Could The Book of Mormon be considered mythology?

[Stephen168]

It doesn’t appear archaeology has anything to do with their conversion so I am not sure why you are using them as examples as scholars choosing Mormonism?

Yes, and Tom admitted that empirical science did not lead them to becoming Mormon. This is a rhetorical device to project honesty, so the reader will just assume that other claims are true. As you have pointed out, there is only one person we might charitably be called a non-Mormon Scholar on the list, and her work doesn’t seem to have gotten any traction in scholarly circles. She also doesn’t believe the Book of Mormon is true as claimed by Joseph Smith.

Of course Tom never intended to list non-Mormon scholars who believe the Book of Mormon is true as claimed by Joseph Smith. He wants us to assume that if a scholar finds some little piece of Mormonism to be true, they believe that Mormonism is true, and therefore, the Book of Mormon is true as claimed by Joseph Smith. So he provided a list, but only promised in some future time a list of non-Mormon scholars who believe the Book of Mormon is true as claimed by Joseph Smith. I see the promise as a rhetorical device as well: If you promise to provide it, we assume it must exist.

 

[TOmNossor]

I hope to respond to Lax’s latest posts eventually, but I will try to respond to the OP first.

• I have created this thread in order to start a meaningful discussion and in no way intend to hurt or offend those belonging to the Latter Day Saint Movement. May the Lord bless you all abundantly. -

Could The Book of Mormon be considered mythology? …

Hello,
While I do not agree that the BOM is “not taken seriously by academics” or much if anything I removed from your question with my …, I have been thinking about your question.

First, I will suggest the portion of your post I removed suggests a number of things to me, but one thing it suggests to me is that the definition of “myth” is not the most germane aspect of your question. I hope to answer, “Could the Book of Mormon be considered scripture for the CoJCoLDS and yet not be considered an ancient history linked to Old Testament times and the mortal sojourn of Christ on earth.”

My answer is I am not sure. I will just offer some positives for this and some negatives.

• The BOM has been called the cornerstone of our faith. The early CoJCoLDS however did very little theologically with the BOM. Most of their preaching was from the Bible. Today there is still very little LDS theology that links directly to the BOM. But, the BOM was a source of contact with God that demonstrated to many folks that Joseph Smith was a prophet and his ministry was sanctioned by God. The historicity of the BOM was a part of this understanding. If the BOM describes a journey from Jerusalem through Nahom to Bountiful, then how could it be anything but supernatural? If the BOM described Teotihuacan cement including time/place/geography how could it be anything but supernatural? These were not the arguments made by early LDS because these things were unknown to early LDS, but the miracle of an ancient book brought forth by the power of God was a bigger part of the CoJCoLDS than the theology or … in the book.

• The value to the lives of LDS is not the historical viability (or lack thereof) for the BOM. The Bible is an ancient book with an ancient pedigree that describes history and other things. The Odyssey is an ancient book with an ancient pedigree that describes history and other things. The Bible is not scripture for 3 world religions because its history is better than the history of the Odyssey. It is scripture because of these “other things.” The BOM does not have an “ancient pedigree.” Instead it burst upon the American continent in the 19th century disconnected from its purported human sources. But the “other things” in the BOM are of similar value to the “other things” in the Bible.

• There is a lot in the BOM that comes rather directly from the Bible and also a lot that aligns so well with the Bible one could reasonably suggest, “A Bible, A Bible, we have already got a Bible,” if the BOM is just reduced to a scriptural text removed from history/miraculous transmission/and the CoJCoLDS.

• Things like the Baptism of Infants is not at all clear from the Bible alone, but it is very clear in the BOM. In fact, virtually all LDS would say that BOM provides clarity often where the Bible is much more difficult to understand. This become a counterpoint to the last bullet.
• There are faithful LDS who at best would be called agnostic on the historicity of the BOM. A popular SLC radio host would fit in this category. If they can orient their lives towards God while holding this view, perhaps it is a viable view.

• My personal position is that there are a number of things about the BOM that are much better explained by recognizing that it truly describes ancient events in the Old World and in the New World and because of this, the CoJCoLDS explains the existence of the BOM much better than any Protestant or Catholic apologetic. This continues to be my view and continues to be PART of why I think the CoJCoLDS is more likely to be God’s church on earth than the Catholic Church. If that were somehow washed away I (along surely with others) would have LESS reason to be a LDS. That does not mean that we/some would not have sufficient reason (or that we/some wouldn’t have sufficient reason), just less reason.

After I wrote the above, I found this post. If you are interested you can read a lot of thoughts on what I think you have asked.
mormonmatters.org/2009/10/07/did-elder-holland-denounce-or-intentionally-avoid-the-inspired-fiction-theory/

I hope to post on a couple of awesome (said sarcastically) Stephen posts next (again whenever I can get to it).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Yes, and Tom admitted that empirical science did not lead them to becoming Mormon. This is a rhetorical device to project honesty, so the reader will just assume that other claims are true.

Stephen,
I am not sure I am secure enough to see me through your eyes so regularly. I think I am however. I sometimes wonder if you truly believe what you project you believe about me or if you are using it as a “rhetorical device.” I suppose this is something I tell myself when I am tempted to feel stung by your words.
Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

Lax,
I will respond more thoroughly to your latest posts eventually. I read all you put into your posts.
I thought I would ask you, did you read Waltz’s essay that I linked to or Owen/Mosser’s essay that I linked to (you didn’t post anything about them yet) or Jordan Vajda’s essay that I linked to? Did you read anything by Margaret Barker?
Or did you respond to my post solely by finding the things on the internet that you posted?
Charity, TOm

Hi TOm - I read Vajda’s essay and do not consider his writing to be from a Catholic perspective. He seemed to become a priest in spite of his interest in Mormonism. He then set out to prove that Mormons are Christian by writing this essay. Did he not understand that the Mormon view of the Trinity is purposely different?

Does he not realize that if Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, God cannot have a body or be seen by man?

The lack of Vajda’s knowledge regarding the most basic beliefs about who God is, as passed on from our Jewish roots, and tossing out the belief regarding the Holy Trinity as passed on from the earliest Christians makes me wonder where he received his education.

Also, it seems the seminary he may have attended was steeped in great scandal. Perhaps that had an influence on him as well.

The reason I posted such lengthy internet replies is because in the past, there have been LDS posters who will not click on links they consider “anti” Mormon. I decided at that point to include all pertinent information on my posts and not rely on the hope they will be read by Mormon posters. I know you are very good about reading everything but I still don’t like to rely on links.

 

[lax16]

Lax,
I will respond more thoroughly to your latest posts eventually. I read all you put into your posts.
I thought I would ask you, did you read Waltz’s essay that I linked to or Owen/Mosser’s essay that I linked to (you didn’t post anything about them yet) or Jordan Vajda’s essay that I linked to? Did you read anything by Margaret Barker?
Or did you respond to my post solely by finding the things on the internet that you posted?
Charity, TOm

Okay, regarding Waltz’s essay. First of all, it is most difficult to read a religious essay put out by BYU that refers to those who do not believe the Mormon church is a valid church, for theological and historical reasons, as “anti Mormons”. It makes it almost impossible to take this guy seriously.

I agree that Protestantism cannot be the early church, as he says, which leaves the Catholics or the Mormons. Do you agree with that?

He references Barry Bickmore, who he admits does a weak job making the case for the apostasy or baptism of the dead. What does he say that makes a case for proof of Mormonism in the early church?

Please tell me what you find most compelling about this essay and how it proves the Mirmon church can be proven by using non-Mormon sources? I don’t see it.

Also, as I stated earlier, his credibility is in question as a Catholic and there is no proof he is a scholar.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I hope to answer, “Could the Book of Mormon be considered scripture for the CoJCoLDS and yet not be considered an ancient history linked to Old Testament times and the mortal sojourn of Christ on earth.”

Mormon proselytizing rule #1: “Whenever someone asks me an antagonistic question, I never answer that question. Instead I answer the question they should have asked.” -Robert Millett

Mormon proselytizing rule #2: After dodging the original question, bear your testimony.

 

[lax16]

1. Margaret Barker, a Methodist scholar found the BOM fit remarkably well in 1st Temple Cult Judaism exactly when it should fit if Lehi was who he claimed to be.
   outlined in the BOM, he uses it to teach his flock.

Charity, TOm

Hi TOm - I have tried to get information about Barker from a non-LDS perspective and was unable to find any. Would you please include a link so that I can read up on her? Other than her website, which I have perused.

I was also unable to find out anything about her education. Her writings discuss the history of the Temple, the sprinkling of goat blood on the altar…I am not sure what the LDS are trying to say by using her as proof that Mormonism is valid?

There is not even one non-Mormon rebuttal to anything she has written that I can find. I don’t think she is/was the biblical scholar you may think she is.

Please be very specific about her writings that you find most compelling and I will respond. Also, please explain how a Protestant can be correct about religion when it was pointed out by another one of your sources that they cannot be true.

 

[lax16]

Regarding Margaret Barker, here is the definition of a scholar according to Merriam Webster:

Full Definition of scholar
1
: a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : pupil
2
a : a person who has done advanced study in a special field
b : a learned person
3
: a holder of a scholarship

At first glance, it appears she fits the definition of* one who has done advanced study in a special field. * However, who is checking her work? What “teacher” did she study under? What are the primary sources used for her work? Did she create this field of study all by herself,or is she building on the work of other scholars?

It appears she is virtually unknown outside of Mormon circles.

 

[TOmNossor]

Yet, zero non-Mormon scholars believe the Book of Mormon is true as claimed by Joseph Smith.
Since 1973, science has proven so overwhelmingly that the Book of Mormon is not true,** as claimed by Joseph Smith**, that the Mormon Church not longer believes the Book of Mormon is true as claimed by Joseph Smith.
Yes, the Mormon Church has even had to change the definition of what it means for the Book of Mormon is be true because the claims of Joseph Smith are so clearly false.

Stephen,
You and I have spoken about this many times. Or perhaps we have spoken past each other about this many times.
I will ask you one question in this post. You of course can refuse to answer and/or comment on other things, but I am hoping for an answer.
First, I will state again that I do not agree that Joseph Smith saw the BOM absolutely as you seem to believe he did. Joseph Smith spoke inconsistently on the setting for the BOM throughout his life, so I do not see how “as claimed by Joseph Smith” can even be defined by you. Instead, I think you pick a position for its ability to be refuted.

Second, I will state again that I consider Joseph Smith’s ignorance of the limited geography contained in the BOM while the limited geography is CONSISTENT throughout the book to be evidence that Joseph Smith is not the author. Which of course is the LDS perspective.

Now, on to my question.
What if Joseph Smith consistently claimed that the BOM happened in upstate NY.
What if then some non-upstate NY geography and history showed points of connection with the BOM that I judge to be far beyond what one could reasonably expect from a 19th century upstate NY book.
What should I do?

You claim I should believe there is some clarity in Joseph Smith’s position and my position is out of alignment. I do not agree there is clarity in Joseph’s position, but even if there was, what should I do?

I might add that there is zero conflict between what any church leader has taught about the location of Jerusalem, river of Laman, valley of Lemuel, Nahom, and Bountiful. All Old World geographical features in the BOM, the path along the Frankincense trail, and a handful of cultural/historical aspects of Lehi’s journey align perfectly with all LDS leader statements. I have read from critics about maps that mention Nahom, but I find it unlikely that Joseph Smith could have seen these maps and even if he did I do not see on the maps near the amount of detail necessary to create the journey I see in the BOM. So again here my judgement is that this is beyond what a 19th century fellow in upstate NY could produce. And this has nothing to do with “as claimed by Joseph Smith,” but I am stuck with no adequate explanation for its existence in the BOM.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Rebecca,
Your response is pure Ad Hominem. It does not deal with anything I said but attacks me and attempts to discredit any point I make because I am a member of a group for which you express derision.
I did not shift the OP for apologetic purposes. As I explained, I didn’t think that the OP was interested in pontification upon the definition of myth. His question focused on what he believes shows the BOM is non-historical and asks if LDS could reject historicity and still continue.

Your belief that LDS may be dismissed with simple Ad Hominem is however another example of something that I am pointing to in this thread which has little to do with the actual OP.

The reason I intellectually assess the CoJCoLDS to be MOST likely God’s church on earth and the Catholic posters here not only disagree, but mock and ridicule my thoughts at multiple points as if I am some form of not right thinking person IS because there is a profound shallowness in the way the CoJCoLDS is assessed here. I come to a different conclusion not because I do not seriously engage Catholic thought AND LDS thought, but because when I do I find LDS truth claims more plausible. The reason this is viewed as laughable, mock-able, an act of rhetoric, … or:
not “following non biased methods.” is because there are virtually no (you included) folks who seriously engage the material. You can tell yourself that everyone has biases and that the reason that I come to different conclusions is because my methods are biased in ways that yours are not, but what is more obvious is that you do not engage seriously LDS thought and anti-Catholic thought.

The last time I pointed this out you assured me that it is nothing personal

Im not trying to pick on you.

and it is just a message board discussion

May I suggest, the Ammon drive to be perfect does not exist in this forum. No need to stress, it’s just a discussion between humans.

I agree it is nothing personal (after all, I am just a Mormon). And I am not pointing to this prevalent practice out of some personal reason. Instead, I am suggesting that anyone inclined to read or pay attention might come to the same conclusions I do. And while I think it quite possible they might come to different conclusions, I find it unlikely they would be so derisive in there disagreement.
Again, I do not point to this because I want to say anything negative about you or Stephen, merely to make a point (a rhetorical point, but nonetheless one I consider to be true).
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
Your response is pure Ad Hominem. It does not deal with anything I said but attacks me and attempts to discredit any point I make because I am a member of a group for which you express derision.
I did not shift the OP for apologetic purposes. As I explained, I didn’t think that the OP was interested in pontification upon the definition of myth. His question focused on what he believes shows the BOM is non-historical and asks if LDS could reject historicity and still continue.

Your belief that LDS may be dismissed with simple Ad Hominem is however another example of something that I am pointing to in this thread which has little to do with the actual OP.

The reason I intellectually assess the CoJCoLDS to be MOST likely God’s church on earth and the Catholic posters here not only disagree, but mock and ridicule my thoughts at multiple points as if I am some form of not right thinking person IS because there is a profound shallowness in the way the CoJCoLDS is assessed here. I come to a different conclusion not because I do not seriously engage Catholic thought AND LDS thought, but because when I do I find LDS truth claims more plausible. The reason this is viewed as laughable, mock-able, an act of rhetoric, … or:
not “following non biased methods.” is because there are virtually no (you included) folks who seriously engage the material. You can tell yourself that everyone has biases and that the reason that I come to different conclusions is because my methods are biased in ways that yours are not, but what is more obvious is that you do not engage seriously LDS thought and anti-Catholic thought.

The last time I pointed this out you assured me that it is nothing personal
and it is just a message board discussion

I agree it is nothing personal (after all, I am just a Mormon). And I am not pointing to this prevalent practice out of some personal reason. Instead, I am suggesting that anyone inclined to read or pay attention might come to the same conclusions I do. And while I think it quite possible they might come to different conclusions, I find it unlikely they would be so derisive in there disagreement.
Again, I do not point to this because I want to say anything negative about you or Stephen, merely to make a point (a rhetorical point, but nonetheless one I consider to be true).
Charity, TOm

I addressed your post by pointing out that you didn’t answer the question that was asked, but rather made up a new question you think should have been asked. It is not an ad hominem to point out the logical fallacies in a person’s response. It is not an ad hominem to point out a forum rule infraction.

I know LDS tactics and would think it derelict on my part to say nothing about the obsfucations and sophistries of Mormon apologetics.

 

[Tarquin]

Re: Margaret Barker.

A little here:margaretbarker.com/index.html
A summary of some of her ideas here:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Barker

Reviews on her books also provide some insight into what is intriguing about her ideas, and what some see as short-comings.

She provides no more significant support for Mormon claims than does the actual tribe Nhhm for the fictional location Nahom.

 

[lax16]

Re: Margaret Barker.

A little here:margaretbarker.com/index.html

From the link: (bold mine)

Margaret Barker has developed an approach to Biblical Studies now known as Temple Theology. Margaret Barker read theology at the University of Cambridge, England, and went on to pursue her research independently. She was elected President of the Society for Old Testament Study in 1998, and edited the Society’s second Monograph Series, published by Ashgate. She has so far written 17 books, which form a sequence, later volumes building on her earlier conclusions.
Since 1997, she has been part of the symposium Religion, Science and the Environment, convened by His All Holiness Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Patriarch. This work has led her to develop the practical implications of temple theology as the basis for a Christian environment theology.

In July 2008 Margaret Barker was awarded a DD by the Archbishop of Canterbury ‘in recognition of her work on the Jerusalem Temple and the origins of Christian Liturgy, which has made a significantly new contribution to our understanding of the New Testament and opened up important fields for research.’

Margaret Barker is a mother and grandmother, a Methodist Preacher and was involved for over 30 years with the work of a Women’s Refuge.

Margaret Barker DD has no connection with website Temple Illuminatus. She was elected President of the Society for Old Testament Study in 1998, and edited the Society’s second Monograph Series, published by Ashgate. She has so far written 17 books, which form a sequence, later volumes building on her earlier conclusions.
Since 1997, she has been part of the symposium Religion, Science and the Environment, convened by His All Holiness Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Patriarch. This work has led her to develop the practical implications of temple theology as the basis for a Christian environment theology.

No mention of her degrees or working with other scholars? Red flag.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,
I am not sure I am secure enough to see me through your eyes so regularly. I think I am however. I sometimes wonder if you truly believe what you project you believe about me or if you are using it as a “rhetorical device.” I suppose this is something I tell myself when I am tempted to feel stung by your words.

Yes, I believe your posts are sophistry grounded in a false dichotomy.

As a Catholic, I don’t have to use sophistry because the Catholic Church is reasonable, so only reason is required.

While I do not agree that the BOM is “not taken seriously by academics” or much if anything I removed from your question with my …, I have been thinking about your question.

Yet, you have not proven your belief. Post #16 challenged the claim that the Book of Mormon was “taken seriously” by suggesting there are zero non-Mormon academics who believe the Book of Mormon is true; a history of ALL the American Indians.

After seven posts, you have not been able to name one non-Mormon academic who believes the Book of Mormon is true as claimed by Joseph Smith. In fact, in your post #23, you basically admitted that the Book of Mormon is a religious myth which only a Mormon could possibly believe (-OR- that academia is running to the Mormon Church because the empirical evidence is so clear). Now in your post #42, you reverse yourself to suggest that it is not a myth but something academics take seriously, BUT no list of those non-Mormon academics.

But, the BOM was a source of contact with God that demonstrated to many folks that Joseph Smith was a prophet and his ministry was sanctioned by God.

Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was a history of ALL the American Indians. We know that it is not true. Therefore, Joseph Smith is not a prophet. Yet you claim, it proves he is a prophet and that the Mormon Church is true.

The BOM does not have an “ancient pedigree.” Instead it burst upon the American continent in the 19th century disconnected from its purported human sources.

Yes, it is a 19th-century document with 19th-century Protestant theology. So there really isn’t anything supernatural about it at all.

 

[edwest2]

Mythology is definitely the wrong word. Who confronted Joseph Smith? Supposedly, an angel called Moroni. Joseph Smith claims he was able to interpret the strange writing on the gold plates and that was the Book of Mormon.

Possible Conclusions:

1. Outright fraud. No one was allowed to actually see the plates.
2. Deception. “And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” 2 Corinthians 11:14 NIV
3. Personal gain as the leader of a group he created, and/or creating a personal legacy that would, or could, outlive him.

Ed

 

[Stephen168]

Yet, zero non-Mormon scholars believe the Book of Mormon is true as claimed by Joseph Smith.

Since 1973, science has proven so overwhelmingly that the Book of Mormon is not true,** as claimed by Joseph Smith**, that the Mormon Church not longer believes the Book of Mormon is true as claimed by Joseph Smith.
Yes, the Mormon Church has even had to change the definition of what it means for the Book of Mormon is be true because the claims of Joseph Smith are so clearly false.
TOmNossor;13862267:

Stephen,
You and I have spoken about this many times. Or perhaps we have spoken past each other about this many times.

Yes, I pointed out the fact the Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was a history of ALL the American Indians, and that was the teaching of the Mormon Church.

Joseph Smith claimed to receive a revelation from an angel of God who said, “there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.” This claim is recorded in the Pearl of Great Price; Mormon scripture.
"The Wentworth Letter by Joseph Smith:

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

Simon Southern:

In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today. However, such a scenario does not square with what the Book of Mormon plainly states and with what the prophets have taught for 175 years.

Your response was basically to say none of this affects your belief in the Book of Mormon.

Which is consistent with Richard Lyman Bushman saying that a Mormon’s “testimony” is their empirical evidence.

First, I will state again that I do not agree that Joseph Smith saw the BOM absolutely as you seem to believe he did. Joseph Smith spoke inconsistently on the setting for the BOM throughout his life, so I do not see how “as claimed by Joseph Smith” can even be defined by you. Instead, I think you pick a position for its ability to be refuted.

Joseph Smith’s claim about the Book of Mormon was not casual dinner conversation. It was a ‘revelation’ recorded in Mormon scripture. I picked it because that was the teaching of Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church until at least the 1970’s. Yes, it can easily be refuted that is why the Mormon Church has moved away from its own scripture and Joseph Smith.

Second, I will state again that I consider Joseph Smith’s ignorance of the limited geography contained in the BOM while the limited geography is CONSISTENT throughout the book to be evidence that Joseph Smith is not the author. Which of course is the LDS perspective.

The “limited geography theory” is a recent development and not CONSISTENT with the Book of Mormon according to Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church until at least the 1970’s. Simon Southern supports my memory on his website.
You have also brought up another false dichotomy: If Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, it is false. Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon, so it is true. The problem is most scientists believe Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon AND it is false.

Now, on to my question.
What if Joseph Smith consistently claimed that the BOM happened in upstate NY.
What if then some non-upstate NY geography and history showed points of connection with the BOM that I judge to be far beyond what one could reasonably expect from a 19th century upstate NY book.
What should I do?

You claim I should believe there is some clarity in Joseph Smith’s position and my position is out of alignment. I do not agree there is clarity in Joseph’s position, but even if there was, what should I do?

I don’t understand what you are asking. Maybe because you asking two questions as one or maybe there are Mormon assumption which I don’t have.

I might add that there is zero conflict between what any church leader has taught about the location of Jerusalem, river of Laman, valley of Lemuel, Nahom, and Bountiful. All Old World geographical features in the BOM, the path along the Frankincense trail, and a handful of cultural/historical aspects of Lehi’s journey align perfectly with all LDS leader statements. I have read from critics about maps that mention Nahom, but I find it unlikely that Joseph Smith could have seen these maps and even if he did I do not see on the maps near the amount of detail necessary to create the journey I see in the BOM. So again here my judgement is that this is beyond what a 19th century fellow in upstate NY could produce. And this has nothing to do with “as claimed by Joseph Smith,” but I am stuck with no adequate explanation for its existence in the BOM.

This issue to be more of the false dichotomy I already talked about.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The “limited geography theory” is a recent development and not CONSISTENT with the Book of Mormon according to Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church until at least the 1970’s. Simon Southern supports my memory on his website.

“Limited geography” isn’t put forth by any of the apostles (those prophets, seers, revelators) it’s just a gospel hobby horse among apologists.

 

[Stephen168]

“Limited geography” isn’t put forth by any of the apostles (those prophets, seers, revelators) it’s just a gospel hobby horse among apologists.

In 1981, the Mormon Church added new introductory material to the Book of Mormon explaining was it is. This material made it possible for Mormons to claim a “limited geography.” I’m willing to go with it, but it would be a change in Mormon Church teaching about the Book of Mormon.

You are right, in that, I have never had a Mormon quote a Mormon Church leader, with the authority to change church teaching, saying that Mormon Church teaching has changed.

 

[TOmNossor]

I am failing to find the time to respond as I wish I could.
Here are is an observation and a few questions.

It seems that Lax was concerned that Margaret Barker was not anything but a scholar heralded by Mormons. Tarquin finds pages describing Barker’s scholarship and says that she has little to say supporting Mormonism, “She provides no more significant support for Mormon claims than does the actual tribe Nhhm for the fictional location Nahom”.
Lax: Barker is a scholar. She has formal training in scripture and ancient languages. She was selected by her peer scholars to be the head of The Society of Old Testament Study. By any definition she is a scholar and she is not merely heralded by Mormons.
Tarquin: Barker has spoken and written specifically in support of the BOM as capturing an authentic ancient religion. If you expect her to connect the dots and say that the BOM a text that appeared supernaturally in the 19th century could not do this without God’s help, scholars do not do that and she has never publically said something. But, she has spoken at BYU and at the Library of Congress specifically discussing the BOM and how it captures the ancient religion of Lehi’s day.

I am not a scholar. I draw conclusions from data for a living. I tend to do similar things in my personal/spiritual life.

I conclude with many critics that Joseph Smith could not have produced Lehi’s journey with numerous points of contact including the PLACE Name Nahom without more information than the Hebrew Bible. I reject the view of these particular critics that the maps containing almost no information about Lehi’s journey other than the name Nahom were LIKELY to be in Joseph’s hands or SUFFICIENT to provide the detain in the BOM. This leaves me believing that the supernatural is supported.

In concert with Barker, I see evidence for an ancient view of Christianity in the BOM. I have read a couple of her books and her papers/lectures specifically on Mormonism. Joseph Smith was once criticized for Christianizing Lehi’s 600BC departure from Jerusalem. The BOM has too much Christ in ancient Judaism. Margaret Barker’s work mutes this criticism and instead suggests that many aspects of the BOM fit in Lehi’s Jerusalem in ways that nobody in the 19th or 20th century thought they should (hence the criticism).

That folks like TT and a couple of BYU professors (and interestingly enough David Waltz) have criticized Barker’s work is not unexpected for anyone who knows how scholars work. That this somehow means that Barker is no longer a non-Mormon scholar who believe the BOM captures an authentically ancient religion in remarkable ways is ridiculous. Barker is precisely what I was told could not exist.

Now, nobody seems to care that I keep saying this, but I will say it again.

No religious scholar, no historian, no professionally trained scholar of any stripe believes that Pope is the successor of Peter in the way that the Pope claims to be the successor of Peter. I have seen many writings by non-Catholic scholars that show that it is unlikely the Pope is the successor of Peter and NONE by non-Catholic scholars that conclude the Pope is likely Peter’s successor (in any way other than they were both religious leaders who spend/spent time in Rome, some non-Catholic scholars do not advocate that Peter was never in Rome). As I have pointed out, if a scholar found that they could not deny that Peter intended the Pope to be his successor and that the Pope is in fact the successor of Peter, these scholars would almost certainly become Catholic. Then they would cease to be non-Catholic scholars and you would have zero non-Catholic scholars.

Truth be told, the term Methodist has to do with METHOD. Perhaps I should expect Catholicism to have a Methodist scholar so committed to the forms of worship and so unconcerned with the theology and the underpinnings of worship that they can claim the Pope is Peter’s successor, but instead by a Methodist still. Maybe I should expect you to find such a scholar. And if you did, then you would be at the same place I am as a LDS. But as of now, by your own test, Catholicism fails were Mormonism passes. Cool!

Anyway, I was pulled away after my first couple of sentences and when I returned I had some more time so I wrote the above.
I do see differences in the way Lax and Tarquin assessed Margaret Barker. Perhaps the two of you can come to an agreement about if she is a scholar and if she has provided support to the BOM as an ancient text.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Stephen,
You have said that my support of Mormonism is:

Yes, I believe your posts are sophistry grounded in a false dichotomy.

As a Catholic, I don’t have to use sophistry because the Catholic Church is reasonable, so only reason is required.

Sophistry is just argumentations judged “bad.” I think your posts are sophistry and that reason does not direct one to Catholicism. If you would like to DEMONSTRATE in some non-subjective way “sophistry,” you are welcome to try, but I think the word “sophistry” is rhetoric for “arguments with which I do not agree.”

“False dichotomy” is however much more concrete. There are numerous dichotomies in my writing and some of which you may believe to be false. Some of which I might agree with you at least partially. So, can you show me which dichotomies I employ that you believe are false.

When I considered returning to the Catholic Church over a decade ago now, it was dichotomous thinking that was not as absolute as I had supposed that lead me to more seriously consider that I was not on the correct path.

Also, I regularly accuse you of offering a “false dichotomy.” I will make it explicit as I am asking that you do for my positions. You said:

Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was a history of ALL the American Indians. We know that it is not true. Therefore, Joseph Smith is not a prophet. Yet you claim, it proves he is a prophet and that the Mormon Church is true.

I believe this is a false dichotomy.
You present two options:
You show Joseph Smith said the BOM was a history of all American Indians.

1. The BOM is a history of all American Indians as Smith said. Maybe Smith is a prophet.
2. The BOM is not a history of all American Indians as Smith said. Smith CANNOT be a prophet.
   I can assert the BOM is a “history of ALL American Indians.” (or I could question if he said …).

But instead, I suggest Joseph Smith was not the author of the BOM, it is not a history of ALL American Indians. Instead God authored the BOM, it is scripture from historical people who included historical data in it. And Joseph Smith’s lack of knowledge concerning the scope of the BOM does not disqualify him as a prophet.

You know I believe the above and have since you and I began dialoguing (and long before). You believe your dichotomy is strong enough you keep saying it KNOWING that I believe it to be a false dichotomy.

There are certainly dichotomous thoughts within my posts, but I am hoping that you can spell out which ones you think are false. I then hope to have time to respond.

Charity, TOm