Question for Non-Mormons.

[pyro457]

Here is a question for Anti-Mormons.


The Book of Mormon, in First Nephi, describes a journey through the Arabian Peninsula in great detail. It gives specific details such as the Valley of Lemuel with its continually flowing River of Laman. It talks of other places as well such as a burial place called Nahom, and a place called Bountiful. Many anti Mormon critics say there is no such places in the Arabian Peninsula. But actuall places have been discovered in recent times. A plausible valley has been found with its continually flowing river. A burial place that could be Nahom has been found right where it said it was. And a spot on the coast of Oman has been found that could be Bountiful. Not only were these areas not known during Joseph Smith's time but many people still dont know today. Information on the journey through the Arabian Peninsula can be found in a book by George Potter and Richard Wellington, Lehi in the Wilderness which includes 81 different evidences for the Book of Mormon. Now how could Joseph Smith have gotten all of these things correct in the Book of Mormon if he supposedly made it up as many claim? Did he just make a lot of lucky guesses? Seems like a far fetched idea to say that he guessed at these details. If he was just making it up as he went along then why did he include all of these details which where unkown in his day?

 

[ST:DS9]

Here is a question for Anti-Mormons.


The Book of Mormon, in First Nephi, describes a journey through the Arabian Peninsula in great detail. It gives specific details such as the Valley of Lemuel with its continually flowing River of Laman. It talks of other places as well such as a burial place called Nahom, and a place called Bountiful. Many anti Mormon critics say there is no such places in the Arabian Peninsula. But actuall places have been discovered in recent times. A plausible valley has been found with its continually flowing river. A burial place that could be Nahom has been found right where it said it was. And a spot on the coast of Oman has been found that could be Bountiful. Not only were these areas not known during Joseph Smith's time but many people still dont know today. Information on the journey through the Arabian Peninsula can be found in a book by George Potter and Richard Wellington, Lehi in the Wilderness. Now how could Joseph Smith have gotten all of these things correct in the Book of Mormon if he supposedly made it up as many claim? Did he just make a lot of lucky guesses? Seems like a far fetched idea to say that he guessed at these details. If he was just making it up as he went along then why did he include all of these details which where unkown in his day?

I have talked about this with a Baptist minister in Texas on my mission, his answer to that question was that Joseph Smith was told of this stuff by Satan. I have had friends who have had the same kind of conversations with different people and they all said the same thing.

 

[pyro457]

I have talked about this with a Baptist minister in Texas, his answer to that question was that Joseph Smith was told of this stuff by Satan.

Now that is a good one...lol.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Question for Non-Mormons.

Here is a question for Anti-Mormons.


The Book of Mormon, in First Nephi, describes a journey through the Arabian Peninsula in great detail. It gives specific details such as the Valley of Lemuel with its continually flowing River of Laman. It talks of other places as well such as a burial place called Nahom, and a place called Bountiful. Many anti Mormon critics say there is no such places in the Arabian Peninsula. But actuall places have been discovered in recent times. A plausible valley has been found with its continually flowing river. A burial place that could be Nahom has been found right where it said it was. And a spot on the coast of Oman has been found that could be Bountiful. Not only were these areas not known during Joseph Smith's time but many people still dont know today. Information on the journey through the Arabian Peninsula can be found in a book by George Potter and Richard Wellington, Lehi in the Wilderness which includes 81 different evidences for the Book of Mormon. Now how could Joseph Smith have gotten all of these things correct in the Book of Mormon if he supposedly made it up as many claim? Did he just make a lot of lucky guesses? Seems like a far fetched idea to say that he guessed at these details. If he was just making it up as he went along then why did he include all of these details which where unkown in his day?

You aren't going to get anywhere by referring to non-Mormons, as "anti-Mormons".

 

[ST:DS9]

You aren't going to get anywhere by referring to non-Mormons, as "anti-Mormons".

oh ya, Pyro, I wouldn't use that term around here. Someone on this forum have said something to the fact that they weren't anti mormon, but were anti-mormonism.

 

[skylark1]

You aren't going to get anywhere by referring to non-Mormons, as "anti-Mormons".

I agree. The term is rude and used in an insulting manner.

Since the question is for "anti-Mormons," I will let someone who doesn't mind the name calling respond.

 

[CrownCaster]

I am not an anti-mormon, I am an anti-hell ex-mormon. The idea that satan had a hand in the joseph smith story is high on my list.

 

[ST:DS9]

I am not an anti-mormon, I am an anti-hell ex-mormon. The idea that satan had a hand in the joseph smith story is high on my list.

Which is why archeological evidences would never prove the Book of Mormon true. It won't matter how much archeological evidences there are, the answerer will always be "Satan told him about it".

 

[CrownCaster]

Which is why archeological evidences would never prove the Book of Mormon true. It won't matter how much archeological evidences there are, the answerer will always be "Satan told him about it".

Actually, if you could produce even a handful of the many coins or some evidence of some sort for the mass slayings or the massive cities, I would love to look further. I was once a mormon. The fact that there is nothing but blind faith to back up the claims of mormonism is partially what drove me from it, that and the fact that the Jesus of the Bible is so much different.

 

[seek2find]

Writing something about ancient places and history is one thing... As a non-Mormon, I think I'm just confused as to why that knowledge automatically means that the person is qualified by God to write a book in His name.

Sorry ahead of time for any ignorance on my part...

 

[Romans5:1]

Here is a question for Anti-Mormons.

No one here is "anti-Mormon."

The Book of Mormon, in First Nephi, describes a journey through the Arabian Peninsula in great detail. It gives specific details such as the Valley of Lemuel with its continually flowing River of Laman. It talks of other places as well such as a burial place called Nahom, and a place called Bountiful. Many anti Mormon critics say there is no such places in the Arabian Peninsula. But actuall places have been discovered in recent times. A plausible valley has been found with its continually flowing river. A burial place that could be Nahom has been found right where it said it was. And a spot on the coast of Oman has been found that could be Bountiful. Not only were these areas not known during Joseph Smith's time but many people still dont know today. Information on the journey through the Arabian Peninsula can be found in a book by George Potter and Richard Wellington, Lehi in the Wilderness which includes 81 different evidences for the Book of Mormon. Now how could Joseph Smith have gotten all of these things correct in the Book of Mormon if he supposedly made it up as many claim? Did he just make a lot of lucky guesses? Seems like a far fetched idea to say that he guessed at these details. If he was just making it up as he went along then why did he include all of these details which where unkown in his day?

I have a better question for you. Why are you spamming material from Mormon boards and placing them here? The reason that I ask is that I remember our phantom Mormon buddy, leeuniverse, posting nearly the same tripe elsewhere, and was wondering why you've decided to plagiarize the same material and post it here? Can't find an original thought to discuss? All the other discussions of substance have you baffled? You're leeuniverse, and since no one would pay attention to your ramblings as leeuniverse, you've decided to change names, and take another run at it?

 

[Serapha]

Oh, mercy,


I can't let this one pass....

Here is a question for Anti-Mormons.


The Book of Mormon, in First Nephi, describes a journey through the Arabian Peninsula in great detail....


Information on the journey through the Arabian Peninsula can be found in a book by George Potter and Richard Wellington, Lehi in the Wilderness which includes 81 different evidences for the Book of Mormon.

Hi there!



There's a big difference between "evidences" and actual proof...




Overall, the book contains entirely too much supposition to warrant serious consideration as "evidence" for the Book of Mormon. The dialogue is bogged down with consistent terminology such as "could have been," "might have," "should be," "if this were," and various other sundry phrases which are merely prerequisites to injecting presumptions concerning the possibility that Lehi actually existed on the Arabian Peninsula.



Additionally, the technique of complex correlations as is used in the text is common in providing "evidences" for the Book of Mormon. That technique is identifiable in most chapters; and in the general courtroom, this would be referenced as "circumstantial evidence." For example, it was circumstantial that potsherds were found in the "Valley of Lemuel." Certainly, if there is but one water source in the area, then it would only be logical that people would live there, and there would be evidences of their existence. However, to identify that the presence of potsherds is evidence of oil being used to consecrate a rock altar is entirely "circumstantial."



For example, on pages 39 and 40 of the cited text....



"As we started down the mountain, we noticed pieces of broken pottery embedded in the ground. The shards were found approximately fifteen feet down from this altar candidate. The scriptures tell of the vessels of the altar and the need to anoint the altar with olive oil before making a sacrifice (Ex. 40:10). Oil was also used as part of the sacrifice itself (Num 28:13014, Ezek. 45:25). The altar ceremony might have had special significance to the young Nephi...."



The fact is, there is no evidence that the "candidate" is an altar, and that information is clarified later in the text; but only after the introduction of the altar, the potsherds, and the use of oil has already verified in the mind of the reader that the altar most certainly must be the one mentioned in the book of 1 Nephi in the Book of Mormon. That is deceptive writing. The potsherds have no proven relation to the pile of stones, there is no indication that the potsherds were ancient oil containers, and certainly the suggestion of using oil has nothing to do with the actual findings of the area.



Many times throughout the text, inferences are made to plant a concept which is later identified as "probably not so".... but only after an inference of truth has been planted by the authors into the mind of the reader; lending credibility to presumption.







Chapter One, Discovering the Valley of Lemuel



The Valley of Lemuel is supposedly identified as the Wadi Tayyib al-Ism.



One of the arguments presented is the defining of "borders" in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 2:5 " ... and he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea..."). Hugh Nibley has presented the argument that "borders" is to be a translation of the Hebrew word "gebul" to mean "mountain" since a cognate form of the word in Arabic is "jabal" which is translated "mountain" in Arabic. However, in the Old Testament, the word "gebul" is used 241 times (Blueletterbible.com), and never is it translated to mean "mountain," but is translated in the Hebrew language as



Border, territory



a) Border



b) Territory (enclosed within boundary)



c) Region, territory (of darkness) (fig.)

(BLB)



Furthermore, there is a word used specifically for "mountain" in Hebrew, that being "har."




Quoting the cited text, page 3,



"Subsequently, Dr. Nibley informed us that also in the ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian languages the word borders meant mountains." The footnote to these statements is as follows:



"Anonymous F.A.R.M.S. review notes to the author, July 1998. The author of this critique of George's early work noted, "But the Hebrew word is used of non-mountainous areas as well, though its origin may have been a reference to mountain barriers."



It is imperative to the argument of "81 evidences" that this translation of "borders" to mean "mountains" be accepted else the distinction of the different directionals and related descriptions no longer apply. Unfortunately, there is no "reformed Egyptian" to verify the word and translation intent of the passage.





On page 5, Potter and Wellington write,



"Lehi built an altar and gave thanks to the Lord when he found a flowing river (1 Nephi 2:6-7, 9)



I criticized the altar here because, being active Jews, they certainly had been raised that there was only one place where they could make a sacrifice, and that was at the Temple in Jerusalem. Decentralized sacrifices were removed from the traditional teachings when the Northern Kingdom fell, and the influx of Jews from the Northern Kingdom infiltrated Judah and particularly Jerusalem. There has never been the reinstitution of decentralize sacrifice for the Jews. Jews are waiting the building of the third temple to begin sacrifices again. Lehi knew his actions were a violation of Jewish teachings. He has not been given a revelation of new Jewish teachings; he has only been given a revelation to leave Jerusalem. Additionally, later in the book, there is a second sacrificial offering when his sons return from the second excursion to Jerusalem. Apparently, making a sacrifice in the Temple was out of the question on either trip to Jerusalem. Interesting that Lehi and Nephi were given instructions to rob and kill in Jerusalem, but never given instructions to make an atoning sacrifice.





On page 5, Potter and Wellington reference the "continuous flowing stream". As stated in the text, "The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Agriculture and Water, with the assistance of the U.S. Geological Service (U.S.G.S.) spent forty-four years surveying the kingdom's water resources. Their study consisted of seismic readings, surface and aerial surveys, and even land satellite photo analysis. They concluded that "Saudi Arabia may be the world's largest country without any perennial rivers or streams." (Ministry of Agriculture and Waters, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Water Atlas of Saudi Arabia, XV)



Miraculously, Potter and Welling discovered something that the United States Government and Saudi Government had not found under the strictest of scrutiny. Lehi named the river "Laman" with the indication that there was no name already assigned to this particular stream which created an oasis in the middle of desolation. Obviously, no local people had ever used this continuous water source. Of course, it would be illogical to make that assumption. The Bedouins and caravaneers would certainly have known of any local water sources. Every water source was controlled along the Frankincense Trail, and the text states that it was the Frankincense Trail that Lehi and his entourage were following. It is further identified that the water was a sufficient supply to sustain Lehi and his family as well as their beasts of burden, which would be camels. It is a fact that the waters along the Frankincense Trail were identified for their taste, which was brackish, and noticeably carried a foul taste. That "taste" is identified as an increased amount of ammonia in the water due to the excrement of camels over a long period of time, and such excrement entering the water systems and being retained there though filtered through the limestone layers. The Book of Mormon fails to identify that the river of Laman was consistent with others along the Frankincense Trail.



A further statement of "evidences" was the measurement of the erosion on the rock bed floor of the canyon which they use as evidence that the stream has been flowing continuously for millennia. Given the geological history of the Saudi Peninsula, this is not evidence. Geological records indicate that there are two very wet periods in Arabian geology, the more recent being from 9,000 years to 6,000 years B.P. (before present) whereas it is identified that the Arabian Peninsula was covered with large lakes. With the presence of such a large amount of water on the Arabian Peninsula, this would affect the erosion evidences on any rock bed. There is no consideration made for this fact in their study. (McClure, Ar Rub' Al Khali, pp. 258-260,)



Additionally, there were no evidences of petroglyphs in the Western providence reported by Potter and Wellington, whereas the Eastern providence shows evidence of petroglyphs to record activities. It is interesting that neither Lehi nor Nephi left a written record of their time in the Wadi Tayyib al-Ism or elsewhere in Arabia. With the claim that they were literate and well-educated, possible employed as scribes, it is interesting that they did not record their journey for future generations in a means that was considered appropriate for the time frame--petroglyphs.



In speaking of the Bedouin hospitality, Potter and Wellington are specific in identifying that they were asked to marry daughters of their host with the stipulation that they remain with the clan in the desert, and that they convert to Islam. It is imperative to note that in the Islam faith, when a daughter marries, she is no longer claimed to be the daughter of her father, but the father will reference her as another man's wife. The daughter leaves her father's home to live with her husband's family.



Potter and Wellington cite their first-hand experience of living in Arabia and the availability of study resources as well as "their history and legends." (Page 12) On the contrary, the authors have shown no indication that they were integrated into the Arabian culture. They were unaware of the cultural significance of the "ghutra" (page 24) or the marriage customs which were cited in the previous paragraph. In their composite secular work, Potter and Wellington have lived twenty-eight years in Saudi Arabia, though neither of them has attempted to learn even basic words in Arabic, and their lack of language skills hampered their research. Having "ready access to Arabia" does not mean that one has integrated the culture with understanding (page 12).



I cannot leave the first chapter without bringing to light a particular passage of text. Of note, there is an incident where the text of "81 Evidences" could be interpreted to be offensive to Saudi nationals. On page 5 of the text, it is stated,



"They were not Bedouins bred to survive in the desert. They were a coddled wealthy family from the land of Jerusalem."



The mindset that individuals are "bred" to a particular lifestyle is in error. Breeding does not prepare one to survive in the desert. It comes across as a condescending presentation of the Bedouin lifestyle.







Shall I continue?


~serapha~

 

[Serapha]

Which is why archeological evidences would never prove the Book of Mormon true. It won't matter how much archeological evidences there are, the answerer will always be "Satan told him about it".

Hi there!



There are no archaeological evidences that support the book of mormon.



~serapha~

 

[Serapha]

No one here is "anti-Mormon."



I have a better question for you. Why are you spamming material from Mormon boards and placing them here? The reason that I ask is that I remember our phantom Mormon buddy, leeuniverse, posting nearly the same tripe elsewhere, and was wondering why you've decided to plagiarize the same material and post it here? Can't find an original thought to discuss? All the other discussions of substance have you baffled? You're leeuniverse, and since no one would pay attention to your ramblings as leeuniverse, you've decided to change names, and take another run at it?

Hello et. al....




I don't think that personal insults add to the discussions... nor do accusations.... and it isn't against the rules to have multiple accounts although I don't think for one second that THIS poster is Leeuniverse.


My apologies to both leeuniverse and pyro for those who have used the forum to post personal insults.



~serapha~

 

[carolbob]

Which is why archeological evidences would never prove the Book of Mormon true. It won't matter how much archeological evidences there are, the answerer will always be "Satan told him about it".

Yep, because there is not one iota, shred, or particle of physical evidence.

 

[unbound]

Here is a question for Anti-Mormons.


The Book of Mormon, in First Nephi, describes a journey through the Arabian Peninsula in great detail. It gives specific details such as the Valley of Lemuel with its continually flowing River of Laman. It talks of other places as well such as a burial place called Nahom, and a place called Bountiful. Many anti Mormon critics say there is no such places in the Arabian Peninsula. But actuall places have been discovered in recent times. A plausible valley has been found with its continually flowing river. A burial place that could be Nahom has been found right where it said it was. And a spot on the coast of Oman has been found that could be Bountiful. Not only were these areas not known during Joseph Smith's time but many people still dont know today. Information on the journey through the Arabian Peninsula can be found in a book by George Potter and Richard Wellington, Lehi in the Wilderness which includes 81 different evidences for the Book of Mormon. Now how could Joseph Smith have gotten all of these things correct in the Book of Mormon if he supposedly made it up as many claim? Did he just make a lot of lucky guesses? Seems like a far fetched idea to say that he guessed at these details. If he was just making it up as he went along then why did he include all of these details which where unkown in his day?

All this "evidence" is designed to keep the mormons from thinking about leaving the church.

This "spell" must be working on you, because I see where you use the words "plausible" and "could be", then you jump straight to JS being correct.

Do you have any non-lds links by experts in this field that I could read? Does the fact that this "proof" comes from farms and fair mean that its credible?

Am I supposed to stand in awe of JS because there are oasis and fertile places in deserts?

Notice how this "evidence" has to be found in some far-away land where most people have no first hand knowledge .

 

[ST:DS9]

All this "evidence" is designed to keep the mormons from thinking about leaving the church.

This "spell" must be working on you, because I see where you use the words "plausible" and "could be", then you jump straight to JS being correct.

Do you have any non-lds links by experts in this field that I could read? Does the fact that this "proof" comes from farms and fair mean that its credible?

Am I supposed to stand in awe of JS because there are oasis and fertile places in deserts?

Notice how this "evidence" has to be found in some far-away land where most people have no first hand knowledge .

I have yet seen any archeology, where there in no written record, not use the words "pluasible" and "could be". I watch a lot of history channel and have heard these types of words used all the time. But it is interesting that the various archeological finds that support the Book Of Mormon have a interpretation that resemble so closely, and there has been more then one and I can't believe it would be just a coinisidence. I don't base my faith on archeological finds. I don't know that the bible is true because of the historical and archeological proof supporting it are there, even historical fiction would have that type of proof to support it.

 

[pyro457]

No one here is "anti-Mormon."



I have a better question for you. Why are you spamming material from Mormon boards and placing them here? The reason that I ask is that I remember our phantom Mormon buddy, leeuniverse, posting nearly the same tripe elsewhere, and was wondering why you've decided to plagiarize the same material and post it here? Can't find an original thought to discuss? All the other discussions of substance have you baffled? You're leeuniverse, and since no one would pay attention to your ramblings as leeuniverse, you've decided to change names, and take another run at it?

I am not leeuniverse, I dont even know who that is. Another person has made that claim and I dont know why. Even Serapha said I am not leeuniverse and for once me and Serapha actually agree. Thank you Serapha.

 

[Wrigley]

You aren't going to get anywhere by referring to non-Mormons, as "anti-Mormons".

Saw that too.

May as well start a thread off on the wrong foot.

 

[CrownCaster]

Earlier I said I wanted to seriously look into a handful of the many coins in the bom or some archealogical proof. So far nobody has provided any. Someone??