Some questions from a Mormon [Archive]

View Full Version : Some questions from a Mormon

Tenshi

May 17th 2004, 09:57 AM

Well, from what I can tell, most of the questions on this board are thinly veiled attacks on our faith. I'd like to try to even the odds a little.

Question 1: How did Joseph Smith, a relatively uneducated farmboy in upstate NY in the 1830s accurately describe geographical features of the Arabian penninsula he could not possibly have known about?

This question arises from the description of Lehi's journey from Jerusalem to the new world. The journey, to summarize, consisted of a trip south-southeast from Jerusalem for three days to a river which Lehi named Laman, which flowed continuously (i.e. all year round) into the sea, a very rare thing in Arabia, to say the least, and which was located in a valley (presumably a rather impressive one, as it led Lehi to comment: "O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast[/url], and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!" (1 Nephi 2:10)). Well, if we go S-SE from Jerusalem, we should find such a valley with such a river. Guess what? We do! Pictures can be found [url="http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#lemuel"]here (http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/2/10b#10b). The river shown does flow continuously, it is 70 miles from Jerusalem (NOT as the crow flies, but rather as the distance one must walk) which is an easy three day's journey by camel, and it's in a very impressive valley. It's called Wadi Tayyib al-Ism Lucky guess, you might say, even though the idea of a continuously flowing river in Arabia was ludicrous in the 1830s, and is still considered ludicrous by many today. Well, one correct hit is not statistically significant, and it is a fairly small river. But how about what happens next?
From this valley with its river, Lehi & Co. travel S-SE "in the borders near the Red Sea" until they reach a place called Nahom. Is there a place called Nahom S-SE of the above mentioned valley of Lemuel? Yep, and there's independent (i.e. non-mormon) verification of it. (as a side note, the S-SE route from the valley of Lemuel to Nahom follows what is known to be a frankincense trail at the time) They (the non-mormon archeologists) have found several stones which have inscriptions talking about people of the tribe of Nihm, (or Nihim) and their burial ground at Nehem. You might argue that those aren't the same as nahom, but as anyone who studies hebrew knows, the consonants are the important parts, and here the consonants are all the same - NHM. A not particularly common set of consonants in semitic languages, I might add.
From NHM, Lehi & family turn east, and come to a place called Bountiful. This place has: access to the ocean, both for camping on the beach and launching a ship, fruit, honey, and probably game, enough timber to build a viable ship, freshwater year round - enough to support a several year stay, a significant mountain nearby (Nephi talks of "the mount"), Cliffs which were available from which Nephi's brothers could threaten to cast him into the sea, metal ore, flint, and winds and currents which would allow passage of a ship into the open ocean. That's quite a list, all of which are found in 1 Nephi 17-18. A place like that, with fruit and honey, and water year round, and lots of trees, in Arabia? Yep. Two places in fact. Wadi Sayq, and Salalah. Pictures and further info can be found here (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography).

Question 2: How could Joseph Smith have known about the use of cement as a building material in ancient mesoamerica?

Helaman 3:9-11 contains record of the use of cement in construction by the Nephites. Absurd, you say. The ancient peoples of the americas didn't have cement, you say. Ah, but they did. Cement work in abundance can be found in Teotihuacan, and it dates to at least the 1st century BC (the time frame of Helaman). Further discussion of the evidence can be found here (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#cement).

Question 3:How was Joseph - who had never seen volcanic action of any sort - accurately describe it (see 3 Nephi 8-10), and at a time and place consistent with the archeolocical record?

Further evidence can be found here (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#volcan).

Question 4: If Joseph just made up the practice of baptism for the dead, then why do numerous ancient documents validate the LDS claim that it was an authentic early christian practice?

The whole baptism for the dead thing is interesting, to say the least. There is one, rather cryptic, reference in the Bible, and none in the BoM. It seems to come out of nowhere. Well, it turns out it doesn't. It is discussed more fully in the Shepherd (pastor) of Hermas - the writings of one of the early christian fathers, accepted by many as scripture. (the writings of Hermas, by the way, are fairly conservative by early church standards - they posit no new doctrine, but merely seek to keep the faithful on the strait and narrow, reminding them of various commandments - including baptism for the dead) The relevant quote from Hermas (and a discussion of it) can be seen here (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BaptDead.shtml#hermas). The entire text of the Pastor of Hermas can be found at www.newadvent.org/fathers.

Further such questions and answers, plus more evidence for the BoM, can be found at Jeff Lindsay's website, www.jefflindsay.com. That's where these questions come from.

I humbly await your response.

Trout

May 17th 2004, 11:22 PM

Hi Tenshi, Welcome to Tweb.

Well, from what I can tell, most of the questions on this board are thinly veiled attacks on our faith. I'd like to try to even the odds a little.
I think your perception is quite correct.

But to be clear, I have nothing but deep respect for the LDS people, having lived in and amongst them most of my life, I've found them to be genuinely sincere, wonderful people.

However, I think the doctrine taught by the LDS church is false, and false enough to have eternal consequences. I say this with love and sorrow for the many fantastic LDS folks I know.

Hopefully you and I can disagree without hating each other, for I know that we both have a hunger for truth as evidenced by our presence at this discussion board.

Question 1: How did Joseph Smith, a relatively uneducated farmboy in upstate NY in the 1830s accurately describe geographical features of the Arabian penninsula he could not possibly have known about?

This question arises from the description of Lehi's journey from Jerusalem to the new world. The journey, to summarize, consisted of a trip south-southeast from Jerusalem for three days to a river which Lehi named Laman, which flowed continuously (i.e. all year round) into the sea, a very rare thing in Arabia, to say the least, and which was located in a valley (presumably a rather impressive one, as it led Lehi to comment: "O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!" (1 Nephi 2:10)). Well, if we go S-SE from Jerusalem, we should find such a valley with such a river. Guess what? We do! Pictures can be found here (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#lemuel). The river shown does flow continuously, it is 70 miles from Jerusalem (NOT as the crow flies, but rather as the distance one must walk) which is an easy three day's journey by camel, and it's in a very impressive valley. It's called Wadi Tayyib al-Ism Lucky guess, you might say, even though the idea of a continuously flowing river in Arabia was ludicrous in the 1830s, and is still considered ludicrous by many today. Well, one correct hit is not statistically significant, and it is a fairly small river. But how about what happens next?
From this valley with its river, Lehi & Co. travel S-SE "in the borders near the Red Sea" until they reach a place called Nahom. Is there a place called Nahom S-SE of the above mentioned valley of Lemuel? Yep, and there's independent (i.e. non-mormon) verification of it. (as a side note, the S-SE route from the valley of Lemuel to Nahom follows what is known to be a frankincense trail at the time) They (the non-mormon archeologists) have found several stones which have inscriptions talking about people of the tribe of Nihm, (or Nihim) and their burial ground at Nehem. You might argue that those aren't the same as nahom, but as anyone who studies hebrew knows, the consonants are the important parts, and here the consonants are all the same - NHM. A not particularly common set of consonants in semitic languages, I might add.
From NHM, Lehi & family turn east, and come to a place called Bountiful. This place has: access to the ocean, both for camping on the beach and launching a ship, fruit, honey, and probably game, enough timber to build a viable ship, freshwater year round - enough to support a several year stay, a significant mountain nearby (Nephi talks of "the mount"), Cliffs which were available from which Nephi's brothers could threaten to cast him into the sea, metal ore, flint, and winds and currents which would allow passage of a ship into the open ocean. That's quite a list, all of which are found in 1 Nephi 17-18. A place like that, with fruit and honey, and water year round, and lots of trees, in Arabia? Yep. Two places in fact. Wadi Sayq, and Salalah. Pictures and further info can be found here (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography).
Interesting, I haven't studied this particular BOM evidence, but I'm going to do so.

One question; is this river a current geographical feature of the region, or is it a dry channel?

Question 2: How could Joseph Smith have known about the use of cement as a building material in ancient mesoamerica?

Helaman 3:9-11 contains record of the use of cement in construction by the Nephites. Absurd, you say. The ancient peoples of the americas didn't have cement, you say. Ah, but they did. Cement work in abundance can be found in Teotihuacan, and it dates to at least the 1st century BC (the time frame of Helaman). Further discussion of the evidence can be found here (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#cement).
Perhaps Joseph simply got lucky mentioning cement, that isn't one of the more extraordinary claims made by the BOM:

1Neph16
And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food.

Alma1:29
And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceedingly rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need—an abundance of flocks and herds, and fatlings of every kind, and also abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of silk and fine-twined linen, and all manner of good homely cloth.

Alma20
Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused that his servants should make ready his horses and his chariots.

Ether3
ANDit came to pass that the brother of Jared, (now the number of the vessels which had been prepared was eight) went forth unto the mount, which they called the mount Shelem, because of its exceeding height, and did molten out of a rock sixteen small stones; and they were white and clear, even as transparent glass; and he did carry them in his hands upon the top of the mount, and cried again unto the Lord, saying

2NEPH15

Whose arrows shall be sharp, and all their bows bent, and their horses’ hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind, their roaring like a lion.

Mentioned in the BOM yet not found in the Americas are glass, wheels, chariots, spring steel, beasts of burden, silk, linen, grain, all of which seem discredit the BOM somewhat.

The following is a quote from the Smithsonian regarding some of these BOM claims: (http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/smithsonianletter2.htm)
4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.

Question 3:How was Joseph - who had never seen volcanic action of any sort - accurately describe it (see 3 Nephi 8-10), and at a time and place consistent with the archeolocical record?

Further evidence can be found here (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#volcan).
Could someone who has read about volcanic action accurately describe it?

Question 4: If Joseph just made up the practice of baptism for the dead, then why do numerous ancient documents validate the LDS claim that it was an authentic early christian practice?

The whole baptism for the dead thing is interesting, to say the least. There is one, rather cryptic, reference in the Bible, and none in the BoM. It seems to come out of nowhere. Well, it turns out it doesn't. It is discussed more fully in the Shepherd (pastor) of Hermas - the writings of one of the early christian fathers, accepted by many as scripture. (the writings of Hermas, by the way, are fairly conservative by early church standards - they posit no new doctrine, but merely seek to keep the faithful on the strait and narrow, reminding them of various commandments - including baptism for the dead) The relevant quote from Hermas (and a discussion of it) can be seen here (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BaptDead.shtml#hermas). The entire text of the Pastor of Hermas can be found at www.newadvent.org/fathers (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers).
Are you willing to accept all the writings of the ANF?

Further such questions and answers, plus more evidence for the BoM, can be found at Jeff Lindsay's website, www.jefflindsay.com (http://www.jefflindsay.com). That's where these questions come from.

I humbly await your response.

I have spent some time at Jeff's website, he is quite an apologist, I wish he would join us here at Tweb.

trout

Bill the Cat

May 18th 2004, 08:44 PM

:sigh:

Not another Jeff Lindsey fanatic :no:. Ah well, I'm only on for a few minutes, so I'll handle the poor scholarship on "geography" now and the rest later.

P.S. Hey :trout: Great smilie!!

This “evidence” as listed by Warren and Michaela Aston is so badly stretched, trying to fit Book of Mormon travels into Arabia. A rebuttal of this supposed evidence is here: http://www.mormonstudies.com/defense2.htm under the heading “Lehi's Exodus from Jerusalem” and shows this:

Reynolds says that one of the criteria used by the Astons in searching for the site of Bountiful is that "there must be a dangerous cliff where Nephi's brothers could attempt to kill him by throwing him into the sea" (Reynolds 1997, 383). However, the text does not in fact refer to any cliff or state that Nephi's brothers made an actual attempt to kill him; it merely states that Nephi's brothers "were desirous to throw me into the depths of the sea" (1 Nephi 17:48). But when this occurred, Nephi had already made tools out of ore and was preparing to start building their ship. Nephi's brothers "were desirous that they might not labor" (1 Nephi 17:18). It is hardly possible that Nephi planned to build the ship on a cliff above the sea.

The Astons were begging for any vague references to squeeze any geographical feature from Arabia into the BOM material.

That's all for now, but I'd love to shred the rest when I have a spare minute! :btc:

Tenshi

May 19th 2004, 12:24 PM

One question; is this river a current geographical feature of the region, or is it a dry channel?
It is not a dry channel, but a currently flowing river. Pictures and I think a video can be found here (http://www.nephiproject.com/nephi_project_major_discoveries.htm).

Perhaps Joseph simply got lucky mentioning cement, that isn't one of the more extraordinary claims made by the BOM:
[/size][/size]

1Neph16
And it came to pass that as I, Nephi, went forth to slay food, behold, I did break my bow, which was made of fine steel; and after I did break my bow, behold, my brethren were angry with me because of the loss of my bow, for we did obtain no food.

Alma1:29
And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceedingly rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need—an abundance of flocks and herds, and fatlings of every kind, and also abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of silk and fine-twined linen, and all manner of good homely cloth.

Alma20
Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused that his servants should make ready his horses and his chariots.

Ether3
ANDit came to pass that the brother of Jared, (now the number of the vessels which had been prepared was eight) went forth unto the mount, which they called the mount Shelem, because of its exceeding height, and did molten out of a rock sixteen small stones; and they were white and clear, even as transparent glass; and he did carry them in his hands upon the top of the mount, and cried again unto the Lord, saying

2NEPH15

[left]Whose arrows shall be sharp, and all their bows bent, and their horses’ hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind, their roaring like a lion.

Mentioned in the BOM yet not found in the Americas are glass, wheels, chariots, spring steel, beasts of burden, silk, linen, grain, all of which seem discredit the BOM somewhat.
Glass beads have been found in egyptian tombs dating back to 3000+ BC. The reference also takes place before the Jaredites make their journey to the promised land, and thus does not happen in the Americas. Also, the reference does not say that they HAD glass, but that they were like glass. Thus it could simply be translation.

Wheeled toys have been found in ancient mesoamerica, and it is reasonable to assume that if they could figure out how to put wheels on a toy, they could put wheels on a real vheicle. They have also found pottery wheels in ancient mesoamerica. I quote Dr. Gordon P. Ekholm, of the American Museum of Natural History in New York:
“During the winter of 1942, while I was making some excavations in Panuco and in the vicinity of Tampico, I found a certain number of small disks that I suspected of having been the wheels of rolling toys like those found by Dr. Stirling in Tres Zapotes [1940] and in Charnay in Popocatepetl [1880]. In the excavations of Panuco I felt most happy when my helper informed me of the finding of a complete toy with wheels just after having left the place myself and only a few meters from my excavation. This finding, together with other known examples, convinced me that the Mexican Indians, before the conquest, had made small vehicles with wheels in the form of animals and therefore had some knowledge of the principle of the wheel.”
Further discussion of the topic here (http://www.mormonfortress.com/wheel3.html).

As to the form of the chariot, it is quite possible that it was not a chariot in the sense we normally think of such things - ie the Ben-Hur-esque chariot. However, it is probably the best english word for wheeled vechicle used for war, without being clunky or esoteric.

And, by the way, the quote from 2 Nephi 15 is Nephi quoting Isaiah (chapter 5 specifically), who would most definately have known about wheels.

Then there's steel. The steel reffered to, Nephi's bow, never actually makes it to the new world. There are other references to steel in the new world, however. This constitutes no anachronsim, because steel has been found in mesoamerica. Meteoric iron, actually, but reffered to, even by metallurgists as steel. Robert J. Forbes in Metallurgy in Antiquity: A Notebook for Archaeologists and Technologists lists meteoric iron-nickel alloys as "a type of steel" and it's presence in mesoamerica was well known. Such metorites, according to the Handbook of Iron Meteorites (2 vols.) by Dr. Vagn F. Buchwald. As for the refining of iron mentioned in some verses, all such verses are from early in the book - the first few generations after Nephi. The technology was, presumably, lost when easy sources of ore ran out. Finally, if you want to claim that steel wasn't around at the time, or that nobody would make a bow from steel (both of which I have heard), see 2 Sam. 22:35, Psalms 18:34, Job 20:24, and Jeremiah 15:12, all of which mention steel.

As for beasts of burden, there is fairly good fossil and archeological evidence for horses in pre-columbian mesoamerica, even up to the a few centuries before Columbus. They were obviously fairly rare, but they are not exactly spoken of as common animals- just something owned by a King. It could also be a reference to other animals, as the hebrew word for horse, "sus", actually has a root meaning of "to leap" and could thus refer to other, similar animals such as deer, or even swallows (although I cannot see swallows pulling a chariot).

As for silk and linen, I would like to quote from Michael R. Ash on the subject: Although the type of silk with which we are familiar was not to be found, other types of “silk” were known in the ancient New World. The Spanish reported several kinds of “silk.” One kind of silk was spun from the hair of rabbits bellies, another may have come from a wild silkworm, and yet a third came from the pod of the ceiba tree. Spanish chronicles report that types of “silk” were spun and woven in Mesoamerica before their arrival. (Sorenson, 1985, 232.) Since the arrival of the Spanish, however, these fabrics have disappeared--deteriorated with time. If the Spanish could call these fabrics silk, then why could not the Nephites do the same?
And for linen, again from Michael R. Ash: The problem, no doubt, relates to the ambiguity of reassigning familiar labels to unfamiliar items. Bernal Diaz, for instance, who served with Cortez, described native American garments made of “‘henequen which is like linen.’” (Sorenson, 1985, 232.) Likewise, sixteenth century Bishop Landa described how the Mayan priests used linen garb in rituals which resembled Jewish ceremonies (Warren and Ferguson, 133.) Did Bernal Diaz and Bishop Landa describe the “linen” familiar to Europeans? No. Nevertheless, to Diaz and Landa, these particular native garments were like “linen.” Who could fault the Nephites for referring to similar fabrics with familiar names. “The fiber of maguey plant,” writes Sorenson, “from which henequen is manufactured, closely resembles the flax fiber used to make European linen. (Sorenson, 1985, 232.)

Grain could refer to any number of things. There is of course Maize, several plants from the barley family, as well as several wheat-like plants ("wheatgrass," "buckwheat," and "cowwheat," and one species called "desert Indianwheat." - from the USDA plants database, all listed as native to the Americas). Then there's amaranth, huauzontle, chia (used heavily by the Aztecs), fox-tail millet, two species of 'perennial corn,' and Chalco teosinte, all of which are grains. Grain hardly seems unknown in the Americas.

The following is a quote from the Smithsonian regarding some of these BOM claims: (http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/smithsonianletter2.htm)
4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
This statement from the smithsonian is out of date and has largely been discredited. See this (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/smithsonian.shtml) website. Nowadays, the Smithsonian merely sends a note saying that they don't use the BoM as an archeological text.

Could someone who has read about volcanic action accurately describe it?
Sure, although where would he get such a descritption? And how would he describe it in a time and place where later geological (archeological? which does vulcanism fall under?) evidence shows that an eruption of the described size, at the described time (A non-mormon archeologist put it "About the time of the death of Christ" or, later stated 50 AD plus or minus 50 years), in mesoamerica, the most probable location for the BoM.

Are you willing to accept all the writings of the ANF?

As scripture? Not necessarily. As a fair indicator of early christian doctrine and practice? Of course.

As for Bill the Cat's accusation, the fact that they were STILL able to find sites which corresponded to even requirements that DON'T exist in the text, shows that there were at least that many, or more, which staisfy all those that DO. That makes the case stronger, not weaker. This doesn't show poor scholarship, they were simply trying to make sure that every possible requirement had been covered.

slickmojo21

May 19th 2004, 04:45 PM

I used to be a mormon and i have talked to countless mormons and have come to find that some general things are questionable about the mormanistic faith.

1. Their are claims that there is a Planet by the name of Kolab where many of us have come from, and it is currently where God the Father reigns with mother God.
2. Christ has earth and that him and another mother God are up in the sky having spirit babies.
3. Lucifer and Christ are brothers and there was a war on Kolab because God the father chose Christ over Lucifer and so one third joined lucifer and the rest joined Christ. Christ of course won and you see us walking around to day. Lucifer lost and so everyone with him are demons and so forth.

4 there are three levels of heaven. first second and third, the good mormons go to first heaven, Bad mormans and good christians go to second heaven and your all around heathans go to third heaven, so in truth no one goes to hell.

If you have never heard of this then you may want to dig into mormanism a little more than seminary, and if you have its not something i am given to believe nor find thhe energy to seriously debate. Please look into it

Slick By the way i am not mocking or joking around

Romans5_1

May 19th 2004, 08:19 PM

Bill the Cat

May 19th 2004, 09:25 PM

As for Bill the Cat's accusation, the fact that they were STILL able to find sites which corresponded to even requirements that DON'T exist in the text, shows that there were at least that many, or more, which staisfy all those that DO. That makes the case stronger, not weaker. This doesn't show poor scholarship, they were simply trying to make sure that every possible requirement had been covered.

The point I was making is that the site supposedly qualifying as Bountiful was on a cliff, which was a horrible place to build a boat.

LDS writer John Clark states:

Although the Book of Mormon is primarily a religious record of the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites, enough geographic details are embedded in the narrative to allow reconstruction of at least a rudimentary geography of Book of Mormon lands. In the technical usage of the term "geography" (e.g., physical, economic, cultural, or political), no Book of Mormon geography has yet been written. Most Latter-day Saints who write geographies have in mind one or both of two activities: first, internal reconstruction of the relative size and configuration of Book of Mormon lands based upon textual statements and allusions; second, speculative attempts to match an internal geography to a location within North or South America.

The official position of the Church is that the events narrated in the Book of Mormon occurred somewhere in the Americas, but that the specific location has not been revealed. This position applies both to internal geographies and to external correlations. No internal geography has yet been proposed or approved by the Church, and none of the internal or external geographies proposed by individual members (including that proposed above) has received approval. Efforts in that direction by members are neither encouraged nor discouraged. In the words of John A. Widtsoe, an apostle, "All such studies are legitimate, but the conclusions drawn from them, though they may be correct, must at the best be held as intelligent conjectures" (Vol. 3, p. 93).

Any parallel in Mayan culture or Olmec, or Inca, or Aztec, or any other mesoamerican culture is not evidence for authenticity, it is "intelligent conjecture", nothing more. Jeff and the BYU paid teams are poking at straws hoping to find anything that can resemble remotely BOM phrases. it shows the desperation of the LDS position. If you really want a challenge, read this article from Hampton Sides:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon33.html

Tenshi

May 20th 2004, 10:51 AM

First Bill the Cat's accusations:

The point I was making is that the site supposedly qualifying as Bountiful was on a cliff, which was a horrible place to build a boat.

WHAT?? On a cliff? Did you actually follow the links? Wadi Sayq (the prime site for Bountiful) is in a canyon! Wadi is actually the arabic WORD for canyon. The requirement was that there be a cliff NEARBY, from which his brothers could threaten to throw him. And, you're overlooking one of the other requirements, that it BE A GOOD PLACE TO BUILD A SHIP! Please give us at least a little benefit of the doubt. We may not believe everything you believe, but that doesn't mean that we're stupid. We know that a cliff is a bad place to build a boat.

LDS writer John Clark states:

Although the Book of Mormon is primarily a religious record of the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites, enough geographic details are embedded in the narrative to allow reconstruction of at least a rudimentary geography of Book of Mormon lands. In the technical usage of the term "geography" (e.g., physical, economic, cultural, or political), no Book of Mormon geography has yet been written. Most Latter-day Saints who write geographies have in mind one or both of two activities: first, internal reconstruction of the relative size and configuration of Book of Mormon lands based upon textual statements and allusions; second, speculative attempts to match an internal geography to a location within North or South America.

The official position of the Church is that the events narrated in the Book of Mormon occurred somewhere in the Americas, but that the specific location has not been revealed. This position applies both to internal geographies and to external correlations. No internal geography has yet been proposed or approved by the Church, and none of the internal or external geographies proposed by individual members (including that proposed above) has received approval. Efforts in that direction by members are neither encouraged nor discouraged. In the words of John A. Widtsoe, an apostle, "All such studies are legitimate, but the conclusions drawn from them, though they may be correct, must at the best be held as intelligent conjectures" (Vol. 3, p. 93).

Any parallel in Mayan culture or Olmec, or Inca, or Aztec, or any other mesoamerican culture is not evidence for authenticity, it is "intelligent conjecture" nothing more. Jeff and the BYU paid teams are poking at straws hoping to find anything that can resemble remotely BOM phrases. it shows the desperation of the LDS position.
While what Mr. Clark says is true, and the Church has never attempted to establish an official geography for the BoM, that doesn't rule out others of us doing so. Such lack of official sanction does not make the parallels any less convincing. As for the poking at straws accusation, how does having every requirement set forth by the text satisfied consititute poking at straws? And it's a pretty long list of requirements, actually. Not just for Bountiful, but also for the river Laman, and the place Nahom, or any of the other archeological evidences. As for the article, while interesting, an attack on FARMS has little to do with my questions. The evidence stands until disproved (if ever), regardless of who uncovered it or why.

Second, as to slickmojo21's claims,

1. Their are claims that there is a Planet by the name of Kolab where many of us have come from, and it is currently where God the Father reigns with mother God.

There is a mention of a planet name Kolob in the Book of Abraham, but it says nothing about us coming from there, or being where God reigns with a mother God. It is rather said to be the first world created BY God, and therefore closest TO God. It says nothing about God reigning there, or about a mother God at all. The only mention of a Heavenly Mother that I'm aware of is in the song If you could hie to Kolob, which, I might point out, is not official doctrine of the Church. Now, some members may believe this (I myself am unsure. It seems logical, but also rather irrelevant), but that has no bearing on the other members of the church. It is certainly not cannon.

2. Christ has earth and that him and another mother God are up in the sky having spirit babies.

I'm not sure what you meant by Christ has earth, but as to the thing about him and the aforementioned Heavenly Mother, you should know that we Latter-day Saints reject the trinity, and thus God and Christ are different people. Thus, if Christ were to "make babies" with the Heavenly Mother mentioned, he would be commiting incest, and such a truly vile thing would not be something I can see our Savior doing. I'm not sure where this attack comes from (probably that awful GodMakers movie), but it's just plain WRONG.

3. Lucifer and Christ are brothers and there was a war on Kolab because God the father chose Christ over Lucifer and so one third joined lucifer and the rest joined Christ. Christ of course won and you see us walking around to day. Lucifer lost and so everyone with him are demons and so forth.

We do believe that Christ and Satan are brothers, in the sense that we are all brothers (and sisters), in the sense that we are all children of God in spirit. Surely you do not deny that God created us and created Satan? As we reject the doctrine of the trinity, He also created Christ, and that makes both Satan and Christ our brothers (as well as brothers to each other). As for the war in Heaven (not Kolob), which took place before the world was, it is, as far as I'm aware, generally accepted among christians that Satan was once an angel (this is discussed in Isaiah 14:12) who fell from grace. The war in Heaven, mentioned in Revelations 12, is when he was kicked out of Heaven. The 1/3 that followed him are presumed to be the angels mentioned in Mat. 25:41 and Rev. 12:9. As for the figure of 1/3, that comes from modern revelation.

4 there are three levels of heaven. first second and third, the good mormons go to first heaven, Bad mormans and good christians go to second heaven and your all around heathans go to third heaven, so in truth no one goes to hell.
Actually, many people (a full 1/3 of God's children), go to hell (or outer darkness - see Mat. 22:13, or Mat. 25:30). Of course, the 1/3 I reffer to are the 1/3 which sided with Satan in the war in heaven, but still, 1/3 of ALL God's children is still a pretty big number - into the trillions, at least. While it's true that we don't believe non-christians go to hell, they also don't dwell in the Kingodm of the Father, but rather the terrestrial kingdom reffered to in 1 Corinthians 15:40. But to me, that sounds much more like the action of a kind and loving God than casting someone into eternal hellfire just because they happen to be born in 300 AD in China, and thus do not have the Gospel of Christ available.

And finally, these accusations have NOTHING to do with the questions I posed in the beginning of the thread so, while they are valid questions, you ought to post them in a new thread, so that this one stays (relatively) on topic.

Third, we have Romans5_1's response.

He didn't.

You wanna provide a little support? I supported my position. You seem to be merely rejecting my arguments out of hand.

Given that the Book of Mormon story is supposedly centered in the United States of America, leap-frogging around to try and find some kind of evidence to support certain claims (or substances in this case) in regions wholly unrelated to Mormonism's message is disingenuous.

Nowhere did I (or anyone else, AFAIK) ever say that the BoM is centered in the USA. It's true that the gold plates were buried in upstate NY, but Moroni was on the run for years with them, and probably wanted to bury them where the Lamanites wouldn't find them and destroy them - thus FAR AWAY from the Lamanite territory. Actually, there is fairly good support for a mesoamerican setting for the BoM, see John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon.

Where does it say that what Joseph was describing was a volcano? From all appearances, Joseph was merely copying something that he read from the Bible, which we know for sure, he did do that.

Did you actually read the BoM? 3 Nephi chapters 8-10 talk about the events surrounding the death of Christ, including numerous effects which are consistent with volcaninc explosions- cities dissapearing into the sea, mists of darkness (ash mixed with rain) which persisted for days and choked those who breathe them, cities "buried in the depths of the earth" - ever heard of Pompeii? As to copying from the Bible, where is a description of anything even close to this in the Bible? I haven't seen anything like it.

What "numerous ancient documents" are you talking about? For if these supposedly exist, then it would be plainly know from both sides of the baptism question, and Mormons and Christians would have something to agree upon. Since they do not agree, just what are you talking about?

...

The Shepherd of Hermas is not "numerous ancient documents," nor is it a "fairly conservative" standard by which the faithful relied to stay on the straight and narrow. According to Craig Evans, "The work…is a Christian apocalypse comparable to 1 Enoch," (Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation, 158), which is an OT pseudepigraphical writing, meaning that it was falsely superscribed. Now, unless you can come up with something much more significant that the aforementioned, then all we can do is conclude that your "numerous ancients documents" amounts to one, and that one has very little bearing on what you're hoping to overturn.

As to the numerous ancient documents, that was a quote from Jeff Lindsay's website. I am unsure if he has any other documents which will support baptism for the dead. One of which I am aware (2 Maccabees 12:39-46), talks about making an Atonement for the dead, which is presumably similar. As for Craig Evans - who? I quote from Richard L. Anderson's book, Understanding Paul:
The Shepherd of Hermas is not a source for new doctrine, for its main theme is preserving the faith. Its author is dutiful and conservative, seeking to hold to what he had been taught in a Christian career going back to the turn of the century and Clement of Rome, whom he mentions....
We seem to have a disagreement on this point. Regardless, the Shepherd of Hermas does mention Baptism for the Dead, and it's author WAS an early christian, who was presumably familiar with their doctrines and practices, including baptism for the dead.

You would be better off doing your own thinking, instead of jumping into the same sinking boat that Jeff has decided to build.

I haven't seen any sinking yet. And I do do my own thinking, I merely wished to see non-mormons tackle these questions, and see if you could provide an adequate response (by which I mean a response I cannot refute).

Finally, I've decided to throw another of Jeff's questions at you guys. Here we go:
If there was no Apostacy in the Church of Jesus Christ, then what happened to the prophets? They were a crucial part of the original church, why aren't they in yours?

Some Christians claim that there was no need for prophets after the coming of Jesus Christ. This is a terribly misinformed belief, for the New Testament clearly and repeatedly reports that prophets and prophecy were integral parts of the original Church of Jesus Christ after Christ had ascended to heaven. For example, consider Acts 13:1-3:
1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. Using the gift of prophecy, leaders in the original Church received revelation through the gift of the Holy Ghost - praying and fasting to be in tune with the Spirit - and received guidance about which people to put into certain callings in the Church. Those who were called were "separated" or set apart (that's the modern LDS term) through the laying on of hands. This little episode is characteristic of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, as it was characteristic of the original Church, and points to the importance of prophets and prophecy in the operations of the Church. Why don't we have anything like this in the other churches of the world that claim to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Other Christians, being familiar with the obvious fact that prophets were present and active in the original Church, admit that they were needed then, but argue that we no longer need them nor new revelation of any kind now that the Bible is "complete". Observing that their churches no longer have prophets and apostles, or the gift of revelation, it's understandable that they would take this rather self-serving position. Any other position would imply that their form of Christianity was missing something -- that maybe there had been an apostasy or corruption of some kind in the past. But this is not a doctrine one can logically extract from the Bible, but a man-made doctrine to explain away an annoying problem.

Ironically, the belief that prophets and revelation aren't needed anymore now that we have the Bible is utterly unbiblical. Look at Ephesians 4:11-13:

11 And he gave some, apostles [i.e., some were ordained to be apostles]; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Paul in Ephesians 4 explains that prophets and apostles are an integral part of the Church for the work of the ministry, and are needed until they succeed in bringing all the Church to a unity of the faith--something that clearly has not yet been achieved. Therefore, they are still needed, and in this day of lies and corruption and confusion, they are needed more than ever! (See also Amos 3:7.) In Matthew 23:34, Christ also prophesied that he would send prophets to the people, but that these prophets would be rejected and killed (something all too familiar in LDS history):

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city... To clarify the time frame over which prophets would be on the earth, Revelation 11:10 also prophesies of two prophets in particular who, in the last days, will be killed in Jerusalem and be revived miraculously. If there are yet to be two prophets who will be killed in Jerusalem before the Second Coming of the Lord, who can anyone maintain that God would not have prophets on the earth after the time of Christ or after the "completion" of the Bible? How can anyone say that Latter-day Saints are unbiblical for believing that God would have prophets on the earth in these last days, when that's perfectly consistent with prophecy in the Book of Revelation? One of the earliest Christian documents after the New Testament, The Didache, also known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (available in The Apostolic Fathers, 2nd ed., translated by J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer, ed. and rev. by M.W. Holmes, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1989, pp. 149-158), shows that early Christians after the time of the New Testament still understood the significance of apostles and prophets. This document tells its readers to deal with "the apostles and prophets . . . in accordance with the rule of the gospel" (11:3, p. 155). It also speaks of prophets as "high priests" (13:3, p. 157), and contains other LDS concepts such as striving to become perfect (1:4; 6:2), reviewing basic doctrines with those about to be baptized (7:1), bishops and deacons who carry out the ministry of prophets of teachers (15:1), and enduring in faith to be saved (15:5). Apostles and prophets were a real influence in the original Church of Jesus Christ. Why should it not be the same today? Does any other Church offer this great blessing from the original Church, now restored on earth?

For more information, see my LDSFAQ page on prophets and prophecy (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophets.shtml). Also see my page on the Restoration (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Restoration.shtml).

Just thought I'd see how you guys responded to that one.

Regards,

Tenshi

Bill the Cat

May 20th 2004, 08:39 PM

WHAT?? On a cliff? Did you actually follow the links? Wadi Sayq (the prime site for Bountiful) is in a canyon! Wadi is actually the arabic WORD for
canyon.

The text is so vague in the BOM that anything even remotely in the area could be considered.

After traveling many days, they came to a place called Nahom, where Ishmael died.

Love the vague reference? Any site could have been a candidate. Just look for one that has a Wadi due east and whamo! You have a candidate. The only indicator that Wadi Sayq is Bountiful is that it is East (a relative term) of Nahem (Which the Astons’ beg to be Nahom where Ishmael was buried) Much is made about a graveyard in Nahem, but is it fascinating for a graveyard to be in an ancient town? Not at all. Graveyards were in every town in those days. Excavations are not permitted in Nahem to even see how old the graveyard is, so speculating that it is Nahom is begging the question. Jeff Lindsey also admits in relation to the altar stone of the tribe of Nihm “The reference to the tribe of Nihm doesn't prove the existence of a place by the same name.”

Edward Gibbon also gives this description of southern Arabia:
The high lands that border on the Indian Ocean are distinguished by their superior plenty of wood and water: the air is more temperate, the fruits are more delicious, the animals and the human race more numerous: the fertility of the soil invites and rewards the toil of the husbandman; and the peculiar gifts of frankincense and coffee have attracted in different ages the merchants of the world. If it be compared with the rest of the peninsula, this sequestered region may truly deserve the appellation of the happy . . . . (Gibbon n.d., 3:58)

As sources for his information on Arabia, Gibbon lists not only ancient writers like Pliny and Strabo, but also the works of Pocock, who published extracts and notes on Arabian antiquities in his Specimen Historiae Arabum. Gibbon also refers a number of times to books by Carsten Niebuhr and Jean Bourguignon D'Anville, who published maps of Arabia. Nephi's account does not require any more knowledge of Arabia than was available in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

The requirement was that there be a cliff NEARBY, from which his
brothers could threaten to throw him.

The text does not in fact refer to any cliff or state that Nephi's brothers made an actual attempt to kill him; it merely states that Nephi's brothers "were desirous to throw me into the depths of the sea" (1 Nephi 17:48) The term “depths of the sea” is used in Micah 7:19. Of this term Matthew Henry explains it like this:

He casts their sins into the sea; not near the shore-side, where they may appear again, but into the depth of the sea, never to rise again.
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary

Why is that pertinent? If LDS are allowed to speculate about cliffs, which the text does not mention, I can as well that because “depths of the sea" to a Semite means the open ocean, not near the shore, as Matthew Henry so aptly put it.

And, you're overlooking one of the other requirements, that it BE A GOOD PLACE TO BUILD A SHIP!

Any place near the sea is a good place to build a ship, and those in Yemen were doing it for a long time. From http://nabataea.net/who1.html

Once they had boats, the Nabataeans even began to move frankincense up the Red Sea from southern Arabia. According to Agatharchides (130 BC), the Sabaeans of southern Arabia (Yemen) made use of rafts and leather boats to transport goods from Ethiopia to Arabia (Photius, Bibliotheque VII).

So you see, shipbuilding was occurring in Yemen, so any site near the shore with lumber was a good site. That type of loose criteria is what I am referring to as stretching the facts to meet the text.

Please give us at least a little benefit of the doubt. We may not believe everything you believe, but that doesn't mean that we're stupid. We know that a cliff is a bad place to build a boat.

But the text says nothing about a cliff and the deep only refers to the ocean, not the type of shoreline beside it.

While what Mr. Clark says is true, and the Church has never attempted to
establish an official geography for the BoM, that doesn't rule out others of us
doing so.

Since when can someone not officially speaking for the church make an official declaration for the church? They can’t. Unless the Prophet says “that’s where it is” then nothing you or anyone else says can be official.

Such lack of official sanction does not make the parallels any less
convincing.

The parallels are so loose that any site could fit. Ambiguous statements like “many days” and “east” are no help either. I can travel south for “many days” then “east for the remainder of the journey” and end up in a Bayou in South Carolina or a Beach in Florida. If I described an area that had hotels and food joints, you could look and find a few sites that match the arbitrary criteria I gave too.

As for the poking at straws accusation, how does having every
requirement set forth by the text satisfied consititute poking at straws?

When it is vague generalized terms, then it is poking at straws.

And it's a pretty long list of requirements, actually. Not just for Bountiful, but
also for the river Laman, and the place Nahom, or any of the other archeological
evidences.

Vague references that can be made to fit into any geography.

As for the article, while interesting, an attack on FARMS has little
to do with my questions. The evidence stands until disproved (if ever),
regardless of who uncovered it or why.

The “evidence” is from vague references and forced interpretation of data. It shows the desperation of the LDS church to find something to hang onto in light of the continuing archaeological failures in Mesoamerica. The few items that remotely resemble things in the BOM are common items that many around the world had.

Perhaps you could show me a coin or two from the BOM era. Or maybe an inscription on the Mayan ruins naming a city Zarahemla. How about a massive graveyard where a million bodies were buried that were Semitic in origin. Or perhaps an inscription with a piece of the text of the book of Mormon, or a fragment of parchment? Do they even exist?

:btc:

John Powell

May 20th 2004, 10:00 PM

SLICKMOJO21:
I used to be a mormon and i have talked to countless mormons and have come to find that some general things are questionable about the mormanistic faith.

POWELL:
If you were a Mormon, Slickmojo21, then you weren't a very knowlegeable one.

Tell me, Slickmojo21, how would you pronounce the names of the first two prophets in the Book of Mormon?

SLICKMOJO21:
1. Their are claims that there is a Planet by the name of Kolab where many of us have come from, and it is currently where God the Father reigns with mother God.

POWELL:
To help expose Slickmojo21, I request that others don't help him with the following requests.

Please quote the passage(s) in the "morman" scriptures, Slickmojo21, where this is claimed or clearly implied.

SLICKMOJO21:
2. Christ has earth and that him and another mother God are up in the sky having spirit babies.

POWELL:
Please quote the passage(s) in the "morman" scriptures, Slickmojo21, where this is claimed or clearly implied.

SLICKMOJO21:
3. Lucifer and Christ are brothers and there was a war on Kolab because God the father chose Christ over Lucifer and so one third joined lucifer and the rest joined Christ. Christ of course won and you see us walking around to day. Lucifer lost and so everyone with him are demons and so forth.

POWELL:
Please quote the passage(s) in the "morman" scriptures, Slickmojo21, where this is claimed or clearly implied.

SLICKMOJO21:
4 there are three levels of heaven. first second and third, the good mormons go to first heaven, Bad mormans and good christians go to second heaven and your all around heathans go to third heaven, so in truth no one goes to hell.

POWELL:
Please quote the passage(s) in the "morman" scriptures, Slickmojo21, where this is claimed or clearly implied.

SLICKMOJO21:
If you have never heard of this then you may want to dig into mormanism a little more than seminary, and if you have its not something i am given to believe nor find thhe energy to seriously debate. Please look into it

POWELL:
If you aren't willing to support your claims with proper support, Slickmojo21, then I believe your readers are justified in ignoring your claims. If you were a knowlegeable Mormon, presumably you would be able to locate the relevant passages.

SLICKMOJO21:
Slick
By the way i am not mocking or joking around

POWELL:
I suspect that you are.

John Powell

Tenshi

May 24th 2004, 08:06 AM

The text is so vague in the BOM that anything even remotely in the area could be considered.
Vague, eh? Lets look at the text itself.
From 1 Nephi 2:
...And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness...And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea...And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water... and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof...the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea...continually running... this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable...

And that's just for the valley of Lemuel. Let's see the requirements - 3 days journey from Jerusalem, in the borders of the Red Sea, a firm and steadfast valley with a river of water, which flows continually into the red sea. That's pretty dang specific, especially when you think of how many continually flowing rivers there are in that area - not many. And they found a place that fits EVERY one of those requirements.

Lets look at some of the rest of the journey. From 1 Nephi 16:
And it came to pass that we did take our tents and depart into the wilderness, across the river Laman... we traveled for the space of four days, nearly a south-southeast direction, and we did pitch our tents again; and we did call the name of the place Shazer... And it came to pass that we did take our bows and our arrows, and go forth into the wilderness to slay food for our families; and after we had slain food for our families we did return again to our families in the wilderness, to the place of Shazer. And we did go forth again in the wilderness, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea.

Shazer is interesting in itself. To quote from Hugh Nibley:
The first important stop after Lehi's party had left their base camp was at a place they called Shazer. The name is intriguing. The combination shajer is quite common in Palestinian place names; it is a collective meaning "trees," and many Arabs (especially in Egypt) pronounce it shazher. It appears in Thoghret-as-Sajur (the Pass of Trees), which is the ancient Shaghur, written Segor in the sixth century. It may be confused with Shaghur "seepage," which is held to be identical with Shihor, the "black water" of Josh. 19:36. This last takes in western Palestine the form Sozura, suggesting the name of a famous water hole in South Arabia, called Shisur by Thomas and Shisar by Philby. . . . So we have Shihor, Shaghur, Sajur, Saghir, Segor (even Zoar), Shajar, Sozura, Shisur, and Shisar, all connected somehow or other and denoting either seepage--a weak but reliable water supply--or a clump of trees. Whichever one prefers, Lehi's people could hardly have picked a better name for their first suitable stopping place than Shazer. (Lehi in the Desert [Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1952], p. 90.)

Interesting. So, presumably, if the BoM is true, then four days S-SE of the valley of Lemuel, found previously, there should be a place with trees, water, and sufficient game to go hunting. It turns out that there is a perfect fit for Shazer, a large, extensive oasis region with what is said to be the best hunting in all of Arabia, and it is in the right location to have been a four-days' journey south-southeast of the established location for the Valley of Lemuel, near a branch of the ancient frankincense trail and in the region of Arabia near the Red Sea called the Hijaz. This oasis is in the wadi Agharr.
Pictures of wadi Agharr can be found here (http://www.nephiproject.com/nephi_project_major_discoveries.htm).

From there, their journey continues. Again from 1 Nephi 16:
And it came to pass that we did travel for the space of many days, slaying food by the way, with our bows and our arrows and our stones and our slings...which led us in the more fertile parts of the wilderness...

Well, that, I would agree, is rather unspecific. But still, are there fertile areas along a S-SE path from Shazer to Nahom (the next major stop)? There are. It has been identified as an ancient frankincense trail, active in Lehi's day. Seems logical that Lehi would stick to established routes.

And still more from 1 Nephi 16:
And it came to pass that we did again take our journey, traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning; and after we had traveled for the space of many days we did pitch our tents again...And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom...daughters of Ishmael did mourn exceedingly...

Now we come to Nahom, an excellent evidence for the BoM, with non-member archeological support. It is a burial place, it is S-SE of Shazer along the ancient frankincense trail, altars have been found with an inscription reading NHM (which, I may point out, is a VERY rare place name - this one is the only one I am aware of on the entire arabian peninsula, and it fits perfectly). The word Nahom even means mourning, as I understand it. (I could be wrong. My ancient hebrew is limited to say the least)

Then there's Bountiful. From 1 Nephi 17:
AND it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness; and we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth...And we did sojourn for the space of many years, yea, even eight years in the wilderness... And we did come to the land which we called Bountiful, because of its much fruit and also wild honey... And we beheld the sea, which we called Irreantum, which, being interpreted, is many waters... we did pitch our tents by the seashore... and we called the place Bountiful, because of its much fruit...I arose and went up into the mountain... Thou shalt construct a ship... the Lord told me whither I should go to find ore... I, Nephi, did make a bellows wherewith to blow the fire, of the skins of beasts... I did make tools of the ore which I did molten out of the rock... I was about to build a ship... they were angry with me, and were desirous to throw me into the depths of the sea... we did work timbers... much fruits and meat from the wilderness, and honey in abundance... we did put forth into the sea and were driven forth before the wind towards the promised land.

Thats quite a list. Ok, so, east of Nahom, water (because they were there many days), a seashore on which they could camp, much fruit, wild honey, game, a large mountain, ore, wood, some means of throwing someone into the depths of the sea (perhaps a cliff, perhaps a small boat, perhaps something else), a coastline which would allow for the launching of a boat built on land (presumably), and winds which blow in the "direction of the promised land", i.e. easterly. Quite a list, and quite rare for Arabia. Yet not only is there one place, but at least two which satisfy all the requirements put forth above.

Love the vague reference? Any site could have been a candidate. Just look for one that has a Wadi due east and whamo! You have a candidate. The only indicator that Wadi Sayq is Bountiful is that it is East (a relative term) of Nahem (Which the Astons’ beg to be Nahom where Ishmael was buried) Much is made about a graveyard in Nahem, but is it fascinating for a graveyard to be in an ancient town? Not at all. Graveyards were in every town in those days. Excavations are not permitted in Nahem to even see how old the graveyard is, so speculating that it is Nahom is begging the question. Jeff Lindsey also admits in relation to the altar stone of the tribe of Nihm “The reference to the tribe of Nihm doesn't prove the existence of a place by the same name.”
I will admit that graveyards are quite common, but how many are named NHM? Show me one other place, at ALL, named NHM in arabia, and I will probably die of shock. And while the tribal name doesn't prove the place name, what about stones naming the PLACE as Nehem. They aren't quite as old as the stones which discuss the TRIBE of Nihm, but they are quite ancient. As for your statement that "The only indicator that Wadi Sayq is Bountiful is that it is East (a relative term) of Nahem", that is MOST DEFINATELY false. See the long list of requirements given above.

Edward Gibbon also gives this description of southern Arabia:

The high lands that border on the Indian Ocean are distinguished by their superior plenty of wood and water: the air is more temperate, the fruits are more delicious, the animals and the human race more numerous: the fertility of the soil invites and rewards the toil of the husbandman; and the peculiar gifts of frankincense and coffee have attracted in different ages the merchants of the world. If it be compared with the rest of the peninsula, this sequestered region may truly deserve the appellation of the happy . . . . (Gibbon n.d., 3:58)

As sources for his information on Arabia, Gibbon lists not only ancient writers like Pliny and Strabo, but also the works of Pocock, who published extracts and notes on Arabian antiquities in his Specimen Historiae Arabum. Gibbon also refers a number of times to books by Carsten Niebuhr and Jean Bourguignon D'Anville, who published maps of Arabia. Nephi's account does not require any more knowledge of Arabia than was available in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.
That may account for Bountiful, but how about the valley of Lemuel? The place Shazer? Nahom? These cannot be explained away via Gibbon or other writers. And there is no evidence that Joseph Smith has ever read Gibbon.

The text does not in fact refer to any cliff or state that Nephi's brothers made an actual attempt to kill him; it merely states that Nephi's brothers "were desirous to throw me into the depths of the sea" (1 Nephi 17:48) The term “depths of the sea” is used in Micah 7:19. Of this term Matthew Henry explains it like this:

He casts their sins into the sea; not near the shore-side, where they may appear again, but into the depth of the sea, never to rise again.
Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary

Why is that pertinent? If LDS are allowed to speculate about cliffs, which the text does not mention, I can as well that because “depths of the sea" to a Semite means the open ocean, not near the shore, as Matthew Henry so aptly put it.

Depths of the sea presumably means just what it says - the deep parts of the sea. Sure, that could be a ways off shore, or it could be the (usually deep) water off a cliff. Nevertheless, the fact that the cliff is not a requirement made in the text in no way excludes any sites which DO fulfill all requirements made in the text.

Any place near the sea is a good place to build a ship, and those in Yemen were doing it for a long time. From http://nabataea.net/who1.html

Once they had boats, the Nabataeans even began to move frankincense up the Red Sea from southern Arabia. According to Agatharchides (130 BC), the Sabaeans of southern Arabia (Yemen) made use of rafts and leather boats to transport goods from Ethiopia to Arabia (Photius, Bibliotheque VII).

So you see, shipbuilding was occurring in Yemen, so any site near the shore with lumber was a good site. That type of loose criteria is what I am referring to as stretching the facts to meet the text.
Any place along the sea? That's just silly. If you build a ship on a cliff, it's kinda hard to get it INTO the sea, which is presumably where you want a ship to be. As for the Yemenese building ships, this a) adds credence to the BoM tale, as others had done similar things in the past, and b) there is no evidence tha Joseph knew anything about that.

As for stretching the facts, how does meeting every requirement put forth by the text constitute stretching the facts? Unless you could show that there are so many candidates for the site Bountiful which meet ALL requirements given in the text that they started making up requirements to EXCLUDE some of them, which I HIGHLY doubt, then having sites meet all requirements given in the text and then some is strong evidence FOR their authenticity, not against it.

But the text says nothing about a cliff and the deep only refers to the ocean, not the type of shoreline beside it.

Again, so what? So a cliff might not be a requirement. How does that lessen the fact that wadi Sayq, and Salalah, for that matter, meet all requirements given in the text?

Since when can someone not officially speaking for the church make an official declaration for the church? They can’t. Unless the Prophet says “that’s where it is” then nothing you or anyone else says can be official.

I thought that was MY point. I don't really get this objection. You quoted Mr. Clark, who said that the official position of the Church is to not establish any geographies. So this stuff is unofficial. SO WHAT? Who CARES if it's unofficial? These are geographical and archeological facts! They don't need a stamp of aproval from the First Presidency to make them more convincing. The lack of such approval doesn't mean that all of a sudden the river Laman isn't flowing continually anymore, nor does it mean the ancient inscriptions naming NHM have dissapeared.

The parallels are so loose that any site could fit. Ambiguous statements like “many days” and “east” are no help either. I can travel south for “many days” then “east for the remainder of the journey” and end up in a Bayou in South Carolina or a Beach in Florida. If I described an area that had hotels and food joints, you could look and find a few sites that match the arbitrary criteria I gave too.

Since when is east ambiguous? East of a place is east of a place! It's hard to get more absolute. And the description is not so vague as you make it out to be. It's not just south for a while and then east, it's south from this specific city, for this many days, till you hit this river in this valley, then southeast along the shores of this sea, until you hit this specific place (Nahom), then east until you hit a place that has all of the following characteristics (I won't list them again for brevity's sake, see the list above). Thats pretty specific.

When it is vague generalized terms, then it is poking at straws.
But these are hardly vauge, generalized terms.

Vague references that can be made to fit into any geography.
Go ahead and try it. Take the BoM requirements given above, and have them arrive somewhere else. Find another river 3 days journey from Jerusalem that continually flows into the red sea, with an oasis with many trees four days southeast of that. Find another place named NHM at which they could have stopped. Find another place east of that NHM which meets all the requirements for Bountiful given above. Can you do it? Can you make this "vague" journey fit into some other geography? Have them wind up somewhere else?

The “evidence” is from vague references and forced interpretation of data. It shows the desperation of the LDS church to find something to hang onto in light of the continuing archaeological failures in Mesoamerica. The few items that remotely resemble things in the BOM are common items that many around the world had.

Perhaps you could show me a coin or two from the BOM era. Or maybe an inscription on the Mayan ruins naming a city Zarahemla. How about a massive graveyard where a million bodies were buried that were Semitic in origin. Or perhaps an inscription with a piece of the text of the book of Mormon, or a fragment of parchment? Do they even exist?

So there is not quite so much mesoamerican evidence. I never claimed there was. Lack of evidence never condemned anything. Show ME some evidence (any evidence, really) of Noah's flood, or the tower of Babel. How about the bodies of Pharoah's army, buried beneath the Red Sea? I haven't seen anything to support these claims of the Bible. That has yet to shake my faith in it, or the faith of millions of other Christians, despite the best efforts of atheists to the contrary.

I might add, BTC, that you have yet to respond to ANY of my other questions. How about tackling them? Or do you agree with them?

Bill the Cat

May 24th 2004, 07:45 PM

I might add, BTC, that you have yet to respond to ANY of my other questions. How about tackling them? Or do you agree with them?

Start a separate thread on them and I will. Too many topics to discuss in detail. I'll get to the rest of your last post in the next day or two.

Romans5_1

May 28th 2004, 11:25 AM

Third, we have Romans5_1's response.

You wanna provide a little support? I supported my position. You seem to be merely rejecting my arguments out of hand.

Quoting questions, and answers, from Jeff Lindsays' website, is hardly proof of anything. In other words, what you've done is no better than what you accuse "antis" of doing, by running to some website that you like to support whatever preconceived biases you might have, and then running to a place like this claiming that you've found something that you feel everyone needs to rebut. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Lord knows how much of a plagiarist Joseph Smith was when it came to his writing the Book of Mormon. We don't need you going around plagiarizing one of your own favorite "apologists," then coming here and wanting whomever to discredit the arguments. I've known of Lindsay for a long time, and if I felt his efforts were worth rebutting, then I'd deal with Lindsay. Until such time, lets deal with you. Okay?

Nowhere did I (or anyone else, AFAIK) ever say that the BoM is centered in the USA. It's true that the gold plates were buried in upstate NY, but Moroni was on the run for years with them, and probably wanted to bury them where the Lamanites wouldn't find them and destroy them - thus FAR AWAY from the Lamanite territory. Actually, there is fairly good support for a mesoamerican setting for the BoM, see John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon.

So, if Moroni was on the run for this whole distance, from mesoamerica to upstate New York, would there not be some kind of archeological evidence for it, whether in mesoamerica, or throughout the eastern United States? The fact of the matter is, there is zero support for the Mormon story, and guys like Sorenson are desperately trying to create a climate somewhat similar to keep their "faith" alive, somehow. Otherwise, archeologists, anthropologists, sociologists, etc., would have discovered the evidence for the BoM setting, long ago. Yet, they have found nothing! Now, why do you think that is? Because they aren't looking?

Did you actually read the BoM? 3 Nephi chapters 8-10 talk about the events surrounding the death of Christ, including numerous effects which are consistent with volcaninc explosions- cities dissapearing into the sea, mists of darkness (ash mixed with rain) which persisted for days and choked those who breathe them, cities "buried in the depths of the earth" - ever heard of Pompeii? As to copying from the Bible, where is a description of anything even close to this in the Bible? I haven't seen anything like it.

Yes, I have read the BoM. It was pretentiously nauseating. I'm sorry, but there were no volcanoes exploding, or cities disappearing into the seas, or all the fantastic images that either your or 3 Nephi are elaborating on, that occured during the death of Jesus. It didn't happen. As for copying the Bible, apparently you spend very little time actually reading the Bible, otherwise you would have noticed several chapters in 2 Nephi being directly taken from the Book of Isaiah (cf. 7, 8, 12-24). Care to explain those little misfortunate oversights by Mr. Smith?

As to the numerous ancient documents, that was a quote from Jeff Lindsay's website. I am unsure if he has any other documents which will support baptism for the dead. One of which I am aware ([size=-1]2 Maccabees 12:39-46), talks about making an Atonement for the dead, which is presumably similar.

Once again, your assumptions betray your ignorance of the subject, and prove that you're doing too much relying upon unreliable sources. Lindsay is not a biblical scholar, nor a Mormon authority. It would behoove you to start drawing your own conclusions based on what you've discovered.

As for Craig Evans - who? I quote from Richard L. Anderson's book, Understanding Paul:
[font=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]The Shepherd of Hermas is not a source for new doctrine, for its main theme is preserving the faith. Its author is dutiful and conservative, seeking to hold to what he had been taught in a Christian career going back to the turn of the century and Clement of Rome, whom he mentions....
We seem to have a disagreement on this point. Regardless, the Shepherd of Hermas does mention Baptism for the Dead, and it's author WAS an early christian, who was presumably familiar with their doctrines and practices, including baptism for the dead.

One more time, The Shepherd of Hermas is not "numerous ancient documents," nor is it a "fairly conservative" standard by which the faithful relied to stay on the straight and narrow. According to Craig Evans (PhD; is Professor and Director of the Graduate Program in Biblical Studies and Trinity Western University, where he has taught since 1981; He has lectured at Cambridge, Durham, and Oxford. Co-editor of Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds, Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research and Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Author of Jesus and His Contemporaries), "The work…is a Christian apocalypse comparable to 1 Enoch," (Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation, 158), which is an OT pseudepigraphical writing, meaning that it was falsely superscribed.

Furthermore, I did run a check on Baptism for the Dead in the Shepherd of Hermas, and found nothing. There were three or four references to baptism, but they were not in conjunction with "baptism for the dead." Also, the author of Shepherd is not known (which is why Evans and others call it a Pseudepigraphical writing), rather it "was written by the brother of Pius, Bishop of Rome, about 140-154. Despite much speculation, the author remains unknown. It was written in Rome and involves the Roman church. The document was composed over a longer period of time."

I haven't seen any sinking yet. And I do do my own thinking, I merely wished to see non-mormons tackle these questions, and see if you could provide an adequate response (by which I mean a response I cannot refute).

First, those on a beautiful ocean liner, admiring all the activities and design of the ship are hardly going to notice the huge hole in the hull. In other words, the Mormon ship is sinking; you just haven't noticed yet. As for tackling the questions, if you don't do your own thinking (which by all indications, you have not, despite your contention), then how would you know if the responses were handled adequately nor not?

Finally, I've decided to throw another of Jeff's questions at you guys. Here we go:

Once again, you do your own thinking, and ask your own questions, and I'll be happy to respond. Otherwise, if I want to discuss things with Jeff, then I know where he is.

Bill the Cat

May 28th 2004, 05:34 PM

Vague, eh? Lets look at the text itself.
...And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness...And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea...And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water... and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof...the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea...continually running... this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable...

Yes, vague. Was it 3 days travel from Jerusalem to the Red Sea? If so, you mean to tell me that a whole large family with, at very best, a limited knowledge of the route, traveled on foot 250 miles on the frankincense route in 3 days? This is beyond highly improbable. Also, were they on foot, on camel, on elephant, what? The text is vague on that as well. If they were on camel, like Jeff thinks, how did such a large caravan evade notice of the occupying Babylonians? I can imagine Joseph Smith narrating this story with a map of the Middle East in front of him, mistaking the Gulf of Aqaba for the Red Sea. This would make the distance (and time) shorter (~ 50 miles, a more believable 3 day journey by foot)

And that's just for the valley of Lemuel. Let's see the requirements - 3 days journey from Jerusalem,

Wrong! Nibley and FARMS even think that the 3 days was from the time they got out of the wilderness. That’s the only way they can make an attempt to reconcile the 3 days vague reference.

in the borders of the Red Sea,

The Red Sea border on the Saudi side extends northwest from the strait of Bab el Mandeb to Suez, Egypt, for a distance of 1,900 km (1,200 mi) Vague again.

a firm and steadfast valley,

Which characterized much of the frankincense trail, which the existence of said trail was known in Joseph’s time. Vague and loose criteria

with a river of water which flows continually into the red sea.

The text does not say that the river was continually running. Also, if they only stayed there for a short period, how did Lehi know that the river was “continually flowing”? Did he stay there for the whole year to check or was this statement merely a father’s wish for his son to have righteousness that flowed like a river?

And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness! (1 Nephi 2:9)

"Lehi could be referring to a major seasonal river, a large wadi which God used as a border, or possibly a canal, (letters, Tvedtnes to Paulson, 3/27/89, p. 4, Tvedtnes to Matt Paulson 5/30/90, p. 17)."

That's pretty dang specific,

And I showed it is not that specific at all. Given such vague references, and enough time and money, it’s no wonder that sites matching the loose criteria were found.

Lets look at some of the rest of the journey. From 1 Nephi 16:
And it came to pass that we did take our tents and depart into the wilderness, across the river Laman... we traveled for the space of four days, nearly a south-southeast direction, and we did pitch our tents again; and we did call the name of the place Shazer... And it came to pass that we did take our bows and our arrows, and go forth into the wilderness to slay food for our families; and after we had slain food for our families we did return again to our families in the wilderness, to the place of Shazer. And we did go forth again in the wilderness, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red Sea.

More vague references. It uses the already shown arbitrary location to establish another arbitrary location. And as far as direction goes, what other direction do you think Joseph would have said? Any other direction for Lehi to travel would have taken him back to the Babylonians. Joseph was smart enough and could read a map well enough to know which direction to travel in. Oliver Cowdery was also wily enough to know about the trade route, being a teacher, and could tell Joseph which way to say they traveled.

Shazer is interesting in itself. To quote from Hugh Nibley:
The first important stop after Lehi's party had left their base camp was at a place they called Shazer. The name is intriguing. The combination shajer is quite common in Palestinian place names; it is a collective meaning "trees," and many Arabs (especially in Egypt) pronounce it shazher. It appears in Thoghret-as-Sajur (the Pass of Trees), which is the ancient Shaghur, written Segor in the sixth century. It may be confused with Shaghur "seepage," which is held to be identical with Shihor, the "black water" of Josh. 19:36. This last takes in western Palestine the form Sozura, suggesting the name of a famous water hole in South Arabia, called Shisur by Thomas and Shisar by Philby. . . . So we have Shihor, Shaghur, Sajur, Saghir, Segor (even Zoar), Shajar, Sozura, Shisur, and Shisar, all connected somehow or other and denoting either seepage--a weak but reliable water supply--or a clump of trees. Whichever one prefers, Lehi's people could hardly have picked a better name for their first suitable stopping place than Shazer. (Lehi in the Desert [Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1952], p. 90.)

Interesting. However,

In consulting with professors of Semitic languages at the University of California and elsewhere, I could find no evidence … for the claim that the following words are Egyptian or Semitic at all: Shazer (I. Nephi 16: 13, 14), Irreantum (I. Nephi 17:5), deseret (for ''bee'' in Ether 2:3), Liahona (Alma 37:44), or the numerous names that are unique to the Book of Mormon.

Thomas D. S. Key, Sc.D., Ed.D. (Biology), Th.D.

Interesting. So, presumably, if the BoM is true, then four days S-SE of the valley of Lemuel, found previously, there should be a place with trees, water, and sufficient game to go hunting. It turns out that there is a perfect fit for Shazer, a large, extensive oasis region with what is said to be the best hunting in all of Arabia, and it is in the right location to have been a four-days' journey south-southeast of the established location for the Valley of Lemuel, near a branch of the ancient frankincense trail and in the region of Arabia near the Red Sea called the Hijaz. This oasis is in the wadi Agharr. Pictures of wadi Agharr can be found here
(http://www.nephiproject.com/nephi_project_major_discoveries.htm).

Last I checked, only Mormons were convinced that the Valey of Lemuel was found. LDS scholars call it a POSSIBLE CANDIDATE, not established. I also showed how the vague text could have made it anywhere remotely close to the Red Sea. Also, Oases in Arabia were well known in Joseph Smith’s time.

From there, their journey continues. Again from 1 Nephi 16:
And it came to pass that we did travel for the space of many days, slaying food by the way, with our bows and our arrows and our stones and our slings...which led us in the more fertile parts of the wilderness...

Well, that, I would agree, is rather unspecific. But still, are there fertile areas along a S-SE path from Shazer to Nahom (the next major stop)? There are.

If you travel along the border of the red sea, you have to go in a s-sw direction. Any fool could see that. Good to see that you see at least one vague passage though.

It has been identified as an ancient frankincense trail, active in Lehi's day. Seems logical that Lehi would stick to established routes.

Assuming he knew the trail, which there is no evidence he did and even a possibility that he didn’t at all (he would not have needed to wander in the wilderness for years if he knew the way). Seems that Joseph could have read about the frankincense trail, or Oliver Cowdery, a former teacher, knew of it. See the first part of his biography: http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/w/o/wol3/cowdeo1.htm

And still more from 1 Nephi 16:
And it came to pass that we did again take our journey, traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning; and after we had traveled for the space of many days we did pitch our tents again...And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom...daughters of Ishmael did mourn exceedingly...

Vague references. Nahom is “many days” from the second vague reference. Heck, Albany is “many days” from Richmond by foot, but how long?

Now we come to Nahom, an excellent evidence for the BoM, with non-member archeological support. It is a burial place, it is S-SE of Shazer along the ancient frankincense trail, altars have been found with an inscription reading NHM (which, I may point out, is a VERY rare place name - this one is the only one I am aware of on the entire arabian peninsula, and it fits perfectly). The word Nahom even means mourning, as I understand it. (I could be wrong. My ancient hebrew is limited to say the least)

This name was known in Joseph’s day as well. There was an article in the Ensign for Aug. 1978, p.73, about such possible name associations. The article pointed out that in 1763 there was a map of Yemen showing a place called "Nehhm". How easy would it have been for Joseph and Oliver to reverse-engineer a route based on a known place listed on a map in Joseph’s time? Also, according to the BOM, it was already named Nahom before Ishmael died, so linking it based on the name and what happened to Ish is incorrect.

Thats quite a list. Ok, so, east of Nahom,

:duh: that’s the only way they could have gone that would have not taken them into the ocean.

water (because they were there many days),

:duh::duh: If you are traveling near the shore and need to get to where you could sail, water would be a necessity. Any oasis along the whole southern border of Arabia could have qualified. Is “bountiful” the only oasis along the whole expanse? Nope.

a seashore on which they could camp,

:duh::duh::duh: Were they supposed to sail from the middle of the desert?

much fruit, wild honey, game,

Again, any oasis would do

a large mountain,

Which was how far away? Were they in the valley of it or near the base? Or was it one that they had seen in their journey? What mountain was it? Topographically, there are many mountains near the shore with oases near them.

ore, wood,

Again, any oasis will do. Mining was also common in Southern Arabia. Once again, common knowledge that anyone with access to a library could find out. Which brings up an interesting bit. Lehi and his family must have been a crafty lot, being avid hunters, boat makers, sailors, camel drivers(?), miners, blacksmiths, carpenters, and a host of other useful skills needed to survive on the usually dangerous trade routes.

some means of throwing someone into the depths of the
sea (perhaps a cliff, perhaps a small boat, perhaps something else)

A cliff would have had nothing to do with it. Throwing one into the depths meant taking them out to sea. No cliff was needed.

a coastline which would allow for the launching of a boat built on land (presumably),

Again, any oasis near the coast would do.

And winds which blow in the "direction of the promised land", i.e. easterly.

Funny, I thought the Promised Land was North of where they were. Palestine is not East of Arabia. Or are you suggesting that God lied to Abraham?

Quite a list, and quite rare for Arabia. Yet not only is there one place, but at least two which satisfy all the requirements put forth above.

You admit that at least 2 places suffice. Are there more that haven’t been looked into? Vague references and wishful thinking are all that link these places to the imaginary journey of the BOM.

I will admit that graveyards are quite common, but how many are named NHM?

None. Even the one they assume is not named NHM. It was only a family’s marker stone.

Show me one other place, at ALL, named NHM in arabia, and I will probably die of shock.

Get the paddles someone!!! … :digup:

There was an article in the Ensign for Aug. 1978, p.73, about such possible name associations. The article pointed out that in 1763 there was a map of Yemen showing a place called "Nehhm".

Any place along the sea? That's just silly. If you build a ship on a cliff,
it's kinda hard to get it INTO the sea, which is presumably where you want a
ship to be.

The text says they camped on the shore. Any place along the sea that has a shore would suffice. It’s like me saying I found a red ball at a store I call “heaven” 3 miles south of a city I named Ashland that had a national forest with lots of trees and a river near it that empties into the Atlantic. There is absolutely no way to positively verify what I am referring to. I am very specific in the individual details, but extremely vague in the overall context. Each arbitrary detail rests on the previous arbitrary, unprovable detail.

As for the Yemenese building ships, this a) adds credence to the
BoM tale, as others had done similar things in the past, and b) there is no
evidence tha Joseph knew anything about that.

There is no evidence for what I ate last night for dinner either. Fact is, it was easily obtainable at a library, or something a teacher would know.

Since when is east ambiguous? East of a place is east of a place! It's hard
to get more absolute.

Tappahannock and Virginia Beach are both East of my house, but are most assuredly not the same place.

And the description is not so vague as you make it out to
be. It's not just south for a while and then east, it's south from this
specific city, for this many days, till you hit this river in this valley, then
southeast along the shores of this sea, until you hit this specific place
(Nahom), then east until you hit a place that has all of the following
characteristics (I won't list them again for brevity's sake, see the list
above). Thats pretty specific.

You make it sound so simple. Too bad it is not. I’ll rephrase it for a realistic touch:
Start your journey at Jerusalem. Travel south for an unspecified time period toward the Red Sea. Go South for 3 days from some arbitrary point in an arbitrary “wilderness” to some unnamed river with a valley near it, with no way to verify the names because you name it yourself. Then go the only direction you can travel for 4 days until you find a place that possibly existed on a 17th century map, then turn the only direction you can go in. Wander around in another arbitrary “wilderness” for 8 years, all the while maintaining a direct Eastern course until you hit the shore near an oasis that fits all the qualifications of…an oasis near the mountains and that can’t be verified because you named it.

Tell ya what. I’ll agree that those are the places if you can show me a manuscript, inscription, or parchment of some sort with Book of Mormon text on it prior to 1830 describing this journey. Heck, I’d just like to see some text from prior to 1830. Or were the “plates” the only record? Did they have a copy of the Law and the Prophets? How did they know of Moses’ Law if there was no copy? If there was a copy, is there any archaeological evidence that supports Jewish Law text in the New world?

Tenshi

June 6th 2004, 09:38 PM

First, I'd like to apologize for my lack of activity lately. It's finals week at school and I'm having trouble finding free time.

Yes, vague. Was it 3 days travel from Jerusalem to the Red Sea? If so, you mean to tell me that a whole large family with, at very best, a limited knowledge of the route, traveled on foot 250 miles on the frankincense route in 3 days? This is beyond highly improbable. Also, were they on foot, on camel, on elephant, what? The text is vague on that as well. If they were on camel, like Jeff thinks, how did such a large caravan evade notice of the occupying Babylonians? I can imagine Joseph Smith narrating this story with a map of the Middle East in front of him, mistaking the Gulf of Aqaba for the Red Sea. This would make the distance (and time) shorter (~ 50 miles, a more believable 3 day journey by foot)
Okay, to begin with, we have the distance from Jerusalem to the Red sea.
I will admit I was wrong here, it is 3 days after "he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea;" Which, I agree, probably means the Gulf of Aqaba. Thence (Aqaba), it is 70 miles to the proposed site of the River Laman. A difficult journey by foot, but as they were carrying tents and provisions for at least six people, and they didn't have our modern small tents either, and Lehi was fairly wealthy, he would almost certainly have camels. (or horses, but camels would be better for the wilderness, as I think Lehi would know). As for the "occupying Babylonians", WHAT occupying Babylonians? This takes place in ~600 BC, the Babylonians don't invade till ~590 BC. That's ten years. Lehi & Co. are long gone. Also, if they Babylonians have taken that area, why do a) Laman and Lemuel kvetch about wanting to go back all the time, and b) they actually go back at least twice (for the brass plates and for Ishmael)?

Wrong! Nibley and FARMS even think that the 3 days was from the time they got out of the wilderness. That’s the only way they can make an attempt to reconcile the 3 days vague reference.
Again, I can admit when I am wrong. I had misread the text. However, it is not as vague as you claim, because it is not just wilderness in general, but the "the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea". So he did go from Jerusalem to the Red Sea (again, probably Aqaba), and thence three days to the valley of Lemuel.

The Red Sea border on the Saudi side extends northwest from the strait of Bab el Mandeb to Suez, Egypt, for a distance of 1,900 km (1,200 mi) Vague again.
Yes, but once they are in the "borders of the red sea", they travel three days.

Which characterized much of the frankincense trail, which the existence of said trail was known in Joseph’s time. Vague and loose criteria
But you have yet to provide evidence that Joseph was ever exposed to this knowledge, which I doubt he was, given the vast number of anti-mormon attacks which were based on the description of the arabian journey (and how implausible it was) until the latter half of this century.

The text does not say that the river was continually running. Also, if they only stayed there for a short period, how did Lehi know that the river was “continually flowing”? Did he stay there for the whole year to check or was this statement merely a father’s wish for his son to have righteousness that flowed like a river?

And when my father saw that the waters of the river emptied into the fountain of the Red Sea, he spake unto Laman, saying: O that thou mightest be like unto this river, continually running into the fountain of all righteousness! (1 Nephi 2:9)
"Lehi could be referring to a major seasonal river, a large wadi which God used as a border, or possibly a canal, (letters, Tvedtnes to Paulson, 3/27/89, p. 4, Tvedtnes to Matt Paulson 5/30/90, p. 17)."
If a canal, who dug it? As for a wadi, as I understand, they flood when it rains, and retain water for a few days to a week at best. (and since it empties into the red sea, I doubt you'd get that much time) While Lehi and Sariah were waiting there, Nephi and Co. made two round trip journeys to Jerusalem. That's at least twelve days. And then there's the four day journey from there to Shazer. Either it rained an awful lot while they were there (doubtful, as it can go for years without rain in arabia), or they stored a lot of water in jars (again doubtful. They would be carrying water for the six members of Lehi's family, PLUS Zoram and the Ishmaelites, thats a lot of jars), or it is actually a year round river.

And I showed it is not that specific at all. Given such vague references, and enough time and money, it’s no wonder that sites matching the loose criteria were found.

Fine. If it's so vague, find another spot that satisfies the criteria. After all, that's a characteristic of vague criteria - they allow for many possible sites. So prove that it's vague, rather than just claiming it. Show that, using the same criteria, you can come up with another site or two. I bet you can't. After all, if the criteria are vague, why would it take time and money to find matching sites? If it's so vague, shouldn't there be an abundance of sites available?

More vague references. It uses the already shown arbitrary location to establish another arbitrary location. And as far as direction goes, what other direction do you think Joseph would have said? Any other direction for Lehi to travel would have taken him back to the Babylonians. Joseph was smart enough and could read a map well enough to know which direction to travel in. Oliver Cowdery was also wily enough to know about the trade route, being a teacher, and could tell Joseph which way to say they traveled.

Again, if it's so vague, find another valley with a continually flowing river, three days journey from Aqaba (or the Red Sea itself, if you prefer). You might. But it probably won't be easy, because it's not vague. And again with the Babylonians! Did you actually read the BoM? Lehi PROPHECIES the coming of the Babylonians, he doesn't actually flee from them. And any other direction, for Joseph looking at a vague map of Arabia (if he had access to one at all), would have seen virtually any direction as fine. After all, he had no way to know that due east of that area is barren desert in which nobody would survive, and why could they not have gone over into egypt, and thence west, and thence to America. Certainly it would be more believable if they crossed the Atlantic, as did most people in those days, than the pacific? But they don't. And are you seriously claiming that an average schoolteacher in 1830 would know about an ancient frankinsence trail in arabia that most of my history teachers today don't know about? That's a pretty big stretch, and would require some serious proof for me to even consider.

Interesting. However,

In consulting with professors of Semitic languages at the University of California and elsewhere, I could find no evidence … for the claim that the following words are Egyptian or Semitic at all: Shazer (I. Nephi 16: 13, 14), Irreantum (I. Nephi 17:5), deseret (for ''bee'' in Ether 2:3), Liahona (Alma 37:44), or the numerous names that are unique to the Book of Mormon.
Thomas D. S. Key, Sc.D., Ed.D. (Biology), Th.D.

And yet, "Shihor, Shaghur, Sajur, Saghir, Segor (even Zoar), Shajar, Sozura, Shisur, and Shisar" are all of semitic or arabic oragin. Shazer seems to me like a simple corruption of one of the above (or perhaps the other way round). As for deseret, that is from Ether, the tale of the Jaredites, who AREN'T semitic AT ALL! They leave the old world before Abraham is even born, shortly after the Tower of Babel, so it makes sense that their language wouldn't have a semitic origin.

Last I checked, only Mormons were convinced that the Valey of Lemuel was found. LDS scholars call it a POSSIBLE CANDIDATE, not established. I also showed how the vague text could have made it anywhere remotely close to the Red Sea. Also, Oases in Arabia were well known in Joseph Smith’s time.
Sure, it's a possible candidate until God comes down and says thats where it was. Things are really never all that definite in archeology, especially when there's little in the way of remains to go on - probably none, in the case of the valley of Lemuel. After all, they were only there for a few weeks. As for oases in arabia being well known, well known to who? To your average Joe(seph) in upstate new york? I don't think so, especially when they aren't well know to professors of history today. (at least, not mine). Now, they may be mentioned in several scholarly works at the time, but where's the evidence that Joseph, or anyone close to him at the time, had acess to them? That seems like a pretty big stretch to me.

If you travel along the border of the red sea, you have to go in a s-sw direction. Any fool could see that. Good to see that you see at least one vague passage though.
S-SE, actually. Look at a map. W is into the red sea.

Assuming he knew the trail, which there is no evidence he did and even a possibility that he didn’t at all (he would not have needed to wander in the wilderness for years if he knew the way). Seems that Joseph could have read about the frankincense trail, or Oliver Cowdery, a former teacher, knew of it. See the first part of his biography: http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/w/o/wol3/cowdeo1.htm

Again with the school teacher thing. I think it very odd that a person who (AFAIK) never attended college knows more about arabia than all of my professors, many of whom hold doctorates.

Vague references. Nahom is “many days” from the second vague reference. Heck, Albany is “many days” from Richmond by foot, but how long?
Who cares? To be vague, there must be lots of candidates for the location. AFAIK, there is only one - NHM. So what if the text doesn't specify how many days it was from Shazer? Unless there are many sites with the name NHM S-SE from Aqaba, or the northern edge of the Red Sea, along the borders of the Red Sea, it's as specific as it needs to be.

This name was known in Joseph’s day as well. There was an article in the Ensign for Aug. 1978, p.73, about such possible name associations. The article pointed out that in 1763 there was a map of Yemen showing a place called "Nehhm". How easy would it have been for Joseph and Oliver to reverse-engineer a route based on a known place listed on a map in Joseph’s time? Also, according to the BOM, it was already named Nahom before Ishmael died, so linking it based on the name and what happened to Ish is incorrect.
Yes, but it does make sense to name a graveyard "mourning". And again, where's the evidence? Maps were not mass produced like they are today. They had to be either hand copied or printed from a block carving. Either way, they were expensive. How would a map of Arabia from 1763 find it's way into Joseph's posession in 1830? And don't try Oliver Cowdry, as how would he be more likely to have such a map than Joseph?

:duh: that’s the only way they could have gone that would have not taken them into the ocean.

That little face is rather rude. And its not the only way they could have gone. There's north (although that leads into a wasteland, but Joseph probably didn't know that), there's continuing S-SE, at which point they would hit Felix Arabia, a location that was known in Joseph's day to be like Bountiful. Why wouldn't Joseph, if he knew so much about Arabia, choose that? It was, AFAIK, far more well known than the sites in Oman.

:duh::duh: If you are traveling near the shore and need to get to where you could sail, water would be a necessity. Any oasis along the whole southern border of Arabia could have qualified. Is “bountiful” the only oasis along the whole expanse? Nope.
Is it the only oasis east of NHM? No, but there's only a few.

Again, any oasis would do

Which was how far away? Were they in the valley of it or near the base? Or was it one that they had seen in their journey? What mountain was it? Topographically, there are many mountains near the shore with oases near them.

Again, any oasis will do. Mining was also common in Southern Arabia. Once again, common knowledge that anyone with access to a library could find out. Which brings up an interesting bit. Lehi and his family must have been a crafty lot, being avid hunters, boat makers, sailors, camel drivers(?), miners, blacksmiths, carpenters, and a host of other useful skills needed to survive on the usually dangerous trade routes.

Okay, so, we need an oasis, east of NHM, on the shore, with enough food and water to support a group of over 16 people, plus camels, for several years, with a mountain nearby, and ore, and a coast suitable for launching a boat. Sure, taken individually they are easy to satisfy, but together, they're a tall order. So, to show that the requirements are, in fact, vague, all you have to do is show that Wadi Sayq and Salalah are not the only places in Oman satisfying all these requirements. According to you, that's easy. So go to it. As for the trades, only Nephi and his brothers knew hunting, and most people would be good at driving camels after doing it for eight years. As for boat making, sailing, mining, blacksmithing and carpentry, all those were done under the Lord's instruction. And they weren't easy, as evidenced by Laman and Lemuel's scoffing.

A cliff would have had nothing to do with it. Throwing one into the depths meant taking them out to sea. No cliff was needed.
As I said, a cliff OR A BOAT. Please actually read the quote to which you are responding.

Again, any oasis near the coast would do.
Actually, no. Not all oases near the coast have beaches between them and the sea. Some have cliffs, some have rocks, some have hills, all of which are difficult to carry a boat over, or launch a boat from (not to mention building a boat on them)

Funny, I thought the Promised Land was North of where they were. Palestine is not East of Arabia. Or are you suggesting that God lied to Abraham?
Clearly, different promised land. If you had read the BoM, you would know that.

You admit that at least 2 places suffice. Are there more that haven’t been looked into? Vague references and wishful thinking are all that link these places to the imaginary journey of the BOM.
I'm asking you- are there more? If the text is as vague as you claim, there ought to be. Where are they? I haven't come across any evidence of them.

None. Even the one they assume is not named NHM. It was only a family’s marker stone.
No. There is a marker stone in that area referring to the TRIBE of Nimh, but there are also various altars naming the PLACE as Nehem. Granted, they are not quite as old as the one mentioning the tribe, but it is still a graveyard named NHM.

Get the paddles someone!!! … :digup:

As far as I was aware, mockery does not constitute rebuttal. Can you show another place in arabia named NHM or not?

There was an article in the Ensign for Aug. 1978, p.73, about such possible name associations. The article pointed out that in 1763 there was a map of Yemen showing a place called "Nehhm".
I have looked up the article you mention, and the map mentioned was never published, as far as I can tell. Instead, "In 1763 Carsten Niebuhr prepared a map of Yemen (South Arabia or “Arabia Felix”) as a major project of the scientific expedition sent out by King Frederick V of Denmark. The name “Nehhm” appears on that map. It was a small administrative district located among the mountain valleys some 100 miles east of Luhaiya and about 25 miles north of the capital, Sana." A map prepared in Denmark, for some Danish explorers, seems unlikely to fall into the hands of a farmboy in upstate New York. You're going to have to do better than that.

The text says they camped on the shore. Any place along the sea that has a shore would suffice. It’s like me saying I found a red ball at a store I call “heaven” 3 miles south of a city I named Ashland that had a national forest with lots of trees and a river near it that empties into the Atlantic. There is absolutely no way to positively verify what I am referring to. I am very specific in the individual details, but extremely vague in the overall context. Each arbitrary detail rests on the previous arbitrary, unprovable detail.

Unprovable? Yet that is just what I am doing, offering proof. And sure, camping on the shore is hardly specific, but a shore, east of NHM, with a year round supply of water, food, ore, wood, and a mountain is very specific.

There is no evidence for what I ate last night for dinner either. Fact is, it was easily obtainable at a library, or something a teacher would know.
And yet, history professors with a doctorate in history (although not in arabian history, I'll grant you) know basically jack about the yemenese. As for a library, I searched my school library, which is almost certainly larger and more complete than any Joseph would have had access to, and all I could find on yemen was some stuff in the encyclopedia. Not much, either, just a few paragraphs giving CURRENT details, not historical stuff. Show some evidence that there was more than that, which Joseph would reasonably have had access too, and I may concede the point. But I won't hold my breath.

Tappahannock and Virginia Beach are both East of my house, but are most assuredly not the same place.
Are they east until you hit the shore? and do they thereafter both meet a long list of requirements, quite rare for that area? I don't think so.

You make it sound so simple. Too bad it is not. I’ll rephrase it for a realistic touch:
Start your journey at Jerusalem. Travel south for an unspecified time period toward the Red Sea. Go South for 3 days from some arbitrary point in an arbitrary “wilderness” to some unnamed river with a valley near it, with no way to verify the names because you name it yourself. Then go the only direction you can travel for 4 days until you find a place that possibly existed on a 17th century map, then turn the only direction you can go in. Wander around in another arbitrary “wilderness” for 8 years, all the while maintaining a direct Eastern course until you hit the shore near an oasis that fits all the qualifications of…an oasis near the mountains and that can’t be verified because you named it.

Oversimplified, and wrong on some facts. You combine Shazer and Nahom, and it is three days journey from the coasts of the red sea, including Aqaba. Find another river, continually flowing into the red sea, in that area, and I'll concede that it is vague. But, again, I won't hold my breath. Then find an oasis four days S-SE of there (NOT the only direction they could have traveled, remember), with a number of trees. Then find a place NHM, S-SE of there, at which they would have buried someone. That one's independently verifiable, as they didn't name it. Again, find some other place NHM in arabia, and I'll concede the point. Then it's east from there, to an oasis that fits a long list of specifics. Sure, individually the specifics are easy to meet in that area, but how many places have them all? I'd argue 2. If it's as vague as you claim, you should be able to find lots more.

Tell ya what. I’ll agree that those are the places if you can show me a manuscript, inscription, or parchment of some sort with Book of Mormon text on it prior to 1830 describing this journey. Heck, I’d just like to see some text from prior to 1830. Or were the “plates” the only record? Did they have a copy of the Law and the Prophets? How did they know of Moses’ Law if there was no copy? If there was a copy, is there any archaeological evidence that supports Jewish Law text in the New world? Actually, there is on both points. There's the Anthon transcript, which has many characters copied from the BoM (see pictures here (http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photo-proofs.html)) and which looks suspiciously similar to demotic egyptian. We also have the printers mauscript, I think, which dates at least to 1829. We may have an copy of the scribe work of Oliver Cowdry and Co., I don't know there. As to evidence of Jewish law in America, there's the Los Lunas Decalog, which contains an abreviated version of the ten commandments written in a mix of hebrew and greek. Granted, it ante-dates the BoM by many years, but it is pre-columbian. Again, photos here (http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photo-proofs.html).

Start a separate thread on them and I will. Too many topics to discuss in detail. I'll get to the rest of your last post in the next day or two.

How would a seperate thread help? It's still the same number of topics, whether it's in this thread or another.

Then we come to Romans5_1:
[OUOTE=Romans5_1]
Quoting questions, and answers, from Jeff Lindsays' website, is hardly proof of anything. In other words, what you've done is no better than what you accuse "antis" of doing, by running to some website that you like to support whatever preconceived biases you might have, and then running to a place like this claiming that you've found something that you feel everyone needs to rebut. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Lord knows how much of a plagiarist Joseph Smith was when it came to his writing the Book of Mormon. We don't need you going around plagiarizing one of your own favorite "apologists," then coming here and wanting whomever to discredit the arguments. I've known of Lindsay for a long time, and if I felt his efforts were worth rebutting, then I'd deal with Lindsay. Until such time, lets deal with you. Okay?
[/QUOTE]
Nice way to dodge the issue, slinging mud at Jeff. Just because the questions do not originate with me doesn't make them invalid. You can either show that the point I am making is wrong, or agree that it's right. Slinging insults and denials gets us nowhere. If you don't want to adress the questions I posed, or don't "feel his efforts are worth rebutting," don't post. Nobody's making you respond.

So, if Moroni was on the run for this whole distance, from mesoamerica to upstate New York, would there not be some kind of archeological evidence for it, whether in mesoamerica, or throughout the eastern United States? The fact of the matter is, there is zero support for the Mormon story, and guys like Sorenson are desperately trying to create a climate somewhat similar to keep their "faith" alive, somehow. Otherwise, archeologists, anthropologists, sociologists, etc., would have discovered the evidence for the BoM setting, long ago. Yet, they have found nothing! Now, why do you think that is? Because they aren't looking?

Archeological evidence? From one guy, over 1500 years ago? Come on! And if you are going to say that there is "zero support" for the BoM, have the courtesy to actually rebut the support that has been offered. Otherwise, you're just plain wrong. And archeologists and antropologists have found evidence. Not much, I grant you, but its there, and it stands till someone (how about you?) rebuts it.

Yes, I have read the BoM. It was pretentiously nauseating. I'm sorry, but there were no volcanoes exploding, or cities disappearing into the seas, or all the fantastic images that either your or 3 Nephi are elaborating on, that occured during the death of Jesus. It didn't happen. As for copying the Bible, apparently you spend very little time actually reading the Bible, otherwise you would have noticed several chapters in 2 Nephi being directly taken from the Book of Isaiah (cf. 7, 8, 12-24). Care to explain those little misfortunate oversights by Mr. Smith?

Oh, really? How about you rebut the evidence I offer for the fact that it DID happen, before you declare that it didn't. There IS evidence for strong volcanism, in mesoamerica, at around 33 AD. As for the quotes from Isaiah, Jacob, who had the book of Isaiah with him (in the form of the brass plates) is quoting it during a sermon. Surely it is allowed for people to quote Isaiah during a religious sermon, is it not?

Once again, your assumptions betray your ignorance of the subject, and prove that you're doing too much relying upon unreliable sources. Lindsay is not a biblical scholar, nor a Mormon authority. It would behoove you to start drawing your own conclusions based on what you've discovered.

Oh, and I suppose you are a Biblical scholar? As for unreliable sources, I note that you again do not actually deal with the evidence presented, but instead choose to fling insults. How about you actually debate, or leave the thread? These insults help no one.

One more time, The Shepherd of Hermas is not "numerous ancient documents," nor is it a "fairly conservative" standard by which the faithful relied to stay on the straight and narrow. According to Craig Evans (PhD; is Professor and Director of the Graduate Program in Biblical Studies and Trinity Western University, where he has taught since 1981; He has lectured at Cambridge, Durham, and Oxford. Co-editor of Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds, Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research and Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Author of Jesus and His Contemporaries), "The work…is a Christian apocalypse comparable to 1 Enoch," (Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation, 158), which is an OT pseudepigraphical writing, meaning that it was falsely superscribed.

Furthermore, I did run a check on Baptism for the Dead in the Shepherd of Hermas, and found nothing. There were three or four references to baptism, but they were not in conjunction with "baptism for the dead." Also, the author of Shepherd is not known (which is why Evans and others call it a Pseudepigraphical writing), rather it "was written by the brother of Pius, Bishop of Rome, about 140-154. Despite much speculation, the author remains unknown. It was written in Rome and involves the Roman church. The document was composed over a longer period of time."

As for the Shepherd of Hermas, while it may be pseudopigraphical, it was written in the early church, by a member of the early church, and is therefore a fair guage of their beliefs. I do not claim it was inspired scripture, but that it discusses Baptism for the Dead, as shown (The Third Book of Hermas, Sim. 9, vs. 152-160):

"So these also who had fallen asleep received the seal of the Son of God and 'entered into the kingdom of God'. . . . This seal, then, was preached to them also, and they made use of it 'to enter into the kingdom of God.'" "Why, Sir," said I, "did the 40 stones also come up with them from the deep, although they had received the seal already?"

"Because," said he, "these apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, having fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to those who had fallen asleep before them, and themselves gave to them the seal of the preaching. They went down therefore with them into the water and came up again, but the latter went down alive and came up alive, while the former, who had fallen asleep before, went down dead but came up alive. Through them, therefore, they were made alive, and received the knowledge of the name of the Son of God. . . . For they had fallen asleep in righteousness and in great purity, only they had not received this seal. You have then the explanation of these things also."

Thus, people had "fallen asleep" (died) in "righteousness and great purity", but had not "recieved the seal" (been baptized), and therefore were baptized by proxy. Sure, it doesn't use the phrase "baptism for the dead", but what else could it mean?

First, those on a beautiful ocean liner, admiring all the activities and design of the ship are hardly going to notice the huge hole in the hull. In other words, the Mormon ship is sinking; you just haven't noticed yet. As for tackling the questions, if you don't do your own thinking (which by all indications, you have not, despite your contention), then how would you know if the responses were handled adequately nor not?

Sinking, eh? And yet the church is one of the fastest growing churches on the planet, and has existed for over 150 years, despite constant persecution and attacks from people like you. Doesn't seem like lots of sinking is going on there. As for the contention that I don't do my own thinking, my responses here are my own, only the original questions come from Jeff's website. And, again, if you don't want to actually respond to the questions (or can't), instead of just flinging insults, how about you just don't post? Save you and me some trouble.

God be with you,

Tenshi

twohumble

August 11th 2004, 05:11 PM

Darth_Bill

August 21st 2004, 08:20 PM

>Do you contend that this makes the book a source of ultimate truth in relation to God?

No. I view the Holy Ghost as the source of truth, as Jesus told us.

>If indeed your book holds supernatural material, you must ask yourself the source.

Indeed, as we all must do.

>Satan is supernatural too, and to insert supernatural material into a blasphemous text, and the level of deception then runs incredibly deep.

You mean he can do that with the bible too? I don't recall hearing that the bible was exempt to tampering. Indeed, I don't think the bible refers to itself at all.

>You are told in the original scripture to "test all things according to scripture", your BoM surely does not pass this test.

In proclaiming that Jesus is the Christ and and that he is the only way to the Father? Would satan work against himself in such a manner? If he was able to, then why are your scripures immune and all others suspect? Just because you say so? Isn't this what it really boils down to?

twohumble

August 22nd 2004, 11:10 PM

>Do you contend that this makes the book a source of ultimate truth in relation to God?

No. I view the Holy Ghost as the source of truth, as Jesus told us.
Really? The truth of the HS revealed how? Do you not agree that the Word of God is revealed in scripture? Personal 'spiritual revelation' alone sounds suspiciously like the gnostic ideas of old.

>Satan is supernatural too, and to insert supernatural material into a blasphemous text, and the level of deception then runs incredibly deep.

You mean he can do that with the bible too? I don't recall hearing that the bible was exempt to tampering. Indeed, I don't think the bible refers to itself at all.
You would be mistaken. The Bible, both in the OT and NT claims to be the error free word of God, and unalterable by Satan. Now, I understand that you would disagree with this, but I would ask you on what grounds? Unlike the BoM, I find that any critisisms of biblical errancy are based in incorrect exegesis, or eisigesis..basically, lack of knowledge. I don't find that the BoM holds to this same standard.

>You are told in the original scripture to "test all things according to scripture", your BoM surely does not pass this test.

In proclaiming that Jesus is the Christ and and that he is the only way to the Father? Would satan work against himself in such a manner? If he was able to, then why are your scripures immune and all others suspect? Just because you say so? Isn't this what it really boils down to?
Surely if denying the deity of Christ is grounds for the unpardonable sin, you could see how Satan would NOT be working against himself in this deception. If personal idolotry in assuming we all can assume a position and obtain a level of 'personal godhood', is grounds for blasphemy, he is not working against himself. If denying the efficacy of the Blood of Christ in our salvation is heresy, then satan is hardly working against himself. In other words, the deception contained in the BoM is deep and distracts the earnest seeker from learning the truth about God, and the saving Grace of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Our scriptures are not 'immune' to scrutiny, we welcome it. And, No, its not 'just cause I say so'. Plenty of material is available to us to decide from the evidence regarding these two scriptures. My opinion is not the issue.

You certainly can find material pointing to 'errors' in the bible. I have been a skeptic, its where I am from. I looked at all the 'supposed' errors, and found them wanting in any basis. That is not true of the BoM. It has so many foundational errors that it renders any 'supernatural' content suspect.

freelight

August 23rd 2004, 04:57 AM

Hello Tenshi and all,

In all my research of mormonism I have found sufficient evidence of the BoM's lack of credibility which makes the geographical claims of Jeff Lindsay and other lds supporters very weak arguments as far as the totality of facts are concerned about the BoM's authenticity.

Thomas Stuart Ferguson, a reputable lds archeologist spent many years trying to find 'evidence' to support the BoM but gave up because there was none or so little as to make a case. He stayed a member however even after expressing his doubts about Joseph Smith(JS), the BoM and the BoA(book of abraham) which he later discovered to be fraudulent.

Synopsis - http://www.lds-mormon.com/ferg.shtml

Book recommendation - "Quest for the gold plates" by Stan Larson - http://www.lds-mormon.com/quest.shtml

The BoM credibility is also challenged by DNA evidence showing the native american indians are of asian ancestry and not jewish. -

http://www.lhvm.org/dna_sci.htm

Since the BoA original egyptian papyrus has been found and his 'translation' proven to be not a true translation at all...we can also conclude with all the additional evidence against the BoM that it is also an invention. (we dont have the original gold plates to examine....but the seership of JS is now questionable with the BoA dilemma).

Recommended video -
http://www.bookofabraham.info/

Recommended book on BoA -
http://www.irr.org/mit/Books/BHOH/bhohintr.html

On a final note I would like to address Tenshis question of Christs church having prophets and apostles. His universal church does still have prophets and apostles. Prophets being those who prophesy(speak, bubble forth) Gods word, the gospel, etc. and apostles being those who are 'sent forth' to do Gods will/work. In the new covenant era there are many prophets (not just one leading a church). Indeed revelation and guidance is ever being given to the saints by the Holy Spirit thru his chosen instruments, via the 5-fold ministry(prophets, apostles, teachers, evangelists, pastors). Some may argue over the details of such offices and how such might be 'organized' in a church structure(such as lds ordering)....but the offices exist primarily by calling and function....and those who act in such callings will be known by their ministry and fruit.

It is clear that while the lds church may boast having a modern day prophet(president) and 12 apostles, etc.....none of the modern day 'prophets' have the charisma or seership of JS the founder. He alone was responsible for all the extra-biblical scripture, revelations, primary doctrines - he held out as the prima-donna prophet, seer and revelator. Nowadays you have elderly appointed 'presidents' who preside more than act as dynamic prophets of the Lord...as the church as a huge organizational entity is more a surviving and thriving 'institution' built upon the prophetship of JS.
Outside of mormonism....prophets and apostles minister in various fashions thru-out manifold christian communities and the world abroad. Some 'christians' may not believe this in their view or experience. I do however in both sectors. LDS happen to believe 'only they' have the 'one true prophet' and 12 apostles...having the sole authority to act in Gods name. I do not believe this as all those open to Christ and the Holy Spirit may be inspired and anointed to act in Gods name.

In summary....I have found the BoM and BoA to be religious inventions; 19 century production unique to JS and his religious ingenuity. Those who feel impelled to defend their authenticity are those who have invested their faith in them at the expense of a thorough investigation to discover the truth of their origins. Having said that...there are still many aspects/perspectives in the complexity of mormonism to keep anyone engaged indefinitely. I speak from experience and knowledge.....having been born and brought up in lds culture. It wasnt til later in life that I began to really seek for truth that I discovered the invalidity of mormonism and found so much that the average lds member rarely is taught. I have found that with new knowledge comes change of perspective and belief. As I learn more.....I continue to evolve and the Spirit of truth/wisdom leads me Godward. Its an amazing journey.

More to come,

paul
www.freelightexpress.com (http://www.freelightexpress.com)

Leroy

August 23rd 2004, 12:28 PM

It is clear that while the lds church may boast having a modern day prophet(president) and 12 apostles, etc.....none of the modern day 'prophets' have the charisma or seership of JS the founder.

Nice post freelight, welcome to the tweb!

I thought the lds church has 15 apostles?

freelight

August 23rd 2004, 05:27 PM

Nice post freelight, welcome to the tweb!

I thought the lds church has 15 apostles?
Thanks Leroy,

How do you figure? Lds structure is correlative to tradition - there being 12 apostles. One might assume there are 15 if the president/prophet and his 2 counselors are included as 'apostles'.

paul

Leroy

August 23rd 2004, 06:36 PM

Thanks Leroy,

How do you figure? Lds structure is correlative to tradition - there being 12 apostles. One might assume there are 15 if the president/prophet and his 2 counselors are included as 'apostles'.

paul

That's how I always assumed to make the count. How can you figure this structure correlates to scripture?

freelight

August 23rd 2004, 09:28 PM

That's how I always assumed to make the count. How can you figure this structure correlates to scripture?
That Jesus chose '12' apostles is general knowledge - in the gospels.

paul

Leroy

August 24th 2004, 10:49 AM

That Jesus chose '12' apostles is general knowledge - in the gospels.

paul

okay so that covers the apostles, what about the other three, I don't see anywhere where Jesus chose that hierarchy and where lds structure would correlate to tradition or scripture.

freelight

August 24th 2004, 03:40 PM

okay so that covers the apostles, what about the other three, I don't see anywhere where Jesus chose that hierarchy and where lds structure would correlate to tradition or scripture.

The other 3 are of course unique to lds. But you also have the quoram of the 70 - modelled after the 70 disciples sent out. This traditionally symbolized the 70 gentile nations - the preaching of the gospel to the nations.

paul

Darth_Bill

August 28th 2004, 04:15 PM

There is the quorum of the 12 apostles, which might hold as many or few as they deem required. The first presidency are three persons selected from the quorum of the 12 to preside over the church. This is the structure that the Lord has told the LDS to have today. We really know very little on the number or disposition of the apostles in the NT church during and after acts, as by some counts there were 22 apostles named.

The model follows the NT church if you accept the premise that Peter, James, and John formed a "first presidency" in the NT church. While Jesus was alive, they were part and parcel of the 12, but we don't know its disposition after the resurrection. The structure of the church today falls well within the guildlines of other groups. The Quomron (sp?) community had a similar structure.

In any case, that is what the LDS feel that the Lord has given them today, by revelation. Church organization can change as needed, and has undergone several changes while I have been alive.

Bill the Cat

August 30th 2004, 07:55 AM

Thanks Leroy,

How do you figure? Lds structure is correlative to tradition - there being 12 apostles. One might assume there are 15 if the president/prophet and his 2 counselors are included as 'apostles'.

paul

Freelight,

If we are to take the BOM on its face, there were 24 apostles. 12 in Jerusalem and 12 in America. Do the LDS have 12 apostles for each area they are in?

:btc2:

Paul

September 6th 2004, 02:38 PM

From what I understand, Mormon doctrine holds that Mary is the spirit-daughter of the "Heavenly Father" and that Mary and the "Heavenly Father" had physical sexual intercourse. That sounds like incest to me.

Xmansmommy

September 6th 2004, 02:49 PM

Howdy Paul! Although I see your point, I'm not sure the incest part is a legitimate argument, since we all came from Adam and Eve the first time and Noah and his family after the flood. Incest wasn't completely wrong in the OT.

Sparko

September 6th 2004, 05:47 PM

Well in the OT, incest between brothers and sisters to get the human race started might have been necessary, but NEVER is it condoned between a Father and his daughter. The only time it is mentioned in the bible is when Lot's daughters got him drunk and slept with him -- and that was clearly a sin) - also if the heavenly father is married to the heavenly mother(s), then not only was it incest and child molestation, it was adultery.

Xmansmommy

September 6th 2004, 07:24 PM

Sparko

September 6th 2004, 08:36 PM

Excellent points John! One question though....if it was never condoned in the OT (I'm not talking about b/t a father and daughter, but incest period) how did God expect A&E, etc. to procreate?
I only said incest between a father and daughter (or mother and son) was never condoned, even in A&E's time. Brothers and Sisters could marry in the early days as it was necessary to grow the human race. Later, God forbad it.

And just for the record, I am NOT condoning incest. :no:
I know that XMM. My last post was not against you in any way.

I was just clarifying that what the mormon's claim happened with the Father and Mary goes beyond mere incest and into the realm of child abuse (since we are by no means God's equals, we are as children compared to him) and that it was between a father and daughter, which has ALWAYS been reprehensible and a sin, and that it was Adultary since he was not married to Mary, but was her Father.

For the LDS's to believe that God could do that to his daughter is wrong on so many levels it boggles the mind.

Xmansmommy

September 6th 2004, 10:46 PM

I only said incest between a father and daughter (or mother and son) was never condoned, even in A&E's time. Brothers and Sisters could marry in the early days as it was necessary to grow the human race. Later, God forbad it.

Agreed.

I know that XMM. My last post was not against you in any way.

Oh I know that John. I'm sorry if my comments suggested otherwise. I didn't think that at all. I know how things can be taken the wrong way by those reading the thread so it was for the benefit of others reading before I am accused of condoning incest.

I was just clarifying that what the mormon's claim happened with the Father and Mary goes beyond mere incest and into the realm of child abuse (since we are by no means God's equals, we are as children compared to him) and that it was between a father and daughter, which has ALWAYS been reprehensible and a sin, and that it was Adultary since he was not married to Mary, but was her Father.

Indeed. Again, excellent points bro. :thumb:

For the LDS's to believe that God could do that to his daughter is wrong on so many levels it boggles the mind.

:yes:, I agree. Although we don't exactly know the dynamics of the process of conception b/t God and Mary, we as Christians don't exactly have the answer on this issue nailed down either. Or at least I don't. But that's another topic, another time. Thanks for your responses John. They are very insightful.

freelight

September 7th 2004, 01:44 AM

Freelight,

If we are to take the BOM on its face, there were 24 apostles. 12 in Jerusalem and 12 in America. Do the LDS have 12 apostles for each area they are in?

:btc2:

Hi Bill,

Never thought of that - It would appear that the supposed population in the Americas would need apostles in the new found church to continue the church and gospel advancements.(I cant recall if there were exactly 12 apostles in the Nephite church and if their names are mentioned in the BoM). However it appears the 'church' in America did not survive as the Nephites were destroyed and there is apparently no 'christianity'/church in the surviving 'lamanite' tribes.

All that matters now is for there to be 12 in the existing church as there is only one lds church existing....as universal, worldwide.

In the christian church universal I would say there are hundreds of apostles thru-out the world who are sent by God to spread the goodnews/light of Christ. There is no absolute rule that there must exist only '12' - just because the gospel records record such. Some have postulated that such a number was influenced by the solar worship cults .....who held Jesus as the 'Sun/Son' and around him the 12 zodiacal signs portrayed as apostles.

As far as charasmatic leadership and prophetship in the lds church today...there is little as far as the true dynamic of being a prophet and apostle actually entails. Joseph Smith(JS) was the most original charasmatic prophet with many books of scripture and revelations to his credit - the modern day church is mainly a sustaining organization based on that which JS begun - an institution/corporation essentially. Those who serve in the role of 'prophet'(actually 'president' is more accurate description of the office these days) and 'apostles' are church appointed - all is done for the sake of sustaining structure and the cult-ure of the church as a growing entity/fraternity/social organization. It is a self-perpetuating Entity.

The most active proselyting force is the missionary leagues and they would be apostles for the lds gospel (sending out the young and vibrant to evangelize). The first presidency, quoram of the 12, and the 70 are more big wigs who serve on the higher board of the corporation.

paul

twohumble

September 7th 2004, 10:36 AM

Hi Bill,

Never thought of that - It would appear that the supposed population in the Americas would need apostles in the new found church to continue the church and gospel advancements.(I cant recall if there were exactly 12 apostles in the Nephite church and if their names are mentioned in the BoM). However it appears the 'church' in America did not survive as the Nephites were destroyed and there is apparently no 'christianity'/church in the surviving 'lamanite' tribes.

All that matters now is for there to be 12 in the existing church as there is only one lds church existing....as universal, worldwide.

In the christian church universal I would say there are hundreds of apostles thru-out the world who are sent by God to spread the goodnews/light of Christ. There is no absolute rule that there must exist only '12' - just because the gospel records record such. Some have postulated that such a number was influenced by the solar worship cults .....who held Jesus as the 'Sun/Son' and around him the 12 zodiacal signs portrayed as apostles.

As far as charasmatic leadership and prophetship in the lds church today...there is little as far as the true dynamic of being a prophet and apostle actually entails. Joseph Smith(JS) was the most original charasmatic prophet with many books of scripture and revelations to his credit - the modern day church is mainly a sustaining organization based on that which JS begun - an institution/corporation essentially. Those who serve in the role of 'prophet'(actually 'president' is more accurate description of the office these days) and 'apostles' are church appointed - all is done for the sake of sustaining structure and the cult-ure of the church as a growing entity/fraternity/social organization. It is a self-perpetuating Entity.

The most active proselyting force is the missionary leagues and they would be apostles for the lds gospel (sending out the young and vibrant to evangelize). The first presidency, quoram of the 12, and the 70 are more big wigs who serve on the higher board of the corporation.

paul

I think we should be careful with our definitions in this instance. The definition, biblically speaking, as Paul (the apostle of Christ) describes in Galations, requires a direct election by Christ, and therefore a direct follower and student of Jesus Himself, who is hand chosen. The rest are considered disciples, and followers, but not apostles. Paul is very careful to differentiate the linage of the apostles vs. the disciples.

Those of us Christians who are following the "Great Commission" to evangelize to the world, are not considered apostles, and in fact, there are no apostles after Paul and the twelve.
The LDS may disagree, but that is the facts as they are presented in the Scripture that Christians follow.

Darth_Bill

September 12th 2004, 10:49 AM

twohumble

September 12th 2004, 11:53 AM

>If we are to take the BOM on its face, there were 24 apostles. 12 in Jerusalem and 12 in America. Do the LDS have 12 apostles for each area they are in?

They are not called apostles in the BoM. They are called disciples. In the BOM, the apostles in the old world are the 12 referred to in BoM visions.

>and in fact, there are no apostles after Paul and the twelve.
The LDS may disagree, but that is the facts as they are presented in the Scripture that Christians follow.

Do some reading. There are 21 apostles named in the NT. (You may have to look at the greek to find them). Your facts then are not all that factual.
Can you please provide me direction to look to confirm your assertion that there are 21 named apostles? This is news to me. I would like to verify what you say. Verses, or other references to your claim would be appreciated. Non-Mormon references only, please.

Thanks

twohumble

September 12th 2004, 06:02 PM

Darth Bill
In reading your post, I must apologize for not setting the parameters of "fact", so to speak.
As you probably know apostolos in greek means "One sent with a special message or purpose." Hence, many could be called "apostles". I use the term as refered to in he Gospels and by Paul, in the sense of "an apostle of Jesus Christ" and I count 14 choosen directly by Christ, or "commissioned by Him directly" which is the definition that I would be using to define my "fact". Certainly if we use the word losely, we can find others who would be "apostles" in the general sense. However, to be true "apostles of Christ" one must be choosen and commissioned by Him directly. Only the original 12, Paul, and Judas's replacement Mattias would qualify in the NT for apostles in this sense. Some may argue that Mattias would not qualify under this definition, and I understand their argument, but I am not sure I agree, but that is another discussion.