Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[TOmNossor]

#Great, so we found Troy. I await a similiar find in New York.

TOm:

Of course if you are following this thread you will know that no LDS here is looking to New York. You are prolly not concerned about this. Leave the Catholic Church because the Pope sins (or errs) and is therefore infallible.

#You are right. It was written in the early 19th century. It has no ancient pedigree at all. Hence you will find nothing.

TOm:

Much has been found. Much has come of it. A pedigree is a document that tracks origins. The BOM has no ancient pedigree, but evidence suggests that it is an ancient document. Evidence I have presented and you have not dealt with. Evidence I have yet to present and you will likely not deal with. But no pedigree.

continued…

 

[TOmNossor]

#Why would the environment be worse? Surely there would be ancient tells to excavate. Hebrews loved to leave written records. Surely we would have found even one. Perhaps an inscription somewhere in Hebrew or “reformed egytian”. Just one. But you are right there are no anchors, because they don’t exist.

TOm:

Worse environment =jungle and humidity.
Usually when shifting the targets you move the goal when those you are debating hit the previous goal. Yes, I did hit the previous goal, but you are expected to make it more difficult. “Perhaps an inscription somewhere in Hebrew.” That is easy. Are you ready to join?
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html

#Of course Smith had the OT available, so it isn’t like he knew nothing about the Hebrews. But I find nothing in Biblical Archeological Review that speaks of Lehi sailing to the New World. Look, just give me a coin from New York that is positively dated and indentified as Nephite by non-Mormon archeologists. So far you have given me nothing of what I asked for.

TOm:

Are you reading what I am posting? It seems you have addressed my parenthetical addition from non-Mormon scholar Margaret Barker.

I was pointing to the town Nahom. It is not in the Bible. It is backed up by multiple inscriptions. It witnesses that Lehi’s band was exactly where they claimed to be. It unlike the other place names (valley of Laman) were inventions of Lehi’s group, but Nahom was not.

#Well that’s good. It saves me the trouble of refuting them.

TOm:

It would be good for you to refute something, but Nahom is not addressable without a radical change in anti-Mormon tactics.

#Ok find me a non-Mormon archeologist of repute who will claim that the Olemec were Jewish.

TOm:

I made no claims that I thought were profound about the Olemec. Please address Nahom and stop dancing around.

On the dead sea scrolls I am told there are lists of angels names. One of them seems to correspond to Moroni. But before you get your hopes up…he is on the list of fallen angels. So should we then conclude that Moroni was demonic?​

TOm:

Interesting how is it spelled? Please provide some additional data.

Radical supernatural miracles are the only explanation of the data as I see it. The Devil could perhaps be responsible. This would be interesting. However, please do not let it distract you from addressing Nahom and your much desired Hebrew inscriptions.

Nothing you have said here gives the tiny bit of evidence I requested.​

TOm:

You asked for archeological evidence I gave it to you. Inscriptions on multiple alters at place required, in the timeframe required, and in alignment with the BOM.

You asked for Hebrew in the New World (presumably pre-Columbus). You have this now. Are you sure you want to make the above statement?

Charity, TOm

 

[MaggieOH]

cestusdei:

I found it on an apologetics website. I don’t remember which one. But I thought it would be useful to have on here.

:bowdown2: thank you
:bowdown2: thank you
:bowdown2: thank you

The subject of the Mormons and South America came up recently on another list. I was not a member here at the time. The disclaimer is quite useful for everyone .

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

mormon fool:

We have no reason to believe that an excavation would be successful. The New York hill is geologically not the type to support caves. Current mormon thinking places the* real* Hill Cumorah somewhere else, contrary to what many past generations of mormons have assumed.

What do I make of Brigham Young’ s account? I consider it a second hand account of a supernatural vision. For those who might be interested, I made several contributions on the subject on another message board.

fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=5437

Later,

fool

How do you know that there was a supernatural vision? There is no evidence of sucha a vision. At least in the case of EGW of SDA fame, she did experience “something” even if that something was a form of epileptic fits, but there is no evidence, and no witnesses. I accept that the Brigham Young account is second hand, but I thought that his source was Joseph Smith. All of this reasoning does not make sense to me.

MaggieOH

 

[JRR]

Ask any Mormon Missionary to show you a map of the American area where the Book of Mormon events took place. They won’t be able to. There are no maps since even Mormon scholars can’t agree on the locations.

Even Mormon General Authorities contradict one another about the extent of the Nephite civilization. The older view was that it spread over most of North and Central America. The current opinion, considered easier to defend , is that it covered only a limited territory in Central America, though even that area does not show evidence of the civilization Mormon apologist claim it to have held.

Mormon prophets belief “Hill Cumorah” located in New York was the battleground were hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children were killed. But neither Mormon or non-Mormon archaeologist have been able to point to a single artifact to support that historical battle in the Book of Mormon.

There is now a belief the Hill Cumorah battle took place in Mexico, though the golden plates were buried by Moroni in New York. But this theory goes against what the prophets teach.

According to a report in the Mormon church-owned Deseret New, “Efforts to p(name removed by moderator)oint certain places from what is written in the book [of Mormon] are fruitless because the record does not give evidence of such locations in terms of our modern geography…To raise doubts in people’s minds about the location of the Hill Cumorah, and thus challenge the words of the prophets…is most certainly harmful…Why not leave hidden the things that the Lord has hidden? If he wants the geography of the Book of Mormon revealed, He will do so through His prophet, and not through some writer who wishes to enlighten the world despite his utter lack of inspiration on the point.”
Church Section, Deseret News, July 29, 1978, page 16

When attempting to settle the geography question, the Mormon Church today reacts in predictable fashion: “Never mind the details-just have faith that the Book of Mormon is true.”

 

[MaggieOH]

As someone who has had a deep interest in ancient history I feel it necessary to correct a misconception about Homer’s “The Illiad” and “The Odyssey”. If I read this correctly, I got the impression that Tom you were saying that finding Troy was supposed to in some way boost the accept the Greek pagan religion, as a comparison to finding the artefacts that Joseph Smith claimed that he buried.

Homer’s Illiad and Odyssey are great historical fictional accounts of what happened in ancient Greece. This account is not, however, a religious document. The beginning of the tale is a description of the war at Troy, including the story of the Trojan horse (which was really clever) and we know that King Agamemnon truly existed. We cannot verify the minator of Crete, and I am not certain that we can verify the existence of King Midas but that is not going to cause people to go chasing the ancient Greek pagan religion. The ancient historian Thucydides also wrote about the wars in ancient Greece. From these sources we have historical data plus we have an adventure that weaves in the ancient mythology of the time. It is a description of the journey of one man after the battle at Troy, and his final return to Athens. It is a long time since I read these books, and they are a great adventure story. The work of Thucydides is much more historical in content.

What I am saying is that the analogy that you make is useless because the finding of the ancient city of Troy has no impact upon the religious beliefs of the Greek nation. Also Athens, Sparta and the other ancient Greek cities continue to exist. Helen of Troy existed and so did Paris who had kidnapped her to maker her his wife. Even the warrior Achilles existed.

The Scripture, that is the Bible, attests to the paganism of the Greeks. We have in existence many of the ancient structures that were built in the time of the Golden Age of Athens under Pericles. We have some idea about the religious practices because of the existence of the temples and other artefacts including a statue of Venus that have been found. The Scripture also attests to the existence of many of the ancient kings and kingdoms including the Assyrians and the Persians, ancient Sumer, the area between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates where Abraham lived before he was called out of Ur by God. Alexander the Great gets a mention in the Scriptures (Maccabees). Each source therefore verifies the other source.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to support the claims of Joseph Smith. There is no evidence of some ancient tribe of Israel travelling to the Americas. There is not even any evidence to support the origins of the Book of Mormon. The evidence for the existence of these plates is extremely thin.

MaggieOH

 

[TOmNossor]

MaggieOH,

My point concerning Homer was that ancient documents with ancient pedigrees containing mythology/theology are not strengthened by demonstrating that they are ancient document through archeology. There is no huge leap in doing this.

To demonstrate that the BOM is without a doubt an ancient document, acknowledging that there is no credible explanation for its existence other than 19th century fraud or revelatory power through God, is a radically different piece of data. Were the BOM to be proven to be what it says, God exists, Jesus Christ is the savior, and the BOM is true. Deductive reasoning without faith gets you the whole way.

So when one says the believe the Bible is the word of God because archeology backs it up they are putting forth a test that would have them believe in Homer’s writings. Historical fiction perhaps and perhaps not, maybe the Bible is historical fiction.

I believe the Bible is the word of God largely through more subjective spiritual type witness. The Bible has archeological evidence, but this means little to me. I believe the BOM for some of the same type of spiritual witness, but there is more. The BOM has some absence of evidence and some existence of evidence in archeology and other sciences. This is quite important because the BOM appeared in the 19th century.

I review the data and the 19th century fraud theory is not as strong as the ancient text received by revelation theory. We have only touched on a small number of evidences for the idea that the BOM is what it says it is, but it is my observation that the critics are loosing the battle. The problems have ALL been addressed with varying levels of success, but the evidences have seldom been addressed (and are usually just ignored). Ones conclusion can be driven by the data one uses to form it. If the critics continue to treat the data LDS apologist find compelling with such derision they do not even engage, I will continue to say and believe the LDS are winning this battle.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

MaggieOH:

How do you know that there was a supernatural vision?

I don’t know or really care all that much. I consider it the most likely explanation for the accounts related by Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, and others. Admittedly I employ mormon value judgements and presumptions to some extent.

There is no evidence of such a a vision.

I consider accounts of a vision to be evidence for it. What one concludes from this evidence is up to them.

I accept that the Brigham Young account is second hand, but I thought that his source was Joseph Smith. All of this reasoning does not make sense to me.

Brigham Young’s source is not Joseph Smith, but probably Oliver Cowdery. Did you check out my link? If so, you will have to point out to me what bit of reasoning specifically doesn’t make sense to you. I was originally asked how mormons deal with the Brigham Young account and there are a range of possible reconstructions from the incomplete data set of which I happen to prefer my afore-mentioned conclusion.

Later,

mormon fool

 

[flameburns623]

Hi. Tom:

I don’t know if you ever check your PM’s on this forum–or even realized this forum does have a private-messaging system–but I did PM you several days ago. I did wonder about an unrelated topic–is there any chance you would engage in an exchange of PMs?

Sorry I seemed ‘less friendly’ upon a second review of my posts in this thread. Nothing I have posted was intended to impugn the intelligence of Latter-Day Saints–just to suggest they employ a methodogy for measuring religious truth which is rather alien to the approach used by Protestant and Catholic apologists generally–and one which seems unlikely to absolutely resolve the question of ‘what is truth’ satisfactorily.

I think Mormonism catechizes it’s converts more effectively in the long run for a reason un-related to RCIA, the Missionary Discussions, or LDS Sunday School Programs. Baptised Mormons almost immediately become ‘teachers’–men become ‘home teachers’. women become ‘visiting teachers’. For Roman Catholics, to whom this is likely puzzling: men who hold the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods–all males over the ‘age of discretion’ or adult males shortly folllwing baptism are ordained to the Aaronic priesthood, all males over the age of 18-21 (depending upon whether they serve a mission, I believe) and adult male converts usually six months after being ordained to the Aaronic priesthood–are assigned a certain number of families to visit, usually in pairs with the ‘Aaronic’ priesthood bearer serving as the ‘junior partner’. A certain number of assigned families will be active attenders, a certain number will be ‘less-active’ or ‘inactive’ I would note that the ‘inactives’ have the lowest priority in visits, and that the level of participation in home teaching varies greatly from ward-to-ward. The ‘home teachers’ are to visit at least monthly to check on the welfare of the families assigned to them and to deliver a regular message from the First Presidency as well as any messages from the local stake (‘diocese’) or ward/branch (‘parish’ or ‘mission’ in Catholic terminology). Women likewise deliver a ‘visiting teacher’s message’ to the women of the ward. (Women in the LDS church hold no priesthood but ‘share in the priesthoods’ of their fathers, husbands, or Church Authorities). The message is usually on some fairly mundane aspect of LDS doctrine but may also mention such things as current concerns of the LDS Church, topical events, etcetera.

In other words, every Mormon has at least one ‘teaching job’ assigned to them upon becoming LDS and that role obliges them to teach themselves enough about the subject to discuss it. Some people discover they have a ‘feel’ for teaching and get very elaborate, others don’t do much more than read highlighted excerpts from the assigned monthly message. Others put less emphasis upon the message and more upon the ‘real’ reason for the visit–they look for real needs in the families they are visiting and how the Church might be able to provide assistance.

In any case, these ‘teaching experiences’ do as much (imho) or more to encourage LDS to learn their faith. They also tend to help ‘confirm’ the convert in their faith. I suspect it is this frequent interaction with LDS members which encourages the spread of gossip and myth-telling–such as the notion that the Smithosonian or other institutions are currently employing the Book of Mormon as a guide to North American archaeology. In other words, along with the First Presidency Message, a lot of LDS cultural baggage and in-group prejudices get communicated. I suspect that this subtle use of what social psychology calls ‘interactionism’ is part of what makes the LDS relatively successful in it’s missionary work. I don’t deem this a bad thing, at least not so long as it is not a cynical ploy on the part of LDS leadership. I just take note of it in light of your own comments. I don’t think the RCC is nearly so effective in ‘enculturating’ their converts, and I wonder how the retention rate of LDS converts contrasts with the retention of Catholic converts.

 

[cestusdei]

Of course if you are following this thread you will know that no LDS here is looking to New York. You are prolly not concerned about this. Leave the Catholic Church because the Pope sins (or errs) and is therefore infallible.

#There is a difference between being impeccable and infallible. Also papal infallibility is clearly defined. Not every pronouncement is considered infallible. New York is where Smith says he found the plates. It seems logical to search there.

Much has been found. Much has come of it. A pedigree is a document that tracks origins. The BOM has no ancient pedigree, but evidence suggests that it is an ancient document. Evidence I have presented and you have not dealt with. Evidence I have yet to present and you will likely not deal with. But no pedigree.

#Evidence? I see none that you presented. Perhaps you could give me a peek at an ancient manuscript found in the New World that would verify it. I don’t see non-mormon archeologists heralding any such pedigree.

Worse environment =jungle and humidity.
Usually when shifting the targets you move the goal when those you are debating hit the previous goal. Yes, I did hit the previous goal, but you are expected to make it more difficult. “Perhaps an inscription somewhere in Hebrew.” That is easy. Are you ready to join?
econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html

#Even in the jungle you can find at least one artifact. Just one. A nice statue of Nephi or something. I took a look at the site. He isn’t an archeologist, but an economist. It has a link to a site that claims that the Olmecs were Chinese. So which is it Chinese or Hebrew? He shows some coins, but gives on evidence of how they got there. It is quite likely they were brought here in recent times. I have a Roman coin. If I lost it in the yard and someone found it 100 years from now could they claim that Romans had lived here? One of the “stones” is actually a wax model not even the original which is “lost”. A little research on one of the experts of the los lunas stone shows he belongs to a Jewish group that believes in anglo-israelism. Even the author of the site doesn’t state his religious affiliation. Is he Mormon? Also there is a section on “rune” stones. Which if you remember turned out to be a hoax. Look, if all this was incontrovertible evidence you would have real archeologists stating it as matter of fact.

Are you reading what I am posting? It seems you have addressed my parenthetical addition from non-Mormon scholar Margaret Barker.

I was pointing to the town Nahom. It is not in the Bible. It is backed up by multiple inscriptions. It witnesses that Lehi’s band was exactly where they claimed to be. It unlike the other place names (valley of Laman) were inventions of Lehi’s gro, but Nahom was not.

#Then why aren’t archeologist flocking there to agree with you and join the mormon church? I google search shows only Mormon sites discussing this alleged Nahom place. I don’t see it anywhere else. But I did find this that refutes it: angelfire.com/ms/seanie/mormon/nahom.html

It would be good for you to refute something, but Nahom is not addressable without a radical change in anti-Mormon tactics.

#See the above link.

I made no claims that I thought were profound about the Olemec. Please address Nahom and stop dancing around.

#Just did. And if you check you will see you tried to slip in the idea that they were somehow Hebraic.

Interesting how is it spelled? Please provide some additional data.

#Ah, spelling. Again see the above link about NHM. I don’t remember where I read it. Some guy maybe told me about it. Why should I provide such details? You didn’t provide me any for your sources.

Radical supernatural miracles are the only explanation of the data as I see it. The Devil could perhaps be responsible. This would be interesting. However, please do not let it distract you from addressing Nahom and your much desired Hebrew inscriptions.

#Again see the above link. I do believe the devil was involved. If even an angel of light preaches a different gospel let him be accursed. Paul said that. Smith should have heeded it.

You asked for archeological evidence I gave it to you. Inscriptions on multiple alters at place required, in the timeframe required, and in alignment with the BOM.

 

[cestusdei]

#You gave me something only affirmed by MORMON sites. Give me evidence that non-Mormon archeologists of repute see this as definitive. Instead all you do is fall back on Mormon sources that are questionable at best. And it isn’t even in the America’s. We know there were Jews on the Arabian pennisula. The question is were they here.

You asked for Hebrew in the New World (presumably pre-Columbus). You have this now. Are you sure you want to make the above statement?

#No, I don’t have it. It took me a little googling to discover the massive flaws and holes in the little that you gave me. But I will be in Jerusalem next week. I can just walk to the Temple Mount. I can go to Jericho. I can visit Bethleham. I can see Hebrew inscriptions and coins and documents galore. These are things that all archeologists of repute accept. None would argue there were no Jews in Israel. Compare that to the paltry stuff you offered me. I can even pick up a basic history book on mesoamerica and it will NOT mention Nephites, Lamanites or any of that. Only Mormons believe it. But don’t feel bad. I don’t believe that aliens from outerspace were here either.

 

[MaggieOH]

TOmNossor:

MaggieOH,

My point concerning Homer was that ancient documents with ancient pedigrees containing mythology/theology are not strengthened by demonstrating that they are ancient document through archeology. There is no huge leap in doing this.

To demonstrate that the BOM is without a doubt an ancient document, acknowledging that there is no credible explanation for its existence other than 19th century fraud or revelatory power through God, is a radically different piece of data. Were the BOM to be proven to be what it says, God exists, Jesus Christ is the savior, and the BOM is true. Deductive reasoning without faith gets you the whole way.

Charity, TOm

Tom,

in Christian charity, I do not think that your argument gives you a strong case because you are too dismissive of the evidence that we have to confirm the events of the ancient world.

We do not need the archaelogical evidence to prove the existence of Troy because we have always known the location of Troy. It is on the Hellespont. The invaders crossed the Agean sea to wage war on Troy. There is mythology in both the Illiad and the Odyssey, but that is due to the pagan beliefs of the time. We do not need to verify the stories about gods and goddesses because they never existed in the first place.

The Bible is verified because of the structures that remain standing. It does not matter if we failed to find the site of Sodom and Gomorrah, because we have the evidence of the Dead Sea to prove that something catastrophic happened. We know the location of Nazareth, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and even the various towns in Egypt, ancient Sumeria, Babylon, and yes even Assyria.

On the other hand there is nothing in the way of evidence to support the Book of Mormon, or any of Smith’s writings. It is all fabricated.

MaggieOH

 

[MaggieOH]

mormon fool:

I don’t know or really care all that much. I consider it the most likely explanation for the accounts related by Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, and others. Admittedly I employ mormon value judgements and presumptions to some extent.

I consider accounts of a vision to be evidence for it. What one concludes from this evidence is up to them.

Later,

mormon fool

MF,

Unfortunately, I do think that you apply what I consider to be a dangerous criteria when it comes to verifying whether or not someone really has had a vision.

I have had this discussion with an LDS lady regarding EGW because EGW allegedly had revelations, and her “visions” were witnessed by others. We can therefore verify that she experienced something because the witnesses reported what they saw. That is not the case with Joseph Smith. His alleged “visions” were not witnessed by others, and therefore there has to be an element of doubt about what took place. This doubt opens up the way for us to believe that the story about the alleged plates is fraudulent.

Alleged visions need to be fully tested, and many alleged visionaries do undertake psychological testing because of the fact that there are mental illnesses where people hear voices etc. Only when that is ruled out can you start looking for a supernatural reason of what has taken place. At Fatima, the scene of a Catholic vision, there were thousands of witnesses who experienced the miracle of the sun. This miracle is well documented. However, hearsay evidence that you are putting forward does nothing for the obtaining of proof that the alleged vision atually took place.

MaggieOH

 

[mormon_fool]

MaggieOH:

MF,

Unfortunately, I do think that you apply what I consider to be a dangerous criteria when it comes to verifying whether or not someone really has had a vision.

How do you know what criteria I use to decide whether someone had a vision or not? I do not believe I have spelled them out. I was rather making a rather straight-forward observation of fact that an account of a vision is evidence for it. Instead of *for *I should have used a weaker association likes pertains to or in regards to. In other words we have a relevant piece of evidence that requires interpretation and weighing to draw conclusions. Different people are going to look at the same piece of evidence and come up with different conclusions. Just because you and I might come to different conclusions, it does not the revoke the status of evidence of the statement of witnesses and participants. I am not conflating evidence with proof.

When I say evidence needs to be weighed, I am talking about–in this case–exploring the credibility of the witnesses and what degree of direct knowledge they might have. In general, I trust Brigham Young as a truth teller and I also trust his source, all with in limits.

I have had this discussion with an LDS lady regarding EGW because EGW allegedly had revelations, and her “visions” were witnessed by others. We can therefore verify that she experienced something because the witnesses reported what they saw.

I am not sure where you are going with this. The presence of epilepsy is extremely weak evidence for a vision. Lots of people that have epilepsy don’t claim to have visions (hallucinations perhaps) and lots of people that claim to have visions don’t have epilepsy. The evidence you present is anecdotal at best in establishing any correlation between the two activities.

That is not the case with Joseph Smith. His alleged “visions” were not witnessed by others, and therefore there has to be an element of doubt about what took place. This doubt opens up the way for us to believe that the story about the alleged plates is fraudulent.

Plenty of Joseph’s visions were witnessed by others. I will list a few. Three witnesses shared a vision of an angel presenting them a viewing of Book of Mormon artifacts. Oliver Cowdery participated in at least three visions which involved interaction with divine beings. Note that I am not equating a vision with a spiritual dream, although it can be one. A vision can also include a wakeful manifestation. Sidney Rigdon participated in the vision recorded in Doctrine and Covenants section 76, and a person in the same room, Philo Dibble, overheard Joseph and Sidney ask questions and converse about what they were seeing. After the vision Sidney was greatly fatigued, but not Joseph since he was used to the strain of spiritual visions by then.

Alleged visions need to be fully tested, and many alleged visionaries do undertake psychological testing because of the fact that there are mental illnesses where people hear voices etc. Only when that is ruled out can you start looking for a supernatural reason of what has taken place.

I doubt that we need to submit past prophets to psychological tests before we can accept they had visions. I feel at relative ease accepting the visions of Paul, Isaiah, John, and Peter without a note from their doctors. I think your presumption of naturalism is not the only approach. I prefer to take supernatural accounts from people I trust at face value unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

In addition to your psychological tests, the LDS church also has a great amount of literature on spiritual tests on whether a vision comes from God or not. Even so, I can live with uncertainty as to whether some visions are legit are not, because they are not that important to me.

At Fatima, the scene of a Catholic vision, there were thousands of witnesses who experienced the miracle of the sun. This miracle is well documented. However, hearsay evidence that you are putting forward does nothing for the obtaining of proof that the alleged vision atually took place.

Well I will accept the Fatima vision until I have strong reason not to or a superior alternative explanation that acccounts for all the data is advanced. I would like to point out that there is no consensus naturalistic explanation (among naturalistic critics) for Joseph Smith. As for the Brigham Young account, clearly there is not enough evidence to verify whether it did or didn’t happen. Either conclusion is in the realm of plausibility.

Later,
fool

 

[TOmNossor]

flameburns623:

Hi. Tom:

I don’t know if you ever check your PM’s on this forum–or even realized this forum does have a private-messaging system–but I did PM you several days ago. I did wonder about an unrelated topic–is there any chance you would engage in an exchange of PMs?

…

one which seems unlikely to absolutely resolve the question of ‘what is truth’ satisfactorily.

…

It was actually the second more thorough read that yielded less to be concerned about. I occasionally am forced to realize that at least in some ways, my “persecution complex” is alive and well. Your comments were not as concerning as they seemed when I had quickly scanned.

I did PM you.

You said:

one which seems unlikely to absolutely resolve the question of ‘what is truth’ satisfactorily.

TOm:

I believe that there are a number of Catholic who believe they are Catholics because there intellect directs them to the Catholic Church. I am ever so biased, and in my mind an appeal to the intellect can get one to the Catholic Church before the Restoration is considered. Some leaps exist with respect to Jesus Christ, but once that has been hurdled in the absence of the Restoration I would be Catholic.

I believe that with the Restoration we have two internally consistent belief structures without any “fatal flaws.” A simple “fatal flaw” that few would argue does not exists in a small subset of Protestantism and few would argue with it being called a “fatal flaw” would be the elevation of the Bible to an worshiped idol, claiming to follow its teachings, but one of those teachings being that we are not to worship idols.

Since I believe this to be true, I believe that the spiritual witness is critical. I personally seem to need much more, but I respect those who seem to not need much more.

LDS and Catholics could learn from each other, and both of us could learn a great deal from the JWs.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

#There is a difference between being impeccable and infallible. Also papal infallibility is clearly defined. Not every pronouncement is considered infallible. New York is where Smith says he found the plates. It seems logical to search there.

TOm:

And no pronouncement of any LDS prophet is considered infallible. Much greater weight is place upon canonized pronouncements, but these are still not infallible. And no canonized statement has been made on the location of the Hill Cumorah as it is described in the BOM.

I was trying to demonstrate a ridiculous mischaracterization of Catholic teaching and claim that you are mischaracterizing what a LDS must embrace.

#Evidence? I see none that you presented. Perhaps you could give me a peek at an ancient manuscript found in the New World that would verify it. I don’t see non-mormon archeologists heralding any such pedigree.

TOm:

I am communicating very poorly. I said, “A pedigree is a document that tracks origins.”

I claim that the BOM has not “pedigree” meaning that it is not a document that has been handed down through some remotely traceable path to the present day. Instead the BOM if it is what it says it is appeared through supernatural intervention from God in 1830.

#Even in the jungle you can find at least one artifact. Just one. A nice statue of Nephi or something. I took a look at the site. He isn’t an archeologist, but an economist. It has a link to a site that claims that the Olmecs were Chinese. So which is it Chinese or Hebrew? He shows some coins, but gives on evidence of how they got there. It is quite likely they were brought here in recent times. I have a Roman coin. If I lost it in the yard and someone found it 100 years from now could they claim that Romans had lived here? One of the “stones” is actually a wax model not even the original which is “lost”. A little research on one of the experts of the los lunas stone shows he belongs to a Jewish group that believes in anglo-israelism. Even the author of the site doesn’t state his religious affiliation. Is he Mormon? Also there is a section on “rune” stones. Which if you remember turned out to be a hoax. Look, if all this was incontrovertible evidence you would have real archeologists stating it as matter of fact.

TOm:

Upon what authority do you dismiss ALL of the evidences of Hebrew writings in the new world? Why are you better trained than those who see evidence for pre-Columbian contact. If you choose you may study the group of folks known as “diffusionists.” There is an excellent article in “The Atlantic,” called “The Diffusionist have Landed.” Unfortunately, you cannot read it for free. Science and history are reluctant to move from solidly held conclusions when new evidence comes into the picture. I do not claim the above Hebrew has much to do with the BOM, but like the original Smithsonian statement, continued discovery is slowly eroding the strength of some pretty universal conclusions.

Continued…

 

[TOmNossor]

#Then why aren’t archeologist flocking there to agree with you and join the mormon church? I google search shows only Mormon sites discussing this alleged Nahom place. I don’t see it anywhere else. But I did find this that refutes it: angelfire.com/ms/sean/mormon/nahom.htm

TOm:

It seems that Sean has addressed Nahom (relying almost totally on Don Bradley). This is the type of thing I was suggesting you had not provided. Now you have (or rather someone else has for you).

To my knowledge Don Bradley still claims to be a Mormon. He said about 6 months ago that he sees good reason to embrace the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood. But he is quite critical of a number of LDS things. He called this evidence, “The NHM/Nahom thing is very interesting. I would regard it as one of the best evidences uncovered to date for the Book of Mormon, which, IMO, isn’t really saying much.
I quoted the last line for you so I would not be like those who selectively quote to make their position stronger.
I would say that NHM/Nahom is one of the best evidences.

The fact that it is exactly were it should be. The fact that it corresponds to a word for mourning (BTW the idea is that Nahom was not named for the death of a member of Lehi’s party, but that it was a city that had a large burial site and a burial tradition). The fact is that there are three solid inscriptions, and another writing. The fact is that it corresponds to a place on the frankincense trail, the turn, and the arrival at the once ridiculed garden spot with a continually flowing river. I agree with Don B. that this can be dismissed, but it is a huge coincidence. It may not be perfect alignment, but it is closer than one would expect with 19th century fabrication. At least it is closer in my mind.

I would suggest that if this was the only evidence for or against the BOM being a historical work, Don Bradley has not sufficiently brought it into question. IMO this remains a strong evidence.

A number of avowed critics of the church have been trying to show how Joseph Smith could have known of the existence of the city Nahom through his extensive research (research we have no evidence ever occurred). Certainly these critics have seen in Nahom similar things as what I see.

#And if you check you will see you tried to slip in the idea that they were somehow Hebraic.

TOm:

No, I said that we look to the Olemic as the Jarodites because they existed in the right place and time. I have no data to show they were Hebrew and did not claim I did.

#Ah, spelling. Again see the above link about NHM. I don’t remember where I read it. Some guy maybe told me about it. Why should I provide such details? You didn’t provide me any for your sources.

TOm:

Well, when I am provided with something such as you just stated, I try to find out more about it. I am solidly a LDS both intellectually and spiritually. The state of the intellectual debate shifts and were it ever to radically shift, perhaps I would need to readdress the spiritual debate. You are the one making bold claims.

There is zero archeological evidence for the BOM. I showed this is not the case.

Moroni truly was an angel of the devil. I just want to know more about this.

My worldview does not require that you become a LDS to be saved/exalted. Theoretically, you are here because you care about me and are trying to save me. I am just asking for more information on what you have said. I suspect you are not making something up, but I had never heard of this before (and that does not happen too often).

And my sources are easy to find, it is this particular thing that I cannot find.

continued.

 

[TOmNossor]

#Again see the above link. I do believe the devil was involved. If even an angel of light preaches a different gospel let him be accursed. Paul said that. Smith should have heeded it.

TOm:

I firmly believe that it was either from God or from the Devil. If you believe this, then what is your point in trying to show the BOM is flawed? If we are to discuss if it is of God or of the Devil, then we need to discuss things other than Archeology, problems and evidences. Unless you believe the Devil is a simpleton like LDS often claim Joseph Smith is, it would be well within his power to fabricate a structure that includes Nahom, cement in South America, Restoration of Early Church beliefs, Chiasmic structures, and … Surely he would be cleaver enough to not include some of the anachronism that we must explain. Also, he could have included more solid links to the evidence we would find from the Olemic and Mayan civilizations. To embrace the “devil did it” theory, you have radically shifted the way we must discuss things. No longer does the general lack of archeology mean very much. Does God constrain the devil such that he can only trick those who are stupid, those who do not know archeology? I believe the supernatural theory overwhelms the natural theory. If you wish to embrace the supernatural theory then perhaps you agree with me. Let’s move on to other things.

#You gave me something only affirmed by MORMON sites. Give me evidence that non-Mormon archeologists of repute see this as definitive. Instead all you do is fall back on Mormon sources that are questionable at best. And it isn’t even in the America’s. We know there were Jews on the Arabian pennisula. The question is were they here.

TOm:

Actually the question is, is the BOM from a supernatural source. If Lehi’s travels are beyond question then were the heck he landed and what the heck he did after some unspecified floating on the ocean is just another question. We know were Lehi started. I claim the exactness of his Old World journey is beyond coincidence. I claim the absence of New World evidence is a problem, but it can be explained with the supernatural theory where the Old World journey cannot be explained (well IMO) with the natural theory.

Also part of the problem is that Mormon apologetics are far outpacing the responses of critics. Most critics repeat the same arguments used 50 years ago.

#No, I don’t have it. It took me a little googling to discover the massive flaws and holes in the little that you gave me. But I will be in Jerusalem next week. I can just walk to the Temple Mount. I can go to Jericho. I can visit Bethleham. I can see Hebrew inscriptions and coins and documents galore. These are things that all archeologists of repute accept. None would argue there were no Jews in Israel. Compare that to the paltry stuff you offered me. I can even pick up a basic history book on mesoamerica and it will NOT mention Nephites, Lamanites or any of that. Only Mormons believe it. But don’t feel bad. I don’t believe that aliens from outerspace were here either.

TOm:

It is cool that you get to visit Jerusalem. It is also cool that you found Don’s refutation of Nahom. I had not seen it. While I appreciate what he has done, I do not think he has lowered the exactness of Nahom to some random coincidence. If you wish to employ, “the devil did it,” perhaps you agree (or at least we needn’t be too concerned because surely the devil know of NHM, alters, and …).

And Atheist say that only Christians believe that some guy named Jesus Christ was resurrected, but we should not feel bad few of them believe in aliens either.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I am suggesting that as presented on this thread there is not an abundance of evidence for the historicity of the BOM. I will address Nahom (now that this has actually been dealt with).

I submit to you thought that it is you however who have been overly dismissive of the Pagan Bible.

If you are strong in your beliefs you can follow this link. My purpose with this is to show that when you say Homer is fiction and the Bible is fact you are have fallen pray to the common practice of using different levels of skepticism for beliefs you hold as compared to ones you do not. Atheists are good at reminding us of this.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html

Note: I do not mean to suggest that Mark was written modeled after Homer, but had the Greek pagan beliefs survived to this day, there would be Pagan archeologist findings that Pagans would say, “See it must be true.” The fact is that for a book with an ancient pedigree this means very little.

Charity, TOm

 

[MaggieOH]

TOmNossor:

I am suggesting that as presented on this thread there is not an abundance of evidence for the historicity of the BOM. I will address Nahom (now that this has actually been dealt with).

I submit to you thought that it is you however who have been overly dismissive of the Pagan Bible.

If you are strong in your beliefs you can follow this link. My purpose with this is to show that when you say Homer is fiction and the Bible is fact you are have fallen pray to the common practice of using different levels of skepticism for beliefs you hold as compared to ones you do not. Atheists are good at reminding us of this.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html

Note: I do not mean to suggest that Mark was written modeled after Homer, but had the Greek pagan beliefs survived to this day, there would be Pagan archeologist findings that Pagans would say, “See it must be true.” The fact is that for a book with an ancient pedigree this means very little.

Charity, TOm

The problem that I have with your logic here is that you are implying that Homer’s “The Illiad” and “The Odyssey” is a pagan Bible. However that is not true.

First of all, I think that we need to focus on the word “bible” which means a collection of manuscripts. Homer’s writings are not a collection of manuscripts from different authors. They are the work of one author.

The work of Homer, and I really must take out my copy and read this ancient text again, is a good fictional story that is mixed with fact. Some of the story in the Illiad and the Odyssey is verifiable, especially the siege at Troy that is the start of the adventure. Within the story there are descriptions of the various areas around Greece. All of these are verifiable because of the artefacts that have aleady been found. However, the Hellenic pagans have never suggested that Homer’s Illiad and Oddyssey are sacred texts. That is something that you are making up to throw up a smokescreen over the origins of the Book of Mormon.

What we have as the Bible today is a collection of manuscripts that are written by a variety of authors that has been divided into two sections, known as the Old Testament and the New Testament. Some stories in the Old Testament are not meant to be taken literally. They are stories that serve a purpose in explaining God’s Truth, such as the Genesis account of Creation. The New Testament contains the eye witness accounts of the ministry of Jesus Christ, His birth, death and Resurrection. What we have is not of pagan origin. The Biblical accounts are verifiable through the archeological finds, but other stories such as Noah and the flood have not yet been verified by such a find. Even so what is important is that there was a “flood” of a major proportion yet man and animals somehow survived this enormous flood. From this we know that man spread out through the nations, and that Noah’s sons are our ancestors.

On the other hand there is no evidence to support the BOM claims.

MaggieOH