Textual Criticism - The Bible and the Book of Mormon

[_maklelan]

Just one or two more posts calling my church a cult and you'll have me convinced to leave, Catherine. Don't give up on me yet.

OH, goody! The Episcopalians will love to get you! I know Spong![/quote]

You keep referring to Spong for some reason, but he has nothing to do with anything I've ever written.

[_maklelan]

If Peyton Manning is a significant part of why you are a Broncos fan, I can hardly fault you for that. Even though I am a 49er fan, it is hard not to be a Peyton Manning fan. I have nothing but admiration for him, both as a great quarterback and a thoroughly decent and honorable human being! For that reason, I can forgive you for being a Broncos fan.

John Elway is the reason I'm a Broncos fan. I have been watching them for over twenty years.

Getting back to the Book of Mormon, I think Roger's points are very well taken and quite damaging to its credibility.

Absolutely. From an empirical point of view, the Book of Mormon has little credibility just like the faith claims of the Bible. I'm not trying to suggest otherwise.

I think that when honestly and rationally considering all the evidence currently available, It is difficult to understand how one can fail to conclude that the case for the historical accuracy and divine origin of the Book of Mormon is extremely weak, even when compared to that for the Bible, which is also quite weak. "Supernatural" or "spiritual" arguments for the authenticity of either impress me not at all (as you can see by reading my signature line) unless they are backed up more tangible, secular type evidence.

And neither will be producing any such evidence any time soon. I think that goes without saying. I just want my accusers to be able to acknowledge that.

I am no great fan of Catherine (Servant), but I don't think you can honestly or rationally deny that she is at least right about that much.

She sure is, but my concern is with her refusal to acknowledge that we have big problems with her claims about the Bible, too.

[_Gunnar]

John Elway is the reason I'm a Broncos fan. I have been watching them for over twenty years.

OK. John Elway was no slouch either!

Getting back to the Book of Mormon, I think Roger's points are very well taken and quite damaging to its credibility.

Absolutely. From an empirical point of view, the Book of Mormon has little credibility just like the faith claims of the Bible. I'm not trying to suggest otherwise.

I think that when honestly and rationally considering all the evidence currently available, It is difficult to understand how one can fail to conclude that the case for the historical accuracy and divine origin of the Book of Mormon is extremely weak, even when compared to that for the Bible, which is also quite weak. "Supernatural" or "spiritual" arguments for the authenticity of either impress me not at all (as you can see by reading my signature line) unless they are backed up more tangible, secular type evidence.

And neither will be producing any such evidence any time soon. I think that goes without saying. I just want my accusers to be able to acknowledge that.

I am no great fan of Catherine (Servant), but I don't think you can honestly or rationally deny that she is at least right about that much.

She sure is, but my concern is with her refusal to acknowledge that we have big problems with her claims about the Bible, too.

Thank you. That removes whatever doubts and confusion I still had in my mind about where you are coming from, and I find myself in essential agreement with you. I find your approach to these issues quite refreshing, and both more honest and rational than that of either Catherine or the typical TBM or Mopologist. Kudos to you for that!

[_Roger]

Roger & Mak,

Great discussion. Thanks

Glad you're enjoying it. I am too.

[_Roger]

And similarly, we have a dearth of evidence that supports any of the supernatural claims made by the Bible. As with the Book of Mormon, the evidence unilaterally points to an entirely human origin. I'm comfortable acknowledging that, but most of the people with whom I interact refuse to acknowledge as much about the Bible, and that's the double standard that annoys me.

It may have something to do with the fact that the supernatural claims of the production of the Book of Mormon are much more recent. With regard to the supernatural claims of the Bible, the one that matters more than any other is the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. I question why would the apostles willingly face death, or at least suffering, for what they knew was a lie? Do you think at least they were convinced Jesus rose from the dead?

And that's the arbitrariness that governs faith in the biblical text as well. When it comes down to it, none of us can honestly pretend to be convinced by the evidence. We are all making a decision based on other factors.

I think that's true for the most part. For Mormons the whole structure is built around getting a warm, positive feeling about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, not about researching the evidence. And it tends to be the same for Christian converts who suggest that a weight of guilt and sin was lifted off at the moment of conversion. We do encourage Bible study, of course, but I've found that to almost always mean faith-promoting study as in, how does the Bible speak to what I'm currently dealing with, rather than let's actually try to figure out what the text is saying and learn as much as we possibly can about the context in which it was produced. Having said that, there are people like C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel who attempt to make a rational, evidence based case for Christianity.

There are also the eleven other witnesses to the plates.

Mak, I can tell from your other responses that you're not the typical LDS who's going to defend Joseph Smith or the witnesses no matter what. I know I don't need to remind you about the credibility of these witnesses. But even if they were credible folks, they all signed a single statement that was obviously written for them, most likely by Cowdery or Smith. Those who spoke about it later gave contradictory statements and admitted they were speaking about seeing the plates with their spiritual eyes. I just watched a special on Warren Jeffs. I have no doubt that even from a prison cell he could come up with 11 witnesses who claim they saw him translate the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon from silicone plates written in reformed Japanese.

But in both cases, the analysis would return the same conclusion: exclusively human origin.

The potentially true resurrection of Christ makes me hold out.

Because one was the sacred corpus of a culture that survived down into modernity within dry regions that were continually inhabited the entire time, and the other was the sacred corpus of a culture that was dissolved within a broader culture that itself went extinct millennia ago in a very humid and alkaline region. The accident of preservation tilts unilaterally in favor of the former.

I think that's skewed a bit. Pottery lasts a long time and not every region of the Americas is humid. As Fence Sitter suggests, it just seems to defy logic that not one scrap of evidence would survive except for the one set of golden plates that would later be removed by God.

All the best.

[_ludwigm]

Roger & Mak,

Great discussion. Thanks

Glad you're enjoying it. I am too.

I am a second of Roger --- without language help.

[_maklelan]

It may have something to do with the fact that the supernatural claims of the production of the Book of Mormon are much more recent. With regard to the supernatural claims of the Bible, the one that matters more than any other is the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. I question why would the apostles willingly face death, or at least suffering, for what they knew was a lie? Do you think at least they were convinced Jesus rose from the dead?

I'm sure they were convinced Jesus rose from the dead, but I don't think that's really evidence of anything. Joseph Smith was convinced he talked with God and Jesus, and he knew it could cost him his life.

I think that's true for the most part. For Mormons the whole structure is built around getting a warm, positive feeling about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, not about researching the evidence. And it tends to be the same for Christian converts who suggest that a weight of guilt and sin was lifted off at the moment of conversion. We do encourage Bible study, of course, but I've found that to almost always mean faith-promoting study as in, how does the Bible speak to what I'm currently dealing with, rather than let's actually try to figure out what the text is saying and learn as much as we possibly can about the context in which it was produced. Having said that, there are people like C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel who attempt to make a rational, evidence based case for Christianity.

I respect C. S. Lewis an awful lot, but I have to admit I am not a fan of the other two.

Mak, I can tell from your other responses that you're not the typical LDS who's going to defend Joseph Smith or the witnesses no matter what. I know I don't need to remind you about the credibility of these witnesses. But even if they were credible folks, they all signed a single statement that was obviously written for them, most likely by Cowdery or Smith. Those who spoke about it later gave contradictory statements and admitted they were speaking about seeing the plates with their spiritual eyes.

No, that's one fourth-hand statement putatively made by only one of the witnesses who also later flatly denied making it. Also, I don't think there are really many contradictory statements floating around from the witnesses. I'm well aware of the controversy with the witnesses, but let's represent them accurately.

I just watched a special on Warren Jeffs. I have no doubt that even from a prison cell he could come up with 11 witnesses who claim they saw him translate the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon from silicone plates written in reformed Japanese.

Then we should not be surprised that the apostles were so eager to believe that Christ rose from the dead, should we?

The potentially true resurrection of Christ makes me hold out.

Fair enough.

I think that's skewed a bit. Pottery lasts a long time and not every region of the Americas is humid.

Pottery is just one facet of the material culture, and it does not expose much at all about culture unless we have a context into which we can plug it. Its primary function in most archaeological analysis is chronological dating. Also, the Book of Mormon does not suggest (in my opinion) that these civilizations were spread across every region of the Americas.

As Fence Sitter suggests, it just seems to defy logic that not one scrap of evidence would survive except for the one set of golden plates that would later be removed by God.

There are lots of historical problems and mysteries that defy logic. I will reiterate that I'm not saying there's evidence for the Book of Mormon. I'm just providing an honest answer to a question.

[_maklelan]

OK. John Elway was no slouch either!

Thank you. That removes whatever doubts and confusion I still had in my mind about where you are coming from, and I find myself in essential agreement with you. I find your approach to these issues quite refreshing, and both more honest and rational than that of either Catherine or the typical TBM or Mopologist. Kudos to you for that!

Thank you, Gunnar!

[_Fence Sitter]

Because one was the sacred corpus of a culture that survived down into modernity within dry regions that were continually inhabited the entire time, and the other was the sacred corpus of a culture that was dissolved within a broader culture that itself went extinct millennia ago in a very humid and alkaline region. The accident of preservation tilts unilaterally in favor of the former.

I think that's skewed a bit. Pottery lasts a long time and not every region of the Americas is humid.

Pottery is just one facet of the material culture, and it does not expose much at all about culture unless we have a context into which we can plug it. Its primary function in most archaeological analysis is chronological dating. Also, the Book of Mormon does not suggest (in my opinion) that these civilizations were spread across every region of the Americas.

As Fence Sitter suggests, it just seems to defy logic that not one scrap of evidence would survive except for the one set of golden plates that would later be removed by God.

There are lots of historical problems and mysteries that defy logic. I will reiterate that I'm not saying there's evidence for the Book of Mormon. I'm just providing an honest answer to a question.

But Mak, by assuming a mesoamerican setting to explain an environmental reason (humid & alkaline) for a total loss of any written evidence you have to accept there is evidence (a la Sorenson) for the mesoamerican setting. So either we accept all the rest of the physical evidence for such a setting (large advanced civilizations which actually match similar descriptions in Book of Mormon) which leaves us with having to explain why among all that evidence there isn't a single direct connection to the Book of Mormon, or we cannot use it as an excuse to dismiss why there is no such specific evidence while at the same time accepting the same type of evidence that it is a Book of Mormon setting.

[_maklelan]

But Mak, by assuming a mesoamerican setting to explain an environmental reason (humid & alkaline) for a total loss of any written evidence you have to accept there is evidence (a la Sorenson) for the mesoamerican setting.

Not necessarily. I just have to read the text to indicate that setting.

So either we accept all the rest of the physical evidence for such a setting (large advanced civilizations which actually match similar descriptions in Book of Mormon)

I don't see how appealing to some evidence requires we accept all suggested evidence.

which leaves us with having to explain why among all that evidence there isn't a single direct connection to the Book of Mormon, or we cannot use it as an excuse to dismiss why there is no such specific evidence while at the same time accepting the same type of evidence that it is a Book of Mormon setting.

I'm afraid I don't follow you here.