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

[_Nevo]

If you're talking about miracles, you're not talking about history or historicity. Miracles are outside of the academic discipline of history. Miracles are a matter of faith, theology, and doctrine - an entirely different area than history.

If Christ rose from the dead, then we're talking about something that was both a miracle and a historical event. The two things are not, by definition, mutually exclusive.

The passage itself you quote from also seems anachronistic.

Yes, it does. But I think it makes a solid theological point. If Christianity is true, we cannot rule out the possibility that God would reveal his plan of salvation for the human family to Nephite (and Lamanite) prophets.

[Guest]

And if Wotan is the true all father we can not discount the possibility that Avengers End Game is historical.


See, here is the deal - IF, Christianity is true - If Christ rose from the dead, it does not necessarily follow that Mormonism is true and that lamanites and nephites existed. In fact there is a preponderance of evidence: DNA, anachronisms, Duetero Isiah, 19th century Protestant themes yada yada that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction.

And don't get me started on the "christianity true/ zombie Jesus" supposition on which the mess hangs.

[_EAllusion]

It is true that if things that are wildly improbably and violate our understanding of how things work occur, then that establishes that wildly improbable events that violate our understanding of how things work occur can, in fact, occur. What this does not do is establish any particular wildly improbable event that violates our understanding of things work is reasonable to believe happened. Those remain as improbable as ever until such time that evidence in the context if our framework for understanding how the world works materializes to change our opinion.

Indeed, there have been natural phenomena that were once thought of as improbable and outside our general understanding of how the world works that were later show to have had validity. That does not mean that psychic powers are reasonable to believe now. Heretofore improbable ideas have their own individual burdens.

Yes, it would be interesting to know that a person was genuinely dead for several days and came back to life. No, that would not do much of anything to also establish that the Book of Mormon is an ancient document translated with the aid of a deity. Those are extremely different claims.

Re: the existence of a case for a historical Book of Mormon, obviously people can try to and have made a case for it. Implicit in the assertion of the OP is no decent case exists that merits being taken seriously. That's true enough.

[_Nevo]

Boatloads of anachronisms and plagiarism end my curiosity very quickly as an ancient historian. Might I still be curious about the book as a text of its time and religious environment? Of course, but there is no reason to entertain the book’s antiquity.

Right. And that's perfectly understandable.

But suppose, upon further inspection, you notice that there are complex structures beneath the obvious anachronisms and plagiarism. And the plagiarized texts turn out to form part of a rather sophisticated intertexual project. That wouldn't necessarily make the book any more credible as an ancient text, but it would at least complicate the picture, wouldn't it? After all, we now seem to be dealing with something more than a crude forgery passed off by a 22-year-old con man.

[_Gray Ghost]

If Christ rose from the dead, then we're talking about something that was both a miracle and a historical event. The two things are not, by definition, mutually exclusive.

There are two questions, one historical and one not:

First, did God raise Jesus from the dead? That's a theological question, not a historical question. History cannot comment on, verify, or analyze divine intervention.

The other question is, did Jesus' disciples come to believe God had raised him from the dead? If so, when, what did they believe about it exactly, etc. Those are historical questions. Those are the areas where historians have something to say.

Yes, it does. But I think it makes a solid theological point. If Christianity is true, we cannot rule out the possibility that God would reveal his plan of salvation for the human family to Nephite (and Lamanite) prophets.

Christianity being "true" (whatever that means) is not a historical question. It's like I'm having a conversation about math and you keep trying to introduce a poem about numbers that you like. History as an academic discipline does not overlap with questions of miracles and the divine. Historians have to set those issues to the side.

[Guest]

Boatloads of anachronisms and plagiarism end my curiosity very quickly as an ancient historian. Might I still be curious about the book as a text of its time and religious environment? Of course, but there is no reason to entertain the book’s antiquity.

Right. And that's perfectly understandable.

But suppose, upon further inspection, you notice that there are complex structures beneath the obvious anachronisms and plagiarism. And the plagiarized texts turn out to form part of a rather sophisticated intertexual project. That wouldn't necessarily make the book any more credible as an ancient text, but it would at least complicate the picture, wouldn't it? After all, we now seem to be dealing with something more than a crude forgery passed off by a 22-year-old con man.

No, not really.
We see sophisticated intertextual woven into 100s of literary works. Ever read the Wheel of Time series and chased down the rabbit hole of all the mythologies Jordan interweaves, the influences of Tolkien? Then you jump over to Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series and see several terms for the WOT co-opted and used in similar way. That books of the same genre have intertexuality is expected, not extraordinary.

[Guest]

But suppose, upon further inspection, you notice that there are complex structures beneath the obvious anachronisms and plagiarism. And the plagiarized texts turn out to form part of a rather sophisticated intertexual project. That wouldn't necessarily make the book any more credible as an ancient text, but it would at least complicate the picture, wouldn't it? After all, we now seem to be dealing with something more than a crude forgery passed off by a 22-year-old con man.

Everything I have seen thus far from LDS apologists, including Brant Gardner, who, by the way, I really like and respect as having done good work in other respects, looks like something that can either be explained in other ways or results from eisegesis. Really, the way that you are taught to frame the question, which is evident from your statement above, stacks the deck in favor or a binary that simply does not exist in reality. You have been conditioned to see this as a false dilemma.

What is the false dilemma?

Either this is an ancient text, or

Joseph Smith was an impossibly good con man.

There are so many other options out there. One of them is that Joseph Smith was a very talented storyteller who was deeply familiar with the Bible. And this is taking for granted that Joseph Smith is the author, which I am happy to do.

I readily embrace the idea that the Book of Mormon is a rich and complicated document, but I do not find that at all inconsistent with the notion that it is a 19th century document that was clearly written to imitate the King James Bible in form and language.

Any steps beyond the initial dismissal of the Book of Mormon for lack of evidence of its ancient origins is granted by grace, not by sound methodology. Really, all we need to know is that Joseph Smith produced an English text but could not provide the source text. Period.

If you want a good idea of what kind of scrutiny an actual text with some evidence of ancient origins is submitted to, and of the sort of controversy that still surrounds a text with much better attestation than the Book of Mormon, read the Wikipedia article on the Secret Gospel of Mark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark

All we have of this is some photographs and a handful of people who claim to have seen it. We no longer have the text itself. The text itself was written in an 18th century hand in Greek and was found at Mar Saba. Granted there are real problems here, but they come nowhere close to touching the problems with the Book of Mormon, and yet there are well regarded scholars who are bitterly divided on the question of authenticity. Just read the entry, and then ask yourself whether you can imagine the Book of Mormon even remotely approaching the threshold that the Secret Gospel of Mark has crossed in order to be considered possibly authentic.

[_huckelberry]

If you're talking about miracles, you're not talking about history or historicity. Miracles are outside of the academic discipline of history. Miracles are a matter of faith, theology, and doctrine - an entirely different area than history. There is certainly a case for a theological Book of Mormon, but not a historical one.

Gray Ghost, Your statement makes sense to me, I believe it is correct. However we could consider the case of the fellow working at the hardware store who asks himself did Jesus really visit the new world? There is nothing requiring him to limit his thoughts to the academic rules of history. He might pursue lines of thought Nevo has pointed out.On the other hand if that fellow is taking a college course on the history of Mexico writing a paper on the Book of Mormon would be inappropriate for the reasons you have stated (and Kishkumen expanded upon).

[_Meadowchik]

[
Right. And that's perfectly understandable.

But suppose, upon further inspection, you notice that there are complex structures beneath the obvious anachronisms and plagiarism. And the plagiarized texts turn out to form part of a rather sophisticated intertexual project. That wouldn't necessarily make the book any more credible as an ancient text, but it would at least complicate the picture, wouldn't it? After all, we now seem to be dealing with something more than a crude forgery passed off by a 22-year-old con man.

Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein at 21. Maya Angelou wrote I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings At 17. Just quick examples of extraordinary works with extraordinary depth. Of course there are many other exceptional works written by young people, including less educated young people. And of course so many more the world over in many languages and throughout history. Why only consider the ones that claim to be of divine origin? Is that not naïve, if one is a believer in divine power? Potentially, God's word might be breathed into any number of writings.

It seems to me that a reasonable person would not spend too much time obsessing over a work that is clearly not what it says it is, and rather continue being open to other inspirations in their potential forms, including the perhaps humbler ones which do not make any claims on people.

[_Fence Sitter]

At least his middle initial isn't specified.

I grew up thinking it was "H", as in Jesus H Christ!!!!!