According ot WCCO.com, researchers have found new evidence of a secret code concealed on the Kensington Runestone, one of the most controversial pieces of Minnesota history.
The rock was found near Alexandria, Minn. a century ago. It bears an inscription that places Norwegians here in 1362.
Were Vikings exploring our land more than 100 years before Columbus? Or is the Kensington Runestone an elaborate hoax? New research suggests the rune stone is genuine, and a hidden code can prove it.
In reference to secret societies, the "L" and "U" ring a bell - reminds me of the square and compass of the Masons...
Umm, Columbus didn't explore "our" land! So the answer would always be yes.
QUOTE
Umm, Columbus didn't explore "our" land! So the answer would always be yes.
So you're one of them
Wow, that article raised some interesting thoughts with me... The mormons have their "book of mormon" which by their belief was written by Jesus when he came to America after his resurrection. Wouldn't that be interesting if it was tablets of the Templar bible? And the mormons were worshipping it? Anyone out there know where Joseph Smith lived? I am not that good at religious history.
I am going to find a burning cross on my front lawn now when I get home tonight......
I am going to find a burning cross on my front lawn now when I get home tonight......
COLUMBUS CAME TO AMERICA BY USE OF THE ZENO MAPS THEY WERE GIVEN TO HIM (A LONG STORY) BUT CAPT SINCLAIR OF SCOTTLAND A TEMPLAR WAS ON AMERICAN SHORES 100 YEARS BEFORE COLUMBUS EVIDENCE IS ON THE EAST COAST (COLUMBUS SAILS ALSO CARRIED THE TEMPLAR SIGN ON THEM)
I'm 35 and am a five generation Mormon. My ancesters were in the same neighborhood as Joseph Smith and joined within the first year of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" being organized in 1830. Here's some information on mormons.
The Book of Mormon wasn't written by Jesus when he came to the Americas. It is a compilation or Reader's Digest version of the history of the Nephite nation as written by the last living Nephite, Mormon.
Timeline
600 B.C.
Nephi, an Israelite leaves Jeruselem with his father Lehi and relatives. Lehi, a prophet, is told in vision that Jeruselem will be destroyed along with it's inhabitants. Lehi travels with his family to the Indian Ocean where Nephi is commanded to build a ship. Lehi's family boards the ship and is guided to "The Promised Land".
590 B.C.
The ship lands somewhere on the west coast of South America. Lehi dies and Nephi, his son, becomes the next prophet. They practice the Law of Moses and continue to worship with burnt offerings etc.
Nephi keeps records of his people.
When he is about to die he gives charge of them to his brother Jacob. These records are then kept and passed down from generation to generation until Mormon recieves them around 350 A.D.
34 A.D.
The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ visits the Nephites and establishes his church with 12 apostles etc. After many days of establishing his church Jesus left. There was then 200 years of peace with no wars or contentions. After approximately 200 years the people began having contentions and wars again. They split into two groups called the Nephites and the Lamanites.
350-400 B.C.
. Mormon then takes all the records which he says are many and writes an abbreviated version of the 1000 year history of his people. Mormon is the prophet of his time. Mormon was the prophet, leader, and general for the Nephites. Around 380 A.D. the Nephites and Lamanites had a final battle around present day Palmyra, New York where the Lamanites literally destroyed the Nephites.
400 A.D.
Mormon dies and in 420 B.C. his son Moroni finally buries this record which is a book with pages made of gold. He buries it in a stone box on the side of a hill which is near present day Palmyra, New York.
1824 Joseph Smith is visited by Moroni, a now resurrected being in his room at age 18 and is told where the record is to be found and that he would be responsible for traslating it from the ancient Nephite language (Reformed Egyptian) into English.
1829
The Book of Mormon is Published
1830
Joseph Smith establishes "The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" which he says is a restoration of all things lost and is the True church returned to earth.
Now, as far as Mormon's and Mason's. Joseph Smith was a master Mason as were most of the original founders and members of the mormon church. Our faith has many masonic symbols that are represented on our temples etc. I've studied the rituals of the master masons and can't find any similarities between there rituals and our worship in our temple. Our worship in our temples is focused completely on Jesus Christ and his relationship with us.
Joseph Smith did say that the Masons have some form of truth such as the Catholic church but as the Catholic church it has been corrupted and has lost it's original truth which was originally part of the church established by Christ himself.
For more specific information check out masonicmoroni.com
And don't expect a burning cross on your lawn any time soon. Mormons were burned out of their homes and driven into the rocky mountains. You might get a "Hot" plate of cookies with a note asking if you'd like the missionaries to come visit.
The Book of Mormon wasn't written by Jesus when he came to the Americas. It is a compilation or Reader's Digest version of the history of the Nephite nation as written by the last living Nephite, Mormon.
Timeline
600 B.C.
Nephi, an Israelite leaves Jeruselem with his father Lehi and relatives. Lehi, a prophet, is told in vision that Jeruselem will be destroyed along with it's inhabitants. Lehi travels with his family to the Indian Ocean where Nephi is commanded to build a ship. Lehi's family boards the ship and is guided to "The Promised Land".
590 B.C.
The ship lands somewhere on the west coast of South America. Lehi dies and Nephi, his son, becomes the next prophet. They practice the Law of Moses and continue to worship with burnt offerings etc.
Nephi keeps records of his people.
When he is about to die he gives charge of them to his brother Jacob. These records are then kept and passed down from generation to generation until Mormon recieves them around 350 A.D.
34 A.D.
The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ visits the Nephites and establishes his church with 12 apostles etc. After many days of establishing his church Jesus left. There was then 200 years of peace with no wars or contentions. After approximately 200 years the people began having contentions and wars again. They split into two groups called the Nephites and the Lamanites.
350-400 B.C.
. Mormon then takes all the records which he says are many and writes an abbreviated version of the 1000 year history of his people. Mormon is the prophet of his time. Mormon was the prophet, leader, and general for the Nephites. Around 380 A.D. the Nephites and Lamanites had a final battle around present day Palmyra, New York where the Lamanites literally destroyed the Nephites.
400 A.D.
Mormon dies and in 420 B.C. his son Moroni finally buries this record which is a book with pages made of gold. He buries it in a stone box on the side of a hill which is near present day Palmyra, New York.
1824 Joseph Smith is visited by Moroni, a now resurrected being in his room at age 18 and is told where the record is to be found and that he would be responsible for traslating it from the ancient Nephite language (Reformed Egyptian) into English.
1829
The Book of Mormon is Published
1830
Joseph Smith establishes "The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" which he says is a restoration of all things lost and is the True church returned to earth.
Now, as far as Mormon's and Mason's. Joseph Smith was a master Mason as were most of the original founders and members of the mormon church. Our faith has many masonic symbols that are represented on our temples etc. I've studied the rituals of the master masons and can't find any similarities between there rituals and our worship in our temple. Our worship in our temples is focused completely on Jesus Christ and his relationship with us.
Joseph Smith did say that the Masons have some form of truth such as the Catholic church but as the Catholic church it has been corrupted and has lost it's original truth which was originally part of the church established by Christ himself.
For more specific information check out masonicmoroni.com
And don't expect a burning cross on your lawn any time soon. Mormons were burned out of their homes and driven into the rocky mountains. You might get a "Hot" plate of cookies with a note asking if you'd like the missionaries to come visit.
QUOTE (Guest_Brad+May 14 2006, 11:00 PM)
The Book of Mormon wasn't written by Jesus when he came to the Americas. It is a compilation or Reader's Digest version of the history of the Nephite nation as written by the last living Nephite, Mormon.
Timeline
600 B.C.
Nephi, an Israelite leaves Jeruselem with his father Lehi and relatives. Lehi, a prophet, is told in vision that Jeruselem will be destroyed along with it's inhabitants. Lehi travels with his family to the Indian Ocean where Nephi is commanded to build a ship. Lehi's family boards the ship and is guided to "The Promised Land".
590 B.C.
The ship lands somewhere on the west coast of South America. Lehi dies and Nephi, his son, becomes the next prophet. They practice the Law of Moses and continue to worship with burnt offerings etc.
Nephi keeps records of his people.
When he is about to die he gives charge of them to his brother Jacob. These records are then kept and passed down from generation to generation until Mormon recieves them around 350 A.D.
34 A.D.
The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ visits the Nephites and establishes his church with 12 apostles etc. After many days of establishing his church Jesus left. There was then 200 years of peace with no wars or contentions. After approximately 200 years the people began having contentions and wars again. They split into two groups called the Nephites and the Lamanites.
350-400 B.C.
. Mormon then takes all the records which he says are many and writes an abbreviated version of the 1000 year history of his people. Mormon is the prophet of his time. Mormon was the prophet, leader, and general for the Nephites. Around 380 A.D. the Nephites and Lamanites had a final battle around present day Palmyra, New York where the Lamanites literally destroyed the Nephites.
400 A.D.
Mormon dies and in 420 B.C. his son Moroni finally buries this record which is a book with pages made of gold. He buries it in a stone box on the side of a hill which is near present day Palmyra, New York.
1824 Joseph Smith is visited by Moroni, a now resurrected being in his room at age 18 and is told where the record is to be found and that he would be responsible for traslating it from the ancient Nephite language (Reformed Egyptian) into English.
1829
The Book of Mormon is Published
1830
Joseph Smith establishes "The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" which he says is a restoration of all things lost and is the True church returned to earth.
Now, as far as Mormon's and Mason's. Joseph Smith was a master Mason as were most of the original founders and members of the mormon church. Our faith has many masonic symbols that are represented on our temples etc. I've studied the rituals of the master masons and can't find any similarities between there rituals and our worship in our temple. Our worship in our temples is focused completely on Jesus Christ and his relationship with us.
Joseph Smith did say that the Masons have some form of truth such as the Catholic church but as the Catholic church it has been corrupted and has lost it's original truth which was originally part of the church established by Christ himself.
For more specific information check out masonicmoroni.com
And don't expect a burning cross on your lawn any time soon. Mormons were burned out of their homes and driven into the rocky mountains. You might get a "Hot" plate of cookies with a note asking if you'd like the missionaries to come visit.
Guest_Brad,
It is extremely unfortunate the way some of the early Mormons were driven from their homes. What happened to them is in no way justified, but that doesn't make it legitimate. This has been covered here before:
Have you ever considered that what you believe is simply not credible? For a claim to be considered truth and factual, it should be able to be backed up by historical evidence.
Although Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church boldly claimed that his book of Mormon is the “most correct of any book on the earth,” (1) archeology has repeatedly failed to substantiate its claims about events that supposedly occurred long ago in the Americas.
I would encourage you to write the Smithsonian Institute and inquire about whether there is any evidence supporting the claims of Mormonism. You will be told as others have in unequivocal terms that its archaeologists see “no direct encounter between archeology of the New World and subject matter of the book.”
Authors John Ankenberg & John Weldon concluded in book on the topic, “In other words, no Book of Mormon cities have ever been located, no Book of Mormon person place, nation, or name has ever been found, no Book of Mormon inscriptions… nothing which demonstrates the Book of Mormon is anything other than myth or invention has ever been found.”(2)
The story is total different regarding The Bible and its archeology, you will find lots of support there.
Ref. (1) Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 8 Vol. 4:261,cited by Donald S. Tingle,17.
(2) John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on the Mormon Church.
Don't you find it a somewhat strange that not one single little piece of archaeological evidence has been acknowledged by the outside world that affirms the book of Mormon?
All this supposed 'history' does make sense:
Why isn't the terrain of Central America described?
Why is it that numerous LDS books and papers describe proposed Book of Mormon locations for cities and the "narrow neck of land"? No city has been identified as being Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, etc. For example, Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years, but we still don't have any real evidence of it ever existing. The Book of Mormon describes a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people. No city they occupied has yet to be found.
Why didn't any of the place names from the Book of Mormon still exist when Columbus arrived?
Where was the Hill Cumorah? Was it in New York or Central America? If it was in Central America, why hasn't it been found? If it was in New York, how did they move that quickly and where are all the remains?
Why don't gaps exist in the archaeological record of Mesoamerica if these missing people existed?
Did the Book of Mormon take place outside of Mesoamerica? The History of the Church records an incident from June, 1834 in which JS identified a skeleton found in an Indian burial mound in Illinois: ". . . the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph . . . who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains." (HOC 1948 ed., II: 79-80).
Why don't any archeologists theorize any Hebrew or Egyptian linkages or influences in Mesoamerica?
___________________________________________________
Now regarding the original question about the VIKINGS:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Article584.html
Timeline
600 B.C.
Nephi, an Israelite leaves Jeruselem with his father Lehi and relatives. Lehi, a prophet, is told in vision that Jeruselem will be destroyed along with it's inhabitants. Lehi travels with his family to the Indian Ocean where Nephi is commanded to build a ship. Lehi's family boards the ship and is guided to "The Promised Land".
590 B.C.
The ship lands somewhere on the west coast of South America. Lehi dies and Nephi, his son, becomes the next prophet. They practice the Law of Moses and continue to worship with burnt offerings etc.
Nephi keeps records of his people.
When he is about to die he gives charge of them to his brother Jacob. These records are then kept and passed down from generation to generation until Mormon recieves them around 350 A.D.
34 A.D.
The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ visits the Nephites and establishes his church with 12 apostles etc. After many days of establishing his church Jesus left. There was then 200 years of peace with no wars or contentions. After approximately 200 years the people began having contentions and wars again. They split into two groups called the Nephites and the Lamanites.
350-400 B.C.
. Mormon then takes all the records which he says are many and writes an abbreviated version of the 1000 year history of his people. Mormon is the prophet of his time. Mormon was the prophet, leader, and general for the Nephites. Around 380 A.D. the Nephites and Lamanites had a final battle around present day Palmyra, New York where the Lamanites literally destroyed the Nephites.
400 A.D.
Mormon dies and in 420 B.C. his son Moroni finally buries this record which is a book with pages made of gold. He buries it in a stone box on the side of a hill which is near present day Palmyra, New York.
1824 Joseph Smith is visited by Moroni, a now resurrected being in his room at age 18 and is told where the record is to be found and that he would be responsible for traslating it from the ancient Nephite language (Reformed Egyptian) into English.
1829
The Book of Mormon is Published
1830
Joseph Smith establishes "The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" which he says is a restoration of all things lost and is the True church returned to earth.
Now, as far as Mormon's and Mason's. Joseph Smith was a master Mason as were most of the original founders and members of the mormon church. Our faith has many masonic symbols that are represented on our temples etc. I've studied the rituals of the master masons and can't find any similarities between there rituals and our worship in our temple. Our worship in our temples is focused completely on Jesus Christ and his relationship with us.
Joseph Smith did say that the Masons have some form of truth such as the Catholic church but as the Catholic church it has been corrupted and has lost it's original truth which was originally part of the church established by Christ himself.
For more specific information check out masonicmoroni.com
And don't expect a burning cross on your lawn any time soon. Mormons were burned out of their homes and driven into the rocky mountains. You might get a "Hot" plate of cookies with a note asking if you'd like the missionaries to come visit.
Guest_Brad,
It is extremely unfortunate the way some of the early Mormons were driven from their homes. What happened to them is in no way justified, but that doesn't make it legitimate. This has been covered here before:
Have you ever considered that what you believe is simply not credible? For a claim to be considered truth and factual, it should be able to be backed up by historical evidence.
Although Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church boldly claimed that his book of Mormon is the “most correct of any book on the earth,” (1) archeology has repeatedly failed to substantiate its claims about events that supposedly occurred long ago in the Americas.
I would encourage you to write the Smithsonian Institute and inquire about whether there is any evidence supporting the claims of Mormonism. You will be told as others have in unequivocal terms that its archaeologists see “no direct encounter between archeology of the New World and subject matter of the book.”
Authors John Ankenberg & John Weldon concluded in book on the topic, “In other words, no Book of Mormon cities have ever been located, no Book of Mormon person place, nation, or name has ever been found, no Book of Mormon inscriptions… nothing which demonstrates the Book of Mormon is anything other than myth or invention has ever been found.”(2)
The story is total different regarding The Bible and its archeology, you will find lots of support there.
Ref. (1) Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 8 Vol. 4:261,cited by Donald S. Tingle,17.
(2) John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on the Mormon Church.
Don't you find it a somewhat strange that not one single little piece of archaeological evidence has been acknowledged by the outside world that affirms the book of Mormon?
All this supposed 'history' does make sense:
Why isn't the terrain of Central America described?
Why is it that numerous LDS books and papers describe proposed Book of Mormon locations for cities and the "narrow neck of land"? No city has been identified as being Nephite, Lamanite, Jaredite, etc. For example, Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years, but we still don't have any real evidence of it ever existing. The Book of Mormon describes a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people. No city they occupied has yet to be found.
Why didn't any of the place names from the Book of Mormon still exist when Columbus arrived?
Where was the Hill Cumorah? Was it in New York or Central America? If it was in Central America, why hasn't it been found? If it was in New York, how did they move that quickly and where are all the remains?
Why don't gaps exist in the archaeological record of Mesoamerica if these missing people existed?
Did the Book of Mormon take place outside of Mesoamerica? The History of the Church records an incident from June, 1834 in which JS identified a skeleton found in an Indian burial mound in Illinois: ". . . the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thick-set man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph . . . who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains." (HOC 1948 ed., II: 79-80).
Why don't any archeologists theorize any Hebrew or Egyptian linkages or influences in Mesoamerica?
___________________________________________________
Now regarding the original question about the VIKINGS:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Article584.html
You have to be kidding right?
The pre Hispanic South Americans are well known for their metalurgy. The Bank of Columbia has a well guarded display of over 30,000 gold artifacts designed out of gold plates which were as common as we use paper today. The museum is called the Museo del Oro.
http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/esp/home.htm
One of it's several virtual musems can be found here to review the intricate work:
http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/esp/expo_virtuales.htm#mar
Also Spain melted down thousands more artifacts during the New World congquest.
The problem people have in understanding the book of mormon (which I have read 3 times- and I have read the bible cover to cover once) is that the BofM is a compilation of the writings of a few people who supposedly lived in that era. The biggest thing I noticed while reading this material was that while the fashion of gold is extrodinary (as evidenced in today's musuems), only a few people actually kept an ongoing record that became what is now known as the BofM. I suspect that few people were actually literate in a written language. The mormons claim this to be "reformed egyptian". The fact that they could have been written on gold plates is obviously true. But were they? For now we wouldn't know for sure.
The fact that there is not evidence of preHispanic metalurgy in New York State where JSmith supposedly found the golden plates is not a deciding factor since the BofM describes a war fought in that area but the plates itself came from another area once inhabited by this Moroni character.
The idea of golden plates is quite credible. Where we have erred in my opinon is in archeology of the region around NY. Most recently a new section of a colonist era city was unearthed on the coast which only dated to the 1600-1700 period but no one knew it existed and it had to be unearthed. It could be that the remains of the Nephi-Lamanite peoples descibed have just not been unearthed in N. America (California-NY) because no one is seriously digging. But as far as Central and South America including the section of land in Panama (where at some points a person can turn around and see either ocean) digs have uncovered a great deal.
The narrow section of land descibed in the BofM perhaps is Panama.
All this aside, for JSmith to write the BofM and die over it a poor person, he would have to be honored far above any other fiction writer known todate for the creativity that it is. It would certainly go far beyond anything else out there that is "fiction". Religion surely squanders objectivity no matter the circumstance. Those that believe believe and those that are set against it..well..30,000+ gold artifacts in the National Bank of Columbia mean nothing.
Cheerio
The pre Hispanic South Americans are well known for their metalurgy. The Bank of Columbia has a well guarded display of over 30,000 gold artifacts designed out of gold plates which were as common as we use paper today. The museum is called the Museo del Oro.
http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/esp/home.htm
One of it's several virtual musems can be found here to review the intricate work:
http://www.banrep.gov.co/museo/esp/expo_virtuales.htm#mar
Also Spain melted down thousands more artifacts during the New World congquest.
The problem people have in understanding the book of mormon (which I have read 3 times- and I have read the bible cover to cover once) is that the BofM is a compilation of the writings of a few people who supposedly lived in that era. The biggest thing I noticed while reading this material was that while the fashion of gold is extrodinary (as evidenced in today's musuems), only a few people actually kept an ongoing record that became what is now known as the BofM. I suspect that few people were actually literate in a written language. The mormons claim this to be "reformed egyptian". The fact that they could have been written on gold plates is obviously true. But were they? For now we wouldn't know for sure.
The fact that there is not evidence of preHispanic metalurgy in New York State where JSmith supposedly found the golden plates is not a deciding factor since the BofM describes a war fought in that area but the plates itself came from another area once inhabited by this Moroni character.
The idea of golden plates is quite credible. Where we have erred in my opinon is in archeology of the region around NY. Most recently a new section of a colonist era city was unearthed on the coast which only dated to the 1600-1700 period but no one knew it existed and it had to be unearthed. It could be that the remains of the Nephi-Lamanite peoples descibed have just not been unearthed in N. America (California-NY) because no one is seriously digging. But as far as Central and South America including the section of land in Panama (where at some points a person can turn around and see either ocean) digs have uncovered a great deal.
The narrow section of land descibed in the BofM perhaps is Panama.
All this aside, for JSmith to write the BofM and die over it a poor person, he would have to be honored far above any other fiction writer known todate for the creativity that it is. It would certainly go far beyond anything else out there that is "fiction". Religion surely squanders objectivity no matter the circumstance. Those that believe believe and those that are set against it..well..30,000+ gold artifacts in the National Bank of Columbia mean nothing.
Cheerio
Issachar,
Your really flexing your ignorance on this one. Before you go parroting the ideas of others you should at least check to see if they are right.
First, I'd bet the bank you've never read the BOM so how could you possibly have an intelligible opinion about it. Second archaelogical evidence has been found to corroborate the BOM.
Look here's the city of Laman
http://mayaruins.com/lamanai.html
http://www.belize-vacation.com/belize/lamanai.htm
But I'm sure a city named Lamanai which in hebrew means lamanite would not be good enough for ya( that is if you would even know evidence if you saw it due to your ignorance of the text) . By the way this is one of the only mayan cities with its original name intact and guess what it corroborates.
But the best archaelogical evidence comes from the Arabian Peninsula. In the Old world we have the starting point, Jerusalem, so we can trace their journey. Almost every location has been found. The river in a valley that runs continuosly to the sea. http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#lemuel
Then there's the city and cemetary of Nahom
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbm...252aWV3LnBocA==
And Bountiful at Khor Kharfot in Oman
http://www.ldsmag.com/bookofmormon/060118bountifulprint.html
All of those places where unknown in Smith's day and thought to be outlandishly outrageous until less than a decade or two ago.
So don't make blanket statements of which you have no idea of the facts. It'll make you get your foot caught in your mouth every time. And this is only a smattering of archaeological evidence that I could have listed.
Your really flexing your ignorance on this one. Before you go parroting the ideas of others you should at least check to see if they are right.
First, I'd bet the bank you've never read the BOM so how could you possibly have an intelligible opinion about it. Second archaelogical evidence has been found to corroborate the BOM.
Look here's the city of Laman
http://mayaruins.com/lamanai.html
http://www.belize-vacation.com/belize/lamanai.htm
But I'm sure a city named Lamanai which in hebrew means lamanite would not be good enough for ya( that is if you would even know evidence if you saw it due to your ignorance of the text) . By the way this is one of the only mayan cities with its original name intact and guess what it corroborates.
But the best archaelogical evidence comes from the Arabian Peninsula. In the Old world we have the starting point, Jerusalem, so we can trace their journey. Almost every location has been found. The river in a valley that runs continuosly to the sea. http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#lemuel
Then there's the city and cemetary of Nahom
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbm...252aWV3LnBocA==
And Bountiful at Khor Kharfot in Oman
http://www.ldsmag.com/bookofmormon/060118bountifulprint.html
All of those places where unknown in Smith's day and thought to be outlandishly outrageous until less than a decade or two ago.
So don't make blanket statements of which you have no idea of the facts. It'll make you get your foot caught in your mouth every time. And this is only a smattering of archaeological evidence that I could have listed.
Randy & warship,
I am really sorry, I do not mean to sound rude but you are wasting your time and mine also.
There was metallurgy in Mesoamerica, it just has absolutely NOTHING to do with the book of Mormon and there was no iron or steal work either.
Click on the following link:
Metalluragy in Americas
that is from a Mormon with a BS and MS in metallurgical engineering
No need for you to bet the bank, I have in fact read the whole book. I will give you my opinion of it if you wish, but below is something for you to read which was written by someone else.
The Book of Mormon
The "keystone" of the church is unquestionably the Book of Mormon. If the book can be shown to be a product of the 19th century, the church is then not what it claims to be. Archaeology in the old world continues to uncover physical evidence of biblical history. This is not the case with new world archaeology and the Book of Mormon. In fact, archeologists have stated that the last 2 decades have been devastating to Book of Mormon archeology. Mormon apologists are now resorting to "internal evidences" which are addressed elsewhere on this site since they realize there is no hard evidence at all for the Book of Mormon.
The most compelling evidence of the fictional nature of the Book of Mormon, from an archaeological view, is the things which have not been found. This part of my post is liberally copied from some documents on Mormon archeology.
Cities
Numerous books and papers, of which I have many, describe proposed Book of Mormon locations for cities and for the "narrow neck of land". All of them differ significantly. No city has yet been identified as being Nephite or Lamanite. This is significant in that Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years. Almost all geography mentioned in the Book of Mormon is in Mormon's abridgment of the plates. He would have known which locations would have been destroyed by the crucifixion. Therefore, the weak LDS apologist stance that the cities were destroyed is not valid. Remember we are talking about a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people and these cities they occupied have yet to be found.
A curious note is that when the Nephites landed in the Americas there were already millions of inhabitants in the land with large cities and infrastructure. Why are these peoples not mentioned?
Plant and Animal Life
There are four major crops mentioned in the Nephite records. These are:
• Barley (Mos 7:22, 9:9, Alma 11:7, 15)
• Figs (3 Ne 14:16)
• Grapes (2 Ne 15:2, 4, 3 Ne 14:16)
• Wheat (Mos 9:9, 3 Ne 18:18)
Archeological findings for the time period of the Book of Mormon:
• Barley NONE {an new world variety was found in Arizona and totally unrelated}
• Figs NONE
• Grapes NONE
• Wheat NONE
This negative score on the plant-life test should not be treated too lightly. An abundance of evidence supporting the existence of these plants has been found in other parts of the world of antiquity. The existence of numerous non-Book-of-Mormon plants (maize, lima beans, tomatoes, squash, etc.) has been supported by abundant archeological findings. Quoting from Tom Ferguson: "I (Tom Ferguson) participated in excavating a trench a the edge of the Grijalva river in which we found a ceramic vessel is a stratum dating to about 200 BC. The vessel contained lima beans that had been burned anciently and discarded--pot and beans--as too badly burned to be edible. And yet they were still in their pristine and perfect form. The beans were carbon-14 dated helping to place the whole stratum on a true time scale. Art portrayals in ceramics, murals, and sculptured works--of ancient plant life--are fairly commonplace. Thousands of archeological holes in the area proposed have given us not a fragment of evidence of the presence of the plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The holes include the great one dug by Edwin Shook at Tehuacan, Puebla, Mexico. He excavated a cave -- going back to 5000 BC., finding most of the major plants of the area. But no wheat, barley, figs or grapes."
I would like to note that wheat is very durable. Wheat in near perfect condition has been frequently found in the Egyptian pyramids dating back thousands of years. There is absolutely no evidence from any source that wheat was ever used in the ancient Americas. This alone brings the Book of Mormon into serious doubt.
Animal Life
This section is fun and Mormons are derided here for claiming horses and elephants were used by the ancients in America. This derision is for good reason, for they have never been found! There are more animals mentioned which reinforces the fictional nature of the Book of Mormon.
There are many animals mentioned in the Nephite records. These are:
• ***
• Bull
• Calf
• Cattle
• Cow
• Butter
• Milk
• Flocks
• Goat {the Nephites claimed to have found the domestic goat no less!}
• Herds
• Horse {the horse plays a major role in the Nephite and Lamanite societies}
• Ox
• Sheep {this was a major animal in the Book of Mormon}
• Sow
• Swine
• Elephants
Archeological findings for the time period of the Book of Mormon:
• ***..... NONE
• Bull.... NONE
• Calf.... NONE
• Cattle.. NONE
• Cow..... NONE
• Butter.. NONE
• Milk.... NONE
• Flocks.. NONE
• Goat.... NONE
• Herds... NONE
• Horse... NONE
• Ox...... NONE
• Sheep... NONE
• Sow..... NONE
• Swine... NONE
• Elephants (NONE contemporary with the Book of Mormon)
Again from Tom Ferguson: "Evidence of the foregoing animals has not appeared in any form -- ceramic representations, bones or skeletal remains, mural art, sculptured art or any other form. However... evidence has been found in several forms of the presence in the Book-of-Mormon times of other animals--deer, jaguars, dogs, turkeys etc. The zero score presents a problem that will not go away with the ignoring of it. Non-LDS scholars of first magnitude, some who want to be our friends, think we have real trouble here. That evidence of the ancient existence of these animals is not elusive is found in the fact that proof of their existence in the ancient old-world is abundant. The absence of such evidence...is distressing and significant, in my view."
Metals
I will be briefer on the metals, but this is fascinating to me as I have both a BS and MS in metallurgical engineering.
Evidence supporting the existence of these metals, skills and products...at this time as follows:
• Bellows....... NONE
• Brass......... NONE
• Breast Plates. NONE
• Chains........ NONE
• Copper........ NONE
• Iron.......... NONE
• Ore (mining).. NONE (this is very significant, no evidence of mining activities)
• Plows......... NONE
• Silver........ NONE
• Swords........ NONE (none that are metal)
• Steel......... NONE
Again from Tom Ferguson: "Metallurgy does not appear in the region until about the 9th century A.D. ...I regard this as a major weakness in the armor of our proponents and friends". ...Art does not portray the existence of metallurgical products or metallurgical activity. Again, the score is zero.
There are so many items archeologically, historically and using textual criticism to show the Book of Mormon to be fictional, that anyone willing to do a little study will reach the same conclusion.
There is a lot of Mormon mythology that states that the Book of Mormon has been "proven" by such and such a find or the uncovering of a city. When investigated ALL of these claims have been shown to be false. The myths are circulated in the Mormon culture by Sacrament meeting talks, Priesthood meeting discussions and in LDS social circles so much, that Mormons who do not investigate the source of the information, believe the stories to be true. They use these false stories to "strengthen their testimonies". Please see section on Problems with believing in Mormonism / Mormon Apologetics on this site for a letter from the Smithsonian which verifies these statements.
Source click here:
Mormon
perhaps you need something beyond the lds. Good luck.
lds-forgive
I am really sorry, I do not mean to sound rude but you are wasting your time and mine also.
There was metallurgy in Mesoamerica, it just has absolutely NOTHING to do with the book of Mormon and there was no iron or steal work either.
Click on the following link:
Metalluragy in Americas
that is from a Mormon with a BS and MS in metallurgical engineering
QUOTE
First, I'd bet the bank you've never read the BOM so how could you possibly have an intelligible opinion about it.
No need for you to bet the bank, I have in fact read the whole book. I will give you my opinion of it if you wish, but below is something for you to read which was written by someone else.
The Book of Mormon
The "keystone" of the church is unquestionably the Book of Mormon. If the book can be shown to be a product of the 19th century, the church is then not what it claims to be. Archaeology in the old world continues to uncover physical evidence of biblical history. This is not the case with new world archaeology and the Book of Mormon. In fact, archeologists have stated that the last 2 decades have been devastating to Book of Mormon archeology. Mormon apologists are now resorting to "internal evidences" which are addressed elsewhere on this site since they realize there is no hard evidence at all for the Book of Mormon.
The most compelling evidence of the fictional nature of the Book of Mormon, from an archaeological view, is the things which have not been found. This part of my post is liberally copied from some documents on Mormon archeology.
Cities
Numerous books and papers, of which I have many, describe proposed Book of Mormon locations for cities and for the "narrow neck of land". All of them differ significantly. No city has yet been identified as being Nephite or Lamanite. This is significant in that Zarahemla was occupied for hundreds of years. Almost all geography mentioned in the Book of Mormon is in Mormon's abridgment of the plates. He would have known which locations would have been destroyed by the crucifixion. Therefore, the weak LDS apologist stance that the cities were destroyed is not valid. Remember we are talking about a time period from 2000 BC to 400 AD and millions of people and these cities they occupied have yet to be found.
A curious note is that when the Nephites landed in the Americas there were already millions of inhabitants in the land with large cities and infrastructure. Why are these peoples not mentioned?
Plant and Animal Life
There are four major crops mentioned in the Nephite records. These are:
• Barley (Mos 7:22, 9:9, Alma 11:7, 15)
• Figs (3 Ne 14:16)
• Grapes (2 Ne 15:2, 4, 3 Ne 14:16)
• Wheat (Mos 9:9, 3 Ne 18:18)
Archeological findings for the time period of the Book of Mormon:
• Barley NONE {an new world variety was found in Arizona and totally unrelated}
• Figs NONE
• Grapes NONE
• Wheat NONE
This negative score on the plant-life test should not be treated too lightly. An abundance of evidence supporting the existence of these plants has been found in other parts of the world of antiquity. The existence of numerous non-Book-of-Mormon plants (maize, lima beans, tomatoes, squash, etc.) has been supported by abundant archeological findings. Quoting from Tom Ferguson: "I (Tom Ferguson) participated in excavating a trench a the edge of the Grijalva river in which we found a ceramic vessel is a stratum dating to about 200 BC. The vessel contained lima beans that had been burned anciently and discarded--pot and beans--as too badly burned to be edible. And yet they were still in their pristine and perfect form. The beans were carbon-14 dated helping to place the whole stratum on a true time scale. Art portrayals in ceramics, murals, and sculptured works--of ancient plant life--are fairly commonplace. Thousands of archeological holes in the area proposed have given us not a fragment of evidence of the presence of the plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The holes include the great one dug by Edwin Shook at Tehuacan, Puebla, Mexico. He excavated a cave -- going back to 5000 BC., finding most of the major plants of the area. But no wheat, barley, figs or grapes."
I would like to note that wheat is very durable. Wheat in near perfect condition has been frequently found in the Egyptian pyramids dating back thousands of years. There is absolutely no evidence from any source that wheat was ever used in the ancient Americas. This alone brings the Book of Mormon into serious doubt.
Animal Life
This section is fun and Mormons are derided here for claiming horses and elephants were used by the ancients in America. This derision is for good reason, for they have never been found! There are more animals mentioned which reinforces the fictional nature of the Book of Mormon.
There are many animals mentioned in the Nephite records. These are:
• ***
• Bull
• Calf
• Cattle
• Cow
• Butter
• Milk
• Flocks
• Goat {the Nephites claimed to have found the domestic goat no less!}
• Herds
• Horse {the horse plays a major role in the Nephite and Lamanite societies}
• Ox
• Sheep {this was a major animal in the Book of Mormon}
• Sow
• Swine
• Elephants
Archeological findings for the time period of the Book of Mormon:
• ***..... NONE
• Bull.... NONE
• Calf.... NONE
• Cattle.. NONE
• Cow..... NONE
• Butter.. NONE
• Milk.... NONE
• Flocks.. NONE
• Goat.... NONE
• Herds... NONE
• Horse... NONE
• Ox...... NONE
• Sheep... NONE
• Sow..... NONE
• Swine... NONE
• Elephants (NONE contemporary with the Book of Mormon)
Again from Tom Ferguson: "Evidence of the foregoing animals has not appeared in any form -- ceramic representations, bones or skeletal remains, mural art, sculptured art or any other form. However... evidence has been found in several forms of the presence in the Book-of-Mormon times of other animals--deer, jaguars, dogs, turkeys etc. The zero score presents a problem that will not go away with the ignoring of it. Non-LDS scholars of first magnitude, some who want to be our friends, think we have real trouble here. That evidence of the ancient existence of these animals is not elusive is found in the fact that proof of their existence in the ancient old-world is abundant. The absence of such evidence...is distressing and significant, in my view."
Metals
I will be briefer on the metals, but this is fascinating to me as I have both a BS and MS in metallurgical engineering.
Evidence supporting the existence of these metals, skills and products...at this time as follows:
• Bellows....... NONE
• Brass......... NONE
• Breast Plates. NONE
• Chains........ NONE
• Copper........ NONE
• Iron.......... NONE
• Ore (mining).. NONE (this is very significant, no evidence of mining activities)
• Plows......... NONE
• Silver........ NONE
• Swords........ NONE (none that are metal)
• Steel......... NONE
Again from Tom Ferguson: "Metallurgy does not appear in the region until about the 9th century A.D. ...I regard this as a major weakness in the armor of our proponents and friends". ...Art does not portray the existence of metallurgical products or metallurgical activity. Again, the score is zero.
There are so many items archeologically, historically and using textual criticism to show the Book of Mormon to be fictional, that anyone willing to do a little study will reach the same conclusion.
There is a lot of Mormon mythology that states that the Book of Mormon has been "proven" by such and such a find or the uncovering of a city. When investigated ALL of these claims have been shown to be false. The myths are circulated in the Mormon culture by Sacrament meeting talks, Priesthood meeting discussions and in LDS social circles so much, that Mormons who do not investigate the source of the information, believe the stories to be true. They use these false stories to "strengthen their testimonies". Please see section on Problems with believing in Mormonism / Mormon Apologetics on this site for a letter from the Smithsonian which verifies these statements.
Source click here:
Mormon
perhaps you need something beyond the lds. Good luck.
lds-forgive
QUOTE (Title+)
Unlocking Minnesota's 'DaVinci Code'
Just a bunch of people trying to change history.
Just a bunch of people trying to change history.
Issachar,
I'm glad you know how to cut and paste. You said there was no archeological evidence, archaelogical evidence was shown to you and you made no attempt to interact with it but made the same assertions . We all know not every cultural item mentioned has been found but the list of hits has grown overtime enough so that your precious Smithsonian letter had to be changed. So which letter do you want me to read, the one that was to outdated and so full of errors due to new archaeological evidence that has been found in support of the BOM that it had to be scapped and a new one issued. Or do you want me to read the new one which they do not even mention any evidence. Since your such a erudite on metal, I suppose I don't need to tell you about meteoric iron that was used in the region. Or I could ignore anything you have to say and list the same evidence again, as you did, or a new list of evidence. I know you critics prefer to stick your head in the sand when we present evidence and then continue to rehash an ever shortening list of lack of evidence. Many of the things you posted, excuse me...cut and pasted, are simply wrong. Such as old world Barley has been found here in the new world which dates long before the conquistadors. Hieroglyphs of elephant headresses are seen in Mayan carvings. How did they represent animals theyve never seen? I could list more but I will say to you what I said the first time, and that is that if you are going to be a parrot at least check to make sure what youre parroting is correct.
I'm glad you know how to cut and paste. You said there was no archeological evidence, archaelogical evidence was shown to you and you made no attempt to interact with it but made the same assertions
. We all know not every cultural item mentioned has been found but the list of hits has grown overtime enough so that your precious Smithsonian letter had to be changed. So which letter do you want me to read, the one that was to outdated and so full of errors due to new archaeological evidence that has been found in support of the BOM that it had to be scapped and a new one issued. Or do you want me to read the new one which they do not even mention any evidence. Since your such a erudite on metal, I suppose I don't need to tell you about meteoric iron that was used in the region. Or I could ignore anything you have to say and list the same evidence again, as you did, or a new list of evidence. I know you critics prefer to stick your head in the sand when we present evidence and then continue to rehash an ever shortening list of lack of evidence. Many of the things you posted, excuse me...cut and pasted, are simply wrong. Such as old world Barley has been found here in the new world which dates long before the conquistadors. Hieroglyphs of elephant headresses are seen in Mayan carvings. How did they represent animals theyve never seen? I could list more but I will say to you what I said the first time, and that is that if you are going to be a parrot at least check to make sure what youre parroting is correct.
QUOTE (warship+Jun 29 2006, 11:06 PM)
You said there was no archeological evidence, archaelogical evidence was shown to you and you made no attempt to interact with it but made the same assertions
warship,
Ok about your ‘archeology’
Lamanai is not a hebrew word, it is a Mayan word for submerged crocodiles
Aside from conjecture with mormonism, there is not physical evidence of the existence of the Lamanites in the archaeological record. The writing system, mathematics, architecture, agriculture, and technology of the Mesoamerican peoples is utterly alien to that of the ancient Hebrews with no seeming linear timeline of evolution between the two cultural states.
Recent studies of the writing system and mythology of Mesoamerica indicates origin of these cultural systems pre-dates the arrival of Nephi according to the book of Mormon by at least four centuries. The lack of an iron age, or even a bronze age in Mesoamerica, indicates a lack of technology transfer from even the very ancient Western world. This also would seemingly include the lack of horses, sheep, cows, any strain of wheat, or any derivitaves of such things being in evidence in the New World until the Conquest of the 16th Century.
Likewise, some cultural systems indigeneous to Mesoamerica such as the numerical system and calendar, were utterly superior to anything available in Western or Near Eastern antiquity, and there is no archaeological record of progression from one to the other.
About your 3rd one, you have a german archeological team excavating a pagan site and and find reference to a Nihm. You then post as archeological evidence an article from Brigham Young U stating it was “apparently a variant of Nahom” that another Mormon by the name of Brown concluded in the same article that it "very probably" referred to the Nahom of which Nephi wrote. The same article quotes another Mormon by the name of Givens describing it, “… as "the first actual archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon".
And you call that evidence? The rest of the world will call that a long stretch of the imagination. If Givens says that is the ‘first actual archeological evidence’, I guess they themselves are throwing out all the false ties they have tried so hard for so long to make with the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
About your 4th link, so they sent some Mormons over to take pictures of a pretty beach and land with trees and say this must be is where Nephi’s ship you actually believe them. I could go take a picture of a nice beach in the Caribbean and say, “this is where Columbus landed.” And it would still prove nothing. The only difference is, Columbus was an actual person that actually left the old world and actually landed in the new world.
The letters from the Smithsonian still stand. I will be out of pocket for the weekend but post another article for you again:
Updated 12/23/95 Includes the Smithsonian letter on the Book of Mormon
I found something which was refreshing to read from an LDS member, Dr. Stephen E. Thompson Ph.D. an Egyptologist from Brown University. He talks about LDS apologetics - how LDS members defend the Book of Abraham. This is from a 1993 Sunstone Symposium. In the second quote, he is referring to the book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" by Charles Larson, which most Mormons would consider an 'anti-Mormon' book. The book "By His.." is excellent and shows how Joseph Smith made the whole thing up and it shoots down every defense LDS apologists have been able to create out of desperation to save the Book of Abraham.
This first quote is on how the LDS book "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" has outright deception about the Book of Abraham. "In the entry on the facsimiles from the Book of Abraham in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, we are told that the prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practice. This is truly remarkable statement in view of the fact that those Egyptologists who have commented on Joseph's interpretations of the facsimiles have stated emphatically that his interpretations are not correct from the perspective of the Egyptologist who attempts to interpret Egyptian religious literature and iconography as he or she believes the ancient Egyptians themselves would have.... In my opinion, none of these figures can be made to fit what Smith believed them to be... their interpretation is limited to funerary purposes." Summary: They, the papyri, have nothing to do with Abraham and were written 1500 years after Abraham.
This second quote is on the book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus". "In my opinion, it's the best source to go to if you want to know what's been going on with the Book of Abraham in the church. I mean, he (Larson) has a pretty good summary of all the types of approaches that have been made. He does a pretty good job of explaining what they are, what the papyri are... And people worry about the accuracy, is this book accurate or not. Well I'll tell you, he's far more accurate than anything Hugh Nibley ever wrote on the subject, okay... Nothing that's been written from an apologetic (LDS) point of view comes close to it in accuracy. Because frankly, in my opinion, when you start doing apologetics you've got to twist the evidence. That what we (LDS) have just doesn't support us. You've got to do something to it. You've got to manipulate it, you've got to move it...and stuff like that. So, that's my feeling on the book"
The deception in the Encyclopedia is exactly like the stuff I have been reading on the Watchtower history, which came out a short time ago. It too is full of inaccuracies and rewritten history. It is amazing how these groups work and are not shy about deceiving their members or prospective members.
Information from the
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. 20560
Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonians Department of Anthropology.
The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archaeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. Accurate information about the Smithsonians position is contained in the enclosed Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon, which was prepared to respond to the numerous inquiries that the Smithsonian receives on this topic.
Because the Smithsonian regards the unauthorized use of its name to disseminate inaccurate information as unlawful, we would appreciate your assistance in providing us with the names of any individuals who are misusing the Smithsonians name. Please address any correspondence to:
Public Information Officer
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution, MRC 112
Washington, DC 20560
Prepared by
THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON
1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen, who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around 1000 A.D. and then settled in Greenland. There is no evidence to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
4. None of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre- Columbian times. This is one of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific premise that contacts with Old World civilizations, if they occurred, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, or camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, bat all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time the early big game hunters traveled across the Americas.)
5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteroic iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre- Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asia and the Near East.
7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.
8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.
9. There are copies of the Book of Mormon in the library of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution .
warship,
Ok about your ‘archeology’
Lamanai is not a hebrew word, it is a Mayan word for submerged crocodiles
Aside from conjecture with mormonism, there is not physical evidence of the existence of the Lamanites in the archaeological record. The writing system, mathematics, architecture, agriculture, and technology of the Mesoamerican peoples is utterly alien to that of the ancient Hebrews with no seeming linear timeline of evolution between the two cultural states.
Recent studies of the writing system and mythology of Mesoamerica indicates origin of these cultural systems pre-dates the arrival of Nephi according to the book of Mormon by at least four centuries. The lack of an iron age, or even a bronze age in Mesoamerica, indicates a lack of technology transfer from even the very ancient Western world. This also would seemingly include the lack of horses, sheep, cows, any strain of wheat, or any derivitaves of such things being in evidence in the New World until the Conquest of the 16th Century.
Likewise, some cultural systems indigeneous to Mesoamerica such as the numerical system and calendar, were utterly superior to anything available in Western or Near Eastern antiquity, and there is no archaeological record of progression from one to the other.
About your 3rd one, you have a german archeological team excavating a pagan site and and find reference to a Nihm. You then post as archeological evidence an article from Brigham Young U stating it was “apparently a variant of Nahom” that another Mormon by the name of Brown concluded in the same article that it "very probably" referred to the Nahom of which Nephi wrote. The same article quotes another Mormon by the name of Givens describing it, “… as "the first actual archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon".
And you call that evidence? The rest of the world will call that a long stretch of the imagination. If Givens says that is the ‘first actual archeological evidence’, I guess they themselves are throwing out all the false ties they have tried so hard for so long to make with the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
About your 4th link, so they sent some Mormons over to take pictures of a pretty beach and land with trees and say this must be is where Nephi’s ship you actually believe them. I could go take a picture of a nice beach in the Caribbean and say, “this is where Columbus landed.” And it would still prove nothing. The only difference is, Columbus was an actual person that actually left the old world and actually landed in the new world.
The letters from the Smithsonian still stand. I will be out of pocket for the weekend but post another article for you again:
Updated 12/23/95 Includes the Smithsonian letter on the Book of Mormon
I found something which was refreshing to read from an LDS member, Dr. Stephen E. Thompson Ph.D. an Egyptologist from Brown University. He talks about LDS apologetics - how LDS members defend the Book of Abraham. This is from a 1993 Sunstone Symposium. In the second quote, he is referring to the book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" by Charles Larson, which most Mormons would consider an 'anti-Mormon' book. The book "By His.." is excellent and shows how Joseph Smith made the whole thing up and it shoots down every defense LDS apologists have been able to create out of desperation to save the Book of Abraham.
This first quote is on how the LDS book "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" has outright deception about the Book of Abraham. "In the entry on the facsimiles from the Book of Abraham in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, we are told that the prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practice. This is truly remarkable statement in view of the fact that those Egyptologists who have commented on Joseph's interpretations of the facsimiles have stated emphatically that his interpretations are not correct from the perspective of the Egyptologist who attempts to interpret Egyptian religious literature and iconography as he or she believes the ancient Egyptians themselves would have.... In my opinion, none of these figures can be made to fit what Smith believed them to be... their interpretation is limited to funerary purposes." Summary: They, the papyri, have nothing to do with Abraham and were written 1500 years after Abraham.
This second quote is on the book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus". "In my opinion, it's the best source to go to if you want to know what's been going on with the Book of Abraham in the church. I mean, he (Larson) has a pretty good summary of all the types of approaches that have been made. He does a pretty good job of explaining what they are, what the papyri are... And people worry about the accuracy, is this book accurate or not. Well I'll tell you, he's far more accurate than anything Hugh Nibley ever wrote on the subject, okay... Nothing that's been written from an apologetic (LDS) point of view comes close to it in accuracy. Because frankly, in my opinion, when you start doing apologetics you've got to twist the evidence. That what we (LDS) have just doesn't support us. You've got to do something to it. You've got to manipulate it, you've got to move it...and stuff like that. So, that's my feeling on the book"
The deception in the Encyclopedia is exactly like the stuff I have been reading on the Watchtower history, which came out a short time ago. It too is full of inaccuracies and rewritten history. It is amazing how these groups work and are not shy about deceiving their members or prospective members.
Information from the
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. 20560
Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonians Department of Anthropology.
The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archaeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. Accurate information about the Smithsonians position is contained in the enclosed Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon, which was prepared to respond to the numerous inquiries that the Smithsonian receives on this topic.
Because the Smithsonian regards the unauthorized use of its name to disseminate inaccurate information as unlawful, we would appreciate your assistance in providing us with the names of any individuals who are misusing the Smithsonians name. Please address any correspondence to:
Public Information Officer
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution, MRC 112
Washington, DC 20560
Prepared by
THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON
1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.
2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen, who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around 1000 A.D. and then settled in Greenland. There is no evidence to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
4. None of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre- Columbian times. This is one of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific premise that contacts with Old World civilizations, if they occurred, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, or camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, bat all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time the early big game hunters traveled across the Americas.)
5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteroic iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre- Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asia and the Near East.
7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.
8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.
9. There are copies of the Book of Mormon in the library of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution .
Ishtar
>>warship,
Ok about your ‘archeology’
>>Lamanai is not a hebrew word, it is a Mayan word for submerged crocodiles
First I sent you the links...do you not recall? Second, I didn't say that lam'an nai was a hebrew word...I said lam'an nai translated into hebrew was lamanite...like when aeropuerto in Spanish translates to airport in English; aeropuerto is not an English word but it does translate into English. Hope that helps.
Your second paragraph shows you don't have a great understandidng of the BOM and what it purports to be, though I do congratulate you for having read it. The BOM to a lot of people is like shakespeare hor highschool kids, they can read through it... but do they realllly understand it all? The record in no way says the Nephites are the only people there, or the dominant force, in fact it demonstates they are a minority. The BOm in no way says that the Amerindians are all their descendants or that no one else was there when they arrived. These are straw man arguments created by critics who eigther don't understand the BOM or who are deliberately misleading. Metal was used in the bom time period. Copper axe (closer to bronze actually) heads have been found as early as 1000bc. Calendric similarities do exist. The BOM uses baktuns and katuns, maya measurements of time, the first being a 400 year block and the second being a 20 year increment of which 20 fit into one baktun. The maya also plot stars with a line dot method that ancient hebrews used. I have to say again that you shouldn't go spouting off blanket statements of which you know nothing about.
No one will ever know what the ancient name for NHM was and Nahom is as good a guess as any other, especially as it fits the description and place. Perhaps the findings in Arabia wouldn't be such great evidence if critics hadnt harped for over a century that there was no river that ran to the sea and no bountiful spot on the Arabian coast and no city named Nahom. Now that we have every place mentioned you want to say it is luck. Even the name Shazer is arabic for thicket of woods. It is the only other place named besides the others which I have showed are there where the critics said for over a century they never could be and where the bOM said they always were. I myself even found a chiasmus for the place name Shazer.
Which brings me to another good point. There are other ways of testing the a record to prove its authenticity besides using archaeology( a very incomplete record of which 80% of the work that has been done is in the classic maya era or after. The bOm predates this period of which time period they have done little excavating).
What about the ancient arabic poetry qasidas in the BOM. That form of poetry was unknown in 1830. What about chiasmus which was not understood in 1830. I have even found a 600 word chiasmus, how's that possible? What about the BOM's intricate and abundant correspondence with the Popul vuh and the works of Ixtlilxochitl that give histories of Mesoamerica and were not available to JS or anyone in America or the English speaking world in 1830.
The letter from the Smithsonian so does not stand so much that they had to scrap their first letter(which is the one you place second and is not valid and they do not use it anymore) bc their own research contadicted their earlier statements, and they had to issue the new one (which you placed first) which says nothing about anything other than the BOm is a religious document and that the Smithsonian doesnt use it..whoopty doo, exactly what I said to begin with.
The stuff about the POGP I'm not going to respond to bc it is a different debate and junk that people throw out to dismiss the bOM when it has nothing to do with the BOM. Besides your arguments are again all inaccurate and I don't feel like going into it. If you want a separate debate about that I'd be willing I guess.
And if people like something and it gives them hope...who are you to shoot them down? Just bc some people do not have the capability to argue the BOm based on intellectual evidence the way we are now doesnt give you the right to go bashing them. I was trying to defend Randy who thought you were confused and was trying to help you bc he didn't see that you were just trying to lure in someone to heap your antimormon frustrations on.
I could say, show me the trumpets that blasted down the walls of Jericho..oh you can't...than the bible is false. Or I could say, the bible mentions corn 100 times or more...but there was never any corn in the Old world until the discovery of the New World so the bible is a lie.
Or, I cannot see a wave function so science is a lie.
Or, I do not see cavemen walking around so science is a lie.
Or, I dont see any missing links so evolution is a lie.
Or, that the best examples of documented evolution are actually devolutions so Evolution Theory is a lie.
Or, I can't see the big band so science is a lie
Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc
Its quite simple, and I could undercut any belief at all that youre will willing to put up on the chopping block. What do you believe? I'm sure I could make anything you believe look ridiculous.
Including a farm boy with a third grade education wrote such a complex book with multiple types of literature, even types of lterature (like apocolyptic and poetry) that were'nt even known to exist.
>>warship,
Ok about your ‘archeology’
>>Lamanai is not a hebrew word, it is a Mayan word for submerged crocodiles
First I sent you the links...do you not recall? Second, I didn't say that lam'an nai was a hebrew word...I said lam'an nai translated into hebrew was lamanite...like when aeropuerto in Spanish translates to airport in English; aeropuerto is not an English word but it does translate into English. Hope that helps.
Your second paragraph shows you don't have a great understandidng of the BOM and what it purports to be, though I do congratulate you for having read it. The BOM to a lot of people is like shakespeare hor highschool kids, they can read through it... but do they realllly understand it all? The record in no way says the Nephites are the only people there, or the dominant force, in fact it demonstates they are a minority. The BOm in no way says that the Amerindians are all their descendants or that no one else was there when they arrived. These are straw man arguments created by critics who eigther don't understand the BOM or who are deliberately misleading. Metal was used in the bom time period. Copper axe (closer to bronze actually) heads have been found as early as 1000bc. Calendric similarities do exist. The BOM uses baktuns and katuns, maya measurements of time, the first being a 400 year block and the second being a 20 year increment of which 20 fit into one baktun. The maya also plot stars with a line dot method that ancient hebrews used. I have to say again that you shouldn't go spouting off blanket statements of which you know nothing about.
No one will ever know what the ancient name for NHM was and Nahom is as good a guess as any other, especially as it fits the description and place. Perhaps the findings in Arabia wouldn't be such great evidence if critics hadnt harped for over a century that there was no river that ran to the sea and no bountiful spot on the Arabian coast and no city named Nahom. Now that we have every place mentioned you want to say it is luck. Even the name Shazer is arabic for thicket of woods. It is the only other place named besides the others which I have showed are there where the critics said for over a century they never could be and where the bOM said they always were. I myself even found a chiasmus for the place name Shazer.
Which brings me to another good point. There are other ways of testing the a record to prove its authenticity besides using archaeology( a very incomplete record of which 80% of the work that has been done is in the classic maya era or after. The bOm predates this period of which time period they have done little excavating).
What about the ancient arabic poetry qasidas in the BOM. That form of poetry was unknown in 1830. What about chiasmus which was not understood in 1830. I have even found a 600 word chiasmus, how's that possible? What about the BOM's intricate and abundant correspondence with the Popul vuh and the works of Ixtlilxochitl that give histories of Mesoamerica and were not available to JS or anyone in America or the English speaking world in 1830.
The letter from the Smithsonian so does not stand so much that they had to scrap their first letter(which is the one you place second and is not valid and they do not use it anymore) bc their own research contadicted their earlier statements, and they had to issue the new one (which you placed first) which says nothing about anything other than the BOm is a religious document and that the Smithsonian doesnt use it..whoopty doo, exactly what I said to begin with.
The stuff about the POGP I'm not going to respond to bc it is a different debate and junk that people throw out to dismiss the bOM when it has nothing to do with the BOM. Besides your arguments are again all inaccurate and I don't feel like going into it. If you want a separate debate about that I'd be willing I guess.
And if people like something and it gives them hope...who are you to shoot them down? Just bc some people do not have the capability to argue the BOm based on intellectual evidence the way we are now doesnt give you the right to go bashing them. I was trying to defend Randy who thought you were confused and was trying to help you bc he didn't see that you were just trying to lure in someone to heap your antimormon frustrations on.
I could say, show me the trumpets that blasted down the walls of Jericho..oh you can't...than the bible is false. Or I could say, the bible mentions corn 100 times or more...but there was never any corn in the Old world until the discovery of the New World so the bible is a lie.
Or, I cannot see a wave function so science is a lie.
Or, I do not see cavemen walking around so science is a lie.
Or, I dont see any missing links so evolution is a lie.
Or, that the best examples of documented evolution are actually devolutions so Evolution Theory is a lie.
Or, I can't see the big band so science is a lie
Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc
Its quite simple, and I could undercut any belief at all that youre will willing to put up on the chopping block. What do you believe? I'm sure I could make anything you believe look ridiculous.
Including a farm boy with a third grade education wrote such a complex book with multiple types of literature, even types of lterature (like apocolyptic and poetry) that were'nt even known to exist.
QUOTE (warship+Jul 5 2006, 08:35 AM)
First I sent you the links...do you not recall? Second, I didn't say that lam'an nai was a hebrew word...I said lam'an nai translated into hebrew was lamanite...like when aeropuerto in Spanish translates to airport in English; aeropuerto is not an English word but it does translate into English. Hope that helps.
Greeting warship,
I hope all is well.
Yes, I do recall you sent me th links. It doesn’t make sense why a made up word that is supposed to be from Hebrew peoples would need to be translated back into Hebrew? The Mayan word meaning a submerged crocodile translated into Hebrew would still mean a submerged crocodile. Could it be the reason aeropuerto and airport happen to have the same meaning & sound similar is they share common latin root words? That would not be the case for Hebrew or Mayan.
That’s not what has been taught for the last 175 years. If they were originally telling the truth, why did the church authorities suddenly feel the need to change their story from what the great founding prophet have taught?
“For 175 years the leaders and general membership of the Mormon Church have believed American Indians and Polynesians are descended from Israelites based on their understanding of the Book of Mormon. We now know from DNA studies that the ancestors of both native peoples were essentially all derived from Asia. LDS apologists have claimed that the DNA research has “little or no bearing on the question of Book of Mormon historicity” and that it is all a “contrived controversy,” blown out of all proportion by critics with another agenda.1 Apologetic attempts to hose down the problem rely entirely on sweeping reinterpretations of the Book of Mormon narrative that reduce the Lehite and Mulekite colonization to a minor incursion in an as yet unknown corner of the Americas. 2”
Source click here:
mormon dna
This is an article about the lds’ attempts to make a DNA connections with native americans from a former mormon bishop who did his mission in Polynesia.
He concluded elsewhere:
“It makes no sense to insist on a belief in the unbelievable. …. In my case, for thirty years my religious orientation was accompanied by a distorted understanding of the true history of America’s past. Not only did I know little of the science that was applicable to this issue, I accepted without question the widespread urban legends in the church, one being that BYU scholars had found archaeological evidence in Mesoamerica that supported the Book of Mormon, another being that the Smithsonian Institution had used the Book of Mormon as a guide in some of their research. Scientific truth exposed my faith in a book that has no historical connection with the ancestors of the Polynesians or Native Americans.”
That’s not what has been taught for the last 175 years. If they were originally telling the truth, why did the church authorities suddenly feel the need to change their story from what the great founding prophet have taught?
“For 175 years the leaders and general membership of the Mormon Church have believed American Indians and Polynesians are descended from Israelites based on their understanding of the Book of Mormon. We now know from DNA studies that the ancestors of both native peoples were essentially all derived from Asia. LDS apologists have claimed that the DNA research has “little or no bearing on the question of Book of Mormon historicity” and that it is all a “contrived controversy,” blown out of all proportion by critics with another agenda.1 Apologetic attempts to hose down the problem rely entirely on sweeping reinterpretations of the Book of Mormon narrative that reduce the Lehite and Mulekite colonization to a minor incursion in an as yet unknown corner of the Americas. 2”
Source click here:
mormon dna
This is an article about the lds’ attempts to make a DNA connections with native americans from a former mormon bishop who did his mission in Polynesia.
He concluded elsewhere:
“It makes no sense to insist on a belief in the unbelievable. …. In my case, for thirty years my religious orientation was accompanied by a distorted understanding of the true history of America’s past. Not only did I know little of the science that was applicable to this issue, I accepted without question the widespread urban legends in the church, one being that BYU scholars had found archaeological evidence in Mesoamerica that supported the Book of Mormon, another being that the Smithsonian Institution had used the Book of Mormon as a guide in some of their research. Scientific truth exposed my faith in a book that has no historical connection with the ancestors of the Polynesians or Native Americans.”
No one will ever know what the ancient name for NHM was and Nahom is as good a guess as any other. …. Now that we have every place mentioned you want to say it is luck.
I wouldn’t exactly call it luck, I call it grasping to make any possible connection for legitimacy.
My point is this, the BOM is just not credible. The Book of Mormon presents itself as an historical record of God's revelation of Himself to the human race. If it is purported to be a true history of ancient peoples in the Americas, we should actually have something to look (as opposed to LDS fabrications) to say, yes, that’s what happened.
The below is really dated, but perhaps it gets across the point:
Mr. Ferguson has devoted a great deal of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon by archaeology and is recognized by the Mormon people as a great defender of the faith. He has written at least three books on the subject—one of them in collaboration with Milton R. Hunter of the First Council of the Seventy. On the jacket to his book, One Fold and One Shepherd, we find the following:
Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 47, President of the New World Archaeological Foundation, is a distinguished student of the earliest high civilizations of the New World. He, with Dr. A. V. Kidder, dean of Central American archaeologists, first planned the New World Archaeological Foundation in 1952.... He raised $225,000 for the field work, incorporated the Foundation (being an attorney), assisted in the initial explorations in Central America and Mexico and has actively directed the affairs of the Foundation since its inception.
Thomas Stuart Ferguson really believed that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. In his book One Fold And One Shepherd, page 263, he stated: "The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions ... referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon." In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that "Powerful evidences sustaining the book are accumulating."
The first indication we had that Mr. Ferguson was losing his faith in Mormonism was just after Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered. In 1968 he wrote us a letter saying that we were "doing a great thing-getting out some truth on the Book of Abraham." Later we heard a rumor that he had given up Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, but this hardly prepared us for his visit on December 2, 1970. At that time, Mr. Ferguson told us frankly that he had not only given up the Book of Abraham, but that he had come to the conclusion that Joseph
Smith was not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. He told us that he had spent twenty-five years trying to prove Mormonism, but had finally come to the conclusion that all his work in this regard had been in vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away. Mr. Ferguson found himself faced with a dilemma, for the Mormon church had just given him a large grant ($100,000 or more) to carry on the archaeological research of the New World Archaeological Foundation. He felt, however, that the New World Archaeological Foundation was doing legitimate archaeological work, and therefore he intended to continue this work.
Contrast that with what the one of T.S. Ferguson’s contemporaries, the renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck once a biblical skeptic who wrote after years of study: “As a matter of fact, however, it may be clearly stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact details historical statements in the Bible.”
source click here:
Glueck-archeaology
My point is this, the BOM is just not credible. The Book of Mormon presents itself as an historical record of God's revelation of Himself to the human race. If it is purported to be a true history of ancient peoples in the Americas, we should actually have something to look (as opposed to LDS fabrications) to say, yes, that’s what happened.
The below is really dated, but perhaps it gets across the point:
Mr. Ferguson has devoted a great deal of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon by archaeology and is recognized by the Mormon people as a great defender of the faith. He has written at least three books on the subject—one of them in collaboration with Milton R. Hunter of the First Council of the Seventy. On the jacket to his book, One Fold and One Shepherd, we find the following:
Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 47, President of the New World Archaeological Foundation, is a distinguished student of the earliest high civilizations of the New World. He, with Dr. A. V. Kidder, dean of Central American archaeologists, first planned the New World Archaeological Foundation in 1952.... He raised $225,000 for the field work, incorporated the Foundation (being an attorney), assisted in the initial explorations in Central America and Mexico and has actively directed the affairs of the Foundation since its inception.
Thomas Stuart Ferguson really believed that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. In his book One Fold And One Shepherd, page 263, he stated: "The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions ... referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon." In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that "Powerful evidences sustaining the book are accumulating."
The first indication we had that Mr. Ferguson was losing his faith in Mormonism was just after Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered. In 1968 he wrote us a letter saying that we were "doing a great thing-getting out some truth on the Book of Abraham." Later we heard a rumor that he had given up Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, but this hardly prepared us for his visit on December 2, 1970. At that time, Mr. Ferguson told us frankly that he had not only given up the Book of Abraham, but that he had come to the conclusion that Joseph
Smith was not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. He told us that he had spent twenty-five years trying to prove Mormonism, but had finally come to the conclusion that all his work in this regard had been in vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away. Mr. Ferguson found himself faced with a dilemma, for the Mormon church had just given him a large grant ($100,000 or more) to carry on the archaeological research of the New World Archaeological Foundation. He felt, however, that the New World Archaeological Foundation was doing legitimate archaeological work, and therefore he intended to continue this work.
Contrast that with what the one of T.S. Ferguson’s contemporaries, the renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck once a biblical skeptic who wrote after years of study: “As a matter of fact, however, it may be clearly stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact details historical statements in the Bible.”
source click here:
Glueck-archeaology
Its quite simple, and I could undercut any belief at all that youre will willing to put up on the chopping block. What do you believe? I'm sure I could make anything you believe look ridiculous.
Perhaps you could if you stick around or Perhaps there is truth out there, but you haven't found it yet. Time will tell.
Greeting warship,
I hope all is well.
Yes, I do recall you sent me th links. It doesn’t make sense why a made up word that is supposed to be from Hebrew peoples would need to be translated back into Hebrew? The Mayan word meaning a submerged crocodile translated into Hebrew would still mean a submerged crocodile. Could it be the reason aeropuerto and airport happen to have the same meaning & sound similar is they share common latin root words? That would not be the case for Hebrew or Mayan.
QUOTE
The record in no way says the Nephites are the only people there, or the dominant force, in fact it demonstates they are a minority. The BOm in no way says that the Amerindians are all their descendants or that no one else was there when they arrived. These are straw man arguments created by critics who eigther don't understand the BOM or who are deliberately misleading.
That’s not what has been taught for the last 175 years. If they were originally telling the truth, why did the church authorities suddenly feel the need to change their story from what the great founding prophet have taught?
“For 175 years the leaders and general membership of the Mormon Church have believed American Indians and Polynesians are descended from Israelites based on their understanding of the Book of Mormon. We now know from DNA studies that the ancestors of both native peoples were essentially all derived from Asia. LDS apologists have claimed that the DNA research has “little or no bearing on the question of Book of Mormon historicity” and that it is all a “contrived controversy,” blown out of all proportion by critics with another agenda.1 Apologetic attempts to hose down the problem rely entirely on sweeping reinterpretations of the Book of Mormon narrative that reduce the Lehite and Mulekite colonization to a minor incursion in an as yet unknown corner of the Americas. 2”
Source click here:
mormon dna
This is an article about the lds’ attempts to make a DNA connections with native americans from a former mormon bishop who did his mission in Polynesia.
He concluded elsewhere:
“It makes no sense to insist on a belief in the unbelievable. …. In my case, for thirty years my religious orientation was accompanied by a distorted understanding of the true history of America’s past. Not only did I know little of the science that was applicable to this issue, I accepted without question the widespread urban legends in the church, one being that BYU scholars had found archaeological evidence in Mesoamerica that supported the Book of Mormon, another being that the Smithsonian Institution had used the Book of Mormon as a guide in some of their research. Scientific truth exposed my faith in a book that has no historical connection with the ancestors of the Polynesians or Native Americans.”
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The record in no way says the Nephites are the only people there, or the dominant force, in fact it demonstates they are a minority. The BOm in no way says that the Amerindians are all their descendants or that no one else was there when they arrived. These are straw man arguments created by critics who eigther don't understand the BOM or who are deliberately misleading. |
That’s not what has been taught for the last 175 years. If they were originally telling the truth, why did the church authorities suddenly feel the need to change their story from what the great founding prophet have taught?
“For 175 years the leaders and general membership of the Mormon Church have believed American Indians and Polynesians are descended from Israelites based on their understanding of the Book of Mormon. We now know from DNA studies that the ancestors of both native peoples were essentially all derived from Asia. LDS apologists have claimed that the DNA research has “little or no bearing on the question of Book of Mormon historicity” and that it is all a “contrived controversy,” blown out of all proportion by critics with another agenda.1 Apologetic attempts to hose down the problem rely entirely on sweeping reinterpretations of the Book of Mormon narrative that reduce the Lehite and Mulekite colonization to a minor incursion in an as yet unknown corner of the Americas. 2”
Source click here:
mormon dna
This is an article about the lds’ attempts to make a DNA connections with native americans from a former mormon bishop who did his mission in Polynesia.
He concluded elsewhere:
“It makes no sense to insist on a belief in the unbelievable. …. In my case, for thirty years my religious orientation was accompanied by a distorted understanding of the true history of America’s past. Not only did I know little of the science that was applicable to this issue, I accepted without question the widespread urban legends in the church, one being that BYU scholars had found archaeological evidence in Mesoamerica that supported the Book of Mormon, another being that the Smithsonian Institution had used the Book of Mormon as a guide in some of their research. Scientific truth exposed my faith in a book that has no historical connection with the ancestors of the Polynesians or Native Americans.”
No one will ever know what the ancient name for NHM was and Nahom is as good a guess as any other. …. Now that we have every place mentioned you want to say it is luck.
I wouldn’t exactly call it luck, I call it grasping to make any possible connection for legitimacy.
QUOTE
they had to issue the new one (which you placed first) which says nothing about anything other than the BOm is a religious document and that the Smithsonian doesnt use it..whoopty doo, exactly what I said to begin with.
My point is this, the BOM is just not credible. The Book of Mormon presents itself as an historical record of God's revelation of Himself to the human race. If it is purported to be a true history of ancient peoples in the Americas, we should actually have something to look (as opposed to LDS fabrications) to say, yes, that’s what happened.
The below is really dated, but perhaps it gets across the point:
Mr. Ferguson has devoted a great deal of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon by archaeology and is recognized by the Mormon people as a great defender of the faith. He has written at least three books on the subject—one of them in collaboration with Milton R. Hunter of the First Council of the Seventy. On the jacket to his book, One Fold and One Shepherd, we find the following:
Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 47, President of the New World Archaeological Foundation, is a distinguished student of the earliest high civilizations of the New World. He, with Dr. A. V. Kidder, dean of Central American archaeologists, first planned the New World Archaeological Foundation in 1952.... He raised $225,000 for the field work, incorporated the Foundation (being an attorney), assisted in the initial explorations in Central America and Mexico and has actively directed the affairs of the Foundation since its inception.
Thomas Stuart Ferguson really believed that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. In his book One Fold And One Shepherd, page 263, he stated: "The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions ... referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon." In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that "Powerful evidences sustaining the book are accumulating."
The first indication we had that Mr. Ferguson was losing his faith in Mormonism was just after Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered. In 1968 he wrote us a letter saying that we were "doing a great thing-getting out some truth on the Book of Abraham." Later we heard a rumor that he had given up Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, but this hardly prepared us for his visit on December 2, 1970. At that time, Mr. Ferguson told us frankly that he had not only given up the Book of Abraham, but that he had come to the conclusion that Joseph
Smith was not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. He told us that he had spent twenty-five years trying to prove Mormonism, but had finally come to the conclusion that all his work in this regard had been in vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away. Mr. Ferguson found himself faced with a dilemma, for the Mormon church had just given him a large grant ($100,000 or more) to carry on the archaeological research of the New World Archaeological Foundation. He felt, however, that the New World Archaeological Foundation was doing legitimate archaeological work, and therefore he intended to continue this work.
Contrast that with what the one of T.S. Ferguson’s contemporaries, the renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck once a biblical skeptic who wrote after years of study: “As a matter of fact, however, it may be clearly stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact details historical statements in the Bible.”
source click here:
Glueck-archeaology
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| they had to issue the new one (which you placed first) which says nothing about anything other than the BOm is a religious document and that the Smithsonian doesnt use it..whoopty doo, exactly what I said to begin with. |
My point is this, the BOM is just not credible. The Book of Mormon presents itself as an historical record of God's revelation of Himself to the human race. If it is purported to be a true history of ancient peoples in the Americas, we should actually have something to look (as opposed to LDS fabrications) to say, yes, that’s what happened.
The below is really dated, but perhaps it gets across the point:
Mr. Ferguson has devoted a great deal of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon by archaeology and is recognized by the Mormon people as a great defender of the faith. He has written at least three books on the subject—one of them in collaboration with Milton R. Hunter of the First Council of the Seventy. On the jacket to his book, One Fold and One Shepherd, we find the following:
Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 47, President of the New World Archaeological Foundation, is a distinguished student of the earliest high civilizations of the New World. He, with Dr. A. V. Kidder, dean of Central American archaeologists, first planned the New World Archaeological Foundation in 1952.... He raised $225,000 for the field work, incorporated the Foundation (being an attorney), assisted in the initial explorations in Central America and Mexico and has actively directed the affairs of the Foundation since its inception.
Thomas Stuart Ferguson really believed that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. In his book One Fold And One Shepherd, page 263, he stated: "The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions ... referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon." In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that "Powerful evidences sustaining the book are accumulating."
The first indication we had that Mr. Ferguson was losing his faith in Mormonism was just after Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered. In 1968 he wrote us a letter saying that we were "doing a great thing-getting out some truth on the Book of Abraham." Later we heard a rumor that he had given up Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, but this hardly prepared us for his visit on December 2, 1970. At that time, Mr. Ferguson told us frankly that he had not only given up the Book of Abraham, but that he had come to the conclusion that Joseph
Smith was not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. He told us that he had spent twenty-five years trying to prove Mormonism, but had finally come to the conclusion that all his work in this regard had been in vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away. Mr. Ferguson found himself faced with a dilemma, for the Mormon church had just given him a large grant ($100,000 or more) to carry on the archaeological research of the New World Archaeological Foundation. He felt, however, that the New World Archaeological Foundation was doing legitimate archaeological work, and therefore he intended to continue this work.
Contrast that with what the one of T.S. Ferguson’s contemporaries, the renowned Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck once a biblical skeptic who wrote after years of study: “As a matter of fact, however, it may be clearly stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact details historical statements in the Bible.”
source click here:
Glueck-archeaology
Its quite simple, and I could undercut any belief at all that youre will willing to put up on the chopping block. What do you believe? I'm sure I could make anything you believe look ridiculous.
Perhaps you could if you stick around or Perhaps there is truth out there, but you haven't found it yet. Time will tell.
Issacar,
Hope your doing well also.
Well, I'm not arguing the merits of church authorities. Personally, I don't think one of them has been any good since Joseph Smith. I thought the argument was on the book of Mormon itself...I mean I can bring up critiques made of the bOM in the 1830's and chop those to shreds..but does that have anything to do with the text in question? Those men were making guesses as to the scope of the bOM. The fact that they misunderstood the geographical evidence really only lends more credibility as the text makes it quite clear that the geographical area it covers is no more than a few hundred miles. BTW, JS did point to Mesoamerica as being the possible setting when John LLoyd Stevens published in the 1840's the first book readily accessible to the American public about the ruins of Central America. This demonstates that they were still looking and that nothing was set in stone.
Well, I'm not arguing the merits of church authorities. Personally, I don't think one of them has been any good since Joseph Smith. I thought the argument was on the book of Mormon itself...I mean I can bring up critiques made of the bOM in the 1830's and chop those to shreds..but does that have anything to do with the text in question? Those men were making guesses as to the scope of the bOM. The fact that they misunderstood the geographical evidence really only lends more credibility as the text makes it quite clear that the geographical area it covers is no more than a few hundred miles. BTW, JS did point to Mesoamerica as being the possible setting when John LLoyd Stevens published in the 1840's the first book readily accessible to the American public about the ruins of Central America. This demonstates that they were still looking and that nothing was set in stone.
My point is this, the BOM is just not credible.
And you base this off the Smithsonian not using it as a reference? I guess a lot of info must not be credible to you then...I mean if the SMITHSONIAN does'nt use it it must not be credible....I wonder if they used my old college texts??? Oh, well..they probably don't so those books must not be credible either.
As for the rest of your letter...I'm glad your still stickin' with the cuttin' and pastin'..hope that continues to work well.
I noticed you didn't even mention a thing about chiasmus or qasidas or the literary complexity. No snappy come back for that, huh?
PS I could really care less if some mormon scholar lost his faith. In fact I'm pretty much disinterested in argument about the BOM that doesnt actually deal with the BOM.
PSS you know for someone who doesn't believe in Mormonism, you sure seem to have spent a lot of time with the subject...sure youre not a closet case believer?
I enjoy our little argument
Hope your doing well also.
QUOTE
That’s not what has been taught for the last 175 years. If they were originally telling the truth, why did the church authorities suddenly feel the need to change their story from what the great founding prophet have taught?
Well, I'm not arguing the merits of church authorities. Personally, I don't think one of them has been any good since Joseph Smith. I thought the argument was on the book of Mormon itself...I mean I can bring up critiques made of the bOM in the 1830's and chop those to shreds..but does that have anything to do with the text in question? Those men were making guesses as to the scope of the bOM. The fact that they misunderstood the geographical evidence really only lends more credibility as the text makes it quite clear that the geographical area it covers is no more than a few hundred miles. BTW, JS did point to Mesoamerica as being the possible setting when John LLoyd Stevens published in the 1840's the first book readily accessible to the American public about the ruins of Central America. This demonstates that they were still looking and that nothing was set in stone.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That’s not what has been taught for the last 175 years. If they were originally telling the truth, why did the church authorities suddenly feel the need to change their story from what the great founding prophet have taught? |
Well, I'm not arguing the merits of church authorities. Personally, I don't think one of them has been any good since Joseph Smith. I thought the argument was on the book of Mormon itself...I mean I can bring up critiques made of the bOM in the 1830's and chop those to shreds..but does that have anything to do with the text in question? Those men were making guesses as to the scope of the bOM. The fact that they misunderstood the geographical evidence really only lends more credibility as the text makes it quite clear that the geographical area it covers is no more than a few hundred miles. BTW, JS did point to Mesoamerica as being the possible setting when John LLoyd Stevens published in the 1840's the first book readily accessible to the American public about the ruins of Central America. This demonstates that they were still looking and that nothing was set in stone.
My point is this, the BOM is just not credible.
And you base this off the Smithsonian not using it as a reference? I guess a lot of info must not be credible to you then...I mean if the SMITHSONIAN does'nt use it it must not be credible....I wonder if they used my old college texts??? Oh, well..they probably don't so those books must not be credible either.
As for the rest of your letter...I'm glad your still stickin' with the cuttin' and pastin'..hope that continues to work well.
I noticed you didn't even mention a thing about chiasmus or qasidas or the literary complexity. No snappy come back for that, huh?
PS I could really care less if some mormon scholar lost his faith. In fact I'm pretty much disinterested in argument about the BOM that doesnt actually deal with the BOM.
PSS you know for someone who doesn't believe in Mormonism, you sure seem to have spent a lot of time with the subject...sure youre not a closet case believer?
I enjoy our little argument
Issachar,
I just wanted to tell you that iron was used by the Olmecs. A simple look in the encyclopedia will tell you that..
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69347
This paper discusses magnetism from objects made of hematite that might be part of a compass.
http://www.smf.mx/rmf/pdf/rmf-e/50_1/50_051.pdf
So I hope you don't go running around saying that Mesoamerica didn't know anything about metallurgy during the BOM time period, because as you can see, a check in the nearest encyclopedia will prove you wrong.
Stay breezey
I just wanted to tell you that iron was used by the Olmecs. A simple look in the encyclopedia will tell you that..
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69347
This paper discusses magnetism from objects made of hematite that might be part of a compass.
http://www.smf.mx/rmf/pdf/rmf-e/50_1/50_051.pdf
So I hope you don't go running around saying that Mesoamerica didn't know anything about metallurgy during the BOM time period, because as you can see, a check in the nearest encyclopedia will prove you wrong.
Stay breezey
warship,
I am extremely busy at work right now and then bogged down with a home improvement project, so I don't even have time to cut & past at the moment . But should be able to get back you later.
I am extremely busy at work right now and then bogged down with a home improvement project, so I don't even have time to cut & past at the moment
. But should be able to get back you later.
warship,
I apologize for the long delay in getting back to you.
(Although) Some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) have suggested that the Olmecs may be the Jaredites recorded in the Book of Mormon because of alleged similarities in the Olmec archaeological record. However, the book mentions things that are known not to have been part of the Olmec culture, such as iron, silk and elephants. This speculation is not supported by any aspect of conventional Mesoamerican scholarship. …… Mainstream scholars remain unconvinced by these speculations. Others are more critical and regard the promotion of such unfounded theories as a form of ethnocentric racism at the expense of indigenous Americans.
source click here: Olmec
And I am sure some of them will continue to be looking, but there is nothing real to find. The church authorities were just what they were told by JS, who had it worng also.
Why did Joseph Smith send missionaries to the "Lamanites" if the American Indians at the time weren't really "Lamanites"? (D&C 10:48, 28:8, 54:8, etc.) He certainly considered the Indians to be Lamanites (even if the current leaders of the church no longer believe them to be so).
' The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them.' (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 17).
'He told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham.' (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Diary 1835-1836, pg. 76). (Note - this was one of Smith's 'founding visions'. Apparently, Moroni was not aware that there were other, non-Semitic natives in America either).
Re iron: A little unsmeltered iron ore for used for a type of mirrors is wholely unrelated to metallurigy production methods such as found in the iron age of the old world and which would have been necessary per the supposed civilizations improvements as described in the book in passages such as:
Jarom 1 [8] And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war..
2 Nephi 5 [15] And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.
Ether 7 [9] Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib
Machinery-huh? Steel & iron for making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground and weapons of war? Steel & iron farming implements and machinery in the Americas before the Spanish is outlandish warship. Is one to suppose they used the machinery to fine tune all their tools and weapons? This is not native americans he was describing.
I am sorry to have to sayt it warship, but it is just not credible. I have looked at a few of Jeff Lindsey’s weak arguments where he him-haws around the bush, avoids the many similarities & changes the subject trying to claim JS didn’t plagiarize from other sources when he wrote the book.
Ethan Smith, author of View of the Hebrews was one of those sources. This book presented the untenable position which was held by a number of clergy in America at the time, that the Indians were part of the lost tribes of Israel.35 It was published in 1823, the same year that Joseph Smith claimed to have his "First Vision." Much of the material in it was apparently incorporated into the Book of Mormon.
•"View of the Hebrews" was published in 1823 and a second edition was published in 1825.
•The Book of Mormon was published in 1830, years after the View of the Hebrews.
•"View of the Hebrews" flooded the area in which Joseph Smith lived.
•The author (Ethan Smith) was the pastor of the religious congregation in which the (Oliver) Cowdrey family attended.
•The (Oliver) Cowdrey family was related to the (Joseph) Smith family, and Oliver Cowdrey assisted in the "translation" of the Book of Mormon.
•On what was probably a promotional tour for his book, Ethan Smith visited the small hometown (Palmyra) of Joseph Smith in late 1826.
•Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature and Providence, Displayed (1825), which also includes numerous parallels to the Book of Mormon, quotes extensively from Ethan Smith's book and is known to have been available in the local Manchester Rental Library when Joseph Smith lived in the village.
source: Plagerized from Smith
B. H. Roberts, a General Authority of the Mormon Church, did an analysis of this book and its possible relation to the writing of the Book of Mormon in 1921 at the request of the leadership of the Mormon Church. His stated purpose was to review possible arguments by non-Mormons against the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. Interestingly enough, he came to the conclusion that View of the Hebrews could have been one of the human sources for the contents of the Book of Mormon, and that Joseph Smith was sufficiently intelligent to have written it with this book and other resources which were available to him.36
His studies only recently became available to the public. They were published by the Utah Lighthouse Ministry of Salt Lake City under the name Roberts' Manuscripts Revealed'A Photographic Reproduction of Mormon Historian B.H. Roberts' Secret Studies on the Book of Mormon. Both it and the View of the Hebrews were closely examined by the author who confirms as valid the following conclusions which Roberts listed when comparing View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon: 37
1. Both books begin with "the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of Israel" at 600 B.C.38
2. Ethan Smith, the author, begins his second chapter by quoting from Isaiah to prove that Judah and Israel will be restored in the last days. "One of the passages quoted" is from Isaiah 11, and this is one of the quotes that Joseph Smith claimed the Angel Moroni made to him when it visited him the first time on September 23rd, 1823, telling him of the golden plates.39
3. Ethan Smith quotes from "20 chapters of Isaiah" in the fourth chapter of his book to prove his point. Joseph Smith quotes from "21 chapters of Isaiah" in the first one hundred pages of the Book of Mormon to make the same point. In both cases, they are quoted in the only version of the Bible in common use in that day, the King James Version. "Many of the passages quoted...are identical."40
4. Ethan Smith quotes from Isaiah 18, citing it as a call upon the Christian Church in the United States to convert the Indians to Christianity. While the Book of Mormon itself does not cite this chapter, it makes the same point repeatedly.(e.g., I Nephi 13:39; 3:191).41
5. Both reported the use of iron and steel by the ancient inhabitants of America.42
6. Both report vast multitudes once filled North America.43
7. Both report use of the Urim and Thummim by the ancient Indians.44
8. Both are against polygamy.45
9. Both report that the Indians once had a holy book, but lost it and fell out of favor with God.46
10. Both speak of Egyptian hieroglyphics in America.47
11. Both have a division into two peoples' one civilized and one barbarian. Both depict wars between them with the extinction of the civilized people.48
12. Both depict knowledge of the mechanical arts, written language and one God as typical of the ancient Americans.49
13. Both proclaim destruction of the disobedient gentiles by converted Indians. This prophecy is given three times in the Book of Mormon by Jesus Christ himself (3 Nephi 16:8-16; 7:32-42; 3 Nephi 20:14-17; 9:50-53; 3 Nephi 21:11-13; 9:98-100).50
Concerning this prophecy, Roberts makes the following observation:
All this might have seemed possible to men living in the early decades of the 19th century, 1820-1830, when Indian tribes of unknown strength but well attested ferocity occupied the greater part of the land over which the United States now extends its jurisdiction, but it is scarcely possible now to entertain such conceptions of native race terror, triumph, and domination over the Gentile nation of the United States. All reasonable expectation of such an event has passed.51
Here, Joseph Smith may have overstepped himself, for even this General Authority of the Mormon Church finds it difficult to believe that Jesus Christ would promote the Book of Mormon to that extent.
35 Wesley P. Walters, THE HUMAN ORIGINS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON (Safety Harbor, FL: Ex-Mormons for Jesus, 1979), 4.
36 Brigham H. Roberts, ROBERTS' MANUSCRIPT REVEAL. A PHOTOGRAPHIC REPRODUCTION OF MORMON HISTORIAN B.H. ROBERTS' SECRET STUDIES ON THE BOOK OF MORMON.(Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1980), 123, 155.
37 Ethan Smith, VIEW OF THE HEBREWS, 2nd ed. (1825: Photomechanical Reprint., Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, n.d.).
38 Roberts, 156.
39 Roberts, 156-157.
40 Roberts, 159-161.
41 Walters, 12.
42 Roberts, 203-204.
43 Roberts, 207.
44 Roberts, 220.
45 Roberts, 229-230.
46 Roberts, 232.
47 Roberts, 237.
48 Roberts, 276.
49 Roberts, 275-276.
50 Roberts, 175.
51 Roberts, 177.
52 Sidney B. Sperry, BOOK OF MORMON COMPENDIUM (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968), 507.
I will be traveling all this week for work so I will probably not be able to get back to you until next week. I hope you have a nice week until then.
I apologize for the long delay in getting back to you.
(Although) Some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) have suggested that the Olmecs may be the Jaredites recorded in the Book of Mormon because of alleged similarities in the Olmec archaeological record. However, the book mentions things that are known not to have been part of the Olmec culture, such as iron, silk and elephants. This speculation is not supported by any aspect of conventional Mesoamerican scholarship. …… Mainstream scholars remain unconvinced by these speculations. Others are more critical and regard the promotion of such unfounded theories as a form of ethnocentric racism at the expense of indigenous Americans.
source click here: Olmec
QUOTE
Well, I'm not arguing the merits of church authorities. Personally, I don't think one of them has been any good since Joseph Smith. I thought the argument was on the book of Mormon itself...I mean I can bring up critiques made of the bOM in the 1830's and chop those to shreds..but does that have anything to do with the text in question? Those men were making guesses as to the scope of the bOM. The fact that they misunderstood the geographical evidence really only lends more credibility as the text makes it quite clear that the geographical area it covers is no more than a few hundred miles. BTW, JS did point to Mesoamerica as being the possible setting when John LLoyd Stevens published in the 1840's the first book readily accessible to the American public about the ruins of Central America. This demonstates that they were still looking and that nothing was set in stone.
And I am sure some of them will continue to be looking, but there is nothing real to find. The church authorities were just what they were told by JS, who had it worng also.
Why did Joseph Smith send missionaries to the "Lamanites" if the American Indians at the time weren't really "Lamanites"? (D&C 10:48, 28:8, 54:8, etc.) He certainly considered the Indians to be Lamanites (even if the current leaders of the church no longer believe them to be so).
' The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them.' (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 17).
'He told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham.' (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Diary 1835-1836, pg. 76). (Note - this was one of Smith's 'founding visions'. Apparently, Moroni was not aware that there were other, non-Semitic natives in America either).
Re iron: A little unsmeltered iron ore for used for a type of mirrors is wholely unrelated to metallurigy production methods such as found in the iron age of the old world and which would have been necessary per the supposed civilizations improvements as described in the book in passages such as:
Jarom 1 [8] And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich in gold, and in silver, and in precious things, and in fine workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war..
2 Nephi 5 [15] And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.
Ether 7 [9] Wherefore, he came to the hill Ephraim, and he did molten out of the hill, and made swords out of steel for those whom he had drawn away with him; and after he had armed them with swords he returned to the city Nehor and gave battle unto his brother Corihor, by which means he obtained the kingdom and restored it unto his father Kib
Machinery-huh? Steel & iron for making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground and weapons of war? Steel & iron farming implements and machinery in the Americas before the Spanish is outlandish warship. Is one to suppose they used the machinery to fine tune all their tools and weapons? This is not native americans he was describing.
I am sorry to have to sayt it warship, but it is just not credible. I have looked at a few of Jeff Lindsey’s weak arguments where he him-haws around the bush, avoids the many similarities & changes the subject trying to claim JS didn’t plagiarize from other sources when he wrote the book.
Ethan Smith, author of View of the Hebrews was one of those sources. This book presented the untenable position which was held by a number of clergy in America at the time, that the Indians were part of the lost tribes of Israel.35 It was published in 1823, the same year that Joseph Smith claimed to have his "First Vision." Much of the material in it was apparently incorporated into the Book of Mormon.
•"View of the Hebrews" was published in 1823 and a second edition was published in 1825.
•The Book of Mormon was published in 1830, years after the View of the Hebrews.
•"View of the Hebrews" flooded the area in which Joseph Smith lived.
•The author (Ethan Smith) was the pastor of the religious congregation in which the (Oliver) Cowdrey family attended.
•The (Oliver) Cowdrey family was related to the (Joseph) Smith family, and Oliver Cowdrey assisted in the "translation" of the Book of Mormon.
•On what was probably a promotional tour for his book, Ethan Smith visited the small hometown (Palmyra) of Joseph Smith in late 1826.
•Josiah Priest's The Wonders of Nature and Providence, Displayed (1825), which also includes numerous parallels to the Book of Mormon, quotes extensively from Ethan Smith's book and is known to have been available in the local Manchester Rental Library when Joseph Smith lived in the village.
source: Plagerized from Smith
B. H. Roberts, a General Authority of the Mormon Church, did an analysis of this book and its possible relation to the writing of the Book of Mormon in 1921 at the request of the leadership of the Mormon Church. His stated purpose was to review possible arguments by non-Mormons against the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. Interestingly enough, he came to the conclusion that View of the Hebrews could have been one of the human sources for the contents of the Book of Mormon, and that Joseph Smith was sufficiently intelligent to have written it with this book and other resources which were available to him.36
His studies only recently became available to the public. They were published by the Utah Lighthouse Ministry of Salt Lake City under the name Roberts' Manuscripts Revealed'A Photographic Reproduction of Mormon Historian B.H. Roberts' Secret Studies on the Book of Mormon. Both it and the View of the Hebrews were closely examined by the author who confirms as valid the following conclusions which Roberts listed when comparing View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon: 37
1. Both books begin with "the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of Israel" at 600 B.C.38
2. Ethan Smith, the author, begins his second chapter by quoting from Isaiah to prove that Judah and Israel will be restored in the last days. "One of the passages quoted" is from Isaiah 11, and this is one of the quotes that Joseph Smith claimed the Angel Moroni made to him when it visited him the first time on September 23rd, 1823, telling him of the golden plates.39
3. Ethan Smith quotes from "20 chapters of Isaiah" in the fourth chapter of his book to prove his point. Joseph Smith quotes from "21 chapters of Isaiah" in the first one hundred pages of the Book of Mormon to make the same point. In both cases, they are quoted in the only version of the Bible in common use in that day, the King James Version. "Many of the passages quoted...are identical."40
4. Ethan Smith quotes from Isaiah 18, citing it as a call upon the Christian Church in the United States to convert the Indians to Christianity. While the Book of Mormon itself does not cite this chapter, it makes the same point repeatedly.(e.g., I Nephi 13:39; 3:191).41
5. Both reported the use of iron and steel by the ancient inhabitants of America.42
6. Both report vast multitudes once filled North America.43
7. Both report use of the Urim and Thummim by the ancient Indians.44
8. Both are against polygamy.45
9. Both report that the Indians once had a holy book, but lost it and fell out of favor with God.46
10. Both speak of Egyptian hieroglyphics in America.47
11. Both have a division into two peoples' one civilized and one barbarian. Both depict wars between them with the extinction of the civilized people.48
12. Both depict knowledge of the mechanical arts, written language and one God as typical of the ancient Americans.49
13. Both proclaim destruction of the disobedient gentiles by converted Indians. This prophecy is given three times in the Book of Mormon by Jesus Christ himself (3 Nephi 16:8-16; 7:32-42; 3 Nephi 20:14-17; 9:50-53; 3 Nephi 21:11-13; 9:98-100).50
Concerning this prophecy, Roberts makes the following observation:
All this might have seemed possible to men living in the early decades of the 19th century, 1820-1830, when Indian tribes of unknown strength but well attested ferocity occupied the greater part of the land over which the United States now extends its jurisdiction, but it is scarcely possible now to entertain such conceptions of native race terror, triumph, and domination over the Gentile nation of the United States. All reasonable expectation of such an event has passed.51
Here, Joseph Smith may have overstepped himself, for even this General Authority of the Mormon Church finds it difficult to believe that Jesus Christ would promote the Book of Mormon to that extent.
35 Wesley P. Walters, THE HUMAN ORIGINS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON (Safety Harbor, FL: Ex-Mormons for Jesus, 1979), 4.
36 Brigham H. Roberts, ROBERTS' MANUSCRIPT REVEAL. A PHOTOGRAPHIC REPRODUCTION OF MORMON HISTORIAN B.H. ROBERTS' SECRET STUDIES ON THE BOOK OF MORMON.(Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1980), 123, 155.
37 Ethan Smith, VIEW OF THE HEBREWS, 2nd ed. (1825: Photomechanical Reprint., Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, n.d.).
38 Roberts, 156.
39 Roberts, 156-157.
40 Roberts, 159-161.
41 Walters, 12.
42 Roberts, 203-204.
43 Roberts, 207.
44 Roberts, 220.
45 Roberts, 229-230.
46 Roberts, 232.
47 Roberts, 237.
48 Roberts, 276.
49 Roberts, 275-276.
50 Roberts, 175.
51 Roberts, 177.
52 Sidney B. Sperry, BOOK OF MORMON COMPENDIUM (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968), 507.
I will be traveling all this week for work so I will probably not be able to get back to you until next week. I hope you have a nice week until then.
Sorry it took me so long. I stopped checking bc I knew you would be awhile and I forgot till now. I'll give a brief answer bc I'm not sure if I waited so long that you are not checking this post anymore. I f you write back then I'll give you a much fuller response.
1. It is a well known mesoamerican practice to melt down metal objects and reuse the metal. This practice extends to Jade objects as well, not melted but buffed and reworked into a different object.
2. It is a grammatical fact that mesoamericans had words for metal as early 1000 bc. How do they have words for metals that they supposedly don't know exist.
3. Recent findings have yielded as much as ten tons of earth heaped up by the olmecs in search of.........iron ore!
4. I have read View of Hebrews and does not resemble the bOM in anyway recognizable to me.
5. Once again, JS misunderstanding the scope of the bOM is more proof to me that he did not write it. The BOM is clear that only a couple of weeks of travel on foot would take you to eighther extreme of the territory in question. The fact that that JS and other early members did not catch this is significant. There is no way your walking from canada to chile in a couple of weeks...try a decade. It easy to understand why they thought this...they didn't have time to scrutinize the large text for geographical implications but were more concerned with its theological importance.
5. steel in the bible refers to brass...mesoamericans did know about brass.
6. It is not racism. Huge civilizations flourished in South america that had nothing to with bom peoples and no mormon claims so. Those cultures were just as sophisticated as mesoamerica if not more.
7. Once again I don't care what some mormon scholar who lost his fath thought. I read view of hebrews and it talked about the ten lost tribes iof Israel peopling america and not people who escaped jerusalem in 600bc. I don't know where you cut and pasted this list from..but once again I'm not very impressed with cutting and pasting.
As far as the correlations...I could write a much more impressive list of correlations with the BOM and the history of Ixtlilxochitl, a central American descendant of royalty who comprised a history of cental america during the bOm and was not published until after the death of JS. It would be at least ten times longer and stronger. I find it amazing how much ixt's history and the BOM are in lock step together.
1. It is a well known mesoamerican practice to melt down metal objects and reuse the metal. This practice extends to Jade objects as well, not melted but buffed and reworked into a different object.
2. It is a grammatical fact that mesoamericans had words for metal as early 1000 bc. How do they have words for metals that they supposedly don't know exist.
3. Recent findings have yielded as much as ten tons of earth heaped up by the olmecs in search of.........iron ore!
4. I have read View of Hebrews and does not resemble the bOM in anyway recognizable to me.
5. Once again, JS misunderstanding the scope of the bOM is more proof to me that he did not write it. The BOM is clear that only a couple of weeks of travel on foot would take you to eighther extreme of the territory in question. The fact that that JS and other early members did not catch this is significant. There is no way your walking from canada to chile in a couple of weeks...try a decade. It easy to understand why they thought this...they didn't have time to scrutinize the large text for geographical implications but were more concerned with its theological importance.
5. steel in the bible refers to brass...mesoamericans did know about brass.
6. It is not racism. Huge civilizations flourished in South america that had nothing to with bom peoples and no mormon claims so. Those cultures were just as sophisticated as mesoamerica if not more.
7. Once again I don't care what some mormon scholar who lost his fath thought. I read view of hebrews and it talked about the ten lost tribes iof Israel peopling america and not people who escaped jerusalem in 600bc. I don't know where you cut and pasted this list from..but once again I'm not very impressed with cutting and pasting.
As far as the correlations...I could write a much more impressive list of correlations with the BOM and the history of Ixtlilxochitl, a central American descendant of royalty who comprised a history of cental america during the bOm and was not published until after the death of JS. It would be at least ten times longer and stronger. I find it amazing how much ixt's history and the BOM are in lock step together.
QUOTE (warship+Jul 19 2006, 03:43 AM)
3. Recent findings have yielded as much as ten tons of earth heaped up by the olmecs in search of.........iron ore!
warship,
Sorry for the long delay. I was away and then behind on things when I returned so do not provide the best counterpart for you on this discussion. If we continue, all I ask is for a little patience as I may be slow in being able to respond back to you.
They may have found a little iron ore. My point was this, the ancients of the Americas did not have an iron age during that time frame as would be necessary to describe in the book where there was advanced production of swords and implements out of iron and steel. There is no indication that this happened and if those civilizations had this technology, they would not have regressed to lesser technologies, but instead advanced them further over time. LDS articles such as one I found in the Meridian magazine go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to try to explain this away.
I have not taken the time to read the View of the Hebrews, at least yet. From others who have read it including some Mormons (excluding Lindsey’s crowd who I doubt would ever admit such), it sounds like that even though the plot is a little different they admit that the basic outline is very similar. It was written prior to JS’s ‘translation’ and as I pointed out, it is not unreasonable to conclude he could have had access to it, especially since the family of Cowdery’s (who aided in his ‘translation’) attended the religious congregation in which Smith was pastor.
I have not taken the time to read the View of the Hebrews, at least yet. From others who have read it including some Mormons (excluding Lindsey’s crowd who I doubt would ever admit such), it sounds like that even though the plot is a little different they admit that the basic outline is very similar. It was written prior to JS’s ‘translation’ and as I pointed out, it is not unreasonable to conclude he could have had access to it, especially since the family of Cowdery’s (who aided in his ‘translation’) attended the religious congregation in which Smith was pastor.
5. Once again, JS misunderstanding the scope of the bOM is more proof to me that he did not write it. The BOM is clear that only a couple of weeks of travel on foot would take you to eighther extreme of the territory in question. The fact that that JS and other early members did not catch this is significant. There is no way your walking from canada to chile in a couple of weeks...try a decade. It easy to understand why they thought this...they didn't have time to scrutinize the large text for geographical implications but were more concerned with its theological importance.
Or maybe they didn’t think of what they did not know and how the inconsistencies of what they wrote would play out over time and thus cause the necessity of the Mormon church leaders to attempt to rewrite history as they go. They should have been more vague.
You do bring up an interesting point: Maybe central and south America was not on their mind since JS and the mormon church until the later half of the 20th century taught the American Indians were Lamanites.
Solomon Spaulding was a seminary class mate of Ethan Smith. See below to what I am referring to:
Ever since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, it has been accused of being a plagiarism from unpublished manuscripts by Solomon Spaulding.12 For many years the Spaulding manuscripts could not be located to verify this. When one named Manuscript Found finally was located, both the LDS and the RLDS published it, giving the impression that there was no resemblance between it and the Book of Mormon and that its publication would end this speculation.13
A superficial reading makes it obvious that the Book of Mormon was not copied from it as such. Still, there have been mixed feelings about this matter. Walter Martin, a cult specialist, even published a book, Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?, explaining that Spaulding had written a later manuscript which was in fact. the basis for the Book of Mormon.14 The evidence presented by Martin has been challenged by both the Church and some of the its primary critics, but the theory itself has not been laid to rest.15
Recently, Vernal Holley put the controversy in another light by minutely comparing parallels between the Book of Mormon and the existing Spaulding manuscript.16 The following are his documented conclusions, with which the author concurs after a personal analysis of Manuscript Found.17
1. The outlines of the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding text are "essentially the same."18
2. Both records claim to have been found in "the same way."
3. Both were "written for the same purpose."
4. Both "tell the story of the same ancient American inhabitants."
5. Both "have the same sea voyage."
6. Both "have light-skinned and dark-skinned people.
7. Both "tell of the same arts and sciences."
8. Both "have a comparable Christian theology."
9. Both "present a white God person."
10. Both "involve use of seer stones."
11. Both claim to "contain an abridged history of the extinct inhabitants of ancient America."19
12. Both describe how the record was deposited, protected supernaturally, and how its finder made a translation of it.
13. Both state that it "will come forth . . .when the Europeans (gentiles) inhabit this land (M.F., 3-4; I Nephi 13:35; 3:184-185).
14. Both "translators" testify of the truthfulness of the work and request that the readers read it "with a pure heart" (M.F., 2-3; Moroni 10:4-5; 10:4-5).20
15. Both have the earth revolving about the sun-something unknown until 1543 A.D. (M.F., 16; Helaman 12:13-15; 4:61-62).21
16. A theological address by an Indian chief in Spaulding's manuscript contains "the same thoughts" and they are "in the same order" as in a similar address in the Book of Mormon by King Benjamin (M.F., 26-32; Mosiah 1-4; 1-2).
17. Spaulding's leader teaches from a "sacred roll," while King Benjamin teaches from "plates of brass."
18. The religious section of Spaulding is written in the chiastic style, which is found throughout the Book of Mormon.22
19. Lobaska's rule over two empires and his golden age of peace parallels Christ's effect on the peoples in the Book of Mormon.23
20. Both include coins and fortifications.24
21. Both have similar scenes of bloodshed, even down to the final combats between enemy commanders.
22. Both depict a "little band" of warriors, 3,000 in M. F. and 2,000 Nephi-Lehis in the Book of
Mormon.25
Besides these parallels, there are literally hundreds of identical or similar word combinations. In order to conserve space, only a few are listed below:26
rights of their country (M.F., 31; 3 Nephi 6:30; 3:35)
Crying with a loud voice (80; Alma 46:19; 21:48)
He put forth his hand and (28; Alma 30:51; 16:63)
An immense slaughter (101; Alma 49:21; 21:174)
mourning and lamentation (84; Helaman 7:15; 3:16)
according to their numbers (54; 3 Nephi 6:3; 3:4)
___________________________________________________________________________________
Even more surprising than these parallels, however, is the land area described in the two books. Holley emphasizes that Book of Mormon geography quite neatly matches the land described in Manuscript. Thus the "sea east" becomes Lake Ontario and the "sea west" becomes Lake Erie rather than, as Mormons have assumed, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Locating the River Sidon has always been a difficulty for Book of Mormon scholars.27 With this model, however, the River Sidon handily becomes the present-day Genesee River.28
Another problem has been the width of the "small neck of land" in the Book of Mormon, which is described as "a day and a half's journey" from sea to sea (Alma 22:32; 13:76). The distance of thirty-seven miles between these two lakes fits the description much better than the distance of over one hundred thirty miles at the Isthmus of Panama. 67 ancient fortified earthworks have been found at this location.29
Spaulding lived in this area and had first-hand knowledge of the earthworks, names and geographical locations that are portrayed in his writings. By imposing the Book of Mormon descriptions on maps of these areas, the following modern place names are found to coincide with the cities and lands in the Book of Mormon:30
Modern B of M
Angola Angola
Boaz Boaz
Jerusalem Jerusalem
Jordan Jordan
Lehigh Lehi
Rama Ramah
St. Agathe Ogath
Alma Valley of Alma
Antrim Antum
Antioch Anti-Anti
Conner Comner
St. Ephrem Hill Ephraim
Hellam Helam
Jacobsburg Jacobugath
Kishkiminetas Kishkumen
Mantua Manti
Monroe Moroni
Minoa Minon
Moraviantown Morianton
Morin *****
Noah Lake Land of Noah
Oneida Onidah
Oneida Castle Hill Onidah
Omer Omner
Ripple Lake Waters of Ripli- ancum
Sodom Sidom
Shiloh Shilom
Shurbrook Shurr
Tenecum Teancum
Holley bolsters his case for Spaulding authorship of the Book of Mormon with a quotation by Mormon archaeologist Joseph Vincent, who said:
If a sincere student of the Book of Mormon will conscientiously read and study the book itself and will plot out all the locations mentioned,...he will find that all Book of Mormon lands lie within a five or six hundred mile radius, and that this area could not possibly extend from Chile to New York.
What you said is true to a point. I googled ‘steel in the bible’ and came across the following.
Steel
The "bow of steel" in (A.V.) 2 Sam. 22:35; Job 20:24; Ps. 18:34
is in the Revised Version "bow of brass" (Heb.
kesheth-nehushah). In Jer. 15:12 the same word is used, and is
also rendered in the Revised Version "brass." But more correctly
it is copper (q.v.), as brass in the ordinary sense of the word
(an alloy of copper and zinc) was not known to the ancients.
From: Mormon site called By Common Consent, I found the following.
“An interesting key to the problem is Nephi’s steel bow (1 Ne 16.18). My assumption here is that this phrase is meant to describe the same weapon that is called a “steel bow” in the KJV Bible. (I think this is obvious whether Joseph Smith invented the text or
it is ancient.) The phrase “bow of steel” occurs three times in the KJV: 2 Sam 22.35, Job 20.24, and Ps 18.34. In all cases it translates the Hebrew phrase qeshet nechushah, which modern translations consistently, and correctly, translate as “bronze.”
That brings up another point, that an obvious source of material for JS’s writing the BOM is the King James Bible. In reality, the Book of Mormon contains very little original information. Rather, Joseph Smith apparently reworked information which he had assimilated and then presented it as a "translation" from the golden plates. This can be demonstrated by comparing the Book of Mormon with other sources which were available to him. Also, he probably had some unpublished manuscripts from Solomon Spaulding which he used.
Material in the Book of Mormon can be examined which appears to be plagiarized from The Maccabees, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the King James Version of the Bible.
The most common masculine name in the Book of Mormon and the title of four of its fifteen books is "Nephi." Most Mormons are surprised to learn that this name is found in 2 Maccabees 1:36. Here it is a place name, however, and not the name of a person.7
The play Hamlet has been popular ever since written by William Shakespeare. In the Book of Mormon, a paraphrase from Shakespeare is considered by many to be evidence of plagiarism.8 Here the Book of Mormon represents Lehi, who supposedly lived about 600 B.C., as saying, "the cold and silent gravefrom whence no traveler can return." (2 Nephi 1:14; 1:28). The Shakespearian play, Hamlet, written during the 16th century after Christ, reads, "...death, the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns" (Act 3, Scene 1).9 The similarity in the two passages is undeniable.
Then there is the the strange event in the Book of Mormon where Nephi is ordered by the "Spirit" to kill his uncle. This is uncannily similar to the scene in "Hamlet" where Hamlet's father's ghost appears to him and orders him to kill his uncle (Act 1, Scene 5)10 The primary difference between the two is that the "ghost" that appeared to Hamlet with these orders becomes the "Spirit" in the Book of Mormon; in fact, none other than the "Holy Spirit" (I Nephi 4:10-12; 1:110-113).
Interestingly enough, righteous Nephi is much more easily convinced that this is actually the will of God than is Hamlet. Not only does Nephi show no remorse after killing his drunken uncle, but he apparently cuts off his head without getting any blood on his uncle's clothes, for he is able to undress him, put his uncle's clothes on himself, and then impersonate him. Since the normal-sized person has about five quarts of blood in his body, this is a miracle in itself.
Nephi then proceeds to deceive his uncle's servant, steal the sacred brass plates, kidnap the servant, and take both them and him to America. The justification for these actions is explained very simply by the "Spirit:" Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (I Nephi 4:13; 1:114-115).
This rationale strangely echoes the prophecy of the high priest as to why Jesus should be put to death in John 11:49-50: "Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Thus the importance of Laban's death is perversely placed on a similar plane as Jesus", even though Nephi violates several of the ten commandments while bringing it about (Ex. 20:13, 15, 17). This and similar types of distortion of Biblical phraseology and theology are found throughout the Book of Mormon.
Critics have also long wondered why the French word "adieu" appears in the Book of Mormon, when it was supposed to have been translated from the golden plates into English.(Jacob 7:27; 5:48).11 This expression is very common throughout Shakespeare's writings.
What you said is true to a point. I googled ‘steel in the bible’ and came across the following.
Steel
The "bow of steel" in (A.V.) 2 Sam. 22:35; Job 20:24; Ps. 18:34
is in the Revised Version "bow of brass" (Heb.
kesheth-nehushah). In Jer. 15:12 the same word is used, and is
also rendered in the Revised Version "brass." But more correctly
it is copper (q.v.), as brass in the ordinary sense of the word
(an alloy of copper and zinc) was not known to the ancients.
From: Mormon site called By Common Consent, I found the following.
“An interesting key to the problem is Nephi’s steel bow (1 Ne 16.18). My assumption here is that this phrase is meant to describe the same weapon that is called a “steel bow” in the KJV Bible. (I think this is obvious whether Joseph Smith invented the text or
it is ancient.) The phrase “bow of steel” occurs three times in the KJV: 2 Sam 22.35, Job 20.24, and Ps 18.34. In all cases it translates the Hebrew phrase qeshet nechushah, which modern translations consistently, and correctly, translate as “bronze.”
That brings up another point, that an obvious source of material for JS’s writing the BOM is the King James Bible. In reality, the Book of Mormon contains very little original information. Rather, Joseph Smith apparently reworked information which he had assimilated and then presented it as a "translation" from the golden plates. This can be demonstrated by comparing the Book of Mormon with other sources which were available to him. Also, he probably had some unpublished manuscripts from Solomon Spaulding which he used.
Material in the Book of Mormon can be examined which appears to be plagiarized from The Maccabees, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the King James Version of the Bible.
The most common masculine name in the Book of Mormon and the title of four of its fifteen books is "Nephi." Most Mormons are surprised to learn that this name is found in 2 Maccabees 1:36. Here it is a place name, however, and not the name of a person.7
The play Hamlet has been popular ever since written by William Shakespeare. In the Book of Mormon, a paraphrase from Shakespeare is considered by many to be evidence of plagiarism.8 Here the Book of Mormon represents Lehi, who supposedly lived about 600 B.C., as saying, "the cold and silent gravefrom whence no traveler can return." (2 Nephi 1:14; 1:28). The Shakespearian play, Hamlet, written during the 16th century after Christ, reads, "...death, the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns" (Act 3, Scene 1).9 The similarity in the two passages is undeniable.
Then there is the the strange event in the Book of Mormon where Nephi is ordered by the "Spirit" to kill his uncle. This is uncannily similar to the scene in "Hamlet" where Hamlet's father's ghost appears to him and orders him to kill his uncle (Act 1, Scene 5)10 The primary difference between the two is that the "ghost" that appeared to Hamlet with these orders becomes the "Spirit" in the Book of Mormon; in fact, none other than the "Holy Spirit" (I Nephi 4:10-12; 1:110-113).
Interestingly enough, righteous Nephi is much more easily convinced that this is actually the will of God than is Hamlet. Not only does Nephi show no remorse after killing his drunken uncle, but he apparently cuts off his head without getting any blood on his uncle's clothes, for he is able to undress him, put his uncle's clothes on himself, and then impersonate him. Since the normal-sized person has about five quarts of blood in his body, this is a miracle in itself.
Nephi then proceeds to deceive his uncle's servant, steal the sacred brass plates, kidnap the servant, and take both them and him to America. The justification for these actions is explained very simply by the "Spirit:" Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (I Nephi 4:13; 1:114-115).
This rationale strangely echoes the prophecy of the high priest as to why Jesus should be put to death in John 11:49-50: "Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Thus the importance of Laban's death is perversely placed on a similar plane as Jesus", even though Nephi violates several of the ten commandments while bringing it about (Ex. 20:13, 15, 17). This and similar types of distortion of Biblical phraseology and theology are found throughout the Book of Mormon.
Critics have also long wondered why the French word "adieu" appears in the Book of Mormon, when it was supposed to have been translated from the golden plates into English.(Jacob 7:27; 5:48).11 This expression is very common throughout Shakespeare's writings.
6. It is not racism. Huge civilizations flourished in South america that had nothing to with bom peoples and no mormon claims so. Those cultures were just as sophisticated as mesoamerica if not more.
It is racism to tell people the reason their skin is dark because they disobeyed God. That’s what the mormon church taught for years and is a whole other subject.
I have to run but can get back to your later on. Have a good rest of the week.
warship,
Sorry for the long delay. I was away and then behind on things when I returned so do not provide the best counterpart for you on this discussion. If we continue, all I ask is for a little patience as I may be slow in being able to respond back to you.
They may have found a little iron ore. My point was this, the ancients of the Americas did not have an iron age during that time frame as would be necessary to describe in the book where there was advanced production of swords and implements out of iron and steel. There is no indication that this happened and if those civilizations had this technology, they would not have regressed to lesser technologies, but instead advanced them further over time. LDS articles such as one I found in the Meridian magazine go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to try to explain this away.
QUOTE
4. I have read View of Hebrews and does not resemble the bOM in anyway recognizable to me.
I have not taken the time to read the View of the Hebrews, at least yet. From others who have read it including some Mormons (excluding Lindsey’s crowd who I doubt would ever admit such), it sounds like that even though the plot is a little different they admit that the basic outline is very similar. It was written prior to JS’s ‘translation’ and as I pointed out, it is not unreasonable to conclude he could have had access to it, especially since the family of Cowdery’s (who aided in his ‘translation’) attended the religious congregation in which Smith was pastor.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4. I have read View of Hebrews and does not resemble the bOM in anyway recognizable to me. |
I have not taken the time to read the View of the Hebrews, at least yet. From others who have read it including some Mormons (excluding Lindsey’s crowd who I doubt would ever admit such), it sounds like that even though the plot is a little different they admit that the basic outline is very similar. It was written prior to JS’s ‘translation’ and as I pointed out, it is not unreasonable to conclude he could have had access to it, especially since the family of Cowdery’s (who aided in his ‘translation’) attended the religious congregation in which Smith was pastor.
5. Once again, JS misunderstanding the scope of the bOM is more proof to me that he did not write it. The BOM is clear that only a couple of weeks of travel on foot would take you to eighther extreme of the territory in question. The fact that that JS and other early members did not catch this is significant. There is no way your walking from canada to chile in a couple of weeks...try a decade. It easy to understand why they thought this...they didn't have time to scrutinize the large text for geographical implications but were more concerned with its theological importance.
Or maybe they didn’t think of what they did not know and how the inconsistencies of what they wrote would play out over time and thus cause the necessity of the Mormon church leaders to attempt to rewrite history as they go. They should have been more vague.
You do bring up an interesting point: Maybe central and south America was not on their mind since JS and the mormon church until the later half of the 20th century taught the American Indians were Lamanites.
Solomon Spaulding was a seminary class mate of Ethan Smith. See below to what I am referring to:
Ever since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830, it has been accused of being a plagiarism from unpublished manuscripts by Solomon Spaulding.12 For many years the Spaulding manuscripts could not be located to verify this. When one named Manuscript Found finally was located, both the LDS and the RLDS published it, giving the impression that there was no resemblance between it and the Book of Mormon and that its publication would end this speculation.13
A superficial reading makes it obvious that the Book of Mormon was not copied from it as such. Still, there have been mixed feelings about this matter. Walter Martin, a cult specialist, even published a book, Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?, explaining that Spaulding had written a later manuscript which was in fact. the basis for the Book of Mormon.14 The evidence presented by Martin has been challenged by both the Church and some of the its primary critics, but the theory itself has not been laid to rest.15
Recently, Vernal Holley put the controversy in another light by minutely comparing parallels between the Book of Mormon and the existing Spaulding manuscript.16 The following are his documented conclusions, with which the author concurs after a personal analysis of Manuscript Found.17
1. The outlines of the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding text are "essentially the same."18
2. Both records claim to have been found in "the same way."
3. Both were "written for the same purpose."
4. Both "tell the story of the same ancient American inhabitants."
5. Both "have the same sea voyage."
6. Both "have light-skinned and dark-skinned people.
7. Both "tell of the same arts and sciences."
8. Both "have a comparable Christian theology."
9. Both "present a white God person."
10. Both "involve use of seer stones."
11. Both claim to "contain an abridged history of the extinct inhabitants of ancient America."19
12. Both describe how the record was deposited, protected supernaturally, and how its finder made a translation of it.
13. Both state that it "will come forth . . .when the Europeans (gentiles) inhabit this land (M.F., 3-4; I Nephi 13:35; 3:184-185).
14. Both "translators" testify of the truthfulness of the work and request that the readers read it "with a pure heart" (M.F., 2-3; Moroni 10:4-5; 10:4-5).20
15. Both have the earth revolving about the sun-something unknown until 1543 A.D. (M.F., 16; Helaman 12:13-15; 4:61-62).21
16. A theological address by an Indian chief in Spaulding's manuscript contains "the same thoughts" and they are "in the same order" as in a similar address in the Book of Mormon by King Benjamin (M.F., 26-32; Mosiah 1-4; 1-2).
17. Spaulding's leader teaches from a "sacred roll," while King Benjamin teaches from "plates of brass."
18. The religious section of Spaulding is written in the chiastic style, which is found throughout the Book of Mormon.22
19. Lobaska's rule over two empires and his golden age of peace parallels Christ's effect on the peoples in the Book of Mormon.23
20. Both include coins and fortifications.24
21. Both have similar scenes of bloodshed, even down to the final combats between enemy commanders.
22. Both depict a "little band" of warriors, 3,000 in M. F. and 2,000 Nephi-Lehis in the Book of
Mormon.25
Besides these parallels, there are literally hundreds of identical or similar word combinations. In order to conserve space, only a few are listed below:26
rights of their country (M.F., 31; 3 Nephi 6:30; 3:35)
Crying with a loud voice (80; Alma 46:19; 21:48)
He put forth his hand and (28; Alma 30:51; 16:63)
An immense slaughter (101; Alma 49:21; 21:174)
mourning and lamentation (84; Helaman 7:15; 3:16)
according to their numbers (54; 3 Nephi 6:3; 3:4)
___________________________________________________________________________________
Even more surprising than these parallels, however, is the land area described in the two books. Holley emphasizes that Book of Mormon geography quite neatly matches the land described in Manuscript. Thus the "sea east" becomes Lake Ontario and the "sea west" becomes Lake Erie rather than, as Mormons have assumed, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Locating the River Sidon has always been a difficulty for Book of Mormon scholars.27 With this model, however, the River Sidon handily becomes the present-day Genesee River.28
Another problem has been the width of the "small neck of land" in the Book of Mormon, which is described as "a day and a half's journey" from sea to sea (Alma 22:32; 13:76). The distance of thirty-seven miles between these two lakes fits the description much better than the distance of over one hundred thirty miles at the Isthmus of Panama. 67 ancient fortified earthworks have been found at this location.29
Spaulding lived in this area and had first-hand knowledge of the earthworks, names and geographical locations that are portrayed in his writings. By imposing the Book of Mormon descriptions on maps of these areas, the following modern place names are found to coincide with the cities and lands in the Book of Mormon:30
Modern B of M
Angola Angola
Boaz Boaz
Jerusalem Jerusalem
Jordan Jordan
Lehigh Lehi
Rama Ramah
St. Agathe Ogath
Alma Valley of Alma
Antrim Antum
Antioch Anti-Anti
Conner Comner
St. Ephrem Hill Ephraim
Hellam Helam
Jacobsburg Jacobugath
Kishkiminetas Kishkumen
Mantua Manti
Monroe Moroni
Minoa Minon
Moraviantown Morianton
Morin *****
Noah Lake Land of Noah
Oneida Onidah
Oneida Castle Hill Onidah
Omer Omner
Ripple Lake Waters of Ripli- ancum
Sodom Sidom
Shiloh Shilom
Shurbrook Shurr
Tenecum Teancum
Holley bolsters his case for Spaulding authorship of the Book of Mormon with a quotation by Mormon archaeologist Joseph Vincent, who said:
If a sincere student of the Book of Mormon will conscientiously read and study the book itself and will plot out all the locations mentioned,...he will find that all Book of Mormon lands lie within a five or six hundred mile radius, and that this area could not possibly extend from Chile to New York.
QUOTE
5. steel in the bible refers to brass...mesoamericans did know about brass.
What you said is true to a point. I googled ‘steel in the bible’ and came across the following.
Steel
The "bow of steel" in (A.V.) 2 Sam. 22:35; Job 20:24; Ps. 18:34
is in the Revised Version "bow of brass" (Heb.
kesheth-nehushah). In Jer. 15:12 the same word is used, and is
also rendered in the Revised Version "brass." But more correctly
it is copper (q.v.), as brass in the ordinary sense of the word
(an alloy of copper and zinc) was not known to the ancients.
From: Mormon site called By Common Consent, I found the following.
“An interesting key to the problem is Nephi’s steel bow (1 Ne 16.18). My assumption here is that this phrase is meant to describe the same weapon that is called a “steel bow” in the KJV Bible. (I think this is obvious whether Joseph Smith invented the text or
it is ancient.) The phrase “bow of steel” occurs three times in the KJV: 2 Sam 22.35, Job 20.24, and Ps 18.34. In all cases it translates the Hebrew phrase qeshet nechushah, which modern translations consistently, and correctly, translate as “bronze.”
That brings up another point, that an obvious source of material for JS’s writing the BOM is the King James Bible. In reality, the Book of Mormon contains very little original information. Rather, Joseph Smith apparently reworked information which he had assimilated and then presented it as a "translation" from the golden plates. This can be demonstrated by comparing the Book of Mormon with other sources which were available to him. Also, he probably had some unpublished manuscripts from Solomon Spaulding which he used.
Material in the Book of Mormon can be examined which appears to be plagiarized from The Maccabees, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the King James Version of the Bible.
The most common masculine name in the Book of Mormon and the title of four of its fifteen books is "Nephi." Most Mormons are surprised to learn that this name is found in 2 Maccabees 1:36. Here it is a place name, however, and not the name of a person.7
The play Hamlet has been popular ever since written by William Shakespeare. In the Book of Mormon, a paraphrase from Shakespeare is considered by many to be evidence of plagiarism.8 Here the Book of Mormon represents Lehi, who supposedly lived about 600 B.C., as saying, "the cold and silent gravefrom whence no traveler can return." (2 Nephi 1:14; 1:28). The Shakespearian play, Hamlet, written during the 16th century after Christ, reads, "...death, the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns" (Act 3, Scene 1).9 The similarity in the two passages is undeniable.
Then there is the the strange event in the Book of Mormon where Nephi is ordered by the "Spirit" to kill his uncle. This is uncannily similar to the scene in "Hamlet" where Hamlet's father's ghost appears to him and orders him to kill his uncle (Act 1, Scene 5)10 The primary difference between the two is that the "ghost" that appeared to Hamlet with these orders becomes the "Spirit" in the Book of Mormon; in fact, none other than the "Holy Spirit" (I Nephi 4:10-12; 1:110-113).
Interestingly enough, righteous Nephi is much more easily convinced that this is actually the will of God than is Hamlet. Not only does Nephi show no remorse after killing his drunken uncle, but he apparently cuts off his head without getting any blood on his uncle's clothes, for he is able to undress him, put his uncle's clothes on himself, and then impersonate him. Since the normal-sized person has about five quarts of blood in his body, this is a miracle in itself.
Nephi then proceeds to deceive his uncle's servant, steal the sacred brass plates, kidnap the servant, and take both them and him to America. The justification for these actions is explained very simply by the "Spirit:" Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (I Nephi 4:13; 1:114-115).
This rationale strangely echoes the prophecy of the high priest as to why Jesus should be put to death in John 11:49-50: "Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Thus the importance of Laban's death is perversely placed on a similar plane as Jesus", even though Nephi violates several of the ten commandments while bringing it about (Ex. 20:13, 15, 17). This and similar types of distortion of Biblical phraseology and theology are found throughout the Book of Mormon.
Critics have also long wondered why the French word "adieu" appears in the Book of Mormon, when it was supposed to have been translated from the golden plates into English.(Jacob 7:27; 5:48).11 This expression is very common throughout Shakespeare's writings.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 5. steel in the bible refers to brass...mesoamericans did know about brass. |
What you said is true to a point. I googled ‘steel in the bible’ and came across the following.
Steel
The "bow of steel" in (A.V.) 2 Sam. 22:35; Job 20:24; Ps. 18:34
is in the Revised Version "bow of brass" (Heb.
kesheth-nehushah). In Jer. 15:12 the same word is used, and is
also rendered in the Revised Version "brass." But more correctly
it is copper (q.v.), as brass in the ordinary sense of the word
(an alloy of copper and zinc) was not known to the ancients.
From: Mormon site called By Common Consent, I found the following.
“An interesting key to the problem is Nephi’s steel bow (1 Ne 16.18). My assumption here is that this phrase is meant to describe the same weapon that is called a “steel bow” in the KJV Bible. (I think this is obvious whether Joseph Smith invented the text or
it is ancient.) The phrase “bow of steel” occurs three times in the KJV: 2 Sam 22.35, Job 20.24, and Ps 18.34. In all cases it translates the Hebrew phrase qeshet nechushah, which modern translations consistently, and correctly, translate as “bronze.”
That brings up another point, that an obvious source of material for JS’s writing the BOM is the King James Bible. In reality, the Book of Mormon contains very little original information. Rather, Joseph Smith apparently reworked information which he had assimilated and then presented it as a "translation" from the golden plates. This can be demonstrated by comparing the Book of Mormon with other sources which were available to him. Also, he probably had some unpublished manuscripts from Solomon Spaulding which he used.
Material in the Book of Mormon can be examined which appears to be plagiarized from The Maccabees, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Found, Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the King James Version of the Bible.
The most common masculine name in the Book of Mormon and the title of four of its fifteen books is "Nephi." Most Mormons are surprised to learn that this name is found in 2 Maccabees 1:36. Here it is a place name, however, and not the name of a person.7
The play Hamlet has been popular ever since written by William Shakespeare. In the Book of Mormon, a paraphrase from Shakespeare is considered by many to be evidence of plagiarism.8 Here the Book of Mormon represents Lehi, who supposedly lived about 600 B.C., as saying, "the cold and silent gravefrom whence no traveler can return." (2 Nephi 1:14; 1:28). The Shakespearian play, Hamlet, written during the 16th century after Christ, reads, "...death, the undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns" (Act 3, Scene 1).9 The similarity in the two passages is undeniable.
Then there is the the strange event in the Book of Mormon where Nephi is ordered by the "Spirit" to kill his uncle. This is uncannily similar to the scene in "Hamlet" where Hamlet's father's ghost appears to him and orders him to kill his uncle (Act 1, Scene 5)10 The primary difference between the two is that the "ghost" that appeared to Hamlet with these orders becomes the "Spirit" in the Book of Mormon; in fact, none other than the "Holy Spirit" (I Nephi 4:10-12; 1:110-113).
Interestingly enough, righteous Nephi is much more easily convinced that this is actually the will of God than is Hamlet. Not only does Nephi show no remorse after killing his drunken uncle, but he apparently cuts off his head without getting any blood on his uncle's clothes, for he is able to undress him, put his uncle's clothes on himself, and then impersonate him. Since the normal-sized person has about five quarts of blood in his body, this is a miracle in itself.
Nephi then proceeds to deceive his uncle's servant, steal the sacred brass plates, kidnap the servant, and take both them and him to America. The justification for these actions is explained very simply by the "Spirit:" Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (I Nephi 4:13; 1:114-115).
This rationale strangely echoes the prophecy of the high priest as to why Jesus should be put to death in John 11:49-50: "Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Thus the importance of Laban's death is perversely placed on a similar plane as Jesus", even though Nephi violates several of the ten commandments while bringing it about (Ex. 20:13, 15, 17). This and similar types of distortion of Biblical phraseology and theology are found throughout the Book of Mormon.
Critics have also long wondered why the French word "adieu" appears in the Book of Mormon, when it was supposed to have been translated from the golden plates into English.(Jacob 7:27; 5:48).11 This expression is very common throughout Shakespeare's writings.
6. It is not racism. Huge civilizations flourished in South america that had nothing to with bom peoples and no mormon claims so. Those cultures were just as sophisticated as mesoamerica if not more.
It is racism to tell people the reason their skin is dark because they disobeyed God. That’s what the mormon church taught for years and is a whole other subject.
I have to run but can get back to your later on. Have a good rest of the week.
First the bom is not racist. The skins are girdles...but the lamanites' are
anti-temple garments. Here...
Alma3
[4] And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.
[5] Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.
[6] And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.
[7] And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.
[9] And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the samecurse upon his seed.
[14] Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.
[15] And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may becursed also.
[18] Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.
[19] Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves thecurse; and even so doth every man that iscursed bring upon himself his own condemnation.
How does a mark, a red dot in the forehead, equal the curse if the curse is suppose to be actual black skin? It clearly states that the Amalicites were fulfilling the curse that God expressed to Nephi by taking this mark, how does a mark of red in the forehead equal black skin if that was the “curse”?????
It also shows that the skin was a skin girded about their loins to hide their nakedness(this is a girdle garment), these skins were dark bc ……
3Nephi:4
[7] And it came to pass that they did come up to battle; and it was in the sixth month; and behold, great and terrible was the day that they did come up to battle; and they were girded about after the manner of robbers; and they had a lamb-skin about their loins, and they were dyed in blood, and their heads were shorn, and they had head-plates upon them; and great and terrible was the appearance of the armies of Giddianhi, because of their armor, and because of their being dyed in blood.
These skins are probably symbolic opposites to white ceremonial garments(the girdle garment sometimes referred to as part of the ephod). Skins are reffered to as garments….
Alma 49
[6] Now the leaders of the Lamanites had supposed, because of the greatness of their numbers, yea, they supposed that they should be privileged to come upon them as they had hitherto done; yea, and they had also prepared themselves with shields, and with breastplates; and they had also prepared themselves with garments of skins, yea, very thickgarments to cover their nakedness.
They can then be a symbol for the need for purification thru the blood of Christ…….
Alma 13
11] Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.
[12] Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.
The Lamanites “garments of skin” that were “dark” (ceremonial garments) could be made white thru the blood of the Lamb.
Just like in the bible………..
Ex28
[4] And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.
Mark1
[6] And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins;
1kings2
[5] Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet.
Jeremiah 13
[6] And it came to pass after many days, that the LORD said unto me, Arise, go to Euphrates, and take thegirdle from thence, which I commanded thee to hide there.
[7] Then I went to Euphrates, and digged, and took the girdle from the place where I had hid it: and, behold, the girdle was marred, it was profitable for nothing.
[10] This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.
[11] For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
Dan 12
[10] Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
Rev7
[14] And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev15
6] And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.
The real curse is spelled out by Lehi twice……
2nephi 1
[17] My heart hath been weighed down with sorrow from time to time, for I have feared, lest for the hardness of your hearts the Lord your God should come out in the fulness of his wrath upon you, that ye be cut off and destroyed forever;
[18] Or, that a cursing should come upon you for the space of many generations; and ye are visited by sword, and by famine, and are hated, and are led according to the will and captivity of the devil.
[19] O my sons, that these things might not come upon you, but that ye might be a choice and a favored people of the Lord. But behold, his will be done; for his ways are righteousness forever.
[20] And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.
Again this curse is referenced with specific emphasis on Laman
2nephi4
[3] Wherefore, after my father had made an end of speaking concerning the prophecies of Joseph, he called the children of Laman, his sons, and his daughters, and said unto them: Behold, my sons, and my daughters, who are the sons and the daughters of my first-born, I would that ye should give ear unto my words.
[4] For the Lord God hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.
[5] But behold, my sons and my daughters, I cannot go down to my grave save I should leave a blessing upon you; for behold, I know that if ye are brought up in the way ye should go ye will not depart from it.
[6] Wherefore, if ye are cursed, behold, I leave my blessing upon you, that the cursing may be taken from you and be answered upon the heads of your parents.
[7] Wherefore, because of my blessing the Lord God will not suffer that ye shall perish; wherefore, he will be merciful unto you and unto your seed forever.
2Nephi26
[33] For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them allto come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
Of course the black and white probably means the pure and unpure, the good and the bad…bc I don’t think any reference to black or white is about skin color in the Bom; but for those who insist it does then 2Nephi:33, above, surely does also.
As far as the similarities between the Solomon Spaulding Manuscript.....YOu should read Jeff lindsays parallels to Walt Whitman's Blades of Grass ......written after the bom but far more similarities between it than the BOM and Spaulding...and the stories are still extremely dissimilar. You should read about the people who find parrallels to the history of the 19 and the 20th century.
I have trouble thinking JS is the most brilliant diabolical plagarist whoever lived.
He had a 3rd grade education. And no one has ever been known to pull of such a thing in all of history. The BOm has been read by more people than Walt Whitman, Emerson, Thorough or any other of his contemporaries.
ANd I took the trouble to read the Solomon Spaulding manuscript..its not hard its like 25 pages...and your gonna say he plagarized a 500 page or more book from a 25 page manuscript???? And it doesnt resemble it...read it and see for yourself. In the time you took reading a bunch of half whits imaginary links to the bOm, you could have read it already and seen that there is no connection in material and subject.
As far as the metals. It is a well known practice that Mesoamericans melted down their metal objects to make new things...they also did this with Jade and precious stones. Very early in the Nephite history they already treat iron as a precious metal...putting it on the list of taxed metals. Most metal objects were probably melted down reused and therefore date from a different time. Also as I said before ...80% of ALL excavation done in central america dates to after 600 ad and the bOM ends in 400 ad. So very little excavation has been done from the BOM time period. Also the native languages have words for metals from up to 1000 bc.
I find it hard to believe they have names for things they don't know exist.
I'm sorry it took so long getting back . I don't mind waiting a couple of weeks between our posts at all.
I hope you have a good couple of weeks till I hear back from you.
anti-temple garments. Here...
Alma3
[4] And the Amlicites were distinguished from the Nephites, for they had marked themselves with red in their foreheads after the manner of the Lamanites; nevertheless they had not shorn their heads like unto the Lamanites.
[5] Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth.
[6] And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.
[7] And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.
[9] And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the samecurse upon his seed.
[14] Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.
[15] And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may becursed also.
[18] Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.
[19] Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves thecurse; and even so doth every man that iscursed bring upon himself his own condemnation.
How does a mark, a red dot in the forehead, equal the curse if the curse is suppose to be actual black skin? It clearly states that the Amalicites were fulfilling the curse that God expressed to Nephi by taking this mark, how does a mark of red in the forehead equal black skin if that was the “curse”?????
It also shows that the skin was a skin girded about their loins to hide their nakedness(this is a girdle garment), these skins were dark bc ……
3Nephi:4
[7] And it came to pass that they did come up to battle; and it was in the sixth month; and behold, great and terrible was the day that they did come up to battle; and they were girded about after the manner of robbers; and they had a lamb-skin about their loins, and they were dyed in blood, and their heads were shorn, and they had head-plates upon them; and great and terrible was the appearance of the armies of Giddianhi, because of their armor, and because of their being dyed in blood.
These skins are probably symbolic opposites to white ceremonial garments(the girdle garment sometimes referred to as part of the ephod). Skins are reffered to as garments….
Alma 49
[6] Now the leaders of the Lamanites had supposed, because of the greatness of their numbers, yea, they supposed that they should be privileged to come upon them as they had hitherto done; yea, and they had also prepared themselves with shields, and with breastplates; and they had also prepared themselves with garments of skins, yea, very thickgarments to cover their nakedness.
They can then be a symbol for the need for purification thru the blood of Christ…….
Alma 13
11] Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.
[12] Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.
The Lamanites “garments of skin” that were “dark” (ceremonial garments) could be made white thru the blood of the Lamb.
Just like in the bible………..
Ex28
[4] And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.
Mark1
[6] And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins;
1kings2
[5] Moreover thou knowest also what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, and what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel, unto Abner the son of Ner, and unto Amasa the son of Jether, whom he slew, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet.
Jeremiah 13
[6] And it came to pass after many days, that the LORD said unto me, Arise, go to Euphrates, and take thegirdle from thence, which I commanded thee to hide there.
[7] Then I went to Euphrates, and digged, and took the girdle from the place where I had hid it: and, behold, the girdle was marred, it was profitable for nothing.
[10] This evil people, which refuse to hear my words, which walk in the imagination of their heart, and walk after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, shall even be as this girdle, which is good for nothing.
[11] For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
Dan 12
[10] Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
Rev7
[14] And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev15
6] And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.
The real curse is spelled out by Lehi twice……
2nephi 1
[17] My heart hath been weighed down with sorrow from time to time, for I have feared, lest for the hardness of your hearts the Lord your God should come out in the fulness of his wrath upon you, that ye be cut off and destroyed forever;
[18] Or, that a cursing should come upon you for the space of many generations; and ye are visited by sword, and by famine, and are hated, and are led according to the will and captivity of the devil.
[19] O my sons, that these things might not come upon you, but that ye might be a choice and a favored people of the Lord. But behold, his will be done; for his ways are righteousness forever.
[20] And he hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.
Again this curse is referenced with specific emphasis on Laman
2nephi4
[3] Wherefore, after my father had made an end of speaking concerning the prophecies of Joseph, he called the children of Laman, his sons, and his daughters, and said unto them: Behold, my sons, and my daughters, who are the sons and the daughters of my first-born, I would that ye should give ear unto my words.
[4] For the Lord God hath said that: Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.
[5] But behold, my sons and my daughters, I cannot go down to my grave save I should leave a blessing upon you; for behold, I know that if ye are brought up in the way ye should go ye will not depart from it.
[6] Wherefore, if ye are cursed, behold, I leave my blessing upon you, that the cursing may be taken from you and be answered upon the heads of your parents.
[7] Wherefore, because of my blessing the Lord God will not suffer that ye shall perish; wherefore, he will be merciful unto you and unto your seed forever.
2Nephi26
[33] For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them allto come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
Of course the black and white probably means the pure and unpure, the good and the bad…bc I don’t think any reference to black or white is about skin color in the Bom; but for those who insist it does then 2Nephi:33, above, surely does also.
As far as the similarities between the Solomon Spaulding Manuscript.....YOu should read Jeff lindsays parallels to Walt Whitman's Blades of Grass ......written after the bom but far more similarities between it than the BOM and Spaulding...and the stories are still extremely dissimilar. You should read about the people who find parrallels to the history of the 19 and the 20th century.
I have trouble thinking JS is the most brilliant diabolical plagarist whoever lived.
He had a 3rd grade education. And no one has ever been known to pull of such a thing in all of history. The BOm has been read by more people than Walt Whitman, Emerson, Thorough or any other of his contemporaries.
ANd I took the trouble to read the Solomon Spaulding manuscript..its not hard its like 25 pages...and your gonna say he plagarized a 500 page or more book from a 25 page manuscript???? And it doesnt resemble it...read it and see for yourself. In the time you took reading a bunch of half whits imaginary links to the bOm, you could have read it already and seen that there is no connection in material and subject.
As far as the metals. It is a well known practice that Mesoamericans melted down their metal objects to make new things...they also did this with Jade and precious stones. Very early in the Nephite history they already treat iron as a precious metal...putting it on the list of taxed metals. Most metal objects were probably melted down reused and therefore date from a different time. Also as I said before ...80% of ALL excavation done in central america dates to after 600 ad and the bOM ends in 400 ad. So very little excavation has been done from the BOM time period. Also the native languages have words for metals from up to 1000 bc.
I find it hard to believe they have names for things they don't know exist.
I'm sorry it took so long getting back . I don't mind waiting a couple of weeks between our posts at all.
I hope you have a good couple of weeks till I hear back from you.
QUOTE (warship+Aug 4 2006, 06:58 AM)
First the bom is not racist. The skins are girdles...but the lamanites' are
anti-temple garments. Here...
How does a mark, a red dot in the forehead, equal the curse if the curse is suppose to be actual black skin? It clearly states that the Amalicites were fulfilling the curse that God expressed to Nephi by taking this mark, how does a mark of red in the forehead equal black skin if that was the “curse”?????
It also shows that the skin was a skin girded about their loins to hide their nakedness(this is a girdle garment), these skins were dark bc ……
Greetings warship,
I was able to respond in less than a week!
That’s a good question but you need to brush up on your Mormon history, and not rely solely on the most up to date version of the ever fluid (i.e. changing) doctrine. The alleged curse of the skin was referring to original skin (human flesh) color, and was not meant to be a curse to wear a dark girdle (which they could have immediately taken off and thus voided the ‘curse’ which doesn’t make logical sense either). Now I will agree with you at least that many of the changes made certainly make it more socially acceptable today.
LDS - "Shall I tell you the LAW OF GOD in regard to the AFRICAN race? If the WHITE MAN who belongs to the CHOSEN SEED mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is DEATH ON THE SPOT. This will ALWAYS be so." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p.110, 1863, emphasis added.
LDS - "And the skins of the Lamanites [native Americans] were DARK, ...which was A CURSE UPON THEM.... And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might PRESERVE HIS PEOPLE, that they might NOT MIX and believe in incorrect traditions WHICH WOULD PROVE THEIR DESTRUCTION." Book of Mormon, Alma 3:6-8, emphasis added.
LDS - "Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became THE FATHER OF AN INFERIOR RACE. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so WHILE TIME ENDURES. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a BLACK SKIN and have been DENIED THE PRIVILEGE OF PRIESTHOOD and the fulness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to FEEL THEIR INFERIORITY and have been SEPARATED from the rest of mankind from the beginning. Enoch saw the people of Canaan, descendants of Cain, and he says, 'and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were DESPISED AMONG ALL PEOPLE.
anti-temple garments. Here...
How does a mark, a red dot in the forehead, equal the curse if the curse is suppose to be actual black skin? It clearly states that the Amalicites were fulfilling the curse that God expressed to Nephi by taking this mark, how does a mark of red in the forehead equal black skin if that was the “curse”?????
It also shows that the skin was a skin girded about their loins to hide their nakedness(this is a girdle garment), these skins were dark bc ……
Greetings warship,
I was able to respond in less than a week!
That’s a good question but you need to brush up on your Mormon history, and not rely solely on the most up to date version of the ever fluid (i.e. changing) doctrine. The alleged curse of the skin was referring to original skin (human flesh) color, and was not meant to be a curse to wear a dark girdle (which they could have immediately taken off and thus voided the ‘curse’ which doesn’t make logical sense either). Now I will agree with you at least that many of the changes made certainly make it more socially acceptable today.
LDS - "Shall I tell you the LAW OF GOD in regard to the AFRICAN race? If the WHITE MAN who belongs to the CHOSEN SEED mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is DEATH ON THE SPOT. This will ALWAYS be so." LDS "Prophet" Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, p.110, 1863, emphasis added.
LDS - "And the skins of the Lamanites [native Americans] were DARK, ...which was A CURSE UPON THEM.... And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might PRESERVE HIS PEOPLE, that they might NOT MIX and believe in incorrect traditions WHICH WOULD PROVE THEIR DESTRUCTION." Book of Mormon, Alma 3:6-8, emphasis added.
LDS - "Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became THE FATHER OF AN INFERIOR RACE. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so WHILE TIME ENDURES. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a BLACK SKIN and have been DENIED THE PRIVILEGE OF PRIESTHOOD and the fulness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to FEEL THEIR INFERIORITY and have been SEPARATED from the rest of mankind from the beginning. Enoch saw the people of Canaan, descendants of Cain, and he says, 'and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were DESPISED AMONG ALL PEOPLE.