pt1Evidences of the Book of Mormon Daniel C Peterson lecture

[travismification]

Whats the name of the DVD or Book in front of where daniel is speaking?

[fairldsorg]

@travismification That looks like Echoes and Evidences of The Book of Mormon. It is online on the Neal A. Maxwell Institutes website. farms dot byu dot edu. Click on publications, then books, then scroll down to this book. There are quite a few books in there that are very good which you may be interested in.

[omiolo]

For a lengthy and detailed argument making precisely that equation, see Daniel C. Peterson, "'Ye are Gods': Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind," in Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges, eds., "The Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson," (Provo: FARMS, 2000), 471-594. The article is also online

[LDS4Life71]

And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye...for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things....

2 Nephi 33:11

[mdlinks]

Watching this, I am reminded of "I Am the Walrus" by the Beatles.

[omiolo]

So natural and human was the process that it suggested nothing miraculous to the ordinary observer, and "the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves; . . . it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them" (Alma 3:18).

[TrueSaintsLDS]

I always enjoy hearing Dr. Peterson. As a SCHOLAR known throughout the US and the world for achievements in the field and academic.

[Rasurusan]

Dr. Peterson. Thanks for all the good work that you do. You have helped me greatly. I appreciate your insights and defense of the faith.

[BookofMormonWarrior]

No offense, but, I implore anyone video recording lectures to invest in a tripod.

[iwbtssothy]

Daniel C. Peterson is an awesome man.

[opntheirhartzJesus]

were there actually empirical, substantive evidence for the bom, they would not have had this talk in a bookstore in provo (where?), utah. if there were evidence this talk would have been delivered on the steps of the smithsonian institute.

speculation is not evidence, it is opinion. so yeah, we get that he is a true believer. so what?

mormon scholarship goes like this: if, maybe, possibly,,, okay, that proves it.

hey mormons: if ifs and buts was candy and nuts, everyday would be Christmas ;]

[imtherealthing]

YOUR Quote: "mormon scholarship goes like this: if, maybe, possibly,,, okay, that proves it."

Hey so-called apostate christians...To say Archeology proves God also - is a joke. It is all about faith. You use archeology to point to your faith as we do - but in the end - archeology will NEVER prove GOD!!

[allahsnightstand]

your first fallacy is the ad hominem "so-called apostate Christian," your second, the strawman, that anyone has claimed that archaeology (correct spelling) proves God,,, ad hom, then straw man, ending with "assuming the concequence" by inferring that anyone addressing you doesn't believe in faith, just because theirs is not a blind ignorant faith, as is mormonism. see the problem. when you fill your tiny post with so much fallacy it is clear you have nothing to say but will say it anyway. Peace

[imtherealthing]

Oh by the way "concequence" is spelled consequence.<---(correct spelling)

lol...oh listen to you - you figure yourself for some sort of philosopher? You a mohammedean?

"blind ignorant faith" huh? The Lord uses the most simple as a stumbling block to the proudful and yes - faith is:

Heb. 11: 1 Now faith is the substance of things HOPED FOR, the EVIDENCE of things NOT SEEN (bold mine for emphasis)

[carlasue88]

at least we know that Jerusalem and Bethlehem are real places, that people like Pilate, Herod, and Jesus actually lived in a real time and place. There is NO evidence, material or otherwise, that proves anything in the BoM ever happened, that any of the characters ever existed. civilizations don't just disappear; there would be evidence.

[imtherealthing]

Wow..using THAT logic then Mohammed was a real figure, Meca is a real place, Buddah (Sidhartha Gutama) was a REAL man and lived in India, etc,...does that make what they taught real then?...of course not..ignoramace...here let me drop a bomb on you...our D&C (Doctrine and Covenants) mentions real cities, people and we can FIND "ALL" of them in history unlike Pilate, Jesus,...there is more EVIDENCE for our modern scriptures and prophets...now..you going to believe based on "EVIDENCE"?

[archaeologyprof]

Dr. Peterson's first point seems to have been lost in this discussion. Based upon Dr. Skousen's work, the BOM was clearly dictated and eyewitness accounts suggest that he could not have had a book/manuscript to dictate from. This doesn't establish the truth of the book but does provide evidence that makes Smith's description of the book's origin more plausible, and most critics' versions less. At this time it's truthfulness can only be completely established to the individual in a spiritual way.

[kiwisheep]

STOP MOVING THE CAMERA!!!!!

[omiolo]

MN,

David Whitmer was ANTImormon when he wrote that and Emma said that David Whitmer was NOT a scribe to the Book of Mormon. He didn't even come into the picture until the BOM was all ready or near all ready translated.

Stevenson was an ANTImormon too. Harris said he didn't see Joseph translate because of the sheet wall between them. This book was written waht 40-50 years after the fact.

Oliver said he used the urim and Thummin around 5-7 years after the fact.

O

[MormonNegro]

Being Anti-Mormon does not discredit a source. To reason this way is to commit the poisoning-the-well fallacy. Anti-Jehovah's Witnesses speak the truth about Pastor Russell's false prophecies. 'Anti' sources must, like any other source, be checked against other available materials. 'Anti' sources are often accurate. 'Urim and Thummim' was another word for Joseph's peepstone by 1833.

Anyhoo, the point's moot. Translating out of a hat is no more inherently absurd than ancient spectacles.

[omiolo]

In this case ANTI refers to a bias of those who have an AXE to GRIND which does discredit a source.

The LDS church is so polarizing and so was Joseph Smith that most people including myself can not view it without a bias. Which is funny because as I understand it Joseph was a very "let people govern themselves" person why Brigham Young kept his thumb over a lot. His way or the highway. Yet people spend their time attack Joseph.

[snotface7]

just curious, did you two watch the rest of this talk? the things you are arguing over are addressed in the rest of the talk.

[omiolo]

I don't agree with the assertion that Joseph Smith translated out of a hat. Most people say he translated using the urim and thummim.

[MormonNegro]

Daniel C. Peterson is the one who says that Joseph translated out of a hat. He is following what most of the witnesses say. Sorry this conflicts with the story the Church presents in Sunday School.

[omiolo]

Moronneedstogrowup,

Obviously Daniel Peterson says that. You are truly the master of the obvious. All first hand accounts say that he didn't translate using a stone out of a hat. Nice try again.

[MormonNegro]

Emma Hale Smith to her Son: "In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it" (History of RLDS Church, "Last Testimony of Sister Emma" (3:356).

David Whitmer gives the same account in *An Address to All Believers in Christ*, p. 12.

Martin Harris: in Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses", Deseret News 30 Nov 1881.

yours,

MN

[omiolo]

as for EMMA, her witness isn't as black and white as the others. I usually take Emma at her word. However, this said who was present but then seems to be given by her son, who it says wasn't giving the interview. I will withhold judgement until I know more. Martin is said to have scribed the lost manuscript and Emma only scribe a couple of pages. Oliver scribed almost all of it by the Urim and Thu. Journal of Rubeun Miller 1948.

Even Isaac Hale's avadavict didn't "appear" until 1990.

[omiolo]

A good talk on this is

Ensign » 1977 » September

"By the Gift and Power of God"

By Richard Lloyd Anderson

I suggest you read it.

[MormonNegro]

I will. Thanks for the tip.

[sticky793]

And your point is? If you had a seer stone that shone in the dark and revealed the translation of an ancient text, what better way than to put it in a hat and draw it around your face to exclude the light.

[omiolo]

Bravo!

These messages have to be shouted down because the evidence of the Book of Mormon is overwhelming.

I am sure you will get the ANTImormon lies but truth and evidence shall overcome.

Thank you Daniel Peterson.

[MormonNegro]

View of the Hebrews makes it pretty plausible that the Book of Mormon was a plagiarism. That Joseph was a poor writer or not does not help matters. Con-men often work in groups.

[omiolo]

Moronneedstogrowup,

View of the Hebrews makes it impossible that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from it. Nice try though. You should hear how Peterson makes you look pretty foolish.

[MormonNegro]

omiolo,

Have you even read View of the Hebrews? Or do you just let the talking heads at FAIR think for you? Take a look at the book and try doing your own thinking one of these days. It may hurt a little at first. Namecalling, denial and appealing to the authority of crackpots doesn't count as thinking, sorry. Brother Peterson also pretends like B.H. Roberts never doubted the Book of Mormon. If you don't read Roberts' work for yourself, you might believe this nonsense.

best wishes,

MN

[omiolo]

Moronneedstogrowup,

No I have never read the entire view of the hebrews. Have you? I have only read parts. I have nothing to hide do you?

You forget that we have met before, you and your profane writing habits. Please don't lecture me about namecalling or denial, I know your true spots.

[MormonNegro]

Have you read ANY View of the Hebrews? Or have you only read FAIR on VotH? I've read a good deal of the book. The connection with the BOM is undeniable. You really have to have your head buried in the sand not to see the parallels. The attempt to make connections with ancient Hebrew, etc is conspiracy theory B.S. when there are obvious source materials in Joseph's own surroundings, con-man that he was.

Yes, I remember you. Who cares? I have fun, but I can also think. Can you?