Research paper

[Gretchen]

I'm writing a research paper on why The Book of Mormon can't be proven false, and part of the paper is debunking the myths about The Book of Mormon, and seeing as I don't pay much attention to the slander, I really am not sure what people say about us. Also, part of the paper is comparing Native American legends with our doctrine. Any one able to give some advice?

[Wingnut]

Nothing we tell you can be included in a research paper; it will only be anecdotal. Without sources, asking us for advice is useless, and stories will only be hearsay.

[Dravin]

Also I think your thesis is flawed. Incontrovertible evidence that the book was manufactured by Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdrey would prove it false. Additionally a reputable recantation by Joseph Smith which hasn't turned up yet would do the trick as well. Or Emma I suppose, she'd probably be considered reliable all things considered. Additionally if one could somehow test the entire native genome of North and South America and demonstrate no gene flow from the middle east (not sure if such is even possible) that would pose problems.

Now obviously I don't believe such "evidences" exist, so they won't be popping up to throw a wrench any time soon, but if they did exist they would be fairly damning. You may want to refine your thesis into being about maybe some of the more popular accusations against it. Maybe use, "To what extent do current popular evidences used against the Book of Mormon have validity?" as a research question to guide you.

Also as Wing says we aren't a good source for evidences against (we have a bias and our presentation and selection would naturally tend towards the weakest ones out there). Your best bet would be to gather some sources from say the collection of "The Book of Mormon is false" books out there. Though interviewing antis, well respected ones (I know, from our perspective it is an oxymoron), could be another source. Reverend X of the Anti-Mormon League*, the largest organization dedicated to showing the Book of Mormon and the religion around it false, lists these claims as the 5 strongest against the Book of Mormon... Collaborate enough claims from across multiple sources and I think you could legitimately demonstrate it is a popular claim and then work from there. Though some of the claims will be theological and I'm not sure if that is something you want to delve into or if you want to keep it to physical/anachronistic claims.

Personally I'd pick another subject, while being passionate about a subject is a good thing, would you really be able to be open minded and fair with your interpretation of the situation? Or would you fall into the easy trap of misrepresenting the opposition and subtly spinning their position to undermine it and providing evidence that while convincing to a LDS would not be convincing to a neutral third party?

* Made up, but I'm sure organizations of similar aims exist.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Dravin

[livy111us]

I think The Book of Mormon is true, and find the evidence compelling in its behalf. But if someone does not believe it is true, they will find evidence for that belief. There will always be naysayers, despite the evidence. Just look at Laman and Lemuel. They heard the voice of the Lord, saw an angel, were shocked, and witnessed miracles. Yet, they still did not believe.

But, here are some valid convergences that are found in the BOM and Mesoamerica

Hermounts is mentioned in Alma 2:37-38 and reads “Yea, they were met on every hand, and slain and driven, until they were scattered on the west, and on the north, until they had reached the wilderness, which was called Hermounts; and it was that part of the wilderness which was infested by wild and ravenous beasts.” “And it came to pass that many died in the wilderness of their wounds, and were devoured by those beasts and also the vultures of the air; and their bones have been found, and have been heaped up on the earth.”

Hugh Nibley made the connection between Hermounts in The Book of Mormon and Egypt

But a connection can also be made between Mesoamerica and The Book of Mormon.

Hermounts was a place that was overrun with wild beasts, Mormon even thought it necessary to add “ravenous beasts”. Tehuantepec would seem to fit this description nicely, as the Nahuatl word for Tehuantepec literally means “hill of the Jag uar”, or hill of the wild beast. Lawrence Poulsen writes “The almost exact correlation in meaning for Tehuantepec and Hermounts suggests that the wilderness of Tehuantepec is an ideal candidate for the Book of Mormon wilderness of Hermounts.” Another interesting point is that the jaguars, or “wild beasts” of Tehuantepec were known to be more ravenous than other jaguars. There is a legend about the hill which Tehuantepec is built contained “Jaguars of a particularly bloodthirsty type infested the hill, killing and terrorizing the inhabitants.” It would make sense that Mormon made it a point to say that this area was “infested by wild and ravenous beasts” and “devoured” human flesh, if in fact, it was the same area.

One problem we have when it comes to the New World and The Book of Mormon is that there have been very few qualified people who have commented on it. I believe that in the past, many people have avoided New World scholarship and The Book of Mormon because of remarks like Hugh Nibleys on the issue who purportedly said when speaking about it that “I wouldn’t touch it with a forty foot pole”. If one of the greatest scholars in the Church didn’t dare delve into New World scholarship, how intimidating would it be for other scholars or amateurs to take on this huge task?

Since then, there have been several scholars who have opened the door to New World scholarship and The Book of Mormon. The works of John Sorenson, John Clark, Brant Gardner, Mark Wright and others have shed new light on, and have placed The Book of Mormon in a cultural context where stories that don’t make much sense in the text, begin to make sense when looked through a Mesoamerican lens. Brant Gardner and Lawrence Poulsen are a few of the people who have made several of these parallels, or even stronger connections called convergences. Biblical scholar William Dever describes convergences as thus:

“Whenever the two sources or ‘witnesses’ happen to converge in their testimony, a historical ‘datum’ (or given) may be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. To ignore or to deny the implications of such convergent testimony is irresponsible scholarship, since it impeaches the testimony of one witness without reasonable cause by suppressing other vital evidence.”

A convergence is not only a parallel between two items, but a correlation between text, time, culture, and sometimes even geography, that converge together and testify of the same thing. It is the connecting of dots from hints made in The Book of Mormon, with archaeology until a masterful picture begins to emerge from the text. One example can be found in Alma 25.

The story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, as described by Brant Gardner, is one that doesn’t make much sense in the present form. But, when viewed through the lens of Mesoamerican culture, makes perfect sense. In this story, we have a group of people who converted to the Lord and then, because of their new religion, covenanted no longer to commit “murder” and buried their weapons of war in the ground.

Later, the Lamanites attacked the city in an effort to destroy the king and “place another in his stead.” The Anti-Nephi-Lehies would not take up their arms they buried in the earth to defend themselves, and in consequence, many were slaughtered. The Lamanites were angry and redirected their warpath to the city of Ammonihah, which was a three days journey. It would seem to me that no matter how mad you were, you’d calm down after hiking through the jungles for three days, but do not and continue to Ammonihah and take captives. It is interesting that this is the only place in The Book of Mormon where it is specifically mentioned that the Lamanites took captives. Usually the Lamanites destroy the city or place it under a tribute system.

When looked at in a Mesoamerican culture, this story makes perfect sense. Why did the Anti-Nephi-Lehies bury their weapons? There is a Mesoamerican tradition of caching goods you have given to the gods, when you make a commitment to the gods, you bury the offering in the earth. Most of the time when you cached an item in Mesoamerica, you broke it first. So they broke the weapons and buried them. Why didn’t they dig them up? They were broken. They were symbolically broken as a witness you were giving them over to God.

In regards to the Lamanites, Brant Gardner relates:

“As part of the coronation of a new king in Mesoamerica “the king went to war to take captives for use in sacrificial rituals.”

“The attacking Lamanites have dethroned Lamoni’s brother (King Anti-Nephi-Lehi) and must install a new king. For this particular ritual they need sacrificial victims who have been taken in battle. The pacifism of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies has denied the right kind of captives; hence, the Lamanites have to find someone who will actually fight back and therefore set their sites on Ammonihah. But why Ammonihah?

Martin and Grube help us understand why the sneak attack on an unsuspecting Ammonihah would have been attractive to the Mesoamerican mind:

“Like many a Maya ruler, Bird Jaguar’s mystique was closely bound to his image as an indomitable warrior. His favorite military titles, ‘He of 20 Captives’ and ‘Master of Aj Uk,’ were seldom absent for his name phrase and much space was devoted to his various campaigns. Yet a modern understanding of these texts shows just how lowly most of these victims were. He made immense capital out of minor successes and Yaxchilan’s reputation was a ‘conquest state’ only reflects how beguiling his efforts have proved.”

The Lamanites were not full of blood lust as Mormon suggests. They were simply in dire need of war captives to make their coronation ceremony valid. To get them with as little risk as possible, they did what Bird Jaguar would later do—they looked for easy victims. Ammonihah looked like a quick easy conquest—far enough away to be unsuspecting.”

Here are some articles you may like:

BMAF Articles by Subject Matter | Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum

and some videos:

YouTube - bookmormon's Channel

But, of course, this is a vast subject that you could spend years researching and still not find all of the correlations between Mesoamerica and The Book of Mormon, but it is a start. I would HIGHLY RECOMMEND John Sorensons book "An Ancient American Setting for The Book of Mormon" before ANYTHING else. It is the foundation when it comes to this subject. You can read it here: Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon by John L. Sorenson

[Seanette]

Other posters in the thread have made good points you should consider. I'd also refer you to fairlds.org (as far as I know, one of the biggest organizations of LDS apologists).

[Dravin]

I'd be careful about how I use FAIR, they are a biased source. This is not to say there isn't good information to be had, but one needs to keep in mind from a neutral point of view an apologist organization is just as biased as an antagonistic organization, so don't expect to be able to rely on their reputation for support. They would be a good source (for research) if for no other thing than one can use the references provided in their papers to trace down 'neutral' sources whenever possible.

Also, what is the context for this paper? Is it a school assignment? Something you just want to do because? Something you intend to provide to a website for apologist purposes? It changes the evidential rules depending on its context and purpose.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Dravin

[cathyyg]

It is, in general, more difficult to *prove* something is false than true. Evidence not supporting the idea may simply be the wrong evidence, not proof of falsehood. I think Dravin is right in thinking that you need to refine your thesis.

[Seanette]

My thinking on suggesting FAIR was that she'd be able to find some of the more common anti-Mormon claims and sources for rebuttals. If she's having to go to sources biased AGAINST the Gospel, why not also use sources biased TOWARD it? No source will be totally objective, since human beings are involved. I'd think balancing the overall selection would be reasonable.

[tubaloth]

why The Book of Mormon can't be proven false

Because it can only come from God! Thats how he set it up.

(Doctrine and Covenants 5:7.)

7 Behold, if they will not believe my words, they would not believe you, my servant Joseph, if it were possible that you should show them all these things which I have committed unto you.

[Gretchen]

Thanks all, this is for a school assignment, and I thought I'd ask you because I figured you would have heard some anti-LDS rumors, and I would then prove them to be completely false.

[captmoroniRM]

You might find some good ideas from this essay:

The Book of Mormon - Artifact or Artifice? - Orson Scott Card

[albrnsmith]

Nothing we tell you can be included in a research paper; it will only be anecdotal. Without sources, asking us for advice is useless, and stories will only be hearsay.

Yes..i'm agree with you.....without good resource advice is useless...!

Online learning resource development and delivery has become an important task in the advanced education sector where attempts are being made to embed e-learning within main stream course delivery.

__________________

Term Paper

[LDSChristian]

Go to these links for a little help plus the sites can count as a source:

The trials (actual courtroom trials) Joseph Smith was in yet never found guilty:

Legal Trials of the Prophet: Joseph Smith's Life in Court

Personal testimonies from the 3 witnesses, some of the 8 witnesses (not the testimony in the Book of Mormon), and some of the other 14 people that saw the golden plates:

People That Saw and Witnessed the Golden Plates of the Book of Mormon - Moroni's Unofficial Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Mormon History Page

Including Joseph Smith, 26 people saw the golden plates. Also, pay attention to what the people of Richmond, Missouri say about David Whitmer, one of the 3 witnesses, at the bottom of the page.

"We, the undersigned, citizens of Richmond, Ray County, Missouri, where David Whitmer, Sr., has resided since the year, A.D. 1838, certify that we have been long and intimately acquainted with him, and know him to be a man of the highest integrity, and of undoubted truth and veracity--Given at Richmond, Missouri, this March 19, A.D. 1881."

[RipplecutBuddha]

The reason the Book of Mormon hasn't been proven false is simple...it is true.

However, from an objective point of view there is a very legitimate reason the argument hasn't progressed much since the 19th century.

1. Those with something to gain from proving the BoM false are unwilling/unable to put forth the requisite effort into true scholarly research. The efforts have all been centered on points brought up while Joseph Smith was still living, and new material on these points has been all but nonexistent. Stated another way, there are no arguments left that have any validity to them.

2. Those that are able to do a good job of scholarly examination recognize the issue as far more complex than those in the first group. There are things in the BoM that shouldn't be there....things that nobody knew, much less a poorly educated 21 year-old farm boy. The book was written far too quickly for a volume of such size....and in one draft. Stated another way, when one seriously studies all the issues the BoM presents, from a scholarly position, there are usually more questions than answers. If Joseph was not blessed of God, just how did he do this as he did?

3. Those that believe the BoM to be true have no need for it to be proven true through physical evidence or scholarly effort. Faith is the cornerstone of any relevatory religion, and the LDS Church is certainly no exception. The book itself leads the reader to prayer in discovering the truth of it. Such directions place faith and trust upon the Diety rather than mankind. Again, this is typical of revelatory religions. Stated another way, For Most Mormons, whether the rest of the world accepts it or not doesn't matter. They do, and that seems to have made all the difference in their lives...how can we say they're wrong?

[Traveler]

Proof is a difficult thing - even in exact sciences. Let me give a small example in a clock with three hands - an hour hand, a minute hand and a second hand all of which move in perfect unison with each other. That is that the minute hands move at a constant 1/60th of the speed of the second hand and the hour hand moves at a constant 1/60th of the minute hand. All hands on the clock are in constant motion. Question: is there mathematical proof the three hands will trisect the face of the clock - if so what time is it? Sound simple - sure but to my knowledge there is not a proof either way. BTW this was a problem presented on a final in a math class I had in college. I think my professor wanted to take credit for solving the problem is any student produced it on the final.

I believe there are two important points when it comes to proving or disproving the Book of Mormon:

First: - the absence of proof is not proof of absence. In other words - if the Book of Mormon cannot be proven true then that become proof that it is not true. Of if not one can prove the Book of Mormon to be false - that is proof that it is true.

Second: The methods employed to prove or disprove are as important as or perhaps even more so than the perceived results of the proof. This is a most interesting consideration when a religionist begins with the assumption that the Book of Mormon is not true and proceeds with their argument then will assume that the Bible is true using the opposite arguments. I have yet to see any proof argued against the Book of Mormon that does not also disprove the Bible if the same considerations are made.

The Traveler