- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Of course I have considered the BoM is not historical. How can one who studies this NOT consider that possibility? I would like it to be historical, but I also clearly see that it might not be. As for Ethiopia, there is a group there that believes they have the lost Ark of the Covenant. (They are converted Christians now.) I’ve never heard them be considered Lamanites, but it would be fascinating if that were the case. (Of course the BoM makes no mention about the lost Ark either.) See
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/keepers-of-the-lost-ark-179998820/ gospeltangents wrote:
Of course I have considered the BoM is not historical. How can one who studies this NOT consider that possibility? I would like it to be historical, but I also clearly see that it might not be.As for Ethiopia, there is a group there that believes they have the lost Ark of the Covenant. (They are converted Christians now.) I’ve never heard them be considered Lamanites, but it would be fascinating if that were the case. (Of course the BoM makes no mention about the lost Ark either.) See
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/keepers-of-the-lost-ark-179998820/
GT, I want to apologize. Looking back I think my question sounded condescending and that is not how I meant it at all. My knowledge of these areas pales in comparison to those who actually study it (and those who interview those who study).
What I was trying to convey is that while I truly enjoy these conversations about geography theories, DNA, etc., for me the evidence for a non-historical BoM overwhelms the arguments for historicity. And that is just the evidence as I see it and understand it.
But I truly apologize if my question came off as flippant or arrogant. I would truly be interested in your or Ugo’s (or anyone’s) perspective on historicity, especially if you weigh the evidence differently than I do.
I wasn’t offended at all. Your question was a lot nicer than most of the comments I got in the Mormon Hub and Mormon Historians Facebook groups! Quote:I would truly be interested in your or Ugo’s (or anyone’s) perspective on historicity, especially if you weigh the evidence differently than I do.
I think my best answer is to refer to Alma 32. I hope that it is historical, but you’ll never hear me bear testimony that “I KNOW the BoM is historical.” I don’t know, but I hope, and I enjoy batting around the different theories.
On a slightly different topic, I pressed Sandra Tanner on historicity of the Bible as well. I’m probably more theologically liberal than she is. I asked her about the 4 Isaiah theory. In brief, some scholars believe Isaiah has written by at least 4 different authors, and that when Nephi quotes Isaiah, some critics claim that what is quoted in Nephi was written after Nephi left Jerusalem. These critics view this as an anachronism.
Sandra surprised me when she said that in 1959, even after she didn’t believe in Mormonism, she believed in the Book of Mormon. She no longer believes, and feels Joseph plagiarized the KJV Bible (which most LDS scholars don’t really deny very much.) When I asked her about the 4 Isaiah theory, she said she felt it was written by a single author. I even said, “so would you agree with the BYU scholars on a single Isaiah?” She said yes. I can’t wait to publish that with the headline “Sandra Tanner agrees with BYU!”
😆 Yes, that would seem to be an anachronism to me as well. I’m unsure about HOW Isaiah could be written by one author. From what I know, the time periods of which the book narrates span nearly 200 years! Even with our increased, modern life spans we don’t live that long
😆 I see no issues with Isaiah being written by multiple authors. I do see inconsistencies with Nephi quoting scripture that would not have been available to him, even if he or his family were well versed in the oral traditions of the day.Please don’t read any intent or an attack into this question. This question is genuine. gospeltangents wrote:
I would like it to be historical …
Why?
– – – – –
I haven’t studied Deutero-Isaiah, Trito-Isaiah, Tetarto-Isaiah, or any number of Isaiahs but I wonder what drives the theory. I’ve only heard things in passing, and this is where I hope someone else can help me out. It seems like a big part of the multiple author theory is based on elements of the book of Isaiah that could only have been written much later based on what were current events at the time. How does that change if one were to believe that Isaiah was a future-peeping prophet? Not someone writing down events after the fact but someone writing down visions of future events.
Off subject, I know.
nibbler wrote:
Please don’t read any intent or an attack into this question. This question is genuine.gospeltangents wrote:
I would like it to be historical …
Why?
– – – – –
I haven’t studied Deutero-Isaiah, Trito-Isaiah, Tetarto-Isaiah, or any number of Isaiahs but I wonder what drives the theory. I’ve only heard things in passing, and this is where I hope someone else can help me out. It seems like a big part of the multiple author theory is based on elements of the book of Isaiah that could only have been written much later based on what were current events at the time. How does that change if one were to believe that Isaiah was a future-peeping prophet? Not someone writing down events after the fact but someone writing down visions of future events.
Off subject, I know.
My understanding of the Isaiah problem is that the writer references events almost casually, as if they were common knowledge at the time as events that happened in the past. Almost universal agreement amongst scholars that those parts were written after the events, not before, especially since the writer is not prophesying about these events but just mentioning them as if the reader will understand these events already happened. There are a few BYU scholars who maintain a single author theory, but my opinion is they only do that to reduce the problem of deutero-Isaiah showing up in the BoM. I accept the near unanimous opinion of scholars about Isaiah, including many scholars inside the LDS faith.
I would like the BoM to be historical because that was my understanding growing up–that it was historical. Now, can one find it useful even if not historical? Of course. Cody at Wheat and Tares wrote a post on that just last week: https://wheatandtares.org/2017/09/20/book-of-mormon-can-be-true-without-being-historical/ As for multiple Isaiahs, some scholars don’t believe in miracles or prophecy. When Isaiah prophecies, they think it is a later writer looking back and talking history to sound like prophecy, and puts in some anachronisms.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.