Another blow to the Book of Mormon

[_Sethbag]

I totally agree that this is problematic, because the LDS always say that what is written in the standard works is their doctrine, that it (the Book of Mormon) is the Word of God without reservation, and Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was the most correct book on Earth. If it turns out that whole sections of the Book of Mormon are really just ancient mythology written down as historical truth, and we don't have to take any of it at its word, then there goes the whole notion of scripture within Mormonism. The apologists basically shoot themselves in the foot trying to defend the book against its critics.

If any given section of the book could really be misinterpretations of the author then how do we really know that Jesus died for our sins? How do we really know that Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy? How do we really know that if we read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, God will manifest the truth of it to us? See where this is going? Once the Jaredites can be Nephite myth, once the story as pointed out in the OP can be the extrapolations of the author, etc., what good is any of the book as true witness to us?

[_Joseph Antley]

Seems pretty typical of ancient historians who weren't so much concerned with noting the absolute God-sworn truth as they were with making their literary points, and if they had to mix up, simplify, or exaggerate details in order to do that, I don't think they saw a problem with it.

[_DarkHelmet]

This is a problem with all writers that choose to write their stories in first person. Take a movie like Titanic. Old Rose is telling the story, but her story involved scenes she couldn't possibly know about, like discussions between the crew members. We forgive these little goofs if the story is entertaining, but when the story sucks as bad as the Book of Mormon, it makes these bloopers and goofs stand out even more.

[_Nightlion]

As a prime example of the problem, check out Alma 46+.

34 And it came to pass that Amalickiah took the same servant that slew the king, and all them who were with him, and went in unto the queen, unto the place where she sat; and they all testified unto her that the king was slain by his own servants; and they said also: They have fled; does not this testify against them? And thus they satisfied the queen concerning the death of the king.

The whole account of Amalickiah has this problem but this verse really draws it out. Amalickiah is deep in enemy territory, yet somehow Alma not only knows everything Amalickiah does, but every detail of reasoning behind every twist to his scheming. And here in this verse, he reveals exactly how a handful of conspirators killed the king and then covered the whole thing up so that the queen never learned of it. If the conspirators leaked the truth (and lets face it, there would have to be a whole lot of solid information here to know that this account were true over the accepted Lamanite version) it would have got to the queen long before Alma.

Oh?

Chief of the tabloid critics I see.

Alma 47:29
29 Now when the servants of the king saw an army pursuing after them, they were frightened again, and fled into the wilderness, and came over into the land of Zarahemla and joined the people of Ammon.

So Alma heard a first hand report and after Moroni conquered all those who swore an oath could have filled in all the gaps of the story.

Tabloid Critic. Indeed!
You guys get away with too much. Too much.

[_Rambo]

This is a problem with all writers that choose to write their stories in first person. Take a movie like Titanic. Old Rose is telling the story, but her story involved scenes she couldn't possibly know about, like discussions between the crew members. We forgive these little goofs if the story is entertaining, but when the story sucks as bad as the Book of Mormon, it makes these bloopers and goofs stand out even more.

You mean you don't believe in Old Rose the prophet? She died in that movie you know and that makes her a true prophet of God. Oh and she obviously did not care riches of the world.

[_Patriarchal gripe]

This is a problem with all writers that choose to write their stories in first person. Take a movie like Titanic. Old Rose is telling the story, but her story involved scenes she couldn't possibly know about, like discussions between the crew members. We forgive these little goofs if the story is entertaining, but when the story sucks as bad as the Book of Mormon, it makes these bloopers and goofs stand out even more.

You mean you don't believe in Old Rose the prophet? She died in that movie you know and that makes her a true prophet of God. Oh and she obviously did not care riches of the world.

And she threw the Urim and Thummin off the fantail of the research vessel at the end of the movie.

[_Sethbag]

Seems pretty typical of ancient historians who weren't so much concerned with noting the absolute God-sworn truth as they were with making their literary points, and if they had to mix up, simplify, or exaggerate details in order to do that, I don't think they saw a problem with it.

Yeah, this is pretty much what I thought. So was Nephi mixing up, simplifying, or exaggerating when he reported seeing visions of Jesus Christ coming at a later time? Did Nephi exist at all, or was he a simplification, exaggerating, or perhaps a conflation of multiple different characters known in the mythology of Moroni and invented by him for this book he (Moroni) was putting together? Did Enos really go out to pray, or is that just some faith-promoting rumor turned into an "inspired fiction" character by Mormon or Moroni? Once you allow for parts of the "most correct book on Earth", the "word of God" to be made up, where do you draw the line?

[_Gadianton]

Consig,

Good point, though there is an incredible disparity in degree here; if you read both accounts carefully, the Amalickiah episode would be an order of magnitude more difficult to explain.

Rambo,

NOTHING can disprove by TBM standards because it's true because it is. Also, while revelation can plug all holes, it's the old Book of Moses paradox; why even worry about keeping plates and parchments when you can just get the revelation?

J. Antley,

Yeah, like borrow myths (deluge) from other cultures and change the names around to make it your own sacred history or just make crap up whole cloth. Well, Joseph Smith certainly wasn't against this model; and neither is BKP. lol

Nightlion,

You provide the answer I would go with if I were an apologist. But, had the story of Amalickiah been common enough knowledge for the later conquered people to relate, the story never would have unfolded in the first place. You get what I'm saying?

Had it been a secret to a few, there would be a problem with credibility. If one of George W.'s associate came out many years after the fact and related George W. masterminding 911 and so on, well, that's not good enough reason to record it as history, even if it did so happen to be true.

[_Simon Belmont]

NOTHING can disprove by TBM standards because it's true because it is. Also, while revelation can plug all holes, it's the old Book of Moses paradox; why even worry about keeping plates and parchments when you can just get the revelation?

Yup, and NOTHING can prove the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon to critics and anti-Mormons.

So where do we stand?

Is it gridlock?

[_The Nehor]

This is the first time I've ever agreed with Nightlion. The Book of Mormon takes time to note how those who saw the events got to the Nephite side of the border.

Another blow to critics everywhere.