• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Once again, the BoM...

tomspug

tomspug

Absorbant
Has anything... anything in the Book of Mormon been proven to have actually happened?

I'm not talking about possibilities. I'm talking about physical, geographical evidence. The events of the Book of Mormon take place approximately 2000-3000 years ago. We have plenty of evidence of civilizations far older.

The Bible, once again, coexists alongside ACTUAL history. The events it depicts... the Israel nation, the Babylonian Empire, the Assyrian Empire, the Roman Empire... they all existed. The wars the Bible depicts HAPPENED. The rulers claimed to have ruled these empires... did. There is no dispute, in these cases, because they complement history, not define it.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, attempts to define a history that no historian (other than the author of the BoM) has documented. There is no supplement beyond the non-scriptural. There is no reason for anyone other than followers to even suspect that the events depicted in the Book of Mormon are true.

No non-Mormon historian will ever talk about ancient civilizations in the Americas of Jewish lineage, because there is no history to consider. There is no documentation, there is no history, and there is no evidence.

Has anyone encountered any historian or scientist that is not Mormon that has ever attempted to defend the accounts in the BoM? I would love a source on this.
 
tomspug

tomspug

Absorbant
So your argument then is that there is no need for evidence and that archaeologists that dispute it are biased.
 
Last edited:
tomspug

tomspug

Absorbant
A brief Amazon search of how many amazing sources there are on the historicity of the Book of Mormon:
Amazon.com: Decoding Ancient America: A Guide to the Archaeology of the Book of Mormon: Diane Wirth: Books
A book about archaeology written by a Brigham Young Art major.

Amazon.com: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Volume 1 (Volume I): Ph. D. Milton R. Hunter: Books
A series of books about archaeology written by a major LDS church leader.

Amazon.com: Archaeology and the Book of Mormon: Jerald Tanner: Books
As mentioned above, a Christian author (not a historian/archaeologist) whose book primarily quotes actual historians and archaeologists. That being said, the book is universally perceived as an attack to the church (which it is). If you're actually interested in this book, there are plenty of sources that give opinions on whether or not the Tanners do a good job or not.

Amazon.com: The Divinity of the Book of Mormon Proven by Archaeology: Louise Palfrey: Books
I know nothing about the author, but the title is pretty telling...

Amazon.com: Other sheep: An examination of the rich and convincing evidences in the Bible, Egyptian and American archaeology ... relating to the Book of Mormon and early inhabitants of America: Roy E Weldon: Books
A "restoration witness" (in other words, not a scholarly figure).

And that's it...

No, really, those are ALL the books that came up. Which begs many questions...

1) Are people ignoring the Book of Mormon?

2) Does American archaeology (the actual science) even spark a remote interest in what the Book of Mormon has to say?

3) Why are there bounds upon bounds of books about the Bible's history and not the Book of Mormon?

4) Has anyone in the LDS church even remotely criticized the historicity of the Book of Mormon (and been allowed to publish)?
 
Apex

Apex

Somewhere Around Nothing
tomspug said:
How quaint and unexpected, the first author you suggest is a Mormon. At least I know I'll get a FULL understanding of the current state of the subject. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Sorry, I should have ready your OP more fully to see that you had no interest in actually discussing this subject. Shame on me.
 
Reverend Rick

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Tomspug, I just have to ask, are you considering becoming a Mormon and just need to resolve one last issue for yourself?

If not, could you explain your intentions for this thread?

Could it be that you believe after shining a light on on the BOM that all the LDS folks will convert?

Do you believe that RF needs another anti-Mormon thread?

I'm going to say this one time. You of all people should not have to have FAITH explained to you.

If you are genuinely wanting to learn about the Book of Mormon, I believe you are going about it the wrong way.

I for one hate it when people discredit the Bible because they can prove the world is older than 6,000 years. I believe the first seven days where not literal myself, but that is a leap of faith.

If we are going to put Joseph Smith under the microscope, let's put Paul under the same scrutiny as well.

I'm trying to be polite, does any of this make sense to you?
 
Smoke

Smoke

Done here.
misanthropic_clown said:
I'm sure you have probably been directed to Questions about Book of Mormon Evidence before. It is as good as you are going to get.
Click to expand...
In spite of that, it is premature to say that the Bible has been proven by archaeological findings. For example, there is not a trace of evidence for the story of the Exodus. Hundreds of thousands of Hebrews wandering through the Sinai peninsula should have left plenty of traces, but to date, there is no clear evidence (apart from the Bible) that they were ever there. There is no non-Biblical evidence for the existence of Moses or for Joseph, who was one of the great rulers in Egypt. There is no solid evidence for the existence of any of the great Patriarchs of the Bible, apart from sacred records. Critics can "safely" claim that these Biblical stories were created long after the alleged events they record. Likewise, most scientists will say that there is no credible evidence for the story of Noah's flood, for the Garden of Eden, or for the six-day creation.
​
All true. If, however, the argument is that the Book of Mormon is just as reliable, historically, as Genesis, that's not much of a defense.
If Genesis and Exodus are fabrications, then it really doesn't matter if we know that Jerusalem existed or that such-and-such a war took place. If the foundational doctrines of the Bible are based on fabricated legends (Eden and the fall of man, the Sinai covenant, the role of the House of Israel, the Messiah who would redeem man from the fall, etc.), then we have a serious problem.
​
Then you have a serious problem.
But we don't - for these accounts are true, and the Book of Mormon provides an independent witness of those truths.
​
Hardly. Especially since we have no ancient manuscript of the BoM.

Reverend Rick said:
If we are going to put Joseph Smith under the microscope, let's put Paul under the same scrutiny as well.
Click to expand...
An excellent idea. Rather than worrying about the Mormons, wouldn't Christians do well to subject their own beliefs to the same scrutiny to which they subject Mormon beliefs?
 
Katzpur

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Father Heathen said:
I for one applaud Tom's healthy skepticism and scrutiny. It keeps a person honest and truth need not fear it.
Click to expand...
I would applaud it, too, if he were doing what Smoke has suggested he do, and "subject [his] own beliefs to the same scrutiny to which [he subjects] Mormon beliefs." The answer to Tom's question is now what it has always been: No, there is no geographical or historical proof of the veracity of the Book of Mormon. There are evidences, and some of them are quite compelling, that is to someone who hasn't already made up his mind that the book is a fraud. Most of the Latter-day Saints on RF have been through this exercise so many times already that we simply aren't interested in repeating it one more time when we already know that it's going to lead nowhere.
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Katzpur said:
Most of the Latter-day Saints on RF have been through this exercise so many times already that we simply aren't interested in repeating it one more time when we already know that it's going to lead nowhere.
Click to expand...
What is really comical are the ones who think that the reason you guys do not repy is because they won.

*cough*Fish-Hunter*cough*
 
misanthropic_clown

misanthropic_clown

Active Member
tomspug said:
So your argument then is that there is no need for evidence and that archaeologists that dispute it are biased.
Click to expand...

My argument is, as has been brought to light, that if you are going to hold up the LDS members of this thread to any burden of proof with regards to the claim there was indeed an evolved civilisation which fits the profile of those written about in the Book of Mormon, you would be reasonably expected to hold your own beliefs accountable to similar factual burden. Both of us would fail to pursuade any skeptic of our own beliefs by historical or archaeological means (though there are compelling evidences).

I consider you intelligent enough to have known this before you posted, and I assumed you were interested in locating information on the topic. It is obvious that mormons are going to have the greatest interest in researching this topic, which is why the research is predominately mormon led. However, to dismiss the research out of hand for simply being performed by a Mormon is a fallacy I assumed you to be above.
 
DeepShadow

DeepShadow

White Crow
The problem as to archeological evidences from non-LDS sources is partly a matter of definitions: what do you call a person who believes the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record of the Americas? I call them a Mormon. Therefore, any person who would be on the "pro" side of this argument would be open to ad hominim. Convenient.

The problem goes deeper, into the very protractic nature of the Book of Mormon. Its very nature demands a judgement. Anyone who knows enough about it to analyze it this thoroughly has to have formed an opinion, either for or against. Therefore, the only truly objective (meaning unbiased) viewpoint is that of plain ignorance, which has its own obvious faults.

The only way to analyze something so protractic is to demand fairness of both sides, which is what we are doing when we ask you to use the same criteria on yourself.
 
tomspug

tomspug

Absorbant
Reverend Rick said:
I'm going to say this one time. You of all people should not have to have FAITH explained to you.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you need faith explained to you, Rick. I would be incredibly surprised to find that your faith was based on beliefs for which evidence is CONTRARY to the truth.

To believe in something for which there is no evidence and cannot be (miracles, for example) is one thing. To believe in something for which there SHOULD be evidence is quite another.

In response to Apex, the original post specifically requested non-Mormon historical sources. If you're unwilling to provide them, then it is you who is refusing to participate in discussion, not myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top