Is the Book of Mormon a Fraud?

[Sanosuke]

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.

Now now, rod of iron. It is a slap in the face to historians to suggest that something happened despite the evidence pointing against it. Man can hardly prove his own existance; it is even harder to prove something correct when there is only scanty physical evidence to support it. To make a claim in spite of historical evidence is destroying the compilalation of history itself. If we can make a claim despite historical evidence pointing against it, people can make any claim about history they want. The burden of proof is entirely on the Mormons’ shoulders.

As for charges on anti-Catholic websites, I’ve been there, done that. Traditional, Catholic Christianity has exponentially more proof of its existence than Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great does. While history only gives a few pages about Alexander, volumes of texts are provided to confirm that Christianity as the majority of people acknowledge it can be placed firmly in the first century a.d., can confirm the historical and textual accuracy of the Bible, and historically confirm what the early Church taught, and much more. Orthodox Christianity is viable as a religion because its claims on history are so extensive.

Some people try to claim that sometime in the 4th century the Christians destroyed a whole bunch of gnostic and pagan texts while also destroying all copies of the real Bible, the one that explained the “true” Christianity. However, there is no argument for this ever happening from history. And yet, people claim it happened because “the Christians made sure that no texts did survive!”, and therefore it must have happened. However, if the evidence doesn’t exist, I am not going to write it into history.

I am not going to argue about the legitimacy of Mormon doctrine because I find it to be a secondary issue. Most importantly, the history in the BOM must be confirmable through at least the remaining physical evidence. Only in the past 100 years has archeology become popular and widespread: we have found out much about Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc. etc… And yet, it our time searching America, we have found little or nothing to seriously point to the historical accuracy of the BOM.

I am more inclined to believe something that claims historicy when history itself supports it. Finding out what really happened in history is hard enough, even with the mounds of primary sources that are available…can we really tell what happened in history when none exist at all? What you are asking me to accept is similar to asking me if that tree that fell in the woods is a dogwood, even if I can’t even find a fallen tree.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin:

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!

Sure, Calvin, you could be suspicious of me or disbelieve me, but neither actions on your part would actually prove that I do not have a Chevy truck. Perhaps, I have a Chevy truck that has no wheels on it. Such a situation would make it impossible for me to give you a ride in it. Perhaps, I might not like you well enough to give you a ride in my truck. In that case, I would say that I won’t give you a ride in my truck. Since you would still not see that I have a Chevy truck, you would most likely say that I won’t give you a ride because I can’t give you a ride in it. But this would be your opinion, and opinions do not prove anything. Facts prove things. All you could do is assume that I do not have a Chevy truck. You can believe whatever you want to, but your belief does not prove anything either.

Calvin:

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

I disagree, Calvin. You are not talking about historical facts. The lack of something is not an historical fact. Doubt does not establish facts. Facts establish facts.

My inability to prove something at the present time does not disprove it. A lack of something does not prove something false no more than it proves something true. If you cannot prove something false with nothing and I cannot prove something true with that same nothing, then we are at an impasse. Yes, the burden of proof would fall upon me. But there is no time limit set upon me to find the evidence I need to prove something. Both of us will have to wait to see if the evidence is forthcoming. All the while we wait, you have the right to suspect that the evidence does not exist. But you cannot prove it. The same goes with God. If an atheist suspects that God does not exist, he has the right to tell you that God does not exist. But he cannot prove it with lack of evidence. This was the parallel I was trying to make in my last post.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin:

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.

Here you go suspecting things again. But you cannot prove the non-existence of something with no evidence. Do you have positive proof of lack of evidence? Thin air is not positive proof. You say that I am within my epistemic rights to suspect you of murder. Am I within the same rights to say that I have proven you have murdered your neighbor, even though no evidence is forthcoming?

Calvin:

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…

None that can be found perhaps. But this is another incident of the lack of evidence not proving something is false.

Calvin:

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.

Perhaps when the archaeologists have had enough time excavating Central America that they have had with the Roman Empire, Babylon, or Egypt, your argument might hold water.

There is plenty of evidence in Central America and Mexico of cities that existed and pyramids built, but the critics of the Book of Mormon are quick to disregard the evidence because they do not want to acknowledge it. If there had not been any ancient cities or evidence of ancient civilizations found in Mesoamerica, then I might even reject the Book of Mormon. But there are many ruins that have been found in that area. Yet, the so-called experts try to explain them away. It would seem that they won’t be happy unless they find a sign that reads:

City of Zarahemla - City Limits, Population 100,000

or something to that effect.

If people continue to put their blindfolds on, they will not see anything.

 

[rod_of_iron]

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.

Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon??? What do you base this assumption on? The original manuscript is not written in Smith’s handwriting. A great deal of it is written in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery. You would have better luck suggesting that Cowdery wrote the Book of Mormon. Also, Joseph Smith had a very limited education when the Book of Mormon was published. Three years of formal education is not much. How could such an uneducated man write the Book of Mormon in the Hebrew syntax and style that it is written in? Shakespeare and Chaucer could not possibly have accomplished such a feat. Joseph Smith must have been the most genius person who has ever lived to write the Book of Mormon as it exists, if he did write it.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Sanosuke:

Now now, rod of iron. It is a slap in the face to historians to suggest that something happened despite the evidence pointing against it. Man can hardly prove his own existance; it is even harder to prove something correct when there is only scanty physical evidence to support it. To make a claim in spite of historical evidence is destroying the compilalation of history itself. If we can make a claim despite historical evidence pointing against it, people can make any claim about history they want. The burden of proof is entirely on the Mormons’ shoulders.

What historical evidence exists to disprove the Book of Mormon? If something is difficult to prove with scanty evidence to support it, how impossible it must be to disprove something without any evidence whatsoever.

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

Perhaps when the archaeologists have had enough time excavating Central America that they have had with the Roman Empire, Babylon, or Egypt, your argument might hold water.

There is plenty of evidence in Central America and Mexico of cities that existed and pyramids built, but the critics of the Book of Mormon are quick to disregard the evidence because they do not want to acknowledge it. If there had not been any ancient cities or evidence of ancient civilizations found in Mesoamerica, then I might even reject the Book of Mormon. But there are many ruins that have been found in that area.

1. The time argument is bogus. Do a google search for departments of archeology and anthropology. Most major American universities have several tenured faculty members doing field research on Meso-American peoples and cultures. Perhaps there are more people doing Old World research, but that still doesn’t mean archeologists haven’t been excavating in the New World for over 100 years. Remember we are talking about two iron-age civilizations of Jews – these things don’t just disappear.
2. No one is denying the existance of the Incas or Mayans. Two things to consider: A) the Incans and Mayans did not have iron-age technology so they cannot be the groups described in the BOM and B) Joseph Smith himself recounts “missions to the Lamanites” in the New York and Ohio areas and specifically identifies the Shawnee and Deleware tribes as Lamanites so your prophet is thinking North America not South America. The fact that there were cities in the New World just means the Western Hemisphere was populated, the artefacts found are nothing like the artefacts demanded from the BOM.

And as far as your other posts on proof and reason and logic go, I’m going to respond thusly:

"The Word of the Lord came unto Calvin whilst he was in the spirit on the Lord’s Day to shew him many things which hadst come to pass in the history of America. Calvin bears record of this Word and blessed is he that doth readeth and take heed of this true history of the lands now called America:

Behold I saw the nations of Gondor and Rohan and their mighty armies fighting upon the Fields of Pellenor. There was much weeping and gnashing of teeth as the mighty citadel of Minas Tirith was about to fall to the hordes of Mordor. The men of Gondor were well arrayed in mithril-steel and had fantastic weapons of war forged from the strongest iron. The men of Rohan rode upon mighty steeds and were clad in burnished bronze. One hundred thousand was the number of those two armies. The armies of Mordor were a race unlike men - misformed and cruel and I heard their number counted and it was ten thousand ten thousands. They fought for forty days and forty nights. The blood of the martyrs cried out to heaven when behold I saw an angel Moroni come down and announce…"

Can you disprove what I’ve just written? Can you doubt the revelation I have received? What right do you have to tell me I’m wrong? Dare you appeal to history to disprove me? History is silent on the nature of Gondor and Rohan – how do you know they did not exist?

-C

P.S. Did you like my hebrew syntax? I patterned that after the Book of Revelation so I’m sure some future apologist will come along and use that comparison to show my “prophecy” was ancient.

e.g. “ten thousand ten thousands” was an ancient pattern of speech not used in modern english or “forty days and forty nights” was a common Hebrew reference for an indeterminate period of time or “weeping and gnashing of teeth” was used by first century Jewish prophets to describe pain and suffering – how could Calvin know all that unless he was inspired?

 

[Sanosuke]

Rod of Iron:
What historical evidence exists to disprove the Book of Mormon? If something is difficult to prove with scanty evidence to support it, how impossible it must be to disprove something without any evidence whatsoever.

Oh dear. My entire previous post has been ignored. ;_;

Instead of typing another rebuttle of what you are claiming, rod of iron, I will propose scenario to you: please disprove that while you slept last night, pink bunnies came into your yard via alien spaceship and abducted a bunch of squirrels. No matter how unlikely or impossible such a scenario sounds, you could never disprove it. In order to dismiss the claims about pink bunnies alone, you’d have to search the entire universe for pink bunnies before you claimed they didn’t exist.

It is impossible to prove a negative, even a ridiculous one. No matter how absurd it is, we cannot disprove a claim like that. If there is no good evidence pointing towards such a conclusion, I refuse to believe it. If historians cannot find evidence pointing to Jews in the Americas shortly after Jesus left this earth, then I have no choice but to dismiss it like I would any other unsubstantiated claim…just like you would (hopefully) dismiss a claim about pink bunnies and squirrels.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin:

No one is denying the existance of the Incas or Mayans. Two things to consider: A) the Incans and Mayans did not have iron-age technology so they cannot be the groups described in the BOM and B) Joseph Smith himself recounts “missions to the Lamanites” in the New York and Ohio areas and specifically identifies the Shawnee and Deleware tribes as Lamanites so your prophet is thinking North America not South America. The fact that there were cities in the New World just means the Western Hemisphere was populated, the artefacts found are nothing like the artefacts demanded from the BOM.

Calvin, I am not talking about the most recent temples and cities built in Mesoamerica. I am speaking about the cities that those cities were built upon. Mexico city is built on top of an ancient civilization. The former city was buried so that the new city could be built up. Perhaps, the indigenous people that were alive when the Spanish conquistadors came to America did not have the metallic technology you speak of, but the evidence is quite clear that the inhabitants of Mesoamerica did have tools made of metal. Have you looked at the great stones that were fitted together to build the great temples? The edges of the stones are chiseled to such a degree that a piece of paper cannot even be inserted into the cracks between the rocks. You cannot carve rock that expertly with stone tools. Such expertise requires metal tools that will withstand the pressure of continuous use.

You seem to believe Joseph Smith when he speaks of the Indians in New York and Ohio as being Lamanites, yet you discount his testimony of how the Book of Mormon was revealed. If he is a liar, how do you know when to believe him and when not to believe him?

Surely, if the Mesoamericans were as gifted in astronomy as they were, they would have had the capacity of thought to create metallic tools.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Sanosuke:

Oh dear. My entire previous post has been ignored. ;_;

Instead of typing another rebuttle of what you are claiming, rod of iron, I will propose scenario to you: please disprove that while you slept last night, pink bunnies came into your yard via alien spaceship and abducted a bunch of squirrels. No matter how unlikely or impossible such a scenario sounds, you could never disprove it. In order to dismiss the claims about pink bunnies alone, you’d have to search the entire universe for pink bunnies before you claimed they didn’t exist.

Perhaps, your scenario is true. But how does its validity affect me at all? Will it affect my salvation or my relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ? I have no reason to disbelieve what you have said, unless I know that you are known to lie.

Sanosuke:

It is impossible to prove a negative, even a ridiculous one. No matter how absurd it is, we cannot disprove a claim like that.

That is my point exactly. A negative cannot be proven. Therefore, there is no proof that the Book of Mormon is not true.

Sanosuke:

If there is no good evidence pointing towards such a conclusion, I refuse to believe it. If historians cannot find evidence pointing to Jews in the Americas shortly after Jesus left this earth, then I have no choice but to dismiss it like I would any other unsubstantiated claim…just like you would (hopefully) dismiss a claim about pink bunnies and squirrels.

What do you consider to be “good evidence”? Do you have to be able to see the evidence? If so, you seem to be admitting that you do not have any faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. That is where I stand with the things mentioned in the Book of Mormon. I have faith because I cannot see them, yet I have enough reason to believe they are true. If your belief hinges on historians with finite minds, you may never be satisfied, because the historians are learning by trial and error just as you and I are doing.

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

… the evidence is quite clear that the inhabitants of Mesoamerica did have tools made of metal. Have you looked at the great stones that were fitted together to build the great temples? The edges of the stones are chiseled to such a degree that a piece of paper cannot even be inserted into the cracks between the rocks. You cannot carve rock that expertly with stone tools. Such expertise requires metal tools that will withstand the pressure of continuous use.

Surely, if the Mesoamericans were as gifted in astronomy as they were, they would have had the capacity of thought to create metallic tools.

Yes, the Mesoamericans were gifted in astronomy and, yes, they had tools. That link that TOm posted had pictures of their tools. TOm referred to them as “fragments” but, as I pointed out in an earlier post, those “fragments” were actually their “tools.” Notice most of them have a triangular tip and a rough bottom. The person using the tool would grab it by the base and s****e the traingular part across wood or rock.

These tools were a major development in human history but the point (again) is that these tools also prove how primitive the New World cultures were. They didn’t have axes or saws or hammers (or swords!) – they had triangular bits of metal that they s****ed on stuff. Those bit of metal were their tools and this is why I disbelieve the BOM because the BOM posits that these societies were far more advanced than archeology shows that they really were.

And as far as the the blocks fitting together – that doesn’t take any special technology. If you put two block near each other you can take a stick and hold it against the curve of one block to see how far to s****e into the second block with your little triangular bit of metal. Then when you push the blocks together vola they fit! Erosion and gravity do the rest and, today, you couldn’t slide a piece of paper between the crack. The creation of Incan and Mayan structures did not require iron age technologies.

-C

P.S. What about my revelation? Don’t you want to become a Calvinist because there is no evidence to disprove my revelation? If you convert today I’ll make you an Archdeacon in the Church of Gondor! Think about it.

P.P.S. Ha! Ha! There is some kind of censoring software here. “S****e” above is s c r a p e, not a swear word.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin:

And as far as your other posts on proof and reason and logic go, I’m going to respond thusly:

"The Word of the Lord came unto Calvin whilst he was in the spirit on the Lord’s Day to shew him many things which hadst come to pass in the history of America. Calvin bears record of this Word and blessed is he that doth readeth and take heed of this true history of the lands now called America:

Behold I saw the nations of Gondor and Rohan and their mighty armies fighting upon the Fields of Pellenor. There was much weeping and gnashing of teeth as the mighty citadel of Minas Tirith was about to fall to the hordes of Mordor. The men of Gondor were well arrayed in mithril-steel and had fantastic weapons of war forged from the strongest iron. The men of Rohan rode upon mighty steeds and were clad in burnished bronze. One hundred thousand was the number of those two armies. The armies of Mordor were a race unlike men - misformed and cruel and I heard their number counted and it was ten thousand ten thousands. They fought for forty days and forty nights. The blood of the martyrs cried out to heaven when behold I saw an angel Moroni come down and announce…"

Can you disprove what I’ve just written? Can you doubt the revelation I have received? What right do you have to tell me I’m wrong? Dare you appeal to history to disprove me? History is silent on the nature of Gondor and Rohan – how do you know they did not exist?

Calvin, history of ancient America? Funny, J. R. R. Tolkien referred to it as Middleearth. Isn’t it curious that you chose the same names as Tolkien did and that you probably chose the exact same plot. Yet, you claim that the Lord gave you this revelation. If Moroni revealed this to you, why doesn’t Tolkien mention his name at all? You had me going there for a while until you mentioned Moroni. Then, I knew your revelation was false. How would Moroni know of a people that he was not a descendent of?

As for the syntax, it is not Hebrew at all. Copying the style of Revelation would not do any good since the version we have was translated from the Greek. The best you could hope for is to match the Greek syntax.

You have yet to give me any evidence to disprove the Book of Mormon.

 

[Sanosuke]

What do you consider to be “good evidence”? Do you have to be able to see the evidence? If so, you seem to be admitting that you do not have any faith. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. That is where I stand with the things mentioned in the Book of Mormon. I have faith because I cannot see them, yet I have enough reason to believe they are true. If your belief hinges on historians with finite minds, you may never be satisfied, because the historians are learning by trial and error just as you and I are doing.

I suppose you have a better way of analyzing history, then? If historians are “just learning” through trial and error, I’ll bet you would be happy to correct them.

If faith is as blind as you make it out to be, then how do I know which religion is correct? If you are making claims which make a claim at historical fact, you had better be able to prove them historically. This has nothing to do with faith. If the Book of Mormon is wrong about the Jews coming to America, the Latter Day Saints’ boat is sunk: there is no way that I can believe a religion which centers on a faulty central claim. We are not talking about believing in the unprovable (mainly, God). We are talking about believing in something that is objectively provable.

Perhaps, your scenario is true. But how does its validity affect me at all? Will it affect my salvation or my relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ? I have no reason to disbelieve what you have said, unless I know that you are known to lie.

You see, this is just the thing. How do you know that the Book of Mormon holds the truth of salvation? You say that if I have a tendency to lie, you have less of a reason to believe me. What if we find out that the Book of Mormon is lying and makes broad, unsubstantiated historical claims? Can I trust its message of salvation if I can’t believe the other things it says? One of the best ways we can do this is by examining its historical claims. Right now, at this point in time, it has just as much evidence supporting it as many other bogus claims do: nihl.

I’d be more than willing to place my faith (and my eternal soul) into the hands of a faith which has several billions of first hand documents to support its historical authenticity (which, since the writers are truthful about history, I am more inclined to believe other things they say). At this point, mainstream Christianity can be placed firmly in the location it claims things happened. That is right now much more than the evidence for the authenticity of Mormanism can do. Since mainstream Christianity makes historical claims that are very well documented, I am much more inclined to put my faith in its other claims.

Faith? Certainly. I am a very committed Catholic who sees faith as the first theological virtue. However, I will not put my faith in anything except God and His laws. If the Book of Mormon cannot be shown to be truthful in its smaller claims, I know they didn’t come from God, and I thus refuse to put my faith in its larger claims.

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

You have yet to give me any evidence to disprove the Book of Mormon.

You are right I can’t disprove Mormonism.

All I can do is point out that, from a historical standpoint, the Mormon religion stands on some shaky ground. If shaky ground doesn’t bother you, I don’t see why you would prefer to be a Mormon when you can be a Gondorian or a Jedi!

Here is a question for you: what would it take to disprove Mormonism for you? If someone could show me that the Church “made up” the Christian religion in the 5th century or that the books of the New Testament were written hundreds of years after the events they portrayed or that the Jewish people never existed – I would seriously doubt my commitment to Christianity. May I respectfully submit that if you can’t come up with a list of things that might cause you to change your mind that you are being intellectually dishonest?

This is America so you are free to believe whatever you want but, personally, I prefer that there be a firm basis to my beliefs. In addition to my personal experience of the Holy Spirit, history shows that the faith taught by the Church today is the same faith that was taught in the first century. History also shows that the books of the New Testament were written within the lifetimes of the purported writers or their close followers. History also shows that the Bible has been transmitted from generation to generation with remarkable degree of accuracy and continuity. My faith isn’t based on these things but these things help me understand, appreciate and be sure of my faith.

Form what I can see, Mormons can’t make the same claims. At best they can say history is silent about the New World record of the BOM. If they were being honest, they would say there is little or no evidence to believe the BOM is true history. The BOM claims, however, that Jesus appears to two New World civilizations. If those civilizations didn’t exist, what are you to make of your prophet?

-C

 

[PaulDupre]

Tom of Assisi:

Yet I went to Portland (OR) a few weeks back for a convention, and what do you suppose I found in the drawer of my nightstand in my hotel room? Right on top of the Bible was a Book of Mormon!!!:whacky:

It is very strange–the history in the Book of Mormon is completly without independent historical support, and the theology reads like somthing from L. Ron Hubbord, but so many Mormons apparently, cannot distinguish between the merits of the Bible and the Book of Mormon. And secular hotel owners apparently cannot tell the difference either. (Or maybe the owner of the hotel was a Mormon–who knows)

Hi Tom,
You must have stayed in a Marriot Hotel. The Marriot family is Mormon and they put BOMs in the hotel rooms. They used to put the BOM there INSTEAD of the bible, but with the recent push towards acceptance of Mormons as Christians, they have begun putting both books in each room.
As an interesting aside, there was an expose on talk radio in LA about the pecentage of hotel chain profits that come from pay-per-view pornography. The Marriot chain ranked second in the percentage of profits due to porn. The Marriots are also some of the biggest financial contributors to the LDS Church. I wonder what the general authorities think of taking all that money from porn sales. I have never heard of them refusing donations.
Paul

 

[AmandaPS]

PaulDupre:

Hi Tom,
You must have stayed in a Marriot Hotel. The Marriot family is Mormon and they put BOMs in the hotel rooms. They used to put the BOM there INSTEAD of the bible, but with the recent push towards acceptance of Mormons as Christians, they have begun putting both books in each room.
As an interesting aside, there was an expose on talk radio in LA about the pecentage of hotel chain profits that come from pay-per-view pornography. The Marriot chain ranked second in the percentage of profits due to porn. The Marriots are also some of the biggest financial contributors to the LDS Church. I wonder what the general authorities think of taking all that money from porn sales. I have never heard of them refusing donations.
Paul

But if they tithe properly, it’s only 10% of the pornography intake going to the church. I’m wondering what the General Authorities will think (when they’re standing in the Marriot Center) about the family retaining 90% of the pornographic income.

I haven’t stayed at a Marriot since I was a teen because of the thought of 10% of my room fee, after taxes was going to the LDS Church.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Sanosuke:

I suppose you have a better way of analyzing history, then? If historians are “just learning” through trial and error, I’ll bet you would be happy to correct them.

I never said that I had a better way. Humans learn through trial and error. It takes new information to come forth in order for history to change. But history is never written in stone. This is why I said before that the Book of Mormon cannot be patently false, because all it takes is new information to come forth that proves the Book of Mormon to be true. You can choose not to believe the Book of Mormon for any reason you like, but your lack of belief in what the book states does not prove it to be false.

Sanosuke:

If faith is as blind as you make it out to be, then how do I know which religion is correct? If you are making claims which make a claim at historical fact, you had better be able to prove them historically. This has nothing to do with faith. If the Book of Mormon is wrong about the Jews coming to America, the Latter Day Saints’ boat is sunk: there is no way that I can believe a religion which centers on a faulty central claim. We are not talking about believing in the unprovable (mainly, God). We are talking about believing in something that is objectively provable.

Why must I prove something that I believe is historically factual? For me, the accounts of people recorded in the Book of Mormon does not matter much to me, because I do not have anyway of knowing for sure whether they existed or not without more evidence coming forth. But the history is secondary to what is written in the Book of Mormon about Jesus Christ, His doctrine, and His gospel. The history will not save me nor condemn me.

Sanosuke:

You see, this is just the thing. How do you know that the Book of Mormon holds the truth of salvation? You say that if I have a tendency to lie, you have less of a reason to believe me. What if we find out that the Book of Mormon is lying and makes broad, unsubstantiated historical claims? Can I trust its message of salvation if I can’t believe the other things it says? One of the best ways we can do this is by examining its historical claims. Right now, at this point in time, it has just as much evidence supporting it as many other bogus claims do: nihl.

I know that the Book of Mormon holds the truth of salvation because upon reading it, the Holy Spirit has convicted my heart that what I have read is true. The Holy Spirit leads us to all truth, if we will listen to it. Sure, if we can prove that the Book of Mormon is lying and that it makes historical claims that cannot and never will be substantiated, then of course we should reject it. But no one yet has accomplished such a feat of disproving it. How does one examine historical claims without evidence? As I have already said, the lack of evidence does not prove that something does not exist or did not happen. You seem to be one who will not believe unless you are given a sign. This evidence would be a sign to you.

Sanosuke:

I’d be more than willing to place my faith (and my eternal soul) into the hands of a faith which has several billions of first hand documents to support its historical authenticity (which, since the writers are truthful about history, I am more inclined to believe other things they say). At this point, mainstream Christianity can be placed firmly in the location it claims things happened. That is right now much more than the evidence for the authenticity of Mormanism can do. Since mainstream Christianity makes historical claims that are very well documented, I am much more inclined to put my faith in its other claims.

Having billions of first hand documents to support something does not foster faith. It leads to knowledge. Faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive. Once you have knowledge of any one thing, you do not have faith in it any longer, because you know it to be true.

Sanosuke:

Faith? Certainly. I am a very committed Catholic who sees faith as the first theological virtue. However, I will not put my faith in anything except God and His laws. If the Book of Mormon cannot be shown to be truthful in its smaller claims, I know they didn’t come from God, and I thus refuse to put my faith in its larger claims.

I bet you put your faith in much more than you think. You put faith in your car that it will start when you turn the key in the ignition, or you would never do it. You have faith that you will wake up tomorrow morning, or you would never go to sleep. There are many other things I am sure you put your faith in also.

Have you read the Book of Mormon? If you haven’t I would not expect you to believe in it, because you will not know what is contained within it. It is filled with faith and hope of the saving power of Jesus Christ, but you will never know unless you read the book.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin:

You are right I can’t disprove Mormonism.

Mormonism? I am not talking about Mormonism. If we are going to discuss Mormonism, I can easily disprove it. I can disprove it with the Bible. I can also disprove it with the Book of Mormon. But Mormonism is not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether the Book of Mormon is true or fraudulent.

Calvin:

All I can do is point out that, from a historical standpoint, the Mormon religion stands on some shaky ground. If shaky ground doesn’t bother you, I don’t see why you would prefer to be a Mormon when you can be a Gondorian or a Jedi!

Of course, Mormonism stands on shaky ground. The shaky ground is from where Mormonism strays from the Bible and the Book of Mormon. If the Mormons stuck with those two books, there would be no shaky ground. But they do not. I do not want to build my house on a foundation of sand. I want to build it upon the rock. But the Book of Mormon does not appear to be on shaky ground. Only those who do not know what is contained in that book think it is on shaky ground.

Calvin:

Here is a question for you: what would it take to disprove Mormonism for you?

I believe what you are really asking is “what would it take to disprove the Book of Mormon for me?” Honestly, I don’t know. Since my beliefs are based on what the Holy Spirit has revealed to me and opened by eyes to, I don’t know what it would take for me to not believe the Book of Mormon. Perhaps, Jesus Christ would have to come to me and tell me that the book is false. I do not hinge my beliefs of spiritual matters upon what humans can prove.

Calvin:

If someone could show me that the Church “made up” the Christian religion in the 5th century or that the books of the New Testament were written hundreds of years after the events they portrayed or that the Jewish people never existed – I would seriously doubt my commitment to Christianity. May I respectfully submit that if you can’t come up with a list of things that might cause you to change your mind that you are being intellectually dishonest?

Sure, if someone could show me a document that proves the Book of Mormon was plagiarized, I would doubt the veracity of the Book of Mormon. But every document that people claim was used to produce the Book of Mormon does not resemble the Book of Mormon at all. The “Solomon Manuscript” has no resemblance to the Book of Mormon, nor does “View of the Hebrews”. The most that can be said is that the latter covers some similar material as the Book of Mormon does. But this does not prove that the Book of Mormon was copied from that document.

How does being written centuries after events occurred prove that those documents are false? If I wrote a biography on George Washington, would the information in my book necessarily have to be false?

How could someone prove that the Jews never existed? This is another case of proving a negative, which is impossible to prove.

Calvin:

This is America so you are free to believe whatever you want but, personally, I prefer that there be a firm basis to my beliefs. In addition to my personal experience of the Holy Spirit, history shows that the faith taught by the Church today is the same faith that was taught in the first century. History also shows that the books of the New Testament were written within the lifetimes of the purported writers or their close followers. History also shows that the Bible has been transmitted from generation to generation with remarkable degree of accuracy and continuity. My faith isn’t based on these things but these things help me understand, appreciate and be sure of my faith.

Are you claiming that the Book of Mormon does not teach the same faith as the faith taught in the first century? Also, how does history prove that the books of the New Testament were written within the lifetimes of the purported writers or their close followers if the earliest manuscripts found only date back to the 2nd century AD?

I look at the civilizations that have been found in Mesoamerican and I find a reason to believe in the Book of Mormon. I look at the Hebrew syntax, style, and poetic devices that are in that book, which Joseph Smith could not have possibly known, and I have reason to believe in the Book of Mormon. Maybe there is not enough evidence for you to believe in the Book of Mormon, but there is for me.

 

[Calvin]

rod of iron:

Are you claiming that the Book of Mormon does not teach the same faith as the faith taught in the first century?

Absolutely

-C

 

[rod_of_iron]

Calvin,

Then I assert that you have not read the Book of Mormon. If you declare that you have read that book, please give examples from that book that contrast what was taught in the first century church.

 

[Apologia100]

rod of iron:

Calvin,

Then I assert that you have not read the Book of Mormon. If you declare that you have read that book, please give examples from that book that contrast what was taught in the first century church.

No problem, here we go.

1. The Book of Mormon teaches that little children are not capable of sin because they do not have a sinful nature (Moroni 8:8). In contrast, the Bible in Psalm 51:5 clearly teaches that we have sinful nature from birth: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (RSV).
2. The Book of Mormon teaches that the disobedience of Adam and Eve in eating the forbidden fruit was necessary so that they could have children and bring joy to mankind (2 Nephi 2:23-25). In contrast, the Bible specifically declares that Adam’s transgression was a sinful act of rebellion that unleashed the power of sin and death in the human heart and throughout God’s perfect world (Genesis 3:16-19; Romans 5:12; 8:20-21). There is no Biblical support for the view that Adam and Eve could only fulfill the command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) by disobeying God’s command regarding the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17). The Book of Mormon teaching that these divine commands are contradictory, and that God expected Adam and Eve to figure out that in reality He wanted them to break the latter command (“of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it”) in order to keep the former (“be fruitful and multiply”), has no basis in logic or the Biblical text, and attributes equivocation to God.
3. The Book of Mormon teaches that black skin is a sign of God’s curse, so that white-skinned people are considered morally and spiritually superior to black skinned people (2 Nephi 5:21). In contrast, the Bible teaches “And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation” (Acts 17:26, RSV), that in Christ distinctions of ethnicity, gender and social class are erased (Galatians 3:28), and that God condemns favoritism (James 2:1).
4. The Book of Mormon teaches that, “it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23; see also Moroni 10:32). In contrast, the Bible teaches that apart from Christ we are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1,5) and unable to do anything to merit forgiveness and eternal life. Salvation is wholly of grace (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 11:6; Titus 3:5-6), not by grace plus works. Good works are a result, not the basis, of a right relationship with God (Ephesians 2:10).
5. According to a Book of Mormon prophecy (Helaman 14:27), at the time of Christ’s crucifixion “darkness should cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days.” In contrast, the New Testament gospel accounts declare repeatedly that there was darkness for only three hours while Jesus was on the cross (Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44).
6. The Book of Mormon people are said to have observed "all things according to the law of Moses (2 Nephi 5:10; 25:24). However, although they are supposed to have been Hebrews, they were descendents of the tribe of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:17) or Manasseh (Alma 10:3), not the tribe of Levi and family line of Aaron, as the Law of Moses dictates (Numbers 3:10; Exodus 29:9; Numbers 18:1-7), so they would not have had a legitimate priesthood.

These are but a scant few of the numerous problems that the Book of Mormon has in comparison to Sacred Scripture. Therefore, it should be considered spurious in inspiration, and for the most part, a downright fraud.