The Bible versus the Book of Mormon

[Scott Gordon]

It is a series of books much like the Left Behind series. I agree that it isn't a place where you would study theology. However, it does show what the "masses" seem to accept and believe.

If you ask about the LGT, I think most Mormons would say "huh"? But if you asked if the Nephites and Lamanites were a small group in MesoAmerica, I think most Mormons would say they agree with that.

But I could be wrong. After all, I am only thinking popular novels. Who knows how much it really sinks in.

Scott

[rameumptom]

Hi Allen,

First we need to qualify your statement,

So, what am I to make of all this? I keep talking to you in the hope that further knowledge (if you are indeed seeking such) will bring you to a point where you can at least recognize that you understand why the LDS believe the way they do. If you are not interested in such an understand, though, you should come right out and say so.

I assure you your veiw on this is not the LDS veiw, it is a select group that believes and teaches this, more than 99% wouldn't have a clue, they might agree with you if asked in a forum like this, but only because I disagree with the LDS faith as a whole. If I am incorrect, give me a reference to the "offical" view you hold by the church. and to be fair 99.999 percent of Ev's wouldn't even know what a Nephite was, let alone what we are discussing. I have a brother who is a bishop and has worked at BYU for 25 years or so and thinks LDS scholarship is certainly not main stream and doesn't have much use for it, He is as TBM as they come. so lets just call it Mark's view and Allens view

So Allen"s view is this in a nut shell, correct me if I'm wrong. After the split there was such a small group of Nephites that, whether or not they intermixed with other people, in the years to follow all culture from the Old world would have been lost and they would have developed a culture of either their own, or a mixed culture of there own and the people they have mixed with. Therefore, there is no way of knowing what "we' could/would find, verify, or placing it as a "BoM' land antiquity, place or culture. And, the BoM is sacred and religoues by nature and doesn't offer enough data at face value to make anything more than a assumption.

Fair, please correct me if i do not understand and tell me what my view is?

Mark

John 1:12

Markk,

There is a problem with your logic here. Just because a group of people believe something, doesn't make it so. For example, some Church leaders (including Brigham Young and Bruce R McConkie) believed that the blacks would not receive the priesthood in mortality. They taught this for over a century, and the vast majority of members believed it. But it could not be found in the text of the scriptures, so it was their traditional interpretation. When the revelation on the priesthood came in 1978, Elder McConkie was present. I heard him state that it was his most sublime experience. He pronounced that any statements by any Church leaders present or past was to be forgotten when compared to the light of new revelation. "Forget all that has been stated" was his counsel.

The idea behind living prophets, is we gain light and truth, line upon line, precept upon precept. We do not (or should not) have creeds that dogmatically keep us fixed within a little box of perception. There are some doctrines that are clearly demarcated, and those we stand firm upon (see the Articles of Faith for the majority of those key doctrines). The rest is inspired teaching. Even Joseph Smith went back to previous revelations and updated them when he received new revelation that updated/refined a previous teaching. He saw no problem in this, and neither do I.

The living prophets have not spoken on this topic. Yet, the idea of LGT comes to the LDS population today through FARMS, which started as a private group and now is an official branch of the Church's leading university. They have not been discouraged on talking about the LGT. In fact, in a recent FARMS publication, one noted LDS professor stated that the LGT is "fact", not theory.

The members that I share the LGT and the idea of other peoples here with, don't have a problem with the concepts, once one shows them the issues with distances, ability to perform certain tasks (build Nephi's temple), etc. That suggests to me that they are more open minded on this than you think, and that they just haven't had anyone share with them anything beyond the basic tradition.

[rameumptom]

Allen wrote:

Your view, if I gather correctly from our discussion, is that the Lehites entered a pristine, unspoiled hemisphere in which there were no other peoples. (You seem to believe that every last Jaredite died before the Lehites arrived.) The Lehites then grew to be as numerous as the sands of the sea and covered the entire hemisphere from Point Barrow, Alaska, to the southern tip of South America. You believe that every Native American, regardless of tribe or location in the hemisphere, is descended either from Lehi, Ishmael, or Zoram. You believe that these people built many cities, went into battle riding wheeled chariots pulled by horses, mined tons of metal to make armor and armaments for those battles, and built machines to do much of their work.

I probably left a few things out, but I think that is the gist of what I've gathered that you believe.

Mark wrote:

No, that couldn't be farther from the truth Allen, I don't believe any of that stuff, I am just telling you what the Bom says, and it says almost everything you wrote, and yet you are saying I'm wrong for quoting these things.

Mark

john 1;12

Mark,

Actually, it isn't necessarily what the BoM states, but one's interpretation of what it states. It is all too easy for us to liken writings to ourselves and put our own world view into the center of that writing. We read "narrow neck of land" and assume it is the Panama Canal area, because that is what we can quickly see on a map. Yet, most members don't take the time to see if a person can actually cross it in a day and a half, as the BoM requires. Why? Because that is not what is important to most LDS. It is the doctrine, the spiritual information, that causes them to study it, not the geography.

There is a major difference between eisegesis and exegesis. Early (and many current) members and leaders have used eisegesis to understand the scriptures. Only in the past 50 years have more and more LDS scholars been primed to try and understand the text on its own terms and according to the world view of ancient Israel and ancient New World. It is too easy to see the term "armor" and assume it means metal breastplates, when it can just as easily be leather. History is full of such interpretations and misinterpretations between cultures and languages, because we all have a tendency to interpret the evidence based upon our own perceptions and world view. In the Deep South 150 years ago, blacks were considered Biblically inferior to whites. How many Baptists still use the Bible to explain why blacks should be slaves? It definitely is not the major interpretation anymore, even though it was pre-Civil War. IOW, world views can change, and with that change comes new interpretations of the key documents we use.

The Constitution was considered by Jefferson to be a delimiter on the power of the Feds. Today, we have given much power to the Feds using the same document, but interpreted differently. Who's interpretation is most correct? In the same vein, whose interpretation of the Bible and BoM is most correct? Is it the believer's, or the non-believer's?

[Neighbor]

Quote from starting link:

"William G. Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, believes that the Bible is historical. Nevertheless, he notes:

The

[urroner]

In the early days of the Christian church, IIRC, wasn't it "doctrine" that one had to become a Jew before becoming a Christian which included getting circumcised if one was a man. But along comes Paul and he changed that all.

Just becaue the majority believes something and the high and mighty, like the early Apostles, taught it also, does it make it right Markk? Shoot, didn't Paul even teach that women's hair was full of semen and that was why it was to be long and that's in the Bible.

[Neighbor]

Urroner, ever open an exhaustive concordance of the Bible and look up "do" and "doeth"? I find much faith in hearing it when Jesus said it. If were were about knowing the "do's" of Jesus we would be much better off than worrying about jabbing about what we think differently about the apostle Paul.

(semen in the hair isn't in my translation)

[urroner]

So Neighbor, are you saying that we shouldn't pray about the truthfulness of all things, but of only some things and go completely by blind faith on the truthfulness of the Bible and how you interpret it?

Is it wrong to pray and ask God about the truthfulness of anything and everything if we desire or will God condemn us for asking Him questions?

BTW, did Christ ever tell us not to pray about the truthfulness of all things? I've read the Bible several times and have never been able to locate any scripture that indicated that he did. Maybe I'm just interpreting the Bible wrong or can't understand KJV English well enough, but if you do and know of a scripture in the Bible where Jesus told us not to pray about the truthfulness of all things, would you please point it out to me and the rest of us poor, misled, and misguided Mormons and then maybe this hoopla about praying about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon could once and for all have the final nail hammered into its coffin.

[urroner]

Urroner, ever open an exhaustive concordance of the Bible and look up "do" and "doeth"? I find much faith in hearing it when Jesus said it. If were were about knowing the "do's" of Jesus we would be much better off than worrying about jabbing about what we think differently about the apostle Paul.

(semen in the hair isn't in my translation)

Neighbor, go to these sites and see what I mean about semen and women's long hair:

Veiled Exhortations Regarding the Veil: Ethos as the Controlling Factor in Moral Persuasion (1 Cor 11:2-16)

"Paul

[awyatt]

Markk,

Something you said in your last post really struck me. Let me pull out two of your statements:

Markk said: To tell you the truth Allen, most are just trying to take care of their families and are not the least bit interested and could really care less. And allot posters here just follow what you guys say, if they were isolated from you guys they would be lost in explaining this stuff.

Markk said: How would you know what a narrow neck of land really is to these people?

I think that you hit the nail on the head with these two quotes, without really knowing it. In the first, you say essentially that people, in isolation, "could really care less" and that those isolated people "would be lost in explaining this stuff." In the second you ask about the narrow neck of land and what it really meant *to the Lehites.*

Remember, Markk, these Lehites were isolated. We aren't isolated, so we can't expect them to have known what we know. If you can see what isolation does to the understanding of the first group, can you imagine what isolation does to the understanding of the second? Heck, the Lehites were even more isolated in their time than the isolated Mormons are today. They didn't have Internet, phone, fast travel means, airplanes, satellites, photography, computers, laser measuring devices, etc. They had only their five senses, unamplified by any technology we so much take for granted.

So, understanding their isolation and their lack of sophistication, what are we to make of their statements about "the whole land" or "the face of the whole land?" What are we to understand when they use relative terms such as "narrow" or "far distance?" How are we supposed to interpret the text when it speaks of "numberless hosts" of "the whole earth?"

That is precisely the point of the scholars; we must think in terms of *their* culture, not ours. If the Mormons you cite don't think about these things, does that mean they are right? Even if in their unthinking state they constitute the majority of Mormons? Nope. Doesn't work that way.

Does that help any at all?

Markk said: No, that couldn't be farther from the truth Allen, I don't believe any of that stuff, I am just telling you what the Bom says, and it says almost everything you wrote, and yet you are saying I'm wrong for quoting these things.

Just what I thought. You don't believe it, but you insist that it represents what the book says (even when it doesn't), so you thereby insist that I must believe it. Gottcha.

-Allen

[Markk]

Hi Allen,

Boy, we are getting way to deep here, but I'll bite.

Just what I thought. You don't believe it,

LOL...did you at any point believe that I believed what the BoM teaches, whether directly or indirectly?

but you insist that it represents what the book says (even when it doesn't)

Thats called exegesis, letting a book, paper, or document interpret itsself. A inductive study would be a observation of the text, then a interpretation of the text based on the text it's self, then apply application or theory based on that process. There can be external evidence's that help in this, but they must always be complementery (agree with) to the text, and never contidictory (disagree with) the text. So, I do not insist, the text it's self does.

so you thereby insist that I must believe it. Gottcha

No, I can't do that, I am certainly trying to show you that the BoM demands a certain amout of external evidence, and to apply LGT to the text is not being true to the text, and that the process I see from those who hold the LGT view is one arrived at by isogesis, and not through a exegenical study of the text.

I think that you hit the nail on the head with these two quotes, without really knowing it. In the first, you say essentially that people, in isolation, "could really care less" and that those isolated people "would be lost in explaining this stuff." In the second you ask about the narrow neck of land and what it really meant *to the Lehites.*

Remember, Markk, these Lehites were isolated. We aren't isolated, so we can't expect them to have known what we know. If you can see what isolation does to the understanding of the first group, can you imagine what isolation does to the understanding of the second? Heck, the Lehites were even more isolated in their time than the isolated Mormons are today. They didn't have Internet, phone, fast travel means, airplanes, satellites, photography, computers, laser measuring devices, etc. They had only their five senses, unamplified by any technology we so much take for granted.

So, understanding their isolation and their lack of sophistication, what are we to make of their statements about "the whole land" or "the face of the whole land?" What are we to understand when they use relative terms such as "narrow" or "far distance?" How are we supposed to interpret the text when it speaks of "numberless hosts" of "the whole earth?"

That is precisely the point of the scholars; we must think in terms of *their* culture, not ours. If the Mormons you cite don't think about these things, does that mean they are right? Even if in their unthinking state they constitute the majority of Mormons? Nope. Doesn't work that way.

Does that help any at all?

Thats allot of thought there Allen, and thats cool, but I could respond it allot of different way's to it. But Bottom line is the Book of Mormon, and what its says about these people, when it clearly says they had steel swords, and metal weapons and tools and machinery, then isolated or not, we would find evidence of that. or when it says that there were cities upon cities built of cement and wood, we would find evidence of that on the scale described. And when it says that people were from one sea to another , then to be true to the text, that is what was meant, you just take out part of it, as the LGT does, and run with what works, as the narrow leck of land theory is more or less the whole area. One can't just use the sea to the east and west and say that is it.

That is precisely the point of the scholars; we must think in terms of *their* culture, not ours. If the Mormons you cite don't think about these things, does that mean they are right? Even if in their unthinking state they constitute the majority of Mormons? Nope. Doesn't work that way.

No it doesn't make them right, just true to the text. A text could be wrong, and you can be as sincere as you want and still be wrong because the text it's self is wrong. And to be fair, a person could be right, and the text wrong if they move away from the text. But then one would have to admit the text is wrong, and in the BoM case that would mean everybody is wrong, which is my position.

If there is one question you answer on this post answer this, if what you say is true and these people were limited to this small area, and were isolated as you claim, then how would they even know there was a North Sea and a South Sea?

Mark

John 1;12

[Brant Gardner]

Mark:

you just take out part of it, as the LGT does, and run with what works, as the narrow leck of land theory is more or less the whole area.

You appear to be misinformed about both the way the LGT has been developed and how much data it covers. I might suggest John L. Sorenson's The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: a Source Book (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1990). He lists over 400 specific statements about geography in the Book of Mormon and notes that any geographic theory must account for all of them. Not only does he do that, he does so by accounting for distances and interrelationships.

That is rather far removed from your suggestion that it "run with what works." That it works for over 400 hundred separate but interrelated data requires more than luck and a couple of lucky hits.

[Markk]

Hi Barnt,

Why on his map is the Northward land to the east, the south ward land to the west, and the west sea south, and the and the east sea to the north, how does that work?

mark

John 1:12

[Brant Gardner]

Mark:

Read Sorenson. He explains it. However, there is another explanation that you may prefer - it places the Book of Mormon in the same area, but looks at the directions a little differently. Larry Poulsen's site.

There is a fairly extensive literature on culural definitions of directions. In one Mesoamerican community, north is "up," that is vertical to the ground. In several Mesoamerican documents, the progenitors of the Quiche and Cakchiquel are called the "Western Lords," and they clearly come from Tula - which is much more North than West.

I think there are aspects of the geography of the Book of Mormon that are open to refinement, and Poulsen's site is an excellent example. Since he still places the main action in the same river valley, it doesn't invalidate Sorenson at all. However, if you follow Sorenson, there are still plenty of cultural data to suggest that his directions are not unusual at all.

So - we still have over 400 internally consistent data points that he covers. Your only objection is to an externally imposed definition of what north and south, etc. must mean. Since that doesn't make either textual or cultural sense, Sorenson's work still stands as a significant achievement of exegesis.

[Markk]

HI Brant,

Exogesis of what? The BoM? are your saying the BoM has at least 400 references that can be pin pointed to this area?

The Jews and the Bible certainly understood what North and South were, as does Nephi 21:12. So if he (sorenson) did this through exogesis of the BoM, what proof text would indicate that the Hebrew understanding of North, was actually something other than the Old World understanding?

Mark

John 1:12

[Dale]

Why would they need the Liahone which worked according to faith if they knew what north & south were. Plus those Jews in the Bible who knew North & South were mostly stuck on land, and were never far from home. I do not know from reading the Bible where North & South is. I need a modern compass. They lost the Hebrew understanding. I do understand a little of the compass, but without one I could be going east when I am actually going west.

What if when they got here they anandoned the Hebrew understanding of directions because it was not their final authority?

2 Nephi 21:12 is a from Isaiah which used a different idea of directions than Dr. Sorenson suggests the Nephites used.

[Markk]

Hi Dale,

Then why does it say north and south in the BoM? If they (nephites etc.) thought east was north and south was west why didn't God just tell that to JS when he gave him the words to write down. Or if your of the camp that believes JS actully translated the BoM on his own then how does that work, are you saying that the reformed Eygption word for noeth actuall means west so Joseph didn't realize that?This whole thing is based on "if's" and "buts" and is not a exegesis of the text.

You want a good study dale, do a study on the church of Laodacia in Revelation, and study the archeological finds that work in those verses. Thats is a classic example of what happens when a exegesis of a text is verified by archeology and geology....let me know what you find?

Mark

John 1:12

[Zakuska]

Markk,

This whole thing is based on "if's" and "buts" and is not a exegesis of the text.

TELL me about IT!

Then why does it say north and south in the BoM? If they (nephites etc.) thought east was north and south was west why didn't God just tell that to JS when he gave him the words to write down. Or if your of the camp that believes JS actully translated the BoM on his own then how does that work, are you saying that the reformed Eygption word for noeth actuall means west so Joseph didn't realize that?

Why would God correct it? Does it have anything to do with your salvation?

Why cant the Bible figure out how many horses King solomon had?

So much for archeology.

<blush>

P.S. If you're REALLY so impressed by so called biblical archeology. I cant see why you arn't making a peep about them finding TROY by following Homers Illiad. All hail Zues!

Or Perhaps you might care to comment on the continually inhabited state of Jericho for the past 8000 years! So much for a flood... and the walls fallin down!

[Gervin]

Gervin: Word choices are made on a knowledge of the source language and its application to present-day knowledge. And "candle" could have been correctly translated "lamp" and bushel could have been correctly translated "measuring container." 

Brant: I'm not really sure what you thought the point was with this particular sentence, but you are demonstrating exactly what the issue is for the Book of Mormon. A translation can be technically anachronouse but the underlying text can be correct. The "candle" could have been correctly translated. Absolutely.

The point is, however, that it wasn't. The fact that it wasn't technically correct is an issue of translation, not of historicity. As you have just demonstrated.

You've got a couple of problems, Brant, that you're not going to be able to foist onto those that don't believe in the Book of Mormon. You only hae one authorized translation of the Bible - the KJV - well maybe two if the JST carries any validity in your mind. The KJV says candle and since it is your authorized version, your mental picture is just that. Those that aren't beholden to a single authorized translation of the Bible can pick up, as I do, versions that say "lamp" in place of candle. I can also refer back to the Hebrew and Greek if I desire a clearer picture. I'm not so sure of your ability to do that within the sanctioned translation. Secondly, you don't have a source language other than English. So, when you read "steel sword" then you must believe "steel sword." If you don't think the translation is accurate you can speculate all you want - maybe "steel sword" means "Winchester Repeating" or "fly swatter" or "Olmec club with obsidian inlay." But you can't speculate with any credibility. You don't have a source language. And the source language you claim - Reformed Egyptian - is just a phrase; it has no credibility as a language written, spoken, recorded, or known to humankind. When it comes to "translation" and "historicity" you are on the sidelines, making lots of noise, trying to appear as if you're in the game. You're not.

[Markk]

HI Zak,

TELL me about IT!

That's what I have been doing. I quote a BoM verse and the answer is something like..."But, you don't know what a steel sword looks like", or "if, they did have steel swords, where would you expect to find them? There is no evidence, just speculation.

Why would God correct it? Does it have anything to do with your salvation?

Zak, the BoM was said to be translated from Reformed Egyptian (RE), I am confident that this language would not use the words "North" and South", the Nephites did not speak English either, so if they wrote "North" in a RE symbol, or Hebrew for that matter, it wouldn't say "North", but would be a symbol, or foreign word, meaning "North", so then who ever did translate it into English, whether God or JS, why would they have purposely translated it wrong. If the Nephites or Mesoamericans did use a different directional system, that would not negate a correct translation in the accepted system of the English culture and language.

Are you saying that if it doesn't have to with salvation, the BoM is a bunch of Bull?

I'm not sure I understand that concept.

Mark

John 1:12

[Calm]

If the Nephites or Mesoamericans did use a different directional system, that would not negate a correct translation in the accepted system of the English culture and language.

You might be interested in this: Directions in Hebrew, Egyptian and Nephite Language

If this is correct, changing the usage of the Nephites would have changed the authentic nature of the text. The payoff--easier reading for modern day of nonsalvationary content--seems inadequate to me. Instead, we have something that can be looked upon as evidence for the ancient historicity of the text.

[asciikerr]

I would really appreciate it if asciikerr could comment on what was said by David Bokovoy on the subject of temples out of Jerusalem, so we can once & for all turn the page on this particular issue

[Brant Gardner]

asciikerr:

My implication is that they were not following God's commandments when they did these things.

So in addition to having to worry about the interpretation of the Book of Mormon we will need to worry about how to interpret the Bible? We may be so far apart in how historical information is read that there may be no hope. You are suggesting that post-exilic Israelite religion was normative in the pre-exilic context, in spite of the fact that there is no textual nor archaeological evidence for that save the information coming out of the exilic period (the deuteronomic history).

If you begin with that assumption, then all evidence of what Israel did before the exile suggests that it was in apostasy - but there is no evidence that there was anything else. There is evidence that there was a major change with Josiah and the creation of the deuteronomic texts.

If we are also having definition problems with when to date Deuteronomy, there won't be much of a way to come to any conclusion.

[Brant Gardner]

Markk:

You want a good study dale, do a study on the church of Laodacia in Revelation, and study the archeological finds that work in those verses. Thats is a classic example of what happens when a exegesis of a text is verified by archeology and geology....

And then look at the text and archaeology of Nazareth, John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts, 18-31. The authors note that the descriptions of Nazareth do not fit the archaeology or geology.

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

Is that it? In what way don't they match? Your defense of the BoM, because there is no evidence, is this? There is a Nazareth, the debate is about what they are finding. Go here and check out what they are finding... www.bibleinterp.com/articles/excavating_Jesus.htm

Nazareth is a real city, and it is in the bible Brant, that is not in dispute. I asked Dale to do a awesome study of some real biblical proofs, why do you feel the need to scoff it? I would think that a person that belongs to a organization that give thousands of free bibles out a year would support such evidence with joy.

Maybe you can answer the question's I asked the others, the first being "If the LGT is true and these people were isolated in this small area, then how did they know there were four seas, Allen scoffed at me when I quoted the text from the BoM that says from the seas North, South, East and West, and peopel as the sands on the beach. If they were sandwiched in a small area, how did they know there were 4 seas?

And,(if) the BoM was said to be translated from Reformed Egyptian (RE), I am confident that this language would not use the words "North" and South", the Nephites did not speak English either, so if they wrote "North" in a RE symbol, or Hebrew for that matter, it wouldn't say "North", but would be a symbol, or foreign word, meaning "North", so then who ever did translate it into English, whether God or JS, why would they have purposely translated it wrong. If the Nephites or Mesoamericans did use a different directional system, that would not negate a correct translation in the accepted system of the English culture and language?

Thanks

Mark

John 1;12

[Brant Gardner]

Mark:

The point is that there is a very uneasy interface between texts and archaeology. You are making claims for archaeology that overreach what it can do.

If they were sandwiched in a small area, how did they know there were 4 seas?

How many seas are there? There are a several answers to your question and they all depend upon understanding history, anthropology and how people write.

The most obvious answer to your question is that there were four. Our directional system has four main directions. The Mesoamerican typically had five, but the fifth was the center. Surrounding the center was a square, with the salient points at what we would call NW, NE, SW, and SE. The world was a square with four sides. Conceptually, there was an ocean on each side. The Aztec word for "world" was "surrounded by water."

The Hebrew conception of the universe had water under the land and water above the earth, held back by the firmament. The presence of conceptions about where water was in speaking of ancient conceptions of the world had much more to do with their theology than geography.

why would they have purposely translated it wrong.

Why do you think it was wrong? Are you suggesting that the only right way to conceive the world is the way we do it? Mesoamericans saw directions as a quarter radiating from the center. We see a straight line. Our north is a point, theirs a horizon. If I translate the Mesoamerican concept of that particular quadrant as "north," did I translate correctly or incorrectly?