Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_SteelHead]

Water Dog, you still have not dis proved my invisible dragon, therefore it truly exists.

[_sock puppet]

Water Dog,

Might you explain to me what troubles you about evidence and rational thinking about evidence?

[_Kishkumen]

Water Dog,

Might you explain to me what troubles you about evidence and rational thinking about evidence?

He just wants something more numbers-driven like the study that brought the LW to our attention.

[_Themis]

Water Dog, you still have not dis proved my invisible dragon, therefore it truly exists.

LOL I noticed he likes to use the word prove a lot, and in an absolute way. This is why we get lame arguments like prove you exist. It becomes a useless word used in such absolute ways, and it is not used this way in science and especially not the justice system.

[_Kishkumen]

[M]y problem with Sorensen is that his stuff always involves a lot of fudging and misrepresentation of sources. Look again at the alleged smelted iron find, which has no basis in the research he cites. He doesn't quite approach the John Gee level of dishonesty, but it's all a lot of hand-waving and misdirection. In Sorensen's world, however, fossilized horse teeth are contemporary with Mayan civilizations because no one needs to know about the fossilization.

Well, it could be that a lot of this is a combination of best intentions, wishful thinking, and maybe a tad insufficient restraint. There are others who strike me as more aggressively and self-consciously paternalistic in their massaging of the facts. I don't view Sorenson as being like that.

In any case, I maintain that there is no case for an ancient Book of Mormon that is worth considering. It took some time to get there, but after having argued with others about the topic for some years I have finally arrived at a place where I can say that, given the current body of evidence, the existence of ancient civilizations matching the description of the Book of Mormon is extremely unlikely--to the point of negligible.

That said, I take the Book of Mormon very, very seriously as a rich and interesting text worthy of study. Its author or authors were brilliant. Sure, it is roughly executed, but as an object of scholarly examination it is fully worthy.

[_Themis]

As far as I can tell, this board is just about the only place online where this book is still being discussed,

That would be expected, although I wouldn't expect apologetic sites to want to discuss it longer then a few dismissive posts. At this point it is not really going to go away, and will be a good source to look at in trying to understand Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

and hardly anybody here is still claiming that The Late War is a source for the Book of Mormon.Instead there's a lot of talk about how The Late War's real value is in contextualizing the Book of Mormon and undermining certain apologetic arguments for "hebraisms" in the Book of Mormon—which is pretty much what Rick Grunder concluded in the late 1990s.

Depends on what you mean by source.

Moreover, as you yourself have repeatedly pointed out, even if a close literary relationship between The Late War and the Book of Mormon could be demonstrated, it wouldn't necessarily invalidate the Book of Mormon's claim to be a divinely inspired text.

It doesn't help, and shows a more likely 19th century production. Many of the evidences against the Book of Mormon don't invalidate the possibility of divinely inspired, but they don't help it, and all together strongly suggest quite the opposite. When you go to other areas like the Book of Abraham there really isn't any realistic hope of divinely inspired.

So I'm not sure what I'm supposed to find so disturbing. But I suppose it's exciting for the DAMU/ex-Mo crowd to imagine that Mormons are deeply troubled by these, uh, developments, so have at it.

Most know nothing about it, but you do come across as a little troubled. Again understandable, and I believe some apologists may recognize some of the problems.

[_Runtu]

Well, it could be that a lot of this is a combination of best intentions, wishful thinking, and maybe a tad insufficient restraint. There are others who strike me as more aggressively and self-consciously paternalistic in their massaging of the facts. I don't view Sorenson as being like that.

In any case, I maintain that there is no case for an ancient Book of Mormon that is worth considering. It took some time to get there, but after having argued with others about the topic for some years I have finally arrived at a place where I can say that, given the current body of evidence, the existence of ancient civilizations matching the description of the Book of Mormon is extremely unlikely--to the point of negligible.

That said, I take the Book of Mormon very, very seriously as a rich and interesting text worthy of study. Its author or authors were brilliant. Sure, it is roughly executed, but as an object of scholarly examination it is fully worthy.

I quite agree. The Book of Mormon is an important text because of the effect it's had on so many people around the world, and as you mention, there is a certain richness to the text. In my view, whoever wrote it was certainly religiously creative and adept at syncretizing disparate sources into something unique.

But the search for Nephites and Lamanites is pretty much a dead end, and several LDS scholars have acknowledged that. The Chronicles of Narnia isn't interesting because we can use evidence to surmise the exact location of the wardrobe, and the Book of Mormon isn't worthy of study because someone thinks they can tell us where Zarahemla is.

[_Maksutov]

In any case, I maintain that there is no case for an ancient Book of Mormon that is worth considering. It took some time to get there, but after having argued with others about the topic for some years I have finally arrived at a place where I can say that, given the current body of evidence, the existence of ancient civilizations matching the description of the Book of Mormon is extremely unlikely--to the point of negligible.

That said, I take the Book of Mormon very, very seriously as a rich and interesting text worthy of study. Its author or authors were brilliant. Sure, it is roughly executed, but as an object of scholarly examination it is fully worthy.

I've wondered what could have happened if Joseph Smith had simply presented The Book of Mormon as a visionary work, without all the angels and plates and peep stone nonsense. He could have stated that he was unsure of whether it was literal or mystical, as the creator of the OAHSPE and the medium Jane Roberts did about their stories later. But if you in present it literally with artifacts that conveniently disappear and utter lack of other evidence, you are suspect, and should be.

What if he had been a novelist who was also a visionary preacher? Literary works often are framed as "found manuscripts", popular from E. A. Poe to Blair Witch...but it wasn't enough to produce a Pilgrim's Progress or spirit writing apocrypha, Smith had to package it in BS. Was he wrong to use such a vehicle to start his movement? Poetic/prophetic license, or manipulation? A pious fraudster with the best intentions? What happens when we decide that good can come from lies?

[_Nevo]

For those of you who are asserting that "there is no case for an ancient Book of Mormon that is worth considering," can I get a show of hands on how many of you have read (or at least skimmed) Sorenson's Mormon's Codex and Gardner's six-volume commentary? Just curious.

[_Kishkumen]

I've wondered what could have happened if Joseph Smith had simply presented The Book of Mormon as a visionary work, without all the angels and plates and peep stone nonsense. He could have stated that he was unsure of whether it was literal or mystical, as the creator of the OAHSPE and the medium Jane Roberts did about their stories later. But if you in present it literally with artifacts that conveniently disappear and utter lack of other evidence, you are suspect, and should be.

What if he had been a novelist who was also a visionary preacher? Literary works often are framed as "found manuscripts", popular from E. A. Poe to Blair Witch...but it wasn't enough to produce a Pilgrim's Progress or spirit writing apocrypha, Smith had to package it in BS. Was he wrong to use such a vehicle to start his movement? Poetic/prophetic license, or manipulation? A pious fraudster with the best intentions? What happens when we decide that good can come from lies?

It is hard to say. I look at the story of the Book of Mormon's discovery a part of the narrative. Indeed, it is highly likely that the story of the discovery helped shape the text itself. The prominence of special books, divine instruments and spiritual gifts for reading them, etc., in the Book of Mormon attests to that connection. So, as messy as it is, I think that the Book of Mormon is inseparable from the story of its discovery.