BoM

Posted by Trixie on July 08, 1998 at 17:37:32:

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

I concede part of your first point. If there were an abundance of archeological evidence that proved the accuracy of the BoM story, then that could also be considered a validation of the BoM. However, that is where my agreement with you ends. During Joseph's time period, people were obsessed with the "mounds" in the area, which they believed the ancient inhabitants built. There were also rumors of findings of other records, as well. Whether or not later scholars came to scorn the idea of writing on metal plates, it was not an uncommon belief among people in Joseph Smith's area. In fact, very little of Joseph's story would have challenged the commonly held beliefs of the day. Anyhow, whether or not metal plates existed is immaterial, to me, in whether or not Joseph Smith translated an actual, historical record from gold plates. Do you not concede the logic of that point? Is it not possible that metal plates were used for inscriptions, but that doesn't necessarily mean the BoM is true? If you can concede that point, I think it is a waste of time discussing something which, in the end, doesn't "prove" anything about the historical accuracy of the BoM story.

As far as your theological evidence, again, that is not evidence of the historical truth of the BoM. I have never denied that I consider Joseph to be gifted in the area of myth/religion making. He absorbed many philosophies of the day, and incorporated them into a "new" philosophy. Jan Shipps (if memory serves) referred to Joseph Smith as a 'religious genius', and I wouldn't argue too much with her over that point (although I think his genius went overboard into mania at the end of his life). I really don't care whether religious scholars find the BoM "fascinating" or as "phony as a three dollar bill". That is not indicative of any sort of "objective" truth. The Koran, the Torah, are also probably quite fascinating, but few Mormons would conceded that lends any credence towards the claims of the religion. You are clearly dealing in a subjective realm, here, by the way. In my reading of the Book of Mormon, I found it to be a sometimes engaging, sometimes boring, tale of adaptations to Bible stories, with few innovations. Most of Joseph's theological innovations came much later in his life.

Now, your last point about the BoM being used as an archeological guide. First off, it is a great leap from stating that, when specifically requested to perform such an experiment, the "Hiltons" (whoever they may be) were able to do so, to insinuating that the BoM is used as a geographical guide. (BTW, are you quoting from a source on FARMS? If so, it would be helpful to utilize quotation marks to help us distinguish between your thoughts and research - WHICH research, BTW, you STILL have not clarified - and the thoughts of others.) I would be far more impressed if this finding!! had revealed that the BoM had been used as a successful guide here in the Americas, leading archeologists to uncover the very cities mentioned in the BoM. When you are talking about the Arabia, you are talking about a region that was already fairly well known, especially to Bible students. Now, which particular "sites" that had previously been unknown before the 20's are you (or whomever you are quoting) referring to?