Is the Book of Mormon a Fraud?

[agname]

(Truth Continued)

SIL-76
1988

-2-

1. **Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). ** Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
2. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asian and the Near East**].
3. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.
4. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to hare occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.**

 

[agname]

I read this article today…

Interesting…

"The October 13, 1997 issue of US News and World Report contains an article titled, “No new hoax under the sun” (p.9). The article discusses literally hoaxes; specifically, claims to find and translate ancient manuscripts that never actually existed.

“The first known literary hoaxes were perpetrated upon the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt, who created a huge market for fakes by offering hefty sums for ancient Greek manuscripts. In the centuries since, the craft has settled into well-established conventions. The story of a rare manuscript discovered in unusual circumstances and translated under terms of strict secrecy is a particularly clever angle, for it avoids the hard work of ginning up an actual forgery of the original document that can stand up to
scrutiny.”

This “story” should sound familiar to anyone familiar with the background to the “coming forth” of Book of Mormon."

 

[agname]

Things to ponder…

Book of Mormon:

No Mormon cities have been located using the BoM.

No Mormon names have been found in inscriptions.

Reputable archaeologists have never successfully used the BoM as a guide in locating ancient ruins.

The BoM was translated from “reformed Egyptian”. Nothing on the western hemisphere has been found that even remotely resembles Egyptian. Officially, “reformed Egyptian” doesn’t exist.

There are no manuscripts or “reformed Egyptian” writings available. None of the “gold Nephite plates” exist to examine and compare to the English translation of the BoM.

The Holy Bible:

Most of the Biblical cities have been located with the Bible.

Numerous Biblical names have been found in inscriptions.

Reputable archaeologists have and still do successfully use the Bible as a guide in locating ancient ruins.

The Bible was translated from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. These languages are taught in today’s universities.

The Bible is supported by thousands of Greek, Hebrew, etc. manuscripts along with a few copies of the Bible from ~ 300 AD…the Codex Vaticanus…Codex Sinaiticus, etc. Manuscripts are available to scholars.

 

[agname]

Statements made by Mormon archaeologists:

“For example, some popular ‘Mormon’ books show pictures of classic Maya, Inca, and Aztec ruins and attribute them to the Nephites. Scholars are aware that these civilizations postdate Book of Mormon times. Other gross errors include the use of out-dated or otherwise unreliable source materials and the tendency to make every piece of evidence fit neatly into the Book of Mormon picture, whether it belongs there or not.” - U.A.S. Newsletter, No. 54, Nov. 19, 1958, p. Z. Dr. Dee F. Green, LDS Archaeologist and the editor of the University Archaeological Society Newsletter at B.Y.U.

“In the first place, the statement that the Book of Mormon has already been proven by archaeology is misleading…As for the notion that the Book of Mormon has already been proved by archaeology, I must say with Shakespeare, ‘Lay not that flattering unction to your soul.’” - The University Archaeological Society Miscellaneous Papers, No. 19: Some Views On Archaeology And Its Role At Brigham Young University, Dec., 1960, p9. (This pamphlet is still available from B.Y.U.)

 

[Count_Chocula]

rod of iron:

Why would the Holy Spirit tell the Nephites that Christ would be born in Bethlehem if they didn’t know about that town and had no way to find out about it? There were no telephones, televisions, computers, or any global media whatsoever available to the Nephites. Telling the Nephites that Christ would be born in Bethlehem would be the same as if someone told you something was going to happen in a city that you had never heard of nor could find out about. The generation of Nephites that were given that prophecy of Christ had been told down through the generations that their ancestor, Lehi, and his family had come to this new land from the Land of Jerusalem. They knew of their father’s land by what they had been told about their ancestors. When they were told that Christ would be born in the Land of Jerusalem, they could make a mental connection which gave them a background for understanding the birth of Christ.

If the Holy Spirit was guiding my pen or stylus or engraving tools or key board etc… then such a response wouldn’t be too far fetched. Telling the Nephites (or any other reasonably advanced and intelligent people for that matter) that Christ would be born in a city called Bethlehem in the Land of Jerusalem would avoid much argument over the BoM, while still explaining to the Nephites in terms they could better understand.

The Book of Mormon does give a detailed response, but it was given in terminology the Nephites would understand, not the terminology that the Jews in Israel would understand.

No because it relegates Jesus’ place of birth to a place “near where he was born” that would be tatamount (love that word!) to me being born in Orlando but claiming I was born in the land of America or some such.

It’s a funny thing. If the Book of Mormon in Alma 7:10 had said that Christ would be born in Bethlehem, you would say that the book is false because Joseph Smith already had the information to put in the Book of Mormon when he allegedly wrote it. But since the Alma 7:10 does not say that Christ would be born in Bethlehem, but rather, the Land of Jerusalem, you claim that the book is false because it makes a mistake about the birth of Christ. Therefore, you have placed this matter into a no-win situation. Basically, concerning Alma 7:10, the book is wrong if it says Bethlehem and wrong if it doesn’t. This is an unfair test, because there is no way for the Book of Mormon to be vindicated on this matter.

No, not my point of view at all. If it had maintained the same level of consistant accuracy as that of the Bible it would have much better credibility in my eyes, possibly every one elses too. In which case it would then become a non issue, something not necessary to discuss because there would be no discrepency between Bible and BoM.

 

[Count_Chocula]

Oh BTW, I hear that after Mr. Smith was done translating the BoM that the ah… Golden Plates was it? That had the BoM inscribed on them were taken back into Heaven? Am I the only one who thinks that’s suspect? We have ancient ancient Bible manuscripts (granted not originals if memory serves) yet only a ~150 years ago the plates conveniently vanished preventing reference to source material that would add irrefutable credibility to Mr. Smith’s case, cause, and religion.Is it true that this is what supposedly happened?

 

[agname]

Count Chocula:

Oh BTW, I hear that after Mr. Smith was done translating the BoM that the ah… Golden Plates was it? That had the BoM inscribed on them were taken back into Heaven? Am I the only one who thinks that’s suspect? We have ancient ancient Bible manuscripts (granted not originals if memory serves) yet only a ~150 years ago the plates conveniently vanished preventing reference to source material that would add irrefutable credibility to Mr. Smith’s case, cause, and religion.Is it true that this is what supposedly happened?

Yup…pretty much.

Goes along with this as well…

I read this article today…

Interesting…

"The October 13, 1997 issue of US News and World Report contains an article titled, “No new hoax under the sun” (p.9). The article discusses literally hoaxes; specifically, claims to find and translate ancient manuscripts that never actually existed.

“The first known literary hoaxes were perpetrated upon the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt, who created a huge market for fakes by offering hefty sums for ancient Greek manuscripts. In the centuries since, the craft has settled into well-established conventions. The story of a rare manuscript discovered in unusual circumstances and translated under terms of strict secrecy is a particularly clever angle, for it avoids the hard work of ginning up an actual forgery of the original document that can stand up to
scrutiny.”

This “story” should sound familiar to anyone familiar with the background to the “coming forth” of Book of Mormon."

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Who is the alleged author of these “golden plates?”

And for whom were they written? If they were written for some civilization called the Nephrites, what bearing does that have upon Americans in 2004?

After all, we know where Bethlehem is…If the author was writing for all peoples of all times, and not just the “Nephrites,” he could have, and should have given specifics.

If he was only writing for the “Nephrites,” then why should any of us really care?

(…Not that I ascribe to the “golden plates” story for a Palmyra, New York minute…)
Pax Christi. <><

 

[darcee]

rod of iron:

In the interest of being totally accurate? Yes. You cannot be accurate about something you have said if you are going to change a part of it. There is nothing faulty about this logic. In a court of law, when giving your testimony, would you change a part of it if the people in the court did not know what you were talking about? If you did, you would be perjuring yourself.

How do you reconcile this to your argument about the Bethlehem thing? In that case you argue the opposite of this. There you seem to see no reason for consistency… even though the birthplace of Christ is much more important then an analogy about poultry.

-D

 

[Katholikos]

rod of iron:

Darcee, the whole King Follett sermon is suspect. If that is the only document you can find to say that Joseph Smith believed God was once a man,

Doctrine and Covenants

130:1 – "When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.

130:22 – “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”

Ave Cor Mariae, Jay

 

[Dr_Paul]

I have been silently following this thread for some time. My interest comes in part because I am currently dialoging with some LDS mssionaries. I have a few observations on the extensive discussion thus far.

I commend both TOm and Rod for being able to persevere in trying to defend your beliefs despite the less than Christian commnents/attitudes in many of the posts. There are plenty of resources available from non-mormon apologists that point out the true and/or apparent flaws found within the book of mormon. What is most helpful for me is to see responses to these criticisms from believers. Since you are obviously on the defensive in this discussion, your attempts to stay on topic without resorting to personal attacks on character (mostly but not always successful) are very much welcomed.

After recently reading a book on how not to do apologetics, I see more clearly the traps that both sides have fallen into. I also see a good example of how there is so much more to coming to a true understanding of the faith than logic and facts. Faith does not contradict reason, but without faith in the true God, all the logic in the world will not get one to God. With all respect and genuine love, I do see many instances where the mormon faith does contradict reason.

At the least, I hope that you can see more clearly why Catholics have such a hard time taking your religion seriously. For our part, we can see more clearly the thinking/“logic” that would lead someone to believe in the book of mormon.

While this thread is specifically on the validity of the book of mormon, the question of apostosy keeps coming to mind, particularly as contradictions between what is in the BOM and subsequent doctines are discussed. The many instances of splits, excommunications, divergence, reversals in docrinal teaching within the mormon church make it difficult for us Catholics understand how the LDS church is able to be sure that one denomination is correct over another? While some of the discrepancies may be due to our misunderstanding, some are so blatant that it is not possible to argue that there has not been a clear 180 degree turn.
If all that is required is a private revelation, how does the LDS church distinguish between true and false visions?
With a verifiable history that stretches back to the time of Christ and no requirement to believe any private revelation, the Catholic church dose not have this problem.

Peace in Christ…

 

[rod_of_iron]

agname:

As a cousin of Joseph Smith…and from his apparitions to me…I informed you the BoM is fictitious.

Agname,

I do not believe in the least degree that you are related to Joseph Smith. Your little mockery of him might have been amusing to you, but I did not find any humor in it. It was similar to someone mocking the pope by saying that he came to him in a dream and told him that the Catholic church is just full of fables. A Catholic would act the same way about that as I did to your distasteful mockery of Joseph Smith. To have any meaningful discussions, mockery cannot be a part of the discussion.

 

[TOmNossor]

Dr Paul:
I commend both . There are plenty of resources available from non-mormon apologists that point out the true and/or apparent flaws found within the book of mormon. are very much welcomed.

Thank you for the generally positive comments.

Concerning the “plenty of resources available from non-Mormon ‘apologists,’” there are also plenty of responses to non-Mormon “apologists.”

I generally consider an apologist as one who defends and supports their faith. I have some difficulty with those who tear down with no concern for where one goes when beliefs are decimated by supposed “logic.”

As Catholics, I would generally assume that some might see the similarities in anti-Mormon attacks and anti-Catholic attacks. When I explored Catholicism this was something I almost immediately noticed.

This site points to a lot of responses to common objections raised by those who attack the CoJCoLDS.

fairlds.org/apol/
Dr Paul:
After recently reading a book on how not to do apologetics, I see more clearly the traps that both sides have fallen into. I also see a good example of how there is so much more to coming to a true understanding of the faith than logic and facts. Faith does not contradict reason, but without faith in the true God, all the logic in the world will not get one to God. With all respect and genuine love, I do see many instances where the mormon faith does contradict reason.

Wow! I would agree with all of this statement with the exception that I do not think the Mormon faith, properly understood contradicts reason. Anti-Catholics have suggested that the Catholic faith contradicts reason for quite some time, but typically they do this by creating conflicts that are either a misrepresentation of facts or are explainable (and have been explained). Infallibility is a frequent target, but Catholic apologists have explained this to my satisfaction. Still anti-Catholics continue to harp on what they call contradictions that are associated with the charisma of infallibility.
Dr Paul:
At the least, I hope that you can see more clearly why Catholics have such a hard time taking your religion seriously. For our part, we can see more clearly the thinking/“logic” that would lead someone to believe in the book of mormon.

Had I been a Catholic who understood and felt the reality of the real presence in the Eucharist, I think I would have never been able to look anywhere else. I hope that I would not rely on anti-Mormon writings to understand the CoJCoLDS, but I still think I would never have been moved. I left the Catholic Church ignorant of what I was part of. When I realized this I reviewed both sides of this “one true church” issue. Had I come at it from a Catholic BIAS (but not firm commitment) I might have remained Catholic. Instead I came at if from a LDS BIAS (but not firm commitment) and emerged firmly committed to the CoJCoLDS.
Dr Paul:
While this thread is specifically on the validity of the book of mormon, the question of apostosy keeps coming to mind
This is truly the million dollar question. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by Cardinal Newman has presented me with a reasonable way to view history and come out as a Catholic. James Barker, The Apostasy of the Divine Church presents a reasonable way to view history and come out as a LDS. Those who blow the horns and claim internal inconsistencies for either Catholics or LDS, I think are mistaken.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Dr Paul:
, particularly as contradictions between what is in the BOM and subsequent doctines are discussed. The many instances of splits, excommunications, divergence, reversals in docrinal teaching within the mormon church make it difficult for us Catholics understand how the LDS church is able to be sure that one denomination is correct over another? While some of the discrepancies may be due to our misunderstanding, some are so blatant that it is not possible to argue that there has not been a clear 180 degree turn.

A few comments here. It is again about authority. LDS believe that like Peter our Apostle/President can receive public revelation to lead the church. We believe the “changes” associated with the priesthood are analogous to the change regarding bringing the gospel to the gentiles. We believe that the “changes” associated with polygamy are analogous to the Biblical witness that shows times when polygamy was accepted and times when it was possibly not accepted.

Concerning splits and different denominations, you prolly have not experienced the Catholic Church as I have. The most committed Catholic at work is a member of SSPX. I was at a Catholic mass less than a year ago were my former priest (when I was Catholic) served communion to an atheist and a pagan. I am not convinced that these two folks are farther apart than are ROI and myself.

For me the issue is authority. I believe that the 6-11 million LDS who sustain Gordon B. Hinckley as the successor to Joseph Smith are correct. ROI would disagree and he has intelligent and logical reasons to do so (just as the Sedevacantist). BTW, I recognize that I have logical reasons to sustain Gordon B. Hinckley just as the Sedevacantists.
Dr Paul:
If all that is required is a private revelation, how does the LDS church distinguish between true and false visions?

With a verifiable history that stretches back to the time of Christ and no requirement to believe any private revelation, the Catholic church dose not have this problem.

Peace in Christ…

That is a good question even if I do not agree with your terms. First (concerning the terms), private revelation is not for the guidance of the church. Public revelation to the ordained servants of God is for the guidance of the entire church.

Next, all LDS are to utilize the Gift of the Holy Ghost to know what they must do, including how they must follow the prophet.

Also, the D&C explains the law of common consent. This has been well summarized by the President of the Church Harold B. Lee (I think it was in the 1970’s). He said,

President Harold B. Lee-

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

TOm:

So I have discussed the apostasy in limited terms on a thread somewhere on this forum. I could find this if you are really interested.

Again, I can see how a committed Catholic would have no need to explore other sources of knowledge or even other possible “one true church” paradigms. So I am happy to explain that LDS are not brain dead illogical fools and leave it at that. Or you may look deeper into this issue.

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

Infallibility is a frequent target, but Catholic apologists have explained this to my satisfaction.

I don’t understand.

If Catholic apologists have explained infallibility to your satisfaction why don’t you accept the doctrine and convert? The magisterium has infallibly declared that the Body of Christ “uniquely subsists in the Catholic Church” (Vatican II). If you are satisfied that such declarations are infallible then why don’t you act on it?

Personally, if the doctrine of infallibility was explained to my satisfaction, I would convert in a heartbeat. If we accept the magisterium for what it claims to be (infallible), we should accept the Catholic Church who that very magisterium points to as the guardian and protector of the faith once imparted.

You must not mean what I think you mean.

-C

 

[rod_of_iron]

agname:

Things to ponder…

Book of Mormon:

No Mormon cities have been located using the BoM.

Okay, I’ll bite. How would an expert determine whether a city found in the Americas is a Mormon city?

agname:

No Mormon names have been found in inscriptions.

What inscriptions? Are you saying that there are inscriptions that have been found but it has been determined that they are not inscriptions of Book of Mormon names? Give me an example.

agname:

Reputable archaeologists have never successfully used the BoM as a guide in locating ancient ruins.

How many reputable archaeologists have tried to use the Book of Mormon as a guide but have failed to find any ancient ruins? If a reputable archaeologist has rejected using the Book of Mormon without even trying to use it, they would not be included in your statement. To be successful or unsuccessful, one must attempt to use the Book of Mormon as a guide before being able to say that using the Book of Mormon proved unsuccessful. Please prove that any reputable archaeologists have tried to use the Book of Mormon as a guide.

agname:

The BoM was translated from “reformed Egyptian”. Nothing on the western hemisphere has been found that even remotely resembles Egyptian. Officially, “reformed Egyptian” doesn’t exist.

Yet. None has been found yet. But that does not prove that none will be found in the future.

agname:

There are no manuscripts or “reformed Egyptian” writings available. None of the “gold Nephite plates” exist to examine and compare to the English translation of the BoM.

You cannot say for certain that the “plates of gold” do not exist. The best you can do, if you are honest, is to say that these plates have not been found yet. You can give your opinion that they will never be found because you don’t believe they exist. But that will only be your opinion.

agname:

The Holy Bible:

Most of the Biblical cities have been located with the Bible.

How were the Biblical cities identified using the Bible? What identifying characteristics were found to erase all doubt from the minds of the reputable archaeologists?

agname:

Numerous Biblical names have been found in inscriptions.

Were these names written in known languages that the archaeologists could easily read? If these inscriptions were written in Hebrew, Egyptian, or Roman, they would be easily read.

agname:

Reputable archaeologists have and still do successfully use the Bible as a guide in locating ancient ruins.

How do they use the Bible as a guide? The Bible does not have any lattitudinal or longitudinal numbers. How do they use the Bible to exactly find a city that is lost?

agname:

The Bible was translated from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. These languages are taught in today’s universities.

This would make the Bible easier to use, because the languages are known and taught. But this does not prove anything against the Book of Mormon.

agname:

The Bible is supported by thousands of Greek, Hebrew, etc. manuscripts along with a few copies of the Bible from ~ 300 AD…the Codex Vaticanus…Codex Sinaiticus, etc. Manuscripts are available to scholars.

But where are the original manuscripts of the Bible that were written in the handwriting of the men who wrote the Bible? As far as I have read, the original documents penned by the authors have not been found. You want me to show you the “plates of gold”, yet you cannot show me the actual letters (not a copy) that Paul wrote. Don’t point to copies that were created a hundred or more years after the fact. Show me the originals.

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

How do you reconcile this to your argument about the Bethlehem thing? In that case you argue the opposite of this. There you seem to see no reason for consistency… even though the birthplace of Christ is much more important then an analogy about poultry.

-D

How did I argue the opposite of what I said in the post you quoted?

 

[rod_of_iron]

Katholikos:

Doctrine and Covenants

130:1 – "When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.

130:22 – “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”

Ave Cor Mariae, Jay

The problem with this is that Section 130 that you quoted did not come forth until 1852, 8 years after Joseph Smith was murdered. How a dead man can author a document is beyond me!

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

He wasn’t in a court of law he was teaching people… how is someone supposed to understand an analogy based on something they have never seen?

Are saying that since Jesus was not in a court of law at the time, that He should have given the Nephites a different analogy they could understand and then lie to them about telling them the same things that He had told the Jews in Jerusalem? Would Jesus only be obligated to tell the truth when He is in a court of law?

darcee:

It would be like me saying “I love my children like a walloppoppi mother.” For all you know walloppoppi eat their offspring.

If you had talked to someone who understands what a walloppoppii mother is about loving your children like a walloppoppi mother, then you talked to someone else who doesn’t know what a walloppoppi mother is, but understands what a ballaluggi mother is, would you use the different analogy with the second person? If you would, you could not then say that you had told both people the exact same thing, because you used two different analogies. But Jesus told the Nephites that He had told them what He had told the Jews before His death. For Jesus to say the exact things to both groups of people, He couldn’t have changed His analogy, regardless of whether the Nephites knew what a chicken was, without Jesus being a liar.

 

[darcee]

Please quote chapter and verse where the BoM says that Christ is speaking the same things he said in the Old World in 3 Nephi 10.

-D