Historical accuracy of the BOM

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

I believe it.  

Personally I believe it too, but I'm not going to die for it. I will die for Christ and we should worship Him, not the Book of Mormon. Evangelicals sometimes come close to worshipping the Bible-that's wrong too. We shouldn't worship anything but Christ. 

[UtahTexan]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Personally I believe it too, but I'm not going to die for it. I will die for Christ and we should worship Him, not the Book of Mormon. Evangelicals sometimes come close to worshipping the Bible-that's wrong too. We shouldn't worship anything but Christ. 

I would die for it...not because it is a book, but because it is part and parcel to my beliefs.  I would not believe the Book of Mormon or the Bible if I did not believe in God.  How can I separate God from His Word?  He is the Gospel....the Good News.  

I doubt anyone would threaten my life over the Book of Mormon that was not also threatening it over my belief in God.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I have yet to see anything that even comes close to proving one shred of physical evidence that proved the veracity of the BOM.  Maybe someday this will be revealed to us, and maybe not. 

I do however take it on faith that it is true, and if I find out that it is just a bunch of allegorical stories to make us feel good it does not diminish the veracity of the teachings in that book or the fact that it was brought forth by the gift and power of God through the prophet JS.

We know that JS never translated directly from the plates he had in his possession it was all by revelation through the seer stone. Yes moroni did appear to him and yes there were/are golden plates.

What do you say about Moroni's statement that the plates contained a record of the earlier inhabitants of this continent?

What do you say about Joseph's continued and repeated statements that the BoM was a translation of what was on the golden plates?

What do you say about the testimony of the three witnesses that 

Quote

And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man.

...the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it

If it was only allegorical, why did it need to be translated?

If they came out of the seer stone alone, why bother having the plates at all?

How is it true if it isn't what it purports to be (a record of the ancient inhabitants of this continent)?

Edited August 11, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

I would die for it...not because it is a book, but because it is part and parcel to my beliefs.  I would not believe the Book of Mormon or the Bible if I did not believe in God.  How can I separate God from His Word?  He is the Gospel....the Good News.  

I doubt anyone would threaten my life over the Book of Mormon that was not also threatening it over my belief in God.

It's certainly your right to live and die for anything you want too. I don't think Christ wants anything worshipped before Him though. Including the Book of Mormon/Bible. 

[UtahTexan]

Saying I believe in the Bible or the Book of Mormon is not saying I worship it.  Can you point to where I said that?  I distinctly said that my belief in God is not parceled out like a cafeteria.  The Bible is His Word.  So is the Book of Mormon.  If I worship God, I accept His word, right?

If someone sees me carrying my Book of Mormon and asks me if I believe that is the Word of God, I will not lie....even if it costs me my life.

Are you saying you would lie?

[Guest MormonGator]

23 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

Saying I believe in the Bible or the Book of Mormon is not saying I worship it.  Can you point to where I said that?  I distinctly said that my belief in God is not parceled out like a cafeteria.  The Bible is His Word.  So is the Book of Mormon.  If I worship God, I accept His word, right?

Relax. I'm not saying you said it. 

 

23 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

If someone sees me carrying my Book of Mormon and asks me if I believe that is the Word of God, I will not lie....even if it costs me my life.

 

Good.

23 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

Are you saying you would lie?

No. Wow. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by MormonGator

[rpframe]

33 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

If someone sees me carrying my Book of Mormon and asks me if I believe that is the Word of God, I will not lie....even if it costs me my life.

Are you saying you would lie?

Probably depends on the situation... But I would have no problem lying if I felt the need. One false word to someone that has got me under duress is not going to change what's in my heart.

[UtahTexan]

5 minutes ago, rpframe said:

Probably depends on the situation... But I would have no problem lying if I felt the need. One false word to someone that has got me under duress is not going to change what's in my heart.

Peter denied Christ.

I hope I am strong enough not to.

[rpframe]

3 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

Peter denied Christ.

I hope I am strong enough not to.

Yeah... and he repented and appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him the Aaronic Preisthood.

[UtahTexan]

4 minutes ago, rpframe said:

Yeah... and he repented and appeared to Joseph Smith and gave him the Aaronic Preisthood.

No...the Melchizedek Priesthood.

And that is the problem...it was something for which he needed to repent.  I am hopeful to learn from the sins of others, not repeat them 

[rpframe]

13 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

No...the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Valid

[rpframe]

I guess my point is. I personally feel like I am probably more useful as a live missionary than as a dead martyr. If I am prompted to become a martyr then sure. But I am not an especial witness of Christ (apostle), so I'm going to work under the assumption that i'm better left alive unless prompted otherwise.

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, rpframe said:

I guess my point is. I personally feel like I am probably more useful as a live missionary than as a dead martyr. If I am prompted to become a martyr then sure. But I am not an especial witness of Christ (apostle), so I'm going to work under the assumption that i'm better left alive unless prompted otherwise.

How good a missionary can you be if the people you teach know you lied about God just to stay alive?

[LeSellers]

3 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I have yet to see anything that even comes close to proving one shred of physical evidence that proved the veracity of the BOM.

Then you have not read Nibley's Lehi in the Wilderness. And that's, what, a half century old?

Since then Lehi's Arabian trek has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. All the elements are there, Shazar, Nahom, Bountiful, even Laman/Lemuel, three days journey into the wilderness.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

5 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

5 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I have read people whose research I trust and who demonstrate that the areas a few hundred miles north of Panama and northward to the Yucatan Peninsula is a very likely locale for the events' of the majority of the Book of Mormon account as we have it.

CFR

Well, the reference for my having read it is my statement that I have. Do you doubt that, meaning, are you calling me a liar?

But, I assume that you mean I should tell you what book(s) I have read to support my conclusion. Very well, here's the one I rely on the most: Joseph L. Allen, PhD., Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, ISBN 6-87747-059-1, Orem, Utah, Publishers.

Others are on line (primarily video accounts of the Arabian trek and, specifically, Bountiful). I don't have the URLs handy, but you can search for "The waters of Moses" Laman Lemuel Nahom. I have another book I can't find right now, by a husband-wife team who went to Yemen and discovered a highly likely candidate for Bountiful.

Finally, Joseph Smith's words, i.e., "… the initial landing site of Lehi's colony, sometime after 600 B.C., was in Peru or Chile, thirty degree south latitude." Some people dispute this as authentic, but I've seen it in several articles and books some glowingly supportive, others, like  Allen, disapprovingly.

Lehi

Edited August 12, 2016 by LeSellers

[UtahTexan]

Another good book is Voices From the Dust....https://www.amazon.com/Voices-Dust-Comparative-Evaluation-Archaeology/dp/1881825507   some very interesting points made.

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I will preface my comment by saying that while I think that the BOM is true I am unsure about its historical accuracy. As in a true history of the people who lived on this continent.

Where are the ruins? they built great cities didn't they? where are the battlefields on which their wars were fought? where are the fossils..... not one grave of anyone? Not one horse bone? not one sword? not one temple?

 

 

I would submit that this is a very dangerous and foolish approach (method) to take in any endeavor to find truth.  For example – 50 years ago there was not a single piece of data to validate Dark Matter, Dark Energy or Dark Radiation.  It is currently estimated that 95% of the universe is comprised of this stuff but as yet; not even a single quantum particle of the stuff has been positively identified – even worse not a single quantum particle, using any acceptable theoretical model, has been theoretically conceived.    Despite this unprecedented lack of any proof there is not a single creditable scientist that is up to date in the discussion that denies the probability and accuracy that this dark stuff must exist.  Why is that????

Some geography and about this little earth on which we live.  If you take the standard 2 ½ foot in diameter globe of the earth and sharpen a pencil as much as possible and make a dot anywhere on the globe in the open ocean – you could place the largest navy to have ever existed, in battle formation under that dot.  The reason I bring this up is because in order to find something on this planet – one has to know exactly where to look.  Let’s take a look at just what we know about the archology of Mexico.   Of the known ancient ruins (over 1500 years old) only 1% of the known sites have been studied and excavated.  And that is just the sites that are currently known – and every year more sites are discovered.

Here is what we have learned over the last 185 years since the Book of Mormon was published.  Not a single archeological discovery has even come close to disproving the Book of Mormon.  And there have been a preponderance of archeological discoveries that have proven every historical critic of the Book of Mormon since it publication completely wrong.  As I stated in a previous post the Book of Mormon has been proven to be 100% accurate both in time and place for over 100 claims made concerning the Arabian Peninsula – right down to minute details of what wild honey was anciently gathered (in fact this is the only place wild honey is known to be harvested), ancient grave yards, the only ancient water source (river) that flows into the Red Sea, where hardwood can be found to make bows and arrows, geographical significants of the term “borders”, and ancient harbors where large ships are constructed and launched – to name just a few and all of which could not have been known by anyone in the western hemisphere let alone a farm boy with a grade 3 education.

I would also point out that in 1830 when the Book of Mormon was published there was zero evidence of any ancient city in the Western hemisphere of 100,000 or more residents – no artifact evidence of any migrations to the Americas prior to Columbus and no artifact evidence of a written language in the Americas to reference but a very few claim of the Book of Mormon critics.  The critics that claimed that such lack of evidence disproved the Book of Mormon have all been proven to be wrong – and if we are going to claim that being wrong is perpetrating a lie – then we must label all such critics as proven liars – not Joseph Smith.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

15 hours ago, MormonGator said:

It's certainly your right to live and die for anything you want too. I don't think Christ wants anything worshipped before Him though. Including the Book of Mormon/Bible. 

This is a point I was making to a fake investigator on my mission.  I pointed out to him that he has made the Bible (paper, ink, and leather) his god.

But to be fair, when people say they are willing to die for the Bible or Book of Mormon or the Torah, they are not saying they will die for paper and ink.  They are saying they will die to defend the principles of righteousness that they teach.  They will die to defend the right to live and worship according to those tenets.

At least, that is what I mean when I say it.  No, I'm not dying to defend a book from being burned for instance.

So, I think it's unfair to say this is worship.  The military is full of people willing to die for their country or their families or their way of life.  Are they all worshiping a false god?

Edited August 12, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This is a point I was making to a fake investigator on my mission.  I pointed out to him that he has made the Bible (paper, ink, and leather) his god.

But to be fair, when people say they are willing to die for the Bible or Book of Mormon or the Torah, they are not saying they will die for paper and ink.  They are saying they will die to defend the principles of righteousness that they teach.  They will die to defend the right to live and worship according to those tenets.

At least, that is what I mean when I say it.  No, I'm not dying to defend a book from being burned for instance.

Some certainly mean what you say, for sure. But I've heard Christians who say "I worship the Bible." Um...no. You should only worship Christ. 

[NeedleinA]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Of the known ancient ruins (over 1500 years old) only 1% of the known sites have been studied and excavated.  And that is just the sites that are currently known – and every year more sites are discovered.

I was in Belize about a year ago for a little relaxation. Decided to take a little tour to some ruins. Wife booked the trip since it was close. I got a fun kick out of the fact:

1. The ruins were called "Lamanai".
2. The jungle was covered in ruins that the government would not allow to be unearthed and/or there was simply no funding to do so. Our guide mentioned some extremely low single digit %, like Traveler said, of the places that had been excavated. Vast, vast majority had not.
3. The tour guide, a Mayan had his Book of Mormon with him. This was not a BOM tour, just a random tourist trap trip.

Not my picture, but you can see the unearthed "front" of this temple and the earthed portion on the back. Every where you turned were giant hills covered in grass and jungle. Inside said hills were additional ruins, just sitting there, waiting.

[omegaseamaster75]

13 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Well, the reference for my having read it is my statement that I have. Do you doubt that, meaning, are you calling me a liar?

But, I assume that you mean I should tell you what book(s) I have read to support my conclusion. Very well, here's the one I rely on the most: Joseph L. Allen, PhD., Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon, ISBN 6-87747-059-1, Orem, Utah, Publishers.

Others are on line (primarily video accounts of the Arabian trek and, specifically, Bountiful). I don't have the URLs handy, but you can search for "The waters of Moses" Laman Lemuel Nahom. I have another book I can't find right now, by a husband-wife team who went to Yemen and discovered a highly likely candidate for Bountiful.

 

Thank you for the references I will look into these

13 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Finally, Joseph Smith's words, i.e., "… the initial landing site of Lehi's colony, sometime after 600 B.C., was in Peru or Chile, thirty degree south latitude." Some people dispute this as authentic, but I've seen it in several articles and books some glowingly supportive, others, like  Allen, disapprovingly.

Lehi

This was JS opinion, he also thought that the native americans were Lamanites...

[omegaseamaster75]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I would submit that this is a very dangerous and foolish approach (method) to take in any endeavor to find truth.  For example – 50 years ago there was not a single piece of data to validate Dark Matter, Dark Energy or Dark Radiation.  It is currently estimated that 95% of the universe is comprised of this stuff but as yet; not even a single quantum particle of the stuff has been positively identified – even worse not a single quantum particle, using any acceptable theoretical model, has been theoretically conceived.    Despite this unprecedented lack of any proof there is not a single creditable scientist that is up to date in the discussion that denies the probability and accuracy that this dark stuff must exist.  Why is that????

Some geography and about this little earth on which we live.  If you take the standard 2 ½ foot in diameter globe of the earth and sharpen a pencil as much as possible and make a dot anywhere on the globe in the open ocean – you could place the largest navy to have ever existed, in battle formation under that dot.  The reason I bring this up is because in order to find something on this planet – one has to know exactly where to look.  Let’s take a look at just what we know about the archology of Mexico.   Of the known ancient ruins (over 1500 years old) only 1% of the known sites have been studied and excavated.  And that is just the sites that are currently known – and every year more sites are discovered.

Here is what we have learned over the last 185 years since the Book of Mormon was published.  Not a single archeological discovery has even come close to disproving the Book of Mormon.  And there have been a preponderance of archeological discoveries that have proven every historical critic of the Book of Mormon since it publication completely wrong.  As I stated in a previous post the Book of Mormon has been proven to be 100% accurate both in time and place for over 100 claims made concerning the Arabian Peninsula – right down to minute details of what wild honey was anciently gathered (in fact this is the only place wild honey is known to be harvested), ancient grave yards, the only ancient water source (river) that flows into the Red Sea, where hardwood can be found to make bows and arrows, geographical significants of the term “borders”, and ancient harbors where large ships are constructed and launched – to name just a few and all of which could not have been known by anyone in the western hemisphere let alone a farm boy with a grade 3 education.

I would also point out that in 1830 when the Book of Mormon was published there was zero evidence of any ancient city in the Western hemisphere of 100,000 or more residents – no artifact evidence of any migrations to the Americas prior to Columbus and no artifact evidence of a written language in the Americas to reference but a very few claim of the Book of Mormon critics.  The critics that claimed that such lack of evidence disproved the Book of Mormon have all been proven to be wrong – and if we are going to claim that being wrong is perpetrating a lie – then we must label all such critics as proven liars – not Joseph Smith.

 

The Traveler

Someday someone will trip over a steel sword in the middle of the jungle, it just hasn't happened yet.

[omegaseamaster75]

13 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Then you have not read Nibley's Lehi in the Wilderness. And that's, what, a half century old?

Since then Lehi's Arabian trek has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. All the elements are there, Shazar, Nahom, Bountiful, even Laman/Lemuel, three days journey into the wilderness.

Lehi

With all due respect Nibley was not working with all of the facts that we now have. He is highly respected by many, a church apologist, and not always right.

[omegaseamaster75]

14 hours ago, UtahTexan said:

How good a missionary can you be if the people you teach know you lied about God just to stay alive?

How good of a missionary can you be if you're dead?

[tesuji]

40 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

With all due respect Nibley was not working with all of the facts that we now have. He is highly respected by many, a church apologist, and not always right.

True. But Nibley still knew more than I ever will