Top 10 "bullseyes" for the Book of Mormon in old and new wor

The two that I am thinking about are chiasmus and the law of Primogeniture.

Several experiences in the Book of Mormon indicate that the law of primogeniture (where the first-born son has special rights and privileges) was part of the belief and tradition of Lehi and his colony. Note particularly the following references in this regard: 1 Nephi 18:10; 2 Nephi 5:3; Mosiah 10:11–15. In only one chapter of 1 Nephi 18, we find at least three examples of the practice of this law.

1. Nephi’s position of leadership was objected to by Laman and Lemuel, who were his elder brothers. (1 Nephi 18:10; see also 16:37.)

2. Despite the strong faith and numerous religious experiences of Nephi, most of the revelations from the Lord concerning the colony continued to come through his father, Lehi. (1 Nephi 18:5; see also 16:9, 23-26.)

3. Lehi and his group entered the ship “every one according to his age.” (1 Nephi 18:6.)

http://bookofmormononline.net/commentary/1049903101

also this part about chopping down the tree where someone is hanged:

3 Nephi 4:28 Zemnarihah Was Taken and Hanged upon a Tree:

In 3 Nephi 4:28 we find that “Zemnarihah was taken and hanged upon a tree.” According to an article by John W. Welch, several evidences point to an ancient background for this execution. Consider these few items:

First, notice that the tree on which Zemnarihah was hung was felled. Was this ever done in antiquity? Apparently it was. For one thing, Israelite practice required that the tree upon which the culprit was hung be buried with the body. Hence the tree had to have been chopped down.

Second, consider why the tree was chopped down and buried. As Maimonides explains: “In order that it should not serve as a sad reminder, people saying: ‘This is the tree on which so-and-so was hanged.’ “

Third, the text suggests that the Nephites understood Deuteronomy 21:22 as allowing execution by hanging – a reading that the rabbis saw as possible.

Fourth, observe that the ancient idea of fashioning a punishment that fits the crime was carried out here. For example, if a thief broke into a house, he was to be put to death and “hung in front of the place where he broke in.” Ancient punishments were often related symbolically to the offense. Likewise, the punishment for a false accuser was to make him suffer whatever would have happened to the person he had falsely accused (see Deuteronomy 19:19). In Zemnarihah’s case, he was hung in front of the very nation he had tried to destroy, and he was felled to the earth just as he had tried to bring that nation down.

Finally, the people all chanted loudly, proclaiming the wickedness of Zemnarihah, which may be reminiscent of the ancient practice of heralding a notorious execution (Deuteronomy 19:20) [John W. Welch, “The Execution of Zemnarihah,” in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 252]

http://stepbystep.alancminer.com/3_nephi_4

Not to list ten individual things right now, but I do believe a careful reading of the Book of Mormon destroys a lot of the misconceptions Mormons have had over the years about what it says – and when those misconceptions are removed, a whole lot of the “issues” disappear. Not all of them disappear, but many do.

The best example probably is the whole DNA question and the Book of Ether. I think the Book of Mormon says the dominant ancestry of the Americas is North Asian (from the Jaredites) – which matches the most recent DNA research perfectly. I think that is obvious from the actual record, but it’s easier to parrot the assumptions of former times.

Also, 1 Nephi has all kinds of little details that are amazing when viewed in their totality. At some point, I might write a post about them, but they really are stunning, given when it was written.

My problem with this argument is that it requires a belief in the Tower of Babel and a confounding of the pure adamic language spoken at the time. I suppose it’s just my mindset but when I took Pres. Hinckley’s challenge to read the BoM, all I could see was problems and the change I experienced was to push me farther away from JS.

I am unaware of one piece of real evidence that the story the book portrays actually happened. I hear some minor correlations and wide speculations, but no one has produced a Nephite coin, or a steel sword, or chariot, or a host of other things you would think we would find.

The “bullseyes” seem more like random occurrences to me. So if you are looking for hard evidence to bolster a belief in the book I would not invest the time. Many have tried but nothing of substance so far. Better to just take the faith route and choose to believe it is devine.

Not really, GB. What the book says is what the book says, whether it is a historically accurate record or inspired fiction or anything else.

My point is that the book itself says, I believe, that the dominant ancestry is North Asian – and that is what modern DNA studies also say. The Tower of Babel and all else Old Testament can be mythological, and that mythology can be repeated in the Book of Mormon – and that repetition can be seen as evidence that the Book of Mormon might be more than just some story Joseph concocted without any inspiration.

The question is what does the Book of Mormon get right – and it gets ancient American DNA right, imo.

Sorry, I don’t see it but as long as I don’t have to teach it, I’ll just agree to disagree.

Oh I just remembered another issue that was about finding Egyptian sarcophaguses in the Grand Canyon which area is not accessible to the public. but you would have to be a bit conspiratorial about the Smithsonian and academia to give it merit. OK. Leaving this thread alone unless engaged by OP. Peace out.

stan, the short version:

1) Assuming standard Biblical chronology (which I don’t) the Jaredites lived over 3,000 years – and started as a LARGE group (appropriate to call it a “tribe”). Simple demographics dictate many millions of people in that time period, spread out over a huge area.

2) The Book of Jared only records the dealings of the governmental center. That is indisputable when the book is read carefully. It also skips multiple generations entirely at times. The annihilation of the people must have included only those who lived close enough to the “capital” to be gathered into the fighting. In other words, what was left of the Jaredite “nation” was destroyed – but that would have been, logically, a small portion of the descendants of the original settlers.

3) I am a former Social Studies teacher, and ancient histories are FULL of stories of utter destruction that fit what I said in #2 – utter destruction of nations but not all who were descended from those nations. For a modern example, Israel could be annihilated tomorrow (eliminating all “Israelites”), but that wouldn’t mean all Jews would be dead.

4) It is obvious that the “Nephite” nation existed in a small geographic area and was MUCH smaller than the other groups mentioned. Even when they intermingled with the Mulekites (who were more numerous than the Nephites), they still were “much less numerous” than the Lamanites. The only way that makes sense is if the Lamanites also intermingled with another, much larger group – an indigenous group (probably darker-skinned descendants of the original people of Jared). That intermingling would explain why the Nephites spoke of the Lamanites being “dark” and explain perfectly the racism expressed in the early parts of the Book of Mormon – and the disappearance of such racism after the intermingling of all the people after the appearance of Jesus adds evidence to this whole view.

There are lots of things that make perfect sense in the Book of Mormon (bullseyes, for the purpose of this post). Many of them require letting go of long-time assumptions about what the book says and seeing what it actually says.