Any new evidence for the historical account of the Book of Mormon?

Billy · February 6, 2009

Billy states,

Why do you feel that there are lots of things that help support the history of the Bible, but little (to none) that support the Book of Mormon? (Things like people, places, ancient manuscripts) Do you feel that God may be hiding the evidence?

LifeOnaPlate replies,

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation born of a confident ignorance of important information.

LifeOnaPlate may be right that I may have an "ignorance of important information". I want to give him a chance to help me learn some of this new evidence. (Note I would of ask him in the other thread, but I was warned not to further derail that thread)

1. Any ancient manuscript evidence prior to Joseph Smith

2. Any known cities from the Book of Mormon that correspond to cities in the Americas?

3. Any archeological evidence around the Hill Cumorah in New York?

4. Any evidence of the Lamanites or Nephites in archeological finds?

thesometimesaint · February 6, 2009

Billy:

1. Any ancient manuscript evidence prior to Joseph Smith.

Sure. We have Homer, Plato, the ancient (India)Indian manuscripts, Gautama Buddha, and few more.

2. We may have found Zarahemla, but as there was no continuous cultural references. It wouldbe extremely difficult to point to a modern city and say this was a Nephite or Lamanite city.

3. No. Because the Hill Cumorah in the BoM is not the same hill as is in New York.

4. Yes. But at this time they are indistinguishable from the surrounding culture.

Joseph Antley · February 6, 2009

Nahom seems to me to be pretty good evidence. The Hebraisms in the text are also good, and I've always found Joseph's perfect description of a volcanic eruption to be impressive (especially since he slyly didn't mention in the text exactly what natural disaster it was).

Billy · February 6, 2009

Billy:
1. Any ancient manuscript evidence prior to Joseph Smith.
Sure. We have Homer, Plato, the ancient (India)Indian manuscripts, Gautama Buddha, and few more.
2. We may have found Zarahemla, but as there was no continuous cultural references. It wouldbe extremely difficult to point to a modern city and say this was a Nephite or Lamanite city.
3. No. Because the Hill Cumorah in the BoM is not the same hill as is in New York.
4. Yes. But at this time they are indistinguishable from the surrounding culture.

I know that a lot of people believe in the two Cumorah theory, but historically that was not true according to the Joseph Fielding Smith quote below.

"LOCALE OF CUMORAH, RAMAH, AND RIPLIANCUM. This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. It is for this reason that evidence is here presented to show that it is not only possible that these places could be located as the Church has held during the past century, but that in very deed such is the case.

It is known that the Hill Cumorah where the Nephites were destroyed is the hill where the Jaredites were also destroyed. This hill was known to the Jaredites as Ramah. It was approximately near to the waters of Ripliancum, which the Book of Ether says, "by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all." Mormon adds: "And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents round about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites."

EARLY BRETHREN LOCATE CUMORAH IN WESTERN NEW YORK. It must be conceded that this description fits perfectly the land of Cumorah in New York, as it has been known since the visitation of Moroni to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for the hill is in the proximity of the Great Lakes and also in the land of many rivers and fountains. Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon." Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3 Chapter 12

smac97 · February 6, 2009

Billy states,
Why do you feel that there are lots of things that help support the history of the Bible, but little (to none) that support the Book of Mormon? (Things like people, places, ancient manuscripts) Do you feel that God may be hiding the evidence?
LifeOnaPlate replies,
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation born of a confident ignorance of important information.
LifeOnaPlate may be right that I may have an "ignorance of important information". I want to give him a chance to help me learn some of this new evidence.

I suspect you'll now fabricate a list of demands tailored to suit your narrow worldview.

1. Any ancient manuscript evidence prior to Joseph Smith

And here it is!

There is a fair amount of evidence for the Gold Plates. There are numerous eyewitnesses who saw them, handled them, etc.

But since these witnesses were contemporaneous with, and not "prior to," Joseph Smith, you'll discount this evidence out-of-hand.

Or will you prove me wrong? I hope so.

2. Any known cities from the Book of Mormon that correspond to cities in the Americas?

There are some good informed guesses, but nothing with any measurable degree of certainty.

This has been addressed many, many times, by the way.

Louis Midgley, for example, has pointed out the flaw in this line of reasoning:

Wilson first strives to discredit the Book of Mormon by unfavorably comparing the present state of knowledge about ancient Nephite sites with the state of knowledge about biblical sites. He begins his discussion of Book of Mormon geography by proclaiming that "one might expect that determining the geographical setting of the Book of Mormon lands would be a fairly simple undertaking." He provides no evidence or analysis to indicate why this dubious assumption should be accepted.

Nor has Billy.

In fact, quite the opposite is true. There are several notable examples where precise reconstruction of archaic geographies has proven difficult if not impossible.
The Bible itself is a case in point. For example, modern sites for only 55 per cent of the place names mentioned in the Bible have been identified â??and this from the most carefully scrutinized and studied book in the world.

This is a point that critics never address: They have unreasonable assumptions and expectations about the state of Mesoamerican archaeology and what archaeology can and cannot prove.

More from Hamblin:

For example, where is Mt. Sinai? There are over twenty candidates. What is the route taken by the Israelites in the Exodus? Again, there are many different theories. These and many other issues of biblical geography are all hotly disputed. Furthermore, the fact that there is widespread agreement on many questions of geography is simply an indication that scholarly consensus has been achieved but not necessarily that the consensus is correct.
...
While all scholars now agree that the Norsemen did indeed discover and temporarily colonize North America in the eleventh century, the precise location of the "Vinland" of the sagas is hotly disputed with nearly a dozen candidates ranging between "Hudson Bay and the state of Florida." If precise geographical unanimity cannot be reached by scholars in these and many other areas, why should the analysis of Book of Mormon geography be "a fairly simple matter"?
In fact, comparing the current state of geographical knowledge of the Book of Mormon and the Bible is a false analogy. As Professor Aharoni tells us:
In the final analysis the most certain identifications [of biblical place names] are still those dependent upon preservation of the ancient name, albeit with careful examination of written sources and archaeological data. Out of the approximately 475 place names mentioned in the Bible only about 262 have been identified with any degree of certainty, i.e., 55 per cent. Of these 190 are based upon preservation of the name, viz. 40 per cent of the over-all total. . . . Only 72 places (15 per cent of the over-all total) have been identified in situations where the ancient name is not to be found somewhere in the vicinity, of which only about half carry a degree of certainty, the remainder being more or less conjectural.
In other words, without the continuity of place names between biblical and modern times, only about 36 of the 475 biblical place names could be identified with certainty. But in fact those 36 are identifiable largely because it is possible to triangulate their relationship to known sites, moving from the known to the unknown. It is only because there are numerous biblical sites known with certainty through the continuity of place names that these other 36 sites can be located.
The situation in ancient Mesopotamia is precisely the same. "The inscriptions and administrative documents from Presargonic Lagash have left us hundreds of place names and names of watercourses, yet only a small number can be identified with precision. Others can be put in the general vicinity of some known place, but the vast majority remain only vaguely situated at best."

Read the whole thing.

3. Any archeological evidence around the Hill Cumorah in New York?

Why would you expect to find significant archeological evidence around the Hill Cumorah in New York?

4. Any evidence of the Lamanites or Nephites in archeological finds?

Perhaps. As with toponyms, we may have already identified some ancient civilizations that were Lamanites and/or Nephites, but we don't know them by those appellations.

-Smac

Billy · February 6, 2009

Billy
1. Any ancient manuscript evidence prior to Joseph Smith
smac97
And here it is!
There is a fair amount of evidence for the Gold Plates. There are numerous eyewitnesses who saw them, handled them, etc.
But since these witnesses were contemporaneous with, and not "prior to," Joseph Smith, you'll discount this evidence out-of-hand.
Or will you prove me wrong? I hope so.

I am not saying that you did not have "eyewitnesses". My point is that you do not have any ancient physical manuscript evidence for the Book of Mormon. No Gold Plates and no ancient manuscript evidence.

Billy
2. Any known cities from the Book of Mormon that correspond to cities in the Americas?
smac97
In other words, without the continuity of place names between biblical and modern times, only about 36 of the 475 biblical place names could be identified with certainty. But in fact those 36 are identifiable largely because it is possible to triangulate their relationship to known sites, moving from the known to the unknown. It is only because there are numerous biblical sites known with certainty through the continuity of place names that these other 36 sites can be located.

OK so we have just under 10% of the cities mentioned in the Bible that we can be certain about.

How many cities in the Book of Mormon can you be certain about?

Billy
3. Any archeological evidence around the Hill Cumorah in New York?
smac97
Why would you expect to find significant archeological evidence around the Hill Cumorah in New York?

""LOCALE OF CUMORAH, RAMAH, AND RIPLIANCUM. This modernistic theory of necessity, in order to be consistent, must place the waters of Ripliancum and the Hill Cumorah some place within the restricted territory of Central America, notwithstanding the teachings of the Church to the contrary for upwards of 100 years. Because of this theory some members of the Church have become confused and greatly disturbed in their faith in the Book of Mormon. It is for this reason that evidence is here presented to show that it is not only possible that these places could be located as the Church has held during the past century, but that in very deed such is the case.

It is known that the Hill Cumorah where the Nephites were destroyed is the hill where the Jaredites were also destroyed. This hill was known to the Jaredites as Ramah. It was approximately near to the waters of Ripliancum, which the Book of Ether says, "by interpretation, is large, or to exceed all." Mormon adds: "And it came to pass that we did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents round about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains; and here we had hope to gain advantage over the Lamanites."

EARLY BRETHREN LOCATE CUMORAH IN WESTERN NEW YORK. It must be conceded that this description fits perfectly the land of Cumorah in New York, as it has been known since the visitation of Moroni to the Prophet Joseph Smith, for the hill is in the proximity of the Great Lakes and also in the land of many rivers and fountains. Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon." Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3 Chapter 12

Bill “Papa” Lee · February 6, 2009

Billy states,
Why do you feel that there are lots of things that help support the history of the Bible, but little (to none) that support the Book of Mormon? (Things like people, places, ancient manuscripts) Do you feel that God may be hiding the evidence?

On thing I have learned is that...just because we know "some" of the places (about 2/3's) where the Bible events took place does not mean that we know the events unfolded as described. These "event's" do not show that "Biblical Doctrine" is true. We know the events of the Koran and where they took place but reject it's not Biblical teachings concerning the divinity of Christ.

Lightbearer · February 6, 2009

Why should there be? Does archeological evidence prove the truth of the Bible? Is the fact that they are "historically" possible prove their validity? Note the following is not talking about "ancient documents" or "historical artifacts" to prove validity:

(Luke 1:1-4) "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

He then continues his writings thus:

(Acts 1:1-4) "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me."

Note here he is referring to the eyewitnesses of these things being more important than the "historical evidence" of scholars of others who demand physical proofs. A bloody cross or a crown of thorns does not prove the existence of Christ or the fact of His resurrection. Although some point to the "shroud" as a physical "proof" it is still disputed by many and thus has no real converting value. That is why the testimony of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon were so valuable and the Book of Mormon itself is a stunning piece of evidence, it had to come from somewhere. Also one of the reasons for the restoration was so that "faith might increase in the earth" so obviously if God were to bring forth undeniable facts (the type that Atheists must accept) then where would be the test of faith required of those who follow Christ. Jesus constantly complained of His disciples "oh ye of little faith." I expect this type of "archeological proof" demands from Lugi or the Dude, but from someone who claims a belief in the Bible... please.

Billy · February 6, 2009

Why should there be? Does archeological evidence prove the truth of the Bible? Is the fact that they are "historically" possible prove their validity?

I agree with you and Pa Pa that a historical account does not prove the spiritual events within that historical account. With that being said, I do think that it is important that a book that claims to be a true historic record, is a true historic record. If you can't trust the historic aspect, why should you trust the spiritual aspect?

But this is not the thrust of this thread. I specifically asked about the historic aspect of the Book of Mormon, and the reply that I got from LifeOnaPlate was that I had "ignorance of important information." So I am seeking what this important infomation that he was talking about