Do Mormons Still Believe The Book of Mormon to Be Actual History?

[Chris-Wa1]

I too like to place the word “translate” in quotes, because I agree that what Joseph Smith did is nothing like secular translation. While the presence/existence of the BOM plates is beyond question IMO, the utilization of the plates in any “normal” way is also not at all likely. Add to this the fact that Joseph Smith “translated” writings from John the Baptist without any physical writings, and it is clear that “translation” is not but very tangentially related to scholarly translation. Joseph Smith called it “translation,” but when he describes what he did it is not like what translators do.

Funny how the only documents that we have in existence that Joseph Smith supposedly translated are translated completely incorrectly (Book of Abraham papyri, Kinderhook plates, etc.). In the case of the BoA, Joseph’s translation of the papyri is totally wrong, having nothing whatsoever to do with anything in the BoA. The church knows this and has come up with some crazy excuses as to why this is so that defy all reason and logic. In the case of the Kinderhook plates, those were fake yet Joseph was fooled and translated them even though they were total gibberish. There is also the Greek Psalter case where Joseph was once again wrong.

Nothing Joseph Smith ever translated for which we have actual physical evidence for is translated correctly. Yet we are to believe that he translated the BoM plates, the existence of which is most certainly not certain since no one else ever actually saw them, and when he was done they were magically wisked away.

Again, and this cannot be emphasized enough—not one place, person, or event in the New World from the Book of Mormon has ever been discovered in any other source. Not one shred of “reformed Egyptian” has ever been discovered. We know about the Incas. We know about the Mayans. They both left plenty of evidence of their existence. But not one shred of writing by the Nephite or Lamanite civilizations has ever been found. Just ponder that for a minute. Not one shred. It’s as if they all completely vanished with absolutely no record of their existence save the Book of Mormon. The reason is so is obvious to any reasonable person – Joseph Smith wrote a work of fiction from his own mind. It is far more reasonable to argue that the BoM is a religious allegory story produced for the purpose of teaching lessons. The mental gymnastics required to show that it is actual history from people like Sorenson bypass what is obvious in an attempt to somehow bolster its credibility. I’ll go as far as to say the same types of arguments LDS apologists make to support the BoM as history could also be used to support the existence of the civilizations found in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. You could most likely find geographic markers and other non-concrete evidence in Europe that support the existence of the Elf or Dwarf civilizations.

 

[TOmNossor]

Michael Coe:

Mormon intellectuals, it seems to me, have taken three ways to extract themselves from the dilemma.

Michael Coe:

1. The more traditionalist, such as my friend John Sorenson, have tried to steer their stern elders away from Book of Mormon archaeology on the grounds that not even the best and most advanced research has ever been able to establish on purely archaeological grounds the historical details of the Bible, for instance the very existence of Jesus Christ. According to Sorenson, all one can hope to do is to “paint in the background,” which in his case has meant building up a convincing picture of trans-Atlantic diffusion by presenting New World-Old World parallels. This is of interest to non-Mormon archaeologists, and Sorenson has done much to work out the methodology of such comparisons, but few nonbelievers have been swayed when faced with the indigestible cattle, horses, wheat, and so forth.

Hello Stephen168.

I do not think Michael Coe does justice to Sorenson’s (or John Clark or Brant Gardner) position(s).

Sorenson’s professional archeological work (like Clark’s) does a lot to “paint in the background.” If TRENDS in archeology indict truth, Coe’s position is on the way out and Sorensen’s diffusion position is on the rise. That being said, the “paint in the background” is only the PROFESSION work of Sorenson. He brings his trained incite to the BOM and has written two books on the location of the BOM and the connections to Mesoamerican archeology he finds. It is possible Coe is so blind to this other aspect of Sorenson’s work that he pays no attention. Sorenson for his part has paid attention to Coe and his assessment is not that Coe’s archeology is faulty but that his understanding of the BOM is at a popular but not deep or scholarly level.

I am solidly in the #1 category, but I am an Electrical Engineer by training so my position is a product of reading Coe, and dozens of anti-Mormon critics AND reading Sorenson, Clark, and Gardner.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Michael Coe:

1. The second escape is to take a Liahona approach [the Book of Mormon is only a source of mores and guidance] to the problem. This is obviously [Dee F.] Green’s way, as it is that of several other Mormon archaeologists of my acquaintance. But then what does one do with the Book of Mormon itself? Even the most casual student will know that the LDS ethic is only slightly based upon the Book of Mormon, which has very little in it of either ethics or morals; rather, its ethic is heavily dependent upon such post-Book of Mormon documents as the Doctrine and Covenants. And what does one do with Joseph Smith, great man though he was, with his outrageous claims to be able to translate “Reformed Egyptian” documents, with the ridiculous Kinderhook Plates incident, with the “Book of Abraham,” with Zelph the “white Lamanite,” and with all the other nonsense generated by a nineteenth century, American subculture intellectually grounded in white supremacy and proexpansionist tendencies?

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I find the move from believing in a historical BOM to a belief in an inspired but not historical BOM to be an easier transition than the move from a Catholic geocentrist position to a more modern scientific position. The presence of intelligent Catholic geocentrists evidences that dogmatic hold (with a small “d” for you, but a large “D” for them) this view has/had upon Catholics. I feel VERY free to follow the evidence. Anyway, if Nahom AND the Mesoamerican evidence was shown to be the product of 20th century nefarious individuals, there might be enough evidence that my intellectual position would be much weaker but the same.

If this transition involved more than just loss of BOM evidence such that intellectually I thought the truth claims of the church were less than 50% likely, I would be in the position many critics have claimed to have been in where I have a testimony that conflicts with my intellectual conclusion. This would be tough.

Michael Coe:

1. The third way out of the dilemma is apostasy. I will not dwell further on this painful subject, but merely point out that many unusually gifted scholars whom I count as friends have taken exactly this route.

If this is where I landed. Perhaps it became clear to me that Joseph Smith was a con man and succeeded in pulling all of this off, but he simply wasn’t and never had been inspired of God and all his followers were similarly wrongheaded. I would cease to be a LDS.

What I have said on this board for years would result changed this weekend. This weekend I decided to look for an SSPX priest in this area, but there isn’t one. I would head to the nearest Catholic Church for confession. I would then plan a trip to the nearest SSPX Catholic Chapel for confession and communion. I would be what my Catholic friend once called a “restorationist in waiting.” I would expect that the restoration would be far more Catholic than Mormon, but I would align myself with the SSPX or SSPV until I found that restoration.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Michael Coe:

The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere. The archaeological data would strongly suggest that the Liahonas [the Book of Mormon is only a source of mores and guidance] are right about the Book of Mormon. To me, as a sympathetic and interested outsider, the efforts of Iron Rod archaeologists [the Book of Mormon is a history as defined by Joseph Smith] to go beyond the moral and ethical content of the Book of Mormon arouse feelings not of superiority but of compassion: the same kind of compassion that one feels for persons who are engaged on quests that have been, are now, and always will be unproductive.

Mormons are not “dispassionate observers” in reference to the Book of Mormon or the Galileo Affair.

The Mormon Church no longer teaches what Joseph Smith taught about the Book of Mormon, and teaching the Book of Mormon as an allegory will happen when the infallible President of the Mormon Church says it is an allegory.

 

[dougch]

Yes, I admit that most Mormons are not as well read in their own religion (just as most Catholics are not). However many are and have asked hard questions. These folks fall into two categories: Those whose belief is strengthened and those who choose to leave. The internet has exposed many facts about Joseph Smith and the translation and Church authorities have seen the mixed reactions to this “new” information and have admitted it was a mistake to not have an open policy on all historical information. Much to their credit they have used their official site to not only present controversial material but to encourage discussion. supporting the Book of Mormon story in Mesoamerica: Unfortunately some uninformed Mormons make claims that the Church does not support. (These usually make the news) For instance that all occupants of the Americas are descendants of Lehi. We believe no such thing , and many others too numerous to mention. As in the Catholic Church, don’t criticize things the Church doesn’t believe. If you want to believe what any member of any Church believes, ask someone active in that church.
Incidentally, the Mormons and the Catholics have much in common theologically and often stand side by side in the court rooms defending freedom of religion

 

[Chris-Wa1]

Yes, I admit that most Mormons are not as well read in their own religion (just as most Catholics are not). However many are and have asked hard questions. These folks fall into two categories: Those whose belief is strengthened and those who choose to leave.

I don’t believe that is an accurate assessment of what is happening. Those who ask the hard questions are the ones most likely to end up leaving because the answers they get from the leaders, if any, are often really bad answers to legitimate questions. The ones who stay tend to be those who don’t ask the tough questions and don’t go down the rabbit hole. I highly doubt that learning the more controversial information would be faith-promoting. Usually it’s the opposite, which is exactly why so many of those who dared publish the same information years before on their own were often disfellowshipped or excommunicated. The church is only doing this now because the proliferation of this information on the internet has forced them to in order to stop so many from losing their testimony and leaving.

The internet has exposed many facts about Joseph Smith and the translation and Church authorities have seen the mixed reactions to this “new” information and have admitted it was a mistake to not have an open policy on all historical information. Much to their credit they have used their official site to not only present controversial material but to encourage discussion. supporting the Book of Mormon story in Mesoamerica.

If what you are referring to are the gospel topics essays on LDS.org, those essays have not been widely advertised to the membership (most aren’t even aware they exist) and are buried where you wouldn’t find them unless you were specifically looking for them. I don’t think that is by accident. Let me know if the church publishes them in the Ensign, but I highly doubt that would ever happen. The essays themselves are full of bad scholarship, circular logic, and other nonsense that leaves many readers more perplexed than when they started reading them. The essays are simply the church’s attempt to diffuse a bomb after it has already gone off.

Unfortunately some uninformed Mormons make claims that the Church does not support. (These usually make the news) For instance that all occupants of the Americas are descendants of Lehi. We believe no such thing,

Except the forward to the BoM used to say just a few years ago that the Lamanites were the “principal” ancestors of the American Indians. It doesn’t say that anymore, because the church only recently changed it when DNA studies proved that Native Americans are not genetically linked to anyone from the Middle East. It also didn’t help when President Benson went down to South America and told the members that they were decendants of the Lamanites. If Mormons believed that all occupants of the Americas are descendants of Lehi, it is the church that is to blame and not individual members.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

Unfortunately some uninformed Mormons make claims that the Church does not support. (These usually make the news) For instance that all occupants of the Americas are descendants of Lehi. We believe no such thing , and many others too numerous to mention.

I would also say in response to this part of your post that yes, many Mormons have made claims that the church did not support…such as the claim that Joseph Smith was a polygamist who had dozens of wives including women who were already married to other men, and also that he married teenagers as young as 14. Mormons also made the claim that Joseph’s translation of the Book of Abraham papyri facsimiles are completely erroneous. These claims and others like them got history professors fired from BYU and members disfellowshipped or even excommunicated. Since then because the history in undeniable and the information is now so widely proliferated on the internet, the church has had to admit that many of these claims are actually correct. So you see often the claims made by the members are actually correct and it was the church that was wrong to deny them. It’s safe to say the church owes a good number of excommunicated members a huge apology.

 

[dougch]

I do not question that some of your statements are true…I have seen it. President Dieter Uchdorff (then a member of the first presidency) stated in general conference “We have made mistakes”. To me, an active member, there is a breath of fresh air forced on all of us by the internet. As an amateur archaeologist, I have visited many places which CAN qualify as valid BofM sites. Never found a sign that said, “This way to Zarahemla”" though. I think that the BofM people were relatively small in number and lived mostly in Maya lands. Their record, BofM, is NOT a history of their nation or other nations around them; it’s a history of one family and therefore does not have details about their surroundings…

 

[Chris-Wa1]

Thank you for your response. I know many LDS we’re disappointed to see Uchtdorf out of the top three as he seemed to be the one guy who didn’t do what they normally do…double down on holding the line on all these big problems.

You say the BoM is not a history of entire civilizations, which is true, but among other things it does make extraordinary claims about massive battles taking place between huge armies. According to JS the Hill Cumorah marks the sight of the final epic battle, yet no evidence has ever been found to corroborate it. I know there are competing theories among LDS researchers as to the location and scope of things, but it seems pretty clear from the BoM stories themselves that we’re not just talking about a couple of small tribes here–the book talks about large cities and technology and weapons and battles which I’m sure you’re more knowledgeable about than me.

I think perhaps you’re minimizing the scope of the BoM history somewhat to make the story more plausible. By reducing the scope it makes the claim more plausible that these civilzations existed in a vacuum and disappeared without leaving any concrete evidence that they ever existed.

I also think it’s disingenuous for LDS researchers in the way they compare the BoM to the bible when it comes to archeology and evidence. They argue that many bible stories have little evidence, which is true, so therefore it’s o.k. that there is little evidence for the BoM. But the truth is that there is a great deal of evidence for many other things in the bible (places, names, events, languages, etc.), but there is nothing comparable to that type of evidence supporting the BoM. The two cases are on completely different ends of the evidence spectrum, yet LDS can’t seem to bring themselves to admit as much.

 

[TOmNossor]

According to JS the Hill Cumorah marks the sight of the final epic battle, yet no evidence has ever been found to corroborate it. I know there are competing theories among LDS researchers as to the location and scope of things, but it seems pretty clear from the BoM stories themselves that we’re not just talking about a couple of small tribes here–the book talks about large cities and technology and weapons and battles which I’m sure you’re more knowledgeable about than me.

Chris-Wa1,

As I suspect you know I have long claimed that I do not believe that the epic battles recorded in the BOM took place on a drumlin in upstate NY. The battles described sans metal swords could describe battles that did occur in Mesoamerica.

It is my opinion that Joseph Smith offered many statements that are not consistent with each other concerning the location of BOM lands. The reason the BOM has a consistent geography briefly touched upon at multiple locations throughout a 500 page book AND Joseph Smith is largely ignorant of aspects of this geography is because he is not the author of the book.

I also think it’s disingenuous for LDS researchers in the way they compare the BoM to the bible when it comes to archeology and evidence. They argue that many bible stories have little evidence, which is true, so therefore it’s o.k. that there is little evidence for the BoM. But the truth is that there is a great deal of evidence for many other things in the bible (places, names, events, languages, etc.), but there is nothing comparable to that type of evidence supporting the BoM. The two cases are on completely different ends of the evidence spectrum, yet LDS can’t seem to bring themselves to admit as much.

I think if you read what I have written for years on this board (and more importantly what LDS scholars have written, you could correct your own misunderstanding. But here is what I believe.

The part of the BOM that happen after Lehi’s family leaves Bountiful in the Old World, do not have the degree of archeological support the Bible has. The parts of the BOM that happen in Biblical lands have the same or better archeological support than the Bible has.

In the Old World, the BOM contains 2 toponyms that do not directly source from Lehi. Both of those are well defined in geography and archeology. The BOM has a handful of descriptions (few dozen) of geography, flora, and fauna and 3rd toponym. These are well documented. Bountiful in the Old World is a remarkable prediction in that it is a green oasis in the Arabian desert.

The Bible does not fair as well as the very short section of the BOM the ONLY part of the BOM to take place in the Old World where texts and toponyms survive from that timeframe.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Now after Lehi leaves Bountiful and heads to the New World, the archeological support for the BOM is not as solid as it is for the Bible. As I said above it is still true of the New World BOM that it is better supported than the Book of Exodus.

The Egyptians kept records and had writings that survived to today and we should see evidence of a large Hebrew population captive and plagues and … but we do not. The New World has almost no writings that have survived to today and certainly no texts from BOM times. So when LDS find things like cement, lack of trees, many waters, in the land Northward all converging to point to a specific location; it is remarkable. Exodus lacks even this.

That being said, we surely know where Jerusalem is and we do not have anything to convincingly point to Zarahemla. But is this out of alignment with would we can expect? I can say that we have virtually no toponyms from the New World and the small number of pictographic place names we have we cannot pronounce with any certainty this is VERY different than the Old World where of the 475 toponyms in the Bible we know where only about half of them are and the majority of those because they have the same name today as they did in the Bible (the rest are primarily through relation to those whose names have been preserved). If you had a book that spoke about the activity of Christ in Aelia Capitolina would you find that likely to be a true story of Christ (it likely would be, but without ancient records you could not know that). No modern place names are believed to derive from BOM times in the New World. We see these things all the time. If Mormon didn’t tell us we would have no idea that Ramah = Cumorah. We have no manuscripts or codices that date within 400 years of the end of the Nephite civilization this is VERY different than the Old World. In addition to the Bible (which was part of a culture that has NEVER been eradicated unlike the Nephite culture) we have volumes of written records and commentaries and ….

If you are interested here is a good article that touches upon much of what I said above:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/2/1/S00011-50aa647b4598211 Hamblin.pdf

So, in the Old World, the BOM narrative is remarkable. Three toponyms, three known. Two with archeological evidence (and the third was just Lehi’s name anyway). This is much better percentage than the Bible. The New World is nothing like the Old World and sighting the lack of 300AD and earlier place names aligning with the BOM is not much of a ding against the BOM. Cumorah = Ramah and might = Hill of the Parrot, but how would we know what Parrot Hill is pronounced like?

Ironically if Catholic Conquistadors hadn’t destroyed ancient libraries in the name of defending Christianity, you might not be able to maintain the BOM is not a historical text or it might make it easier. And at least one of these Catholics who interacted with ancient Mesoamerican legends thought Christ did visit them. Unfortunately, the majority of what was likely a scant record was destroyed (and I think the Catholic who thought he saw evidence of Christ in the legends was overly optimistic).

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

As an amateur archaeologist, I have visited many places which CAN qualify as valid BofM sites. Never found a sign that said, “This way to Zarahemla”" though. I think that the BofM people were relatively small in number and lived mostly in Maya lands.

There are several passages in the Book of Mormon that say the group grew to be very large and very jewish. DNA evidence shows the Mayan people were of pure asian stock until the 17th century, then Europeans and Africans mixed with their population. There is no jewish DNA in the Mayan population.

 

[dougch]

Dear Chris: my responses in red:

 

[dougch]

The Book of Mormon covers approximately 1,000 years of history. Only in the last several hundred years did they grow large in numbers.
Please don’t confuse the Maya with the Nephrites. They are not the same. I’m inclined to think there was some inter-marriage between the two groups, but BofM people were Israelite and they have strong traditions against marrying outside their heritage and faith…
DNA: people have adopted dna as a proven science. The reality couldn’t be further from the truth. I won’t take time to cover the subject here but if you really want to pursue it there are many articles out there. Look up Ugo Perego, Your statement about DNA comes right out of anti-mormon literature.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

It appears your response didn’t make it, at least I don’t see anything.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

So, in the Old World, the BOM narrative is remarkable. Three toponyms, three known. Two with archeological evidence (and the third was just Lehi’s name anyway).

Exactly what place names are you talking about?

Ironically if Catholic Conquistadors hadn’t destroyed ancient libraries in the name of defending Christianity, you might not be able to maintain the BOM is not a historical text or it might make it easier.

So now you’re blaming Catholics in the New World for destroying possible records of the BoM peoples? Give us all a break man. Nobody is buying that. That is pure speculation backed by nothing more than a wishful excuse as to why there are zero records of the BoM civilizations. None of this sounds plausible…just desperate.

Look, so far the only arguments I’ve heard from either you or Doug supporting the BoM as actual history in the New World (which is really all that matters for obvious reasons) is basically prefaced with “could,” as in it “could” be this or that. Please tell me you have something more than “could” because so far the case is extremely weak.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

The Book of Mormon covers approximately 1,000 years of history. Only in the last several hundred years did they grow large in numbers.

I don’t see why that would matter. The point is that the BoM describes what came to be large civilzations in the New World with epic battles between them that left no records or evidence of their existence.

Please don’t confuse the Maya with the Nephrites. They are not the same.

Stephen is not confusing the two groups. He is simply pointing out that the Mayans occupied the same area where you believe the BoM peoples lived, yet there is no DNA evidence supporting it. If scientists are able to determine through DNA analysis that Europeans intermixed with the natives of Mesoamerica in the 17th century, then I’m willing to believe them when they say there is no trace of Israelite DNA in the same population. That’s not anti-Mormon, that’s just scientists trying to figure out the ancestry of the New World populations. If the science is in such doubt, why then did the LDS church change the BoM intro from saying the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the Natives Americans to the the new version that says the Lamanites are “among” the ancestors of the Native Americans. If DNA science is as unreliable as you say, there would be no reason to do that.

 

[Onthisrock84]

I have read it.
It’s a fine tale but really repetitive in many places. It’s nothing more than fiction. I give the perpetrators with Smith making such a fine tale. If I was alive in 1830 it could seem believable. Unfortunately modern history debunks every bit of it and the Mormons tell you to know it’s true by praying on it and it it makes you feel good. That’s stupid honestly. I could read the communist manifesto and feel good but I’m not gonna become a communist.
Why are people always talking about this fraud on this site? It’s not even a heresy, Mormonism. It is on the same plane as Scientology.

 

[TOmNossor]

"TOmNossor:

Ironically if Catholic Conquistadors hadn’t destroyed ancient libraries in the name of defending Christianity, you might not be able to maintain the BOM is not a historical text or it might make it easier.

So now you’re blaming Catholics in the New World for destroying possible records of the BoM peoples? Give us all a break man. Nobody is buying that. That is pure speculation backed by nothing more than a wishful excuse as to why there are zero records of the BoM civilizations. None of this sounds plausible…just desperate.

No, I do not expect folks to “buy that.” What I expect is them to dismiss it without reading it just as you did. I said that the destruction of the library means that the evidence present in the library cannot vindicate or vilify the BOM, makes it easier or harder to maintain the BOM is not a historical text.

My point is and was that between 95-99.9% of the texts from pre-Columbian time were destroyed. We know the that the peoples were able to write (back to Olemec times), we just have zero texts from BOM times. I pointed to the destruction of texts by Catholic Conquistadors to further emphasize the RADICAL difference between New World and Old World archeology (but I honestly explained that these texts could be positive or negatives for BOM historicity). The BOM could be a historical book and we cannot test it in any ways similar to the way we test the Bible. The place names are unknown and inconsistent, the texts don’t survive, and the languages have far more radical changes than in the Old World.

Father Bernardino de Sahagún paid attention to the legends of the Mesoamericans and believed they evidenced Christ visiting the New World. I am not at all convinced of this, but the reports of Catholic priests and bishops destroying Mesoamerican texts nowhere evidences any familiarity with the texts (or an ability to read them), just a conviction that they should be taught the Bible by persuasion or force. This destruction seems to have been a major blow to some small number of Mesoamericans. Bishop Landa wrote: “We found a large number of books in these characters and, as they contained nothing in which were not to be seen as superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they regretted to an amazing degree, and which caused them much affliction.”

So, I cannot know what was in those books. While some suggested the information went back to 700AD or longer ago, we really cannot know if this is true and/or if there were texts that could have shed light upon 500BC-300AD. So, my point is that New World Archeology is radically hampered in ways that Old World Archeology is not. While we should have records of the Exodus, we do not. But, the absence of texts that support the New World parts of the BOM are a product of no books, no papyri, and no codices that cover that timeframe.

Do you see my point now?

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Please don’t confuse the Maya with the Nephrites. They are not the same. I’m inclined to think there was some inter-marriage between the two groups, but BofM people were Israelite and they have strong traditions against marrying outside their heritage and faith…

I found this interesting, because it suggests a next step in Mormon thinking about the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church original taught that the Book of Mormon was about all the Indians of the Western Hemisphere; now called the Hemispheric Geography Model.

John Sorenson introduced the Limited Geography Model to account for the growing body of science that made the Hemispheric model unworkable.

Now you are suggesting a new model where the Book of Mormon people never mixed with the local population thru marriage or rape, then completely vanished from the earth leaving zero DNA behind. This would be an approach to avoid the allegory route.

Look up Ugo Perego, Your statement about DNA comes right out of anti-mormon literature.

I looked him up. He is a Mormon. Michael Coe might call him a passionate observer.

And my ‘statement’ came from scientific research published in 2014.