I'm not exactly sure that I understand your question, but perhaps I haven't been clear enough myself. So I'll try again.
I believe that Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni were actual ancient prophets who wrote from their own experiences and inspiration. The Book of Mormon that we have today is a translation of their words, though as a translation it may be rather loose compared to what a scholarly translation would look like. (In scripture, conveying spiritual truths in an understandable, motivating way may be more important to God than historical, linguistic precision.) In any case, I think that the translation was given fairly directly to Joseph Smith through the Urim and Thummim (or the seer stone). That is to say, I find Royal Skousen's arguments pretty persuasive.
It is sometimes helpful to keep in mind that the difference between historical fiction (which may include a lot of accurate facts) and actual histories (which often include inaccurate information) is largely one of intent. Novelists make things up; historians try to get the facts straight, though they always work from within some limited cultural perspective. I think that the Book of Mormon is an actual history rather than a novel, but I understand that non-members see the book differently.
I don't claim any special knowledge about where Book of Mormon events took place, and for that reason I don't spend a lot of time trying to put the narrative in a Mesoamerican context, but I think that Sorenson's limited geographical model is by far the most plausible that has been put forward so far.
|