Late entry into the discussion

Posted by DNA on July 08, 1998 at 17:31:51:

In Reply to: It already exists posted by SWN on July 08, 1998 at 16:56:56:

: There are many scholars, both Mormon and non Mormon, who would disagree with you.
: First of all, your reasoning is flawed when you say that the only way to validate
: the Book of Mormon is with the plates that they were translated from.

I'm not at all certain that her reasoning is flawed. It might be better to say that the only *irrefutable* way to validate the BoM is to see the plates from which they were translated. Every other piece of evidence would be a little less certain than that.

: One of the beautiful things about books of history, especially ancient history, is
: that there are many records both known and unknown that will either verify or nullify
: those records. In the case of the Book of Mormon, I can't think of any ancient records
: discovered thus far that have cast a shadow over the Book of Mormon's validity. In fact,
: just the contrary.

Now it seems to me that your reasoning is flawed. How can ancient records cast a shadow over the BoM's validity, IF the BoM is pure fiction. It would have no relationship whatsoever to any ancient documents. It is just as accurate to say that no ancient documents have been found which show that "The Hobbit" is fiction.
You say, "just the contrary." What ancient documents *affirm* the BoM story?

: For years critics ridiculed Joseph Smith for suggesting that ancient civilizations used
: metal plates to keep records, and now that it has been shown that Joseph Smith was correct
: the critics are now saying it doesn't matter because we don't have the original plates.
: They can't have it both ways.

Of course they can. This is a silly statement. First of all, I'm not certain that your original statement is correct. But, granted that it is, if there were no evidence that metal plates had been used, then that was a valid criticism *at the time.* However, without the original plates, one cannot know for certain whether or not there was a translation.
I notice that you haven't addressed the point of lack of confirming evidence about the BoM story itself.

: Consider the following Information:

:
: James H. Charlesworth of Duke University, analyzes the concepts associated with the Messiah
: from the ancient Jewish viewpoint, in two literatures. The Pseudepigrapha, and the Book of
: Mormon. It is unusually interesting to see what serious minded scholars find when they bother
: to look seriously into the Book of Mormon. They don't find a phony, fake three dollar bill of
: a document as anti-Mormon critics scream about at all, rather, a sober, serious, wonderful
: document well worth exploring. Charelsworth's article was printed in Truman G. Madsen, ed.,
: Reflections on Mormonism: Judeo-Christian Parallels. The BYU Religious Studies Center
: Symposium held in 1984.

This point seems somehow irrelevant. If the BoM were plagiarized from the Bible, why wouldn't there be a parallel?

: The Book of Mormon *Has* Been Used as a Geographical Guidebook!

: The decade from 1975-1985 may very well be a turning point in scientific,archaeological and
: historical information about the Book of Mormon. This was the decade that demonstrated the
: Book of Mormon *can* and *was* used as a geographical guide through the Arabian Desert.
: The Book of Mormon opens for its first several years of recording in the Arabian Desert.
: Is it factual? Does it show consistent and internally consistent knowledge as well as
: correct geographical, biological and climactic information? Yes, yes, and a thousand times
: yes. The Hilton's were asked by the "Ensign" Magazine to go back to Arabia and re-trace the
: steps of Lehi. Could this be done?

: It *has* been done, and with Arabian guides using the BofM to help them locate the important
: sites mentioned, in of all places, the very BofM! Since the *first* time of learning that
: these places actually existed was in the early 1920's, this increases our interest considerably.
: How *could* Joseph Smith have known, since no one else did in the Western World until 1929?
: Consider the evidence from the Hilton's discovery through Arabia, with the Arabians themselves
: using the BofM as the correct guide.

You give them far too much credit. Once more, like all other studies of BoM geography, what they came up with was, "this *could* have been such and such a place." I'm a professional geographer, and I assure you that the descriptions in the BoM are of insufficient detail to be used as the kind of guide you suggest here. Of course, somebody who knows what they want to find will almost inevitably find it.