Physical Proof for the Book of Mormon

[SeattleGhostWriter]

Yes, here is a very substantial proof regarding the Book of Mormon and the account of Christ visiting the America's. This is from a translated version of an out of print book that is on Google Books and references an ancient account that occurred prior to the Incas.

Here is the original article I wrote that includes this reference.

I have yet seen any evangelical Christian, Ex-Mormon, or member of the Counter-cult Ministry make any attempt at refuting this account. As it stands, it testifies of the reality of the account within 3rd Nephi.

Let us also not forget the reference to the Chronicler Pedro Cieza de Le

[Hughes]

Which account in 3rd Nephi? Reference please.

[nicolasconnault]

Which account in 3rd Nephi? Reference please.

I assume 3 Nephi 9-27

[Brant Gardner]

So, as Pat Benetar sang - Hit me with your best shot on refuting this.

I would urge a lot of caution in using this legend. I admit that it is out of my area of expertise, but I do know that the documentary evidence for native beliefs is thinner in South American that what we have for Central Mexico. The nature of the way legends were treated in the Spanish chronicles in Central Mexico strongly suggests caution. There, we have sufficient information to check the Spanish reports, and they are distorted.

Personally, I don't see this as having any connection to the Book of Mormon at all. I do admit that my reasons are based on Central Mexican evidence, but that evidence is, I believe, strongly suggestive that this legend has been modified by the Spanish in ways similar to those seen in Central Mexico.

Having said that, I do believe that there is good evidence for the Book of Mormon. I just don't think this is it.

[Hughes]

I assume 3 Nephi 9-27

Thanks.

[44Foxtrot]

I would urge a lot of caution in using this legend. I admit that it is out of my area of expertise, but I do know that the documentary evidence for native beliefs is thinner in South American that what we have for Central Mexico. The nature of the way legends were treated in the Spanish chronicles in Central Mexico strongly suggests caution. There, we have sufficient information to check the Spanish reports, and they are distorted.

Personally, I don't see this as having any connection to the Book of Mormon at all. I do admit that my reasons are based on Central Mexican evidence, but that evidence is, I believe, strongly suggestive that this legend has been modified by the Spanish in ways similar to those seen in Central Mexico.

Having said that, I do believe that there is good evidence for the Book of Mormon. I just don't think this is it.

Given the discussion regarding evidence that has been running on this and the other thread dealing with reasons for leaving the Church, I would be very interested to know what you would consider to be good evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Thanks.

[erichard]

Yes, here is a very substantial proof regarding the Book of Mormon and the account of Christ visiting the America's. This is from a translated version of an out of print book that is on Google Books and references an ancient account that occurred prior to the Incas.

...

Hi,

Thanks for the link. I was able to download a pdf file of the book at your link. (Just look for PDF above the text to the right.) It downloads as an image, so the search function does not work, but it still can be read, or even printed out. I appreciate google at times...

By the way, George Potter uses Viracocha legends and the Manco Capac legends to support his Peru setting for the Book of Mormon.

Richard

[Cold Steel]

The thing that would make me take another look at this legend is the part about the sun. That aspect is solely a part of the Book of Mormon tradition. Brant Gardner is right to be suspicious of Spanish renditions, especially when they speak of the virgin birth and other blatantly Christian elements. But if they speak of things like the sun disappearing, that's more something out of the Book of Mormon, not the Bible.

I, too, am ignorant of South American traditions as they relate to Spanish chroniclers, but the Nephi Project is spending a lot of time and money in Peru. Like Brant, I'm very much a Mesoamerican advocate, and I find the evidence in that part of the world more compelling. If you're interested in this particular chronicle, I suggest you contact the Nephi Project and see what they say about it. Don't stop there, though. Find other LDS sources that might offer different views. If you find enough that give it a thumbs up, use it.

I don't understand why anyone would ban you for using it. What reason did they give you when you got banned?

[Bill Hamblin]

Given the discussion regarding evidence that has been running on this and the other thread dealing with reasons for leaving the Church, I would be very interested to know what you would consider to be good evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Thanks.

Brant has written a marvelous six volume commentary on the BOM--Second Witness. I suggest you read it. If you don't, I suspect you're not really serious.

It is rather astonishing that so many critics haven't informed themselves of the serious and important scholarship on the subject, yet feel perfectly free to proclaim there is no evidence for the BOM.

[Bill Hamblin]

Given the discussion regarding evidence that has been running on this and the other thread dealing with reasons for leaving the Church, I would be very interested to know what you would consider to be good evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Thanks.

See Brant's new topic.

[caudicus]

I was hoping for some golden plates. How is this physical proof?

[dougtheavenger]

Yes, here is a very substantial proof regarding the Book of Mormon and the account of Christ visiting the America's. This is from a translated version of an out of print book that is on Google Books and references an ancient account that occurred prior to the Incas.

Here is the original article I wrote that includes this reference.

I have yet seen any evangelical Christian, Ex-Mormon, or member of the Counter-cult Ministry make any attempt at refuting this account. As it stands, it testifies of the reality of the account within 3rd Nephi.

So, as Pat Benetar sang - Hit me with your best shot on refuting this. If you disagree that this is not "physical evidence" for the Book of Mormon, then explain to us what you will consider physical evidence.

I posted this on the CARM forum and got banned (after vehemently being ridiculed by those there). I have posted this to other counter-cult ministers and they have refused to acknowledge this, nor even attempt to engage this.

Why? My thought is that it can't be refuted and actually does provide substantial evidence for the veracity of the Book of Mormon claims that it truly is a divinely inspired book that preaches, teaches, and testifies of Jesus Christ.

So, here is your challenge, and let us see what you have.

It is worth noting that critics of the church react so vehemently to the claim that Christ visited America.

[Bernard Gui]

Is anyone familiar with the Cuna Indians of Panama and their stories of Ibiorgam (spelling...)?

Bernard

[SeattleGhostWriter]

I was hoping for some golden plates. How is this physical proof?

I was hoping for Autographs of the Old and New Testament not Copies of Copies of Copies - how are 300,000 some textual variants proof?

[SeattleGhostWriter]

The thing that would make me take another look at this legend is the part about the sun. That aspect is solely a part of the Book of Mormon tradition. Brant Gardner is right to be suspicious of Spanish renditions, especially when they speak of the virgin birth and other blatantly Christian elements. But if they speak of things like the sun disappearing, that's more something out of the Book of Mormon, not the Bible.

I, too, am ignorant of South American traditions as they relate to Spanish chroniclers, but the Nephi Project is spending a lot of time and money in Peru. Like Brant, I'm very much a Mesoamerican advocate, and I find the evidence in that part of the world more compelling. If you're interested in this particular chronicle, I suggest you contact the Nephi Project and see what they say about it. Don't stop there, though. Find other LDS sources that might offer different views. If you find enough that give it a thumbs up, use it.

I don't understand why anyone would ban you for using it. What reason did they give you when you got banned?

I agree, that is what makes this account a very substantial reliability as to how it supports the Book of Mormon account of what happened prior to, during, and after the coming of Jesus Christ.

The reason I got banned, I can only guess - it referenced something people could not readily refute and therefore the moderates concocted the idea that my quoting this violated one of the rules of the forum.

[caudicus]

I was hoping for Autographs of the Old and New Testament not Copies of Copies of Copies - how are 300,000 some textual variants proof?

It was actually a serious question. I am not sure how this constitutes physical proof.

[Hughes]

SeattleGhostWriter, on 11 January 2011 - 08:46 PM, said:

I was hoping for Autographs of the Old and New Testament not Copies of Copies of Copies - how are 300,000 some textual variants proof?

It was actually a serious question. I am not sure how this constitutes physical proof.

And the copies are at least proof of an original. Where's copies for the BoM in it's original language?

[maupayman]

Its very confusing to discuss BoM evidence with LDS, given nobody seems to be able to agree where the events occured. So, now we are arguing about a Peru location for the BoM events? Perhaps, this shows how weak the overall evidence is. When believers cannot even come to a consensus on the matter, how do you hope to impress outsiders.

[Jon63]

The Book of Mormon relies totally on one test of truthfulness - reading it, praying about it, and receiving a divine reassurance from the Holy Ghost that it is a true record.

There is no other evidence supporting it.

All physical evidences and investigations end up pointing to it being most likely the product of Joseph Smiths imagination.

Even BH Roberts came to that conclusion when he physically investigated it.

If you wish to continue to believe the Book of Mormon to be what it claims to be then do not investigate it other than reading it and praying about it.

[Brant Gardner]

The Book of Mormon relies totally on one test of truthfulness - . . . There is no other evidence supporting it.

This is certainly your opinion, and I respect someone else's right to faith. However, I would object to the idea that there is no other evidence supporting it. Personally, I have seen quite a bit. I must conclude that either you are unaware of it, or that you simply dismiss it on the basis of your initial faith-statement.

All physical evidences and investigations end up pointing to it being most likely the product of Joseph Smiths imagination.

Even BH Roberts came to that conclusion when he physically investigated it.

You don't seem to know much more about Roberts than you do about the evidence for the Book of Mormon. Your statement hardly reflects his conclusions. I suspect that you haven't even read the book that his his reports in it, and I am certain you haven't read much of what happened after those reports.

If you wish to continue to believe the Book of Mormon to be what it claims to be then do not investigate it other than reading it and praying about it.

I strongly disagree. There is tremendous value in seeing the Book of Mormon in a real world location. It is quite illuminating of several aspects of the text.

[semlogo]

The Book of Mormon relies totally on one test of truthfulness - reading it, praying about it, and receiving a divine reassurance from the Holy Ghost that it is a true record.

There is no other evidence supporting it.

All physical evidences and investigations end up pointing to it being most likely the product of Joseph Smiths imagination.

Even BH Roberts came to that conclusion when he physically investigated it.

If you wish to continue to believe the Book of Mormon to be what it claims to be then do not investigate it other than reading it and praying about it.

CFR please.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And the copies are at least proof of an original.

Acutally it is only proof that there are copies of something. What that something was we have no idea. It is not even proof that there were originals. Original what?

Where's copies for the BoM in it's original language?

Moot question. YOu don't need the originals to prove that it is true.

[Vance]

And the copies are at least proof of an original.

So, then, "the copies" that we have of the Book of Mormon, "are at least proof of an original".

Thanks for supporting our position.

Where's copies for the BoM in it's original language?

Doesn't matter. We don't have the originals of the Bible either.

[cdowis]

Its very confusing to discuss BoM evidence with LDS, given nobody seems to be able to agree where the events occured. So, now we are arguing about a Peru location for the BoM events? Perhaps, this shows how weak the overall evidence is. When believers cannot even come to a consensus on the matter, how do you hope to impress outsiders.

You are confused. Who told you that we were trying to impress anyone with BOM geography?

It is scripture, and as a witness for Christ, it stands on its own.

[cdowis]

And the copies are at least proof of an original. Where's copies for the BoM in it's original language?

Perhaps in the same place as the original texts of the Bible are located. Can you show us the original stone tablets of the Ten commandments, the Ark of the Covenant. Perhaps we will also find the original texts of the BOM there as well.

So, show us the location and we shall see what else we can find.

Just curious, did you ever make it out of elementary school. Your posts betray a lack of intelligence beyond 8th grade.

Your arguments are very silly and juvenile.