Proof Of The Book Of Mormon

[Traveler]

First off I write this post to my LDS friends that need no such proof of the Book of Mormon. The reason is to demonstrate for them the complete insensibility of proof. Not because there is any lack of such proof but in spite of it. You see my friends - those that say there is no proof of the Book of Mormon will lie about anything. They will say it is night at noon day. For them the door of proof swings only one way. Against the Book of Mormon and the people that have come to believe it.

Even if G-d will grant them the very proof they demand they will still deny the truth of the Book of Mormon and simply demand something more to prove it to them. In 1985, such a critic of the Book of Mormon, Thomas Key wrote in the Journal of American Scientific Affiliation that since Pleistocene times there has been no “Bountiful Land” in Arabia with “much fruit and also wild honey” (see 1 Nephi 17:5). He claimed that there was “no timber that Nephi could have used to build a ship” (see 1Nephi 18:1).

The logic of Mr. Key is that if there is no such proof of such a place in Arabia and that Joseph simply made up the facts of fantasy and therefore, the Book of Mormon is false. In all the western libraries there is no record of any such place so Mr. Key justified his conclusions based on research done from an easy chair. In nearly 150 years since Joseph Smith not a single shred of evidence ever surface in western culture to support land of Bountiful in Arabia. Therefore with all the rhetoric of logic Mr Key and others denounce the Book of Mormon as not being historically or geographically accurate. But if it turns out that a poorly educated farm boy of New York frontier of the early 19th Century provided a more accurate account than the best scholars of western civilization for over 150 years that there might be some truth to the Book of Mormon? Not a chance my friends. For if such a “Bountiful” place was found in Arabia the critics will deny that it is any proof at all, implying that anyone could of guessed such a thing. But they didn’t.

As it turns out there is such a place in Arabia on the Eastern cost of Oman on the Arabian Sea. The place is today called Taqah/Khor Rori. Not only does it exist but it possesses all the elements described in the Book of Mormon in case anyone is keeping score. Including an ancient method of building ships that dates back to 1000 BC which is before Lehi. And there are accurate ancient records of the place because it was an important place to the ancient world because of the export of frankincense from there. Some speculate that king Solomon’s ships called at the port anciently known as Dhofar.

And as Paul Harvey would say “And now you know the rest of the story.” But as I said - don’t hold your breath. To bigots the doors of proof swing only one direction. Such a discovery which they claimed was proof when it was not known suddenly when it becomes known is no longer valid.

The Traveler

[Guest Starsky]

Traveler,

You are so totally awesome! Thanks.

[bat3]

I think that the discovery of ancient texts written on metal plates that backed up the BoM story would be a pretty good evidence. It seems silly that only one person at a time would write on only one set of plates, and that would be the only historical record of millions of people spanning thousands of years.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bat3@Feb 14 2004, 05:28 PM

I think that the discovery of ancient texts written on metal plates that backed up the BoM story would be a pretty good evidence. It seems silly that only one person at a time would write on only one set of plates, and that would be the only historical record of millions of people spanning thousands of years.

Like Traveler stated...it could be pushed right under your noses and you would still work at finding a way to claim they were fake.

[bat3]

Originally posted by Peace+Feb 14 2004, 06:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Feb 14 2004, 06:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bat3@Feb 14 2004, 05:28 PM

I think that the discovery of ancient texts written on metal plates that backed up the BoM story would be a pretty good evidence.  It seems silly that only one person at a time would write on only one set of plates, and that would be the only historical record of millions of people spanning thousands of years. 

Like Traveler stated...it could be pushed right under your noses and you would still work at finding a way to claim they were fake.

Somehow, I don't think that will be the case.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Peace+Feb 14 2004, 05:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Feb 14 2004, 05:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bat3@Feb 14 2004, 05:28 PM

I think that the discovery of ancient texts written on metal plates that backed up the BoM story would be a pretty good evidence.  It seems silly that only one person at a time would write on only one set of plates, and that would be the only historical record of millions of people spanning thousands of years. 

Like Traveler stated...it could be pushed right under your noses and you would still work at finding a way to claim they were fake.

Thank you Peace: For some people there still is not enough evidence that the world is not flat. Go figure.

The Traveler.

[bat3]

Originally posted by Traveler+Feb 14 2004, 06:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Feb 14 2004, 06:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Peace@Feb 14 2004, 05:38 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat3@Feb 14 2004, 05:28 PM

I think that the discovery of ancient texts written on metal plates that backed up the BoM story would be a pretty good evidence.  It seems silly that only one person at a time would write on only one set of plates, and that would be the only historical record of millions of people spanning thousands of years. 

Like Traveler stated...it could be pushed right under your noses and you would still work at finding a way to claim they were fake.

Thank you Peace: For some people there still is not enough evidence that the world is not flat. Go figure.

The Traveler.

I once heard that the world is flat, and I have faith that it is. That makes it true.

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Traveler@Feb 14 2004, 05:13 PM

As it turns out there is such a place in Arabia on the Eastern cost of Oman on the Arabian Sea. The place is today called Taqah/Khor Rori. Not only does it exist but it possesses all the elements described in the Book of Mormon in case anyone is keeping score. Including an ancient method of building ships that dates back to 1000 BC which is before Lehi. And there are accurate ancient records of the place because it was an important place to the ancient world because of the export of frankincense from there. Some speculate that king Solomon’s ships called at the port anciently known as Dhofar.

You proved nothing. Sheer conjecture on the part of FARMS or someone associeated with the "Nephi Project" (got that last one off the internet...). So you wrote a few paragraphs griping about BoM critics and how we don't believe in your "proof". Big deal. Well. Let's see what a quick internet search shows us:

1) Taqah was once a prosperous port and has been a significant trading centre of the ancient world.

Ok...

2) There's some trees. No mention of being able to use them for ship building.

Ok...

3) Frankincense route through the area.

Ok...

Do you have any idea where Taqah is located? It's at the bottom of the Arabian Peninsula. You're telling me an elitist Jewish family is going to make it across the Arabian peninsula, crossing through one tribal territory after another, all the while hunting and gathering...in a desert...for EIGHT YEARS? You're out of your mind, friend.

[Guest antishock82003]

Waitaminute...was this a Lindsey piece? Smells like it...phew...

[Tr2]

I like how those who don't accept the BoM are considered bigots.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bat3+Feb 14 2004, 05:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat3 @ Feb 14 2004, 05:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Peace@Feb 14 2004, 06:38 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat3@Feb 14 2004, 05:28 PM

I think that the discovery of ancient texts written on metal plates that backed up the BoM story would be a pretty good evidence.  It seems silly that only one person at a time would write on only one set of plates, and that would be the only historical record of millions of people spanning thousands of years. 

Like Traveler stated...it could be pushed right under your noses and you would still work at finding a way to claim they were fake.

Somehow, I don't think that will be the case.

It has already been the case with other evidence and findings.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by bat3+Feb 14 2004, 05:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bat3 @ Feb 14 2004, 05:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Traveler@Feb 14 2004, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by -Peace@Feb 14 2004, 05:38 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--bat3@Feb 14 2004, 05:28 PM

I think that the discovery of ancient texts written on metal plates that backed up the BoM story would be a pretty good evidence.  It seems silly that only one person at a time would write on only one set of plates, and that would be the only historical record of millions of people spanning thousands of years. 

Like Traveler stated...it could be pushed right under your noses and you would still work at finding a way to claim they were fake.

Thank you Peace: For some people there still is not enough evidence that the world is not flat. Go figure.

The Traveler.

I once heard that the world is flat, and I have faith that it is. That makes it true.

Uh huh...right. Now you want us to correlate that with our way of having faith in Christ...but I don't see anyone having faith in the idea of a flat earth (faith, by the way is 'actions' not just talk) and working from it...especially our pilots who fly accross the ocean or the astranaugts who circle the earth....notice I said circle, not fly back and forth....

[bat3]

Sure dude. Dead people come back to life days later, but the earth isn't flat.

If you don't believe that the earth is flat, you won't get to go to the super bestest p ce in the sky after you are dead.

[Guest Starsky]

Dead people come back to life days later, but the earth isn't flat. 

At least you got this part right. LOL

[Traveler]

Originally posted by antishock82003+Feb 14 2004, 08:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antishock82003 @ Feb 14 2004, 08:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Feb 14 2004, 05:13 PM

As it turns out there is such a place in Arabia on the Eastern cost of Oman on the Arabian Sea.  The place is today called Taqah/Khor Rori.  Not only does it exist but it possesses all the elements described in the Book of Mormon in case anyone is keeping score.  Including an ancient method of building ships that dates back to 1000 BC which is before Lehi.  And there are accurate ancient records of the place because it was an important place to the ancient world because of the export of frankincense from there.  Some speculate that king Solomon’s ships called at the port anciently known as Dhofar.

You proved nothing. Sheer conjecture on the part of FARMS or someone associeated with the "Nephi Project" (got that last one off the internet...). So you wrote a few paragraphs griping about BoM critics and how we don't believe in your "proof". Big deal. Well. Let's see what a quick internet search shows us:

1) Taqah was once a prosperous port and has been a significant trading centre of the ancient world.

Ok...

2) There's some trees. No mention of being able to use them for ship building.

Ok...

3) Frankincense route through the area.

Ok...

Do you have any idea where Taqah is located? It's at the bottom of the Arabian Peninsula. You're telling me an elitist Jewish family is going to make it across the Arabian peninsula, crossing through one tribal territory after another, all the while hunting and gathering...in a desert...for EIGHT YEARS? You're out of your mind, friend.

Thank you so much from demonstrating exactly what I want all to see from my post. You are such an awesome example.

First for fun. I challenge anyone to provide a more accurate account including geological or historical reference from any modern or ancient time, of travel along the ancient frankincense trail than the account given in the Book of Mormon.

Of course all the lazy armchair experts will say as my friend Anti that an accurate account proves nothing. Nothing? You mean that a farm boy in New York with no experience and no references knows more than all the critics that say there is not proof that the farm boy knows something? This is rich.

Where in Arabia can one find "wild honey". When you find the answer you will have proven that Joseph Smith knew more about Arabia than all his critics.

You see my friends Arabia is one place we can prove the Book of Mormon for we know where Lehi and his family began and Nephi described exactly where they went. Anti thinks that it is impossible for anyone to have anciently passed along the frankincense trail in the days of Lehi. What support did he give of such a palpability absurd statement? I would guess he would have us believe no one ever traveled such a trail. Obviously he has never talked to anyone that is from that region.

This is such a kick - Thank all you critics of the Book of Mormon for you input - you are soooo predicable.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Tr2@Feb 14 2004, 09:17 PM

I like how those who don't accept the BoM are considered bigots.

Let me explain this a manner that might be a little clearer for you. Let us say that someone will pick up something from some obscure nook of history about Joseph Smith and suddenly claim that he taught of Men on the moon. This without any additional research or official published material.

Then let them read the latest material published about a point concerning the Book of Mormon that indicates it accuracy and they say there is nothing to vindicate Joseph Smith. Can you give me a better example of a religious bigot?

The Traveler

[Guest antishock82003]

First for fun. I challenge anyone to provide a more accurate account including geological or historical reference from any modern or ancient time, of travel along the ancient frankincense trail than the account given in the Book of Mormon.

I don't recall the BoM saying that Lehi's party went via any friankincese trail. Please point it out.

Of course all the lazy armchair experts will say as my friend Anti that an accurate account proves nothing. Nothing? You mean that a farm boy in New York with no experience and no references knows more than all the critics that say there is not proof that the farm boy knows something? This is rich.

An accurate account of what? All the BoM says is that Lehi's party went south and wandered for eight years.

Where in Arabia can one find "wild honey". When you find the answer you will have proven that Joseph Smith knew more about Arabia than all his critics.

Where in the BoM did it say that Lehi's party went to Arabia?

Did you get this piece of apologetics from Jeff Lindsey? Please reference your plagiarisms.

[Tr2]

Let me explain this a manner that might be a little clearer for you. Let us say that someone will pick up something from some obscure nook of history about Joseph Smith and suddenly claim that he taught of Men on the moon. This without any additional research or official published material.

Then let them read the latest material published about a point concerning the Book of Mormon that indicates it accuracy and they say there is nothing to vindicate Joseph Smith. Can you give me a better example of a religious bigot?

1) Joseph Smith was quoted from LDS literature if I am not mistaken. Where he was quoted is considered valuable to mormons and their history. Certain doctrines have been adapted from the same source. Why do we except some and not others, other than to preserve your public image? Is it because you only believe what you'd like to believe? Could it be that Smith was, at times, a blithering idiot when he opened his mouth?

2) The "latest material" published by the LDS church is not scientifically based, nor scientifically accurate. It is full of partial truths and partial facts. They are unfounded and non-factual opinions. Most mormon research is not recognized by anyone other than the mormon church. Your "proof" is not recognized by anyone who doesn't want to believe what you believe. History is based upon facts that are understood by people who may not like what those facts are. Mormon history has never been validated by an independent critic who has objectivity.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Tr2@Feb 15 2004, 06:39 PM

Let me explain this a manner that might be a little clearer for you. Let us say that someone will pick up something from some obscure nook of history about Joseph Smith and suddenly claim that he taught of Men on the moon. This without any additional research or official published material.

Then let them read the latest material published about a point concerning the Book of Mormon that indicates it accuracy and they say there is nothing to vindicate Joseph Smith. Can you give me a better example of a religious bigot?

1) Joseph Smith was quoted from LDS literature if I am not mistaken. Where he was quoted is considered valuable to mormons and their history. Certain doctrines have been adapted from the same source. Why do we except some and not others, other than to preserve your public image? Is it because you only believe what you'd like to believe? Could it be that Smith was, at times, a blithering idiot when he opened his mouth?

2) The "latest material" published by the LDS church is not scientifically based, nor scientifically accurate. It is full of partial truths and partial facts. They are unfounded and non-factual opinions. Most mormon research is not recognized by anyone other than the mormon church. Your "proof" is not recognized by anyone who doesn't want to believe what you believe. History is based upon facts that are understood by people who may not like what those facts are. Mormon history has never been validated by an independent critic who has objectivity.

Well that was a mouthfull of general, unfounded, undocumented, slosh!

[Tr2]

Show me irrefutable facts.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Tr2@Feb 16 2004, 05:30 AM

Show me irrefutable facts.

YOU show me those facts you just slurrrrred over.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

The existence of a wooded coastline with wild honey in Arabia, or of the frankincense trail, doesn't prove the Book of Mormon is true. What it does do is (potentially) refute one of the attempts to prove it's not true.

If a critic were to say that the Book of Mormon was not true because nowhere in Arabia can one find a coast wooded with enough trees for shipbuilding, and containing wild honey, then the discovery of such a place would refute that argument.

But that doesn't absolutely prove that Joseph Smith knew about this place from his translation of an ancient record referring to it. That's certainly one possibility -- but it's also possible that he wrote the Book of Mormon's account of this place without much thought at all for whether there were really places in Arabia with shipbuilding timber. Maybe he just assumed that there would be.

Let's imagine that one of Joseph Smith's contemporaries, knowing just as little about North Africa as Joseph Smith knew about Arabia (which, as Hugh Nibley pointed out, was pretty much the same as the rest of the Western world, i.e. next to nothing), decided to write a book about a party of Hebrews traveling through the wilderness to the New World -- except that this party, instead of going southeast like Lehi, headed west, across North Africa. Our hypothetical storyteller doesn't know whether North Africa is wooded. He may have a vague idea that it's mostly desert, but, since he himself lives in a heavily timbered country, he figures there's probably at least some place with sufficient timber for shipbuilding. So he writes that the party of traveling Hebrews sets up camp in a valley on the coast of Morocco and builds a ship.

Now, it happens that in the Atlas Mountains of Morocco, unlike in most of North Africa, there is plenty of timber for building ships. Would that mean that our hypothetical storyteller's story must be true?

Of course, add up enough of these coincidences and they start to have a logic of their own. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in law, and in history, it's often the only evidence available. If it were to turn up (without massaging of the Book of Mormon's text to make it seem more specific than it is) that Joseph Smith actually knew about a large number of things contemporary science didn't (i.e. we discover that ancient Americans used horses, steel, golden plates for record-keeping, etc.) it starts to become a little harder to conclude that Joseph Smith wrote these things merely by shooting in the dark. One problem, though, is that much of the Book of Mormon's discussion about the society in which it took place is written in such general terms that a large number of things could be seen as being consistent with it.

In other words, it's not great evidence to say that the Book of Mormon accurately describes ancient American warfare, when the Book of Mormon's descriptions of warfare are so general that they are consistent with not only ancient American warfare, but with several other military traditions.

[Guest antishock82003]

Why did the three "witnesses" sign the same paper and not a personal account? Especially since there "witnesses" came at different times?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by antishock82003@Feb 16 2004, 12:34 PM

Why did the three "witnesses" sign the same paper and not a personal account? Especially since there "witnesses" came at different times?

Why not. It isn't important as you seem to make it out to be. What is it you really are after Anti?

[Guest antishock82003]

Originally posted by Peace+Feb 16 2004, 01:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Feb 16 2004, 01:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--antishock82003@Feb 16 2004, 12:34 PM

Why did the three "witnesses" sign the same paper and not a personal account?  Especially since there "witnesses" came at different times?

Why not. It isn't important as you seem to make it out to be. What is it you really are after Anti?

Gee, one glib answer after another. What a surprise. Answer the question, Peace. Why did the three "witnesses" sign the same paper and not a personal account? Think about it.