Comments about ‘Mormon Media Observer: Please get the Book of Mormon right’

Great Article! Sadly, whether they be critics , defenders, apologists or just commentators, it is usually painfully obvious when people have spent much more time reading about the Book of Mormon than actually reading the book itself.

Lane, you quote the Atlantic article:
"led by the prophet Lehi, escaped Babylonian captivity and sailed to freedom in Central America."

then "correct" it on page 1:
"but Lehi, in the first chapters of the Book of Mormon, escaped not from Babylon, but Jerusalem. (He avoided the Babylonian captivity.)"

the author never said "from Babylon" and you repeat the author's exact words: avoided/escaped Babylonian captivity

or were you arguing about the word "escape", as if it could have some completely different meaning than "avoiding"?

This article seems to be implying that it was inappropriate to use an old doctrine of the Church that isn't very popular anymore, namely, that the Polynesians are descendants of Hagoth--an idea which is to be found in dedicatory prayers of Temples, many General Conference addresses of the past, and even the BYU "Living Legends" production club. While it's true that such a connection is not made explicitly in the LDS scriptures, there are *many* smaller aspects of the LDS faith that are not to be found in the standard works. This idea is simply not talked about nowadays since genetic testing has shown that the Polynesians are descended from people who lived in Taiwan and Asia.

It's nearly impossible to read and interpret the Book of Mormon in a vacuum ignoring the LDS Church's past approaches to it. It is entirely fair to bring up an old idea, even if that idea is no longer popular among modern Mormons (good to point this out, too). The Book of Mormon text requires a certain amount of eisegesis to associate it with modern Mormonism and there's nothing wrong with discussing the prominent ideas of the past and their current decline.

Perhaps the author thinks that all journalists should first submit their articles to the Church correlation department for "correction." Oh, the Church would like very much if everyone in this world had only one way (our way!) of thinking about everything Mormon. We've been standardized and mainstreamed now. Why can't the world see our conformity to this very normal, hip and friendly generic Mormon abstraction that seeks to distance itself from any specific claims that might prove too easily falsifiable at some future time?

I mean, I spend lots of time reading the Book of Mormon and I'd be liable to write an article describing the book as a narrative whose central theme serves as a warning about what happens when societies neglect the sort of social justice that the gospel orients us toward. But my own interpretation is not standardized enough around the abstract slogan of "bringing souls unto Christ," so people would be dissatisfied with it. Plus, it doesn't leave enough room for Church-owned mega malls, insurance companies, or investment firms.

I agree with nick humphrey. The author's comment on 'escaping Babylonian captivity' is actually legit. You can argue 'escaped' or 'avoided' but essentially his point is accurate. If this is "getting the BoM wrong" what is the standard for getting it right are? Likely LDS couldn't even meet it.

Many LDS say the same things about the Book of Mormon that William's criticizes the Atlantic for. He's right that there's backing for such statements from LDS leaders. Apparently because the Atlantic doesn't follow it's comments with a testimony of the LDS Church this is unacceptable. Is it only OK for LDS to speculate on their religious texts?

The reasons these things are taught and believed about the Book of Mormon is because they've been taught as truth by the Church and its leadership for a solid century.

So if you are going to still say that the Atlantic "got the Book of Mormon wrong" you have to admit that the LDS Church including the prophetic leadership has been "getting it wrong" for most of Mormonism's history. Guess it's a good thing they have you around now to set them straight.

The issue is not whether or not there is Mormon teaching that the Polynesians have Book of Mormon ancestry. Contrary to what some claim this is still a popular teaching.

The issue is that the Book of Mormon itself never says any such thing. All it says is that Hagoth built some ships and indicates that one ship sailed off to an unknown destination. The article in question makes it seem like the Book of Mormon tells us what happened after that, which it does not. The Book of Mormon also only mentions Nephites in Hagoth's ships, although that is only specifically about the one that made it to the land northward, which possibly was the general vicinity of Mazatlan, or even further south in Mexico.

The Book of Mormon is misread when people state the Lamanites were distinguished by a dark skin color. The "scales of darkness" are a symbolic, not a real thing. The darkness is the lack of light, not more pigmentation, and it is a symbolic lack of light.

While it might be possible to argue that "escaped Babylonian captivity" is the same as "escaped being put in Babylonian captivity", this is be no menas the normal way such a phrase would be interpreted. Beyond this, Lehi was actually escaping death threats from other residents of Jerusalem. The fact that his sons went back on multiple occasions shows that the fall of Jerusalem was not as close to falling as some imply.

I love the backsliding when it comes to "explaining" the problems within the Book of Mormon.
It's awfully hard to take seriously a book dictated while looking a rock in a hat. Especially when many parts a plagurized by the works of others during the same time period. Just saying.

Looking at the bright side, it’s a real improvement when all we can find to criticize is an off-base or outdated interpretation of Alma!

I don't think we should be too critical of national media types who get the details wrong. Compared to some of the stuff I have heard expressed in Sunday School classes, this stuff is not too bad.

All people who tie their lineage to the Book of Mormon do so by means of speculation. The scope of the spread of the Nephite/Lamanite culture is unknown. I think it's awesome that some people like to speculate about it, and I think that's one of the great things about Mormonism--is that we respect a lot of beliefs and aren't dogmatic about it, but I wouldn't say that such beliefs are doctrine.

@Dennis It's awfully hard to take seriously someone who criticizes a book because of its method of translation rather than the contents and message of the book itself. Its also awfully hard to take seriously a critic who uses criticisms that have been proven false for decades, but keeps regurgitating them like they're some magic bullet. Just saying.

@Dennis,

The "problems" are in finding an alternative explanation for the book, other than the explanation that the LDS Church gives - that it was translated by "the gift and power of God" by a prophet called in the Latter-Days. For 180 years critics have scoured the earth's historical documents looking for the "smoking gun" that proves the book a fraud. The critics have failed at that. Today, after all those years, critics themselves have yet to agree on a "theory" on how the Book of Mormon came to be. Some critics believe Joseph wrote it - some say Oliver Cowdery, some say somebody else, etc.

It is easy to say the book is a fraud. But for me to even begin accepting the book as a fraud would require an explanation of its existence. And no theory even begins to explain the book. After 180 years, if the book were a fraud, we would have the detailed information today on how it was created. No such explanation exists - but in fact it remains either a mystery at best by non-believers, and the word of God to its believers.

I choose to believe it.

It is interesting Mr. Lane how words can be interpreted differently. I did not find Mr. Stanley's article to suggest a leaving from Babylonia the city, but rather as is true the leaving and thereby avoiding Babylonian captivity. If you note the history, Jerusalem in 600 BC was a captive city of Babylonian. Indeed the King before Jerusalem was destroyed was appointed by Babylonia. So, to say, Lehi and his people fled Babylonia to escape captivity is to a large extent true, although it may not be the purpose which the book itself identifies as the reason for leaving and coming to the promised new land.