If plates then God

[tagriffy]

It’s not that there is no evidence that’s incontrovertible. It’s that there is no evidence.

There are areas in which there is less evidence than others. Believers would disagree with you in regards to the validity of evidence found along the spectrum of available evidence. We might determine that some things have a greater degree of evidentiary value than what you might concurrently view as being lessor or even non existent degree of value.

That’s the way things are.

Regards,
MG

Um, credible physical evidence the Book of Mormon peoples existed is basic. It's literally the without which not.

[Gadianton]

Asking a non-member just how complex the text of the Book of Mormon has to be before they will accept it as requiring God's intervention is a bit like asking Nevo or DCP how old Tom Cruise will have to be while still performing his own stunts before they will accept Scientology as holding the truths to Thetan mental clarity.

It requires special pleading to seriously consider questions like these. Nobody will spend five minutes thinking about the answer for somebody else's faith. How hard to forge do Billy Meier's saucer photos have to be before we must admit that saucer's are real and the Pleiadian civilization is therefore, real?

[Nevo]

And below is the entire paragraph from his book. I've bolded the sentence you pulled your phrase from.

True or not, the Book of Mormon is a powerful epic written on a grand scale with a host of characters, a narrative of human struggle and conflict, of divine intervention, heroic good and atrocious evil, of prophecy, morality, and law. Its narrative structure is complex. The idiom is that of the King James Version, which most Americans assumed to be appropriate for a divine revelation. Although it contains elements that suggest the environment of New York in the 1820s (for example, episodes paralleling the Masonic/Antimasonic controversy), the dominant themes are biblical, prophetic, and patriarchal, not democratic or optimistic. It tells a tragic story, of a people who, though possessed of the true faith, fail in the end. Yet it does not convey a message of despair; God’s will cannot ultimately be frustrated. The Book of Mormon should rank among the great achievements of American literature, but it has never been accorded the status it deserves, since Mormons deny Joseph Smith’s authorship, and non-Mormons, dismissing the work as a fraud, have been more likely to ridicule than read it.

The inference you draw from the text and what Howe was actually saying aren't the same thing. I'm not sure this was quite honest.

The inference I drew from the text, and that I still draw, is that Howe believes the Book of Mormon should rank among the great achievements of American literature. This is "the status it deserves." But others haven't accorded it that status for the reasons he gives.

What do you think Howe is saying?

[Morley]

The inference I drew from the text, and that I still draw, is that Howe believes the Book of Mormon should rank among the great achievements of American literature. This is "the status it deserves." But others haven't accorded it that status for the reasons he gives.

What do you think Howe is saying?

Certainly you see the difference between saying the Book of Mormon should rank 'among the great achievements of American literature' and suggesting that the book is 'among the great achievements of American literature.' They're two quite different things. One implies personal opinion, while the other suggests consensus.

If they were the same, you wouldn't have shied away from using the complete phrase: 'should rank among the great achievements of American literature.' Howe, himself, was careful with his language on this. You should be, too, when you draw inferences from his work.

[Nevo]

Certainly you see the difference between saying the Book of Mormon should rank 'among the great achievements of American literature' and suggesting that the book is 'among the great achievements of American literature.' They're two quite different things. One implies personal opinion, while the other suggests consensus.

Yes, I understand the distinction. But you will recall that I wrote:

that future historians would hail as "one of the greatest documents in American cultural history" and "among the great achievements of American literature"?

I wasn't describing a broad consensus in American letters. I was giving two respected historians' opinions. It is Howe's opinion that the Book of Mormon is "among the great achievements of American literature." He recognizes that others don't accord it that status but that is the status he believes it deserves.

[Physics Guy]

Howe may have a point in calling the Book of Mormon a great achievement in American literature; but he is not actually saying that it is great literature. He credits it for scope and ambition.

In a similar sort of way I think that a lot of scholars of English literature would credit Edmund Spenser's long poem The Faerie Queene as one of the great achievements of English literature. It's impressive that Spenser carried it through, all right. It's almost as impressive for any modern reader to read it through. Or at least it would be, if anyone did.

Being an "achievement in literature" isn't necessarily as good as it sounds.

[Kishkumen]

Howe may have a point in calling the Book of Mormon a great achievement in American literature; but he is not actually saying that it is great literature. He credits it for scope and ambition.

In a similar sort of way I think that a lot of scholars of English literature would credit Edmund Spenser's long poem The Faerie Queene as one of the great achievements of English literature. It's impressive that Spenser carried it through, all right. It's almost as impressive for any modern reader to read it through. Or at least it would be, if anyone did.

Being an "achievement in literature" isn't necessarily as good as it sounds.

Those were my thoughts, too, but I think the Book of Mormon deserves plenty of credit. I would not rank it as a world masterpiece, but it is a fascinating book and a remarkable achievement. I am continually surprised by what can be found lurking in its pages.

[Nevo]

Howe may have a point in calling the Book of Mormon a great achievement in American literature; but he is not actually saying that it is great literature. He credits it for scope and ambition.

I should mention that Grant Hardy, too, recognizes this.

In his essay, "The Book of Mormon as Literature," Hardy writes:

The Book of Mormon, with its ungainly repetitive style, is not an obvious candidate for literary acclaim. Yet if readers can see past the individual sentences and verses to larger units of paragraphs, pericopes, chapters, and books, its literary features become more evident. . . .

Despite some modest stylistic variety, the Book of Mormon is not known for its rich vocabulary, nimble syntax, original metaphors, or felicitous expressions. Its literary interest is not typically at the level of individual sentences. . . .

While the Book of Mormon exhibits aesthetic qualities, they are not those of mainstream literature. Perhaps this makes it something like naïve art, produced by artists with little formal training or exposure to elite culture, which can nevertheless be arresting or impressive on its own terms.

(Hardy, The Annotated Book of Mormon, 795, 797-98, 800)

[Kishkumen]

I agree totally with Hardy’s assessment there.

[Morley]

Certainly you see the difference between saying the Book of Mormon should rank 'among the great achievements of American literature' and suggesting that the book is 'among the great achievements of American literature.' They're two quite different things. One implies personal opinion, while the other suggests consensus.

Yes, I understand the distinction. But you will recall that I wrote:

that future historians would hail as "one of the greatest documents in American cultural history" and "among the great achievements of American literature"?

I wasn't describing a broad consensus in American letters. I was giving two respected historians' opinions. It is Howe's opinion that the Book of Mormon is "among the great achievements of American literature." He recognizes that others don't accord it that status but that is the status he believes it deserves.

I take your point. You’ll have to admit, however, that it reads like you’re saying that future historians will hail the book as "among the great achievements of American literature". Perhaps it’s a problem that arises when phrases are pulled from their context and pasted into a promotional blurb.