Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Gray said: Why would a court of law be concerned with whether or not a religious text was historical and had historicity? Most religious texts lack the latter to varying degrees. The former is something any of them can acquire with enough time. In terms of looking at the scientific evidence to support such claims, outside of feelings and what the "spirit" tells you.
The Nehor Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said: Um...nope! Can you provide any evidence to back up that assertion?
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Can you provide any evidence to back up that assertion? Yes, by my actions, with whom I associate, and the way I treat others, a reasonable person would conclude that I am not, in fact, a Nazi. But trying to make such a comparison to prove archeological/ scientific evidence (historicity) is different, especially because one is based on emotions (thoughts)--things that can't be fully examined--and the other is based on actual scientific evidence. I'm not focused on the emotional/spiritual side; rather, I am asking about the scientific evidence we do or do not have today. And from all accounts, there are no non-LDS scholars who support the historicity of the BoM or BoA, IMO.
Maestrophil Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 30 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: Finally, someone who gave me an actual answer. Thank you. mon plaisir!
The Nehor Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: Yes, by my actions, with whom I associate, and the way I treat others, a reasonable person would conclude that I am not, in fact, a Nazi. Oh, I forgot. I want the evidence to all come from exclusively Nazi sources to avoid non-Nazi bias. Can you please provide Nazi evidence? Thanks. Edited November 28, 2018 by The Nehor
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: Read John 9 carefully sometime. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Maybe I will; At least in the Bible I know that cities like Jerusalem actually exist or existed...you can't claim the same for BoM cities in the Americas like Zarahemla. The church has been searching for evidence going back to the 1950's...and still nothing, IMO.
Duncan Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 36 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: Finally, someone who gave me an actual answer. Thank you. i said that in the beginning, should we count this as number six for your deflections?
Duncan Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said: Maybe I will; At least in the Bible I know that cities like Jerusalem actually exist or existed...you can't claim the same for BoM cities in the Americas like Zarahemla. The church has been searching for evidence going back to the 1950's...and still nothing, IMO. Forrest Gump was in the Vietnam War, does that prove Forrest Gump was a real person? Just because Jerusalem exists, doesn't mean Jesus is the Christ
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: Oh, I forgot. I want the evidence to all come from exclusively Nazi sources to avoid non-Nazi bias. Can you please provide Nazi evidence? Thanks. Go and read WWII history. The fact of the matter is -- the church has been looking for evidence to support the historicity of the BoM for a long time now. I think Coe's quote (from 1973) is still true to this day; there is nothing to support such truth claims other than warm and special feelings from the spirit. You trying to get me to provide evidence that I am not a Nazi only further reinforces my original questions: there are NO non-LDS experts, IMO, that support the historicity of the BoM or BoA.
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Duncan said: Forrest Gump was in the Vietnam War, does that prove Forrest Gump was a real person? Just because Jerusalem exists, doesn't mean Jesus is the Christ And you just keep proving my point: there is just as much evidence to support Forrest Gump being real as the historicity of the BoM, IMO.
Duncan Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 Just now, Ouagadougou said: Go and read WWII history. The fact of the matter is -- the church has been looking for evidence to support the historicity of the BoM for a long time now. I think Coe's quote (from 1973) is still true to this day; there is nothing to support such truth claims other than warm and special feelings from the spirit. You trying to get me to provide evidence that I am not a Nazi only further reinforces my original questions: there are NO non-LDS experts, IMO, that support the historicity of the BoM or BoA. 1973? go back to what I said about living by the sword of Archaeology, you seriously need to update your information if you base it on one person's opinion from 1973
Duncan Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said: And you just keep proving my point: there is just as much evidence to support Forrest Gump being real as the historicity of the BoM, IMO. but you base base your "opinion" on outdated, worthless testimony
The Nehor Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said: Go and read WWII history. I am the one asking the questions here, I do not have to do any research. You do. You present it to me and I flippantly dismiss anything you say. That is how this thread works. You made the rules. 2
Navidad Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 Clearly, the original poster knew the answer to his question prior to asking it and was/is grandstanding. I can understand why some of you get tired of those who come on here and ask questions all the time (present company excepted of course). However, at the same time, some of you seem to enjoy the give and take, or you would simply ignore the person! I haven't been on here for a month or so. And I won't ask any questions in this post; aren't you relieved? Belief in any scripture is a matter of faith and even the word "belief" has a variety of levels of meaning. If a text was irrefutable; there would be no need for faith. Regarding this particular issue, I find much more interesting the question (although I am not asking it) about faithful Mormons who have strong beliefs in the spiritual truths contained in the BOM, but who have varying thoughts about its historicity. That is why we have a field in systematic theology called hermeneutics - the study of the interpretation of scripture. Obviously, exactly the same can be said about the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Many who would reject the concept that Jonah survived being swallowed by a big fish, believe the Bible to be true. I trust all on this forum are well and enjoying a blessed life of service to the Savior. 1
hope_for_things Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 3 hours ago, clarkgoble said: 5 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I think one difference is that non-Christian archeologists would agree that parts of the bible contain actual history of real people and places. Well, only up to the point where the texts are judged to have been written. Late texts from the Hellenistic or even Persian era that deal with earlier history are frequently seen as having no actual history and any references come from contemporary knowledge when the text was written. Heck, there's tons of people who even doubt the Davidic Kingship. To draw an analogy, most non-LDS archeologists would agree that there are native Americans and that those inspired Joseph to write the Book of Mormon. It doesn't mean there were Jewish Nephites in America. In the same way they'd say the fact there was a Jewish community in Israel and Egypt in Hellenistic times doesn't mean there were Jews in Egypt at the time of Moses or even any Moses at all. Scholars would accept there were Christians in first century Palestine but that's about as significant as claiming there were Mormons in 1840's Illinois. I agree, that is why I said "parts of the bible". I know much of the older portions of the Hebrew Bible, king David and everything that is dated to earlier time periods by the text itself, have little to no evidence to support their historicity. But when comparing to the BoM, there isn't anything in the BoM that has even a shred of evidence to back it up historically. No evidence to support that any kind of Hebrew speaking community ever lived anywhere on the American continent or left even a trace of their culture or language behind. Nothing at all. That is a significant difference from my perspective.
Kevin Christensen Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said: Maybe I will; At least in the Bible I know that cities like Jerusalem actually exist or existed...you can't claim the same for BoM cities in the Americas like Zarahemla. The church has been searching for evidence going back to the 1950's...and still nothing, IMO. Sure I can, having read things like Sorenson's Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (published in 1985, 12 years after your Coe quote), as well as Sorenson's more recent and more massive Mormon's Codex, as well as work by Wright, Gardner, Larry Poulson, and several others with professional training and publications, none of which appear to accounted for by any of your posts in this thread or your "IMO." In my opinion, they represent some very good evidence, very consistent with how I read the Book of Mormon, and never addressed by anything Coe has said. And I have read his 1973 Dialogue essay, his PBS interview for the series on the Mormons, and I listened to the Dehlin interview on Mormon Stories a few years back. I responded in detail to several unsupported claims Coe and Dehlin made, citing specific studies, and Dehlin responded by deleting my comments. While Coe was an important Mesoamericanist, his work on the Maya, for instance, nowhere discusses the very recent LiDar surveys. It's also clear to me from my reading and listening that most of Coe's criticisms are based on a superficial grasp of the Book of Mormon and are directed mostly at amateur LDS apologetics dating from the 50s and mid 60s. Being an important authority on the Maya does not make him an expert on the Book of Mormon text nor on current Book of Mormon scholarship, nor on important developments that post-date his retirement such as the LiDar discoveries. The Maya, as a culture (early and classic periods), incidentally, post-date Book of Mormon times, which is pre-classic. Sorenson makes some very specific claims for Zarahemla, for instance. A site at the right time, on the west bank of the Grijalva (his Sidon candidate), at the boundary between two language groups, north of a strip of wilderness that extends from the East Sea to the West sea (and there is only one such location in the Americas), south of a Narrow neck, conveniently located to account for the story of Limhi's explorers, where they went to miss what they were looking for, and what they saw, found (an abandoned Olmec site that was uninhabited when they arrived, and therefore could have mistaken for Zarahemla), south of a different civilization that had fallen, and south of a later people who built cities of cement, locate in a setting that accounts for the tectonic activity and the timing of a major volcanic event, etc. You have made it clear that you do not see any of this as evidence, but that is apprarently because, you have not bothered to look. You certainly make no effort to provide a better explanation. Any candidate for Zarahemla needs to account for all of these relationships. Finding a place that fits is a kind of evidence, based on the definitions of "evidence" that the Welch essay discusses. It's not nothing. Perhaps it is not enough for you, but it is not nothing. And Coe's 1973 statement is not valid compared to the experience of the couple who were in charge of the Teotihuacan site. There some professionals were persuaded by what they saw. Depending on the Coe Meme is no longer accurate. And there is also a good essay on San Lorenzo as the Jaredite City of Lib, worth searching for. Plus, these interesting artifacts, dating to Book of Mormon times, and containing characters resembling those that Joseph Smith said he copied from the plates. http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF Again, perhaps not persuasive to you, but not, by most definitions, nothing. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited November 28, 2018 by Kevin Christensen 3
Kevin Christensen Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I agree, that is why I said "parts of the bible". I know much of the older portions of the Hebrew Bible, king David and everything that is dated to earlier time periods by the text itself, have little to no evidence to support their historicity. But when comparing to the BoM, there isn't anything in the BoM that has even a shred of evidence to back it up historically. No evidence to support that any kind of Hebrew speaking community ever lived anywhere on the American continent or left even a trace of their culture or language behind. Nothing at all. That is a significant difference from my perspective. Speaking of language in the Americas, does this fit your definition of nothing? Brian Stubbs, Changes in Language from Nephi to Now. https://www.amazon.com/Changes-Languages-Nephi-Brian-Stubbs/dp/0991474112/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1543435780&sr=1-1&refinements=p_27%3ABrian+Stubbs I've read several of Stubb's earlier essays, and I'd be reluctant to make such absolute pronouncements unless I had a good grasp of his work. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 1
Spammer Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 9 minutes ago, Duncan said: Forrest Gump was in the Vietnam War, does that prove Forrest Gump was a real person? Just because Jerusalem exists, doesn't mean Jesus is the Christ Since Vietnam does exist and a real war happened there, it’s not unreasonable for a person who sees the movie to ask whether the fanciful Gump stories are based on a real person. Someone looking to defend faith in Gump can rely on more than personal testimony. He can point to a real Vietnam War.
Calm Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 5 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: You haven't provided anything...just keep letting that cognitive dissonance play its course. Pet peeve...misuse of the concept of "cognitive dissonance". It makes people look less informed when it is clumsy, not more. 1
carbon dioxide Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, Ouagadougou said: Once again, I am asking the question to see, and it appears there are none by all accounts. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon ended around ~400 A.D. and, IMO, there isn't a shred of real archeological evidence to support its historicity. I don't know of any major scientific/research institution (outside of what the church funds) that would support the Book of Mormon being a historical, ancient text. All the stuff they are discovering with new technology today, IMO, doesn't support the Book of Mormon narrative. On the other hand, the evidence does not disprove it either. The lack of comprehensive information during BOM times does not prove or disprove. Last time I checked, LDS were not using archaeology as a primary basis for believing or proclaiming the Book of Mormon. The new technology is NEW. It does not prove anything other than what little is known about the ancient Americas and that a lot of history books are going to have to be rewritten. What LIDAR is doing is forcing people to totally rethink the ancient Americas. Don't plant your flag too deep in the soil on this that you are not able to pull it out when things change. You might get burned. Regarding LIDAR https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/world/americas/mayan-city-discovery-laser.html "Among the structures uncovered were roads, built wide and raised high above the wetlands to connect fields to farmers and markets to metropolises. There were also small dwellings, quarries and intricate irrigation systems. “We’re seeing the spaces in between, and that’s where really interesting stuff was happening,” Dr. Garrison said. He added that in addition to changing people’s perception of the Maya culture, lidar represented “a sea change” in the field of archaeology. “I don’t think you see a lot of discoveries happening across the sciences right now that sort of turn a discipline on its head,” he said. “It’s exciting to know that it can still happen.” I don't know if archaeology will ever prove the BOM to the level you are looking for. What I would caution you is the notion that we know all we need to know about the BOM period to disprove the BOM record. That is hardly the case. If archaeologists have been way off on the Mayans, how much better should we say they would be on an even older culture or group? LIDAR is even showing things that Dr Michael Coe never knew about. Which means as much as he knows, there is far more that he does not know. Its an exciting time and if anything, LDS have less to worry about today than 5 years ago. Those detractors of the BOM has a little more to worry about as they know there is a lot out there they don't know. All it takes is a few discoveries for it to all blow up in their face. Edited November 28, 2018 by carbon dioxide 1
Maestrophil Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said: Go and read WWII history. The fact of the matter is -- the church has been looking for evidence to support the historicity of the BoM for a long time now. I think Coe's quote (from 1973) is still true to this day; there is nothing to support such truth claims other than warm and special feelings from the spirit. You trying to get me to provide evidence that I am not a Nazi only further reinforces my original questions: there are NO non-LDS experts, IMO, that support the historicity of the BoM or BoA. So are you trying to get someone who is faithful LDS to state the following or similar, "There is no peer-reviewed, globally accepted, scientific evidence to fully authenticate either the BOM or BoA as anything other than the inventions of a 19th century man named Joseph Smith?" If so, you can attribute that quote to me - and then what? We all just come to the conclusion we all probably already knew - if you want science to prove the veracity of spiritual things, you will likely not find much support. Spirituality in general is not very scientific. I fully respect someone's need to have scientific proof in order to believe something. I only ask that those who feel that way respect my (and others) right to draw conclusions based on spiritual and emotional proofs without belittling. Your lack of belief neither breaks my bones nor picks my pockets, and the same is true of my belief for you. 2
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 42 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: On the other hand, the evidence does not disprove it either. The lack of comprehensive information during BOM times does not prove or disprove. Last time I checked, LDS were not using archaeology as a primary basis for believing or proclaiming the Book of Mormon. The new technology is NEW. It does not prove anything other than what little is known about the ancient Americas and that a lot of history books are going to have to be rewritten. What LIDAR is doing is forcing people to totally rethink the ancient Americas. Don't plant your flag too deep in the soil on this that you are not able to pull it out when things change. You might get burned. Regarding LIDAR https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/world/americas/mayan-city-discovery-laser.html "Among the structures uncovered were roads, built wide and raised high above the wetlands to connect fields to farmers and markets to metropolises. There were also small dwellings, quarries and intricate irrigation systems. “We’re seeing the spaces in between, and that’s where really interesting stuff was happening,” Dr. Garrison said. He added that in addition to changing people’s perception of the Maya culture, lidar represented “a sea change” in the field of archaeology. “I don’t think you see a lot of discoveries happening across the sciences right now that sort of turn a discipline on its head,” he said. “It’s exciting to know that it can still happen.” I don't know if archaeology will ever prove the BOM to the level you are looking for. What I would caution you is the notion that we know all we need to know about the BOM period to disprove the BOM record. That is hardly the case. If archaeologists have been way off on the Mayans, how much better should we say they would be on an even older culture or group? LIDAR is even showing things that Dr Michael Coe never knew about. Which means as much as he knows, there is far more that he does not know. Its an exciting time and if anything, LDS have less to worry about today than 5 years ago. Those detractors of the BOM has a little more to worry about as they know there is a lot out there they don't know. All it takes is a few discoveries for it to all blow up in their face. Just keep moving the Hill Cumorah...in thr 1990's it was NY, now it is in some remote jungle that nobody can find.
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: Sure I can, having read things like Sorenson's Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (published in 1985, 12 years after your Coe quote), as well as Sorenson's more recent and more massive Mormon's Codex, as well as work by Wright, Gardner, Larry Poulson, and several others with professional training and publications, none of which appear to accounted for by any of your posts in this thread or your "IMO." In my opinion, they represent some very good evidence, very consistent with how I read the Book of Mormon, and never addressed by anything Coe has said. And I have read his 1973 Dialogue essay, his PBS interview for the series on the Mormons, and I listened to the Dehlin interview on Mormon Stories a few years back. I responded in detail to several unsupported claims Coe and Dehlin made, citing specific studies, and Dehlin responded by deleting my comments. While Coe was an important Mesoamericanist, his work on the Maya, for instance, nowhere discusses the very recent LiDar surveys. It's also clear to me from my reading and listening that most of Coe's criticisms are based on a superficial grasp of the Book of Mormon and are directed mostly at amateur LDS apologetics dating from the 50s and mid 60s. Being an important authority on the Maya does not make him an expert on the Book of Mormon text nor on current Book of Mormon scholarship, nor on important developments that post-date his retirement such as the LiDar discoveries. The Maya, as a culture (early and classic periods), incidentally, post-date Book of Mormon times, which is pre-classic. Sorenson makes some very specific claims for Zarahemla, for instance. A site at the right time, on the west bank of the Grijalva (his Sidon candidate), at the boundary between two language groups, north of a strip of wilderness that extends from the East Sea to the West sea (and there is only one such location in the Americas), south of a Narrow neck, conveniently located to account for the story of Limhi's explorers, where they went to miss what they were looking for, and what they saw, found (an abandoned Olmec site that was uninhabited when they arrived, and therefore could have mistaken for Zarahemla), south of a different civilization that had fallen, and south of a later people who built cities of cement, locate in a setting that accounts for the tectonic activity and the timing of a major volcanic event, etc. You have made it clear that you do not see any of this as evidence, but that is apprarently because, you have not bothered to look. You certainly make no effort to provide a better explanation. Any candidate for Zarahemla needs to account for all of these relationships. Finding a place that fits is a kind of evidence, based on the definitions of "evidence" that the Welch essay discusses. It's not nothing. Perhaps it is not enough for you, but it is not nothing. And Coe's 1973 statement is not valid compared to the experience of the couple who were in charge of the Teotihuacan site. There some professionals were persuaded by what they saw. Depending on the Coe Meme is no longer accurate. And there is also a good essay on San Lorenzo as the Jaredite City of Lib, worth searching for. Plus, these interesting artifacts, dating to Book of Mormon times, and containing characters resembling those that Joseph Smith said he copied from the plates. http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF Again, perhaps not persuasive to you, but not, by most definitions, nothing. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA And who pays Sorenson?
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I am the one asking the questions here, I do not have to do any research. You do. You present it to me and I flippantly dismiss anything you say. That is how this thread works. You made the rules. Google WWII. Done.
Ouagadougou Posted November 28, 2018 Author Posted November 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Duncan said: but you base base your "opinion" on outdated, worthless testimony On the lack of scientific evidence to substantiate the historicity of the BoM and BoA...not on wam and good feelings.
Recommended Posts