Book of Mormon Clarification

[1smartdodog]

The BOM is fiction. Any attempt to point out errors from a historical perspective is somewhat an exercise in futility. Of course there are a bunch of errors, flaws and downright ridiculous stuff in there. It was written by a 19th century dude or dudes. Maybe even a dudette.

So any analysis that attempts to point out errors and such amuses me. Why bother? When people try to convince me of some point of doctrine or incorrect doctrine in the book I just say it is fiction duh!

[Hagoth]

Are you at least equally amused by people attempting to point out historical accuracy in the same work of fiction?

[slavereeno]

I deal with some very, very convinced people in my life. Convinced that this book is a 100% true history of things that really really happened. I need all the ammunition I can get. And even when you point it all out, they still cling to the notion the book is the most bestest, truest thing evar.

I am not disagreeing with your premise, just a peek into the madness that drives my desire to explore the issues.

[1smartdodog]

I deal with some very, very convinced people in my life. Convinced that this book is a 100% true history of things that really really happened. I need all the ammunition I can get. And even when you point it all out, they still cling to the notion the book is the most bestest, truest thing evar.

I am not disagreeing with your premise, just a peek into the madness that drives my desire to explore the issues.

I get it. For some time there seemed to be a way to point out issues, but I since realized it does not generally work with the true believer. Not sure why but if they are convinced changing a mind is difficult.

I guess I have found just telling people it is fiction and leaving it at that works as good as anything. Which is not good but I avoid getting in the weeds trying to point out stuff

[1smartdodog]

Are you at least equally amused by people attempting to point out historical accuracy in the same work of fiction?

Not sure what you are asking

[deacon blues]

The BOM is fiction. Any attempt to point out errors from a historical perspective is somewhat an exercise in futility. Of course there are a bunch of errors, flaws and downright ridiculous stuff in there. It was written by a 19th century dude or dudes. Maybe even a dudette.

So any analysis that attempts to point out errors and such amuses me. Why bother? When people try to convince me of some point of doctrine or incorrect doctrine in the book I just say it is fiction duh!

Perhaps if you read it one more time, with more sincerity, and fasted all the while you read it, and wrote down all the verses that have the word “true” or “truth” in them, that should do the trick.

And if that doesn’t do the trick, find the hottest salsa you can, and eat it while reading the book.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Your technique of simply saying it is fiction is probably the most effective way to reach them. The reason is it leaves them to their own subjective areas of research to investigate the claim.

[Mad Jax]

The BOM is fiction. Any attempt to point out errors from a historical perspective is somewhat an exercise in futility. Of course there are a bunch of errors, flaws and downright ridiculous stuff in there. It was written by a 19th century dude or dudes. Maybe even a dudette.

So any analysis that attempts to point out errors and such amuses me. Why bother? When people try to convince me of some point of doctrine or incorrect doctrine in the book I just say it is fiction duh!

You have to do it with every "holy book" because it's worth it for the rare exception that actually listens.

[Hagoth]

Are you at least equally amused by people attempting to point out historical accuracy in the same work of fiction?

Not sure what you are asking

I'm just making a point in agreement with you and taking a little jab at every apologist and Sunday school teacher who hangs on every word of the book as if it were true, looking for "evidence" that proves it's not a work of fiction. Example from FARMS: someone found a carved stone seal in Jerusalem with the name Malkiyahu on it. That kinda sounds like Mulek. The Bible says that Nebuchadnezzar killed Zedekiah's children in front of him before putting out his eyes, but it doesn't specifically say he killed ALL of Zedekiah's children (although it appears that Zedekiah was not really even on the throne when Nephi spoke about him, so Nephi must have been prophesying about events to come while speaking of them as if they happened in his time). So, if we assume that Malkiyahu is just another spelling of Mulek, and if it just turns out that he is a son of Zedekiah who, completely between the lines, didn't ACTUALLY get killed, and if he sailed to America, then he could very well be the progenitor of the Mulekites, and we have actual written evidence that he once lived in Jerusalem. Evidence that the Book of Mormon is true! #lighttheworld!

[slavereeno]

Evidence that the Book of Mormon is true! #lighttheworld!

This is exactly the kind of stuff I have to deal with all the time. I say "Its fiction" they say "chiasmus!", "Pottery with black poeple enslaving white people!" "Olifunts carved in stoneses!" Then its what's wrong with you that you need it not to be true? What's your sin?

So I have just stopped bringing stuff up and they all think they've won and i am a believer. Funny thing though, they still keep trying to pile on the "proof." Are they trying to convince me or themselves?

[Corsair]

This will hardly end the discussion, but here is a way to help solidify a position from a real, archaeological standpoint. This is from a brilliant Patheos discussion thread between William Hamblin, faithful LDS apologist and Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor University. Dr. Jenkins got into the discussion thread far more than virtually any history scholar would.

The original discussion has a lot more points and I encourage you to read them. It is a glorious discussion. Here is an extended quote from Dr. Jenkins that summarizes the overall problem with a historical Book of Mormon:

Let’s do a thought experiment. Assume for the sake of argument that we did not have the Bible as a resource. Assume that we were reconstructing the history of Palestine in the first millennium BC using entirely non-scriptural sources – from archaeology, from non-scriptural texts and inscriptions, and from the various records (mainly texts and inscriptions) of outside nations.

We would see Israel emerging in the thirteenth/twelfth century BC, we would have an excellent idea of its changing social and religious institutions through the centuries, we would know its languages, and we would have plenty of writers, both contemporary and later, to fill in the names of kings, dynasties, etc. We would know a lot about its interactions with neighboring powers, not to mention the presence of Israelites in other nations and regions. We would know a huge amount about domestic architecture and social structures, modes of life, class structures, and so on.

Without using religious scriptures of any kind, then, we would have an excellent view of Israel, its languages, ethnicities, people and history. No sane person would doubt the existence of that Israel, although they might argue over details of its political history.

Now look at Mormonia. Without the Book of Mormon, would any scholar ever have speculated about a Semitic or Middle Eastern presence of any scale or nature whatever in the New World? In nineteenth century racist crank theories, yes, but not in any kind of modern scholarship. If there was no Book of Mormon, we would have not the vaguest, slightest hint of any suggestion of a Middle Eastern/Semitic presence. Without using religious scriptures of any kind, then, we would neither know about nor speculate on any kind of “Nephite” presence in the New World, its languages, ethnicities, people and history. It would not exist, because it doesn’t.

Therefore, your views depend entirely on alleged religious revelation, and that is why you are constantly scrambling to find real world confirmation. That is also why your views are irrelevant to any kind of scholarship, other than theology. What bothers me is not that you are preaching religion and revelation – heaven knows! – but that you don’t recognize or acknowledge the fact. If you believe or preach differently, you are deluding yourself.

[slavereeno]

This will hardly end the discussion, but here is a way to help solidify a position from a real, archaeological standpoint.

Thanks corsair, this is useful. Love that quote.

[John G.]

The BOM is fiction. Any attempt to point out errors from a historical perspective is somewhat an exercise in futility. Of course there are a bunch of errors, flaws and downright ridiculous stuff in there. It was written by a 19th century dude or dudes. Maybe even a dudette.

So any analysis that attempts to point out errors and such amuses me. Why bother? When people try to convince me of some point of doctrine or incorrect doctrine in the book I just say it is fiction duh!

Your right of course, but when you’re raised from birth being told that the BOM is “true” its hard to wrap your mind around the fact that its all a fraud. It’s the little things, the little inconsistencies and anachronisms that bring down the whole house of cards.

For me it was the lack of archeological evidence of the BOM. But after I had processed that fact, and had time think about it, I couldn’t beleive that I even would have considered the BOM factually true. Its clearly a work of fiction! The brainwashing from birth is strong!

[Red Ryder]

I intellectually disassembled my belief in the Book of Mormon and unwound my testimony of it by contemplating the edits, anachronisms, and overall incompatibility with reality. However, nothing else completely undid the brain magic like picturing Joseph Smith dictating with his head in a hat. Reading it from that perspective put it all in place and it finally made sense.

The ramblings of a lunatic with his head buried in his hat!

[Dravin]

Any attempt to point out errors from a historical perspective is somewhat an exercise in futility.

Except it isn't, at least not categorically. I'll grant that going up to the pulpit on Fast Sunday and declaring this or that anachronism isn't particularly fruitful but there are individuals for whom examining the possibly historical veracity of the Book of Mormon was a point along the way of their faith journey either going in or leaving. People stop believing for different reasons and just because a reason doesn't personally resonate with you doesn't mean it doesn't resonate with anyone.

[Emower]

Any attempt to point out errors from a historical perspective is somewhat an exercise in futility.

Except it isn't, at least not categorically. I'll grant that going up to the pulpit on Fast Sunday and declaring this or that anachronism isn't particularly fruitful but there are individuals for whom examining the possibly historical veracity of the Book of Mormon was a point along the way of their faith journey either going in or leaving. People stop believing for different reasons and just because a reason doesn't personally resonate with you doesn't mean it doesn't resonate with anyone.

I'm going to give a plus one to what Dravin said. Especially in light of what Red Ryder said above, because all the physical problems were a much bigger deal than Josephs translating from a hat. The hat thing totally doesnt do it for me. In fact I kind of agree with apologists when they ask how that is any different from spectacles in a breastplate? It is what the hat represents that is the problem for me.

[moksha]

Calling this fiction does seem a bit disrespectful to believers. That is why I prefer to say Sacred Fiction or Sacred Allegory (the allegorical part cannot always be found so sacred fiction seems more inclusive). As far as it being another testimony of Jesus, Joseph Campbell would point out that such sacred allegory has continually been transformed and expanded upon throughout history. One needs to only reflect on the various flood and virgin birth stories to see that point.

[Reuben]

Calling this fiction does seem a bit disrespectful to believers. That is why I prefer to say Sacred Fiction or Sacred Allegory (the allegorical part cannot always be found so sacred fiction seems more inclusive).

Bro. Bushman has recently called the Book of Abraham pseudepigrapha. Even though it's a bit of a stretch, we could call the Book of Mormon the same thing.

[Hagoth]

Bro. Bushman has recently called the Book of Abraham pseudepigrapha. Even though it's a bit of a stretch, we could call the Book of Mormon the same thing.

That's fascinating. Do you have a source for that? If Bushman is willing to go that far it might be safe to assume that he would believe the same for the Book of Moses and (gulp) the Book of Mormon. I doubt he would go so far as to make the same claim about the keystone of our religion, however, if he is interested in keeping his metaphorical head attached to his metaphorical neck.

[Reuben]

Bro. Bushman has recently called the Book of Abraham pseudepigrapha. Even though it's a bit of a stretch, we could call the Book of Mormon the same thing.

That's fascinating. Do you have a source for that? If Bushman is willing to go that far it might be safe to assume that he would believe the same for the Book of Moses and (gulp) the Book of Mormon. I doubt he would go so far as to make the same claim about the keystone of our religion, however, if he is interested in keeping his metaphorical head attached to his metaphorical neck.

Video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=775s&v=QH-v7XUdyD8

It was at this conference (early this year):

http://chass.usu.edu/news/translation-conference