Church Letter To Institution Why Does The Smithsonian Institution Say There Is No Connection Between Archeology And The Book Of Mormon?
Why does the Smithsonian Institution say there is no connection between archeology and the Book of Mormon? - church letter to institution
The Smithsonian Institution, has in a letter to the states of the Mormon Church, "The Smithsonian Book of Mormon never used in any way as a scientific guide. Archaeologists see no connection between the Institute of Archeology of the New World and the subject of books.
http://www.irr.org/mit/smithsonian.html
And the National Geographic Society, said:
"What the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and representatives of the National Geographic Society archaeologist, or any other institution of equal prestige connection has not used the Book of Mormon in locating historic ruins in Central America or elsewhere.
http://www.irr.org/mit/national-geograph ...
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/ ...
|
22 comments:
Because they are human and do not know everything.
The Smithsonian Institution is not God. Have been wrong before. They are wrong again. I respect your position, but I will base my faith in God - who say do not show too - in what they.
As with natural gas ... Why not? Do not approach the ruined temple, or somewhere in the intention to prove or disprove a religion? No of course not. Why start now?
Because they are human and do not know everything.
The Smithsonian Institution is not God. Have been wrong before. They are wrong again. I respect your position, but I will base my faith in God - who say do not show too - in what they.
As with natural gas ... Why not? Do not approach the ruined temple, or somewhere in the intention to prove or disprove a religion? No of course not. Why start now?
Any link or reference to a Mormon always existed, the Book of Mormon is evidence of Mormon is another story that says his mind and has a few cherries.
There are hundreds of facts and artifacts about the history of pre-Columbian America. They paint a very different picture of the history of the Mormons, if you look at all objective. There are scientists (with the exception of some Mormons) believe it could be true.
Not discussed in scientific journals. He gives credit in the amount of Bigfoot and UFOs.
Archeology, anthropology, history, genetics, biology, linguistics - any discipline is the bottom line itself. The natives came from Asia via Siberia. Not only an indicator of the Hebrews here to Columbus.
I think it is possible that Joseph Smith never found "gold plates" and never said an angel named Spumoni (or other) and all that ... but no. The Smithsonian and National Geographic Society has it wrong.: D
Pop-up - "Hmm ... looks like you have lots of punctuation"
Yes! I use a lot when I write!
In the current answer to that question is obvious.
- You see no connection between the archeology of the New World and the theme of the Book of Mormon. --
Did I miss anything?
Probably because in the writings of the world, is the Book of Mormon as the ultimate idoicy anger and stupidity, and has about as much truth as the average YouTube video on Ray Comfort.
Probably because in the writings of the world, is the Book of Mormon as the ultimate idoicy anger and stupidity, and has about as much truth as the average YouTube video on Ray Comfort.
Probably because in the writings of the world, is the Book of Mormon as the ultimate idoicy anger and stupidity, and has about as much truth as the average YouTube video on Ray Comfort.
Because the book of Mormon is historically inaccurate.
argues that Jews have lived in America and the first building of cities that were destroyed during the war.
Because the book of Mormon is historically inaccurate.
argues that Jews have lived in America and the first building of cities that were destroyed during the war.
The Book of Mormon has never been proven to be healthy archaeologically.
The Bible actually has some specific information about the historic sites. The Book of Mormon is not easy.
Since the book was written by someone imagination.
Because they can not find can not find what you do not seek, and in some cases, resolved to.
Because they can not find can not find what you do not seek, and in some cases, resolved to.
Since there is no connection between archeology and the Book of Mormon.
Because it's intellectual honesty.
Hmmmm ... Is not the Book of Mormon only a fanfiction made by the Americans?
Bacon be with you.
Science is not made of fancy!
Frankly, what you ... But be sure that time will tell.
Frankly, what you ... But be sure that time will tell.
Any historian or a historical group, which happens with what we know to be true, until new evidence arises, the change beliefs and ideas.
One example is the "land bridge from Siberia, that the" theory of how the North and South America were settled. The evidence against this theory for decades, however, that the overwhelming evidence was not necessarily change your mind too. In general, this is quiet and without fanfare. This is one of the main reasons for rejections, the Book of Mormon. He did not know agree with current theories.
These scientific and religious importance of sympathy with the Book of Mormon and are biased against them. There is no such thing as an unbiased scientific and more in "soft sciences" like anthropology, sociology and archeology. Much of what is accepted as truth, are in this way, because he once someone opinion.
There are books written on this subject. There are literally hundreds of"Evidence" of the Book of Mormon. I guess I'll never seen a smoking gun, as it will be impossible to prove definitively that Christ is risen from the dead or walking on the water.
These things are usually empirically verifiable methods. Who does not fall within the scope of science and should be revealed by the religious rules of thumb.
The Smithsonian Institution, says the Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. This statement was issued to deny the Book of Mormon itself, but it will be spent to stop the belief that promoting rumors "from unsuspecting Mormons, who demanded that the Smithsonian researchers used the Book of Mormon as a kind of treasure map distribution, which was not the case.
Their "declaration on the Book of Mormon," explains a number of inconsistencies with the archaeological and anthropological Book of Mormon statements. However, Mormons tend to explain these contradictions in a number of ways in which (used to Joseph Smith), the word was not correct because there is no equivalent statement read in English that I was in the original plates, or ( not b) modern archaeological investigations have found the items described in the Book of Mormon (but) one day, or (c) certain assumptions we are on the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon itself, but came to competing notions prevalent in our societyIty and should be revised, or open to revision. An example of (a) the word "horse". Mormons believe that the people of the Book of Mormon use workhorse or beast of burden, but in the heads of Joseph Smith, the logical name was "Horse." An example of (C) is the genetic test shows that Indians are genetically not related to a career in a Jewish or anti-Semitic in context. Mormons believe the Book of Mormon geography, including all of North and South America, including all indigenous peoples, but now widely accepted that the geography and people can be much shorter.
It should be noted that the same issues related to the Bible and the Koran. Although the situation from the Bible and the Koran, many names of specific locations are known, and most histories of the activities described are lost corroberation other historical events, and particularly sacred or supernatural events (eg miracles) are not compatible with other sources outside the archeolgoical own sacred texts. In fact, Biblical archeology is often at odds with the demands of the wonderful old writer.
Ultimately, it is a matter of faith and experience, whether a person is the Book of Mormon, the Bible or other sacred text is accepted.
Unfortunately, this is so long. I have not the patience to read. :)
Post a Comment