4 ms·

Upvoting this. It's at least as well reasoned as the original article. BUT it doesn't matter because it wasn't actually written down (and/or "revealed") until

by menssen 11y ago

Upvoting this. It's at least as well reasoned as the original article. BUT it doesn't matter because it wasn't actually written down (and/or "revealed") until the 1800s, right? Is there a good academic treatment of the origin of the stories in the BoM?

mholt 11y ago
Thanks, for distinguishing academics from religion. Trying to keep this academic but people keep turning it into a religious debate about beliefs. > BUT it doesn't matter because it wasn't actually written down (and/or "revealed") until the 1800s, right? Right, but that's still 186 years before this article was published. A text that's almost 200 years old still has historic value, whether or not one believes its contents. So there is an interesting link between this article and the book, regardless of personal beliefs. > Is there a good academic treatment of the origin of the stories in the BoM? There are some excellent resources at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/periodicals/jbms/ http://publications.mi.byu.edu/periodicals/jbms/. Yes, it's a religious university, but these topics are treated from a scholarly perspective. Also, https://bookofmormoncentral.org/ https://bookofmormoncentral.org/ has some great resources -- it's a fairly new resource with less technical articles but scholarly citations, and its faculty is made of scholars in near-eastern studies and related fields.
- menssen 11y ago
  Okay but the argument is pretty strong that since it was completely written based on divine revelation 2000+ years after the events it describes, the historical claims are difficult to corroborate. Is there scholarship on the legitimacy of the Lehi story, and, can you provide a link to the 101 version instead of a database? (I know, lazy, but you're probably used to the burden of proof being on you on this topic.)
- delecti 11y ago
  > So there is an interesting link between this article and the book, regardless of personal beliefs. This article is interesting specifically because of the evidence it presents about when the original texts of the bible were written. The historic value of the BoM is only linked to this article if it has a similarly distant origin. If the BoM is only 200 years old (i.e. the 600 BC origin is incorrect), then it's irrelevant to the discussion. It is only with personal belief that the BoM is 2600 years old that there is an interesting link between the article and the BoM.

by menssen 11y ago

mholt 11y ago

Thanks, for distinguishing academics from religion. Trying to keep this academic but people keep turning it into a religious debate about beliefs. > BUT it doesn't matter because it wasn't actually written down (and/or "revealed") until the 1800s, right? Right, but that's still 186 years before this article was published. A text that's almost 200 years old still has historic value, whether or not one believes its contents. So there is an interesting link between this article and the book, regardless of personal beliefs. > Is there a good academic treatment of the origin of the stories in the BoM? There are some excellent resources at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/periodicals/jbms/ http://publications.mi.byu.edu/periodicals/jbms/. Yes, it's a religious university, but these topics are treated from a scholarly perspective. Also, https://bookofmormoncentral.org/ https://bookofmormoncentral.org/ has some great resources -- it's a fairly new resource with less technical articles but scholarly citations, and its faculty is made of scholars in near-eastern studies and related fields.

menssen 11y ago
Okay but the argument is pretty strong that since it was completely written based on divine revelation 2000+ years after the events it describes, the historical claims are difficult to corroborate. Is there scholarship on the legitimacy of the Lehi story, and, can you provide a link to the 101 version instead of a database? (I know, lazy, but you're probably used to the burden of proof being on you on this topic.)
delecti 11y ago
> So there is an interesting link between this article and the book, regardless of personal beliefs. This article is interesting specifically because of the evidence it presents about when the original texts of the bible were written. The historic value of the BoM is only linked to this article if it has a similarly distant origin. If the BoM is only 200 years old (i.e. the 600 BC origin is incorrect), then it's irrelevant to the discussion. It is only with personal belief that the BoM is 2600 years old that there is an interesting link between the article and the BoM.