Ancient Metal Plates Found in Middle East

Mormoncowboy | 8:13 p.m. April 1, 2011 Provo, Ut Bramhall/JM: A cursory view of the quotes contained in The Presidents of The Church, Elders Quorum/Relief Society manuals, compared to the original statements, ought to be enough to convince any observor that the Church is very cautious as to what it "volunteers" within it's own histories. On to the topic: Reading the banter that is going back and forth, I can't help but wonder if most people commenting here didn't actually read the article. The overall tenor is that the artifacts are probably fake. The alternative theory is that they originate between 200 and 600 AD. In either case that rules out parallels to Nephites writing on metal plates. Even the BYU scholar seems doubtful. Not even Mormon enthusiasts are picking this one up, so where exactly is the debate coming from? Secondly, it has long been established that there is at least some evidence of metal inscriptions going back possibly to the ancient egyptians (I won't pretend to be scholar on the matter), making all of this dicussion moot. Old World metallurgy is not nearly as controversial as New World metalurgy. The Book of Mormon references both.

Mormoncowboy | 8:54 a.m. April 3, 2011 Provo, Ut "larri3: Has anybody ever come up with an explanation of how Joseph Smith was able to come up with such a spot-on description of olive horticulture while living so far from the Mediterranean?" Yes, Joseph Smith did not live in the day's of Google, where answers to these types of questions is as simple as a few keystrokes and less than five minutes worth of reading. Try Romans 11:16 - 24, a discourse from Paul on grafting wild olive branches with tame olive branches, symbollic of the doctrine of "adoption". If you made any attempt to answer the question, before posing it rhetorically, you would have found this out. It was likely plagiarized conceptually from the New Testament. Second - what was this advanced perspective on ancient olive horticulture that Joseph Smith, "could not have known"? Pruning, trenching? I guess by that same logic we should not discount Alma either. He also offered a spot on analysis of horticulture, as an allegory on faith. Put a seed in the ground, nourish it, then wait and see. If it grows it was good, if doesn't it wasn't. How could Joseph Smith ever figure that out, right? Mormoncowboy | 3:06 p.m. April 3, 2011 Provo, Ut El Ingreso: A couple of responses: 1) If "faith in Christ's restored gospel is a matter of choice", then what makes that choice any better than the alternative of not having faith? In fact, if it is strictly a choice absent proof, then it seems a rather poor choice in light of the evidentiary (though inconclusive) alternatives.

2 - A) Nahom - Not as self-evident as you would like, I'm afraid. Even some Church scholars hold doubts as to whether NHM is actually Nahom mentioned in the Book of Mormon. So in answer to your question, there is a significant likelihood that Joseph Smith didn't know about it, and defenders are straining at gnats. 2 - B) Chiasmus - Another characteristic of The Book of Mormon with little agreement. In many instances, Alma 37 for example, the alleged chiasticity is quite inconsistent. Secondly, when we extend the chiastic parameters beyond words and into themes (which BoM apologists do), the basis for determining chiasmus is quite subjective. Besides, from just a practical standpoint it wouldn't have made sense for the Nephites to write in chiasmus anyway! They were ergonomically constrained by the task of engraving, so why include unnecessary redundancies?