Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[TOmNossor]

Stephen168:
Coe wrote, “The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere.”
I know that Sorenson and Coe are friends and I know that Coe has a copy of Mormon Codex.
amazon.com/Mormons-Codex-Ancient-American-Book-ebook/dp/B00F64T8SA
I do hope Coe comments on it extensively, but I do not think he has had it for more than a couple of months.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom,

If the BoM story happened in a limited geography in Mesoamerica, then why did the Nephites and Lamanites travel thousands of miles to have a battle at the hill Cumorah?

If you say that the Cumorah in New York is not the Cumorah where the Jaredite and Nephite/Lamanite battles took place in the BoM, then please explain why Moroni traveled thousands of miles to bury the plates there?

Thanks,
Paul
I recall some discussions of sacred journeys linked to Moroni’s walk, but I only advocate with certainty that the plates were in a hill in NY so that Joseph Smith could find them with help from an angel. There is no explanation for Joseph Smith finding ancient plates from Moroni, a fellow who died in 400AD, that does not involve supernatural phenomena.
That being said:
According to the BOM, Moroni had many years to wander alone.
The hill cumorah being a somewhat central location for the BOM people and absolutely a place of strategic importance for those living in that region would be a poor place to hang out for a dozen years trying to avoid the people who vowed (and succeeded) to kill you and your fellows.
In this respect it even makes sense that Moroni would head away from the hill cumorah.

Again, I want to keep coming back to this. There are a few detailed geographic and archeological evidences for the BOM. There are volumes of less detailed evidences for the BOM. I do not believe it is warranted to dismiss them with, “I do not think it likely Moroni would walk so far.”

How did these multi-dimensional points of contact occur:
Jerusalem, Nahom, Bountiful. They fit extraordinarily well with Lehi’s journey. They are located on the Frankincense trail. The presence of the Valley of Lemuel and the River of Laman on the voyage from Jerusalem to Bountiful. The presence of Nahom with alter inscription. Then the “turn east” and ultimate arrival at the fertile place, Bountiful. It should be noted that Jerusalem and Nahom are the only places Lehi doesn’t name on his own, but the valley, river, and lush green place are exactly where they should be relative to Jerusalem and Nahom. How did the author of the BOM know this if he didn’t have supernatural access to some ancient record?

The BOM also speaks rather directly of a city that used cement, in the presence of lots of water and in the absence of trees Helaman 3:9-11. This, once thought to be an anachronism (albeit an anachronism unlikely to have been produced by an 1830’s fellow from upstate NY), has a rather precise point of contact with Mesoamerica. Teotihuacan. How would some 1830’s fellow (or fellows) in NY know this?

Finally, the description of a specific type of volcanic activity that occurred in the right place and the right time. Nobody in NY would know much about volcanos or their presence in Mesoamerica. How did this get in the book?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Isn’t ETB firmly in the dead prophet category now? Ergo, easily dismissed?

I apologize if you are actually acknowledging that comments I have offered from LDS leaders and a recent statement on the churches website show that there is warrant to dismiss past leaders statements (especially about subjects unrelated to “faith and morals.”
But if I read your comment correctly (and I know I read comments from other correctly) then here are a couple of thoughts:
Like Joshua from the Old Testament, he is dead can we dismiss his thoughts on planetary motion?
And of course there are numerous popes who have taught many false things and there are many fallacious ways to dismiss Catholicism because of this. Have you not experienced this happening to your faith?
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

Isn’t ETB firmly in the dead prophet category now? Ergo, easily dismissed?

not sure they have to be dead to be dismissed. According to Tom, you can pick and choose what teachings and doctrine from lds “prophets” you want to accept.

Handy religion, that

 

[TexanKnight]

I apologize if you are actually acknowledging that comments I have offered from LDS leaders and a recent statement on the churches website show that there is warrant to dismiss past leaders statements (especially about subjects unrelated to “faith and morals.”
But if I read your comment correctly (and I know I read comments from other correctly) then here are a couple of thoughts:
Like Joshua from the Old Testament, he is dead can we dismiss his thoughts on planetary motion?
And of course there are numerous popes who have taught many false things and there are many fallacious ways to dismiss Catholicism because of this. Have you not experienced this happening to your faith?
Charity, TOm

you know that a Mormon has lost when they start comparing stuff from OT to the American, English-Speaking “prophets” of the lds church. I love those fallacious comparisons.

I also love it when they either elevate Popes to prophet status or demote lds “prophets” to non-prophets when they compare the lds “prophets” to Catholic Popes.

Beautiful

 

[PaulDupre1]

I recall some discussions of sacred journeys linked to Moroni’s walk, but I only advocate with certainty that the plates were in a hill in NY so that Joseph Smith could find them with help from an angel. There is no explanation for Joseph Smith finding ancient plates from Moroni, a fellow who died in 400AD, that does not involve supernatural phenomena.

About Joseph knowing where the plates were, that’s true. But the plates being there has a very simple explanation: Moroni put them there 1400 years earlier. Occam’s razor.

Unless you’re going to venture into slippery treasure moving about from one hill to another, along with its stone box (which seems to have vanished as well). I’ve been told that by some of my LDS relatives and acquaintances.

Of course, the plates never existed and the Nephites never existed, so this is all academic.

That being said:
According to the BOM, Moroni had many years to wander alone.
The hill cumorah being a somewhat central location for the BOM people and absolutely a place of strategic importance for those living in that region would be a poor place to hang out for a dozen years trying to avoid the people who vowed (and succeeded) to kill you and your fellows.
In this respect it even makes sense that Moroni would head away from the hill cumorah.

Again, I want to keep coming back to this. There are a few detailed geographic and archeological evidences for the BOM. There are volumes of less detailed evidences for the BOM. I do not believe it is warranted to dismiss them with, “I do not think it likely Moroni would walk so far.”

How did these multi-dimensional points of contact occur:
Jerusalem, Nahom, Bountiful. They fit extraordinarily well with Lehi’s journey. They are located on the Frankincense trail. The presence of the Valley of Lemuel and the River of Laman on the voyage from Jerusalem to Bountiful. The presence of Nahom with alter inscription. Then the “turn east” and ultimate arrival at the fertile place, Bountiful. It should be noted that Jerusalem and Nahom are the only places Lehi doesn’t name on his own, but the valley, river, and lush green place are exactly where they should be relative to Jerusalem and Nahom. How did the author of the BOM know this if he didn’t have supernatural access to some ancient record?

The BOM also speaks rather directly of a city that used cement, in the presence of lots of water and in the absence of trees Helaman 3:9-11. This, once thought to be an anachronism (albeit an anachronism unlikely to have been produced by an 1830’s fellow from upstate NY), has a rather precise point of contact with Mesoamerica. Teotihuacan. How would some 1830’s fellow (or fellows) in NY know this?

Finally, the description of a specific type of volcanic activity that occurred in the right place and the right time. Nobody in NY would know much about volcanos or their presence in Mesoamerica. How did this get in the book?
Charity, TOm

A biiiiiig stretch to see very flimsy coincidences. But these coincidences do not suggest to a dispassionate observer that the BoM people and events are real in any context. As has been pointed out, the same types of coincidences can be found for the “Lord of the Rings” books.

It’s just that you are a very passionate observer, and you see precisely what you wish to see.

Back to reality: why is it that the place names in the BoM correspond almost exactly to the place names around where Joseph Smith grew up and where Solomon Spalding and Sydney Rigdon lived?

Now that is a coincidence!

Paul

 

[TexanKnight]

About Joseph knowing where the plates were, that’s true. But the plates being there has a very simple explanation: Moroni put them there 1400 years earlier. Occam’s razor.

Unless you’re going to venture into slippery treasure moving about from one hill to another, along with its stone box (which seems to have vanished as well). I’ve been told that by some of my LDS relatives and acquaintances.

Of course, the plates never existed and the Nephites never existed, so this is all academic.

A biiiiiig stretch to see very flimsy coincidences. But these coincidences do not suggest to a dispassionate observer that the BoM people and events are real in any context. As has been pointed out, the same types of coincidences can be found for the “Lord of the Rings” books.

It’s just that you are a very passionate observer, and you see precisely what you wish to see.

Back to reality: why is it that the place names in the BoM correspond almost exactly to the place names around where Joseph Smith grew up and where Solomon Spalding and Sydney Rigdon lived?

Now that is a coincidence!

Paul

yep.

And I love how Tom, knowing there is ZERO evidence re: Cumorah, calls js, jfs, oliver pratt, and all the rest either simply wrong or lying.

and logically, it has to be lying. It is inconceivable that God would allow so many prophets and apostles to give wrong info…especially since the mormons beleive that Jesus would talk to the prophets face to face.

 

[Stephen168]

I think you provide some solid reasoning with only a few holes.
First, in 1970 numerous LDS scholars had already dismissed the view of the BOM you espouse. Brigham Young’s son rejected that view and Joseph Smith in 1842 offer thoughts that were inconsistent with that view.
The rejection of the view you and Joseph Smith most frequently offered preceded 1970 and was born of reading the BOM not the advance of science.

Yes, by the 1970’s The Mormon Church was started to turn on Joseph Smith’s prophetic claim about what the BoM is about. But it does not change the claim made by Joseph Smith, the prophet and founder of Mormonism, as I quoted him from Mormon scripture and a letter he wrote.

Your #1. I think is a true statement. There were times when I think Joseph Smith was quite convinced of #1.

Convinced? He claimed to get it from an angel from God. It was his prophetic claim.

If your #2 is taken to mean that anthropology and biology prove that all of the ancestry of all of the Indians in North and South America trace to a migration of 30 or so folks in 600BC from Jerusalem, it is also true (and as I acknowledge in #1, I think Joseph sometimes thought that was what was the case, even though I think the BOM does not teach this and thus Joseph Smith misunderstood some of the geographical and anthropological data in the BOM). There are less bold claims that would be true too. However a very limited claim that is true too, “Anthropology and biology do not prove that 30 or so folks migrated from Jerusalem and inserted themselves into a population of many hundreds of thousands of folks already in South America.” This is a fact that Southerton the most famous biologist who has spoken on this acknowledges.

Yes, it is true that science has proven Joseph Smith’s prophetic claim to be false.

Your #3 could only be true if Joseph Smith or those who created your version of #1 KNEW they were spreading a falsehood. This is beyond the scope of an archeology discussion, but I do not think there is evidence that they thought they were lying.

Yes, that was my point, just because someone is wrong doesn’t make them a liar. The angel from God may have lied to Joseph Smith and he was just repeating the lie. That is why I included it as point #3. I think an angel that lies would not be from God.

Your #4 is interesting. Joseph Smith knew that he dictated to scribes the BOM. Fraud or not, Joseph Smith knew something of the source of the dictation. That does not mean that Joseph Smith had intimate knowledge of the pre-Joseph Smith source of the BOM.

There was no physical BoM pre-Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith knows where the BoM physically came from.

And due to my problems with 1-4 I do not think your conclusion 5 is proven.

Actually, you basically agreed with 1-4, you just reject the conclusion. Joseph Smith is not a prophet and the Book of Mormon is not true as he defined it. The Mormon Church has to reject Joseph Smith to try and hold onto the Book of Mormon. But it is the word of Joseph Smith which is the foundation of Mormonism.

 

[Stephen168]

I apologize if you are actually acknowledging that comments I have offered from LDS leaders and a recent statement on the churches website show that there is warrant to dismiss past leaders statements (especially about subjects unrelated to “faith and morals.”
But if I read your comment correctly (and I know I read comments from other correctly) then here are a couple of thoughts:
Like Joshua from the Old Testament, he is dead can we dismiss his thoughts on planetary motion?

According to Benson you could not. You cannot reject Joseph Smith’s prophet claim about what the BoM is about; yet he lied.

 

[Stephen168]

I know that Sorenson and Coe are friends and I know that Coe has a copy of Mormon Codex.
amazon.com/Mormons-Codex-Ancient-American-Book-ebook/dp/B00F64T8SA
I do hope Coe comments on it extensively, but I do not think he has had it for more than a couple of months.
TOmNossor;11766871:

And of course there are numerous popes who have taught many false things and there are many fallacious ways to dismiss Catholicism because of this. Have you not experienced this happening to your faith?

All wishful thinking.

 

[PaulDupre1]

[And of course **there are numerous popes who have taught many false things

and there are many fallacious ways to dismiss Catholicism because of this.

Please provide many examples of the bolded part, with citations.

 

[pismopal]

Thanks for saving me the trouble. I would have settled for ONE false teaching regarding faith and morals.

 

[twopekinguys]

And of course there are numerous popes who have taught many false things and there are many fallacious ways to dismiss Catholicism because of this.

You know you have made several unfounded claims in the past to which you have never provided proof. i.e. you stating people have called you crazy for believing in mormonism.

I hope for your sake you provide some sort of back up for this.

 

[TOmNossor]

First my full quote:

And of course there are numerous popes who have taught many false things and there are many fallacious ways to dismiss Catholicism because of this. Have you not experienced this happening to your faith?

As quoted by PaulDupre1:

PaulDupre1:

TOmNossor;11766871:

And of course there are numerous popes who have taught many false things and there are many fallacious ways to dismiss Catholicism because of this.
Please provide many examples of the bolded part, with citations.
Pismopal adds.

Thanks for saving me the trouble. I would have settled for ONE false teaching regarding faith and morals.

Twopekinguys echos:

TOmNossor;11766871:

And of course there are numerous popes who have taught many false things and there are many fallacious ways to dismiss Catholicism because of this.

You know you have made several unfounded claims in the past to which you have never provided proof. i.e. you stating people have called you crazy for believing in mormonism.
I hope for your sake you provide some sort of back up for this.

I was truly trying to make a simple uncontroversial point to JHow who had yet to demonstrate to me that he was unwilling to listen to my words.
My point was that there are numerous FALLACIOUS ways to dismiss Catholicism using papal errors.
This means that when people use these methods to “dismiss Catholicism” they are using them wrong (fallaciously).
For me to prove my claim true all I would need to do was to show a dopey website that highlights papal errors. I was about to do that, but I didn’t want to associated with the poor thinking present in the most obvious candidates.
Was this a misunderstanding (from all of you) or do you stand by your request for me to show that people “FALLACIOUSLY use papal errors to dismiss Catholicism?
I continue to hope against hope that some Catholic will read the quotes I offer that explain that LDS leaders promulgate binding doctrine via canonization and acceptance by common consent. Then in the name of fairness ask that the majority of posters here stop trying to require I believe a certain things and thereby ignore the evidence I put forth.
Charity, TOm

 

[twopekinguys]

First my full quote:

As quoted by PaulDupre1:

Pismopal adds.

Twopekinguys echos:

I was truly trying to make a simple uncontroversial point to JHow who had yet to demonstrate to me that he was unwilling to listen to my words.
My point was that there are numerous FALLACIOUS ways to dismiss Catholicism using papal errors.
This means that when people use these methods to “dismiss Catholicism” they are using them wrong (fallaciously).
For me to prove my claim true all I would need to do was to show a dopey website that highlights papal errors. I was about to do that, but I didn’t want to associated with the poor thinking present in the most obvious candidates.
Was this a misunderstanding (from all of you) or do you stand by your request for me to show that people “FALLACIOUSLY use papal errors to dismiss Catholicism?
I continue to hope against hope that some Catholic will read the quotes I offer that explain that LDS leaders promulgate binding doctrine via canonization and acceptance by common consent. Then in the name of fairness ask that the majority of posters here stop trying to require I believe a certain things and thereby ignore the evidence I put forth.
Charity, TOm

Do you really think that quoting a “dopey” website would prove you point that “numerous Popes” taught “many” false things?

I really like how you have tried to change it from a statement of fact to now all of a sudden it has to do with fallacious statements. I double checked your post where you made the statement, and didn’t see anything close to the word fallacious.

Which is it going to be? Factual, like your post came across, or fallacious, like you want it to mean now?

If anyone misunderstood, it is obviously you.

 

[PaulDupre1]

First my full quote:

As quoted by PaulDupre1:

Pismopal adds.

Twopekinguys echos:

I was truly trying to make a simple uncontroversial point to JHow who had yet to demonstrate to me that he was unwilling to listen to my words.
My point was that there are numerous FALLACIOUS ways to dismiss Catholicism using papal errors.
This means that when people use these methods to “dismiss Catholicism” they are using them wrong (fallaciously).
For me to prove my claim true all I would need to do was to show a dopey website that highlights papal errors. I was about to do that, but I didn’t want to associated with the poor thinking present in the most obvious candidates.
Was this a misunderstanding (from all of you) or do you stand by your request for me to show that people “FALLACIOUSLY use papal errors to dismiss Catholicism?
I continue to hope against hope that some Catholic will read the quotes I offer that explain that LDS leaders promulgate binding doctrine via canonization and acceptance by common consent. Then in the name of fairness ask that the majority of posters here stop trying to require I believe a certain things and thereby ignore the evidence I put forth.
Charity, TOm

Tom, you dodged the question yet again. :roll eyes:

This is Tom doing the Mormon bit of “answering the question you wish we had asked” instead of the question you have no answer for.

Which “many false things” did those numerous popes teach? You need to name the pope and quote the teaching (like we consistently do when we quote your prophets). Otherwise we must assume you are full of hot air and spouting typical Mormon lies.

No one cares what kind of argument you were making; you based your argument on the claim that numerous popes have taught many false things.

We get this often - some Mormon claims that the popes have “taught some whoppers”. Then when we ask for specific popes’ names, teachings and quotes, they cannot provide them so they disappear for a while until the heat dies down. Then they come back and start all over again.

Having been LDS, I can tell you that this kind of anti-Catholic tribal knowledge runs deep in the Mormon psyche. It is taken for granted by Mormons that Catholic popes routinely spew laughable nonsense. It serves the leadership well.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[TexanKnight]

First my full quote:

As quoted by PaulDupre1:

Pismopal adds.

Twopekinguys echos:

I was truly trying to make a simple uncontroversial point to JHow who had yet to demonstrate to me that he was unwilling to listen to my words.
My point was that there are numerous FALLACIOUS ways to dismiss Catholicism using papal errors.
This means that when people use these methods to “dismiss Catholicism” they are using them wrong (fallaciously).
For me to prove my claim true all I would need to do was to show a dopey website that highlights papal errors. I was about to do that, but I didn’t want to associated with the poor thinking present in the most obvious candidates.
Was this a misunderstanding (from all of you) or do you stand by your request for me to show that people “FALLACIOUSLY use papal errors to dismiss Catholicism?
I continue to hope against hope that some Catholic will read the quotes I offer that explain that LDS leaders promulgate binding doctrine via canonization and acceptance by common consent. Then in the name of fairness ask that the majority of posters here stop trying to require I believe a certain things and thereby ignore the evidence I put forth.
Charity, TOm

You have admitted your prophets have lied. You try to compare people who do not claim to be prophets with people who falsely claim to be… All the while dodging the fact you have still been unable to tel me the location of zerehemla

 

[taylorf]

i am the world authority on what i do believe.

This is the problem with mormonism…collectively you “follow” a prophet that directly communicates with god, but individually you pick and choose what you believe is "true revelation."

joseph smith never evidence he had any concept of this geography or this place.

Please cite your sources that he had no concept of this geography.

wonderful article espousing the same thing i had been saying for years.

**Ahh…so you have a prophet that talks directly with god and receives important revelation…except when he teaches doctrine that doesn’t fit, becomes unpopular, or is contradictory.

Basically, as long as you can say that you 1) pay a full tithe; 2) follow the word of wisdom; and 3) live the law of chastity…you’re free to believe what you want.**

from president harold b. Lee in 1973:
if anyone, regardless of his position in the church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard church works, meaning the bible, the book of mormon, the doctrine and covenants, and the pearl of great price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the president of the church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from god, and it will be so accepted by the council of the twelve and sustained by the body of the church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

In which “standard work” is the temple ceremony in?

so, i do not believe that the hill cumorah spoken of in the bom is in ny. Let me list a few places in the bom i think are will defined…jerusalem, nahom, bountiful. They fit extraordinarily well with lehi’s journey.

Wait a second…so you don’t believe that the Hill Cumorah in NY is the one referenced in the BOM despite the number of quotes from church leaders that say it is…yet you believe in other BOM locations that have no substantiation from mormon authority? So…it’s pick and choose…whatever strengthens your testimony.

 

[Porknpie]

taylorf:

Wait a second…so you don’t believe that the Hill Cumorah in NY is the one referenced in the BOM despite the number of quotes from church leaders that say it is…yet you believe in other BOM locations that have no substantiation from mormon authority? So…it’s pick and choose…whatever strengthens your testimony.

This is completely illogical.

The BoM and the LDS Church has clearly said that 1) hill Cumorah is the site of an ancient battle…2) Of a people with middle eastern genetics.

Science has shown both to be false.

This makes the BoM and the LDS church false.

One can then conclude that LDS teaching that there was a great apostasy in the early church…that no one can say when…is also …

False.

PnP

 

[TexanKnight]

This is completely illogical.

The BoM and the LDS Church has clearly said that 1) hill Cumorah is the site of an ancient battle…2) Of a people with middle eastern genetics.

Science has shown both to be false.

This makes the BoM and the LDS church false.

One can then conclude that LDS teaching that there was a great apostasy in the early church…that no one can say when…is also …

False.

PnP

Tom has shown that ever-prevalent need to pick and choose the “revelations” from God he will accept. Like all Mormons, if he likes what the leaders say, he will accept it, until he does not like it anymore, then he will not not accept it.

It means nothing to him that all those old “prophets” claimed the NY Cumorah is THE Cumorah. And I I stated, the ONLY option here is to accept that all the old "prophets’ lied because it would be unacceptable to believe that all of them just got it wrong. To believe that is to believe that God allowed the errors by so many prophets.