Historicity of The Book of Mormon

[Indy Coug]

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.

It sounds to me like you only look at the border pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and then claim you know what the remaining 98% inside look like.

[BlueHair]

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.

That's pretty funny.

[Indy Coug]

That's pretty funny.

Why is that funny? If you claim something, then you need to show how you came to that conclusion. Otherwise, it's nothing more than an idle statement.

[DapperDan]

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.

We're talking about the historicity of the BoM not its value as a religious text. The burden of historicity is solely on the BoM.

[Jacob]

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.

I think you'll find few that don't still believe this. I've not encountered anyone who believes the BOM is a true and historical text that disputes that the people numbered in the millions.

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.

What people are you talking about. A few posters on this and other boards? Almost all believers I've ever encountered believe it to be literal truth. And that Joseph saw what he saw and translated it by the power of God.

[Indy Coug]

We're talking about the historicity of the BoM not it's value as a religious text. The burden of historicity is solely on the BoM.

If you are going to assert that it ISN'T a historical text, then the burden is on you to demonstrate why. Otherwise, you either conclude the Book of Mormon is what it says it is, or you admit that you haven't determined if it is true or not.

[Jacob]

If you are going to assert that it ISN'T a religious text, then the burden is on you to demonstrate why. Otherwise, you either conclude the Book of Mormon is what it says it is, or you admit that you haven't determined if it is true or not.

Does anybody doubt it is a religious text?

[Indy Coug]

Does anybody doubt it is a religious text?

Typo. I meant historical.

[UtahDan]

I can't get over the ugly font used in the initial post and can't really read it. What is this thread about?

[BlueHair]

It sounds to me like you only look at the border pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and then claim you know what the remaining 98% inside look like.

Please explain. Either the stuff happened or it didn't. I don't doubt that there can be valuable lessons learned from the Book of Mormon. The problem is, if the Book of Mormon is not exactly what the God's Prophets have testified it to be, it loses it's power. There is really no way to spin that every prophet has believed that the Book of Mormon people are real and most brown people are descendants of Lehi. To now know, that this isn't accurate is huge. What good are prophets if they don't really know what they profess to know? Members now think its okay to dismiss what early prophets say. The living prophet is all that matters.

[BlueHair]

Why is that funny? If you claim something, then you need to show how you came to that conclusion. Otherwise, it's nothing more than an idle statement.

Suppose I tell the world I have discovered a substance that makes me superhuman. I can bench press five thousand pounds, jump a mile in the air, run 100 miles per hour. I also tell them they can know that I am telling the truth by praying about it. All signs point to it being pretty much impossible to be able to do these things. So 60 minutes rolls into town to do a piece on me. Instead of proving that I can do it. I tell them the burden of proof is on them. You can't prove a negative.

[DapperDan]

If you are going to assert that it ISN'T a historical text, then the burden is on you to demonstrate why. Otherwise, you either conclude the Book of Mormon is what it says it is, or you admit that you haven't determined if it is true or not.

So according to your theory we should accept something like the Salamander Letter at face value until it's proven otherwise.

[Indy Coug]

So according to your theory we should accept something like the Salamander Letter at face value until it's proven otherwise.

WRONG! According to my "theory" you can't conclude one way or the other until it's proven one way or another.

Go back to my very first post in this thread where I stated that no one can prove or disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

http://cougaruteforum.com/showpost.p...27&postcount=9

[LogMafia]

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.

Emotions are the least reliable way to prove the truth of something, no wonder the church practiced polygamy.

There is tons of evidence that the BoM isn't a historical text.

1. Anachronisms
2. Language writing and speaking
3. No people that fit at that time
4. plagiarism of text that didn't exist at the time
5. geography
6. DNA evidence

What are the pro's?

[RobinFinderson]

Emotions are the least reliable way to prove the truth of something, no wonder the church practiced polygamy.

There is tons of evidence that the BoM isn't a historical text.

1. Anachronisms
2. Language writing and speaking
3. No people that fit at that time
4. plagiarism of text that didn't exist at the time
5. geography
6. DNA evidence

What are the pro's?

The problem here is that as soon as a person changes from the idea that the BOM is a word-for-word translation to the the idea that JS reinterpreted an ancient text to produce a contemporary work that would draw on contemporary examples and speak to a contemporary audience, ALL of these problems are resolved. I think that the more a faithful Mormon knows about these issues, the more s/he is likely to accept an alternative meaning of the word 'translate,' rather than toss out the whole BOM as a complete fabrication.

IMO, the best arguments against religion in general, and Mormonism more than most religions, is that the whole magical existence depicted in the holy texts is NOT a reflection of reality. If people want to look for reality in a book rather than by observing the world around them, that is fine. Reminds me of Don Quixote.