If you have found a portion to be of modern origin, then it's a fraud.
I've been fence sitting since the premortal existence.
Your position that any portion of the Book of Mormon that is found to be of modern origin brands the entirety a fraud is too extreme for my tastes.
I think it may be more nuanced.
Maybe I'm alone in this, though.
I am interested in how others view Jon's proposition.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
Hi Consig,
For the record, I wasn't stating my personal position.
I was stating the Church's official stance on the Book of Mormon - that it is the historical record of the 'literal' ancestors of the native Americans. Church Presidents, such as Hinckley, have said; it's either all true or a complete fraud.
The Church does not allow for fence sitters on the subject of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
jon wrote:For the record, I wasn't stating my personal position.
If you don't mind me asking, what is your "personal position"?
I don't mind at all. My position, after reading it several times and examining the areas of controversy, is that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century piece of man made fiction. Once I reached that conclusion all of the 'difficulties' and 'questions' and 'controversies' surrounding it went away.
What is your position on it?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
jon wrote: Once I reached that conclusion all of the 'difficulties' and 'questions' and 'controversies' surrounding it went away.
What is your position on it?
While we're waiting for Ray to respond, I want to add that I do not think all the difficulties, questions and controversies surrounding the Book of Mormon go away upon concluding it is a complete fraud.
It just changes the nature of the difficulties and questions.
At least, that's my take on it.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
consiglieri wrote:While we're waiting for Ray to respond, I want to add that I do not think all the difficulties, questions and controversies surrounding the Book of Mormon go away upon concluding it is a complete fraud.
It just changes the nature of the difficulties and questions.
At least, that's my take on it.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
What difficulties and questions relating to the Book of Mormon do you think remain once the conclusion of it's fraudulent nature is reached?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
All of the markers we find in the Book of Mormon that might suggest an ancient origin are very easily explained by the fact that the author(s?) were obviously very familiar with the Bible, and copied a lot of Biblical language and themes. That's the simplest explanation requiring the fewest assumptions.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
DarkHelmet wrote:He's the Indiana Jones of Mormonism. He probably found proof in a booby trapped temple, and after escaping the rolling boulder, had the evidence stolen from him by an anti-mormon who sicked the natives on him.
A bit of a stretch. I think he's more like the Marcus Brody of Mormonism.
jon wrote:What difficulties and questions relating to the Book of Mormon do you think remain once the conclusion of it's fraudulent nature is reached?
This, for starters . . .
Sometimes when I am looking at purported "bull's-eyes" (which I would rather refer to in a serious vein as "points of contact") between the LDS scriptures and the ancient world, I step back and try the following analyis:
If the Book of Mormon were simply a secular ancient document, with no gold plates and angels attached, would I think the points of contact amounted to anything?
And further, based on my amateur knowledge of Biblical studies, would somebody else approaching the subject without an axe to grind feel the same way?
These are still subjective assessments, but at least it gives us a good place to start.
I think that under such a scenario, a publication-subsequent finding of a place called NHM in the correct place and at the correct time as mentioned in the Book of Mormon would be considered strong evidence for its ancientness (note I didn't say authenticity).
The location of a place matching the description of the Book of Mormon Bountiful on the coast, almost due east from the place called Nahom, is even more striking to my mind.
Of course, this is not unambiguous, as Buffalo points out. But I think there are few evidences in the world that would be considered to unambiguously support a given proposition. There are always other ways to interpret things, it seems.
I also think chiasmus cannot be easily dismissed as an evidence. If the Book of Mormon were a secular document claiming to be ancient, it seems likely a reasonable scholar would consider the extensive presence of elaborate chiasmi in its pages to be supporting evidence. (If memory serves, some non-LDS Bible scholars have said as much.)
But once again, it cannot be said to be unambiguous.
I think research done by, among others, Dan Peterson, John Tvedtnes, David Bokovoy, John Welch and Hugh Nibley make it difficult to simply dismiss all corroborative evidence with a wave of the hand.
Is everything all the above scholars have published of equal value? Certainly not. And they would probably be the first to say so. But to say all of it is of no value is probably equally extreme.
Grant Hardy's recent book, "Understanding the Book of Mormon," raises the bar of internal Book of Mormon complexity. I have been reading the Book of Mormon for over thirty years, and pretty closely at that, and I was amazed at the things Grant Hardy pulled from the text.
I remain convinced the Book of Mormon will wear all its students out before they wear it out. That is not what I would expect from a naturally produced book from early 19th century America.
And what do we make of Margaret Barker, who in an e-mail correspondence with MsJack (?) wrote the following on 3/1/2010:
What strikes me most is this: I have been researching and reconstructing the world of the temple now for over 30 years, putting together the fragments of an ancient picture that was severely damaged by upheavals in history and poltiics, not to mention theology. I am astonished that time and time again, things that I thought I had "discovered" and not found in the work of any other contemporary acholar, are also there in the LDS traditions.
Is there evidence for ancient authorship of the Book of Mormon? I think so.
Is there evidence for modern authorship of the Book of Mormon? I think so.
What do we do, then, with this evidence?
One side brushes away all modern authorship evidence and claims exclusive ancient authorship.
The other side brushes away all ancient authorship evidence and claims exclusive modern authorship.
But I think the evidence points to something else, that being a mixture of both an ancient and modern production milieu for the Book of Mormon.
What does that mean exactly insofar as the translation process itself is concerned?
I haven't a clue.
But I think my position is reasonable based upon the available evidence.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)