Mormon cultures are not a form of biblical archaeology

[Brianroy]

Mormon archaeology...infers one writer...is precisely that...Mormon.  Notice that this writer does not include the NT or OT as "scripture":

The sources within the LDS church are within its basic scripture, i.e. The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Old and New Testament.  Anything else is speculative theology on the part of individuals.  It is an axiom within the LDS church that anything that is not sustained by the members of the church is not to be considered scripture or canon including speeches given by Brigham Young.  Incidently, BY is quoted in the Journal of Discourses which is NOT considered canon in the church.  

The demonstration of continual historic influence, the multitudes of artifacts, the chain of custody and age of its documents, uplifts the OT and NT and -- apologetically -- dismisses Mormonism's distinct claims.

"The New Testament documents must be regarded as reliable sources of information...the documentary attestation for these records is so strong that a denial of their reliability carries with it total skepticism toward the history and literature of the classical world."

John Warwick Montgomery, "History and Christianity" (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers 1983) p. 43

"The extraordinary influence of Palestine on world history has always been a paradox to historians with pragmatic bias. That such a poor little country could produce both Judaism and Christianity, and through them could exercise such otherwise unparalleled effects on the course of man's activity during the last two thousand years, seems absurd to may people who visit it for the first time.
To be sure, Greece, from which emerged the intellectual life and the artistic beauty which have conditioned all subsequent Western history, was also little and physically poor - but Greece had become wealthy through her far-spreading commerce before the flowering of the Hellenic spirit, and she remained wealthy throughout her golden age. Palestine, on the contrary, was always a poor country; its periods of even relative prosperity were few and brief.
Though no historian can ever fully resolve so profound a paradox, he can at least marshal facts which make it easier to recognize the unusual suitability of the Holy Land for its historical role.
...To one who believes in the historical mission of Palestine, its archaeology possesses a value which raises it far above the level of the artifacts with which it must continually deal, into a region where history and theology share a common faith in the eternal realities of existence."
William Foxwell Albright, "The Archaeology of Palestine" Third Reprint. (Great Britain, Penguin Books, 1954). pp 250,256


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From a 1917 4th volume work.   This is an excellent example of the kind of anti-witness that is NOT leveled against the New Testament or Christianity; and perhaps the readers of biblical Archaeology may quickly distinguish between the two.

Mormonism: Its Origin, Characteristics, and Doctrines
by the Rev. R.G. McNiece, D.D.,
for twenty years prior to 1897 Pastor
First Presbyterian Church, Salt Lake City, Utah


The writer (R.G. McNiece) has lived in Salt Lake City, the official headquarters of Mormonism, for over thirty years, and he has improved the opportunity to secure a complete understanding of the system. In the great Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, during a whole generation, he has heard Mormonism expounded and defended, again and again, by its chief officials — by President Brigham Young, and President John Taylor, and their successors, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith. In various Mormon meeting-houses, also, from Idaho to Arizona, he has heard the system set forth by many of its chief apostles, bishops, and elders.

Furthermore, the writer has diligently studied the chief official books of Mormonism, especially the "Book of Mormon," the "Doctrine and Covenants," the "Pearl of Great Price," and, supplementing these, the Mormon Catechism, Elder Robert's "New Witness for God," Professor Talmage's "Lectures on the Articles of Faith," the works of Apostle Orson Pratt, Lucy Smith's "History of the Prophet Joseph," and the Autobiography of Joseph Smith. And besides he has read a great mass of pamphlets and articles by Mormon officials.

The standpoint of the writer is that of friendly sympathy and good-will toward the men and women among the common people in the Mormon ranks, whose sincerity be has no desire to call in question. But since Mormonism keeps from 1,500 to 2,000 missionaries scattered up and down the country, propagating this most erroneous and harmful system, organizing Mormon meetings, and separating families, in the Eastern, Middle, Southern and Northwestern States, patriotic and Christian people everywhere need to have a clear idea of what Mormonism really is, and the shameful way in which it dishonors the Bible and the Christian religion, so that they can help to protect their own communities from the curse. And it is impossible to understand its character, without understanding its origin, so let us consider that first.

The Origin of the Mormon System

1.   As an organization, it is only eighty-two years old, [as of the author McNiece's writing] going back to April, 1830.

About this time, or a few months before, the Book of Mormon was published; and on April 6th, 1830, the Mormon Church was organized with six members , in Fayette, Seneca County, New York. Notwithstanding the long-continued effort to surround this origin with great mystery, and various spectacular fireworks from heaven, as manipulated by Joseph Smith, there is no mystery about it. The period of eighty-two years is not long enough to take us back to the region of mystery.

2.   The two main sources of its origin: The first source is a group of three designing men, who put their profane wits together to palm off on various communities in New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, this crude, bogus, man-made system under the garb of Christian phraseology, in order to deceive the unthinking.

People in general think of Joseph Smith as the one man above all others who originated the Mormon System. But the facts are solid against such a proposition. Smith was ignorant and illiterate, hardly able to read until after he was a grown man. He knew practically nothing about the Bible, according to his mother's statement, and there is no substantial evidence in his life and conduct that he ever had any religion in his heart.

A religious man, however erratic he might be, who had been trained in the Bible and in theology, was needed to give the bogus system some kind of religious setting. The only man connected with the scheme from its very beginning, long before the public organization, who had any such qualifications, was the Rev. Sidney Rigdon. About 1819, when 26 years of age, he was licensed to preach as a Baptist minister, and in 1821 became pastor of a small Baptist church in Pittsburg.

He was an interesting speaker, but very erratic, and constantly presenting all sorts of wild and startling theories which unsettled the people. In 1824 he was deposed from the Baptist denomination because he was unwilling to work in harmony with its leaders. About two years later, he became a minister of the Campbellite denomination, and came under the powerful influence of that strong man, Alexander Campbell, who thoroughly indoctrinated him in all the doctrines and views peculiar at that time to the denomination. But Rigdon quarreled with Campbell, and argued if the latter could secure fame and authority for himself by organizing a new church, then he, Rigdon, could secure still greater fame and authority by giving to the world both a new revelation and a new religion, through the Book of Mormon.

The two unprincipled men who assisted Rigdon in working out this scheme were Parley P. Pratt, who afterwards became one of the twelve apostles, and Joseph Smith. Pratt furnished the mental and moral audacity necessary to propagate such a dishonest scheme, and Joseph Smith furnished the avaricious cunning, which enabled him to so commercialize the whole affair that the great bulk of the financial profit and of the ecclesiastical power fell into his hands. He occupied a subordinate place only until Rigdon could put the spurious Book of Mormon into its present shape. But just as soon as the church was organized, Joseph Smith seized the reins of power, rode rough-shod over everything and everybody that stood in his way, and did not lay down the power until his death in June, 1844.

The kind of man Pratt was is illustrated by the fact that he lost his life in 1857 near Fort Gibson, Arkansas, at the muzzle of a shotgun in the hands of an enraged husband, whose wife Pratt had induced to desert her home and her children, and go with him to Utah as one of his plural wives. These three unprincipled men were the fabricators of the Mormon system.

[Brianroy]

Mormonism: Its Origin, Characteristics, and Doctrines
by the Rev. R.G. McNiece, D.D.,
for twenty years prior to 1897 Pastor
First Presbyterian Church, Salt Lake City, Utah



The Characteristics of Mormonism, which make It what It is (as of 1912)
1.   It is a strongly anti-American system. By that is meant that it flatly contradicts the fundamental principles of our free, representative government, by insisting that priesthood government in civil affairs is the only rightful government in this country, or any country. Apostle Orson Pratt, speaking for the Mormon Church, thus lays down the law:
"The kingdom of God [by which he means the Mormon priesthood] is an order of government established by Divine authority. . . . All other governments are illegal and unauthorized . . . . Any people attempting to govern themselves by laws of their own making, and by officers of their own appointment, are in direct rebellion against the kingdom of God." (Orson Pratt's Works, p. 41.)

Nothing is left undone to magnify the power and authority of the priesthood, and the people are instructed that to disobey the priesthood is the same as disobeying God.

One of the official books of the church thus sets forth this extravagant and blasphemous claim: "Men who hold the priesthood possess Divine authority thus to act for God; and by possessing part of God's power, they are in reality part of God;. . . and those who reject it, reject God, even the power of God." ("New Witness for God," p. 187.)

This tyrannical priesthood dictates and controls all the affairs of the people in the average Mormon community.

2.   The Mormon System is thoroughly anti-Christian. While appropriating to itself Christian phraseology, and New Testament names and forms, it perverts or denies every fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion. It not only denies but ridicules the Christian doctrine of the spirituality of God, and teaches the people that He is a big man like Brigham Young. For Mormonism teaches that Adam is the god of this world. It denies that Christ's atonement has anything to do with our sins, but only with the sins of Adam. To get rid of our sins, we must work out our salvation through the teachings, and forms, and ordinances of the Mormon Church, with its multiplied baptisms for the dead.

3.   Mormonism is a deliberate counterfeit of the Christian religion, intended to deceive the ignorant. It calls itself, "The Church of Jesus Christ," a name to which it can lay no claim. The term "Church" is a Christian name and belongs alone to Christians — to those who are loyal to the Christian Church, to Jesus Christ as the Divine and only head of the Church, and to the Bible as the supreme and only revelation from God.

(1)   Mormonism tries to palm off on the world a counterfeit prophet in the person of Joseph Smith. He had all the marks of a counterfeit or false prophet, and not one of the marks of a true prophet. In prophetic times, what were the marks of a true prophet? In the first place, he was a man of pure and upright life; he was noted for spirituality of mind, so that he could discern spiritual truth and teach it to others. He was loyal to God, everywhere and always, and he never made merchandise of his prophetic office. Joseph Smith was just the very opposite of this. Instead of living a pure and upright life,he was immoral and wicked, as we shall presently see. He had no spirituality whatever, and he constantly made merchandise of his pretended prophetic position, so that it secured for him houses and lands, and valuable corner-lots and lucrative offices, such as the office of mayor, municipal magistrate, municipal judge, lieutenant-general of the Nauvoo Legion, and the nomination to be president.

The Mormon people have allowed themselves to be grievously deceived by his Autobiography, written in 1838. He tries to make out that when he was fifteen, he was a pious, praying youth, greatly concerned about religion, and especially troubled because there were so many religious sects, he could not tell which one to join.

Now let us see what Joseph Smith's immediate neighbors have to say about his character. There is no lack of evidence. Joseph Smith's father and mother, with the other children, removed from Vermont to Palmyra, Ontario County, New York, in the summer of 1815. They were fortune-tellers, dreamers, vision-seers. The father was a money-digger, and the son Joseph became famous all through that region as a money-digger. Young Joseph was about eleven years old at this time, having been born in Sharon, Vermont, Dec. 23, 1805. After two or three years they moved about three miles south to Manchester where they lived up to 1830. Take first the testimony of Pomeroy Tucker, editor of the "Wayne Sentinel," at Palmyra, on whose press the first edition of the Book of Mormon was printed. Says Mr. Tucker: "At this period (from 1820 to 1830] in the life and career of Joseph Smith, Jr., or 'Joe Smith', as he was universally named, and the Smith family, they were popularly regarded as an illiterate, whisky-drinking, irreligious race of people; the first named, the chief subject of this biography, being unanimously voted the laziest and most worthless of the generation. . . . He could utter the most palpable exaggeration, or marvelous absurdity, with the utmost apparent gravity." ("Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism," p. 16.)

In 1833 sixty-two residents of Palmyra made affidavit, over their own signatures, to the following statements:
"We, the undersigned, have been acquainted with the Smith family for a number of years while they resided near this place, and we have no hesitation in saying that we consider them destitute of that moral character which ought to entitle them to the confidence of any community. . . . Joseph Smith, Sr., and his son Joseph, were, in particular, considered entirely destitute of moral character and addicted to vicious habits." There is much more evidence of a similar character.

(2)   Mormonism tries to palm off on the world a counterfeit Bible, which it calls the "Book of Mormon" and sets forth as a revelation from God, putting it on the same level with our own Christian Bible, placing the two side by side in the Mormon pulpit. Now the Book of Mormon is simply a poor and weak imitation of our English Bible — a lifeless counterfeit. Where did the Book of Mormon come from?
Let all that absurd, fictitious yarn of Joseph Smith, about an angel disclosing to him the box hidden in the hill of Cumorah, New York, on whose golden plates, in the reformed Egyptian language, was contained the material out of which he translated the Book of Mormon — let all that be cut out as having not a particle of foundation. There was no angel. The only plates Joseph Smith ever dug out of the hill of Cumorah, or any other hill, were put there by himself or by one of his agents. While the literature in regard to the origin of the Book of Mormon is quite voluminous, the real facts about its origin can be stated in small compass. In 1808-09 the Rev. Solomon Spaulding settled down as a citizen in the town of Conneaut, in north-eastern Ohio. He was a man of education, having graduated from Dartmouth College, in New Hampshire in 1785. He studied theology, and for a number of years was a minister of one of the Christian denominations in western New York. He had given up preaching, and had settled down in Conneaut as a business man, seeking to establish an iron foundry.

Being fond of Bible literature and religious romance and archaeology, he became interested in the many Indian mounds in that region, and especially in their builders. This led him to plan a religious romance, in which he brought a colony of the Lost Tribes from Jerusalem into this country, where they developed into two nations, the Nephites and the Lamanites, a purely imaginary people. The Book of Mormon, composed of fifteen different books, gives an account of their wanderings, hardships and battles. The records are alleged to have been written on plates of brass. These plates begin to jingle on the second page of the Book of Mormon, and they continue to jingle until they are finally sealed up and hidden away in the hill of Cumorah, near Palmyra, in 420 A. D.

Now there are ten, intelligent witnesses, who stated over their affidavit in 1833, when the subject was fresh in mind, that about 1811-12, they heard Solomon Spaulding reading a religious story from the "Manuscript Found," trying to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Lost Tribes. They remembered the quaint phraseology, and the queer names, Lehi, Nephi, Jarom, Moroni, and the rest. The expression, "and it came to pass," occurred so often, the boys nick-named Spaulding, "Old Come-to-Pass." When the Book of Mormon was published these witnesses identified at once the queer names and phraseology.

When Esquire Wright heard the Book of Mormon read in Conneaut he exclaimed, "'Old Come-to-Pass' has come to life again." These witnesses were John Spaulding, brother of Solomon, his wife Martha Spaulding, Henry Lake, business partner of Solomon Spaulding, John N. Miller, who worked for Spaulding, Aaron Wright, Oliver Smith, and Naham Howard, three of Spaulding's neighbors, and Artemas Cunningham, of Geauga County, who visited Spaulding in October, 1811, to collect a debt. Spaulding showed him a story he was writing about the lost tribes. Mr. Cunningham spent half the night listening to the story. When the Book of Mormon appeared he recognized that in outline it was the same thing that Spaulding had read to him. The two other witnesses are the widow of Solomon Spaulding, and Mr. Joseph Miller, of Amity, Pa., where Spaulding died.

The evidence clearly shows that the Book of Mormon grew out of Spaulding's story, but the defenders of Mormonism lose their mental balance whenever this subject is mentioned, and they treat it dishonestly. They say: "We have the Spaulding manuscript in the Oberlin College Library, brought back from Honolulu in 1884 by President Fairchild, and there is no connection between it and the Book of Mormon." Certainly not. No person well informed about the history of Mormonism ever claimed that there is any connection. But why say, "We have the Spaulding Manuscript"? All that the facts warrant is, "There is a Spaulding manuscript in Oberlin," and the possession of that manuscript will afford no help to the defenders of Mormonism against the plagiarism of the book until they do one thing which they are unable to do; namely, establish a general negative, and show that this manuscript in Oberlin College Library is the only manuscript which Solomon Spaulding ever wrote. This can not be done, for there is conclusive evidence that he wrote three or four manuscripts , and one of them was the "Manuscript Found," which he read to his neighbors, and which formed the basis of the Book of Mormon. So when the champions of Mormonism say: "The Book of Mormon could not have grown out of the Spaulding manuscript, for that manuscript is in Oberlin, and there is no connection between it and the Book of Mormon," they take a dishonest position by falsely assuming that this is the only manuscript Spaulding wrote, whereas there is positive evidence that he wrote several manuscripts. The fact, therefore, is established by abundant evidence that the Book of Mormon is a plagiarism from Spaulding's religious romance.

Just when Rigdon, Pratt, and Smith first met and concocted the dishonest scheme of the buried plates is not altogether clear, probably about 1827. A strenuous attempt has been made to show that Rigdon and Pratt had no knowledge of the Book of Mormon until its publication, and they go through the wretched farce of pretending to be converted to Mormonism after the Book of Mormon had been published, which they say they knew nothing about before, although evidence shows that they both had been in the scheme to publish it since 1827. What a set of deceivers!

The one important fact is the plagiarism of the Book of Mormon from the Spaulding romance, entitled "Manuscript Found." It is not specially important to know who edited the Spaulding story, and developed it into the present Book of Mormon. But all the evidence points to Sidney Rigdon, and it points to no one else.

The evidence shows the following things: That a copy of the Spaulding manuscript was in the printing office of Patterson and Lambdin, in Pittsburg, for a good while after 1814; that Rigdon and Lambdin were on intimate terms from 1818 to the death of Lambdin in August, 1825; that more than two years before the publication of the Book of Mormon, Rigdon had spoken to several of his friends about the coming publication of a book from golden plates, which would produce a great religious revolution. During these two years Rigdon was preaching wild and startling doctrines, afterwards found in the Book of Mormon.

Any one familiar with the peculiar Campbellite doctrines of that time can not read far into the Book of Mormon without discovering that the author had been a Campbellite. His "speech bewrayeth" him in the employment of phraseology to which lie had become accustomed while associated with the brethren of that denomination. Furthermore, the book is full of Rigdon's own peculiar views. He deserves credit, however, for making the Book of Mormon condemn polygamy, and for condemning it himself, which brought him into sharp conflict with both Joseph Smith and his successor, Brigham Young.


The author McNiece goes on, but the reader can get the idea of how the NT lacks such a similar hostile Jewish anti-witness testimony, adding to the veracity of the NT.

I apologize if the direct quoting offends anyone.

Peace.

[archaeologist]

i am glad someone started this thread as i can now put this link toa good video here that talks about archaeology, the Bible and the book of mormon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1mFdO1wB08

this topic may be a little off focus here but it is nice to clear somethings up

[Brianroy]

In  Doctrine and Covenant 84, Joseph Smith in September 1832 declared that: “This generation shall not pass away until an House shall be built unto the L-RD…upon the consecrated spot I have appointed.”

Where is that  house that only Joseph Smith could consecrate  now?  How can it have passed into such obscurity if it were really a House or Temple to the L-RD? 

In Doctrines and Covenant 97, Joseph Smith  in August 1833 speaks of a “zion”.  In D&C 101, Jackson County,  Missouri is designated as this site. 

Where are the archaeological finds to this  site to identify it with the Book of Mormon past?    Could it be that hidden cities of the Mormon past lay under Jackson County, Missouri?  No.  Because in  Chapter 6 of the Pearl of Great Price, we find “Missouri” to be “Eden”.  What can archaeology expect from digging up a former perfect garden?  Nothing really.   So I guess archaeology must keep on looking. 

But what about the hundreds of millions of homes and businesses, etc.,  that have dug out foundations all across America these last 180 years since the Mormon origin in Joseph Smith and others?  We have found identifiable Native American burial sites throughout this nation...why not Mormon ones?

Then we have, beyond its founder being questioned, Mormonism's evolving doctrines from its very beginning...whereas Jewish Christianity in the First Century is firm and resolute, evolving not in principles but in ethnicities as it spreads into the nations. 

150 years after its founding, the literary history and witness of Irenaeus (and later others) testify that Christianity is sound and in agreement, meeting in common (as they trade and politic or what have you) at Rome.

In D & C 20:17-18 we have the theology of the eternal “G-D in Heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable G-D, the framer of Heaven and Earth…the only living and true G-D.”    This concept of a “one G-D” is repeated in Alma 11:21-22,26-29; 2 Nephi 11:7 and 31:21; 3 Nephi 11:27, 36; and Mosiah 15:1-5 and 16:15. 

Yet, the Mormon articles of faith in just one lifetime from its founder will jointly  utter: “As man is, G-D once was; as G-D is, man may become.” 

 In the Presidents and Prophets of Mormonism via the Journal of Discourses (etc,) and the Articles of Faith exercise replacement theology, which MUST discard the Old and New Testament as being de facto “Scriptures…the words of the Almighty and One True Deity”. 

 When this is realized…we can understand that there is no hope for excavating anywhere specifically...because a new revelation can come, and dismiss the Book of Mormon entirely, and all archaeological aspirations to discover these fictious cities...leaving only an excised version of the Journal of Discourses, the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines and Covenants, and who knows what else...perhaps Greek Mythology for all we know (with these councils of the multitude of all these gods that have cropped up in that system).

Strangely enough, though not archaeologically per se, we have visited one of the locales mentioned by these living Scripture Revelations of the LDS President Prophets, though.  Where might you ask?  The moon.

I kid you not…a good read of the Journal of Discourses will have us realize why the writer I quoted at the first would not include the work in his declaration.  We would  read , for example, of those people who inhabit the moon and the sun (13:271), 
“Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?
   So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun…no question of it; it was not made in vain.  It was to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets….”
a mythology that has been disproved by Astronomical observation  and lunar landings in the past century.     

In Moroni 10:4-5, we are charged by the writer of the Book of Mormon to ask if these things are true...and that the truth will be made manifest to us.  And the answer historically, archaeologically, theologically, and so on...is that when people are sufficiently emotionalized behind a belief system without "rest" assuring facts... in the end, the facts don't matter.  It will simply boil down to a matter of family and community loyalties. 

There is only one Bible, and it is tied to one Jewish people in one land: Israel; promulgated by exclusive Divine Inspiration and exclusive Divine Utterance into One Book.  That means it can only be an Old and New Testament...No Talmud (which deals more with legalese, opinions, some exaltations of men over G-D in wisdom by alleged Bat Qols, etc.).  No Koran.  No Book of Mormon.   If those other works are viewed holy by the beholder, for whatever reason, they must rise or fall on their own. 

There is only one Bible, and it is tied to one Jewish people in one land: Israel; and it stays rooted there...to Israel...even when in exile or among the Diaspora.

This is why Mormonism cannot, nor ever will be, a form of "biblical archaeology". 

Peace.

[RBeron]

Brianroy writes,

Mormon archaeology...infers one writer...is precisely that...Mormon.  Notice that this writer does not include the NT or OT as "scripture":

The sources within the LDS church are within its basic scripture, i.e. The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Old and New Testament.  Anything else is speculative theology on the part of individuals.  It is an axiom within the LDS church that anything that is not sustained by the members of the church is not to be considered scripture or canon including speeches given by Brigham Young.  Incidently, BY is quoted in the Journal of Discourses which is NOT considered canon in the church.  

Try re-reading the passage while OT and NT are not expressly made clear certainly Old Testament and New Testament are.

The demonstration of continual historic influence, the multitudes of artifacts, the chain of custody and age of its documents, uplifts the OT and NT and -- apologetically -- dismisses Mormonism's distinct claims.

Not necessarily.  Many archaeologists including Wm Dever and I.  Finkelstein have argued that many sites in Israel are not consistent with the time line provided in the OT.
While these cities most assuredly did exist they were coexistent with the text presented in the OT.

William Foxwell Albright, "The Archaeology of Palestine" Third Reprint. (Great Britain, Penguin Books, 1954). pp 250,256

Albright was a great scholar, but most of his theories have been overturned by more modern scholarship in the past 53 years.

by the Rev. R.G. McNiece, D.D.,
for twenty years prior to 1897 Pastor
First Presbyterian Church, Salt Lake City, Utah
The writer (R.G. McNiece) has lived in Salt Lake City, the official headquarters of Mormonism, for over thirty years,

It is altogether telling that you need to go back to a publication that is almost 100 years old.  Certainly there is something a bit more modern and scholarly than that presented by the good Rev. McNiece?

[Brianroy]

RB,
Some LDS folks can claim that Aztecs, Mayans,  and others are Mormon cultures; but those Universities devoted to the study (and Native Americans themselves) say otherwise. 

Why haven't the Native Americans whole-heartedly backed the Book of Mormon, citing and writing down volumes of documentation of similar oral traditions passed down to them from their fore-fathers?

 By all accounts in the argument for LDS claims regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon, Native Americans should outnumber "caucasian" LDS members in the U.S. overall, and there should be a like percentage of them in the LDS government, including its Presidency, etc., if the B of M were historically valid on its face. 

The Old and New Testament are treated by Mormon society as simply old books to be improved upon...no differently than the J. Witness new revelations, and the promotion of a city block of Brooklyn, New York promoted by them as being "Zion".  The emphasis removes from the documents to the "living prophets" or whatever the title. 

Sunday is consecrated more as a "family" devotion day in Mormon Culture than it is about digging for truth and facts.  That is the primary hook and attractiveness of the organization, not historicity in the Old and New Testaments or adhering to a faithful theology specifically rooted in, and faithful to, those books.   

McNiece was a man who heard the great patriarchs of LDS speak firsthand at events, etc., from Brigham Young onward.

"he has heard Mormonism expounded and defended, again and again, by its chief officials — by President Brigham Young, and President John Taylor, and their successors, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith. In various Mormon meeting-houses, also, from Idaho to Arizona, he has heard the system set forth by many of its chief apostles, bishops, and elders" - the article tells us.

That is, McNiece was an eyewitness to the validity of that historical documentation we have received down to our times, which appears in or follows that set forth in:  the Millenial Star, King Folliet's Discourse, the Journal of Discourses, Doctrines & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, etc.

By demonstrating the disingenuineness of the Book of Mormon itself, and that it was known by hostile witnesses as a forgery  from the beginning by whole hamlets of witnesses...we discontinue any need to credit any weight to such alleged cities or civilizations based on fiction. We also must disassociate such from the Bible as well. 

I think that if the book of Mormon were genuinely considered a Third Testament by the LDS leadership...they would have pushed a four inch thick Bible having the Old & New Testaments and the Book of Mormon in one volume for the last 170 years.  Their disdain on that level, is also a sign of the awareness of the leadership in that organization that the "third" testament is not a de facto "historically based or historically reliable" document.  If they read my post on this date, February 10, 2008, and decide to now publish such a work...we still have the last almost 180 years to criticize the other missionary approach they used in keeping the Book of Mormon separate.

Are there problems with Finkelstein?  He might be a nice person, but I have nothing positive to say about any of his versions of history or interpretations. He seems intent even on denying his own Jewish existence as authentic, and we'll leave it at that. 


If you have some counter-history that shows what is exclusively in the Book of Mormon is confirmed in archaeology in the pre-Columubian era...and it can stand being run by the Smithsonian Institute, Arizona University, and a few other places in the know...please lay it for us to check out, and verify. 

Thank you kindly,  for your time and participation in the discussion. 

[RBeron]

Brianroy writes,

Why haven't the Native Americans whole-heartedly backed the Book of Mormon, citing and writing down volumes of documentation of similar oral traditions passed down to them from their fore-fathers?

In some ways they have.  In Mexico and South America they have accepted the concept of Queztlcoatl or Viacona as distinct gods that have some semblance in BofMormon theology.  I would suppose the best evidence for this is their conversion rates.

By all accounts in the argument for LDS claims regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon, Native Americans should outnumber "caucasian" LDS members in the U.S. overall, and there should be a like percentage of them in the LDS government, including its Presidency, etc., if the B of M were historically valid on its face. 

First, of all I have trouble accepting the historicity of the BofM while still accepting its inspiration.  Secondly, if there were Old World incursions into New World traditions it would have been highly limited and regional rather than pan-hemispheric.  Third, the BofMormon story details that all caucasoid members were killed off leaving only the more dominant meso-americans.

The Old and New Testament are treated by Mormon society as simply old books to be improved upon...no differently than the J. Witness new revelations, and the promotion of a city block of Brooklyn, New York promoted by them as being "Zion".  The emphasis removes from the documents to the "living prophets" or whatever the title. 

That is simply not true and ignores the scholarly research by the LDS with Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient writings.

Sunday is consecrated more as a "family" devotion day in Mormon Culture than it is about digging for truth and facts.  That is the primary hook and attractiveness of the organization, not historicity in the Old and New Testaments or adhering to a faithful theology specifically rooted in, and faithful to, those books.   

Again, you are incorrect.  Sunday's are set apart for the worship of Jesus and God.  While belief in the historicity in the OT and NT is varied it is nonetheless a foundational belief in the church.  From LDS.org it states, "Latter-day Saints revere the Bible. They study it and believe it to be the word of God. However, they do not believe the Bible, as it is currently available, is without error."  I think this is a basic belief held by many.

McNiece was a man who heard the great patriarchs of LDS speak firsthand at events, etc., from Brigham Young onward.

Sorry, but that means little.  So have I as have other millions.

That is, McNiece was an eyewitness to the validity of that historical documentation we have received down to our times, which appears in or follows that set forth in:  the Millenial Star, King Folliet's Discourse, the Journal of Discourses, Doctrines & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, etc.

Given that Rev. McNiece is de facto prejudiced in his views and would only represent that which his time and understanding would allow then he is hardly unbiased in his reporting.  There are still many others who had the same yet different experience.

By demonstrating the disingenuineness of the Book of Mormon itself, and that it was known by hostile witnesses as a forgery  from the beginning by whole hamlets of witnesses...we discontinue any need to credit any weight to such alleged cities or civilizations based on fiction. We also must disassociate such from the Bible as well. 

How would they know?  Have they seen the plates? Held them?  Examined them?  Were they experts in epigrahic studies?  Probably not while we, again, have many others who have attested to their reality and subsequent "translation".

I think that if the book of Mormon were genuinely considered a Third Testament by the LDS leadership...they would have pushed a four inch thick Bible having the Old & New Testaments and the Book of Mormon in one volume for the last 170 years.

Huh...they did.  It is called the quad edition.  And yes, it is about four inches, but whether it is all together or separately matters little.

we still have the last almost 180 years to criticize the other missionary approach they used in keeping the Book of Mormon separate.

Again, from the church's website, "When holy men of God write or speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, their words "shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation" (D&C 68:4). The official, canonized scriptures of the Church, often called the standard works, are the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price."



 

[Elijah]

I believe an archeology is to do both sides, prove what is true, and what is not. So if it takes archeology to disprove Missouri as Eden, then let the Mormons into it. If it takes Mayan DNA and Aztec DNA and Native American DNA to prove they are not Jewish, let it be done too. The world is the city of God and so the whole world is indeed biblical archeology. Either the Bible refers to the whole planet or it doesnt. I vote for it as global. Let the proof be displayed. But let the attempt to control this forum cease. Who should say that a Mormon should not speak on this platform. Let that one be removed from this forum. I find these members are behaving like Pharisees asserting the power of death. The tongue is a sword, i beleive it should be briddled but by one-self not by others force. Those who seek to bridle some one elses tongue do not succeed and so they take the next step and attempt with teh sword of their tongue to get others to use a real sword taking action on others. In fact i regard this as very womanly on a man's part to do, like they think they have a pretty face and desired body to send men off to war and kill others just for them. Have respect for their freedom to pursue anything untrue; it is the same respect you want others to have of YOU should you perhaps be on a wrong path yourself. Or should you be banned as nonbiblical archeology too.

A calendar change in date was made in 100 BC using the Venus
Quetzalcoatl's return. This means he is not Jesus
who supposedly came to them in 33 AD and said he would return.
Quetzalcoatl is a firebird (Phoenix = Venus).
He is also like Vishnu saving man thru the Flood. but by counting
3744 years this equates not with the Flood in year 1656 but
with 600 years after the Flood. The difference is a January 6 Venus
in Capricorn versus a July 10 Venus with sun in Leo.
Coming out of  Ash (Leo the lion) is part of the myth.
So Quetzalcoatl of the Flood star year 2256 of Adam is
not the Flood but actually 1770 BC July 10 sun in Leo.
If Moslem tradition is correct that Nimrod lived 500
this would be 2270-1770 BC. Where's the connection?
The  Phoenix is said to be him 500 years.
Also Tamuz is said to be him and Mars is behind the sun on
that date.
Also Phoenix firebird (Quetzal bird) is said to be sothic 1460
years, but sothic venus is 1458 years to 312 BC Era.
So confirmations exist everywhere.

Point is the August 12 date was caluclated by Maya in 100 BC
which means a returnign Quetzalcoatl before JESUS.
Also Mormon chornology in theat book matches
James Ussher's in King James 1650 AD bible. So i find it
odd that any gold tablets would speak in a King James accent.
with king james timelines. Need i say simple fraud long
before any DNA test of Maya or american indians.
After March 10 we will tax the LDS church.
I already wrote the Watchtower to tell them to solidify all
electronic assets, and be ready to be willing to pay tax
as all churches will, or say they will until they all kill off
each other around the world. Soldiers like Romans win,
and religion like Jerusalem of 70 AD will lose.
The beast is about to eat the church.
LDS first  hehehehehe and you guys keep saying its the
7 hills of the Pope.

[kattey]

Gospels must be regarded as reliable texts?

Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyon (ca. 130-200 CE), was responsible for choosing many books of the New Testament.  Scholars say there were hundreds of writings about Jesus at that time, but Irenaeus was only interested in those that fit his philosophy:  Jesus was divine.  He was against the Gnostic Gospels so they were going around back then.  Thanks to Christian Copts of Egypt, the GG books were hidden instead of destroyed so we have an idea of opposing views (Jesus was not divine according to them.)  I wonder if there are more books in the Vatican archives...

Gratitude is owed to the Mormons for all their work in geneology, which enables nonMormons to find their ancestors too.  I recently read they are very active in Mayan archaeology as they think they were related somehow.  Whatever.  Each bit of knowledge is precious.

[eliyahu hanavi]

What Mormon cultures? Facts are facts. There is not one shred of credible evidence to back the BoM. Native Americans have been long since established to be linked to Mongoloid Asians through DNA. There is no archaeological evidence at all. Some important things (such as 600 years from the first year of Zedekiah to the birth of Jesus) is patently incorrect. Around the time of the Babylonian Captivity, the Jews did not use phrases such as "Holy Ghost" and they did not use nicknames such as Sam (although, Joseph Smith had a brother named Sam for Samuel). If one pays close attention, there are texts in the BoM that were all but pasted verbatim from the OT--the funny thing being that some of these texts weren't written and compiled at the time. As for the "gold plates", many of the so-called witnesses (in addition to most being close relatives) later either recanted or said that they never saw them except in a spiritual manner. There is a nice bit of racism in II Nephi. Also, does nobody find it strange that the "gold plates" were taken back to be hidden when no other Biblical and Scriptural text was. Then there was Anthon (a letter of which can be found here):

Anthon Letter

Having stated the above, I still remain open-minded to the extent that some evidence may be actually brought forward.

When I am presented with some verifiable evidence of some of the

[Brianroy]

There has been only one piece of evidence that could remotely support the Book of Mormon...which Cyrus Gordon was convinced as genuine.

It is the Bat Creek inscription.  However, the examinationof the inscription shows it to be along the lines of forgeries which have plagued American Archaeology from the early 1800s to the great Mormon artifact forgeries
murders in the mid-1980s, in which we found that HUNDREDS of fakes are now floating around in regard to Mormonism. 

The Mormon Forgery Murders  -- The Crime Library - The Crime library


We are therefore reliant upon pre-1978 historic findings, before the career of the master Mormon forger; or post-1985 archaeology of virgin sites prior to the digs.

I do think it possible for Romans, Greeks, -- cultures that intimately knew Egypt's pyramids -- or other expeditions to have made (storm blown?) one way trips landing on the American continents.  The Mayan (and other culture) Central American pyramids appear to date to such a period as such an influence.  However, we can only speculate to such possibilities at this time.

[archaeologist]

having read "the mormon murders' it is hard to take any document or statement made by the Mormon authorities as authentic.  Their gullibility has been exposed and is a great weak spot to their credibility.

First, of all I have trouble accepting the historicity of the BofM while still accepting its inspiration

i would like to ask how you could actually take such a position?  if the history is a known lie then the 'inspiration' must be false also for no truth will validate  nor can it be 'inspiration' if it associates with a lie.

the two are opposites and we see through arcaheology and other fields found in life  that the inspiration of the BIble is valid for its history has been verified on many occassions.

Secondly, if there were Old World incursions into New World traditions it would have been highly limited and regional rather than pan-hemispheric

the problem here is that there is nothing to support old world incursions as stated by the book of mormon.  we are not talking about a hittite omission for 1800 years here, but an 19th century story told with nothing to back it up.  there is quite a difference. between the two.

The fact that we can and could verify many of the sites and cities mentioned in the Bible shows that it is not wrong when talking about ancient nations.  whereas again, nothing similar can be said about the book of mormon.

Third, the BofMormon story details that all caucasoid members were killed off leaving only the more dominant meso-americans.

where are the cemetaries?  the skeletons? the artifacts for such an event? sorry but the book of MOrmon doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

From LDS.org it states, "Latter-day Saints revere the Bible. They study it and believe it to be the word of God. However, they do not believe the Bible, as it is currently available, is without error."

then you do not believe the Bible.  you cannot say on one hand 'i believe the Bible...' then on the other add a 'but...' to the sentence.  peter fisk (i think is his name) an archaeologist in a lecture stated that the KJV is 99%+ accurate.  and that most errors are just minor textul problems.

How would they know?  Have they seen the plates? Held them?  Examined them?  Were they experts in epigrahic studies?  Probably not while we, again, have many others who have attested to their reality and subsequent "translation".

the problem with these plates is that only one man basically saw them and that they are declared to be a revelation of God which contradicts the Bible.  God's revelation ended 2000 years ago, approx., and anything after that time cannot be supported as accurate or true. Compare that fact with the 30 or so authors of the Biblical books, writing over 1-2,000 years while maintaining the same theme, message, hope and salvation.

there is a big difference here you are ignoring.

"When holy men of God write or speak by the power of the Holy Ghost, their words "shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation" (D&C 68:4).

but that is contradictory to what the Bible says and examples.  Peter clearly states-- 'all scripture is given by God...' (paraphrase)  he does not say we are holy men and what we write is God's word.  again there is a difference but it is there.

[RBeron]

having read "the mormon murders' it is hard to take any document or statement made by the Mormon authorities as authentic.  Their gullibility has been exposed and is a great weak spot to their credibility.

Sorry A.  You are simply looking for an argument.  I'm not buying.

[archaeologist]

Sorry A.  You are simply looking for an argument.  I'm not buying

amazing, youthink you can read minds.  sorry but that was not even in my thoughts when i made the post.

the argument you need to starightenout and prove the book of mormon valid is discuss openly and honestly the contradictions between the Bible and the B.M.

what it boils right down to is that Mormons say they believe the Bible but they follow the B.M.

you are not buying because you have no legitmate argument nor defense which explains how you can dismiss the historicity of the B. M. while still accepting the 'inspiration'.  from my position, that is animpossulbe thing to do for such a position just undermines itself.