Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[Autodidact]

No, I am asserting that for most of those, there has been no evidence either way. That is, no corroborating evidence, but certainly no evidence upon which to dismiss the book of mormon. As for the last claim, the horse is a north american animal.

If by "no evidence either way" you mean that no evidence has ever been found of these things being used by American people prior to European colonization, then I would agree. I suppose it is possible that we may yet learn of an undiscovered civilization that used all of them, and we have to remain open to all possibilities. However, it is the case that no such people has been discovered yet. Once again, it is impossible to prove a universal negative. However, taking into consideration how much of the New World has been excavated, explored, settled, dug into and so forth, I think it is more than reasonable to conclude that we have found all the major civilizations that lived here around 2000 years ago. We have a lot of evidence of the people who did live here, and none of it corroborates the Book of Mormon; all of it contradicts it. I don't see how you can call that no evidence to contradict it. Furthermore, according to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of modern Native Americans, with a huge civilization covering great areas, not a tiny, hard to find outpost of a people who have died out.

What archeology does tell us is that the inhabitants of the Americas migrated from Asia well before 5000 B.C.E. This is amply supported by DNA evidence. DNA evidence does not support recent migration of these peoples from the Near East.

Regarding horses, it is interesting that although they were here before 10,000 years ago, as well as after 1400, the precise period they were NOT here is that described in the Book of Mormon.

The fact that you would lump the horse in there for things for which there is no archaelogical evidence indicates (to me) one of two things: You either knew it and were trying to trick me, or you didn't know it and you were just repeating what others have told you. I hope it's not one of those two things, perhaps you can set me straight, because this is a fairly fun debate but I don't debate with those who are that intellectually dishones.

Neither archeological nor paleontological evidence of horses here anywhere around 2000 years ago. re: archeological--no horse-drawn wagons, no saddles, no statues of horses, etc.

I do not appreciate being accused of dishonesty for stating things whose truth is well-supported. If we're going to start accusing people of dishonesty, how about claiming that the horse is a North American animal, and omitting--except for the relevant period?

How about instead we try to stick to finding out the truth of the matter, which is that none of the chief claims of the Book of Mormon are supported by archeological evidence.

 

[Autodidact]

Furthermore, "God" means "jelly dough nut" and "Jesus" means "a cup of coffee with cream, no sugar."

If Smith's "translation" is no better than this, the Book is equally unreliable for that reason.

 

[Autodidact]

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon fails to mention common North American animals that were here, such as the llama, alpaca, possum and Buffalo.

 

[SoyLeche]

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon fails to mention common North American animals that were here, such as the llama, alpaca, possum and Buffalo.

Given that it's unlikely that the BoM people ever saw a llama, alpaca or buffalo (I'm not sure about possum, but I'm not sure why I would assume that it would be mentioned even if they did see it), I don't see why that should be surprising.

 

[Autodidact]

Given that it's unlikely that the BoM people ever saw a llama, alpaca or buffalo (I'm not sure about possum, but I'm not sure why I would assume that it would be mentioned even if they did see it), I don't see why that should be surprising.

Because they are very common large mammals in North and South America, where these people supposedly immigrated to. Much of the Book of Mormon takes place in America, yet the animals described are entirely different from the actual animals present here.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Even most books in the Bible say nothing about the animals.

 

[Autodidact]

The Bible mentions 138 animals and animal products, most of them real and present in the Middle East, such as the ***, goat, cattle, sheep, oxen and so forth. Of course, it also mentions the unicorn and cockatrice, but Christians have their own apologetics for that.

In any case, the point is not that the Book of Mormon doesn't mention animals, it does. They just happen to be all the wrong animals, and none of the right ones.

 

[KingM]

Even most books in the Bible say nothing about the animals.

The point is that the Book of Mormon mentions animals like elephants, horses, sheep, cattle, pigs, and goats--all old world animals--but says nothing about jaguars, buffalo, or tapirs.

 

[Polaris]

So you also consider miscegnation to be a sin?

Nope.

As to it being only his opinion, not doctrine, you would then disagree with him when he said,

"I am here to give this people, called Latter-day Saints, counsel to direct them in the path of life...If there is any elder here, or any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (Brigham Young -Journal of Discourses, 16:161).

Brigham is specifically talking about "counsel to direct them in the path of life". He's not saying he's never spoken in error before; and he's not necessarily referring to his statements concerning legal policy or racial lineage.

And here you said Brigham Young did not espouse blood atonement. Do you agree or disagree with him when he said:

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins, and the smoking incense would atone for their sins"

How about: On February 8, 1857, Young said, regarding apostates, that "if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them"

I've already answered this.

And as for Young's racist doctrines:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."

It seems clear to me that this was a matter of Brigham's opinion. No other prophet taught this principle.

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.
The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.
This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed."

Again I have no reason to believe that this is nothing more than Brigham's opinion on the matter.

Remember, we were talking here about fruits. The fruits of Joseph Smith's writings, being so good, demonstrated their truth, their prophetic nature. But what of these fruits? What do they indicate?

A better measure of fruit is not in dissecting every word that a person says, but in how they lived their life and how they influenced the people around them.

While Brigham made several bold and even abrasive claims during his leadership, he taught many more good and honorable doctrines. You can get hung up over certain statements made by Brigham all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the Mormon people in general have always been a people of honesty and integrity. The large body of Mormons that adhere to the principles of the gospel as taught by both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young constitute one of the many good fruits of their efforts.

My point is about fruits. Some people, reading Joseph Smith's works, took them as an authorization, even a directive, to slit other people's throats. You may disagree with them, but they still have to be included as fruits, however rotten.

My point is about fruits too -- and not just limited to certain isolated events and statements, but the whole body of work.

Sorry, racism and murder really chap my thighs. In combination, they make me downright irritable.

Then you shouldn't be irritated at Mormon's because we've never condoned murder or racial bigotry.

 

[Polaris]

What archeology does tell us is that the inhabitants of the Americas migrated from Asia well before 5000 B.C.E. This is amply supported by DNA evidence. DNA evidence does not support recent migration of these peoples from the Near East.

Because they are very common large mammals in North and South America, where these people supposedly immigrated to. Much of the Book of Mormon takes place in America, yet the animals described are entirely different from the actual animals present here.

The problem is that we simply don't know exactly where they settled, how large their domain was, how many Lamanites actually survived the final wars, or who they happened to encounter and mix with. That makes it very difficult to prove anything. Archealogically speaking the jury is still out on the Book of Mormon.

 

[Autodidact]

The problem is that we simply don't know exactly where they settled, how large their domain was, how many Lamanites actually survived the final wars, or who they happened to encounter and mix with. That makes it very difficult to prove anything. Archealogically speaking the jury is still out on the Book of Mormon.

But we do know is that NO archeological evidence of ANY such settlements ANYWHERE in the Americas has ever been found. It's not a matter of proof, but of evidence. The evidence contradicts the book. Period. The only jury that is out is the Mormon apologist jury. No reputable mainstream archeologist (paleontologist, zoologist, etc.) finds that the evidence supports the truth of the BoM. Further, there is much evidence that directly contradicts it, specifically, DNA evidence.

 

[Polaris]

But we do know is that NO archeological evidence of ANY such settlements ANYWHERE in the Americas has ever been found.

We have no idea where to look.

It's not a matter of proof, but of evidence. The evidence contradicts the book. Period. The only jury that is out is the Mormon apologist jury.

No it doesn't. A lack of evidence for something where such little information is known in the first place is not a contradiction of the same. Archealogy has not proven the book to be true and it hasn't proven the book to be false, plain and simple -- therefore the jury is still out.

Further, there is much evidence that directly contradicts it, specifically, DNA evidence.

Again your supposing things that we simply don't know. We have no idea with whom the Lamanites mixed and we have no idea how many Lamanites survived -- therefore unless we can extract DNA from every native people in the Americas and accurately identify and assess every peice of their DNA code, you cannot claim any contradiction.

 

[Autodidact]

We have no idea where to look.

How about every place where people have lived in North America? We've looked in all 48 lower states, Mexico, Guatemala, Chile, Belize and everywhere else. We've found evidence of settlements all over both continents, hundreds of them, and none of them, repeat, none, revealed any evidence of the things described in the BoM. None.

Let's say I have a wonderful book about people who left Southern Africa and settled Europe 1500 years ago, who spread all over Europe, had epic battles, migrations, and many other interesting events. They domesticated kangaroos, captured Panda bears, used gunpowder to make fireworks, manufactured silk garments, organized great caravans of camels across France, ate chocolate and maize...Well, we've excavated Europe, and learned a lot about the people who have lived there for 20,000 years, and found no evidence of any of these things. Hey, it's possible--we just have to keep looking!
True, there don't appear to be African people in Europe before 1000 C.E. but hey, we really don't know how many, or where they went, or what happened to them...

If there were horses, cattle and so forth in pre-Columbian America, why did the Spaniards and others who settled the land not find them when they got here?
If there were ever Lamanites or Nephites in the Americas, they have disappeared without a trace.

And this is the archeology that supports this book, that should persuade us that its author is a Prophet of God???



No it doesn't. A lack of evidence for something where such little information is known in the first place is not a contradiction of the same. Archealogy has not proven the book to be true and it hasn't proven the book to be false, plain and simple -- therefore the jury is still out.



Again your supposing things that we simply don't know. We have no idea with whom the Lamanites mixed and we have no idea how many Lamanites survived -- therefore unless we can extract DNA from every native people in the Americas and accurately identify and assess every peice of their DNA code, you cannot claim any contradiction.[/quote]

 

[Autodidact]

We have no idea where to look.

How about: Pre-Columbian America?
As I understand it, there are two basic views, the traditional view, that the BoM refers to all of North and South America and all the people there, or the more recent view that it refers to only Southern Mexico and Central America. The first view flops because there is no such evidence anywhere in Pre-Columbian America, the latter because there is no such evidence in that smaller geographical area.

No it doesn't. A lack of evidence for something where such little information is known in the first place is not a contradiction of the same. Archealogy has not proven the book to be true and it hasn't proven the book to be false, plain and simple -- therefore the jury is still out.

But we have a lot of information. We have a whole book, which is more than we have about a lot of people. We know where they lived, their technology, metallurgy, agriculture and so forth--none of which existed on this continent.

The LDS Church claims in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon that the Lamanites, the last surviving Book of Mormon people, are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians."6 No non-Mormon specialist in New World archaeology supports the premise of a civilization of Hebrew immigrants in the pre-Columbian Americas as described in the Book of Mormon, and even many contemporary Mormon scholars no longer support the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Luke P. Wilson



Again your supposing things that we simply don't know. We have no idea with whom the Lamanites mixed and we have no idea how many Lamanites survived -- therefore unless we can extract DNA from every native people in the Americas and accurately identify and assess every peice of their DNA code, you cannot claim any contradiction.[/quote]

 

[Polaris]

How about every place where people have lived in North America?

We've identified EVERY single place where people have ever lived? Wow.

Let's say I have a wonderful book about people who left Southern Africa and settled Europe 1500 years ago, who spread all over Europe, had epic battles, migrations, and many other interesting events. They domesticated kangaroos, captured Panda bears, used gunpowder to make fireworks, manufactured silk garments, organized great caravans of camels across France, ate chocolate and maize...Well, we've excavated Europe, and learned a lot about the people who have lived there for 20,000 years, and found no evidence of any of these things. Hey, it's possible--we just have to keep looking!

A few flaws in your extremely sarcastic and disrespectful analogy:

We don't claim that the peoples of the BoM spread all over North and South America.
North and South America, by and large, have not been excavated.

And this is the archeology that supports this book, that should persuade us that its author is a Prophet of God???

I don't expect physical evidence of any kind to persuade you to believe anything. Only God can confirm spiritual truth. Archeological evidence cannot disprove the Book of Mormon -- but spiritual witness can confirm to the honest in heart that it's true.

 

[Polaris]

How about: Pre-Columbian America?
As I understand it, there are two basic views, the traditional view, that the BoM refers to all of North and South America and all the people there, or the more recent view that it refers to only Southern Mexico and Central America. The first view flops because there is no such evidence anywhere in Pre-Columbian America, the latter because there is no such evidence in that smaller geographical area.

Both of those are simply speculation.

But we have a lot of information. We have a whole book, which is more than we have about a lot of people. We know where they lived, their technology, metallurgy, agriculture and so forth--none of which existed on this continent.

We know exactly where they lived? Please do tell.

 

[madhatter85]

"a lack of evidence", is not the same as "evidence to the contrary". The Book of Mormon cannot be disproved with science.

Science also tries to disprove the Bible. but it can't.

the fact remains, that the Bible re-affirms the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Mormon re-affirms the Bible. If you claim one is false, you have claim the other, because they work together and they testify of the same truths.

 

[nutshell]

Who cares if it "really" happened???

It's about the Truth in the book - not whether events portrayed were real or not.

 

[mcteethinator]

Science also tries to disprove the Bible. but it can't.

I'm not quite sure where you got that idea.

Evolution, statements that the earth are flat, statements that rabbits chew their own cud, no evidence for Noah's worldwide flood, four-legged insects, stating that the earth is immobile, etc.

Religious texts are not meant to teach science, they're meant to teach religion. it's like reading Aesop's Fables literally.

 

[SoyBeane]

"a lack of evidence", is not the same as "evidence to the contrary". The Book of Mormon cannot be disproved with science.

Science also tries to disprove the Bible. but it can't.

the fact remains, that the Bible re-affirms the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Mormon re-affirms the Bible. If you claim one is false, you have claim the other, because they work together and they testify of the same truths.

I enjoy reading my Quad daily but honestly, the Bible (unlike the the Book of Mormon) does identify many real places that can be found on a map... Jerusalem, Damascus, Egypt, Rome, and Athens are real places... Unfortunately, nothing found in the Americas supports the kind of society described in the BofM... No nephite swords or breast plates have been found... We have no idea where Zarahemla is or any nephite cities were located... Even the Hill Cumorah location is debated by LDS archeologist.... Sorry to say so... but that's the truth...

If the Book of Mormon was proven false the Bible would still stand as it has for centuries...