• 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!

What is odd about the Book of Mormon?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
No. Opinions were presented. What you consider evidence has been dealt with. I'm not interested in opinion from an apologist.

If the people you present are accredited scholars, archeologist and anthropologist etc. then I'm all ears, but know, their findings should be reviewed and scrutinized by their colleagues in their field. This would mean that if you present and LDS scholar or Archeologist then we should find agreement from their peers.

For now the LDS have supposed know it alls representing them but it appears their work isn't peer reviewed. To me that's a problem.

"Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology." John E. Clark, Professor of anthropology, BYU, Director of NWAF, Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol 14, No. 2, 2005 p.42 The entire article is titled "Archeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief" published by FARMS 2005."


There is no way you guys should be letting people like this speak for you. FARMS - Peer review and scholarly credentials



I could live with this if the Mormons went on record and asserted that e.g.the Mayans were the BoM people. Then we could test their DNA, examine their artifacts and ruins, record their language, and come to a conclusion as to whether that was the case. My experience (not in this thread, but at this forum) is that the LDS never go on record as saying where they think these events occurred or which people they believe to be Lamanites. Over the last century, it's gone from all Native Americans and all of America to an unknown, unspecifiable, but apparently tiny location. Thus in it becomes an unfalsifiable proposition.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
A thought occurred to me last night. The BoM asserts that ancient Israelites immigrated from the ANE and spread over the Americas, increasing until there were millions of them.

Set aside for a moment that these population figures are impossible.

Set aside that these millions of people seem to have vanished in a poof by the time the Europeans got here, and were not present by the 16th century. So they went from a few to a few million to none over a few centuries.

Set aside that there were already millions of people living here long before they got here, whom they seem to have either not noticed or not bothered mentioning in their book.

Set aside that they left no archeological record of their existence, which is physically impossible.

What would a place look like if Jews immigrated there from the ANE and spread across it? Hello...Europe from the first through 18th centuries, when Jews left Israel, immigrated to Europe and dispersed across it, mixing with existing populations there to varying degrees?

What did we see? Groups of people who continued to practice Judaism, although in a different form, who maintained the ability to read, write and speak Hebrew, although a variation of Ancient Hebrew. People who built synagogues. People who copied the Torah and carried it with them even as they moved from one place to another. And, of course, people whose DNA carried certain markers of their semitic forebears.

Did we see any of this in 17th century America?
 

Humanistheart

Well-Known Member
A thought occurred to me last night. The BoM asserts that ancient Israelites immigrated from the ANE and spread over the Americas, increasing until there were millions of them.

Set aside for a moment that these population figures are impossible.

Set aside that these millions of people seem to have vanished in a poof by the time the Europeans got here, and were not present by the 16th century. So they went from a few to a few million to none over a few centuries.

Set aside that there were already millions of people living here long before they got here, whom they seem to have either not noticed or not bothered mentioning in their book.

Set aside that they left no archeological record of their existence, which is physically impossible.

What would a place look like if Jews immigrated there from the ANE and spread across it? Hello...Europe from the first through 18th centuries, when Jews left Israel, immigrated to Europe and dispersed across it, mixing with existing populations there to varying degrees?

What did we see? Groups of people who continued to practice Judaism, although in a different form, who maintained the ability to read, write and speak Hebrew, although a variation of Ancient Hebrew. People who built synagogues. People who copied the Torah and carried it with them even as they moved from one place to another. And, of course, people whose DNA carried certain markers of their semitic forebears.

Did we see any of this in 17th century America?

Not to mention that it only took a small handful of people on the first voyage to the american main land to spread a horrible plague that killed millions and reduced the poplulation of the america's to a fraction of what it had been within 25 years, just one generation. A loss for which the native americans still have not recovered from. IF these isrealites had come over here they would have spread disease through the natives just as the europeans did. Yet that didn't happen. Another fact against the BoM.
 
Last edited:

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
I could live with this if the Mormons went on record and asserted that e.g.the Mayans were the BoM people. Then we could test their DNA, examine their artifacts and ruins, record their language, and come to a conclusion as to whether that was the case. My experience (not in this thread, but at this forum) is that the LDS never go on record as saying where they think these events occurred or which people they believe to be Lamanites. Over the last century, it's gone from all Native Americans and all of America to an unknown, unspecifiable, but apparently tiny location. Thus in it becomes an unfalsifiable proposition.

You're correct. BYU states that the information contained in the released Volume is solely that of the author.

"The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief - John E. Clark - Journal of Book of Mormon Studies - Volume 14 - Issue 2
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
from John E. Clark, Mormon scholar:

This is where archaeology steps in as the only scientific means of gathering independent evidence of authenticity, and hence authorship....If Joseph Smith made the book up, then its peoples did not exist, its events did not happen, and there should be no trace of them anywhere. If, after a reasonable period of diligent searching, material evidence is not found, then the Book of Mormon would be shown to be imaginary, and by implication Joseph Smith would be exposed as a liar and the church he founded unveiled as a hoax...Confirmation of historic details of the Book of Mormon would substantiate Joseph Smith's account of how it came to be and thus validate his seership and the divine origin of both the book and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints....The trend over the last 50 years is one of convergence between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology.

So, do Mormons in this thread agree with Professor Clark that archeology presents the only scientific way of verifying the authenticity of the BoM? Do you agree that MesoAmerica is where we should look for that archeological evidence?
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
from John E. Clark, Mormon scholar:



So, do Mormons in this thread agree with Professor Clark that archeology presents the only scientific way of verifying the authenticity of the BoM? Do you agree that MesoAmerica is where we should look for that archeological evidence?

I watched this series some time ago. I think it was done well. Pretty much everyone in it is a professional in their field of study or very knowledgeable about the people of the time.

LDS and Archeology?
 
Last edited:

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I've specifically referenced Katzpur numerous times. To say nothing was presented is a flat-out lie.
 

Humanistheart

Well-Known Member
I've specifically referenced Katzpur numerous times. To say nothing was presented is a flat-out lie.

Again, this is not actually listing information. You do say things like 'katzpur listed information' but do not provide a link to the post the aleged information was posted in. Besides which, is there anything katz put forth that wasn't dealt with? I don't recall any, perhaps you'd like to list it? Or perhaps you'll just claim it exists again without actually showing this.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Again, this is not actually listing information. You do say things like 'katzpur listed information' but do not provide a link to the post the aleged information was posted in. Besides which, is there anything katz put forth that wasn't dealt with? I don't recall any, perhaps you'd like to list it? Or perhaps you'll just claim it exists again without actually showing this.


You can easily find it yourself. It's in this thread. I'm not going to hold your hand.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
I've specifically referenced Katzpur numerous times. To say nothing was presented is a flat-out lie.

IIRC Katzpur made assertions that certain evidence exists, but never provided the actual evidence or source of same. For example IIRC (not searching thread) she said they have now found evidence of barley in the New World. I don't remember any specific source for this assertion. Again, she asserted that there is now evidence of honey in Pre-Columbian America. The LDS site denies this, asserting rather that the BoM does not claim that there was. And so forth.

The only other stuff I remember is some of that subjective literary criticism that circles the arrows after they land. I don't remember any scientific support for the BoM. By scientific I mean based on the scientific method.

Further, I've asked you, Watchmen, repeatedly, to make some predictions based on the BoM, asked you what we would expect to see if it were true, and you have ignored me. Telling.

9/10 responded to the literary assertions very fairly, explaining in detail why they are not scientific, and asking for anything scientific in that area. Again, no response. Again, telling.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
You can easily find it yourself. It's in this thread. I'm not going to hold your hand.

Similarly, just saying, "No one has refuted the evidence," is not supporting your assertion. To support it, you would post the specific evidence that you believe has not been refuted.

btw, I have posted reams of very specific assertions about very specific artifacts and ruins we expect to see and don't. No one has responded to them at all, except to whine that I'm hung up on archeology. I do agree with Professor Clark that archeology is the best place to look for scientific support or disproof of the BoM. I'm happy to provide sources for each and every assertion I've made, if you doubt them.

And I'm more than happy to explore the fruitful areas of linguistics, population demographics and genetics, if you think that's more important or valuable than archeology. Without doing any archeology, these areas utterly destroy the historicity of the BoM.

That's one of the key ways we know we're on the right track in science: consilience. That's the holy grail of scientific knowledge.

When scientists from a wide variety of fields, with no special axe to grind, all reach consistent conclusions, we have the closest to certainty that science can get. As close to certainty as science can get, we know as well as we know that the earth is round that the BoM is not factual.
 

Humanistheart

Well-Known Member
You can easily find it yourself. It's in this thread. I'm not going to hold your hand.

In other words, there is nothing. If there was, you'd actually list it.

The BoM has been proved false. Is there a section for mythology on this site? If there is it's time to move the lds category there.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Auto I agree.

Whenever we have a book such as the bible, the Quran or the BoM asserting the existence of a people, where they lived and how they lived it would be foolish of us to accept such a claim on blind faith because someone told us we should believe it to be true. These assertions spark our curiosity and fuel us to investigate them. So we have people who are educated and accredidted who go into the land to unearth findings that should be able to substantiate these books and/or the claims made in them. None of them (bible and quran) are without their flaws. They are pointed out and reviewed by peers. In the case of the BoM we have no independant expertise to coaborate the claims made. We have only the contrary. It is a foolish task to even explore the literary style of the book. It's not very important at this stage if the book is a complete fabrication. It is futile to try and figure out who is realated to who on a genetic level when we can't even substantiate the existance of the people. Archeology and anthropology is far better useful tool and it has shown that no tribes from the ANE made a trek here and are to considered native Americans or Mesoamerican. The supposed history of the Nephites, Lamanites etc. is relatively short in comparison to what we know about the Egyptian or Sumerian culture. We also know of other ancient cities, some that had been buried long ago.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
In other words, there is nothing. If there was, you'd actually list it.

The BoM has been proved false. Is there a section for mythology on this site? If there is it's time to move the lds category there.


Nice try.

You guys are so predictable.
 

Smoke

Done here.
Well, it looks like there's nothing more to be said since the haters have proven my point. Thanks to all.
I think it's fascinating that you characterize people who don't believe in the Book of Mormon, and are willing to state their reasons for not believing in it, as "haters."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top