What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I may have missed it in the 74 pages, but has anyone actually responded to material on these topics published by LDS scholars? Or has it merley been dismissed out of hand?

It seems like some indirect references have been made, but I haven't seen anything explicit.

Did you have material in mind that you think should be examined?

Edit: to be fair, the responses in this thread have been to points that have been raised in the thread, and there hasn't been a whole lot of reference to the material you mention by either side of the debate.

 

[LittleNipper]

That he may not have had sex with.

Anything is possible I guess. I've heard it said that David & Solomon may not have had sex with all their wives either, but the Bible doesn't say...

 

[LittleNipper]

You did not answer my question.

I haven't even been involved in the debate, Omar. I haven't even attempted to provide any evidence. I don't care one single solitary bit what you believe about the Book of Mormon. I simply asked you a question which you flat out refused to answer.

I don't give a damn what the rest of you do. All I asked is that you answer a simple question. I've seen a lot of accusations in response, but still no answer. Would you like me to ask it again? Okay, here it is: I take the Book of Mormon seriously. Are you calling me stupid? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I also take the book of Mormon seriously; however, for different reasons. It promotes false history as additional necessary truth. Why are you so upset? Do you feel that GOD cannot reveal truth and that HE needs anyone to protect it? The Christian's real job is to be an illustration of GOD's love and spread HIS gospel message to anyone who will listen.

If a person calls me stupid for believing in the Bible, I gain nothing by beating him up. In fact I lose an opportunity to demonstrat humility, meekness, and perserverance. I would have only demonstrated that I'm no different than anyone else...

 

[Apex]

It seems like some indirect references have been made, but I haven't seen anything explicit.

Did you have material in mind that you think should be examined?

Edit: to be fair, the responses in this thread have been to points that have been raised in the thread, and there hasn't been a whole lot of reference to the material you mention by either side of the debate.

True.

The reason I asked was because these kind of discussion here seem to fit with some observations made by an article by Mosser and Owen. Their observations mainly deal with evangelical criticism of LDS beliefs but I think they can be applied to secular criticisms as well. Mainly this is because the majority of the criticisms I see from secular critics are just stolen, or rehashed, from evangelical critics and given a secular slant. In other words, there is very little new material.

[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]The first [conclusion] is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages." Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided into four categories: traditional, neo-orthodox, liberal and cultural. We are referring to the largest and most influential of the four categories--traditional Mormon scholars. It is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship.

The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex. [/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibility interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings. In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not. Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues. Often they do not even know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of the relevant literature. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists. [/SIZE][/FONT]

If you want to criticize LDS beliefs then fine. Go ahead. But check to see if there is any kind of scholarly material put forth that is meant to answer your criticism and take it into consideration. State why you think it is not sufficient. Do not simply post a criticism and then expect us, LDS members, to rehash all the responses to that criticism for you when they are easily available. I generally ignore posters who do this and it seems most others here do as well.

 

[Autodidact]

If you want to criticize LDS beliefs then fine. Go ahead. But check to see if there is any kind of scholarly material put forth that is meant to answer your criticism and take it into consideration. State why you think it is not sufficient. Do not simply post a criticism and then expect us, LDS members, to rehash all the responses to that criticism for you when they are easily available. I generally ignore posters who do this and it seems most others here do as well.

No, actually that is your job. The way that debate goes is this: one person asserts a position. The people on the other side (you) supply some kind of response in an attemt to refute it. The first side responds to that, and so forth. It's not our job to supply your side of the discussion, nor do I think you would want us to. Otherwise the discussion goes like this:

me: I assert A.
me: The LDS side has nothing worthwhile to say.
me: Therefore I win.

No, you get a chance to state your own case. Go for it.

 

[LittleNipper]

True.

The reason I asked was because these kind of discussion here seem to fit with some observations made by an article by Mosser and Owen. Their observations mainly deal with evangelical criticism of LDS beliefs but I think they can be applied to secular criticisms as well. Mainly this is because the majority of the criticisms I see from secular critics are just stolen, or rehashed, from evangelical critics and given a secular slant. In other words, there is very little new material.

If you want to criticize LDS beliefs then fine. Go ahead. But check to see if there is any kind of scholarly material put forth that is meant to answer your criticism and take it into consideration. State why you think it is not sufficient. Do not simply post a criticism and then expect us, LDS members, to rehash all the responses to that criticism for you when they are easily available. I generally ignore posters who do this and it seems most others here do as well.

An interesting thing to note is that there are Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Quaker, Catholic, Episcopal, Moravian, jewish, and even serious secular college/university studies regarding the Bible and its historic data, etc.

However, there seems to be only one source for any book of Mormon investigation and that finds it's support in the Mormon church and the University of Utah. That should tell everyone --------- something.

 

[Autodidact]

The article APEX references is all about, "It looks a lot like ancient Hebrew whatever." I didn't find anything about American archeology, anthropology, linguistics, etc. It seems to me that when a book talks about a lot of stuff that happened in America, you would naturally look for evidence in America.

Also, as far as Katz's "evidence," it's just assertions. No source. No cite. Nothing specific, just an assertion that there is evidence. And of course, an assertion that there is evidence is not evidence, is it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The reason I asked was because these kind of discussion here seem to fit with some observations made by an article by Mosser and Owen. Their observations mainly deal with evangelical criticism of LDS beliefs but I think they can be applied to secular criticisms as well. Mainly this is because the majority of the criticisms I see from secular critics are just stolen, or rehashed, from evangelical critics and given a secular slant. In other words, there is very little new material.

Not my criticisms.....Although I may have critiqued Smith's history, crimial behaviour...etc...I mainly want to know where the evidence is for the existence of the people, buildings, animals, weaponry, wars, were these people mentioned by name by the surrounding tribes...etc. as mentioned by the BoM. You may not be the person to ask. You believe some or most of it is allegorical and as you have discovered from the other thread you started...you brethren take it quite literally.

If you want to criticize LDS beliefs then fine. Go ahead. But check to see if there is any kind of scholarly material put forth that is meant to answer your criticism and take it into consideration.

Scholarly from LDS. I'm sure of it. Scholarly corroboration by those outside of LDS..? Doubt it. Scientific from LDS. I'm sure of it. Scientific (archeology, anthropological, DNA etc.) by scholars outside of LDS....I doubt it.

 

[Autodidact]

True.

The reason I asked was because these kind of discussion here seem to fit with some observations made by an article by Mosser and Owen. Their observations mainly deal with evangelical criticism of LDS beliefs but I think they can be applied to secular criticisms as well. Mainly this is because the majority of the criticisms I see from secular critics are just stolen, or rehashed, from evangelical critics and given a secular slant. In other words, there is very little new material.

If you want to criticize LDS beliefs then fine. Go ahead. But check to see if there is any kind of scholarly material put forth that is meant to answer your criticism and take it into consideration. State why you think it is not sufficient. Do not simply post a criticism and then expect us, LDS members, to rehash all the responses to that criticism for you when they are easily available. I generally ignore posters who do this and it seems most others here do as well.

It's not like evangelical christians tend to be brilliant scientific minded scholars either.

 

[Humanistheart]

It's not like evangelical christians tend to be brilliant scientific minded scholars either.

Indeed, I noticed the entire paper was dedicated to mormons v evangelicals as even the title showed.

Look at this blurb for instance:

"They are arranging the evidence in a manner that will if flaws are not demonstrated, warrant an interpretation of the New Testament that is both historically-culturally based and at odds with evangelical theology"

Given that evangelicals aren't the primary posters against the BoM in this thread, this hardly seems apt. I wonder what part of this was meant to stand as some kind of evidence in favor of mormon beliefs?

 

[Watchmen]

Further demonstration that those opposed to Mormonism fixate on one thing (e.g. archeology) and dismiss out of hand other evidence (ancient literary styles unknown to Joseph Smith).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Further demonstration that those opposed to Mormonism fixate on one thing (e.g. archeology) and dismiss out of hand other evidence (ancient literary styles unknown to Joseph Smith).

First off, why is it unreasonable to focus on archaeology? Archaeological evidence seems to me to be a sensible place to start: the Book of Mormon makes plenty of claims about ancient civilizations that suggest clear ways to test for them. For instance, the claim that metal armour was widely used by at least one ancient American civilization should be straightforward to investigate.

Second, all the approaches that I've seen to the investigation of "ancient literary styles" have been poor ones. I have no doubt that you can find at least a few examples of many particular literary styles, modern and ancient, in the Book of Mormon. However, if you go about your investigation just by going through a long list of styles until you hit on one that seems to fit the BoM, then you're just counting the hits and ignoring the misses; you have no way to gauge the significance of this.

For an investigation of something like "ancient literary styles" in the Book of Mormon to be of value, here's what I think you'd have to do:

- come up with a well-supported list of the styles that you would expect to find.
- find out the rate that they occur in the Book of Mormon.
- either find out the rate that they occur in other comparable (but definitely not ancient Judaism-derived) books or estimate the rate that would be expected based on random chance.
- demonstrate that the occurance rate in the BoM is significantly higher than what would be expected if the book really was written by Joseph Smith.
- if a statistically significant rate is found in the BoM, come up with other possible explanations for this effect and demonstrate that all other explanations are implausible.

Personally, I haven't seen much if any reason to put weight on the "ancient literary style" evidence for two main reasons:

- random chance means that coincidental similarities will happen at some rate no matter what.

- by every account I've ever read, while Joseph Smith may not have had much of an education, he was intimately familiar with at least one ancient Hebrew work: the Bible. Even if he didn't have knowledge of the particular literary styles you refer to, one would expect that since he did know the Bible very well, if he set out to write a book that had the same "feel" as the Bible, it would also have many of the stylistic elements that are in the Bible, even if Joseph Smith couldn't refer to those elements by name.

However, if you have evidence that the Book of Mormon exhibits specific "ancient literary styles" at a greater rate than can be explained by either random chance or Smith's familiarity with the Bible, then I'd like to hear about it.

 

[Autodidact]

Further demonstration that those opposed to Mormonism fixate on one thing (e.g. archeology) and dismiss out of hand other evidence (ancient literary styles unknown to Joseph Smith).

Well, that would be extremely weak evidence. Further, if the book is already disproved, we don't even have to go there.

Here's the problem with that sort of evidence. For example, someone found someone in Ancient Hebrew with the name "Alma." Great. What about all the other made up names the BoM is filled with that we don't find in Ancient Hebrew? What the heck is a curelom? The core argument is usually that such and such a passage follows or is like such and such an ancient Hebrew form of something. What about all the other hundreds of pages that aren't like any ancient Hebrew anything? And what about all the Shakespeare and Spaulding and other things that the BoM is a lot like? This is called counting the hits and not the misses.

To be scientific, you predict what you expect to see if your hypothesis is correct, then you look and find out whether you see that. If the BoM is historically accurate about the New World, we would expect to see...what? What would you expect to find in that event?

Actually, I'm not fixated on archeology. I'm interested in linguistics, DNA, anything that we would expect to see in the New World if this book is correct.

What I find very unpersuasive is subjective literary criticism. That barely qualifies as evidence.

Here, let's you do it. If the BoM is historically accurate, what evidence do you think we would find? For example, it describes millions of descendants of these ANE immigrants living in the New World. If that were true, what would we expect to find here?

 

[Humanistheart]

Further demonstration that those opposed to Mormonism fixate on one thing (e.g. archeology) and dismiss out of hand other evidence (ancient literary styles unknown to Joseph Smith).

Have you listed any?

 

[Watchmen]

Further confirmation. Thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

Further confirmation. Thanks.

The part where I said I was equally interested in genetic and linguistic evidence confirmed for you that I'm only interested in archeology? Good to know.

 

[Watchmen]

The part where I said I was equally interested in genetic and linguistic evidence confirmed for you that I'm only interested in archeology? Good to know.

No - the part where you said if the book is already disproved we don't need to go there. You admitted your refusal.

 

[Autodidact]

No - the part where you said if the book is already disproved we don't need to go there. You admitted your refusal.

No, I don't refuse at all. I'm happy to look at any evidence, and went on to do so. However, if the primary, obvious, most likely evidence already disproves the book, then there is no need to resort to speculative, subjective, literary criticism that paints the bullseye around the arrows. We only have to resort to that sort of evidence if we don't have first class, strong, objective, clear, well-documented evidence. Which we do.

I'm confident that if we look through the BoM, we can find passages that resemble Robert Frost and Robert Heinlein. As 9/10 points out, sheer random chance is going to give you some resemblance to something.

Let's try it from your angle, since you refuse to look at anything where the book is set (because it utterly disproves it.): If the BoM were an ancient Hebrew book, we would expect...fill in the blank.

I'll go first. We would expect it to be written in Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek or possibly Babylonian, probably on parchment, papyrus, stone or clay plates. We would expect it not to make the same mistakes as the King James Edition. We would expect it not to plagiarize Shakespeare or other more modern authors.

What would you expect?

 

[Autodidact]

And the corollary question, why are Mormons so interested in NOT looking at archeological artifacts, ancient ruins, New World languages and DNA?

 

[cardero]

Further demonstration that those opposed to Mormonism fixate on one thing (e.g. archeology) and dismiss out of hand other evidence (ancient literary styles unknown to Joseph Smith).

Actually that just makes it more peculiar. If you look at it from the perspective of a Supreme Deity who is concerned about restoring the truth of a gospel to all of the nations this seems like an insincere, unimpressive way to go about it.

If GOD wanted to go about just choosing just one spokesperson (instead of working with a group of professional translators) for these all-important revelations, I think it would be easier to forgo the whole aspect of the golden plates and translations and give the understanding to Joseph Smith in his native speaking language. This would have eliminated any misunderstanding about where the plates came from or went to, how he translated them or what language they were in. The fact that Joseph Smith did not have the intellect to understand the plates or the capability to translate the plates without sticking his head in a hat and deciphering the symbols with an Urim and Thummim does not support a Holy or Divine uniqueness to his mission but just places Joseph Smith (and the LDS organization) in a light of perpetual skepticism (which I do not believe would be a relevant part of God’s plan or purpose for enlightenment).

As I have mentioned earlier, my first introduction to Joseph Smith was through a publication dealing with alien encounters and gleaning from what we know from current and past alien encounters, a lot of the messages given to contactees (people who are constantly kept in contact by alien beings) is prominently confounding. Researchers have even claimed that some of these alien visitors can come off as cosmic pranksters. The more I investigate Joseph Smith, the more I research about LDS history and the UFO phenomenon and the more I know about GOD, it would seem that Joseph Smith (in a spectacular display of faith) may have been a victim of such trickery.