NOM

slavereeno wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:55 am I deal with some very, very convinced people in my life. Convinced that this book is a 100% true history of things that really really happened. I need all the ammunition I can get. And even when you point it all out, they still cling to the notion the book is the most bestest, truest thing evar.

I am not disagreeing with your premise, just a peek into the madness that drives my desire to explore the issues.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:56 pm Are you at least equally amused by people attempting to point out historical accuracy in the same work of fiction?

1smartdodog wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:45 pm The BOM is fiction. Any attempt to point out errors from a historical perspective is somewhat an exercise in futility. Of course there are a bunch of errors, flaws and downright ridiculous stuff in there. It was written by a 19th century dude or dudes. Maybe even a dudette.

So any analysis that attempts to point out errors and such amuses me. Why bother? When people try to convince me of some point of doctrine or incorrect doctrine in the book I just say it is fiction duh!

1smartdodog wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:45 pm The BOM is fiction. Any attempt to point out errors from a historical perspective is somewhat an exercise in futility. Of course there are a bunch of errors, flaws and downright ridiculous stuff in there. It was written by a 19th century dude or dudes. Maybe even a dudette.

So any analysis that attempts to point out errors and such amuses me. Why bother? When people try to convince me of some point of doctrine or incorrect doctrine in the book I just say it is fiction duh!

1smartdodog wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:58 am

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:56 pm Are you at least equally amused by people attempting to point out historical accuracy in the same work of fiction?

Not sure what you are asking

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:23 am Evidence that the Book of Mormon is true! #lighttheworld!

Dr. Phillip Jenkins wrote:Let’s do a thought experiment. Assume for the sake of argument that we did not have the Bible as a resource. Assume that we were reconstructing the history of Palestine in the first millennium BC using entirely non-scriptural sources – from archaeology, from non-scriptural texts and inscriptions, and from the various records (mainly texts and inscriptions) of outside nations.

We would see Israel emerging in the thirteenth/twelfth century BC, we would have an excellent idea of its changing social and religious institutions through the centuries, we would know its languages, and we would have plenty of writers, both contemporary and later, to fill in the names of kings, dynasties, etc. We would know a lot about its interactions with neighboring powers, not to mention the presence of Israelites in other nations and regions. We would know a huge amount about domestic architecture and social structures, modes of life, class structures, and so on.

Without using religious scriptures of any kind, then, we would have an excellent view of Israel, its languages, ethnicities, people and history. No sane person would doubt the existence of that Israel, although they might argue over details of its political history.

Now look at Mormonia. Without the Book of Mormon, would any scholar ever have speculated about a Semitic or Middle Eastern presence of any scale or nature whatever in the New World? In nineteenth century racist crank theories, yes, but not in any kind of modern scholarship. If there was no Book of Mormon, we would have not the vaguest, slightest hint of any suggestion of a Middle Eastern/Semitic presence. Without using religious scriptures of any kind, then, we would neither know about nor speculate on any kind of “Nephite” presence in the New World, its languages, ethnicities, people and history. It would not exist, because it doesn’t.

Therefore, your views depend entirely on alleged religious revelation, and that is why you are constantly scrambling to find real world confirmation. That is also why your views are irrelevant to any kind of scholarship, other than theology. What bothers me is not that you are preaching religion and revelation – heaven knows! – but that you don’t recognize or acknowledge the fact. If you believe or preach differently, you are deluding yourself.

Corsair wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:53 pm This will hardly end the discussion, but here is a way to help solidify a position from a real, archaeological standpoint.

1smartdodog wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:45 pm The BOM is fiction. Any attempt to point out errors from a historical perspective is somewhat an exercise in futility. Of course there are a bunch of errors, flaws and downright ridiculous stuff in there. It was written by a 19th century dude or dudes. Maybe even a dudette.

So any analysis that attempts to point out errors and such amuses me. Why bother? When people try to convince me of some point of doctrine or incorrect doctrine in the book I just say it is fiction duh!

1smartdodog wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:45 pm Any attempt to point out errors from a historical perspective is somewhat an exercise in futility.

Dravin wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:22 pm

1smartdodog wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:45 pm Any attempt to point out errors from a historical perspective is somewhat an exercise in futility.

Except it isn't, at least not categorically. I'll grant that going up to the pulpit on Fast Sunday and declaring this or that anachronism isn't particularly fruitful but there are individuals for whom examining the possibly historical veracity of the Book of Mormon was a point along the way of their faith journey either going in or leaving. People stop believing for different reasons and just because a reason doesn't personally resonate with you doesn't mean it doesn't resonate with anyone.

moksha wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:08 am Calling this fiction does seem a bit disrespectful to believers. That is why I prefer to say Sacred Fiction or Sacred Allegory (the allegorical part cannot always be found so sacred fiction seems more inclusive).

Reuben wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:07 pm
Bro. Bushman has recently called the Book of Abraham pseudepigrapha. Even though it's a bit of a stretch, we could call the Book of Mormon the same thing.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:19 pm

Reuben wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2017 4:07 pm
Bro. Bushman has recently called the Book of Abraham pseudepigrapha. Even though it's a bit of a stretch, we could call the Book of Mormon the same thing.

That's fascinating. Do you have a source for that? If Bushman is willing to go that far it might be safe to assume that he would believe the same for the Book of Moses and (gulp) the Book of Mormon. I doubt he would go so far as to make the same claim about the keystone of our religion, however, if he is interested in keeping his metaphorical head attached to his metaphorical neck.