If the Book of Mormon is true, what should we find?

[_cinepro]

VERY good catch, Cinepro!

Thanks.

Of course, the obvious apologetic response when I've brought this up in the past is to argue that the Book of Mormon severely overstates the situation, and that things weren't nearly as described.

When it gets to that point, what can you do?

[_Dr. Shades]

Of course, the obvious apologetic response when I've brought this up in the past is to argue that the Book of Mormon severely overstates the situation, and that things weren't nearly as described.

I'm totally lost. Will you please explain what you mean by the above?

Sorry, but I don't get it.

[_GoodK]

Of course, the obvious apologetic response when I've brought this up in the past is to argue that the Book of Mormon severely overstates the situation, and that things weren't nearly as described.

I'm totally lost. Will you please explain what you mean by the above?

Sorry, but I don't get it.

I'll let cinepro speak for himself, but I think he means things weren't as grandiose as they were described by the "authors" of the Book of Mormon. Kind of like how more sensible Christians explain that the flood wasn't really global, Moses just thought it was.

[_Dr. Shades]

I'll let cinepro speak for himself, but I think he means things weren't as grandiose as they were described by the "authors" of the Book of Mormon. Kind of like how more sensible Christians explain that the flood wasn't really global, Moses just thought it was.

Ahh, okay. Sort of like how Brant Gardner (or was it someone else?) argues that the numbers of the dead in battle were exaggerated by Mormon?

I get it now. Thanks.

[_Inconceivable]

Of course, the obvious apologetic response when I've brought this up in the past is to argue that the Book of Mormon severely overstates the situation, and that things weren't nearly as described.

I'm totally lost. Will you please explain what you mean by the above?

Sorry, but I don't get it.

I find it fascinating that it is the apologists (that profess to be the truest of believers) that more directly fit this particular description from Paul:

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

(New Testament | 2 Timothy 4:3 - 4)

In order for them to cram their square peg of logic into the round hole of faith they have to knock off all the edges - quite crafty of them.

Note to self: there is not a Mormon prophet that has ever lived that even considered the silly musing of an apologist - but I'll admit, Hinkley got close.

[_Ten Bear]

My understanding of these "caracters", are that many (more than thirty) from this fragment can be matched up with Tironian notes - an ancient form of Latin shorthand. Am I wrong?

Here's one comparison. Characters on the left are from the anthon transcript. Column on the right are tironian notes:

This is the comparison that I remember seeing. Thanks, Cinepro. So, is my line of reasoning bad, or doesn't this make all other arguments a moot point.

[_cinepro]

This was Brant Gardner's take on 4 Nephi. I especially like the implication that the Book of Mormon is limited by a "shopworn topos" and is a "crafted document" (?!).

I also like how "academic standards" get called into play to explain minor issues like 4 Nephi, but if someone tries to use "academic standards" to argue against the resurrection or the Fall of Adam, it's blasphemy.

I, for one, disagree. 4 Nephi doesn't present any issues at all. In the context of the same kind of historical reading as the rest of the text, there is no issue.

As background, I offer a statement from Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times by Donald B. Redford:

Some time shortly after his father's death Sety received a messenger's reprot on the state of Palestine: "Their chiefs are gathered together in one place, taking their stand on the hills of Palestine. They have begun to go wild, everyone of them slaying his fellow. They do not give a thought to the laws of the palace." Too much weight should not be attached to this description. It is part of a shopworn topos in which a state of anarchy is tendered as sufficient grounds for a military strike: law and order must be restored. (p. 180)

We have a very respected historian reading a text - and telling us that it isn't really what was happening. Could it be true that in ancient documents the writers exaggerated certain aspects of a situation for their own ends? Not only could it be true, it has frequently been true.

4 Nephi has all of the earmarks of a crafted document. Mormon assiduously avoids detail and gets by with gross exaggerations. Empty patterns are repeated and the division between years of peace and the end of the Nephites is suspiciously exactly half.

It you want to apply academic standards, do so consistently. Insisting that the text means what you think it does, with no better historical background than your opinion, does not make a convincing contradiction to authentic historical practice.

For example, one might wonder who is being discussed here. Is it the Nephites? The Lamanites? The non-Christian "others"? Well, lets see. First, there are no non-Christian "others

Why were there no non-Christian "others"? Are you again insisting on reading the "land" as more massive than the text supports? In the history of the world, how many events have had the kind of impact you are suggesting?

If you are suggesting that non-Christians did not feel the effects of the destructions, you are again misinterpreting the text. Of course many did. I can't imagine any natural destruction in known history that has, that quickly affected both north and south America.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... topic=9598

[_Kolohe]

I think HA is on to somthing.

Why do we assume that the reformed egyptian was used by anyone other than the prophets who wrote the Book of Mormon?

But here's something: in any land suggested as a Book of Mormon land, we should expect to find an entire group of Christians (homogenous, monotheistic, New Testament-style Christianity with no competing religions)

homogenous= in what sense?
monotheism, in what sense? Are LDS monotheistic?
New testemant style christianity = what was that?
no competing religions = in that land for sure. Bt who says that was in all of mesoamerica?

I'm pretty sure 200 years of pure Christianity with no wars or contentions might show up in some kind of records.

What kind of records?

[_Kolohe]

You start by looking in the area around the Hill Cumorah where these 'last great battles' took place.

How do we know that's the actual Cummorah and not just the place the plates where taken from.

You look near the current City of Manti, Utah where Brigham Young said ancient prophets had already dedicated the Temple site.

Moroni could have dedicated that site on his trek from Veracruz to New York.

You look in the vicinity of the grave of Zelph, that great white Lamanite warrior as pronounced by Joseph Smith

What makes us think that Zelph was from Book of Mormon times or that he or Onandagus had anything to do with Book of Mormon happenings, other than being descendant in one way or another form Lehi?

You look along the march route of Zions Camp where Joseph Smith said was located the City of Manti, the Southernmost city of the Nephite civilization.

Who says he is right?

All the prophetic declarations give you locations to check.

With the exception of Zelph, what make sus think these were prophetic?

To date, not one artifact of this civilization of millions has turned up. Not in the deserts, forests or praries. Nothing at all.

What are you looking for? A menorah? A Jesus Fish?

Joseph was commanded to send missionaries to preach to the lamanites in the borders around Missouri (think that was it, my references aren't here) so why not start where God told him lamanites actually were?

Who said that's where they alaways have been, that they didn't migrate from another place?

So far we have as many artifacts from the Nephites as we do from Harry Potter.

You are assuming that the tons of stuff that occupies museums around the world had nothing to do with Book of Mormon peoples.

[_Ten Bear]

I think HA is on to somthing.

Why do we assume that the reformed egyptian was used by anyone other than the prophets who wrote the Book of Mormon?

Here's my thoughts. Lehi would have been the one to bring "Reformed Egyptian" over from his home land. Where did he learn it from?

No, I can't prove that he didn't make up an entire written language all on his own, but it just doesn't seem probable. More likely he learned to write in "RE" from others. So I'm of the opinion that there should be a whole system of writing (whether dead or not) that we could find in or around his home land.

Then we get to the Americas and it would have been taught from generation to generation to keep it alive. If a group of people are to keep a written language alive over a thousand years, I don't think they would have just practices only on the plates that Joseph Smith ended up with. There should be scores of writing tablets and scrolls or whatever you want for them to keep the language alive.

Just my thoughts.