Once again, the BoM...

[tomspug]

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?

I have no shortage of scrutiny for my own religion. I consider it a duty of faith, my question is whether or not LDS consider it a duty of theirs.

 

[tomspug]

However, to dismiss the research out of hand for simply being performed by a Mormon is a fallacy I assumed you to be above.

Too true. However, you have to understand the honesty of my response to book's whose conclusions are evident before the binding is even opened.

I must redirect my intentions. This thread was not about PROOF, it was about interest. Most of us can agree that science is not anti-religion, in general, it is an unbiased machine of human curiosity. It is for this very reason that there is so much discussion on the historicity of the Bible. People find the stories either fascinating or unbelievable and set out to determine whether or not they are true.

What I find odd is how ignored the Book of Mormon is by the world, for whatever reason. You see, this is where my interest is focused, not on the truth of the Book of Mormon, which is the realm of belief, but on the history itself... why it is not discussed, why it is not relevant to the world. It appears, in general, to be simply ignored.

 

[Watchmen]

What historical evidence is there that Christ actually existed, suffered for the sins of the world on the cross, and was raised up three days later?

Don't kill the messenger.

 

[tomspug]

What historical evidence is there that Christ actually existed, suffered for the sins of the world on the cross, and was raised up three days later?

Don't kill the messenger.

Quite a bit, actually. He's mentioned by multiple non-Christian historians. Obviously, they don't include the resurrection part.

 

[Watchmen]

Quite a bit, actually. He's mentioned by multiple non-Christian historians. Obviously, they don't include the resurrection part.

Really? Aren't there many other historians that label Christ a myth?

 

[LittleNipper]

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?

I believe the first 7 days were literal, when one considers the Hebrew formality with which GOD choose to have HIS Word presented. That is beside the point. The Bible is at least a 4000 year old text which has locations that can be investigated on a map.

The bom is a 180 some odd year old text which claims to be about 2000 years old and it receives absolutely NO CREDIBILITY from any of the people, traditions, or histories one can inspect concerning the New World.

This is not so with the Bible in the least. In fact, archeologists have and do use the Bible to try to prove it either right or in error. They have not proven it to be in error. The very same cannot be said concerning the bom. They find a serious lacking of anything concrete.

 

[LittleNipper]

Really? Aren't there many other historians that label Christ a myth?

There are pagan historians that considered CHRIST a trouble maker. Was Herod real? What of Pilot? There are far more eyewitness accounts of JESUS than most of the ancient histories we hold as fact.

 

[Smoke]

I must redirect my intentions. This thread was not about PROOF, it was about interest. Most of us can agree that science is not anti-religion, in general, it is an unbiased machine of human curiosity. It is for this very reason that there is so much discussion on the historicity of the Bible. People find the stories either fascinating or unbelievable and set out to determine whether or not they are true.

What I find odd is how ignored the Book of Mormon is by the world, for whatever reason. You see, this is where my interest is focused, not on the truth of the Book of Mormon, which is the realm of belief, but on the history itself... why it is not discussed, why it is not relevant to the world. It appears, in general, to be simply ignored.

According to Mormon teaching, the plates were divinely revealed, the translation divinely inspired, and then the plates were taken away again. That's not a story that's likely to be taken seriously by very many serious historians. What historical investigation there has been, outside Mormon circles, has naturally focused more on Joseph Smith and his followers than on the historical claims of the BoM itself. If you're not a Scientologist, you aren't going around looking for evidence of Xenu. If you're not a Christian, you aren't trying to prove the historicity of the Resurrection. These are the kinds of claims that are rejected out of hand by people who aren't believers. Non-believers who do come to believe in them, for some reason, tend to become believers.

Really? Aren't there many other historians that label Christ a myth?

There are quite a few writers who do, but very few real historians.

 

[Smoke]

The Bible is at least a 4000 year old text which has locations that can be investigated on a map.

I hope you don't mean the whole Bible. Since it records events that took place less than 2,000 years ago, that is quite obviously not true. What is less obvious, but nevertheless apparent to those who study the Bible seriously, is that no part of it is 4,000 years old, or even close.

TThe bom is a 180 some odd year old text which claims to be about 2000 years old and it receives absolutely NO CREDIBILITY from any of the people, traditions, or histories one can inspect concerning the New World.

This is not so with the Bible in the least. In fact, archeologists have and do use the Bible to try to prove it either right or in error. They have not proven it to be in error. The very same cannot be said concerning the bom. They find a serious lacking of anything concrete.

You realize, of course, that you are applying different standards to the Bible and the Book of Mormon. In the case of the Bible, you are content to claim that archaeology doesn't prove the Bible wrong, but in the case of the Book of Mormon, you demand that archaeology prove it correct.

In any case, when archaeologists do find something that seems to contradict the Bible, Bible believers don't accept that evidence; they get right to work contriving reasons why the archaeologists must be wrong.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

no part of it is 4,000 years old, or even close.

Just to stick my nose in where it doesn't belong, I think the Bible recounts some verbal histories that are even older than 4,000 years. One of these is Noah which I'm sure is a memory of an ancient flood of some kind that wiped out several cultures at the same time.

But I did get your meaning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe the first 7 days were literal, when one considers the Hebrew formality with which GOD choose to have HIS Word presented. That is beside the point. The Bible is at least a 4000 year old text which has locations that can be investigated on a map.

The Book of Mormon mentions plenty of locations that can be investigated on a map as well: Jerusalem, Egypt, the Red Sea, Babylon, etc.

This is not so with the Bible in the least. In fact, archeologists have and do use the Bible to try to prove it either right or in error. They have not proven it to be in error.

Actually, they have. The two big ones (at least in my mind) are these:

- evidence strongly indicates the Exodus never happened. It's not just a matter of lack of evidence for it, there's actually evidence against it.

- nowhere but the Bible is it mentioned that King Herod ordered a slaughter of the infant boys of Judea.

The very same cannot be said concerning the bom. They find a serious lacking of anything concrete.

Right... as opposed to the Bible, where many of the side details have some basis in history, but where the lack of concrete facts is only constrained to the fundamental support of the theology it presents.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Non-believers who do come to believe in them, for some reason, tend to become believers.

lol... My thoughts exactly.

My answer, tom, no one wants to waste their time proving a religion wrong. I mean, look. If you're not LDS, you probably don't believe the Book of Mormon is true. You think Joseph Smith was up in the night. Why would I go around wasting my time trying to prove that the Book of Mormon was false? What would be gained, by anyone? And if you do think the Book of Mormon was true, no one's going to believe you. Besides, it's kind of hard to prove it either way. What do you expect someone to do, go around and image every inch of North and South America with ground penetrating radar to prove there's nothing there? Even if you did, would it change what people believe?

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Another thought. Maybe pertinent, maybe not. The way the Book of Mormon was brought forth creates a totally different atmosphere surrounding it than the Bible. I mean, if you verify a location in the Bible, no harm done. It doesn't prove it either way. Such work is a lot safer to publish. I don't imagine it would be the same to, say, discover the ruins of a temple built after the same plan as Solomons in mesoamerica that contained Jewish and Egyptian records. You know what I mean? The Book of Mormon's forces it to be a kind of all or nothing. Either it was totally made up, or it was completely factual. No middle ground like the Bible.

 

[TEXASBULL]

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.

I have read a bunch of back and forth, but has anyone answered this question that was in the OP? Instead of taking it as a " personal attack" why can't you just produce someone or say, there is none? A true scientist would not care either way, the evidence is there or its not.

 

[Katzpur]

I have read a bunch of back and forth, but has anyone answered this question that was in the OP? Instead of taking it as a " personal attack" why can't you just produce someone or say, there is none? A true scientist would not care either way, the evidence is there or its not.

I think several of us have said there is no hard and fast proof, just evidence that some people find compelling and that others don't. We probably take it as a "personal attack" since it keeps coming up again and again. We just get tired of answering the same questions (by the same people) multiple times. So it's not so much that we take it personally as it is that we know when certain people are trying to pick a fight. Welcome to RF, by the way!

 

[tomspug]

So it's not so much that we take it personally as it is that we know when certain people are trying to pick a fight.

There's a difference between someone picking a fight and someone who asks questions that are challenging. The topic has yet to take on any negative tones (other than the ones you project with your imagination) and the conversation between RF members is calm and intelligent. Of course, it would be nice if LDS members would engage in the topic, but it's certainly not a requirement of the OP...

If you feel like I'm picking a fight, then don't reply. It's that simple.

 

[Smoke]

There's a difference between someone picking a fight and someone who asks questions that are challenging. The topic has yet to take on any negative tones (other than the ones you project with your imagination) and the conversation between RF members is calm and intelligent. Of course, it would be nice if LDS members would engage in the topic, but it's certainly not a requirement of the OP...

If you feel like I'm picking a fight, then don't reply. It's that simple.

You've been around long enough, and people know you well enough, that most people probably don't see you as picking a fight. But the thing is, anytime the Book of Mormon is discussed there are always people who are just picking a fight, who haven't thought out their position and (probably for that reason) are absolutely certain they can disprove Mormon beliefs in a couple minutes. People who believe things that are every bit as unsupported by evidence as Mormonism never see any irony at all in demanding evidence from Mormons, or denigrating Mormons for not having proof of their beliefs. It's a rare Mormon who doesn't find it tiresome responding to the same stupid arguments all the time.

I have a pretty good idea what it's like, because gay people get the same treatment. There's always some moron giving you some argument against being gay that demonstrates that they neither know the facts nor give any serious thought to their opinions. After about the thousandth time you've heard the same stupid comments, you tend to get impatient.

 

[Katzpur]

Tom, I wouldn't say that you're picking a fight, but Smoke's post (#37) just before this one explains what I was trying to say better than I did. (It seems like he does that a lot. I should probably just let him talk for me.) I did respond to your OP and say that there is no hard and fast proof that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. There is evidence that it is, although most of it is definitely not archeological or historical (which is what you appeared to be looking for) To me, the cultural and linguistic evidence is absolutely fascinating, but that's not to say it would be to you. The reason I didn't bother to expound on this evidence is that it would require that I post a series of links (which most people wouldn't bother to read), do a bunch of cutting and pasting (which I find to be an absolute cop-out) or take the time to write a lengthy explanation in my own words. When I was done with that, you or someone else would just say something like, "That's immaterial. Where are the chariots?" I've just spent too many hours in the past four or five years researching and posting answers that are disregarded without a second thought. I'm tired of the game and I suspect most of the LDS on RF are, too.

 

[idea]

The new world stuff is a guess, the old world stuff is concrete though. Scroll down, watch the vids:
Book of Mormon geography/Old World - FAIRMormon

again, repeat, the only way to know is to read/pray about it.

With all the time people spend on these threads. Why not just pick up a copy and read it? You can get one for free you know.
Mormon.org - Free Book of Mormon
or read it online
Scriptures

online version has all the cross refs to the Bible/topical guide/study helps etc.

The first time through though, I think just read it without worrying about all the cross refs. They could become a distraction, but that is just me.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I don't think its helpful to occlude the facts: there is a reliable archaeology that the civilizations accounted for in the Bible actually existed. Does the archaeology substantiate the Biblical tales? Many of them, no, and some of them are flatly contradicted. Figures like the Patriarchs vanish into the mists of history and while many speculate that there was some kind of "Exodus-event", it certainly acquired legendary proportions.

But other keys events we are certain of: the Babylonian Exile, the historical existence of the Prophets, the Temple's reconstruction, the existence of a historical Jesus...

In my personal opinion, the Bible records historical events remembered according to their perceived theological significance. Faith, therefore, is a necessary prerequisite for reading the history of the region as bearing God's imprint.

This does not seem to me to be an immediate parallel to the state that the BOM finds itself in. Do students taking history, for example, learn of a mysterious civilization on North American soil in which the events of the BOM are purported to have taken place? Is even the historical context to be taken on faith?