The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1812
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by Dr Moore »

Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:58 pm
The date of the Book of Mormon is not something that is simply a matter of personal ideological point of view. Real civilizations populated the Americas before the Europeans arrived. They had a real past, and we are unjust toward them when we maintain that their history is something other than the facts indicate. We are especially unjust toward them when we insist that their history is something that a 19th century European wrote for them. The only way around this problem, in my opinion, is to own up to the fact that the Book of Mormon is NOT a record of ancient Americans.
QFT. Let's admit defeat on historicity so we can stop deleting a real cultural history. Enough with the racist Lamantie appropriation.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by drumdude »

Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:58 pm
Real civilizations populated the Americas before the Europeans arrived. They had a real past, and we are unjust toward them when we maintain that their history is something other than the facts indicate.
Well said.

I do think apologists have moved toward the "extremely small insignificant presence in central America" idea to try and get away from this.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by MG 2.0 »

Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:58 pm

It's fine for you to believe what you like, but you don't get to fabricate history and expect others to agree with you.
I’m in no way fabricating history. It is what it is.

What I am doing is pointing out the fact that the Book of Mormon shows indications of being something other than purely a nineteenth century creative fiction written by Joseph Smith.

I would expect others to at least be open to that. 🙂

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by Kishkumen »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:18 pm
I’m in no way fabricating history. It is what it is.

What I am doing is pointing out the fact that the Book of Mormon shows indications of being something other than purely a nineteenth century creative fiction written by Joseph Smith.

I would expect others to at least be open to that. 🙂

Regards,
MG
Please remember, MG, that I do not call the Book of Mormon "creative fiction." If you think that real history and creative fiction are the only two options, then you are trapped in a dead-end paradigm and don't know very much about the larger discussions regarding what the Bible is and what scripture is.

Furthermore, I don't have to be open to the historicity of the Book of Mormon outside of its historicity as a 19th century book of scripture. I am open to evidence. But at some point one will as a matter of course make a decision based on the preponderance of the evidence. That is what one must do. The evidence shows in spades that the Book of Mormon was composed in the 19h century. It does not show that it was written in ancient Mesoamerica.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by MG 2.0 »

Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:23 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:18 pm
I’m in no way fabricating history. It is what it is.

What I am doing is pointing out the fact that the Book of Mormon shows indications of being something other than purely a nineteenth century creative fiction written by Joseph Smith.

I would expect others to at least be open to that. 🙂

Regards,
MG
Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:23 pm
Please remember, MG, that I do not call the Book of Mormon "creative fiction." If you think that real history and creative fiction are the only two options, then you are trapped in a dead-end paradigm and don't know very much about the larger discussions regarding what the Bible is and what scripture is.
I think I have an inkling of what those larger discussions might generally consist of. I remember, back in the day, of keeping up with what the Jesus Seminar was doing. There have been many folks before and after Jesus Seminar that have been involved in scriptural exegesis and interpretive studies in regards to writings from the past.

At the end of the day, however, one either chooses fiction or nonfiction in regards to the Book of Mormon. I don’t see any way of beating around the bush.

What do you think in regards to the Berkeley Study? Anything there? Do you come away from Word Print Studies with “Joseph Smith as Author” intact?
Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:23 pm
Furthermore, I don't have to be open to the historicity of the Book of Mormon outside of its historicity as a 19th century book of scripture. I am open to evidence. But at some point one will as a matter of course make a decision based on the preponderance of the evidence.
I agree with you on this point. ALL evidence, including both intellectual and spiritual.
Kishkumen wrote:
Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:23 pm
The evidence shows in spades that the Book of Mormon was composed in the 19h century. It does not show that it was written in ancient Mesoamerica.
And I in no way disagree that the Book of Mormon has the marks of early English speakers from Joseph’s generation and those just previous to his. For me, however, that doesn’t negate or discount the echos of the ancient world that scholars have found within its pages.

Regards,
MG
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by Binger »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Aug 10, 2022 12:29 pm
I like Stephen D. Ricks very much. He and I read Latin together, nearly the entirety of Vergil's Aeneid, and he attended my wedding at the Timpanogas Temple. He is actually quite a humble and unassuming fellow, and he is highly intelligent. I simply do not agree with the premise. A book is not ancient because the names in it are ancient. I cannot be dated by my name, and neither can my children. My kids have ancient Hebrew names. Are we to assume that they are ancient Hebrews? No, this is all wrong. An ancient book is one which the preponderance of the evidence shows was written in antiquity. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon is not an ancient book in that sense of the term "ancient book."

Here is what it would take for me to say that the Book of Mormon is an ancient book in that sense:

1. Qualified scholars have access to and thoroughly examine the gold plates.

2. In truly peer-reviewed publications, they make a compelling case, built on a preponderance of evidence, that the the gold plates are an ancient text the translation of which largely agrees with Joseph Smith's translation.

3. Other scholars weigh in on their work and find it unimpeachable.

Names do not prove the Book of Mormon is an ancient text, and those who do not believe the Book of Mormon to be ancient based on the claims of believers do not have an obligation to disprove the antiquity of an English manuscript written by a farm boy in 19th century New York. Rather, those who believe have a long, long way to go before they are able to make a case that others are obliged to take seriously.

Names don't cut it.
Thanks for including these personal connections, Kish. That is a nice touch. It adds to the points you are making too. Thanks man.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by Morley »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:39 pm
The Berkeley group was composed of nonLDS folks.
The Berkeley Group was not composed of 'nonLDS folks'. It was composed of 'John Hilton and non-LDS colleagues at Berkeley'. As I understand it, John Hilton is LDS and had some non-Mormons help him input the data and run the numbers. I'd like to determine authorship, but can't locate a copy of the study itself.
MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:39 pm
Also peer reviewed.
According to the link, their methods have been peer reviewed. That does not mean this particular study was peer reviewed. Besides, peer reviewed does not mean 'valid' or 'accurate' or 'significant'. It means some others in the field have looked and haven't found obvious problems.




This last paragraph in your linked article is golden:

As John Hilton put the matter, if wordprinting is a valid technique, then this analysis suggests that it is "statistically indefensible" to claim that Joseph, Oliver, or Solomon Spaulding wrote the 30,000 words in the Book of Mormon attributed to Nephi and Alma.[6] The Book of Mormon also contains work written by more than one author. Critics who wish to reject Joseph's account of the Book of Mormon's production must therefore identify multiple authors for the text, and then explain how Joseph acquired it and managed to pass it off as his own.

For argument's sake, let's assume Hilton's study is valid. Why must critics identity the authors? Why do critics need to explain how 'Joseph acquired it and managed to pass it off as his own'. Indeed, why should critics even care?
User avatar
Doctor Steuss
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:48 pm

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by Doctor Steuss »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:23 pm
PseudoPaul wrote:
Fri Aug 12, 2022 2:52 pm
Nephi knows about people going to heaven and hell when they die, Satan, a suffering and divine messiah, salvation by faith - all things that are anachronistic to the 6th century BCE. Case closed.
So you’re saying a prophet living in the pre Christian Era would not be plugged into knowledge of/from God?
This would be a great question for... Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainen, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Epharaim, Elias, Gad, Jeremy, Elihu, Moses, Joshua, Balaam, Samuel, Nathan, Gad...

*deep breathe*

...Aijah, Jahaziel, Elijah, Elisha, Job, Joel, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Oded, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, Obadiah, Ezekial, Daniel, Zechariah, Haggai, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by Moksha »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:49 pm
For me, however, that doesn’t negate or discount the echos of the ancient world that scholars have found within its pages.

Regards,
MG
I'm hoping you and the Ensign Peak Investment Fund will be sufficient to counter-understand the Martian Elders before they can begin their contemplation of the Earth.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: The burden is now upon those who deny the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon

Post by Kishkumen »

At the end of the day, however, one either chooses fiction or nonfiction in regards to the Book of Mormon. I don’t see any way of beating around the bush.
Nope!
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Post Reply