A lot of Scholors don't Acknowledge the "Book Of Mormon"...

[Hemidakota]

What people acknowledge has very little to do with what is true. Entire civilizations have refused to acknowledge God, but it has not made God any less real or powerful.

Has it been in every opening dispensations of time…

I don't recall any of these brethren, including FATHER or the Savior, having any required academic degree to qualify based on our misperception of what is a scholar.

[Hemidakota]

oh I am far from anti education - I take my kids education very seriously,

Charley

Hmm...did I miss something here?

[HomeAgain]

Michael Coe is among, if not the most acknowledged authority on Mesoamerica. Coe doesn't believe the Book of Mormon is historical, and believes Joseph Smith "made it up". However, it's worth noting what he said about the book:

The Mormons . Interviews . Michael Coe | PBS

In spite of his misgivings, I think this is acknowledgement by an important figure in Mesoamerican archaeology.

So, we don't have to take the BOM literally to gain from it. I really don't know if it's completely accurate, but it is a powerful book, on par with the Bible, which I also don't know is entirely accurate, at least from a historical standpoint.

When I was out of the church, I did some research on the Bible, and there are scholars who feel that the whole story of Moses and the captivity of the Jews by the pharoah was made up. That the Moses story was fictional.

So, how do we as Latter-day Saints approach the idea that some of our holy scriptures may not be historical? I still think they are spiritual guides, but is our faith less if we don't see it as literal history?

[Ray A]

So, how do we as Latter-day Saints approach the idea that some of our holy scriptures may not be historical? I still think they are spiritual guides, but is our faith less if we don't see it as literal history?

I don't believe the Book of Mormon is "literal history", and I have quite long and complex reasons for this, which are too lengthy to go into here (not to mention a lack of time right now). I believe it is inspired, and I believe God inspired it, and that what Joseph Smith said is true, that "a man will drawn nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book", with my emphasis there. Did Joseph ever say that it was a requirement to believe it to be historical? Even he had to speculate where it might have occurred, because he didn't know where it occurred. It's clear to me that he didn't understand the geography of the Book of Mormon. I prefer to leave my options open in any quest to understand everything about the Book of Mormon, but it's also clear to me that some modern interpolations occurred in this "historical" text, sometimes referred to as "translator anachronisms". Blake Ostler has written about this.

The short of it is that I feel no need to take a firm stand on historicity, any more than I feel a need to call it a "fraud". I realise that my position is "silly" to both defenders of historicity, and to the fraudsters, who feel I must firmly go one way or the other. I don't know the mind of God, but I believe the mind of God is in the Book of Mormon. I don't even know the very basics of how computers work, but somehow my emails still make it to the other end. So I get mocked by those in the Great and Spacious Building who keep telling me I'm silly and confused and can't think straight, but neither can I deny what I inwardly feel and believe. As Paul said, to them it's all "foolishness".

[Hemidakota]

So, we don't have to take the BOM literally to gain from it. I really don't know if it's completely accurate, but it is a powerful book, on par with the Bible, which I also don't know is entirely accurate, at least from a historical standpoint.

When I was out of the church, I did some research on the Bible, and there are scholars who feel that the whole story of Moses and the captivity of the Jews by the pharoah was made up. That the Moses story was fictional.

So, how do we as Latter-day Saints approach the idea that some of our holy scriptures may not be historical? I still think they are spiritual guides, but is our faith less if we don't see it as literal history?

LOL....that had me laughing. What next? The earth is a mere fabricated fairy-tale and we are in a matrix?

Moses was real person as the flight from Egypt is real. If not, ask GOD yourself to find that answer but not some foolish soul who has not a clue or allege scholar.

The ubiquitous embarrassment is coming soon for those who still believe the Mayans and the BOM have no connection.

I still remember the laughable few from our own university, claiming Job was a fabricated story. They failed to read the D&C when the Savior quoted this man to the prophet. So much for the hoopla.

[Hemidakota]

I don't believe the Book of Mormon is "literal history", and I have quite long and complex reasons for this, which are too lengthy to go into here (not to mention a lack of time right now). I believe it is inspired, and I believe God inspired it, and that what Joseph Smith said is true, that "a man will drawn nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book", with my emphasis there. Did Joseph ever say that it was a requirement to believe it to be historical? Even he had to speculate where it might have occurred, because he didn't know where it occurred. It's clear to me that he didn't understand the geography of the Book of Mormon. I prefer to leave my options open in any quest to understand everything about the Book of Mormon, but it's also clear to me that some modern interpolations occurred in this "historical" text, sometimes referred to as "translator anachronisms". Blake Ostler has written about this.

The short of it is that I feel no need to take a firm stand on historicity, any more than I feel a need to call it a "fraud". I realize that my position is "silly" to both defenders of historicity, and to the fraudsters, who feel I must firmly go one way or the other. I don't know the mind of God, but I believe the mind of God is in the Book of Mormon. I don't even know the very basics of how computers work, but somehow my emails still make it to the other end. So I get mocked by those in the Great and Spacious Building who keep telling me I'm silly and confused and can't think straight, but neither can I deny what I inwardly feel and believe. As Paul said, to them it's all "foolishness".

This is the GOD given right to make our own choices.

[HomeAgain]

LOL....that had me laughing. What next? The earth is a mere fabricated fairy-tale and we are in a matrix?

Moses was real person as the flight from Egypt is real. If not, ask GOD yourself to find that answer but not some foolish soul who has not a clue or allege scholar.

The ubiquitous embarrassment is coming soon for those who still believe the Mayans and the BOM have no connection.

I still remember the laughable few from our own university, claiming Job was a fabricated story. They failed to read the D&C when the Savior quoted this man to the prophet. So much for the hoopla.

Well, I think Ray A has hit some really good points about Joseph Smith not dwelling on the physical reality of what he wrote. Hemidakota, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I'm just saying that all this "historical" information is out there, and I know first hand that if we don't have a way to deal with these very rational factual contradictions, we can quickly lose our testimonies. That's what happened to me. But, hey, I'm back. I'm back because I love the church. I think Joseph Smith was a genius, and that he was inspired by God. I love reading the BOM. And my faith doesn't hinge on whether the indisputable evidence ever emerges to link the Maya to the Nephites. I went down that "intellectual" road once before, and I didn't like where it led.

Testimonies have to be based on spiritual evidence, and I have that in abundance. That being said, we need to recognize the boatload of intellectual theories that would SEEM to contradict what we know by the spirit. We all, as Latter-day Saints, need to recognize that our children, our friends and our spouses can be influenced by these theories. And calling them all "anti-Mormon" doesn't necessarily prepare you to withstand what they're saying. Some of these scholars are definitely not ANTI-MORMON.

I read the entire Coe interview, and he has a great deal of respect for Mormons, and Joseph Smith. But the facts objectively don't support the Book of Mormon archaelogy. How do we deal with that? That's all I'm saying. And I think it's very rational to say: I don't know all the facts about ancient America and the Mayans, etc., but I know the Book of Mormon contains the inspired words of a loving Heavenly Father.

I don't read the Book of Mormon to learn history. I read it to learn how God works in people's lives.

What do you think?

[Hemidakota]

At times, I may be abrasive to posting like this. Just take it in stride. I do see the point you are making. My only caution is not be dependent on the ‘intellectual’ who come as a friend, as the final word or who ‘knows more’ base on a academic dissertation.

My contemplation: the Prophet saw and recorded what was revealed until him. Whether the material could be considered as a condense historical record or perceived as a spiritual record, with the accounting of the People of God, namely the Nephites [to include the Jaredites], has no more bearing what others may try to produce as claimed substantiation against the BOM. I have yet found, any record over a thousand years old, have precise accounting, or seen any proven precise dating method. We can speculate, postulate, estimate, and hope that our conclusions are correct based on our own viewpoint. A known irritant for me is our historical accounting of WWII, which does agitate my mortal frame, as we failed to ensure historical accuracy. Nor do I assume in a hundred years from now, putting aside the coming Millennium, our accuracy will ever reached that pinnacle of perfection. It goes back to who wants to be the claimed writer of our time, the great intellect, the great historian and so on. Chalk up as to ‘give me my five-second of worldly fame.’ What I am saying, do we do it to glorified GOD, or to glorify ourselves? As an earlier question to another thread concerning Darwin motives, what was his real intention in his postulation?

How many times in the past has the Lord corrected a record? Even my own journals have fallible recorded entries. Again, from a historical or a archeology point, what I have seen as a pattern, scholars are at times motivated to exploit five-second of worldly fame but in the end would loose their soul. I don’t understand what the self-worth in going down this path.

For me, I read it both ways…adding the rich data collection of this people, to the earth historical living record. Perhaps, a day will come all records will be accurate for all to gaze upon.

I love the physical aspects of a testimony. It brings a deeper meaning for my salvation and a paternal teaching moment to my children.

[Hemidakota]

Someone on another thread posted how the Mayans were not the actual decedents of the BOM. I had posted the same comment as Garth Norman posted just now on the web:

...Archaeological remains in Mesoamerica a thousand years after the Book of Mormon are far removed, and will reflect cultural change through time. There is often more that meets the eye when we get the Book of Mormon into its proper geographic historic cultural context to bring evidences to bear for a truer picture.

[Ray A]

For me, I read it both ways…adding the rich data collection of this people, to the earth historical living record. Perhaps, a day will come all records will be accurate for all to gaze upon.

Do you believe there is hard evidence supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the evidence was obvious, then lots and lots of people would be joining the Church. And why would anyone leave, in the face of such convincing evidence?

Do you think God designed it this way?

[Hemidakota]

Based on what these two great men, Mormon and Moroni, condensed from the masses amount historical plates, then yes. Whether we called them Mayans, Eotihuacanos, Totecs, Aztec, or the Olmecs, it matters not. The culture, the race, the locations are surreal. Now to what accuracy level we are reading to those abridgment, still remains to be seen when correction will come in due time.

Ray, when Christ was ministering among the Jews and Gentiles alike, how many of them join?

[Misshalfway]

Many so called scholars don't think the Bible is the word of God either. Many don't acknowledge a god. If these so called scholars come from prominent religious colleges or theology programs, it is easy to see why they would express such a bias.

Scholars kinda crack me up. They are so convinced that their educational backgrounds qualify them to determine how God will communicate with man. Ohhh. Reminds me of the line from the movie "Titanic" about all the men going to smoke and drink brandy and all congratulating themselves on being masters of the universe!

[Ray A]

Based on what these two great men, Mormon and Moroni, condensed from the masses amount historical plates, then yes. Whether we called them Mayans, Eotihuacanos, Totecs, Aztec, or the Olmecs, it matter not. The culture, the race, the locations are surreal. Now to what accuracy level we are reading to those abridgment, still remains to be seen when correction will come in due time.

The Book of Mormon isn't, strictly speaking, "a history", it contains the teachings of prophets, primarily. The Lehi manuscript was mainly history, but after being lost it was replaced with Nephi's writings, and he specified that "the more history part" was in his father's writings, not his. His sole aim was not to record history, but to convince the people to believe in Christ.

Ray, when Christ was ministering among the Jews and Gentiles alike, how many of them joined?

I have no idea. I don't think they kept membership records in those days, and if they did, I haven't seen any. The Jews, most of them eventually, came to believe Jesus was a heretic. But that's the point, Jesus said to Thomas he was "blessed" for believing because he saw, but others would have to have faith without seeing "the hard evidence". In other words, they would have to have faith, and that faith would be based on their spiritual experiences and manifestations, not what Mesoamerican archaeologists say.

[Hemidakota]

I am at lost with your statement, Ray.

What was the intent of Mormon in condensing the records in regards creating the plates [bOM]? Also, I didn't post, it was primarily based on historical accounting only.

Ray, how did you determine that Lehi's manuscript was only a historical record? Do you by chance have a legit copy? Culturally, the Jews maintain records. Any reader will notice this when you read the first couple of chapters in Mathew. Even our own Roman historian Josephus was well known for record keeping.

If I was to look upon the hard physical evidence of the GODHEAD grove visitation to the Joseph Smith, was it required? Why not just give the boy prophet, faith, to restore the gospel?

If a testimony was first based on faith, through trials and tribulation, what is next step?

We need to clean up the record keeper on this earth. so that our children will have a greater wealth of understanding of its history but the dealings of the Gods among its inhabitants.

[Hemidakota]

Is Brant Gardner on this forum?

[Ray A]

Is Brant Gardner on this forum?

I've had discussions with Brant on FAIR in the past, and he told me he believes the Book of Mormon is more of a "lineage history". I think he is a member here, but if you want to contact him he still posts on MADB (formerly FAIR):

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/

You have to be registered there to PM him.

I'll answer your other points soon.

[Ray A]

What was the intent of Mormon in condensing the records in regards creating the plates [bOM]?

The intent was to preserve what he felt was important:

3 And now, I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written; for after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi.

4 And the things which are upon these plates pleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ; and my fathers knowing that many of them have been fulfilled; yea, and I also know that as many things as have been prophesied concerning us down to this day have been fulfilled, and as many as go beyond this day must surely come to pass—

5 Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the plates of Nephi; and I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people.

6 But behold, I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren. (Words of Mormon)

The abridgement done by Mormon was selective. From Nephi:

30 And it came to pass that the Lord God said unto me: Make other plates; and thou shalt engraven many things upon them which are good in my sight, for the profit of thy people.

31 Wherefore, I, Nephi, to be obedient to the commandments of the Lord, went and made these plates upon which I have engraven these things.

32 And I engraved that which is pleasing unto God. And if my people are pleased with the things of God they will be pleased with mine engravings which are upon these plates.

33 And if my people desire to know the more particular part of the history of my people they must search mine other plates. (2 Nephi 5)

Mormon abridged Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, 3 and 4 Nephi, and included the small plates of Nephi (unabridged), which contained more of the teachings of the prophets, not the history, which were on the large plates.

Ray, how did you determine that Lehi's manuscript was only a historical record?

I didn't say it was "only a history". I quoted Nephi who said that "a more history part" was on his other plates, which also contained the Book of Lehi.

If I was to look upon the hard physical evidence of the GODHEAD grove visitation to the Joseph Smith, was it required? Why not just give the boy prophet, faith, to restore the gospel?

You wouldn't find any evidence, and again that's my point. You have to have faith in what Joseph said.

If a testimony was first based on faith, through trials and tribulation, what is next step?

We need to clean up the record keeper on this earth. so that our children will have a greater wealth of understanding of its history but the dealings of the Gods among its inhabitants.

I think the internal structure of the Book of Mormon is quite complex, and in my opinion well beyond Joseph Smith's capability, but at the same time I can't ignore what specialists like Michael Coe have said. And on that basis I conclude that there is no final, convincing evidence for Book of Mormon historicity. Matthew Roper (FARMS) wrote:

It is remarkable that, in addition to the revealed and saving doctrine and laws of the gospel, the Lord would also encourage his Saints to seek greater understanding in "theory." This apparently refers to things that we know only in part and which may not be fully revealed, but which he encourages us to study patiently as we seek for greater understanding. Interpretations of Book of Mormon geography clearly fall into the area of theory rather than doctrine and are obviously of lesser importance than those things that pertain to our salvation. Still, as in all other fields of knowledge, these theories have their place; each must be evaluated on its own scholarly merits, and for those who continue to seek in all humility and diligence, the promise is given that "my grace shall attend you" (D&C 88:188).(emphasis added)

Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations - FARMS Review

[Ray A]

By the way, Brant recently announced the completion of his Multi-Dimensional Book of Mormon commentary. I'm yet to go through it, but looking forward to it:

Book of Mormon Commentary

This is well worth book-marking and reading.

[Hemidakota]

The intent was to preserve what he felt was important:

The abridgement done by Mormon was selective. From Nephi:

Mormon abridged Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, 3 and 4 Nephi, and included the small plates of Nephi (unabridged), which contained more of the teachings of the prophets, not the history, which were on the large plates.

I didn't say it was "only a history". I quoted Nephi who said that "a more history part" was on his other plates, which also contained the Book of Lehi.

You wouldn't find any evidence, and again that's my point. You have to have faith in what Joseph said.

I think the internal structure of the Book of Mormon is quite complex, and in my opinion well beyond Joseph Smith's capability, but at the same time I can't ignore what specialists like Michael Coe have said. And on that basis I conclude that there is no final, convincing evidence for Book of Mormon historicity. Matthew Roper (FARMS) wrote:

Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations - FARMS Review

Kudos for your opinion.

There was a mentioning in the BOM by Mormon of a Civic record, which the Nephites kept.

116-pages were found and printed back in 2002. A member of the church did purchase the rights to the pages. Whether or not, some of the material were tainted from the original translation done by Joseph, remains in the hand of the reader using the Spirit for a guide.

The final convincing evident will come soon, as the completing the translation of the final sealed portion of the plates. Though, I highly doubt the world or those within the church would or could swallow their own pride. I had to swallow a lot of that so-called pride about man’s interpretation of the creation and other dogmas about our own universe. [laughter]

From my own observation, I don't see anything that is complex about the BOM or about the Earth, the Universe, or even about GOD. Perhaps it was beyond his capability in the beginning, unlikely as he matured later. Knowing the exact location still remains a question in my mind why he didn’t present that case after he translated or perhaps, the Lord had another reason; perhaps, it was not important at the time for Joseph to ask.

I would have to disagree on what is presented as historically as evidence since now we have a culture of people, ruins, and people scattered from one end of the continent to the other. For me, it comes down to our desire to know those varied truths. I will add, Joseph Smith had the understanding of the Nephite/Jaredite culture [read Lucy Mack Smith Journals], as he did with the BOM writers.

Nice to see Mat’s review but his words are vacant and insignificant for the one who searching the truth. The final conclusion is not in the hands of the scholars but the individual reader in the search for the truth.

[Ray A]

116-pages were found and printed back in 2002. A member of the church did purchase the rights to the pages. Whether or not, some of the material were tainted from the original translation done by Joseph, remains in the hand of the reader using the Spirit for a guide.

Haven't heard of that one. Maybe you could elaborate? Is this the Lehi manuscript that Joseph translated but was lost by Martin Harris?

[Hemidakota]

2002 by William C. Chappell. ISBN: 1-58721-285-4

Affirmative.

[poulsenll]

2002 by William C. Chappell. ISBN: 1-58721-285-4

Affirmative.

The author makes no claim to have found or purchased the lost pages.

Lost Truth Found.com ~ William C. Chappell | My Books

He claims sole authorship by way of inspiration. Perhaps you have more documentation to support your claim. If so, please supply the reference.

Larry P

[NeuroTypical]

2002 by William C. Chappell. ISBN: 1-58721-285-4

Affirmative.

His website is found here, and you can read this alleged lost portion here.

I'm not aware of any LDS scholar commenting on this one way or the other. His name doesn't appear anywhere on BYU's or the Neal A Maxwell Institute's website. I'm relatively certain the church hasn't said anything about him or his books. All this makes me skeptical. It seems like the statement "The 116-pages were found and printed back in 2002" is a bit premature. A more accurate statement would be something like "Someone claims to have found the 116 pages, but nobody in the LDS scholarly community or in the church believes him". I do not know why this is the current state of affairs or if they'll change, but that seems to be what's going on.

LM

[Hemidakota]

I stand corrected here [The 116-pages were found and printed back in 2002"].

Larry, you may have contact him on how he received the pages.

I do caution anyone in using a superciliousness statement, ‘LDS scholarly community’ or in the church believes him’, it is not up to FARMS, or own subjectiveness for the masses, but the individual Saint to make a thorough humbling spiritual determination on the content.

[Hemidakota]

I stand corrected in using the quick click of the keystroke [The 116-pages were found and printed back in 2002"].

Larry, you may have contact him on how received the pages.

I do caution anyone in using a superciliousness statement, ‘LDS scholarly community or in the church believes him’, it is not up FARMS, or using the term church as a whole, or your own subjectiveness, what should be for the masses, but the individual Saint to make a thorough humbling spiritual determination on the content.