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.
Ed,
Hope you don’t mind the personal questions- why did you leave the church? Are you in a church now? Why the personal depth of study to disprove the BOM?
Where are the “smoking gun” evidences that you allude to? Something common about BOM critics is the tendency to use inflammatory language, revealing deep bias. Terms like “charlatan,” “fraud”, “hack”, “colossal” are used in making wide-sweeping conclusions when not technically justified. They actually work to discredit their argument. I hear this language from you.
Analysis of King Benjamin’s speech have shown the topics he chooses and language he uses parallel very well with the autumn festivals of pre-exile Israel. Enormous topic with impressive implications. Many articles on the topic if interested.
You mention “backing up and looking at the BOM it totatility” idea. There is so much to account for in complexity, history, structure and things that are too right in the text, that merely saying JS was really smart, or had a lot of books just does not account. Royal Skoussen has shown that at the time of translation, Joseph didn’t even know Jerusalem had a city wall. Critics simultaneously claim he was dumb enough to make simple mistakes, yet a genius in new names, chiasmus, historical details of original manuscripts, etc. Very inconsistent. One critic who was very familiar with the actual text, which most critics are not, said it “was clearly too complex for JS to write, it could only be produced by the devil.”
I found this from Joseph Smith in Times and Seasons:
“Central America, or Guatimala [the whole of what we now call Central America was then known as Guatemala], is situated north of the Isthmus of Darien [Panama] and once embraced several hundred miles of territory from north to south. The city of Zarahemla, burnt at the crucifixion of the Savior, and rebuilt afterwards, stood upon this land.” Joseph Smith, editorial, Times and Seasons, 3/23 (1 October 1842): 927
Ed,
Thanks for your forthright thoughts.
You said “…but that the real story of the ancient Americas found by real archeology, linguistics, etc gives a very different picture than what the BofM delivers”
Here’s another aspect of the BOM fiction that bothers me; it tramples all over the heritage of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Furthermore, it does so with a white 19th century eurocentric view.
Whatever value you place on the continuation of indigenous cultures in a modern world, it strikes me as an act of wanton vandalism to deny them them the history that they came from. White Australia tried it in the 70’s, and we ended up with a “stolen generation”.
How do the indigenous peoples of North America react to being told that they are the sons of the ugly, savage, bad guys?
Mantis,
I look forward to your post on the subject. However, from the information you provided me, I am not convinced, and I find it within the parameters I have given above, namely that you have information that always has a strong counter argument and is only given credence when you want it to be true.
I think you gave the biggest reason why Mormons don’t typically engage in specifics on religion. But this is a place and time where that is what is asked of you.
Faith is faith. I think that is understood. But faith that has no basis in reality or any kind of strong, tangible evidcence is not faith. It is hopefulness or wishful thinking. Faith is that which you believe, and have strong reason to believe it is true.
At what point does one reach this conclusion, that his faith is nothing but wishful thinking? I can’t answer that. But I would think part of the process is allowing God to work in him, and allowing the evidence to speak for itself, and not put the spin or the hope that he’s been told to look for.
God is speaking, knocking now. And in the end, none will be without excuse, even those who have never heard of Christ. How does someone see the evidence? They look around them. They see the world for what it is. In other words, they have to look at what they can see and touch, not what they want to see.
As other have offered, I’d be happy to discuss Biblical evidence in the right place. Right now, the Bible is not on trial, but the Book of Mormon.
Kitty: My LDS friends really are very nice, and I love them very much. If your friends think you are going to outer darkness you should ask them to show you where their scriptures/doctrine says so. As I understand it you have to have the heavens opened up to you, then deny mormonism to go to actual outer darkness.
This is why I tell my friends being a Christian is a win/win situation even if Mormonism is true (which it is not). If I’m wrong I get to be taught by Jesus in paradise, and make it to a lower kingdom. If they are wrong, and they die without Jesus, their fate is eternal damnation.
I’d buy one of your where is Zarahemla t-shirts.
FOF:
I actually believe that the devil, or a demonic being, tormented Joseph Smith and assisted in forming the LDS faith. Call me crazy… Wouldn’t the devil love to lead people away from the truth?
I’m troubled by Joseph’s Smith testimony of the first vision. It says, “He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name
was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.”
Why would would and angel of God tell Joseph that his hame “should be had” for “evil”? Makes me wonder. Any of the LDS apologists have an answer for this?
FoF –
I am sorry if my choice of vocabulary offends you, but I do stand by everything that I have written. I have thus far stated several very real, very important problems with the Book of Mormon, to which I have received only one unsatistfactory answer (to only 1 point).
Instead of actually hearing any real explanation from any of the Mormons regarding these issues, we instead are subjected to a wide variety of Texas Sharpshooters from the Mormon apologetic crowd. I have asked this before and ask again: If the BofM is so solid, why do you have to take this route? Why can’t you confront the problems head on?
Your repeated insistence on Benjamin is a wonderful example of this. I am very familiar with both the Jewish festivals and with the Methodist Revival meetings. The parallels to the former are cursory at best, and yet the parallels with the revivals are spot on (I have already mentioned Bishop M’Kendree and the Arminian theology).
You write:
“Critics simultaneously claim he was dumb enough to make simple mistakes, yet a genius in new names, chiasmus, historical details of original manuscripts, etc.”
Joseph Smith most certainly is “dumb enough” to make simple mistakes like the ones we have already mentioned. However I see no genius in:
1) “New names” – I have already shown how this is done by slicing Bible/Apochrypha names in half and recombining them. Not to mention the Greek names that wrongly show up.
2) “Chiasmus” – Smith’s is still on the same order to complexity as Strang’s, which is hardly striking. Also, Chiasmus IS know as early as 1820 with works being published on it in 1820 and also 1824 (LDS apologist John Welch has already admitted this).
3) “Historical Details of Original Manuscripts” – Please, I’ve already demonstrated that the star verse for this is clearly an act of deliberate fraud by Smith who took a well known controversy and incorrectly inserted it into his book. Do we need to go through the Targum and LXX again?
Michael P.
Thanks for your candid response.
You say: I look[ed] forward to your post on the subject. However, from the information you provided me, I am not convinced, and I find it within the parameters I have given above, namely that you have information that always has a strong counter argument and is only given credence when you want it to be true.
In the arena of religious “truth,” I haven’t seen anything yet that doesn’t have a “strong counter argument” for those who wish to have one. No exceptions. Zilch. If glorified Jesus had stayed on earth and opened a clinic to heal everyone of every physical malady–if they but accepted his truth–I think then we might have a consensus on religion. Outside of that, I doubt it’d ever happen. People always have their hangups. And smart people always have the most.
You say: Faith that has no basis in reality or any kind of strong, tangible evidcence is not faith. It is hopefulness or wishful thinking. Faith is that which you believe, and have strong reason to believe it is true.
I tend to endorse this comment in full. However, if the “strong, tangible evidence” you base your faith on amounts to empirical evidence worthy of a scientific journal, then the faith you subscribe to is leagues away from anything I’ve been taught of essential Judeo-Christian faith. Though I approach my faith with a sharper critical sword than any believing Mormon I know, I am certainly no fan of apologetics. Its self-serving, and ultimately faith-compromising aims are truly regretable. So I’m really not in the business. Sorry.
If my ideas, once published, amount to turning people to belief in the BoM, then so be it. I simply want people to appreciate better the word of God, and I’ve found literary analysis to be one very helpful tool. In my estimation, I’ve given you the best tool that I know–in the name of a specific scholar who opened the skies for me. I really don’t know what more to give a doubtful soul.
When I was a kid we’d like to go over to this little stop in the road in southern Wisconsin called Aztalan. It wouldn’t even qualify for village status but they had something really unique and interesting there. It was the remains of a middle Mississippi indian village circa 1,000-1,300 AD. The native people built large, flat topped pyramidal mounds and a stockade around the village. The stockade is being reconstructed following markings in the soil. The indians are said to have hunted, fished and farmed along the nearby Crawfish river.
Now you would think that if the remnants of this little indian village survied a thousand years or so, that there would be at least some physical evidence for the more expansive civilization mentioned in the BoM. What’s that place out in Colorado, the cliff dwellers? Is it Mesa Ferde or some such thing. Anyway, we have sites all over this country of indian peoples and their culture. But for the BoM…….zero. Like I’ve said before, Mormons must earn extra points for entry into the Celestial kingdom for maintaining belief in the most absurd and off-the-wall things. It’s the very nature of the psychological hook, the burning in the bosom, that gets them to deny reality.
I suggest that these comments, mostly from Mantis, reflect an important, and fundamental, difference in the entire approach to apologetics and empirical support for faith/tuth. I’m still thinking on what all this means, but to anyone who wants to make an impact on the LDS , you are well served to think on these things.
An odd iconsistency, it seems to me: Mantis, you claim yours is a historical faith (similar in that respect, to traditional christianity), yet you shy away from the very endeavors that would DEMONSTRATE that it is , indeed, a truly historical faith. How odd. And how different than the traditional christian appoach to apologetics that is more than willing, I would say COMPELLED to enter this arena , if for no other reason than we claim that GOD has acted in space, time, and history, in such a knowable fashion, that this kind of defense (however imperfect) is a MUST because our faith is BASED ON THESE KNOWABLE ACTIONS.
Germit, you asked if I had interests any anthropo-/archaeological evidences for the BoM. While I indeed do, I’d doubt they’d generate much excitement in this forum, other than to confirm how thoroughly my own belief in the Book of Mormon is grounded in spiritual evidences that are only garnished with empirical ones.
You say: Faith that has no basis in reality or any kind of strong, tangible evidcence is not faith. It is hopefulness or wishful thinking. Faith is that which you believe, and have strong reason to believe it is true.
.. if the “strong, tangible evidence” you base your faith on amounts to empirical evidence worthy of a scientific journal, then the faith you subscribe to is leagues away from anything I’ve been taught of essential Judeo-Christian faith. Though I approach my faith with a sharper critical sword than any believing Mormon I know, I am certainly no fan of apologetics. Its self-serving, and ultimately faith-compromising aims are truly regretable. So I’m really not in the business. Sorry.
More later.
Some cleanup: the “you say….” qt above was from MichaelP
I will add a hearty You Betcha to what ED wrote about LDS evidence and ‘parallels-gone-wild’ (my expression). The great majority of LDS evidence seems to fall on this line: and not necessarily mountains of parallels, just enough to say “it’s POSSIBLE that…..”
take CLUFF’s qt about the native american languages
Hebrew baraq lightning > Papago berok lightning
Aramaic katpa shoulder > Papago kotva shoulder
Hebrew hiskal be prudent > Nahua iskal be prudent
Hebrew yesïväh sitting > Hopi yesiva camp
If native americans are NOT the descendants of ancient hebrew immigrants, why are they still speaking remnants of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages?
the obvious question is: are there any credentialed language experts that claim what CLUFF and Jeff Lindsay are claiming ?? After studying the entire language and culture, who (other than an LDS apologist) wants to step forward and say: “wow, the link to the Near East and their languages is really something….”
My point being: in AnY language, you can nitpick and find SOME connection to almost anything: CLUFF, have those who’ve spent their lives studying the Pagago, the Nahua, and the Hopi even begun to go down the same road of conclusion that you have ?? If so, who are these people, and cite them.
FoF: I find ED’s explanation for the Hebrew names very believable (no surprise); am I correct in stating that the name “Nephi” appears in the KJV apocrypha ?? hmmmm. My own view on JS making mistakes is that: he certainly was NOT dumb, but he was no expert in the areas he was dabbling in: this INCLUDES archaeology, and future exploration of central americal will NOT be his ally. GERMIT
Continued thanks to ED for doing a LOT of heavy lifting on this thread. God has a reason and purpose for EVERYTHING. Peace and strength to you and yours.
Rick B has asked a very insightful question that (unless I missed it) no one has even attempted to answer.
Rick B asks, “If Jesus quotes from the OT and speaks of kings and prophets that span 1,000 of years and different countries, even going so far as to go back before the flood, why does Jesus or the apostles NEVER mention BoM prophets, places, people, stories, or anything for that matter?
You would at least think that all of these people heading off for America would at least be MENTIONED in one of the OT stories, or alluded to by somebody.
So, what about this?
Any real bites on Nahom, Bountiful, MesoAmerican artifacts with language with Hebrew/Egyptian connections, the Olmec legends of crossing the ocean in 7 tight ships from Babylon, the mountain in Yucatan that fits very well with Cumorah?
Ed- you are essentially saying that Joseph had access to cutting edge, great research on bible manuscripts, geography, archeology, and in addition just happened to get a bunch of other stuff right by chance like Nahom, Bountiful, Mesoamerica, etc. Yet he didn’t even know Christ was born in Bethlehem? This is all a leap of faith at least as big as my conclusion after considering all these things that the BOM is true.
For example- the Hebrew names issue. You say he jumbled up fragments to create new legitimate Hebrew names. When has that ever happened before? This is clear cut evidence, yet you find a way to dismiss it. That is a leap of faith.
Statistical analysis showed that the likelihood of the chiasm in Alma showing up by chance is extremely remote. (Boyd F. Edwards and W. Farrell Edwards, “Did Chiasms Appear in the Book of Mormon by Chance?”) If Joseph knew about chiasmus, why did he not point it out as proof of the BOM? It was first pointed out in 1967.
You said “Given any large, complex, and yet totally fictitious work, what are the odds that someone, somehow, if they try really hard, will be able to make some kind of connection to real life.” You start with the assumption that the BOM is a “totally fictitious work.” This is the bias I speak of. Critics love to quote people like Coe and the Smithsonian in dismissing the BOM. When considering BOM evidence, such people start with the same assumptions and biases. Think about it- what non-LDS archeologist believes the BOM? This is like asking, “what non-Christian archeologist accepts the bible’s account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ?” Answer- none. You are expecting them to accept a miracle.
People think the Smithsonian appropriates funds to really research the BOM connections to MesoAmerica? This is very naïve, yet given much weight by critics.
You are right- I want the BOM to be true. But conversely, it is obvious from your language that you desperately want it to be false- am I wrong? Why else such quick, rash global conclusions based on your opinions on small points? And such conclusions come on equivocal evidences. My question is why- why the investment of your energy to disprove it? What happened to make you jump from one type of “faith” to the opposite? My guess is that it had nothing to do with the evidence.
How about the use of enallage in the BOM?
Or Explain Jacob 5- I once discussed physiology and care of olive trees with a professor of agriculture who spent his life studying this very topic. I had given him the text of Jacob 5 and asked for criticism on the olive tree allegory. He said the references to olive trees and their management and care were flawless. Did Joseph have a manual on the topic at his community library? The things I have presented are evidences. No, they don’t “prove” that the BOM is true, but they are evidences. You have argued for alternative views on a few of these evidences. I even conceded on one example of one point. Even though you can dismiss the others as chance or luck, to an objective person these are called evidences. Yet, when this thread is finished (hopefully not yet, I have more arguments on other physical stuff and prophetcies), people like falcon et al will proudly claim “there is a vacuum of evidence,” or “there is absolutely no evidence to support the BOM.” This, even though only some of the evidences have been argued against. It is strange how this works.
Here is a list of prophecies in the BOM I jotted down while running through in about one hour. There are many more.
1 The record (BofM) should go forth unto all nations (2 Ne 25:22)
2 People of America to be lifted up above all other nations (1 Ne 18:30, 1 Ne 22:7)
3 Descendents of Lehi to accept the B of M (1 Ne 15:14)
4 Additional books of scripture to follow the B of M (1 Ne 13:39)
5 America never to be brought into captivity (2 Ne 1:7
6 Israel and descendents of Lehi to be nursed by gentiles (1 Ne 22:6)
7 B of M to convince descendents of Lehi to repent (2 Ne 3:21)
8 America to be land of liberty without kings (2 Ne 10:11)
9 Remnant of Lehi to rise up against gentiles in the Americas before the second coming (3 Ne 20:15-17)
(? Events and population movement along our sourthern border)
10 Gentiles and JEWS to be lifted up in America (2 Ne 27:1)
11 Gentiles and JEWS in America to be drunken with iniquity (2 Ne 27:1)
12 Charles Anthen transcript fortold (2 Ne 27:9, 15-20)
13 False churches in America to fight each other and deny the power of the Holy Ghost (2 Ne 28:3-4)
14 Hearts of children of men to rage against that which is good (2 Ne 28:20)
15 Many in last days would accept the teaching that there was no devil or evil (2 Ne 28:22)
16 Some would claim that “we need no more bible, God has done His work” (2 Ne 29:3)
17 Role of corrupt lawyers in disintegration of society/government (Alma 10-14)
18 Forshadowing of sweeping teaching that every person succeeded according the management of the creature–survival of the fittest/atheism (Alma 10:17).
19 Forshadowing of atheism explaining religious experiences away due to a “frenzied mind”- physiology or chemical reactions in the brain (Alma 10:17).
20 God would restore the knowledge of His ancient covenants to Israel and descendents of Lehi (3 Ne 5:24-26).
21 Jews to be hated and scourged in the latter days (3 Ne 16:9)
22 Gospel to be shared by gentiles with remnant of Israel and descendents of Lehi (3 Ne 21:6)
23 Joseph Smith to be marred (martyred) (3 Ne 21:10)
FoF: Thanks for what you’ve given us so far in evidence, some of this is very new to me.
I don’t want to stress this too much, but all or nearly all of the language stuff seems to fall in a category somewhat like : my wife is so pretty. What I mean is, you state that something is rare or complicated or hard to reproduce. These claims are difficult to either corraborate, or refute with any certainty, we end up like art critics debating what is ‘beautiful’. This approach seems to lend itself to enough subjectivity, that any kind of conclusion is very tough to get at. Does this make sense ??
I would say ‘less so’ for the archaeology and cultural studies, and DNA (which we haven’t ventured into, yet). I’m not dodging the ‘chiasmus’ line, but I think ED and Lautensack have done a good job of defending our position on that.
You’ve mentioned writing on metal in the ancient near east, but I’ve yet to hear about that practice in the New World, particularly on gold or bronze. Anything there ?? Most EVERYTHING you’ve given us is from a near east location,…better than nothing , but where’s all the mesoamerican goods ?? Or are we back at the ‘be patient, it’s coming….’ line of thought (not being smug, here, just want to know what we know…) The Dr.Kelley cylinder thing happened in 1966, and I think that newsletter you sited was 38 yrs ago (1970). Any news since then ??? What do the non-LDS sources have to say about the cylinders ?
You mention that ‘topics are timeless’, but I would contend that , many theological items are much more ‘generation specific than that;
more to the point, even if the topic is timeless, what about THE SIMILARITY IN THE CHOICE OF WORDS??
From ULM, & the WESTMINSTER CONFESSION
and there are many other parallels I could site
“… the spirits of the wicked, … shall be cast out into outer darkness;…” (Alma 40:13) “… the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, …and utter darkness,…” (Westminster Confession 32
Ed,
Great to have such a fantastic apologist respond to God’s grace and have the courage to leave the LDS Church. Keep up the amazing work, brother!
FOF,
I wanted so badly for the Church to be true because of my RM son. But, I have already told this story. You see, it’s not that we want the BOM to be false, it is false. Our apologetics are not designed to make us feel better or to try and convince ourselves that it’s not true, it simply isn’t true. The reason we fight so hard to prove the BOM as a false writing is because we want so desperately for Mormons to be saved in the kingdom of God. That’s our motive, FOF. There really is nothing more to it.
Grace and Peace!
FoF and others:
about the Westminster thot: let the reader do a side by side reading of Alma 40 and Westminster ch.32 and decide for themselves. Looks to me like Joe had the catechism handy when he did Alma 40. Begs the question of ‘ancient or modern??’.
Again, it’s not JUST the topics, although as ED has noted, that’s its own problem, it’s also the wording. GOD telling us the same truth twice..??? Maybe GOD needs a better proofer.
As to your list of ‘prophicies’, FoF: your linguistic stuff has a LOT more punch than this, I’m straining to find even ONE remarkable prophecy in the entire list. I mean, #2: people of America to be lifted up above all nations…. newsflash: we were ALREADY a quite prominent nation in the 1830’s, this is quite similar to the ‘U.S. will be drawn into a large conflict (ref. to civil war) prophecy, when these conflicts were ALREADY far advanced by the 1830’s, so much so that predictions of an impending war were warned about in the newspapers of the day. Do I need to track down that reference ??
Is ‘descendants of Lehi to accept the BofM at all remarkable if JS HIMSELF is responsible for the BofM ?? First he writes the terms, then ‘prophesies’ the results ??? Again, if we had some reason to believe the BofM to be a work of antiquity, some of this has weight, but as it is, it seems weak and mostly self-fulfilling or ‘National Enquirer’ brand of ‘ya-think??’ as in #23 JS to be ‘marred’, which could have meant HURT or INJURED in his mind when he wrote it, and what was the likelihood of THAT happening, considering the enemies he ALREADY had if he indeed wrote the book.
Your language stuff has some bite, but this list is ……. a true believers wish list.
An aside: didn’t members of the LDS church use the Smithsonian endorsment card ?? I think this was some time ago, and I’d agree that our side should give that a rest, if any are stuck on that.
OLMEC myth: they had a bunch of myths, this one had a similarity to the BofM,showing?
Mantis, a real quick post.
I’d say you are in the business of apologetics. You just take a different approach. Apologetics is the defense of your faith. This is exactly what you are doing, though you do not prefer to focus on the kinds of things we are addressing in this forum right now.
Fair enough. And but here’s a question: why would one believe in a book that cannot be shown, using tangible evidence and evidence that physically gives validity to the supernatural the book speaks of?
In other words, why would we believe in a book that has no credence in its presentation of history or other physical matters?
If it can’t be believe under that criteria, why would we trust what it says about the supernatual?
Yet a third way to pose the issue: why would a book that is true spiritually give histories that are not true?
jackg,
You see, it’s not that we want the BOM to be true, it is true. Our apologetics are not designed to make us feel better or to try and convince ourselves that it’s true, it simply is true. The reason we fight so hard to provide evidence that the BOM is true is because we want so desperately for everyone to be saved in the celestial kingdom of God. That’s our motive, jack. There really is nothing more to it.
(How does is sound when it put back to you?)
Ed,
I have found the methods of the critics of the LDS church and the BoM, to be the “see if something will stick” approach. They throw up lots and lots of excrement to see if any of it will stick. It doesn’t matter that time after time the excrement won’t stick, that doesn’t deter them from the continued effort.
Find a new place to discuss Mormonism? Ah, just pull out the same old stuff that didn’t stick last time and throw it up again.
I am continually amazed how “good” “christian” propagate falsehoods and/or fail to correct others with their falsehoods.
It is a rare Christian indeed that will defend Mormons from falsehoods.
Whence cometh the BoM? Try the Spaulding theory! oops that didn’t work, try that other guy Ethan or something like that!! oops that didn’t work!
What else can we try?
Oh yes, how about “JS was deceived by an evil spirit”. We will just quote 1 John 4:1 and make the blanket statement that it is done, over, fini!
Well NOT SO FAST!!!
1 John 4:1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: EVERY SPIRIT THAT CONFESSETH that JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH IS OF GOD:
3 Nephi 11:13 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying:
14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.
15 And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come.
16 And when they had all gone forth and had witnessed for themselves, they did cry out with one accord, saying:
17 Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him.
There you have it. According to the Bible the Book of Mormon “is of God”.
Cheers!!!
germit,
Nice of you to go to such reliable sources as Sandra and Jerald Tanner. LOL!!!
Alma 40:11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.
12 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.
13 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.
14 Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.
15 Now, there are some that have understood that this state of happiness and this state of misery of the soul, before the resurrection, was a first resurrection. Yea, I admit it may be termed a resurrection, the raising of the spirit or the soul and their consignation to happiness or misery, according to the words which have been spoken.
16 And behold, again it hath been spoken, that there is a first resurrection, a resurrection of all those who have been, or who are, or who shall be, down to the resurrection of Christ from the dead.
17 Now, we do not suppose that this first resurrection, which is spoken of in this manner, can be the resurrection of the souls and their consignation to happiness or misery. Ye cannot suppose that this is what it meaneth.
18 Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but it meaneth the reuniting of the soul with the body, of those from the days of Adam down to the resurrection of Christ.
19 Now, whether the souls and the bodies of those of whom has been spoken shall all be reunited at once, the wicked as well as the righteous, I do not say; let it suffice, that I say that they all come forth; or in other words, their resurrection cometh to pass before the resurrection of those who die after the resurrection of Christ.
20 Now, my son, I do not say that their resurrection cometh at the resurrection of Christ; but behold, I give it as my opinion, that the souls and the bodies are reunited, of the righteous, at the resurrection of Christ, and his ascension into heaven.
The Westminster Confession
CHAPTER XXXII. Of the State of Man After Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead.
I. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption; but their souls (which neither die nor sleep), having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Besides these two places for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.
II. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: and all the dead shall be raised up with the self-same bodies, and none other, although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls forever.
Let the comparison begin!!!
FoF: you’ve created a caricature of the point we are trying to make; you wrote
You said “Given any large, complex, and yet totally fictitious work, what are the odds that someone, somehow, if they try really hard, will be able to make some kind of connection to real life.” You start with the assumption that the BOM is a “totally fictitious work.” This is the bias I speak of…. When considering BOM evidence, such people start with the same assumptions and biases. Think about it- what non-LDS archeologist believes the BOM? This is like asking, “what non-Christian archeologist accepts the bible’s account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ?” Answer- none. You are expecting them to accept a miracle.
No, we are not: we are asking if non-LDS sources will even go so far as saying “we think the peoples and events (battles, farming, production of linen, smelting, etc…) might have occured on this continent. There is no claim that these experts in culture and language would therefore accept anything supernatural about your book (or ours).
Again: yours (and ours, reg. the Bible) is an HISTORICAL CLAIM. Not just theological or spiritual. SO: do those who know history give you ANY credence whatsoever ?? If yours was a religion similar to the New Age religions, this would be an irrevelant point, because to them historicity is silly: truth is entirely internal, subjective and of a spiritual nature ONLY. But your claim is not like theirs, hence this thread….. Do the contents of your book reflect REAL events in space, time , and history ?? If they don’t, does this not put into question the SPIRITUAL dimensions of the same book ?? Reread MichaelP’s last sentence.
As to the PROBABILITY that ED refers to, correct me if I’m wrong, but that probability is the SAME, whether or not we believe or disbelieve the book to be true. ED, step in here and clean this up, but I don’t think OUR BIAS affects the chances, only WHY WE’D ASK THE QUESTION.
GB,
I appreciate the fact that we are all driven by the same motive to see that the other is saved. I’m glad you responded in this manner, because I really had my doubts about you and why you do what you do. You might want to re-evaluate your style, because I for one usually skip past your posts. And, hey, if you usually skip past mine, that’s okay. 🙂
When I was LDS, I did what you do. I tried to bring people to the knowledge of the BOM being true because I did believe it to be true. But, God shed His grace on me and revealed to me that the BOM might be considered good reading in spots (I do like the King Benjamin story, FOF), but it’s not true. I don’t want to bore you with things I’ve already posted, but the perspective on grace the BOM presents is totally backwards from what God revealed to us in the New Testament. So, all I want to say is that God is offering you true grace–not the BOM type of grace that comes after everything you can do–but true grace that is being worked in your life and offered to you right now and which is the result of Jesus Christ crucified on the cross for you. I’ll be praying for you, GB–and for all Mormons–because true grace is sweeter than anything you have ever before tasted!
Grace and Peace!
I don’t know why this is so hard for Mormons to grasp. If the events and details of the BoM were true, then historians and scientists would be teaching it in schools and universities world-wide. In fact, even if they didn’t know about the BoM, they would have discovered these things, if they were there. But they aren’t. They aren’t there! If they aren’t there, then you are accepting them on faith. So when you try to convince us of the truth of the BoM all you have left is your testimony, which is out of bounds during this discussion. So I’m sitting here reading the Mormon postings and getting real bored and real impatient and real dismissive of the Mormon posters. I have to say it…..forgive me……it’s dumb. Just plain dumb! DUMB…DUMB…DUMB……Moderator please red letter me. I’m out of control and have reached my limit. I will go and collect myself and begin posting on another thread. But I do feel better now.
BOM critics have claimed it was implausible because it included stories of crossing the oceans in boats, and mentions barley, and horses.
Sorenson and Raish published an article and bibliography reviewing thousands of articles by researchers, most non-LDS, addressing the idea of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic travel. There is growing evidence that such travel was not only possible, but quite likely. (John L. Sorenson and Martin H. Raish, Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography, 2 vols. (Provo, UT: Research Press, 1990).
In 1983, researchers discovered evidence that a variety of barley was grown and used in ancient America (December 1983 issue of Science).
Excavations have revealed evidence supporting the presence of horses in Mesoamerica in BOM times. Such a find occurred in Mayapan where horse teeth were found dating to the Maya period along with Mayan pottery. Harry E. D. Pollock and Clayton E. Ray, “Notes on Vertebrate Animal Remains from Mayapan,” Current Reports 41 (August 1957): 638.
In 1947 Robert T. Hatt discovered evidence of twithin Actun Lara and one other cave in the Yucatan more remains of the American horse. (Robert T. Hatt, “Faunal and Archaeological Researches in Yucatan Caves,” Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bulletin 33, 1953).
In 1977, 2 Mexican archeologists also found horse bones in the Yucatan dating to after 1800 BC.
William Hamblin points out that the Huns of Central Asia and Eastern Europe employed vast numbers of horses in their conquests. Estimates are that each Hun warrior may have had has many as ten horses. “To quote S. Bokonyi, a foremost authority on the subject, ‘We know very little of the Huns’ horses. It is interesting that not a single usable horse bone has been found in the territory of the whole empire of the Huns.’” Denis Sinor, “The Hun Period,” in Denis Sinor, ed., The Cambridge History of Inner Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 203.
I just found a very interesting webpage as I was looking for another topic on Google. As far as I can tell, it does not belong to an LDS member and it uses non-LDS proof showing quite a number of interesting facts that have been found about ancient America. The author of the page ascribes it to a secret trade between the old and new worlds.
Some (not all) of the archaeological evidence shown on this page are things like –
– 10 commandments written on a stone in Phoenician writing under Greek influence and dated about 1000 BC.
– similarities to Greek, Latin, Berber, Phoenician, or Keltic vocabulary. The page goes on to discuss an interest in this aspect shown by Thomas Jefferson
– place names corresponding with ancient European and North African place names
– drawings depicting pre-Columbian horses
– drawings showing African elephants
A very interesting thing that I did not know was that the ruling class of the meso-Americans were white like Europeans with blond hair. On this webpage it gives quotes from the diaries of Columbus and Pizarro stating this. It also says ”Indian records in Mexico go back to about 320 AD. They chronicle the life of central Mexico and discuss the white god rulers”
It gives an interesting note from Cortez – ”the Indians had legends of a great flood, a tower of Babel (it wasn’t called Babel though), and an immaculate conception of the White God. The Indian priests also forgave sins and went through a type of baptism”
It discusses Quetzalcoatl and Virachocha, the gods of the civilisations at that time and describes them as “white bearded men” giving the fact that the natives did not grow beards.
Here is the website – http://www.crutchercpa.com/adamcpts.htm
I guess most of you will read this page and say that the writer is a crackpot, but can you fault the references and research he has done on this?
While it does not prove the BoM true, it gives more evidence towards this claims.
FOF,
I appreciate your acumen on the subject, but getting down to brass tacks: BOM critics like myself say it’s not true mostly because to defend it, one has to denigrade the Bible and go to great lengths and make great leaps in attempts to prove something that it’s not–revelation from God. I think it would be great if you and the other Mormons spent as much time defending God’s true word and the true meaning of grace rather than defending the work of JS and OC. You would all be fantastic missionaries of the truth.
Grace and Peace!
FOF,
I’m returning for a second to your prophecies.
Do you really think predictions about America were a) unique and b) stretches?
How about the one about some saying the Bible is all that is needed? Is this not something someone trying to establish a faith might do?
And the one about reaching the world with your faith? Self fulfilling?
Not sure your list helps you much.
On your next post, you present evidence for horses here. Those are some old discoveries. Anything more recent to back them up? Are they generally accepted?
FoF –
Have to get home pretty quick, but did want to respond to a few points in your amazingly fallacious laden post.
First, on the Hebrew names. I still can’t see how you can possibly demand that we give Joseph Smith brownie points for something that can be duplicated by a 12 year old with a list of Biblical/Apocryphal names. Especially when a couple of incorrect Greek ones appear throughout the text. Especially when there is no scientifically reputable evidence of a vast Hebrew-descended civilization thriving in the New World for over 1000 years.
Chiasmus: I will repeat this again (and I am positive that you will ignore it again) but Chiasmus is known during Joseph Smith’s time and was not first discovered in 1967 as you allege. Bishop John Jebb published a work on this in 1820, and Reverend Thomas Boys published in 1824. There are studies on non-Biblical chiasmus that go back further than this. LDS apologist John Welch has already admitted that this is true. I cannot give brownie points to a guy claiming to be a prophet based on him doing something we already know how to do.
Regarding my challenge to get past your falsely-amazing evidences through real experts, you responded:
“Think about it- what non-LDS archeologist believes the BOM? This is like asking, “what non-Christian archeologist accepts the bible’s account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ?” Answer- none. You are expecting them to accept a miracle.”
This is an obvious categorical fallacy, and one that I seem Mormons use non-stop when cornered on the lack of physical evidence for Smith’s claims. God-incarnate does not leave physical evidence when he resurrects. 300,000 dead Nephites wearing steel armor do. Vast, literary cities that practice Judeo-Christian religions, that exist 1000 years do. The Vikings were in the New World less time than the Nephites supposedly were, and yet they were kind enough to leave tangible evidence of their stay. Why can’t your BofM people do the same?
Ed, I’m always amazed at the relish of the big fish in commanding his puddle.
Some obvious fallacies of your own, that it’s quite doubtful anyone in the puddle even cares to note:
Of your mentioning of biblical chiasmus by Jebb and Boys into English the decade previous to the BoM’s publication, you claim this clearly justifies the BoM’s use of Chiasmus. What you fail to mention is that both publications represent rather astute London-published volumes, and therefore only with great imaginative latitude find their way into the young JS’s rustic, upstate NY hands. Furthermore, neither author gives biblical “chiasmus” more than a cursory acknowledgment; and both simply follow Lowth in pointing out simplistic A-B-A lexical patterns found in biblical verse, nothing even remotely close to the 15 inverted patterns we find in BoM narrative. Equivalent patterns in the Bible were a long ways off from discovery in JS’s day.
As for this explanation of the BoM’s chiastic structure: “Smith’s is still on the same order to complexity as Strang’s, which is hardly striking.” Uh, you’ve posted an arrangement of Strang’s apparently best inverted structures, & I did the same for Alma 36. Only a fool would then forward a conclusive summary like this. But as long as you remain in the tight quarters of your cozy puddle, you know as well as I it doesn’t matter. I & my fellows here are merely foreign toads peering in from the meager “shoreline.”
And so we sit back and marvel at your utterly silly pontifications–of our mental “12 year old” Joseph unable to fabricate authentically original Semitic names on the one hand, but able on the other to not only incorporate cutting edge biblical scholarship into his fictional narrative, but expand upon that scholarship as if he were some upstart Byron.
P.S. The Vikings are about as fair a historical analogue to the Nephites as Columbus’s remains are to the Greek’s Atlantis. But the big fish knows only a fool would accept Atlantis as historic.
Question on the chiasmus…
Does the term need to be defined in order for the structure to exist?
How does this play into the discussion?
Seems to me that it works against the claims of Smith.
But we’ve been through this before… That it can be recreated kind of takes away its specialness, I think. If others can do it, why is Smith’s use of the technique any different?
Quality of it? So what? Brilliant men do live and have lived, and will live on this earth, and not all are Harvard or Cambridge educated.
The big fish rebut is merely a distraction. Doesn’t really address Ed’s claims…
What a fun thread. Is everyone here who does not believe in revelation completely sure about all their spiritual beliefs? It seems a little odd that Spiritual matters are not understood by the Spirit. I remember Paul teaching something about no one can know Jesus is the Christ but by the Holy Ghost. I guess that means constantly changing and conflicting archaeological evidence used to support significantly post-Biblical doctrines. Like the belief by most archaeologists today that the walls of Jericho were already down when the Israelites arrived, or that early Hebrews were polytheists. If you live by the scholar…
I missed the steel armor on the Nephites. Can you cite that verse for me? I guess the vast Amazonian cities discovered this year which had vast highways and 10’s of thousands of residents didn’t really exist until we discovered them after 500 years of knowing where they lived. Right? I like Vikings, being Scandahoovian myself, but they left their traces in a slow reacting biological environment we knew they had gone to. We still don’t know where Cumorah, Zarahemla or other Nephite sites are. Just like we don’t know where Calvary, Capernaum, Horeb or most of the the locations of the Bible are. Or do we have a map for the Red Sea crossing or march in the wilderness? Short of a spiritual witness, there is only hope in factually unsupported teachings there. And that is way different than Mormonism, right?
I like Ed the Fish.
I’ll also buy one of Kitty’s t-shirts.
Perhaps she can donate the proceeds to the backhoe fund.
Save the Fish!
(Was that a chiasmus?)
mantis mutu says: “And so we sit back and marvel at your utterly silly pontifications–of our mental “12 year old” Joseph unable to fabricate authentically original Semitic names on the one hand, but able on the other to not only incorporate cutting edge biblical scholarship into his fictional narrative, but expand upon that scholarship as if he were some upstart Byron.”
There in lies the rub. JS was not 12 when he wrote the BoM. Remember all those times he had to come back year after year, even one year, failing to bring with him his brother that died? He was a great story teller and his family backs that up. So I am thinking he had a lot of practice putting his story together as well as time to do the research. And I will throw in also that his 12 years of age in those days, makes him older;). After all, that’s the excuse that’s given for the young women who married younger than was the norm of that day. Works both ways.
Ed,
You need to strive for more accuracy, you are losing credibility.
Why do you misrepresent what John Welch has said?
What he actually said is,”Although the form was recognized and published as early as 1820 IN LONDON, it was not until 1854 in a study by John Forbes (The Symmetrical Structures of Scripture) that a full appreciation or understanding of chiasmus was developed.” (Emphasis mine).
This blows your theory away or are you saying that Joseph Smith knew intimate details of obscure material published in London in 1820? Oh wait, thats right, you think he was fluent in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. As well as having Apocryphal manuscripts. All in the backwoods of early America on a dirt farmers budget to boot. Almost convincing, NOT!!!
Secondly why do you misrepresent what FoF has posted? you said,”Chiasmus is known during Joseph Smith’s time and was not first discovered in 1967 as you allege.”
What he actually said is,”If Joseph knew about chiasmus, why did he not point it out as proof of the BOM? It was first pointed out in 1967.”
Clearly he is talking about chiasmus being pointed out IN THE BOM in 1967. Get it?
Still no explanation for the accurate description of “Bountiful” on the south east coast of the Arabian pennisula.
Or the 1 John 4:2 support for the BoM.
jackg,
I am not sure what it is about my “style” that you don’t like. When people don’t like what I post and they don’t have a reasonable response, I just take it that the truth hurts.
Thanks for your prayers. I’ll pray for you.
Cheers!!
I found this interesting quote in the website link above. I would like to see what kind of logic falcon will use to dismiss this one:
Nelson Lee, a former Texas Ranger and horse rancher, was captured by the Comanche nation in 1856. He survived and became their slave for 3 years, after which he escaped. Within his Three Years Among the Comanches written in 1859, he describes part of a town he saw in the southern Rockies and the legend associated with these ancient ruins. From the words of the Comanche chief, Lee’s slave master: “Innumerable moons ago, a race of white men, ten feet high, and far more rich and powerful than any white people now living, here inhabited a large range of country, extending from the rising sun to the setting sun… They excelled every other nation which has flourished either before or since in all manner of cunning handicraft – were brave and warlike – ruling over the land they had wrested from its ancient possessors with a high and haughty hand… In the height of their power and glory, when they remembered justice and mercy no more and became proud and lifted up, the Great Spirit descended from above, sweeping them with fire and deluge from the face of the earth.” Note, to the reader, the immediate territory of the ruins of this ancient town was surrounded by volcanic rock.
Three Years Among the Comanches, by Nelson Lee, originally published 1859, pp. 154-156.
GB wrote “The reason we fight so hard to provide evidence that the BOM is true is because we want so desperately for everyone to be saved in the celestial kingdom of God.”
I’m curious. Do I have to believe that BOM is true to be saved?
At present, I believe it is false. I also believe that Christ Jesus is my righteousness and he provides all the justification needed for me to claim that I am a citizen of God’s kingdom, I am part of his redeemed people, and I am saved (1 Cor 6:11 etc etc etc).
Where does that put me?
mantis mutu:
I’ve taken a look over your version of the Chiasmus and have noticed that yours differs from both the version of Jeff Lindsay and of John Welch, as well as my own but we won’t count mine here to be fair. What I have to wonder is how the three of you can break the passage up differently and all logically claim it to be the same chiasmus. It seems Mr. Lindsay looked for specific words or phrases to break up the passage. Unfortunately as noted earlier required certain verses to be moved around or left out. It seems to counteract this John Welch used large theological categories sparsely defined. However even with these broad categories Dr. Welch is required to leave verses out of his analysis since he is seeking to keep the chiastic structure. Your own version is very good I must admit but it seems to be a revamping of Dr. Welch’s version with less concern for the literary structure by combining concepts that don’t seem to fit the structure. This is especially apparent in letter H where we see the key theme “born of God” being combined with seeking the destruction of the church, yet with H’ we do not see any combination with the building up of the church as the literary form would require.
I think a conclusion that a student of literature could draw from this passage is that excessive repetition can result in what appears to be a chiasmus. We see this repetition in the phrases or topics of “Born of God,” “Commandment keeping,” “pain,” “joy,” etc. All of these examples are repeated four or more times in the passage.
Lautensack
GB:
1 John 4:1-3 does not support the book of Mormon.
Let us first understand the heresy John is addressing here. There were some people about who affirmed the deity of Christ, but denied that he was God incarnate. This is known as gnosticism which is a form of dualism. This form of dualism states that there are two gods, the Old Testament evil god(the father) who created the material world, and the New Testament good god(Jesus) who redeem the world back to its non-material state. Now because to them matter was inherently sinful Jesus (the good god) could never actually become a man without himself becoming a sinner, thus they said he only appeared human but really was just a spirit. That long introduction and historical background was simply to say that it was assumed in the church that Jesus was God, even the heretics were saying this, however they differed when they said He was man. Now this is how Mormonism falls victim to this verse, by rejecting the distinction of deity and humanity that John affirms (John 1:1-3) Therefore while it appears that Mormonism affirms that “Jesus Christ come in the flesh” this is actually denied by them since by nature God is flesh for God to become flesh is redundant. (John 1:1-2;14)
Lautensack
Mantis: while I appreciate your posts, I’m starting to wonder if you are the disinterested man on the sidelines, apologetically speaking. Maybe more the case that you don’t mind taking a a strong stand in your favorite arenas, and the chiasmus structures represent much more to you than beautiful literature, but proof or evidence of a kind. This doesn’t bother me in the least, except to take exception at your suggestion that you don’t ‘play the game’. I think you certainly do, and are, it’s just you greatly prefer (seemingly) this area over others.
Yours is a high mountain to climb, because if Strang produced chiasmus, why shouldn’t I believe that Joseph produced it, even at a higher quality ?? I don’t think Strang was published in LONDON, was he ? Maybe Joseph was just smarter, or got ideas from better sources that we have not yet found. It seems the form itself was undeniably around, the only question would be, did he have access to it. Maybe it was the ‘pentecostal flaming rhetoric’ of the day, a sermonic novelty, I don’t know. What I do know is that we are back at the ‘art gallery’ arguing about what is beautiful.
As for JS having ‘cutting edge biblical scholarship’, I don’t see where this chiasmus thing earns him that honor, even if he did produce it, this looks like an apples to oranges comparison to me, and REVELATION, not scholarship, has been the calling card that I’m aware of.
GB: I think it’s been shown that having an apocrypha within a KJV bible was NOT that unusual at the time. You would know better than I, did JS have that kind of KJV bible ?? You spend more time mocking our motives and methods than giving rebuttal , you could gain greater credibility if you just show us where we’ve erred: this might have been what JackG was talking about.
CLUFF: do those who’ve studied the Comanches history concur with the legend and how strongly? Can you site these historians or anthropologists ? If you can’t, you have one more interesting legend, among several.
Germit,
Go back to my post on the 3rd of Nov and visit the website. It has the quote Cluff gave and the reference for it. It also has the other quotes that I have given and the references for it.
If you read the BoM, it describes the dissenters of the Nephites joining with the Lamanites and usually taking some form of control over them in most cases. This is interesting because if the quotes from Columbus and Pizarro are correct about there being white people ruling over the ancient Amerindians then, although it does not conclusively prove the BoM to be true, it places another strong piece of evidence towards that argument.
BTW it appears that the webpage I have referenced belongs to someone who is a white supremacist. But as I said, they are not members of the LDS church from what I can see, and all of the references used are not LDS sources.
FoF –
Sorry to be not be able to post as much the past few days – I am pretty swamped and trying to squeeze in posts here.
I was intrigued to see your horse references. The new apologetic tack these days is to say that horse = tapir (while, IMO, hoping that the LDS faithful don’t find out what these really look like) and calling it good. I was impressed that you are actually trying to put real horses in real BofM times.
The info you cite is a paraphrase from a John Welch article from 2001. I took some time to dig here and found some pretty major omissions on the part of both you and Welch.
You mention that “horse” remains are found in the caves. These “horse” remains are from an Equus conversidens, happily extinct from about 8000 BC. You state, incorrectly, that “In 1977, 2 Mexican archeologists also found horse bones in the Yucatan dating to after 1800 BC.” but this is also a misrepresentation of the work (Welch states this correctly). The archeologist dated the STRATA (dirt) to after 1800 BC, not the horse remains. This is the same flaw that gets Daniel Peterson of FARMS into trouble with when he cites a horse skull found in the midwestern US that “dates” to BofM times. It turns out that the (non-LDS, to my knowledge) graduate student put the skull in there as a hoax, knowing that his professor would date the dirt and come to erroneous conclusion. The student later admitted to this, the skull itself was tested, and it was found to date to only the 19th Century.
Apparently more than one Mormon apologist needs to dig through their sources a bit more before throwing them out in the field.
Re: Chiasmus in the 19th Century
I still can’t give brownie points to somebody for something that is out there before he does it. The English studies from the early 1820s show that this was known, even if not in its fullest form. Is it really that unreasonable to think that Smith could find out about this in his religious searchings?
I keep hearing several LDS claim that we think that Smith is some kind of genius who does a lot of reading. This is not my position, nor does it need to be.
To have what you need to write the BofM you simply need to live in upstate NY during the revival period of the 1820s and engross yourself in all things religious (sound familiar?). All of the elements are there for Smith in his own back yard, and are much closer than the sharpshooters that people like FoF are coming up with. Quick review:
Backstory involving Hebrew people running around in America . . . check
Huge set of religious controversies unique to the 19th Century . . . check
KJV translation errors that were known at the time for Smith to correct . . . check
Bible translation errors that Smith won’t fix since they are not widely known/accepted at the time . . . check
Chiasmus . . . check (you at least have to concede the possibility)
Bible names . . . check
Arminian Decision Theology . . . double-check
Straw-man Universalism . . . check
Straw-man Deism . . . check
Straw-man Secular humanist philosophy . . . check
Freemasons (conspiracy theory) . . . check
Straw-man Calvinist . . . check (surprised that the Reformed posters on the board haven’t chimed in here)
Tons of archeological, flora, and fauna mess ups . . . check
To all –
Thank you so much for the compliments from both sides (though I do hate seafood). It really has been a pleasure chatting with everyone on this.
Since my earlier list of problems has been virtually ignored by the LDS posters I thought I would throw one of them out again: Wordprint analysis (my background in stats, so I do love this stuff).
Larson’s pioneering study in the 1980s is still cited by LDS who want to feel that the Book of Mormon is (as it claims) the work of multiple authors. The study was not peer-reviewed and published in BYU studies (not a real academic journal). The next year, LDS folk started seeing some of the major flaws in Larson’s argument (see James Croft, Sunstone 1981), but many LDS nonetheless cite Larson’s work when they want to evade criticism.
Then in the early 90s, a British researcher took up the challenge, and in a peer-reviewed article demonstrated again the major flaws in Larson’s approach and then showed using proper techniques that the Book of Mormon prophets, with the exception of the plagiarisms, all cluster together as if they were written by one person. (see D.I. Holmes, “A Multivariate Technique for Authorship Attribution and its Application to the Analysis of Mormon Scripture and Related Texts,” Oxford University Press).
Anybody want to take a stab?
Cheers!
Ralph: thanks for the hot tip: I’m assuming you mean Mr. Crutcher’s web page to check out CLUFF’s qt, is that right ??? And yeah, that guy is one colossal nutjob, I figured that out in a hurry when I read 3 min worth of his gem on “Interracial Marriage”. I’m hoping his very beautiful kids grow up and realize how wrong dear old dad is. Any guesses as to how Mr.Crutcher is voting today ?? I’ll still check this out, quickly….Ralph, how do you find these guys ??
ED: thanks again for posts that will get copied (not for sale……probably) and reread. YOU HAVE RAISED THE BAR HERE AT MORMON COFFEE FOR WHICH WE ARE GRATEFUL (so has Mantis, by the way, so a shout out to M & M, the best chiasmic rapper ever) ED, are you sure about the fish thing, because I was thinking like ‘ED the BARRACUDA’ OR ‘BIG ED THE TUNA’……. just wondering.
Well, the mythology stuff is interesting, I love mythology actually, but is there a REAL story behind it and HOW WOULD WE KNOW ?If my LDS friends are right, that the prevalence of these ‘white leaders’ stories reflects history, the hope is that archaeology and the study of ancient cultures will corroborate. Until then, it seems like: “well….cool story….when’s the movie come out ???” I don’t want to come across dismissive, but the myth ITSELF is a tease….. certainly every myth is not grounded in something that actually happened. I am open to go wherever the evidentiary trail leads; I’ll have to admit I’m going to ‘screen’ LDS field work to look for the kind of stuff Ed mentioned, anyone with a great bias to see something true, or false, needs to be kept on a short rope.
Lautensack’s blip about REPETITION is interesting to me, and brings up a question: is it possible that JS stumbled into a literary form he knew little about thru his penchant for repetition. What I mean is: the man was constantly stating things in repetive ‘clumps’, it’s never enough to say the same thing once and be done with it. Am I being fair with this ?
GB,
Your last response to me really humbled me. I was thinking the same thing when I didn’t get a response–that the truth hurt. Now, I realize that people are obviously scrolling past my posts as I scroll past yours. I mean, to think that the truth is hurting someone like me when I’m not even reading what you post 95% of the time, obviously the reason can’t be that what you’re saying is truth and that that you’re hitting some spot. Hope this makes sense. So, perhaps nobody is even reading this response to you. I don’t know. But, if you’re reading it, the difference between you and me is that you peddle what you think is truth, and that is the BOM. I peddle what I think is truth, and that’s the Bible. To peddle your perception of truth, you have to charge that the Bible is not good enough. That’s your prerogative, GB, so peddle on. I’ll continue to peddle the Bible and God’s grace as contained therein.
I remember growing up being taught that part of the purpose of the BOM was to convince the Jews as well as the Gentiles. So, here’s a simple question: has the BOM convinced the Jews? I mean, are they joining the Church in throngs? Are they being converted through the BOM at all? As far as convincing the Gentiles, I see that the great majority of Gentiles are not convinced, either. I just think it’s another argument against the BOM.
Nobody commented or contested my comments about the BOM referring to synagogues “after the manner of the Jews” when the character Lehi supposedly took his family into the wilderness and across the sea prior to the exilic period. The word synagogue would not have been part of their vocabulary at that point as it was an idea that had not existed.
To the Christian posters: you are all doing fantastic work. I’m amazed at the amount of research you have done, and at the quality of apologetics.
Grace and Peace
Yikes, that Wordprint study stuff is really compelling, if it weren’t for the fact Hilton, an LDS pioneer in Wordprint analysis, published a his work by a multi-denominational group in Berkley, CA, where he noted the significant errors latent in Larsen’s approach (BYU Studies, 30/3 (1990)pg 89-108). Hilton’s group concluded the BofM was written by multiple authors, none of which included Joseph Smith, Cowdery or Spaulding.
He revised the work for republication in 1997 (“On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship” in “Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited”, FARMS, 1997, pg 225-253), and was working on further refinements at the time of his death in March 2000.
A more up to date peer reviewed study was presented in April 2006 by Moon, Howland and Gunther at a Conference on Data Mining. Their paper, “Document Author Classification using Generalized Discriminant Analysis” looked at the Federalist Papers, a disputed Jane Austen novel which was completed by a fan attempting to mimic her style, and the Book of Mormon. They also noted the critical “Wordprint” work by LDS critics was actually a measure of vocabulary richness, and failed to discriminate well enough to identify known multiple authors in the Federalist Papers. So citing the “British researcher” is actually a non-starter, unless unscholarly and negatively reviewed work is your preferred method for finding truth.
The 2006 study can be found here: http://www.siam.org/meetings/sdm06/workproceed/Text Mining/moon20.pdf
Both of the non-Larsen studies meet the standard for providing an excellent scientific method for looking at Book of Mormon authorship, were done by statisticians (as opposed to Larsen which was a project of computer programmers using a statistically insignificant sample for many of their groups), and affirmed multiple authorship within the Book of Mormon. By contrast, the only LDS-critical response is not statistically relevant to determining authorship. Good stuff.
Ed
Holmes has apparently reversed his stand on the methods he followed in his BOM analysis. He used contextual words in his paper, and concluded that the measures of “vocabulary richness” differed between JS and the BOM, but was unable to differentiate the prophets of the BOM. Since then, he has praised the use of NON-CONTEXTUAL word frequencies BECAUSE he found that his former method was unable to differentiate between Hamilton, Madison, and Jay in the Federalist Papers. Using this superior approach, Hilton showed using non-contextual words that he could differentiate between Nephi and Alma. Larsen, Rencher, and Layton applied yet another objective author-attribution technique to Book of Mormon texts and showed that writings of different Book of Mormon prophets differed significantly in their rates of use of common non-contextual words.
Why do you insist on using the word “plagiarism”? The BOM clearly gives credit to Isaiah where his writings appear. Is this not another evidence of your bias?
Is that a list you offer? Are you reversing your stand on such junk science? Just kidding.
I will go down the list:
Chiasmus- still very weak. Yes, people knew of basic chiastic structures in the Bible at that time, although it is not very reasonable to believe Joseph had access to such concepts. Even if he did, “writing” a 530 page text filled with these structures with no notes or books at your side, all in 2 months is quite impressive- especially considering the one in Alma 36. I mentioned the statistical study at the likelihood of this appearing randomly suggested it was almost impossible. And why didn’t he point out these structures later if he knew about them? Wouldn’t he want to prove his work if he knew of them?
Names again- in addition to randomly coming up with legitimate Hebrew names, he came up with names that happened to correspond with the correct time period in the history of the Hebrew language. Do you still want to hold to this?
FoF, As to the chiasmus, do you think it necessary to know the name of the technique to be able to repeat it? DO you have to create it congnizantly? Or can you have examples of it, whether or not you know of it, and copy it?
Oops! Didn’t see that last post before placing mine.
Arminian theology- similarities, maybe. But the language and themes more closely resemble pre-exile Israel temple worship. Look up Margaret Barker on this (also Hague, Welch).
Are you arguing that humanism and atheism were more prevalent in 1829 than today- Serious? These are major threats to our civilization NOW. How about deism, or the belief that truth can be determined by science and reason.
And Gadianton robbers- again, these dudes are almost identical in their methods and goals to Muslem terrorists. I don’t know why you insist on your interpretation.
And “tons” of archeological, fauna, etc. “mess-ups.” I still have not heard the majority of that type of evidence refuted. “Tons” again rings of bias. This sounds like a major hand waving based on limited problems.
Again- any argument against Nahom, Bountiful. And Mulek (spelled Mulech in the BOM manuscript) as not been adequately addressed.
Jackg- it has been shown that the Jews did in fact have synagogue-like places for worship and study before the exile. The fact that the word “synagogue” is used in the BOM is really a non-issue. It was translated into 1830 English which included the word “synagogue.”
Germit, Lautensack- if interested, I can e-mail my favorite demonstration of the alma 36 parallelism. I can’t reliably reproduce it with this format.
Michael P- of course a person can reproduce a chiastic structure in language. I suppose it could be intentional or unintentional. The problem is that these structure are found throughout the BOM, and some are extremely developed and complex. A statistical analaysis of the one in Alma 36 showed it was near impossible for it to appear by chance. So maybe Joseph tried to create this example? I think just as remote, given the unlikelihood he even knew of these things in 1829 and translated without aid of notes or books per the scribes.