Historicity Of The Bom

[Kevin Christensen]

I could be wrong, but its seems intuitive to me then when people migrate from one place to another, they don't abandon their language, culture, or skill sets.

There several factors at work. A major one for the Book of Mormon is that archeology tells us that there were millions of people in the hemisphere when Lehi and Mulek showed up. And those people had their own languages, culture, and skills sets, which have advantages of numbers and utility in the specific locations. Lehi shows up with 30 or so people in a boat. Unlike the Spanish incursion later, which involved re-enforcements, it is just one boat. And with the divisions in 2 Nephi 5, there is a constant pressure adapt to local conditions. Brant writers, for instance, how the themes of Jacob's discourse in Jacob 1-3 make sense in terms of Mesoamerican issues that existed at the correct time and place. Trade, polygamy, displayable wealth, social stratification, etc.

There is a potential two-way influence, but as far as most material culture is concerned, one boat load is not going to determine everything. it happens that Sorenson's recent paper gives much evidence for Ancient Near Eastern influences, including biological transmissions, as well as cultural influence.

http://www.sino-plat...mesoamerica.pdf

Diane Wirth's "Parallels" offers more.

But Brant Gardner famously pointed out that for him, everything changed when he started looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon, rather than the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.

I am not an archeologist, or anthropologist, but I would assume that a group migrating from the mideast, would retain their culuture, written language, their religious beliefs, and their skillset.

They might do so, but why suppose no influence from the locals who out numbered them? How do they conduct trade without learning the language? If the locals know which crops work, and what materials to use for tools and building, for instance, why suppose the new comers would not adopt them? And if their children grow up hearing the local languages everyday, they will grow up at least bi-lingual.

If they knew how to make wine, bread, cheese, steel swords, boats that can cross the ocean, they would retain and pass on and spread those skills. If they knew they were leaving and relocating to a new land, they would take seeds and plants with them.

In a small group like Lehi's, how many specialists do you count? After Nephi the boat builder moves inland in 2 Nephi 5, how often does he need to build boats? Did they bring cows for cheese? Would they refuse to eat or grow anything local, particularly crops and plants readily available and adapted to the climate? Metal work requires ore. The Metals and the Book of Mormon essay at the BMAF site includes this interesting detail:

http://www.bmaf.org/node/398

Although differing in details, Mesoamerica-based maps all place the land and city of Nephi somewhere in the Guatemalan Highlands. When righteous Nephites 'went down' and found Zarahemla, they would have ended up in the jungle lowlands, likely in the Peten, according to these models. The geography and mineralogy of Guatemala offer a good explanation as to why they might have stopped working in iron. It also explains why a later group of Nephites was so anxious to return to the land of Nephi to possess it. Not only was it their only source of iron ore, but it has a milder climate than the lowland jungles.

Placing the Book of Mormon in a real context, here, as people like Sorenson and Gardner and Poulson and Wright have shown elsewhere, makes sense of the stories.

I would therefore assume that if you believed in the historicity of the BOM, the first thing to look for would be for mideast influence.

Sorenson and Wirth, I think, have amply demonstrated Mideast influence. A great deal of evidence is available for those with a real interest.

The first thing, I should think, would be to figure out where to look, and then prepare our minds to read the text carefully in that specific context to see how text and context fit together for mutual illumination. That is what Nibley started with the Old World, and what Sorenson and company have been doing since the 70s. Tom Ferguson's problem grew from his certainty that he knew what he was looking for and what he would find. He was so fixated on wheels and horses, Sorenson reports, that he little interest in everything else.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited September 26, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

A great deal of evidence is available for those with a real interest.

Yup:

Edited September 15, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Jaybear]

There several factors at work. A major one for the Book of Mormon is that archeology tells us that there were millions of people in the hemisphere when Lehi and Mulek showed up. And those people had their own languages, culture, and skills sets, which have advantages of numbers and utility in the specific locations. Lehi shows up with 30 or so people in a boat. Unlike the Spanish incursion later, which involved re-enforcements, it is just one boat. And with the divisions in 2 Nephi 5, there is a constant pressure adapt to local conditions. Brant writers, for instance, how the themes of Jacob's discourse in Jacob 1-3 make sense in terms of Mesoamerican issues that existed at the correct time and place. Trade, polygamy, displayable wealth, social stratification, etc.

Their is a potential two-way influence, but as far as most material culture is concerned, one boat load is not going to determine everything. it happens that Sorenson's recent paper gives much evidence for Ancient Near Eastern influences, including biological transmissions, as well as cultural influence.

In a small group like Lehi's, how many specialists do you count? After Nephi the boat builder moves inland in 2 Nephi 5, how often does he need to build boats? Did they bring cows for cheese? Would they refuse to eat or grow anything local, particularly crops and plants readily available and adapted to the climate? Metal work requires ore. The Metals and the Book of Mormon essay at the BMAF site includes this interesting detail:

http://www.bmaf.org/node/398

You make some interesting and important points.

But what I take from your observations is that the Book of Mormon was written by someone that was not aware that there were millions of inhabitants in the new world, circa 400 BC.

I gather that Ferguson went looking for evidence to prove the Book of Mormon based on assumptions drawn from his reading of the book, that you think were wrong.

Sorenson and Wirth, I think, have amply demonstrated Mideast influence. A great deal of evidence is available for those with a real interest.

What do you consider the most persuasive evidence Sorenson has discovered demonstrating a Mideast influence. I recall Coe noting in his podcast, that there was evidence of polynesian and asian influence in South America, which is not the same as mideast influence in mesoamerica.

[Cobalt-70]

I agree with Joseph Smith that the Book of Mormon is the "most correct" book of doctrine, and I accept it as scripture and the word of God, and as "true". However, I also think it is probably an essentially fictional work. In my mind, that's not a contradiction. The book of Job is fictional, as are the parables of Jesus. Like much of Genesis, the stories of Noah and Babel are clearly fictional, though perhaps based on some prehistoric tale of an actual flood and and an actual tower. I don't confuse scripture with a historical textbook. I read scripture for its religious truths, but if I want to read about history, I read the work of historians. Joseph Smith was a prophet, but not a historian, linguist, or archaeologist.

[zerinus]

I disagree.

Most of C. S. Lewis' works are fictional and yet they teach great truths regarding Heavenly Father. The Book of Mormon may have been someone's best and well intentioned attempts to teach the Gospel and still be fiction..........

But I have a testimony that it is true!

This is one of the great conundrums regarding Mormonism. Everyone always wants to paint it as either black or white. They keep trying to use the parable of the good tree bringing forth good fruit. Unfortunately it's the wrong analogy.

The true analogy for the LDS faith is the tree that has had "wild branches" grafted in amongst the "tame branches" and thus brings forth both good and...... not so good fruit.

Regarding the christian religion:

"I must leave to younger persons to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mythologists of the middle and modern ages."

Thomas Jefferson

The the article by Elder Oaks to which DaddyG had linked in Post #19 is just the thing you need to read!

[zerinus]

My experience is very close to yours. I wanted the BofM to be true. I really did. Fasting, prayer, more fasting and more prayer. I put the promise to the test, and I did not receive any validation of the BofM at all.

But I did though!

[zerinus]

I was pretty much raised in the Church. Did the mission, much of which I enjoyed. Did various assignments and callings including a couple of E.Q. presidencies, Young men's Pres., Bishopric (5 years), H.P. group leader. Temple marriage, All of my sons did missions, all of my kids did temple marriage. We tried pretty hard to give our lives to the Savior and the church.

Studied the history of the church, found the problems, couldn't find satisfactory answers. Thought this might be an interesting place to express myself anonymously since I didn't want to cause a row at the church.

It's their thing and they deserve to be able to worship in peace. In their house they have the last word.

But on the other hand I would never have been able to bite my tongue or sit on my hands forever. So I needed to physically leave the building but still have a place to talk about the issues. When the home teachers find me I only demand the same respect that I give them. When you're in my house.......I have the last word.

My experience here has been interesting to say the least..........

I still believe in Christ and all aspects of his sacrifice and atonement on our behalf as set out in the Bible. I still keep (as Mormons would say) the commandments to the best of my ability, including the word of wisdom. I'd be happy to pay tithing if I had a church to attend although I do make donations to charitable causes that I have done some verification work on.

Interesting! Are you still a member of the church--on paper at least?

[ERayR]

But I did though!

Me too!

[Craig Paxton]

Yeah, a silver bullet would be something for which a fairly intellectual person (that can put aside personal biases) can look at and say there is no logical argument that makes sense of this contradiction. If the BOM claimed that all American Indians were direct descendents from Lehi and that he was a thoroughbred Jew, then I would say we have a silver bullet with today's DNA spectrum of the Native Americans. Culture may have stated that, but the BOM didn't and it was never proclaimed by one of the presidents as direct revelation (ie-1978 priesthood revelation).

Ummmm...actually one of the presidents of the church did in fact claim that all Native Americans were decendants of Lehi....

http://lds.org/ensign/1971/07/of-royal-blood?lang=eng&query=spencer+w+kimball+lamanites

Interesting just how wrong Spencer W. Kimble was...I guess God's Prophets aren't always right...

Edited September 15, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[zerinus]

Thanks Stormrider.

Sounds like a fairly level headed approach to me.

I have no problem with Heavenly Father leading a person to Christ through the LDS faith. The church just shouldn't be surprised when people outgrow them and the Spirit leads them on to a better, clearer understanding of things.........

Ah! But you are not questioning any more. You seem to be sure!

[zerinus]

I'll show you my Jerusalem if you can show me your Zarahemla..........I'll even buy your airline tickets to either place if you can......

I would be more interested if you showed me the resurrected Jesus.

[Kevin Christensen]

You make some interesting and important points.

But what I take from your observations is that the Book of Mormon was written by someone that was not aware that there were millions of inhabitants in the new world, circa 400 BC.

Not at all. I wrote this for "Paradigms Crossed" for RBBM 7:2, 16 years ago:

Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me [Lehi], and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries. (2 Nephi 1:5)

Notice that from the start, possession of the promised land is not just conditional, as we have seen, but also nonexclusive. Note also that there is no requirement that the "other countries" be located in the Old World.

Before explaining about the covenant for the land, Lehi reminds his children that, besides themselves, the land contains "all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord" (2 Nephi 1:5). This remark comes before any reported contact with the Mulekites or the several indications of Jaredite remnants. Why does Lehi make this point about others being led to the land? He very likely knew about them. Nephi's vision of the promised land, granted before the ocean voyage, may refer to these others:

And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Look, and behold thy seed, and also the seed of thy brethren. And I looked and beheld the land of promise; and I beheld multitudes of people, even as it were in number as many as the sands of the sea. (1 Nephi 12:1)

Reading this passage as describing non-Lehite multitudes existing in the New World before the voyage makes Lehi's remarks about "other nations" (2 Nephi 1:8, 11) in relation to the covenant curse more meaningful. Lehi taught that a law cannot function without an attached punishment (2 Nephi 2:13), and if the "other nations" referred to in the promised land covenant would not arrive until Columbus's voyage, how would the covenant curse have any immediate significance? It makes sense to suppose that from the beginning Lehi knows that his people are not alone, and he wants his sons to be sobered by the fact. An immediate expectation of other nations on the part of Nephi and Lehi, possibly even interaction with small groups of natives early on (who could signify other nations without representing such), makes the whole story more consistent and meaningful.

I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. (2 Nephi 5:6; cf. 5:14)

Again, the passage can easily be understood to include native populations, friendly to the new arrivals. Because the focus of the record is deliberately exclusionary, we need to avoid setting unreasonable conditions when we confront the ambiguity inherent in references to "others" at the start of the Lehite experience in the New World.

And all those who were with me did take upon them to call themselves the people of Nephi. . . .

And if my people desire to know the more particular part of the history of my people, they must search mine other plates. (2 Nephi 5:9, 33)

I see plausible indications for mixing populations from the very beginning of the Lehite migration. Kunich's insistence on a Robinson Crusoe level of detail belongs to another genre of writing. This next passage makes more sense if we assume native populations with different cultural backgrounds.

Many of my people . . . know not concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews.

For I, Nephi have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews. (2 Nephi 25:1-2)

Sam, Zoram, Jacob, Joseph, their families, and several of the women mentioned in 2 Nephi 5:6 certainly had a predominance of experience in Jewish culture, as well as belief in and personal experience with the revelations given by Lehi and Nephi, which came in the Jewish modes. Nephi says that he has "not taught [his] children after the manner of the Jews" (verse 6), but that exclusion to his children does not restrict the implications in verse 1, which clearly refers to cultural ignorance among "many" of his people. Notice that Nephi emphasizes that he has "made mention to my children [not necessarily all his people] concerning the judgments of God . . . according to all which Isaiah hath spoken." We may have different levels of instruction. The preexistence of native populations with alternative cultural backgrounds seems to be a reasonable way to account for an ignorance of the manner of Jewish prophecy, other Jewish manners, skepticism about the gospel, and a reluctance to fully embrace Nephi's teachings. Hutchinson protests Sorenson's "adoptionist" theology (p. 11), which is necessary to reconcile some traditional understandings of the extent of promised blessings among indigenous New World peoples, but such a notion is scriptural.

As many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord. (2 Nephi 30:2)

Kunich protests that if these others were around that "Certainly . . . their religious conversion . . . [and] the religion centered nature of Nephite society" (p. 263) requires that the Book of Mormon provide an account of a mass conversion. But "Nephite" society often is only a simplified term for dealing with a complex social group, not just one extended family of palefaces that attend the same church.68 And far from securing a "mass conversion," Nephi very early refers to his "people" as being "stiffnecked" (2 Nephi 25:28), and mourns the "unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men" (2 Nephi 32:7). Such a complaint makes more sense if the people involved included locals who resisted the kind of mass conversion that Kunich views as an implausible necessity.

Much more has come out since I wrote that. Both Gardner and Matt Roper have done extended studies showing more textual evidence of "others" in the Book of Mormon. Back to Jaybear:

I gather that Ferguson went looking for evidence to prove the Book of Mormon based on assumptions drawn from his reading of the book, that you think were wrong.

Yep.

What do you consider the most persuasive evidence Sorenson has discovered demonstrating a Mideast influence. I recall Coe noting in his podcast, that there was evidence of polynesian and asian influence in South America, which is not the same as mideast influence in mesoamerica.

I'm with Brant... it's not anyone thing, but the combination of many interrelated things. I still remember how stunned I was to read Sorenson's 1975 essay, "The Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican Codex." One interesting thing about Coe's willingness to acknowledge Asiatic influence, including biological transmissions is that both Lehi and the Jaredites crossed the Pacific to get to the New World. Hence, Asiatic influence, including biological transmissions, is not inconsistent with the Book of Mormon.

Another thing is that Coe's arguments are politicized, taking the view that the Book of Mormon is a manifestation of the Mound Builder Myth, which it actually contradicts in its key essentials, that it diminishes the contributions of indigenous peoples, which it doesn't, and that it is racist, which it isn't. What is true is that the Mound Builder Myth to this day colors how many critics read the Book of Mormon (Bloom, for instance, wrote that it is about the lost 10 tribes, which is isn't), and that it clearly influenced how the first generations read the book. But close reading in context reveals something very different, very distinct, and much harder to explain away.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Pahoran]

Ummmm...actually one of the presidents of the church did in fact claim that all Native Americans were decendants of Lehi....

http://lds.org/ensign/1971/07/of-royal-blood?lang=eng&query=spencer+w+kimball+lamanites

But did he claim they were descendants only of Lehi?

Think about it.

Interesting just how wrong Spencer W. Kimble was...I guess God's Prophets aren't always right...

There's nothing like a misfired sneer to make yourself look foolish. Whatever President Kimball (nobody who knows anything at all has ever spelled his name "Kimble," just so you know) may have ever been wrong about, there is no evidence that that item was one of them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Maidservant]

A Muslim will assert that the Koran brings one closer to God than any other book. A Jew will assert the same for the Torah. Ditto the canonical texts of the Bahá'í Faith. Where the founder is also the dispenser of the religious texts, I cannot see that "egocentric assertion" is an inaccurate statement of what Joseph Smith was doing with that quote....

An interesting phenomenon I find, however, in my conversations with mostly Muslims (since that is my personal area of study in terms of my history degree etc etc etc), but with any person of any religion or even philisophical bents (including atheists) . . . there seems to become a point, in my observation, in the spiritual condition of the seeker, where all of them from wherever they have come from, are actually talking about the same truths and in fact, the same religion. I feel that I have received my mystical understandings from temple worship (in interaction with scriptures, living experience, and God whispering to me), but I can talk on these results and ideas with one or two particular Muslim friends in particular, and we have no trouble understanding one another, expanding each others' understanding, and we are really discussing the same thing, but we use different emblems (mine from my religious tradition, theirs from theirs). I even have a 22 year old Muslim friend, that I cannot believe what comes out of his mouth (took me 20 years to learn), so much to the degree that sometimes I literally ask him out loud, "Where did you learn this stuff?"

I have often considered a slightly cynical and non-doctrinal theory that God may have given his children some exclusive revelations (ala blind men and the elephant) to see how they would treat each other when it came to sharing them and respecting each other.

My mother got this "answer" from God for herself too, and has told me this several times.

DCP pointed out a passage from the Qur’an that says much the same thing you are proposing.

Do you happen to know the sura (=chapter and verse) for this? Really cool.

Hence, Asiatic influence, including biological transmissions, is not inconsistent with the Book of Mormon.

Just a tidbit, probably meaningless . . . but once a year I go to Pow Wow (if I can, HATE when I miss it) . . . and of course there are the drum singing competitions (Apache). I then once in a documentary heard some Mongolian women singing (hmm, not sure which documentary . . . The Story of the Weeping Camel, perhaps?) and I gasped as it blew me away that they were drum singing! (Or that the Apaches were singing like Mongolian women).

Anyway, just an anecdote that would provide pleasure to those already believing .

[Nathair/|\]

Do you happen to know the sura (=chapter and verse) for this? Really cool.

Yeah, forgot to post it, sorry.

Qur’an 5:48

[Maidservant]

Yeah, forgot to post it, sorry.

Qur’an 5:48

Thanks!

[Craig Paxton]

But did he claim they were descendants only of Lehi?

Think about it.

I think you and I both know where you are trying to take this…( there is no way to measure a drop of red dye dropped into the ocean once its been put in the ocean) and no President Kimball did not claim that what he believed to be Lamanites were descendants “ONLY” of Lehi…even though I personally believe that that is what he believed. At the time he made that statement he had no idea of the major correction the church would have to take as scientific evidence failed to support the then popular premise that all Native Americas were decended from Lehi's party.

What he did claim was that all then living Native Americans and Polynesians (who incidentally have no relational connection what so ever with Native Americans other than being members of the human family) were descended from Lehi and his fellow Book of Mormon characters.

So since you seem to want to run to the rescue and defend President Kimball’s claim…help me understand how any part of it is based in reality. How do you get all 60 million so called Lamanites to be related to one of the Lehite party let alone each other? I just want to understand the mechanics of how 60 million Native Americans and Polynesians could have all had a common fore father from the so-called Lehi immigration. How exactly does an Indian living in Point Barrow Alaska get a common ancestor with a Native American living in Tierra del Fuego and a Polynesian living in New Zealand?

Here is President Kimball’s claim…so you help me understand how it is based in reality?

“Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand.”

Now Pahoran I do not have a fight with President Kimball…I loved him and held him in the highest regard…and for the most part still do. He was only teaching what he believed to be true with his limited understanding. I was merely pointing out to SeattleGrunge that there once was a president of the church who did teach that all Native Americas and Polynesians were descendants of the Lehi party. If however you are suggesting that President Kimball was correct in his claim…help me understand how any part of it is true. Explain exactly how 60 million Native Americas and Polynisians had a common ancestor?

There's nothing like a misfired sneer to make yourself look foolish. Whatever President Kimball (nobody who knows anything at all has ever spelled his name "Kimble," just so you know) may have ever been wrong about; there is no evidence that that item was one of them.

Regards,

Pahoran

Thanks for being my spell checker…I meant no disrespect to President Kimball.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[ERayR]

At the time he made that statement he had no idea of the major correction the church would have to take as scientific evidence failed to support the then popular premise that all Native Americas were decended from Lehi's party.

I just can't let this one go. CFR that the Church has made a "major correction".

[Palerider]

Interesting! Are you still a member of the church--on paper at least?

Yes........on paper. Spiritually........No.

[Palerider]

But I have a testimony that it is true!

The the article by Elder Oaks to which DaddyG had linked in Post #19 is just the thing you need to read!

Great for you that you have a testimony that it's true, I just happen to have a testimony that it's not........

[zerinus]

Great for you that you have a testimony that it's true, I just happen to have a testimony that it's not........

I don't believe it. It is possible to know that the Book of Mormon is true; but it is not possible to know that it is not true.

[Jesterss]

I don't believe it. It is possible to know that the Book of Mormon is true; but it is not possible to know that it is not true.

But it is..

[Cobalt-70]

I don't believe it. It is possible to know that the Book of Mormon is true; but it is not possible to know that it is not true.

Moroni 10:4 says you're supposed to ask God if the book is "not true." If such an outcome is impossible, then why bother?

[volgadon]

Moroni 10:4 says you're supposed to ask God if the book is "not true." If such an outcome is impossible, then why bother?

Atrocious misreading of English grammar. "Is this not the carpenter's son" certainly isn't questioning that the subject is the carpenter's son.

[Cobalt-70]

Atrocious misreading of English grammar. "Is this not the carpenter's son" certainly isn't questioning that the subject is the carpenter's son.

Sorry, I was being ironic and a little flippant. It's hard to convey that in text.