Historicity Of The Bom

[mfbukowski]

I've never seen an argument for Mayan site X being Book of Mormon city Y. Does the argument include this level of specificity?

There are hypotheses. Mark Wright is an expert on these theories.

Does the Book of Mormon describe a larger (Mayan) culture under which the Nephites lived? I've never heard of this in the LDS Church teachings.

It is certainly not inconsistent with such a view. As has been mentioned, you need to study more in these areas.

There are many other areas of science which the LDS church teaches nothing about as well. I can't think of a single thing the LDS church teaches about chemistry for example. Why should it?

The church is not in the archaeology business any more than it is in the chemistry business.

Perhaps, if he is still around, Brant Gardener may want to address this, but I think this is not his particular view if I am not mistaken, and I might very well be.

I look at these things from another point of view, but am aware of some of the theories about such things.

Edited September 14, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Jesterss]

I am assuming you are aware that at the time of Christ there was no New Testament. Christ and His disciples all taught from the scriptures, what scriptures do you think they used?

Did they always teach from the scripture? You're assuming that they always taught from the scriptures. Sure, the scriptures Jesus was raised with were the Old Testament, and the scriptures that the Jews knew were the Old Testament, but that doesn't mean Jesus was teaching the OT, in fact, why would he be frowned upon by the jewish scholars if that's what he was teaching? Jesus was teaching what he knew and received from God.

Are you saying that Jesus, Peter, James, John, Matthew, etc, etc, were not Jews? Are you saying that Jesus's disciples did not proselyte or try to convert?

Nope, not saying that at all. But I am saying that Jews did not proselytize, which would be the ones teaching strictly from the OT. Those teaching of Christ would spread the good word of God and Jesus. They weren't just sharing the OT, they were sharing what they received directly from Jesus.

What scriptures do you think Peter preached from? Do you really believe he had access to the New Testament?

See above. If you believe he was a follower of Christ, then of course he had access to the NT, he was the NT preached to him by Jesus. So yeah, of course I believe he had access to it. Obviously not the same access we have today, but more direct and closer. Better than what we have.

Again, what scriptures did the early Christians, of Christ's day, use to preach Christ and His gospel?

Beating a dead horse with the same lines over and over in your questioning.. I can answer it all day with the same answer...

So, proof of the ancientness of scripture is irrelevant to it's validity and veracity and what is most important is the witness of the Holy Ghost, is that correct? If so, then, it appears that we are in agreement, you sound a lot like a Mormon. It appears that, even though it took awhile, my question achieved its purpose.

That is correct, and I never claim that Mormons are "completely off the track" and I know you aren't claiming that either, I just believe there are some things that are inaccurate with how this religion was founded. I also believe there are differences in biblical translations.

How so? It appears that we agree. Can you apply the same to the Book of Mormon?

Of course, you can apply it to all texts. No argument there.

But you did ask if we would accept Peter if he came to proselytize at our doors. That was your question, I don't see how I missed that. You may have been trying to make a point that you have to be consistent with your answers when regarding both books in the same manner, but your question needed a more accurate stance of where it was coming from rather than just saying apples and oranges. It's not the same. The bible does hold up under scrutiny, joseph smith has false prophecies,therefore I don't hold them in the same regard.

[LeSellers]

Did they always teach from the scripture? You're assuming that they always taught from the scriptures. Sure, the scriptures Jesus was raised with were the Old Testament, and the scriptures that the Jews knew were the Old Testament, but that doesn't mean Jesus was teaching the OT, in fact, why would he be frowned upon by the jewish scholars if that's what he was teaching? Jesus was teaching what he knew and received from God.

Please identify one thing Jesus taught that was not directly or indirectly from the Old Testament.

Which is the gratest commandment? "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart. mind, mind, and strength." It's in there.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." That;s in there, too.

All of Jesus' teachings are Old Testament teachings. (That stands to reason, as He was the original Source, anyway.)

Lehi

[T-Shirt]

Did they always teach from the scripture? You're assuming that they always taught from the scriptures.

I am not assuming anything. The only scriptures Jesus and his disciples had was the Old Testament, and, yes, they preached from the scriptures.

Sure, the scriptures Jesus was raised with were the Old Testament, and the scriptures that the Jews knew were the Old Testament, but that doesn't mean Jesus was teaching the OT,

The New Testament quotes the Old Testament frequently.

in fact, why would he be frowned upon by the jewish scholars if that's what he was teaching?

Because they, simply, didn't agree with His interpretation

Jesus was teaching what he knew and received from God.

Of course He did, but everything He taught was founded on the Old Testament.

Nope, not saying that at all. But I am saying that Jews did not proselytize, which would be the ones teaching strictly from the OT.

I didn't ask if "a Jew" came to your door, I asked if "Peter" came to your door, who, incidentally, was a Jew, but more importantly,a follower of Christ.

Those teaching of Christ would spread the good word of God and Jesus. They weren't just sharing the OT, they were sharing what they received directly from Jesus.

They taught the scriptures, which was the Old Testament. They also taught the fulfilling of the Law and how Christ was the fulfillment of the prophecies regarding the Messiah.

See above. If you believe he was a follower of Christ, then of course he had access to the NT, he was the NT preached to him by Jesus. So yeah, of course I believe he had access to it.

You're getting way off track here.

Obviously not the same access we have today, but more direct and closer. Better than what we have.

The only scripture they had access to and from which they preached was the Old Testament.

Of course, you can apply it to all texts. No argument there.

Then I am not sure why you were trying to answer the question in the first place.

But you did ask if we would accept Peter if he came to proselytize at our doors. That was your question, I don't see how I missed that

But you did miss it. I wasn't asking about Peter, I was asking if Hughes would reject Peter's scriptures based on the fact that he had no proof that they were ancient.

You may have been trying to make a point that you have to be consistent with your answers when regarding both books in the same manner, but your question needed a more accurate stance of where it was coming from rather than just saying apples and oranges.

You badly misunderstood my question, but maybe it was my fault.

All the best,

T-Shirt

Edited September 14, 2011 by T-Shirt

[Jesterss]

I am not assuming anything. The only scriptures Jesus and his disciples had was the Old Testament, and, yes, they preached from the scriptures.

Why do you assume Jesus needed any texts? You agree that he is God, yet you still say he needed text to preach from?

The New Testament quotes the Old Testament frequently.

It does. wouldn't say quote but it definitely repeats a lot of the same sayings.

Because they, simply, didn't agree with His interpretation

Just his interpretation or who he was?

Of course He did, but everything He taught was founded on the Old Testament.

Or was it founded on what is and was and still is to come? OT may have been repeated at times, but it wasn't all OT information. Where in the OT has he ever said it was ok to take up and leave your family?

I didn't ask if "a Jew" came to your door, I asked if "Peter" came to your door, who, incidentally, was a Jew, but more importantly,a follower of Christ.

And I already answered that question....

They taught the scriptures, which was the Old Testament. They also taught the fulfilling of the Law and how Christ was the fulfillment of the prophecies regarding the Messiah.

What scriptures though? If they taught the OT alone, why then do we put so much stock and faith into the NT?.. They must have taught the NT.

The only scripture they had access to and from which they preached was the Old Testament.

You're assuming they didn't use their own lessons taught to them by Jesus...

But you did miss it. I wasn't asking about Peter, I was asking if Hughes would reject Peter's scriptures based on the fact that he had no proof that they were ancient.

exactly, you asked Hughes, but I also provided my answer as well, as I thought fitting.

[altersteve]

I probably took this original discussion too far off from the topic, i would be interested in hearing more on your stance though of god/jesus as it compares to the LDS view..

I've already answered this question sufficiently I think. We believe and teach that Christ is God, despite your claims to the contrary. End of discussion. Start a new thread about that if you wish and we will discuss it further.

Edited September 15, 2011 by altersteve

[LeSellers]

Why do you assume Jesus needed any texts?

Because the Bible tells us He did—here, for instance.

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Oddly enough, it seems He used the LXX, not the original Hebrew.

OT may have been repeated at times, but it wasn't all OT information. Where in the OT has he ever said it was ok to take up and leave your family?

What did Jesus (as the Old Testament Jehovah) tell the Israelites to do when their relatives suggested they stop following the Law of Moses or worshiping Him? I won't look them up, but it was harsh.

If they taught the OT alone, why then do we put so much stock and faith into the NT?.. They must have taught the NT.

26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.

29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.

Act 8:30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

Not only did the Saints of the I use the Old Testament exclusively (there was no New Testament for another three or four decades, and even then, it was not anything like the one we have), but they were certain that the Old Testament was valid for them, and that the Old Testament was sufficient for their needs at the time. Naturally, we must remember that they had living prophets (Peter, James, John, Andrew, Matthew. etc.), so they didn't need the New Testament: they had the living word of God.

You're assuming they didn't use their own lessons taught to them by Jesus...

No assumption needed. They did, of course, but from Matthew through the whole of the New Testament, the inspired writers referred constantly back to the scriptures, as they had that at the time: the Old Testament.

Didn't Jesus tell the Jews to search the scriptures?

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

To reject the Old Testament is to reject a huge portion of the word of God, just as it is to reject the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, along with living prophets like Thomas S. Monson.

Lehi

[T-Shirt]

exactly, you asked Hughes, but I also provided my answer as well, as I thought fitting.

But you answered the wrong question. Regardless, this whole discussion is just a diversion. I will rephrase the question for Hughes, and,if you want, you can answer it as well.

Given the fact that Jesus and his disciples taught from the Old Testament, and given the fact that any copies they had of the Old Testament were no older than 200 years at that time, would one be justified, as Hughes said, in rejecting the Old Testament, outright, based on the fact that there was no way to physically verify that there, actually, were any ancient, original documents from which the copies derived?

Best,

T-Shirt

[Jesterss]

Because the Bible tells us He did—here, for instance.

Oddly enough, it seems He used the LXX, not the original Hebrew.

He did read those lines, but was he reading it to teach to them or was he reading it to let them know that this prophecy had been fulfilled and that he was the one who was here to do all these things? Clearly they did not understand who he was as they asked if this was the son of joseph? They were amazed at the way he spoke but had no idea who he truly was. They tried throwing him off a cliff. Yes, he did read and repeat lines from the Old Testament, but it was only to make those who understood the OT realize that he was wiser than they knowing the OT better than they did and that he was the messiah.

What did Jesus (as the Old Testament Jehovah) tell the Israelites to do when their relatives suggested they stop following the Law of Moses or worshiping Him? I won't look them up, but it was harsh.

Does that really have relevance?

² Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. ³ Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.⁴ You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. ⁵ For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. ⁶ For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

My view is that not all Mosaic Laws hold precedence in today's society since Jesus' coming to earth. Another reason I believe physical temples are not important.

Not only did the Saints of the I use the Old Testament exclusively (there was no New Testament for another three or four decades, and even then, it was not anything like the one we have), but they were certain that the Old Testament was valid for them, and that the Old Testament was sufficient for their needs at the time. Naturally, we must remember that they had living prophets (Peter, James, John, Andrew, Matthew. etc.), so they didn't need the New Testament: they had the living word of God.

Exactly, I think we agree there that they had God's word and were instructed directly by Jesus, so they didn't need the NT, they were the NT in parts that created the whole. Yes they may have also quoted OT sayings, but Paul himself as I just pointed out that the law of circumsion holds no value. Therefore, all OT laws are not to be followed. Some stayed, most dissolved.

No assumption needed. They did, of course, but from Matthew through the whole of the New Testament, the inspired writers referred constantly back to the scriptures, as they had that at the time: the Old Testament.

Agreed. But see above.

Didn't Jesus tell the Jews to search the scriptures?

He did, because they obviously had no clue of what the scriptures really say. He was trying to get them to understand who he was.

To reject the Old Testament is to reject a huge portion of the word of God, just as it is to reject the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, along with living prophets like Thomas S. Monson.

Having said what I said, I will agree. I think the OT is very important in understanding who God and Jesus were/are. I don't agree with the full of this statement, but I agree with the OT part..

[Hughes]

An how would you do that? There would have been no more evidence of the ancientness of the Old Testament at that time than there is today of the Book of Mormon. So what would you have done? If your previous statement regarding the Book of Mormon is how you really feel, then you would have to have rejected the Old Testament, as you have the Book of Mormon.

That isn't flipping the question around, it is asking a completely different and irrelevant question. I have never claimed to reject the historicity of a document on the basis of it not having a map, but you have rejected a document as being ancient simply because we have no ancient copies of it.

Best,

T-Shirt

How would I investigate a document that had no ancient copies? Is that what you're asking?

Because the answer is simple. I never just "accept" what people say, simply because they make a claim. I never have. So, even if there's no ancient copies, the question of correspondence with reality comes up. Are there people or maps or cities that correspond to what this "ancient" document refers to? Is there any archeological evidence to support it's claims?

As for the BoM, I actually haven't rejected it, I just haven't seen any evidence *for* calling it anything but a work of fiction from JS.

[Palerider]

Palerider:

I'll show you Zarahemla when you show me Yerushaláyim.

Why do I doubt that.........?

[Gervin]

There are many other areas of science which the LDS church teaches nothing about as well. I can't think of a single thing the LDS church teaches about chemistry for example. Why should it?

The church is not in the archaeology business any more than it is in the chemistry business.

Well, if not the church then perhaps BYU. They're in the archeology "business" or at least the history business.

What does BYU teach about the historic setting of the Book of Mormon and what texts do they use? Or perhaps a more legitimate question to begin with is, Do they teach the historicity of the Book of Mormon at BYU?

Anyone know?

[cdowis]

As for the BoM, I actually haven't rejected it, I just haven't seen any evidence *for* calling it anything but a work of fiction from JS.

Fair enough.

I hope you realize the difficulty of that task, considering the difficulty of identification based on the paucity, not of artifacts, but of written records from that time period. You find a jade necklace and how do you identify it as coming from the nephites, lamanites, or somebody else.

Also, it is a mistake to look for the "ancient middle east" in mesoamerica. You need to be looking for nephite culture instead. What we find on the ground is somewhat consistent with the BOM text, but there is also much that is missing. Not enough to convince the skeptic, but "not found, not exist" does not convince the believer.

[ERayR]

Well, if not the church then perhaps BYU. They're in the archeology "business" or at least the history business.

What does BYU teach about the historic setting of the Book of Mormon and what texts do they use? Or perhaps a more legitimate question to begin with is, Do they teach the historicity of the Book of Mormon at BYU?

Anyone know?

Use a Google search of BYU's Book of Mormon curiculum.

[Vance]

Why do you assume Jesus needed any texts?

Technically, that statement is false.

"needed" isn't his assumption at all, he said "used", and "used" is not an assumption either because it is specifically stated.

You agree that he is God, yet you still say he needed text to preach from?

See above.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Vance

[Jesterss]

Technically, that statement is false.

"needed" isn't his assumption at all, he said "used", and "used" is not an assumption either because it is specifically stated.

See above.

What are you DaddyG's little boy?.. T-Shirt already replied to those statements of mine.. keep up and provide information rather than nitpicking the use of my english that isn't pertinent to the information at hand.. now if I misspelled something here or didn't accurately portray your stance, please feel free to correct me

[Vance]

What are you DaddyG's little boy?..

Twin sons, different mother.

T-Shirt already replied to those statements of mine..

Actually it was Lehi that responded. T-Shirt had not. But Lehi (uncharacteristically) missed my important point.

. . . keep up and provide information rather than nitpicking the use of my english that isn't pertinent to the information at hand..

If you don't like being nitpicked then be more precise in your criticism.

now if I misspelled something here or didn't accurately portray your stance, please feel free to correct me

Misspellings are generally not a problem here. Inaccuracy in criticism is.

[altersteve]

What are you DaddyG's little boy?.. T-Shirt already replied to those statements of mine.. keep up and provide information rather than nitpicking the use of my english that isn't pertinent to the information at hand.. now if I misspelled something here or didn't accurately portray your stance, please feel free to correct me

You want us to correct you if you misspell something? How about grammatical errors? Because I can go through every single one of your posts and make quite a few grammatical corrections if you really want me to.

[Jaybear]

Fair enough.

I hope you realize the difficulty of that task, considering the difficulty of identification based on the paucity, not of artifacts, but of written records from that time period. You find a jade necklace and how do you identify it as coming from the nephites, lamanites, or somebody else.

I don't agree. Archeologists are amazing when it comes to recreating history and tracing migratory patterns from the ground. Tracing the migration to the new world from the clovis blade found in new mexico is an example.

Also, it is a mistake to look for the "ancient middle east" in mesoamerica. You need to be looking for nephite culture instead. What we find on the ground is somewhat consistent with the BOM text, but there is also much that is missing. Not enough to convince the skeptic, but "not found, not exist" does not convince the believer.

I don't know about that. I could be wrong, but its seems intuitive to me then when people migrate from one place to another, they don't abandon their language, culture, or skill sets. I am not an archeologist, or anthropologist, but I would assume that a group migrating from the mideast, would retain their culuture, written language, their religious beliefs, and their skillset. If they knew how to make wine, bread, cheese, steel swords, boats that can cross the ocean, they would retain and pass on and spread those skills. If they knew they were leaving and relocating to a new land, they would take seeds and plants with them.

I would therefore assume that if you believed in the historicity of the BOM, the first thing to look for would be for mideast influence.

Is your statement: "it is a mistake to look for the "ancient middle east" in mesoamerica" based on what experts are telling you, or just the expert apologists.

[Jesterss]

You want us to correct you if you misspell something? How about grammatical errors? Because I can go through every single one of your posts and make quite a few grammatical corrections if you really want me to.

Likewise...

@V - You're right it was Lehi, not T-Shirt, but the point was that the question had been answered... if they felt the need to answer it a different way they would have... if you feel like you want to answer the questions or respond to my statements in a manner that reflects thought rather than an english lesson, go for it.. and it does appear you and daddyg are twin brothers, i'll give you that one.. alter is making a case of triplets it appears, I think he feels left out..

[Gervin]

You want us to correct you if you misspell something? How about grammatical errors? Because I can go through every single one of your posts and make quite a few grammatical corrections if you really want me to.

Do yYou want your us to correct you if you misspellings or grammatical errors correctedsomething? How about grammatical errors? Because I can go through every single one of your posts and make quite a few grammatical corrections on all your posts, if you really want me to.

ahhh, me feel much better ...

[ERayR]

Do yYou want your us to correct you if you misspellings or grammatical errors correctedsomething? How about grammatical errors? Because I can go through every single one of your posts and make quite a few grammatical corrections on all your posts, if you really want me to.

ahhh, me feel much better ...

Like much of your posting, not adding anything of substance.

[Gervin]

Like much of your posting, not adding anything of substance.

Editors try to simply take out the extraneous and make the points cleaner. That you would take exception to this example on such a miniscule scale does not surprise me. I look forward to your future bloviating.

[Jesterss]

Like much of your posting, not adding anything of substance.

That would be the purpose of Vance and DaddyG.. They have been doing the exact same thing to me... So now you get my point.. thank you

[ERayR]

Editors try to simply take out the extraneous and make the points cleaner. That you would take exception to this example on such a miniscule scale does not surprise me. I look forward to your future bloviating.

blo·vi·ate (blv-t)

intr.v. blo·vi·at·ed, blo·vi·at·ing, blo·vi·ates Slang

To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner: "the rural Babbitt who bloviates about 'progress' and 'growth'" (George Rebeck).

I didn't think my post was that long. On the other hand perhaps you need a mirror.