Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[Autodidact]

Well, you said there was no unbiased opinion and your're right - in fact, your responses above demonstrate your own.

Here are my responses to the same:

1. The text has not been adjusted when one considers the introduction and head notes were not a part of the original gold plates. Those parts came from church leaders doing their best based on their scientific understanding. In other words, those parts were not divine, IMO. With new information comes adjustments, again, because it's based on academic understanding and not some revelation from God.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. One thing that I have learned about LDS is that for doctrinal reasons it has the ability to change its teaching, which is kind of neat for a revealed religion. So to a certain extent they have adjusted their interpretation to accomodate archeological findings, which is good. However, it is difficult to square their more recent interpretation with the text itself, because the BoM doesn't mention encountering any inhabitants in America, and it doesn't take into account the large numbers of descendants of immigrant groups described in the BoM. I mean, the BoM refers to millions of people--thousands slain in single battles. It talks about cities, and occupying the land from one end to the other. But all of this leaves zero DNA evidence and zero archeological evidence, which is a bit hard to swallow. And now they seem to waffling from "most" down to "some", (ancestry) when the evidence appears to say "none." I admit that "some" is closer to "none" than "most" is, but (1) the BoM itself seems to describe "most" (2) the evidence seems to indicate "none." So the current position, "some", seems like an uneasy compromise between two opposite positions.

2. We may find some evidence of what? Evidence does exist for the BoM.

If you have any persuasive archeological evidence that the assertions in the BoM are true, please bring it forth. None has been presented in the long thread, which is probably why no reputable archeologist believes it to be true.

3. I don't know what you mean by 3.

This refers to some specific posts in this thread, as for example that the floor plan of some Mayan temple seems to resemble the floor plan of the (IIRC) Temple of Solomon. Well, since the Mayans are clearly not BoM people, that's not really relevant, is it?

4. OK - if you're unwilling to make the effort then we can safely assume it's true.

No, what we can assume is that we don't know. In any case, to be correct about things we already knew is not so hard. It's being right about things we didn't already know that would have made some impact. Honestly, I've spent hours learning about this New World archeology stuff, and was pretty surprised to find out just how weak it was. I mean, it's obvious to anyone that nothing the BoM says about America is true. No immigrants came from the ANE to America 1400 years ago, there has no been smelting of metal, swords, cows, wheat, etc. etc., all those described in the BoM have left no trace in America. Not just some of it, almost all of it. The animals: wrong. The plants: wrong. The people: not mentioned. It just doesn't match the reality in the archeological record. But if you think it does, by all means bring it forth.

Now, I think we've had this discussion before, but I am not a BoM literalist. I find Truth in the text whether the events actually happened or not.

O.K., not my department. I'm into the objective reality thing.

 

[nutshell]

O.K., not my department. I'm into the objective reality thing.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later, but I wanted to respond now to your last line. You state you are for "the objective relity thing." Can you explain this further? Also, can you demonstrate what objective reality thing your personal sense of morality and purpose come from.

 

[Autodidact]

I'll respond to the rest of your post later, but I wanted to respond now to your last line. You state you are for "the objective relity thing." Can you explain this further? Also, can you demonstrate what objective reality thing your personal sense of morality and purpose come from.

I mean someone's personal spiritual truth, if they get that from the BoM, who am I to disagree? But the BoM purports to be an actual history of actual events that clearly did not happen. That I can disagree with.

Your second question is a total de-rail. In fact I do consider my ethics fairly objective, but the whole subject is more in that personal value and opinion area, not like an allegedly factual statement about historical events.

You are the second person here who has recently asked me about my allegedly reality-based ethics, so although that is really a personal, subjective subject about which disagreement is inevitable, maybe I'll try to start a thread on it.

 

[nutshell]

I mean someone's personal spiritual truth, if they get that from the BoM, who am I to disagree? But the BoM purports to be an actual history of actual events that clearly did not happen. That I can disagree with.

I know I'm splitting hairs, but I would argue that the Introduction purports the BoM to be an actual history of actual events. However, the BoM itself (that which was allegedly translated from gold plates) makes no such claim.

Your second question is a total de-rail. In fact I do consider my ethics fairly objective, but the whole subject is more in that personal value and opinion area, not like an allegedly factual statement about historical events.

I don't mean to derail. I apologize.

You are the second person here who has recently asked me about my allegedly reality-based ethics, so although that is really a personal, subjective subject about which disagreement is inevitable, maybe I'll try to start a thread on it.

I admit, I am curious, but considering the personal nature of such, please don't feel obliged to create a thread because two people asked about it.

 

[Melissa G]

It's not evidence that is found that is the problem, it is the evidence not found which is the problem, from your side of course. Autodidact has pointed this out in a crystal clear manner. There is no controvesy over a dearth of any supporting evidence for the assertions of the BOM. It's a matter of fact, that's all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Melissa

 

[sputnik323]

What evidence would ever be sufficient? How many times have "experts" changed positions on fundamental principles of our universe... It hasn’t' even been until this year that we can explain all fundamental forces in physics within 3 space dimensions and 1 time. -- the point is... people who argue and make claims about 'knowing' something are usually the ones who read something that someone else wrote on some other experts work. Archeology has given evidence of many things --- there are like 3 ancient cities buried below Mexico city! It is possible that many cultures arose and fell that we will never know about. They are still discovering Native American cultures in the united states... how much harder would it be to find things in the Amazon? ..... so my original question... what would ever be sufficient proof that the ancient culture did or did not exist? (not every culture built pyramids) And if there were sufficient evidence for you... what would you do about it?

 

[DeepShadow]

No, what we can assume is that we don't know. In any case, to be correct about things we already knew is not so hard. It's being right about things we didn't already know that would have made some impact.

Which is why I'm confused that you blew off so many things that were not known when the BoM was written: dozens of new proper names from the Amarna letters and Elephantine Papyri, both of which were discovered afterward; the Kurtz data on Hebrew speeches, discovered only a few decades ago. The Works of Ixtlitlxochitl languished in a dusty library for centuries before being translated into English. Are we to believe that Joseph had a Spanish-speaking accomplice who snuck over to Europe just to rummage though old books!?

There's plenty more:

* quellenlieder speeches were not known at the time of Joseph Smith, but a textbook case of one appears in the Book of Mormon. How do you explain this?

* no one had ever heard of writing on metal plates before, but we have dozens of examples now. How did Joseph know this type of writing existed?

* the ancient Iranian banner-epic was discovered after the Book of Mormon, yet Captain Moroni's Title of Liberty is a perfect proof text. How did Joseph Smith come up with this?

* the account of the remnant of Joseph's coat was discovered after publication, yet it is cited by Captain Moroni when he creates the Title of Liberty. How is this possible?

You've got to deal with things like these if you really want to claim that the Book of Mormon is a fraud, or that Joseph fabricated it. "Fraud" is an act; you must show participation in the act. If someone is on trial for murder, it's not enough for the prosecutor to demolish his alibi, if the defendant cannot be tied to the crime, he goes free.

Likewise, showing a lack of evidence in the Americas is not enough to cry fraud. You must explain how Joseph got any of these things right.

Before, you claimed these were coincidences. Consider that the Kurtz data alone would be validated only 1 in 20 factorial times (20*19*18*17...*5*4*3*2*). Adding the astronomical chance of matching a dozen or so dates from the Works of Ixtlilxochitl...and all six points of a quellenlider...and one wonders if the lack of data might be an easier coincidence.

I don't believe that the above is sufficent archaeological proof that the Book of Mormon is true. But saying it's a "fraud" is a positive statement. Burden of proof is on you to prove it's a fraud. And that means you need more than a coincidence cop-out. After all, if we're willing to entertain trillion-to-one coincidences, why not just allow the coincidence that all thes things really happened, but all the evidence happened to disappear?

(I know this was a long post, but I can offer source texts for any of the above. You need only ask!)

 

[Melissa G]

Who is this Captain Moron ? The list you supplied of names are * not * Egygtian proper names at all. They are Hebraic versions, such as one would expect in the OT. Nor can you say which of this hybrid names occurs in which Aramarna letters, and in what context. Just more Flim-Flam.

melissa g

 

[DeepShadow]

The list you supplied of names are * not * Egygtian proper names at all. They are Hebraic versions, such as one would expect in the OT. Nor can you say which of this hybrid names occurs in which Aramarna letters, and in what context. Just more Flim-Flam.

First of all, I've cited non-LDS authorities saying they are indeed Egyptian names. You've cited no one to the contrary beyond your own opinion.

Second, if these are, in fact, Hebraic versions of Egyptian names, doesn't that support the fact that these were Hebrews who used Egyptian language? Point for me.

Third, I can indeed cite more exactly which ones appear where. Jeez, I get locked out of the forums and you declare victory in my absence. This from the woman who said she wasn't afraid of anything, and to whom I offered months of time to do research. Pity you couldn't offer me the same.

P.S. Hybridized or not, these are authentic names that did NOT appear in the OT, and that DID appear in the Amarna letters and Elephantine papyri. Quibbling about whether they are Hebraic Egyptian or proper Egyptian does not change that.

 

[Bishka]

Who is this Captain Moron ?

First of all it's Captain Moroni.

Just more Flim-Flam.

Second, you haven't provided any contrary evidence.

 

[Autodidact]

Look, I'm not a Mormon and am not going to become one. I have a limited amount of time. I have spent a lot of it learning about archeological evidence that decimates the BoM. I am not going to become an expert of Egyptian names to discuss that. Someone else will have to take up that cudgel; I'm not interested. May I assume that you feel the same about New World archeology? In that case we have no common ground to discuss.

 

[madhatter85]

too bad archaeology does not disprove the Book of Mormon =/. nor does any other of the claims made against it.

Lack of evidence is not the same as Proof against.

 

[nutshell]

Look, I'm not a Mormon and am not going to become one. I have a limited amount of time. I have spent a lot of it learning about archeological evidence that decimates the BoM. I am not going to become an expert of Egyptian names to discuss that. Someone else will have to take up that cudgel; I'm not interested. May I assume that you feel the same about New World archeology? In that case we have no common ground to discuss.

I call this the "tuck your tail and run" technique. You know I'm not a literalist, and no one is asking you to become an expert. Rather, I think someone with an open mind might look at what DeepShadow has posted and be able to admit there is some evidence. Is it conclusory? Of course not. But neither is the other side.

 

[Melissa G]

Yes I have.

 

[Melissa G]

Further, it may of passed your notice, in your focus on Egyptian names, but the BOm is loaded with greek names, mistranslations and errors.

Linguistic Problems in Mormonism

Melissa G

 

[Melissa G]

too bad archaeology does not disprove the Book of Mormon =/. nor does any other of the claims made against it.

Lack of evidence is not the same as Proof against.

I'm afraid it is, if a work states that something is fact, and it has no corrobative evidence, then it is not fact, but hearsay.

 

[nutshell]

I'm afraid it is, if a work states that something is fact, and it has no corrobative evidence, then it is not fact, but hearsay.

Oh, really?

So, the world has always been round, but at one point, people believed it to be flat. There was, for some time, no evidence that the world was round. By your reasoning, that means the world really wasn't round because there was no corrobative evidence.

And, tell me, what's the definition of "hearsay," the word you used in your post?

 

[Melissa G]

The world was known to be round by the Greeks, a simple observation of the the Sun and Moon was enough, Also, they managed to work it out from observations made at Alexandria by measuring the shadow cast by an obelisk as the Sun moves on it's daily cycle.

Hearsay, unsupported subjective testimony.

 

[Bishka]

Further, it may of passed your notice, in your focus on Egyptian names, but the BOm is loaded with greek names, mistranslations and errors.

Linguistic Problems in Mormonism

Melissa G

Your relying on Richard Packham???

 

[nutshell]

The world was known to be round by the Greeks, a simple observation of the the Sun and Moon was enough, Also, they managed to work it out from observations made at Alexandria by measuring the shadow cast by an obelisk as the Sun moves on it's daily cycle.

Hearsay, unsupported subjective testimony.

Because it was known by some does not mean it was known by all. By your logic above, the LDS can claim they have made simple observations and know something you don't or vice versa.

Your definition of hearsay is wrong. And besides, none of us are in a courtroom.