This is where the debate between Richard Packham and Rod L. Meldrum on the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon continues. All registered members of PublicSquare.net are invited to participate.
Is the Book of Mormon Historically Accurate?
(15 posts) (14 voices)-
Posted 5 months ago #
-
Meldrum doesn't present ANY evidence of the accuracy of the Book of Mormon; It's up to someone/anyone making claims to support those claims with Evidence.
Meldrum posits that the Book of Mormon is true because JS didn't achieve fame or fortune during his lifetime:
A False Dichotomy! who's to say whether he Did or Didn't???
JSmith was 'famous' during his lifetime; among the group of 'his peeps; (followers of the 'religion' that he started; word of him & his claims reached the UK During His Lifetime! Smith was Revered by his followers; after all, he had a patent/copyright on what God revealed to him!
JSmith 'fortune'? Well, let's see:
Smith was a money-digger before becoming 'Prophet'. That didn't work out, so: What to do?Hmmmm. Let's Start a NEW RELIGION!
-Charge people 10%, tell them it's MANDATORY for them to go to Heaven!
and, btw, there's NO ACCOUNTABILITY of how the revenue is Spent! NO OVERSIGHT, NONE!-(as a 'Cover'?) I'll .... have a STORE! Was competition allowed? I doubt it!
- START A NEW BANK! only thing is, We Won't Call It A 'BANK'... DARN those laws! We'll call it the 'Anti-Banking Society'!
OOPS! It went BROKE, taking lots of people's $ with it!
too bad! Was it 'inspired'? I leave that to readers....
-On TOP of EVERYTHING ELSE, I'll ... Be the Head of My Own Military!
pay your DUES, guys!Other:
read what Wiki says about the Hopewell traditions. this WAS NOT a distinct group of Indians; it was a network of trading groups... my read is that they were loose-knit, met for trading purposes 'only'.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Thanks Richard and Rod for this discussion. And to public square for hosting it, and for taking these kinds of comments. This type of discussion is very interesting, and I think great for everyone. There is far to little cross communication like this in the world. I consider myself a Mormon Transhumanist Atheist, just so you know a bit about where I'm coming from before I lunch into things. There is much about the Mormon culture that I love, including it valuing "faith" so much.
Given that, all the problems and issues Richard points out, I want to be interested in such, but find myself having "stupors of thought" as I try to get more interested in such technical evidence details. Since I struggle with it so much, I appreciate Richard, and others, for keeping track of them all for me. But, for many of the reasons Rod points out, all that, including any similar evidence for the historicity of the BOM just dosn't seem that big a deal to me, no matter how compelling some may consider it.
But what does get me, what I do really struggle with, is just the general message contained in the BOM. If there is really a God that hides as the God portrayed in the BOM hides, in the face of so much evil, how can you have faith in anything that terrible or incapable? To think that humanity is really as bad as is portrayed in the BOM, justifying God's supposed explanation of allowing his children to burn each other alive so that "his wrath may be just" (Alma 14:11), to think that the only time man becomes good, is when he is sufficiently miserably humbled, and the richer man gets the worse he gets and so on. Is believing that such is true any kind of "faith"? When I look out on reality, people are mostly only really bad, when the economy is down, they our steeling because they are out of work and food. The better the economy, the better everyone is everywhere, aren't they? Reality seems completely the opposite of what is portrayed over and over again in the BOM. How can you call believing that humanity is as bad as is portrayed in the BOM 'faith'? My conscience tells me such borders on hate.
To think that even if we are good enough to be one of the few, eligible to be with God, we might then get the privilege of doing the same thing as the God, portrayed in the BOM, creating similar worlds similarly full of such bad people, watching all that kind of crucifixion and torture, while we hide and weep, and try.... If anything even remotely close to that were true, believing that wouldn't be 'faith' but the opposite of such, wouldn't it? That would be nothing better than eternal damnation, if it turned out to be true.
I don't hate or at best pity much of humanity as the characters in the BOM are deserving of. I have faith and hope that there really aren't the silly people, like Lamen and Lemual, that act that way without good reason, in reality. I have faith that Gods, if they ever do exist, will never have to hide from their creations, while they watch them torture and kill each other like that. I have faith that evil isn't as necessary as it is portrayed as being in the BOM, that all the evil will easily long be overcome, long before there is anything even close to such a powerful God. I hope for and work towards the day when humanity is creating worlds far better than anything the God of the BOM created. Do we really need to fear that reality is as fearful as portrayed in the BOM?
In other words, I have faith and hope, that the BOM is a work of fiction, regardless of any technical evidences for or against it. I have faith that the glorious Mormon church, became what it is, despite such dubious origins. That is what gives me hope faith and hope in humanity and the power of good. If such a good and great organization as the LDS church can come from such dubious origins, then there truly is hope for good and for everyone, everywhere, forevermore. To me, that is far better than thinking the faithless and terrible idea that the LDS church is the best any God, and his few 'chosen', could come up with.
Brent Allsop
Posted 5 months ago # -
I was disappointed in Meldrum's humdrum comebacks and his rash assumptions that the SMith fmaily was "too poor" to buy any books like Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" when erverybody knows that there was a public library not far from the Smith farm and Joe Smith could have easily checked this book out. Joe's own momma reported Joe's propensity for the fantastic, relating the many stories he made up before he got the brilliant idea to turn the whole story telling gimmick into a get rich scheme.
Doesn't Bro Meldrum know that the first vision story wasn't even in the first editions of the Bk of Morm? That it was changed repeatedly from a single personage to an angel and then finally, several years AFTER the book was published, it became the now familiar preface to this fable. It is as if Meldrum didn't even bother to really "read and comprehend" what Richard Packham wrote. Packham easily won this debate with his cool logic and scietific approach to the facts. Meldrum did not convice me one iota that the church was based on anything but the huge ego of Joe Smith, a convicted money digger a nd seer stone packer of ill repute, as shiftless and superstitious as his whole family. Peeping in hats? Misinterpreting Egyptian heiroglyphs and passing it off as a text from Abraham? Good grief!
"Faith, as well inentioned as it may be, must be based on facts, not fiction. Faith in fiction is a damnable false hope" Thos. Edison said.
Amen Bro Edison, and bravo to R.Packham for refuting so easily the whole BOM myth and for exposing yet again the faulty rationales and thinly disguised idolatry for J. Smith and his every convention, manipulation and falsehood exhibited by the body proper of the LDS organization.
Bravo, Mr. Packham! Keep on telling it like it is and maybe someday some of those those who have gotten lost in that mess of a church will wise up and leave it, like I did after 45 years of membership. It took me awhile but I finally "got it" and wisely left, taking all of my family with me. Good riddance to false doctrine, false hope and La-La Land.Posted 5 months ago # -
Richard Packham did a beautiful job with Meldrum. But to gild the lily...
Joseph Smith's mother wrote that long BEFORE the visit from the angel Moroni Joseph was telling stories about the ancient Indians. She wrote: "He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, the animals on which they rode, their buildings their mode of welfare; and also their religious worship." The distinguished Mormon historian B.H. Roberts found this very disturbing. He wrote, "This happened three and four years before the translation of the Book of Mormon began." Roberts admitted that these recitals seem to have come "from no other source than the vivid, constructive imagination of Joseph Smith." [1] How does Mr. Meldrum explain that?
Another point: the scale of warfare in the Book of Mormon is inconceivable. In just two battles in the Book of Mormon 4,500,000 people were killed -- without leaving any trace. [2] That's 15 times as many people as we lost in four years of World War II! Or, to put it another way, it is SIX TIMES as many people as were killed in all of the wars in American history! [3] And not one sword, shield, or chariot has ever been found from that cataclysmic event. Any comment on that, Mr. Meldrum?[1] B.H. Roberts, "Studies of the Book of Mormon," p. 143
[2] Ed Bliss, "A Friendly Discussion: Mormonism Pro and Con," p. 18
[3] Ibid, p. 19Posted 5 months ago # -
This is an interesting debate to say the least. Perhaps the most erroneous statement made in the discussion is by Meldrum when he states that there is no one scientific method. Boy did he ever miss the boat on this one. There is in fact ONLY ONE scientific method. Simplified it is 1. Someone thinks of an idea, or concept, or scientific principal 2. Then experiments are set up which work towards proving or disproving the original idea. 3. If the idea is proven true by the individual then they publish the idea, the experiments, and the data they obtained for anybody else to prove. If the idea is proven correct time-after-time then it is eventually accepted as a truth. An important point is that even if something is thought to be true (and even thought to be true for a very long time) as soon as someone proves the idea false, it is then considered false.
Of course the Book of Mormon (being a scripture that makes some definite claims regarding North American Indians) can be proven as false by using the scientific method (i.e. DNA research unable to find any Middle Eastern lineage).
However, religious people and not just Mormons argue that the scientific method cannot be applied to matters of religion. We must accept what is said in scriptures on faith, not science, but faith. Because applying the scientific method to matters of religion almost universally proves that religion, scriptures, or even belief in god, are false beliefs. So, religion basically says - simply believe - simply trust - simply have faith which is okay for some people but increasingly unokay for many people in the world.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Perhaps someone familiar with population dynamics can weigh in on this topic? The small group that came to the Americas on boats with Lehi grew to be a population of millions in a land 'preserved' for them and which the book says had no other people. Is this defensible? Can a small group grow as quickly as this group did per the Book of Mormon? Even given a miraculous lack of infant mortality, is this growth possible?
For now I'll not get into the lack of any physical evidence of the great civilizations mentioned in the book. We'll save that one for later once someone shows this great population growth is possible.
Posted 5 months ago # -
It amazes me that people proud to tout themselves as scholars can't manage to present their arguments logically, avoiding as much (textbook) fallacy as possible. There were one or two minor irrelevant things put forward by Packham, but Meldrum's obstinate inclusion of logic fallacy was incredible, to say the least. Richard might concede that what I said about his fallacy is correct. However, Rod seems like he would continue to defend what is (academically) obvious fallacy -- and lots of it. One of these men demonstrates an interest in truth and reality, the other... Something else.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Meldrum tries to put facts in that could support the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but when you look at the facts, they beg more questions. For example, Meldrum points to the fact that Hopewell is most likely the civilization described in the BoM because that civilization existed from 400 BC to 400 AD. We know that Lehi landed around 600 BC, but there is no record of the Hopewell until about 400 BC. Therefore, there are 200 years without proof of their arrival. Meldrum explains this problem, saying "A small group such as Lehi’s landing party would leave precious little if any signature of their arrival until their numbers began to have an impact on the land sufficient to be detected by modern archaeological methods." This could be a reasonable assumption. However, the problem is that the Hopewell really do not appear on the scene until 200 BC. So, instead of a 200 year gap, there is now a 400 year gap to explain away. Meldrum's assessment does not even mention the cultures that lived here prior to Hopewell, such as the Adena. They are known to have existed from about 1000 BC to 200 BC. This means that Lehi and his decendents would have cohabited in the same area's for about 400 years, yet there is no mention of them in the BoM.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Meldrum on the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon continues. All registered members of PublicSquare. There is far to little cross communication like this in the world. I hope for and work towards the day when humanity is creating worlds far better than anything the God of the BOM created. That is what gives me hope faith and hope in humanity and the power of good. Packham easily won this debate with his cool logic and scietific approach to the facts.Packham for refuting so easily the whole BOM myth and for exposing yet again the faulty rationales and thinly disguised idolatry for J. Roberts found this very disturbing. Perhaps the most erroneous statement made in the discussion is by Meldrum when he states that there is no one scientific method. Boy did he ever miss the boat on this one. There is in fact ONLY ONE scientific method. Then experiments are set up which work towards proving or disproving the original idea. Richard might concede that what I said about his fallacy is correct.What software is there that can give me Component Technical Manuals, Part Identification, and Inventory for my John Deere Tractors and Kholer engines? It does not have to be one type of software. It can be different. Please and Thank you!.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Thanks for this informative post. It help me a lot. And it gave mo ideas on how to make more money in marketing business. I hope lots of people visit this site so they can easily learn this informative post.
professional essay writers
professional essay writersPosted 3 months ago # -
I visited these sites and I actually made over one million dollars in less than three days!
Long live the American dream I say! Whoo ooohhh!Posted 3 months ago # -
This great blog is very interesting and enjoyable to read. I am a big fan of the subjects discussed. I also enjoy reading the comments, but notice that a lot of people should stay on topic to try and add value to the original blog post. I would also encourage everyone to bookmark this page to your favorite service to help spread the word.I'll use this information to provide research papers for my friends.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Some interesting and well researched information on photos. I'll put a link to this site on my blog. Thank you!
clinical waste managementPosted 1 month ago # -
Thank you for an additional great post. Where else could anyone get that kind of data in these a ideal way of writing? I’ve a presentation subsequent week, and I’m on the look for this kind of information.
Pennsylvania Doctor AwardsPosted 1 month ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.