Jump to content

Most compelling evidence for/against the Book of Mormon?


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

So your life is such that you feel the need to be on an LDS board telling us we have no basis?

I am really sorry

Well, you know. I had limited community service options so it was this or explaining to high school kids why there are 13 players on the field per team in prehistoric new world Nephite football games.

Edited by Honorentheos
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Well, you know. I had limited community service options so it was this or explaining to high school kids why there are 13 players on the field per team in prehistoric new world Nephite football games.

ah...so you chose telling adults they are wrong over helping kids....

says it all :)

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Yeah, I messed up on guessing which group would be the adults. But we persevere. 

So...messing up is a habit for you, then.  And guessing wrong is now a hobby :)

Link to post
52 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

According to the Book of Mormon you have no basis in claiming the Nephites reckoned after the manner of the Jews.

If I may, your assertion, and Honor's, hinges largely upon what was meant in verse 4 by "reckon" and "measure". Verse 4 may not mean exactly what you're asserting it to mean. The relationships/proportions between the different measures, for example, *could have* basically remained the same, whereas many (or all) of the names of those units of measure could also have been modified by the Nephites from time to time, while the amount/weight/volume of grain associated with the apparent central measure, the senum could have been what had changed from time to time. Just like a shift in the value of gold in a gold-based economy could change the value of every dollar associated with it, an occasional shift in the measuring the amount of grain that was equivalent to a senum could shift the value of the entire Nephite economic system of measurements. But in such a shift, the proportions of measurement could have remained the same, just as a shift in the value of gold would still maintain the relative relationship between a dollar and a quarter and a dime and a nickel and a penny. So hinging on what was actually meant in Alma 11, the apparent disagreement with you and Honor on one side and Robert and Country Boy on the other could be baseless: you could *all* be right at the same time. As such, in my opinion, there's no real need for disagreement among saints on such a trifling matter.

Edited by notHagoth7
Link to post
20 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

So...messing up is a habit for you, then.  And guessing wrong is now a hobby :)

Sure if by messing up you meaning being on the right side of the math and physical evidence I suppose.

Unless you care to point out specifically where I have it wrong? ;)

 

Edited by Honorentheos
Link to post
22 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

yawn.

I have the basis of all.

Next?

Before this descends even further, I want to drop in (and immediately out) and say that I've really enjoyed the discussion between Robert and Honorentheos. Two bright guys with differing opinions and interesting insights. Thanks.
 

Link to post
1 minute ago, Honorentheos said:

Sure if by messing up you meaning being on the right side of the bath and physical evidence I suppose.

Unless you care to point out specifically where I have it wrong? ;)

 

Spin it how you need to spin it.....you were proven wrong.

I am ok with you feeling whatever you need to feel to make you feel like you need to feel

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Before this descends even further, I want to drop in (and immediately out) and say that I've really enjoyed the discussion between Robert and Honorentheos. Two bright guys with differing opinions and interesting insights. Thanks.
 

It was not descending.  I have the best basis of all....like I said.

Most of us here are bright.  Not all of us see the need to go into a person's home and complain about how they live in their home.

Link to post
7 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

If I may, your assertion, and Honor's, hinges largely upon what was meant in verse 4 by "reckon" and "measure". Verse 4 may not mean exactly what you're asserting it to mean. The relationships/proportions between the different measures, for example, *could have* basically remained the same, while many (or all) of the names of those units of measure could also have been modified by the Nephites from time to time, as could have the amount/weight/volume of grain associated with the apparent central measure, the senum. Just like a shift in the value of gold in a gold-based economy could change the value of every dollar associated with it, an occasional shift in the measuring the amount of grain that was equivalent to a senum could shift the value of the entire Nephite economic system of measurements. But in such a shift, the proportions of measurement could have remained the same, just as a shift in the value of gold would still maintain the relative relationship between a dollar and a quarter and a dime and a nickel and a penny. So hinging on what was actually meant in Alma 11, the apparent disagreement with you and Honor on one side and Robert and Country Boy on the other could be baseless: you could *all* be right at the same time. As such, in my opinion, there's no real need for disagreement among saints on such a trifling matter.

While I contest the statement Country Boy has a position until he actually states clearly what he thinks is correct or incorrect I think the bigger issue here is contextualizing what the Book of Mormon itself means by change. The discussion has focused so much on the near eastern evidence precisely because there is something there to discuss. By trying to contextualize it there, Robert has opened it scrutiny under those conditions. I think it's been amply demonstrated it fails. What it may have evolved into outside of the actual text described in the BoM is wide open to speculation. 

What its not is base-8, though.

Link to post
9 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

If I may, your assertion, and Honor's, hinges largely upon what was meant in verse 4 by "reckon" and "measure". Verse 4 may not mean exactly what you're asserting it to mean. The relationships/proportions between the different measures, for example, *could have* basically remained the same, while many (or all) of the names of those units of measure could also have been modified by the Nephites from time to time, as could have the amount/weight/volume of grain associated with the apparent central measure, the senum. Just like a shift in the value of gold in a gold-based economy could change the value of every dollar associated with it, an occasional shift in the measuring the amount of grain that was equivalent to a senum could shift the value of the entire Nephite economic system of measurements. But in such a shift, the proportions of measurement could have remained the same, just as a shift in the value of gold would still maintain the relative relationship between a dollar and a quarter and a dime and a nickel and a penny. So hinging on what was actually meant in Alma 11, the apparent disagreement with you and Honor on one side and Robert and Country Boy on the other could be baseless: you could *all* be right at the same time. As such, in my opinion, there's no real need for disagreement among saints on such a trifling matter.

Very true. And for all the above reasons I think its weird to treat this topic as some sort of hill to die on. 

I'm all for digging around for other systems that show similarities, and both Robert and Honorentheos have made some great suggestions. And there are probably many more. But in the end the Book of Mormon says clearly that the Nephite system is based on...a Nephite system. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
16 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Spin it how you need to spin it.....you were proven wrong.

I am ok with you feeling whatever you need to feel to make you feel like you need to feel

I can't think of a more opposite case than this being proven wrong. The entire issue around the nephite system being base-8 is easily demonstrated to be false. Easily. The attempts to fabricate a 56 shekel Maneh also completely dismissed by an expert in the field with no idea they were engaged in the argument was fairly conclusive. There's zero reason in my opinion to imagine Robert's theory is supported outside of wishful think that it be so. Frankly, commenting in the same vein of wishful thinking is also supportive of this. So thanks I guess. Unless you care to be specific?

Edited by Honorentheos
phone and autocorrect weirdness
Link to post
11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Very true. And for all the above reasons I think its weird to treat this topic as some sort of hill to die on. 

I'm all for digging around for other systems that show similarities, and both Robert and Honorentheos have made some great suggestions. And there are probably many more. But in the end the Book of Mormon says clearly that the Nephite system is based on...a Nephite system. 

I do find the issues around the Kletter weight fascinating. It's been an interesting process for that alone.

Link to post
6 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

I can't think of a more opposite case than this being proven wrong. The entire issue around the nephite system being base-8 is easily demonstrated to be false. Easily. The attempts to fabricate a 56 shekel Maneh also completely dismissed by an expert in the field with no idea they were engaged in the argument was fairly conclusive. There's zero reason in my opinion to imagine Robert's theory is supported outside of wishful think that it be so. Frankly, commenting in the same vein of wishful thinking is also supportive of this. So thanks I guess. Unless you care to be specific?

Still trying to bait me?  Not happening.  You are here because your life is such that raining on people's parades excite you.  I am satisfied knowing you were beaten.  And once satisfied, why continue?  It would only rehash what y'all rehashed for days.

And now, you are beating THIS horse to death.

lol.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Still trying to bait me?  Not happening.  You are here because your life is such that raining on people's parades excite you.  I am satisfied knowing you were beaten.  And once satisfied, why continue?  It would only rehash what y'all rehashed for days.

And now, you are beating THIS horse to death.

lol.

Actually I thin the discussion evolved quite a bit in the last day. I had more time to dig into Robert's sources on the weekend and that about sealed the point to me that the fabrications evident in the theory were even more problematic. He asked for more detailed replies, he got them when I had a bit more time.

Anyway, I know you don't have anything to add bit since you claim to give an opinion the debate it's only fair you share why you take one side over the other. It's not baiting, it's how discussion boards work. 

Or, you know, you could admit you are just taking a side because of team loyalties which seems to be the actual case here. 

Link to post
1 minute ago, Honorentheos said:

Actually I thin the discussion evolved quite a bit in the last day. I had more time to dig into Robert's sources on the weekend and that about sealed the point to me that the fabrications evident in the theory were even more problematic. He asked for more detailed replies, he got them when I had a bit more time.

Anyway, I know you don't have anything to add bit since you claim to give an opinion the debate it's only fair you share why you take one side over the other. It's not baiting, it's how discussion boards work. 

Or, you know, you could admit you are just taking a side because of team loyalties which seems to be the actual case here. 

it is baiting when I have said I am not going to discuss the topic and you keep on.  

Robert handled it well...I have no need to add anything.  and I see little value in entering into a discussion with someone who is only happy when he is trying to tear down the beliefs of others.

 

Link to post
31 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Very true...But in the end the Book of Mormon says clearly that the Nephite system is based on...a Nephite system. 

? The text does not say that Nephite system *invented* their proportional system out of whole cloth. It does, however, say that they *altered* their reckoning and measure from time to time. Again, much of the disagreement in this thread hinges entirely on what was meant by "reckon" and "measure". Again, in an attempt to offer a bridge between the two camps of opinion here, if the Nephite economy was an agrarian, grain-based measuring system, as the verses in Alma 11 certainly depict it as being, their occasionally changing in every generation how much grain equated to a senum, based for example on the abundance of crops and/or the health of the overall economy, would have rippled through to changing the value (but not the relative value) of *every* measure in the Nephite system....and the names of such measures could have been changed from time to time, both shifting conditions thereby matching the "did not...measure after the manner of the Jews" and "altered their reckoning" descriptions in Alma 11 - while still allowing for relative proportions between such measures to remain essentiallly the same.  

"...for they did not *reckon* after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they *measure* after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation..."

So in my opinion, you're all engaged in a false dichotomy. An artificial dispute where none is merited. It's not an either/or. Robert could be right about proportions being derivative of Old World proportions, while in the same breath you and Honor are right about their reckoning changing from time to time...but perhaps simply not in the sweeping sense that you're both asserting.

Does anyone grasp the gist of what I'm saying there? That *all* parties here may simply be touching a different part of the same elephant?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant (absolutely zero offense intended)

 

 

 

Edited by notHagoth7
Link to post
1 minute ago, CountryBoy said:

it is baiting when I have said I am not going to discuss the topic and you keep on.  

Robert handled it well...I have no need to add anything.  and I see little value in entering into a discussion with someone who is only happy when he is trying to tear down the beliefs of others.

Very well, then please allow other people to discuss.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

? The text does not say that Nephite system *invented* their proportional system out of whole cloth. It does, however, say that they *altered* their reckoning and measure from time to time. Again, much of the disagreement in this thread hinges entirely on what was meant by "reckon" and "measure". Again, in an attempt to offer a bridge between the two camps of opinion here, if the Nephite economy was an agrarian, grain-based measuring system, as the verses in Alma 11 certainly depict it as being, their occasionally changing in every generation how much grain equated to a senum, based for example on the abundance of crops and/or the health of the overall economy, would have rippled through to changing the value (but not the relative value) of *every* measure in the Nephite system....and the names of such measures could have been changed from time to time, both shifting conditions thereby matching the "did not...measure after the manner of the Jews" and "altered their reckoning" descriptions in Alma 11 - while still allowing for relative proportions between such measure to remain largely the same.  

"...for they did not *reckon* after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they *measure* after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation..."

So in my opinion, you're all engaged in a false dichotomy. An artificial dispute where none is merited. It's not an either/or. Robert could be right about proportions being derivative of Old World proportions, while in the same breath you and Honor are right about reckoning changing from time to time...but perhaps simply not in the sweeping sense that you're both asserting.

Does anyone grasp the gist of what I'm saying there? That *all* parties here may simply be touching a different part of the same elephant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Its not unlike going bak to 1985 and arguing gold and silver coins in Alma 11, because the chapter headings say so and wow, we found some!

"Most recently a burial containing 12,000 pieces of metal "money" (though not coins as such) was found in Ecuador, for the first time confirming that some ancient South Americans had the idea of accumulating a fortune in more or less standard units of metal wealth. Such a startling find in Mesoamerica could change our present limited ideas." - John L. Sorenson

But looking back, it was as you've said, an artificial dispute where none was merited.

Link to post
16 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Does anyone grasp the gist of what I'm saying there? That *all* parties here may simply be touching a different part of the same elephant?

I don't see how any relationship between measures in Judea and the Nephites anything more than something mildly interesting.  Sort of like chiasmus.
Very forgettable.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
13 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Its not unlike going bak to 1985 and arguing gold and silver coins in Alma 11, because the chapter headings say so and wow, we found some!

"Most recently a burial containing 12,000 pieces of metal "money" (though not coins as such) was found in Ecuador, for the first time confirming that some ancient South Americans had the idea of accumulating a fortune in more or less standard units of metal wealth. Such a startling find in Mesoamerica could change our present limited ideas." - John L. Sorenson

But looking back, it was as you've said, an artificial dispute where none was merited.

? I don't quite follow.

I have yet to see a picture of the 12,000 pieces of metal. So far, it sounds like nothing more than hack-silver hoards found in northern Europe from medieval societies. Pieces of metal used for weighing values.

And the location of the largest hoards of hacksilver? Palestine - where the extensive finds there are referred to as the Cisjordan Corpus, dating from 1200 BC to 586 BC (the time of Lehi). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacksilver

Hacksilver. Judea. New World. Northern Europe. Continuity.

Link to post
16 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I don't see how any relationship between measures in Judea and the Nephites anything more than something mildly interesting.  Sort of like chiasmus.
Very forgettable.

What then of a relationship between Judea, Nephites, *and* some of your (likely) forefathers in northern Europe?  Does such continuity rise to anything beyond mildly interesting? 

Edited by notHagoth7
Link to post
6 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I also have to say I'm amused by the people giving you rep points for being so obviously wrong.

At some point, its going to become clear to you that the system described in the Book of Mormon does not resemble the system of Egyptian/Judaean trade you rely on. When that happens, you'll be glad the text was so clear that one shouldn't expect this.

Because your entire premise is CRAZY wrong. You may not see it, and those giving you rep points may not see it, but it's so far off from having demonstrated parallels between the Nephite and near eastern systems of measure while reinforcing the binary nature of the Nephite system it's hard to believer you're still debating it.

If you can't debate the facts, turn to invective and to psychologizing everyone who might see things differently from you.  What you are really saying is that the archeologists are all wrong, including Bill Dever.  Your real argument is with the non-Mormon sources and your failure to take them fully into account.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Very true. And for all the above reasons I think its weird to treat this topic as some sort of hill to die on. 

I'm all for digging around for other systems that show similarities, and both Robert and Honorentheos have made some great suggestions. And there are probably many more. But in the end the Book of Mormon says clearly that the Nephite system is based on...a Nephite system. 

Would now be a good time to also point out that Alma 11 is pretty clearly describing individually identifiable weights of metal to which consistent and specific values are ascribed, which is also the definition of what a "coin" is?

Edited by cinepro
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Five Solas
      Peppermint Patty's thread, "Grant Hardy's Presentation on The Book of Mormon" got shut down before salgare's question to Scott Lloyd ("can one claim the BoM is inspired fiction and still be exalted?") could be clearly & concisely answered--so I thought I'd turn it into a poll. 
      What do you think? 
      --Erik
    • By HappyJackWagon
      As I've been studying the BoM this year for Gospel Doctrine I have a nagging question I can't fully itch.
      We are taught that Lehi and his family are led from Jerusalem to the new world to establish a righteous people.
      But there is no discernible remnant of Lehi's people in America. So I wonder if the purpose is to raise up the BoM for the people of this day. But I still have to wonder why Lehi would have been necessary. Why wouldn't Christ have established his church among the people who were already here?
      It's kind of like Raiders of the Lost Ark. If you take Indiana Jones completely out of the story the Nazi's still accomplish their aim and open the ark of the covenant and get their faces melted off.
      Take Lehi and his family out of the story and we have the same outcome and evidence of their existence as if they had really been in the Americas. There was no righteous posterity to connect his day with ours. There was no lasting Christian tradition that survived after Moroni.
      The only "evidence" of the value of Lehi's involvement is the BoM which just as easily could have been written by the American natives.
    • By Calm
      Posting this even before I get a chance  to read it (dinner bell just rang and I missed it conference time) .  That is how much I like you guys:
       
      http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2015-fairmormon-conference/history-and-historicity-in-the-book-of-mormon
    • By mfbukowski
      I don't really have the time right now to push this thread along, but in terms of full disclosure this is about historicity making value statements true, or whether or not historical individuals endorsing them make them more true or credible.
       
      This is the proposition:
       
      "People should give of themselves selflessly"
       
      I would maintain that we "know this is true" just based on being human and having lived a few years on this planet.  It works for humanity, and so we see it as a "good thing to do".
       
      Here David Letterman "bears his testimony" of the principle, as recorded in Reader's Digest, March, 2014, page 34
       
      I think this is a true principle, but not because David Letterman wrote it.
       
      I think that Santa Claus would also endorse it.
       
      But someone might argue that it could not be a true principle because there is no evidence that Santa lives at the North Pole or that Santa even exists.
       
      But even mythic figures can teach true principles.
       
      (By that I am not meaning to imply that God or Christ are "myths" in the sense that word is often taken hereabouts- ie: "fictitious" )
       
      I find this similar to those who think that the scriptures require historical evidence to be "true".  I do not hold that position.  I believe that the scriptures ARE "historical", contain true history, but that fact must be taken on faith where no evidence exists, which is actually most cases.  So historicity of scripture is itself a faith-based position.  That is why those who do not have the faith, debate the position.
       
      Further, Mother Theresa, a historiclal figure, who lived in India, would definitely also endorse the statement on giving as being "true".
       
      Are you more likely to endorse the principle because David Letterman is a historical person?   Or would you endorse it because you know it is true based on your own experience?
       
      How is historicity relevant to the truth of this statement?  It appears that some believe such moral statements are "true" strictly because they are in the scriptures and the scriptures can be proven "true" by their historicity.
       
      Again, I do not intend to contribute much because I have made my opinions clear here already.
       
      I fail to see how historicity is at all relevant to the truth of such statements as this moral belief, and therefore I question that historicity is relevant to the moral beliefs preached in scripture, though many seem to think that historicity absolutely makes or breaks the truth of such propositions.   I don't see it at all.
       
      Educate me.
    • By mfbukowski
      In another thread about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, now locked for inexplicable reasons, I made the following comment
      http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64358-is-belief-in-the-book-mormon-as-history-important/?p=1209432815
       
      bcuzbcuz returned this VERY important point, about which I think everyone has questions.  This raises important issues key to most people here, and I propose we deal with it directly in this thread
       
       
      I thought for a minute and had very little time, and my first notion was to answer quickly and somewhat snarkily - as is my usual "natural man" tendency when I post with little time, something like this:
       
      Yeah, well we all have to deal with the fact that ALL scriptural interpretation effectively IS the "philosophies of men mingled with scripture", like it or not.  It is impossible to separate scripture from its interpretation when we think about theological issues, because we grow up with philosophical predispositions inherited from our times.
       
      Those who grew up in the church inherited 19th century interpretations, and now we have at least 20th century interpretations- no telling what will happen when we finally start making 21st century interpretations of the Book of Mormon.
       
      Of course I never made that reply because the thread was locked.  Hence this discussion.
       
      New data brings with it new interpretations of data, and that is the natural process of human thought.  Looking out at the horizon, one could well believe the earth is flat, and so many thought for thousands of years.
       
      But the data made that belief difficult.  Ships going over the horizon disappeared from the bottom up, the last thing visible being the top of their mast.  The view from the ship was similar- the first thing to disappear looking back into port was the shoreline, then the hills, then the highest mountains, but eventually they also disappeared into the distance.
       
      The only explanation possible for this phenomenon was that the earth was "in fact" round, and so that "modern" conception was born.
       
      There is no reason to think that religious thinking is any different.  YET  MORMONS GET CRITICISM for following the same rules of thought that have been used by mankind forever.
       
      Paradigms shift.  There is a famous philosopher of Science, Thomas Kuhn, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn, who has gotten credit largely for "discovering" paradigm shifts, but that idea had been around for perhaps a hundred years before he came along.
       
      If you aren't familiar with the concept, that wikipedia article is a good place to start.
       
      But because we have been raised with the paradigm that "TRUTH never changes" - a pagan Greek idea- we are stuck with the Neoplatonic sectarian Christian idea that this is the case.
       
      Now we are reaping the damage from accepting the philosophy and theology of the apostasy, and grafting the apostasy "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" into the Restoration "philosophies of men mingled with scripture" with results that leave us with questions like the one bcuzbcuz raises.   This is not a trivial issue, it goes to the core of Mormon doctrine and its interpretation.
       
      So how do we get out of this quandary?   Come on class, pretend we are seminary.  What is the usual right answer to all questions in seminary?
       
      "Pray, follow the spirit, and keep the commandments"
       
      Philosophies come and go, interpretations come and go, science even comes and goes, new paradigms come and go, but God will always communicate with his children.  It is what He does.  It's his job as our Father.  He has to bring to pass our immortality and eternal lives.
       
      You can't do that without communication. 
×
×
  • Create New...