See the Smithsonian Letter on the Book of Mormon.

[Answersplease]

mrm.org/smithsonian

exmormon.org/apology.htm

 

[catharina]

Answersplease:
Quite interesting and might prove educational to many.

 

[dianaiad]

Answersplease:
The current letter that the Smithsonian sends out is this:

*Your inquiry of (insert date) concerning the Smithsonian Institution’s alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in this office for response.
The Book of Mormon us a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archaeological research, and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect.
Your interest in the Smithsonian Institution is appreciated. *
The Mormon Research Ministry does not have the current letter. In fact, the letter they have has been …operated on…to enhance it’s critical qualities, shall we say? The fact is, the Smithsonian never sent the letter that the MRM claims it did.

…and the one they DO send is quite appropriate. The Book of Mormon is not meant to be an archeological guidebook.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease:

Give the LINK for your “current” Smithsonian letter. Preferably an official Smithsonian link, since you have accused the ministry I linked to of some kind of alledged “operated on” (your words) of their letter.

Does the second link I posted also have an alledged “operated on” (your words) letter?

AND

To prove that there was some kind of alledged “operated on” (your words),

SHOW BOTH versions of the “earlier” version of the letter, show the letter BEFORE the alledged “operated on” (your words) AND AFTER the alledged “operated on” (your words).

 

[CarolinNC]

“not intended to be an archeological guidebook”, how convienent.

 

[dianaiad]

Give the LINK for your “current” Smithsonian letter. Preferably an official Smithsonian link, since you have accused the ministry I linked to of some kind of alledged “operated on” (your words) of their letter.

Does the second link I posted also have an alledged “operated on” (your words) letter?

AND

To prove that there was some kind of alledged “operated on” (your words),

SHOW BOTH versions of the “earlier” version of the letter, show the letter BEFORE the alledged “operated on” (your words) AND AFTER the alledged “operated on” (your words).

Answersplease:

As I looked into this further, I found that the letter you posted is indeed the fair copy of the one the Smithsonian sent in the early 1990’s.

As you well know, the Smithsonian does not post a copy of this letter to their website. However, here is a link that has a rather complete response to both the letter that you link to (which hasn’t been used for over a decade) as well as a copy of the one that is currently being sent out.I rather doubt that you would be interested in the extensive response to each of the points in the 1996 letter, but at the very top of that response you will find a copy of the current letter.

I would suggest that, since the Smithsonian has seen fit to stop sending the longer version, that it would be dishonest of you to present it as if they continued to do so. There must be some reason that the Smithsonian changed the letter…whatever it is, it is obvious that THEY can no longer be used to support the older version, since it is they who changed it.

 

[dianaiad]

“not intended to be an archeological guidebook”, how convienent.

I suppose that it is…rather like the argument that 'Moses was not a modern scientist" is a convenient excuse for his inability to tell the difference between a bat and a bird.

The thing is, Carolin, that it often happens that the truth satisfies the question asked; belittling it simply because it DOES answer the question seems a little silly, don’t you think?

The fact is, the Book of Mormon was not meant to be an archeological guide, just as the Bible was not meant to be so. In both cases the primary purpose is for spiritual guidance.

 

[AtticusFinch]

The Book of Mormon was a history book…until is wasn’t. It was an archeological book…until it wasn’t. It was a geography book…until is wasn’t. And it was a Scripture…until it wasn’t.

 

[CarolinNC]

This was always a stumbling block for me when I was a Mormon (I joined the LDS Church in 1971). The missonaries and others in teaching authority in the church all discribed the Book of Mormon as the historty of the Lord’s dealings with the peoples of the Americas. But the flora, fauna, metals, grains, textiles, archeology, anthropology, and many other asspects of the Americas are based on the way of things looked at with 19th century eyes and knowledge or are out right falsefications.

I tried to put these contradictions out of my mind and look at the Book of Mormon as a study in the spiritual realities written in a manner that we of this modern age could understand, but in the end I could not reconcile the contradictions, because, the Lord that I adore is not a liar, even in small things.

 

[MelanieAnne]

This was always a stumbling block for me when I was a Mormon (I joined the LDS Church in 1971). The missonaries and others in teaching authority in the church all discribed the Book of Mormon as the historty of the Lord’s dealings with the peoples of the Americas. But the flora, fauna, metals, grains, textiles, archeology, anthropology, and many other asspects of the Americas are based on the way of things looked at with 19th century eyes and knowledge or are out right falsefications.

I tried to put these contradictions out of my mind and look at the Book of Mormon as a study in the spiritual realities written in a manner that we of this modern age could understand, but in the end I could not reconcile the contradictions, because, the Lord that I adore is not a liar, even in small things.

Exactly.

And since that time, the DNA evidence (or actually the LACK of it) has added to the list, something the Mormon Church continues to suppress.

 

[Answersplease]

…at the very top of that response you will find a copy of the current letter.

"Answersplease:

Does that website give any proof that there is a new version of the letter?

Please copy and post the proof here, for everyone to see.

I would suggest that, since the Smithsonian has seen fit to stop sending the longer version, that it would be dishonest of you to present it as if they continued to do so.

"Answersplease:

1.) I made no claims about what the Smithsonian “currently” sends out.
2.) Unless the Smithsonian has denounced ANY and ALL statements in the “earlier version” of the letter, then those statements are probably still valid and can probably be quoted by the two websites I posted links to. The letter can probably be quoted anyway by them IF AN EXPLANATORY statement is given about the Smithsonians “current” letter, if there is a “current” letter.

There must be some reason that the Smithsonian changed the letter…whatever it is, it is obvious that THEY can no longer be used to support the older version, since it is they who changed it.

Answersplease:

Hmm…

I’m just wildly speculating:
Pressure perhaps?
Maybe they just want to cover themselves?
I’m just wildly speculating.

I make no claim about why they changed the letter, if they indeed did change it.

 

[Javl]

I suppose that it is…rather like the argument that 'Moses was not a modern scientist" is a convenient excuse for his inability to tell the difference between a bat and a bird.

The thing is, Carolin, that it often happens that the truth satisfies the question asked; belittling it simply because it DOES answer the question seems a little silly, don’t you think?

The fact is, the Book of Mormon was not meant to be an archeological guide, just as the Bible was not meant to be so. In both cases the primary purpose is for spiritual guidance.

Dianaiad;

In all sincerity, for my edification and understanding, may I ask why you accept and believe in the Book of Mormon and Mormonism, when theologians, scholars and scientist have railed against it? Thank you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[lax16]

I suppose that it is…rather like the argument that 'Moses was not a modern scientist" is a convenient excuse for his inability to tell the difference between a bat and a bird.

The thing is, Carolin, that it often happens that the truth satisfies the question asked; belittling it simply because it DOES answer the question seems a little silly, don’t you think?

The fact is, the Book of Mormon was not meant to be an archeological guide,** just as the **Bible was not meant to be so. In both cases the primary purpose is for spiritual guidance.

The difference is, there is tons of archaelogical evidence to support the Bible, including evidence to support the story of the Exodus.

Not even a sliver for the Book of Mormon. If you know otherwise please provide the info.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The difference is, there is tons of archaelogical evidence to support the Bible, including evidence to support the story of the Exodus.

Not even a sliver for the Book of Mormon. If you know otherwise please provide the info.

Not only is there “not even a sliver” to support the Book of Mormon, there is a lot evidence that directly proves the Book of Mormon is false.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad;

In all sincerity, for my edification and understanding, may I ask why you accept and believe in the Book of Mormon and Mormonism, when theologians, scholars and scientist have railed against it? Thank you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Why do you accept and believe in Catholicism, when theologians, scholars and scientists have railed against it?

I ask this, not to be impertinent…but in all seriousness. Over the centuries Catholicism has claimed many things that science has proven false; in fact, Catholic authorities have tried…and executed for heresy…people who claimed things that have later been proven true; yet you still believe.

The Reformation came along and a WHOLE bunch of people railed against Catholicism, and still do. Yet you still believe.

When you answer the question you asked for your own faith, you will have some hint as to why I accept and believe my own faith.

Catholics (and indeed all Christians…and theists, for that matter) have long been used to dealing with seeming contradictions, conundrums and paradoxes, and yet have been able to say 'well, I know that to some this MIGHT look contradictory, but I have faith that it is not and that eventually the answers will come. When they do, everything will fit."

The thing that astounds me is that people who are so comfortable with the paradoxes and apparant dillemas in their own faiths insist that mine have none.

That said, I don’t pay attention to anybody who actually ‘rails’ against beliefs not his own. Doing so is a dead giveaway of bias and an agenda that allows dishonesty and misrepresentation. I don’t care who the target is, I have found that a person who actually rails has, as the first priority, the defeat of the target group. Honesty ABOUT that group comes in at a poor second—easily and willingly discarded if being honest could possibly be seen as a positive statement about the group being targeted.

 

[dianaiad]

Not only is there “not even a sliver” to support the Book of Mormon, there is a lot evidence that directly proves the Book of Mormon is false.

No there isn’t.

(Just wanted to try the “it’s so because I said so” standard of discourse I’ve been treated to lately on for size. I have to admit, it’s easier) !

 

[lax16]

The question is this: Was there ever archaelogical evidence for the Book of Mormon? -or-
There was but it has been erased over time?

 

[why_me]

The question is this: Was there ever archaelogical evidence for the Book of Mormon? -or-
There was but it has been erased over time?

There has been a documentary on television that shows the earth after humans. It documents what would be left after humans depart this earth after a thousand years, ten thousands etc. Finally, all traces of our existence will disappear after a certain amount of time. But what was striking is just how much can disappear in a short time after humans vanish from the earth or civilizations. .

However, let me state again: if conclusive proof was found for the book of mormon through archaelogical evidence, you would not be catholic. You would be mormon and you would have absolute knowledge that god exists. No faith required. And we all can breathe a sigh of relief that there is a god and a heaven.

But it doesn’t seem that god works that way. Faith is required.

 

[zaffiroborant]

There has been a documentary on television that shows the earth after humans. It documents what would be left after humans depart this earth after a thousand years, ten thousands etc. Finally, all traces of our existence will disappear after a certain amount of time. But what was striking is just how much can disappear in a short time after humans vanish from the earth or civilizations. .

However, let me state again: if conclusive proof was found for the book of mormon through archaelogical evidence, you would not be catholic. You would be mormon and you would have absolute knowledge that god exists. No faith required. And we all can breathe a sigh of relief that there is a god and a heaven.

But it doesn’t seem that god works that way. Faith is required.

The show does not “document” it speculates.

 

[why_me]

The difference is, there is tons of archaelogical evidence to support the Bible, including evidence to support the story of the Exodus.

Not even a sliver for the Book of Mormon. If you know otherwise please provide the info.

Archaelogical evidence does not lend suppport to the proposition that jesus actually performed miracles or that he was the son of god. What it does show is that people who wrote the bible had knowledge of the area. The only support that we have for jesus being who he was is from the four gospels and at times they give a different story. Now it would be wonderful if something was discovered from that time frame to confirm what is in the bible. But nothing has ever done so. It all takes faith.

As far as mormons and archealogical evidence:

youtube.com/watch?v=mjDAu8PZRco&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=nw7fW19Sk1A&feature=related

google.com/cse?cx=006480910542272568972%3Adjiv3kx8zqo&ie=UTF-8&q=archealogical+evidence+for+the+book+of+mormon&siteurl=www.fairlds.org%2F&sa.x=10&sa.y=13