What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

[OmarKhayyam]

I have a question for you Omar. I take the Book of Mormon seriously. Are you calling me stupid? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I have been informed I cannot answer and stay within the rules.

 

[Autodidact]

Omar: You're wrong. Perfectly intelligent people are capable of believing incredibly silly things, especially if it's drummed into them before the age of reason. Michael Shermer wrote a book about it.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Omar: You're wrong. Perfectly intelligent people are capable of believing incredibly silly things, especially if it's drummed into them before the age of reason. Michael Shermer wrote a book about it.

I understand that Auto and do believe it to be true.:yes:

BUT

It seems to me a sign of intellectual maturity is the ability to recognize evidence and the implications of that evidence. And further to realize when that evidence contradicts what one had previously thought to be true one is required to change one's mind.

Indeed none of us are quick to discard long held cherished beliefs. Nor should we be. They were adopted (one hopes!) for good and sound reasons. But "Good reasons must of course give way to better."

And the failure to do so is . . .

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you. I couldn't have said it better....:clap

You did a very good job of patting Autodidact on the head, but you didn't even attempt to respond to my question. How would we know whether we were looking at archeological evidence that tied to the Book of Mormon people as opposed to any other group of people living in the ancient Americas? What might you expect to find that would be distinctively Nephite or Lamanite? If you can't answer those questions, how can you say that nothing has been found?

 

[Autodidact]

You did a very good job of patting Autodidact on the head, but you didn't even attempt to respond to my question. How would we know whether we were looking at archeological evidence that tied to the Book of Mormon people as opposed to any other group of people living in the ancient Americas? What might you expect to find that would be distinctively Nephite or Lamanite? If you can't answer those questions, how can you say that nothing has been found?

I did answer it.
The BoM describes enormous battles involving thousands of soldiers using steel swords, armor, chariots, shields and so forth. Had these things happened, we would expect to see archeological remains of many human skeletons and horse skeletons interspersed with steel weapons, armor and so forth. A lot of stuff, too big to hide.

BoM people raise cattle and horses, use steel, eat wheat and barley and so forth. So we would expect to see archeological remmants of a substantial metallurgical culture, with smelters, forges, anvils, and so forth. We would expect to see bones of these animals from this time period. And finally, their descendant's DNA would resemble that of ANE people more than Siberian and Northern Chinese people. There should also be some linguistic remnant, some people somewhere in America who speak a language related to Hebrew, Aramaic or Egyptian in some way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm going to respond to this post simply because you and I have never really had a dialogue before. I always like to at least give people a chance to show that they can converse respectfully with me before simply writing them off. Most of the time, such conversations prove fruitless, so I lose interest in pursuing them pretty early on. We'll see how you and I do...

It is true that there is no archeological "proof" for the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, a number of our critics arguments against the plausibility of the book have, over the years, been disproven as new evidence comes to light. For years, people insisted that there was no evidence of cement in the ancient Americas. That's been refuted. They claimed there was no evidence for pre-Columbian barley. There is. For years, honey bees were said not to exist in the New World until introduced by Europeans. We now know that that's a false assumption. Do any of these things prove the Book of Mormon to be true? Of course not, but we're not claiming they do.

But can you link all of the responses to these sorts of objections together? One weakness that I've seen with this approach is that it tends to lump disparate groups all together. The Book of Mormon describes a few distinct groups, each with their own characteristics... OTOH, it seems to me that the Mormon responses have pulled their evidence from many sources without regard to consistency; I mean, in general terms, if the BoM describes a group that has characteristics A and B, it doesn't really do a whole lot for you to point at evidence in one part of the continent for characteristic A (in a group that didn't have characteristic B) and evidence somewhere else for characteristic B (in a group that didn't have characteristic A).

Of course there have been some pretty interesting discoveries that, to people who do believe the book are pretty interesting -- things such as ancient Mayan temples that are almost identical in terms of design and porportion to ancient Hebrew temples.

Which Hebrew temples and which Mayan temples? What aspects of the design and proportion are similar?

Also, the Mayan civilization dates from 2000 BC to 900 AD. What time period are the temples from? Were they constructed before or after the purported arrival of Hebrews in the Americas?

The linquistic and cultural aspects of the Book of Mormon are far more compelling than the archeological evidence is, but our critics -- people who are looking for a smoking gun in the form of an ancient sign that says, "Zarahemla city limits" -- refuse to even be bothered to consider other proofs. Chiasmus, for instance, and numerous Hebraisms unknown to scholars in the early 19th century are fascinating evidence, in my opinion, that the people who wrote the book had a Semitic background.

Hmm. The more I look into these sorts of claims, the less impressed I am.

I remember a while back in another thread, I came up with an idea that DeepShadow seemed receptive to: examine Moby Dick for the same sorts of linguistic and cultural aspects that are claimed as evidence that the Book of Mormon and see how many appear there as well. I picked Moby Dick because Herman Melville lived around the same time as Joseph Smith, and both grew up in New York with only limited education.

I very quickly realized that it would be a huge task to comb through all of Moby Dick, and I ended up abandoning the idea just because of lack of time, but I did look at one claim: DeepShadow's list of the elements of an "ancient Hebrew farewell speech", which apparently some part of the Book of Mormon scores very highly on.

In Moby Dick, there's a sort of foreword or prologue called "Extracts", in which the tale of a sub-sub-librarian is given as the preface to a list of quotes about whales. By my measure, it has 16 of DeepShadow's 20 elements (and DeepShadow's source noted that no historical example can be found with all 20).

As for Chiasmus, I think that many works would rate highly that were written with the concept of "Nemesis" or "the Wheel of Fortune" that figures prominently in Shakespeare's writings.

The more I look at this, the more it seems to me that the "linguistic" evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is more a matter of counting the hits and ignoring the misses, or the result of a bias that comes from only looking at the BoM but not other books. Of course there will be some elements that the BoM will share with ancient Hebrew works... pick any two written texts and you will be able to find something in common. The question isn't whether you can find similarities between ancient Hebrew writings and the BoM; the question is whether they occur in the BoM at a greater rate than would happen by random coincidence.

I don't expect you to be convinced, but the fact is, to claim that there is NO EVIDENCE when there is, is simply dishonest. There is obviously evidence for ancient civilizations existing on the American continent.

I think it's more a matter of claiming that there's no evidence to support picking the Book of Mormon over the conventional theories of history and archaeology. Stuff that's common to both (e.g. the mere fact that ancient civilizations did exist on the American continent) doesn't really fit that bill.

I'm just wondering what it would take to convince you that some of these ancient cities, fortresses and temples were built by the people described in the Book of Mormon. You're so insistent that they aren't; surely you have some criteria in mind that, if met, would cause you to think twice. I'd like to know what it is. What factors would say, "This city was built or even occupied by the people mentioned in the Book of Mormon"? How would the cities of the Nephites be distinctive?

Off the top of my head, here's evidence that would be of interest:

- some sort of archaeological link to Old World culture. For instance, maybe their style of pottery, weaving or building construction. Something that occured in the Middle East, but doesn't appear in the New World until the Book of Mormon says that Hebrews arrived.

- genetic evidence. If Hebrews came to ancient Mesoamerica, we should be able to see this in the DNA of modern-day indigenous people somewhere in the Americas.

- actual linguistic evidence. I don't think there's any direct evidence for "Reformed Egyptian", but translations of written works often contain artifacts of their original language. Does anything about the Book of Mormon (e.g. grammar, word choice, sentence structure, etc.) show a link to Egyptian language that can't be explained otherwise?

- writing. You jokingly mentioned a sign that says "Zarahemla City Limits", but it would be nice to see any example anywhere in the pre-Columbus Americas of "Reformed Egyptian" or Hebrew.

 

[LittleNipper]

Actually, through the spirit. The prophet never said "take my word for it" he said (in essence), "Here is truth, you can be sure of it for yourselves through prayer."

BUT, your prophet did/does say, "Here is truth." If one is not impressed that it is the truth after prayer and Bible comparison (showing one's self approved), then what?

 

[LittleNipper]

A thing is not necessarily a lie, even if it didn't happen.

This totally makes me want to vomit. I can only shake my head and throw up my hands...

 

[LittleNipper]

All the defenses have already been stated. Mostly the argument is that the Book of Mormon is infallible because of the good impact it has on people's lives. People read it and they feel really good and inspired and the whole course of their life changes for the better. It's true because it feels true; you pray and ask God if it is true and you feel a "stirring of the spirit" or a "burning in your bosom" which indicates that God is saying "Yes it's true and everything".

I refer you to Moroni 10 verses 3 through 6:
3 Behold,I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.
(My Mormon friend who gave me a copy of the Book of Mormon referred me to those verses.)

That is the test you are supposed to use. That is the book's defense. When you pray to God with humbleness and sincerity in asking if it's true, you get the confirmation you're looking for. God is TELLING you that it is true. What more proof does one need?

Does the Book of Mormon have a good impact on people lives, or does it make them feel good about themselves? What makes JESUS the CHRIST? How does one know that what one is feeling is from GOD? Perhaps it is from a god?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You did a very good job of patting Autodidact on the head, but you didn't even attempt to respond to my question. How would we know whether we were looking at archeological evidence that tied to the Book of Mormon people as opposed to any other group of people living in the ancient Americas? What might you expect to find that would be distinctively Nephite or Lamanite? If you can't answer those questions, how can you say that nothing has been found?

Considering this is the middle of my work day (east coast time)..I chime in from time to time. I was not able to address you but Auto said basically everything I wanted to say so her words echo my thoughts and I agree with her. For me to repeat it would not have made sense. Additionally I side with archeologist, Egyptologist, anthropologist, geologist, biologist......etc...ALL of them "outside" of the Mormon church who have all said in one way or another that there is no evidence the people, as described in the BoM, existed.....whether here in North America or South America. Any attempt to connect the native American (any of the tribes) or the Myan people to Israelites has shown to be incorrect.

 

[LittleNipper]

How about you just come out and list every single LDS member on this forum and call each of us stupid by name? Are you a big enough man to do that?

The Bible says to call no one a fool ----- but blinded or confused is a very strong possibility... No one is saved by their church affiliation or book promotion.

 

[Watchmen]

This totally makes me want to vomit. I can only shake my head and throw up my hands...

Steinberg (one of the greatest English authors of our time) said it - not me. See my sig.

Still want to vomit?

 

[Humanistheart]

The bigger question is, is anybody even listening to anybody else? Humanistheart, surely you must realize that debates such as this one have been taking place on RF long before you ever showed up. If RF is still around ten years from now, dozens more debates just like this one will have taken place. At any given time, there is probably at least one thread on RF in which somebody is trying to disprove Mormonism, and by the time twenty or so posts have been made, that thread will be going exactly where this one is going -- around in circles. Nobody wins these debates, whether they last for 100 posts or 1000.

I disagree. The debate has already been won. Massive amounts of evidence have been presented against the BoM. All mormon attempts to defend it have been countered. Simply saying a book has truth in it because it makes someones life better or what have you is not winning the debate, it's admitting your wrong and putting a postive spin on it. When there's not one tiny bit of evidence for the BoM or Smith the 'debate' can safely be said to have been won, and all the extra posts by lds members are just that; extra.

 

[Humanistheart]

The Bible says to call no one a fool ----- but blinded or confused is a very strong possibility... No one is save by their church affiliation or book promotion.

Littlenipper, where in the bible does it say this? Jesus called people fools on many occasions. Either your wrong on your interpretation or jesus is simply a hypocrite. But that's an entirely seperate topic.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

No objective reader following this thread can think the defenders of the BoM have established anything. Except that they believe because they want to. Beyond that they proven nothing, nor presented much evidence for anything, just repeated their mantra.

Not good enough.

 

[Watchmen]

Katzpur referenced plenty of evidence for the Book of Mormon. One does not win a debate by simply saying you're wrong - we win.

 

[Sententia]

Katzpur referenced plenty of evidence for the Book of Mormon. One does not win a debate by simply saying you're wrong - we win.

??? I shall assume you mean this and the reply which is clearly addressing Katzpur's post and clearly not simply saying "You're Wrong, we Win."?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1766887-post686.html

Honestly mate people have run up and down this debate and you yourself have concluded the stories have a truth even if they didn't happen.

Aesop's fables have truth as well. So does this post. Every episode of GI Joe and Thundercats had truth in it as well. (Being a cartoon and fictional the truth was clearly conveyed allegorically unless we are to believe the events of those cartoons were based on true stories)

One thing to embrace when you believe purely on faith, every day until the unfortunate day one finally dies is that you'll never know you were wrong. If an atheist is wrong then they'll find out and there is nothing worse then not knowing. (What was that allegorical story about in genesis?)

 

[Autodidact]

Katzpur referenced plenty of evidence for the Book of Mormon. One does not win a debate by simply saying you're wrong - we win.

Nne wins, as has been done in this thread, by showing that the evidence does not support the conclusion, but its opposite. That far from there being linguistic evidence in favor of the BoM, it is overwhelming against it, in that there is no evidence whatsoever of any American pre-Columbian people speaking any language related in any way to Hebrew, Aramaic or Egyptian. Or, again, that the tiny hints of a possibility intimated by Katzpur, such as that a couple of seeds of a form of barley was found in Arizona, does not help her case in any way, since she would agree there were never any Lamanites in Arizona, and the Indians who lived in Arizona were not Lamanites. Or that her own authority (LDS leadership) contradicts her assertion that there was honey in Pre-Columbian America, claiming rather that the BoM does not say there was. And so forth and so on.

But the conclusive point is that when Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Atheist and Mormon archeologists go into the field, and dig up America from one end to the other, they never find evidence of the people described in the BoM, and never conclude that they people they are studying are those people.

Despite the fact that the BoM describes millions of people, engaging in huge battles involving thousands of soldiers using steel and other artifacts that would survive in huge numbers, as well as numerous chariots, herds of cattle and horses, and other things that could not happen without leaving evidence.

Which is why Mormons are reduced to mere hope, asserting their faith that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" when it clearly is (that is, when you would expect evidence to be present) and ignoring the enormous presence of literal tons of evidence, all of which support a quite opposite conclusion.

 

[astarath]

I find the above post relating to the discovery of physical proof to support the stories in the BoM dead on. The bible, koran, and torah all have archaeolgical proofs in the regions and locations that support some or all of scenarios depicted in their works. The complete lack of archeaolgical discoveries in support of the BoM is staggering and the clearest deterence to anyone analysing LDS

 

[LittleNipper]

Steinberg (one of the greatest English authors of our time) said it - not me. See my sig.

Still want to vomit?

John Steinbeck was a socialist ----- he certainly didn't write from a christian point of view. He wrote some interesting novels. I had to read Of Mice & Men and Grapes of Wrath in high school. I liked the books, but I would not hang my hat on everything he ever said...