6 ms·
It's not clear to me if you're a joking or not but the book of mormon was published in March 1830 AD.
by jeena 11y ago
It's not clear to me if you're a joking or not but the book of mormon was published in March 1830 AD.
- mholt 11y agoI'm not joking. You know there are academics who study this for a living, right? http://mi.byu.edu/ http://mi.byu.edu/ - see especially the works of Terryl Givens, John Sorenson, Hugh Nibley, Richard Bushman, Grant Hardy... I never said it was published 600 BC. It was indeed published in 1830, but story within it originates ~600 BC. Very different things.
- freyr 11y agoAny scholars who aren't directly affiliated with the Mormon church who would corroborate these claims?
- mholt 11y agoIt depends on which parts of these claims we're talking about, but this article mentions a few of them, summing up their research less technically: http://ldsmag.com/article-1-1634/ http://ldsmag.com/article-1-1634/
- baldfat 11y agoThere isn't any outside collaboration I have ever read at all about the Book of Mormon BUT then again I actually had to read it in college. Never had a good conversation with a Mormon at my house. I get put on the list with the Jehovah Witnesses. My crime (I can read Greek and Hebrew) next time tell a JW that you now Greek and Hebrew and would love to talk with them. They leave nicely and their elders won't send a person to you for three years at least.
- gnaritas 11y agoMormons who study the book of Mormon don't exactly qualify as good sources, nor are Christians who study the Bible, nor are Muslims who study the Koran as all are extremely biased by their beliefs. Such people look for evidence to justify beliefs rather than looking at evidence to decide what should be believed.
- mholt 11y agoWe're not having a religious discussion here. We're talking academics: research, primary sources, etc. When did this become about beliefs?
- gnaritas 11y ago> You know there are academics who study this for a living, right? http://mi.byu.edu/ http://mi.byu.edu/ When you used BYU as a source, it became about beliefs. Religious institutions are not staffed by real academics, they're staffed by believers which disqualifies them as sources.
- mholt 11y ago> Religious institutions are not staffed by real academics, they're staffed by believers How do you explain this then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young_University_alumni https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young_Universi... - BYU scholars have just as much impact for good in this world as any other accredited university. I've had BYU professors who are not Mormon. How do you explain that?
- gnaritas 11y agoIt doesn't matter if there's a few there, you can't have a few good apples in a bad bunch. If you want to be taken seriously as an academic, you have to be one at a real university, i.e. a non-religious one. Religious universities are oxymoron's.
- nitrogen 11y agoThis claim seems very strongly to suggest a system of belief that is not shared by all: "...the Book of Mormon, which originates ~600 BC in Jerusalem. In fact, page 1, verse 2 says..."
- mholt 11y agoA story is allowed to state its own setting, fictional or not. Remember not to confuse date of publication with date of events within it.
- sk5t 11y agoIsn't it reasonable to say that adherents to the Mormon faith have a pretty strong motive not to find the Book of Mormon to be a bunch of baloney--in fact, to invent as many arguments as necessary to support the idea that it isn't? Edit: Appealing to the authority of academics seems a poor strategy when those academicians' dinners rely on toeing the party line.