The Book of Mormon

[Ella]

Actually, the book of mormon does not say that the ‘lost tribes of Israel’ came to the Americas. It says that a family of Israelites fled Jerusalem in a Noahic arc and sailed to the Americas.

Remember that originally there were 12 tribes of Israelites named for each of the 12 sons of Jacob.
“The Lost Tribes” is a term used for the 10 tribes that were destroyed by the Assyrians, which left only two tribes, Benjamin and Judah, who are considered the ancestors of the Jews today.

So technically speaking saying, ‘the lost tribes’ are not the Jews mentioned in the BOM.

 

[Ella]

I think the book of mormon is an amazing example of people believing in something despite there being not one shred of evidence to support it.
It would be like believing that the Old Testament was about real places when there was no such thing as Jerusalem or Babylon, Egypt or Palestine.
At least the Koran is about real locations that exist in the world like Mecca and Medina!

 

[zerinus]

Well, let’s see. Strictly from history. We know concretely that the Torah was translated into Greek in the 3rd century BC. Which implies that there were existing manuscripts in Hebrew from which the translations were made.

We know that as early as 150 AD, there was an attempt to canonize scripture. And that there are all sorts of extant manuscripts from the early church fathers regarding what was canonical and what was not. Certainly we have St. Jerome’s translations of scriptures in the late fourth centrury AD. Then there were translations into Anglo-Saxon (Old English) and the Word of God was faithfully recorded by the monks who were calligraphers and illuminators during the Middle Ages to whom I am profoundly indebted. All of which culminated in the Council of Trent to refute the protestant reformers and finalize the canon of scripture which has been in use for the last 500 years. I’ve really breezed through an awful lot of history but I know my history and I know my beliefs. To which I simply say to your question: Credo. I believe. And, I have the history to back up my claims.

You didn’t answer my question at all. I hadn’t asked you to tell me what evidence exists for the historicity of the biblical manuscripts. The question I had asked was, how do you know that the Bible is scripture—i.e. the word of God? The historicity of the biblical manuscripts does not prove that it is scripture—i.e. the word of God. Plenty of evidence also exists for the historicity of Plato’s Republic and Euclid’s Geometry. But that does not prove that they are scripture—i.e. the word of God. Please be kind enough to read my question more carefully, and give it a more considered reply.

Actually I have read large sections of the Book of Mormon. My job has called me to Salt Lake City on many occasions. I’ve not only read portions of the Book of Mormon, I have been through the guided tour of Temple Square which does indeed include the assertion that the lost tribes of Israel made their way to the New World. The copies of the BOM which were in the hotel had illustrations of the Hebrews crossing the Atlantic in galleys.

Then that cannot be good enough. Obviously you have not understood much about the Book of Mormon, otherwise you would not have asked any of the questions about it or Mormon beliefs that you had asked. And I repeat once again, that Mormons do NOT believe that “the 10 lost tribes ended up in America”.

I don’t find my questions about archaeological evidence irrelevant, ridiculous, or absurd. Amongst the professional literature I read is the Biblical Archaeology Review. Tons of evidence to support both Old and New Testaments.

Your questions were irrelevant in the light what the Book of Mormon actually teaches.

Please answer my question specifically about archaeological evidence to support your faith’s claim.

When you have given more thoughtful answers to my questions, I will be pleased to give more direct answers to your questions.

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

Actually, the book of mormon does not say that the ‘lost tribes of Israel’ came to the Americas. It says that a family of Israelites fled Jerusalem in a Noahic arc and sailed to the Americas.

Remember that originally there were 12 tribes of Israelites named for each of the 12 sons of Jacob.
“The Lost Tribes” is a term used for the 10 tribes that were destroyed by the Assyrians, which left only two tribes, Benjamin and Judah, who are considered the ancestors of the Jews today.

So technically speaking saying, ‘the lost tribes’ are not the Jews mentioned in the BOM.

Correct. The BOM claims that Lehi was a descendent of Joseph’s son Manassah. So the “Lamanites”, as Mormons like to call the Native Americans, would all be descended from Manassah.

Indeed, when a Mormon “patriarch” gives a patriarchal blessing, it is SOP for him to declare the person a descendent of Ephraim, unless the person is known to have a Native American or Pacific Islander heritage, in which case s/he is declared to be of the lineage of Mannasah.

God bless,
Paul

 

[Montalban]

Actually, the book of mormon does not say that the ‘lost tribes of Israel’ came to the Americas. It says that a family of Israelites fled Jerusalem in a Noahic arc and sailed to the Americas.

Remember that originally there were 12 tribes of Israelites named for each of the 12 sons of Jacob.
“The Lost Tribes” is a term used for the 10 tribes that were destroyed by the Assyrians, which left only two tribes, Benjamin and Judah, who are considered the ancestors of the Jews today.

So technically speaking saying, ‘the lost tribes’ are not the Jews mentioned in the BOM.

My understanding is that they inter-married.

 

[Montalban]

A lot of this can be laid at Thomas Jefferson’s foot. He was quite interested in the Native American temple mounds he saw in the Ohio valley, and those were but precoursers to the huge pyramidal mounds built during the Mississippian period (e.g. Cahokia). But there is not one scintilla of evidence that this was influenced by the 10 lost tribes of Israel. They have yet to find a connection between these cultures and Mesoamerica so how can the Mormons make these claims?

Diaz’s book is horrific. When one reads what was going on, one has to conclude (in light of the Mormon claim) that

a) if Jesus did preach to the ancient Americans, he failed big time. (Which is really oxymoronic).

b) Jesus did not fail, his message was resoundingly rejected by the Native American populations. (Which would make them pariahs amongst all of humankind which they obviously are not). The peoples of the Americas wholesalely rejecting Jesus’ word? That’s a stretch of the imagination.

c) Jesus did not come to America and His command to go and make disciples amongst all nations was and is a valid command.

I admire the Mormons for their genealogical efforts and applaud them for their splendid library which I have used. But I have to think that a group of people who pay such close attention to family history would do the same to world history. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case.

Indeed they were so horrific that many indian groups lined-up with Diaz to fight Montezuma.

 

[Montalban]

I can best answer your question with another question. Do you believe that the Bible is scripture (i.e. the word of God)? If so, how?

zerinus

My Bible came about because it was authorised by my Church, so for me (and other Orthodox, as well as Catholics) the question wouldn’t be

“why do you believe the Bible?”
so much as
“why do you believe the Church?”

 

[Ella]

My understanding is that they inter-married.

‘they’ being who? the lost tribes? I don’t recall that ever being taught to me in catholic school. do they teach this in mormon school?

 

[PaulDupre]

My understanding is that they inter-married.

Intermarried with whom? The BOM says, and the LDS Church has always taught, that there was no one living in the Americas (except one very old Mulekite man) when Lehi’s family arrived around 600 BC.

Recently, the LDS Church, in a desperate attempt to fend off the damning DNA evidence showing that Native Americans are really descended from Mongolians, have begun to re-interpret the BOM to say that there may have been other people here in 600 BC, but the BOM never mentions them.

The neo-Mormon theory is that, along with the entire Nephite-Lamanite civilization, their entire genetic strain just disappeared - “absorbed” into the DNA of the people already here. This is in direct conflict with the prophetic teachings of all the LDS leaders until Gordon B. Hinkley, and with the BOM text itself.

Paul

 

[JonathanKinsman]

You did indeed answer his question. But your answer stated that the BOM is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient Americans. Title of the thread is “The Book of Mormon”. My question stems from the original posters question - why should I accept it as scripture?

I have given you my reasons why I cannot accept it as scripture. Please tell me in light of what I have written where I am wrong and why I should.

Brotherhrolf;

Zerinus NEVER answers direct questions. He prefers to change the subject. His technique? He makes a statement that just begs for refutation and thus change from the prior discussion, or, he throws out a question (like starting a new thread) and keeps hammering away at that in later responses, trying to give the impression that you (or someone else) is avoiding ANSWERING him!

All show and no go. All rhetoric and no Truth.

He really NEEDS the guidance of the Holy Spirit and our prayers!

Pax Christi

 

[Ella]

Intermarried with whom? The BOM says, and the LDS Church has always taught, that there was no one living in the Americas (except one very old Mulekite man) when Lehi’s family arrived around 600 BC.

Recently, the LDS Church, in a desperate attempt to fend off the damning DNA evidence showing that Native Americans are really descended from Mongolians, have begun to re-interpret the BOM to say that there may have been other people here in 600 BC, but the BOM never mentions them.

The neo-Mormon theory is that, along with the entire Nephite-Lamanite civilization, their entire genetic strain just disappeared - “absorbed” into the DNA of the people already here. This is in direct conflict with the prophetic teachings of all the LDS leaders until Gordon B. Hinkley, and with the BOM text itself.

Paul

And here in lies the whole problem with Joseph Smith’s ‘prophecies’. He could not have anticipated modern science.

Back when Smith was alive, who would have thought anyone could ever know the true origins of all of the Native Americans? Who could anticipate that DNA evidence would one day be a possibility?

In the same manner, in the “Book of Abraham” hieroglyph debacle, could Smith have ever thought that people would eventually learn to read Egyptian hieroglyphics? And why might he worry about that anyway. That whole episode seems so PT Barnum to me. That anyone could deny the clear evidence that Smith lied about these hieroglyphics amazes me.

For those not familiar with the ‘Book of Abraham’ story go here:

utlm.org/onlineresources/fallofbookabraham.htm

 

[JonathanKinsman]

In the same manner, in the “Book of Abraham” hieroglyph debacle, could Smith have ever thought that people would eventually learn to read Egyptian hieroglyphics? And why might he worry about that anyway. That whole episode seems so PT Barnum to me. That anyone could deny the clear evidence that Smith lied about these hieroglyphics amazes me.

/quote]

 

[brotherhrolf]

The question I had asked was, how do you know that the Bible is scripture—i.e. the word of God? The historicity of the biblical manuscripts does not prove that it is scripture—i.e. the word of God. Plenty of evidence also exists for the historicity of Plato’s Republic and Euclid’s Geometry. But that does not prove that they are scripture—i.e. the word of God. Please be kind enough to read my question more carefully, and give it a more considered reply./quote]

What part of CREDO do you not understand. I have 2,000 + years of history which document the Word of God in earthly existence not less than 200 years as in the case of the BOM. Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of belief. CREDO - I believe. And your arguement is fallacious to begin with. If you question MY belief in scripture - scriptures which antedate yours and upon which yours are contingent, what does that say?

Should I believe the “scripture” of Eric Von Daniken - that the ancient Polynesians came from South America? Or that reed boats from Egypt were capable of making the trip to the Americas? I asked you about concrete archaeological evidence to substantiate your claim and you quibble over whether or not I can prove that scripture is the Word of God.

Can I prove that scripture is the Word of God? Obviously not. It is a matter of belief. Credo…I believe. Can I prove that there were a whole bunch of people who believed as I believe before the early 1800s, can I substantiate this with archaeological evidence and historical evidence, you betcha. Can I prove that the Norse made it to North America, you betcha.

Does or does not the BOM mention horses being in the Americas? Steel? Iron? Donkeys? Cows? Oxen? Chariots? Pigs? Wheat?

Horses were introduced by the Spanish after the Conquest. Metals? Gold and copper only. Donkeys - see horse. Cows and oxen? How? Chariots? The only wheel the Mesoamericans knew was limited to toys for kids. Pigs? Introduced by Hernan DeSoto in Florida in the 1500s. Wheat? Try corn (maize), beans, and squash.

There is absolutely NO evidence of the ancient Middle East to be found in the Americas. Do you have any idea that this was a 19th century fascination and that Joseph Smith was followed by Ignatius Donnelly with Atlantis and James Churchward with Lemuria?

If there was a Middle Eastern presence in the new world going back some 4,000 years, don’t you think we would have found some evidence for it? There is archaeological evidence that the Native Americans have been here for (conservatively) the last 15,000 years. The DNA evidence is overwhelming - they are of Asian descent not Middle Eastern.

I asked you to tell me how I was wrong with my data. I believe that I can support through the archaeological and historic record what transpired in the New Testament and afterward. That’s 2,000 years.

I am simply asking you to support your faith’s 200 year claim.

OK, I freely admit that my reading of the BOM was superficial. I did indeed assume that it was the 10 lost tribes. If only you knew how much this type of quest filled the minds of 19th century archaeologists and historians. Heinrich Schliemann found Troy and Mycenae - both figuring prominently in Homer’s Illiad.

I have read chapters in the BOM and I have looked at all of the illustrations. The pseudo-King Jamesesque language is a problem for me and the illustrations stopped me dead in my tracks. I am more than familiar with what went on in the early days of archaeology in the 19th century and that alone is enough to draw me up short.

I asked you a simple question regarding the underpinings of your faith.

 

[PaulDupre]

It also brings to mind a fundamental question: If the teachings on Native American origins according to the BoM have done a 180-degree turn-around, then which of the Mormon “prophets” and apostles are right and which are wrong?

And if any of the prophets are wrong, then doesn’t the entire Mormon system fall apart?

Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

I have read chapters in the BOM and I have looked at all of the illustrations.

Did you notice that all of the BOM prophets look like they took steroids?
Paul

 

[Montalban]

‘they’ being who? the lost tribes? I don’t recall that ever being taught to me in catholic school. do they teach this in mormon school?

I always understood it to be that the modern American Indians were an admixture of the lost tribe and the locals.

It was my understanding that this is the reason the Mormons got on so well with the Indians, even going to war with them… because they believed that they were part of the lost tribe (even if by partial descent)

“The introduction describes the
Lamanites in this fantasy story as “the principal ancestors of the
American Indians.” (Also D&C 3:18-20; 19:27; 28:8; 32:2-3; 54:8; & 57).”
moriel.org/articles/discernment/mormonism/mormon_indians.htm

 

[zerinus]

I asked you a simple question regarding the underpinings of your faith.

I had also asked you a very simple question about the underpinnings of your faith, and instead you have burdened me with a whole bunch of archaeology again. I am afraid I am going to have to repeat the question until you have answered it. How do you know that the Bible is the word of God, a book of scripture, and a revelation from God? How do you know it is true? Maybe you don’t! If that is the case, then you should be honest enough to say so.

How do you know that Jesus Christ was the Son of God? How do you know that the stories of His miracles, His virgin birth, and His resurrection and ascension to heaven are true, and are not just fables invented by His followers (as the Jews believe, and have always believed)? How do you know that the Jews were not right about Him?

How do you know that Elijah was a prophet, and the words that he spoke came from God? How do you know that he sent fire down from heaven and destroyed the army that was sent to arrest him?

How do you know that Moses spoke with God, smote the land of Egypt with plagues until it was practically destroyed, drowned Pharaoh and his entire armies in the Red Sea, and led the Israelites (approximately 2 million strong!) through the Red Sea on dry ground?

How do you know that he led the Israelite nation (2 million strong! with all their cattle and domestic animals!) for 40 years in the Sinai desert without food or water? Could you survive in Sinai for 40 days without food or water, never mind for 40 years? What archaeological evidence exists to support this?

What archaeological evidence exist that the Israelites lived in Egypt for 400 years? The Egyptians were pretty good at recording their history in stone carvings, funerary artefacts, and papyri. Almost the entire history of Egypt (to much further back in time) can be recovered from these inscriptions. According to the Bible, the Israelites lived in Egypt for 400 years, became enslaved by them, and performed slave labor for the Egyptians during which they built for Pharaoh such great monuments as the “treasure cities” of “Pithom and Raamses” (Exodus 1:11). Yet there is not a scrap of evidence that the Israelites ever lived in Egypt, or that the plagues of Moses ever happened, or that they wondered in Sinai for 40 years. So how do you know that the stories are true, and not some invented fables?

How do you know that a global flood ever happened? What archaeological evidence is there for it? I know of none! So how do you know it is true? Perhaps you don’t! If that is the case, then you should be honest enough to say so.

According to Bible chronology, the Flood occurred between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago (at the earliest), and all mankind that are alive today have descended from Noah since that time. That is a very short space of time in the archaeological and evolutionary timescale, and all mankind’s DNA profiles should be traceable back to that one original source—Noah! But it isn’t! So how do you know that it ever happened?

According to the Book of Mormon record, Lehi and his family immigrated to the Americas approximately 2,600 years ago. That is more than half the length of time from Noah until now. If Lamanite DNA should be traceable back to the Jews, as you demand; then all mankind’s DNA should be traceable back to Noah! Well, it isn’t! So how do you know that the biblical story is true?

According to the Bible, life on earth began approximately 7,000 years ago with the creation of Adam and Eve; but according to the findings of archaeological, anthropological, and palaeontological sciences, human life on earth came about as a result of millions and millions of years of evolution. So which one do you believe, the Bible or the science? If you believe the Bible, how do you know that the stories are true? Be honest, and give us honest answers.

My own guess is that you don’t really believe that any of these things happened. You just like to pay lip service to them. But we believe that they are all true, and happened just as the Bible says they did—even though there is no scientific evidence to prove it. That is the difference between us.

zerinus

 

[colliric]

According to the Bible, life on earth began approximately 7,000 years ago with the creation of Adam and Eve; but according to the findings of archaeological, anthropological, and palaeontological sciences, human life on earth came about as a result of millions and millions of years of evolution. So which one do you believe, the Bible or the science? If you believe the Bible, how do you know that the stories are true? Be honest, and give us honest answers.

My own guess is that you don’t really believe that any of these things happened. You just like to pay lip service to them. But we believe that they are all true, and happened just as the Bible says they did—even though there is no scientific evidence to prove it. That is the difference between us.

zerinus

Excuse me, but where does the bible say that? As far as I recall it never says exactly 7000 years. That is what is inferred in some arguments about the very first chapter of the bible and the geanologies of the human race. But lets recall 2 Peter 3:8. It says “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”

For new earth creationists(fundamental protestant christians who claim to follow Sola Scripture) there is distinct contradiction there within the bible. In one place it seems to say God’s days are like ours in respects, but another says God’s days make up 1000 of our earth years and possibly alot more.

Or is there?

Understand god created light for himself to work on his own timeframe, then created the big light in the sky to create the 24 hour time period of night and day. This argument cancels out the inequity and disagreement of these two passages which have clear, on the surface opposing meaning.

The theistic evolutionist christian, which makes up the overwhelming majority of Catholics(some are creationists but are open to the other ideas, and some just believe Genesis was only Moses’s knowledge and comforting to the people), sees no conflict between God and Science, because he sees no conflict between Genesis chapter 1 and 2 Peter 3:8. The fact is God was not working on our time frame of 24 hours, a complete understanding of the entire text makes one realize that god created his own days, on a time frame which could be anything but is at least 1000 years, before he gave us our 24 hour days, which are only just a homage or reflection of his own days.

Genesis is not just a story, it is completely true, but Moses was not writing scientifically(Like new earth creationists seem to believe). He was writing dramatically and spiritually. Genesis describes gigantic time periods as days of god, complete with night and day. It then describes the creation of the sun and the creation of the 24 hour and weekly time periods for us as homages to god.

If one reads genesis by itself one can infer that god’s days are 24 hours long, but the fact is an entire understanding from the theistic evolutionary, and Catholic point of view, gives the entire picture of the jigsaw puzzle taking into account St Peter’s description of the length of god’s own days, which not surprisingly also cancels out any argument that Evolution and God are in opposite corners.

New earth creationists seems to focus on one verse of the bible and forget the later verses which put the story of genesis into context as a metaphorically truthful description of the history of the world’s creation by god.

 

[Allweather]

I have read chapters in the BOM and I have looked at all of the illustrations. The pseudo-King Jamesesque language is a problem for me and the illustrations stopped me dead in my tracks. I am more than familiar with what went on in the early days of archaeology in the 19th century and that alone is enough to draw me up short.

I asked you a simple question regarding the underpinings of your faith.

brotherhrolf, I’m afraid you’re not going to have any luck reasoning with Zerinus. He is dyed-in-the-wool.

These cultists are not swayed by arguments from history. They will cherry-pick various historical items that appear to support their theories, but, a comprehensive view of history is beyond them. I’m sure that this is no accident. For, if anyone truly becomes aware of history, then they can stop being a member of the cult. There is a saying, that, to know history is to become Catholic.

I don’t claim to be an historian, but I’m fairly well-read, enough so that there are no mysteries for me as regards the truth of Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular. When discussing religion with Protestants, it has almost always seemed to me that they are pretty ignorant of anything pre-16th century. Mormons are no different. They start with their presuppositions, and mold historical “facts” to fit those.

Mormons and other cultists ignore history, preferring to overlay their burning bosoms upon pesky facts. This is why Zerinus will ignore your arguments regarding the attestation of Christian faith from the historical record. He will always question YOUR own faith, because, for him (them) there ARE no facts apart from the burning bosom. He wants to know how you know anything is true, and is not interested in historical evidence. For him, all evidence emerges only from the burning bosom. Everything else is just a distraction.

 

[Lapsed]

Excuse me, but where does the bible say that? As far as I recall it never says exactly 7000 years. That is what is inferred in some arguments about the very first chapter of the bible and the geanologies of the human race. But lets recall 2 Peter 3:8. It says “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”

For new earth creationists(fundamental protestant christians who claim to follow Sola Scripture) there is distinct contradiction there within the bible. In one place it seems to say God’s days are like ours in respects, but another says God’s days make up 1000 of our earth years and possibly alot more.

Or is there?

Understand god created light for himself to work on his own timeframe, then created the big light in the sky to create the 24 hour time period of night and day. This argument cancels out the inequity and disagreement of these two passages which have clear, on the surface opposing meaning.

The theistic evolutionist christian, which makes up the overwhelming majority of Catholics(some are creationists but are open to the other ideas, and some just believe Genesis was only Moses’s knowledge and comforting to the people), sees no conflict between God and Science, because he sees no conflict between Genesis chapter 1 and 2 Peter 3:8. The fact is God was not working on our time frame of 24 hours, a complete understanding of the entire text makes one realize that god created his own days, on a time frame which could be anything but is at least 1000 years, before he gave us our 24 hour days, which are only just a homage or reflection of his own days.

Genesis is not just a story, it is completely true, but Moses was not writing scientifically(Like new earth creationists seem to believe). He was writing dramatically and spiritually. Genesis describes gigantic time periods as days of god, complete with night and day. It then describes the creation of the sun and the creation of the 24 hour and weekly time periods for us as homages to god.

If one reads genesis by itself one can infer that god’s days are 24 hours long, but the fact is an entire understanding from the theistic evolutionary, and Catholic point of view, gives the entire picture of the jigsaw puzzle taking into account St Peter’s description of the length of god’s own days, which not surprisingly also cancels out any argument that Evolution and God are in opposite corners.

New earth creationists seems to focus on one verse of the bible and forget the later verses which put the story of genesis into context as a metaphorically truthful description of the history of the world’s creation by god.

Hi Colliric

The Mormons have a ready answer for this, too. According to the Book of Abraham (another “scripture” Joe Smith made up, claiming to have translated it from some ancient papyri which have since been proven to be pretty standard Egyptian funerary texts and not even remotely connected with Abraham), God lives on a planet orbiting a star called Kolob where one day is literally equal to 1000 years on earth. So creation took 6000 years, with Adam being created sometime during the 5000-6000 year frame and God resting for 1000 years after that.

Many TBM’s adhere to young earth creationism as that is the position taken by Bruce McKonkie in his book Mormon Doctrine. It is also implicit in the endowment ceremony.

For a real education in logical fallacies and double talk, look into some of FARMS’s apologetic work concerning the Book of Abraham. It is the most clear cut demonstration that Joseph Smith was a false prophet to anyone not blinded by the Mormon cult’s nonsense.

I still scratch my head and wonder how I bought into a religion for as long as I did that claims symptoms of indigestion as the strongest demonstration of their “truth.” Of course you’re going to get a burning in your boosom when you read the Book of Mormon. No one who engages their brain while reading it will ever be able to swallow it.