At the request of our Mormon friends here at Mormon Coffee, today’s topic for discussion is, The Book of Mormon: True or False? Before the discussion starts, however, I need to lay down some ground rules.
- It is understood by all here that Mormons ultimately believe the Book of Mormon is true due to personal revelation. For this discussion, possession of LDS testimonies will be assumed. Therefore, the bearing of these testimonies in the following comments is not permitted.
- When making evidentiary statements of fact, please provide supporting source references.
- Please dialog here in your own words; do not fill your comments with lengthy quotes from others.
- Remember (and follow) the Mormon Coffee comment policy that calls for the summation of main points (in your own words) before linking to another source.
On a recent Mormon Coffee thread, after being asked about external evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, an LDS commenter wrote:
“[Y]ou said, ‘What is the most compelling piece if archeological evidence that proves to you that the Book of Mormon is true?’ I will responde with, ‘Oh you of little faith’. If we needed scientific/archeological proof to mandate and coincide our beliefs, we would be cast into the same category as the pharisees and saducees.”
That opinion notwithstanding, this discussion will focus on evidence outside of testimony for the Book of Mormon. Another Latter-day Saint who participates in the conversations at Mormon Coffee has made this argument (taken from a few different comments of his):
“[T]he question of the Book of Mormon is absolutely black and white- it is either what it claims to be, or it is not. If it is not what it claims, the whole religion falls. If it is true, the church stands as THE Church of Christ.”
“If it [the Book of Mormon] is true (an ancient record of scripture), JS was a prophet. If he was a prophet, the church is what it claims to be, etc., etc.”
“Your claim that there is no evidence for the BOM is certainly persistent. I await the thread that allows us to discuss the book straight up….the whole of the LDS church depends on the Book of Mormon being true- every claim depends on it, so I would think that would be a natural center of debate.”
Okay. To get us started, Michael Coe, Yale University’s renowned Professor of Anthropology emeritus, was interviewed for PBS’s Frontline program The Mormons. After describing some of the major problems facing Mormon archeologists who are seeking to find evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, Dr. Coe said,
“I don’t really know how my friends that are Mormon archaeologists cope with this non-evidence, the fact that the evidence really hasn’t shown up — how they make the jump from the data to faith or from faith back to the data, because the data and the faith are two different worlds. There’s simply no way to bring them together. …”
Apart from personal revelation, how do the readers of Mormon Coffee (both Mormons and non-Mormons) cope with the “non-evidence” spoken of by Dr. Coe?
—
For an interesting look at issues surrounding the historicity of the Book of Mormon see the Sunstone article, “Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates – Part 1, A Guide for the Overwhelmed,” by John-Charles Duffy.
Since LDS claim they need no outside evidence other than the burning bosom, let me ask this.
Many LDS that I have spoken with on the fairLDS board have said, they never recived the burning in the bosom, yet still believe.
As a christian, I do not have blind faith, first off, their is over whelming evidence that the Bible is the Word of God.
in the Bible we have around 1,800 prophecys on the Word of God, then the Jews are back in their land as the Bible said. we have lots of archeological evidence for the Bible.
Things that I do not believe are evidence that some LDS do are, A changed life, Muslims, JW’s moral people, Etc all have changed lives.
A burning in the Bosom, I make and sell a hot spice called “happiness” took a first place award, Falcon has a bottle of it, he will tell you he had a “burning” yet that does not prove anything.
The Bible is made up of 66 books by 40 differnt authors written over 1000’s of years in many differnt countries, and we have the dead sea scrolls to prove it, how does the BoM compare to that? It does not. rick b (LDS priesthood holder)
I’m going to ignore the whole lack of historical data on the BoM and go with internal evidence.
Nephi took a copy of the scriptures (1Nephi 5:11-13) with him, including much of Jeremiah. Nephi spends chapter 6 (ironically – you could fit a genealogy in the space of chapter 6) saying he won’t give his genealogy due to space reasons, yet happily spends chapters 20 and 21 of 1Nephi and chapters 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 27 of 2Nephi basically quoting Isaiah, which would have been in the plates mentioned in 1Nephi 5, just as the genealogy was.
Why would Nephi quote so much of Isaiah if he was tight for space?
It doesn’t cohere internally, let alone with the other scriptures.
It has been my experience that Mormons say that they do not NEED to have archaeological evidence to believe the BoM is true. Personally, I don’t blame them for making that statement, as there is no (or very little) evidence for its veracity.
When trying to dialogue with Mormons about obvious holes in the very fabric of the BoM, (ruins of cities/civilizations, errors in historical information, eg, steel, metallurgy, flora/fauna, etc), generally Mormons tend to begin their dubious apologetics. Perhaps the most interesting excuse to explain away their problems is “loan shifting”. I think it is their “cure-all” for explaining horses, elephants, etc. I’m sure they are glad they found this for it helps their cause. If they don’t understand Mormon Apologetics (who does?) then they usually take the track, “well, the Bible has holes, too”.
In my opinion, the most damning evidence against the Book of Mormon is the Mormon’s sugestion that the Hill Cumorah in NY isn’t really THE>/i> Hill Cumorah. My goodness! Isn’t that where the prophet found the golden tablets? How could it be anywhere else? This one simple item should be enough to wake folks up to the fact that the BoM (and the LDS Church) is an elaborate fabrication.
(of course, their excuse for this is “continuing revelation”…pretty convenient when the facts don’t add up)
Lets go excavate the Hill Cumorah! I’ll pay to rent the backhoe.
“The great and last battle, in which several hundred thousand Nephites perished was on the hill Cumorah, the same hill from which the plates were taken by Joseph Smith, the boy about whom I spoke to you the other evening.” (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt, Feb. 11, 1872 Journal of Discourses Vol. 14, pg. 331)
“Thirty-six years prior to this time his nation was destroyed in in what we term the State of New York, around about a hill, called by that people the Hill of Cumorah, when many hundreds of thousands of the Nephites-men, women and children, fell, during the greatest battle that they had had with the Lamanites.” (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt, Aug. 25, 1878 Journal of Discourses Vol. 20, pg. 62)
“It will be, next Thursday night, 54 years since the Prophet Joseph Smith, then but a lad, was permitted by the angel of the Lord to take the gold plates of the Book of Mormon from the hill Cumorah, as it was called in ancient times, located in the State of New York. ” (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt, Sept. 18, 1881 Journal of Discourses Vol. 22, pg. 224)
[Link deleted. Please remember the ground rules listed above. -Mod]
Question? If the majority of the BoM is nothing more than the Bible quoted word for word then how does this help us get closer to God as Joseph Smith so boldly claimed, reading the BoM would get us closer to God, than any other book?
Why read the BoM to really get Bible verses, when I could simply read the Bible. Then the LDS tell us that many plain and precious things have been removed from the Bible, yet in the BoM we have 4,000 plus changes, so how can you tell us the Bible is not fully their, when you cannot even tell us what is missing, yet we can prove exactly what these 4,000 plus changes are since many people have an oringial 1830 BoM.
I know LDS will dismiss the 4,000 changes, but some are serious doctrinal changes. If your changing doctrine, how can we trust the BoM to be truthful?
I also pointed out that the Bible has 1,800 plus propcheys, so can you give me a list of prophecys in the BoM that are not in the Bible, then explain why 1,800 are not enough and so we need them in the BoM? And do not give the self fufilling ones, like Joseph Smith said, he was going to eat lunch, then He went and ate lunch. That is not a true prophecy. Rick b (LDS priesthood holder)
Morning all…I have to agree with sihollett and say that it is the internal problems that baffle me the most. You have a group that supposedly follows the Law of Moses but yet shows no evidence of keeping the Passover…Tabernacles…Day of Atonement? On top of this they build a temple in direct disregard to the command given to Solomon for THE place where the Name of God would honored on earth (Jerusalem)? How did they offer sacrifices when the mercy seat was across the ocean? Or did they? Good grief…
Then you have the Bible not being sufficient because the followers of Christ “apostasized” and corrupted it and all that good stuff. Well what happened to the followers of Jesus in America (or whatever continent they decide on)? They didn’t seem to have kept from apostasy either now did they? Didn’t they have the Book of Mormon to keep them on the straight and narrow? Why weren’t they around in 1820 to help poor Joseph find his way?
Then you have words given by direct revelation that make no sense…my famous cureloms and cumoms. If God went to all the trouble to dictate through the rock…why would He have used words that Joseph or anyone wouldn’t have known?
How do you possibly suspend the brain when you read it? I have never been able to get there. Anytime I start reading the questions just jump out at me…should be an interesting thread…blessings to all!!
I think one of the most devastating arguments against the Book of Mormon comes from the fact that the primary witnesses indicate that Smith was essentially dictating from seer stones. Duffy writes in the linked article,
“From his work with the original manuscript, Skousen [Mormon] claims (1994, 1997) to have found evidence that the Book of Mormon is a tightly, but not perfectly, controlled translation dictated from a text that Joseph Smith saw, about 20–30 words at a time, as he looked into the interpreters.”
That really doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for the kind of interpretative translation of the text that Book of Mormon defenders depend on to explain anachronistic language (and even 19th century theology and themes, as Ostler points to in his expansion theory).
Here’s some more internal BoM evidence for a Mormon to wrestle with –
Multiple Verses found in the Bible show a change in wording when examining the Joseph Smith Translation, however, the same verse (as found in the Bible) doesn’t reflect the change done through the JST. Here are examples:
Matthew 6:13: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
JST, Matthew 6:14: And suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from.
3 Nephi 13:12-13: And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
Lyndon Lamborn stated in his summary the following –
“If the Lord thought it was important enough to reveal to Joseph the change in meaning (God doesn’t lead us into temptation, but we can ask for his help to avoid temptation) as he translated the bible, why didn’t this meaning become obvious in 3rd Nephi?”
Heres some more –
Mathew 6:22: The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
JST, Matthew 6:22: The light of the body is the eye; if therefore thine eye be single to the glory of God, thy whole body shall be full of light.
3 Nephi 13:22: The light of the body is the eye; if, therefore, thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
So the question arises- Why is the most correct book on earth (BoM) contain the same mistranslated text that we have in the KJV when it is shown to be wrong by the JST?
These are referenced by Lyndon Lamborns research (an excommunicated 40 year LDS member) – His summary is found at http://www.mormonthink.com/lamborn.htm – I will be using his research on this thread in particular because it is quite extensive.
In answer to LDSSTITANIC on the suspension of the brain…it starts with knowing about the bible without having a foundation in scripture. Being xLDS myself it took seven years for me to start to open the doors of questioning the teachings of the bofm and lds church. The burning of the bosom comes into play when we ignore Jeramiah 17:9-10 which says the heart is decietful above all things.
And even such Joseph’s failure to test the angelic beings words against the bible shows us that he, like most mormons , ignore the scriptures like Galatians 1:8 (if I (paul) or an angel teach another gospel). So part of the reason so many can be persuaded is the lack of biblicle study.
The question that comes to my mind is why does the church have an Authorized History. In the book by joseph smiths mother on Joseph Smith , the LDS Church actually said they had to modify her recollection due to the fact it did not meat with the Official Church History approved by Joseph.
There are many types of evidence- linguistic, archeologic, prophetic. I will attempt to outline examples of each realizing these are really the “tips of the icebergs.” There is not enough room here to explore all the evidence, but hopefully this will demonstrate that the BOM is absolutely plausible. If anybody is interested in a more lengthy discussion, the mods can give you my e-mail. My goal is a dispassionate, objective review of current evidences. Again- tips of ice-bergs here.
LANGUAGE Quite extensive and growing work on this: 1. Names- many of Hebrew origin, not found in the Bible, are found in the BOM. These were not known when the BOM was published and have only been discovered in artifacts in the last decades. Examples include Sariah- originally thought to be only a male name, but the discovery of the Elelphantine, Egypt papyri show it used for female around the 5th century B.C. Critics also laughed at the name Alma, but documents from the 3rd and 4th century B.C. in Ebla (famous ancient Syrian library) show it used for a male. Many of these names in the BOM are attested in Hebrew writings on clay bullae- genealogical documents. Other names found include Ammonihah, Hagoth, Himni, Isabel, Muloki, Jarom, Josh, Chemish, Luram, Mathoni, Aha, Mathonihah, and Sam. Most of these bullae were discovered or owned by Yohanan Aharoni, Terrence Szink, Yoav Sasson, Dr. Reuben Hecht, and Nahman Avigad.
William Albright from Johns Hopkins explained that JS could not have learned Egyptian from any sources of his time. Although not a believer in the BOM (he was a protestant), he said, “it is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanchi and Pahoran, which appear in the Book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language being ‘Reformed Egyptian.” He suggested JS was a “religious genius.”
Continued…
BOM critics love the verse that says Christ was born in Jersusalem, or the land of Jerusalem. Little do they know this actually supports the historicity of the BOM. In the Bible and BOM the words “city” and “land” are often interchangeable because the immediate area, usually for pasture and small villages, were considered a part of the city. This is found in the BOM in several places. One of the Amarna texts speaks of “a town in the land of Jerusalem” with the Canaanite equivalent of the Hebrew name of Beth-Lehem. (The Ancient Near East in Texts, El Amarna 489). The phrase “land of Jerusalem” is not uncommon in ancient texts.
Malchiah (or better, MalkiYahu) was “the son of Hammelech” according to the KJV of Jeremiah 38:6. But clearly this should have been translated “the son of the king” since- melech in Hebrew means the same as melek, king. Several factors now indicated that Malchiah was in fact not just the sone of an anonymous king but the son of Zedekiah, says Yahanan Aharoni, former head of Dept Archeology at Tel Aviv University. And these names took a shortened form in the 6th century B.C.. Such an abbreviation would reduce Malchiah to something very much like “Mulek” as in the BOM. Mulek, in the BOM is the name of the son of Zedekiah who left Jerusalem. A prominent non-LDS scholar said “if JS came up with that one, he did pretty well.” By the way, the original BOM manuscript spells his name Mulech- even more impressive! (Primary research from my father- but duplicated by many).
More on names: if you know the structure of the BOM, you know that the Jaredites preceded the Nephites and had an entirely different language. It is very interesting to note that there is a short period following the Jaredite destruction and sporadically thereafter that there are several Nephites with names with Jaredite roots. Apparently, the Nephite culture was influenced by the Jaredite names, possibly due to break-off groups who survived.
Isaiah: Big topic. A few here have said the “majority of the BoM is nothing more than the Bible quoted word for word.” This demonstrated major ignorance regarding the BOM. 433 verses of Isaiah are quoted in the BOM, and of these 234 are different than in the KJV. It is very interesting to compare these “different” verses with the KJV as well as the Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, and Latin manuscripts. Not clear why some of the KJV mistakes were left in the BoM, but such a comparison shows that the BOM often is closer to the ancient manuscripts than the KJV. A few examples:
Something I mentioned in another thread: 2 Nephi 12:16. The KJV of Isaiah 2:16 says: “And upon all the ships of Tarshish.” The original Hebrew manuscript also says “And upon all the ships of Tarshish.” But the Greek Septuagint manuscript says “And upon all the ships of the sea.” 2 Nephi 12:16 says “And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish.” Could both the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts incompletely quote THE original while the Book of Mormon quotes it completely and accurately?
Another: 2 Nephi 13:9 (cf. Isaiah 3:9) reads “and they cannot hide it” as against the Hebrew and King James reading “they hide it not.” The Syriac reading is in agreement with the Nephite reading and even the Septuagint clearly supplies the “and.” (H. Grant Vest, “The Problem of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 1938).
There are many similar cases in the Isaiah verses that agree with old manuscripts vs. the KJV. I will not show them here in interest of space issues.
Also- the context in which Isaiah is quoted in the BOM strongly argues the text is ancient, or at least written by somebody with a deep and comprehensive understanding of Isaiah. This is no small point. If interested, e-mail me for more discussion on this.
Much more on Isaiah, but will leave some room for responses, etc.
faithoffathers…any ideas on the town name of Bountiful? My dictionary says the origin of the word is 16th century English.
I tend to believe the theories that Joseph copied or “dictated” from other works. This explains the partition that was supposedly between Joe and his scribe. Also would explain how the KJV was reproduced exactly (even including the italics which are NOT from the original manuscript).
Sooooo…you might be right in the accurateness of SOME of the names as far as etymology goes…but who really came up with them is the question…
faithoffathers said:
Something I mentioned in another thread: 2 Nephi 12:16. The KJV of Isaiah 2:16 says: “And upon all the ships of Tarshish.” The original Hebrew manuscript also says “And upon all the ships of Tarshish.” But the Greek Septuagint manuscript says “And upon all the ships of the sea.” 2 Nephi 12:16 says “And upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish.” Could both the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts incompletely quote THE original while the Book of Mormon quotes it completely and accurately?
Where did you get your information for this? It appears to be sorely distorted. The Strong’s number for the word in question is 8659. The word is “תרשיש” which is Tarshiysh (tar-sheesh’), modernly translated as Tarshish.
An online resource for you to check this out is: http://biblos.com/isaiah/2-16.htm
By association, the rest of your scholarship is questionable. This is the only one that I happened to have actually checked into. By the way, this is something I highly recommend critics of Mormonism to do. Don’t take the apologists word for it; they have a whole lot to lose and will say just about anything in hopes that it won’t be checked.
^^^^^^^^ Still waiting for some “Archaeological Evidence”
When I was in Manti, I had—no joke—a Mormon that wanted to meet up later to take me on a field trip to show me Nephite remains west of Eagle Mountain (in UT). He called a few times afterward but we never could meet at a good time.
Aaron…I wouldn’t be too disappointed…you would have probably only been able to see the remains with the “eyes of faith”…where’s Cluff when we need him?
I agree with JesusFreek – let’s go rent a backhoe and dig up Cumorah…surely after a battle involving hundred of thousands, there must be SOME evidence left behind?
After all, if archeologists can find the camp remains of “neanderthals”, surely they can find the Nephites?!?
AARON: DON’T rush in, you should hold out for Lamanite remains of Zelphic proportions, nothing less….they’ve GOT to be around here somewhere..
I don’t want to get my hopes too far up there, but I’m predicting a pretty good thread, here, and I’m predicting FoF will be plenty busy. Too bad those LDS who feel this kind of topic is a waste of time couldn’t hand over their daily posts to FoF or Ralph or somebody, like ‘roll-over’ minutes or something.
Just a note to FoF: no one who holds to a plagiarism theory HAS to accept a ‘word for word’ style of copying. Why wouldn’t JS make a few changes here and there, and sometimes none at all, like the schoolboy horribly late on his term paper while his friends are playing video games?? I would EXPECT him to make some changes along the way, and occaisionally none at all.
Looking forward to this thread, I hope FoF gets some company, I’d like to hear all of the good stuff we’ve heard rumors about. GERMIT
Can’t resist a PS: FoF, you’re NOT CLEAR how the KJV mistakes got in there??? How ’bout a theory on that??
Drmarcus and Jfreak- Many of the EV arguments against the BOM depend on the assumption that the Hill Cumorah was in New York. I do not, nor do most LDS, believe the Hill Cumorah was in NY. There have been people who thought it was there. But as early as 1841, Mesoamerica has been entertained by LDS as another possible site for BOM civilization. So please understand- Mesoamerica is what I and most LDS are talking about.
Silhollet: Nephi explained very clearly why he didn’t include the geneology. “And it mattereth not to me that I am particular to give a full account of all the things of my father, for they cannot be written upon these plates, for I desire the room that I may write of the things of God.” (2 Ne 6:3) He recognized the profound prophecies and relevance of Isaiah and felt inspired to include them in his record. Christ also quoted Isaiah repeatedly.
Aaron: We don’t know exactly how the translation process worked, but many believe JS started out being very dependent on the seer-stone and Urim and Thummim, but with time was able to learn the Reformed Egyptian and, at some point, translated without their aid.
RickB: I have copies of many of the BOM manuscripts as well as Royal Skoussen’s work. Almost all of the 4,000 “changes” were the result of transcription and typesetting errors. These errors are often cited by critics, but the argument is actually pretty weak when you read the transcripts and see how the changes were made. Will be happy to list BOM prophecies that have been fulfilled as you request, but am concentrating on linguistic stuff first.
LDSSTITANIC: Ever heard of Margaret Barker? Freakishly smart lady- former president of the Society for Old Testament Study- Methodist minister- probably the foremost expert in temple customs in ancient Israel. Much of what she concludes strongly supports the manner of worship in the BOM.
Saving last post for later!
faithoffathers…question? if JS was given the Urim and Thummim by God through Moroni…why did he not use it to translate the book of mormon. instead he used a mystics tool (seer stone) and a hat to “translate” and if the book of mormon is the book to test the bible against because of the accuracy of translation, then we have to forget that even the BofM states that moroni’s work was an abridgement. How are we to believe that Moroni copied every charector of reformed egyption correctly. Lauguage like “plausable” and “strongly supports” does not make proof. I call these alternate theary’s.
Judging by some of the particularly inane comments made here by BoM critics it is readily apparent that most have not even bothered to read the Book of Mormon let alone make it a subject of intensive study. For the ignoratti I would recommend reviewing the Sunstone article linked in Sharon’s introduction which is an adequate summation of a very complex topic.
With regards to archeological evidence I am amazed by the double standard exhibited here by BoM critics. If one were subject the Bible to the same rigorous scrutiny as they do the BoM one could only conclude that much of the Bible is completely unsupported by any archeological evidence whatsoever, as many biblical scholars will tell you.
There is very limited or no archeological evidence for much of the OT or NT narratives i.e. the Book of Job, most of Genesis, even the narratives of the life of Christ. There is no geological evidence for Noah’s Flood, no evidence for the Tower of Babel and so forth. Nevertheless, the bible is accepted on the basis of faith.
If the Romans had wiped out the Jewish civilization and renamed all cities and towns in Palestine it would be extremely difficult to connect OT and NT place names to actual sites.
With regard to BoM archeology the problem is compounded by not having a continuously existing civilization. The Nephite civilization was completely destroyed by the Lamanites around the 4th century A.D. Most Mayan, Aztec, and Incan texts were destroyed by fanatical Spanish priests in the 16th and 17th centuries which represents a tremendous archeological loss.
Nevertheless, there is an abundance of archeological sites (hundreds) in Mesoamerica many of which are yet to be excavated. These sites are evidence that a highly sophisticated culture flourished in Mesoamerica during the BoM period. I am confident that one day archeological discoveries will be made that will definitively connect these sites to the BoM.
FaithofFathers: Do you believe that President Hinkley was a prophet of God? Do you know that his church office said the Hill Cumorah is in New York? Was this a false prophesy (or just his opinion)? http://www.mazeministry.com/frontpage/dna/cumorah/cumorahletter.gif
Since none of the LDS faithful can provide a stitch of archeological evidence I will offer some of my own for your consideration. There are some mysterious writings on top of the Red Hill overlooking Cedar City, Utah. The locals have referred to these by various Mormon related names. Are they valid? Have you been there? Here are some links about them to review:
http://www.angelfire.com/trek/forthetruth/cedarcity.html
http://cedarandsand.blogspot.com/2008/05/mysteries-of-red-mountain.html
http://www.scienceviews.com/indian/cedareast.html
A recent picture taken by a friend of mine: http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=53314417&albumID=56955&imageID=40878225
Here are some similar writings near Manti, Utah: http://www.angelfire.com/trek/forthetruth/manti.html
To All: I will burn a post and remind one and all, esp my ev christian friends that the topic at hand is THE BOOK OF MORMON, TRUE OR FALSE. there is no mention here of the bible, or defending it, the Bible, thru the same avenues: archeology etc….. PLEASE HELP OUR LDS FRIENDS TO STAY ON TOPIC and refuse the bait that SteveH has offered. We can offer Biblical evidences when the topic comes up…..LATER. GERMIT
To STeveH: the gist of your post seems to be, “it’s hard, very hard…..” OK, I get it, but what CAN you tell us from history, language, etc about these cultures and multitudes that form the context of your holy book ?? I know you’ve had a chance to work up some kind of answer. GERMIT
Thank you, Germit. Good advice, well said.
Even in modern times people in Israel recognize that “the city of David” is within the land of Jerusalem.
Recently an article appeared in the Jerusalem Post. A pull quote is “A seal impression belonging to a minister of the Biblical King Zedekiah which dates back 2,600 years has been uncovered completely intact during an archeological dig in Jerusalem’s ancient City of David, a prominent Israeli archeologist said on Thursday.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331162371&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
LDSSTITANIC,
Get a clue about what it means to translate INTO English!! The word bountiful is an ENGLISH word. It is found in the English Bible!! (Prov 22:9, Isa 32:5)
And also in the 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary. http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,bountiful
Just because it is found in the Bible doesn’t mean that Isaiah and the author of Proverbs were using it in ancient times. They were using a Hebrew word that means the same thing. Get it?
And just because it is found in the Book of Mormon doesn’t mean that Nephites were using it. They were using a Nephite word that means the same thing. Get it?
They were using a word that MEANS the same thing as the English word bountiful. Get it?
You guys come up with pathetic arguments.
FOF said, “Many of the EV arguments against the BOM depend on the assumption that the Hill Cumorah was in New York. I do not, nor do most LDS, believe the Hill Cumorah was in NY. There have been people who thought it was there. But as early as 1841, Mesoamerica has been entertained by LDS as another possible site for BOM civilization. So please understand- Mesoamerica is what I and most LDS are talking about.
That is downright mis-leading, deceitful and untrue! Your prophets and presidents have ALWAYS believed and taught that the Hill Cumorah where Smith “found” the tablets is the same Cumorah where the great battles were fought.
Here is just one recent example: “I have been asked to forward to you for acknowledgment and handling the enclosed copy of a letter to President Gordon B. Hinckley from Ronnie Sparks of your ward. Brother Sparks inquired about the location of the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon, where the last battle between the Nephites and Lamanites took place.
The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.
The Brethren appreciate your assistance in responding to this inquiry, and asked that you convey to Brother Sparks their commendation for his gospel study.” (Letter from F. Michael Watson, Secretary to the First Presidency to Bishop Darrel L. Brooks, Moore Ward, OKC, October 16, 1990)
To suggest otherwise is making up the rules as you go to cover for the fact that there is no evidence to support the claims made by Smith, ergo the Book of Mormon.
http://drmarcusbrody.blogspot.com/2008/10/hill-cumorah.html
Also, FoF, you did not address my comment about Isaiah 2:16. As I stated before, the hole in your “linguistic evidence” makes your other arguments questionable.
The Mormon church has a ton of money. Maybe instead of investing in vast tracks of ranch land in Nebraska or big shopping malls, they could dip into the till and go treasure hunting for artifacts like Joe did for Captain Kids hidden treasure. My understanding is that the Mormon church still has Joe’s magic rock tucked safely away in some vault at headquarters in Salt Lake, why not just break it out and use it to find all of those sites in the BoM. The ideas expressed in the BoM where, in the words of Grant Palmer, “in the environment” in which Joseph Smith grew-up. In-other-words, these ideas regarding ancient civilizations and the indians were pretty commonly discussed in the 19th century speculative world that our boy prophet inhabited. Joseph Smith loved folk magic and treasure hunting and second sight visions…..it was all part of the fantasy world he created for himself. Modern Mormons need to get a clue. Besides the spiritual deception, I can’t believe they kick in 10% of their earnings to this con. There’s one born everyday P.T. Barnum said. Unbelievable!
I wonder how the BoM was translated from “Reformed Egyptian” in the 1800s and somehow ended up in Shakespearean English of the 1600s. Odd.
By the way, what IS “Reformed Egyptian”?
Wikipedia says, “Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of a “reformed Egyptian” language as it has been described in Mormon belief”
See this is how it works; when people buy a product or service, quite often they buy it emotionally and then they justify the purchase rationally. That’s the whole story with the BoM. It doesn’t take a whole lot of intellectual horsepower to determine that the BoM is a work of fiction with alittle King James Bible worked into it. The proof of the BoM for Mormons is that they prayed sincerely and humbly and got an affirming, validating feeling that confirmed it as being true. Evidence doesn’t matter. The Mormon got “the feeling”. They maybe even got a physical sensation accompanying the emotional high. When someone thinks that this has come from God and He is speaking directly to them, physical, scientific and linguistic evidence to the contrary doesn’t matter. Joseph Smith knew he had to degrade the Bible and the Christian religion to sell his program. He came up with new scripture, a new god and even a new covenant of marrage to satisfy his ego. This is one bad trip.
To all the Mormons who think they have some sort of upperhand when they accuse us of not reading the BOM and, therefore, we don’t really know what it’s about: there are former Mormons on this site, including myself, and we have read the BOM and even claimed to have a testimony about it at one time. But, by the grace of God (the same grace being offered you), we have been led to the truth about it, which is that it is not true at all. One big problem is Jesus naming the Nephites as “the other sheep.” Jesus says that the Gentiles would never hear His voice, yet he carried on quite intimate conversations with Gentiles. So, to state that “the other sheep” are not the Gentiles is teaching false doctrine. Also, the mention of “synagogues after the manner of the Jews” does not make sense in a couple of ways: first, Lehi apparently took his family out of Jerusalem prior to the Bablyonian captivity, which is when synagogues came into existence. How would he know about them to be able to make this statement? Second, why would he refer to them as “after the manner of the Jews” if the Nephites are Jewish? Why do they refer to themselves as Nephites if they’re supposed to be Israelites through the line of Joseph? JS and Oliver Cowdery made errors in their fictional story. I praise God for revealing to me that the entire salvation history is contained in the Bible, and that He is a big enough God to inspire its writing, protect its contents, and illuminate it through the power of the Holy Spirit in our time. The BOM does nothing that the Mormon Church claims it does.
Grace and Peace!
JessicaJoy: good questions; I’m pretty sure our LDS friends will tell us that the Elizabethan english thing was a benefit for the hearers, that is, they were used to hearing/reading reverential things in that form of English, so GOD kept that form for the benefit of the readers. That’s what I’ve been told by some, but I’m jumping the gun….
Another good question about the reformed Egyptian would be: where are the artifacts of that language HERE, in the Americas ?? Not only did the peoples (remains and relics)and artifacts disappear, but apparently, the LANGUAGE left no trace as well, although NO TRACE might be shown to be somewhat of an overstatement. I’m not an anthropologist, but wouldn’t a language spoken by great numbers leave an ‘echo’ in the surrounding peoples/cultures that DID survive??
Ah….so many questions. Let’s take up a collection to keep FoF stocked up in the energy drink of his choice, I think he’s in for a busy week/weekend.
An aside: if the Hill Cumorah DID turn out to be in Mesoamerica , how could so many past and present LDS leaders be so wrong about that ?? That’s a ‘revelation of the leaders’ type thread, but you can see where one thing leads to another.
FoF: I think you are off to a pretty good start, you are a warrior. GERMIT
faithoffathers…about Barker…freakish is right…there aren’t any other recognized Old Testament scholars I could locate that will go to bat for her crazy ideas. However, I can’t see how she helps you because even she recognizes ONE TEMPLE in Jerusalem. It is a picture of God’s throne in heaven. No Jew with a brain in their head would think of building a temple anywhere else. The Law of Moses (which these peoples claimed to know and obey) requires all male Jews to present themselves before the Lord 3 times a year. Guess where?
I’m thinkin strike one on the temple…blessings!
Joseph Smith was the man with the revelation. Where did he think the super hill was? Find that out and you’ve solved the puzzle. But, alas, as with all things Mormon, Smith and his contemporaries are just a bunch of dead guys so this little geography problem as it relates to the BoM can be ignored. Does anyone outside of Mormon circles believe the BoM reflects history? No. But you see, these experts are not seeing things through the eyes of faith. That’s where the BoM lives. In the hearts of Mormon believers. The people of the BoM could have been flying around in hot air balloons for all we know. Why not? It makes about as much sense as horses and chariots that didn’t exist and major, monumental battles with no trace left behind. So if the big hill is in South America, how did Moroni get the golden plates up to New York? Well that’s where the hot air balloons come in. If it’s not detailed in the BoM it’s probably due to the work of the same conspirators that left all of the Mormon stuff out of the New Testament. You know Christian temples, plural marrage, Free Mason rituals, magic rocks…………
For all the fanfare to get the post from Mormons, haven’t seen many posting…
I’m waiting for someone to bring up the “Great White God” idea…
OK, now that I brought it up, does any Mormon want to discuss this myth?
Challenging to answer questions and present new stuff.
Drmarcus- Are you criticizing the spelling of “Tarshish” as being too modern?
The letter you quoted adds nothing. I know several people who have sent in their books, articles, etc. to the prophet fishing for approval. The same letter goes out to all saying basically, “atta boy”- appreciate your efforts to research the gospel. There is absolutely no inkling of official acceptance of any of it.
George Q. Cannon: “The First Presidency have often been asked to prepare some suggestive map illustrative of Nephite geography, but have never consented to do so… The reason is, that without further information they are not prepared even to suggest a map. Joseph F Smith “declined officially to approve of the map, saying that the Lord had not yet revealed it.”
You, like others, seem desperate for New York to be “the site.” Sorry. That would make your job easier in dismissing the BOM, hence your desire not to allow Mesoamerica as a possibility.
LDSSTITANIC- Not many academic fraternities elect “freaks” to lead their societies (Society of Old Testament Study). Dr. Barker is very well respected and published. She points out that many prophets built shrines all over the land and offered sacrifices (Genesis 12:6–7) and set up pillars in holy places (Genesis 28:18). She clearly states that the idea that Jerusalem was “the only place” for a temple was generated at the time of Josiah. This was not an original tenant of the religion.
Holy sites existed at Shechem, Bethel, and Shiloh, among others. After the split between the two kingdoms, King Jeroboam built temples at Bethel and Dan.
Bountiful- your have it right my friend, its from around 1500 (before JS). Translate means to take words from one language and into another. JS translated words from Reformed Egyptian to English, with includes the word “bountiful.” Really no mystery. The name in RE had the same meaning as Bountiful in English.
faithoffathers…the only links I could find “respecting” her were from LDS sources
There is a difference between translating and transliterating my friend. Why did he not translate Zarahemla, Shilom, Shemlon, Moronihah, Corihor, Amulon, etc. Why just one translated into an English word instead of transliterated into English?
Still awaiting what a curelom and a cumom are since they were so divinely translated in English…
I have been reading a book detailing the work of LDS archaeologist, Thomas Stuart Ferguson. After 25 years of trying to prove Mormonism he finally admitted that he found “his work to have been in vain.” After first coming to the conclusion that the Book of Abraham was a fraud, he later came to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was not true and that Joseph Smith was “a phony bastard” and “a fake.”
He researched a connection I didn’t know about before. Apparently, Oliver Cowdery was a resident in the town of the pastor Ethan Smith (author of View of the Hebrews) and there is evidence that Oliver’s stepmother attended Ethan’s church and that all 3 of his little half sisters were baptized in Ethan’s church. So he concluded that, at the very least, “the family had a close tie with Ethan Smith.” This is significant information for those who know about the similarities in content between the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon.
Ferguson arrived at the conclusion that Oliver Cowdery was in Ethan Smith’s congregation and that JS may have had the View of the Hebrews to work with.
Ferguson ended up staying in the Mormon religion for social reasons and because he didn’t believe any other religion was true either. He decided that, like Mormonism, all other religions must likewise be founded in myths (Larson, Stan. Quest for the Gold Plates: Thomas Stuart Ferguson’s Archaeological Search for The Book of Mormon, 1996, Freethinker Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 139, 135, 155).
Well, FoF, that your leaders said definitively it (the hill) was in NY, forgive our mistakes…
Or were they mistaken? These same men who we’ve been told are reliable, and what they speak is of God, even when not written down?
The reply should focus on the evidence, not the prophecies of these men. Unfortunately, the topics are related, and that they spoke these things about the hill is problematic when you are trying to establish a fact that they said was different from what is said now.
Sharon’s third condition was:
* Please dialog here in your own words; do not fill your comments with lengthy quotes from others.
I have a feeling her condition has given this thread a ‘gateway effect’: there don’t seem to be (so far) that many FoF’s out there who are willing to go beyond go to FAIR or FARMS and read…….
Major kudos to FoF for being willing and able to do so. This topic, perhaps like the magic thread and the temple thread, is a tough row to hoe for our LDS friends.
We’re still early in the thread, but I’ve got the Mosser and Owens statement buzzing in my head: is there substance to their bold claim?? I guess we’ll find out. I also wonder how many Tom Fergesons and Simon Southertons there are out there??? Maybe you could add B.H.Roberts, tho I’m well aware he did NOT give up his ‘testimony’ in the BofM.
Titanic: yes, Ms. Barker is super-freaky, head of a society or not, still reading up on her as well. What’s with her and the Moonies $$$$ ?? She shrugs it off as ‘tax dollars saved’….hmmmmm
I stumble across things from time to time that gives insight into the mindset of the Mormon believer. While I’d like to paraphrase and take credit for the insights myself, I’ll attribute the following to the writer.
“The list goes on forever-Smith didn’t use any plates for the translation: No problem. He stared into a stone and dictated? No problem. He was charged with fraud (“disordely conduct”)? No problem. He tried to get rid of all those “Books of Commandments” and re-wrote some of his “prophecies” in the subsequent edition of D & C? No problem. The sun doesn’t draw its light from a star called Kolob? No problem. DNA evidence refutes Smith’s claims? No problem. He deflowered a bewildered 14 year old? No problem. He changed his “first vision” story fundamentally over the years? NO PROBLEM. The truth is that NOTHING is, or ever could be, a problem for a huge segment of believing Mormons-nor should this be surprising.”
The writer, Tal Bachman, captures perfectly our challenge here regarding the BoM and the TBMs. While this is an interesting exercise for us, I think we know that it won’t go far to influence our Mormon friends’ view of the work. While the TBM is perfectly capable of thinking rationally in other areas of his/her life, when it comes to the BoM, they can’t (think rationally). They’ve experienced a feeling. That feeling is deep and is not to be challenged by the Mormon. So while this is all very interesting (to me at least) I think we all need to pray that the Holy Spirit will counteract the influence the spirit of the antichrist has had on our Mormon friends. They have chosen a different God, a different scriptutre and a different salvation that will lead to outer darkness not something called the Celestial kingdom and certainly not eternal life with the God of the universe. Eternity is way to long.
faithoffathers…before the temple Moses was instructed by God how to build the tabernacle (ONE tabernacle)
Jeroboam…ah yes…I Kings 13:33 “After this thing Jeroboam returned not from his evil way, but made again of the lowest of the people priests of the high places: whosoever would, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places. 34 And this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth.” Not exactly a temple recommend holder eh?
FOF,
I don’t blame you for distracting from the original question. I wouldn’t want to answer these questions, either, based on the parameters of knowledge (revelation).
I am terribly disappointed (but not surprised) at your choosing to avoid the question I raised. Certainly I am not the first. Yet, the questions always go unanswered or half-answered. (answers that question the question are not answers)
FOF, what about Isaiah 6:2? You said that the original texts read “seas”. I questioned your source. I presented evidence that the original texts read “Tarshish”. You responded with “Are you criticizing the spelling of “Tarshish” as being too modern?” Let’s be clear here: I am criticizing your scholarship, or, at the very least your sources. I do not understand your need to distract on this particular point. Well, I suppose I do. Pride is a very difficult thing to overcome. That is the reason that the Mormon church is in the pickle they are today. Too much pride to admit that the Book of Mormon is a fake. Too much pride to admit they are following a charlatan.
Again I charge, your scholarship on this one point is faulty therefore jeopardizing the rest of your claims. The reason that it calls into question the rest of your “evidence” is that it is a blatant lie. Either you have simply copied a faulty source, making your method sloppy, or you have intentionally created information, showing that you cannot be trusted.
Which is it?
Regarding the Hill Cumorah, you said, “The same letter goes out to all saying basically, “atta boy”- appreciate your efforts to research the gospel. There is absolutely no inkling of official acceptance of any of it.
The letter from the President’s Secretary read, “The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.”
Do you see the double standard?
To All: the light traffic on the thread, so far, has me wondering: how big a deal is the historicity (or lack thereof) of the BofM to the average Mormon ?? This might be analagous to the historicity of the Bible to the average liberal christian (I won’t pull on that string, just mention it for comparison). I was reading where B.H. Roberts came to the conclusion that the plates and Urimm and Thummim were NOT objective, but subjective (imaginary), to JS, and that he (JS) had the necessary imaginative powers to hold that kind of illusion in his mind, irrespective of reality. Some would say that B.H. was only ‘devil’s advocating'(playing the skeptic’s role) in saying all that…..perhaps, that’s why “A Study in the Book of Mormon” is on my ‘short list’ of summer reading, or sooner. Fascinating that when he took his apologetic concerns to the twelve, all he got in reply was the twelve of them ‘bearing their testimony’…. Their lack of response prompted Mr.Roberts to state that there was a CRISIS OF REVELATION…. hmmmmmm I would love to get the “Private Journal of Wesley P. Lloyd” that helps shed light on some of this; anyone know where that’s available ??
Titanic: while walking the dog this morning, I imagined you getting an Indiana Jones style wooden box, shaking violently, with air holes, marked, HANDLE WITH EXTREME CAUTION: CURELOMS AND CUMMOMS INSIDE; DANGER!! DANGER!! Wouldn’t that be justice for you?? What would you name them ?? And what do you FEED them ?? Skeptic steak ??? GERMIT
FOF,
Please consider this question honestly… It really doesn’t matter to you that the office of President Hinkley said, “The Church has long maintained, as attested to by references in the writings of General Authorities, that the Hill Cumorah in western New York state is the same as referenced in the Book of Mormon.”?
If Mr. Hinkley was incorrect shouldn’t a prophet know better? At what point do you begin discounting the teachings of your prophets? I’ve heard it said (from Mormon friends) that if they are led astray by a prophetic announcement from the LDS church that turns out to be false, they will not be held accountable in the after-life. Would this be your position, since it is the normal LDS answer? Does this make any sense? How can prophets be wrong on SO MANY THINGS and still remain “prophets”?
Can’t you clearly see that the LDS faith is leading you astray?
This is a very serious issue! If a modern LDS prophet is incorrect on the geography (and historicity) of the “Most Perfect Book on Earth” how many other things is he wrong on? If he is wrong you are following a false prophet, and you will have eternal consequences.
I agree with Falcon. Many of us need to pray for you individually. The barrier of The Enemy is strong around you. It can only be broken by God. I pray that he calls you to him, so that you may know the truth.
2 Corinthians 11:1-6
drmarcusbrody,
You hit on something that came to me yesterday as I was tooling down the road here in west central Wisconsin. The thing that maintains the Mormon’s belief system is a spirit of pride. That’s really the spirit of Lucifer as far as I’m concerned. That was the sin that ultimately brought him down. Mormons have risen-up and said they are going to be gods. Joseph Smith attacked God on several levels; the veracity and completness of God’s Word, the nature of God, and the person and work of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith saw fit not only to diminish God in these respects but he also elevated himself to future godhood. He also satisfied his ego and uncontrollable lust by committing serial adultery and justified it by calling it marrage. Mormons, through their occult practices in their temples, have tapped into a spiritual force that they see as light, but it’s darkness. How else is it that they continue to defend a false prophet and his obviously fraudulent book? The spirit of Lucifer and of the antichrist are having their way with Mormons. The hook is the burning in the bosom. It’s sustained by the accompanying pride.
WOW… Michael P wrote: “For all the fanfare to get the post from Mormons, haven’t seen many posting…” I miss one day, and look at all of the posts from [****]. This shows an obvious interest in “disproving” the BofM. It also shows the extreme amounts of time that [****] have spent finding coniving ways to twist and turn what the BofM says, and what other “professionals” have said. And the most interesting part about it for me… is that Sharon asks us to take, what we find to be the most important piece to knowing that the BofM is true, and throw it out the window. “No, you can’t hve confidence that the spirit will reveal things to you, so don’t bring that kind of garbage to this website” (my own understanding of her words.) Just like prophets of old, and even Christ himself, we find ourselves cornered, trying to give proof of heavenly things. Faith is no longer an option… now we need physical proof. Like I would say to the pharisees, I also say to you [****]… Shame on you!
That’s my speech.
Since I missed the one day where a record number of posts were laid down, it will be hard for me to respond to all of them. I’ll do what I can… and fully expect to have the wolfpack ([****]) hunt me down in refutation. And since faith or testimony isn’t allowed on this thread (silly), I’ll leave out my experience I had where a personage appeared to me and told me the BofM was true.
From the top … Dr. Coe is one arcehologist with one opinion.
Germit said: “there is no mention here of the bible, or defending it, the Bible, thru the same avenues: archeology etc….. PLEASE HELP OUR LDS FRIENDS TO STAY ON TOPIC and refuse the bait that SteveH has offered.” I would call your attention to the very first post of this thread… one of you “christian” friends (who probably doesn’t have the same beliefs as you) was the first to mention the Bible. Thanks for the response to his post STeve H.
Silhooett said: “Why would Nephi quote so much of Isaiah if he wa
Will try to respond to questions, but also want to present additional linguistic stuff. Trying to leave geographic, prophecies for later.
drmarcus: “The Church emphasizes the doctrinal and historical value of the Book of Mormon, not its geography. While some Latter-day Saints have looked for possible locations and explanations [for Book of Mormon geography] because the New York Hill Cumorah does not readily fit the Book of Mormon description of Cumorah, there are no conclusive connections between the Book of Mormon text and any specific site.” (Letter from Michael Watson, 1993). (what are the odds- I served my mission in OKC starting in 1990 and knew Bishop Brooks).
Why don’t we look at the movies produced by the church (Which have been overseen by Pres. Hinckley) depicting BOM stories- notice the architecture, dress, and geography- looks a lot like mesoamerica to me. Hard to imagine this being the case if they believed it all happened in NY.
Re: 2 Ne 12- your issue, now clear, wasn’t before. I just read a very recent analysis on that verse and will agree it is not as straight forward in that example as I first presented. Touche! What of the other examples in Isaiah? I can provide several.
What of Mulek? What of the Hebrew and Egyptian names? Or “the land of Jerusalem” issue? I try to answer your questions- I think it fair people try answering mine.
Re: Barker. If you wish to refute her claims, do so. Attacking character with vague statements does little. Of course LDS quote her because she is independent of them and her work supports us on many points.
FoF said: “Why don’t we look at the movies produced by the church (Which have been overseen by Pres. Hinckley) depicting BOM stories- notice the architecture, dress, and geography- looks a lot like mesoamerica to me. Hard to imagine this being the case if they believed it all happened in NY”
Does anyone else want to point out the flaws in this staement? Not least of which is the obvious ignoring of comments made by your prophets…
Reggie, are you admitting the only basis for believing it is true is your faith? This despite the lack of physical evidence to the contrary?
FoF, to his credit, is trying to put forth an argument using logic, even if there are problems in his argument (others have listed).