The historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon


doss
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Oh, there are a lot of things about Mormon culture I like. And yes, I was raised Mormon. But I also can promise you that is not the reason it is my religion. Please, we're all mostly adults here; so give us some credit!

Without bothering to look up Leo Tolstoy quotes and therefore paraphrasing... I believe what I was taught because my soul already knew it.

Again, if you were able to concretely prove to me that my religion was wrong using outside evidence, yes, I would have to change the details of my faith.

As for the truth or lack thereof of other religions, why do I care? I believe that no human can properly comprehend God. I don't think anyone can prove/disprove the truth of any religion right now, but I can guarantee that the faith of people, no matter the religion, is true.

The problem with your argument is that I'm getting the impression you don't care why we believe what we believe. So why are you bothering to ask?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

All I am saying is that we must look at outside evidence.

What makes you think that we don't look at outside evidence? You make it sound like there should be as much evidence proving the Book of Mormon as there is proving the Bible, but yet as I explained the BoM is only 181 years old, so it's research is still in it's infancy. While I don't get hung up in science I have read numerous books and such published by those who really are doing the research -- Drs. Sorenson and Nibley, among others. So, who would you recommend Latter-day Saints study who is currently (or has) doing "Book of Mormon" archeology in either Central or South America, since you seem to want to discredit what the Y and maybe the U have been doing down there? My feeling is that you're gonna be hard pressed to come up with the name of someone who's familiar enough with the Book of Mormon to know if they do come across something connecting it.

But when you say that we need to look at outside evidence, does this mean that you have as well? Have you read An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon by Dr. John Sorenson? If not, it's a great read. I had trouble putting it down. He does an outstanding job at laying out a very plausible location for each of the events in the Book of Mormon and maps it out. Still it is only one possibility, but if he's wrong, so what?

Are you a product of your culture? Do you believe X because it's all you've known?

Nope, convert here from the United Methodist Church. How bout you? Always been what you are?

Pray and think about it.

Ah, we're back to that, are we? :P

Edited by Mamas_Girl
wrong their/there ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi folks,

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.

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.

I'm sorry but all I see here are contradictions to things you've previously posted.

What do you mean by "outside evidence"? Historical evidence? I'll give you a few of pieces if you wish:

In the early 19th century when common belief was that tobacco was harmless, Joseph Smith received revelation that it was not good for the body. It took 100 YEARS, a century, for science to catch up and confirm that truth. (See Doctrine & Covenants section 89)

Joseph Smith prophesied the American Civil War 30 YEARS before it happened. He foretold the location (South Carolina) and even the main cause (slavery). (See See Doctrine & Covenants section 130)

There are names of people, places and words in the Book of Mormon that have recently been discovered in ancient Jewish documents and have the SAME meaning as they do in the Book of Mormon but were completely unknown to the world in the 19th century. There is no way Joseph Smith could have known those names and definitions since that information just wasn't available in his day. Do you know what that means?

There is indeed archaeology that has been supported by the Book of Mormon text. Toward the beginning of the book, Nephi (a prophet in the book) writes about a place he visited south of Jerusalem called Nahom. Recently (in the last 20 or so years), archaeologists stumbled upon a place south of Jerusalem called Nahom! It was completely unknown in the 19th century, it was only recently found but it perfectly backs up the Book of Mormon.

There is a TON more of "outside evidence" but in the end it won't give you the undeniable evidence you need. That kind of evidence only comes from God. I've received it and I'm most certainly not the only one. (James 1:5, read it)

Edited by maiku
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, my heart tugs in the other direction. Through science, history, philosophy, prayer and witness of the Holy Spirit, I have to stay a Christian. During the early days of Christianity, many "cult" religions sprung up claiming to be the "truth". The Council of Nicea of 325AD put a stop to these cults because they were getting out of control. When you read the history, it becomes all too similar again.

I have tried to become Mormon. I dated a girl I wanted to marry. She was Mormon. An interfaith relationship was no issue for her. I thought it would be the same, but I could not accept raising kids that could be divided based on religion, for a division in the house could more than likely have them rebel against God. She gave me the Book of Mormon and I read it (I admit, not all of it) and the more I tried to believe, the less I could accept it. I tried to make it work. I really did. It just did not feel real to me. I prayed over it. I attended church with her. I went to classes and learned more about why Mormons believe what they do. After a while, I felt I did much more than the average Mormon. Who knows, maybe I just need 60 more years of this journey.

I've never seen anyone convince anyone of anything on an internet forum.

I wish you all luck in your own spiritual journey.

Edited by doss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how when you finally get that "outside evidence" you were asking for, you change the subject. I would really like you to READ my previous post and reconsider how you're approaching your quest for truth.

You may "feel" you've done more than the average Mormon to find out the truth according to your post, you definitely have not done so.

You yourself admitted that you haven't even read all of the Book of Mormon. No one knows the "heart" of another. If you say you really tried I have to take you at your word. I will tell though that if a person doesn't want to know the truth, no amount of prayer or study will get that person an answer from God.

I was an agnostic pretty much all my life and was "convinced" I was right, until seven years ago when I investigated the Church. I questioned EVERYTHING! But through it all, I sincerely wanted to know if God had a plan for us and if this was His Church, and most importantly, I was willing to do His will if He told me (be baptized, etc.). I did the reading, the praying, I talked with members about doubts I had, and although the answer didn't come over night I can tell you unequivocally that when I finished the Book of Mormon I KNEW it was the word of God.

You came on this forum with a question and you got some good answers but is it possible that there was something else drawing you here? You said you tried to be Mormon but couldn't but yet there still is a desire to know otherwise you wouldn't have posted here. I suggest you take that feeling and go with it.

Good luck on your spiritual journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, my heart tugs in the other direction. Through science, history, philosophy, prayer and witness of the Holy Spirit, I have to stay a Christian. During the early days of Christianity, many "cult" religions sprung up claiming to be the "truth". The Council of Nicea of 325AD put a stop to these cults because they were getting out of control. When you read the history, it becomes all too similar again.

And what was considered by many to be the biggest "cult" at that time? Christianity. And who was the person who lead that great council of Nicea? Constantine, who just happened to be a pagan (cult) worshipper himself. Wasn't baptized a Christian until his death bed. I wish you the best of luck on your spiritual journey also. Till we meet again...:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks, my heart tugs in the other direction. Through science, history, philosophy, prayer and witness of the Holy Spirit, I have to stay a Christian. During the early days of Christianity, many "cult" religions sprung up claiming to be the "truth". The Council of Nicea of 325AD put a stop to these cults because they were getting out of control. When you read the history, it becomes all too similar again.

I have tried to become Mormon. I dated a girl I wanted to marry. She was Mormon. An interfaith relationship was no issue for her. I thought it would be the same, but I could not accept raising kids that could be divided based on religion, for a division in the house could more than likely have them rebel against God. She gave me the Book of Mormon and I read it (I admit, not all of it) and the more I tried to believe, the less I could accept it. I tried to make it work. I really did. It just did not feel real to me. I prayed over it. I attended church with her. I went to classes and learned more about why Mormons believe what they do. After a while, I felt I did much more than the average Mormon. Who knows, maybe I just need 60 more years of this journey.

I've never seen anyone convince anyone of anything on an internet forum.

I wish you all luck in your own spiritual journey.

it quite possibly might. I know a man who had to go from being catholic to protestestant, then methodist then something else, then back to catholic, before finally finding the restored gospel. He had recieved answers from GOd that he should be in those religions at that time, he had also recieved inspiration to move on after those times. After having been in the LDS church for sometime he realised if he hadn't gone through those religions and had the experiences he did, and had gone straight to the LDS church he would have fallen away from the restored gospel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have tried to become Mormon. I dated a girl I wanted to marry. She was Mormon.

Ah! I think I finally understand you now. You thought that converting to Mormonism because of a girl, would be like converting from one flavor of mainstream Christianity to another. Yeah, whenever I hear someone saying "I wanna marry a Mormon", I ask them to take a step back and think. Becoming LDS just because you're dating one, can be a pretty bad decision. Being mormon is more than going to a church - it's a lifestyle and a set of covenants that set you apart from nonmormons.

I could not accept raising kids that could be divided based on religion, for a division in the house could more than likely have them rebel against God.

Good for you - I ask folks in your situation to carefully consider exactly that. Kids are not supposed to be pawns in battles over who has the better faith.

I wish you all luck in your own spiritual journey.

You too doss!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the early 19th century when common belief was that tobacco was harmless, Joseph Smith received revelation that it was not good for the body. It took 100 YEARS, a century, for science to catch up and confirm that truth. (See Doctrine & Covenants section 89)

Actually, the church was on the cutting edge of this movement, but they were not the first to suggest the dangers and abstinence from tobacco. Doctors/Science were already agreeing that the use of tobacco was bad. The Journal of Health, 1831, was just one of several medical dissertations of the time that went into detail about the evils of alcohol, tobacco, and other harmful substances.

Joseph Smith prophesied the American Civil War 30 YEARS before it happened. He foretold the location (South Carolina) and even the main cause (slavery). (See See Doctrine & Covenants section 130)

True, but look at the date of that revelation, December 1832. It was only a month earlier that South Carolina had attempted to secede from the Union, though over tariffs, not slavery. But the issue of slavery was heating up, no doubt. In 1820 the Georgia governor talked about how the southern states would secede over the issue of slavery, and even gave an accurate account of which ones! No surprise really since they were all states still maintaining slavery.

So you ask, am I saying that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet of God, or that these were not revelations received from God? Of course not. Prophets are on earth to help us through the events that are important to our own time and place, and to inform us of what is to come. So what if Joseph Smith got a copy of The Journal of Health and went to the Lord over the issue of the Word of Wisdom. So what if he knew that South Carolina was a tinderbox waiting to explode. The fact that it did, and it was over slavery, not the tariff is something right there.

But this is why we need to know not only the revelations, but the time and place that these were occuring in. If you want to talk about evidence, there you have it. The nation was talking about these things, and the Lord answered through his prophet. I still think that these were amazing revelations. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the church was on the cutting edge of this movement, but they were not the first to suggest the dangers and abstinence from tobacco. Doctors/Science were already agreeing that the use of tobacco was bad. The Journal of Health, 1831, was just one of several medical dissertations of the time that went into detail about the evils of alcohol, tobacco, and other harmful substances.

True, but look at the date of that revelation, December 1832. It was only a month earlier that South Carolina had attempted to secede from the Union, though over tariffs, not slavery. But the issue of slavery was heating up, no doubt. In 1820 the Georgia governor talked about how the southern states would secede over the issue of slavery, and even gave an accurate account of which ones! No surprise really since they were all states still maintaining slavery.

I think you misunderstood my post. I never said the Church was the first to say tobacco was harmful, in the 1600's Sir Francis Bacon once wrote that tobacco could be dangerous because it was so hard to quit chewing. The consensus however at the time of the revelation was that tobacco was good because it kept you alert. In fact, the US government handed cigarettes out to soldiers in WWI for that same reason. In the 1830's there had been no studys performed to suggest that tobacco was harmful.

About the civil war revelation, yes, many others predicted similar things in the early 1830's included US president Martin Van Buren. However, in the 1840's much of the problems in South Carolina had calmed down and many of the people who made predictions began to deny them, but not Joseph Smith. That's why I quoted section 130 of the DyC because it was written in 1843. Joseph reaffirms his prophecy at a time when others were denying it.

The point here? I never claimed he was the only one to say such things but rather he made definitive claims in a time of great uncertainty and time after time he was right. That's the "outside evidence" doss was searching for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maiku,

What I disagreed with in your initial post was that it took science 100 years to catch up and confirm that truth. No, I'm saying that the revelation and science were moving along in tandem. Most doctors (or men of science) in the first half of the 19th century taught the evils of tobacco, though it was still used by many as a medicine to treat various diseases. I'm just saying that scientific magazines of the era, along with many laymen were beginning to really understand the effect of tobacco on the body, but the problem was the same as today -- addiction.

However, in the 1840's much of the problems in South Carolina had calmed down and many of the people who made predictions began to deny them, but not Joseph Smith. That's why I quoted section 130 of the DyC because it was written in 1843. Joseph reaffirms his prophecy at a time when others were denying it.

My apologies, I didn't realize that Joseph reaffirmed his statement on the war. :cool:

One thing that's interesting to note is that John C Calhoun, who was that noisy South Carolinian during the first attempt for the state to secede, decided in March of 1843 to resign from the US Senate and throw his hat into the ring for the presidency, Calhoun was well-known as a pro-slavery advocate. Could this have moved the Prophet to reaffirming his previous statement on the war? Could be, but by summer Calhoun withdrew his bid. None the less the point as we've been saying all along is simply that things were going on and the prophet went to the Lord on these matters and received divine inspiration. I also find it interesting to note that Joseph apparently wasn't 100% sure in the second revelation as he says it "may probably arise through the slave question." v 13

But still I think our point's the same. If we're looking for evidence, it's there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Through science, history, philosophy, prayer and witness of the Holy Spirit, I have to stay a Christian.

Stay a Christian? Now you are showing your true colors. You are aren't here for any reason but to insult faithful followers of the gospel. It's not like it wasn't obvious before but you can't help but make it even plainer.

BTW, I knew you would avoid holding your own beliefs re the Bible to the same standard you sought to apply to believers in the Book of Mormon. You are nothing if not transparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I listened to this podcast on Mormon Stories Podcast, very interesting! Dr. Michael Coe – An Outsider’s View of Book of Mormon Archaeology

Dr. Michael Coe is an expert on the Maya, who inhabited the same part of Mexico and Central American where Mormon scholars say the events of the Book of Mormon took place. In this interview, Coe discusses the challenges facing Mormon archaeologists attempting to prove the historical truth of their central scripture and his own views on Joseph Smith.

Yes he is skeptical, but he is not anti-mormon, he thinks JS is one of the greatest people who ever lived, he says in the interview. Worth listening to!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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,

We have 1,000's of year of catch up work to do; give us time we will get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was one of my favorite quotes from this last conference. It was Tad Callister.

The Bible is one witness of Jesus Christ; the Book of Mormon is another. Why is this second witness so crucial? The following illustration may help: How many straight lines can you draw through a single point on a piece of paper? The answer is infinite. For a moment, suppose that single point represents the Bible and that hundreds of those straight lines drawn through that point represent different interpretations of the Bible and that each of those interpretations represents a different church.

What happens, however, if on that piece of paper there is a second point representing the Book of Mormon? How many straight lines could you draw between these two reference points: the Bible and the Book of Mormon? Only one. Only one interpretation of Christ’s doctrines survives the testimony of these two witnesses.

You get so many Christians that can't agree on the gospel that they come up with "Non-Denominational" which doesn't mean a whole lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was one of my favorite quotes from this last conference. It was Tad Callister.

The Bible is one witness of Jesus Christ; the Book of Mormon is another. Why is this second witness so crucial? The following illustration may help: How many straight lines can you draw through a single point on a piece of paper? The answer is infinite. For a moment, suppose that single point represents the Bible and that hundreds of those straight lines drawn through that point represent different interpretations of the Bible and that each of those interpretations represents a different church.

What happens, however, if on that piece of paper there is a second point representing the Book of Mormon? How many straight lines could you draw between these two reference points: the Bible and the Book of Mormon? Only one. Only one interpretation of Christ’s doctrines survives the testimony of these two witnesses.

That's an odd, and inaccurate, claim.

The Bible doesn't represent "a single point." It represents 66 books (or 73 or more depending on which version you prefer) written by numerous authors over hundreds and hundred or years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bible doesn't represent "a single point."

He didn't make this claim, Snow, if you want to get technical.

He drew a point, then said the "point represents the Bible," so you kind of have it backwards.

He's just making an illustration and using points instead of accutate drawings to represent the books on paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share