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

[Rajah Manchou]

21 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Isn't it problematic for historicity to say the lamamites disappeared? Didn't Moroni say in the title page that it was written to the lamanites? It's hard to write to a people who disappeared.

In this case I mention, the people and civilization have always been there. They didn't disappear, rather they were invisible to the historians and archeologists. It was only 10 years ago that archeologists discovered the iron furnaces and adjusted the date of founding to the 6th century BC.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[thesometimesaint]

No. The Book of Mormon claims that all those that were not Nephite were Lamanite. They were both religiopolitical designations.

[Darren10]

On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 6:14 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.  

The gist of my comments have definitely been stated already but here it goes.

Historical and archaeological evidence could be so profoundly clear to make a valid claim to the historical reality of the Book of Mormon and I still will not believe it is any more true than I do now. Likewise, historical and archaeological evidence could be so profoundly contrary to the narrative of the Book of Mormon to make is validation completely impossible and I still will not believe it is not true.

I know the Book of Mormon to be a the true word of God giving a real history of a real ancient people who inhabited the American continent. I know this by the Holy Spirit. Historical evidence is secondary to me. While it is nice to have it, it is not necessary to have in order to know it is true.

[thesometimesaint]

11 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

The gist of my comments have definitely been stated already but here it goes.

Historical and archaeological evidence could be so profoundly clear to make a valid claim to the historical reality of the Book of Mormon and I still will not believe it is any more true than I do now. Likewise, historical and archaeological evidence could be so profoundly contrary to the narrative of the Book of Mormon to make is validation completely impossible and I still will not believe it is not true.

I know the Book of Mormon to be a the true word of God giving a real history of a real ancient people who inhabited the American continent. I know this by the Holy Spirit. Historical evidence is secondary to me. While it is nice to have it, it is not necessary to have in order to know it is true.

Agreed.

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

This happens. One example are the civilizations that existed on the Malay Peninsula during the same period as the Book of Mormon. Nobody knew they were there until a French historian translated Chinese texts describing hundreds of walled cities with wooden towers and multiple kingdoms. Only a few years ago did they discover that this region was one of the largest iron-producing centers in the world dating back to the 6th century BC...complete with iron smelting furnaces, millions of iron ingots and now proof that some of the highest quality iron swords were manufactured there. Yet, nobody knew it was there. 

Its as if the civilization had disappeared without a trace, until a historical text was found describing it.

Here's a video clip describing just one of many kingdoms that have yet to be discovered. Starting at 1m.
https://youtu.be/6P1eIORS3PY?t=1m

 

1 Nephi 12: 1 says:

"1 And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld the land of promise; and I beheld multitudes of people, yea, even as it were in number as many as the sand of the sea."

This scripture contradicts the claim that the people in the BoM vanished without a trace.  

Also, 1 Nephi 13: 30-31 states"

"30 Nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands, which is the land that the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the land of their inheritance; wherefore, thou seest that the Lord God will not suffer that the Gentiles will utterly destroy the mixture of thy seed, which are among thy brethren.

31 Neither will he suffer that the Gentiles shall destroy the seed of thy brethren."

And yet another example/promise that this people would not disappear...

 

[Marmonboy]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Let's look at the definition:

Archeology:

the scientific study of historic orprehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, and other such remains, especially those that have been excavated.

What artifacts, remains, etc. have been found/excavated to support the BoM narrative?  

Ether Chapter 15 says:

"2 He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children."

"Sword" is in the text, but even if it meant a different weapon for some reason, nothing has been found to support such battles.  

This is one example of extremely large battles depicted in the BoM.  Some have suggested that the numbers of these battles are incorrect, so if you change 2,000,000 to 20,000, there still isn't a shred of artifacts, remains, etc. to suggest these battles ever took place.  

Look at the Book of Moroni (which took place ~401 A.D.):

"2 For behold, I have had a sore battle with the Lamanites, in which we did not conquer; and Archeantus has fallen by the sword, and also Luram and Emron; yea, and we have lost a great number of our choice men."

"Sword" is used again...maybe a different weapon as you suggest...but nothing has been found.  

They are finding artifacts and remains of other groups of people around the world, but nothing to support the BoM. 

Just of few of many examples below:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/science/warrior-remains-2000-years-old-found-in-denmark.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2433197/Mystery-2-500-year-old-horse-remains-Bulgaria-suggest-creatures-buried-standing-up.html

So, it's as if the people in the BoM just disappeared without a trace...

It's pretty easy to disappear without a trace in certain parts of the world. How many royal Mayan tombs have been opened and only the ornamentation (i.e.,jewelry) was present in the outline of the body? Granted, a few fragments of bone are sometimes located, but what happens to all those corpses left on the battlefield, if even a corpse protected in a tomb can disappear?

[Ouagadougou]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think that's one of the frustrations in this question.  I think that it came out back when the previously mentioned Hamblin/Jenkins debate.  Why a request for evidence, or CFR as we put it around here, turns into something obliquely complex makes this difficult. 

 

I think the overarching problem is none of us understand archaeology like the experts.  So we look to experts.  When we do, we see no expert that is not LDS who is out there claiming validity to the types of evidence you mention as it pertains to the BOM.  Some might say, "yes there were cities in the area in that era, but they don't say anything about the BoM".  Or some might say, "Yes there were wars happening, but I don't see how that validates the BOM story".  But as it is, we don't even get that.  We get experts who are non LDS who consider any of this say the opposite.  In response to those like MIchael Coe we get, "well he doesn't understand the BoM". 

Ugh...yes, the world is this confusing.   

I do not claim to be any expert in this field.  I am sure there are many here that are much more knowledgable than me. 😀 I'm rather curious to see what this Hamblin / Jenkins debate was all about though.  

With that said, I've read statements from both the Smithsonian Institute and National Geographic Society that reinforce the fact that no archaeological evidence to support the BoM has been found.  IMO, if the BoM events actually occurred, wouldn't these institutions (and many others) include them in their displays, graphics, presentations, and museums?  

I understand that the BoM is a powerful/spiritual book...I agree with that; I think there are some great, inspiring verses within its text; however, I cannot accept that these events actually took place based solely on a warm, spiritual feeling.  People can call me a skeptic, person of little faith and the list goes on, but I see no evidence to support its historicity claims as a non-fiction book.  

[Ouagadougou]

12 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

It's pretty easy to disappear without a trace in certain parts of the world. How many royal Mayan tombs have been opened and only the ornamentation (i.e.,jewelry) was present in the outline of the body? Granted, a few fragments of bone are sometimes located, but what happens to all those corpses left on the battlefield, if even a corpse protected in a tomb can disappear?

Battles with millions of people and still not a trace?  Even if those battles had far less than a million...still nothing has been found.  

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

 

With that said, I've read statements from both the Smithsonian Institute and National Geographic Society that reinforce the fact that no archaeological evidence to support the BoM has been found.  IMO, if the BoM events actually occurred, wouldn't these institutions (and many others) include them in their displays, graphics, presentations, and museums?  

What would evidence supporting the BOM look like?  How would it look different than the archaeological evidence for South and Central (or even North America) that we have now?

[Rajah Manchou]

49 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

1 Nephi 12: 1 says:

"1 And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld the land of promise; and I beheld multitudes of people, yea, even as it were in number as many as the sand of the sea."

This scripture contradicts the claim that the people in the BoM vanished without a trace.  

I'm not arguing that they disappeared, or vanished without a trace. My example was to demonstrate that entire civilizations with iron swords, armies, and walled cities existed during the same period as the Book of Mormon and yet historians and archaeologists were completely unaware of their existence until recently.

Nobody knew about the civilization that proceeded Angkor Wat until Peliot found the Chinese text which described it. The civilization (and the people in it) did not disappear, rather there was no known evidence of them until that text was translated in the early 20th century. 

Its one example of a massive iron-age civilization that closely resembles the Book of Mormon civilization (iron, elephants, horses, silk) sitting undiscovered since its collapse around the 5th century AD. Its worth mentioning that the people that fled this collapse were likely the same people that settled the Comoros Islands, known for its capital city of Moroni. The Comoros were named after them, the Qumr or Khmer.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Darren10]

Here's a neat article about how the analysis of the DNA of the sweet potato gives evidence of pre-Columbian trans-pacific travel.

Quote

By analyzing the DNA of 1,245 sweet potato varieties from Asia or the Americas, researchers found a genetic smoking gun that proves the root vegetable made it all the way to Polynesia from the Andes - nearly 400 years before Inca gold was a twinkle in Ferdinand and Isabella's eyes.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/01/22/169980441/how-the-sweet-potato-crossed-the-pacific-before-columbus

 

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I do not claim to be any expert in this field.  I am sure there are many here that are much more knowledgable than me. 😀 I'm rather curious to see what this Hamblin / Jenkins debate was all about though.  

With that said, I've read statements from both the Smithsonian Institute and National Geographic Society that reinforce the fact that no archaeological evidence to support the BoM has been found.  IMO, if the BoM events actually occurred, wouldn't these institutions (and many others) include them in their displays, graphics, presentations, and museums?  

I understand that the BoM is a powerful/spiritual book...I agree with that; I think there are some great, inspiring verses within its text; however, I cannot accept that these events actually took place based solely on a warm, spiritual feeling.  People can call me a skeptic, person of little faith and the list goes on, but I see no evidence to support its historicity claims as a non-fiction book.  

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/debating.htm

This link contains an organized summary of the back and forth discussion, it is interesting.  

As for scientific evidence to support the historicity, I would agree with you that there isn't anything substantial that a person would expect to have found for such a large civilization.  I think this is why the apologetics have shifted to limited geography models in recent years.  However, I think the real shift now needs to be away from the historicity debate all together.  It seems to me like the most effective approach is to mirror the BoA and talk about the BoM as a spiritual text, not necessarily tied to any specific historical events, but yet still inspired.  The BoM as midrash.  

 

[Guest]

On November 14, 2016 at 0:59 PM, canard78 said:

Mormonism is a high-demand religion and, as such, probably needs a high level of commitment and certainty to meet the level of demand. 

There could be other certainties that holds someone "in" but I would agree that in the long term, believing the BoM to be fictional would make attendance difficult to sustain. 

I want to be sure I understand, is belief that the BoM is truly a translation of an ancient record, necessary to maintain attendance, or simply believing it is so, needed for the salvation of those who believe? 

Or is the suggestion that this idea is true, just so membership (and just as important) conversion rates, even though it may not be true? 

As for "high demand", the demands of Church's pales in comparison to to the callings of those who believe in Christ, and his life as defined in all scripture, "to takes up our cross and follow him". In light of that charge or demand, "believing all scripture" or "long meetings", "tithing", the many assignments outside of this, "Temple", Home Teaching", "Bishop's storehouse", along with those I may have forgotten to list.

Taking up his cross, "loving our neighbors as ourselves", loving those who hate us, praying for those who dispitfully use and abuse us", ...all so that we will become the children of our Father which art in Heaven", these demands far outweigh any that a man made institution could ask of us. 

[Guest]

23 hours ago, Gray said:

So I think there are three questions at the heart of this discussion of the Book of Mormon:

1. Is it scripture?
2. Is it ancient?
3. Is it accurate history?

I think it's only the first of those. Many people here believe it is 1 and 2. I think a smaller number of people here think it is all 3. Of all the questions, I think only the first one is really of any importance. 

Number three...it nor any other book of scripture are history books. Most ”scripture" was handed down through "oral tradition". The Book of Mormon, is probably the exception to the rule to a large degree, however much comes from the brass plates, which contain all of the "oral tradition", passed down through the same oral traditions. So any errors in history, (if any) would've passed down as well. 

[Ouagadougou]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What would evidence supporting the BOM look like?  How would it look different than the archaeological evidence for South and Central (or even North America) that we have now?

IMO, here is a brief list:  

Animals:
-Elephants
-Horses
-Goats
-And others

Artifacts:
2 Nephi 5: 15 says:

"And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance."

-Swords
-Steel
-Chariots
-The wheel
-Gold and silver currency 
-Silk

Warfare:
-Bones
-Weaponry
-Preparations for war
*Millions perished in battle according to the BoM

Linguistics:

-Writings from 2,200 B.C to ~420 A.D. in the Americas that resemble Semitic, Hebrew, Reformed Egyptian
-Any writings on plates of gold in these languages
-Oral traditions amongst American Indian tribes that are tied back to Ancient Israel and these languages

DNA:

-DNA analysis to suggest a migration from Israel

 

What evidence is there now to support the BoM?

 

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Ouagadougou

[Guest]

On November 14, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Atheist Mormon said:

You could use this reasoning to a young generation, where i came from, where I was baptized (Switzerland) I did know next to nothing about Native American History and believed in Missionaries telling me exactly that Native Americans were Israelites You can see my roommate here in Switzerland.

 

Wow, my wife and I were sealed (along with my two youngest) in the Swiss Temple. Small world! 

[Ouagadougou]

42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/debating.htm

This link contains an organized summary of the back and forth discussion, it is interesting.  

As for scientific evidence to support the historicity, I would agree with you that there isn't anything substantial that a person would expect to have found for such a large civilization.  I think this is why the apologetics have shifted to limited geography models in recent years.  However, I think the real shift now needs to be away from the historicity debate all together.  It seems to me like the most effective approach is to mirror the BoA and talk about the BoM as a spiritual text, not necessarily tied to any specific historical events, but yet still inspired.  The BoM as midrash.  

 

Thanks for the link...I'll have to check it out.  If the church came out and said the BoM was an inspired fiction and did not actually take place, I think that would be personally easier for me to believe/accept.  But when you expect me to believe that an entire people lived and existed (without any actual evidence) solely on spiritual promptings/feelings, that's something I can't accept, especially with the overwhelming lack of evidence to support its historicity.  

There are parts of the BoM I really enjoy (Mosiah and Alma), but I don't believe these people/prophets actually existed.  

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Thanks for the link...I'll have to check it out.  If the church came out and said the BoM was an inspired fiction and did not actually take place, I think that would be personally easier for me to believe/accept.  But when you expect me to believe that an entire people lived and existed (without any actual evidence) solely on spiritual promptings/feelings, that's something I can't accept, especially with the overwhelming lack of evidence to support its historicity.  

There are parts of the BoM I really enjoy (Mosiah and Alma), but I don't believe these people/prophets actually existed.  

Don't hold your breath on the church coming out and making a statement like that.  I think it is reasonable to expect that the views of those who don't find the evidence for historicity compelling, to be more widely tolerated in the future instead of shunned.  I think that's what you see in some Christian churches with respect to biblical literalism today.  At the same time other Christian churches have pushed back and become more fundamentalist, so there is always that risk as well.  

Perhaps another division in the Mormon church will happen at some point, who knows. If that division were to happen by the more metaphorical believers, they wouldn't be claiming the one and only true authority because typically people that don't see the BoM as historical also don't hold strongly to the dogma of exclusive authority.  So there will probably always be a group of believers who are strongly confident in their position that they have exclusive truth and that the BoM is 100% historical, in spite of evidence otherwise.  

[stemelbow]

50 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Thanks for the link...I'll have to check it out.  If the church came out and said the BoM was an inspired fiction and did not actually take place, I think that would be personally easier for me to believe/accept.  But when you expect me to believe that an entire people lived and existed (without any actual evidence) solely on spiritual promptings/feelings, that's something I can't accept, especially with the overwhelming lack of evidence to support its historicity.  

There are parts of the BoM I really enjoy (Mosiah and Alma), but I don't believe these people/prophets actually existed.  

The book need not be read literally for it to be beneficial scripture to someone.  I have no idea why the Church feels it necessary to be so exclusive on this front.  A man can be benefitted by it's teachings, says some past leader.  why worry about something we haven't been able to prove?  Try and we might we still lose every single debate trying to verify the book of Mormon events took place as the book says.  hey , don't get me wrong, let Brant and company do all they can to add to the nuance of the discussion.  It can be interesting and give us more reason to challenge our assumptions.  But...we can't fault someone for coming to a different conclusion when they look into the history.  We should embrace them. 

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The book need not be read literally for it to be beneficial scripture to someone.  I have no idea why the Church feels it necessary to be so exclusive on this front.  A man can be benefitted by it's teachings, says some past leader.  why worry about something we haven't been able to prove?  Try and we might we still lose every single debate trying to verify the book of Mormon events took place as the book says.  hey , don't get me wrong, let Brant and company do all they can to add to the nuance of the discussion.  It can be interesting and give us more reason to challenge our assumptions.  But...we can't fault someone for coming to a different conclusion when they look into the history.  We should embrace them.

What do you mean by "embrace"?

 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, James Tunney said:

I don't know what there is to debate. Also, the point was to have scholars in the field debate each other over the issue. Prof. Jenkins asked for evidence and Prof. Hamblin couldn't come up with anything to show that the nephites or lamanites existed. He had to back away from the akish claims. Is there anything new to add?

Well, You could always open a new thread on the subject of your choice, since the Hamblin-Jenkins debate settled nothing.  I have repeatedly published on the Book of Mormon over the years and have yet to be refuted.  Debate that.

Smith, Robert F., “’It Came To Pass’ in the Bible and the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Preliminary Report SMI-80b (Provo: FARMS, 1980/updated 1981, 1983);  Online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/39997996/It-Came-to-Pass-in-the-Bible-and-Book-of-Mormon ; and at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/PreliminaryReports/Smith,%20Robert%20F.,%20%22It%20Came%20to%20Pass%22%20in%20the%20Bible%20and%20the%20Book%20of%20Mormon.pdf ; enhanced version online at http://premormon.com/resources/r003/003Smith.pdf .

Smith, Robert F.  “New Information About Mulek, Son of the King,” FARMS Update, Feb 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 142-144. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=806 , at https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.512692608797549.1073741834.121491024584378&type=3 ,  and at http://www.idumea.org/Etudes/Ecritures/LM/Mulek.htm .

Smith, Robert F.  “’The Land of Jerusalem’: The Place of Jesus Birth,” FARMS Update, May 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 170-172. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=814 .

Smith, Robert F.  “The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278.  Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847 , .and at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=81

Smith, Robert F.  “Book of Mormon Event Structure: The Ancient Near East,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 5/2 (1996):98-147.  Online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1391&index=5 .

Smith, Robert F.  “Assessing the Broad Impact of Jack Welch’s Discovery of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 16/2 (2007):68-73.  Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=16&num=2&id=447 ,

Smith, Robert F., “Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review, 22/2 (2010):125-135, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=807,  and at  https://www.pdffiller.com/53503659-S00005-5176a09fdc8d04Smithpdf-Epistolary-Form-in-the-Book-of-Mormon-Robert-F-Smith-FARMS--Various-Fillable-Forms .  

Smith, Robert F., “Book of Mormon Theologies: A Thumbnail Sketch,” lecture delivered at the September 2012 annual meeting of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology (SMPT), at Utah State University, Logan, Utah, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH .

Smith, Robert F., “Evaluating the Sources of 2 Nephi 1:13-15: Shakespeare and the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 21/2 (2013):98-103, online at http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/22/2/8Smith_Evaluating%20Sources%20of%202%20Nephi.pdf .

Smith, Robert F., “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 .

 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

I agree it's certainly possible, and that the evidence has eluded us. I'm just saying the evidence we have to date does not support a direct migration of Semitic peoples to the Americas, and especially not within the BOM timeline. Of course even that wouldn't be enough to establish the existence of Nephites.

You are quite right on both counts, but what you are saying is largely irrelevant given the lack of actual research into the matter.  You are vastly overestimating what has been done.

Quote

Personally I think if the Nephites had existed we would have found some archaeological evidence by now - just as we found archaeological evidence of Viking settlements. 

As Brant has pointed out here (and at great length in his 6-volume commentary), there is plenty of archeological evidence in support of the Book of Mormon.  John Sorenson, another anthropologist, has done the same in two substantial books.  Are you aware of them?  Do you understand the nature of the evidence?

Edited November 16, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

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

They are finding artifacts and remains of other groups of people around the world, but nothing to support the BoM. 

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

So, it's as if the people in the BoM just disappeared without a trace...

You might try reading up on the subject, and I don't mean scanning anti-Mormon websites for the latest nonsense.  I mean reading substantive works on ancient America by non-Mormon authors.  Then read what Mormon anthropologists have written.  You will be struck by two things: (1) Mormon anthropologsts use the same evidence and value it the same as the non-Mormon ahthropologists, and (2) there is considerable evidence in support of the Book of Mormon. 

So cease with the apriori mockery, read something substantial, and learn.

 

[Brant Gardner]

19 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

EDIT: Below I employ Nick Frederick's proposed methodology for analyzing the likelihood of an intertextuality. The methodology includes shared terminology, proximity of multiple examples in both texts, sequence of multiple examples in both texts, dissimilarity of shared terminology to the rest of the Bible and Book of Mormon, and context.

Real quick, here is one example of a phrasal allusion from the bunch:

Alma 19:8-9
8 And he saith unto the queen: He is not dead, but he sleepeth in God; and on the morrow he shall rise again. Therefore bury him not. 9 And Ammon saith unto her: Believest thou this? And she said unto him: I have had no witness save thy word and the word of our servants. Nevertheless I believe that it shall be according as thou hast said.

There is nothing here that changes my comments. Frederick was using phrases to show language dependency on the KJV. That is rather obvious and pretty easily discerned. That says nothing about the original language of the text, only the nature of the translated English. Which is the point I have been making.

The next examples are not verbal, but are assumed parallels of function. Those fall into the problem of parallels. That means that it is too simple to show similarities without analysis that can show more specific dependencies. It also means that drawing similarities without recognizing important differences is evidence of the incorrect use of the methodology--hence parallelomania. 

So, yes, this is a longer version--but no, it doesn't change the problematic nature of the analysis. 

[Brant Gardner]

6 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Battles with millions of people and still not a trace?  Even if those battles had far less than a million...still nothing has been found.  

Read Aztec history.