LDS LDS leaders have known since at least the 1920s that the BOM is not historical

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,565
13,722
✟429,692.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
John Dehlin interviews Shannon Caldwell Montez on the Mormon meetings of 1922 with B.H. Roberts, wherein it was discussed that the BOM does not have a historical/real world basis.


Synopsis as required by the new video posting rules (and because it is a very long video): It was discussed at gatherings of LDS church leaders and notables held in 1922 that the BOM has several historical problems that basically make it impossible for any thinking person (including thinking Mormons, as all at the meetings were) to claim that the book is historical. This was openly recognized to be so at the time, and only in subsequent decades have Mormon apologetics taken to dismissing such findings as 'anti-Mormon'.
 

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
B. H. Roberts was noted for playing the "Devil's Advocate" and essentially embarrassing would-be apologists into doing more homework and research. This was, perhaps, his greatest contribution to the work of apologetics in the church, above and beyond his many scholarly works.

Not only that, but in the 100 years since this event took place there have been a rather incredible number of discoveries that have rendered the Book of Mormon increasingly plausible. Thing is, most critics of the church are unaware of this, with the professional ministers / pundits often deliberately so because they cannot be bothered with anything that challenges their narrative.

For example, critics of the church keep trying to claim that swords and armor were unknown in Latin America before Columbus arrived, and claim this as a victory. In reality? One of two known configurations of an indigenous weapon known as a "macuahuitl" (sharpened obsidian mounted to wood by way of tree sap) was something comparable to a European broadsword. Not only that, records have been uncovered indicating that some peoples used wooden shields, wooden helmets, and/or a form of padded leather armor.

When presented with this information, the general response of the professionals and their adherents is a level of anger on par with their level of hatred for the church; as such, the responses tend to range from "I'm going to pretend I never heard that because it's inconvenient to my cause" to "I'm going to have my pal Guido make you sleep with the fishes if you don't be quiet".

The end result is that by the year 2000 even individual critics of the church were coming to realize that the Christian counter-cult as a whole was being soundly defeated because it kept trying to do battle with canned arguments that had long since been rendered obsolete.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: He is the way
Upvote 0

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟219,719.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
a rather incredible number of discoveries that have rendered the Book of Mormon increasingly plausible.
Your BoM may rise to the level of plausibility when Reformed Egyptian can be shown as a valid language and evidence of millions of ancestral Jewish peoples inhabiting North and/or Central America. Until then, the BoM will remain in the deep, dark depths of wishful thinking.
 
Upvote 0

Hrairoo

Prayerfully Searching
Aug 30, 2020
135
119
New York
✟14,563.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I wish Ironhold would post the evidence discovered that makes the Book of Mormon more plausible. Who knows? Maybe I've been misled this whole time by anti-Mormons who said there was no archaeological evidence for the Nephites and Lamanites and the Jaredites.
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
I wish Ironhold would post the evidence discovered that makes the Book of Mormon more plausible. Who knows? Maybe I've been misled this whole time by anti-Mormons who said there was no archaeological evidence for the Nephites and Lamanites and the Jaredites.

Macuahuitl - Wikipedia

Let's start with the macuahuitl, with a clear shot of a modern replica at the start of the image.

Accounts of the sword-style version's effectiveness in battle are such that one conquistador claims it nearly decapitated his horse in a single stroke.

Back when Discovery Networks had proper message boards going for their shows, at least once a week someone was on the "Mythbusters" forum asking for people to test how effectiveness such a weapon could be.

I've seen critics of the church go deep into denial to claim that this weapon never existed, with one critic even going so far as to try and argue that this was some sort of flail rather than a sword.
 
Upvote 0

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟219,719.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Macuahuitl - Wikipedia

Let's start with the macuahuitl, with a clear shot of a modern replica at the start of the image.

Accounts of the sword-style version's effectiveness in battle are such that one conquistador claims it nearly decapitated his horse in a single stroke.

Back when Discovery Networks had proper message boards going for their shows, at least once a week someone was on the "Mythbusters" forum asking for people to test how effectiveness such a weapon could be.

I've seen critics of the church go deep into denial to claim that this weapon never existed, with one critic even going so far as to try and argue that this was some sort of flail rather than a sword.
Now, connect the dots and show us where the Nephites, Lamanites, and/or Jaredites actually existed to use such a weapon.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hrairoo
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,565
13,722
✟429,692.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Macuahuitl - Wikipedia

Let's start with the macuahuitl, with a clear shot of a modern replica at the start of the image.

How's about you start by reading your own link and seeing there under "Service history" in the info box that the Macuahuitl was used during the classic and post-classic stage of Mesoamerican civilizations, from 900 AD to 1570 AD.

Say, what time period does the BOM cover again, according to the LDS religion itself?

ensignlp.nfo:o:334e.jpg



600 BC to ~400 AD...why, that's not 900 AD to 1570 AD at all. :scratch:

Amazing how "the most correct book on Earth" is supported by the existence of things that aren't found in the historical record until 500 years after its own narrative ends. What great 'evidence' you have for the BOM and the Mormon religion.

Accounts of the sword-style version's effectiveness in battle are such that one conquistador claims it nearly decapitated his horse in a single stroke.

Wow...that sure proves that it is a period-appropriate object. I know that whenever I want to find the appropriate historical period that some material object belongs to, I always start by asking if it can decapitate a horse.

Back when Discovery Networks had proper message boards going for their shows, at least once a week someone was on the "Mythbusters" forum asking for people to test how effectiveness such a weapon could be.

I've seen critics of the church go deep into denial to claim that this weapon never existed, with one critic even going so far as to try and argue that this was some sort of flail rather than a sword.

And I've seen Mormons go on and on with a bunch of irrelevant nonsense that actually disproves their own book's narrative, that they present as though it does the very opposite. Not on the Discovery Channel message boards, though.

Would you care to guess where? It's easier to find than the Book of Mormon lands. You might even say that we're both posting on it right now.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hrairoo

Prayerfully Searching
Aug 30, 2020
135
119
New York
✟14,563.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Macuahuitl - Wikipedia

Let's start with the macuahuitl, with a clear shot of a modern replica at the start of the image.

Accounts of the sword-style version's effectiveness in battle are such that one conquistador claims it nearly decapitated his horse in a single stroke.

Back when Discovery Networks had proper message boards going for their shows, at least once a week someone was on the "Mythbusters" forum asking for people to test how effectiveness such a weapon could be.

I've seen critics of the church go deep into denial to claim that this weapon never existed, with one critic even going so far as to try and argue that this was some sort of flail rather than a sword.
Every instance of archaeological evidence for the BoM I have looked into has been either stretched to the point that it invalidates the seer stone translation process or it isn't the right time period or the right region, etc.

I don't see how you can connect this sword-club to BoM people. Just proving that some ancient people could make things sharp enough to cut doesn't put it in Nephite hands. Especially not when the Jaredite remains were dug up and they said they found "rusted swords" where the battle had taken place. Does obsidian rust? Which battles are we saying this sword-club was used for? Why are we in MesoAmerica? I'm pretty sure the Hill Cumorah behind Joseph's house in New York is near where the last battle took place. At least, the tour guides for that historic site are told to encourage people to visualize the ancient battles that took place there and have a spiritual experience about it. I'm fine though if you want to prove again for me that the church encourages faith-building exercises based on falsehoods.

It would definitely be compelling if most of the anachronisms were accounted for and there was evidence of these ancient people in the actual ground. Who knows? Maybe all those old friends of the Smith family, the money diggers in New York and Pennsylvania dug all of that stuff up. Or maybe the money diggers like Joseph Smith weren't lying. Maybe there really were evil spirits guarding that slippery treasure and every time these seers and peepers went looking for it, those guardian spirits tugged the remains of Nephites and Lamanites down down down through the dirt. Now it's all lost forever.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,750
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,779.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I wish Ironhold would post the evidence discovered that makes the Book of Mormon more plausible. Who knows? Maybe I've been misled this whole time by anti-Mormons who said there was no archaeological evidence for the Nephites and Lamanites and the Jaredites.


Anthropology Outreach Office
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History MRC 112
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560

PREPARED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
1996

STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON



1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern. central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians cane into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Being Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.

4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.

6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asian and the Near East.

7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.

8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.

SUGGESTED READINGS



Coe, Michael D. Mexico. 4th revised edition. Thames & Hudson, 1994. (A well-written, authoritative raunmary of Mexican archeology.)

Coe, Michael D. The Maya. 5th revised edition. Thames & Hudson, 1993. (A general summary of the archeology of the Maya.)

Coe, Michael D. and Richard A Diehl. In the Land of the Olmecs. 2 vols. University of Texas Press, 1980.

Fagan, Brian. Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. 2nd ed. New York: Thames &Hudson, 1995.

________. Kingdoms of Gold, Kingdoms of Jade: The Americas Before Columbus. New York: Thames & Hudson, 1991.

Ferguson, Thomas S. OneFold and One Shepherd. San Francisco: Books of California, 1958. (A book presenting the Mormon point of view.)

Freidel, David, Linda Schele, and Joy Parker. Maya Cosmos. NY: New York: William Morrow & Co., 1993.

Hammond, Norman. Ancient Maya Civilization. New Brunswick New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1982.

Hunter, Milton R. and Thomas S. Ferguson. Ancient America and the Book of Mormon. Oakland, California: Kolob Book Co., 1950. (The Mormon point of view is presented.)

Jennings, Jesse D. Prehistory of North America. 2nd edition. McGraw Hill, 1989.

Jennings Jesse, editor. Vol. 1. Ancient North Americans. Vol. 2. Ancient South Americans. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1983.

Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. and Jeremy A. Sabloff. Ancient Civilizations; The Near East and Mesoamerica. 2nd ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1995. (Chapter 4 discusses the first Mesoamerican civilization and its origin. Very readable.)

Marcus, Joyce. Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, and History in Four Ancient Civilizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1952-. (Published results of archeological investigations in Mesoamerica by the Foundation supported by the Mormon Church.)

Riley, Carroll L. et al., editors. Man Across the Sea: Problems of Pre-Columbian Contancts. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971. (A collection of articles, mostly by well-qualified specialists, concerning transoceanic contacts.)

Sabloff, Jeremy A. Cities of Ancient Mexico: Reconstructing a Lost World. New York, NY: Thames &Hudson, 1990.

Schele, Linda, and David Freidel. A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. New York, NY: William Merrow & Co., 1992.

Wauchope, Robert. Lost Tribes and Sunken Continents. University of Chicago Press, 1974. (Chapter 4 covers Mormon theories, setting them in the context of other nonscientific schemes. Author is a well-qualified specialist on Mexican archeology.)

Williams, Stephen. Fantastic Archaeology: the Wild Side of North American Prehistory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991. (See the chapter "Archaeology and Religion: Where Angels Fear to Tread.")

Smithsonian Letter

I know that the Smithsonian wrote that because I requested a copy back then.
 
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Anthropology Outreach Office
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History MRC 112
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560

PREPARED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
1996

STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON



1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern. central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians cane into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Being Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.

4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.

6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asian and the Near East.

7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.

8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.

SUGGESTED READINGS



Coe, Michael D. Mexico. 4th revised edition. Thames & Hudson, 1994. (A well-written, authoritative raunmary of Mexican archeology.)

Coe, Michael D. The Maya. 5th revised edition. Thames & Hudson, 1993. (A general summary of the archeology of the Maya.)

Coe, Michael D. and Richard A Diehl. In the Land of the Olmecs. 2 vols. University of Texas Press, 1980.

Fagan, Brian. Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent. 2nd ed. New York: Thames &Hudson, 1995.

________. Kingdoms of Gold, Kingdoms of Jade: The Americas Before Columbus. New York: Thames & Hudson, 1991.

Ferguson, Thomas S. OneFold and One Shepherd. San Francisco: Books of California, 1958. (A book presenting the Mormon point of view.)

Freidel, David, Linda Schele, and Joy Parker. Maya Cosmos. NY: New York: William Morrow & Co., 1993.

Hammond, Norman. Ancient Maya Civilization. New Brunswick New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1982.

Hunter, Milton R. and Thomas S. Ferguson. Ancient America and the Book of Mormon. Oakland, California: Kolob Book Co., 1950. (The Mormon point of view is presented.)

Jennings, Jesse D. Prehistory of North America. 2nd edition. McGraw Hill, 1989.

Jennings Jesse, editor. Vol. 1. Ancient North Americans. Vol. 2. Ancient South Americans. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1983.

Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. and Jeremy A. Sabloff. Ancient Civilizations; The Near East and Mesoamerica. 2nd ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1995. (Chapter 4 discusses the first Mesoamerican civilization and its origin. Very readable.)

Marcus, Joyce. Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, and History in Four Ancient Civilizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1952-. (Published results of archeological investigations in Mesoamerica by the Foundation supported by the Mormon Church.)

Riley, Carroll L. et al., editors. Man Across the Sea: Problems of Pre-Columbian Contancts. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971. (A collection of articles, mostly by well-qualified specialists, concerning transoceanic contacts.)

Sabloff, Jeremy A. Cities of Ancient Mexico: Reconstructing a Lost World. New York, NY: Thames &Hudson, 1990.

Schele, Linda, and David Freidel. A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. New York, NY: William Merrow & Co., 1992.

Wauchope, Robert. Lost Tribes and Sunken Continents. University of Chicago Press, 1974. (Chapter 4 covers Mormon theories, setting them in the context of other nonscientific schemes. Author is a well-qualified specialist on Mexican archeology.)

Williams, Stephen. Fantastic Archaeology: the Wild Side of North American Prehistory. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991. (See the chapter "Archaeology and Religion: Where Angels Fear to Tread.")

Smithsonian Letter

I know that the Smithsonian wrote that because I requested a copy back then.
If this proves the Book of Mormon is wrong then modern science also proves the Bible is wrong. That being said I believe that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true and modern science is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
Anthropology Outreach Office
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History MRC 112
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560

PREPARED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
1996

STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON

The Smithsonian was forced to retract the letter within two years of it first being issued, both because of how unprofessional it was and because even back then discoveries had been made which contradicted the information in the letter.

Response to the Smithsonian Institute Statement on the Book of Mormon

Jeff Lindsay discusses the matter at length on his website, both the nature of the retraction and the then-recent discoveries which forced its retraction.

That the letter is still in circulation among the counter-cult ministry is because so few ministers can be bothered to do their own research and so do not realize they're telling lies to their audiences.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: He is the way
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, I don't think my answer was very coherent. Sometimes it seems like science and religion are at odds with other. Many people say that science disproves the Bible. Here are some links:
Biblical criticism - Wikipedia

Criticism of the Bible - Wikipedia

Bible conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

Biblical Contradictions | American Atheists

"Secularism means embracing the material rewards and the affairs of this world above faith in an unseen deity. Secularists advocate attention to the planet, with emphasis on individual rights. They generally believe that all of man’s worries, woes and wars are due to the “primitive superstitious religious thinking of our ancestors.”

Secularism is sweeping the nations, and has itself become a religion!

Lyrics to the popular song “Imagine,” written decades ago, offered an idealistic solution to the world’s problems. Essentially (according to the song), if people removed religion from their lives (“Imagine there’s no heaven, It’s easy if you try, No hell below us, Above us only sky…”), did away with national governments and borders (“Imagine there’s no countries, It isn’t hard to do, Nothing to kill or die for, No religion too…”), and gave up all personal possessions (“Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can, No need for greed or hunger, A brotherhood of man…”), a utopia would somehow emerge, with “all the people living life in peace…Sharing all the world…”

A secular-minded person may be sincere in his or her desire to do away with violence, ignorance, poverty and disease, but would a world without religion make this dream become reality? Can secular leaders, free of religious influences, usher in a world of lasting peace and harmony?"

From: Is Religion the Problem – Or the Solution?

What I was trying to say is that just like the Book of Mormon the Bible is also suspect to non-believers. Debating that because there are people who disbelieve the Book of Mormon as a reason not to believe is the same as saying there are people who do not believe in the Bible so it must be wrong. It is not a good defense against the Book of Mormon.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟219,719.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is not a good defense against the Book of Mormon.
A good defense against the Book of Mormon is the people, places, and things contained within it never existed. Nor is there such a language as "Reformed Egyptian" it was supposedly written in. Joseph Smith was a fraud and a false prophet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dzheremi
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
A good defense against the Book of Mormon is the people, places, and things contained within it never existed. Nor is there such a language as "Reformed Egyptian" it was supposedly written in. Joseph Smith was a fraud and a false prophet.
People also say there is no proof of the great flood, so that means there was no flood? Lack of proof proves nothing. Can you prove that Adam was formed out of the dust of the ground?
 
Upvote 0

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟219,719.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
People also say there is no proof of the great flood, so that means there was no flood? Lack of proof proves nothing. Can you prove that Adam was formed out of the dust of the ground?
You seem to have difficulty facing the truth, don't you? That, and avoiding rabbit hole distractions.

Your own past leaders, per the OP, have admitted the BOM cannot be historical. I have bolded it below, in case you missed it.

It was discussed at gatherings of LDS church leaders and notables held in 1922 that the BOM has several historical problems that basically make it impossible for any thinking person (including thinking Mormons, as all at the meetings were) to claim that the book is historical.

Don't care what "people" say about the flood - not the thread topic.
Adam formed from dust is also not the thread topic.
 
Upvote 0

He is the way

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2018
8,103
359
Murray
✟113,072.00
Country
United States
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
You seem to have difficulty facing the truth, don't you? That, and avoiding rabbit hole distractions.

Your own past leaders, per the OP, have admitted the BOM cannot be historical. I have bolded it below, in case you missed it.



Don't care what "people" say about the flood - not the thread topic.
Adam formed from dust is also not the thread topic.
Like I said lack of evidence proves NOTHING.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums