I will Believe the Book of Mormon as history when...

[_Daniel Peterson]

[I refer to the crap you write here. I'll consider what you write here as a shadow of your professional literary genius. You write an awful lot but you sure don't have a lot to say.

Shazaam.

Shall I put you down in the "Not a fan" column?

I meant everything I wrote that you are hoping everyone but you missed.

If I thought that you meant everything that you wrote that I was hoping everybody but me missed I wouldn't be thinking that what you wrote was something that anybody missed but me unless by me you meant that you missed what I hadn't thought in everything that others noticed.

Now.. back to the topic (your 15 minutes of fame is now over).

Unless the unfortunate Master Scartch has gone off to the great National Enquirer newsstand in the sky, my fame is likely to continue for years into the future. He'll see to it.




XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[_Inconceivable]

If it could pay 500,000,000 dollars to prove the to the scholarly world that the Book of Mormon is true history, it would start selling off temples tommorow. There is no excuse. If the apologists really have something worth taking seriously, they need to re-tool their efforts and put hard work, money, and frustration into convincing their peers.

Instead, like the advocates of intelligent design, they hope to exert their influence through public opinion..

Well put.

If the church could spackle the crack of disbelief for a measily 500,000,000, they would do it. It would be fiscally responsible.

If you disagree, name one instance in Mormon history where the hierarchy didn't jump for joy and publish discoveries not even verified as what they thought they were.

Here are two:

1) Publishing of the papiri discovery in the Improvement Era in the 60's

2) "Lamanites" mistaking Cortez, Cook and others as the Great White God (or any other Indian legend for that matter)

[_bcspace]

Joseph Smith made bold declarations of 'fact' about Book of Mormon/Nephite/Lamanite locations, people and events. He stated that all Truth was part of the Gospel he taught and part of the Church he was leading.
What happened?
The Bible has hundreds of locations/events/people that can be accounted for with independent histories and archaeological evidence.

Why isn't a civilization that numbered in the millions, with battles that killed hundreds of thousands able to be seen from even ONE archaelogical site?

Completely irrelevant.

1. Just because locations/events/people we know of from other works doesn't make the Bible true. By your logic, the Bible is just as likely as the Book of Mormon to be a work of historical fiction.

2. The essential doctrine that both books teach, that Jesus Christ Atoned for our sins and rose again on the third day, will never be proven by the existence of some archeological site.

Therefore, both books require equal amounts of faith.

[_Joey]

Joseph Smith made bold declarations of 'fact' about Book of Mormon/Nephite/Lamanite locations, people and events. He stated that all Truth was part of the Gospel he taught and part of the Church he was leading.
What happened?
The Bible has hundreds of locations/events/people that can be accounted for with independent histories and archaeological evidence.

Why isn't a civilization that numbered in the millions, with battles that killed hundreds of thousands able to be seen from even ONE archaelogical site?

Completely irrelevant.

1. Just because locations/events/people we know of from other works doesn't make the Bible true. By your logic, the Bible is just as likely as the Book of Mormon to be a work of historical fiction.

2. The essential doctrine that both books teach, that Jesus Christ Atoned for our sins and rose again on the third day, will never be proven by the existence of some archeological site.

Therefore, both books require equal amounts of faith.

Bc,

I would digree with your conclusion. The Bible and the Book of Mormon demonstrate the difference between "faith"(Bible) and "blind faith"(Book of Mormon) by the simple concept called provenance.

While many may question specific events described in the Bible, there exists a tremendous provenance of and to documents, evidence, records, peoples, cultures and even archaeology to "bridge ones faith" to the events claimed in it We can prove the history actually existed.. There is a foundation for one to base their faith upon.

With the Book of Mormon, their is no bridge of provenance but rather a pier that ends at Joseph Smith. There is absolutely nothing that exists to take us back to the existence of this supposed history. It is truely a blind faith. Since the history never existed, the only faith that can exist is, frankly, blind.

This is the essance of Mormonism, Mormon culture, and the incentivised Mormon scholars and pundits from, primarily, Provo and Orem. All run from and deny much of the only actual history that does exist (beginning w Smith) and spend countless hours trying to create (through a ridiculous adoption of the likes of mesoamerican events) one that never did.

Clark, Sorenson, and their local pitchman Peterson, have taken the lead in this charade to the naïve w their works on Book of Mormon historicity. Is it any wonder why, as Peterson admitts, they are completely ignored? Such fabrications of a supposed history can only sell to those willing to practice the use of "blind faith"! Usually the naïve, ignorant and folks desparately in need of some cog dis to grab onto.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've always enjoyed this song, from The Wizard of Oz:

I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin' while
my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain.
I'd unravel every riddle for any individ'le,
In trouble or in pain.
With the thoughts you'll be thinkin'
you could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain.
Oh, I could tell you why The ocean's near the shore.
I could think of things I never thunk before.
And then I'd sit, and think some more.
I would not be just a nothin' my head all full of stuffin'
My heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be a ding-a-derry,
If I only had a brain.

Somehow, when I consider some of the posts on this thread, it keeps recurring to my mind.

[_harmony]

Now, can you please answer (for the first time in your life) where we can find in any academic institution on this planet, where the supposedly scholarly works of Clark/Sorenson ON Book of Mormon HISTORICITY have any accreditted history program teaching the people, places or cultures mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

From the Brigham Young University course catalog for the Department of Anthropology:

280. Archaeology and the Scriptures. (3:3:0)
The Bible and the Book of Mormon compared with archaeological findings on early civilizations.

1. He asked specifically for a history program. This course is from the Anthropology Dept. I wonder if anyone, even at BYU, will ever connect early Mesoamerican cultures like the Olmecs officially with Book of Mormon peoples in a history course?

2. It might help if a nonBYU institution offered a similiar Anthro course. But we know they don't. And why would they? It's in no institution's vested interest, with the exception of BYU, to be promoting both the Bible and the Book of Mormon in this manner. Do other religion-owned institutions, Notre Dame or SMU, offer similiar courses using only the Bible?

[_Joey]

Harmony,

This is classic Peterson. He is a very learned student of Robert Millet:

"Don't answer the question they asked, answer the question they should have asked"!

But should we expect much more in a FARM boy from Provo? His time on message boards only allows him to teach one class in the past year at BYU!

[_Some Schmo]

I've always enjoyed this song, from The Wizard of Oz:

I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin' while
my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain.
I'd unravel every riddle for any individ'le,
In trouble or in pain.
With the thoughts you'll be thinkin'
you could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain.
Oh, I could tell you why The ocean's near the shore.
I could think of things I never thunk before.
And then I'd sit, and think some more.
I would not be just a nothin' my head all full of stuffin'
My heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be a ding-a-derry,
If I only had a brain.

Somehow, when I consider some of the posts on this thread, it keeps recurring to my mind.

Hmmm... I didn't think you spent too much time considering what you write. You actually seem completely oblivious to it, in fact.

Here's a suggestion; next time you're near a brainstorming session, try to catch one for yourself.

[_Joey]

I've always enjoyed this song, from The Wizard of Oz:

I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin' while
my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain.
I'd unravel every riddle for any individ'le,
In trouble or in pain.
With the thoughts you'll be thinkin'
you could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain.
Oh, I could tell you why The ocean's near the shore.
I could think of things I never thunk before.
And then I'd sit, and think some more.
I would not be just a nothin' my head all full of stuffin'
My heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be a ding-a-derry,
If I only had a brain.

Somehow, when I consider some of the posts on this thread, it keeps recurring to my mind.

Actually, your fondness in things of "Oz" is to be expected. The existence of that land and the history of the Book of Mormon is best viewed and discussed together.

[_Equality]

Joseph Smith made bold declarations of 'fact' about Book of Mormon/Nephite/Lamanite locations, people and events. He stated that all Truth was part of the Gospel he taught and part of the Church he was leading.
What happened?
The Bible has hundreds of locations/events/people that can be accounted for with independent histories and archaeological evidence.

Why isn't a civilization that numbered in the millions, with battles that killed hundreds of thousands able to be seen from even ONE archaelogical site?

Completely irrelevant.

1. Just because locations/events/people we know of from other works doesn't make the Bible true. By your logic, the Bible is just as likely as the Book of Mormon to be a work of historical fiction.

2. The essential doctrine that both books teach, that Jesus Christ Atoned for our sins and rose again on the third day, will never be proven by the existence of some archeological site.

Therefore, both books require equal amounts of faith.

I agree with bcspace that with respect to the essentially theological/soteriological/mystical elements of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, faith without so much as a shred of evidence is required to sustain belief that such things are as described in those texts. For example, both books teach that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he was perfect, that he was the human son of an invisible sky god, that he performed miracles, and that he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven after taking upon himself in some inexplicable mystical manner the "sins" of humanity. There is no more evidence for any of these things than there is for the proposition that there are gods on Mt. Olympus hurling thunderbolts; such things must be taken on faith or "confirmed" through good feelings.

Of course, that said, substantial portions of the text of both the Bible and Book of Mormon address historical issues and not supernatural themes. On those matters, the Bible has proven to be generally accurate and a large corpus of physical and historical evidence has been amassed to lend credence to the historical portions of the Bible. At the same time, the Book of Mormon has nothing going for it on that score. So while one must exercise "faith" in the Bible's miraculous stories, one need not exercise faith to believe, for example, that Jerusalem was under Roman rule at the time of Christ. With the Book of Mormon, however, faith is required for both the miraculous and mundane portions of the text. Therefore, greater faith, on the whole, is required to believe in the Book of Mormon than in the Bible.