The burden of proof


Recommended Posts

That's awesome. I don't count that as just a small change, I think it's a very significant step for you.

If you'd like a really good presentation on evidence for the B of M, I can send you a DVD titled "DNA Evidence for Book of Mormon Geography" by Rodney Meldrum (BookofMormonEvidence.org), maybe as an early or late (whichever applies) birthday present. :) It talks about many different things, not just about the DNA stuff. P.M. me your address and I'll send that to you.

Thank you for the gesture, but I am somewhat skeptical of sources that set out to prove something and already have a vested interest in it being true or false. I don't go reading much anti-LDS literature because they are often misleading to further their own agenda. By the same token however, pro-LDS sources have a tendency to be misleading as well to further their own agenda. I like to get the facts for myself and make my own judgements rather than view strongly biased (in either way) material that tends to only give half the story.

I have found that when you set out to find evidence reaffirming a belief that you already hold, you tend to find that evidence whether it is truly there or not and ignore anything that may point to the contrary. That is what I found particularly fascinating about Thor Heyerdahl. He seems to have independently found reinforcing evidence to the Book of Mormon without first specifically looking for it.

I will watch the video though if you are still willing to send it. I am curious what evidence it presents, since most of the arguments about DNA studies and the Book of Mormon go along the lines of "they don't prove anything" rather than "this supports the claims in the Book of Mormon". My dad works very much with genetics, so I am more well versed in the techniques and what they actually point to than most people.

I have to go to lunch now, but I'll PM you afterwards :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is so little we know about ancient America at this point. It is quite clear from what we do know that there was war, politics, religion, and vibrant civilizations that just seemed to mysteriously vanish. Of the languages and scripts of Mesoamerica only Mayan script has been deciphered, which although not related to ancient Egyptian, has been described as Egyptian-like hyroglyphics (source). Which is amazing in itself, considering the fact that the Book of Mormon claims that their prophets wrote an adapted Hebrew with a script that was based on a form of Egyptian that was modified to fit their needs. Obviously Mayan doesn't prove anything, but more and more evidence like that is coming forth that seems to make ol' Joe Smith's claims a little less crazy.

From your source:

I think your intepretation is a little bit misleading. The explorers probably only related it to Egyptian writing because that was the most well known writing system to them that used glyphs. Functionally it is more similar to the modern japanese writing system.

I think my interpretation was honest. I wasn't saying that Mayan was this reformed Eqyptian, I was simply pointing out that it's plausible that such a script existed in ancient America based on what we know of the Mayan script. My point is that what the Book of Mormon claims is not that far out any more because of what we now know that they didn't know scientifically back then.

Also, why would a people completely abandon their old writing system and start using a new one? Why aren't there any writings from the old world found in the Americas?

There are a variety of reasons why languages and writing systems change, depending on a lot of factors. The last person to actually write into the plates that Jospeh Smith eventually received was Moroni. He was the son of Mormon, who was the ancient historian/prophet that compiled most of the record from various sources available to him. Here's what Moroni said:

And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof. (Mormon 9:32-34)

So, the main reason was to save space. Simple as that. From these scriptures it is evident that the common tongue of the writers was a modified Hebrew, which after 1000 years of being separated from the lands of Jerusalem, is not that unreasonable. However, the prophets and keepers of the sacred records from which the BoM was derived, had developed a script specifically for the task. They used as a base the Egyptian script, which was known by Nephi through his father Lehi (the original authors of the plates). The first three verses in the BoM were penned by Nephi about 600 B.C. Here's what he wrote:

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.

Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge. (1 Ne. 1:1-3)

I've noticed quite a persecution complex when it comes to Mormons. The fact is that many scientists don't even know what LDS stands for or what Mormons believe in let alone resist evidence that might confirm it. Before I came to Utah 3 years ago I didn't even know those commercials that were on late at night talking about "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" had anything to do with those Mormons I heard lived in Utah and I certainly had no idea about your beliefs on the origins of Native Americans.

Firstly, my statement had nothing to do with persecution. It was about the implications of a single proof of the Book of Mormon as a historical record. I hope my point didn't slip by because of your haste.

Secondly, we were persecuted, and driven, and our prophet was murdered. Our temple was burned and we fled to a barren land high on the mountain tops, where after a while our rights to worship and live our lives was challenged. From day one there has been serious opposition to us. I grew up in Mississippi and Louisiana where most of my friends were taught in Sunday school that the Mormons were of the devil. So, yes, some might have a persecution complex, but I don't, and that is not what my comments were about.

The specifics could have been left out so that it is vague enough to not easily be "proven" false, or because there would then be a greater burden on the people who do not accept the Book of Mormon. Again, I find this convenient reasoning, but will give it the benifet of the doubt and wait for my own testimony.

In the process of it. Talked to some missionaries yesterday.

Right on! I'm glad to hear that. Read the Book of Mormon, and really study and pray about it. I think it will be hard for you to explain it as a book written by Joseph Smith, or any one man. You will find that the author of it's message is in fact, God.

Regards,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friend - EVERYONE has an agenda one way or the other. There is no such thing as impartial opinion. It is the nature of the human being to make discriminating choices every day. It is called frameworks, value system, cognitive filters, philosophy of life, etc. The glass thru which we go about seeing the universe.

That is why ALL data is suspect. Because we can question the sample from which is was collected, or the methodology used to collect it or who the collector was or how it was organized and, last but not least what we ultimately hope to find in the data. Without a theory, at least, it is impossible to visualize anything from a data set.

Your questioning is very old, your argument is also ages old and your approach dates from 1830. You either have researchers that do not give a carrot about the BoM or those who do. Out of those who do they are either trying to present some kind of evidence for or against the BoM. The list is very short.

The sooner you make up your mind about what it is that you are looking for in the forum and in regards to the BoM the sooner you can actually get in the way of achieving that goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tomk

Friend - EVERYONE has an agenda one way or the other. There is no such thing as impartial opinion. It is the nature of the human being to make discriminating choices every day. It is called frameworks, value system, cognitive filters, philosophy of life, etc. The glass thru which we go about seeing the universe.

That is why ALL data is suspect. Because we can question the sample from which is was collected, or the methodology used to collect it or who the collector was or how it was organized and, last but not least what we ultimately hope to find in the data. Without a theory, at least, it is impossible to visualize anything from a data set.

Your questioning is very old, your argument is also ages old and your approach dates from 1830. You either have researchers that do not give a carrot about the BoM or those who do. Out of those who do they are either trying to present some kind of evidence for or against the BoM. The list is very short.

The sooner you make up your mind about what it is that you are looking for in the forum and in regards to the BoM the sooner you can actually get in the way of achieving that goal.

Perhaps the promise given in Moroni is the BEST, SHORTEST route to an answer. Maybe that is why God provided that way, instead of some other way, for example, waiting for the advent of DNA testing or Archaelogical digs. Perhaps the reason a witness that did NOT rely upon the scientific method is the one that is encouraged is because that is not the most effective or desired way to receive a witness.

Speaking from experience, the witness is very strong. Leaves NO doubt during. The doubt comes after.

Reminds me of:

1 Cor. 13: 12

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Book of Jasher has been around for ever. We have no real evidence of anything and other that being mentioned by Joshua and 2 Samuel some scholars believe it is a true Hebrew book. Most denominations do not care about it and most researcher all but have ignored the book.

I submit that you will have to become proficient in ancient Hebrew scripture and language in order to do your own translation to determine if the book is a truthful account and authentic. Further, since there is no other extant evidence of the book other than being mentioned twice in the bible you could not "conclusively" determine its authenticity.

Otherwise you WILL have to rely and observations, opinion and the criteria of others in order to "form" your own opinion of the material in question. Which will make your opinion not really original but the byproduct and thus potentially tainted in view of the fact that you relied on "others" to create your own.

So you see, God invites you to test and obtain from Him thru the Spirit ALL the evidence you need. The only difference is that He is asking for you to develop a skill that you currently lack; FAITH. You will not acquire any of it in any graduate program. The BoM is so unique in tis aspect that I wonder why most will not try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my interpretation was honest. I wasn't saying that Mayan was this reformed Eqyptian, I was simply pointing out that it's plausible that such a script existed in ancient America based on what we know of the Mayan script. My point is that what the Book of Mormon claims is not that far out any more because of what we now know that they didn't know scientifically back then.

There are a variety of reasons why languages and writing systems change, depending on a lot of factors. The last person to actually write into the plates that Jospeh Smith eventually received was Moroni. He was the son of Mormon, who was the ancient historian/prophet that compiled most of the record from various sources available to him. Here's what Moroni said:

And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof. (Mormon 9:32-34)

So, the main reason was to save space. Simple as that. From these scriptures it is evident that the common tongue of the writers was a modified Hebrew, which after 1000 years of being separated from the lands of Jerusalem, is not that unreasonable. However, the prophets and keepers of the sacred records from which the BoM was derived, had developed a script specifically for the task. They used as a base the Egyptian script, which was known by Nephi through his father Lehi (the original authors of the plates). The first three verses in the BoM were penned by Nephi about 600 B.C. Here's what he wrote:

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father; and having seen many afflictions in the course of my days, nevertheless, having been highly favored of the Lord in all my days; yea, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God, therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.

Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge. (1 Ne. 1:1-3)

I misread your intent with that statement a bit and I apologize, however I still don't see it as plausible that there would be no traces of hebrew or reformed egyptian writings anywhere in the Americas if the claims in the Book of Mormon are true. It is true that there are a variety of reasons that a language system changes, but no language system changes instantly after moving. Why wouldn't there be at least SOME signs of the progression?

Firstly, my statement had nothing to do with persecution. It was about the implications of a single proof of the Book of Mormon as a historical record. I hope my point didn't slip by because of your haste.

Secondly, we were persecuted, and driven, and our prophet was murdered. Our temple was burned and we fled to a barren land high on the mountain tops, where after a while our rights to worship and live our lives was challenged. From day one there has been serious opposition to us. I grew up in Mississippi and Louisiana where most of my friends were taught in Sunday school that the Mormons were of the devil. So, yes, some might have a persecution complex, but I don't, and that is not what my comments were about.

Firstly, I apologize if I have offended you. It sounded as if you were implying that scientists were disregarding evidence for the events of the Book of Mormon on account of their dislike toward Mormons which is entirely not true and apparently also not what you were saying.

Secondly, if you want to talk about persecution, try telling people you are an atheist sometime instead of a Mormon. I can tell you that atheists are far more hated in this country than Mormons, and if you want to talk about historical violence, just look into the days when the Catholic church ruled and non-believers could easily be legally put to death. Non-believers have been put to death and tortured since the dawn of civilization and the advent of religion.

Right on! I'm glad to hear that. Read the Book of Mormon, and really study and pray about it. I think it will be hard for you to explain it as a book written by Joseph Smith, or any one man. You will find that the author of it's message is in fact, God.

That has yet to be seen for me, I thank you for the encouragement though.

Again, I apologize for missing a lot of your intent. I will be sure to read posts more carefully in the future :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friend - EVERYONE has an agenda one way or the other. There is no such thing as impartial opinion. It is the nature of the human being to make discriminating choices every day. It is called frameworks, value system, cognitive filters, philosophy of life, etc. The glass thru which we go about seeing the universe.

I am well aware of that fact which is why I look at data from all sources, rather than choosing to be spoon-fed "facts" from people who have a vested interest in spinning evidence to make you believe the same way that they do. I've browsed anti-LDS sites and I've watched pro-LDS documentaries and I have found both rife with logical fallacies and intentionally misleading statements. Both truly believe their deceit is justified because it will lead their audience to a greater truth. I prefer to get information from people who don't really care one way or the other and make my own conclusions.

That is why ALL data is suspect. Because we can question the sample from which is was collected, or the methodology used to collect it or who the collector was or how it was organized and, last but not least what we ultimately hope to find in the data. Without a theory, at least, it is impossible to visualize anything from a data set.

I'm not talking about invalidating evidence because it is was led by a theory, I am talking about more strictly questioning evidence that is presented by someone who holds their belief as an absolute unquestionable truth. If their entire belief system would collapse upon finding out something did or didn't happen, I have to believe they are more likely to intentionally or unintentionally distort the evidence to prevent cognitive dissonance and I find it hard to believe they would be truly fair in presenting their "findings".

Your questioning is very old, your argument is also ages old and your approach dates from 1830. You either have researchers that do not give a carrot about the BoM or those who do. Out of those who do they are either trying to present some kind of evidence for or against the BoM. The list is very short.

Actually my questioning is even older than you suspsect. It dates back long before Christ to the origins of science and the scientific method when people actually started holding their beliefs to the test of reason, rather than allowing themselves to be ruled by superstition.

The sooner you make up your mind about what it is that you are looking for in the forum and in regards to the BoM the sooner you can actually get in the way of achieving that goal.

I'm looking for the truth, nothing more, nothing less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I misread your intent with that statement a bit and I apologize, however I still don't see it as plausible that there would be no traces of hebrew or reformed egyptian writings anywhere in the Americas if the claims in the Book of Mormon are true. It is true that there are a variety of reasons that a language system changes, but no language system changes instantly after moving. Why wouldn't there be at least SOME signs of the progression?

Well I don't think we are claiming that it changed instantly after moving. The reformed Egyptian was a deliberate script for the specific purpose of writing the plates. It is very unlikely that we will ever find any samples of that,. But, the language that was more natural to them, or common, was a form of Hebrew. When Moroni wrote that even their Hebrew had been modified by them (Mormon 9:32-34), he wrote that between 400 and 421 AD. Which means that over 1000 years had passed since Lehi and the crew sailed to America. Plenty of time for a language to change. Lehi and the crew left in such haste that they were not able to bring much literature with them. From the BoM we learn that they had a set of plates they brought from Jerusalem called the Brass Plates. It contained basically the Old Testament and helped them preserve the Hebrew language in addition to their religion. Nephi wrote:

And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records [brass plates], that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers; And also that we may preserve unto them the words which have been spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets, which have been delivered unto them by the Spirit and power of God, since the world began, even down unto this present time. (1 Ne. 3:19-20)

So, I have always felt that what we are really looking for is a derivative of Hebrew, if anything, in ancient America. There is so much to learn about America's past still, we have barely scratched the surface.

Firstly, if you want to talk about persecution, try telling people you are an atheist sometime instead of a Mormon. I can tell you that atheists are far more hated in this country than Mormons, and if you want to talk about historical violence, just look into the days when the Catholic church ruled and non-believers could easily be legally put to death. Non-believers have been put to death and tortured since the dawn of civilization and the advent of religion.

I'm sure atheist have had a hard time too.

Secondly, I apologize if I have offended you. It sounded as if you were implying that scientists were disregarding evidence for the events of the Book of Mormon on account of their dislike toward Mormons which is entirely not true and apparently also not what you were saying.

Oh don't worry about that. I don't feel like you have offended me.

It's not for their dislike of Mormons, but perhaps for the fear that any evidence that is proof, will not only prove that the Book of Mormon is true, but also that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Which would mean that there is a God, and we represent his kingdom on earth. All of that from just proving the Book of Mormon. Scientists and archaeologists are quite familiar with our claims, if you didn't know (see Response to the Smithsonian Institute Statement on the Book of Mormon).

That has yet to be seen for me, I thank you for the encouragement though.

Feel free to PM me if you have any questions or thoughts on what you are reading. I would very much be interested in what you think about the Book of Mormon content itself.

Again, I apologize for missing a lot of your intent. I will be sure to read posts more carefully in the future :)

No worries. I know you didn't mean any harm. Besides, you have multiple people to respond to and I only have one on this thread, so I can understand.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share