Book of Mormon theories: Historical, Expansion and Environme

[Anonymous]

I’ve recently been reading about various theories of how the Book of Mormon was created.

All of the following are written by people who believe that ultimately the book is of God, but have very different approaches to its creation:

Historical. This is the one we were raised on. That Nephi/Mormon were real people and Joseph dictated a divinely delivered exact translation of what they’d etched into the plates. The one that all the FARMS work attempts to support. It still has merit and many people (even after discovering all the ‘issues’) believe this one. You might say this is the TBM starting point.

This article talks about the good and bad approaches to defending its authenticity (with some nice references to Monty Python).

http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=review&vol=16&num=1&id=526

Expansion

Considers there to be some ancient origins in the stories but delivered by revelation and expressed in the words of Joseph. This accounts for both the strong evidences (he cites a few I’d never heard of, like ancient prophetic practices). This is an approach I appreciate. It leaves room for a Nephi that existed but also puts into context the idea that Joseph’s voice, expression and maybe views are very present in the final published book. Blake Ostler has written about this.

Long:

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N01_68.pdf

Short:

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2005/04/updating-the-expansion-theory/

Finally, there’s the Environment theory. In other words: Joseph wrote it, there never was a Nephi/Mormon and he drew on resources/ideas in his environment to do so. This approach is essentially what most non-members view the BoM as. Critics attempt to prove this approach to be the case. There are also some Mormons who consider it to be divinely inspired but entirely fictional and written by Joseph.

This is an example of a believing approach to environmental creation:

http://tagriffy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/enviornmental-theory.html?m=1

So where would you place your belief in the Book of Mormon?

1) Historical

2) Expansion

3) Environment

[Anonymous]

I personally believe the environment approach… that it came entirely from the mind of JS, with possible aid from contemporary associates. However, I must admit that this explanation is very unsatisfying. JS was 24 when the BofM went to press. He was clearly an exceptionally intelligent person, but it is still a leap of un-faith to attribute the BofM to a young man raised in the home of a financially-inept farmer in what was the american frontier. JS spent more of his youth digging ditches and moving rock, than in school, and more time with a shovel in his hand than a book. The BofM narrative doesn’t present a hugely complex story, though it is imaginative. However, the spiritual presentation is remarkable. Emma famously later said that Joseph could hardly write a well-written letter in his early years, and that portrait certainly seems easier to comprehend. Yet, in the BofM, he gave us the Psalm of Nephi, the Tree of Life, Alma 5, Alma 32, Moroni 10, 1 Nephi 1, 2 Nephi 2, context-appropriate interpretations of Isaiah, letters between government leaders, letters between spiritual leaders, the Allegory of the Olive Tree, the preaching of missionaries, and spiritual debates between Alma/Amulek and Zeezrom. The list goes on. It really is astonishing, in my opinion. Yet, as an atheist, I have no explanation other than Joseph Smith as the source. I accept JS as the source, without God, but it does cause some mental gymnastics.

[Anonymous]

The closest of the three for me is expansion – with a nod to midrash. There is plenty in the book that allows me to believe it describes real people and events (even if I lean toward a location that is not accepted by many people), but I don’t believe it was “translated” in any way close to a typical translation or how most members believe.

If I try to step outside my own belief orientation, I also think the way it occurred and was recorded points toward something outside of Joseph that I would classify as “inspiration” of some sort. Thus, if I am trying to view it as an outsider, I would put Joseph in the same category as Tolkien, Rowling, Hugo, etc. – authors who “saw” something that flowed automatically and organically, without the type of careful thought and labor that it takes for me to write “stories”.

Ultimately, the Book of Mormon is so much more complex than most people realize, and there are so many instances of “getting it right” when “right” should have been outside Joseph’s ability to get (especially in 1st Nephi and Ether), that I can’t characterize it as anything less than an extraordinary work, regardless of whether or not it is historical, expansionist or environmental.

[Anonymous]

Environment. The argument that he wasn’t smart enough, educated enough, etc. is pretty hard to prove given what he did do with his life. Parts of the BoM are uplifting and inspiring in the way that Christian theology or a well crafted sermon is but for me that isn’t proof of it’s historicity. As far as the FARMS quote that was on the other thread, that interpretation isn’t likely to show up in a new version of Preach My Gospel or incorporated by your average missionary. That would be letting the camel’s nose in the tent and Correlation will never stand for that. I’m reading it again now and I’m afraid Pres. Hinkcley’s promise isn’t working like it didn’t the first time.

[Anonymous]

Ray quote .

Quote:

“There is plenty in the book that allows me to believe it describes real people and events (even if I lean toward a location that is not accepted by many people)”

You have peaked my interest greatly, please expound on location idea or link if you would please? P.S. Thank you for all you do!

[Anonymous]

Shades of Grey, there are enough difficult issues with placing the Book of Mormon in the Americas that I look at what the book itself actually says and try to reason a location from there. My own reading of the book at a fairly young age (first read at age seven – yes, I was that kid who always saw things differently than everyone else and was a big pain in the butt until he learned to keep his mouth shut and just accept that most people saw things differently than he did and weren’t interested in other possibilities), when I still accepted the historical model fully, made me question lots of the common assumptions about it. Also, from my early teenage years I believed the Jaredites were from a northeast Asian region and the Nephites and Lamanites night have lived somewhere in Southeast Asia – with descendants immigrating to the Americas after the close of the Book of Mormon record, including Moroni, in order to bury the plates in NY. (There certainly is more than enough time for him to have circled the world based on the dates at the end of the book, so the plates getting to NY isn’t an issue at all for me, no matter the location.) That’s the only model that really made sense to me as I dug into the actual book itself and ignored what everyone else said, trying to figure it out completely on my own, and there isn’t anything that objectively denies that possibility, imo.

Mormon Heretic did a bunch of research about various geographic theories on his personal blog. As a start, you might want to look at the following link that summarizes the major ones and goes into some detail about a theory that sets the Book of Mormon in Malaysia.

“A Radically Different Book of Mormon Geography Theory” (http://mormonheretic.org/2009/04/09/a-radically-different-book-of-mormon-geography-theory/)

That location would eliminate pretty much all of the major cultural, historical and scientific issues in the book, and I have no problem logically with the leading proponent’s interpretation of Joseph Smith History 1:34 (summarized in MH’s post):

“[Moroni] said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.”

I think there is another reasonable reading of that statement, especially if Moroni didn’t elaborate any more than that. I think “the FORMER inhabitants of this continent” could refer to the Jaredites (especially since Moroni’s statement is a bit more impersonal than something like “my people”) and be pointed at his inclusion of the Book of Ether in the record. I’m not saying I am a hardcore proponent of Malaysia as the location, but it’s much, much harder to dismiss that area than it is to dismiss the Americas, imo. Seriously, based on the book and only the book, it’s an incredibly, amazingly good match.

As I’ve said in other threads, I think Joseph didn’t understand the book very well, so it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find that he was wrong in how he interpreted Moroni’s statement.

Again, all of that accepts that it wasn’t just a completely fictitious account – that it was, to some degree or another, historical in some way, literal or inspired.

[Anonymous]

Wayfarer, I hope you’ll forgive me posting your comment from the quotes thread:

wayfarer wrote:

mackay11, that is one really fantastic quote. Yet, the article behind it still seeks and finds archaelogical evidence in the ancient near east for the BoM. The author seeks a pass on comparing the BoM to OT mythology, but still believes the BoM to be an ancient work: the mythmakers were still an ancient lehite migration, and not joseph smith.

close, but no cigar.

I’m aware that it was reaching a conclusion of still being historic. The point of the article though is that there are still some evidences for a historical theory (and I accept that there are) but that these smaller evidences are undermined and diluted by the casual evidences that don’t carry weight.

Given the objective of the writer was to call for better rigour around BoM historical approach I think he got close and the cigar to what he was trying to do.

I recognise that doesn’t fit with the model you have defined for your faith approach, but it fits for him and can also have a place for a ‘middle way’ Mormon. A historical approach is viable. It’s just that you (and sometimes I) don’t see it that way.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

I personally believe the environment approach… that it came entirely from the mind of JS, with possible aid from contemporary associates. However, I must admit that this explanation is very unsatisfying. JS was 24 when the BofM went to press. He was clearly an exceptionally intelligent person, but it is still a leap of un-faith to attribute the BofM to a young man raised in the home of a financially-inept farmer in what was the american frontier. JS spent more of his youth digging ditches and moving rock, than in school, and more time with a shovel in his hand than a book. The BofM narrative doesn’t present a hugely complex story, though it is imaginative. However, the spiritual presentation is remarkable. Emma famously later said that Joseph could hardly write a well-written letter in his early years, and that portrait certainly seems easier to comprehend. Yet, in the BofM, he gave us the Psalm of Nephi, the Tree of Life, Alma 5, Alma 32, Moroni 10, 1 Nephi 1, 2 Nephi 2, context-appropriate interpretations of Isaiah, letters between government leaders, letters between spiritual leaders, the Allegory of the Olive Tree, the preaching of missionaries, and spiritual debates between Alma/Amulek and Zeezrom. The list goes on. It really is astonishing, in my opinion. Yet, as an atheist, I have no explanation other than Joseph Smith as the source. I accept JS as the source, without God, but it does cause some mental gymnastics.

Thanks On Own Now. I love your list of the brilliant parts of the Book of Mormon. They remain a firm anchoring point for continuing to embrace it, whatever the source.

I re-read Nephi’s lament the other day. It is a beautiful piece of human expression and it brought me to tears. I’ve been meaning to memorise it.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Shades of Grey, there are enough difficult issues with placing the Book of Mormon in the Americas that I look at what the book itself actually says and try to reason a location from there. My own reading of the book at a fairly young age (first read at age seven – yes, I was that kid who always saw things differently than everyone else and was a big pain in the butt until he learned to keep his mouth shut and just accept that most people saw things differently than he did and weren’t interested in other possibilities), when I still accepted the historical model fully, made me question lots of the common assumptions about it. Also, from my early teenage years I believed the Jaredites were from a northeast Asian region and the Nephites and Lamanites night have lived somewhere in Southeast Asia – with descendants immigrating to the Americas after the close of the Book of Mormon record, including Moroni, in order to bury the plates in NY. (There certainly is more than enough time for him to have circled the world based on the dates at the end of the book, so the plates getting to NY isn’t an issue at all for me, no matter the location.) That’s the only model that really made sense to me as I dug into the actual book itself and ignored what everyone else said, trying to figure it out completely on my own, and there isn’t anything that objectively denies that possibility, imo.

Mormon Heretic did a bunch of research about various geographic theories on his personal blog. As a start, you might want to look at the following link that summarizes the major ones and goes into some detail about a theory that sets the Book of Mormon in Malaysia.

“A Radically Different Book of Mormon Geography Theory” (http://mormonheretic.org/2009/04/09/a-radically-different-book-of-mormon-geography-theory/)

That location would eliminate pretty much all of the major cultural, historical and scientific issues in the book, and I have no problem logically with the leading proponent’s interpretation of Joseph Smith History 1:34 (summarized in MH’s post):

“[Moroni] said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.”

I think there is another reasonable reading of that statement, especially if Moroni didn’t elaborate any more than that. I think “the FORMER inhabitants of this continent” could refer to the Jaredites (especially since Moroni’s statement is a bit more impersonal than something like “my people”) and be pointed at his inclusion of the Book of Ether in the record. I’m not saying I am a hardcore proponent of Malaysia as the location, but it’s much, much harder to dismiss that area than it is to dismiss the Americas, imo. Seriously, based on the book and only the book, it’s an incredibly, amazingly good match.

As I’ve said in other threads, I think Joseph didn’t understand the book very well, so it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find that he was wrong in how he interpreted Moroni’s statement.

Again, all of that accepts that it wasn’t just a completely fictitious account – that it was, to some degree or another, historical in some way, literal or inspired.

Interesting that these were things you concluded independently.

The fact that there is better evidence for ‘Zarahemla’ to be on the Malaysian peninsula and not anywhere in America is in many ways a reminder of how scarce the evidence is for an American setting.

[Anonymous]

I went to chicken itza once. I had people tell me how exciting it was to visit a Book of Mormon site. I was open to a spiritual experience…really hoping actually.

I was disappointed. Having felt the spirit in cathedrals, chapels, Japanese temples and shrines, and even Stonehenge, I have to say I felt none of that… it felt more like touring Auschwitz. Just my experience though.

I as well pondered asia independently as a possible alternative location. Though not deeply…I think the Malaysia theory is quite interesting. More plausible than anywhere found in the americas. But as was already said, that may have more to do with the americas’ dearth of evidence than an abundance of evidence for other theories. I long ago stopped caring where it was though. It’d be nice to know it wasnt inspired fiction though. That’s where I’m leaning. I believe that about half of the old testament too though….

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

Wayfarer, I hope you’ll forgive me posting your comment from the quotes thread:

wayfarer wrote:

mackay11, that is one really fantastic quote. Yet, the article behind it still seeks and finds archaelogical evidence in the ancient near east for the BoM. The author seeks a pass on comparing the BoM to OT mythology, but still believes the BoM to be an ancient work: the mythmakers were still an ancient lehite migration, and not joseph smith.

close, but no cigar.

I’m aware that it was reaching a conclusion of still being historic. The point of the article though is that there are still some evidences for a historical theory (and I accept that there are) but that these smaller evidences are undermined and diluted by the casual evidences that don’t carry weight.

Given the objective of the writer was to call for better rigour around BoM historical approach I think he got close and the cigar to what he was trying to do.

I recognise that doesn’t fit with the model you have defined for your faith approach, but it fits for him and can also have a place for a ‘middle way’ Mormon. A historical approach is viable. It’s just that you (and sometimes I) don’t see it that way.

yes, you are correct — I do not see a historical approach as viable — not any more. To hold onto the idea of a historical document ignores entirely too much evidence to the contrary. Could Joseph have revealed some unknown civilization that has since completely gone into the dust? Yes, and that is about as likely as Russell’s teapot. Maybe there’s a teapot orbiting the earth — maybe even one of the astronauts placed it there as a joke, so that the teapot now exists, but it didn’t exist when Russell proposed it. In a sense, the Apologist crowd tries to impute the teapot from NHM, or scratches that look like hebrew, or images of the tree of life in the wrong places — Sure, there are correspondences if you want to create them — but there is no evidence of the book of mormon as a historical work – none; and vast amount of evidence to the contrary.

Which brings me to wuwei’s post:

wuwei wrote:

I went to chicken itza once. I had people tell me how exciting it was to visit a Book of Mormon site. I was open to a spiritual experience…really hoping actually.

I was disappointed. Having felt the spirit in cathedrals, chapels, Japanese temples and shrines, and even Stonehenge, I have to say I felt none of that… it felt more like touring Auschwitz. Just my experience though.

Chichen Itza doesn’t even correspond to book of mormon times, unless 550 CE is considered a good time to place some aspect of Nephite society — they were all dead by then. LDS seek to have confirmation that the Book of Mormon is literally true, and their strongly held biases create the context for warm, fuzzy feelings about certain sites.

[Anonymous]

Chicken Itza? Is that a new chain of mexican restaurants?

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

mackay11 wrote:

Wayfarer, I hope you’ll forgive me posting your comment from the quotes thread:

wayfarer wrote:

mackay11, that is one really fantastic quote. Yet, the article behind it still seeks and finds archaelogical evidence in the ancient near east for the BoM. The author seeks a pass on comparing the BoM to OT mythology, but still believes the BoM to be an ancient work: the mythmakers were still an ancient lehite migration, and not joseph smith.

close, but no cigar.

I’m aware that it was reaching a conclusion of still being historic. The point of the article though is that there are still some evidences for a historical theory (and I accept that there are) but that these smaller evidences are undermined and diluted by the casual evidences that don’t carry weight.

Given the objective of the writer was to call for better rigour around BoM historical approach I think he got close and the cigar to what he was trying to do.

I recognise that doesn’t fit with the model you have defined for your faith approach, but it fits for him and can also have a place for a ‘middle way’ Mormon. A historical approach is viable. It’s just that you (and sometimes I) don’t see it that way.

yes, you are correct — I do not see a historical approach as viable — not any more. To hold onto the idea of a historical document ignores entirely too much evidence to the contrary. Could Joseph have revealed some unknown civilization that has since completely gone into the dust? Yes, and that is about as likely as Russell’s teapot. Maybe there’s a teapot orbiting the earth — maybe even one of the astronauts placed it there as a joke, so that the teapot now exists, but it didn’t exist when Russell proposed it. In a sense, the Apologist crowd tries to impute the teapot from NHM, or scratches that look like hebrew, or images of the tree of life in the wrong places — Sure, there are correspondences if you want to create them — but there is no evidence of the book of mormon as a historical work – none; and vast amount of evidence to the contrary.

Which brings me to wuwei’s post:

wuwei wrote:

I went to chicken itza once. I had people tell me how exciting it was to visit a Book of Mormon site. I was open to a spiritual experience…really hoping actually.

I was disappointed. Having felt the spirit in cathedrals, chapels, Japanese temples and shrines, and even Stonehenge, I have to say I felt none of that… it felt more like touring Auschwitz. Just my experience though.

Chichen Itza doesn’t even correspond to book of mormon times, unless 550 CE is considered a good time to place some aspect of Nephite society — they were all dead by then. LDS seek to have confirmation that the Book of Mormon is literally true, and their strongly held biases create the context for warm, fuzzy feelings about certain sites.

I agree that the archaeological evidence is patchy in Mesoamerica. The Old world content is a lot stronger. To quote Sallah in Indianna Jones. Maybe “they’re digging in the wrong place.” The Malaysia theory still sounds like a bad case of mental gymnastics to me.

Even if we can’t find a ‘welcome to zarahemla’ sign, there’s too much internal content to accept a straight Environmental model. I do not believe and cannot accept that the book is entirely a product of Joseph’s own mind (or a few people’s) and their immediate sources.

I suppose that leaves me as an expansionist. But that seems like a copout. It means I can draw my lines anywhere I like, moving with the breeze between historical and environmental as it suits me. Effectively fence sitting.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

It means I can draw my lines anywhere I like.

Yup – and that is wonderful!

Also, if fences symbolize the extreme boundaries, that isn’t fence sitting.

[Anonymous]

I had an interesting experience today actually.

My wife (not tbm but much closer than I am) is Hispanic. I don’t remember how we got on the topic… some tv documentary i think… but she made a comment about her ancestors coming over the land bridge thousands of years ago. My very tbm brother looked puzzled and then said “but your ancestors were the book of Mormon people. The land bridge is just a theory.” She said “maybe, but that’s not what DNA and everything else says. Besides, why do you think I have Asian eyes?”

My brother’s whole world was shaken and I had nothing to do with it haha.

As for chichen itza… I know it was built too late, you know it was built too late, but that hasn’t stopped it from being the model for zarahemla in everything from paintings to the move “The Testaments”. I had been told my while life that places like that were probable book of Mormon sites. So I was open to it. After visiting it I just felt dark. So many people were sacrificed there….beautiful buildings though.

[Author]

Posts