Continuation of historicity argument with friend.

[Archaea]

> Are you arguing that it is important that the Book of Mormon in some sense
> accurately reflects the history of the Lehite colony? (Note, our arguments are here, and his are darker)!!!

Important? No. I'm arguing that if you accept the Book of Mormon as being written by the people it claims to be written by (Moroni, Mormon, Nephi, et al), there's no compelling reason to assume that it DOESN'T accurately reflect the history of the colony. It's the only historical source we have, so the default position should be to assume its historical statements are correct--it's not likely we have any way of disproving it anyway.

Now, is it likely that there are absolutely, in fact, no historical errors in at all? Not at all, even though it was written by the very best of men. Even the title page admits the possibility of errors. But I believe EVERY ancient document, religious or not, is going to have errors, just from men being involved. Modern documents too. I've certainly made my share of errors in my writings. I don't think you could go a single page in Cougarboard without finding statements that are untrue, perhaps even provably untrue.

But the very real possibility of errors hardly means that we should regard all historical content in the Book of Mormon as being suspect and unreliable. Why reject the lone eyewitness? Is it important? In the grand of scheme of things, not really. I do not believe a knowledge of history is a requirement for exaltation. But I personally find historical context somewhat useful in understanding the writings better, and I find the history interesting in its own right.

> For example, are you
> arguing the it is not only important that the Lehite's ran into the
> Mulekites, but that the Mulekites actually were descended from Mulek? Is it
> okay if in reality that was total BS to impress the Nephites? Would the
> Book of Mormon lose value as scripture if that claim was a lie?

Actually, it WOULD rather detract from Nephi, son of Helaman's speech in Chapter 8, if the Mulekites were just natives who made up the stuff about Mulek (and emigrating after the fall of Jerusalem) to impress the Nephites. Nephi uses the (claimed) identity of the Mulekites as proof of a fulfilled prophecy, and that would be a pretty lame argument if it turns it wasn't true.

It'd REALLY detract from Nephi's credibility as a prophet if he made up the part at the end of Chapter 8 about the chief judge and his brother, don't you think? Do you have a problem with accepting that as historically true?

Still, the Mulekites, viewed strictly from a historical perspective, are an example of information in the Book of Mormon that is primarily of historic value, not of scriptural value. It's also a bit of historical information that has no direct witnesses. Nephi is merely repeating a Mulekite oral tradition, not something he has personal knowledge of. For that matter, Mulekite isn't even a scriptural term.

.