Could The Book of Mormon be considered mythology?

[RebeccaJ]

Horton, I am not sure if you followed the link, but it goes to a site called “Mormon Scholars Testify.” So, no academics are “not LDS” at that site.

I pointed out on another thread that many scholars some of whom were Catholic point away from a very Catholic belief. A Catholic misunderstood and responded that, “this one is a bit unfair, of course non Catholics … If they did they would have converted …” Had I said that non-Catholics reject this uniquely Catholic thing, I would have agreed with him that I was really saying very little. It is tough to find folks who have come to recognize that some important aspect of the CoJCoLDS is true in a significant way and yet they do not join the church.

Still here is what came to my mind as if it was important:

1. Harold Bloom a Jewish scholar called Joseph Smith a religious genius and said that Mormonism was “truly a Biblical religion.”
2. 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.
3. Contra what thephilosopher6 said two evangelical scholars evaluated the state of Mormon apologetics and wrote Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect.
4. David Waltz was a Catholic scholar when he wrote: A New Look at Historic Christianity (note: David W. is not a Catholic and not a LDS now).
5. Jordan Vajda was in Catholic Seminary when he wrote: “Partakers of the Divine Nature”: A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization. Jordan Vajda is now a former Catholic priest and a LDS.
6. Lynn Ridenhower is a Baptist minister who finds so much clarity in the gospel as outlined in the BOM, he uses it to teach his flock.
7. Alejandro and Kim Sarabia are two professional archeologist who joined the CoJCoLDS. Don’t get me wrong, they joined because they felt the spirit not because their scholarship indicated they must. That being said, the state of Mesoamerican archeology does not necessitate the rejecting of truth claims of the CoJCoLDS.

I had decided to not include Dr. Coe, but since he is so popular, Coe is quite clear that he has tremendous respect for Mormonism. He is also quite clear that archeology provides ZERO evidence for the Exodus or Christ’s crucifixion and in these areas and others the Bible is just as unable to muster support from science (despite two thousand years of trying to find it). Coe’s 1973 paper addresses a concept of the BOM that LDS archeologists have not embraced for many years (some who didn’t embrace this before 1973). The last communication in this discussion as I understand was John Sorensen’s book and letter to Coe, but I do not think Coe has much interest in responding as Coe has not updated his views in any significant way since 1973. As an atheist, I reckon he doesn’t see the need.

Charity, TOm

A red herring of course, since it is not “Tom’s personal hero list of people in a scholarly position who converted to Mormonism”. It is,
“scholars in a relevant field have not published in favor of the claims that Mormons make about the Book of Mormon”.

 

[Tarquin]

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.

A red herring of course, since it is not “Tom’s personal hero list of people in a scholarly position who converted to Mormonism”. It is,
“scholars in a relevant field have not published in favor of the claims that Mormons make about the Book of Mormon”.

Thank you both for those comments. It helps me keep clear in my mind, it reminds me, that whether or not a religion is mythological or theological, Christian or Buddhist, doesn’t depend on opinions or explanations, but on the definition agreed upon (or that has some agreeable consensus), and how well that religion fits into that definition. The Spaghetti Monster religion is not a genuine religion. We can see its origin and history, and understand that it is a polemic. In that sense, it should not be too disagreeable to call Buddhism an exercise in psychology; I know at least some Buddhists who are comfortable with that. And Unification Church people (“Moonies”) while once claiming they were Christian and “not a new religion”, now proudly proclaim that they are not Christian because their views on issues, particularly the Second Coming, are not in harmony with traditional Catholic, Protestant, and Reformationist teachings.

Further, since the founding leaders of Mormonism themselves denounced Christianity, liking it to the Church of the Devil, and even referred to the passage in the Book of Mormon that says there are only two churches, the one being the Mormon Church, the other being all the offspring of Roman Christianity also known as Babylon the Great and “the Church of the Devil,” no one in the Mormon Church (at least among those who is familiar with its beginnings) nor in traditional Christian churches should have any objection to seeing Mormonism as outside the Christian fold.

Finally, Mormonism provides nothing in the way of Creation as Christianity understands Creation, namely a single one-time beginning, before which (if there could be a “before”) there was only God. Since: Mormonism does not even believe in a Creation, only in an “organization.” Mormonism believes there are an infinite number of spiritual fetuses (“intelligences”) co-existence with God, and therefore not dependent on God for their existence, not created by God, things which exist outside of their God’s creations. Mormonism teaches the existence of several individual and volitionally independent Gods, each having one of three different natures (the Holy Ghost being a bodiless spirit to be born later (in the 1800s however, the Holy Ghost was simply the shared mind(!) of the Father and the Son), the Son being a spirit and body combined, and the Father being spirit and body combined and both of those also being “exalted” as well as married polygamously to a number of unnamed goddesses). Mormonism teaches that God has relations with many Goddesses to give birth to gods, goddesses, demigods, devils, demons, and lost souls. Mormonism teaches a number of other beliefs which also are sufficiently contrary to traditional Christianity, that the sum total leads to the conclusion that Mormonism does not satisfy the definition of Christianity as understood by the average Christian and at least partly is, if not mythic, at least imaginative.

 

[TOmNossor]

A red herring of course, since it is not “Tom’s personal hero list of people in a scholarly position who converted to Mormonism”. It is,
“scholars in a relevant field have not published in favor of the claims that Mormons make about the Book of Mormon”.

I know many reasons to not be a LDS and many reasons to not be a Catholic.
I know many reasons to be a LDS and many reasons to be a Catholic. Net/net, as best I can tell, the existence of facts in this great debate is better explained by the CoJCoLDS as a restoration and the Catholic Church as somehow lacking. I do not expect Catholics to agree.

That being said, I am often taken aback by folks here who call what I say is “up,” “down” and what I say is “down,” “up” (this never happens when I acknowledge some LDS difficulty like the coming forth of the BOA, but almost always happens when I point to a LDS evidence or a Catholic problem).
Why is my judgment sufficient to allow me to pursue my career and my life, but so incredibly flawed in the areas of religion? Again so 100% off the mark that the things I see are OBVIOUSLY not there.
LONG ago such things caused me some stress. I truly do not believe I have a perfect intellect. I truly do not believe I am absent BIAS when I evaluate these issues. Because of folks like David Waltz, I have had to come to grips with the fact that reason does not direct us perfectly in the same direction. And accepting this with a healthy dose of God’s love and forgiveness has lead to less stress.

The last few posts on this thread HAVE in the past offered me a chance to hold on to a more simple position.

1. Someone asked if a link provided called “Mormon Scholars Testify” had any non-Mormon’s speaking about the strength of the CoJCoLDS. Well, no, they could not be “MORMON Scholars” if they were Non-Mormons. This seems to have been MISSED.

I posted a list of 5 (really 6 as one included 2 folks) never LDS who published in relevant fields, and 2 (well 3 as one was a couple) non-LDS who published in relevant fields before they became LDS but became LDS. In this post I commented on the difficulty one would have finding folks who believe significant aspect of LDS truth claims, but decide not to become LDS. “It is tough to find folks who have come to recognize that some important aspect of the CoJCoLDS is true in a significant way and yet they do not join the church.”

1. In response to this, there was a three bullet point list that I will parody here:
   a. Yet, zero non-Catholic scholars believe the Papacy is true as claimed by Popes from around the fourth century till today.
   b. Yet, zero scholars who do not believe the Bible is from God, believe the Exodus happened as the Bible claims it did.
   c. Yet, zero non-Muslim scholars believe Muhammad was what Muhammad claimed to be.
   d. Yet, zero scholars who subscribe to the Copenhagen Theory believe what Everett claimed.
   NOTE: In fairness to this post, I believe his main point is that Mormonism is busy changing. I could even agree with SOME of this, but in response to my comment seemed to imply that there should be volumes of scholars who accept the truth claims of Mormonism, but never become Mormons. LET ME SAY again: perhaps Stephen’s post does not fit as perfectly in my list. Maybe the idea that non-Mormons who believe significant portions of uniquely Mormon things and still remain non-Mormons was not so much MISSED as moved passed and not acknowledged (which is fine of course).
2. The last post above (now 2nd to last) then calls my list of 5-6 never LDS and 2-3 LDS, “A red herring of course, since it is not ‘Tom’s personal hero list of people in a scholarly position who converted to Mormonism’. It is, 'scholars in a relevant field have not publish in favor of the claims that Mormons make about the Book of Mormon.” Of course the 5-6 never LDS are precisely these “scholars in a relevant field” and they happen to all be non-Mormons, but this seems to have been MISSED.

I am not immune from missing things that are said. One of the above three posters I think truly believes (or at least wants me to think he truly believes this) I am a dishonest and evil person who says whatever might be expedient at any given moment (and probably also believes I do not read the pro-Catholic and anti-Mormon comments on this board). I do not believe the cause of the three posts (two especially) I reference is evilness or dishonesty. But, I do believe that it is common to not read or pay attention to views that do not align with the position of the Catholic poster here, and this drives the total rejection of any evidence or problem. And since I believe two of the above referenced posts are VERY good examples of this, I thought I would point to them.

Now I will duck and take cover, Oh my!.

And I do hope to continue to read the best Catholic and anti-Mormon apologetics I can find. And I do hope to remember that folks like David Waltz have read and studied more (and with less bias) than I have. However, I will continue to believe that many times I am not as so totally unable to process data as responses here would indicate, instead response here indicated often indicate not reading or paying attention.

Charity, TOm

P.S. I might say that I have not MISSED the question originally asked and have many times thought of a response, but there has been more interesting (for me) things to respond to so I have not gotten to it. I might still, but not at the moment.

 

[lax16]

Still here is what came to my mind as if it was important:

1. Harold Bloom a Jewish scholar called Joseph Smith a religious genius and said that Mormonism was “truly a Biblical religion.”

Charity, TOm

Hi TOm - Harold Bloom is not a Jewish scholar. He is an agnostic Jew who is a literary critic. He’s also on the *Top Ten Anti-Mormon Statements of 2011 list *for stating “The current head of the Mormon Church, Thomas S. Monson, known to his followers as ‘prophet, seer and revelator,’ is indistinguishable from the secular plutocratic oligarchs who exercise power in our supposed democracy”.[54]

Here’s what he says about Joseph Smith:

A case in point is Bloom’s discussion of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism and the ultimate self-created American. Bloom describes Smith as a “religious genius,” an authentic American prophet and a great “creative misreader” of the Bible. According to Bloom, “so strong was [Smith’s] act of reading that it broke through all the orthodoxies … and found its way back to elements that Smith rightly intuited had been censored out of the stories of the archaic Jewish religion.” **Moreover, Bloom suggests that the “God of Joseph Smith is a daring revival of the God of some of the Kabbalists and Gnostics.” **Weaving together Smith’s personal obsession with the patriarch Enoch, who was taken up by God and so did not experience death, and the Kabbalistic texts in which Enoch is transmogrified into the angel Metatron, Bloom at one and the same time admits that Smith was unlikely to have had access to this esoteric tradition and manages to imply that he did.

Out of all this, Bloom whips up a tale every bit as imaginative as those of the Prophet Joseph. According to Bloom, once Smith had recaptured the authentic biblical view of theomorphic man, his genius inevitably led to the restoration of patriarchal plural marriage. Warming to the subject, **Bloom begins by explaining that Smith sought “to bring about in the spiritual realm what the American Revolution had inaugurated in the sociopolitical world,” the abolition of hierarchies. Plural marriage was to be the means of abolishing one particular hierarchy, the separation of divine from human by means of what Bloom terms theurgic sexuality. **Never mind that at least one Mormon leader felt called upon to ask in a sermon, “Did the Prophet Joseph want every man’s wife he asked for?” And never mind that plural marriage did a great deal to reinforce at least one hierarchy, that subsisting between men and women. Ignoring such inconveniences, Bloom explains that “male nature being polygamous, the restoration of all things demanded a sanctification of polygamy, rather than an abolishment of a nature that could not be corrected.” Deadpan, Bloom opines that Smith’s putative eighty-four “marriages” in the three years before his murder testify to the “high seriousness” of Smith’s quest. Serious, indeed! According to Bloom, polygamy was essential to Smith’s prophetic nature. And, mirabile dictu, it seems to be essential to the nature of religious critics and other (male) mortals as well, since according to Bloom America became “a country in which prophecy had ceased” when Mormon polygamy was banned.

newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Song-of-himself–Harold-Bloom-on-God-4568

Why are you using him as an expert source on religion?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I know many reasons to not be a LDS and many reasons to not be a Catholic.
I know many reasons to be a LDS and many reasons to be a Catholic. Net/net, as best I can tell, the existence of facts in this great debate is better explained by the CoJCoLDS as a restoration and the Catholic Church as somehow lacking. I do not expect Catholics to agree.

That being said, I am often taken aback by folks here who call what I say is “up,” “down” and what I say is “down,” “up” (this never happens when I acknowledge some LDS difficulty like the coming forth of the BOA, but almost always happens when I point to a LDS evidence or a Catholic problem).
Why is my judgment sufficient to allow me to pursue my career and my life, but so incredibly flawed in the areas of religion? Again so 100% off the mark that the things I see are OBVIOUSLY not there.
LONG ago such things caused me some stress. I truly do not believe I have a perfect intellect. I truly do not believe I am absent BIAS when I evaluate these issues. Because of folks like David Waltz, I have had to come to grips with the fact that reason does not direct us perfectly in the same direction. And accepting this with a healthy dose of God’s love and forgiveness has lead to less stress.

The last few posts on this thread HAVE in the past offered me a chance to hold on to a more simple position.

1. Someone asked if a link provided called “Mormon Scholars Testify” had any non-Mormon’s speaking about the strength of the CoJCoLDS. Well, no, they could not be “MORMON Scholars” if they were Non-Mormons. This seems to have been MISSED.

I posted a list of 5 (really 6 as one included 2 folks) never LDS who published in relevant fields, and 2 (well 3 as one was a couple) non-LDS who published in relevant fields before they became LDS but became LDS. In this post I commented on the difficulty one would have finding folks who believe significant aspect of LDS truth claims, but decide not to become LDS. “It is tough to find folks who have come to recognize that some important aspect of the CoJCoLDS is true in a significant way and yet they do not join the church.”

1. In response to this, there was a three bullet point list that I will parody here:
   a. Yet, zero non-Catholic scholars believe the Papacy is true as claimed by Popes from around the fourth century till today.
   b. Yet, zero scholars who do not believe the Bible is from God, believe the Exodus happened as the Bible claims it did.
   c. Yet, zero non-Muslim scholars believe Muhammad was what Muhammad claimed to be.
   d. Yet, zero scholars who subscribe to the Copenhagen Theory believe what Everett claimed.
   NOTE: In fairness to this post, I believe his main point is that Mormonism is busy changing. I could even agree with SOME of this, but in response to my comment seemed to imply that there should be volumes of scholars who accept the truth claims of Mormonism, but never become Mormons. LET ME SAY again: perhaps Stephen’s post does not fit as perfectly in my list. Maybe the idea that non-Mormons who believe significant portions of uniquely Mormon things and still remain non-Mormons was not so much MISSED as moved passed and not acknowledged (which is fine of course).
2. The last post above (now 2nd to last) then calls my list of 5-6 never LDS and 2-3 LDS, “A red herring of course, since it is not ‘Tom’s personal hero list of people in a scholarly position who converted to Mormonism’. It is, 'scholars in a relevant field have not publish in favor of the claims that Mormons make about the Book of Mormon.” Of course the 5-6 never LDS are precisely these “scholars in a relevant field” and they happen to all be non-Mormons, but this seems to have been MISSED.

I am not immune from missing things that are said. One of the above three posters I think truly believes (or at least wants me to think he truly believes this) I am a dishonest and evil person who says whatever might be expedient at any given moment (and probably also believes I do not read the pro-Catholic and anti-Mormon comments on this board). I do not believe the cause of the three posts (two especially) I reference is evilness or dishonesty. But, I do believe that it is common to not read or pay attention to views that do not align with the position of the Catholic poster here, and this drives the total rejection of any evidence or problem. And since I believe two of the above referenced posts are VERY good examples of this, I thought I would point to them.

Now I will duck and take cover, Oh my!.

And I do hope to continue to read the best Catholic and anti-Mormon apologetics I can find. And I do hope to remember that folks like David Waltz have read and studied more (and with less bias) than I have. However, I will continue to believe that many times I am not as so totally unable to process data as responses here would indicate, instead response here indicated often indicate not reading or paying attention.

Charity, TOm

P.S. I might say that I have not MISSED the question originally asked and have many times thought of a response, but there has been more interesting (for me) things to respond to so I have not gotten to it. I might still, but not at the moment.

Im not trying to pick on you. Of course we all have our own biases, but that doesn’t prevent us from following non biased methods. I don’t see that you’ve got that going.

Still, have not produced a published scholarly paper that can back up the claims of the Book of Mormon. None of the people you listed have done so.

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.

 

[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.

Charity, TOm

faithpromotingrumor.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/my-margaret-barker-experience/

Here is a criticism of her research methods:

There are essentially two problems with her argument. First, Barker’s historiographical method relies on texts and accounts that are far removed from the historical period she is reconstructing, which makes it extremely unlikely that these texts contain reliable historical data. Second, she is working on a number of hidden assumptions about the consistency of interpretation of pre-Israelite religion. She only has two views of this history. There is an “authentic” worship which can be recovered by her, and the Josiahan reform. This assumption masks the rather obvious fact evident in the texts that she is studying that there were numerous interpretations of what the “authentic” version of ancient Israelite religion was. Both of these problems cause her to overlook what is actually interesting about the material that she is studying, namely, that diverse ancient religious parties appealed to an idealized view of pre-exilic religion in order to give their own views authority.

First, the thesis suffers from a series of truly unforgivable historiographical sins. The most obvious is that the majority of her sources for this reconstruction come from many centuries after the fact and from groups who have a vested interest in controlling a particular view of Israelite history. For instance, she uses Christian texts up through the fourth century CE frequently in her reconstruction, which unsurprisingly makes early Israelite religion look like and prefigure Christianity. Further, the texts she uses rarely actually attempt to represent ancient Israelite religion, it is simply her extrapolations. The Christian views are better explained by their own immediate historical context rather than appeals to a secret tradition from a millennium before.

Barker’s use of Jewish texts is equally problematic. She use DSS and Enochic literature to reconstruct what was happening in the First Temple, even though these texts were written hundreds of years after the First Temple had been destroyed. She conflates Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and the Damascus covenant as if they represented a shared view of the temple. But most egregiously, she fails to note that the critiques of the temple in these texts have to do with Second Temple politics, including disputes over priestly families in control of the temple, not with the First Temple at all. Additionally, she attributes the loss of the Menorah and Ark of the Covenant to Josiah’s reforms rather than Babylonian conquest. No ancient texts ever even insinuate this, but it is a major part of her argument. Finally, her appeal to the fictional Recabites (she offers a rather Christianized reading of this text) as evidence for concrete historical information is highly problematic and what she chooses to identify as the historical kernel of that account is arbitrary at best.

When she starts looking to Islamic texts and early 20th century missionary accounts to Tibet, we are in serious trouble. The argument looses even more credibility. The principle historiographical problem with her reconstruction is precisely that it relies on so many different texts from different time periods without any acknowledgement that these accounts are historicized by their own environment. Rhetorically, it appears that she is mounting evidence for her case, but in reality it is smoke and mirrors. There are no texts that include all of these descriptions of ancient Israelite religion. The reconstruction involves taking elements out of context from diverse religious groups in ancient Judaism and Christianity and cherry-picking how those pieces get put back together. For instance, she concludes that since one of the DSS is about Melchizedek, that “Melchizedek must have been a part of earlier religion.” There is simply no reason to make this assumption. The more likely explanation is that 2nd c. BCE separatists developed theologies out the holes and gaps in the biblical text in order to make appeals about new teachings and give them authoritative status. Many of her other ideas don’t even have one text to back them up since she relies on inference or silence to make her claims. In other cases, she starts with her conclusions and then attempts to interpret the texts on that basis. For instance, because 4th century CE rabbinical texts make one statement about the temple symbolism related to the creation, she asserts that all previous Jewish texts about creation must be talking about the temple.

 

[Stephen168]

Why is my judgment sufficient to allow me to pursue my career and my life, but so incredibly flawed in the areas of religion? Again so 100% off the mark that the things I see are OBVIOUSLY not there.
LONG ago such things caused me some stress. I truly do not believe I have a perfect intellect. I truly do not believe I am absent BIAS when I evaluate these issues. Because of folks like David Waltz, I have had to come to grips with the fact that reason does not direct us perfectly in the same direction. And accepting this with a healthy dose of God’s love and forgiveness has lead to less stress.

The last few posts on this thread HAVE in the past offered me a chance to hold on to a more simple position.

1. Someone asked if a link provided called “Mormon Scholars Testify” had any non-Mormon’s speaking about the strength of the CoJCoLDS. Well, no, they could not be “MORMON Scholars” if they were Non-Mormons. This seems to have been MISSED.

I posted a list of 5 (really 6 as one included 2 folks) never LDS who published in relevant fields, and 2 (well 3 as one was a couple) non-LDS who published in relevant fields before they became LDS but became LDS. In this post I commented on the difficulty one would have finding folks who believe significant aspect of LDS truth claims, but decide not to become LDS. “It is tough to find folks who have come to recognize that some important aspect of the CoJCoLDS is true in a significant way and yet they do not join the church.”

Mormonism does not require reason (facts and logic) of its believers in regard to Mormonism. In fact, it seems to discourage it. Mormons talk of philosophy as some evil boogie man which corrupted Christianity but they never can say exactly how. Yet, I’m confident Mormons use reason in their daily lives.

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion but it does not require reason to be effective. I know Tom is very good at rhetoric. He uses many words to lead the reader to his conclusion using many standard forms of rhetoric while avoiding the hard facts and logic to arrive at the truth.

Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was a history of ALL the American Indians. This is the claim the Mormon Church use to make when it said the Book of Mormon was “true.” This is a science historical claim which would invite scientific scrutiny.
This definition of “true” has never been accepted by the non-Mormon scientific community. While Mormons spent great amounts of time and money looking for empirical evidence to support Joseph Smith’s claim, a Mormon Historian thought it a waste of time because a Mormon “testimony” is empirical evidence to a Mormon.

DNA evidence made it possible to quickly and empirically find out if Joseph Smith’s claim was correct. It was not. It was clear that the Book of Mormon as claimed by Joseph Smith was not true. At this point, the Mormon Church had to redefine what it meant for the Book of Mormon to be “true.” I say the Mormon Church “had to redefine” because it seems that saying the Book of Mormon is true is the same as saying the Mormon Church is true, therefore Mormons have to be able to say the Book of Mormon is true by some definition.

A Mormon claims there are academics who believe the Book of Mormon is true and then provides a list of Mormons who believe it is true. Actually they us the word “seriously.” “Seriously” is a word I’ve seen used by Mormon writers to suggest that taking something seriously means they find it to be true without having to commit them to that conclusion.

Tom will also use a small phrase of an author which is kind to Joseph Smith, the Mormon Church, or the Book of Mormon to suggest that person believes it is “true.” Or even the fact that a scholar wrote about Mormonism or the Book of Mormon to suggest they believed what Mormons believe. Great rhetoric but factually false.

While the Mormon has proven there are Mormon scholars who believe the Book of Mormon is “true” by some definition. There are zero non-Mormon scholars who believe the Book of Mormon is true as claimed by Joseph Smith. Because the Mormon Church has backed away for his claim, I would not be surprised if there are Mormon scholars no longer believe the Book of Mormon to be true as claimed by Joseph Smith. I know there are ex-Mormon scholars who believe the Book of Mormon is not true as claimed by Joseph Smith.

 

[Stephen168]

Why are you using him as an expert source on religion?

Because he said something that sounded positive about Mormonism and Joseph Smith, which Tom hopes would have us conclude that he believes the Mormon Church is true and therefore the Book od Mormon is true.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Mormon not Ammon! Apologies, autocorrect and responding in a rush.

 

[lax16]

1. David Waltz was a Catholic scholar when he wrote: A New Look at Historic Christianity (note: David W. is not a Catholic and not a LDS now).

Charity, TOm

David Waltz is a Catholic scholar? Where did you get your info on him?
According to the authors of Mormonism 101, Waltz won’t answer any questions regarding his religious background. This is an excerpt of an exchange that occurred after Waltz criticized their book:

*Understanding your background helps me to better understand where you are coming from and makes a HUGE difference in how I respond to your rebuttal. Ad hominem is when you attack the man, and the information that I am asking for can easily be used in a non-ad hominem way. The views in your rebuttal go against the average Catholic apologetic organization like Catholic Answers, which is why better understanding where you are coming from will be important to help me answer your position. Let’s be honest, you are the wild card in M201 in whom I cannot assume anything. If you are uncomfortable answering my questions, then that’s your prerogative. If you are fearful of ad hominem, then why wouldn’t you provide me with this information and let me make this fatal mistake? Please don’t judge my motives and I won’t unfairly judge yours.”

As of the publication of this rejoinder, Waltz has not yet replied. I certainly don’t want to utilize the logical fallacy of ad hominem—as Waltz fears that I will do—and I rarely ever publicly question an individual’s credentials or background. But when I ask somebody who claims to be Catholic if he knows whether or not Mormonism is true and he responds, “Don’t ‘know’ either way,” something seems a little strange. When I find out that this individual who supposedly wrote as a “Catholic” probably was not a Catholic at the time of writing his rebuttal, my eyebrows start to go up. And when the person who is in charge of producing one of the web sites where this rebuttal is posted says that he believes the individual in question was once a Jehovah’s Witness, I have to wonder if David Waltz isn’t someone who, though very bright, has not yet made up his mind about the Mormon Church being the only true church on the face of the earth.

I do not doubt the sincerity of Waltz. Besides getting a little testy with his last e-mail response, he seems to be cordial and not a bad guy. While I am not attacking his character, I do question his spiritual background. His religious past includes being a “non-denominational Christian seeker” and possibly a member of the Watchtower organization. And, as a new Catholic who probably wrote his rebuttal of our chapter before joining the Catholic Church, Waltz still seems to be seeking for truth and is therefore not fully convinced that he has found it in the Catholic Church.*

He has a blog and wrote a book, but I can’t find anything about him being a religious scholar.

 

[RebeccaJ]

• 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? Much of its contents cannot stand scrutiny and it is not taken seriously by academics. From a historical perspective, the Book of Mormon is very much mythological and a product of its time comparable to similar stories and theory’s arising out of 19th century America. What do you think? I would also love to see some of our Mormon brothers and sisters at CAF discuss this with us.

The original claim of Joseph Smith is that the BoM was a literal historic account. You see this in the LDS canon of the Doctrine and Covenants, where Smith sends men to the land of the Lamanites (at the time Indian territory in the US). This view was taught explicitly and absolutely until within the last decade.

Now you will find LDS members who view the BoM as literary myth. In the sense that, it is an ancient story, not necessarily historical or factual, but conveys important truths.

The newer option cannot be reconciled to what Joseph Smith taught and claimed about the BoM, without a caveat that Smith wasn’t really aware, spiritually and historically, of what he was actually dealing with.

 

[Widlast]

SInce none of the peoples or particular places mentioned in the Book of Mormon actually existed it is most suited for the fantasy section.

 

[lax16]

1. Jordan Vajda was in Catholic Seminary when he wrote: “Partakers of the Divine Nature”: A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization. Jordan Vajda is now a former Catholic priest and a LDS.

Charity, TOm

Jordan Vajda is not a scholar. It seems he became a priest “after discussions with his family” according to the article in Ensign Magazine. That is rather odd, considering most priests have a calling from God and spend years discerning the priesthood. Also, he claims he always had an interest in the LDS faith and set out to prove that Mormons are Christians while a Catholic priest.

lds.org/ensign/2008/09/be-a-missionary-all-your-life?lang=eng

The conversion of Jordan Vajda, a fine young man who had been a Catholic priest, is instructive. When he was in grade school, he had Latter-day Saint friends in his class who shared with him their love of the gospel. At age 13 he found an offer from the Church for a free Book of Mormon. He sent for it, and two sister missionaries responded. They were surprised that he was only 13 and had requested the Book of Mormon. He was impressed with what they taught and what he felt, but after discussions with his family, he decided to become a priest in the Catholic Church. As he prepared to be a priest, he remained interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

He studied at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. He became acquainted with many who take the position we are not Christians, but he also associated with the students at the Latter-day Saint institute of religion at Berkeley. **He decided to write a master’s thesis on why some people maintain that we are not **Christians. This was primarily an academic pursuit. He became a priest in the Dominican order and had assignments in Arizona and then at the University of Washington. There he came in contact with our missionaries.

After being taught by them and praying sincerely, he received inspiration that he should resign as a Catholic priest and be baptized and confirmed into the Church of Jesus Christ. His letter of resignation expressed his love and appreciation for the Catholic Church and then stated:

“Why am I doing what I am doing? To put it most simply: I have found a fuller truth and goodness and beauty in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After years of study and reflection, I have come to believe that the LDS Church is the only true and living Church of Jesus Christ, guided and led by living apostles and prophets.

“I believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, called and ordained for this, the dispensation of the fullness of times. I love the Book of Mormon; I believe it to be the word of God for us in these latter days.

“I can no longer deny my feelings, my heart, my conscience. I cannot deny the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost, which has come after much prayer and soul-searching. At this point in my life, at this moment, as I look forward to and prepare for my convert baptism, I have found a happiness greater than I ever imagined possible.” 2

This good man is active in the Church, has been to the temple, teaches the Gospel Doctrine class in his ward, and has a management position in a hospital in Seattle.

 

[lax16]

1. Lynn Ridenhower is a Baptist minister who finds so much clarity in the gospel as outlined in the BOM, he uses it to teach his flock.

Charity, TOm

Wow - this one is a stretch.

From his website:

First, I’m 57 years old and have been a licensed Baptist minister since 1965. That’s 36 years. I’m happily married, have been for 31 years, and we have a lovely teenaged daughter who’s a freshman at her dad’s ole alma mater, William Jewell College in Liberty, Missouri.

Here is some background information…

Regarding my being a licensed Baptist minister. In 1963 during a ceremony officiated by the deacons and minister of my home-town church, the First Baptist Church in Belle, Missouri, on one Sunday evening, I was licensed as a Baptist minister by my pastor, L.M. White, and the deacons of my church. I grew up in that church, was “born again” (as we Baptists say) in that church, was married in that church, and was mentored by Pastor White for the ministry in that church, mostly preaching on Sunday evenings. I preached my grandmother’s funeral in that church. My dad’s funeral was in that church. I have preached in that church throughout the years more than a few times, have held revivals in it. My sister, Joan Abel, still plays the piano and is the choir director in that church. Yes, I have been a licensed Baptist minister since 1963. Yes, I was licensed at the First Baptist Church in Belle, Missouri, my hometown. And still attend when I go back home.

While studying for the Baptist ministry at William Jewell, and majoring in religion, I also was the youth pastor at Six-Mile Baptist Church in a small neighboring rural town, Buckner, Missouri. Rev. J.I. Willard was my pastor. It’s safe to say I preached in over 100 local Baptist churches during my student days at William Jewell. I was also at that time a staff member on Youth For Christ under the wonderful ministry of Al Metsker, personal friends with Billy Graham. I took part in the Billy Graham crusades as a counselor, and was heavily involved with Campus Crusade for Christ.

I have pastored Baptist churches in Eros, La, was the co-pastor at Grace Bible Camp with Brother Elton Woods. I pastored a Baptist Church in West Monroe, LA. Was the youth pastor at Milldale Baptist Bible Camp in Zachary, LA. While living on the campgrounds at Milldale Baptist Bible Camp I lived next door to Leonard Ravenhill, well-known revivalist who authored the classic Why Revival Tarries. I was a personal friend with well-known Baptist Evangelist Manley Beasley who also lived on the campgrounds at Milldale Baptist Bible Camp. It was Brother Beasley who in fact invited me to come join the staff there.

For years I have been heavily involved in cell groups. Some would call them “house churches.” Most cell groups are charismatic-inclined and non-denominational. Since 1972, my wife and I have embraced the operation of the gifts of the Spirit, as well as believing in the salvation of souls. Our ministry emphasis, in a nutshell, shifted in the early 70s from “soul winning” to “discipling.” Thus, our keen interest in small group ministry even to this day.

In the early 80s, I taught at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty Baptist College in the English department, while discipling a small group of believers in our home. I also did some evangelism speaking in Baptist churches while on faculty at Falwell’s. Most of Falwell’s faculty are also preachers of the gospel, so it was not unusual for many of us to be in some pulpit on any given Sunday. While on faculty, world-respected evangelical apologist, Francis Schaeffer, came to campus one week for ministry. We corresponded throughout his lifetime and I became an avid disciple of his teachings here in the states.

My contract was not renewed in 1981. To be specific, two of my freshman composition students–both deaf & dumb–came to one of our weekly home prayer meetings. While there, both students received the laying on of hands, and both simultaneously began praising and speaking in another language! That’s the first time either of the two had ever uttered a word. They could feel & sense their vocal cords vibrating and I don’t mind telling you–it excited them. They were both sitting on our living room floor speaking in tongues, in another language.

A miracle, indeed.

Word got out on campus that two deaf & mute students “….had gone over to Ridenhour’s house and came back speaking in tongues.” Falwell does not believe in the gifts of the Spirit. He (and the position of his college) takes the position that the gifts of the Spirit ceased when the Bible was printed.

I lost my contract for the following year. It was not renewed. I was labeled a “charismatic” Christian.

The Lord knows our every leading. It was from there that I was hired on in the English faculty at Western Illinois University in Macomb, Illinois, while my wife was hired down the road twenty miles at Robert Morris College, in a little town called Carthage. It was while pastoring a small country church seven miles or so outside of Carthage in Fandon, IL, that I was handed a Book of Mormon, read it, and had an instant conversion. Yes, the Lord knows our every leading. Two deaf & dumb students had to receive the gift of tongues in order to get me booted from Falwell’s to Illinois so that I would stop preaching against the Book of Mormon, stop calling it a cult, and be handed a copy seven miles outside of Carthage, read it, and fall in love with one of the most precious books God has ever given to man. Amazing.

In 1985 the Lord directed my family and me to gather here to the Center Place of Zion. We have lived here in Independence, Missouri, ever since, and plan to spend the rest of our lives here in Zion. We love it here.

 

[lax16]

1. Alejandro and Kim Sarabia are two professional archeologist who joined the CoJCoLDS. Don’t get me wrong, they joined because they felt the spirit not because their scholarship indicated they must. That being said, the state of Mesoamerican archeology does not necessitate the rejecting of truth claims of the CoJCoLDS.

Charity, TOm

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?

ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/44939/Testimonies-built-among-the-ruins.html

TEOTIHUACAN, Mexico —
Yes, Alejandro and Kim Sarabia have spent a good chunk of their lives researching Teotihuacan, a remarkable archeological zone located about 40 miles northeast of Mexico City. And yes, Sister Sarabia first copy of the Book of Mormon was a gift from a fellow researcher. Later, she and Brother Sarabia would even join the Church.

But the couple still goes to work each morning at Teotihuacan searching for answers. Their decision to join the Church, they say, was prompted by the Spirit — not their scientific sensibilities.

**“Our professional background had little to do with our conversion. . . . We don’t mix Mormonism with archaeology,” said Sister Sarabia.
**
The Sarabias were brought together thanks to their common interest in archaeology. Sister Sarabia was raised in the Los Angeles area, where she began her professional studies. She remembers hearing bits and pieces about the Church growing up, including something about a sacred collection of golden plates. Later she moved to Teotihuacan to conduct research at the sprawling archeological zone that is believed to have once been the sixth-largest city in the world.

Brother Sarabia, meanwhile, had deep roots running through Teotihuacan. His family has lived in the area for generations and beyond. The couple met at as colleagues and later married. A doctoral candidate, Brother Sarabia specializes in ancient settlement patterns and directs the museum at Teotihuacan. Sister Sarabia holds a Ph.D. and is an expert on clay figurines.

About six years ago, Sister Sarabia was given a copy of the Book of Mormon by a Mexican student working at the archeological zone. Sister Sarabia was intrigued after learning the book was a translation of the golden plates she had heard of years earlier.

Only about 10 percent of the centuries-old Teotihuacan archeological zone has been researched. The area is still an active area of study and discovery. Teotihuacan is believed to have once been the sixth largest city in the world.
Later, she became acquainted with a few other LDS women. She began giving tours of Teotihuacan to Relief Society groups. They talked about the Church and its beliefs. Many of the gospel principles just seemed to make sense, Sister Sarabia recalled.

"Then they asked, ‘Would you mind if we send the missionaries to your home?’ "

Eventually, the couple was baptized, along with Sister Sarabia’s two children, Jessica, 15, and Aurelio, 13.

The Church has offered the family “a method of living,” said Brother Sarabia. The Sarabias time away from the archeological zone is often spent serving in the Teotihuacan Ward, Mexico City Mexico Tecamac Stake. Brother Sarabia enjoys the time he has spent as an institute teacher, while his wife has served as ward Relief Society president. Jessica has attended Benemerito, the Church-owned boarding school in Mexico City.

They look forward to soon making their first trip to the temple.

The Sarabia still have questions about Teotihuacan’s people and its past. Other queries have been answered. “We know where we are going and how we are going to get there,” Sister Sarabia said.

 

[Horton]

Thank you lax 16 for this. I actually started my own version but saw that you had done a wonderful job of it so no need to add my pathetic attempt.

The BoM of a work of fiction. There is nothing now, nor has there ever been anything to support it’s story. A list of LDS scholars/writers who say the BoM is true means nothing. I saw that most were affiliated with BYU and therefore must say positive things about the BoM or they may be fired from their job and possibly excommunicated.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

…

Now you will find LDS members who view the BoM as literary myth. In the sense that, it is an ancient story, not necessarily historical or factual, but conveys important truths.

The newer option cannot be reconciled to what Joseph Smith taught and claimed about the BoM, without a caveat that Smith wasn’t really aware, spiritually and historically, of what he was actually dealing with.

Your last para is an understatement. He was partial to pirate novels reportedly.

As for your middle para (the first above) B o M is not myth and is not an ancient story.

Myth has been carefully transferred over countless generations in villages and tribes and by bards. It has been the education system (employing many genres including fable and humour) for the whole world’s peoples for tens of thousands of years.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Your last para is an understatement. He was partial to pirate novels reportedly.

As for your middle para (the first above) B o M is not myth and is not an ancient story.

Myth has been carefully transferred over countless generations in villages and tribes and by bards. It has been the education system (employing many genres including fable and humour) for the whole world’s peoples for tens of thousands of years.

Of course, it is 19th century fan fiction.

But I’m referencing “myth” as a literary genre. Which I understand as defined: symbolic “tales believed as true, usually sacred, set in the distant past or other worlds or parts of the world, and with extra-human, inhuman, or heroic characters” (William Bascom).

Also, referencing the Mormon view or teaching. Which is that the stories in the BoM are believed to be true.

The shift for some LDS members, is from a literal to a symbolic view of the BoM. The shift to symbolic is what places it in the myth genre, from a LDS view. Prior, and according to Joseph Smith, the BoM was a collection of literal, historic, events written down and therefore pristinely preserved for the Last Days.

In light of current archeology, genome, anthropology and other sciences, the Mormon literal historic view cannot be maintained. So the shift, to myth. (Some non Latter-day Saint Mormon sects have made the shift doctrinely.)

 

[TOmNossor]

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

 

[HelenRose]

• 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? Much of its contents cannot stand scrutiny and it is not taken seriously by academics. From a historical perspective, the Book of Mormon is very much mythological and a product of its time comparable to similar stories and theory’s arising out of 19th century America. What do you think? I would also love to see some of our Mormon brothers and sisters at CAF discuss this with us.

No it is a book written by Solomon Spaulding.