The historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon

[Mamas_Girl]

The Christians did have evidence. Rome, Egypt, Red Sea, numerous empires and on and on and on. All documented outside of the Christian sources. Why is this group so intent on tearing down the bible? So eager to discard it.

I don't see it as tearing down the Bible. We were asked specifically about archealogical evidence and the Book of Mormon. My comment was that the Book of Mormon has only been known to man for 181 years, that's quite young in comparison to the Bible.

The mere fact that the early Christians knew about the existance of Rome, Egypt, the Red Sea, etc. is not evidence that the Bible is true. That does not prove, or disprove, the Exodus, the Creation, Evolution, the Flood, or the fact that the earth is considerably older than 6,000 years.

While it is true that there's no solid evidence yet concerning the Book of Mormon, we do know that there were ancient civilizations that lived in Central and South America, and that they did have a belief in a great white God who was to return. Thus the Aztecs met with ruin when Cortez came. To me, a good read is Dr. Sorenson's book, "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon," or something to that effect. Of course it's BYU/LDS so...

Science is based on evidence, faith is based on, well... faith. I have a corner where I keep my faith, and a corner where I keep science. I let science rule too long and fell away from God entirely having declared myself atheist. I've since returned due to a personal miracle that I witnessed. The problem with many Christians (and I include Mormons in there), is that they pick and choose the science that "proves" their point while ignoring the greater picture. To me when things become overwhelming on one side of the scale, we have to quit believing the earth is flat.

[MagneticField]

We need to be reasonable in our faith.

As an (former?) atheist, I've heard and said many times "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people"

There's no any logical religion. I've studied christianity a lot, and those studies made me sure that's not the right religion. Same with every other religion, except mormonism. I'm not LDS myself, and I'm not sure that it's true either, but I haven't felt the same feeling with any other religion.

[Blackmarch]

Hi all,

I'm currently a non-denominational Christian and believe that the Bible is reliable through archaeology and manuscript transmission. However, I've been researching the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon and have not seen anything compelling. There seems to be no specific confirmation of the Book of Mormon from archaeology.

Can someone point me to some non-BYU sponsored data dedicated to archaeology as it pertains to the Book of Mormon? I can't seem to find anything!

Thank you,

There havent been any sign or names found that translate into names exactly as the BoM has them yet, however there have been quite a few paralells that have been found that are unique to ancient american practices and descriptions found In the BoM.

Id suggest taking a gander over at FairLDS.org if for nothing else getting references to folks or sources both within and outside the frame youre searching in

[Blackmarch]

Reliable through archaeology and manuscript transmission?

Seriously?

Could you point me to some substantiation of that claim for any of the important teachings of the Bible?

That the Gods created the earth?

Existence of Adam and Eve.

Existence of Abraham

The Flood

That Moses saw God

That Isaiah was a prophet of God.

That Jesus was the Christ

That salvation is brought to mankind via the death and resurrection of Jesus,

That God exist.

Anything?

Actually before all those questions id ask what is required to prove something exists?

[Snow]

Actually before all those questions id ask what is required to prove something exists?

Legal, scientific, whatever. It doesn't matter because the poster made a claim they have no ability or intention of demonstrating.

To claim that the has been validated by archaeology or history is absurd. Certainly some of the stories of the Bible can be shown to have situated in real historical places but so what. The stories of the early LDS Church can be demonstrated conclusively to have occurred in real historical places with real historical people but that doesn't prove that the LDS Church's claims of divines origin are true.

[Mamas_Girl]

To claim that the has been validated by archaeology or history is absurd. Certainly some of the stories of the Bible can be shown to have situated in real historical places but so what. The stories of the early LDS Church can be demonstrated conclusively to have occurred in real historical places with real historical people but that doesn't prove that the LDS Church's claims of divines origin are true.

Okay, I was gonna leave it with a thanks, but this post is so good I have to actually say it. Thank you.

[Maya]

I am sorry but we have nto really bumped in to lables that says: Welcome to Zarahemla or This is the town of Nphiha or Here lies the great worior Moroni

From the beginning of the BoM we do have real places named, which JS could ofcourse see in teh Bible. However it is utmost unbelievable taht he would have seen one of the very few maps containing the Arabic peninsula where the name of NHM is written, yet the storytelling in the BoM clarely shows, that the place called NHM, where a few yers ago was found some althars with this name craved on them, is situated excactly wher the BoM says it should be. Also everyone in JS days thought, that the Arabic peninsula was bare sand and made fun of the BoM telling there was a very fertile place there. Later they have found a couple of fertile places and one or two of them lie due east from NHM, where the BoM tells that the people were travelling after berrying Ismael in NHM that incidentally was a graveplace for foreighners.

About the Americas we have several theories, but because none of the places ahve come with the lables I mentioned in the beginning we cant say for certanity that this is the place. However many things are found adn many things will be found. The Biblical lands have been researched for hundreds of years, the Americas is only starting. The Biblical research can not either for certanity come out with more than a few real proves, but the proves that re not so certain are accepted easier than BoM proves... after all they DO have the old cities that have not changed their names in the history. Names of the BoM Cities again were probably changed a few times during the history. (A good example of changing manes is fex. Leningrad, that first was Pietari then Leningrad then St. Petersburg... or Oslo that used to be Christiania... names do change) One interesting new found town in Central america is the town of Lamonai.

What most scolars now ar for is the limited Central America modell. And even there are a couple of possibilities. For more information visit: Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum

[volgadon]

Leningrad, that first was Pietari then Leningrad then St. Petersburg

It was originally St. Peterburg, then Petrograd, then Leningrad and back to St. Peterburg.

Edited November 26, 2011 by volgadon

[doss]

Alright folks, if you are going to claim that the BoM is more reliable than the Hebrew Bible, be my guest. I feel I've made my point and any more that I write would be futile.

We both have feelings that our religion is true.

The biblical view of faith is that it is always a trusting commitment based on known fact. The

disciples knew their faith was grounded in truth, not because they had the feeling that it was true but

because Jesus had fulfilled his promise to rise from the dead. There are three (3) types of faith:

1) Faith with evidence. This is reasonable faith (e.g., many events in the Bible including Jesus’

Resurrection, historicity, etc).

2) Faith with no evidence, for or against. This is blind faith.

3) Faith in spite of evidence against it. This is stubborn faith

Go where the evidence leads.....

[doss]

Alright folks, if you are going to claim that the BoM is reliable then be my guest. I've shown statements made by historical institutions, by ancient literature historians, etc. I feel I've made my point and any more that I write would be futile. I'll defer to the people that study this stuff for a living. Lets be honest, the archaeological record for the BoM is not good.

We both have feelings that our religion is true.

The biblical view of faith is that it is always a trusting commitment based on known fact. The

disciples knew their faith was grounded in truth, not because they had the feeling that it was true but

because Jesus had fulfilled his promise to rise from the dead. There are three (3) types of faith:

1) Faith with evidence. This is reasonable faith (e.g., many events in the Bible including Jesus’

Resurrection, historicity, etc).

2) Faith with no evidence, for or against. This is blind faith.

3) Faith in spite of evidence against it. This is stubborn faith.

Go where the evidence leads.....the worst thing you can do is stick to something because that's how you were taught or born into.

Edited November 27, 2011 by doss

[annewandering]

Alright folks, if you are going to claim that the BoM is reliable then be my guest. I feel I've made my point and any more that I write would be futile.

We both have feelings that our religion is true.

The biblical view of faith is that it is always a trusting commitment based on known fact. The

disciples knew their faith was grounded in truth, not because they had the feeling that it was true but

because Jesus had fulfilled his promise to rise from the dead. There are three (3) types of faith:

1) Faith with evidence. This is reasonable faith (e.g., many events in the Bible including Jesus’

Resurrection, historicity, etc).

2) Faith with no evidence, for or against. This is blind faith.

3) Faith in spite of evidence against it. This is stubborn faith.

Go where the evidence leads.....

We do go where the evidence, seen and unseen take us. Do you actually know what faith means?

[Justice]

What we have here is a very common misunderstanding.

You see, it's not the Bible versus the Book of Mormon, it's your interpretation of the Bible versus the Book of Mormon.

Does the Book of Mormon support what the Bible teaches? In my view, I can most definately say "yes!"

You, on the other hand, would say "no" (a reasonable assumption on my part).

The difference between you and I (I'm guessing) is that I have read and studied the Book of Mormon for over 30 years with a firm and honest desire to know that the things I'm reading are true. If you read from the Book of Mormon it is never with the intent to read it to gain knowledge of God, but to look for where it disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible, and you have never sincerely desired or prayed to know if it is true because you have your mind made up before you open it.

You see, the Book of Mormon IS EVIDENCE of the restoration, and evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God. Evidence of the Book of Mormon may or may not be laying in the earth somewhere, but the promise given whereby you may know that it is true is not based on evidence in the earth. It's based on the book itself, and the accompanying promised feelings of peace and comfort that attend while reading it. But, you must read in faith; you must read with an honest desire to know, willing to give up what you currently believe for the sake of the truth.

God will never force you to read it. He'll never force a witness of it on you if you do not desire to have one. The truth is, you can say whatever you want on this forum, that you read it with an honest desire to know if it is true, but no such feeling came. We know better. We know that God gave a promise with the book that ALL HONEST seekers of truth will have an undeniable witness of it manifested to them. We don't know how it works, we just know it works.

[Justice]

We both have feelings that our religion is true.

By the way, what is your religion specifically?

[Snow]

Alright folks...

The biblical view of faith is that it is always a trusting commitment based on known fact. The

disciples knew their faith was grounded in truth, not because they had the feeling that it was true but

because Jesus had fulfilled his promise to rise from the dead. There are three (3) types of faith:

1) Faith with evidence. This is reasonable faith (e.g., many events in the Bible including Jesus’

Resurrection, historicity, etc)...

Alright doss,

What evidence/"known fact" that is "grounded in truth" is there that:

1 Jesus was born of a virgin

2 Jesus is the Son of God

3 Jesus is the Christ

4. Died for your sins

It's just a guess but I'd predict that you won't be able to answer.

For that matter... what known fact grounded in truth is there that Jesus actually was raised from the dead. Again I'll predict that you won't be able to offer a single known fact grounded in truth. At best you will be able to offer a few, conflicting, anonymous, non-eyewitness accounts, composed in unknown locations, decades and decades after the supposed events (up to 8 or 9 decades)... a far, far cry from anything approaching fact or proof.

Am I mistaken or does most of your faith meet your own definition of blind or stubborn faith?

Edited November 27, 2011 by Snow

[Mamas_Girl]

There are three (3) types of faith:

1) Faith with evidence. This is reasonable faith (e.g., many events in the Bible including Jesus’ Resurrection, historicity, etc).

2) Faith with no evidence, for or against. This is blind faith.

3) Faith in spite of evidence against it. This is stubborn faith.

You know, when I've studied the writings of John Wesley I came to the conclusion that he believed that faith was not anything that was experienced by the natural senses (i.e. sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch) that sense is the evidence of things seen. I have evidence, for example, that there are stars in the sky, not because of faith, but because of sense -- I see them therefore I know. Once one has evidence they no longer have faith concerning the object as they have advanced to the stage of knowledge.

But Wesley taught that faith is the evidence of things not seen, and it comes through the study of scriptures, obedience to the law, and prayer. Some of those things include the spirit of man, angels, and more importantly the resurrected Christ. I've never actually seen the Lord, nor have I heard him, or touched him. Yet I know he exists not through any of my senses, but by faith from reading and praying. This is how I define faith. Faith is not something I can see, touch, smell, etc., it is something that comes from the Spirit.

To me, we cannot base our faith in the sciences. There's plenty of evidence against the traditional view of Creationism, and the creation of man, at what point do we say this science is true, but that science is wrong, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary? I solve it all by keeping my faith and my science apart, putting them together only causes chaos.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Mamas_Girl
emphasis to make it easier to read, I hope

[Madriglace]

Doss you left out another type of faith

4. Faith supported by personal revelation and confirmation ... true faith.

There is eveidence of the Book of Mormon ... however if you don't first have a testimony that it is true then you could be standing right on top of it and you wouldn't see it. I have been there .. I have seen it.

The ?Candelabra of the Andes? | Bad Archaeology

I don't know if I have done this link right or not but ask any member of the church in Peru and they will tell you that this is not a candelabra (since when did fire come out the sides of a candle?) but the tree of life as depicted in Lehi's dream. It is on the coast of Peru and cannot be seem from land. It is carved into the sand and they have no idea how old it is ... it remains because the wind never touches the ground. Has it been authenticated as proof of the Book of Mormon? No. Do I know that it is? You bet. Becuase I have been given confirmation.

Wanting phyisical proof is kind of like everyone wanting to see that movie "The Passion of Christ" (I think that was the name) ... I had no interest in seeing it because I didn't have see the crucifiction happen to know that it did.

When you stop fighting what we are saying and simply ask for yourself, you will know.

[maiku]

Alright folks, if you are going to claim that the BoM is reliable then be my guest. I've shown statements made by historical institutions, by ancient literature historians, etc. I feel I've made my point and any more that I write would be futile. I'll defer to the people that study this stuff for a living. Lets be honest, the archaeological record for the BoM is not good.

We both have feelings that our religion is true.

The biblical view of faith is that it is always a trusting commitment based on known fact. The

disciples knew their faith was grounded in truth, not because they had the feeling that it was true but

because Jesus had fulfilled his promise to rise from the dead. There are three (3) types of faith:

1) Faith with evidence. This is reasonable faith (e.g., many events in the Bible including Jesus’

Resurrection, historicity, etc).

2) Faith with no evidence, for or against. This is blind faith.

3) Faith in spite of evidence against it. This is stubborn faith.

Go where the evidence leads.....the worst thing you can do is stick to something because that's how you were taught or born into.

Foolishness

When did Jesus ever say in the Bible to believe on his name because of archaeological facts? If you believe the Bible is the word of God because of some archaeological information then I feel sorry for you.

I've received witness from the Holy Ghost that the Bible is the word of God, just as I've received the same heavenly witness about the Book of Mormon.

You should procure to receive the knowledge from God, the knowledge that man cannot give or take away.

[Vort]

None is so blind as he who will not see. Doss does not want to learn; he wants to preach. To be blunt, the discussion is a waste of time.

[bytor2112]

Alright folks, if you are going to claim that the BoM is reliable then be my guest. I've shown statements made by historical institutions, by ancient literature historians, etc. I feel I've made my point and any more that I write would be futile. I'll defer to the people that study this stuff for a living. Lets be honest, the archaeological record for the BoM is not good.

We both have feelings that our religion is true.

The biblical view of faith is that it is always a trusting commitment based on known fact. The

disciples knew their faith was grounded in truth, not because they had the feeling that it was true but

because Jesus had fulfilled his promise to rise from the dead. There are three (3) types of faith:

1) Faith with evidence. This is reasonable faith (e.g., many events in the Bible including Jesus’

Resurrection, historicity, etc).

2) Faith with no evidence, for or against. This is blind faith.

3) Faith in spite of evidence against it. This is stubborn faith.

Go where the evidence leads.....the worst thing you can do is stick to something because that's how you were taught or born into.

The things of God can only be known by the power of the Holy Spirit. (1st Corinthians)

[Snow]

Alright doss,

What evidence/"known fact" that is "grounded in truth" is there that:

1 Jesus was born of a virgin

2 Jesus is the Son of God

3 Jesus is the Christ

4. Died for your sins

It's just a guess but I'd predict that you won't be able to answer.

For that matter... what known fact grounded in truth is there that Jesus actually was raised from the dead. Again I'll predict that you won't be able to offer a single known fact grounded in truth. At best you will be able to offer a few, conflicting, anonymous, non-eyewitness accounts, composed in unknown locations, decades and decades after the supposed events (up to 8 or 9 decades)... a far, far cry from anything approaching fact or proof.

Am I mistaken or does most of your faith meet your own definition of blind or stubborn faith?

doss,

Do you think I will be waiting a long time for your response?

[Guest gopecon]

Do you really think that many non-Mormon scholars are spending a lot of time connecting the dots with ancient American archeology and the Book of Mormon? The fact is that there is a fair amount of evidence from ancient America that seems to corroborate the BofM. It doesn't make it less true that the only ones who are highlighting it are LDS scholars.

To doss' question in post #3 (HiJolly, thank you for that. Is this then the standard Mormon view? If so, then why are you not an Orthodox Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, etc? Can we not say their religious experiences are just as valid?), I can't judge the conversion experiences of other people. I can only speak for myself and my own conversion. I have read the BoM multiple times and have prayed about it. I took Moroni up on his promise (Moroni 10:3-5) and felt the confirmation of the Holy Ghost telling me that it is true. The BoM helps me to come closer to my Father in Heaven and to my Savior. If other people find fulfillment and draw closer to God with their faiths, who am I to deny them?

[doss]

Hi folks,

What I am saying is that people of other religious faiths have feelings that make them believe their beliefs are true. As a Christian, I have had 2 experiences in my life that I can not deny was the Holy Spirit. Does this mean my religion is true and yours is not? You see, in the Bible, the Pharisees were arresting the followers of Jesus and they thought they were doing God's will. They claimed that they had spoke to God. Lets not forget the Apostle Paul, a devout persecutor of Christians. He thought he was doing God's will. People of other religions claim a confirmation from within themselves as evidence that their religion is true. Mohammed made claims of visions similar to Joseph Smith's. Regarding the Qur'an he claimed that "this Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than God". Muslims argue that the number of changed lives and cultures by the Qur'an are evidence of its divine origin.

Is Islam true? No. Certainly, Mormons do not believe that it is. So, one can be sincere and confident that God has shown them the way and still be mistaken. Mormons are not the only ones to err on this point, myself included. I have been guilty at some point of presenting feelings and spiritual experiences as evidence. Please understand that I dont' want to downplay the authenticity of spiritual experiences--I believe much of it is authentic.

All I am saying is that we must look at outside evidence. Ask yourself why you believe what you believe. Are you a product of your culture? Do you believe X because it's all you've known?

Pray and think about it.

Edited November 30, 2011 by doss

[NeuroTypical]

As a Christian, I have had 2 experiences in my life that I can not deny was the Holy Spirit. Does this mean my religion is true and yours is not?

No, but that's not the only option. I don't deny you the validity of your experience. That doesn't mean the truth claims of my church are false.

Is Islam true? No. Certainly, Mormons do not believe that it is.

Again, that's not the only option. Professor Daniel Peterson, who teaches Islamic studies and Arabic at BYU, talks about how he can see some evidence of divine inspiration in the Quran.

All I am saying is that we must look at outside evidence. Ask yourself why you believe what you believe.

No argument here. It does seem like you're just assuming that nobody here has followed this advice. On the contrary, many of the people here (myself included) have become LDS precicely because they did follow that advice.

[volgadon]

You see, in the Bible, the Pharisees were arresting the followers of Jesus and they thought they were doing God's will. They claimed that they had spoke to God.

Where is that claim?

[volgadon]

Muslims argue that the number of changed lives and cultures by the Qur'an are evidence of its divine origin.

Isn't this looking at outside evidence?