Book Of Mormon Archaeology

[cinepro]

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.

 

Well, this thread has gone on long enough so I'll have to be the one to put CountryBoy out of his misery.

 

The reason your theory is false is this. 

 

While a testimony of The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith is great, even having 100% proof of The Book of Mormon (to the point that it compelled all rational people to believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the claims of Joseph Smith) still isn't enough to "save" people.  Even with a testimony of those basic tenets, there is still tons of agency to go "astray"*.

 

God knows this.  He knows that even if we found all the Book of Mormon locations, with signs indicating their names and the names of their rulers which tied directly to Book of Mormon kings and prophets, people would still have tons of agency.  They could still totally believe in The Book of Mormon and choose to follow a different non-LDS sect, or believe that Joseph fell away and lost his gift (The Book of Abraham and Polygamy seem like plenty of reason for some people).

 

There is also the possibility that for all his digging in the ground, Joseph actually did happen to find a hidden cache of ancient plates.  After all, adventurous lads have been known to stumble across such things.  Then, using an amazing gift heretofore unknown by him, Joseph was able to "crack the code" of the ancient writing and translate it.  I'm not promoting the theory, but in the pantheon of theories regarding Joseph Smith and his abilities, that certainly wouldn't be the most unusual claim (especially if we consider the level of creativity needed to deal with the Book of Abraham).

 

There may be many good reasons archaeologists haven't found good evidence of Book of Mormon claims in the New World (I can certainly think of one very good reason), but the idea that it would somehow impact our "faith" or "hope" to the point of "perfect knowledge" just hasn't been supported by history.

 

 

*Assuming we adopt the Utah-LDS view of exaltation as including following Thomas S. Monson as the living prophet and receiving all the proper ordinances in authorized LDS Temples.

Edited March 18, 2015 by cinepro

[UtahTexan]

You answered none of my questions, unless your "sigh" is an indicator of impatience with my stupidity, and is intended as an answer of sorts.

 

You might have at least verified that I have understood you correctly with my description, or tell me where I have gone wrong.  Thanks.

 

So does that mean you have not heard about Zerehemla from any other source?  You forgot to answer that question.

[UtahTexan]

If God does not want any evidence of the Nephites to ever be found,

then why was Mrs. Whitmer allowed to see the plates? And why was

William Smith allowed to see the Nephite breastplate?

Why was David Whitmer allowed to see the Nephite stone box?

Why were several members of Zion's Camp allowed to see Zelph?

Why was Lyman Wight allowed to see the Nephite tower?

If all of those things were divinely allowed, I would think that

God would allow somebody to uncover a few bits of fossil

wheat pollen from the Nephite wheat fields. Or one other

metal plate, with Nephite characters scratched into it.

Has God really removed all of those mega-tons of evidence

from the archaeological record, just to strengthen the faith

of believing Mormons?

Such a God might also put fake dinosaur bones in the rocks,

in order to test the faith of the Latter Day Saints, I suppose.

UD

 

 

Ok...if that is a mystery to you...why did Jesus, after the resurrection only appear to a few people?  Why didn't he go to those who crucified him and say, "Here I am!!!!!!!"  

[UtahTexan]

Well, this thread has gone on long enough so I'll have to be the one to put CountryBoy out of his misery.

 

The reason your theory is false is this. 

 

While a testimony of The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith is great, even having 100% proof of The Book of Mormon (to the point that it compelled all rational people to believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the claims of Joseph Smith) still isn't enough to "save" people.  Even with a testimony of those basic tenets, there is still tons of agency to go "astray"*.

 

God knows this.  He knows that even if we found all the Book of Mormon locations, with signs indicating their names and the names of their rulers which tied directly to Book of Mormon kings and prophets, people would still have tons of agency.  They could still totally believe in The Book of Mormon and choose to follow a different non-LDS sect, or believe that Joseph fell away and lost his gift (The Book of Abraham and Polygamy seem like plenty of reason for some people).

 

There is also the possibility that for all his digging in the ground, Joseph actually did happen to find a hidden cache of ancient plates.  After all, adventurous lads have been known to stumble across such things.  Then, using an amazing gift heretofore unknown by him, Joseph was able to "crack the code" of the ancient writing and translate it.  I'm not promoting the theory, but in the pantheon of theories regarding Joseph Smith and his abilities, that certainly wouldn't be the most unusual claim (especially if we consider the level of creativity needed to deal with the Book of Abraham).

 

There may be many good reasons archaeologists haven't found good evidence of Book of Mormon claims in the New World (I can certainly think of one very good reason), but the idea that it would somehow impact our "faith" or "hope" to the point of "perfect knowledge" just hasn't been supported by history.

 

 

*Assuming we adopt the Utah-LDS view of exaltation as including following Thomas S. Monson as the living prophet and receiving all the proper ordinances in authorized LDS Temples.

 

Sadly, I was in no misery.  And you have only strengthened my point.

 

For that I thank you.

 

And again, you either missed the point or, sadly, intentionally missed it.

 

It is all about Faith....Faith.  

 

And believing in the Book of Mormon requires no more faith than was required to be a Catholic.

Edited March 18, 2015 by CountryBoy

[cinepro]

Ok...if that is a mystery to you...why did Jesus, after the resurrection only appear to a few people?  Why didn't he go to those who crucified him and say, "Here I am!!!!!!!"  

 

"A few people?"

[UtahTexan]

"A few people?"

 

Yep...500 is a few in relation to the number of people there.  Certainly you know that.  I feel as if you are intentionally obtuse.

 

And you ignored, understandably, the rest of my post...perhaps you could be just as snarky with THAT comment?

 

Let me repeat it for you...

 

Why didn't he go to those who crucified him and say, "Here I am!!!!!!!"  

 

Maybe the Jewish Faith would have crumbled had He appeared to the Jewish Leaders.....or the Roman leaders?  Ya think?

Edited March 18, 2015 by CountryBoy

[cinepro]

Sadly, I was in no misery.  And you have only strengthened my point.

 

For that I thank you.

 

And again, you either missed the point or, sadly, intentionally missed it.

 

It is all about Faith....Faith.  

 

And believing in the Book of Mormon requires no more faith than was required to be a Catholic.

 

My point is that faith would still be required even if we had really solid evidence of the Book of Mormon.  Your original post argues that it wouldn't, and therefore God won't allow us to have solid evidence.

 

If you meant something else, your writing skills are terrible, and you need to learn to further express your ideas without all the "sighing" and accusations of people having "missed the point."

[UtahTexan]

My point is that faith would still be required even if we had really solid evidence of the Book of Mormon.  Your original post argues that it wouldn't, and therefore God won't allow us to have solid evidence.

 

If you meant something else, your writing skills are terrible, and you need to learn to further express your ideas without all the "sighing" and accusations of people having "missed the point."

 

I sigh when you are obtuse.  If you dislike my sighing, be less obtuse.

 

And I say that, based on what the Book of Mormon purports to be, and that what it contains historically ONLY came from Joseph Smith, then definitive evidence of it would absolutely be different than finding another city mentioned in the Bible.

 

And my writing is fine.  but I will use smaller words for you  

[Calm]

"Then, using an amazing gift heretofore unknown by him, Joseph was able to "crack the code" of the ancient writing and translate it."

Given the eyewitnesses didn't see him looking at the plates, that makes his translation a very convoluted process.

[cinepro]

Yep...500 is a few in relation to the number of people there.  Certainly you know that.  I feel as if you are intentionally obtuse.

 

And you ignored, understandably, the rest of my post...perhaps you could be just as snarky with THAT comment?

 

Let me repeat it for you...

 

Why didn't he go to those who crucified him and say, "Here I am!!!!!!!"  

 

Maybe the Jewish Faith would have crumbled had He appeared to the Jewish Leaders.....or the Roman leaders?  Ya think?

 

I don't agree that 500 = "a few".  But that's up to you; I was just clarifying for those reading along that he did appear to several hundred people, in case their definition of "a few" was similar to mine.

 

Second, I don't know that Christ didn't go to those who crucified him and say "Here I am!!!!!!"  Maybe he did.  I can't say.  I'm pretty sure that if he did, they would still have had plenty of agency to choose whether or not to believe in him, just as every other person who saw him do a miracle in the New Testament did.

 

And as I said in my first post, I think you are drastically overestimating the degree to which peoples' "knowledge" is influenced by "evidence".  Which is actually quite ironic. 

 

You're talking about the finding of one piece of evidence somehow leading to "perfect knowledge", when there are things like the Apollo 11 mission and the holocaust for which there are thousands and millions of pieces of good evidence but some people still don't believe it.  There just isn't any evidence that people automatically believe arguments that are supported by good, solid evidence.  Especially LDS people.

 

You could probably actually study this.  In the past, there have been stunning evidences for the Book of Mormon found in the new world.  But some of these have later been "de-emphasized", to put it politely.  So why not study these evidences and try to determine if LDS did in fact experience less faith and more knowledge as a result of them?

 

Stela 5 would be ideal.   Here was a solid evidence, backed by archaeologists and closely tied to the story of the Tree of Life in The Book of Mormon.  Does the existence of this picture increase or lessen faith, and how do the opinions of trained archaeologists bear on that reaction?

Edited March 18, 2015 by cinepro