Credible Evidence for the Book of Mormon

[Eldwynn]

Have you even bothered to look at these?

http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp133_precolumbian_voyages.pdf

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp195_mesoamerica.pdf

Given, By the Hand of Mormon, 2003--published by Oxford UP, no less.

I've seen one of them before. Two papers? Neither of those really supports the BOM as a history book. I think you are making it out to be more than it really is. There is no fundamental overturning in archeology going on after the BOM was translated. There never was, and there has not been yet, despite plenty of trying. Why not? Where's all those big fancy cities at?

[nicolasconnault]

I've seen one of them before. Two papers? Neither of those really supports the BOM as a history book.

Wow you are one quick reader! What's your trick?

[Eldwynn]

And nowhere has it been better but to the test than in The Book of Mormon on Trial, the epitome of scholarly research on Book of Mormon archaeology, an absolute must-read! Get your copy now!

From the website:

"The Trial of The Book of Mormon was never meant to prove The Book of Mormon true. Nothing like it ever will. God has never used material evidence to convince His children to believe His word. He has always required Faith."

That right there is why the scientific community doesn't, and shouldn't, take it seriously. Appealing to faith has serious philisophical problems (the first of which is that anyone can do it).

[nicolasconnault]

From the website:

"The Trial of The Book of Mormon was never meant to prove The Book of Mormon true. Nothing like it ever will. God has never used material evidence to convince His children to believe His word. He has always required Faith."

That right there is why the scientific community doesn't, and shouldn't, take it seriously. Appealing to faith has serious philisophical problems (the first of which is that anyone can do it).

Aw come on, Eldwynn, that was a Joke!

[Eldwynn]

Wow you are one quick reader! What's your trick?

I'm familiar with one of them. I don't think you understand my argument. If there were more Book of Mormon evidences, there would be a large uproar in the archeological community, where *eventually* the correct argument would remain. That is just how science works. This has not happened in the last couple hundred years in regards to the book of mormon. If it had, there would be a lot more in print.

[Eldwynn]

Aw come on, Eldwynn, that was a Joke!

Mmm trolls.

[nicolasconnault]

Mmm trolls.

Is humour only allowed for trolls? Check my posts, I'm no troll.

[Robert F. Smith]

And for all of your criticism of the Biblical text, it hasn't once been proven false as Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."

Despite the fact that Rabbi Glueck was active half-a-century ago, if we take his statement to be true that "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement" (you need to cite your source for this quotation) -- and bear in mind that the vast majority of modern-day Near Eastern archeologists would disagree with Glueck's statement -- we can equally well apply his statement to the Book of Mormon, since, in fact,

"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood Book of Mormon statement."

Not only has Brant Gardner listed a considerable number of anthropological parallels between Mesoamerican civilizations and those of the Book of Mormon, but there has never been an archeological discovery which has controverted a single, properly understood Book of Mormon statement.

Please cite or list any archeological sources or discoveries which actually controvert the Book of Mormon. I know of none.

[nicolasconnault]

Despite the fact that Rabbi Glueck was active half-a-century ago, if we take his statement to be true that "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement" (you need to cite your source for this quotation) -- and bear in mind that the vast majority of modern-day Near Eastern archeologists would disagree with Glueck's statement -- we can equally well apply his statement to the Book of Mormon, since, in fact,

"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood Book of Mormon statement."

Not only has Brant Gardner listed a considerable number of anthropological parallels between Mesoamerican civilizations and those of the Book of Mormon, but there has never been an archeological discovery which has controverted a single, properly understood Book of Mormon statement.

Please cite or list any archeological sources or discoveries which actually controvert the Book of Mormon. I know of none.

[tongue-in-cheek]

But.... what about all the evidence from archaeological non-findings? Surely they have some weight?

[/tongue-in-cheek]

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't know why any apologists choose to fight this fight on a message board, rather than where they SHOULD be fighting it, which is in the literature. Until more papers are published for the scientific community to scrutinize on archeological findings etc. then critics of the BOM have every right to question "evidence" that arises. If the evidence were that good, then why is the archeological community apparently so underwhelmed? I have a room mate that is majoring in archeology at the University of Washington, and he had never heard of the Book of Mormon until I explained it to him. This is a guy that breathes archeology articles and papers. If the evidence is out there, more academics would be researching it. The truth is, the evidence for a migration as described in the Book of Mormon just isn't strong enough for any government funding. If it were, rest assured that some BYU researcher has the skill to write a grant for it. There are people interested in the truth on the matter, that just don't find your arguments appealing.

It also doesn't help that the prophet of your church, who many believe is an authority on the matter, has remained quiet on the subject for many many years.

A big fallacy I see people making is the argument comparing the Book of Mormons faults to the bibles faults. It's a stupid argument, and I wish they never made it again. Yes the bible has problems, but pointing to them as supporting the Book of Mormon is an error in reasoning. There are a lot of people that don't accept the bible as free of error (non-christians) that criticize the BOM. Shouldn't your arguments be good enough to convince everyone? If the Book of Mormon is what mormons claim it is, then those arguments should stand on their own, and not rely on appealing to the bible.

You might want to reflect on the standards you are demanding, but are unwilling to employ yourself. It is at least uncivil and perhaps unkind to refer to a normal argument for a single set of standards applied to all inquiries as "stupid."

Your rhetorical question about arguments being good enough to convince everyone is rather odd. We do not live in a world in which everyone agrees about anything. Indeed, why would a Mormon prophet who is not an archeologist suddenly have anything to say about archeology??

I'm not so sure that your explanation of the Book of Mormon to your roommate was a scholarly one, nor that you have ever even read a scholarly article on either the Book of Mormon or the Bible. Otherwise you would be far more cautious about making such offhand comments.

If you have factual, substantive questions about the Bible or Book of Mormon, there are people on this thread who are capable of addressing them in a reasonable way. That is what a discussion or dialogue is all about, and is supposedly what this Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board is here for.

[Robert F. Smith]

[tongue-in-cheek]

But.... what about all the evidence from archaeological non-findings? Surely they have some weight?

[/tongue-in-cheek]

Of course they have weight, and are certainly worth discussing (on that point, I think Brant's anthropological presentation is excellent).

Meantime, I'd like to hear from Hughes on his assertion about Rabbi Glueck (zikrono lebraka). Almost half a lifetime ago, by the way, I excavated at Tell Gezer with the Nelson Glueck Biblical and Archeological School of the Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem, and have always held Glueck's exploits in very high regard -- both as an archeologist and as a World War II spy.

[Jon63]

3rd Nephi 15:17

That other sheep I have which are not of this fold them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice and there shall be one voice and there shall be one fold and one shepherd

John 10:16

And other sheep I have which are not of this fold them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice and there shall be one fold and one shepherd

Bearing in mind that these two seperate verses were spoken and written originally in two different languages and then translated is it 'credible' that the end result in English is exactly the same or was someone copying?

Stan Larson (an LDS scholar) produced an article in the 90's 'The historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the mount in 3 Nephi' in which he demonstrates that this section contains the same modern errors that the KJV contained.

Stendahl (dean of Harvard Divinity School in the 70's) produced a thesis 'the sermon on the mount and Third Nephi' in which he commented ''The biblical material behind the Book of Mormon strikes me as being in the form of the KJV...''

His thesis is supported by the fact that in 3rd Nephi 50% of the verses (246 out of 490) contain regognizable KJV quotations or phrases.

Is this 'credible' or was someone copying?

The Book of Mormon also puts forward the non Mormon view that God and Jesus are the same person:

Mosiah 15:

3. The Father because he was conceived by the power of God and the Son because of the flesh thus becoming the Father and the Son

4. And they are one God yea the very Eternal Father of Heaven and of earth

This stance does not reflect the current view of the Church - which is that God and Jesus are totally seperate beings.

Unfortunately history shows that Joseph's view changed. When the Book of Mormon was produced he was of the view that God and Jesus were the same person:

See Mosiah above

The original First Vision account written by Joseph Smith himself in which he saw one being - the Lord

And Joseph's inspired translation of Luke 10:22

The KJV

22. All things are delivered to me of my Father and no man knoweth who the Son is but the Father and who the Father is but the Son and he to whom the Son will reveal him

JST (taken from the footnotes of the LDS print of the New Testament)

...that the Son is the Father and the Father is the Son but him to whom the Son will reveal it

If the Son and the Father are seperate beings - current LDS doctrine, the words in Mosiah and the inspired Joseph Smith Translation are not 'credible'.

If the Father and the Son are not seperate beings - then the canonized First Vision account (Pearl of Great Price) and current Mormon doctrine are not 'credible'.

To answer the original post,is there Credible evidence for the Book of Mormon? - not yet

[cdowis]

The Book of Mormon also puts forward the non Mormon view that God and Jesus are the same person:

Here we go again. An antimormon is telling us what the BOM is teaching. You are telling us what we believe.

Please tell us your expertise in BOM doctrines. How many times have you read the BOM, how much have your studied Mormon doctrine. You put yourself as an expert on these things, so tell us your qualification.

I have read the BOM over 45 times, and spent my entire life studying it. So, what can YOU tell me about the BOM amnd what it teaches.

Please teach me, if you have the qualifications. Your understanding of the BOM obviously comes from the writings of those who do not know the BOM, even from the bitter enemies of the church.

On the other hand, perhaps you should be asking me what it teaches. Would that make sense that I would be the teacher and you are the (relunctant) student of these things.

Mosiah 15:

3. The Father because he was conceived by the power of God and the Son because of the flesh thus becoming the Father and the Son

4. And they are one God yea the very Eternal Father of Heaven and of earth

1. They are "one" in the same sense as Christ taught in John 17:19-23. Christ taught that the disciples can be one with the Father in the same way that He is one with the Father. Do you think that the Bible teaches here that we are one substance with the Father?

2. I am a father. I am also a son.

My son is also a father. Does that make myself and my son "one person" because we are both father and son?

The BOM teaches that one of the titles of Christ is "Father" as well as Son.

I won't bother to teach you the details of this doctrine, only to point out that we are tired of antimormons telling us what we believe.

[Jon63]

You seem to have ignored the Joseph Smith inspired translation of Luke 10:22

JST (taken from the footnotes of the LDS print of the New Testament)

...that the Son is the Father and the Father is the Son but him to whom the Son will reveal it

Care to put forward a suggestion to the class?

[volgadon]

3rd Nephi 15:17

That other sheep I have which are not of this fold them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice and there shall be one voice and there shall be one fold and one shepherd

John 10:16

And other sheep I have which are not of this fold them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice and there shall be one fold and one shepherd

Bearing in mind that these two seperate verses were spoken and written originally in two different languages and then translated is it 'credible' that the end result in English is exactly the same or was someone copying?

Would you render Je pense donc je suis differently than ego cogito, ergo sum?

The other examples you've provided are a little weightier, but considering that a sermon is being reproduced similar to the one Matthew records, why is copying a problem?

[volgadon]

Despite the fact that Rabbi Glueck was active half-a-century ago, if we take his statement to be true that "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement" (you need to cite your source for this quotation)

Robert, he copied it almost verbatim from the following site, which is also unsourced. Do notice that he has dropped two important words. http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibarch.htm

"Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."

[Kevin Christensen]

Ok Kevin. I know and can see that you've done a lot of work and study on this topic. Here's a question that I keep hearing in my mind.

A voice in your head, eh? Interesting.

Let's say that these places, such as the location for the Arabian Bountiful are so similar to some archeological spot, and it fits as you say. How does that demonstrate anything about the accuracy of the translation of the BoM from the Gold Plates?

We can say that 1 Nephi descriptions are accurate because they have been tested on the ground. Hundreds of specific, interrelated details, all converging on target. Which paradigm best accounts for all that accuracy? Which has the most promise for resolving open questions? Here is what Thomas Kuhn provides in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

ince no paradigm ever solves all the problems it defines, and since no two paradigms leave all the same problems unsolved, paradigm debates always involve the question: Which problems are more significant to have solved?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You seem to have ignored the Joseph Smith inspired translation of Luke 10:22

JST (taken from the footnotes of the LDS print of the New Testament)

...that the Son is the Father and the Father is the Son but him to whom the Son will reveal it

Care to put forward a suggestion to the class?

Dear, Jon, if all we had was those statements about Christ you might have a case. However as you very well know we have numerous other statements that make it perfectly clear how Jesus is both the Father and the Son.

Evidently this is your stumbling block in life.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let's say that these places, such as the location for the Arabian Bountiful are so similar to some archeological spot, and it fits as you say. How does that demonstrate anything about the accuracy of the translation of the BoM from the Gold Plates?

We can say that 1 Nephi descriptions are accurate because they have been tested on the ground. Hundreds of specific, interrelated details, all converging on target. Which paradigm best accounts for all that accuracy? Which has the most promise for resolving open questions? Here is what Thomas Kuhn provides in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I would like to respond to a more cynical point of view towards Hughes and the question he asked.

"How does that demonstrate anything about the accuracy of the translation of the BoM from the Gold Plates"

Well if we takes Hughes skeptisicm and apply it to his questions this is what the answer is.

Actually what demonstrating accuracy does is prove that teh BoM really was not translated and is false.

Is that the answer you were looking for Hughes? Because after reading all of your posts it is evident that is what you think.

[Kevin Christensen]

Stan Larson (an LDS scholar) produced an article in the 90's 'The historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the mount in 3 Nephi' in which he demonstrates that this section contains the same modern errors that the KJV contained.

I cannot help but notice that you do not refer to John Welch's Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount, which contains a detailed response to Larsen, showing that (1) none of the "errors" that Larson highlights seriously affects the meaning, and (2) Larsen does not give the credit due to the "angry with his brother without a cause" passage, in which 3 Nephi does not contain the "without a cause phrase" which crucially affects the meaning, and which, in light of recent research, seems to be a late addition.

From John63 again

Stendahl (dean of Harvard Divinity School in the 70's) produced a thesis 'the sermon on the mount and Third Nephi' in which he commented ''The biblical material behind the Book of Mormon strikes me as being in the form of the KJV...''

His thesis is supported by the fact that in 3rd Nephi 50% of the verses (246 out of 490) contain regognizable KJV quotations or phrases.

I notice that you do not refer to Welch's response to Stendahl in Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount, nor in this case, Richard L. Anderson's direct response to Stendahl here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=15

For instance:

Stendahl represents the vocal majority of current New Testament scholars, who see all Gospels as formed by the development of stories about Jesus and reflective of the later faith of the Church more than personal eyewitness or recollection. So skepticism of Third Nephi may not be significant when the critics express similar skepticism of canonical Gospels, which must be the base of comparison.

The issue here is weighing the criticism, not the critic, though his premises are highly relevant to his views. A careful and tolerant religious scholar, Stendahl writes from the point of view of a "minimalist," in his case the stance of a Protestant who suspects that much theology about Christ and many ceremonies of the Church developed after the New Testament.104 Mormons are sympathetic to such concerns, since they believe in a man-made apostasy from the early Church. But their starting point would be the testimony of Jesus' divinity and the basic ceremonies put forth by his Apostles in the book of Acts. Since meaningful dialogue depends on agreement about what the early Church was, it is no wonder that one with Stendahl's views would be skeptical of the historicity of Third Nephi, which agrees with Acts in viewing baptism and other ceremonies as coming from Christ.

And this:

To summarize, their commentaries are crafted in two ways: (1) consecutively, wherein the sequence of scripture controls the interspersed comments, and (2) logically, wherein a common theme controls a collection of texts. In the latter, the Dead Sea community is less distinctive, though their myopic use of general scriptures for their own group regularly stands out. In this selection pattern, assembled proof-texts witness the coming Messiah and other compilations stress the power of the righteous in the latter-day judgments of God. For instance, the Melchizedek fragment links nine prophecies from the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Isaiah in a prophetic explanation of the coming of the messianic era.

The Book of Mormon concordance outlines both interpretive types above. The early Nephite prophets used liken for their application of Old Testament themes to their own people, often in the fashion of parallels rather than in strict historical context, displaying a definite resemblance to the scriptural expositions of Qumran. Another correlation is the favored status of Isaiah, quoted most intensively in the Book of Mormon and stressed at Qumran, where texts and also interpretations of Isaiah were preserved. Early Book of Mormon prophets display an awareness of the larger meaning of prophecy and also its narrower application to their own "branch," transplanted to a continent away from the trunk of Israel. Thus the founder Nephi, who quotes more chapters of Isaiah than any Book of Mormon personality, surveys his interpretation: "I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah, for I did liken all scriptures unto us" (1 Nephi 19:23). An example of Nephi's teaching gathers a half-dozen passages from the Pentateuch and Isaiah on the Messiah's mission and the latter-day gathering of his people, insisting that "it meaneth us in the days to come, and also all our brethren who are of the house of Israel" (1 Nephi 22:6). The Qumran parallels raise a serious question about why the Book of Mormon so well fits recently discovered ancient literature.

I've read Stendahl, Welch, and Anderson on this topic, and come away far more impressed with the Book of Mormon.

Is this 'credible' or was someone copying?

In D&C 128, Joseph Smith described his use of King James language as "sufficient for my needs." It also helps readers recognize the passages as quotations by using the language most familiar to them, just as the New Testament quotes the Septuagint.

The Book of Mormon also puts forward the non Mormon view that God and Jesus are the same person:

Mosiah 15:

3. The Father because he was conceived by the power of God and the Son because of the flesh thus becoming the Father and the Son

4. And they are one God yea the very Eternal Father of Heaven and of earth

A proof-text approach is not the same as contextualizing approach, and that makes all the difference.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=6&chapterID=50

This stance does not reflect the current view of the Church - which is that God and Jesus are totally seperate beings.

When you say such things, it only shows me that you don't get out enough.

See The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths

Ari D. Bruening, and David L. Paulsen

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392

SNIP the cliches that ignore a great deal of LDS scholarship on the topic, all of which are also off this thread's topic.

To answer the original post,is there Credible evidence for the Book of Mormon? - not yet

"Credible" is, of course, a personal judgment. Yours, not mine.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Zakuska]

From the website:

"The Trial of The Book of Mormon was never meant to prove The Book of Mormon true. Nothing like it ever will. God has never used material evidence to convince His children to believe His word. He has always required Faith."

That right there is why the scientific community doesn't, and shouldn't, take it seriously. Appealing to faith has serious philisophical problems (the first of which is that anyone can do it).

And yet Faith is what drives the Scientific method.

1) A hypothesis is postulated (faith)

2) the tests are performed data collected

3) data is evaluated

Anyone can perform a scientific experiment too.

Scientists are so blind!

[Zakuska]

Please cite or list any archeological sources or discoveries which actually controvert the Book of Mormon. I know of none.

But thats why the critic falls back on age old chesnut... "there is no archeological evidence, period". Its a self-fufilling prophecy. There is none because a fictious book (in the mind of the critic) has no evidence. I mean come on... it was delivered to a 19 year old boy by an Angel and anyone who beleives in supernatural beings is a loon.

[Eldwynn]

And yet Faith is what drives the Scientific method.

1) A hypothesis is postulated (faith)

2) the tests are performed data collected

3) data is evaluated

Anyone can perform a scientific experiment too.

Scientists are so blind!

Do you actually believe hypotheses are faith statements?

You would have to give your definition of faith first, but I never thought of them as faith statements.

I define faith as belief in something without (even regardless of) empirical evidence/ reason.

[nicolasconnault]

Do you actually believe hypotheses are faith statements?

You would have to give your definition of faith first, but I never thought of them as faith statements.

I define faith as belief in something without (even regardless of) empirical evidence/ reason.

Faith is not a dichotomy.

[Zakuska]

Do you actually believe hypotheses are faith statements?

You would have to give your definition of faith first, but I never thought of them as faith statements.

I define faith as belief in something without (even regardless of) empirical evidence/ reason.

faith? ?/fe??/ Show Spelled

[feyth] Show IPA