Book of Mormon Evidences

[Jerusha]

Not true. There is contention over on mormonapologetics, however, you will not find anticatholicm on that site. No one would paste from a website that was classified as anticatholic. The mormons on that site tend to be polite toward other faiths.

There is a banning process however and people have been banned.

I would tend to disagree with you on most of those statements. The banning process sometimes is a matter of “bait and ban.” When I went there, LDS members, you and some others excluded, were consistently making statements (not anti-Catholic ones) which seemed to be designed to make me lose my cool. Rather than doing so, and getting myself banned, I exited gracefully, knowing that I was not welcome.

They are only polite to people who they have some hope of converting. The inconvertible are not welcome.

 

[Catholig]

I would like to join the Mormonapologetics forum, but I think my posts’d be considered “proselytizing”.

Catholig

 

[why_me]

I would like to join the Mormonapologetics forum, but I think my posts’d be considered “proselytizing”.

Catholig

You have your chance. Look at my EWTN thread that I just posted on this site. Have fun!!

 

[why_me]

I would tend to disagree with you on most of those statements. The banning process sometimes is a matter of “bait and ban.” When I went there, LDS members, you and some others excluded, were consistently making statements (not anti-Catholic ones) which seemed to be designed to make me lose my cool. Rather than doing so, and getting myself banned, I exited gracefully, knowing that I was not welcome.

They are only polite to people who they have some hope of converting. The inconvertible are not welcome.

As you know, there are many who come and attack the lds faith on that site. It is not easy being a mormon apologist. Not only are there non-members attacking but exmos too.

In the past it can very heated. But these days, it seems a much cooler place. The mods are keeping a tight lid on the forum.

 

[Catholig]

You have your chance. Look at my EWTN thread that I just posted on this site. Have fun!!

Yeah, but I’d have to agree not to proselytize, before joining - and I’m not going to say I’m going to do something and then do the opposite.

Catholig

 

[Marc1152]

As you know, there are many who come and attack the lds faith on that site. It is not easy being a mormon apologist. Not only are there non-members attacking but exmos too.

In the past it can very heated. But these days, it seems a much cooler place. The mods are keeping a tight lid on the forum.

I think people feel more like they are defending themselves from Mormon attempts to evangelize people and get them to leave the Church. It is the Mormon Chruch that uses aggressive prostelization.

 

[zerinus]

I think people feel more like they are defending themselves from Mormon attempts to evangelize people and get them to leave the Church. It is the Mormon Chruch that uses aggressive prostelization.

We follow the admonition of the Lord: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:15–16). That does not leave any room for exceptions. If to you that is “aggressive proselytizing,” too bad. We will not disobey the commandment of the Lord just because you don’t like it. You can come to Utah and proselytize Mormons if you like. I promise you we won’t object. Your missionaries will receive a kind reception from Mormons in Utah.

zerinus

 

[BartBurk]

Let me put it this way: If the book of mormon can be proven true, for example, a coin is discovered with the word Nephi on it or Mormon on it, would you believe in the lds church? I think so. It would confirm the book true. Many exmos would return to the fold and the world would be topsy turvy for awhile. And many would believe in christ not because of faith but because of fact. And this would not be god’s plan.

What will happen I think is that certain facts will come to light but these facts can also be interpreted as conjecture. It will always depend on faith. Such is how god works.

The bible has a story but its divinity is based on faith. No signed witnesses to testify to its truthfulness and yet, geographically confirmed. The book of mormon has a story taken from gold plates seen by 11 witnesses but it is based on faith also. No proof that it is absolutely true.

God doesn’t need to have someone find a Book of Mormon coin on it to preserve the possibility of faith.

Let’s just assume that Hebrews actually lived in the New World. That would not prove the Book of Mormon is true. It would be evidence, but it would still require some faith to believe these Hebrews actually had a connection with the Book of Mormon. We don’t even have that – there is absolutely no evidence that any Native Americans from Book of Mormon times were Hebrew in origen. If there were real evidence that horses existed in Book of Mormon times that would help as well. Perhaps a little wheat might help. Or some cattle. Or a steel mill.

All of those things would make the Book of Mormon plausible, but it would still require faith to believe in it. So your statement really doesn’t hold water.

 

[po18guy]

Archbishop Fulton Sheen provided a good test for the authenticity of a belief system: Is it in prophecy? Was it predicted as being the work of God which was to come? Regarding covenants with man, God sent many prophets, the ultimate being Christ Himself. No subsequent covenant is mentioned in prophecy-as Christ is the final covenant between God and man. Subsequent prophets are clearly false-particularly if they reverse the very nature of Christ as being God into man.

Particular skepticism must be directed at any belief system, or self-proclaimed prophet that appeared in America during the 1800s. Many have been lead astray by such false teachngs-this is exactly what was prophesied by Christ Himself.

The biggest fault in the foundation of the Mormon church is the “great apostacy” fantasy. Christ clearly made Simon, whom He named Cepha/Peter/Petros the foundation of His church, saying that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). Thus either Christ or JS is lying. If Christ is a true prophet, JS is false.

The Hebrew Ark of the Covenant was destoyed by the Roman sacking of Jerusalem. What such cataclysmic event caused the loss of the “golden plates” in 1800s America? The Gold Rush?

God always sends multiple prophets of a covenant with man. Christ was the final prophet-since His cup is the “blood of the covenant” (Matthew 26:28, Luke 22:20, Mark 14:24).

“The gates of hell will not prevail”. “Blood of the covenant”. Christ, who is Priest, Prophet and King, said nothng about others to come, except that they be false prophets.

This is why, praise God!, many Protestants, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are having their eyes opened and are converting to the One True Church of Christ.

Christ’s peace be always with you.

 

[wademann]

Z,

I have lived in No CA for many years and the only growth happpening in my area is through birth and migration of LDS from Utah. No new Stakes have been created in years. No families have been baptized into the ward I used to attend. In fact, two neighboring Stakes have reduced the number of wards. Moism is hitting a dead end in No CA.

Actually, Sacramento area is #1 in new baptisms in the country. We just built a new temple in Sacramento!!! I attend church in the Roseville area and it is difficult to schedule a room in the church building, because we have so many wards sharing the building.

 

[zerinus]

(In California I believe the figure is higher.) It punches way above its weight. zerinus

Z,

I have lived in No CA for many years and the only growth happpening in my area is through birth and migration of LDS from Utah. No new Stakes have been created in years. No families have been baptized into the ward I used to attend. In fact, two neighboring Stakes have reduced the number of wards. Moism is hitting a dead end in No CA.

What wademann has written above is correct, and answers you comments accurately. However, what I had in mind was the “figure” for the largest or smallest churches. Whereas in the US as a whole the LDS Church ranks the fourth largest, in California (the largest state in the Union) I believe it is the third largest; but I wasn’t able to verify the source of the data.

zerinus

 

[BartBurk]

Actually, Sacramento area is #1 in new baptisms in the country. We just built a new temple in Sacramento!!! I attend church in the Roseville area and it is difficult to schedule a room in the church building, because we have so many wards sharing the building.

What types of people are getting baptized? Are they mainly Hispanic and other immigrant populations? Are there a lot of missionaries assigned to non-English populations?

 

[Mannyfit75]

You know I was watching a video by an ex-Mormon and pointed out that the Book of Mormon lack any proof for being a reliable piece of historical evidence. They noted that the Smithonian don’t even consider it as historical document.

The book itself contains errors:

There are 4 crops mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

1. 
   *]Barley (Moses 7:22, 9:9, Alma 11:7, 15)
   *]Figs (3 Nephi 14:16)
   *]Grapes (2 Nephi 15:2, 4, 3 Nephi 14:16)
   *]Wheat (Moses 9:9, 3 Nephi 18:18)
   
   There is no independent (non-Mormon) archeological evidence that Figs, Grapes, or Wheat existed in the area and time frame of the above references.
   
   Book of Mormon Animals:
   
   There are 16 animals and animal products mentioned in the Book of Mormon
   

   ---

   Bull
   Calf
   Cattle
   Cow
   Butter
   Elephants
   Milk
   Flocks
   Goat (The Nephites claimed to have found the domestic goat.)
   Herds
   Horse (The horse plays a major role in the Nephite and Lamanite societies.)
   Ox
   Sheep (This was a major animal in the Book of Mormon.)
   Sow
   Swine
   
   There is no independent (non-Mormon) archeological evidence that any of these existed in the area and time frame of the Book of Mormon.
   
   Book of Mormon Metals:
   
   The following metals, metal products, or metal manufacturing are mentioned in the Book of Mormon record.
   
   Bellows
   Brass
   Breast Plates
   Chains
   Copper
   Iron
   Ore (mining)
   Plows
   Silver
   Swords (metal)
   Steel
   
   Independent (non-Mormon) archeological evidence shows that none of these were manufactured or used in the area and time frame of 2 Nephi 5. The Smithsonian Institution’s Dept. Of Anthropology declares the Americas did not have steel or horses before 1492. The Book of Mormon (600 B.C. to 421 A.D.) claims both steel (1 Nephi 4:9) and horses (Alma 18:9). Gordon H. Fraser, anthropologist and ethnologist, agrees with the Smithsonian Institution and adds that copper (Mosiah 8:10) was unknown at that early date as referred to in the Book of Mormon.
   
   King James Translation Errors in the Book of Mormon:
   
   The Book of Mormon contains King James Bible translation errors. For example, in 2 Nephi 14:5 which is the same as Isaiah 4:5, the correct translation of the Hebrew “Chuppah” is “canopy,” not “defense.” Another example is in 2 Nephi 15:25 (which is the same as Isaiah 5:25). The correct translation of the Hebrew “cuwchah” is “filth,” not “torn.”
   
   The gold plates are claimed to have been buried in 421 A.D. by Moroni. The King James Bible came out 1,190 years later. Thus the Book of Mormon couldn’t be based on plates buried in 421 A.D. since the Book of Mormon contains translation errors that didn’t occur until 1,190 years later. Additionally, the language of the King James Bible didn’t exist in 421 A.D.
   
   The broader question is: How could the Book of Mormon contain anything from the King James Bible? Please note that this is not a religious question. It’s a comparison of two books and the freely available Hebrew original.
   
   ((continue))

 

[Mannyfit75]

Book of Mormon Verbiage:

The Book of Mormon has events similar to and/or phrases identical to or nearly identical to those found in:

The preface to the King James Bible
21 chapters of Isaiah
The Apocrypha (These are the books in the Catholic Bible which are between the Old and New Testament. Machabees is an example.)
James Adair’s History of the American Indians (This contains 23 arguments that American Indians are descendants of Hebrews. It also tells of buried plates (5 copper and 2 brass) kept by an Indian tribe.) (London: E.&C. Dilly, 1775)
Josephus’ War of the Jews
Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews (1823, Poultney, Vermont, Smith & Shute, particularly p. 150). Ethan Smith preached in Poultney, Vermont from 1821 to 1826. Poultney, Vermont is near the location of many of the families who founded Mormonism.
Shakespeare’s Macbeth
Shakespeare’s Hamlet
The October 22, 1823 Wayne Sentinel story by Asa Wilds of a vision with “Great Jehovah” which said, “…every denomination was corrupt.”
Manuscript Found (a manuscript written by Solomon Spalding) (See the first link in the Research Links section below for info on 1,128 pages of documentation.)
Thus the Book of Mormon isn’t an original work. It also can’t be the translation of an ancient document. What could it be? It’s obviously a fiction novel, heavily plagiarized from books which were freely available at the time.

Other Book of Mormon Problems

The 1830 edition calls Joseph Smith the “author and proprietor.” Wasn’t Moroni the author? Wasn’t Joseph Smith the translator?

The theory that the American Indians are descendants of the Hebrews is genetically incorrect. No one questions this anymore due to the DNA testing available today which wasn’t available in the 1800’s.

There never was a reformed Egyptian language. And Hebrews didn’t write in Egyptian.

Egyptians were pagans during the Old Testament era, so why would the Book of Mormon be based on pagan Egyptian writings?

There were no eye (as in physical eye, not spiritual eye) witnesses to the gold plates, based on later admissions by the witnesses.

The Book of Mormon places Jesus’ birth in Jerusalem, not in Bethlehem as in the Bible.

There was no religious revival in 1820. The revival occurred from 1824 to 1825. Thus there was no basis in 1820 for Joseph Smith to be confused about religious revivals which would not occur until several years later.

There have been 3,913 changes made to the Book of Mormon since the original 1830 edition.

Not one piece of independent, non-Mormon archeological evidence supports the Book of Mormon.

There are 9 versions of the First Vision. They significantly contradict each other on major issues. The last official version was published in Times and Seasons 20 years after the First Vision and contains information which was not in any contemporaneous diaries. This information should have been in numerous contemporaneous diaries due to its significance.

Old and new archeological discoveries support the Bible. There is zero independent archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon.

The Smithsonian Institution does not use the Book of Mormon for reference. Their statement on this matter is available for the asking.

Strong historical evidence points to the historical story line of the Book of Mormon being taken from a manuscript written by Solomon Spalding called Manuscript Found, which was missing from the printer in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Sidney Rigdon lived near Pittsburgh and knew the printer, J. Lambdin.

The Book of Mormon contains some 27,000 words from the King James Bible, approximately 25,000 from the Old Testament and approximately 2,000 from the New Testament. If the King James Bible was published 1,190 years after Moroni buried the gold plates in 621, how did Moroni incorporate the 1611 King James Bible (including two Hebrew to English translation errors) into his gold plates?

Joseph Smith predicted himself by adding to the King James Translation of the Bible at the end of Genesis (Genesis 50:26) and extending Genesis out to verse 33 in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Archeological and historical summary:

• No Book of Mormon cities have been located.
• No Book of Mormon names have been found in New World inscriptions.
• No genuine inscriptions have been found in Hebrew in America.
• No genuine inscriptions have been found in America in Egyptian or anything similar to Egyptian, which could correspond to Joseph Smith’s ‘reformed Egyptian.’
• No ancient copies of Book of Mormon scriptures have been found.
• No ancient inscriptions of any kind in America which indicate that the ancient inhabitants had Hebrew or Christian beliefs have been found.
• No mention of Book of Mormon persons, nations, or places have been found.
• No artifacts of any kind which demonstrates the Book of Mormon is true has been found.
• Rather than finding supportive evidence, Mormon scholars have been forced to retreat from traditional interpretations of Book of Mormon statements.

Since Mormonism lack any real evidence. I don’t think it professes to be a religion that comes from God. Rather, it is a religion founded by man, Joseph Smith… It saddens me that millions of people have been deceived into this type of belief.

I like to add my 2 cents.

God is immutable. If you don’t know what that means it means unchanging. He is the same today, yesterday, and forever. In Mormonism, we see a different type of God. They claim Lucifer and Jesus are brothers, which the Bible does not teaches nor does the early tradition of the Early Church.

They deny the Trinity, departing from the more orthodox view of God by Christians.

They claim to that Mary and God had intercourse so Jesus can be born. That is also false.

They claim that God comes from another planet, which is also false.

If God of the Mormon is a True God, we would see the Jews testify to this but no. We don’t.

Jews says this. “Hear, O’Hear, Oh, Israel, the Lord Our God is one.”

Christians believe in a One God, Three Divine Persons. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Mormon doctrine is not consistent and often contradict itself (see above post).

 

[BartBurk]

It really would seem to be very easy to come up with some kind of evidence that Native Americans descended from Hebrews. That would be the very least one would expect to be found to give us some reasonable evidence why faith in the Book of Mormon is plausible. The inability to provide us with any evidence of this very basic premise of the Book of Mormon is enough reason to reject it as scripture. Just finding that Native Americans descended from Hebrews isn’t enough for one to be sure the Book of Mormon is true, but at least it would give us a reason to think it might be true.

The Book of Mormon was supposedly given to us so the gospel could be preached to Native Americans. They would come to realize their ancestors believed in Jesus Christ. How can Native Americans be expected to believe in a book like this when there is no evidence they have any ancestors from the Middle East?

 

[Mannyfit75]

It really would seem to be very easy to come up with some kind of evidence that Native Americans descended from Hebrews. That would be the very list one would expect to be found to give us some reasonable evidence why faith in the Book of Mormon is plausible. The inability to provide us with any evidence of this very basic premise of the Book of Mormon is enough reason to reject it as scripture. Just finding that Native Americans descended from Hebrews isn’t enough for one to be sure the Book of Mormon is true, but at least it would give us a reason to think it might be true.

There isn’t any DNA evidence to prove the link between Native American peoples and the Hebrews.

Archaeologist and anthropologist have long believed that Native Americans migrated to the Americas from Central and Northeast Asia in prehistoric times. The DNA evidence is backing these assumptions up quite solidly.

Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome DNA testing are effective means of determining the ancestries and relatedness of people and people groups. DNA tests have been performed on thousands of individuals from scores of Native American tribes, from Alaska to the tip of South America. The results of the test show that the overwhelming majority (96.4%) of DNA originated in northeastern and north-central Asia, which essentially corroborates what had an already become a widespread consensus among archaeologists and anthropologists of varying disciplines.

The post-Colonial era intermarriage easily accounts for the remaining 3.6% discrepancy. In addition, the testing of the DNA in the pre-Columbian skeletal remains shows a 100% correlation with DNA from Northeastern and Central Asia. No indication of Hebrew ancestry has been found in the DNA of Native Americans.

In other parts of the world, DNA has been used to positively identify people groups who do have a clear genetic link to Israel from ancient times. This shows that DNA can be used to clearly show a genetic link (or lack thereof) between people groups. If Native Americans really were descended from Israelites, then their DNA would back up that claim.

The Book of Mormon was supposedly given to us so the gospel could be preached to Native Americans. They would come to realize their ancestors believed in Jesus Christ. How can Native Americans be expected to believe in a book like this when there is no evidence they have any ancestors from the Middle East?

It’s a false book. A book of lie than a book of truth…

 

[BartBurk]

There isn’t any DNA evidence to prove the link between Native American peoples and the Hebrews.

The Mormon answer to this is that evidence of Hebrew DNA has been swamped. The problem with this in my opinion is the Book of Mormon claim that Book of Mormon peoples came to a land which had been specifically preserved for them. There is no sound evidence in the Book of Mormon that non-Hebrew people inhabited the land. And Mormon prophets have continually claimed the Native Americans were descendants of Lehi and other Book of Mormon peoples.

It’s a false book. A book of lie than a book of truth…

It sure seems that way.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Mormon answer to this is that evidence of Hebrew DNA has been swamped. The problem with this in my opinion is the Book of Mormon claim that Book of Mormon peoples came to a land which had been specifically preserved for them. There is no sound evidence in the Book of Mormon that non-Hebrew people inhabited the land. And Mormon prophets have continually claimed the Native Americans were descendants of Lehi and other Book of Mormon peoples.

So they are basing their belief on assumptions.

It sure seems that way.

So many people are so deceived by this. It is sad.

 

[po18guy]

The Mormon Church does not lie.

zerinus

Once again, you must demand a definition of “Lie”. “Trinity” “Son of God” and “lie” all mean different things in the Mormon dictionary than in ours.