How come archeologists cannot find a trace of..?

[mfbukowski]

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:

Well I would not call myself a dogmatic Hegelian as you can probably deduce from the other stuff I said, but certainly that might be an interesting direction. I definitely think there is a plan to history and it is progressing toward the end God has in mind. And I used to be a Marxist philosophically, so actually dialectical materialism is interesting to me and I don’t think it is necessarily incompatible with theism. I know that sounds wacky, but that’s what I think. JS said that spirit is “refined matter” and I think that that position is the link to dialectical materialism, though I obviously am not an atheist (anymore). But you better get nicer than you have been, or I will just blow you off.

 

[Jerusha]

I definitely think there is a plan to history and it is progressing toward the end God has in mind.

See, we do have a common ground. Such an intellectual framework does not have to be atheistic. Are you familiar with de Chardin?

 

[mfbukowski]

See, we do have a common ground. Such an intellectual framework does not have to be atheistic. Are you familiar with de Chardin?

Now you’re talking. Some familiarity but I’d like to know more. Process theology is my deal. I will PM you something

 

[Stephen168]

What was the religion of the BoM people? Did the religion of the BoM people include human sacrifice?

 

[ReligiousQuest]

If the documents that Joseph Smith translated were still available, it would go far in countering the claim that he fabricated the entire thing.

Critics say the same thing about the Bible. The language of the Books of Moses were written in Hebrew dialects that linguists claim did not exist until at least 1000-600 B.C., some of the cities archaeologists say didn’t exist until 600’s B.C., and again those parallels with Babylonian mythology. Why not then believe they were any more made up?

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;

I keep on hearing as a Biblical criticism that those who wrote the individual four New Testament Gospels also did not actually see Jesus Christ. I also hear that whoever wrote the Books of Moses never saw Moses, and critics say he probably did not exist because there are no Egyptian records of over a million Israelites being slaves and leaving Egypt. The New Testament often says “the writings of Moses” multiple times, and never mentions the Documentary Hypothesis. If the Bible can get through all these criticisms, why be unfair and say the Book of Mormon can’t?

c) By the use of forensic content analysis, the data clearly indicates that the entire book, and its supporting documentation were fabrications.

Likewise, the New Testament’s Matthew mentions King Herod. The Gospel of Luke mentions all the world being taxed or registered. Historians say these two events happened 10 years apart. Linguistic analysis also says the books of Moses were written by at least five authors, and in Hebrew dialects that didn’t exist until 1000-600 B.C., etc, etc. If the God of the Bible is false, it would logically follow that the Latter-day Saint religion, along with Catholics, Jews, etc, are also false. If the God of the Bible can be true despite all this, although it doesn’t prove the LDS religion true, why would it be evidence against them if the God of the Bible can survive?

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;

If you look at the references, it’ll give you references that are something other than Wikipedia. Here are some non-Wikipedia references: biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

 

[ReligiousQuest]

b) There is a strong correlation between when a specific scholar will date a manuscript, and their specific theology.

Isn’t the same true about whether people believe in the Book of Mormon?

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.)

However, we do not have the original manuscript “fragments that date” to the time they were supposed to be written, so how can we claim we have archaeological/scholarly evidence that the people who wrote them were the ones who they claimed to be? See why many use this as a New Testament criticism, and why I’m using it as a comparison? Plus, there are many contradictions between the accounts in the four Gospels, in addition to Matthew saying King Herod existed at Christ’s birth and Luke saying all the world was taxed or registered.

Virtually every culture has a flood myth.

However, critics claim the Epic of Gilgamesh and many other Babylonian stories have more similarities to the Book of Genesis accounts than the other world cultures. Thus, they point a finger and say “plagiarism”.

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.

Just like some make accusations that the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon have some parallels. Then I look at the parallels between Jesus Christ and the Greek Dionysus, Persian Mithras, and Egyptian Horus, and they appear to have even more parallels, and with these pagan gods coming before, and were in the Kingdom of Judah before Jesus. The followers of the Greek Dionysus drank grape juice to represent his blood and believed that believing in him would bring eternal life. One version of a myth even had his “temple” turning water into wine on January 6th, the same day the Bible had Jesus turn water into wine (some Christian apologists say Jesus knew about this myth and was trying to out do him; so why can’t we say God knew about the a few minor parallels in the View of the Hebrews beforehand and intentionally out did that book?). The Greek Dionysus was also the son of a god (Zeus) and of a mortal woman. He raised someone from the dead, died a violent death, descended to the Underworld, was resurrected, and then sat next to his father in his throne. C.S. Lewis said that maybe prophets gave prophecies of Jesus ever since Adam’s time and they made it into other cultures as parallels (Jews strongly object to this and say it’s false speculation, and also that Jesus wasn’t in the other culture’s religions but rather Christianity plagiarized). Since some of the minor parallels with the View of the Hebrews and Book of Mormon were also found with other’s beliefs, why can’t we say that stories that happened in the Book of Mormon got out and eventually became parallels with the Book of Mormon in some Indian cultures, then eventually made it to the View of the Hebrews? Also, there are parallels between the Book of Mormon and our voyage to the Moon. That doesn’t mean the U.S. plagiarized. I’m not saying the Bible is false; I’m saying similar criticisms are used.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

What was the religion of the BoM people? Did the religion of the BoM people include human sacrifice?

If you believe the religion of the Bible included human sacrifice. The Bible talks of Jesus Christ being an ultimate sacrifice, the Lamb of God (that’s one of the reasons Jews reject him and the New Testament, because they say the Hebrew Bible says God hates human sacrifices and one person can not die for the sins of another).

The religion of the Book of Mormon is the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, etc. The Book of Mormon says it’s the same religion as Jesus Christ of Nazareth. That’s why it has Jesus Christ coming to the Americas. Thus, we can probably rule out that it was Hinduism, Buddhist, etc.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

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.

Paul does not say that baptisms for the dead are either bad or good. He just uses it as a way to make an argument for the resurrection. If someone says that they don’t believe Christ died for us, I could ask them why they drink grape juice or water and bread at Church. That doesn’t prove or disprove that the eating of bread and water/grape juice is bad. It’s just used to make a point.

Basically, it’s continued revelation. Paul includes revelations in his epistles to various peoples that are not found in the four Gospels with direct dialogue from Jesus, nor found in the Old Testament. Latter-day Saints believe in the same concept from modern day prophets. Deut. 4:2 of the Old Testament says not to add or take away from. Does that mean God can’t expand or clarify in the New Testament? Of course not.

The reason behind baptisms for the dead is Latter-day Saints believe we are saved by the Atonement and Grace of Jesus Christ, but that we need to do our part by having faith and making an effort to do what God wants, and also to be baptized. If a bushman in Africa dies without having a chance and would have accepted if he/she did have a chance, since God is both merciful and just, that’s what baptisms for the dead are for. Contrary what some say, it’s not forced on you if you die. It’s actually an offer that you can accept or reject.

 

[ReligiousQuest]

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

And how the Catholic Pope makes some statements about evolution only after the evolution evidence came forth. And how Genesis 5 & 11 says, “This is the written account of Adam’s line…” with specific names/years between each generation. Then these same mitochondrial/Y-Chromosome DNA testing are claimed to disprove this. Luke 3 also rehashes this genealogy.

Also funny that Christians won’t let that bother them about the Bible, but then these Christians get really uptight when Latter-day Saints say that the DNA studies only hint we have to see things in a different light but that the Book of Mormon still happened.

 

[Jerusha]

Latter-day Saints say that the DNA studies only hint we have to see things in a different light but that the Book of Mormon still happened.

I consider myself to be a reasonably good Catholic. I believe that some of the events in the BOM really happened, but not in the context that the BOM presents those events. And definitely not in the context of traditional LDS belief.

And Solomon Spalding used the bronze plates as a vehicle for his historical fiction. There were no bronze plates, except from the mind of Spalding and the lies of JS & Co.

 

[Stephen168]

The religion of the Book of Mormon is the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, etc. The Book of Mormon says it’s the same religion as Jesus Christ of Nazareth. That’s why it has Jesus Christ coming to the Americas. Thus, we can probably rule out that it was Hinduism, Buddhist, etc.

So the Book of Mormon people would not have practiced human sacrifice like the people of Mesoamerica did.

 

[Stephen168]

And how the Catholic Pope makes some statements about evolution only after the evolution evidence came forth.

And how the Catholic Pope makes some statements about automobiles only after the invention of the automobile came forth. What is the evidence for the Book of Mormon being true?

 

[Jerusha]

And Sidney Rigdon made statements about the Book of Mormon coming forth while it was being written. And he supposedly had no involvement in writing it. Now, how did that happen?

 

[Stephen168]

Isn’t the same true about whether people believe in the Book of Mormon?

Knowing that the modern horse was brought to the America’s in the 16th century, are the events described in the Book of Mormon pre-Columbian or not?

 

[Jerusha]

The Vikings had livestock on Greenland. Probably horses. But they did not bring them to the continent. Their explorations on the continent were minimal. Natives probably harrassed them no end, since they far outnumbered them.

 

[mfbukowski]

Knowing that the modern horse was brought to the America’s in the 16th century, are the events described in the Book of Mormon pre-Columbian or not?

Bones of both horses and elephants have been found in mesoamerica dateable to around 400 AD. Read this thread. I don’t understand half of it.
mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=41862&st=0&p=1208612687&#entry1208612687

 

[JLFuller]

How come archeologists cannot find a trace of one single civilization that the Mormon prophet claimed was given to him on the golden [and self destructing] tablets??

Not a single piece of pottery. Not a single dwelling place, not a single burial, not a trace - not a bit of anything that he claimed ever existed.

Care to explain that anyone?

First off, the B of M doesn’t say the Nephites (the good guys) were a majority population. In fact they were a very small part of the population. Some estimate around 1% of the population or so. There is a very interesting You Tube presentation by Brant Gardner on evidences in the B of M. You can go here if you are interested. I think you will find some answers to your questions.

 

[PaulDupre]

First off, the B of M doesn’t say the Nephites (the good guys) were a majority population. In fact they were a very small part of the population. Some estimate around 1% of the population or so. There is a very interesting You Tube presentation by Brant Gardner on evidences in the B of M. You can go here if you are interested. I think you will find some answers to your questions.

The BOM says that there was no one here in the Americas when Lehi’s group arrived; that God had kept this land from the knowledge of other nations so that Lehi’s descendents could have it for their inheritance. Nowhere in the BOM is there any mention of indiginous peoples or any intermarriage with people outside of Lehi’s group.

It would be very strange if the Nephites kept a meticulously detailed history of their life and culture but did not mention this huge population of outsiders or the obvious problems such a blending of cultures would cause. That just doesn’t ring true.

I know the LDS have very recently begun to spread the theory that Lehi’s group arrived and intermarried with an indiginous population, but that is not in the BOM and was never entertained by the LDS leaders until the last few years (after the DNA evidence proved that the Amerindians are not of Jewish descent).

It looks like nothing but embarrased back-peddling. and it won’t work for long. LDS people are not that dumb. They’ll figure out eventually that the BOM is a 19th-century work of fiction. Many already have, myself among them, and that was decades before the DNA evidence came forth and confirmed what every other scientific discipline had already concluded.

 

[ricko]

And how the Catholic Pope makes some statements about evolution only after the evolution evidence came forth. And how Genesis 5 & 11 says, “This is the written account of Adam’s line…” with specific names/years between each generation. Then these same mitochondrial/Y-Chromosome DNA testing are claimed to disprove this. Luke 3 also rehashes this genealogy.

Also funny that Christians won’t let that bother them about the Bible, but then these Christians get really uptight when Latter-day Saints say that the DNA studies only hint we have to see things in a different light but that the Book of Mormon still happened.

I would like to see your reference for your statement about what the Pope said about evolution only after the evidence came forth. You seem to imply a change in teaching? Maybe this will help you.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

 

[JLFuller]

The BOM says that there was no one here in the Americas when Lehi’s group arrived; that God had kept this land from the knowledge of other nations so that Lehi’s descendents could have it for their inheritance. Nowhere in the BOM is there any mention of indiginous peoples or any intermarriage with people outside of Lehi’s group.

It would be very strange if the Nephites kept a meticulously detailed history of their life and culture but did not mention this huge population of outsiders or the obvious problems such a blending of cultures would cause. That just doesn’t ring true.

I know the LDS have very recently begun to spread the theory that Lehi’s group arrived and intermarried with an indiginous population, but that is not in the BOM and was never entertained by the LDS leaders until the last few years (after the DNA evidence proved that the Amerindians are not of Jewish descent).

It looks like nothing but embarrased back-peddling. and it won’t work for long. LDS people are not that dumb. They’ll figure out eventually that the BOM is a 19th-century work of fiction. Many already have, myself among them, and that was decades before the DNA evidence came forth and confirmed what every other scientific discipline had already concluded.

I am afraid you have misunderstood. God kept the land for His special purpose that is true. His special purpose was so Lehi and his family could carry on the true Gospel and authority of the priesthood. There were no other challengers at the time Lehi arrived. If you recall, in 600 BC in Jerusalem and Israel there was considerable falling away and disobedience. That is why Lehi left. The land was preserved for Lehi and his posterity.

I don’t recall the B of M saying that there were no other people in the land. If you have a passage that says so I would like to read it for myself.