Following are more comments or questions we have received from various readers of this blog.
Comment #1 “How can Book of Mormon people, writing in approximately 600 B.C., be quoting from the Bible whose sources weren’t written until centuries later?” Zach R.
Response: They were not quoting the Bible, they were quoting the same source that gave the Bible writers their knowledge, and the doctrines and principles about which they wrote. God is the author of all such knowledge—why would anyone think they would be different? How unthinking is the idea that time to the Lord is chronological—he said: “my sheep hear my voice” (John 10:27-30). Should anyone think his voice would say different things to the Jews than to the Nephites? Or to you today?
Comment #2: “Has any archaeologist or anthropologist, or anyone else, ever found a city or town with a Book of Mormon name?”
Response: First, there are two points to keep in mind: 1) historical development has shown that city, town or village settlements do not maintain their original names—the first name given to the island we call England was Britannia, given it by the Romans in 43 AD; France was called Gaul in 51 BC, again, by the Romans—following their collapse, it was “the Land of the Franks” in 494 AD; Sweden was known at different times as Bohuslän, Kalmar, Tjust, Jämtland, and Sweden; and 2) Such original names are known only because they or another area have had continuous occupation and historically recorded earlier names.
As an example: Florida was called Waca Pilatka before Juan Ponce de Leon called it “Pascua Florida.” New Roxbury in Connecticut became Woodstock in 1690; New Town became Hartford in 1637 and Watertown became Wethersfield in 1635. In California Todos Santos is now called Concord; in George, Franklin is now West Point; and Terminous became Marthasville; while in Nebraska Lancaster is now Lincoln; Hot Spring in New Mexico is Truth or Consequences; the township of Longwood in Michigan was called Isabella City before that and Indian Mills before that; New Amsterdam, then New Orange is now called New York City; Nieuw Amersfoort and Pigtown are Flatlands and Wingate respectively in Brooklyn.
The reason, as stated above, that we know of these earlier names is simply because of a continuity of occupation that knew of the changes. This is also borne out by knowing that Cincinnati was originally called Losantiville; Austin was Waterloo; Deseret became Utah; and Fort Utah became Provo.
Early American Indian names that were replaced by English names
On the other hand, some old cities were given English names that once had an Indian name in pre-history, such as the area we call Wisconsin was called Meskonsing by the Ojibwe; Green Bay was originally called Bale lverte by the French; Kekionga was named by the Miami, the capital tribe of Indiana, which is now called Fort Wayne; Kentucky was called Kentahten by the Iroquois; Quinnehtukqut was the original Indian name for Connecticut; Ongiaahra was the Iroquois name for Niagara Falls; the Lenape Indians called New Jersey Scheyichbi; Old Millstone, in Somerset County, was once known as Matawank; Crystal River in Florida was called Weewahiiaca by the Seminole-Creek Indians; Boston was originally called Trimountaine; Albany was originally called Beverwijck; On the other hand, the Algonquian certainly didn’t call Manhattan Island by that name,; Tallahessee was original called Anhaica by the Alalachee Indians. The list obviously could go on, but if we did not have continual records, we would know nothing of these original names—nothing at all, much like the old Nephite names.
The point, we think, is obvious—ancient cities, towns and villages, of which there are hundreds, are unknown today by their original name since occupation there was interrupted. We find this all over ancient Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Chile, as we do in the Book of Mormon.
Comment #5: “There has, of course, been numerous civilizations that lived on the American continent before, during and after the Nephites. It is true that there is no archaeological, anthropological or linguistic evidence to demonstrate that a pre-Columbian, white Jewish, 'pre-Christian Christian', steel smelting, horse/cattle/ox/sheep herding civilization ever lived on the American continent during the time period suggested by the Book of Mormon. Additionally, the fact that natives have inhabited the Americas for over 15,000 years and are of Asiatic descent refutes the primary Book of Mormon tenet that the American continent was "kept hidden" or "preserved" specifically by God for his chosen group(s) of people. Nor were these civilizations wiped out in a global flood as the Great Flood is taught as a historical event in the BOM and other LDS scriptures” The Mechanic.
Science and the scientific method is a continually improving and ever-changing voyage towards knowledge and betterment
Response: There are so many theorists today who simply repeat the same dogma of previous theorists that we no longer see the field of scholars there once was who understood that evidence leads to credibility, which also leads to accuracy. Nor do we find much in the way of theorists actually reading the scriptural record and using what is described there by Nephi, Jacob, Mormon and Moroni, and following it through as written, looking for descriptions of importance.
As an example, Jacob’s statement the Nephites were on an island; Nephi seeing a vision of a future Land of Promise where mountains, during a three-hour period, tumbled to the ground and new ones were raised; Mormon who clearly described the geography of the Land of Promise, and Moroni tells us several things regarding language, the narrow neck, and an additional sea. In addition, many artifacts have been found in the ground in South America that verifies the existence of the Nephites there and supports the Book of Mormon, such as metallurgy, existence of gold, silver, and copper, the only location for quinine found, stone walls built around cities and the Land of Zarahemla, an actual narrow neck and passage, ocean and wind currents leading to South America where Lehi could “land” along a Sea West, etc.
After all, saying something is not so does not make it not so. We invite you to go back and read all the posts that have been provided here to show the fallacy of such an argument.
Comment #6: “I read recently, but can’t right now recall where that “Among modern Book of Mormon scholars, no one that I am aware of maintains that the new world was empty when Lehi arrived, or that that the Nephites and Lamanites multiplied in “splendid isolation.” Certainly that is not an official LDS church position.” What do you think of that?” Tyrene F.
Modern Book of Mormon scholars would be those in the academic field, specifically BYU, whose archaeology department is committed to Mesoamerica. In that region it is claimed that much smaller segments of population existed, therefore, such scholars are faced with defending the theory of small populations or discrediting their own beliefs.
Much of the time, the so called scholars are there to test whether or not you can get your own revelation. Many are not there to teach but to destroy little by little what was revealed to the Prophet Joseph. I am certainly referring to a so called scholar that used to be a Church teacher named Sterling Mcmurrin. He was a secret anti Mormon denying the validity of the BOM while drawing a nice paycheck for being so erudite with his great wisdom. These guys will lead you down to hell. Get a testimony of the BOM and do not let some idiot teacher destroy it.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are saying matches Grant Palmer, and not Sterling McMurrin. From my understanding anyway.
DeleteSterling was a liberal Mormon professor that lost faith in the Book of Mormon, but he taught at the University of Utah so he did not get church money. His best book "The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion" is not considered anti-Mormon at all.