B
BrownR
Guest
I’m not even sure how many we have in this forum, but I’m curious about what all of you think about this article.
In particular, I’m curious as to how a Mormon defends his/her beliefs with such an extreme lack of archaeological proof for the “truths” within the Book of Mormon. There appears to be a complete paucity of evidence for any of the places, events and occurrences in the Book of Mormon that would be accepted by any modern day non-Mormon archaeologist. Ferguson’s life is ample proof of this I would think.
Also, I’m curious as to how Mormon’s defend the apparent fabrication of the Book of Abraham which is explained and touched on within the article. It’s certainly obvious at this point that Smith couldn’t translate Egyptian and that the Egyptian papyrus used for the Book of Abraham had nothing to do with each other although Joseph Smith claimed to be translating it properly which we now know to be false.
How does a Mormon respond to these claims? I’m legitimately curious because defending Mormonism seems to be such a difficult task in my opinion.
In particular, I’m curious as to how a Mormon defends his/her beliefs with such an extreme lack of archaeological proof for the “truths” within the Book of Mormon. There appears to be a complete paucity of evidence for any of the places, events and occurrences in the Book of Mormon that would be accepted by any modern day non-Mormon archaeologist. Ferguson’s life is ample proof of this I would think.
Also, I’m curious as to how Mormon’s defend the apparent fabrication of the Book of Abraham which is explained and touched on within the article. It’s certainly obvious at this point that Smith couldn’t translate Egyptian and that the Egyptian papyrus used for the Book of Abraham had nothing to do with each other although Joseph Smith claimed to be translating it properly which we now know to be false.
How does a Mormon respond to these claims? I’m legitimately curious because defending Mormonism seems to be such a difficult task in my opinion.