157 replies to this topic

[Olavarria]

Just askin, not tryin to bash or debate.

Edited by Pedro A. Olavarria, 19 February 2011 - 04:15 PM.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I am a believer but I thought I would put my two cents anyway.

This is excellent evidence for the BoM, but like all BoM evidence the detractors will simply write it off as coincidence or not good enough.

Stuff like this gives those who have the spiritual testimony of truth physical evidence to support what they already know.

This isn't going to convert someone to Mormonism, that happens through the power of the Holy Ghost that tells someone the message of the Book of Mormon is true.

This might lead someone to think about investigating the Church, but this would most likely not be someone who rejects our Church as true.

Since 1830 the greatest conversion tool in out toolbox is the Book of Mormon, it is compelling evidence that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God. If someone rejects the Book of Mormon I doubt that there is little evidence that we can bring to the table that they won't reject.


Sorry if this wasn't what you were looking for!

[thesometimesaint]

While interesting evidence.
Evidence is not proof.

[Monster]

If you are going to accept this one small piece of evidence for the the BOM you must then be will ing to accept the much more plentiful evidence against the BOM. If you want to be objective you need to look at all the evidence and weigh it objectively.

When examining the accuracy of psychic you must examine all the misses as much as the hits. Only then can you determine the viability of their predictions. The same holds true with anything even the BOM. You must look at the evidence as a whole and then make a determination. If at that point you conclude it is as it claims then at least you have done due diligence and can claim your conclusion is based on knowledge as a whole.

Edited by Monster, 20 February 2011 - 07:59 AM.

[ebeddoulos]

Monster, on 20 February 2011 - 07:34 AM, said:

If you are going to accept this one small piece of evidence for the the BOM you must then be will ing to accept the much more plentiful evidence against the BOM. If you want to be objective you need to look at all the evidence and weigh it objectively.

When examining the accuracy of psychic you must examine all the misses as much as the hits. Only then can you determine the viability of their predictions. The same holds true with anything even the BOM. You must look at the evidence as a whole and then make a determination. If at that point you conclude it is as it claims then at least you have done due diligence and can claim your conclusion is based on knowledge as a whole.

You must be incredibly knowledgeable on the subject to make a statement concerning the "more plentiful evidence against the BOM."  It is my conjecture that since "you have done your due diligence" (else why should you have mentioned it?) that you can either refute the evidence as given in the OP or to provide a list of evidence that is larger than the partial list provided by Brant Gardner HERE.  An individual with your stated knowledge of the subject should easily be able to produce a list that has not previously been refuted and can therefore withstand such intellectual criticism that we poor, ignorant and deluded Latter-day Saints are able to muster.

[facie ad faciem]

sometimesaint -
You're right that evidence is not proof, but it can be. Multiple pieces of evidence can lead to proving an argument. And in some cases, a singular piece of evidence is proof enough. But of course it depends on the premises, argument, etc.

[facie ad faciem]

monster -
Yes, I'm sure there are many of us who would be very interested in your plentiful evidnce against the BOM that we should consider. Well, beyond those that have been previously refuted or those that argue that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

[elguanteloko]

Miracles are a matter of faith, NOT of "supporting evidence".

Pedro, you asked how we (non-believers) account for these type of historical issues and here it is: we make up any hypothesis that seems more plausible than the other ones and fits more events than the competing explanations. Just as when trying to show that Christ actually resurrected, trying to show evidence of Joseph Smith's revelations being true already assumes what it's trying to show and in doing so fails to realize that the explanation presented is the least likely explanation of them all.

Example: in the video you posted, Daniel C. Peterson says that JS looking at that map seems very unlikely... but being as open minded as possible, isn't it a hundred times more unlikely that JS got a revelation from a super-natural being? Saying JS looked at a map, as unlikely as it will EVER be (if it is), is ALWAYS going to be much more likely than a super-natural explanation of the events... than ANY super-natural explanation. That is, ANY explanation of event X that is not self contradictory, does not break any of the so-called "laws of nature", and fits the events fairly well will ALWAYS be more likely an explanation than one of a super-natural nature.

Recommended readings:

http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/14.html

http://plato.stanfor...tries/miracles/

Edited by elguanteloko, 20 February 2011 - 01:06 PM.

[thesometimesaint]

facie ad faciem:

Yes, and no. A single piece of evidence is seldom sufficient to establish proof. But when tied to other substantial pieces of evidence it can be presented as a basis for a logical theory. That is why I find the evidences for the BoM quite good.

I don't know as there will ever be proof of any religious book, because of the inherent non-falsifiability of the Supernatural.

Edited by thesometimesaint, 20 February 2011 - 01:11 PM.

[ERayR]

Monster, on 20 February 2011 - 07:34 AM, said:

If you are going to accept this one small piece of evidence for the the BOM you must then be will ing to accept the much more plentiful evidence against the BOM. If you want to be objective you need to look at all the evidence and weigh it objectively.
When examining the accuracy of psychic you must examine all the misses as much as the hits. Only then can you determine the viability of their predictions. The same holds true with anything even the BOM. You must look at the evidence as a whole and then make a determination. If at that point you conclude it is as it claims then at least you have done due diligence and can claim your conclusion is based on knowledge as a whole.

I only need to be willing to accept it if, when weighed against what I already know to be true, it fits.  I am under no obligation to accept any thing just because you or anybody else make truth claims for it.

[ERayR]

elguanteloko, on 20 February 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

Miracles are a matter of faith, NOT of "supporting evidence".

Pedro, you asked how we (non-believers) account for these type of historical issues and here it is: we make up any hypothesis that seems more plausible than the other ones and fits more events than the competing explanations. Just as when trying to show that Christ actually resurrected, trying to show evidence of Joseph Smith's revelations being true already assumes what it's trying to show and in doing so fails to realize that the explanation presented is the least likely explanation of them all.

Example: in the video you posted, Daniel C. Peterson says that JS looking at that map seems very unlikely... but being as open minded as possible, isn't it a hundred times more unlikely that JS got a revelation from a super-natural being? Saying JS looked at a map, as unlikely as it will EVER be (if it is), is ALWAYS going to be much more likely than a super-natural explanation of the events... than ANY super-natural explanation. That is, ANY explanation of event X that is not self contradictory, does not break any of the so-called "laws of nature", and fits the events fairly well will ALWAYS be more likely an explanation than one of a super-natural nature.

Recommended readings:

http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/14.html

http://plato.stanfor...tries/miracles/

Not when one has had experience receiving revelation for themselves.

[thesometimesaint]

elguanteloko:

It is possible that JS looked at a map. OTOH the maps of the day that JS had any access would be of little/no use.

[Vex]

thesometimesaint, on 20 February 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

elguanteloko:

It is possible that JS looked at a map. OTOH the maps of the day that JS had any access would be of little/no use.

I was under the impression that NHM was a relatively new discovery.  One that is far more recent than the first publication of The Book of Mormon.  Is this thought incorrect?

[elguanteloko]

ERayR, on 20 February 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

Not when one has had experience receiving revelation for themselves.

oh.... ok....

[elguanteloko]

thesometimesaint, on 20 February 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

elguanteloko:

It is possible that JS looked at a map. OTOH the maps of the day that JS had any access would be of little/no use.

You are missing the point. ANY explanation claiming a super-natural force is ALWAYS going to be less likely to be true than one that does not appeal to any of such forces. What's more likely: JS received revelation from a super-natural being that told him about an acient civilization or he just got the name from the Bible, changed it a little bit,  and placed it on a certain location?

[elguanteloko]

Vex, on 20 February 2011 - 01:56 PM, said:

I was under the impression that NHM was a relatively new discovery.  One that is far more recent than the first publication of The Book of Mormon.  Is this thought incorrect?

In the OP video Daniel Peterson says there was a map published in 1815 @ 2:50

[Mortal Man]

It's stunning that Kerry is able to misquote Alma 7:10 at the exact moment the verse is highlighted for the audience. The actual wording, "..he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers,..." is not equivalent to "...born at the land of Jerusalem." The genitive, "land of Jerusalem", is an alleged Hebraism, whereas the trailing "which..." clause is not. Furthermore, "land of Jerusalem", "land of our forefathers", "land of Zarahemla", "land of Nephi", "land of Middoni", "land of Sharon", "land of Enoch", "land of Omner", "land of Heni", "land of Shem", "land of Haner", "land of Hanannihah", "land of Ishmael" etc. is just the way JS spoke.

[Monster]

ebeddoulos, on 20 February 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

You must be incredibly knowledgeable on the subject to make a statement concerning the "more plentiful evidence against the BOM."  It is my conjecture that since "you have done your due diligence" (else why should you have mentioned it?) that you can either refute the evidence as given in the OP or to provide a list of evidence that is larger than the partial list provided by Brant Gardner HERE.  An individual with your stated knowledge of the subject should easily be able to produce a list that has not previously been refuted and can therefore withstand such intellectual criticism that we poor, ignorant and deluded Latter-day Saints are able to muster.

No I am not that smart, but I have read a lot and I never said the BOM was not true. I was just pointing out there is plenty of evidence to discredit it. as much to defend it, and yes lack of evidence in this case is not proof but it makes it at least suspect. Could I list a bunch of items that seem to discredit the BOM as an actual historic text, sure I could and so could you. But I am not going to do it because you have already claimed that everything has been answered or refuted to your satisfaction, so therefore you are not open to examination and have made your decision. That is fine and I respect your choice. I simply choose to continue to question until I am satisfied one way or the other.

[Vex]

elguanteloko, on 20 February 2011 - 02:23 PM, said:

In the OP video Daniel Peterson says there was a map published in 1815 @ 2:50

Ah I see that now.  Then if we follow your hypothesis we must make assumptions to achieve your result.

We must assume:

• The map from 1815 had NHM correctly located to it's present day location
  
• The map or a copy of the map traversed the Atlantic ocean for purposes unknown
  
• The map then must traverse the eastern seaboard or directly from New York Port
  
• The map would then have to travel within the vicinity of Joseph Smith
  
• Joseph Smith would then have to have reason to be exposed to the map in question
  
• The map itself must, by point-in-fact, impress upon Joseph the name of NHM to be remembered years later

Those seem like a lot of assumptions to get JS in contact with the map.

Do you have a proposal to remedy these assumptions?

[jmordecai]

Here's what I think of Nahom.

1. The LDS church has not endorsed any proposed location. Until then, claims made by apologists remain personal opinion and speculative.

2. The proposed link between Nahom and the Nihm tribe and altar inscriptions are based on linguistic assumptions:

Quote

The exact equivalency of the root letters cannot be assured. It is probable that the term Nahom was spelled with the rasped or fricative Hebrew letter for "h" (het or chet) whereas the name Nihm, both in modern Arabic and in the ancient Sabaean dialect, is spelled with a softer, less audible h sound... One has to assume, it seems to me, that when the members of Lehi's party heard the local name for "the place that was called Nahom" they associated the sound of that local name with the term *Nahom, a Hebrew word that was familiar to and had meaning for them.
S. Kent Brown, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Vol.8, Iss.1, pp.66-68

3. A linguistic link to Hebrew is also an assumption, as the Book of Mormon was written in Reformed Egyptian.

4. The name of a tribe does not give us a place

a. Today the Nihm tribe reside about 25 miles north of Sana'a, Yemen. This is not evidence that a location named NHM existed in 600 B.C.

b. The 7th-6th century altar inscription that reads: son of Naw'an the Nihmite is also not evidence that there was a place called NHM in 600 B.C. We have to make another assumption that the tribe was predominant at the time to have its area of residence called after itself and that is was in line with Lehi's travel.

There is no confirmed 600 B.C. placed called NHM.

5. 1 Ne. 17:4 informs us that the journey from Jerusalem to Bountiful took 8 years. The men took wives in the valley of Lemuel (1 Ne. 16:6-7). The women gave birth around Nahom (1 Ne. 17:1). For this reason, in the Journey of Faith DVD, S. Kent Brown deduces that it took them 1 year to reach Nahom from Jerusalem. This means Lehi and company spent the next 7 years crossing the Rub' al Khali nearly eastward to reach Bountiful. If there were a group of Jews traveling down the Arabian peninsula, it's preposterous that they would have abandoned the watering holes of the Frankincense Trail to cross the Empty Quarter. That's suicide, and is a fatal flaw to the Nahom/Bountiful model ignored by apologists.

Edited by jmordecai, 20 February 2011 - 10:07 PM.