Historicity of the BOM

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If the Nephites merged with existing populations and only had political dominance for brief periods, otherwise living as nomads in hiding, it could explain discussions of populations.

I haven't read the demographic studies, but bellieve there are more than one angle from which examine it. And it's possible that the victors did not view the wars from the same angle used by Mormon and Moroni.

i think they were a highly nomadic people, the nephites and lamanites. and a very controlled population in terms of size.

i wonder if the bad lamanites chasing moroni at the end of the book of mormon were simple indians who were not welcoming to a wandering stranger and he interpretted their unkindness as aggressive behavior and a want to kill him.

if he walked from central america to new york, he would have passed through multiple different tribes of indians who spoke different languages and were probably apprehensive at the idea of new people entering their boundaries...

[RockyBalboa]

If it was a story that was made up? Does this comment by you suggest that you don't or do have a testimony of the authenticity of The Book of Mormon?

Are you in the process of reconciling your testimony with hard physical evidence?

I'm not slamming your point of view at all,,,I'm rather new to the posting process on here and am just curious.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

If it was a story that was made up? Does this comment by you suggest that you don't or do have a testimony of the authenticity of The Book of Mormon?

Are you in the process of reconciling your testimony with hard physical evidence?

I'm not slamming your point of view at all,,,I'm rather new to the posting process on here and am just curious.

first things first. im suprised you didnt post 'troll' in response to what im saying. and second even on this board you find a way of misunderstanding what i write.

what i am saying is there are people who dont care about the historical authenticity of the book of mormon. many have suggested that its an inspired story that may or may not have happened, but inspired nonetheless. i on the other hand do care if lehi came over on a boat. my thinking is this. if its an 'inspired' story count me out of the church. ill view the feelings ive had about the truthfulness of the book as affirmations of good principles contained therein. as far as membership goes, i would be gone from the church just as fast as rain dries in the sahara desert.

currently my testimony is on solid ground of the actual and spiritual truthfulness of the book. im not searching for physical evidence to back my beliefs, and need not this type of evidence to forge my testimony stronger. i do believe we are in a way misled in how the book was 'translated' and i think certain leaders may have been wrong in their annointment of american indians as principle descendents of the lamanites, but maintain the book itself is true.

[RockyBalboa]

I apologize if you were offended by my questions. I asked the question because I thought I might have been mis-interpreting what you meant and I was, so thank you for being cool to answer it.

Thanks for the response.

For the record: I've offered you a peace pipe and you've ignored it. I've offered to shake your hand and you've denied it. I'm sorry you've chosen to take so personally bantering on a internet messaging board.

I'll say it again, I apologize. If you want to continue playing the pseudo bad-ass then that's certainly you're prerogative. I hold zero ill will towards you.

Hopefully we can have a more constructive and positive dialogue between the two of us in the future.

[tooblue]

Man, we've got our own little BofMesque brother hate brother war going on in here ... of course the real question is which one of you is Laman and which one of you is Nephi :P

Chill dudes (is such a phrase still part of the young cool guy vernacular?) let it go!

As for the Book of Mormon ... the real question is how much real knowledge do we as a society have of ancient peoples? Heck, as a society we can hardly agree and try to understand what happened 100 years ago in this country, and we have clear command of the language etc. I'm sure there's a scripture somewhere that admonishes us to be careful to not place faith in the knowledge of man.

Isn’t there an entire sealed portion out there some where, doesn’t the book suggest it is a literal account? I don’t have any problem accepting it as a literal account.

[All-American]

At the risk of resurrecting a dead post, here goes nothing:

Regarding the origins of the people of the Americas, I think we need to redefine the word "destroyed." The Hebrew word for create, baurau, means to organize; would it's opposite term, destroy, mean to deorganize, or scatter? Notice in Isaiah and the writings of other Old Testament prophets that the threat of destruction meant either spiritual death or scattering of the people. To destroy either the Nephite or Jaredite civilization would require nothing more than the disunion of its peoples.

A lot more attention needs to be given to the means by which the house of Israel is composed, because race is not a primary consideration. Despite the attention received by whatever physical differences existed between Nephites and Lamanites, there were cross-over groups from the beginning to the end of their history. Apostate Nephites joined with the Lamanites, and defecting Lamanites sided with the Nephites. In every case, the transition was seamless, and without hesitation, past crimes were pardoned and the refugees were considered citizens of the host nation. Though organized in a familial structure, affiliation, not race, is the primary consideration by which one is accepted into the house of Israel. This is also why both a literal blood descendant of Ephraim and one who has no Israelite blood can be considered a gentile before baptism and an Israelite after.

Considering now the similarly organized Nephite and Jaredite civilizations, it seems entirely plausible that their "destruction" does not mean the literal death of every Nephite or Jaredite, but the scattering of their people. Notice that in the book of Moroni, those who deny the Christ and join with the Lamanites are spared.

In fact, all it takes is a single family to leave during a major war to found a new civilization-- the Book of Mormon is a testament to that very notion. The very likely possibility of large families fleeing to the hills once war broke out is not only faithful to ancestoral prescedent, but would have gone unnoticed by historians of the day. Thus you have civilizations spreading all over the continent from the moment the Jaredites arrived.

This does lead to a very ironic thought. This whole time, Book of Mormon apologists have been protesting the idea that the people in the Americas are of Asiatic origin. Turns out, we believed that all along-- it's right there in Ether.

Anyway, given the fact that we have know an incomprehensibly small amount about Ancient American civilizations, we simply cannot predict how much native blood is actually Lamanite blood. To the south, Lamanites had from the time they arrived just after 600 BC onward to expand, as Nephites held the pathways to the north. Major northward expansion by Lehi's descendants isn't mentioned until the Book of Helaman, just before the birth of Christ, but even this does not prohibit it. Drops of the blood of Lehi could be scattered from tip to toe of the American continents.

[Iluvatar]

"Anyway, given the fact that we have know an incomprehensibly small amount about Ancient American civilizations, we simply cannot predict how much native blood is actually Lamanite blood."

We know more about the ancient inhabitants of this continent than one might think. New studies, using better and more accurate techniques and tools are being conducted all the time. All the archeological, linguistic and DNA evidence suggests that this continent was peopled by a series of migrations from eastern asia, across the bearing straight, and south from there. Really, you should all read "Losing a Lost Tribe" by Simon Southerton.

There is really no way that one can continue to believe that the Lamanites are "the primary ancestors of the american indians" and remain intellectually honest and academically informed. The mental gymnastics one has to perform to satisfactorally explain the overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary is exhausting.

Before flogging me for putting science before faith, keep in mind that historically speaking, when science and religion have locked horns, science has almost always emerged the victor.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

Before flogging me for putting science before faith, keep in mind that historically speaking, when science and religion have locked horns, science has almost always emerged the victor.

Is it possible to believe in the Church without believing many of the claims made by the Church? I think it is. Personally, I don't believe that the BoM is authentic, nor do I believe that Joseph Smith ever spoke with God or was ever visited by angels; I also don't believe that modern prophets speak with God. I do, however, believe in the morals taught by the Church, and I believe that the Church is a source for good in the lives of many. If the Church helps you live a happier life and if it gives you hope, then it works. If it works, then it doesn't really matter whether it authentic.

[ute4ever]

Do you believe in any sort of authority to act in God's name, be it Joel Osteen, David Bednar, or the graduating class of the Texas A&M Seminary?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

We know more about the ancient inhabitants of this continent than one might think.

Allow me to restate myself. I don't mean to say we know so little. The amount of information we know about ancient americans is impressive. The amount that we DON'T know is overwhelming.

This is the big issue with history. Look at the history of the LDS Church, for example. It took place entirely within the previous 200 years, involved mostly people who speak our own language, & transpired in our own country. Despite all this, very few of the aspects of our history are truly indisputable. You can gather one hundred different historians seeking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to analyze the life of Joseph Smith and get one hundred different Joseph Smiths. To make things worse, we have people on both sides of the debate twisting facts to better fit their own arguments. Even studying available resources will never completely cover everything, because of how many first hand sources A) have been lost, and B) never were. Joseph himself never put to paper many of his sacred experiences, such as the latter details of the first vision (JS--H 1:20), leading him to make the famous statement: "You don't know me, you never knew my heart. No man knows my history; I cannot write it, I shall never undertake it."

History is difficult enough dealing with our own era, language, and terrain. Now slip back a millenium or two and see how well our history holds up. We'll make things easier by sticking with the most familiar ancient society: Rome. The Roman alphabet, language, and society heavily influence their modern day counterparts. We have so many surviving artifacts and documents that we can identify the major players of Rome and get a good idea of how things happened in the Roman Empire. But again, we are plagued by the same lack of information. We have even fewer historical documents that have survived to the modern day-- in fact, most of what we know regarding the first ten or so emperors comes from one historian, Tacitus. Bias in writing becomes even more problematic, and to this day historians argue about how much correction is merited in adjusting for it.

Now we really muck things up by talking about a people who not only lived two thousand years ago, but have a language that has been lost, a writing we can't fully interpret, and a history we can't reveal. We have access to some private thoughts of Joseph Smith, and some words of Julius Caesar. We don't even have names for important leaders of pre-columbian leaders. If it were not for perpetuated legends we would have only artifacts, which tell the story of the persons who used them and little more. When you compare what we know about ancient america to early america or even ancient Rome, the amount is rather small to say the least.

This is why the Book of Mormon can't be historically proven or disproven; there's just not enough physical evidence to say one way or the other. It simply depends on whether you interpret a blank canvas as suppressing nothing, or suggesting nothing.

Originally Posted by Iluvatar

There is really no way that one can continue to believe that the Lamanites are "the primary ancestors of the american indians" and remain intellectually honest and academically informed. The mental gymnastics one has to perform to satisfactorally explain the overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary is exhausting.

There's nothing wrong with the Lamanites not being the "primary" ancestors of the American Indians, if by "primary" you mean that over 50% of their ancestry is of Lehite origin. But there's nothing prohibiting traces of the blood of Lehi from spreading the face of the western hemisphere.