Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

"If I were God, I would not allow mundane historical problems obscure the truth of the Book of Mormon."

That's a reasonably fair re-statement of my point, yes — as long as by "if I were God" you mean not "if God were like me" but "if God acted in the way that seems to me to be consistent with how God is supposed to have acted at other times." I mean, if God ordained geographical conditions that let us find Jericho and the Pyramids in the Middle East, and then really pulled out all the stops to get some ancient records to Joseph Smith in 1830, why not at least give us a dry plateau somewhere in the Book of Mormon lands, with a few ruins and inscriptions? We got that kind of thing for the Bible, at least a bit. Why not for the Book of Mormon?

If that plateau were to be found, would you post haste call the LDS missionaries and ask to take the discussions in preparation for baptism?

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

 

Again, I didn't read all 20 pages of this thread, so I'm sorry if I'm beating a dead tapir, but considering I have a chapter on numbers in my second book, and I'm military historian, I thought I could provide some needed perspective to the discussion. I love talking about the BoM so thanks for giving me the chance.  

Please talk some more.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If that plateau were to be found, would you post haste call the LDS missionaries and ask to take the discussions in preparation for baptism?

I fear that with the finding of the "plateau" there would still be many like the unbelieving Nephites who scoffed at the fulfillment of prophecies prior to the coming of Christ:

Quote

16 Some things they may have guessed right, among so many; but behold, we know that all these great and marvelous works cannot come to pass, of which has been spoken.

(Helaman 16:16)

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Gervin said:

No, you haven't shown an actual population in the millions

So you deny the standard archeology which I cited?  With which source do you take issue?

6 hours ago, Gervin said:

and you haven't shown that battles with combatants numbering in the millions regularly occurred.  

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

You do have a point, Gervin.  Although warfare in Mesoamerica was fairly constant, total war in which the full population was engaged did not occur regularly.  Anyhow, the Book of Mormon does not depict all out full-scale wars of extermination on a regular basis.  The final wars of extinction among the Jaredites and the demise of the Nephites much later could certainly have been expected to involve millions -- because that was the population in each case.  The whole point is that archeology makes such wars understandable in real terms.

[Physics Guy]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

If that plateau were to be found, would you post haste call the LDS missionaries and ask to take the discussions in preparation for baptism?

No.

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I fear that with the finding of the "plateau" there would still be many like the unbelieving Nephites.

Absolutely.

So it's absolutely not as though a little bit of solid but inconclusive evidence would remove all need for faith. I'm not objecting to faith, or demanding proof. The point of concrete evidence is not to prove a religious belief beyond all doubt.

There are important questions on which we can't avoid exercising faith, one way or the other, because conclusive evidence isn't available. So we struggle on with theory, trust, and emotion. We exercise pattern recognition as well as reason. Being rational is like being pipedal: if you insist on keeping two feet on the ground at all times, you can't move. 

The problem is that if we rely entirely on pattern recognition alone then we're prone to delusion. So there need to be some contacts, at least in a few places, with some things that don't all just happen inside our heads. The feet do need to touch the ground, here and there, now and then.

That's why complete absence of evidence is a problem, for me. I'm not looking for proof, just for something that breaks the loop of subjective experience. Without it, even if the Book of Mormon were not fiction, it might just as well be.

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

No.

What is the point of asking for evidence if you are not willing to act on it?

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

No.

Absolutely.

So it's absolutely not as though a little bit of solid but inconclusive evidence would remove all need for faith. I'm not objecting to faith, or demanding proof. The point of concrete evidence is not to prove a religious belief beyond all doubt.

There are important questions on which we can't avoid exercising faith, one way or the other, because conclusive evidence isn't available. So we struggle on with theory, trust, and emotion. We exercise pattern recognition as well as reason. Being rational is like being pipedal: if you insist on keeping two feet on the ground at all times, you can't move. 

The problem is that if we rely entirely on pattern recognition alone then we're prone to delusion. So there need to be some contacts, at least in a few places, with some things that don't all just happen inside our heads. The feet do need to touch the ground, here and there, now and then.

That's why complete absence of evidence is a problem, for me. I'm not looking for proof, just for something that breaks the loop of subjective experience. Without it, even if the Book of Mormon were not fiction, it might just as well be.

So furnishing the "evidence" that you demand would do neither you nor us any good. Thanks for the advance notification that it would be an absolutely empty exercise.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

No.

Absolutely.

So it's absolutely not as though a little bit of solid but inconclusive evidence would remove all need for faith. I'm not objecting to faith, or demanding proof. The point of concrete evidence is not to prove a religious belief beyond all doubt.

There are important questions on which we can't avoid exercising faith, one way or the other, because conclusive evidence isn't available. So we struggle on with theory, trust, and emotion. We exercise pattern recognition as well as reason. Being rational is like being pipedal: if you insist on keeping two feet on the ground at all times, you can't move. 

The problem is that if we rely entirely on pattern recognition alone then we're prone to delusion. So there need to be some contacts, at least in a few places, with some things that don't all just happen inside our heads. The feet do need to touch the ground, here and there, now and then.

That's why complete absence of evidence is a problem, for me. I'm not looking for proof, just for something that breaks the loop of subjective experience. Without it, even if the Book of Mormon were not fiction, it might just as well be.

The problem with that is that religion is purely subjective- it is not about some realm of "reality" out in the world- it is about what is in our hearts.

You should be able to understand that the existence of God cannot be shown through objective evidence- again it is like knowing whom you should marry by subjective evidence.  Of course THAT question is subjective!

Science does not discuss relative importance of anything- science is not about what is important in life- it is about what con be observed of the world around us.

You are barking up the wrong tree, and will never find what you seek because you are asking the wrong question.

In the realm of religion and morality- subjectivity is king. 

 

[bcuzbcuz]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You quoted me saying:

That is not a self-contradiction at all, since it accepts actual millions in general because that is the nature of the actual population, but does not pass judgment upon whether it was simply hyperbole for a very large number, a myriad, if you will.  I am being scholarly and reasonable.  You are playing heads-I-win-tails-you-lose games, Gervin.  Once more, sincerity is everything.  Surely you are not silly enough to claim that a Jaredite auditor had to count each person exactly, something that they did not have the capacity to do.  And you don't believe in the Jaredites anyhow.  We are having a discussion of what can be reasonably concluded from the text and archeology.  You reject both.  Since you reject both science and textual analysis, what does that leave us?  Sheer anti-intellectual mockery on your part, I guess.

I assume you are on the same page regarding Joseph´s "translation" of the Book of Mormon. He held his hat to his face and the seer stone showed him what to write. 

Joseph was not translating the golden plates. According to witnesses, the plates were often, not even in the same room as Joseph. 

The words that appeared before Joesph's eyes may or may not have been an actual translation, word for word, of the texts written on the golden plates. The names of things and animals were, in most cases, not the names as given by the scribes, but close approximations to known things and animals, using modern, English, names. What was called a horse in the BofM text may not have been "horse" on the plates. The words Joesph say before his eyes, both for such things and the story in whole, was an inspired text. Incorrect details would be corrected? Or am I missing something here?

If the scribe, in typical scribal hyperbole, described the battles of "millions" (but those millions were perhaps, as you state, "simply a very large number") would not the inspired text "Auto-correct"?

Since neither you nor I have the original text, and since we have no idea whether numbers stated actually represent what was written, and "translated" exactly as written, those stated millions could, in fact, actually be "millions". Without any scribal hyperbole.

Your inference that these millions were "simply a very large number" is merely wishful thinking on your part.

 

[hope_for_things]

On 11/19/2016 at 10:07 AM, Bernard Gui said:

We all must wrestle with the two great laws....justice and mercy.

Those aren't the two great laws in my book.  Love is the great law, the paring of justice against mercy is a perspective that gets the gospel message wrong on many levels.  

[Boanerges]

18 hours ago, Steve J said:

Just from a philosophical point of view- what would be the purpose of moroni's promise?

No one else has answered this, so I'll take a stab.:

Moroni 10 (emphasis added):

Now I, Moroni, write somewhat as seemeth me good; and I write unto my brethren, the Lamanites; and I would that they should know that more than four hundred and twenty years have passed away since the sign was given of the coming of Christ.

 2 And I seal up these records, after I have spoken a few words by way of exhortation unto you.

 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things....

So from Moroni's point of view it was to convince the Lamanites that the Lord has been merciful and that the record is true.

I'm not saying that Moroni's promise is not valid for others besides the Lamanites, but he clearly wrote the promise to the Lamanites (a fact almost everyone leaves out when using the reference).

Edited November 21, 2016 by Boanerges

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Those aren't the two great laws in my book.  Love is the great law, the paring of justice against mercy is a perspective that gets the gospel message wrong on many levels.  

This pairing is the gospel message.....the good news; because of it Jesus is the Christ.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I assume you are on the same page regarding Joseph´s "translation" of the Book of Mormon. He held his hat to his face and the seer stone showed him what to write. 

Joseph was not translating the golden plates. According to witnesses, the plates were often, not even in the same room as Joseph. 

The words that appeared before Joesph's eyes may or may not have been an actual translation, word for word, of the texts written on the golden plates.

You probably need to read up on the actual history of the Book of Mormon text, since you clearly do not understand it.  I recommend the following elementary materials on translation:

Gardner, Brant A., The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (SLC: Greg Kofford, 2011).

Skousen, Royal J., “Translating the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript,” in N. B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997), 61–93.

Smith, Robert F.,  “Translation of Languages (hermēniea glōssōn I Cor 12:10)” (Independence, MO, June 1980), online 2010 at https://www.scribd.com/doc/46307834/Translation-of-Languages .

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

The names of things and animals were, in most cases, not the names as given by the scribes, but close approximations to known things and animals, using modern, English, names. What was called a horse in the BofM text may not have been "horse" on the plates. The words Joesph say before his eyes, both for such things and the story in whole, was an inspired text. Incorrect details would be corrected? Or am I missing something here?

If the scribe, in typical scribal hyperbole, described the battles of "millions" (but those millions were perhaps, as you state, "simply a very large number") would not the inspired text "Auto-correct"?

Since neither you nor I have the original text, and since we have no idea whether numbers stated actually represent what was written, and "translated" exactly as written, those stated millions could, in fact, actually be "millions". Without any scribal hyperbole.

Your inference that these millions were "simply a very large number" is merely wishful thinking on your part.

Ancient documents regularly use hyperbole (exaggeration) in describing royal exploits and warfare.  Egyptian and Mesopotamian kings made plainly exaggerated and often false claims about which battles they won, their personal role in the battles, how many casualties the other side suffered, and how much booty was taken.  Indeed, the hyperbole is usually presented in formulaic fashion.  It would be a surprise if this did not happen in any ancient document -- to the degree that it could constitute an anachronism.  Critiques of the Bible regularly bring up inflated or unrealistic numbers depicted in various parts of the text.  Again this is quite normal, even though non-scholars are ignorant of the phenomenon -- considered "wishful thinking" by the hoi polloi.

However, scholars are also aware of the fact that some huge numbers can indeed be involved (although not a matter of an exact count).  For example, at one point during the great Maya Collapse, five million Maya in the southern region simply disappeared (David Webster and Susan Toby Evans, “Mesoamerican Civilization,” chapter 16, in C. Scarre, ed., The Human Past: World Prehistory and the Development of Human Societies, 2^nd ed. [Thames & Hudson, 2009], 630, online at http://anth.la.psu.edu/documents/Webster_Evans_MesoAmerican.pdf).  That is the round number the non-Mormon scholars use, and it is not an exaggeration.  Nor are other very large settlement research population numbers in the millions.  Anti-Mormons have a very hard time accepting standard scholarship in such matters due to their apriori motivation and propaganda positions.

This likewise applies to the silly notion that there must have been some sort of "auto-correct" function to handle imaginary problems encountered during translation.  Contrary to your invidious discrimination against it, there is no reason to consider the BofM text to be fundamentally different from any other translated text.  Scholarship should treat it the same as any other such text.

[Gray]

On 11/18/2016 at 6:50 PM, Marmonboy said:

I would expect that it would be very difficult to submit an article to a secular peer-reviewed journal about oh, excavations at Zarahemla, let's say, and not have it thrown back in your face with a sneer of derision. I don't blame the lack of "stuff published in peer-reviewed journals" on any lack of evidence, although I'm pretty sure there is some.

But isn't that what all purveyors of fringy ideas think about the establishment? Mainstream academia is shutting us out because they can't handle the truth, and so forth. If there is anything to these theories, let them be put to the test, right? If the methodology and evidences are sound, the theory will win out in the end. 

[Gray]

Delete

Edited November 21, 2016 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Steve J said:

Just from a philosophical point of view- what would be the purpose of moroni's promise?

Quote

 

"If I were God, I would not allow mundane historical problems obscure the truth of the Book of Mormon."

That's a reasonably fair re-statement of my point, yes — as long as by "if I were God" you mean not "if God were like me" but "if God acted in the way that seems to me to be consistent with how God is supposed to have acted at other times." I mean, if God ordained geographical conditions that let us find Jericho and the Pyramids in the Middle East, and then really pulled out all the stops to get some ancient records to Joseph Smith in 1830, why not at least give us a dry plateau somewhere in the Book of Mormon lands, with a few ruins and inscriptions? We got that kind of thing for the Bible, at least a bit. Why not for the Book of Mormon?

 

 

 

 

Invert the order of the above- the last shall be first

The second quote above is from Physics guy, the answer from Steve J is brilliant and I think it got lost in the smoke of battle here.

Think about this!!  The Book of Mormon suggests its own methodology for its verification and we ignore that in trying to verify it by other methods.

It does not say "Find archaeological evidence to prove this book true"- it gives its own rules for verification!!

I never thought of it that way- thanks mucho Steve J!!

It is a self-contained unit which itself affirms the idea of "subjective verification" on its own without help from the philosophies of men- which I have tried to justify through the philosophies of men.   In itself it preaches the doctrine of "subjective verification" and it thereby refutes those who seek other evidences!  Of course "subjective verification" is confirmation by the spirit- but here it is totally consistent with Alma 32 which uses the scientific "experimental" method applied to the spirit.

That one liner from Steve J is Huuuuuuuuuuuge! 

The philosophical purpose of Moroni's promise is to teach the methodology of spiritual, subjective verification by the spirit in finding what is important in each of our lives.

Those who seek historical verification are ignoring the book's own built-in verification system and therefore in a sense are violating the principles of the Book of Mormon simply by attempting other verification methods which are doomed to failure by the Book itself.

Edited November 21, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

But isn't that what all purveyors of fringy ideas think about the establishment? Mainstream academia is shutting us out because they can't handle the truth, and so forth. If there is anything to these theories, let them be put to the test, right? If the methodology and evidences are sound, the theory will win out in the end. 

But there is a problem with this

First academia DOES see "subjective spiritual verification for spiritual matters" as valid.   Quotes because it does not use those terms- it would use the terms of Rorty below.

Seeking verification by other means violates the verification principle found in the book itself and is therefore invalid

If you dispute the Book's own method, now you are in the realm of academia, and Rorty et al, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Pascal and James and other fideists put forth the academic arguments IN FAVOR of the Book's methodology.

So either you dispute the academics justification of the methodology or you do not.  The BOM is self verifying for each individual and does not even recommend objective verificationism as a method.   It is therefore totally consistent.

You believe, if I got it right that "God is everything".  Try scientific verificationism on that one.

Edited November 21, 2016 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

This pairing is the gospel message.....the good news; because of it Jesus is the Christ.

Your perspective, perfectly valid for you, but not valid for me and not consistent with my reading of scripture or the feelings I've felt. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

But there is a problem with this

First academia DOES see "subjective spiritual verification for spiritual matters" as valid.   Quotes because it does not use those terms- it would use the terms of Rorty below.

Seeking verification by other means violates the verification principle found in the book itself and is therefore invalid

If you dispute the Book's own method, now you are in the realm of academia, and Rorty et al, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Pascal and James and other fideists put forth the academic arguments IN FAVOR of the Book's methodology.

So either you dispute the academics justification of the methodology or you do not.  The BOM is self verifying for each individual and does not even recommend objective verificationism as a method.   It is therefore totally consistent.

I would also argue that the BoM is not self verifying, and I think you'd agree with me here.  A person is not verifying anything about the BoM when they follow Moroni's promise.  They are only verifying how they personally feel about the BoM, not anything objective about the BoM itself.  How do I feel about the color blue, is it a true color for me, says nothing about the color blue objectively, it just tells me how I relate to the color blue.

I think there is value in the scholarly disciplines, determining historicity, etc.  It can tell us the likelihood of the actual existence of the Nephites. It can help us to understand the cultures of native peoples, etc.  However, it can never tell us if the BoM's spiritual message is "true" or not.  

Its the questions that people ask and the answers they expect to receive that are the stumbling block.  This is not the fault of the people though, church leaders and the culture of Mormonism have created this environment and set the wrong expectations.  

Edited November 21, 2016 by hope_for_things

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I would also argue that the BoM is not self verifying, and I think you'd agree with me here.  A person is not verifying anything about the BoM when they follow Moroni's promise.  They are only verifying how they personally feel about the BoM, not anything objective about the BoM itself.

When people follow Moroni's promise, it's because they want to verify whether or not the BOM contains truth that is from God though.  To verify something about the BOM is the entire point of the promise.  It's why the promise was given.

 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But there is a problem with this

First academia DOES see "subjective spiritual verification for spiritual matters" as valid.   Quotes because it does not use those terms- it would use the terms of Rorty below.

Seeking verification by other means violates the verification principle found in the book itself and is therefore invalid

If you dispute the Book's own method, now you are in the realm of academia, and Rorty et al, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Pascal and James and other fideists put forth the academic arguments IN FAVOR of the Book's methodology.

So either you dispute the academics justification of the methodology or you do not.  The BOM is self verifying for each individual and does not even recommend objective verificationism as a method.   It is therefore totally consistent.

MFB, I was referring to the discipline of archaeology, which has its own methodologies. Archaeology will have absolutely nothing to say about Moroni's promise, but Moroni's promise is not the topic being discussed.  Not everything has to be about Rorty. This isn't about postmodernism or even spirituality, as important as those topics are. 

Your philosophy, while useful in its own sphere, doesn't seem to apply when we're talking about disciplines like archaeology or chemistry or biology. Given that people are positing archaeological evidences for the Book of Mormon, the normal rules of archaeology should apply. Otherwise, it sounds like you're saying we should shut down all the sciences because Wittgenstein. 

Yes, I agree, before you object, science has absolutely nothing to do with religious truths. But science has something to say about scientific theories and evidences. If it's just about religious truth then we can forget all the ideas about Nephites being integrated among the Maya or limited geography theories or what have you. Those are apologetic defenses of the faith which cross over into the borderlands of science, because most members seem to have the idea that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is important. 

 

Quote

You believe, if I got it right that "God is everything".  Try scientific verificationism on that one.

What we choose to call God is subjective, the same as choosing to call someone friend. But none of that has anything to do with whether or not there were historical Nephites. Science has something to say about that, as well as about the existence of "everything". 

Edited November 21, 2016 by Gray

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When people follow Moroni's promise, it's because they want to verify whether or not the BOM contains truth that is from God though.  To verify something about the BOM is the entire point of the promise.  It's why the promise was given.

This is a good illustration of where I think things get confused.  When a person prays to ask God whether the BoM is true or not, what are they asking?  Are they asking God to verify whether a historical event factually happened?  And what is God answering when a person has a spiritual experience?  Is God telling you that the events in the book are pragmatically true, or is God telling you that the events are factually accurate?  

I think many people go into the question with different assumptions about the BoM, and I think many people come away with an answer to prayer and another set of assumptions.  What does this mean?  What did God tell me?  I assert that God isn't ever telling anyone if factual events actually happened.  That's not how things work.  

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is a good illustration of where I think things get confused.  When a person prays to ask God whether the BoM is true or not, what are they asking?  

They are asking God whether or not it contains His doctrine and His word.

Quote

Are they asking God to verify whether a historical event factually happened?  And what is God answering when a person has a spiritual experience?  Is God telling you that the events in the book are pragmatically true, or is God telling you that the events are factually accurate?

I agree that a Spiritual confirmation does not have to mean that the book is factually true (thought to say that God never tells anyone the answer to that question isn't possible), but that does not mean that the purpose of the prayer isn't to verify what the BOM is.  It doesn't have to verify that it is historically true to still be verifying something about it. 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I would also argue that the BoM is not self verifying, and I think you'd agree with me here.  A person is not verifying anything about the BoM when they follow Moroni's promise.  They are only verifying how they personally feel about the BoM, not anything objective about the BoM itself.  How do I feel about the color blue, is it a true color for me, says nothing about the color blue objectively, it just tells me how I relate to the color blue.

I think there is value in the scholarly disciplines, determining historicity, etc.  It can tell us the likelihood of the actual existence of the Nephites. It can help us to understand the cultures of native peoples, etc.  However, it can never tell us if the BoM's spiritual message is "true" or not.  

Its the questions that people ask and the answers they expect to receive that are the stumbling block.  This is not the fault of the people though, church leaders and the culture of Mormonism have created this environment and set the wrong expectations.  

I think it is more that they are putting themselves in the community of "Book of Mormon Believers" and thereby accepting the community's definition of "truth" in the same way that one perhaps defines it "true" that murder is bad or that "one should congratulate people in the service for protecting freedom" or that abortion is either moral or not.  Different communities create their own truths about these matters.

Truth always exists within a given community- physicists define physical "truth", believers define the "truth" of any given belief.  Physics is its own arcane belief system which is largely not understandable to those who do not belong to the inner sanctum and who do not understand its metholdologies.  Believers in UFO's have their community, Republicans have theirs, and Democrats their own separate realities.  

It is not surprising that Mormons tend to follow the epistemology of Protestants but they should not

[Ouagadougou]

If people are being asked to base so much of their lives on the truthfulness of the BoM, then I think it warrants both a spiritual and scientific examination, especially if it is the "most correct book" and the cornerstone of the religion.

I personally cannot rely solely on a warm/special witness and/or feeling at this point to confirm the BoM is true and actually happened (maybe I just lack faith).  Spiritual convictions might be good enough for some...but not me personally.  I do think that there are some are inspiring verses that promote good in the BoM, but for me personally, that doesn't mean that these people/events actually existed and took place.  Furthermore, there are numerous inspiring (fiction) books that I have read that evoke similar feelings, as some of the verses in the BoM.  Are those other books not as true as the BoM, if they give me warm/special feelings?

What if a person prays about the BoM (like I have done numerous times) but never received an answer (like others have)?  What if I have legitimate concerns/doubts that have not been reconciled?  What if my spiritual witness (gut feeling) tells me personally that the BoM narrative did not, in fact, actually happen?  It's very subjective I guess -- and each person is entitled to his/her own interpretations and convictions; one side is trying to prove that their feelings/convictions are correct.  If person A states that he knows the BoM is true, then person B is equally entitled to know that the book is not true, if truth is subjective.  

When it comes to scientific research, it is my opinion that, given the compilation of overwhelming DNA, linguistic and archeological evidence, the BoM did not actually happen (and the earth is not 6,000 years old).  

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ancient-migration-patterns-north-america-are-hidden-languages-spoken-today-180950053/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-12000-year-old-skeleton-helps-answer-question-who-were-first-americans-180951469/

It's interesting that even the church in its essay stated that:

"Although the primary purpose of the Book of Mormon is more spiritual than historical, some people have wondered whether the migrations it describes are compatible with scientific studies of ancient America."

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng#3

Even the church is saying that the primary purpose of the BoM is spiritual (not historical).  The historicity of the BoM narrative is hanging on a thread at this point for many members I know.  In my opinion, I won't be surprised if the church eventually abandons its historicity claim of the BoM in the future.

Finally, no offense meant here...if people want to believe the BoM is true via their feelings, then they are free to believe as they choose.  However, I am also entitled to the belief that these events did not occur via my own witness/conviction.  

I guess we are all correct in our own minds, right?  😀

Edited November 21, 2016 by Ouagadougou