Glaring 19th century mannerisms in the Book of Mormon

[Rivendale]

I thought this was an interesting post on exmormon reddit. https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... chronism/ and seems to fit the reoccurring theme of intelligent people completely ignoring modern science or historical scholarship. We see Bushman wondering why there is so much 19th century material in the Book of Mormon. We see Mitt Romney claiming 80 year old people should not be running the United States and claiming brain shrinkage as his evidence while simultaneously supporting octogenarians running the Mormon church. We see Rasband and Holland butchering science to support Christian theology. This reddit post points out how old testament rebellious social activities happened. Mainly by turning to other gods like Baal or Asherah. They definitely didn't turn to atheistic toolbox demanding evidence and using modern skepticism. Despite this apologists ignore this and claim the Book of Mormon is an accurate depiction of pre-christian customs. These blind spots are of epidemic proportions in Mormonism.

[Limnor]

Sometimes I wonder even if someone privately concluded the Book of Mormon reflected Joseph’s world, that’s actually evidence of Joseph’s prophethood rather than evidence against him. Like since Joseph is the primary revelator, then the book’s value comes from him rather than from being ancient. Almost as if Joseph were a god himself.

Is that a view a true believer might hold?

[Rivendale]

Sometimes I wonder even if someone privately concluded the Book of Mormon reflected Joseph’s world, that’s actually evidence of Joseph’s prophethood rather than evidence against him. Like since Joseph is the primary revelator, then the book’s value comes from him rather than from being ancient. Almost as if Joseph were a god himself.

Is that a view a true believer might hold?

Many people have noted similarities in the Book of Mormon to Smith's life. His treasure digging language is in both. Characters reflect his actual acquaintances. His landlord was named Lemual Durfee. (Lemual is in the Bible also). Nephi was undoubtedly based off Joseph. There are many many more connections.

[Limnor]

Sometimes I wonder even if someone privately concluded the Book of Mormon reflected Joseph’s world, that’s actually evidence of Joseph’s prophethood rather than evidence against him. Like since Joseph is the primary revelator, then the book’s value comes from him rather than from being ancient. Almost as if Joseph were a god himself.

Is that a view a true believer might hold?

Many people have noted similarities in the Book of Mormon to Smith's life. His treasure digging language is in both. Characters reflect his actual acquaintances. His landlord was named Lemual Durfee. (Lemual is in the Bible also). Nephi was undoubtedly based off Joseph. There are many many more connections.

That’s what’s puzzling to me. It doesn’t seem to matter.

[drumdude]

Many people have noted similarities in the Book of Mormon to Smith's life. His treasure digging language is in both. Characters reflect his actual acquaintances. His landlord was named Lemual Durfee. (Lemual is in the Bible also). Nephi was undoubtedly based off Joseph. There are many many more connections.

That’s what’s puzzling to me. It doesn’t seem to matter.

There are infinite ways to spin the evidence in a faith promoting direction. Watching faithful members rationalize contrary evidence in real time was always astonishing to me as an outsider. I don’t think they even realized they were doing it consciously.

[I Have Questions]

Many people have noted similarities in the Book of Mormon to Smith's life. His treasure digging language is in both. Characters reflect his actual acquaintances. His landlord was named Lemual Durfee. (Lemual is in the Bible also). Nephi was undoubtedly based off Joseph. There are many many more connections.

That’s what’s puzzling to me. It doesn’t seem to matter.

Most active members aren’t investigating whether or not the Church, its history, its claims, etc. stand up to objective scrutiny. They are either fully indoctrinated to the point of being willfully blind, or they want to hold a view about death and the after life so strongly that they will discount anything and everything that jeopardises it.

I sort of understand the latter for people who feel the need to wrap their head around death and cannot tolerate a scenario that this life is it, and then it’s the long sleep. I can’t blame them for wanting that hope of something beyond the veil. I know people who have lost loved ones before their time, as it were. And a belief in the afterlife has helped them process that tragedy.

For me the bigger problem is the coercion of the institutional church rather than some members holding on to a belief that Nephites. If you want to believe in Nephites, fine, go right ahead. But when you start trying to show others that Nephites are real and in doing so ignore obvious objective evidence, well then you’ve crossed over and are trying to con people.

[Chap]

I thought this was an interesting post on exmormon reddit. https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... chronism/ and seems to fit the reoccurring theme of intelligent people completely ignoring modern science or historical scholarship. We see Bushman wondering why there is so much 19th century material in the Book of Mormon. We see Mitt Romney claiming 80 year old people should not be running the United States and claiming brain shrinkage as his evidence while simultaneously supporting octogenarians running the Mormon church. We see Rasband and Holland butchering science to support Christian theology. This reddit post points out how old testament rebellious social activities happened. Mainly by turning to other gods like Baal or Asherah. They definitely didn't turn to atheistic toolbox demanding evidence and using modern skepticism. Despite this apologists ignore this and claim the Book of Mormon is an accurate depiction of pre-christian customs. These blind spots are of epidemic proportions in Mormonism.

I actually had the privilege of seeing the Book of Mormon musical in New York. I remember (perhaps slightly inaccurately) the song by the young missionary that went (I add my surmises as to audience reaction):

"I beLIEVE that God Almighty created the universe!" (capitals represent boost in volume]
Most of audience thought "OK, maybe ..."

"And I beLIEVE that he sent his son Jesus Christ to die for us!"
Large part of the NY audience thought. "Meh! We paid money to be told this?"

"And I beLIEVE that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America!"
Audience "??!!??"

"I am a Mormon, and Mormons just BELIEVE"
Audience "OK, now I get it".

I agree with you entirely about the obvious early 19th C linguistic and cultural features of the Book of Mormon text. But for most people it sounds enough like 'Bible English' to pass. And they have had the text presented as on a par with the Bible all their lives, so they don't see a problem. And even if they saw a problem, it would be so very subtle compared to all they have swallowed already that they would have no problem in gulping it down without a qualm.

[Rivendale]

I thought this was an interesting post on exmormon reddit. https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... chronism/ and seems to fit the reoccurring theme of intelligent people completely ignoring modern science or historical scholarship. We see Bushman wondering why there is so much 19th century material in the Book of Mormon. We see Mitt Romney claiming 80 year old people should not be running the United States and claiming brain shrinkage as his evidence while simultaneously supporting octogenarians running the Mormon church. We see Rasband and Holland butchering science to support Christian theology. This reddit post points out how old testament rebellious social activities happened. Mainly by turning to other gods like Baal or Asherah. They definitely didn't turn to atheistic toolbox demanding evidence and using modern skepticism. Despite this apologists ignore this and claim the Book of Mormon is an accurate depiction of pre-christian customs. These blind spots are of epidemic proportions in Mormonism.

I actually had the privilege of seeing the Book of Mormon musical in New York. I remember (perhaps slightly inaccurately) the song by the young missionary that went (I add my surmises as to audience reaction):

"I beLIEVE that God Almighty created the universe!" (capitals represent boost in volume]
Most of audience thought "OK, maybe ..."

"And I beLIEVE that he sent his son Jesus Christ to die for us!"
Large part of the NY audience thought. "Meh! We paid money to be told this?"

"And I beLIEVE that ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America!"
Audience "??!!??"

"I am a Mormon, and Mormons just BELIEVE"
Audience "OK, now I get it".

I agree with you entirely about the obvious early 19th C linguistic and cultural features of the Book of Mormon text. But for most people it sounds enough like 'Bible English' to pass. And they have had the text presented as on a par with the Bible all their lives, so they don't see a problem. And even if they saw a problem, it would be so very subtle compared to all they have swallowed already that they would have no problem in gulping it down without a qualm.

You are right about just believing. The church knows this and I think they incorporate it into their attempts to slow the bleeding resulting from bizarre historical facts. Not long Elder Corbridge gave the talk about primary and secondary questions that tries to diminish the silliness of certain events. Using a stone in a hat is silly to you? Is a body raising from the dead silly? They try to use indoctrinated beliefs regarding the supernatural realm and the idea of immortality in the hopes polygamy and child brides become irrelevant. It works for some because the fear of being irrelevant is powerful and daunting.