Dr. John Lundwall - the Book of Mormon is self refuting

[drumdude]

A great presentation by a professor of comparative mythology who was recently a TBM and now apparently less TBM. Mormon scholars testify!

https://www.youtube.com/live/3iZysUZAXz ... PO6YAK02I4

He admits that even as smart and educated as he was, it took him a long time to uncover his blind spot and come to the realization that the Book of Mormon is not historical. And not just because of the material anachronisms like horses and steel.

The text itself is the biggest anachronism, because it implies a society and religious worship culture that wouldn’t have existed for centuries later, even in Israel.

[Chap]

The text itself is the biggest anachronism, because it implies a society and religious worship culture that wouldn’t have existed for centuries later, even in Israel.

When I first stumbled across this board a good few years back, and began to read the Book of Mormon, that was the point that struck me in the first hour or so. The contrast with the Old Testament was massive: the Old Testament was an ancient text, while the Book of Mormon screamed "Written by an early 19th C. King James version reading American Protestant".

Of course, if you are brought up amongst a well-knit social group that regards the Book of Mormon as a sacred text of great antiquity, it will take a major pressing of the mental and emotional reset button for that contrast to become obvious. And quite understandably that is not something that happens easily, given the possible consequences for the individual concerned.

[Physics Guy]

I had the same impression as Chap. Admittedly I had no expectation that the Book of Mormon would be anything other than a 19th-century product, but there are plenty of texts in the world that are inspiring, whether or not they're inspired, and I think I would have been prepared for something that would have made me think, Yeah, I can see how people consider this a revelation.

Tastes differ, especially when people grow up in different environments, and I don't want to be rude. But Mormon apologists frequently cite the amazing quality of the Book of Mormon, just as a book, as evidence that it could never have been composed by a rural American in the 1830s. Those arguments just boggle me. Maybe you can extract great things from the Book of Mormon, or at least excuse it, but if they say, "Just read it," I can only think, "Hey, that was my line!"

[yellowstone123]

A great presentation by a professor of comparative mythology who was recently a TBM and now apparently less TBM. Mormon scholars testify!

https://www.youtube.com/live/3iZysUZAXz ... PO6YAK02I4

He admits that even as smart and educated as he was, it took him a long time to uncover his blind spot and come to the realization that the Book of Mormon is not historical. And not just because of the material anachronisms like horses and steel.

The text itself is the biggest anachronism, because it implies a society and religious worship culture that wouldn’t have existed for centuries later, even in Israel.

Steel, per Wiki, was produced 4000 years ago. Maybe Laban didn’t have a fancy sports car but he could have had a fancy steel sword.

[Moksha]

Steel, per Wiki, was produced 4000 years ago. Maybe Laban didn’t have a fancy sports car but he could have had a fancy steel sword.

What if you applied the questions how, where, and in what quantities?

[yellowstone123]

Steel, per Wiki, was produced 4000 years ago. Maybe Laban didn’t have a fancy sports car but he could have had a fancy steel sword.

What if you applied the questions how, where, and in what quantities?

He had a fancy steel sword. To bad he was drunk and the holy man stole it and killed him.

[Moksha]

He had a fancy steel sword. To bad he was drunk and the holy man stole it and killed him.

A holy man killing a sleeping person with a steel sword? Sounds like a deranged criminal in some story.

[tagriffy]

When I first stumbled across this board a good few years back, and began to read the Book of Mormon, that was the point that struck me in the first hour or so. The contrast with the Old Testament was massive: the Old Testament was an ancient text, while the Book of Mormon screamed "Written by an early 19th C. King James version reading American Protestant".

Of course, if you are brought up amongst a well-knit social group that regards the Book of Mormon as a sacred text of great antiquity, it will take a major pressing of the mental and emotional reset button for that contrast to become obvious. And quite understandably that is not something that happens easily, given the possible consequences for the individual concerned.

That's not too horribly far from my first impression, except I didn't have the knowledge to specifically ascribe it to "an early 19th C. King James version reading American Protestant." At the time I was an Evangelical, and merely found it remarkable that much of it could safely be preached in my then-church.

[Philo Sofee]

He had a fancy steel sword. To bad he was drunk and the holy man stole it and killed him.

A holy man killing a sleeping person with a steel sword? Sounds like a deranged criminal in some story.

Or a Man whom the Holy Ghost couldn't find a better or different solution than outright murdering the helpless chap. The Holy Ghost's abilities not to mention its imagination to solutions are severely limited once one reads how it operates in the scriptures. It's the singular most simpleton of the deities in the scriptures.

[huckelberry]

A great presentation by a professor of comparative mythology who was recently a TBM and now apparently less TBM. Mormon scholars testify!

https://www.youtube.com/live/3iZysUZAXz ... PO6YAK02I4

He admits that even as smart and educated as he was, it took him a long time to uncover his blind spot and come to the realization that the Book of Mormon is not historical. And not just because of the material anachronisms like horses and steel.

The text itself is the biggest anachronism, because it implies a society and religious worship culture that wouldn’t have existed for centuries later, even in Israel.

Steel, per Wiki, was produced 4000 years ago. Maybe Laban didn’t have a fancy sports car but he could have had a fancy steel sword.

Yellowstone, usually when people think of steel sword as a Book of Mormon problem they are not worried about whether or not Laban could have had such a fancy weapon.I think you have a point saying perhaps he could have It is the proposal in the book that the technology was taken to the new world and employed there. No trace of such technology in the new world exists for the Book of Mormon timeperiod.