Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LivingWaters7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What would New World Christianity’s art look like?
If you are interested read here:
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2717186/posts

Now, a region devoid of trees, with lots of water, that used cement in its buildings is something archeology can find.
A journey described from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful with geography and a few altar inscriptions is part of this.
Things like this existing in a book that came from upstate NY in 1830 are powerful for me. When set beside explanations concerning horses and the absence of a crucifix in a Nephite home they still tilt me towards a belief in a historical BOM.

Also, I do not think Joseph Smith lied. I do not think the witnesses lied. I see little to be gained by Joseph the liar and less to be gained by the witnesses.
If however he did lie, it would seem he would need to have some framework upon which to build his lie. Joseph didn’t well understand the framework of the BOM. This is weak evidence against Joseph as author.
Charity, TOm
 
TOmNossor said:
[Also, I do not think Joseph Smith lied. I do not think the witnesses lied. I see little to be gained by Joseph the liar and less to be gained by the witnesses. If however he did lie, it would seem he would need to have some framework upon which to build his lie. Joseph didn’t well understand the framework of the BOM. This is weak evidence against Joseph as author.
Click to expand...
Of course, you don’t think he lied and I never claimed Smith to be the author.
  1. Joseph Smith claimed the BofM was the story of the origin of the American Indians
  2. Anthropology and biology prove Joseph Smith was wrong.
  3. Joseph Smith created the lie or is repeating the lie.
  4. Joseph Smith knew the origins of the Book of Mormon.
  5. Therefore Joseph Smith created the lie as part of his claim as a ‘prophet’
1,2,4) are facts. In the 1970’s, I think Mormons could hold out for the ‘proof they haven’t found.’ But know there is just too much proof against the Book of Mormon being true; as claimed by Joseph Smith.
[/quote]
 
Can you elaborate on your last three sentences? Joseph didn’t understand the framework if the BOM, indicating that therefore he wasn’t its author, and therefore not a liar? Did I get it right?
 
TOmNossor said:
Also, I do not think Joseph Smith lied. I do not think the witnesses lied. I see little to be gained by Joseph the liar and less to be gained by the witnesses.
Click to expand...
If however he did lie, it would seem he would need to have some framework upon which to build his lie. Joseph didn’t well understand the framework of the BOM. This is weak evidence against Joseph as author.
Charity, TOm

What could be gained by lying about the origins of the BOM? Maybe, just maybe, there could be income from selling the book or power as the leader of a new religion.

At the end of the day, archaeological evidence for the BOM is not that important. We need to look at the source for the BOM - Joseph Smith. The character of Joseph Smith is important. Does Joseph Smith deserve our trust to believe what he said about the BOM and his various revelations?

Joseph Smith used a stone found at the bottom of a well to convince people to pay him to find treasure that he conveniently never found. He used this same stone to “translate” the BOM. Why should I trust someone who did this? I absolutely do not trust him, so I do accept his truth claims about God or the BOM.
 
TOmNossor said:
Also, I do not think Joseph Smith lied. I do not think the witnesses lied. I see little to be gained by Joseph the liar and less to be gained by the witnesses.
Click to expand...
Little to be gained? Are you having us on, Tom, or are you really that naive?

To quote Mel Brooks, “It’s good to be the king!” (or the prophet). When you are the prophet, you can have revelations that commmand people to build you the nicest house in town, and give you 10% of their income. You can have revelations that command 14 year-old girls and other men’s wives to sleep with you. You can proclaim youself a General and lead a militia even though you have zero military experience. And on and on…

And the faithful will obey you because they believe you commune with God and hold their salvation in your hands. You get the house, the money, the girls and the snazzy uniforms. And just a few years ago you were a dirt-poor nobody.

I think that’s a great deal to gain.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
 
JHow said:
Can you elaborate on your last three sentences? Joseph didn’t understand the framework if the BOM, indicating that therefore he wasn’t its author, and therefore not a liar? Did I get it right?
Click to expand...
My position is that creating a book like the BOM is no small feat. The author of such a book has a consistent geography and … in mind. I suggest that had Joseph Smith been the author he would not have vacillated to and fro concerning the content of the book and how it connected to reality.
The Spaulding theory has gains a lot of adherents since it was largely abandoned a few decades ago. “Manuscript Found” was published and that seemed to change no critics’ minds about the lack of divine origins for the BOM, but it changed most minds about the source of the fraud.
One of my biggest problems with the Spaulding theory is the magnitude of the cover up. I already find the witnesses quite compelling and their commitment to the BOM regardless of their association with Joseph. The commitment to the fraud of those responsible for bringing the Spaulding manuscript to light through Joseph adds to the difficulties here.

I am assuming the posters above are embracing a form of the Spaulding theory.

I do not think Joseph net-net gained much that would be valuable to an 1830’s man committed to God. The sex was not frequent, the lifestyle was seldom extravagant, the persecution was frequently difficult and occasional horrible, and the death was early. Joseph would have been better off staying a treasure hunter. And had he been as brilliant as some critics claimed, even starting in rural NY, surely he would have had better paths available to him.

I do not find an 1830’s man in rural NY who engaged in treasure digging to be a huge character flaw. I also embrace much of Bushman’s thoughts on this that Joseph Smith felt prepared by and chastised for his Treasure digging.
I also do not see Joseph Smith as a man with great character flaws in other areas. With Catholics I usually punt and say that if the Papacy can validly pass through a few historical scoundrels we needn’t argue about God’s ability to use the less than perfect.

If Joseph brought forth the huge flaw that is Mormonism, that is something to be condemned; but I do not see in his character strong indications that Mormonism is a fraud (sometimes it seems quite clear that those who condemn his character do so because Mormonism is a fraud and he is a conman, but such a conclusion would not be evidence to support such a conclusion).

Charity, TOm
 
TOmNossor said:
My position is that creating a book like the BOM is no small feat. The author of such a book has a consistent geography and … in mind. I suggest that had Joseph Smith been the author he would not have vacillated to and fro concerning the content of the book and how it connected to reality.
The Spaulding theory has gains a lot of adherents since it was largely abandoned a few decades ago. “Manuscript Found” was published and that seemed to change no critics’ minds about the lack of divine origins for the BOM, but it changed most minds about the source of the fraud.
One of my biggest problems with the Spaulding theory is the magnitude of the cover up. I already find the witnesses quite compelling and their commitment to the BOM regardless of their association with Joseph. The commitment to the fraud of those responsible for bringing the Spaulding manuscript to light through Joseph adds to the difficulties here.

I am assuming the posters above are embracing a form of the Spaulding theory.

I do not think Joseph net-net gained much that would be valuable to an 1830’s man committed to God. The sex was not frequent, the lifestyle was seldom extravagant, the persecution was frequently difficult and occasional horrible, and the death was early. Joseph would have been better off staying a treasure hunter. And had he been as brilliant as some critics claimed, even starting in rural NY, surely he would have had better paths available to him.

I do not find an 1830’s man in rural NY who engaged in treasure digging to be a huge character flaw. I also embrace much of Bushman’s thoughts on this that Joseph Smith felt prepared by and chastised for his Treasure digging.
I also do not see Joseph Smith as a man with great character flaws in other areas. With Catholics I usually punt and say that if the Papacy can validly pass through a few historical scoundrels we needn’t argue about God’s ability to use the less than perfect.

If Joseph brought forth the huge flaw that is Mormonism, that is something to be condemned; but I do not see in his character strong indications that Mormonism is a fraud (sometimes it seems quite clear that those who condemn his character do so because Mormonism is a fraud and he is a conman, but such a conclusion would not be evidence to support such a conclusion).

Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
I think of Smith as the proverbial frog in boiling water. I don’t think, as a treasure hunter in NY, that he set out to write a book or build a religion around himself. I see him as an opportunist, who immersed himself in water that became hotter and hotter, via layers of lies and deceptions built over time that couldn’t be undone without exposing himself for what he was.

I also see some things he taught, or demanded of his followers, as him seeing just how far people would follow him, in a narcissistic sociopath, sort of way.

Why would his “witnesses” stay loyal? Haven’t you noticed the threats and character assassination he regularly engaged in? My particular favorite is the one canonized in LDS scripture as D&C 132.

54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

A death threat against his own wife!! The guy was ruthless.
 
TOmNossor said:
What would New World Christianity’s art look like?
If you are interested read here:
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2717186/posts

Now, a region devoid of trees, with lots of water, that used cement in its buildings is something archeology can find.
A journey described from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful with geography and a few altar inscriptions is part of this.
Things like this existing in a book that came from upstate NY in 1830 are powerful for me. When set beside explanations concerning horses and the absence of a crucifix in a Nephite home they still tilt me towards a belief in a historical BOM.

Also, I do not think Joseph Smith lied. I do not think the witnesses lied. I see little to be gained by Joseph the liar and less to be gained by the witnesses.
If however he did lie, it would seem he would need to have some framework upon which to build his lie. Joseph didn’t well understand the framework of the BOM. This is weak evidence against Joseph as author.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
Ok so I read the article and, no surprise, there’s NOTHING THERE. You honestly can’t see that? It’s pathetic.
 
truthsilence said:
Ok so I read the article and, no surprise, there’s NOTHING THERE. You honestly can’t see that? It’s pathetic.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The link could have at least had pictures of Mayan art and a straining explanation on how it is Nephite-Christian.
 
TOmNossor said:
The Spaulding theory has gains a lot of adherents since it was largely abandoned a few decades ago. “Manuscript Found” was published and that seemed to change no critics’ minds about the lack of divine origins for the BOM, but it changed most minds about the source of the fraud.
Click to expand...
People who really understand the Spalding-Rigdon theory know that the manuscript published as Manuscript Found was not the manuscript that Sydney Rigdon stole from the Patterson print shop in Pittsburg where Spalding had left it hoping to have it published. That manuscript has never been found; Rigdon presumably destroyed it after using it to write the Book of Mormon.
One of my biggest problems with the Spaulding theory is the magnitude of the cover up. I already find the witnesses quite compelling and their commitment to the BOM regardless of their association with Joseph. The commitment to the fraud of those responsible for bringing the Spaulding manuscript to light through Joseph adds to the difficulties here. I am assuming the posters above are embracing a form of the Spaulding theory.
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard anyone but you postulate that the witnesses were part of the conspiracy. It could have been carried out by Rigdon and Smith alone, or with Oliver Cowdery’s help. The witnesses could have been simple dupes as they seem to be.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
 
TOmNossor said:
Also, I do not think Joseph Smith lied. I do not think the witnesses lied. I see little to be gained by Joseph the liar and less to be gained by the witnesses.
Click to expand...
Then why did smith try to sell the copyright?

Just a bit of a quick financial gain there don’t you think?

I don’t think he ever imagined so many people falling for his scheme.

Had he been successful in selling the copyright, there would be no mormonism today.
 
TOmNossor said:
I do not look to LDS prophets for infallibility in matters of faith and morals, This has never been very troubling to me.
Click to expand...
This is why I find LDS prophets of no use, declaring the defined faith, and articulating what is moral is what prophet do. That you don’t look to your prophets or expect them to be able to properly guide members speaks volumes.🤷
 
TOmNossor said:
Also, I do not think Joseph Smith lied. I do not think the witnesses lied. I see little to be gained by Joseph the liar and less to be gained by the witnesses.
Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
Call it what you will, but the witness’ statements were written by JS and OC.
 
zaffiroborant said:
Call it what you will, but the witness’ statements were written by JS and OC.
Click to expand...
In fact, scans of the original document show that all of the “witnesses’” signatures were written by the same hand - the hand of Joseph Smith. So the testimony of the witnesses was written by Smith and the signatures were written by Smith. About as expected. Bogus.
 
PaulDupre1 said:
In fact, scans of the original document show that all of the “witnesses’” signatures were written by the same hand - the hand of Joseph Smith. So the testimony of the witnesses was written by Smith and the signatures were written by Smith. About as expected. Bogus.
Click to expand...
Even Royal Skousen, BYU linguistics professor and editor of the Book of Mormon Critical Text project says that Oliver Cowdery wrote the 3 witnesses statements and that Joseph Smith wrote the 8 witnesses statement. The witnesses statement are of no import what so ever, there is no reason to believe a person who follows along when someone instructs them “this is what I want you to say”.

Skousen’s articles can be read here and here
 
TOmNossor said:
PnP - I do not believe the Hill Cumorah in NY is the Hill Cumorah in the BOM.
Click to expand...
Tom for that you get a 👍
Joseph Smith during his life certainly offered no consistent read on this.
Click to expand...
I’ll let others judge this who know more than me but clearly, repeatedly, your church has taught that it is the same piece of land. So what you are saying is that you can not trust your church.
I do not look to LDS prophets for infallibility in matters of faith and morals,
Click to expand...
I want to give you another 👍 here. Maybe 👍👍. So by logic, then you would admit that your prophets could have been wrong on there having been a great apostasy.
but much less so in matters of geography and anthropology and … This has never been very troubling to me.Charity, TOm
Click to expand...
the thread is not really about geography, it’s about who can you trust and why. As Catholics we have absolute trust in The Church on faith and morals as Christ said that he would be with his Church always, guiding it to all Truth. Christ would never have let an apostasy occur with his bride.

PnP
 
zaffiroborant said:
This is why I find LDS prophets of no use, declaring the defined faith, and articulating what is moral is what prophet do. That you don’t look to your prophets or expect them to be able to properly guide members speaks volumes.🤷
Click to expand...
When you find yourself stuck in an irrational religion, you have to do what you can to make it reasonable and justify your decision to go there in the first place. Rejecting the Mormon ‘prophet’ would be a start. But we know that this is not Mormonism, just a personal view.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top