Is The Book Of Mormon Either True Or Not?

[stemelbow]

But the issue with science is accepting what science believes right NOW as being correct.  History also shows that what science believes today it will probably overturn tomorrow.

2 Timothy 3:7 - Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth

I don't think religion is any different. Not many believe quite like Brigham did. Probably even far fewer believe quite like Moses did.

[JLHPROF]

I don't think religion is any different. Not many believe quite like Brigham did. Probably even far fewer believe quite like Moses did.

 

Which makes my point...if you believe Brigham changed what Joseph taught and that the Jews in Christ's day changed what Moses actually taught.

To one way of thinking the Gospel is restored by a prophet and then loses truth as time goes on, the opposite way science works.

 

I realize there are those who believe the restored gospel is continuing to be perfected and restored much like scientific knowledge.  I am not so convinced.

[stemelbow]

Which makes my point...if you believe Brigham changed what Joseph taught and that the Jews in Christ's day changed what Moses actually taught.

To one way of thinking the Gospel is restored by a prophet and then loses truth as time goes on, the opposite way science works.

 

I realize there are those who believe the restored gospel is continuing to be perfected and restored much like scientific knowledge.  I am not so convinced.

I feel like I'm somewhere in between. I think the Church, in some sense, is learning and growing from the outside world. I also think the Church loses some truth along the way. So instead of going up or down on a scale of progress I see the Church just going along, sometimes going up and sometimes down.

[Maedros]

I was raised Pentecostal and when the missionaries gave my brother and I the discussions we contended with them about Joseph Smith - it was the hardest thing to accept that he was a prophet and that he saw God as a boy, it sounded ridiculous but the one thing that we never doubted was that the BoM was scripture; I remember we used verses from the BoM to contend with the missionaries but we never not once doubted that those prophets existed and that those passages were the word of God - we finished the book in two days and we just had the one copy until I got my own copy on the Sunday and it was the most amazing thing to me to have my own copy and I read it and read it and read it again. I taught my classmates about Lehi and the visit of the Saviour to the Nephites at age 15 during a free period. All these years in and out of activity and wading through many doubts and discouragements and I've never ever questioned the legitimacy of the Book of Mormon. Never mind Joseph Smith or the church and the prophets - the BoM alone proves the truth to me, there's just no doubt in my mind about it being a testament of Jesus Christ. I agree 100% with Mormonmaniac: "For me, the more I study the Book of Mormon and look at the evidence in the America's the more convinced I am that archaeologists and scientists do not really know what they are doing. "

[cinepro]

For me, the more I study the Book of Mormon and look at the evidence in the America's the more convinced I am that archaeologists and scientists do not really know what they are doing.

 

You should put your thoughts about the "evidence in the Americas" down on paper and publish it.  I'm sure the scientists would be fascinated to be shown that they "don't really know what they're doing."

[theplains]

In my opinion, the evidence for the Book of Mormon has become so impressive that I believe that one could convince a fair-minded jury that there is no way that anyone in Joseph Smith's day could have authored the book.

 

See http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/view-of-the-hebrews.html

 

Thanks,

Jim 

[yootaw]

Personally, I'm torn on Nephi. But I'm not torn on the OT killings. I give them 0% weight as coming from God. I grant that God may have tolerated the killings to the extent that he continued to work with those people (because, hey, he had to work with someone). But I cannot worship a genocidist.

FWIW, I'm quite thankful for the BOM on this point. The BOM is a parallel records to the OT - same covenants, same time period, same type of covenant people surrounded by enemies and apostates. And yet no where in the BOM are the righteous commanded to commit genocide. They are only allowed self-defense. That gives me good reason to believe the OT accounts are hogwash.

Thanks for this comment! That is a really interesting perspective that I hadn't considered previously. I relate very strongly with you aversion to the genocide in the OT, and appreciate how you've resolved this.

[PeterPear]

As far as I can tell, the more you learn about The Book of Mormon and the history of the Americas, the less "true" you think The Book of Mormon is when it comes to any specific historical story or claim. 

 

For example, do those who believe the Americas were deserted when the Jaredites showed up (as Joseph Smith, Marion G. Romney and Jeffrey Holland did/do)  have a greater belief in The Book of Mormon than those who believe in "others" because they believe it more literally? 

 

Follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion and you eventually end up with an appreciation for the teachings and doctrine of the book, but extreme flexibility on the idea of huge numbers of Nephites and Lamanites running around ancient American history teaching about Jesus Christ and trying to kill each other.

Why? Because the "others" was proposed by LDS Academics aka LDS Apologists bent on proving the Book of Mormon occurred strictly in a 500 x 200 mile area in Mesoamerica and thus beleived in "others" because the Maya/Olmecwere in Mesoamerica before 600/3000 B.C? The reason Joseph Smith, President Marion G. Romney and Elder Holland believe the Americas were deserted before the Jaredites arrived is because that's what it states in the Book of Mormon. The reason LDS academics believe it wasn't deserted is because they believe in modern aecheology as being infallible then place fallibilty on Church leaders as fruit of their actions that they don't believe in the Book of Mormon or their Church leaders!

[PeterPear]

Thanks for this comment! That is a really interesting perspective that I hadn't considered previously. I relate very strongly with you aversion to the genocide in the OT, and appreciate how you've resolved this.

The reason for the "genocide" in the OT and not the Book of Mormon, is because in the OT the Lord was restoring the Children of Israel to the lands promised to their Fathers, Isaac and Abraham. Nephi discusses this "genocide" and why it occurred in Chapter 17 of 1 Nephi. Basically, because the inhabitants of Canaan would not repent and join them.

Additionally, in the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites, Zoramites and Ishmaelites were the brethren of the Nephites and thus the Nephites sought to restore them to the gospel if they repented. Being of Lehi, they had the same blessings granted to them on conditions of repentance as promised to all Lehi's descendants and the Nephites recognized this.

[tagriffy]

Over the years Church leaders have declared that either the Church is true or it is not, or that the Book of Mormon is true or it is not. There is no middle ground.

Such a view blows my meager little mind. Where does it end when we live by such a standard? Could Nephi have erred in doctrine even once? If you go by the "it's either true or not" line of thinking there must only be truth found in the doctrine, no? There is no middle ground. What about historicity? Well, is the book true or not? If true, then the history that is recorded must not only be considered adequate history keeping, but accurate.

I'm stumped how this works and would love to hear more thoughts. In the Title page we read, "...if there are faults they are the mistakes of men..." So there must be possibility of mistake and error. If so, then why can't we consider the Book of Mormon both true and not true?

This really gets me because I think many wonder how far we can go in either direction? I say as far as our heart can take us. But it seems many in the Church reject such a thought.

Thoughts?

My thought is we keep asking the wrong question. The question isn't "Is the Book of Mormon true?" The real question is "Is the Book of Mormon True?"

[Kevin Christensen]

See http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/view-of-the-hebrews.html

 

Thanks,

Jim 

For those not inclined to trust their case to the objectivity of the prosecution, see, for instance, John W. Welch here:

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/PreliminaryReports/Scanned%20Set%201/John%20W%20Welch,%20Finding%20Answers_An%20Unparallel,%201985.pdf

 

And for the record, I read View of the Hebrews and the 1923 Roberts Study back in 1985.  Neither represents current scholarship. Welch himself has come much further, as with Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon.  Roberts' little study provides nothing that accounts for things like Ancient American Setting, or Mormon's Codex, or Gardner's Second Witness volumes, or John Clark's 2005 presentation at the Library of Congress, which was very cool to see first hand. 

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

Why? Because the "others" was proposed by LDS Academics aka LDS Apologists bent on proving the Book of Mormon occurred strictly in a 500 x 200 mile area in Mesoamerica and thus beleived in "others" because the Maya/Olmecwere in Mesoamerica before 600/3000 B.C? The reason Joseph Smith, President Marion G. Romney and Elder Holland believe the Americas were deserted before the Jaredites arrived is because that's what it states in the Book of Mormon. The reason LDS academics believe it wasn't deserted is because they believe in modern aecheology as being infallible then place fallibilty on Church leaders as fruit of their actions that they don't believe in the Book of Mormon or their Church leaders!

 

CFR for where any Book of Mormon author clearly states that the North and South America was totally deserted before any of the Book of Mormon migrations happened.

 

The way I read it, it says something else:

 

Nephi's vision of the promised land, granted before the ocean voyage, may refer to these others:

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

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

 

CRF for where "land" unambgiously means the entire continent, and not some available portion. 

 

For instance, "And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts of Egypt. . . . For they covered the face of the whole earth, . . . and there remained not any green thing . . . through all the land of Egypt." (Exodus 10:14–15)

 

CFR for anyplace where Joseph Smith or Marion G. Romney went through the Book of Mormon verse by verse (studying out in their own mind, as it were, as though that sort of thing might have something to do with whether revelation might occur), and making sense of how the 600 plus passages with geographic information fit when set against a modern map.

 

CFR where John Sorenson in JBMS 1, 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1378&index=2

or me in RBBM 7/2,  

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1436&index=8

 

or Matt Roper in "Nephi's Neighbors"

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1126&index=10

 

state that we believe that modern archeology is infallible and that we don't believe in church leaders while being fully active in the church, and defending the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

 

Just so the record is clear on something that is so important to the question.

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Mormonmaniac]

You should put your thoughts about the "evidence in the Americas" down on paper and publish it.  I'm sure the scientists would be fascinated to be shown that they "don't really know what they're doing."

I find it fascinating. Perhaps in time I may gather up my study and publish it for those seeking the truth.

[Dion]

Great discussion! Scripture, by definition, is an authoritative written document that is believed to have been inspired by a higher power. It doesn't have to be infallible, inerrant, or perfect. The problem is that if I start trying to choose what parts are correct and what parts are incorrect, I become the authority. So it is no longer scripture to me. It's like the old joke about honoring nine of the ten commandments - your choice. It just doesn't work.

[Brian 2.0]

Great discussion! Scripture, by definition, is an authoritative written document that is believed to have been inspired by a higher power. It doesn't have to be infallible, inerrant, or perfect. The problem is that if I start trying to choose what parts are correct and what parts are incorrect, I become the authority. So it is no longer scripture to me. It's like the old joke about honoring nine of the ten commandments - your choice. It just doesn't work.

 

What is the solve for that problem?  Just play it safe and believe it all?

[Lightbearer]

Why would anyone think that anything could be true and false at the same time? Do you think God can lie? Because the reason the Book of Mormon was given was not so scientists or scholars or the learned could verify His words or that it could be or should be proven by undeniable facts. The reason it was given to us was so faith could increase in the earth and that men would learn how to receive revelations. If someone has this shades of gray idea of Gospel truth then you can treat the Gospel as some sort of buffet where you can accept a teaching or reject it and it really does not matter. This goes totally counter to common sense and the teachings of the scriptures. (Jacob 4:13) "...for the spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be..."

[tagriffy]

 

CFR for where any Book of Mormon author clearly states that the North and South America was totally deserted before any of the Book of Mormon migrations happened.

 

For all practical purposes, Ether 13:2 is a clear statement that North and South America was totally deserted before any of the Book of Mormon migrations happened. "[A]fter the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands." It also became an empty land. Indeed, the entire Jaredite migration is predicated on the land being totally deserted. The subsequent development in Mormon theology that effectively placed the Garden of Eden in America reinforces that concept. Adam is kicked out of the Garden of Eden and settles in Adam-ondi-Ahman in present day Missouri. Ten generations or so down the road, the Flood destroys everything and carries Noah on the Ark into what we now call Asia. The people subsequently refuse to scatter, leading to the Tower of Babel incident where the plot of the Book of Ether begins. The Jaredite party goes forth from the Tower and have gone into territory "where there never had man been" (Ether 1:5). The flow of the story implies that the Jaredites had already left before the final judgment, though I presume this point could be argued. Either way, there simply hasn't been enough time for there to be any significant settlement of the Americas before the Jaredite arrival. In significant contrast to the Lehite party, the Book of Ether is silent about whether there were even animals already present in the land. While I won't insist on an argument from silence, the implication is that the beasts the Lehites found were descendants of animals the Jaredites brought with them.

 

 

Nephi's vision of the promised land, granted before the ocean voyage, may refer to these others:

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

 

Doubtful. The angel specified to Nephi what he was looking at: "thy seed, and also the seed of they brethren." The text makes perfectly good sense as it stands without supposing there were "others" beyond Nephi's lineal and collateral descendants. Supposing there were "others" beyond what is explicitly identified in the text (i.e., the Mulekites and Jaredites) places a lot of unnecessary weight on too a slender thread.

 

 

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

 

I'm not sure I entirely understand the point you are trying to make. However, I wouldn't be so sure that the threat of other nations is supposed to have immediate significance. Lehi is prophesying, and he speaks of "when the time cometh" and "if the day shall come" (2 Nephi 1:10). Be it as it may, supposing Lehi knows that his people are not alone raises its own questions. Questions like, "If Lehi was referring to groups he knew already existed, why didn't he simply name them as threats?" We, as the audience, are going to find out there were others in the land--the Mulekites and the Jaredites. But we get this information as the Nephites encounter them. And in the process, we learned why they weren't much of a threat to the Lehites. The Jaredite civilization was already collapsing and the Mulekite civilization hadn't advanced to the point where it could pose a credible threat to the Lehites.

 

 

CRF for where "land" unambgiously means the entire continent, and not some available portion.

 

One may as well issue a CFR for where "land" unambiguously means only some available portion of the continent for all the good it will do. The problem is there aren't any unambiguous measurements of distance between any two points in the Book of Mormon. We are never given any measurements of distance beyond x many days travel. We have few indications of terrain, meaning we don't know how difficult the journeys were. We are rarely given any numbers of the size of the groups doing the traveling. We are never told the weather travelers faced. "Mormon's Map" might give us an idea of the general layout of the land, but it is hardly unambiguous enough to give us any definitive ideas about its dimensions.

 

[Kevin Christensen]

For all practical purposes, Ether 13:2 is a clear statement that North and South America was totally deserted before any of the Book of Mormon migrations happened. "[A]fter the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands."

Which waters? Back in 1990, RBBM 2, I had this:

Yet Ether says nothing about the New World being uninhabited, let alone barren of life. Vogel sees Ether 13:2 as supporting the "notion of a universal flood" (p. 49). "After the waters had receded from off the face of this land [America], it became a choice land above all other lands" (ibid.). But are these waters from the Noah flood or from the creation? (see Genesis 1:7; Moses 2:6-10; Abraham 4:9). Ether is ambiguous.

Targriffy says of the New World, in consequence of a reading that depends on a global flood,

It also became an empty land. Indeed, the entire Jaredite migration is predicated on the land being totally deserted.

And here is something else from my 1990 self.

Moses 7:52 (translated in 1830) described how Enoch received a promise "that a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations." Noah was a descendant of Enoch. A remnant would hardly be described as "found among all nations" if the remnant comprised all nations. At the very least, the Moses text removes any requirement that the New World be unpopulated after the flood. Vogel acknowledges in a footnote that the Ether 2:5 reference to "that quarter where there never had man been" can be understood as referring to an Old World location (p. 93 n. 94). Nothing in the text rules out the presence of other inhabitants in the New World. The silence of the text regarding non-Jaredite populations must be balanced against its brevity and the possibilities suggested by Enoch's blessing and must be acknowledged as ambiguous.

The next bit argues based on an assumption that the assumption that the Biblical flood is global, something I do not accept as necessary or desirable or reasonable. And I think that putting the Garden of Eden in any specific location is rather like the comment of Black Elk, regarding his vision at the top of the highest mountain on the earth. "But anywhere is the center of the world." (See Black Elk Speaks, 36, and compare Nephi and Moses on their mountains.) Eden is symbolically a temple, and Adam symbolically a priest. If "adam" is many, what about Eden?

Regarding my reading of Nephi's Old World vision of the New World in 1 Nephi 21:1, you have:

Doubtful. The angel specified to Nephi what he was looking at: "thy seed, and also the seed of they brethren."

Readings differ. Mine has the advantage of consistency with archeological evidence. Evidence in the ground ought to be a constraint on how we read the evidence of the text.

 

I'm not sure I entirely understand the point you are trying to make. However, I wouldn't be so sure that the threat of other nations is supposed to have immediate significance. Lehi is prophesying, and he speaks of "when the time cometh" and "if the day shall come" (2 Nephi 1:10).

I noted in RBBM 7/2 that 2 Nephi 1 is spelling out the covenants, and the associated blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. The curse comes "as one generation passeth to another" and all of the other curses come immediately upon the death of Lehi. So what about "other nations?" After Nephi leaves in 2 Nephi 5, he stops being a direct observer of Lamanite social doings. Jacob explains that he is going to use Nephite and Lamanite as political labels. And Brant Gardner and Matt Roper have both explained that the theme of Jacob's discourse in 2 Nephi 10 is that the "the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land" (2 Nephi 10:10) and the land is a place where "the Gentiles shall be numbered among the house of Israel" (18), where the land belongs both to "thy seed and those who shall be numbered among thy seed." (2 Nephi 10:19.

 

One may as well issue a CFR for where "land" unambiguously means only some available portion of the continent for all the good it will do.

It does a lot of good because it involves a recognition of what the word, and the underlying Hebrew words actually refer to in common use. And it also saves us having to explain away or totally ignore archeology. It saves us from having to accuse faithful saints who have read a bit of apostasy.

 

The problem is there aren't any unambiguous measurements of distance between any two points in the Book of Mormon. We are never given any measurements of distance beyond x many days travel. We have few indications of terrain, meaning we don't know how difficult the journeys were. We are rarely given any numbers of the size of the groups doing the traveling. We are never told the weather travelers faced. "Mormon's Map" might give us an idea of the general layout of the land, but it is hardly unambiguous enough to give us any definitive ideas about its dimensions.

The text doesn't say that they didn't have seven league boots or bullet trains, but I think such things can be safely ruled out on other grounds. The way to resolve ambiguity one way or another is with realistic and reasonable constraints. How far can can a group consisting of men, women, children and flocks travel for 22 days? Have you have tried to guide children and flocks for that span? If they are traveling on foot, how much food can they carry? And if they can't carry 22 days worth of food, the travel time has to account for gathering, hunting, and food preparation. Do they sleep, or not? Sorenson's work, and Gardner's and Poulson's and Clark's and others is all about being comprehensive and careful in his reading, and about using reasonable constraints to resolve ambiguity. It's akin to Barker's notion of being able to stand where they stood in order to see what they saw.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 10, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[rodheadlee]

Sure. But we're all liars to some extent. no one is totally a liar and no one is totally honest. So could not Joseph be part liar and yet also part authentic, in terms of the text of the BoM coming to him in some way?

You have never met my wife. "Honey does this shirt make me look fat?" "Yes dear, choose another"

[rodheadlee]

Sure. But we're all liars to some extent. no one is totally a liar and no one is totally honest. 

Why would you say that? My wife and I often get accused of being honest to a fault. I'm sure we're not the only ones.

[CV75]

Over the years Church leaders have declared that either the Church is true or it is not, or that the Book of Mormon is true or it is not. There is no middle ground.

Such a view blows my meager little mind. Where does it end when we live by such a standard? Could Nephi have erred in doctrine even once? If you go by the "it's either true or not" line of thinking there must only be truth found in the doctrine, no? There is no middle ground. What about historicity? Well, is the book true or not? If true, then the history that is recorded must not only be considered adequate history keeping, but accurate.

I'm stumped how this works and would love to hear more thoughts. In the Title page we read, "...if there are faults they are the mistakes of men..." So there must be possibility of mistake and error. If so, then why can't we consider the Book of Mormon both true and not true?

This really gets me because I think many wonder how far we can go in either direction? I say as far as our heart can take us. But it seems many in the Church reject such a thought.

Thoughts?

Since no one is perfect (m"mistakes of men"), I don’t think the either/or principle is necessarily an end, but a beginning. Without taking a step in the right direction and keeping in that direction, we cannot become perfect. Of course we wander off the path from time to time, but we can repent. The only way we can get on, stay on, and get back on the path is to accept the truthfulness of the Church, the Book of Mormon, etc. That cannot possibly be accomplished by leading with the sense that these things are not true.

[stemelbow]

Why would you say that? My wife and I often get accused of being honest to a fault. I'm sure we're not the only ones.

Hi rodheadlee, I'm sure you're very honest, moreso than myself. But, I have yet to meet anyone who has not lied. That's all I really meant to suggest.

[thesometimesaint]

https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KIo9gubHhVExsAayEsnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByZWc0dGJtBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMQ--?p=Star+Trek+Everything+I+Say+Is+a+Lie&vid=454eb2ef5c3f356da71ebec181c11c85&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN.0PPqeZZIe7ynh%252fT7vDg9zg%26pid%3D15.1%26h%3D226%26w%3D300%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQqCiw0wD44U&***=Star+Trek+-+Everything+Harry+tells+you+is+a+Lie&c=0&h=226&w=300&l=52&sigr=11bclvtgc&sigt=11folr5ng&sigi=12m4hebc6&age=1389650203&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&tt=b

[churchistrue]

Which waters? Back in 1990, RBBM 2, I had this:

Targriffy says of the New World, in consequence of a reading that depends on a global flood,

And here is something else from my 1990 self.

The next bit argues based on an assumption that the assumption that the Biblical flood is global, something I do not accept as necessary or desirable or reasonable. And I think that putting the Garden of Eden in any specific location is rather like the comment of Black Elk, regarding his vision at the top of the highest mountain on the earth. "But anywhere is the center of the world." (See Black Elk Speaks, 36, and compare Nephi and Moses on their mountains.) Eden is symbolically a temple, and Adam symbolically a priest. If "adam" is many, what about Eden?

Regarding my reading of Nephi's Old World vision of the New World in 1 Nephi 21:1, you have:

Readings differ. Mine has the advantage of consistency with archeological evidence. Evidence in the ground ought to be a constraint on how we read the evidence of the text.

 

I noted in RBBM 7/2 that 2 Nephi 1 is spelling out the covenants, and the associated blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. The curse comes "as one generation passeth to another" and all of the other curses come immediately upon the death of Lehi. So what about "other nations?" After Nephi leaves in 2 Nephi 5, he stops being a direct observer of Lamanite social doings. Jacob explains that he is going to use Nephite and Lamanite as political labels. And Brant Gardner and Matt Roper have both explained that the theme of Jacob's discourse in 2 Nephi 10 is that the "the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land" (2 Nephi 10:10) and the land is a place where "the Gentiles shall be numbered among the house of Israel" (18), where the land belongs both to "thy seed and those who shall be numbered among thy seed." (2 Nephi 10:19.

 

It does a lot of good because it involves a recognition of what the word, and the underlying Hebrew words actually refer to in common use. And it also saves us having to explain away or totally ignore archeology. It saves us from having to accuse faithful saints who have read a bit of apostasy.

 

The text doesn't say that they didn't have seven league boots or bullet trains, but I think such things can be safely ruled out on other grounds. The way to resolve ambiguity one way or another is with realistic and reasonable constraints. How far can can a group consisting of men, women, children and flocks travel for 22 days? Have you have tried to guide children and flocks for that span? If they are traveling on foot, how much food can they carry? And if they can't carry 22 days worth of food, the travel time has to account for gathering, hunting, and food preparation. Do they sleep, or not? Sorenson's work, and Gardner's and Poulson's and Clark's and others is all about being comprehensive and careful in his reading, and about using reasonable constraints to resolve ambiguity. It's akin to Barker's notion of being able to stand where they stood in order to see what they saw.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Kevin Christensen, if the Super Bowl for a given year was the most epic game with thrilling finish and the team from Houston won, and we had a copy of front page of the Houston newspaper the next day that read "WHAT A GAME!", I'm sure you could make an argument that the game was actually referring to an impromptu volleyball game in someone's backyard.  You may have found a way for these obscure interpretations to work for you, but I don't think anyone else is convinced.  

 

A much better (and honest?) way to do is say, OK Lehi's obviously talking about European colonists.  Ether's obviously talking about Noah's flood.  This is kinda problematic.  But let's be direct and honest about it and see if we can figure out an angle that can preserve faith.

[Mormonmaniac]

Which waters? Back in 1990, RBBM 2, I had this:

Targriffy says of the New World, in consequence of a reading that depends on a global flood,

And here is something else from my 1990 self.

The next bit argues based on an assumption that the assumption that the Biblical flood is global, something I do not accept as necessary or desirable or reasonable. And I think that putting the Garden of Eden in any specific location is rather like the comment of Black Elk, regarding his vision at the top of the highest mountain on the earth. "But anywhere is the center of the world." (See Black Elk Speaks, 36, and compare Nephi and Moses on their mountains.) Eden is symbolically a temple, and Adam symbolically a priest. If "adam" is many, what about Eden?

Regarding my reading of Nephi's Old World vision of the New World in 1 Nephi 21:1, you have:

Readings differ. Mine has the advantage of consistency with archeological evidence. Evidence in the ground ought to be a constraint on how we read the evidence of the text.

 

I noted in RBBM 7/2 that 2 Nephi 1 is spelling out the covenants, and the associated blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. The curse comes "as one generation passeth to another" and all of the other curses come immediately upon the death of Lehi. So what about "other nations?" After Nephi leaves in 2 Nephi 5, he stops being a direct observer of Lamanite social doings. Jacob explains that he is going to use Nephite and Lamanite as political labels. And Brant Gardner and Matt Roper have both explained that the theme of Jacob's discourse in 2 Nephi 10 is that the "the Gentiles shall be blessed upon the land" (2 Nephi 10:10) and the land is a place where "the Gentiles shall be numbered among the house of Israel" (18), where the land belongs both to "thy seed and those who shall be numbered among thy seed." (2 Nephi 10:19.

 

It does a lot of good because it involves a recognition of what the word, and the underlying Hebrew words actually refer to in common use. And it also saves us having to explain away or totally ignore archeology. It saves us from having to accuse faithful saints who have read a bit of apostasy.

 

The text doesn't say that they didn't have seven league boots or bullet trains, but I think such things can be safely ruled out on other grounds. The way to resolve ambiguity one way or another is with realistic and reasonable constraints. How far can can a group consisting of men, women, children and flocks travel for 22 days? Have you have tried to guide children and flocks for that span? If they are traveling on foot, how much food can they carry? And if they can't carry 22 days worth of food, the travel time has to account for gathering, hunting, and food preparation. Do they sleep, or not? Sorenson's work, and Gardner's and Poulson's and Clark's and others is all about being comprehensive and careful in his reading, and about using reasonable constraints to resolve ambiguity. It's akin to Barker's notion of being able to stand where they stood in order to see what they saw.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Speaking of ambiguity, the 22 days doesn't really tell us anything other thn it was that distance from somewhere in Zarahemla "the land" and its southern country. http://nephicode.blogspot.com/2011/05/do-we-know-where-land-of-promise-is_29.html