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

[thesometimesaint]

19 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

To be clear, I am not arguing that it's impossible for a civilization to completely vanish.  I think the LGT'ers have made enough of a case that we can see it's at least *possible*.  What I'm challenging is the likelihood.  Brant Gardner is claiming it is what we should expect, it is "most consonant" of what we understand with other similar situations.  Specifically the intermarrying and dropping of culture and language, even when going from high civilization to low, and even when the colonizers become the kings and rulers.  I'm admitting I don't have enough expertise to challenge this, but I was hoping for some examples.  None had been given previously.  I'll look into your Funan example.  

Thought you might like this.

SEE http://www.learning-mind.com/ancient-civilizations-that-mysteriously-disappeared/

[PeterPear]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

This doesn't seem like as big a problem as you are making it out to be. Especially since no one here has a default position that the Prophet Mormon was a liar. Perhaps the Nephites didn't intermarry and their DNA was mostly preserved through the time of Mormon but went extinct at Cumorah. And it was the Lamanites that intermarried.

There is evidence that groups in southern Mexico lived in close proximity to each other but did not mix.

That's not what the Mesoamerica Theory states.

The theory states that Lehi's group landed in Mesoamerica and shortly after intermarried among the local Mesoamerican people.

Remember, the Mesoamerica Theory claims the New World location for the Book of Mormon was in a 500 x 200 mile area strictly within Mesoamerica. (- Dr. Sorenson) There the Nephites - and the Lamanites - who were children of Lehi and Ishmael (and Zoram) - and the descendants of the people of Mulek - along with Others who were already in Mesoamerica - built their civilizations and cultures.

Thus Lehi's DNA wasn't preserved for generations later. But the author of the Book of Mormon 1,000 years later contradicts the Theory.

[PeterPear]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Limited, careening rapidly toward Banned?

Do not put words in my mouth that I did not say.

I didn't put any words in your mouth. I've only asked you if what Mormon stated is false. I didn't grow up in Utah thus I've encountered many people who call the Book of Mormon a lie.

You've offered nothing toward this conversation other than anectodal comments and personal attacks. 

"Bro. Gardner has published 6 volumes, (thus he has to be correct)."

"I'm going to ignore you."

Are you trying to bait me to get me banned? I asked you a simple question and you fly off the handle.

You seem easily offended over a Theory that the First Presidency has never endorsed.

 

Peter has been banned from this thread.

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

Because their form of writing appears to have been preserved only among the relatively few trained up in the Nephite scribal tradition.

Consider the sons of King Benjamin, who, centuries after Nephi, had to be taught the language of their fathers to be able to even read the plates. 

Very similar to the demise of Tironian notes/shorthand in Europe:  

• Was introduced into Europe contemporary with Hagoth and the stripling warriors, roughly a century after King Benjamin.
• Was used by scribes in Europe for centuries (although the general European public couldn't discern Tironian).
• Became a lost art generations ago, with the meaning of many TIronian characters now unknown.

You wouldn't know modern shorthand without extensive training. Ditto with reformed Egyptian/Tironian.

Fair 'nuf?

Moroni is writing the Lamanites in the language of his fathers (reformed Egyptian) at the end of the BoM (~400 A.D.)

Your claim does not match what is stated in Moroni chapter 1:

Chapter 1

Moroni writes for the benefit of the Lamanites—The Nephites who will not deny Christ are put to death. About A.D. 401–21.

1 Now I, Moroni, after having made an end of abridging the account of the people of Jared, I had supposed not to have written more, but I have not as yet perished; and I make not myself known to the Lamanites lest they should destroy me.

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

3 And I, Moroni, will not deny the Christ; wherefore, I wander whithersoever I can for the safety of mine own life.

4 Wherefore, I write a few more things, contrary to that which I had supposed; for I had supposed not to have written any more; but I write a few more things, that perhaps they may be of worth unto my brethren, the Lamanites, in some future day, according to the will of the Lord."

 

 

•  
•  

•  
•  

Edited March 18, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

To be clear, I am not arguing that it's impossible for a civilization to completely vanish.  I think the LGT'ers have made enough of a case that we can see it's at least *possible*.  What I'm challenging is the likelihood.  Brant Gardner is claiming it is what we should expect, it is "most consonant" of what we understand with other similar situations.  Specifically the intermarrying and dropping of culture and language, even when going from high civilization to low, and even when the colonizers become the kings and rulers.  I'm admitting I don't have enough expertise to challenge this, but I was hoping for some examples.  None had been given previously.  I'll look into your Funan example.  

The interesting thing about Funan, is that any western texts that refer to it called it a variation of Komr or Komara. Arabic texts claim Komr was settled by sons of Noah who sailed there in boats resembling Noah's ark in the time of the Jaredites. The Greeks and Romans of the 4th century AD called them the Camarini, a pure and moral people living in an island paradise. Scholars frequently associate the Camarini with the Rechabites of Biblical lore who left Jerusalem in the 6th century BC.

If you really dig into Arabic and oriental texts of this period, the Book of Mormon stands out as a surprisingly accurate and complimentary account of this unidentified Komara Island that, according to the ancients, was inhabited by Biblical clans during the same time period as the Book of Mormon.

[churchistrue]

20 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The interesting thing about Funan, is that any western texts that refer to it called it a variation of Komr or Komara. Arabic texts claim Komr was settled by sons of Noah who sailed there in boats resembling Noah's ark in the time of the Jaredites. The Greeks and Romans of the 4th century AD called them the Camarini, a pure and moral people living in an island paradise. Scholars frequently associate the Camarini with the Rechabites of Biblical lore who left Jerusalem in the 6th century BC.

If you really dig into Arabic and oriental texts of this period, the Book of Mormon stands out as a surprisingly accurate and complimentary account of this unidentified Komara Island that, according to the ancients, was inhabited by Biblical clans during the same time period as the Book of Mormon.

This Funan example is certainly an interesting example of kind of a mysterious civilization.  But it doesn't seem to qualify as an example for Brant's assertion that the norm for ancient colonists is to intermarry with locals in a way that their DNA, language, and culture vanish.  My understanding is that we can tell Funan had significant Indian influence, with evidence of language and culture.  Also it seems it was a type of port city, and we have relics of other interactions like Roman, Greek, and Persian.  

Edited March 19, 2017 by churchistrue

[probablyHagoth7]

22 hours ago, PeterPear said:

....Thus Lehi's DNA wasn't preserved for generations later. But the author of the Book of Mormon 1,000 years later contradicts the Theory.

The Nephite record (and the D&C) are clear that Lehi's seed would be preserved...

There is no such contradiction.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

This Funan example is certainly an interesting example of kind of a mysterious civilization.  But it doesn't seem to qualify as an example for Brant's assertion that the norm for ancient colonists is to intermarry with locals in a way that their DNA, language, and culture vanish.  My understanding is that we can tell Funan had significant Indian influence, with evidence of language and culture.  Also it seems it was a top of port city, and we have relics of other interactions like Roman, Greek, and Persian.  

Apologies I should have specified I'm referring to an earlier period, 9 centuries before Hindus, Buddhists and Roman coins show up in Oc Eo.

World Archaeological Experts Fascinated by Sungai Batu Ancient Site

The first advanced civilization on the peninsula left no means of identifying who they were or where they came from. They knew how to smelt iron and make iron tools, but we don't find any. According to 3rd century Chinese texts they built walled cities, and had kings, intermarried, and fought battles. But we see very little evidence of it. Even today there is intense debate about who they were. They weren't Hindus or Buddhists because they left no temples or artifacts, and Indianization and western trade didn't take hold until the 3rd century AD.

But its clear somebody was there smelting iron in the 6th century BC and traditional methods have not been enough to identify them.

Quote

"Mokhtar’s team have yet to find any proof of the people who lived in or governed the empire. What they were certain of was that the people at the time contributed to what was a strong empire. “We are certain that the technology used for iron smelting industry here was local and it lasted from the 6th century BCE through the 17th century AD. “Based on the temperature needed for iron smelting, which is at 1,200 degrees Celsius, the architecture, jetties and trade that went on, it was evident that the people of Sungai Batu then were advanced,” he said. However, a question that remains is who are the people behind the existence of the empire and it is a mystery that the CGAR team is working hard at unravelling. (source)

 

Edited March 19, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Brant Gardner]

On 3/17/2017 at 8:10 PM, PeterPear said:

So what of Mormon declaring he's a pure descendant of Lehi?

That is an interesting textual question. What do you think that means? Are you suggesting that there were no other people in the New World when Lehi arrived? If so, there is abundant contrary information.

Are you suggesting that in the course of 1,000 years, there was never an intermarriage with anyone who wasn't genetically related to Lehi, that is an interesting definition--but I don't know how Mormon could have know that.

If you are suggesting that is patrilineage traced to Lehi, I think that is more plausible. However, that doesn't preclude non-Lehite maternal lines.

So I certainly agree that Mormon said it, but I don't know that I can tell exactly what he meant. I suspect it was the paternal line--but I'm not at all sure why you bring that up in this conversation. Given that the Book of Mormon pretty much ignores women, there is no evidence that there would be a record of the maternal line, so I can't understand how "pure" in this case would be genetically exclusive of non-Lehite DNA.

[Brant Gardner]

On 3/18/2017 at 11:23 AM, PeterPear said:

Thus Lehi's DNA wasn't preserved for generations later. But the author of the Book of Mormon 1,000 years later contradicts the Theory.

If that is your conclusion, then are you saying that the Book of Mormon must not be true, since no remnant of Lehi's DNA has been found?

Remember, the "evidence" that has been proposed for the connection of Native American DNA to the Middle East has been completely repudiated by much more recent research (as summarized and confirmed by an LDS degreed geneticist). The only way that the original hypothesis could even be proposed was to selectively select the science, since the same original article that made the connection traced it to more that 10,000 B.C., and also linked it across the Bering Strait.

For those reasons, I am not at all sure what you are arguing for. If you are suggesting that there is a genealogical connection to Lehi, I don't think we have a difference of opinion at all. If, however, you are making a genetic argument, you will need to present evidence to support that position.

[churchistrue]

30 minutes ago, Brant Gardner said:

That is an interesting textual question. What do you think that means? Are you suggesting that there were no other people in the New World when Lehi arrived? If so, there is abundant contrary information.

Are you suggesting that in the course of 1,000 years, there was never an intermarriage with anyone who wasn't genetically related to Lehi, that is an interesting definition--but I don't know how Mormon could have know that.

If you are suggesting that is patrilineage traced to Lehi, I think that is more plausible. However, that doesn't preclude non-Lehite maternal lines.

So I certainly agree that Mormon said it, but I don't know that I can tell exactly what he meant. I suspect it was the paternal line--but I'm not at all sure why you bring that up in this conversation. Given that the Book of Mormon pretty much ignores women, there is no evidence that there would be a record of the maternal line, so I can't understand how "pure" in this case would be genetically exclusive of non-Lehite DNA.

Two ways to approach this.

 

1. Take the book the way it was "meant" to by its author(s).  There are no "Others" and no mixing of populations, and the BOM is meant to be understood on a grand scale, explaining the origins of all Native Americans.  the geography is likely meant to be something like this: Lehi's landing is in South America, that narrow neck is Panama Canal, and the land Desolate is somewhere northern Mexico or United States.  There are some weaknesses in this from a purely inner textual basis, but I believe those are best understood by mistakes when describing distances in a small number of places.

2. Completely ignore the text, analyze modern science, history, and anthropology and identify a "best case" for the BOM, which is the current LGT-Mixing Populations Mesoamerica theory.  

 

I think when you approach it with #2, you get explanations like yours that help preserve the literal view, but do a great disservice to the book in terms of scriptural value, in terms of understand the book the way the author(s) intended.

I think when you approach it with #1, you get explanations that are more in line with the text and the author(s) original intention, and it is a more enriching experience coming from a scriptural-spiritual perspective.    

[RevTestament]

On 3/17/2017 at 7:31 AM, churchistrue said:

These are terrible examples to support your claim that the expected outcome, ie " the scenario suggested would be the most consonant with what we know of most of human history" is that a group of 25 settlers coming from a more advanced civilization quickly intermarries and integrates into the new population, such that evidence of its DNA, language, and culture completely vanish.  

You know a heck of a lot more about this subject than I do.  But if you want me to believe your claim that this is the expected outcome, then you must have several examples to show me.  Because it goes exactly opposite of what is intuitive.  And when I think of all the instances of settlements I know of, not a single one look like this.  In fact, they are nearly all the opposite of this.  But granted, my examples are generally more modern, and this is not my field of expertise.  

I don't agree with Brant's propositions, but there definitely are examples of societies disappearing.

We know Jews lived in Israel, and specifically Jerusalem - even the Romans tell us that. So there is not much reason to disbelieve their history that more than 1/2 the Hebrews got carted away. Assyrian history confirms the Biblical history. So find these other tribes! Find them genetically, culturally, etc anywhere on the earth! I believe they are there, but their societies and DNA got decimated. Another example is the Scythians of the Old World.  We only know what the Greeks wrote about them and what their graves teach us. At one time scholars doubted the existence of the Hittite nation, but archaeology has proven they existed.

Another example in the New World is the Mayan culture - virtually completely wiped out by other Mesoamerican cultures and then the Spanish, although we do have their large stone cities.

Who knows how many societies have disappeared without much if any trace, because obviously we don't know what we find no evidence for/existed. If the Bible didn't tell us about the other 10 tribes, science wouldn't believe they ever existed.

[clarkgoble]

On 3/18/2017 at 0:16 PM, Ouagadougou said:

Moroni is writing the Lamanites in the language of his fathers (reformed Egyptian) at the end of the BoM (~400 A.D.)

He clearly is writing to them in the future (see esp verse 4 which you even quoted). That is he's writing the Book of Mormon for this future reading by them after it's translated. He's not writing them epistles directly sent to them in reformed egyptian.

[clarkgoble]

On 3/17/2017 at 8:08 AM, churchistrue said:

Are we sure about this?  We're a couple generations at least into the America time period and Jacob notes that the people are still called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.  He tells us he's going to simplify into Lamanites and Nephites.  But we have no reason to believe this is a "political" term.  The reader is expected to assume it's a family lineage, imo.  In fact, for the rest of the book, we're clued into important exceptions to that rule.  With different "ites" mentioned.  (see list below) References for the Lamanites to "Father Lehi" and "descendants of Laman".  We come back to Zoramites several times.  We also identify in a group who is a Lamanite and who is a Nephite dissenter.  In 4th Nephi, we have references again back to all the "ites".  

It's a simplification and you're right that there are other groups. The reason to think it's a political term is due to how Nephi defines it but also how it's used during the later Alma era when there are dissenters switching sides rather regularly. To expect it's a family term seems dubious I think. But in any case, the key factor is that the Nephites have no way of knowing what the Lamanites were doing on their own. So to assume they only are descended from Laman and Lemuel seems impossible for the Nephites to know. Ditto with the Mulekites. The most important part is really Nephi's point about adoption. Those who come with Nephi are called Nephites regardless of lineage.

It's true that for a period in the Alma narrative lamanite dissenters who join the Nephites are still called Lamanites. That seems unusual. Note that after Christ appears the terms themselves disappear.

Edited March 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

I think when you approach it with #1, you get explanations that are more in line with the text and the author(s) original intention, and it is a more enriching experience coming from a scriptural-spiritual perspective.    

Yes. Give it a literal interpretation and let them stay on the island in the sea they said they were on: 

"For the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea."

No need to think too much beyond that, or strain at all the things that aren't found in this or that LGT. An unidentified island setting works just fine for other Judeo-Christian texts. Why complicate things?

[Brant Gardner]

9 hours ago, churchistrue said:

1. Take the book the way it was "meant" to by its author(s).  There are no "Others" and no mixing of populations, and the BOM is meant to be understood on a grand scale, explaining the origins of all Native Americans.  the geography is likely meant to be something like this: Lehi's landing is in South America, that narrow neck is Panama Canal, and the land Desolate is somewhere northern Mexico or United States.  There are some weaknesses in this from a purely inner textual basis, but I believe those are best understood by mistakes when describing distances in a small number of places.

That is what the author(s) meant? How do you know. I don't see that at all. I do see that as part of the reception history, but reception history is very different from authorial intent. There are any number of reasons why the text does not support the hemispheric model prevalent in the reception history. As you mention, distance is one, but even specific descriptions and movements of people show that what you are describing is a modern misreading of the text, and not at all related to authorial intent. 

Even the "missing others" is an assumption based on a modern, anachronistic, reading of the text. It is an assumption that the text should have responded to modern conventions, and therefore when it doesn't do something, that something couldn't have been implied in the text. That reading requires the assumption of ahistory from the beginning. The moment there is at least an assumption that it might come from an earlier time period, such assumptions must fall away as the model for reading becomes ancient texts and not modern sensibilities. There is a city between Tikal and Calakmul (as I remember) which is culturally different from both and had to have been known to both--but no text from either city mentions it (while spending a lot of time mentioning the enemy--either Tikal or Calakmul).

 

Quote

2. Completely ignore the text, analyze modern science, history, and anthropology and identify a "best case" for the BOM, which is the current LGT-Mixing Populations Mesoamerica theory.  

I think when you approach it with #2, you get explanations like yours that help preserve the literal view, but do a great disservice to the book in terms of scriptural value, in terms of understand the book the way the author(s) intended.

I think when you approach it with #1, you get explanations that are more in line with the text and the author(s) original intention, and it is a more enriching experience coming from a scriptural-spiritual perspective.    

You are correct that I approach the text as I would any historical text. It should behave as an ancient text, not a modern one. It should represent what happens in real cultures. It should also reflect known history from the time period in which it was written. I believe all of that, and see evidence for all of it (including the reflection of known history and culture).

Clearly, we differ significantly on what the authorial intent was. I see no textual support for your suggestion, and I have spent quite a bit of time looking very specifically at editorial intent as represented in the construction of the text, use of sources, and how the text lays out an argument. There is a significant difference in authorial intent between Nephi and Mormon--the purposes for writing are very different, the ways sources are used is completely different, the nature of the layout of the text is dramatically different. On that basis alone I can't see how I could ever agree with your assertion of what you see as the authorial intent. As noted, I certainly see it in the reception history, but that necessarily occurs after the publication and did not influence the creation or translation of the text.

[Benjamin Seeker]

Quote

 If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right.

 

Title page of the Book of Mormon:

Quote

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile 

Native Americans being generally referred to as Lamanites in the D&C is often apologetically chalked up to the 19th century reception of the text, but the mandate for preaching to the Lamanites is inferred in the title page of the Book of Mormon as well as other places in the text. There is an easily perceived continuation between the above statement, and similar prophetic statements in the BoM, and the D&C revelations that refer to preaching to the Lamanites.

This connection is made even more explicit by JS's 1831 revelation:

Quote

Verily I say unto you that the wisdom of man in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood. but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.

As far as I can tell this is intended as a direct fulfillment of the following Book of Mormon prophecy:

Quote

And now, I would prophesy somewhat more concerning the  Jews and the Gentiles. For after the book of which I have  spoken shall come forth, and be written unto the Gentiles, and  sealed up again unto the Lord, there shall be many which shall  believe the words which are written; and they shall carry  them forth unto the remnant of our seed. And then shall the  remnant of our seed know concerning us, how that we came  out from Jerusalem, and that they are a descendant of the  Jews. And the Gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among  them; wherefore, they shall be restored unto the knowledge  of their fathers, and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ,  which was had among their fathers. And then shall they re joice: for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from  the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to  fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away  among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome  people.

Basically, D&C commits to, at the very least, various native American groups in North America being Lamanites. JS' 1831 revelation links the missionary efforts of D&C to specific prophecies about the Lehite posterity in the Book of Mormon. It would appear that JS' God, on some level, agrees with JS' specific understanding of who the Lamanites are. That suggests that the line between authorial intent and JS' understanding of the text is an ambiguous, and perhaps even non-existant, one.

[Gervin]

2 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

You are correct that I approach the text as I would any historical text. It should behave as an ancient text, not a modern one. It should represent what happens in real cultures. It should also reflect known history from the time period in which it was written. I believe all of that, and see evidence for all of it (including the reflection of known history and culture).

 

Just curious; are you aware of any BYU anthropologists and archaeologists - particularly any with knowledge or expertise in Mesoamerican history and cultures - who use the Book of Mormon as a teaching aid to help their students understand the cultures of Mesoamerica, ca 1000 BC - 1000 CE?  Do any use your books for the same?

[Brant Gardner]

8 hours ago, Gervin said:

 

Just curious; are you aware of any BYU anthropologists and archaeologists - particularly any with knowledge or expertise in Mesoamerican history and cultures - who use the Book of Mormon as a teaching aid to help their students understand the cultures of Mesoamerica, ca 1000 BC - 1000 CE?  Do any use your books for the same?

No. I suspect they, and I know I, would consider that inappropriate. I know that there are BYU anthropologists/archaeologists who use my books in Book of Mormon classes, and well as use Mesoamerican culture as part of their lectures, but would also consider that when teaching the subjects in a secular context, they should remain in a secular context.

There is much about the history and culture of Mesoamerica that informs a richer, and more historical, view of the Book of Mormon. There isn't anything from the Book of Mormon that alters or informs Mesoamerican studies. One might argue that it provides a picture of one of the players in the game, but not a major one. The Book of Mormon peoples do not appear to have altered Mesoamerican history, but rather been altered by it.

[churchistrue]

13 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

Clearly, we differ significantly on what the authorial intent was. I see no textual support for your suggestion, and I have spent quite a bit of time looking very specifically at editorial intent as represented in the construction of the text, use of sources, and how the text lays out an argument. There is a significant difference in authorial intent between Nephi and Mormon--the purposes for writing are very different, the ways sources are used is completely different, the nature of the layout of the text is dramatically different. On that basis alone I can't see how I could ever agree with your assertion of what you see as the authorial intent. As noted, I certainly see it in the reception history, but that necessarily occurs after the publication and did not influence the creation or translation of the text.

ftr, I agree that Nephi and Mormon had different voices and styles, especially in how they used sources, and other textual patterns.  But I disagree they had a different view in terms of the geographical and anthropological scope of the Book of Mormon.

Also, I'm still very curious to understand the logic as to why you say the the intermarrying and dropping of culture and language and disappearance of DNA from high culture to low culture in a colonist setting would be "most consonant" with our understanding.  You gave me a few examples, but they don't seem very strong examples to support that claim.  Would it be better to downgrade your statement to "it's possible" from "it's the most consonant"?

[churchistrue]

2 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

The Book of Mormon peoples do not appear to have altered Mesoamerican history, but rather been altered by it.

I can't remember if I've seen you address this before, but just how do you reconcile this statement with 4th Nephi?  I understand it's difficult to challenge a theory where Nephites are like modern day Mormons in California, building houses and going to jobs that don't distinguish them a lot from the rest of the population.  You can play with words in the Book of Mormon enough to twist all significance to their wars and temples and synagogues and population sizes and bloodlines.  I don't like it, but I acknowledge it's intellectually possible.  But how do you reconcile a time in history where 16 cities were destroyed, then over 200 time period rebuilt, with the entire population living in perfect unity as Christians?  

 

[Brant Gardner]

22 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

But how do you reconcile a time in history where 16 cities were destroyed, then over 200 time period rebuilt, with the entire population living in perfect unity as Christians?  

I take recourse to the real world and known history. First, reading a text as saying that the entire population lived in perfect unity as Christians is a modern anachronistic reading of what an ancient text says and means. That difference between the way we approach the text shows up frequently, and clearly will continue to show up. Once you accept that the text was written anciently, you have to accept that it follows ancient canons and does not subscribe to what a modern reader believes that it should say. Christ sent his apostles into all the world--but the world they went to wasn't all that large. Nevertheless, later readers who knew of a larger world assumed that they had reached other locations, which is how the Spanish fathers thought that St.Thomas had arrived in the New World. That is the same kind of anachronistic reading-back into the text that you are suggesting. I might note, however, that it is entirely unclear what material evidence New World Christianity would leave. All of the symbology we associate with Christianity was developed long after the Lehites left the Old World, and many of the symbol systems were borrowed from Greek culture, which was an influence in the Old World, but not the New.

As for the destructions, that is also a pretty simple issue. We haven't done enough archaeology to find all destroyed cities, but there is very good evidence of the explosive eruption of a volcano at the appropriate time, along with a slippage along fault lines, that caused widespread destruction. There is at least one city that was sunk (into Lake Atitlan) about this time period. So for the things that can be checked against history, there is really no problem. For the issues that depend upon particular readings of the text--that is a reading question and not one amenable to archaeology.

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

 

Title page of the Book of Mormon:

Native Americans being generally referred to as Lamanites in the D&C is often apologetically chalked up to the 19th century reception of the text, but the mandate for preaching to the Lamanites is inferred in the title page of the Book of Mormon as well as other places in the text. There is an easily perceived continuation between the above statement, and similar prophetic statements in the BoM, and the D&C revelations that refer to preaching to the Lamanites.

This connection is made even more explicit by JS's 1831 revelation:

As far as I can tell this is intended as a direct fulfillment of the following Book of Mormon prophecy:

Basically, D&C commits to, at the very least, various native American groups in North America being Lamanites. JS' 1831 revelation links the missionary efforts of D&C to specific prophecies about the Lehite posterity in the Book of Mormon. It would appear that JS' God, on some level, agrees with JS' specific understanding of who the Lamanites are. That suggests that the line between authorial intent and JS' understanding of the text is an ambiguous, and perhaps even non-existant, one.

Good comments.  Joseph Smith clearly viewed the Native Americans in his backyard as Lamanites, he called them Lamanites, he sent people on missions to them, he had revelations to build a temple among them.  Joseph, the author of the BoM whether you want to call it translation or dictation or invention, Joseph is still the author.  I think it matters what Joseph thought about the Lamanites.  I think this is always going to be a challenge to those promoting the limited geography model, and I don't see how this can be explained away, its just too obvious what Joseph thought and Joseph's opinion about a book that he authored really matters on this subject.  

[Brant Gardner]

49 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

But I disagree they had a different view in terms of the geographical and anthropological scope of the Book of Mormon.

Nephi is pretty clear that he didn't see much of the land, but that he claimed that he was on an "isle of the sea." That designation only lasts through his writing. No one else uses that designation.

Later information speaks about various seas, but only actually interfaces with seas on the east and the west. We only get the north and south seas in the context of the "whole earth." With zero action taking place near the north or south seas, and with the very specific context in which they appear, it is pretty clear that they have become symbolic representations. That is the Mesoamerican definition of the nature of the earth--but it is not a physical description. It is also not an indication of an isle of the sea. Nephi has very little geographic information. They land on a coast (which we get by obvious assumption, not his statement). Then he goes "up" to the land of Nephi. He mentions that he is on an "isle of the sea," which is more a reference and connection to Isaiah than to geography.

Mormon gives more information, and in many cases pretty detailed, but none of the geographic features he mentioned are part of Nephi's text (or for anyone save a little in Amaleki's writing). There is no evidence I can see in the text that would allow you to say that Nephi and Mormon had the same geographic understanding. Mormon never saw any of the lands that Nephi did, and Nephi never saw any of the lands that Mormon did. Reading the text as though a real person wrote it, it is impossible to extract a hemispheric view of geography. That requires globes and maps that were unavailable to contemporaries of the book.

[Brant Gardner]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Good comments.  Joseph Smith clearly viewed the Native Americans in his backyard as Lamanites, he called them Lamanites, he sent people on missions to them, he had revelations to build a temple among them.  Joseph, the author of the BoM whether you want to call it translation or dictation or invention, Joseph is still the author.  I think it matters what Joseph thought about the Lamanites.  I think this is always going to be a challenge to those promoting the limited geography model, and I don't see how this can be explained away, its just too obvious what Joseph thought and Joseph's opinion about a book that he authored really matters on this subject.  

You are correct if Joseph is the author. If he conceived and created the text, then of course his ideas about the text are definitive. That changes, however, if he is the translator. Then he is producing a text that he didn't know about beforehand, and therefore his opinions cannot inform the text. For example, we have the famous statement about walls around Jerusalem. As the story is told, he was surprised by that, not placing the information in the text.

If someone else wrote the text and Joseph translated it, then it is possible that he knew very little about it (as the story of the walls of Jerusalem suggests). What then do we do with his ideas of who the Lamanites were? It is very clear that he thought that all Amerindians were Lamanites. The designation of who might be a Lamanite has shifted in the Church over time. Armand Mauss's All Abraham's Children has a good summation of that history.

Sometimes, it is suggested that since Joseph saw visions of the Book of Mormon peoples that he must have known everything (including geography). I took an Internet quizz that showed pictures and had you answer where in the world they were. Our modern world has a lot better way of visualizing the world, including places where I have never been, so I didn't do poorly--but I certainly had problems identifying locations based on the visual of that place. I can't imagine why it would have been different for Joseph. The best evidence that we should be cautious with Joseph's opinions about the book is that he changed his mind about the location of the book with the discovery of new ruins. If he changed his opinion that easily, it clearly wasn't founded on revelation of specifics about the history or geography of the text.

That leaves us with the question of whether Joseph's opinion about the text is definitive for the text. I can't see it, unless he wrote it and there was no actual ancient people behind it.