Conference tecrus::mormonism

    Re: < Note 58.0 by CASV02::PRESTON >
    
    Hi Ed,
    
>I would like to propose a topic on the validity of the Book of Mormon,
>from a historical, archeological, documentary and scientific perspective.
>That is, the same tests of validity that have been applied to the Bible
>over the centuries. 
>
>I would like comments from a few others before I proceed, to determine 
>the level of interest in this topic.

    I think it is an excellent idea. That's why I started topic 31,
    Evidence of the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, it has been a week since
    I have been able to post anything there. What do you think? Do you want
    to discuss it there, or do you feel that it needs a brand new topic?
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich
    

Re < Note 58.0 by CASV02::PRESTON >

Hi Ed,

>I would like to propose a topic on the validity of the Book of Mormon,
>from a historical, archeological, documentary and scientific perspective.
>That is, the same tests of validity that have been applied to the Bible
>over the centuries. 

I also think this is a great idea, but I'm wondering if more than one
note should be involved.  You mentioned four viewpoints of the Book
of Mormon, and each one could be a discussion of its own.

Allen

    
    Don't stop with the Book of Mormon.  Let's also discuss the validity
    of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.  However,
    if you break them each down into separate topics we will loose
    continuity.  One topic for each work will sufice. 
    

    
    I tend to agree with .3, in that if we make a topic for each seperate
    area; historical, archeological, etc, it would loose continuity,
    especially since there is a great deal of overlap and interdependency
    between them.
    
    Rich: I considered your note on evidence for the Book of Mormon
    before I made my suggestion, but I felt that it somehow limited
    the scope of what I wanted to discuss - it is close, though.
    
    Perhaps, since we are talking about applying the tests of validity
    to the Book of Mormon, we could expand the topic to include all
    extra-Biblical Mormon scripture. That would be a good idea... we
    wouldn;t need a whole new topic just to say one thing about, for
    instance, the Book of Abraham, etc.
    
    After giving it a little more thought, I would like to propose the
    topic become "Validity of Mormon Scriptures", with the understanding
    that we mean those that came forth since the establishment of the
    Mormon church. 
    
    How does that sound?
    
    Ed (thanks for the input)

I think this note may get very complex since the history, translation, etc. of
the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are quite
different.  I think I would prefer separate notes for each book.  However, Ed,
I respect your freedom to set up the note the way you wish.  If I think it is
appropriate, I may put material in different notes when I feel the material is
of general interest and give pointers in this note to the material. 

I'm concerned about your proposed title "Validity of Mormon Scriptures" 
because it implies that the Bible is not part of "Mormon Scriptures".  I
feel that if you are going to refer to "Mormon Scriptures" you must include
the Bible in that category or change the title.   How about "Validity of
the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price".  That
is a very long title but accurately describes the intent of the note, and I
think the "longness" of it illustrates my preference for separate notes for
each book.

The term "Validity" is quite general, and I will feel free to introduce
a discussion of the role of personal prayer in determining the validity of
the books.

Allen

    
    
    The term "Validity" is quite general, and I will feel free to introduce
a discussion of the role of personal prayer in determining the validity of
the books.

   
    I think we've heard enough about personal prayer in determining
    validity.  This is not the intent of Ed's note.  Since the title
    is going to be so long anyway, I suggest Ed call the note "Historical
    and archeological validity of the BOM, D & C, and PGP."
    
    
     
    

I've been thinking about this note, and I realize I created a stumbling
block that should not be there.  As long as the base note qualifies the
intent of the note, the exact wording in the title less important.

I do think that the base note should acknowledge that the Bible is part
of LDS scriptures but that it is being excluded from this note.  In addition,
I think the base note should explicitly list all viewpoints that are to be
considered, such as archaeology, LDS church history, language, Hebrew and
Egyptian customs, etc.  If the base note doesn't do this, then other people
have a justifiable right to introduce viewpoints that Ed may not want to be
considered in his note.  If the base note does do this, then Rich and I have
the right as moderators to suggest that new notes be created to keep this
note from fragmenting.

I apologize for creating the stumbling block; I realized this morning that
it is the base note not the title that defines the intent of the note.

Allen

    Well, it seems that all this discussion has been for naught after
    all, since the title of note 31 has been changed from "Evidence of
    the Book of Mormon" to "Evidence and Validity of the Book of Mormon".
    I was prepared to set up the appropriate qualifiers (by changing
    the base note if possible), but I am temporarily stymied as to how
    to proceed from here. I felt that what I had in mind was sufficiently
    different from a simple presentation of evidence to warrant a different
    topic, but the distincion is lost.
    
    Any suggestions?
    
    Ed
    

    Re: < Note 58.8 by CASV07::PRESTON >
    
    Yes, perhaps I was a bit hasty in changing the title of note 31. No big
    deal, I will change it back. 
    
    I still have some reservations about two separate topics, one about
    evidences and one about validity of the Book of Mormon, but only
    because I think there's so much in common with both those topics, and
    it's hard to determine where one ends and the other begins. Even so, I
    don't want to get in the way of the discussion you had in mind. 
    
    In fact, you may want to start a new base note altogether, in order to
    set up the appropriate qualifiers for the discussion up front. It is
    not possible in VAXnotes to modify the text of your base note, once
    there are topics entered after it. You can change the title, however.
    You could rename this topic to be "How about discussing Validity of the
    Book of Mormon?", and your new topic could be "Validity of the Book of
    Mormon".
    
    Rich

Ed,

My thoughts on this are as follows.  Note 31 has a title that "describes" the
purpose of the note, but more importantly it has a quite a number of replies
that are providing the real personality of the note.  You have certain goals
in mind for a discussion of validity.  If you feel that note 31 (or other
notes in the conference) do not have just the right viewpoint that you want
to explore, then I would suggest that you open your note and don't worry about
overlap between it and note 31 or other notes.

If everyone who has contributed to this note agrees, either Rich or I can delete
this note and all replies, and you can begin a new note with appropriate
qualifiers in the base to define the viewpoint you wish to explore.

Allen

    
    Ok, let me think about what I want to do next. Perhaps starting
    a new note would be best...
    
    Rich: Don't change the title of your note - it's not necessary,
    and probably gives you improved lattitude to explore you topic more
    thoroughly.
    
    I know what I want to present - I just need to determine the best
    way to specifically introduce it as a topic...
    
    I'll get back to you on this soon...
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ed

    
    Let me pose this: a topic called "Refutation of the Book of Mormon".
    
    There exists what I and others believe to be hard evidence against
    the validity of the Book of Mormon, and I think it ought to be
    presented in a topic of its own. It is my impression that Mormons
    feel that the work cannot be refuted, but humor me, I'd like to
    try... Some of my entries would be based on notes in the "Evidence 
    for the Book of Mormon" topic, and others would be originals. Access
    would not be limited to myself, but I would like participation to
    be restricted to the topic at hand, ie, respond to the entries,
    refute the refutations if you can, but keep the "Evidence For"
    in the other note.    
    
    I want to ask the moderators if this topic is suitable for the
    conference.

    Ed
    

Ed,

Your proposal sounds fine to us.

We agree that in order to avoid fragmentation of your note, participation
should be limited to a direct discussion of your topic.  Persons wishing to
introduce evidence of a more general nature should do so in different notes
and post pointers in your note.  This will also allow the new evidence to be
generally available to the conference.

If you decide to create a new note so you can define your topic, let one of
us know, and we'll delete this note and all replies since this note is just a
log of a group decision about your topic.

Your topic involves a sensitive subject that will likely arouse people's
emotions.  We encourage all participants to re-read note 1.* and prayerfully
follow those guidelines.

  -- the moderators

Ed's new topic is in note 80.

I have thoroughly enjoyed my many Mormon friends.  It is so refreshing to be
around people who will stand up for their convictions.  So, it is not with
malice but with deep love and respect that I point out a few of the numerous
scientific problems in the Book of Mormon.

1. Language Problems
--------------------
I Nephi 1:2 and Mosiah 1:4 assert that the native language of the Hebrews
between 600 B.C. and 91 B.C. was Egyptian.  Mormon 9:32 differs in saying that
it was Reformed Egyptian around 400 AD.  However, it is well established that in
600 B.C. the Hebrews spoke Hebrew.  As a result of the Babylonian captivity
(560 B.C. - 538 B.C.) Hebrew was reduced to the language of the scribes, priests
and rabbis.  Aramaic became the language of the Hebrews.  Then in 70 AD Titus
forced the Hebrews out of Palestine, and they acquired the languages of the
nations to which they were scattered.  The Hebrews had not spoken Egyptian
since Moses led the Hebrews out of Egypt many centuries earlier.

In consulting with professors of Semitic languages at the University of 
California and elsewhere I could find no evidence of the existence of "Reformed
Egyptian", nor for the claim that the following words are Egyptian or Semitic
at all: Shazer (I Nephi 16:13,14), Irreantum (I Nephi 17:5), deseret (for "bee"
in Ether 2:3), Liahona (Alma 37:44), or the numerous names that are unique to 
the Book of Mormon.

2. Geographical Problems*
------------------------
I Nephi 17:5 is an interesting description of Arabia which is "called Bountiful,
because of its much fruit and also wild honey." Arabia is bountiful in sunshine,
petroleum, sand, heat and fresh air, but certainly no in "much fruit and also
wild honey," nor has it been since Pleistocene times.

I Nephi 18:1 indicates that the Jews made a ship from the ample timber of
Arabia.  The same objections above applies here also.

I Nephi 2:6-9 speaks of an abundant Arabian river named Laman that flows 
continually into the Red Sea.  There has been no river whatever in Arabia since
the Pleistocene.

I Nephi 17:26-27 speaks of the crossing of the Red Sea and the drowning of the 
Egyptians.  Any good Bible dictionary will point out that the KJV translators
did not know their geography.  The Israelites crossed the Reed or Marsh Sea,
not the Red Sea.  Yet, Mormons insist that while the Bible may have errors of
translation, there are no such errors of translation for the Book of Mormon.

Amazingly, the numerous and detailed descriptions of North America cannot be
correlated with any distinct geographic features such as the Great Lakes,
Gulf of Mexico, Rockies, Niagara Falls, Appalachians or any rivers.

3. Botanical Problems
---------------------
According to the Book of Mormon, God led Nephi and other faithful Jews to leave
the "land of Jerusalem" (sic) to go to the Promised Land of North America.  We
are faced at once with some serious botanical problems, for in I Nephi 18:24
(591 B.C.) we read that upon arrival the Jews planted the numerous seeds that 
they had brought, and that the seeds "did grow exceedingly, wherefore, we were
blessed in abundance." As is well known, the dominant crops of the Near East
were grapes, olives, wheat, barley, figs, dates, flax, onions, leeks, garlic,
certain kinds of beans, pomegranates, sycamore figs, certain melons, various
oranges, lemons and peaches.  Crops from the Americas such as potatoes,
tobacco, blueberries, cranberries, eggplants and maize (or what we Americans
call "corn"), were unknown in the Old World until modern times.

There is no evidence whatever that the Near Eastern crops ever "did grow 
exceedingly...in abundance" until modern Europeans brought them to the Americas.
Admittedly, while modern European colonists did find grapes in the Americas,
they are distinct from the Old World species.

Other botanical problems are encountered when III Nephi 18:18 speaks of wheat in
the Americas in 34 AD.  I Nephi 13:7, Alma 1:29 and 4:6, Helaman 6:13, and Ether
10:24 speak of linen (cloth made from flax).  Barley is mentioned in Mosiah 
9:9; figs in III Nephi 14:16, and olives in Jacob 5, I Nephi 17:14, 15:7,12,16.
None of these existed here at that time.  "Neas" and "sheum" are mentioned in
Mosiah 9:9 as two food plants that were prominent, and grew in abundance.  Yet,
if they were so prominent and important, why are there no references to them in
Old World literature, and why have they not survived?

Plant grafting it mentioned in I Nephi 15:16 and Jacob 5, yet there is no
evidence that Indians practiced this in 600 B.C. to 421 AD.  Pruning is mentioned
in II Nephi 15:6, and faces a similar problem.  To describe seed and plant
growth as "swelling" (Alma 32:28-34 and 33:23) is naive and grossly inaccurate.
It reflects the error of preformationism.

4. Zoological Problems
----------------------
Contrary to what I Nephi 18:25 asserts, North America had no cows, oxen,
asses, horses or goats "for the use of man" between 600 B.C. and the time
European colonists brought them.

II Nephi 21:6-8 plagiarize the KJV of Isaiah 11:6-8 and applies it to North
America.  (See also II Nephi 30:12-14) But North America had no sheep, lions,
leopards or the 2 snakes (asps and cockatrices) at that time.

Ether 2:2-3 and 5:4 explain that Jared and his family captured the birds,
fish and bees and gathered seeds with which they populated North America.
But American birds and fish are distinctly different from Old World species.
Honey bees were first introduced by Europeans.  Ether 6:1 claims that Jared
and his small family kept alive for 344 days in the aquaria all of the species
of fish that now inhabit the Americas.

Ether 9:18,19 contains several problems.  First, it lists domestic cattle, oxen
and cows as separate species!  Second, these did not exist in the Americas at 
that time.  Third, domestic swine did not exist here then.  Fourth, Jews would
certainly not relish swine as "useful to man"!  Fifth, horses, asses and 
elephants did not exist in the Americas at that time.  Prehistoric forms became
extinct much earlier, and were not "useful to man".  Sixth, "cureloms" and 
"cumoms" are not identified by Mormon scholars.  Yet, it would be most unlikely
for such supposedly useful and common domestic animals to go extinct.

There are some serious problems in the description of the behavior related to 
poisonous snakes, etc.  in Ether 9:30-34.  First, the notion that snakes 
increase as a drought increases is contradicted by the fact that reptiles are
particularly sensitive to heat and lack of water, and would die off faster than
other animals.  Second, even with the large population of modern North America,
only about 20 people die yearly by snake bite.  It is certainly not realistic
for Ether to claim that numerous people and animals were exterminated by
snakes.  Third, it is totally unlike sheep for all of them in the country to
flee in one direction.  Fourth, it would not be realistic for the sheep to be
driven to the south by poisonous shakes as there are much fewer snakes in the 
north.  Fifth, snakes never cooperate with each other in driving animals in
any direction.  Sixth, it would be impossible for people to have eaten in such
few days the countless animals that had been killed by snakes.  Seventh, it is
forbidden to Jews to eat animals that have died like that.  Eighth, Ether 10:21,
etc. tells us that the land was densely covered with people, while Ether 10:19
says that "the land was covered with animals of the forests".  Ether 10:12
speaks of raising much grain.  All of this simply does not square with the 
idea of an epidemic of poisonous snakes.  People, farming and numerous predatory
animals will not allow snakes to become numerous.

Satyrs (II Nephi 22:21) and dragons (II Nephi 22:22; 8:9; and 23:22) are 
mentioned as literal creatures, not figurative.  Chickens (III Nephi 10:4-6)
and dogs (Alma 16:10, Mosiah 12:2 and III Nephi 7:8) were nonexistent
here at that time.  In III Nephi 20:16 and 21:12 lions are described as
"beasts of the forests."  Contrary to popular opinion and the Book of Mormon,
lions do not live in forests or jungles.  They live in savannahs (few scattered
trees).  And, lions never inhabited the Americas.

Silk is erroneously mentioned as being produced in the Americas at that time
(I Nephi 13:7, Alma 4:6 and Ether 9:17 and 10:24).  But silkworm moths had not
yet been introduced from Asia.  Clothes moths are mentioned in III Nephi 13:19,
20 and 27:32, yet there were no woolen garments for moths to attack as sheep had
not yet been introduced.  Needless to say, clothes moths had not yet been
introduced to North America.

II Nephi 17:15 lists 2 foods at that time, butter and honey.  But Indians had
no milk animals or honey bees.  Candles are made either of bees' wax, beef
tallow or paraffin so that a reference to candles in III Nephi 8:21 is
unacceptable.

5. Microbiological Problems
---------------------------
Alma 46:40 specifically attributes "the cause of disease to ...the nature of the
climate," instead of to filth, poor diet, or microorganisms.  Alma 16:1 tells us
that the stench of those killed in one battle was so strong that "the people did
not go in to possess the land of Ammonihah for many years," "and their lands
remained desolate."  Action of bacteria, fungi, worms, insects, vultures, etc.,
would require no more than a few weeks at the very most to dispose of these
carcasses and their odors - not "many years"!

6. Physiological Problems**
-------------------------
Ether 14:2 specifically says that "every man kept the hilt of the sword in his
right hand," and yet a distinct minority of Jews and Indians is left-handed.
Alma 57:25 asserts that all in an army of 2,060 received many wounds, yet none
died.

The implied reproduction rate in the Book of Mormon is astronomical.  The story
starts in 600 B.C. and extends to 421 A.D.  It involves a mere handful of people
who supposedly travel from "the land of Jerusalem" (sic) to the Promised Land of
America.  Every four or five years or so there are devastating wars that kill
many thousands of people (Alma 28:2, etc.), or as Ether 15:2 says, "nearly two
millions of mighty men" in addition to their wives and children.  For this to be
so it would be necessary for each couple to have scores of children, and for
them to reach maturity in three or so years throughout the supposed period
between 600 B.C. and 421 A.D.

The description of the resurrection body in Alma 40:23 is astounding to say the
least.  It says that nothing shall be lost, not even a hair.  In light of the
fact that we shed a few score body and head hairs every week, and we
"de-commission" countless blood, skin, and other cells weekly it is unrealistic
to assert that all of these lost parts will be returned to us.

7. Physical and Chemical Problems
---------------------------------
Ether 2:20 says that the Lord instructed Jared to make a hole in the top and one
"in the bottom" of each barge!  What was the hole "in the bottom" for - to let
water and wastes out?  Ether 2:23 explains that if windows were put in the
barges, the barges would be dashed to pieces (sic).

In describing Christ's crucifixion, III Nephi 8:20-23 says that the darkness was
so great for three days (sic) that the candles and torches could not give off
light!  Why not?

Alma 24:16 speaks of burying swords in the earth to keep them bright.  On the
contrary this would speed their rusting.

8. Technological Problems
-------------------------
It is erroneous for a book supposedly written in North America at that time to
mention bellows (I Nephi 17:11), fine steel bow (I Nephi 16:18), swords (II
Nephi 1:18, etc.), scimitars (Alma 2:12), sackcloth (II Nephi 13:24), carts (II
Nephi 15:18,28), chariots (Alma 18:12, 20:6, III Nephi 21:14), numerous large
buildings (Ether 10:5, etc.), many highways (Helaman 14:24), cement (Helaman
3:7,9,11), forts (Alma 48:8,9, 51:27, etc.), javelin (Alma 51:34), bushel (III
Nephi 12:15), breastplates (Mosiah 8:10 and Alma 46:13), headplate and armor for
the loins (Alma 46:13), compass (Alma 37:38,44, etc.), spindles and spinning
(Alma 37:40, Helaman 6:13), sickles, yoke (I Nephi 13:5), strong cords (Alma
26:29), trumpet (III Nephi 13:2), street corners (III Nephi 13:5), chains (II
Nephi 1:13, 28:19, etc.), hoe (Ether 10:25), harp (II Nephi 15:12), viol (II
Nephi 15:12), tabret (II Nephi 15:12), plow (Ether 10:25), fuller's soap (III
Nephi 24:2), barns (III Nephi 13:26), and candles (III Nephi 8:21).

9. Anthropological Problems
---------------------------
The Book of Mormon was supposedly written during the period in question, but
there is no evidence that Indians had anything other than simplistic pictorial
writing at that time.  They wrote no books.  It is not appropriate to find
references to many official records (Helaman 3:15), jot and tittle (III Nephi
12:18), scroll (Mormon 5:23, 9:2), and Alpha and Omega (III Nephi 9:18).

Other cultural problems include references to mammon (III Nephi 13:24), lawyers
and judges (Alma 10:14-15 and III Nephi 6:1), acre (II Nephi 15:10),
"south-southeast direction" (I Nephi 16:13), synagogues (III Nephi 24:2),
Gentiles (I Nephi 13:19), rending of clothes, wearing sackcloth, salt trodden
under foot, etc.

The Book of Mormon consistently and frequently refers to the "heart" in the
sense of soul, yet Indians varied in their terminology from lungs, kidneys,
liver, intestines, to heart.

II Nephi 26:33 divides humanity into "black and white" and "Jew and Gentile" -
most unrealistic for the Americans at that time.

The Book of Mormon teaches that Indians originated from Jewish settlers in the
Americas that wandered away from the Lord.  I Nephi 12:11 says that as the Jews
wandered away in unbelief, "they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy
people."  I Nephi 13:15 praises future Americans as being "white, and exceeding
fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain."  But
Palestinian Jews did not have pale skin like the British.  II Nephi 5:21, Jacob
3:3-9, and Mormon 5:15-17 say that God cursed the Indians with a dark skin.  II
Nephi 5:23 and Alma 3:6-10 say that anyone who marries an Indian "shall be
cursed with the same cursing."  If this were true, why do people who are only
part Indian not look full Indian?

II Nephi 30:5-7 predicts that when Indians accept the Mormon Gospel, that they
will again become "a white and delightsome people."  III Nephi 2:15 gives
supposed examples of this.  II Nephi 13:24 says that punishment from sin shall
include "instead of well set hair, baldness," yet baldness is much more common
among Caucasians.

Instead of Semitic origin, Indians are distinctly Mongoloid, having straight and
black hair, brown eyes, high cheekbones, skin pigmentation, occasional
Mongoloid blue spot, certain blood traits, etc.  Dark skin, instead of being a
curse, is a protection against skin cancer.  And, Indians are not innately more
filthy, loathsome, or ugly than any other people.

10.  Other Problems
-------------------
Numerous historical and archaeological problems exist.  The first editions of
the Book of Mormon contained numerous grammatical and spelling errors.  There
are many contradictions between the Book of Mormon and other Mormon writings.
And, the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible in many places.  Lack of space
prohibits a listing of examples of the above problems.

Conclusion
----------
It is hoped that this paper will help my Mormon friends and other seekers after
truth for as Moroni 10:4 well says:

"And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask
 God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true,
 and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in
 Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy
 Ghost."

*   II Nephi 5:15,16 is self-contradictory about the presence of minerals.
**  Ether 15:30-31 says that the beheaded Shiz raised up and struggled for
    breath.

Thomas D.S. Key, Sc.D., Ed.D. (Biology), Th.D.
1613 Forrest Ln.
Bainbridge, Georgia 31717

    Journal of The American Scientific Affiliation, XXXVII, June 1985

    re: 58.15, item #7 - darkness so deep that torches would not give light
    
         obviously you [or rather your researcher(s), or both] have
    never been in a Tule Fog.  Oh, sure, literaly you can generate a
    light source, but the reflection/refraction negate its usefulness
    in actually seeing anything.
    
    - the animals: domestic sheep and cattle do not adapt well to living
    in the wild.  Sheep, especially, could quickly become extinct as the
    prey of indiginous carnivors such as the puma (lion) and jaguar
    (leopard).  
    
    Sorry i don't have time to go through all your [or your researcher(s)]
    points, but i have to work for a living - not to mention for Digital's
    survival - so i have to content myself with finding a few significant
    misrepresentations to establish to true credibility of a detractor.
    
    Hints on some others: Lehi's family landed in _South_ America;
    it was all _one_ "land" until the canal was dug @ Panama; the book
    exhibits very typically semitic language use of forms such as 
    cognate accusatives, relatively unused in European languages; more
    than 100 (nearly 200, i believe) new names which _are_ typically
    semitic.  Stuff that an uneducated bumpkin like Joseph Smith would
    have almost no way of learning, at his age, in his time, in his
    part of the world.
    
    [dale]