Disavowing the Book of Mormon as history

[RockyBalboa]

I know that the Book of Mormon has many historical accounts of things that actually happened.

There's a long list of historical happenings.

To believe otherwise is to not believe in The Book of Mormon. It really is that simple.

For example: I know someone who thinks that the Army of Helaman is an allegory for our times not something that actually happened.

If he believes that it did not actually happen historically then he doesn't have a testimony of the Book Of Mormon.

Again,,,it really is that simple.

It's very obvious what stories and principles were to be used in terms of symbolism without them being true and what things are recorded in history to have happened....like The Armies of Helaman.

That is one of MANY examples in the Book of Mormon of historical accounts of things ACTUALLY happening.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

My 10 second synopsis:

The historical events recorded in the BOM are not figurative; they occurred. The BOM is not a complete historical record of the BOM peoples, nor a comprehensive historical record of all Western Hemisphere peoples, nor the complete relating of the interaction the peoples of the BOM may have had with them.

Contending the BOM is essentially a very long allegory is an intellectually disingenuous and untenable position.

One of the things that bothered me most when I was trying to make sense of my beliefs as a Mormon, was the part about the Lamanites being the principal ancestors of the American Indians. So while I agree with statements that the BOM is not a complete historical record of Western Hemisphere peoples, I can't reconcile the "principal ancestors" part.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

One of the things that bothered me most when I was trying to make sense of my beliefs as a Mormon, was the part about the Lamanites being the principal ancestors of the American Indians. So while I agree with statements that the BOM is not a complete historical record of Western Hemisphere peoples, I can't reconcile the "principal ancestors" part.

That forward doesn't make total sense and wasn't added until 1981. There is a long convoluted argument that basically states, all the Nephites were killed by all others, they being Lamanites of any genetic composition. The principal ancestors of all remaining peoples are the ancestors to the native americans. It doesn't mean much of anything.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Really, the LDS Church needs to belly up and emphatically defend the Book of Mormon as history, or go into receivership.

The church has been steadily growing for 177 years without taking the advice of its apostates, thank you very much.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

The church has been steadily growing for 177 years without taking the advice of its apostates, thank you very much.

LOL!

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Disavowing the Book of Mormon as history is monstrously self-delusional or disingenuous. I'll try not to repeat the excellent things that have been said on this forum about how the LDS Church has for 99% of its history represented the Book of Mormon to be a history in the same sense the Bible is history, only more so, and indeed still does in the introductory pages to the Book of Mormon.

Is the Bible history? In his supurb single volume history of the world, J.M. Roberts writes:

"For many people during many centuries, mankind’s history before the coming of Christianity was the history of the Jews and what they recounted of the history of others. Both were written down in the books called the Old Testament [the Torah], the sacred writings of the Jewish people... They were the first to arrive at an abstract notion of God and to forbid his representation by images. No other people has produced a greater historical impact from such comparatively insignificant origins and resources..." J.M. Roberts, History Of The World

Roberts goes on to say (and I wish I could find this part of it quoted on the Internet so I could copy and paste it like the above but I can't so I must paraphrase) that while the Bible is not a history book per se, it is the best history--indeed the only history really--that we have of this critically important aspect of the world's history (it must necessarily be of critical importance to any atheist, Buddhist, Islamist, Mormonist, whatever, whether he or she knows it or not). Roberts notes that while there is much in the Bible that objectively cannot be swallowed, that is no reason to reject it wholesale as history. In fact, scholars regularly accept as the only available evidence of events chronicles that are as fraught as the Bible with credibility problems. There is much linguistic and archeological and DNA evidence (if you will) to corroborate the Bible as history in terms of the kingdoms and peoples and their rulers and conflicts that set the stage for the world as we know it. There are many things I love and admire deeply about the Bible. I love it as literature, to the extent it is history, to the extent it is mythology, and most of all that it is a genuine historical artifact--for better or worse, these are representations of words spoken by my authentic cultural forebears.

The Book of Mormon is manifestly fashioned on the biblical model. If it fails wholly as history--if whoever brought it forth didn't give us something that discloses information and abstract truths about real flesh and blooded people--indeed cultural forebears of real modern peoples--corroborated somewhere in the physical evidence, well . . . I rest my case. And I'll add that dismissing all history as "fiction" is lame; lame, lame, lame.

Really, the LDS Church needs to belly up and emphatically defend the Book of Mormon as history, or go into receivership. FARMS engages in a form of science fiction (in my opinion), even showing impressive originality inventing an entire lexicon to support its alleged reasoning and conclusions. This is quite reprehensible in a sense. But I'll give them credit for one thing--they understand the importance of maintaining and defending the representation of the Book of Mormon as history.

Modernist.