Ex-Mormon Missionaries

[Fiat_Lux]

cestusdei:

In an interesting twist I have heard in the dead sea scrolls there is a list of fallen angels. One is named Moroni. If that is the case then I find it intriguing.

Can you give sources for this? Thanks.

 

[rod_of_iron]

cestusdei:

They have his notes. They show Egyptian characters AND his translations of them. They do not match. The man was making it up. No non-mormon egyptologist accepts his translation.

His notes? How do you know that this translation was done by Joseph Smith? Is there a web site that has scanned images of these transcripts to show that they were really in Joseph’s handwriting? Your claims mean nothing unless you can present the evidence to support those claims.

cestusdei:

You can have contact with God and not receive general revelation. Mormon revelations contradict earlier ones and certainly contradict what the early Church believed.

The only revelations that contradict earlier ones are the ones that came forth after Joseph Smith was killed. It is rather difficult, dare I say – impossible, for a dead man to receive revelation from God.

cestusdei:

Your god changes his mind our God does not.

My God? Which God would that be, since you pretend to know so much about me?

cestusdei:

Smith did have more then one wife. Emma tore up her copy, but that didn’t mean Joseph did not have another one.

That is what Brigham Young claimed. But since Brigham Young had so many plural wives, it would be ridiculous to believe that he would claim that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist, even if Smith was indeed not one. If the copy of the revelation was simply torn up by Emma, the pieces of the document would surely have survived. Where are these pieces?

cestusdei:

To argue he was monogamous is simply ridiculous. Even the mormon church generally doesn’t try to argue that he wasn’t polygamous. They downplay it, but it is a fact. To argue against a proven fact only undermines your credibility.

It is completely ridiculous to argue that Joseph Smith being a polygamist is factual without any concrete evidence to prove that fact. You obviously want to discredit Joseph Smith so badly that you will accept anything as proof. As I have stated earlier, the Mormon church has a self-serving reason to claim that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. They need him to be a polygamist for the Mormon church to have any credibility whatsoever. If Joseph Smith was not a polygamist and did not receive a revelation from God commanding the practice, then Brigham and all those who followed him would have lived in sin, and the modern day Mormons would have to confess that the Mormon church apostatized after Joseph Smith’s death. Just because the Mormons claim Smith was a polygamist does not make the claim any more credible. It is not a proven fact that Smith was a polygamist, no matter how much you claim it is true.

 

[darcee]

ROI where is that evidence for the Book of Mormon again???

-D

 

[flameburns623]

Link to a book review by FARMS (a Mormon apologetics group) on a book byTodd Compton, a researcher who wrote a book, “In Sacred Loneliness: the Plural Wives of Joseph Smith”. Compton established that Smith had at least 33 wives, per this article.

farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=290

And here is an article in which Todd Compton answers some of his LDS commentators and critics:

geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/rev.html

My big problem with this discussion is that Rod of Iron is twisting himself into a pretzel to do seat-of-his-trousers apologetics. Exactly what ‘evidence’ or argumentation is anyone going to be able to concoct which will rise to a standard of acceptable proof for him? Unless someone establishes this, the conversation is likely to remain rather frustrating and fruitless.

Rod: if you’re convinced of the truth of your position beyond all possibility of convincement by any means–then say so. If there is a standard of evidence to which reasonable people can obtain, lets agree on the terms of this evidence and let folks acquire it for your perusal and consideration.

 

[rod_of_iron]

flameburns623:

Link to a book review by FARMS (a Mormon apologetics group) on a book byTodd Compton, a researcher who wrote a book, “In Sacred Loneliness: the Plural Wives of Joseph Smith”. Compton established that Smith had at least 33 wives, per this article.

farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=290

Here is another example of people on this board using hearsay to try to prove a point. Todd Compton couldn’t have been alive when Joseph Smith was alive. But the article claims that 33 of these alleged wives were well-documented. What documentation is available to prove that Joseph Smith had more than one wife? I would like to see it.
%between%

flameburns623:

My big problem with this discussion is that Rod of Iron is twisting himself into a pretzel to do seat-of-his-trousers apologetics. Exactly what ‘evidence’ or argumentation is anyone going to be able to concoct which will rise to a standard of acceptable proof for him? Unless someone establishes this, the conversation is likely to remain rather frustrating and fruitless.

Rod: if you’re convinced of the truth of your position beyond all possibility of convincement by any means–then say so. If there is a standard of evidence to which reasonable people can obtain, lets agree on the terms of this evidence and let folks acquire it for your perusal and consideration.

I don’t know what it will take. Are there marriage licenses for any of these alleged plural wives that Joseph Smith allegedly married? Are there any documents at all signed by Joseph Smith and the women he allegedly married as proof that this marriage happened? A signed document can be very convincing. Do such documents exist for any of his alleged wives?

 

[flameburns623]

Here is another example of people on this board using hearsay to try to prove a point. Todd Compton couldn’t have been alive when Joseph Smith was alive. But the article claims that 33 of these alleged wives were well-documented. What documentation is available to prove that Joseph Smith had more than one wife? I would like to see it.

Try reading Compton’s book. But I should point out that if the only evidence you would find convincing requires living eyewitnesses and/or actual marriage licenses to plural marriages, your standards of evidence are beyond those of any reasonable person. How would one conduct any sort of historical research, how would one establish any manner of event as historically credible. I think you’ve gotten yourself into a pickle and don’t want to simply concede that you’ve overstated your case.

By the sorts of argumentation you’re employing, one might find it difficult to prove that the South lost the Civil War, that the Spanish Armada was swept away by a storm before it could vanquish Great Britain, that Napoleon lost at Waterloo. Or, to be a bit more controversial: that the Third Reich did not institute a Holocaust against ‘inferior races’, most particularly the Jewish people. (There is an entire wing of history dedicated to ‘Holocaust Revisionism’, which denies that there was a program of extermination against the Jews, etcetera. Some revisionists deny that ANY Jews were deliberately exterminated and that only a few thousands, at most, were brutalized, a few hundreds of thousands more dying of starvation or disease brought on by the scarcities of war).

The women themselves admitted they were married to Smith. They kept diaries and journals, some had children which they alleged were by him. There were witnesses who left their own accounts of the events. Many of the players in this drama apparently left the ‘Brighamite’ sect of Mormonism but remained faithful to Smith’s message. Others left Mormonism entirely. Some went to Utah. I think the case is fairly well established, whether you believe it or not.

 

[rod_of_iron]

flameburns623:

Try reading Compton’s book. But I should point out that if the only evidence you would find convincing requires living eyewitnesses and/or actual marriage licenses to plural marriages, your standards of evidence are beyond those of any reasonable person. How would one conduct any sort of historical research, how would one establish any manner of event as historically credible. I think you’ve gotten yourself into a pickle and don’t want to simply concede that you’ve overstated your case.

I don’t feel that I am in a pickle at all. You seem to be under the assumption that anything written in the past must be absolutely true. You seem to believe that if someone writes something down on paper, that whatever they write must be absolutely true. Apparently, you cannot present any signed document to prove that Joseph had any more wives than Emma. Why would I want to spend any money to buy this book by Compton? Have you read the book? If so, you should be able to present some of the evidence that Compton referenced to arrive at his conclusions. If you are so sure that Joseph Smith had more than one wife simultaneously, you need to present the evidence. I am not going to do the research for you.

flameburns623:

By the sorts of argumentation you’re employing, one might find it difficult to prove that the South lost the Civil War, that the Spanish Armada was swept away by a storm before it could vanquish Great Britain, that Napoleon lost at Waterloo. Or, to be a bit more controversial: that the Third Reich did not institute a Holocaust against ‘inferior races’, most particularly the Jewish people. (There is an entire wing of history dedicated to ‘Holocaust Revisionism’, which denies that there was a program of extermination against the Jews, etcetera. Some revisionists deny that ANY Jews were deliberately exterminated and that only a few thousands, at most, were brutalized, a few hundreds of thousands more dying of starvation or disease brought on by the scarcities of war).

But with all these examples, I would think that there is much more credible evidence to support them than what is available for Joseph Smith being a polygamist.

flameburns623:

The women themselves admitted they were married to Smith. They kept diaries and journals, some had children which they alleged were by him.

Of course these women would claim they were married to Joseph Smith. They were helping to propagate the false doctrine that they attributed to Joseph Smith. They were part of the Brighamite church in Utah, and that church was practicing polygamy. All those women were most likely involved in polygamist relationships in Utah. They were self-serving.

As for having children with Joseph Smith, where is the evidence of that claim? The only children recorded that Joseph Smith sired were with his wife Emma Smith.

flameburns623:

There were witnesses who left their own accounts of the events.

And who are these witnesses? What documents exist to prove that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?

flameburns623:

Many of the players in this drama apparently left the ‘Brighamite’ sect of Mormonism but remained faithful to Smith’s message. Others left Mormonism entirely. Some went to Utah. I think the case is fairly well established, whether you believe it or not.

Do you mean the message attributed to Joseph Smith that never saw the light of day until 8 years after Smith had been killed? That message is at best, suspect.

 

[cestusdei]

rod of iron:

His notes? How do you know that this translation was done by Joseph Smith? Is there a web site that has scanned images of these transcripts to show that they were really in Joseph’s handwriting? Your claims mean nothing unless you can present the evidence to support those claims.

Gee, let’s meet in Utah, steal the documents from the vault, and go over them. Or you could simply look it up on the net. Smith wrote notes on the back of the papyri. His explanations of the figures is simply ridiculous. No egyptologists who are not mormon agree with the Smith translations. But it is funny a mormon asking for hard evidence. Very humorous.

The only revelations that contradict earlier ones are the ones that came forth after Joseph Smith was killed. It is rather difficult, dare I say – impossible, for a dead man to receive revelation from God.

So you agree that mormon revelations contradict each other. Very good, you are half out of the lds church.

My God? Which God would that be, since you pretend to know so much about me?

The mormon god is a created being. My God is uncreated, Triune in nature. The creator of everything out of nothing. He is the real God.

That is what Brigham Young claimed. But since Brigham Young had so many plural wives, it would be ridiculous to believe that he would claim that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist, even if Smith was indeed not one. If the copy of the revelation was simply torn up by Emma, the pieces of the document would surely have survived. Where are these pieces?

LOL, she threw them away. What do you think she did? Is this a serious question? The rlds church rejects polygamy. Why? Because Emma and the Smith family never wanted to admit the truth. Joseph was a serial philanderer.

It is completely ridiculous to argue that Joseph Smith being a polygamist is factual without any concrete evidence to prove that fact. You obviously want to discredit Joseph Smith so badly that you will accept anything as proof. As I have stated earlier, the Mormon church has a self-serving reason to claim that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. They need him to be a polygamist for the Mormon church to have any credibility whatsoever. If Joseph Smith was not a polygamist and did not receive a revelation from God commanding the practice, then Brigham and all those who followed him would have lived in sin, and the modern day Mormons would have to confess that the Mormon church apostatized after Joseph Smith’s death. Just because the Mormons claim Smith was a polygamist does not make the claim any more credible. It is not a proven fact that Smith was a polygamist, no matter how much you claim it is true.

It is news to Smith that he was monogamous. No one seriously disputes he had many wives. Expect as I said the rlds types who have self-serving reasons to deny it. What you should do is accept the fact that Smith was no prophet. Forget the BOM. Just accept real Christianity.

 

[AmandaPS]

rod of iron, you wanted a scanned copy of his manuscript, here it is: irr.org/mit/boamss1.html

 

[Lorarose]

I have read various claims concerning Joseph Smith’s character, one of them that he had been arrested.
Does anyone know if there is documentation of this?

Also - that prior to his alleged “revelations” that he lived the life of a con man. Is there any documentation of this?

The LDS missionaries who visited me seemed to be very much into this notion of prophets being in direct contact with God.
I wanted to ask them if Joseph Smith’s prophecies had been carefully examined and discerned according to scripture (parts of scripture that deal with discerning a true prophet from a false prophet.)
Exactly what are his prophecies and were they fulfilled or not?

I was also told that the LDS church has 12 apostles plus a “prophet” who is in direct contact with God.
It is from this group that the church looks to for guidance. (their words not mine)
It was clear that they believed anything this prophet had to say should be accepted without question.
Who are these “prophets” and what are their prophecies?
Are any of these alleged prophecies being fulfilled or not?

Does the LDS church have a discernment process concerning prophecy - or do they accept these without question?

The Catholic church has had many false prophets and a number of genuine prophets. The RCC takes great time and effort in the discernment process. The prophecies are always compared to the deposit of faith as given to the apostles by Jesus.
Even when some supernatural phenomena are deemed worthy of belief, catholics are instructed to never place them above scripture and tradition as handed down from the apostles.

What does the LDS church do when their prophets contradict mormon doctrine, or contradict each other?

 

[rod_of_iron]

cestusdei:

It is news to Smith that he was monogamous. No one seriously disputes he had many wives.

On the contrary, Joseph Smith would be surprised to be called a polygamist. He commented on what a thing polygamy was when all he could find was one wife. There is no concrete evidence to prove that Smith was a polygamist.

cestusdei:

Expect as I said the rlds types who have self-serving reasons to deny it.

I deny it because there is no real reason to believe it to be true. How is it self-serving to deny Joseph was a polygamist?

cestusdei:

What you should do is accept the fact that Smith was no prophet.

But he was a prophet. He was also a seer and revelator. To reject this would be to reject the truth. If I reject the truth, I will be forced to believe a lie. I do not want to believe a lie.

cestusdei:

Forget the BOM.

I can’t forget the Book of Mormon. The words in that book are so beautiful and so true. The Book of Mormon speaks of Jesus Christ, and how there is no other way to be saved but through Christ. If I forget the Book of Mormon, I will have to forget the Bible also, because the Book of Mormon has the same gospel and doctrine of Christ as the Bible has. The Book of Mormon is wonderful.

cestusdei:

Just accept real Christianity.

I have already. I believe in the true Jesus Christ. He is my savior.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

rod of iron:

But he was a prophet. He was also a seer and revelator. To reject this would be to reject the truth. If I reject the truth, I will be forced to believe a lie. I do not want to believe a lie.

I can’t forget the Book of Mormon. The words in that book are so beautiful and so true. The Book of Mormon speaks of Jesus Christ, and how there is no other way to be saved but through Christ. If I forget the Book of Mormon, I will have to forget the Bible also, because the Book of Mormon has the same gospel and doctrine of Christ as the Bible has. The Book of Mormon is wonderful.

.

In any discusiion regarding the truth or falseness of a proposition, one should admit, or formaly state just what are the standards, or the criteria, by which that proposition can be termed not valid. This is called **falsification. **If anyone declares there is NO criteria of disproof in a position they hold, then such person is beyond reasonable discussion or arguement. By such an stance, they abandon reason, logic, example, scholarship, or science. They abandon causality, their position is one of sheer emotioanl attatchment–and emotional attatchment devoid of any standard of proof is hardly worth discussing

As I stated earlier in this thread, LDS theology is founded on subjective emotional corraberation–and by itself that subjective corraboration (burning in the breast) has NO MORE VALIDITY THAN ANY OTHER RELIGION THAT USES THAT AS “PROOF”—Two mutually contradictory positions cannot both be true at the same time–either one is true and the other false, or both are false.

Rod, it’s demonstrably apparent to everyone in this forum that you are resistant to any standard of evidence, history, biology, anthropology, scholarship, linguistics, etc… That’s a kind yet honest appraisal. I really suspect that your loyalty to your particular sect of LDS is because you were born in it and have been conditioned thouroughly to reject anything that might upset the illusion your patriarchs have created–in the same way jehovahs witnesses discourage their members from higher education or any reading that does not come from the watchtower printing press.

Really, that approach to faith is brittle and very weak. If a faith cannot stand up to science, scholarship, etc, what sort of faith was it to begin with in the first place?

 

[Sophie]

rod of iron:

. If Joseph Smith was not a polygamist and did not receive a revelation from God commanding the practice, then Brigham and all those who followed him would have lived in sin, .

Let’s not forget, Smith, Brigham Young and all those who followed them in the practice of polygamy were grave sinners anyway. They were adulterers. They did not follow the Gospel of Christ. Christ taught marriage is monogomous: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”. So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

Also, Christ endorsed celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God: “…some because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” - Matt. 19:12

The practice of celibacy is also echoed thru out the New Testament as St. Paul, who was celibate, tells us:

“An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided.” - 1 Cor. 7:32-34

Also: “To the unmarried and to widows I say, it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do…” - 1 Cor. 7:8

Joe Smith or anyone practicing polygamy is a sinfull adulterer, ignoring the words of our Lord.

 

[Sophie]

Lorarose:

I have read various claims concerning Joseph Smith’s character, one of them that he had been arrested.
Does anyone know if there is documentation of this?

Also - that prior to his alleged “revelations” that he lived the life of a con man. Is there any documentation of this?

Yes, Lorarose, there is evidence that Smith was arrested in March of 1826. Mormons tried to deny Smith’s arrest for years until a court bill was found on May 22, 1971 by a man named Wesley P. Walters in a basement room of the Norwich, NY county jail. Also some other documents pertaining to the trails on that day which mention Smith’s name. They state Smith was brought to trial for being a glass-looker or money-digger. This was a con-artist profession on the east coast in the 1800’s and was illegal. Some people claiming to be able to find money and treasure buried in the ground by pirates, theives, ect., would scam unsuspecting folks out of livestock and money in payment for their phoney attempts at finding the buried goods. Joe Smith and his family were money-digging cons and that is what he was arrested in 1826 for. Notice this was supposedly after he saw God and Jesus in the woods, that he was engaged in such illegal, lieing ativitity. Also, recall Smith said he found the gold plates buried in the ground. Notice the connection of this gold plate story to money-digging? Money-digging was pretending to find stuff buried in the ground just as in his gold plate story he pretended to find them buried in the ground. He was nothing but a con-man all his life.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Lion of Narnia:

In any discusiion regarding the truth or falseness of a proposition, one should admit, or formaly state just what are the standards, or the criteria, by which that proposition can be termed not valid. This is called **falsification. **If anyone declares there is NO criteria of disproof in a position they hold, then such person is beyond reasonable discussion or arguement. By such an stance, they abandon reason, logic, example, scholarship, or science. They abandon causality, their position is one of sheer emotioanl attatchment–and emotional attatchment devoid of any standard of proof is hardly worth discussing.

It is interesting that you bring this up. You say that a proposition needs criteria where it can be found not valid. I agree. But the reverse it true also. Don’t you believe that a proposition also needs criteria where it can be found valid, too?

With the Book of Mormon, the claim is that the book was plagiarized. If the Book of Mormon contains the same gospel and doctrine of Jesus Christ that the Bible proclaims, then the book is claimed to have been copied from the Bible, and this makes the Book of Mormon not inspired of God and not an ancient book. But, on the other hand, if the Book of Mormon does not contain the same gospel and doctrine of Jesus Christ, the book is said to be not inspired of God and not an ancient book also, because it would be proclaiming a different doctrine and gospel than that which Christ taught. This would put the Book of Mormon in a lose - lose situation. Such a test is not fair or reasonable, because such a test allows for no way the Book of Mormon can be true and inspired scripture of God.
Lion of Narnia:

As I stated earlier in this thread, LDS theology is founded on subjective emotional corraberation–and by itself that subjective corraboration (burning in the breast) has NO MORE VALIDITY THAN ANY OTHER RELIGION THAT USES THAT AS “PROOF”—Two mutually contradictory positions cannot both be true at the same time–either one is true and the other false, or both are false.

I don’t put any stock in this “burning of the bosom” argument. I have never had this “burning in the bosom”. This phenomenon is not what convinced me that the Book of Mormon is a volume of inspired, sacred scripture from God. My belief that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be is not based on a feeling, or the so-called “warm fuzzies”.
Lion of Narnia:

Rod, it’s demonstrably apparent to everyone in this forum that you are resistant to any standard of evidence, history, biology, anthropology, scholarship, linguistics, etc… That’s a kind yet honest appraisal.

How am I resistant to the standards of evidence that you have listed? I have been told that such evidence exists, but have yet to be presented with that evidence so I could be persuaded away from believing that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. I have not been presented with such evidence. Instead, I have been told that no evidence exists to support the claims of the Book of Mormon. These two things are not the same. Lack of evidence does not equal evidence. It would be illogical to believe that it does. But as for linguistic evidence, the evidence shows that the Book of Mormon is Hebrew in nature and linguistic structure.

(continued …)

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Of course, to mormon missionaries, once can quote this:

mtwain.com/Roughing_It/17.html

To which they will probably reply that Twain/Clemens was an “anti-mormon”. Remember, an anti-mormon is just some who is convinced that a subjective feeling, self-generated by wanting to belong to a particular group, is really no proof or evidence, whatsoever.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Lion of Narnia:

I really suspect that your loyalty to your particular sect of LDS is because you were born in it and have been conditioned thouroughly to reject anything that might upset the illusion your patriarchs have created–in the same way jehovahs witnesses discourage their members from higher education or any reading that does not come from the watchtower printing press.

So, now you are insulting my intelligence? You are implying that I am such a bonehead, that I could never comprehend the truth. You are implying that I am under such mind-control that I could never come to a realization of the truth that you believe you are presenting to me.

Is this the way to win an argument? If you are unable to present evidence to persuade the other person toward the truth you trust in, your next response is to insult the intelligence of that other person??? If you must resort to insults, it is clear that I am winning the argument.
Lion of Narnia:

Really, that approach to faith is brittle and very weak. If a faith cannot stand up to science, scholarship, etc, what sort of faith was it to begin with in the first place?

I agree. Such an approach as relying on an emotion or this “burning in the bosom” is brittle and weak. A faith must indeed stand up to science and scholarship. But the science and scholarship needs to be fair. It must be free from bias, if possible. The word, “science”, means: knowledge. Lack of evidence does not foster knowledge. Rather, it fosters doubt. Doubt is not knowledge. But faith is the opposite of knowledge. Once you have knowledge of something, you no longer can have faith in it. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Knowledge is the evidence of things that are seen.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

rod of iron:

It is interesting that you bring this up. You say that a proposition needs criteria where it can be found not valid. I agree. But the reverse it true also. Don’t you believe that a proposition also needs criteria where it can be found valid, too?

Things like evidence, examples, logic, reasoning–for both proof and disproof. . Automatic naysaying is not arguement or discussion, its simply contradiction.

Now, general LDS claims include bronze-iron age civilizations in both Americas from 700 BC to 400 AD, derived from Semitic civilization. Where’s the evidence for these civilizations, especially civilations that were capable of fielding million-man armies in cataclismic battles
rod of iron:

With the Book of Mormon, the claim is that the book was plagiarized. If the Book of Mormon contains the same gospel and doctrine of Jesus Christ that the Bible proclaims, then the book is claimed to have been copied from the Bible, and this makes the Book of Mormon not inspired of God and not an ancient book. But, on the other hand, if the Book of Mormon does not contain the same gospel and doctrine of Jesus Christ, the book is said to be not inspired of God and not an ancient book also, because it would be proclaiming a different doctrine and gospel than that which Christ taught. This would put the Book of Mormon in a lose - lose situation. .

Well, none of us can help it that it was so badly written and plagarized that the BoM put itself in a double-bind. The KJV of the Bible’s OT was derived from, I believe, 7th-8th Century AD Hebrew manuscripts that had suffered some post-AD textual corruptions that were then transliterated into the KJV. The same textual corruptions show up in the BoM. If the BoM citations of OT scripts show the translitered corruptions, by Occams razor, doens’t this indicate a copying of KJV rather than a independent citation of the OT by the BoM Nephites?
rod of iron:

I don’t put any stock in this “burning of the bosom” argument. I have never had this “burning in the bosom”. ".

I apologize for assuming that’s what it was in your case.
rod of iron:

How am I resistant to the standards of evidence that you have listed? I have been told that such evidence exists, but have yet to be presented with that evidence so I could be persuaded away from believing that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.".

Alright, lets deal with your last claim in this post

QUOTE=rod of iron] I have not been presented with such evidence. Instead, I have been told that no evidence exists to support the claims of the Book of Mormon. These two things are not the same. Lack of evidence does not equal evidence. It would be illogical to believe that it does. But as for linguistic evidence, the evidence shows that the Book of Mormon is Hebrew in nature and linguistic structure.
Ah, the “absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence”.

Now, plenty of atheists argue that since Christians cannot show evidence for the once-only non-repeatable events of the Bible (miracles) then they could not of happened. However, especially as one gets closer and closer to NT events, one has considerable historic, archelogical, textual contimum to point to. There was a Jewish civilzation, a Roman-Hellenic civilization etc…

Apply the SAME standards for demonstrating the civilizations for the BoM.

Hebrew linguistic structure??? Strictly via the translation/transliteration of the KJV scholars, who were often able to get the sense of hebrew liturgical poetry and prose. However, Mark Twain nailed it when he said the BoM prose was a awful hybrid of KJV english and lower class Americanisms (including Nephi calling his brother Samuel “Sam”–you will NEVER find this used in any Hebrew liturgical or historic text)

 

[cestusdei]

Rod,

I can take you to Rome. You can’t take me to Zarhamela or anywhere mentioned in the bom. Not one iota of evidence. None, zip, nada, zilch, nothing. Just show me one coin validated as being from a bom civilization. Just one.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Lion of Narnia:

Now, general LDS claims include bronze-iron age civilizations in both Americas from 700 BC to 400 AD, derived from Semitic civilization. Where’s the evidence for these civilizations, especially civilations that were capable of fielding million-man armies in cataclysmic battles?

It’s buried in the earth. It has not been uncovered yet, but it will be. When the excavators dig in the right place, they will find the evidence. If they don’t, there is no chance that they will ever find the evidence. Digging in the wrong place for evidence is like someone who loses a contact lens in a dark alley, and tries to locate it under a street lamp because there is more light at the corner.

The Book of Mormon did not come forth for the purpose of showing us where certain events occurred in the American continents. Nor did it come forth to be a roadmap for finding lost civilizations in these continents. Rather, it came forth to restore the knowledge of the covenant to the descendents of the House of Israel, beginning in the Americas first.
Lion of Narnia:

Well, none of us can help it that it was so badly written and plagarized that the BoM put itself in a double-bind.

How is it badly written? Since the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, it would not be written down using English syntax, but rather, it would be written using the syntax that the Book of Mormon was originally written in. The Nephites and Lamanites did not speak English, because the English language did not exist at the time. Why would you expect a literal translation of the Book of Mormon to use the syntax of a language that did not exist at the time the Book of Mormon was written?

If the Book of Mormon seems to be written in poor English syntax, it is because the Book of Mormon was written in Hebrew using reformed Egyptian characters.
Lion of Narnia:

The KJV of the Bible’s OT was derived from, I believe, 7th-8th Century AD Hebrew manuscripts that had suffered some post-AD textual corruptions that were then transliterated into the KJV. The same textual corruptions show up in the BoM. If the BoM citations of OT scripts show the translitered corruptions, by Occams razor, doens’t this indicate a copying of KJV rather than a independent citation of the OT by the BoM Nephites?

What corruptions? How do you know that these corruptions were not corrections instead?