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

dberrie2020

Well-known member
You turn a blind eye to all the responses to your arguments, and all the evidence that’s been presented here for years.

And that relates to the points in my posts above--how??? Care to engage the evidence of the LiDAR imaging--which supports certain historical parts of the Book of Mormon--heretofore unknown?

And you just continue to spam the board with the same obsessive statements over and over.

This is one of the first times I have posted the LiDAR results. It's a recent discovery. But, I do find the same arguments regurgitated over and over here. But that is on a broad scale.

Then you claim that no one ever answers you.

Cite, please. I have never made any such statement. Some people don't answer--and I get the "I already answered that" on numerous occasions, but for the main--I am answering replies as fast as I can.

And you’ve stated that you’re just here for your own entertainment.

I have stated I have fun here on this forum. I do. I believe we don't have enough fun in our dialogs and research. Learning should be fun. Reading Janice's posts is sometimes the best humor I run across in a day.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
You're just a skeptic
I'm not a skeptic. I outright reject Mormonism and the new Mormon narrative that the recent LiDAR findings in central America are about Mormonism and what Smith wrote about in the BoM.
taking the default view of criticism unless it's proven beyond the shadow down of a doubt.
The BoM and the Mormon religion is broadly rejected by Christianity and it's not a default view.
Just as atheists are skeptical of the Bible.
Apples and Oranges.
No evidence whatsoever will change your priori assumption that the Book of Mormon is false.
How about one shred of physical, empirical evidence that the stories told by Smith in the BoM are real and not fictional? One shred of physical, empirical evidence. One hieroglyph in "reformed Egyptian". One gold plate inscribed in "reformed Egyptian". One piece of pottery with the name of any of the names of people or places used in the BoM. Anything. And that's the rub. Nothing exists beyond the hope of Mormon's that "one day" it will be proved true.
You must prove it false to be false,
Mormonism stands and falls on its own. You accept the religion without using a lick of critical thinking.
else it's a plausibility.
The problem is the theology of Mormonism is diametrically opposed to Christianity and the lack of physical evidence that points to the plausibility of Smiths claims of the people, placed and things in the BoM are non-existent. Outside of the mind of the faithful.
But, as I've said, there's not enough evidence to declare confirmation either way.
The lack of ANY evidence should be enough to make a reasoned, logical and rational decision.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
But the critics weren't silent--they rejected the idea the population base was as large as the Book of Mormon claimed--and was one of the reasons the Book of Mormon was thought to contain false History--as to that point. The size of the population claimed in the Book of Mormon was confirmed by LiDAR.
The critics didn't reject Mormonism when they made the assumption, based on that current physical, empirical, archaeological evidence, that the population was less. They made the claim about the Mesoamerican cultures. The only time I know if that they spoke out, against Mormon claims, is when Mormons tried to co-opt their discoveries and/or try to make it appear they used the BoM as a guide.
The sceptics were very vocal about the population claim for quite a number of years following the publishing of the Book of Mormon.
And as the discoveries in north, central and south America were revealed the numbers changed. A logical progression.
Again--please don't mitigate that point--it's huge. Much larger than the critics may want to admit.
I am mitigating nothing.
What "past discoveries"?
The Mesoamerican cultural discoveries made over the last decades.
No one has claimed this "proves the BoM"--that is an exaggeration.
Your very comments, "validates", etc. are a clear statement you believe this new LiDAR proves the BoM.
One does not need to exaggerate to find the truths associated with the LiDAR discoveries, or to see how they correlate to some of the history claimed in the Book of Mormon--which history has been criticized for some time now by the critics. It's a known fact now, as to the LiDAR revelations.
The problem being Mormons are trying to create a historical narrative that does not exist. Repeat does not exist. Now, when you can provide one single piece of physical evidence that the BoM is historically and archaeologically accurate, then we can talk.
Lastdays--I know this doesn't fit your perspective--but prejudice was never the source of truth. Truth stands independent of all spheres which surround it--including your prejudices.
You can slander me all you wish, that's the cost of defending the one, true faith and I am more than willing to accept such.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
It's the theosis comparison of EO and LDS
The minuscule mention of Theosis is in alignment with the EC statements. That's not an argument, that an agreement.
Mormonism validates its theology that their God was once a man
We don't need to validate that God was once a man. We have proof of it in Jesus Christ. You believe he is God, right? Do you also believe that He was once a man?
so every faithful Mormon can also become a God.
No. And neither do the EC's.

Again, what was your point?
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
We don't need to validate that God was once a man. We have proof of it in Jesus Christ. You believe he is God, right? Do you also believe that He was once a man?
Why are you being so disingenuous? Are you afraid to admit you believe your "God the Father" was once a man who progressed to godhood?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Much information is known of the Mayan, Aztec, Toltec and other pre-Columbian indigenous populations that inhabited North, Central and South America and not a shred point to Smith's claims in the BoM.
You just pointed to the evidence that supports the claims in the Book of Mormon. Sure, much is known now, but very little of that was known in Joseph Smith's day and nothing was known of the Olmecs.

And while you mock our interest in archaeological evidence that always supports the Book of Mormon (you all just pretend it doesn't because the word Mormon isn't on any of it), no amount of enthusiasm is spared archaeological evidence for Moses (who doesn't exist in history), Noah's ark or evidence of the resurrection of Christ while at the same time, they kill any findings that don't follow their narrative, such as Jesus' wife.

Interesting set of blinders you all have on there.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I'm not a skeptic. I outright reject Mormonism and the new Mormon narrative that the recent LiDAR findings in central America are about Mormonism and what Smith wrote about in the BoM.
On what basis? The Lidar finding shows that only a percentage of what's actually been examined up until now is a fraction of what's available.
The BoM and the Mormon religion is broadly rejected by Christianity and it's not a default view.
Yes, it very much is a default view.
Apples and Oranges.
Yeah right
How about one shred of physical, empirical evidence that the stories told by Smith in the BoM are real and not fictional? One shred of physical, empirical evidence. One hieroglyph in "reformed Egyptian". One gold plate inscribed in "reformed Egyptian". One piece of pottery with the name of any of the names of people or places used in the BoM. Anything. And that's the rub. Nothing exists beyond the hope of Mormon's that "one day" it will be proved true.
Well, it's obvious you have the fallacy of a presentist attitude, and your mindset can only result in the no trues otsman fallacy.
But more importantly, did the hope that existed for Paul was based on the geneology given in the 4 gospels? Was it scientific evidence that converted Paul?
Mormonism stands and falls on its own. You accept the religion without using a lick of critical thinking.
What makes you say that?
The problem is the theology of Mormonism is diametrically opposed to Christianity
So if Judaism says your theology is diametrically opposed to their, does that accusation carry any weight? Why not?
and the lack of physical evidence that points to the plausibility of Smiths claims of the people, placed and things in the BoM are non-existent. Outside of the mind of the faithful.
Keep in mind, most of the events in the BoM happened prior to the entire face of the land changing.
I don't suppose you could map the exact location of Jesus birth? Because you can identify 5 plausible locations does that mean it never happened?
The lack of ANY evidence should be enough to make a reasoned, logical and rational decision.
Sure, it's taken into account, and based on the teachings of the Book of Mormon, along with the spiritual witnesses it promises, and that it passes the Biblical standard found in 1 John 4. In other words, I default to "it's true" based upon my bias, and you default to "it's false" based upon your bias.
And because I don't agree with you, you project that I'm not reasoned, logical, or rational.

Ironically, there are many chapters (and in some cases entire books) in the Bible where the authorship is questioned, and yet Christians accept them as authoritative on the sole basis of tradition - based on the council of church authorities that you probably don't even formally belong to. If you believe them are you no longer reasoned, logical or rational?

What if you found a guy that found extremely limited evidence that the 12 disciples never existed? And if what was found was very problematic - based on proven physical evidence? Check it out. If you reject his reasoning do you consider yourself no longer reasoned, logical, or rational? At some point, you have to consider how weak this argument is, or be honest with yourself as to why you believe your religion. It's not based on the lens in which you critique my religion.
 

Lastdaysbeliever

Well-known member
You just pointed to the evidence that supports the claims in the Book of Mormon.
No. I pointed to empirical evidence that defeats the claims in the BoM. These cultures had zero to do with Smiths narratives.
Sure, much is known now, but very little of that was known in Joseph Smith's day and nothing was known of the Olmecs.
History was not silent on Mesoamerican cultures pre-Smith. There was much to do with the Aztecs by the Spanish conquistadors in the 1500's. What the Roman Catholic church did to erase the religious practices of the Mayans by the sword including burning their codices. No. It was a small leap for Smith to create a narrative that Mormon's have been unable to validate either historically or archaelogically.
And while you mock our interest in archaeological evidence that always supports the Book of Mormon (you all just pretend it doesn't because the word Mormon isn't on any of it), no amount of enthusiasm is spared archaeological evidence for Moses (who doesn't exist in history), Noah's ark or evidence of the resurrection of Christ while at the same time, they kill any findings that don't follow their narrative, such as Jesus' wife.
Please quote any mockery I have done directed at you or any other Mormon on this forum. Else I would request you retract this charge.

And not unlike Roman Catholics, who are unable to provide Biblical proof for their church and attack the Bible to buttress their false religious belief system, you are following suit. And I'm sorry but beyond the thousands and thousands of manuscripts and extant archaelogical evidences, eyewitness accounts that give a basis for what you attack, what does Mormomism have in equal measure? Nothing but the book written by Smith and musings about archeological evidence that is silent about the people, places and things and in the BoM.
Interesting set of blinders you all have on there.
Interesting comment. As you don't understand how to apply the "No true scotsman" fallacy, you obviously don't understand what blinders are designed for. You turn a blind eye to the lack of evidence for what you believe about the historicity of the BoM. Your comment is blind to your own position.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
You just pointed to the evidence that supports the claims in the Book of Mormon. Sure, much is known now, but very little of that was known in Joseph Smith's day and nothing was known of the Olmecs.

These native Americans did not come from ancient Israel.
And while you mock our interest in archaeological evidence that always supports the Book of Mormon (you all just pretend it doesn't because the word Mormon isn't on any of it), no amount of enthusiasm is spared archaeological evidence for Moses (who doesn't exist in history), Noah's ark or evidence of the resurrection of Christ while at the same time, they kill any findings that don't follow their narrative, such as Jesus' wife.

We all know that many things found in the Bible have no archaeological evidence at least, at this time. But some things DO--like King David and Pontius Pilate. Markk back in 2018 wrote the following on here. You may remember that he was a Mormon for 40 years before leaving and has a very extensive library of materials written by Mormons:

Mormons generally are good people, like most Christians...folks just trying to deal with life the best they can. It is not like there are these arch-villain type of teachers teaching the folks what to say. Mormons all the way from the top down simply do not have the answers, nor are they equipped to deal with question that are beyond the "talking point theology" we were instructed in. There is nothing deep or exhaustive about LDS theology. I have a few LDS commentary and they are a joke...there is no inductive reasoning within them.

if anything they are instructed more o walk away from a debate than to engage. Back in the day , about 10-15 years ago there was a forum one could debate the top LDS apologist...folks like Daniel Peterson, Ben McGuire, Lou Midgely, and others. These men and women had no better answers than the folks we engage with here. Like those here, most often it came down to ad hom remarks to avoid a direct objective conversation. My current request for a conversation about the BoM standing alone, would be dodged just as it is here.

Of all the Mormons I have debated with, which are many over the years, including those I mentioned above and more...the most open and honest apologist was, and you know him, Daniel MaClellan. At least he makes you dig in and think out your arguments in many cases, and he in one of few that actually know what the Christian faith teaches and what be basically believe.

those days are gone, some fired from their position at the NMI at BYU. The church's "try" at apologetic's failed miserably, the GA reeled them in and there is no longer a discussion with these folks.

My point is that LDS theology is "shallow"...it is based on bits and pieces of truth mixed with JS home made theology that has absolutely no roots in reality making it impossible to dig deep. It is like digging deep into a fiction novel; at some point it dead ends with the mind of the author.

They avoid discussions here about their theology not because they don't want to have conversation, but because they can't ...once the surface is scratched...they are lost.

Think about this...have you ever, and I mean ever seen OC, or DB or any other members here present a LDS position, lay out a premise, and follow it through? No, and you never will, their prophets and apostles couldn't do it either simply because their theology is nothing more than repeated talking points.

This is why theology is not important inside the church walls. It is why members sleep in class, in church, or google and shop in sacrament. (a common discussion on LDS forums.)

As Christians we cannot prove there is a God, yet we can present evidence based on our faith and interpretation of scripture. Technically so can a Mormon's. The difference is theirs is built on evidence of the imagination of JS. There is no natural proof that the BoM was real...every piece of it is up for debate in regards of it generating from real people in real places.

In other words, one can deny the existence of God, but they cannot deny the existence of Jews and Christians in an ancient world that believed what they did. You cannot deny Jerusalem, or the Nile, or Egypt, or Camels and Chariots complementing the narrative.

Mormonism has none of that...there are roadblock and dead end at every doctrine or narrative that strays from the Bible.

And yes I suppose it is wide--great analogy...but again very shallow...putting together a defense for LDS theology demands tearing down the question asker and starting endless rabbit trails, which in the end fall.

I had mentioned that Mormon apologetics was wide, but shallow, hence this last statement.

Interesting set of blinders you all have on there.
Jesus having a wife is unadulterated nonsense. If memory serves, that comes from a gospel purported to be from Philip. It is not. It is a gnostic writing from the 3rd century, much too late to be from the genuine Philip. But if this is not the source you may be referring to, then please tell us what you are basing this upon. DaVinci Code book? What?
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
These native Americans did not come from ancient Israel.


We all know that many things found in the Bible have no archaeological evidence at least, at this time. But some things DO--like King David and Pontius Pilate. Markk back in 2018 wrote the following on here. You may remember that he was a Mormon for 40 years before leaving and has a very extensive library of materials written by Mormons:



I had mentioned that Mormon apologetics was wide, but shallow, hence this last statement.


Jesus having a wife is unadulterated nonsense. If memory serves, that comes from a gospel purported to be from Philip. It is not. It is a gnostic writing from the 3rd century, much too late to be from the genuine Philip. But if this is not the source you may be referring to, then please tell us what you are basing this upon. DaVinci Code book? What?
Some early Mormon leaders believed they were direct descendants of Jesus and his wives. And yes, they think he had more than one.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Some early Mormon leaders believed they were direct descendants of Jesus and his wives. And yes, they think he had more than one.
I remember that was taught, as well. That the wedding at Cana was Jesus' own wedding, which is patently absurd, given the context. I seem to remember that some even taught that He was married to Mary and Martha at Bethany--also patently absurd. I don't think this was ever taught as doctrine, just a pious opinion by some. Later abandoned.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
I remember that was taught, as well. That the wedding at Cana was Jesus' own wedding, which is patently absurd, given the context. I seem to remember that some even taught that He was married to Mary and Martha at Bethany--also patently absurd. I don't think this was ever taught as doctrine, just a pious opinion by some. Later abandoned.
There are still many Mormons who believe Christ was married to the two Mary’s and Martha.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
Really? But it was never taught as official doctrine, though, so far as I know. It is a ridiculous teaching!
It was taught from the pulpit by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt and other early Mormon leaders. Church Patriarchs told individuals in their prophetic blessings that they were literal descendants of Christ.

They don’t teach it as doctrine anymore, but it still gets discussed in priesthood meetings and other places. As late as 1963 there were statements being made about it by leaders…

“In 1963, Joseph Fielding Smith responded to a believer who asked a similar question, “Christ came here to set us the example and, therefore, we believe that he must have been married. Are we right?” Smith responded in a terse note, “Yes! But do not preach it! The Lord advised us not to cast pearls before swine!”” ~ Gary Shepherd and Gordon Shepherd, Binding Earth and Heaven: Patriarchal Blessings in the Prophetic Development of Early Mormonism (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012), 52
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
The critics didn't reject Mormonism when they made the assumption, based on that current physical, empirical, archaeological evidence, that the population was less.

I made no such claim about "Mormonism".

My claim was---the LiDAR showed the Book of Mormon testimonies relating to population size might be correct. Again--the Book of Mormon population claim was a contested point with some critics-- which some listed as evidence the Book of Mormon contained false claims.

They made the claim about the Mesoamerican cultures. The only time I know if that they spoke out, against Mormon claims, is when Mormons tried to co-opt their discoveries and/or try to make it appear they used the BoM as a guide.

That may be a point according to your knowledge--which I can't, nor have--contested that particular.

But the population claims of the Book of Mormon has been vindicated through the LiDAR observations, as well as warfare and physical constructions concerning food and animal production.

And as the discoveries in north, central and south America were revealed the numbers changed. A logical progression.

A "logical progression" which turned in favor of Book of Mormon claims.

I am mitigating nothing.

The Mesoamerican cultural discoveries made over the last decades.

Your very comments, "validates", etc. are a clear statement you believe this new LiDAR proves the BoM.

I believe it proves the Book of Mormon claims of the population base and some other claims of Book of Mormon testimonies. Archeology is a slow science--it does not cover all points in question at once. The archeology is at a very early stage. The population base is just one brick in the wall.

The problem being Mormons are trying to create a historical narrative that does not exist. Repeat does not exist. Now, when you can provide one single piece of physical evidence that the BoM is historically and archaeologically accurate, then we can talk.

Again--the population base is a physical trait of the archeological discoveries of Mesoamerica.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
The BoM and the Mormon religion is broadly rejected by Christianity and it's not a default view.

While I don't believe your view is incorrect, per se--I have a couple of particulars to ask of you:

1) What do you find in the Book of Mormon--which you don't find as Christianity--as far as salvational doctrines go? Not found in the Biblical NT?

2) When you state "Christianity"--is that a reference to first century Christianity--or what you believe is Christianity?
 
Top