LDS and the bible vs BOM

[zaffiroborant]

The dismissal of the BOM as a clearly 19th century production is IMO harder and harder to do as the book is taken seriously by scientists and religious scholars.

TOm,

No. Just no. The BOM is not being taken seriously by scientists and religious scholars, any more than it is taken seriously by nearly every non-Mormon archeologist and historian. I know this is going to sounds rude, but the BOM, the Book of Abraham, etc. are academic jokes outside of LDS circles. Neither orthodox Christians nor academics see any credibility in the “translations” of “reformed Egyptian” and so forth as produced by Joseph Smith. It’s unfortunate that the LDS faithful are being taught otherwise; maybe there’s some groupthink going on in the church that’s leading Mormons to these conclusions…

What scientists and religious scholars is TOmNossor referring to, it’s a rather vague reference, though vague references to “scholars” seem rather common in the world of LDS apologetics.

 

[Horton]

But because it’s not in “Scripture” they will argue that it’s not “official teaching.” You’d be hard pressed to find any LDS that would accept anything less than an signed declaration by the first presidency, an addition to D&C, or a letter or words from the President himself stating that it was the official church position (and even then they would debate it once he was no longer the president) as an official teaching. They will argue that maintaining a position does not equate to official teaching on the matter (because the words official teaching are absent or not explicit in the indication of official vs unofficial). Such ambiguity is intentional as it allows them to move the goal posts every-time their position is refuted.

And yet it is the this very same argument they use to tell us, Catholics, what we believe when they quote writings of ECF or early theologians.

 

[TOmNossor]

Not to me. If I was Mormon my head would be spinning.
Not at all, TOm, I enjoy discussing things with you. I don’t think this is some sort of a game but I would assume you honestly do not think the LDS church has EVER had an official position on the location of the BoM.
They have. They have now backed away from it.
I honestly don’t know what to say here other then your church has numerous quotes from church leaders stating that the BoM absolutely, without a doubt, happened in New York. There is even a pageant held there annually to celebrate it.

Lax,
You declared that the LDS has “had an official position.”
Here is the link where I found the follow up from the letter:
en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Twentieth_century/First_Presidency_Letter
I can (and have in many places) acknowledge there is a position held by officials. I assumed by “official position” you meant something that you feel (or I feel) LDS should assent to as part of our truth claims.
In 1966 Elder Harold B. Lee (before he was president of the church) said:

Some say the Hill Cumorah was in southern Mexico (and someone pushed it down still farther) and not in western New York. Well, if the Lord wanted us to know where it was, or where Zarahemla was, he’d have given us latitude and longitude, don’t you think? And why bother our heads trying to discover with archaeological certainty the geographical locations of the cities of the Book of Mormon like Zarahemla?

It is hardly some new revelation that the church doesn’t have an official or a revealed or an authoritative position on the location of the Hill Cumorah.
Have you read my comments about Bellarmine and Pope Paul V? Would you consider their position the “official” Catholic position in the early 17th century? If not, why not? Would you consider their position something a Catholic should assent to? If not, why not?
Maybe I should cede the word “official” to you. I would say that there has been no revelation on the location of the Hill Cumorah in the BOM. I would say that statements from Joseph Smith indicated he was comfortable with Mesoamerica and not advocating a hemispheric geography (there are comments from the first decade of the 19th century too). I would say that the majority of folks who spoke about it ASSUMED that the Hill where the plates (Joseph retrieved) were located was the same hill described in the BOM. Such is only natural, but not IMO supernatural. This is why I am not troubled by the geographic ignorance of LDS leaders concerning what the BOM text tells us about its location.
As I mentioned before, if the CoJCoLDS decided that we LDS should believe the BOM is inspired fiction, that would negatively impact my assessment of the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS. But, the fact that Joseph Smith and most religious thinkers within the CoJCoLDS thought the BOM (and by thought I mean that on some occasions they stated it), and I think such is unlikely, has almost no impact on my assessment of the truth claims of the CoJCoLDS.
Let me draw a further picture. I have many times tried to think as a Catholic. To do so IMO is the only way to properly explore the truth claims of the Catholic Church. Where I to try to think like a Catholic and some fellow told me he could not be Catholic because Pope Paul V and St. Bellarmine were geocentrists and he cannot believe in geocentrism, I would tell him such was a poor reason for rejecting Catholicism. I would talk about “faith and morals” and … In response to Trent’s words on interpreting scripture like the Fathers (words St. Bellarmine used BTW) I would say that implicit in Trent is the concerning “faith and morals.” In response to St. Bellarmine’s and some of the father clearly or obliquely relating geocentrisim to “faith and morals” I would say that they are mistaken.
But …
As a LDS who hears folks tell me I should not be a LDS because LDS leaders thought the Hill Cumorah (from the BOM) was in upstate NY, I find it every easier to say, that is “a poor reason for rejection” the CoJCoLDS. In response to some definition of “official” I would say that there is “No revelatory basis exists for any geographical scheme outside of the Book of Mormon text itself” and there is no infallibility.
Why do you think this is different?
My head has never spun about this. I would gladly take 20 problems like this for one I carry around concerning the CoJCoLDS or some I would have to carry around where I Catholic.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

What scientists and religious scholars is TOmNossor referring to, it’s a rather vague reference, though vague references to “scholars” seem rather common in the world of LDS apologetics.

I was specifically referring to Paul Owen a religious scholar.
Margaret Barker would be another.
Francis Beckwith cited his difficulty addressing LDS truth claims as an Evangelical as part of the reason he became a Catholic.
I have mentioned all three on this board and Beckwith and Owen in this thread.
It is my position that blithely dismissing LDS thought and scholarship is the reason folks here find the positions I espouse so laughable. Again here is Mosser and Owen’s essay:
Mormon Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It.
Charity, TOm

 

[XuDan]

No. There is no “official” position on where the BOM took place.

…it allows them to move the goal posts every-time their position is refuted.

Maybe I should cede the word “official” to you. I would say that there has been no revelation on the location of the Hill Cumorah in the BOM.

As predicted the goalposts have now been moved.

I would say that statements from Joseph Smith indicated he was comfortable with Mesoamerica and not advocating a hemispheric geography (there are comments from the first decade of the 19th century too). I would say that the majority of folks who spoke about it ASSUMED that the Hill where the plates (Joseph retrieved) were located was the same hill described in the BOM. Such is only natural, but not IMO supernatural. This is why I am not troubled by the geographic ignorance of LDS leaders concerning what the BOM text tells us about its location.

Interesting: But JFS raises an objection to your rational:

The following was written by LDS Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth president of the LDS Church:

EARLY BRETHREN LOCATE CUMORAH IN WESTERN NEW YORK. It must be conceded that this description fits perfectly the land of Cumorah in New York, as it has been known since the visitation of Moroni to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for the hill is in the proximity of the Great Lakes and also in the land of many rivers and fountains. Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery. Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history…

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, Bookcraft, 1956, p.232-43.)

He’s right. How is it that if they assumed, as you put it, incorrectly and propagated a false teaching in front of a “prophet of God,” how then was it not corrected? How is it that a correction of, “We really don’t know but we are inclined to believe…” was never once uttered by JS to his followers and “Apostles?”

It is suspect that God would permit false attribution of events to occur by and in the name of His “Prophet” and yet correct false attribution or understanding about the nature of heaven (e.g. that it is of three glories not one).

 

[Stephen168]

I was specifically referring to Paul Owen a religious scholar.
Margaret Barker would be another.
Francis Beckwith cited his difficulty addressing LDS truth claims as an Evangelical as part of the reason he became a Catholic.
I have mentioned all three on this board…

Are you now claiming they believe the Book of Mormon is history?

What you said about Dr. Beckwith is a lie.

 

[TOmNossor]

Are you now claiming they believe the Book of Mormon is history?

What you said about Dr. Beckwith is a lie.

I am 100% sure it is not a lie.
I am fairly sure it is true. (CORRECTION!)
It is not correct however. Here is a comment I made many years ago on my friends board:
articulifidei.blogspot.com/2008/06/trinity-and-development-of-doctrine.html

Also, like Chris, Paul Owen specifically mentioned his engagement with Mormonism when explaining why he has moved away from Evangelical Christianity (and towards Catholicism BTW). While not explicitly mentioning Mormonism like Owen did, I like to link Beckwith to Owen since Beckwith is among the few critics (James White not included IMO) who have dealt with strong LDS claims and like Owen recently ceased to be an Evangelical Christian and moved towards Catholicism (Beckwith is Catholic, Owen is not). There are also some similar stories for other participants on this board.

So, I will rephrase.
Do you care to rephrase? I do not lie to you on this board, but I am not infallible.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

I am 100% sure it is not a lie.
I am fairly sure it is in fact true.

No, it is not true.
Care to answer the question?

 

[TOmNossor]

Are you now claiming they believe the Book of Mormon is history?

What you said about Dr. Beckwith is a lie.

I am claiming that Margaret Barker believes the the BOM is revelatory and captures 600B.C. Jerusalem remarkably well.
I am claiming that Paul Owen believes that the BOM is best explained by Joseph’s “real visionary encounters with God, and an angel who identified himself with the name Moroni.”
And as I clarified AFTER my initial post, it was Paul Owen who specifically claimed his move from Evangelical Christianity was a product of the inability to adequately address Mormonism. This was not something Beckwith said.
Do you have any desire to walk back your claim I am a liar?
Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-WA]

Ok, and what of this would you like to discuss? We could talk about “some people do this” and “some people do this”, but that strikes me as kind of a vague topic. I’d like to stick to something more specific/concrete.

How about the history of Joseph Smith’s polygamous marriages for starters? Historians have discovered that Joseph married around 44 women, 11 of them already married to living men, and 11 of them teenagers. How can one possibly justify that? Joseph repeatedly lied to his first wife Emma, and to the the public, about having multiple wives. He eventually threatened Emma with death if she wouldn’t accept what he was doing. He coerced some of them into marriage with promises of salvation not only to them, but to their whole families as well if they said yes. If they refused he smeared their character. Sounds a lot more like Warren Jeffs than a true man of God.

 

[TOmNossor]

I thought I would mention this from that very thread:

Another thing I would like to mention is that “problems with religious traditions” will never be the reason they are embraced by their followers. I lean towards the view that the reasons to disbelieve in a particular faith tradition are of less evidentiary value than the reasons to believe in a particular faith. This does not mean that problems should be ignored or that problems cannot reach such magnitude that they cannot be overcome. But if there are problems with all religious traditions and we let ourselves believe that the presence of problems are sufficient reasons to reject a religious tradition, we will find ourselves without a religious tradition (I do not think Chris is at this place currently, and I hope he does not get to this place). One thing that we simply cannot do if we are to be consistent and reasonable is believe the mitigation of our problems makes them go away and the existence of problems in other traditions is sufficient reason to reject those traditions. I am likely guilty of just this on occasion, but to the extent I can see around this beam there are many others with similar inconsistencies.

I said, " we will find ourselves without a religious tradition (I do not think Chris is at this place currently, and I hope he does not get to this place)"
Chris found Catholicism totally unworthy of his allegiance. He found Mormonism totally unworthy of his allegiance. He was an evangelical Christian 4-10 years before this exchange, but during this exchange he was a “liberal Christian.” Chris continues to be a largely charitable critic of the CoJCoLDS, but he can no longer even embrace the title Christian. He is agnostic now much to the chagrin of some of his family. Chris was a liberal Christian because of the problems he saw with Catholicism, Mormonism, Conservative Protestantism. He consistently addressed all three paradigms and rejected them. He continued until he lost all faith.
**If you address Catholicism like you address Mormonism, you will follow Chris. I am not a prophet, but I was UNFORTUNATELY right about Chris. ** I encourage your continued inconsistency if you will not change your hyper-critical engagement with Mormonism.
Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-WA]

And the Catholic church changed its position about Earth being the center of the universe when science started proven that theory wrong, as discussed in TOm’s previous posts.

The reason neither of these keep me up at night is because they are not core tenets of faith. The story of Christ’s sacrifice does not change if the Earth was literally made in 7 days, if the sun is center of the solar system, or if all Native Americans were descendent from Israelites.

That is a fair point for those examples. What should keep you up at night are the very troubling historical problems with many core tenants of the Mormon faith–chief among them that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. The history of this guy screams “fraud.” From his polygamous marriages to his complete inability to translate anything, to his writing of the Book of Mormon based on sources from his own backyard, to his scandalous bank dealings, to his money digging by using seer stones to defraud people out of their money–this man is the epitome of the concept of conman. When one learns his true history one sees that this man in no way deserves the title of prophet. He deserves jail.

 

[TOmNossor]

Another SCHOLAR (an agnostic) who agreed with Richard Packham.
Chris Smith said:

I think I agree with the remark that there is better evidence for the appearance of Moroni than for the resurrection. (As a pluralist, I can accept both if I feel compelled to do so! grin again)

Chris is no longer a “pluralist.”
He is still a prominent critic of Mormonism.
Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-WA]

And that would be the reason why the ancestry of Native Americans doesn’t really factor into my faith in God.

Well, Joseph Smith seemed to think it was important.

 

[Jerusha]

He continued until he lost all faith.
If you address Catholicism like you address Mormonism, you will follow Chris… I encourage your continued inconsistency if you will not change your hyper-critical engagement with Mormonism.
Charity, TOmI would suggest that your concern about Chris’ spiritual welfare masks your own issues. It is very unusual for you to get personal here. Do you see the fact that you are arguing on fine points of Catholic history, rather than the broad sweep of faith&morals, in order to shore up Mormonism’s persistent literalist approach?

I suspect that you are the one who is having a crisis of faith.

 

[Stephen168]

I am claiming that Margaret Barker believes the the BOM is revelatory and captures 600B.C. Jerusalem remarkably well.
I am claiming that Paul Owen believes that the BOM is best explained by Joseph’s “real visionary encounters with God, and an angel who identified himself with the name Moroni.”
And as I clarified AFTER my initial post, it was Paul Owen who specifically claimed his move from Evangelical Christianity was a product of the inability to adequately address Mormonism. This was not something Beckwith said.

None of these people are anthropologist or historians, which is why, contrary to your original claim, they have never indicated the BoM is history or there is new evidence that might support it being history.

 

[Stephen168]

Do you have any desire to walk back your claim I am a liar?

What you said about Dr. Beckwith is not true.
Your have made claims about Catholic teach which are not true. You have made claims about Mormon teaching which are not true.

 

[Stephen168]

Another SCHOLAR (an agnostic) who agreed with Richard Packham.
Chris Smith said:

Chris is no longer a “pluralist.”
He is still a prominent critic of Mormonism.

see post 258

 

[Jerusha]

What you said about Dr. Beckwith is not true.
Your have made claims about Catholic teach which are not true. You have made claims about Mormon teaching which are not true.

I don’t think he has much left to stand on, and he knows it. May be best to let matters take their natural course.

 

[Stephen168]

I thought I would mention this from that very thread:

I said, " we will find ourselves without a religious tradition (I do not think Chris is at this place currently, and I hope he does not get to this place)"
Chris found Catholicism totally unworthy of his allegiance. He found Mormonism totally unworthy of his allegiance. He was an evangelical Christian 4-10 years before this exchange, but during this exchange he was a “liberal Christian.” Chris continues to be a largely charitable critic of the CoJCoLDS, but he can no longer even embrace the title Christian. He is agnostic now much to the chagrin of some of his family. Chris was a liberal Christian because of the problems he saw with Catholicism, Mormonism, Conservative Protestantism. He consistently addressed all three paradigms and rejected them. He continued until he lost all faith.
**If you address Catholicism like you address Mormonism, you will follow Chris. I am not a prophet, but I was UNFORTUNATELY right about Chris. ** I encourage your continued inconsistency if you will not change your hyper-critical engagement with Mormonism

The beauty of Catholicism is it is built on a firm foundation of Christ, the apostles, faith, and reason. Mormonism and Protestantism lack this.

I see you wishing Mormonism had this and go through great pain to try to convince us/you that it does but you fail at every turn.