tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post4889138611248410697..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Evidence for the Mundane Versus the Evidence for the Divine: Archaeology and the ScripturesJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-36535865429854958582008-08-10T20:46:00.000-05:002008-08-10T20:46:00.000-05:00I've always thought the "find Zarahemla on a map" ...I've always thought the "find Zarahemla on a map" argument was awfully weak. If the church were to release an edition of the Book of Mormon that contained, for instance, the name Teotihuacan instead, would they then be obligated to admit the presence of archaeological evidence? (That's a rhetorical question-- I fully realize the timelines are completely off for the comparison.)<BR/><BR/>Or better yet, could I make up a story as Seth R. suggested that Jesus was a space alien that simultaneously appeared in Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria, Athens, Edo, Qufu, and Mathura, and point out that the existence of all these places constitutes evidence that I didn't just fabricate the story?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-90063499384914724472008-08-06T08:32:00.000-05:002008-08-06T08:32:00.000-05:00Will Dunn said: "Jeff,I will agree with the last p...Will Dunn said: <I>"Jeff,<BR/>I will agree with the last part of what you wrote. If there were sematic writings discovered in South America that talked of Nephite, Lamanite or any Book of Mormon people...it would be a bombshell!<BR/><BR/>I'll go as far as to say that it would turn the world upside down!"</I><BR/><BR/>Just like the fascinating evidence from the Arabian Peninsula relevant to First Nephi has caused a dramatic change in the stance of Book of Mormon critics? The tentative confirmations of numerous aspects of Nephi's journey - Valley of Lemuel, River Laman, Shazer, the south-southeast route, Nahom/NHM (with archaeological finds confirming it as an ancient burial place and as a name in the correct region and time), the "nearly due east" route, and plausible candidates for Bountiful, cumulatively should be viewed as astonishing finds worthy of serious consideration, but they are largely ignored. So how would any other bombshell in favor of the Book of Mormon be treated? I'm guessing it would be treated like Ron Paul: just ignored by those who want it to go away.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-38342050035633058512008-08-05T23:57:00.000-05:002008-08-05T23:57:00.000-05:00Thanks, MG, for your very thoughtful and profound ...Thanks, MG, for your very thoughtful and profound observations. I'm always gratified to find such posts; I've been learning a lot, even at my old Granny age.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59122487642060703912008-08-05T23:32:00.000-05:002008-08-05T23:32:00.000-05:00Let me add an addendum. Lest anyone think I am ag...Let me add an addendum. Lest anyone think I am against "evidence," this is not the case. I enjoy studying "evidences," apologetics, and finding verification of authenticity for the Book of Mormon and the Bible. I believe that the Lord does provide evidence of plausibility for the honest seeker who might be confused by detractors. It can serve the purpose of strengthening faith built on the foundation of a spiritual witness. It can provide enough argument for plausibility so that the sincere seeker actually takes the book seriously and moves to the next step to _really_ find out if the book is true. That step is asking God and receiving spiritual confirmation.<BR/><BR/>There are a myriad of evidences that contribute to the plausibility of the Book of Mormon. However, that is the best that will ever be done for any scriptural record. In the end, we have to put it to the test. We have to believe the opinions and point of view of the writers of the scripture. We have to evaluate the truth of the principles taught. Only a spiritual witness be "conclusive evidence" to the seeker. It is an individual matter. The Lord's plan is to provide enough plausibility for us to open our hearts and search deeper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-11353429845284522342008-08-05T22:06:00.000-05:002008-08-05T22:06:00.000-05:00I would like to step back and approach the issue f...I would like to step back and approach the issue from a scriptural principle point of view. As we debate what constitutes "evidence" of the Bible or any scriptural record, we might be compared to two fish in a fish bowl debating on how to determine whether the food shows up daily by random chance or by intervention of a higher power. Neither fish asks the question whether they actually have the tools they need to answer such a question using the crude implements found in the fish bowl.<BR/><BR/>Note carefully the following verses:<BR/><BR/>"If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread." (Matt 4:3)<BR/><BR/>Here Satan tempts Christ to show abuse His power and use it in an inappropriate way.<BR/><BR/>"If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross." (Matt 27:40)<BR/><BR/>Note that Christ confronts essentially the same temptation and challenge at the end of his ministry at the hand of His accusers that He faced from Satan.<BR/><BR/>What principle is at work here, whether it be through Satan directly or through the critics? In both of these scenarios, the critics are demanding that their definition of valid "evidence" be the standard of truth. They both require physical evidence produced on demand. It is the proverbial tail the wagging the dog. They put forth their criteria as _the_ criteria to be satisfied when the question must be asked, "What does <I>God</I> consider valid criteria for establishing His truths?"<BR/><BR/>I find many Christians that purport that their belief rests on archaeological or other supposedly scientific "evidence" are unwittingly allowing the detractors to define what constitutes "evidence" of spiritual matters. We often scramble to answer the call for secular evidence of the unbelievers without even questioning whether such a demand is even valid in God's eyes. <BR/><BR/>What was Christ's answer to these requests? "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." (Matt. 4:7). It is not God on trial down here, it is us. We are the fish. All of us. The refusal of a particular school of fish to consider that someone actually provides the food has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is provided by a person or not. Any artificial standards of truth that they put forth within the confines of the fish bowl are lacking at best.<BR/><BR/>I feel we are too quick to try to argue about evidence and too quickly concede the very definition of valid evidence in spiritual matters. Christ never satisfied such queries from critics, whether they be the Pharisees, those at the crucifixion, Herod, or Satan Himself. They would only see "the sign of Jonah." They were in no position to demand or define evidence.<BR/><BR/>I believe both the Bible and Book of Mormon. I found arguments for plausibility for both records. The nature of the Book of Mormon makes it so that circumstantial accuracies of time and location are all the more fascinating than those found in the Bible. Weaving ancient customs, writing style, etc., into a document revealed in the 19th century is no small feat.<BR/><BR/>However, such a foundation is a sandy one. We are then always at the mercy of the best apologist in the room. We are trusting "in the arm of the flesh." Christ told Matthew "follow me" and he did. Just like that. No artifacts produced. No archeology required. He just followed. Today someone that did this would be called a "dupe." <BR/><BR/>How did Peter know? He chose to ignore the opinions of the "experts" and simply said, "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." What was Christ's response? "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona." Why was he blessed? Because he was convinced by a string of ancient artifacts or by the debates of apologists? No. "for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Matt 16:17). This will simply always be the answer. It is the only valid one as far as The Father is concerned. Personal revelation is the criteria. It is God's criteria. It takes the power out of the hands of the "experts" and puts the responsibility squarely on the individual. It has always been so and always will be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12082155024630825882008-08-05T11:01:00.000-05:002008-08-05T11:01:00.000-05:00Jeff,I will agree with the last part of what you w...Jeff,<BR/>I will agree with the last part of what you wrote. If there were sematic writings discovered in South America that talked of Nephite, Lamanite or any Book of Mormon people...it would be a bombshell!<BR/><BR/>I'll go as far as to say that it would turn the world upside down!Will Dunnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05493640353112931871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15972562321992878432008-08-03T09:30:00.000-05:002008-08-03T09:30:00.000-05:00I've concluded that if the verification of religio...I've concluded that if the verification of religious belief was a purely intellectual endeavor than the only logical jutifiable conclusion would be the position of an agnostic. Supporting evidence is inconclusive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12812707044867623512008-08-02T01:00:00.000-05:002008-08-02T01:00:00.000-05:00Jeff,Sorry, did not mean to up set you or mess up ...Jeff,<BR/><BR/>Sorry, did not mean to up set you or mess up your blog I was just trying to point out the Nag Hammadi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls are some of the best supporting evidence that proves the LDS doctrines in the early church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59788168372695898992008-08-02T00:28:00.000-05:002008-08-02T00:28:00.000-05:00I whole heartedly agree with your comments overall...I whole heartedly agree with your comments overall. In fact, I recently wrote a post on this exact issue. I came across an Evangelical group whose sole purpose is to "expose" the falsehood of the Book of Mormon due to lack of historical evidence.<BR/><BR/>FAIR wrote a counter-attack and I added my own thoughts to the historicity issues in the Bible and Book of Mormon.<BR/><BR/>Feel free to check it out and add any thoughts you'd like:<BR/>http://graceforgrace.com/2008/07/21/faith-and-historicity-of-the-bible-and-book-of-mormon/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86259489944137732542008-08-01T22:25:00.000-05:002008-08-01T22:25:00.000-05:00That means I've set my delete key to "repetitive s...That means I've set my delete key to "repetitive stun" and just used it four times here.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-38162077811418187902008-08-01T22:23:00.000-05:002008-08-01T22:23:00.000-05:00I'm weary of the off-topic, repetitive, lengthy, a...I'm weary of the off-topic, repetitive, lengthy, and critical posts of a certain critic who thinks that my liberal encouragement of discussion here is a wall that he owns for his own graffiti. It's surprisingly fishy behavior for one claiming to do the Lord's work. So long, and thanks for all the fish.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59195993798003661722008-08-01T21:40:00.000-05:002008-08-01T21:40:00.000-05:00@Buckna, 4:53:I don't find Mano's "irrefutable evi...@Buckna, 4:53:<BR/><BR/>I don't find Mano's "irrefutable evidence" for the miracle at Bethsaida compelling in the least. As evidence, its value is at the very best second-hand hearsay, recorded a generation after it presumably happened. Nor is there enough detail in the record to make a physiological judgment about the man's vision after the miracle occurred. Can this sort of diagnosis be faith-enhancing? Certainly, but it is also not "irrefutable". A skeptic would require evidence that the man even existed outside of the mind of the story's author. <BR/><BR/>"Irrefutable" means that you produce the man, produce medical evidence of his condition before he encountered Christ, and medical evidence of his condition afterward. Otherwise, we're dealing with a very loose standard of "irrefutable", a standard <B>not </B>granted to Mormons producing supporting evidence for the Book of Mormon. <BR/><BR/>Does this mean that I don't believe that this miracle happened? No, not at all. But I find the demand that we prove the stories of the New Testament true to be very strange, and to result in a great deal of unconvincing "evidence" such as the one offered. I also find it contradictory to the essence of faith provided in Hebrews 11:1. <BR/><BR/>As to the remainder of your post, I find it irrelevant to subject at hand, yet typical of the shotgun approach of cutting and pasting well-worn anti-Mormon arguments. <BR/><BR/>Seeing the same material over and over and over again, I become increasingly convinced that the overwhelming majority of anti-Mormon "scholarship" is nothing more than blatant plagiarism within an echo chamber.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-81539435655795428382008-08-01T21:29:00.000-05:002008-08-01T21:29:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46975407526731141532008-08-01T21:26:00.000-05:002008-08-01T21:26:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59096585179968999402008-08-01T21:06:00.000-05:002008-08-01T21:06:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-43032356294712626572008-08-01T20:06:00.000-05:002008-08-01T20:06:00.000-05:00Even if you can prove that every last event in the...Even if you can prove that every last event in the Bible happened, it does not prove that the spiritual claims of the book are true. Neither does it prove that the God of the Bible is to be worshiped.<BR/><BR/>Maybe Jesus was just an emissary of a bunch of Stargate-style space aliens. All his "miracles" were just the result of their advanced technology, but not miraculous, and not proof of Godhood.<BR/><BR/>The historical arguments about the Bible are ultimately irrelevant.Seth R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13769247769345052208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-15271766767416422542008-08-01T18:53:00.000-05:002008-08-01T18:53:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-14622466078973364242008-08-01T14:00:00.000-05:002008-08-01T14:00:00.000-05:00Anon 9:19,Okay, but my question still stands. Now...Anon 9:19,<BR/><BR/>Okay, but my question still stands. Now that the "historical burial box" of James, the brother of Jesus was proven to be a hoax, what happens to your cone?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1237419470724119262008-08-01T13:40:00.000-05:002008-08-01T13:40:00.000-05:00Worst. Analogy. Ever.Anyway, it misses the points....Worst. Analogy. Ever.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, it misses the points. Point 1, archeology cannot prove the Bible to be true. Period. Al it can do is strengthen the argument for plausibility. I wish some people could just admit that.<BR/><BR/>Point 2, the Book of Mormon has similar evidences that strengthen its case for plausibility. Sure, the collection of evidence is more limited, but that's to be expected when it deals with a part of the world less studied and a society that collapsed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-23913934251481781102008-08-01T11:54:00.000-05:002008-08-01T11:54:00.000-05:00I'm sorry, he chose the Israelites to carry his wo...I'm sorry, he chose the Israelites to carry his word, not just the Jewish people. Think about it, Moses was not Jewish, he was from the tribe of Levi.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-10176666497799339292008-08-01T11:19:00.000-05:002008-08-01T11:19:00.000-05:00Anon 8:19No - The ice cream is His Word. The histo...Anon 8:19<BR/><BR/>No - The ice cream is His Word. The historical evidence is the cone. He chose the Jewish people as His cone to pour the ice cream. Now that the cone is filled, everyone gets to eat!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-36869607763781787242008-08-01T10:19:00.000-05:002008-08-01T10:19:00.000-05:00Anon 6:27,I think that your analogy is a bit backw...Anon 6:27,<BR/><BR/>I think that your analogy is a bit backwards. You are saying that you cannot handle the faith (ice cream in your hands) without the archaeology (the ice cream cone) to support the faith and you then wish us to apply this analogy to the Book of Mormon. So when the burial box of James, the brother of Jesus turned out to be a hoax, what happened to your cone? Did it get a hole and your faith started leaking through that hole? Did you go back to the counter and order a different cone altogether? Was your new cone some of the more popular new age books that you find in your local book store?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-66574094955364879662008-08-01T08:57:00.000-05:002008-08-01T08:57:00.000-05:00One more time.http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...One more time.<BR/><BR/>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid<BR/>=1215331162371&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle<BR/>%2FShowFullAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60500683453396054162008-08-01T08:56:00.000-05:002008-08-01T08:56:00.000-05:00Sorry,Apparently the link name is to long. Here it...Sorry,<BR/><BR/>Apparently the link name is to long. Here it is again.<BR/><BR/>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331162371&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFullAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-45990192089821941392008-08-01T08:54:00.000-05:002008-08-01T08:54:00.000-05:00Jeff,This is slightly off topic. But with our rec...Jeff,<BR/><BR/>This is slightly off topic. But with our recent encounter with another Anti, I thought you would be interested. I posted it on the appropriate blog entry, but I want to make sure you see it.<BR/><BR/>I came across this news article and realized it had important content regarding the Book of Mormon statement that Jesus would be born "at Jerusalem"<BR/><BR/>From the article; "A seal impression belonging to a minister of the Biblical King Zedekiah which dates back 2,600 years has been uncovered completely intact during an archeological dig in Jerusalem's ancient City of David, a prominent Israeli archeologist said on Thursday.<BR/><BR/>. . . . <BR/><BR/>"The excavation at the history-rich City of David, which is located just outside the walls of the Old City near Dung Gate, has proven, in recent years, to be a treasure trove for archeologists."<BR/><BR/>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331162371&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull<BR/><BR/>Apparently, modern day Jews recognize the "ancient City of David" as a suburb of Jerusalem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com