Monday, September 15, 2008

Archaeological Evidence For the Book of Mormon

Enjoy and please let me know what you think.

I like this quote from the video, "The evidence to support Joseph's writings simply does not exist."

Next I found this video, which is a response by M. Russel Ballard to the lack of any archaeological (or any other type of) evidence supporting the Book of Mormon.

Ballard basically admits that there is not...

He then claims that even if you saw the actual gold plates, it would not effect your testimony either way. You can only know the Book of Mormon is true by special feelings. All the proof in the world (or lack of it) is absolutely irrelevant. What kind of loopy reasoning is that?

The thing that Ballard doesn't realize is that if it was true, then there would be evidence supporting it. Even if that so-called "evidence" is irrelevant, as Ballard claims, it would still be there none the less.

But instead of evidence to support the Book of Mormon, there is actually a mountain of evidence against it. But again, that is all irrelevant according to Ballard because the only way to truly know that it's true is by those special feelings.

Now, if that's the case, why does the church even have an unofficial apologetics department?


Jessicasheley said...

He says "religious truth is always confirmed by what you feel" - interesting choice of the word "confirmed" - that would imply that there was other objective evidence and the feeling is simply a confirmation of the other evidences.

Instead, it appears to me that when it comes to the Book of Mormon, Mormons are expected to rely solely on a subjective feeling even when that feeling lies in contradiction with the objective evidence.

Truth is objective and exists independent of what a person feels or does not feel. Either there was or there was not a battle on the Hill Cumorah. If the LDS church would authorize an excavation of the hill we would know the truth of whether or not huge battles were fought there. Why will they not authorize such a dig? That is a question every Mormon should be asking themselves.

The real "monumental question" that remains unanswered by the LDS church was posed in the documentary "The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon":

How could an entire civilization consisting of well over 2 million peoples (Ether 15:2), not including the size and number of their enemies…be so completely wiped out as to have left no factual traces of their existence? No tools, no weapons, no writings, no architecture, no coins, no human remains, nothing? Every single one of them completely destroyed leaving no graves or evidences of their existence?

Mormon411 said...

Hi Jessica,

Exactly. We all know that if they did excavate the hill "Cumorah" there would be nothing there. The main reason they won't do it is because if there turns out to be nothing, they will only have another problem to explain away.

The only plausable explanation for the complete disappearance of an entire civilization would be that the said civilization never existed. Either that or god removed all the evidence so that only the really strong believers would buy it.

BTW, nice blog. I see that you have quoted me there. Actually I think it's kind of cool. I guess you've been following me for a while now?

Your blog takes an anti-Mormon, pro-god spin, which is fine. (I use the term "anti" simply for the lack of a better word) Obviously you're aware of my position and my reasons for it.

I could either leave a long comment here or write a new post, so I think I'll do that. Watch for it in the morning.