The Bible Vs. The Book Of Mormon

[Wants2know]

I will have to go back and read all these posts. I just watched the film, and it has shaken me a bit. Maybe I should have researched this before I joined. Does the lack of archeological evidence bother anyone else?

[Brant Gardner]

I will have to go back and read all these posts. I just watched the film, and it has shaken me a bit. Maybe I should have researched this before I joined. Does the lack of archeological evidence bother anyone else?

There is no reason that you can't do the research now. The reasons for joining the church will remain the same. What you will learn is that films such as this one can be artfully slanted to make things appear to be different than they are. In addition to the posts in this thread, you might want to read the review that prompted the thread. Then, you can move to the rather substantial body of evidence that belies the illusion that there is a "lack of archaeological evidence."

[Kenngo1969]

I will have to go back and read all these posts. I just watched the film, and it has shaken me a bit. Maybe I should have researched this before I joined. Does the lack of archeological evidence bother anyone else?

Accepting, for the sake of discussion, your contention that archaelogical evidence for the Book of Mormon is lacking, I might suggest that you reread Alma 32 then ask yourself, in light of what Alma says, why you need archaeological evidence to support your faith. I wish you well.

[Kenngo1969]

Duplicate!

Edited September 2, 2011 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Duplicate, duplicate!

Edited September 2, 2011 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

I will have to go back and read all these posts. I just watched the film, and it has shaken me a bit. Maybe I should have researched this before I joined. Does the lack of archeological evidence bother anyone else?

W2K, don't forget that if there are questions that you haven't had answered with the review or whatever else you've looked at, you can always ask about specifics here in the Social Hall as you've done in the past or from FAIR. Brant hangs out there too, so while on rare occasions I've seen him miss a question here, I don't believe I've seen him miss a question there plus there are several others very good in this area there as well.

Here is the contact webpage, just check the top box:

http://www.fairlds.org/contact.php

And of course you have lots of friends on the board here who, I am sure, wouldn't mind talking to you privately if you would prefer that type of conversation, myself included.

If you enjoy videos, you might want to watch Journey of Faith. There is a clip available here:

and you can find other clips from the video on that page as well, look for the videos posted by fairlds.org (I believe the entire video is available in parts on youtube).

[cdowis]

I will have to go back and read all these posts. I just watched the film, and it has shaken me a bit. Maybe I should have researched this before I joined. Does the lack of archeological evidence bother anyone else?

There are a hundred reasons to leave the church, and only one reason to stay.

If this film bothers you so much, if your testimony is so easily shaken by the enemies of the church, I suggest you spend your time reading and studying the BOM and stop wasting your time allowing the antimormons to poison your mind.

Archeology and the BOM has been discussed extensively here on this forum. This film has been extensively reviewed here in this thread, but I don't think you are ready for this stuff. Just be prepared that these producers of this film are willing to lie and distort to destroy your faith. They have been invited several times to join the discussion here to defend what they have done..... and have refused.

Anyway, take my advice and ise your time to study the BOM.

Edited September 5, 2011 by cdowis

[Storm Rider]

I will have to go back and read all these posts. I just watched the film, and it has shaken me a bit. Maybe I should have researched this before I joined. Does the lack of aarchaeologicalevidence bother anyone else?

Hello Wants,

For some archarchaeological evidence is paramount. Of course, none of these individuals use the exact same standard for evaluating other things spiritual in nature. The Bible, for example, is a good place to start. I have never met a single critic or anti-Mormon of the LDS Church that is willing to use the same standard of evaluation for the Bible that they use for the Book of Mormon. To do so would be anathema because they would be forced to toss out the Bible.

Too often they use the flimsy reality that Jerusalem exists therefore the Bible is archaeologically viable. Do you know how many things in the Bible cannot be proved by archeology?

Not being able to "prove" the reality of the Bible and the Book of Mormon is meaningless. My faith tells me it is true and that one day all mankind will know of a surety of the truthfulness of both books of scripture. Do not give up on using reason and logic in research, but you must come to a better understanding where reason cannot answer the greater questions of life and faith necessarily takes over and does so.

Never, ever fall for the duplicitous nature of critics and more often that of the anti-Mormon. Their sophistry is built as a house of cards and is incapable of bearing up under closer scrutiny; one which they necessarily must abandon in order to maintain their own faith.

[ZelphtheGreat]

There really should be no discussion until ONE site of a Book of Mormon city has been found.

 

Bible locations are many and provable whether one accepts the Bible as scripture or not.

 

To date tho, not one Book of Mormon city has been found anywhere - something that is unexplainable for a civilization that was so large and so advanced - if the book is reality.

[volgadon]

There really should be no discussion until ONE site of a Book of Mormon city has been found.

 

Bible locations are many and provable whether one accepts the Bible as scripture or not.

 

To date tho, not one Book of Mormon city has been found anywhere - something that is unexplainable for a civilization that was so large and so advanced - if the book is reality.

 

I'll bite. To establish that you actually know what you are talking about, please elaborate on the required criteria to establish the identity of a Book of Mormon site or city.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There really should be no discussion until ONE site of a Book of Mormon city has been found.

 

Bible locations are many and provable whether one accepts the Bible as scripture or not.

 

To date tho, not one Book of Mormon city has been found anywhere - something that is unexplainable for a civilization that was so large and so advanced - if the book is reality.

This is one of those suspect posts that I talked about in your PM to me. FYI.

[Stargazer]

This is one of those suspect posts that I talked about in your PM to me. FYI.

 

He's banned now, so he can't respond.

[Stargazer]

There really should be no discussion until ONE site of a Book of Mormon city has been found.

 

Bible locations are many and provable whether one accepts the Bible as scripture or not.

 

To date tho, not one Book of Mormon city has been found anywhere - something that is unexplainable for a civilization that was so large and so advanced - if the book is reality.

 

A banned poster cannot respond, but this post deserves a response, if just to set something straight.

 

It is clear that Volgadon's point is very important.  Can someone come up with viable criteria for identifying a Nephite city?  If not, then the question of whether any Nephite cities have been found cannot even be asked.  Or at least cannot be asked in any serious way.

 

On the other hand, there is a Book of Mormon city which has been identified archaeologically.  And that is Nahom.  Of course, critics will point out that no non-LDS scholar supports the idea that this is the place mentioned in the Book of Mormon.  This is somewhat like the question, "How many atheists believe in God?"  Answer: None.  This proves nothing about the existence of God, because the definition of atheist is "someone who does not believe in God."  If a non-LDS scholar were to decide that the existence of Nahom proves or strongly suggests that the Book of Mormon is true, such a person would very likely join the Church, and thus become an LDS scholar, and hence no longer be a credible (i.e. critical) observer.  The circularity of such reason is breathtaking, and especially so that someone could actually make such an argument with a straight face. 

 

Besides, it is an argument from authority, which is one of those pesky logical fallacies.

[cdowis]

It is clear that Volgadon's point is very important.  Can someone come up with viable criteria for identifying a Nephite city?  If not, then the question of whether any Nephite cities have been found cannot even be asked.  Or at least cannot be asked in any serious way.

 

 

Simple, you find Christian artifacts, such as images of Mary, or the crucifix....  oops, wrong culture.

 

As I respond to the critics, Christians do not leave much in the way of physical artifacts; they mostly leave *records*.  And those records have been destroyed.  Even in the Western world, archeology is very dependent on ancient written records to identify sites.  In the case of mesoamerica, virtually none of the names of the cities and geographical features have been preserved.  With few exceptions the ancient names are unknown.

 

The possible exception is Lamanai. 

http://youtu.be/gdeoO9XWOp4

 

Finally, many cities were built over previous cities, so the Lamanites would have built over the (destroyed) Nephite city.

Edited August 28, 2013 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

...........................................

As I respond to the critics, Christians do not leave much in the way of physical artifacts; they mostly leave *records*.  And those records have been destroyed.  Even in the Western world, archeology is very dependent on ancient written records to identify sites.  In the case of mesoamerica, virtually none of the names of the cities and geographical features have been preserved.  With few exceptions the ancient names are unknown.

 

The possible exception is Lamanai. 

http://youtu.be/gdeoO9XWOp4

 

Finally, many cities were built over previous cities, so the Lamanites would have built over the (destroyed) Nephite city.

Actually, cdowis, a number of ancient names (and the corresponding glyphs) for Mayan cities are known.  However, most of those are from the Classic Maya period, and that period is the best known to archeology.  We know far less about the pre-Classic (covering late Book of Mormon times), and cannot even read much of the hieroglyphs from that early period.

 

That successive cities are built over previous cities is not the problem you imagine.  One normally excavates samples of the various layers, thus providing evidence from earlier periods.  However, if Sorenson and some others are correct, the Maya are not central players in Book of Mormon events -- they are marginal if considered at all.  Nephite and Mulekite territory is found, rather, in the Grijalva River Valley of southern Mexico, while the earlier Jaredites likely occupied the Tabasco region.

[cdowis]

Actually, cdowis, a number of ancient names (and the corresponding glyphs) for Mayan cities are known.  However, most of those are from the Classic Maya period, and that period is the best known to archeology.  We know far less about the pre-Classic (covering late Book of Mormon times), and cannot even read much of the hieroglyphs from that early period.

 

OK, if you want to quibble: "there are few preclassic names of cities or geographic features known to archeologists.  The names of most archeological sites are modern names."

 

Hope you can now sleep better tonight.

 

That successive cities are built over previous cities is not the problem you imagine.  One normally excavates samples of the various layers, thus providing evidence from earlier periods.  

 

"Samples" of different layers?  I guess your imagination is very vivid, major structures excavated in these "samples", while my imagination is much less vivid.

 

I guess we see the world very differently.

[boulder257]

Accepting, for the sake of discussion, your contention that archaelogical evidence for the Book of Mormon is lacking, I might suggest that you reread Alma 32 then ask yourself, in light of what Alma says, why you need archaeological evidence to support your faith. I wish you well.

 

I read Alma 32 and am having trouble finding your argument. However, I am not familiar with these readings and am obviously missing your observation. Could you possibly elaborate on why Alma 32 suggests that historical or achaelogical evidence is not necessary to proving a faith is truth?

[EllenMaksoud]

Hello Wants,

For some archarchaeological evidence is paramount. Of course, none of these individuals use the exact same standard for evaluating other things spiritual in nature. The Bible, for example, is a good place to start. I have never met a single critic or anti-Mormon of the LDS Church that is willing to use the same standard of evaluation for the Bible that they use for the Book of Mormon. To do so would be anathema because they would be forced to toss out the Bible.

Too often they use the flimsy reality that Jerusalem exists therefore the Bible is archaeologically viable. Do you know how many things in the Bible cannot be proved by archeology?

Not being able to "prove" the reality of the Bible and the Book of Mormon is meaningless. My faith tells me it is true and that one day all mankind will know of a surety of the truthfulness of both books of scripture. Do not give up on using reason and logic in research, but you must come to a better understanding where reason cannot answer the greater questions of life and faith necessarily takes over and does so.

Never, ever fall for the duplicitous nature of critics and more often that of the anti-Mormon. Their sophistry is built as a house of cards and is incapable of bearing up under closer scrutiny; one which they necessarily must abandon in order to maintain their own faith.

The Holy Qur'an has the same percieved weaknesses that the Bible and the Book of Mormon have. The truth of the Book of Mormon was not what brought me to the church.  Matthew 7:15-20 is one of the passages that brought me to the church. I spent over 30 years as an Evangelical, and left in disgust.  Islam calmed me and made me willing to bend to the will of heavenly Father.

 

In my opinion, Mormons do a better job of following Mt 7, and of also following what is often refered to as Jesus great commandments, namely Love  God with your whole heart, and love one another.

 

The Bom seemed pretty fantasic at first but several times I used the Bible to reinforce ideas put forth in the Bom.  I don't try to build my faith on doubt, but on the love of Heavenly Father.

[theplains]

I just watched the film, and it has shaken me a bit. Maybe I should have researched this before I joined. Does the lack of archeological evidence bother anyone else?

 

Regarding your shaken status due to the archaeology part, are you more or less bothered by

Joseph Smith's teaching that Heavenly Father was a man who became a God?  You'll have

to look in the older version of Gospel Principles to find this mentioned in the Exaltation

chapter.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Calm]

Regarding your shaken status due to the archaeology part, are you more or less bothered by

Joseph Smith's teaching that Heavenly Father was a man who became a God?  You'll have

to look in the older version of Gospel Principles to find this mentioned in the Exaltation

chapter.

 

Thanks,

Jim

Once again you err when you take it upon yourself to teach someone else doctrine instead of your own.  I have got to wonder why you feel this is a worthwhile use of your time and considering the claims you've come up with makes me wondering if you are taking lessons from others who aren't paying attention to actual beliefs and are more intent on trying to find something, anything to attack....but this isn't one of them:

 

Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345–46).

 

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng (2011)

[theplains]

Once again you err when you take it upon yourself to teach someone else doctrine instead of your own.  I have got to wonder why you feel this is a worthwhile use of your time and considering the claims you've come up with makes me wondering if you are taking lessons from others who aren't paying attention to actual beliefs and are more intent on trying to find something, anything to attack....but this isn't one of them:

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng (2011)

 

The LDS Church had most of the 1997 version of Gospel Principles online here but they

removed chapter 47.  So I will include a more detailed section and put emphasis on it.

 

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the

bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles

of the Gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles

of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died]

before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will

be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings

of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 348).

 

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first

principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a

man like us; . . .God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus

Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46).

 

This key line was removed from the current version of Gospel Principles.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Kenngo1969]

I read Alma 32 and am having trouble finding your argument. However, I am not familiar with these readings and am obviously missing your observation. Could you possibly elaborate on why Alma 32 suggests that historical or achaelogical evidence is not necessary to proving a faith is truth?

 

I don't accept the premise of the argument advanced by some, that an alleged total lack of historical or archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon dictates that its believers must, therefore, accept that, while it contains profound spiritual truths, it lacks any basis in historical reality.  Accepting such a premise would dictate that I reject the existence of tangible objects and purportedly-genuine heavenly messengers which figured prominently in its coming forth. 

 

As to tangible objects, if Book of Mormon events did not actually take place essentially as recorded, then why the need for plates?  For an alleged fraud, the Book of Mormon seems entirely too obsessed with its own source material: its compilers say,essentially, "In compiling our abridgment, we took a section of our abridged history from these plates, and another section of our abridged history from those plates," and so on.  It would seem to me that Joseph Smith violated a cardinal rule of fraud: "Keep it simple, stupid."  Not only must the purported plates from which the Book of Mormon reportedly was translated be accounted for, but other purported records and physical artifacts need to be accounted for, as well.  For background, see Cameron J. Packer (2004), "Cumorah's Cave," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 13, Iss. 1, Pp. 50-57, Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, available on line at the following address (last accessed today): http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=13&num=1&id=338.

 

And, thusfar, I have said nothing of other physical objects which played a role in the Book of Mormon's coming forth, such as Joseph Smith's seer stone, the hat in the "head-in-the-hat" accounts, or the interpreters.  I'm sure there are no shortage of skeptics who feel they can win the battle over the Book of Mormon's coming forth by persuading others to concentrate, not on the book itself, but rather on the chain of purported events which led to its coming forth.  After all, everyone knows that God (if there is one) doesn't reveal scripture by such means.  Yet how was Joseph Smith, with his limited intellect, able to produce such a coherent narrative (Samuel Clemens'/Mark Twain's blithe dismissal of the work as "chloroform in print" notwithstanding)?  If simple plagiarism is the answer, why didn't the original creators of the work(s) from which Joseph Smith "borrowed" (or at least, their descendants) ever come forth?  And if such works figured prominently in the book's coming forth, why was their being resorted to never mentioned by those who were in a position to know about them?  Why did Emma Smith say Joseph didn’t refer to any other work while translating?  More impressive, why did she say that when Joseph resumed translating, he did so without having any portion of the manuscript read back to him?  And again, such objections fail to address the question of why Joseph Smith didn't adhere to the "KISS Principle."

 

Many detractors dismiss this information with a wave of the hand and by indicating that its purveyors simply were deluded or were lying. That is their prerogative.  However, this information, too, is inconsistent with the "KISS Principle" cited above.  Even the smallest possible conspiracies, those involving but two people, tend, eventually, to collapse under their own weight.  I'm puzzled as to how and why an alleged conspiracy which was (and is) far larger has yet to collapse.  Joseph Smith apparently was simply very adept at attracting a large number of those who are especially prone to delusion and hallucination to become part of his conspiracy.

 

As to the purported physical existence of actual beings from a world beyond this one with whom Joseph Smith and others purportedly interacted, the "Book-of-Mormon-as-inspired-fiction" theory also either fails to account for them or concludes that they (God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, the Angel Moroni, John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John, Elias, Elijah, Moses, et cetera) were mere ad hoc holograms created to support an otherwise-fictional story.  And other earthly beings who allegedly interacted with many of these heavenly beings apparently did so merely out of a shared delusion.  Again, why was the "KISS Principle" violated, and why did so many of these people (who were in the best position to tell the truth about what really went on, and regardless of later disaffection from Joseph Smith), instead, continue to maintain that they actually saw heavenly beings?  (See, e.g., Richard Lloyd Anderson (1989), Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book).

 

Now, how does all of this relate to Alma 32?  I admit, I have never seen any of the physical objects to which I refer above; and I admit, neither the Father, nor the Son, nor John the Baptist, nor any of the others have appeared to me personally.  I accept the premise that the faith necessary to believe these things is a spiritual gift.  I admit, I merely "believe on [others'] words" (see Doctrine & Covenants 46:13-14; see also John 20:29).  Why do I believe these things?  Because (naive soul that I am!), in faith, I planted the seeds necessary to gain that belief and they bore good fruit in my life.  Had those seeds not borne that good fruit, then, consistent with the counsel in Alma 32, I would have cast them out and continued to look for other seeds which would bear good fruit in my life.

 

Having said this, does this mean, then, that I don't have questions about aspects of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, about Church history, or about something this Church leader said or that Church leader said?  Of course not.  I don't think it's possible for anyone to have a reasonably well-functioning brain and to not have questions about such things.  In the Millennium or on The Other Side, I anticipate the opportunity to attend several firesides (Mormon meetings usually highlighting a featured speaker) with themes such as, "Brother Joseph, What Were You Thinking?"; "Brother Brigham, What Were You Thinking?"; and so on.  Do I know everything about the intricacies of Church history?  About some things, I simply have to shrug my shoulders and say, with Nephi, “I know not the meaning of all things.  Nevertheless, I know that God loveth His children” No.  With Brother Davis Bitton, "I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church".  See Davis Bitton (2004), "I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church,” FARMS Review, Vol. 16, Iss. 2, Pp. 337-354, Provo, Utah: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, available on line at the following address (last accessed today): http://www.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=560.

 

In the end, physical artifacts and purportedly-genuine interactions with heavenly beings notwithstanding, one must apply the test given in Moroni 10:3-5 in the Book of Mormon to discover whether the book is what it purports to be, as well as whether Joseph Smith really is a prophet of God and whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really is God’s true church restored to the earth.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

 

 

This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first

principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a

man like us; . . .God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus

Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46).

 

This key line was removed from the current version of Gospel Principles.

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

It was not a key line.  It was commentary that was added to Joseph Smith's quote.

[Calm]

 

The LDS Church had most of the 1997 version of Gospel Principles online here but they

removed chapter 47.  

They didn't in the PDF.

 

http://www.lds.org/gospellibrary/materials/gospel/Start%20Here_01.pdf

 

 It was more likely a link glitch due to it being the last chapter since when you click on the Gospel Principles link at the top, it will take you to the new version.  

 

Plus if you do a search on the phrase "it is the way our Heavenly Father became God" it comes up twice, for the pdf file you can still access and the text file that you can't...you come up with a blank page going directly to it instead of clicking through the chapters...however, if you click on cache, it shows the actual text and indicates that the snapshot was taken on Aug 20.  Now maybe someone made a decision to remove that chapter and only that chapter from the site, but leaving the pdf file up is hardly supportive of it being much of anything besides a glitch.

[Kenngo1969]

They didn't in the PDF.

 

http://www.lds.org/gospellibrary/materials/gospel/Start%20Here_01.pdf

 

 It was more likely a link glitch due to it being the last chapter since when you click on the Gospel Principles link at the top, it will take you to the new version.  

 

Plus if you do a search on the phrase "it is the way our Heavenly Father became God" it comes up twice, for the pdf file you can still access and the text file that you can't...you come up with a blank page going directly to it instead of clicking through the chapters...however, if you click on cache, it shows the actual text and indicates that the snapshot was taken on Aug 20.  Now maybe someone made a decision to remove that chapter and only that chapter from the site, but leaving the pdf file up is hardly supportive of it being much of anything besides a glitch.

C'mon Cal!  You're interfering with theplains's perfectly plausible conspiracy theorizing!