Taken At Face Value...Is The Book Of Mormon True

[Gervin]

The very first question that should be asked is why you assume that one must take literally anEngish description translating a unknown language. There is enough data on this type of issue that a reasonable scholarly approach requires that kind of understanding, which you dichotomy ignores.

I prefer a more reasonable scholarly approach.

I see you often chide (in a kind way) the way non-Mormons approach BOM historicity and translation problems and I understand you have a new book coming out about the translation process. How are you sure that your approach to the BOM translation process is indeed scholarly? Perhaps a better question is, how do you define "scholarly" in this context? thanks, G

[Jaybear]

jmordecai:

Post hoc apocryphal stories from secondary and tirtiary scorces, rewriten innumeral times really do not make for good evidence for Resurrecttion.

Apologists would be thrilled to uncover ancient "post hoc apocryphal stories from secondary and tirtiary scorces, rewriten innumeral times" describing the BOM events.

In fact, just one, to borrow a phrase, would be a "game changer."

The comparison really doesn't work.

[Brant Gardner]

How are you sure that your approach to the BOM translation process is indeed scholarly?

By applying the same methods and types of analyses that pertain to any work known only in translation. It involves an examination of as complete a data set as possible.

[Gervin]

By applying the same methods and types of analyses that pertain to any work known only in translation. It involves an examination of as complete a data set as possible.

Thanks. Is it fair to say, then, that one of these guys should be able to pick up your book and recognize and understand the methodology and assumptions you employ?

Edited August 4, 2011 by Gervin

[cdowis]

Barley

Recent archaeological evidence suggests that pre-Columbian Americans cultivated barley over a long period of time. A 1983 article in Science 83 describes archaeological work at the Hohokam site of La Ciudad, near downtown Phoenix, Arizona (the Hohokam culture flourished in the North American Southwest from about 300 B.C. to A.D. 1450). The writer states, "Perhaps the most startling evidence of Hohokam agricultural sophistication came last year when salvage archeologists found preserved grains of what looks like domesticated barley, the first ever found in the New World."3 Shortly thereafter, additional samples turned up at other archaeological sites in Oklahoma and Illinois. Of the discoveries made in Illinois, one recent study states that a "previously unidentified seed type . . . has now been identified as little barley (Hordeum pusillum), and there are strong indications that this grain must be added to the list of starchy-seeded plants that were cultivated in the region 2000 years ago."4

Barley samples dated to the Middle Woodland (early centuries A.D.) and Late Woodland (A.D. 600—1050) cultural periods indicate that pre-Columbian barley was both known and cultivated over an extended period in the New World. "It is reasonable to conclude," states archaeologist Vorsila L. Bohrer, who directed the work associated with these discoveries, "that we are looking at a North American domesticated grain crop whose existence has not [previously] been suspected."5

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=126

I find it interesting that the antimormon "not found" list is growing smaller -- Valley of Lemuel, Nehum, Bountiful have been removed, and now barley. Previously it was argued that there were no horses.... then no full size horses... and now horses were extinct during BOM time period. No elephants in Central America... now fossils have been found and that is also that there were no elephants (mastodons) during the time of the Jaredites.

That list is growing smaller, and very sparse, compared to recent discoveries that Ferguson never imagined over 35 years ago. The list of "found" is outgrowing tne "not found". It is just a matter of time, money and continued discoveries. Recently it was discovered that in 600BCE some of the inhabitants in Costa Rica made a change in burials practiced for 1500 years to one that is closer to hebrew customs, namely burial sites were located outside populated areas rather than within the towns. Not proof, but a change in a very old practice the same time and around the same place Lehi landed.

It just keeps adding up.

Edited August 4, 2011 by cdowis

[Nenahnezad]

Evidence. Smevidence. I'm surprised anti-mormons don't embrace the F.A.R.M.S.' BoM geography theory. This entire premise for the F.A.R.M.S.' theory is Joseph Smith learned Book of Mormon geography from a travel book. A travel book, two years before his martyrdom.

• "Whatmay startle some about this situation is that most of what Joseph Smith said orimplied about geography indicates that he did not understand or was ambiguous about the fact, as it turns out, that Mesoamerica was the particular setting for Nephite history. Until he encountered the Stephens's book, Joseph gave no hint that he was aware that such a limited area with adistinctive civilized culture even existed in the Americas." http://maxwellinstit...d=41&chapid=196
• "Enthusiastic comments published at Nauvoo showed that the Church's leaders, including Joseph Smith, were immensely stimulated by the new information. Within a few weeks of the first notice, they announced they had just discovered, by reading Stephens's book, that the Nephites' prime homeland must have been in Central, not South, America.." http://maxwellinstit...d=41&chapid=196
• "Finally, despite the basic similarities, it is important to emphasize that the Nephites were not the Maya" http://maxwellinstit...d=66&chapid=738

We can thus conclude from F.A.R.M.S. (& FAIR) and the reason they meet and wrote/write numerous articles:

• Joseph Smith was a liar before he read a travel book about the Maya
• Joseph Smith learned Book of Mormon geography from a travel book about the Maya, which were not the Nephites
• Joseph Smith didn't know at the time that he read the travel book that the Nephites were not the Maya
• Joseph Smith lied about both locations: Mesoamerica and North America

This is the entire premise for the existence of F.A.R.M.S. and its theory - a travel book. Anti-Mormons should be embracing the F.A.R.M.S. theory. LOL!

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

FAIR and FARMS do great work, and you are egregiously misrepresenting the limited geography model. Joseph Smith was not a liar, he was a seeker after truth who received further light and knowledge through an examination of what evidence was available to him.

D&C 109:14 And do thou grant, Holy Father, that all those who shall worship in this house may be taught words of wisdom out of the best books, and that they may seek learning even by study, and also by faith, as thou hast said.

Prophets are not infallible; it is a mark of the veracity of the Book of Mormon that even the man who supposedly "authored" it was not fully aware of its internal complexities.

Edited August 4, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Brant Gardner]

Thanks. Is it fair to say, then, that one of these guys should be able to pick up your book and recognize and understand the methodology and assumptions you employ?

Of course, understandind the caveat that we are dealing with the target text and extrapolating the relationship to the source. I wold expect ethnohistoians to have a little more pratice with that. However, they would recognized the discussion on the types of translation.

[Jaybear]

Of course, understandind the caveat that we are dealing with the target text and extrapolating the relationship to the source. I wold expect ethnohistoians to have a little more practice with that. However, they would recognized the discussion on the types of translation.

The problem with applying conventional scholarly analysis is that, in this instance, the person purporting to translate could not read or understanding the language allegedly etched on the golden plates.

I seriously doubt that any of the experts referenced on the link have ever studied or claimed to be experts in translation processes that occurred through divine mean.

If one believes in God, prophets and divine translations, and wants to understand how divine translation works, then the best and perhaps only place to find an answer is in SLC.

[Craig Paxton]

class…Class…CLASSSSSSSSSSS…thank you; Now that I have your attention, let’s get back to the question at hand.

Literal or nuanced? If nothing else Ferguson, made a literal belief more difficult by pointing out the problems with a literal approach. While I don’t personally buy into the “with enough time” crowd, from my perspective the only intellectually honest position a believer can take is a nuanced approach rather than a literal approach to the reality of the Book of Mormon. At least with a nuanced approach one can replace a horse with a tapir, a chariot with a travois, barley with grass seed (hordeum pussilum), a 1500 year old horse with a 12,000 year old horse, an east sea with a north sea, a west sea with a south sea, a New York Cumorah with a Meso-American Cumorah etc, etc, etc. Isn’t this what a nuanced approach requires in order to maintain belief? For clearly the straight forward, take it at its word, approach doesn’t work. Am I missing something?

[thesometimesaint]

jmordecai:

I firmly believe in the Resurrection, but evidence is another matter.

[Samurai2012]

Never say never. IF a bronzed aged civilization like the one described in the Book of Mormon where to somehow be discovered to have existed in the Americas...lets jsut say that it would go a long way in dispelling doubts. But I think we both know that no such civilization will ever be discovered. The difference between you and me is that you can hold belief without supporting physical evidence while I require evidence to support belief.

Can anyone ever imaging giving such a wide birth, as is givin to the Book of Mormon claimed civilizations, to a belief in the existance of the Roman Empire IF there were no or shall I say equal supporting evidence for Romes existance as we have for the Nephite/Lamanite civilizations? I think not.

If there were no religious basis for a belief in the claimed civilizations of the Book of Mormon...I seriously doubt anyone who post here would claim a firm belief in such.

As someone who was a real bible-reader before joining Mormonism, I can tell you that a great deal of the Holy Bible is about just as proveable as the Book of Mormon, and a lot is open to interpretation, as well, given that the Canon was assembled centuries after the fact. As for the civilizations, it's similarly the case. There are patterns which argue certain things seemed familiar or possible, but can't concretely indicate they happened. Egypt during the Middle Kingdom days in which we like to think of the Exodus happening, had numerous cultures living in the area, some overthrew the previous dynasty, which sounds familiar to the new line of pharaohs that "didn't know Joseph" (a.k.a. the ruling family was overthrown by another ethnicity and religion)

There are a few familiarities with civilization as described in Book of Mormon people, but then again, I am not going to describe these as proof so much as patterns. Various Meso-American groups warred amongst themselves. According to the sole Aztec source, the Broken Spears, they sacrificed tens of thousands of native Americans captured from other city-states by war, and the Spaniards, contrary to the argued divinity by one party, interfered with the sacrifices and took their supposedly divine leader hostage. Compare this to the fact that Lamanites at the end fought wars to sacrifice people to their idols. Mayans show similar centuries history of sacrificing virgins for their Gods as well. Again, patterns are here, but I will say it is speculation, it doesn't say that all is totally unlike what happened, only question here is who had general access to Books such as The Broken Spears when the Book of Mormon was written, look that question up.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/deathafterlife/qt/012709MayaScrfc.htm

The various Meso-American civilizations I would consider Bronze Age, for their work in stone, and simple metallurgy (copper, gold, etc.). Again, no empirical proof from either the Egyptian side for the Hebrews being there, or on the American side for some simple Nephite-Lamanite presence, but there are patterns in mythology and in history, that have some familiarity, and make it sound, by interpretation, possible. But not definite.

[altersteve]

1. Unlike the Book of Mormon, which appears suddenly in 1830, we have a succession of data about Jesus Christ that we can trace from today backwards. If you want to discredit Christ, you’ll have to discredit Peter, Paul and John, who all wrote about him. When you are done with them, you’ll have to discredit Clement, Josephus, Irenaeus, Martyr, etc., etc.

Who said anything about wanting to "discredit" Jesus Christ?

2. Unlike the Book of Mormon, we can identify the places named in the Bible. Whole nations like Egypt, Etheopia, Italy, etc. Cities like Jerusalem, Rome, and even as granular as street names (Straight street is still there) and pools (Bethsesda, Siloam). The temple wall is there. We know that Romans took the menorah from it, as they carved an image of it in the Arch of Titus in Rome. The list goes on and on.

3. Unlike the Book of Mormon, we can identify the cultures in the Bible, including those extinct like the Canaanites, etc. We have nothing on the Lamanites and Nephites.

4. Unlike the Book of Mormon, we can identify the languages used. Reformed Egyptian remains unidentified.

5. Unlike the Book of Mormon, we have thousands of ancient copies of the biblical texts, and we could compile the scriptures just from the quotes of the early church fathers. There are no ancient extant copies, fragments, inscriptions, engravings, parchments, scrolls, quotations, etc., that can be linked to the Book of Mormon before 1830.

And this means Jesus existed?

Of course none of these prove that Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection will forgive your sins, but they do give us a basis of historical probability by which to place our faith that he did. Faith requires a foundation of facts to place it on. Otherwise, if Jesus Christ is mere myth, and did not really exist, then all the faith we have is worthless.

You're right, these evidences do not prove that the Atonement will save us, but they also do not, and cannot, prove that the Bible is true. Belief in God, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the modern prophets, and the reality of the Atonement does not come from anything physical, it comes via a revelation from God, which is the result of study and prayer. If I were to show you the golden plates that Joseph Smith translated from, you would believe in the Book of Mormon no more than you do right now. Why? Because such a belief, as I said, comes from God, and nothing else. If you place your faith in the arm of flesh, then it seems to me that your faith is in dire need of strengthening.

The lack of Book of Mormon evidences lends support to the conclusion that it is a work of fiction.

A lack of evidence for something is not the same thing as evidence against it. But I do have to point out, though, that there is not a lack of Book of Mormon evidences at all. As I said, it helps to keep up with Book of Mormon scholarship (something that critics do not do for some reason) before you criticize the book.

[jmordecai]

jmordecai:

I firmly believe in the Resurrection, but evidence is another matter.

Based on what?

[altersteve]

Based on what?

I can't speak for him, but I assume he believes in the Resurrection based on revelation from God. That's kind of a foreign concept for a lot of non-LDS Christians, though, for some reason. But the first thing that you need to understand about Latter-day Saint theology is that we believe in revelation, that God still speaks to people directly, just as He did anciently.

Edited August 4, 2011 by altersteve

[jmordecai]

Who said anything about wanting to "discredit" Jesus Christ?

Thanks for joining the conversation. My response was to Storm Rider's statements. In particular these excerpts got my attention:

... they don't even know that history does not support the majority of the Bible record.

... I hate to tell you this, but there is absolutely none, as in zero, nada, nothing historical that supports the resurrection of Jesus Chris.

... we would have to conclude that Jesus did not exist.

If someone suggests the bible is mostly false (in terms of its historical facts), and that there is no evidence for Jesus' resurrection, and that he is a mythical figure... how is this not 'discrediting' Jesus? Do you think Jesus only exists as a spiritual concept but not a real person who walked the earth?

And this means Jesus existed?

Why did you omit point #1? Historical writings by eye witnesses to the life of Jesus Christ are indeed evidences that Jesus existed.

You're right, these evidences do not prove that the Atonement will save us, but they also do not, and cannot, prove that the Bible is true.

If the Bible is not true in the historical facts it presents, then it is not true in the spiritual facts it presents. For as the resurrection cannot be true as a spiritual concept if it didn't happen in the real world. We can't have one without the other. Mormons, I think, have to argue for a double-standard out of necessity given the meager evidences to establish the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical record.

Belief in God, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the modern prophets, and the reality of the Atonement does not come from anything physical, it comes via a revelation from God, which is the result of study and prayer.

Again, where do we get the notions that we we need to employ "revelation" and "prayer"?

If I were to show you the golden plates that Joseph Smith translated from, you would believe in the Book of Mormon no more than you do right now.

Examining the golden plates would lend credibility to Joseph's account.

Why? Because such a belief, as I said, comes from God, and nothing else. If you place your faith in the arm of flesh, then it seems to me that your faith is in dire need of strengthening.

Placing faith "in the arm of flesh" means relying on self (like the Pharisees) or another mere human to save you. That is a rabbit trail and not applicable to what we are talking about.

Let me ask you, why did Jesus make it a point to appear post-resurrection to his apostles? Why couldn't they just believe by God simply imposing belief on them?

A lack of evidence for something is not the same thing as evidence against it. But I do have to point out, though, that there is not a lack of Book of Mormon evidences at all. As I said, it helps to keep up with Book of Mormon scholarship (something that critics do not do for some reason) before you criticize the book.

Given all of your arguments up until this point you now contradict yourself. Why do critics need to be familiar with Book of Mormon evidences if evidences don't matter?

BTW, I am aware of the peripheral Book of Mormon evidences. I am more interested in the essentials, like culture (Nephites/Lamanites), language (ref. Egyptian), geography (Mesoamerica, Great Lakes, New York), and corroborative ancient texts.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I can't speak for him, but I assume he believes in the Resurrection based on revelation from God. That's kind of a foreign concept for a lot of non-LDS Christians, though, for some reason. But the first thing that you need to understand about Latter-day Saint theology is that we believe in revelation, that God still speaks to people directly, just as He did anciently.

Indeed this is the only way some one can know that Jesus died and was resurrected. This is what the Savior told Peter that "flesh and blood have not revealed this unto you but my Father which is in heaven".

So no amount of science or "Egypt is a real place" will reveal this fact to you. But God will show it to you.

[jmordecai]

I can't speak for him, but I assume he believes in the Resurrection based on revelation from God. That's kind of a foreign concept for a lot of non-LDS Christians, though, for some reason. But the first thing that you need to understand about Latter-day Saint theology is that we believe in revelation, that God still speaks to people directly, just as He did anciently.

Oh, how do you know God spoke to people anciently?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Oh, how do you know God spoke to people anciently?

I know, I know, because Egypt is a real place and the bible speaks of Egypt, so the fact that Egypt exists that means that God really did speak to people like Moses. Because the bible tells us so.

Israel is a real place. There for Christ really did die. That seems to be what you are claim here.

How do you know that God spoke to people anciently?

Edited August 4, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[LeSellers]

I know, I know, because Egypt is a real place and the bible speaks of Egypt, so the fact that Egypt exists that means that God really did speak to people like Moses. Because the bible tells us so.

Well, Salt Lake City is a real place, too, so that ought to be proof that God speaks to prophets today, right?

Double standards are so convenient, are they not?

Lehi

Edited August 4, 2011 by LeSellers

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If someone suggests the bible is mostly false (in terms of its historical facts), and that there is no evidence for Jesus' resurrection, and that he is a mythical figure... how is this not 'discrediting' Jesus? Do you think Jesus only exists as a spiritual concept but not a real person who walked the earth?

Straw men are indeed useful.

[jmordecai]

Indeed this is the only way some one can know that Jesus died and was resurrected. This is what the Savior told Peter that "flesh and blood have not revealed this unto you but my Father which is in heaven".

So no amount of science or "Egypt is a real place" will reveal this fact to you. But God will show it to you.

Your comment is illustrative...

If you want me to abandon the criteria that "Egypt is a real place" has any bearing, then I must also abandon the criteria that "Jesus is a real person" and never said such words to Simon Peter at Caesarea Philipi.

[altersteve]

If someone suggests the bible is mostly false (in terms of its historical facts), and that there is no evidence for Jesus' resurrection, and that he is a mythical figure... how is this not 'discrediting' Jesus? Do you think Jesus only exists as a spiritual concept but not a real person who walked the earth?

Nobody ever said that the Bible is "mostly false," or that Jesus was a mythical figure, nor did anyone say that "Jesus only exists as a spiritual concept but not as a real person who walked the earth." Of course I believe He was a real person. I was simply making a point that there is no evidence for Jesus' life, death, or resurrection that scholars would consider to be true, convincing "evidence."

Why did you omit point #1? Historical writings by eye witnesses to the life of Jesus Christ are indeed evidences that Jesus existed.

Which is exactly why I omitted it.

If the Bible is not true in the historical facts it presents, then it is not true in the spiritual facts it presents.

You imply that I said that the Bible is not historically true, but I never made any such assertion.

For as the resurrection cannot be true as a spiritual concept if it didn't happen in the real world. We can't have one without the other. Mormons, I think, have to argue for a double-standard out of necessity given the meager evidences to establish the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical record.

The Book of Mormon is already authentic, and doesn't need to be "established" as such, any more than a historical document needs to be "established" as historical. If it's authentic, then it's authentic. But with the Book of Mormon, nothing except the Holy Ghost can prove that it is exactly what we claim it is.

Again, where do we get the notions that we we need to employ "revelation" and "prayer"?

Why do you place quotations around those words? Do you mean to imply that we do not need revelation or prayer?

Examining the golden plates would lend credibility to Joseph's account.

Certainly. But that's not what I said.

Placing faith "in the arm of flesh" means relying on self (like the Pharisees) or another mere human to save you. That is a rabbit trail and not applicable to what we are talking about.

It is entirely applicable. To place your faith in the arm of flesh is to base your faith on something physical rather that on revelation.

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 16:15–17).

Let me ask you, why did Jesus make it a point to appear post-resurrection to his apostles? Why couldn't they just believe by God simply imposing belief on them?

So all Jesus was doing was making a point? I think it was a bit more than that.

Given all of your arguments up until this point you now contradict yourself. Why do critics need to be familiar with Book of Mormon evidences if evidences don't matter?

You're putting words in my mouth again. I never said that "evidences don't matter," nor did I ever say that "critics need to be familiar with Book of Mormon evidences." I said that they need to be up-to-date with Book of Mormon scholarship. The fact is that when critics say that there is "no evidence for the Book of Mormon," it is interesting to watch everything fall into place and show critics how very wrong they are. Nevertheless, this evidence will not and probably cannot silence these critics. Only the Holy Ghost can do that, and He can only do that when they study the Book of Mormon and put it to the ultimate test as outlined in Moroni 10. We encourage the world to study the Book of Mormon archaeologically, linguistically, historically, anthropologically, and culturally, to dig into it, to treat it seriously, to examine it, ponder it, to dig into every corner and crevice of that book, but until it is put to the final test, it will remain false in their eyes, because the Father which is in heaven hath not revealed it unto them.

BTW, I am aware of the peripheral Book of Mormon evidences.

So now you admit that there are Book of Mormon evidences, then? Interesting.

I am more interested in the essentials, like culture (Nephites/Lamanites), language (ref. Egyptian), geography (Mesoamerica, Great Lakes, New York), and corroborative ancient texts.

Then study the Book of Mormon and what scholars are currently saying and you'll learn a lot about all of those things.

Oh, how do you know God spoke to people anciently?

Because God told me so.

[jmordecai]

I know, I know, because Egypt is a real place and the bible speaks of Egypt, so the fact that Egypt exists that means that God really did speak to people like Moses. Because the bible tells us so.

Israel is a real place. There for Christ really did die. That seems to be what you are claim here.

How do you know that God spoke to people anciently?

I've been saying much more than that, so I will repeat this one last time. The historical records, written in common Greek, of Jesus Christ, a Jew, takes place largely in Israel, under Roman occupation, under Pontius Pilot. These asserted biblical facts are all consistent with the historical record and lend credibility to the record being true. Furthermore we have the writings of several eyewitness who attested to his life, death and resurrection, and other corroborative records.

What Jesus said about himself is indeed a matter of faith, but that he is a real person, of a real lineage, who spoke a real language, and lived in a real location, must be a matter of fact.

[jmordecai]

Nobody ever said that the Bible is "mostly false," or that Jesus was a mythical figure, nor did anyone say that "Jesus only exists as a spiritual concept but not as a real person who walked the earth." Of course I believe He was a real person. I was simply making a point that there is no evidence for Jesus' life, death, or resurrection that scholars would consider to be true, convincing "evidence."

There are many scholars who disagree with your assertion.

Which is exactly why I omitted it.

My point stands.

The Book of Mormon is already authentic, and doesn't need to be "established" as such, any more than a historical document needs to be "established" as historical.

Is the Book of Mormon a book? Yes. Is the Book of Mormon ancient? I beg to differ.

Why do you place quotations around those words? Do you mean to imply that we do not need revelation or prayer?

Let me try this again... where do you get the the concepts of prayer and revelation?

It is entirely applicable. To place your faith in the arm of flesh is to base your faith on something physical rather that on revelation.

Was Jesus Christ death and resurrection not physical?

So now you admit that there are Book of Mormon evidences, then? Interesting.

I admit there are coincidences, and many more misses that hits.

Because God told me so.

God just told me that He didn't tell you that. Now we are stuck, because we both can make God say anything we want. Now what do we do? What do we appeal to, to arbitrate this?