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

[cdowis]

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

You got our attention. The doctor is in.

Literal or nuanced?

One of the professional historians on this forum mentioned the necessity of using a nuanced approach in some cases. It comes about because cultures have differences, different ways of thinking, and the language differences.

If I were to translate "That guy is out in left field", what would a literal translation in Chinese mean, if they do not understand "left field", as in baseball. The phrase "mother of God" may mean one thing to a Catholic, and something else to a Nephite.

Some may find that horses were considered food by the Nephites. With that insight, it gives us some idea of how horses fit into the culture.

If nothing else Ferguson, made a literal belief more difficult by pointing out the problems with a literal approach.

I agree. Nibley gave us a good understanding how the BOM fit into the ancient middle east, with its rich history preserved in the written records. In contrast to mesoamerica, where we are stuck with almost no records, and only physical artifacts to guide us to their history.

He opened up the investigation of the physical archeology and the difficulties we faced. We can, for example, find lots of artifacts, but no way to identify whether the Nephites produced them, or somebody else. We already know that the venacular was not egyptian nor hebrew, but a language unknown to any other people. Well, we find that in mesoamerica, but that does not prove anything, of course.

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.

As I said, an intellectually honest,intelligent indivudual realizes this is required to understand history, BOM or otherwise.

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?

I fine the horse=tapir, etc unnecessary. A horse is a horse, and they existed among the nephites. What is the difference, nuance-wise, between an identical horse that is 15yka and one only 10yka. No need to nuance it. It is just a matter of continued research. I do agree that elephant == mammoth, simply because the mammouth would have been virtually unknown during the 1830, but they certainly knew a horse. It's just unnecessary.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

What are you talking about? It seems you missed how "illustrative" my comments really are.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Just because everything you stated is true does not mean that Jesus is who he claimed to be. Get it? My Forrest Gump analogy is very adequate. Almost everything about that show was factual. However that does no mean that there was ever a person named Forrest Gump from Greenbo AL.

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.

That he is a real person has never been in dispute. What the issue is when it comes to any of the supernatural claims of the bible using "The historical records, written in common Greek, of Jesus Christ, a Jew, takes place largely in Israel, under Roman occupation, under Pontius Pilot." as a reason to believe is just bunk. None of that has any bearing on weather Jesus was the Son of God or was the Savoir of the world.

And it lends no credibility to any of it's claims. And just who are these eye witnesses? Some scholars argue that some of these other people never existed. And there is very little out side the bible that corroborates their claims. I tell you, I do not believe Jesus is who he claim because Paul claimed to have seen Jesus. I know exactly the same way Peter learned it.

[altersteve]

There are many scholars who disagree with your assertion.

And there are many who don't. I'm just making a point here, that trusting in the arm of flesh is not the way to believe in Christ, and is not what the Bible teaches about faith.

My point stands.

I'm afraid not.

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

You only "beg to differ" because the Spirit hasn't confirmed to you that it is not only ancient, but also that it is everything else that it claims to be: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

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

From the scriptures and from the words of God's chosen prophets, which, as the Spirit has confirmed to me, are true. Where else would we get them from, and how else would we get them? Don't you, as a Christian, believe in those concepts?

Was Jesus Christ death and resurrection not physical?

Of course it was. I never said it wasn't. But I meant that I believe what the scriptures say about Christ's resurrection because the Spirit has confirmed to me that they are true, not because of physical evidence, and not simply because the Bible says so.

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

And the evidences for the Bible could be "coincidences," too. See how that works? And if you actually study what scholars, historians, and researchers (rather than critics) are actually saying, and compare them to other historical documents from early Spanish and Indian sources, as well as recent archaeological findings, you will find many "hits" that Joseph Smith could not have fabricated on his own. The historical records don't add up with the theory that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon, yet critics foolishly persist with it. And they persist with that dumb idea because of the fact that for whatever reason, they refuse to put Moroni's Promise to the test.

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?

Let's see. Should I believe you, or should I believe my Heavenly Father? Not exactly a tough decision.

And do you mean to tell me that you do not believe that God spoke to people directly in ancient times? If so, then you do not believe or understand the Bible. If you do believe He did, then do you believe that God simply does not continue doing so? If so, why did God discontinue it? Has He told us everything we need to know? If so, how do you know that? Did He tell you? Is it simply because the Bible says so (which it doesn't)? Or could it have been the result of some kind of apostasy?

Remember, we believe in and embrace revelation. Until you understand that, almost nothing about LDS doctrine will make sense.

Edited August 4, 2011 by altersteve

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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?

I guess we just appeal to "Egypt is a real place". That works. Do you accept Thor as a God? Why not? Norway is a real place.

Do you accept Islam? Many of the places spoken of in the Koran are real places.

Why do you accept the Bible but not the Koran.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[altersteve]

I guess we just appeal to "Egypt is a real place". That works. Do you accept Thor as a God? Why not? Norway is a real place.

Do you accept Islam? Many of the places spoken of in the Koran are real places.

Why do you accept the Bible but not the Koran.

Greece is a real place, too, and there are historical records from that time that support what people said about Zeus and the other Greek gods. So why don't you, jmordecai, accept the Greek pantheon? And if "Egypt was a real place," then obviously Ra, Osiris, and the other Egyptian gods are also real. Same with the Roman gods, since the Roman Empire was a real empire. And since China is real, and because Buddha was a real person, obviously Buddhism must also be true. The Hindu gods, such as Vishnu, must also be real.

Is that the kind of logic you're using?

Edited August 4, 2011 by altersteve

[jmordecai]

... And it lends no credibility to any of it's claims.

We'll if I follow your reasoning, then the events surrounding the First Vision don't matter, and I can safely conclude then that God the Father and Jesus Christ never appeared before Joseph Smith. Since that didn't happen, Joseph never had that vision, and the existence of the LDS church is for naught.

And just who are these eye witnesses?

Um, Peter, Paul, John...

I tell you, I do not believe Jesus is who he claim because Paul claimed to have seen Jesus. I know exactly the same way Peter learned it.

Now you talking in circles again. You can't say you know exactly the way Peter learned it while at the same time arguing against the notion that Peter ever existed.

I guess we just appeal to "Egypt is a real place".

If you continue to diminish and distort the totality of my argument I'll ignore you the rest of this thread.

Do you accept Thor as a God? Why not?

Thor's religion is not a viable one.

Do you accept Islam? Many of the places spoken of in the Koran are real places. Why do you accept the Bible but not the Koran.

The teachings of Islam do not produce healthy cultures.

[jmordecai]

And there are many who don't. I'm just making a point here, that trusting in the arm of flesh is not the way to believe in Christ, and is not what the Bible teaches about faith.

"Trusting in the arm of the flesh" has nothing to do with determining the truth of something via examination. Trusting in flesh has everything to do with depending on yourself for your own salvation.

I'm afraid not.

Nuh uh is not a response. You simply can't drop one of my points, comment on the rest and pretend to be effectively responding to my argument.

You only "beg to differ" because the Spirit hasn't confirmed to you that it is not only ancient, but also that it is everything else that it claims to be: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

You are correct in that "the Spirit" has not done that. But it begs the question if the Book of Mormon remains true without any prodding by the Spirit. Is the Book of Mormon true without the Spirit?

From the scriptures and from the words of God's chosen prophets, which, as the Spirit has confirmed to me, are true. Where else would we get them from, and how else would we get them? Don't you, as a Christian, believe in those concepts?

Ah... the scriptures. So now we've come full circle. So let me get this straight, the scriptures are secondary since truth is revealed by prayer and revelation. Yet we learn of what prayer and revelation are by the scriptures. Hmmm.

Of course it was. I never said it wasn't. But I meant that I believe what the scriptures say about Christ's resurrection because the Spirit has confirmed to me that they are true, not because of physical evidence, and not simply because the Bible says so.

Would you believe in the resurrection if the scriptures never spoke of such a thing?

And the evidences for the Bible could be "coincidences," too. See how that works?

In comparison with Book of Mormon evidences, we have more than coincidences (language, culture, geography, ancient copies).

The historical records don't add up with the theory that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon, yet critics foolishly persist with it.

I agree! Critics persist with it because the historical records don't add up!

And they persist with that dumb idea because of the fact that for whatever reason, they refuse to put Moroni's Promise to the test.

I can practice Sufism and receive confirmation that Islam is true, or Nirvana that Hindu is true. How do I arbitrate what feeling/experience is the truest one?

... If so, then you do not believe or understand the Bible...

Why should I believe the Bible when you tell me that we have no reason to believe it?

Greece is a real place, too, and there are historical records from that time that support what people said about Zeus and the other Greek gods. So why don't you, jmordecai, accept the Greek pantheon? And if "Egypt was a real place," then obviously Ra, Osiris, and the other Egyptian gods are also real. Same with the Roman gods, since the Roman Empire was a real empire.

None of these religions remain viable.

And since China is real, and because Buddha was a real person, obviously Buddhism must also be true. The Hindu gods, such as Vishnu, must also be real. Is that the kind of logic you're using?

Yes. That Buddha was a real person lends credibility to his teachings. If the preponderance of the evidence suggested Budda was myth, then we can throw the hole thing out. I don't embrace Buddhism because I don't find that its teachings produce healthy culture.

Edited August 4, 2011 by jmordecai

[altersteve]

"Trusting in the arm of the flesh" has nothing to do with determining the truth of something via examination. Trusting in flesh has everything to do with depending on yourself for your own salvation.

Trusting in the arm of flesh means also to base your faith on something physical, on evidence, on "flesh and blood," as Christ said, rather than on revelation from His Father. What you're saying is exactly what I'm saying. If not, I think you know precisely what I meant and there was no reason to be nitpicky about it.

Nuh uh is not a response. You simply can't drop one of my points, comment on the rest and pretend to be effectively responding to my argument.

By commenting on the rest, I was responding to your argument. That was what I was trying to do, at least, but you didn't seem to realize that.

You are correct in that "the Spirit" has not done that. But it begs the question if the Book of Mormon remains true without any prodding by the Spirit. Is the Book of Mormon true without the Spirit?

Do you mean to ask, If the Spirit didn't exist, then would the Book of Mormon be true? Well... no. Or do you mean to ask, If the Spirit does not confirm to you that it's true, then is it still true? Yes. And why the quotations around "the Spirit"? Do you not believe in the Holy Ghost?

Ah... the scriptures. So now we've come full circle. So let me get this straight, the scriptures are secondary since truth is revealed by prayer and revelation. Yet we learn of what prayer and revelation are by the scriptures. Hmmm.

When did I say that "the scriptures are secondary"? You're putting words in my mouth again. It is the Spirit of God who reveals the truth of the scriptures, which speak of the concepts of prayer and revelation. But you have yet to answer my question. Don't you, as a Christian, believe in prayer and revelation?

Would you believe in the resurrection if the scriptures never spoke of such a thing?

Since the scriptures we have do not contain every piece of truth that we need, I would say yes. But the resurrection is pretty important. It's in the scriptures, and it is because God has told me that these scriptures are true that I believe them.

In comparison with Book of Mormon evidences, we have more than coincidences (language, culture, geography, ancient copies).

So Book of Mormon scholars haven't found anything regarding Nephite/Lamanite language, culture, or geography? Yeah, like I said: keep up with Book of Mormon scholarship before you comment on stuff like this. And I agree that we have no existing ancient copies of the Book of Mormon, but they are in God's possession. I do find it amusing, though, how you seem to dismiss every evidence for the Book of Mormon as a mere "coincidence." That kind of criticism simply cannot be taken seriously, so I have every reason to simply dismiss your dismissals.

I agree! Critics persist with it because the historical records don't add up!

Again putting words in my mouth. I said that critics persist with claiming that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon when the historical records don't support that theory. Please read what I wrote before you comment on it next time, okay? Okay.

I can practice Sufism and receive confirmation that Islam is true, or Nirvana that Hindu is true. How do I arbitrate what feeling/experience is the truest one?

Is this to imply that revelation from God is not reliable? Is that what you're saying? Nevertheless, this does not address what I said about critics not putting Moroni's Promise to the test. You're simply changing the subject.

Why should I believe the Bible when you tell me that we have no reason to believe it?

I never said anything about how we have "no reason" to believe the Bible. Never once. What's with you and putting words in my mouth like this? Seriously, knock it off please.

None of these religions remain viable.

"Nuh uh is not a response. You simply can't drop one of my points, comment on the rest and pretend to be effectively responding to my argument."

Yes. That Buddha was a real person lends credibility to his teachings. If the preponderance of the evidence suggested Budda was myth, then we can throw the hole thing out. I don't embrace Buddhism because I don't find that its teachings produce healthy culture.

Well, that's good for you, but I choose not to embrace Buddhism because it's not true, not because it doesn't "produce healthy culture." Is producing healthy culture, whatever that means, more important to you than truth?

Edited August 5, 2011 by altersteve

[Cobalt-70]

Is the Book of Mormon "true"? Yes. Is it an actual history? I think it's pretty safe to say that it is not. But the book's historicity is not an essential element of Mormonism. Often, fiction can be "truer" than nonfiction. In fact, I'd say that some of the "truest" parts of the Bible are also some of the entirely fictional parts, such as Jesus' parables, the story of Noah's ark, and the Book of Job. Plus, the most you can say about even the Bible's most historically-connected parts is that they were "based on a true story." If you rest your faith on history and archaeology, you have built your house upon a foundation of sand, like the fictional builder in Jesus' parable.

[why me]

Wrong. To start, we have eyewitness accounts from Peter, Paul, John and Luke to name a few.

Actually this means absolutely nothing in confirming that Christ was the Christ. I have not seen any other accounts that would prove what Christ did in the New Testament was actually done. Now it would be wonderful to have other eyewitness accounts from the native population but there are none. And so, what we are left with is what is claimed in the gospels. Nothing more. And if I would kick the can down the road some more, I can say that it is awfully strange that no other document has been found from an eyewitness that would confirm the renderings in the new testament since waht christ was doing was momumental at the time.

[why me]

Greece is a real place, too, and there are historical records from that time that support what people said about Zeus and the other Greek gods. So why don't you, jmordecai, accept the Greek pantheon? And if "Egypt was a real place," then obviously Ra, Osiris, and the other Egyptian gods are also real. Same with the Roman gods, since the Roman Empire was a real empire. And since China is real, and because Buddha was a real person, obviously Buddhism must also be true. The Hindu gods, such as Vishnu, must also be real.

Is that the kind of logic you're using?

What we have with the bible and the book of mormon are two accounts that make Christ the Christ. From the bible we have some archeological evidence that support the terrain which the bible was written. However, we have no other independent accounts at that time that Christ enacted miracles as contained in the bible from other eyewitnesses at that time. If we did, it would certainly bolster the claims of the new testament. And then we have the book of mormon which does not actually have the archeological proof of the bible but there are 11 witnesses to actually seeing or feeling the gold plates and their testimonies which they never denied regardless if they left the early lds church or not. We also have the accounts of the translation process which state that no paper manuscript was used by Joseph Smith.

Both the bible and the book of mormon take faith and not evidence. However bible thumpers refuse to recognize this when they dicuss the book of mormon and the bible. Now if I were a bible thumper I would hope that the book of mormon was true since that would prove that Christ was the christ. However, bible thumpers spend a heck amount of time trying to disprove it. Why?

Edited August 5, 2011 by why me

[cdowis]

Is the Book of Mormon "true"? Yes. Is it an actual history? I think it's pretty safe to say that it is not. But the book's historicity is not an essential element of Mormonism.

Well, let's think about it.

If it is fiction, then JS lied about the angel Moroni, lied about translating the plates, the eleven witnesses lied about the plates and hearing a voice declaring it was a correct translation. It is a matter of whether JS and the witnesses were telling the truth or not.

I think that is indeed "an essential element of Mormonism."

Give it some thought. If the BOM is fiction, can you really have a testimony that JS was a prophet.

Edited August 5, 2011 by cdowis

[Deborah]

I think scholars are finding more evidence in the text itself than in the history. Yesterday at Fair we had an interesting talk on the names in the BOM and the Hebraisms which would make it very easy to translate into Hebrew.

[Storm Rider]

Well, let's think about it.

If it is fiction, then JS lied about the angel Moroni, lied about translating the plates, the eleven witnesses lied about the plates and hearing a voice declaring it was a correct translation. It is a matter of whether JS and the witnesses were telling the truth or not.

I think that is indeed "an essential element of Mormonism."

Give it some thought. If the BOM is fiction, can you really have a testimony that JS was a prophet.

Holy confusion, Cd, if the BOM is true, how can not have a testimony that JS was a prophet?

[cdowis]

Holy confusion, Cd, if the BOM is true, how can not have a testimony that JS was a prophet?

You don't seem to have thought it out. Go back, and re-read my post.

Was there an angel Mormoni who appeared to JS? Did he give Js the BOM plates... etc.... What is your theory on the production of the BOM?

Edited August 5, 2011 by cdowis

[jmordecai]

Trusting in the arm of flesh means also to base your faith on something physical, on evidence, on "flesh and blood," as Christ said, rather than on revelation from His Father. What you're saying is exactly what I'm saying. If not, I think you know precisely what I meant and there was no reason to be nitpicky about it.

Following your logic, God the Father and Jesus Christ appearing before Joseph Smith in the flesh is inconsequential.

Do you mean to ask, If the Spirit didn't exist, then would the Book of Mormon be true? Well... no. Or do you mean to ask, If the Spirit does not confirm to you that it's true, then is it still true? Yes. And why the quotations around "the Spirit"? Do you not believe in the Holy Ghost?

The later... Is the Book of Mormon true without a Spirit confirmation? Since you answer yes, I then ask... how?

When did I say that "the scriptures are secondary"? You're putting words in my mouth again. It is the Spirit of God who reveals the truth of the scriptures, which speak of the concepts of prayer and revelation. But you have yet to answer my question. Don't you, as a Christian, believe in prayer and revelation? Since the scriptures we have do not contain every piece of truth that we need, I would say yes. But the resurrection is pretty important. It's in the scriptures, and it is because God has told me that these scriptures are true that I believe them.

1. Since you assert that it was the Spirit which revealed to you directly the truth of the resurrection, with or without the scriptures, what then is the purpose of scripture?

Yes, as a Christian I believe in prayer and revelation as defined by the biblical apostles and prophets.

So Book of Mormon scholars haven't found anything regarding Nephite/Lamanite language, culture, or geography? Yeah, like I said: keep up with Book of Mormon scholarship before you comment on stuff like this. And I agree that we have no existing ancient copies of the Book of Mormon, but they are in God's possession. I do find it amusing, though, how you seem to dismiss every evidence for the Book of Mormon as a mere "coincidence." That kind of criticism simply cannot be taken seriously, so I have every reason to simply dismiss your dismissals.

Alright then, since you confident of BoM evidences, please take these questions seriously...

1. Geography: where is the central focal point of the Book of Mormon narrative? Here are the competing theories:

Baja Peninsula

* http://www.achoiceland.com/

Hemispheric

* http://www.bookofmormongeography.net/

* http://www.thebookofmormongeography.com/

Great Lakes Region

* http://www.bookofmormongeography.org/

* http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org/

Central America/Mesoamerica

* http://www.mormongeography.com/

* http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/

* http://mormonmesoamerica.com/

New York

* http://www.bookofmormonlands.com/

* http://www.bookofmormonpromisedland.com/

2. Please produce a sample of Reformed Egyptian that we can confidently link to the Book of Mormon language.

3. Please identify a site independently confirmed to be Nephite or Lamanite. I would be particularly interested in any evidences that Christianity was practiced.

Again putting words in my mouth. I said that critics persist with claiming that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon when the historical records don't support that theory. Please read what I wrote before you comment on it next time, okay? Okay.

CFR... please provide what historical records prove that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon?

Is this to imply that revelation from God is not reliable? Is that what you're saying? Nevertheless, this does not address what I said about critics not putting Moroni's Promise to the test. You're simply changing the subject.

That's assuming whatever the source of 'revelation' is from God in the first place.

1. How does God talk to you?

2. How do you know its God?

3. Suppose I do receive a feeling that the Book of Mormon is true, there are dozens of organizations that consider it scripture... how does that tell me which church to join?

I never said anything about how we have "no reason" to believe the Bible. Never once. What's with you and putting words in my mouth like this? Seriously, knock it off please.

Ok then... what are the reasons we should conclude the Bible to true?

Well, that's good for you, but I choose not to embrace Buddhism because it's not true, not because it doesn't "produce healthy culture." Is producing healthy culture, whatever that means, more important to you than truth?

Well, I think the truth and healthy society go hand in hand. What criteria did you apply to conclude that Buddhism isn't true?

Actually this means absolutely nothing in confirming that Christ was the Christ. I have not seen any other accounts that would prove what Christ did in the New Testament was actually done. Now it would be wonderful to have other eyewitness accounts from the native population but there are none. And so, what we are left with is what is claimed in the gospels. Nothing more. And if I would kick the can down the road some more, I can say that it is awfully strange that no other document has been found from an eyewitness that would confirm the renderings in the new testament since waht christ was doing was momumental at the time.

If there was only one account, your complaint would be we need others... its disingenuous to lump all of the gospel accounts together and then demand yet more beyond them. We have FOUR accounts. How many do you need to satisfy your criteria?

What we have with the bible and the book of mormon are two accounts that make Christ the Christ. From the bible we have some archeological evidence that support the terrain which the bible was written. However, we have no other independent accounts at that time that Christ enacted miracles as contained in the bible from other eyewitnesses at that time. If we did, it would certainly bolster the claims of the new testament. And then we have the book of mormon which does not actually have the archeological proof of the bible but there are 11 witnesses to actually seeing or feeling the gold plates and their testimonies which they never denied regardless if they left the early lds church or not. We also have the accounts of the translation process which state that no paper manuscript was used by Joseph Smith.

Both the bible and the book of mormon take faith and not evidence. However bible thumpers refuse to recognize this when they dicuss the book of mormon and the bible. Now if I were a bible thumper I would hope that the book of mormon was true since that would prove that Christ was the christ. However, bible thumpers spend a heck amount of time trying to disprove it. Why?

Again your argument is overlooking the obvious... the NT comprises 27 texts! Tell you what, let's make the NT 15 books (as many as the BoM), now we'll add 12 more texts... is that enough? How many do you want? From that we have a succession of texts from the ECF... Name me some ancient persons who's life and teachings are better documented by more eyewitnesses than Jesus Christ?

[cdowis]

Alright then, since you confident of BoM evidences, please take these questions seriously...

1. Geography: where is the central focal point of the Book of Mormon narrative?

Mesoamerica.

2. Please produce a sample of Reformed Egyptian that we can confidently link to the Book of Mormon language.

Virtually all records in mesoamerica were destroyed by the Spanish.

3. Please identify a site independently confirmed to be Nephite or Lamanite. I would be particularly interested in any evidences that Christianity was practiced.

Happy to oblige.

All we need from you is to tell us how to identify a Nephite artifact. For example, we find an artifact, a jade necklace, how do we know whether it is from the Nephites, or from somebody else. Your request is a scientific one, archeology, and we need your expertise to answer that question.

CFR... please provide what historical records prove that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon?

That is an interesting request. Not sure what you want, so please provide us a nonBiblical historical record that proves that Moses did or did not write several books in the Bible -- can you prove from books outside the Bible who wrote Genesis, Exodus, etc.

Your request does not make much sense to me, so help us out here. Let's see something about Moses to see what you are talking about.

Edited August 6, 2011 by cdowis

[jmordecai]

cdowis

I don't have to prove anything when Altersteve makes assertions that historical records prove Joseph did not write the Book of Mormon, and suggesting that Book of Mormon scholars have tangibles on Nephite/Lamanite culture and language. If he can't provide the evidences that he can't chide me for asking the questions.

[urroner]

Wrong. To start, we have eyewitness accounts from Peter, Paul, John and Luke to name a few.

Aren't there witnesses to the golden plates also?

[jmordecai]

Aren't there witnesses to the golden plates also?

Yes there are. Unlike Paul, Peter and John who were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ, who among the witnesses recognized and could verify that Joseph's translation of reformed Egyptian was accurate? Seeing the plates (whatever they were) doesn't equate that the Book of Mormon came from them (not to mention that Joseph's source was the seer stone).

[urroner]

Yes there are. Unlike Paul, Peter and John who were eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ, who among the witnesses recognized and could verify that Joseph's translation of reformed Egyptian was accurate? Seeing the plates (whatever they were) doesn't equate that the Book of Mormon came from them (not to mention that Joseph's source was the seer stone).

Did they not witness to seeing the golden plates?

[jmordecai]

Did they not witness to seeing the golden plates?

What was on them?

[DonBradley]

The OP question assumes that "nuance" is something only needed in order to make false claims appear true, when in fact nuance is needed to explain the real world.

Are relativity and quantum physics true at face value, or do they need to be nuanced to make them so? They each make predictions about the world (e.g., on light being a particle or a wave) that must be qualified, yet each is one of our best models for understanding the world and simply cannot be jettisoned.

Our best model for understanding something is often, if not always, provisional and of limited scope. That's not apologetics. That's reality.

Don

[altersteve]

Following your logic, God the Father and Jesus Christ appearing before Joseph Smith in the flesh is inconsequential.

Nope. Not even close. This implies that God the Father and Jesus Christ only appeared to Joseph to prove that they exist. It was a bit more than that.

The later... Is the Book of Mormon true without a Spirit confirmation? Since you answer yes, I then ask... how?

That's like asking, "How does China exist without having a map to prove it?" and assumes that without proof of something, it cannot be true, which is fallacious logic.

Since you assert that it was the Spirit which revealed to you directly the truth of the resurrection, with or without the scriptures, what then is the purpose of scripture?

To prove that Jesus is the Christ. If the scriptures are true, which the Spirit testifies of, then Jesus Christ is the Creator, Savior, and Lord of the universe. Asking our Heavenly Father in the name of, and with faith in, His Son, and with a real desire to obtain the knowledge that He desires to give you, is really all it takes.

Yes, as a Christian I believe in prayer and revelation as defined by the biblical apostles and prophets.

Interesting how you say "as defined by the biblical apostles and prophets." As if to imply that I don't. Although, what, if I may ask, is the biblical definition of prayer and revelation (i.e., what is your interpretation of what the Bible says about these subjects)?

Alright then, since you confident of BoM evidences, please take these questions seriously...

When did I say I am "confident of BoM evidences"? I'm not saying that I'm not, but you're putting words in my mouth. Again.

Geography: where is the central focal point of the Book of Mormon narrative?

Mesoamerica.

Please produce a sample of Reformed Egyptian that we can confidently link to the Book of Mormon language.

Well, first of all, it's "reformed Egyptian," not "Reformed Egyptian." Second, I can't do that. A very, very small portion of Mesoamerica has been excavated, and most of the records were destroyed by the Spanish when they invaded, like cdowis said.

Please identify a site independently confirmed to be Nephite or Lamanite. I would be particularly interested in any evidences that Christianity was practiced.

What cdowis said. We have no way of knowing if something was a Book of Mormon site or artifact, since the records containing the original names of these places have been lost or destroyed. All we have are the Spanish names. However, there is evidence of Christian and Jewish principles being taught and believed by some in ancient Mesoamerica, as discussed in books and articles that you can find produced by FAIR and other such organizations.

CFR... please provide what historical records prove that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon?

I never said that the historical records prove that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon. I said that the historical records don't support that theory. Your habit of putting words in my mouth is annoying.

The rest of your questions are answered by me five posts down.

Edited August 7, 2011 by altersteve