What physical evidence today supports Mormonism?

[revivalfire]

I asked this on a thread in the Islam thread and was directed here... Anyway...Christianity has things like James' Ossuary, Golgotha, Trilabites and fish found on some of the highest peaks in the world and the three sisters in Australia point to a flood, historically correct dates lining up with the Bible, sightings of Noah's Ark(unconfirmed but plausible because of more then one sighting).....um...what else......Prophecies coming to past(although disputed about some in the Old Testament, either way, they have or will come to past).....um.... Oh and a question...If in Revelation, Christ said he is coming quickly and tells us throughout the New Testemant to be ready, what use is a third testament? And didn't Christ imply he was kinda the last prophet when he said that many would come in his name? (John doesn't count partially because it was within the time frame of the Canon of Scripture and because they were letters to specific churches...not decrees to everyone, it was for the Church only...at least that is my opinion)

[Jin-Roh]

I guess I should let them speak for themselves, but I think that most LDS don't consider an appeal to evidence neccessary for their belief. I know that there has been LDS archeological research in the past, but I'm not sure if any of that is very active today.

[Krusader]

I guess I should let them speak for themselves, but I think that most LDS don't consider an appeal to evidence neccessary for their belief. I know that there has been LDS archeological research in the past, but I'm not sure if any of that is very active today.
Let's see. If archeology proved that not one city mentioned in the O.T. ever existed, nor any of the tribes, wouldn't that bother you?

Maybe Mormons don't need any archeological evidence to support Smith's fantasy book.......but as for Christians, we have a wealth of archeological support for our beliefs.

[Jin-Roh]

Let's see. If archeology proved that not one city mentioned in the O.T. ever existed, nor any of the tribes, wouldn't that bother you?

Maybe Mormons don't need any archeological evidence to support Smith's fantasy book.......but as for Christians, we have a wealth of archeological support for our beliefs.

So when their aren't Mormons around to bat at you take swings at the nearest poster? :wink:

I wasn't making any commet on the relationship between archeaology and the Christian faith, but rather how I think Mormons view issue.

When you confront mormons with the list of disproofs are lack of evidences, how do they usually react?

[Krusader]

So when their aren't Mormons around to bat at you take swings at the nearest poster? :wink:

I wasn't making any commet on the relationship between archeaology and the Christian faith, but rather how I think Mormons view issue.

When you confront mormons with the list of disproofs are lack of evidences, how do they usually react?
I wasn't taking a swipe at you, sorry if you misunderstood. I was simply commenting on the lack of Mormon archeology.

And, by the way, one of my best friends is a Mormon, and we have quite a great deal of discussion on the subject.

[Krusader]

I asked this on a thread in the Islam thread and was directed here... Anyway...Christianity has things like James' Ossuary, Golgotha, Trilabites and fish found on some of the highest peaks in the world and the three sisters in Australia point to a flood, historically correct dates lining up with the Bible, sightings of Noah's Ark(unconfirmed but plausible because of more then one sighting).....um...what else......Prophecies coming to past(although disputed about some in the Old Testament, either way, they have or will come to past).....um.... Oh and a question...If in Revelation, Christ said he is coming quickly and tells us throughout the New Testemant to be ready, what use is a third testament? And didn't Christ imply he was kinda the last prophet when he said that many would come in his name? (John doesn't count partially because it was within the time frame of the Canon of Scripture and because they were letters to specific churches...not decrees to everyone, it was for the Church only...at least that is my opinion)
Jesus did prophesy the coming of many false prophets, even those who would do great signs and wonders. Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith fall into this category....and come under the curse found in the book of Revelation asserting that those who "add" to God's Word will have no part in God's Kingdom.

[just Johnna]

Hi Revivalfire,

The St. James Ossuary is an unfortunate example, I would suggest dropping it from your index file. If you google news for james ossuary (http://news.google.com/news?q=james%20ossuary&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=wn), or consider a site (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm) like this, you'll see the ossuary probably has no real tie to the brother of our Lord. I am disappointed too.

You do know that we that the existence of Golgotha is supporting evidence to our belief in Jesus Christ, Son of God, too, right?

I usually associate trilabites and fish fossils on mountains with evolution rather than Noah's Flood, but my relaxed acceptance of theistic evolution is not classically mormon, I hear. Mormons are big on Noah's Flood--it functions as a powerful symbol of the baptism of the earth for some. I don't know the three sisters in australia, so I'm not familiar with them as evidence of the flood. But apparently you and I both believe in a flood.

If you'd like to go on to the molecular genetics issue, someone could answer me this--I'm confused why the same Christians who are eager to accept this evidence as proof that no family of ten immigrated to the Americas around 600 BC, would clearly not accept this evidence that Native Americans came to the Americas before 12,000 BC?



I asked this on a thread in the Islam thread and was directed here... Anyway...Christianity has things like James' Ossuary, Golgotha, Trilabites and fish found on some of the highest peaks in the world and the three sisters in Australia point to a flood, historically correct dates lining up with the Bible, sightings of Noah's Ark(unconfirmed but plausible because of more then one sighting).....um...what else......Prophecies coming to past(although disputed about some in the Old Testament, either way, they have or will come to past).....um.... Oh and a question...If in Revelation, Christ said he is coming quickly and tells us throughout the New Testemant to be ready, what use is a third testament? And didn't Christ imply he was kinda the last prophet when he said that many would come in his name? (John doesn't count partially because it was within the time frame of the Canon of Scripture and because they were letters to specific churches...not decrees to everyone, it was for the Church only...at least that is my opinion)site (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm)

[Dave G]

If you'd like to go on to the molecular genetics issue, someone could answer me this--I'm confused why the same Christians who are eager to accept this evidence as proof that no family of ten immigrated to the Americas around 600 BC, would clearly not accept this evidence that Native Americans came to the Americas before 12,000 BC?



Who denies when the Native Americans were here?

[revivalfire]

Interesting...thank you.... It's just that I've heard alot about plates being found in America and Christ visiting South America, but wouldn't such a miraculous appearance cause the natives to right about it? Like, um, on walls or in books or something? It must not have been a big deal if they didn't....that was where I was kinda getting at...

[Krusader]

Hi Revivalfire,

The St. James Ossuary is an unfortunate example, I would suggest dropping it from your index file. If you google news for james ossuary (http://news.google.com/news?q=james%20ossuary&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=wn), or consider a site (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm) like this, you'll see the ossuary probably has no real tie to the brother of our Lord. I am disappointed too.

You do know that we that the existence of Golgotha is supporting evidence to our belief in Jesus Christ, Son of God, too, right?

I usually associate trilabites and fish fossils on mountains with evolution rather than Noah's Flood, but my relaxed acceptance of theistic evolution is not classically mormon, I hear. Mormons are big on Noah's Flood--it functions as a powerful symbol of the baptism of the earth for some. I don't know the three sisters in australia, so I'm not familiar with them as evidence of the flood. But apparently you and I both believe in a flood.

If you'd like to go on to the molecular genetics issue, someone could answer me this--I'm confused why the same Christians who are eager to accept this evidence as proof that no family of ten immigrated to the Americas around 600 BC, would clearly not accept this evidence that Native Americans came to the Americas before 12,000 BC?


site (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm)
Where do you get this idea that Christians negate the possibility of migration to this country prior to 12,000 BC? The fact that folsom points/clovis points have been discovered in the SW US in settings that pre-date 12,000 BC would point to an earlier migration to this country by those with a southern Siberian origin, or possibly by boat from the Pacific islands.

There is, however, no proof that American Indians are Lamanites, who according to the Book of Mormon, grew to millions, built cities, made steel, had cattle and horses (all of this prior to the Spanish conquest), and were descended from the Jews (and who were struck with a "dark skin" due to their disobedience). All of this is Mormon fiction based on 19th century beliefs (as is found in "View of the Hebrews," a novel of religious fiction to which Smith was probably exposed), and has been discredited by science and archeology. The BOM also portrays the generally held view that dark skin = sinfulness, something never taught in Scripture, but widely held by 19th century Americans.

[just Johnna]

Who denies when the Native Americans were here?There's a lot of overlap between people who date the expulsion from the Garden of Eden at 6000 BC, and the people who think molecular genetics prove the Lehi and his family are not historical.

I'm glad to see there's no such overlap here. Do you believe in a literal Adam at 25,000 BC?

[Krusader]

There's a lot of overlap between people who date the expulsion from the Garden of Eden at 6000 BC, and the people who think molecular genetics prove the Lehi and his family are not historical.

I'm glad to see there's no such overlap here. Do you believe in a literal Adam at 25,000 BC?
Hi, Justjohnna. Yes, I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and believe that the Bible is without error. However, the earth is far older than 6,000 years of age, and carbon-dating tests on lithic material found in the United States, especially in the southwest, establish a much earlier date for inhabitation by man than 12,000 years ago.

So, to reconcile this, I would assume that the periods of time given in Genesis are not necessarily 24-hr. literal days. If this makes me more Episcopalian than Baptist, I plead guilty.

[Bill the Cat]

Well, to play devil's advocate, there is the presumed site of the River Laman (I think it's called that), Nahom, and Bountiful on the Arabian Peninsula (although the vague references given in the BOM could indicate just about anywhere) are some that they use, as well as some concrete found in the Mayan ruins and the copper scroll in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jeff Lindsay lists several archaeological evidences on his site. You can google for his name and find his site (it's lightplanet.com or something)

[revivalfire]

Hi, Justjohnna. Yes, I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and believe that the Bible is without error. However, the earth is far older than 6,000 years of age, and carbon-dating tests on lithic material found in the United States, especially in the southwest, establish a much earlier date for inhabitation by man than 12,000 years ago.

So, to reconcile this, I would assume that the periods of time given in Genesis are not necessarily 24-hr. literal days. If this makes me more Episcopalian than Baptist, I plead guilty.
Carbon-14 dating is very inaccurate leading up to and especially past 5,000 years....just to let you know...

[just Johnna]

Carbon-14 dating is very inaccurate leading up to and especially past 5,000 years....just to let you know...I know some people think it inaccurate.

But I was speaking of molecular genetics as a science, not carbon-14. It is concluded from molecular genetics that the native americans broke off from the other asian peoples before 12,000 B.C. Usually in a series emigrations that run back probably as far as 25,000 B.C.

[Krusader]

I know some people think it inaccurate.

But I was speaking of molecular genetics as a science, not carbon-14. It is concluded from molecular genetics that the native americans broke off from the other asian peoples before 12,000 B.C. Usually in a series emigrations that run back probably as far as 25,000 B.C.
I was just mentioning carbon-dating in reference to lithic material demonstrating an early date for inhabitation on this continent. I recently read an article that projects habitation as early as 20,000 BC, although that is rather radical.

As for the native Americans, the Mongoloid characteristics and DNA indicators seem to verify the theory that they crossed the land bridge from southern Siberia, and moved into North America at least 12,000 years ago, and I would say a lot earlier.

[just Johnna]

As for the native Americans, the Mongoloid characteristics and DNA indicators seem to verify the theory that they crossed the land bridge from southern Siberia, and moved into North America at least 12,000 years ago, and I would say a lot earlier.
Which I sometimes count as physical evidence supporting the text of the Book of Mormon, which describes an immigration to the Americas immediately post Tower of Babel.

[Dave G]

The Mormon missionaries that spoke with me said that the Jews came by boat, across the Atlantic, and became the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans.

[Krusader]

Which I sometimes count as physical evidence supporting the text of the Book of Mormon, which describes an immigration to the Americas immediately post Tower of Babel.However, it could only support the BOM were we to find DNA indicators supporting the a Middle Eastern genetic background. This is not what we find, however, and there is no proof of any post Tower immigration by Semetic peoples. What we do have is a great deal of evidence of migration to this continent by those of the southern Siberian region.

Now, of course the normal Mormon rebuttal would be that the genetic indicators have disappeared. But here is an intersting bit of info:

In Zimbabwe a black Bantu-speaking people numbering about 50,000 have claimed for years to be descended from Jews from the Middle East who had traveled to Africa centuries earlier. Known as the Lemba, their oral tradition spoke of ancestors arriving by boat from a lost city called Sena, and that the original party consisted entirely of males shipwrecked off the eastern African coast.

The Lemba claim to Jewish ancestory was based on scant evidence, but included some tribal customs such as circumcision, food taboos, and use of biblical names. On the surface, their customs could be Judaic, or derived from Muslim cultures.

Scientists decided to see if there was any truth in their claim to be Jews, and dna tests were done. It was discovered that a surprisingly high proportion of Lemba Y chromosones have Semitic origins. About 70 % of Lemba Y chromosomes are Semitic, the remaining 30 % are commong amount the surrounding Bantu populations. About one in ten Lemba male lineages proved to be virtually identical to the Cohen (Jewish priesthood genetic marker) paternal lineage - which is powerful evidence that Lemba oral traditions are based on fact not myth (see Losing a Lost Trib, pp. 127-128; also SCIENCE, 1999, 286:451-453).

Now, if the Lemba can prove their Jewish heritage centuries after their mixing with Jews, certainly the Native Americans should have some type of genetic markers indicating Semitic origins.

The fact is they do not!

[just Johnna]

However, it could only support the BOM were we to find DNA indicators supporting the a Middle Eastern genetic background. This is not what we find, however, and there is no proof of any post Tower immigration by Semetic peoples.
Crusader, the post-Tower immigration, described in the Book of Ether, is not a Semitic people.

They are usually interpreted to be an Asiatic people, people read the text as a land journey across the Asiatic Steppes. You may have heard of these people referred to as Jaredites, though they do not so name themselves in the text. They predate the Lehi group by thousands of years, and there is no reason to believe they are the only immigration to the Americas.

Finding markers from the Lehi groups would be much more difficult than for the Lemba. The Lemba settled as a larger group. In the Book of Mormon, you start with a genetic bottleneck: Two women (Sarah and Ishmael's wife) and three men (Lehi, Ishmael, and Zoram) to source the group, intermarriage with the indigenous population looks to be fairly immediate. Any time dna-marked women have only sons, or dna-marked men have only daughters, you loose a marker line. Throw in some pretty signficant wars, and a huge genetic bottleneck when the disease-bearing europeans arrive. Is that the "normal Mormon rebuttal" you're looking for?

My, you already have a copy of "Losing a Lost Tribe" Crusader? What an interesting library you must have.


David G., last month at Bible Study the dear lady who gives the lectures told us that the people of Galatia who received that letter from Paul were the forebears of the modern English and French. She was overextending to help us identify with those to whom the letter was written, but I didn't see the need to stand up and correct her. Certainly there is a contribution to our cultural heritage we claim from Galatia.
When did you speak to missionaries? The text has Nephi's group launching the boat from the eastern coast of the Arabian peninsula, especially in the last ten years it's been assumed they went around India and across the Pacific Ocean, especially after the site for Nahom was discovered. Nephi's route is not a salvific matter, however.

[Krusader]

Crusader, the post-Tower immigration, described in the Book of Ether, is not a Semitic people.

They are usually interpreted to be an Asiatic people, people read the text as a land journey across the Asiatic Steppes. You may have heard of these people referred to as Jaredites, though they do not so name themselves in the text. They predate the Lehi group by thousands of years, and there is no reason to believe they are the only immigration to the Americas.

Finding markers from the Lehi groups would be much more difficult than for the Lemba. The Lemba settled as a larger group. In the Book of Mormon, you start with a genetic bottleneck: Two women (Sarah and Ishmael's wife) and three men (Lehi, Ishmael, and Zoram) to source the group, intermarriage with the indigenous population looks to be fairly immediate. Any time dna-marked women have only sons, or dna-marked men have only daughters, you loose a marker line. Throw in some pretty signficant wars, and a huge genetic bottleneck when the disease-bearing europeans arrive. Is that the "normal Mormon rebuttal" you're looking for?

My, you already have a copy of "Losing a Lost Tribe" Crusader? What an interesting library you must have.


David G., last month at Bible Study the dear lady who gives the lectures told us that the people of Galatia who received that letter from Paul were the forebears of the modern English and French. She was overextending to help us identify with those to whom the letter was written, but I didn't see the need to stand up and correct her. Certainly there is a contribution to our cultural heritage we claim from Galatia.
When did you speak to missionaries? The text has Nephi's group launching the boat from the eastern coast of the Arabian peninsula, especially in the last ten years it's been assumed they went around India and across the Pacific Ocean, especially after the site for Nahom was discovered. Nephi's route is not a salvific matter, however.
Some Mormons claim that the Jaredites were the descendents of Ham and were black, and were the first "chosen" people. The fact is that nobody knows the ethnic makeup of this supposed group - and weren't they all killed in warfare, according to Ether?

Now, there is no doubt, whatsoever, that Smith and Young and all the early leaders of the church (who supposedly had prophetic gifts) viewed the Lamanites as the ancestors of Native Americans. And, the Lamanites were said to have spread over the face of the whole land. In fact, according to Mormonism, God directly told Oliver Cowdery to preach to the Lamanites:

"Behold, I say unto thee, Oliver....you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them...and no man knoweth where the city Zion shall be built, but it shall be given hereafter. Behold, I say unto you that it shall be build on the borders by the Lamanites." D & C 28:1-14

and also:

"And now concerning my servant Parley P. Pratt, behold I say unto him that as I live I will that he shall declare my gospel....And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall go with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites." D & C 32:1-2

Is there any doubt that the God supposedly speaking here did not believe that the Indians were the Lamanites?

There is a vast amount of early Mormon material verifying the belief among the prophets that the remnant of the Jews were the Lamanites, who through conversion were to become "white and delightsome," white now being changed to "pure" due to the obvious racial slur of the original wording.

Let me close with the Mormon God's words in D&C 54:7-8:

(to Newel Knight) "take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites."

The land west of Missouri was obviously that inhabited by the Native Americans. To now come up with the argument that the Indians are not necessarily Lamanites contradicts Mormon prophecy.

[Dave G]

David G., last month at Bible Study the dear lady who gives the lectures told us that the people of Galatia who received that letter from Paul were the forebears of the modern English and French. She was overextending to help us identify with those to whom the letter was written, but I didn't see the need to stand up and correct her. Certainly there is a contribution to our cultural heritage we claim from Galatia.
When did you speak to missionaries? The text has Nephi's group launching the boat from the eastern coast of the Arabian peninsula, especially in the last ten years it's been assumed they went around India and across the Pacific Ocean, especially after the site for Nahom was discovered. Nephi's route is not a salvific matter, however.
I might be mistaken about the route, it's been maybe a year since I talked to them. But what I gathered from what they were telling me is that the Jews who migrated did not become the Native Americans at all. I believe we are talking about North Americans here. They also told me the reformed Egyptian that the plates were written in had each character representing an entire paragraph of text.

[Krusader]

I might be mistaken about the route, it's been maybe a year since I talked to them. But what I gathered from what they were telling me is that the Jews who migrated did not become the Native Americans at all. I believe we are talking about North Americans here. They also told me the reformed Egyptian that the plates were written in had each character representing an entire paragraph of text.
Let me just interject, that there is no evidence of any language, written or otherwise, called Reformed Egyptian. Also, since Jews were very careful regarding the recording of the Scriptures, which they wrote only in Hebrew upon the skins of animals ritually sacrificed (this done by the special group called "scribes"), it is highly unlikely that any type of holy writings would have been enscirbed in Reformed Egyptian on metal plates. The whole Reformed Egyptian on metal plates deal is pure fantasy.

[just Johnna]

Some Mormons claim that the Jaredites were the descendents of Ham and were black, and were the first "chosen" people. The fact is that nobody knows the ethnic makeup of this supposed group - and weren't they all killed in warfare, according to Ether?
Wow, I never heard this Ham-Jaredite claim--and apparently you never did before yesterday. You have a very odd and (from our earlier discussion) Ham-obsessed source. I collect fringe theories. Where are you getting yours?

The Book of Ether people are understood to be Asiatic because they travel east from the Tower of Babel, living nomadically for decades, presumably on the Asiatic steppes, before crossing the Pacific Ocean. The text only provides decades traveling east from the Tower--the interpretation Asiatic is widely received, and usually sourced to Hugh Nibley's 1970s book on Jaredites. Obviously, it must also be sourced to noticing that Native Americans look Asiatic.

What's interesting about talking to you is you have all sorts of odd stuff to say around the Book, but not a close familiarity with the text itself. Ether says they are all killed off, but who gets all killed off is the oligarchy and everyone they conscripted. The texts indicates cultural contact between the Nephites and the people Mormon calls "Jaredites." Jaredite names on rebellious Nephites are obvious. Nibley called attention to this in his book too.


Now, there is no doubt, whatsoever, that Smith and Young and all the early leaders of the church (who supposedly had prophetic gifts) viewed the Lamanites as the ancestors of Native Americans.
True, but the text also reveals that the definition of "Lamanite" is "Not A Nephite." So of course people spread all over the land are "Not a Nephite" and Native Americans living across the Mississippi river are living in the land of "Not a Nephite." Taught at BYU in 1985.


And, the Lamanites were said to have spread over the face of the whole land. In fact, according to Mormonism, God directly told Oliver Cowdery to preach to the Lamanites:

"Behold, I say unto thee, Oliver....you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them...and no man knoweth where the city Zion shall be built, but it shall be given hereafter. Behold, I say unto you that it shall be build on the borders by the Lamanites." D & C 28:1-14

and also:

"And now concerning my servant Parley P. Pratt, behold I say unto him that as I live I will that he shall declare my gospel....And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall go with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites." D & C 32:1-2

Is there any doubt that the God supposedly speaking here did not believe that the Indians were the Lamanites?
Since the idea of God, like the idea of writing, spreads well through cultural contact, the use of "Lamanite" indicates these people already know something about God that is to be respected and built upon.


Let me close with the Mormon God's words in D&C 54:7-8:

(to Newel Knight) "take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites."

The land west of Missouri was obviously that inhabited by the Native Americans. To now come up with the argument that the Indians are not necessarily Lamanites contradicts Mormon prophecy.But they are necessarily Lamanites--because they're not Nephites.



There is a vast amount of early Mormon material verifying the belief among the prophets that the remnant of the Jews were the Lamanites, who through conversion were to become "white and delightsome," white now being changed to "pure" due to the obvious racial slur of the original wording.There is a vast amount of 1800s American material verifying the pervasive racism of the time.

The prophet Joseph Smith corrected "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome" in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon. How cool that the Lord raised the prophet so far out of the racist milieu of America.

The correction was missed in the editions that followed, until the careful work that produced the 1979 edition. I went to seminary on the 1979, so I had to sit through the then-boring announcements of how the original hand-written manuscripts, and the 1840 edition, had been brought to producing a more accurate text, and so on.

I'm not the only Mormon who knows it's "pure and delightsome."
http://www.blacklds.org/tvedtnes.html

[Krusader]

Wow, I never heard this Ham-Jaredite claim--and apparently you never did before yesterday. You have a very odd and (from our earlier discussion) Ham-obsessed source. I collect fringe theories. Where are you getting yours?

The Book of Ether people are understood to be Asiatic because they travel east from the Tower of Babel, living nomadically for decades, presumably on the Asiatic steppes, before crossing the Pacific Ocean. The text only provides decades traveling east from the Tower--the interpretation Asiatic is widely received, and usually sourced to Hugh Nibley's 1970s book on Jaredites. Obviously, it must also be sourced to noticing that Native Americans look Asiatic.

What's interesting about talking to you is you have all sorts of odd stuff to say around the Book, but not a close familiarity with the text itself. Ether says they are all killed off, but who gets all killed off is the oligarchy and everyone they conscripted. The texts indicates cultural contact between the Nephites and the people Mormon calls "Jaredites." Jaredite names on rebellious Nephites are obvious. Nibley called attention to this in his book too.


True, but the text also reveals that the definition of "Lamanite" is "Not A Nephite." So of course people spread all over the land are "Not a Nephite" and Native Americans living across the Mississippi river are living in the land of "Not a Nephite." Taught at BYU in 1985.


Since the idea of God, like the idea of writing, spreads well through cultural contact, the use of "Lamanite" indicates these people already know something about God that is to be respected and built upon.

But they are necessarily Lamanites--because they're not Nephites.


There is a vast amount of 1800s American material verifying the pervasive racism of the time.

The prophet Joseph Smith corrected "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome" in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon. How cool that the Lord raised the prophet so far out of the racist milieu of America.

The correction was missed in the editions that followed, until the careful work that produced the 1979 edition. I went to seminary on the 1979, so I had to sit through the then-boring announcements of how the original hand-written manuscripts, and the 1840 edition, had been brought to producing a more accurate text, and so on.

I'm not the only Mormon who knows it's "pure and delightsome."
http://www.blacklds.org/tvedtnes.html
Hi, Justjohnna. The Jaredite/Ham connection is found on the Black Mormons website. I don't know if they are "orthodox" Mormons, are they? Just do a search and it will come up.

You are right in that I'm not as familiar with the Jaredite story as you, of course. But the issue is not the Jaredites at all - it is this: Doesn't the BOM teach that the Lamanites were the bad guys who fought the Nephites, won, and became the American Indians according to traditional Mormon teaching? Were not the Nephites and the Lamanites of one common ancestory - and that being Jewish, according to the BOM? If the Lamanites survived and became the Native Americans of this continent, shouldn't there be some DNA indicators? I think there should be, but I'm not a genetic specialist. I really think we can go back and forth on this all day, but the in the final analysis, the DNA tests indicate NO Semitic origin for Native Americans.....period.

I really think this is the first time that Mormons have had to deal with scientific evidence that refutes the BOM. Of course, there were always those that pointed out the fact that steel was never smelted here in pre-Columbian times, that cattle were never raised here before the Spanish brought them, nor were there horses (other than pre-historic horses of small stature who died out long ago), nor were there chariots nor the invention of the wheel, prior to occupation of the Americas by the Spanish.

Taking all the evidence together, it would seem to me that any reasonable non-Mormon would have to conclude that the BOM is a 19th century work of religious fiction. The internal evidence clearly points to the fact that all the religious controversies of Smith's time are resolved in the BOM. As I have already pointed out, it was commonly held by many in the 19th century that the Indians were one of the lost tribes of Israel, and this myth was incorporated by Smith into the book he authored.

As I have probably said before, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Given all the evidence, the BOM never originated among Hebrews who miraculously settled somewhere in Central or South America, grew to millions, fought each other constantly, and wiped most of each other out. None of their cities have ever been discovered, no examples of Reformed Egyptian have ever been discovered. The simple explanation is that the story was the product of a fertile mind and not factual.

[just Johnna]

As I have already pointed out, it was commonly held by many in the 19th century that the Indians were one of the lost tribes of Israel, and this myth was incorporated by Smith into the book he authored.
The LDS don't say the Lamanites are a lost tribe of Israel. That's a common misunderstanding, but the urban legend juiciness is so strong Southerton titled his book "Losing a Lost Tribe." You would think, if Joseph Smith was writing fiction to appeal to his contemporaries, he would have at least provided them with the lost Israelite tribe they were expecting. Instead, he provides a cultural contact between one family from Jerusalem with the people of the Americas.

Hi, Justjohnna. The Jaredite/Ham connection is found on the Black Mormons website. I don't know if they are "orthodox" Mormons, are they? Just do a search and it will come up.
Found it--Darrick Evenson, a man I know only by his excellent reputation. The exegesis on Jaredite/Ham/Olmec is sweet. I'll dump it on the next brother or sister who tells me Asenath couldn't be Egyptian.
http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/homepage.html

this can all be like deciding where the Garden of Eden is, or where the ark landed.


Doesn't the BOM teach that the Lamanites were the bad guys who fought the Nephites, won, and became the American Indians according to traditional Mormon teaching? Were not the Nephites and the Lamanites of one common ancestory - and that being Jewish, according to the BOM?There's something funny about this question, because I would never say the Bible teaches there were some Hebrews who were carried into Babylon and then came back to rebuild their wall. It's so beside the point, as the Bible primarily teaches faith in God and what faithful behavior looks like.

The Book of Mormon has no Nephites or Lamanites from the time of Christ is manifest to them, until 200 years later. Then the editor Mormon calls his group, which starts out still faithful but isn't at the end, Nephites, and everyone else Lamanites. I can make a good case the Nephites are often the bad guys, just as we can look at the history in Chronicles or the prophecies of Hosea and make a good case the Israelites are bad guys.

As far as traditional teachings go, they are not enough by themselves to establish facts. You don't hold to traditional teachings on God creating the earth in 168 hours, for example.

You might enjoy this discussion because you can mine all the quotes on traditional mormon teachings.
http://www.timesandseasons.org/wp/index.php?p=61
Where mormons are discussing among themselves whether all native american and polynesian peoples should be considered genetic descenders of Lehi or not. As you can see, there is a tradition dating back to the 1940s, within mormonism, based on the text and the theology, that says the Book of Mormon does not account for the length and breadth of North and South America.



If the Lamanites survived and became the Native Americans of this continent, shouldn't there be some DNA indicators?No, for the reasons given above, based on the text.

I think there should be, but I'm not a genetic specialist. I really think we can go back and forth on this all day, but the in the final analysis, the DNA tests indicate NO Semitic origin for Native Americans.....period.That's fine. I didn't think the Native Americans were of Semitic origin. But I do think there was a covenant people in America, and that has far-reaching consequences.


As I have probably said before, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.As I said before, atheists use the "simplest explanation" methodology and conclude there is no God.

Given all the evidence, the BOM never originated among Hebrews who miraculously settled somewhere in Central or South America, grew to millions, fought each other constantly, and wiped most of each other out. None of their cities have ever been discovered, no examples of Reformed Egyptian have ever been discovered. The simple explanation is that the story was the product of a fertile mind and not factual.Two families from Jerusalem were led by God to the Americas to establish a covenant people there. We don't know if any particular ancient city of the Americas is one of their cities. Archeological evidences have not convinced the majority of the world to accept the message of the Bible, so I'm not feeling that providing archeological evidence to the Book of Mormon would be as powerful as the word of scripture itself and the witness of the faithful.

[Krusader]

The LDS don't say the Lamanites are a lost tribe of Israel. That's a common misunderstanding, but the urban legend juiciness is so strong Southerton titled his book "Losing a Lost Tribe." You would think, if Joseph Smith was writing fiction to appeal to his contemporaries, he would have at least provided them with the lost Israelite tribe they were expecting. Instead, he provides a cultural contact between one family from Jerusalem with the people of the Americas.

Found it--Darrick Evenson, a man I know only by his excellent reputation. The exegesis on Jaredite/Ham/Olmec is sweet. I'll dump it on the next brother or sister who tells me Asenath couldn't be Egyptian.
http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/homepage.html

this can all be like deciding where the Garden of Eden is, or where the ark landed.

There's something funny about this question, because I would never say the Bible teaches there were some Hebrews who were carried into Babylon and then came back to rebuild their wall. It's so beside the point, as the Bible primarily teaches faith in God and what faithful behavior looks like.

The Book of Mormon has no Nephites or Lamanites from the time of Christ is manifest to them, until 200 years later. Then the editor Mormon calls his group, which starts out still faithful but isn't at the end, Nephites, and everyone else Lamanites. I can make a good case the Nephites are often the bad guys, just as we can look at the history in Chronicles or the prophecies of Hosea and make a good case the Israelites are bad guys.

As far as traditional teachings go, they are not enough by themselves to establish facts. You don't hold to traditional teachings on God creating the earth in 168 hours, for example.

You might enjoy this discussion because you can mine all the quotes on traditional mormon teachings.
http://www.timesandseasons.org/wp/index.php?p=61
Where mormons are discussing among themselves whether all native american and polynesian peoples should be considered genetic descenders of Lehi or not. As you can see, there is a tradition dating back to the 1940s, within mormonism, based on the text and the theology, that says the Book of Mormon does not account for the length and breadth of North and South America.


No, for the reasons given above, based on the text.
That's fine. I didn't think the Native Americans were of Semitic origin. But I do think there was a covenant people in America, and that has far-reaching consequences.

As I said before, atheists use the "simplest explanation" methodology and conclude there is no God.
Two families from Jerusalem were led by God to the Americas to establish a covenant people there. We don't know if any particular ancient city of the Americas is one of their cities. Archeological evidences have not convinced the majority of the world to accept the message of the Bible, so I'm not feeling that providing archeological evidence to the Book of Mormon would be as powerful as the word of scripture itself and the witness of the faithful.

Justjohnna, a quick question. If these various migrations to the Americas by Jews, as portrayed in the BOM, were true, wouldn't you think there would be a great deal of archeological evidence supporting this? After all, doesn't the BOM say that they spread all over the face of the land?

The archeological record does support a pre-Columbian culture in South, Central and North America but not by a people of Semitic origin. In fact, this is one of my favorite passtimes - the study of the pre-Columbian cultures in the Southwest. I've been to many sites - early pithouse, pueblo, etc., and have many paleo sites nearby, but I have never observed anything in the artifacts suggesting anything but pagan, shamanistic, worship. In fact, the effigies depict classic examples of a religious system based on the worship of nature and animal forms. There is also a suggestion that human sacrifice may have been practiced among the Anasazi, based on teeth marks found on human bones.....but that's speculation.

As far as I know, pictographs were the only form of writing, and these survive today. There is no evidence of any "Reformed Egyptian" being used in the Americas, or anywhere else for that matter.

On the other hand, as you know, there is a great deal of archeological evidence supporting the Old Testament - see "The Stones Cry Out."

In an interesting article, I did read about the excavation in the northwest of the skeletal remains of what appeared to be a European man that pre-dates most, if not all, of the skeletal remains we have of archaic/paleo man on this continent. However, further testing (other than visual observation and preliminary tests on the bone material)) could not be done, as the skeleton was discovered on Indian land, and they reserved the right to rebury it at once.

Now, it could be that the remains are of a northern European (possibly Viking) who happened along the coast of America, was ship wrecked, and came inland. Who knows? It could be a really good basis for a novel, though!

[just Johnna]

I might be mistaken about the route, it's been maybe a year since I talked to them. But what I gathered from what they were telling me is that the Jews who migrated did not become the Native Americans at all. I believe we are talking about North Americans here. They also told me the reformed Egyptian that the plates were written in had each character representing an entire paragraph of text.
Let me just interject, that there is no evidence of any language, written or otherwise, called Reformed Egyptian. Also, since Jews were very careful regarding the recording of the Scriptures, which they wrote only in Hebrew upon the skins of animals ritually sacrificed (this done by the special group called "scribes"), it is highly unlikely that any type of holy writings would have been enscirbed in Reformed Egyptian on metal plates. The whole Reformed Egyptian on metal plates deal is pure fantasy.Well, this goes back to the title of this tread, physical evidences. There were metal plates used for religious writings in the eastern Mediteranean.
Here's an 1987 LDS Magazine article (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1987.htm/ensign%20june%201987.htm/research%20and%20perspectives.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0) describing scripture engraved on silver which was found in 1979, from a tomb in Israel from 700 to 600 BC. Sounds like teffilin to me, but I haven't seen the Biblical Archeology Review article.
The engraved scroll is discussed in Gabriel Barkay, "The Divine Name Found in Jerusalem," Biblical Archaeology Review 9/2 (1983): 14-19.
There's examples of Phoenician and Etruscan religious writing on metal. This will pretty much devolve into arguing by links, since I have no personal expertise in ancient metal plates.

[Krusader]

Well, this goes back to the title of this tread, physical evidences. There were metal plates used for religious writings in the eastern Mediteranean.
Here's an 1987 LDS Magazine article (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1987.htm/ensign%20june%201987.htm/research%20and%20perspectives.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0) describing scripture engraved on silver which was found in 1979, from a tomb in Israel from 700 to 600 BC. Sounds like teffilin to me, but I haven't seen the Biblical Archeology Review article.
The engraved scroll is discussed in Gabriel Barkay, "The Divine Name Found in Jerusalem," Biblical Archaeology Review 9/2 (1983): 14-19.
There's examples of Phoenician and Etruscan religious writing on metal. This will pretty much devolve into arguing by links, since I have no personal expertise in ancient metal plates.
I was basically referring to the use of specially prepared skins by the Isrealites which were used to record the Torah, and other sacred writings. I don't believe that you will actually find any type of metal plates used by the Isrealites to record the sacred words of God.

[just Johnna]

Justjohnna, a quick question. If these various migrations... one migration
...to the Americas by Jews...by two families from Jerusalem
as portrayed in the BOM, were true, wouldn't you think there would be a great deal of archeological evidencelike, evidence of the pre-existing local culture they joined and contributed to?

supporting this? After all, doesn't the BOM say that they spread all over the face of the land?Didn't Alexander say he conquered the world?

Everyone always thinks they spread over the face of the land. The actual traveling distances between locations and events described in the text are something more like a 200-mile radius.

The archeological record does support a pre-Columbian culture in South, Central and North America but not by a people of Semitic origin. In fact, this is one of my favorite passtimes - the study of the pre-Columbian cultures in the Southwest.
Yup, I used to live in northern New Mexico. Fascinating stuff

I've been to many sites - early pithouse, pueblo, etc., and have many paleo sites nearby, but I have never observed anything in the artifacts suggesting anything but pagan, shamanistic, worship. In fact, the effigies depict classic examples of a religious system based on the worship of nature and animal forms. There is also a suggestion that human sacrifice may have been practiced among the Anasazi, based on teeth marks found on human bones.....but that's speculation.There's no doubt there were some horrible cruel and pagan practices and even human sacrifice in some of those preColumbian cultures in the Americas in general. Where I see possible traces of a covenant people are in some aspects of how the Hopi live, or in the monotheistic time of the Inca. But these are not offered as proof, of course.

As far as I know, pictographs were the only form of writing, and these survive today. There is no evidence of any "Reformed Egyptian" being used in the Americas, or anywhere else for that matter.The Book of Mormon doesn't present widespread literacy. It presents a lineal series of priestly record-keepers.

The potent idea of writing is in the ancient Americas. The Maya had a hybrid phonological/glyph system I understand. The Aztec used glyphs. The messages were more complex than the pictographs of the Southwest. The Incans had something like a tax accounting system which recorded information by knotting string. Of course, the Spanish were big on destroying everything Incan, so who knows.


On the other hand, as you know, there is a great deal of archeological evidence supporting the Old Testament - see "The Stones Cry Out."And the New, if you're referring to Chuck Colson's essay of that name. Since I receive the Bible as the word of God, you'll get no argument from me here. I can't say that I believe due to archeological evidence though.

In an interesting article, I did read about the excavation in the northwest of the skeletal remains of what appeared to be a European man that pre-dates most, if not all, of the skeletal remains we have of archaic/paleo man on this continent. However, further testing (other than visual observation and preliminary tests on the bone material)) could not be done, as the skeleton was discovered on Indian land, and they reserved the right to rebury it at once.

Now, it could be that the remains are of a northern European (possibly Viking) who happened along the coast of America, was ship wrecked, and came inland. Who knows? It could be a really good basis for a novel, though!I wouldn't expect him to appear archaic/paleo then, but I'm sure you could solve that in your novel.
I don't know the case that interested you, but there was quite a silly fuss over the penon woman, recently dated 13,000 b.c., found outside Mexico City in the 1940s. It seems commonsensical to me to think there were multiple migrations to the Americas. And, I don't need or want ancient americans to be white, so you've got the wrong mormon gal for that one.

[just Johnna]

I was basically referring to the use of specially prepared skins by the Isrealites which were used to record the Torah, and other sacred writings. I don't believe that you will actually find any type of metal plates used by the Isrealites to record the sacred words of God.What, Biblical Archeology Review is not a good source when it reports torah passages engraved on silver plate, from a tomb outside Jerusalem (Israel) 700-600 BC (Lehi's time period), and excavated in 1979?

Lehi, from the text, is shown to be some kind of wealthy merchant familiar with travel, hence possible exposure to other eastern mediteranean cultures as well. No one claims Lehi was a scribe or Levite who could prepare a temple torah scroll.

[Krusader]

What, Biblical Archeology Review is not a good source when it reports torah passages engraved on silver plate, from a tomb outside Jerusalem (Israel) 700-600 BC (Lehi's time period), and excavated in 1979?

Lehi, from the text, is shown to be some kind of wealthy merchant familiar with travel, hence possible exposure to other eastern mediteranean cultures as well. No one claims Lehi was a scribe or Levite who could prepare a temple torah scroll.No, it is a good source. The point I was making that the Hebrews wrote Scripture on sacred skins. That the divine name could appear on a metal plate is very possible - but you won't find, say, the Pentatuch there. We should recall that the BOM contains many passages from the Hebrew Scriptures, which would have been enscribed on sacred skins, not metal plates.

A good article from a modern Jewish source is found at:

http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/030530/torahfeat.shtml

The article clearly demonstrates the great lengths the Jews go to when copying the Sacred words of the Lord, even in modern times.

[just Johnna]

No, it is a good source. The point I was making that the Hebrews wrote Scripture on sacred skins. That the divine name could appear on a metal plate is very possible - but you won't find, say, the Pentatuch there. We should recall that the BOM contains many passages from the Hebrew Scriptures, which would have been enscribed on sacred skins, not metal plates.I must not have been clear before on what the silver scroll contained--it begins with the divine name and goes on to several passages of Torah.

it's a much smaller artifact than the Plates of Brass would have been, which is why I compared it to tefillin.

It's the plates of Brass you should be querying about, by the way. They contain the clan geneology and other material, including Isaiah.

The prophecies of Isaiah which appear in the Book of Mormon, aren't Torah anyway. Remember, Tanach is Torah/Writings/Prophecy. Isaiah is prophecy, last category--perhaps these scribal parchment rules you speak of, which are new to me, would not be as intrinsic to Writings or Prophecy.

[Krusader]

one migrationby two families from Jerusalemlike, evidence of the pre-existing local culture they joined and contributed to?
Didn't Alexander say he conquered the world?

Everyone always thinks they spread over the face of the land. The actual traveling distances between locations and events described in the text are something more like a 200-mile radius.

Yup, I used to live in northern New Mexico. Fascinating stuff
There's no doubt there were some horrible cruel and pagan practices and even human sacrifice in some of those preColumbian cultures in the Americas in general. Where I see possible traces of a covenant people are in some aspects of how the Hopi live, or in the monotheistic time of the Inca. But these are not offered as proof, of course.
The Book of Mormon doesn't present widespread literacy. It presents a lineal series of priestly record-keepers.

The potent idea of writing is in the ancient Americas. The Maya had a hybrid phonological/glyph system I understand. The Aztec used glyphs. The messages were more complex than the pictographs of the Southwest. The Incans had something like a tax accounting system which recorded information by knotting string. Of course, the Spanish were big on destroying everything Incan, so who knows.

And the New, if you're referring to Chuck Colson's essay of that name. Since I receive the Bible as the word of God, you'll get no argument from me here. I can't say that I believe due to archeological evidence though.
I wouldn't expect him to appear archaic/paleo then, but I'm sure you could solve that in your novel.
I don't know the case that interested you, but there was quite a silly fuss over the penon woman, recently dated 13,000 b.c., found outside Mexico City in the 1940s. It seems commonsensical to me to think there were multiple migrations to the Americas. And, I don't need or want ancient americans to be white, so you've got the wrong mormon gal for that one.

So, you lived in Northern NM! Great place to visit, but too cold for this desert rat.

I wasn't implying that you needed ancient Americans to be white - I was just mentioning the discovery - had nothing to do with race....I wasn't even thinking of it.

By the way, you might be interested to know that my grandson is the great, great, great, great grandson of Sitting Bull of the Ogalala Sioux......he's a great Christian and actually is white and delightsome (joke)!

[just Johnna]

By the way, you might be interested to know that my grandson is the great, great, great, great grandson of Sitting Bull of the Ogalala Sioux......he's a great Christian and actually is white and delightsome (joke)!How very cool! I tried to take Lakota at UCLA, Pam Munro invited a Sioux woman to meet with us, I'm sorry I don't remember her name. But my schedule overwhelmed me and I had to drop out.

The Sioux believe in a Creator who gave instructions for an unpredictable but moral world. I'm sure as a follower of Christ your grandson has a greater understanding of what truths to value in his heritage.

[Krusader]

How very cool! I tried to take Lakota at UCLA, Pam Munro invited a Sioux woman to meet with us, I'm sorry I don't remember her name. But my schedule overwhelmed me and I had to drop out.

The Sioux believe in a Creator who gave instructions for an unpredictable but moral world. I'm sure as a follower of Christ your grandson has a greater understanding of what truths to value in his heritage.
No, actually the Sioux, as all Native Americans, were shamanists. The concept of one major controlling deity may have been someplace in their belief system, but for the most part the belief system was paganistic. I think we tend to over glorify the Indian religious system. They need to accept Christ and be born again through faith in His Blood - as we all do. I've known some missionaries to the Indians, and the shamanistic/paganistic beliefs are a major barrier to the preaching of the Gospel among Native Americans. Actually, my grandson knows very little about his Indian heritage, other than the fact that alcoholism has plagued that part of his family, as it has many others on the Pine Ridge Reservation. However, my grandson came to Christ at an early age, requested baptism, and is considering missionary work.

[Bloodnut]

== Maybe Mormons don't need any archeological evidence to support Smith's fantasy book.......but as for Christians, we have a wealth of archeological support for our beliefs.

I challenge you to produce one archeological artifact that proves or even supports a Christian tenet. Just one.

I won't hold my breath.

[Krusader]

You totally take what trout is saying out of context. We're not talking about "tenets," but there is vast archeological proof that the historic Jesus lived over 2,000 years ago in a place called Israel.

What proof do you show for:

Lamanites, Nephites, Bountiful, the vast civilization that was supposed to have flourished here (America) which created steel, where millions were slaughtered in war, the coins that were in circulation, and all the other pretend history of the BOM?

[Bloodnut]

== You totally take what trout is saying out of context.

I was quoting you. Don't you remember saying what you said? Good grief.

== We're not talking about "tenets,"

You said "beliefs." Do you know what a tenet is?

== there is vast archeological proof that the historic Jesus lived over 2,000 years ago in a place called Israel.

The evidence can hardly be described as "vast", but setting that aside, what does any of this have to do with proving Christianity? There are plenty of fictional stories based on real locations.

Where is the "archeological" proof that he walked on water, atoned for the sins of the world, resurrected himself, or any of the various reasons why people join Christianity?

== What proof do you show for:

I'm not the one claiming proof, you are.

And I'm still waiting for your evidence that Mormons believe we can be God's equal in power.

[Krusader]

Bloodnut, sorry I was referring to another post.

But, to answer your question, there is not a shred of evidence that supports the fact that the civilization described in the BOM, coming from Israel, ever existed on any of the American continents. There is mucho evidence that the Jews existed in Israel, 2000 years ago, however.

[Bloodnut]

== Bloodnut, sorry I was referring to another post.

No problem.

== But, to answer your question, there is not a shred of evidence that supports the fact that the civilization described in the BOM, coming from Israel, ever existed on any of the American continents. There is mucho evidence that the Jews existed in Israel, 2000 years ago, however.

Actually that doesn't answer my question.

What does any of this have to do with proving Christianity? There are plenty of fictional stories based on real locations, so to say Christianity is based on real locations means that it is on par with other fiction. For example, Homer claimed that he had wrote a book about the doings of all the Greek gods. We have now autheticated that in fact the city Homer talked about existed. All the cities Homer talked about existed. It is perfectly good history. Now does that prove Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

Where is the "archeological" proof that Jesus walked on water, atoned for the sins of the world, resurrected himself, or any of the various reasons why people join Christianity? I'm still waiting.

And I'm still waiting for your evidence that Mormons believe we can be God's equal in power.

Thanks in advance.

[Krusader]

Perhaps we are not communicating well. Do you believe that if there is no evidence for a Nephite/Lamanite civilization that the BOM is fiction?

Do you believe that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Israel was part of the Roman Empire in the time of Christ?

Do you believe that extra-biblical evidence of Jesus (Josephus, etc.), are grounds for believing that Christ existed?

The Christian Church, itself, is evidence of Christ's existence, right?

Read Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

PS: even Jews will admit to the existence of Christ!

Evidence that Mormons believe that they will become gods is found in the literature of the LDS Church, especially "The Teachings of Joseph F. Smith," "Gospel Principles," and of course, the "King Follet discourse," to name but a few.

[just Johnna]

Evidence that Mormons believe that they will become gods is found in the literature of the LDS Church, especially "The Teachings of Joseph F. Smith," "Gospel Principles," and of course, the "King Follet discourse," to name but a few.

I think what Bloodnut is disputing is your claim that I believe I will become equal to God in power--it's not in any of those sources.

Some other literature of the LDS Church on exaltation is Romans 8:17 and Galatians 4:7 and 2 Peter 1:4.

[Bloodnut]

== we are not communicating well.

Obviously, since you keep responding to questions with questions.

== Do you believe that if there is no evidence for a Nephite/Lamanite civilization that the BOM is fiction?

No. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. This is basic logic 101. Of course there are evidences that support the BoM, though I hardly doubt any will cause you to flinch. So what's the point in arguing about it? If you want to rail on the BoM for lack of proof, then fine. Just don't pretend Christian "belief" is corroborated with archeological proofs when they aren't.

The fact is, when the BoM was first attacked, there was an X number of criticisms against it. That number has diminished over time. Things like cement highways, wheat, barely, silk, metallurgy, armor, constant wars, use of the wheel. These things have been verified since the time when nobody knew they existed. Of course there are other things mentioned in the BoM which lacks evidence, but given time, who knows what else will be vindicated. This is easy to assess given the fact that less than 1% of South/Meso America, which is mostly swallowed up by thick jungle, has been excavated. By contrast, the biblical Middle East, and open desert, has been excavated 20 times over and they are still finding evidences, yet they still cannot verify the existence of 55% of the cities mentioned in the Bible. Also the BoM refers to a lost civilization, a lost language, and a lost culture that tells of its own demise nearly a mellenia before it was discovered by th New World. S to make whimsical and dismissive comparisons to BoM archeology and biblical archeology, is premature at best, disigenuous at worst.

== Evidence that Mormons believe that they will become gods is found in the literature of the LDS Church, especially "The Teachings of Joseph F. Smith," "Gospel Principles," and of course, the "King Follet discourse," to name but a few.

Nowhere will you see any teaching that we become eaual to God in power and rule a planet. And I asked for something contemporary remember? You claimed this s current "Mormon belief."

I'm still waiting.

[Trout]

Kevin:
Just don't pretend Christian "belief" is corroborated with archeological proofs when they aren't.

:huh: Next you'll be telling us the Garden of Eden is in Missouri.

[Bloodnut]

I'm still waiting.

[Krusader]

Blood-nut, Gospel Principles is a contemporary book. However, if you are unwilling to admit that Joseph Smith said that "you" must learn to be a god, as did all the gods before you - and that by that he really did mean that you must learn to be a god just in the same way as "all" the gods, including Elohim - which he asserted in the King Follett discourse - then why even waste my time discussing the issue with someone who would use subterfuge to promote his cultic system?

[Bloodnut]

== Blood-nut, Gospel Principles is a contemporary book.

But it doesn't say what you insist it says. S you're misrepresnting and most importantly, refusing to own up to the error.

== However, if you are unwilling to admit that Joseph Smith said that "you" must learn to be a god

This isn't what I'm referring to. Theosis is a classical Christian precept that Protestantism never grasped onto. I can cite Church Fathers out the yang who said the same exact thing. The caveat you keep inserting "a god equal to Elohim in power" and "ruling your own planet" is not LDS doctrine and it never was. So you are bearing false witness.

If you can't produce a citation, then you should admit the error. But you seem more interested in propogating this nonsense even though it is error.

Why?

Is the case against Mormonism so weak that falsehood, misrepresentation and Walter Martinism is your first resort?

[gratitude]

== Blood-nut, Gospel Principles is a contemporary book.

But it doesn't say what you insist it says. S you're misrepresnting and most importantly, refusing to own up to the error.

== However, if you are unwilling to admit that Joseph Smith said that "you" must learn to be a god

This isn't what I'm referring to. Theosis is a classical Christian precept that Protestantism never grasped onto. I can cite Church Fathers out the yang who said the same exact thing. The caveat you keep inserting "a god equal to Elohim in power" and "ruling your own planet" is not LDS doctrine and it never was. So you are bearing false witness.

If you can't produce a citation, then you should admit the error. But you seem more interested in propogating this nonsense even though it is error.

Why?

Is the case against Mormonism so weak that falsehood, misrepresentation and Walter Martinism is your first resort?
Bloodnut,

The Gospel Principles book states this:
Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

This is something that will be expanded upon later.

President Joseph F. Smith said this:
… We must become like [God]; peradventure to sit upon thrones, to have dominion, power, and eternal increase. God designed this in the beginning. … This is the object of our existence in the world

He also said:
Had we not known before we came [to earth] the necessity of our coming, the importance of obtaining tabernacles, the glory to be achieved in posterity, the grand object to be attained by being tried and tested—weighed in the balance, in the exercise of the divine attributes, god-like powers and free agency with which we are endowed; whereby, after descending below all things, Christ-like, we might ascend above all things [see D&C 88:6], and become like our Father, Mother and Elder Brother, Almighty and Eternal!—we never would have come.

If you look in the back of our Bible, in the Topical Guide, you will find the following heading:
Man, Potential to Become like Heavenly Father

Read Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20 and ponder words like "fulness" and "all power" and "everlasting."

Why don't we talk about this all that much? Because it is sacred. Extremely sacred.

To sit on the right hand of God! To learn at His feet.

These things are true, friend. Why do we stand all amazed? Because we do not fully comprehend the grace nor the bredth of the Atonement of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,

Gratitude

[Bloodnut]

Uh, do you think I disagree with any of that?

Read an article of mine. http://www.angelfire.com/ga/kevgram/jp7.htm

You'll see where I stand.

my kevingraham.net is down for the time being, so I switched this over to an older website for your perusal.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Gratitude it is nice to see you not denying LDS teaching.

[Bloodnut]

Im not denying LDS teaching. Grattitude was confused, but I provided the link whyere he can see clearly that we agree. Anyone remotely familiar with who I am and what I've written online would never say I disagreed with theosis. It is the "details" that anti-Mormons throw in that are not doctrinal. You're a fan of JP Holding right? Well I don't have his book with me, but the first thing he said in his chapter on this subject was that Mormons do not believe we will become greater or equal to God in power. He got it right. You, Trout and Crusader are getting it wrong. And getting you to admit it seems highly unlikely.

JP wasn't silly to bring up the "we get to rule our own planet" sidebar, either. I've been asking anti-Mormons for evidence of this teaching for decades. Nobody can produce. It is just folklore which nobody can pin down the source.

[Bill the Cat]

I've been asking anti-Mormons for evidence of this teaching for decades. Nobody can produce. It is just folklore which nobody can pin down the source.


Kevin,
I'll be glad to provide you with some LDS sources an LDS member collected on exalted LDS members ruling and peopling their own planet as its god. Give me a day or two as I am moving into my new house.

Bill

[Bill the Cat]

JD 6:274-75; Special Conference held in the Tabernacle, Great SLC; Brigham Young; August 28, 1852.

Perhaps in the case before us, as in others, we might say that men become children. We are children in the first place, then become men; and in the second place men become children in their understanding.... But I expect, if I am faithful with yourselves, that I shall see the time with yourselves that we shall know how to prepare to organize an earth like this---know how to people that earth, how to redeem it, how to sanctify it, and how to glorify it, with those who live upon it who hearken to our counsels.
The Father and the Son have attained to this point already; I am on the way, and so are you, and every faithful servant of God....
Joseph will come up in his turn, receive his body again, and continue his mission in the eternal worlds until he carries it out to perfection, with all the rest of the faithful, to be made perfect with those who have lived before, and those who shall live after; and when the work is finished, and it is offered to the Father, then they will be crowned and receive keys and powers by which they will be capable of organizing worlds. What will they organize first?
After men have got their exaltations and their crowns---have become Gods, even the sons of God---are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, and Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.
This is a key for you. The faithful will become Gods, even the sons of God; but this does not overthrow the idea that we have a father.

JD 1:356; Tabernacle SLC; President Heber C. Kimball; November 14, 1852. See also Life of Heber C. Kimball by Orson F. Whitney, p. 460.

When we escape from this earth, do we suppose we are going to heaven? Do you suppose you are going to the earth that Adam came from? that Eloheim came from? where Jehovah the Lord came from? No. When you have learned to become obedient to the Father that dwells upon this earth, to the Father and God of this earth, and obedient to the messengers He sends---when you have done all that, remember you are not going to leave this earth. You will never leave it until you become qualified, and capable, and capacitated to become a father of an earth yourselves.

Journal of Samual W. Richards, p. 113; March 11, 1856.

Evening with the Regency in the Upper Room of the President's Office, examining the spelling of the New Books in the D. Alphabet. A very serious conversation took place between President B. Young and Orson Pratt upon doctrine. O. P. was directly apposed (sp. opposed) to the President's views and very freely expressed his entire disbelief in them after being told by the President that things were so and so in the name of the Lord. He was firm in the position that the President's word in the name of the Lord, was not the word of the Lord to him. The President did not believe that Orson Pratt would ever be Adam, to learn by experience the facts discussed, but every other, person in the room would be if they lived faithful.

JD 4:271; Brigham Young; Salt Lake City; March 8, 1857.

If you look at things spiritually, and then naturally, and see how they appear together, you will understand that when you have the privilege of commencing the work that Adam commenced on this earth, you will have all your children come and report to you of their sayings and acts; and you will hold every son and daughter of yours responsible when you get the privilege of being an Adam on earth.


"A Few Words of Doctrine"; Brigham Young; Ms/d/1234/Bx 49/fd 8; an unpublished discourse given in the Tabernacle in Great Salt Lake City, October 8th, 1861, in the A.M.

Let me say one thing to the young girls, and what I shall tell you I wish you to ponder in your hearts. Say nothing about it, for the wicked world has no business with these things, nor half-hearted Mormons. If there is any[one] here who will not make a good use of what they hear, the evil shall be up[on] themselves.
I wish to say to my young sisters, if you can go into the hands of a man, that will lead you into the Kingdom of Heaven, and exalt you there to become an Eve--a Queen of Heaven--the wife of a God; if you can remain with that man [in] whom your soul delights, and you take to him your virginity, you have obtained a treasure that millions of worlds like this [one] could not buy from you--there is your glory to all eternity.

James Beck Journal (Notebook) 1859-1865; October 8th 1861. Spelling as in original.

:snip: …If faithfull (sp. faithful) a Man will attain to an Adam & the Wife to be an Eve & begat Millions of Spirits who will come forth & receive their Tabernacles upon an earth like this :snip:


J. D. 10:355; President Brigham Young; Delivered in the Bowery; November 6, 1864. After quoting D&C 107:53-55, President Young continues:

So, in like manner, every faithful son of God, becomes, as it were, Adam to the race that springs from his loins, when they are embraced in the covenants and blessings of the Holy Priesthood; and in the lapse of eternity, and in the progress of eternal lives, every true son of God becomes a king of kings, and a lord of lords, and it may also be said of him, as it was written of Jesus Christ, "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end."


Journal of Wilford Woodruff; Ms/f/115, Church Historical Department; May 12, 1867.
At Fillmore public meeting:

President Young said there never was any world created & peopled nor never would be but what would be redeemed by the shedding of the blood of the savior of that world. If we are ever exalted and crowned in the presence of God we shall become saviors of a world which we shall create & people.

J. D. 12:97; Brigham Young; Bowery, Great Salt Lake City; June 30, 1867.

If you are not sanctified and prepared, you ought to be sanctifying and preparing yourselves for the blessings in store for you when it will be said of you, this is Mother Eve. Why? Because you are the mother of all living. You might as well prepare first as last. If you wish to be Eves and mothers of human families, you ought to bear the burden.

Minutes of Meetings Held in Provo City"; Film/979.2/Z99/v. 2, BYU Microfilm Room; Sunday, 2 p.m. 3 October 1869.

Pres. B. Young in the course of his remarks said: * * * All worlds have their God, their Savior, their sin, their priesthood, and can choose which they like, but beginning man rejected the priesthood by assuming to be a law unto himself--all other things abide this law.

Millennial Star 31:267; President Brigham Young; 1869.

Before me I see a house full of Eves. What a crowd of reflections the word Eve is calculated to bring up! Eve was the name or title conferred upon our first mother, because she was actually to be the mother of all the human beings who should live upon this earth. I am looking upon a congregation designed to be just such beings.

Deseret News, Vol. 22, No. 308; Brigham Young; discourse delivered in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Sunday Afternoon, June 8th, 1873.

The Christian world read of, and thing much about, St. Paul, also St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles. These men were faithful to and magnified the priesthood while on the earth. Now, where will be the mystery, after they have passed through all the ordeals, and have been crowned and exalted, and received their inheritances in the eternal worlds of glory, for them to be sent forth, as the Gods have been for ever and ever, with the command--"Make yourselves an earth and people it with your own children?"

J. D. 17:143; President Brigham Young, Delivered at the Funeral Services of Elder Thomas Williams, in the 14th Ward Assembly Rooms, Salt Lake City, Sunday Morning, July 19, 1874.

As for there labor and pursuits in eternity I have not time to talk upon that subject; but we shall have plenty to do. We shall not be idle. We shall go on from one step to another, reaching forth into the eternities until we become like the Gods, and shall be able to frame for ourselves, by the bequest and command of the Almighty. All those who are counted worthy to be exalted and to become Gods, even the sons of God, will go forth and have earths and worlds like those who framed this and millions on millions of others.


L. John Nuttal Papers; BYU Special Collections, Mss 188, Box 5, Folder #11; 14 May 1876

Every fixed star is a sun & it has its people & its God.



J. D. 18:258-59; President Brigham Young; Semi-Annual Conference of the Church, Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; October 8, 1876.

Spirits were begotten, born and educated in the celestial world, and were brought forth by celestial bodies.
These spirits I shall leave for the present, and refer to our first parents, Adam and Eve, who were found in the Garden of Eden, tempted and overcome by the power of evil, and consequently subject to evil and sin, which was the penalty of their transgression. They were now prepared, as we are, to form bodies or tabernacles for the reception of pure and holy spirits * * *--- when the mother feels life there is an evidence that the spirit from heaven has entered the tabernacle. * * *
Having fought the good fight. . .then will they become gods, even the sons of God; then will they become eternal fathers, eternal mothers, eternal sons and eternal daughters; being eternal in their organization, they go from glory to glory, from power to power; they will never cease to increase and to multiply world's without end. When they receive their crowns, their dominions, they then will be prepared to frame earth's like unto ours and to people them in the same manner as we have been brought forth by our parents, by our Father and God.


Jans Christian Anderson Weibye Daybooks, Daybook 5th, pp. 20-22; March 1, 1877.

Adam will worship his God and we will worship Adam, and our children will worship us.


"The Ultimatum of Human Life", from Poems Religious, Historical and Political, Vol. 2:8-9; Eliza R. Snow; 1877.
...'Tis not for you to pry
Into the secrets of the worlds on high--
To seek to know the first, the moving Cause,
Councils, decrees, organizations, laws--
Form'd by the Gods, pertaining to this earth,
Ere your great Father from their courts came forth,
The routine of his ancestors to tread--
Of this new world, to stand the royal head.
* * *
Adam, your God, like you on earth, has been
Subject to sorrow in a world of sin:
Through long gradation he arose to be
Cloth'd with the Godhead's might and majesty.
And what to him in his probative sphere,
Whether a Bishop, Deacon, Priest, or Seer?
Whate'er his offices and callings were,
He magnified them with assiduous care:
By his obedience he obtain'd the place
Of God and Father of this human race.
Obedience will the same bright garland weave,
As it has done for your great Mother, Eve,
For all her daughters on the earth, who will
All my requirements sacredly fulfill.
And what to Eve, though in her mortal life,
She'd been the first, the tenth, or fiftieth wife?
What did she care, when in her lowest state,
Whether by fools, consider'd small, or great?
'Twas all the same with her--she prov'd her worth--
She's now the Goddess and the Queen of Earth.
Life's ultimatum, unto those that live
As saints of God, and all my pow'rs receive;
Is still the onward, upward course to tread--
To stand as Adam and as Eve, the head
Of an inheritance, a new-form'd earth,
And to their spirit race, give mortal birth--
Give them experience in a world like this;
then lead them forth to everlasting bliss,
Crown'd with salvation and eternal joy
Where full perfection dwells, without alloy



Messages of the First Presidency, Vol 4:199-206; James R. Clark. See also Improvement Era, 13:75-81; November, 1909.

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons (sp. eons), of evolving into a God.

The Three Degrees of Glory; Melvin J. Ballard; (Deseret Book Co.: Salt Lake City, Utah); pp. 10-11; Discourse given in the Ogden Tabernacle; September 22, 1922.

What do we mean by endless or eternal increase? We mean that through the righteousness and faithfulness of men and women who keep the commandments of God they will come forth with celestial bodies, fitted and prepared to enter into their great, high and eternal glory in the celestial kingdom of God, and unto them, through their preparation, there will come children, who will be spirit children. I don't think that is very difficult to comprehend and understand. The nature of the offspring is determined by the nature of the substance that flows in the veins of the being. When blood flows in the veins of the being, the offspring will be what blood produces, which is tangible flesh and bone, but when that which flows in the veins is spirit matter, a substance which is more refined and pure and glorious than blood, the offspring of such beings will be spirit children. By that I mean they will be in the image of the parents. They will have a spirit body and have a spark of the eternal or divine that always did exist in them.
Unto such parentage will this glorious privilege come, for it is written in our scriptures that "the glory of God is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." So, it will be the glory of men and women that will make their glory like unto His. When the power of endless increase shall come to them, and their offspring, growing and multiplying through ages that shall come, they will be in due time, as we have been, provided with an earth like this, wherein they too may obtain earthly bodies and pass through all the experiences through which we have passed, and then we shall hold our relationship to them, the fulness and completeness of which has not been revealed to us, but we shall stand in our relationship to them as God, our Eternal Father, does to us, and thereby is this the most glorious and wonderful privilege that ever will come to any of the sons and daughters of God.

MAN KNOW THYSELF

Then comes the resurrection, by which you are prepared to receive a fulness of Celestial Glory, you and your companion, and by reason of that everlasting covenant you entered into when in mortality you are still husband and wife, and as such you will continue to live in everlasting progression, that is, to multiply, to beget children, sons and daughters; and as your mortal children were of the earth earthly, so also will your heavenly children be of the spirit world spiritual.
We commonly call our future estate heaven, so you are their Heavenly Father, and Mother, their Heavenly Mother, and all this by obedience to law, notwithstanding you have become a Heavenly Father, you still have a Heavenly Father, whom you love more and more each day as you grow in knowledge and advance in experience, and even your Heavenly Father had a Heavenly Father, and so we might continue, or, as is expressed in a hymn:

[Krusader]

Bill, what an excellent job in providing those references. What the Mormons will tell you is that they are not canonical. But, they sure as heck demonstrate what Mormonism has taught all along about multiple deities and evolved gods. Mormons would surely like to wipe out the past, because it doesn't fit in with their current drive to appear "Christian."

[Bill the Cat]

Crusader,

From the same list, (which I remind the readers is from an LDS member) there was an interesting letter from a Mormon from England to the President at the time explaining that he wished to resign from the LDS church over the doctrines of Adam-God and blood atonement, and the minutes of his excommunication hearing. Why would a Mormon be excommunicated by the First Presidency and the 12 apostles for disagreeing with mere opinions of former prophets? I can produce these letters if any doubt is brought up.

Bill

[Sparko]

JP wasn't silly to bring up the "we get to rule our own planet" sidebar, either. I've been asking anti-Mormons for evidence of this teaching for decades. Nobody can produce. It is just folklore which nobody can pin down the source.

Uh actually Trout did so in the other thread in this area. Here is his source again:


Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48:

The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this.

[Bloodnut]

Thanks for the website clone Bill. I had seen it in the past but lost track of it.

Some of the quotes are ambiguous, but others make it clear that at the very least, Brigham Young believed that ruling over another world is something all exalted beings will experience.

Having said that, I fail to see how this is "Mormon teaching" in the present tense. In the context it is usually presented it is implied that Mormons today are taught this, yet every single example provided takes place in the mid-19th century. i'm assuming these are all the examples, given the thoroughness of the research there. Yes, it is true that these statements were not canonized, and no, Young's opinion cannot be taken as official doctrine. But this is beside the point really. I never denied that this was true. Ruling over a planet is hardly something incongruous with biblical teaching. We know we'll be like God. We know we'll "rule over angels," so why not our own offspring? For all we know God has alot of unexpected things planned for us when we see him. In fact, I'm counting on being surprised.

Young's specultion on this point cannot be verified or refuted. It can only be accepted as his understanding that may or may not be true. Modern prophets failing to validate it is not a repudiation of it.

Now as for the second point of Crusader's post, can you support her claim that Mormonism believes we will become equal or greater to God?

[Sparko]

Now as for the second point of Crusader's post, can you support her claim that Mormonism believes we will become equal or greater to God?

See my post right above yours.

[Bloodnut]

Your post doesn't validate her claim that "Mormons believe" that we can become "equal in power."

Having power doesn't justify "equality" in power. God can create, and we will be able to create. In Mormonism, whatever power God grants us, we will always remain His children, and below Him in degree of power. No Mormon alive has denied this. Anti-Mormons like Crusader like to paint a picture of men become rivals to God. This is entirely inaccurate, and to say "Mormons believe" something isn't supported by one 19th century statement by someoen who admits his view is not doctrinal.

[Sparko]

Your post doesn't validate her claim that "Mormons believe" that we can become "equal in power."

Having power doesn't justify "equality" in power. God can create, and we will be able to create. In Mormonism, whatever power God grants us, we will always remain His children, and below Him in degree of power. No Mormon alive has denied this. Anti-Mormons like Crusader like to paint a picture of men become rivals to God. This is entirely inaccurate, and to say "Mormons believe" something isn't supported by one 19th century statement by someoen who admits his view is not doctrinal.


The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood;

OK so if you become LIKE God and have ALL the powers of God then you must be equal to God. Just like you are equal to your own human father.

And again, are you saying that you don't believe Smith when he claims the above? You keep saying "it's not official doctrine" But when asked you also have said that the LDS church and you do not disagree with any of Smith's teachings.

So does that mean:

1. Smith was wrong and the LDS church does NOT believe mormons will have the same pwoers as God and rule other planets?

or..

2. It is not official doctrine - but you and the LDS church DO believe that Smith was right and you will be like God and have your own worlds?

[Bloodnut]

== OK so if you become LIKE God and have ALL the powers of God then you must be equal to God. Just like you are equal to your own human father.

Am I equal to my Father? Don't most fathers have preeminence over their children? Ontological equality is one thing, but equality in "power" is something entirely different. In reference to deity, this is what one means when talking about equality.

== And again, are you saying that you don't believe Smith when he claims the above?

I do believe Smith, I just don't accept the usual anti-Mormon twist to it that suggests something in the text that isn't there. Again, just because two people have the ability to do something doesn't mean they are equal in power. This is faulty logic. Two humans are capable of lifting weights. However, one man can lift 200 lbs while the other can only lift 100 lbs. According to your logic, both are equal since they both have the power to lift.

Are we talking qualitative equality?

== You keep saying "it's not official doctrine"

Yes, which is true. It is not official doctrine. This point is made not to refute it, but to point out the disingneuousness of the typical claim that this is what "Mormons believe." If you want to attack the Church, attack what all Mormons believe and agree upon. Attack its official doctrine. To go out of your way to elevate 19th century speculation to the status of current "Mormon belief," only shows weakness in your overall attack. This means the Church's official doctrines are not as divergent from Christianity as you would like them to be, therefore you'll attack anything any Mormon has said in the past to justify you bigotry against the lowly "cultists."

== 1. Smith was wrong and the LDS church does NOT believe mormons will have the same pwoers as God and rule other planets?

Your demand that I tell you what the Church "believes" is absurd. There is official doctrine of the Church and then there are speculations that Mormons may or may not agree with.

== It is not official doctrine

No, it is not official doctrine.

== but you and the LDS church DO believe that Smith was right and you will be like God and have your own worlds?

What I can tell you is that neither of us "repudiate" Smith's comments, which is what you insisted. In Mormon thought, contrary to Trout's assumption, the door is open for us to reject these things or accept them, but by and large, we don't pay them much attention. So I can't tell you what Church members or Church leaders agree or deny them. It is absurd for you to ask me what millions of Mormons, including hundreds of Church authorities, opine on this particular matter.

An example. I speculate that in heaven, we will see one another as middle-aged. No go take an opinion poll and find out how many people agree with me. Find out how many people really care about such speculations. Are you going to maintain that those who have no opinion either way, "repudiate" it as false?

What I can tell you is that I have never seen it taught in any LDS sunday school class in my 16 years in the Church. I've never once heard anyone at conference talk about ruling a planet. And even if I did, it still wouldn't constitute official doctrine. I am not obligated to accept everything that is said in conference. To become a member of the Church you have to confess a testimony in several things. Namely, Jesus as the Christ, the BoM as divine, the word of Wisdom, etc. But never once was it required that we believe in theosis at all, let one the details of what happens after this transformation occurs.

Why don't LDS members worry about these things? Because it isn't official doctrine. Never was. It isn't going to get me closer to God to find out the details on what I'll be doing in heaven. Again, critics are far more interested in these things than the average Mormon.

[Sparko]

== OK so if you become LIKE God and have ALL the powers of God then you must be equal to God. Just like you are equal to your own human father.

Am I equal to my Father? Don't most fathers have preeminence over their children? Ontological equality is one thing, but equality in "power" is something entirely different. In reference to deity, this is what one means when talking about equality.

OK clarify this for me.

Will you be the equal of the Father in his attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, etc?

Are you saying you will be equal with God in all his abilities, but you will be still lower in authority?

In other words, a matter of office positions? Like me and my boss might have equal power as far as being human goes, but he is my boss and so can excercise authority over me?

Or are you saying that you will be less powerful than God is? maybe slightly less omniscient, omnipotent, etc?

[Bloodnut]

== Whether of not the 'early christian church' agreed with that or not doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Maybe not to you, but it remains a fact nonetheless. What the earliest Church believed is a a very strong indicator of what the earliest Church believed. Moreso than what some Evangelicals propose 1900 years later, via their private interpretation of a text in a language centuries removed from the Greek.

== No one considers the early church as the sole setters of doctrine or the founders of the religion. The Apostles were.

Er, yeah. They were the ones who established the "early church," thank you.

== So unless you can show where an apostle believed we will be as powerful as God, then you have no argument against us.

It isn't an argument against anyone. It is simply a fact. Theosis is grounded in the NT. It is what the earliest Christians believed. It is teh doctrine that man will become what God is. Common sense dictates that this includes being what He is and having powers as he has. Come to think of it, we already have these powers. Christ said nothing was impossible if we had faith. The idea behind theosis is to progress and become perfect as Christ is.

To discard the early Church and assume they had no clue what the apostles really taught, and to further assume Protestants 1900 years later would come along and reinterpret the Bible properly, is quite pathetic.

== On the other hand you just admitted that you and the LDS Church DO believe you will be just as powerful as God

Are you truly this dense? I never once said such a thing. In fact, I spent a good portion of my time trying to correct such a misrepresentation.Yet, you fail basic comprehension at every attempt. Go ahead and show me where I said we can be "just as powerful as God." Here is a review of my explanation:


Again, just because two people have the ability to do something doesn't mean they are equal in power. This is faulty logic. Two humans are capable of lifting weights. However, one man can lift 200 lbs while the other can only lift 100 lbs. According to your logic, both are equal since they both have the power to lift. Are we talking qualitative equality?

But when you read this you understand that I somehow "admit" we can be "just as powerful as God."

Astounding.

== So you are saying the LDS church has NO opinion on this matter? That it may or may not be true?

That is exactly what I am saying.

== That is a dodge if I ever saw one.

No, that is a basic fact even though you rarely recognize one. Sorry to rain on your parade.

== Since you claim that we are making things up from anti-mormon sources regarding ruling your own planet and challenge us to come up with any supporting evidence, you were clearly trying to make it seem as if this was NOT true or taught by any mormons.

I asked for the references because I wanted to prove a couple of points:

1) Your "research" into Mormonism is little more than a scrolling through anti-Mormon websites.
2) The references that do exist demonstrate your claims are false since opinions from 1852-1876 does not constitute "Mormon teachings" or "Mormon belief" in the present.

== But when we show you that it WAS taught by your very prophets, you back down and say well it is not official. But you also won't go as far as to say you disagree with it.

Trying to recreate the scenario to suit your straw man won't work. You said Joseph Smith taught this. This is false. I've asked you to provide. All you've done is point to Brigham Young's opinion as was shared by a couple of his contemporaries. My claim from teh very beginning is that this is not LDS belief or doctrine. In the end, I am right and you are wrong. Pointing to the speculations of Brigham Young doesn't make your case. Of course, if you were at all interested in the LDS paradigm of common consent, you wouldn't be struggling to cme to gripes with this. But you're not interested in educating yourself on the LDS paradigm. Instead you want to read LDS sources through your own Evangelical lens, and then insist Mormons must see it your way instead of vice-versa. The usual protocol of the common bigot.

== Get off the fence and tell me if Smith was right or wrong when he said that.

I have no opinion either way. I never really pondered this issue. To say I have to make a choice or I'm being a "fence sitter" is truly pathetic, and it shows just how hysterical you're becoming over your failed attacks. You really need to take some basic courses in logic 101 before attempting to interact with the general public in any form of debate.

Further, I ask Evangelicals questions all the freakin time, to which they have no answer. Are they all "fence-sitters"? For example, how can God be both corporeal and incorporeal? How does it make sense to say Christ has a body throughout eternity (corporeal), the Father has no body (incorporeal), yet they are the "same being"? The typical answer - assuming the Evangelical comprehends the nonsense of this doctrine to begin with - is "Oh, that's just a 'paradox'."

Yea, and you're one to complaain about cop-outs.

== Either your prophet was telling the truth or he was wrong.

This much is true. But if he were wrong, it wouldn't be that big of a deal since it was just speculation. Unfortunately we won't find out until we die.

== Stop dodging and fence sitting and make a choice.

Stop pitching a fit because the LDS Church and Mormons in general don't obey your pathetic commands. You're acting like a petulant child. Your argument is based on so many assumptions that you're just now realizing we don't grant you. This is so frustrating to you because you really want your biggoted attacks to appear valid. Well, I'm sorry, but we're not obligated to abide by your demands and place ourselves into one of only two cubbyholes you've set aside for us.

== But don't go around telling us that it was not taught by Smith and others. It most certainly was and we quoted your own writings to prove it to you.

Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. is someone completely different from the Joseph Smith the founder.

The opinion began with Brigham Young according to the citations provided by the anti-Mormon website. According to that same website, the opinion ended within a twenty year time span.

For a little history lesson, this is how this debate began. Crusader said: "Mormons believe that many, many gods exist (more than the grains of sands on the seashores). These gods rule planets and have dominion and exaltation, and are equal in power to the earth god, Elohim" She then provided Orson Pratt as a reference to "Mormon belief." I responded accordingly:


But you never claimed to be stating the belief of one early 19th century Mormon who would later be chastized by Church leaders for some of his views. You claimed to be representing "Mormon belief."

Well, please show me any LDS gospel doctrine manual that teaches we can be gods "equal in power" to Elohim, and that we will be sure to inherit "our own planet."

Something from the 20th-21st century preferably.

If I dig up a Christian authority from the 2nd century that denied the Nicean Trinity, could I go ahead and say that is "Christian belief"? http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52466&page=2&pp=16

Ultimately, after this merry-go-rounding of rhetoric and cheerleading, what I said remains a fact, and Crusader's statement remains a gross misrepresentation.

[Sparko]

Well, bloodnut, I think I will just let your last post stand as a testament to your inability to commit to a point of view. Anyone reading your last few posts can see where you switch from saying that the teachings of the early prophets does not mean that the LDS church believes that now, then saying that you all do not disagree with the early prophets on any point and challenge us to provide you with such references, and when we do, you again claim that just because the early prophets say so doesn't mean you beleive it.

:argh:

And you wonder why Christians say that mormons are dishonest in their dealings with the secular world and Christianity? It is because you are afraid to just admit your teachings, or if you do disagree with the early prophets, you are afraid to admit that you disagree with them. Rather than just taking a stance and sticking to it, you bounce around like a rubber ball. So far you have just proven what we claimed about mormons.

If you are ashamed of your beliefs and can't just come right out and state which teachings of the early prophets you agree with and which you disagree with then you are not worth conversing with.

Take a stand and tell me: Will you have your own world that you will be God over? and don't give me "I don't have any opinion" because all you have to do is take 5 minutes and come up with one. Smith and Young taught it, and since they were closer to the direct revelations from God, wouldn't their opinions be more important than the 20th or 21st century claims if they disagree?

[Bloodnut]

== Well, bloodnut, I think I will just let your last post stand as a testament to your inability to commit to a point of view.

This does not logically follow, but since when have you ever been up to speed on basic logic... Your frustration is obvious. It burns you up that I do not fall into your little trappings. Your straw men arguments are rendered ineffective. Since you haven't the desire to discuss things intelligently without assuming a preconcocted rhetorical advantage.

== Anyone reading your last few posts can see where you switch from saying that the teachings of the early prophets does not mean that the LDS church believes that now,

Anyone with two eye balls and a couple of brain cells rubbing together, should be able to deduce the fact that the "Church" is not a monolithic entity that has "one opinion." Unless of course you're referring to "official LDS doctrine" as determined via common consent. That nasty concept that comes to bite your argument in the butt everytime.

== then saying that you all do not disagree with the early prophets on any point and challenge us to provide you with such references, and when we do, you again claim that just because the early prophets say so doesn't mean you beleive it.

You're generalizing "prophets," doing everything you can to avoid specifics. I said nothing JOSEPH SMITH taught has been rejected by any subsequent LDS leader. Did you get that? There is plenty of stuff that other 19th century leaders speculated about, that many today feel free to reject without a care. Why? Because even Brigham Young and Orson Pratt admitted that they were wrong on a number of issues. But since these issues never became canonized doctrine, nor were they considered official doctrine via common consent, nobody felt obligated to give it much attention. It obviously doesn't matter.

And your wishful appeal to what you hope others might see - or more accurately, do not see - is noted.

== And you wonder why Christians say that mormons are dishonest in their dealings with the secular world and Christianity?

No, there is little wonder. The reason is ignorance and bigotry. For what it is worth, you do not represent the majority of "Christians" in the world. You and your little tribe of cyber bigots represent the worst Evangelical Christianity has to offer. Calling Mormons dishonest because you fail to understand basic concepts of logic, is just too rich.

== It is because you are afraid to just admit your teachings

Actually, I'm not. Go ahead and name one single LDS teaching that I refuse to admit. Just one. The fact is, you have no earthly clue what our "teachings" are. "Teachings" imply present tense. It is not verified by digging up uncanonized speeches by Church leaders from over 150 years ago. Want to know what LDS "teachings" are? You're looking in the wrong places.

== or if you do disagree with the early prophets, you are afraid to admit that you disagree with them.

Not so. I disagree with plenty of what has been said by 19th and 20th century Prophets. Spencer W. Kimball comes to mind. He said something in the 1970's at conference about the indians turning white after they joined the Church. Of course he was not claming revelation, but was merely retelling a story he heard from members affiliated with the Church educational system and the local tribes. In any event, what was said was borderline stupid, and I rejected it wholeheartedly without hesitation. I've done so in open forum such as the FAIR e-list. The majority agree that it is flat out false. So much for another one of your pet theories that Kevin graham "believes XYZ." I just haven't found anything in Joseph Smith's teachings or revelation that I could say I know for a fact to not be true.

== Rather than just taking a stance and sticking to it, you bounce around like a rubber ball. So far you have just proven what we claimed about mormons.

Actually, you guys huddle up together whenever you make the mistake of isolating yourself in a one-on one debate with an LDS who knows what he is talking about. It is funny to watch because you're very much like a little support group that makes it a point to blindly defend the other no matter how embarrassing it might be. Very much like an AA meeting.

== If you are ashamed of your beliefs and can't just come right out and state which teachings of the early prophets you agree with and which you disagree with then you are not worth conversing with.

And if you cannot dispense with the incessant psychoanalysis of what you think Mormons think, might think, believe, might believe, say, might say, would do, might not do, etc etc... and actually try to learn basic rules in logic, interaction with you will never serve beyond the purposes of humor.

== Take a stand and tell me: Will you have your own world that you will be God over?

Hell if I know. I supopose that if I have the power of God, I can make that decision myself when that time comes. I don't believe these things have been set in stone. Right now I can't imagine how doing such a thing would be entertaining at first. If I were God, I'd be more inclined to experience a little piece of heaven before thinking about this. Maybe create my own Galactic Football League.

== Smith and Young taught it, and since they were closer to the direct revelations from God

Uh, unless of course they are compared to Orson Pratt and Heber Kimball. Then they are the ones who have the real say-so, right? At least that is how yours and Trout's everchanging standard goes, depending on what the issue is, and what you're trying to prove. According to Trout, when it comes to thinking for oneself, Brigham Young and Joseph Smith and every other prophet, are a bunch of nonauthorities. What really matters are the dissected statements from Orson Pratt and Heber Kimball, right?

[Sparko]

So far, Bloodnut, all I see is you insulting me and others and still avoiding answering any direct questions on theology other than to say we are wrong. Seems you are the one pounding on strawmen.

Your entire strategy seems to be insult us, tell us that we are using anti-mormon propoganda, but when confronted with actual quotes from official LDS books, tell us that it is not 'official doctrine' - refuse to actually DISAGREE with the said quotes but sort of imply that you disagree in order to make our stance seem weaker, and insult us some more.

insult, imply, dodge, insult. repeat. <--- the Bloodnut strategy

[Bloodnut]

== So far, Bloodnut, all I see is you insulting me and others and still avoiding answering any direct questions on theology other than to say we are wrong. Seems you are the one pounding on strawmen.

Good grief. You obviously have no clue what a straw man is, and youc learly don't know answers to a question when you've been presented them (on a silver platter no less).

== Your entire strategy seems to be insult us

Uh, no. The insulting came long before I said two words. Again, I was told numerous times that I am just a cultist, and that I was forbidden to think for myself. Maybe on planet Sparks this isn't considered insulting, but here on earth such ad hominems are generally understood as insults. I'm sorry your incapable of recognizing them when your giving them. My strategy has always been education. Your strategy seems to prefer miseducation.

== tell us that we are using anti-mormon propoganda, but when confronted with actual quotes from official LDS books, tell us that it is not 'official doctrine'

Uh, no. I tell you it is from an anti-Mormon website, and I prove it. I further provide teh context to refute a blatant dishonesty on you side of the fence.

Isn't it funny how you always give some lame psychoanalytical synopsis of my argument instead of actually dealing with my argument? You do so because you need to recreate it, in order to make it easier to respond to. But my posts stand as a testament to what I say, irregardless of what you would prefer I say.

[Sparko]

You were right. I should have said 'red herring' instead of strawman above.

And thanks for your direct answer in the other thread.

[Bill the Cat]

Thanks for the website clone Bill. I had seen it in the past but lost track of it.

Actually, that was a very slim amount of what is there. Here is the site for those interested:

http://www.ldshistory.net/adam-god/ag.html

His links are broken at the bottom of the pages, but all you have to do is put a 1,2,3,4,or 5 after the /ag

I have maintained that link and discussed much of what was said in them with a former missionary friend of mine.


Some of the quotes are ambiguous, but others make it clear that at the very least, Brigham Young believed that ruling over another world is something all exalted beings will experience.

Which would make logical sense if Elohim progressed to His own ruling authority.


Having said that, I fail to see how this is "Mormon teaching" in the present tense. In the context it is usually presented it is implied that Mormons today are taught this, yet every single example provided takes place in the mid-19th century. i'm assuming these are all the examples, given the thoroughness of the research there. Yes, it is true that these statements were not canonized, and no, Young's opinion cannot be taken as official doctrine.

Interesting enough, as I commented to Crusader, there is a correspondence there on pg 3 IIRC between a Mormon in England and the President at the time where the man was excommunicated because of the disagreement on this and the blood atonement doctrines. How can someone be excommunicated for disagreeing with opinion?


Young's specultion on this point cannot be verified or refuted. It can only be accepted as his understanding that may or may not be true. Modern prophets failing to validate it is not a repudiation of it.

It is not verification nor rebuttal. To me it seems to be a distancing from the first 2 prophets and their anti-Evangelical Christian beliefs, and this isn't the only belief that is being left in the wake.


Now as for the second point of Crusader's post, can you support her claim that Mormonism believes we will become equal or greater to God?

As a counter to your question, can you answer if Elohim is equal or greater than His father?

:btc3:

[just Johnna]

Interesting enough, as I commented to Crusader, there is a correspondence there on pg 3 IIRC between a Mormon in England and the President at the time where the man was excommunicated because of the disagreement on this and the blood atonement doctrines. How can someone be excommunicated for disagreeing with opinion?It depends on whether he was disagreeing with opinion or preaching against the prophet and the church. I would also look into to the man's biography afterwards, for a reinstatement.


As a counter to your question, can you answer if Elohim is equal or greater than His father?

:btc3:The question is speculative and goes beyond what is revealed about God.

And fwiw, the repeated use of "Elohim," I assume from an interest in being clear which person of the Godhead you want to speak of, that's rubbing me the wrong way, that's not how we talk about God. If you want to be clear about which person of the Godhead, "God the Father" is a better title, or "Heavenly Father." That's how we speak of him at church, how we speak of him at conferences.

[Krusader]

I think it's pretty clear from Smith's King Follett discourse that Mormons must learn to become god as all the gods before them learned to become god. There is some dispute among Mormons as to whether gods are always progressing, or whether they obtain their godly exaltation all at once. If the first be true, than Elohim will always be "more god" than his "children gods," since he's had more time to learn to be god.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Yes it is pretty clear. It is amazing how modern Mormons want to distance themselves in thought from the founder - yet pay lip service to being in agreement. Yet if Smith was wrong on these things, the whole thing is a spiritual scam that has sucked in many sincere, but sincerely wrong, people.

[Krusader]

Yes it is pretty clear. It is amazing how modern Mormons want to distance themselves in thought from the founder - yet pay lip service to being in agreement. Yet if Smith was wrong on these things, the whole thing is a spiritual scam that has sucked in many sincere, but sincerely wrong, people.

It's sad to have to acknowledge that so many were suckered by Smith - but he was able to get over because of the times he lived in. Today, he wouldn't be any competition for Benny Hinn!

[Bill the Cat]

It depends on whether he was disagreeing with opinion or preaching against the prophet and the church. I would also look into to the man's biography afterwards, for a reinstatement.

He was disagreeing specifically with the preaching of the Adam-God doctrine


Letter to Pres. John Taylor from Scott Anderson; Salt Lake City; Sept 22nd 1884.

President John Taylor

Sir

Duty imperatively demands that as I am about to withdraw from the Church over which you preside I make known to you and to all whom it may concern the reasons which have compelled me to take this step.

When I joined the Mormon Church a little over 5 years ago I believed implicitly as I do now that the Bible was the word of God and the Rule of Faith and while the "Book of Mormon" and "Doctrine and Covenants" were referred to as additional revelation they no where contradicted the Bible but rather established it.

Before joining the Church I became acquainted with Elders Wm. Budge, John Nicholson, Francis Cope, James L. Bunting, and others. Elder Nicholson preached from the Bible only and almost entirely dwelt on what is known as the first principles claiming that these principles were what had been introduced by our Savior and preached by his immediate apostles but that men had wandered away from them and had fallen into darkness & superstition. I had heard a great many things about the Mormons that were nothing to their credit consequently the eminent social qualities and gentlemanly conduct of Elder Cope won my admiration and esteem. I was greatly pleased to find him a monogamist for while I could not deny that many good men in the past had had more wives than one, I never for one moment assented to the idea that there was any virtue in such a proceeding or that it merited or would receive any reward.

I joined your Church on the 20th of May 1879 and during the first 2 years of my membership I faithfully adhered to it and would have given my life to defend it, during all this time I never heard of Adam being God, never heard of Blood Atonement, never heard of polygamy being required of all men before they could attain to highest glory. Never dreamed that Brigham Young or any one else cooly threw the Bible overboard and preached whatever they pleased which I was bound to accept as the revelations of God. I do not and cannot accuse these men of having told my anything absolutely false, but they certainly withheld the horrible I was in the Church some five years before I heard or knew anything about these things--doctrines against which my soul revolts.

The first shock I received was from Albert Carrington who succeeded William Budge as President of the European Mission. William Budge always appeared to me in the light of a most kind gentlemanly and truly Christian man. It was not unnatural that I should look for all this in a man who was a successor of the twelve apostles of Christ and whose speeches and writings were to be received as Scripture.

Judge my horror and amazement when I found that he constantly used language which I had only heard from the lips of the lowest blackguards and that his conduct generally was something disgraceful. I saw him myself in the presence of several hundred witnesses on board a tugboat in Liverpool conduct himself so disgracefully with a young girl, then a servant in the Mission House, that every Elder present held his head down with shame. I was so disgusted that I almost left the Church then & there. Several of the Elders came to me and assured me that such conduct would not be overlooked, but would be promptly dealt with by the authorities. I believed this, and shortly afterwards left Liverpool to make my way to Utah in obedience to the command to gather. I left behind me a dear old mother, friends, associates, companions, country, everything, and with my family came to Salt Lake. God who alone judgest the hearts of men knows the sincerity and purity of my intentions. I imagined that I had come to the kingdom of God to help to build it up! What did I find? I found that God, the God of the Bible is not even worshiped by the Church over which you preside, the God you worship is Adam. Brigham Young teaches I quote his words, "When our Father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body and brought Eve one of his wives with him. He is our Father and our God and the ONLY God with whom we have to do." At first I could not bring myself to believe that this doctrine was accepted by the Church, but on careful enquiry found to my horror and astonishment that it was really so. It is true a great many know nothing about it and are simply in ignorance. Those who do know accept it as far more to be relied on than any portion of the Bible, for say they the Bible has been translated over and over again and may be wrong but this is the direct teaching of a Great Prophet.

I reject this as abominable and horrible idolatry and give it as one reason why I cannot remain in your Church

Then there is the Doctrine of Blood atonement which to me is simply a doctrine of murder. Brigham Young says "I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain in order to atone for their sins." Again he says, "I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance if their lives had been taken and their blood spilt upon the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty." I know of nothing so horrible as this in all the idolatries and superstitions which have cursed the human race, and it would of itself be reason more than sufficient for my withdrawal from your Church. But there are many more, far too many to mention in this letter but I will refer to a few.

As I have shown Adam is made God but you do not give him much power or rather leave him much for you do teach that he has given you the power to wield, that however matters little you hold it and he has parted with it. that is my point you teach that. If a faithful son of Adam's is called behind the vail (sp. veil) and has no priesthood God (Adam) cannot give him any. He must wait until he gets it from the earth where you have all the power. If he has no wife or wives (and you teach that he must have at least three or he cannot have the highest glory) God (Adam) is utterly unable to help him You have the keys and he must wait your leisure and pleasure.

In fact you teach that you have the power to make a God "who shall pass by the angels and the Gods" whereas God according to Mormonism can only make an angel (servant) and scarcely that without your permission. This to me is a mockery and silly superstition and I unhesitatingly reject it. I know many members of your Church whose sincerity to do not doubt and who are very good people. But generally speaking I never saw so much hypocrisy in my life as I have seen since I came to Salt Lake City. You profess to have a direct revelation from God commanding you to do no work on Sunday. But you and the people generally are steeped in Sabbath breaking. Shortly after I arrived in the city I found the Theatre open on Sunday and Bishop O. F. Whitney and a number of members of the Church rehearsing plays that they were going to perform at Conference for money. I found that here and in other parts of the Territory rehearsals are commonly held in the preaching houses of the wards upon a Sunday--that painters had been sent for by yourself and other leading members of the Church to do work on Sunday and that the business office of the Church is frequently open all that day and your clerks diligently at work. You profess to abhor drinking, smoking and swearing. One of the heaviest smokers in the city is John Smith the patriarch of the whole Church. Members of the Church in full fellowship keep saloons, and the Church organ the "Deseret News" opens its columns for the advertisements of the lowest dens in the city, and so far as bad language is concerned I say deliberately I have heard more in Salt Lake City from Latter-day Saints in one year than I heard from all the members of other churches with whom I have been acquainted in the whole course of my life. Joseph F. Smith during last conference told the Priesthood meeting that to obey the higher law they must have at least three living wives at one and the same time, and that anything to the contrary was a damned lie. You yourself in the Ogden Tabernacle speaking of what the Gentiles were trying to do said "Who the Devil cares." Surely you do not think I can believe such language from the Holy Spirit of God.

I now request you to erase my name from your books, and only add in conclusion that I have had no quarrel, no dispute, no misunderstanding with any member of your Church. I leave it from conviction and at the call of duty well persuaded that I can meet you or any member of the Church over which you preside at the bar of God and look you in the face before him as an honest man

Yours respectfully,

Scott Anderson


To which the minutes of the excommunication meeting show:


Minutes of a Bishops Court. Eleventh Ward School House Tuesday evening Jany 20th 1885.

Prayer was offered by Counselor Joseph H. Felt. The following charge was read.

Salt Lake City, Jany 17th 1885

Bishop Alexander McRae

Dear Brother

We the undersigned prefer a charge against Brother Scott Anderson for Apostasy, and ask that you appoint as early a date as practicable for the hearing of the complaint; as we understand he is preparing to leave the City permanently.

Your Brethren in the Gospel.

Mark Barnes

Thomas Simons

John Sears

Brother Scott Anderson being present. Bishop A. McRae asked him whether he was guilty of the charge or not. Bro. Anderson said "If my not being in accord with all things in the Church makes me guilty, then I am guilty."

Bp. McRae. Do you still hold to the sentiments expressed in your letter to Prest Taylor. (copy of same accompanies this) Bro Anderson said, That portion that alludes to doctrine I still adhere to but not to that referring to persons.

Bp. McRae said It is in consequence of the statement you made in your letter to Prest Taylor dissenting from the Church of the Latter Day Saints that we have cited you to appear before us here tonight you being a member of this Ward it is our duty to inquire into the matter. Bro Anderson said I have no desire to enter into any controversy, but will say that since being in Salt Lake I have been treated with the greatest of courtesy and kindness by both man woman and child: do not wish to enter into any details; except that if I was in the Bishops place I should do as he is doing in a similar case.

Bishop A. McRae said Our decision is that you be disfellowshipped from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for apostasy. Brother Anderson said "he anticipated that such would be the case and immediately left the house.

Alexander McRae Bp. 11th Ward Joseph H. Felt Counselors

Robt. Morris

Per John Coulam Clerk



The question is speculative and goes beyond what is revealed about God.

Yet it digs at the very nature of God. If Elohim is dependent on His father for authority, then He is not "The Most High God" nor can He truthfully say "Before Me there was no God formed,And there will be none after Me."


And fwiw, the repeated use of "Elohim," I assume from an interest in being clear which person of the Godhead you want to speak of, that's rubbing me the wrong way, that's not how we talk about God.

Yet that is His name in Mormonism.


If you want to be clear about which person of the Godhead, "God the Father" is a better title,

No. I will not equate your "elohim" to my "God the Father. I am sorry if that rubs you the wrong way, but they are two different things.


or "Heavenly Father." That's how we speak of him at church, how we speak of him at conferences.

I realize that, but the fact remains that we speak of an entirely different being. I will call the one you refer to as "Heavenly Father" Elohim or the Mormon God. To equate the two is to lend ligitimacy to the false teachings associated with "Elohim" and that is something I am afraid I can not do.

[Dee Dee Warren]

How can one be excommunicated for disagreement with "opinions." Further if one of the greatest prohets (Young) believed Adam=God and it is not true (one cannot blithely say oh well I don't have an opinion on this) then he is a horrible deceiver and false teacher. Do you Mormons here denounce Young for that?

We see here that a man was excommunicated for disagreeing with:

Adam=God
Polygamy required for the highest exaltation (all you guys are missing out now)
blood atonement

This is the dark underbelly of this system that present such a clean face to the world. Anderson was right, there are a great many decent works and good people in Mormonism - this is despite the doctrines of demons. I was glad to see that he withdrew the personal cmments and stuck to doctrine. In my opinion Mormons as a rule are a morally upright group in societal conduct.

[Bloodnut]

== We see here that a man was excommunicated for disagreeing with

"Where" do we see this? No link has been provided. And all evidence seems to go against this assumption.

[Krusader]

"and all evidence seems to go against this assumption." What evidence? Young clearly taught the Adam God heresy, and furthermore, there are extant writings by those who were in the Church at that time which confirm this repeatedly.

[Bloodnut]

== "and all evidence seems to go against this assumption." What evidence?


The evidence in the fact that many Mormons have verbally disagreed with this doctrine, as well as others, without being excommunicated. Now I simply asked for the proof that someone was excommunicated for this reason. Bill alluded to page 3, but I didn't find it. I figured that before we start ranting on something, we should know what is factual first.

I've learned that this is generally too much to expect on this forum, however.

== Young clearly taught the Adam God heresy, and furthermore, there are extant writings by those who were in the Church at that time which confirm this repeatedly.

Aren't you tired of beating the straw yet? When did I ever deny that Young taught this? Young also said that he had taught wrongly at times. Not a big deal since "common consent" is and was the system, not one man's speculations - even if he thinks it is divine revelation. The Adam-God issue wasn't something Young could make sense of. For every instance where he seemed to imply Adam was God, there are three instances where he refers to Adam as distinct from God. A creation of God. Taken as a whole, it is ambiguous to say the least. In the end Young didn't press to make this official doctrine for teh obvious reason that it didn't make much sense. Some Mormons have tried to recreate Young's theological ponderings by focusing on the ancient of days. I suppose any scenario is plausible since it was never canonized as official doctrine of the Church. If it were, then we could expect far more explication on it. As it remains, the topic really isn't of much concern for Mormons since it isn't an issue that affects our salvation.

[Bill the Cat]

== "and all evidence seems to go against this assumption." What evidence?


The evidence in the fact that many Mormons have verbally disagreed with this doctrine, as well as others, without being excommunicated. Now I simply asked for the proof that someone was excommunicated for this reason. Bill alluded to page 3, but I didn't find it. I figured that before we start ranting on something, we should know what is factual first.

Sorry Kevin, it was page 5 on the link I provided. I also provided the entire text of the two items (the letter explaining why the gentleman disagreed and the minutes from the excommunication hearing.


I've learned that this is generally too much to expect on this forum, however.

Insults are worthless when all you have to do is read the thread BEFORE you throw them out. If you had read it before you give your "mightier than thou" speech, you would have been able to read the quotes I posted about the excommunication and saved that insult for a more deserving target.


Aren't you tired of beating the straw yet? When did I ever deny that Young taught this? Young also said that he had taught wrongly at times. Not a big deal since "common consent" is and was the system, not one man's speculations - even if he thinks it is divine revelation. The Adam-God issue wasn't something Young could make sense of. For every instance where he seemed to imply Adam was God, there are three instances where he refers to Adam as distinct from God. A creation of God. Taken as a whole, it is ambiguous to say the least. In the end Young didn't press to make this official doctrine for teh obvious reason that it didn't make much sense. Some Mormons have tried to recreate Young's theological ponderings by focusing on the ancient of days. I suppose any scenario is plausible since it was never canonized as official doctrine of the Church. If it were, then we could expect far more explication on it. As it remains, the topic really isn't of much concern for Mormons since it isn't an issue that affects our salvation.

Yet it resonates of the chain of authority succesive LDS prophets claim. Young was an idiot and an embarrassment. Point blank. And Hinckley's prophetic line flows directly through him. He (Young) believed it was doctrine and the quotes I provided show he believed it was official doctrine. The excommunicated man and the authorities who booted him believed that was official doctrine, or else he was booted wrongly. Young to me was arrogant enough to believe he was above the others voting on what he said as doctrine or not. He claimed inspiration of the Holy Spirit so how do we know which statements were actually inspired and which weren't? Just the ones that FARMS can somewhat defend?

[Jezz]

Hey all,

Just dropped in to this thread because I heard there were some claims being thrown around about theosis, and someone asked me to give the Orthodox description of theosis and show how it differs from the Mormon teaching. I couldn't help but throw in my two bits here, because although I don't agree with Kevin or Mormonism on their doctrine of theosis, I do have to agree that it doesn't seem you are giving him a fair go.


Well, bloodnut, I think I will just let your last post stand as a testament to your inability to commit to a point of view. Anyone reading your last few posts can see where you switch from saying that the teachings of the early prophets does not mean that the LDS church believes that now, then saying that you all do not disagree with the early prophets on any point and challenge us to provide you with such references, and when we do, you again claim that just because the early prophets say so doesn't mean you beleive it.
I don't see Kevin switching his position at all - I only see you failing to understand it. I think Kevin has been perfectly consistent in this.

From what I can gather (Kevin please correct me if I am wrong), Kevin is not claiming to agree with the early Mormon prophets, as in agreeing with everything that they said. Rather, he claims to be in agreement with the official doctrine of the early Mormon prophets.

The "switching" which is apparent to your mind is really only a product of the fact that you are failing to distinguish between the official teachings of the early Mormon prophets and the unofficial teachings of the early Mormon prophets. Kevin claims to adhere to the latter, whereas the examples that you have dug up (which he is not in agreement with) fall in the former category. At least, that's the impression that I get.

Now, in response to Kevin's position, you might wish to argue that you can't draw such a sharp distinction between the two. After all, the unofficial teachings give us insight into the mindset of the early prophets, and hence are indispensible for understanding of how their official teachings are to be interpreted. Without properly understanding this mindset, you run the risk of interpreting the teachings with a meaning different to their original author's. Indeed, you seem to be arguing precisely this here:


Take a stand and tell me: Will you have your own world that you will be God over? and don't give me "I don't have any opinion" because all you have to do is take 5 minutes and come up with one. Smith and Young taught it, and since they were closer to the direct revelations from God, wouldn't their opinions be more important than the 20th or 21st century claims if they disagree?
I wholeheartedly agree with this, John. You are right - the opinion of the original prophets is much more important than the opinions of 20th or 21st century claims. They show how the doctrines were meant to be interpreted. If you divorce them from their historical context, you twist them into nearly anything you want.

But then, you're a Protestant John. You're guilty of doing exactly this when it comes to things like the Nicene Creed and even the NT itself. It is a simple matter to show that the beliefs of the early Christians - who were closer to the NT revlation than you or the reformers were - were significantly different to how you interpret them. Now, if you're like most Protestants, you'll justify this by saying "Oh, they might have believed those things, but then it wasn't part of official Church teaching (as found in the Creed or the NT) and so I'm free to ignore those teachings." Is this type of argument starting to sound familiar...? :smile:

I don't mean to pick on you particularly, John - I think others are guilty of this. They will know who they are.

Anyway, just my two bits... Off to start my new thread on theosis.

[Jezz]

The evidence can hardly be described as "vast", but setting that aside, what does any of this have to do with proving Christianity? There are plenty of fictional stories based on real locations.
It is true that there are plenty of fictional stories based on real locations. However, I don't know of too many real stories that are set in fictional locations, do you?

[Jezz]

Maybe not to you, but it remains a fact nonetheless. What the earliest Church believed is a a very strong indicator of what the earliest Church believed. Moreso than what some Evangelicals propose 1900 years later, via their private interpretation of a text in a language centuries removed from the Greek.

[snip]

To discard the early Church and assume they had no clue what the apostles really taught, and to further assume Protestants 1900 years later would come along and reinterpret the Bible properly, is quite pathetic.
Kevin, I agree with you. But then what does this mean for this comment here:


Trying to recreate the scenario to suit your straw man won't work. You said Joseph Smith taught this. This is false. I've asked you to provide. All you've done is point to Brigham Young's opinion as was shared by a couple of his contemporaries. My claim from teh very beginning is that this is not LDS belief or doctrine. In the end, I am right and you are wrong. Pointing to the speculations of Brigham Young doesn't make your case. Of course, if you were at all interested in the LDS paradigm of common consent, you wouldn't be struggling to cme to gripes with this. But you're not interested in educating yourself on the LDS paradigm. Instead you want to read LDS sources through your own Evangelical lens, and then insist Mormons must see it your way instead of vice-versa. The usual protocol of the common bigot.

"To discard the early Mormons and assume they had no clue what Joseph Smith really taught, and to further assume you 150 years later would come along and reinterpret him properly, is quite pathetic."

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

Also in this post, you wrote:


== So unless you can show where an apostle believed we will be as powerful as God, then you have no argument against us.

It isn't an argument against anyone. It is simply a fact. Theosis is grounded in the NT.
(Emphasis added.) Then only one paragraph later, you wrote:


== On the other hand you just admitted that you and the LDS Church DO believe you will be just as powerful as God

Are you truly this dense? I never once said such a thing.
(Again, emphasis added.) You'll have to excuse me if it seems you've directly contradicted yourself in the space of two paragraphs. Perhaps the answer you gave in the first quote above was a bit misrepresentative of your actual view (I don't think you actually meant to admit that you will become as powerful as God), but I can certainly understand why Trout/JohnSparks/Crusader et al would misunderstand you when you misrepresent your own position that way.

Sorry about the last couple of posts... just been perusing the thread for the purposes of the new thread, and a couple of things jumped out at me that I thought I should comment on.

[Sparko]

I don't see Kevin switching his position at all - I only see you failing to understand it. I think Kevin has been perfectly consistent in this.


Actually Jezz, Kevin went around saying stuff like not everything the prophet said was doctrine and he didn't have to follow what he didn't want to. He never actually disagreed with the claims we made (about Men becoming Gods and ruling their own planets) but he responded derisively with his "well that is not official doctrine" - as if he didn't believe it or we were wrong.

but when pressed on the matter, he claimed that neither he nor the LDS church disagree with ANYTHING the prophet ever said.

So they agree with everything he said, but it isn't official doctrine? sounds like he was switching his position or at least speaking out of both sides of his mouth to me.

[Bloodnut]

== Sorry Kevin, it was page 5 on the link I provided.

Actually, it isn`t there either. I found it on page four. Three times is the charm? (grin) In any event, I read that text, but wasn't aware that this was what you were referring to, simply because it doesn't say what Dee Dee implied.

== I also provided the entire text of the two items (the letter explaining why the gentleman disagreed and the minutes from the excommunication hearing.

But what you provided doesn't confirm what Dee Dee said. She said someone was excommunicated for disagreeing with LDS opinion. I am simply asking for the evidence. What you provided thus far can hardly be considered evidence. I will explain why.

== Insults are worthless when all you have to do is read the thread BEFORE you throw them out.

Again, what is provided doesn't make your case, and secondly, I was responding to Crusader's response to my request for the link. We are dealing with a person who thinks LDS prophets should be killed. (Unless of course she goes against her own interpretation of the Bible).

== If you had read it before you give your "mightier than thou" speech, you would have been able to read the quotes I posted about the excommunication and saved that insult for a more deserving target.

The target wasn't you in particular. It was the forum in general.

== Yet it resonates of the chain of authority succesive LDS prophets claim. Young was an idiot and an embarrassment.

And about worthless insults... you were saying?

Anyway, assuming this text is genuine, we only have partial information at best. Was this man excommunicated? Not according to what it says. The man was disfellowshipped, which is something entirely different. I know. As a former counselor in a bishopric, I have sat in on several disciplinary counsels. DIsagreeing with opinion doesn´t require excommunication now anymore than it did in the 19th century.

Furthermore, the lynchers here seems to have ignored the fact that Mr. Anderson initiated this process - NOT THE CHURCH. The whole thing was his idea. It wasn`t as if he expressed disbelief in these opinions, and the Church immediately summoned him to the red carpet. That was the picture Dee Dee was trying to paint (How can one be excommunicated for disagreement with "opinions." ) But the fact is he wasn`t excommunicated, even though he requested it! Instead, he was disfellowshipped. Again, something entirely different from excommunication.

Thirdly, the only reason this hearing took place is because Anderson was bashing the Presidency. It is one thing to say you don~t agree with someone~s opinions, but it is another thing entirely to say ``the God of the Bible is not even worshiped by the Church over which you preside.`` Surely you can see the difference. But in the end, even these antagonistic comments didn`t merit excommunication; merely disfellowshipment. So where is the information that tells us what finally became of Mr. Anderson? Why is this information missing on this website? Could it be because he repented and withdrew his request?

Sorry I don´t have time to respond to Jezz´s refreshing comments, but I will make it a point to do so in the near future

[Bloodnut]

Ok, I made time...

== It is true that there are plenty of fictional stories based on real locations.

Which proves that naming biblical cities that truly existed, doesn´t prove a thing about the theological claims found in the Bible. So why are so many of our critics comparing apples and oranges?

Furthermore, if we found in Guatamala a sign which reads,`Head 4000 cubits east to Zarahemla,`` you can pretty much put it in the bank that the Book of Mormon is not only based on true history, but the theological content is true as well. Why would something be supernaturally revealed to tell about history alone?

== However, I don't know of too many real stories that are set in fictional locations, do you?

If there are or aren´t, this would prove what exactly?

== "To discard the early Mormons and assume they had no clue what Joseph Smith really taught, and to further assume you 150 years later would come along and reinterpret him properly, is quite pathetic."

Ah, but there is a subtle difference my friend. What people claim their beliefs originated with Smith? And even if they did, what evidence is there that Smith considered it official doctrine? Again, Smith wasn´t shy about canonizing everything under the sun that he felt was theologically solid.

== You'll have to excuse me if it seems you've directly contradicted yourself in the space of two paragraphs.

I´m not contradicting myself, and the misrepresentation by the others took place long before this statement. Long before one had the opportunity of seeing a contradiction via inference. The idea of being `just as powerful as God` is what started this whole thing when Crusader made the claim. I adamantly rejected it as official doctrine. I was probably reading too quickly his statement, and understood him saying `power of God` instead of just as powerful. Since then we have had discussion qualifying what one means when we say we can have God´s power. Anti-Mormons will run with it and leap to ridiculous conclusions. That is what they do best here. When I clarify, I´m accused of apologetic maneuvering. I think I´ve made it clear on numerous occasions that Mormons believe we will always be under God in authority. Some here will say that this then means we dont have God´s powers. Well, so be it then. After all, the brew-ha´-ha over equality in power is more a concern for our critics then it is for Latter-day Saints.

Forgive the typos, this portugese keyboard is driving me nuts.

I look forward to reading over and commenting on your theosis summary.

[Jezz]

Ok, I made time...

== It is true that there are plenty of fictional stories based on real locations.

Which proves that naming biblical cities that truly existed, doesn´t prove a thing about the theological claims found in the Bible. So why are so many of our critics comparing apples and oranges?

Furthermore, if we found in Guatamala a sign which reads,`Head 4000 cubits east to Zarahemla,`` you can pretty much put it in the bank that the Book of Mormon is not only based on true history, but the theological content is true as well. Why would something be supernaturally revealed to tell about history alone?
I'm afraid you've missed the point.

The question at issue is how to determine if a story is true history or a fictional story.

You have argued that, to prove a story is historical, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the people/places in the story actually existed. I agree - it is not a sufficient condition for a story to be true, because (as you pointed out) fictional stories can be based in real locations and around real people. I grant this.

However, my counter-point is that, before a story can be considered historical, it is a necessary condition that the people and places therein actually existed at the time when the story was set. If they don't, then the story that talks about those places can't possibly be true - it must be fictional.

Do you not agree with this? It seems to me to be a pretty basic logical deduction - I can break it down for you further if you still disagree.


== However, I don't know of too many real stories that are set in fictional locations, do you?

If there are or aren´t, this would prove what exactly?
Please see above to see what I am trying to prove.


== "To discard the early Mormons and assume they had no clue what Joseph Smith really taught, and to further assume you 150 years later would come along and reinterpret him properly, is quite pathetic."

Ah, but there is a subtle difference my friend. What people claim their beliefs originated with Smith? And even if they did, what evidence is there that Smith considered it official doctrine? Again, Smith wasn´t shy about canonizing everything under the sun that he felt was theologically solid.
Fair point. But then, if they didn't learn it from Smith, and yet it seemed to be a universally held belief among early Mormons who knew him, then where did the belief come from? I don't buy the idea that they all came up with the same ideas independently. Historically speaking, it is much more likely to me that the ideas trace back to a common source, and the most likely candidate for this common source is obviously Joseph Smith.


== You'll have to excuse me if it seems you've directly contradicted yourself in the space of two paragraphs.

I´m not contradicting myself, and the misrepresentation by the others took place long before this statement. Long before one had the opportunity of seeing a contradiction via inference. The idea of being `just as powerful as God` is what started this whole thing when Crusader made the claim. I adamantly rejected it as official doctrine. I was probably reading too quickly his statement, and understood him saying `power of God` instead of just as powerful. Since then we have had discussion qualifying what one means when we say we can have God´s power. Anti-Mormons will run with it and leap to ridiculous conclusions. That is what they do best here. When I clarify, I´m accused of apologetic maneuvering. I think I´ve made it clear on numerous occasions that Mormons believe we will always be under God in authority. Some here will say that this then means we dont have God´s powers. Well, so be it then. After all, the brew-ha´-ha over equality in power is more a concern for our critics then it is for Latter-day Saints.
Kevin, you're overreacting. I acknowledge that the misrepresentation was made earlier, and I did not try to excuse that earlier misrepresentation. I also didn't claim that you had contradicted yourself.

What I did do, was point out that, in that particular instance, the statement you made seemed as though you were contradicting yourself. It would be easy for someone to interpret it that way if they didn't already properly understand what you were talking about. You didn't do yourself any favours there.

I guess what I'm trying to demonstrate is that, although the initial misrepresentation may not necessarily have been your fault, it is at least partially your fault that the misrepresentation was perpetuated. Please remember that when you judge others for misrepresenting you - I think you're a little bit too quick to adjudge malice when the real cause is accidental misrepresentation. I have a nice, sharp razor that you might like to consider using in such situations. :wink: Just accept the fact that, in this medium, miscommunications will happen - and they are not always the result of malice.


Forgive the typos, this portugese keyboard is driving me nuts.
:lol: No sweat. I ask that you would do me the same courtesy. :smile:


I look forward to reading over and commenting on your theosis summary.
I look forward to reading your comments.

[Bloodnut]

== I'm afraid you've missed the point.

Mmm, since I was the one who made the initial statement, I think you were the one who missed my point. I'm simply trying to clarify what my point was.

== The question at issue is how to determine if a story is true history or a fictional story.

Really? Where was that question asked? I was initially responding to the statement on this thread:

"There is not a shred of evidence that supports the fact that the civilization described in the BOM, coming from Israel, ever existed on any of the American continents. There is mucho evidence that the Jews existed in Israel, 2000 years ago, however."

Now, slice it anyway you want, but the above statement implies that an absence of proof is proof of absence. This is simply a logically fallacy.

== You have argued that, to prove a story is historical, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the people/places in the story actually existed. I agree - it is not a sufficient condition for a story to be true, because (as you pointed out) fictional stories can be based in real locations and around real people. I grant this.

Right. But the more important aspect, which is what we're really concerned with, is the theological teaching found within. Pointing to biblical cities that exist prove absolutely nothing about the validity of biblical theology.

== However, my counter-point is that, before a story can be considered historical, it is a necessary condition that the people and places therein actually existed at the time when the story was set.

Of course it is necessary that they existed. And they did exist. As mentioned before, only around 55% of the biblical cities have been found. Does this mean 45% of the unknown cities which are incorporated into various stories, proves that a huge portion of the Bible cannot be considered history?

== If they don't, then the story that talks about those places can't possibly be true - it must be fictional. Do you not agree with this?

If they didn't exist, of course. But you cannot prove they didn't exist anymore than I can prove they did.

== It seems to me to be a pretty basic logical deduction - I can break it down for you further if you still disagree.

There is nothing to disagree with. But again, our critics are the ones who insist on rasing the archeological issue, and they seem to be deluded by the fantasy tht the Bible doesn't suffer from any of the criticisms they foist upon the BoM. Religion is a matter of faith first and foremost. For a religion to appeal to scientific study in order to attack another faith they simply don't like, is the epitome of disingenuousness.

== Fair point. But then, if they didn't learn it from Smith, and yet it seemed to be a universally held belief among early Mormons who knew him, then where did the belief come from?

Revelation is where all LDS claims profess to originate from. You seem to think Mromns adopted the Orthodoxy notion of theosis, but where is the evidence that Smith "borrowed" such terminology from them? You deny he was a prophet, so after rejeting the revelation argument, this is the only way you can make sense of it: he must have borrowed it. But of course, this merely begs the question.

== I don't buy the idea that they all came up with the same ideas independently. Historically speaking, it is much more likely to me that the ideas trace back to a common source, and the most likely candidate for this common source is obviously Joseph Smith.

But you have no problem accepting the notion that all the Church Fathers generally haad the same doctrine of "energies", even though it wasn't explicated until the 15th century? We can't expect "absolute logic" to be on our side all the time, especially when engaging in religious apologetics. Much of what we "buy" results from our own presuppositions which we accept on faith.

== What I did do, was point out that, in that particular instance, the statement you made seemed as though you were contradicting yourself. It would be easy for someone to interpret it that way if they didn't already properly understand what you were talking about. You didn't do yourself any favours there.

I agree, but my point was simply this. Their misrepresentation existed before I made the goof. I didn't do myself any favors sure. But this example is certainly not the basis for their confusion.

Anyway, I've ranted enough today I think...

[Krusader]

Regarding the non-existence of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon as compared with archeological evidence for the Bible: If archeologists told us there was no Jerusalem, no Hebrew civilization, and that there never had been a Roman Empire - that no evidence for these existed, I'd be inclined to believe the Bible to be a fable.

However, since ample, and more than ample, archeological evidence confirms the existence of Jersusalem, a Hebrew civilization and the Roman Empire, I am convinced that the Bible speaks truth.

As for the Book of Mormon - based on the above, we'd have to say it speaks untruths.

[Bloodnut]

== Regarding the non-existence of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon as compared with archeological evidence for the Bible:

Uh, first of all, there is archeological evidence for the BoM. But there is a difference between evidence and proof, however. Not that I expect Crusader to understand that difference.

== If archeologists told us there was no Jerusalem, no Hebrew civilization, and that there never had been a Roman Empire - that no evidence for these existed, I'd be inclined to believe the Bible to be a fable.

This is interesting. If an archeologist told me Jerusalem didn't exist, I'd laugh in his face. Why? Because I've been there. I've seen it. Apparently Crusader's reliance upon "authorities" changes with the wind. In this instance she is willing to abandon common sense (from habit I suppose) and assume a location doesn't exist, just because someone with a degree says so. Consequently, in another thread Crusader demanded that I provide Jewish scholars who agreed with the point I was making. She did so under the assumption that I couldn't do so. She tried to catch me in a snare. But I provided probably a dozen scolars, many of whom were Jewish.

How did she respond? By pedantically stating how she doesn't care what authorities have to say anyway, since she can understand the Bible perfectly fine as it is. Yeah, which is why we have so many Churches nowadays all claiming to have the true "Christian" interpretation.

Now, out of apologetic convenience, she wants to place all her eggs in the basket of archeologist claims when the BoM is the topic. So what is it, are authorities important or aren't they? That seems to depend on whether or not it serves Crusaders purposes.

== However, since ample, and more than ample, archeological evidence confirms the existence of Jersusalem, a Hebrew civilization and the Roman Empire, I am convinced that the Bible speaks truth.

Again, this is such an absurd generalization which tells us alot about the thought processes at work. The Bible consists of 66 books, and hundreds of thousands of words. Everytime Jerusalem is mentioned, there are 1000 other words which Crusader seems to think are irrelevant. The "truth of the Bible" is established by verifying the existence of ONE city; less .01% of the Bible! Well heck, the BoM also mentions Jerusalem, so I suppose that means the BoM is "historically true."

No, of course not.

Jerusalem is only one of many cities mentioned in the Bible. Archeologists also admit that around 50% of the cities mentioned in the Bible cannot be verified. So does this mean the Bible, is only 50% true history? In some cases biblical claims seem to face serious difficulty in light of science. Many scholars think the Book of Job, for example, is just a fiction aimed to teach a faith promoting story. Nobody truly believes Job owned as much as the Bible said. Also, where is the evidence for the exodus in Egypt? There isn't any, and Egypt is a fraction of the size of South/Meso Americas, and it is fairly easy to excavate since it is not swallowed up by jungles. And it is fairly easy to identify something that is "Jewish." But they haven't.

== As for the Book of Mormon - based on the above, we'd have to say it speaks untruths.

Again ignorance is bliss. One thing has nothing to do with another. It is amazing how Evangelicals expect us to tke them seriously when they can't even maintain a single argument with a simple standard of logic to follow. There is no consistency here.

This manner of thinking epitomizes everything that is wrong with the counter-cult industry. Crusader claims that Jerusalem exists, therefore, the entire Bible is true history! And to insult our intelligence further, she implies that this also proves the teachings found in the Bible must also be considered "truths." One thing has nothing to do with another. Jezz understands this.

To prove the existence of Jerusalem doesn't mean the stories told about Jerusalem are true. How does proving Jerusalem's existence verify the teachings of Christ? Did Christ ever say, "be sure you make people understand that we existed. Leave as much archeological debris as possible. That is the only way we can expect people to believe." According to Crusader's illogic, yes. But Christ said truth is known through the Holy Spirit, which is precisely what the BoM says about itself, and it is precisely why Mormons believe in it.

The archeological proof argument is a lame duck attempt to attack something without knowledge. It is a smoke and mirror job that avoids the basic rules of logic. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, period. End of story.

Middle-Eastern biblical archeology which is:

1) In open desert in a relatively small amount of area.
2) Has been a well established scientific endeavor for centuries.
3) Deals with the world's earliest civilizations that have never been lost to the rest of the world.
4) Some cites have been excataved and reexcavated many times over.

Comparing this to South American archeology which is

1) By anyone's standard in its infancy
2) Deals with a lost civilization l
3) Deals with lost languages with no means to translate them
4) Is a terrirtory engulfed in jungles, about 200 times the size of area attracting biblical archeology.
5) Cities found under the sea are virtually impossible to excavate.
6) Deals with a field of scientists less than 1/10 the size of the biblical archeologists.
7) Only 1% of all recognized sites have been excavated.

Comparing the two is absolutely preposterous. Expecting equal results in such a short amount of time is equally absurd.

But since when has absurdity stopped the bigots from indulging themselves...

[Krusader]

Note, that anyone who disagrees with Mormon claims is a bigot! Again, what evidence has been uncovered to prove that Book of Mormon civilizations existed here in the New World, and has been accepted by the established scientific community, exists?

Answer: absolutely none!

Where is evidence of this vast pre-Columbian civilization that supposedly existed for centuries in North and South America? Where are the massive cities they built? The coins they produced? The steel weapons?

And in that final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites, when none were left to clean up the mess, where, pray tell, is their any evidence of their armor, shields, and weapons left laying around the ground as their corpses rotted in the sun?

Since this supposedly happened in 421 AD, it should be easy to locate such artifacts, should it not? I should know, since I have explored (university sponsored digs) Indian sites a lot older than that where significant artifacts still remain for archeological evaluation. Yet, we have a total absence of Nephite artifacts!

There is only one conclusion that any sane person can draw - the Book of Mormon is a piece of pious fiction.

[Krusader]

pardon the typose above and misspelled words - couldn't get back in time to fix!

[rangerbob]

man i don't get it, are you saying the book of mormon is true because nothing has been found to disprove it? i mean how do you find nothing from nothing. so i guess the land in alice in wonderland must be a real place because no one has found it? help me out here.................

[Jezz]

== I'm afraid you've missed the point.

Mmm, since I was the one who made the initial statement, I think you were the one who missed my point. I'm simply trying to clarify what my point was.
Ok.


== The question at issue is how to determine if a story is true history or a fictional story.

Really? Where was that question asked?
It is implicit behind the question to which you responded. Crusader was trying to discredit the BoM, by pointing out the lack of archaeological evidence to support it. Her presupposition is that we should expect to see someevidence, if the places were real historical places.


I was initially responding to the statement on this thread:

"There is not a shred of evidence that supports the fact that the civilization described in the BOM, coming from Israel, ever existed on any of the American continents. There is mucho evidence that the Jews existed in Israel, 2000 years ago, however."

Now, slice it anyway you want, but the above statement implies that an absence of proof is proof of absence. This is simply a logically fallacy.
Only people who don't have any evidence try to bring up the ol' "absence of proof is proof of absence" argument...

If one is talking about pure deductive proof, then yes - absence of the proof of a conclusion is not proof that one does not exist.

Well, that's all well and good for the theoretical world, but in point of fact we don't live in a theoretical world - we live in an experiential world - aka, "the real world". A world of evidence, conjecture, and inductive reasoning. In this real world of evidence proof, we must be satisfied with proofs that (unlike deductive proofs) are less than 100% certain. Science always works with inductive proof - if it insisted on deductive proof for everything, then it would mathematics, not science.

And in the world of science and experience, the complete absence of evidence is considered extremely good evidence for the absence of something. For example, the sum total of the evidence that I have to prove that there is no elephant in my room is the complete absence of evidence of the presence of an elephant in my room. Ordinarily, this evidence would be considered sufficent to conclude that there is no elephant in my room. While I acknowledge that this "proof" is not deductively rigourous, do you not agree that I am justified in asserting that there is no elephant in my room?

In short: "absence of proof is proof of absence" is indeed a deductive logical fallacy. However, "absence of evidence" is indeed very strong evidence of absence - particularly when we would ordinarily expect to find evidence.


== You have argued that, to prove a story is historical, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the people/places in the story actually existed. I agree - it is not a sufficient condition for a story to be true, because (as you pointed out) fictional stories can be based in real locations and around real people. I grant this.

Right. But the more important aspect, which is what we're really concerned with, is the theological teaching found within. Pointing to biblical cities that exist prove absolutely nothing about the validity of biblical theology.
Why would I trust the theological teaching of a book that claimed to be true history, and yet was completely falsified? You can't make a silk purse of a sow's ear, and you can't tell the truth using lies. If the Bible lies about that which can be tested, there is no reason to trust it on those things which can't be. Likewise for the BoM.


== However, my counter-point is that, before a story can be considered historical, it is a necessary condition that the people and places therein actually existed at the time when the story was set.

Of course it is necessary that they existed. And they did exist. As mentioned before, only around 55% of the biblical cities have been found. Does this mean 45% of the unknown cities which are incorporated into various stories, proves that a huge portion of the Bible cannot be considered history?
55%, hey? That's pretty good for an ancient historical document - especially given that some of the books date from 1500 years BC. We would expect to lose a few cities in that time. I suspect that if you consider only the NT, the percentage would be much higher.

What is the percentage for the BoM, out of curiousity?


== If they don't, then the story that talks about those places can't possibly be true - it must be fictional. Do you not agree with this?

If they didn't exist, of course. But you cannot prove they didn't exist anymore than I can prove they did.
Correct, I cannot prove that the cities in the BoM didn't exist - in the same way that I cannot prove that there is an elephant in my room.


== It seems to me to be a pretty basic logical deduction - I can break it down for you further if you still disagree.

There is nothing to disagree with. But again, our critics are the ones who insist on rasing the archeological issue, and they seem to be deluded by the fantasy tht the Bible doesn't suffer from any of the criticisms they foist upon the BoM.
The Bible doesn't suffer from any of the criticisms that the BoM attracts. 55% is much better than 0%


Religion is a matter of faith first and foremost. For a religion to appeal to scientific study in order to attack another faith they simply don't like, is the epitome of disingenuousness.
This is where your idea of religion, science and faith differs from that of true religion. Orthodoxy believes that all truth is truth - whether found in modern science, Greek philosophy, the Hebrew prophets, or (most importantly) the person of Christ. It does not draw a dichotomy between faith and science - unless it is science falsely so-called.


== Fair point. But then, if they didn't learn it from Smith, and yet it seemed to be a universally held belief among early Mormons who knew him, then where did the belief come from?

Revelation is where all LDS claims profess to originate from. You seem to think Mromns adopted the Orthodoxy notion of theosis, but where is the evidence that Smith "borrowed" such terminology from them? You deny he was a prophet, so after rejeting the revelation argument, this is the only way you can make sense of it: he must have borrowed it. But of course, this merely begs the question.
I made no claims one way or the other about where Mormons get their doctrine of theosis from.


== I don't buy the idea that they all came up with the same ideas independently. Historically speaking, it is much more likely to me that the ideas trace back to a common source, and the most likely candidate for this common source is obviously Joseph Smith.

But you have no problem accepting the notion that all the Church Fathers generally haad the same doctrine of "energies", even though it wasn't explicated until the 15th century?
How does your question challenge my point? Of course I have no problem accepting that they had generally the same doctrine of energies, for precisely this reason - the doctrine came from a common source (ie, the apostles).


We can't expect "absolute logic" to be on our side all the time, especially when engaging in religious apologetics. Much of what we "buy" results from our own presuppositions which we accept on faith.
I do not believe that one should be forced to plead irrationality in order to maintain their faith. I do expect absolute logic to be on my side all the time, and if it's not, then I will change sides. That is why I am going to become Orthodox - God's logic showed me it was time to change sides.


== What I did do, was point out that, in that particular instance, the statement you made seemed as though you were contradicting yourself. It would be easy for someone to interpret it that way if they didn't already properly understand what you were talking about. You didn't do yourself any favours there.

I agree, but...[snip]
I didn't do myself any favors sure. But...[snip]
No. No buts Kevin. "Yes, I know I did the wrong thing, but..." is always the way a sinner tries to justify his own sin. I know about their misrepresentations, and I have chastised them for it. How about just for now you concentrate on the sin over which you do have some control, rather than trying to justify it by pointing out that another's sin is still worse.

[rangerbob]

I AM SORRY, I JUST DON'T GET IT. I HAVE READ AND READ AND STILL CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE LDS, OTHER THAN THE FACT THEY SUFFER FROM CONGNITIVE DISSONANCED. man i am so glad i came across this meaning for someone who suffers from a brain disorder

[Krusader]

I AM SORRY, I JUST DON'T GET IT. I HAVE READ AND READ AND STILL CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE LDS, OTHER THAN THE FACT THEY SUFFER FROM CONGNITIVE DISSONANCED. man i am so glad i came across this meaning for someone who suffers from a brain disorder

The LDS grasp at straws when they claim any archeological evidence for the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. Some even claim that the Mesoamerican legend of Quetzalcoatl verifies the BOM story of Christ visiting the Americas. On closer look, however, we will note that Quetz. was the name for the Feathered serpent deity of various Mesoamerican tribes and was often worshipped by human sacrifice. Why on earth anyone would want to associate Jesus Christ with the pagan Feathered serpent is beyond me! It really is blasphemous.

[Bloodnut]

== Note, that anyone who disagrees with Mormon claims is a bigot!

Not in my book. In my book, anyone who criticizes something they clearly know nothing about, and attempt to further their criticism in a self-righteous, condescending manner according to amplified ignorance, is a bigot. Again, you're not going to get away with recreating my argument, so don't even try it.

== Again, what evidence has been uncovered to prove that Book of Mormon civilizations existed here in the New World

I said this elsewhere. In scientific matters, Crusader hasn't the faintst clue what the difference is between evidence and proof. Evidence can simply be "something indicative." Proof actually proves something. I don't know any Mormon alive who thinks the BoM has been "proved" by science.

== and has been accepted by the established scientific community, exists?

Again, this is a worn-out straw man that sounds nice and interesting only to the blissfully ignorant; those who think biblical archeology can be compared to Meso/South American archeology. "Book of Mormon" archeology doesn't even exist, unless you cosnider a few LDS amatuers an established field of science.

== Answer: absolutely none!

And another straw man falls, as Crusader kicks the scarecrow in the crotch.

== Where is evidence of this vast pre-Columbian civilization that supposedly existed for centuries in North and South America?

Is Crusader truly this ignorant? If she wants to use archeology to discredit the BoM, she could at least be wise enough to comment on what archeology hasn't proved. All she is doing here is shooting her toes off. That pre-columbian civilizations existed in South/Meso American is indisputable fact. Just what exactly has Crusader been reading? Even anyone too lazy to read can watch episodes on the discovery channel to learn that during the Roman empire, the largest city in the world was in fact in the western hemisphere. And the fact that these civilizations have vanished, only goes to serve as more "evidence" for the BoM since that is its theme. The Nephites were eventually extinguished by the lamanites.

== Where are the massive cities they built? The coins they produced? The steel weapons?

Good grief, the ignorance knows no bounds. The BoM translation says nothing about "coins" to begin with. "Massive" cities we know to have existed. Agan, this only goes to further my suspicion that ignorance is what fuels Crusader's zeal for anti-Mormonism, which by definition, makes her a true-blue bigot. A steel sword was mentioned at the beginning of the Book of Mormon, but anyone who isn't too lazy to actually read, will note that this sword was not in the America's, but in the Middle-East just outside Jerusalem, before they set sail. Since examples of "steel" are mentioned in the Old Testament, such as 2 Sam. 22:35 (which refers to a steel bow, perhaps similar to the one Nephi had), Psalms 18:34, Job 20:24, and Jeremiah 15:12, our critics are hardly interested in teatsing their own scripture by the standard they place on the BoM.

Laban's sword had a hilt of pure gold, a blade "of the most precious steel," and exhibited "exceedingly fine" workmanship (1 Nephi 4:9). Matthew Roper in his article "On Cynics and Swords" in FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1997, pp. 146-158. On pages 148-149, he notes that many critics point to Nephi's description of Laban's sword as evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon:


"Steel," it is argued, "was not known to man in those days" [Stuart Martin, The Mystery of Mormonism (London: Odhams, 1920) p. 44]. Today, however, it is increasingly apparent that the practice of "steeling" iron through deliberate carburization was well-known in the Near Eastern world from which the Lehi colony emerged. "It seems evident that by the beginning of the tenth century B.C. blacksmiths were intentionally steeling iron" [Robert Maddin, James D. Muhly, and Tamara S. Wheeler, "How the Iron Age Began," Scientific American 237/4 (October 1977): 127]. A carburized iron knife dating to the twelfth century B.C. is known from Cyprus [Ibid. The knife shows evidence of quenching. See Tamara S. Wheeler and Robert Maddin, "Metallurgy and Ancient Man," in The Coming Age of Iron (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 121]. In addition to this, "A site on Mt. Adir in northern Israel has yielded an iron pick in association with 12th-century pottery. One would hesitate to remove a sample from the pick for analysis, but it has been possible to test the tip of it for hardness. The readings averaged 38 on the Rockwell "C" scale of hardness. This is a reading characteristic of modern hardened steel." [Maddin, Muhly, and Wheeler, "How the Iron Age Began," p. 127].

The importance of this find is echoed by Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000 - 586 B.C.E., New York: Doubleday, 1990, p. 361: "A pick found in the eleventh century B.C.E. fortress at Har Adir in the Upper Galilee is the earliest known iron implement made of real steel produced by carbonizing, quenching, and tempering. This technological revolution opened the way for the widespread use of iron."

Quenching, another method of steeling iron, was also known to Mediterranean blacksmiths during this period. "By the beginning of the seventh century B.C. at the latest the blacksmiths of the eastern Mediterranean had mastered the processes that make iron a useful material for tools and weapons: carburizing and quenching" [Maddin, Muhly, and Wheeler, 131]. Archaeologists recently discovered a carburized iron sword near Jericho. The sword, which had a bronze haft, was one meter long and dates to the time of King Josiah, who would likely have been a contemporary of Lehi [Hershel Shanks, "Antiquities Director Confronts Problems and Controversies," Biblical Archaeology Review 12/4 (July-August 1986): 33,35]. Hershel Shanks recently described the find as "spectacular" since it is the only complete sword of its size and type from this period yet discovered in Israel [Ibid., 33]. Such discoveries lend a greater sense of historicity to Nephi's passing comments in the Book of Mormon.

---------------------------

Geez. Leave it up to LDS apologists to vindicate the Book of Mormon AND THE BIBLE.

== And in that final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites, when none were left to clean up the mess, where, pray tell, is their any evidence of their armor, shields, and weapons left laying around the ground as their corpses rotted in the sun?

None were left to clean up the mess huh?

== Since this supposedly happened in 421 AD, it should be easy to locate such artifacts, should it not?

Likewise, since tens of thousands of Jews supposedly traveled through the deserts of Egypt, one should expect at least SOME evidence, should it not? Since water supposedly covered the entire earth at one time, one would expect there to be enough water on the planet for that to happen, right?

Well, maybe not. Since when has the Bible ever been held to the same standard as the BoM.

== I should know, since I have explored (university sponsored digs) Indian sites a lot older than that where significant artifacts still remain for archeological evaluation. Yet, we have a total absence of Nephite artifacts!

Don't even pretend to have background authority on this matter. Your comments are so patehtic as to be humorous. Why don't you go ahead and tell us how you would identify an artifact as being "Nephite" to begin with? Go ahead, this should be interesting.

== There is only one conclusion that any sane person can draw - the Book of Mormon is a piece of pious fiction.

Only by those who hold double-stanards, or who are driven by ignorance and bigotry.

Hey Jezz,

== Crusader was trying to discredit the BoM, by pointing out the lack of archaeological evidence to support it. Her presupposition is that we should expect to see someevidence, if the places were real historical places.

And my position is the same of all archeologists. How would we identify anything found as being "Nephite" or "Lamanite" to begin with? Nobody knows, so why do our critics pretend it is such a simple matter of finding a piece of pottery or a skeleton?

== Only people who don't have any evidence try to bring up the ol' "absence of proof is proof of absence" argument...

I'm disappointed you think so. Anyone who is interested in the basic rules of logic should bring it up. Especialy in a polemic charged with emotion on both sides of the argument. But you're terribly in error if you think zero evidence exists. When the BoM was first published, archeology in South America was practically nonexistent. There were an X number of criticisms laid against the BoM text at that time. Since then, that number has diminished considerbly. Especially since it is supposed to be taken for granted that the BoM is romanticized fiction. Now I'm not saying everything the Book of Mormon claims has been proved. I'm saying that through time, the number of criticisms is getting smaller because the more we learn about the ancient Americas, the more criticisms we can disqualify. For example, cement highways. It was initially claimed by anti-Mormons that the BoM mentioning of cement highways served as the bane of its existence. We now know that the highways in Meso-America were more sophisticated than those in the Roman Empire. The existence of dogs have been proved. The practice of baptism has been proved to be a pre-Christian Jewish practice. "Reformed Egyptian" has been realized as well. The practice of writing on metal plates and storing them in stoneboxes has been vindicated. The recent discovery of the ancient burial site Nahom and the amazing discovery of the placed called Bountiful (Wadi Sayq), both right where they should be, is simply overwhelming evidence that at least part of the Book of Mormon is authentic and could not have been fabricated by Joseph Smith or anyone else in the nineteenth century. http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

== Well, that's all well and good for the theoretical world, but in point of fact we don't live in a theoretical world - we live in an experiential world - aka, "the real world". A world of evidence, conjecture, and inductive reasoning.

Which might explain why there are so many people capable of joining the LDS faith annually, in spite of the claims by our detractors that it betrays all reason. Mormonism, despite popular opinion here, is not considered an anti-intellectul faith by the majority.

But have you been paying attention to BoM criticisms? Critics against the Book of Mormon are for the most part deductive thinkers. Unless of course the subject is their own Bible, and then all of the sudden they become inductive thinkers.

== In this real world of evidence proof, we must be satisfied with proofs that (unlike deductive proofs) are less than 100% certain.

Uh, I have yet to meet one BoM critic who would be satisified with something less than "proof." Proof is precisely what they demand. These are typically the characters who are deluded with the fantasy that the Bible has been proved.

== And in the world of science and experience, the complete absence of evidence is considered extremely good evidence for the absence of something.

If this is true, then perhaps the world is thinking irrationally. In any event, I'm not sure how this generalized proclamation on "how the world thinks" helps criticisms against the BoM. Wrong is wrong, whether it be followed by majority or not.

== In short: "absence of proof is proof of absence" is indeed a deductive logical fallacy. However, "absence of evidence" is indeed very strong evidence of absence - particularly when we would ordinarily expect to find evidence

I never once denied that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. But "evidence" is truly a flimsy term which can mean a variety of things anyway. Some people think of evidence and proof as synonymous. Too many people, in fact. If I say there are aliens living on other planet, the fact that other planets exist, is "evidence" supporting my claim. For without the existence of other planets, my statement could not be true. However, it remains that my claim about aliens has not been proved.

== Why would I trust the theological teaching of a book that claimed to be true history, and yet was completely falsified?

You probably wouldn't, if it were so proved. Well now you're going against the wind of what you say is the "real world" of inductive reasoning. In order for you to say it was "falsified", you must be thinking deductively. It must be so proved or else you're claim is just theoretical nonsense. Deductive thinking involves a confirmation, whereas inductive reasoning does not. If you think it is unconfirmed that the BoM is falsified, then why make such an outrgeous claim as if it were so proved?

== You can't make a silk purse of a sow's ear, and you can't tell the truth using lies.

Nor can you claim to be thinking inductively when you speak in absolute terms of proof. So which is it? If everyone were thinking inductively as you say, then nobody on the planet would claim the Book of Mormon is proven false.

== If the Bible lies about that which can be tested, there is no reason to trust it on those things which can't be. Likewise for the BoM

The Bible doesn't lie. I never said it did. In fact, relying on the Bible is integral to our process of knowing whether or not the BoM is true.

== 55%, hey? That's pretty good for an ancient historical document - especially given that some of the books date from 1500 years BC.

But you're missing the point. The Bible isn't a document. It is many documents that were later thrown together. If I print "Alice in Wonderland" together with a Calculus textbook, does the latter make the former true? Of course not.

== We would expect to lose a few cities in that time.

Why? Are you aware that some archeologists are absolutely befuddled as to how they fail to locate evidence for certain cities? They know exactly where they should be, but they turn the place upside down three times over and find nothing. Compare this to BoM archeology where anyone looking for Zarahemla would have not the faintest clue where to look. Nor would they have the faintest clue on what to look for if they hope to identify it as Zarahemla.

== Correct, I cannot prove that the cities in the BoM didn't exist - in the same way that I cannot prove that there is an elephant in my room.

I can think of several ways to prove or disprove an elephant is in your room (Ever hear of live webcam?) Conversely, can you name just one method by which an archeologist should identify a BoM location? I can't. And neither can they.

== This is where your idea of religion, science and faith differs from that of true religion. Orthodoxy believes that all truth is truth - whether found in modern science, Greek philosophy, the Hebrew prophets, or (most importantly) the person of Christ.

And this is supposed to be different from Mormonism? That's news to me. Apparently you're entirely unfamiliar with the articles of faith. "Truth is truth wherever it is found, and we should seek out these truths," is a popular Mormon teaching. Brigham Young once said he'd welcome the local pastor to preach at his pulpit because we need to soak up all truths from all avenues.

== It does not draw a dichotomy between faith and science - unless it is science falsely so-called.

I did not create sucha dichotomy. I said religion is based upon faith "first and foremost." And this is true.

== I made no claims one way or the other about where Mormons get their doctrine of theosis from.

Didn't you say Smith adopted the terminology from the Fathers?

== How does your question challenge my point? Of course I have no problem accepting that they had generally the same doctrine of energies, for precisely this reason - the doctrine came from a common source (ie, the apostles).

But you're begging the question. And while we're appealing to inductive reasoning, I should point out that there is more evidence for the Bom than there is for a continuous dichotomy of "essence/energies" from the 15th century on down to the 1st century apostles.

== I do not believe that one should be forced to plead irrationality in order to maintain their faith

Neither do I.

== I do expect absolute logic to be on my side all the time, and if it's not, then I will change sides.

What is so logical about applying a double-standard? Switching back and forth from deductive and inductive reasoning, and saying "this is how the world is," isn't a compelling argument. It isn't an argument at all actually.

== That is why I am going to become Orthodox - God's logic showed me it was time to change sides

Wich is precisely why hundreds of thousands of free thinking, intelligent people join other faiths as well, including the LDS faith.

== No. No buts Kevin. "Yes, I know I did the wrong thing, but..." is always the way a sinner tries to justify his own sin.

Sheesh.... What "sin" are you referring to? Contrary to what you implied, you seem to be trying to make a huge mountain out of this molehill, which was merely an oversight. Milk it for all its worth if you choose.

== I know about their misrepresentations, and I have chastised them for it. How about just for now you concentrate on the sin over which you do have some control, rather than trying to justify it by pointing out that another's sin is still worse.

Again, what "sin" are your referring to?

BTW: It looks like your post attracted a few flies. Hmmm.... not a good sign.

[rangerbob]

looks like we hav to much time on our hands



Rangerbob, you are new here so this is just a friendly notice. If you don't have anything intelligent to contribute to a thread, then please remain silent. Neither side appreciates your 'drive-by' comments. Such actions can be construed as trolling and that is not allowed on this board. I am sure you did not mean that. Please include some substantive comments when you post in debate threads. Thank you!

[Bill the Cat]

Kevin,

I only have a minute, but I wanted to address one comment you made with some comments via MRM:


Good grief, the ignorance knows no bounds. The BoM translation says nothing about "coins" to begin with.


http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/ancient-coins.html

First, the LDS Church has seen no reason to delete or modify the introduction to Alma 11 despite the protests from the above–named laymembers. It reads the same today as it has since 1920. If coinage is not meant, it seems strange that the church would continue to print this particular heading. On this point alone, the LDS apologist's conclusion seems presumptuous since this introduction to Alma 11 was obviously approved by the LDS First Presidency.

Second, for decades this passage has been understood by Latter-day Saints to speak of coins. For example, B.H. Roberts, a highly respected LDS Seventy and church historian, wrote, "In addition to these words we have also a number of names of Nephite coins and the names of fractional values of coins…" Roberts proceeds to explain the different values, often using the term "coins" to describe them. Though Roberts says "we have no means of obtaining specifically the value of these coins in modern terms," he adds that "there is stated a system of relative values in these coins that bears evidence of its being genuine" (A New Witness for God, 3:145).

Finally, we disagree with Dr. Peterson's claim that no variant of the word coin is used in the text. Taking his advice that Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language is perhaps "our best source for the language of Joseph Smith and his contemporaries" (Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 5:8) we find that under the word "piece" (the word Smith used in Alma 11:4), there are several definitions. However, none of them have any meaning that would fit Alma 11:4 until the eighth definition: "A coin; as a piece of eight." The meaning for "piece" in Joseph Smith's day was coin.

This rule is followed in the 1979 Book of Mormon Student Manual (Religion 121-122) when it asks students "how valuable were the Nephite pieces of money?" Showing that "pieces" meant "coins," the manual presents a chart to show "the relative value of silver and gold coins under the system set up by Mosiah."

[Dee Dee Warren]

Bloodnut said:


I made no claims one way or the other about where Mormons get their doctrine of theosis from.

That is not exactly true Kevin. When you were challenged about how far away from Christianity your notion of men having all of God's powers you said:




== State clearly your agreement or disagreement with this statement: The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood;

Yes I agree with this. The current LDS leadership agrees with this. Further, the Bible and the early Christian Church agree with this.

Your clear intention is to say that the early Church would be in agreement with you. That is when I said such was a gross distortion of theosis, and asked Jezz if he could weigh in. If you never had claimed that your doctrine is the "recovered" doctrine of the ECF I never would have bothered. So it is disenguous to say you made no such claims.

[Jezz]

Bloodnut said:


I made no claims one way or the other about where Mormons get their doctrine of theosis from.

That is not exactly true Kevin. When you were challenged about how far away from Christianity your notion of men having all of God's powers you said:
Actually, Dee Dee - in defence of Kevin, I think that what you have quoted there is actually something that I wrote.


Your clear intention is to say that the early Church would be in agreement with you. That is when I said such was a gross distortion of theosis, and asked Jezz if he could weigh in. If you never had claimed that your doctrine is the "recovered" doctrine of the ECF I never would have bothered. So it is disenguous to say you made no such claims.
I do agree that that certainly seemed to be Kevin's intention - even if he did not explicitly say it. I replied under that assumption - but I also discovered that he meant something slightly different by "early Christian Church" - ie, specifically the ante-Nicene Church.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Jezz, I think you are getting confused by Kevin's habit of never using the quote function so it is difficult to know who said what. I will bold what he said, and the "==" mark off when he is quoting someone

First in this very thread Kevin said:


== However, if you are unwilling to admit that Joseph Smith said that "you" must learn to be a god

This isn't what I'm referring to. Theosis is a classical Christian precept that Protestantism never grasped onto. I can cite Church Fathers out the yang who said the same exact thing. The caveat you keep inserting "a god equal to Elohim in power" and "ruling your own planet" is not LDS doctrine and it never was. So you are bearing false witness.

The context of this question is also again implicit, and not explicit, but the definite impression that Kevin is desiring to leave is that what Joseph Smith meant is equivalennt to what Church Father said. It is not at all accurate for Kevin to state that he made no such claims.

And Kevin also said this:


Im not denying LDS teaching. Grattitude was confused, but I provided the link whyere he can see clearly that we agree. Anyone remotely familiar with who I am and what I've written online would never say I disagreed with theosis.

To say that he agrees with theosis is to claim that the ancient doctrine is equivalent to what he believes, yet you have shown it is not.

He also said:



Theosis is grounded in the NT. It is what the earliest Christians believed. It is teh doctrine that man will become what God is. Common sense dictates that this includes being what He is and having powers as he has. Come to think of it, we already have these powers. Christ said nothing was impossible if we had faith. The idea behind theosis is to progress and become perfect as Christ is.

This is much more explicit - he states that being what God is and having His powers is what the early Christians believed.

Now to the one you believe I may have falsely attributed (it occurs in the Lessons for Mormons thread):


== State clearly your agreement or disagreement with this statement: The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood;

Yes I agree with this. The current LDS leadership agrees with this. Further, the Bible and the early Christian Church agree with this.

Jezz, you were not even involved at this point, for it was immediately after that statement by Kevin that I asked you to give your perspective. Kevin is quoting JohnSparks here, and the bolded portion is Kevin's words.


He also said:



I never once challenged the doctrine of eternal progression. Not once. I never once challenged the doctrine of theosis. Not once. What I did challenge is the banal platitude; the ignorant strawman that pompously insists 1) Mormons believe we will become equal or more powerful than God, and 2) that we will rule a planet.

Now how is it that he says in one thread, "Common sense dictates that this includes being what He is and having powers as he has" and in another "the ignorant strawman that pompously insists 1) Mormons believe we will become equal or more powerful than God"

I know in some sense you had thought the thread participants were not giving Kevin a fair shake, but I will have to say with the above, Kevin has continually been a bit slippery. Now one can say perhaps it is a language barrier and we are using words differently, but Kevin is a smart and articulate man and knows full well the meaning his words would carry to an evangelical.



I do agree that that certainly seemed to be Kevin's intention - even if he did not explicitly say it. I replied under that assumption - but I also discovered that he meant something slightly different by "early Christian Church" - ie, specifically the ante-Nicene Church.

Pushing it back to the ante-Nicene Church still doesn't clear this impression, and obviously would not do so for you since you believe that the EO church has faithfully maintained what the faith has taught.

[Jezz]

Jezz, I think you are getting confused by Kevin's habit of never using the quote function so it is difficult to know who said what.
Sorry Dee Dee, but this is not so. If anything, it is you who has been confused by Kevin's habit of never using the quote function - but even in that case, Kevin uses his personal method of quoting for this phrase.

You quoted Kevin as saying:

"I made no claims one way or the other about where Mormons get their doctrine of theosis from."

I responded because I distinctly remember writing that exact comment, using those exact words, in one of my own posts. I've even gone to the trouble of finding which post it was for you: here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44104&page=6&pp=16#post1044152).

Kevin responded to it in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44104&page=7&pp=16#post1045355):


== I made no claims one way or the other about where Mormons get their doctrine of theosis from.

Didn't you say Smith adopted the terminology from the Fathers?
See - it has Kevin's trademark "==" in front of the comment, which is the way that he indicates a quote.

I searched this entire thread for the phrase "I made no claims one way or the other about where Mormons get their doctrine of theosis from", and the above two are the only posts that came up prior to your post attributing the phrase to Kevin. There was nothing unambiguous about who wrote it. You simply goofed.

Now, Kevin may very well have said something similar, but there is no denying that the phrase you quoted was authored by yours truly. If you continue to attribute it to Kevin, I will be forced to sue you for copyright infringment, or something. :wink:

As for the rest of your post - again, what you are saying about Kevin may very well be true, and I don't have the time or inclination at the moment to join in that particular argument. I only weighed in because I knew that I was the author of the quote that was attributed to Kevin, and hence I was uniquely qualified to offer a correction.


I know in some sense you had thought the thread participants were not giving Kevin a fair shake, but I will have to say with the above, Kevin has continually been a bit slippery. Now one can say perhaps it is a language barrier and we are using words differently, but Kevin is a smart and articulate man and knows full well the meaning his words would carry to an evangelical.
I think that probably both are true, and you'll note that I've had critical words to say about both.

To demonstrate that you are not being fair to Kevin, it is only necessary for you to ask yourself why you did not take the care to make sure that the quote you were quoting was actually his. And while the first time can be dismissed as an accident, what about the second time? Even after I told you that I thought it was my writing, you still didn't go back to double check.

Perhaps instead of saying "I think that what you have quoted there is actually something that I wrote", I should have simply said "What you have quoted there is actually something that I wrote." I gave the impression that I was unsure, when I was certain. I apologise.


Pushing it back to the ante-Nicene Church still doesn't clear this impression, and obviously would not do so for you since you believe that the EO church has faithfully maintained what the faith has taught.
I agree. That's what the other thread is trying to establish.

[Dee Dee Warren]

To demonstrate that you are not being fair to Kevin, it is only necessary for you to ask yourself why you did not take the care to make sure that the quote you were quoting was actually his. And while the first time can be dismissed as an accident, what about the second time? Even after I told you that I thought it was my writing, you still didn't go back to double check.

First before I comment on the above

You are absolutely right, you said that and not Kevin. I fully retract any statement that Kevin was not being honest with the quote that wasn't his - I misattributed it to him, and I apologize to him for that error.

Now Jezz, I did go back and check the threads, and I took quite a long time doing it. My evidence for that is that I supplied you additonal quotes (which turn out now to be irrelevant) that I did not have before. You of course will have to take my word on that, but I think you knowing me are fairly certain that if I had them the first time, I would have used them to support my (now retracted) point.

This morning I scratched my head reading your post and going to your link where yep, you definitely said it not Kevin, and I figured out what my problem was in getting it wrong even after double-checking:

1. I get very lost with the == marks (yes it was clearly marked here, but still I got confused)

2. When I am searching for posts I use the "view as printable" version of the thread which does not have avatars and the like, and at least for me making it confusing at times to identify the author.

In this case, I ask you to please look at the screen I would have been viewing:

[attachment=1]

Notice the boxed area in red. Right above the statement in question is a quote using the "==" marks. In looking at it both times last night, my eyes were drawn to that == as a distinguishing feature of Kevin. I did not even notice above that there were actual quote functions used. The printable version makes things less prominent, but it allows you to see the whole thread on one page making searching easier.

So I reiterate my retraction and apology above to Kevin for the error is mine alone, but to Jezz, I do hope that you can now understand my error and not think that I would not go back once challenged. I did the very same thing yesterday with Eli when he challenged me something I said he said to make sure my memory was correct. And after this thread I will check that one a third time.



Perhaps instead of saying "I think that what you have quoted there is actually something that I wrote", I should have simply said "What you have quoted there is actually something that I wrote." I gave the impression that I was unsure, when I was certain. I apologise.

Jezz if you been positively sure I do not know if it would have changed things. I can say now that it would likely have, but who knows if it in reality it would. I know you are meticulous. However, my error is mine alone, you are not responsible for it.

[Nosnomis]

The LDS grasp at straws when they claim any archeological evidence for the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. Some even claim that the Mesoamerican legend of Quetzalcoatl verifies the BOM story of Christ visiting the Americas. On closer look, however, we will note that Quetz. was the name for the Feathered serpent deity of various Mesoamerican tribes and was often worshipped by human sacrifice. Why on earth anyone would want to associate Jesus Christ with the pagan Feathered serpent is beyond me! It really is blasphemous.

As Bloodnut said earlier, how could people know of a surety that a relic is "Nephite" or not? You want evidence, yet when there is evidence presented, you state that we are grasping at straws. We could show you all the evidence in the world, and you could still remain unconvinced. Even if we were to manage time travel, take you with us back to the time of Zarahemla (assuming that we could find it's location), and you could still accuse us of setting up a scam where we built Zarahemla and found people who were willing to play the part of the inhabitants. If the Lord did not grant us the gift of tongues, and we showed you the place, you could make the arguement that since we could not understand what the people were saying, there was no way to tell if this place was Zarahemla or Timbuktoo. If we were able to go back, and the Lord granted us the gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues that we may understand and communicate with the Nephites, you would make the arguement that since you could understand what everyone was saying (gift of interpretation of tongues enables you to hear what people are saying as though they were speaking in a language you were most comfortable with), this couldn't be Zarahemla as they should be speaking in a lost language. This is why the Church does not rely on evidence, but on faith. Laman and Lemuel saw an angel, who spoke to them, yet they still remained unfaithful. Balaam had his donkey speak to him, saw an angel who spoke to him, and even heard the voice of the Lord come unto him giving him commandments, yet Balaam still tried to curse Israel. This is why Christ did not give a miracle to those who demanded it when he was on the cross. A miracle at that point would not have convinced anyone who was not already convinced that Jesus was the Christ. Just as faith is required for miracles, so to does evidence not matter to those who do not have faith that the evidence presents truth.

Concerning Quetzalcoatl... Look at the meaning of the name. Feathered Serpent. Certainly does not seem to resemble Christ physically. However, look at it from a symbolic viewpoint. The idea is that it was capable of rising above the heavens, yet humble enough to crawl on the earth. Doesn't that resemble Christ, who had the Power of God, could work mighty miracles, and had legions of angels guarding him, but chose to submit to the Father and allowed himself to be crucified? It is a perfect case of symbolism that could be used to help describe the traits of someone to another. This is the same reason why Christ spoke in parables. Faith is a mustard seed? Literally no. But symbolically yes, as faith starts out tiny and grows.

As for human sacrifice being used, I could point out that the Inquisition was not something that would be taught by Jesus but was still done. Another example was the Israelites making a golden calf for an idol even after having been delivered from Egypt just because Moses did not return within a short period of time. It is just an example of religion becoming corrupt when it is no longer led by Heavenly Father.

[Nosnomis]

Let me hasten to add that Israel did not remain corrupt, but that the golden idol was just a temporary lapse in faith that occasionally resurfaced in other forms throughout the centuries.

If I have offended anyone, I am sorry.

[Jezz]

First before I comment on the above

You are absolutely right, you said that and not Kevin. I fully retract any statement that Kevin was not being honest with the quote that wasn't his - I misattributed it to him, and I apologize to him for that error.
Cool, have some pearls.


Now Jezz, I did go back and check the threads, and I took quite a long time doing it. My evidence for that is that I supplied you additonal quotes (which turn out now to be irrelevant) that I did not have before. You of course will have to take my word on that, but I think you knowing me are fairly certain that if I had them the first time, I would have used them to support my (now retracted) point.

This morning I scratched my head reading your post and going to your link where yep, you definitely said it not Kevin, and I figured out what my problem was in getting it wrong even after double-checking:

1. I get very lost with the == marks (yes it was clearly marked here, but still I got confused)

2. When I am searching for posts I use the "view as printable" version of the thread which does not have avatars and the like, and at least for me making it confusing at times to identify the author.

In this case, I ask you to please look at the screen I would have been viewing:

[attachment=1]

Notice the boxed area in red. Right above the statement in question is a quote using the "==" marks. In looking at it both times last night, my eyes were drawn to that == as a distinguishing feature of Kevin. I did not even notice above that there were actual quote functions used. The printable version makes things less prominent, but it allows you to see the whole thread on one page making searching easier.

So I reiterate my retraction and apology above to Kevin for the error is mine alone, but to Jezz, I do hope that you can now understand my error and not think that I would not go back once challenged. I did the very same thing yesterday with Eli when he challenged me something I said he said to make sure my memory was correct. And after this thread I will check that one a third time.
I understand, and I likewise retract what I said about you being unfair to Kevin and not going back through the posts. I am sorry, my speculation proved wrong and even libelous. The way you described it, and from the image you posted, it is perfectly understandable how such a mistake could have come about by accident.


Jezz if you been positively sure I do not know if it would have changed things. I can say now that it would likely have, but who knows if it in reality it would. I know you are meticulous. However, my error is mine alone, you are not responsible for it.
Well, perhaps I'm not resposible for it, but taking on responsibility for each other's errors is what agape is all about. Just as Christ became part of our community and took on responsibility for our errors, and fixed them when we could not.

[Bill the Cat]

As Bloodnut said earlier, how could people know of a surety that a relic is "Nephite" or not? You want evidence, yet when there is evidence presented, you state that we are grasping at straws.

:sigh: let's see some peer review before we jump to evidence conclusions, shall we?




We could show you all the evidence in the world, and you could still remain unconvinced.

I totally disagree. Evidence for the Bible is one major thing that led me to Christ. The Book of Mormon lacks this evidence


Even if we were to manage time travel, take you with us back to the time of Zarahemla (assuming that we could find it's location),

And assuming it really existed...


and you could still accuse us of setting up a scam where we built Zarahemla and found people who were willing to play the part of the inhabitants. If the Lord did not grant us the gift of tongues, and we showed you the place, you could make the arguement that since we could not understand what the people were saying, there was no way to tell if this place was Zarahemla or Timbuktoo. If we were able to go back, and the Lord granted us the gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues that we may understand and communicate with the Nephites, you would make the arguement that since you could understand what everyone was saying (gift of interpretation of tongues enables you to hear what people are saying as though they were speaking in a language you were most comfortable with), this couldn't be Zarahemla as they should be speaking in a lost language.

Poison the well much???


This is why the Church does not rely on evidence, but on faith.

I see someone else needs a lesson on what faith really is... http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html


Concerning Quetzalcoatl... Look at the meaning of the name. Feathered Serpent. Certainly does not seem to resemble Christ physically. However, look at it from a symbolic viewpoint. The idea is that it was capable of rising above the heavens, yet humble enough to crawl on the earth. Doesn't that resemble Christ, who had the Power of God, could work mighty miracles, and had legions of angels guarding him, but chose to submit to the Father and allowed himself to be crucified? It is a perfect case of symbolism that could be used to help describe the traits of someone to another. This is the same reason why Christ spoke in parables. Faith is a mustard seed? Literally no. But symbolically yes, as faith starts out tiny and grows.

:rofl: anyone who knows anything about Quetzalcoatl knows that he was not anything like Jesus...

George C. Valliant tells us, "At the Temple of Quetzalcoatl individuals were buried under the corners as foundation deposits" (AZTECS OF MEXICO, p. 48) and "Quetzalcoatl was the divine ruler of the second era, Four Wind, at the expiration of which hurricanes destroyed the world and men were turned into monkeys" (AZTECS OF MEXICO, p. 139).

John Bierhorst tells us that, "...Quetzalcoatl, succumbs to the wiles of a perennially jealous Tezcatlipoca...Titilacahuman makes Quetzalcoatl drunk and sends him away" (FOUR MASTERWORKS OF AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURE, pp. 10,11).

Jonathan Evan Marlow tells us, "...Quetzalcoatl is coaxed into a drunken orgy, during which he has intercourse with his sister" (BIRD OF LIFE, BIRD OF DEATH, p. 163).



See the response here: http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LDStopics/DigQ/18List.htm

which starts with:
Parallels are simply too easy to draw, even when there is no possible connection between the two lists. For example, in his work on Quetzalcoatl, Brundage presented a correspondence list between Quetzalcoatl and Hercules to show why Sahagún might have described Quetzalcoatl as "another Hercules"

[Krusader]

:sigh: let's see some peer review before we jump to evidence conclusions, shall we?





I totally disagree. Evidence for the Bible is one major thing that led me to Christ. The Book of Mormon lacks this evidence



And assuming it really existed...



Poison the well much???



I see someone else needs a lesson on what faith really is... http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html



:rofl: anyone who knows anything about Quetzalcoatl knows that he was not anything like Jesus...

George C. Valliant tells us, "At the Temple of Quetzalcoatl individuals were buried under the corners as foundation deposits" (AZTECS OF MEXICO, p. 48) and "Quetzalcoatl was the divine ruler of the second era, Four Wind, at the expiration of which hurricanes destroyed the world and men were turned into monkeys" (AZTECS OF MEXICO, p. 139).

John Bierhorst tells us that, "...Quetzalcoatl, succumbs to the wiles of a perennially jealous Tezcatlipoca...Titilacahuman makes Quetzalcoatl drunk and sends him away" (FOUR MASTERWORKS OF AMERICAN INDIAN LITERATURE, pp. 10,11).

Jonathan Evan Marlow tells us, "...Quetzalcoatl is coaxed into a drunken orgy, during which he has intercourse with his sister" (BIRD OF LIFE, BIRD OF DEATH, p. 163).



See the response here: http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LDStopics/DigQ/18List.htm

which starts with:
Parallels are simply too easy to draw, even when there is no possible connection between the two lists. For example, in his work on Quetzalcoatl, Brundage presented a correspondence list between Quetzalcoatl and Hercules to show why Sahagún might have described Quetzalcoatl as "another Hercules"
Frankly, I've always thought it was rather blasphemous to compare the feathered serpent god of meso-america to Christ. Furthermore, to some extent effigies of the feathered serpent god are found in ancient sites in the southwestern US. I can definitely say from personal experience that there is no evidence whatsoever that links paleo or later tribal religions to what is described in the BOM. If anything, there is a great deal of evidence that human sacrifice and/or cannabilism were possibly practiced among some tribes where the feathered serpent was venerated.

In any case, to compare Christ to a serpent would be beyond belief for any Christian.

[rangerbob]

Frankly, I've always thought it was rather blasphemous to compare the feathered serpent god of meso-america to Christ. Furthermore, to some extent effigies of the feathered serpent god are found in ancient sites in the southwestern US. I can definitely say from personal experience that there is no evidence whatsoever that links paleo or later tribal religions to what is described in the BOM. If anything, there is a great deal of evidence that human sacrifice and/or cannabilism were possibly practiced among some tribes where the feathered serpent was venerated.

In any case, to compare Christ to a serpent would be beyond belief for any Christian.
U might B surprised at how many TBM spend a life time researching Quetzalalcoatl. it is amazing how they wish so much for a birdman god who was a blood sucking killer to be like jesus. unbelievible

[Bloodnut]

== I only have a minute, but I wanted to address one comment you made with some comments via MRM

Sorry Bill, but calling upon the two stooges of counter-cultism isn't going to shed light on anything. Nothing they said changes the simple fact that "coins" were never mentioned in the BoM translation. What this means is that those who attack the BoM for a lack of "coins" in the Americas, are demonstrating ignorance. The BoM doesn't mention coins. Instead of being honest with the situation and abandoning the straw man, people like McKeever and Johnson want to bring back the goal posts and insist the argument of "some Mormons probably thought there were coins" is equally effective in attacking the authenticity of the BoM.

Just to give you a clear idea of M&J's desperate attempts to salvage their illicit leaps in logic... Tell me Cat. Is a dollar bill a "piece" of money? Sure it is. Is this considered a "coin"? When the value of gold and silver pieces are determined today, it is done so by weight and measures. Sure, they come in the form of coins, but there is no reason to insist that coinage was the system used by the Nephites. McKeever and Johnson also deceive when they insist that, "The meaning for piece in Joseph Smith's day was coin." Surely the dictionary turned up several definitions for "piece," but you'd never know it when reading M&J. The fact is, while a coin was a possible deifinition of a "piece", it was not the only definition. By their logic it was impossible for "piece" to have referred to a system of weights and measures. Don't they also put "pieces" on the scales? Of course they do.

== I see someone else needs a lesson on what faith really is...

With all due respect to JP, his opinion is a minority one at that. I pointed out to him once that his associate, Lee Stroble, actually disagreed with him in his book "A Case for Faith." I don't know too many other Evangelicals who would follow JP's reasoning.

I originally said, "I made no claims one way or the other about where Mormons get their doctrine of theosis from."

Dee Dee said:
== That is not exactly true Kevin.

Yes it is.

== When you were challenged about how far away from Christianity your notion of men having all of God's powers you said: "Yes I agree with this. The current LDS leadership agrees with this. Further, the Bible and the early Christian Church agree with this."

Surely you can see the difference between saying something is the source of a doctrine, and then saying something is in agreement with the doctrine. Can't you?

== Your clear intention is to say that the early Church would be in agreement with you.

Yes, and it was. Not go back and read my statement which says, "I made no claims one way or the other about where Mormons get their doctrine of theosis from."

== That is when I said such was a gross distortion of theosis, and asked Jezz if he could weigh in.

Right, and you made this claim without any background knowledge yourself on the issue. You simply assumed that it wasn't true, and assumed someone else could take over and make the argument you couldn't. Well, though I'm impressed with Jezz, but he has not made the case stick.

== If you never had claimed that your doctrine is the "recovered" doctrine of the ECF I never would have bothered. So it is disenguous to say you made no such claims

I made no such claims; your miscomprehension isn't something I should have to answer for. Further, if I had said it was "recovered" from the ECF, then that would in effect, be an admission that it derived from, and was the same doctrine as taught by the ECF. Then you would have been correct and have something to gripe about. But the doctrine didn't come from the ECF. I never once said it did. I was simply pointing out how the doctrine was believed by the earliest ECF, and Evangelicals have to explan why this doctrine lived all throughout teh centuries of Christianit in some form of another, but finds no home in Evangelicalism. The only hope you have left is that Jezz can make this "energies/essence" distinction stick.

[Krusader]

When Bloodnut states that the word "coins" is not used in the BOM, he is technically correct. However, nobody can read chapter 11 of Alma and not recognize that Alma is describing Nephite currency.

James Talmage, a Mormon apostle who was commissioned to add both chapter headings and footnotes to the BOM, is responsible for the introduction to the chapter which states, "Nephite coins and measures."

[Dee Dee Warren]

I originally said, "I made no claims one way or the other about where Mormons get their doctrine of theosis from."

Dee Dee said:
== That is not exactly true Kevin.

Yes it is.

Here we go again. First Kevin, to pull from a post I retracted is illegitimate. However, I agree with Jezz and did soften my words to say that you certainly did make implicit claims. In fact you do it in this very post once again as follows:



== When you were challenged about how far away from Christianity your notion of men having all of God's powers you said: "Yes I agree with this. The current LDS leadership agrees with this. Further, the Bible and the early Christian Church agree with this."

All of God's powers would include being all-powerful. Jezz has addressed that very well, but that belongs more in his thread.



Surely you can see the difference between saying something is the source of a doctrine, and then saying something is in agreement with the doctrine. Can't you?

Yes I see the difference, but in the context of this conversation I think you are splitting hairs knowing what impressions you could leave. And the fact is they are not in agreement. But I understand the distinction, and yes you did make that distinction.



Right, and you made this claim without any background knowledge yourself on the issue. You simply assumed that it wasn't true, and assumed someone else could take over and make the argument you couldn't.

Kevin, can you proof that above statement? No you cannot. I had adequate background knowledge to know that it was not true - over the past few months I have been interacting with and reading a great deal of EO material from proponents and opponents (I was well aware of the Biola article you linked to btw, and I have to prove it to you I can, so I suggest you retract that claim). I asiked Jezz who holds to the EO views to explain as he was much more knowledgable than I. I knew more than enough about EO's doctrine of theosis to know that I didn't have an issue with it as they believe it, and I knew enough to know that it is not in agreement with the Mormon doctrine.



I made no such claims; your miscomprehension isn't something I should have to answer for. Further, if I had said it was "recovered" from the ECF, then that would in effect, be an admission that it derived from, and was the same doctrine as taught by the ECF.

You have said it is in agreement with the ECF - while you may think this distinction that you did not say it was "derived" cures you of all implications, it does not. I used "recovered" more in the scope of general Mormon claims that I assumed you would agree with. Do you not think that Mormonism is the recovered Gospel? Doesn't the Mormon Church make that claim?



Then you would have been correct and have something to gripe about. But the doctrine didn't come from the ECF. I never once said it did. I was simply pointing out how the doctrine was believed by the earliest ECF...

You are trying to paint the ECF as in agreement with the Mormonn doctrine - they would not be. In the context of Mormon claims about their restoration of Christianity it is a claim of succesion. How? Here is the implicit claim

1. The Bibles teaches it
2. The ECF, those closest to the original writing, believed it
3. A large segment of professed Christians abandoned and rejected it
4. Mormonism is the restored Gospel
5. Mormonism restored that which the ECF believed

So no, you very well did not make a direct claim of derivation such as saying the Mormon leadership read the ECF and learned it from them. You are claiming an indirect derivation in the sense that God gave this revelation to men, the ECF had this revelation, and then a great many rejected it. God reveals to the Mormon Church this doctrine. Yes I do realize the derivation is from God - but you are claiming it is the same doctrine as given to the ECF. So I readily concede the distinction you have made, and already did in that post you quoted, and apologized for it, which apology you ignored.

[Bill the Cat]

== I only have a minute, but I wanted to address one comment you made with some comments via MRM

Sorry Bill, but calling upon the two stooges of counter-cultism isn't going to shed light on anything.

Nice Ad Hom...


Nothing they said changes the simple fact that "coins" were never mentioned in the BoM translation.

Neither is the word "Bible" in the Bible translation, but that does not negate the fact of what it is.


What this means is that those who attack the BoM for a lack of "coins" in the Americas, are demonstrating ignorance. The BoM doesn't mention coins.

sigh... and without any existing text earlier than Joseph's manuscript, we can't verify if in fact it mentions coins at all, can we?


Instead of being honest with the situation and abandoning the straw man, people like McKeever and Johnson want to bring back the goal posts and insist the argument of "some Mormons probably thought there were coins" is equally effective in attacking the authenticity of the BoM.

Nice to see you dismissing the 1979 Book of Mormon Student Manual so easily. If I am not mistaken, isn't that an official publication of your church? Has there ever been an official retraction of this obvious (to you) mistake? Has the printing changed on the new copies of the Book of Mormon? Mine has the exact heading described.


Just to give you a clear idea of M&J's desperate attempts to salvage their illicit leaps in logic... Tell me Cat. Is a dollar bill a "piece" of money? Sure it is. Is this considered a "coin"?

Oh, so ancient money was also printed on paper now? Sorry, but paper money didn't come about until the French in the 1680's. I know you are trying to defend these errors with all your apologetic might, but can't you just admit that the Apostles Talmadge and BH Roberts, and the official production Student Manual were just plain wrong and you and a handful of LDS apologists who do not speak for the church, are correct?


When the value of gold and silver pieces are determined today, it is done so by weight and measures.

What does how we do things today have to do with what an ancient culture did? Are you projecting modern systems onto ancient cultures?


Sure, they come in the form of coins, but there is no reason to insist that coinage was the system used by the Nephites.

Except those pesky mentions by people and publications that can speak for the church.


McKeever and Johnson also deceive when they insist that, "The meaning for piece in Joseph Smith's day was coin." Surely the dictionary turned up several definitions for "piece," but you'd never know it when reading M&J.

True that they didn't clarify themselves, but you cherrypick your quotes (again) and miss the preceeding statement:

Taking his advice that Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language is perhaps "our best source for the language of Joseph Smith and his contemporaries" (Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 5:8) we find that under the word "piece" (the word Smith used in Alma 11:4), there are several definitions. However, none of them have any meaning that would fit Alma 11:4 until the eighth definition: "A coin; as a piece of eight."


The fact is, while a coin was a possible deifinition of a "piece", it was not the only definition.

It is the only one that FITS the context.


By their logic it was impossible for "piece" to have referred to a system of weights and measures. Don't they also put "pieces" on the scales? Of course they do.

That is circular, and your whole line of defense is unsupported by any official proclamation, publication, or doctrine of your church (unless you can post one for us), so until you can provide something "official", the existing publications and statements from Apostles stand against you.

[Bloodnut]

== Neither is the word "Bible" in the Bible translation, but that does not negate the fact of what it is.

This is supposed to be a valid counter-argument as to why it is OK to attack the Book of Mormon for not having something it never claimed to have? Good one.

== sigh... and without any existing text earlier than Joseph's manuscript, we can't verify if in fact it mentions coins at all, can we?

Sigh? What are you talking about "text earlier than Joseph's manuscript"? How much "earlier" can one get from the original? The translation itself contains to mention of coins, period. It doesn't exist in the original manuscript nor the printers manuscript. What you allude to is a chapter summary that was added later. Coins were assumed by some LDS commentators, yes, but the fact remains that it is not part of the BoM translation and cannot be used to attack its authenticity.

== Nice to see you dismissing the 1979 Book of Mormon Student Manual so easily. If I am not mistaken, isn't that an official publication of your church?

Are you really going to sit there and make this ridiculous "but it was published by your Church" argument, which has been turned inside and out and refuted to death? If you want to rearrange your argument then fine. If you want to change the argument into, "Mormons reject what some 1979 manual said which was published by the Church," then go right ahead. It is a truly pathetic argument that shows just how much you refuse to learn about the LDS paradigm. You seem to think anything and everything "published" by the Church is considered "God's breath" in Mormon thought. This is how you can misrepresent so adamantaly, yet sleep well at night? This is how you justify yoru bigotry? Every single Mormon on the planet would laugh at your ridiculous misrepresentation.

Again, change your argument to this if you choose, but you cannot mantain this ludicrous charade as if you're making a valid against the BoM's authenticity.

== Has there ever been an official retraction of this obvious (to you( mistake? Has the printing changed on the new copies of the Book of Mormon? Mine has the exact heading described.

Well does it appear in 1980-2005 manuals? If not, then this as much of a "retraction" as I need. But the Church doesn't "retract" dumb comments like these because they aren't that important enough. There is no "official position" on coins in the BoM. The fact that the BoM doesn't mention them is as much as an official statement that I need. And it is not a mistake only "to me." It is merely an assumption made by the commentator. Nothing more. Your attempt to create a competition in authority is noted.

== Oh, so ancient money was also printed on paper now? Sorry, but paper money didn't come about until the French in the 1680's.

No, that isn't what I said. I'm pointing out that "piece" need not refer to coins. A dollar bill is a perfect example, but then agan, so is teh system of weights and measures.

== I know you are trying to defend these errors with all your apologetic might...

Rhetoric that only shows you're running for teh hills. I knowyou're trying to defend this anti-Mormon chestnut with all your might, but logic works against you. The more you persist in this attack, the more foolish you appear. You keep changing you argument to avoid refutation.

== Except those pesky mentions by people and publications that can speak for the church.

Again, your ignorance becomes you. They are not "speaking for the Church." It seems you and Sparks absolutely refuse to be educated on the Mormon paradigm, by a Mormon. Ignorance is bliss huh?

== It is the only one that FITS the context.

Only if you begin with the anti-Mormon presupposition that Smith was confined to an 1828 dictionary! Again, technically the trade-system using weights and measures, which has been verified in ancient Meso-American culture, fits the contexts rather perfectly.

== That is circular,

Circular??? How is it circular? Do you even know what a circular argument is? Stop pretending to have a clue as to what you're talking about.

== and your whole line of defense is unsupported by any official proclamation,

My whole defense is supported by common sense and the basics of logic. Let's boil this down. The anti-mormon argument is that the BoM is false because it mentions coins, which have not been found. A sound argument on its surface, but it doesn't hold water due to one painful fact. The BoM translation, the only part that can be challenged by standards of archeological testing doesn't mention coins. Once it is pointed out that "coins" do not appear in the BoM translation, it is time for evasive maneuvers by the nimrods like McKeever and Johnson (and now YOU).

Tactic #1: Immedietaly change the argument by pointing out that coinage is mentioned in the assumptions of some LDS authors. Argue that since these publications were "published by the Church," (be sure to try to add authority to them by calling them "official publications")

Then attack the LDS who educated you on this matter by calling him a typical apologists who is just trying to defend the untenable. Create this smoke and mirror effect and hope nobody notices the original argument crashed before it could take off.

[Krusader]

Interestingly, however, is the fact that the Greek-based word "Bible" appears in the BOM. Also, the word "money" appears in Alma, 1:8,1:30,8:66; Helman 3, and various other BOM stories.

[Bill the Cat]

Before I reply, I'd like to show something. Nowhere in my post did I use such condescending terms as Kevin used. But if he wants to stoop to that level, I'll oblige.



== Neither is the word "Bible" in the Bible translation, but that does not negate the fact of what it is.

This is supposed to be a valid counter-argument as to why it is OK to attack the Book of Mormon for not having something it never claimed to have? Good one.

Just trying to argue down to your level since by your reply, you obviously can't make the connection between my argument and your simplistic "it ain't there :duh:" statement.


== sigh... and without any existing text earlier than Joseph's manuscript, we can't verify if in fact it mentions coins at all, can we?

Sigh? What are you talking about "text earlier than Joseph's manuscript"? How much "earlier" can one get from the original?

How about THE ORIGINAL, or even some real evidence that an original existed earlier than 1829? Oh, I forgot, the Angel took his ball and went home... :ahem:


The translation itself contains to mention of coins, period. It doesn't exist in the original manuscript nor the printers manuscript.

Big woop de do!! Fact is that people in much higher positions of authority than you said it was coinage, Your church puts out training guides that say it was coins, and your paltry opinion and those like you have not succeeded in having the chapter headings nor the training material changed.


What you allude to is a chapter summary that was added later. Coins were assumed by some LDS commentators, yes, but the fact remains that it is not part of the BoM translation and cannot be used to attack its authenticity.

Commentators?? I love the way you minimalize a Seventy and an Apostle for your own apologetic back patting...


== Nice to see you dismissing the 1979 Book of Mormon Student Manual so easily. If I am not mistaken, isn't that an official publication of your church?

Are you really going to sit there and make this ridiculous "but it was published by your Church" argument, which has been turned inside and out and refuted to death? If you want to rearrange your argument then fine. If you want to change the argument into, "Mormons reject what some 1979 manual said which was published by the Church," then go right ahead.

Your church puts out training manuals to TRAIN your members, and that is much more authoritative than some schmoe like yourself, so forgive me if I see official publications of an organization as representing the organization's opinion more than your weak attempt at victory, Mr Quixote




It is a truly pathetic argument that shows just how much you refuse to learn about the LDS paradigm. You seem to think anything and everything "published" by the Church is considered "God's breath" in Mormon thought.

No, I consider teaching aides approved by your church as authoritative on doctrine, just as I see my textbook on Algebra as authoritative on the area of math it addresses.


This is how you can misrepresent so adamantaly, yet sleep well at night?

Do you have that phrase as a canned text? It seems to be your favorite statement, and you misapply it almost uniformly.


This is how you justify yoru bigotry?

I prefer the term dogmatic, thank you very much...



Every single Mormon on the planet would laugh at your ridiculous misrepresentation.

You wish... Matter of fact, I sit 3 cubes up from a First Councelor who agrees that it is coins.


Again, change your argument to this if you choose, but you cannot mantain this ludicrous charade as if you're making a valid against the BoM's authenticity.

My argument has been consistent. You just have missed it every time it is offered. The only reason you think it has changed directions is you are probably dizzy and disoriented from spinning the comments of publications and authorities who speak more for your church than you. Are you jealous of them?


== Has there ever been an official retraction of this obvious (to you( mistake? Has the printing changed on the new copies of the Book of Mormon? Mine has the exact heading described.

Well does it appear in 1980-2005 manuals?

Yup... http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/bm-in-sm1996/manualindex.asp



But the Church doesn't "retract" dumb comments like these because they aren't that important enough.

Nice of you to call these things, like Roberts and The BOM headings dumb. Your arrogance let you sleep at night?


There is no "official position" on coins in the BoM.

Which leaves open the possibility that they MAY be coins then, as the word that was commonly used for coins in Joseph's time appears in the BOM as a denomination of gold and silver, which were used to make coins. But will you ever admit the possibility that it may in fact be discussing coins?


The fact that the BoM doesn't mention them is as much as an official statement that I need.

Yet it uses a word common in Joseph's time for a coin. I'm also so glad that you get to dismiss teaching manuals because you don't agree with them...



And it is not a mistake only "to me." It is merely an assumption made by the commentator. Nothing more. Your attempt to create a competition in authority is noted.

There is no competition in authority, unless you or a few professors at BYU have suddenly become authorities...


== Oh, so ancient money was also printed on paper now? Sorry, but paper money didn't come about until the French in the 1680's.

== I know you are trying to defend these errors with all your apologetic might...

Rhetoric that only shows you're running for teh hills.

You wish. I'm running circles around you and all you can do is circle the wagons...


I knowyou're trying to defend this anti-Mormon chestnut with all your might, but logic works against you.

Again, you wish. Black and white print from your church works against you and your wishful thinking.


The more you persist in this attack, the more foolish you appear. You keep changing you argument to avoid refutation.

I have been as steady in my argumentation as a spring rain. You have danced a gig to try and avoid the consequences, but in the process you have insulted your own former Apostle, Seventy, and instructions from your church. Who is more the fool?


== Except those pesky mentions by people and publications that can speak for the church.

Again, your ignorance becomes you. They are not "speaking for the Church." It seems you and Sparks absolutely refuse to be educated on the Mormon paradigm, by a Mormon. Ignorance is bliss huh?

I am more educated on the Mormon paradigm than you think, oh foolish one. I converse almost daily with my associate here on issues on the LDS church that I either don't understand or disagree with. It is much easier talking to a friend than a stranger to be sure, especially one as provenly arrogant and condescending as you.


== It is the only one that FITS the context.

Only if you begin with the anti-Mormon presupposition that Smith was confined to an 1828 dictionary!

As opposed to a 1950 one?? He used the language available to him, or are you admitting that Adieu was a term that the Nephites invented and loaned to the French?


Again, technically the trade-system using weights and measures, which has been verified in ancient Meso-American culture, fits the contexts rather perfectly.

Assuming that Meso-America was the setting of the BOM, which it has not been verified at all, nor is it anything other than idle speculation as to where it was. Also, it seems that most of the FARMS articles take for granted that it is Meso-American and try to force events of the BOM into Mayan culture.


== That is circular,

Circular??? How is it circular? Do you even know what a circular argument is? Stop pretending to have a clue as to what you're talking about.

I'd call you a horse's rear end, but that'd be an insult to the horse. I know what a circular argument is and yours is a classic example.

A circular argument makes a conclusion based on material that has already been assumed in the argument

Your argument is " Alma uses the word "piece" to describe a weight and measure of gold and silver because it uses piece instead of coin." You assume it is not a coin and proceed from there.


== and your whole line of defense is unsupported by any official proclamation,

My whole defense is supported by common sense and the basics of logic.

Bull. Your wishful thinking is all that bolsters your claim that the "piece" of gold is not the same as a "coin" of gold. Logic dictates that Joseph used language common to him, which shows that the word "piece" was used to describe a coin in his day.


Let's boil this down. The anti-mormon argument is that the BoM is false because it mentions coins, which have not been found.

No, the Christian argument is that one reason the BOM is false because of its mention of "pieces" and denominations of money which church authorities describe as coins (despite comments by non-authorities like yourself) which have never been found.



A sound argument on its surface, but it doesn't hold water due to one painful fact. The BoM translation, the only part that can be challenged by standards of archeological testing doesn't mention coins.

It mentions pieces of money and denominations of that money. You completely close the door on the idea that it may be coins, but again, who are you to tell a ligitimate authority that they are wrong?


Once it is pointed out that "coins" do not appear in the BoM translation, it is time for evasive maneuvers by the nimrods like McKeever and Johnson (and now YOU).

That's all you are left with, ad homs. You are indeed a sad little man.



Tactic #1: Immedietaly change the argument by pointing out that coinage is mentioned in the assumptions of some LDS authors. Argue that since these publications were "published by the Church," (be sure to try to add authority to them by calling them "official publications")

So your church makes a habit of publishing and teaching falsehoods? Glad to see you finally admit it...


Then attack the LDS who educated you on this matter by calling him a typical apologists who is just trying to defend the untenable. Create this smoke and mirror effect and hope nobody notices the original argument crashed before it could take off.

Where did I call you a typical apologist? Your attempt to deflect the argument is noted. Keep with the program and I'll get back to business instead of the insults.

Oh, and I emailed JP your comments to see what he had to say about Strobel and he said

"Don't really have time to participate in more threads, esp. since I am taking Carrier to the mat; but that's no answer to my arguments and Kevin knows it. As if placing a scholar of the social sciences like de Silva against a popularist writer without a relevant degree like Strobel means dip (no offense to Strobel; as I know him, he'd be the first to concede who was better qualified)."

[revivalfire]

Wow, all this from a question about physical evidence supporting Mormonism. Sorry I havn't been keeping up with this, I've been away for a while. Busy with school and such. I suppose to get back to the original question I could point out the fact that there is no genetic proof the American Indians were Jewish. AS for the gold plates, has anyone seen them?

[RussianWolfe]

Now, if the Lemba can prove their Jewish heritage centuries after their mixing with Jews, certainly the Native Americans should have some type of genetic markers indicating Semitic origins.

The fact is they do not!

Except that the two cases are not the same. No one has wipeout the Lemba. And they looked at their genetics with know modern examples. No one knows what a member of the Tribe of Joseph's genetics are like. The Jews are of the tribe of Judah and the priestly lines were of the tribe of Levi. Now where are those pesky tribe of Joseph genetics? Oh and don't forget that it was only half of the tribe of Joseph, because Lehi was from the tribe of Manessah not Ephraim.


Marvin

[RussianWolfe]

Let me just interject, that there is no evidence of any language, written or otherwise, called Reformed Egyptian. Also, since Jews were very careful regarding the recording of the Scriptures, which they wrote only in Hebrew upon the skins of animals ritually sacrificed (this done by the special group called "scribes"), it is highly unlikely that any type of holy writings would have been enscirbed in Reformed Egyptian on metal plates. The whole Reformed Egyptian on metal plates deal is pure fantasy.

Just remember that the term Reformed Egyptian was used by the Nephites not the modern Egyptologist!

And the Dead Sea Scrolls have a lot to say about what Jews did to preserve the records that they considered scriptures.

And it wasn't the Jews in Jerusalem who had Reformed Egyptian but the Nephites, half a world away.

Marvin

[RussianWolfe]

Doesn't the BOM teach that the Lamanites were the bad guys who fought the Nephites, won, and became the American Indians according to traditional Mormon teaching? Were not the Nephites and the Lamanites of one common ancestory - and that being Jewish, according to the BOM? If the Lamanites survived and became the Native Americans of this continent, shouldn't there be some DNA indicators? I think there should be, but I'm not a genetic specialist. I really think we can go back and forth on this all day, but the in the final analysis, the DNA tests indicate NO Semitic origin for Native Americans.....period.

The text of the Book of Mormon also allows for other people to be there when Lehi and family arrive. Those who examine the text carefully, say that the book only covers a very small portion of the population and only the priestly lineage of that small portion.

There are several references that people make in the text that indicates that there were many other people not of Lehi's family. Amulek states that he is a descendant of Lehi. Why would he do that if they were all of Lehi? It is clear from the text, that not all of the people in the Book of Mormon were from the family of Lehi.

Marvin

[RussianWolfe]

As I have probably said before, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Given all the evidence, the BOM never originated among Hebrews who miraculously settled somewhere in Central or South America, grew to millions, fought each other constantly, and wiped most of each other out. None of their cities have ever been discovered, no examples of Reformed Egyptian have ever been discovered. The simple explanation is that the story was the product of a fertile mind and not factual.

I guess you just ignore the evidence that confounds your theory. Just one. The presence of complex and extended chaimus in the Book of Mormon is clear evidence that it comes from an ancient people who knew about them. And chiamus was not know until the 20th century and then it was discovered in the Bible. And then they looked for it in the Book of Mormon, they found them.

But that is just one of the internal evidences that the text comes from a very ancient source.

Marvin

[Bill the Cat]

I guess you just ignore the evidence that confounds your theory. Just one. The presence of complex and extended chaimus in the Book of Mormon is clear evidence that it comes from an ancient people who knew about them. And chiamus was not know until the 20th century and then it was discovered in the Bible. And then they looked for it in the Book of Mormon, they found them.

But that is just one of the internal evidences that the text comes from a very ancient source.

Marvin
Chiasmus was known, and proven to be in Joseph Smith's own diaries. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3500/davow.html

It was known in his day. Michael Quinn said as much in his correspondence with John Welch of BYU.

Joseph Strang even used it in his "translation" of the "book of the law of the lord" http://www.strangite.org/Chiasmus.htm

[RussianWolfe]

Chiasmus was known, and proven to be in Joseph Smith's own diaries. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3500/davow.html

It was known in his day. Michael Quinn said as much in his correspondence with John Welch of BYU.

Joseph Strang even used it in his "translation" of the "book of the law of the lord" http://www.strangite.org/Chiasmus.htm

Now show me where Hebrew chiamus is present in any of these sources? And the chaimus in the Book of Mormon is clearly of Hebew origins and not English.

Marvin

[Bill the Cat]

Now show me where Hebrew chiamus is present in any of these sources?

I linked you to them.


And the chaimus in the Book of Mormon is clearly of Hebew origins and not English.

It is mere repetition, not Chiasmus. It is a construct of Joseph Smith's fertile imagination and his recognition pf patterns. I linked you to evidence of chiasmus used by Joseph in his personal journal, the King Follett Discourse, etc. Those materials are copyrighted, so you'll have to follow the links.

[RussianWolfe]

I linked you to them.
It is mere repetition, not Chiasmus. It is a construct of Joseph Smith's fertile imagination and his recognition pf patterns. I linked you to evidence of chiasmus used by Joseph in his personal journal, the King Follett Discourse, etc. Those materials are copyrighted, so you'll have to follow the links.

Sorry, but imagination is not the answer for this. Look at Jeff Lindsay's descriptions of chiamus in the Book of Mormon:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml

The Book of Mormon contains chiamus that covers whole books, Mosiah, discourses, King Benjamin's speech, and conversion stories, Alma 36. And this is only scratching the surface. The significant part is that it not only has the struture of Hebrew chiasmus but also has the common word pair that occurs in Hebraic chiasmus.

There are too many to just be the 'fertile imagination' of one man considering that chiasmus was known only to a extremely small segment of the world and not known at all to an uneducated farm boy not even 25 years old.

Marvin

[Bill the Cat]

Sorry, but imagination is not the answer for this. Look at Jeff Lindsay's descriptions of chiamus in the Book of Mormon:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml


Every Mormon apologist I know trapses this wishful thinking piece by Lindsey out. I can do the same thing with Green Eggs and Ham. Its a pattern that anyone who reads the Bible can pick up on.


The Book of Mormon contains chiamus that covers whole books, Mosiah, discourses, King Benjamin's speech, and conversion stories, Alma 36. And this is only scratching the surface. The significant part is that it not only has the struture of Hebrew chiasmus but also has the common word pair that occurs in Hebraic chiasmus.

Alma 36 was supposedly written around 70 BC, right? So you are honestly telling me with a straight face that almost 500 years after they supposedly left Jerusalem, an uneducated Nephite could remember how to write complex parallelisms in a 500 year removed poetic literary style? And without the internet?



There are too many to just be the 'fertile imagination' of one man considering that chiasmus was known only to a extremely small segment of the world and not known at all to an uneducated farm boy not even 25 years old.

Nor would it have been known to an uneducated Nephite 500 years after they were out of the culture it supposedly originated in. The fact that there are so many in a work supposedly done by multiple authors who had nothing to do with the literary style or the culture that spawned it shows how weak of an "evidence" it really is. It proves more and more that the entire work came from one pen.

[Krusader]

In any case, Smith borrowed his ideas from Ethan Smith and probably Spaulding, with a bunch of Rigdon's "theology" thrown in for good measure. Smith "borrowed" from existing ideas written and oral.

[RussianWolfe]

Every Mormon apologist I know trapses this wishful thinking piece by Lindsey out. I can do the same thing with Green Eggs and Ham. Its a pattern that anyone who reads the Bible can pick up on.



Alma 36 was supposedly written around 70 BC, right? So you are honestly telling me with a straight face that almost 500 years after they supposedly left Jerusalem, an uneducated Nephite could remember how to write complex parallelisms in a 500 year removed poetic literary style? And without the internet?




Nor would it have been known to an uneducated Nephite 500 years after they were out of the culture it supposedly originated in. The fact that there are so many in a work supposedly done by multiple authors who had nothing to do with the literary style or the culture that spawned it shows how weak of an "evidence" it really is. It proves more and more that the entire work came from one pen.

You gotta do better than this. They brought their culture with them. It is unavoidable. And it was contained in the brass plates, which was preserved just for the purpose of providing them with a written record that would transmitt the knowledge and cultural that they came from. The fact the Nephi used this poetical form to write his first book shows that he was no intellectual light weight. And I believe, that this form is used partly because it is inspired by revelation and guided by the Spirit. The complexity and the quantity of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon speaks for a long tradition and a complete immersion in this poetical form. The complexity alone shows that this is a normal method of communication and the depth of the complexity is a sign of the inspired nature of the Book of Mormon.

The fact that chiasmus can be found in the Bible, both OT and NT, shows that it is an ancient poetical form as well as a method of communication. The fact that the same can be found in the Book of Mormon is a sign of its authenticity as an ancient document. And since these forms were virtually unknown at the time that the Book of Mormon was translated, is a clear indication of the inspired nature of the book.

Your protestation are weak and unfounded. You have not dealt with the evidence or rebutted it. You gotta do better than this.

Marvin

[RussianWolfe]

In any case, Smith borrowed his ideas from Ethan Smith and probably Spaulding, with a bunch of Rigdon's "theology" thrown in for good measure. Smith "borrowed" from existing ideas written and oral.

And what evidence do you have that he actually borrowned anything from anyone? You haven't supplied any at this time and so far, I haven't seen anyone provide anything more than speculation in this regards.

Either Joseph had a more books than the local library had and all the spare time in the world to read them, or he had no time to borrow from anyone and had to be inspired.

Either he was as poor as he and his parents said he was, or he was a lot richer than even Martin Harris was.

Which it is?
Marvin

[Bill the Cat]

You gotta do better than this. They brought their culture with them.

To which there isn't a shred of evidence that it existed in the New World anywhere.


It is unavoidable. And it was contained in the brass plates, which was preserved just for the purpose of providing them with a written record that would transmitt the knowledge and cultural that they came from.

So you admit that they could have picked up the patterns? Or were the brass plates actually a textbook on poetic style? :ahem:


The fact the Nephi used this poetical form to write his first book shows that he was no intellectual light weight.

The fact that it existed up until the last book was supposedly written when there was no way to keep the poetic form going for hundreds of years shows me that it was written by a single hand who recognized the patterns from the source book (the 1611 KJV). Now whether it was Joseph, Solomon Spaulding, or Sydney Rigdon, I don't know or care. Until there is a shred of proof, say a manuscript, that can be proven to be dated before the 1820s, it will remain a construct of Joseph Smith, author and proprieter.


And I believe, that this form is used partly because it is inspired by revelation and guided by the Spirit. The complexity and the quantity of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon speaks for a long tradition and a complete immersion in this poetical form.

Yet it exists in no artifact, writing, drawing, or anything found in the Meso-American region. If it was such a rich and long tradition, it should have left some trace of being there.


The complexity alone shows that this is a normal method of communication and the depth of the complexity is a sign of the inspired nature of the Book of Mormon.

The complexity alone and the (assumed for the argument) fact that the Nephites were here for hundreds of years with no way of reinforcing the Jewish culture and poetic forms, shows that it could not be anything more than from a single source.


The fact that chiasmus can be found in the Bible, both OT and NT, shows that it is an ancient poetical form as well as a method of communication.

It has been found in multiple civilizations... even in the sayings of Confucius
http://www.chiasmus.com/mastersofchiasmus/confucius.shtml


The fact that the same can be found in the Book of Mormon is a sign of its authenticity as an ancient document.

You assume much here. It merely shows that whoever wrote the original for what Joseph and Oliver copied was educated enough to recognize the patterns and duplicate them.


And since these forms were virtually unknown at the time that the Book of Mormon was translated, is a clear indication of the inspired nature of the book.

The forms were known, just not called Chiasmus. Anyone who was educated and did any reading, say the author of the manuscript that Joseph and Oliver copied, would have heard about this form of poetry. Heck, even James Strang duplicated it. Are you ready to admit that Strang found an ancient record too?


Your protestation are weak and unfounded.

And your evidence is weak and unfounded. There were no brass plates. There was no Nephi. There was no great Jewish nation in Meso-America. The burden of proof is on you. Before you can claim that the BOM is ancient, you have to show that it even existed before Joseph Smith supposedly dug it up. But you can't because Moroni took his ball home, didn't he?


You have not dealt with the evidence or rebutted it. You gotta do better than this.

There is no evidence. There is your conjecture and Jeff Lindsey's wishful thinking. I don't need to rebut that which is fiction.

[RussianWolfe]

To which there isn't a shred of evidence that it existed in the New World anywhere.

And why would there be? The Lamanites destroyed the Nephites around 420 BC. There wouldn't be 'a shred of evidence.'





So you admit that they could have picked up the patterns? Or were the brass plates actually a textbook on poetic style? :ahem:


It was there culture. Just as any student of English literature knows about iambic pentameter, they would know about chiamus. And yes, the brass plates were a text book of examples of poetic style. After all, the brass plates are what we refer to as the Old Testament.



The fact that it existed up until the last book was supposedly written when there was no way to keep the poetic form going for hundreds of years shows me that it was written by a single hand who recognized the patterns from the source book (the 1611 KJV).

Except that it was poorly transmitted in the English transmission. The translators did not know about chiamus and the translation process removed or reordered a lot of word orders that are significant to Hebraic chiamus. Even in the Hebrew it is difficult to see, as John Welch found out when he attempted to demonstrate 'the strong chiasmin Leviticus 24.13-23 to the Jewish Law Association in Boston in 1988...'

If what you say is true, then you must believe that the Bible is also written by one hand. But I don't think you believe this. Do you?

Now whether it was Joseph, Solomon Spaulding, or Sydney Rigdon, I don't know or care. Until there is a shred of proof, say a manuscript, that can be proven to be dated before the 1820s, it will remain a construct of Joseph Smith, author and proprieter.


The proof is in the text of the Book of Mormon. If you care to really examine it. You can dismiss it without examining it if you dare, but if it is a fraud then there would be many anachronism. It is impossible to write a book that does not shout the author's cultural context. But the text of the Book of Mormon shouts a Hebrew context not 19th Century American.







Yet it exists in no artifact, writing, drawing, or anything found in the Meso-American region. If it was such a rich and long tradition, it should have left some trace of being there.


As I pointed out before, the Nehites were destroyed by the Lamanites. Another point is that of all of the currently known archeaological sites, only about 1% have been examined in any detail. And most of the sites we know about have other older sites under them. You claim, with an unfounded certainty, that the evidence is in when less than 1% has been examined.




The complexity alone and the (assumed for the argument) fact that the Nephites were here for hundreds of years with no way of reinforcing the Jewish culture and poetic forms, shows that it could not be anything more than from a single source.

Again, unfounded and uncertain. Your guess work is not convincing nor impressive. You present a vacumn and expect me to believe that it is filled with something, when I can see for myself that you have nothing to fill it with.





It has been found in multiple civilizations... even in the sayings of Confucius
http://www.chiasmus.com/mastersofchiasmus/confucius.shtml

These simplistic chaismus don't come close to answering the structures found in the Book of Mormon. You have yet to answer the point I mentioned when I told you that there are entire books in the Book of Mormon that are based on the chaistic structure. 1st Nephi is a giant chaimus, constructed of smaller chaistic structures within chaistic structures. Chiasmus might be a cute literary structure for you and your referenced website, but the people who wrote the Book of Mormon were masters of this form, using it not only to make individual points but constructing entire books around it to teach and emphasize their instructions.





You assume much here. It merely shows that whoever wrote the original for what Joseph and Oliver copied was educated enough to recognize the patterns and duplicate them.

This is no simple duplication nor it is a parroting of the knowledge of the day. The complexity and the depth of the use of the form shows a familiarity with the form and the use that goes beyond anything that was currently know or would be know for more than 130 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon.


The forms were known, just not called Chiasmus. Anyone who was educated and did any reading, say the author of the manuscript that Joseph and Oliver copied,


Except that the educated, well read, man of the time (1830s) would have missed a very important point. As Boys and Jebb explained in their works, which were published in the 1820s, and which would have misguided Joseph or Oliver, 'in the centre the less important notion. In the Book of Mormon, the most important point occupies the center of the structure. A point that is understood today, but was not understood in 1830.



would have heard about this form of poetry. Heck, even James Strang duplicated it. Are you ready to admit that Strang found an ancient record too?


Strang is not a good example. The chaismus found in his work is simplistic and reflects an English language based paradigm. The Book of Mormon contains chiasmus of considerable depth and complexity and reflects a Hebraic paradigm in both word usage and strophe construct.







And your evidence is weak and unfounded. There were no brass plates. There was no Nephi. There was no great Jewish nation in Meso-America. The burden of proof is on you. Before you can claim that the BOM is ancient, you have to show that it even existed before Joseph Smith supposedly dug it up. But you can't because Moroni took his ball home, didn't he?


The text of the Book of Mormon is there, if you care to examine it. It will reveal the cultural context from which it was taken. Just as you can tell from the text of a novel, the era in which it was written, so the Book of Mormon reveals itself. But to do this, you will have to carefully examine the book. More knowledgeable, intelligent men than you have examined it, and so far none have been able to prove that it was a fraud from the 19th century.







There is no evidence. There is your conjecture and Jeff Lindsey's wishful thinking. I don't need to rebut that which is fiction.

This is the typical attitude of the anti-Mormon. Without examining it, you have classed it as fiction. So now you don't have to examine it any further. In fact, you have not examined it at all.

You haven't answered the most telling point of all: How did chiasmi of such depth and complexity appear in a book before the literary form was correctly defined. Yes, it is found in the Bible, but there is still the formidable task of composing the well-balanced meaningful chiastic structures that are in the Book of Mormon and then remain silent on this fact and never mention it as a proof of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Not only compose them, but then insert them in the book where they remain hidden, not disturbing the narrative flow, until uncovered in the 60s.

Marvin

[Bill the Cat]

And why would there be? The Lamanites destroyed the Nephites around 420 BC. There wouldn't be 'a shred of evidence.'

Millions dead... horses dead... weaponry scattered... have you ever seen a battlefield? Battles of that size would leave evidence. So far...silence. Not only that, but the things we HAVE found that date to that era show that the inhabitants were pagans and had no knowledge of any events in the BOM. No temple "like unto Solomon's". No great city of Zarahemla. Nada. Archaeology is soundly against the BOM being an accurate depiction of the meso-american region.

Like Kissing Kate Barlow said in "Holes"... you, your children, and your childrens' children will search and dig...but you will NEVER find anything.



It was there culture. Just as any student of English literature knows about iambic pentameter, they would know about chiamus. And yes, the brass plates were a text book of examples of poetic style. After all, the brass plates are what we refer to as the Old Testament.

Linguists would laugh at that statement. When someone is 500 years removed from the culture they originated from, they lose much of the nuances, language shift occurs, and writing forms evolve. We do not speak Her Majesty's English any more, and that is after only 300 years of being removed from the British culture. We speak differently, use different jargon, and different poetic forms. And we have had the benefit of cross cultural exchange. The supposed "nephites" were totally isolated from Israel. This lack of reinforcement of the culture would prove to make maintaining a thorough knowledge of chiasmus virtually impossible.


Except that it was poorly transmitted in the English transmission. The translators did not know about chiamus and the translation process removed or reordered a lot of word orders that are significant to Hebraic chiamus. Even in the Hebrew it is difficult to see, as John Welch found out when he attempted to demonstrate 'the strong chiasm in Leviticus 24.13-23 to the Jewish Law Association in Boston in 1988...'

Welch's desperation to find Chiasmus in every nook and cranny is well known. As is Joseph Smith's ability to duplicate it. Dan Vogel states:

Much of the Book of Mormon's lyricism is due to its use of rhetorical repetition such as antimetabole (chiasmus), parallelism, anaphora, epistrophe, polysyndeton, paradiastole, and epibole—all of which are also found in Joseph Smith's revelations as well as the sermons of his day. On repetition in Smith's revelations, see Richard C. Shipp, "Conceptual Patterns of Repetition in the Doctrine and Covenants and Their Implications," M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1975. On rhetorical repetition in Smith's day (including chiasmus), see Samuel Knox, A Compendious System of Rhetoric (Baltimore, 1809). (605n48)





If what you say is true, then you must believe that the Bible is also written by one hand. But I don't think you believe this. Do you?


No. There is not deliberate Chiasmus in every book of the Bible. Nor is there in every book of the OT. The literary styles are different, the genres are different, the linguistic evidence points to a range of years, etc...



The proof is in the text of the Book of Mormon. If you care to really examine it. You can dismiss it without examining it if you dare, but if it is a fraud then there would be many anachronism. It is impossible to write a book that does not shout the author's cultural context. But the text of the Book of Mormon shouts a Hebrew context not 19th Century American.

Fiction can mock its intended target, but anachronisms always seep through, as they have in the Book of Mormon. Since we can't examine the "brass plates", we must rely on the manuscripts, which are replete with 19th century phrases. The linguistic evidence points to a 19th century document. Until your prophet can produce the brass plates and they can be examined, you have nothing more than an invention of the 19th century that borrows Biblical ideas and language.



As I pointed out before, the Nehites were destroyed by the Lamanites. Another point is that of all of the currently known archeaological sites, only about 1% have been examined in any detail. And most of the sites we know about have other older sites under them. You claim, with an unfounded certainty, that the evidence is in when less than 1% has been examined.

Too bad the 1% proves the exact opposite of what your religion claims. http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/arch/mexchron.html#LPC


Again, unfounded and uncertain. Your guess work is not convincing nor impressive. You present a vacumn and expect me to believe that it is filled with something, when I can see for myself that you have nothing to fill it with.

:rofl: I can't believe this came from the Mormon side!! You expect us to believe that a million man war was fought and that there were practicing Jews in the Meso-American region when there is absolutely NO evidence that a monsterous Hebrew civilization existed, and in fact, the existing cultures that were proven to be there at the time in question, were completely silent if Jews did exist in such a large number. Anyone with the slightest understanding of linguistics would know that over a large span of time, language changes. So either Joseph Smith paraphrased the plates in his own words, contradicting the witnesses, or he copied word for word what was on the source and the Nephites defied all other human history in maintaining a pure language that did not change over hundreds of years.


These simplistic chaismus don't come close to answering the structures found in the Book of Mormon. You have yet to answer the point I mentioned when I told you that there are entire books in the Book of Mormon that are based on the chaistic structure. 1st Nephi is a giant chaimus, constructed of smaller chaistic structures within chaistic structures. Chiasmus might be a cute literary structure for you and your referenced website, but the people who wrote the Book of Mormon were masters of this form, using it not only to make individual points but constructing entire books around it to teach and emphasize their instructions.


Has Welch's research been peer reviewed? Has a competent, unbiased Hebrew scholar looked into it and determined it to be consistent with Hebrew Chiasmus? Earl Wunderli did a marvelous critique of the supposed chiasmus in Alma 36 and proves the chiasmus is contrived and stretched to fit.


This is no simple duplication nor it is a parroting of the knowledge of the day. The complexity and the depth of the use of the form shows a familiarity with the form and the use that goes beyond anything that was currently know or would be know for more than 130 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon.

Wunderli proved using Welch's own criteria that Alma 36 is not a "complex and deep" chiasmus. He says:

Indeed, nearly every element can be challenged as being arbitrarily selected to create symmetry, ignoring equally important text, combining different clauses to create elements, being out of sequence, relying on a word for a match and ignoring the substance, adding words to create a better match, or ignoring better matches for elements that are out of sequence.

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/e2.pdf




Except that the educated, well read, man of the time (1830s) would have missed a very important point. As Boys and Jebb explained in their works, which were published in the 1820s, and which would have misguided Joseph or Oliver, 'in the centre the less important notion. In the Book of Mormon, the most important point occupies the center of the structure. A point that is understood today, but was not understood in 1830.

Chiasmus involves both types.



Strang is not a good example. The chaismus found in his work is simplistic and reflects an English language based paradigm. The Book of Mormon contains chiasmus of considerable depth and complexity and reflects a Hebraic paradigm in both word usage and strophe construct.

See critique above.



The text of the Book of Mormon is there, if you care to examine it. It will reveal the cultural context from which it was taken. Just as you can tell from the text of a novel, the era in which it was written, so the Book of Mormon reveals itself. But to do this, you will have to carefully examine the book. More knowledgeable, intelligent men than you have examined it, and so far none have been able to prove that it was a fraud from the 19th century.

No, that is a false statement. Your church has refused to accept that it is a 19th century document. Any evidence brought against it is either spun mercilessly by FARMS/FAIR or totally ignored and handwaved as rumor.


This is the typical attitude of the anti-Mormon. Without examining it, you have classed it as fiction. So now you don't have to examine it any further. In fact, you have not examined it at all.

I've been examining it for the past 5 years. And the more I examine, the more I come to realize it is in no way authentic.


You haven't answered the most telling point of all: How did chiasmi of such depth and complexity appear in a book before the literary form was correctly defined. Yes, it is found in the Bible, but there is still the formidable task of composing the well-balanced meaningful chiastic structures that are in the Book of Mormon and then remain silent on this fact and never mention it as a proof of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Not only compose them, but then insert them in the book where they remain hidden, not disturbing the narrative flow, until uncovered in the 60s.

And you refuse to address the point that chiasmus is found in other writings by Joseph Smith. He knew the form and used it repeatedly.

[Krusader]

And what evidence do you have that he actually borrowned anything from anyone? You haven't supplied any at this time and so far, I haven't seen anyone provide anything more than speculation in this regards.

Either Joseph had a more books than the local library had and all the spare time in the world to read them, or he had no time to borrow from anyone and had to be inspired.

Either he was as poor as he and his parents said he was, or he was a lot richer than even Martin Harris was.

Which it is?
Marvin

Russian, I believe I've shared with you information regarding the similarity between Smith's and Spaulding's writings and the fictional content. Also, here's a good site dealing with Smith's book having similarities with another contemporary author:

http://www.postmormon.org/tories.htm

I think it's important to remember that Joseph Smith was a product of his times. It was a commonly held belief that the American Indians were of the lost tribes of Israel. Today we know that the Native Americans are of Mongolian origin. In Smith's day, of course, DNA and genes, etc., were unheard of.

Smith's own mother, Lucy Mack, is often quoted as saying that her son had a real ball telling stories about the earliest inhabitants of America, even before he claimed that an angel visited him, he dug up gold plates - not to mention his encounter with Elohim and Jehovah. Wow, what a life!

[RussianWolfe]

Millions dead... horses dead... weaponry scattered... have you ever seen a battlefield?

How many battlefields have you seen? Ever been to Gettysburg? Where is the evidence, besides the cemetary, of that battle? You gotta look real careful to find anything. And it helps if you have read the history.


Battles of that size would leave evidence. So far...silence.

And yet for years, the scholars thought that the natives of Central America were peaceful. It was only in the last half of the last century, that they had to change their minds. And that because they began to interpret the gylphs and realized the number of battles that they talked about. And yet, they were thought to be a peaceful people. Reality kinda slaps you in the face doesn't it?



Not only that, but the things we HAVE found that date to that era show that the inhabitants were pagans and had no knowledge of any events in the BOM. No temple "like unto Solomon's". No great city of Zarahemla. Nada. Archaeology is soundly against the BOM being an accurate depiction of the meso-american region.

And where to you get the idea that we actuall speak the ancient languages of Central America? And how would you know if we found a city mentioned in the BoM? What is your criteria? What are your rules? How would you recognize a city that is mentioned in the BoM? Share with us the criteria that you have established for making this judgement. Inquiring minds want to know.




Like Kissing Kate Barlow said in "Holes"... you, your children, and your childrens' children will search and dig...but you will NEVER find anything.

That is a great one. A fictional work is used to quote a fictional person about finding an imaginary treasure. You have a rather loose standard of truth.

Considering that only 1% of what is at present know to exist in Central and South American has been examined, there is still 99% of what is known the needs to be examined. And then there would have to be an examination of what is underneath. For a man of faith, you rely on the arm of flesh an awful lot. Can you say, built upon the sand?



Linguists would laugh at that statement. When someone is 500 years removed from the culture they originated from, they lose much of the nuances, language shift occurs, and writing forms evolve. We do not speak Her Majesty's English any more, and that is after only 300 years of being removed from the British culture. We speak differently, use different jargon, and different poetic forms.

I seem to recall a playwright named William Shakespeare who seems to have a few plays that are still being performed as well as a couple sonnets that people are still finding of value.

We don't speak so differently that we have discarded Shakespeare. And most scholars recognize the contributions of those from the Elizabethean to the arts. I think that if any one deserves a laugh, it would be your who seem pretty ignorant of just who's shoulders wer are standing on.


And we have had the benefit of cross cultural exchange. The supposed "nephites" were totally isolated from Israel. This lack of reinforcement of the culture would prove to make maintaining a thorough knowledge of chiasmus virtually impossible.

And yet, Chaucer was using poetical forms that Shakespeare improved upon and that are still in use today. Newton wrote the first thesis on calculus in latin and yet we are still reading latin and calculus is still used to plot the paths of satellites and rockets to the planets.


Welch's desperation to find Chiasmus in every nook and cranny is well known. As is Joseph Smith's ability to duplicate it. Dan Vogel states:

Much of the Book of Mormon's lyricism is due to its use of rhetorical repetition such as antimetabole (chiasmus), parallelism, anaphora, epistrophe, polysyndeton, paradiastole, and epibole—all of which are also found in Joseph Smith's revelations as well as the sermons of his day. On repetition in Smith's revelations, see Richard C. Shipp, "Conceptual Patterns of Repetition in the Doctrine and Covenants and Their Implications," M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1975. On rhetorical repetition in Smith's day (including chiasmus), see Samuel Knox, A Compendious System of Rhetoric (Baltimore, 1809). (605n48)



Your desperation is showing. You refuse the examine the larger structures that are present in the BoM and keep insisting that the smaller structures are just randomo occurences. Hardly possible, when an entire book is built upon the chaistic structure. And I suppose that you believe that the Biblical chiamus structure is also random. And without any significance?




No. There is not deliberate Chiasmus in every book of the Bible. Nor is there in every book of the OT. The literary styles are different, the genres are different, the linguistic evidence points to a range of years, etc...

You sound really desperate in this one.



Fiction can mock its intended target, but anachronisms always seep through, as they have in the Book of Mormon.

Can you point out any?


Since we can't examine the "brass plates", we must rely on the manuscripts, which are replete with 19th century phrases.

Its a little hard to write in the 19th century using terms from the 21st century. Or do you mean something else?


The linguistic evidence points to a 19th century document.

I suppose that the evidence of Hebrew sentence structure is just as random to you as chiamus?


Until your prophet can produce the brass plates and they can be examined, you have nothing more than an invention of the 19th century that borrows Biblical ideas and language.

Another show of desperation. This thread is becoming quite a bore. You make empty assertions and back it up with nothing. When I make assertions you never ask for the evidence. Are you afraid of the evidence? Are you afraid that if you ask me for the evidence that I will actually produce it? Unless and until you actually examine the evidence and show me why you make such statements, there is no reason to continue this thread. I have the evidence and can show it to you. But it will do no good unless you are going to examine it. And from what I have read from you so far, you don't want to be confused with the facts, your mind is already made up.




Too bad the 1% proves the exact opposite of what your religion claims. http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/arch/mexchron.html#LPC


How can 1% of the evidence show anything. My house is 1972 square feed. 1% would be 19.72 square feet. Can yo tell me the size of the garage, if that 19 comes from the bathroom? Can you tell me how many bedrooms in the house, if that 1% comes from the kitchen? 1% doesn't show much and is not a good view into the history that it is suppose to show.





:rofl: I can't believe this came from the Mormon side!! You expect us to believe that a million man war was fought and that there were practicing Jews in the Meso-American region when there is absolutely NO evidence that a monsterous Hebrew civilization existed, and in fact, the existing cultures that were proven to be there at the time in question, were completely silent if Jews did exist in such a large number. Anyone with the slightest understanding of linguistics would know that over a large span of time, language changes. So either Joseph Smith paraphrased the plates in his own words, contradicting the witnesses, or he copied word for word what was on the source and the Nephites defied all other human history in maintaining a pure language that did not change over hundreds of years.

First, where does the text of the BoM actual say what you claim here?

Second, the BoM points out that their language changed and the Reformed Egyptian (their word not mine) was changed accordingly. And you really don't understand poetical forms. Isaiah used chaismus in his writings. And the authors of the Gospels also used it. How many years that that cover? You are sounding more and more desperate.




Has Welch's research been peer reviewed?

Yes. He has made a presentation on Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon to the Thirteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem in August of 2001. He has presented his study of chiamus to Jewish organizations in Boston.

But again, you are sounding desperate. Are the facts beginning to confuse you?


Has a competent, unbiased Hebrew scholar looked into it and determined it to be consistent with Hebrew Chiasmus?

Yes


Earl Wunderli did a marvelous critique of the supposed chiasmus in Alma 36 and proves the chiasmus is contrived and stretched to fit.

And that has been responded to and rebutted twice.



Wunderli proved using Welch's own criteria that Alma 36 is not a "complex and deep" chiasmus. He says:

Indeed, nearly every element can be challenged as being arbitrarily selected to create symmetry, ignoring equally important text, combining different clauses to create elements, being out of sequence, relying on a word for a match and ignoring the substance, adding words to create a better match, or ignoring better matches for elements that are out of sequence.

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/e2.pdf





Chiasmus involves both types.

Not Hebriac chaismus. The center is always the whole point of that structure. But in the 19th century the opposite was thought to be true. Not until interest in chaismus picked up on the last part of the first half of the 20th century did they realize that the center of the chiastic structure was the whole point of the form.



See critique above.

Seen and disregarded.



No, that is a false statement. Your church has refused to accept that it is a 19th century document. Any evidence brought against it is either spun mercilessly by FARMS/FAIR or totally ignored and handwaved as rumor.

Then it should be no problem for you, by yourself and without any additional research, to find and point out the evidence of the 19th century document that it is.






I've been examining it for the past 5 years. And the more I examine, the more I come to realize it is in no way authentic.

Easy to do if you disregard the real evidence.






And you refuse to address the point that chiasmus is found in other writings by Joseph Smith. He knew the form and used it repeatedly.

It doesn't matter if chaismus is present in other writing, by Joseph Smith or others. The fact of the matter is, it is present in the BoM at a time when little or nothing was known about the form. And it is present in a depth and a complexity that shows that it is no random occurence and comes from a culture that is quite familiar with the use of this poetical form. You keep referring to bit and pieces, but you have never examined how entire books in the BoM are constructed with this form. You are desperately trying to ignore the evidence that contradicts your paradigm. Don't wait for God to show you. Then it will be too late.

Marvin


[QUOTE=Bill the Cat]

[Krusader]

I have been to Gettsburg - as anyone who has been there knows, artifacts abound. Buttons, for instance from uniforms, can still be detected with metal detectors.

Maybe we could detect some of those Nephite steel swords if we knew where to look.

[Johnny MacManky]

Hi Revivalfire,

The St. James Ossuary is an unfortunate example, I would suggest dropping it from your index file. If you google news for james ossuary (http://news.google.com/news?q=james%20ossuary&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=wn), or consider a site (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm) like this, you'll see the ossuary probably has no real tie to the brother of our Lord. I am disappointed too.

Hi,

I have to agree that the inscription on the James Ossuary is sadly a fake. I have the book 'The Brother of Jesus' by Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III. HarperCollins, New York 2003, which was written prior to the hoax being exposed.

I can't remember the details, but it was to do with some kind of algae growth on the stone below and above the inscription which demonstrated that the inscription was a recent one. I also seem to remember the 'antiques' dealer involved was discovered to have a hoard of fake archaeological goods and I think he was subsequently convicted.

Cheers

John

[Krusader]

Hi,

I have to agree that the inscription on the James Ossuary is sadly a fake. I have the book 'The Brother of Jesus' by Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III. HarperCollins, New York 2003, which was written prior to the hoax being exposed.

I can't remember the details, but it was to do with some kind of algae growth on the stone below and above the inscription which demonstrated that the inscription was a recent one. I also seem to remember the 'antiques' dealer involved was discovered to have a hoard of fake archaeological goods and I think he was subsequently convicted.

Cheers

John

Now, if we could only find an ossuary for any Nephite or Lamanite or any manner of ites, I might listen to FARMS. So far, nada,nada, nada.

[Bill the Cat]

How many battlefields have you seen?

I live in Richmond, VA...ever heard of it? THere are revolutionary war and Civil war sites all around. My wife had one in her back yard growing up.


Ever been to Gettysburg? Where is the evidence, besides the cemetary, of that battle? You gotta look real careful to find anything. And it helps if you have read the history.

That's just plain stupid. I refuse to interact with that comment.




And yet for years, the scholars thought that the natives of Central America were peaceful. It was only in the last half of the last century, that they had to change their minds. And that because they began to interpret the gylphs and realized the number of battles that they talked about. And yet, they were thought to be a peaceful people. Reality kinda slaps you in the face doesn't it?

That in no way answers what I said. Regardless of what the scholars thought of the warfare, the artifacts pointed to warfare. They now know that warfare did happen at the time the BOM events supposedly took place, yet the scholars know that none of the artifacts found can support the BOM. The Mayans were there before the fictional "Lehi" made the journey. The city of Teotihuacan existed smack dab in the middle of the Meso-American area, and existed until 800 AD. Teotihuacan dominated the region and had no rival... and guess what? It exists today and it was known to have human sacrifices and pagan rituals. There was no Jewish temple. There are no Jewish artifacts. The region purported to be the BOM lands are silent on the existence of what the BOM says should have been there. Do you think that Teotihuacan could have missed a large city like Zarahemla? Or a large population that was as wealthy as the Nephites were?

Maybe the BOM lands were surrounded by an invisible shield making it impossible to be seen by the largest people group in the area.


And where to you get the idea that we actuall speak the ancient languages of Central America? And how would you know if we found a city mentioned in the BoM? What is your criteria? What are your rules? How would you recognize a city that is mentioned in the BoM? Share with us the criteria that you have established for making this judgement. Inquiring minds want to know.

Evidence of the people that founded it existing before the imaginary journey began. The major cities found from that time are all Mayan and Zoque.

A link between the Olmecs and the Maya seems to be the Zoque people who lived there and spoke a Mixe-Zoquean language that has a common origin with Mayan
http://www.san.beck.org/11-1-Mayans,Aztecs,Incas.html





That is a great one. A fictional work is used to quote a fictional person about finding an imaginary treasure. You have a rather loose standard of truth.

It was useful for my purpose. It made the point for me. And it is better than a fictional work supposedly found as a fictional treasure and pushed as a real work.



Considering that only 1% of what is at present know to exist in Central and South American has been examined, there is still 99% of what is known the needs to be examined. And then there would have to be an examination of what is underneath. For a man of faith, you rely on the arm of flesh an awful lot. Can you say, built upon the sand?

:yack: What tripe. MesoAmerican archaeology is a strong field of study and has been for decades. While there have been some needs to adjust thinking in certain areas, the overall premise is firm. The Mayans were the dominany group in the period the events of the BOM supposedly happened. The known evidence on the Mayans is completely contradictory to the characteristics of the "nephites" described in the BOM.

I rely on evidence, which is the root of true faith. And you need to know what real "faith" is... http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html

Please read the link this time instead of dismissing it. I have read each link you have offered me.



I seem to recall a playwright named William Shakespeare who seems to have a few plays that are still being performed as well as a couple sonnets that people are still finding of value



We don't speak so differently that we have discarded Shakespeare. And most scholars recognize the contributions of those from the Elizabethean to the arts. I think that if any one deserves a laugh, it would be your who seem pretty ignorant of just who's shoulders wer are standing on. .

That's not the point. The point is that if someone were to write a narrative today, they would not use Elizabethan 16th century English. Even some of the letters are different today than they were then. Your contention is that the BOM perfectly preserves a literary style for over 500 years without any language shift from being absent from the original culture. That is a laugh at best.



And yet, Chaucer was using poetical forms that Shakespeare improved upon and that are still in use today. Newton wrote the first thesis on calculus in latin and yet we are still reading latin and calculus is still used to plot the paths of satellites and rockets to the planets.

And there are dramatic differences between Chaucer's style and Shakespeare's.



Your desperation is showing. You refuse the examine the larger structures that are present in the BoM and keep insisting that the smaller structures are just randomo occurences. Hardly possible, when an entire book is built upon the chaistic structure.

I already showed via the argument from Wunderli that the "chiastic" pattern in Alma 36 is forced, and Dan Vogel cited a BYU student's (Shipp) thesis examining the chiastic patterns in the D&C and in Jo Smith's personal writings.


And I suppose that you believe that the Biblical chiamus structure is also random. And without any significance?


:sigh: in some places, yes. it was unintentional based on the subject being discussed.




You sound really desperate in this one.


Non-answer. The styles and genres of the Bible are different. That is proven fact. There is no desperation in pointing out facts.



Can you point out any?

The French word Adieu for one...




Its a little hard to write in the 19th century using terms from the 21st century. Or do you mean something else?


The 19th century terms should not have been available to Moroni, Nephi, and the other fictitious authors.



I suppose that the evidence of Hebrew sentence structure is just as random to you as chiamus?

I have yet to find any agreement from any non-LDS scholar that the parts not plaigiarized from the 1611 KJV contain true Hebrew sentence structure.


Another show of desperation. This thread is becoming quite a bore. You make empty assertions and back it up with nothing. When I make assertions you never ask for the evidence. Are you afraid of the evidence? Are you afraid that if you ask me for the evidence that I will actually produce it? Unless and until you actually examine the evidence and show me why you make such statements, there is no reason to continue this thread. I have the evidence and can show it to you. But it will do no good unless you are going to examine it. And from what I have read from you so far, you don't want to be confused with the facts, your mind is already made up.

The facts are readily available on the Internet. I have been having this type of discussion for years now and have seen nearly every argument you have used. I have probably read every article Jeff Lindsey has on his site and a large chunk of FARMS material. My mind is made up, you are correct, but my mind is buttressed by facts.



How can 1% of the evidence show anything. My house is 1972 square feed. 1% would be 19.72 square feet. Can yo tell me the size of the garage, if that 19 comes from the bathroom? Can you tell me how many bedrooms in the house, if that 1% comes from the kitchen? 1% doesn't show much and is not a good view into the history that it is suppose to show.

That 1% shows that a structure was there at the time it was said to come from. It also shows that a warehouse was not there on the site, but a residence. Lots of empiracle data can come from that 1% and some pretty strong conclusions can be made. If you didn't flush for years, then I'd be able to tell the structure was inhabited, what you ate, if you drank enough water... and that's just from the toilet. If I found a burqua in the hamper, I'd be able to surmise your religion. If I found a razor, I could use DNA to tell what race you were, whether you were male or female, and if you had any bloodborn diseases. So I can tell a reasonable amount of who lived there, what they lived like, and other social factors.




First, where does the text of the BoM actual say what you claim here?



As Mormon looked at the tens of thousands who had been killed, he cried out:



Considering that (conservatively) twenty-five percent of the population were either "foreign born" or children of immigrants, it is reasonable that more than 490,000 people were living in the Nephite and Lamanite areas by 150 B.C. (more than enough to accommodate the thousands of dead mentioned in Mosiah 9:18-19).51 It is also plausible that more than seven million people were alive at the time of Jesus Christ's mortal ministry.52 Even assuming only a "tithe" of survivors (more than 700,000) of the catastrophes described in 3 Nephi 8-11, a population of up to 100 million by AD 350 is not beyond reason. This figure is more than sufficient to sustain the hundreds of thousands of Nephite dead during the "Battle of Cumorah."53



Second, the BoM points out that their language changed and the Reformed Egyptian (their word not mine) was changed accordingly. And you really don't understand poetical forms. Isaiah used chaismus in his writings. And the authors of the Gospels also used it. How many years that that cover? You are sounding more and more desperate.


Again, you assume intentional use by the NT writers writing in Greek.




Yes. He has made a presentation on Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon to the Thirteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem in August of 2001. He has presented his study of chiamus to Jewish organizations in Boston.

I read up a bit more on him, and yes, he has done some recognized work on Chiasmus. However, none of my research shows anyone agreeing with

Even Welch and others at FARMS are beginning to admit that most of the evidence for chiasmus is contrived and ultimately does not prove a Hebrew origin for the Book of Mormon. See John W. Welch, "What Does Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon Prove?" in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1997), 199-224.
http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/reply.htm


And that has been responded to and rebutted twice.

By the Edwards numbskulls? The work I cited was Wunderli's second response to them. Did you even bother to read it?



Not Hebriac chaismus. The center is always the whole point of that structure. But in the 19th century the opposite was thought to be true. Not until interest in chaismus picked up on the last part of the first half of the 20th century did they realize that the center of the chiastic structure was the whole point of the form.


Again, see Vogel's proof that Welch admits the evidence is contrived.



Seen and disregarded.

Any you accuse ME of ignoring evidence?



Then it should be no problem for you, by yourself and without any additional research, to find and point out the evidence of the 19th century document that it is.


Its been done many times. You just refuse to see it. You are blinded by your "burning in the bosom" and can't see that the evidence is there. There is no evidence of any wealthy civilization other than the Mayans in that era, and they controlled the whole land.



Easy to do if you disregard the real evidence.

I have interacted with the supposed "evidence" which is admitted to be contrived.



It doesn't matter if chaismus is present in other writing, by Joseph Smith or others.

It shows that he knew how to use it.


The fact of the matter is, it is present in the BoM at a time when little or nothing was known about the form. And it is present in a depth and a complexity that shows that it is no random occurence and comes from a culture that is quite familiar with the use of this poetical form.

Bull. It was contrived, stretched, and rebutted satisfactorily.


You keep referring to bit and pieces, but you have never examined how entire books in the BoM are constructed with this form. You are desperately trying to ignore the evidence that contradicts your paradigm. Don't wait for God to show you. Then it will be too late.


The evidence that contradicts my paradigm has been refuted. And God has shown me that the BOM is a fake and the followers are blinded by Joseph Smith. Like a neon burning bush.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I now see why John Powell became an atheist. This Mormon "apologetics" is so laughable I too would scoff at anything claiming faith.

[Sparko]

But Bill, everyone knows that there is archeology that supports the BoM, it is just being suppressed by "THEM."

:yes:

[RussianWolfe]

And God has shown me that the BOM is a fake and the followers are blinded by Joseph Smith. Like a neon burning bush.

As I have pointed out before, God does and will not show you the falsity of anything. He is a God of Truth. He will witness to the truth. If you feel that you had an answer from God that something was false, it was not from the God of Truth.

Marvin

[Sparko]

As I have pointed out before, God does and will not show you the falsity of anything. He is a God of Truth. He will witness to the truth. If you feel that you had an answer from God that something was false, it was not from the God of Truth.

Marvin
:clueless:

Wow. Sorry, but that's about the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Ever actually READ the New Testament? Do you recall Jesus telling the Pharisees they were wrong (i.e. false?) or correcting the misunderstandings of his apostles? Or in the old testament, God railing against the false gods and idols of the pagans?

[Krusader]

Marvin, you said:

"As I have pointed out before, God does and will not show you the falsity of anything."

Then, Marvin, how is it possible that Elohim and Jesus showed your prophet, Joseph, the falsity of all the Christian denominations?

[DesertBerean]

As I have pointed out before, God does and will not show you the falsity of anything. He is a God of Truth. He will witness to the truth. If you feel that you had an answer from God that something was false, it was not from the God of Truth.

Marvin :stunned: Not even if one feels the "burning in the bosum"? Nevermind all the instances in the Bible where God showed his people the falseness of their ways. Methinks you need to rephrase that.

[Johnny MacManky]

Now, if we could only find an ossuary for any Nephite or Lamanite or any manner of ites, I might listen to FARMS. So far, nada,nada, nada.

Ooooh, you are naughty. Now, for the present I can't really offer anything too serious to this thread.

I just did a google on "LDS" AND "archaeology". Guess what? Yes, I've found evidence of genuine verifiable archaeological incestigations (sorry, that should read inVestigations... genuine typo, but it made me titter) concerning:



Archaeology at the Boyhood Home of Joseph Smith, Jr.
Palmyra, New York by Dale L. Berge
Item #1731700
The results of archaeological investigations on the farm of Joseph Smith Sr. in Palmyra, situated in the finger lakes region of western New York, provide another perspective of the boyhood home-site of Joseph Smith Jr., where he lived between the ages of fourteen and twenty-five years (1819 1830).

The goals of this archaeological project as recorded in this publication are as follows:
(1) Locate the remains of the log home occupied by the Smith family during the 1820s.
(2) Determine what the log home may have looked like according to the archaeological evidence and construction techniques employed at the time.
(3) Identify the types of domestic, farm, or other items used by the family.
(4) Examine the possible socioeconomic nature of the Smith family suggested by the material culture and historical documents.
$12.00
http://www.byubookstore.com/ePOS/this_category=123&store=439&item_number=1731700&form=shared3/gm/detail.html&design=439


So, it looks like archaeology might just be able to support the claim that Joseph Smith jnr was a historical figure.... and I had the cheek to call you naughty!

Cheers

John

[Krusader]

Ooooh, you are naughty. Now, for the present I can't really offer anything too serious to this thread.

I just did a google on "LDS" AND "archaeology". Guess what? Yes, I've found evidence of genuine verifiable archaeological incestigations (sorry, that should read inVestigations... genuine typo, but it made me titter) concerning:



Archaeology at the Boyhood Home of Joseph Smith, Jr.
Palmyra, New York by Dale L. Berge
Item #1731700
The results of archaeological investigations on the farm of Joseph Smith Sr. in Palmyra, situated in the finger lakes region of western New York, provide another perspective of the boyhood home-site of Joseph Smith Jr., where he lived between the ages of fourteen and twenty-five years (1819 1830).

The goals of this archaeological project as recorded in this publication are as follows:
(1) Locate the remains of the log home occupied by the Smith family during the 1820s.
(2) Determine what the log home may have looked like according to the archaeological evidence and construction techniques employed at the time.
(3) Identify the types of domestic, farm, or other items used by the family.
(4) Examine the possible socioeconomic nature of the Smith family suggested by the material culture and historical documents.
$12.00
http://www.byubookstore.com/ePOS/this_category=123&store=439&item_number=1731700&form=shared3/gm/detail.html&design=439


So, it looks like archaeology might just be able to support the claim that Joseph Smith jnr was a historical figure.... and I had the cheek to call you naughty!

Cheers

John

Hi John,

Yes, and in investigating the farm animals on Smith's homestead, perhaps they'll come up with verification that these mythical cureloms and cumoms actually existed:

"And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants, and cureloms, and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants, and cureloms, and cumoms" (Ether 9:19).

Apparently prophet Smith was the only human who ever lived who actually was able to ascertain their identity.

[Sparko]

They had ELEPHANTS??? How did they even get elephants?

[Bill the Cat]

They had ELEPHANTS??? How did they even get elephants?
On the Jarredite Ark, silly...

[Krusader]

It's a little known fact that elephants inhabit Guatemala. Mormon archeologists will be putting out a research paper soon on this subject, right after they finish the one proving that Reformed Egyptian appears on Mayan temple walls.

[Sparko]

I can't wait for a mormon to say the elephant is such an obvious mistake that it must be true.

[Krusader]

I can't wait for a mormon to say the elephant is such an obvious mistake that it must be true.

Or, that elephant is really a code word for antelope.

[RussianWolfe]

:stunned: Not even if one feels the "burning in the bosum"? Nevermind all the instances in the Bible where God showed his people the falseness of their ways. Methinks you need to rephrase that.

Show me the scriptures where 'God showed his people the falseness of their ways.' What you are probably referring to was a living prophets speaking out against the wickness of their day.

I don't need to rephrase anything. The statement was that God had shown her that the CoJCoLDS was false. I response was that God does not show the falseness of anything because he is a God of truth.

A burning in the bosom is a sign of truth. A stupor of thought is a sign that you are wrong, not the falseness of anything.

Marvin

[Bill the Cat]

Show me the scriptures where 'God showed his people the falseness of their ways.'


Jer 14:14 Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.

Jer 23:32 Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD

Zec 10:2 For the idols have spoken vanity, and the diviners have seen a lie, and have told false dreams; they comfort in vain: therefore they went their way as a flock, they were troubled, because there was no shepherd.




What you are probably referring to was a living prophets speaking out against the wickness of their day.

I don't need to rephrase anything. The statement was that God had shown her that the CoJCoLDS was false. I response was that God does not show the falseness of anything because he is a God of truth.

See verses above

[Coyotl]

well, if someone is false and God shows them the falseness of their ways... he's showing them truth (the truth being that the they are false) silly... God won't show you something false... but he will show you something is false... because that’s the truth ;-) rap your mind around it, it’ll make sense

anyways, what about Nihm or Nahom.. a site only referred to in the book of Mormon. It was discovered recently near Jerusalem, there no records or evidence of its existence until the actual site was discovered in 1999, how did it find it’s way into a book produced almost 200 years earlier?

Not only that but it’s location is about where it should have been according to the BoM.

[John Powell]

I now see why John Powell became an atheist. This Mormon "apologetics" is so laughable I too would scoff at anything claiming faith.


POWELL:
You give me too much credit.

Based on a heavy pro-Mormon bias and rather sketchy reading of opposing views, as a believing Mormon I was convinced that Mormonism was in a superior position apologetics-wise than the competitors. I have come to realize that the competition is in a lot better shape than I had thought, but it's not as good as the competitors think it is. Special pleading is a recurring problem.

I'm out of here.

John Powell

[Bill the Cat]

well, if someone is false and God shows them the falseness of their ways... he's showing them truth (the truth being that the they are false) silly... God won't show you something false... but he will show you something is false... because that’s the truth ;-) rap your mind around it, it’ll make sense

The verse I quoted in in Jeremiah was not showing someone the falseness of their own ways, but showing the Jews the falseness of someone else claiming to be prophets.


anyways, what about Nihm or Nahom.. a site only referred to in the book of Mormon. It was discovered recently near Jerusalem, there no records or evidence of its existence until the actual site was discovered in 1999, how did it find it’s way into a book produced almost 200 years earlier?

First, you beg the question. The fact that the name Nahum is in the Bible is sufficient evidence to prove that Joseph Smith knew of it. But your insistence that it was unknown is wrong. Even the "Nephi project" says so


The existence of the name NHM (tribal or otherwise) has been attested in the West since Carsten Niebuhr published his two studies (a) Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und den umliegenden Ländern which appeared in one volume in 1772, and (b) Beschreibung von Arabien, a three-volume work on his ill-fated expedition to Arabia (these three volumes appeared successively in 1774, 1778 and 1837). In 1792 Robert Heron published a two-volume translation of Niebuhr’s first work titled Niebuhr’s Travels through Arabia and Other Countries in the East. This translation was published again in 1799. The Arabic-speaking world, of course, could appeal to the description of the Arabian peninsula by geographers such as Al-Hamd~n§ whose work bore the title in Arabic Sifat Jaz§rat al-‘Arab (Al-Hamd~n§ was born about A.D. 893/AH. 280). The parts of Al-Hamd~n§’s geographical writings which survived to modern times became available in the west through the efforts of D. H. Müller in the late 1880s. Al-Hamd~n§ spent a period of time in the territory of the NHM tribe and thus knew it well, writing of it frequently.


Not only that but it’s location is about where it should have been according to the BoM.

The locations in the BOM are so vague, it could have been anywhere in the Arabian Peninsula.


12 And it came to pass that we did take our tents and depart into the wilderness, across the river Laman.

13 And it came to pass that we traveled for the space of four days, nearly a south-southeast direction, and we did pitch our tents again; and we did call the name of the place Shazer•.

14 And it came to pass that we did take our bows and our arrows, and go forth into the wilderness to slay food for our families; and after we had slain food for our families we did return again to our families in the wilderness, to the place of Shazer. And we did go forth again in the wilderness, following the same direction, keeping in the most fertile parts of the wilderness, which were in the borders near the Red• Sea.

15 And it came to pass that we did travel for the space of many days, slaying• food by the way, with our bows and our arrows and our stones and our slings.

17 And after we had traveled for the space of many days, we did pitch our tents for the space of a time, that we might again rest ourselves and obtain food for our families.

33 And it came to pass that we did again take our journey, traveling nearly the same course as in the beginning; and after we had traveled for the space of many days we did pitch our tents again, that we might tarry for the space of a time.

34 And it came to pass that Ishmael• died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom•.


"many days" :ahem:

[Coyotl]

First, you beg the question. The fact that the name Nahum is in the Bible is sufficient evidence to prove that Joseph Smith knew of it. But your insistence that it was unknown is wrong. Even the "Nephi project" says so

Nahum =/= nahom

the man Nahom in the bible(1 Chronicles 4:19) is not related to the site... Nahom.. or Nihm (the tribe it was named after) the name of the site does draw its literal meaning from hebrew, the hebrew behind the word means sorrow, hunger, consoling, and mourning... rather appropriate for a burial site

the factual existence, location, and nature of the site was unknown, untill 1995-1999

[Bill the Cat]

Nahum =/= nahom

the man Nahom in the bible(1 Chronicles 4:19)

There is a whole book called Nahum. It is right before Habakkuk. That is what I am saying Joseph Smith used. He had a habit of using names and words found in the 1611 KJV Bible, like Nephi from 2 Maccabees.


is not related to the site... Nahom.. or Nihm (the tribe it was named after) the name of the site does draw its literal meaning from hebrew,

Question begging that the tribe that the inscription came from, simply NHM, not Nihm or Nahom, or anything else, just NHM, was a Hebrew word. The script of the inscription was not Hebrew nor Egyptian. It was Southern Arabian, so any philological connection begs the question of connection to Hebrew.


the hebrew behind the word means sorrow, hunger, consoling, and mourning... rather appropriate for a burial site

Too bad it was not a Hebrew burial site. Again, question begging.


the factual existence, location, and nature of the site was unknown, untill 1995-1999

The name NHM was well attested in 1772, admitted by S. Kent Brown http://nephiproject.com/on__nahom.htm

[LivniHaNetzari]

by the way james' ossuary has been proven a forgery

[Bill the Cat]

by the way james' ossuary has been proven a forgery
Livni, are you a theist?

[DesertBerean]

Show me the scriptures where 'God showed his people the falseness of their ways.' What you are probably referring to was a living prophets speaking out against the wickness of their day.

I don't need to rephrase anything. The statement was that God had shown her that the CoJCoLDS was false. I response was that God does not show the falseness of anything because he is a God of truth.

A burning in the bosom is a sign of truth. A stupor of thought is a sign that you are wrong, not the falseness of anything.

Marvin Sorry I missed your response. BTC has given good examples of God exposing false prophets. So I'll address the other part - the burning in the bosom.

God never said that our faith was to be based on feelings. It was to be a intellegent, knowing response to what he had done for us and what he has shown us about himself ("Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul"). Of course some people respond to the Gospel emotionally, and that's OK; but Scripture tells us we strengthen our faith by reasoning and by experiencing God's mercy in our lives. I agree with your condemnation of "stupor of thought" only becuase we Christians are expected to know what we believe.

The archelogical finds in the Mideast of cultures that existed thousands of years before the supposed "exodus" to the new World, as compared to the dearth of evidence of civilization even remotely resembling the Mideastern culture here in the New World, speaks to me more than any "burning in the bosum".

[LivniHaNetzari]

Livni, are you a theist?

Of course, but I don't need to use verifiably false archaeology to justify my faith in G'd. The man responsable for the forgery is facing prison.
Also, Ya'akov HaTzaddik (James the Just) besides the Ribi Yehoshua HaNetzari is one of the most important figures of early first century history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary
More info there.

[Bill the Cat]

Of course, but I don't need to use verifiably false archaeology to justify my faith in G'd. The man responsable for the forgery is facing prison.
Also, Ya'akov HaTzaddik (James the Just) besides the Ribi Yehoshua HaNetzari is one of the most important figures of early first century history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary
More info there.
Ok, just had to make sure. This area of the forum is for theists only. Since you have not declared a faith tag in your profile, I needed to ask as a mod.

Thanks for the clarification.