LDS Evidences

[dan]

Is there anything else you can tell me about any similarities between Jewish and New World architecture?

Here's an interesting article about the Elephantine Jews and Nephi's Temple. It also has some stuff about Book of Mormon names:

http://jefflindsay.com/bme20.shtml

And to strengthen the position that Semites crossed the Atlantic long before anyone else:

http://jefflindsay.com/bme8.shtml

And if you go here and look in the table of contents for "The Use of Cement in Ancient America" you'll find some cool stuff. It has nothing really to do with near East building techniques, but a lot to do with how the Mesoamericans built.

http://jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#cement

 

[dan]

So, from my point of view, finding a baptism ritual in the Maya does not seem too conclusive of them being taught it by the risen Christ.

Here is some stuff regarding Mesoamerican traditions of a bearded god visiting them and promising to return (the entire article can be found here - http://text.farmsresearch.com/display.php?id=298&table=jbms :

Many of the symbols associated with Christ also belong to Quetzalcoatl and the Maize God, symbols that may appear both in pre-Columbian art motifs and in some later colonial literatures that do not seem to be Christian interpolations. Thus it is quite possible that features of the god Quetzalcoatl may be derived, in part, from Mesoamericans' remembrance of Christ's visit to the Americas. Those parts that fit the native traditions are these: a deity playing a role in the creation, "raising the sky"; a deity associated with the bread of life (a correspondence to maize); a deity assisting the dead; a deity shedding blood to save mankind; a deity dying on a tree (the Maize God's head hung in a tree); a deity resurrecting and being responsible for the rebirth of the deceased; and a personage of light who is associated with the sun.


We have already reviewed some of these attributes, and others are self-explanatory. There are further interesting aspects to explore. For example, other Christians equate some of the elements of the Maize God with Jesus Christ. In fact, the Maya of today find a strong association between their old god, the Maize God, and their new Christian god. A Catholic priest, Father Rother, wanted an ancient Maya symbol to represent God's aspect as the "bread of life" on the pulpit of a church in Santiago Atitlán, in Guatemala. Perhaps significantly, he chose the image of the Maya Maize God in lieu of an image of the Savior.


Bracketing mythological elements in the colonial manuscript Leyenda de los Soles, one glimpses a possible original understanding of Christ's sacrifice, this descent to the spirit world, and his promise to resurrect all people. Although this account apparently refers to those who died before the flood, this aspect may have been introduced after natives lost their understanding of the gospel.


The writing of Juan de Cordova regarding the light that emanated from a powerful man, and the account in the Popol Vuh of the sun's being like a person may stem from Christ's visit to the Americas. These two stories do not appear to be Christian manipulations and are in keeping with Christ's visit to Book of Mormon peoples. Although 3 Nephi 11:10–11 does not specifically say that the Lord descended from the clouds as a personage with light emanating from his being, it is plausible that he did. After all, he wore "a white robe" and, on the second day of his visit, radiated a brilliant light to his 12 disciples (see 3 Nephi 11:8; 19:25, 30).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The writing of Juan de Cordova regarding the light that emanated from a powerful man, and the account in the Popol Vuh of the sun's being like a person may stem from Christ's visit to the Americas.

Or it may not. The fact remains that "may have" and "could have" is not an argument but, rather, a feeble effort to dress up naked speculation. The options are pretty clear: one can believe dan or any number of dan-lookalikes, or one can understand the implications of the writings of folks likes of Carl Jung and Joseph Cambell.

Is Mesoamerican "baptism" evidence supporting Mormon 'history', or is it, like the sacred purification rituals associated with the Ganges, no more than an indication of the commonality of man? dan sees compelling evidence of the former. One wonders at the nature of the conspiracy by which he receives so little support from non-Mormon experts in the field. How could they be so blind?

 

[dan]

Their bias is just as strong as mine and yours.

I never said the former was anything but speculation. I don't know why you keep accusing me of trying to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. I just say it's interesting. This is not a court of law, and you are not the judge, despite your love for your own opinion and your constant accusations of what you think other people are implying by their statements.

 

[gnostic]

As I had said previously, in another thread, no one can verify what Joseph Smith translated to be true or not, because of those original gold plates had disappeared after his alleged translation.

Had the gold plates existed today, it would have been good evidences, but they are not here, so we only have his hearsay. That some of Joseph Smith's friends and associates (his apostles) had seen those gold plates also cannot be used as evidence, as eye-witnesses.


Unless we have those gold plates, whatever evidences we have from the Book of Mormon, can only be speculated to be true, but not as proof.

 

[SoyLeche]

As I had said previously, in another thread, no one can verify what Joseph Smith translated to be true or not, because of those original gold plates had disappeared after his alleged translation.

Had the gold plates existed today, it would have been good evidences, but they are not here, so we only have his hearsay. That some of Joseph Smith's friends and associates (his apostles) had seen those gold plates also cannot be used as evidence, as eye-witnesses.


Unless we have those gold plates, whatever evidences we have from the Book of Mormon, can only be speculated to be true, but not as proof.

As a point of interest - none of the 3 or 8 witnesses were ever among the apostles - and most of them at one time or another would not have considered themselves friends of Joseph Smith.

And, if eye witnesses can't be used as evidence every courtroom drama I've ever seen has been wrong.

I don't think anyone is trying to prove that the book is true, just that it is plausible.

 

[gnostic]

SoyLeche, I find Homer's The Iliad and The Odyssey "plausible". It doesn't mean that I believe them to be facts.

Yes, the Book of Mormon, like the Bible and Qur'an, is plausible, but cannot be proven with any great degree of certainity. Dan's argument is not convincing, nor substantial; they hardly amount to as evidences.

However, to be fair, other religious matters and events from other scriptures fare no better.

The building of pyramids in Meso-America and Andrean America, as compared to that of the Egypt, are not proof. There are similar pyramids and temple ruins in all over Cambodia too that more similar to Meso-American pyramids than to the Egyptian pyramids.

Also, the ancient Israelites were not known as pyramid builders. By Moses' time, the Egyptians had stopped building pyramids for almost a thousand year. The Egyptian pyramids were relics of the Old Kingdom dynasties. Moses and his fellow-Israelites were only Egypt in the 2nd Intermediate and New Kingdom, which was not a pyramid building age.

So why would Mormons assert that Ledhi's descendants build something like Meso-American pyramids?

 

[dan]

Unless we have those gold plates, whatever evidences we have from the Book of Mormon, can only be speculated to be true, but not as proof.

We do have eleven witnesses who signed statements as to the actuality of the plates. They swore that they saw and handled them. It is always pointed out that these men fell away from the church, but it is often left out that their character was never anything but impeccable and that, despite their actually trying to kill Joseph in some cases, they never once rescinded these sworn statements. They were asked to do it throughout their lives, but not a one of them ever did. Some of them signed deathbed confessions that what they witnessed was the absolute truth. They were offered money and threatened with death in an effort to get them to deny the actuality of the plates and the angel, but none of them ever did it.

Just how many witnesses do you require to qualify as "proof"? This would be plenty in a court of law. There is no evidence that the plates are not real, and that the claim is false. All the evidence is in our favor, so how does the burden of proof lie with us?

 

[SoyLeche]

So why would Mormons assert that Ledhi's descendants build something like Meso-American pyramids?

Short answer - becuase a book that the Holy Ghost has told us is true says they did.

Most of what Dan is doing is showing that the common attacks on the BoM are unfounded. There are similarities between what is being found and what the BoM says should be found are pretty convincing to me - but I already believe the book is true. Nobody is asking you to convert because of what has been presented here. You don't have to believe it.

 

[dan]

SoyLeche, I find Homer's The Iliad and The Odyssey "plausible". It doesn't mean that I believe them to be facts.

Yes, the Book of Mormon, like the Bible and Qur'an, is plausible, but cannot be proven with any great degree of certainity. Dan's argument is not convincing, nor substantial; they hardly amount to as evidences.

However, to be fair, other religious matters and events from other scriptures fare no better.

The building of pyramids in Meso-America and Andrean America, as compared to that of the Egypt, are not proof. There are similar pyramids and temple ruins in all over Cambodia too that more similar to Meso-American pyramids than to the Egyptian pyramids.

Also, the ancient Israelites were not known as pyramid builders. By Moses' time, the Egyptians had stopped building pyramids for almost a thousand year. The Egyptian pyramids were relics of the Old Kingdom dynasties. Moses and his fellow-Israelites were only Egypt in the 2nd Intermediate and New Kingdom, which was not a pyramid building age.

So why would Mormons assert that Ledhi's descendants build something like Meso-American pyramids?

I've never compared Egyptian pyramids to the temples of Mesoamerica. What I have said is that the ziggurats of the Near East are a by-product of the perversions of the true Gospel that was once had by them, as are the pyramids of Mesoamerica. They are virtually identical in form and function. Egyptians used their pyramids for tombs. Near Eastern cultures and Mesoamericans used their ziggurats as methods of elevating their temples. This was done because of the belief that ascending to those heights brought one closer to God and the ordinances and officiating that took place would be in His presence. This was the idea of the ancient Hebrew "house of the Lord" being on the mountain tops. When a temple wasn't available the mountains acted as the refuge of those seeking the company of deity. This is the inspiration for the star of David; one trianlge points down to represent God descending to meet the other trianlge, man, as it ascends so that the two may commune. Both cultures used the step pyramids exactly the same way. One was elevated to the presence of God to perform whatever ordinances their particular culture had swiped from the true Temple of God.

 

[gnostic]

LOL

I am yet to believe in God, Satan, angels and demons, so the Holy Spirit is not essential to what I believe to be evidence.

Here, this thread is talking about evidences. The Holy Spirit can't be proven in any way. What is based upon, is faith, not evidence. So why talk about evidence at all, is what this thread is really about, is faith?

 

[SoyLeche]

LOL

I am yet to believe in God, Satan, angels and demons, so the Holy Spirit is not essential to what I believe to be evidence.

Here, this thread is talking about evidences. The Holy Spirit can't be proven in any way. What is based upon, is faith, not evidence. So why talk about evidence at all, is what this thread is really about, is faith?

You asked why Mormons believe it. I gave the answer. We don't base our belief in physical evidence. That doesn't mean that there is none. Dan is here to highlight some of that evidence. I'd be very surprised if he said that he believed in the BoM because of the evidence, and I doubt he expects any of it to convince you that the BoM is true.

 

[SoyLeche]

As a point of interest - none of the 3 or 8 witnesses were ever among the apostles - and most of them at one time or another would not have considered themselves friends of Joseph Smith.

I will say, for the sake of full disclosure, that the 3 witnesses did choose the origional (modern) 12 Apostles. That doesn't have anything to do with anything, but neither does this :disco:

 

[Saint George]

Whoever wrote the book of mormon relied heavily on text from the OT. In fact, biblical scholars have pinpointed a book in the OT that is very similar to the phrases used in the book of mormon. So, it's not surprising that some references in this book were lifted right out of the OT, edited to suite the author's intentions and then pasted into this book. So, yes there are probably some vague references to actual events that occurred during Old Testament days. But that in no way validates the book of mormon. If anything, it adds more doubt to the divine authenticity of this book.

If you stare at the clouds in the sky in hopes of finding a familiar shape then your imagination will trace out that shape in the clouds. As with any other book, you can convince yourself of its legitimacy if you put your mind to it. If an archeologist finds a tablet with an inscription that says "the great nation to the west will carry its war chariots over the oceans and defeat the great evil in the north", one could interpret this as the US invading Normandy in WWII and defeating the nazis. They can then take it a step further and say that the person who wrote this had visions from heaven. Again, if you want to believe the book of mormon then you will find many unjustifiable reasons for doing so.

 

[dan]

Whoever wrote the book of mormon relied heavily on text from the OT. In fact, biblical scholars have pinpointed a book in the OT that is very similar to the phrases used in the book of mormon. So, it's not surprising that some references in this book were lifted right out of the OT, edited to suite the author's intentions and then pasted into this book. So, yes there are probably some vague references to actual events that occurred during Old Testament days. But that in no way validates the book of mormon. If anything, it adds more doubt to the divine authenticity of this book.

This argument is as weak as it is vague. What book is this, and what phrases are they? The fact that about 1% of the Book of Mormon may be similar to an OT book doesn't do a whole lot to cast a shroud of doubt over the rest of the book.

 

[Saint George]

This argument is as weak as it is vague. What book is this, and what phrases are they? The fact that about 1% of the Book of Mormon may be similar to an OT book doesn't do a whole lot to cast a shroud of doubt over the rest of the book.

I am not trying to argue with you. I realize the no matter how rational and strong my arguments are, I will not succeed in convincing you on the fallacies of the book of mormon. And I gain nothing if I were to succeed in convincing you of its fallacies. We are here to exchange ideas and hopefully learn from each other. But, arguing with an irrational person is fruitless. As I said in my earlier post, "if you want to believe in the book of mormon then you will find many unjustifiable reasons for doing so".

If you believe that the book of mormon makes you a better person then I say great. There are many many other popular books and magazines out there that perpetuate hate and selfishness. The davinci code is an example of the trash out there. Compared to most of the written trash out there, the book of mormon seems almost divine in nature. So, if the book of mormon keeps you from living a life of sin and calls you to love your neighbor and help your fellow man then its certainly worth reading and learning from it. And that's more that I can say for most of the books out there these days.

 

[dan]

I realize the no matter how rational and strong my arguments are, I will not succeed in convincing you on the fallacies of the book of mormon.

I'm not an irrational man. I am perfectly capable of recognizing the value of another's work.

My problem is that I have yet to see a conflict with the Book of Mormon that is not the result of blatant misinterpretations or misunderstandings. Not one. I promise I have seen more "evidence" against the Book of Mormon than anyone here, but I have yet to see one that is not based on either misunderstandings or misinterpretations about what the book teaches and claims. I know of which argument you refer to and I can point out the misunderstanding and the misinterpretations in it.

I am often told I am lying when I tell someone they are misinformed about what we believe or what the Book of Mormon teaches, and that's where the argument turns sour, but I will always trust anyone who brings a problem to me, and they can trust me to be perfectly honest about what we believe and teach.

 

[Halcyon]

Hey dan, thanks for the research you're doing- that comparison of the languages is the first thing i can't think of an alternative explaination for, but then i'm no linguist, interesting stuff.

I had actually heard of the returning God myth before. The version i heard was that they awaited a white, blonde, blue eyed man. Which is why when the Spanish arrived they welcomed them with open arms, which didn't do them much favours when the Spanish started their slaughter.
Alo your post mentions him being white and bearded, thus similar to Christ. Well, Christ of course was not white, also there is no actual evidence that he had a beard.

I don't think the myths of Quetzalcoatl are derived from Christ though;

Those parts that fit the native traditions are these: a deity playing a role in the creation, "raising the sky"; a deity associated with the bread of life (a correspondence to maize); a deity assisting the dead; a deity shedding blood to save mankind; a deity dying on a tree (the Maize God's head hung in a tree); a deity resurrecting and being responsible for the rebirth of the deceased; and a personage of light who is associated with the sun.

The bits i've highlighted are also correspondant with the Egyption God Osiris. Also, i don't think the head in a tree thing can really be called similar to crucifixion, i think that's a stretch.
Although its interesting, i don't really see evidence of them half-remembering a Christian past, they share as many similarities with Christendom as with Kemeticism. Plus the article makes a good point;

There is a very simple reason for such skepticism. Spanish chroniclers, desiring to please adherents of both Christianity and the religion of the indigenous natives, emphasized the powerful symbolic continuity between the Catholic and Mesoamerican belief systems.
...............................................
Some post-conquest stories clearly rest on Christian embellishment. For example, an account of a language that was no longer understood, akin to the episode of the Tower of Babel, appears in the Popol Vuh of the Quiché Maya, who live in the Guatemalan highlands.3 A story about parting waters, also mentioned in the Popol Vuh, is comparable to Moses' dividing the sea;4 and the writers of the Título de Totonicapán attest that they came from "the other part of the sea, from Civán-Tulán, bordering on Babylonia."5 Referring to the latter source, Allen Christenson notes that "most of the scriptural material [of the writings of Totonicpán] was taken directly from a Christian tract, the Theologia Indorum, written in 1553 by a Spanish priest named Domingo de Vico."6 Thus, apparent references in Mesoamerican texts to events known from the Bible cannot always be taken seriously.

How can we really know where original Mayan myth ends and Catholic interpolation begins? Especially in post-conquest documents.

 

[nutshell]

Whoever wrote the book of mormon relied heavily on text from the OT. In fact, biblical scholars have pinpointed a book in the OT that is very similar to the phrases used in the book of mormon. So, it's not surprising that some references in this book were lifted right out of the OT, edited to suite the author's intentions and then pasted into this book. So, yes there are probably some vague references to actual events that occurred during Old Testament days. But that in no way validates the book of mormon. If anything, it adds more doubt to the divine authenticity of this book.

If you stare at the clouds in the sky in hopes of finding a familiar shape then your imagination will trace out that shape in the clouds. As with any other book, you can convince yourself of its legitimacy if you put your mind to it. If an archeologist finds a tablet with an inscription that says "the great nation to the west will carry its war chariots over the oceans and defeat the great evil in the north", one could interpret this as the US invading Normandy in WWII and defeating the nazis. They can then take it a step further and say that the person who wrote this had visions from heaven. Again, if you want to believe the book of mormon then you will find many unjustifiable reasons for doing so.

The bold can refer to your belief in Catholicism just as it does ours of the BOM.

 

[silvermoon383]

Since someone mention languages earlier, I figured I share this. On page 92 of the book "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ On Trial" (2002 ed.) we find the following chart:

The first and 3rd columns are characters that were copied straight from the golden plates by Joseph Smith (they were given to Prof. Charles Anthon for verification and he affirmed that they were authentic). The 2nd and 4th columns are characters from Egyptian texts. The similarities are striking.

(Sorry for the large size. This was the smallest I could get it.)

Also, since the white god myths were also mention, page 314 lists many of the different names throughout the Americas that the different tribes had for this god. I found it interesting that the Algonquins of Canada and the Puan of the USA call this god Chee-Zoos and the Apaches and Navajo call him Yehhovah.