Historical accuracy of the BOM


Historical Accuracy  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. How does the Historical Accuracy relate to my belief in the BOM

    • I view it as a historical and Scriptural document and 100% True
      9
    • I think that there is enough circumstantial evidence to make a claim of historical accuracy, but it's not a deal breaker it's still true
      5
    • There is no historical evidence to back up the BOM, and the stories are allegorical in nature but it is still scripture and true
      2
    • JS made it up and it is false
      2


Recommended Posts

I went with the 3rd option, though I could have easily put the 2nd option. I just don't feel qualified to judge the quality of any of the evidence of the BoM's historicity, so I can't say whether I believe it is historical or not. But, as option 2 states clearly, whether it is historical or not does not matter to me, because it can be "true" and "scripture" whether it is historical or fictional. More discussion here:

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and sometimes.  Just as with any historical account, you are going to get storied passed down that may not be 100% accurate, and maybe even fall into the realm of myth.  Did Mormons cross the plains to Utah?  Yes.  Did they have miraculous healings of oxen?  Mormons would say yes, but others might call that a tall tale, but that doesn't change the historical fact that Mormons did cross the plains.  So, did they have massive wars with tens of thousands of deaths?  Maybe, but maybe not.   But did Jesus actually appear to them?  Yes.  Did Moroni exist? Yes.   Did everything he or others write happen exactly as they said?   Maybe but probably not everything 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

So is the BOM historically accurate? Yes or no? Does it matter?

Yes, within the parameters Moroni laid out: if there are mistakes, they are the mistakes of men.

It matters a great deal. Either it is what it claims to be or Joseph Smith either lied or was deceived. Either one makes the Church he Restored false, its Priesthood void, and its promises and covenants useless.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Yes, within the parameters Moroni laid out: if there are mistakes, they are the mistakes of men.

It matters a great deal. Either it is what it claims to be or Joseph Smith either lied or was deceived. Either one makes the Church he Restored false, its Priesthood void, and its promises and covenants useless.

Lehi

To be clear, you believe that the BOM is historically accurate? and if it is not than everything falls on its face?

Edited by omegaseamaster75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God, not written by the hand of God.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Book of Mormon turned out to have many flaws. It definitely could be biased. It was edited by Mormon... He very well may be historically biased by the things he heard about history himself.

There is also plenty of evidence that God did not (always) edit the words of the prophets. I feel like if he did, then there wouldn't be stuff like "or rather that is to say" moments in it.

Even if it is all a big fat fairy tale, it doesn't make the principles taught in it false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we already had a major discussion of this recently?...

I believe it was an actual historical record written by the authors who claim they wrote it, then translated by Joseph Smith. How can you be a believing Mormon and not accept this? 

Quote

Let me quote a very powerful comment from President Ezra Taft Benson, who said, “The Book of Mormon is the keystone of [our] testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it.

“Yes, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion—the keystone of our testimony, the keystone of our doctrine, and the keystone in the witness of our Lord and Savior” (A Witness and a Warning, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1988, p. 19).

To hear someone so remarkable say something so tremendously bold, so overwhelming in its implications, that everything in the Church—everything—rises or falls on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and, by implication, the Prophet Joseph Smith’s account of how it came forth, can be a little breathtaking. It sounds like a “sudden death” proposition to me. Either the Book of Mormon is what the Prophet Joseph said it is or this Church and its founder are false, fraudulent, a deception from the first instance onward.

Not everything in life is so black and white, but it seems the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and its keystone role in our belief is exactly that. Either Joseph Smith was the prophet he said he was, who, after seeing the Father and the Son, later beheld the angel Moroni, repeatedly heard counsel from his lips, eventually receiving at his hands a set of ancient gold plates which he then translated according to the gift and power of God—or else he did not. And if he did not, in the spirit of President Benson’s comment, he is not entitled to retain even the reputation of New England folk hero or well-meaning young man or writer of remarkable fiction. No, and he is not entitled to be considered a great teacher or a quintessential American prophet or the creator of great wisdom literature. If he lied about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he is certainly none of those.

"True or False,"
Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1995/06/true-or-false?lang=eng

 

Edited by tesuji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

To be clear, you believe that the BOM is historically accurate? and if it is not than everything falls on its face?

How else could one see it?

Again, within  the limits Moroni established about errors.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, rpframe said:

Even if it is all a big fat fairy tale, it doesn't make the principles taught in it false.

That's true, it's principles are eternal, and it is the most Christ-centered book on the planet.

But if it is a big fat fairy tale, everything that Joseph did is based on a falsehood, and he is a false prophet, and the Church he Restored is false, and the Priesthood he received is false, and the ordinances he received are false.

It's either true or it is not. If not, nothing else in the Restoration is true, either.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is the Book of Mormon historical???? Compared to what?  There is no ancient text, no ancient artifacts, absolutely nothing other than the Book of Mormon that is specifically identified as a remint of the Nephite civilization.  Even the geography (except for places described prior to leaving the Arabian Peninsula are unknown.  Plus anything written prior to Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey is by definition – pre-historic or pre-history.  Note that the Book of Mormon begins in 600BC and parts (Ether) is almost 2,000 years prior to that. 

The question is itself a gross misunderstanding of the term “historic”.  As a side note – all information in the Book of Mormon that references places on the Arabian peninsula (including at least 100 references to places unknown in any Western Civilization – American continent) at the time of Joseph Smith – are 100% accurate and rivals even current publications.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

How else could one see it?

Again, within  the limits Moroni established about errors.

Lehi

Yes. There are at least three different questions in the OP - 1) Did the Book of Mormon exist as and actual document written on metal plates, as Joseph Smith reported, 2) Did Joseph translated it accurately and 3) is the information in the book accurate?

Yes, Yes, and As accurate as any such account would be. 

Edited by tesuji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Yes. There are two different questions in the OP - 1) Did the Book of Mormon exist as and actual document written on metal plates, as Joseph Smith reported, 2) Did Joseph translated it accurately and 3) is the information in the book accurate?

There are also three kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't. :D

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

There are also three kinds of people: those who can cont, and those who can't. :D

Lehi

LOL. I fixed this seconds after I wrote it.

If you all pay close attention, you'll see that I usually do about 5 edits to my posts before I get them correct. :D

Edited by tesuji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tesuji said:

If you all pay close attention, you'll see that I usually do about 5 edits to my posts before I get them correct. :D

You're not alone, brother, you're not alone.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tesuji said:

LOL. I fixed this seconds after I wrote it.

If you all pay close attention, you'll see that I usually do about 5 edits to my posts before I get them correct. :D

This actually has relevance to the current discussion.

If you read the BoM carefully, you will note that there are several places where the author re-states or repeats himself - exactly like you would do it you were writing on metal plates, and could not easily hit Backspace and edit like we can on our computers.

Critics like to focus on how we don't have the metal plates anymore. However, what we do have is the text itself. There are many internal evidences of authenticity. For example, listen to Nibley's Lectures on the Book or Mormon, or read his books such as Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites.

None of this will convince determined skeptics, or prove to them anything. However, there is evidence on the "true" side of the scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

That's true, it's principles are eternal, and it is the most Christ-centered book on the planet.

But if it is a big fat fairy tale, everything that Joseph did is based on a falsehood, and he is a false prophet, and the Church he Restored is false, and the Priesthood he received is false, and the ordinances he received are false.

It's either true or it is not. If not, nothing else in the Restoration is true, either.

Lehi

Sure, but my point was, I don't personally find the historical accuracy that consequential. Heck, for all I care, the entirety of the contents could have taken place on another planet similar to ours that exploded and a meteor fragment from that planet containing the gold plates could have landed in New York... And I would still believe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed this article by Book of Mormon Central & the Interpreter Foundation: The Imperative for a Historical Book of Mormon

Quote

"The legitimacy of the most important theological claims of the Book of Mormon hinges on whether the attending story that conveys the doctrine actually happened. Its supremely important purpose, to testify that Jesus is the Eternal God and has performed an eternal and infinite atonement, relies entirely on whether the historical testimony of him is authentic. Quite unlike the Psalms or the Proverbs of the Hebrew Bible, or the parables of Jesus in the New Testament, which make absolutely no claim to historicity, the Book of Mormon does nothing but give story after story of claimed historicity to prove the theological validity of the fullness of the doctrine of Christ being expounded within its pages.

The Book of Mormon must be historical and read as history in order for it to really contain the fullness of the theological power it claims to have. If the Book of Mormon is not historical, and if it is read only as fiction, then any pretense to it being an additional witness for the divinity of Jesus in any worthwhile sense is obliterated. The Book of Mormon does not proclaim itself to be fiction. It uncompromisingly proclaims itself, and its message about Christ, to be historical fact. Although fiction about Jesus, including a hypothetically fictional Book of Mormon, may indeed be “inspiring” in a limited literary sense, such is not necessarily the same as it being inspired in a divine sense."

I've also enjoyed this video, in particular the second half of it referring to the correctness of the BOM.

 

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would have to be historically "true", but not necessarily "accurate".  This is somewhat in line with LeSeller's statement (quoting Moroni) about the mistakes of men.

Any author who writes about the things going on around him will not get all the historical data correct.  And these were not historians.  They were prophets.  The knew the general activities of the people accurately enough.  But to compare them to the classical standards of historical accuracy is asking too much.  Could it be 100% historically accurate? Maybe.  But the errors of men is a difficult thing to get around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

That's true, it's principles are eternal, and it is the most Christ-centered book on the planet.

But if it is a big fat fairy tale, everything that Joseph did is based on a falsehood, and he is a false prophet, and the Church he Restored is false, and the Priesthood he received is false, and the ordinances he received are false.

It's either true or it is not. If not, nothing else in the Restoration is true, either.

Lehi

I will preface my comment by saying that while I think that the BOM is true I am unsure about its historical accuracy. As in a true history of the people who lived on this continent.

Where are the ruins? they built great cities didn't they? where are the battlefields on which their wars were fought? where are the fossils..... not one grave of anyone? Not one horse bone? not one sword? not one temple?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rpframe said:

Sure, but my point was, I don't personally find the historical accuracy that consequential. Heck, for all I care, the entirety of the contents could have taken place on another planet similar to ours that exploded and a meteor fragment from that planet containing the gold plates could have landed in New York... And I would still believe it.

Then please explain Moroni's visit to Joseph in 1822.

Either Moroni lied or he told the truth. It was no meteor, it was no fairy tale, fat, big or otherwise. It is the account of the people who traveled from the Middle East to Peru (extending further south than today's country) and to the Yucatan Peninsula (or nearly so). They lived, they fought, they died, and they bear record of the Risen Christ in their sacred and secular annals.

If Moroni lied, then his "promise" is nullified. If no promise, what do we base our faith on? Christ Himself proclaimed the book to be true. Eleven men saw the plates, three of them saw Moroni. They say that God's voice witnessed the truth of the Book of Mormon to them. Is God, too, a liar?

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

It is the account of the people who traveled from the Middle East to Peru

Prove it

4 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Then please explain Moroni's visit to Joseph in 1822.

 and to the Yucatan Peninsula (or nearly so). They lived, they fought, they died, and they bear record of the Risen Christ in their sacred and secular annals.

Prove it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The challenge with a non-historical Book of Mormon is that Joseph had the plates. 3 witnesses were shown the plates by an angel and had the voice of God testify it was true. 8 witnesses received a secular testimony with no angel or voice of God, but still leafed through the plates.

Joseph made a claim that he translated the plates. God was very clever and backed up Joseph's account with additional secular and spiritual witnesses to appeal to both camps.

So perhaps there were plates but Joseph made up the translation - but then we have the angel showing the plates and the voice of God confirming its truth. So I'm compelled to turn to the supernatural to explain it. God or the devil. If the devil, then the book is not what it purports to be (another testimony of Christ) and I have no problems with it being non-historical.

If it is from God though, then we have God creating a set of plates to convince 12 people that this is the real deal. That's highly suspect. Or the plates were real enough, but Mormon and Moroni made up a great story and God then preserved the plates with the false narrative and gave power to Joseph to translate it. My credulity is straining.

I feel compelled to accept the book for what it claims to be - a record of a fallen civilization that historically existed, as compiled by prophets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I will preface my comment by saying that while I think that the BOM is true I am unsure about its historical accuracy. As in a true history of the people who lived on this continent.

Where are the ruins? they built great cities didn't they? where are the battlefields on which their wars were fought? where are the fossils..... not one grave of anyone? Not one horse bone? not one sword? not one temple?

 

No one knows where to look, so the archaeological remains are wherever the Lamanites and the Nephites, and the Jaredites left them. 

As noted above, I believe Joseph when he said that the Lehite colony was originally in what he knew as "Peru". Based on that, we can deduce that the Jaredites and the Mulekites were south and east of the Yucatan Peninsula. There's not a lot of archaeology complete down there.

But, as @Traveler notes, 100% of Lehi's Arabian trek is in accordance with the narrative we have from the small Plates of Nephi. That ought to receive more than a knowing wink or nod.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share