Historicity of The Book of Mormon

[SeattleUte]

When I was a kid, we had a book titled "The Book of Mormon on Trial". That book was full of evidence. I don't remember exactly what the evidence was, but I'm sure it was compelling.

I admire this post a lot.

[SeattleUte]

So wouldn't the logical follow-up be that anyone who believes the Book of Mormon to be true historical (small "h", since few would ever claim its purpose to be merely a historical text) document is either a kook or a yokel? If I'm forced to choose I'm going with yokel, it feels closer to my natural roots?

I was thinking more in terms of people who purport to be making a serious study of whether the Book of Mormon is a history book or ancient record or artifact. There's no such thing among real scholars. However, it's perfectly fine for you to say you believe it's some kind of a real ancient thing, without giving it much thought, like a particle of the masses. I never attack a sincere expression of faith.

[Solon]

You may not be talking about historicity, but that is the topic of the thread, and that is what I have been talking about. If the BOM is ahistorical, then the torah is ahistorical in the same way i.e. someone made both up hundreds of years later.

The problem with this comparison is that the first five books of the Bible weren't written as "history." If modern people want to assert the Bible's literal truth, that's their problem. Ancient peoples would not have understood these books as fact-based narrative history.

LDS, on the other hand, from the beginning have generally advocated a very literal reading and understanding of the Book of Mormon.

[DapperDan]

When I was a kid, we had a book titled "The Book of Mormon on Trial". That book was full of evidence. I don't remember exactly what the evidence was, but I'm sure it was compelling.

I loved that book! It got lost in a move and I remember being rather upset when I couldn't find it. A year or so later I found it and I was really happy. As a ten year old I thought it presented a really compelling argument and was really funny.

[LogMafia]

Not necessarily an evidence of "ancient text", but stylometry analysis was applied to the Book of Mormon by non-LDS scholars at Berkeley, and the results showed that each of the various books (Alma, Nephi, Mormon, Omni, etc.) were each composed by different authors none of which was Joseph, Oliver, or Spaulding.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mor...ies#Conclusion

A later study disagrees so this argument seems to be a wash.
http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Sc...tylometric.pdf

"It is my conclusion, from the results of this research and the supporting historical evidence, that the Book of Mormon sprang from the 'prophetic voice' of Joseph Smith himself, as did his revelations and the text of the Book of Abraham. We have seen that the style of his 'prophetic voice' as evidenced by the main cluster of the textual samples studied, differs from the style of his personal writings or dictations of a personal nature."

[BlueHair]

Ah, seminary! Say no more, say no more.

To be fair to Brother Bean (my seminary teacher), here is a quote from Spencer W. Kimball:

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today .... The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter we represent, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather.... These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated. (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922–923.)

[RobinFinderson]

One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

Can you imagine getting a chance to speak with the prophet on your mission and thinking that this would be the best joke to tell him? What some people here are either too young to remember or have selectively forgotten is that this kind of thinking was rampant in the church in my lifetime. SWK was a beloved prophet for his gentle style of leadership, but wow! When I sometimes joke about 'The One True Church of the 1970's,' this is the kind of stuff that I am referring to. The culture of the church, when I was a kid growing up, encouraged some wild speculation about all sorts of things.

[jay santos]

I loved that book! It got lost in a move and I remember being rather upset when I couldn't find it. A year or so later I found it and I was really happy. As a ten year old I thought it presented a really compelling argument and was really funny.

I read the book also as a teen and thought it was brilliant.

[SeattleUte]

I read the book also as a teen and thought it was brilliant.

I think the guy who wrote that book apostatized. There was a guy who used to go around and give firesides about the Book of Mormon on trial; he also helped arrange and fund or raise funds to get the BOA scrolls from the Met and studied at the University of Utah. He was in the Tabernacle Choir. Eventually he lost his faith, but may have continued as a pretend believer. There was a book written about him a few years ago, but I can't recall the name or author. It had "gold" in the title, also "book" I think. I assume we're talking about the same person. Does anyone remember his name?

We need an apostate version of grapevine.

[Mormon Red Death]

When I was a kid, we had a book titled "The Book of Mormon on Trial". That book was full of evidence. I don't remember exactly what the evidence was, but I'm sure it was compelling.

I think you mean this [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Day-Defense-Melvin-McDonald/dp/B000U92IXI"]Amazon.com: The Day of Defense: A. Melvin McDonald: Books[/ame].

[jay santos]

I think you mean this Amazon.com: The Day of Defense: A. Melvin McDonald: Books.

I wish I could remember the book I read. It seemed like it was aimed for teenagers.

[Jacob]

The problem with this comparison is that the first five books of the Bible weren't written as "history." If modern people want to assert the Bible's literal truth, that's their problem. Ancient peoples would not have understood these books as fact-based narrative history.

LDS, on the other hand, from the beginning have generally advocated a very literal reading and understanding of the Book of Mormon.

Really? Not written as history? I can buy that the Creation story and Garden of Eden stories were not intended as history, maybe. But the jews/Israel have always held up the rest of it as real history, from Abraham down to Joshua, and obviously after that as well.

[YOhio]

Maybe it was this one?

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/TRIAL-STICK-JOSEPH-ANCIENT-AMERICA/dp/1886472017"]Amazon.com: THE TRIAL OF THE STICK OF JOSEPH AND: ANCIENT RUINS OF AMERICA (9781886472013): Jack West: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31ij0cVar0L.@@AMEPARAM@@31ij0cVar0L[/ame]

[SeattleUte]

Maybe it was this one?

Amazon.com: THE TRIAL OF THE STICK OF JOSEPH AND: ANCIENT RUINS OF AMERICA (9781886472013): Jack West: Books

Perhaps it was just called Book of Mormon on Trial

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Trial-Jack-West/dp/B003HFDIR2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279035408&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: The Book of Mormon on Trial: Jack West & John W Rich: Books[/ame]

[DapperDan]

Really? Not written as history? I can buy that the Creation story and Garden of Eden stories were not intended as history, maybe. But the jews/Israel have always held up the rest of it as real history, from Abraham down to Joshua, and obviously after that as well.

The people of antiquity didn't have the same concept of history and myth that we do now. Myths were as true to them as we view history but they didn't believe them to be fact.