Mormon Historocity - A Reflection of Irony?

Kevin Graham · Jan 27, 2004

== After thinking about it for a while, it began to dawn on me that most mormons I've ecountered have a tendency to avoid the actual documented history that exists and try and pursue a theoretical history for which there is no physical evidence outside of there own self proclaimed acadamiens at FARMS, FAIR or Jeff Lindsay etc. Or they prefer to avoid the actual documented history with a personal testimony of "I know the church is true" but would prefer not to talk about the actual documented history.

There may be a degreee of truth to this, but no more so than there is in Christianity. For example, last week I watched a special on the Discovery Channel that tested all evidence favoring and against a global flood, as told in the Noah story. The overall consensus by non-Christian scholars is that the whole thing is absurd. It couldn't possibly happen because we would need five times the amount of water that exists on earth. And if the entire surface was water, the atmosphere would be so saturated with moisture that one couldn't breathe.

I can't tell you how many times I have witnessed Christians turn a blind eye to the evidence and tell me their own form of testimony.

== Any historical evidence for the BOM? I would love to see it.

There are tons of evidences, but what you really want is "proof." Two different things here. When the BoM was first published, there were an X amount of evidences against it. Since then that number has dropped tremendously as we learn more about that region of the world.

baker · Jan 27, 2004

Kevin Graham said:
There may be a degreee of truth to this, but no more so than there is in Christianity. For example, last week I watched a special on the Discovery Channel that tested all evidence favoring and against a global flood, as told in the Noah story. The overall consensus by non-Christian scholars is that the whole thing is absurd. It couldn't possibly happen because we would need five times the amount of water that exists on earth. And if the entire surface was water, the atmosphere would be so saturated with moisture that one couldn't breathe.

Kevin,

It's a tough story for me swallow as well. Unless, of course, if you adopt a "limited geography" model for the flood. Then it makes it all believable I suppose .

However, lets look at all the peoples, places, migrations, cities, rivers, mountains, socio-economic systems and seas that are mentioned in the bible that we can actually validate. Can we do any of this with the bom?

I can't tell you how many times I have witnessed Christians turn a blind eye to the evidence and tell me their own form of testimony.

Well, its probably best you don't here anyway, seeing as how it's not relevent to this thread.

There are tons of evidences, but what you really want is "proof."

Now wait a second here. Where did I ask for "proof"? Those are your words, not mine. (Do you do those ventrilaquist acts on the side? )

I asked for evidence that is credible (ie. accepted outside of the lds circles as reputable scholarship with respect to the "history", "geography" and/or "archaeology" claimed in the bom).

If all the work done by the likes of FARMS et. al. is so good, so well researched, and so scholarly, why has it not been accepted be any academic institution to teach in the "History Department"? Why hasn't it even convinced the lds church's own school, BYU, to teach any history class on the history in the bom. BYU teaches history classed on the history contained in the bible.

What academic organization has accepted any of the work, put out by those you quote as performing scholarly research supporting "credible evidence", regardng the historocity claim in the bom? After all, were not talking about theology here.

Kevin, don't feel bad if you choose not to address these issues here. None of the other lds posters want to deal with the reality of these facts either.

Two different things here. When the BoM was first published, there were an X amount of evidences against it. Since then that number has dropped tremendously as we learn more about that region of the world.

Could you elaborate on what the "X amount of evidences were" and how they "dropped". I want to make sure we're not creating some emotional "straw man" here for the sake of "perceived" progress!

Kevin Graham · Jan 27, 2004

Baker, you're my favorite non-LDS poster, so I had to give you the final response.

== However, lets look at all the peoples, places, migrations, cities, rivers, mountains, socio-economic systems and seas that are mentioned in the bible that we can actually validate. Can we do any of this with the bom?

Of course not. How would we be able to identify them if we found them? We are talking about a lost world speaking a lost language that was cut off from the rest of the world. We hardly know anything about the ancient Americans when you think about it. The Ancient Near East has been scrubbed by archeologists for centuries. Archeology in teh Americas is in its infancy to say the least. There are so many apples and oranges comparisons, that I wouldn't even know where to begin. For one thing, the BoM land is unidentified. All we know really is that it is on this side of the world. That area constitutes about 1000 times the area from which most Bible events took place. Not to mention most of it is infested with heavy forestry, whereas the biblical areas are mostly desert. We know absolutely nothing about the first Americans, but world history essentially began in the area of Bible events, and humanity has been keeping a recorded history of its events ever since. The same cannot be said of the S. American continent. Hebrew is not a lost language, but the language of teh ancient Americans is lost. If we found a sign that said "50 miles to Zarahemla", how would we possibly indetify it as such?

== Now wait a second here. Where did I ask for "proof"? Those are your words, not mine.

I wasn't citing you, but I was quoting someone else.

== I asked for evidence that is credible (ie. accepted outside of the lds circles as reputable scholarship with respect to the "history", "geography" and/or "archaeology" claimed in the bom).

Ok, like evidence that cement highways were used? Something LDS critics said was never true of Ancient America until they were discovered.

== If all the work done by the likes of FARMS et. al. is so good, so well researched, and so scholarly, why has it not been accepted be any academic institution to teach in the "History Department"?

What are you talking about? Most of the FARMS findings are accepted as fact. At least I've never seen anyone from another University refute anything it has presented as evidence. The point is, the BoM historicity is not really of interest to anyone except Mormons. And to make matter worse, there is no serious effort to create one. Much of the stuff FARMS comes up with are second hand from non-LDS archeologists anyway. The allusions to BoM historicity are not of course, but the findings are accepted as real. Things LDS critics used to use against the LDS faith, which are now put to rest.

== Why hasn't it even convinced the lds church's own school, BYU, to teach any history class on the history in the bom. BYU teaches history classed on the history contained in the bible.

You're asking for way too much way too early. We don't know that much about it to teach "history" classes on it. Not even close. Archeology classes maybe, but certainly not history.

== What academic organization has accepted any of the work, put out by those you quote as performing scholarly research supporting "credible evidence", regardng the historocity claim in the bom? After all, were not talking about theology here.

== Kevin, don't feel bad if you choose not to address these issues here. None of the other lds posters want to deal with the reality of these facts either.

No offense, but these are pretty dumb issues to be trying to "address" this early in the ball game. To demand that we do is simply silly.

happyinhisgrace · Jan 27, 2004

No offense, but these are pretty dumb issues to be trying to "address" this early in the ball game. To demand that we do is simply silly.

Why is it silly to expect the LDS church to back up or have valid evidence to the claims of the BofM? If the church claims (which it does) that the BofM is the most correct book on the earth, shouldn't there be some valid proof of it's claims to cities, weapons of war, massive body count from a battle that killed 2 million, dna evidence of the decendents of these BofM peoples (Lamanites) that proves them to be of Isreali decent, etc.? Some of the original handwritten manuscript copies of Biblical writing still exist, yet the BofM plates supposedly were taken back to heaven so there is not even any originals to compare the BofM to. I don't see it a silly request at all. If the COJCOLDS is God's true church such as the LDS claim, surely there would be some proof that the BofM claims are true.

I have read much on FARMS and CRACKEDPLANET (Jeff Linsey) but what I am asking for right now is official "non-partcial" sites that contain documented information of the BofM claims. If you can provide these, I would be happy to read them.

Grace

Kevin Graham · Jan 27, 2004

OK, one more shot.

== Why is it silly to expect the LDS church to back up or have valid evidence to the claims of the BofM?

What archeological proof is there that Christ walked on water? Come on now, shouldn't you have to "back up" or "have valid evidence" for these Christian claims?

It is silly to expect a detailed "historicity" to be proven, given the fact that the BoM story is based on a lost culture and a lost language. No Mormon has ever claimed this could be "proven" in the first place, and has always been understood as a matter of faith. Likewise, the Bible is not without its own problems. 200 years of biblical archeology and still only 55% of its cities have been verified. Most scholars consider the story of Job to be fictional, the Exodus of the Jews seems to be desperate for archeological evidence, and the global flood has all but been discounted by the very basics of science.

Does this is any way have a bearing on the veracity of biblical theology? Of course not. But to say cities have been verified in the Bible, means it has a step up on the BoM is just silly. What matters is the theology, not whether some of the events took place in real cities or involved real individuals. Homer claimed that he had wrote a book about the doings of all the Greek gods. We have now autheticated that in fact the city Homer talked about existed. All the cities Homer talked about existed. It is perfectly good history. Now does that prove Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

== If the church claims (which it does) that the BofM is the most correct book on the earth, shouldn't there be some valid proof of it's claims to cities, weapons of war, massive body count from a battle that killed 2 million, dna evidence of the decendents of these BofM peoples(Lamanites) that proves them to be of Isreali decent, etc.?

Uh, no. Like I said, where is the "proof" for the flood, the mass Exodus, the existence of Behemouths, Leviathons or Dragons?

== Some of the original handwritten manuscript copies of Biblical writing still exist

This is perhaps the most ludicrous statement I've seen all year. And it only goes to show that anything you say really isn't worthy of anyone's time. You truly have no idea what you're talking about, and you are living in la la land if you believe this nonsense. The earliest "manuscript" - p52 - dates to the second century, closer to the third, and it is about the size of a credit card. It consists of a whopping SEVEN partial verses from the Gospel of John. Although fragmentary manuscripts of the synoptic gospels are extant from around 200 AD, "of all the synoptic manuscripts which can be dated to the fourth century or earlier, only two (P45 and P75, respectively) contain more than a chapter." (David Parker, Scripture is Tradition', Theology, 94 [1991], p. 12.)

== yet the BofM plates supposedly were taken back to heaven so there is not even any originals to compare the BofM to.

And where are the Ten commandments? Ark of the Covenant?

You're shoooting yourself in the foot here, but you are too oblivious to the facts to even realize it.

== I don't see it a silly request at all.

Because you hold to a double-standard obviously. You expect us to produce "proof" of certain things when you can't even provide "evidence" of the flood or the exodus. All evidence leans against these events being real.

== If the COJCOLDS is God's true church such as the LDS claim, surely there would be some proof that the BofM claims are true.

I'm beginning to see why you didn't last long in the Church. You're a sign seeker, failing to recognize the volatile state of your own faith when it comes to the demands of "proof."

== I have read much on FARMS

I think you've proven already that you haven't read much of anything.

== "non-partcial" sites that contain documented information of the BofM claims. If you can provide these, I would be happy to read them.

There are many. For instance the discovery of cement in Ancient America was a big deal for Mormons, because the Book of Mormon mentions it. But is it really a huge issue for non-LDS to write books about it? No. But all non-LDS archeologists accept this as fact. It is "evidence" for the BoM, but it is hardly "proof." likewise, the BoM was criticized for mentioning barely. It was always believed that barely didn't exist, but non-LDS scholar Daniel B. Adams wrote that the most startling evidence of Hohokam agricultural sophistication came... when... archaeologists found preserved grain of what looks like domesticated barley, the first ever found in the New World. Wild barleys have a fibrous husk over each grain. Domesticated barley lack this. So does the Hohokam barley.... Nearly half the samples from one site yielded barley.(Daniel B. Adams, Last Ditch Archaeology, Science 83, Dec., 1983.) Metallurgy was another issue that was thought to be the death of the BoM, but since then archeologists have found evidence supporting it. What does this "prove"? Only that anti-Mormon claims seem to be getting fewer and fewer as time goes by. Archeology is an inexact science because what might be considered true today, could be false tomorrow.

happyinhisgrace · Jan 28, 2004

Kevin Graham said:
OK, one more shot.

== Why is it silly to expect the LDS church to back up or have valid evidence to the claims of the BofM?

What archeological proof is there that Christ walked on water? Come on now, shouldn't you have to "back up" or "have valid evidence" for these Christian claims?

Come on now, be serious. Where are the BofM cities and the proofs of the metals of BofM times and the dna proof and the proof of a battle where 2 million or so died. The Bible can prove cities, events, cultures, dna of hebrew ancestory can be proven...where are these claims for the BofM?

It is silly to expect a detailed "historicity" to be proven, given the fact that the BoM story is based on a lost culture and a lost language. No Mormon has ever claimed this could be "proven" in the first place, and has always been understood as a matter of faith. Likewise, the Bible is not without its own problems. 200 years of biblical archeology and still only 55% of its cities have been verified. Most scholars consider the story of Job to be fictional, the Exodus of the Jews seems to be desperate for archeological evidence, and the global flood has all but been discounted by the very basics of science.

Only 55% in 2 years is a whole lot better than 0% in well over 150 years for the BofM

Does this is any way have a bearing on the veracity of biblical theology? Of course not. But to say cities have been verified in the Bible, means it has a step up on the BoM is just silly. What matters is the theology, not whether some of the events took place in real cities or involved real individuals. Homer claimed that he had wrote a book about the doings of all the Greek gods. We have now autheticated that in fact the city Homer talked about existed. All the cities Homer talked about existed. It is perfectly good history. Now does that prove Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

It surely doesn't prove Zeus was king but it at least proves that the city he spoke of really exists...now about those BofM cities...where are they all again?

== If the church claims (which it does) that the BofM is the most correct book on the earth, shouldn't there be some valid proof of it's claims to cities, weapons of war, massive body count from a battle that killed 2 million, dna evidence of the decendents of these BofM peoples(Lamanites) that proves them to be of Isreali decent, etc.?

Uh, no. Like I said, where is the "proof" for the flood, the mass Exodus, the existence of Behemouths, Leviathons or Dragons?

From your own admittion, the Bible has only 55% of proofs of actually cities that exist or did exist....how many does the BofM have again?

== Some of the original handwritten manuscript copies of Biblical writing still exist

This is perhaps the most ludicrous statement I've seen all year. And it only goes to show that anything you say really isn't worthy of anyone's time. You truly have no idea what you're talking about, and you are living in la la land if you believe this nonsense. The earliest "manuscript" - p52 - dates to the second century, closer to the third, and it is about the size of a credit card. It consists of a whopping SEVEN partial verses from the Gospel of John. Although fragmentary manuscripts of the synoptic gospels are extant from around 200 AD, "of all the synoptic manuscripts which can be dated to the fourth century or earlier, only two (P45 and P75, respectively) contain more than a chapter." (David Parker, Scripture is Tradition', Theology, 94 [1991], p. 12.)

This I will have to get the information on it for you. I highly doubt it is the most ludicrous statement you have seen all year, I get the impression that any statement that doesn't agree with your opinion is "ludicrus" in your mind.

== yet the BofM plates supposedly were taken back to heaven so there is not even any originals to compare the BofM to.

And where are the Ten commandments? Ark of the Covenant?

Oh heck, I am sure an angel took those back too. geesh. We still have manuscript copies of original writing which we are able to compare the Bible to. By "we" I mean scholors of course since I obviously do not have them in my possesion. It would be nice if the BofM had such a thing but alas, it was conviently taken up to heaven with "an angel of light".

You're shoooting yourself in the foot here, but you are too oblivious to the facts to even realize it.

No, actually I am not, you interpert it that way because of your obvious desire to appear superior to others, I on the other hand am just stating that I dont' think it is a silly request at all. The BofM should be held to the same standard as the Bible is, plain and simple.

== I don't see it a silly request at all.

Because you hold to a double-standard obviously. You expect us to produce "proof" of certain things when you can't even provide "evidence" of the flood or the exodus. All evidence leans against these events being real.

Wow, you are really stuck on that flood thing aren't you. Didn't you say you watched that Documentery on Discovery? Was it the one with the 2 geologist and the 1 archeologist..if so, I saw that one too. I also watch a documentary on Discovery where they made the claim that most "evidence" proves to the conclusion that Jesus was a homosexual...I didn't buy into that one either. One thing you can't seem to come to terms with in the Bible (the flood) and you want to compare it with the 0% evidence in favor of BofM claims...interesting.

== If the COJCOLDS is God's true church such as the LDS claim, surely there would be some proof that the BofM claims are true.

I'm beginning to see why you didn't last long in the Church. You're a sign seeker, failing to recognize the volatile state of your own faith when it comes to the demands of "proof."

LOL, I am a sign seeker? [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], that truly is funny. You have been here on this forum for 3 days and you have me all figured out, (have you been playing with JS seer stones again?) I actually lasted 28 years in the LDS church and active at that. As far as my faith goes, it is firm in Jesus so if you want to call him volatile, I will let him take that up with, no need for me to.

== I have read much on FARMS

I think you've proven already that you haven't read much of anything.

Oh, because I don't agree with your position, that means I haven't read much of anything...gottcha! That is a very sound argument on your part...you should go with that, it really works

== "non-partcial" sites that contain documented information of the BofM claims. If you can provide these, I would be happy to read them.

There are many. For instance the discovery of cement in Ancient America was a big deal for Mormons, because the Book of Mormon mentions it. But is it really a huge issue for non-LDS to write books about it? No. But all non-LDS archeologists accept this as fact. It is "evidence" for the BoM, but it is hardly "proof." likewise, the BoM was criticized for mentioning barely. It was always believed that barely didn't exist, but non-LDS scholar Daniel B. Adams wrote that the most startling evidence of Hohokam agricultural sophistication came... when... archaeologists found preserved grain of what looks like domesticated barley, the first ever found in the New World. Wild barleys have a fibrous husk over each grain. Domesticated barley lack this. So does the Hohokam barley.... Nearly half the samples from one site yielded barley.(Daniel B. Adams, Last Ditch Archaeology, Science 83, Dec., 1983.) Metallurgy was another issue that was thought to be the death of the BoM, but since then archeologists have found evidence supporting it. What does this "prove"? Only that anti-Mormon claims seem to be getting fewer and fewer as time goes by. Archeology is an inexact science because what might be considered true today, could be false tomorrow.

Ok, so you have shown one source for me to study claims that prove the BofM, "Last Ditch Archaelogy"....I will get that from the library if I can...any others or just the one book by the non-lds person? He is a nuetral acheologist, right?

Grace

Kevin Graham · Jan 28, 2004

== Come on now, be serious. Where are the BofM cities and the proofs of the metals of BofM times and the dna proof and the proof of a battle where 2 million or so died. The Bible can prove cities, events, cultures, dna of hebrew ancestory can be proven...where are these claims for the BofM?

Ignoring my question so you can apply a double-standard isn't going to help your situation. If you can't provide proof for Christian claims, why should I provide proof for Mormon claims?

== Only 55% in 2 years is a whole lot better than 0% in well over 150 years for the BofM

But you're thinking the two are equal, which is silly. They aren't. Cities HAVE been found, but placing names with them is an impossible task. I don't know why you just won't take for granted the fact that Bible archeology has several advantages over BoM archeology. For one thing, there is no such thing as BoM archeology. Only 1% of the S. American continent has been excavated to any serious degree. The Bible areas have been scraped many times over, with still no evidence for many of the cities. They do not have the disadvantages like BoM archeologists, who have to overcome the obstacle of looking for something written in a lost language, and attributed to a lost society of people.

The only people actually LOOKING for evidence for the BoM are probably a couple of idiot Mormons from Utah, who have their own theories and a shovel.

Secondly, S.America is covered in jungle. Every once is awhile I'll read up on some discovery down there where they find a city off the coast of Chile.

== It surely doesn't prove Zeus was king but it at least proves that the city he spoke of really exists...now about those BofM cities...where are they all again?

Well we know cities existed. If you think they didn't, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. I was watching the Discovery Channel last year and there was an episode called "In search of Atlantis." Archeologist were thinking Brazil was the location of the city of Atlantis spoken of by the Greeks. They made mention that one S. American city was the largest city in the world at one time. And the huge temple constructiosn are a testament to their existence.

== This I will have to get the information on it for you. I highly doubt it is the most ludicrous statement you have seen all year, I get the impression that any statement that doesn't agree with your opinion is "ludicrus" in your mind.

Coming from someone who freely accuses Mormons of lying, deceiving, sharing false doctrine, yaddie-yaddie-ya, I'd suggest you better get all your P's and Q's lined up. You're not in any position to offer false information if you're going to be this judgmental on others Especially this badly. It boggles the mind how Christians today can complain about gullible Mormons, when they still believe in their own little fantasies like "original handwritten manuscript copies of Biblical writing still exist."

And I'll be looking for the "information" you're looking for. Happy hunting, because it doesn't exist. Even the pseudo-scholars like Josh McDowell would never say we had the original manuscripts.

== We still have manuscript copies of original writing which we are able to compare the Bible to.

There you go again. Outrageous claims deserve outrageous evidence. We have no autographs from any biblical writing. Period.

== By "we" I mean scholors of course since I obviously do not have them in my possesion.

Gee, what were you saying teh other day about these "mystery scholars", amazing how they never seem to have a name? Come now. You really don't propose to provide ANY scholar that supports this nonsense do you? You should cut all your losses now before yo really embarass yourself on this one.

== It would be nice if the BofM had such a thing but alas, it was conviently taken up to heaven with "an angel of light".

As the original manuscripts were conveniently lost. Amazing how we have scriptures predating the NT period by centuries, but not one single original manuscript for any NT work. How convenient huh?

== No, actually I am not, you interpert it that way because of your obvious desire to appear superior to others,

I interpret it this way because of YOU, not me. I still can't believe you're trying to argue for the original manuscripts.

== I on the other hand am just stating that I dont' think it is a silly request at all. The BofM should be held to the same standard as the Bible is, plain and simple.

My point exactly! But you won't hold it to the same standard, which explains why you fail to answer the same questions I ask you about the Bible.

== Wow, you are really stuck on that flood thing aren't you.

Wow, you're stuck on the golden plates thing aren't you?

== Didn't you say you watched that Documentery on Discovery? Was it the one with the 2 geologist and the 1 archeologist..if so, I saw that one too. I also watch a documentary on Discovery where they made the claim that most "evidence" proves to the conclusion that Jesus was a homosexual...I didn't buy into that one either.

You're dodging here, and no, this wasn't the same episode. I've seen just about every Bible epoisode, including this one, and they did not make that claim either. You're fishing without a pole here, looking for a reason to apply the BoM to a much higher standard than the Bible.

== One thing you can't seem to come to terms with in the Bible (the flood) and you want to compare it with the 0% evidence in favor of BofM claims...interesting.

But there isn't 0% evidence. You simply have no conception of what evidence is. You dismiss everything out of hand because it doesn't come from non-Mormon sources, but you're willing to ignore evidence against the Bible because it comes from non-Christian sources? You're double-standards are hopping all over the place.

== LOL, I am a sign seeker? [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], that truly is funny. You have been here on this forum for 3 days and you have me all figured out, (have you been playing with JS seer stones again?) I actually lasted 28 years in the LDS church and active at that.

Hogwash. This is your song and dance that you've been playing for years. It takes an active Mormon all of three minutes to realize you were hardly "active" in any real sense of the term. Some of the comments you make are so ridiculous, even the sunbeams know better.

== Oh, because I don't agree with your position, that means I haven't read much of anything...gottcha! That is a very sound argument on your part...you should go with that, it really works

No, you don't read much of anything because you don't. If you had, you'd show it. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with me.

So can you provide the archeological evidence for the flood, Exodus, that Jesus atoned for the sins of the world, healed the blind, walked on water etc? Come on now, shouldn't you have to back up these Christian claims?

happyinhisgrace · Jan 28, 2004

Kevin Graham said:
== Come on now, be serious. Where are the BofM cities and the proofs of the metals of BofM times and the dna proof and the proof of a battle where 2 million or so died. The Bible can prove cities, events, cultures, dna of hebrew ancestory can be proven...where are these claims for the BofM?

Ignoring my question so you can apply a double-standard isn't going to help your situation. If you can't provide proof for Christian claims, why should I provide proof for Mormon claims?

I am not ignoring anything. I asked for evidence of archological claims of the BofM cities, metals, dna, ect. I never asked for evidence of "faith based claims". The Lds church teaches it's members that the BofM is real history. Where is the proof of this. And actually, just like you stated before, 55% of the cities in the Bible have been found. Now where are those BofM cities?

== Only 55% in 2 years is a whole lot better than 0% in well over 150 years for the BofM

But you're thinking the two are equal, which is silly. They aren't. Cities HAVE been found, but placing names with them is an impossible task. I don't know why you just won't take for granted the fact that Bible archeology has several advantages over BoM archeology. For one thing, there is no such thing as BoM archeology. Only 1% of the S. American continent has been excavated to any serious degree. The Bible areas have been scraped many times over, with still no evidence for many of the cities. They do not have the disadvantages like BoM archeologists, who have to overcome the obstacle of looking for something written in a lost language, and attributed to a lost society of people.

A lost society of people hu? So my husband (cherokee indian) really isn't a Lamanite at all then...good to know.

The only people actually LOOKING for evidence for the BoM are probably a couple of idiot Mormons from Utah, who have their own theories and a shovel.

LOL, ok now I admit, I got a chuckle out of that one.

Secondly, S.America is covered in jungle. Every once is awhile I'll read up on some discovery down there where they find a city off the coast of Chile.

Ok, but is it a BofM city? Does it match up with BofM claims and time frames, culture...ect.? Have any non-lds archeologist acknowleged it as a BofM city?

== It surely doesn't prove Zeus was king but it at least proves that the city he spoke of really exists...now about those BofM cities...where are they all again?

Well we know cities existed. If you think they didn't, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. I was watching the Discovery Channel last year and there was an episode called "In search of Atlantis." Archeologist were thinking Brazil was the location of the city of Atlantis spoken of by the Greeks. They made mention that one S. American city was the largest city in the world at one time. And the huge temple constructiosn are a testament to their existence.

Of course we know Cities existed that haven't been found yet, but where is any evidence that the are "lost" BofM cities?

== This I will have to get the information on it for you. I highly doubt it is the most ludicrous statement you have seen all year, I get the impression that any statement that doesn't agree with your opinion is "ludicrus" in your mind.

Coming from someone who freely accuses Mormons of lying, deceiving, sharing false doctrine, yaddie-yaddie-ya, I'd suggest you better get all your P's and Q's lined up. You're not in any position to offer false information if you're going to be this judgmental on others Especially this badly. It boggles the mind how Christians today can complain about gullible Mormons, when they still believe in their own little fantasies like "original handwritten manuscript copies of Biblical writing still exist."

Yes, sir. Do you treat all people you encounter with this pompous and overbaring manner or is it saved special just for us "rabid anti-mormons" ? I think you are going to give yourself a coranary....here sit back on the porch swing with me and we will sing "give said the little stream" together till you relax a bit...breathe in breathe out breath in breathe out

And I'll be looking for the "information" you're looking for. Happy hunting, because it doesn't exist. Even the pseudo-scholars like Josh McDowell would never say we had the original manuscripts.

LOL, actually I think that Evidence that Demand a Verdict is exactly where I read it, in fact I have been reading through that book just a minute ago to try and find it.

On another note, you believe Josh McDowell is a pseudo-scholar, do you consider the men on FARMS to be the same?

== We still have manuscript copies of original writing which we are able to compare the Bible to.

There you go again. Outrageous claims deserve outrageous evidence. We have no autographs from any biblical writing. Period.

I agree, outrages claims do deserve outrageous evidence....now, where is that archiological proof of the BofM again?

== By "we" I mean scholors of course since I obviously do not have them in my possesion.

Gee, what were you saying teh other day about these "mystery scholars", amazing how they never seem to have a name? Come now. You really don't propose to provide ANY scholar that supports this nonsense do you? You should cut all your losses now before yo really embarass yourself on this one.

Nah, it would not embaresses me. I am human and I make mistakes and if I have made one with this claim, I will admit as much and move on. No need to get embarressed about it. I am going to keep looking for it though, I know I read it somewhere and I do think it was in "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"

== It would be nice if the BofM had such a thing but alas, it was conviently taken up to heaven with "an angel of light".

As the original manuscripts were conveniently lost. Amazing how we have scriptures predating the NT period by centuries, but not one single original manuscript for any NT work. How convenient huh?

Do you think Moroni took those too? That Moroni sure gets around, doesn't he. Like I said, still reading up on that to find the source I got it from.

== No, actually I am not, you interpert it that way because of your obvious desire to appear superior to others,

I interpret it this way because of YOU, not me. I still can't believe you're trying to argue for the original manuscripts.

You interpert things a certian way because of me....thank you, I'm flattered. Seriously though, it's best to rely on the Sprit of God for that. Give that try and let me know how it works for you.

== I on the other hand am just stating that I dont' think it is a silly request at all. The BofM should be held to the same standard as the Bible is, plain and simple.

My point exactly! But you won't hold it to the same standard, which explains why you fail to answer the same questions I ask you about the Bible.

I haven't failed to answer any questions you have asked me about the Bible that I am aware of and I am glad you agree that the BofM should be held to the same standards....now, where is that archeological proof? Let's see, the Bible has %55 according to you and the BofM has....oh ya, 0, nadda, zip, ziltch, nothing, nona, none...

== Wow, you are really stuck on that flood thing aren't you.

Wow, you're stuck on the golden plates thing aren't you?

"Mom, Tommy hit me"...."did not"...."did too"...."nah uh"...."ya hu"..."no sir"..."yes sir"...."MOOOOOOOOOM"!!!!

== Didn't you say you watched that Documentery on Discovery? Was it the one with the 2 geologist and the 1 archeologist..if so, I saw that one too. I also watch a documentary on Discovery where they made the claim that most "evidence" proves to the conclusion that Jesus was a homosexual...I didn't buy into that one either.

You're dodging here, and no, this wasn't the same episode. I've seen just about every Bible epoisode, including this one, and they did not make that claim either. You're fishing without a pole here, looking for a reason to apply the BoM to a much higher standard than the Bible.

If you are going to call me a liar, you better have the proof rather than the typical name calling and finger pointing that so many so called "lds apologist" are known for. They did do a documentary where they claimed that evidence points to Jesus being a homosexual and NO, I didn't believe it. You are really a piece of art, you accuse others of lying with absolutly nothing to base it on yet you make these claims that archeology evidence exist for the BofM but can't prove it....the term, "practice what you preach" comes to mind.

I'm not dodging anything. You are just circle talking and trying to avoid...very common on this forum as I have noticed.

== One thing you can't seem to come to terms with in the Bible (the flood) and you want to compare it with the 0% evidence in favor of BofM claims...interesting.

But there isn't 0% evidence. You simply have no conception of what evidence is. You dismiss everything out of hand because it doesn't come from non-Mormon sources, but you're willing to ignore evidence against the Bible because it comes from non-Christian sources? You're double-standards are hopping all over the place.

Put that finger down before you loose feeling in it for waving it in my face so long.

== LOL, I am a sign seeker? [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], that truly is funny. You have been here on this forum for 3 days and you have me all figured out, (have you been playing with JS seer stones again?) I actually lasted 28 years in the LDS church and active at that.

Hogwash. This is your song and dance that you've been playing for years. It takes an active Mormon all of three minutes to realize you were hardly "active" in any real sense of the term. Some of the comments you make are so ridiculous, even the sunbeams know better.

Such as? I assure you that I was active for 28 years. Yes, a song and dance that I have been playing for 2 whole years since I left the LDS church and became a Christian. Seriously, get over yourself already. You have read my posts on the forum for a whole 3 days and you know my whole life history. You are an amazing man. geesh.

I am sure in your mind however it makes you feel somehow justified in your rudeness and self-superior actions to pretend I wasn't because I "left the church" so you feel free in trying to dismiss what I say as a lie. Oh well, typical and expected.

== Oh, because I don't agree with your position, that means I haven't read much of anything...gottcha! That is a very sound argument on your part...you should go with that, it really works

No, you don't read much of anything because you don't. If you had, you'd show it. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Wow, once again. You know me so well. Your arrogence astounds me.

So can you provide the archeological evidence for the flood, Exodus, that Jesus atoned for the sins of the world, healed the blind, walked on water etc? Come on now, shouldn't you have to back up these Christian claims?

Good question. I can not but then again, I never asked you for that evidence either...lets stick to topic, shall we....distraction is such a problem with the LDS on this forum. I asked for cities, medals, dna proof, etc. Now how about it, where is that evidence?

Grace

[/QUOTE]

baker · Jan 28, 2004

Kevin Graham said:
OK, one more shot.

== Why is it silly to expect the LDS church to back up or have valid evidence to the claims of the BofM?

What archeological proof is there that Christ walked on water? Come on now, shouldn't you have to "back up" or "have valid evidence" for these Christian claims?

Kevin, this is absolutely absurd.

Instead of having to lower the Bible to the level of standards for logic and reason necessary to accept the BOM, lets raise the BOM to the same standards used to validate the history contained in the Bible.

No one is asking you to provide archaeological evidence that Nephi killed Laban while in a drunken stupor. Come on now, serioulsy, can't you see how ridiculous your statement above is.

The bible tells us of cities, rivers, lakes, mountains, peoples, migrations, currencies, cultures, political parties, etc, etc, etc, which we have ample evidence to validate. Hell, we got maps, geography books, and pictures. Even BYU teaches at least 3 (at my last count) "history classes" covering this time frame and history. Where is any of this for the bom. These histories covered virtually the same time periods.

You're trying to bring "theology" into a "historical evidence" claim. The two are mutually exclusive here.

It is silly to expect a detailed "historicity" to be proven, given the fact that the BoM story is based on a lost culture and a lost language. No Mormon has ever claimed this could be "proven" in the first place, and has always been understood as a matter of faith.

Kevin, IMHO this is such a cop out. We seem to be following that consistent habit, "when confronted with reason and logic, lets run from our claims, lets run from our history".

Kevin, the bom claims the existence of at least several "MILLION" people together at one time. Can you name any other civilization this large that simply vanished from the earth and left no record of their existence? Are you perhaps suggesting a dinasour extinction phenomenom here? Even that wouldn't work, archaeology supports the existence of dinasours!!!!

Better yet, if your child came home one day and said:

"Dad, I failed my Central American history test because I wrote down that it was originally settled by 5 million Norwegians. Now my teacher said I was wrong but I prayed about and I have faith that I am right. Could you please meet with my teacher and tell her change my grade because I have faith"!

Would you support him?

Come on now, lets apply some critical thinking here.

Likewise, the Bible is not without its own problems. 200 years of biblical archeology and still only 55% of its cities have been verified. Most scholars consider the story of Job to be fictional, the Exodus of the Jews seems to be desperate for archeological evidence, and the global flood has all but been discounted by the very basics of science.

Here again, don't lower the standards for the Bible, raise the standard for the bom so they are equal to the bible.

Lets assume your facts are correct. Now lets compare 55% verification in the bible to zero number of locations for "ANYTHING" claimed in the bom. Same time periods covered.

How can you possible claim that its way too early for anything in the bom to be verified? Better yet, when do you think it won't be "too early" any more!!!

Kevin, I gotta stop here. Seriously, you are truly an interesting fella. If I paid for all your expenses and gave you a $1000 speaking fee, would you come to my sons high school and make this argument in front of students and faculty? The only condition I would impose is that it must be video taped!!!

twhite982 · Jan 28, 2004

baker said:
Kevin, I gotta stop here. Seriously, you are truly an interesting fella. If I paid for all your expenses and gave you a $1000 speaking fee, would you come to my sons high school and make this argument in front of students and faculty? The only condition I would impose is that it must be video taped!!!

Baker,

I'll take the $1000 and where did you say you lived? The bahamas, right?

There are several sites that I've come across that show various sorts of "evidence" in favor of the B of M. It could be claimed to be coincedence, but for the amount of coincedences that Joseph Smith had to get right is very convincing to me considering the level understanding for the time and location of Joseph Smith.

Things, such as metal plates, barley, cement, internal textual evidences such as chaisms (not even discovered till the 20th century), I have even heard of a valley (bountiful) that is supposed to be a place stopped at during the 8 year exodus out of Jeruselum (lehi-project.com, I think).

My point is that sure the B of M doesn't have the same type of external evidence available to validate it in the way you want, but as Kevin has said its apples and oranges. Different, terrain, language, length of studying for archeology, amount of researchers available, etc...

I don't want to bore you with the links because I'm sure we've been through them already, but I'll link the ones I have if you want.

TW

Kevin Graham · Jan 28, 2004

== The bible tells us of cities, rivers, lakes, mountains, peoples, migrations, currencies, cultures, political parties, etc, etc, etc, which we have ample evidence to validate. Hell, we got maps, geography books, and pictures. Even BYU teaches at least 3 (at my last count) "history classes" covering this time frame and history. Where is any of this for the bom.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. You're completely ignoring the differences between the Bible and BoM that I outlined. You won't even touch them. And you accuse me of not thinking critically? The Bible has the benefit of being based in a culture from which we have an unbroken chain of historical account. The BoM professes to be a record of a people that the rest of the world didn't even know existed until the 1100 years later its events. Good grief, it doesn't take a genius to see the serious deficiency here in ascertaing a "history."

Archeologists already know huge civilizations lived in the Americas, but they also know next to nothing about their "history." Why is this scenario OK and acceptable for all cultures except BoM cultures?

== These histories covered virtually the same time periods.

Same periods mean nothing. Unless they both have the same circumstances, you can't be serious about making comparisons. There is nothing logical about what you're saying here.

== Kevin, IMHO this is such a cop out. We seem to be following that consistent habit, "when confronted with reason and logic, lets run from our claims, lets run from our history".

Baker, you're the one running in circles here. You don't like the response because it doesn't put me into a quagmire like you had hoped. So you call it a cop out. I'm stating the facts, and these are facts whether you like them or not. Name one thing I said that isn't true. You haven't even tried. All you are doing is dismissing them out of hand because you don't like the answer. you're gloating about how you put Mormons on teh ropes with tehse questions, but to be honest, I think most of them consider them too dumb to even merit a response. And how can I be "running from history" when I am saying point blank, we can't detail the history with the tiny bit of archeological evidence that we do have? I'm in fact agreeing with you, but that doesn't seem to make you happy.

== Kevin, the bom claims the existence of at least several "MILLION" people together at one time. Can you name any other civilization this large that simply vanished from the earth and left no record of their existence? Are you perhaps suggesting a dinasour extinction phenomenom here? Even that wouldn't work, archaeology supports the existence of dinasours!!!!

You're [Edited by a moderator] trying to place a burden of proof on me when you in fact have provided nothing to the contrary. I recall from that same episode that they were asking the same question: "What happened to this great civilization that rivaled the Roman Empire?" Helicopter views of Brazil showed ancient roads that stretched for hundreds of miles. Irrigation systems that were servicing millions of people. Yet, they all dissapeared. And isn't it interesting that this is exactly what the BoM speaks of; and extinction of the Nephite people. The gigantic temples leave scientists in confusion because they cannot fathom how on earth this culture was able to place stones, which weighed several tons, skillfully on top one another.

== Would you support him?

Well, the BoM doesn't claim to have settled 5 million Nephites. You should probably read the text your criticizing before pretending to know what you're talking about. One family landed somewhere in the Americas, and the BoM account tells us that a civilization was already present; the Jaredites.

== Come on now, lets apply some critical thinking here.

Please do.

== Here again, don't lower the standards for the Bible, raise the standard for the bom so they are equal to the bible.

Here you tip yoru hand and reveal the fact that you're really not interested in learning the answers to these questions because you haven't dealt with one single fact I pointed out. Further, you're recreating my argument as though I am "lowering" the Bible standards, which is absurd! I am simply expecting one standard for both, and niether of you want to deal with the theological aspect of both texts because that will in effect reveal the weaknesses of your atatck on BoM historicity.

== Lets assume your facts are correct.

They are.

== Now lets compare 55% verification in the bible to zero number of locations for "ANYTHING" claimed in the bom. Same time periods covered.

Again, you're blowing off a bunch of what I've already explained. Namely the absurdity it is to even compare the two given the fact that teh BoM account is based on a lost language and a lost people in a lost land. If you want to argue that people didn't exist, cities didn't exist, roads didn't exist etc, then I will mop the floors with you on that. Many of these things DID exist, and one not need to read FARMS to verify these things. But making the connection with these things and the BoM is what cannot be done given the limitations I delineated above. Limitations you don't even want to acknowledge.

== How can you possible claim that its way too early for anything in the bom to be verified?

Again, less than 1% of the area has been excavated. This is a stubborn fact you're going to have to come to grips sooner or later, with if you seriously want to argue about BoM historicity. What I find interesting is that both you and happy claim to have read all of FARMS materials, yet a cursory examination of the basics on BoM historicity would have made all of this clear for you. Your questions and your demands for proof are way out of place. But you're acting as if you've never heard this before.

I suggest you read William Hamblin's "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon"

It is a free read on their website, and has been around for years. Never seen a critic deal with ir or even address it either. Wanna be the first?

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?ta...1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3LnBocA==

Kevin Graham · Jan 28, 2004

== I am not ignoring anything.

Yes you are. I asked you a question and you ignored it. That means you ignored it. I ask you a third time and you're still ignoring it.

== I asked for evidence of archological claims of the BofM cities, metals, dna, ect. I never asked for evidence of "faith based claims".

But I did ask for faith based claims. And just who exactly gets to decide what are faith based and what are archeologically based? Why is it wrong to extend the faith based things to archeological things?

== The Lds church teaches it's members that the BofM is real history.

Right, which it has never proposed to "prove" through any scientific means.

== Where is the proof of this.

You're ignoring my statements again. We never proposed to prove it, so why shoudl we feel obligated to do so just because you want it? Atheists demand proof for Christianity, but I don't see you bowing down to their demands. Why? Because you can't provide. Which explains why you refuse to answer my questions. You haven't any answers. But you want us to have all teh answers regarding the BoM.

== And actually, just like you stated before, 55% of the cities in the Bible have been found. Now where are those BofM cities?

I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly with you. Someone might be decieved into thinking we are actually having a reciprocating discussion. We're not.

== A lost society of people hu? So my husband (cherokee indian) really isn't a Lamanite at all then...good to know.

So tell me the history of the indians from the period of 600Bc-400AD. If you can't tell me, I guess that means they didn't exist. See how utterly stupid this argument is?

== Ok, but is it a BofM city? Does it match up with BofM claims and time frames, culture...ect.? Have any non-lds archeologist acknowleged it as a BofM city?

Some of them could very well be BoM cities, but why would non-LDS archeologists bother to test whether they are BoM cities if they do not accept the BoM in the first place? Because the BoM claims a supernatural origin, one cannot seriously accept it as true without becoming a Mormon.

== Yes, sir. Do you treat all people you encounter with this pompous and overbaring manner or is it saved special just for us "rabid anti-mormons" ?

I've never called anyone here a rabid-anti-Mormon, but given your refusal to acknoeldge this three times now, and your insistance in applying it to yoruself as if I labeled you as such, I can only conclude that you're suffering from persecution complex again.

== LOL, actually I think that Evidence that Demand a Verdict is exactly where I read it, in fact I have been reading through that book just a minute ago to try and find it.

You won't find it there. Not even McDowell is that stupid.

== I agree, outrages claims do deserve outrageous evidence....

Then support your outrageous claim. Where are the original manuscripts?

Why am I wasting this much time with you....

OK, I'm not anymore.

happyinhisgrace · Jan 28, 2004

What I find interesting is that both you and happy claim to have read all of FARMS materials,

A bold faced lie. I said I had read a great deal of FARMS, which is true....I never said I read all of FARMS.

Grace

happyinhisgrace · Jan 28, 2004

== A lost society of people hu? So my husband (cherokee indian) really isn't a Lamanite at all then...good to know.

So tell me the history of the indians from the period of 600Bc-400AD. If you can't tell me, I guess that means they didn't exist. See how utterly stupid this argument is?

Yes it is, so why are you making it? Of course they existed, obviously that is a fact, but where is the proof that they existed in the form of "Nephites and Lamanites" ? There isn't any.

Grace

happyinhisgrace · Jan 28, 2004

== Some of the original handwritten manuscript copies of Biblical writing still exist

Ok, the above is the original statement that I made. I finally found my stinking info. that I was getting this from (or what I thought I remembered of it). What I should have said was that many of the copies of Biblical manuscripts still exist, not the originals. I was wrong on that and rather than finding my source first and re-reading it, I went on what I thought I remembered alone. So anyway, here are the 2 items I have on this from my files (of which I copied from the web-sites listed with the articles so all credit goes to them), none of the below is my wording. Anyhoo, this is what I was thinking of when I wrote what I did:

Bible manuscripts Info.

http://netministries.org/Bbasics/BBVer.htm

The first complete 'gospels' or life of Jesus didn't appear until around 60 A.D., but collections of sermons and writings were partly available some time before this. After the 'canonization' of the Bible as we know it (see the Old Testament and New Testament sections for more information) were formed, the Bible had taken shape. There are no original manuscripts of any of the books of the Bible in existance today. Many of the handwritten texts in Greek however are available from these early times. The earliest complete manuscript of the New Testament, is the Codex Sinaiticus which dates from about the fourth century. Less complete manuscripts date as far back as the late second century or about 130 A.D.. There are more copies of scripture and manuscripts available from the earliest times for the Bible than any other ancient writings. From the many numerous manuscripts available, scholars try to achieve the most complete and accurate wording of the books of the Bible into modern languages. The earliest translations of the New Testament were the Syriac, Latin, and Coptic versions. These translations were not as good as some more modern translations since the translators did not appear to have a good command of the original languages, such as Greek.

The New Testament Versus Other Ancient Books

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html

By comparing the manuscript support for the Bible with manuscript support for other ancient documents and books, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that no other ancient piece of literature can stand up to the Bible. Manuscript support for the Bible is unparalleled!

There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.

Rene Pache adds, "The historical books of antiquity have a documentation infinitely less solid."

baker · Jan 28, 2004

Kevin Graham said:
== The bible tells us of cities, rivers, lakes, mountains, peoples, migrations, currencies, cultures, political parties, etc, etc, etc, which we have ample evidence to validate. Hell, we got maps, geography books, and pictures. Even BYU teaches at least 3 (at my last count) "history classes" covering this time frame and history. Where is any of this for the bom.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. You're completely ignoring the differences between the Bible and BoM that I outlined. You won't even touch them. And you accuse me of not thinking critically? The Bible has the benefit of being based in a culture from which we have an unbroken chain of historical account. The BoM professes to be a record of a people that the rest of the world didn't even know existed until the 1100 years later its events. Good grief, it doesn't take a genius to see the serious deficiency here in ascertaing a "history."

Kevin,

Before addressing the rest of your response, your above statement reflects where we differ when it comes to "critical thinking" and perhaps what I see as a pattern in mormon culture (which is not meant to be an inult, just my observation). This is not about religion or faith.

You have assumed that I, and perhaps all others, should first accept what the bom "professes" to be and that the "world" didn't know anything about until 1100 yrs later. I think you have also assumed that we should accept that it is reasonble to have a "broken" chain of historical record from a sophisticated civilization of millions at one time, all together, and in the same place. My point is I find both these claims lack merit and are not reasonable. Perhaps that is my point here. This is your claim, now defend it.

So first, could you explain to me how you conclude that the "world" didn't know about this history for 1100 yrs and what it was that brought this "history" to their attention. Also, what was the date of the point in time that was 1100 yrs. later? I'm not looking for "what you believe" but what is the "non-faith, non-religious/spiritual" basis for your conclusion.

Second, why do you think it is reasonable that this sophisticated civilization of millions suddenly goes "radio-silent" for 1100 yrs (or for however long it was) with respect to their records. Also what objective records (not claims), do we now have that to demonstrate their existence?

If you would address the above first, perhaps I could better understand why you conclude that comparing the evidences for the Bible and bom are apples and oranges.

Also, could you answer without just posting a major cut and paste from some other site. I'd really like to hear how "you" conclude.

I don't mind responding to the rest of your post but I'd like to understand the above first.

Thanks

baker · Jan 28, 2004

twhite982 said:
Baker,

There are several sites that I've come across that show various sorts of "evidence" in favor of the B of M. It could be claimed to be coincedence, but for the amount of coincedences that Joseph Smith had to get right is very convincing to me considering the level understanding for the time and location of Joseph Smith.

TW

Tell you what Twhite - since we're talking about science here, I'll take you up and read any site you can provide me that is written/prepared by a reputable "non-lds" scholar or organization, qualified in an appropriate field, to comment on the Historocity or Archaeology of the bom.

Now before I get beat up, I'm am not inferring that lds scholars are not reputable, but I would conclude they are not objective with respect to this subject.

So Twhite, can you refer me to any sites that qualify?

twhite982 · Jan 28, 2004

baker said:
Tell you what Twhite - since we're talking about science here, I'll take you up and read any site you can provide me that is written/prepared by a reputable "non-lds" scholar or organization, qualified in an appropriate field, to comment on the Historocity or Archaeology of the bom.

Now before I get beat up, I'm am not inferring that lds scholars are not reputable, but I would conclude they are not objective with respect to this subject.

So Twhite, can you refer me to any sites that qualify?

I will try.

You'll be the judge of how "reputable" they are.

TW

Kevin Graham · Jan 28, 2004

== You have assumed that I, and perhaps all others, should first accept what the bom "professes" to be

Wrong. I don't "expect" you to do anything. The only expectations seem to be coming from you guys. You seem to think that by merely making a claim that the BoM represents true history, that one has the automatic burden of proof. Well, the LDS faith has never even tried to offer "proof" for this. From day one it has always been something that was accepted by faith. Now you may not like this answer, but it is true.

== and that the "world" didn't know anything about until 1100 yrs later.

And comments like these are supposed to encourage me to take you seriously? This is established fact that even most elementary students know. Ever hear of this guy named Christopher Columbus? In 1492 the New World was discovered. Before then there was absolutely nothing known about Ancient America, let alone the "history" of the people living there.
So if I "assume" anything, it would be that you are already aware of these basic facts.

== I think you have also assumed that we should accept that it is reasonble to have a "broken" chain of historical record from a sophisticated civilization of millions at one time, all together, and in the same place.

Again, I expect you to find out for yourself without jumping to conclusions as if your statements are to be taken for granted as factual. You're making claims but have provided absolutely nothing by way of evidence that it is unreasonable to assume a civilization, even a "sophisticated" one, could simply vanish.

I already know this to be a very well reasoned argument given the fact that everytime I turn on a documentary on Ancient America, the scholars are constantly asking themselves, "Where did all the people go?" They ask the same thing about the lost city of Atlantis, which many have argued to have been located in modern Brazil. As far as a "sophisticated" language being disconnected from societies, have you ever heard of the Rosetta Stone? Before it was discovered, the rest of the world was rendered helpless in trying to decipher Egytian. The language was lost to the world. Likewise, it is a well known fact that during Cortez's invasion, he burned thousands of books written in Mayan, which would have given us clues in deciphering their language. In 1970 scholars were only able to decipher about 5% of Mayan writings, but today, thanks to recent findings, scholars can decipher close to 70%.

== My point is I find both these claims lack merit and are not reasonable.

They are not reasonable if we first take for granted your claims that they are not reasonable. All one needs to do is provide examples where civilizations have been lost. This is not something unique to BoM claims as you would have us believe.

== Perhaps that is my point here. This is your claim, now defend it.

Wrong, it is yrou claim that it us unreasonable, now defend it. All you have done is throw out claims about how unreasonabel it is, but you have failed to demonstrated this. And the more you talk about how ridiculous it is to suppose a civilization could vanish, the more you're demonstrating why you shouldn't be taken seriously at all. You're clearly not well read on Ancient American scholarship if you think this is such a far fetched claim.

== So first, could you explain to me how you conclude that the "world" didn't know about this history for 1100 yrs

Maybe you should ask your son; I'm sure he's heard of the discovery of the New World. He could probably tell you the exact date too. Given that the BoM account ends around 400 AD, and America was discovered 1492 AD, I threw out that figure as a guesstimation.

== Also, what was the date of the point in time that was 1100 yrs. later? I'm not looking for "what you believe" but what is the "non-faith, non-religious/spiritual" basis for your conclusion.

I just gave it to you. Try to deal with it instead fo ridiculing it.

== Second, why do you think it is reasonable that this sophisticated civilization of millions suddenly goes "radio-silent" for 1100 yrs (or for however long it was) with respect to their records.

Well, this may be news to you (I can't believe you're making these arguments) but the radio wasn't even invented yet, so no, they were "radio silent" for quite some time. In fact, most of them still are. I still can't believe these comments. Are you joking?

You keep wanting to argue that if the Nephites existed, then we should have evidence pointing to them. Well, if we don't have radios, or a map, or even a language to work with, then how on earth do you propose that such evidence could make itself evident? You never answer this. You just keep assuming that if something existed, we should be able to identify it. Which is a pretty naive approach to archeology.

And to compare the loss of a civilzation to teh extincting of Dinosaurs, is revealing it itself. These sort of comment implies that the story of "5 million people" was just a farce. But scholars already acknowledge that there were more people than that! So what are you complaining about? The fact that this group of peple traditionally cremated their dead should give us some clue as to why we don't find millions of bones.

== Also what objective records (not claims), do we now have that to demonstrate their existence?

Uh, do you really want to argue that there is no evidence for the existence of ancient Americans from the period of 600 BC-400 AD? Again, we already know they existed. This is beyond dispute. The trick is trying to identify them as Nephites or Lamanites, which is perhaps an impossible task at this point.

== If you would address the above first, perhaps I could better understand why you conclude that comparing the evidences for the Bible and bom are apples and oranges....I don't mind responding to the rest of your post but I'd like to understand the above first.

Well, I hope I've crystallized it for you.

I've really got to take a break from this for awhile.

Doc T · Jan 28, 2004

Just popped in for a minute and wow ya'll have been busy. Just thought I would add my 2 cents. Baker and Grace was looking for evidence for other "lost civilizations." Try the Hittites. They were lost until the 19th century. The following from the website http://www.crystalinks.com/hittites.html

The Hittites Empire stretched from Mesopotamia to Syria and Palestine. Their invasion spelled the end of the Old Babylonian empire in Mesopotamia. The Hittite civilization dominated Mesopotamia from 1600 BC to 1200 BC.

Their civilization ended abrupted just as it had started. Hittite cities and territories thrived independently until they were finally conquered most likely by the Assyrians and others.

The Hittites were a warrior people noted for their ferocity. They invented iron which was used to forge weapons. They developed many siege tactics which were used by other nations that followed.

Hittite civilization was almost unknown until excavations in the 19th century revealed the extent and importance of culture. The Hittites themselves seem to have left few accounts of their history, so until this century no one really knew their culture or the greatness of their political ascendacy.

Hatti was the homeland of the Hittites. The heart of HATTI-land and Hittite power was located in central Anatolia.

Hope to be able to most more soon.

Doc

~

Mormon Historocity - A Reflection of Irony?

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Blessed Trinity

Active Member

Blessed Trinity

Active Member

Blessed Trinity

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Blessed Trinity

Blessed Trinity

Blessed Trinity

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency