There is no case to be made for a historical Book of Mormon

[_Fence Sitter]

There are many similar examples of theologies and doctrines that are plucked from their historical context, appearing out of time and out of place in the Book of Mormon narrative. This is why Book of Mormon historicity is not taken seriously by scholars who aren't LDS apologists. It's completely implausible on its face. There are so many red flags that the claim to historicity simply cannot be taken seriously.

What does that mean? It certainly doesn't mean that the Book of Mormon isn't scripture - the Book of Daniel has very similar historical issues. Scripture is not the same thing as history. But hopefully as members become more informed about Biblical scholarship, they can come up with a more mature view of scripture that doesn't require the (often faith-destroying) anti-intellectualism of apologetics.

When it comes to Biblical criticism, LDS members are among the worst informed Christians there are. Very little LDS apologetic work has been done in this area because there has been no demand, no hard questions in Sunday School about the documentary hypothesis, no questions asking why we even use the KJV, which is among the worst of all English Bible translations. I think that Biblical criticism presents a much worse challenge for a literal Book of Mormon than does the lack of physical evidence in the America's for Nephites and Lamanites.
There have been some recent attempts to provide alternate faithful scholastic views in this area. See David Bokovoy's Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis - Deuteronomy or Thomas Wayment's The New Testament: A Translation for Latter-day Saints But the end result of these will be to show that the Book of Mormon cannot be based on scriptures retrieved by Lehi in Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and will castrate claims to actual priesthood authority based on a prophetic lineage going back to Abraham and Adam.

[_Shulem]

Deutero-Isaiah devastates the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is a total farce. Just like the Explanations of the Facsimiles which Joseph Smith made up out of thin air. He did the same thing with the Book of Mormon. All those made-up stupid names. Ridiculous. With everything we know now there is no reason for anyone to be stupid enough to fall for that con job.

Pay 10% to that church? Hell NO!

[_huckelberry]

Cross posted from Reddit:

But the Book of Mormon is inextricably tied to the Bible, so we can use mainstream Biblical scholarship to very easily and quickly identify if the Book of Mormon could possibly be historical.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

* Atonement theology took many decades to develop in the first century of the Christian movement, and continued to develop beyond that time. But it appears more or less fully developed among the Nephites many centuries before even the birth of Jesus. Penal Substitution theory is quite late, modeled on feudalistic crime and punishment, but it's in the Book of Mormon. The earliest form of atonement theology is the ransom theory of atonement (first century CE), but it's not in the Book of Mormon.

* The early Christian use of the term Savior and Son of God to describe Jesus is a clear rejection of Roman authority. These were the terms the Romans used to describe Caesar - the Christians deliberately used them to say, no, not Caesar, but Jesus. But somehow the Nephites use these terms centuries earlier and another continent, completely divorced from the historical context that brought them about.



*

*

There are many similar examples of theologies and doctrines that are plucked from their historical context, appearing out of time and out of place in the Book of Mormon narrative. .

What does that mean? It certainly doesn't mean that the Book of Mormon isn't scripture - the Book of Daniel has very similar historical issues. Scripture is not the same thing as history. But hopefully as members become more informed about Biblical scholarship, they can come up with a more mature view of scripture that doesn't require the (often faith-destroying) anti-intellectualism of apologetics.

I am not inclined to support the idea of the Book of Mormon being historical (or scripture for that matter) but there are weaknesses in this argument. If there was a development of theology related to Jesus in the new world it would not, could not, follow the historical sequence of development which took place in the Roman world. The Roman empire and peoples ideas there were to far away.

Of course without revelation people in the Americas would not be aware of any of the story,issues and doctrines of Christianity.The Book of Mormon presumes revelation. If you are sure there is no revelation you reject the Book of Mormon out of hand. No further argument is required unless strong physical evidence of historicity were to be found.
.......
I am puzzled as to how individuals who wish to be Mormon and see the Book of Mormon as fiction would approach LDS authority.

[_SuperDell]

You blind anti-mormons do not understand how revelation works.

At least I don't keep a notebook by the bed with a lighted pen so if I have a nocturnal emission I don't wake up mistaking it for a revelation and then write down my pet peeves to push on people.

[_Meadowchik]

Cross posted from Reddit:
....But hopefully as members become more informed about Biblical scholarship, they can come up with a more mature view of scripture that doesn't require the (often faith-destroying) anti-intellectualism of apologetics.

Unfortunately, that's not the current direction.

And the overarching position of the church is, when examined, still very much a magical worldview. So God can magic old scriptures into a new compilation that is supposed to be old, before the old-old would have existed at the claimed writing of the new-old.

Easy peasy.

[_Fence Sitter]

Of course without revelation people in the Americas would not be aware of any of the story,issues and doctrines of Christianity.The Book of Mormon presumes revelation. If you are sure there is no revelation you reject the Book of Mormon out of hand. No further argument is required unless strong physical evidence of historicity were to be found.

Of course one can use claims to revelation or divine intervention(deus ex machina) to support any position on the Book of Mormon and or the Bible, even a position that believes in the Book of Mormon as pseudepigrapha. However the devil is in the details, and in the case of the Book of Mormon, using revelation to explain how the same errors we find in the KJV of the Bible appear throughout the Mormon canon, leaves one believing in the same kind of trickster god who floods the entire world then erases all physical evidence that flood ever occurred, or commands millions of Hebrews to flee Egypt and live in the desert for 40 years then invade Canan and erase all evidence of that event ever happening.

I am puzzled as to how individuals who wish to be Mormon and see the Book of Mormon as fiction would approach LDS authority.

Because there are quite a lot of still semi faithful Mormons out there who want to remain part of the culture in which they were raised but no longer see current or past leadership as infallible. So they approach authority with skepticism. We are seeing this a lot with the millennials who actually have a higher level of belief in God but do not view every minor edict from SLC as direct from God's mouth.

[Guest]

I am not inclined to support the idea of the Book of Mormon being historical (or scripture for that matter) but there are weaknesses in this argument. If there was a development of theology related to Jesus in the new world it would not, could not, follow the historical sequence of development which took place in the Roman world. The Roman empire and peoples ideas there were to far away.

Of course without revelation people in the Americas would not be aware of any of the story,issues and doctrines of Christianity.The Book of Mormon presumes revelation. If you are sure there is no revelation you reject the Book of Mormon out of hand. No further argument is required unless strong physical evidence of historicity were to be found.
.......
I am puzzled as to how individuals who wish to be Mormon and see the Book of Mormon as fiction would approach LDS authority.

If we're talking about the issue of whether or not something is historical, the notion of "revelation" has to be completely set aside, otherwise we're talking about something other than history. Historically speaking the development of certain Jewish and Christian doctrines and theologies are tied to certain times and places. They appear all out of time and place in the Book of Mormon. It's like finding post-modernism in a purported document by Shakespeare - that would be a major anachronism.

[_huckelberry]

]

If we're talking about the issue of whether or not something is historical, the notion of "revelation" has to be completely set aside, otherwise we're talking about something other than history. Historically speaking the development of certain Jewish and Christian doctrines and theologies are tied to certain times and places. They appear all out of time and place in the Book of Mormon. It's like finding post-modernism in a purported document by Shakespeare - that would be a major anachronism.

I am not understanding why you think this. If you are thinking of a series of similar events taking place in different locations they could happen in a different order. That different order would not be a matter of anachronism. Only if the point suspected of being an anachronism would be completely dependent upon the later event could one be sure of anachronism. Doctrinal development in America would not be dependent upon the order of development in the Roman empire so could happen in a different order.

I do not see how the belief in revelation itself blocks or prevents historicity. All historicity means is a telling of a series of events that happened. One should try to distinguish more or less accurate histories. Why does the idea of revelation prevent true history? John Brown could believe he acted at Harper Ferry by divine revelation. Whether one believes that revelation was from God or not does not change the historicity of the civil war.

I could observe from a different direction that very little of the Book of Mormon sounds like it comes from any place other than early 19th century America. I suppose that could indicate time and place of composition.

[_huckelberry]

Of course one can use claims to revelation or divine intervention(deus ex machina) to support any position on the Book of Mormon and or the Bible, even a position that believes in the Book of Mormon as pseudepigrapha. However the devil is in the details, and in the case of the Book of Mormon, using revelation to explain how the same errors we find in the KJV of the Bible appear throughout the Mormon canon, leaves one believing in the same kind of trickster god who floods the entire world then erases all physical evidence that flood ever occurred, or commands millions of Hebrews to flee Egypt and live in the desert for 40 years then invade Canan and erase all evidence of that event ever happening.

Fence Sitter,
I can see the errors of KJV appearing in the Book of Mormon as suggesting anachronism much more strongly than the the doctrinal things. We have all heard some excuses for them. I think how convincing those excuses are depends upon how deep into belief in the book a person is. Your further examples, variations on the six day creation carefully designed to look very old in all details ideas are not disprovable nor believable.

To my understanding the Book of Mormon is fiction from start to finish. The Bible is quite different. It is a combination of history, folklore, commentary, parables, fiction, poetry and sometimes a tangle of all of the above. It is a product of the genuinely ancient peoples it purports to be. (with the caveat that it was primarily composed later in the history than may first appear)

[_huckelberry]

Looking back at what people say about the Book of Mormon it becomes clear to me that different people find different considerations and arguments more persuasive than others. Shulem finds the word adieu important, it hardly registers to me. I might as well let Shulem weigh that for himself.

I have mentioned what observation meant the most to me and have seen that it is often not found to be convincing for others.

Book does not have enough Indians.