Is Belief In The Book Mormon As History Important?

[smac97]

We have no theology as to where the main events of the Book of Mormon took place. Personally I think the best candidate is Mesoamerica.

 

I agree with your latter statement, but not quite with the former.  We do, in fact, have a doctrinal stance on where the main events of The Book of Mormon took place.  The Church's position is that the narrative begins in Jerusalem, that Lehi and his party then traveled South from Jerusalem for a while, then East.  So the Jerusalem and its environs is an established, doctrinal geographical location in The Book of Mormon.

 

The post-Bountiful textual narrative (1 Nephi 18) posits a sea voyage starting from a location that was South and East of Jerusalem.  The only Candidate is the Arabian Sea.

 

The Title Page to The Book of Mormon, which is part of the canonical scriptural text, describes The Book of Mormon as "an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi ... Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed — To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof — Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God."  

 

Additionally, in Joseph Smith-History, 1:33-34, which is also part of the canonical scriptural text, quotes a heavenly angel named Moroni, the same Moroni referenced in the Title Page, as follows: "He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants."  Verses 50-51 state that Joseph Smith "went to the place where the messenger had told (him) the plates were deposited," and that this location was on a hill "convenient to the city of Manchester" in New York State in North America. Further, the "Introduction" to The Book of Mormon, though not scripture, describes The Book of Mormon as "a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible" that consists of "a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas."  

 

I think these passages remove any reasonable dispute about the The Book of Mormon text (most of it, anyway) having taken place in the Americas.  This, I think, is the doctrinal/exegetical position taken by the Church.  I think the meaning of "continent" in Joseph Smith-History 1:34 is sort of squishy in that it could either refer to specifically the continent of "North America" as we understand it or, more likely (given the language used in the "Introduction" to The Book of Mormon), somewhere in "the Americas" generally, or North America and South America combined.

 

Now if we propose that the Church has no theology/doctrine regarding more specific geographical locations within "the Americas" that correspond with specific events and places described in The Book of Mormon text, then I would concur with that.  But I don't think we can say there is no doctrinal position at all, or that loopy theories that The Book of Mormon describes events which took place on another planet (I've seen such a theory posited online) or in ancient feudal Japan (I've seen that, too) have any merit.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

[mfbukowski]

I apologize for not getting back earlier. I've spent the last week studying Pre-dynastic Egyptian pottery in England. I think that is relevant to this discussion because you describe the language of the Nephites and Lamanites as "lost". While I agree with you on the language part, because even if some evidence did show up we would have no idea how to pronounce any of it, there still might come a day when evidence appears that give us the physical characters of their language. Sort of like ancient Egyptian. Thanks to some very clever people in the early 1800's we can now read ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and hieratic and demotic and coptic scripts, but we have no idea how any of it sounds. The spoken language is forever lost.

But after many long hours in the Petrie Museum at University College of London, (I wasn't interested in the language, only the pottery), I was struck by the overwhelming amount of material there is from the general, not royal, public. When finds are made of bygone populations, once we get past the bling-bling of gold earrings and gold knife handles, there are literally millions of other, common, everyday objects that evidence the culture.

The famous Flinders Petrie, who, to his own chagrin, never made any earth shattering finds like the Rosetta Stone or Tut's tomb, returned from Egypt with almost 100,000 objects of daily life. He found mirrors of bronze, combs of ivory, perfume bottles of stone, farm tools, sewing tools,, even linen shirts. Studying the materials in his museum is like stepping back in time, to view life of the common man. They made clay models of their farm houses and cattle and sheep. They saved old paint brushes. Although it was not intended to be anything of importance, their garbage, of unfinished planning sheets, of records of days off from work, of wills and property purchases, of practise sheets of drawing heads or hands, have been found. There are love letters, one wife writes to complain to her husband, away on a trip,, that the neighbours have built a new, higher wall, and she wants one too, and thousands of similar small events, that tell of how people lived.

Even though no one to date has found any "Nephite" or "Lamanite" city, my expectation would be that such a find would also include the myriad of small, unimportant details of a "lost" culture.. There may be no "books" or written stuffs of a lost culture, but a culture of hundreds of thousnds, maybe millions of people,, would leave very tangible traces. Traces that identify their life, their work, their religion. So far, none of any of the above has been found.

I think perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

The view of some BOM scholars is now that Nephites lived as a subculture of other larger groups, the Maya could be good candidates.and that is the reason we have problems separating Mayan artifacts from Nephite artifacts. Imagine looking for Armenian artifacts in America in a few thousand years and you might see the problem.

No Armenian pottery? Oh well there were no Armenians here I guess.But in the case of the Armenians, at least there would be evidence of their language. That would not be the case with Nephites whose first language was perhaps only known to prophets, as Latin today is only known to some Catholic priests.

Edit: And further suppose in the future suppose the Armenians are known by a different name. Instead of looking for "Nephites", perhaps that group of Mayans were called by a different name.

We are swallowing camels and straining at gnats. Christianity requires that historically a man came back from the dead. We have no problem with that. But missing pottery stamped "made in Zarahemla?" Oh gosh, game over.

Edited October 23, 2014 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

I know.

 

That is why I have trouble accepting the Book of Mormon as history.  I love the teachings.  There are some truly beautiful teachings...especially Alma 32.....simply wonderful.

 

That is why I asked the question in the OP

 

Sure I'd love for God to tell us today where they took place. But for his own purposes he hasn't yet. I believe it is important to accept the BoM on its own terms; That there really were Nephites who wrote on plates about their experiences with God. That through Gods' power JS translated those writings into our BoM. It really is the keystone of our religion.

[mfbukowski]

http://mormonstories.org/

 

501-502: Kirk Caudle on Mormon Studies, Working for BYU-Idaho, Resigning, Apologetics and More

 

This Kirk guy apparently doesn't feel the BoM has to be historical, if I heard right.  He cautions all to not throw out the baby with the bath water.  He believes there is definitely something to Joseph's church, not necessarily the institution since Joseph.  Now to wrap my head around staying in the church because of philosophies of men.  Or just staying because of the good youth program, or the great service opportunities.  I guess belief in the BoM as being historical isn't paramount, IMO.  BoM is a good read to implement a belief in Jesus Christ, so no harm, no foul.  But if it isn't historical, does the church need to be open with that information one day?  Will that keep more in the church?  Allow many to fully engage?  Or does that at the same time push many out?

I would have joined the church for these reasons, but had a spiritual experience which pushed me to a testimony.

Rationally, I am much in the same place as your description of his position, though I don't know his work at all

[Robert F. Smith]

I apologize for not getting back earlier. I've spent the last week studying Pre-dynastic Egyptian pottery in England. I think that is relevant to this discussion because you describe the language of the Nephites and Lamanites as "lost". While I agree with you on the language part, because even if some evidence did show up we would have no idea how to pronounce any of it, there still might come a day when evidence appears that give us the physical characters of their language. Sort of like ancient Egyptian. Thanks to some very clever people in the early 1800's we can now read ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs and hieratic and demotic and coptic scripts, but we have no idea how any of it sounds. The spoken language is forever lost.

Not so, bcuz.

Coptic is the late ancient Egyptian language written in an alphabetic script and spoken in a variety of dialects up and down the Nile for centuries -- and only replaced completely by Arabic in more recent times (though still used liturgically).  As for the demotic, hieratic, and hieroglyphic scripts, it is true that the pronunciation of the words is not known in many cases, although scholars do have some very good evidence of the ways in which most words were spoken (due to transliterations in other languages, and due to the structures common to Afro-Asiatic languages).  To see where we stand on such matters, you might want to consult Antonio Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995), available online at http://www.asarimhotep.com/documentdownloads/linguistics/29196919-Loprieno-Antonio-Ancient-Egyptian-A-Linguistic-Introduction.pdf .

 

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

Even though no one to date has found any "Nephite" or "Lamanite" city, my expectation would be that such a find would also include the myriad of small, unimportant details of a "lost" culture.. There may be no "books" or written stuffs of a lost culture, but a culture of hundreds of thousnds, maybe millions of people,, would leave very tangible traces. Traces that identify their life, their work, their religion. So far, none of any of the above has been found.

Many anthropologists now spend far more time studying the myriad of small and unimportant details of ancient Mesoamerica (settlement studies) than they do studying the monumental architecture -- though that certainly still goes on -- and very tangible traces are readily found.  Plenty of that has not only been found, but you can read about it in a variety of books and articles.  I highly recommend that you begin with Michael Coe, Dean Snow, and Elizabeth Benson, Atlas of Ancient America (Equinox/Facts on File, 1986), and John L. Sorenson, Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (FARMS Research Press, 1998), and then move on to Sorenson's magnum opus, Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Book (Maxwell Institute/Deseret Book, 2013).

 

Nephite-Lamanite culture is not “lost,” and the traces are right where we should expect them.  However, since perception is everything, if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to see it, then it didn’t happen. Kind of like a Zen koan.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I do believe the BoM is historical... ever since I was a 17 year old seminary student and accepted Moroni's challenge... but I also love it for the beatiful teachings... particularly Alma 32.

 

When I was at BYU Education Week one year... I took a class on the BoM (can't remember the Prof but it was excellent).  One of my favorite, and interesting, points the Prof pointed out was in Alma 32, verse 28... 

 

"Now, we will compare the word unto a seed.  Now, if we give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts: and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves-- It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me."

 

S = Swell

E = Enlarge

E = Enlighten

D = Delicious

 

Based on Emma's saying that Joseph had difficulty writing or putting his thoughts in clear sentences thus used scribes, including herself... the thought that comes to me is there is no way Joseph could have written this beautiful but subtle description of comparing the "word unto a seed."

 

GG

So, GG, does this suggest that the original language of the BofM was English?  The acronym doesn't work in another language.  

Edited October 23, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[pogi]

I do believe the BoM is historical... ever since I was a 17 year old seminary student and accepted Moroni's challenge... but I also love it for the beatiful teachings... particularly Alma 32.

 

When I was at BYU Education Week one year... I took a class on the BoM (can't remember the Prof but it was excellent).  One of my favorite, and interesting, points the Prof pointed out was in Alma 32, verse 28... 

 

"Now, we will compare the word unto a seed.  Now, if we give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts: and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves-- It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me."

 

S = Swell

E = Enlarge

E = Enlighten

D = Delicious

 

Based on Emma's saying that Joseph had difficulty writing or putting his thoughts in clear sentences thus used scribes, including herself... the thought that comes to me is there is no way Joseph could have written this beautiful but subtle description of comparing the "word unto a seed."

 

GG

 

That's a pretty clever acronym, but does it work in Reformed Egyptian and did they even use acronyms? (As Robert pointed out as I was typing).  Humans are pretty ingenious at finding patterns, even where none were intended. 

 

Not to diminish from the beauty of Alma 32, as it is one of my favorites as well, but comparing the "word unto a seed" is not unique to the BOM either.  The parable of the sewer in Luke 8 does the same.  Alma 32 is a more in-depth version of that parable and describes the process in a more personal and detailed manner.  "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God" (Luke 8:11).

Edited October 23, 2014 by pogi

[Robert F. Smith]

 -Smac

 

Your summary is sound, and one would wish that both Mormons and non-Mormons had at least that much accurate an understanding of the BofM, before discussing it.

[Garden Girl]

That's a pretty clever acronym, but does it work in Reformed Egyptian and did they even use acronyms? (As Robert pointed out as I was typing).  Humans are pretty ingenious at finding patterns, even where none were intended. 

 

Not to diminish from the beauty of Alma 32, as it is one of my favorites as well, but comparing the "word unto a seed" is not unique to the BOM either.  The parable of the sewer in Luke 8 does the same.  Alma 32 is a more in-depth version of that parable which describes the process in a more personal and detailed manner.  "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God" (Luke 8:11).

 

Hello pogi...

I simply find this passage beautiful... it does not matter to me if it "works."   My testimony of the BoM overall is based on my spiritual experience as a result of accepting Moroni's challenge... a witness that was so strong that it stayed with me all of my life and is with me now at age 74 (lasted me through 34 years of being inactive).  A witness that allows me to have the faith that the BoM is just what it purports to be... the record of a people brought forth through the power of God that blesses us today.  Alma 32 and all... 

 

GG

[UtahTexan]

Sure I'd love for God to tell us today where they took place. But for his own purposes he hasn't yet. I believe it is important to accept the BoM on its own terms; That there really were Nephites who wrote on plates about their experiences with God. That through Gods' power JS translated those writings into our BoM. It really is the keystone of our religion.

---------makes me wonder why God had no trouble allowing us to see so many places from the Bible, yet nothing from The Book of Mormon in the Americas.

And archaeologists are finding new stuff all the time in the Middle East, but though the LDS Church has people to whom God talk directly, nothing is found regarding the Book of Mormon in the Americas. Is less faith required by folks who follow only the Bible?

When I read Alma 32, I think there is no way a man came up with that. Then I hit that stupid brick wall

[pogi]

Hello pogi...

I simply find this passage beautiful... it does not matter to me if it "works."   My testimony of the BoM overall is based on my spiritual experience as a result of accepting Moroni's challenge... a witness that was so strong that it stayed with me all of my life and is with me now at age 74 (lasted me through 34 years of being inactive).  A witness that allows me to have the faith that the BoM is just what it purports to be... the record of a people brought forth through the power of God that blesses us today.  Alma 32 and all... 

 

GG

 

Me too.  Happy reading! 

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm sorry that you find it so offensive that I ask of you repeatedly to indicate any substantive data you have learned in the course of your various journeys.  You have not responded, except to belittle any evidence on behalf of the Book of Mormon.  Your apriori views are very clear, but not buttressed by any evidence.  Instead you have provided a host of false statements about the Book of Mormon.  I have pointed these out to you, and you have not deigned to reply with anything but vague generalities and further false statements.

 

That's ok.  I have asked YOU numerous times to give me the exact location IN THIS HEMISPHERE, where the Book of Mormon took place and you have been unable to do so.   And I have not said a single FALSE thing about the Book of Mormon.  I want locations in THIS hemisphere.   You dodge by mentioning Jerusalem.  I ask for historical places that non-LDS scientists and historians agree on and you dodge some more.  I truly understand.

 The Call to Perfection is a fallacy as much here as in a court trial.  Actual rules of evidence do not require your straw man notion, but only evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and the preponderance of evidence in civll cases.  Had you bothered to read Sorenson, Mormon's Codex (as I suggested), rather than hemming and hawwing, you might be well enough informed to carry on a substantive discussion.  There is no real question about where and when the Book of Mormon events of the New World took place, and the archeological and other secular analyses provide abundant evidence of that.  The main problem here is your utter refusal to address the evidence.  Instead, you continue to talk around the subject and avoid substance.

 

As I have said, there are many tourists and they can spend years doing touristy things.  That is not the same as serious academic study, and does not result in the ability to discuss the archeological or historical nature of a particular area or culture.  If you are so ashamed of being a tourist that you feel belittled by me, that says it all.  For there is no shame in being a tourist, just as there is no academic quality in it.  My only complaint about your touristy activities is that you attempt to make it appear that you actually learned something from it -- which you refuse to show, perhaps because you cannot.

 

lol...I said I lived somewhere...you caled me a tourist.  I told you where I visited and you still call me a tourist.  Fine.  You would rather be rude and condescending because you clearly have no answers.  You hide your lack of answers by being rude.  I get it.

I did not call you a tourist.  I said that I had met many tourists, and you took umbrage.  I could only conclude that you were not present in Central America on an archeological expedition, and that you had indeed been a tourist.  Moreover, not once did you provide any substantive information that you had learned as a missionary or tourist.

 

In my previous posts, I had already directly discussed your straw man approach to the Mesoamerica question, along with your repeated false statements about the Book of Mormon:

 

My post #195,

The emigration of 3 groups from the Old World to the New then takes us to some well-known areas of Mesoamerica, wherein their respective cultures develop along lines described by the Book of Mormon and paralleled only in that limited area.  The archeological and geographical descriptions of the nature of those Mesoamerican cultures leave no doubt that they are the only possible New World corrollaries of the Book of Mormon cultures.  Pure accidence?  Possibly, but the statistical likelihood that Joseph just guessed all the right answers just doesn't compute.  You might want to consider the secular arguments contained in Sorenson, Mormon's Codex, before you continue making your erroneous statements.

 

My post #199,

I merely observe that of all the various locations mentioned in the Bible, Jerusalem is certainly the best known (31° 46' N, 35° 12' E), but there are also locations in the Bible about which archeologists cannot agree as to which site it occupied.

 

The Book of Mormon also takes place at Jerusalem (31° 46' N, 35° 12' E), and at a whole lot of other places, some of which are well-known, and others that are known to occupy a particular region -- based on purely secular archeological and historical considerations.

 

A serious person would address these parallels in a scholarly way, taking into account the internal evidence in the book (Bible or Book of Mormon) as compared to evidence external to the book.  Biblical and Book of Mormon scholars do this all the time, even though you privilege the one book and not the other.  Why would that be?  Are you bringing apriori considerations to the debate?

 

My post #205,

Yet you claimed that there were no known locations in the Book of Mormon, which was immediately false.  You also ignored the deep insight the Book of Mormon exhibits into ancient Near Eastern lore and geography (quite aside from Jerusalem) as Clan Lehi moves through parts of Arabia, including the very interesting parallels with Nahom and Bountiful.  You likewise ignored the Jaredites.  Was that your idea of fairness?  As Hugh Nibley showed long ago, the Book of Mormon presents a very convincing ancient Near Eastern mise en scene.  Where is your substantive review of such issues?

-------------------------------  

I have met many tourists who have gone to all manner of far flung places, and, on return, give no evidence of having learned much about the places they visited.  In my four years living and studying in Israel, I met many a tourist, few of whom learned anything important about the Hebrew language, archeology, or religion.  I am not impressed by tales told by modern travelers, who understand very little of what they see -- much less what may have taken place historically.  Thus far, I have seen no evidence that you actually understand anything about the sights and sites you saw in Central America.  Perhaps you could disabuse me of that impression?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Is belief in the Book of Mormon as history important?

 

In my most recent essay at Interpreter (for those who haven't read it) I deal with one of the important aspects of this question. If we were to read Cinderella (the fairy tale) as if it were history, we would end up recognizing that we have the story of a “neurotic, perhaps psychotic, young woman subject to hallucinations”. But we don't usually read it as history because it has an identifiable genre that we recognize and participate in when we do read it. If we look at 1 Nephi as being a translation of a narrative in which a real Nephi describes his own history and own beliefs we read the text in one way. To read it as an entirely modern creation with a fictional Nephi narrating a fictional history of the Nephi character, is to come up with a profoundly different meaning for the text. These are not exactly inclusive readings. And while I suppose you could claim that both readings could have the same impact on a reader - to encourage them to develop a more meaningful relationship with God, and an understanding of the atonement, I somehow doubt that these two readings will generally have the same outcome on the readers of the book. I think that there is some importance to reading the Book of Mormon as history if we want to understand the book as it was intended.

 

Ben McGuire

[pogi]

Is belief in the Book of Mormon as history important?

 

In my most recent essay at Interpreter (for those who haven't read it) I deal with one of the important aspects of this question. If we were to read Cinderella (the fairy tale) as if it were history, we would end up recognizing that we have the story of a “neurotic, perhaps psychotic, young woman subject to hallucinations”. But we don't usually read it as history because it has an identifiable genre that we recognize and participate in when we do read it. If we look at 1 Nephi as being a translation of a narrative in which a real Nephi describes his own history and own beliefs we read the text in one way. To read it as an entirely modern creation with a fictional Nephi narrating a fictional history of the Nephi character, is to come up with a profoundly different meaning for the text. These are not exactly inclusive readings. And while I suppose you could claim that both readings could have the same impact on a reader - to encourage them to develop a more meaningful relationship with God, and an understanding of the atonement, I somehow doubt that these two readings will generally have the same outcome on the readers of the book. I think that there is some importance to reading the Book of Mormon as history if we want to understand the book as it was intended.

 

Ben McGuire

 

That's interesting.  Can you be specific about what practical behaviors, practices or beliefs you think might be different, other than the obvious - one believes it was historical and the other doesn't?  Practically speaking, I don't see how it would make any difference in our personal lives.  I'm not saying you're not onto something, I just don't see it yet. 

Edited October 23, 2014 by pogi

[Benjamin McGuire]

What difference is there in reading the Book of Mormon as fiction and reading Moby **** as fiction? Which one is more capable of moving us to change? What I am saying is that there is a fundamental difference in the meaning of the text between reading it as a real history and reading it as fiction. Does that difference mean that we will be affected differently depending on how we read it? Probably not always. Just most of the time, I suspect.

 

Do you think there is no difference between our reading of Moroni (as a fictional character) appealing to his audience to pray about his [really not Moroni's but the modern author's] fictional text and our reading of a real Moroni (who has seen our day) appealing directly to us to pray about his text?

 

Ben M.

[bcuzbcuz]

I think perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

The view of some BOM scholars is now that Nephites lived as a subculture of other larger groups, the Maya could be good candidates.and that is the reason we have problems separating Mayan artifacts from Nephite artifacts. Imagine looking for Armenian artifacts in America in a few thousand years and you might see the problem.

No Armenian pottery? Oh well there were no Armenians here I guess.But in the case of the Armenians, at least there would be evidence of their language. That would not be the case with Nephites whose first language was perhaps only known to prophets, as Latin today is only known to some Catholic priests.

Edit: And further suppose in the future suppose the Armenians are known by a different name. Instead of looking for "Nephites", perhaps that group of Mayans were called by a different name.

We are swallowing camels and straining at gnats. Christianity requires that historically a man came back from the dead. We have no problem with that. But missing pottery stamped "made in Zarahemla?" Oh gosh, game over.

I think I understand your main points. But I was raised in the church at a time when the Hill of Cumorah was in the state of New York, and modern day Native Americans were the Lamanites of the Book of Mormon. When 230,000 Nephite warriors were killed in Mormon, chapter 6, I believed those numbers. I just don't see, I do not comprehend, I cannot believe that those Nephite warriors were some little hidden, indistinguishable, undefinable sub-group of an overwhelming majority, non-Nephite group.

The Book of Mormon has gone from being the defining history of the peoples of the Americas, to being a record of an almost invisible sub-culture, who left not a single mark or evidence of their own group.

What have I missed?

[UtahTexan]

 

 The Call to Perfection is a fallacy as much here as in a court trial.  Actual rules of evidence do not require your straw man notion, but only evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and the preponderance of evidence in civll cases.  Had you bothered to read Sorenson, Mormon's Codex (as I suggested), rather than hemming and hawwing, you might be well enough informed to carry on a substantive discussion.  There is no real question about where and when the Book of Mormon events of the New World took place, and the archeological and other secular analyses provide abundant evidence of that.  The main problem here is your utter refusal to address the evidence.  Instead, you continue to talk around the subject and avoid substance.

 

LOL...when a person has no evidence, they typically resort the criminal standard.  So, you are trying to prove something, and so YOU get to determine the standard of proof?

 

You claim it is historical.  Prove it.  I keep asking....you keep dodging.  I did not want to debate.  I have tried very hard to remain civil during your rudeness.  I find that when people are challenged and they have no answers, they resort to long posts and rude behavior.  So....I will accept that you have no answers.  Others have been charitable and helpful.  

 

Thank you

 

 

 

[KevinG]

Contemporary accounts of events are filtered through the worldview and perceptions of the writers. Why would there be an expectation that captain Moroni would write an exact history of his engagements from the viewpoint of both combating sides, or that Nephi would provide an exhaustive unpartisan view of theower structures on the Middle East?

Even Churchill in his history of WWII has probably included some unintentional patriotic embellishments.

We Latter-day Saints may be trapping ourselves by striving for a standard of perfection, that even this most perfect of books cannot reach. Remember it was written by mortals, and translated by mortals. A preponderance of evidence (and the Mormon Codex is a very good case) would indeed say something about this record, that it is far more accurate than a farm boy from New York could have dreamed of writing, even if he had access to Google.

Edited October 23, 2014 by KevinG

[Robert F. Smith]

The Call to Perfection is a fallacy as much here as in a court trial.  Actual rules of evidence do not require your straw man notion, but only evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and the preponderance of evidence in civil cases.  Had you bothered to read Sorenson, Mormon's Codex (as I suggested), rather than hemming and hawwing, you might be well enough informed to carry on a substantive discussion.  There is no real question about where and when the Book of Mormon events of the New World took place, and the archeological and other secular analyses provide abundant evidence of that.  The main problem here is your utter refusal to address the evidence.  Instead, you continue to talk around the subject and avoid substance.

 

LOL...when a person has no evidence, they typically resort the criminal standard.  So, you are trying to prove something, and so YOU get to determine the standard of proof?

You claim it is historical.  Prove it.  I keep asking....you keep dodging.  I did not want to debate.  I have tried very hard to remain civil during your rudeness.  I find that when people are challenged and they have no answers, they resort to long posts and rude behavior.  So....I will accept that you have no answers.  Others have been charitable and helpful.  

 

Thank you

That you choose to demand perfect evidence only, and that you refuse to engage in rational discussion tells us what your real position is. You have set up your straw man and lynched the Book of Mormon to your satisfaction. Yet all of that is only pretense.

 

No archeologist or serious inquirer ever makes the type of demands which you do.  Sincere academic inquiry and research isn't a game of "let's pretend."

[UtahTexan]

That you choose to demand perfect evidence only, and that you refuse to engage in rational discussion tells us what your real position is. You have set up your straw man and lynched the Book of Mormon to your satisfaction. Yet all of that is only pretense.

 

No archeologist or serious inquirer ever makes the type of demands which you do.  Sincere academic inquiry and research isn't a game of "let's pretend."

I understand.

 

I have made no demands that I have not made on any other "history" book.

 

I truly understand your attitude.  I would have the same were I you.

[bcuzbcuz]

Not so, bcuz.

Coptic is the late ancient Egyptian language written in an alphabetic script and spoken in a variety of dialects up and down the Nile for centuries -- and only replaced completely by Arabic in more recent times (though still used liturgically).  As for the demotic, hieratic, and hieroglyphic scripts, it is true that the pronunciation of the words is not known in many cases, although scholars do have some very good evidence of the ways in which most words were spoken (due to transliterations in other languages, and due to the structures common to Afro-Asiatic languages).  To see where we stand on such matters, you might want to consult Antonio Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995), available online at http://www.asarimhotep.com/documentdownloads/linguistics/29196919-Loprieno-Antonio-Ancient-Egyptian-A-Linguistic-Introduction.pdf .

 

Many anthropologists now spend far more time studying the myriad of small and unimportant details of ancient Mesoamerica (settlement studies) than they do studying the monumental architecture -- though that certainly still goes on -- and very tangible traces are readily found.  Plenty of that has not only been found, but you can read about it in a variety of books and articles.  I highly recommend that you begin with Michael Coe, Dean Snow, and Elizabeth Benson, Atlas of Ancient America (Equinox/Facts on File, 1986), and John L. Sorenson, Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (FARMS Research Press, 1998), and then move on to Sorenson's magnum opus, Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Book (Maxwell Institute/Deseret Book, 2013).

 

Nephite-Lamanite culture is not “lost,” and the traces are right where we should expect them.  However, since perception is everything, if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to see it, then it didn’t happen. Kind of like a Zen koan.

You reference to Lopieno's "Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction", definitely not light reading. Did you read it as a linguist or as an egyptologist? I ask because I think it makes a difference as to how one discusses the book.

[Nemesis]

You have been given some good information. Read it then return when you are ready for a discussion.