Book Of Mormon, Hoax?

[SortOfMormon]

How accurate is the Book Of Mormon? Is there any proof that anything in it really happened?

[WindRiver]

...

Edited April 20, 2010 by Gwen
per request

[mhansen]

How accurate is the Bible? Is there any PROOF that any of it really happened, other than someone named Jesus lived during that time? lol

Well, let's not be glib. This is something that I am struggling with as well. There is plenty of evidence for many, if not most, of the Biblical cities, civilizations, and historical events. What is debatable is the miraculous aspects of the texts--Jonah, Noah's Ark, the Resurrection, etc. When one puts their faith in the Biblical accounts, they know that there is at least something solid (the historical aspect) to stand upon.

However, as I read the Book of Mormon and I learn more about the Lehites I cannot help but wonder why I never learned about them in history class. LDS scholars continue to debate where in the Americas the BoM narrative takes place, how large an area it was, etc., without any conclusive archeological evidence. So, unlike the Bible, the BoM doesn't have a proven historical foundation.

Now, I'm not saying that that makes the BoM false, or a hoax, or whatever. However, I am being intellectually honest. If I am going to commit myself to the LDS faith, then I must find and be certain of the truth of the Book of Mormon. I'm just saying that, for me, it'll be hard to put my faith in a book that lacks any evidence beyond spiritual confirmation.

The ONLY way to know eternal truth is through personal revelation, a witness from the Holy Ghost.

Does this conflict with Paul's view that the pagans can discover the truth of God solely through logic and the majesty of His creation? Can't faith come through reason? Or are the two mutually exclusive?

[Palerider]

Here is a nice site for you to read....

Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility

[Mahone]

Here is a nice site for you to read....

Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility

Lol, looks like an interesting read. However I don't have a spare five hours to get through it at the moment, haha. The pure size of that article all on one webpage will put most people off, the author needs to cut it down into sizeable chunks on different pages, a bit like how they do it on howstuffworks.com

Edited July 25, 2009 by Mahone

[Palerider]

The whole web site is awesome....there is alot to read there.....I think it would do more harm than good to cut it down....there is alot of info there.

[volgadon]

Troy existed, does that mean that Aphrodite and Athena exist and are true gods?

The people and places of the Quraan existed, why aren't you a Muslim?

Jerusalem, the wilderness, the Red Sea, Arabia and America exist, therefore, by your logic, the BoM must be true.

Joseph Smith existed, the places associated with him existed, therefore he must be a true prophet.

Do you see how week your arguments are?

Biblical archaeology quite frequently contradicts the contents of the Bible.

Megiddo, according to archaeological finds, did not have even one stable, let alone 900.

There is utterly no evidence for the events of the entire book of Joshua.

Did you learn about the Yazids in school? Did you learn about Pugachev's Rebellion, about the Molochans, the Derevlyans, the Lemko and Hutsuls, the Mazurs, the Ismaiylians, the Alawi, the Arizal, the Shabetaens, the Druse, the Shepsug, the Kalmyks, and the list could go on and on.

What they don't teach in school literally fills volumes.

Why is a man recieving ancient records from an angel of the Lord and translating them through the gift and power of God harder to swallow than someone raising themselves from the dead and living in the heavens?

Truth, eternal truth, is not discovered by any other source than God himself. Blessed art thou for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee....

[volgadon]

Lol, looks like an interesting read. However I don't have a spare five hours to get through it at the moment, haha. The pure size of that article all on one webpage will put most people off, the author needs to cut it down into sizeable chunks on different pages, a bit like how they do it on howstuffworks.com

Start with one or two points.

[Elgama]

How accurate is the Book Of Mormon? Is there any proof that anything in it really happened?

if its a hoax - you tell me who wrote it? I can only think of one LDS member who may have been capable of doing it, and even then its doubtful. Love to hear which of the early members you think is most capable and what their qualifications are.

-Charley

[Moksha]

Proof can sometimes be found in possibilities. It is possible that during their voyage to the new world, Lehi and Company stopped at the Island of Comos (Cumorah) near the village of Moroni before sailing around Cape Horn and that both names got incorporated into the Reformed Egyptian list of possible names or else the already existing names became incorporated into the proto-Comoros language.

American Indian place names could well have sprung from the Lehite place names such as Oneida/Onidah, Rama/Ramah (and the rest of the Vernal Holley study) to their Book of Mormon counterparts.

Lehi and company traveled through the Arabian peninsula. This could serve as further proof that the proto-Arabic language had the place name Nahom through the Lehite usage.

These are all possibilities, but they may point the way to a larger truth.

:)

[tubaloth]

I am being intellectually honest. If I am going to commit myself to the LDS faith, then I must find and be certain of the truth of the Book of Mormon.

Isn't this a contradiction?

Having Faith is not having a complete knowledge of things.

It seems like thats what you want.

The Bible is true not because of the places existed on a map. Its true because of what it teaches and how it betters our life. IF all the stories where false (that Christ really wasn't the Son of God, then it doesn't matter how many places match up).

Proof with religion is kind of strange because the whole idea of trying to prove God! You can't, you just feel it in your life as you live. The same holds true with the Bible and the Book of Mormon (And the D & C, and Pear of Great price). Its how it brings us closer to God by follow its teachings! I mean if the Book of Mormon brings you just 1% closer to God, isn't that worth it? I mean if it teachings even just a little more truth about God and his Plan for us, isn't that worth it?

[rameumptom]

Here are more evidences from my website:

LDS Evidences - Life, the Universe, and Etcetera

[rameumptom]

Well, let's not be glib. This is something that I am struggling with as well. There is plenty of evidence for many, if not most, of the Biblical cities, civilizations, and historical events. What is debatable is the miraculous aspects of the texts--Jonah, Noah's Ark, the Resurrection, etc. When one puts their faith in the Biblical accounts, they know that there is at least something solid (the historical aspect) to stand upon.

This is comparing apples to oranges. The Bible lands have always historically been known on maps, the Americas (with or without the Book of Mormon) has not. As it is, even the Bible's history is flaky at times. Joshua did not bring down the walls of Jericho, as they were brought down 200 years before Joshua was in the area.

However, as I read the Book of Mormon and I learn more about the Lehites I cannot help but wonder why I never learned about them in history class. LDS scholars continue to debate where in the Americas the BoM narrative takes place, how large an area it was, etc., without any conclusive archeological evidence. So, unlike the Bible, the BoM doesn't have a proven historical foundation.

You are obviously reading anti-Mormon sites, as they are the only ones that say there is no proven historical foundation. There are locations that have been found in the past 20 years that align up perfectly with the Book of Mormon. The location Nahom, where Ishmael was buried, was recently discovered in the Arabian peninsula along the spice trade road - exactly where Nephi's travel description would put it. The place Nahom (or NHM) is a large burial location for travelers, dating back to Lehi's time. It was only recently discovered, so that becomes an impressive evidence.

The Arabian Bountiful was also recently discovered. Not known on maps in Joseph Smith's time, as it was usually enshrouded by fog, it has all the 20+ requirements for the location mentioned in 1 Nephi (nearby mountains with ore, cliffs against the sea, trees for building a ship, animals, etc). It is a small stretch of land, surrounded by desert and ocean.

Of course, in Central America, they have found towns with ancient names like Lamanai (which sounds like Laman or Lamoni, both Nephite names), along with others. So, there are many locations that have been found, IF you look for it in the right places. And anti-Mormon sites are NOT the right places, as they deny anything and everything Mormon.

Now, I'm not saying that that makes the BoM false, or a hoax, or whatever. However, I am being intellectually honest. If I am going to commit myself to the LDS faith, then I must find and be certain of the truth of the Book of Mormon. I'm just saying that, for me, it'll be hard to put my faith in a book that lacks any evidence beyond spiritual confirmation.

Go to the LDSFair.org and look up the many articles of evidences for the Book of Mormon. Some evidences have to do with locations (as mentioned above), others with items discovered (cities made of cement), and others are textual (Hebraisms, Hebrew festivals, 40+ authentic names not known in Joseph Smith's day, connections with Maya tradition, etc).

Does this conflict with Paul's view that the pagans can discover the truth of God solely through logic and the majesty of His creation? Can't faith come through reason? Or are the two mutually exclusive?

Can people discover truth through reason? Yes. But God has other methods that are even more sure, such as a witness of the Holy Ghost. The Book of Mormon teaches us that the Holy Spirit inspires both the intellect and the heart (Alma 32, D&C 8, 9), so that intellect does play a part in the conversion. But it isn't the only part. By that same reason/intellect, many have concluded there is no God, nor Christ. They see the Bible as conflicting with science: the earth is billions of years old, there is no evidence of a global flood, and there is no evidence of Jesus' resurrection. So reason would suggest that the Bible is a bunch of superstitious folklore with a good moral teaching built in. For this same reason, studies of protestant ministers suggest that a large portion of them doubt the divinity of Jesus Christ! These are ministers, who should have, by reason, gained a testimony of this, but haven't.

For this reason, God has granted the Book of Mormon as another witness of Christ. It is a second evidence (no such thing as proof in religious things) of our faith in the Savior and God. If it is true, then it puts down the heresy of disbelief and agnosticism (which is based on reason).

I became a Mormon 33 years ago. Since then, I've done a close study of the evidences pro and con on the Book of Mormon and LDS belief. While I've found that there are some unanswered questions, there are even more that are satisfactorily answered. Many of the answers have appeared in my day, not available in Joseph Smith's day. Either he was a brilliant guesser of many things, or he was inspired by God.

[Misshalfway]

The value of the BofM, or the Bible for that matter, doesn't lie in its historical roots. We are lucky in these modern times to know so much about the world and archeology. We are like no other group in history.

But even with all of our advances, I think we misstep if we don't understand that the whole goal of scripture is to bring man to Christ...to help man become more Christlike.

So....go to town on all the historical proofs if you need to, but don't forget that testimony isn't to be found with a shovel and pick. It is found as one applies their heart and mind to humility and understanding as they open themselves to the doctrine that saves.

[Moksha]

Misshalfway is right. It would be foolish to overlook the symbolic truths found in Sacred Allegory.

[Maya]

I love to listen to this: YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Or this: ... in fact I sent him a pm asking if someone has fingered his video as I dont think he put the sounds there that you hear at the back! But it is a good serie so.... I hope the sounds are not too loud!

[nzorient]

How accurate is the Book Of Mormon?

Are all the words found in the dictionary? It should be accurate

[bmy-]

Would it change anything if the stories in the BoM took place on a different planet? I don't think it would.. because that's roughly the same amount of valid evidence that exists on this planet.

[BenRaines]

Pale, I want to know it now, I don't want to have to read an article. Give me the Reader's Digest version. Oh wait, most of these people here probably don't even know what a Reader's Digest is.

If it is worth gaining the knowledge it is worth reading the article. :)

Ben Raines

[pam]

Here is a nice site for you to read....

Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility

Thanks Pale. Looks like a lot of good stuff. I've added it to my favorites and will take a look at it as time permits.

[rameumptom]

There was a discussion on the FAIR boards a few years ago where we discussed statistics. What is the probability of Joseph Smith guessing one unknown name correctly in the Book of Mormon? Then, what is the probability of Joseph Smith guessing 40 unknown names correctly in the Book of Mormon?

Each time you add evidence for the Book of Mormon, you increase the statistical probability that it is true. How would Joseph Smith know that the name Alma was a Jewish man's name? Such evidence never showed up until the Bar Kokhba letters were found about 60 years ago. It was used by anti-Mormons for a century as part of their evidence that Joseph Smith wasn't just a liar, but a liar without any imagination in creating names.

Or, how about the inept (and wrong) anti-LDS insistence that no cities or locations have been found yet? In the last 20 years, we've found Nahom and the Arabian Bountiful, as well as a possible location for the Valley of Lemuel. Recently, in Mesoamerica, they found the ancient Mayan name of a town to be Lamanai, which is very similar to Laman or Lamoni. Each of these is like a pebble of evidence, which when stacked together increases the statistical likelihood that Joseph Smith wasn't a fraud.

I've yet to see any anti-LDS "scholar" explain how the Book of Moses contains a story of Enoch talking with a man named Mahijah in a place called Mahujah, only to find that the Dead Sea Scrolls' version of Enoch has Mahujah talking with Enoch!

I'm more and more convinced that the true hucksters are those who ignore the available evidence and the statistical weight of how unlikely it is that Joseph Smith guessed correctly on so very many things.

[Danite]

You make an intresting piont. I look to the testiomies of three witnesses and the eight witnesses at front of the Book of Mormom. These testiomies will hold up any in court of law human or divine. I also have had my own witness thru personal revelation that the Book of Mormom is ture. What greater witness can you have than god?

[Guest Believer_1829]

How accurate is the Book Of Mormon? Is there any proof that anything in it really happened?

Very. Yes.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Believer_1829

[desirexnoel]

How accurate is the Book Of Mormon? Is there any proof that anything in it really happened?

Physical proof? No.

Any other kind of proof? Well, you need to define what proof is to you. I have noticed there are a couple of different things people accept as proof.

[Barter_Town]

I guess you could call it a hoax, but it isn't any more a hoax than say, the Bible, or the Qur'an. They're all just religious texts. They all make extraordinary claims unsupported by evidence.