Evidence for or against "The Book Of Mormon".

  • Thread starter Thread starter wademann
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Casen:
RE: I found it to be rather boring. I also found that for a supposed summary, it was rather detailed about things that I considered rather minor.

Ever read the Old Testament??
I’m working on the OT. I think the two are a bit different though. Is not the BoM supposed to be Moroni’s abridgement of a bunch of people’s writings? The OT is not an abridgement. And what I’m thinking is if this is truly an abridgement then why put so many, what I would call, insignificant stories, etc.?
 
40.png
tkdnick:
I’m working on the OT. I think the two are a bit different though. Is not the BoM supposed to be Moroni’s abridgement of a bunch of people’s writings? The OT is not an abridgement. And what I’m thinking is if this is truly an abridgement then why put so many, what I would call, insignificant stories, etc.?
No doubt the two “Testaments”-- the OT and the A[nother]T-- read a bit differently. For me, the hardest part in the Book of Mormon is reading where it extensively quotes the OT. May be some of you hit the “Isaiah wall”, like I do when I try to read the BOM again. Sometimes reading the Book of Mormon backwards (by sub-book) is the only thing that gets me through. Usually I have to conduct some kind of study to stay interested.

BTW, Mormon and Moroni left the first 1/4 to 1/3 of the BOM unabridged. The first few books conduct a “lineage history”, i.e., a narrative that follows the spiritual history of a family line of priests.

As to whether the OT was abridged or not, there are scholars that employ the methods of higher criticism that will say that it is. Not that that settles anything.
 
mormon fool:
The first few books conduct a “lineage history”*, i.e., a narrative that follows the spiritual history of a family line of priests.
*I am quoting this because I am borrowing the term from John Sorenson who explains what it means much better than I do in his book “An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon”. Which I bring up as long as we are bringing up sources that consider evidence for or against the BOM. Sorenson is a MesoAmerican Archaeologist.
 
40.png
tkdnick:
My problem is not so much with the BoM (though I do have them) as it is with all the other stuff that came afterwards (D&C, PoGP, Revelations, etc.).
I will grant you this. Since the text of the BOM appears to marginally acceptable it might behoove those so inclined to compile of lists why it might not be (from the text itself). Even though mormonism has some bells and whistles that are harder to accept, usually it’s “game over” once someone accepts the Book of Mormon as scripture. There are some exceptions to this and I wouldn’t want anyone to discontinue learning or searching.

The amount of waves the Book of Mormon makes all by itself are impressive as contemporary retorationist (but mormon critic) Alexander Campbell wrote:
This prophet Smith, through his stone spectacles, wrote on the plates of Nephi, in his book of Mormon, every error and almost every truth discussed in N. York for the last ten years. He decides all the great controversies - infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of freemasonry, republican government, and the rights of man. All these topics are repeatedly alluded to. How much more benevolent and intelligent this American Apostle, than were the holy twelve, and Paul to assist them!!! He prophesied of all these topics, and of the apostacy, and infallibly decided, by his authority, every question. How easy to prophecy of the past or of the present time!!
 
Giggle!!! I checked it out of the library again. Paged through, and started at Alma 43. Some of the “Nephites” did very willingly join with the “Lamanites”. Alma 45:11-14 could very well be describing the end of the settlements on Greenland. You can read Jared Diamond’s most recent book. It is a remarkable match with what could have happened during Indian/Viking conflicts. You can also go to Dieterle’s “Ho-Chunk Chiefs” and read the one about Whirling Thunder. He had some contact with Joe Smith and company, and tried to tell the Indian side of the story. (He also played a heroic role in an attempt to defuse the Black Hawk “War” )

Other sources-- peripheral to this subject, but still relevant, are Perry Armstrong’s “The Sauks and the Black Hawk War” (an old book in reprint), and Black Hawk’s Autobiography, available in paperback.

Please guide me to the appropriate sections to further test my hypotheses.

Why is it that whites persist in trying to work things their way that doesn’t work, when a total paradigm shift is what is needed?
 
Jerusha,
Let me know if I understand correctly. Your theory is that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in about 90 days at age 24 consulting “Ho-Chunk Chiefs”, various other histories, Viking legends, Greenlandic visitors, and the legend of Atlantis. Yet, you admit that you haven’t read most of the book yet. Am I missing anything?
 
BJ Colbert:
You dismiss the testimony of 11 witnesses who actually handled the plates and testified of such, even after some of them left the church. 🙂 BJ
BJ, is this true? I read somewhere that these witnesses later testified that they didn’t actually handle or physically see the plates, but rather saw them in some sort of spirtual experience/vision. Can anyone else add to this?
 
From what I have seen in current and past posts in this and other forums on this subject, the overall archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon is very weak. The evidences sighted are mostly theories based on remote possibilites–the actual evidence could lead to any of a number of conclusions. I believe the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be vastly different in this respect. Though I don’t require archeological evidence to believe in the Bible, it is interesting that over time mountains of evidence have been discovered supporting the existence of specific people, places, and events from biblical scripture. This is not so for the Book of Mormon. Mormons will claim otherwise, but it is simply not so. They are often reaching very far to find anything that will support it. Currently, there is the supposed evidence of Lehi’s family leaving the coast of Oman on their transoceanic journey. This is the latest example of Mormon archeology stretching evidence to fit a conclusion they have already made.

Keep in mind this irrefutable fact: archeology has never confirmed a single person, place, or event specific to the Book of Mormon, and it’s not for a lack of looking. We have no other written historical records from the Americas confirming the existence of any of these things from the BoM. We have no records of place names, people, etc other than the BoM itself. For this to be so, these two civilizations must have lived in a vaccum and produced no other written record that has survived to this day. We have no written records from neighboring civilizations describing the BoM peoples or places. No specific city mentioned in the BoM has ever been discovered. It’s as if these people existed for hundreds of years as advanced civilizations, and were somehow swallowed up into oblivion, leaving nothing behind but golden plates from a handful of authors buried in upstate New York.

Do I require archeological evidence to believe in the bible–no–but isn’t it interesting that God has allowed scientists to continually uncover archeological evidence supporting biblical scripture? In many cases, we have supporting evidence from ancient texts and architecture that specific things from the bible really happened. We know where the cities are. We know the languages they spoke. We have their documents and other artifacts. We have ancient non-believers who wrote history from an outsider’s perspective on the existence of these people. How lucky we are to have such discoveries. Yet with the BoM, nothing of such significance has ever been discovered. Would God have a different attitude toward the pursuit of BoM evidence versus Biblical evidence? I can’t imagine why this would be so.
 
Casen:
Let me know if I understand correctly
No, you do not understand correctly. My hypothesis is that he (and friends) wrote the book knowing the general outline of Indian legends-- and reframing them within their hypotheses and limited range of knowlege (basically, the Bible). In the same way, I, knowing the general plot outline of the BOM, am reframing it within my limited knowlege, and research, of pre-Columbian European contact.
 
I agree with Chris–WA. It is largely confabulation, exaggeration, and distortion. However, some events, in a distant sense, truly happened.
 
Is this thread an exercise in subjective “evidences”, or do cows fly?

Sorry for the intro, but I have found most (all?) of the arguments presented in this thread against the BoM highly subjective; such that if the same arguments were used against many of the “books” within the Biblical canon, we would have to rethink/second-guess whether or not they are truly inspired.

Chris posted:
Do I require archeological evidence to believe in the bible–no–but isn’t it interesting that God has allowed scientists to continually uncover archeological evidence supporting biblical scripture? In many cases, we have supporting evidence from ancient texts and architecture that specific things from the bible really happened. We know where the cities are. We know the languages they spoke. We have their documents and other artifacts. We have ancient non-believers who wrote history from an outsider’s perspective on the existence of these people. How lucky we are to have such discoveries. Yet with the BoM, nothing of such significance has ever been discovered. Would God have a different attitude toward the pursuit of BoM evidence versus Biblical evidence? I can’t imagine why this would be so.>>
Archeologists of the past 20-30 years have produced abundant so-called “evidence/s” which dispute much of the Biblical record. Yet, with that said, I do not find many (all?) of their conclusions convincing, for I remain a firm believer in the Biblical text. Believers in the BoM can make a similar appeal; recent work in the Arabian peninsula by Mormon researchers have revealed startling bulls-eyes for the BoM record.

Anyway, to make a very long story short, I try to be objective, and fair when I examine the claims of those who differ with my worldview/paradigm.

Grace and peace,

Aug
 
Sorry for the intro, but I have found most (all?) of the arguments presented in this thread against the BoM highly subjective;
you mormons have the right to believe anything you want. but if you are honestly seeking truth, you would have rejected the BOM a long time ago. mormons do not base your faith on intellectual certitude, but on a conviction based primarly on feelings. joe smith was a liar and deciever.

BOM is piece of fiction. it has no historical veracity. for example:

no wheel

no horse or cattle or old world plants

no iron, or brass

no writtings

has ever been discovered in pre-colombus americas

The *National Geographic *Society maintained in 1998 that: “Archeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere’s past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.”
 
oat soda:
The *National Geographic *Society maintained in 1998 that: “Archeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere’s past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.”
Tying into the National Geographic statement, DNA evidence also refutes the Book of Mormon. From Googling:

The Book of Mormon presents itself as both God-inspired scripture, and as an historical account of a Hebrew (Israelite) family that immigrated to the Americas around 600 B.C. According to the Book of Mormon story, the patriarch of the family was a man named Lehi. Lehi had several children, among them Nephi, who was righteous, and Laman, who was rebellious. Following their arrival in the New World, and Lehi’s death, the two brothers, who were in nearly constant conflict, separated and eventually formed two separate nations–the Nephites and the Lamanites. Like their ancestors, these two nations were frequently in conflict with one another. The Nephites, according to the Book of Mormon, had God’s favor, and were civilized and fair-skinned. In contrast, the Lamanites were primitive and rebellious, and as a result were cursed by God with dark skin.

The Book of Mormon account tells of the appearance of Jesus Christ in the Americas around 34 AD. For several centuries following the appearance of Christ, the two nations lived relatively at peace with one another. However, war eventually broke out again, and around 400 AD, the Lamanites annihilated the Nephites. Moroni (who was the son of a Nephite prophet-historian named Mormon) survived the final battle, however. He preserved his father’s account, written on golden plates, of the history of the Americas, and hid the plates on a hill in present-day upstate New York.

In the early 19th Century, a man named Joseph Smith claimed to have been visited by Moroni, who showed him where the plates were hidden. Smith then translated these golden plates “by the power and gift of God” into the Book of Mormon, which was first published in 1830.

What Book of Mormon Claim can be addressed scientifically?

The title page of The Book of Mormon claims to be “written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel.” The introduction page of The Book of Mormon goes on to say that “After thousands of years, all were destroyed, except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.”

Based on this claim of the Book of Mormon, the LDS Church teaches that modern-day Native Americans are descended from Lamanites, who are said to be of Hebrew origin.

How can DNA research apply to this claim?

Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA testing are very reliable and effective means of determining the origins and ancestries of people and people groups. Such tests have been performed on thousands of individuals from scores of Native American tribes, from Alaska to the tip of South America. The results of the test show that the overwhelming majority (96.4%) of DNA originated in northeastern and north-central Asia, which essentially proves what had an already become a widespread consensus among archaeologists and anthropologists.

The post-Colonial era intermarriage accounts for the remaining 3.6% discrepancy. In addition, the testing of the DNA in the remains of pre-Columbian individuals shows a 100% Northeastern and North Central Asian origin. Had there been a Hebrew migration to the new world in ancient times as the Book of Mormon claims, there would be at least some evidence of this in the DNA of modern-day Native Americans; however, there is no correlation whatsoever.

This DNA evidence, therefore, shows that there never was any Hebrew migration to the Americas in ancient times, and as a result, there could not have been any Nephite or Lamanite race of Hebrew extraction in the Americas.
 
oat soda:
you mormons have the right to believe anything you want. but if you are honestly seeking truth, you would have rejected the BOM a long time ago.
You called Augustine of being one of the “you mormons”. Did you bother to look at his profile??? He’s Catholic.
 
DeFide said: This DNA evidence, therefore, shows that there never was any Hebrew migration to the Americas in ancient times, and as a result, there could not have been any Nephite or Lamanite race of Hebrew extraction in the Americas.

The above statement is wrong and the whole DNA argument is a straw man. We know from the Book of Mormon text itself that at least two other groups of people arrived in the Americas before Lehi’s family and we don’t know how many other groups arrived separately, before or after and how they may have intermixed and how the Nephites and Lamanites were influenced by their surroundings and native cultures. To test some American Indians and determine that they don’t have Israelite blood doesn’t mean there weren’t other civilization living somewhere in the Americas that were of Israelite ancestry.

Also, the very DNA research itself is of limited value for the following reason:

*DNA and the Book of Mormon * by David Stewart, M.D.

Mitochondrial DNA is of limited value in assessing the overall heredity of populations, as an individual’s entire mitochondrial DNA comes from a single female ancestor. Mitochondrial DNA, as researchers point out, tends to be inherited from relatively recent generations. If one assumes one generation every twenty-five years or four generations per century, if we go back just one thousand years, there are over one trillion ancestor slots (1,099,511,627,776, to be precise). If we go back to the beginning of the Book of Mormon Lehite era in 600 BC, there would be 2.02 x 10^31 ancestor slots, yet mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from a single ancestor. The phenomena of genetic drift, founder effect, etc. can easily lead to specific mitochondrial DNA signatures being lost from an entire population.

We know from the Old Testament that non-Israelite mitochondrial DNA was introduced into ancient Israel on a systematic basis. The Law of Moses made specific provisions for Israelites to take non-Israelite wives.
(see Deuteronomy 21:10-13)

While Christ was descended from King David, we will remember that Ruth the Moabite was one of David’s ancestors. All of Ruth’s children and any descendants through the female line would have carried not Israelite mtDNA, but Moabite mtDNA. Christ was also a descendant of Solomon, who had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3)–many of them non-Israelites who would have introduced mitochondrial DNA from much of the known world into ancient Israel. It would be possible to be a descendant of the kingly line of ancient Israel, and yet carry distinctly non-Israelite mitochondrial DNA.

The DNA trends we see in modern Jewish diaspora populations of having few male founders and many diverse female founders had begun even before the dispersion. Given the frequent warfare between Israel and its neighbors described in the Old Testament, we would expect the mitochondrial “pool” of ancient Israel at the time of the captivity to include influences from much of the known world. For these reasons, modern mtDNA studies appear to offer little if any value in ascertaining Israelite ancestry.

Oat soda loves to make broad generalizations and sweeping statements in his/her posts and rarely backs them up with any evidence so it’s hardly worth responding…

Example: …but if you are honestly seeking truth, you would have rejected the BOM a long time ago

Well, no, I think most LDS people are indeed seeking truth, just as most honest people in other religions seek truth. Only one of us has at least read the book you’re criticizing.

RE: joe smith was a liar and deceiver

Well, that’s your opinion; mine is different. But I promise not to be as disrespectful about your church leadership as you are of mine, even when I disagree.

RE: BOM is piece of fiction. it has no historical veracity.

Wrong again. Did you look at the evidences page I linked to earlier in this thread? How about responding to some of the items presented.
 
Casen said:
.
The above statement is wrong and the whole DNA argument is a straw man. QUOTE]

So is it your assertion that Hebrew “Lamanites” are the “principal ancestors” of the Native Americans?
 
RE: So is it your assertion that Hebrew “Lamanites” are the “principal ancestors” of the Native Americans?

I really don’t know and don’t think we can tell from current DNA evidence. However, the assertion that they ARE the “principal ancestors” of modern Native Americans isn’t from the text itself but from modern leadership as written in the introduction.

In any case, David Stewart concludes that “a careful examination of the existing DNA data demonstrates that this data is in no way inconsistent with the teaching of LDS prophets that immigrants from ancient Israel represent the ‘principal ancestors’ of modern Native Americans.

Here’s a link to the article: fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom12.html
 
40.png
Chris-WA:
BJ, is this true? I read somewhere that these witnesses later testified that they didn’t actually handle or physically see the plates, but rather saw them in some sort of spirtual experience/vision. Can anyone else add to this?
I have read that Smith showed them a burlap bag and told them the plates were inside. They accepted what he said and their testimony of having seen the plates was based on seeing them in a bag.
 
RE: I have read that Smith showed them a burlap bag and told them the plates were inside. They accepted what he said and their testimony of having seen the plates was based on seeing them in a bag.

You heard wrong. Honestly, why is there so much spreading of rumors here when a 2 minute Google search would clarify the issue?

Once again, here are some direct quotes:

Martin Harris said a few years before his death:

Do you see that hand? . . . Are your eyes playing you a trick or something? . . . Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates.

Oliver Cowdery said in 1848:

*I wrote . . . the entire Book of Mormon . . . as it fell from the lips of the Prophet [Joseph Smith]." * He said, "I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was translated. I also beheld the Interpreters."

And David Whitmer released a pamphlet just one year before he died that said:

*I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery or Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. . . . I was present at the death bed of Oliver Cowdery, and his last words were, “Brother David, be true to your testimony to the Book of Mormon.” * [David went on to talk about the Eight Witnesses also as having never denied their testimony.]

Also, the other eight witnesses testified that they handled the plates and turned the pages. It’s in their testimony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top