So There's No Archaeological Evidence For The Book Of Mormon?

[canard78]

But you continue to reject the archaeological evidence because you are looking for the type of proof that does not show up in the archaeological record. If we waited for absolute proof before we moved forward then we would still be living in caves. You are unable to explain why the nephite record fits so well into the messoamerican setting but you are willing to accept all other matters of science that are based on fitting well.

I've read Lehi in the Desert, I've read Mormon's Codex and much more.

There are convergences that support a pre-existing and established perspective built on spiritual experiences. Your list of 10 "evidences" are not evidences at all.

[mfbukowski]

You are each talking past each other.  That's what "crossed purposes" means.

 

Any good novel may have value as literature and human thought and emotion on particular issues of life.  At the same time, an actual historical document may tell us something about historical reality which we may need to know -- particularly if it has to do with cosmic and final truth.  Both written works have value of a separate, non-competitive kind.  We need to respect that.

There is a house in Key West Florida called the Auduon house. It is now a museum and contains many paintings by Audubon. It has attracted thousands of visitors per year for many many years. The story is that Audobon stayed there while he collected specimens to paint, and painted many of his pictures there, over a period of several months.

The house was among the first restorations in Key West. Its existence has sparked interest in the history of Key West and it was instrumental in making Key West what it is today.

Unfortunately a close examination of the history tells a different story. Before the house was built there was another building on the property that had a lot of gardens. Audobon visited the gardens and took one branch from one tree and used it on one painting of pigeons. It appears that that was is about the extent of Audubon's connection to the property. The tree from which the branch came is now one of the main attractions of the house.

The impact of this legend has been enormous for Key West.

So what does the historical evidence have to do with the impact on Key West that the story has brought?

What is important here the history or the story? I agree completely with you. What is important is the cultural impact. The evidence is one thing, its impact on the culture is something quite different. We have history which is important, but dead and gone. On the other hand we have the living culture in which we live and breathe and which gives our lives meaning.

[omni]

Why do you insist on replying in using a condescending and insulting tone?

I just read my post again and don't know what you're referring to.

[omni]

Have you read your own posts? History is established by historians, not by church leaders. Read the scholarship. My comments are not in dispute by lds scholarship.

It may be supported by LDS scholarship, but it's not supported by the actual text or until very recently (at least indirectly), the highest level of church leadership. In a hierarchical church such as ours, the latter two are all that really matter.

I find it incredibly unlikely that in a 500 page book the native population would go unmentioned if in fact they interacted as much as you claim. IMO, God would have had to make a deliberate effort to ensure they weren't mentioned and that's not a God I'm comfortable worshiping.

[rodheadlee]

It may be supported by LDS scholarship, but it's not supported by the actual text or until very recently (at least indirectly), the highest level of church leadership. In a hierarchical church such as ours, the latter two are all that really matter.

I find it incredibly unlikely that in a 500 page book the native population would go unmentioned if in fact they interacted as much as you claim. IMO, God would have had to make a deliberate effort to ensure they weren't mentioned and that's not a God I'm comfortable worshiping.

You know those plates are an abridgment?  

[omni]

You know those plates are an abridgment?

Yes, and if you believe God inspired Moroni what to include in the abridgment then you have to believe he deliberately left out any reference to the native population. Some may see this as a test of faith, but I can't imagine a perfectly just and loving God doing such a thing, especially when eternal consequences are in play.

[Freedom]

Yes, and if you believe God inspired Moroni what to include in the abridgment then you have to believe he deliberately left out any reference to the native population. Some may see this as a test of faith, but I can't imagine a perfectly just and loving God doing such a thing, especially when eternal consequences are in play.

I see it as an ancient text. I remember once when I told my mother about a co-worker and when she met him she was surprised to see that he was African american. None of my children refer to their friends by race. They use their proper names.  In the book, every non-nephite was referred to as a lamanite. The existence of others is the only way Sherem in Jacob 7 can be understood. A simple read of Jacob 5 also requires there to be others, since the nephites were grafted into an existing tree. In Alma 31:35 we read: "O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of them are out bretheren". Since the book of Mormon refers to all descendants of the original group to be the nephite's bretheren, it is becomes clear the Zoramites included both old world imigrants (bretheren) and new world people. 

 

Jacob provides the following explanation: But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings. Jacob 1:14

[hagoth7]

...So the task would not be to find plates like the plates of Nephi, it would be to find the actual plates Nephi engraved. A much more daunting task.

That's more a kin to finding the actual tablets upon which the 10 commandments were written, rather than a copy of a copy of a copy .... of the writing on the tablets.

When the actual 10 commandments are found then you can complain that we don't have the plates of Nephi.

-guerreiro9

It may be much more akin to finding the plates than most realize. God apparently took the ark that contained the tablets to heaven. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/11.19?lang=eng#18

[readstoomuch]

So, I am  an in-betweener.  I think that the BOM has literal history or background that has been expanded upon.  The expansion being preconceived ideas/notions, limitations or barriers that Joseph Smith had in the translation process.  It has been called a modern expansion of an ancient source.  The modern expansion could have also been utilized to help modern readers to understand the text better.  The question becomes about how much was literal and how much was a modern expansion.  Even conservative apologists in dealing with anachronisms often apply terms that sound like a modern expansion.  I do see that Old World archeology is spot on in agreeing with many BOM understandings.  New World archeology shows pattern that often remind me of the BOM

 

I`ll add that if Canard wants to believe that the BOM is the word of God, but does`t know exactly where to draw the line as far as BOM historicity, then I can accept him as my brother in the gospel.  I would`t agree with that statement if he is publishing terrible things on a blog or being disruptive in Church about his beliefs.

[mfbukowski]

Nice touch.

So was Joseph acting as a prophet when the Wentworth letter was sent (source of the AoF), or did he only think he was?

How is that knowable, and what does it matter?

Either you have a testimony of them or you don't. What kind of answe did you expect, honestly?

[rodheadlee]

Yes, and if you believe God inspired Moroni what to include in the abridgment then you have to believe he deliberately left out any reference to the native population. Some may see this as a test of faith, but I can't imagine a perfectly just and loving God doing such a thing, especially when eternal consequences are in play.

 13 And a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, which now began to be numerous, cannot be written upon ^athese plates; but many of their proceedings are written upon the ^blarger plates, and their wars, and their contentions, and the reigns of their kings.

 

 14 And I, Jarom, do not write more, for the plates are ^asmall.

 

 11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord ^aforbade it, saying: I will ^btry the faith of my people.

Edited May 31, 2015 by rodheadlee

[canard78]

I`ll add that if Canard wants to believe that the BOM is the word of God, but does`t know exactly where to draw the line as far as BOM historicity, then I can accept him as my brother in the gospel.  I would`t agree with that statement if he is publishing terrible things on a blog or being disruptive in Church about his beliefs.

 

Thanks

 

To your last point: I'm not. If you a friend of mine on Facebook you'd be utterly unaware of these views. I made the decision a couple of years ago that Facebook isn't the place for soap-boxing. When at church I tend to keep my thoughts to myself, though I tend to share perspectives in a from a more universalist perspective. I do have a blog, though I only link to it from here and one or two other forums. It's more a place to capture various musings and perspectives. I was also adding my Gospel Principles lesson plans on there for a while. This lesson plan is an example of the more universalist approach I have taken in the past to sharing perspectives. I've not posted much in the last year or so though.

[canard78]

How is that knowable, and what does it matter?

Either you have a testimony of them or you don't. What kind of answe did you expect, honestly?

 

From you? Exactly the answer you've just given

 

Joseph, on the other hand, was a little more clear. When the original Wentworth letter was not published in full he sent the following second letter:

 

“Dear sir,

 

I was somewhat disappointed on the receiving my paper with only a part of my letter inserted in it. The letter which I wrote you for publication I wrote by the commandment of God. ” (History of the Church 1: 326)

 

[Tacenda]

Thanks

To your last point: I'm not. If you a friend of mine on Facebook you'd be utterly unaware of these views. I made the decision a couple of years ago that Facebook isn't the place for soap-boxing. When at church I tend to keep my thoughts to myself, though I tend to share perspectives in a from a more universalist perspective. I do have a blog, though I only link to it from here and one or two other forums. It's more a place to capture various musings and perspectives. I was also adding my Gospel Principles lesson plans on there for a while. This lesson plan is an example of the more universalist approach I have taken in the past to sharing perspectives. I've not posted much in the last year or so though.

Loved reading over your blog. I relate to liking several things about church on Sunday. Much more than when a TBM sometimes. I didn't picture you to have a child young enough to get a little fidgety during sacrament. I read over the January post. I like how you connected with that girl's boyfriend by introducing something in the lesson to connect him maybe, to a better belief in God, from what she said. Edited May 31, 2015 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

You are each talking past each other.  That's what "crossed purposes" means.

 

Any good novel may have value as literature and human thought and emotion on particular issues of life.  At the same time, an actual historical document may tell us something about historical reality which we may need to know -- particularly if it has to do with cosmic and final truth.  Both written works have value of a separate, non-competitive kind.  We need to respect that.

 

I'll disagree there. The Bible and Book of Mormon, and Pearl of Great Price, are not novels. They purport to be the actual ancient histories, not in the way we moderns view histories, but of actual people. IE;  It's pretty well established that Yeshua bar Yosef was a real man that lived some 2000 years ago in the ancient vassal state of Palestine. Whatever you think about his divinity.The New Testament becomes worthless if he did not exist.  I respect Canard I just disagree with his hypothesis.

[mikegriffith1]

Yes, and if you believe God inspired Moroni what to include in the abridgment then you have to believe he deliberately left out any reference to the native population. Some may see this as a test of faith, but I can't imagine a perfectly just and loving God doing such a thing, especially when eternal consequences are in play.

 

But he did mention the native population. He did so briefly, but he did mention them.

[mikegriffith1]

The claim that nothing in the Book of Mormon has been verified by archaeology is badly outdated. New World archaeology has confirmed a number of the book's important background claims. And there is very strong evidence that Nephi's account of Lehi's travels in Arabia is authentic.

Edited May 31, 2015 by mikegriffith1

[Kevin Christensen]

Yes, and if you believe God inspired Moroni what to include in the abridgment then you have to believe he deliberately left out any reference to the native population. Some may see this as a test of faith, but I can't imagine a perfectly just and loving God doing such a thing, especially when eternal consequences are in play.

Try Roper's "Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations".

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1457&index=7

The biggest obstacle to not seeing the evidence in this case is the assumption that there is nothing to see.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[omni]

I see it as an ancient text. I remember once when I told my mother about a co-worker and when she met him she was surprised to see that he was African american. None of my children refer to their friends by race. They use their proper names. In the book, every non-nephite was referred to as a lamanite. The existence of others is the only way Sherem in Jacob 7 can be understood. A simple read of Jacob 5 also requires there to be others, since the nephites were grafted into an existing tree. In Alma 31:35 we read: "O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of them are out bretheren". Since the book of Mormon refers to all descendants of the original group to be the nephite's bretheren, it is becomes clear the Zoramites included both old world imigrants (bretheren) and new world people.

Jacob provides the following explanation: But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings. Jacob 1:14

The only explicit reference to native populations is that of the Mulekites and they are referred to as the "People of Zarahemla" by the Nephites.

[omni]

Try Roper's "Nephi's Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations".

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1457&index=7

The biggest obstacle to not seeing the evidence in this case is the assumption that there is nothing to see.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Even if you believe the BoM references native populations (which I personally don't) one has to wonder why it is done so implicitly to cause generation after generation of faithful LDS to completely miss it. What is the reasoning for these scriptural "Easter eggs"? Edited May 31, 2015 by omni

[Sevenbak]

I see it as an ancient text. I remember once when I told my mother about a co-worker and when she met him she was surprised to see that he was African american. None of my children refer to their friends by race. They use their proper names.  In the book, every non-nephite was referred to as a lamanite. The existence of others is the only way Sherem in Jacob 7 can be understood. A simple read of Jacob 5 also requires there to be others, since the nephites were grafted into an existing tree. In Alma 31:35 we read: "O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of them are out bretheren". Since the book of Mormon refers to all descendants of the original group to be the nephite's bretheren, it is becomes clear the Zoramites included both old world imigrants (bretheren) and new world people. 

 

Jacob provides the following explanation: But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings. Jacob 1:14

 

 I can't let this one slide as if it's fact.  I would like to address a few of these...

 

 

1.  "In the book, every non-nephite was referred to as a lamanite."

 

That just isn't true.   In addition, injecting modern racial biases into the text doesn't help understand ancient customs.

 

 

 

2. "The existence of others is the only way Sherem in Jacob 7 can be understood."

 

 

 Only if you choose to read it that way.  The fact that he "came among the people" doesn't mean he was a foreigner.     Abinadi also "came among them" in disguise. (Mosiah 12:1)   Also, prophets in general "came among" the people to declare their iniquities.  (Alma 37:30)  

 

If Sharem were a native, he wouldn't have been so knowledgeable about the language, or been able to flatter and deceive the people.  Remember, the Nephites at this time were politically incorrect, and wanted a pure people to do God's will, that's why they removed themselves from the Lamanites.   Letting in foreign blood, customs, etc, goes against why they fled from Laman and Lemuel.   Also,  Sharem sought many opportunities to meet with Jacob, to no avail.  It would be like Kate Kelly's repeated attempts to meet with Church leaders, and her high profile could definitely be described in our modern vernacular as "coming among the people" and being newsworthy.

  

 

 

3.  A simple read of Jacob 5 also requires there to be others, since the nephites were grafted into an existing tree.

 

Exactly the opposite is true and it needs to be discussed.  I'm glad you brought this up!  The branch that was grafted in America was the ONLY one that was planted.  All others in the world were grafted into existing branches.  Let's look at the text carefully.

 

 43 And behold this last, whose branch hath withered away, I did plant in a ^agood spot of ground; yea, even that which was choice unto me above all other parts of the land of my vineyard.

 44 And thou beheldest that I also cut down that which ^acumbered this spot of ground, that I might plant this tree in the stead thereof.

 45 And thou beheldest that a ^apart thereof brought forth good fruit, and a part thereof brought forth wild fruit; and because I plucked not the branches thereof and cast them into the fire, behold, they have overcome the good branch that it hath withered away.

 

So, not only is the branch planted instead of grafted like the others, the Lord removed the other that was in the way.

 

If you look at the ancient and modern use of truncheons, you'll find it's another way to propagate olive trees without grafting.  You just put a branch in the ground with good conditions, and it will grow roots on its own.

 

 

 

4. "Jacob provides the following explanation: But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings. Jacob 1:14"

 

 

By leaving out the verse preceding, you miss the context.  It's not about native cultures, it's about specific people and tribes being lumped together.   Here's verse 13.

 

13 Now the people which were not ^aLamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, ^bZoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Sevenbak

[canard78]

Even if you believe the BoM references native populations (which I personally don't) one has to wonder why it is done so implicitly to cause generation after generation of faithful LDS would completely miss it. What is the reasoning for these scriptural "Easter eggs"?

I can remember mentioning the idea of "others" to a missionary companion back in 1998. My mum was fairly progressive and had shared a lot from FARMs before I went on my mission. My missionary companion, on the other hand, was outraged and insisted that the Americas were empty on Lehi's arrival, that he was the father of the natives and that my view came from an unfaithful compromised perspective.

I often wonder how he's got on since them. I wonder if he still had that view by the time the DNA essay came out.

As I said to MFBukowski, I find it odd that the Wentworth letter makes the "empty continent" case so strongly. This a letter written "by the command of God" and written/sent/approved by the person who had seen the Nephites in vision and been taught about them by angelic visitations.

It seems a fairly critical detail for Joseph to have not noticed.

[canard78]

 I can't let this one slide as if it's fact.  I would like to address a few of these...

 

 

1.  "In the book, every non-nephite was referred to as a lamanite."

 

That just isn't true.   In addition, injecting modern racial biases into the text doesn't help understand ancient customs.

 

 

 

2. "The existence of others is the only way Sherem in Jacob 7 can be understood."

 

 

 Only if you choose to read it that way.  The fact that he "came among the people" doesn't mean he was a foreigner.     Abinadi also "came among them" in disguise. (Mosiah 12:1)   Also, prophets in general "came among" the people to declare their iniquities.  (Alma 37:30)  

 

If Sharem were a native, he wouldn't have been so knowledgeable about the language, or been able to flatter and deceive the people.  Remember, the Nephites at this time were politically incorrect, and wanted a pure people to do God's will, that's why they removed themselves from the Lamanites.   Letting in foreign blood, customs, etc, goes against why they fled from Laman and Lemuel.   Also,  Sharem sought many opportunities to meet with Jacob, to no avail.  It would be like Kate Kelly's repeated attempts to meet with Church leaders, and her high profile could definitely be described in our modern vernacular as "coming among the people" and being newsworthy.

  

 

 

3.  A simple read of Jacob 5 also requires there to be others, since the nephites were grafted into an existing tree.

 

Exactly the opposite is true and it needs to be discussed.  I'm glad you brought this up!  The branch that was grafted in America was the ONLY one that was planted.  All others in the world were grafted into existing branches.  Let's look at the text carefully.

 

 43 And behold this last, whose branch hath withered away, I did plant in a ^agood spot of ground; yea, even that which was choice unto me above all other parts of the land of my vineyard.

 44 And thou beheldest that I also cut down that which ^acumbered this spot of ground, that I might plant this tree in the stead thereof.

 45 And thou beheldest that a ^apart thereof brought forth good fruit, and a part thereof brought forth wild fruit; and because I plucked not the branches thereof and cast them into the fire, behold, they have overcome the good branch that it hath withered away.

 

So, not only is the branch planted instead of grafted like the others, the Lord removed the other that was in the way.

 

If you look at the ancient and modern use of truncheons, you'll find it's another way to propagate olive trees without grafting.  You just put a branch in the ground with good conditions, and it will grow roots on its own.

 

 

 

4. "Jacob provides the following explanation: But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings. Jacob 1:14"

 

 

By leaving out the verse preceding, you miss the context.  It's not about native cultures, it's about specific people and tribes being lumped together.   Here's verse 13.

 

13 Now the people which were not ^aLamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, ^bZoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

 

Very interesting. Especially the bit about Jacob 5 at the end. 

 

So are you an 'empty continent' advocate?

[Nevo]

This a letter written "by the command of God" and written/sent/approved by the person who had seen the Nephites in vision and been taught about them by angelic visitations.

 

I think you may be confusing the letter to N.C. Saxton with the Wentworth letter, but in any case both letters show no awareness on Joseph Smith's part that there were any others in the Americas besides the peoples explicitly mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

[canard78]

I think you may be confusing the letter to N.C. Saxton with the Wentworth letter, but in any case both letters show no awareness on Joseph Smith's part that there were any others in the Americas besides the peoples explicitly mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Thanks. You are quite right. My mistake.

Concerning the Prophet's Communication to Seaton.

February 12.—Having received Seaton's paper, from Rochester, New York, containing a part of my communication, written on the 4th of January, I wrote as follows:

To N. E. Seaton, Rochester.

Dear Sir:—I was somewhat disappointed on receiving my paper with only a part of my letter inserted in it. The letter which I wrote you for publication, I wrote by the commandment of God, and I am quite anxious to have it all laid before the public, for it is of importance to them: but I have no claim upon you, neither do I wish to urge you, beyond that which is reasonable, to do it. I have only to appeal to your extended generosity to all religious societies that claim that Christ has come in the flesh; and also to tell you what will be the consequence of a neglect to publish it.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/hc/1/25.html#HOC