Where did the Book of Mormon come from?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Did Joseph Smith ever "deny creating the text". 

He never attributed the text to his own creative abilities, his own imagination.  He uniformly and consistently declared it to be a translated work derived from an ancient historical record.

So in that sense, yes, he "den{ied} creating the text."

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I understand what you're saying.  You're definitely approaching a relationship to the BoM very differently than how I currently relate to it.  My only problem with the approach you articulate and the quotes from others who share this approach, is that you are trying to say that other approaches not only don't work for you.  That would be perfectly acceptable to acknowledge.  But when people start to make sweeping universal claims that condemn the approach of others as illegitimate for them.  That is when I think a perspective goes to far in my book.  

I do not think I have gone too far.  I have explained why I find naturalistic and/or "inspired fiction"-type explanations for the Book of Mormon to be problematic.  It doesn't work for me.  At all.  It is "illegitimate" in my view.  Why is saying so going "too far?"

I will also note that I have previously said this:

Quote

I think those who seek salvation, but who reject the messengers who bring it, are in serious error.  Nevertheless, as deeply flawed as their position is, I welcome such persons who buy into the "inspired fiction" meme in fellowship in the Church.  We are all of us working to improve our understanding of God and His plans for us.  It is not for me to withdraw or withhold fellowship from those who differ from me on this issue.  I also won't speculate as to their standing in the Church generally, and will instead leave such things to those who are in authority and have proper stewardship.

I stand by this.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The most important testimony of witnesses that supports my thesis in this thread is the testimony that Joseph dictated the text. 

Nobody disputes "that Joseph dictated the text."  The question is whether the text is a fiction, the result of Joseph's creative imagination (or of some other unidentified contemporary), or whether it is . . . what Joseph Smith declared it to be (a translation of an ancient record).

"That Joseph dictated the text" is a component of both theories.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

If there were any testimony to suggest that Joseph had a pre-written text that he brought to a scribe to ask them to transcribe, then that would really change the evaluation, and we'd have to wonder if Joseph wrote that pre-written text.  But because all the witnesses support this idea that Joseph was the voice of the BoM, that is the strongest supporting information that supports that Joseph was the author of the text.  

It is also information that supports that Joseph was the translator of the text.

"That Joseph dictated the text" is undisputed evidence, but also ambiguous evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Kevin,

Humans have a very strong proficiency with respect to finding patterns in the noise.  Think of all the time spent on the BoM, all the time spent on the Book of Revelation and end times predictions, all the time spent looking for parallels and patterns, and finding them.  We are good at making connections whether or not the original author actually intended on any of these parallels, or purposefully crafted these complexities.   I know this sounds dismissive, and it probably is.  

My starting assumption is that Joseph didn't have any supernatural abilities.  That whatever he was doing, however he was creating, was all based on natural abilities.  So, I'll admit that I don't personally believe its possible for Joseph to translate an ancient language that he couldn't read.  I also don't believe some unseen force communicated to Joseph's brain a detailed and accurate account of another civilization.  I believe it was all a function of creative imagination.   These beliefs come from the observations I've made about religion and nature and the world, and while my beliefs will likely change with time, I feel fairly comfortable with these ideas at present.  

But I want to take the contents of the BoM seriously, in spite of these basic assumptions on my part.  Lest I be accused of prejudice, these basic assumptions I just listed apply to other books of scripture as well.  I want to take the BoM seriously as a book that my faith community finds valuable because it contains principles that about life, and morality and faith that we can learn from and that as we wrestle with together we can be enriched on our journey.  This is what I find valuable about scripture for me personally.  

 

Let's assume arguendo (thank you Trey) Joseph Smith made it all up out of his imagination. Given his limited life experience, lack of formal education, poverty, less-than-stellar writing skills, provincial up-bringing, etc., what do you think a romance involving native peoples of North America would look like? What kind of words, objects, concepts, religious and ethical principles, theology, people, names, places would he include in his book? Using the evidence of his knowledge and abilities at the time the BoM was written, what do you think that book would look like?

Edited March 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

On 3/4/2018 at 10:32 AM, Gray said:

This is self-contradictory. Historical scholarship deals exclusively with naturalistic explanations - it has no access to the supernatural.

And yet those who present "naturalistic explanations" for the origins of the Book of Mormon pretty much always end up basing such things on A) setting aside percipient witness testimony and evidence, and B) instead relying on speculation and guesswork.

On 3/4/2018 at 10:32 AM, Gray said:

And of course historians prefer witness testimony from witnesses who are neither strong partisans or enemies. In Mormon history, neutral observers are hard to find!

Interesting, then, that so many of the percipient witnesses were, for long periods of time, estranged from Joseph Smith and the LDS Church.  I am thinking here of the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, Emma Smith, and so on. 

For example, Oliver Cowdery was out of fellowship for ten years (1838-1848), and was re-baptized 16 months before his death.  Martin Harris was estranged from Joseph Smith and the Church from about 1837 to his death in 1875, or about 38 years.  In 1870, he wrote ""no man ever heard me in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon."  David Whitmer was estranged from 1837 until his death in 1888, or about 51 years.  In 1880, he specifically an emphatically rejected an assertion that he had denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon, declaring that "I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement: That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that Book, as one of the three witnesses."

So we have around 99 years of cumulative estrangement from the Church and from Joseph Smith, which rather strongly suggests that these three were not "strong partisans" in favor of the Church.  And yet they all continuously affirmed their testimony of the Book of Mormon, which rather makes it difficult to characterize them as "enemies" as well.  

The Three Witnesses, then, make for pretty interesting sources of information.  And yet folks who espouse naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon either ignore their testimony or else try really, really hard to re-characterize it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I am not trying, nor seeking to be unkind, but inferring that Iand others are blind to the truth, or seeking to deceive, by only pointing out only the positive aspects of Scripture, and ignoring all else. Is a polite way of suggesting that we (to quote Scripture), "...lie and wait to deceive...". And even worse we lie to our children, and send them out to lie and deceive the world. Also, we do so, and our own expense, as we wish others to believe our error. Either way, this debate is pointless, if everything we say is instantly dismissed. Just as spelled out in Lehi's vision, it is where many who once believed, find their way to the upper floors, of the "...Large and Spacious building...", and there point their finger at those who still believe. "Laughing us to scorn". So, I will make further attempts to testify or show the truth in this thread, as they are clearly unwelcome. My God bless you and keep you safe in whatever path you choose. I will miss you. and enjoyed you when a member.     

Papa,

I sense a sincere concern in your comments, but I had a hard time following your points.  Thanks for your concern, but I'm feeling fine and well adjusted in my current belief structure.  And I am still a member, although apparently not in the vein of thinking you're inhabiting.  I don't characterize either your perspective or mine as attempting any kind of deception.  I don't think literalists are trying to deceive their children, and I wouldn't stereotype any particular group as being in the great and spacious building.  That story of the building is a metaphor that can apply to all of us in some sense.  I think whenever we seek not to understand and have compassion on others, then we are inhabiting that spacious building.  But when we love and serve and seek to lift others we are choosing to share that fruit of the love of God.  

Best to you as well, hopefully we won't miss each other too much, since I'm not planning on going anywhere.  :-)  

[hope_for_things]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He never attributed the text to his own creative abilities, his own imagination.  He uniformly and consistently declared it to be a translated work derived from an ancient historical record.

So in that sense, yes, he "den{ied} creating the text."

So no denial by Joseph.  I would think with your legal background and attention to the meaning of words that you wouldn't try and stretch this meaning.  I know what you're saying, but its still not a denial.  

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do not think I have gone too far.  I have explained why I find naturalistic and/or "inspired fiction"-type explanations for the Book of Mormon to be problematic.  It doesn't work for me.  At all.  It is "illegitimate" in my view.  Why is saying so going "too far?"

I will also note that I have previously said this:

Ok, so I re-read your statement, and I don't have a huge problem with the statement as it stands, but you seem to then contradict your statement when you use words like illegitimate.  The difference for me is that I see some value in the way you orient towards the BoM and your beliefs about it, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge the same for people like me.  Of course I prefer my current orientation and thinks its backed by the most logical assessment of the facts on this subject, but I can still acknowledge and support how you orient in your perspective, and I don't feel at all threatened by it.  The converse doesn't seem to be true in that you seem threatened by my perspective and unwilling to treat my vantage point with the same amount of charity as I'm treating yours.  

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nobody disputes "that Joseph dictated the text."  The question is whether the text is a fiction, the result of Joseph's creative imagination (or of some other unidentified contemporary), or whether it is . . . what Joseph Smith declared it to be (a translation of an ancient record).

Technically I would say that I believe it is fiction, but I don't like the use of that word when it comes to scripture because of its pejorative connotation.  I think of the BoM as creative literature with elements of inspiration.  From a practical perspective, I don't see how anyone could prove what elements of the BoM are creative imagination vs. what elements are inspired.  Asking what is inspired is like asking what is beautiful, its in the eye of the beholder. 

 

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Let's assume arguendo (thank you Trey) Joseph Smith made it all up out of his imagination. Given his limited life experience, lack of formal education, poverty, less-than-stellar writing skills, provincial up-bringing, etc., what do you think a romance involving native peoples of North America would look like? What kind of words, objects, concepts, religious and ethical principles, theology, people, names, places would he include in his book? Using the evidence of his knowledge and abilities at the time the BoM was written, what do you think that book would look like?

Who's Trey? 

As for your thought experiment, I'm not sure what you're getting at.  We don't need to wonder what Joseph would have produced, we have what he did produce already, and he did it with his knowledge and abilities.  Is there any other way that someone can produce something?   

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So no denial by Joseph. 

Yes, a denial by Joseph.  In pretty much every statement he ever made about the origins of the Book of Mormon.  He declared it to be a translation of an ancient record.

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would think with your legal background and attention to the meaning of words that you wouldn't try and stretch this meaning.  I know what you're saying, but its still not a denial.  

I wasn't expecting tendentiousness.

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, so I re-read your statement, and I don't have a huge problem with the statement as it stands, but you seem to then contradict your statement when you use words like illegitimate. 

Not really.

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The difference for me is that I see some value in the way you orient towards the BoM and your beliefs about it, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge the same for people like me. 

Sure I do.  Again: "I think those who seek salvation, but who reject the messengers who bring it, are in serious error.  Nevertheless, as deeply flawed as their position is, I welcome such persons who buy into the 'inspired fiction' meme in fellowship in the Church.  We are all of us working to improve our understanding of God and His plans for us.  It is not for me to withdraw or withhold fellowship from those who differ from me on this issue.  I also won't speculate as to their standing in the Church generally, and will instead leave such things to those who are in authority and have proper stewardship."

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Of course I prefer my current orientation and thinks its backed by the most logical assessment of the facts on this subject, but I can still acknowledge and support how you orient in your perspective, and I don't feel at all threatened by it. 

I don't feel "threatened" by your position, either.  It's not a matter of feeling "threatened."  It's a matter of members of the Church advocating things that I find very difficult to reconcile with the teachings of the Church.  As I said here (emphasis added):

Quote

Can a person have faith in The Book of Mormon while simultaneously rejecting The Book of Mormon as to its historicity? I don't think so. Such a concept renders Joseph Smith a fraud and a liar, and the book itself a fraud and a lie. A fictional Book of Mormon has no real power, and renders it as nothing more than a quirky self-help book. It becomes no more relevant to the salvation of men than Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins or How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. These are useful books, to be sure. For some, they are even life changing. But The Book of Mormon declares itself to be the word of God through inspired prophets.

Can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Christ a fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save.

{Similarly,} I think the Inspired Fiction folks have not really thought through the ramifications of their proposal.   The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship." This is why I find advocacy of this approach problematic. Such advocates are steering others up a spiritual blind alley; a path, I think, which sooner or later will culminate in a crisis of faith and/or a rejection of The Book of Mormon. After all, one who rejects its historicity has already rejected a substantive, even vital, part of the book. Rejecting the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time.  I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. Ambivalence about historicity is perhaps possible, but affirmative denial is, I think, not compatible with an enduring and efficacious testimony of The Book of Mormon.

I would be happy to be proven wrong about this, but I don't think I am.  I have already had personal experience with this phenomenon.

If you can make your position work with continued activity and fellowship in the Church, then I am happy to hear it.  Not everyone is as fortunate.

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The converse doesn't seem to be true in that you seem threatened by my perspective and unwilling to treat my vantage point with the same amount of charity as I'm treating yours.  

I don't understand.  What have I said that is uncharitable?

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Technically I would say that I believe it is fiction, but I don't like the use of that word when it comes to scripture because of its pejorative connotation. 

That is quite understandable.  Belief in a "fictional" Christ would not inspire much in the way of devotion, consecration, and enduring discipleship.  

Belief in a "fictional" Book of Mormon is, for me, likewise problematic.  As Elder Oaks put it: "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived."  And Kent P. Jackson: 

Quote

Can the Book of Mormon indeed be 'true,' in any sense, if it lies repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately regarding its own historicity? Can Joseph Smith be viewed with any level of credibility if he repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lied concerning the historicity of the book? Can we have any degree of confidence in what are presented as the words of God in the Doctrine and Covenants if they repeatedly, explicitly, and deliberately lie by asserting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, what possible cause would anyone have to accept anything of the work of Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints given the consistent assertions that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that describes ancient events?" (Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson, pp. 137-138.)

I don't mean to antagonize you.  Honest.  I just hope you will reconsider your position.

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think of the BoM as creative literature with elements of inspiration. 

Okay.  I understand that.

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

From a practical perspective, I don't see how anyone could prove what elements of the BoM are creative imagination vs. what elements are inspired.  Asking what is inspired is like asking what is beautiful, its in the eye of the beholder. 

I can't accept the Book of Mormon on such grounds.  Either Lehi or Nephi existed, or they did not.  Either they traveled to the Americas, or not.  Either their descendants kept a record of events and persons and teachings for 1,000 years or so, or not.  Either one of their descendents, Mormon, abridged that record, or not.  Either there were actual metal plates buried by Mormon's son, Moroni, or not.  Either Joseph Smith was told about these plates by a then-resurrected angelic Moroni, or not.  Either Joseph eventually obtained physical possession of those plates, or not.  Either he translated the record found on those plates through divine means, or not.  Either the Three and Eight Witnesses saw these plates, or not.  Either the Angel Moroni showed these plates to the Three Witnesses, and they heard the voice of God testify of them, or not.

I don't claim to understand all things, or anything close to it.  But I cannot reject these foundational elements of Joseph Smith's narrative.  It's not a matter of "what is beautiful."  It's a matter of what is true.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And yet those who present "naturalistic explanations" for the origins of the Book of Mormon pretty much always end up basing such things on A) setting aside percipient witness testimony and evidence, and B) instead relying on speculation and guesswork.

Eye witness testimony is great, but it can only get you so far. How much credibility do you give to people who give eye witness testimony of alien abductions? What happens when the eye witness testimony doesn't match the physical evidence? Usually the physical evidence wins. And of course with the Book of Mormon our eye witnesses are extremely partisan, so a good historian will not simply take their statements at face value, especially without considering other evidence. Another problem is the witnesses we do have aren't independent.

 

Quote

Interesting, then, that so many of the percipient witnesses were, for long periods of time, estranged from Joseph Smith and the LDS Church.  I am thinking here of the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, Emma Smith, and so on. 

For example, Oliver Cowdery was out of fellowship for ten years (1838-1848), and was re-baptized 16 months before his death.  Martin Harris was estranged from Joseph Smith and the Church from about 1837 to his death in 1875, or about 38 years.  In 1870, he wrote ""no man ever heard me in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon."  David Whitmer was estranged from 1837 until his death in 1888, or about 51 years.  In 1880, he specifically an emphatically rejected an assertion that he had denied his testimony of the Book of Mormon, declaring that "I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement: That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that Book, as one of the three witnesses."

So we have around 99 years of cumulative estrangement from the Church and from Joseph Smith, which rather strongly suggests that these three were not "strong partisans" in favor of the Church.  And yet they all continuously affirmed their testimony of the Book of Mormon, which rather makes it difficult to characterize them as "enemies" as well.  

The Three Witnesses, then, make for pretty interesting sources of information.  And yet folks who espouse naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon either ignore their testimony or else try really, really hard to re-characterize it.

Thanks,

-Smac

They were all strong pro-"Mormonism" partisans, even if they disagreed with some church leaders.

You bring up Martin Harris - he was rebaptized in 1870, so yes, he was a strong partisan when he made that statement, and out of options too, financially.

But even the testimony of many neutral observers, or testimony contra to self interest,  wouldn't be strong enough to overcome other evidence against the book's historicity. The spiritual evidence is, of course, a totally different subject. Historians have no access to spiritual evidence - not when they're acting as historians.

 

Edited March 5, 2018 by Gray

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The most important testimony of witnesses that supports my thesis in this thread is the testimony that Joseph dictated the text.  If there were any testimony to suggest that Joseph had a pre-written text that he brought to a scribe to ask them to transcribe, then that would really change the evaluation, and we'd have to wonder if Joseph wrote that pre-written text.  But because all the witnesses support this idea that Joseph was the voice of the BoM, that is the strongest supporting information that supports that Joseph was the author of the text.  

 

Let me understand. 

Suppose I am translating the Iliad  by Homer for publication.

If I personally write the translation on paper,  then Homner is the author.  But if I dictate the translation to my secretary who writes it down, then I myself become the author.  What am I missing here?

Edited March 5, 2018 by cdowis

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I know this is petty, but he is listed as the author on Amazon. Okay, that is really reaching.

Also, Joseph did attempt to sell the copyright of the book in Canada once. I wonder if he had, what would have happened, no CoJCoLDS?

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Attempt_to_sell_copyright

Did you read the link?  Why do you think there would have been no Church just because they were able to publish the BoM in Canada as well as the US?

Edit:  my apologies, I assumed the reasons they needed to sell the copyright in order to publish in Canada was in the FM account since I have answered that question for FM a few times...I will post a link to the paper, but in essence copyright law in Canada at the time required it.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/securing-prophets-copyright-book-mormon-historical-and-legal-context-so-called-canadian

"In the end, what did Joseph Smith accomplish on June 11, 1829, when the title of the Book of Mormon was deposited with the clerk of the United States District Court? He took the rst step, and perhaps what then could be argued was the only meaningfully mandatory step, toward securing a post- publication copyright in the Book of Mormon in the United States, making his copyright legally enforceable in federal court. What did the Prophet accomplish in the Abner Cole incident? He enforced through arbitration his author’s common-law, prepublication right in his copy. And what did Joseph Smith accomplish by conveying to the emissaries the revealed command that they go to Kingston? He commissioned them to go, as author’s agents, to sell a right to his copy in Canada as part of an effort to obtain funds necessary to pay the printer in Palmyra. It was also a necessary step in complying with the Lord’s injunction that the Prophet’s copyright be secured in all the world generally and be secured in the four Canadian provinces specifically by seeking to find a willing publisher in Canada who would purchase the right so that piracy would be thwarted, the integrity of the text could be preserved, and the word of God could be promulgated in that land. The effort was consistent with legal principles in the United States and Canada. And no doubt it reinforced in the minds of the early brethren the importance and value of the copyright held by the Prophet."

Edited March 5, 2018 by Calm

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Papa,

I sense a sincere concern in your comments, but I had a hard time following your points.  Thanks for your concern, but I'm feeling fine and well adjusted in my current belief structure.  And I am still a member, although apparently not in the vein of thinking you're inhabiting.  I don't characterize either your perspective or mine as attempting any kind of deception.  I don't think literalists are trying to deceive their children, and I wouldn't stereotype any particular group as being in the great and spacious building.  That story of the building is a metaphor that can apply to all of us in some sense.  I think whenever we seek not to understand and have compassion on others, then we are inhabiting that spacious building.  But when we love and serve and seek to lift others we are choosing to share that fruit of the love of God.  

Best to you as well, hopefully we won't miss each other too much, since I'm not planning on going anywhere.  :-)  

I am sorry that you are having trouble following my posts. I am sure it is my continuing struggles in posting that has caused this confusion. Indeed we are all at different points in our lives. My son who more than two decades ago, (while in boot camp "jail") asked a "Christian Chaplin" if he could get a Book of Mormon for him to read. This Pastor refused his request for the same reason, he did not believe in it's origin, nor that it was the word of God, translated from ancient texts or plates. It was not until I got a letter that I learned, that he told my son that ther was no circumstance that my son would ever get this, "book from hell". I had to contact my Stake President to make sure he got one. When my son received a copy, and during his reading he asked me; Dad, "I was reading about Laman and Lemuel, vs, Nephi and Sam, which one am I". My reply was that within all are lives, at times we are both! If these people never existed, and the Book of Mormon was not what it is believed by the Church to be, I would leave the Church the moment I found this out. 

It is the overpowering testimony I relieved the day I received the book, that keeps me here 39 years later. If that was just an illusion or a delusion, then I would go and seek out the truth while I still have time. Who knows my continuing difficulty remembering, and making myself understood is because the delusion is, or has taken over. But if the Book of Mormon is a lie, and just an uplifting story, it is not worth eternal damnation and hell over. Also, most assuredly not worth the souls of my wife, children and grandchildren, if in error, then the book be damned, instead of me. Forgive any confusion I have caused you, truly, forgive me. 

[cdowis]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

Eye witness testimony is great, but it can only get you so far. How much credibility do you give to people who give eye witness testimony of alien abductions?

If there are multiple witnesses to the same event, who have actual physical contact with the alien -- each of eight witnesses carefully examine him closely, and they literally pick him up and "heft" him, I would take that more seriously then someone who simply says, "I don't believe it", regardless of their academic credentials.

What happens when the eye witness testimony doesn't match the physical evidence?

Please be specific.  To what "physical evidence" are you referring regarding the eyewitness testimony?

Usually the physical evidence wins. And of course with the Book of Mormon our eye witnesses are extremely partisan, so a good historian will not simply take their statements at face value, especially without considering other evidence.

When it comes to an angel delivering gold plates, a "good"scholar would reject it out of hand since "angels do not exist". End of story.

 

They were all strong pro-Mormon partisans, even if they disagreed with some church leaders.

They are the ONLY ones willing to examine the evidence.  Please give us a list of of archaeologists, for example, who have  read the Book of Mormon and carefully examined its claims.

You bring up Martin Harris - he was rebaptized in 1870, so yes, he was a strong partisan when he made that statement, and out of options too, financially.

Yawn

But even the testimony of many neutral observers, or testimony contra to self interest,  wouldn't be strong enough to overcome other evidence against the book's historicity. The spiritual evidence is, of course, a totally different subject.

Such is the fate of a book delivered by an angel.

 

Edited March 5, 2018 by cdowis

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Eye witness testimony is great, but it can only get you so far.

Agreed.  All forms of evidence have strengths and weaknesses.

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

How much credibility do you give to people who give eye witness testimony of alien abductions?

In isolation and without corroborating evidence?  Now knowing them or their character or mental health?  Not much.

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

What happens when the eye witness testimony doesn't match the physical evidence?

Even physical evidence has its limitations.  Hence we see things like the "CSI Effect."

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Usually the physical evidence wins.

Not sure what you mean here.  What "physical evidence" exists as to the origins of the Book of Mormon?  I think the closest thing we have is the Original Manuscript.  Hence the scholarship of Royal Skousen becomes rather interesting.  Here's a brief summary of it by Daniel Peterson:

Quote

{T}he evidence strongly supports the traditional account in saying that the original manuscript was orally dictated. The kinds of errors that occur in the manuscript are clearly those that occur from a scribe mishearing, rather than from visually misreading while copying from another manuscript. (The printer’s manuscript, by contrast, shows precisely the types of anomalies that one would expect from a copyist’s errors.) Professor Skousen’s meticulous analysis even suggests that Joseph was working with up to twenty to thirty words at a time.

More here: How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

And of course with the Book of Mormon our eye witnesses are extremely partisan,

They are?  Partisan in what way?  Pro or con?  How do you account for, say, the Three Witnesses repeatedly reaffirming their testimony after they were estranged from Joseph Smith and the Church?  How do you characterize such reaffirmations as "extremely partisan" given that they occurred during long periods of estrangement from the entity (the LDS Church) whose claims were being corroborated by those reaffirmations?

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

so a good historian will not simply take their statements at face value, especially without considering other evidence.

Oh, I agree with that.  I'm not opposed to that at all.

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

They were all strong pro-"Mormonism" partisans, even if they disagreed with some church leaders.

They were?  Do you account for David Whitmer?  He never re-joined the Church.  Consider his 1881 "Proclamation":

Quote

I wish here to state:

That I do not endorse polygamy or spiritual wifeism. It is a great evil, shocking to the moral sense, and the more so, because practiced in the name of religion. It is of man and not God, and is especially forbidden in the Book of Mormon itself.

...

Finally, I do not endorse any of the teachings of the so-called Mormons, of Latter Day Saints, which are in conflict with the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as taught in the Bible and Book of Mormon; for the same gospel is plainly taught in both of these books as I understand the word of God.

David Whitmer, who publicly declared that he "{did} not endorse any of the teachings of the so-called Mormons," was also a "Pro-'Mormonism' partisan?"

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

But even the testimony of many neutral observers, or testimony contra to self interest, 

Huh?  Which "many neutral observers" are you referencing here?

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

wouldn't be strong enough to overcome other evidence against the book's historicity.

Well yes, it certainly could be.

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

The spiritual evidence is, of course, a totally different subject.  Historians have no access to spiritual evidence - not when they're acting as historians.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what you mean here.  What "physical evidence" exists as to the origins of the Book of Mormon?  I think the closest thing we have is the Original Manuscript.  Hence the scholarship of Royal Skousen becomes rather interesting.  Here's a brief summary of it by Daniel Peterson:

I was using physical evidence as a for instance. In the BOM case, the evidence for is lacking, and the anachronisms in the text are incredibly numerous. Most especially, in my view, the anachronisms of theology and philosophy throughout the text. A dozen interdependent witnesses cannot overcome the challenges the book faces on many different fronts.

 

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

They are?  Partisan in what way?  Pro or con?  How do you account for, say, the Three Witnesses repeatedly reaffirming their testimony after they were estranged from Joseph Smith and the Church?  How do you characterize such reaffirmations as "extremely partisan" given that they occurred during long periods of estrangement from the entity (the LDS Church) whose claims were being corroborated by those reaffirmations?

Partisan as in they are religious believers. The church evolved in a way that left a bad taste in their mouths, but that does not mean they abandon their original religious beliefs.

 

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Oh, I agree with that.  I'm not opposed to that at all.

They were?  Do you account for David Whitmer?  He never re-joined the Church.  Consider his 1881 "Proclamation":

David Whitmer, who publicly declared that he "{did} not endorse any of the teachings of the so-called Mormons," was also a "Pro-'Mormonism' partisan?"

Pro-"Mormonism". As in, the system of religion that he felt the LDS Church had abandoned through the transgressions he perceived it had made. He was an early species of Mormon fundamentalist.

 

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Huh?  Which "many neutral observers" are you referencing here?

None that I know of. Sorry, I meant to say, even if we had such witnesses, their testimony wouldn't be enough to establish the Book's historicity.

 

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Well yes, it certainly could be.

Agreed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Who's Trey? 

As for your thought experiment, I'm not sure what you're getting at.  We don't need to wonder what Joseph would have produced, we have what he did produce already, and he did it with his knowledge and abilities.  Is there any other way that someone can produce something?   

Gowdy.

Yes. Another possibility is that he was the translator, not the author.

So, let's assume arguendo that another uneducated New England farm boy made up a book about the native peoples of North America from his imagination. Given his limited life experience, lack of formal education, poverty, less-than-stellar writing skills, provincial up-bringing, etc., what do you think his romance would look like? What kind of words, objects, concepts, religious and ethical principles, theology, people, names, places would he include in his book? Using the evidence of his knowledge and abilities at the time his book was written, what do you think that book would look like?

Do you think it would more likely resemble , the writings of Solomon Spaulding, Washington Irving, George Catlin, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Fennimore Cooper, and the popular pulp novels and newspaper articles of the time or the Book of Mormon? 

How do we maintain that Joseph Smith was the single author and creator and still account for this?

Quote

How has the perspective of an entire race of multi-national people managed to remain static even into the present age of information and technology? Ultimately, the overarching origin for this skewed national perspective of the Native American lies in the stereotypes perpetuated by this culture‘s media. Over five hundred years after the first recorded commentary about American Indians, the pre-conceived notions of what defines indigenous people in North America seem like they have always been present, a constant thread woven into the framework of American culture. Contemporary writers, activists, and civil rights groups have struggled to overcome the pervasive effect of these longstanding stereotypes with inconsistent results. Perhaps their failure to do so lies partly in not fully understanding the origins of such generalities. The source of the national opinion on Native Americans lies in the manipulation of early authors documenting their perspective of Indian living. That influence increased tenfold when the United States began to experience westward settlement and a rise of its own, individual literature. Fiction writers took early assumptions about American Indians a built and industry upon them, turning the misrepresentation into a tool for glorifying ―American Heroes,‖ such as Buffalo Bill and Natty Bumppo. Essentially, the very roots of what defines American culture today have an intimate relationship with how American writers responded to the presence of the American Indian in this country. ....

Contemporary [21st century] writers, activists, and civil rights groups have struggled to overcome the pervasive effect of these longstanding stereotypes with inconsistent results. Perhaps their failure to do so lies partly in not fully understanding the origins of such generalities. The source of the national opinion on Native Americans lies in the manipulation of early authors documenting their perspective of Indian living. That influence increased tenfold when the United States began to experience westward settlement and a rise of its own, individual literature. Fiction writers took early assumptions about American Indians a built and industry upon them, turning the misrepresentation into a tool for glorifying ―American Heroes, such as Buffalo Bill and Natty Bumppo. Essentially, the very roots of what defines American culture today have an intimate relationship with how American writers responded to the presence of the American Indian in this country. 

https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/baylor-ir/bitstream/handle/2104/5247/Lacy_Cotton_masters.pdf?sequence=1

I think it would look more like those other contemporary works that depicted Native Americans at the time and told stories based on those common stereotypes, using the paraphernalia and lore popularly associated with them. 

Edited March 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Let's assume arguendo (thank you Trey) Joseph Smith made it all up out of his imagination. Given his limited life experience, lack of formal education, poverty, less-than-stellar writing skills, provincial up-bringing, etc., what do you think a romance involving native peoples of North America would look like? What kind of words, objects, concepts, religious and ethical principles, theology, people, names, places would he include in his book? Using the evidence of his knowledge and abilities at the time the BoM was written, what do you think that book would look like?

See Solomon Spaulding's opus for a hint of how such came from an educated man.

Glenn

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, cdowis said:

If there are multiple witnesses to the same event, who have actual physical contact with the alien -- each of eight witnesses carefully examine him closely, and they literally pick him up and "heft" him, I would take that more seriously then someone who simply says, "I don't believe it", regardless of their academic credentials.

Let me put it this way. We know that eye witnesses sometimes get things wrong. We don't know that aliens have abducted anyone. We don't know that angels exist. So eye witness testimony to the kinds of fantastic events that have never been properly corroborated will remain insufficient without further evidence.

 

 

21 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Please be specific.  To what "physical evidence" are you referring regarding the eyewitness testimony?

It was a for instance.

 

21 minutes ago, cdowis said:

When it comes to an angel delivering gold plates, a "good"scholar would reject it out of hand since "angels do not exist". End of story.

A good scholar would set aside the issue of angels altogether. They might say, "this person claimed or believed that he saw an angel."

 

21 minutes ago, cdowis said:

They are the ONLY ones willing to examine the evidence.  Please give us a list of of archaeologists, for example, who have  read the Book of Mormon and carefully examined its claims.

Forget new world archeology. Any Biblical scholar would notice a number of fatal problems with the text upon a first reading. The anachronisms become glaring even to a lay person who is even a little familiar with some of the current scholarship.

 

21 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Such is the fate of a book delivered by an angel.

Which is why the Book of Mormon should be defended on theological, not historical grounds.

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

I was using physical evidence as a for instance.

Not a very relevant one, though.  

Quote

In the BOM case, the evidence for is lacking,

I could just as easily say "In the BOM case, the evidence against is lacking."

Quote

and the anachronisms in the text are incredibly numerous.

In the eye of the beholder, I think.  In fact, some of these purported anachronisms have turned out to be . . . something else.  Consider these remarks by Jeff Lindsay:

Quote

I read of an educated man who left the Church around the turn of the century because the references to the use of cement for construction in the Book of Mormon was a laughable anachronism. He boldly told a leader of the Church that the book must be a fraud, based on the cement problem. Today the use of cement in ancient Mesoamerica is well known. Tourists to Mesoamerica can find ancient cement work in abundance at Teotihuacan (which is in the right area for cement use according to modern models for Book of Mormon geography). Mesoamerican cement was being used at least by the first century B.C. It was a blunder for anyone writing in 1830 - but now is one more piece of evidence (though a tiny one!) of authenticity. (See the online FARMS article, "Cement in the Book of Mormon.") Yet for a while, it was an issue that could challenge one's faith, or at least was an easy area for critics to attack, as President Heber J. Grant reported in 1929...

I think that's right.

Quote

Most especially, in my view, the anachronisms of theology and philosophy throughout the text. A dozen interdependent witnesses cannot overcome the challenges the book faces on many different fronts.

I'm okay with that.  This is more a matter of tastes and preferences an expectations, and much less a matter of evaluating the evidence.

Moreover, the Book of Mormon will never been demonstrated empirically.  That's my view.  It will always fundamentally come down to a matter of faith, with space for people acting in good faith to both accept and not accept it for what it claims to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 5, 2018 by smac97

[cdowis]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

Let me put it this way. We know that eye witnesses sometimes get things wrong. We don't know that aliens have abducted anyone. We don't know that angels exist. So eye witness testimony to the kinds of fantastic events that have never been properly corroborated will remain insufficient without further evidence.

I notice that you dismissed my response, rather than giving serious response.  YOU are the one giving the challenge and I responded.

A good scholar would set aside the issue of angels altogether. They might say, "this person claimed or believed that he saw an angel."

Give me the list of archaeologists with intimate knowledge of the BOM == are you saying there are no "good" scholars amongst them?  You live in an alternative reality if you REALLY believe such an individual exists when it comes to the BOM.

Forget new world archeology. Any Biblical scholar would notice a number of fatal problems with the text upon a first reading. The anachronisms become glaring even to a lay person who is even a little familiar with some of the current scholarship.

Assertions are so easy to make when no specifics are given.
PS  I understand the difference between facts and opinions so don't waste our time with  "current scholastic opinion and consensus" pretending to be facts.

Which is why the Book of Mormon should be defended on theological, not historical grounds.

There is a difference between missionary and apologetic/scholastic activities.  Both are possible in my reality.

 

Edited March 5, 2018 by cdowis

[Kevin Christensen]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Kevin,

Humans have a very strong proficiency with respect to finding patterns in the noise.  Think of all the time spent on the BoM, all the time spent on the Book of Revelation and end times predictions, all the time spent looking for parallels and patterns, and finding them.  We are good at making connections whether or not the original author actually intended on any of these parallels, or purposefully crafted these complexities.   I know this sounds dismissive, and it probably is.  

My starting assumption is that Joseph didn't have any supernatural abilities.  That whatever he was doing, however he was creating, was all based on natural abilities.  So, I'll admit that I don't personally believe its possible for Joseph to translate an ancient language that he couldn't read.  I also don't believe some unseen force communicated to Joseph's brain a detailed and accurate account of another civilization.  I believe it was all a function of creative imagination.   These beliefs come from the observations I've made about religion and nature and the world, and while my beliefs will likely change with time, I feel fairly comfortable with these ideas at present.  

But I want to take the contents of the BoM seriously, in spite of these basic assumptions on my part.  Lest I be accused of prejudice, these basic assumptions I just listed apply to other books of scripture as well.  I want to take the BoM seriously as a book that my faith community finds valuable because it contains principles that about life, and morality and faith that we can learn from and that as we wrestle with together we can be enriched on our journey.  This is what I find valuable about scripture for me personally.  

 

Everyone has a orientation for dealing with things.  That ought to be a given.  Not everyone sees the same things from their positions.  The different perceptions raise questions about who has the best view, the most telling orientation.  One way to deal with the clutter is to label it in a way that removes the need to explain it in detail.  Another way is to explore the clutter and sort if carefully, and to try to come up with the best way of accounting for it.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Sure I do.  Again: "I think those who seek salvation, but who reject the messengers who bring it, are in serious error.  Nevertheless, as deeply flawed as their position is, I welcome such persons who buy into the 'inspired fiction' meme in fellowship in the Church.  We are all of us working to improve our understanding of God and His plans for us.  It is not for me to withdraw or withhold fellowship from those who differ from me on this issue.  I also won't speculate as to their standing in the Church generally, and will instead leave such things to those who are in authority and have proper stewardship."

I don't feel "threatened" by your position, either.  It's not a matter of feeling "threatened."  It's a matter of members of the Church advocating things that I find very difficult to reconcile with the teachings of the Church.

I don't mean to nit pick, but since you asked for where I find your statements problematic, here are a couple examples.  The part about "reject the messengers to bring it".  I don't believe I'm rejecting messengers.  I have a different interpretation of what I find valuable but differences of opinion on particulars does not mean a wholesale rejection in my mind.  Conversely I wouldn't accuse you of rejecting the true meaning of the scriptures because of your emphasis on the literal.  I personally find much more value in the metaphorical approach and I see it as superior, but making those statements without also accusing your of rejecting things or even of saying your position is "deeply flawed".  These are examples of the kinds of statements you use that are just a little over the top and going to far in my opinion.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This is why I find advocacy of this approach problematic. Such advocates are steering others up a spiritual blind alley; a path, I think, which sooner or later will culminate in a crisis of faith and/or a rejection of The Book of Mormon. After all, one who rejects its historicity has already rejected a substantive, even vital, part of the book. Rejecting the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time.  I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. Ambivalence about historicity is perhaps possible, but affirmative denial is, I think, not compatible with an enduring and efficacious testimony of The Book of Mormon.

I honestly don't understand the critique about advocacy that I see levied against those with a different perspective on this or other topics.  This is part of why I say you find my ideas threatening though.  It seems like you believe that this road of belief will lead to a certain outcome, and while I agree that its possible it will lead to that outcome that you express here "crisis of faith and/or rejection of the BoM", its not certain and there are many outcomes that it can lead to, unfortunately I don't have a seer stone and can't predict how things will turn out.  

From my vantage point, putting a person on this critical thinking path is a necessary step towards that person having the opportunity to grow in amazing and unexpected ways.  That this is not only a natural part of adult human development, but that it is a key towards greater light and knowledge and enlightenment, and even salvation to use a more religious term. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That is quite understandable.  Belief in a "fictional" Christ would not inspire much in the way of devotion, consecration, and enduring discipleship.  

Belief in a "fictional" Book of Mormon is, for me, likewise problematic.  As Elder Oaks put it: "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived."  And Kent P. Jackson: 

The Christ of Christianity is a fictional character and does exactly what you say isn't possible, this Christ inspires devotion, consecration and discipleship.  This Christ has been formed differently for different traditions, and is in the image of the foundational myths of those traditions.  We really don't know much about a historical Jesus to compare this Christ to, but I hope you get what I'm saying.  The image of Christ as used by all the different denominations is largely a creation of those narrative traditions about what Jesus was.  For westerners Christ has been made in the image of white, patriarchal capitalistic society, and this image may or may not have even a shred of similarity to the actual historical Jesus.  

Also, I don't agree one iota with the Kent Jackson quote.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I can't accept the Book of Mormon on such grounds.  Either Lehi or Nephi existed, or they did not.  Either they traveled to the Americas, or not.  Either their descendants kept a record of events and persons and teachings for 1,000 years or so, or not.  Either one of their descendents, Mormon, abridged that record, or not.  Either there were actual metal plates buried by Mormon's son, Moroni, or not.  Either Joseph Smith was told about these plates by a then-resurrected angelic Moroni, or not.  Either Joseph eventually obtained physical possession of those plates, or not.  Either he translated the record found on those plates through divine means, or not.  Either the Three and Eight Witnesses saw these plates, or not.  Either the Angel Moroni showed these plates to the Three Witnesses, and they heard the voice of God testify of them, or not.

I don't claim to understand all things, or anything close to it.  But I cannot reject these foundational elements of Joseph Smith's narrative.  It's not a matter of "what is beautiful."  It's a matter of what is true.

My personal opinion, none of these people actually existed, it is all a narrative creation, no historicity in any of the events, people or places.  But I still don't think that matters.  Much of the Hebrew Bible contains myths for which was have no evidence for historicity, and we do have evidence that many of those myths were borrowed from other cultures and modified to tell a story of the Israelites and the formation narrative of their people and identity.  We've also learned what kind of genre these stories are written in, and it wasn't using the standards of writing history we have in the 21st century.  I don't find historicity an important element with respect to finding value from these literary works.  For me personally, I find the desire to see historicity in these stories as a stumbling block towards greater light and knowledge.  

Again, you're equating my perspective with "rejection", but that is not how I experience it or express my perspective.  Its not rejection at all, it might seem radically different to you, but its just different. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Let me understand. 

Suppose I am translating the Iliad  by Homer for publication.

If I personally write the translation on paper,  then Homner is the author.  But if I dictate the translation to my secretary who writes it down, then I myself become the author.  What am I missing here?

You're correct with respect to translation in the traditional sense.  But Mormon scholars have taken that option off the table, the translation that Joseph was doing was not a language to language translation in that traditional sense.  Joseph had no knowledge of other languages, and the witness accounts express that he wasn't using the plates anyway, so no translation was taking place.  As mentioned earlier in the D&C 9 quote, he was studying things out in his mind, this was a creative process.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

My reply was that within all are lives, at times we are both! If these people never existed, and the Book of Mormon was not what it is believed by the Church to be, I would leave the Church the moment I found this out. 

It is the overpowering testimony I relieved the day I received the book, that keeps me here 39 years later. If that was just an illusion or a delusion, then I would go and seek out the truth while I still have time. Who knows my continuing difficulty remembering, and making myself understood is because the delusion is, or has taken over. But if the Book of Mormon is a lie, and just an uplifting story, it is not worth eternal damnation and hell over. Also, most assuredly not worth the souls of my wife, children and grandchildren, if in error, then the book be damned, instead of me. Forgive any confusion I have caused you, truly, forgive me. 

We probably have much more in common that you'd realize.  I completely agree with your sentiment that at times we are Laman and other times we are Nephi, what a wise answer to your child.  However, I would suggest that you wouldn't leave this church if you found out the BoM was not "what it is believe by the Church to be".  For one, I'm in the church and I believe it wasn't historical.  Since I'm part of the Church then my beliefs are a part of the "Church's" beliefs as well.  Also, the value that you extract from these stories and teach your children don't seem tied to actual historical events.  Its the message that you've found inspirational and that you're applying to your life where the value is found. 

This is where I want to just ask the Mark Bukowski's of the world to jump in here and say that everything is a fiction, and that's the whole point.  While I don't completely agree with all his perspectives, I see a lot of value in going through a dark night of the soul experience.  Papa, if I were to give advice I would tell you that you NEED to lose your faith in order to find yourself.  The whole idea of God and religion and scripture and salvation and sin and exaltation and Christ and the fall and the atonement.  It is all a fiction.  You have to lose your faith in it literally to find the value on the other side of belief.  You have to experience the loss in order to see that the images in Plato's cave that you've been viewing all this time are just shadows, they aren't what's real, they are an illusion.  And this experience might need to happen multiple times to each of us at various times in our life.  We have to lose ourselves to find the true self.  This might sound absurd to you, but it is the realization I'm learning about more and more clearly on the other side of my faith reconstruction.

I wish you the best, this is a journey you can go on if you're ready and if you're willing to.  Its might sound absurd and scary, but there is so much growth and learning as you let go of your certainty and dive into the struggle for meaning in the chaos.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Gowdy.

Yes. Another possibility is that he was the translator, not the author.

So, let's assume arguendo that another uneducated New England farm boy made up a book about the native peoples of North America from his imagination. Given his limited life experience, lack of formal education, poverty, less-than-stellar writing skills, provincial up-bringing, etc., what do you think his romance would look like? What kind of words, objects, concepts, religious and ethical principles, theology, people, names, places would he include in his book? Using the evidence of his knowledge and abilities at the time his book was written, what do you think that book would look like?

Do you think it would more likely resemble , the writings of Solomon Spaulding, Washington Irving, George Catlin, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Fennimore Cooper, and the popular pulp novels and newspaper articles of the time or the Book of Mormon? 

How do we maintain that Joseph Smith was the single author and creator and still account for this?

I think it would look more like those other contemporary works that depicted Native Americans at the time and told stories based on those common stereotypes, using the paraphernalia and lore popularly associated with them. 

The theology in the BoM is all 19th century Christian theology, many uniquely Christian phrases that weren't found even in the KJV have more modern roots.  If we want to get into the game of why didn't Joseph include one thing or another about contemporary ideas of native American's, then we need to also wrestle with the many anachronisms.  I don't find all this study interesting or worthwhile for further study, I think the simplest and most compelling answer is that Joseph, the man who dictated the book, is also the author of the book. 

[hope_for_things]

54 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Everyone has a orientation for dealing with things.  That ought to be a given.  Not everyone sees the same things from their positions.  The different perceptions raise questions about who has the best view, the most telling orientation.  One way to deal with the clutter is to label it in a way that removes the need to explain it in detail.  Another way is to explore the clutter and sort if carefully, and to try to come up with the best way of accounting for it.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I agree with this, and I honestly think I'm doing that.   I also think one of the tactics of apologists is to keep asking more questions, and coming up with more theories and avoiding evaluating the big picture of all the evidence and contextualizing all of these divergent theories determining what is the most accurate explanation of the data.  I see this same phenomena in the conspiracy theories community and in other religious groups with hard truth claims all over the world.  They all have elaborate and detailed studies they use to support their world view.  Mormons apologists are in good company with the majority of society in finding niche theories to support the narrative of their tribe.  

Unfortunately for me, I'm in a very awkward position as I find myself outside of traditional tribes on almost every major issue.  I don't fall in line politically with a tribe, or religiously or non-religiously.  I agree with different ideas of various divergent groups, but I disagree with others.  I'm a drifter, and a seeker.  I try to be open to new ideas and I try to learn.  I have a lens through which I view issues, but I try to be open to new information as well.