Three Strikes, You're Out! [Archive]

View Full Version : Three Strikes, You're Out!

citizenkyle

September 3rd 2004, 12:09 PM

I have written an article regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, which has just been published on the Secular Web. I would like to solicit feedback and criticism. The article can be viewed here: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=367. I appreciate any comments that can be offered. Thanks.

While the guidelines for this forum seem to prohibit non-theist potsings, my article is neutral on the issue of theism, and I have explicit permission from Dee Dee Warren to post here.

dizzle

September 3rd 2004, 12:40 PM

I may have been unclear to Kyle that the article should be reproduced here to avoid the rule against debate by weblink - so I copied it as follows, however the original formatting is much more attractive and can be viewed at the link that Kyle gave above.

Very interesting article, thanks.

Three Strikes, You're Out!--The Quick and Dirty Case Against Mormonism
by Kyle J. Gerkin

The Mormon religion was built on a 19th century American-Christian foundation. Thus, Mormons share many Christian convictions, such as a belief in the divinity of Jesus, and a reverence for the Christian Bible as a sacred text. To be sure, Mormon doctrine has enough theological peculiarities to put it outside of the pale of what many would consider "orthodox" or "mainstream" Christianity, but perhaps not more so than dozens of other Christian sects. In any case, due to its Christian basis, the same general arguments can be made against Mormonism as can be offered in opposition to Christianity. However, Mormonism has one particularly unique feature, which sets it apart, and opens it to the charge of demonstrable falsehood: The Book of Mormon (BoM).

Mormonism's founder and first "prophet," Joseph Smith, was purportedly visited by an angel named Moroni on the night of September 21, 1823 in Palmyra, New York.[1] Moroni informed Joseph that he was chosen to do God's work, and directed him to unearth a set of "golden plates" from a nearby hill. Upon the plates was recorded an ancient history of the American Indians. Apparently due to a lack of purity, Joseph was not allowed to recover the plates until four years later, at which point he began to "translate" them. According to Joseph (who was the only one allowed to see the plates), they were written in a hieroglyphic language known as "reformed Egyptian." His method of "translation" was to stare into a set of "seer stones"; an action which was followed by the appearance of the text in Joseph's mind, conveniently translated into King James-style English. Joseph could then dictate to his scribe who sat on the other side of a curtain, behind which the scribe was forbidden to peek.[2] In this way, the BoM was produced. After the book was published in 1830, the plates were whisked away to heaven by the angel Moroni.

To those unfamiliar with Mormonism, this story may appear so preposterous on its face that no further argument need be proffered. Yet, most Mormons are quite familiar with the details of their book's curious origin, and it doesn't cause them to lose a wink of sleep. This startling lack of skepticism enables Mormonism to exist. After all, the BoM is the foundation of Mormon faith. Joseph Smith himself said, "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion ..."[3] If Joseph invented the BoM from whole cloth, it stands to reason that he was not a genuine prophet of God, and his whole church rests on an elaborate hoax. Take away the BoM and the entire Mormon edifice comes crumbling down.

In an effort to discredit the BoM, one could point to any number of its features. For instance, the book includes several stories that have sharp parallels in the Bible (Alma is converted in the precise fashion of St. Paul, Ammon slays six sheep rustlers--who are standing in for Goliath--with his sling, etc), and, in fact, 27,000 words are lifted directly from the Bible, including large sections of Isaiah and the New Testament. The book's style is a bland and witless prose of exactly the sort one would expect an uneducated farm boy to produce if he were narrating a story extemporaneously. Along these lines, the phrase, "And so it came to pass ..." appears at least two thousand times. And, with some research, one can uncover fairly obvious sources for all of the BoM's ideas. For example, the theory that the American Indians were descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel was popularly believed in Joseph's day and espoused by famous Christian preachers such as Cotton Mather and Jonathon Edwards. More to the point, a rabbi named M. M. Noah had summarized the case for Hebraic origin in a speech that was republished in Joseph's hometown newspaper, The Wayne Sentinel; a paper to which Joseph's father was subscribed.[4] The speech appeared on October 11, 1825--two years before Joseph began "translating" the plates. As well, books discussing this theory were circulated in Joseph's area during the years immediately prior to his "translation." Ethan Smith, the author of one such book titled View of the Hebrews, even visited Joseph's hometown in 1826, possibly on a promotional book tour. There is a long list of suspicious "red flags" of this sort, many of which are well documented in Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History. And while the collective weight of these concerns is quite damning for the BoM, it isn't a definitive refutation of the kind one might desire.

So then, how to effectively dismantle the BoM? Whenever one wants to decisively prove a claim, the ideal situation involves conducting a test. In order to meet proper evidential standards, a claim should be tested for empirical verification, reproducibility, and corroboration by third parties. Unfortunately, history does not often hand us claims that can be tested against all of these criteria (and sometimes claims cannot be tested against any of them). However, the BoM is a rare exception. Indeed, the book has met with three distinct tests of its authenticity--and failed miserably each time.
No, Sir, That's Not History
Many of the historical claims made by religious books are of the supernatural variety. A classic example is the resurrection of Jesus. For events such as these, there is generally no empirical evidence to examine, and one must rely on written reports. The same is true of supernatural events in the BoM. Yet, the BoM makes many mundane claims as well, and these fall into spheres such as archaeology, anthropology, biology and linguistics, which are the province of empirical investigation The BoM is essentially a thousand year history of peoples on the American continent, and as such it was bound to include various details of their lives, culture and civilization. Naturally, a legitimate historical record would have gotten these details correct, whereas a fanciful tale spun by a relatively uneducated frontiersman would be prone to numerous errors. As it happens, the BoM bears almost no resemblance to the actual historical record from the Mesoamerican times it purports to describe (600 BC-400 AD). The number of errors in this regard are too plentiful to list in their entirety, so I will merely highlight some of the more egregious cases.
Archaeological Fallacies
The BoM makes mention of various technological products which were unknown to Mesoamerica. These include chariots (Alma 18:9) when there were no wheeled vehicles of any kind, steel swords (Ether 7:9) when there was neither steel nor swords, bellows for blacksmithing (1 Nephi 17:11), and silk (Alma 1:29). The BoM describes a vast civilization of millions who inhabited cities for hundreds of years, yet no ruins from even a single BoM city have ever been identified. No BoM place-names were in use when Europeans arrived in the New World.
Anthropological Fallacies
The culture described in the BoM conflicts radically with that of the actual inhabitants of Mesoamerica. The BoM peoples had a seven-day week (Mosiah 13:18), but no Mesoamerican calendar matches this. And Nephi, who came to the New World from Jerusalem, never bothers to contrast these strikingly different places. Most stunning of all, the BoM never once indicates that the American continent was anything but uninhabited when the refugees from Jerusalem arrived. Of course, there were actually millions of Native Americans occupying the land from one coast to the other.
Biological Fallacies
The BoM refers to a host of animals that did not exist in the pre-Columbian Americas or had been extinct in that region for thousands of years preceding the period described in the book. These include the ass, bull, calf, cattle, cow, domestic goat, horse, ox, domestic sheep, sow, swine and elephants. Several common animals that actually existed in Mesoamerica (deer, jaguars, tapir, monkeys, sloths, turkeys, llamas, alpacas, guinea pigs) are never mentioned. Also described are crops that didn't exist, such as wheat (Mosiah 9:9) and barley (Alma 11:7) Indeed, the agricultural techniques required to produce those crops didn't exist either. Once again, crops that were commonly known to Mesoamerica (chocolate, lima beans, squash, potatoes, tomatoes, manioc) are not referenced. Perhaps the gravest blunder of all is the BoM's assertion of a Hebraic origin for the American Indians. In Joseph's Smith's day, the now firmly-established Asiatic origin for Native Americans was known only in some scholarly circles.
Linguistic Fallacies
There are no examples of "reformed Egyptian" (the language Joseph claimed was written on the plates) in Mesoamerican history. And no Native American language is related to either ancient Egyptian or Hebrew, whereas a relationship does exist between Native American languages and Asian (Siberian) languages. Furthermore, no BoM proper names (Nephi, Laman, Zarahemla) appear in any of the many Mesoamerican writings that have been discovered. And speaking of proper names, Greek names such as Lachoneus, Timothy and Jonas appear in the BoM, but Nephi and his family left Jerusalem in 600 BC, long before Greek culture would have had any impact on the Hebrews.[5] As one can see, there are nearly unlimited opportunities to put the BoM to the test with regards to empirical verification, and the BoM flunks again and again. This is truly failure on an epic scale. Strike one!
It Takes a Thief ...
While there were apparently not nearly enough skeptics surrounding Joseph Smith, there were a few. One of them was a woman named Lucy Harris. Lucy was wife to Martin Harris, who was one of Joseph's most devoted followers, and the scribe for a large portion of the BoM. Martin was moderately prosperous, whereas Joseph was desperately poor, so Martin helped Joseph financially while he completed his "translation." However, Lucy had Joseph pegged as swindler and chastised her husband for throwing away their money on a "Golden Bible." Not unreasonably, she demanded to actually see the golden plates, and verify their existence, but Joseph steadfastly refused. Undeterred, she proceeded to ransack the Smith home in an effort to unearth the record, but to no avail. After 116 pages of the "translated" manuscript had been completed, Martin pleaded with Joseph to allow him to show them to Lucy, thinking this would convince her of Joseph's legitimacy. Joseph was opposed to the idea, but eventually allowed himself to be talked into it, and thus unwittingly set up the second serious test of the BoM. For Lucy proceeded with the obvious step of hiding the manuscript from her husband and noting with cool logic that, "If this be a divine communication, the same being that revealed it to you can easily replace it."[6] Of course, she was correct, and if Joseph had been able to reproduce the manuscript word for word, it would have been exceedingly difficult to doubt his paranormal abilities. Not surprisingly, Joseph did not even attempt such a feat. For a while, it seemed that he despaired of finding a way out of this neatly set trap. But then came the predictable solution. Joseph asked the Lord for a revelation, and God forbade him to retranslate the first part of the plates because the devil wanted to thwart God's plans, and would see to it that the stolen version was published in "altered" form. Naturally, in God's omniscience, he had foreseen this snafu, and so he had conveniently provided a set of small plates, called the plates of Nephi, that happened to cover the exact period of history as the stolen manuscript--only from a different point of view.[7] I should hope it's not too bold to recognize this as a total cop-out. Strike two!
Lost in Translation
Martin Harris may have been satisfied with being forbidden from seeing the actual plates, but he at least demanded to witness a copy of the engraved characters. He wished to verify with New York City scholars that they were truly Hebrew. Joseph Smith eventually gave in to Martin's petitions, but when Joseph furnished him with a copy of the characters he informed Martin that they were not Hebrew, but rather "reformed Egyptian," a language used for its efficiency on the cumbersome plates. Joseph's choice of "reformed Egyptian" was a calculated move. At the time, Egyptian was generally believed to be indecipherable, as the grammar worked out from the Rosetta Stone would not be published until 1837. Therefore, who was to say Joseph's Egyptian characters were not accurate?

Harris visited two scholars with the characters. The first was Samuel L. Mitchell, vice president of Rutgers Medical College. Mitchell was not impressed by the characters, but sent Harris to another scholar named Charles Anthon, a professor of Greek and Latin at Columbia College. When Harris returned from his interview with Anthon, he claimed that Anthon had verified the characters as genuine Egyptian, and had even given this opinion in writing! Most unfortunately, Harris said, once Anthon heard the story of the angel and the golden plates, he tore up his written statement.[8] Of course, this lack of evidence didn't stop them from advertising Anthon's endorsement of the BoM's authenticity. Once Anthon learned of this, he wrote an unequivocal denial, stating "The whole story of my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be 'reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics' is perfectly false." Rather, he said the whole story of the Golden Bible was either "a hoax upon the learned" or "a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money."[9] As one might expect, Mormons insist that Anthon was lying out of fear of being associated with a crackpot religious project. This makes little sense, considering that if Anthon believed the characters to be genuine, he would likely think the project to be of great value. Nevertheless, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Anthon was lying, for whatever reasons. Thus, a more definitive test of Joseph's ability to translate Egyptian characters is needed. As fate would have it, Joseph himself has provided us with what could scarcely be a better test. By 1835, Joseph's reputation as a miraculous translator had spread, and it attracted one Michael Chandler, who had been touring the country with four Egyptian mummies and some papyri. Joseph ended up buying the mummies and the papyri, and then he set out to "translate" them. Amazingly, it turned out that the author of some of the papyri writings had been none other than the biblical Abraham himself. This "Book of Abraham" was eventually published in 1842 and is now commonly packaged with the BoM in the Pearl of Great Price. Shortly after Joseph's original "translation," the Rosetta Stone grammar was published, but it would be some time before the newfound ability to decipher Egyptian was well-known, and the papyri escaped scholarly eyes in Joseph Smith's lifetime. In fact, they might have escaped them forever, as the papyri were sold after Joseph's death to the Wood museum, and were thought to have perished in the great Chicago fire. But Joseph assured himself the derision of future scholars by publishing three facsimiles[10] of the papyri with the "translated" text of the Book of Abraham. Many Egyptologists have now examined the facsimiles and determined Joseph's interpretation to be, in the words of one scholar, "a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end."[11] Indeed, the scholars agree that the facsimiles are ordinary funeral documents of whose like can be found on thousands of Egyptian graves.

That ought to have put an end to things, but Mormons lamely protested that the facsimiles must have been from a different part of the papyri than the portion "translated" as the Book of Abraham. If only that darn papyri hadn't burned! Well, it turned out that eleven fragments of the papyri survived the fire and found their way to the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, where they were discovered in 1967. Unfortunately for the Mormons, scholars quickly determined that these were more of the same funeral documents.[12] Now, the Mormon story is that either the actual Book of Abraham papyri is still missing, or alternatively, while the papyri may be literally read as funeral documents, Joseph was somehow able to discern a "spiritual meaning" beyond the actual words. Two more absurd and tortuous excuses were probably never invented. I believe one can safely call "strike three!"
The Game Is Up

The BoM has had ample opportunity to prove its worth. If it had accurately depicted Mesoamerican civilization; if Joseph Smith had reproduced the stolen manuscript verbatim; and if Egyptologists had corroborated Joseph's translation of the Book of Abraham, then it would be impossible to escape the conclusion that a supernatural power had been at work. But, as one can see, every time the BoM has met a true challenge, the result has been nothing short of colossal failure.

Mormonism is a uniquely American religion, so it seems fitting to have invoked the trappings of America's pastime as I have played umpire to a posthumous Joseph Smith. Sorry Joseph, but everyone knows what happens after three strikes.
Citations:

[1] Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great Price (Liverpool, England, 1851), Joseph Smith-History (1:29).

[2] James E. Lancaster (Dan Vogel, ed.), The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture (Signature Books, 1990), "8. The Translation of the Book of Mormon," pp. 97-112.

[3] Joseph Smith, History of the Church: Vol. 1 (Salt Lake City, 1902), (4:461).

[4] Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History (Vintage Book: New York, 1945), p. 46.

[5] Most of the fallacies were culled from: Al Case, "Book of Mormon Questions" lds-mormon.com spotted on August 2, 2001.

[6] Lucy Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, the Prophet and His Progenitors for Many Generations (Liverpool, England, 1853 ), p. 121.

[7] Joseph Smith, Doctrine & Covenants (Salt Lake City, 1921), Section 10.

[8] Joseph Smith, Pearl of Great Price (Liverpool, England, 1851), Joseph Smith-History (1:63-65).

[9] E. D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (Painesville, Ohio, 1834), pp. 270-2.

[10] The facsimiles published by the church can be viewed here. However, portions of the original papyri were torn and so Joseph "restored" the missing portions. When compared to other funeral documents, it can be seen that they were restored incorrectly.

[11] F.S. Spalding, Joseph Smith Jr. as a Translator (Salt Lake City, 1912).

[12] Klaus Baer, "The Breathing Permit of Hor," Dialogue, III, No. 3, Autumn, 1968, pp. 109-34, and "The Joseph Smith Papyri," Dialogue, III, No. 2, Summer 1968, pp. 66-105.

What do you think? You can post your comments on this article in our Feedback Forum.

Interested in publishing on the Secular Web? See the Submission Guidelines.

Disclaimer: Feature articles represent the viewpoint of their authors and should not be taken as necessarily representative of the viewpoint of the Internet Infidels and/or the Secular Web. Full disclaimer here.

Copyright 2004, Kyle Gerkin & Internet Infidels, Inc. Copyright info here.

Date published: 08/26/2004

Amazing Rando

September 3rd 2004, 01:00 PM

No argument from me about the inauthenticity of the BoM!

Sparko

September 3rd 2004, 02:52 PM

Nice article CitizenKyle.
:clap:

Rayado

September 4th 2004, 11:59 PM

citizenkyle

September 5th 2004, 12:20 PM

Hey Kyle, I have a quick question:

In the article, you mention that the BoM lifts 27,000 words from the KJV, up to & including large portions of Isaiah and the NT.

Could you, or someone else, be able to post a few of the more obvious parallels?

My favorite is 3 Nephi 12 and Matt 5.

3 Nephi 12:

3 Yea, blessed are the apoor• in spirit who bcome• unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 And again, blessed are all they that amourn•, for they shall be bcomforted•.

5 And blessed are the ameek•, for they shall inherit the bearth.

6 And blessed are all they who do ahunger• and bthirst• after crighteousness•, for they shall be dfilled with the Holy Ghost.

7 And blessed are the amerciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

8 And blessed are all the apure in heart, for they shall bsee God.

9 And blessed are all the apeacemakers, for they shall be called the bchildren of God.

10 And blessed are all they who are apersecuted• for my name’s sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 And blessed are ye when men shall arevile you and persecute, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake;

12 For aye• shall have great joy and be exceedingly glad, for great shall be your breward in heaven; for so cpersecuted• they the prophets who were before you.

13 Verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you to be the asalt• of the earth; but if the salt shall lose its savor wherewith shall the earth be salted? The salt shall be thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and to be trodden under foot of men.

14 Verily, verily, I say unto you, I give unto you to be the light of this people. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.

15 Behold, do men light a acandle• and put it under a bushel? Nay, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light to all that are in the house;

16 Therefore let your alight• so shine before this people, that they may see your good works and bglorify• your Father who is in heaven.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil;

18 For verily I say unto you, one jot nor one tittle ahath• not passed away from the blaw, but in me it hath all been fulfilled.

19 And behold, I have given you the law and the commandments of my Father, that ye shall believe in me, and that ye shall repent of your sins, and come unto me with a abroken• heart and a contrite spirit. Behold, ye have the commandments before you, and the blaw• is fulfilled.

20 Therefore acome• unto me and be ye saved; for verily I say unto you, that except ye shall keep my bcommandments•, which I have commanded you at this time, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

21 Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, and it is also written before you, that thou shalt not akill•, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment of God;

22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is aangry• with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

23 Therefore, aif• ye shall come unto me, or shall desire to come unto me, and rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee—

24 Go thy way unto thy brother, and first be areconciled to thy brother, and then come unto me with full bpurpose• of heart, and I will receive you.

25 aAgree• with thine adversary quickly while thou art in the way with him, lest at any time he shall get thee, and thou shalt be cast into prison.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence until thou hast paid the uttermost senine. And while ye are in prison can ye pay even one asenine•? Verily, verily, I say unto you, Nay.

27 Behold, it is written by them of old time, that thou shalt not commit aadultery•;

28 But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman, to alust after her, hath committed adultery already in his heart.

29 Behold, I give unto you a commandment, that ye suffer anone• of these things to enter into your bheart•;

30 For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your across•, than that ye should be cast into hell.

31 It hath been written, that whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of adivorcement.

32 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that whosoever shall aput• away his wife, saving for the cause of bfornication, causeth her to commit cadultery; and whoso shall marry her who is divorced committeth adultery.

33 And again it is written, thou shalt not aforswear thyself, but shalt bperform unto the Lord thine coaths;

34 But verily, verily, I say unto you, aswear• not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne;

35 Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool;

36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair black or white;

37 But let your acommunication be bYea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever cometh of more than these is evil.

38 And behold, it is written, an aeye• for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;

39 But I say unto you, that ye shall not aresist• evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right bcheek•, cturn to him the other also;

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, alet him have thy cloak also;

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to ago a mile, go with him twain.

42 aGive• to him that asketh thee, and from him that would bborrow of thee turn thou not away.

43 And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy;

44 But behold I say unto you, love your aenemies•, bless them that curse you, do bgood to them that hate you, and cpray• for them who despitefully use you and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise aon• the evil and on the good.

46 Therefore those things which were of old time, which were under the law, in me are all afulfilled•.

47 aOld• things are done away, and all things have become bnew•.

48 Therefore I would that ye should be aperfect• even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

Matt 5:

1 aAND• seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

3 aBlessed• are the bpoor• in spirit: for theirs is the ckingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that amourn: for they shall be bcomforted.

5 Blessed are the ameek•: for they shall inherit the bearth.

6 Blessed are they which do ahunger• and thirst after brighteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the amerciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the apure in bheart: for they shall csee God.

9 Blessed are the apeacemakers: for they shall be called the bchildren of God.

10 Blessed are they which are apersecuted for brighteousness’ sake: for ctheirs• is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall arevile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of bevil against you falsely, cfor• my sake.

12 aRejoice•, and be exceeding glad: for great is your breward• in heaven: for so cpersecuted they the prophets which were before you.

13 ¶ Ye are the asalt• of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

14 Ye are the alight of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15 Neither do men light a acandle•, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

16 Let your alight• so shine before men, that they may see your good bworks•, and cglorify• your Father which is in heaven.

17 ¶ Think not that I am come to adestroy• the blaw, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the alaw, till all be bfulfilled•.

19 Whosoever therefore shall abreak one of these least commandments, band• shall cteach• men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and dteach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say unto you, That except your arighteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the bscribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

21 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou ashalt not bkill; and whosoever shall kill shall be cin• danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is aangry• with his brother bwithout• a cause shall be cin• danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, dRaca•, shall be ein• danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be areconciled• to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

25 aAgree• with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid athe• uttermost farthing.

27 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit aadultery•:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever alooketh• on a bwoman to clust• after her hath committed dadultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye aoffend• thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into bhell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into ahell•.

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of adivorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall aput• away his bwife•, saving for the cause of cfornication•, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

33 ¶ Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not aforswear• thyself, but shalt bperform unto the Lord thine coaths•:

34 But I say unto you, aSwear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s bthrone•:

35 Nor by the earth; for it is his afootstool•: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the bcity• of the great King.

36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

37 But let your acommunication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh bof• evil.

38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An aeye• for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not aevil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right bcheek•, cturn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 aGive to him that asketh thee, and from him that would bborrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt alove• thy bneighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, aLove your benemies, cbless them that dcurse you, do egood to them that fhate you, and gpray• for them which despitefully use you, and hpersecute you;

45 That ye amay• be the bchildren of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth crain• on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye alove• them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 aBe• ye therefore bperfect•, even as your cFather which is in heaven is dperfect.

I guess Jesus really had that speech down. :-)

Darth_Bill

September 12th 2004, 10:54 AM

>I guess Jesus really had that speech down.

Well, to a degree. There are different versions in the NT. Why don't you climb all over Luke for not getting it right?

Also, there are differences that are substantial. I know of several articles on the differences. Why didn't you highlight those in your pastes? Not substantial differences, but different none the less.

Really doesn't surprise me that Jesus would tell the NW the similar things that he taught in the OW.

If there are similarities, JS is branded a plagarist. If there are differences, he is branded a know-nothing fool and heretic. Just can't win with people.

Doc T

October 4th 2004, 04:35 PM

Kyle, perhaps I can point out a few errors in your article. Let me start with the first few paragraphs and as I have time I will address errors in the other paragraphs.

The Mormon religion was built on a 19th century American-Christian foundation. Thus, Mormons share many Christian convictions, such as a belief in the divinity of Jesus, and a reverence for the Christian Bible as a sacred text. To be sure, Mormon doctrine has enough theological peculiarities to put it outside of the pale of what many would consider "orthodox" or "mainstream" Christianity, but perhaps not more so than dozens of other Christian sects. In any case, due to its Christian basis, the same general arguments can be made against Mormonism as can be offered in opposition to Christianity. However, Mormonism has one particularly unique feature, which sets it apart, and opens it to the charge of demonstrable falsehood: The Book of Mormon (BoM). This opening paragraph is somewhat fair and balanced. I will let this one slide.

Mormonism's founder and first "prophet," Joseph Smith, was purportedly visited by an angel named Moroni on the night of September 21, 1823 in Palmyra, New York.[1] Moroni informed Joseph that he was chosen to do God's work, and directed him to unearth a set of "golden plates" from a nearby hill. Upon the plates was recorded an ancient history of the American Indians. Actually Moroni did not tell Joseph that the records contained a "history of the American Indians" but a record of the "ancient inhabitants" or "former inhabitants" of this contenient. Some may see this as a minor point, but I feel an important one.

Apparently due to a lack of purity, Joseph was not allowed to recover the plates until four years later, at which point he began to "translate" them. You really must read JS History again. The reason had nothing to do with "purity", but Joseph "was again informed that the time for bringing them forth had not yet arrived, neither would it, until four years from that time"

According to Joseph (who was the only one allowed to see the plates), they were written in a hieroglyphic language known as "reformed Egyptian." Actually there was a total of 12 others who saw the plates. The three witnesses, the eight witnesses and Mary Whitmer.

His method of "translation" was to stare into a set of "seer stones"; an action which was followed by the appearance of the text in Joseph's mind, conveniently translated into King James-style English. As Joseph has not shared with us the process of translation, to state the text appeared in Joseph's mind is a conjecture on your part. Not sure why you feel that translating the BofM into King Jaymes-style English is convient. It was the language of scripture in his day and has been used by a modern non-LDS scholar to translate some of the Dead Sea Scrolls into English.

Joseph could then dictate to his scribe who sat on the other side of a curtain, behind which the scribe was forbidden to peek.[2] In this way, the BoM was produced. After the book was published in 1830, the plates were whisked away to heaven by the angel Moroni. No comment

To those unfamiliar with Mormonism, this story may appear so preposterous on its face that no further argument need be proffered. This is an old debate tactic called "poisioning the well"

Yet, most Mormons are quite familiar with the details of their book's curious origin, and it doesn't cause them to lose a wink of sleep. This startling lack of skepticism enables Mormonism to exist. I would adamantly disagree about the "lack of skepticism" on the part of Mormons. In fact I know of many Mormons that it was their skepticism that got them into the church.

After all, the BoM is the foundation of Mormon faith. Joseph Smith himself said, "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion ..."[3] If Joseph invented the BoM from whole cloth, it stands to reason that he was not a genuine prophet of God, and his whole church rests on an elaborate hoax. Take away the BoM and the entire Mormon edifice comes crumbling down.
I would agree that the BofM is a important feature of the LDS church. As I said, I will try to get to the rest of the article as I have time.

Doc

~

Doc T

October 5th 2004, 05:14 PM

In an effort to discredit the BoM, one could point to any number of its features. For instance, the book includes several stories that have sharp parallels in the Bible (Alma is converted in the precise fashion of St. Paul,. . . Then based on your logic then the story of Paul's conversion can be discredited having "sharp" parallels to Old Testament stories. (Numbers 22:21-35 and Exodus 4:20-27 for examples)

Ammon slays six sheep rustlers--who are standing in for Goliath--with his sling, etc),If one actually read the BofM you would know that the story of Ammon does not mention "sheep" but flocks. In fact where are sheep even mentioned with Goliath?

and, in fact, 27,000 words are lifted directly from the Bible, including large sections of Isaiah and the New Testament. Source please for the "27,000 words"

The book's style is a bland and witless prose of exactly the sort one would expect an uneducated farm boy to produce if he were narrating a story extemporaneously.

[QUOTE=citizenkyle]Along these lines, the phrase, "And so it came to pass ..." appears at least two thousand times. The Evangel, an anti-Mormon tabloid published in Marlow, Oklahoma, notes that the phrase and it came to pass only occurs 1,297 times in the Book of Mormon. It is a translation of the Hebrew word way hî which occurs about 65 times in the KJV (it actually occured more frequently in the ancient text but was removed by the english translators. A set of Maya glyphs has been translated as signifying "it came to pass" (See, for example, Linda Schele and Peter Mathews, Notebook for the XVIIth Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop at Texas (Austin: University of Texas at Austin, 1993), 33-4)

And, with some research, one can uncover fairly obvious sources for all of the BoM's ideas. For example, the theory that the American Indians were descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel was popularly believed in Joseph's day and espoused by famous Christian preachers such as Cotton Mather and Jonathon Edwards. More to the point, a rabbi named M. M. Noah had summarized the case for Hebraic origin in a speech that was republished in Joseph's hometown newspaper, The Wayne Sentinel; a paper to which Joseph's father was subscribed.[4] The speech appeared on October 11, 1825--two years before Joseph began "translating" the plates. As well, books discussing this theory were circulated in Joseph's area during the years immediately prior to his "translation." Ethan Smith, the author of one such book titled View of the Hebrews, even visited Joseph's hometown in 1826, possibly on a promotional book tour. There is a long list of suspicious "red flags" of this sort, many of which are well documented in Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History. And while the collective weight of these concerns is quite damning for the BoM, it isn't a definitive refutation of the kind one might desire. You would suspect if Joseph Smith just made up the BofM that he would run with the idea that the progenitors of the American were the lost ten tribes, but alas he did not. The BofM says that Lehi and his family came from the tribe of Joseph. According to the Latter-day Saint historian Richard Bushman, "Lehi and his family were not the ten tribes. Lehi left for the new world 125 years after the Assyrian captivity and from Jerusalem, not Assyria.

Doc

~

Doc T

October 8th 2004, 02:37 PM

Archaeological Fallacies

The BoM makes mention of various technological products which were unknown to Mesoamerica. These include chariots (Alma 18:9) when there were no wheeled vehicles of any kind,. . .
As Mesoamericanism is not my area of expertise, let me quote another LDS apologist Mike Ash:

The wheel, [as demonstrated by wheeled toys], may have been known to the early Americans, but disappeared from use due to changes in religious beliefs. But, some may ask, how could all trace of the wheel and chariots disappear? Such disappearances are not as unusual as it sounds. According to the Bible, the Philistines in Saul’s time had 30,000 chariots (1 Samuel 13:5). David, it is recorded (2 Samuel 8:4), took 1,000 chariots from Hadadezer, king of Zobah, and then 700 more a little later from the Syrians (2 Samuel 10:18) who in order to recovered by collected 32,000 chariots. Yet with all these chariotsmentioned in the Bible as bouncing around not a single fragment of a chariot has ever been uncovered in the Holy Land (see Sorenson [1998] , 59).

Normally, our first inclination would be to agree that the term “chariot” suggests wheels. But upon further investigation we must conclude that this is not necessarily so. In Maya battle imagery, for instance, the king rides into battle on a litter or cloth covered framework between two parallel bars. Brant Gardner, who has an M.A. in Anthropology, notes that the Mayan-King battle-litter “is a prominent aspect of the battle, and the capture of the king’s litter is tantamount to the capture of the gods of that king. What made this most interesting is the assertion that a conceptually linked idea was the “battle beast” that is, an animal alter ego which also accompanied the king, and was embodied in the regalia of the king and litter. Thus there were three important elements of this complex which went into battle: king, litter, and battle beast. There is also evidence that the litter complex was used in other ceremonial occasions other than war.” (Gardner ; also see Sorenson [1998] , 58.) Sorenson notes that “when the Spaniards invaded Guatemala, they reported that the Quiche Indians used ‘military machines’ consisting of wooden platforms mounted on ‘little rollers’ to haul weapons around one battlefield to resupply their soldiers” (Sorenson [1998] , 59). Furthermore, as noted by professor John Sorenson:
Because nothing (in the Book of Mormon verses) is said or hinted about mounting, riding or dismounting from a vehicle, we cannot confidently conclude that vehicles were used to carry people, although this may have happened.... It remains a mystery what ‘chariot’ means in these texts.” (Sorenson [1998] , 59.)

Turning to the Bible we find that the term “chariot” does not always reflect what we would envision. There are five Hebrew words which translate into the KJV, “chariot.” These Hebrew words are: (1&2) merkabah and appiryown which translates simply as “chariot”; (3) rekeb which has several definitions including: a team, chariot, mill-stone, riders, troop of riders, pair of horseman, men riding, and camel-riders; (4) merkab which is defined as: chariot, place to ride, riding seat, seat of a litter, and saddle. This merkab is translated only once in the KJV as “chariot” (see 1 Kings 4:26), whereas it is also translated as “saddle” (Leviticus 15:29) and as “covering” (Song of Solomon 3:10); (5) hosten (Ezekiel 23:4) which has an uncertain definition of “amour” or “weapons” and comes from an unused root meaning to be strong or sharp. (See Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary for these definitions.)

Likewise, Sorenson notes that “Hebrew roots translated to English as ‘chariot’ include the dictionary meaning of ‘wagon or chariot’ but also ‘litter, portable couch’ or human-borne ‘sedan’ chair (in the Talmud the same expression even meant nuptial bed). (Sorenson [1998] , 59).
Therefore, we see that: (1) It is possible that the ancient Americans had used wheeled “chariots” in ancient times but the practice was discontinued; or (2) the Book of Mormon “chariots” refers to a non-wheeled object such a litter as depicted in ancient American art. Either way, the Book of Mormon can hardly be condemned for the same weaknesses which plague the Bible’s use of the term “chariot.”

". . .steel swords (Ether 7:9) when there was neither steel nor swords, bellows for blacksmithing (1 Nephi 17:11),. . ."
Let me refer you to an article written by Tom Lowery, Jr. It can be found at:

http://physics1.byu.edu/jones/rel491/Book%20of%20Mormon%20Metals.htm

and silk (Alma 1:29).
Quoting LDS Anthropologist John Sorenson:

The problem is clear in the case of Book of Mormon "silk." It is simple-minded to suppose automatically that the Nephites reported in that account must, like east Asians, have had silkworms which fed on mulberry leaves in order to account for the use of this word. Early Spaniards in the New World encountered this very terminological difficulty. We learn, for example, that a wild silkworm in Mexico spun a fiber which Indians gathered to make a fabric. Should the European explorers have called this fabric seda ("silk") or not? Classical scholars face a similar problem; Aristotle and other Greeks describe a silkworm, but the reference is considered by modern experts to be a conflation of information on two types of silkworm native to southeastern Europe and having no direct connection to the Far East. Moreover, fine hair from the belly of rabbits of central Mexico was woven into a cloth which the Spanish considered "equal in finish and texture" to silk. A silk-like fiber (kapok) from the pod of the ceiba tree was gathered in Yucatan and spun; this seems to be what Bishop Diego de Landa referred to at one point as "silk." Clavigero said of this kapok that it was "as soft and delicate, and perhaps more so, than silk." Yet cotton, the common textile material in Mesoamerica, itself was sometimes woven so fine that Cortez claimed textiles "made of silk could not be compared." Furthermore, fine fibers were taken from the wild pineapple plant and from "silk-grass," Aecmea magalenae, that could qualify as "silk" for texture. So would the Book of Mormon be in error in referring to "silk"? Not if Mesoamerica was its scene.[see John L. Sorenson's article "A New Evaluation of the Smithsonian Institution Statement regarding the Book of Mormon"

The BoM describes a vast civilization of millions who inhabited cities for hundreds of years, yet no ruins from even a single BoM city have ever been identified. No BoM place-names were in use when Europeans arrived in the New World.
Certainly no particular city from the BofM has been identified conclusively, but there are many good canidates. See John Soreson's "An Ancient Setting For The Book of Mormon"

Anthropological Fallacies

The culture described in the BoM conflicts radically with that of the actual inhabitants of Mesoamerica.
Actually in speaking to an LDS MesoAmericanist, the similarities of the culture are quite remarkable.

The BoM peoples had a seven-day week (Mosiah 13:18), but no Mesoamerican calendar matches this.
Quoting the Law of Moses from the brass plates hardly constitutes the BofM peoples having a seven-day week.

And Nephi, who came to the New World from Jerusalem, never bothers to contrast these strikingly different places.
What are you talking aobut, "ever bothers to contrast these strikingly different places", have you read the BofM?

Most stunning of all, the BoM never once indicates that the American continent was anything but uninhabited when the refugees from Jerusalem arrived. Of course, there were actually millions of Native Americans occupying the land from one coast to the other.
I see, you have not read the BofM, but have only mis-read it.

Doc

~

Bill the Cat

February 22nd 2007, 08:48 PM

As Mesoamericanism is not my area of expertise, let me quote another LDS apologist Mike Ash:

[indent]The wheel, [as demonstrated by wheeled toys], may have been known to the early Americans, but disappeared from use due to changes in religious beliefs. But, some may ask, how could all trace of the wheel and chariots disappear? Such disappearances are not as unusual as it sounds. According to the Bible, the Philistines in Saul’s time had 30,000 chariots (1 Samuel 13:5). David, it is recorded (2 Samuel 8:4), took 1,000 chariots from Hadadezer, king of Zobah, and then 700 more a little later from the Syrians (2 Samuel 10:18) who in order to recovered by collected 32,000 chariots. Yet with all these chariotsmentioned in the Bible as bouncing around not a single fragment of a chariot has ever been uncovered in the Holy Land (see Sorenson [1998] , 59).

Doc

~

Just a quick cursory investigation of the evidence you provided here DOc...

The Archaeology of Iran
The city of Hasanlu has emerged as of some significance because some of the artifacts found there are known from the time or area of Ashurnasirpal (II) or Shalmaneser (III). The ivory artifacts discovered bring `Hasanlu' right close up to the 9th century BC `Ivory Age'. Among these are the following small items:

Illustrations shown include:

10. a drawing of a silver beaker showing in stylized fashion a team of horses spanned to a chariot with a warrior and a charioteer, men walking and leading a horse, man with a bow and a confrontation between a horned long tail creature and a lion like creature.

11. two ivory fragments of a chariot battle scene,

[See Oscar White Muscarella, `Hasanlu 1964' in The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, Nov 1966, p. 120-135.]

a rare Syrian clay model of a chariot complete with wheels,

So, despite not being able to quickly find "chariot fragments", I found a replica of a chariot with wheels and 2 fragments of depictions of chariots.

Doc T

February 23rd 2007, 12:32 PM

Hey, Bill. Thanks for bringing up this tread again. When no one replied to my posts, I gave up. One question for you. In my post, I quoted this statement. "Yet with all these chariots mentioned in the Bible as bouncing around not a single fragment of a chariot has ever been uncovered in the Holy Land (see Sorenson [1998] , 59)." You came back with an example from Iran and Syria. My quote, however stated that nothing had been found in the Holy Land. I don't believe that those two countries are considered part of the Holy Land.

Thanks

Doc

~

OU812

February 27th 2007, 10:34 PM

You came back with an example from Iran and Syria. My quote, however stated that nothing had been found in the Holy Land. I don't believe that those two countries are considered part of the Holy Land.

Two words, Doc T:

"geographic vicinity"...........

Jin-Roh

February 27th 2007, 10:46 PM

The book's style is a bland and witless prose of exactly the sort one would expect an uneducated farm boy to produce if he were narrating a story extemporaneously. Along these lines, the phrase, "And so it came to pass ..." appears at least two thousand times. And, with some research, one can uncover fairly obvious sources for all of the BoM's ideas.

:lol:
Well said! That phrase was enough reason for me to stop reading it after the awhile. That book is very, very boring to read.

Bill the Cat

February 28th 2007, 03:36 PM

Would some chariot parts from Lachish do?? Or do we have to narrow it down even further to Solomon's reign?

"Volume III, at 760 pages, is by far the thickest of the set. The first 140 pages catalog the Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze, Intermediate Bronze, & Middle Bronze pottery (including a Middle Bronze cemetery). Special attention is given to a strange, Middle Bronze boot-shaped vessel--an unusual find in Palestine, but well known in western Asia. The next 440 pages cover the Late Bronze pottery in extensive detail including lamp-&-bowl deposits (possibly an Egyptian cult phenomenon), Late Cypriot, NW Anatolian Grey, Qurayyah Painted, & Aegean ware/pottery all with numerous drawings & photos--an excellent reference work for anyone studying this period of ceramic development. The remaining 180 pages present miscellaneous Bronze Age artifacts: tools, weapons, chariot parts, jewelry, beads, cylinder seals, scarab seals (13-20th & 22nd dynasties), & figurines--something for everyone! It closes with brief analyses of Bronze Age inscriptions: alphabetic Canaanite, Egyptian hieratic, a Ramesses III cartouche on a bronze plaque (possibly from a door/gate bolt), & Linear A on the shoulder of a bowl/krater.

https://www.eisenbrauns.com/ECOM/_2100T8NUW.HTM

Doc T

March 1st 2007, 06:07 PM

Along these lines, the phrase, "And so it came to pass ..." appears at least two thousand times.

:lol:
Well said! That phrase was enough reason for me to stop reading it after the awhile. That book is very, very boring to read.
Perhaps you missed my reply to this statement. I said:
The Evangel, an anti-Mormon tabloid published in Marlow, Oklahoma, notes that the phrase and it came to pass only occurs 1,297 times in the Book of Mormon. It is a translation of the Hebrew word way hî which occurs about 65 times in the KJV (it actually occured more frequently in the ancient text but was removed by the english translators. A set of Maya glyphs has been translated as signifying "it came to pass" (See, for example, Linda Schele and Peter Mathews, Notebook for the XVIIth Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop at Texas (Austin: University of Texas at Austin, 1993), 33-4)So while you find the phrase "And it came to pass...a turn off, it actually is evidence of the texts authenticity.

Doc

~

Ninjalan

March 2nd 2007, 01:27 AM

Why should we believe that? Sure, the phrase in Hebrew was translated "And it came to pass" in the KJV. Granted the fact that Joseph Smith read the KJV, there is a greater probability that he was influenced by the KJV, which does contain the Hebrew phrase. Remember, it is a stretch to ask us to believe through pure conjecture that the reformed Egyptian phrase (which you have not even seen!), is equivalent to a Hebrew phrase rather than believe Joseph Smith borrowed it from the KJV.

Bill the Cat

March 2nd 2007, 09:35 AM

Not only that Apollotron, but it presupposes that the Mayans either KNEW the Nephites, or WERE the Nephites, whjich is laughable! This is typical Mormon archaeological twisting. The fragment in question was also from a time after the supposed BOM events:

Glyphs D4, C5: More time elapsed: 10 kins (10 days) + 11 uinals (220 days) + 1 tun (360 days) + 1 katun (7,200 days), elapsed since the last date, which would be June 27, 707 CE. The right half of glyph C5 is the verb "it came to pass."

Notice the subtle differences. It is half of a glyph (meaning the whole glyph meant more than just "it came to pass". Again, this proves nothing other than a common phrase was used between them. There is still absolutely no evidence the Mayans knew anything of the supposed million man civilization.

Ninjalan

March 2nd 2007, 02:55 PM

That's true. Considering they believe the Hebrew phrase came before the Mayan one, it would mean that their claim is that the Mayans adopted their phrase from the Hebrews. There just isn't any evidence, like you said.

Here's another interesting topic: Some LDS told me that missionaries have asked natives of Central and South America about the Book of Mormon, and supposedly the natives already knew the stories. However, they couldn't cite a specific case. Is anybody aware of this?

Jin-Roh

March 3rd 2007, 12:44 PM

Perhaps you missed my reply to this statement. I said:
So while you find the phrase "And it came to pass...a turn off, it actually is evidence of the texts authenticity.

or Joseph Smith read in the KJV and was imitating it when he wrote the BOM. One or the other really. :ahem:

Doc T

March 8th 2007, 05:21 PM

Not only that Apollotron, but it presupposes that the Mayans either KNEW the Nephites, or WERE the Nephites, whjich is laughable! This is typical Mormon archaeological twisting.
And your evidence that the Mayans did not know the Nephites?

The fragment in question was also from a time after the supposed BOM events:
And this is supposed to demonstrate....what? One would expect that it be found after BofM events.

Notice the subtle differences. It is half of a glyph (meaning the whole glyph meant more than just "it came to pass". Again, this proves nothing other than a common phrase was used between them.
Correct, it was a common phrase among the Mayan and a common phrase among the Nephites. But purely coincidental. :ahem:

There is still absolutely no evidence the Mayans knew anything of the supposed million man civilization.
And just want evidence would you expect to find that would indicate the Mayans knew about the Nephites? A phone directory? :wink:

Doc

~

Bill the Cat

March 8th 2007, 06:02 PM

And your evidence that the Mayans did not know the Nephites?

The same evidence that they did not know the Veggie Tales gang. Neither really existed. The Mayans documented their wars and alliances very well, and there is sufficient evidence to know who the major players in the area at the time were.

And this is supposed to demonstrate....what? One would expect that it be found after BofM events.

It was from a culture that predated and postdated the "Nephites". You presuppose knowledge and borrowing when none exists. If this statement postdates the BOM era, and the Mayans borrowed it, there would be evidence of some form of prior cultural exchange or war in the Mayan records, and there flat out isn't.

Correct, it was a common phrase among the Mayan and a common phrase among the Nephites. But purely coincidental. :ahem:

Yes. Purely. The Mayans were not the only culture to ever use that phrase. Nor were the Jews. You presuppose a "Nephite" link that did not exist.

And just want evidence would you expect to find that would indicate the Mayans knew about the Nephites? A phone directory? :wink:

No, something like a mention that there was trade, war, or cultural exchange with an otherwise unknown and unconnected million men civilization that worshipped a single god named Jehovah (which there is absolutely zilch.) Trying the "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" trick doesn't work on real historians or scholarship, especially ones who know so much about the era in question. If they did exist, they were some really stealthy people.

Doc T

March 8th 2007, 08:43 PM

The same evidence that they did not know the Veggie Tales gang. Neither really existed. The Mayans documented their wars and alliances very well, and there is sufficient evidence to know who the major players in the area at the time were.

It was from a culture that predated and postdated the "Nephites". You presuppose knowledge and borrowing when none exists. If this statement postdates the BOM era, and the Mayans borrowed it, there would be evidence of some form of prior cultural exchange or war in the Mayan records, and there flat out isn't.

Yes. Purely. The Mayans were not the only culture to ever use that phrase. Nor were the Jews. You presuppose a "Nephite" link that did not exist.

No, something like a mention that there was trade, war, or cultural exchange with an otherwise unknown and unconnected million men civilization that worshipped a single god named Jehovah (which there is absolutely zilch.) Trying the "absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" trick doesn't work on real historians or scholarship, especially ones who know so much about the era in question. If they did exist, they were some really stealthy people.

Please Bill, don't be so shy. Share with us the vast information you have on the Mayan civilization that demonstrates your contentions.

Doc

~

Bill the Cat

March 8th 2007, 09:16 PM

Please Bill, don't be so shy. Share with us the vast information you have on the Mayan civilization that demonstrates your contentions.

Doc

~

A stunning rebuttal... chock full of archaeological evidence "doc"... Tell you what, why don't you show that the Mayans knew of the Nephites, and nothing from FARMS or FAIR. I want a noted archaeologist of MesoAmerican peoples to show that the Nephites were a known civilization. The burden is on you because there is no evidence at all.

Doc T

March 9th 2007, 05:00 PM

A stunning rebuttal... chock full of archaeological evidence "doc"...
I would not expect a call for evidence to include any evidence from my end. You made assertions, and I simply asked you to not be shy and to back the assertions up. Now if you want to just admit that your assertions were groundless and simply based on your opinion and nothing else, that is fine.
Tell you what, why don't you show that the Mayans knew of the Nephites, and nothing from FARMS or FAIR.
Tell us Bill, what evidence would you find acceptable?
I want a noted archaeologist of MesoAmerican peoples to show that the Nephites were a known civilization.
I can think of one noted archaeologist of MesoAmerican people who believes the evidence demonstrates that the Nephites existed among those cultures that scholars call the Mayan - his name is John Clark - but you will simply dismiss him out of hand. I mean after all, that is much much easier than dealing with the evidence isn't it? Probably the dismissal will be something along the lines of "he is biased...he is a mormon." See how easy that is. Much easier than dealing with the evidences that Dr. Clark has presented.
The burden is on you because there is no evidence at all.
Hmm. Quite a twisted bit of logic there if I have ever seen it.

Doc

~

Doc T

March 9th 2007, 05:01 PM

The burden is on you because there is no evidence at all.
Oh, wait. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you saying the burden is on my because you have no evidence at all for your assertions? If so, please forgive me.

Doc

~

Ninjalan

March 9th 2007, 05:35 PM

Doc T

March 9th 2007, 06:00 PM

Let's be honest here for a moment. An outstanding claim requires outstanding evidence. The person making the claim is the one that needs to provide the evidence. The Latter day Saints claim that a million Semitic monotheists lived in Meso-America. I can approach you today and tell you that the Egyptians came to Canada, for example, and set up a civilization with millions of people. In order for anyone to reasonably believe such an outstanding claim, outstanding evidence would be required.
Sorry, but I don't accept your characterizations. Please demonstrate the following.

1. The the BofM claims a million Nephites.

2. The BofM claims that the million Nephites were Semetic. (It was acually a very small number that were of Semetic decent)

3. The BofM claims that the Nephites were monotheists. The problem here is Bible scholarship is demonstrating that the first temple Isrealites believed in a divine council of gods.
Certainly, if I have dedicated followers that believe my story is true, there is a good chance many of them will attempt to find evidence for the Egyptians being in Canada.
A reasonable assumption, and if many of them have, then it is incumbant on those that regect their evidence to demonstrate why they reject it.
However, if the vast majority of Canadian scholars and archaeologists, as well as every internationally recognized authority on Canadian history and archaeology find that there is absolutely no evidence for a million Egyptians in Canada to be possible, then it is a perfectly reasonable request that some outstanding evidence is provided.
I reject your analogy as you have not demonstrated that a "vast majority of Canadian [MesoAmerican] scholars and archaeologist as well as every internationally recognized authority on Canadian [MesoAmerican] history and archaeology find that there is absolutely no evidence for a million Egyptians [Nephites and Lamanites] in Canada [MesoAmerica]."
I think Bill would request that some evidence that is not on a Mormon apologetics site be used, for the same reason that you would not accept some evidence on an anti-Mormon site.
First I have not presented any evidence from any website. Secondly, I do not reject evidence from anti-Mormon sites out of hand. I examine the evidence they present and if I find their evidence wanting, then it is rejected.
If there is as much outstanding evidence for the claim that millions of Semitic monotheistic people lived in Meso-America, certainly some scholars with no interest in affirming or denying Mormon history can point us to the truth. Do you have any? That doesn't seem unfair.
Can you give me say three or four MesoAmerican archaeologist or scholars that have actually read the BofM and are in a position to make an educated comment on the text of the book and the claims that it makes? If you would actually take the time to read the evidences presented by the LDS scholars, they are simply quoting the non-LDS scholars and showing how the evidence the non-LDS scholars present fits the BofM. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any non-LDS scholars who have taken the time to actually read the book. The only ones I am aware of, ended up joining the LDS church and now you will simply dismiss them out of hand as biased.

Ether 12:26 "Fools mock, but they shall mourn."

Doc

~

Bill the Cat

March 9th 2007, 08:27 PM

I would not expect a call for evidence to include any evidence from my end. You made assertions, and I simply asked you to not be shy and to back the assertions up. Now if you want to just admit that your assertions were groundless and simply based on your opinion and nothing else, that is fine.

OK, fair enough.

Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.

Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to hare occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.

footnote #13
Michael Coe, "Mormons and Archeology: An Outside View," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Summer 1973), p. 42 — ". . . as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group."

Tell us Bill, what evidence would you find acceptable?

Something hard that can not be dismissed as belonging to an existing people group at the supposed time and region.

I can think of one noted archaeologist of MesoAmerican people who believes the evidence demonstrates that the Nephites existed among those cultures that scholars call the Mayan - his name is John Clark - but you will simply dismiss him out of hand. I mean after all, that is much much easier than dealing with the evidence isn't it? Probably the dismissal will be something along the lines of "he is biased...he is a mormon." See how easy that is. Much easier than dealing with the evidences that Dr. Clark has presented.

Nah, I have no real problem with Dr. Clark, especially when he makes honest comments like

"Look," Clark finally said, "I'm just trying to be a professional archaeologist. To me, the Book of Mormon has the feel of an ancient document, and any problems are problems of translation. I believe it did happen someplace. I just don't know where. But I, for one, can live with the uncertainty."

Hmm. Quite a twisted bit of logic there if I have ever seen it.

Doc

~

No, it is the simple matter of burden of proof. The Mormons made the claim that MesoAmerica is where the Nephites "multiplied upon the face of the earth". A claim requires evidence. Non-Mormon archaeologists know of no evidence that places this civilization there. One of the new tactics is to claim the Olmec were the Jarredites and the Mayans were the Nephites, and that is just as foolish as claiming they lived in the same area as the Mayans without the Mayans having the slightest idea.

OU812

March 9th 2007, 08:34 PM

Not only that Apollotron, but it presupposes that the Mayans either KNEW the Nephites, or WERE the Nephites, whjich is laughable! This is typical Mormon archaeological twisting. The fragment in question was also from a time after the supposed BOM events:

The Mormons made the claim that MesoAmerica is where the Nephites "multiplied upon the face of the earth". A claim requires evidence. Non-Mormon archaeologists know of no evidence that places this civilization there. One of the new tactics is to claim the Olmec were the Jarredites and the Mayans were the Nephites, and that is just as foolish as claiming they lived in the same area as the Mayans without the Mayans having the slightest idea.

Speaking of the Mayans, this brings up the other curious point of 'Mormon archeology', that is, the two choices of 'where' to place the 'BOM Civilization':

1. Central America - i.e. Mayan culture areas
2. Eastern North America - i.e. the 'Mississippian'/'Hopewell' Culture areas of the Ohio Valley (also to explain why the Golden Plates ended up in what later became Upstate NY.........)

Has 'Mormon Archeology' settled which one of the two is more 'probable' - even if just from the Mormon viewpoint??? (I suspect that from the Mormon viewpoint, 'it doesn't matter', but that's no answer.......)

And your evidence that the Mayans did not know the Nephites?

Please Bill, don't be so shy. Share with us the vast information you have on the Mayan civilization that demonstrates your contentions.

And where's your 'evidence' that it wasn't actually the Ohio Valley ancients that 'knew the Nephites'???
(or ANY New World culture for that matter..........????)

Tell you what, Doc T - the whole 'Nephite'/'Lamanite' New World civilization is YOUR claim, i.e. the Mormon's claim - so it is to YOU and fellow Mormons where the responsibility for demonstrating the claim lies, and to no one else.......

3. The BofM claims that the Nephites were monotheists. The problem here is Bible scholarship is demonstrating that the first temple Isrealites believed in a divine council of gods.

No, the problem here is your rampant decontextualizing of what the latest 'Biblical scholarship' demonstrates the probabilities involved concerning what the ancient 'first temple' Israelites believed or more properly what their worldview was...... decontextualizing because it's your comparison of a doctrinal-orientated religion like Mormonism with that of an Ancient Near Eastern society that didn't deal in 'doctrines' per se .

Next, it isn't 'mere' scholarship on your's and the Mormon's part in assenting to what the latest Biblical Scholarship demonstrates or what it doesn't demonstrate....in other words, it's the Mormon religion and it's adherents - and no one else - who has a vested interest in making 'polytheists' out of the ancient Israelites......not the 'Evangelical' Christians nor 'Orthodox Christendom' in general.

The ancient Canaanites - the religious and cultural predecessors of the Israelites in the Holy Land - had a 'divine council of gods' which the grammatically plural of the divine title - NOT a divine 'name' - of 'elohim' signified. However, just becaue the Israelites, from the Patriarchs/Exodus or at least the Monarchy onwards, had adopted the Canaanite language as their own - which became the basis for Hebrew - does not mean that they 'used' that word to mean the exact same thing as their predecessors did.....

Bill the Cat

March 9th 2007, 08:39 PM

Doc T

March 13th 2007, 05:38 PM

Sorry for the delay in responding. Work sometimes keeps me away.
OK, fair enough.

Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
The link you give to a letter from the Smithsonian was from 1988. Since that time Dr. John Sorenson contacted the Smithsonian and demonstrated from their own scholars many flaws in this letter. Since 1998 the Smithsonian simply sends a letter that states: The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research, and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.
I am not aware of anyone making a claim of a relationship between Mexico and Egypt.
Michael Coe, "Mormons and Archeology: An Outside View," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Summer 1973), p. 42 — ". . . as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group."
So you start with a 1988 letter from the Smithsonian and now you use a 1973 quote from Dr. Coe. Let me ask you a question. I wonder if anything has happened in Mesoamerican archaeology since then. I wonder if anything has happened in Book of Mormon studies since then. Did FARMS exist in 1973? No. Had John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon been published by 1973? No. I wonder how long Professor Coe's article will continue to be regarded as an up-to-date report on the state of the question. And I wonder whether he's kept up with scholarship on the Book of Mormon.

I find it interesting that Dr. Coe spoke last year at BYU. He comes off as a friend of BYU--he's apparently been here a number of times and is friends with many of the faculty, John Clark, Allen Christenson, and Ray Matheny in particular. And judging by his comments, he thinks very highly of them. Among other things, he wondered aloud why he was giving the lecture "when the world's experts are here at BYU" (a fairly accurate quote). He praised the work of the New World Archeaological Foundation and BYU's faculty to such a degree that he surprised many that heard him.

Now don't think that Dr. Coe was bearing his testimony of the Book of Mormon, but using a 35 year old quote to support your premise is a bit lame. You also have not demonstrated the Dr. Coe has even read the BofM. If you have read the BofM and then read Dr. Coe's Dialogue article, it is quite obvious that at least at that point he had not read it. He was simply responding to some statements made by BofM enthusiast who are not professional archaeologist, or anthropologist.
Something hard that can not be dismissed as belonging to an existing people group at the supposed time and region.
Perhaps you can provide me with something hard demonstrating the hundreds of years that the Isrealites spent in Egypt? I mean certainly archaeology in that part of the world has been going on for much longer than in Mesoamerica, so there should be something.

And demonstrating that the Mayans knew the Nephites would be rather difficult as nearly all the written records of the people were destroyed by the Spanish conquest.
Nah, I have no real problem with Dr. Clark, especially when he makes honest comments like "Look," Clark finally said, "I'm just trying to be a professional archaeologist. To me, the Book of Mormon has the feel of an ancient document, and any problems are problems of translation. I believe it did happen someplace. I just don't know where. But I, for one, can live with the uncertainty."
First you quote an outdated letter from the Smithsonian, next you give a 35 year old quote as the last word on non-LDS scholars on the BofM and now you give unatributed quotes from Dr. Clark that are at least 20 years old if he even made such a comment. Try reading what Dr. Clark is currently saying.
No, it is the simple matter of burden of proof. The Mormons made the claim that MesoAmerica is where the Nephites "multiplied upon the face of the earth". A claim requires evidence.
Try reading, "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" and "In Search of Cumorah" to get you started. There is plenty of evidence provided.
Non-Mormon archaeologists know of no evidence that places this civilization there.
When you state that "Non-Mormon archaeologists know of no evidence that places this civilization there", what is more accurately being said is that all of the archaeological evidence known to them can be adequately interpreted and accounted for based on the assumption that there were no Nephites. This is a very different proposition. Before the discovery of the Hittites or the Dead Sea Scroll community (to provide just two examples), ancient Near Eastern historians could also adequately explain the history of the ancient Near East without a single reference to either of those groups. Yet both of those groups existed whether or not scholars were able or willing to perceive their existence. You have no argument arguing from silence.
One of the new tactics is to claim the Olmec were the Jarredites and the Mayans were the Nephites, and that is just as foolish as claiming they lived in the same area as the Mayans without the Mayans having the slightest idea.
I believe you are mistaken, the Mayans were the Lamanites, not the Nephites.

Doc

~

Doc T

March 13th 2007, 05:43 PM

Not only that, but the Bible is rife with examples of how the First Temple Jews turned to other gods... and we see how God reacted to THAT, didn't we? I have no issues with the evidence being discovered that validates the Biblical record of the Israelites turning from God to heathen idols.
I suggest that you and OU812 start by reading the works of Dr. Margaret Barker, a Methodist preacher and past president of the Society for Old Testament Studies. In fact she gave a great lecture at the Joseph Smith Symposium that was held in Washington, D. C. on how the first few chapters of the BofM fits the mileu of 600 B.C Jerusalem. I highly recommend it.

Doc

~

Bill the Cat

March 13th 2007, 07:43 PM

Oh yes, Margaret Barker. The same Barker that Owen and Mosser dismiss as "not worth the time to refute". She accepts the debunked JEDP theory, which causes as many problems for you as it does for me. If you accept the arguments from Barker, you must accept the foundation as well. The whole foundation of the JEDP theory is that Jewish religion evolved over time with no supernatural intervention. Barker is not respected by anyone except the Mormons.

Doc T

March 13th 2007, 09:00 PM

Oh yes, Margaret Barker. The same Barker that Owen and Mosser dismiss as "not worth the time to refute".
Yes, and as much as I respect Owen and Mosser, they did a poor job in their review of her work. For examples see Kevin Christensen's review of their work.
She accepts the debunked JEDP theory, which causes as many problems for you as it does for me.
Please provide evidence that Dr. Barker accepts the JEDP theory. I have heard this accusation before, but no evidence.
If you accept the arguments from Barker, you must accept the foundation as well.
I'll wait for you to provide evidence that her foundation if the JEDP theory before commenting.
Barker is not respected by anyone except the Mormons.
Call for evidence.

Doc

~

Bill the Cat

March 14th 2007, 08:53 AM

Yes, and as much as I respect Owen and Mosser, they did a poor job in their review of her work. For examples see Kevin Christensen's review of their work.

Christensen's response was typical and shallow. In no way did he tackle anything Owen said about Barker, and even contradicts his own complaints...

He first gripes in a question that wonders why Owen even addresses Barker as much as he did

Why, in an article addressing Latter-day Saint claims, does Paul Owen devote a fifth of his paper to a critique of a book by a Methodist writer, Margaret Barker, on the basis of a few citations by three Latter-day Saint scholars?

Then he moans about why Owen didn't address MORE

But of that vast body of material, he restricts his direct response to just a few passages in the Old Testament (one page of four actually addressing her readings), Philo (four pages), and the New Testament (one page).

He then goes on a long winded "yeah, but..." crusade, never addressing Owen's exegesis and refutations. He simply hand waves off Owen's points and says "But he never addressed Barker's overall hypothesis" which is nonsense. Christensen was simply unhappy with Owen's approach and it was quite clear that he had no real refutation of Owen's material.

Please provide evidence that Dr. Barker accepts the JEDP theory. I have heard this accusation before, but no evidence.

Then you have not read Christensen's critique of Owen for yourself. The whole piece is a defense of Barker's Deuteronomic editing theory, which is a staple of the JEDP theory.

Owen introduces Barker's view that "during and after the exile, the Deuteronomists instituted wide-ranging religious reforms that carried on the earlier program of King Josiah (cf. 2 Kgs 22–23; 2 Chr 34–35). These reforms involved the elevation of Law and demotion of Wisdom, the quenching of heavenly ascents and visions of God, and the enforcement of strict monotheism."

I'll wait for you to provide evidence that her foundation if the JEDP theory before commenting.

Call for evidence.

Doc

~

. According to, The Jewish Encyclopedia,"For it is obvious that there is a definite method and purpose in the consistent efforts of the nomistic writers to substitute new terms for those found in the ancient authorities (scriptures), or to remodel entire accounts. Such revision is to be seen, for example, in the so-called 'priestly code' where all theophanies are consistently omitted, and the 'word' or the 'presence of God' substituted for them." P.622

Bill the Cat

March 14th 2007, 12:48 PM

Sorry for the delay in responding. Work sometimes keeps me away.

The link you give to a letter from the Smithsonian was from 1988. Since that time Dr. John Sorenson contacted the Smithsonian and demonstrated from their own scholars many flaws in this letter. Since 1998 the Smithsonian simply sends a letter that states:

Sharon Lindbloom inquired recently about this very letter. There is no indication that the Smithsonian admitted flaws in the letter, and in fact answered to the contrary to Sharon by saying:

9 February 1999

Dear Ms. Lindbloom:

Thank you for your letter. We still stand by our former statement on the Book of Mormon. It was a decision of the Smithsonian's central Office of Public Affairs to simplify the statement to respond to general questions regarding the Smithsonian's use of the Book of Mormon. Below is the statement we presently distribute for these general inquiries.

Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonian's Department of Anthropology.
The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you may have received to the contrary is incorrect.

I hope I have answered your question.

Sincerely,
(Signed) Ann Kaupp, Head
Anthropology Outreach Office
National Museum of Natural History

I am not aware of anyone making a claim of a relationship between Mexico and Egypt.

The Egyptian connection has been noted by Barry Fell [18], Ivan Van Sertima [19], Norman Totten [20], John Sorenson [21], Paul R. Cheesman [22], and the F.A.R.M.S. staff [23], to name just a few.

So you start with a 1988 letter from the Smithsonian and now you use a 1973 quote from Dr. Coe. Let me ask you a question. I wonder if anything has happened in Mesoamerican archaeology since then. I wonder if anything has happened in Book of Mormon studies since then. Did FARMS exist in 1973? No. Had John Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon been published by 1973? No. I wonder how long Professor Coe's article will continue to be regarded as an up-to-date report on the state of the question. And I wonder whether he's kept up with scholarship on the Book of Mormon.

I'm sure he has kept up to date on what he is interested in, which is current mesoamerican archaeology.

I find it interesting that Dr. Coe spoke last year at BYU. He comes off as a friend of BYU--he's apparently been here a number of times and is friends with many of the faculty, John Clark, Allen Christenson, and Ray Matheny in particular. And judging by his comments, he thinks very highly of them. Among other things, he wondered aloud why he was giving the lecture "when the world's experts are here at BYU" (a fairly accurate quote). He praised the work of the New World Archeaological Foundation and BYU's faculty to such a degree that he surprised many that heard him.

You have a transcript I could read?

Now don't think that Dr. Coe was bearing his testimony of the Book of Mormon, but using a 35 year old quote to support your premise is a bit lame.

To which Bill McKeever says that Dr. Coe still stands by. Unless you have a direct quote where he recants the original quote, it stands as a valid representation of his stance.

You also have not demonstrated the Dr. Coe has even read the BofM. If you have read the BofM and then read Dr. Coe's Dialogue article, it is quite obvious that at least at that point he had not read it. He was simply responding to some statements made by BofM enthusiast who are not professional archaeologist, or anthropologist.

Does he really need to read the whole thing to understand the claim relevant to his field of study? The claim was made that the people of the BOM lived in MesoAmerica

Perhaps you can provide me with something hard demonstrating the hundreds of years that the Isrealites spent in Egypt? I mean certainly archaeology in that part of the world has been going on for much longer than in Mesoamerica, so there should be something.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Additionally,

When new kings ascended the throne, they naturally wanted to be seen in the best light. So in many nations they covered up or destroyed monuments and records of previous monarchs. This pattern of expunging earlier historical evidence can be repeatedly seen in Egyptian monuments and historical records. For example, after the Hyksos rulers were expelled from Egypt, the Egyptians erased the records of that humiliating period so thoroughly that some of the names and the order of the Hyksos kings remain uncertain.
So it should come as no surprise that the ancient Egyptians would not have wanted to record or even remember what was perhaps their greatest humiliation–the national devastation that occurred when their Israelite slaves won their freedom and Egypt’s might proved powerless to stop them.

And demonstrating that the Mayans knew the Nephites would be rather difficult as nearly all the written records of the people were destroyed by the Spanish conquest.

Yet all of the available evidence paints a rather clear picture of the political climate of MesoAmerica during that time, and the Mayans knew of other civilizations, like the Olmec, and their kings, as shown in recent finds in Guatemala. Yet they show absolutely no evidence of the society described in the Book of Mormon.

First you quote an outdated letter from the Smithsonian,

Which they still stand by

next you give a 35 year old quote as the last word on non-LDS scholars on the BofM

That he has yet to recant

and now you give unatributed quotes from Dr. Clark that are at least 20 years old if he even made such a comment.
Nice calling Mr. Sides a liar…

Try reading what Dr. Clark is currently saying.

Try reading, "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" and "In Search of Cumorah" to get you started. There is plenty of evidence provided.

I’ve read some excerpts from it and seen far too many apologetic responses use it, and yet it still does nothing more than you are doing. Sorenson’s Limited Geography that he maintains in the book causes all sorts of problems for the text:

http://www.irr.org/mit/bomarch1.html][/url] Another major discrepancy of the limited geography theory is the 45 degree directional skewing that results when the geographic features of the Book of Mormon are superimposed onto the proposed Central American site. Map 2 (attached) illustrates the problem. It shows that the Book of Mormon's "land northward" and "land southward" are actually oriented along a northwest-southeast line. This places the "East Sea" and "West Sea" almost directly north and south of these proposed Book of Mormon lands. It is clear from the Bible that the ancient Israelites used the rising sun as the basis for directional orientation (e.g., Exodus 27:13; 38:13; Numbers 2:3; Ezekiel 8:16). Therefore, one must ask, "Would Hebrew immigrants arriving at the proposed Central American site and using the sun as their directional reference, have arrived at the severely skewed directional orientation suggested by Sorenson?"

When you state that "Non-Mormon archaeologists know of no evidence that places this civilization there", what is more accurately being said is that all of the archaeological evidence known to them can be adequately interpreted and accounted for based on the assumption that there were no Nephites.

This is just plain wrong. The non-Mormon archaeology journals do not mention the Nephites for a reason. MesoAmerican archaeologists are not digging to disprove the Nephites.

This is a very different proposition. Before the discovery of the Hittites or the Dead Sea Scroll community (to provide just two examples), ancient Near Eastern historians could also adequately explain the history of the ancient Near East without a single reference to either of those groups.

The first evidence for the Hittites was discovered in 1884 by William Wright. The Qumran community was a tiny community isolated in the desert. These are in no way comparable to the massive Nephite community that is still yet to be proven to exist by any ancient manuscript or document older than 1830. The Biblical records of the Hittites existed well before the Qumran community records.

Yet both of those groups existed whether or not scholars were able or willing to perceive their existence. You have no argument arguing from silence.

The problem is that it is not silence. Your red herrings of the Hittites and the Qumran community still have evidence of existence in ancient manuscripts. Biblical texts dating well before the advent of Christ testify to the existence of the Hittites. The Nephites have no ancient manuscripts to evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Nephites existed prior to 1830. Unless you can produce the fictional plates, or some other inscription that shows the Nephites were in America, YOU argue from silence.

I believe you are mistaken, the Mayans were the Lamanites, not the Nephites.

Which is why you will not be taken seriously. The Mayans existed LONG before the Lamanites supposedly came to America. See http://archaeology.about.com/od/mterms/g/mayaciv.htm

John Powell

March 15th 2007, 11:32 AM

Please provide evidence that Dr. Barker accepts the JEDP theory. I have heard this accusation before, but no evidence.

. . .

I'll wait for you to provide evidence that her foundation if the JEDP theory before commenting.

JOHN MORMON:
That sounds self-contradictory, Doc T, because, assuming that what your opponents would provide you as "evidence" would be written statements supportive of the proposition "Dr. Barker accepts the JEDP theory" and since you've already read written statements supportive of as much (in the form of the say-so of your opponents). What you should say is something like "I have heard this accusation before, but no evidence besides the accusation."

Bill the Cat:
Barker is not respected by anyone except the Mormons.

Doc T:
Call for evidence.

JOHN MORMON:
You should say something like "for much more evidence." If Bill the Cat's testimony can't count as evidence then how can anybody else's?

John Powell

Bill the Cat

April 1st 2007, 04:24 PM

I'm watching Conference right now and I am noticing the absolute AVERSION to naming a specific location. All of the speakers that mention the supposed appearance of Jesus to the people of the BOM, the speaker says the Western Hemisphere. Wonder why, if BYU is so convinced that it happened in MesoAmerica??