- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SamBee wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact What bit were you linking to Sam?
This is often used as evidence against:
Quote:
Only one instance of pre-Columbian European contact – the Norse settlement at L’Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, Canada c. 1000 AD – is established beyond reasonable doubt.[1][2]
The reason the L’Anse aux meadows can be confirmed as transoceanic contact is the archaeologists know what the evidence should look like. They have lots of Viking settlements in Europe to compare them to.
What would a 600BC Nephite settlement look like? What evidence would prove it? What about a 30AD (pre-destruction) Zarahemla? What would that look like?
I guess Hebrew writing somewhere (or even Egyptian) would be fairly convincing. But we don’t know that the Nephites wrote in that outside of the gold plates. At least the BoM doesn’t make that claim.
Beyond writing, I’m not sure what else would convince me. Swords and Horses maybe. But they’ve found horse bones that date back that far.
The ongoing ‘problem’ of the BoM is it maintains its ambiguity.
There’s easily enough 19thC content to let me believe Joseph and co ‘might’ have written it but not enough to convince me he did.
Even some of the strongest (e.g. KJV New Testament mistranslations or interpolations also appearing in the BoM) only serve as evidence that some of the dictation was in his own words. That’s not proof of known fraud.
There are several accounts of people seeing the translation happening (head in hat etc). If it’s a fraud, who was in on it? Was the dictation pre-written and memorised for show? There is lots of evidence in the original manuscript that this was a dictation and not a pre-prepped document. I’ve seen very little evidence from critics of how that bit of the ‘fraud’ was done. If they were all in on it (all the Smiths, the Whitmers, Cowdery, Harris and various people who were passing through), how were they ALL kept quiet.
In addition to that there are lots of strong internal evidences and location ones too for a historical Lehi and Mormon.
I think the best explanation for the final book is probably Roy’s. About 50:50. I see plenty of evidence for Joseph voice being in it. But lots for Mormon’s too.
I would maybe give Joseph 1%, and that would be only in how he interpreted the content. I don’t see any content he came up with on his own. What 19th century stuff do people see in it? Shawn wrote:What 19th century stuff do people see in it?
As for 19th century issues, the famous Ohio preacher, Alexander Campbell, whom Sidney Rigdon had followed before joining forces with Joseph Smith, described the Book of Mormon as containing “every error and almost every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years.” He went on to say that Joseph through the BOM…Quote:…decides all the great controversies – infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of free masonry, republican government, and the rights of man.
I’ve heard this quote used as evidence of how useful and efficient the BOM is. The problem is that it is too efficient. Remember how the NT spends so much time dealing with the circumcision crisis? The OT goes into so many specific Law of Moses details that seem somewhat primitive, backwards, and irrelevant to the modern reader that it can be very difficult to read. The BOM (by contrast) spends almost its entirety with a clear Christ centered message (hundreds of years before the birth of Christ) and then sets about to resolve all the “great controversies” from the 19th century that were not sufficiently addressed in the Bible.
It has been said that the BOM was written for our time. That much is clear. The question is – at what point does the BOM become so immersed in the trappings of the 19th century, that the simplest explanation becomes that it originated from the 19th century? There is still room for faith in an ancient translation – but the 19th century narrative can be just as compelling.
The Book of Mormon explains its 19th-Century focus very well, if, in fact, it is a translation of a real record, but that focus absolutely is there. Beyond the doctrinal issues, there also is the use of New Testament phrasing outside the Isaiah chapters, but that also can be explained by the way the translation/transmission process is described. In the sense of being a record that was written for the 19th Century and beyond – and being written very clearly in 19th Century religious language, I absolutely accept the Book of Mormon as a 19th Century work. I also think, however, that the internal reasons for all of the “issues” are clearly stated in the record itself. That means, to me, that it can’t be disimssed out of hand as a fraud or uninspired or even as invalid scripture. It is a MUCH more complicated book than most people realize (members and non-members), so nearly all of the arguments I have read and heard in my life that reject or defend it in absolute terms simply don’t resonate with me.
Old-Timer wrote:The Book of Mormon explains its 19th-Century focus very well, if, in fact, it is a translation of a real record, but that focus absolutely is there. Beyond the doctrinal issues, there also is the use of New Testament phrasing outside the Isaiah chapters, but that also can be explained by the way the translation/transmission process is described.
In the sense of being a record that was written for the 19th Century and beyond – and being written very clearly in 19th Century religious language, I absolutely accept the Book of Mormon as a 19th Century work. I also think, however, that the internal reasons for all of the “issues” are clearly stated in the record itself. That means, to me, that it can’t be disimssed out of hand as a fraud or uninspired or even as invalid scripture. It is a MUCH more complicated book than most people realize (members and non-members), so nearly all of the arguments I have read and heard in my life that reject or defend it in absolute terms simply don’t resonate with me.
I agree Ray. I find the BOM to be divinely inspired scripture. Whether God inspired ancient prophets on the American continent and JS translated their record or whether God inspired JS to write the BOM as a divine parable with true principles – the point for me is moot. God has spoken to my heart when I was reading from its pages – that to me makes it a “Marvelous Work and a Wonder.”
MacKay – the whole thing. Not really the two mentions of Mormon belief but the theories about the other crossings. I think people may have sailed to or from the Americas a few times, but not regularly. Sorenson mentions a smoking gun. The rather unpleasant hookworm. It originates in South East Asia, but needs warm, fresh water to breed in. It won’t survive in the Arctic (meaning it wasn’t brought in by Norse or Siberians), and needs live human hosts (so no dead sailors). Yet it has been found in pre-Columbian mummies.
Another smoking gun is the red sweet potato. It originates in South America, yet spread to the Old World. Again won’t grow in the cold including southern parts of NZ. The Maori name resembles the Andean name, kumara.
Greenlanders in kayaks got swept over to Scotland, Ireland and Norway. Dead Indians were found in the Azores. The Norse recorded white people in America (and blonde Eskimos are recorded in early Canada) Columbus may not even have been the first Iberian in the Caribbean.
Art from Mesoamerica has been found with apparently bearded, Negroid, Chinese and Caucasian features.
I’ve heard from various people that racism and Native American issues in the BoM could be a 19th century insertion, so I’ll address that. I’ve been imagining what might have been going through Joseph’s mind if he were actually the author of the book. Here’s what I came up with:
Quote:So I am going to have Nephi and his people flee from Laman and Lemuel and their followers. Then Nephi will observe how the Lamanites had been cut off from the Lord and got black skin.
A short time later, I will have Nephi say the Lord “doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” (2 Ne. 26)
Nephi’s brother Jacob will tell the people “a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against [the Lamanites] because of the darkness of their skins.” (Jacob 3)
Later, I will have Alma say “there are many promises which are extended to the Lamanites; for it is because of the traditions of their fathers that caused them to remain in their state of ignorance; therefore the Lord will be merciful unto them and prolong their existence in the land.”
The Lamanites will eventually destroy all the Nephites and I will write “And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.” (1 Ne. 12)
The Native Americans have already been abused and scattered in the USA, so I will have Nephi say “I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the bland of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.” However, “the Gentiles who have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations, upon the face of the land which is choice above all other lands, which is the land that the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father that his seed should have for the land of their inheritance; wherefore, thou seest that the Lord God will not suffer that the Gentiles will utterly destroy the mixture of thy seed, which are among thy brethren.” (1 Ne. 13)
This is the land of the Native Americans and the Europeans must follow Christ if they want to “be numbered among the seed of [Lehi]; yea, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel.” On the other hand, “wo be unto the Gentiles if it so be that they harden their hearts against the Lamb of God.” (1 Ne. 14)
Nephi will also say that the Lamanites gain a “knowledge of the gospel of their Redeemer.” “And then at that day will they not rejoice and give praise unto their everlasting God, their rock and their salvation? Yea, at that day, will they not receive the strength and nourishment from the true vine? Yea, will they not come unto the true fold of God?” (I Ne. 15)
I will write that now, in the 19th century, the Lamanites “shall be restored unto the knowledge of their fathers, and also to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, which was had among their fathers. And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.” (2 Ne. 30)
And since I want to get famous by publishing this book, I will make up a story about finding the record on metal plates in a stone box buried in a hill! That will make it more believable for sure.
Richard Bushman says it much better:
Quote:The Book of Mormon resists conventional analysis, whether sympathetic or critical. Early Mormons themselves had trouble grasping the book’s nature. When required to offer a brief summary, they often called it a history of the Indians…
While the Indian label intrigued potential readers, it obscured as much as it revealed. The label does not help, for one thing, with the puzzle of motivation. Why would an uneducated farmer write a lengthy volume on the origins of the Indians? Nothing in Joseph Smith’s immediate environment propelled him to investigate Indians. The question of origins was not a pressing issue for New York’s rural population in 1830… the Smiths exhibited no particular interest in the original occupants of the land until Joseph got involved with the gold plates…Although pundits were propounding theories, there is no reason to think the Smiths brooded over these possibilities…
The evidence compiled by the Israelite school was summarized in an 1823 volume, View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith, a Congregational minister in Poultney, Vermont. Since Oliver Cowdery’s family lived in Poultney, and Cowdery did not leave until after the book’s publication, critics have speculated that View of the Hebrews might have fallen into Joseph Smith’s hands and inspired the Book of Mormon. Both books speak of migrations from Palestine to America and of a great civilization now lost; both describe a division that pitted a civilized against a savage branch with the higher civilization falling to the lower; both books elicit sympathy for a chosen people fallen into decay. Even though Joseph Smith is not known to have seen View of the Hebrews until later in his life, the parallels seem strong enough for critics to argue that Ethan Smith provided the seeds for Joseph Smith’s later composition.
But for readers of Ethan Smith, the Book of Mormon was a disappointment. It was not a treatise about the origins of the Indians, regardless of what early Mormons said. The Book of Mormon never used the word “Indian.” The book had a different form and purpose than the earlier works on Indian origins. The assembling of anthropological evidence was the central endeavor of View of the Hebrews and the books that preceded it. Ethan Smith and his predecessors looked for signs of a deteriorating Jewish culture in Indian society, ticking off instances such as similarities in sacrifices and feasts. The Book of Mormon gave almost no attention to Old Testament parallels; its prophets taught pure Christianity. View of the Hebrews was an anthropological treatise, combining scripture and empirical evidence to propound a theory. The Book of Mormon was a narrative, not a treatise. Anyone looking for a scientific investigation of Indian origins in its pages would have found ancient American Christianity instead…
When other authors delved into Indian origins, they were explicit about recognizable Indian practices and the location of particular tribes. Solomon Spaulding’s romance had characters traveling through a recognizable landscape from the east coast to the “Owaho” river formed by the confluence of two great rivers. There they met a people called “Kentucks” and another called “Delewans.”…
The Book of Mormon deposited its people on some unknown shore—not even definitely identified as America—and had them live out their history in a remote place in a distant time, using names that had no connections to modern Indians…Once here, the Book of Mormon people are not given an Indian character. None of the trademark Indian items appear in the Book of Mormon ’s pages…The Book of Mormon contains none of the identifying words like squaw, papoose, wampum, peace pipes, tepees, braves, feathers, and no canoes, moccasins, or corn. Burial mounds, supposedly a stimulus for investigation of the Indians, receive only the slightest mention. Nephites and Lamanites fought with bows and arrows, but also with swords, cimeters, slings, and shields, more like classical warriors than Native Americans…the Book of Mormon seems more focused on its own Christian message than on Indian anthropology. The book refuses to argue its own theory.
Despite the absences in the text, the Book of Mormon has been universally thought of as an attempted history of the American Indians. One of the evidences, in the critics’ view, is its blatant racism…
But the fact that these wild people are Israel, the chosen of God, adds a level of complexity to the Book of Mormon that simple racism does not explain. Incongruously,
the book champions the Indians’ place in world history, assigning them a more glorious future than modern American whites. All the derogatory descriptions of Lamanites notwithstanding, the Indians emerge as God’s chosen people. They are not viewed as a pathetic civilization moving inevitably toward their doom, as sympathetic observers in Joseph’s time depicted them. According to the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites are destined to be restored to favor with God and given this land, just as Jews are to be restored to the Holy Land… In the end, the Lamanites triumph. The white Nephites perish, and the dark Lamanites remain. In its very nature, the Book of Mormon overturns conventional American racism. The book makes Indians the founders of civilization in the New World. The master history of America’s origins is not about Columbus or the Puritans but about native peoples. History is imagined from the ancient inhabitants’ point of view. European migrants are called “Gentiles” in the Book of Mormon and come onstage as interlopers. They appear late in the narrative and remain secondary to the end. The land belongs to the Indians… The Book of Mormon is not just sympathetic to Indians; it grants them dominance—in history, in God’s esteem, and in future ownership of the American continent. (Rough Stone Rolling, chapters 3 and 4) Frankly, racism in the Book of Mormon isn’t an issue for me, since it doesn’t occur once after the record of Jesus’ appearance (after everyone in record had intermingled) and since all historical records include racist statements – especially in relation to inter-racial marriage with darker-skinned native groups, which I believe is the demographic foundation of the Nephite-Lamanite situation described in the book itself. From a historical analysis perspective, it would be more troubling if there was no racism in the book, given what it purports to be. Old-Timer wrote:Frankly, racism in the Book of Mormon isn’t an issue for me, since it doesn’t occur once after the record of Jesus’ appearance (after everyone in record had intermingled) and since all historical records include racist statements – especially in relation to inter-racial marriage with darker-skinned native groups, which I believe is the demographic foundation of the Nephite-Lamanite situation described in the book itself. From a historical analysis perspective, it would be more troubling if there was no racism in the book, given what it purports to be.
I have been concerned about that. However, I have found that the Book of Mormon does not contain a record of God saying the dark skin is a curse. God’s words:
Quote:1 Nephi 2: …inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren. For behold, in that day that they shall rebel against me, I will curse them even with a sore curse, and they shall have no power over thy seed except they shall rebel against me also.
2 Nephi 1: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.
Alma 3: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them… I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also … I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed…I say he that departeth from thee shall no more be called thy seed; and I will bless thee, and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth and forever.
2 Nephi 5: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord…I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing.
Everything else said about this issue are the words of Nephi, Mormon, or another man.EDIT: What I’m saying is that Nephi, Mormon, and the others could have had some racist tendencies that were reflected in the Book of Mormon. Such racism does not reflect upon God. As is the case with every other prophet, God was working with imperfect people.
Does the book Les Misérables teach that a convict can’t change? No. The character Javert asserts that. So is the Book of Mormon racist? No. Some men in the book said some racist things, though.
Shawn wrote:…I have been concerned about that. However, I have found that
the Book of Mormon does not contain a record of God saying the dark skin is a curse.God’s words:
Quote:Alma 3: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them…
I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also… I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed…I say he that departeth from thee shall no more be called thy seed; and I will bless thee, and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth and forever. I guess I just assumed this “mark” meant skin color plus there are other comments along these lines like this one:
3 Nephi 2:15-16 wrote:“And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.”
Old-Timer wrote:Frankly, racism in the Book of Mormon isn’t an issue for me, since it doesn’t occur once after the record of Jesus’ appearance (after everyone in record had intermingled) and since
all historical records include racist statements – especially in relation to inter-racial marriage with darker-skinned native groups, which I believe is the demographic foundation of the Nephite-Lamanite situation described in the book itself. From a historical analysis perspective, it would be more troubling if there was no racism in the book, given what it purports to be. I understand that racism has not been all that unusual throughout history but what is most troubling to me about this is the idea of directly connecting it to God as if we already know that God deliberately changed the skin color of Cain, Laman, Lemuel, and their descendents as a curse. To me these stories sound like something relatively ignorant men would think of to explain racial differences.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Before I ever heard the word anachronism or read any so-called anti-Mormon material I remember reading about the Lamanites being given dark skin by God as a curse and thinking that sounds like something I would expect some 19th century white American to come up with. At the time I shrugged it off and mostly forgot about it but now I look at that and other
ideas like sexual sins being next to murderand I would actually rather view it as 19th century fiction than something that God was directly responsible for. Maybe there are many good and possibly even inspired teachings in the BoM as well but my point is that accepting this as literally what God wanted us to believe from beginning to end basically creates a whole new set of potential problems to deal with to the point that I don’t really want to believe it is what the Church claims anymore even if I thought it was possible to restore the faith in it that I had before.
I’ve already talked about the dark skin. What I have to say about Alma’s words to Corianton is not new – you’ve probably already heard it a few times. Alms told him:
Quote:…Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom. And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel. Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted. Know ye not, my son, that
these thingsare an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?…And now, my son, I would to God that ye had not been guilty of so great a crime. I would not dwell upon your crimes, to harrow up your soul, if it were not for your good. But behold, ye cannot hide your crimesfrom God; and except ye repent they will stand as a testimony against you at the last day…Behold, O my son, how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words. (Alma 39)
You can see my emphasis on the plurals “these things” and “crimes.” Corianton was guilty of:1. Boasting in his own strength and wisdom
2. Forsaking the ministry
3. Getting with the harlot Isabel
4. Setting a bad example for the Zoramites
I wonder if the first item is the worst. Boasting in one’s own strength and wisdom is very prideful and effectively denies the power, glory, and benevolence of God.
Alas, many in the church do teach that sexual sin alone is next to “the shedding of innocent blood.” Does “the shedding of innocent blood” always refer to murder or can it also refer to torturing people? I ask that because when I think of the seriousnous of sexual sin, I always think about how much more heinous it is for someone to torture another.
DA, as I said, I don’t think very many members really understand what the book actually says – and WAY too few are willing to admit that even Book of Mormon prophets were people with prejudices, as well. Admit the prejudices, and this issue disappears completely – IF we accept that the Book of Mormon also isn’t God’s word and reflective of eternal truth in every sentence. Since the book itself doesn’t make that claim, I’m fine not making it.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:I understand that racism has not been all that unusual throughout history but what is most troubling to me about this is the idea of directly connecting it to God as if we already know that God deliberately changed the skin color of Cain, Laman, Lemuel, and their descendents as a curse. To me these stories sound like something relatively ignorant men would think of to explain racial differences.
When Nephi (or someone else who reported to him) encountered Lamanites after being separated from them for some years, I think he assumed the dark skin was a CURSE placed on them DIRECTLY by God, but it was really a MARK placed on them INDIRECTLY by God through natural means, meaning the Lamanites mixed with other people. That became a tradition that was passed down and Mormon wrote things like “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression.” (Alma 3)It’s a fault of the imperfect men of that time. “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” (BoM Title Page)
Actually the most convincing argument I heard regarding skin color was that the Lamanites had taken to a cruder outdoor life. Enos confirms this when he mentions their clothes were primitive and they didn’t cook their meat. Of course, for Lehi’s family this had already started before they left for America… living in tents, eating raw meat, and exposure to the elements.
But the Nephites built a temple and towns, fairly soon after arrival and settled down while the Lamanites preferred the rough nomadic lifestyle of the Arabian desert which left their skin looking windblown and sunburnt. The Lamanites did later become civilised, but for a long time, Nephites seem to have been agrarian city builders, while Lamanites were hunter gatherer nomads.
Compare a long term white navvy with a white office worker. The latter’s often pale, while the former has his work marked into him
Also, who’s to say the mark wasn’t warpaint?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.