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

[_Holy Ghost]

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

Actually we understand how it works quite well, we just don't think it is inspired, along with 99.9% of the rest of the world.

But let's assume for a moment we don't, as most don't in the case of the recent revelation reversal regarding baptizing the children of gay married people. Perhaps you could explain how that revelation worked? Or maybe you could explain how one recent prophet promoted the use of the term Mormon while another says it's use is a victory for the devil? If you're really up for a task, maybe you could explain how revelation worked in denying black people the priesthood for 150ish years. After that you could go on to the gathering of Zion in Missouri, polygamy, Office of the Presiding Patriarch, baptism for the sick, adoptive sealings, Wood of Wisdom, thousands of changes to the D&C/Book of Commandments and so on. So yes, please tell us how revelation works.

Mormon god is fickle and impetuous. There. All explained.

[_Gray Ghost]

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.

For instance, the God/Satan dualism and apocalyticism comes from Hebrew interactions with Zoroastrianism. Without those interactions, you don't get those doctrines coming into Judaism and later Christianity.

An anachronism is something out of place and time. We know when and were these ideas developed. For them to appear out of place and time in a 600 BCE document is simply not plausible. Taking a historical view of it, we can very quickly rule out the Book of Mormon as historical.

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.

No, history is an academic discipline. When we apply the established historical rules and analyses to the Book of Mormon we find that it's a document that was composed not only after the Bible, but after the development of certain protestant doctrines as well. It does not fit into an ancient setting.

[_Gray Ghost]

No matter what kind of argument against the Book of Mormon is made, believers will find a way to argue against it. Archaeology can only tell us so much without texts and vice versa. Apologists will argue that an argument from silence is weak, or that anachronisms could have been introduced by Smith in the translation process. The point is to keep the Book of Mormon viable by making it a moving target. A critic can never disprove the Book of Mormon, in believers’ eyes at least.

But the truth of the matter is that there was never a good argument for the Book of Mormon as an ancient text in the first place. Those who believe always believed on spiritual grounds or by mere assertion. There was never a sound case for an ancient Book of Mormon, and therefore there is no reason to think anyone is obliged to disprove what was never established in the first place.

The thing about apologetic arguments is they are not historical arguments. History is a very different discipline than is apologetics. From a historical perspective, there is no wiggling out of it - the Book of Mormon lacks historicity.

Yes, on spiritual grounds one can believe it's "ancient". But that isn't history, that's theology.

[_Meadowchik]

It's still a weird choice for a translation. Adieu may have been in current use in English around Smith but I don't think it had been completely anglicized. Its spelling doesn't look English; I reckon people knew it was French. So whatever its literal meaning may have been for people around Smith, I think it must have carried a certain highfalutin connotation—perhaps even a certain cachet. It would be odd for a translator to use an exotic word to express any word that was not so exotic in the original language of the translated document.

If I'm translating a German story into English and one of the characters in the original German actually says, "See ya later!" in English, then I might conceivably render this in English as, "Hasta la vista!". If the German character simply says, "Auf Wiedersehen," though, I'm not going to use the Spanish phrase even though it is sometimes used in colloquial English and renders the literal meaning of German a bit more closely than "goodbye" or "farewell".

So maybe Jacob said goodbye to his brethren in Hebrew with a loan word from Egyptian or Mayan or something, and the divine translation nailed that exoticism with an English "adieu". Short of that, the "adieu" would be weird.

I guess it's hard for me to say. In French, I have rarely if ever heard someone say "adieu" in normal conversation. It seems to be reserved for permanent goodbyes. And there is not such a specific word like that in English, as far as I know. That's why in English we use words like croissant, or algebra, or pinata, because there is not an English word for them. It's not necessarily an affectation to say use a strange and foreign word when we don't have an accurate alternative.

[_Physics Guy]

If God really wanted to express the permanence of the goodbye, why not just show "Goodbye forever!" on the rock in the hat?

I actually agree that "adieu" is in a lower tier of problems in the Book of Mormon. I think the apologists play it down too far, though. It is kind of weird.

[_Shulem]

I guess it's hard for me to say. In French, I have rarely if ever heard someone say "adieu" in normal conversation. It seems to be reserved for permanent goodbyes. And there is not such a specific word like that in English, as far as I know. That's why in English we use words like croissant, or algebra, or pinata, because there is not an English word for them. It's not necessarily an affectation to say use a strange and foreign word when we don't have an accurate alternative.

I don't agree, at all. Joseph Smith could have used a collective or string of English words to express any manner of good byes -- from "farewell for a little season" to "I bid you an everlasting farewell until me meet again at the judgment seat".

Smith was being a smartass by using the French. It just goes to show that French doesn't belong in the Book of Mormon anymore than German or Spanish. There are plenty of English words to describe exactly what the Book of Mormon was trying to imply.

[_huckelberry]

Shulem finds the word adieu important, it hardly registers to me. I might as well let Shulem weigh that for himself.

Joseph Smith was being a smart ass by using the French

Shulem, I admit your observation here has crossed my mind as well.

[_huckelberry]

[

No, history is an academic discipline. When we apply the established historical rules and analyses to the Book of Mormon we find that it's a document that was composed not only after the Bible, but after the development of certain protestant doctrines as well. It does not fit into an ancient setting.

Definition of history in Merriam Webster is 1 a tale or story,
Second Amendment chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes a history of Japan.

This definition may be what people like myself considered under your opening statement. It is certainly true that the word also means a particular form of study with established rules. Under the
first definition the Book of Mormon is a history. Under the second definition it does not qualify as history.

Otherwise we are in complete agreement that the Book of Mormon dous not fit into an ancient setting.

I realize that different individuals react to evidence differently. For me seeing the Book of Mormon as reflecting early 19th century beliefs and attitudes means more than a different sequence of theological views because there is strong historical evidence that the book was written in the US in the early 19th century.

[_SteelHead]

Historicity is the historical actuality of persons and events, meaning the quality of being part of history as opposed to being a historical myth, legend, or fiction. The historicity of a claim about the past is its factual status

[_Gray Ghost]

[

No, history is an academic discipline. When we apply the established historical rules and analyses to the Book of Mormon we find that it's a document that was composed not only after the Bible, but after the development of certain protestant doctrines as well. It does not fit into an ancient setting.

Definition of history in Merriam Webster is 1 a tale or story,
Second Amendment chronological record of significant events (such as those affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes a history of Japan.

This definition may be what people like myself considered under your opening statement. It is certainly true that the word also means a particular form of study with established rules. Under the
first definition the Book of Mormon is a history. Under the second definition it does not qualify as history.

Otherwise we are in complete agreement that the Book of Mormon dous not fit into an ancient setting.

I realize that different individuals react to evidence differently. For me seeing the Book of Mormon as reflecting early 19th century beliefs and attitudes means more than a different sequence of theological views because there is strong historical evidence that the book was written in the US in the early 19th century.

It's true that there is a colloquial definition of history that just has to do with stories about the past. But that's not what is being referred to when we are talking about "historicity"