- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Now that I’ve lost my testimony, the questions I’ve never had answered and had to shelf are coming back up. So Hagoth took a lot of Nephites and two ships and we are taught that they populated the islands of the sea. That’s cool but what happened to all of the Nephites in the group? Did the Lamanites in his group also become wicked and they had mini great and last battles on all of the islands in which they killed their Nephites, as well? We know from the BoM that when the Lamanites were righteous their skin got lighter so they would have had to all become wicked. As far as I know, when new lands have been discovered the people have been indigenous, not white like Nephites.
After Christ visitied the Nephites, the BOM said the lamanited became white, and there were no more “-ites” among them. So I assume that Nephi misunderstood his own prophecy, or that “Lamanite” was a just a term for “the bad guys”, or that “Nephite” and “Lamanite” represented a particular ideology rather than a bloodline. Those who left with Hagoth probably identified themselves as Hagothites (or the Maori) more than Nephites. I hesitate to say this because I thinks it’s who-ha, but the view of some is that those who went to the islands are the modern day Polynesians. However, those same people will teach that the Polynesians are Lamanites, so your question is good (and that also contributes to why I think it’s who-ha). There is a mildly interesting article about it here:
https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-alma-testimony-word/15-hagoth-and-polynesians-0 ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-alma-testimony-word/15-hagoth-and-polynesians-0 It’s one of those things I don’t worry about because it has nothing to do with my own salvation.
Intermarriage changes skin color quite quickly and over generations, so the race question is a non-issue – except for the ancient and (I believe) completely cultural, inaccurate application of a curse to explain what happened to a people who intermarried with an indigenous people and naturally became darker skinned. That is crystal clear to me, based on the population demographics stated in the book itself. The Book of Mormon deals ONLY with the people who lived in the areas it describes directly.
If it is historically accurate, we have absolutely no idea where Hagoth and his people ended up and what happened to them; if it is not historically accurate, all we need to do is find “the moral of the story” and not worry about it.
So, either way, it doesn’t matter – to us or to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the book itself. It literally has no impact one way or the other.
On the topic of skin color, there’s a very interesting set of articles in this month’s National Geographic. Of course I can’t link the whole thing for several reasons, but the one anyone can read is good: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/ BTW, it appears to have nothing to do with righteousness or being “delightsome.”
Maybe because it’s still so raw for me but it DOES matter if it isn’t historically accurate because it’s been sold as such. It does matter to me, at least. If I can’t trust that then what else can’t I trust? adrift wrote:
Maybe because it’s still so raw for me but it DOES matter if it isn’t historically accurate because it’s been sold as such. It does matter to me, at least. If I can’t trust that then what else can’t I trust?
I heard a quote, which may or may not have been from economist John Maynard Keynes, which went, “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?” People are forced all the time to act with very little (and often inaccurate) information. We have been told, and also will tell many things which are false, and many more which are not enitrely true. But I think the Church leaders (for the most part) truly believe what they claim to be fact. What matters is being willing to admit you were wrong and change your mind when better information presents itself. And while the Church has a hard time admiting it, I think for the most part they are willing to (eventually) adjust their views accordingly.
[img=http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/885/519/eef.png][/img] adrift wrote:
Maybe because it’s still so raw for me but it DOES matter if it isn’t historically accurate because it’s been sold as such. It does matter to me, at least. If I can’t trust that then what else can’t I trust?
I didn’t mean to imply it doesn’t matter to you. Just because it doesn’t matter to me doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter to you. I don’t view the BoM as literal (or anywhere close to literal) and thus not historical, and I view very little of what anyone says as doctrine – including GA’s even at the very highest level. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is very simple. The church and many members of the church tend to try to complicate it.
I love this talk
https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng Quote:Part of the reason for poor judgment comes from the tendency of mankind to blur the line between belief and truth. We too often confuse belief with truth, thinking that because something makes sense or is convenient, it must be true. Conversely, we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it—because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences.
Hence, Hagoth sailed away with a bunch of people never to be heard from. There are people living on islands of the seas with no explanation of how they got there except their own legends which seem to fit the story of Hagoth. Makes sense to me that these are Hagoth’s people. Therefore it must be true. “I
knowthe Polynesians are the people of Hagoth.” Totally. Looking back, I can see my bias regarding the BoM, history, and evidence. It was easy to see things that seemed to prove or strengthen the case for it all while completely ignoring facts and evidence to the contrary. I just need to figure out where to put everything.
I understand the allure of the BoM. IF it is true THEN God really does perform miracles, send angels, and guide his prophets. It is tangible proof of the divinity of the work. It is a relic – Something that an investigator can hold in their hands and pray to know if it is real. Regardless of the historicity of the BoM – I find it to be a very Christian work. It hyper-emphasizes Jesus and his central role. The BoM thus achieves its own mission – to become another testament that Jesus is the Christ.
To be clear, the story of Hagoth has nothing to do with whether the Book of Mormon is historical or not, since there is absolutely no way to judge it historically. That literally is impossible. If the book is historically accurate, so is the story of Hagoth; if the book isn’t historically accurate, neither is the story of Hagoth. There simply is no way whatsoever to analyze or judge it apart from the overall issue of the book in which it is recorded. Furthermore, I personally don’t see any particular “moral of the story” that makes it compelling to me. Thus, frankly, I couldn’t care less about that story. It literally is meaningless to me.
The Book of Mormon itself is pretty vague on Hagoth.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.