Sunday21

Book on supporting evidence for Book of Mormon?

Recommended Posts

Is anyone familiar with a book that compiles supporting evidence for the Book of Mormon? If not, could someone out there please write one? I am reading Michael Ash's shaken faith syndrome, very interesting except for a lengthy section that drones on about how mean critics are to moron defenders of the faith - true no doubt but consider the source. if they were nice people they would out doing doing good works, rather than throwing stones. if they were mentally stable, they would invest their time more profitably elsewhere. Any how, my point, and yes I do have one, is that, Ash refers to a variety of evidences for the Book of Mormon: tlinguistic parallels, place names, peoples' names, in the book of Mormon. It sure would be great to read a book that compiled these evidences. Anyone feel like writing such a book? For Christmas, if you are not too busy. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of Faith and Reason 81 evidences of the Book of Mormon by Michael Ash  ;) 

Google Books

 

Amazon

 

Deseret Book

 

There are others, but this book is a very good brief overview of quite a few things. If there is anything in particular that you are interested in there are also other books. You can also find quite a few books on the maxwell institue website. Anything by Hugh Nibley is good, though technical (Find and read it HERE)

Edited by Crypto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about Nibley being useful, but I somewhat disagree with characterizing him as "technical". The man was as gifted as anyone I have ever heard with relaying information in an accessible format, making even complex things understandable (if not always simple). He was sometimes dense, in the sense of packing a lot of information into what he said, and he sometimes had a propensity for giving a quote in a foreign language (Latin and German seemed to be his favorites), but he always provided the translation, so it's not like he lectured at you in German.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about Nibley being useful, but I somewhat disagree with characterizing him as "technical". The man was as gifted as anyone I have ever heard with relaying information in an accessible format, making even complex things understandable (if not always simple). He was sometimes dense, in the sense of packing a lot of information into what he said, and he sometimes had a propensity for giving a quote in a foreign language (Latin and German seemed to be his favorites), but he always provided the translation, so it's not like he lectured at you in German.

 

Agreed, though the book linked-to (Enoch the Prophet) was the hardest of the seven I've read so far.

 

As to him not lecturing in a foreign language, my mom, or one of her sisters (I no longer remember who told the story), was taking a religion class from him at BYU.  He walked in carrying a stack of books up to his neck, plopped them on the counter, took the top one from the stack and started reading to them - in Hebrew (if I remember the language right - either way, it was not English).  At one point he paused, and said in English, "Now notice how it says here..." and then re-read part of the book.  Eventually one of the students was able to get his attention and point out it was supposed to be a Book of Mormon class. :)

Edited by zil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally agree with you Vort, but considering the number of people whom i've heard say it's not an easy read, it's worth noting just in case.

Edited by Crypto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recommend An Approach to the Book of Mormon by Hugh Nibley. It's very good. Here's a link where you can read it online: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/book/an-approach-to-the-book-of-mormon/

 

Or Lehi in the Desert - which includes many (if not all) the same info, but in a different style (I prefer the style of Lehi in the Desert - so check out the first chapters of each and see which style you like).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also have suggested Nibley for you as others have done.

 

I also like the material available through Mormon Evidence - I think there is a lot of interesting stuff to think on that I have found useful. I don't agree with everything they have to say, but I appreciate the effort and enjoy the perspective given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been seeing this video floating around facebook: 

 

Anyone ever heard this? Apparently this guy, Rod Meldrum, has written some books about this, too. I've been looking through some of the reviews, though, and they're pretty mixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Connie, I didn't watch the video (yet), but I know the name Ron Meldrum. If you spell it backward, it's Murd Lemnor. Furthermore, Ron is the guy who insists most fiercely on the so-called "Heartland Model" of Book of Mormon geography, going so far as to condemn as faithless or unbelieving those who hold to a central American setting. His extreme devotion to this relatively unimportant point (whether or not he is correct, which I think he probably is not) marks him in my mind as something of a crackpot. So I would tend to take whatever he says with a grain of salt. Too bad, especially if he is providing solid reasoning; but as I have found on this very forum, when you gain for yourself a reputation, even if you think it undeserved, you won't live it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Connie, I didn't watch the video (yet), but I know the name Ron Meldrum. If you spell it backward, it's Murd Lemnor. Furthermore, Ron is the guy who insists most fiercely on the so-called "Heartland Model" of Book of Mormon geography, going so far as to condemn as faithless or unbelieving those who hold to a central American setting. His extreme devotion to this relatively unimportant point (whether or not he is correct, which I think he probably is not) marks him in my mind as something of a crackpot. So I would tend to take whatever he says with a grain of salt. Too bad, especially if he is providing solid reasoning; but as I have found on this very forum, when you gain for yourself a reputation, even if you think it undeserved, you won't live it down.

 

Interesting. I have always found Ron Meldrum's stuff quite convincing. Moreover, I find the DNA part of his thinking quite telling as to the potential correctness of it. Though, as you say, it is relatively unimportant. But I don't find his "devotion" crackpotted. Nor did I consider his implication that faithfulness would lead to a heartland conclusion condemning. I only point this out as a matter of interest and discussion.

 

On the other hand I find Brant Gardner's Central America approach unforgiving and arrogant...

 

Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Rod Meldrum is a snake oil seller, academics wise. He did some firesides with his garbage in LDS meetinghouses, until he was officially forbidden to do so. He quotes some scholars, but they all agree that he is taking them out of context and makes them appear to say something that they do not say.

 

This is a quote from a member of an admin back channel group I belong to.  But I have heard that before about him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is what another person said regarding the video in the same group:

 

The Church's position on the matter is, "Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples, and even if their genetic profile were known, there are sound scientific reasons that it might remain undetected. For these same reasons, arguments that some defenders of the Book of Mormon make based on DNA studies are also speculative. In short, DNA studies cannot be used decisively to either affirm or reject the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon." https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies…With that being the case I don't think they approve of dubious "research" like this being passed around just because it's faith-promoting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with false or shoddy "faith-promoting research" is that if/when it is shown to be false or shoddy, it becomes the opposite of faith-promoting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes it sound like listening to the guy is as faithless as he's being accused of claiming those are for not believing the heartland idea.

 

I'm pretty sure that considering various ideas and thinking on where the BOM might have taken place isn't faithless any way you cut it. Any of these concepts are, in my opinion, fascinating, and ultimately not that important. But certainly not wrong to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently read the book Mormon's Codex.

 

At the time I was not into the whole heartland vs. South America (I am still not) debate.

 

It is an academic work.  He gives his reasons for why he thinks its in South America and how it offers supporting "Evidence"

 

While he has to explain why he disagreed with the Heartland model, I did not get the feel he was condemn those that believed it (although again I do not follow such things)

 

As long as you are willing to take if for what it is (one man's researched opinion) and not make it what it is not (revealed word) I think can fall into the category of Book on supporting evidences, easily enought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes it sound like listening to the guy is as faithless as he's being accused of claiming those are for not believing the heartland idea.

 

I have no personal opinion of Brother Meldrum. The fact that he believes in the literal truth of the Book of Mormon tends to make me think he is a faithful Saint. That he might try to make money selling instructionals about his interpretation of that belief is a bit concerning, but as long as he is not engaged in overt priestcraft, I'm happy to leave that between him, the Lord, and perhaps his bishop.

 

But when he attacks those who hold to a central American model rather than simply give his reasons why he supports a mid-North American model, I think he oversteps his bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no personal opinion of Brother Meldrum. The fact that he believes in the literal truth of the Book of Mormon tends to make me think he is a faithful Saint. That he might try to make money selling instructionals about his interpretation of that belief is a bit concerning, but as long as he is not engaged in overt priestcraft, I'm happy to leave that between him, the Lord, and perhaps his bishop.

 

But when he attacks those who hold to a central American model rather than simply give his reasons why he supports a mid-North American model, I think he oversteps his bounds.

 

And yet attacking him back isn't overstepping? The fact that he may be a bit overzealous in his views is a weakness. I can see that. I don't see it making him a snake-oil salesman, a crack pot, or faith diminishing because it's shoddy. Tons of Book of Mormon theories haven't panned out over time. Heck, we even had the introduction page wording changed because thinking on how it may have really all worked out changed. That doesn't equate to faith diminishing unless people are looking for reasons to be faithless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet attacking him back isn't overstepping? The fact that he may be a bit overzealous in his views is a weakness. I can see that. I don't see it making him a snake-oil salesman, a crack pot, or faith diminishing because it's shoddy. Tons of Book of Mormon theories haven't panned out over time. Heck, we even had the introduction page wording changed because thinking on how it may have really all worked out changed. That doesn't equate to faith diminishing unless people are looking for reasons to be faithless.

 

I don't think I attacked him. I suppose calling him a "crackpot" is an attack of sorts -- I would certainly feel attacked if someone called me a crackpot -- but my larger context was that, based on what he has said, he strikes me as one. In any case, when he puts himself in the public eye, I think it's reasonable that people might express unfavorable opinions about him and/or his methods without being supposed to have attacked him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I attacked him. I suppose calling him a "crackpot" is an attack of sorts -- I would certainly feel attacked if someone called me a crackpot -- but my larger context was that, based on what he has said, he strikes me as one. In any case, when he puts himself in the public eye, I think it's reasonable that people might express unfavorable opinions about him and/or his methods without being supposed to have attacked him.

 

I agree that "attacking" is overstating it...both for my statement to you and your statement concerning him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Maybe I haven't been here long enough.  But I believe this is the first time I've seen you two fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I haven't been here long enough.  But I believe this is the first time I've seen you two fighting.

 

 

If I could ever figure out how to post pictures or gifs, I'd post a picture of 2 declawed cats batting at each other as a description of the "fight" you are referring to here.  LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now