Is the Book of Mormon a Fraud?

[Dr_Paul]

TOmNossor:

A few comments.

• I did not suggest that logic decimated LDS beliefs but rather that anti-Mormon’s used “logic” to supposedly decimate LDS beliefs.
  Thanks for the clarification TOm. Is it wrong to use logic? I know that you don’t believe this. Then do you believe that we are trying to use false or deceptive logic? If so, it should be easy to show where the faults are. Or are you concerned that our goal seems to be to show how the entire mormon faith is false (i.e “decimate” this faith) rather than to leave portions of this faith intact ? I ask these questions sincerely because I do not clearly see the problem. If one is truly interested in moving closer toward pure truth (as I am), logic is very helpful. If Catholics are correct, then decimation of the LDS faith is an unavoidable consequence of moving toward the truth, but the goal is still exposing the truth.

*
I do not think that anti-arguments have no place, but I think one must be incredibly careful. In the absence of pro-arguments, I think anti-arguments should be avoided. I also think that when one chooses to utilize anti-arguments they need to do so from a position of well researched knowledge and charity.

I agree

TOmNossor:

The reason for the need to have both anti and pro arguments is that I believe much of what is anti-Mormonism points one to atheism. My personal belief is that if one cannot accept that “a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such, and the further clarification contained in the D&C concerning binding LDS doctrine” they are duplicitous if they accept “infallibility is only guaranteed when speaking from the Chair of Peter, in accordance with faith or morals, and conforming to tradition.”

Yes, I do see what you are saying. Indeed, the easiest way to show that the LDS faith is wrong (anti argument) is to show that the Catholic church was, and more importantly still is, the one true Church (pro argument). Attacking the book of mormon is not necessary if there never was a need for it in the first place. I have reread the other mormon thread that discusses this in more detail. It does seem that this “pro argument” was well articulated by many. If you are interested in hashing this out again, perhaps a new thread would be better. Not all that could be said in this regard has been covered.

*
I do not think it is impossible for Catholics to practice higher apologetics. It might not be easy and it may not be the best method of apologetics at all times, but you are not Protestants or LDS or Bahai or Moslems. (You are also not Jews, but since Jews are seldom evangelical I do not think Catholics need to fight that battle). The 4 groups I listed cannot be true unless the Catholic Church feel into error. The Catholic can show that they have not fallen into error and rest on their merits. The other groups I mentioned cannot do this.
]

Yes, again I agree. These groups must be able to show that the Catholic Church did cease to exist before one can even investigate their claims to now possess the truth. In this regard, the Catholic church does have the upper hand.

With all due love and respect…

 

[Dr_Paul]

TOm,

I am interested to learn what your understanding your understanding of the real presence in the Eucharist is. You mentioned this earlier, but did not comment on this further in your reply. You indicated that if you had understood this before you left the Catholic church that you would never have started to investigate other religions.

 

[Count_Chocula]

Just speaking logically again, the BoM referring to Christ talking about Hens and Chickens is also an in consitancy, true the analogy holds perfect water, however, the Bible makes numerous references to SHEEP, in that case it is somewhat safe to assume that Christ in those passages would lament that he is the Sheperd and his flock (or herd is it?) will not listen to him. Instead of changing the analogy up, just some food for thought.

 

[darcee]

So TOm, you keep claiming that no one is addressing the proofs of the BoM you are raising. Could you reiterate them?

I think you are being addressed, but you are just ignoring what you don’t want to hear. But it could be that I have missed where you have given some incontrovertible evidence. You mentioned something awhile back about the “old world” evidences… but other then the really wildly vague description of Bountiful and the Lehi travel you have cited nothing else.

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

Yes, I agree that there is no real connection between what he was supposed to have said in verses 10 and what was said later in verse 15.

In verse 10 it sounds like he was simply chiding them, NOT telling them what he had told others earlier.

Therefore I have a hard time accepting your argument for the words having to have been parallel even if it would have made no sense to the people he was chiding as they would not be familiar with the fowl mentioned.

-D

First, you said that Jesus was teaching the Nephites from heaven. Now, you say that He was just chiding them. But if He was chiding them, I would expect Jesus to list the things that they had done wrong.

When the voice was first heard from heaven, Jesus was giving the Nephites information on what cities were destroyed and what became of the inhabitants of those cities. The second time Jesus’ voice was heard from heaven, as I said, I believe Jesus was lamenting. He was speaking aloud, but not necessarily to the Nephites. He was also making a connection between those Nephites and the Jews in Jerusalem. In verse 4 of chapter 10, Jesus refers to how He had tried to gather the people before they were destroyed when He destroyed the cities, but they refused to come unto Him. In verse 5, Jesus shows the connection between the Nephites’ refusal to be gathered and the refusal of the people in Jerusalem to be gathered. The Jews refused to be gathered just as the Nephites had done. In verse 6, Jesus tells the Nephites that He was still willing to gather them if they would repent and return unto Him with full purpose of heart.

But you still question why Jesus would have used the analogy of the hens and chickens if the Nephites did not have chickens. But I ask you, what analogy could Jesus have used instead that would have said the same thing and an analogy that the Nephites would have understood? Count Chocula suggested the use of sheep and a shepherd, but you would probably argue that there were no sheep in the New World at that time. So, what animal would Jesus have mentioned which would demonstrate how a hen opens her wings so that her chicks gather against her body and get protected by her wings, if not a chicken? Have you ever seen a hen gathering her chickens to her? I cannot think of another animal that protects its young in the same way.

I don’t believe that Jesus expected the Nephites to fully comprehend His analogy. This is why I believe that Jesus was lamenting over their refusal to be gathered unto Him.

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

So TOm, you keep claiming that no one is addressing the proofs of the BoM you are raising. Could you reiterate them?

I think you are being addressed, but you are just ignoring what you don’t want to hear. But it could be that I have missed where you have given some incontrovertible evidence. You mentioned something awhile back about the “old world” evidences… but other then the really wildly vague description of Bountiful and the Lehi travel you have cited nothing else.

Darcee,

Who decides whether evidence is incontrovertible? If a bit of evidence is enough to convince someone of a fact, then that evidence is incontrovertible to that person. But it may not be to another person. Some people won’t believe a fact no matter what evidence is provided to them. No evidence would be incontrovertible to those type of people. Therefore, it would seem that whether or not evidence is incontrovertible, is relative, because it depends upon the person considering the evidence.

 

[darcee]

Chiding is just a disapproving way of instructing “How can you be so stupid look what I would do for you if you would only listen.”

I have a hard time thinking of Jesus talking to himself out of the sky. That seems truly pointless.

He could have said geese, or duck, turkey, quail (squab), or pheasant. Which also react in a very similar manner wrt their chicks. They nest them, hover over them and gather them together… the very elements that were referenced with the chicken thing in 3 Nephi. I think I would have picked quail.

-D

 

[darcee]

rod of iron:

Darcee,

Who decides whether evidence is incontrovertible? If a bit of evidence is enough to convince someone of a fact, then that evidence is incontrovertible to that person. But it may not be to another person. Some people won’t believe a fact no matter what evidence is provided to them. No evidence would be incontrovertible to those type of people. Therefore, it would seem that whether or not evidence is incontrovertible, is relative, because it depends upon the person considering the evidence.

That isn’t the point.

You have said several times that you have been convinced because of compelling evidence that the BoM is what it claims to be. What is this evidence that you have. Because the only thing concrete that I have seen you mention is that really vague description of the land of Bountiful and the travels of Lehi’s band thing, Which could probably describe any one of half a dozen places in Arabia.

You are the member of the LDS church here on a Catholic board claiming your church to be true. You say that your proofs are not being addressed, yet I have seen you put forward only one. What are your other proofs?

 

[TOmNossor]

Dr Paul:

Thanks for the clarification TOm. Is it wrong to use logic? I know that you don’t believe this. Then do you believe that we are trying to use false or deceptive logic? If so, it should be easy to show where the faults are. Or are you concerned that our goal seems to be to show how the entire mormon faith is false (i.e “decimate” this faith) rather than to leave portions of this faith intact ? I ask these questions sincerely because I do not clearly see the problem. If one is truly interested in moving closer toward pure truth (as I am), logic is very helpful. If Catholics are correct, then decimation of the LDS faith is an unavoidable consequence of moving toward the truth, but the goal is still exposing the truth.

I am not suggesting that well researched logical arguments are inappropriate to use. I will suggest that when I looked into the Catholic Church I spent more time reading responses to anti-Catholic arguments (that I search for and found at places like Catholic Answers), reading Catholic books, and trying to see past my bias; than I did browsing anti-Catholic websites and repeating the same things they said. Now, I really wanted to KNOW. I am not suggesting that the majority of people here who see no reason to really want to KNOW should have to do this.

I am suggesting that outdated decimated anti-Mormon arguments should not be used. If you wish to say that the BOM says land of Jerusalem and you are not aware of the Dead Sea Scrolls parallels, the prevalence of those far removed who use more generic terms for locations, and … then you are wasting time. If you do not find the responses convincing then you can respond to the responses rather than sound as if you have no clue about them. And if you have no clue about them you are not sufficiently educated to use anti-arguments in my opinion.

I am suggesting that it is wrong to indiscriminately use logic against the unwitting and/or ill-prepared (not that this is the folks that should be here anyway). I would be shocked if I could not share anti-Catholic ideas that are both true and very different than what Catholic are taught (if they have been taught anything that is) in Sunday School or at church. And that with these ideas less informed Catholic would be introduced to facts they are ill-prepared to respond to. Of course this board is not the place for ill-prepared Catholics. But when you search for Mormon or Catholic on the web and more sights are willing to tear apart you faith than support it I think there is reason to question the spirit of those who would tear apart.

I am suggesting that it is wrong to use logic that would tear apart the faith of the person using the logic in hope that the addressee is too ignorant to know this truth. When Catholics say that Brigham Young said, … and this is inconsistent with what … said, they should look at the glass house from which they speak. It is wrong in my mind to enter the anti-arguments with positions that are equally detrimental to your own faith in hopes that those you speak with will not know this.

I am suggesting that it is wrong to tear down without a safety net. You may think the CoJCoLDS is so worthless that the atheist is more likely to find themselves not “outside the Catholic Church” at death, but I think that is ridiculous. On a board like this one can assume that those here recognized there is a Catholic Church. But on websites that have nothing to say but that Joseph Smith was a bad man for these reasons… they seem to be unconcerned with what results from deciding to reject the CoJCoLDS. I would suggest that it might be appropriate to say you believe this, so do we. You believe this, so do we. And look at this wonderful belief. And this is why I do not believe this, that, and the other.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Dr Paul:

Yes, I do see what you are saying. Indeed, the easiest way to show that the LDS faith is wrong (anti argument) is to show that the Catholic church was, and more importantly still is, the one true Church (pro argument). Attacking the book of mormon is not necessary if there never was a need for it in the first place. I have reread the other mormon thread that discusses this in more detail. It does seem that this “pro argument” was well articulated by many. If you are interested in hashing this out again, perhaps a new thread would be better. Not all that could be said in this regard has been covered.

I am not opposed to presenting my ideas on the apostasy, but it will take quite a lot of time.
Dr Paul:
Yes, again I agree. These groups must be able to show that the Catholic Church did cease to exist before one can even investigate their claims to now possess the truth. In this regard, the Catholic church does have the upper hand.

With all due love and respect…

I doubt many non-Catholics would agree that the Catholic Church has the upper hand, but I generally would. The way those who protest approach this question, were they honest they would say that the Catholic church is at a disadvantage. With 2000 years of history there is plenty of bad Catholics, plenty of doctrinal changes/development, and basically plenty of stuff to PROTEST.
Dr Paul:

TOm,

I am interested to learn what your understanding your understanding of the real presence in the Eucharist is. You mentioned this earlier, but did not comment on this further in your reply. You indicated that if you had understood this before you left the Catholic church that you would never have started to investigate other religions.

I do not think there is room within the CoJCoLDS to embrace a real presence (Someone here suggested that there was, and I would be interested in their rational for this). So, I generally embrace a symbolic sacrament.

I have holy envy for the real presence. I not only think it is a beautiful, but I think it is quite supportable from the Bible and the early church. I think it is ridiculous when Protestants attack the real presence as something to be scoffed at.

Charity, TOm

 

[darcee]

TOm, I would agree with what you said if anyone here were going to an LDS board.

Since this is a Catholic Board then the safety net is here. The people who come here espousing LDS beliefs do so with the idea that they are strong enough in their faith to handle a board of Catholics, including some of the most trusted Catholic Apologists on the web.

Despite what you want to think, places like Mormon Fortress have not decimated all the objections to the Mormon faith. Their explanations are very convincing to someone who wants to be convinced, but they are not impressive without that emotional desire to believe in LDS take on things.

-D

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

I have holy envy for the real presence. I not only think it is a beautiful, but I think it is quite supportable from the Bible and the early church. I think it is ridiculous when Protestants attack the real presence as something to be scoffed at.

Again I have trouble seeing why you are not Catholic. You must not believe things in the same way I do. Basic logic tells me that if I think a proposition is supportable from the evidence, I accept the proposition!

If you think the real presence is supportable, then why don’t you believe in it?

The real presence is the centre of the mass. In a Catholic mass you get to feast on the body and soul of the Lord which strengthens, sanctifies and upholds your life. If you think such a doctrine is “supportable” you should go somewhere where the real sacrifice is offered so that you can partake of it for the sake of your very soul. If the Catholics are right, your eternal destiny might depend on the real presence in the mass.

See I don’t want to be uncharitable but I don’t think you mean what you say. Clearly you don’t think the real presence is supportable because you would be Catholic if you did! Or if you do think it is supportable, there must be some conter-argument that you feel is more compelling in which case, again, you don’t really think it is supportable.

Two other times on this thread you have stated that the Catholic Church has a good grasp of history. I have challenged you on that statement. You can’t mean what you wrote and still be a Mormon because the foundational truth of the Mormon religion is that the Chruch fell into apostasy early on. You clarified (at my prompting) that what you really meant was that the Catholic religion was “internally consistent.” Even that doesn’t make sense! As a Mormon, you must admit that they are “internally consistent” based on apostasy. If the very foundation of the Catholic Church is apostasy (as Mormonism teaches), you can’t go around saying that they have a “good grasp of history” or good doctrine (the real presence).

I like reading what you write, I just don’t understand it!

-C

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

So TOm, you keep claiming that no one is addressing the proofs of the BoM you are raising. Could you reiterate them?

I think you are being addressed, but you are just ignoring what you don’t want to hear. But it could be that I have missed where you have given some incontrovertible evidence. You mentioned something awhile back about the “old world” evidences… but other then the really wildly vague description of Bountiful and the Lehi travel you have cited nothing else.

Lehi walked the Frankincense trail. There are 81 points of connection between the BOM witness and the actual old world geography.

The directions of travel are correct. The turn at Nahom is exactly were it should be to result in further travel evidences. It is also an eastward turn that all ancients would have taken.

The inscriptions found at Nahom and the fact that it was an ancient burial ground (where Ishmael was buried) provide a solid link to the journey.

Calling the old world evidences, “wildly vague descriptions of Bountiful and the Lehi travel” suggest to me that you have not looked at what LDS have said about this. If you mean the wildly vague references I have made, then this would be an appropriate description I guess.

Here is a place with some starting points. http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom05.html

The book with 81 evidences is interesting, but much of these things can be found by searching if you do not want to purchase a book.

ROI has mentioned Hebrew phases and Hebrew poetic structures. There is a great deal of information available on this. There is little in way of explaining how the fraud based theory accounts for them. Copying the KJV of the Bible is far from sufficient (especially for the poetry).

If you are looking for evidences because you might leave the Catholic Church, you can find them. If you are looking for the responses to these evidences or to produce these responses, I have yet to see professional anti-Mormons succeed at this (at least in my BIASED appraisal).

I can link you to a number of evidences if you would like to explore.

Charity, TOm

 

[darcee]

I have read read the link you post, TOm, and I am sorry, but it is EXACTLY what I was referring too. The only way to find such a thing compelling is if you are already convinced that it is true. It is not compelling to anyone who has doubts about the veracity of the BoM.

The BoM description of the travels of Lehi are vague. There are hundreds of trade routes, some current, some ancient across the middle east. There are thousands of ancient burial grounds and campsites. The coastline is vast, the geography diverse. As I said before it isn’t a surprise that someone thinks they have found a path that matches “so closely” it is rather surprising that they haven’t found a dozen.
-D

 

[TOmNossor]

Calvin:

Again I have trouble seeing why you are not Catholic. You must not believe things in the same way I do. Basic logic tells me that if I think a proposition is supportable from the evidence, I accept the proposition!
See I don't want to be uncharitable but I don't think you mean what you say. Clearly you *don't* think the real presence is supportable because you would be Catholic if you did! Or if you do think it is supportable, there must be some conter-argument that you feel is more compelling in which case, again, you don't really think it is supportable.
Two other times on this thread you have stated that the Catholic Church has a good grasp of history. I have challenged you on that statement. You can’t mean what you wrote and still be a Mormon because the foundational truth of the Mormon religion is that the Chruch fell into apostasy early on. You clarified (at my prompting) that what you really meant was that the Catholic religion was “internally consistent.” Even that doesn’t make sense! As a Mormon, you must admit that they are “internally consistent” based on apostasy. If the very foundation of the Catholic Church is apostasy (as Mormonism teaches), you can’t go around saying that they have a “good grasp of history” or good doctrine (the real presence).

I like reading what you write, I just don’t understand it!

-C

I believe that there are Catholic strengths and Catholic weaknesses.

I believe that there are LDS strengths and LDS weaknesses.

On the whole, I find the LDS position stronger than the Catholic position.

I respect Cardinal Newman’s apologetic on the development of Christian doctrine. It is not illogical. It is not ridiculous.

I however find the ideas I have developed from James Barker, Scott Pierson, and myself to be logical and superior.

I think the Catholic explanations associated with the perpetual virginity of Mary are not illogical or irrational, but I consider this a weakness in the Catholic position. I know exactly what I would believe if I was Catholic (it would not be Jerome’s ideas that are more prevalent among Catholic apologists). If I were Catholic I would not believe these ideas upon their merit, but instead upon the merit and strengths of other Catholic points. If the Catholic Church is the one true church, Mary was a Virgin even after the birth of Christ.

I believe that the Bible is pretty supportive of an Arian interpretation. Cardinal Newman essentially said that if it was not for the authority of the Catholic Church he could be an Arian. He did not subscribe to the Augustinian Trinity because of the strength of the Biblical witness, but he surely subscribed to the Trinity.

I have a Catholic friend who is not Calvinistic in his understanding of predestination, but he has stated that if he ever embraced sola scriptura he would be a full blown Calvinist. He sees the strongest sola scriptura case being made by the Calvinist not the Arminian.

I recognize strengths in the Catholic position and I am not unwilling to say so when I see it. It is the whole picture that leaves me as a LDS.

You seem to be leaning towards that Catholic Church in many ways. Will you no longer see merit in what Calvin thought and taught? Will Calvinist who have not seen the greater truths that you seem to be grasping suddenly be embracing a position that is illogical? There may be truths that you come to embrace that allow you to call Protestant Calvinists not internally consistent in their beliefs, but there may not be.

We must take into account all our logical and spiritual witness. The only way to have any hope of not being ruled completely by BIAS is to allow those positions with which you disagree to shine their light when they truly shine. To do otherwise is to ensure that one is ruled by their BIAS.

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

Here is a place with some starting points. http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom05.html

So I read this essay and I want to be fair but I think Darcee is right. The BOM is vague in describing the Old World. There is nothing surprising about the fact that some real geographic locations match the descriptions given in the BOM since the descriptions are so general as to be meaningless.

First off I absolutely dispute the claim that the Old World was “a clime Joseph Smith would have known nothing about.” Anyone with a modest exposure to Christianity would have basic knowledge about the geography, climate and history of the Mid-East. To pretend that Joseph Smith popped out of a vaccum is strange. Many facts about the Mid-East were well known at the time he lived. He may have been uneducated but that doesn’t mean he was stupid or knew nothing about the Old World.

1 Nephi 2:6,8 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley• by the side of a river• of water… And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.

I’m sorry TOm, that is vague. A river in a valley that empties into the Red Sea. That doesn’t tell us much. Most seas have rivers that empty into them. Thanks to erosion, many rivers are in some sort of a valley. So we find something like this in the mid-east? OK. It’s not compelling!

The argument about the link between Nihm and Nahom is more interesting. NHM could be rendered as either Nihm or Nahom but the argument hinges on the (unproved) idea that Joseph Smith didn’t know anything about mid-East culture or history and so couldn’t have known NHM, Nihm or Nahom outside of revelation. A little internet search turned up an article in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica that writes about a 1869 visit by an explorer to the city of Nihm in Arabia (1911encyclopedia.org/A/AR/ARABESQUE.htm).

Now I realize that these dates are after the BOM was composed, but I think it shows that the name “Nihm” was not unknown during this time-period. It is quite possible that Joseph Smith knew of the word NHM, Nihm or Nahom from non-gold plate sources that would have been available to him.

-C

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

I have read read the link you post, TOm, and I am sorry, but it is EXACTLY what I was referring too. The only way to find such a thing compelling is if you are already convinced that it is true. It is not compelling to anyone who has doubts about the veracity of the BoM.

The BoM description of the travels of Lehi are vague. There are hundreds of trade routes, some current, some ancient across the middle east. There are thousands of ancient burial grounds and campsites. The coastline is vast, the geography diverse. As I said before it isn’t a surprise that someone thinks they have found a path that matches “so closely” it is rather surprising that they haven’t found a dozen.
-D

It is my understanding that you are not correct about dozens of trade routes at least that would fit the discriptions and turn at Nahom. I am also certain there are not dozens of NHM’s.

But you are correct that there certainly is some part of me that expects (perhaps even wants) to find evidence.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Calvin:

So I read this essay and I want to be fair but I think Darcee is right. The BOM is vague in describing the Old World. There is nothing surprising about the fact that some real geographic locations match the descriptions given in the BOM since the descriptions are so general as to be meaningless.

First off I absolutely dispute the claim that the Old World was “a clime Joseph Smith would have known nothing about.” Anyone with a modest exposure to Christianity would have basic knowledge about the geography, climate and history of the Mid-East. To pretend that Joseph Smith popped out of a vaccum is strange. Many facts about the Mid-East were well known at the time he lived. He may have been uneducated but that doesn’t mean he was stupid or knew nothing about the Old World.

1 Nephi 2:6,8 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley• by the side of a river• of water… And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.

I’m sorry TOm, that is vague. A river in a valley that empties into the Red Sea. That doesn’t tell us much. Most seas have rivers that empty into them. Thanks to erosion, many rivers are in some sort of a valley. So we find something like this in the mid-east? OK. It’s not compelling!

The argument about the link between Nihm and Nahom is more interesting. NHM could be rendered as either Nihm or Nahom but the argument hinges on the (unproved) idea that Joseph Smith didn’t know anything about mid-East culture or history and so couldn’t have known NHM, Nihm or Nahom outside of revelation. A little internet search turned up an article in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica that writes about a 1869 visit by an explorer to the city of Nihm in Arabia (1911encyclopedia.org/A/AR/ARABESQUE.htm).

Now I realize that these dates are after the BOM was composed, but I think it shows that the name “Nihm” was not unknown during this time-period. It is quite possible that Joseph Smith knew of the word NHM, Nihm or Nahom from non-gold plate sources that would have been available to him.

-C

That there was a continuously flowing river or a lush green area such as Bountiful in the Arabian dessert was so ridiculous for over a century after the publishing of the BOM, that it was a popular anti-Mormon argument. You would have me think that Joseph Smith was more educated than the large number of folks that arrayed against the CoJCoLDS for the last 170 years. Modern folks still repeat these anti-arguments to me, and in a company of dozens of folks they didn’t offend anyone’s sensibilities. Somehow, I do not think normal knowledge produces these facts.

You are correct it is not impossible that Joseph Smith had some exposure to many things it would seem he was not exposed to. The list of works that I have seen anti-Mormon’s postulate that Joseph Smith could have had access to would have scholars from up and down the Eastern Seaboard requesting access to the Smith’s basement. This does not jive with the witness we have of his life. That being said, there are old world geography aspects that no one has been able to document in any literature that appear in the BOM.

I have never suggested that there are PROOFS of the BOM, but I do find plenty of reason to hold up evidences next to problems.

Charity, TOm

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin:

So I read this essay and I want to be fair but I think Darcee is right. The BOM is vague in describing the Old World. There is nothing surprising about the fact that some real geographic locations match the descriptions given in the BOM since the descriptions are so general as to be meaningless.

Vague? What in the Book of Mormon account of Bountiful and Nahom do you consider vague? How does it match other geographic locaitons?

Calvin:

First off I absolutely dispute the claim that the Old World was “a clime Joseph Smith would have known nothing about.” Anyone with a modest exposure to Christianity would have basic knowledge about the geography, climate and history of the Mid-East. To pretend that Joseph Smith popped out of a vaccum is strange. Many facts about the Mid-East were well known at the time he lived. He may have been uneducated but that doesn’t mean he was stupid or knew nothing about the Old World.

Please supply information on any of these alleged facts of the Middle East that would have been known by people in the 1820s. You can speculate as much as you want, but without real evidence of these established facts, you don’t have much to stand on.

The claim is that a dozen different places could fit the description given in the Book of Mormon. Can you list these dozen places, so that we can decide how closely they fit the description in the Book of Mormon?

Calvin:

Now I realize that these dates are after the BOM was composed, but I think it shows that the name “Nihm” was not unknown during this time-period. It is quite possible that Joseph Smith knew of the word NHM, Nihm or Nahom from non-gold plate sources that would have been available to him.

-C

Information dated decades after the Book of Mormon was brought forth does nothing to prove that the information was available before the Book of Mormon was brought forth. You are speculating again. Instead of speculating that Joseph Smith had knowledge of the Middle East before the Book of Mormon was published, prove that he did.

 

[Katholikos]

Please take a course in the art and science of Logic at your earliest opportunity.