Mr Spinkles
Mr
On a side note, what does the non-LDS community of historians think of the Nephites?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
mormonism racist?
- Thread starter tomasortega
- Start date
That's a valid question. Since the Book of Mormon is the only historical srouce for the Nephites, they can't say yeah or nay.
Most historians study religious history through the historical critical method, that is, try and find a natural explaination for everything. Historian Bart Ehrman, an expert on the New Testament from the historical critical point of view, while never denying the strong "historical" evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, refuses to acknowledge it on the basis that, "This is a miracle, and by the very nature of their craft, historians are unable to discuss miracles...All that historians can do is show what probably happened in the past...Miracles, by our very definition of the term, are virtually impossible events." Ehrman goes on to say that because a miracle is always the least likely event in any situation, historians can never take the position that a miracle occurred in the past no matter how well documented it is.
I'm not saying that Bart Ehrman speaks for all critical historians but since the maxim of historical criticism is to find the most likely explaination (i.e. the most natural and unmiraculous), it is unlikely that any critical historian would accept the Book of Mormon (let alone bother to read it) as an actual historical record because the BoM was brought forth by a miracle and critical historians don't espouse historical miracles. No matter how much evidence there is to support it, because Joseph Smith brought forth the BoM through supernatural means, the default position for these historians is that he was lying.
The other group of historians who study religious history do so through the devotional method and since no other Christian denomination accepts Joseph Smith as a true prophet (that would mean all their religions were wrong), they're not going to bother to read the BoM either accept for the polemical purpose of trying to punch holes in its validity. Therefor, no matter how much evidence there is to support it, because the BoM was brought forth by a "false prophet", for devotional historians the BoM by default is not historical.
So the only historians left who would approach the Book of Mormon with the attitude that it might even possibly be true are going to be LDS scholars.
Last edited:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Thanks Enlil-An, great post. I would add three comments to your post: the position of critical historians regarding the BoM is the same position taken with any ancient miracle story; the whole of physical science is strong evidence against miracles; and we know from examining countless religions and myths and cults that written stories and accounts of miracles are highly suspect. In other words, the critical historians do accept the BoM could possibly be true; however, they open it up and read stories in it which are readily explained as myth, as with all religions and cults.
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
They're roughly equivalent to leprechauns.
DavyCrocket2003
Well-Known Member
The overall message of the Book of Mormon is definitely not one of racism, just the opposite in fact. So then, what does that mean for someone who doesn't accept it as true?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Really? As I said, I can't get through it, but isn't one of the major themes the idea that American Indians are descended from immigrants from the Middle East, and that God punished some of them with dark skin because they disobeyed Him?
gnomon
Well-Known Member
That's like asking what historians think of the Quendi and the Dunedain.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Plus the little fact that not a scrap of objective evidence corroborates anything it says.
There is some overwelming historical evidence (including a number historical problems) for the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet. It all depends on what your idea of evidence is and how well you understand what professional historians consider to be evidence and why.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I can guarantee you, Enlil-An, that if you go down this road, you will regret it. When I tell you it's a total waste of time, I speak from experience. Another three or four LDS posters will tell you exactly the same thing. It's not worth your wasting your time. (Good to have you here, by the way.)
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I completely agree with you.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
There is no, NO, no historical evidence of any credibility whatsoever to support the central claims of the BoM that America was settled by immigrants from the ANE who created cities, fought enormous battles, used metal weapons, herded cattle, rode chariots, and were the ancestors of modern Native Americans. There are tons, literally tons, of evidence to the contrary. That's why professional historians don't even bother with it--it's a made-up story with no basis in reality. That's why the Mormon leadership has given up on DNA research--it turned out to completely disprove these claims. That's why Mormon archeologists don't go into the field any more to research meso-American sites; they tend to lose their faith.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
This is so true. It's a waste of your time to try to prove things that are just plain false. Don't bother trying. The more you look into it, the more you realize it's fruitless.
Not all of that is true. Anyway, like I said, it depends on what kind of evidence you're talking about. There is no physical, archeological evidence that Jesus himself ever existed. The only written evidence outside of the New Testament is from the Jewish historian, Josephus, but his account presents a problem. Josephus was considered by Jews to be a traitor and his fellow Jews never bothered to preserve his writings. His history that we have today was preserved and handed down by Christians who recopied his work from generation to generation and there is strong evidence of tampering. While most historians believe Joseph originally wrote about Jesus (one or two lines), many dispute that and believe the two passages about Jesus in Josephus' history were added later by Christians. So all we have to show that Jesus existed are the four gospels and they were written decades after Jesus' death.
But guess what. No credible historian would ever tell you they didn't think Jesus was a real person. Why? Because of the evidence that exists in the gospels themselves. But isn't this circular reasoning to use the Bible to prove the Bible? No, its' not circular reasoning and I'll give you an example why. The fact that Jesus was from Nazareth was always an embarrassment for early Christians who taught that he was the Messiah of the Jews because there were no prophecies known to the Jews of the Messiah having anything to do with Nazareth and according to Micah in the Old Testament, the Messiah was prophecied to be from Bethlehem. Matthew and Luke fall all over themselves to try and explain this painful fact. Both of them come up with stories of how Jesus was supposedly born at Bethlehem and only grew up at Nazareth but both of their stories are historically dubious, scripturally unsound, and completely contradict eachother. John's gospel also recognized the problem with Jesus coming from Nazareth. How does he get past this problem? He doesn't. Unlike Matthew and Luke, he just doesn't care and doesn't think it's important. His point is that people who do care about where Jesus comes from are missing the mark and are not spritually born of God. John practically denies that Jesus was born at Bethlehem through omission.
All of this is powerful evidence for historians that Jesus was a real person and that he really did come from Nazareth. Afterall, why would the gospel writers make up a Messiah from Nazareth and then fumble through the difficult task of explaining why he's there and not in Bethlehem like the awaited Messiah should be.
This is just one piece of evidence among many which tell scholars that Jesus really existed which is why no historian worth his salt will say that he didn't even though many people in the world with an axe to grind try and make this claim.
Likewise, the Book of Mormon also has evidence within its pages for its own authenticity. One little example (which I'm sure won't be anything that would convince you) relates to what we've already been talking about. In Alma 7:10 in the BoM, Alma prophecies, "And behold, [Jesus] shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God." Anti-Mormon critics have been attacking this passage for years, literally from the beginning. Afterall, every Bible-reading Christian knows that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, not Jerusalem, right? Even though Mormon apologists have answered this criticism (in a different way than I'm about to), it is still a very popular anti-Book of Mormon arguement. I tried to post a link to an anti-Mormon site as an example but apparantly I can't until I've made 15 posts or more on this site.
The problem for Christians in the post-modern world though is that most scholars refuse to believe that Jesus was born at Bethlehem. They don't accept the historically implausible, irreconsilably contradictory accounts found in Matthew and Luke and simply believe the authors were either making it all up or relying on incorrect oral traditions (very different traditions) to try and make Jesus fit the Jewish Messiah criteria.
Are we really to assume that Joseph didn't know his Bible well enough to know that Jesus was born at Bethlehem. Is there anyone on earth who doesn't know the Christmans story? On the contrary, chances are that we could dig up some old sermon of his where he himself is saying Jesus was born at Bethlehem. So what on earth would possess him to have the Book of Mormon say that he was born in the land of Jerusalem (which is Nephite-speak for "that land far way over yonder across the sea where our forfathers came from long time ago")?
Doesn't make sense unless, of course, Joseph Smith didn't actually write the BoM but merely translated it as Latter Day Saints claim.
Do you have a source for this assertion?
Last edited:
misanthropic_clown
Active Member
I think that the disappointment to be found in exploring the evidences for the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith is that they are entirely underwhelming from an intellectual/scholarly standpoint. Trying to pursue faith in that direction is, by very definition of the nature of faith, doomed to fail.
I guess as a lifelong Mormon I hardly qualify as objective, though I was largely a skeptic throughout my late teens when I began pursuing this kind of information and evidence. However I think the evidence against Joseph Smith is also rather underwhelming if viewed as critically as anti-mormons view the 'proofs'. I have talked with people who loathe the church who concede he was an extraordinary man. He simply had to be to achieve what he did.
The point is, the view you hold before looking into the evidence is by and large going to be the same coming out. There is nothing particularly profound out there unless you are particularly lacking in knowledge about church history, in which case there are a variety of instances you will find interesting. Beyond that there is no holy grail for either pro or anti.
I guess as a lifelong Mormon I hardly qualify as objective, though I was largely a skeptic throughout my late teens when I began pursuing this kind of information and evidence. However I think the evidence against Joseph Smith is also rather underwhelming if viewed as critically as anti-mormons view the 'proofs'. I have talked with people who loathe the church who concede he was an extraordinary man. He simply had to be to achieve what he did.
The point is, the view you hold before looking into the evidence is by and large going to be the same coming out. There is nothing particularly profound out there unless you are particularly lacking in knowledge about church history, in which case there are a variety of instances you will find interesting. Beyond that there is no holy grail for either pro or anti.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Well, you're since you're talking to the chief axe grinder, I can assure you that your words will fall on deaf ears. As far as Auto's concerned, Jesus was every bit as much a fairy tale character as Nephi was.
