Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Equality]

Well, President Newsroom has given us a new essay, this time on Book of Mormon translation.

You can find it HERE.

Note this gem, which is germane to our discussion in this thread:

In addition, some grammatical constructions that are more characteristic of Near Eastern languages than English appear in the original manuscript, suggesting that the base language of the translation was not English.

There is a footnote:

John A. Tvedtnes, “Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon” and “Names of People: Book of Mormon,” in Geoffrey Kahn, ed., Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (Brill Online, 2013); M. Deloy Pack, “Hebraisms,” in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2003), 321–25; John A. Tvedtnes, “The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon,” in John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1991), 77–91; Donald W. Parry, “Hebraisms and Other Ancient Peculiarities in the Book of Mormon,” in Donald W. Parry and others, eds., Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 2002), 155–89.

Looks like the official doctrine of the LDS church is that "grammatical constructions" resembling those found in "Near Eastern languages" suggest that the "base language of the translation was not English." And here I thought, based on what our true-believing friends who post here have argued in this thread, that the discovery of those same "grammatical constructions" in The Late War was irrelevant because only a few rogue mopologists ever advanced it. If the leaders of the church do not believe that "Hebraisms" in the Book of Mormon are evidence of its authenticity, why mention them in this essay and reference the Who's Who of Mormon apologia?

[_Darth J]

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.

See: Courtier's reply

For those of you who are asserting that there is a case for an ancient Book of Mormon that is worth considering, can I get a list of Book of Mormon locations that have been confirmed by mainstream archaeologists, and some examples of your favorite Nephite artifacts that have been found during the last 183 or so years? Just curious.

I ask because I know it's really hard to internalize reality sometimes, but the way this guy sounds to you



is the way you sound to everyone whose identity is not fully vested in LDS truth claims.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

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.

Nevo,

I just finished the entire 6 volume commentary. Thanks in part to me having the flu and being in bed for the last couple of weeks.

My honest opinion after reading Sorenson, is the Church will be SO much better off when they finally adopt the position the Book of Mormon is not historical, but an inspired book with good teachings and parables.

Make no mistake, the Church is very slowly, but surely moving in this direction.

[_Gadianton]

I just finished the entire 6 volume commentary. Thanks in part to me having the flu and being in bed for the last couple of weeks.

Oh that ye cannot heal thyself by loanshifting the flu!

but seriously, all six? That's an accomplishment.

Also, two weeks for the flu? have you been to the doctor and are you sure you don't have a secondary infection?

[_Maksutov]

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.

See: Courtier's reply

For those of you who are asserting that there is a case for an ancient Book of Mormon that is worth considering, can I get a list of Book of Mormon locations that have been confirmed by mainstream archaeologists, and some examples of your favorite Nephite artifacts that have been found during the last 183 or so years? Just curious.

I ask because I know it's really hard to internalize reality sometimes, but the way this guy sounds to you



is the way you sound to everyone whose identity is not fully vested in LDS truth claims.

Not too reassuring when you consider how popular this ancient alien horse crap seems to be. Ugh.

[_Always Changing]

Not too reassuring when you consider how popular this ancient alien horse**** seems to be. Ugh.

I don't even watch that channel any more. But I just watched some. Trippy.......

[_EAllusion]

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.

I can say that I haven't read either, though I have read bits and pieces of Sorenson and seen his work discussed often. I've actually read a ton of material Gardner had written on his multi-dimensional commentary on the Book of Mormon, which I understand is what his book derives from. So I've probably read a good deal of it.

It probably has occurred to most people who read this Nevo that there are hundreds of fringe movements most people don't take all that seriously and implicitly reject that have books written in their defense. Out of curiosity, would you use the same reasoning for any of them? Can a person say there is not a good case for X only if they've personally read all there is out there to defend X?

X can be everything from anit-vaccinationism to Atlantean archaeology to young earth creationism to moon landing conspiracy theories to biodynamic agriculture to palmistry to hollow earth theory to attachment therapy to umpteen different kinds of alternative medicines, and so on. You name it. They all have thousands of pages of material written in their defense. There are many credentialed scholars who can be found defending these things.

Do you think you have to have read all of that to assert that they lack a sound case? I'm serious. I'm not making an argument against your question here so much as trying to figure out how you think.

[_Nevo]

Do you think you have to have read all of that to assert that they lack a sound case? I'm serious. I'm not making an argument against your question here so much as trying to figure out how you think.

No, I don't maintain that one must delve extensively into the literature supporting various fringe theories before one can rightly dismiss them. So why have I apparently resorted to the "Courtier's Reply" with respect to the Book of Mormon?

Simply this: I have recently been reading Sorenson's latest book (and his earlier Ancient Setting book, which I picked up over the summer) as well as bits of Gardner's commentary (in Kindle form) and have come to the realization that the case for the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not as inconsiderable as I had supposed.

I am not (yet) convinced that the Book of Mormon is ancient, but I find it impressive that a plausible case can be made at all. The evidence that Sorenson and Gardner adduce is enough to give me pause. At the same time, I recognize that my openness to the possibility of an ancient (and miraculous) origin for the Book of Mormon is conditioned by my commitment to Mormonism.

So, no, I don't really blame anyone for not taking the time to read Sorenson or Gardner. But I, for one, do find their arguments at least "worth considering."

[_Runtu]

Simply this: I have recently been reading Sorenson's latest book (and his earlier Ancient Setting book, which I picked up over the summer) as well as bits of Gardner's commentary (in Kindle form) and have come to the realization that the case for the historicity of the Book of Mormon is not as inconsiderable as I had supposed.

I wish I were more impressed with that case, as it seems to me a lot of stringing together of a thousand unlikely but possible ideas loosely as if they added up to something plausible. It's sort of like getting some bacon slices, a football, a Little Tikes piggy bank, and a DVD of "Babe: Pig in the City" and arguing that it adds up to a real, living pig.

I am not (yet) convinced that the Book of Mormon is ancient, but I find it impressive that a plausible case can be made at all. The evidence that Sorenson and Gardner adduce is enough to give me pause. At the same time, I recognize that my openness to the possibility of an ancient (and miraculous) origin for the Book of Mormon is conditioned by my commitment to Mormonism.

I was at one time at least as open to you, but I eventually realized that it just doesn't work very well. Back when I was an undergrad, I remember consciously separating what I was studying about ancient America from "evidence" for or against the Book of Mormon. Michael Coe is right that there just aren't any actors on the stage that Sorenson and Gardner have constructed. What kills me is that, even now, part of me really would like to make it work.

So, no, I don't really blame anyone for not taking the time to read Sorenson or Gardner. But I, for one, do find their arguments at least "worth considering."

I've read Brant's work, and in my opinion, it's as good a case as can be made for the Book of Mormon, but it still doesn't work. In conversations with Brant in the past, I've been disappointed to hear him essentially tell me to ignore what the text says in favor of some other explanation that works. For example, rather than accept the text when it tells us that Nephi taught his people his skill in metallurgy, which was used to make tools and weapons (swords and so on)--never mind that the Jaredites supposedly had the same technology--we are to understand that this was a skill reserved for the priestly class and not known among the people at large. This is the stuff that kills me because it's a clear admission that what we see in the archaeological record doesn't square with the text, and so we are just going to ignore the text.

I can make any text a "plausible" history if I'm willing to ignore what I don't like in the text. My experience with Sorenson tells me that he cannot be trusted to use sources properly.

Wow, I sound more hardened on this than I feel, but ultimately, if a plausible case can be must be made, it must be based on sound methodology and absolute integrity. That's what I find lacking in current Book of Mormon apologetics.

[_GR33N]

the Book of Mormon is not historical, but an inspired book with good teachings and parables.

Make no mistake, the Church is very slowly, but surely moving in this direction.

Both are lies.