Is everthing written in the Book of Mormon archaelogically and historically accurate...

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
...given Joseph Smith declared "...that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth:..". I'm presuming he meant it was without error and the most correct book not only spiritually but archeological and historically.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
...given Joseph Smith declared "...that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth:..". I'm presuming he meant it was without error and the most correct book not only spiritually but archeological and historically.
You presume incorrectly. Without error would imply perfection, but that's not what Joseph Smith said. When you guys learn to argue the text and not your imaginations, then we can have a discussion.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
You presume incorrectly. Without error would imply perfection, but that's not what Joseph Smith said. When you guys learn to argue the text and not your imaginations, then we can have a discussion.
I don't need your permission nor requirement to have a discussion boj. You truly overstep your place here. So you define "most correct", that said, are you denying that Smith proclaimed the Book of Mormon "...the most correct of any book on earth..."? That's a pretty heady proclamation as there are, even now, millions of books on this earth and if, as Smith proclaimed, it is the most correct book than it is more correct that any archeological tome, any historical book, the Bible, any book. I'm amazed at your inability to grasp the width and breadth of what Smith proclaimed.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
In 2006, church leaders changed introductory language to the Book of Mormon. Instead of Lamanites being the “principal ancestors of the American Indians,” they were “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” A Gospel Topics essay released in January 2014, “Book of Mormon and DNA Studies,” states...

Seems it's not so correct. And that's just one inaccuracy.
 
Last edited:

brotherofJared

Well-known member
In 2006, church leaders changed introductory language to the Book of Mormon. Instead of Lamanites being the “principal ancestors of the American Indians,” they were “among the ancestors of the American Indians.” A Gospel Topics essay released in January 2014, “Book of Mormon and DNA Studies,” states...

Seems it's not so correct. And that's just one inaccuracy.
Again, no one said it was perfect. The introduction was not translated from the plates and was not authored by Joseph Smith. "The introduction to the Book of Mormon was not a part of the original plates; it was first published in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon. "

You can pick at it all you want. There is no proof that it's not what it says it is. Archaeological evidence, like all science, is constantly unfolding. All we need to do is wait and the evidence will eventually surface. Even if you don't accept it. Your opinion about the book has no relevance in the argument. None whatsoever.

So, whaaa. The church leaders changed the introduction in 2006 that they added in 1981. I think the book was fine without it, but they saw fit to add an introduction. Big deal. Cry me a river.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
Again, no one said it was perfect. The introduction was not translated from the plates and was not authored by Joseph Smith. "The introduction to the Book of Mormon was not a part of the original plates; it was first published in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon. "

You can pick at it all you want. There is no proof that it's not what it says it is. Archaeological evidence, like all science, is constantly unfolding. All we need to do is wait and the evidence will eventually surface. Even if you don't accept it. Your opinion about the book has no relevance in the argument. None whatsoever.

So, whaaa. The church leaders changed the introduction in 2006 that they added in 1981. I think the book was fine without it, but they saw fit to add an introduction. Big deal. Cry me a river.
So answer this question; is the Book of Mormon the most correct on earth, as proclaimed by your proohet Joseph Smith, f if so please define exactly what that means?
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
Again, no one said it was perfect. The introduction was not translated from the plates and was not authored by Joseph Smith. "The introduction to the Book of Mormon was not a part of the original plates; it was first published in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon. "

You can pick at it all you want. There is no proof that it's not what it says it is. Archaeological evidence, like all science, is constantly unfolding. All we need to do is wait and the evidence will eventually surface. Even if you don't accept it. Your opinion about the book has no relevance in the argument. None whatsoever.

So, whaaa. The church leaders changed the introduction in 2006 that they added in 1981. I think the book was fine without it, but they saw fit to add an introduction. Big deal. Cry me a river.
Trouble is that Mormon church leaders, starting with Joseph Smith, were teaching over the pulpit and in literature, lesson manuals etc. that Native Americans were the Lamanites. So it wasn’t just a change in wording of an introduction. It was a whole shift in doctrine.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
Well, I'll tell you what that does not mean. It doesn't mean it's a perfect book without errors.
That's not what you claimed before when you stated to me...

"because there are no inaccuracies in it. Duh."

...unless your trying to claim it's not accurate now or that errors and inaccuracies aren't the same because that's what we argued over about the book "No man knows my history".

I am really coming to the conclusion you're very disengenuine in your comments.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
...given Joseph Smith declared "...that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth:..". I'm presuming he meant it was without error and the most correct book not only spiritually but archeological and historically.
Finishing the quote: "and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Religion and precepts are spiritual things, not archeological and historical things.

The book of Mormon says repeatedly it doesn't give a hundredth part of the history of the people.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Trouble is that Mormon church leaders, starting with Joseph Smith, were teaching over the pulpit and in literature, lesson manuals etc. that Native Americans were the Lamanites. So it wasn’t just a change in wording of an introduction. It was a whole shift in doctrine.
A "whole change in doctrine"! How dramatic.
Oh yes, how often we hear the church is true BECAUSE the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of Native Americans. What a joke!
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
Finishing the quote: "and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Religion and precepts are spiritual things, not archeological and historical things.

The book of Mormon says repeatedly it doesn't give a hundredth part of the history of the people.
And in believing in the precepts and spiritual things one must also believe that Smith was relating true and real people, places and things. So, again, if the BoM is the most correct book on earth, is it historically and archeological accurate? That's the OP. Is no mormon willing to step up and answer the OP?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
That's not what you claimed before when you stated to me...
I didn't say it was a perfect book, nor did I imply that it was.

You were comparing it to Brodie's book which you said was weak due to the research available at the time it was written. Those inaccuracies don't exist in the Book of Mormon. The inaccuracies that exist in the Book of Mormon have all been, AFAIK, the result of human error, such as punctuation, copying, and distribution (publication in different geographical locations). This my claim that those inaccuracies don't exist in the book stands and it should not have been misconstrued, as you did, to mean that it was a perfect book. I never said that it was.

I suspect we are no longer going to argue the worthlessness of Brodie's book. You now have a straw man for me to defend and, again, it is about me and not the material.

Even the Book of Mormon points out its own faults. If there are errors it is due to the weakness of their language in written form. That same problem still exists today. It is not a perfect book. It doesn't contain any inaccuracies because it is written by the players as it took place from their point of view. It is accurate to their understanding and couldn't be more accurate, but it's not perfect. Besides, who here could be the judge of perfection?
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
A "whole change in doctrine"! How dramatic.
Oh yes, how often we hear the church is true BECAUSE the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of Native Americans. What a joke!
Mormons have always used Native Americans as proof of the Book of Mormon.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
I didn't say it was a perfect book, nor did I imply that it was.
You continue to contradict yourself. You overtly claimed the BoM had no inaccuracies (that means it is accurate in every detail which in my book declares just that, no errors, no inaccuracies and effectively perfe t) and yet in this rather lengthy excuse you now state it does contain errors but rather than holding Smith to the same standard as you do Brodie, you give him a pass because it attacks the very fiber of your religious belief system and blame "...human error, such as punctuation, copying, and distribution...".

The witnesses to how Smith "translated" the reformed Egyptian make it very clear what he supposedly read on his seer stone(s) was a direct translation from God, every letter, every word. Smith confirmed the accuracy of the scribe until certain it was correct and if it wasn't a new letter or word didn't appear on said seer stone because God was checking the accuracy and correctness too. Even Joseph Fielding Smith stated this was how it was done.

So, you can't have it both ways. The BoM cannot contain inaccuracies because what Smith had the scribe write was directly from God and he was not allowed to continue "translating" until God decided it was correct or it contains inaccuracies, not just grammatical but historical imaccuracies. A point you seem to refuse to refute lr provide evidence to the contrary. Simply put I don't accept your assertion it was only to correct misspellings or printing errors.
You were comparing it to Brodie's book which you said was weak due to the research available at the time
is that a direct quote? Perhaps review what I wrote and see if this and that match up.
it was written. Those inaccuracies don't exist in the Book of Mormon. The inaccuracies that exist in the Book of Mormon have all been, AFAIK, the result of human error, such as punctuation, copying, and distribution (publication in different geographical locations). This my claim that those inaccuracies don't exist in the book stands and it should not have been misconstrued, as you did, to mean that it was a perfect book. I never said that it was.
See my comments above.
I suspect we are no longer going to argue the worthlessness of Brodie's book.
You and Richard7 are the only ones who have argued Brodie's book was worthless. I found it quite enjoyable.
You now have a straw man for me to defend and, again, it is about me and not the material.
You are here defending what you claim is true. Seems you must be part of the debate. If you don't want to be a part reconsider posting. Just saying.
Even the Book of Mormon points out its own faults. If there are errors it is due to the weakness of their language in written form.
But God translated these "golden plates" for Smith, yes? Are you claiming God made mistakes in His translation

That same problem still exists today. It is not a perfect book. It doesn't contain any inaccuracies because it is written by the players as it took place from their point of view. It is accurate to their understanding and couldn't be more accurate, but it's not perfect. Besides, who here could be the judge of perfection?
"Their understanding" is opinion, not fact, that you accept as true.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
And in believing in the precepts and spiritual things one must also believe that Smith was relating true and real people, places and things. So, again, if the BoM is the most correct book on earth, is it historically and archeological accurate?
You miss the point. Historically and archeological details are irrelevant to the purpose stated in the Introduction of the Book of Mormon.
The authors told us to read and pray to know of it's truth - they did not give us points to objectively fact check to prove it's validity.
Yet, sign-seekers are gonna sign-seek. I suppose when Jesus returns again, some will ask for a DNA sample.
I don't believe there's enough evidence to prove the historical and archeological accuracy either way. But, again, it's irrelevant. The story of the good Samaritan didn't actually happen, yet, many Christians talk about it as it actually did. What matters are the principles.

That's the OP. Is no mormon willing to step up and answer the OP?
Your question HAS been answered. It's essentially rejected on the basis of lack of relevance (according to the text itself) and lack of evidence.
Your burden is to now prove IS relevant.
 
Top