How come archeologists cannot find a trace of..?

[mfbukowski]

Bukowski, don’t you have a sense of humor? There are many other reasons.

Yeah, I think that Jack Chick guy is hilarious. I love his stuff.

 

[mfbukowski]

Our debates may differ but in order to debate something you must agree to something as authoritative.

Read my previous post. This is precisely what I said you would say. I disagree. I think arguments from authority are simply assertions of what others think, whereas I think we should think things out for ourselves. How do you know any “authority” is an authority? Do you accept it blindly? What is the critieria for being authoritative?

Your answer will be one or another version of one thing : “history is authoritative. It is authoritative because it is old”.

I learned early on to question authority, and I do. Not disregard it, just quesiton it.

 

[PaulDupre]

This totally proves my point that you have no understanding of the temple whatsoever. None. Zilch. Nada.

So explain to us what the signs and tokens (secret handshakes and passwords) really mean, 'cause in the endowment, they teach:

“Your Endowment is to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being able to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation.”

• current LDS temple endowment ceremony.

Are you saying it is not a “plain and precious truth” but is shrouded in mysticism? It seems pretty obvious to me - you need these handshakes and passwords so you can pass the test when the angels who guard the entrance to heaven ask you for the secret handshakes and the passwords. Duh.

BTW, this part of the endowment comes from a Brigham Young teaching found in the Journal of Discourses:

“Your endowment is to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.” (Brigham Young, J. D. 2:31.)

 

[sambos671]

Read my previous post. This is precisely what I said you would say. I disagree. I think arguments from authority are simply assertions of what others think, whereas I think we should think things out for ourselves. How do you know any “authority” is an authority? Do you accept it blindly? What is the critieria for being authoritative?

Your answer will be one or another version of one thing : “history is authoritative. It is authoritative because it is old”.

I learned early on to question authority, and I do. Not disregard it, just quesiton it.

Authority isn’t reliant on what other say so much as verifiable information. History can definately be authoritative by use of emperical data. Let me explain Troy. Troy was writen about by Homer. A great poet of his day. Copies of copies were made. However, no city was found or existed by the name of Troy. So for hundreds of years most people would say Troy was a fable even though there were artifacts by the Spartans and Athenians and other Greek cities that fought in that war. In the 1800 an acheologist discovered the remains of Troy which met with Homer’s discription. Carbon dating had it right with the period Homer spoke of. Therefore with both documents and empirical evidence we determined that Troy was not a myth.

There is no corrisponding evidence for BoM with regard to ancient american civilizations. I would use the text of the bible to debate the issues since BOTH MORMONS AND CATHOLICS find it to be authoritative. You were accusing me of quoting other academic texts which was not my desire for Authority. I like science, emperical data, and factual statements. History as you say can be rewritten, however, critical analysis of history has always detered this type of engenering of history. Such as the Nazi in Germany or the Soviet Union attempts came crumbling around their ears. I wanted to discuss these issues critically however you misuderstood my intention. Yet if truth is relative to the observer a discussion of truth is pointless. Get my drift?

 

[Stephen168]

Look, if you guys really want to see a scholarly discussion of this topic from a Mormon perspective,…

I want to know the truth from a scientific perspective.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

I an sure you are a very nice person, and I am sure you love your husband very much. But learning about Mormonism here is like learning about Catholicism from Jack Chick. Do you think that is a good idea? Honestly, that is what it is like.

I started to read the BOM last Sunday, and it really upset me! The whole time, my jaw was dropped. I don’t understand any of the things that they speak of. It doesn’t make sense at all. I don’t know why ya’ll have a Baptism for the dead, when in
1 Corinthians 15:29 Paul is wondering why they baptize for the dead if they believe in the resection. It doesn’t make sense to do that if you believe in the resurrection. Jesus told them “I die daily” meaning he dies for everyone’s sins daily.

 

[sambos671]

Read my previous post. This is precisely what I said you would say. I disagree. I think arguments from authority are simply assertions of what others think, whereas I think we should think things out for ourselves. How do you know any “authority” is an authority? Do you accept it blindly? What is the critieria for being authoritative?

Your answer will be one or another version of one thing : “history is authoritative. It is authoritative because it is old”.

I learned early on to question authority, and I do. Not disregard it, just quesiton it.

Quid est veritas?

 

[ricko]

Excerpts from the Q&A session immediately following

“Archeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief”

John E. Clark

Professor of Anthropology and Director of the New World Archeological Foundation, BYU

[John Clark:] Those who choose not to believe it * will never believe it; those who choose to believe it already do. …

But I’m, I would never tell anybody to try to prove the Book of Mormon is true through physical evidence, just because of the way metaphysics and epistemology work—it’s not possible. And so, you have to get the testimony some other way, and then the evidence will become very clear. If you’re on the opposing side you can say we basically just, ah, brained washed ourselves (one or two words inaudible). You’re free to think that—we’re not doing anybody any harm.

[John Clark:] Well, for example, you had this flap about DNA recently. … The DNA question is never going to be a problem. It only works one way, and in our favor. But the only reason that it looked like a flap or a problem is because they say: Well, Mormons believe (first of all they tell us what we believe) Mormons believe that all Indians in North and South America descended from these people who came over that are described in the Book of Mormon. I grew up believing that—but that’s false, that’s absolutely wrong.

tungate.com/clark.htm*

 

[PaulDupre]

[John Clark:] Well, for example, you had this flap about DNA recently. … The DNA question is never going to be a problem. It only works one way, and in our favor. But the only reason that it looked like a flap or a problem is because they say: Well, Mormons believe (first of all they tell us what we believe) Mormons believe that all Indians in North and South America descended from these people who came over that are described in the Book of Mormon. I grew up believing that—but that’s false, that’s absolutely wrong.

Funny that they only changed this belief after the DNA evidence came forth…

 

[WarriorAngel]

I an sure you are a very nice person, and I am sure you love your husband very much. But learning about Mormonism here is like learning about Catholicism from Jack Chick. Do you think that is a good idea? Honestly, that is what it is like.

IS there ever a good reason to study mormonism if there is nothing concrete to proof itself?

The Bible says we are not to follow strange gospels. [that would be the strange ones given opposed by the Apostles teachings]

AND to add - Jesus said as He was ascending - I will be with you always - til the consumation of time.
Which is to say the end of the world - and since He knew that it would not be in their lifetime - that He was speaking about His Church - and those who would succeed the Apostles in the same ministry within the same Church He established.

Therefore His promise meant that He would be with the Gospels He set upon His men - and no other gospels should be followed.** <~**AS per the writings of the Apostles whom He choose.

So - since Smith’s gospel is a completely contorted gospel with absolutely nothing similar to the actual teachings of Christ - it cannot be the same ancient teachings Jesus laid down since it is vastly distorted.

PLUS - The Lord prooves His Words in the Bible and the history all over the world. Nothing is hidden.

The golden tablets are no where to be found and no one witnessed them.

None of the cities or weapons or towns or burials exist of the claims from Smith.
UNLESS someone changes the original story from Smith which supposedly came on the golden tablets…then we are seeing a newer version based on facts that can be found…just so they can give proof.
That makes the golden tablets erroneous - then doesnt it??

Smith’s story then is impure and in need of the new distortions.

So - do you follow a man’s story - a new gospel never seen by any other - or the one that has been here since the beginning of God’s revelations to man?

It doesnt make any sense to follow a man who never even had a single witness to his supposed golden tablets - and corrupted the True Gospel of Christ.

You didnt read what i said - did you?

But if you did - please answer.

 

[mfbukowski]

So explain to us what the signs and tokens (secret handshakes and passwords) really mean, 'cause in the endowment, they teach:

Are you saying it is not a “plain and precious truth” but is shrouded in mysticism? It seems pretty obvious to me - you need these handshakes and passwords so you can pass the test when the angels who guard the entrance to heaven ask you for the secret handshakes and the passwords. Duh.

BTW, this part of the endowment comes from a Brigham Young teaching found in the Journal of Discourses:

You know that I will not respond- this discussion is pointless.

 

[mfbukowski]

Authority isn’t reliant on what other say so much as verifiable information. History can definately be authoritative by use of emperical data. Let me explain Troy. Troy was writen about by Homer. A great poet of his day. Copies of copies were made. However, no city was found or existed by the name of Troy. So for hundreds of years most people would say Troy was a fable even though there were artifacts by the Spartans and Athenians and other Greek cities that fought in that war. In the 1800 an acheologist discovered the remains of Troy which met with Homer’s discription. Carbon dating had it right with the period Homer spoke of. Therefore with both documents and empirical evidence we determined that Troy was not a myth.

There is no corrisponding evidence for BoM with regard to ancient american civilizations. I would use the text of the bible to debate the issues since BOTH MORMONS AND CATHOLICS find it to be authoritative. You were accusing me of quoting other academic texts which was not my desire for Authority. I like science, emperical data, and factual statements. History as you say can be rewritten, however, critical analysis of history has always detered this type of engenering of history. Such as the Nazi in Germany or the Soviet Union attempts came crumbling around their ears. I wanted to discuss these issues critically however you misuderstood my intention. Yet if truth is relative to the observer a discussion of truth is pointless. Get my drift?

I thought we were discussing the FAIR articles? And it is curious that you chose Troy which had what you call “no evidence” for hundreds of years and yet turned out to be valid.

But of course there are volumes of evidence for the veracity of the BOM on the FAIR site so this is a waste of time

 

[mfbukowski]

Quid est veritas?

Yes I get it. Answer the post.

 

[sambos671]

I thought we were discussing the FAIR articles? And it is curious that you chose Troy which had what you call “no evidence” for hundreds of years and yet turned out to be valid.

But of course there are volumes of evidence for the veracity of the BOM on the FAIR site so this is a waste of time

Still there is I was discussing the FAIR articles you won’t look at them critically. I went over the first article and your reply is that you don’t hold to any authority. So we’re stuck especially if you won’t look at the bible as an authority source. Yet I haven’t read all the Fair articles but I haven’t seen one that deals with the topic of this thread which is no archeological evidence. And yes you’re right about Troy so are you changing your argument to say yes there is no archeological evidence but eventually like Troy it will be found? Which I find to be a better argument to your advantage because then you’re just arguing what you believe despite no evidence for it.

 

[sambos671]

Yes I get it. Answer the post.

No you don’t. You want to argue “what is truth”. I can pull out Plato and Socrates and Aristotle. I can pull out the First Mover consept and still you and I will not agree to the question of it.

 

[mfbukowski]

No you don’t. You want to argue “what is truth”. I can pull out Plato and Socrates and Aristotle. I can pull out the First Mover consept and still you and I will not agree to the question of it.

Philosoophy has advanced a little since Plato and Aristotle. Would you go to a doctor who uses 2500 year old medicine? Newsflash: The earth is round and goes around the sun too!

Anyway, you are right. But there are clearly marked BOM Archaeology arguments on that FAIR site,

But you can’t seem to grasp that every pyramid and structure in Mesoamerica is evidence for the BOM peoples.

I agree there probably is no reason to continue, thanks for the effort. We seem to be talking at cross purposes and not communicating.

 

[mfbukowski]

Still there is I was discussing the FAIR articles you won’t look at them critically. I went over the first article and your reply is that you don’t hold to any authority. So we’re stuck especially if you won’t look at the bible as an authority source. Yet I haven’t read all the Fair articles but I haven’t seen one that deals with the topic of this thread which is no archeological evidence. And yes you’re right about Troy so are you changing your argument to say yes there is no archeological evidence but eventually like Troy it will be found? Which I find to be a better argument to your advantage because then you’re just arguing what you believe despite no evidence for it.

I didn’t mean that I don’t hold to any authority. I am not even sure what you mean by that. I certainly hold to the authority of the bible and the LDS standard works. It seems that our terminology is so different, we are just not communicating.

 

[mfbukowski]

Quid est veritas?

I subscribe to an analytic approach a la Wittgentstein, with a healthy dose of the pragmatism of William James and John Dewey.

I do not subscribe to a correspondence theory of truth. Truth is based on empirical experienced evidence of what “works”, but the existence of anything beyond experience is taken on faith. Yet religious truths can be experienced and are in some sense empirical.

But that is so terse an explanation that it is practically useless. But that’s where I am coming from. Totally antithetical to Platonic dualism. My tradition comes through Leibniz I suppose, then Hegel. So we are far far apart

 

[Jerusha]

Yes, I think Jack Chick tracts are funny, just like the book of mormon is funny. :bowdown: The problem is the people who believe such things. All funniness aside, however–

If you really subscribe to Hegelian dialectic, however, maybe we have a common ground. :newidea:

 

[jblake]

ReligiousQuest;:

if we had the original writings, would you then believe in the Book of Mormon?

a) For starters, had they been available, Mark Hofmann would have had far more trouble in conning the LDS and RLDS churches out of thousands (millions?) of dollars. (The missing 116 pages of The Book of Mormon, The Salamander documents, etc.) If the documents that Joseph Smith translated were still available, it would go far in countering the claim that he fabricated the entire thing.

b) When one examines the statements of the so-called eye witnesses, one discovers that they never saw the original manuscript. Their statements are their belief that the original documents were translated by Smith;

c) By the use of forensic content analysis, the data clearly indicates that the entire book, and its supporting documentation were fabrications. As such, the absence of original documents confirms that hypothesis;

Everything I can find says the oldest fragments of the books in the New Testament date to hundreds of years after the New Testament times. (verifiable right here

a) Wikipedia is a reliable source for “pop knowledge”. That is: knowledge that is assumed to be correct, but need not, and usually is not correct;

b) There is a strong correlation between when a specific scholar will date a manuscript, and their specific theology. The same evidence is used to support early, middle, and late dating of the same manuscript, purely due to differing interpretations of that evidence;

c) One not so little issue is that by 500 AD, portions of, if not the entire NT and OT had been translated by Christian missionaries into at least 50 languages. (One source I have claims 500 languages. However, extant texts are available in roughly 50 languages.) Back-translating those texts into Greek, Hebrew,and Aramaic is a subset of textual criticism. That back-translation can also provide evidence to support the hypothesis that “verse x” was an addition, or deletion from the original;

d) For all of the claims that the early Church rewrote manuscripts to suit proto-Christianity, and later Orthodox Christianity, the manuscript evidence suggests that those changes were done after Orthodox Christianity was the dominant force in Christianity, and not while the various factions were competing for dominance;

I hear non-Christians all the time say this is one of the big reasons why they can’t accept the New Testament, and because many critics say that since there are contradictions in some details in the accounts between the Four Gospels, maybe something screwy was going on.

The differences between the Gospels are on a par with the differences between legislation as passed by the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the White House, and what is printed in the Federal Register as the Law of the Land. On second thoughts, there are far fewer contradictiοns between the Gospels, than there are between legislation as passed by the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House.

Others claim that the Catholic Church and Constantine had a good chance of messing with the books in the New Testament to strengthen “their vast empire”.

a) Nobody denies that the copyists of New Testament manuscripts were error-free in their transcriptions. The major alterations are: 1) Omitting content; 2) Repeating content; 3) Confusing a footnote/gloss with the original text; 4) Changing the order of the content; 5) Adding an explanation/footnote/gloss; The manuscript evidence suggests that most of those changes occured after 500 AD.

b) The selection of which texts are Canonical, was a side-effect of which faction of the Early Christian Church Constantine threw his support to. Had he selected one of the other descendants of either Petrine or Pauline, or other Apostolic Christianity, contemporary Christianity would have had a radically different face;

Everything I can find says that the oldest scrolls for most of the Old Testament don’t date until not long before Christ’s time, like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

This is confusing the date of the copying of the manuscript, with the date that the content of the manuscript was originally created. To wit: I have a copy of the KJV published in 2007. Does that mean that the KJV was written in 2007? (This specific version appears to have been edited in the late 1990’s, based upon a version printed in 1768, which was based upon a version printed in 1611, which was based upon a Bible that was printed roughly a century prior to that, which was based on a translation from earlier than that.)

They also point out parallels between Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh, Law of Moses and Hammarabi’s Code. Explain that to us?

Virtually every culture has a flood myth. One of the challenges of archaeology, is trying to determine where, and when, the flood took place, for the specific culture. Are two flood myths from different cultures depicting the same event, or two different events? Are the floods global catastrophes, or local catastrophes?

Geological data supports the hypothesis that the floods were local catastrophes. Is the flood myth of First Nations in Central America that of the Bering land bridge falling, or of the Black Sea filling up, or Euphrates river flooding, the creation of the Gulf of Mexico, or something else?

Virtually every theological or philosophical system has a “code of conduct” that has a parallel to Hammarabi’s Code. That does not mean that they are all descendants of that code.

jonathon