Book Of Mormon, Hoax?

[rameumptom]

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.

On this I strongly disagree. Proof of miracles and resurrection? No. Evidence? Yes.

I gave several evidences above, such as with place-names. None of them prove the Book of Mormon to be true. But they are evidences.

The difference between the Book of Mormon and the Bible is this: if a place is found in the Bible, it is not an evidence for the miracles within it, as the Bible is easily proved to be an ancient text passed down from generation to generation.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is a text that claims to be ancient. If we can show evidences of places within it, then that evidence actually bolsters the spiritual/miracle claims of the book, since if the book is ancient, then it did also come miraculously to us via Joseph Smith. If it is ancient, then Joseph Smith really did get it from an angel, and the testimony of Jesus and the miracles within it are true.

This is why it makes such an important second testament of Jesus Christ.

[Hemidakota]

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

How is your faith? Let us start with this simple question. Anything that requires a deeper faith or openness before GOD may answer alot of mortal questions, which are daunting to masses; from the original landing of Lehi and his family to the Big Bang.

Noting the book is only a compression of many thousands of the earlier Nephite church historical plates, while Mormon, the chief compiler left out the greater portion of recorded civic history of the people.

[pam]

You all are responding to a thread where the OP hasn't logged into the site in over a month.

[Barter_Town]

On this I strongly disagree.

Of course; you approach the Book of Mormon as an actual historical record, and then a posteriori search for evidence to support your belief.

I gave several evidences above, such as with place-names.

The problem is that these simply aren't good evidences. If there really were Judeo-Christian civilizations in the Americas as recently as 421 AD (not long ago in archaeological terms), one would expect to find much stronger evidence than the sort you have presented, e.g. usage of the wheel, domestication of Old World animals, Old World crops, smelted iron and steel, usage of a Semitic / Egyptian language and script, presence of Semitic DNA in Native American populations, etc. etc.

These are major, major things that any reasonable person would expect. That you ignore the fact that no such evidence exists in favor of place-name similarities and textual parallels shows how weak your position really is.

Ignoring the many major "misses" in favor of a few seeming "hits" does not prove anything other than wishful thinking.

None of them prove the Book of Mormon to be true. But they are evidences.

They may qualify as evidence to you; to me they are standard apologetics. You see the same sorts of things on Muslim apologist websites. If one accepted their "evidences" on their own terms, the implications would be quite staggering (i.e. Muhammad truly was a prophet and Islam is the one true religion). A scholarly approach is far more rigorous and reasonable than this.

The difference between the Book of Mormon and the Bible is this: if a place is found in the Bible, it is not an evidence for the miracles within it, as the Bible is easily proved to be an ancient text passed down from generation to generation.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is a text that claims to be ancient. If we can show evidences of places within it, then that evidence actually bolsters the spiritual/miracle claims of the book, since if the book is ancient, then it did also come miraculously to us via Joseph Smith. If it is ancient, then Joseph Smith really did get it from an angel, and the testimony of Jesus and the miracles within it are true.

This is why it makes such an important second testament of Jesus Christ.

Again, this is the a posteriori approach to research. If you begin with the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be (an ancient historical record of a lost civilization), then you can quite easily ignore the "misses" in favor of the seeming "hits" to support your conclusion. This is the backwards approach to scholarship, which is what makes it apologetics and not actual scholarship.

The proper approach would be to decide ahead of time (propose a hypothesis) what sorts of things we should expect to find if there were a Judeo-Christian civilization in recent pre-Columbian America, e.g. archaeological, biological, and linguistic evidence of the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. The fact that nothing of the sort has been found is why one can reasonably conclude that the Book of Mormon is, in all likelihood, a pretty successful hoax.

That doesn't mean it's a bad thing; religion can bring structure and meaning into people's lives. It just means that Mormonism is a religion, like any other.

[Guest Utahrulzz]

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....

In fairness to this good Brother's question, why do you mock him with all of these statements which have zero to do with his question?

I'm amazed at the rude manner in which some people reply to basic quesiton. Please, if you don't have a reasonable answer say so or don't reply at all! Your giving members of our faith a bad name when you behave in this manner!

[rameumptom]

Of course; you approach the Book of Mormon as an actual historical record, and then a posteriori search for evidence to support your belief.

The problem is that these simply aren't good evidences.

Such is your opinion. Statistical evidence says otherwise.

A friend of mine went to see Sandra Tanner in her anti-LDS bookstore some years back. They had a discussion on what would constitute "good evidence" for the Book of Mormon. He asked her if archaeologists were to find an ancient road sign that said, "10 miles to Zarahemla", would that be sufficient evidence?

She paused and said it would be a "topic of discussion."

So it is with those who can easily relegate evidences to the dung heap. They do not really give any evidence a real chance.

It is too easy to just waive your hand and say, "this is not real evidence", rather than explaining why you believe it isn't "real evidence." If there were only one or two pieces of evidence, I would possibly agree with you. But when I've come across hundreds of pieces of evidences, some stronger than others, THEN the statistics are extremely low that the Book of Mormon is falsified.

For instance, the pattern of Nephi's Psalm (2 Ne 4) is exactly like a Psalm found in the Community Rule Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I found this one myself as I read the Community Rule Scroll for about the third or fourth time, and suddenly thought, "this sounds familiar." I then compared it with the Psalm of Nephi. The odds are low that such would be found in these two, unless there was a pattern being followed by both. Joseph Smith couldn't have used the Community Rule Scroll, as it wasn't discovered until 1947, a century after his death. See my comparison here: NephiPsalm - Life, the Universe, and Etcetera

Of course that equally applies with Hugh Nibley's finding the name Mahujah connected to Enoch in only two places: the Book of Moses and the DSS' Book of Enoch! Once again, Joseph Smith could not have had a copy. I do not think such is insignificant, unless you consider a one in a billion guess statistically insignificant.

Or the names in the BoM. Guessing one or two would be one thing. But 40 names not known in Joseph Smith's time? If you want to be taken seriously by serious LDS and non-LDS scholars, then you have to be serious about evidence given.

[cougarfan]

Yes I agree with that. There is no way Joseph Smith would have just made up those names. It seems like I read somewhere that even Zelph is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls or one of those documents. (I'm not an expert on those things.) And I'm quite sure Mahujah cannot be found in the Bible so that makes it even stronger.

[cougarfan]

Oops I meant Zoram. Maybe I'm mistaken. Anyway, there are more parallels I'm sure.

[thews]

It is too easy to just waive your hand and say, "this is not real evidence", rather than explaining why you believe it isn't "real evidence." If there were only one or two pieces of evidence, I would possibly agree with you. But when I've come across hundreds of pieces of evidences, some stronger than others, THEN the statistics are extremely low that the Book of Mormon is falsified.

I'm getting lost in your mentioning statistical "evidence" in defining "real" evidence. Statistical probabilities can be used to define the null hypothesis in an argument if that’s all there is, but the use of the word "evidence" would imply actual archeological evidence IMO WRT to the null hypothesis when using "evidence."

Are you implying both statistical and archeological "evidence" carry the same weight?

[Barter_Town]

Such is your opinion.

This isn't a matter of opinion; it is a matter of logic, reason and evidence. You don't have to be a non-believer to see the many serious problems I have pointed out with this assertion that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical record. Why do you ignore the fact that there were no domesticated Old World animals or crops in the Americas prior to European arrival? Or that there is simply no archaeological, linguistic or DNA evidence of Semitic Judeo-Christian civilizations in the recent pre-Columbian Americas? No supporting records, no metal swords or armor found, no textual evidence even remotely related to Egyptian anywhere.. this is not a matter of my opinion differing from yours, it is fact.

All you have are similar-sounding names that you claim Joseph Smith "couldn't have known", and other similar, typically esoteric Nibley-esque claims.

Statistical evidence says otherwise.

Muslim apologists can likewise make up some pretty impressive statistics showing the improbability of Muhammad knowing the "science" described in the Qur'an, the implications of course being that Muhammad is a true prophet of God and Islam is the "one true religion." What makes you any different? Statistics can be manipulated to suit your own purpose, everyone knows that. Sorry, but you're going to have to produce something a little more substantial than that. Otherwise I would have been a Muslim long ago.

And as I said earlier, the fact that you ignore the many major, major "misses" in favor of your questionable statistical "hits" only underscores the weakness of your position.

A friend of mine went to see Sandra Tanner in her anti-LDS bookstore some years back. They had a discussion on what would constitute "good evidence" for the Book of Mormon. He asked her if archaeologists were to find an ancient road sign that said, "10 miles to Zarahemla", would that be sufficient evidence?

She paused and said it would be a "topic of discussion."

"10 miles to Zarahemla" written in, what, Mayan?

Road signs aside, if anything written in "reformed Egyptian" were found by archaeologists, I am quite certain that you may just finally have some hard evidence to hang your hat on. It would certainly warrant further research. Despite your friend's snap-judgement of Sandra Tanner's reply, scientists are slow to draw conclusions; hence Sandra Tanner's responsible and honest reply (assuming this apocryphal story really did happen, of course).

"Good evidence" in my estimation would be any archaeological, biological or linguistic evidence that supports the sorts of civilizations described in the Book of Mormon, e.g. Native American languages related to Semitic languages, domesticated Old World crops (barley, wheat) and livestock (cattle, horses, pigs, goats, etc.), usage of a seven-day calendar, usage of steel, presence of Semitic DNA in Native American populations, etc.

If the sorts of animals, crops and technologies described in the Book of Mormon were present in pre-Columbian America, they would have spread like wildfire to every other population, whether due to trade or by competition. Why? Because steel and domesticated animals / crops are an immediate and vital advantage to survival; "Nephites" and "Lamanites" would not have been the only people using them.

Again, these are things that any reasonable person would expect to find if the claims of the Book of Mormon were true. The civilizations described in the Book of Mormon would have been the most scientifically and culturally advanced civilizations in the Americas, by far; such a civilization would have had a major impact on the ecosystem and other populations, and would have left some sort of imprint for archaeologists and other scientists to study. Unfortunately, there is nothing of the sort.

So it is with those who can easily relegate evidences to the dung heap. They do not really give any evidence a real chance.

I'll give any evidence a chance; but not all evidence is equal.

It is too easy to just waive your hand and say, "this is not real evidence", rather than explaining why you believe it isn't "real evidence." If there were only one or two pieces of evidence, I would possibly agree with you. But when I've come across hundreds of pieces of evidences, some stronger than others, THEN the statistics are extremely low that the Book of Mormon is falsified.

There have been several studies showing how most of the names in the Book of Mormon are also found in the Bible and Apocrypha, or are variations thereof (e.g. "Moses" + "Josiah" = "Mosiah"). You really should know this, at this stage in the game.

For instance, the pattern of Nephi's Psalm (2 Ne 4) is exactly like a Psalm found in the Community Rule Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls. I found this one myself as I read the Community Rule Scroll for about the third or fourth time, and suddenly thought, "this sounds familiar." I then compared it with the Psalm of Nephi. The odds are low that such would be found in these two, unless there was a pattern being followed by both. Joseph Smith couldn't have used the Community Rule Scroll, as it wasn't discovered until 1947, a century after his death. See my comparison here: NephiPsalm - Life, the Universe, and Etcetera

I'm sure there is no shortage of parallels to be found between Mormon scriptures and Hebrew scriptures, in fact I'll bet you could fill volumes with them. The quality and relevance of those parallels, however, is another matter entirely.

And, anyway, should that be so surprising, given Joseph Smith's thorough familiarity with the Bible? Mormon apologists and their "parallelomania" are well known, you don't need to further reinforce bad apologetics.

Of course that equally applies with Hugh Nibley's finding the name Mahujah connected to Enoch in only two places: the Book of Moses and the DSS' Book of Enoch! Once again, Joseph Smith could not have had a copy. I do not think such is insignificant, unless you consider a one in a billion guess statistically insignificant.

See my point above that most Book of Mormon names are also found in the Bible and Apocrypha, which Joseph Smith obviously did have. "Mahujah" is quite clearly an alteration of "Mehujael" which is found in Genesis 4:18.

Or the names in the BoM. Guessing one or two would be one thing. But 40 names not known in Joseph Smith's time? If you want to be taken seriously by serious LDS and non-LDS scholars, then you have to be serious about evidence given.

See my point above.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Barter_Town

[Barter_Town]

Oops I meant Zoram. Maybe I'm mistaken.

"Zoram" is an alteration of "Zorah", which is found in Joshua 19:41.

Anyway, there are more parallels I'm sure.

Oh, no doubt. The problem is that you can find parallels in virtually anything, if you look hard enough.

[Misshalfway]

Disclaimer: I have not read this whole thread, so forgive me right now.

I just wanted to comment on the orginial question/concern of the OP.

Perhaps the bible does have a "one up" on the BofM because it does have some identifyable locations. But I don't think any of that "kind" of evidence produces conversion and spiritual commitment. It's clear that Americans are told everyday the laws of eating healthy, yet Mcdonald's tends to remain one of the top companies.

I don't believe and live by the BofM because some archeologist somewhere found a baptismal font in S. America. I believe it because I have felt other kinds of evidence inside the heart and mind and personal life that has produced good and valuable things that I probably wouldn't have discovered in my life otherwise.

If one bases a testimony on this kind of imperical proof, then one has only convinced the logical mind. But the things of God require a different kind of convincing.....the kind that happens inside the core of the mind, heart and spirit.

[rameumptom]

I'm getting lost in your mentioning statistical "evidence" in defining "real" evidence. Statistical probabilities can be used to define the null hypothesis in an argument if that’s all there is, but the use of the word "evidence" would imply actual archeological evidence IMO WRT to the null hypothesis when using "evidence."

Are you implying both statistical and archeological "evidence" carry the same weight?

AND there is archaeological evidence. Nahom and the Arabian Bountiful have been found, and highly unlikely Joseph Smith would have known about them in his day, as that area was often marked as unknown territory on atlases of the day. The Arabian Bountiful more than satisfies the 20+ markers mentioned in the Book of Mormon (trees for ship building, cliffs near the ocean, etc).

Other archaeological evidences have been found. Large Mesoamerican cities, unknown in 1829. Cities made of cement. An Egyptian-like language (Maya).

Near Jerusalem, they found a site that is known as the House of Lehi's Ruin (Khirbet Beit Lei), dating to the time of Nephi.

There are many more archaeological evidences I can add. So, let's not be so obtuse about insisting between the differences of contextual evidences versus archaeological evidences. Both are evidences, and both can equally be strong or weak.

[rameumptom]

This isn't a matter of opinion; it is a matter of logic, reason and evidence. You don't have to be a non-believer to see the many serious problems I have pointed out with this assertion that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical record. Why do you ignore the fact that there were no domesticated Old World animals or crops in the Americas prior to European arrival? Or that there is simply no archaeological, linguistic or DNA evidence of Semitic Judeo-Christian civilizations in the recent pre-Columbian Americas? No supporting records, no metal swords or armor found, no textual evidence even remotely related to Egyptian anywhere.. this is not a matter of my opinion differing from yours, it is fact.

All you have are similar-sounding names that you claim Joseph Smith "couldn't have known", and other similar, typically esoteric Nibley-esque claims. .

I'm not going to quibble with your silly claims, as FAIR has done an admirable job of showing most of them are baseless. I will mention that there were domesticated animals and crops in the New World, including deer, tapirs, cotton (they've found Egyptian cotton in Peruvian tombs), etc. You suppose all the swords and armor were metal, when in fact they probably were not. IOW, you are using straw men that you build, which are not necessarily stated in the BoM, and then easily knocking down your own straw men. You have not addressed my issues, nor the issues at FAIR, obviously.

Other non-LDS scholars have written regarding LDS research, and have admitted that our efforts are weightier than that done by most non-LDS. Just check the actual evidence, not the blurbs made by those who really do not know.

[Hemidakota]

Disclaimer: I have not read this whole thread, so forgive me right now.

I just wanted to comment on the orginial question/concern of the OP.

Perhaps the bible does have a "one up" on the BofM because it does have some identifyable locations. But I don't think any of that "kind" of evidence produces conversion and spiritual commitment. It's clear that Americans are told everyday the laws of eating healthy, yet Mcdonald's tends to remain one of the top companies.

I don't believe and live by the BofM because some archeologist somewhere found a baptismal font in S. America. I believe it because I have felt other kinds of evidence inside the heart and mind and personal life that has produced good and valuable things that I probably wouldn't have discovered in my life otherwise.

If one bases a testimony on this kind of imperical proof, then one has only convinced the logical mind. But the things of God require a different kind of convincing.....the kind that happens inside the core of the mind, heart and spirit.

Here here....well put.

[Barter_Town]

I'm not going to quibble with your silly claims, as FAIR has done an admirable job of showing most of them are baseless.

I have simply pointed out what any reasonable person would expect to see if the Book of Mormon were true, i.e. some sort of evidence of the civilizations described within its pages. How exactly is that "silly"?

You may not like acknowledging these inconvenient facts, but they are facts all the same. There is no credible evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon. Simple as that.

I will mention that there were domesticated animals and crops in the New World, including deer, tapirs,

Deer and tapirs were domesticated?? LOL

The Book of Mormon doesn't mention deer or tapirs; it mentions Old World domesticated animals like horses, cattle, pigs and goats -- none of which were present in pre-Columbian America.

Are you saying that when the Book of Mormon mentions domesticated horses, cattle, etc. what it really means is deer and tapirs (which are not domesticated, btw)?

Do you see how precarious your position really is?

cotton (they've found Egyptian cotton in Peruvian tombs), etc.

Believe me, if there were evidence of links between the Old World and the pre-Columbian New World, anthropologists would know about it, not just Mormon apologists.

So, I'm not sure where you're getting that info, but it sounds like more of the typical Mormon apologist wishful thinking. All I could find was this mention in Wikipedia:

"Cotton fabrics found in Peruvian tombs are said to belong to a pre-Inca culture. In color and texture the ancient Peruvian and Mexican textiles resemble those found in Egyptian tombs."

Cotton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grasping, much?

You suppose all the swords and armor were metal, when in fact they probably were not.

The Book of Mormon says they were. It even says their swords rusted.

IOW, you are using straw men that you build, which are not necessarily stated in the BoM, and then easily knocking down your own straw men.

Point out one straw man that I have set up, please.

You have not addressed my issues, nor the issues at FAIR, obviously.

Other non-LDS scholars have written regarding LDS research, and have admitted that our efforts are weightier than that done by most non-LDS.

I am well aware that Mormon apologists have an answer for literally everything. After all, that is their job; to supply an answer at all costs, regardless of how far-fetched and silly it is. Horses weren't in America before Columbus? No problem, what the Book of Mormon really means is deer and tapirs. No steel swords in ancient America? Hey no problem, what the Book of Mormon really means is flakes of obsidian embedded in wooden clubs (and we'll just ignore the fact that obsidian doesn't rust). Sorry but I'm just not impressed.

Just check the actual evidence, not the blurbs made by those who really do not know.

I would suggest you take your own advice.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Barter_Town

[rameumptom]

I have simply pointed out what any reasonable person would expect to see if the Book of Mormon were true, i.e. some sort of evidence of the civilizations described within its pages. How exactly is that "silly"?

So, any "reasonable" person would reject the evidences already found? You are suggesting here that LDS scholars, including several that worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., are unreasonable. Once again, you are using fallacies in your argument. It is YOUR opinion that these things are unreasonable.

And yes, deer and tapir were used by the Maya in a domesticated manner. There is an ancient diagram of a Maya riding a deer, for instance.

You can justify changing the names found in the Bible to match Joseph Smith's names, but you can't do it for all of them. Alma is NOT a man's name in the Bible, but it is in the Bar Kokhba letters. Sariah is not found in the Bible, but is found in other ancient Hebrew scrolls. Your weak attempt to waive such things off shows just how unreasonable you are.

And while scientists do not jump quickly at issues, they do seriously look at them. I provided an article showing that several non-LDS scholars have been impressed with BoM scholarship. Try reading it, or have someone read it to you.

[rameumptom]

Given that this thread isn't really going anywhere, as Barter town is actually not discussing issues, but using a large brush to paint all things Mormon as ridiculous, I recommend we close this thread.

[Barter_Town]

So, any "reasonable" person would reject the evidences already found?

Any reasonable person would take into account the fact that there is no archaeological, biological or linguistic evidence to support the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. These were civilizations made up of millions of people, spanned over 1000 years, experienced an unprecedented growth in population, had domesticated Old World animals and crops, used technology unknown in the Western hemisphere prior to Columbus (e.g. the wheel, steel, etc.), practiced a Judeo-Christian religion, used a seven-day week calender, had numerous battles... and then collapsed entirely in an apocalyptic event.

Is it unreasonable to expect there to be, you know, some sort of evidence other than obscure scriptural parallels and name-similarities? Shouldn't Native Americans have had the horse and wheel at the time of European arrival? Used steel? Had crops of wheat and barley? Shouldn't their DNA be Semitic, instead of Asian? Shouldn't there at least be pottery or images depicting the sorts of animals and technologies described in the Book of Mormon, somewhere?

I'm sorry to sound like a broken record here, but the fact that you consistently ignore these things, which again, any reasonable person would expect to see, in favor of a few name-similarities (which can easily be found in the Bible), Hebrew textual parallels (which shouldn't be surprising if the BoM author was well-versed in the Old Testament) and "there's no way Joseph Smith could've known that!" (you can't know exactly what Joseph Smith did or didn't know) demonstrably shows your position to be quite untenable.

You are suggesting here that LDS scholars, including several that worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc., are unreasonable.

Yep. Pretty much. But that's to be expected. Be they Creationist, Muslim, Christian or Mormon apologists seems to make no difference; they have already formed their conclusions BEFORE they look at the evidence. John Tvedtness explicity says so in the link you provided:

"I have to concur with Gordon C. Thomasson, who once said that we believers should approach studies of the Book of Mormon with the a priori assumption that it is an authentic ancient text and that, moreover, the Book of Mormon can sometimes help elucidate the Bible and other ancient Near Eastern texts and archaeological finds."

This is not the scientific approach; it is the religious apologist approach. The scientific appoach is the other way around -- one should form conclusions after weighing the evidence, rather than ignoring most of the evidence and searching until you find some small piece of evidence to support your already drawn conclusions.

Once again, you are using fallacies in your argument. It is YOUR opinion that these things are unreasonable.

Please explain why it is unreasonable to expect there to be archaeological, biological or linguistic evidence for a literate, scientifically advanced Judeo-Christian civilization in the pre-Columbian New World that spanned 1000 years and numbered well into the millions.

And yes, deer and tapir were used by the Maya in a domesticated manner.

Source, please.

There is an ancient diagram of a Maya riding a deer, for instance.

Source, please.

Also, just because something is depicted in an image does not necessarily mean it reflects reality. Otherwise unicorns, dragons and mermaids most certainly existed.

You can justify changing the names found in the Bible to match Joseph Smith's names, but you can't do it for all of them. Alma is NOT a man's name in the Bible, but it is in the Bar Kokhba letters. Sariah is not found in the Bible, but is found in other ancient Hebrew scrolls.

As I said, most names in the Book of Mormon are variations of names found within the pages of the Bible, Apocrypha, and even the Book of Mormon itself (e.g. Moroni and Moronihah).

Alma = Almon (Joshua 21:18)

Sariah = Sarai (Genesis 11:29)

Your weak attempt to waive such things off shows just how unreasonable you are.

One of us is indeed making weak attempts to waive off legitimate issues, but it isn't me.

And while scientists do not jump quickly at issues, they do seriously look at them. I provided an article showing that several non-LDS scholars have been impressed with BoM scholarship. Try reading it, or have someone read it to you.

It's nice that Mormon studies are becoming more mainstream, but I'm not sure what this has to do with whether or not the Book of Mormon is a historical record.

[Barter_Town]

Given that this thread isn't really going anywhere, as Barter town is actually not discussing issues, but using a large brush to paint all things Mormon as ridiculous, I recommend we close this thread.

Actually, I am discussing the issues; just not to your liking. The OP asked whether or not the Book of Mormon is a hoax, and whether there is sound evidence to support it. I gave him an honest answer from my POV; you took issue with it. I'm sorry that it does not agree with your religious views, but I have as much right to respond as you do.

I grew up LDS, served a mission, and have many friends and family in the church. I don't misrepresent the church or slander it in any way. And so long as I keep the rules of the forum, I have as much right to be here and lend my voice as you do.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Barter_Town

[Hemidakota]

It comes back to the age old question, what is the purpose of this book?

[cougarfan]

Can it be legitimate scripture and NOT be historical at the same time? Parley P. Pratt seemed to think that it was either a fraud or a legitimate record. President Hinckley and Elder Oaks seem to say the same thing. Barter Town makes very reasonable arguments and he keeps getting brushed off.

Don't you think this either/or approach is damaging to testimonies? You are forced to either give up on Mormonism altogether or believe in something in which the preponderance of evidence disproves it.

[Hemidakota]

I believe when we understand the purpose of this book and live its principles; we will begin to see its historical factor.

[Threeve]

There isn't any firm proof of the Book of Mormon. I don't know why we focus on proof. What if tomorrow they disprove the Book of Mormon? Does that mean that it hasn't enriched thousands of people's lives and preach a good message? Whether the events actually happened in the Book of Mormon, I really don't know. I still love the book. And even if it is disproved tomorrow, I will still read it.

[rameumptom]

There isn't any "proof" for any spiritual things. There is no proof for the claims of the Bible or the Quran.

There is no real proof, in fact, that the earth moves around the Sun. However the evidences are ample enough so that most accept it.

A lot of it depends on just how open our minds are to the evidences presented. Some are too quick to believe all the Bible says, simply because the Bible notes the location of Jerusalem. Of course, this is no miracle or evidence, much less proof, because Jerusalem has been there for millennia with the same name.

Others are so skeptical that if they were to find an ancient sign in Mesoamerica stating, "10 miles to Zarahemla" they still would not think it evidence for the Book of Mormon. In fact, when I brought this up earlier, one individual insisted it would have to state it in Reformed Egyptian to be evidence. Well, who would be able to read Reformed Egyptian? Second, how could we tell it is reformed Egyptian? For all we know, Mayan hieroglyphics could be a form of reformed Egyptian. Next, Reformed Egyptian was only used to write the Nephite record, and not the language of the normal people, such as the Lamanites or Mulekites, so doubtless the sign would NOT be written in Reformed Egyptian.

IOW, skeptics often set up too many straw men that they can easily knock down, so as nothing becomes evidence.

Such will never gain the evidences nor witnesses needed to gain a testimony. Like Sherem or Korihor, they have completely shut themselves off to seeing and hearing, making themselves spiritually blind and deaf.