Jump to content

Historicity of the Book of Mormon: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ClueBot (talk | contribs)
1,596,818 edits
m Reverting possible vandalism by 130.194.13.104 to version by Alanraywiki. False positive? Report it. Thanks, User:ClueBot. (303326) (Bot)
Line 8: Line 8:


==Latter Day Saint views==
==Latter Day Saint views==
The dominant and widely accepted view among [[Latter Day Saint]]s is that the Book of Mormon is a true and accurate account of three ancient American civilizations whose history it documents. [[Joseph Smith, Jr.]], who most LDS members believe translated the work, stated, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”<ref> From the {{lds|Book of Mormon: Introduction|bm/introduction}}</ref> Unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of supporting archaeological evidence have led some adherents to adopt the position that the Book of Mormon is the creation of Joseph Smith, but that it was created through divine inspiration.<ref>Grant H. Palmer. 2002. ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins''. Salt Lake City, Signature Books.<br>Brent Lee Metcalfe, ed. 1993. ''New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology''. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.</ref> Between these two LDS views is the view stated by some church leaders that the Book of Mormon is a divine work of a spiritual nature, written in ancient America, but that its purpose is to teach of Christ; not to be used as a guide for history, geology, archaeology, or anthropology.<ref>See, for example, [[James E. Faust]], [http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2004.htm/ensign%20january%202004.htm/first%20presidency%20message%20the%20keystone%20of%20our%20religion.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0 “The Keystone of Our Religion,”] Ensign, January 2004, 3</ref>
The dominant and widely accepted view among [[Latter Day Saint]]s is that the Book of Mormon is a true and accurate account of three ancient American civilizations whose history it documents. [[Joseph Smith, Jr.]], who most LDS members believe translated the work, stated, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”<ref> From the {{lds|Book of Mormon: Introduction|bm/introduction}}</ref> Unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of supporting archaeological evidence have led some adherents to adopt the position that the Book of Mormon is the creation of Joseph Smith, but that it was created through divine inspiration.<ref>Grant H. Palmer. 2002. ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins''. Salt Lake City, Signature Books.<br>Brent Lee Metcalfe, ed. 1993. ''New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology''. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.</ref> Between these two LDS views is the view stated by some church leaders that the Book of Mormon is a divine work of a spiritual nature, written in ancient America, but that its purpose is to teach of Christ; not to be used as a guide for history, geology, archaeology, or anthropology.<ref>See, for example, [[James E. Faust]], [http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2004.htm/ensign%20january%202004.htm/first%20presidency%20message%20the%20keystone%20of%20our%20religion.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0 “The Keystone of Our Religion,”] Ensign, January 2004, 3</ref> Most accept that neither the Bible or Book of Mormon is proveable as actual history.


==Archaeology==
==Archaeology==

Revision as of 05:51, 5 April 2008

Books of the Book of Mormon
Small Plates of Nephi
Contribution of Mormon
Additions by Moroni
Main article: Book of Mormon

The question of whether the Book of Mormon is an actual historical work or a work of fiction has long been a source of contention between members of the Latter Day Saint movement, who are likely to view the work as a history, and non-LDS scholars, who reject its historicity. For many Mormons, Book of Mormon historicity is a matter of faith, and not amenable to scholarly analysis. For scholars, on the other hand, its historicity has been questioned from a number of different perspectives.

Contents of the book

The Book of Mormon describes the alleged journey of Lehi, his family and a few others from Jerusalem in Israel to the Americas in around 600 BCE. There they expand and form a civilisation, divide and war amongst themselves, before being destroyed around 385 CE.

Latter Day Saint views

The dominant and widely accepted view among Latter Day Saints is that the Book of Mormon is a true and accurate account of three ancient American civilizations whose history it documents. Joseph Smith, Jr., who most LDS members believe translated the work, stated, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”[1] Unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of supporting archaeological evidence have led some adherents to adopt the position that the Book of Mormon is the creation of Joseph Smith, but that it was created through divine inspiration.[2] Between these two LDS views is the view stated by some church leaders that the Book of Mormon is a divine work of a spiritual nature, written in ancient America, but that its purpose is to teach of Christ; not to be used as a guide for history, geology, archaeology, or anthropology.[3] Most accept that neither the Bible or Book of Mormon is proveable as actual history.

Archaeology

Main article: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon
File:City of zarahemla the testaments film lds.jpg
Depiction of the City of Zarahemla in the Latter-day Saint film The Testaments


Discussion regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon often focuses on archaeological issues, some of which relate to the large size and the long time span of Book of Mormon civilizations. The civilizations described in the Book of Mormon have a timespan, and are traditionally thought by Mormons to be of comparable size, with Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, and Ancient Rome. Rome, Egypt, and Greece left very detailed archaeological records and extensive written records.

Several Mesoamerican civilizations did, in fact, exist in the time period covered by the Book of Mormon, such as the Olmec, Zapotec, and Maya. The Olmec and Zapotec civilizations developed a writing system that, arguably, served as the model for the later Mayan writing system, which became highly developed. The Maya developed a complex calendar and were advanced in astronomy and mathematics. Since neither Olmec nor Zapotec writing has been deciphered, it is unknown to what extent these Mayan skills are later developments of earlier Olmec and Zapotec skills.[4] These civlizations have been extensively studied (though not to the same degree as Rome, Greece and Egypt). Many significant differences and few similarities to the descriptions in the Book of Mormon have been found.

The Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies that are generally not believed to have existed in pre-Columbian America[5] . This includes horses, cattle, swine, goats, elephants, wheat, silk[6] , steel[7], scimitars, chariots[8] and other elements. The Smithsonian Institute has stated that "none of the principal food plants and domestic animals of the Old World (except the dog) were present in the New World before Columbus"[9]. Critics believe this casts doubt on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Mormons themselves are mixed in response to these criticisms. Some point to alleged evidence for the presence of these items[10]; some invoke the limited geography model, regarding the events of the Book of Mormon as taking place in such a geographically limited area that no evidence should be expected; others claim that the words used in the Book of Mormon refer not to the animals, plants or technologies that we know today but to other similar items that did exist at the time.[11][12]; others state that the historicity of the book is not important and focus on its spiritual message instead.

LDS-funded archaeology

In 1955 Thomas Ferguson, an LDS member and founder of the New World Archaeological Foundation, with five years of funding from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, began to dig throughout Mesoamerica for evidence of the veracity of the Book of Mormon claims. In a 1961 newsletter Ferguson predicted that although nothing had been found, the Book of Mormon cities would be found within 10 years. In 1972, Christian scholar Hal Hougey wrote Ferguson questioning the progress given the stated timetable in which the cities would be found.[13] Replying to Hougey as well as secular and non-secular requests, Ferguson wrote in a letter dated 5 June 1972: "Ten years have passed... I had sincerely hoped that Book-of-Mormon cities would be positively identified within 10 years — and time has proved me wrong in my anticipation."[14]

During the period of 1959-1961, NWAF colleague Dee Green was editor of the BYU Archaeological Society Newsletter and had an article from it published in the summer of 1969 edition of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, pp 76-78 in which he acknowledged that the NWAF findings did not back up the veracity of the Book of Mormon claims. After this article and another six years of fruitless search, Thomas Ferguson published a 29 page paper in 1975 entitled Written Symposium on Book-of-Mormon Geography: Response of Thomas S. Ferguson to the Norman & Sorenson Papers. The full text will be omitted here, but he summed it up on page 29: "I'm afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon geography...". In referring to his own paper, Ferguson wrote a 20 February 1976 letter to Mr & Mrs H.W. Lawrence in which he stated: "...The real implication of the paper is that you can't set the Book-of-Mormon geography down anywhere — because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archeology. I should say — what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book."[15]

The archaeological investigations of NWAF-sponsored projects have contributed towards the documentation and understanding of pre-Columbian societies, particularly in Mesoamerica. Currently BYU maintains 86 documents on the work of the NWAF at the BYU NWAF website and these documents are used outside both BYU and the LDS church by researchers.

Linguistics

Main article: Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

An additional criticism concerns linguistics. The Nephites and the Lamanites initially spoke in Hebrew (600 BC), and might have spoken a modified Semitic language up to at least AD 400, where the Book of Mormon stops. [16] The introductory paragraph to the Book of Mormon also states that the Lamanites were the "principal ancestors of the American Indians". However, no Semitic language is spoken natively in the Americas today and there is no evidence that any Native American language has been influenced by any Semitic language at any point in its history. Most historical linguists who specialize in the languages of Native America are in agreement that the languages of Native America cannot be proven to be related to each other within the last 8000-10,000 years, let alone within the last 1000.[17] A common counterargument is that the Book of Mormon mentions contact with other civilizations[18] with their own non-Semitic languages that might have influenced or supplanted any Semitic language being spoken. In addition, an introductory heading added to the Book of Mormon in 1981 states that the peoples mentioned therein are the primary ancestors of the Native Americans; it does not conclude that they are the sole ancestors.[19]

Charles Anthon

Martin Harris, an early acquaintance of Joseph Smith, claimed to have carried a sample of writing taken from the Book of Mormon to Charles Anthon who, according to Harris, was able to translate the writings. Martin Harris wrote:

"I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him.

"He then said to me, 'Let me see that certificate.' I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, 'I cannot read a sealed book.' I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation."

[20]

Anthon's version, as related in a letter written to one of his colleagues in 1834, contradicts Martin Harris' telling:

"The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be "reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics" is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain, and apparently simple-hearted farmer, called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now deceased, requesting me to decypher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. M. confessed he had been unable to understand. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. When I asked the person, who brought it, how he obtained the writing, he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, the following account:...

"... On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues...

"... I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained any thing else but "Egyptian Hieroglyphics." Some time after, the same farmer paid me a second visit. He brought with him the golden book in print, and offered it to me for sale. I declined purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the book with me for examination. I declined receiving it, although his manner was strangely urgent. I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practised upon him...[21]

Population genetics

Main article: Genetics and the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon tells of the people of Jared, consisting of several families from the Tower of Babel, who migrated to America from the Old World before Abraham's time; a group including Lehi's family who migrated to America from Jerusalem around 600 BC; and another group (the people of Mulek) who migrated to America from Jerusalem about 8 years later. Although The Book of Mormon makes no overt assertions regarding the migration or non-migration of other groups to America, an introductory paragraph added to the 1981 edition identifies the Lamanites as the "principal ancestors of the American Indians."[22]

Many people have examined existing genetic data in order to determine its relationship to the people described in the Book of Mormon. Several studies have been performed in which DNA from modern indigenous Americans has been examined in an attempt to determine Native American origins. Several authors have published works that suggest that current studies of genetic anthropology using DNA evidence do not provide support for the Book of Mormon. To date there have been no DNA studies which link any Native American group with any group in West Asia.[23][24] Other researchers warn against using genetics to attempt to prove or disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon, citing a lack of source genes and the improbability of tracing Israelite DNA even if present.[25][26]

Smithsonian Institution statement on the Book of Mormon

The Smithsonian Institution issues a standard reply to requests for their opinion regarding the Book of Mormon as an archaeological or scientific guide.[27]. In brief the statement denies any evidence for pre-Columbian contact between Old and New Worlds: "Certainly there was no contact with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews or other peoples of Western Asia or the Near East." In 1998, the Smithsonian began issuing a shorter letter without detailed response (which is found in the first letter) and limited its comment to briefly deny any use of the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide by the institution.[28]


Limited GeographyModel

Map showing the possible lands and sites of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica
See also: Limited geography model (Book of Mormon)

Since the time of its publication, most Latter Day Saints have viewed and explained the Book of Mormon as a comprehensive history of all Native Americans;[29] this understanding of the Book of Mormon is referred to as the "hemispheric model." However, other Latter Day Saints believe that the hemispheric model is an assumption not supported by a close reading of the text. B.H. Roberts states the inadequacy of the hemispheric model in Studies of the Book of Mormon:

[C]ould the people of Mulek and of Lehi...part of the time numbering and occupying the land at least from Yucatan to Cumorah...live and move and have their being in the land of America and not come in contact with other races and tribes of men, if such existed in the New World within Book of Mormon times? To make this seem possible the area occupied by the Nephites and Lamanites would have to be extremely limited, much more limited, I fear, than the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming.[30]

The locations of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon have not been identified to date. Several groups of Mormon scholars and apologists, including the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), have proposed that the city Zarahemla is located somewhere within Central America because of the description given in Alma 22:27 as a narrow neck of land bordering sea on the west and on the east. This approach, often referred to as the "Limited Geography Model," argues for a more limited view of the Book of Mormon, suggesting that the book is a history of only a small group of Native Americans in Central America. This theory has been gaining substantial support among LDS scholars since the mid-1980s because it more accurately represents the descriptions given within the text itself. For instance, the populations and civilizations described in the Book of Mormon were likely too small (only a few millions) to fill entire continents; moreover, there is much evidence that one common assumption of the past—that Book of Mormon civilizations were alone in America—is probably incorrect. Most LDS authors hold the belief that the Book of Mormon events took place within a limited region in Mesoamerica, and that others were present on the continent at the time of Lehi's arrival.[31] This geographical and population model was formally published in the official church magazine, The Ensign, in a two-part series published in September and October 1984.[32] This was followed by a book on the subject by LDS anthropologist John L. Sorenson in 1985.[33]

Notes

  1. ^ From the Lua error: Book <bm/introduction> not found in Standard Works.
  2. ^ Grant H. Palmer. 2002. An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. Salt Lake City, Signature Books.
    Brent Lee Metcalfe, ed. 1993. New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.
  3. ^ See, for example, James E. Faust, “The Keystone of Our Religion,” Ensign, January 2004, 3
  4. ^ Martha J. Macri. 1996. "Maya and Other Mesoamerican Scripts," The World's Writing Systems. Ed. Peter T. Daniels and William Bright. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pages 172-182.
    Henry Rogers. 2005. Writing Systems: A Linguistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  5. ^ Does Archaeology Support the Book of Mormon
  6. ^ 1 Nephi 14:7
  7. ^ 1 Nephi 4:9
  8. ^ Alma 18:9
  9. ^ missingauthor. "Smithsonian Institution statement on the Book of Mormon".
  10. ^ Reexploring the Book of Mormon, John Welch, Editor
  11. ^ The Book of Mormon mentions horses, elephants, cattle, swine
  12. ^ See Horses in the Book of Mormon by Robert R. Bennett under "Naming by Analogy"
  13. ^ Harold H. Hougey, Letter to Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 20 May 1972, University of Utah as quoted in Stan Larson, "The Odyssey of Thomas Stuart Ferguson", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1990, p. 76
  14. ^ Thomas Stuart Ferguson, Letter to Harold H. Hougey, 5 June 1972, University of Utah as quoted in Stan Larson, "The Odyssey of Thomas Stuart Ferguson", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1990, p. 76
  15. ^ Thomas Stuart Ferguson, Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Harold W. Lawrence, 20 February 1976b, University of Utah as quoted in Stan Larson, "The Odyssey of Thomas Stuart Ferguson", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1990, p. 79. See image copy of the letter
  16. ^ Linguistics and the Book of Mormon
  17. ^ Lyle Campbell. 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. Oxford University Press.
    Ives Goddard. 1996. "Introduction," Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 17, Languages. Ed. Ives Goddard. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
    Marianne Mithun. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press.
  18. ^ Omni 1:12–18, Mosiah 24:1–4
  19. ^ The original 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon does not make this claim.
  20. ^ http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/64-65#64 Martin Harris's account of the circumstances.
  21. ^ Letter from Charles Anthon to E. D. Howe, 17 February 1834, as printed in B. H. Roberts, ed., A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Provo, Utah: BYU Press, 1965), 1:100–101.
  22. ^ See the Introduction to the Book of Mormon
  23. ^ One of the more vocal challengers to the DNA vs. The Book of Mormon issue is Dr. Thomas W. Murphy.
  24. ^ Southerton 2004
  25. ^ Geneticists have noted the difficulties in using genetics in this area for a variety of reasons. Some of these are our lack of knowledge concerning Sariah's descent (or others' in Lehi's party), have access to DNA from this period (600 BC Israel), or know what other groups would have intermarried with these groups (or in what numbers). For more information see Whiting, Michael F (2003). "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective". Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. 12 (1). Maxwell Institute: 24–35. Retrieved 2007-01-19.
  26. ^ Not having the ancient Israelite gene for comparison and the inability for DNA testing to link some Jewish groups that are known to be related, see Butler, John M (2006). "Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research". FARMS Review. 18 (1). Maxwell Institute: 101–108. Retrieved 2007-01-19..
  27. ^ missingauthor. "Smithsonian Institution statement on the Book of Mormon".
  28. ^ Jeff Lindsay. "The Smithsonian Institution's 1996 "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon"". {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 35 (help)
  29. ^ Mauss 2003
  30. ^ Roberts 1985, p. 93
  31. ^ Smith 1997, p. 264
  32. ^ Sorenson, John L (Sept. 1984). "Digging into the Book of Mormon:Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture (Part 1)". Ensign. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: 27. Retrieved 2007-01-11. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Sorenson, John L (Oct. 1984). "Digging into the Book of Mormon:Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture (Part 2)". Ensign. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Retrieved 2007-01-21. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  33. ^ Sorenson 1985

References


LDS Standard Works

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon&oldid=203463021"