Which lense is best for reading the BoM from an apologetic perspective?

[Olavarria]

Which is better?

When do you know when to use which?

[volgadon]

I use what I know.

[cdowis]

If you are talking about culture, I read it from a Nephite Point of view. I do not look for Hebrew culture in mesoameria, I look for Nephite and Lamanite culture.

[jwhitlock]

If you are talking about culture, I read it from a Nephite Point of view. I do not look for Hebrew culture in mesoameria, I look for Nephite and Lamanite culture.

I would tend to agree with this. My impression is that the Hebrew influence, given the time frames, would have quickly become rather marginal in nature. Jaredite influence seemed to be more of a dominant force, than what Lehi brought over (from a cultural perspective).

[mapman]

In first Nephi, Hebrew with some Egyptian would be the right way to look at it. After that, it's not so clear.

[Joseph Antley]

As I touched on in this thread, a nineteenth-century American Christian lens might not hurt either.

[David Bokovoy]

In terms of "apologetics," I personally believe that the most important issue for providing evidence for the historicity of the BofM is no doubt its connections with ancient America. However, there's also no doubt in my mind that the fundamental spiritual, linguistic, cultural, and literary background to the BofM is Hebraic and is therefore, from start to finish, the absolute most important lens for properly interpreting the work. I'm personally much more interested in interpretation than I am apologetics.

In addition, I very much agree with Joseph Antley that one cannot possibly understand the BofM while ignoring the direct nineteenth-century American Christian influence Joseph Smith brought to the work. Since I believe that Nephite culture was a very small subset in the greater Meso-American world, however, I personally believe that Meso-American cultural issues are quite trivial in terms of properly understanding the book.

[Olavarria]

In terms of "apologetics," I personally believe that the most important issue for providing evidence for the historicity of the BofM is no doubt its connections with ancient America. However, there's also no doubt in my mind that the fundamental spiritual, linguistic, cultural, and literary background to the BofM is Hebraic and is therefore, from start to finish, the absolute most important lens for properly interpreting the work. I'm personally much more interested in interpretation than I am apologetics.

In addition, I very much agree with Joseph Antley that one cannot possibly understand the BofM while ignoring the direct nineteenth-century American Christian influence Joseph Smith brought to the work. Since I believe that Nephite culture was a very small subset in the greater Meso-American world, however, I personally believe that Meso-American cultural issues are quite trivial in terms of properly understanding the book.

nice