The Bible versus the Book of Mormon

[Gervin]

That would be quite unnecessary and beside the point, which is that the image of a "ferrous metallurgical industry" is likely to mislead ordinary readers, and that the fact that, thus far, "The evidence is absent" from what we know of the very obscure world of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica does not constitute decisive evidence of the absence of some small-scale basic metal-working.

How can you even imagine that there is decisive evidence of the absence; you

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

Markk:

And the problem is that right at the time Helaman says that all of this is there - the archaeology tells us that all of this is there. Of course there is less information about shipping because of the type of vessels they used, but there is nothing in that statement that contradicts anything found by archaeologists.

Which I have said before and you simply repeat your assertion without adding anything to the conversation or indicating that you have any familiarity with Mesoamerica. It isn't a cop out. Its a worn out.

So, all of that verse is there, evidence of all of verse 14? Can you show me on a map were Zarahemla is, and were the Northward settlements and cities are and tell what evidence they have to support that statement. What kind of vessels did they use, they would have to be large enough to ship cargos of lumbers and cemet, we know thatthe BoM says they had sails, that would be a large vessel and it wood take shipyards and ports to handal the logistics. sails, ropes, food, nails. Is there a harbor town in that area to support such a venture. Then it speaks of "innumerable armies" with..."14 And it came to pass in the *forty and first year of the reign of the judges, that the Lamanites had gathered together an innumerable army of men, and aarmed

[asciikerr]

Thanks again for replying, forgive me if I make this short and devoid of thought!

Egadz...hehe, I had worked on my post for 4hrs and it crashed, FABULOUS!

This is what happens when you neglect your notepad.

Oh yeah, and please correct me if I'm wrong anywhere in my info...thx again.

asciikerr:

This "confirmed" Israelite temple (by way of 2 small inscribed ostraca/potsherds) in Arad also supposedly housed a pair of deities (Yahweh and Asherah?).

Are you suggesting that pre-exilic temples did not have asherah? I would think that was pretty well established. What is your understanding of the relationship between the pre-exilic and post-exilic religion?

Not at all...*whew* this is like DejaVu, I swear it!

I am only suggesting that Israel from the very beginning has had problems with worshipping other gods. The Majority or predominant would practice a form of Yahwistic Paganism, where they would supplement their worship of Yahweh with that of Ashera and other dieties. They didn't evolve from polytheism into monotheism as many would say, but eventually degenerated from monotheism into polythiesm. History reflects what scripture has already noted; God's people were always straying away from God and worshipping other gods from the very beginning. Moses turns his back for a second and they had Aaron create them a golden calf to worship, and giving props to the calf for delivering them out of Egypt! Even Solomon turned away from God and onto his wives gods, lets not forget how one of the kings cleaned house...ridding all forms of polytheism from the Holy Temple (2 King 23:3-14) which was once used to worship God and God alone(Exo 22:19). So History and Archeology doesn't show us anything different than what the Bible already presents, God's people continually straying from Him and worshipping idols and even having their own set of prophets and priests that had nothing to do with those Prophets (Isaiah/Jeremiah) and Priests (Levite/Aaron) that the Bible presents as God's Anointed. So just because it was continually practiced and rampant, it doesn't mean it was legite but wrong and continually condemned by God's prophets and priests as found throughout scripture. They even had prohibitions against these actions (Exo 34:3; Deut 16:2).

The way I see it, The Pre-Exilic polytheistic majority eventually became a Post-Exilic minority after the exile. The Exile was used by God to purge the nation of Polytheism. Monotheism wasn't developed after the exile, but instead flourished from it.

Here's the implication I'm trying to draw out:

One of the ostraca (potsherds with writing) from the site bears the inscription

[Markk]

Hi Bewolf,

Markk, Brant just SHOWED you the evidence.

You want cities? CHECK

You want cement in those cities? CHECK (again!)

Merely asserting that cement requires massive infrastructure (which I am sure that it does) is not sufficient reason to reject it. The cement is actually THERE. Right where the BofM claims it should be, and right WHEN it should be.

No, I don't believe that is evidence, it is only evidence that he as chosen certain aspects of the BoM geography, and picked what will fit into a certain target area while disgarding other BoM data that would also be needed.

Merely asserting that cement requires massive infrastructure (which I am sure that it does) is not sufficient reason to reject it. The cement is actually THERE. Right where the BofM claims it should be, and right WHEN it should be.

OK, that's a fair answer, so I ask what type of cement and where is it, if it is a portland type cement were was the factory/foundry( it has to be cooked) to process this cement, and where was it quarried, along with evidence of quarried additives/binders to make this cement into a mortar or concrete. If it was another type of cement, which there are, please tell me about it and how it was produced. I am not goint to be unrealistic and demand 100% proof of all this, but if you say it is there , then supply the data of what type of cement and where it was mined, where it was used, and what it was used for, your answer would demand that at the least. And remember, this has to be on a very large scale of production in that it was used to build cities large enough to support very large populations, with houses, temples, synagogues, etc. Then all this had to be shipped, so was just the cement shipped, or all the binders with it, if it was just cement, then the material need to build these cities would have to have been quarried or mined at or near the location of these cities, do you have evidence of that, it would still be there on a scale as described in the BoM. Then there would be the logistics of how the cement was used, if it was a mortar the you need brick or stone, which would be very evident in archeology today if it was indeed on the scale of the BoM, if it was a concrete type construction then it would have fallen apart, but the logistics of building cities that great would leave ennumerable amounts of evidence, Piles of concrete rubble and/or pads of broken down concrete. Then there is the logistics of the tools and equiptment needed, however primative, if they could build ships to bring the materials, then most likely thety would have had, at the least, some sort of wheel barrow and trowels, up to maybe some sort of horse drawn "cement truck", who knows, but there would be some sort of evidence of how a major "cement" city was built.

Then there's the Wood end of it, You would find steel Axe's, Chisels, Adz, Bradawls, bow drills, Mallets,etc, all tools familiar with wood construction and found in abundence in OW arch. digs, I'm looking at a color photo of a mattock that was found at the time of Christ right now, that would have been used for digging a foundation or leveling a pad, and farming. Again on a scale of building described by the BoM there would be ample evidence produced. Tools do not change that much, we have electricity today that certainly upgraded the evolution of tools, but I have a carpenters box full of hand tools that are very much the same, and we use them daily, and if your in Israel, China, or the Americas, they are more or less pcs of metal with wood handels, again they would be found in ample amounts if the boM is correct in saying...

Helamen 3:14..." But behold, a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, yea, the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites, and their wars, and contentions, and dissensions, and their preaching, and their prophecies, and their shipping and their building of ships, and their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries, and their righteousness, and their wickedness, and their murders, and their robbings, and their plundering, and all manner of abominations and whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work.

[awyatt]

Markk said: No, I don't believe that is evidence, it is only evidence that he as chosen certain aspects of the BoM geography, and picked what will fit into a certain target area while disgarding other BoM data that would also be needed.

You must be kidding, right? If you follow this all-or-nothing approach throughout life, you must have jettisoned belief in the Bible (and most other ancient books of any length) long, long ago. Pity.

Markk said: OK, that's a fair answer, so I ask what type of cement and where is it...

I deleted most of your paragraph because your squirming was so evident. I can boil down your words to "OK, so there may have been cement. But I won't accept that as evidence unless you tell me all the nitty-gritty details of the cement and whether it fits my conception of what cement should *really* be." Another pity.

Must you be spoon-fed everything? All you need to do is a Google search for cement mesoamerica -mormon. You'll find about 16,000 non-Mormon references. I pulled a few for your educational pleasure from the first couple of pages of results:

• http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/...40414003559.htm
  Description of "cement-like" floors in an ancient mound, dating from approximately 5000 years ago.
  
• http://www.jqjacobs.net/mesoamerica/uxmal.html
  Pictures of site at Uxmal (in the Yucatan). Note third picture down on right side, which describes how cement was used.
  
• http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761..._Americans.html
  Article on Native Americans in Encarta (online encycolpedia). See section D, which indicates that Mesoamericans constructed their buildings from, among other things, cement.
  
• http://ergosum.uaemex.mx/noviembre99/pinov99.html
  Provides an abstract of a scholarly paper called "The Cement and the Concrete of the Mayas." There is also a link to the paper, which is written in Spanish.
  

Markk said: While I certainly do not believe that the BoM is true, I am not directly attacking the BoM, I am challanging you to show me proofs of what it says.

But when this is done, you reject them or try to squirm around so you don't have to accept what others accept. So why should anyone offer you any more "proofs?"

Markk said: Sure you can, why not, that is not even a stawman, but a excuse. Read the book I suggested to Brant, on the scale of the BoM the evidence would be exhaustive of Jewish culture, whether barrowed or not, the barrowed OW culture would also be evident. Not blanks stares, but blank responses to fair questions, produced by BoM context.

You just don't get it, do you? You seem to be incapable of understanding what LDS (including Brant) are saying. You say "there must be proof!", fail to define what you would accept as evidence, and then pooh-pooh any evidence offered. Interesting analytical (NOT!) approach.

I noticed you ignored my earlier summation of the problem completely. Here it is, again. Please read through it and provide a succinct answer as to what you would accept as acceptable evidence of Jewish/Christian influences in the New World. (I guarantee you that concrete, wood, and metal aren't acceptable evidences.)

Allen said: The point, again, is how would we know if we found evidence of "Christian' culture in a Mesoamerican context? Particularly when the "context" in which that culture was practiced was wiped out. Look at it this way:

1. A group of Semitic people following the law of Moses migrated to Mesoamerica. (These weren't Jews, mind you--they weren't of the tribe of Judah. They were Hebrews, but not Jews.)

2. Part of the group rejected the law of Moses and refused to follow it.

3. Both the practicing and non-practicing groups of Semitic people mingled with existing populations, or created their own kingdoms/states that interacted with existing populations.

4. These two groups of Semitic peoples adopted the languages, traditions, trade, and customs of the existing populations, but at least one of the Semitic peoples continued to practice the law of Moses while operating within this larger "Mesoamerican context."

5. At least one of these Semitic groups (the one that rejected the law of Moses) intermarried with the existing populations. We don't know about intermarriage with the other group; it may or may not have happened.

6. The one Semitic group that continued to follow the law of Moses did so for 600 years, with various bouts of personal and cultural apostasy and revival.

7. Christ comes and visits all the people in the New World. The law of Moses is fulfilled, the law is no longer practiced, and all are converted to Christ.

8. Christian teachings are followed for almost 400 years.

9. An apostate group rejects Christian teachings and evenutally becomes the majority.

10. The apostate group wipes out the minority followers of the Christian teachings, leaving only non-Christians.

Tell me, Markk--why do you think that the symbols and culture of the Christians at step 7 should match those symbols and culture of the Christians in the Old World? They wouldn't match, as the last interaction with the Old World was 600 years earlier, so the question remains: how do we determine "Christian" evidences in a Mesoamerican context?

Stick to the subject, Markk--provide what *you* view as acceptable evidences.

-Allen

[Dale]

I think some persons want a document, or inscriptions that confirms a Book of Mormon place, or persons name. I used to want that, but I no longer require that for belief. Once I learned it was unreasonable to expect that such evidence contradictiong, or agreeing with the Book of Mormon was something that archeology could not produce I stopped looking for it. I am happy with proposed maps as long as it agrees with the Book of Mormon text, and does not strain Meso-American georgraphy.

Another thing persons might be looking for is impressive lists of Bible reliability like Evangelicals have produced for the Bible. Though I agree with some of the content of these lists some of them overstate the degree the Bible has been proven. When I saw the Bible verses the Book of Mormon I saw it as an example of evidences for the Bible being overstated.

I am much more impressed with Book of Mormon collection of evidences for Book of Mormon reliability. Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited edited by Noel Reynolds comes highly reccomended by me. I have seen such evidence survive the toughest Evangelical, and Signature books type criticism these categories could throw at it. What more do critics need in order to intellectually believe in the Book of Mormon?

[awyatt]

Dale said: What more do critics need in order to intellectually believe in the Book of Mormon?

This is a very good and on-point question. Many LDS ask (in half jest) the question "Would you believe if a 'Welcome to Zarahemla' sign was found?" Some unbelievers answer that they would. Yet, an eqivalent sign was found for Nahom, and the unbelievers didn't flock into the font.

Belief (and unbelief) are a personal choice. The choice is what separates athiest from Christian, anti-Mormon from Mormon, and man from God.

-Allen

[Dale]

I have seen some Evangelical attempts to disprove the idea Nahom was found. But I wasn't convinced they had a solid case against research I believe is valid. Since I was not impressed with arguments against this research I made the choice to uphold it.

[Markk]

Hi Allen

How ya doing?

You must be kidding, right? If you follow this all-or-nothing approach throughout life, you must have jettisoned belief in the Bible (and most other ancient books of any length) long, long ago. Pity.

Nope. I don't believe that is evidence that Jews and Christians lived in America, that is what we are talking about, it is nothing more than taking a story and finding a place on a map were it might fit if it were real. The people who lived there were not Jews or Hebrew or what ever your choose to call them, nor Christians, only Mormons believe that, and that's why the burden of proof is on them if they want credibility in this arena. It its not a all or nothing approach, it is a realistic approach that there is nothing.

Must you be spoon-fed everything? All you need to do is a Google search for cement mesoamerica -mormon. You'll find about 16,000 non-Mormon references. I pulled a few for your educational pleasure from the first couple of pages of results:

The first one, was "cement like", and were mounds built of "calm shells", hardly a BoM description. The floor dates to about 1500 years before cement is mentioned in the BoM and 2000 years before they got to the Americas. And it was just a floor, not a "house of cement". All it proves is that a prehistoric person made a cement like floor 2000 years before these Jews were supposed to have come.

The second one, is just pictures of what looks like stone sculptured brick and stone buildings, are you saying there is a "cement mortar" used in these stone buildings? Not sure what your point is on this. Helamen says "Houses of cement and wood, not stone. Is this a Dewy Farnsworth site? Would this match with Alma 6:13...

[Beowulf]

Cement.

Brant showed you the places where cement has been found in Mesoamerica. (I am not as familiar with the topic, so I let him do it...) And yet you still reject the evidence... Puzzling.

It was not Portland cement (which I believe was invented in the latter half of the 19th century). But it WAS cement, and used widely... And used for the reasons given in the BofM. Which was lack of suitable lumber for building wooden houses. This is a good description of the area around Mexico City, where the cement is most common, and which (using John Sorenson's conjectured map of BofM lands) lies to the north of the main areas of the BofM history. This is a striking hit for Mesoamerica as BofM land (and a huge strike against upstate New York as a possible site -- who would dare say that Canada to the North does not have enough suitable lumber?).

Please see Sorenson's book for a blow-by-blow analysis of where Zarahemla was, and where the other sites in the BofM were.

Beowulf

[Markk]

Hi Bewolf,

Cement.

Brant showed you the places where cement has been found in Mesoamerica. (I am not as familiar with the topic, so I let him do it...) And yet you still reject the evidence... Puzzling.

It was not Portland cement (which I believe was invented in the latter half of the 19th century). But it WAS cement, and used widely... And used for the reasons given in the BofM. Which was lack of suitable lumber for building wooden houses. This is a good description of the area around Mexico City, where the cement is most common, and which (using John Sorenson's conjectured map of BofM lands) lies to the north of the main areas of the BofM history. This is a striking hit for Mesoamerica as BofM land (and a huge strike against upstate New York as a possible site -- who would dare say that Canada to the North does not have enough suitable lumber?).

Please see Sorenson's book for a blow-by-blow analysis of where Zarahemla was, and where the other sites in the BofM were.

No I don't think Brant has shown me anything, but maybe I missed it so I'll go back and look. Wyatt gave me 4 website that were supose to be some sort of proof I guess of the BoM. If you go back and read my posts I said...

while ancient cement is different than today portland, it is still cement and needs sand for mortor, and sand and gravel for a concrete. The shipping big enough to carry lumber amount large enough for cities, a not to mention the ships (alma 63:7). Also just read Helamen 3:14...come on Brant are you telling me that there would not be any tangible evidence of this?

And...

The BoM speaks of many larges citys, to imply that they were already populated is wild guess at best, and a argument of silence, that goes against the context of the BoM and authoritive teaching and implications. If a history is written about peoples that had imigrated to a larger socity it would have been noted. Hel. 3:9 is very clear about "their", being the Jews, and verse 10 talks of shipping and a thriving industry of logging and cement which built many cities. Cement as you know is a nothing without sand and gravel which makes concrete, get a bag of cemet and add water and see if you can make a dwelling with out the additives, so I would expect to see great quarries that would have scard the land. I've done my share of concrete construction and the majority of the work and material are what we call in the trades "false work", they are forms and braces and scaffolding etc, to set up a concrete building you more or less pour it in one or to days, yet it takes months of false work to make it possible. while ancient cement is different than today portland, it is still cement and needs sand for mortor, and sand and gravel for a concrete. The shipping big enough to carry lumber amount large enough for cities, a not to mention the ships (alma 63:7). Also just read Helamen 3:14...come on Brant are you telling me that there would not be any tangible evidence of this?

I never said there was not cement, I was trying to point out the logistical needs that come along with a cement city being shipped many miles by ship, you need to read my posts. These citys were of a massive scale according to the BoM, and also built in the manner of the Jews, according to the BoM. By point is, there would be ample evidence of this, from the sea north, to the sea south, to the sea east and the sea west, as the BoM puts it, the Logistics would be staggering, a 5000 year old building made of clams is not really evidence Bewolf, of Cement cites built in the manner of the Jews, built with cement shipped by ocean.

Please see Sorenson's book for a blow-by-blow analysis of where Zarahemla was, and where the other sites in the BofM were.

Is it online?

Mark

John 1;12

[Markk]

Hi Allen,

You said...

Must you be spoon-fed everything? All you need to do is a Google search for cement mesoamerica -mormon. You'll find about 16,000 non-Mormon references. I pulled a few for your educational pleasure from the first couple of pages of results:

Well, my google seach produced ...Web Results 11 - 20 of about 967. Search took 0.11 seconds. (pasted) not 16,000 and here are some of the hits

On the first page One said..."Palm trees and coconuts are everywhere along the coast of Mesoamerica. ...Question of the Day: Why are the telephone poles made out of cement? "

The next one says..."for Mesoamerica from Tijuana September 2002 ... Crowded little houses cling to crumbling star-wars dreams coming true in cement dust and old TV sets ..."

The next one says..."Especial de Mesoam

[awyatt]

Sorry, Markk. It was a busy day at Church yesterday. I couldn't get back on the boards until this morning.

Markk said: I understand this tone when one fills threatend, it is a natural attribute we all have.

If you want to kill discussion, this is the way to do it. I wasn't feeling threatened, yet you attribute motive where none existed. How could I feel "threat" from someone who, in only a few days of study, thinks he has demolished over half a century of serious scholarly study, and refuses to even read (or consider) such study.

Markk said: I understand that saying things like squirm are needed for the faithful here, and avoids attention to the point...

Nope. Missed again. I didn't say it for the faithful; I said it in the hopes that you would go back and try to figure out how someone who is faithful might see your commentary and questioning as real, honest-to-goodness squirming. Any time someone provides you with answers to questions you asked and then you change the question while at the same time ignoring the answer, that is squirming. It is what you have done throughout this thread and, in particular, in the one incident I pointed out. That has nothing to do with the faithful; it has everything to do with your tactics.

Markk said: I ignored, because it is built on the false premise that these Jews/Hebrews mixed with a mass population of others...

And this is why many LDS get very frustrated with critics. See, you don't believe in the Book of Mormon, yet you insist that my understanding (and I am a beliver) must be wrong because it doesn't fit your image of what must be believed. Why should I accept an unbelievers analysis simply because the unbeliever says that things must be that way?

Someone truly interested in conversation might have said "Wow, I never thought of that. Do a lot of believers understand the issues related to the Book of Mormon in this way?" That could have led to more conversation. Instead, you simply dismiss what, I guarantee you, is a well-studied opinion in favor of your uninformed and unbelieving stance.

Sorry, Markk. I'm done with this conversation. You refuse to read the evidence you are provided; you dismiss over half a century of scholarship out of hand; you ignore good-faith answers while changing questions; you insist that only your limited understanding of a book you don't believe in (and refuse to study seriously) trumps that understanding of the faithful.

When you can demonstate that you really have studied and you are ready to approach the topic with an open mind, come back. We might have something to talk about. Until then, have fun in your false smugness.

-Allen

[Markk]

Hi Allen,

I believe the problem here Allen is that when LDS scholarship is challenged with real and legitimate questions you guys cry foul and quit. You can call names, and be loaded with smart alec remarks, but when confronted with a realistic and pertinent question you bail.

I am beginning to believe that your posts are just meant for the faithful here to propagate all is well in Zion, I hope I am wrong. But, when you say things like...

3. Both the practicing and non-practicing groups of Semitic people mingled with existing populations, or created their own kingdoms/states that interacted with existing populations.

And I return a question that asked where it says this in the BoM, because that is what we are discussing, and you take offense to that...? Well, thats a fair question Allen, I don't understand how you can see it any other way. For you to expect a person who doubts to just say..."Wow, I never thought of that. Do a lot of believers understand the issues related to the Book of Mormon in this way?" I don't see that as being a realistic approach. It would be like you saying " Gee wiz Sandra, do you and Jerald really believe that, that is interesting, please tell me more." That is just not realistic, nor does it test the data.

Allen we can be civil and still disagree, and challage each other, and learn in the process, but when I am told a BoM land exists and I go to a map and test that, and the very first thing I see is that the directions do not match the text, and ask why, that is a legitimate question Allen, or when you give we a google search that claims one thing and I check it out and find it is not that way at all, it makes me really wonder what the heck is going on. I know you are a sincere person and good man and a I am grateful to be able to post here and share my opinions, and hope you can see that.

Thanks for your time, take care

mark

John 1:12

[awyatt]

Markk said: I believe the problem here Allen is that when LDS scholarship is challenged with real and legitimate questions you guys cry foul and quit. You can call names, and be loaded with smart alec remarks, but when confronted with a realistic and pertinent question you bail.

You are certainly free to believe what you want, Markk. Just believing it doesn't make it so. Understand one thing, however: Your language doesn't challenge LDS scholarship, it dismisses it. Big difference.

Allen said: 3. Both the practicing and non-practicing groups of Semitic people mingled with existing populations, or created their own kingdoms/states that interacted with existing populations.

Markk said: And I return a question that asked where it says this in the BoM, because that is what we are discussing, and you take offense to that...? Well, thats a fair question Allen...

It would have been fair, if it were really a question. You didn't ask a question; you said that I was using a "false premise" (your words Markk, not mine). That means you already dismissed the premise, having judged it as false. That doesn't represent an open mind, but one that has supposedly considered any evidence and reached a conclusion. For you to then say "show me" is not a request for enlightenment or understanding, but a challenge to somehow disprove your foregone conclusion. Had you asked a question in an open-minded manner, there might have been reason to converse. As it is, however...

Markk, if you really want to understand what LDS scholars believe on this issue, you are going to have to read the best and most rigorous of the LDS scholarship. You haven't done that; you are not willing to pay the price to do so. You keep throwing down challenges as if nobody had ever thought of them before. Guess what? You are wrong; the questions you are "asking" have been asked and answered--some over fifty years ago. It has taken me years to read the pertinent books, articles, and studies. I've paid the price that you are unwilling to pay. So when you tell me that your challenges are somehow "fair" or your questions are supposedly devastating to belief in what you think is non-scriptural account, I figure at first that you simply haven't had a chance to read the relevant material, and that you might want to do so. When I (and others) provide you with references to the relevant information and you then either ignore it, rely on others tainted analysis of it, or say you don't need it, well--what can I say? Actions do speak louder than words, and your inaction in learning more tells those listening that you are not really interested in learning.

You are right about one thing: I am a sincere person and a good man (contrary to what some on this board and at RFM may think). I'm sure that this message comes across as stronger than it is intended. If we were sitting face to face having an amicable discussion, I would tell you essentially the same thing: The scholarship is there, and to engage it seriously you have to become intimately acquainted with it. You refuse to do that, so there is no hope of continued productive discourse.

-Allen

[Markk]

Hi Allen,

I believe that is a cop out, I really do, Everybody here is not a "scholar" and these questions really should not be that tuff. I asked you where it says that in the BoM that others mixed with the Nephites and Lamanite's, thats a fair question Allen. And I believe it is a fair position to take that it is a false premise in that in my 34 years of being a member of the church it was never taught to me and what was taught was in direct contridiction of your current LDS thought. If you can't discuss the context of the BoM and only LDS scholarship, that is really not being true to the text.

What is scholarship Allen? it is just anothers opinion, some good, some bad. So I don't understand why you can not discuss BoM context and the impacts it would demand to a population and geograpy as I have stated, again fair questions. If you think I'm going to spent 40 dollars on a book that when I check it out he can't even get his directions right, your nuts, but if you could give me a logical explanation for his findings on direction I just might.

You are right about one thing: I am a sincere person and a good man (contrary to what some on this board and at RFM may think). I'm sure that this message comes across as stronger than it is intended.

It isn't strong, I understand, but at the same time the time you spent giving me this advice, you could have just given me simple proof texts so i can try to see your point.

Anyway

Best regards

Mark

John 1:12

[JNclone]

Markk:

Everybody here is not a "scholar" and these questions really should not be that tuff. I asked you where it says that in the BoM that others mixed with the Nephites and Lamanite's, thats a fair question Allen.

That seems reasonable. Surely a religion is in a dangerous state when:

(a) A straightforward reading of its texts in good faith seems to produce impossibilities, or at least difficulties on a major scale.

(b) One is told that there are utterly convincing answers to such difficulties, but unfortunately in order to understand them one has to read reams and reams of scholarship. That would imply that most ordinary people would simply have to rely on Allen's assurances. Why should they?

Of course one way out is to deny (a), but Markk seems convinced that Allen's position implies that (a) is true.

[Daniel Peterson]

Please see Sorenson's book for a blow-by-blow analysis of where Zarahemla was, and where the other sites in the BofM were.

Is it online?

It will probably be on-line eventually, (only) for subscribers to FARMS.

In the meantime, though, it is accessible in a revolutionary format called the Bio-Optical Knowledge System, or "book(s)." Most serious research material is actually available in that format rather than on-line, and is stored in facilities known as "libraries" or, even, sold in places called (appropriately enough) "bookstores." Some guy named Gutenberg came up with the "book" in what's termed "print" form, and it's really, really impressive.

[rameumptom]

Markk,

You gotta admit that Allen has a point. Imagine if an average Christian was defending the Trinity. But the person that is going against it states: "this is not what you guys believe, rather you believe that instead." How does one defend it? No one defends that which he/she does not believe.

There are many evidences within the text of the Book of Mormon itself that shows a limited geography. Distances, population sizes, and many other things brought up within the Book of Mormon itself show that the Lehites were just one small population in the midst of others. It took large groups with women, children and flocks only a couple weeks to travel from Lamanite lands to Zarahemla near the narrow neck of land. Given they had no trails or roadways (it was wilderness they were traveling in), the distances at most would have been 500 miles in length. That is the distance from Indianapolis to Birmingham. Since they were traveling without trails, most LDS scholars believe the distance to be about 1/2 that: 250 miles. This easily shows that the Nephite lands were probably under 300 miles north to south.

Now, given such evidence from the actual text ( and it is consistent throughout the book), then why should we give any credence to someone who insists on arguing for a hemispheric model that does not fit what the Book of Mormon states itself?

Then, there are many evidences for it. While none "prove" the book to be true, they do give it credence. No archaeological evidence has been found to "prove" the Bible's miracles or Jesus' resurrection to be actual. Less than half the locations within the Bible have been discovered. Many events are discredited by science and archaeology, such as Joshua destroying Jericho, the Flood, Adam as first man living only 6000 years ago, the Exodus, etc. For example, there is no evidence of a global flood, so many scientists are now suggesting it was a local/regional phenomenon. Science shows the first man lived over 1 million years ago, and his name probably wasn't Adam. Jericho was destroyed, but not in Joshua's day. And the 6 million people of the Exodus should have left some evidence during their 40 years in the wilderness, but they didn't. As of today, they have not found David's palace. They have not found any evidence of Jesus' miracles or resurrection.

So, because there is an absence of evidence, should we then think that such things never occurred? Or perhaps we need to rethink how we understand the Bible, and realize we may be misinterpreting portions of the history in it.

Joseph Smith was mocked for claiming ancient metal plates written in "reformed Egyptian." He was mocked for suggesting major cities amongst the American Indians. He taught that both the Hebrews and Native Americans had a link in things like the Tree of Life. Yet all of these things are no longer argued. We have found ancient gold plates (some were just discovered a few weeks ago, in fact). We see major cities being uncovered in Mesoamerica. The Tree of Life was a major belief of both the Hebrews and the Mayans. We now have examples of Egyptian written in reformed ways: such as Demotic script.

Critics have laughed at the number of times "it came to pass" is found in the BoM. Yet, one of the most common glyphs on Mayan stelae is "utiy" - "it came to pass."

Lehi's world of 600 BC is now found by Margaret Barker and other non-LDS Biblical scholars to be (in her own words) "spot on."

Joseph has ancient Year Rites, Hebrew parallelism/chiasmus, and even ancient psalmic patterns in the BoM. Nephi's Psalm in 2 Nephi 4 is parallel to a psalm in the Community Rule scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Are we going to suggest that Joseph somehow had a copy of a document that no one else had access to until 1947 ( a century after Joseph's death). Actually, some anti-Mormons have had the nerve to actually suggest such things: Joseph must have had an amazing library of ancient tomes hidden away from the rest of the world. This library would have included: several of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Egyptian names and lore, the world's only Egyptian dictionary - since Champollion was just finishing his translation of hieroglyphics when the translation of the BoM was going on, a copy of the ancient DSS Book of Enoch so he could get the name Mahujah from it to place in the Book of Moses, ancient traditions on Abraham and Joseph of Egypt that few knew about in Joseph Smith's day, and on and on and on. Joseph would have had to have maps of ancient Arabia, so he could find out where the Arabian Bountiful and Nahom existed.

Amazingly, the Smith family that dwelled on the poverty line, had a better library of ancient documents than the best universities in Europe. There can be no other logical explanation for all the direct hits Joseph Smith made in his book. At least no other logical explanation for the anti-Mormon.

What is more impossible: Joseph Smith having access to so many ancient documents and putting the information within them into a coherent book of almost 600 pages, with a 3rd grade education by the time of his 24th birthday; or that God gave him the information? If a person rejects God's intercession, then we must allow that there is even less evidence for the miracles in the Bible, and must therefore reject it out of hand, also. Are you willing to become an atheist?

[rameumptom]

Please see Sorenson's book for a blow-by-blow analysis of where Zarahemla was, and where the other sites in the BofM were.

Is it online?

It will probably be on-line eventually, (only) for subscribers to FARMS.

In the meantime, though, it is accessible in a revolutionary format called the Bio-Optical Knowledge System, or "book(s)." Most serious research material is actually available in that format rather than on-line, and is stored in facilities known as "libraries" or, even, sold in places called (appropriately enough) "bookstores." Some guy named Gutenberg came up with the "book" in what's termed "print" form, and it's really, really impressive.

Dan, Dan, Dan....

How many times must you show your ignorance of history to the anti-Mormons? Gutenberg did NOT invent the book. There were printed books (made on non-moveable type machines) around long before he was born.

Gutenberg, as any freshman anti-Mormon could tell you, invented the classic "Police Academy" series.

The things we must do to keep these uber-intellectuals on the right track!

[rameumptom]

Markk:

Everybody here is not a "scholar" and these questions really should not be that tuff. I asked you where it says that in the BoM that others mixed with the Nephites and Lamanite's, thats a fair question Allen.

There is direct and indirect evidence.

First, the Nephites joined with the Mulekites, a non-Lehite group. That is direct evidence that they mixed with others. With this mixing, the Nephites suddenly started having ancient Jaredite names and activities (robbers, intrigue, secret combinations, etc). The Book of Mormon describes the Mulekites as having dwelt in the Jaredite lands for centuries prior to their Nephite encounter, and moved south of the narrow neck of land perhaps as recently as 50 years prior to King Mosiah I discovering them. They had lost their Hebrew language (picking up the Jaredite language) and learned their culture, which they then passed on to the Nephites. Even with adding the Mulekites to their numbers, the Nephites are still outnumbered by the Lamanites. The Lamanites easily absorb and welcome other groups into their midst. Some non-Lamanites become kings of the Lamanites.

Earlier, indirect evidences show that there was previous mixing. Nephi states that within 20 years of arriving in the new world, they built a temple on the level of Solomon's. How 20 people could build such a large temple in such a short time is impossible. However, if they had encountered others and integrated with them, the temple becomes a likely possibility. This period also discusses wars. How do you have "wars" with just a few dozen people?

So, a few actual examples of mixing are mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Not all are mentioned, because the book's purpose is not to be a history, but a spiritual record. Nephi even commands those who write after him to keep the historical portions to a minimum. There are several centuries that are covered in the space of just a few pages. Not much room to discuss history in such instances.

I hope this helps.

[awyatt]

Allow me the liberty of addressing your comments a bit out of order...

Markk said: If you think I'm going to spent 40 dollars on a book that when I check it out he can't even get his directions right, your nuts, but if you could give me a logical explanation for his findings on direction I just might.

In other words you want me to buy the book, read it, tell you what it says, and then maybe you'll read it. Gottcha. (Although it does confirm why you aren't willing to go to the source and see what the author has to say, preferring, instead, to read anti-Mormon caricatures of what the author said. Cheaper; easier; more comforting.)

Markk said: ...at the same time the time you spent giving me this advice, you could have just given me simple proof texts so i can try to see your point.

You still don't understand. I can't give you "proof text." Why take my word for what another author says? Why not go read it yourself?

Markk said: I asked you where it says that in the BoM that others mixed with the Nephites and Lamanite's, thats a fair question Allen. And I believe it is a fair position to take that it is a false premise in that in my 34 years of being a member of the church it was never taught to me and what was taught was in direct contridiction of your current LDS thought.

OK; let

[JNclone]

awyatt:

With that said, we can look for evidences--implications--in the religious record as to whether there were others around. Let me give you a very simple example of how the text does not support an isolationist view. According to the text, shortly after Lehi's party arrived in the New World, he died. Shortly after that, the Nephites and Lamanites separated themselves from each other. Let's say that of the original party of, perhaps, 30 people, two died (Lehi and Sariah). Of the remaining 28, let's say there was an even split between Nephites and Lamanites. Thus, 14 Nephites separated themselves into the wilderness, so they weren't killed by the Lamanites. All of these individuals included husbands, wives, and their children. (I

[awyatt]

JNClone said: I do not want to seem rude or disrespectful, but is not another interpretation of all this that the text is a fiction, written by an author who has not troubled himself overmuch about the plausibility of the numbers in his story?

Sure; that is always an interpretation--and I don't consider such interpretations rude or disrespectful. It is, however, an interpretation that I reject, even while I accept that others may embrace it.

JNClone said: We must always remember, must we not, that this is a book that can only be believed in if we accept Joseph Smith's story that it was delivered to him by an angel.

It depends, of course, on what you mean by "can only be believed." I know of people who reject the "angel delivered it" idea while still believing in the teachings of the book itself.

JNClone said: Of course if we accept the angel, the text is divinely guaranteed and the numbers must be explained away somehow.

I'm not sure what you mean by "divinely guaranteed." The scriptures (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants) contain several stories where people were visited by angels, yet they still did not accept such visitations as a divine guarantee of anything.

I also don't agree that things must be "explained away somehow." I do think that we can find acceptable explanations for instances of the divine, regardless of what scripture we are talking about. This must occur whether the book was delivered by an angel or not. (Witness all the folks who, over the years, have attempted to explain various stories in the Bible that otherwise defy explanation.)

JNClone said: But once angels come into it, could they not have helped build temples too? Everything can be explained that way.

Sure, it could be said that angels can do anything, assuming that what they do is consistent with God's will. However, by and large God works through natural means to achieve His goals. It is much more reasonable to look at those natural means first, without saying "an angel did it" in all instances.

For example, if someone accepts the idea that Lehi and his family were real and that they had children, we must figure out what makes sense in relation to the record of Lehi's children. We can't say "well, an angel provided the extra wives for Jacob's polygamous compatriots." Instead, we have to look for explanations that make sense.

-Allen

[JNclone]

awyatt:

QUOTE

JNClone said:

We must always remember, must we not, that this is a book that can only be believed in if we accept Joseph Smith's story that it was delivered to him by an angel.

It depends, of course, on what you mean by "can only be believed." I know of people who reject the "angel delivered it" idea while still believing in the teachings of the book itself.

I mean 'believed' in the literal and grammatical sense, as a record very largely consistent with what actually happened. (No postmodernists allowed in this discussion for the moment, OK?)

It is logically possible (in the sense of not being self-contradictory) to claim that one agrees with, say, the moral content of the statements ascribed to some personage in the Book of Mormon while disbelieving Joseph Smith's account of how the book came to him. However I think that it would be a very strange person who could disbelieve Joseph Smith on this point, but still accept the Book of Mormon as an independent and authoritative source of moral or religious teaching.

It is not just that the positive authority of the book as a divinely validated text would have been removed if it was not really delivered by an angel and attested by the conferral of miraculous powers of translation; worse, its supposed translator (absent any other explanation of the book's origin) would be exposed as a pious fraudster or at best sadly self-deluded. From such a prophet one would not seek teachings of any kind, even if one happened coincidentally to agree with some of the words he put into the mouths of his fictional characters.

To me it seems that no angel means no LDS church, in the same way that if the angel Gabriel did not deliver the Quran to Mohammmed from God, there can be no Islam.