Fair

[Mariner]

You may not post what any religion considers to be too sacred to be displayed in public. For Mormons that is what occurs inside the temple. You may not link to anti-Mormon websites that have such content on them anywhere on the website. Cross-posting to anti-Mormon websites is generally not allowed to prevent board wars. Other than that this board is filled with "non-faith promoting materials". I strongly advise you to read the board guidelines before jumping to conclusions. We do enforce what is referred to as a call for references (CFR). Everyone who makes an assertion or accusation is expected to provide sources and documentation if asked for it.

Great.

Thanks.

The relevant references, perhaps with relevant excerpts from one or more of these papers, will be provided as soon as I can get back to my personal computer.

[cinepro]

How reliable is FAIR?

I mean if I email a doctrinal question to the apologists there (instead of posting it here), how confident can I be that the answer I get will doctrinally sound (from an LDS pov)?

Perhaps another question that could be asked is why you would email a "doctrinal question" to FAIR? The doctrine of the LDS Church is found in official Church publications, the scriptures, and official declarations and proclamations. All of these things are pretty easy to search and find on the LDS website.

I've read many good articles by apologists on non-doctrinal subjects, but when it comes to doctrine, I don't think the Church has ever acknowledged a role for apologists to play in defining or propagating it.

[ldsfaqs]

You can't be serious. Perhaps you would care to provide examples of this published high quality mainstream academic research that directly supports key falsifiable truth claims of the Book of Mormon and/or the Book of Abraham.

I'm not the best source for this, but others here are. I can only say I've seen it and read it.

Further, my main claim was that many of those who publish on mormonism are well published and respected in their particular fields of research.

There is no reason they all of a sudden become liars and unreliable when they publish on mormonism, and are by the way mostly the only ones interested in doing so.

Maybe you would care to start with Kolob cosmology as described in the Book of Abraham,

That ones not demonstrable yet.

or better yet, why not put in evidence mainstream academic research that verifies the presence of Semitic DNA in the descendants of pre-Columbian populations of the Western Hemisphere.

That ones easy..... Several issues.

1. No one actually knows what Lehi's DNA looked like, let alone if it was Semitic, and even what the Semitic DNA looked like back then. (the later some guesses, but still varied)

2. Semitic DNA pre or post Columbia is an anti-mormon strawman. Reason being is because any small group inserting itself into a larger existing population, the DNA would be lost, and primarily only the existing i.e. Asiatic DNA would be dominate. The further strawman is putting mormonism into a box as if both the BOM and LDS have believed that only Lehites existed on the entire continent. Almost no LDS has believed either, because the BOM says otherwise, and LDS history says otherwise. Some small number and maybe a statement here or there doesn't make such common belief.

3. Go over to the Maxwell Institute and you can read several submitted articles by scholars on the DNA issue, several of which are DNA experts, and respected in their field. They explain the science, and as it relates and doesn't relate to the BOM. They debunk the misuse of the Science by such non-experts like Thomas Murphy, and they debunk the misuse by the anti-mormon of the BOM and LDS views.

4. Mainstream academic research has little to no interest in mormonism, thus there aren't going to be many articles on this. I know there have been some, but others here will have to answer you those possibly. However, to be clear, many of the LDS scholars who have published articles at the Maxwell Institute etc. ARE in fact well published in mainstream academia. Again, there is no reason their research should all of a sudden be suspect simply because they write on mormonism. Mormons have the same standards as any professional. We don't usually walk around in Suits and white shirts and ties because we are intellectually "deficient".

In fact, any piece of archeological evidence that has been interpreted by qualified authors in mainstream academic publications to directly support the Book of Mormon narrative of events in the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere would suffice.

Others will have to answer that. There are a few comments here and there, and there are more on other issues, such as the Temple etc., but again, objective non-LDS interest in mormonism is only in it's infancy.

Edited November 12, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Anakin7]

Mariner by way of introduction of yourself are you an ecclesiastcal leader or a lay member of the church you Pastor/Attend ?. Where is the Church you attend located ?. Thanks.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

OFF TOPIC AND INAPPROPRIATE. Do not ever ask our posters to divulge personal information.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Minos

[Mariner]

In an earlier post on this thread I stated that there were a number falsifiable truth claims in the canonized scripture of the LDS Church that had been clearly refuted in the mainstream peer reviewed scientific literature. At the invitation of Brant Gardner, I list below some of the falsifiable truth claims from LDS scripture and describe the scientific evidence that refutes (falsifies) them.

Book of Abraham (Pearl of Great Price)

Provenance of the Book of Abraham:

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)

LDS truth claims regarding the provenance of the Book of Abraham, such as the one quoted above from the Book of Abraham itself, have been proven false. The papyri from which Joseph Smith claimed to have "translated" the Book of Abraham are simply one of a number of examples of a common Egyptian funerary texts, the translation of which is well known and has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. Since there are essentially no differences between the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated and several other near identical copies of the Book of Breathings (or Breathing Permit), one who believed the LDS truth claims might reasonably assume that these other Book of Breathings papyri could also be translated to yield the Book of Abraham (which, of course, they cannot).

Qualified non-LDS Egyptologists who have commented on the Joseph Smith's translation of the papyri, without exception, have stated that Smith's translation is fraudulent. For example Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology stated,

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.... Smith has turned the goddess [isis in Facsimile No. 3] into a king and Osiris into Abraham.”

Drs. Theodule Deveria, Klaus Baer, Richard A. Parker, Albert Lythgoe, James Breasted A.H Sayce Flinders Petrie are among the qualified non-LDS academic Egyptologists who have concluded that he Book of Abraham is fraudulent. For example, Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote:

"It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations.

In fact, on this issue, even a qualified LDS Egyptologist (Steven Thompson) agrees with non-LDS Egyptologists that The Book of Abraham is not a translation of the papyri that came into Joseph Smith's possession in 1835.

Kolob Cosmology: In the Book of Abraham, the sun is said to derive its light from Kolob. It should be common knowledge that this truth claim is utter nonsense. I trust that I need not cite scientific papers to show that this falsifiable claim has, in fact, been falsified.

Doctrine and Covenants

Age of the Earth: The Doctrine and Covenants claims that the age of the Earth (temporal existence) is 7,000 years (D&C 77:6)

Using data from at least three independent dating techniques (which are in remarkable agreement by the way), scientists put the age of the Earth at approximately 4.5 billion years. This plainly stated truth claim stands falsified.

Book of Mormon

Tower of Babel and Global Flood Myths: In the Book of Mormon, we have the tale of the Tower of Babel and the confounding of languages (Ether 1-33), as well as the Flood of Noah (Alma 10:22). There is no evidence whatsoever for these two events, and more than adequate evidence against them. Linguists agree that there was no catastrophic merging, change or bottleneck in the development of natural language at the time of the Tower of Babel (or at any other time in human history). Geology and botany, as well as animal and human genetics, clearly show that there was no global flood that destroyed life on Earth save for Noah and his family aboard the ark. These events never happened. They are myths that Joseph Smith copied from the OT into his most correct book ever written. Again, this is common knowledge and specific scientific citations here should not be required.

Nephite and Lamanite Civilizations in Mesoamerica: The FAIR and MI folks now like to claim that the Book of Mormon narrative refers to events mainly in Mesoamerica, even though many of the locations and place names in the Book of Mormon are based on locations and 19th century place names in the Northeastern US. The FAIR website lists no less than 40 proposed "Limited Geography Models" for the Book of Mormon Narrative, most centered in Mesoamerica.

http://fairwiki.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Models/Limited

These assertions are made without any credible evidence whatsoever. And again, there is a great deal of credible evidence to the contrary, some of which is described below.

Wheat and Barley cultivated in Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica: If one assumes that the events in the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica, then ancient pollen samples should show the presence of pollen from the grains mentioned in the Book of Mormon. However, while analysis of pollen grains recovered from appropriately dated layers of lake sediment did show the presence of maize, which was known to have been cultivated in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, no pollen from wheat or barley (both of which were claimed to have been cultivated by the Book of Mormon) were found in any of these sediments. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that wheat or barley (or grapes) were raised in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica as claimed in the Book of Mormon.

David J. Rue, "Early Agriculture and Early Postclassic Maya Occupation in Western Honduras", Nature 326 (March 1987): 285-86.

There is a long list of other falsifiable claims as to specific plants, animals and technology in the Book of Mormon narrative as it applies to Mesoamerica. These obviously false claims make it difficult for serious scientists to take the Book of Mormon seriously.

Lehites (Nephites) and Jaredites migrated to the New World from the Holy Land: Genetic studies of native American populations living in Mesoamerica (and elsewhere throughout the Western Hemisphere) show no trace of Semitic DNA. Yet the Book of Mormon claims that pre-Columbian Semites in the Western Hemisphere (somewhere) numbered in the millions.

Apologist commonly claim that "we do not know what Lehi's DNA looked like" implying that the failure to find Semitic DNA is because we do not know whta to look for. This kind of response is typical of folks who do not understand population genetics. In fact, fairly detailed maps of human migration and the associated genetics of the migrating groups has been developed. The work of Mark Stoneking and colleagues is foundational in this area.

Rebecca L. Cann, Mark Stoneking, and Allan C. Wilson, "Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution," Nature 325 (January 1, 1987):31-36.

We have a good what DNA would have looked like in the Eastern Med and Mesopotamia at the time of the Jaredites and the Lehites. DNA evidence for the migration of human populations does survive in their descendants. For example, we can see Cohen Modal Haplotype (Semitic) DNA in isolated tribes in Africa from an ancient migration of Semites out of Yemen about 3,000 years ago. We can Viking DNA in Native American populations in North America from pre-Columbian explorers and settlers from northern Europe around 1000 years ago.

MF Hammer et al," Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood." Hum Genet. 2009 November; 126(5): 707–717

What we do not see is any Semite DNA in native American populations. DNA of Asian origin was well established in Western Hemisphere populations by 10,000 years ago or so, and shows no contribution from pre-Columbian Semitic populations.

S. Horai et al "Peopling of the Americas, founded by four major lineages of mitochondrial DNA" Mol Biol Evol. 1993 Jan;10(1):23-47.

Reformed Egyptian as the Written Language used in Book of Mormon times in Mesoamerica: The Book of Mormon states that Reformed Egyptian was the main written language used by the Nephite peoples. We even have samples of "Caractors" from this imaginary language from Joseph Smith himself. No trace of "Reformed Egyptian" has ever been found among all of the engravings, codices, and other written records from pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, or from anywhere in the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere.

Science has shown that in language of Mesoamerica in Book of Mormon times was the Mayan language, probably derived from an earlier Olmec language and using glyphs in the written form. More than 10,000 examples of the written Mayan language survive inscribed on buildings, monuments and codices.

Mayan and proto-Mayan are the most studied languages found in the ancient Western Hemisphere. The development of the Mayan language and its various branches can be traced in great detail for at least 4 millennia (from 2000 BCE to 2000 ACE). This is the language that was spoken and written in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. Qualifed mainstream scientists including Michael Coe, make it clear that no trace whatsoever of "Reformed Egyptian" as described by Joseph Smith and in the Book of Mormon, either as a spoken or written language, has ever been found, anywhere (let alone in Mesoamerica).

Michael Coe, John Roberts, David Stuart, Karl Taube, and Stephen Houston are among the qualified academics who have written extensively about Mesoamerican and Classic Mayan language and culture in peer reviewed papers and a number of technical and text books. Reformed Egyptian has never been mentioned by these scientists in the context of their exhaustive treatises on Mesoamerican history and culture, not even by Dr. Houston (who is LDS).

If Reformed Egyptian really was the language of millions of people in Classic Mesoamerica, as claimed by the Book of Mormon, how could this be? Again, Michael Coe has spoken directly to this issue and stated that there is no evidence whatsoever for Reformed Egyptian in Mesoamerica or anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere prior to Joseph Smith.

Those who say that it has simply "been lost" somehow should consider that we still have examples of inscribed rune stones left by a few dozen pre-Columbian Viking explorers who established short lived (a decade or two) settlements in North America about 100 years ago. Yet we have not a single example of Reformed Egyptian left by a population that was said to have numbered in the millions and to have remained in the Western Hemisphere for several centuries. The only possible evidenced based conclusion is that Reformed Egyptian first came to the Western Hemisphere in the mind of Joseph Smith.

Findings of Leading Qualified Scientists concerning Book of Mormon Truth Claims: Two of the leading academics in the area Mesoamerican studies, Michael Coe and Karl Taube have clearly and specifically that there is no evidence whatsoever for pre-Columbian transoceanic travel, migration or contact between the Asia or Europe and Mesoamerica.

Conclusion of an LDS General Authority concerning provenance of the Book of Mormon: Even the LDS General Authority B. H. Roberts, in writings collected in

"Studies of the Book of Mormon", Brigham D. Madsen, ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985)

concluded, based on a great deal of evidence, that the Book Of Mormon is not as claimed by Joseph Smith and is clearly a product of the 19th century. While this would not qualify as a peer reviewed scientific paper by a qualified scientist, it does qualify as a well researched writings by an intellectually honest LDS Apostle.

Scientific Narrative for Pre Columbian Mesoamerica: Book of Mormon truth claims are not supported by historic, archeological, linguistic , geographic, or genetic evidence. The science-based narrative for pre-Columbian history, language, technology, and culture in Mesoamerica is based upon strong evidence in all of these areas and is absolutely incompatible with the Book of Mormon narrative.

Overwhelming Weight of Scientific Evidence: Finally, as I stated above, there is the weight of evidence. While there are a number of papers and statements by eminent secular scholars confirming that there is no evidence whatsoever for the truth claims regarding places and events in the Book of Mormon, there are no qualified secular scientists who have published evidence, or even opinion, that would support the history of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica as set forth in the Book of Mormon.

Based on the evidence and its interpretation by every qualified non-LDS scientist who has published or spoken on the issue of the Book of Mormon, it is clear that truth claims related to the veracity and provenance of the Book of Mormon have been falsified.

_____________________________________________________________________________

No doubt the apologists on this board will claim that the problems mentioned here are "nothing new" or have been addressed in the past. Just because they are not new does not mean that the afffected falsify LDS truth claims have not been falsified.

Apologists may also claim that the contrary scientific findings should be open to interpretation, or that the scriptures at issue require a "nuanced" or "careful" reading in order to gain a "correct understanding". This is usually a signal that the apologists would prefer that the scriptures be somehow re-interpreted so as not to appear to be in such stark contrast with science. These apologetic positions should be understood as just that, and nothing more.

[Mariner]

Mariner by way of introduction of yourself are you an ecclesiastcal leader or a lay member of the church you Pastor/Attend ?. Where is the Church you attend located ?. Thanks.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

I was born into the LDS Church, married in the temple, and left the Church about 20 years ago. I am an agnostic who, because of my experience in the LDS Church, remains fascinated by the things that otherwise intelligent people can delude themsleves into believing.

Anakin, your question is out of line. Mariner you are not required to respond to personal questions. You are welcome to post disagreement but you will not last long if you post insults instead.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Minos

[Minos]

Do NOT use unreferenced cut and paste on this board. If the above material is not referenced it will be removed. That means that when you use a reference without giving any content from it you need to supply the article/website you got that reference from so posters can judge its content. Otherwise you are just name dropping. That is not a discussion.

This is too much for a single thread. Start a new thread for each individual topic you want to discuss.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Minos

[ERayR]

I remain fascinated that otherwise intelligent people can delude themsleves into believing everyone ought to agree with them.

[Mariner]

Do NOT use unreferenced cut and paste on this board. If the above material is not referenced it will be removed.

Edited to add: This is too much for a single thread. Start a new thread for each individual topic you want to discuss.

It was my intent that the material posted be adequately referenced, and I believe that it was. There are half a dozen literature references and direct attribution to a number of other qualified authors, including an LDS anthropologist and an LDS General Authority, as well as several scripture references.

If more references are required, I would be glad to provide them. For example, I could hot link the names of each of the authors mentioned to examples of their relevant work. Or, those interested could simply google the names along with appropriate search terms such as "Mayan" or "Egyptology".

As stated, this post is in response to invitations by Brant Gardner to post scientific data that refutes LDS truth claims. I did as requested and have no wish to discuss these topics further unless there is interest by others to do so.

Except for the literature reference citations and direct quotations themselves, the post in question was not cut and paste.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Mariner

[Mariner]

I was born into the LDS Church, married in the temple, and left the Church about 20 years ago. I am an agnostic who, because of my experience in the LDS Church, remains fascinated by the things that otherwise intelligent people can delude themsleves into believing.

Anakin, your question is out of line. Mariner you are not required to respond to personal questions. You are welcome to post disagreement but you will not last long if you post insults instead.

Mod,

No insult was expressed or intended. It should be clear that I was referring to myself.

[Calm]

Mariner, would you define "truth claims" as you are using them above and discuss what limits, if any, apply in a religious or scriptural context.

For example, do you see any differences between truth claims in a scientific textbook and a religious text? Are they equivalent in your view? If so, why?

[Mariner]

Calmoriah,

I would define a truth claim is a statement or assertion made with the intent that it should be believed as factual by others. A falsifiable truth claim is a claim as to a simple matter of fact, the veracity of which can be unambiguously verified or refuted.

For example, when Joseph Smith made the assertion (truth claim) that he could translate ancient languages by the gift and power of God, and then claimed that the Book of Abraham was the results of such a translation process applied to his papyri, then one would expect that other qualified Egyptologists, who have demonstrated ability to translate ancient Egyptian papyri, would produce the same translation from the same text. Since this has not been the case, no matter how many qualified Egyptologists have considered the papyri in question, this particular truth claim must be considered falsified by science.

Thus, there should really be no difference in the nature of falsifiable truth claims made by religion and those made by science.

There can be a difference between truth claims of science and those of religion that are not falsifiable. Since falsifiability is pretty much required for scientific truth claims, there are not many non-falsifiable truth claims in science.

Religion, on the other hand, survives and even thrives on truth claims that are not falsifiable. Pretty much every religious proclamation of faith or testimony is comprised of a series of unfalsifiable truth claims.

Since such claims are unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be tested as to their veracity, they are (or should be) of little practical meaning or value to others.

I hope this answers your question

Edited November 12, 2011 by Mariner

[ldsfaqs]

Hey Mariner...... You have misrepresented yourself. You made the claim that there are all these professional peer-reviewed scholarship journals debunking mormonism.

Yet, all I see from your list is "quotes" from various scholars nearly all saying and addressing NOTHING about mormonism, and the parts that might address mormonism in some manner is NOT in some professional journal.

In other words, you have failed to provide the very thing you are demanding LDS to do. Sorry, but Quote Mining things YOU THINK debunk mormonism is not professional scholarship and journals falsifying the claims of mormonism. Further, anti-mormon's creating strawmen that they THEN present to some scholar to comment on is again also not proper peer reviewed scholarship, nor is it existing in professional peer reviewed journals.

Edited November 12, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Calm]

Mariner, Did you repost your post for a reason?

Edited November 12, 2011 by calmoriah

[Mariner]

Hey Mariner...... You have misrepresented yourself. You made the claim that there are all these professional peer-reviewed scholarship journals debunking mormonism.

Yet, all I see from your list is "quotes" from various scholars nearly all saying and addressing NOTHING about mormonism, and the parts that might address mormonism in some manner is NOT in some professional journal.

In other words, you have failed to provide the very thing you are demanding LDS to do. Sorry, but Quote Mining things YOU THINK debunk mormonism is not professional scholarship and journals falsifying the claims of mormonism. Further, anti-mormon's creating strawmen that they THEN present to some scholar to comment on is again also not proper peer reviewed scholarship, nor is it existing in professional peer reviewed journals.

Please note that my stated intention in the post was to provide references to peer reviewed scientific papers that refuted falsifiable truth claims in LDS scriptures, as requested by others on this board.

I provided references to peer reviewed scientific papers and/or their authors which:

- refuted the falsifiable claim in the Book of Mormon that wheat and barley existed in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.

- refuted the falsifiable claim that Semites migrated to pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (as determined genetic analysis)

- refuted the falsifiable claim that Reformed Egyptian was an important language in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica

- refute the falsifiable claim that a common Egyptian funerary text was translated to generate the Book of Abraham

I also simply appealed to common scientific knowledge (and common sense) to refute the falsifiable claims in LDS scripture that:

- the Earth is 7,000 years old

- the sun gets its light from Kolob

- there was a global flood at the time of Noah

With regard to quoting authors such as Michael Coe, it should be clear from his work that he considers LDS claims regarding Reformed Egyptian or Nephites in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica to be silly and not worth published comment. He has, in fact, stated as much in formal recorded interviews that are in the public domain. Others I cited have allowed (or caused) their views on the matter to be published.

Finally, if I was really "quote mining" in any of these assertions, then you should be able to counter with mined quotes of your own from non-LDS scientists that refute my position.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Mariner

[Brade]

You would first have to define what "doctrinally sound" means. lol. Good luck with that one.

It's simple, John:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Brade

[altersteve]

Please note that my stated intention in the post was to provide reference peer reviewed scientific papers that refuted falsifiable truth claims in LDS scriptures, as requested by others on this board.

I provided references to peer reviewed scientific papers and/or their authors which:

- refuted the falsifiable claim in the Book of Mormon that wheat and barley existed in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.

- refuted the falsifiable claim that Semites migrated to pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (as determined genetic analysis)

- refuted the falsifiable claim that Reformed Egyptian was an important language in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica

- refute the falsifiable claim that a common Egyptian funerary text was translated to generate the Book of Abraham

You do realize, I hope, that all of these issues have been dealt with already. None of these things have been refuted.

I also simply appealed to common scientific knowledge (and common sense) to refute the falsifiable claims in LDS scripture that:

- the Earth is 7,000 years old

LDS scripture never makes this claim. Yeah, I know, D&C 77. Go ahead and quote it to me. But that's not what it says.

[Mariner]

You do realize, I hope, that all of these issues have been dealt with already. None of these things have been refuted.

LDS scripture never makes this claim. Yeah, I know, D&C 77. Go ahead and quote it to me. But that's not what it says.

If none of the claims have been refuted, perhaps you should ask yourself why the vast majority of those who have ever considered them, including the best trained and best qualified to judge their veracity, dismiss them as silly.

While they have clearly have not been refuted in your mind, you must understand that your views are not shared by the folks who make the final call scientifically.

I can pretty much guarantee that you will never see NSF grant to conduct research on pre-Columbian Nephite culture, or Reformed Egyptian.

[Deborah]

While they have clearly have not been refuted in your mind, you must understand that your views are not shared by the folks who make the final call scientifically.

And yet many fine LDS scholars and scientists have no problem with these issues that you find intellectually defeating. They are well trained and their veracity cannot be called into question because some other so-called experts disagree.

[Anakin7]

I was born into the LDS Church, married in the temple, and left the Church about 20 years ago. I am an agnostic who, because of my experience in the LDS Church, remains fascinated by the things that otherwise intelligent people can delude themsleves into believing.

Anakin, your question is out of line. Mariner you are not required to respond to personal questions. You are welcome to post disagreement but you will not last long if you post insults instead.

Moderator sorry if my question was out of line in your Heart/Mind. I was simply trying to understand the background and general area of Mariner. My Humble apologies. I hope no serious repentance is needed on my part using True Grace by way of True Faith.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited November 13, 2011 by Anakin7

[Mariner]

And yet many fine LDS scholars and scientists have no problem with these issues that you find intellectually defeating. They are well trained and their veracity cannot be called into question because some other so-called experts disagree.

The scientists who do not accept the Book of Mormon narrative of per-Columbian Mesoamerica, or that the sun gets its light from Kolob, or that an Egyptian funerary text is actually the Book of Abraham, could hardly be termed "so-called" experts. They are, in fact, the experts.

And they are the ones who make the critical fact based (as opposed to faith-based) decisions. If the LDS scientists you refer to are well trained as you claim, then they are no doubt also skilled at managing cognitive dissonance.

(Do you really believe that the sun gets its light from Kolob instead of from internal nuclear fusion reactions?)

[Wiki Wonka]

The Book of Mormon states that Reformed Egyptian was the main written language used by the Nephite peoples....

If Reformed Egyptian really was the language of millions of people in Classic Mesoamerica, as claimed by the Book of Mormon...

CFR please. Can you tell me in what manner the Book of Mormon supports the claims highlighted in bold.

There is no language called "Reformed Egyptian." Moroni states that he wrote in Egyptian characters that had been "reformed" (one would assume over a period of 1000 years) Here's all I can find on the subject.

Mormon 9:32-34

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

33 And if our plates had been ^asufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no ^bimperfection in our record.

Thanks,

WW

Edited November 13, 2011 by Wiki Wonka

[altersteve]

Raise your hand if you want someone to rip Mariner's post apart!

I'll volunteer.

In an earlier post on this thread I stated that there were a number falsifiable truth claims in the canonized scripture of the LDS Church that had been clearly refuted in the mainstream peer reviewed scientific literature.

This entire statement rests entirely on the fact that your reading of the Book of Mormon is obviously driven by your desire to criticize it. You are simply reading the traditional interpretation into it, showing that you are clearly ignorant of current Book of Mormon scholarship.

At the invitation of Brant Gardner, I list below some of the falsifiable truth claims from LDS scripture and describe the scientific evidence that refutes (falsifies) them.

And yet you don't provide very many references, as I will point out. You make some pretty big claims here that, as I said above, all have to do with your flawed interpretation of the text and your lack of understanding of the real issues. I will demonstrate this.

Book of Abraham (Pearl of Great Price)

Provenance of the Book of Abraham:

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)

LDS truth claims regarding the provenance of the Book of Abraham, such as the one quoted above from the Book of Abraham itself, have been proven false. The papyri from which Joseph Smith claimed to have "translated" the Book of Abraham are simply one of a number of examples of a common Egyptian funerary texts . . .

Your first mistake is saying this as if none of us are aware of this. The Church, in fact, made this information known immediately after the papyri's discovery in the Improvement Era, the official Church magazine at the time. Two follow-up articles on the rediscovery of the papyri was published the following month. These articles are as follows:

Jay M. Todd, "Egyptian Papyri Rediscovered," Improvement Era (January 1968), 12–16.

Jay M. Todd, "New Light on Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri: Additional Fragment Disclosed," Improvement Era (February 1968), 40.

Jay M. Todd, "Background of the Church Historian's Fragment," Improvement Era (February 1968), 40A–40I.

. . . the translation of which is well known and has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. Since there are essentially no differences between the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated and several other near identical copies of the Book of Breathings (or Breathing Permit), one who believed the LDS truth claims might reasonably assume that these other Book of Breathings papyri could also be translated to yield the Book of Abraham (which, of course, they cannot).

Latter-day Saints do not claim to know how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham except that it was done by the gift and power of God. Several theorise have been proposed. Many believe that the Book of Abraham text is not found on the documents that have been rediscovered -- that the documents containing the actual Book of Abraham text was destroyed in the Chicago Fire of 1871 -- but as far as I know, that view is not as strong or prevelant as it used to be. It is clear to us, though, that Joseph Smith had the ability to "translate" documents without the original manuscript in front of him (i.e., JST, Book of Moses, D&C 93, etc.), so this issue should honestly not at all be a problem for a Mormon, anyway.

Nevertheless, it would be helpful for you to read the works of LDS Egyptologists John Gee (who obtained a Ph.D. in Egyptology from Yale University) and Michael D. Rhodes (who has published a translation and commentary of several of the Joseph Smith Papyri fragments; for example, see Michael D. Rhodes, “A Translation and Commentary on the Joseph Smith Hypocephalus,” BYU Studies 17 (1977): 259–274), and of the late scholar Hugh Nibley, a linguist and BYU professor who wrote several books on the Church, including a few on the Book of Abraham (including Abraham in Egypt and An Approach to the Book of Abraham).

In addition, you apparently don't know of any of the internal evidences for the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, which are numerous. There are parallels to ancient documents that Joseph Smith could not have had access to; for examples of these parallels, see Tvedtnes, John A., Brian M. Hauglid, and John Gee, eds. Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2001), 540.

Your knowledge of the LDS scholarship that has been done in this area is obviously severely lacking.

Qualified non-LDS Egyptologists who have commented on the Joseph Smith's translation of the papyri, without exception, have stated that Smith's translation is fraudulent. For example Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology stated,

First of all, I would not consider this to be an adequate reference. You should have the name of the work in which this was written, as well as the page number. As for Dr. Archibald Henry "A.H." Sayce, the guy lived from 1846–1933. Obviously, our knowledge of Egyptology has grown significantly during that time. Rather than simply searching for random quotes that support your presupposed opinion of Joseph Smith, I suggest turning to modern research and taking the time to learn about it. Furthermore, Sayce was not Professor of Egyptology, but of Assyriology.

And what Professor Sayce says about Joseph interpreting Isis as a king and Osiris as Abraham is not true, but Joseph's alleged "mistake" in interpreting men as women is not a problem. As Russel C. McGregor and Kerry A. Shirts point out, Joseph actually nailed it: "The ancient Egyptians dressed in costume during their rituals, coronations, and funerals and took on the roles of the deities whose robes they wore, whether male or female. It is that simple. And there is rather an abundant amount of evidence to demonstrate this these days" ("Letters to an Anti-Mormon," FARMS Review of Books, Provo, Utah: FARMS, 11, no. 1 [1999]: 90–298).

Drs. Theodule Deveria, Klaus Baer, Richard A. Parker, Albert Lythgoe, James Breasted A.H Sayce Flinders Petrie are among the qualified non-LDS academic Egyptologists who have concluded that he Book of Abraham is fraudulent. For example, Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie of London University wrote:

Theodule Deveria lived during and somewhat after Joseph's lifetime (1831–1871). Hardly a reliable source there. He was one of the first critics of the Book of Abraham, and once again, our understanding of Egyptology (and everything else, really) has grown immensely since the 1800s. Same with Richard A. Parker, 1905–1933; James Breasted, 1865–1935; and Flinders Petrie, 1853–1942; and of course A.H. Sayce, 1846–1933, as pointed out earlier. Once again you demonstrate that you don't care to consult modern research. And there's no citation for Dr. Petrie's statement, so I can't take that seriously, anyway.

And of course non-LDS Egyptologists conclude that the Book of Mormon is fraudlent -- hence the non-LDS part.

In fact, on this issue, even a qualified LDS Egyptologist (Steven Thompson) agrees with non-LDS Egyptologists that The Book of Abraham is not a translation of the papyri that came into Joseph Smith's possession in 1835.

That's his problem. There are qualified LDS Egyptologists who clearly disagree with Stephen Thompson.

Kolob Cosmology: In the Book of Abraham, the sun is said to derive its light from Kolob. It should be common knowledge that this truth claim is utter nonsense. I trust that I need not cite scientific papers to show that this falsifiable claim has, in fact, been falsified.

Your claim that the Book of Mormon says that "the sun is said to derive its light from Kolob" is completely false and is probably the result of a sloppy reading of what it actually says. What it actually says is the following:

Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.

Read this carefully. This celestial body, it explains, "is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun." It is also said, "by the Egyptians," that the sun "borrows [not derives] its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power." This could clearly be symbolic of how we "borrow" our light from God through the medium of Jesus Christ, who is the highest "governing power" in the universe besides His Father. In other words, the sun and all other stars and planets are "governed" by Kolob "through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash," in the same way that we and all other things are governed by God through the medium of His Son. Interestingly, as the Book of Abraham indicates, Kolob is the most powerful governing body in the universe (besides God). Many of the astronomical things described in the Book of Abraham are symbolic of our relationship to our Heavenly Father. The same sorts of things are taught in the temple endowment ceremony.

The point, though, is that since the existence of such a celestial body cannot be proven true or false at this point thanks to the current limits of science, we can't address this any further than saying that your interpretation of this is not a very intelligent one.

Doctrine and Covenants

Age of the Earth: The Doctrine and Covenants claims that the age of the Earth (temporal existence) is 7,000 years (D&C 77:6)

Using data from at least three independent dating techniques (which are in remarkable agreement by the way), scientists put the age of the Earth at approximately 4.5 billion years. This plainly stated truth claim stands falsified.

Sorry, not quite. Once again, this is only your interpretation, and once again, it's flawed. As you said yourself, the Doctrine and Covenants teaches here that the temporal existence of the earth is 7,000 years. That clearly allows for a previous existence. Furthermore, this is the Lord speaking, and we don't know how long 7,000 years is to the Lord (and there's also the possibility that the 1,000-year dispensations simply mean "a very long period of time," which is consistent with the use of the Hebrew word for "thousand," 'elef).

Book of Mormon

Tower of Babel and Global Flood Myths: In the Book of Mormon, we have the tale of the Tower of Babel and the confounding of languages (Ether 1-33), as well as the Flood of Noah (Alma 10:22). There is no evidence whatsoever for these two events, and more than adequate evidence against them.

This is a pretty big claim to make. There are clearly many who disagree with you. Otherwise, people wouldn't believe these teachings. All you're doing is simply expecting us to agree with you, but sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Linguists agree that there was no catastrophic merging, change or bottleneck in the development of natural language at the time of the Tower of Babel (or at any other time in human history).

Great. Fortunately, the Book of Mormon never makes the claim that there was such a "catastrophic merging, change or bottleneck in the development of natural language," and neither does the Old Testament.

Geology and botany, as well as animal and human genetics, clearly show that there was no global flood that destroyed life on Earth save for Noah and his family aboard the ark.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the Flood was not global? Many Latter-day Saints (and others who believe the Old Testament account of the Flood) espouse the view that the Flood was either local, or that the earth was flooded gradually, not all at once.

These events never happened. They are myths that Joseph Smith copied from the OT into his most correct book ever written. Again, this is common knowledge and specific scientific citations here should not be required.

Belittling one's beliefs by calling them mere "myths" something that should never be done in a civil discussion.

Continued below.

Edited November 14, 2011 by altersteve

[altersteve]

Continued from previous post.

Nephite and Lamanite Civilizations in Mesoamerica: The FAIR and MI folks now like to claim that the Book of Mormon narrative refers to events mainly in Mesoamerica, even though many of the locations and place names in the Book of Mormon are based on locations and 19th century place names in the Northeastern US. The FAIR website lists no less than 40 proposed "Limited Geography Models" for the Book of Mormon Narrative, most centered in Mesoamerica.

http://fairwiki.org/.../Models/Limited

These assertions are made without any credible evidence whatsoever. And again, there is a great deal of credible evidence to the contrary, some of which is described below.

CFR that "many of the locations and place names in the Book of Mormon are based on locations and 19th century place names in the Northeastern US." And CFR also for your implication that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon taking place in Mesoamerica. Because that is clearly not true, as LDS scholars have long been demonstrating. Anthropologist and archaeologist John L. Sorenson's book An American Setting for the Book of Mormon is something you should take a look at.

Wheat and Barley cultivated in Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica: If one assumes that the events in the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica, then ancient pollen samples should show the presence of pollen from the grains mentioned in the Book of Mormon. However, while analysis of pollen grains recovered from appropriately dated layers of lake sediment did show the presence of maize, which was known to have been cultivated in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, no pollen from wheat or barley (both of which were claimed to have been cultivated by the Book of Mormon) were found in any of these sediments. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that wheat or barley (or grapes) were raised in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica as claimed in the Book of Mormon.

Unfortunately for you, barley was known in the New World; see John L. Sorenson and Robert F. Smith, "Barley in Ancient America," in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch, (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992), 130–132. Your claim that there were no grapes (i.e., wine) in ancient Mesoamerica is also false; see John L. Sorenson, "Plants and Animals," in John L. Sorenson, "Viva Zapato! Hurray for the Shoe! (Review of "Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography" by Deanne G. Matheny," FARMS Review of Books 6/1 (1994): 297–361.

There is a long list of other falsifiable claims as to specific plants, animals and technology in the Book of Mormon narrative as it applies to Mesoamerica. These obviously false claims make it difficult for serious scientists to take the Book of Mormon seriously.

CFR that the Book of Mormon's claim about the plants, animals, and technologies that existed in Mesoamerica is "obviously false."

Lehites (Nephites) and Jaredites migrated to the New World from the Holy Land: Genetic studies of native American populations living in Mesoamerica (and elsewhere throughout the Western Hemisphere) show no trace of Semitic DNA.

CFR that the Nephites had "Semitic DNA." Where does the Book of Mormon say that? Oh, wait, it doesn't.

Yet the Book of Mormon claims that pre-Columbian Semites in the Western Hemisphere (somewhere) numbered in the millions.

Wow! Really? I must have missed that part. Where does the Book of Mormon mention any "pre-Columbian Semites" at all, much less "millions" of them? It does say there were at least two million Jaredites (Ether 15:2), but, as I'm sure you know, they were before the Nephites -- who, by the way, the Book of Mormon never claims are "Semites." Which Book of Mormon are you reading?

Apologist commonly claim that "we do not know what Lehi's DNA looked like" implying that the failure to find Semitic DNA is because we do not know whta to look for. This kind of response is typical of folks who do not understand population genetics. In fact, fairly detailed maps of human migration and the associated genetics of the migrating groups has been developed. The work of Mark Stoneking and colleagues is foundational in this area.

We have a good what DNA would have looked like in the Eastern Med and Mesopotamia at the time of the Jaredites and the Lehites. DNA evidence for the migration of human populations does survive in their descendants. For example, we can see Cohen Modal Haplotype (Semitic) DNA in isolated tribes in Africa from an ancient migration of Semites out of Yemen about 3,000 years ago. We can Viking DNA in Native American populations in North America from pre-Columbian explorers and settlers from northern Europe around 1000 years ago.

What we do not see is any Semite DNA in native American populations. DNA of Asian origin was well established in Western Hemisphere populations by 10,000 years ago or so, and shows no contribution from pre-Columbian Semitic populations.

Well, that's cool and all, but what does any of that have to do with the Book of Mormon? When Latter-day Saints say that "we don't know what Lehi's DNA looked like," we mean that the Book of Mormon never tells us what kind of DNA he had, and it's impossible for us to find out. So until you can show us from the Book of Mormon that Lehi actually had "Semitic DNA," this entire argument falls flat on its face.

Reformed Egyptian as the Written Language used in Book of Mormon times in Mesoamerica: The Book of Mormon states that Reformed Egyptian was the main written language used by the Nephite peoples.

No, it doesn't. It says that the Nephites' sacred writings were written in "reformed Egyptian," not that it was the "man written language used." And it's called reformed Egyptian, not Reformed Egyptian. The "R" is not capitalized.

We even have samples of "Caractors" from this imaginary language from Joseph Smith himself. No trace of "Reformed Egyptian" has ever been found among all of the engravings, codices, and other written records from pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, or from anywhere in the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere.

Why should we find it when 1) the Mesoamerican religious and historical records were destroyed by the Spaniards and 2) the Book of Mormon never claims it was used for anything other than recording the religious history (religious and historical record) of the Nephites (i.e., scripture)?

Science has shown that in language of Mesoamerica in Book of Mormon times was the Mayan language, probably derived from an earlier Olmec language and using glyphs in the written form. More than 10,000 examples of the written Mayan language survive inscribed on buildings, monuments and codices.

Mayan and proto-Mayan are the most studied languages found in the ancient Western Hemisphere. The development of the Mayan language and its various branches can be traced in great detail for at least 4 millennia (from 2000 BCE to 2000 ACE). This is the language that was spoken and written in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica.

Where does the Book of Mormon deny any of this?

Qualifed mainstream scientists including Michael Coe, make it clear that no trace whatsoever of "Reformed Egyptian" as described by Joseph Smith and in the Book of Mormon, either as a spoken or written language, has ever been found, anywhere (let alone in Mesoamerica).

Michael Coe, John Roberts, David Stuart, Karl Taube, and Stephen Houston are among the qualified academics who have written extensively about Mesoamerican and Classic Mayan language and culture in peer reviewed papers and a number of technical and text books. Reformed Egyptian has never been mentioned by these scientists in the context of their exhaustive treatises on Mesoamerican history and culture, not even by Dr. Houston (who is LDS).

Because once again, reformed Egyptian was only used by the Nephites, which most LDS scholars believe were a "subset" of the larger Mesoamerican culture.

If Reformed Egyptian really was the language of millions of people in Classic Mesoamerica, as claimed by the Book of Mormon, how could this be? Again, Michael Coe has spoken directly to this issue and stated that there is no evidence whatsoever for Reformed Egyptian in Mesoamerica or anywhere else in the Western Hemisphere prior to Joseph Smith.

CFR, first of all, that the Book of Mormon claims that the Nephites numbered in the "millions." It doesn't. And second, all the Book of Mormon says is that "this record" (i.e., the Book of Mormon) was written in a reformed version of the Egyptian language, and that the record was "handed down and altered [i.e., reformed] by [the Nephites], according to [their] manner of speech" (Mormon 9:32). Most LDS scholars believe reformed Egyptian is a "mash-up" of Egyptian and Hebrew, invented by the Nephites for the sole purpose of writing this sacred record. It is also made clear in this verse, by the way, that "reformed Egyptian" is a Nephite term ("the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian"), and we should therefore have no expectations to find other examples of it.

Those who say that it has simply "been lost" somehow should consider that we still have examples of inscribed rune stones left by a few dozen pre-Columbian Viking explorers who established short lived (a decade or two) settlements in North America about 100 years ago. Yet we have not a single example of Reformed Egyptian left by a population that was said to have numbered in the millions and to have remained in the Western Hemisphere for several centuries. The only possible evidenced based conclusion is that Reformed Egyptian first came to the Western Hemisphere in the mind of Joseph Smith.

And my only possibly conclusion is that you didn't read the Book of Mormon very intelligently.

Continued below.

Edited November 14, 2011 by altersteve

[altersteve]

Continued from previous post.

Findings of Leading Qualified Scientists concerning Book of Mormon Truth Claims: Two of the leading academics in the area Mesoamerican studies, Michael Coe and Karl Taube have clearly and specifically that there is no evidence whatsoever for pre-Columbian transoceanic travel, migration or contact between the Asia or Europe and Mesoamerica.

CFR, again. And what evidence would you be expecting to find for a group of 20 or so people in ancient Israel building a ship and sailing to the Americas? I wouldn't expect to find any evidence of such a small event.

Conclusion of an LDS General Authority concerning provenance of the Book of Mormon: Even the LDS General Authority B. H. Roberts, in writings collected in

concluded, based on a great deal of evidence, that the Book Of Mormon is not as claimed by Joseph Smith and is clearly a product of the 19th century. While this would not qualify as a peer reviewed scientific paper by a qualified scientist, it does qualify as a well researched writings by an intellectually honest LDS Apostle.

Nope. Elder Roberts said that Joseph Smith could have written the Book of Mormon, not that he did. But even that claim is false.

Scientific Narrative for Pre Columbian Mesoamerica: Book of Mormon truth claims are not supported by historic, archeological, linguistic , geographic, or genetic evidence. The science-based narrative for pre-Columbian history, language, technology, and culture in Mesoamerica is based upon strong evidence in all of these areas and is absolutely incompatible with the Book of Mormon narrative.

You haven't been keeping up with Book of Mormon scholarship at all, have you?

Overwhelming Weight of Scientific Evidence: Finally, as I stated above, there is the weight of evidence. While there are a number of papers and statements by eminent secular scholars confirming that there is no evidence whatsoever for the truth claims regarding places and events in the Book of Mormon, there are no qualified secular scientists who have published evidence, or even opinion, that would support the history of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica as set forth in the Book of Mormon.

Based on the evidence and its interpretation by every qualified non-LDS scientist who has published or spoken on the issue of the Book of Mormon, it is clear that truth claims related to the veracity and provenance of the Book of Mormon have been falsified.

_____________________________________________________________________________

No doubt the apologists on this board will claim that the problems mentioned here are "nothing new" or have been addressed in the past. Just because they are not new does not mean that the afffected falsify LDS truth claims have not been falsified.

Apologists may also claim that the contrary scientific findings should be open to interpretation, or that the scriptures at issue require a "nuanced" or "careful" reading in order to gain a "correct understanding". This is usually a signal that the apologists would prefer that the scriptures be somehow re-interpreted so as not to appear to be in such stark contrast with science. These apologetic positions should be understood as just that, and nothing more.

And how does this prove the Book of Mormon is false? Since when did non-LDS scientists know more about science than LDS scientists? Why should we reject the Book of Mormon because there seems to be a contradiction between it and what scientists are currently telling us? We never have all the truth. Our understanding of science, and of the gospel, changes all the time.

Realize that if there is any group of people who overwhelmingly believes in the principles of science, it is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That does not mean, however, that we can't question what scientists are currently saying. We have more knowledge because of the inspiration, guidance, and revelation of the Holy Ghost, and combined with our eternal search for knowledge of the truth, we cannot fail. But if you have one without the other, you will fail. People leaving the Church over so-called "errors" in the Book of Mormon is a prime example of this. They forget the witness of the Holy Spirit and focus only on what scientists say. Well, news for you, there are "errors" there too. Only when the gospel and science come together, everything falls into place.

If only the critics could understand that simple principle.

The point, though, is that the Book of Mormon has not been "falsified." Your efforts to make it appear that it has been fail miserably.