Could The Book of Mormon be considered mythology?

[Stephen168]

Lax,
I guess I am still not speaking clear enough.
My point is certainly not that non-Catholic become Catholic. I can grant that happens however.
My point I certainly not that it is hard to find scholars who have not converted to Catholicism after studying church history. This is not true and it is not my point.

My point is that to believe uniquely Catholic (for example 1 below) or uniquely Mormon (for example 2 below) things associated with history, and yet not follow the weight of such a belief into the faith; is a ridiculous requirement.

1. Unique Catholic view: The Pope is the successor of Peter as the head of Christ’s church on earth. Catholics have employed history for years to BOLSTER this claim. In the 3rd century some Roman purporting to be a Clement produced a document showing how Peter passed his authority to Clement. The ahistorical (false) believe IMO that the Bishop of Rome is Peter’s successor in any other way than through the imagination of first the Roman church and then many other churches is not supported by the historical record. No non-Catholic sees a convincing case in the historical record. The Roman church for numerous years could not even get right who succeeded Peter in this fictitious tale.
2. Unique Mormon view: The bulk of the BOM, a book that somehow appeared in 1830 in upstate NY, contains the religious writings of a group of folks who moved from Jerusalem to the America’s in 600BC. They anticipated Christ and wrote of his coming to them (and then Christ appeared in the America’s after his resurrection in Jerusalem). I do not see how a non-Mormon or even a non-theist could believe this.

There have been scholars who came to believe 1 or 2, who were not Catholic or not Mormon and became Catholic or Mormon.
For someone to come to believe 1 or 2 and not become Catholic or Mormon seems pretty unlikely and thus it is a ridiculous bar to set.

I think it would be very easy for someone to believe number one and not become Catholic. Mainly because many Christians don’t believe a mono-episcopal leader is required when they get their ‘authority’ from the bible. An atheist could easily draw the same reasonable conclusion about the Papacy as a Catholic but, with no belief in God, would have no desire to become a Catholic.

I think number two is more two-sided. On one hand, I cannot understand why a story about Jews coming to America, who meet the triune God (©1830) should cause one to want to be Mormon. I would be troubled by why this “ancient” book was changed to align with the changing beliefs of the guy who “found” it. Why isn’t the guy who “found” it, and his church being judged by the “ancient” book? On the other hand, nobody but a Mormon could find any truth in Joseph Smith’s claim about the Book of Mormon. A book written in the 19th century does not “anticipate” events that happened almost 2000 years earlier, but if you believed, contrary to science, that the book was ancient, you could be amazed.

To summarize: one is about a conclusion based on the facts of ancient history, and if the conclusion is meaningful to an individual. Two is about believing 19th century fiction, proven to be fiction by empirical science, to be true. You are making a false comparison.

 

[Stephen168]

I will try to return from my detour (I was distracted by being called a LIAR, but I should have not been distracted).

Horton,
I didn’t know you were a “she.” Sorry if that offended you.
You are telling me that you opened the link and read the link. Then you said:

The title of the page linked is “Mormon Scholars Testify.”
Why did you ask how many of the academics are not LDS? The answer is obvious form the TITLE.

Also, how long did it take you to read the link as you just claimed?
Aside from the title the link is a list of 100-200 people’s names and the disciplines in which they are scholars (with some categorization).
Do you mean that you read the individual names in the list? Why would you do that?
Or do you mean you read the testimonies of 100-200 LDS scholars? That would be impressive.

I hope you actually have some other link in mind when you claim that you “did open and read the link.” I do not see how you could have opened the link in your QUOTED segment and responded in the way you have. If you do mean the link you quoted, perhaps you can explain to me how you didn’t recognize that “Mormon Scholars” are LDS not non-LDS. And perhaps you can explain what you mean in your recent post when you said, “I read the link.”

And the purpose of this post?

 

[Stephen168]

I would think the recent walk back of the LDS church regarding the BoM would be proof enough of it’s lack of truth.

Yes. I noticed Tom is not able to defend it. He would rather talk about himself or you.

 

[Horton]

Horton,
I didn’t know you were a “she.” Sorry if that offended you.
You are telling me that you opened the link and read the link. Then you said:

The title of the page linked is “Mormon Scholars Testify.”
Why did you ask how many of the academics are not LDS? The answer is obvious form the TITLE.

Also, how long did it take you to read the link as you just claimed?
Aside from the title the link is a list of 100-200 people’s names and the disciplines in which they are scholars (with some categorization).
Do you mean that you read the individual names in the list? Why would you do that?
Or do you mean you read the testimonies of 100-200 LDS scholars? That would be impressive.

I hope you actually have some other link in mind when you claim that you “did open and read the link.” I do not see how you could have opened the link in your QUOTED segment and responded in the way you have. If you do mean the link you quoted, perhaps you can explain to me how you didn’t recognize that “Mormon Scholars” are LDS not non-LDS. And perhaps you can explain what you mean in your recent post when you said, “I read the link.”
Charity, TOm

Tom - I guess the fact that I’m female makes it easier to attack me. Typical of LDS males. You whined when you felt another poster stated you lied and then proceed to do just that with me.

I’m done with you. Your next attack on my integrity will be reported to moderators.

 

[Horton]

And the purpose of this post?

To call me a liar. Typical LDS double standard

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom - I guess the fact that I’m female makes it easier to attack me. Typical of LDS males. You whined when you felt another poster stated you lied and then proceed to do just that with me.

I’m done with you. Your next attack on my integrity will be reported to moderators.

I commented on your not paying attention long before I knew you were a female so no, my questioning your NOT PAYING ATTENTION had nothing to do with your gender. I am sorry you thought that.
I also suggested in my post that you might be thinking of some other link, and asked for an explanation. Which you have not provided.

I think that is very different from Stephen saying that I “intentionally make false statements.”

You are welcome to report EVERYTHING I have ever said.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

And the purpose of this post?

Stephen,
I attempt to read others in a charitable way. Here is what I said:

I hope you actually have some other link in mind when you claim that you “did open and read the link.” I do not see how you could have opened the link in your QUOTED segment and responded in the way you have.

This is my attempt to read as charitably as I can. While standing by my point that folks are not reading closely (links or posts or whatever).

You claiming my statements are given with the “intention to deceive,” is you calling me a liar.

I see a difference, but perhaps I am pathological.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,

I attempt to read others in a charitable way. Here is what I said:

This is my attempt to read as charitably as I can. While standing by my point that folks are not reading closely (links or posts or whatever).

Horton challenged a Mormon to provide a list of scholars who believe the Book of Mormon is true as claimed by Joseph Smith. Because you can’t provide a list, you would rather question her integrity.

Because you can’t provide a list you would rather engage in sophistry. You can’t support the Book of Mormon as claimed by Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church without an attempted attack on the Catholic Church. I say attempted because they are all logically fallacious used in some attempt to justify Mormonism. You have clearly proven that Mormonism cannot rationally stand on its own. If it could, you would NEVER have to introduce the Catholic Church into a post on Mormonism or the Book of Mormon.

I noticed Post #101 has been left unanswered.

 

[TOmNossor]

Horton challenged a Mormon to provide a list of scholars who believe the Book of Mormon is true as claimed by Joseph Smith. Because you can’t provide a list, you would rather question her integrity.

Actually, I said she did not read a link that was titled “Mormon Scholars Testify” because she asked if there were “Any non-Mormons” at the link.
I have been suggesting that folks are maintaining their negative judgment of Mormonism through not engaging Mormon arguments in a meaningful way.
In response to her expressing offense, I suggested maybe she was referring to a different link than the one in the post she responded to.

I noticed Post #101 has been left unanswered.

I have already responded in my head to things on #101, but I just have failed to craft a response on the board. I will.
Could you answer this:

Please quote the revelation you are speaking about and I will tell you my thoughts.

I am not sure I will tell you my thoughts, but I really wanted to know from where you are coming.

If instead of #101 you rather me apply myself to something else, I might be able to do that instead.
Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

I commented on your not paying attention long before I knew you were a female so no, my questioning your NOT PAYING ATTENTION had nothing to do with your gender. ** I am sorry you thought that.
**I also suggested in my post that you might be thinking of some other link, and asked for an explanation. Which you have not provided.

I think that is very different from Stephen saying that I “intentionally make false statements.”

You are welcome to report EVERYTHING I have ever said.

Charity, TOm

Tom - Don’t make this so easy. You purposely offended me several times in this thread. You can’t name non-LDS scholars who back up the claim of the LDS that the BoM is what JS claimed it was. So rather than addressing that issue, you engage in a mindless game. You wondered if I could read, wondered if I did in fact open the link, wondered if I then read the link, accused me of lying, and then get passive/aggressive with the “I’m sorry you thought that” silliness. Fortunately I have a well formed ego so, while entertaining, your comments do not cause me any grief. It kind of reminds me of when I did counseling in a men’s prison.

 

[Stephen168]

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.

Please quote the revelation you are speaking about and I will tell you my thoughts.

Could you answer this:
TOmNossor;13867242:

Please quote the revelation you are speaking about and I will tell you my thoughts.

I am not sure I will tell you my thoughts, but I really wanted to know from where you are coming.

I didn’t answer your request for three reasons:

• I already answered it, so you must not read my posts.
• I really didn’t want your thoughts because your thoughts are historically not Mormon thoughts. I already know Mormon thoughts as I explained in the same post I quoted Joseph Smith’s “revelation.”
• You didn’t respond to anything in that post. So if you wanted to “give me your thoughts” you would have don’t it then.

After 21 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.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I commented on your not paying attention long before I knew you were a female so no, my questioning your NOT PAYING ATTENTION had nothing to do with your gender. I am sorry you thought that.
I also suggested in my post that you might be thinking of some other link, and asked for an explanation. Which you have not provided.

I think that is very different from Stephen saying that I “intentionally make false statements.”

You are welcome to report EVERYTHING I have ever said.

Charity, TOm

My goodness, it was a rhetorical question based on previous requests for non-Mormon scholar references and a website of all Mormon testimony being offered instead.

 

[lax16]

There have been scholars who came to believe 1 or 2, who were not Catholic or not Mormon and became Catholic or Mormon.
For someone to come to believe 1 or 2 and not become Catholic or Mormon seems pretty unlikely and thus it is a ridiculous bar to set.

Charity, TOm

The real issue is whether or not a person is a true scholar. That should be fairly easy to determine and prove.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The real issue is whether or not a person is a true scholar. That should be fairly easy to determine and prove.

Based on the individuals at the provided Mormon scholars testify website, the definition of a “scholar” encompasses anyone with a more than average interest in a subject.

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom - Don’t make this so easy. You purposely offended me several times in this thread. You can’t name non-LDS scholars who back up the claim of the LDS that the BoM is what JS claimed it was. So rather than addressing that issue, you engage in a mindless game. You wondered if I could read, wondered if I did in fact open the link, wondered if I then read the link, accused me of lying, and then get passive/aggressive with the “I’m sorry you thought that” silliness. Fortunately I have a well formed ego so, while entertaining, your comments do not cause me any grief. It kind of reminds me of when I did counseling in a men’s prison.

I am truly thankful that I have not caused you grief.
I am not quite as well formed as you, but I do see the merit in it and I try.
Perhaps I belong in a men’s prison.

I intended to make a point about folks not taking LDS thoughts seriously enough to read links or seriously consider arguments. I did not intend to offend you. I didn’t even think the point was really something that was a huge detraction for you as a poster or Catholic or … (though it was certainly not intended as a celebration of your unbiased and thorough approach to Mormonism). I am often baffled that folks do not think there are some points of strength in the pro-LDS (and even anti-Catholic) points I make. One explanation I tell myself is that these things are not seriously considered. As Stephen seems to say, if the BOM is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be than all the things I say that I think should be viewed as positives for the BOM are worth nothing. I do not agree with his point, but as I do not spend a great deal of time on alien abduction stories, I recognize we all must filter our attention as we see fit.

I wish I had read your comments the way Rebecca suggested I should have read them.

I both wish I could unsay many things AND do not believe that my understanding of this silly discussion is flawed in a way that makes it incorrect for me to make the observations I did. I guess I consider my words reasonable and a solid read of what has happened AND yet, I consider the outcome negative and would have rather not played my part. I am sorry.

I will again re-say that I had no idea you were a woman and that has NOTHING to do with how I interacted on this thread before or after you chided me for using a masculine pronoun to refer to you. I am unsure how you can suggest it does, but I know it does not.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The real issue is whether or not a person is a true scholar. That should be fairly easy to determine and prove.

Lax,
I am not sure what degrees Margaret Barker has earned in the normal means.
The Archbishop of Canterbury granted her an honorary doctorate.
tandtclark.typepad.com/ttc/2008/07/margaret-barker.html
She was called a scholar in this article and it never occurred to me that someone might question if she was.
Here is a list of scholars who have written reviews of her various books. Most of the scholars are not LDS scholars:
publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=10
If you go to Google Scholar you will find hundreds of scholars who have cited her work. Many of these are non-Mormons.
Margaret Barker’s scholarship has had a large impact and not just within LDS circles.

Tarquin,
I first encountered Margaret Barker, reading Paradigms Regained. It is here:
publications.mi.byu.edu/periodical/occasional-papers-2/

Margaret Barker in her own words links her scholarship with the BOM highlighting numerous places in which the BOM fits well in 600BC Jerusalem rather than 19th century America.
This link should work. If not I can send you the PDF.
web.archive.org/web/20101011034507/http://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/44.4Barker%20fb893f65-0851-4eb2-99d1-0e6d85d8a8bb.pdf

I think it is clear that Margaret Barker is a “scholar.”
I also think it is clear that Margaret Barker independent of the Book of Mormon came to conclusions about 600BC Judaism which when she read the BOM she found fit so well, she has used the BOM in her future studies.

If I get motivated, I will start a thread on the strength and weakness of the line of attack, “The BOM as Joseph Smith…”
Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

I am truly thankful that I have not caused you grief.
I am not quite as well formed as you, but I do see the merit in it and I try.
Perhaps I belong in a men’s prison.

I intended to make a point about folks not taking LDS thoughts seriously enough to read links or seriously consider arguments. I did not intend to offend you. I didn’t even think the point was really something that was a huge detraction for you as a poster or Catholic or … (though it was certainly not intended as a celebration of your unbiased and thorough approach to Mormonism). I am often baffled that folks do not think there are some points of strength in the pro-LDS (and even anti-Catholic) points I make. One explanation I tell myself is that these things are not seriously considered. As Stephen seems to say, if the BOM is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be than all the things I say that I think should be viewed as positives for the BOM are worth nothing. I do not agree with his point, but as I do not spend a great deal of time on alien abduction stories, I recognize we all must filter our attention as we see fit.

I wish I had read your comments the way Rebecca suggested I should have read them.

I both wish I could unsay many things AND do not believe that my understanding of this silly discussion is flawed in a way that makes it incorrect for me to make the observations I did. I guess I consider my words reasonable and a solid read of what has happened AND yet, I consider the outcome negative and would have rather not played my part. I am sorry.

I will again re-say that I had no idea you were a woman and that has NOTHING to do with how I interacted on this thread before or after you chided me for using a masculine pronoun to refer to you. I am unsure how you can suggest it does, but I know it does not.
Charity, TOm

My opinion of the LDS faith comes from different exposure. I went to college in Utah and while there I tried to learn what the LDS church was. I never had the intention of converting but I wanted to at least know why I would never convert. So I went to the library of my university and checked out books about the LDS church. (This was way before Google) I learned what the basis of the LDS church is, JS, the BoM and so on.

After college I moved back to home state which has a large LDS population and then moved to a community with an even higher ratio of LDS to non-LDS. At one point I bought a house in a small town with the idea it would be a good place to raise my kids. Within a year the house was up for sale. That particular town was about 95% LDS and my kids were left on the sidelines at school, after school activities, and sports because we did not “belong”. I was told that if I would allow my kids to participate in LDS church activities they would have a better chance. We then moved back to a larger community where my kids had a least a fighting chance of fitting in. It was still a predominantly LDS community but there were at least enough of us outsiders it wasn’t so bad. I learned about the people of the LDS church.

I worked in a traditionally male field with many LDS men. I learned how they view life, their families, their wives, their community.

So yes, I do not believe any LDS thought or teaching. That belief as been built on 25+ years of living & working within an LDS community. I never will believe any of it, mostly because it defies all logic and reason. It teaches my Christian faith, which I’ve had since an infant, is wrong. It deems Christianity as an apostasy and not of God. It teaches Jesus was not the messiah, He was not Christ, and that belief is one I will never give up.

I belong to the one true Church, the Church Christ left His people. I AM A CHRISTIAN! I AM A CATHOLIC!

 

[lax16]

Lax,
I am not sure what degrees Margaret Barker has earned in the normal means.
The Archbishop of Canterbury granted her an honorary doctorate.
tandtclark.typepad.com/ttc/2008/07/margaret-barker.html
She was called a scholar in this article and it never occurred to me that someone might question if she was.

Charity, TOm

I put in all of this information into my search engine and there is nothing except a wikipedia page with byu links on the bottom of the page, about Margeret Barker receiving an honorary doctorate from the Archbishop of Canterbury. (Aside from linked article)

Even the link you provided does not include Barker in the picture.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist but this appears to be a scam.

Please tell me what you come up with. I’m very curious.

 

[TOmNossor]

My opinion of the LDS faith comes from different exposure. I went to college in Utah and while there I tried to learn what the LDS church was. I never had the intention of converting but I wanted to at least know why I would never convert. So I went to the library of my university and checked out books about the LDS church. (This was way before Google) I learned what the basis of the LDS church is, JS, the BoM and so on.

After college I moved back to home state which has a large LDS population and then moved to a community with an even higher ratio of LDS to non-LDS. At one point I bought a house in a small town with the idea it would be a good place to raise my kids. Within a year the house was up for sale. That particular town was about 95% LDS and my kids were left on the sidelines at school, after school activities, and sports because we did not “belong”. I was told that if I would allow my kids to participate in LDS church activities they would have a better chance. We then moved back to a larger community where my kids had a least a fighting chance of fitting in. It was still a predominantly LDS community but there were at least enough of us outsiders it wasn’t so bad. I learned about the people of the LDS church.

I worked in a traditionally male field with many LDS men. I learned how they view life, their families, their wives, their community.

So yes, I do not believe any LDS thought or teaching. That belief as been built on 25+ years of living & working within an LDS community. I never will believe any of it, mostly because it defies all logic and reason. It teaches my Christian faith, which I’ve had since an infant, is wrong. It deems Christianity as an apostasy and not of God. It teaches Jesus was not the messiah, He was not Christ, and that belief is one I will never give up.

I belong to the one true Church, the Church Christ left His people. I AM A CHRISTIAN! I AM A CATHOLIC!

I am sorry you had those experiences.
I can honestly say that my experiences within Catholicism were really quite good.
I am also sorry to have reminded you of those experiences.
Charity, TOm

 

[Horton]

I am sorry you had those experiences.
I can honestly say that my experiences within Catholicism were really quite good.
I am also sorry to have reminded you of those experiences.
Charity, TOm

This implies my non belief in any LDS theology is somehow based on “feelings”. It’s not, it is based on careful study (pre-internet) of the claims of the LDS church.

This is what I know. The LDS church is based on false claims and faulty theology. In communities with large LDS populations outsiders are generally treated poorly. I see the LDS church as an exclusionary society. On the other hand, Christianity including Catholicism, wants to include all. We don’t have secret ceremonies in buildings restricted to only those deemed worthy by some guy who happened to get picked as bishop for that 5 years.

The LDS church is a church from man, the Catholic Church is a Church from God. Very simple.