Book of Mormon is true scripture

[Ryan2065]

Evidence, Ryan, that is not read is deemed correct evidence. You can not deny evidence just because you would rather have "summaries or headlines". It seems that you have no evidence to refute what you have not read. I think you are out of line to ask for more.

Would it be "out of line" then to ask for evidance to support the earlier claims? Other than from the well established scientific website that is the jefflindsay.com website =)

I have scrolled through the website and have found nothing like what we asked for. All the evidance this website offers is published in Mormon publications. Still looking for something published in a scientific journal of some kind.

I am open minded but when someone else says something is true I do not like to have to search for the evidance for them.

 

[Katzpur]

That's neither true nor implied by anything I've said on this thread. You obviously are more interested in making suggestions about my personal biases/motivations than in answering the issues I raised in my previous post.

I'm sorry. What issue did I miss? I'm not trying to be rude; I just think we've reached an impasse. And when that happens, I'm inclined to say, "let's drop the subject."

I think that it's unfortunate that I took the time to examine the website you offered and make comments on some of its content, only to be met with evasion and attacks on my character. If you change your mind and decide to have a conversation, please feel free to address the content of my previous post.

I didn't attack your character. I simply said that I felt you were over-simplifying things. And if I evaded your questions, it was unintentional. I really don't know what you want from me at this point. And that's the truth.

I took the time to explore the evidence you provided. How about some specific answers to my specific questions?

Okay, I obviously missed something. Give me one specific question and I'll try to give you one specific answer. I really don't have any desire to get into an argument over the Book of Mormon, that's all. You don't believe it's scripture; I do. Where do we go from here?

Kathryn

 

[greatcalgarian]

It wasn't written by either an unlearned farm boy or by other authors inspired by his idea. It was, however, translated by an unlearned farm boy.

This was the part I find it mystical. We have to accept the fact that this supposedly unlearned farm boy is supposed to have been given the golden tablet (according to the first story, later changed to metal tablet), and then he has to put on a hat with two stones inside, and then he would be able to 'see' what was written in the golden tablet, and he would then dictate for his wife to write down. According to the biography, his wife refused to join the Saint initially...... There are too many fairy tales if you read the few biography on the web.

 

[jonny]

My testimony of the Book of Mormon is not based on any physical or historical proof. Anyone can find evidence to prove something that they want to believe in or to disprove something they don't want to believe in. My belief in the Book of Mormon is based on same evidence that I have for the existence of God. Believing in Him makes me a better person and I have felt His influence in my life. I prayed and asked Him about the truth of the Book of Mormon and received an overwhelming answer to my prayer. I cannot deny this and even if I read a thousand reasons why the Book of Mormon couldn't be true, they could never persuade me because I believe that God has a perfect knowledge and that the knowledge of man is flawed and imperfect.

People who want proof of beliefs that require faith cannot be persuaded to understand.

 

[greatcalgarian]

In part, yes. But for the most part, no. Are you looking for an accurate biography?

Yes, give me a web page that you believe is giving accurate biography, because the few I browse through, including the official web page is a bit fairy tale like

Even PBS give very similar account to the link that I listed.

 

[Majikthise]

I'm seeing theists telling other theists that their beliefs are akin to fairy tales.

I am in heaven.

 

[jonny]

Yes, give me a web page that you believe is giving accurate biography, because the few I browse through, including the official web page is a bit fairy tale like

Even PBS give very similar account to the link that I listed.

Since it is the 200th birthday of Joseph Smith this year, the LDS church has created a website dedicated to his life and teachings. There is also a biography about him, written by his mother called "The History of Joseph Smith."

http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site

You could also watch some of the videos from the International Academic Conference at the Library of Congress that they had on Joseph Smith earlier this year.

http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,510-1-3067-1,00.html

 

[Katzpur]

Would it be "out of line" then to ask for evidance to support the earlier claims? Other than from the well established scientific website that is the jefflindsay.com website =)

I have scrolled through the website and have found nothing like what we asked for. All the evidance this website offers is published in Mormon publications. Still looking for something published in a scientific journal of some kind.

I am open minded but when someone else says something is true I do not like to have to search for the evidance for them.

Of course the evidence is published in Mormon publications. What were you expecting? I assume you are saying that research done by LDS professionals is unreliable. If that's how you feel, it's unfortunate. The original source material is, however, found in the footnotes, and a number of scientific journals are among them (for example: "American Anthropologist," "Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research," "The Civilizations of Ancient America: Selected Papers of the XXIXth International Congress of Americanists," and "American Antiquity.")

 

[greatcalgarian]

I'm seeing theists telling other theists that their beliefs are akin to fairy tales.

I am in heaven.

Good for you.:clap

If everyone be like you, so easy to be made to be in heaven and enjoy total eternal happiness, what else could we asked for?:bounce

 

[DeepShadow]

Would it be "out of line" then to ask for evidance to support the earlier claims?

Sorry, that was my fault that the evidence has been accumulating on the wrong thread. I'll be catching up in a moment.

I have scrolled through the website and have found nothing like what we asked for. All the evidance this website offers is published in Mormon publications. Still looking for something published in a scientific journal of some kind.

Ummm, try scrolling through again. There are plenty of articles there from non-Mormon journals. That many are reprinted in Mormon journals only makes sense, as they are naturally of interest to the LDS.

I am open minded but when someone else says something is true I do not like to have to search for the evidance for them.

Again, my fault. I'll do my best to catch this thread up ASAP.

 

[DeepShadow]

For convenience, I'm bringing Deut's references here, where we can tackle them one at a time. I'll highlight them orange as we scratch them off.

The Book of Mormon and its archaeology

< -- snip -- >

"As long as Mormons generally are willing to be fooled by (and pay for) the uninformed, uncritical drivel about archaeology and the scriptures which predominates, the few L.D.S. experts are reluctant even to be identified with the topic."

- J.L. Sorenson, Brigham Young University, 1966

< -- snip -- >

If the Book of Mormon is true, then there would be certain logical consequences:

• Studies of the blood types, facial shape, and genetic makeup of modern-day Native Americans would show that they were related closely to the ancient Israelites, and thus to present-day Jews. Some DNA evidence among a minority of Native Americans has been found that shows the likelihood of a migration of individuals from Europe and Asia Minor to America. However, their arrival date in the new world was about 10,000 BCE or earlier. Thus, the migration is unrelated to activities in the Book of Mormon. No evidence has been found for a migration during the time span that the Book discusses.
• Archeologists could go to the remains of ancient Native American towns, excavate down to the levels that were active between 600 BCE and 385 CE, and uncover evidences of Nephite or Lamanite writings, domesticated horses, old world plants, chariots, inscriptions, metal objects, etc.
  bullet Excavating the Hill Comorah should reveal countless artifacts left by the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died there in two major battles.
  bullet One would expect names from the Book of Mormon to be present in inscriptions left by the Nephites or Lamanites. Thomas Ferguson wrote: "The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions ... referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon."

Quite a few forgeries have been planted and "discovered." However, no convincing evidence was ever found that has been accepted by non-Mormon archaeologists.

Thomas Stuart Ferguson:

In 1952-OCT, Ferguson, a lawyer, organized the New World Archaeological Foundation (NWAF). He was a devout believer in the LDS faith, and thus in the validity of the Book of Mormon. He reasoned that if the validity of the Book could be proven, then countless individuals would flock to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), as the true Christian church. He was convinced that the Book of Mormon was an accurate historical document and that it would be relatively easy to uncover artifacts to prove its validity. The NWAF was initially funded directly by the LDS. As each year passed, the Foundation's scientists were unable to find any evidence that would support the Book of Mormon. The LDS church reorganized the NWAF under Brigham Young University in 1960. As of 1999, it consists only of a director and assistant, active in only one excavation.

In a book review, Duwayne Anderson commented: "In 1993 Michael D. Coe, professor of anthropology at Yale University, summarized the situation by saying: 'I have seen no archaeological evidence before or since that [1973] date which would convince me that it [the Book of Mormon] is anything but a fanciful creation by an unusually gifted individual living in upstate New York in the early nineteenth century.' "

Ferguson was eventually convinced that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, whose contents bear no relationship to the reality of Native American civilization prior to 385 CE. The NWAF "failed to find evidence to prove the Book of Mormon, and the man who organized it...ended up losing his faith in the church."

Other observations skeptical of the Book of Mormon:

• DNA evidence: Genetic and blood testing studies have found that Native Americans are related closely to the inhabitants of Siberia and not to the ancient Israelites, as the Book of Mormon states. Thomas W. Murphy, 35, is chairperson of the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College in Lynnwood, WA. He wrote a chapter in the anthology "American Apocrypha" in which he uses genetic data to discredit the Book of Mormon's claim that American Natives are heathen descendents of ancient Israelites. The essay is taken from his doctoral dissertation at the University of Washington. He faces a church disciplinary council on 2002-DEC-8 at which he may be excommunicated for his beliefs. More information. 19,20
• Finding of artifacts: "No unusual artifacts have ever been found at or around Hill Comorah." 4 No evidence of the remains of domesticated animals have been found prior to the European invasion in the late 15th century. Similarly, there is no evidence of barley or any other old world plants in North America at that time. "...Bows and arrows...were not invented in America until A.D. 1000." Although there are remains of Natives who made use of meteoric iron and native copper, there are no indications that Natives smelted metals during the time interval covered by the Book of Mormon. There are no indications of the remains of sanctuaries, temples or synagogues. One would not expect to find synagogues, because none are known to have existed in the Middle East until after the Babylonian exile - decades after after the second emigration, as described in the Book of Mormon.
• Inscriptions: Some Mormons have promoted some records and inscriptions such as the "Bat Creek Stone, the Kinderhook Plates, the Newark Stones and the Phoenician Ten Commandments." All were forgeries. 5 No names of individuals mentioned in the Book of Mormon have every been found in ancient inscriptions.
• Comments by scientific groups:
  • The National Geographic Society maintained in 1998 that: "Archeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon."
  • The Smithsonian Institution prepared a form letter in 1996. It seems to have been in response to a rumor that the Smithsonian had used the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide book. Their letter says, in part:
    • "Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book [of Mormon]."
    • "The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central and northeastern Asia."
    • "...none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492."
    • "Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared...None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars."

- see ReligiousTolerance.org

 

[Katzpur]

This was the part I find it mystical. We have to accept the fact that this supposedly unlearned farm boy is supposed to have been given the golden tablet (according to the first story, later changed to metal tablet), and then he has to put on a hat with two stones inside, and then he would be able to 'see' what was written in the golden tablet, and he would then dictate for his wife to write down. According to the biography, his wife refused to join the Saint initially...... There are too many fairy tales if you read the few biography on the web.

Thanks for the infomation. Unfortunately, most of it is inaccurate. When you want information on current world events, you can choose to go to CNN or to the National Enquirer. The same holds true when researching Mormonism.

 

[DeepShadow]

From Katzpur's link (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography), here's one on the smelting of metals:

[font=Arial,Helvetica]New Evidence for Pre-Columbian Smelting of Metals![/font]


See the MIT Web page on the MIT El Manchon Archaeological Excavation in Mexico. While critics have long ridiculed Book of Mormon references to ancient metal working in the Americas, interesting evidence is accumulating. Here is an excerpt:

[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]In November 2000, a team of archaeologists led by Professor Dorothy Hosler from the Center for Materials Research in Archaeology and Ethnology (CMRAE) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, began excavation of a pre-Columbian site in the remote mountains of northern Guerrero, Mexico. This site is possibly the first pre-Columbian metal smelting site ever found in Mesoamerica. Therefore it is of distinct interest to Prof. Hosler . . . who studies ancient technologies and how civilizations of the past have been affected by them. In particular interest is metallurgy, a technology rare enough to only have been invented two or three times in human history (once in the Americas). [/size][/font]



​

We anxiously await further information about this new discovery. The smelting site in Guerrero is in southern Mexico (see the location on a map). Also note the recent discovery in Peru proving use of metals before 1000 B.C. (or see the article at ABCnews.com. This discovery pushes the date of metal use in the Americas as far back as 1400 B.C.

Note that the BoM rarely mentions smelting of metals, and I consider it possible, if not likely, that most of the "swords" mentioned were obsidian-edged cleaving weapons.

 

[DeepShadow]

The connections between Native Americans and Mongoloid peoples, both DNA and facial types, are moot, because the evidence can support a number of arguments. To avoid completely derailing this thread with Hugh Nibley quotes, I discuss two of them that work well together in my thread regarding the origins of the Mulekites. Suffice it to say that I was very pleased to hear that Native Americans have Mongoloid features and ancient Siberian DNA.:bounce So let's scratch those off, too.

 

[DeepShadow]

And it appears we'll need more evidence that the Bat-Creek Stone is a forgery. I'll leave the text unchanged for now, pending more evidence.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/smithsonian.shtml



One of the most interesting evidences of transoceanic contact between the Old and New Worlds is the Bat Creek Hebrew inscription found by a Smithsonian expedition in Tennessee in 1889. (The Bat Creek Stone and other interesting oddities of archaeology, including pre-Columbian maize in India, can be seen at the Archaeological Outliers site.) Anti-Mormon writers such as the Tanners have spent much effort trying to argue that the writing on the Bat Creek Stone is not Hebrew. However, non-LDS scholar J. Huston McCulloch has now shown that the Bat Creek inscription, once thought to be Cherokee, "fits significantly better as Paleo-Hebrew" (J. Huston McCulloch, "The Bat Creek Inscription: Cherokee or Hebrew?" Tennessee Anthropologist, Vol. 13, Fall 1988, p. 116, as cited by Matthew Roper, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 4, 1992, p. 212). McCulloch's recent work confirms Cyrus Gordon's original hypothesis about the inscription, namely, that it was from between 70 A.D. and 135 A.D. and represented Old World writing (Science Vol. 2, May 1971, pp. 14-16, as cited by Paul R. Cheesman, BYU Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, p. 85). Carbon-14 dated wood and brass bracelets associated with the inscription date to between A.D. 32 and A.D. 769 (Ibid., pp.107-12, 116) - definitely before Columbus. Cyrus Gordon, a respected non-LDS scholar, wrote:

[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]The Bat Creek Inscription is important because it is the first scientifically authenticated pre-Columbian text in an Old World script or language found in America; and, at that, in a flawless archaeological context. It proves that some Old World people not only could, but actually did, cross the Atlantic to America before the Vikings and Columbus....The discredited pre-Columbian inscriptions in Old World scripts or languages will have to be reexamined and reevaluated, each on the merits of the evidence, case by case. (Cyrus Gordon, "A Hebrew Inscription Authenticated," in Lundquist and Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith, 1:71,80, as cited by Roper, op. cit.; for more on this controversial issue, see also J. Huston McCulloch, "The Bat Creek Inscription: Did Judean Refugees Escape to Tennessee?" Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August 1993, pp. 46-53, 82, and the differing view of P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., "Let's Be Serious about the Bat Creek Stone," Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August 1993, pp. 54-55, 83.)





​

[/size][/font]While critics will repeat old arguments that the Bat Creek Stone is a forgery, it is important to recognize that "there is absolutely no indication that the inscription is a forgery, in the first place, other than the circular, and therefore unscientific, argument that being Hebrew, it must surely be a fake" (J. Huston McCulloch, "The Bat Creek Stone: A Reply to Mainfort and Kwas," Tennessee Anthropologist, Vol. 18, No. 1, Spring 1993, p. 16, emphasis added, as cited by Matthew Roper, FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1997, p. 142).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm sorry. What issue did I miss? I'm not trying to be rude; I just think we've reached an impasse. And when that happens, I'm inclined to say, "let's drop the subject."

I'll outline my points for clarity. The point I was originally trying to make was:

1) The author of the website you provided implies that the fact that Joseph Smith claimed to have translated an ancient religious text from metal plates is significant evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I disagree. (Though I do not think that, had Joseph Smith claimed to have translated from a number of other mediums, that would have constituted significant evidence *against* the Book of Mormon, either.)

I supported this by arguing

a) The fact that there were no historical records at the time of ancient writings on metal plates is irrelevant, since Joseph Smith was not aware of the historical records (and therefore did not know of this lack of evidence). If the Book of Mormon was a fabrication, it would not be surprising that he claimed to have translated it from a medium that was not evidenced. If he did know about the lack of historical evidence for metal plates, however, and still claimed to have translated from metal plates, that would have been intriguing. As it is, Joseph Smith's ignorance of the lack of historical evidence for metal plates is neither good evidence for or against the Book of Mormon's authenticity.

b) Throughout history, many mediums have been used to record religious texts, including papyrus, stone and clay tablets, metal plates (stored in all sorts of containers, including stone boxes and clay pots)--even walls and coffins. If a person were to fabricate an ancient religious text, it would not be too surprising if they were to select a medium which has been used to record religious texts in the past, even if they had no knowledge of the most common mediums. Thus, the fact that metal plates are an historical medium for recording religious texts is not evidence either in favor or against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

c) Human creativity and imagination is quite remarkable. H.G. Wells wrote about steel tank-like machines years before the advent of tank warfare, and Europeans wrote about giant lizards years before they had knowledge of the komodo dragon. We can accept these and other examples as imagination combined with coincidence (rather than the result of the Divine inspiration/special knowledge of the authors). Thus, it should not be difficult for us to accept that the actual historical use of metal plates might have been coincidental to an imaginative story about metal plates.

I didn't attack your character. I simply said that I felt you were over-simplifying things. And if I evaded your questions, it was unintentional. I really don't know what you want from me at this point. And that's the truth.

I want an open and critical exchange of ideas.

Okay, I obviously missed something. Give me one specific question and I'll try to give you one specific answer.

Do you really think that, had Joseph Smith claimed his translations came from papyrus in a clay pot, or clay tablets, or stone tablets, or the inscriptions in a crypt, that would have constituted evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon? (I don't.)

I really don't have any desire to get into an argument over the Book of Mormon, that's all.

That's perfectly understandable, but to be fair, the title of the thread is "Book of Mormon is true scripture" and it is located in the debate forum.

You don't believe it's scripture; I do. Where do we go from here?

If you would like to continue our discussion, I suggest addressing the points that I brought up in my previous posts, which I have outlined and expanded upon above.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

My belief in the Book of Mormon is based on same evidence that I have for the existence of God. Believing in Him makes me a better person and I have felt His influence in my life.

For the record, I think that's a great reason to believe in Him.

 

[DeepShadow]

I see your point, Sprinkles, and I agree with you in the most part regarding other claims not being weighed against the Book of Mormon. I think, however, you may have hung too much on a statement by Katzpur:

Consider the liklihood of someone with a third-grade education and no resource materials accurately being able to describe an ancient method of record-keeping more than 100 years before even scholars were aware of it.

Katzpur may correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe she was referring to archeological resource materials. I doubt Katzpur would argue that Joseph had a Bible, which--as others have pointed out--contains accounts of writings on stone tablets and various kinds of scrolls. Those would seem much more obvious choices for him to make such claims about.

Do I understand you correctly then, that Joseph might have claimed to have found the writing on just about anything, and it would have not counted for or against?

 

[DeepShadow]

That's perfectly understandable, but to be fair, the title of the thread is "Book of Mormon is true scripture" and it is located in the debate forum.

Wow, is this a problem!

I mean, you're perfectly correct, Sprinkles, but the title of this thread is utterly unprovable by archeological evidence, or any evidence other than the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Some folks, when faced with evidence of the Book of Mormon, prefer to believe that Joseph Smith was subconsciously expressing talents from a past life (reincarnated Hebrew scribe, anyone?), or that he was contacted by aliens who helped him commit fraud, or that the Devil actually helped him write a work which later evidence would appear to support. Our claims go beyond the archeological, you see, and the title of this thread takes those claims to the limit. Archaeological evidence may eventually satisfy someone's belief...that there is archaeological evidence...but then what?

Read it, pray about it. Act on what you feel when you read it. The Book of Mormon has brought me closer to God, the Bible, and (most imporantly) to my fellow man than any other book.

Now, because I have an interest in archaeology, I'll continue to respond to posts and whittle away at Deut's objections (which I really need to frubal him for, I haven't sunk my teeth in like this in a long time!), but I still feel a need to make my position clear. The title of this thread is unprovable. I felt that when I told Angelmoroni that the thread belonged somewhere else.

 

[jonny]

For the record, I think that's a great reason to believe in Him.

Thanks