Evidence to support The Book of Mormon?

[Traveler]

I just finished a rough sketch. I believe this is how the Americas looked before Christ's death, which changed the land completely. The locations are approximate because I'm not done with my own studies and and not done compiling all my personal data. This will make my previous post easier to visualize.

Edit: Here are a couple critical scriptures that make this map work in my opinion. If a Nephite can cross Florida in a day and a half, how fast can an army of motivated Nephites and Lamanites move up and around the lands Bountiful and Desolation and up toward Cumorah? And what if they used horses?

Alma 22:32 And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half’s journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

Helaman 3:8 And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east.

Just a quick note - a study of ocean currents would indicate that it was more likely that Nephi sailed west - rather than east to arrive in the Americas. There is also evidence in the Bible that king David had reached the Americas using a similar ocean route as well as others of the ancient world.

The Traveler

[livy111us]

The conjecture on this thread is getting a little too deep for me....

[skalenfehl]

I'm definitely not in the habit of making wild guesses. There are countless verses that reference positions and distances of the Nephite and Lamanite lands. Besides, it's playful conjecture and it gives me some physical context to study the migrations and battles of the people in the Book of Mormon. As for oceanic currents, well, maybe the Liahona led them along the currents. I'm only going off what I read in the scriptures and any modern day revelations from Joseph Smith and other prophets. I'm no scholar. Just a guy who likes to study the Book of Mormon forwards, backwards and upside down.

[LDSCubsFan]

I have been a member of the Church for over 10 years. However, I sometimes have some things about my belief which nags me. These things that nag at me wax and wane. First, I regularly read the Bible, Book of Mormon, D & C, and Pearl of Great Price. It strikes me that some of the passages in the latter three, especially the Book of Mormon, are nearly identical to passages from the Bible. For example, 3 Nephi 14:18 says, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." I know I've read a very similar passage in the Bible; I just don't recall what book. The Mormon in me says that this is not unusual, since all of these works were inspired by God. The skeptic in me, however, wonders if this indicates that Joseph Smith plagiarized the Bible in his creation of the Book of Mormon. Add to this some of the apparent anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, such as elephants, horses, pigs, and cattle, just to name a few....and my skepticism grow rampant. I would love to believe in this Church, because the people truly are wonderful and united. However, I get these doubts, which I usually end up casting off by thinking, "You got to believe something," and "Even the Bible has fantastic stories that are hard to believe, such as Jonah and the Big Fish, Noah and the flood, etc. I mean, you gotta admit Joseph Smith having been visited by John the Baptist is hard to believe....but, then again, no more hard than some of the stories from the Bible.

Anyway, that is my struggle. I don't bother talking about this to the bishop or the missionaries, because I know their canned response would be for me to pray about it, feel the spirit, it's the devil making me have those doubts, etc. Still, I struggle with it, and have been on and off for the past 10 years plus.

[skippy740]

3 nephi 14:18 mirrors the passages in Matthew 7.

Here's a thought to ponder: Do you believe that the Savior is the perfect teacher?

If you believe that, why would the Savior alter his words from continent to continent? He would teach the exact same way.

Granted, it may be hard to believe that each word written down seems to match the Bible word-for-word in various chapters... but remember that Joseph Smith is the translator, not the writer. Joseph Smith had the words come to his mind as the proper and correct interpretation. It would make sense (to me) that the words from the Bible would come to his mind for these verses.

Sometimes you just need a different thought to ponder that may help change your perspective.

[pam]

Perhaps you might like to re-read the thread you started in February. I think the answer to some of your concerns was also addressed there.

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/45195-evidence-support-book-mormon.html

[Vort]

I have been a member of the Church for over 10 years. However, I sometimes have some things about my belief which nags me. These things that nag at me wax and wane. First, I regularly read the Bible, Book of Mormon, D & C, and Pearl of Great Price. It strikes me that some of the passages in the latter three, especially the Book of Mormon, are nearly identical to passages from the Bible. For example, 3 Nephi 14:18 says, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." I know I've read a very similar passage in the Bible; I just don't recall what book. The Mormon in me says that this is not unusual, since all of these works were inspired by God. The skeptic in me, however, wonders if this indicates that Joseph Smith plagiarized the Bible in his creation of the Book of Mormon. Add to this some of the apparent anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, such as elephants, horses, pigs, and cattle, just to name a few....and my skepticism grow rampant. I would love to believe in this Church, because the people truly are wonderful and united. However, I get these doubts, which I usually end up casting off by thinking, "You got to believe something," and "Even the Bible has fantastic stories that are hard to believe, such as Jonah and the Big Fish, Noah and the flood, etc. I mean, you gotta admit Joseph Smith having been visited by John the Baptist is hard to believe....but, then again, no more hard than some of the stories from the Bible.

Anyway, that is my struggle. I don't bother talking about this to the bishop or the missionaries, because I know their canned response would be for me to pray about it, feel the spirit, it's the devil making me have those doubts, etc. Still, I struggle with it, and have been on and off for the past 10 years plus.

There is no need to turn off your brain when you get baptized. On the contrary, that would be a mistake.

On the other hand, at some point you have to be of a firm mind. It sounds to me like you are looking for external validation or "proof". This is a carnal thing, a demand of the natural man. Who is in charge, him or you? Or are you that natural man? I say you are better than that.

It may interest you to know that the Book of Mormon has a vastly restricted vocabulary, far fewer words than one would reasonably expect in a work of that length. Why might this be? From a faithful perspective, one obvious reason would be the language in which it was made. The authors claimed they used a "reformed Egyptian", which Nibley has identified with demotic script. Whether or not Nibley's speculation is correct, this "reformed Egyptian" was clearly a tremendously compact script, allowing our 500+-page-in-print Book of Mormon to be written by hand on the faces of about a 1.5" pile of relatively small hammered gold alloy sheets.

How does one create a compact written language? Two main items: (1) You create a hybrid phonetic/pictographic shorthand language (hey! just like Egyptian!); and, (2) you vastly restrict the vocabulary so you don't have to keep writing out words phonetically.

So with such a language, are there any drawbacks? Well, yes. For one, many concepts and especially concrete items will need to be represented by related terms. Any beast of burden might become a "burro" or an "a$s" or a "horse". Any herd animal might become "cattle" or, perhaps, "horses". (I ate horse in Italy. Tasted fine, like beef but much leaner.) And so on.

Is this specific explanation correct? Possibly. Is it likely to be correct? Probably not. But it does not matter. The point is, it is a perfectly reasonable history. The fact that we don't know exactly how the history represents its reality is beside the point. The Book of Mormon is not an archeological field guide. It is a history of divine dealings with God's people and an exposition of the blessings of covenant-keeping and the consequences of covenant-breaking.

The similarities of scriptures is likewise a non-issue. Christ appeared to the Nephites. What did he tell them? Well, what do you THINK he told them? Obviously, he told them the same thing he told the people in the Old World. No surprises there.

What about the fact that some elements sound the same in the Book of Mormon as in the Bible, when no communication was possible? For example, Mormon's teachings on faith and charity are not dissimilar to Paul's, even using some of the same wording. How can this be explained? Easily, and in many ways. Perhaps Paul and Mormon were drawing ideas from a common ancient text that we no longer have. (That such ancient precursor texts existed is not even a point of dispute among scholars.) Perhaps Paul drew many of his ideas from teachings of Christ that we don't have, such as teachings during the post-Resurrection Forty Days, and which were likewise provided to the Nephites. Perhaps their teachings had nothing more in common than the same basic ideas (as we would expect from the gospel), but the translator, Joseph Smith, used wording familiar to him that he had picked up from his extensive study of Paul's Biblical writings.

In the end, the instruction you fear a bishop or other leader would provide is, in fact, the very best possible advice. Gain a revelation from God himself about the truthfulness of these things. Then stand firm and manfully upon that revelation, making that your rock, and don't worry about those who mock or belittle. Truth is true even when some people don't recognize it as such -- even when the majority thinks it's wrong.

[Sicily510]

D&C 93:36

The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

Abr. 3:19

And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

As confusing as this is when reading, this is to testify that we have a conscience we possess the ability to think like heavenly father and act accordingly. We must wield the good faith of the spirit of ligth or diminish in doubt of the darkness to the despair of our spirit.

It becomes clearer that when we study the scriptures we are enlightened with purpose and meaning in our individual lives to help nurture each other in the gospel, live with the "Pureness in our hearts" so that we may be worthy to stand in holy places and be with Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father.

[rameumptom]

If you think that the Book of Mormon is just Joseph Smith plagiarizing the Bible, then I suggest you read more in-depth regarding the BoM from a scholarly view. Try the books now available at saltpress.org (free pdf downloads), and after reading them, see if you still think that Joseph Smith could have written them.