Book Of Mormon, Hoax?

[rameumptom]

There was a discussion on the FAIR boards a few years ago where we discussed statistics. What is the probability of Joseph Smith guessing one unknown name correctly in the Book of Mormon? Then, what is the probability of Joseph Smith guessing 40 unknown names correctly in the Book of Mormon?

Each time you add evidence for the Book of Mormon, you increase the statistical probability that it is true. How would Joseph Smith know that the name Alma was a Jewish man's name? Such evidence never showed up until the Bar Kokhba letters were found about 60 years ago. It was used by anti-Mormons for a century as part of their evidence that Joseph Smith wasn't just a liar, but a liar without any imagination in creating names.

Or, how about the inept (and wrong) anti-LDS insistence that no cities or locations have been found yet? In the last 20 years, we've found Nahom and the Arabian Bountiful, as well as a possible location for the Valley of Lemuel. Recently, in Mesoamerica, they found the ancient Mayan name of a town to be Lamanai, which is very similar to Laman or Lamoni. Each of these is like a pebble of evidence, which when stacked together increases the statistical likelihood that Joseph Smith wasn't a fraud.
I've yet to see any anti-LDS "scholar" explain how the Book of Moses contains a story of Enoch talking with a man named Mahijah in a place called Mahujah, only to find that the Dead Sea Scrolls' version of Enoch has Mahujah talking with Enoch!

I'm more and more convinced that the true hucksters are those who ignore the available evidence and the statistical weight of how unlikely it is that Joseph Smith guessed correctly on so very many things.

[Danite]

You make an intresting piont. I look to the testiomies of three witnesses and the eight witnesses at front of the Book of Mormom. These testiomies will hold up any in court of law human or divine. I also have had my own witness thru personal revelation that the Book of Mormom is ture. What greater witness can you have than god?

Originally Posted by SortOfMormon

How accurate is the Book Of Mormon? Is there any proof that anything in it really happened?

Very. Yes.

[desirexnoel]

Originally Posted by SortOfMormon

How accurate is the Book Of Mormon? Is there any proof that anything in it really happened?

Physical proof? No.

Any other kind of proof? Well, you need to define what proof is to you. I have noticed there are a couple of different things people accept as proof.

[Barter_Town]

I guess you could call it a hoax, but it isn't any more a hoax than say, the Bible, or the Qur'an. They're all just religious texts. They all make extraordinary claims unsupported by evidence.

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by Barter_Town

I guess you could call it a hoax, but it isn't any more a hoax than say, the Bible, or the Qur'an. They're all just religious texts. They all make extraordinary claims unsupported by evidence.

On this I strongly disagree. Proof of miracles and resurrection? No. Evidence? Yes.

I gave several evidences above, such as with place-names. None of them prove the Book of Mormon to be true. But they are evidences.

The difference between the Book of Mormon and the Bible is this: if a place is found in the Bible, it is not an evidence for the miracles within it, as the Bible is easily proved to be an ancient text passed down from generation to generation.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is a text that claims to be ancient. If we can show evidences of places within it, then that evidence actually bolsters the spiritual/miracle claims of the book, since if the book is ancient, then it did also come miraculously to us via Joseph Smith. If it is ancient, then Joseph Smith really did get it from an angel, and the testimony of Jesus and the miracles within it are true.

This is why it makes such an important second testament of Jesus Christ.

[Hemidakota]

Originally Posted by SortOfMormon

How accurate is the Book Of Mormon? Is there any proof that anything in it really happened?

How is your faith? Let us start with this simple question. Anything that requires a deeper faith or openness before GOD may answer alot of mortal questions, which are daunting to masses; from the original landing of Lehi and his family to the Big Bang.

Noting the book is only a compression of many thousands of the earlier Nephite church historical plates, while Mormon, the chief compiler left out the greater portion of recorded civic history of the people.

[pam]

You all are responding to a thread where the OP hasn't logged into the site in over a month.

[Barter_Town]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

On this I strongly disagree.

Of course; you approach the Book of Mormon as an actual historical record, and then a posteriori search for evidence to support your belief.

I gave several evidences above, such as with place-names.

The problem is that these simply aren't good evidences. If there really were Judeo-Christian civilizations in the Americas as recently as 421 AD (not long ago in archaeological terms), one would expect to find much stronger evidence than the sort you have presented, e.g. usage of the wheel, domestication of Old World animals, Old World crops, smelted iron and steel, usage of a Semitic / Egyptian language and script, presence of Semitic DNA in Native American populations, etc. etc.

These are major, major things that any reasonable person would expect. That you ignore the fact that no such evidence exists in favor of place-name similarities and textual parallels shows how weak your position really is.

Ignoring the many major "misses" in favor of a few seeming "hits" does not prove anything other than wishful thinking.

None of them prove the Book of Mormon to be true. But they are evidences.

They may qualify as evidence to you; to me they are standard apologetics. You see the same sorts of things on Muslim apologist websites. If one accepted their "evidences" on their own terms, the implications would be quite staggering (i.e. Muhammad truly was a prophet and Islam is the one true religion). A scholarly approach is far more rigorous and reasonable than this.

The difference between the Book of Mormon and the Bible is this: if a place is found in the Bible, it is not an evidence for the miracles within it, as the Bible is easily proved to be an ancient text passed down from generation to generation.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is a text that claims to be ancient. If we can show evidences of places within it, then that evidence actually bolsters the spiritual/miracle claims of the book, since if the book is ancient, then it did also come miraculously to us via Joseph Smith. If it is ancient, then Joseph Smith really did get it from an angel, and the testimony of Jesus and the miracles within it are true.

This is why it makes such an important second testament of Jesus Christ.

Again, this is the a posteriori approach to research. If you begin with the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be (an ancient historical record of a lost civilization), then you can quite easily ignore the "misses" in favor of the seeming "hits" to support your conclusion. This is the backwards approach to scholarship, which is what makes it apologetics and not actual scholarship.

The proper approach would be to decide ahead of time (propose a hypothesis) what sorts of things we should expect to find if there were a Judeo-Christian civilization in recent pre-Columbian America, e.g. archaeological, biological, and linguistic evidence of the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. The fact that nothing of the sort has been found is why one can reasonably conclude that the Book of Mormon is, in all likelihood, a pretty successful hoax.

That doesn't mean it's a bad thing; religion can bring structure and meaning into people's lives. It just means that Mormonism is a religion, like any other.

Originally Posted by volgadon

Troy existed, does that mean that Aphrodite and Athena exist and are true gods?

The people and places of the Quraan existed, why aren't you a Muslim?

Jerusalem, the wilderness, the Red Sea, Arabia and America exist, therefore, by your logic, the BoM must be true.

Joseph Smith existed, the places associated with him existed, therefore he must be a true prophet.

Do you see how week your arguments are?

Biblical archaeology quite frequently contradicts the contents of the Bible.

Megiddo, according to archaeological finds, did not have even one stable, let alone 900.

There is utterly no evidence for the events of the entire book of Joshua.

Did you learn about the Yazids in school? Did you learn about Pugachev's Rebellion, about the Molochans, the Derevlyans, the Lemko and Hutsuls, the Mazurs, the Ismaiylians, the Alawi, the Arizal, the Shabetaens, the Druse, the Shepsug, the Kalmyks, and the list could go on and on.
What they don't teach in school literally fills volumes.

Why is a man recieving ancient records from an angel of the Lord and translating them through the gift and power of God harder to swallow than someone raising themselves from the dead and living in the heavens?

Truth, eternal truth, is not discovered by any other source than God himself. Blessed art thou for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee....

In fairness to this good Brother's question, why do you mock him with all of these statements which have zero to do with his question?

I'm amazed at the rude manner in which some people reply to basic quesiton. Please, if you don't have a reasonable answer say so or don't reply at all! Your giving members of our faith a bad name when you behave in this manner!