Archaeological Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

[Stephen168]

Mormonism begins and is founded on a denial of the continuity of Christ’s Church. Impossible to accept, without accepting that God is weak and reliant on the strengths of humans.

 

[twopekinguys]

The are two simple facts which prove mormonism false.

1. The Catholic Church can be traced back to it’s founding by Jesus Christ himself. (The Bible alone proves this)
2. The geography in the Bible is verifiable, along with artifacts to prove it.

We don’t need, and there aren’t additional “scriptures”, and we don’t have to speculate on where it happened.

Simple enough.

 

[JamesCollins]

But there are volumes of weaknesses in the Catholic truth claims that I weigh against the volumes of weaknesses in the LDS truth claims. In the end, when I compare Best to Best (meaning the Best positives and the best explanations for the negatives) using all the intellectual rigor I can muster, I think the CoJCoLDS comes out on top. The fact that TexanKnight rejects the worst of Mormonism for some version of Catholicism that I am criticized for exploring only serves to embolden my conviction that I am closer to making a fair comparison than the folks who criticize my views.

Charity, TOm

I guess if I were looking at which church I liked the best I would choose the LDS Church and its community. However, the claims you made about Mormon archaeology just don’t seem very strong to me. The Bountiful experience in the Book of Mormon is so general in nature that I don’t think you can really make the case that it is valuable for any kind of geographic proof – the NHM claim is at best strained. It seems strange to me the Lehites never mention running into any other groups of people on their journey when we know there were other people in those areas. I really would like to believe the LDS Church were true because I enjoy being around Mormons more than I do Catholics, but the reality is the LDS Church’s teachings are unbelievable on many different levels.

 

[Tarquin]

Originally Posted by iepuras

The world was pulled out from under my feet. Who is God? What is God? Is there a God? How can there be a God of any kind? Then I took a class in college, I don’t even remember the subject. We read from Thomas Aquinas’ proofs of God. I finally had confidence that there was a God of some kind, even if I hardly understood what his nature was. Later, I got a hold of some Catholic books on “Metaphysics”. For those who aren’t Catholic, metaphysics isn’t about mysticism, it’s about the reality that is “beyond,” “above,” “next to,” or in some other relation to matter, the “physical” world. That gave me a bit more. I appreciate the Catholic approach to religion and Theology, because it is more reasoned, reasonable, and verifiable, in greater proportion than is that of other Christian religions which I have looked into.

 

[TexanKnight]

To get this back on track, even Tom admits there is no clue to anything or anywhere in the book of mormon. No mormons can agree, but all have opinions. Ans when their alleged prophets have made declarations about a place that proves to faulty, mormons ignore them, making their prophets dispensable when it is convenient.

I find it incredibly humorous that the places that prophets and apostles do not know the exactly location, everyone has an opinion, but the places prophets and apostles have declared exact location, people say they were wrong.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Think of it like a movie. The Torah is the first one, and the New Testament is the sequel. Then the Qu’ran comes out, and it retcons the last one like it never happened. There’s still Jesus, but he’s not the main character anymore, and the messiah hasn’t shown up yet.

Jews like the first movie, but ignored the sequels, Christians think you need to watch the first two, but the third one doesn’t count, Moslems think the third one was the best, and Mormons liked the second one so much they started writing fanfiction that doesn’t fit with ANY of the series canon.

 

[TOmNossor]

Ever think about coming back Home ? You would be more than welcome. Prayers. God Bless, Memaw

I did a number of years ago. Now, I mostly try to learn and correct what I think are misperceptions about my church.
I appreciate prayers and I do feel welcome to return.
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

I did a number of years ago. Now, I mostly try to learn and correct what I think are misperceptions about my church.
I appreciate prayers and I do feel welcome to return.
Charity, TOm

There are few misperceptions. What there are are too many old doctrines and teachings your current leaders have decided to overrule, proving the earlier folks were not truly prophets.

Further, there are too many things the lds church tried to hide.

If the lds god can be fooled by Mark Hoffman, then what does that say abut those who follow those so easily fooled and those who have, by their current teachings and actions, invalidated past “prophets”?

 

[TOmNossor]

Iepuras and all,
I think there is a great deal to respond to in Iepuras’s post. I will try to clearly respond. I will ultimately end up repeating myself some, but there is a lot.

Why do you have the need to compare Mormonism and Catholicism? Joseph Smith and his claims of truth, including his claims regarding the BOM, either stand or fall on their own. There isn’t a need to compare them to see which one is “better”. Just because Joseph Smith was a false prophet doesn’t automatically mean that Catholicism is true. I believe Catholicism is true, but that has nothing to do Mormonism being false.

There are many reasons I compare Mormonism to Catholicism.

Reason #1:
First, I am a theist. I have never gotten very far trying to believe God didn’t exist.
Second, I am Christian. I have felt the rescue of Christ in a way that only makes sense within a Christian frame work. Christ is the Son of God and He died for my sins. I think there is far more positive within the Bahia faith than most Christians ever explore, but I am not sure they emphasize Christ enough to align with my experience of Christ. Thus I am a Christian.
Third, I am a LDS.

But my commitment to God and Christ comes before my commitment to organizations purported to be set up by God and Christ. All of my reasons for being a LDS could vanish tomorrow and I might revision the Trinity (a tiny bit) and revision a great deal of theology, but I would still profession that Christ died for my sins. Hating the Catholic Church is not something that I am inclined to do as I came to be a theist through Catholicism. I have good memories of Catholicism and just because I do not believe it’s foundational truth claims are the best read of history, doesn’t mean I have to scrap God or Christ. The CoJCoLDS IMO has taken me closer to Christ, but Christ and His Father are my foundation.

Reason #2:
I believe “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” I believe simplistic views of Tradition and Papal Infallibility and Papal succession are easily rejected. But if complex views of Tradition and Papal Infallibility and Papal succession make the best non-LDS case for my devotion, I will weigh these against the CoJCoLDS. I find many reasons to not be Catholic, I find many reasons to not be a LDS. I find many reasons to not be a Protestant. And I find many reasons to not be a “me, my Bible, and Christ, ultra-liberal believe what makes sense to me” person too. But, I will not walk away from God and Christ because whatever church I might join is full of imperfections. So, I compare complex views of Mormonism with complex views of Catholicism because they are more compelling. I see simple views of Mormonism rejected here and it doesn’t impact my devotion to the CoJCoLDS. You IMO rejected a simple view of Mormonism.

Reason #3:
This is a bit different than #2. The CoJCoLDS claims that it came into being because Christ’s priesthood was not on the earth. Only Catholicism claims to possess the authority of Peter to lead God’s church. While KNOWING that Catholicism is God’s church allows for totally ignoring the CoJCoLDS even when leaving no historical stone unturned, KNOWING the CoJCoLDS is God’s church presupposes an apostasy and overturning all historical stones involves exploring this.
I look at the passing of the Papacy from Peter to Linus, Cletus, and Clement and all I see anciently that makes a powerful case for that is a work no scholar believes is valid that shows Peter passing the mantle to Clement (a succession not in alignment with Catholic truth claims anyway). Clearly the author of this wanted to spackle over the holes in this line of authority that were evident in the 2nd or 3rd century when this document was created. I look at the idea accepted by virtually all non-Catholic scholars and numerous Catholic scholars that Clement and folks who were supposed to be bishops of Rome were nothing but prominent members of a group of clergy who lead the Roman church, because monoepiscopal rule had not developed in Rome until the middle of the 2nd century.
When I first was invited to explore the ECF, as I read I screamed. What I thought ALL Catholics must believe was not supported in the ECF. Later I found folks like Robert Eno and Father Sullivian, and I had to weigh a complex problem laden Papacy with a complex problem laden Mormonism.
But the point of reason #3 is that there has to be some need for a restoration and thus comparing Catholicism and Mormonism is natural.
More later.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

When I learned that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, I went back to the beginning. Is there a God? Yes. Is there one or many? One. Which monotheistic religion is true? Christianity. Which church was started by Jesus Christ? The Catholic Church.

When I learned that Catholicism failed the simple tests I thought Catholics demanded it pass, I learned that there were others like Robert Eno and Father Sullivan. These folks embraced a version of Catholicism that I didn’t think was Catholicism.

Cardinal Newman was quite opposed to the definition of Papal Infallibility. He was ultimately very happy with the “muted” (I think that is his word, but I am quite sure that was his sentiment) version of Papal Infallibility that Vatican I put forth. The most prominent Catholic historian at the time of Vatican I was Dollinger. Dollinger never accepted Vatican I and died a non-Catholic. Newman never said Dollinger’s knowledge was wrong, Newman claim that Dollinger had a failure of imagination. Dollinger like Newman saw much that was wrong with the Pope’s and others efforts to declare Papal Infallibility, but unlike Newman, Dollinger decided what he knew Vatican I and history invalidated Catholicism.

It is my opinion that folks who do not recognize that a prophet (like Jonah) can be wrong have a “failure of imagination.”

Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

When I learned that Catholicism failed the simple tests I thought Catholics demanded it pass, I learned that there were others like Robert Eno and Father Sullivan. These folks embraced a version of Catholicism that I didn’t think was Catholicism.

Cardinal Newman was quite opposed to the definition of Papal Infallibility. He was ultimately very happy with the “muted” (I think that is his word, but I am quite sure that was his sentiment) version of Papal Infallibility that Vatican I put forth. The most prominent Catholic historian at the time of Vatican I was Dollinger. Dollinger never accepted Vatican I and died a non-Catholic. Newman never said Dollinger’s knowledge was wrong, Newman claim that Dollinger had a failure of imagination. Dollinger like Newman saw much that was wrong with the Pope’s and others efforts to declare Papal Infallibility, but unlike Newman, Dollinger decided what he knew Vatican I and history invalidated Catholicism.

It is my opinion that folks who do not recognize that a prophet (like Jonah) can be wrong have a “failure of imagination.”

Charity, TOm

being wrong by disobeying, like Jonah, is a LOT different than all the criminal activity, lying, cheating that js did…and the false doctrine of BY, the racism of several “prophets” and the admission that past “prophets” taught false doctrine.

 

[kimg901]

being wrong by disobeying, like Jonah, is a LOT different than all the criminal activity, lying, cheating that js did…and the false doctrine of BY, the racism of several “prophets” and the admission that past “prophets” taught false doctrine.

So Texan. Would it be safe to say that Christ got it wrong too with the lds church? It’s obvious that the Holy Spirit is not guiding their church too with all the false doctrine(s) that have been taught and then said it wasn’t and was merely a teaching or opinion. I mean Jesus isn’t what we believe He is and can fail not 1 church, but 2. Don’t you think He would have left us a clue to where these places where/are so we may enjoy these historic sites?

 

[iepuras]

Iepuras and all,
I think there is a great deal to respond to in Iepuras’s post. I will try to clearly respond. I will ultimately end up repeating myself some, but there is a lot.
There are many reasons I compare Mormonism to Catholicism.

Reason #1:
First, I am a theist. I have never gotten very far trying to believe God didn’t exist.
Second, I am Christian. I have felt the rescue of Christ in a way that only makes sense within a Christian frame work. Christ is the Son of God and He died for my sins. I think there is far more positive within the Bahia faith than most Christians ever explore, but I am not sure they emphasize Christ enough to align with my experience of Christ. Thus I am a Christian.
Third, I am a LDS.

But my commitment to God and Christ comes before my commitment to organizations purported to be set up by God and Christ. All of my reasons for being a LDS could vanish tomorrow and I might revision the Trinity (a tiny bit) and revision a great deal of theology, but I would still profession that Christ died for my sins. Hating the Catholic Church is not something that I am inclined to do as I came to be a theist through Catholicism. I have good memories of Catholicism and just because I do not believe it’s foundational truth claims are the best read of history, doesn’t mean I have to scrap God or Christ. The CoJCoLDS IMO has taken me closer to Christ, but Christ and His Father are my foundation.

Reason #2:
I believe “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” I believe simplistic views of Tradition and Papal Infallibility and Papal succession are easily rejected. But if complex views of Tradition and Papal Infallibility and Papal succession make the best non-LDS case for my devotion, I will weigh these against the CoJCoLDS. I find many reasons to not be Catholic, I find many reasons to not be a LDS. I find many reasons to not be a Protestant. And I find many reasons to not be a “me, my Bible, and Christ, ultra-liberal believe what makes sense to me” person too. But, I will not walk away from God and Christ because whatever church I might join is full of imperfections. So, I compare complex views of Mormonism with complex views of Catholicism because they are more compelling. I see simple views of Mormonism rejected here and it doesn’t impact my devotion to the CoJCoLDS. You IMO rejected a simple view of Mormonism.

Reason #3:
This is a bit different than #2. The CoJCoLDS claims that it came into being because Christ’s priesthood was not on the earth. Only Catholicism claims to possess the authority of Peter to lead God’s church. While KNOWING that Catholicism is God’s church allows for totally ignoring the CoJCoLDS even when leaving no historical stone unturned, KNOWING the CoJCoLDS is God’s church presupposes an apostasy and overturning all historical stones involves exploring this.
I look at the passing of the Papacy from Peter to Linus, Cletus, and Clement and all I see anciently that makes a powerful case for that is a work no scholar believes is valid that shows Peter passing the mantle to Clement (a succession not in alignment with Catholic truth claims anyway). Clearly the author of this wanted to spackle over the holes in this line of authority that were evident in the 2nd or 3rd century when this document was created. I look at the idea accepted by virtually all non-Catholic scholars and numerous Catholic scholars that Clement and folks who were supposed to be bishops of Rome were nothing but prominent members of a group of clergy who lead the Roman church, because monoepiscopal rule had not developed in Rome until the middle of the 2nd century.
When I first was invited to explore the ECF, as I read I screamed. What I thought ALL Catholics must believe was not supported in the ECF. Later I found folks like Robert Eno and Father Sullivian, and I had to weigh a complex problem laden Papacy with a complex problem laden Mormonism. But the point of reason #3 is that there has to be some need for a restoration and thus comparing Catholicism and Mormonism is natural.
More later.
Charity, TOm

TOm,

Just because you think I rejected a “simplistic” view of Mormonism doesn’t make it true. But maybe you are right. Looking at the plain and simple truth of Joseph Smith, his trustworthiness and his truth claims made it very easy to reject Mormonism. The reality is that I had to have a complex series of explanations and excuses to believe it when I was a True Believing Mormon.

So please tell me what is easier to believe from each set of statements below?

1. The Nephites and Lamanites had horses, chariots, and metal swords in the pre-Columbian New World but when the Lamanites wiped out the Nephites, Heavenly Father made all evidence of the existence of horses, chariots and metal swords completely disappear.
2. The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction written in the 19th century.
3. Joseph Smith was wrong in his assertion that the hill Cumorah in NY is THE Cumorah where the last battle took place. There is a second Cumorah somewhere in Central America where this battle took place. But everything else Joseph Smith told us about the origins of the BOM are correct.
4. The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction from the 19th century.
5. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and God commanded him to steal the wives of other men and to exchange eternal salvation for a plural marriage to a 14 year old girl, even though there is no precedent in the Bible of a prophet doing the same thing.
6. Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

Do I like the deeper theology of Catholicism? Absolutely. When I was LDS, I loved the deeper “mysteries of God”. But at the end of the day, truth is actually quite simple.

 

[Stephen168]

There are many reasons I compare Mormonism to Catholicism.

Reason #1:
First, I am a theist.
Second, I am Christian.
Third, I am a LDS.

You can be a theist and an LDS.
You can be a theist and a Christian
But you can’t be a LDS and a Christian, they are mutually exclusive.

That being said reason #1 does not require a comparison between Catholicism and Mormonism.

But my commitment to God and Christ comes before my commitment to organizations purported to be set up by God and Christ. All of my reasons for being a LDS could vanish tomorrow and I might revision the Trinity (a tiny bit) and revision a great deal of theology, but I would still profession that Christ died for my sins. Hating the Catholic Church is not something that I am inclined to do as I came to be a theist through Catholicism. I have good memories of Catholicism and just because I do not believe it’s foundational truth claims are the best read of history, doesn’t mean I have to scrap God or Christ. The CoJCoLDS IMO has taken me closer to Christ, but Christ and His Father are my foundation.

I can see how rejecting Christianity and feeling good about it, would make one try to justify that decision. Especially in Mormonism which requires the failure of Christianity.

Reason #2:
I believe “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” I believe simplistic views of Tradition and Papal Infallibility and Papal succession are easily rejected. But if complex views of Tradition and Papal Infallibility and Papal succession make the best non-LDS case for my devotion, I will weigh these against the CoJCoLDS. I find many reasons to not be Catholic, I find many reasons to not be a LDS. I find many reasons to not be a Protestant. And I find many reasons to not be a “me, my Bible, and Christ, ultra-liberal believe what makes sense to me” person too. But, I will not walk away from God and Christ because whatever church I might join is full of imperfections. So, I compare complex views of Mormonism with complex views of Catholicism because they are more compelling. I see simple views of Mormonism rejected here and it doesn’t impact my devotion to the CoJCoLDS. You IMO rejected a simple view of Mormonism.

To summarize your statement:
-Protestants reject Papal infallibility
-Protestants reject Papal succession
-Therefore Protestants are wrong
-And Mormonism is right

This seems irrational to me because Mormonism rejects Papal infallibility and Papal succession, also. In fact, many religions reject papal infallibility, so there is no reason to compare Mormonism with Catholicism. Unless you have accepted Mormonism and need to justify your rejection of Catholicism.

Reason #3:
This is a bit different than #2. The CoJCoLDS claims that it came into being because Christ’s priesthood was not on the earth. Only Catholicism claims to possess the authority of Peter to lead God’s church. While KNOWING that Catholicism is God’s church allows for totally ignoring the CoJCoLDS even when leaving no historical stone unturned, KNOWING the CoJCoLDS is God’s church presupposes an apostasy and overturning all historical stones involves exploring this.
I look at the passing of the Papacy from Peter to Linus, Cletus, and Clement and all I see anciently that makes a powerful case for that is a work no scholar believes is valid that shows Peter passing the mantle to Clement (a succession not in alignment with Catholic truth claims anyway). Clearly the author of this wanted to spackle over the holes in this line of authority that were evident in the 2nd or 3rd century when this document was created. I look at the idea accepted by virtually all non-Catholic scholars and numerous Catholic scholars that Clement and folks who were supposed to be bishops of Rome were nothing but prominent members of a group of clergy who lead the Roman church, because monoepiscopal rule had not developed in Rome until the middle of the 2nd century.
When I first was invited to explore the ECF, as I read I screamed. What I thought ALL Catholics must believe was not supported in the ECF. Later I found folks like Robert Eno and Father Sullivian, and I had to weigh a complex problem laden Papacy with a complex problem laden Mormonism.
But the point of reason #3 is that there has to be some need for a restoration and thus comparing Catholicism and Mormonism is natural.

To Summarize your statement:
-Reason three is different from reason two
-Mormonism claims the Catholic Church lost its priesthood authority.
-knowing Mormonism is God’s Church presumes an apostasy.
-No scholar claims Papal succession.
-Only Catholic Scholars believe Peter was the leader of Christianity.
-??Something??? YOU thought ALL Catholics MUST believe was not supported in the Early Church Fathers.
-Eno and Sullivan wrote some stuff that makes the Papacy a complex issue.
-Therefore there must be a restoration, so comparing Mormonism and Catholicism is natural.
This reason seems the same as #2 but more rambling and incoherent. In fact, many religions claim they are a new revelation, so there is no reason to compare Mormonism with Catholicism. Unless you have accepted Mormonism and need to justify your rejection of Catholicism.
A thought: The Early Church Fathers support zero of the unique beliefs invented by Joseph Smith, so claiming there is ??something?? ALL Catholics MUST believe and it is not supported in the Early Church Fathers seems hypocritical to me.

 

[Stephen168]

When I learned that Catholicism failed the simple tests I thought Catholics demanded it pass, I learned that there were others like Robert Eno and Father Sullivan. These folks embraced a version of Catholicism that I didn’t think was Catholicism.

Therefore you are wrong about what you thought was Catholicism. You have no idea what “tests” Catholics demand of Catholicism or whether is passed or not.

Cardinal Newman was quite opposed to the definition of Papal Infallibility. He was ultimately very happy with the “muted” (I think that is his word, but I am quite sure that was his sentiment) version of Papal Infallibility that Vatican I put forth. The most prominent Catholic historian at the time of Vatican I was Dollinger. Dollinger never accepted Vatican I and died a non-Catholic. Newman never said Dollinger’s knowledge was wrong, Newman claim that Dollinger had a failure of imagination. Dollinger like Newman saw much that was wrong with the Pope’s and others efforts to declare Papal Infallibility, but unlike Newman, Dollinger decided what he knew Vatican I and history invalidated Catholicism.

Cardinal Newman was quite opposed to defining Papal Infallibility at the First Vatican Council, which is different from what you suggested.

In both paragraphs, we see that Mormon righting style again that leads the reader to assume one thing when the truth is completely different.

 

[Stephen168]

TOm,

Just because you think I rejected a “simplistic” view of Mormonism doesn’t make it true. But maybe you are right. Looking at the plain and simple truth of Joseph Smith, his trustworthiness and his truth claims made it very easy to reject Mormonism. The reality is that I had to have a complex series of explanations and excuses to believe it when I was a True Believing Mormon.

So please tell me what is easier to believe from each set of statements below?

1. The Nephites and Lamanites had horses, chariots, and metal swords in the pre-Columbian New World but when the Lamanites wiped out the Nephites, Heavenly Father made all evidence of the existence of horses, chariots and metal swords completely disappear.
2. The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction written in the 19th century.
3. Joseph Smith was wrong in his assertion that the hill Cumorah in NY is THE Cumorah where the last battle took place. There is a second Cumorah somewhere in Central America where this battle took place. But everything else Joseph Smith told us about the origins of the BOM are correct.
4. The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction from the 19th century.
5. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and God commanded him to steal the wives of other men and to exchange eternal salvation for a plural marriage to a 14 year old girl, even though there is no precedent in the Bible of a prophet doing the same thing.
6. Joseph Smith was a false prophet.

Do I like the deeper theology of Catholicism? Absolutely. When I was LDS, I loved the deeper “mysteries of God”. But at the end of the day, truth is actually quite simple.

Yes, it seems to be deep in Mormon history is to no longer be Mormon. And to be deep in Christian history is to be Catholic.

 

[taylorf]

To pile on what others have said…

This thread is about archeological evidence for the BOM.

Agreed. So any comparison to Catholicism is irrelevant.

I have offered VOLUMES of archaeological evidence for the BOM…

Not evidence. Just theories or coincidences.

I have explained that I do not think the Prophet Jonah passes the test offered by TexanKnight and yet if the Prophet Jonah is not a prophet it would seem we must scrap the Bible.

Comparing two persons separated by 3000 years is moronic.

Joseph Smith brought forth the BOM.

Agreed, however the source was his imagination

I think the BOM describes a journey from Jerusalem to Nahom to Bountiful with detail only explained if someone who made such a journey wrote it.

This seems to be your primary evidence of the BoM. Yet, google “scientific evidence quran” and you’ll get the same argument for the truthfulness of Muhammad and the Qu’ran. Muhammad was much less educated than Joseph Smith, so how could he know these things unless he was a true prophet of God?

I can then add to this the things TexanKnight SELECTIVELY quotes about Joseph Smith and other LDS prophets describing geography and ancestry that are inconsistent with the theory of the BOM in Mesoamerica.

Sigh…he’s not selectively quoting…you’re selectively ignoring what doesn’t fit into your “testimony.” There are plenty of quotes that DECLARE the location of Cumorah - not provide opinion, insinuate, suggest, speculate, or guess. But DECLARE!

And why should we dispute the claim? From the church’s own student manual ‘Church History in the Fulness of Times’…

“Nephi, Alma, the twelve Apostles chosen by the Savior in America, and Mormon ALL INSTRUCTED Joseph. His education was intense during this period.”

His mother, Lucy, describes their evening conversations…“Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing [interesting] recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.”

Tom, COME ON! - he was instructed by the ancient prophets themselves and knew virtually everything about them, yet you say he’s unreliable with BoM geography and somehow you have better insight into BoM cities with “multi-point geography”?

What a joke.

 

[JamesCollins]

I suspect we have shown all we need to show that Mormonism fails the archaeology test. Most Mormons don’t care if it does. Their spiritual feeling trumps archaeology. Sometimes I think even with all of the facts set before them they are too attached to family members or friends to admit the truth about Mormonism. Going round and round with them becomes counter productive.

 

[TexanKnight]

Tom claims he has offered VOLUMES of evidence…yet he hasn’t. He has offered OPINIONS that no credible non-lds archaeologist supports.

The bottom line is that there is only ONE place lds prophets have declared is a book of mormon location and tom rejects his own “prophets”

And the ONLY reason he rejects them is because it is clear they were wrong…and therefore false prophets.

 

[JamesCollins]

Tom claims he has offered VOLUMES of evidence…yet he hasn’t. He has offered OPINIONS that no credible non-lds archaeologist supports.

The bottom line is that there is only ONE place lds prophets have declared is a book of mormon location and tom rejects his own “prophets”

And the ONLY reason he rejects them is because it is clear they were wrong…and therefore false prophets.

I agree – all we get is pseudo-science from Mormons.