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

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

National Geographic disagrees with you.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/

Nope. It's not saying there was a migration from Israel. It's saying that ancient Siberians had Eurasian DNA. And it certainly doesn't support the  migrations in the BOM story. 

Edited November 14, 2016 by Gray

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Yes, many voices/leaders teaching the same thing about the Lamanites.  Beliefs change though and the introduction was changed to represent the new beliefs (that the Lamanites aren't the "principal ancestors" as previously taught, they are just "among the ancestors").

Do you ever take off your apologist hat and just do some objective thinking?

See my previous post.  I actually looked in the dictionary, and "principal" does not mean what you think it does. 

[cdowis]

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

Nope. It's not saying there was a migration from Israel. It's saying that ancient Siberians had Eurasian DNA. And it certainly doesn't support the  migrations in the BOM story. 

1. Let me copy the header.  It is in large letters and in BOLD  Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe,

 

Did not say that it supports the BOM narrative =====>> refutes his statement that the DNA shows Asia only as the source.

2. See  Ugo Perego's lecture.  I added the link in the post.  Look closely at his maps for HgQ for a possible source, and listen to what he says about small groups.

 I GIVE YOU THE LAST WORD.

Edited November 14, 2016 by cdowis

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, cdowis said:

See my previous post.  I actually looked in the dictionary, and "principal" does not mean what you think it does. 

And you're insisting that McConkie meant something different than he believed and taught when he used the word "principal".

There is no evidence he believed what you are stating, yet there is for the other definition.

You remind me of someone who said "Well, that depends on what your definition of "is" is.  

This is silly and I'll not keep going in circles on this.  Read McConkie's teaching on the Lamanites that I quoted earlier.  Which definition do you think he had in mind for the word "principal" when he used it in the BofM intro?  

[Jeanne]

Just now, JulieM said:

And you're insisting that McConkie meant something different than he believed and taught when he used the word "principal".

There is no evidence he believed what you are stating, yet there is for the other definition.

You remind me of someone who said "Well, that depends on what your definition of "is" is.  

This is silly and I'll not keep going in circles on this.  Read McConkie's teaching on the Lamanites that I quoted earlier.  Which definition do you think he had in mind for the word "principal" when he used it in the BofM intro?  

If prinicple does mean principle...there was no point in changing..among.

[Calm]

Principal has several definitions.  It would make sense to change it even if accurate if people were assuming it meant the wrong definition or if they were using it in the wrong fashion (to limit ideas that were not intended to be limited by any official church teaching).

I think it most likely that Elder McKonkie used it to mean two things, that Lehi and his group filled the highest percentage of anscestor slots of preColumbian American ancestors as well as the Lehi lineage was the most important spiritually.  I think the first is speculation based on traditional understanding/teachings and the second is doctrinal given the various relevant blessings and temple dedications I am aware of. 

Otoh, I would not be the least bit surprised that the word was chosen to allow for a variety of interpretations from HGT to whatever LGT one prefers.

I think it was changed to emphasize that choice of interpretation is allowed and no one geography theory is official.

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it most likely that Elder McKonkie used it to mean two things, that Lehi and his group filled the highest percentage of anscestor slots of preColumbian American ancestors as well as the Lehi lineage was the most important spiritually.  I think the first is speculation based on traditional understanding/teachings and the second is doctrinal given the various relevant blessings and temple dedications I am aware of. 

Well, you can't possibly know that McConkie used the word "principal" to mean "two things".  So, you are right if you say that is speculating.

What we do have is what he taught about the Lamanites.  That is not speculating. Other church leaders taught the same thing at that time.

But, I'm done on this.  I think it's obvious why the words and meaning were changed in the BofM intro.

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by JulieM

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

If the BOM is fiction, I see no reason to also believe the Bible to be fiction as well.  There is no real reason to believe that even a Jesus existed. ...............

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

Not sure I catch your intended meaning here, carbon.  Did you neglect to put in a "did not exist" in the last sentence above?

Historians generally believe that there was a guy names Jesus in the 1st century AD.  What they disagree on is whether he was the Son of God, and whether he rose from the dead.  That is well beyond historiography.

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

You are misinformed.

 

Even the church's essay on DNA and the BoM highlights that most Native American tribes carry primarily Asian (not Middle Eastern) DNA. 

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

"The evidence assembled to date suggests that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA."

Furthermore,  Thomas Murphy said the following from his studies:

"While DNA shows that ultimately all human populations are closely related, to date no intimate genetic link has been found between ancient Israelites and indigenous Americans, much less within the time frame suggested by the Book of Mormon."1 Instead of lending support to an Israelite origin as posited by Mormon scripture, genetic data have confirmed already existing archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and biological data, pointing to migrations from Asia as "the primary source of American In-dian origins.

Researchers associated with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mor- mon Studies (FARMS) have rejected hemispheric models of the Book of Mor- mon but still express "confidence in an Israelite genetic presence in Central America and perhaps as far away as Arizona to the north and Colombia to the south."3 I have found no genetic research to support this expectation."

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V36N04_129.pdf

Yet another source:

"DNA analysis of the boy confirmed the child was a relative of ancient Siberian and East Asian people, concludes a study published in the journal Nature on Wednesday. Their analysis also showed that the child shares DNA with 80 percent of all modern Native American tribes, revealing that he is part of a direct ancestral line to Native Americans living today."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/dna-traces-native-americans-ancestry-siberia/

 

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Ouagadougou

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Well, you can't possibly know that McConkie used the word "principal" to mean "two things".  So, you are right if you say that is speculating.

What we do have is what he taught about the Lamanites.  That is not speculating. Other church leaders taught the same thing at that time.

But, I'm done on this.  I think it's obvious why the words and meaning were changed in the BofM intro.

Elder McConkie was in charge of that edition and he inserted a phrase which was later removed.  It was removed because it represented a minority view, which was not unusual for Elder McConkie.  One need only take a look at John Sorenson's two part series in the Autumn 1984 Ensign to discover that Elder McConkie (a lawyer) knew nothing of the anthropology of the New World.  Anti-Mormons often try to make his speculations normative for Mormons.  They were not, but have instead been a convenient straw man with which to attack the BofM.

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

1. Let me copy the header.  It is in large letters and in BOLD  Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe,

 

Did not say that it supports the BOM narrative =====>> refutes his statement that the DNA shows Asia only as the source.

2. See  Ugo Perego's lecture.  I added the link in the post.  Look closely at his maps for HgQ for a possible source, and listen to what he says about small groups.

 I GIVE YOU THE LAST WORD.

Where did I say only source?  This is what I said:

"For example, DNA for Native Americans points to a migration from Siberia and other parts of Asia, not Israel."

You are misinformed.  

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Ouagadougou

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Even the church's essay on DNA and the BoM highlights that most Native American tribes carry primarily Asian (not Middle Eastern) DNA. 

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

"The evidence assembled to date suggests that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA."

Furthermore,  Thomas Murphy said the following from his studies:

"While DNA shows that ultimately all human populations are closely related, to date no intimate genetic link has been found between ancient Israelites and indigenous Americans, much less within the time frame suggested by the Book of Mormon."1 Instead of lending support to an Israelite origin as posited by Mormon scripture, genetic data have confirmed already existing archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and biological data, pointing to migrations from Asia as "the primary source of American In-dian origins.

Researchers associated with the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mor- mon Studies (FARMS) have rejected hemispheric models of the Book of Mor- mon but still express "confidence in an Israelite genetic presence in Central America and perhaps as far away as Arizona to the north and Colombia to the south."3 I have found no genetic research to support this expectation."

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V36N04_129.pdf

Yet another source:

"DNA analysis of the boy confirmed the child was a relative of ancient Siberian and East Asian people, concludes a study published in the journal Nature on Wednesday. Their analysis also showed that the child shares DNA with 80 percent of all modern Native American tribes, revealing that he is part of a direct ancestral line to Native Americans living today."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/dna-traces-native-americans-ancestry-siberia/ .

Unfortunately, Tom Murphy is a virulent anti-Mormon who never takes an even-handed approach to the DNA discussion, and you seem to be following that same plan.  I would recommend reading previous DNA discussions on this board or of reading more broadly before presenting your case.  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67345-new-dna-research-on-native-american-mummies/ .

A. Arnaiz-Villena, J. Moscoso, J.I. Serrano-Vela, J. Martinez-Laso, “The uniqueness of amerindians according to HLA genes and the peopling of the Americas (LA SINGULARIDAD DE LOS AMERINDIOS SEGÚN LOS GENES HLA Y EL POBLAMIENTO DE AMÉRICA),” Inmunología, 25/1 (Enero-Marzo 2006): 13-24, online at http://www.inmunologia.org/Upload/Articles/6/7/678.pdf ,

Quote

"In addition, the peopling of America sequence may have been more complicated than previously thought: it seems that Caucasoids, Blacks and Mongoloids from China-Mongolia (but not from Siberia) are found to have been in America or the Middle Atlantic (Azores) before Columbus. The possible African and European contacts with Amerindians before Columbus (1492 AD) may not be genetically important; however, the existence of these contacts would help to explain similarities between ancient Egyptian and Mayan-Peruvian civilizations." 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Nope. It's not saying there was a migration from Israel. It's saying that ancient Siberians had Eurasian DNA. And it certainly doesn't support the  migrations in the BOM story. 

Most of those coming to the Americas came via Beringia.  The essay at LDS.org agrees with that, as do all anthropologists.  To conclude from that, as you do, that therefore any Book of Mormon migrations are in question ignores the totality of evidence.  For example, we know archeologically and via the Icelandic Eddas that Vikings lived in the New World for centuries.  Had villages and blacksmith shops operating, just as they did in Greenland.  Yet there is so far no genetic evidence for their presence among Amerind DNA.  How can that be?  I would suggest that skeletal remains at burial sites near those Viking villages will eventually disclose Norse DNA.  We have to do the archeology.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

The Book of Mormon is most certainly not "Fiction" but might be "Allegorical".  

The assertion that they are the same is just plain mistaken.

I would suggest one look up the differences so we don't have to go through all this over and over again.  The topic is getting VERY old.

Quote

 

It is important to note that while allegoresis may make discovery of allegory in any work, not every resonant work of modern fiction is allegorical, and some are clearly not intended to be viewed this way. According to Henry Littlefield's 1964 article, L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, may be readily understood as a plot-driven fantasy narrative in an extended fable with talking animals and broadly sketched characters, intended to discuss the politics of the time.[13] Yet, George MacDonald emphasised in 1893 that, "A fairy tale is not an allegory," in direct reference to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.[14]

J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is another example of a well-known work mistakenly perceived as allegorical, as the author himself once stated, "...I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."[15] While this does not mean his works may not be treated as having allegorical themes, especially when reinterpreted through postmodern sensibilities, it at least suggests that none were conscious in his writings. This further reinforces the idea of forced allegoresis, as allegory is often a matter of interpretation and only sometimes of original artistic intention.

Like allegorical stories, allegorical poetry has two meanings – a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory#Poetry_and_fiction

[VideoGameJunkie]

You have to see the BOM as true if you want to be a temple recommend worthy Mormon.

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Unfortunately, Tom Murphy is a virulent anti-Mormon who never takes an even-handed approach to the DNA discussion, and you seem to be following that same plan.  I would recommend reading previous DNA discussions on this board or of reading more broadly before presenting your case.  http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67345-new-dna-research-on-native-american-mummies/ .

A. Arnaiz-Villena, J. Moscoso, J.I. Serrano-Vela, J. Martinez-Laso, “The uniqueness of amerindians according to HLA genes and the peopling of the Americas (LA SINGULARIDAD DE LOS AMERINDIOS SEGÚN LOS GENES HLA Y EL POBLAMIENTO DE AMÉRICA),” Inmunología, 25/1 (Enero-Marzo 2006): 13-24, online at http://www.inmunologia.org/Upload/Articles/6/7/678.pdf ,

I've enjoyed his articles and interviews.  He isn't the only one in that particular academic circle to come to such conclusions.  

"Virulent anti-Mormon?"  Haha this made me laugh (in a good way...not poking fun 😀)!  I was trying to picture an active Mormon who, at the same time, was a "virulent anti-Mormon."  I think his disciplinary council was cancelled, so he is still a member, right?  

I personally agree with his findings and think his research is correct/objective, but I realize that puts me on the other side of the spectrum in comparison with many members.  IMO, the church is eventually going to have to admit that there is no DNA and (other types of evidence) to substantiate certain BoM historical claims.  

[Brant Gardner]

23 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

• Ammon's defense of Lamoni's flock (Alma 17) and Jesus' parable of the good shepherd (John 10).

Tangentially, this one is completely inaccurate. There is nothing that I see that correlates to the good shepherd. The good shepherd went after one that was lost, and there was a whole flock (and not sheep!) who were lost. The set up is totally different, the outcome is totally different. Without spending time on the others, this one should be simply crossed off your list. 

[Brant Gardner]

10 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I couldn't agree more with you on this statement.  IMO, the lack of DNA, archaeological and linguistic evidence to support the BoM as a historical narrative is, in fact, overwhelming.  

I really can't let this one stand.

1) DNA. This should have died out years ago as a criticism of the Book of Mormon. Geneticists tell us that it is irrelevant. Southerton even admitted as much (and later removed the post). This  sticks around because most of us don't know much other than we have heard that DNA somehow always proves things. The science doesn't support the conclusion. If you are are going to use science as a criterion, you should understand the science you are trying to use.

2) Archaeological evidence: I hear that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, and I confess I have no idea what people mean by that. Once again, it would help to understand what archaeology can do--and to learn about the problems of archaeology when there are a dearth of texts against which to compare it. Most of the examples used are parallels to the Old World--which is qualitatively different based on textual evidence. When you look, at the comparison of archaeology that we know to the Book of Mormon text itself, we actually have very good correlations and therefore quite a bit of archaeological evidence. The reality is precisely the opposite of what you are declaring.

3) Linguistic evidence: This is another case where assumptions are made about what should be found. The problem is with the assumptions, not the data. The linguistic evidence that shows population movements and time depths for Mesoamerica actually help explain the Book of Mormon text. That hardly qualifies as "no linguistic evidence." Once again, I think we see the Internet supplying easy answers that are being accepted without any actual understanding of the issues, or whether the labels suggested actually fit the problem they are applied to.

None of these issues are overwhelming at all, and actually aren't even very interesting--let along damaging.

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said:

Tangentially, this one is completely inaccurate. There is nothing that I see that correlates to the good shepherd. The good shepherd went after one that was lost, and there was a whole flock (and not sheep!) who were lost. The set up is totally different, the outcome is totally different. Without spending time on the others, this one should be simply crossed off your list. 

Brant, I accidentally gave the wrong name to this parable, right chapter though I believe. I meant to indicate the parable where Jesus talks about wolves scattering the sheep and thieves destroying, servants fleeing, the sheep hearing/knowing the voice of the true shepherd, and the true shepherd defending the sheep with his life.

Throughout Alma 17-19, Ammon is portrayed intertextually as a type of Christ. There are three instances where he essentially quotes Christ. "Be of good cheer," "Believe thou this?" and "never have I seen such great faith". Other phrasal intertextualities put Ammon's into Christ's roles including chief among the brothers while administering to them, "Rabannah" echoing Raboni with surrounding intertextuality, and overcoming with the "strength of his arm (or something along these lines)" which is an allusion to Gabriel's prophecy about Jesus (Sorry for the lack of references, but I'm doing this off the top of my head. I'll have to create a separate thread to show this off as this all has a beautiful theological point to it as well). This is accompanied by two narrative intertextualities, which are Ammon filling the role of Christ's true shepherd (only he doesn't die obviously) and then Ammon participating in Lamoni's return from a death like state mirroring Lazarus's return from death. The most impressive intertextuality is appropriately found in this latter example, arguably the climax of the narrative.

EDIT: Brant, I ended up giving some specific examples to illustrate the compelling nature of the overall Ammon/Jesus intertextuality in a post below.

 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[cdowis]

del

Edited November 15, 2016 by cdowis

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Brant Gardner said:

I really can't let this one stand.

1) DNA. This should have died out years ago as a criticism of the Book of Mormon. Geneticists tell us that it is irrelevant. Southerton even admitted as much (and later removed the post). This  sticks around because most of us don't know much other than we have heard that DNA somehow always proves things. The science doesn't support the conclusion. If you are are going to use science as a criterion, you should understand the science you are trying to use.

2) Archaeological evidence: I hear that there is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, and I confess I have no idea what people mean by that. Once again, it would help to understand what archaeology can do--and to learn about the problems of archaeology when there are a dearth of texts against which to compare it. Most of the examples used are parallels to the Old World--which is qualitatively different based on textual evidence. When you look, at the comparison of archaeology that we know to the Book of Mormon text itself, we actually have very good correlations and therefore quite a bit of archaeological evidence. The reality is precisely the opposite of what you are declaring.

3) Linguistic evidence: This is another case where assumptions are made about what should be found. The problem is with the assumptions, not the data. The linguistic evidence that shows population movements and time depths for Mesoamerica actually help explain the Book of Mormon text. That hardly qualifies as "no linguistic evidence." Once again, I think we see the Internet supplying easy answers that are being accepted without any actual understanding of the issues, or whether the labels suggested actually fit the problem they are applied to.

None of these issues are overwhelming at all, and actually aren't even very interesting--let along damaging.

We can take archeology, for example -- you said:

"we actually have very good correlations and therefore quite a bit of archaeological evidence."

What real (e.g. steel, swords, coins, bones, and the list goes on), substantiated archeological evidence is there to support the BoM?  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

I've enjoyed his articles and interviews.  He isn't the only one in that particular academic circle to come to such conclusions.  

"Virulent anti-Mormon?"  Haha this made me laugh (in a good way...not poking fun 😀)!  I was trying to picture an active Mormon who, at the same time, was a "virulent anti-Mormon."  I think his disciplinary council was cancelled, so he is still a member, right?  

I personally agree with his findings and think his research is correct/objective, but I realize that puts me on the other side of the spectrum in comparison with many members.  IMO, the church is eventually going to have to admit that there is no DNA and (other types of evidence) to substantiate certain BoM historical claims.  

Still begging the question, I see.  Are you really unable to weigh the complete set of facts and be fair, but only focus on a single issue?  That isn't the way that legitimate DNA and archeological research proceed.  Naturally, your apriori notions mean that there can be no evidence to substantiate the BofM.  You make such statements only by ignoring any positive evidence, and I know that because I have noticed that you pointedly ignore legitimate evidence that I have mentioned here on this board, or in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .  Instead, you depend upon strictly anti-Mormon analyses, which you do not even understand.

[Ouagadougou]

16 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Let me repeat my response

Y O U   A R E    M I S T A K E N

I give you the last word.

If the vast majority of DNA from American Indians (~80 %) is from Siberia/Asia then, in turn, that would mean it points to migration(s) from Siberia/Asia.  Even the church essay admits that...

[Benjamin Seeker]

EDIT: Below I employ Nick Frederick's proposed methodology for analyzing the likelihood of an intertextuality. The methodology includes shared terminology, proximity of multiple examples in both texts, sequence of multiple examples in both texts, dissimilarity of shared terminology to the rest of the Bible and Book of Mormon, and context.

Real quick, here is one example of a phrasal allusion from the bunch:

Alma 19:8-9
8 And he saith unto the queen: He is not dead, but he sleepeth in God; and on the morrow he shall rise again. Therefore bury him not. 9 And Ammon saith unto her: Believest thou this? And she said unto him: I have had no witness save thy word and the word of our servants. Nevertheless I believe that it shall be according as thou hast said.

John 11:8, 23, 26-27
11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 

23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again…  

26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

This example has lots of shared terminology, proximity of multiple examples that share matching sequence, and a very closely matching context (see below). In terms of dissimilarity to other phrases in the Bible or Book of Mormon (another factor to consider when considering the likelihood of an allusion), “believest thou this?” occurs only once in the New Testament and twice in the Book of Mormon.  The strength of this this particular allusion not only rests on the nearly unique combination of three words, but also on their inclusion of the same punctuation and independence as a phrase. The other use of the question is in Alma 22:10 with Aaron as speaker. However, the entire string, “Believest thou this? And she said unto him” is entirely unique to Ammon 19:9, and John 11:26 provides a near perfect match. “I believe that” only occurs twice in New Testament and three times in the Book of Mormon. One of the other occurrences is Alma 18:29 and is part of the Ammon narrative, and the other is notably from Alma 22:11 in response to Aaron’s use of the question “believest thou this.” “Shall rise again” is still somewhat uncommon with five occurrences in the New Testament and three in the Book of Mormon. Finally, “sleepeth” occurs seven times throughout the old and new testament. However, it only occurs once in the Book of Mormon. All of the phrases and the single word sleepeth prove to be at least fairly unique creating a strong case for biblical allusion. The correct sequence and proximity of these four phrases significantly increase the likelihood of allusion.

OK, and a quick demonstration of narrative intertextuality:

• Alma 18:42-43, Lamoni falls to the ground as if dead. John 11, Lazarus is sick and dies.
• Alma 19:2-10, Ammon assures the queen that Lamoni will rise. The queen responds positively. John 11:20-27, Christ assures Martha that Lazarus will rise. Martha responds positively.
• Alma 19:11-16, Ammon's promise is fulfilled and Lamoni, who was mistaken for dead, rises from his sleep, but the experience is extended as he falls to the earth again along with others. John 11:38-45, Christ raises Lazarus from the dead.
• Alma 19:16-18 , Abish, the queen's servant, causes a multitude to assemble. John 11:28-35 (out of order), Mary, Martha's sister, comes and a group of Jews follow her.
• Alma 19:19-24, Ammon's life is threatened and he is miraculously saved. John 11:47-54 The chief priests plot to kill Jesus. He evades them.
• Alma 19:25-33, Everyone rises.    

Further support of the narrative intertextuality, besides the very strong phrasal links demonstrated in my first example in this post, comes from other detailed intertextual links. 

Alma 19:5
5 Therefore if this is the case, I would that ye should go in and see my husband, for he has been laid upon his bed for the space of two days and two nights. And some say that he is not dead; but others say that he is dead and that he stinketh and that he ought to be placed in the sepulchre. But as for myself, to me he doth not stink.

John 11:38-39
38 Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it. 39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.

The shared terminology, “he stinketh,” is unique, only occurring once in the Book of Mormon and once in the New Testament. The proposed sepulcher for Lamoni is paralleled by Lazarus’ cave tomb and stone cover,  and the phrase, “two days and two nights,” breaks what is otherwise a three day scheme into two units of two creating a possible allusion to the “four days” in John.  While the sequence of presentation does not match,  the proximity of the two or three elements in both texts is notable. 

There is more support, but I'll save that for a more detailed exposition. Lastly, I'll mention we have consistent character paralles and rolls: Ammon and Christ, Lamoni and Lazarus (notice the vague similarity in names here too?), queen and martha, and Abish and Mary (also notable that Mary was concerned with spiritual things in the classic Mary/Martha story and Abish was previously converted). There is a whole lot more to all of this. There is theological development of divnization and the close relationship between God and man that is beautifully portrayed through these intertextualities for example. The shortest demonstration: Ammon the god-like man helps Lamoni and others to "believe on his name (Christ's)" a clear allusion, according to Nick Frederick, to the prologue of the gospel of John which teaches those that believe on his name can become the sons of God. Also there is word play in the names used in the text, one being Abish, whose name in Hebrew means "Father is a man (Matt Bowen's interpreter article)," and that plays into the theological development too, Anyways, the whole narrative is beautifully, rhetorically deep, but that's what I've come to expect from the BoM.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Ouagadougou]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Still begging the question, I see.  Are you really unable to weigh the complete set of facts and be fair, but only focus on a single issue?  That isn't the way that legitimate DNA and archeological research proceed.  Naturally, your apriori notions mean that there can be no evidence to substantiate the BofM.  You make such statements only by ignoring any positive evidence, and I know that because I have noticed that you pointedly ignore legitimate evidence that I have mentioned here on this board, or in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .  Instead, you depend upon strictly anti-Mormon analyses, which you do not even understand.

You mean positive evidence FAIR provided like this?

http://fr.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals

"NB: Please note that reference is made to a potential pre-Columbian horse, the so-called "Spencer Lake," horse skull. This has now been determined to have been a fraud or hoax, and should not be considered evidence for the Book of Mormon account."

Where they try to defend a horse skull as evidence of the BoM when, in all reality, it was a fraud/hoax?