What If There Is No Way To Distinguish A Lamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

One problem that is little discussed regarding the BOM is at least one of the purposes of the Book and it's apparent lack of usefulness any longer.

 

Brent Metcalf (former member) stated recently in an interview what he sees as problems with the historicity. He speaks about a major issue being that the Book Of Mormon sets itself up as an attempt to bring the literal descendants of Lehi back to the gospel. And to bring the ten tribes to a knowledge of their redeemer. We have almost completely abandoned this idea and yet it is engrained in the purpose of the BOM and yet we have no ethnic group who can be determined to be these groups. They simply are dispersed and at best completely not a connected group of people. Hence the BOM seems to fail in one of its designed purposes. We simply can not take any person and say with certainity that "you are a lamanite, and the Book of Mormon is for you"

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

How can you show someone something if they can not possibly know if they are part of the group that the book is designed for?

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

Nephi and others are always admonishing his descendants to give ear to the book, but now we acknowledge a lack of certainity of who is lamanite and who is not (we claimed we knew in the past but it was a false assumption)

 

This is an issue that will lose people quickly as it is a hard one to dissect but it seems deeply problematic to BOM historicity or at least a major snafoo in how it lays out it's purpose.

In the 1992 Encyclopedia of Mormonism, there is an excellent article by anthropologist Gordon Thomasson on "Lamanites," which puts some of the confusion you describe in perspective, and the term clearly includes all descendants of Clan Lehi, of the Mulekites, and any other peoples with which they may have crossbred.  See http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Lamanites .  There have indeed been people like me, John Sorenson, and others, who once thought that the Book of Mormon took place throughout the Americas (South America, North America, and Central America all included), but when we grew up realized just how foolish that assumption was.

 

However, I see nothing "deeply problematic to BOM historicity" here, nor any sort of SNAFU.  Perhaps you could clarify what exactly the problem is supposed to be.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree that ultimately historicity is unimportant and cannot be "proved."

 

However, it can be supported by strong evidence, no?  The inscription found in Israel with reference to a King David is very compelling evidence that David was, in fact, a historical person.  

Proof that the Davidic Dynasty existed is of little help in proving that he was chosen by God to be King of Israel, or that Samuel was a Prophet.  We know a great deal about secular history.  It is the miracles that are difficult to prove.

[bluebell]

Not alone, no.  But with Kings and Chronicles the inscription becomes compelling.

 

 

 

Again, kind of.

 

Not speaking specially about the existence of David, but speaking to the use of ancient writings as strong evidence that someone was 'real'-

 

The existence of the Odyssey, combined with an inscription using the name of Zeus or Odysseus isn't very compelling in regards to their actual existence, not for most of us in this day and age anyway.  There are people who still actually worship Zeus however, who do find it very compelling (I had no idea such people still existed until one of my religion classes in college!).

 

I guess it just shows that 'compelling' is usually in the eye of the beholder.  

Edited September 19, 2014 by bluebell

[sethpayne]

Again, kind of.

 

Not speaking specially about the existence of David, but speaking to the use of ancient writings as strong evidence that someone was 'real'-

 

The existence of the Odyssey, combined with an inscription using the name of Zeus or Odysseus isn't very compelling in regards to their actual existence, not for most of us in this day and age anyway.  There are people who still actually worship Zeus however, who do find it very compelling (I had no idea such people still existed until one of my religion classes in college!).

 

I guess it just shows that 'compelling' is usually in the eye of the beholder.  

 

Context matters too, I think.  Some ancient writings are clearly a mixture of mythology and history.  Zeus, at least, is not portrayed as a human being and discussion of him is supernatural. 

 

So, I think one could make an argument that parts of Genesis are more mythological than Kings/Chronicles.  So if I step back and look at this as objectively as I can I would say it is much more likely that David was a real person and less likely that Noah or Adam were real human beings -- again, taking a strictly academic and non-religious view of the text.

 

Wouldn't you say that the evidence for David's existence if more compelling than that for Noah?

[sethpayne]

Proof that the Davidic Dynasty existed is of little help in proving that he was chosen by God to be King of Israel, or that Samuel was a Prophet.  We know a great deal about secular history.  It is the miracles that are difficult to prove.

 

I would say miracles are impossible to prove.  And I agree that establishing historicity of Biblical persons does not establish any supernatural claims.

 

But the BoM is different.  If we found an inscription in Mesoamerica (or Ohio for you Meldrum fans) that read: "I Nephi, having been born of goodly parents was here" it would go a very long way in not just estabishing the historicity of the BoM but also its divinity.  

[DBMormon]

But what you are not seeing is this:

 

Historicity can NEVER BE PROVEN, therefore it is irrelevant and always has been

 

What matters in your life is your FAITH in the BELIEF that it all "really happened" even though it cannot be proven to have happened.

 

You are not saved by historicity, you are saved by faith after all that you can do

Actually I am saved by Grace after all I can do - 2nd nephi 25:23

[Robert F. Smith]

Question for our resident BoM experts:

 

To me, the BoM reads like an epic.  Large nations with complex governments etc...  So on its face it is not at all clear that these emerging nations melded into an already existing culture.  

 

Do we have any examples of a small sub-group or culture writing something where they present themselves as being the dominant political/religious force when, in fact, they were actually a minority?

There is nothing unusual in small elite or royal groups entering an area and taking over (often because the local populace is willing or insistent), and we have examples in European history, as well as in the Teotihuacanos of Central Mexico entering the far off land of the Maya (Yucatan) and ruling there for centuries.  In fact, the minority Nephites under King Mosiah I^st do just that when they enter Zarahemla.

 

As to a small group portraying themselves as dominant in some way, we encounter such self-aggrandizing episodes many times in Holy Writ (let me know if you are unable to think of examples), and this would include the huge pretentions of the Israelites (even if they do get their comeuppance eventually), which extends into a tremendous apocalyptic future.

[DBMormon]

That's not how I read it.  Bukowski isn't addressing whether it is true historically, but rather that faith and belief do make the difference, and he is correct.

real faith can only be invested in that which is true.  Otherwise wise it is misplaced trust.  I get arriving at truth is in some aspects impossible, and yet truth matters.

Edited September 19, 2014 by DBMormon

[sethpayne]

There is nothing unusual in small elite or royal groups entering an area and taking over (often because the local populace is willing or insistent), and we have examples in European history, as well as in the Teotihuacanos of Central Mexico entering the far off land of the Maya (Yucatan) and ruling there for centuries.  In fact, the minority Nephites under King Mosiah I^st do just that when they enter Zarahemla.

 

As to a small group portraying themselves as dominant in some way, we encounter such self-aggrandizing episodes many times in Holy Writ (let me know if you are unable to think of examples), and this would include the huge pretentions of the Israelites (even if they do get their comeuppance eventually), which extends into a tremendous apocalyptic future.

 

Well, the early Israelite history is certainly an exaggeration.  So is the description of the extent of Solomon's kingdom.  But that's not really the same thing as what we are dealing with in the BoM.  In the BoM we have people writing as if they are the dominant group and in the case you cite of King Mosiah we descriptions of this small group dominating the culture.  But the evidence we have in Mesoamerica points to a culture very different from that described in the BoM (although I have yet to read Mormon's Codex ...).  

 

But I'm stepping way outside my element here....

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Historicity can NEVER BE PROVEN, therefore it is irrelevant and always has been

 

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

Of course, it is irrelevant to one's salvation, Mark.

But I liked your earlier statement about this better:  "Historicity doesn't matter unless you think it does."

I'll even grant that "If you believe actual historicity is important that becomes the problem.  The problem is all in your head."

 

However, as you know, I have an affectation with historicity, even though it is unimportant in the larger scheme of things, if only because it seems so important to extracting meaning from Holy Writ.  If, for example, a Holy text is not ancient, is a pseudepigraphon, and has no real ties with antiquity, then we do not need to interpret it based on ancient linguistic or textual analysis and cultural understanding.  It then becomes a mirror of the age in which it was created, and may mean nearly anything which a post-modernist wants it to mean.  Internal coherence then is not necessarily important, and may be disregarded with impunity.

 

Since faith is all important, as you point out, then that may be the only legitimate consideration.  Where does that leave us when under attack by ill wishers?  Should we have a ready defense (apologia), and should it ever include historical claims?  The late Apostle Neal Maxwell believed that, even though it is ultimately unnecessary, we should provide such intellectual defenses -- if only because those who have little faith can be so easily swayed by fallacious and non-factual arguments.  President Gordon Hinckley even thought that FARMS represented exactly the right approach to such matters, and so brought FARMS into the BYU fold.  On that basis, work and debate on historicity is important.

[Robert F. Smith]

real faith can only be invested in that which is true.  Otherwise wise it is misplaced trust.  I get arriving at truth is in some aspects impossible, and yet truth matters.

Look at Alma 32, DB.  Faith is not knowledge.  And one can indeed misplace faith.  Going from faith & hope to knowledge is a process.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Do we have any examples of a small sub-group or culture writing something where they present themselves as being the dominant political/religious force when, in fact, they were actually a minority?

 

Pretty much any contact literature written by Europeans.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, the early Israelite history is certainly an exaggeration.  So is the description of the extent of Solomon's kingdom.

Hyperbole is key here, Seth, since it was used by the entire ancient Near East.  However, you might want to consider both the instances in which a figure rises to the very height of power -- as in the case of Joseph becoming the Prime Minister of Egypt -- or in other cases in which the Patriarchs are described almost as though they alone exist or have importance:

 

Genesis narrative is painted in blacks and whites on a simple canvas with no perspective in depth.  It depicts certain individuals and their families who move through their world almost as if they were alone in it. -- John Bright, A History of Israel, 1^st ed., 60.

 

But that's not really the same thing as what we are dealing with in the BoM.  In the BoM we have people writing as if they are the dominant group and in the case you cite of King Mosiah we descriptions of this small group dominating the culture.  ........................

I don't read the BofM that way at all.  I see some small groups (actually described as quite small) in a very limited area.  They actually discover nearby areas which were outside their bailiwick, and were surprised by it.  The number of days of travel are themselves internal proof that they were in a small area.  This limited nature of area continues throughout Nephite-Lamanite history, and this can be shown by the same geography obtaining both early and late.  This comports with our knowledge of the actual tribal areas in ancient Mesoamerica.  They were very limited for each of the separate peoples.

 

This was likewise the case for the events taking place in ancient and modern Israel (Palestine).  The area has always been quite small, even with the rise and fall of power and population.  Real world comparison is all important here.

 

When some elite Teotihuacanos come into the Yucatan and rule there, one ought to be able to see a worldwide pattern in which a small minority of royal people (or very advanced people with mojo) come into a foreign area and dominate.  This has happened throughout Europe.  You should be able to come up with specific examples, even apart from the famed Romanov dynasty, or William the Conqueror (1066).  The House of Windsor is German.  The Emperor of Japan is not actually Japanese: The first emperor, Jimmu, was a Korean from the Kingdom of Shilla who took the throne in 660 B.C.  The current Emperor, Akihito, is the 125^th in that lineage.  Sounds rather fictional, if you will allow it, and maybe we should look for Book of Mormon lands in Nippon.

 

But the evidence we have in Mesoamerica points to a culture very different from that described in the BoM (although I have yet to read Mormon's Codex ...). ........................................

You might want to rethink your statement here, Seth. Upon what do you base this assumption? What aspects of culture do you find so different?

[cinepro]

Question for our resident BoM experts:

 

To me, the BoM reads like an epic.  Large nations with complex governments etc...  So on its face it is not at all clear that these emerging nations melded into an already existing culture.  

 

Do we have any examples of a small sub-group or culture writing something where they present themselves as being the dominant political/religious force when, in fact, they were actually a minority?

 

These guys.

[sethpayne]

Pretty much any contact literature written by Europeans.

 

I'm not sure I follow.  Can you elaborate?

[sethpayne]

Hyperbole is key here, Seth, since it was used by the entire ancient Near East.  However, you might want to consider both the instances in which a figure rises to the very height of power -- as in the case of Joseph becoming the Prime Minister of Egypt -- or in other cases in which the Patriarchs are described almost as though they alone exist or have importance:

 

Genesis narrative is painted in blacks and whites on a simple canvas with no perspective in depth.  It depicts certain individuals and their families who move through their world almost as if they were alone in it. -- John Bright, A History of Israel, 1^st ed., 60.

 

I don't read the BofM that way at all.  I see some small groups (actually described as quite small) in a very limited area.  They actually discover nearby areas which were outside their bailiwick, and were surprised by it.  The number of days of travel are themselves internal proof that they were in a small area.  This limited nature of area continues throughout Nephite-Lamanite history, and this can be shown by the same geography obtaining both early and late.  This comports with our knowledge of the actual tribal areas in ancient Mesoamerica.  They were very limited for each of the separate peoples.

 

This was likewise the case for the events taking place in ancient and modern Israel (Palestine).  The area has always been quite small, even with the rise and fall of power and population.  Real world comparison is all important here.

 

When some elite Teotihuacanos come into the Yucatan and rule there, one ought to be able to see a worldwide pattern in which a small minority of royal people (or very advanced people with mojo) come into a foreign area and dominate.  This has happened throughout Europe.  You should be able to come up with specific examples, even apart from the famed Romanov dynasty, or William the Conqueror (1066).  The House of Windsor is German.  The Emperor of Japan is not actually Japanese: The first emperor, Jimmu, was a Korean from the Kingdom of Shilla who took the throne in 660 B.C.  The current Emperor, Akihito, is the 125^th in that lineage.  Sounds rather fictional, if you will allow it, and maybe we should look for Book of Mormon lands in Nippon.

 

You might want to rethink your statement here, Seth. Upon what do you base this assumption? What aspects of culture do you find so different?

 

As always I appreciate your thoughtful and insightful reply.

 

I need to digest the bulk of your comment a bit more before commenting but I will address your last question.

 

I base my assumption on the fact that there is both textual and archeological evidence of Christians in Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon long long long before 321 AD.  Christians were a small group and yet they left fingerprints.  Of course, it doesn't hurt that there has been a relatively uninterrupted stream of recorded history in this case.  4th Nephi describes the ideal Christian society.  Yet, to my knowledge (and again, I admit I am stepping out of my element here) there are no indications of Christian culture in Mesoamerica.  Cultural artifact that can be seen to imply Christian culture?  Sure.  But no direct evidence.  Ah, but we wouldn't even know what to look for, right?  Maybe.  But how is it that we can gain a fairly detailed insight into Olmec social structure and even a glimpse of their religion (~1400 BC) due to the artifacts they left behind but don't have similar cultural artifacts from the 4th Nephi period (not to mention the hundreds of years of Christian culture that preceded it within what we are assuming were smaller, and perhaps undetectable cultures within the larger Mesoamerican milieu).  This is difficult for me to understand. 

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

I base my assumption on the fact that there is both textual and archeological evidence of Christians in Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon long long long before 321 AD.  Christians were a small group and yet they left fingerprints.  Of course, it doesn't hurt that there has been a relatively uninterrupted stream of recorded history in this case.

The only reason we know anything about early Christianity at all is the Emperor Constantine making it the official religion.  In time it became both religiously and politically dominant.  The reason we know so little about contemporary mystery religions is that the Christians thoroughly destroyed their books and temples (although we do have the recent discovery of what may be the tomb of Alexander the Great, in Amphipolis, Macedonia, together possibly with a huge collection of books on the pagan mysteries, but the main room has yet to be opened).

 

4th Nephi describes the ideal Christian society.  Yet, to my knowledge (and again, I admit I am stepping out of my element here) there are no indications of Christian culture in Mesoamerica.  Cultural artifact that can be seen to imply Christian culture?  Sure.  But no direct evidence.  Ah, but we wouldn't even know what to look for, right?  Maybe.  But how is it that we can gain a fairly detailed insight into Olmec social structure and even a glimpse of their religion (~1400 BC) due to the artifacts they left behind but don't have similar cultural artifacts from the 4th Nephi period (not to mention the hundreds of years of Christian culture that preceded it within what we are assuming were smaller, and perhaps undetectable cultures within the larger Mesoamerican milieu).  This is difficult for me to understand.

If you want to imagine what the Nephites looked like and what cultural features would have been most likely, the best way to do that is to try to forget Arnold Friberg's Nordic version of Nephite society, and go to John L. Sorenson, Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (FARMS, 1997/1998), which is available on Amazon, ebay, Abe Books, etc.

 

As to specifically "christian" motifs, I have dealt with that recently in another thread, but you may want to consider what non-Mormon scholars have to say on that general issue, beginning with M. Graulich:  “The Popol Vuh is a poetic statement of pre-contact beliefs that show surprising similarities to Biblical cosmology.”

 

G. Willey & N. Hammond summarized the research conclusions of Arthur Miller and Nancy Farriss as follows:

 

They argue that Christian beliefs and iconography were not, at least in the Maya way of thinking, completely incompatible with old native beliefs and that the syncretistic results came not from bewilderment or misunderstanding but from an intellectual attempt on the part of the Maya to synthesize the old and the new (cf. J. E. S. Thompson 1970).

 

Thus, despite the European view of seeming incompatibility between Christian and pagan Maya concepts, “from a Maya point of view, . . such a combination may represent a perfectly coherent system,” i.e., “developing their own cult along lines already established.”

 

Farriss herself states:

 

Despite many similarities noted by Spanish missionaries to Mesoamerica between native and Christian religions, one they failed to note, or chose not to emphasize, was that similar rites of sacrifice and communion constituted the central rituals of both.  Slaughter of a blameless being (animal, human, divine, and combinations thereof) and the sharing of its flesh embodied the principal link between the natural and supernatural orders in both cases.*

 

*  Miller & Farriss in Hammond & Willey, Maya Archaeology & Ethnohistory, 239-240.  Indeed, “there is enough resemblance between the symbolism and dogma of the two cults to help account for the receptivity to Christianity on the East Coast and elsewhere” (240).

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm not sure I follow.  Can you elaborate?

 

European contact literature inevitably presents Europeans as the central religious and political force in the areas where they established themselves. Their arrival is represented as socially and historically disruptive, with impact on every facet of Indigenous life and in the life of every single Indigenous inhabitant.

 

The reality is that in most cases, European presence was only one of many 'outside' influences. Europeans were often assimilated into existing trade networks along with dozens of other 'outsiders' and were drawn into local political alliances and conflicts, often manipulated and used by competing Indigenous populations. Impact was mediated through Indigenous agency and even then tended to affect only a small minority of the population in the immediate vicinity of trading posts or forts. Whether imposed by conquest (less frequent) or adopted (far more frequent), Christian European ideas were always understood in local ways, fitted into established cosmologies and epistemologies.

 

This is the central challenge facing historians when trying to rescue Indigneous pasts from European-produced texts.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[sethpayne]

The only reason we know anything about early Christianity at all is the Emperor Constantine making it the official religion.  In time it became both religiously and politically dominant.  The reason we know so little about contemporary mystery religions is that the Christians thoroughly destroyed their books and temples (although we do have the recent discovery of what may be the tomb of Alexander the Great, in Amphipolis, Macedonia, together possibly with a huge collection of books on the pagan mysteries, but the main room has yet to be opened).

 

If you want to imagine what the Nephites looked like and what cultural features would have been most likely, the best way to do that is to try to forget Arnold Friberg's Nordic version of Nephite society, and go to John L. Sorenson, Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (FARMS, 1997/1998), which is available on Amazon, ebay, Abe Books, etc.

 

As to specifically "christian" motifs, I have dealt with that recently in another thread, but you may want to consider what non-Mormon scholars have to say on that general issue, beginning with M. Graulich:  “The Popol Vuh is a poetic statement of pre-contact beliefs that show surprising similarities to Biblical cosmology.”

 

G. Willey & N. Hammond summarized the research conclusions of Arthur Miller and Nancy Farriss as follows:

 

They argue that Christian beliefs and iconography were not, at least in the Maya way of thinking, completely incompatible with old native beliefs and that the syncretistic results came not from bewilderment or misunderstanding but from an intellectual attempt on the part of the Maya to synthesize the old and the new (cf. J. E. S. Thompson 1970).

 

Thus, despite the European view of seeming incompatibility between Christian and pagan Maya concepts, “from a Maya point of view, . . such a combination may represent a perfectly coherent system,” i.e., “developing their own cult along lines already established.”

 

Farriss herself states:

 

Despite many similarities noted by Spanish missionaries to Mesoamerica between native and Christian religions, one they failed to note, or chose not to emphasize, was that similar rites of sacrifice and communion constituted the central rituals of both.  Slaughter of a blameless being (animal, human, divine, and combinations thereof) and the sharing of its flesh embodied the principal link between the natural and supernatural orders in both cases.*

 

*  Miller & Farriss in Hammond & Willey, Maya Archaeology & Ethnohistory, 239-240.  Indeed, “there is enough resemblance between the symbolism and dogma of the two cults to help account for the receptivity to Christianity on the East Coast and elsewhere” (240).

 

Thanks, Robert.  Some very interesting material you have cited.  I want to give this a more detailed reply but for now just a couple of thoughts:

 

I'm not convinced that the only reason we know about Christians was because of Constantine.  He didn't endorse the Yazidi or the Mandeans and yet we know about them.  Also, Christians left symbols -- the fish and some rudimentary crosses.  And, as you say, newly discovered texts including the Nag Hammadi Gnostic literature.  I need to read up on the recent discovery of pagan mystery texts as this sounds fascinating.

 

What is "Biblical Cosmology?"  Monotheism and ex nihlo creation?  Before considering the possible relevance of parallels I suppose I'd need to understand what Graulich means by this.  Also, isn't the Popul Vuh considered highly unreliable due to Spanish influence?  If there are Biblical parallels isn't it possible that they came from Spanish Christianity?

 

I need to read up more on the reports of similarities by the Spanish.  But is Farriss really suggesting that sacrifice is a legitimate connection to the Old World?  Many ancient cultures conducted sacrifices -- human or animal.  If this is a connection then I could also argue that Hinduism is either influenced, or was influenced by Mesopotamia.  Also, what does she mean by communion?  Bread and wine?  Because many religions have ceremony that involves food.  I guess I need to read her entire argument.  Is she actually arguing for an Old World influence?  Or is it more of "hey, look how interesting it is that disparate cultures came up with similar religious rites."  Without having read more fully it would seem that these are descriptions of traits common to human civilizations but just because there are pyramids in Egypt and Mesoamerica that doesn't mean contact between the two.  I guess the more I learn about ancient religion the more I come to think Jung was onto something with his notion of the "collective unconscious."

 

One more thing.  Many cultures and religions have "synthesized" old and new but this in no way implies contact or connection.  I'm thinking of Zen Buddhism, for example.  It is the synthesis of Vedic philosophy (via Buddhism), Buddhism, Taoism and in Japan, Shamanism.  Just because the Zen patriarchs melded traditions together doesn't say anything about contact or influence between these ancient traditions.

 

In any case, you have given me a lot to consider and read up on.  

[sethpayne]

European contact literature inevitably presents Europeans as the central religious and political force in the areas where they established themselves. Their arrival is represented as socially and historically disruptive, with impact on every facet of Indigenous life and in the life of every single Indigenous inhabitant.

 

The reality is that in most cases, European presence was only one of many 'outside' influences. Europeans were often assimilated into existing trade networks along with dozens of other 'outsiders' and were drawn into local political alliances and conflicts, often manipulated and used by competing Indigenous populations. Impact was mediated through Indigenous agency and even then tended to affect only a small minority of the population in the immediate vicinity of trading posts or forts. Whether imposed by conquest (less frequent) or adopted (far more frequent), Christian European ideas were always understood in local ways, fitted into established cosmologies and epistemologies.

 

This is the central challenge facing historians when trying to rescue Indigneous pasts from European-produced texts.

 

Ah.  I see what you are getting at.

 

But does comparing European imperialist writing to the BoM help the case here?  The Spanish, for example, were indeed the dominant force but they made a clear distinction between themselves and the indigenous peoples.  Do you see similar distinctions being made in the BoM that would clearly differentiate Nephites from indigenous peoples?

 

I suppose the way I think about it is that the Spanish (or Dutch or English or French) wrote extensively about the native people, their culture, etc...  In reading their words it is abundantly clear that they arrived and conquered.  Always a clear distinction between a Spaniard and a native.  You don't have to go "searching" for "others" in Spanish writings because "the others" (why am I thinking of Lost all of a sudden?) were central to the narrative.  In the BoM you have to go searching for "the others."  It seems to me there is a reason this idea of "others" didn't appear until 100+ years after the publication of the BoM.  Their presence is not at all obvious as it is in other ancient literature.

 

What, in your view, would be the closest parallel to the BoM in this regard?  A text where you have to carefully parse the words in order to discover that others were present in the land?  Isn't it kind of like the Puritans arriving and not mentioning the native people they found when they arrived?  In other words, why would Mormon/Moroni be so coy about the presence of others?  Even if we look at the most ancient texts from Mesopotamia they explicitly referenced their neighbors.  

Edited September 20, 2014 by sethpayne

[Hamba Tuhan]

But does comparing European imperialist writing to the BoM help the case here?

 

It was not my intention to compare European 'imperialist' writing with the Book of Mormon nor to 'help the case'. I merely responded to your question:

 

Do we have any examples of a small sub-group or culture writing something where they present themselves as being the dominant political/religious force when, in fact, they were actually a minority?

 

And in actuality, we have tens of thousands of such examples.

 

I suppose the way I think about it is that the Spanish (or Dutch or English or French) wrote extensively about the native people, their culture, etc...

 

What, in your view, would be the closest parallel to the BoM in this regard?  A text where you have to carefully parse the words in order to discover that others were present in the land?

 

I'm happy to answer this question too, though. For my PhD, I read through over 4,000 pages of letters and reports written by Jesuit missionaries and European officers and traders resident in the islands of the 'East'. I think you have a very skewed understanding of how 'extensively' Europeans wrote about others. In many documents I perused, Indigenous people make no clear appearance whatsoever. Even when they do appear, the focus remains on Europeans and their interactions with other Europeans. This is precisely why historians have to learn to identify and tease out 'traces of Indigenous presence' in European texts.

 

Due to its length and unified nature, I think the Book of Mormon is a bit extreme in this regard, but it is by no means outside the realm of the familiar or the possible.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[mfbukowski]

That's not how I read it.  Bukowski isn't addressing whether it is true historically, but rather that faith and belief do make the difference, and he is correct.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

 

Suppose everything in the bible IS true historically.  In that case, its actual historicity which we are now presuming, is irrelevant to the beliefs and therefore the behavior of atheists the world over.

 

So in that case also, it is their BELIEF that shapes their lives, not the "actual" history, which is unknowable to them just as it is unknowable to theists.  So really atheists and theists are in the same position.  They live their lives based on beliefs which no one can know, are, or are not, historical!

 

In that case, just as much as for the theist, their "faith" in the "evidence" is what makes the difference in their lives, not the unknowable "facts" of "what actually happened".

 

I think this is an important issue and hope it communicates.  Once you understand this, there can no longer be any justification for basing any spiritual beliefs on anything but feelings within one's heart.  Spiritual beliefs are like moral beliefs- either you think something is wrong or you don't.

 

There is nothing facts can prove about whether or not it is right or wrong to carry a firearm, nothing about whether or not abortion is right or wrong, no evidence about being kind to each other, and none to prove that even murder is wrong, or that capital punishment is right or wrong, yet we all have opinions on these issues. 

 

That is really my only point.   Spiritual and moral belief shapes our lives, and yet these kinds of beliefs are not based on data or historical evidence.

[mfbukowski]

I agree that ultimately historicity is unimportant and cannot be "proved."

 

However, it can be supported by strong evidence, no?  The inscription found in Israel with reference to a King David is very compelling evidence that David was, in fact, a historical person.  

Of course.  But suppose David was our "savior", instead of the spiritual flop that he eventually proves to be.

 

Would all that historical evidence of his existence prove that his death forgave your sins and mine?  Of course not!

 

I am not saying that these events were not "historical" any more than I am saying that they ARE "historical".  My point is simply that their ACTUAL historicity, which by your admission cannot be "proven" is relevant to our beliefs in their IMPORTANCE spiritually.

 

The fact is that they cannot be proven historically as you say.  Yet billions have changed their lives based on these beliefs EVEN THOUGH they cannot be proven "historically".

 

"It is a wicked and adulterous generation which seeks after a sign"

 

I don't know why we can't see that that applies to historicity as much as anything else.  It is a wicked and adulterous generation which seeks after historicity.

 

What is wrong with that interpretation?  How is proving historicity NOT "seeking after a sign"?

[mfbukowski]

Wouldn't you say that the evidence for David's existence if more compelling than that for Noah?

Of course, but it is the lessons of their lives which makes a difference in my life- not their historicity.

[mfbukowski]

I would say miracles are impossible to prove.  And I agree that establishing historicity of Biblical persons does not establish any supernatural claims.

 

But the BoM is different.  If we found an inscription in Mesoamerica (or Ohio for you Meldrum fans) that read: "I Nephi, having been born of goodly parents was here" it would go a very long way in not just estabishing the historicity of the BoM but also its divinity.  

I disagree.