Another blow to the Book of Mormon

[_Gadianton]

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.

The Book of Mormon isn't fiction just because none of the stuff ever happened, but because it's written as fiction. The author, and I don't care if it's Smith or Spaulding, was writing a story like Lord of the Rings, where the author is omniscient and draws out all the stuff his characters do in disparate places with perfect clarity of their actions and psyches. It's more like Danielle Steele however, because there is too much worry that the reader isn't going to "get it" and therefore, the plot must be spelled out at every step. Amalickiah does something that seems morally OK, but the author doesn't allow for any misdirection that could actually work toward a plot twist, he clarifies right away that Alma is a bad guy is only doing it because his plan is X...

Wait: there are scholars who believe this crap actually happened? LOL!

A waste of Gold, big time!

[_Buffalo]

I actually noticed that once while reading it as a believer. Like all the many problems with it, I put it on the shelf.

[_consiglieri]

I believe similar things happen in the New Testament, such as the recounting of the conversation between Jesus and Pilate.

A few weeks ago, our Sunday school teacher mused out loud in class, "Who wrote this down? Jesus didn't exactly have the opportunity, and we can be pretty sure it wasn't Pilate . . .."

I don't know that these are reasons for rejecting accounts outright, but they are certainly reasons to suspect such accounts are based on hearsay, tradition, lore or just plain creative writing.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_just me]

Isn't this why you have to believe that God revealed this stuff directly to the author in order for it to be included in the book?

[_Mad Viking]

Isn't this why you have to believe that God revealed this stuff directly to the author in order for it to be included in the book?

Seems very reasonable to expect the author to identify the parts of his work that came through such a source.

[_consiglieri]

Isn't this why you have to believe that God revealed this stuff directly to the author in order for it to be included in the book?

I think you are right if one believes in absolute scriptural inerrancy.

I have often heard this idea expressed in the LDS Church, and expect it is also prevalent in other Bible-believing Christian denominations.

I think Mormons should not feel bound to such a position, as they expressly do not believe the scriptures are without error or interpolation.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Rambo]

Yeah I don't think this is a blow to the Book of Mormon because if you believe in God you would believe that God would give the writer of the scriptures the details of what God considers important.

If I were to say to my family how do we know what happened between Jesus and Pilate they would say God was the witness and God told the apostles.

[_DarkHelmet]

Since the scriptures were written by old prophets, I would double check with BC Space to see if they are doctrinal. After all, you can't take some random writings of Hebert J Grant and just assume they are doctrine without checking with BC Space first.

[_Sethbag]

We've seen apologists speculate that the book of Ether was just some Nephites recounting some mythology of theirs in a way that looks to us like it's supposed to be factual history. I don't see why the same apologetic mindset couldn't justify saying that the author of this account was going on incomplete information and extrapolating from that, and then writing it down as if it were rock-solid history. Then any problems within that story could be discounted as simply error on the part of the author, not necessarily proof that the whole Book of Mormon isn't true.

[_just me]

We've seen apologists speculate that the book of Ether was just some Nephites recounting some mythology of theirs in a way that looks to us like it's supposed to be factual history. I don't see why the same apologetic mindset couldn't justify saying that the author of this account was going on incomplete information and extrapolating from that, and then writing it down as if it were rock-solid history. Then any problems within that story could be discounted as simply error on the part of the author, not necessarily proof that the whole Book of Mormon isn't true.

Then we could discuss what the word "true" actually means when used like this.