Jump to content

Book Of Mormon Archaeology


Recommended Posts

Not what I stated.  I believe it is important to have faith in many things.  However, the evidence for the Book of Mormon  (the foundation of our church) would be an incredible thing to advance missionary work.  That's all I meant.  I don't believe that God would hide this evidence and hope it's still going to be discovered.  

 

But....what is the difference?  Both would then dispense with the need for faith

Link to post

We have tons of evidence that the New Testament and even Old Testament were historical events. Indeed there is a lot of evidence for Christ as spoken of in the Bible. But, even with all of that evidence there is a myriad of naysayers out there. Evidence is funny that way because of mans feebleness in deciphering the evidence. The problem I see with trying to find BoM evidences through archaeology is that its probably not what we think it to be and so we end up spending almost all our time chasing dead end roads. Over time, because we see so extremely poorly, some fall away from the church because the evidence for the BoM they so desperately wanted never panned out. So where ever was their testimony then? That is the point of it all. Validity of the BoM will come through a spiritual witness not physical evidence. Will they ever find solid evidence for the BoM? Probably. Will it lead to a great conversion tool for new converts? Highly doubtful because we do not see the same with the Bible and evidence of Christianity conversion based on that evidence.

Does God hide the evidence? No, between what man destroys and what man hides and distorts, mostly through plain ignorance, the evidence gets lost in mans so called "wisdom". I mean really- "hunter gatherers"? I really doubt Nephis early civilization thought of themselves as hunter gatherers.

Link to post

We have tons of evidence that the New Testament and even Old Testament were historical events. Indeed there is a lot of evidence for Christ as spoken of in the Bible. But, even with all of that evidence there is a myriad of naysayers out there. Evidence is funny that way because of mans feebleness in deciphering the evidence. The problem I see with trying to find BoM evidences through archaeology is that its probably not what we think it to be and so we end up spending almost all our time chasing dead end roads. Over time, because we see so extremely poorly, some fall away from the church because the evidence for the BoM they so desperately wanted never panned out. So where ever was their testimony then? That is the point of it all. Validity of the BoM will come through a spiritual witness not physical evidence. Will they ever find solid evidence for the BoM? Probably. Will it lead to a great conversion tool for new converts? Highly doubtful because we do not see the same with the Bible and evidence of Christianity conversion based on that evidence.

Does God hide the evidence? No, between what man destroys and what man hides and distorts, mostly through plain ignorance, the evidence gets lost in mans so called "wisdom". I mean really- "hunter gatherers"? I really doubt Nephis early civilization thought of themselves as hunter gatherers.

 

We have plenty of evidence that Jesus was the Son of God and rose again after dying for our sins?

 

Please share........I can;t wait to see your definitive evidence

Link to post

We have plenty of evidence that Jesus was the Son of God and rose again after dying for our sins?

 

Please share........I can;t wait to see your definitive evidence

I said we have plenty of evidence that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure.

Link to post

I can kinda sorta understand the the reasoning behind not providing convincing secular evidence for the BoM, what I can't understand are the convincing evidences against the BoM. Had the BoM not included numerous anachronisms, wild population numbers, incredibly specific prophecies, or hundreds of verbatim KJV verses, it would still require faith to believe in its veracity.

Had Nephi, Mormon, or Joseph included two extra verses explicitly mentioning native populations and the dark skin curse being figurative, it would still require faith to believe in its veracity.

Had the Bible not mentioned a seven day creation and no death before the Fall, it would still require faith. I have trouble with the idea of a trickster god.

Link to post

I said we have plenty of evidence that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure.

 

Being a real historical figure means nothing.  So was Caesar.

 

So my point STILL exists

Link to post

I agree.

However, if God's only goal is to have us all believe, then He would send an angel to each of the honest in heart and declare the gospel to us. Since He has not done that, it seems very reasonable to suggest that us having faith is important to Him. Likely equally as much a goal, if not more so.

We probably need to ask ourselves why God does not send us a witness of gospel truth until AFTER we have demonstrated faith.

I think understanding the answer to that question is key in assessing the validity of CB's argument.

 

Leave it to Bluebell to get me.....

  • Upvote 4
Link to post

BFP,

I struggle reading the BOM, it does not seem to be an "inspired" work at all to me. 3rd Nephi to me sounds like a poorly embellished copy of the Gospels.  However, when I read the Bible it seems as though God is talking to me (especially the NT).  When I finally get through the BOM (i've never fully made it cover to cover) what should I be looking for that is not found in the Bible?

In terms of teachings, here is a brief list of some of the many teachings that you will not find in the bible:

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

I can kinda sorta understand the the reasoning behind not providing convincing secular evidence for the BoM, what I can't understand are the convincing evidences against the BoM. Had the BoM not included numerous anachronisms, wild population numbers, incredibly specific prophecies, or hundreds of verbatim KJV verses, it would still require faith to believe in its veracioty.

Had Nephi, Mormon, or Joseph included two extra verses explicitly mentioning native populations and the dark skin curse being figurative, it would still require faith to believe in its veracity.

Had the Bible not mentioned a seven day creation and no death before the Fall, it would still require faith. I have trouble with the idea of a trickster god.

me too
Link to post

I said we have plenty of evidence that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure.

Such as?

There is no 1st century secular evidence he existed. He is not mentioned in any records. The 'history' of the gospels does not match real history. These two factors prove to me that there is less evidence that the Savior ever existed then there is for the Book of Mormon

Link to post

Such as?

There is no 1st century secular evidence he existed. He is not mentioned in any records. The 'history' of the gospels does not match real history. These two factors prove to me that there is less evidence that the Savior ever existed then there is for the Book of Mormon

Seriously? I never thought someone on these boards would think such a way. I am gonna have to regroup. Kudos to ya, I will be back.

Link to post

Seriously? I never thought someone on these boards would think such a way. I am gonna have to regroup. Kudos to ya, I will be back.

Keep holding to your beliefs, I respect that.
Link to post

After careful prayer and study, I have come to the conclusion that we will never know the locations of the Book of Mormon.  Oh, there will be discoveries like on the Arabian Peninsula...where intelligent minds will disagree of its significance, but we will never uncover the exact location.

 

And that is exactly how it is supposed to be.  We should NEVER find it.

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

 

We can walk the streets of Jerusalem, but doing so does not PROVE the Bible.

 

However, if we EVER uncovered an ancient sign that said, "Welcome to the Town of Zerehemla" that fact, in and of itself, would PROVE...definitively, the Book of Mormon.  And then, there would be perfect knowledge and no need for faith.

 

And without Faith, there is no hope.  No refining.  No progression.

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

If it served God's purpose for us to know...we would.  However, it better serves His purpose that we walk by faith, not by perfect knowledge.

So, if I understand you:  God does not want any of us to know the precise location for any New World Book of Mormon site.  This is because we need to believe in the Book of Mormon by faith.  So, we should never find such loci.

 

On the other hand, it is O.K. for us to know the exact location of Jerusalem (and of other well-known Old World loci) because such knowledge does not prove the Bible true, and leaves plenty of room for faith.

 

This is presumably because the Bible is a historically transmitted document, and the loci of so many sites in the ancient world have continued to be known through time, while the Book of Mormon was not transmitted in regular historical fashion, and ancient Book of Mormon sites have no known continuity with modern cultures.

 

Do any of these propositions have anything to do with what archeology presumably does?  Do you have any idea what an archeologist actually does?  How might archeology impinge on the above observations about the Book of Mormon?  Is God opposed to Book of Mormon archeology?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

So, if I understand you:  God does not want any of us to know the precise location for any New World Book of Mormon site.  This is because we need to believe in the Book of Mormon by faith.  So, we should never find such loci.

 

On the other hand, it is O.K. for us to know the exact location of Jerusalem (and of other well-known Old World loci) because such knowledge does not prove the Bible true, and leaves plenty of room for faith.

 

This is presumably because the Bible is a historically transmitted document, and the loci of so many sites in the ancient world have continued to be known through time, while the Book of Mormon was not transmitted in regular historical fashion, and ancient Book of Mormon sites have no known continuity with modern cultures.

 

Do any of these propositions have anything to do with what archeology presumably does?  Do you have any idea what an archeologist actually does?  How might archeology impinge on the above observations about the Book of Mormon?  Is God opposed to Book of Mormon archeology?

 

Sigh

 

Once again...have you heard about Zerehemla from ANY other source?  I have not.  So, for me, finding Zerahemla would definitively prove that Joseph was a prophet.  If that is true....and Zerahemla is true, then it would seem to be absolute proof of God.  Nothing in the Bible does that.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

...  Is God opposed to Book of Mormon arch[a]eology?

Or to other disciplines that might tell us something about how, when, and where Book of Mormon peoples lived?  If so, more than a few people are going to have some serious repenting to do! ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

If anyone is holding out hope for the discovery of New World Book of Mormon artifacts or evidences or places or cultures or archaeological connections, I’ve got some bad news … it’s never going to happen. 

 

Ask yourself why the one and only known archaeological discovery and tangible artifacts – the plates and the accompanying accoutrements – were spirited away.

 

“The plates were taken to heaven so as to emphasize their miraculous discovery.”  That doesn’t make sense; people find stuff buried all the time.  Discovering an ancient box or writing isn’t necessarily a miracle.  People find stuff in tombs all the time.  Someone recently found an Arabic ring in a Scandinavian Viking tomb.  It’s odd – it doesn’t make sense, yet there it was.  It will probably get people to thinking about ancient trade routes or cultural contacts. But, there’s no reason for God to “hide” cultural migrations, travels, cross-world influences.

 

“The plates were taken away so that people would have faith in the message of the Book of Mormon.”  However, it’s been pointed out that the Bible’s verifiable cultural milieu doesn’t compel faith.  There’s no reason to suspect that the Book of Mormon stories would compel faith if it was shown that a Hebrew culture was present in the New World.  Christ in the New World?  Still would have to be taken on faith.

 

“The plates were taken away so that people would just put their trust Jos. Smith’s God-driven “translation.”  That fails because Smith’s divinely inspired translation would trump any modern reading of the characters on the plates (see Abraham, Book of).  Besides, not one piece of Hebrew-recorded history written in Reformed Egyptian has ever been discovered, so who would challenge Smith’s translation?

 

So, this artifact – the reflection of hundreds upon hundreds of years of recorded Jewish and early Christian history – are preserved, passed on from generation to generation, updated, abridged, carried around, revealed, translated and, curiously, deemed inappropriate for the world’s eyes.  It makes no sense.

 

In truth, what makes sense is that the one advantage of not preserving this one artifact – this unique archaeological discovery – was to keep it from being scrutinized.  That was Joseph Smith’s advantage.  I wonder how God’s power or Christ’s message would be compromised or diminished if the plates were on display at the Temple if SLC?  Has the public display of the Dead Sea Scrolls caused people to lose or abandon their faith?  Perhaps the opposite.

Link to post

I agree.

However, if God's only goal is to have us all believe, then He would send an angel to each of the honest in heart and declare the gospel to us. Since He has not done that, it seems very reasonable to suggest that us having faith is important to Him. Likely equally as much a goal, if not more so.

We probably need to ask ourselves why God does not send us a witness of gospel truth until AFTER we have demonstrated faith.

I think understanding the answer to that question is key in assessing the validity of CB's argument.

 

It seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what faith is and the role it plays no matter what. Even if an angel was sent to each of us, we'd still have to have faith and trust that the angel was telling the truth. Faith still plays a huge role despite the amount of evidence, or not. 

 

Many people saw Jesus teach and watched his miracles, but still didn't have faith. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

So, this artifact – the reflection of hundreds upon hundreds of years of recorded Jewish and early Christian history – are preserved, passed on from generation to generation, updated, abridged, carried around, revealed, translated and, curiously, deemed inappropriate for the world’s eyes.  It makes no sense.

 

You are forgetting that the plates contained a sealed portion that God did NOT want revealed at this time.

Probably contained more doctrines that would cause people to want to kill the prophets.

 

If the plates had remained on display in a museum someone would have attempted to translate the portion God doesn't want revealed yet.

The BOM is only what, about 1/3 of what was on the plates?

Link to post

You are forgetting that the plates contained a sealed portion that God did NOT want revealed at this time.

Probably contained more doctrines that would cause people to want to kill the prophets.

 

If the plates had remained on display in a museum someone would have attempted to translate the portion God doesn't want revealed yet.

The BOM is only what, about 1/3 of what was on the plates?

Telling me that God couldn't trust the plates with the one true church and his elected authorities on earth doesn't sound compelling.  It sounds like an evasion.

Besides, how is someone going to translate without the power of God providing the translation authority? 

Edited by Gervin
Link to post

If anyone is holding out hope for the discovery of New World Book of Mormon artifacts or evidences or places or cultures or archaeological connections, I’ve got some bad news … it’s never going to happen. 

 

Ask yourself why the one and only known archaeological discovery and tangible artifacts – the plates and the accompanying accoutrements – were spirited away.

 

“The plates were taken to heaven so as to emphasize their miraculous discovery.”  That doesn’t make sense; people find stuff buried all the time.  Discovering an ancient box or writing isn’t necessarily a miracle.  People find stuff in tombs all the time.  Someone recently found an Arabic ring in a Scandinavian Viking tomb.  It’s odd – it doesn’t make sense, yet there it was.  It will probably get people to thinking about ancient trade routes or cultural contacts. But, there’s no reason for God to “hide” cultural migrations, travels, cross-world influences.

 

“The plates were taken away so that people would have faith in the message of the Book of Mormon.”  However, it’s been pointed out that the Bible’s verifiable cultural milieu doesn’t compel faith.  There’s no reason to suspect that the Book of Mormon stories would compel faith if it was shown that a Hebrew culture was present in the New World.  Christ in the New World?  Still would have to be taken on faith.

 

“The plates were taken away so that people would just put their trust Jos. Smith’s God-driven “translation.”  That fails because Smith’s divinely inspired translation would trump any modern reading of the characters on the plates (see Abraham, Book of).  Besides, not one piece of Hebrew-recorded history written in Reformed Egyptian has ever been discovered, so who would challenge Smith’s translation?

 

So, this artifact – the reflection of hundreds upon hundreds of years of recorded Jewish and early Christian history – are preserved, passed on from generation to generation, updated, abridged, carried around, revealed, translated and, curiously, deemed inappropriate for the world’s eyes.  It makes no sense.

 

In truth, what makes sense is that the one advantage of not preserving this one artifact – this unique archaeological discovery – was to keep it from being scrutinized.  That was Joseph Smith’s advantage.  I wonder how God’s power or Christ’s message would be compromised or diminished if the plates were on display at the Temple if SLC?  Has the public display of the Dead Sea Scrolls caused people to lose or abandon their faith?  Perhaps the opposite.

 

God's ways are not our ways.  I think it is a mistake to compare the Bible to the Book of Mormon on this issue.

Link to post

It seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what faith is and the role it plays no matter what. Even if an angel was sent to each of us, we'd still have to have faith and trust that the angel was telling the truth. Faith still plays a huge role despite the amount of evidence, or not. 

 

Many people saw Jesus teach and watched his miracles, but still didn't have faith. 

 

And many DID believe.

 

You are truly missing the point.  Or you are intentionally missing it.

 

To understand it, one must understand the role of the Bible and the role of the Book of Mormon.  Once you understand it, then my point will be clear....as it has been to people like Bluebell.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...