Could The Book of Mormon be considered mythology?

[lax16]

Ummmm I invite Mormons to my home all the time. Doesn’t say anything about the truth claims of the Mormon church.

It does show that Catholics have a much higher approval rating among Mormons than they used to. Imagine JS or BY interacting with the great and abominable church!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
I was not trying to avoid you. As I was formulating my point, your words came to my mind. You offered something that helped me make my point. And I do not think I was making my point at your expense in anyway.
I also am not trying to scold anyone. I am trying to make a point.

Your position is that everyone has biases, but LDS such as me apply biased methodologies. This produces the disconnect where not only is my position not viewed as likely, it is viewed as similar to taking alien abduction stories seriously.

My position is that everyone has biases, but the pro-Mormon arguments I offer are not seriously considered and this creates the disconnect. It is not my position that the pro-BOM arguments I offer should compel Catholic here to cease to be Catholic. It is my position that the pro-BOM arguments I offer have “points of strength.” That they are not worthy of ridicule and they are not worthy of claims that I do not actually believe them but only say them to deceive others. (BTW, being worthy of ridicule and receiving ridicule are separate things, Catholic here judge Mormons as worthy and many are willing to dish it out).

Anyway, that is why I quoted you.
Charity, TOm

I’ve been paying attention to Mormonism my entire life. I think I got it. Sorry, no, I haven’t seen the critical thinking in your posts, that I do look for, in Mormon arguments. They just aren’t there, generally, from any LDS argument. Once in a while someone surprises me, with a great start in an essay or forum post, but then wander off into the weeds of jumping to conclusions and great leaps of logic.

Maybe it is that all of my college professors were sticklers for critical thinking. The loosey gloosey thinking coming from Mormons wouldn’t have made the grade.

 

[superwimp]

My position is that everyone has biases, but the pro-Mormon arguments I offer are not seriously considered and this creates the disconnect. It is not my position that the pro-BOM arguments I offer should compel Catholic here to cease to be Catholic. It is my position that the pro-BOM arguments I offer have “points of strength.” That they are not worthy of ridicule and they are not worthy of claims that I do not actually believe them but only say them to deceive others. (BTW, being worthy of ridicule and receiving ridicule are separate things, Catholic here judge Mormons as worthy and many are willing to dish it out).

Hello Tom,
I used to be LDS and believed in the historicity of the BOM. Right now I see a value in the book but no longer believe in the historicity. I am perfectly free to accept or reject anything. What is your very very very best pro-BOM argument. Just pick one and go into as much detail as you like as to why this argument proves the historicity of the BOM. Again I have nothing compelling me not to believe in the historicity of the BOM.

 

[Horton]

Hello Tom,

    I used to be LDS and believed in the historicity of the BOM.  Right now I see a value in the book but no longer believe in the historicity.  I am perfectly free to accept or reject anything.  What is your very very very best pro-BOM argument.  Just pick one and go into as much detail as you like as to why this argument proves the historicity of the BOM.  Again I have nothing compelling me not to believe in the historicity of the BOM.

I don’t think you are going to get a satisfactory answer on this request.

 

[TOmNossor]

You have seen me go into detail on the problems with the claims about “Nahom” being related to an altar; with the impossibility of identifying Book of Mormon geography with Old World geography - although (naturally) it does line up with New England and Great Lakes geography quite well; and with the irrationality of a universe without a First Creator and a God whose power is part of his nature rather than a separate Priesthood that he had to be given by someone else.

It is my position that the Old World geography of the BOM is a remarkable hit. I think the second link below hits most of your points, and I am quite sure the finally link responds to most of them.
Here is a discussion of Nahom:
studioetquoquefide.com/2015/06/nahomnihm-what-are-chances.html
I will mention the fellow who replied to this thread. He was once an avowed Atheist (ex-Mormon). He acknowledged evidentiary value in Nahom then, but suggested net-net it was not enough. Interestingly enough while researching Joseph Smith polygamy (he has found and catalogued more information on Joseph Smith polygamy than ANY historian and did this as a non-believer), he regained his faith and returned to the church.
Here is a criticism of Nahom:
patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2015/09/nahom-and-lehis-journey-through-arabia-a-historical-perspective/
Here is a reply to the criticism:
mormoninterpreter.com/joseph-and-the-amazing-technicolor-dream-map-part-1-of-2/
I have little more to say on this at this time. I will mention that it is no longer en vogue to suggest that Nahom just happened to be there. Now, folks suggest that Joseph Smith had a map from which he did research. The final link responds well to this position IMO.
Tarquin, I will ask however what in “New England and Great Lakes GEOGRAPHY” lines up quite well. Most critics of the BOM have offered name connections, but no geography. Some believers offer some geography, but no ancient typonyms (and even these BOM scholars who hold a minority view I reject, would support the Old World geography proposed as there is a broad agreement on this aspect of BOM geography).

and with the irrationality of a universe without a First Creator and a God whose power is part of his nature rather than a separate Priesthood that he had to be given by someone else.

Concerning “First Creator”/Cause/Mover, I find “points of strength” in the Thomist presentation that you say is the only RATIONAL choice.
I do not agree that alternatives to First Cause/Mover are irrational. Numerous scholars do not consider “First Creator” the only RATIONAL choice.
I further suggest that from the work of Catholic philosopher, Michael Almedia, “significant freedom” is not part of a universe created ex nihilo. Determinism is rational, but I am a non-compatibilist and so I reject determinism. Here is a lengthy discussion of this from 2007 on a Catholic blog.
defensorveritatis.net/?p=861
Thomas does not solve freedom problems in his thought (a different issue than Almedia highlights).
While I think the “points of strength” within first mover arguments are worth noting, they IMO are worth less than a metaphysics in which “significant freedom” is possible.

And I do not have much more to say about that now.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TomNossor, thank you for the two links. Lax16 had presented some of the information earlier. I have now read more. The list of reviewers is not helpful. Too much searching to find the actual reviews and read them. So far I have not been able to access any. If you would collect them all at a single site, that would sure save a boat-load of time, and I wouldn’t have to subscribe to half a dozen journals or pay for back-issues.

I cannot help you here. If you go to google scholar you can find numerous books and papers that utilize her scholarship.

Her ambition is less to find truth than, as she stated, to “redraw the map of biblical studies.”

I am unsure how you can assert that “her ambition is less to find truth.” I doubt very seriously she would agree with such an assessment, but I do not see how it follows from what you quoted. Wouldn’t it be MORE likely that she believe that “redrawing the map of biblical studies” involves the truth. In fact, it is her assertion that she is presenting truth. I cannot read her mind any more than you can, but I would think it quite likely that she recognizes the conclusions she draws are not the ONLY conclusions that can be drawn ONLY the most likely (in her opinion). The difference between my assessment of what she says and what you say is that I start with the assumption that she is honest and rational. I do not believe you do, and I think that is a HUGE mistake. Perhaps you can defend it and I will follow you???

Margaret Barker is respected for her research and perspective. She is hardly a willful promoter of Mormonism, regardless of how much she says about the Jewish temple and other subjects is acceptable to the Mormon community.

Margaret Barker is a scholar and a non-Mormon. She follows evidence and does not seek to promote Mormonism. Nonetheless her words do show that she is not being misread by Mormons who use “biased methods” to support their “biased conclusions.”
Here are some:
MBarker:

This revelation to Joseph Smith was the exact ancient Wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE.

MBarker:

The extraordinary similarity between a text that is sometimes called the History of the Rechabites and sometimes the Narrative of Zosimus—the extraordinary similarity between this story and the story of Lehi leaving Jerusalem—has already been studied by Mormon scholars. This ancient text, which survives in Greek, Syriac, and Ethioptic, tells the story of some people who left Jerusalem about 600 BCE and they went to live in a “blessed land.” They didn’t drink wine. They were called the sons of Rechab1, which could mean that Rechab was their ancestor, or it could be the Hebrew way of saying that they were temple servants, priests who served the divine throne. In their blessed lands, angels had announced to them the incarnation of the Word of God from the holy virgin who is the mother of God. Nobody can explain this text.

MBarker:

Last year I published a commentary on Isaiah that showed that the original Isaiah of Jerusalem knew the Enoch traditions but was not much concerned with Moses. Instead, Isaiah’s world was the world of Enoch’s angels.Other scholars are now exploring the possibility that Enoch tradi¬tions underlie some of the older stories in Genesis. Enoch traditions could have been very important in 600 bce, just as the revelation to Joseph Smith implies (1 Nephi 1:8–11; 8:5; 11:14; Jacob 7:5–7; Omni 1:25; Mosiah 3:2; Mosiah 27:11).

MBarker:

The original temple tradition was that Yahweh the Lord was the son of God Most high, present on earth in the Messiah. This means that the older religion in Israel would have taught about the Messiah, and so, finding Christ in the Old Testament is exactly what we should expect, but something obscured by incorrect reading of the scriptures. And this, I suggest, is one aspect of the restoration of the “plain and precious things” which have been taken away.

Here is a nice summary from Kevin Christianson (a LDS):
KChristianson:

When I got in contact ten years ago, I just offered my essays as they came, and assured her that she was free to disagree publically or privately. Her 2005 talk at the Joseph Smith conference (as published in BYU Studies, with some additions), gives as direct a statement as anyone could want. She five times refers to the Book of Mormon as a “revelation to Joseph Smith” and in each instance, read in context, she means exactly that. At one point, I sent her a draft of my Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem essay. After she read that, she decided she needed to read the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and the Pearl of Great Price completely. She managed in one day, and reported, “I was amazed at how much I recognized.”

It’s not just literary reasons that impress her, and me, for that matter. It’s the convergence of themes, time, and place, with 600 BCE Jerusalem as the key. Joseph’s revelation and her reconstruction cast light on each other. I think her work is part of the fulfillment of 1 Nephi 13:39-41.

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

I’ve been trying to figure out what a couple of names are given again and again by Mormon apologists. I believe the reason is twofold.

First, the fallacy of authority. By giving a name of a scholar who says something in support of Mormonism - or even embraces Mormonism 100% - one to some degree feels justified in his claims, and absolved of the necessity to state the argument with clarity (if there is an argument other than “Mormonism is true”).

Secondly, there aren’t many (if any!) genuine scholars, particularly non-Mormon scholars (leaving the definition of “scholar” unaddressed for the moment), capable of articulating persuasive arguments in defense of Mormonism’s official (“faithful,” hence falsified) history, unique doctrines, and its resultant doctrinal-based archaeological, cultural, historical, linguistic, and geographical claims.

Tarquin, the reason you in the past have utilized the “appeal to authority” fallacy is the same reason I have used it in the past. There are some complex issues here. While I know I have read significant things from Coe and Clark, Wright and Barker, and many others, I could not think I could present a comprehensive picture of all of these issues here on a message board.
That being said, this thread has been about Barker as a scholar who believes the BOM is ancient.
I do not believe what you believe is “Mormonism’s official (“faithful,” hence falsified) history” is what you believe it is. I have written a great deal in other threads as to why I reject many of these appeals to embrace a very narrow definition of what the BOM must be to be true.
Perhaps it is easiest to just say, if I conclude that the BOM must have supernatural sources based on the evidences I see, how do I fit this conclusion into a non-Mormon paradigm.
Now the truth is, I cannot remember ever feeling that I had to embrace the view of the BOM you call “Mormonism’s official.” So there is very little stress for me to embrace an ancient and revelatory view of the BOM that does not fit with EVERY word offered by Joseph Smith (and Joseph Smith said words that didn’t fit with every other word Joseph Smith said about the BOM. That doesn’t cause me stress either).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

From reading from the links you provided, I am more convinced that Margaret Barker is more than a little unconventional. Very knowledgeable, sometimes persuasive, touching on esoterica, but in her own way, not entirely credible. I do not say this as criticism of her, but as a description of how I view her writing.

It is clear that her position is not the majority position so “unconventional” I think is accurate. That being said, she is winning adherents and folks who reference her work in google scholar show that she is taken seriously. Thus I reject “not entirely credible.”
I have already suggested that you are unwarranted in your assessment that “her ambition is less to find truth.” I will now suggest that I do not see in your assessment an addressing of here scholarship that shows me it is not credible. My best guess is that your conclusion here is driven by the unwarranted assessment to which I previously pointed. In any case, I do not share your assessment and I submit it is VERY RATIONAL for me to not share your assessment. Perhaps you can convince me otherwise.

I should also acknowledge that I didn’t come upon Margaret Barker, become convinced of her scholarship, then become a LDS. I was a LDS. I subscribed to a concept advocated by Blake Ostler titled, “The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source.” There was too much Christianity in the BOM for it to fit in what I thought should have existed in 600BC based on my reading of the Old Testament and some study. There were sufficient ancient marks (archeological, historical, linguistic, …) that I didn’t think the BOM was a 19th century production. My introduction to Barker has not eliminated my assessment that 19th century Joseph was involved in the “translation” of the BOM, but it has greatly expanded the ancient marks. Some of those ancient marks have moved specifically from the “modern side” of Ostler’s ledger, but some of those ancient marks are things that APPEAR to fit that previously didn’t have evidentiary value either way (Nephi and His Ashera). This is really a remarkable thing. When 600BC is illuminated as Barker does, things in the BOM make more sense than they did before.
Here is a good essay:
mormoninterpreter.com/the-deuteronomist-reforms-and-lehis-family-dynamics-a-social-context-for-the-rebellions-of-laman-and-lemuel/

And of course the opposite of what I say about myself is true for Margaret Barker. She did not become a Mormon and then find in ancient extra-biblical text an illumination of First Temple Cult Judaism. She studied First Temple Cult Judaism. Found the answer to Biblical puzzles not well answered by previous scholarship in the extra Biblical literature that she researched. She pieced together an understanding of the Deuteronomist Reforms from this literature that fit with numerous out of place strands of text and ideas in the Bible. This understanding was the subject of a handful of books. Then she found the BOM that aligned with the understanding she had already pieced together. This is really a remarkable thing!

(continued)
You suggested that Tarquin and Lax16 should get come to an agreement on whether Barker is a scholar. I responded, but now you have linked to an essay by Barker that carries an important confession. In “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion” she has written, “I am not a scholar of Mormon texts and traditions. I am a biblical scholar specializing in the Old Testament…” She continues, “What I offer can only be the reactions of an Old Testament scholar: are the revelations to Joseph Smith consistent with the situation in Jerusalem in about 600 BCE?”

While I have to agree that an Old Testament scholar may be in an excellent position to provide useful “reactions” to a comparison of “the revelations to Joseph Smith” with Jerusalem of 600 BC, there is a large problem involved, of which one who is not also a scholar of Joseph Smith’s revelations and/or the Book of Mormon will not be aware.
1
In the first case, the problem is twofold. First, those “revelations to Joseph Smith” got dramatically CHANGED even during his own lifetime, and then after his demise, they were changed more!

So, am I to understand point #1 to mean that if Margaret Barker had access to the text of the BOM as it was revealed to Joseph Smith originally, it would be so different than it is today that what she says as clearly fitting into 600BC would VANISH.
If you believe this, you have bought uncritically into a BOM changed theory.
Here is a little on the changes to the BOM:
en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/Why_were_these_changes_made
If you like you can read the Tanner’s take on this. utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913intro.htm
What from either of these invalidates Margaret Barker’s assessment? What did you think would be there?
The things Margaret Barker uses to assess the BOM fits as an ANCIENT text into 600BC are not affected in the SLIGHTEST by BOM edits. What edit do you think changed the BOM so much that it FOOLED Margaret Barker by presenting an edited BOM rather than the original? Really?
cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Secondly, those revelations came after Joseph Smith had familiarized himself with the Old Testament over a course of two or more years.
In Letterbook 1, The Joseph Smith Papers:
“At about the age of twelve years my mind become seriously imprest with regard to the all importent concerns for the wellfare of my immortal Soul which led me to searching the scriptures…”
(josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/letterbook-1?p=8#!/paperSummary/letterbook-1&p=8)
And his mother reported in “Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations” (Liverpool: S. W. Richards, 1853), p. 90, that he had most humbly informed her:
“I can take my Bible, and go into the woods and learn more in two hours than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time.”
(archive.org/stream/BiographicalSketchesOfJosephSmithTheProphet/Biographical%20sketches%20of%20Joseph%20Smith%20the%20prophet%20and%20his%20progenitors%20for%20many%20generations#page/n91/mode/1up)
If he learned more in two hours with the bible than his mother could in two years “all the time”, then in the two years between that statement and the alleged date of his “First Vision,” he would have learned more from the Bible, at the rate of two hours per day, than his mother could have learned in . . . 730 years of continuously studying the Bible!! But perhaps Joseph Smith was exaggerating. Perhaps he exaggerated other things.

So, Joseph Smith’s revelations were not revelations to some uneducated farm boy. They were revelations to a boy who had worked to familiarize himself with the Bible. Did Barker have some means at her disposal to weigh the degree to which Joseph Smith may have simply mimicked the Old Testament in dialect and culture?

Both of the papers I linked you to and NUMEROUS other aspects of the connection between 600BC Jerusalem and the BOM are IMO IMPOSSIBLE to source from a thorough familiarity with the Old Testament.
I suggest that Margaret Barker would have to be either foolish or dishonest if she thought Joseph Smith could produce the ancient marks in the BOM solely by reading the Old Testament and yet she said the things she said about his REVELATIONS. “Did Barker have some means at her disposal to weigh the degree to which Joseph Smith may have simply mimicked the Old Testament in dialect and culture?” YES, as an Old Testament scholar she KNOWS what is in the Old Testament. As one who interacts with Old Testament scholars who in most cases read much fewer ancient languages and extra-Biblical works than she does, she knows what type of conclusions are drawn by Bible-Only folks. She is well positioned to make this judgement. How could it be otherwise?
I believe it unlikely that Joseph Smith’s teachings on deification could source from the New Testaments, but I believe it virtually impossible that the marks Margaret Barker highlights could source from the Old Testament.

It would seem you are committing yourself to the Joseph Smith the religious GENIOUS authorship theory. This theory was NEVER espoused by folks who knew Joseph Smith the simple fellow before 1830. It didn’t fit with the pre-prophet Joseph as described by ANY critic of Mormonism who knew him before he was a prophet. But, that is fine. If I thought it explained well what I see, it would at least be a contender. Of course there are other BOM points of strength explained better with other BOM production theories and I merely suggest that you cannot use incompatible theory A to explain away hit X and incompatible theory B to explain away hit Y, because theory A and theory B cannot both be the case. Are you saying that your considered opinion is that Joseph Smith is a brilliant man who studied and produced a 19th century BOM?

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

“Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me what his level of training is in these fields. What matters is whether his arguments hold any merit” – Casey Luskin

To be a scholar is to be a scholar. It is not to be right. One may be a scholar in the American history without being “credentialed” to speak authoritatively on biochemistry. One may be a scholar in the Old Testament without being “credentialed” to speak authoritatively on the Book of Mormon. One may know a lot about the Book of Mormon without knowing very much about the cultures and theologies represented in the Bible. Just as one may be an expert on U.S. History, Buddhism, horse training, construction work, without ever taken a single class or obtained the most elementary “credential” in that subject. What matters is not one’s “credential” nor the label “scholar,” but whether one is right or wrong. (If you had the impression that earlier I was denying Barker’s “scholarship,” that misimpression may have due to my caution in viewing scholarship as a sign of training, obeying, and passing tests in a certain field, rather than “proven expertise” in a field. Which is why I am not as unquestioning as some others, when a credential or label is used to bolster an argument by the holder of that credential or label. Barker has credentials and labels, granted, but she herself admits her deficiency in Mormon texts, traditions, historical changes, textual criticism, the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith’s revelations.

I am not arguing that to be a scholar is to be right. I am not arguing that Margaret Barker’s scholarship PROVES the BOM is from God. I am not arguing that the only response to Margaret Barker is jubilant celebration by LDS and resolved acceptance and change from non-LDS. I am suggesting that Margaret Barker’s scholarship is a “POINT OF STRENGTH” not worthy of derision and mocking.
She might be wrong and the BOM from God still.
She might be right and the BOM not from God still.
But, independent of the dreaded MORMON BIAS she produced scholarship that fits well with the BOM. She recognizes the fit, the remarkableness of the fit, and is willing to say so. This is a “POINT OF STRENGTH.”

Perhaps she is not a scholar because of her views. Perhaps she is worthy of mocking and being called a LIAR because of her views.
But mocking her, calling her dishonest, will not change the value some LDS find in her scholarship. It might be “red meat” for the base here at Catholic Answers, but I will dismiss it as desperation. Mock her and accuse her of dishonesty all you like!

I think that is what I have to say for now.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello Tom,

    I used to be LDS and believed in the historicity of the BOM.  Right now I see a value in the book but no longer believe in the historicity.  I am perfectly free to accept or reject anything.  What is your very very very best pro-BOM argument.  Just pick one and go into as much detail as you like as to why this argument proves the historicity of the BOM.  Again I have nothing compelling me not to believe in the historicity of the BOM.

Superwimp,
This is not a site for proselyting.
If you believe that for the BOM to be revelation from God, ALL American Indians in North and South American must have traceable Hebrew DNA, then I have no evidence of that and believing what I believe about the BOM I expect that will not materialize. This appears to be all Stephen needs to reject the BOM, and that is fine. A certain view of Joseph Smith’s ministry can require this, I just believe this view is not a reasonable Mormon view.
I personally find that the Nahom connection is a significant “point of strength” that is not well explained by any non-supernatural origin for the BOM.
In post #145 I included 3 links (2 Pro-Mormon and 1 Anti-Mormon link). And some of those links connect to a multipart discussion.

It is my position that the Old World geography of the BOM is a remarkable hit. I think the second link below hits most of your points, and I am quite sure the finally link responds to most of them.
Here is a discussion of Nahom:
studioetquoquefide.com/2015/06/nahomnihm-what-are-chances.html
I will mention the fellow who replied to this thread. He was once an avowed Atheist (ex-Mormon). He acknowledged evidentiary value in Nahom then, but suggested net-net it was not enough. Interestingly enough while researching Joseph Smith polygamy (he has found and catalogued more information on Joseph Smith polygamy than ANY historian and did this as a non-believer), he regained his faith and returned to the church.
Here is a criticism of Nahom:
patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2015/09/nahom-and-lehis-journey-through-arabia-a-historical-perspective/
Here is a reply to the criticism:
mormoninterpreter.com/joseph-and-the-amazing-technicolor-dream-map-part-1-of-2/
I have little more to say on this at this time. I will mention that it is no longer en vogue to suggest that Nahom just happened to be there. Now, folks suggest that Joseph Smith had a map from which he did research. The final link responds well to this position IMO.
Tarquin, I will ask however what in “New England and Great Lakes GEOGRAPHY” lines up quite well. Most critics of the BOM have offered name connections, but no geography. Some believers offer some geography, but no ancient typonyms (and even these BOM scholars who hold a minority view I reject, would support the Old World geography proposed as there is a broad agreement on this aspect of BOM geography).

It is significant to me that the most recent (and most thorough) criticisms of Nahom now suggest that somehow Joseph Smith had access to a map that informed his naturalistic BOM text. I agree that for the BOM to be non-supernatural, an explanation of Nahom is important. I just think it is unlikely these maps got to Joseph AND that there are details in the BOM that the maps didn’t provide (and in some case contradict what the map would have provided). These arguments are present in the MormonInterpreter link.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

All,
I struggle when I see arguments against LDS truth claims that I think are poor and easy to respond to. I struggle when instead of arguments against LDS truth claims I see mocking and accusations of dishonesty (and especially when these are celebrated by other posters).
I have suggested that learning about LDS truth claims on a Catholic board is difficult. If you truly believe it is ridiculous to be a LDS or that LDS who claim to believe some of the truth claims I claim to believe are lying, then I suggest there are many opportunities to be more informed. There are many folks other than TOm and Nuerotypical who can answer questions or elaborate upon these discussions.
I have hopes of taking a break. My family will return from out of town in a few hours.
When I need some more flagellation (indirectly the religious sense not …), I will surely be back.
I will also read responses and if I cease to be a LDS, I will definitely tell all of you.
Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

It is significant to me that the most recent (and most thorough) criticisms of Nahom now suggest that somehow Joseph Smith had access to a map that informed his naturalistic BOM text. I agree that for the BOM to be non-supernatural, an explanation of Nahom is important. I just think it is unlikely these maps got to Joseph AND that there are details in the BOM that the maps didn’t provide (and in some case contradict what the map would have provided). These arguments are present in the MormonInterpreter link.
Charity, TOm

One comment on Nahom:

Hamer does not see this as a “bulls-eye.” For him “it’s not even noteworthy. Given one has the entire volume of a large, Semitic country in which to find a common Semitic root (again, note that the Nihm in Arabia does not precisely match the Book of Mormon’s ‘Nahom’), we would be surprised not to find a place-name that is somehow similar to NHM.”

 

[Horton]

In all charity Tom, just because we are not persuaded by your proof the claims of the LDS are true does not mean we are mocking you.

I struggle when instead of arguments against LDS truth claims I see mocking and accusations of dishonesty (and especially when these are celebrated by other posters).

Many of us have given firm, reasonable arguments against LDS truth claims. I know I gave you a very reasoned logical response, you just didn’t like it.

I have suggested that learning about LDS truth claims on a Catholic board is difficult. If you truly believe it is ridiculous to be a LDS or that LDS who claim to believe some of the truth claims I claim to believe are lying, then I suggest there are many opportunities to be more informed.

Given that most if not all CAF’s did not come to a Catholic board to learn about the LDS church. Do I find the LDS theology ridiculous? Much of it I do. But this comes from a very strong Christian background, knowing what JS said just can’t be true. It flies in the face of Christian reason and logic.

Do I think you are lying? No. I believe you are a true believer, that you feel in your heart that the LDS faith is true.

As far as learning more? I keep myself busy enough with my Catholic learning and as far as studying other topics, the LDS faith would be close to the bottom of that list.

You’ve indicated that I’ve been untruthful because you made the assumption I didn’t read a link you posted. Just like the 8 (at time I’m writing this post) posts you tend to use far more words than are needed to try to prove a point to people who know the point is wrong.

I struggle with the concept of a non-Catholic coming to a Catholic forum to try to prove their church is right and therefore the Catholic Church false. If I choose to go to a LDS forum, which I don’t, I really wouldn’t be having the frustrations you seem to be having when my attempts to prove the LDS false meet with failure, mainly because I would know to not even try. Have a discussion? Yes. Anything more? No

 

[lax16]

Another point about Nahom:

It is also important to note that NIHM is believed to be a tribal name, not a place name, and that the three consonants can have a variety of spellings when vowels are inserted. Aston notes in the web site article that references to NHM are “usually given as NiHM, NeHeM, NaHaM etc.” The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies reports that this can also be spelled “NaHM” (7:1, 1998, p. 7).

 

[Stephen168]

Tarquin, the reason you in the past have utilized the “appeal to authority” fallacy is the same reason I have used it in the past. There are some complex issues here. While I know I have read significant things from Coe and Clark, Wright and Barker, and many others, I could not think I could present a comprehensive picture of all of these issues here on a message board.

As Tom just did here, On another thread he suggested that the truth of the Book of Mormon could be found by reading Coe, so I took the trouble to find out what Coe, a non-Mormon archeologist, had to say. I found this:
" Michael D. Coe:

Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, … The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere.

After this, I don’t spend much effect verifying his “name dropping” type claims. They are almost NEVER explicit or what he suggests they are.

This is not a site for proselyting.
If you believe that for the BOM to be revelation from God, ALL American Indians in North and South American must have traceable Hebrew DNA, then I have no evidence of that and believing what I believe about the BOM I expect that will not materialize. This appears to be all Stephen needs to reject the BOM, and that is fine. A certain view of Joseph Smith’s ministry can require this, I just believe this view is not a reasonable Mormon view.

While Tom claims it is not a reasonable Mormon view, my post #56 proved it is the view of Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church. Tom has not been able to provide any proof that the revelation of Joseph Smith and the official teaching of the Mormon Church is any different now than it was a few decades ago or different from how I described it in post #56.

All,
I struggle when I see arguments against LDS truth claims that I think are poor and easy to respond to. I struggle when instead of arguments against LDS truth claims I see mocking and accusations of dishonesty (and especially when these are celebrated by other posters).

Another false choice, because at least one more possibility exists; arguments against LDS truth claims that are solid and are never responded to.
While I don’t see mocking, I think dishonesty or proselytizing would be a fair assessment; suggesting conclusions of scholars which they do not have, and Mormon teachings which that church does not teach.

A hard argument that was not responded to:

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.

 

[Tarquin]

It is my position that the Old World geography of the BOM is a remarkable hit. I think the second link below hits most of your points, and I am quite sure the finally link responds to most of them.

I know it is. I know you will not change your mind until some dramatic or traumatic truth catches your attention. I have read much about the Book of Mormon Nahom, and as much as I could about nhhm. Nahom is not nhhm. I have read the material to which you have linked. Speculation, inexactness, and grievous errors, the largest being that Nahom is Nahom, but nhhm is not Nahom, neither linguistically, nor geographically, nor anthropologically. A city is not a cemetary. A tribe is not a cemetary. A tribe is not a city. An altar is not a city nor a tribe nor a cemetary. Unless someone provides convincing evidence that there is some tangible, intelligible connection between Book of Mormon *place *“Nahom” and real-world *tribe *“nhhm”, I will *not *be reading further arguments on the topic. The stretch is too broad, I have spent too many hours already on the subject. Not only is there no evidence of Nahom, there is not even a slight corroboration. “nhhm” never was, is not, and never will be “Nahom.” I understand the difference between the terms linguistically and geographically. You apparently do not.

…he regained his faith and returned to the church.

I don’t care. People who return to Mormonism are not free of misunderstanding, error, and outright prejudice (cognitive dissonance).

I will mention that it is no longer en vogue to suggest that Nahom just happened to be there. Now, folks suggest that Joseph Smith had a map from which he did research.

An apparently irrelevant argument. Anyone arguing this way is ignoring the linguistics, geography and anthropology of the two terms. The strength of an argument is neither strengthened nor weakened by whether it is in vogue. What was old may be regenerated. What is in vogue may be, and *often *is, wrong.

Tarquin, I will ask however what in “New England and Great Lakes GEOGRAPHY” lines up quite well. Most critics of the BOM have offered name connections, but no geography. Some believers offer some geography, but no ancient typonyms (and even these BOM scholars who hold a minority view I reject, would support the Old World geography proposed as there is a broad agreement on this aspect of BOM geography).

I do not know what you are asking me. If you believe there have been no correlations made between the geography in the Book of Mormon and the geography of New England, you are mistaken. This information is readily available, including such things as the Sea East, the Sea West, the Narrow Neck of Land, Lehigh, Angola, and on and on. They match not only linguistically (they are “places” in both the Book of Mormon and in 19th century American geography), but also geographically, no matter how much you wish to believe otherwise.

Concerning “First Creator”/Cause/Mover, I find “points of strength” in the Thomist presentation that you say is the only RATIONAL choice.
I do not agree that alternatives to First Cause/Mover are irrational. Numerous scholars do not consider “First Creator” the only RATIONAL choice.

“Numerous scholars” is an “argumentum ad verecundiam.” I am not moved but credentialism. Their considerations are completely unconvincing.

I further suggest that from the work of Catholic philosopher, Michael Almedia, “significant freedom” is not part of a universe created ex nihilo. Determinism is rational, but I am a non-compatibilist and so I reject determinism. Here is a lengthy discussion of this from 2007 on a Catholic blog.

I am not particularly interested in discussions on determinism and free will. I am interested in the Creator, First Being, timeless God, unbound Spirit.

 

[Tarquin]

I cannot help you here. If you go to google scholar you can find numerous books and papers that utilize her scholarship.

I am not interested in proving your assertions correct. If you are, you will need to provide more information. The bibliography is not helpful if the articles listed are not readily available.

I am unsure how you can assert that “her ambition is less to find truth.” , I doubt very seriously she would agree with such an assessment…

I am not asserting it. I am repeating what Kevin Christensen quoted her as having said: “it has been my ambition to redraw the map of biblical studies.” If she had said to “verify” or “to determine if they need to be redrawn,” there would not be much concern. But if she is starting out wanting to redraw the map, to me, that is announcing a predisposition to find a new way, come hell or high water.

Wouldn’t it be MORE likely that she believe that “redrawing the map of biblical studies” involves the truth.

I cannot say which would be more likely.

The difference between my assessment of what she says and what you say is that I start with the assumption that she is honest and rational. I do not believe you do, and I think that is a HUGE mistake. Perhaps you can defend it and I will follow you???

I am not interested in such followers. I take her at her word, independently of whether she is honest or rational. Honest people argue from their prejudices as well as dishonest; and rational people are as prone to error and prejudice as irrational people. If you obsessively follow me, I will report you as a stalker.

Here is a nice summary from Kevin Christianson (a LDS)

I have spent quite a deal of time on Margaret Barker. I hardly have time to do a study of Kevin Christianson (do you mean “Christensen”?), and am in fact completely not interested in doing so.

 

[Tarquin]

So, am I to understand point #1 to mean that if Margaret Barker had access to the text of the BOM as it was revealed to Joseph Smith originally, it would be so different than it is today that what she says as clearly fitting into 600BC would VANISH.

Not at all. My point was - you are presenting Margaret Barker as a “scholar.” And you are doing so in the context of Mormonism in some way. My point is that her scholar status is not an arguable point (even barring the misuse of credentialism) if she herself says she is not a scholar, which is exactly what she does in the quote given.

If you believe this, you have bought uncritically into a BOM changed theory.
Here is a little on the changes to the BOM: …
If you like you can read the Tanner’s take on this…
What from either of these invalidates Margaret Barker’s assessment? What did you think would be there?

Straw men. Item: She is not a scholar of Mormon texts and traditions.

The things Margaret Barker uses to assess the BOM fits as an ANCIENT text into 600BC are not affected in the SLIGHTEST by BOM edits.

They are gravely affected by her total lack of scholarship in Mormon texts and traditions.

What edit do you think changed the BOM so much that it FOOLED Margaret Barker by presenting an edited BOM rather than the original? Really?
cont…

Straw man. The relevant point is: she is not a scholar of Mormon texts and traditions. She is unqualified to say whether there even were any changes or not.

 

[Tarquin]

YES, as an Old Testament scholar she KNOWS what is in the Old Testament.

The problem is that she does not know what are in Mormon texts and traditions, historically and apparently not even currently.

I believe it unlikely that Joseph Smith’s teachings on deification could source from the New Testaments…

I do not know what you include in the term “deification”. If you include a Father God who had a Father in infinite regression, a God who impregnates Goddesses to produce spiritual fetuses, a God who once walked on another planet and gave up his life for the salvation of the people on that planet, a God who requires his children to go through a curtain but only if they know certain signs and words, a God who “tempts beyond what one is able to resist” and who gives commandments that he knows people cannot possibly obey, then I agree that such ideas as those do not derive from the New Testament. I do believe the Mormon concepts of deity, deification, and humanity are at odds with the Bible. I would go farther and say that they are at odds with sound reasoning.

It would seem you are committing yourself to the Joseph Smith the religious GENIOUS authorship theory. This theory was NEVER espoused by folks who knew Joseph Smith the simple fellow before 1830.

No, I am not. I don’t know anyone who knew Joseph Smith. I think he was a fairly typical teenager - but definitely *not *“simple” as Mormons presume - who didn’t much like farm work, was a self-serving egotist, and could spin elaborate, interesting stories, whether of his own imagination or not, that people honestly enjoyed.

Are you saying that your considered opinion is that Joseph Smith is a brilliant man who studied and produced a 19th century BOM?

God forbid! Despite his claims of supranormal intelligence and spiritual understanding, he was probably of average intelligence for the time, generally speaking. He may have been a little below average in his understanding of the history and doctrines of the Bible; he certainly is below the average in understanding when compared with today’s more serious (than him) Christians.