The problem with Limited Geography,

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The missionaries do focus on read, ponder, and pray (as they should), but the BoM is presented as the history of an actual people, Lehi leaving around 600 BC, Joseph translating a history and so on.

Personally, archeological or genetic evidence aside, I only see detriment in a desire to move away from the literal claims in the book. We can debate what should go in the intro etc. but what value do we have as faith without the abridgments’ outlandish claims?

If it were diminished in the same way that the Bible is diminished how could we champion it as a second witness of the precious truths that can be found in the Old and New Testaments?

The book of Mormon is what it is, time will bear it out. For all of the evidences trotted out about ancient civilizations by various experts the only constant is that there is no certainty.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Solon

Interesting thoughts. I sense the beginnings of a shift away from literalness with the BoM as well, especially with regard to the claims about ancient American civilizations. There are no longer photographs of ancient Mesoamerican sites in the book's prefatory pages that suggest a close connection with actual sites and cultures.

I wonder if there's a larger-scale problem at work here. I, for one, feel an intense disconnect between various levels of authority and practice. There's a scriptural level, a GA level, and then a local-institution level that sometimes don't match up. So, we have scriptures/original revelation that tell us one thing, GA's who give modernized versions of the scripture, and local leaders or cultures who implement their own versions. So, we end up with local practices with no scriptural base (white shirts necessary to pass sacrament), or scriptural teachings that are modified for the sake of cultural correctness (such as the roles of women). It's all very confusing.

Is it possible that you are projecting certain American societal insecurities on the church? Would it not be accurate to say that your perception that there is a large scale problem in the church is heavily influenced by the reality that there is a large scale problem at work in American society?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

If it were diminished in the same way that the Bible is diminished

Speak for yourself. The Bible's stock has never been higher among serious academics and students of history. The Bible, for all its fanciful stories, is a valuable piece of evidence archeologically corroborated in many ways (as OxCoug has noted) as well as confirmed by linguistic and cultural eveidence. We know for certain that the Bible gave birth to the three great monotheistic religions that have left their imprint everywhere.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm currently reading this book:

http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelatio.../dp/140004006X



While I'm just getting started, one thing is clear: there were millions and millions of inhabitants in the Western Hemisphere and virtually the entire face of the land was covered; particuarly below the Rio Grande prior to the Conquistadors beginning their handiwork. They are clearing land in Bolivia and Brazil that is virtually uninhabited now that turns out to be full of canals, mounds and other infrastructure which was used to support hundreds of thousands of people. Who knows what else has yet to be discovered?

Multiple cities have been comfortably estimated to have had over 100,000 inhabitants.

So theoretically, there could have easily been one or more wars that involved hundreds of thousands of people.

I honestly don't know where I weigh in on the limited geography theory or any other theories.

There were millions of inhabitants in the Western Hemisphere long before 400 B.C. The Western Hemisphere peoples have as long and in their own right as rich a history as Europeans for sure. It's a history the Church has simply shit canned for generations, propagating a tale that it all sprang from the loins of Lehi. It takes millions of years to generate so far reaching and diverse a population. This is just common sense.

However, academics and serious students of history today dismiss the numbers of soldiers recorded by the ancient and medieval European chroniclers of history as fanciful. The greatest size of army that could be logistically sustained in those days and remain cohesive (I'm talking about feeding them, their baggage trains, communicating with them, etc.) is maybe 40,000, probably significantly less. For example, historians have recognized that an army of maybe 20,000 Visigoths sacked Rome, with its millions of inhabitants who stood by and watched.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Seattle, the more you open your mouth to condemn these fools errands, the more your reveal yourself to be a bitter fool. What have archeologist only recently discovered about Stone Henge -go look it up! And how about those Dead Sea Scrolls -how has researchers understanding of what they represent changed in say, the past ten years as compared to when they were first discovered and studied?

The subtle and not so subtle details of all the precious history you cling to so dearly changes so frequently you don’t even bother to keep up. You are lost in an orientalist, classics rapture that has rendered you blind.

Very recently on this message board new information about human development in the regions of the world that holds your imagination have been discussed:

http://www.eurasianet.org/department...v041708a.shtml

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/1410,f...tory-in-turkey

You are a peevish deserter of the faith of your fathers who has no more physical evidence to say the book of Mormon is not true than I have to say it is true. Yet I believe as result of some deeply profound personal experiences that I cannot ignore. Solon asks an interesting question. The numbers presented are curious and the subject is worth discussion.

That's right. I'm bitter. I'm bitter about the fictional and deranged view of the world I was fed for 21 years. I'm bitter you teach these fictions as if they were history to youth.

So your response to me is to link two articles about 12,000 year old ruins in Turkey. In Turkey!

I have a challenge for you. I've said there's no evidence to support the Book of Mormon. None. I could marshal a great deal that goes the other way including "translated" text that was cribbed from the KJV, talk of horses and steel, etc. You want to have it both ways. You don't want to abandon claims of historicity and still hold out for some occult archeological dig with all the old world animals and implements of steel and gold books described in the B of M. Just give me a mustard seed of evidence. Give me a speck. No one would give it fair consideration like I would, I promise you. I bet you can't do that.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Speak for yourself. The Bible's stock has never been higher among serious academics and students of history. The Bible, for all its fanciful stories, is a valuable piece of evidence archeologically corroborated in many ways (as OxCoug has noted) as well as confirmed by linguistic and cultural eveidence. We know for certain that the Bible gave birth to the three great monotheistic religions that have left their imprint everywhere.

I am speaking for myself as a faithful and devout follower of Christ. My sense of value is markedly different than yours. The inflated stock you cite above is tertiary, even interesting and yet inessential to my goals as a member of a faith that is focused on service -not notoriety.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It takes millions of years to generate so far reaching and diverse a population. This is just common sense.

That is a patently false statement.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

That is a patently false statement.

Did I write that? Check. It takes tens of thousands of years. A lot longer than 2,600, let's put it that way.

[SeattleUte]

Indy, it's patently false that it's easy to imagine an acient army could have hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Indy, it's patently false that it's easy to imagine an acient army could have hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

Did I say it was easy to imagine? All I said was that there is solid evidence that there was a sufficiently large enough population base to theoretically populate one.

As far as 2,600 vs tens of thousands of years go, the Book of Mormon is relatively moot on the existence of other peoples.