner of the memory Olympics, for instance, still had to keep sticky notes on the refrigerator to remember what she had to do during the day."

The article does say that there are some people that seem to have a natural inborn superior memory faculty. From the article: "Most people who have exhibited truly extraordinary memories in some domain have seemed to possess them all their lives and honed them further through practice."

There are people who memorize scripture or other material by studying it assiduously. I had an uncle who could quote a lot of scripture from the Bible pretty much word for word, most particularly the New Testament, because he studied it everyday for hours at a time. Joseph, according to his mother, was less inclined to read the Bible than others of his family. It is possible that he could have memorized large swatches of the text prior to the dictation, but it would have required hours of memorizing from an already prepared text.

If you will recall the descriptions by the differing witnesses of the translation process, Joseph was able to start dictating again after a break right where he had left off before the break without consulting the text the scribe was preparing. Also, when he came to words that he could not pronounce, he would spell them out. That is not indicative of a memorized text.

Glenn

 

 

 

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello sunstoned... I disagree when it comes to her report of the translating.  In fact, to my knowledge, she always maintained her testimony regarding the BoM and her part as a scribe... 

GG

She also always maintained that JS didn't practice polygamy, keep in mind.  One of my heroes of Church history is Emma, but as it turns out we're all prone to lie particularly as it might be an effort to protect ourselves, loved ones and families.  I grant that she and a couple others are the best things we have to figure out the translation but it's possible, still, that it was a hoax.  We can't just pretend the possibility doesn't exist because one of them said something. 

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Tacenda, You might wantt do a bit of research on photographic memory. I linked to one article in an earlier response to Meadowchik. It is not the "perfectly remembering everything and anything" ability that is the popular notion. The article notes "Sorry to disappoint further, but even an amazing memory in one domain, such as vision, is not a guarantee of great memory across the board. That must be rare, if it occurs at all. A winner of the memory Olympics, for instance, still had to keep sticky notes on the refrigerator to remember what she had to do during the day."

The article does say that there are some people that seem to have a natural inborn superior memory faculty. From the article: "Most people who have exhibited truly extraordinary memories in some domain have seemed to possess them all their lives and honed them further through practice."

There are people who memorize scripture or other material by studying it assiduously. I had an uncle who could quote a lot of scripture from the Bible pretty much word for word, most particularly the New Testament, because he studied it everyday for hours at a time. Joseph, according to his mother, was less inclined to read the Bible than others of his family. It is possible that he could have memorized large swatches of the text prior to the dictation, but it would have required hours of memorizing from an already prepared text.

If you will recall the descriptions by the differing witnesses of the translation process, Joseph was able to start dictating again after a break right where he had left off before the break without consulting the text the scribe was preparing. Also, when he came to words that he could not pronounce, he would spell them out. That is not indicative of a memorized text.

Glenn

 

 

 

I don't really understand why Joseph having or not having an outstanding memory has anything to do with the Book of Mormon. If he translated the text from the plates, or used a seer stone in his hat, to see and understand the text from the plates, then we are talking about a miraculous event. Joseph was not trained nor skilled in reading or translating the text on the plates, no matter which language they were written in. Joseph could only have produced the text with God's assistance, if we are to accept the text as holy.

If he was inventing the text from whole cloth, then there is nothing miraculous at all. Whether he took the biblical passages directly from the Bible or that he memorized them is really immaterial.

That he could, following a break, pick up the text exactly where he left off, is also immaterial. If he was receiving the text through inspiration, starting over again, exactly at the last dictation point is no better than returning to a book already open to the page last looked at. 

Even the story of Joseph using a seer stone is entirely in the realm of miraculous. Put your phone in the bottom of a shallow paper bag and try to read the screen. Unless you're extremely near-sighted, it can't be done.

The Book of Mormon is either completely a miraculous event, evidence of God's helping hand in bringing the true story of the first peoples of the American continents to light, or it is an entertaining story concocted by Joseph Smith's imagination (with some help from the King Jame's Bible), with absolutely no connection to reality. It is either one or the other.

 It can't be a "true fiction". It can't be a story "based on true events". That only happens in novels and films, strictly for entertainment. If someone claims that some parts are true, while others are 'in question', they are actually saying the whole book is unreal.

You can't have it both ways, with one part invented, another part inspired.

[Jeanne]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Wasn't it Emma who later testified that Joseph never practiced polygamy?  Maybe she isn't the most reliable witness when it comes to JS. 

Interesting..I believe that she definitely knew of Joseph and polygamy and perhaps also that it was against the law.

[Meadowchik]

59 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I don't really understand why Joseph having or not having an outstanding memory has anything to do with the Book of Mormon. If he translated the text from the plates, or used a seer stone in his hat, to see and understand the text from the plates, then we are talking about a miraculous event. Joseph was not trained nor skilled in reading or translating the text on the plates, no matter which language they were written in. Joseph could only have produced the text with God's assistance, if we are to accept the text as holy.

If he was inventing the text from whole cloth, then there is nothing miraculous at all. Whether he took the biblical passages directly from the Bible or that he memorized them is really immaterial.

That he could, following a break, pick up the text exactly where he left off, is also immaterial. If he was receiving the text through inspiration, starting over again, exactly at the last dictation point is no better than returning to a book already open to the page last looked at. 

Even the story of Joseph using a seer stone is entirely in the realm of miraculous. Put your phone in the bottom of a shallow paper bag and try to read the screen. Unless you're extremely near-sighted, it can't be done.

The Book of Mormon is either completely a miraculous event, evidence of God's helping hand in bringing the true story of the first peoples of the American continents to light, or it is an entertaining story concocted by Joseph Smith's imagination (with some help from the King Jame's Bible), with absolutely no connection to reality. It is either one or the other.

 It can't be a "true fiction". It can't be a story "based on true events". That only happens in novels and films, strictly for entertainment. If someone claims that some parts are true, while others are 'in question', they are actually saying the whole book is unreal.

You can't have it both ways, with one part invented, another part inspired.

Indeed. Why would God expect any individual to pin their eternal salvation on the word of a con artist? Weren't there plenty of other more upstanding and faithful individuals of that time?

God working in mysterious ways, and God's thoughts being higher than our thoughts, is not equivalent to God using a known trickster to spread His gospel. And we're not talking only about indiscretions of which Joseph had repented of before his ministry and calling. And we're not talking only about actions that ceased when he declared his authority or which he did "as a man" while in authority.

Joseph Smith used his authority to pressure multiple young women and women to marry him.  That's not godly, it's not right.

I guess that much of this comes down to how I view God and His treatment of people, and how I understand people.  My view of people has been shaken to the core, especially of people who claim godliness. 

 

 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I don't really understand why Joseph having or not having an outstanding memory has anything to do with the Book of Mormon. If he translated the text from the plates, or used a seer stone in his hat, to see and understand the text from the plates, then we are talking about a miraculous event. Joseph was not trained nor skilled in reading or translating the text on the plates, no matter which language they were written in. Joseph could only have produced the text with God's assistance, if we are to accept the text as holy.

If he was inventing the text from whole cloth, then there is nothing miraculous at all. Whether he took the biblical passages directly from the Bible or that he memorized them is really immaterial.

That he could, following a break, pick up the text exactly where he left off, is also immaterial. If he was receiving the text through inspiration, starting over again, exactly at the last dictation point is no better than returning to a book already open to the page last looked at. 

Even the story of Joseph using a seer stone is entirely in the realm of miraculous. Put your phone in the bottom of a shallow paper bag and try to read the screen. Unless you're extremely near-sighted, it can't be done.

The Book of Mormon is either completely a miraculous event, evidence of God's helping hand in bringing the true story of the first peoples of the American continents to light, or it is an entertaining story concocted by Joseph Smith's imagination (with some help from the King Jame's Bible), with absolutely no connection to reality. It is either one or the other.

 It can't be a "true fiction". It can't be a story "based on true events". That only happens in novels and films, strictly for entertainment. If someone claims that some parts are true, while others are 'in question', they are actually saying the whole book is unreal.

You can't have it both ways, with one part invented, another part inspired.

There is the magic act that may have played a part. He may have been able to trick people. Also, he could have written the Book of Mormon over many years. And then went about the translation process. We have plenty of great authors out there that have written comparably difficult stories. And the Book of Mormon was written as chapters in the beginning. Not saying that is a game changer. The below is an excerpt in Joseph's own words about his education and former years of studying the scriptures. Joseph wasn't an ignorant farm boy. And the magic act I mentioned may have been not to trick but convince. I believe he believed.

"…we were deprived of the bennifit of an education suffice it to say I was mearly instructtid in reading writing and the ground rules of Arithmatic which constituted my whole literary acquirements. At about the age of twelve years my mind become seriously imprest with regard to the all importent concerns for the wellfare of my immortal Soul which led me to searching the scriptures believeing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of differant denominations led me to marvel excedingly for I discovered that they did not adorn their profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind the contentions and divisions the wickedness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the minds of mankind my mind become excedingly distressed for I become convicted of my sins and by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament and I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world for I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday to day and forever that he was no respecter to persons for he was God for I looked upon the sun the glorious luminary of the earth and also the moon rolling in their magesty through the heavens and also the stars shining in their courses and the earth also upon which I stood and the beast of the field and the fowls of heaven and the fish of the waters and also man walking forth upon the face of the earth in magesty and in the strength of beauty whose power and intiligence in governing the things which are so exceding great and marvilous even in the likeness of him who created them and when I considered upon these things my heart exclaimed well hath the wise man said it is a fool that saith in his heart there is no God my heart exclaimed all all these bear testimony and bespeak an omnipotant and omnipreasant power a being who makith Laws and decreeeth and bindeth all things in their bounds who filleth Eternity who was and is and will be from all Eternity to Eternity and when I considered all these things and that that being seeketh such to worshep him as worship him in spirit and in truth therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy…"

Letterbook 1, The Joseph Smith Papers, p. 7. 

[Johnnie Cake]

On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 5:14 PM, 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.  

Yes

[thesometimesaint]

I think it would be very hard to be an active, faithful member in the church, and still believe the BoM is a fictional book.

[churchistrue]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think it would be very hard to be an active, faithful member in the church, and still believe the BoM is a fictional book.

How so?  I believe I am.  I have to admit it's been a hard journey in terms of faith reconstruction to get to where I am now.  But I find it no more difficult to be an active, faithful member now than I did 15 years ago prior to this faith crisis faith reconstruction that led to this persepctive.

 

[churchistrue]

On 3/11/2017 at 9:11 AM, Brant Gardner said:

I apologize for coming to this so very late, but I would like to make some clarifications. Although this statement is made pretty definitively, it gets a few things correct and a few wrong. 

First, what is correct? It is correct that we don't find evidence of Middle Eastern culture, language, or DNA in Native American populations--anywhere (for those who might have read Rod Meldrum's assertion that there is such a DNA remnant, that information is based on a very old study that has been superseded, and the hypothesis that there was Middle Eastern DNA--particularly during Book of Mormon times, is incorrect).

Second, what is wrong? Here the answer is a little more complicated, because the problems are in conclusions drawn from evidence, rather than statements themselves. That is, we need more background to understand the issue.

Let's begin with the problem of Middle Eastern culture, language, and DNA. Unstated is the assumption that there should be evidence of that. Of course that was the general assumption of Book of Mormon believers for a very, very long time. It was the result of the original assumption that the Book of Mormon explained all Native American peoples. If you accept that as the foundational assumption, then the lack of culture, language, and DNA is devastating. However, that is true only if you accept that foundation assumption. That assumption was wrong.

Does asserting that the assumption was wrong subvert the revelatory foundations of the LDS Church? Again, only if you assume that the assumption that all Native Americans descended from Book of Mormon peoples was a revealed doctrine/fact. It wasn't, and current statements from Church leaders have made that much clearer than it is if you read those older Church leaders who accepted the assumption and preached. Again, that is a question of whether everything a leader says is incontrovertible fact--and the official Church statement says that it is not necessarily so.

That leaves the next issue, which is whether or not the lack of culture, language, and DNA is an anomaly if we take the more historical approach that Book of Mormon peoples arrived in a world already teeming with people (the book 1491 is a nice, popular introduction to the size and complexity of pre-Columbian peoples--archaeology tells us that there were complex civilizations in place with any Book of Mormon people arrived). That answer is simple. There are plenty of historical examples of the loss of culture and language during the merger of two different peoples. The exceptions are notable, but they are exceptions (such as Norman rule in England).

What about DNA? Doesn't the ability to trace lineages, and find various ancient strains tell us that we should find Middle Eastern DNA? Not if you talk to scientists who understand DNA. What is the serendipity of what remained, and we have no picture of what was lost. No DNA scientist would suggest that nothing is ever lost. That was one of the problems with the media's popularization of the African "Eve." While it is true that DNA was traced that far back, the idea that there was only one woman was a misunderstanding of the data. There was only one woman whose DNA survived. So does the absence of culture, language, or DNA say anything about the Book of Mormon? Not if you accept genetics, linguistics, and culture history--and not if you believe the Church who has clarified that the Book of Mormon doesn't intend to show the origins of Native Americans (even though that was a popular idea early on--and there is interesting culture history behind that). 

Does the Book of Mormon as a record of a smaller people fit with what it says? From an ethnohistorical standpoint, not only yes, but yes--it fits better into both known literature and history.

That brings me down to the personal issue. Is is accurate to say: "until you run it through the Brant Gardner translating machine, which generally removes any and all meaning to the text." Perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree. What I can tell is that churchistrue has skimmed through things I have written. What I can also tell, is that churchistrue should slow down and try to understand rather than assume.

Do I suggest that there are translation anachronisms? Yes. Is that a known phenomenon? Yes. Do we have examples of such things, particularly in cross-cultural exchanges? Absolutely. My training is in ethnohistory, where I examined the ways in which Spanish writers "translated" native culture. There are plenty of places where you not only see translation anachronisms, but mistranslations of concepts. So, if the Book of Mormon is translation literature, might there be translation anachronisms? Yes, at least in theory. How do we know if it is an anachronism or a translation anachronism? Examining the text. That is the reason that it is important to note that horses don't behave like horses, and have no cultural impact on the text of the Book of Mormon. That doesn't happen is the author of the text assumed an actual horse. We know how horses have affected culture--and that doesn't appear. That examination of the text shows that, in this case, we likely have a translation anachronism.

Churchistrue somehow missed my discussion of metal--which is actually anachronistic (as far as current archaeology knows). The reason we know that is from the text--and the fact that Joseph described metal plates that Nephi created. So there is no translation anachronism there. It seems that churchisture assumed something about why I emphasized translation anachronisms, and might revise his/her findings by reading to understand rather than support original assumptions.

Finally, might following my suggestion about how the text was translated "generally remove any and all meaning to the text:? That is a strange assertion, since what I have suggested is a functional translation, and there is no linguist I have read who would suggest that a functional translation removes all meaning. The reason for functional translations is to make the text more meaningful for the target audience. Perhaps churchistrue supposes that I lean to the more conceptual translation, but if so, then churchistrue missed a major point. My suggestion is that the language follows the original in intent, but that it uses modern examples and phrasing to communicate that intent. Meaning should be preserve in a way that the essential meaning is more evident to the target audience. The concept of translation I have proposed, and examples given, completely contradict the way churchistrue appears to have interpreted them. 

So, to be clear, the Book of Mormon gives a history in a format that is structurally and functionally compatible with the time and non-western nature of its stated origin. In a functional translation, the meaning, intent, and overall story of the text is preserved--but preserved in language (and examples) more appropriate to the target audience. The history that it proclaims, indicating a small population (perhaps 30 or less with Lehi) tracks correctly with known history and science for what happens in cultural mergers (and particularly when the flora and fauna as so different from immigrant origin to final location). The DNA science tells us that not finding the DNA doesn't preclude that DNA having been there. Finding it would be remarkable, but not finding it doesn't say anything about whether or not it was ever there. Language and culture are known to change in cross-cultural situations, and except in unusual circumstances, a small population merging into the large eventually assumes the language and culture of the larger population (most people are more familiar with the process of Americanization of immigrants into the US, and that process involved larger immigrant populations, some ghettoization of the immigrants--and still the eventual assimilation of later generations--a process that has taken only a couple of generations, a time period encompassed in the earliest parts of the Book of Mormon and therefore over with quite early).

Hi Brant, thanks for this thoughtful reply.  I plan to give a more thorough reply later, but I just wanted to say that I have fundamental differences in my view and the LGT-Mixing Populations is an extremely irritating to me, but I greatly respect your work as a scholar, and I'm sorry for the "Brant Gardner translating machine" bit.  That came across more snarky than I meant.

[Garden Girl]

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

 

If you will recall the descriptions by the differing witnesses of the translation process, Joseph was able to start dictating again after a break right where he had left off before the break without consulting the text the scribe was preparing. Also, when he came to words that he could not pronounce, he would spell them out. That is not indicative of a memorized text.

Glenn

 

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

She also always maintained that JS didn't practice polygamy, keep in mind.  One of my heroes of Church history is Emma, but as it turns out we're all prone to lie particularly as it might be an effort to protect ourselves, loved ones and families.  I grant that she and a couple others are the best things we have to figure out the translation but it's possible, still, that it was a hoax.  We can't just pretend the possibility doesn't exist because one of them said something. 

Hello stemelbow... on a rainy, blustery day here on the Oregon coast... hope you are in a safe area... parts of the country are being hard hit...

Yes, I understand Emma's insistence regarding Joseph and polygamy and how she struggled personally... that's much different than her testimony of the translating process... and as Glenn points out, she was not the only one as others told similar experiences.  While anything could be possible in regard to a hoax, it would take some real doing, particularly while using the hat... which, incidentally, to me makes the process even more inspired/miraculous.   

GG

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I don't really understand why Joseph having or not having an outstanding memory has anything to do with the Book of Mormon. If he translated the text from the plates, or used a seer stone in his hat, to see and understand the text from the plates, then we are talking about a miraculous event. Joseph was not trained nor skilled in reading or translating the text on the plates, no matter which language they were written in. Joseph could only have produced the text with God's assistance, if we are to accept the text as holy.

The extraordinary memory idea is one proposed by unapologists in trying to provide an alternative explanation for the production of the Book of Mormon. Without the miraculous, the production of the Book of Mormon is a puzzle for which no plausible explanation has been proffered. other than "just so" offerings.

Glenn

[sunstoned]

On 3/12/2017 at 10:42 PM, Garden Girl said:

Hello sunstoned... I disagree when it comes to her report of the translating.  In fact, to my knowledge, she always maintained her testimony regarding the BoM and her part as a scribe... 

GG

I understand this and know what she stated about the translation process.  But my point is that she repeated lied to protect her husband concerning polygamy.  The fact that she was dishonest means that anything she as said concerning Joseph is suspect.  If she could lie about his polygamy/polyandry, then  she is capable of lying about the translation process.  And she did lie.  She made statements that Joseph didn't have other wives: 

Quote

No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of .... He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have. 

                                 History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, volume 3, pp. 355–56.

The reorganize church used her testimony for years to deny Joseph's polygamy and polyandry.   We know this isn't true.  That means she lied.  I don't judge her.  She put up with a lot of crap from a cheating spouse and she weathered it much better than I would have.  But the fact remains that she was dishonest.  

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, churchistrue said:

How so?  I believe I am.  I have to admit it's been a hard journey in terms of faith reconstruction to get to where I am now.  But I find it no more difficult to be an active, faithful member now than I did 15 years ago prior to this faith crisis faith reconstruction that led to this persepctive.

 

I didn't say it was impossible. Only very hard to do. That you did it the hard way just re-enforces my statement.  

[Rajah Manchou]

21 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

The Book of Mormon is either completely a miraculous event, evidence of God's helping hand in bringing the true story of the first peoples of the American continents to light, or it is an entertaining story concocted by Joseph Smith's imagination (with some help from the King Jame's Bible), with absolutely no connection to reality. It is either one or the other.

 It can't be a "true fiction". It can't be a story "based on true events". That only happens in novels and films, strictly for entertainment. If someone claims that some parts are true, while others are 'in question', they are actually saying the whole book is unreal.

You can't have it both ways, with one part invented, another part inspired.

I'm not so sure there are only two choices. Other religious texts are 'true fiction', myth mixed in with true events. There are thousands and thousands of historical documents that contain both accurate and inaccurate retellings of history. We dig a hole when we say things like the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth and that it is a completely accurate historical document about people that lived in America between 600 BC and 421 AD. Are we sure that is what it is? Are we 100% sure?

I think one of the better examples is the History of the Rechabites, a Judeo-Christian text that tells of a Biblical group that departed the Holy Land around 600 BC for an island in the sea. According to the text, they lived on that island completely independent of the Israelites for centuries. Is it a true fiction? Completely made up, or something partly based on true events? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Rechabites

The conflict arises when someone takes a religious text like that and makes an attempt to place it a historical time and place. It could be possible to do, but there isn't enough information to go off of. Same is true for the Book of Mormon. There is nothing ahistorical or anachronistic about the Book of Mormon, but attempts to place it in a historical setting confuse the intent of the text.

My guess. The Book of Mormon happened in the same place as the History of the Rechabites, a blessed isle of the sea. We may never know more than that.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[bcuzbcuz]

10 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I'm not so sure there are only two choices. Other religious texts are 'true fiction', myth mixed in with true events. There are thousands and thousands of historical documents that contain both accurate and inaccurate retellings of history. We dig a hole when we say things like the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth and that it is a completely accurate historical document about people that lived in America between 600 BC and 421 AD. Are we sure that is what it is? Are we 100% sure?

I think one of the better examples is the History of the Rechabites, a Judeo-Christian text that tells of a Biblical group that departed the Holy Land around 600 BC for an island in the sea. According to the text, they lived on that island completely independent of the Israelites for centuries. Is it a true fiction? Completely made up, or something partly based on true events? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Rechabites

The conflict arises when someone takes a religious text like that and makes an attempt to place it a historical time and place. It could be possible to do, but there isn't enough information to go off of. Same is true for the Book of Mormon. There is nothing ahistorical or anachronistic about the Book of Mormon, but attempts to place it in a historical time and confuse the intent of the text.

My guess. The Book of Mormon happened in the same place as the History of the Rechabites, a blessed isle of the sea. We may never know more than that.

If a religious text is defined merely in that someone prayed to their god(s) and reports receiving an answer then my algebra test in grade 11 falls in that category. I had not studied but I prayed feverishly before entering the classroom and then aced the test. 

To me, the American definition of a religion, in order to qualify for tax free status, suffers from the same, fuzzy, incoherent, parameters. A religion is anyone, any group who declares themselves to be a religion.

I haven't read any texts of the Rechabites. The site you quoted did nothing to convince me that i should spend any time looking into the Rechabites. It also provided no incentive to try and match Mormon Book stories to the stories of Rechabites. Sorry, but I don`t see any common points.

[churchistrue]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I didn't say it was impossible. Only very hard to do. That you did it the hard way just re-enforces my statement.  

I'm not following you at all.  I'm saying it's just as easy to be active Latter Day Saint now with non-historical testimony of BOM as it was 15 years ago with traditional testimony.

[churchistrue]

On 3/11/2017 at 9:11 AM, Brant Gardner said:

I apologize for coming to this so very late, but I would like to make some clarifications. Although this statement is made pretty definitively, it gets a few things correct and a few wrong. 

First, what is correct? It is correct that we don't find evidence of Middle Eastern culture, language, or DNA in Native American populations--anywhere (for those who might have read Rod Meldrum's assertion that there is such a DNA remnant, that information is based on a very old study that has been superseded, and the hypothesis that there was Middle Eastern DNA--particularly during Book of Mormon times, is incorrect).

Second, what is wrong? Here the answer is a little more complicated, because the problems are in conclusions drawn from evidence, rather than statements themselves. That is, we need more background to understand the issue.

Let's begin with the problem of Middle Eastern culture, language, and DNA. Unstated is the assumption that there should be evidence of that. Of course that was the general assumption of Book of Mormon believers for a very, very long time. It was the result of the original assumption that the Book of Mormon explained all Native American peoples. If you accept that as the foundational assumption, then the lack of culture, language, and DNA is devastating. However, that is true only if you accept that foundation assumption. That assumption was wrong.

Does asserting that the assumption was wrong subvert the revelatory foundations of the LDS Church? Again, only if you assume that the assumption that all Native Americans descended from Book of Mormon peoples was a revealed doctrine/fact. It wasn't, and current statements from Church leaders have made that much clearer than it is if you read those older Church leaders who accepted the assumption and preached. Again, that is a question of whether everything a leader says is incontrovertible fact--and the official Church statement says that it is not necessarily so.

That leaves the next issue, which is whether or not the lack of culture, language, and DNA is an anomaly if we take the more historical approach that Book of Mormon peoples arrived in a world already teeming with people (the book 1491 is a nice, popular introduction to the size and complexity of pre-Columbian peoples--archaeology tells us that there were complex civilizations in place with any Book of Mormon people arrived). That answer is simple. There are plenty of historical examples of the loss of culture and language during the merger of two different peoples. The exceptions are notable, but they are exceptions (such as Norman rule in England).

What about DNA? Doesn't the ability to trace lineages, and find various ancient strains tell us that we should find Middle Eastern DNA? Not if you talk to scientists who understand DNA. What is the serendipity of what remained, and we have no picture of what was lost. No DNA scientist would suggest that nothing is ever lost. That was one of the problems with the media's popularization of the African "Eve." While it is true that DNA was traced that far back, the idea that there was only one woman was a misunderstanding of the data. There was only one woman whose DNA survived. So does the absence of culture, language, or DNA say anything about the Book of Mormon? Not if you accept genetics, linguistics, and culture history--and not if you believe the Church who has clarified that the Book of Mormon doesn't intend to show the origins of Native Americans (even though that was a popular idea early on--and there is interesting culture history behind that). 

Does the Book of Mormon as a record of a smaller people fit with what it says? From an ethnohistorical standpoint, not only yes, but yes--it fits better into both known literature and history.

That brings me down to the personal issue. Is is accurate to say: "until you run it through the Brant Gardner translating machine, which generally removes any and all meaning to the text." Perhaps unsurprisingly, I disagree. What I can tell is that churchistrue has skimmed through things I have written. What I can also tell, is that churchistrue should slow down and try to understand rather than assume.

Do I suggest that there are translation anachronisms? Yes. Is that a known phenomenon? Yes. Do we have examples of such things, particularly in cross-cultural exchanges? Absolutely. My training is in ethnohistory, where I examined the ways in which Spanish writers "translated" native culture. There are plenty of places where you not only see translation anachronisms, but mistranslations of concepts. So, if the Book of Mormon is translation literature, might there be translation anachronisms? Yes, at least in theory. How do we know if it is an anachronism or a translation anachronism? Examining the text. That is the reason that it is important to note that horses don't behave like horses, and have no cultural impact on the text of the Book of Mormon. That doesn't happen is the author of the text assumed an actual horse. We know how horses have affected culture--and that doesn't appear. That examination of the text shows that, in this case, we likely have a translation anachronism.

Churchistrue somehow missed my discussion of metal--which is actually anachronistic (as far as current archaeology knows). The reason we know that is from the text--and the fact that Joseph described metal plates that Nephi created. So there is no translation anachronism there. It seems that churchisture assumed something about why I emphasized translation anachronisms, and might revise his/her findings by reading to understand rather than support original assumptions.

Finally, might following my suggestion about how the text was translated "generally remove any and all meaning to the text:? That is a strange assertion, since what I have suggested is a functional translation, and there is no linguist I have read who would suggest that a functional translation removes all meaning. The reason for functional translations is to make the text more meaningful for the target audience. Perhaps churchistrue supposes that I lean to the more conceptual translation, but if so, then churchistrue missed a major point. My suggestion is that the language follows the original in intent, but that it uses modern examples and phrasing to communicate that intent. Meaning should be preserve in a way that the essential meaning is more evident to the target audience. The concept of translation I have proposed, and examples given, completely contradict the way churchistrue appears to have interpreted them. 

So, to be clear, the Book of Mormon gives a history in a format that is structurally and functionally compatible with the time and non-western nature of its stated origin. In a functional translation, the meaning, intent, and overall story of the text is preserved--but preserved in language (and examples) more appropriate to the target audience. The history that it proclaims, indicating a small population (perhaps 30 or less with Lehi) tracks correctly with known history and science for what happens in cultural mergers (and particularly when the flora and fauna as so different from immigrant origin to final location). The DNA science tells us that not finding the DNA doesn't preclude that DNA having been there. Finding it would be remarkable, but not finding it doesn't say anything about whether or not it was ever there. Language and culture are known to change in cross-cultural situations, and except in unusual circumstances, a small population merging into the large eventually assumes the language and culture of the larger population (most people are more familiar with the process of Americanization of immigrants into the US, and that process involved larger immigrant populations, some ghettoization of the immigrants--and still the eventual assimilation of later generations--a process that has taken only a couple of generations, a time period encompassed in the earliest parts of the Book of Mormon and therefore over with quite early).

Our basic difference is that I don’t buy this LGT-Mixing Population-Vanishing culture concept.  I think it’s unreasonable, based on the text, to assume the Lehites and Mulekites abandoned their language and culture and intermarried (not just a little here and there but everyone every generation in a way that their DNA vanishes).  I agree with you that based on their assumption, we should not expect to find remains of their language and culture and DNA (though based on what I understand with the DNA I think it’s more appropriate to say it’s possible to not identify their DNA not that it’s unlikely to not identify their DNA).  These were the kings, the ruling class, they brought an evolved culture.  And there's no evidence they dumped any of this or intermarried in the text.

As for the anachronisms and the “Brant Gardner translating machine”.  First, please accept apology from my last post.  But here’s my problem with this.  I do not agree with you that the text gives us clear indication of what the word should mean.  You make a case for horse and chariot that I find forced.  You also make the same case for words related to the mixing population theory: father, brother, years, language, Josephite, Zoramite.  It’s also made for the interpretation of other popular mixing population type passages, like the prophesy of Columbus and the Gentiles in latter days, or the statement that there were no people on the land before the Jaredites.  It’s also made for the reference to Tower of Babel.  It’s also made to come up with really forced conclusions related to the Jacob-Sherem passage.  In summary, I think nearly all the LGT-Mixing Population interpretations of text in the BOM are totally stretched and forced.  I think you and others pushing this theory are turning the text into whatever you want.  I disagree with it.  Further, if I can't trust words like horse, chariot, father, brother, Josephites, how can I trust words like faith and repentance?  How do I know my modernism hasn't botched the definitions of those words?  Do I need someone to give me long, tortured explanations about why faith doesn't really mean faith if you look at the text closely?

I think looking at it as a non-historical foundational myth might not have power in the sense that it’s not locked into actual, historical events, and then you have problems with the gold plates and all that.  I get it.  It’s not perfect.  But this LGT-Mixing Populations theory reduces the Book of Mormon to some weak, regional, unimportant story about some people that had no impact on the world.  They’re so weak in terms of their impact, that they lived for 1,000 years yet no one can even find any proof.  All their battles?  I’m sure you have answer that reduces them down to a back yard brawl forgotten in time almost before they ended.   It’s gutless and weak.  At least the BOM as inspired allegory is big, it’s ambitious, it rivals the Old Testament. 

Sorry, I get a little emotional about the LGT-Mixing Populations theory.  I do respect your work. 

Edited March 14, 2017 by churchistrue