Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[TexanKnight]

If we’re sticking to “binding doctrines”, Mormons have very few and I think are embodied ONLY in their Articles of Faith. All else are expected to change, as changing doctrines are viewed by Mormons as “revelation”.

yep…

 

[Tarquin]

Here is what I have already offered:forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11763860&postcount=217
Wonderful article espousing the same thing I had been saying for years.
mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Originally Posted by Harold B. Lee
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.

The question I have most often heard is not, “What is Mormon doctrine?” (and never “What is basic Mormon doctrine?”) but “What is official Mormon doctrine?” Doctrines are teachings, and adherents of a religion are expected to be in some degree of harmony with that religion’s common doctrines. “Official” doctrines are more authoritative. Adherents have less leeway on whether to accept those or not.

Mormons hold to doctrines not in “the standard Church works” and reject doctrines that are in them. This gets confusing - to me, as well as making them feel uncertain on some issues. It’s understandable - it’s human nature - that not all members of a religion will conduct themselves exclusively in harmony with the teachings of that religion. I accept that. But in the case of “the standard Church works,” specifically the Mormon Creed, I believe not a single Mormon really believes it; the evidence I have seen argues they do not, not even the missionaries who visit occasionally.

The “standard Church works” as interpreted by Mormons seem to present no clear picture of the Nature of God, meaning [the *Nature of] “God” in the deeper theological sense, not in terms of sociological relationships. It is as though there is no doctrine on the nature of God (other than that he’s a man and there are a lot of them).

(btw, I never, ever, ever, want to base my description of what others believe on my own faulty and ignorance-based assumptions. If I ever give that impression, the problem rests in misexpression or misinterpretation, for either of which I would be comfortable apologizing. All my descriptions of a person’s religious beliefs are based on what is available from that person’s religious body, including official writings, and his own statements, and from personal experience with the same. If I stray from that, I apologize. “God hasn’t quite got me ‘perfect’ yet.”)

 

[Tarquin]

But, for the Catholic who has the CCC there is no codification of LDS doctrine like that.

There was, but it was declared anathema by later prophets, minitru style.

Presently, there are the Articles of Faith.

 

[TexanKnight]

Tom: I think the most correct statement is that there is no authoritative statement concerning precisely what is binding LDS doctrine and what is not. So indeed a snipe hunt.I think I offered two positive things, the Harold B. Lee statement and the recent newsroom statement.

Ah…so again, you admit BY lied? for what is Scripture if not doctrine?

" I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. - JoD 13:95 (January 2, 1870)

of course, you COULD ignore what your prophets have taught…like the Adam-God theory, but what would D&C say about ignoring the prophets?

D&C 1: 14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the bday cometh that they who will not chear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his dservants, neither give eheed to the words of the prophets and fapostles, shall be gcut off from among the people;

D&C 68 is even clearer: 4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the aHoly Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the bpower of God unto salvation.

and according to ET Benson:

The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them, otherwise the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a man.
Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.”

But, of course, Tom now says that is all rubbish. It is better for lds doctrine to be a moving target that can be changed from president to president.But we digress…Tom, again, WHERE IS THE EXACT LOCATION OF ZEREHEMLA?

 

[JHow]

It seems all cultures have used a form of Cardinal direction. I don’t think it would be too hard to figure out what the equivalents to east, west, north, and south are…

Funny that the fine print actually says that!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_direction

Cardinal direction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Mesoamerica and North America, many traditional indigenous beliefs include four cardinal directions and a center. Each direction was associated with a color, which varied between groups but which generally corresponded to the hues of corn (green, black, red, white, and yellow). There seems to be no “preferred” way of assigning these colors; as shown in the table, great variety in color symbolism occurs even among cultures that are close neighbors geographically.

GIven the rotation of the earth and the relative motion of the sun being easily observed by all outdoors, East and West are pretty much universal concepts. FOr example, in slavic languages the roots for these words in fact derive from the verbs “to rise” and “to descend”.

 

[TexanKnight]

The sad thing is, Tom dodges and runs from the tough questions…and then deflects with untenable comparisons.

And all I want is the exact location to Zerehemla.

I am planning my vacation this year and want to visit this great B of M city where hundreds of thousands lived and died.

 

[Tarquin]

The sad thing is, Tom dodges and runs from the tough questions…and then deflects with untenable comparisons.

And all I want is the exact location to Zerehemla.

I am planning my vacation this year and want to visit this great B of M city where hundreds of thousands lived and died.

It’s in Wisconsin! They call it Blanchardville nowadays.

Lafayette County, Wisconsin
42° 48.429 N, 89° 52.411′ W
In 1850 Zenas Gurles and his family settled in this area. His charisma and leadership led several of this area’s early settlers to convert to the Mormon faith. While worshiping on a site similar to this one, the scenic view led them to believe they had found their “Zion” or ideal society which they called “Zarahemia” or “City of God”. Zarahemla was short-lived (sic), however, and would eventually become Blanchardville.

It’s also just across the road from Nauvoo

Verily, thus saith the Lord, I say unto you, if those who acall themselves by my name and are essaying to be my saints, if they will do my will and keep my commandments concerning them, let them gather themselves together unto the places which I shall appoint unto them by my servant Joseph, and build up cities unto my name, that they may be prepared for that which is in store for a time to come.
**Let them build up a city unto my name upon the land opposite the city of Nauvoo, and let the name of Zarahemla be named upon it. **
Doctrine and Covenants 125:2-3

Uh, it’s also on Mars: Kingdom of Zarahemla

Wikipedia offers a list of pre-Columbian archaeological sites for those interested in tracking down other Book of Mormon locations (Pre-Columbian_archaeological_sites) such as Cuyamaca, possibly an obvious corruption of Cumorah, or as some might say, obviously a possible corruption of Cumorah. And that’s for certain.

 

[dolphinlove]

Mormons tell me that God has hidden all of these artifacts so that people have to rely on faith to accept the Book of Mormon. If such artifacts were found everyone would know that Jesus is the Christ and they would be under greater condemnation for rejecting it. God has made the artifacts slippery so they go back into the earth when people try to find them so they don’t condemn themselves through their unbelief …

:hypno:

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

General notice:
Hot Topic for the week of 3/17.
Please remain on topic.

 

[Slaney]

The only evidence I need is from Saint Paul warning about straying from the word, " even if I or an Angel preach to you a different Gospel, do not believe it," that’s all I need to know.

 

[TOmNossor]

The sad thing is, Tom dodges and runs from the tough questions…and then deflects with untenable comparisons.

And all I want is the exact location to Zerehemla.

I am planning my vacation this year and want to visit this great B of M city where hundreds of thousands lived and died.
TexanKnight,
I have been meaning to pull down my copy of Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon so I could answer your question, but I do not think I will get to that. Sorenson has made some slight updates in his Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (I know he sent it to his friend Michael Coe for comments and thoughts, I hope to see this someday). Interestingly, Sorenson follows William Dever’s methodology in Mormon’s Codex. Dever started his journey as a Christian, but is a rather liberal Jew now (Dever does not think archeology supports an inerrant Bible). Sorenson seems to have not had a faith transformation as he studied Mesoamerica archeology for 60 years.
Anyway, with that intro, I am pretty sure Sorenson did and still does identify the site of Santa Rosa as Zarahemla. It is in the state of Campeche in Mexico. I hope you enjoy your trip.

That being said, Nahom, as I have mentioned previously is a little known location confirmed by archeology rather precisely that is contained in a series of 81 interlocking points that show the author of the BOM was familiar in great detail with a walk from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful. This archeological find of the late 20th century combined with the geography described in the BOM as Lehi walks this path is IMO remarkable.

I can reproduce the three page “Gartner list” I offered here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11763930&postcount=218
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11763936&postcount=219
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11763946&postcount=220
then you can dismiss it without commenting on it.

But, there are some interesting places you could go and visit. Teotihuacan is where I recommend. Seeing Ancient American cement would be interesting. This is an example of something John Clark thinks is of value. Clark traces things that seemed wrong from an archeological point of view in the BOM when it was first publish in the 1830’s and things that still seem wrong. His argument is that a fraudulent book should get worse as science moves forward, but an ancient book should get better as science moves forward. He is quite clear that the BOM looks more and more solid as science moves forward. I can no longer find his presentation from the Library of Congress symposium, but I remember being impressed when I watched/read it in 2005 or so.

Anyway, enjoy your vacation.
Charity, TOm

 

[JamesCollins]

I don’t think doctrine is important to Mormons unless it informs the way people actually act out their faith in the way they live their lives. It took them a little while to actually codify it, but I would say since the early 1900s with the abandonment of plural marriage and the full embrace of the Word of Wisdom they have been fairly consistent. For example they are never called upon in a temple recommend interview to specifically state they accept the King Follett nonsense.

 

[TexanKnight]

So what you are saying is…you have no clue where Zerehamla is.

For your info…I served my mission in Honduras. I have been all over Central America. I have visited Mayan ruins in Honduras and Mexico.

You ahve no evidence. All you have is speculation. I asked for the exact locatrion and you have still not given it to me.

The ONLY place we are SURE is a location from the B of M is Cumorah, because so many lds “prophets” have told us so…and that is the one place you say all the prophets were wrong and the lds church is too afraid to excavate.

Go figure

 

[JamesCollins]

So what you are saying is…you have no clue where Zerehamla is.

For your info…I served my mission in Honduras. I have been all over Central America. I have visited Mayan ruins in Honduras and Mexico.

You ahve no evidence. All you have is speculation. I asked for the exact locatrion and you have still not given it to me.

The ONLY place we are SURE is a location from the B of M is Cumorah, because so many lds “prophets” have told us so…and that is the one place you say all the prophets were wrong and the lds church is too afraid to excavate.

Go figure

The two Cumorah theory does seem to me to neuter the Book of Mormon. I would be much more impressed if Mormons would simply abandon their insistence upon looking at the ancient Maya as their proof and instead embrace the theories that place the Book of Mormon in the United States. They might actually have a better chance for success if they looked at Native Americans in the U.S. rather than south of the border. Moroni supposedly came to Joseph Smith in New York rather than Jose Smith in Mexico City.

 

[TOmNossor]

So what you are saying is…you have no clue where Zerehamla is.

For your info…I served my mission in Honduras. I have been all over Central America. I have visited Mayan ruins in Honduras and Mexico.

You ahve no evidence. All you have is speculation. I asked for the exact locatrion and you have still not given it to me.

The ONLY place we are SURE is a location from the B of M is Cumorah, because so many lds “prophets” have told us so…and that is the one place you say all the prophets were wrong and the lds church is too afraid to excavate.

Go figure

I told you exactly where I thought Zerehamla was. I will repost in case you missed it.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The sad thing is, Tom dodges and runs from the tough questions…and then deflects with untenable comparisons.

And all I want is the exact location to Zerehemla.

I am planning my vacation this year and want to visit this great B of M city where hundreds of thousands lived and died.
TexanKnight,
I have been meaning to pull down my copy of Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon so I could answer your question, but I do not think I will get to that. Sorenson has made some slight updates in his Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (I know he sent it to his friend Michael Coe for comments and thoughts, I hope to see this someday). Interestingly, Sorenson follows William Dever’s methodology in Mormon’s Codex. Dever started his journey as a Christian, but is a rather liberal Jew now (Dever does not think archeology supports an inerrant Bible). Sorenson seems to have not had a faith transformation as he studied Mesoamerica archeology for 60 years.
Anyway, with that intro, I am pretty sure Sorenson did and still does identify the site of Santa Rosa as Zarahemla. It is in the state of Campeche in Mexico. I hope you enjoy your trip.

That being said, Nahom, as I have mentioned previously is a little known location confirmed by archeology rather precisely that is contained in a series of 81 interlocking points that show the author of the BOM was familiar in great detail with a walk from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful. This archeological find of the late 20th century combined with the geography described in the BOM as Lehi walks this path is IMO remarkable.

I can reproduce the three page “Gartner list” I offered here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11763930&postcount=218
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11763936&postcount=219
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11763946&postcount=220
then you can dismiss it without commenting on it.

But, there are some interesting places you could go and visit. Teotihuacan is where I recommend. Seeing Ancient American cement would be interesting. This is an example of something John Clark thinks is of value. Clark traces things that seemed wrong from an archeological point of view in the BOM when it was first publish in the 1830’s and things that still seem wrong. His argument is that a fraudulent book should get worse as science moves forward, but an ancient book should get better as science moves forward. He is quite clear that the BOM looks more and more solid as science moves forward. I can no longer find his presentation from the Library of Congress symposium, but I remember being impressed when I watched/read it in 2005 or so.

Anyway, enjoy your vacation.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The two Cumorah theory does seem to me to neuter the Book of Mormon. I would be much more impressed if Mormons would simply abandon their insistence upon looking at the ancient Maya as their proof and instead embrace the theories that place the Book of Mormon in the United States. They might actually have a better chance for success if they looked at Native Americans in the U.S. rather than south of the border. Moroni supposedly came to Joseph Smith in New York rather than Jose Smith in Mexico City.

I think that is fine. If you are quite convinced that it is impossible to believe Moroni deposited plates for Joseph Smith in upstate NY even though much of the BOM happened in Mesoamerica, then perhaps you should weigh that theory. It has been my impression here that Mesoamerica is ignored because folks think it is obvious that there were not battles/civilizations that died on the Hill Cumorah in NY, and that it is easy to dismiss as fiction. In 1929 General Conference long before DNA or … a member of the first presidency said that we didn’t know precisely where the BOM occurred or even which peoples descended from BOM folks. I think there are many views open to the LDS, I just think the Mesoamerica view is strongest.

I know Catholics who embrace ideas that I would reject as a Catholic, not because the ideas lack any merit, but because I think they are a weaker view of Catholicism in general. I am committed to weighing the best Catholicism has to offer with the best Mormonism has to offer.

Charity, TOm

 

[JamesCollins]

TexanKnight,
I have been meaning to pull down my copy of Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon so I could answer your question, but I do not think I will get to that. Sorenson has made some slight updates in his Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (I know he sent it to his friend Michael Coe for comments and thoughts, I hope to see this someday). Interestingly, Sorenson follows William Dever’s methodology in Mormon’s Codex. Dever started his journey as a Christian, but is a rather liberal Jew now (Dever does not think archeology supports an inerrant Bible). Sorenson seems to have not had a faith transformation as he studied Mesoamerica archeology for 60 years.
Anyway, with that intro, I am pretty sure Sorenson did and still does identify the site of Santa Rosa as Zarahemla. It is in the state of Campeche in Mexico. I hope you enjoy your trip.

That being said, Nahom, as I have mentioned previously is a little known location confirmed by archeology rather precisely that is contained in a series of 81 interlocking points that show the author of the BOM was familiar in great detail with a walk from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful. This archeological find of the late 20th century combined with the geography described in the BOM as Lehi walks this path is IMO remarkable.

I can reproduce the three page “Gartner list” I offered here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11763930&postcount=218
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11763936&postcount=219
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11763946&postcount=220
then you can dismiss it without commenting on it.

But, there are some interesting places you could go and visit. Teotihuacan is where I recommend. Seeing Ancient American cement would be interesting. This is an example of something John Clark thinks is of value. Clark traces things that seemed wrong from an archeological point of view in the BOM when it was first publish in the 1830’s and things that still seem wrong. His argument is that a fraudulent book should get worse as science moves forward, but an ancient book should get better as science moves forward. He is quite clear that the BOM looks more and more solid as science moves forward. I can no longer find his presentation from the Library of Congress symposium, but I remember being impressed when I watched/read it in 2005 or so.

Anyway, enjoy your vacation.
Charity, TOm

Are there any non-Mormons who believe that the BOM looks more and more solid as science moves forward?

 

[TexanKnight]

I old you exactly where I thought Zerehamla was. I will repost in case you missed it.
Charity, TOm

Wrong. You did not answer my question. Yes, you said where YOU thought it was…but that was NOT my question. I asked for THE exact location. It should be easy if the b of m is true.

Now, your opinions aside, where exactly is it?

 

[JamesCollins]

I old you exactly where I thought Zerehamla was. I will repost in case you missed it.
Charity, TOm

Wrong. You did not answer my question. Yes, you said where YOU thought it was…but that was NOT my question. I asked for THE exact location. It should be easy if the b of m is true.

Now, your opinions aside, where exactly is it?

The Book of Mormon doesn’t say where the exact location was so it would be impossible for a Mormon to tell you. They can easily get away with saying they don’t know where it is yet. I suppose they could make the case that God doesn’t really want people to know where it was and that it is not necessary to know for one’s salvation. Or they could just say it was somewhere in the Americas and be done with it.