User talk:Hydrangeans/sandbox-bookofmormon

(Drafting a paragraph for the Book of Mormon page)

Historical Authenticity
Mainstream archaeological, historical and scientific communities do not consider the Book of Mormon an ancient record of actual historical events. Their skepticism tends to focus on four main areas:


 * The lack of correlation between locations described in the Book of Mormon and known, intact American archaeological sites.
 * References to animals, plants, metals and technologies in the Book of Mormon that archaeological or scientific studies have found little or no evidence of in post-Pleistocene, pre-Columbian America, frequently referred to as anachronisms. Items typically listed include cattle, horses, asses, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheat, steel, brass, chains, iron, scimitars, and chariots.
 * The lack of widely accepted linguistic connections between any Native American languages and Near Eastern languages.
 * The lack of DNA evidence linking any Native American group to the ancient Near East.

Though there is a "lack of specific response to" elements of the Book of Mormon that some Latter Day Saints identify as evidence of ancient origins, when mainstream scholars do examine such alleged parallels they typically deem them "mere chance based upon only superficial similarities". One critic has dubbed such apologetic scholarship an example of parallelomania.

Despite this, most adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement consider the Book of Mormon to generally be historically authentic. Within the Latter Day Saint movement there are several apologetic groups and scholars that seek to answer challenges to Book of Mormon historicity in various ways. Most Book of Mormon apologetics is done by Latter-day Saints, and the most active and well-known apologetic groups have been the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS; now defunct) and FAIR (Faithful Answers, Informed Response; formerly FairMormon), both comprised of lay Latter-day Saints. Some apologetics aim to reconcile, refute, or dismiss criticisms of Book of Mormon historicity. For example, in response to linguistics and genetics rendering long-popular hemispheric models of Book of Mormon geography impossible, many apologists posit Book of Mormon peoples could have dwelled in a limited geographical region while indigenous peoples of other descents occupied the rest of the Americas. To account for anachronisms, apologists often suggest Smith's translation assigned familiar terms to unfamiliar ideas. Other apologetics strive to "affirmatively advocat[e]" historicity by identifying parallels between the Book of Mormon and antiquity, such as the presence of several complex chiasmi, a literary form used in ancient Hebrew poetry and in the Old Testament.

In an article for the Ensign, the LDS Church's official magazine, apologist Daniel C. Peterson contended "much modern evidence supports" the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and literature promoting Book of Mormon historicity has influenced some Latter-day Saint views. Nevertheless, Mormons who affirm Book of Mormon historicity are not universally persuaded by apologetic work, and some claim historicity more modestly, such as Richard Bushman's statement that "I read the Book of Mormon as informed Christians read the Bible. As I read, I know the arguments against the book’s historicity, but I can’t help feeling that the words are true and the events happened. I believe it in the face of many questions."

In response to challenges to the Book of Mormon's historicity, some denominations and adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement consider the Book of Mormon a work of inspired fiction akin to pseudepigrapha that constitutes scripture by revealing true doctrine about God, similar to a common interpretation of the biblical Book of Job. Many in Community of Christ hold this view, and "Opinions about the Book of Mormon range from both ends of the spectrum" among members while the leadership takes no official position on Book of Mormon historicity. Some Latter-day Saints consider the Book of Mormon fictional, though this view is marginal in the community at large. Church leaders and apologists frequently contend "what is most fundamentally at stake in historicity is not the book’s status as scripture but Joseph Smith’s claims to prophetic authority."

A few scholars propose considering the Book of Mormon an ancient and translated source text appended with modern pseudepigraphic expansions from Smith. Proponents hold that this model can simultaneously account for ancient literary artifacts and nineteenth-century influence in the Book of Mormon. However, the interpretation faces criticism "on multiple fronts" for either conceding too much to skepticism or for being more convoluted than straightforward historicism or unhistoricism.

Influenced by continental philosophy, a handful of academics argue for "rethink[ing] the terms of the historicity debates" by understanding the Book of Mormon not as historical or unhistorical (either factual or fictional) but as nonhistorical (existing outside history). Most prominently, James E. Faulconer contends that both skeptical and affirmative approaches to Book of Mormon historicity make the same Enlightenment-derived assumptions about scripture as representative of external reality, and he argues a more appropriate approach might adopt a premodern understanding of scripture as capable of divinely ordering, rather than simply depicting, reality.