Moreover, with even a bit of academic study, you'll quickly learn that there is both archeological and DNA support for the BofM and that the archeological case for the work is certainly no worse off than that of the Bible. So despite your assumption to the contrary, the acceptance of either book as a spiritual guide is a faith based act.
3. The BofM may not adhere to your specific brand of Christianity, but the book is clearly Christian to the core, a fact that should be apparent from the official name of the book, i.e. "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Christ." In fact, there exist 25% more references to Christ by either name or title than appear even in the New Testament. Of its 6607 verses, 3925 mention Christ, providing an average reference to Jesus every 1.7 verses.
Indeed, from an academic perspective, the greatest challenge the BofM faces in terms of its claims for ancient authenticity is not textual and/or archeological issues, but in fact its highly advanced Christology.
4. Many of the rituals/oaths featured in the BofM have direct analogy with not only ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties, but by extension, those featured within the Hebrew Bible.
In all due respect, claiming that the bofM is "no worse off" than the bible in terms of it's archeological case its simply nonsense. If that be true, why doesn't the Mormon church provide a map?
Because of the word limit, I'm not likely to sell you my case here. Would you be willing to watch a film that meticulously documents the differences? This indirectly deals with your video in that many of the problems are in fact found in the Nephi books.
Not only would I be willing to watch the film, but in fact, I have already done so. You can access my published critique of the problematic production on either the Neal A. Maxwell Institute or my home page.
In addition, if you would like to learn how truly problematic archaeology proves for your assumptions concerning the Bible, I would recommend picking up an academic work such as Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman's' The Bible Unearthed
LOL O.K. If after watching that, if you're still not convinced then I'm sure that nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. The film covers the lack (zero) of evidence concerning the linguistic studies (No evidence of any ancient American Hebrew language, DNA (the Indians or "Lamanites" are not descended from the middle east but Asia), lack of coins, metallurgy like armor, swords, etc, temples, document trace, place names, animal claims, argriculture , on and on and on....
Oh and lest I forget, there's the Book of Abraham......oops.
And how about those "colored" having the mark of Cain. If only they had been a little more supportive in the ages past when they were spirit children.
Polygamy : "D and C" 132 sure makes that sound like an eternal ordinance, not something temporary.
And our Heavenly Mother. (well, that's difficult since our Father has countless wives). And about our heavenly Father, once a man like us, possibly a sinner at some point.
Then there's the philosophical problems like an infinite progression "men" becoming "gods" producing spirit children who become men-to-gods and so on and so on. Each "cycle" involving progression (time). By necessity, this would have to continue backwards for an eternity. The philosophical problem is of course if you have an infinite period of time, you could have NEVER ARRIVED AT TODAY.
I haven't really even touched on the theological (anti-Christian) problems inherent in your beliefs.
All that said, there's no hate here. I know you feel strongly about what you believe and I respect that. I just think you're wrong. I wish you the best.
"If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received , let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:9)
I fear you've fallen for the wrong gospel.
"He that believeth on me (Jesus) hath (past tense) everlasting life." (John 6:47)
Please try and keep your comments focused on the presentation at hand, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Book of Abraham, the mark of Cain, D&C 132, and/or Heavenly Mother. I may address these topics in a future presentation.
If you fail to think critically when viewing a media production serving as a piece of religious propaganda and then refuse to read published academic responses explaining the reasons why the movie is in error, then I suspect you're right, I won't ever take your opinions too seriously.
Your response assumes that you have some prophetic knowledge about my "lack of ability to think critically". Either that or you secretly know me and I'm just not aware of it. Which is it?
O.K. Let's make this simple, shall we?
The ruins of the Jewish temple can be seen in Jerusalem. Seeing that the book of Mormon is on equal footing, I'd like to visit the ancient temple ruins in America, If I recall, didn't Joseph claim it to be in Missouri? Could you leave me some directions???
There's no need to hold a prophetic ability to know that you fail to think critically in terms of religious rhetoric. It's a matter of simple deduction. I know how the movie misrepresents the facts. I know that you believe those misrepresentations, and I know that you have not read the published responses that correct those views. The topic of biblical/Book of Mormon temple worship addressed in the film appears in my published response.
So if I disagree with your opinion about a video, then I'm not a critical thinker. I believe my opinion is in line with 99.9% of non-Mormons regarding any historic validity for the BofM. Although the bible is not exhaustive in it's archaelogical vindication, it's pretty vast.
I would still like those directions to the temple in Missouri
At minimum, critical thought involves a sincere effort to research and learn about the arguments that negate ones position. Even if one does not accept those positions as valid, a critical thinker will not only be aware of material that presents a view contrary to his or her assumptions, but will have read through those arguments carefully. I invite you to do so.
The FARMS Review published my critique of the film, as well as Brant Gardners. These articles illustrate many of the reasons why both the film and the arguments you're making in these posts prove problematic. As mentioned, you can access this information via my personal website.
I will make an effort to check out your articles but for now, I have to say that you have not shown any proof on here regarding the claim you made i.e: BofM and the bible being equal regarding "proofs" for their historic validity.
I think rather than face the truth, it's easier just to say that I'm not a critical thinker. In other words, "I'd give you answer if you weren't too dumb to understand it."
Again, with all due respect here, do you see what you're doing? Rather than answering any of my questions, you're only response seems to just be an ad hominem attack on my character, saying essentially: "Your not a critical thinker" etc., etc.
I'm sure you are fully aware of the Mormon "test" for the validity of the BofM. "Just pray and ask the Lord whether the BofM is true and he'll give you a 'warm fuzzy' about it."
I'm sorry. That's not critical thinking. That's feeling.
Indeed, I know precisely what I am doing. I am using my personal youtube account to share some observations on interpreting the BofM through the lens of the Hebrew Bible. As a result, you have come on to my site, posting off topic comments on every subject from biblical archeology, to plural marriage, to the mark of Cain. This format is not intended as, nor is it conducive for, a detailed response to your problematic assumptions. Please access the articles I recommended for further clarity.
Regarding your "interpreting the BofM through the lens of the Hebrew Bible", might I suggest you start with this verse from Isaiah 43:10 which says:
"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen : that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed , neither shall there be after me."
O.K. I read your critique. Please suffer me to be blunt w/ no offense intended. That's one of the most spurious, straw-man, non-critical "critiques" I've ever read.
Because of it's length, I can't unravel it in this format but wow!, what I misrepresentation.
Aside from a feeble attempt of "trying" to deal with a few examples like coins and temples, you just ignored most every point in the documentary.
What arguments you gave were weak and darn right deceptive.
Since you appear to be the "academic scholar" here. after you give me the directions to the ancient Mormon (Nephite or whatever it is called) temple, I would like you to give me just one academic science journal (non-Mormon please) that acknowledges that DNA evidence shows ANY American Indians to have DNA that supports a Hebrew ancestry.
Name me one..................
Do the same for archeological evidence as well. Again, a respected, accredited, academic, non-Mormon science journal.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I would prefer, however, if comments would engage the actual presentation and its claims, since of course the issue of authorship for 2 Nephi neither validates nor disproves the validity of this specific literary/religious observation.
I mean no disrespect but I find it hard to take any Mormon claims seriously. I believe J Sm was a plagiarist amongst other things. He supposedly translated Nephi by looking into a hat using a seer stone. There is not one shred of textual evidence tracing back to 400 AD, much less linguistic, archaeological, or DNA evidence to support any book of M. claims. It's anti-Christian to it's core.
Many of the rituals/oaths (esp. pre'90) are re-hashed first 3 degrees of Masonic rituals.
Moreover, with even a bit of academic study, you'll quickly learn that there is both archeological and DNA support for the BofM and that the archeological case for the work is certainly no worse off than that of the Bible. So despite your assumption to the contrary, the acceptance of either book as a spiritual guide is a faith based act.
Dbokovoy 1 year ago
3. The BofM may not adhere to your specific brand of Christianity, but the book is clearly Christian to the core, a fact that should be apparent from the official name of the book, i.e. "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Christ." In fact, there exist 25% more references to Christ by either name or title than appear even in the New Testament. Of its 6607 verses, 3925 mention Christ, providing an average reference to Jesus every 1.7 verses.
Dbokovoy 1 year ago
Indeed, from an academic perspective, the greatest challenge the BofM faces in terms of its claims for ancient authenticity is not textual and/or archeological issues, but in fact its highly advanced Christology.
4. Many of the rituals/oaths featured in the BofM have direct analogy with not only ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties, but by extension, those featured within the Hebrew Bible.
Dbokovoy 1 year ago
@Dbokovoy
In all due respect, claiming that the bofM is "no worse off" than the bible in terms of it's archeological case its simply nonsense. If that be true, why doesn't the Mormon church provide a map?
Because of the word limit, I'm not likely to sell you my case here. Would you be willing to watch a film that meticulously documents the differences? This indirectly deals with your video in that many of the problems are in fact found in the Nephi books.
Search: watch?v=G1mFdO1wB08
HaveUconsidered 1 year ago
@HaveUconsidered
Not only would I be willing to watch the film, but in fact, I have already done so. You can access my published critique of the problematic production on either the Neal A. Maxwell Institute or my home page.
In addition, if you would like to learn how truly problematic archaeology proves for your assumptions concerning the Bible, I would recommend picking up an academic work such as Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman's' The Bible Unearthed
Best
Dbokovoy 1 year ago
@Dbokovoy
LOL O.K. If after watching that, if you're still not convinced then I'm sure that nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. The film covers the lack (zero) of evidence concerning the linguistic studies (No evidence of any ancient American Hebrew language, DNA (the Indians or "Lamanites" are not descended from the middle east but Asia), lack of coins, metallurgy like armor, swords, etc, temples, document trace, place names, animal claims, argriculture , on and on and on....
HaveUconsidered 1 year ago
pt 2
Oh and lest I forget, there's the Book of Abraham......oops.
And how about those "colored" having the mark of Cain. If only they had been a little more supportive in the ages past when they were spirit children.
Polygamy : "D and C" 132 sure makes that sound like an eternal ordinance, not something temporary.
And our Heavenly Mother. (well, that's difficult since our Father has countless wives). And about our heavenly Father, once a man like us, possibly a sinner at some point.
HaveUconsidered 1 year ago
pt 3
Then there's the philosophical problems like an infinite progression "men" becoming "gods" producing spirit children who become men-to-gods and so on and so on. Each "cycle" involving progression (time). By necessity, this would have to continue backwards for an eternity. The philosophical problem is of course if you have an infinite period of time, you could have NEVER ARRIVED AT TODAY.
I haven't really even touched on the theological (anti-Christian) problems inherent in your beliefs.
HaveUconsidered 1 year ago
pt 4
All that said, there's no hate here. I know you feel strongly about what you believe and I respect that. I just think you're wrong. I wish you the best.
"If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received , let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:9)
I fear you've fallen for the wrong gospel.
"He that believeth on me (Jesus) hath (past tense) everlasting life." (John 6:47)
HaveUconsidered 1 year ago
Thank you for your concern. It's the same one I hold for you.
Best
Dbokovoy 1 year ago
See Ibid.
Dbokovoy 1 year ago
Please try and keep your comments focused on the presentation at hand, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Book of Abraham, the mark of Cain, D&C 132, and/or Heavenly Mother. I may address these topics in a future presentation.
Dbokovoy 1 year ago
If you fail to think critically when viewing a media production serving as a piece of religious propaganda and then refuse to read published academic responses explaining the reasons why the movie is in error, then I suspect you're right, I won't ever take your opinions too seriously.
Dbokovoy 1 year ago
Your response assumes that you have some prophetic knowledge about my "lack of ability to think critically". Either that or you secretly know me and I'm just not aware of it. Which is it?
O.K. Let's make this simple, shall we?
The ruins of the Jewish temple can be seen in Jerusalem. Seeing that the book of Mormon is on equal footing, I'd like to visit the ancient temple ruins in America, If I recall, didn't Joseph claim it to be in Missouri? Could you leave me some directions???
HaveUconsidered 1 year ago
There's no need to hold a prophetic ability to know that you fail to think critically in terms of religious rhetoric. It's a matter of simple deduction. I know how the movie misrepresents the facts. I know that you believe those misrepresentations, and I know that you have not read the published responses that correct those views. The topic of biblical/Book of Mormon temple worship addressed in the film appears in my published response.
Dbokovoy 1 year ago
So if I disagree with your opinion about a video, then I'm not a critical thinker. I believe my opinion is in line with 99.9% of non-Mormons regarding any historic validity for the BofM. Although the bible is not exhaustive in it's archaelogical vindication, it's pretty vast.
I would still like those directions to the temple in Missouri
HaveUconsidered 1 year ago
At minimum, critical thought involves a sincere effort to research and learn about the arguments that negate ones position. Even if one does not accept those positions as valid, a critical thinker will not only be aware of material that presents a view contrary to his or her assumptions, but will have read through those arguments carefully. I invite you to do so.
Dbokovoy 1 year ago
The FARMS Review published my critique of the film, as well as Brant Gardners. These articles illustrate many of the reasons why both the film and the arguments you're making in these posts prove problematic. As mentioned, you can access this information via my personal website.
Best
Dbokovoy 1 year ago
@Dbokovoy
I will make an effort to check out your articles but for now, I have to say that you have not shown any proof on here regarding the claim you made i.e: BofM and the bible being equal regarding "proofs" for their historic validity.
I think rather than face the truth, it's easier just to say that I'm not a critical thinker. In other words, "I'd give you answer if you weren't too dumb to understand it."
HaveUconsidered 1 year ago
@Dbokovoy
Again, with all due respect here, do you see what you're doing? Rather than answering any of my questions, you're only response seems to just be an ad hominem attack on my character, saying essentially: "Your not a critical thinker" etc., etc.
I'm sure you are fully aware of the Mormon "test" for the validity of the BofM. "Just pray and ask the Lord whether the BofM is true and he'll give you a 'warm fuzzy' about it."
I'm sorry. That's not critical thinking. That's feeling.
HaveUconsidered 1 year ago
Indeed, I know precisely what I am doing. I am using my personal youtube account to share some observations on interpreting the BofM through the lens of the Hebrew Bible. As a result, you have come on to my site, posting off topic comments on every subject from biblical archeology, to plural marriage, to the mark of Cain. This format is not intended as, nor is it conducive for, a detailed response to your problematic assumptions. Please access the articles I recommended for further clarity.
Dbokovoy 1 year ago
@Dbokovoy
Regarding your "interpreting the BofM through the lens of the Hebrew Bible", might I suggest you start with this verse from Isaiah 43:10 which says:
"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen : that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed , neither shall there be after me."
HaveUconsidered 1 year ago
@HaveUconsidered Those hyperbolic statements can be found all over the ancient near east. E.g. hymn to Amun-Re:
"You are the Sole One, who made [all] that exists,
One, alone, who made that which is,
From whose two eyes mankind came forth,
On whose mouth the gods came into being,"
And the Egyptians were polytheistic!
PoderdelChino 1 month ago
@Dbokovoy
O.K. I read your critique. Please suffer me to be blunt w/ no offense intended. That's one of the most spurious, straw-man, non-critical "critiques" I've ever read.
Because of it's length, I can't unravel it in this format but wow!, what I misrepresentation.
Aside from a feeble attempt of "trying" to deal with a few examples like coins and temples, you just ignored most every point in the documentary.
What arguments you gave were weak and darn right deceptive.
Nice try. Sorry.
HaveUconsidered 1 year ago
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
Dbokovoy 1 year ago
@Dbokovoy
I'm sorry if I came across as arrogant or snippy in my response. I don't mean to insult you. You seem like a very accomplished and sincere man.
Can I ask you a question? (Yes, it's unfortunately not related to your video)
Have you been born again?
HaveUconsidered 1 year ago
Since you appear to be the "academic scholar" here. after you give me the directions to the ancient Mormon (Nephite or whatever it is called) temple, I would like you to give me just one academic science journal (non-Mormon please) that acknowledges that DNA evidence shows ANY American Indians to have DNA that supports a Hebrew ancestry.
Name me one..................
Do the same for archeological evidence as well. Again, a respected, accredited, academic, non-Mormon science journal.
ONE
HaveUconsidered 1 year ago
I have another theory: Nephi as the editor of Joseph Smith's imagination.
HaveUconsidered 1 year ago
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I would prefer, however, if comments would engage the actual presentation and its claims, since of course the issue of authorship for 2 Nephi neither validates nor disproves the validity of this specific literary/religious observation.
Best,
--DB
Dbokovoy 1 year ago
@Dbokovoy
I mean no disrespect but I find it hard to take any Mormon claims seriously. I believe J Sm was a plagiarist amongst other things. He supposedly translated Nephi by looking into a hat using a seer stone. There is not one shred of textual evidence tracing back to 400 AD, much less linguistic, archaeological, or DNA evidence to support any book of M. claims. It's anti-Christian to it's core.
Many of the rituals/oaths (esp. pre'90) are re-hashed first 3 degrees of Masonic rituals.
HaveUconsidered 1 year ago