Could The Book of Mormon be considered mythology?

[TOmNossor]

Lax,
I will try to return from my detour (I was distracted by being called a LIAR, but I should have not been distracted).
This whole endeavor to find scholars started when Neurotypical posted a link to a list call Mormon Scholars Testify. A website filled with LDS who are deep and profound thinkers and yet are LDS.

Horton who could not be bothered to read the title (and probably didn’t follow the link) wondered so loudly he posted his wonder, “how many of these are non-LDS.”

I responded by decrying the lack of attention necessary to make such a claim, pointing out that the link was for Mormon Scholars so none were non-Mormons.

However so as to not merely decry this, I offered two things. First, it is pretty ridiculous to look for scholars who are not Mormon and believe uniquely Mormon things. I quoted a Catholic poster who similar to Horton did not read what I wrote very closely and observed, “this one is a bit unfair, of course non Catholics … If they did they would have converted …” even though my comment included Catholics who held the view this fellow considered non-Catholic. Second, off the top of my head I listed 7 examples (9 folks) who were scholars and were non-LDS who by word or deed supported LDS truth claims in some way despite being non-LDS.

This was dismissed as “A red herring of course, since it is not ‘Tom’s personal hero list of people in a scholarly position who converted to Mormonism’"

I responded by for the third time in about a week decrying the lack of attention as all but 2 of the examples were never LDS (not those “who converted to Mormonism.”). I once again pointed out the futility of finding someone who was never a LDS, didn’t convert to the CoJCoLDS, and yet believes uniquely Mormon things.

You responded to my list by paying enough attention to it to pick apart various aspects of the list. I have been meaning to address your “picking apart” (and I might yet, but I choose where to comment based on my interest and I have finite time).

I made a comment to you about my exasperation that nobody seems to recognize asking for non-Mormon scholars to publish in support of uniquely Mormon things is a ridiculous target to hit.

You responded by evidently missing my point:

TOmNossor;13866195:

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.

There were several non-Catholic scholars that did not believe in the Catholic Church at all, in fact taught against it, but are now Catholic.

To which I respond “ahhhhhhhhh! Are you even listening.”
I am expressing frustration that I am being asked to find a scholar who believes uniquely Mormon things who is a non-Mormon and does not become a Mormon. I suggest that non-Catholics who come to believe uniquely Catholic things become Catholic and then they cease to meet the criteria of being non-Catholics.
You respond by saying lots of folks become Catholic.
Then you give me a list of a many dozens of converts who may or may not be scholars.
“Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Are you even listening?”

Lax, you may choose to reflect back to me why I am frustrated so that I know you are listening. Or you may choose to do something else. I will await your decision.
Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

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!

Hi TOm - I am listening!

You are correct in saying that many scholars have studied Catholicism, including the teaching of papal succession, and converted to Catholicism. However, there may be numerous Methodists (and not scholars, because it has not yet been proven that Barker was a scholar) who have studied and believe this too. They are unknown because frankly, they are not considered scholars and nobody cares about what they think or write.

You think because Barker is considered a scholar by Mormons that she is somehow separated from other Methodist ministers/writers. She is more scholarly or her opinion matters more. This cannot be proven because you do not know what other Methodists have written nor have you provided any proof of her education or training.

You do make an interesting point that it is hard to find scholars who have not converted to Catholicism after studying church history and yet the one Protestant scholar you claim knows Mormon temple theology backwards and forwards died a Methodist.

 

[lax16]

Lax,
I will try to return from my detour (I was distracted by being called a LIAR, but I should have not been distracted).
This whole endeavor to find scholars started when Neurotypical posted a link to a list call Mormon Scholars Testify. A website filled with LDS who are deep and profound thinkers and yet are LDS.

Horton who could not be bothered to read the title (and probably didn’t follow the link) wondered so loudly he posted his wonder, “how many of these are non-LDS.”

I responded by decrying the lack of attention necessary to make such a claim, pointing out that the link was for Mormon Scholars so none were non-Mormons.

However so as to not merely decry this, I offered two things. First, it is pretty ridiculous to look for scholars who are not Mormon and believe uniquely Mormon things. I quoted a Catholic poster who similar to Horton did not read what I wrote very closely and observed, “this one is a bit unfair, of course non Catholics … If they did they would have converted …” even though my comment included Catholics who held the view this fellow considered non-Catholic. Second, off the top of my head I listed 7 examples (9 folks) who were scholars and were non-LDS who by word or deed supported LDS truth claims in some way despite being non-LDS.

This was dismissed as “A red herring of course, since it is not ‘Tom’s personal hero list of people in a scholarly position who converted to Mormonism’"

I responded by for the third time in about a week decrying the lack of attention as all but 2 of the examples were never LDS (not those “who converted to Mormonism.”). I once again pointed out the futility of finding someone who was never a LDS, didn’t convert to the CoJCoLDS, and yet believes uniquely Mormon things.

You responded to my list by paying enough attention to it to pick apart various aspects of the list. I have been meaning to address your “picking apart” (and I might yet, but I choose where to comment based on my interest and I have finite time).

I made a comment to you about my exasperation that nobody seems to recognize asking for non-Mormon scholars to publish in support of uniquely Mormon things is a ridiculous target to hit.

You responded by evidently missing my point:

To which I respond “ahhhhhhhhh! Are you even listening.”
I am expressing frustration that I am being asked to find a scholar who believes uniquely Mormon things who is a non-Mormon and does not become a Mormon. I suggest that non-Catholics who come to believe uniquely Catholic things become Catholic and then they cease to meet the criteria of being non-Catholics.
You respond by saying lots of folks become Catholic.
Then you give me a list of a many dozens of converts who may or may not be scholars.
“Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Are you even listening?”

Lax, you may choose to reflect back to me why I am frustrated so that I know you are listening. Or you may choose to do something else. I will await your decision.
Charity, TOm

I’m sorry to frustrate you - it is not my intention.

 

[Stephen168]

Either way, I made my points:
The Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith in a revelation recorded in Mormon scripture and taught by the Mormon Church until at least the 1970’s, has been proven false by DNA. The American Indians did not come from the near east. Any stories of maps, rocks, trails, temple worship, or places will not change that fact.

However so as to not merely decry this, I offered two things. First, **it is pretty ridiculous to look for scholars who are not Mormon and believe uniquely Mormon things. **I quoted a Catholic poster who similar to Horton did not read what I wrote very closely and observed, “this one is a bit unfair, of course non Catholics … If they did they would have converted …” even though my comment included Catholics who held the view this fellow considered non-Catholic. Second, off the top of my head I listed 7 examples (9 folks) who were scholars and were non-LDS who by word or deed supported LDS truth claims in some way despite being non-LDS.

I am expressing frustration that I am being asked to find a scholar who believes uniquely Mormon things who is a non-Mormon and does not become a Mormon. I suggest that non-Catholics who come to believe uniquely Catholic things become Catholic and then they cease to meet the criteria of being non-Catholics.

The Book of Mormon should not be a “uniquely Mormon” book because Joseph Smith’s claim was that the Book of Mormon is a non-fiction history of all the American Indians and their origin in the near east.

In the 1970’s, while attending weekly meetings at the Mormon Church and talking with my Mormon friends, they believed what Joseph Smith claimed. Simon Southerton claims it was still taught in 2005. Post #57 suggests that it is still the official teaching of the Mormon Church.

Almost zero unique Mormon beliefs and practices come from the Book of Mormon, so believing the Book of Mormon was true history would not demand a person convert to Mormonism. I read non-fiction books all the time with no inclination to convert to the religious beliefs of the author.

Therefore, it would not be irrational to expect non-Mormon scholars in the field to believe the Book of Mormon is true, if it was. But not one non-Mormon scholar in the field believes the Book of Mormon is what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church claim it to be.

Listing nine non-Mormons who you claim “supported LDS truth claims” is not the same as listing nine non-Mormon scholars in the field who believe the Book of Mormon is an ancient work of non-fiction about the source of all the American Indians.

By claiming the Book of Mormon is “uniquely Mormon,” you are admitting that the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church claim it is. When I learned that Joseph Smith’s prophecy was wrong, I knew he was not a prophet and the Mormon Church was just his fabrication.

 

[Horton]

Horton who could not be bothered to read the title (and probably didn’t follow the link) wondered so loudly he posted his wonder, “how many of these are non-LDS.”

I responded by decrying the lack of attention necessary to make such a claim, pointing out that the link was for Mormon Scholars so none were non-Mormons.

However so as to not merely decry this, I offered two things. First, it is pretty ridiculous to look for scholars who are not Mormon and believe uniquely Mormon things. I quoted a Catholic poster who similar to Horton did not read what I wrote very closely and observed, “this one is a bit unfair, of course non Catholics … If they did they would have converted …” even though my comment included Catholics who held the view this fellow considered non-Catholic. Second, off the top of my head I listed 7 examples (9 folks) who were scholars and were non-LDS who by word or deed supported LDS truth claims in some way despite being non-LDS.

I made a comment to you about my exasperation that nobody seems to recognize asking for non-Mormon scholars to publish in support of uniquely Mormon things is a ridiculous target to hit.

You responded by evidently missing my point:

To which I respond “ahhhhhhhhh! Are you even listening.”
I am expressing frustration that I am being asked to find a scholar who believes uniquely Mormon things who is a non-Mormon and does not become a Mormon. I suggest that non-Catholics who come to believe uniquely Catholic things become Catholic and then they cease to meet the criteria of being non-Catholics.
You respond by saying lots of folks become Catholic.
Then you give me a list of a many dozens of converts who may or may not be scholars.
“Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Are you even listening?”

Lax, you may choose to reflect back to me why I am frustrated so that I know you are listening. Or you may choose to do something else. I will await your decision.
Charity, TOm

The Book of Mormon should not be a “uniquely Mormon” book because Joseph Smith’s claim was that the Book of Mormon is a non-fiction history of all the American Indians and their origin in the near east.

In the 1970’s, while attending weekly meetings at the Mormon Church and talking with my Mormon friends, they believed what Joseph Smith claimed. Simon Southerton claims it was still taught in 2005. Post #57 suggests that it is still the official teaching of the Mormon Church.

Almost zero unique Mormon beliefs and practices come from the Book of Mormon, so believing the Book of Mormon was true history would not demand a person convert to Mormonism. I read non-fiction books all the time with no inclination to convert to the religious beliefs of the author.

Therefore, it would not be irrational to expect non-Mormon scholars in the field to believe the Book of Mormon is true, if it was. But not one non-Mormon scholar in the field believes the Book of Mormon is what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church claim it to be.

Listing nine non-Mormons who you claim “supported LDS truth claims” is not the same as listing nine non-Mormon scholars in the field who believe the Book of Mormon is an ancient work of non-fiction about the source of all the American Indians.

By claiming the Book of Mormon is “uniquely Mormon,” you are admitting that the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church claim it is. When I learned that Joseph Smith’s prophecy was wrong, I knew he was not a prophet and the Mormon Church was just his fabrication.

• Red lettering mine

Smith made the claim that the BoM was an ancient book and a history of the indigenous people of America. The point the non LDS posters are making here is there are no non-LDS scholars who believe it is an ancient book and/or history of the indigenous people of America.

And just to clear up a couple of things. I did open and read the link. Your assertion that I did not (twice) is insulting. Second I’m a woman so the proper address would be she, not he.

 

[Tarquin]

…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”.

I was careful to write, she provides no support “more significant” for Mormon claims, not “she has little to say”.

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. …

I have no particular expectations for her. So, no, I certainly do not expect her to provide specifics in support of Mormonism, neither of the 19th century, nor of the 20th century, although she would perhaps find it easier to provide specificsin support of the much modified Mormonism of the 21st century, as it sheds ever more of its “distinctives” as it seeks to increasingly Christianize itself. Her views are interesting, but for me not persuasive, and I wonder if she genuinely holds them herself or does she sometimes write as an exercise in alternative interpretations rather than for historically productive discovery.

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.

”Numerous points of contact between “Lehi’s journey” and actual geography simply do not exist. Is Jerusalem a “point”? If so, that is granted. But to positively associate such “points” as “a river,” “a valley,” “the mountain” “nearly a south-southeast direction,” “Shazer,” “in the wilderness, following the same direction,” “the most fertile parts of the wilderness,” “ near the Red Sea,” “we did travel for the space of many days,” “I, Nephi, did go forth up into the top of the mountain,” “the directions which were given upon the ball,” “traveling nearly the same course,” “we did travel nearly eastward,” “we did travel and wade through much affliction in the wilderness” (the marshes between Iraq and Iran?), they wandered “eight years in the wilderness,” “the sea Irreantum” (located?) also known as “many waters” (more than one?), “went up into the mountain,” “Bountiful,” (1 Nephi 16-17) with any actual points of Old World geography is pointless.

There is no connection whatsoever between the fictional Book of Mormon place written “Nahom” and Old World Geography. There is no connection whatsoever between the actual tribe (not location) Nhhm and anything in the Book of Mormon. Lehi is not made to say, “We met a people called Nhhm.” And the Nhhm tribal members apparently did not call their cemetery “Nahom.” There is a resemblance, however, between the Old World name “Nahum” and the Book of Mormon name “Nahom.” So if you argue that those two names are points of similarity, I will agree.

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.

There is no geographic detail in the Book of Mormon. There is no problem with Smith using a map to aid his vague description of an undetailed fictional journey from Jerusalem to an imaginary Irreantum. The problem is in imagining there are actual, real-world correlations between the impossibly vague phrases in the Book of Mormon with actual, identifiable points of ancient geography.

The supernatural does exist. That has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

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 ……

I will not play with your straw man. The section fails in Post #59 which attempts to contrast the remarks of Lax16 and Tarquin. I already remarked about the misinterpretation of some of my words. Lax16 and Tarquin are in agreement that the writings of Margaret Barker, “scholar” or not, are short on credibility, and her writings do not seem to lend much in the way of “significant” (strong, persuasive) support to particularly unique aspects of Mormon teachings of the 19th and 20th centuries.

….and if she has provided support to the BOM as an ancient text.

She absolutely has not done that!

Almost zero unique Mormon beliefs and practices come from the Book of Mormon, so believing the Book of Mormon was true history would not demand a person convert to Mormonism. …
Listing nine non-Mormons who you claim “supported LDS truth claims” is not the same as listing nine non-Mormon scholars in the field who believe the Book of Mormon is an ancient work of non-fiction about the source of all the American Indians.

Ouch and ditto.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Lax,
I will try to return from my detour (I was distracted by being called a LIAR, but I should have not been distracted).
This whole endeavor to find scholars started when Neurotypical posted a link to a list call Mormon Scholars Testify. A website filled with LDS who are deep and profound thinkers and yet are LDS.

Horton who could not be bothered to read the title (and probably didn’t follow the link) wondered so loudly he posted his wonder, “how many of these are non-LDS.”

I responded by decrying the lack of attention necessary to make such a claim, pointing out that the link was for Mormon Scholars so none were non-Mormons.

However so as to not merely decry this, I offered two things. First, it is pretty ridiculous to look for scholars who are not Mormon and believe uniquely Mormon things. I quoted a Catholic poster who similar to Horton did not read what I wrote very closely and observed, “this one is a bit unfair, of course non Catholics … If they did they would have converted …” even though my comment included Catholics who held the view this fellow considered non-Catholic. Second, off the top of my head I listed 7 examples (9 folks) who were scholars and were non-LDS who by word or deed supported LDS truth claims in some way despite being non-LDS.

This was dismissed as “A red herring of course, since it is not ‘Tom’s personal hero list of people in a scholarly position who converted to Mormonism’"

I responded by for the third time in about a week decrying the lack of attention as all but 2 of the examples were never LDS (not those “who converted to Mormonism.”). I once again pointed out the futility of finding someone who was never a LDS, didn’t convert to the CoJCoLDS, and yet believes uniquely Mormon things.

You responded to my list by paying enough attention to it to pick apart various aspects of the list. I have been meaning to address your “picking apart” (and I might yet, but I choose where to comment based on my interest and I have finite time).

I made a comment to you about my exasperation that nobody seems to recognize asking for non-Mormon scholars to publish in support of uniquely Mormon things is a ridiculous target to hit.

You responded by evidently missing my point:

To which I respond “ahhhhhhhhh! Are you even listening.”
I am expressing frustration that I am being asked to find a scholar who believes uniquely Mormon things who is a non-Mormon and does not become a Mormon. I suggest that non-Catholics who come to believe uniquely Catholic things become Catholic and then they cease to meet the criteria of being non-Catholics.
You respond by saying lots of folks become Catholic.
Then you give me a list of a many dozens of converts who may or may not be scholars.
“Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Are you even listening?”

Lax, you may choose to reflect back to me why I am frustrated so that I know you are listening. Or you may choose to do something else. I will await your decision.
Charity, TOm

Of course we can read. But this post shows your error. . But it isn’t jjust yours, as it can be seen in most Mormon expressions that involve history. Here’s the foundational problem: Mormonism inherently confuses history with belief. What is believed is history. Rather than, history being comprised of events that actually occurred and people that actually existed. If history, truly, as a study of events and people, is examined then Mormon belief must change.

However, as relates to the topic, myth is not history. The OP has still not been addressed by a Mormon. I’m not sure that it can, as long as belief is what defines “history”.

As for scholarship and truth claims of any religion, one does not have to be a member of a religion in order to study that religions history. As an example, Jan Shipps is a scholar of Mormon history, who is not Mormon. She has been explicit in interviews that truth claims are not what she is interested in. Rather she is interested in Mormon history. Real history, from the 1800s on.

Scholars of real history follow where the historical facts lead, not try to lead the bread crumbs of ancient history into a preconceived mold.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Thanks Lax16.
Still waiting for Tom to produce a list of non-LDS scholars who support the BoM as claimed as true by JS.

Isn’t that like asking Lax16 to produce a list of non-Christian scholars who support the Bible as true?

 

[Stephen168]

Isn’t that like asking Lax16 to produce a list of non-Christian scholars who support the Bible as true?

No

Smith made the claim that the BoM was an ancient book and a history of the indigenous people of America. The point the non LDS posters are making here is there are no non-LDS scholars who believe it is an ancient book and/or history of the indigenous people of America.

 

[NeuroTypical]

That makes sense. Yep, Mormons have very little archaeological evidence supporting the BoM, and zero conclusive evidence.

I’ve asked non-LDS folks this question over time:

Real quick - if we find Hebrew DNA in native american populations tomorrow, will you get baptized into my church? If we find a lost city in Guatemala full of steel swords and horse bones and the term “Welcome to Zarahemla” written in reformed egyptian, will you become a Mormon?

The answers I receive go about 50/50 yes/no. From my perspective, that’s 50% honest answers, and 50% immaturity or question ducking. Because while the Bible can stand on it’s own as an historic bunch of stories told anciently and preserved across the millenia, the BoM either is what it claims to be, or it isn’t.

 

[Horton]

Isn’t that like asking Lax16 to produce a list of non-Christian scholars who support the Bible as true?

Not at all. The difference being that all Christians and many other non Christian faith traditions such as the LDS accept the Bible for what it is. They may not all agree on specific parts of it, but it is accepted as claimed. Only the LDS accept the BoM for what it is claimed to be. No one else does.

That makes sense. Yep, Mormons have very little archaeological evidence supporting the BoM, and zero conclusive evidence.

I’ve asked non-LDS folks this question over time:

The answers I receive go about 50/50 yes/no. From my perspective, that’s 50% honest answers, and 50% immaturity or question ducking. Because while the Bible can stand on it’s own as an historic bunch of stories told anciently and preserved across the millenia, the BoM either is what it claims to be, or it isn’t.

Kind of a trick question as it is impossible for those things to happen. My answer would be no. That no does not come from immaturity or trying to duck the question. It comes from a well developed understanding of my faith and knowing I belong to the Body of Christ through my baptism, confirmation and the sacraments of the Catholic Church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That makes sense. Yep, Mormons have very little archaeological evidence supporting the BoM, and zero conclusive evidence.

I’ve asked non-LDS folks this question over time:

The answers I receive go about 50/50 yes/no. From my perspective, that’s 50% honest answers, and 50% immaturity or question ducking. Because while the Bible can stand on it’s own as an historic bunch of stories told anciently and preserved across the millenia, the BoM either is what it claims to be, or it isn’t.

The willingness to treat future hypothetical situations as if they are fact, is not an indicator of ones level of intelligence or integrity. It only suggests a willingness to participate in scenarios of fantasy. Which can be done with any number of subjects and hypothesis.

Here’s one: What would you do if you grew a third arm? Would you join The Band Of Three Arm Bandits? If you answer in any other way than what I expect, you are ducking the question.

 

[lax16]

Isn’t that like asking Lax16 to produce a list of non-Christian scholars who support the Bible as true?

Well, since you (almost) asked…

Leading scholars like Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen and Gerd Ludemann are all non-Christians. Then there are the Jewish scholars like Mark Nanos, Alan Segal, Jacob Neusner, Hyam Maccoby and Geza Vermes. Even those scholars who describe themselves as Christians often hold ideas about Jesus that few church-goers would recognise, let alone be comfortable with and which are nothing like the positions of people like Geivett and McDowell. Dale C. Allison, E P Sanders and John Dominic Crossan may all regard themselves as Christians, but I doubt Josh McDowell would agree, given their highly non-orthodox ideas about the historical Jesus. (O’Neill 2011)

 

[lax16]

The willingness to treat future hypothetical situations as if they are fact, is not an indicator of ones level of intelligence or integrity. It only suggests a willingness to participate in scenarios of fantasy. Which can be done with any number of subjects and hypothesis.

Here’s one: What would you do if you grew a third arm? Would you join The Band Of Three Arm Bandits? If you answer in any other way than what I expect, you are ducking the question.

I would definitely consider a career as a house painter and wallpaper hanger!

 

[Faith1960]

Ask a Mormon…and they will say absolutely not. It’s considered the “keystone” of their religion, without which the rest of the faith would crumble.
From the view of a scholar, it could be considered such, as there is absolutely no proof that any of the tribes/groups (Nephites, Lamanites. etc) ever existed, or that Christ visited the Americas.

Some might argue that then the Bible could be considered mythology by those that are not following a Judeo-Christian religion. the difference is that there is archaeological proof that the civilizations described in the Bible existed…whether or not we believe the miracles contained within is a matter of faith.

The Bible has been studied by religious and secular scholars alike…they might not agree on the accounts within, but secular scholars have found evidence for what i described above.
.

Even those against Jesus agreed miracles took place, they just blamed them on Satan.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I would definitely consider a career as a house painter and wallpaper hanger!

Obviously, you are dodging my question!

 

[Stephen168]

That makes sense. Yep, Mormons have very little archaeological evidence supporting the BoM, and zero conclusive evidence.

In fact, DNA proves the Joseph Smith claim of the Book of Mormon is false. It is not do to a lack of evidence, DNA analyzes is evidence.

I’ve asked non-LDS folks this question over time:

Real quick - if we find Hebrew DNA in native american populations tomorrow, will you get baptized into my church? If we find a lost city in Guatemala full of steel swords and horse bones and the term “Welcome to Zarahemla” written in reformed egyptian, will you become a Mormon?

The Catholic Church had been around over 1400 years before we knew of the Americas or the fact it was populated. So I don’t understand how the scientific source of the American natives would cause me to leave the Catholic Church. I feel no need to share the religion of the scientist who proved the American Indians were from the far east either.

Because while the Bible can stand on it’s own as an historic bunch of stories told anciently and preserved across the millenia,

The Bible is not 100 percent history, or poetry, or theology. If a Christian says the Bible is true, you have to ask them “true in what way?” There is no single Christian claim on the Bible, mostly because the Bible is many things created over hundreds of years.

the BoM either is what it claims to be, or it isn’t.

The Book of Mormon is either what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church claim it to be or it isn’t. Science proves it isn’t.

 

[Horton]

**In fact, DNA proves the Joseph Smith claim of the Book of Mormon is false. It is not do to a lack of evidence, DNA analyzes is evidence.
**
The Catholic Church had been around over 1400 years before we knew of the Americas or the fact it was populated. So I don’t understand how the scientific source of the American natives would cause me to leave the Catholic Church. I feel no need to share the religion of the scientist who proved the American Indians were from the far east either.
The Bible is not 100 percent history, or poetry, or theology. If a Christian says the Bible is true, you have to ask them “true in what way?” There is no single Christian claim on the Bible, mostly because the Bible is many things created over hundreds of years.

The Book of Mormon is either what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church claim it to be or it isn’t. Science proves it isn’t.

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

 

[TOmNossor]

Hi TOm - I am listening!

You are correct in saying that many scholars have studied Catholicism, including the teaching of papal succession, and converted to Catholicism. However, there may be numerous Methodists (and not scholars, because it has not yet been proven that Barker was a scholar) who have studied and believe this too. They are unknown because frankly, they are not considered scholars and nobody cares about what they think or write.

You think because Barker is considered a scholar by Mormons that she is somehow separated from other Methodist ministers/writers. She is more scholarly or her opinion matters more. This cannot be proven because you do not know what other Methodists have written nor have you provided any proof of her education or training.

You do make an interesting point that it is hard to find scholars who have not converted to Catholicism after studying church history and yet the one Protestant scholar you claim knows Mormon temple theology backwards and forwards died a Methodist.

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.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

• Red lettering mine

Smith made the claim that the BoM was an ancient book and a history of the indigenous people of America. The point the non LDS posters are making here is there are no non-LDS scholars who believe it is an ancient book and/or history of the indigenous people of America.

And just to clear up a couple of things. I did open and read the link. Your assertion that I did not (twice) is insulting. Second I’m a woman so the proper address would be she, not he.

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:

I wonder how many, if any, of these academics are not LDS?

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