At the request of our Mormon friends here at Mormon Coffee, today’s topic for discussion is, The Book of Mormon: True or False? Before the discussion starts, however, I need to lay down some ground rules.
- It is understood by all here that Mormons ultimately believe the Book of Mormon is true due to personal revelation. For this discussion, possession of LDS testimonies will be assumed. Therefore, the bearing of these testimonies in the following comments is not permitted.
- When making evidentiary statements of fact, please provide supporting source references.
- Please dialog here in your own words; do not fill your comments with lengthy quotes from others.
- Remember (and follow) the Mormon Coffee comment policy that calls for the summation of main points (in your own words) before linking to another source.
On a recent Mormon Coffee thread, after being asked about external evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, an LDS commenter wrote:
“[Y]ou said, ‘What is the most compelling piece if archeological evidence that proves to you that the Book of Mormon is true?’ I will responde with, ‘Oh you of little faith’. If we needed scientific/archeological proof to mandate and coincide our beliefs, we would be cast into the same category as the pharisees and saducees.”
That opinion notwithstanding, this discussion will focus on evidence outside of testimony for the Book of Mormon. Another Latter-day Saint who participates in the conversations at Mormon Coffee has made this argument (taken from a few different comments of his):
“[T]he question of the Book of Mormon is absolutely black and white- it is either what it claims to be, or it is not. If it is not what it claims, the whole religion falls. If it is true, the church stands as THE Church of Christ.”
“If it [the Book of Mormon] is true (an ancient record of scripture), JS was a prophet. If he was a prophet, the church is what it claims to be, etc., etc.”
“Your claim that there is no evidence for the BOM is certainly persistent. I await the thread that allows us to discuss the book straight up….the whole of the LDS church depends on the Book of Mormon being true- every claim depends on it, so I would think that would be a natural center of debate.”
Okay. To get us started, Michael Coe, Yale University’s renowned Professor of Anthropology emeritus, was interviewed for PBS’s Frontline program The Mormons. After describing some of the major problems facing Mormon archeologists who are seeking to find evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, Dr. Coe said,
“I don’t really know how my friends that are Mormon archaeologists cope with this non-evidence, the fact that the evidence really hasn’t shown up — how they make the jump from the data to faith or from faith back to the data, because the data and the faith are two different worlds. There’s simply no way to bring them together. …”
Apart from personal revelation, how do the readers of Mormon Coffee (both Mormons and non-Mormons) cope with the “non-evidence” spoken of by Dr. Coe?
—
For an interesting look at issues surrounding the historicity of the Book of Mormon see the Sunstone article, “Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates – Part 1, A Guide for the Overwhelmed,” by John-Charles Duffy.
I’m still waiting for a reply to my question. How do you explain JS’s acceptance of the trinity in the 1830’s BoM?
To me, there are only two explanations. He either believed in the trinity himself, or he made some mistakes out of his ignorance about his own religion. Which was it? If the BoM is the Word of God, as the Mormons say it is, how could there be this error???
Ed,
I’ll admit, I find the James Strang quotes unquestionably intriguing. I had read an article on the Strang/Chiasmus argument before, but I think I may have too quickly skimmed the substance in that article. As I recall, many other examples of “chiasmus” were given which were far less convincing than the second and third ones you’ve cited.
While comparing the second Strang chiastic structure you cite to Alma’s lengthy sermon chiastic structures is like comparing checkers to chess, still, I’ll admit that the Strang structure strikes me as a deliberate attempt to form a literary inversion in a way very similar to what we find in much of Old Testament Law and in King Mosiah’s Legal sermon (which is especially intriguing, as Strang claims it to be a legal text from Moses).
And that’s not a light admission. It definitely puts Strang in rare company. He’s worthy of further analysis.
As for the consequent “analysis” of the so-called “chiasmus” you provide from a random web-comment, it’s a great example of someone unwilling to confront the objective demands of literary criticism (which, despite the wishes of many, isn’t open to every whim and fancy; I had a few University English professors who never got that either). One basic demand of literary structural analysis is to demonstrate structure that is rightly understood to be deliberate. Next we move to appreciate its poetics.
By the way, Ed, I didn’t cut-&-paste the Alma 36 chiasmus, as you claim. I simply divided it up from memory, using my LDS scriptures software. It really wasn’t hard; it was natural. And I didn’t need to deceptively neaten it up in the cheap by glossing over the majority of the text, and settling on deceptively neat summarizing. What I gave was the full text (minus a few small inconsequential phrases to get it to fit into the blogging restrictions; I provided every ellipsis dot). Unlike you, I’m not afraid to confront a legit literary structure as a truly respectable art form.
poetchick…firstly howdy!! welcome to the conversation 🙂
I believe the typical response to that question is that they do accept the Godhead being ONE in purpose. Granted the text doesn’t say that but that is the response I usually get. It does appear to me that anti-trinitarian sentiment was another jonny-come-lately thing with Mr. Smith…much like temples and priesthoods…but I digress.
Anyone located the cureloms and cumoms yet? It is in English right? Anyone??
I am not educated enough on the literary structure to talk about the technical aspects, but I think it logical enough that if other sources have used the technique, it works against the Mormon claim.
While I understand the desire for this to be true, if it has been duplicated elsewhere, really, what’s special about its use in the one instance?
I think you can use it as evidence to suggest it is true, but it does not prove it. Actually, proof is far from certain with this element alone. In other words, you need something more.
The excuse that JS, the mere farm boy, discovewred it doesn’t go very far, either. I think we can find enough examples of the uneducated doing great things and coming up with great ideas. The excuse also neglects the possibility (and likelihood) that he was a reader and had access to many appropriate sources.
So, I’ll come back to the bigger issue– what evidence is there to prove the BoM? By prove, I don’t necessarilly mean it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but to borrow another legal term, by a preponderance of the evidence.
A good place to start is the archeology. The Hill of Cumorah has been brought up numerous times and has not been addressed, except to say that it is not in NY, like the prophets have said.
Reggie, I’m not offended, just found it annoying and not productive. Appreciate the spin 🙂
Good day!
To all those that call us Mormon haters…
There is nothing I would enjoy more than ultimately going to heaven and seeing my deceased LDS family! My LDS friends have told me if I accept Jesus (like the theif on the cross) I can be taught by Jesus himself in “paradise” and ultimately make it to one of the lower kingdoms. That sounds pretty good to me! Being taught by Jesus in paradise.
The point of us being here isn’t about winning arguments, or proving you wrong. It is much more important than that. Many of us do not believe saving grace can be found in the LDS faith. I, for one, hope to God I am wrong. I hope my family and friends have found Jesus (since he is, “The Way, The Truth, and The Life”).
However, I fear that many of us will be surprised by who is actually in heaven… Without Jesus we have no hope. Can Jesus be found in the LDS faith? That is the ultimate question. Based on the facts as I see them, I personally believe he can not.
So far, I have tried to concentrate on linguistic evidences for the BOM. What I have included is representative, but not all-inclusive. Finally some good stabs at some of my points- nice work Ed. I think you over-simplify the complexity of the chiasmus issue in the BOM, especially looking at Alma 36- a different animal than the examples from Strange. A 52 line inversion is exponentially less likely, or more impressive, than a 12 line inversion. Even if I concede (again) on Isaiah 2:16, what of all the other examples of Isaiah verses in the BOM matching the original better than the KJV?
What of the mistakes in the KJV quoted in the BOM (I thought the bible was perfect?)? I have addressed this before here- one theory is that JS did actually copy some passages when he recognized them in the translation process. Truth is we don’t know. The verses which he “corrected” still must be explained.
Here’s the list of linguisitic evidences of the BOM- there are more, but will move on to Archeology.
1.Hebrew names used which were unknown before 1830
2.Egyptian names unknown in 1830
3.Use of the term “land of Jerusalem”
4.Mulek, son of Zedekiah in BOM, later confirmed in the last 3 decades, contrary to KJV
5.Appropriate timing of Jaredite root names among Nephites
6.Verses of Isaiah in BOM that agree with Hebrew manuscripts, not KJV
7.Appropriate context of Isaiah usage in BOM
8.Chiasmus (ancient Hebrew poetic structure) present throughout the BOM
9.Chiasmus in the Anthon transcript
10.Unique frequencies in the BOM of text-insensitive words like “and,” precisely matching OT text usage of the same period (500-800 bc)
11.BOM quotes Zenos, likely contemporary of Jeremiah- both use “nethermost part of vineyard” and “nether part of earth”-only usage in all of scripture.
12.Use of metal plates for records in old world
13.Southern Mexico writings that linguists claim have both Hebrew and Egyptian connections
Happy to discuss these further!
Archeology: Among many in the area, two great civilizations in MesoAmerica existed in time spans that match well with the 2 BOM civilizations. Both are known to have ended in sudden destruction via wars, like the BOM.
I will say here that many under-estimate what it takes in time and shear volume of archeologic work to say “here is Zarahemla.” People want to make huge conclusive statements that don’t begin to be justifiable. This indicates unfamiliarity with the field and unreasonable expectations. Be patient, hear what evidences exists now. Consider the following:
Anthony P. Andrews and Fernando Robles Castellanos describe their experience in the Yucatan:
“To date, we have gathered data on 249 pre-Hispanic and 154 historic sites, and visited most of these in the field. When the project began in 1999, only 69 pre-Hispanic sites had been reported in our survey area.” “Anthony P. Andrews and Fernando Robles Castellanos, “An Archaeological Survey of Northwest Yucatan, Mexico,” Mexicon 26/1 (2004): 12.) That’s only 28% of currently known sites that were known 9 years ago. Be patient.
In 1966, Dr. David Kelley unearthed 2 cylinder seals in Tlatilco Mexico with what appeared to have ancient writings on them. LDS scholar Carl Jones who had performed extensive analysis of the Anthon transcript noted symbols on the seals that were identical to those on the Anthon transcript. John A. Graham, archeologist from U of California said of these writings on the seals they “closely resemble various oriental scripts from the rim of the Mediterranean. If the signs of this seal should be writing, and the seal should be accepted as authentic, we would almost surely be dealing with an instance of transpacific contact during the Preclassic age” (before 300 ad). (The Anthon Transcript’ and Two Mesoamerican Cylinder Seals,” Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historical Archaeology 122 (Sept. 1970): 1—8)
I agree with you, LDSSTITANIC, that’s probably the explanation I would get. But how about this question. In the 1830’s BoM, it says in Mosiah 21:28:
“”And now Limhi was again filled with joy, on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice.”
And here’s the modern version:
“And now Limhi was again filled with joy on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice.”
Did you catch that? Which king was it, Benjamin or Mosiah?? Why the change? Again if the BoM is inspired literature, how could Joseph Smith have made such a huge mistake???
Okay, so I already realize I made a bit of a mistake there. My question at the end should be, how could the church prophets have made such a huge mistake, as I realize they are actually the ones that changed the BoM. There could have been early changes made by JS, but I really don’t know that.
Just thought I’d clarify.
FoF: you seem to be holding up well, I’m trying to get Reggie to come over and help out. Your mishes should take an FoF primer before knocking on doors, seriously.
I don’t want to clog the thread with examples like what’s below; I’ll cite a few.
Malachi was written about 400 BC and 1stNephi maybe 590 BC or a little later. So the Nephi verse comes FIRST…..did Malachi have the BofM to work from ????
In Malachi 4:1 we read: “For behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up….”
In the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 22:15, Malachi’s words have been borrowed: “For behold, saith the prophet, … the day soon cometh that all the proud and they who do wickedly shall be as stubble; and the day cometh that they must be burned.”
These kind of parallels seem to be common. Of course the MIND of GOD would communicate the same TRUTH over the centuries, but how did the WORDING end up so precisely similar ??? Is this the same mind of GOD telling us the same truth twice, or the work of a plagiarist ??
KJV: he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still (Rev. 22:11)
BM: they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still (2 Nephi 9:16)
MichaelP wrote:
I think we can find enough examples of the uneducated doing great things and coming up with great ideas. The excuse also neglects the possibility (and likelihood) that he was a reader and had access to many appropriate sources.
So far, this is my best guess as well: Joe was anything but a ‘simple farm boy’, and he had access to quite a wide range of stuff; having parents that weren’t formally educated, but inclined toward reading didn’t hurt a bit either.
Looking forward to more iceburgs.
BIG SHOUT OUT to ED, whoever you are, thanks for the posts !!!!!!! GERMIT
Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxî chitl was a descendant of the rulers of Mesoamerica before Europeans arrived. His authoritative history from the 16th century states:
“It is the common and general opinion of all the natives of all this Chichimec land, which now is called New Spain . . . that their ancestors came from western parts . . . as appears in their history; their first king was called Chichimecatl, who was the one who brought them to this New World where they settled . . . and they were those of the division of Babylon.”
Fray Bernardino de Sahagî n collected materials in the 16th century including the native tradition that:
“the account which the old people give is that they came by sea from toward the north, and it is certain that they came in some vessels of wood, but it is not known how they were built; but it is conjectured by one report which there is among all these natives, that they came out of seven caves and that these seven caves are the seven ships or galleys in which the first settlers of this land came . . . they came along the coast and disembarked at the Port of P înuco, which they call Panco [near Tampico, Veracruz], which means, place where those who crossed the water arrived.”
Other stories say these vessels were like “turtle shells.”
Sounds a lot like the Jaredites- and in the right spot.
Near Vera Cruz is a very large hill in the area where both Olmec and Mayan civilizations existed. Local legend has it that a great battle took place here. Surrounding the hill are 23, man-made ridges emanating outward obliquely. These appear to have been fortifications for battle, clearly man-made, but covered in overgrowth. This is one candidate for THE hill Cumorah. Note that in the BOM account, there are 23 leaders in the Nephite army, each leading 10,000. I don’t think you’ll find this published anywhere, but many LDS scholars suggest this could be the hill. The description is from a family member who has been there many times.
FoF, So are you admitting that Joseph Smith and the early church leaders lied when they said the Hill Cumorah in New York was the same hill where the great battle was fought??
To say that you believe its in MesoAmerica is pretty much saying that the prophets lied, isn’t it? If they lied, then they can’t be prophets, can they??
How many times does this need to be addressed? Will blow my last post of the day on it as so many people can’t get passed it.
In 1841 John Lloyd Stephens published volume one of his “Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan,” the first accessible English-language account of the Maya ruins. It was enthusiastically received by the early Mormons, who saw it both as a validation of the Book of Mormon and as a source to help understand Book of Mormon geography. An editorial reviewing this book in the Times and Seasons was written either by Joseph Smith or John Taylor. Joseph never said the hill in NY was the Hill Cumorah. Oliver Cowdery was the one who started calling it Cumorah. While it is true that many early Mormons believed (some still do) the hill in New York was “the hill,” it was never considered church understanding or doctrine. No official statement has ever been made by the church on the topic.
George Q. Cannon: “The First Presidency have often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so… The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared even to suggest a map. Joseph F Smith “declined officially to approve of the map, saying that the Lord had not yet revealed it.”
“The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.” (Letter from Michael Watson-Sec. to 1st Presidency, 1993).
Almost every LDS has wondered about locations, and everybody has had an opinion. So what? No site has ever been officially accepted. LDS critics don’t want to face the MesoAmerican possibility.
FoF: get some rest this weekent and play with the family; you are doing a pretty good job at filling in for Mr.Nibley.
I don’t want to beat the Tom Ferguson thing to death, but for those that want some background on that , I’d recommend Salt lake City Messenger #69 thru the Utah Lighthouse Ministry. Seems as if we don’t know when exactly that paragraph was written that was included inside the BofM the were given to friends of the Ferguson family, but it’s likely that it was years before his death (I think that was in 1982…) My point being that it’s unclear, and some would say UNLIKELY, that Tom kept that view about ‘external evidences’ to his death. He DID see great value to the LDS religion to his death, let me be clear about that, and did not change his ‘testimony’ to the benefits of his faith. I’ll let that go, let the reader check this source AND OTHERS, and decide…..
As for “LDS critics don’t want to face the MesoAmerican possibility…” that may be true for some, but I think MOST of your critics will allow for the MesoAmerican possibility (and a great many of these critics are WITHIN the LDS church, by the way) because you still have 1000’s of apologetic fires to put out, we’ve only touched on a few. I’m all for giving you your BEST chance at a location, I don’t think it will hold up…..not for your lack of study or ingenuity.
I can readily see why your church would shy away from ANY specific geography, beyond just Hill Cumorah, what’s to show as REASONABLE evidence for any geographic suggestion ?? It’s been 26yrs or so since Mr.Ferguson’s death, maybe there’s been headway since then.
ReggieW: have you gotten hold of Mosser/Owens yet?
PoetChick: welcome to MC; beware GERMIT’s twisted humor. GERMIT
Ed,
Isn’t Wikipedia a wonderful thing. Too bad real scholars wouldn’t be caught dead sourcing it.
Why? Because it is unreliable!!!
Thanks for providing those examples of Strang’s chiasmus (from Wikipedia).
The point “mantis mutu” made above is more valid than your “Wikipedia” research. LOL!!!
So I will quote him “Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble. The so-called chiasmus of James Strange (nice try Ed) is much more of a force and farce than Breck’s attempt to find “chiasmus” in post-biblical Christian literature. Just because one rubs their eyes really hard doesn’t make the green spots they consequently appear to see on the wall really there.
“The complex and quite artistic chiastic structure I noted above from Alma 36 is not simply spots in one’s eyes. It’s the plain writing on the wall.”
But you keep witnessing to us Mormons, in “love” of course. LOL!
Cheers!!
GB…isn’t it interesting how I could say the same thing…too bad real scholars wouldn’t be caught dead sourcing the book of Mormon? Now on the other hand, the Bible (shhhhhh! don’t tell reggie) does provide reliable data and is consulted even by secular scholars.
The literary genius (well other than the parts copied verbatim from the KJV) isn’t a question for me…the question is who really wrote it?
Whoever it was definitely had a penchant for “and it came to pass.” Mercy sakes!!
I don’t know that we are witnessing to you per say…but I do know that Jesus commanded us to love God and love our neighbor (that’s everyone). Believe it or not I think Christians are meant to OBEY those commandments!! Yes, I believe it is love for you that compels us to engage you in conversation. We want (or should want, anyway) everyone to come to the knowledge of the Truth!!
FOF said: “Joseph never said the hill in NY was the Hill Cumorah. it was never considered church understanding or doctrine. No official statement has ever been made by the church on the topic.”
The Hill Cumorah has “always” been considered the literal hill in NY:
“It is known that the Hill Cumorah where the Nephites were destroyed is the hill where the Jaredites were also destroyed. This hill was known to the Jaredites as Rama. It was approximately near to the waters of Ripliancum, which the Book of Ether says, “by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all.” Mormon adds: “And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents round about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites.”
“It must be conceded that this description fits perfectly the land of Cumorah in New York, as it has been known since the visitation of Moroni to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for the hill is in the proximity of the Great Lakes and also in the land of many rivers and fountains. Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon.
“Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history….” Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation , Vol.3, Bookcraft, 1956, p.23
Reggie,
I really wish you could hear yourself and what you say, and what most Mormons say when it comes to the Bible. You are always looking for some point of contention to prove a need for the BOM, but there is no need. You get into the argument of interpretations and different denominational slants, etc, but ignore the fact that JS didn’t do any scholarly translation nor interpretation, but merely contrived something you know as the 8th AOF to allow himself to say the Bible means this or that based on his “new” revelations which point to a god that was created and to a belief system that is purely heretical. The Calvins, Luthers, and Wesleys have all worked within the framework of the Bible while JS worked outside that framework. And, despite your accusations, Christianity is agreed on those things which are dogmatic, i.e., the Trinity, justification by faith, Christ’s death on the cross and His resurrection, etc. Theology is broken up into three categories: dogma, doctrine, and opinion. So, you want to address the opinions and make your claim that Christianity doesn’t agree with each other, but ignore the fact that we believe the same with regard to dogma, which is where Mormonism falters and, therefore, cannot be considered in the family of Christians. I think you will probably find this offensive, but I am speaking straight from the hip. I stand by what I say. I believe Mormons spend a lot of time disproving the Bible, especially in the area of God’s grace. You’ll say you don’t, but in reality Mormons want to make it something different than it is, and will argue against the Bible to do so. That’s all I’m saying. Thanks for your response, Reggie. And, I know you don’t have to agree with me. That’s okay.
Grace and Peace!
I deleted some comments by Mormons and Christians. Wait for a forthcoming post about the topic of targeted religious criticism. This is not a thread about what other apologetic projects someone is working on. That’s too far beyond the scope of the conversation.
reggie, please respect Sharon as a moderator. If you keep her happy then you’ll have a lot of breathing room. But if she hands the mess off to me I’ll start getting trigger happy on the delete button.
JackG and LDSTIT- I appreciate your responses, and I appreciate your humor and respect. You explanation of the “why us” is accurate, and I would even argue the divinity of our church… of course I do! 🙂
I’m a student of religion, and I am in the infant stages of really learning the depths of all religions. That’s part of the reason why I haven’t studied the physical and scientific aspects of the BofM. That’s also part of the reason why I would like to have you actually direct me these websites or libraries that talk about those other sects.
A few comments that I’ll make in regards to this thread. Who knows much about Charles Anthon? By my understanding, he wrote a letter of authenticity, as well as a letter of disregard. Do we know much about these letters? I’d appreciate information from both the critics and the apologetics. Also, do we know much about the Aztec’s beliefs in God? Historians describe their beliefs as very similar to that which is taught in the BofM, and in the church today. They believed in a priesthood, they believed in Prayer. Their God (Quetzalcoatl) shares the name with a well known bird in South and Central america. I find it interesting that the BofM speaks of Christ “descending” from heaven to visit the americas… and that their God shares a name with a species that also ascends and descends. Additional research on the bird will show it’s ability to ascend and descend vertically, as Christ did in the BofM.
Food for thought!
Good night,
faithoffathers:
A wise man I know once told me that some people look for chiasmus everywhere. This proved true to me when I saw a commentator try to force the entire book of Nehemiah into a chiastic form, unfortunately chapter 5 throws a big wrench into that. Anyways, I decided to diagram Alma 36 for some fun.
The first thing I noticed was that the phrase “and raise me up on the last day” in verse 28 is out of place. It should be positioned between verses 26 and 27.
Also verses 12 and 13 (perhaps 11 too) are out of place and should be either with verse 16 or 17a since they seem to fit with either. Now you might suggest that this group is a mini Chiasmus within the larger section however if that were the case then there should also be the case following verse 23, unfortunately it is not.
The phrase “born of God” appears to early (v23) and should not appear, speaking of Alma until verse 26, which it does, however that is the second reference to Alma being “born of God.”
Of course my diagram might be wrong I went from a-q then back from q’-a’ omitting v11-13 since they don’t seem to fit, treating 6-9 as a single entity, and moving 28a to its correct position between 26 and 27. If it is incorrect perhaps you could explain some of the mistakes or oddities I seemed to encounter.
Lautensack
Lautensack,
A foolish man once said (corroborating with several Mormon apologist scholars, one whom we owe thanks for this whole birth of Mormon interest in “chiasmus”) that biblical inverted structures should neatly follow a A-B-C-B-A pattern, be basically balanced in composition from one half to the other, and should guarantee that all lexical items that we see repeated in the two halves should invariably and neatly serve in forming the “skeleton” of the inversion.
While I’ll admit that chiastic “analysis” of the Book of Mormon text has sometimes been as forced and fanciful as many performed on the biblical text (I cited Breck, for example, whose book analyzing mostly the NT text isn’t entirely wishful, just largely so), still, the Book of Mormon text’s profuse use of simple chiastic structures and occasionally lengthy and complex structures is undeniable. Unfortunately, the overall efforts at analysis have largely been focused on basic lexical repetition, which is I think perceived as the most objective–and therefore the most helpful in the cause of apologetics. Very little literary criticism (a more subjective enterprise) has been levied for or against Book of Mormon chiastic structuring. Never mind the text generally.
It’s a shame, really. The Book of Mormon demonstrates enough to deserve better than it’s received (as does the Bible, for that matter).
As for your reservations with the Alma 36 “chiasmus”–I suggest you peruse my analysis of the full text posted above. Obviously the author of the text (of course I’m comfortable simply seeing him as Alma) is several times clearly concerned with contrasting ideas and phrases rather than simply repeating lexical items (eg. “do as I have done” vs “know as I do know”). That liberal spirit is required to arrive at the deeper, literary intentions behind the text. The author wasn’t simply forming a pattern for kicks, nor for apologetic purposes.
Sincerely, mutu.
ReggieW: I’m assuming you were able to see my post before it got (rightfully) cut. We were ‘far afield’ topically. Hope that helped.
Well, we are 5 days or so into this, big thanks to Mantu and FoF for giving us what they’ve got. I have to admit, I was looking for a little more traffic, but the magic thread and the temple thread have shown me that some topics just don’t come across as …..’faith promoting’.
FoF, you’ve given us plenty to think about, for which I’m grateful, and I look forward to hearing more after you rest up a day or two. The chiasmus thing is new to me, and worth a lot of thot as well.
Mantu: you seem to be something of a linguist, do you plan on delving into the archeology or anthropology parts of the debate ?? Just wondering. Thanks for your posts. GERMIT
GB: Actually, I got them from the Strangite website, not Wikipedia, but thanks for trying. BTW, the fact that somebody else (apparently) copied these onto Wikipedia doesn’t make them go away or make them less reliable.
Mantu: Sorry about the accusation of copy and paste. All too often I see Mormon quote their favorite FARMS article when challenged without giving any real thought to what they are posting. My apologies for lumping you into the same category.
FoF: Lists like the ones you present suffer from a classic Texas Sharpshooter logical fallacy in which the proponent latches on to whatever “hit” they can find, no matter how remote or sketchy, while simultaneously ignoring all of the “misses” that debunk their argument. I find your particular list pretty weak (I will dissect in a moment), but even moreso represents the same kind of crackpot science that is already running rampant in the world. Techniques like yours are similar to those used by Erich Von Daniken years ago to support his claims that many ancients civilizations in various locations had constructive contact with aliens who gave them their technology. He latches on to strange coincedences, local legends/myths, appeal to poor science/reason, and was able to produce a series of books that sold over 60 million copies, which had the effect of converting my parents to atheism. Science has basically debunked everything that he wrote, but many people (like my parents) still believe in it all.
Ed,
Thanks for the note. My reason for listing what I have presented in this thread is because most of those points have not been addressed here. It is a means of reminding people so they can take shots at the evidences. If you don’t like my list, show me how each of those items is wrong. You had a good point about 2 Ne 12:16, but that is one example of one point on my list. There are other examples of that point.
My whole reason for posting on this thread is to respond to the claim that “there is no evidence to support the BOM.” My background is in biochemistry and I agree about the misapplication of “science” and “evidence.” Most arguments I hear against the BOM simply recite old, refuted, outdated claims. But to people who don’t know any better, they can sound authentic and stick. Now onward.
There is a place named in the BOM that is known today for sure (other than Jerusalem). In Lehi’s travels from Jerusalem to Boutiful, where Nephi constructed the ship, they stopped to bury Ishmael in “the place which was called Nahom.” 1 Ne 16:34. In Hebrew, Nahom would be NHM. This passive reference strongly suggests that Lehi and his group did not give the place its name. German archeologists have discovered 3 alters in the temple at Baran in Marib, Yemen than have the name “NHM” inscribed. It is clear from other evidence discovered that the alters were donated to the temple by “Bi‘athar, son of Sawâ d, son of Naw‘â n, the Nihmite.” (S. Kent Brown, “‘The Place Which Was Called Nahom’: New Light from Ancient Yemen,” JBMS 8/1 (1999)).
These alters date to the 7th century BC. Since then, NHM has been identified as a small stop in the incense trail in Southern Arabia. Adding to this point is the directions Nephi offers “traveled eastward from Nahom”- there is a trail east of Nahom that few travelled but which lead to the coast as described in the BOM. No way Joseph could have known ANY of this from any sources in 1829.
More later!
FoF –
I don’t want to waste all of my posts for the day on your list, but I will take some of the interesting ones:
1.Hebrew names used which were unknown before 1830
We actually have a really good idea of how Smith did this. Many of the Bibles during the time of Smith included a name index in the back with a pronunciation guide (same thing that Smith did in the BofM). Basically, it has been shown that Smith could take these names (he really likes ones from the Apocrypha), slice them in half, rearrange syllables and come up with virtually all of the names in the BofM. There is absolutely nothing special here.
4.Mulek, son of Zedekiah in BOM, later confirmed in the last 3 decades, contrary to KJV
You are even overstating the Mormon apologist case here. The apologist position relies on a translation error in Jer 38:6 which does identify a guy named Malakiah (not quite Mulek) as the “son of the King”. While the KJV does mistranslate “son of the king” as a proper name, the error is well known during Smith’s time (It is correct in the LXX, and Young’s literal translation knows about this; we didn’t just figure this out 30 years ago). Given Smith’s propensity for latching on to quitchy Bible controversies (ie I Nephi 12:16) this would be a prime candidate for Smith claiming zinger points for his book. The “evidence” you refer to from 30 years ago regards a Bible discovery that might be Malakiah’s royal seal. Even if this is the real seal, it does little for the Book of Mormon story, as it does not show that Malakiah survived the Babylonian slaughter of Zedekiah’s children (like Jer 39:6 states). Hence this, at best, is a win for the Bible, and says nothing about the BofM.
6.Verses of Isaiah in BOM that agree with Hebrew manuscripts, not KJV
You will have to do better than just saying it is so. These all came from Tvedtness’ paper some decades ago, and I Nephi 12:16 was really the star of his (very poor) work. This, I already showed, is completely wrong.
FoF –
I also thought you might like to take a stab at some of more obvious problems in the Book of Mormon since I have given you some time on your list:
1) Why do the antagonists of the Book of Mormon represent philosophies unique to modern times that are prevalent in America but unknown in the ancient world (ex: Sherem=Deist, Nehor=Universalist, Korihor=Social Darwinist, Gaddianton Robbers=Masons, Zoramits=Calvinists) which with Smith would be very familiar. Why should I not listen to what Occam’s razor tell me?
2) Why do the great Book of Mormon speeches cloesely resemble Methodist style camp meetings with which Joseph Smith is very familiar?
3) Why does the BofM contain obvious errors from the KJV translation? Why should I trust the BofM corrections to Bible passages if it can’t get these right, and presents nothing but a vacuum for the rest of its scripture alterations?
4) Why should I trust the Book of Mormon when it presents no new world physical evidence for the events it claimed happened (especially when the general consensus among the archeological/anthropological/linguistic/etc community gives us a very different story)? Why would Mormon God give so much evidence for the Bible (that nasty, apostate, second place religion) while leaving the LDS comparatively in the dark?
5) Why does the portrait of Columbus painted in the Book of Mormon more closely match the romanticized version painted in 1828 by Washington Irving rather than the more factual picture that we have today?
6) Why should I believe that the Book of Mormon is the work of several authors when the most accurate, peer-reviewed study of word print analysis shows that, with the exception of the KJV plagiarisms, that all of the BofM prophets statistically cluster together as would be the case with one author? (D.I. Holmes, “A Multivariate Technique for Authorship Attribution and its Application to the Analysis of Mormon Scripture and Related Texts,” Oxford University Press).
Well, on the advice of one of our posters here, I went and checked out the Book of Zelph. The testimonials on the site were heart felt and so real. I don’t know if the guy is going to be selling action figures or not, but I think there is a real market niche here that needs to be tapped into. How a high school dropout who works at Chuck E. Cheese could write this, is a mystery of the ages. The archeological evidence on the main page is beyond reproach. I can’t say that I totally believe the Book of Zelph is true, but I know the author is sincere. In the end, there is no better test for the truth. Zelph Rocks!
http://www.bookofzelph.com
Aaron- In response to your post, I have not been disrespectful in any way. I was simply posting what happened to my comments, which were a basic response to others posts. I would appreciate your extension of love and respect, that this website is all about, to my comments and posts as well.
ED- To speak to your 1)… just because those particular philosophies were given a name and recognized i more modern times, doesn’t mean others never thought that way. I don’t believe that is any sort of proof that the BofM is false.
mantis mutu,
I will check my analysis against yours the next chance I get. However being fallen and biased, I did check mine against two LDS Apologists, namely Jeff Lindsay and John Welch. While I will admit my analysis squares more with that of Lindsay’s, I did find that John Welch left verses 6-9 out of his structure to make Alma 36 fit into a chiasmus. It seems in order to make Alma 36 fit the chiasmus form both apologists leave out verses and/or are forced to reorder them.
I also agree that “Alma” may not have been “simply forming a pattern for kicks, nor for apologetic purposes,” if such a text is going to be used as an apologetic then the literary structure, be it chiastic, acrostic, parallelism, etc., must be kept, not mostly kept. Thus if you are trying to use a chiastic structure to prove something’s inspiration, you cannot then argue well it’s inspired so it doesn’t need to hold to the strict literary structure, such is circular argumentation, and absurd.
Lautensack
A little late getting started, but I would like to weight in on BoM evidence. Heres one I like:
It’s a pretty convincing piece of evidence I found on Jeff Lindsay’s website. I would paste the link but I don’t think that is allowed.
Hebrew baraq lightning > Papago berok lightning
Aramaic katpa shoulder > Papago kotva shoulder
Hebrew hiskal be prudent > Nahua iskal be prudent
Hebrew yesïväh sitting > Hopi yesiva camp
If native americans are NOT the descendants of ancient hebrew immigrants, why are they still speaking remnants of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages?
After quoting numberous quotes from non Mormon sources on language connections between ancient hebrew and native Americans, Lindsay concludes:
…the tentative evidence for past linguistic contact between the Old World and the New is consistent with the Book of Mormon, particularly if we note the textual and external evidence pointing to other peoples and languages already being on the continent when Lehi and his family arrived.
This comment from Friar Diego de Landa’s 16th century writings on the native inhabitants of mesoamerica explains a lot: (also taken from Jeff Lindsay’s site)
These people also used certain characters or letters, with which they wrote in their books about the antiquities and their sciences; with these, and with figures, and certain signs in the figures, they understood their matters, made them known, and taught them. We found a great number of books in these letters, and since they contained nothing but superstitions and falsehood of the devil we burned them all, which they took most grievously, and which gave them great pain.(p. 82)
Here is all the evidence you have been looking for. It is no coincidence at all that a fellow Christian took it upon himself to destoy it. I think many who contribute to this site would have done the same. After all, “falsehoods of the devil” is how you attempt to describe the BoM. What you don’t understand you fear, and the friar was no exception.
What kind of connection could we have found between these destroyed documents and the BoM?
Here is Jeff’s comment on the book burning event:
How horrible that so much knowledge would be destroyed. Only four codices have survived, out of what may have been tens of thousands. As a result of such crimes, much information about the ancient inhabitants of the New World has been lost. In general, our state of knowledge about ancient Mesoamerica is still in its infancy, many decades behind the studies done in Bible lands, but stay tuned for new insights as more is learned.
Ed,
From Princess Bride- “Who are you?”
Your explanation for the Hebrew names is common, but not nowhere near convincing. What we have are Hebrew names not known in JS’s day that are in the BOM. That is evidence. Your saying he merely jumbled up syllables to create new legitimate names bares no weight- it is fishing for anything in order to avoid accepting the evidence. Very weak explanation.
Nothing you are saying about Mulek refutes the evidence I provided on the subject. There are 13 instances in the Bible where the term ben hamelek is used. The context of all of them would suggest the term is used to refer to a biological son of a king. As you know, names sometimes had two forms, such as Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe. Another form of this would be Berekhyahu. There is clearly a precedent for this. Applying this to Malkiyahu, one gets something like MLCH, or MLK without the vowels. The original BOM manuscript spelled it Mulech. And you think Joseph knew this?
More on the Isaiah issue, which dismiss: two Hebrew words, lo’ and lo, that sound alike but have different meanings. The Hebrew text of Isaiah 9:3 reads lo’(“not”) instead of lo (“to it). At some point, it is clear that the wrong word was placed into the Hebrew text.
Isaiah 9:3 reads “Thou has multiplied the nation, and NOT increased the joy…”
2 Ne 19:3 reads “Thou has multiplied the nation, and increased the joy…”
As far as your point on the antagonists in the BOM paralleling modern figures and philosophies, you make a great point, but the wrong conclusion. The BOM was prepared FOR the last days. Hence, God included examples of such destructive ideas that we would face. This is clearly its claim. Are you saying Joseph was a well read in these areas, in addition to being an expert in ancient Hebrew manuscripts, Egyptian, chiasmus, Arabian geography, and Hebrew names?
Next- give me one example of a BOM speech that resembles Methodist speeches.
GRCluff:
On your interpretation of linguistic analysis from: http://www.jefflindsay.com/bme8.shtml, we must start by throwing out the Aramaic terms as they would not have been in the dialect of the Jews who traveled to the New World since they left prior to the exile.
As for the the word he suggest as “be prudent” Jeff, or his source, is being tricky here. The actual word for “be prudent” is sakal (Sin Kaf Lamad), what Jeff is referring to is the Hiphil form of “be prudent,” (he actually misspelled it, the correct transliteration is “hiskil” the first i sounding like the i in lid, the second like the i in machine), which changes the meaning to something along the lines of “made to understand.”
Finally this really isn’t evidence as you can take almost any two languages compare them and come up with at least a few words that seem similar in sound and meaning.
As for Friar Diego, this is really an argument from silence. Well some writings were burned so we can never know that they didn’t believe in the Mormon God. Unfortunately they did pass their traditions down verbally as well, that among other things, statues, temples, etc, is how we know sun worship occurred. Also according to your source four codices (volumes) survived, yet he refuses to give reference to what is actually in these tomes. Any idea why that is?
Lautensack
FoF –
I stand 100% behind the explanation for the names that I gave. It most certainly makes more sense than having a really real group of Hebrews running around America that 100 years of scientific exploration just can’t seem to detect. This method does produce virtually all of the names in the BofM and is a method that would have readily been available to Smith.
Though, in thinking about it more, there are some bona fide names in the BofM where Joseph Smith messes up again. The appearance of Ezaias (Greek form of Isaiah) and Elias (Greek form of Elijah) are two more colossal problems that Smith committed. Both appear in the NT, and Smith, apparently not realizing that they were a reference to Hebrew prophets, created his own backstory and teachings for them . . . more evidence that Smith was a hack who didn’t know what he was doing. I most certainly more satisfied with this than what you offer.
As to Mulek – perhaps you need to read my explanation again. It is WELL KNOWN during Smith’s time that Zedekiah has a son with an MLK-like name. This makes it nothing special when Smith picks up on it. The Septuagint has already shown up in our discussion of I Nephi 12:16, and it definitely takes the wind out of your sails here as well. There is nothing special in this.
I thought you might offer this explanation for the antagonists. I had wanted to pre-refute this earlier, but I ran out of space. Both Deism, Universalism, and (to a lesser extent) Freemasonry are defunt by the mid-1850’s — no thanks to your precious BofM. Why would the BofM authors include groups that are going to disappear anyway. No good would come of it. A more likely explanation is that Smith is going after people he regards as threatening during his own time – especially given (again!) the total vacuum of evidence from the ancient world that any of these philosophies actually existed.
On to Methodism: King Benjamin’s speech in Mosiah 2. The doctrine preached is Methodist Arminian and the general flow of the discourse and result among the crowd parallels the final address of the Methodist preacher Bishop M’Kendree to a revival crowed in Palmyra in 1826. People come from all around and set up tents to hear M’Kendree (sound familiar) to hear the emaciated and near death minister (sound familiar).
For more info on this (there really is quite a bit on this) I refer you to Grant Palmer’s “Insider’s View of Mormon Origins” which has an entire chapter devoted to Evangelical Protestantism in the BofM. In addition, check out Thomas Alexander “The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: Joseph Smith to Progressive Theology” in the July-August 1980 edition of Sunstone (you can Google this).
Your new Isaiah passage: This is indeed an error in the King James version, but, alas, it is one that was known during Smith’s time both through the Septuagint translation (lou kategages en euphrosuni – positive affirmation) John Wesley notes on the OT also make it clear that this was known before Smith’s time.
Now, how about taking an honest stab at why Smith, DOES NOT correct the King James errors in the vast majority of cases in Book of Mormon KJV plagiarism?
Hi everybody. You’ve all been having such a ball while I’ve been away.
I got an answer to my question from FARMS, which is concludes… “Book of Mormon peoples lived during the preclassical, where very little excavation as been done.”
I’ll chip in with the others who have offered to pay the rent on the backhoe on any archaeological dig to start out this important search. Given the importance of the subject, there’s no time to lose! Lets get the evidence we need to change the world!
Small problem though, the evidence isn’t there, and senior LDS know it.
Seriously, I wouldn’t mind if BOM was presented as a work of fiction, but the attached baggage is intolerable.
Two things get me angry about this
1 When folks come to the inescapable conclusion that BOM is a fiction, dreamt up many centuries after the event in order to generate provenance for a new religion, they tar the Bible with the same brush. Any faith in the reliability of the Bible gets destroyed by the claims that BOM came about by the same processes. I’m not disputing that there are some difficulties in squaring Biblical narrative with archaeological evidence, but I worry that BOM drives people to discount the Bible as utterly unhistorical and therefore totally untrustworthy and unconnected to real life.
2 This severing of the ‘message’ from real life disturbs me greatly. I read the Bible in the context of a real historical framework, supported by archaeological witness, and it gives me great comfort to find that I’m not falling victim to my own fantasies and wishful thinking. The impression I get from LDS is that they have to separate their ‘religious’ world from real life, because that is the only way they can ‘rationalize’ the complete absence of reality checks and actual physical evidence in their formative stories. Its as if faith is all about convincing ourselves to ignore what we can see in order to see what we can’t. It’s not.
I am genuinely concerned at the spiritual schizophrenia that must result from such a mind-set. I will also argue, strenuously, that this is NOT how the Bible wants us to read it, but that’s a different topic.
PS Hebrews 11:1 and the rest of the NT is written in the context of recognizing God’s previous acts of grace in the history of Israel. We cannot say the same of BOM, because there is no history therein to speak of.
It is very apparent that our Mormon posters are straining to find any type of evidence that would support the premise that the BoM is real history. It really shouldn’t be that difficult to produce mountains of evidence in support of the BoM if it is a true account of a band of Hebrews that left Israel, came to the North/South American continent and founded a great and vast civilization. It’s really that simple. All of this debate over literary form and vocabulary, while an interesting exercise, still doesn’t produce one artifact to support the Mormon arguments in favor of the BoM. It wouldn’t matter if we were talking about the evidence supporting UFOs, the Lochness Monster, Big Foot or the latest aberration of the Virgin Mary, true believers believe……no matter what. That’s the mindset of a true beliver. I’ve often quoted James Randy aka. The Great Randy, debunker of all things paranormal; People believe these things “because they want to”. In the end, that’s it! No amount of real evidence or rational debate will disuade them. They have too much invested emotionally in the program. They received a feeling that was a confirmation from God that it’s all true and that’s the end of the argument….as it always is when someone says that “God told them”.
How come in both the Bible and the BoM we have two differing accounts of the story of the tower of Babel? And I am not so much looking into the two stories so much as this is the bigger issue, If Jesus quotes from the OT and speaks os kings and prophets that span 1,000 of years and different countries, even going so far as to go back before the flood, why does Jesus or the apostles NEVER mention BoM prophets, places, people, stories, or anything for that matter?
Makes me think all the more the BoM is pure fiction. Rick b (LDS priesthood holder).
Thanks for bringing up King Benjamin. Before the exile, Israel’s most important and popular festival complex was in the Autumn, the Feast on Ingathering. The fall Feast of Ingathering “had many rites that are now associated with Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot. It appears that it was only later, after the Babylonian Exile, that the autumn festival was divided into three separate holidays.” Hayyim Schauss, The Jewish Festivals (New York: Schocken, 1962). In his speech, Benjamin touches on all three topics from the three major festivals, very consistent with pre-exile practice. Even his language and phrasing is consistent with these three festivals. There is also precedent for this festival being the time of a King’s farewell and naming of an heir. This is a fascinating topic, and there is a lot written on this. If anything, this is a significant positive for the BOM.
As far as evangelism in the BOM, there are similar phrases scattered throughtout the BOM, but no example of a sustained mirroring of Lorenzo Dow, Alfred Bennett, Eleazar Sherman, George Whitefield, or others. I really don’t see this as a problem- the topics are timeless, and appeals to similar themes to call folks to repentance doesn’t seem unreasonable.
Regarding the mistakes perpetuated in the BOM- I have talked about this before. Some suggest that when Joseph recognized a passage of Isaiah, he would use the bible and copy the passage. Nobody knows for sure. As far as Elias, as you almost certainly know, we affirm that there was a ancient prophet with this name, separate from Elijah. Elias actually doesn’t appear in the BOM.
What of the New World evidences I have mentioned thus far? I won’t list them as you might accuse me of “crackpot science.” Also, how about Nahom and Bountiful?
If you don’t mind me asking, what is your background? Are you a former LDS? It is rare that I encounter a critic with arguments as thoughtful as yours. It is truly refreshing.
Lautensack,
For the record, I’ve not been sold by any study that’s claimed far-ranging lexical or morphological connections between an Amerindian and Near Eastern tongue.
However, your conclusion that Aramaic words shouldn’t be relevant to the pre-exilic Hebrew of our hypothetical Lehi–that’s been soundly proven to be false. I challenge you to become familiar with Israeli scholar Avi Hurvitz, and the scholarship subsequent to him.
Yes, it’s been common knowledge for over a century that the post-exilic books of the Hebrew Bible manifest a number of Aramaic words which we don’t typically find in the books of pre-exilic date. This is obviously an influence of the Aramaic language (the lingua franca of the Babylonian Empire) on the Jews while in exile.
However, as Hurvitz showed, we also find some Aramaic terms and morphology among biblical text portions that are clearly pre-exilic in date. One portion is those works that are likely of Northern Israelite (Josephite) origin.
The ancient Hebrew that we know of is almost entirely accounted for by the Masoretic text, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are largely redundant of one another). However, linguists are in strong agreement that that sampling of Hebrew is several thousands of lexemes short of what we should expect to find in a living language. In other words, the Hebrew of biblical times contained many, many words that for whatever reason didn’t make the final literary cut.
But regardless, it’s a fact that Aramaic, as the spoken language of the Damascus Empire bordering Northern Israel, exchanged many words with Hebrew for centuries. So much so that no linguist can be completely sure if any common cognate between Aramaic and Hebrew rightly belonged to one or the other originally, or was simply a word they both inherited from their common West Semitic past. There’s hardly an Aramaic word that exists that would disqualify the authenticity of a Hebrew text that claimed to be from the 7th or 6th century BC.
To expand on what Falcon wrote, I think the desire to believe in Mormons is strong. I’ve seen very little solid and credible evidence. I’ve seen a bunch of things stretched to fit the desires of Mormons, but little conclusive. What “I’ve seen the most of is this idea: be patient. There’s more out there to be found, and when its found, we’ll see they were right…” I loved the piece on the Christians burning the documents that would have proved them right.
To be fair, I understand the desire to keep the hope. That’s what faith is. But at what point do you look at the evidence and question the faith? How many ‘almosts’ and ‘they didn’t mean thats’ and ‘we take it backs’ are going to happen before one sees something is false?
Despite the objections that Mormons ever thought the Hill was in NY, we have quoted Mormons who have thought so, authoritative Mormons. These quotes have not been discussed. Why is that? Is it because to discuss will put you in a position to deny your leaders, whom we have been told in other threads that if you follow you are OK?
The evidenced against the BoM is lacking, bottom line. If ever something solid comes up, that will show with a preponderance of evidence that it might be true, I’ll take it more seriously. but so far, every claim made has an extremely valid counter…
Thanks for the gracious exchange, Lautensack; for the apology, Ed; and for the thankyou, Germit.
Germit, you asked if I had interests any anthropo-/archaeological evidences for the BoM. While I indeed do, I’d doubt they’d generate much excitement in this forum, other than to confirm how thoroughly my own belief in the Book of Mormon is grounded in spiritual evidences that are only garnished with empirical ones.
But for the record, I believe, for many complex reasons, that BoM history transpired in close connection with PreClassic Maya history. However, I’ll admit that the archaeological record does little to prove a connection between the early Maya and the Book of Mormon (or Near East, for that matter) other than that the high culture and literacy claimed by the BoM existed in general terms in Mesoamerica at the right time. (To be fair, I only know of two Mayan metropolis dating from BoM times that Mayanists have conjectural place names for: “Mutul” (Tikal) and “Lamanai” (the name for a Belize city that still flourished in Conquest times).
While I believe the “geographical” discourse in Alma 22 has the form and feel of a legit ancient cosmography and naturally points to a Central American setting, I highly doubt it represents anything close to the Tehuantepec arguments worked out by prominent LDS apologists (which are based largely on modern presumptions not necessarily insinuated by the text).
For me, the Book of Mormon’s most significant empirical arguments involve its literary substance. And the chiastic structures I mentioned are hardly the ones that I find most important or convincing. I’m much more impressed with the way that Book of Mormon narrative very maturely reflects what we find in Biblical narrative. In my own mind, its a point of comparison that at many intricate levels is beyond any plagiarism we should expect from the 19th century.
My own hope is that this appreciation will one day become food for honest, open criticism; not apology.
mutu.
Mantis–
Do you care to expand on what it is you feel most important, namely the way the BoM follows the Biblical narrative?
What is it you mean and how does it play in favor of the BoM’s veracity?
Thanks.
JesusFreek says : “My LDS friends have told me if I accept Jesus (like the thief on the cross) I can be taught by Jesus himself in “paradise” and ultimately make it to one of the lower kingdoms. That sounds pretty good to me!”
Wow, your LDS friends are nicer to you than mine. I have been told that since I had the truth and rejected it, I am looking forward to Outer Darkness, unless I return.
But keeping with the subject, I have a great idea for a tee shirt. It would have Waldo on it and he would be asking, “Where in the world is Zarahemla?”
I am loving this post from both sides. FoFs, you are an excellent defender for the church and I thank you and others who exude such knowledge. That’s what I love about this site, I learn something every time I log on to it. EVERY TIME. Hugs to all. Kitty
FoF –
Thank you very much for the compliment (I really do mean that). I fully agree with you that there are some very poor arguments against the LDS faith out there which I consider to be very unfortunate. I most certainly cringe over on CARM every time someone says that the BofM can’t be true because of Rev 22:19! 🙂
Since you asked, I am former LDS. I joined the LDS church as a teenager, served a mission, taught at the MTC, and resigned my membership, with my wife and daughter, about two years ago.
I’ll get to NHM, but my general thoughts on Mormon apologetics is that they amount (usually) to little more than a parellelomania witch hunt to try to obscure the very real problems of the LDS faith (Texas Sharpshooter fallacy). I think that anyone who considers the claims of the BofM honestly will, after seeing the evidence on the table from all sides, conclude that it is a fraudulent book.
When we consider the claims that the Book of Mormon presents, via inspiration, a correct rendering of ancient scripture, we find that the KJV is copied even when errors are present, that all major changes have no evidence to support them, and we find “smoking gun” evidence that Smith is consciously attempting to commit fraud in passages like I Nephi 12:16. The token “hits” found always end up being things that were known during the time of Smith. Given this, I can only conclude that the Book of Mormon is false.
When we consider the physical claims made by the BofM we see both that both that there is a complete vacuum of evidence to support the BofM, but that the real story of the ancient Americas found by real archeology, linguistics, etc gives a very different picture than what the BofM delivers. These same sciences have had tremendous success detecting groups much smaller than the Book of Mormon peoples (Lijian of China, Vikings in the New World, Lemba of Africa). Given this, I can only conclude that the Book of Mormon is false.
Continued in a moment . . .
Cont . . .
When I look at the theology of the Book of Mormon I not only see very strong Methodist Arminian basis theology, but I also see every religious controversy of the 1820s, and none of the big ones aftewards (evolution, homosexuality, abortion, etc). Given that we don’t see any of these issues coming up in the ancient world (and yet we see the things that they are concerned with) I can only conclude that the Book of Mormon is the product of an 19th Century mind who is trying desperately to give authority to his own views.
I could go on like but I think you get my drift.
At this point, things like “NHM”, enter the picture. Rather than focus on the totality of evidence, LDS apologists use these things to distract from the very real problems facing Mormonism and try to draw attention in a “Gee Whiz! If this is all bogus, how could we find this!”.
“NHM” is to Mormonism what the Piri Reis Map is to the Erich Von Daniken crowd: things to shift focus from the very absurd things that both camps suggest to be reality. With both, I have to ask myself the following question in terms of probabilistic thought (my background is statistical signal processing):
“Given any large, complex, and yet totally fictitious work, what are the odds that someone, somehow, if they try really hard, will be able to make some kind of connection to real life.”
3 letters on a rock and a few of words from a Mayan dictionary are prime examples of this. These kinds of evidences could easily be drummed up to support fiction works like the “Lord of the Rings”, etc. Still, they can never make the real problems vanish.
Ultimately, if the LDS community had real evidence to offer, they would be able to take these finds and publish them in real, peer-reviewed, scientific journals. And, yet, they can’t, as they would be laughed out of the building if they tried to get past real experts what they routinely get past the LDS faithful who deeply and desperately want their church to be true.
mantis mutu:
While I will agree certain Israelites, mainly politicians, knew Aramaic pre-exile (2 Kings 18:26) it was not the language commonly known, see fore cited verse. However since it is logically possible that Nephi or Lehi might have been one of the few to speak this language I will submit that it is merely improbable, rather than thrown out all together. I am glad we agree that such connections, drawn thus far, are not convincing.
I hope to have time to post later my comments on your form of the Alma 36 Chiasmus.
Lautensack
Michael P.,
My aim in dialogue like this isn’t to empirically prove Mormon faith. So I rarely set down to argue for a specific point; such would fail to provide the type of information that leads people to change their polemical mindset. With few exceptions, it only gives fuel and reason to further the fight. In regards to your question, I’ll say that I plan on publishing in the near future on the subject. But I think I can answer your question in at least one general way that is not only logically convincing, it’s something you’ve unlikely heard from Mormon apologists.
Book of Mormon narrative, just like biblical narrative–and very distinct from typical Western narrative–is largely free of intricate, formal setting and character development. It’s a narrative form that lives and dies by the basic actions and movements of its characters through historical time. And in narrative terms, it scores very high marks in putting together coherent and complex stories limited to those criteria. As does the Bible.
In terms of narrative mechanics, a good number of intricacies are typical of both texts. In this case, I’ll refrain from spilling any beans; however, I will refer you to a well known biblical and literary scholar, Rober Alter, for further investigation. You can be your own judge on the details.
Lautensack,
The fact that you referred to 2 Kings 18:26 let’s me know you’re quite informed on ancient Israelite language. (It’s a verse I left out of my response to you only because of our space limits). But that verse only explains the relevance of Aramaic on ancient Hebrew from the context of the Akkadian powers (as Aramaic was the lingua franca of both Assyria and Babylon). Yet the Israelites were neighbors to Aramaic Damascus for over half a millennia before the Babylonian exile. Until we have a fuller picture of ancient Hebrew (we play with far less than the full deck), as I said, there’s no “Aramaic” word that can be counted out of Lehi’s hypothetical Hebrew.