Is the Book of Mormon a Fraud?

[TOmNossor]

AmandaPS:

The Book of Mormon claims that Lehi arrived in the Americas around 600 B.C.? Yet there are absolutely no genetic markers amongst the Native populations of both North and South America, although both the BoM and the D&C claim that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the Natives. So, what do Mormon scientists say? That it neither proves or disproves the Book of Mormon. Okay, so, so far, there is no concrete evidence of a genetic marker to a 2500 year old ancestry.

Have you ever heard of the Lemba peoples of of the Bantu lands of southern Africa? Theirs is an oral tradition passed down from generation to generation that claim they are descended from Jews who escaped the Babylonian distruction of Jerusalem at the same time the BoM says that Lehi escaped. Same time-frame, yet this group of people still possess the Jewish priestly genetic marker.

I have been aware of the Lemba for about 1 year.

The Lemba have a very specific genetic marker that is only possessed by a small percentage of Jews (and if the BOM is true it is unlike the BOM people would have possessed this particular marker).

And, as I said, DNA is capable of providing evidence that Semitic folks did enter a larger population. This particular evidence does not exist as of yet, but the testing is far from conclusive. And as DNA testing advanced one day it may be possible to show that no person from the BOM is the biological ancestor of a modern person. This would still not preclude the possibility that BOM folks were among the 20% (predicted with mathematic modeling not accounting for genocide) who do not pass genetic material to future generations.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Chris C.:

Well, we know it’s a fraud, but I understand that it is not even original. That is, Joseph Smith cribbed an unpublished sci-fi manuscript. Has anyone else heard this? Also, what about the secret goggles required to read the tablets? Where are they. The whole thing is so fantastic!

The Legislature of Illinois recently apologized to the Mormons for chasing them out of Illinois. Everyone is apologizing these days…

Chris C.

There was a theory that Joseph Smith copied the Spaulding manuscript. When this manuscript was discovered, a few decades ago I think, the CoJCoLDS published it. The theory is pretty ridiculous.

BTW, I agree that apologizing is a little to in vogue now. I am all for people apologizing, but I am not a big fan of governments and organizations apologizing.

Charity, TOm

 

[Katholikos]

TOmNossor:

BTW, the Smithsonian no longer makes an elaborate statement about the BOM.
Charity, TOm

What does “no longer makes” mean? Having made it, the Smithsonian has not found it necessary to repeat their “elaborate statement” at regular intervals? If the Smithsonian has withdrawn their statement, or repudiated it, show us the evidence.

Here it is:

godandscience.org/cults/smithsonian.html

BTW, I have a BA in Anthropology (the study of man), which doesn’t count for much. It’s a mere introduction to the subject. But I learned that the truth of American Indian ancestry is in their teeth. They are mongoloid, not semitic. No doubt about it.

 

[TOmNossor]

dutch:

Whenever I think of creepy white people, I think of mormons. With all of the evidence against them, i’m surprised they are still around. You have to give Joe Smith credit for starting up a long lasting cult.

Unintentionally I am sure, you make a point that I have often pondered.

How deep does the rabbit hole go?

Joseph Smith CHOOSE to go to a martyr’s death. This of itself is not the action of a fraud, but had he not perhaps he would have lived to 100 years of age.

Hebrew poetic structure in the BOM and D&C have become some of the more recent evidences for the BOM. Old World geography, accessible largely as a result of the ability to travel the globe simply, is some of the more recent evidence for the BOM. The Sacrament prayer used by LDS has been linked to the earliest forms of the Sacrament prayer uncovered/described by non-LDS scholars in recent years. I could probably list some more.

Why would an 1830’s fraud dig such a deep and elaborate rabbit hole? There was no reason for him to do so.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Katholikos:

What does “no longer makes” mean? Having made it, the Smithsonian has not found it necessary to repeat their “elaborate statement” at regular intervals? If the Smithsonian has withdrawn their statement, or repudiated it, show us the evidence.

Here it is:

godandscience.org/cults/smithsonian.html

BTW, I have a BA in Anthropology (the study of man), which doesn’t count for much. It’s a mere introduction to the subject. But I learned that the truth of American Indian ancestry is in their teeth. They are mongoloid, not semitic. No doubt about it.

Actually, they have issued a separate statement which I believe does explain that they no longer provide the longer statement. I may be able to find this for you in a few days or you can find it.

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

The Roman (or Latin) alphabet we use for the English language was derived from Egyptian. Perhaps, not directly, but it still was.

It was?

-C

 

[Malachi4U]

Gods peace to you Tom and any other LDS’s here as well as the other’s!:yup:

God loves all his children and I am glad your with us here sharing our Faith. Praise God! (singular not plural)

Which is inspired:

1. Book of Mormon?
2. Koran?
3. KJV Bible ‘only’?
4. NAB (or any Catholic translation)?
5. Luther’s Bible?

Show me “PROOF”? History is accurate but is it ‘proof’ of inspiration? When I was a protestant we defamed everyone else’s Scripture but claimed ours alone ‘inspired’ and inerrant? (Whichever Bible that church used) Of course, I latter realized this was again only an opinion. Everyone’s opinion is equal and does NOT prove inspiration or inerrancy or fraud?

There is only one thing that is proof of the inspiration of the Bible I know of and that is the declaration as such by the Catholic Church. This is called Faith and Gods authority in His body, His Catholic Church. Faith ‘alone’ is the only proof I have!

Opinions are good but are not proof of anything. Mormons are spreading and growing across the US like a wildfire! Their number one converts are also guess who? Roman Catholics!

[adherents.com/](http://www.adherents.com/)

I hate to put a link here to a protestant site but go to the one I have listed. The site is NOT 100% accurate and is also anti-Catholic. Most of the ‘Facts’ on the LDS religion are true however from what I have studied from other sources. Most if not all false on the RCC.

[utlm.org/navtopicalindex.htm](Utah Lighthouse Ministry: Topical Index)

By the way, some of my best friends are LDS and they are very nice people. They do not have horns either! But remember, Heavenly Father loves all His children.

Don’t forget to order your free BOM or KJV and when the missionaries come to deliver it, share your Faith with them. They always work in pairs so you should have at least 2 Catholics to witness to them. Tim Staples made a good tape on errors in the LDS faith and how to witness to them and I also give a link to that as well. The Mormon missionaries are schooled in how to convert and actually practice skits to get good at it before they are sent to the ‘field’ on their mission. Know your Faith before you talk to one. They often know all the catch phrases and will put you on the defense if you don’t know how to talk to them. They practice converting, do you? Order yours here:

mormon.org/freeBookofMormon/1%2C10120%2C1405-1-959-794%2C00.html
mormon.org/holybible

[saintjoe.com/p/prod_desc.pl?id=402](http://www.saintjoe.com/p/prod_desc.pl?id=402)

Malachi4U

Gen 1 describes not three planets – celestial, telestrial and terrestrial :whacky: – but rather the three heavens. They are 1st the sky and stars and the birds. The 2nd heaven is the surface of the earth with all the land animals that walk upon it. The 3rd heaven is in the ocean below the surface and all the sea life therein. Read the NIV on this. The Jews knew what the 3 heavens meant, Joe did not.

 

[rod_of_iron]

The Book of Mormon is not the full record of the Nephites and Lamanites. It is only an abridgement of the full record. There were different plates that were kept to record the history of those people. The large plates of Nephi were not used in the translating of the Book of Mormon. We do not have that record yet. There are places in the Book of Mormon that declare that the records that are published are not even 1/100th of the full records. The book that has been published called the Book of Mormon is not here today for the reason of being a complete history of the dealings of those people. The reason for the Book of Mormon is given on its title page:

“Which is to shew unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever; and also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.”

That is the purpose of the Book of Mormon. The book was revealed for the restoring of the covenant between God and His covenant people. The name “Mormon” literally means: “restoration of the covenant”. The Book of Mormon was named after the Land of Mormon, where the church was first established and the covenant was made.

I am also curious about the post that the Book of Mormon is translated into Elizabethan English. How so? What are the rules of grammar for that version of English? Do you know? One thing you may realize is that the syntax in the Book of Mormon is awkward and seems to be written by someone who did not know the English language very well. I would have to agree. When the Book of Mormon was written on the plates of gold, the English language did not yet exist. The sentence structure of the Book of Mormon is not English at all. But the structure, upon closer examination, is Semitic. It is a word for word literal translation of the Hebrew (in the Egyptian alphabet) found on the plates. I read about a man who is Egyptian. He underwent the task of trying to translate the Book of Mormon from English to his Egyptian form of of Arabic. He had no difficulty whatsoever, because the syntax of the Book of Mormon was structured perfectly for the Arabic language he spoke.

Now how would Joseph Smith, who had no knowledge of any Semitic languages, be able to structure the Book of Mormon into perfect Semitic syntax? I challenge anyone to write even a full paragraph in English, but using the sentence structure of a non-Indo-European language that you have no knowledge of. See if you can even come close.

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

Now how would Joseph Smith, who had no knowledge of any Semitic languages, be able to structure the Book of Mormon into perfect Semitic syntax? I challenge anyone to write even a full paragraph in English, but using the sentence structure of a non-Indo-European language that you have no knowledge of. See if you can even come close.

You sure you’re not Mormon?

If it was as clear as that why isn’t *every *expert in ancient mid-eastern languages Mormon? After all, you were the one who said that the Latin alphabet was based on the Egyptian alphabet…

… how much study have you given this?

-C

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

rod of iron:

Secondly, I want to respond to the post on coins in the Book of Mormon. This is false. The Book of Mormon does not mention coins of any kind. Rather, the Book of Mormon mentions different weights of gold and silver used like money is used. But if we found an ounce of gold or silver in Central America, would we be able to tell if is had monetary value for an ancient people or not? Since the Book of Mormon does not mention anything about coins, any small ball of gold or silver could easily be argued to be a monetary item from the Book of Mormon.

mrm.org/multimedia/text/ancient-coins.html

Second, for decades this passage has been understood by Latter-day Saints to speak of coins. For example, B.H. Roberts, a highly respected LDS Seventy and church historian, wrote, “In addition to these words we have also a number of names of Nephite coins and the names of fractional values of coins…” Roberts proceeds to explain the different values, often using the term “coins” to describe them. Though Roberts says “we have no means of obtaining specifically the value of these coins in modern terms,” he adds that “there is stated a system of relative values in these coins that bears evidence of its being genuine” (A New Witness for God, 3:145).

Even if they weren’t coin-shaped … amorphous globs of gold and silver aren’t used as currency. They had to be smelted into some shape. And we have no evidence of metallurgy in America from the period of which the BOM speaks:

irr.org/mit/bomarch1.html

An Iron Industry. Nephite civilization is depicted as having iron and other metal industries; we read of metal swords and breastplates, gold and silver coinage, and even machinery. However, according to Matheny, there is no evidence that any Mesoamerican civilization attained such an industry during Book of Mormon times (terminus ad quo: A.D. 421). He pointed out that an iron industry is not a simple feat involving a few people, but a complex process that requires a specialized socio-economic context and leaves virtually indestructible archaeological evidence. However, Matheny reports that:

No evidence has been found in the new world for a ferrous metallurgical industry dating to pre-Columbian times. And so this is a king-size kind of problem, it seems to me, for so-called Book of Mormon archeology. The evidence is absent.

Prof. Matheny noted that while scattered iron artifacts have been found in pre-Columbian settings, in the absence of evidence of a metallurgical industry, they must be accounted for by random means, such as meteorites. A few random, scattered artifacts are not a basis for scientific conclusions.

 

[pnewton]

rod of iron:

As for “reformed Egyptian”, any alphabet derived from ancient Egyptian could easily be called “reformed Egyptian”. The Roman (or Latin) alphabet we use for the English language was derived from Egyptian. Perhaps, not directly, but it still was. .

But yet it is still called the Latin or Roman alphabet. The question still remains as to whether any written language (not alphabet)existed (apart from these “tablets”) that was a called a reformed version of Egyptian. Perhaps some informed linguist has an opinion on this.

 

[TOmNossor]

Heathen Dawn:

Even if they weren’t coin-shaped … amorphous globs of gold and silver aren’t used as currency. They had to be smelted into some shape. And we have no evidence of metallurgy in America from the period of which the BOM speaks:

Like many of the once popular anti-Mormon arguments it seems that this “metallurgy” argument is falling amidst new research. Like the “Bountiful in the Arabian Dessert” this metallurgy “problem” will likely long survive its sound refutation. At least those willing to pay some attention will stop mentioning this.

mit.edu/afs/athena/course/3/3.983/www/

This site is possibly the first pre-Columbian metal smelting site ever found in Mesoamerica. Therefore it is of distinct interest to Prof. Hosler (lower left in picture to the left) who studies ancient technologies and how civilizations of the past have been affected by them. In particular interest is metallurgy, a technology rare enough to only have been invented two or three times in human history (once in the Americas).

Metal working evidence has also been found dating back to before 1000B.C. in the America.

BTW, I will continue to ask that if you really care you look to see what LDS say about the “problems” identified. It is easy to fabricate problems (always) and hard to respond to them (in some instances). The fact that most of the things mentioned here have been responded too for many years, and that there are still those who dwell on these things; suggests to me that you just wish to attack rather than understand.

I spoke with a Pagan (Wiccan) when I wanted to understand paganism. I did not go to anti-Pagan sites. This is also the procedure I used for Catholicism, including many trips to Catholic Answers web site.

Charity, TOm

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:

Metal working evidence has also been found dating back to before 1000B.C. in the America.

I spoke with a Pagan (Wiccan) when I wanted to understand paganism. I did not go to anti-Pagan sites. This is also the procedure I used for Catholicism, including many trips to Catholic Answers web site.

It is important to get both sides when seeking the truth. Mormons, clearly, have a bias when it comes to defending their Scriptures and non-Mormons have a similar bias when it comes to attacking. It is sometimes hard to separate the good from the bad but, alas, alak, such is the problem of being a rational independent moral agent.

And Tom, come on? Look at the pictures from that site and tell me if the level of development in that discovery is anything close to the level of development proposed in the BOM. It is inaccurate to say there was no metal-working going on (a cursory read of the Spanish histories of conquest will show there was some metal working going on) – the question is was the metal working up to the levels proposed in the BOM. We have ancient coins from Greece, Rome and China but none from America. Why is that?

The link you provided shows there was some low-level smelting going on. (Although there are no peer-reviewed atricles linked from the site so we cannot say this with certainty.) It still doesn’t show smelting technology was up to the level proposed by the BOM.

-C

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

TOmNossor:

BTW, I will continue to ask that if you really care you look to see what LDS say about the “problems” identified. It is easy to fabricate problems (always) and hard to respond to them (in some instances). The fact that most of the things mentioned here have been responded too for many years, and that there are still those who dwell on these things; suggests to me that you just wish to attack rather than understand.

I spoke with a Pagan (Wiccan) when I wanted to understand paganism. I did not go to anti-Pagan sites. This is also the procedure I used for Catholicism, including many trips to Catholic Answers web site.

TOm,

I now realise I have made an error in sampling and judgement, and I will not do it again. My apologies.

 

[TOmNossor]

Calvin:

It is important to get both sides when seeking the truth. Mormons, clearly, have a bias when it comes to defending their Scriptures and non-Mormons have a similar bias when it comes to attacking. It is sometimes hard to separate the good from the bad but, alas, alak, such is the problem of being a rational independent moral agent.

And Tom, come on? Look at the pictures from that site and tell me if the level of development in that discovery is anything close to the level of development proposed in the BOM. It is inaccurate to say there was no metal-working going on (a cursory read of the Spanish histories of conquest will show there was some metal working going on) – the question is was the metal working up to the levels proposed in the BOM. We have ancient coins from Greece, Rome and China but none from America. Why is that?

The link you provided shows there was some low-level smelting going on. (Although there are no peer-reviewed atricles linked from the site so we cannot say this with certainty.) It still doesn’t show smelting technology was up to the level proposed by the BOM.

-C

I have not advocated that one seek answers solely from pro-Mormon or pro-Catholic sites. On very rare occasions I have found some anti-Catholic information that I felt was largely un-dealt with and/or unknown by Catholics (at least most Catholics). But, when broad statements that are just false continue to be made, it is evidence to me that those who make them are not searching for the answers, but instead are just putting forth those things that sound problematic.

The evidence from the site is associated with by products from smelting (as I understand it). Those pictures are pictures of smelted fragments not completed items. The question is do you think they created smelting fragments, but made nothing useful? Or do you think that useful things were made?

I do not know were this archeology will go. I do know that the poster said there was no smelting in the New World. I do know that the poster was talking about slugs of metal used for trade and claimed that these could not exist due to lack of metallurgy. These claims are incorrect. They come from common anti-Mormon sites.

I will continue to suggest Catholic that you go and look at what anti-Catholics say about your religion. In my opinion it is exceedingly poor logic to say, “Go to this Protestant site. What they say about LDS is true. BTW, they have a section on Catholics, but it is mostly false.”

Charity, TOm

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin and Heather,

You keep talking about coins in ancient America. But the Book of Mormon clearly doesn’t mention anything about coins. To be a coin, one would expect the object to be flat and have an imprint or engraving on it. But the Book of Mormon does not indicate that the gold or silver the Nephites used as currency was flat, imprinted, or engraved. Therefore, your insistence on this subject is irrelevant when discussing the validity or fraud of the Book of Mormon.

 

[Calvin]

TOmNossor:
The evidence from the site is associated with by products from smelting (as I understand it). Those pictures are pictures of smelted fragments not completed items. The question is do you think they created smelting fragments, but made nothing useful? Or do you think that useful things were made?

I do not know were this archeology will go. I do know that the poster said there was no smelting in the New World. I do know that the poster was talking about slugs of metal used for trade and claimed that these could not exist due to lack of metallurgy. These claims are incorrect. They come from common anti-Mormon sites.

I actually know something about bronze smelting in ancient China. I would submit that the “fragments” (with the exception of the pot shards – which are clay) on the link you posted actually are “completed items.” When you smelt a metal you melt it down into a liquid form. This is very difficult to do and primitive attempts at smelting (in China at least) look like the pictures provided on that link. I would be hesitant to postulate the existence of more complex items based solely on that link. Those items were complex to the people who made them and that is precisely my point – this technology is advanced for the Americas but it is primitive compared to what is described in the BOM. The team leaders are clearly surprised at this find because it shows a level of technological development previously unknown in the Americas. If this is as developed as pre-discovery New World technology gets, it is still nowhere near the level of development required by the BOM.

Again I repeat my charge: if the BOM postulates a history of the New World that is patently false, why should I believe its doctrine?

-C

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin,

What makes the history contained in the Book of Mormon “patently false”? Is your conclusion based solely on man’s inability to presently find the evidence? At one time, the world being round was considered “patently false”. It is easy for so-called experts to consider something to be “patently false”, until a discovery comes along to prove their previously conclusions false.

If I have a Chevy truck, but you are unable to locate it or verify that I have it, would I then not have a Chevy truck? Would my possessing such a truck depend on your ability or inability to verify it yourself?

People can say that the existence of God is patently false, because they have not seen God, nor can they verify His existence using their other four senses. But does this prove that God does not exist?

Lack of evidence does not prove something to be true. If your neighbor went away to some undisclosed place and I was unable to locate him, could I then prove that you murdered him?

I do not see how archaeology can benefit those trying to prove that something did not happen. It is quite useful for proving that something does exist or did happen. But it requires patience on our part. When will man in his limited knowledge discover the evidence needed to prove any given thing to be true? We don’t know. So, to call something patently false is an overassumption. The best you can do is say that the history appears to be false based on the evidence you have seen thus far.

As for the level of metallurgical knowledge possessed by the ancient Mesoamericans, I believe that you are ignoring the process of oxidation. How long would it take for metal or steel lying on the surface of the Earth to rust or oxidate completely away or to the point where it is no longer recognizable as the object it once was, such as a sword or a shield? Does anyone know?

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

If I have a Chevy truck, but you are unable to locate it or verify that I have it, would I then not have a Chevy truck? Would my possessing such a truck depend on your ability or inability to verify it yourself?

There are two questions here: 1) do you have a Chevy and 2) should I believe you have a Chevy.

If you told me you had a Chevy and I said, “lets go for a ride” and you couldn’t take me for a ride and couldn’t show it to me – I would be suspicious of your claim. If I asked you more times and you still couldn’t give me any good proof, I would be within my epistemic rights to disbelieve you.

If you actually have a Chevy, you should be able to provide some proof – if you don’t, I don’t have to believe you. Also, if you can’t provide any proof, I would submit that maybe you didn’t have one in the first place!

People can say that the existence of God is patently false, because they have not seen God, nor can they verify His existence using their other four senses. But does this prove that God does not exist?

I’m talking about facts of history not God. If you told me that the South won the Civil War, I’d say “prove it.” You tell me there were two advanced iron-age civilizations of Jews in the New World, I’m saying “prove it.” Until you prove it, I will continue to say (as I would say to anyone who claims the South won the Civil War) that such an allegation is patently false.
rod of iron:

Lack of evidence does not prove something to be true. If your neighbor went away to some undisclosed place and I was unable to locate him, could I then prove that you murdered him?

Again there are two issues here: 1) what really happened and 2) what am I obligated to believe.

If my neighbor went away and I couldn’t provide any evidence for where he was, you would be within your epistemic rights to suspect me of murder. If we went to court the burden of proof changes – “innocent until proven guilty” – and so you would have to prove that I killed my neighbor rather than just show that he is missing. The court cannot believe I committed a murder without positive evidence that I did so.

Incidentally this happens all the time. Police question people when a person goes missing to see if there is a murder. Look at the Lacy Petersen case in courts now – there wasn’t even a body for most of the investigation but they investigated it anyway.

I do not see how archaeology can benefit those trying to prove that something did not happen. It is quite useful for proving that something does exist or did happen.

Normally you are right and I would not do this. The issue, however, is the scope of Mormon claims. If the BOM claimed that Jesus appeared to a small fishing village in the New World I would not make this argument. The BOM claims the existence of two advanced iron-age civilizations of Jewish people in the New World. It is quite reasonable to expect that two such civilizations would have left thousands of artefacts but there are none…

What would you do if I claimed that the Roman Empire (or the Babylonian or the Egyptian) didn’t exist? There are thousands of pieces of evidence you could point to! The same is not true with the BOM. I’ve looked at some of the Mormon apologetic sites and if I wanted to be very charitable and concede all of their evidence there would be, at best, 30 pieces of evidence for these civilizations. Frankly that is not enough.

As for the level of metallurgical knowledge possessed by the ancient Mesoamericans, I believe that you are ignoring the process of oxidation. How long would it take for metal or steel lying on the surface of the Earth to rust or oxidate completely away or to the point where it is no longer recognizable as the object it once was, such as a sword or a shield? Does anyone know?

I am not ignoring the process of oxidation. The following link will take you to a place where you can see Chinese smelted bronze pieces that are over 2,000 years old. You can clearly see their items have retained their form over the long years.
asiasocietymuseum.com/region_results.asp?RegionID=4&CountryID=12&ChapterID=23

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of similar pieces from ancient China – and this is my point again – why are there not such pieces in the New World?

Oxidation affects every ancient civilization equally. Some artefacts are left in the open and some things are buried. But why is it that we have no artefacts of this level of development from ancient America?

-C

 

[Malachi4U]

Gods peace be to all of you,

One thing to note also that influenced Joe when HE wrote the BOM was the cultural setting. In the early 1800’s it was popular superstition that great civilizations had inhabited North America. He also got to see a relitive write a book before his own on the subject too. This was a popular opinion held many just like today we have the UFO followers, etc…:whacky:

Joe never invented as much as he plagiarized in the BOM.:tsktsk: He took ancient Egyptian stuff and mixed it with popular opinions and a bit of Islam, some of the RCC, etc. blended it and came up with a really kool story that appealed to people. If you have read from the BOM like I have you will quickly notice how there is nothing original except for maybe the names. Other then that you can see how he just did a wonderful job at blending it all together.

Is this proof of anything? No, its just an ‘opinion’ because there are NO facts to support the BOM and non to discredit it - unless you consider a 100% lack of evidence as discredit in itself?

Read the BOM and see for yourself how his imagination grew as it was written and how he mixed different churches and cultures to get what he had. Had he not started a religion it might have made a good movie?

My opinion only!

Malachi4U