The Book of Mormon: Ancient Record or 19th Century Creation?

[TOmNossor]

The bible and the BoM could not be more different. The bible contains actual historical people, places, and events. This is backed up by archeological and historical evidence from many sources outside of the bible. The BoM is fictional. It’s about people, places, and events that are fictional and have no supporting evidence outside of itself (with the exception of the parts that are copied from the bible).

Also, the claim that the BoM is actual history is a foundational claim of the Mormon Church. If the BoM is not actual history, then the LDS church has no basis for its truthfulness. So you can see that this topic is very important and has far-reaching implications for the Mormon church.

The small portion of the BOM that happens in the Old World if true corresponds well to geography and what we might expect to find when we look for a journey that happened in 600BC.
Perhaps the most problematic Biblical event, “The Exodus” in contrast does not survive as we would expect it to IF it were true (I follow many believing scholars in my acceptance of the exodus).
The New World is a VERY different archeological environment than the Old World. As I have pointed out here before almost no place names survive from BOM times AND those that do we are unlikely to have much or any idea how to pronounce. Population dynamics, geography and other points of contact WORK for the BOM, but only in aggregate do these things produce anything approaching compelling (which is IMO not the case for Old World BOM geography which in some individual points AND aggregate is compelling).
Nobody here agrees with me, but LDS scholars have been talking about this for years.
Ancient motifs (not archeology or geography lest I am misunderstood) have in the last 10-15 years lead to two scholars to claim they believe the BOM is not (or at least not merely) a 19th century production. You can read about Margaret Barker’s thoughts easily and if it is important, I can send you a link to Paul Owen’s very recent comments.
Charity, TOm

 

[gazelam]

Then you don’t understand Mormonism and it’s stance on the Book of Mormon. They hold it up as the most correct book on the planet, devoid of error.

Can you please provide a citation backing this up from an LDS source?

 

[XuDan]

Can you please provide a citation backing this up from an LDS source?

Sure, but why limit it to just one source? I’ll raise you to three.
========================================================================================================================================
Source: lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction

Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (History of the Church, 4:461.)

Source: lds.org/ensign/1984/06/the-most-correct-book?lang=eng Ensign Magazine That argues that any error perceived is not a reflection on the BoM or it’s translation but is a limitation of language (emphasis below is mine):

However, “the most correct book” implies that it may not be absolutely correct, and in light of the Lord’s declaration, this may seem contradictory. But herein lies another significant principle: if there be any errors, they should not be attributed to the translation.

An example from the Book of Mormon itself supports this principle. The prophet Moroni concluded his father’s record by excusing the errors, if there were any, to the faults of men (see Morm. 8:17) and to the necessity of writing in what was termed reformed Egyptian rather than in Hebrew (see Morm. 9:32–33).

Therefore, the qualification on the absolute correctness of the Book of Mormon may be imposed because of language limitation.

A second example in the Book of Mormon of man’s inability to record the principles of the gospel perfectly is found in 3 Nephi 19:31–34 [3 Ne. 19:31–34]. Here the Savior’s prayer to the Father was described as being one that could not be spoken or written by man. Yet the prayer was heard and understood by the Nephites as their hearts were opened.

It seems logical, then, that the correctness of the Book of Mormon was not limited so much by the translation process as by the inadequacy of present languages.

Source: lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-teacher-resource-manual/the-introduction-to-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng Here we see from the teacher resource manual that the the BoM being “more correct than any other book”, including the bible, is taught to be keystone of not just the LDS church, but all members individual “testimony.” You see the argument by the LDS is not “Believe that Smith was a prophet, then you have to accept the BoM.” In fact it is the reverse, “Accept the book of Mormon, and then you have no choice but to accept Smith as a prophet/seer/translator.” Why? Because it is easier to sell the BoM than it is to sell Smith. Marketing 101.

The Book of Mormon is evidence that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God and that the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth

Conclude by reading the following statement by President Ezra Taft Benson:
“The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. This was the Prophet Joseph Smith’s statement. He testified that ‘the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion’ (History of the Church, 4:461). A keystone is the central stone in an arch. It holds all the other stones in place, and if removed, the arch crumbles.

“There are three ways in which the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. It is the keystone in our witness of Christ. It is the keystone of our doctrine. It is the keystone of testimony.

“The Book of Mormon is the keystone in our witness of Jesus Christ, who is Himself the cornerstone of everything we do. It bears witness of His reality with power and clarity. Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation. Therefore, its testimony of the Master is clear, undiluted, and full of power. But it does even more. Much of the Christian world today rejects the divinity of the Savior. They question His miraculous birth, His perfect life, and the reality of His glorious resurrection. The Book of Mormon teaches in plain and unmistakable terms about the truth of all of those. It also provides the most complete explanation of the doctrine of the Atonement. Truly, this divinely inspired book is a keystone in bearing witness to the world that Jesus is the Christ (see title page of the Book of Mormon).

“The Book of Mormon is also the keystone of the doctrine of the Resurrection. As mentioned before, the Lord Himself has stated that the Book of Mormon contains the ‘fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ’ (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation. The Book of Mormon offers so much that broadens our understandings of the doctrines of salvation. Without it, much of what is taught in other scriptures would not be nearly so plain and precious” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1986, 4; or Ensign, Nov. 1986, 5–6).

========================================================================================================================================

 

[Picky_Picky]

Sure, but why limit it to just one source? I’ll raise you to three.
========================================================================================================================================
Source: lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction

Source: lds.org/ensign/1984/06/the-most-correct-book?lang=eng Ensign Magazine That argues that any error perceived is not a reflection on the BoM or it’s translation but is a limitation of language (emphasis below is mine):

Source: lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-teacher-resource-manual/the-introduction-to-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng Here we see from the teacher resource manual that the the BoM being “more correct than any other book”, including the bible, is taught to be keystone of not just the LDS church, but all members individual “testimony.” You see the argument by the LDS is not “Believe that Smith was a prophet, then you have to accept the BoM.” In fact it is the reverse, “Accept the book of Mormon, and then you have no choice but to accept Smith as a prophet/seer/translator.” Why? Because it is easier to sell the BoM than it is to sell Smith. Marketing 101.
========================================================================================================================================

So they don’t claim it’s devoid of error?

 

[gazelam]

XuDan,
Those are all wonderful quotes. And none of them state that the Book of Mormon is error free, but rather the most correct book on Earth.

 

[XuDan]

The claim is two fold

Then you don’t understand Mormonism and it’s stance on the Book of Mormon. They hold it up as the most correct book on the planet, devoid of error.

This first: Most correct book on earth has been irrefutably proven by the quotes I provided.

The second: It is considered devoid of error. The devoid of error is tacitly stated by claiming that any error, if any are the faults of men in their limitation of language. Meaning that the Book is perfect. Meaning that the fault is on the part of humanities language limitations.

The first part of the claim in no longer in dispute you simply cannot deny that part. The second has strong evidence as to the position that it is without error because of the claims that any error encountered is not the fault of the Book but of limited language.

Now, the task is simple: I have provided you, as requested with evidence to support Marie’s claim. Show me, from an LDS source, where the errancy of the BoM is taught and that the error is solely placed on the BoM and not the “limited language of men.” Happy Hunting.

 

[Picky_Picky]

The claim is two fold

This first: Most correct book on earth has been irrefutably proven by the quotes I provided.

The second: It is considered devoid of error. The devoid of error is tacitly stated by claiming that any error, if any are the faults of men in their limitation of language. Meaning that the Book is perfect. Meaning that the fault is on the part of humanities language limitations.

The first part of the claim in no longer in dispute you simply cannot deny that part. The second has strong evidence as to the position that it is without error because of the claims that any error encountered is not the fault of the Book but of limited language.

Now, the task is simple: I have provided you, as requested with evidence to support Marie’s claim. Show me, from an LDS source, where the errancy of the BoM is taught and that the error is solely placed on the BoM and not the “limited language of men.” Happy Hunting.

On the contrary the material you cite specifically admits there may be errors — as you admit.

 

[XuDan]

On the contrary the material you cite specifically admits there may be errors — as you admit.

The blame of those errors are not accepted to be on the BoM but instead relegated to the “limited language.” This tacitly states that "There is no error in the BoM, the errors are a result of our language based limitations. That without these language based limitations, the BoM would be “translated” error free. This is a very legalistic way of saying that the golden plates are error free.

Further the material does not admit it it says: “The prophet Moroni concluded his father’s record by excusing the errors, if there were any, to the faults of men (see Morm. 8:17)” and again: But herein lies another significant principle: “if there be any errors…”

“If” is the key were here. If is not an admission of errors, it is a hypothetical. Again, this is legalism at it’s finest.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The idea is, the Book of Mormon is free of doctrinal errors, particularly free from “errors” that Mormons view are found in the Bible (or doctrines left out of the Bible). If there is a Mormon who disagrees with this, then please provide an example of a doctrinal error found in the BoM.

The view of both Mormons and Muslims are that the Bible is corrupt and needs additional scripture to set the corruptions straight. Mormons have the BoM, Muslims have the Koran.

Spelling, punctuation, etc. are the human errors of the BoM.

 

[Stephen168]

Also, the claim that the BoM is actual history is a foundational claim of the Mormon Church. If the BoM is not actual history, then the LDS church has no basis for its truthfulness. So you can see that this topic is very important and has far-reaching implications for the Mormon church.

I think this is the key.

Michael Coe is an anthropologist who has studied the Book of Mormon and worked with Mormon anthropologist. I’ve listed some of his quotes in the link.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Margaret Barker and Paul Owen two non-LDS point to many non-19th century aspects of the BOM that lead them to believe it is not a 19th century production. More than errors in the Bible or even difficulties with the Catholic Church, these form an intellectual anchor for me.
Charity, TOm

I can find this attributed to Paul Owen "the Book of Mormon is a “fictional (though ancient) narrative” but I can not find it in context. Can’t find anything from Margaret Barker that refers specifically to the BoM.

 

[Chris-WA]

I can find this attributed to Paul Owen "the Book of Mormon is a “fictional (though ancient) narrative” but I can not find it in context. Can’t find anything from Margaret Barker that refers specifically to the BoM.

I’ve stopped answering Tom’s posts because he always does the same thing–rambles on about something that doesn’t directly deal with the topic at hand, tries to divert attention away from important points other posters have made, and muddies the water. I see the pattern now and won’t fall for it anymore. See how he has you on a wild goose chase? Disguised as an attempt to appear intellectual, the pattern is more about diversion.

 

[SteveVH]

XuDan,
Those are all wonderful quotes. And none of them state that the Book of Mormon is error free, but rather the most correct book on Earth.

So, do you know where the errors are? Does the LDS Church know where the errors are? Have they ever found an error? Having living apostles and prophets, one would think that the errors could be fairly easily ferreted out. How does one know if what they believe, as found in the BOM, is true, if there is any chance of error?

 

[WonderAndAwe]

The idea is, the Book of Mormon is free of doctrinal errors, particularly free from “errors” that Mormons view are found in the Bible (or doctrines left out of the Bible). If there is a Mormon who disagrees with this, then please provide an example of a doctrinal error found in the BoM.

The view of both Mormons and Muslims are that the Bible is corrupt and needs additional scripture to set the corruptions straight. Mormons have the BoM, Muslims have the Koran.

Spelling, punctuation, etc. are the human errors of the BoM.

At least the Koran is marginally better in that regard since, from an archeological standpoint at least, you could handwave inconsistencies in relation to the Bible as being a byproduct of residual heresies from a fledgling Levantine faith establishing its doctrine trickling down into a region notorious for being harsh desert of isolated cities and nomads with Mohammed being a man who’s concept of “scriptural error” was that his source texts were missing a unwittingly few pages.

The Book of Mormon on the other hand can’t even stand up to archeological scrutiny that well. Ancient Jews had no reason nor resources to perform a mass voyage across the Atlantic and genetically speaking, Native Americans are closer related to Siberians than Near Easterners of any sort.

 

[Marie5890]

… doesn’t directly deal with the topic at hand, tries to divert attention away from important points other posters have made, and muddies the water. I see the pattern now and won’t fall for it anymore. See how he has you on a wild goose chase? Disguised as an attempt to appear intellectual, the pattern is more about diversion.

The more I watch, the more I see just how weak the LDS claims are, even when they attempt a form of apologetics…

Their claim really has so very little merit and doesnt have much to stand on.

 

[Tarquin]

I can find this attributed to Paul Owen "the Book of Mormon is a “fictional (though ancient) narrative” but I can not find it in context. Can’t find anything from Margaret Barker that refers specifically to the BoM.

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. 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.

 

[zaffiroborant]

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

Tom is saying the Margaret Baker is saying the the BoM is an ancient document, that would make her a promoter of the BoM and thus Mormonism. I would like to see where she said that. The same holds for Paul Owens and his quote which I can only find on LDS apologetic sites and only that quote not the whole context of what he said.

On the scholars thing, Tom conveniently ignores the many LDS scholars who say the hill in NY is the Hill Cumorah. I’ve also noticed a tendency among LDS to attack a critic of the church when their “scholarly” field is outside the area of discussion but on the same hand are perfectly willing to accept the scholarship on ancient matters from say a dentist.

 

[Tarquin]

Tom is saying the Margaret Baker is saying the the BoM is an ancient document, that would make her a promoter of the BoM and thus Mormonism. I would like to see where she said that. The same holds for Paul Owens and his quote which I can only find on LDS apologetic sites and only that quote not the whole context of what he said.

Oh. I see. Thank you for the clarification. And will an answer be forthcoming, I wonder. I do not see how even a boat-load of scholars of any field could declare the Book of Mormon an “ancient document” if the earliest version they can find of it is a 19th century translation in a language that did not exist in the alleged document’s allegedly ancient time. There are apocryphal writings like 3rd Enoch which also pretend to be ancient. Scholars require more than a claim that “I’m going to tell you the truth.” They need evidence beyond the claims within the text, and more than the claims of the author of the text (in this case, Joseph Smith, unapologetically self-proclaimed “author” of the Book of Mormon).

 

[TOmNossor]

All,
First, here is Paul Owen’s response to a LDS scholar who imprudently (IMO) “attacked” him/BYU for publishing his perspective on certain aspects of the BOM.
While Paul Owen has no theological commitment to the BOM he states that his considered opinion is:

Let me say at this point, just for the record (though I have already expressed similar convictions in print elsewhere), that I do not believe, and never have believed, that Joseph Smith got the narrative of the Book of Mormon (or even 1 Nephi 13-14) or the idea of the golden plates, from reading 2 Esdras. I believe the origin of both the plates and the narrative is found in Joseph’s real visionary encounters with God, and an angel who identified himself with the name Moroni. I don’t believe Joseph made this up, though the iteration of these encounters naturally evolved over the years. I believe any serious grappling with the Book of Mormon which attempts to answer sweeping questions about its origins (which again was not at all the purpose of my article) has to start with Joseph’s evident spiritual experiences and the commission he received to offer a religious alternative to the chaos of Protestant revivalism in the context of the burned-over district in the early 1800’s.

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/scholar-to-scholar-owen-gee-bom/
So, Dr. Owen is not a LDS. He does not believe that God restored ancient Christianity through Joseph Smith AND that Christians who reject this restoration are not following God’s will. But, it is clear that he does not believe the BOM is best explained via an appeal to 19th century sources and Joseph’s supreme intellect. I doubt he would say that there is NO CHANCE the BOM comes solely from Joseph Smith and his 19th century environment; it is just not the best explanation for the data we have in his opinion.
To Margaret Barker:
Margaret Barker has presented a number of times discussing her interaction with the BOM and Joseph Smith’s “revelations.”
At the Library of Congress she asked:

I should like to take a few of these issues and set them in another context—Jerusalem, in about 600 BCE.
Do the revelations to Joseph Smith fit in that context—the reign of King Zedikiah, who is mentioned at the beginning of the First Book of Nephi? (King Zedikiah was installed in Jerusalem in 597 BCE.)

It is clear from her presentation that her answer is “yes.” You may read here:
ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/view/7066/6715
More remarkable than her talk at the Library of Congress was John Clark’s talk at the Library of Congress:
ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/view/7067/6716
I have referenced his talk on this board, but am met with “He is a LDS.”

This explains the motivation I have in referencing Margaret Barker and Paul Owen. They cannot be dismissed as “just a LDS.” It is QUITE evident that Margaret Barker, Paul Owen, and John Clark have read the BOM with much more attention to what is really there than Michael Coe has.
When the BOM first came out its critics said that Joseph Smith was such a simpleton the BOM could not possibly be what Joseph claimed. Today it is much more common for critics to call Joseph Smith a religious genius. It is my position that as committed non-LDS dig deeper into the complexities of the BOM the “religious genius” label will give way to descriptions that may not accept the CoJCoLDS as God “one true church,” but appeal to some mystical (and even divine) occurrence. And of course those whose explorations result in some embracing of the idea that the CoJCoLDS is the “one true church” will in theory become LDS (and thus be dismissed here as dishonest and mentally deficient ).
Someone said that Margaret Barker is “supporting Mormonism.” I doubt that Margaret Barker sees things as black/white as folks here (myself OFTEN included) do.
The premise of this thread is that the BOM is best explained by appealing to the 19th century environ of Joseph Smith. I believe that explanation is seriously flawed and that is one of the reasons I am a LDS. Here is a LDS scholar who responds to much of what is presented in the beginning of this thread.
mormoninterpreter.com/the-late-war-against-the-book-of-mormon/
Charity, TOm

 

[Chris-WA]

Here is another example of how Joseph Smith used events from his own environment as story material for The Book of Mormon.

As chronicled in Mosiah, King Benjamin, in his aged feeble and weak state, gave his last discourse to the Zarahemlans. The large crowd gathered to hear him, having pitched their tents in a roundabout circle to face the temple where he would be speaking. He had a tower constructed there where everyone could see him. His speech was so moving that "there was not one soul except it were little children, but who had entered into the covenant and had taken upon them the name of Christ." At the end of the meeting King Benjamin’s son, Mosiah, "appointed priests to teach the people (Mosiah 2 & 6:2-3). According to Alma in the BoM, the chief of the priests, Ammon, blessed and appointed the sons of Mosiah “to their several stations” (Alma 17:18). Afterwards, Alma describes the sons’ preaching and summarizes, “And they had been teaching the word of God for the space of fourteen years among the Lamanites, having had much success in bringing many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, by the power of their words many were brought before the altar of God, to call on his name and confess their sins before him” (Alma 17:4).

Ancient record or borrowed 19th-century story? Joseph Smith himself said that he was intimately acquainted with evangelical religion and was partial to the Methodists. This all makes sense, because on June 7th, 1826, just one mile from his home in Palmyra, NY, a giant Methodist camp revival meeting was held that drew over 10,000 people from the Ontario district. What the Methodists did was consecrate the ground where the revival was held. They called that sacred space their “house of God” or temple. They erected a raised stand in the middle where the preachers were seated. Starting to sound familiar? It gets better. One of the preachers happened to be named* Benjamin G. Paddock*. The crowd pitched their tents in a giant circle facing the “temple.” Why so many people? Because they were coming to hear the farewell discourse of their beloved Bishop M’Kendree. He was the Methodist leader who presided over the area for many years. He was old, weak, and feeble. His gave an emotional talk on personal salvation, just like King Benjamin. Nearly every unconverted person, except little children, gave themselves to Christ. At the end of the meeting, the blessings and newly appointed “stations of the preachers” were made for the Ontario district. Coincidence?

There are many historical reports from people who attended these Methodist camp revivals. They discuss the four-step conversion process. Step one was a revival gathering to hear the preachers. As described above the people would pitch their tents in a circle around the “temple” to hear the emotional exhortations of the preachers. Step two was the guilt-ridden falling exercise, where those who were emotionally affected by the preaching would break out in tears and fall to the ground, feeling convicted of their sins. Step three was a petition for spiritual emancipation, where the preachers would have those under this state of “conviction” come up to a bench in front of the pulpit (called the “altar”), where they would confess their sins and cry out to God for mercy. Step four was absolution and emotional ecstasy, where those who had cried out for mercy experienced peace and happiness within their souls, feeling forgiveness of their sins as they committed themselves to Christ.

So again, to summarize how King Benjamin’s speech matches up with the Methodist camp conversion process:

1. Revival Gathering: The Zarahemlans gather around the temple in tents to hear King Benjamin’s emotional discourse (Mosiah 2:1).
2. Guilt-Ridden Falling Exercise: When "king Benjamin had made an end of speaking…he cast his eyes…on the multitude, and behold they had fallen to the earth…And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth (Mosiah 4:1-2a).
3. Petition for Spiritual Emancipation: And “they call cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified” (Mosiah 4:2b).
4. Absolution and Emotional Ecstasy: After “they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ” (Mosiah 4:3).
   There are just too many points of congruence to be merely coincidental. The story is virtually identical to what Joseph would have experienced at the Palmyra revival. Same names, same phrasing, same setup, same conversion process, same result–same story–all one mile from Joseph Smith’s house right before he wrote the Book of Mormon.