Not many people notice that there are quite a few similarities between the history of the ancient Romans and the story of the Nephites in the Book of Mormon.

Their stories cover a similar stretch of ancient history: The Romans from the founding of the city in 753 BC until its conquest by barbarian invaders in 476 AD; Nephite history beginning ca 600 BC and ending with the annihilation of the Nephites by the barbarian Lamanites about 400 AD.

- Both peoples are descended from a small party of emigrants escaping the destruction of a royal city: Aeneas from Troy's destruction by the Greeks; Lehi from Jerusalem's destruction by the Babylonians.

- Both people's founding ancestors were led by deity to a new land: Aeneas by Venus and Apollo; Lehi by Jehovah.

- Both people's founding ancestors came to their new homeland by ship.

- Both peoples took their name from one of a pair of brothers from whom they descended: The Romans from Romulus, brother of Remus; the Nephites from Nephi, brother of Sam. And the Lamanites took their name from Laman, brother of Lemuel (the less righteous brothers of Nephi and Sam).

- Both peoples spread out eventually to occupy very large territories: The Romans all the lands bordering the Mediterranean, as well as Britain, southern Europe and the Balkans, from Spain to Mesopotamia; the Nephites covered "the face of the land" (Jarom 1:8, Helaman 11:20) both "northward and southward" and from sea to sea.

- At about the same time in their history, a two-century period of peace reigned among them: For the Romans the Pax Romana, ca 27 BC to ca 180 AD; for the Nephites, the period described in 4 Nephi, from ca 33 AD to ca 245 AD.

- Both periods of peace began about the time of the appearance of Jesus Christ in their land.

- Both cultures knew metal coins, shipbuilding, agriculture based on wheat, barley, cattle, goats, sheep and "flocks." Both waged war with similar weapons and armor (steel swords, bow and arrow, spears, body armor, chariots and horses).

Of course there are also many differences in these two stories, but the similarities are striking. And I am not claiming that these similarities "prove" anything at all, or that they are anything more than interesting coincidences.

If there is anything that this comparison proves, it is the one tremendous difference between the two stories, a difference which casts huge doubt upon the accuracy of the Nephite story. And that difference can be seen in museums and archaeological sites all over Europe, as well as in the languages spoken today. The Romans left behind millions of artifacts, from everyday coins, kitchen utensils and pots to glorious art and architecture. Their historical record is also confirmed by hundreds of independent contemporary written records. They also left behind their language, Latin, which is still spoken - in modified versions - in almost every country of western Europe and South America.

But the Nephites? Nothing even vaguely similar. Nothing. No museum has any identifiable Nephite artifact. No art. No architecture. No traces of their languages (Hebrew and Egyptian) anywhere in the area they supposedly occupied. No records other than the Book of Mormon, which is accepted as history by not a single non-Mormon historian.

Why not? One would think that the archaeological and historical record of two great ancient peoples, contemporaries, spanning a thousand years, would leave similar signs of their existence behind. No one doubts the existence of the Romans for that thousand years, or the essential accuracy of their history. Everyone but the Mormons themselves disbelieves the story of the Nephites.

Very nice analogy. Digging deeper are there any similarities after Jesus left both? I am no historian but the establishment of a church, its eventual dysfunction and rise of central church- the conflicts of the Trinity and baptism come to mind-any comparisons?

Gatorman



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2016 06:48PM by gatorman.

Not entirely Roman, but there are some interesting parallels between Mormon and Josephus as well. Both wrote histories of their respective peoples. Both were military commanders, and both witnessed the destruction of their respective nations.

Thanks for sharing, Richard. I do wonder how to explain these parallels.

Another parallel between the Nephites and the Romans is the scale of warfare described in the Book of Mormon. The west never saw armies and battles as large as during the Roman period until the Napoleonic era. The scale of warfare in the Book of Mormon far exceeds anything in medieval Europe and is rivaled only by the Romans.

JS gave himself a nice out by painting the Lamanites as the slothful bad guys who would let the fabulous Nephite aqueducts and Coliseum fall into such ruin that they're not here any more!

And Arnold Friberg gave himself a nice income by painting the Lamanites to look like Romans :)

RPackham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

> But the Nephites? Nothing even vaguely
> similar. Nothing. No museum has any identifiable
> Nephite artifact. No art. No architecture. No
> traces of their languages (Hebrew and Egyptian)
> anywhere in the area they supposedly occupied. No
> records other than the Book of Mormon, which is
> accepted as history by not a single non-Mormon
> historian.
>
>


It used to be accepted as the truest book ever written, but apparently now it's not accepted by Mormon GA's either.


http://www.mormonthink.com/

Apostle says the Book of Mormon "is not a textbook of history" - 6 July 2016

LDS Church News: President Russell M. Nelson at a 2016 Seminar for New Mission Presidents said the following about the Book of Mormon:

“There are some things the Book of Mormon is not,” President Nelson said. “It is not a textbook of history, although some history is found within its pages. It is not a definitive work on ancient American agriculture or politics. It is not a record of all former inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, but only of particular groups of people.”

Link is here

It seems as if the Church wants to leave the Book of Mormon in a sort of gray area where it may not be 100% historical. Nelson's remarks are confusing as the Church, since its foundation in 1830, has always said the Book of Mormon is a true record of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. The remarks appear to be geared to the complete and utter lack of any archeological, linguistic or any of scientific evidence to support it. To the contrary, many anachronisms are mentioned in the BofM such as horses, elephants, wheat, barley, steel, silk, etc. which did not exist in the Americas during BofM times. Elder Nelson seems to want to lessen the validity of these arguments with his dismissal of the BofM as a 'textbook'.

Perhaps the LDS Church is foreshadowing the day when they recognize that the BofM might be merely 'inspired' writings of Joseph Smith rather than an accurate account of ancient Israelites that lived in the Americas. The 2nd largest church that uses the BofM, the RLDS Church (Community of Christ) realized this about two decades ago and now makes it optional to believe that the BofM is historically correct or simply inspired writings of Joseph Smith. > end quote.

Of course, Nelson's comment that the Book of Mormon is not a history textbook is a straw man. Nobody who questions the historicity of the Book of Mormon ever said it was a textbook. But generations of church leaders and missionaries, in addition to the book itself, have stated without equivocation that it is a true history of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas (or at least some of them). The doctrines it teaches are all set in an historical background. So it makes sense to test the doctrines by testing the historical claims. If there is no archeological evidence of Jaredites, Nephites or Lamanites, but rather archeological, linguistic and DNA evidence contradict the historical "facts" as stated in the Book of Mormon, there is good reason to doubt claims that the doctrines were given to those people by a divine source.

I find this all very interesting though, as a nevermo, I have not read the BoM and, while I enjoyed your post, it is not interesting to the point that I now want to read the BoM ;)

One senses the church has certainly distanced itself from the Book of Abraham. They may be slowly setting up to distance themselves from the " most correct book on earth". By Nelson's statement they have begun the alteration of the principal narrative as Richard Bushman suggested.....

Gatorman

Pretty sneaky of those Romans to mimic stuff from the Nephoids and Lamanators and what not.

(Did you notice how they cleverly changed a few events so they wouldn't appear to be copying? We used to do the same thing in high school during algebra tests.)

This assumes that JS was familiar with both Virgil and Josephus. He may have been, but I wonder.

I suspect that it was more common to read Virgil and Josephus in 1830 than it is today. Even I only took the first three years of Latin and so, after translating Cicero in the third year, skipped Virgil which would have been in the fourth year class. I noticed a couple of years ago I could still read the Bible in the Vulgate.

I did not notice in reading the BoM anything akin to Josephus.

The Smith family did have a copy of Josephus. So did Oliver Cowdery. I'm agnostic as to whether Smith was deliberately using Josephus as a model for Mormon, but I find the few parallels that I mentioned above interesting. I'm more certain that Josephus was an influence on the Book of Abraham. There are elements about Abraham in the Book of Abraham that can be found in Josephus but not the Bible.

Josephus was popular reading in the 19th century. In his novel "Captains Courageous" Rudyard Kipling mentions a New England fishing schooner's crew, circa the 1890s, that listens to a shipmate reading aloud from Josephus on Sunday afternoons as a gorier and more exciting alternative, with its many battles, to readings from the Bible.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Joseph Smith had a decent familiarity with Josephus, which was highly approved reading for Christians for its depiction of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple (in accordance with Jesus's prophecy) at the hands of the Romans.

Needless to say, Flavius Josephus/Joseph ben Matthias was ten times as good a writer as JS and his collaborators, and an actual eyewitness, so it remains a fascinating book to read, while as for the BoM, well....

I am familiar with both but Latin was my major. It was more common to study classic in the past but I wonder if JS had that level of education. Being familiar with basic myths is one thing ,but Josephus seems less likely. He may have been familiar with one or both, but it would be nice to know.

Bona Dea, my mother was a Latin teacher and taught from 1925-1941 (leaving because women could not teach if married). She served on our Board of Education until 1974.

Here's another similarity between Mormons and Romans: both have founding mythologies that aren't true. Everybody on this Board knows (as I do) that there were never any Nephites or Lamanites. And, for those who may not know their history, there was never a Romulus or Remus--they were just as made up as Nephi and Lehi.

and all the world except Mormons know that the "Book Of Mormon" is fiction and no such people in the Americas ever existed.

Thanks for bringing this up.

"The word is subliga. A Roman writing on one of those birchbark pages found at Hadrian's wall asked his friend to bring him a subliga. Like a loincloth possibly clipped together between the legs. Useful in cold weather."

That's how mundane it gets with Roman history.

On the other hand Nephites were like "leave no trace" campers but did it on the civilization level.

Mormons have Moroni 10:3-5, so no physical evidence needed, thank you.

Yes, but where their subliga *magic?* :)

I wonder if Laman and Lemuel suckled from the teats of a she-wolf. Maybe a she-tapir. I dunno. Just batting in the dark.

From the tapering teats of the tapir....