Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[MaggieOH]

mormon fool:

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.

Later,
fool

I have a very good reason for bringing up the alleged visions of EGW. First of all, I do not accept that she had visions as has been claimed. However, I do accept that she saw something, and what she experienced is well documented by those who were present. The evidence regarding the EGW “visions” have been studied by members and former members of the SDA, and I think that it is possible to accept the conclusions of an SDA neurosurgeon on the matter. EGW experienced a serious injury when she was around 9 years old, that caused her to have a severe concussion and she was in a coma for something like two weeks. Considering the nature of her head injury it is reasonable to suggest that she did not have visions but that she had epileptic seizures. These seizures were not grand mal or petit mal seizures, but of a nature that is consistent with her head injury. There is no reason to suggest that EGW had any form of psychological problem as a result of these seizures, although I personally think that some of her writings indicated a certain level of hysteria. The eye witness accounts of what happened with EGW are very detailed, and therefore one can say with certainty that she did experience something. Exactly what she experienced is in doubt and is not verifiable as supernatural.

I will write more on this subject soon. So far I am not convinced that you have provided anything that amounts to verifiable evidence that Joseph Smith is a prophet. On the other hand there is evidence that suggests that he was a rogue and scoundrel.

Maggie OH

 

[MaggieOH]

mormon fool:

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.

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.

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.

I
Later,
fool

Let me see how accurate the above statements might be. Now an interesting question that one can ask: who were the witnesses to the Joseph Smith visions? There are 11 witnesses in all that allegedly had some form of connection to the visions. However, what is of interest is the relationship of these witnesses to Smith. At this point I will observe that in the case of the alleged and false visions of EGW there were independent witnesses of what she was manifesting, but this is not the case with Joseph Smith. The names of the 11 witnesses are:

the first three are OLIVER COWDERY
DAVID WHITMER

           MARTIN HARRIS

and the eight are:
CHRISTIAN WHITMER HIRAM PAGE

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:
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

Wow, I don’t check this place for two days and all of a sudden there’s like 80 posts!! Must be a hot topic!

I thought I would just jump in here without reading to the end…There seems to be this debate going on here that people who are LDS are so because of strictly subjective reasons, and those who are Catholic are so because of strictly objective reasons. Obviously, I cannot speak for the LDS side, but I can tell you that most Catholics are not Catholic just because of objective reasoning. Of course there is the subjective, emotional, feeling stuff in a Catholic’s life. The point I think others are trying to make is that we as Catholics (and flameburns as Anglican) have not only the subjective part, but also the objective part. Which for us, seems to make a MUCH stronger case than simply subjective. Now obviously this is all generalization. You have stated that you went through the objective end of things and are still LDS. However, i have met MANY LDS who hold ONLY to the subjective end. They will claim their religion is true, solely on the basis of their burning in the bosum. Nothing else to them matters. I think that’s a good starting point for religion. That’s where I started. A “feeling”, but at some point there has to be more. At some point they have to engage the objective realities. It was by doing this that my faith in the truth of the Catholic church was INFINITELY increased.

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

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

Are you actually making this claim? Or are you being sarcastic?

 

[PaulDupre]

flameburns623:

(Anyhow: the one distinction I would make is that I ‘qualified’ for assistance from the LDS Church simply by dint of being {formerly} Mormon. We also got help from a Catholic charitable org that neither asked nor cared that no one in my family is Roman Catholic. So there are trade-offs involved. I doubt that any needy Roman Catholic on this forum could just show up at an LDS storehouse and obtain food or other asistance, but a needy Mormon could show up at many Catholic charities and get help, no questions asked).

My parents (devout Catholics) lived in St. George, Utah for about 5 years. Their tiny parish had about 200 members. Many transients would be turned away by the huge Mormon wards, who sent them over to the tiny Catholic parish for assistance. They were never turned away by the Catholics.

For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt 5:46-48)

Paul

 

[cestusdei]

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.

#We believe the Bible is inspired and infallible. However we don’t teach the Pope is inspired, but can be under certain conditions infallible. Smith said he found the plates on Cumorah. Makes sense there would be some evidence there. If Smith was a prophet that would prove it.

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

#True enough. If you had some other manuscript evidence it would help your case.

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.

#Exactly, it has nothing to back it up at all. I don’t expect archeology to prove everything. But it can show evidence that the text has some veracity that can be proven objectively. It mentions Rome. I have been there. It mentions the appian way. I have walked it. It mentions the Straight street in Antioch. It is still there. These are proven facts. I ask the same of the BOM.

#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.

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.

#Authority? The one you cited isn’t even an archeologist. He is an econ prof. I checked out some of the claims on the site and it took me 5 minutes to find refutations. I posted them above. If this is ALL the evidence you have then your case is worse then even I thought.

 

[cestusdei]

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.

#I think his critique was quite good. It is by no means universally proven that Nahom is the meaning of the letters or that they indicate anything about the BOM. Now if Biblical Archeology Review came out and said it then you might start to have a case. But no non-Mormon archeologist of repute is agreeing with FARMS.

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.

#You have heard of how psychics work? They hit universal themes that seem to apply. But keep in mind NHM can mean a variety of things. There is no corraborating evidence. When non-Mormon experts begin to sit up and take notice then so will I.

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.

#You are the one who needs to prove the case. Bradley or I do not need to prove anything. The burden is on the BOM.

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.

#It hasn’t even been proven that the city was called Nahom or had any connection to Lehi or the BOM. Have those critics all joined up yet? Then it must not be as airtight as you claim.

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.

So you have no evidence, but claim they were Jarodites? Just because they happened to live there? So if I claimed that Chinese discovered America at that time I could claim Olemics were Chinese? Come now.

 

[cestusdei]

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.

#The only “evidence” you gave was not from non-Mormon archeological experts of repute. I don’t accept lds sources at face value. There are people who claim there is evidence that this is the lost continent of Atlantis and aliens lived here. I don’t accept that either.

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

#I will look to see if I can find the source.

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).

#Sure I would love to see you become Catholic.

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.

#I believe the devil desires to throw us off track. He has done this before through fakery. If Smith saw an angel of light then I believe it was Lucifer. But I don’t think he saw an angel at all. Any demonic influence was more subtle and mundane. Probably in the form of temptations on Smith.

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.

I avoid arguing supernatural claims since they are generally difficult to prove objectively. I don’t try to prove the Bible’s supernatural claims to you in that fashion. I concentrate on things that can be verified objectively as a starting point. We don’t have that starting point with the BOM as you cannot show anything in it is objectively really true. There is no evidence beyond lds circles or the lunatic fringe. If such vast civilizations existed then there would be evidence. There is none. Heck we even found some Viking camps surely we can find a huge Hebrew city.

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.

 

[cestusdei]

#Is it that or have you just stopped replying since you could not refute those arguments?

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 …).

#Tell you what. Let’s meet in the ancient Jewish city of Zarahemla in the New World. At the vast temple. There you can baptize me. We can wander the ruins and contemplate the Lehi memorial stadium and the Nephi war memorial. That’s pretty fair!

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.

#Most atheists at least believe the man Jesus existed. That’s a start. Your job is to prove that the Jews built a vast civilization in the New World. We can deal with the supernatural stuff after that.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

#Is it that or have you just stopped replying since you could not refute those arguments?

It is cool that you get to visit Jerusalem. It is also cool that you found DonÕs 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, Òthe devil did it,Ó perhaps you agree (or at least we neednÕt be too concerned because surely the devil know of NHM, alters, and É).

#Tell you what. Let’s meet in the ancient Jewish city of Zarahemla in the New World. At the vast temple. There you can baptize me. We can wander the ruins and contemplate the Lehi memorial stadium and the Nephi war memorial. That’s pretty fair!

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.

#Most atheists at least believe the man Jesus existed. That’s a start. Your job is to prove that the Jews built a vast civilization in the New World. We can deal with the supernatural stuff after that.

cestusdei,
Why do you not use the forum’s quote features? Rather than preceeding your comments with a #?

This is very confusing and most the time I just ignore your posts becuase of that.

 

[cestusdei]

I think because our posts are just getting to long and involved. My question was very simple. Give me evidence, accepted by non-lds scholars of repute, that their were Hebrew civilizations in the New World. He can’t do that because no non-lds scholars buy into it. Hence the Smithsonian Statement.

 

[cestusdei]

From the National Geographical Society:

irr.org/mit/natgeo.html

Archeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere’s past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon." Statement by the National Geographic Society

 

[cestusdei]

Just found this in reply to the article he cited:

"Some Mormons have promoted some records and inscriptions such as the “Bat Creek Stone, the Kinderhook Plates, the Newark Stones and the Phoenician Ten Commandments.” All were forgeries.

religioustolerance.org/lds_migr.htm

 

[MaggieOH]

cestusdei:

I think because our posts are just getting to long and involved. My question was very simple. Give me evidence, accepted by non-lds scholars of repute, that their were Hebrew civilizations in the New World. He can’t do that because no non-lds scholars buy into it. Hence the Smithsonian Statement.

Cestusdei,

I agree with what you are saying. There is nothing in the way of proof that has been provided. What I have seen so far are some red herrings referring to a “pagan bible” that does not exist and the red herring of Homer’s works as though these works were of the same style as the Book of Mormon - which they are not.

MaggieOH

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

I think because our posts are just getting to long and involved. My question was very simple. Give me evidence, accepted by non-lds scholars of repute, that their were Hebrew civilizations in the

New World. He can’t do that because no non-lds scholars buy into it. Hence the Smithsonian Statement.

Actually, the article I mentioned, The Diffusionist Have Landed, in The Altlantic does have non-LDS scholars (of repute?) who put forth just this (if I remember correctly).

Please show me a non-Catholic scholar who embraces the concept of Papal Infallibility is either supportable from Tradition OR a valid development. I doubt you will be able to. You could site Episcopalian John Henry Newman, but he is a Catholic (or was before he died).

About one year ago there were two archeologists who joined the CoJCoLDS. There has also been a patristic scholar who saw evidence of the restoration in the writings of the ECF and ultimately joined the church.

Margaret Barker is an Old Testament scholar of repute is one who “sees something in the BOM” as an exilic Jewish text linked to pre-600 B.C. beliefs. In fact, her writings have had significant effect upon LDS apologetics, and I would predict will have greater effect going forward.

In a certain sense your demanding of non-LDS scholar is a form of Ad Hominem, if it comes from a LDS it does not merit notice from you.

Were you to tone down your condemnation of the words and merely point to the fact that LDS like all people are BIASED in the way they see the world and STRONGER evidence would had if non-LDS confirmed the LDS position, you would be making an argument very similar to many I make when I discuss Biblical and Historic interpretation.

The fact is I see few who seriously deal with LDS evidences. Don Bradley’s words were missed by me, despite reading other things he has written.

Above it seemed that your embracing of Satan as part of the origins of the CoJCoLDS had nothing to do with postulating supernatural origins for the BOM. I still find this untenable. Don’s response does not adequately deal with the line-up of place, time, meaning, and writing that is Nahom IMO. Once we acknowledge that there is a God, I believe that the anti-Mormon naturalistic theories are much less parsimonious than is the Mormon divine origins theories. Further developments have only served to strengthen my conclusions.

I have looked at the Catholic Church with every intention of realigning with it were I to be convinced that this was the path God had for me. Multiple folks suggested I was on a path to Rome and Protestants told me I was already there. But in the end the evidence did not direct me there AND neither did my Spiritual witness. The one person who I have no doubt knows more about the Catholic Church and the CoJCoLDS than I do has chosen the Catholic Church as the best solution for the evidences. He would never try to tell me I must defend New York as the place of the great battles in the BOM and I would never tell him he must show the Pope does not sin.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

MaggieOH:

Cestusdei,

I agree with what you are saying. There is nothing in the way of proof that has been provided. What I have seen so far are some red herrings referring to a “pagan bible” that does not exist and the red herring of Homer’s works as though these works were of the same style as the Book of Mormon - which they are not.

MaggieOH

Did you read what the Atheist had to say. It was their position that Homer’s work was much more than a story of fiction to the Greek Pagan’s. I do not really think this has much to do with the historicity of the BOM, but I do think it points to the unsoundness of saying that the Bible is the word of God because it is historical.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Are you actually making this claim? Or are you being sarcastic?

I actually meant to begin that sentence with “If.”

Perhaps my slip was some witness of subconscious truth (that was generally sarcasm).

Charity, TOm.

 

[cestusdei]

TOmNossor:

Actually, the article I mentioned, The Diffusionist Have Landed, in The Altlantic does have non-LDS scholars (of repute?) who put forth just this (if I remember correctly).

Please show me a non-Catholic scholar who embraces the concept of Papal Infallibility is either supportable from Tradition OR a valid development. I doubt you will be able to. You could site Episcopalian John Henry Newman, but he is a Catholic (or was before he died).

About one year ago there were two archeologists who joined the CoJCoLDS. There has also been a patristic scholar who saw evidence of the restoration in the writings of the ECF and ultimately joined the church.

Margaret Barker is an Old Testament scholar of repute is one who “sees something in the BOM” as an exilic Jewish text linked to pre-600 B.C. beliefs. In fact, her writings have had significant effect upon LDS apologetics, and I would predict will have greater effect going forward.

In a certain sense your demanding of non-LDS scholar is a form of Ad Hominem, if it comes from a LDS it does not merit notice from you.

Were you to tone down your condemnation of the words and merely point to the fact that LDS like all people are BIASED in the way they see the world and STRONGER evidence would had if non-LDS confirmed the LDS position, you would be making an argument very similar to many I make when I discuss Biblical and Historic interpretation.

The fact is I see few who seriously deal with LDS evidences. Don Bradley’s words were missed by me, despite reading other things he has written.

Above it seemed that your embracing of Satan as part of the origins of the CoJCoLDS had nothing to do with postulating supernatural origins for the BOM. I still find this untenable. Don’s response does not adequately deal with the line-up of place, time, meaning, and writing that is Nahom IMO. Once we acknowledge that there is a God, I believe that the anti-Mormon naturalistic theories are much less parsimonious than is the Mormon divine origins theories. Further developments have only served to strengthen my conclusions.

I have looked at the Catholic Church with every intention of realigning with it were I to be convinced that this was the path God had for me. Multiple folks suggested I was on a path to Rome and Protestants told me I was already there. But in the end the evidence did not direct me there AND neither did my Spiritual witness. The one person who I have no doubt knows more about the Catholic Church and the CoJCoLDS than I do has chosen the Catholic Church as the best solution for the evidences. He would never try to tell me I must defend New York as the place of the great battles in the BOM and I would never tell him he must show the Pope does not sin.

Charity, TOm

The problem Tom is that infallibility is a doctrine, a belief. I can site patristic sources, but that isn’t the point. We are not debating doctrine, but facts. The Bible says Rome existed. It does. The BOM says the Hebrews were here. But they weren’t. The burden of proof is on you. You quote an article in the Atlantic that I haven’t read and cannot read. But I haven’t see CBS news breathlessly reporting that an ancient Hebrew city has been found. I don’t think NHM has been proved to be what you say it is. It is in the old world anyway. This evening on EWTN a Thomas Smith was on who has converted to Catholicism. A 7th generation Mormon. Last week a Mormon historian was excommunicated for his truth telling about early lds history. I ask for a non lds scholar as I do not trust your official sources. While I am sure Satan had something to do with Mormon beginnings that is a faith oriented statement. It is much more likely that Joseph was more the con man. A very smart guy, great imagination, charismatic, humorous, attractive to the ladies, and ambitious. He isn’t the first guy to start his own religion. No Man Knows My History is probably the best bio out there (and yes, I have read Nibleys response).

 

[TOmNossor]

#I avoid arguing supernatural claims since they are generally difficult to prove objectively. I don’t try to prove the Bible’s supernatural claims to you in that fashion. I concentrate on things that can be verified objectively as a starting point. We don’t have that starting point with the BOM as you cannot show anything in it is objectively really true. There is no evidence beyond lds circles or the lunatic fringe. If such vast civilizations existed then there would be evidence. There is none. Heck we even found some Viking camps surely we can find a huge Hebrew city.

TOm:

But this is the whole question.

LDS apologist must explain a number of things including the absence of archeological evidence that conclusively shows that the BOM tells of an ancient group of folks who landed somewhere.h

LDS critics must address Nahom, Chiasms, Pre-exilic theology in the BOM, witness statements, transmission (translation) methods, …

It is my BIASED assessment that the reasons to not find more archeological evidence than we have (I can post a huge list of New World culture/archeology findings that link up with the BOM in ways superior to the Kish/Great_white_God things from a guy in my stake, but I am not well versed enough to explain them and I am of the opinion that few have the background in Mesoamerican history to address them either) are not as detrimental to the supernatural theory as are the Don Bradley and other reasons for the evidences are to the naturalistic theory.

The strength of the Catholic Church does not come from the Biblical witness of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It does not come from the concept of Tradition embraced by most uninformed Catholics. These are things Catholic apologist must explain, but placed next to sola scriptura, imputed righteousness, priesthood of all believers (as formulated by Luther), … and next to Newman’s 7 characteristics, Ignatius’ outline of almost all of Catholicism in the very early years, … the Catholic Church stands quite tall. Focus solely on the words of Clement of Rome and the question, Did he know he was a Pope? Or any other problematic thing for the Catholic Church you can produce many a Protestant. More accurate assessments are had when one looks at the pros and cons of their belief structure and the pros and cons of a competing structure consciously trying to utilize a similar level of skepticism. I have tried to do this and can speak about a number of Catholic pros and cons. I learned of Catholicism from Cardinal Newman, Butler, Dalgren, Hess, and some other folks like Scheeben and JPII, and online Catholic apologist who I engaged with the intent of KNOWING what Catholicism had to offer.

Another good guy would be Keating who says that it is folly to focus on the words of critics to know about the Catholic Church. One wonders if Catholics will recognize the converse of this rule.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

cestusdei:

We are not debating doctrine, but facts

Scarcity of New World BOM evidences that would be considered conclusive is a fact. But ultimately we are not debating this, but what is and is not of God and true.

Certainly things that are proven false are not facts and are not of God. The absence of New World BOM evidences (that you accept) does not prove the BOM is false. Here are a few things from Brant Gardner’s nifty list there are some limited refutations:

1. Geography

-b) New World

–1) Consistent topographical descriptions

–2) Correlation to a known geography, including mountains, valleys, and rivers

–3) Rivers flow in the correct direction, mountains and valleys fit the description of both travel and tactical uses.

–4) Up and down correlate consistently to topography rather than map orientation.
-c) 3 Nephi describes a particular class of volcanic explosion, match known conditions accompanying that kind of volcanic event
-d) That area of the world not only has multiple volcanoes, but they are active, and known to have erupted around the time of Christ (as close as data can come to the timing)
-e) There is an identifiable location mentioned in the Book of Mormon. This requires a land northward of the main Nephite holdings, being devoid of trees, being near much water, and having buildings made of cement. That particular set of characteristics points rather directly at the Teotihuacan of 250-600 AD- which matches the time period in which the Book of Mormon points to this set of characteristics.

1. Historical topography

-b) The geographic and temporal distribution of cultures known from secular studies of Mesoamerica place two different cultural groups in contact with each other following 600 B.C., with the older culture to the north, and possessing a different language and culture.

-c) The northern culture dates to earlier than the time period for the Jaredites. They are in the right location geographically and temporally, and demonstrate the cultural complexity described in the text. There is no other location in the New World at this point in time that fits that description of cultural complexity.

-d) One of the plausible causes for the decline of San Lorenzo is a major drought. This occurs at the same time period as the Book of Mormon describes a major drought with dire consequences.

-e) The Lehites entered the area during the middle of the Preclassic, a time when there were broad movements of change in the Maya area. At this time there was an increase in both city size and social complexity. The general trend is to greater social differentiation and the beginnings of kingship in Maya city-states. This general trend is mirrored in the conflicts witnessed as early as the book of Jacob. The twin evils against which Jacob preaches, acquisition of wealth leading to social differentiations, and polygamy, are both known for this time period in Mesoamerica. Interestingly, polygamy is directly linked to one of the mechanisms of accumulation of wealth at this time, and the function of wealth is to create social differentiation.

-f) A non-Mormon archaeologist suggested that the anomalous base of a temple built in the plausible city of Zarahemla (Santa Rosa) was due to a ritual combination of two different peoples. Ceramic sequence dating of the temple places it at the time of Benjamin’s speech (within archaeological accuracy, which is general)

-g) There are known ruins in the general geographic structure that C-14 (and sometimes Maya Long Count) to the correct times to have been there during Book of Mormon times.

-h) Teotihuacan alters the political alliances and introduces a new and devastating mode of warfare at the same time as the Book of Mormon describes a group of northerners who alter the mode of warfare.

-i) The emerging picture of the social pressures in the development of the Maya region of Mesoamerican region shows the same pressures and changes in political structure as are described for the Book of Mormon, and emerging at the same time as the Book of Mormon suggests that they arise.

more if you like…
Charity, TOm