There is no case to be made for a historical Book of Mormon

[_Gray Ghost]

Cross posted from Reddit:

Often the debates around Book of Mormon historicity revolve around issue like horses, steel, mound builders, etc. But the Book of Mormon is inextricably tied to the Bible, so we can use mainstream Biblical scholarship to very easily and quickly identify if the Book of Mormon could possibly be historical. This isn't often explored because most people, including those of other Christian faiths, are not aware of the findings of critical Biblical scholarship.

A few bullet points:

* In the Book of Mormon, Jesus delivers the Sermon on the Mount (or a version of it) 50 years before it was put together by Matthew. While the Sermon likely contains some authentic teachings of Jesus, it almost certainly was never delivered by Jesus in that format.

* It is said that Jesus will sweat great drops of blood in Mosiah 3 (~124 BCE) - an allusion to a late addition to the Luke manuscript, more than two centuries later.

* Atonement theology took many decades to develop in the first century of the Christian movement, and continued to develop beyond that time. But it appears more or less fully developed among the Nephites many centuries before even the birth of Jesus. Penal Substitution theory is quite late, modeled on feudalistic crime and punishment, but it's in the Book of Mormon. The earliest form of atonement theology is the ransom theory of atonement (first century CE), but it's not in the Book of Mormon.

* The early Christian use of the term Savior and Son of God to describe Jesus is a clear rejection of Roman authority. These were the terms the Romans used to describe Caesar - the Christians deliberately used them to say, no, not Caesar, but Jesus. But somehow the Nephites use these terms centuries earlier and another continent, completely divorced from the historical context that brought them about.

* Fully developed God/Satan dualism very early in on Nephite history - something that really didn't start to develop until the second century BCE in Judaism.

* A Christology among the Nephites that seems to be influenced by the Gospel of John - that is to say, a Jesus who was Son of God from before his birth, as opposed to a Jesus who was adopted as God's son at his birth or baptism as an adult, as is taught in the earlier gospels.

* Lord's prayer - the ending to the Lord's prayer in Matthew was not original, but was added much later on. Somehow it appears in 3 Nephi

* 2 Nephi 10:3 has a lot of anachronistic claims. It said the "Jews" crucified Christ. It was actually the Romans. The gospels whitewash Pontius Pilate, a bloodthirsty despot, and blame Jesus' death on the Jews. That is historically inaccurate, and this reframing was done for political reasons. There isn't a plausible reason why the Pharisees would have sought Jesus' death. Additionally, the verse calls Jesus' name "Christ" (a title, not a name), and conflates the Christ with God - another anachronistic theological view that wasn't developed until a century after Jesus.

* The now familiar issue of the brass plates containing portions of Isaiah which had not been written yet

* Judaism, both ancient and modern, has always been about right action, not right belief. It was never important to believe the correct things, only to perform the correct actions. Christianity changed that in the first century by making belief in the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus something that could affect your status in the afterlife.The Book of Mormon is tremendously anachronistic in that sense - from the beginning (~600 BCE) they're talking about belief in the Messiah having salvific effect.

* In 600 BCE there are only vague notions about an afterlife in Judaism. The Book of Mormon starts out the gate with fully developed Christian heaven and hell concepts.

There are many similar examples of theologies and doctrines that are plucked from their historical context, appearing out of time and out of place in the Book of Mormon narrative. This is why Book of Mormon historicity is not taken seriously by scholars who aren't LDS apologists. It's completely implausible on its face. There are so many red flags that the claim to historicity simply cannot be taken seriously.

What does that mean? It certainly doesn't mean that the Book of Mormon isn't scripture - the Book of Daniel has very similar historical issues. Scripture is not the same thing as history. But hopefully as members become more informed about Biblical scholarship, they can come up with a more mature view of scripture that doesn't require the (often faith-destroying) anti-intellectualism of apologetics.

[_SuperDell]

So Simple!
God inspired them - a chosen land and a chosen group. They were special so they got stuff all the others did not.

Need Proof?
The Old World has John the Beloved hang around.
The New World has TWO guys hang around. See - doubly blessed - and they get the special designation from God.

[_peacemaker]

You blind anti-mormons do not understand how revelation works.

[_Uther]

You blind anti-mormons do not understand how revelation works.

Revelation works just as Joseph Smith jr said it works:

1. Think it out in your mind.
2. Have a conversation with your imaginary skyfriend about what you "have thought out in your mind".
3. If there is no stupor of thought, but a comforting feeling, its "revelation".
4. Now ponder how this process went down with Joseph Smith fighting mind battles over his attraction to other women than Emma.

Belief in revelation and religion can be a comfort to the mind, but is really just the blind leading the blind to points of no return. No greater despair is to be found but in the deeply religious, that too late figures out that he/she is in a hole with no exits.

[_moksha]

You blind anti-mormons do not understand how revelation works.

Excellent point. It's like God says one thing when He is really pissed at the Supreme Court and then changes his mind a few years later when Millenials become disengaged from their faith because of that reactive pissiness. God takes a comparative advantage approach to decision making and reserves the right to change His mind if negative results occur.

[_Grudunza]

You blind anti-mormons do not understand how revelation works.

You’re right, I don’t understand how it works, because it doesn’t work. I do, however, understand something about how fan-fiction, remixing, plagiarism, and fraud (pious or otherwise) works. And here we have an impressive (meaning that genuinely) example in the Book of Mormon.

[_Gray Ghost]

You blind anti-mormons do not understand how revelation works.

Revelation is completely outside the topic of historicity.

[_Fence Sitter]

You blind anti-mormons do not understand how revelation works.

Actually we understand how it works quite well, we just don't think it is inspired, along with 99.9% of the rest of the world.

But let's assume for a moment we don't, as most don't in the case of the recent revelation reversal regarding baptizing the children of gay married people. Perhaps you could explain how that revelation worked? Or maybe you could explain how one recent prophet promoted the use of the term Mormon while another says it's use is a victory for the devil? If you're really up for a task, maybe you could explain how revelation worked in denying black people the priesthood for 150ish years. After that you could go on to the gathering of Zion in Missouri, polygamy, Office of the Presiding Patriarch, baptism for the sick, adoptive sealings, Wood of Wisdom, thousands of changes to the D&C/Book of Commandments and so on. So yes, please tell us how revelation works.

[_Tator]

You blind anti-mormons do not understand how revelation works.

Actually we understand how it works quite well, we just don't think it is inspired, along with 99.9% of the rest of the world.

But let's assume for a moment we don't, as most don't in the case of the recent revelation reversal regarding baptizing the children of gay married people. Perhaps you could explain how that revelation worked? Or maybe you could explain how one recent prophet promoted the use of the term Mormon while another says it's use is a victory for the devil? If you're really up for a task, maybe you could explain how revelation worked in denying black people the priesthood for 150ish years. After that you could go on to the gathering of Zion in Missouri, polygamy, Office of the Presiding Patriarch, baptism for the sick, adoptive sealings, Wood of Wisdom, thousands of changes to the D&C/Book of Commandments and so on. So yes, please tell us how revelation works.

I am on the edge of my seat waiting for peacemaker to tell us how revelation works. Personal experience would be a real plus and while you are at it could you tell us how discernment works too?

[_Shulem]

You blind anti-mormons do not understand how revelation works.

A Facsimile from the Book of Abraham No. 3

"Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

What's the king's name? Do you have a revelation for that? Show me how it works, baby.