Must The Book Of Mormon Be A Historical Text?

[ERayR]

Is there anything that suggests that the Lamanites had a similar number of armed men in the fight. At any other time in BoM battles the Lamanites tended to massively outnumber the Nephites.

 

Not that I know of.  The Book of Mormon account is written by Mormon and Moroni and is from their perspective.  I don't see the Lamanites as having any fewer combatants and may have had more.  To inflict that kind of damage in hand to hand combat you must have equal or superior numbers.

[Robert F. Smith]

Not that I know of.  The Book of Mormon account is written by Mormon and Moroni and is from their perspective.  I don't see the Lamanites as having any fewer combatants and may have had more.  To inflict that kind of damage in hand to hand combat you must have equal or superior numbers.

Actually, you don't.   At Marathon the Greeks suffered only several hundred dead, while the Persians suffered thousands.  Yet the Greek force was quite small compared to the Persians.  The reason was the superior Greek fighting techniques and superior discipline.   This applied to the later Romans as well.

 

The Greeks at Thermopylae had an even more astounding achievement.  They lost, but their small numbers did tremendous damage to the huge Persian army.  For the Persians it was thus a Pyrrhic victory.

[Robert F. Smith]

As I've said on this board before: I am absolutely, thoroughly and proudly a buffet Mormon. I make no apology for that. And as cal kindly pointed out, we are all, more or less, buffet Mormons.

......................................................   

I strongly believe that Joseph was sincere and believed he was dictating a translation of an ancient record. I don't believe he was knowingly stringing a yarn.

Moroni and the other events in the Book of Mormon don't have to be historical to remain what they claim to be: a testimony of Christ and a set of precepts that we can draw closer to God by abiding by. The precepts and the impact of living them exist independently of whether the stories that generated them are historical or allegorical.

The reality of Christ's atonement exists independently of the story of Christ visiting the Americas. A billion+ Christians will tell you that.

I'm not saying I don't believe the Nephites have a place in history. They might do, but even of one day it's somehow proven conclusively that they never existed I would still be happy to accept the Book of Mormon as scripture because I consider the teachings within it to be from a divine source independent of who the first human author of the concepts were.

..........................................................   

While you're cogitating on this question, have this little offering from the Mormon buffet:

 

Archeology, linguistics, and history have been progressively verifying a multitude of biblical and Book of Momron claims over the years.  That doesn't prove that the mighty acts of God depicted in them are proven, but it ought to give one pause.  Indeed, many claims made against both Scrfiptures a century or more ago, are now seen to be false due to discoveries based on careful research -- including heretofore unknown documents and inscriptions which have been dug up.  We need a sense of perspective.

[canard78]

While you're cogitating on this question, have this little offering from the Mormon buffet:

Archeology, linguistics, and history have been progressively verifying a multitude of biblical and Book of Momron claims over the years. That doesn't prove that the mighty acts of God depicted in them are proven, but it ought to give one pause. Indeed, many claims made against both Scrfiptures a century or more ago, are now seen to be false due to discoveries based on careful research -- including heretofore unknown documents and inscriptions which have been dug up. We need a sense of perspective.

Thanks Robert. I completely agree that a lot of the research into the book is increasing the viability for a historical origin.

I'm absolutely not saying that I have concluded it to be solely allegorical/fictional (though I consider that a possibility). I'm saying that my faith in it being inspired scripture is not dependent on it being historical (which I also consider a possibility... Perhaps even a probability).

[ERayR]

Actually, you don't.   At Marathon the Greeks suffered only several hundred dead, while the Persians suffered thousands.  Yet the Greek force was quite small compared to the Persians.  The reason was the superior Greek fighting techniques and superior discipline.   This applied to the later Romans as well.

 

The Greeks at Thermopylae had an even more astounding achievement.  They lost, but their small numbers did tremendous damage to the huge Persian army.  For the Persians it was thus a Pyrrhic victory.

 

The key phrase here is "they lost".  They Lamanites didn't lose. 

[Questing Beast]

Canard is rare. Our world values reality, and make believe is not the basis for a religion or government. "Strange women living in ponds distributing swords...", etc. If the BoM is no more than a figment, no matter how inspiring it will have no more weight as a religious text than Lord of the Rings. If a person believes it is no more than that, after first believing it to be literal history, I doubt that faith will recover in the book. Currently I accept that the BoM and much/most of the Bible is made up. The source of the make believe is not important. If I find any of it inspiring toward a better life that is sufficient. If I do not, but then live a good life anyway, I don't stand in need of either book....

[canard78]

While you're cogitating on this question, have this little offering from the Mormon buffet:

Archeology, linguistics, and history have been progressively verifying a multitude of biblical and Book of Momron claims over the years. That doesn't prove that the mighty acts of God depicted in them are proven, but it ought to give one pause. Indeed, many claims made against both Scrfiptures a century or more ago, are now seen to be false due to discoveries based on careful research -- including heretofore unknown documents and inscriptions which have been dug up. We need a sense of perspective.

Thanks Robert. I completely agree that a lot of the research into the book is increasing the viability for a historical origin.

I'm absolutely not saying that I have concluded it to be solely allegorical/fictional (though I consider that a possibility). I'm saying that my faith in it being inspired scripture is not dependent on it being historical (which I also consider a possibility... Perhaps even a probability).

[canard78]

Canard is rare. Our world values reality, and make believe is not the basis for a religion or government. "Strange women living in ponds distributing swords...", etc. If the BoM is no more than a figment, no matter how inspiring it will have no more weight as a religious text than Lord of the Rings. If a person believes it is no more than that, after first believing it to be literal history, I doubt that faith will recover in the book. Currently I accept that the BoM and much/most of the Bible is made up. The source of the make believe is not important. If I find any of it inspiring toward a better life that is sufficient. If I do not, but then live a good life anyway, I don't stand in need of either book....

1 billion Hindus are very comfortable with "strange women living in ponds distributing swords..." etc as a basis for scripture. The Hindus I've spoken to do not worry about the historical reality of their scriptures and mainly consider them to mythological. Their mythological origins do not lead to wholesale rejection.

Maybe we Mormons need another 3,000 years or so, like the Hindus have had, to recognise that the value in our scriptures rests more in the principles taught by them and less in the history found in them.

[Questing Beast]

1 billion Hindus are very comfortable with "strange women living in ponds distributing swords..." etc as a basis for scripture. The Hindus I've spoken to do not worry about the historical reality of their scriptures and mainly consider them to mythological. Their mythological origins do not lead to wholesale rejection.

Maybe we Mormons need another 3,000 years or so, like the Hindus have had, to recognise that the value in our scriptures rests more in the principles taught by them and less in the history found in them.

Yes, but do we have another "three thousands years" to get over ourselves? I don't think so. The world of information coupled to actual science is moving too fast. Hinduism was isolated during its formative stages, all religions were isolated during their formative stages. Today all religions are blending together. Mormonism is no more than a medium sized drop of influence in the vast pool of ecumenical religious blending that is going on right now....

[Robert F. Smith]

Canard is rare. Our world values reality, and make believe is not the basis for a religion or government. "Strange women living in ponds distributing swords...", etc. If the BoM is no more than a figment, no matter how inspiring it will have no more weight as a religious text than Lord of the Rings. If a person believes it is no more than that, after first believing it to be literal history, I doubt that faith will recover in the book. Currently I accept that the BoM and much/most of the Bible is made up. The source of the make believe is not important. If I find any of it inspiring toward a better life that is sufficient. If I do not, but then live a good life anyway, I don't stand in need of either book....

Hey, Beast, you're treading on dangerous waters here:  The Lady of the Lake was my first love as a child.  I was in awe of her, and the king & knights of the Round Table be damned.  That was when I still thought that I was Christopher Robin, and had never heard of the Lord of the Rings, nor of Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen, nor of Hugh Nibley.

 

When we grew up, Hugh and I understood the difference between "make believe" and the "real McCoy."  Do you?  And, if so (I assume the answer is affirmative), how do you go about distinguishing between reality and fantasy?

[Bikeemikey]

Must The Book of Mormon be a Historical text?

No it must not. It might be, but it mustn't.

[cdowis]

Maybe we Mormons need another 3,000 years or so, like the Hindus have had, to recognise that the value in our scriptures rests more in the principles taught by them and less in the history found in them.

 

I'm afraid that we have much less than 100 years or so before discovering the real value of the Book of Mormon, especially the war chapters.

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................................................... Mormonism is no more than a medium sized drop of influence in the vast pool of ecumenical religious blending that is going on right now....

So was dinky little Christianity at the outset.  Jesus was a Jew (of all things!) in an obscure corner of the Empire.  So was Islam at the outset.  Both were mere droplets in the vast agglomeration of religions in the ancient world.  What happened?  What made them so successful?

Outside observers see Mormonism as dynamic and extremely successful, growing rapidly.  The late William F. Albright described history as "oscillatory and unpredictable," suggesting that our predictions based on linear assumptions may be quite wrong.

[Robert F. Smith]

No it must not. It might be, but it mustn't.

You're right, Bikee, it mustn't!!

Because if it is real and historical in every respect, somebody be in big trouble!!

[mfbukowski]

Angels, gold plates, a papyrus which doesn't translate back to what it is supposed to say, prophets today who talk to God, and we are worried about knowing "fantasy" from "reality"?

 

Really, one needs to see us the way non-members see us to understand the answers to these type of questions.

 

I personally have faith that the BOM is totally historical, but quite honestly when one is worrying about distinguishing between fantasy and reality, I think I have a clear understanding of where 99% of the world population would file the BOM, given a choice of these two categories.

 

But that of course does not make them right, and "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

On the other hand as a skeptical pessimist, always looking at the "worst case" scenario, I have no problem believing that even if the BOM is NOT "historical", whatever that is supposed to mean in a world of interpretations, that its value as inspired scripture is undiminished by that fact.

 

As has been pointed out, billions of people in the world do not think they need historical verification to make their scriptures credible, and it is a shame to me that people in this church actually think these things are necessary.  It is a complete mystery to me and will probably remain a mystery until God decides to take me from this earth.

 

And to quote Forrest Gump, that is about all I have to say about that.

[Questing Beast]

Hey, Beast, you're treading on dangerous waters here:  The Lady of the Lake was my first love as a child.  I was in awe of her, and the king & knights of the Round Table be damned.  That was when I still thought that I was Christopher Robin, and had never heard of the Lord of the Rings, nor of Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen, nor of Hugh Nibley.

 

When we grew up, Hugh and I understood the difference between "make believe" and the "real McCoy."  Do you?  And, if so (I assume the answer is affirmative), how do you go about distinguishing between reality and fantasy?

The best anyone can do is keep using your reasoning powers, develop them to as high a pitch as possible and keep learning what humanity is discovering. Don't decide ahead of the fact that your religious views are untouchable and fixed in place. Don't make religious doctrine the reason for being "good", but make intrinsic your moral compass as God-given, and live to make the world a better place because you are in it. "God" is bigger than any dogma formed by man's religions, infinitely bigger. That makes all things imagined possible, including "strange women living in ponds", because to "God, all things are possible". But unless this world manifests repeatable evidence through science, don't believe "it" until you see/experience it. Choose the simplest, least flashy explanation for anything that is asserted to have occurred outside of your purview. In other words, show a healthy respect for Occam's Razor. And don't forget, your religion is the only one exactly like it on the planet, and probably in the whole world of humans (the universe)....

[Questing Beast]

So was dinky little Christianity at the outset.  Jesus was a Jew (of all things!) in an obscure corner of the Empire.  So was Islam at the outset.  Both were mere droplets in the vast agglomeration of religions in the ancient world.  What happened?  What made them so successful?

Outside observers see Mormonism as dynamic and extremely successful, growing rapidly.  The late William F. Albright described history as "oscillatory and unpredictable," suggesting that our predictions based on linear assumptions may be quite wrong.

My skeptical daughter shared a story from school, where she was approached by a girl who invited her to join a Bible study group on campus. My daughter said that she wasn't very interested and the girl asked her why. My daughter told her that the Bible was too polyglot, over too extended a period of time, and that being too old and polyglot nobody can now for certain verify what parts might have originally been revelation and what parts were tampered with by men for whatever reasons. The girl said that the Bible is God's word and meant for everyone. My daughter asked her how she can know that. The girl then offered her testimony and assured my daughter that she too can know the Bible is God's word. I interjected my view at the end that the Bible is indeed intended to be for everyone, but when did that happen? The Jews for centuries were self-isolated and considered God's word to be for them alone (well, for Israel, but the Jews were all that is left). Even Peter did not believe that Christ was for anyone but Israel, the Jews, until he got his dream of the unclean animals made clean so that he could eat them, and took this as instruction to follow Paul's work to spread the gospel to the gentiles. Then the gentiles became enormously dominant and the Jewish Christians fell to tiny minority status. The rest is history. Now, if you believe the story of Peter and Paul is literal history, then the Bible is indeed for everyone. But it is more likely "sold" that way to increase the pool of potential converts, for all the self interested reasons that dogmatic religions exist. I don't see Mormonism as any different. It is "big business". That's the inescapable character of big, successful dogmatic religions. But when they stand or fall on the flimsy ground of assertions based on selective history they are vulnerable in the extreme. We'll have to wait and see if the Church continues to increase its new reputation of a full disclosure religion: the JS Papers project seems to be a very impressive move in the right direction. If the Church presents the material that critics and scholars have ferreted out then probably the LDS faith will continue to grow. But if the Church backs away from full disclosure and open dialogue about all the "issues", expect the Church to slip into oblivion like the RLDS and other even less successful offshoots of Mormonism....

[Robert F. Smith]

My skeptical daughter shared a story from school, where she was approached by a girl who invited her to join a Bible study group on campus. My daughter said that she wasn't very interested and the girl asked her why. My daughter told her that the Bible was too polyglot, over too extended a period of time, and that being too old and polyglot nobody can now for certain verify what parts might have originally been revelation and what parts were tampered with by men for whatever reasons. The girl said that the Bible is God's word and meant for everyone. My daughter asked her how she can know that. The girl then offered her testimony and assured my daughter that she too can know the Bible is God's word.

Your daughter's encounter reminds me of the even more well-informed and mature views of the adult C. S. Lewis, as an atheist and Oxford don.  How facile the explanations and reationalizations he and his atheist friends could come up with, until one day he realized that (considering all the myths of dying and rising gods), Jesus really had been resurrected.  He was no mythical dying and rising god, but the real thing.

 

 

 

....................................... The Jews for centuries were self-isolated and considered God's word to be for them alone (well, for Israel, but the Jews were all that is left).

You have it backward.  From the very beginning, with Abraham and his descendants, Israel was among the most cosmopolitan of ethnic groups.  Why?  Because they not only spent a lot of time living inside the greatest civilizations of the day (in Mesopotamia & Egypt), but even when in their own promised land, they were the main highway between the great powers.  You are confusing the ghettoization of Jews in Europe with all of Jewish history.

The Abrahamic covenant is not inward looking, but looks outward.  All out of proportions to their numbers,  the Jews have indeed been a blessing to mankind.  They are among the very greatest minds to inhabit this Earth.

 

 

 

Even Peter did not believe that Christ was for anyone but Israel, the Jews, until he got his dream of the unclean animals made clean so that he could eat them, and took this as instruction to follow Paul's work to spread the gospel to the gentiles. Then the gentiles became enormously dominant and the Jewish Christians fell to tiny minority status. The rest is history. Now, if you believe the story of Peter and Paul is literal history, then the Bible is indeed for everyone. But it is more likely "sold" that way to increase the pool of potential converts, for all the self interested reasons that dogmatic religions exist. I don't see Mormonism as any different. It is "big business". That's the inescapable character of big, successful dogmatic religions. But when they stand or fall on the flimsy ground of assertions based on selective history they are vulnerable in the extreme. We'll have to wait and see if the Church continues to increase its new reputation of a full disclosure religion: the JS Papers project seems to be a very impressive move in the right direction. If the Church presents the material that critics and scholars have ferreted out then probably the LDS faith will continue to grow. But if the Church backs away from full disclosure and open dialogue about all the "issues", expect the Church to slip into oblivion like the RLDS and other even less successful offshoots of Mormonism....

Them thar Mormons are bad to the bone!  Sans dout.

Of course there was a Jewish girl with a very different opinion:

Anne Frank said:

"Human greatness does not lie in wealth or power, but in character and goodness.  People are just people, and all people have faults and shortcomings, but all of us are born with a basic goodness."  That's from her Spring 1944 essay “Give!” (Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, Amsterdam), quoted in Membership Quarterly of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2/2 (Summer 2003), 6.

 

 

Edited September 3, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[mnn727]

"wiped out most member of both tribes"

Both? I'm not aware that most members of the Lamanite tribe are mostly wiped out according to BoM text. Where did you get that idea from?

In order to wipe out the hundreds of thousands of Nephites as listed in the BoM, I am assuming (dangerous to do I know) a like number of Lamanites, this occurred in ~420 AD, again assuming normal birth & death rates and comparing that to the (again assumed) population of the Americas at the time of its European discovery, using the theory that there were already other peoples in the Americas when Lehi and Company arrived, I have to (again) assume that many if not most of the Lamanites were killed also.

 

Yes there are a  great many assumptions to what I said,  however to assume they were not nearly wiped out is also a great assumption also.

Edited September 3, 2013 by mnn727

[Calm]

 

 

Yes there are a  great many assumptions to what I said,  however to assume they were not nearly wiped out is also a great assumption also.

I would disagree, having multiple fierce wars over the years of Moroni's life in hiding implies having a large enough population to be able to support such.  "Almost wiped out" civilizations would result in impoverished and subsistence living more concerned with survival than fighting, imo:

 

 2 For behold, their wars are exceedingly fierce among themselves; and because of their hatred they put to death every Nephite that will not deny the Christ.

 

[mnn727]

I would disagree, having multiple fierce wars over the years of Moroni's life in hiding implies having a large enough population to be able to support such.  "Almost wiped out" civilizations would result in impoverished and subsistence living more concerned with survival than fighting, imo:

 

Ok, if they were not almost wiped out, what happened to them since?

[Calm]

The Lamanites?  Are we talking about the group defined as "not Nephite" or blood descendants or something else?

[mnn727]

The Lamanites?  Are we talking about the group defined as "not Nephite" or blood descendants or something else?

Descendants of Laman and Lemuel

[bcuzbcuz]

What if buses were made of jell-o, would carrots refuse to ride on them?

 

 

 

Carrots and jell-o? That is just Wrong, on so many levels!

[cdowis]

Ok, if they were not almost wiped out, what happened to them since?

 

Look at the book "1491", there were millions of them when Columbus landed.

Contrary to what so many Americans learn in school, the pre-Columbian Indians were not sparsely settled in a pristine wilderness; rather, there were huge numbers of Indians who actively molded and influenced the land around them. The astonishing Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan had running water and immaculately clean streets, and was larger than any contemporary European city. Mexican cultures created corn in a specialized breeding process that it has been called man’s first feat of genetic engineering. Indeed, Indians were not living lightly on the land but were landscaping and manipulating their world in ways that we are only now beginning to understand. Challenging and surprising, this a transformative new look at a rich and fascinating world we only thought we knew.

Amazon description

 

Then there was smallpox and other diseases which devistated the populations.