Is Belief In The Book Mormon As History Important?

[Gervin]

I don't think you are really any better off than we are on this issue, but it is nice to finally have something we can agree on. The point is that the "backstory" in our case includes fewer pages than yours. That is a quantitative issue but not a qualitative one.

No, you missed the point.  The point is that there is no LDS backstory, other than that that gloms onto the Old Testament, recasts NT scripture, or just starts with Jos. Smith.  

 

All the archaeology in the world cannot change a carpenter from Galilee with interesting ideas into the Christ, the Son of the living God and the savior of the world.

And that is really all that matters.

Above, you said that "belief in Christ, that he visited the Americas as recorded in the Book of Mormon, etc.," was all that matters.  I think it's good to ask what really matters and I don't I think I have a clear picture of what you think really matters.

 

The bottom line is people do not change their lives and find joy in the gospel because an archaeologist says they should.

And no one would suggest otherwise.  However, if the field of archaeology could not find a single trace of the cultures, religious practices, places or land features described in the Bible I think I'd be foolish to not consider the possibility that the book was simply a great piece of fiction.  

[smac97]

Like I said before...the argument using Zeus is a red herring...you know it and I know.

First, I did not know you said anything about Zeus. I am not closely following this thread.

Second, I don't think Hamblin's point about Zeus is a red herring. If I did, I would not have presented it.

Third, can you explain your assertion that "the argument using Zeus is a red herring?" This is not self-evidence.

 

As far as evidence, you should look at some archaeological evidence from Jerusalem and nearby areas.

To what point and purpose? I already believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. What archaeological evidence do you propose would increase my testimony of that?

Last year I attended a museum exhibit about the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was fascinating.

 

Again, I can walk the same streets Jesus did.

This presupposes that Jesus was the Son of God, correct? Otherwise, talking about walking where He walked would be no more significant than talking about walking in the ruins of the cities mentioned by Homer.

I can walk the streets of Homer's Athens or Ithaca, but that's hardly evidence that Zeus is the king of heaven.

And I can also walk the streets of Jerusalem, but that's not evidence of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

I can see where Jesus was born.  I can see where He died.  That is enough for me.

I honestly don't understand. Did you faith in Jesus Christ come before or after you traveled to the Holy Land? How is the existence of Bethlehem, or Nazareth, or Jerusalem, or the Sea of Galilee, or the River Jordan, or any of the other places associated with and referenced in the life of Jesus evidence that Jesus was the Son of God?

I'm not looking for an argument here. Honest. I'm trying to understand your position.

 

And we can talk to 50 Archaeologists and they will ALL say that the Jeusalem of the Bible is the same one that exists today.  Your argument there falls flat.

So we should each base our testimonies of Jesus Christ on the consensus of scholars about the location of ancient biblical places?  I must be misunderstanding you.

 

And that did not address my points...

It seems like I did. I fisked your post somethin' fierce!

 

But, the "testimony" can be subjective.  we can walk into 50 different churches and find people in each church who have received, through prayer, a "testimony" that their church is true.

I addressed this. At some length.

Meanwhile, you can have 50 people take the Mornoni Challenge and maybe only half received a positive answer.

 

So, how can that be the determination of anything?

I think there could be all sorts of reasons. Some people are ready to take the Moroni Challenge, some are not. Some are ready to act on a confirmation they receive, some are not. Some approach the Moroni Challenge without being fettered by debilitating presuppositions, biases, etc., and some are so fettered.

We will each of us be judged by our words, thoughts and deeds. We must sooner or later make up our own decisions. We cannot simply follow the crowd or decline to make important decisions because the individuals in the crowd are making different decisions from one another.

If you take out reason and go simply on prayer, then who are you to say MY answer that a different church is "the true church" is not as good as YOUR answer?

I addressed this as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

Maybe it is because of this:

 

If I have archaeological evidence, it cannot be refuted.  It is there.

 

But, the "testimony" can be subjective.  we can walk into 50 different churches and find people in each church who have received, through prayer, a "testimony" that their church is true.  

 

Meanwhile, you can have 50 people take the Mornoni Challenge and maybe only half received a positive answer.

 

So, how can that be the determination of anything?

 

If you take out reason and go simply on prayer, then who are you to say MY answer that a different church is "the true church" is not as good as YOUR answer?

Personal faith IS subjective - that is the whole point.  It is personal.  The kingdom of heaven is in your heart- not out there somewhere to be examined, weighed, etc.  God cannot be photographed, nor can we send up a missile to measure his height and weight.  Religious truth is not objective.

 

It is what makes you you, and gives meaning to YOUR life.  It is not science which requires replicable observations.

[mfbukowski]

And no one would suggest otherwise.  However, if the field of archaeology could not find a single trace of the cultures, religious practices, places or land features described in the Bible I think I'd be foolish to not consider the possibility that the book was simply a great piece of fiction.  

And Jesus the Christ could be fiction just as easily, even if such a person as Jesus who was a carpenter lived at the right time, and was crucified existed.

 

Many many people think so.  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/did-jesus-exist-growing-number-of-scholars-dont-think-so/

Edited October 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Gervin]

For LDS readers, I have been thinking more about Gervin's post.

 

Typically I find that traditional Christians, ie Protestants and Catholics, of course put a lot of emphasis on the historicity of the Bible.  If one accepts that historicity in an archaeological sense- ie scientific evidence of Biblical events- is important in establishing the veracity of Jesus being the savior, of course traditional Christians would claim that their churches are "true" because they are old and therefore more "historic".

 

"Typically you find"?? Name a traditional Protestant or Catholic Church you've "typically found" that puts an emphasis on historicity of the Bible to establish the veracity of Christ's claims.  

 

So in short, they like historicity because they have it in spades.

 

Here's some of what the LDS Church published in 2010 in preparation to study the Old Testament:

 

We cannot appreciate and understand the Bible if we remove it from its own context and place it in our modern culture. Rather, we have to change our mind-set to better understand the ancient way of life.

The Old Testament provides much useful and interesting information regarding the cultures of ancient prophets, peoples, and civilizations—information about their music, language, arts, literature, religious institutions, monetary system, food, clothing, calendrical structure, marriage practices, and so forth. This information could be just an interesting cultural and historical study if the Old Testament didn’t offer a much greater and more life-changing reward to students of its sometimes daunting content—that of bringing them unto Jesus Christ.

It seems like the LDS Church has a special place in its heart for history - and the Old Testament has it in spades.

 

On the other hand, traditional Christians discount the idea that personal revelation is a good way to find a church.  They find the Moroni challenge to be subjective, emotional, not reasonable, and therefore subject to error in finding a church.

 

 

I've often used guidance from the Holy Spirit to help find a church home.

 

I'm sure many people believe that about Moroni's promise.  I simply think that it's odd that you have to believe in the Book of Mormon to pray for belief in the Book of Mormon.

 

Mormons, however, believe that without personal revelation- a "testimony", no one can know the Book of Mormon is true, and that our church is true.  We believe that we must have a testimony- they believe that such an idea is dangerous and leads to errors.

 

 

Most Christians I know have a testimony.  I attended a wedding tonight and heard a couple of testimonies in toasts and prayers for the bride and groom.  You are really not in touch with beliefs and practices of the Christian church.

 

 

In other words, Moroni 10:4 IS our "proof of historicity" ultimately, not archaeology etc.

 

 

Good luck with that.

 

 

That is also true for traditional Christians and the Bible, but they do not understand that idea.  Again, archaeology cannot make the person historic person Jesus into The Christ, the Son of God.

 

 

And no one has said otherwise. 

[mfbukowski]

"Typically you find"?? Name a traditional Protestant or Catholic Church you've "typically found" that puts an emphasis on historicity of the Bible to establish the veracity of Christ's claims.  

 

 

Here's some of what the LDS Church published in 2010 in preparation to study the Old Testament:

 

We cannot appreciate and understand the Bible if we remove it from its own context and place it in our modern culture. Rather, we have to change our mind-set to better understand the ancient way of life.

The Old Testament provides much useful and interesting information regarding the cultures of ancient prophets, peoples, and civilizations—information about their music, language, arts, literature, religious institutions, monetary system, food, clothing, calendrical structure, marriage practices, and so forth. This information could be just an interesting cultural and historical study if the Old Testament didn’t offer a much greater and more life-changing reward to students of its sometimes daunting content—that of bringing them unto Jesus Christ.

It seems like the LDS Church has a special place in its heart for history - and the Old Testament has it in spades.

 

I've often used guidance from the Holy Spirit to help find a church home.

 

I'm sure many people believe that about Moroni's promise.  I simply think that it's odd that you have to believe in the Book of Mormon to pray for belief in the Book of Mormon.

 

Most Christians I know have a testimony.  I attended a wedding tonight and heard a couple of testimonies in toasts and prayers for the bride and groom.  You are really not in touch with beliefs and practices of the Christian church.

 

 

Good luck with that.

 

 

And no one has said otherwise. 

I have often seen Evangelicals attack Mormons for our lack of "history" and you did that earlier on this very thread.

 

You yourself admit that the existence of the historical Jesus does not prove he was the Messiah, and yet YOU seem to be the one emphasizing history.  You are proving my point for me on this issue.

 

Catholics are very fond of tracing their spiritual lineage back through the popes to Peter himself, and use their history as evidence for Catholicism being the "one true church"

 

And yes, Mormons like their historical references as well- hence my complaint.

 

I am glad you understand testimony- usually the argument, as we see right now on this thread from another poster, is that testimony is "subjective" and therefore not to be trusted.

 

If I am confusing you with someone else, I apologize

 

But all these issues have been hashed over so many times, even on this thread, I am not sure it is even worth doing it all again.

Edited October 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[UtahTexan]

First, I did not know you said anything about Zeus. I am not closely following this thread.

Second, I don't think Hamblin's point about Zeus is a red herring. If I did, I would not have presented it.

Third, can you explain your assertion that "the argument using Zeus is a red herring?" This is not self-evidence.

 

To what point and purpose? I already believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. What archaeological evidence do you propose would increase my testimony of that?

Last year I attended a museum exhibit about the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was fascinating.

 

This presupposes that Jesus was the Son of God, correct? Otherwise, talking about walking where He walked would be no more significant than talking about walking in the ruins of the cities mentioned by Homer.

I can walk the streets of Homer's Athens or Ithaca, but that's hardly evidence that Zeus is the king of heaven.

And I can also walk the streets of Jerusalem, but that's not evidence of the divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

I honestly don't understand. Did you faith in Jesus Christ come before or after you traveled to the Holy Land? How is the existence of Bethlehem, or Nazareth, or Jerusalem, or the Sea of Galilee, or the River Jordan, or any of the other places associated with and referenced in the life of Jesus evidence that Jesus was the Son of God?

I'm not looking for an argument here. Honest. I'm trying to understand your position.

 

So we should each base our testimonies of Jesus Christ on the consensus of scholars about the location of ancient biblical places?  I must be misunderstanding you.

 

It seems like I did. I fisked your post somethin' fierce!

 

I addressed this. At some length.

I think there could be all sorts of reasons. Some people are ready to take the Moroni Challenge, some are not. Some are ready to act on a confirmation they receive, some are not. Some approach the Moroni Challenge without being fettered by debilitating presuppositions, biases, etc., and some are so fettered.

We will each of us be judged by our words, thoughts and deeds. We must sooner or later make up our own decisions. We cannot simply follow the crowd or decline to make important decisions because the individuals in the crowd are making different decisions from one another.

I addressed this as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Since Homer wrote fiction and you are comparing, I guess to make the comparison accurate, we must agree the Book of Mormon is Fiction. 

 

THAT is my point.  That is why it is a red herring.

 

And you are way too intelligent not to see my point about being able to walk the streets of Jerusalem.  Though it does not prove Jesus was the Son of God, the face I can walk the streets gives the Bible credibility over, say, a book where most folks cannot even agree where it took place.  Please tell me this point is not lost on you.

 

As someone who deals in evidence, even you must understand this point.

[mfbukowski]

 

And you are way too intelligent not to see my point about being able to walk the streets of Jerusalem.  Though it does not prove Jesus was the Son of God, the face I can walk the streets gives the Bible credibility over, say, a book where most folks cannot even agree where it took place.  Please tell me this point is not lost on you.

It's lost on me!

 

I can go to London and walk where Sherlock Holmes walked also.  Your point?  http://britmovietours.com/bookings/sherlock-holmes-london-tour/

Edited October 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

"We've had this discussion before, and you lost." Really...? I didn´t realize this was a competition. I wasn´t aware we were struggling for a title match. You may have pinned me............ but the ref didn´t count to three.

It is not so much a competition as a matter of seriously coming to grips with facts and data, which you habitually fail to do.  Instead, you make unsupported claims on subjects about which you clearly know nothing at all.  I would welcome your willingness to engage the issues.  All of us might learn something from one another.  However, as with political campaigning, you merely make absolute statements, with no concern for whether they are factual or not.  Again, I would welcome substantive, rational discourse in which mutual respect for the other's analysis is shown.  Instead, you are playing games.

 

I´ve read your article (and no, I have not purchased Sorenson´s codex nor read it)

But your article is far from nailing the topic in my opinion.

Do I really need to "nail" it in order to make a factual and reasonable case?  In view of my presentation, is the negative case so absolute as you claim?  Or might you need to provide some nuances?

 

You talked about pieces of eight, ancient Jewish calculations on a base 8 and Egyptian calculations on a ten base and Book of Mormon divisions of smaller quantities linked to ⅛ th and whole quantities to base 10, but I felt like I was watching a magic show. The continual banter you provide feels like you´re trying to misdirect me, the reader, and move my attention from being able to grasp what is front of me.

Sorry my presentation was inadequate.  I tried to provide plenty of illustrations and charts, and cited many sources -- the authors of which are actually the ones making the claims about the Israelite and Egyptian parallels.  Weren't you intrigued by them. and the way in which they call to mind the system in Alma 11?  I find the parallels astonishing, especially in view of them being rendered in Egyptian hieratic.  Something Joseph Smith could not have known.

 

None of what you talk about has any link to Central America or peoples in the Americas. You leave the voyagers from the Levant somewhere stuck out in the middle of the Pacific. You show no examples of mathematical calcultions as done by the pre-Columbian peoples.

Yes, a simple example of counting whole numbers in tens is easy to understand, since most of us are born with ten fingers.

And yes, once calculations are done in parts of a whole, numbers less than 1, taking a half, of a half, of a half easily leads to ⅛ th.

That, to me, makes sense, since cutting or dividing something, like an orange, or a pineapple or a gold coin into ten equal parts is beyond being an easy task. Halves of things are easy to grasp. (Even the youngest of children will complain if they think they´re getting the smaller half of something)

But in order for your discussion to have any impact you need to show calculations that match such numbers, from the Americas. And no, simply showing such calculations from the Book of Mormon is not bringing the discussion full circle, rather it is talking in circles.

Chew on that for a while.

The base-8, rather than decimal and halving, ought to have impressed you (instead it escaped you).  This was an Old World comparison, rather than a discussion of New World parallels.  Your comment is as irrelevant as someone condemning Hugh Nibley's many books on the Book of Mormon dealing with Old World parallels.  He did not deal with the Americas.  So what?! That was not his objective.  Only someone who cannot understand the legitimate difference would make that a point of criticism.  After all, the Book of Mormon takes place in, and entails facts from both the Old and New Worlds.  A substantive discussion would have been worthwhile here.  Why didn't you try that?

 

I  have attempted to examine some of the numerical systems used by Mesoamerican peoples, including my “The Role of Cyclical Fatalism Among the Maya,” 2011, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/74773355/Cyclic-Fatalism-Among-the-Maya , and my "New Year, New Cycle, New Fire," version 2, 2014, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/217384456/New-Year-New-Cycle-New-Fire .

 

Were you sincere about wanting to examine New World Book of Mormon comparisons, you'd quickly acquire and read the Sorenson Mormon's Codex, rather than making absolute statements based on complete ignorance of what is available out there.

[smac97]

Since Homer wrote fiction and you are comparing, I guess to make the comparison accurate, we must agree the Book of Mormon is Fiction.

Nope. The point is that an ancient text that references places which we can identify today is interesting, but not evidence of religious truth claims. You can pick any ancient text you like. Take the Koran, for example. It references Mecca and Medina all over the place. You can walk the streets where Mohammed walked (well, you could if you are Muslim). But the Koran's ancient reference to currently identifiable places is not evidence of the truth claims of the Koran. The Bible's ancient references to currently identifiable places is not evidence of the truth claims of The Bible.

 

And you are way too intelligent not to see my point about being able to walk the streets of Jerusalem.

I am not stupid, nor am I being feigning obtuseness. I honestly don't see how walking the streets of Jerusalem constitutes evidence of the divinity of Jesus Christ. I would likewise reject the idea that walking the streets of Mecca and Medina constitute evidence of the prophetic calling of Mohammed.

In a thousand years people will likely know where Nauvoo was located. But that will not make the references to Nauvoo in the D&C evidence of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.

 

Though it does not prove Jesus was the Son of God, the face I can walk the streets gives the Bible credibility over, say, a book where most folks cannot even agree where it took place.  Please tell me this point is not lost on you.

 

As someone who deals in evidence, even you must understand this point.

Okay. So you are talking about "credibility" in a broad, amorphous kind of way, and saying that The Bible has it more than The Book of Mormon.

Have you read the Midgley article? I'd like to hear your thoughts about it.

 

Also, what are your thoughts about the Nahom/Bountiful data discovered in the last decade or so?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 19, 2014 by smac97

[Robert F. Smith]

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

................................. I simply think that it's odd that you have to believe in the Book of Mormon to pray for belief in the Book of Mormon.

 

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

Would you think it odd that someone insist that the precursor to belief be hard core skepticism?  Is it likely that powerful doubt is going to lead to belief?  Have you considered the sequence in Alma 32?  Do you consider it outlandish and odd?

 

William James thought such an experiential approach quite reasonable.  As you know, he was not Mormon.

[UtahTexan]

It's lost on me!

 

I can go to London and walk where Sherlock Holmes walked also.  Your point?  http://britmovietours.com/bookings/sherlock-holmes-london-tour/

you keep trying to compare books written as fiction using realplaces with a book allegedly written as history.

 

I am shocked you do not see the problem with that

[UtahTexan]

Nope. The point is that an ancient text that references places which we can identify today is interesting, but not evidence of religious truth claims. You can pick any ancient text you like. Take the Koran, for example. It references Mecca and Medina all over the place. You can walk the streets where Mohammed walked (well, you could if you are Muslim). But the Koran's ancient reference to currently identifiable places is not evidence of the truth claims of the Koran. The Bible's ancient references to currently identifiable places is not evidence of the truth claims of The Bible.

 

I have NEVER said that being able to walk to the streets is evidence of religious claims.  In fact, I have said the opposite.  But, when one claims a book is history, it absolutely is SOME evidence when you walk the streets of the places the HISTORY book talks about.

 

 

[bcuzbcuz]

It is not so much a competition as a matter of seriously coming to grips with facts and data, which you habitually fail to do.  Instead, you make unsupported claims on subjects about which you clearly know nothing at all.  I would welcome your willingness to engage the issues.  All of us might learn something from one another.  However, as with political campaigning, you merely make absolute statements, with no concern for whether they are factual or not.  Again, I would welcome substantive, rational discourse in which mutual respect for the other's analysis is shown.  Instead, you are playing games.

 

Do I really need to "nail" it in order to make a factual and reasonable case?  In view of my presentation, is the negative case so absolute as you claim?  Or might you need to provide some nuances?

 

Sorry my presentation was inadequate.  I tried to provide plenty of illustrations and charts, and cited many sources -- the authors of which are actually the ones making the claims about the Israelite and Egyptian parallels.  Weren't you intrigued by them. and the way in which they call to mind the system in Alma 11?  I find the parallels astonishing, especially in view of them being rendered in Egyptian hieratic.  Something Joseph Smith could not have known.

 

The base-8, rather than decimal and halving, ought to have impressed you (instead it escaped you).  This was an Old World comparison, rather than a discussion of New World parallels.  Your comment is as irrelevant as someone condemning Hugh Nibley's many books on the Book of Mormon dealing with Old World parallels.  He did not deal with the Americas.  So what?! That was not his objective.  Only someone who cannot understand the legitimate difference would make that a point of criticism.  After all, the Book of Mormon takes place in, and entails facts from both the Old and New Worlds.  A substantive discussion would have been worthwhile here.  Why didn't you try that?

 

I  have attempted to examine some of the numerical systems used by Mesoamerican peoples, including my “The Role of Cyclical Fatalism Among the Maya,” 2011, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/74773355/Cyclic-Fatalism-Among-the-Maya , and my "New Year, New Cycle, New Fire," version 2, 2014, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/217384456/New-Year-New-Cycle-New-Fire .

 

Were you sincere about wanting to examine New World Book of Mormon comparisons, you'd quickly acquire and read the Sorenson Mormon's Codex, rather than making absolute statements based on complete ignorance of what is available out there.

I admit I do not, can not, will not accept the word "historicity" as applied by this conversation about the Book of Mormon, because the Book of Mormon simply does not comply to a reasonable understanding of what "historicity" is. I also understand that nothing I say will in any way influence you to see the matter from anything other than your own personal point to view. To the same degree, nothing you have put forward has persuaded me that the word "historicity" can be used in any discussion about the Book of Mormon.

I´ve travelled to eight different countries where I can pick up Roman objects,, deposited or dropped on the ground under the Roman Empire. Objects that have either been stamped or written upon by people who have assigned a date by the name of themselves or their ruler. I´ve walked amongst ruins from both the Roman era and the Greeks, from ampitheaters to temples, that have been dug from the ground. I´ve been to three cities in Egypt where temples and pyramids tell of the peoples that occupied them 2, 3, 4 thousand years ago. Apart from what I myself have dug up, I can visit, and have visited most of the greatest collections in museums of Egyptian artifacts in Europe and North America. Although learned scholars can disagree about details, it can be said that the history of the Mediterranean peoples can be verified.

The same can be said about the peoples of Central America. Although I haven´t been to those sites yet, two of my children have, both to South and Central America.

Nowhere, however, can a display be found that identifies "Nephite" or "Lamanite" cultures. No knives, no buildings, no skeltons, nothing. No scholar will put their name to an object and claim that it is Nephite or Lamanite. If I´m wrong about this, please show me the error of my ways.

[mfbukowski]

you keep trying to compare books written as fiction using realplaces with a book allegedly written as history.

 

I am shocked you do not see the problem with that

I am shocked you don't understand the point.

 

The fact that there are places in London we can visit mentioned in Sherlock Holmes stories no more proves the existence of Sherlock Holmes than the bible mentioning places we can visit proves the existence of Jesus, much less his role as Savior.

 

The mention of "real places" in a book does not prove it is not fiction.  NOW do you understand the point?

[VideoGameJunkie]

The only scripture history that has to be true to help me sleep at night is the New Testament and Christ's atonement.

[mfbukowski]

I admit I do not, can not, will not accept the word "historicity" as applied by this conversation about the Book of Mormon, because the Book of Mormon simply does not comply to a reasonable understanding of what "historicity" is. I also understand that nothing I say will in any way influence you to see the matter from anything other than your own personal point to view. To the same degree, nothing you have put forward has persuaded me that the word "historicity" can be used in any discussion about the Book of Mormon.

I´ve travelled to eight different countries where I can pick up Roman objects,, deposited or dropped on the ground under the Roman Empire. Objects that have either been stamped or written upon by people who have assigned a date by the name of themselves or their ruler. I´ve walked amongst ruins from both the Roman era and the Greeks, from ampitheaters to temples, that have been dug from the ground. I´ve been to three cities in Egypt where temples and pyramids tell of the peoples that occupied them 2, 3, 4 thousand years ago. Apart from what I myself have dug up, I can visit, and have visited most of the greatest collections in museums of Egyptian artifacts in Europe and North America. Although learned scholars can disagree about details, it can be said that the history of the Mediterranean peoples can be verified.

The same can be said about the peoples of Central America. Although I haven´t been to those sites yet, two of my children have, both to South and Central America.

Nowhere, however, can a display be found that identifies "Nephite" or "Lamanite" cultures. No knives, no buildings, no skeltons, nothing. No scholar will put their name to an object and claim that it is Nephite or Lamanite. If I´m wrong about this, please show me the error of my ways.

This is a bad argument.

 

The languages of those we now call "Nephites" and "Lamanites" are now lost to the world- what you are asking for is what the names were for cities in languages that are now lost.

 

You might as well ask for the name of "Rome" in Proto-Indo European.  We don't know that language because it is lost.  Perhaps they did or did not have a word for the settlement that finally became "Rome", but certainly because we do not know the name they used, that does not prove that such a settlement did not exist.

 

The argument against historicity cuts both ways- if it cannot be used to "prove" the Book of Mormon, it also cannot be used to "disprove" it.

 

I think that is what some do not understand here.

 

Because the historical evidence for Nephites and Lamanites - using those words- is very slim, that does not prove they did not exist.  There are many lost tribes and languages and place names, now known as other peoples, other languages and other place names

 

Every word of the BOM could be literal history- we just can't prove it, any more than we could prove the historicity of any other lost people, language or place.

 

Who were the parents of Romulus and Remus ?  Did they really exist?  What about the place names mentioned here?

Romulus /ˈrɒmjʉləs/ and Remus /ˈriːməs/ are the twin brothers and central characters of Rome's foundation myth. Their mother is Rhea Silvia, daughter of Numitor, king of Alba Longa. Before their conception, Numitor's brother Amulius seizes power, kills Numitor's male heirs and forces Rhea Silvia to become a Vestal Virgin, sworn to chastity. Rhea Silvia conceives the twins by the god Mars, or by the demi-god Hercules. Once the twins are born, Amulius has them abandoned to die in the river Tiber. They are saved by a series of miraculous interventions: the river carries them to safety, a she-wolf (in Latin, lupa) finds and suckles them, and a woodpecker feeds them. A shepherd and his wife find them and foster them to manhood, as simple shepherds. The twins, still ignorant of their true origins, prove to be natural leaders. Each acquires many followers. When they discover the truth of their birth, they kill Amulius and restore Numitor to his throne. Rather than wait to inherit Alba Longa, they choose to found a new city.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romulus_and_Remus

Edited October 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[UtahTexan]

I am shocked you don't understand the point.

 

The fact that there are places in London we can visit mentioned in Sherlock Holmes stories no more proves the existence of Sherlock Holmes than the bible mentioning places we can visit proves the existence of Jesus, much less his role as Savior.

 

The mention of "real places" in a book does not prove it is not fiction.  NOW do you understand the point?

 

Nope...I see why you argue it this way.  To me, the fact you need to compare a book of fiction to the Book of Mormon to prove a point speaks volumes.  And sadly, proves my point

 

I wish it was not so...more than you know

[mfbukowski]

Nope...I see why you argue it this way.  To me, the fact you need to compare a book of fiction to the Book of Mormon to prove a point speaks volumes.  And sadly, proves my point

 

I wish it was not so...more than you know

How precisely does it prove your point?

 

And if it is more than I know, please teach me.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have NEVER said that being able to walk to the streets is evidence of religious claims.  In fact, I have said the opposite.  But, when one claims a book is history, it absolutely is SOME evidence when you walk the streets of the places the HISTORY book talks about.

 

 

I understand what you are saying, CountryBoy, but it seems hollow and strange in light of the Book of Mormon beginning at Jerusalem and then continuing to take place in Old World locations about which we in fact know something.  The book of Ether likewise begins within familiar territory in Mesopotamia.  One wonders whether you have even bothered to read the Book of Mormon . . .

 

The emigration of 3 groups from the Old World to the New then takes us to some well-known areas of Mesoamerica, wherein their respective cultures develop along lines described by the Book of Mormon and paralleled only in that limited area.  The archeological and geographical descriptions of the nature of those Mesoamerican cultures leave no doubt that they are the only possible New World corrollaries of the Book of Mormon cultures.  Pure accidence?  Possibly, but the statistical likelihood that Joseph just guessed all the right answers just doesn't compute.  You might want to consider the secular arguments contained in Sorenson, Mormon's Codex, before you continue making your erroneous statements.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

The only scripture history that has to be true to help me sleep at night is the New Testament and Christ's atonement.

And you certainly don't need to be able to read it in koine Greek to reach that satisfying conclusion.  The NT has given sincere people comfort (in whatever language of translation) for many centuries now.

 

However, what if a Jewish person you happened to meet felt that his Hebrew Bible was equally satisfying to him?  What if he made the point that the Bible of Jesus and the Apostles was the Hebrew Bible (or the old Greek translation known as the Septuagint, which is so often quoted in the NT)?  What if he pointed out to you that there was no NT for a long time after the death of Jesus?

 

What if a scholar were to point out the many ways in which the NT depends upon the OT in order to provide coherent understanding?  Would it make any difference to you that the understanding of the true nature of the Atonement is based upon a clear understanding the OT?

[Robert F. Smith]

I admit I do not, can not, will not accept the word "historicity" as applied by this conversation about the Book of Mormon, because the Book of Mormon simply does not comply to a reasonable understanding of what "historicity" is. I also understand that nothing I say will in any way influence you to see the matter from anything other than your own personal point to view. To the same degree, nothing you have put forward has persuaded me that the word "historicity" can be used in any discussion about the Book of Mormon.

I´ve travelled to eight different countries where I can pick up Roman objects,, deposited or dropped on the ground under the Roman Empire. Objects that have either been stamped or written upon by people who have assigned a date by the name of themselves or their ruler. I´ve walked amongst ruins from both the Roman era and the Greeks, from ampitheaters to temples, that have been dug from the ground. I´ve been to three cities in Egypt where temples and pyramids tell of the peoples that occupied them 2, 3, 4 thousand years ago. Apart from what I myself have dug up, I can visit, and have visited most of the greatest collections in museums of Egyptian artifacts in Europe and North America. Although learned scholars can disagree about details, it can be said that the history of the Mediterranean peoples can be verified.

The same can be said about the peoples of Central America. Although I haven´t been to those sites yet, two of my children have, both to South and Central America.

Nowhere, however, can a display be found that identifies "Nephite" or "Lamanite" cultures. No knives, no buildings, no skeltons, nothing. No scholar will put their name to an object and claim that it is Nephite or Lamanite. If I´m wrong about this, please show me the error of my ways.

Once again we find you talking around the subject and failing to deal with substantive arguments.  A systematic understanding of facts and data usually clarifies a great deal and helps to move the debate along.  Instead you treat us to tourist visits to museums and sites in various places throughout the world.  Did you bother to take notes?  Would you be prepared to take an exam?

 

A "filler" statement on an exam that "the history of the Mediterranean peoples can be verified," would not impress the professor.  Of that I can assure you.  On the other hand, a substantive critique of some point at issue might get his attention, and maybe even a good grade.  You seem caught up on some apriori set of assumptions which prevent you from even considering the secular issues and responding to them.  Probably just doesn't seem worth the bother to you.  And on that hangs all your empty self-assurance.  Surely you can do better.

[UtahTexan]

I understand what you are saying, CountryBoy, but it seems hollow and strange in light of the Book of Mormon beginning at Jerusalem and then continuing to take place in Old World locations about which we in fact know something.  The book of Ether likewise begins within familiar territory in Mesopotamia.  One wonders whether you have even bothered to read the Book of Mormon . . .

 

Kinda rude.  Yes...I have read it several times.  So...since apparently YOU know.....tell me...where exactly did the Book of Mormon take place?  Please give me the exact coordinates.  Maybe we can go together.   

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

 

I understand what you are saying, CountryBoy, but it seems hollow and strange in light of the Book of Mormon beginning at Jerusalem and then continuing to take place in Old World locations about which we in fact know something.  The book of Ether likewise begins within familiar territory in Mesopotamia.  One wonders whether you have even bothered to read the Book of Mormon . . .

 

Kinda rude.  Yes...I have read it several times.  So...since apparently YOU know.....tell me...where exactly did the Book of Mormon take place?  Please give me the exact coordinates.  Maybe we can go together.   

I merely observe that of all the various locations mentioned in the Bible, Jerusalem is certainly the best known (31° 46' N, 35° 12' E), but there are also locations in the Bible about which archeologists cannot agree as to which site it occupied.

 

The Book of Mormon also takes place at Jerusalem (31° 46' N, 35° 12' E), and at a whole lot of other places, some of which are well-known, and others that are known to occupy a particular region -- based on purely secular archeological and historical considerations.

 

A serious person would address these parallels in a scholarly way, taking into account the internal evidence in the book (Bible or Book of Mormon) as compared to evidence external to the book.  Biblical and Book of Mormon scholars do this all the time, even though you privilege the one book and not the other.  Why would that be?  Are you bringing apriori considerations to the debate?

[smac97]

 

Nope. The point is that an ancient text that references places which we can identify today is interesting, but not evidence of religious truth claims. You can pick any ancient text you like. Take the Koran, for example. It references Mecca and Medina all over the place. You can walk the streets where Mohammed walked (well, you could if you are Muslim). But the Koran's ancient reference to currently identifiable places is not evidence of the truth claims of the Koran. The Bible's ancient references to currently identifiable places is not evidence of the truth claims of The Bible.

I have NEVER said that being able to walk to the streets is evidence of religious claims.

 

Okay. Then what is the relevance of being able to walk the streets of Jerusalem to the topic at hand?

 

In fact, I have said the opposite.  But, when one claims a book is history, it absolutely is SOME evidence when you walk the streets of the places the HISTORY book talks about.

Evidence of what? I do not understand your point. Are saying that walking the streets of Jerusalem constitutes evidence that The Bible is an authentically ancient text? If so, I suppose I agree with you. But what does antiquity have to do with scriptural authenticity and the historicity of Jesus Christ? After all, none of us place value on The Bible principally because it is a translation of an ancient text. If that's all it is, then it is on equal footing with The Koran, The Bhagavad Gita, The Vedas, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, The Tao Te Ching, The Upanishads, and so on. No more, no less. Interesting. Fascinating, even. But not essential to our eschatological destiny.

So evidence of antiquity is not enough. We must have evidence that The Bible contains more than a recitation of events, but a recitation of miraculous events, events which really happened. That is the value of The Bible. I don't see archaeology providing such evidence.

Now what of The Book of Mormon? Does it have evidence supporting its claims? Claims which are more than recitation of events, but a recitation of miraculous events, events which really happened? I have some thoughts on this subject that make a straight-up "yes" or "no" response impractical. In any event, this is putting the cart before the horse. In all my comments about the vital nature of historicity for The Book of Mormon, I would not for one red minute juxtapose that necessity against the need for a spiritual witness about the truthfulness of the book. I don't believe these two concepts can be juxtaposed. To accept one is to accept the other. To reject one is to reject the other.

Thanks,

-Smac