Historicity of The Book of Mormon

[optimomojo]

000

[BlueHair]

Honest question: What are the evidences that the BOM is an ancient text?

[Jacob]

Honest question: What are the evidences that the BOM is an ancient text?

And, are there many "honest investigators" who are not Mormons who admit to the many evidences of its ancient origins?

I do generally agree with both quotes though.

[BlueHair]

And, are there many "honest investigators" who are not Mormons who admit to the many evidences of its ancient origins?

I do generally agree with both quotes though.

I agree, too. While it's nearly impossible to prove a negative, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text. The church is in a pretty weak position as far as defending the Book of Mormon goes. I believe in my lifetime, the Book of Mormon will go the way of polygamy. Something we acknowlege we used to believe in, but don't anymore.

[Moliere]

Honest question: What are the evidences that the BOM is an ancient text?

Whats hhe story on chiasmus? I searched and saw no real threads on this. Is it coincidence that there is a whole chapter that is a chiasmus? Asking an honest question here as I also don't know. Fwiw my miss pres was big into historicity of he book of Mormon but his lectures were more of a shotgun approach than a real intense evidential presentation.

[Jacob]

I agree, too. While it's nearly impossible to prove a negative, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text. The church is in a pretty weak position as far as defending the Book of Mormon goes. I believe in my lifetime, the Book of Mormon will go the way of polygamy. Something we acknowlege we used to believe in, but don't anymore.

This will not happen. No chance. There isn't the slightest inkling of deemphasis, nor should there be. Even if there were, who would pay tithing to such a church that abandons it's core belief? It would be then end of the church.

[Indy Coug]

I believe in my lifetime, the Book of Mormon will go the way of polygamy. Something we acknowlege we used to believe in, but don't anymore.

Fess up. You don't really believe that.

[DapperDan]

Honest investigators will conclude that there are so many evidences that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that they cannot confidently resolve the question against its authenticity, despite some unanswered questions that seem to support the negative determination.

I get the feeling that one would only be considered an "honest investigator" if your conclusions were in line with the Church's.

[Indy Coug]

I get the feeling that one would only be considered an "honest investigator" if your conclusions were in line with the Church's.

I think an honest investigator would conclude there isn't enough historic evidence to refute or confirm the Book of Mormon as an ancient text.

[DapperDan]

I think an honest investigator would conclude there isn't enough historic evidence to refute or confirm the Book of Mormon as an ancient text.

The burden of proof is on the BoM. If it can't be proven to be a ancient text there is no reason to think otherwise.

If this were some other random text that some guy produced out of nowhere and claimed it to be an ancient text we wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt that it was indeed ancient until proven otherwise.

[Indy Coug]

The burden of proof is on the BoM. If it can't be proven to be a ancient text there is no reason to think otherwise.

If this were some other random text that some guy produced out of nowhere and claimed it to be an ancient text we wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt that it was indeed ancient until proven otherwise.

The Book of Mormon explicitly states how to find out it's true -- and it's not by academic means. It also explicitly states that the bulk of the historical aspects of the Nephites/Lamanites/etc. were not to be included in this record.

As soon as someone puts forth the claim that the Book of Mormon is not a historical text, the burden of proof automatically falls onto them.

[falafel]

I agree, too. While it's nearly impossible to prove a negative, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, evidence that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text. The church is in a pretty weak position as far as defending the Book of Mormon goes. I believe in my lifetime, the Book of Mormon will go the way of polygamy. Something we acknowlege we used to believe in, but don't anymore.

Are you Methuselah?

[BlueHair]

Fess up. You don't really believe that.

I honestly do. The church today has changed so much from when I was a kid, I hardly recognize it. When I tell people that I was taught in seminary that if Native Americans become righteous, their skin will turn white, they look at me like I'm nuts. Up until a few years ago, the Book of Mormon was an historical record and geneology for pretty much all brown people, from Native Americans, to Mexicans, to Pacific Islanders. Now, at best, it's just a record of a few people living on a vast continent among other societies. When I was a kid everyone believed that the Nephites and Lamanites numbered in the millions. They built great cities. They fought big wars. The final war, I was told, resulted in over a million Nephites losing their lives. Now we know that none of this happened on the scale portrayed in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has been marginalized in the church. Members have gone from believing every word as literal truth, to just believing it was an inspired work, and it doesn't really matter if it the people in the book are real or the event portrayed really happened. This shift has happened in only a few years. I'll be interested to see what happens in the next 40 years.

[Jacob]

The Book of Mormon explicitly states how to find out it's true -- and it's not by academic means. It also explicitly states that the bulk of the historical aspects of the Nephites/Lamanites/etc. were not to be included in this record.

As soon as someone puts forth the claim that the Book of Mormon is not a historical text, the burden of proof automatically falls onto them.

I think you have it somewhat backwards. I don't disagree with your general thrust. The BOM doesn't need to prove its historicity.

But, unless you can provide evidence that the book is a historical text, there is no reason and no way for anyone to refute it. Like Oaks said in the quote, you can't prove a negative.

But you can't claim that honest investigators will agree that there is significant evidence of historicity, unless you can demonstrate that there are such honest investigators, or such significant evidence. And your honest investigators cannot all be believing Mormons.

[kccougar]

I honestly do. The church today has changed so much from when I was a kid, I hardly recognize it. When I tell people that I was taught in seminary that if Native Americans become righteous, their skin will turn white, they look at me like I'm nuts. Up until a few years ago, the Book of Mormon was an historical record and geneology for pretty much all brown people, from Native Americans, to Mexicans, to Pacific Islanders. Now, at best, it's just a record of a few people living on a vast continent among other societies. When I was a kid everyone believed that the Nephites and Lamanites numbered in the millions. They built great cities. They fought big wars. The final war, I was told, resulted in over a million Nephites losing their lives. Now we know that none of this happened on the scale portrayed in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has been marginalized in the church. Members have gone from believing every word as literal truth, to just believing it was an inspired work, and it doesn't really matter if it the people in the book are real or the event portrayed really happened. This shift has happened in only a few years. I'll be interested to see what happens in the next 40 years.

Ah, seminary! Say no more, say no more.