Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[iepuras]

I hope I have explained this well enough now, but briefly …
It is not Jonah disobeying God by refusing to go to Nineveh that I am talking about.
I have been told that the evidence I offer for the BOM as an ancient Mesoamerican book is invalid because Joseph Smith said … about the location of the BOM. The requirement the Joseph Smith KNOWs where the BOM took place and consistently teaches this IMO is not consistent with LDS truth claims nor with the witness we have of Biblical prophets.

**Jonah communicated with God and as a result told Nineveh they would be destroyed by God. Jonah was wrong about this. Jonah was so sure he was not wrong about this he was pissed at God for the communication Jonah received that lead him to tell Nineveh they would be destroyed. **I believe prophets of God from Jonah to Joseph Smith to Thomas Monson are not PERFECTLY able to discern all the particulars even when God is talking to them about a certain issue. I doubt God talked to Joseph about BOM geography at all, but even if God did I doubt there were any specifics. Thus when Joseph theorizes about the BOM in a way that is inconsistent with Mesoamerica, Joseph is not even trying to imperfectly communicate God’s thoughts on BOM geography.
When I see so much weight placed on what I consider to be personal speculation from Joseph Smith (having zero to do with his prophetic mantle and only a little more to do with the reality of BOM geography) by former members of my church, I think it sad that poor geographic knowledge (even from a prophet of God) lead to their disaffection.

Well, I am actually not guilty of this at all. I do not miss this truth even a little. If I was teaching a group of kids about God’s love and mercy Jonah would be a great story.
The Bible is an extraordinary book with great truths. Just because I use the story of Jonah to teach how we should “test” prophets does not mean that I do not see how the story of Jonah and Nineveh shows God’s mercy.
I hope that makes sense. I have never thought God or Jonah lied, I just showed how certain critics of my church would need to view Jonah if they were CONSISTENT.

Concerning the community of the CoJCoLDS, I grew up in a great “Catholic Community.” I have been quite upfront about my departure and how it was a product of ignorance and my sinfulness and …. But, my continued absence could be explained solely by the positive evidence for the CoJCoLDS and is not explained by my love of good fellowship. It is God’s call to me that has grown my desire for fellowship. Naturally, I am not a radical loaner, but I am not quite so drawn to fellowship as some seem to think I must be to stay a LDS.
I once claimed that I would be a great Atheist, because I was pretty good at much of what was necessary to get through life; and it was only the call of Christianity to love others that I was ****** at. This has fallen away as I have recognized even this is a prideful statement that is not true (I still think the idea that Christianity is a crutch is not an atheist apologetic that has much impact on me and how I engage the world, but I can no longer deny that I need Christ. I am nothing without Him).
Charity, TOm

Please see Stephen’s post #467 in reference to your statement which I have bolded. Please see Tobit 14:14-15 which states that Nineveh was destroyed. So does the destruction of Nineveh as described in Tobit not count as a real destruction because the Book of Tobit was removed from the KJV Bible? Jonah was just off on the timing of the destruction of Nineveh. How many of us have been frustrated when God’s timing does not correspond to ours?

 

[TOmNossor]

So, do you think it is believable that Nephite and Lamanite elites had horses but then all traces of the horse completely disappeared after the great battle at the end of the BOM? So zero horses ever escaped or were stolen? Or if horses did escape or were stolen, God just zapped them out of existence? If they were only for the elites wouldn’t we expect to see artwork showing kings riding on horses or being transported around in chariots? As we saw when Europeans invaded the New World, it didn’t take long for horses to be lost or escape and form herds in the wild. And this couldn’t have happened with Nephite or Lamanite horses?

So what animal do you believe is the BOM “horse” if it is not a real horse? Is it a tapir since you seem to prefer the Central America BOM theories? The llama? The llama was the only known domesticated large animal in the pre-Columbian New World; however, the llama was only found in the Andes, not in Central America.
First, let me re-state, even with the explanation offered by me in minor detail or by others elsewhere, “horses in the BOM” is negative evidence. Things like “land of Jerusalem” as Christ birth place is criticism so emptied of its impact that properly understood it is positive evidence. Criticisms like “adieu” are so emptied of their impact they are irrelevant. But criticism like “horses in the BOM” are explained in a way that mitigates the problem somewhat, but does not empty it of negative force.
Now, Jared Diamond has postulated that horses transform a culture, but he is not 100% correct. No archeologist denies that horses existed in the Americans before Columbus. The problem is that volumes of evidence suggest that these horses died before BOM times and thus the mention of horses in the BOM is anachronistic, but these horses did not transform the culture they were a part of in the ways that Diamond postulates horses should.
The theory that horses could have existed in a small numbers as an elite status symbol is one possibility and is not inconsistent with the archeological record. The escape and … you postulate is fine, but we know that horses existed in the Americas and were not alive here when Columbus arrived. This was once viewed as likely a product of climate change, but recent evidence suggest that it was most likely either aided or caused by human hunting. So, large populations of ancient horses in America died, it is not inconceivable that small numbers of horses could have survived/existed during BOM times and went extinct without leaving much of evidence. Michael Coe postulated that Joseph Smith (again who Coe finds to be one of the greatest Americans to ever live) naturally included horses in his made up book, but Coe is wrong on two accounts here. First, Coe claims Joseph Smith would be familiar with Indians riding horses, that is not likely to be true as the plains Indians where little known in Joseph time (a few articles about Lewis and Clark were likely available, but Lewis and Clark only became the phenomena we know today much after the BOM). Second, if Joseph was aware of plains Indians and their horses, his BOM horse culture is nothing like that (it is nothing like any known horse culture).

Alternatively, explorers called animals “horses” that were not and Mesoamericans call horses animals they were familiar with that were quite unrelated to horses. This theory postulates that whatever was translated as “horse” was not a horse.

Again, horses IMO are negative evidence for the BOM. I do not believe either explanation empties this criticism of its impact.
Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

Hello Stephen and TexanKnight ,
the “Joseph Smith is a scoundrel” argument has very little bearing on the BOM as a Mesoamerican Codex.

I know. I have never made that argument and I didn’t see TexanKnight make it either. But I did find it odd that when Smith was caught being a scoundrel, he would have a “revelation” to justify his sinful behavior.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young’s character will evidence that they behaved in a way that is clearly far more Christian than how Pope John XII or some other Popes behaved.

Can you give a list of papal “revelation” given by Pope John XII to justify his behavior? Like Joseph Smith did?

Let me restate however, I believe the evidence shows Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were good Christian men that I can respect.

I feel the same way about Jesus Christ that founder of the Catholic Church.

I am not here to tear down Catholicism regardless of what you believe.

Mormonism demands it as we have seen.

 

[TOmNossor]

So Tom is saying that Lehi’s little group passed briefly through the desert in the Old World and left many artifacts that Tom thinks are obviously proof of the BOM

Then Lehi’s group came to the New World and multiplied so rapidly that within a few generations they filled the whole land (amazing that they weren’t too tired to build that temple like unto Solomon’s temple ). Yet this amazingly large, literate and technologically sophisticated society lived in the Americas for a thousand years and left absolutely nothing behind that could identify them to a dispassionate researcher.
Oh yeah, we buy that.
I do not think you are reading what I am writing. The BOM describes in detail a departure from Jesusalem to Nahom to Bountiful. Archeology has confirmed that Nahom is precisely where it should be for this journey to have been described by a 600BC band. Nahom fits in with 10 (or 81) other references to create a multi-point contact with the 600BC timeframe it should fit in.
The Lehi group came to the New World and multiplied rapidly (through reproduction and two way assimilation BTW), and left volumes of traces. The problem is that almost no place names are known for ancient Mesoamerica and very little writing has survived (and much of that was destroyed on purpose by explorers – not a flattering event in history BTW). So, we know that civilization of the sophistication described in the BOM existed in Mesoamerica, but there is a great deal we do not know about them. There are positive evidences like the ones I have documented in this thread (Gartner list) and negative evidences, horses do not belong as best we can tell. But as Coe says, “Our knowledge of ancient Maya thought must represent only a tiny fraction of the whole picture, for of the thousands of books in which the full extent of their learning and ritual was recorded, only four have survived to modern times (as though all that posterity knew of ourselves were to be based upon three prayer books and Pilgrim’s Progress).”

Now, concerning Nahom, here is what I said (nowhere do I imply this little band left volumes of artifacts):
Altars with the NHM inscription have been found and date to Lehi’s time. Let me briefly repeat from an earlier post that the altars are inscribed with NHM. There is a number of vowels evident in the region showing that the phenomena of phonetic shift. I know of no modern or 1830’s representation of this place as Nahom. But to the folks who suggest Joseph Smith found an ancient map in his numerous trips to the library, he would also need to pick up a book on phonetic shift so he would know to conceal his research by changing vowels. Now back to my point.

The BOM offers the city of Jerusalem and curiously that city “called Nahom.” Other Old World names are what Lehi and his family called them NOT what they were called. Now, I have used the term “multi-point geography.” What I mean by this is that Lehi walked away from Jerusalem, he described nearly “south-southeast.”. This is precisely correct and also correlates to the ancient “Frankincense Trail.” Starting in the wilderness outside of Jerusalem there is a “valley of Lemuel” and a “river of Laman. Continuing down the Frankincense Trail, you reach Nahom. This is the “south-southeast” journey that brings you to the altars with the inscriptions that date to Lehi’s journey. Making an eastward turn,at Nahom, Lehi travels to Bountiful on the boarder of the sea (this is the Bountiful in the Old World to which I was referring, you referred to the Bountiful in the new world, its relation to Nahom is unknown and not evidence for the BOM in any case). Bountiful has ore, honey, fruit, and ….

Above I have included Jerusalem, a valley, a river, the ancient Frankincense Trail, the direction of travel from Jerusalem/valley/river to Nahom, the turn at Nahom, the arrival at Bountiful on the boarder of the sea, and a handful of characteristics of Bountiful.

It is my position that this multi-point geography supports the BOM quite powerfully. About 10 things converge to indicate where Lehi walked 2600 years ago. This book offer 81 things, but I only highlighted the 10 that most struck me.

One of the remarkably things about the ability to walk Lehi’s trail with such precision that is especially important, is that Lehi’s trail is the totality of BOM in the Old World. When LDS offer the truth that New World archeology and Old World archeology are radically different one might be tempted to say, OK the Bible corresponds to archeology (some) in the Old World what of the parts of the BOM that took place in the Old World (about 5-8%). Well, this 5-8% of the BOM is quite well documented in archeology and geology IMO. Nothing out of place, nothing anachronistic, it is quite extraordinary. The “first temple Judaism” was once viewed as problematic (not a strictly archeological thing), but that has been persuasively overturned by the work of Old Testament scholars. Margaret Barker being one who has claimed that Lehi fits precisely into 600B.C. Jerusalem where he should (and she is a non-Mormon who is quite impressed by how the BOM seems to be an ancient Jewish book).

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello Rom,

The problem is, there are constructions and there are authentic parts. I don’t see authentic parts in any of your posts. Only constructions. You have no way to know which of your constructions are authentic (if any), but accept which constructions match to what you want to believe and reject those that don’t. Not a very objective, or scientific approach, to anything, including BoM archaeology.
I do not know what this means. I did not highlight all 10 of the points in the Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful evidence from the text of the BOM, but they all come from the BOM. Maybe I should try that.

The BOM offers the city of Jerusalem (1 Nephi 1:4) and curiously that city “called Nahom.” (1 Nephi 16:34) Other Old World names are what Lehi and his family called them NOT what they were called. Now, I have used the term “multi-point geography.” What I mean by this is that Lehi walked away from Jerusalem, he described nearly “south-southeast.” (1 Nephi 16:13). This is precisely correct and also correlates to the ancient “Frankincense Trail.” Starting in the wilderness outside of Jerusalem there is a “valley of Lemuel” (1 Nephi 2:14). and a “river of Laman (1 Nephi 2:8). Continuing down the Frankincense Trail {this is really where the directional reference south-southeast should be (1 Nephi 16:13)} , you reach Nahom(1 Nephi 16:34). This is the “south-southeast” journey that brings you to the altars with the inscriptions that date to Lehi’s journey. Making an eastward turn, at Nahom (1 Nephi 17:1), Lehi travels to Bountiful (1 Nephi 17:5) on the boarder of the sea (this is the Bountiful in the Old World to which I was referring, you referred to the Bountiful in the new world, its relation to Nahom is unknown and not evidence for the BOM in any case). Bountiful has ore (1 Nephi 17:10), honey (1 Nephi 17:5), fruit (1 Nephi 17:5), and ….

Above I have included Jerusalem, a valley, a river, the ancient Frankincense Trail, the direction of travel from Jerusalem/valley/river to Nahom, the turn at Nahom, the arrival at Bountiful on the boarder of the sea, and a handful of characteristics of Bountiful.

All of the above come from the text of the BOM. All of the above have been found (and not questioned by LDS critics to my knowledge) by explorers using the BOM text as a guide. It is the connection of all these things (I listed 10, the book I recommended lists 81) that make the idea that Joseph Smith or some other person who had not walked this trail prohibitively unlikely IMO.

I know there is more questions about this later, and I will get to them.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

I do not know what this means. I did not highlight all 10 of the points in the Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful evidence from the text of the BOM, but they all come from the BOM. Maybe I should try that.

The BOM offers the city of Jerusalem (1 Nephi 1:4) and curiously that city “called Nahom.” (1 Nephi 16:34) Other Old World names are what Lehi and his family called them NOT what they were called. Now, I have used the term “multi-point geography.” What I mean by this is that Lehi walked away from Jerusalem, he described nearly “south-southeast.” (1 Nephi 16:13). This is precisely correct and also correlates to the ancient “Frankincense Trail.” Starting in the wilderness outside of Jerusalem there is a “valley of Lemuel” (1 Nephi 2:14). and a “river of Laman (1 Nephi 2:8). Continuing down the Frankincense Trail {this is really where the directional reference south-southeast should be (1 Nephi 16:13)} , you reach Nahom(1 Nephi 16:34). This is the “south-southeast” journey that brings you to the altars with the inscriptions that date to Lehi’s journey. Making an eastward turn, at Nahom (1 Nephi 17:1), Lehi travels to Bountiful (1 Nephi 17:5) on the boarder of the sea (this is the Bountiful in the Old World to which I was referring, you referred to the Bountiful in the new world, its relation to Nahom is unknown and not evidence for the BOM in any case). Bountiful has ore (1 Nephi 17:10), honey (1 Nephi 17:5), fruit (1 Nephi 17:5), and ….

Above I have included Jerusalem, a valley, a river, the ancient Frankincense Trail, the direction of travel from Jerusalem/valley/river to Nahom, the turn at Nahom, the arrival at Bountiful on the boarder of the sea, and a handful of characteristics of Bountiful.

All of the above come from the text of the BOM. All of the above have been found (and not questioned by LDS critics to my knowledge) by explorers using the BOM text as a guide. It is the connection of all these things (I listed 10, the book I recommended lists 81) that make the idea that Joseph Smith or some other person who had not walked this trail prohibitively unlikely IMO.

I know there is more questions about this later, and I will get to them.
Charity, TOm

Sorry for the typo. I know you’re user name is not Rom.

The Book of Mormon is not authentic, so you have to make constructions in an attempt to make it something it is not. As though you have a vague treasure map and are hoping to find X. Is there a geological formation that looks like a skull? (Just kidding.) It looks like grasping at straws, but I understand, you believe the treasure map is authentic. The archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, on the American continent, is non-existent. Your “Bountiful” is a dead end. Maybe you need to find a new geographic location if you ever hope to find X.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hello Stephen and TexanKnight,
Whether a LDS should be permitted/encourages/… to believe that the BOM occurred in Mesoamerican when the Catholics here have repeatedly tried to say that Mesoamerican BOM is not something consistent with the words of LDS prophets, rather directly calls for an evaluation of the evidence we (Catholic and LDS) both agree upon in the Bible. This evidence shows that the Catholics who attempt to prevent LDS from identifying compelling evidence for the BOM in Mesoamerica are on not on solid footings because, with the Bible as a model, we should not expect perfection out of our prophets. It is consistent to believe Joseph Smith was a prophet (in the Biblical model) AND to believe that the majority (but not totality) of his statements on BOM geography were simply wrong.

The purported sins of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are much further removed from this discussion than the infallibility or lack of infallibility in God’s prophets. Thus what you offer is quite far removed from “archeology in the BOM.” If I am going to present evidence that the BOM occurred in Mesoamerica, it is not strictly unfair that I am reminded that this idea is inconsistent with the majority of words offered by Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets. However, the “Joseph Smith is a scoundrel” argument has very little bearing on the BOM as a Mesoamerican Codex.

Now, since you brought it up:
I will say that your presentation of this is quite one-sided and does not do justice to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. For more full presentations of these issues there are numerous sources that are fairer than your presentations quick bullet points. If you or anyone wants that more-full presentation, then it is just an Internet search away.

And, because it is relevant to your particular criticism, I am quite convinced that a more full evaluation of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young’s character will evidence that they behaved in a way that is clearly far more Christian than how Pope John XII or some other Popes behaved. I am convinced that Joseph Smith was generally a Christian man who repented of his sins and tried to become more Christlike, but I do not believe Catholics are free to offer a test for Christian leadership a number of Catholic Popes would fail. I will also suggest that a number of Biblical leaders would fail the “behaved like a Christian” test too. All this is not to say that Joseph fails the “behaves like a Christian” test, because I do not believe he does, but it is not a valid test anyway.

Finally, since I have read numerous times, but not responded much (or at least recently) …
What Catholics claim for the Pope and what LDS claim from the Prophet cannot both be true, but they are not equivalent. My purpose is not to raise or lower Pope/Prophet so they are the same thing except that they both claim to lead Christ’s Church. I know of nothing that requires the leader of Christianity either in Catholicism or Mormonism to be viewed by all as a wonderful example of Christ the King. I know of nothing in Catholicism that says a prophet must be a wonderful Christian, but a Pope can be a scoundrel. LDS leaders after Joseph Smith celebrated the fact that he was imperfect and that give them hope because they were imperfect. Joseph Smith delivered revelation that specifically was God reprimanding him. In short, I know of no test in Catholicism or Mormonism that can be applied to the life a Pope or Prophet (in Catholicism) or can be applied to a Prophet in Mormonism, in order to KNOW they are not truly what they claim to be.

Let me restate however, I believe the evidence shows Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were good Christian men that I can respect. The evidence shows that Pope John XII behaved far worse than Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. But, I invite the readers of this thread to explore this elsewhere because it is far removed from “Archeological Evidence for the BOM.”

Charity, TOm

As someone else pointed out the bible has names that fit with NHM it really wouldn’t be hard for JS to pick new vowels for biblical name he did it before with other names’

 

[RebeccaJ]

I hope I have explained this well enough now, but briefly …
It is not Jonah disobeying God by refusing to go to Nineveh that I am talking about.
I have been told that the evidence I offer for the BOM as an ancient Mesoamerican book is invalid because Joseph Smith said … about the location of the BOM. The requirement the Joseph Smith KNOWs where the BOM took place and consistently teaches this IMO is not consistent with LDS truth claims nor with the witness we have of Biblical prophets.

Jonah communicated with God and as a result told Nineveh they would be destroyed by God. Jonah was wrong about this. Jonah was so sure he was not wrong about this he was pissed at God for the communication Jonah received that lead him to tell Nineveh they would be destroyed. I believe prophets of God from Jonah to Joseph Smith to Thomas Monson are not PERFECTLY able to discern all the particulars even when God is talking to them about a certain issue. I doubt God talked to Joseph about BOM geography at all, but even if God did I doubt there were any specifics. Thus when Joseph theorizes about the BOM in a way that is inconsistent with Mesoamerica, Joseph is not even trying to imperfectly communicate God’s thoughts on BOM geography.
When I see so much weight placed on what I consider to be personal speculation from Joseph Smith (having zero to do with his prophetic mantle and only a little more to do with the reality of BOM geography) by former members of my church, I think it sad that poor geographic knowledge (even from a prophet of God) lead to their disaffection.

Well, I am actually not guilty of this at all. I do not miss this truth even a little. If I was teaching a group of kids about God’s love and mercy Jonah would be a great story.
The Bible is an extraordinary book with great truths. Just because I use the story of Jonah to teach how we should “test” prophets does not mean that I do not see how the story of Jonah and Nineveh shows God’s mercy.
I hope that makes sense. I have never thought God or Jonah lied, I just showed how certain critics of my church would need to view Jonah if they were CONSISTENT.

Concerning the community of the CoJCoLDS, I grew up in a great “Catholic Community.” I have been quite upfront about my departure and how it was a product of ignorance and my sinfulness and …. But, my continued absence could be explained solely by the positive evidence for the CoJCoLDS and is not explained by my love of good fellowship. It is God’s call to me that has grown my desire for fellowship. Naturally, I am not a radical loaner, but I am not quite so drawn to fellowship as some seem to think I must be to stay a LDS.
I once claimed that I would be a great Atheist, because I was pretty good at much of what was necessary to get through life; and it was only the call of Christianity to love others that I was ****** at. This has fallen away as I have recognized even this is a prideful statement that is not true (I still think the idea that Christianity is a crutch is not an atheist apologetic that has much impact on me and how I engage the world, but I can no longer deny that I need Christ. I am nothing without Him).
Charity, TOm

So, you’re saying you discern God’s thoughts better than one of your prophets? Did you ask God about Mesoamerica as a Book of Mormon location? Have you ever asked God to protect you from what is false?

The LDS test of the Book of Mormon as trustworthy is not based on reason, at all, it is based on good feelings about it. What happens when reason does not align to the good feeling? Possibly, not so good feelings? What then?

Jonah did not misunderstand God. God heard the prayers and saw the repentance of the people in the city and showed His Mercy. The Mercy part is the part that Jonah had a hard time dealing with. I fail to see how this compares to Joseph Smith teaching falsely.

For myself, as a Mormon, I never felt anything about the Book of Mormon. It was ever present in my life,home, worship, everything…but I held no special feelings for it. So no, I didn’t leave Mormonism because of the Book of Mormon. I left it because I didn’t believe it. Period. Mainly, what I was taught as doctrine, but now Mormons call today “speculation”. I never saw your God as loving or merciful. More like, just a man, with the sort of ideas that men have about most things. Superiority complexes about their own race and gender. Eternal sexual relations with subservient women who Shall Not Be Named. I have polygamous ancestors who were sisters, married to the same man. You can believe,with sisters of my own, the idea doesn’t seem so Godly to me. More like uber creepy.

The Book of Mormon is secondary, at best, to the reasons I left Mormonism. Now, I find no compelling reason to view it’s provenance as anything but skeptical. At best.

I did take the atheist route.

 

[Stephen168]

When I see so much weight placed on what I consider to be **personal speculation **from Joseph Smith (having zero to do with his prophetic mantle …………

Mormon scripture is more than person speculation. My point has never been anything but Smith’s claim in Mormon scripture as summarized by Tarquin:

But when Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon he did have himself listed as Author. Joseph Smith did not believe in a “limited geography.” He clearly taught that the people in the Book of Mormon inhabited the entirety of the Americas.

The Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be and neither is the Book of Abraham.

 

[Stephen168]

The Book of Mormon is not authentic, so you have to make constructions in an attempt to make it something it is not. As though you have a vague treasure map and are hoping to find X. Is there a geological formation that looks like a skull? (Just kidding.) It looks like grasping at straws, but I understand, you believe the treasure map is authentic. The archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, on the American continent, is non-existent. Your “Bountiful” is a dead end. Maybe you need to find a new geographic location if you ever hope to find X.

I have been searching for an analogy to describe what I’ve been thinking about Tom’s approach to the Book of Mormon and why I’m apathetic toward his approach. I think your treasure map is a good one.

He has a map that he thinks will help him find the treasure. He is trying to show us that the map aligns with a real place; therefore there is a treasure. But I know there is no treasure to find: the American Indians are not Jews. I just can’t go on a magical mystery tour with him which I know is pointless.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I have been searching for an analogy to describe what I’ve been thinking about Tom’s approach to the Book of Mormon and why I’m apathetic toward his approach. I think your treasure map is a good one.

He has a map that he thinks will help him find the treasure. He is trying to show us that the map aligns with a real place; therefore there is a treasure. But I know there is no treasure to find: the American Indians are not Jews. I just can’t go on a magical mystery tour with him which I know is pointless.

I’ve been thinking for a few days that Tom has taken cues from the movie “National Treasure”. A story of a multigenerational family who is obsessed with finding a secret Masonic treasure. The likeness to Smith’s Masonic influenced life of treasure seeking isn’t lost on me.

Tom, you need to remember, Smith believed the unrighteous will seek treasure but God will have the treasure slipping away from their grasp.Also I recall the notion of “slippery treasure” is found in the Book of Mormon itself!

“Not all treasure is silver and gold, mate.”-Captain Jack Sparrow. Oh snap! Cap’n Jack had a Urim and Thummim, the compass that always points to the greatest desire of the one holding it.

 

[TexanKnight]

Mormon scripture is more than person speculation. My point has never been anything but Smith’s claim in Mormon scripture as summarized by Tarquin:

The Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be and neither is the Book of Abraham.

Mormons always have that response.

If it was something good, or true…then it was prophesy and/or doctrine. If it turns out to have been bad or false, it was just speculation

 

[Stephen168]

Mormons always have that response.

If it was something good, or true…then it was prophesy and/or doctrine. If it turns out to have been bad or false, it was just speculation

True, I’ve just never had a Mormon claim that Pearl of Great Price is speculation. Except for Tom, Mormons claim that Mormon scripture is the only thing you can rely on; everything else can be speculation.

 

[Tarquin]

Please see Stephen’s post #467 in reference to your statement which I have bolded. Please see Tobit 14:14-15 which states that Nineveh was destroyed. So does the destruction of Nineveh as described in Tobit not count as a real destruction because the Book of Tobit was removed from the KJV Bible? Jonah was just off on the timing of the destruction of Nineveh. How many of us have been frustrated when God’s timing does not correspond to ours?

Thank you, Iepuras, for that reference. I see it is past time for me to read Tobit again, with more attention to detail. That is one of several Bible books that I have not studied, nor even read, enough.

 

[Tarquin]

Tom, Lehi did not mention altars at “the place that was called Nahom.” There is absolutely no evidence that that place has ever been called Nahom, nor even that it was called “NHM.” Do you understand? Did you read the inscriptions on the altars? Are they not all refering to a N_h_mite, a member of a TRIBE, rather than a citizen of a PLACE??? Do you understand the difference between a tribe and a place?

NHM is not “Nahom.”
There is no phonetic shift that I have yet found to explain how Nahom became Nehm or Nehhm or whatever it is among the Arabs. I note that NoHam is a place in Detroit. I believe there are a couple of cemeteries near there, one Jewish. Perhaps this is the place Lehigh named “Nahom.”

The attempted explanations by professional apologists for the Mormon church completely fail in their concepts. Arabic tribes did not name themselves after cemeteries, and did not name cemeteries (so far as I’ve been able to discover so far) after themselves. Correspondences whose connections have not been demonstrated are not archaeological evidence.

 

[Tarquin]

Whose archaeology – the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, or FAIR and Tom Nossor?

If I am going to present evidence that the BOM occurred in Mesoamerica, it is not strictly unfair that I am reminded that this idea is inconsistent with the majority of words offered by Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets. However, the “Joseph Smith is a scoundrel” argument has very little bearing on the BOM as a Mesoamerican Codex.

The problem as I see it, is that your Church as a whole – Book of Mormon plus living prophets – say one thing. You, in order to defend that book and those prophets are forced into saying they were wrong. The evidence you bring up to defend your view contradicts what the Book of Mormon says it is and what your prophets have said about it. If the Book of Mormon itself is wrong, and the prophets are wrong about the Book of Mormon, what need is there for evidence to prove it is “true.” If the archaeological evidence proves your contentions to be correct, that will have proven the Book of Mormon and the Church prophets to be untrue.

 

[Tarquin]

There’s this new thing called the internet

I will say that your presentation of this is quite one-sided and does not do justice to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. For more full presentations of these issues there are numerous sources that are fairer than your presentations quick bullet points. If you or anyone wants that more-full presentation, then it is just an Internet search away.

The internet! I’ve been going through pages and pages of lds.org almost every day to figure out the things you are saying and how they fit into the Book of Mormon story. I’ve read FAIR’s material, Maxwell Institute essays, and whatever else I could find in defense of the Book of Mormon. And I’ve searched at Mormonthink, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, and other places to see what the critics say. I read the Book of Mormon! I match the different claims and interpretations against each other, and against (or “with”) the Book of Mormon, and then try to do some of my own thinking. Even worse for Mormonism’s claims, I see a significant number of forum posters have been Mormons of long and esteemed standing, and know a great deal about Mormon history, organization and teachings. Your exaggerated assumption of our stupidity is without merit.

 

[Tarquin]

Popes don’t repent (according to Tom Nossor, who may or may not repent), but Christlike Mormons do

And, because it is relevant to your particular criticism, I am quite convinced that a more full evaluation of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young’s character will evidence that they behaved in a way that is clearly far more Christian than how Pope John XII or some other Popes behaved. I am convinced that Joseph Smith was generally a Christian man who repented of his sins and tried to become more Christlike, but I do not believe Catholics are free to offer a test for Christian leadership a number of Catholic Popes would fail.

That’s not very fair, is it. You allow that Joseph Smith “repented of his sins” (where?), but don’t allow the same for Catholic Popes (why not?). Did you know Popes go to confession? A specific condition of repentance.

Pope Francis said he goes to confession every two weeks, knowing that God never tires of forgiving those who repent, but also knowing that having a priest say “I absolve you” reinforces belief in God’s mercy.
Using the literal Italian translation of a Spanish saying, “It’s better to turn red once than yellow a thousand times,” Pope Francis said he knows some people are embarrassed to confess their sins to a priest, but it is the best path to spiritual healing and health.
At his weekly general audience in St. Peter’s Square Nov. 20, Pope Francis reflected on the forgiveness of sins as one of the missions Jesus entrusted to his apostles and their successors.
In a world often dominated by “individualism and subjectivism,” he said, many people – including many Catholics – say that God will forgive their sins and they have no need of the sacrament of confession and the ministry of a priest.
“Certainly, God forgives every repentant sinner, but the Christian is bound to Christ and Christ is united to his church,” the pope said. “God, in his sovereign mercy, forgives everyone, but he wanted those who belong to Christ and his church to receive forgiveness through the community’s ministers.”
“Priests, too, need confession, even bishops. We are all sinners. Even the pope goes to confession every two weeks because the pope, too, is a sinner,” he said. “My confessor hears what I say, offers me advice and forgives me. We all need this.”

I will also suggest that a number of Biblical leaders would fail the “behaved like a Christian” test too. All this is not to say that Joseph fails the “behaves like a Christian” test, because I do not believe he does, but it is not a valid test anyway.

You cannot believe he failed at anything. That’s part of the over-ruling spirit of Mormonism. On the other hand, I can think that all the Popes were failures when it comes to eliminating sin from their lives, or from being morally perfect, and that presents no problem from a Catholic perspective because the calling of Pope is not to be individualistically morally perfect personally, but to present doctrine and defend the faith. Even though Mormons give lip service to the possibility of one of their prophets being imperfect, they can not list a single imperfection.

LDS leaders after Joseph Smith celebrated the fact that he was imperfect and that give them hope because they were imperfect. Joseph Smith delivered revelation that specifically was God reprimanding him.

Please provide details about LDS leaders celebrating the fact that Joseph was imperfect, and that his imperfection gave them hope. I hope sometime we can discuss those specific revelations in an appropriate thread. “They aren’t all that.”

In short, I know of no test in Catholicism or Mormonism that can be applied to the life a Pope or Prophet (in Catholicism) or can be applied to a Prophet in Mormonism, in order to KNOW they are not truly what they claim to be.

I hope this, too, will be addressed in a thread to which I might be invited. There certainly are tests that can be applied to prophets. In the case of Joseph Smith, there are extra tests, since he was not just a prophet, but also a “seer,” “revelator,” and “translator,” right? The Bible has tests, the Mormon prophets have described tests. Why don’t you know what the Bible says and what your prophets teach about this?

 

[TexanKnight]

Tom:

In short, I know of no test in Catholicism or Mormonism that can be applied to the life a Pope or Prophet (in Catholicism) or can be applied to a Prophet in Mormonism, in order to KNOW they are not truly what they claim to be.

Response:

I will only address the prophet part of this, since only lds prophets claim face-to-face discussions with God.

But how about this test:

If a person cheats his neighbors thru treasure hunting, is convicted over it, then lies about it later, if he commits multiple counts of adultery, has sex with minors, tries to wife swap, cheats people in a ban scandal, tries to get glory for himself by proclaiming himself a mayor and a general, tells people to build him a house “cuz God said so”, blindly shoots at people with a gun he illegally carries while in jail for breaking the law…

he is not a prophet.

 

[iepuras]

Thank you, Iepuras, for that reference. I see it is past time for me to read Tobit again, with more attention to detail. That is one of several Bible books that I have not studied, nor even read, enough.

You’re welcome. Full credit for the reference goes to Stephen168. His reference seemed to have been forgotten since Jonah being wrong as a prophet had come up again. We all needed to be reminded that he wasn’t wrong on the destruction of Nineveh. I have yet to spend much time in the deuterocanonical books. I’m focusing on the New Testament right now but then I will spend some time in the deuterocanonical books as they are an heritage that had been previously lost to me.