Mormon Historocity - A Reflection of Irony?

== My statement was without any religious bias.

Oh, wasn't it you who asked for non-LDS sources before.. or am I confusing you with someone else?

Anyway, if Hebrew scholars say NHM means Nahom, wouldn't that "prove it"? It has been awhile since I read up on this, but from what I remember, there was little dispute NHM meant Nahom. The big anti-Mormon argument was based on the question: "Couldn't Joseph Smith have found this name on an ancient map in his town?"

== Do these scholars agree that it proves or demonstrates the claim of the bom?

I've come to realize that many non-LDS scholars couldn't care less. The BoM isn't an issue for them. Most of them never heard of it.

For example, Margaret Barker is an English OT scholar who wrote a book a few years ago called "The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's second God." Mormons like myself read this book with the strange curiosity because the woman sounded like a Mormon. All of her arguments were somewhat groundbreaking, and it was putting smiles on the faces of many LDS scholars. She proved that Ancient Israel believed in an anthropomorphic God, who has a human body, and that Jesus Christ was Jehovah, Elohim's son. She is also a recognized authority on temple symbolism.

Anyway, she was invited to speak at BYU last year. From the grapevine, I heard that she read the BoM and found that the parallels between some of the Hebraisms and her studies are "remarkable." For instance, Lehi's dream, the Tree and the indirect reference to Asherah. But it was interestng that she knew close to nothing about Mormonism from the start. Her out of print book, "The Older Testament," may be reprinted by FARMS sometime soon.

Anyway, I don't think we should expect scholars to start flocking to the Church over little things like this. It proves far more significant to LDS believer than it does for nonbelievers.

== It sounds to me as if you are saying that one must have faith in the religious story of the bom before they can accept the non-religious claims made by the bom.

Not at all. But if you expect them to accept non-religious claims to the extent that they verify the authenticity of the BoM, then all of the sudden this gets a violent shove into the religious realm. For instance, an atheist archeologist can verify Biblical data quite willingly, because that doesn't mean he is also compelled by reason to follow the theology therein. The same cannot be said of the BoM because of the manner in which the BoM came to be.

If one decided "Wow, the evidence is so extensive that I think it proves the historicity of the BOM", then they have to deal with the fact that this means the angel Joseph Smith saw was real, that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and that the LDS Church is ordained by God. The BoM cannot be true unless all of teh above is true. However the Bible can be based on real events, places and people, but that doesn't necessarily mean the theology is true. For all they know it was written by a bunch of ancient scribes who liked to make religious stories up, that involved their culture.

== That is why I see mormons trying to lower the standards of the bible to the same level of standards neccessary to accept the bom as opposed to raising the bom to the same standards established by the historocity in the bible.

But as I already delineated n a previous post, there is no realistic apples/apples comparison.

== As I said before, one does not have to have any faith in bible to accept the historocity of it.

Of course not.

== But it sounds like one must have faith in the bom to accept its claims of historocity. Simply illogical to me.

Well that is true, but I fail to see how it is illogical.

== BTY Kevin, archaelogists, geologists, anthropologists, botanists and the likes live to find new discoveries of civilizations or items related to the historic past.

Right, and none of them live to verify Mormon claims unless they are Mormon.

== It would seem to me, if there was any credible possibilty that the history claim in the bom was remotely close to being accepted as true, these professionals would be flocking to learn as much about the bom claim in hope of making the "find" of lifetime. It would be the "holy grail" of christianity (ala the Da Vinci Code).

But this assumption rests on the assumption that these professionals are even aware of the BoM and its supernatural origin, let alone its specific historical claims. And the fact that one must first have an interest in proving Mromon claims to begin with.

== So IMHO, "lack of interest" does not seem to be reasonble justification with respect to non-lds scholars and the bom claims.
I don't see why. Try emailing archeologists at random, and ask them about the BoM. See what kind of responses you get. You may be surprised.

happyinhisgrace said:

TW, I just read that article on the link you posted and it said that information of the alters of Nahom came from LDS writings on this subject that they got from a German archeological team but it doesn't say who these archological team was or even where one can find info on this team and their findings. Do you happen to know this information and could refer it to us? I have read a story very simular to the one on this site, on the Crackedplanet site but don't recal him (Jeff Linsey) giving any information on this either, I will have to go back and read it again to be sure but do you have this information?

Grace

Click to expand...

I didn't dig too hard in finding this article.

What you'll have to do if you're interested in finding out more is follow the references at the bottom of the page over to Farms. They are usually more dilegent about cititng their sources.

I was only trying to get the ball rolling with Baker and this is the first one I came across.

TW

FYI,

The German archeologist responsible for the N-H-M stone is Burkhard Vogt.

Additionally here is one of S. Kent Brown's articles on Nahom
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=187&table=jbms

TW

twhite982 said:

FYI,

The German archeologist responsible for the N-H-M stone is Burkhard Vogt.

Additionally here is one of S. Kent Brown's articles on Nahom
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=187&table=jbms

TW

Click to expand...

Thanks for the name of the archeologist. I have been doing a web-search on him and have found several articles dealing with him and excavations that lead to information on "the queen of Sheeba" and "asian artifacts" and the lost city of "Ur" but so far haven't found anything about Nahom other than from the LDS web-sites that all say basically the same thing with only footnotes refering to LDS authors on the subject. I will keep looking though.

God Bless,
Grace

happyinhisgrace said:

Thanks for the name of the archeologist. I have been doing a web-search on him and have found several articles dealing with him and excavations that lead to information on "the queen of Sheeba" and "asian artifacts" and the lost city of "Ur" but so far haven't found anything about Nahom other than from the LDS web-sites that all say basically the same thing with only footnotes refering to LDS authors on the subject. I will keep looking though.

God Bless,
Grace

Click to expand...

Just to let you know its the LDs authors who make the claim that the inscription means nahom or that it is a good possibility. This archaelogical team did not find this with the intent to prove the BofM.

To assume non-LDS would automatically jump to the conclusion that this is evidence for the BofM is a stretch since I would say most aren't aware of its claims / history.

So I would suggest S. Kent Brown's article and then verifying his sources and claims.

TW

baker said:

Kevin,

As I have asked this question before, would you want your kids to pray for answers in their history and geography classes, or would you want them to read and study the accepted scholarship provided in the books their school issues to them.

Which is more illogical, having faith in a story someone asks you
to believe, or investigating the truth form reputable and accepted scholarship?

Click to expand...

If I can jump in for a second. Would you teach your kids that evolution is where man evolued from? What about the time period from which man existed from the fall of Adam till today as aprox 6000 years or has man been here for 100,000s of years as taught in schools. Or that the flood happened about 4000 years ago Or it happened at all. What about some Isrelites who came out of Egypt to a promished land? ect...
Real truth is not always found in history books.
How is it you would believe in any prophesy at all because it hasn't happened yet for scientist to report on?
If, as you say, we still had the holy grail of moronism (the BOM) it would be far more damaging to one's faith then it would help. Because it would require no faith at all to believe. Some people would start putting the BOM before the perfect witness of the Holy Ghost. Still some would start to worship the book like they did with the relics of the OT or the temple. Even then I think it would still fail to convince some people.
God wants mans faith to be a belief in things unseen.
If though you are not concerned with faith than I guess you will have to wait for an archeologist to tell you what is truth.

twhite982 said:

Just to let you know its the LDs authors who make the claim that the inscription means nahom or that it is a good possibility. This archaelogical team did not find this with the intent to prove the BofM.

To assume non-LDS would automatically jump to the conclusion that this is evidence for the BofM is a stretch since I would say most aren't aware of its claims / history.

So I would suggest S. Kent Brown's article and then verifying his sources and claims.

TW

Click to expand...

Yes, I realize that archeologist would not set out to "prove the book of mormon right" but whatever their findings are would either somehow accredit or discredit the BofM claims.

The problem with S. Kent Brown's article (I am assuming you mean the one on FARMS )is that the only foot notes I see on it are those of LDS writers. I already know the LDS possition on it and I don't see any footnotes to information in a "neuteral" article or book of findings. If you know of any that I may have overlooked, I would appreciate it and also, I don't have the money to buy books just to find one bit of information right now and I already logged on to the public library web-site and did a search for S. Kent Brown and according to the database, our libraries do not carry any books by him.

I am not trying to be difficult, I would just like to read an account of this alter finding by another source other than just LDS since I already know their position on it, but I am not finding any other sources for this info.

God Bless,
Grace

happyinhisgrace said:

Yes, I realize that archeologist would not set out to "prove the book of mormon right" but whatever their findings are would either somehow accredit or discredit the BofM claims.

The problem with S. Kent Brown's article (I am assuming you mean the one on FARMS )is that the only foot notes I see on it are those of LDS writers. I already know the LDS possition on it and I don't see any footnotes to information in a "neuteral" article or book of findings. If you know of any that I may have overlooked, I would appreciate it and also, I don't have the money to buy books just to find one bit of information right now and I already logged on to the public library web-site and did a search for S. Kent Brown and according to the database, our libraries do not carry any books by him.

I am not trying to be difficult, I would just like to read an account of this alter finding by another source other than just LDS since I already know their position on it, but I am not finding any other sources for this info.

God Bless,
Grace

Click to expand...

I understand.

I will look a little for you to see what I can drudge up on S. Kent Brown's references or other LDS scholars who write about this inscription.

This is not a huge issue for me so I don't expect to spend a great deal of time in my search, but I will attempt a search for you.

Tom

twhite982 said:

Just to let you know its the LDs authors who make the claim that the inscription means nahom or that it is a good possibility. This archaelogical team did not find this with the intent to prove the BofM.

To assume non-LDS would automatically jump to the conclusion that this is evidence for the BofM is a stretch since I would say most aren't aware of its claims / history.

So I would suggest S. Kent Brown's article and then verifying his sources and claims.

TW

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Nobody expects archaeologists to say "this confirms the BoM!"

Rather, what you need is a claim that couldn't be known by Smith (eg, there was a city named Nahom 100 miles from Jerusalem in 600 BC) that was unknown by scientists at his time. Then, you need archaelogists today to find proof, saying something like "we've found all this evidence that there was a city about 100 miles from Jerusalem named Nahom, that apparently was in existence from 1000 BC until 350 BC when it was destroyed by invaders." You don't need them to reference the BoM - in fact, if the archaeologists involved didn't even know of the BoM, so much the better.

Saying there was a rock with NHM on it, by itself, is very weak and proves nothing. And the countless historical claims made by the BoM that have been proven false (eg, the horses, Native Americans are Hebrews) have already settled the matter to any reasonable person's satisfaction.

There are some points in the Bible that have been "disproven" by history and science. For example, creationism and heliocentrism have been disproven. Also, the falling of the walls of Jericho is no longer believed, with the city haven fallen long before the Hebrews arrived there. That's different from a book where the author is submitting the existence of an entire civilization that he knows nothing about, and where his religion can only be true if the history facts he suggests are true.

The BoM is blatantly false. It's not the particular fault of Smith. Anyone trying to create a false history and a false religion today would encounter the same problems. The Bible was relating actual historical events and putting a religious twist on them. The BoM, on the other hand, was inventing historical facts to house its religious beliefs, based upon the idea of "The View of the Hebrews" or some such fiction book of the time. I couldn't have done any better than Smith in creating a false history. How could he have known that DNA evidence would prove him a liar, and that the animals he assumed existed in the Americas did not exists here? Anyone creating a false religion would do well to avoid having the beliefs be scientifically and historically disprovable.

....the "history" claimed by the bom (not the religious story) has any credible support and that is why it is not taught.

That is a religious question, but it would be based on my personal faith combined with the gift of intelligence that God gave me. However if I was taking a history test on Central America, God would want me to use my intelligence and study the accepted scholarship. God would not want me to just have faith that the answers would appear to me if I simply pray for them

Click to expand...

!

If you are looking to confirm the truthfulness of the BOM through history or archeology it may never happen. Because what the BOM does claims to do is tell the story of God's dealing with his people on this continent, but not thier history. So yes, if I wanted an A in a history class I would tell the teacher (right or wrong) whatever they wanted to hear, but if I wanted to know about the truthfullness of the BOM I would (as you say) ..just have faith that the answers would appear to me if I simply pray for them.
James 1:5
BTW I do alot of praying come test time.

Please define what you mean by "real truth". However, I would say that "real history" is taught in history books. The history claimed by the bible is taught in history books. The history claimed by the bom is not.

Click to expand...

Real truth is the knowledge of things as they existed, as they exist now, and the knowledge of things as they will become. There is only one who knows real truth. There is is no real history as scientist can only "best guess" at a lot of ancient events, places and people.
For example-
Scientist can agree on the DNA make-up of a population as it exists today.
However they are forced to make assumptions and guesses as to a population's DNA make-up of just 200 years ago because they do not know eveything about it and understanding less and less to older the civilization. With no idea of what a populations DNA will look like 200 years from now.
So would I base my faith or religion on thier best guesses? No! Would you?

Actually, I think God wants us to use the gift of intelligence to help evaluate when people claim things in His name. If we didn't, the Jim Jones' and David Koreshs' of the world would have a field day with new converts.

Click to expand...

That's true but in the beginning they might of seemed like good bible believing Christians and if I was to judge them by solely my own intellect back in their beginning, I would be in big trouble.
Would you want people to believe everything you say just because you believe it to be true through your studies?

This is a preposterous statement. Can you tell me in your entire life when you have had to give a “wrong” answer in a history class to please a teacher. Come on Theway, think before you post!!! It’s statements like this that tell so much about you

Click to expand...

.

OK

1 I was once asked on a test whether Evolution of the species (man evolving from apes) was a fact or theory according to my teacher it was fact.

2 Once we were told the Neanderthals came before modern man

Just two I can think of off the top of my head.

I learned along time ago not to care what anyone thought about me (whatever that may be) but I will tell you, you would probably be surprised, and wrong.

Your church, the BOM and your missionaries also claim it to be HISTORY. If your denial of this helps you in your acceptance of the religious story, so be it. But you would be out of step with your church

Click to expand...

I do not deny it happens inside the church or even sometimes outside, I have always been told, and told others the focus of the BOM is Christ and his gospel.

I think I can see why. I usually did a lot of studying and research. It always cut down on the amount of praying I needed to do.

Click to expand...

It was a joke you really need to lighten up alittle or was the joke that bad?

Theway, I would suggest you re-think that statement. “History” is, by definition, real. It happened or it wouldn’t be accepted as “history”. We know the Superbowl happened this past weekend. It is history and real. For something to be accepted as history, we have to have credible evidence..

Click to expand...

Really if history was so absolute why don’t you accept Mormon historians
I never saw the superbowl so all I would have to go on is your word. If no physical evidence existed there was a superbowl does that mean it didn’t happen? We only know about it because there is alot of evidence around, but you will have to admit a lot of history is filling in the blanks between things we think are fact.

Most of our academic community (if not all) do not teach the history claimed by the bom because there is not credible evidence compelling enough to do so. There is simply no reason to believe it ever took place as a historic event

Click to expand...

Now you’re the one who claims to speak for all of the academic community.

I would not want them to teach anything where there wasn’t overwheming evidence also.

Those who know he BOM to be true feel no need for academic community to prove them right.

Again, this thread is not about the religious claim of the bom. It is about it’s claim as history

Click to expand...

.
I thought the purpose of this forum was the disscusions of religious and doctrinal topics
however if this is what you're looking for I'll move to another thread.