Is the Book of Mormon a Fraud?

[rod_of_iron]

Katholikos:

When faced with a problem, the medical profession relies on the “rule out” technique.

They test. If they find no confirmation in the test, the particular condition tested for is “ruled out.” They can’t prove that the patient doesn’t have that condition, but they “rule it out” for lack of evidence that he does have it.

Consider the Book of Mormon. It has been tested for truth. There is no confirmation in the test of archaeology; archaeology rules it out. No confirmation in genetics; genetics rules it out. No confirmation in history, none in linguistics, none in metallurgy, none in animal husbandry, none in agriculture, none in…every possible field. The BOM has been ruled out – negative for truth --by every academic discipline that has examined it.

Diagnosis: Bull-oney.

Look elsewhere for the truth.

JMJ Jay

But you did not test for the most important test.

Does the Book of Mormon contain the gospel of Jesus Christ and His doctrine? Yes, definitely.

Will it lead people to the Christ of the Bible? Yes, definitely.

Are the principles of the doctrine of Christ, such as faith, repentance, and baptism, spoken of in that book? Yes, definitely.

Archaeology does not save you. Genetics does not save you. Nor does history, linguistics, metallurgy, animal husbandry, or agriculture save you. Only Jesus Christ can save you.

Does the Book of Mormon teach you of Jesus Christ and encourages you to have faith in Him, trust in Him, put your hope in Him, repent of your sins, and be baptized? Yes, most definitely.

But I do find your post most interesting, especially about linguistics. I have already told you that the Book of Mormon is written in Hebrew syntax with various forms of Hebraisms, parallelisms, and complex chiasms, which could not have been known by a young man in New England in the 1820s, even if he had the Bible memorized. Some of the chiasms in the Book of Mormon are more complex than what is found in the Bible, but it is indeed Hebrew syntax. I love linguistics. That is why I have a B.A. in Linguistics.

Genetics cannot be ruled out unless you know for sure if you are testing the descendents of the exact same people that the Book of Mormon speaks of. You cannot rule out history based on the limited knowledge of the present historians. You cannot rule out archaeology or metallurgy unless you have overturned every square inch in the exact location that the Book of Mormon speaks of. If you look in the wrong area, you will never find what you are looking for. As for husbandry, if there were no horses or elephants, why have pre-Columbian cave paintings been found of those two animals? In fact, there are paintings showing those animals being used as beasts of burden. But you and others will just shoo-shoo that away, because you do not want to believe it. If you did believe it, you would be forced to believe in the Book of Mormon, which might lead to you leaving the Catholic church. I guess to avoid that possible danger, you just choose to ignore and reject evidence that would make you doubt what you believe.

As I have already said, opinions do not establish facts. Facts establish facts. Having nothing does not establish the truth, and from where I am sitting, that is what you have: Nothing conclusive by which to reject the Book of Mormon.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Using this logic then David Koresh and Jim Jones were both right. They both lost everything including their lives because of the faiths they had constructed.

-D
[/quote]

Where is the parallel? Neither David Koresh nor Jim Jones wrote a book, especially one comparable to the Book of Mormon. David Koresh was attacked because he had shut himself and others into a compound in Waco, and he was stockpiling guns. That is why the ATF came against him. It had nothing to do with what he believed or any book he might have written. Jim Jones poisoned his followers with tainted Kool-aid. I am not sure if he drank it also or not. He did not die for what he believed either. He was a nutcase who killed his own people. Neither one can reasonably be compared to Joseph Smith.

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

Who on earth said he made it up on the spot. He could have been thinking about it for YEARS. He could have had notes in his hat. His co-conspirators could have lied. Who knows. Saying he didn’t translate it from gold plates is NOT the same as claiming he made it up on the spot.

-D

If he did not make up everything on the spot, he must have been a genius to keep all those ideas floating around in his head for so long. His wife even testified after his death that he was so uneducated that he could not dictate or compose a simple letter on his own.

By the way, what hat? His wife was one of his scribes, and she testified that she could see him while he was reading aloud the interpretation of the plates to her. She said that there was no way that he could have had any notes or books to read from without her being able to see them, especially in a hat. She would have asked, “Honey, why are you looking in your hat?”

Anyway, if he already had his ideas for the Book of Mormon written down on paper, why would he need to dictate it to someone else so that they could write it down on a separate piece of paper? Why not just hand over his notes to the other person?

As for his co-conspirators, as you call them, what lies would they have told?

 

[Katholikos]

Part 1
rod of iron:

But you did not test for the most important test.

Does the Book of Mormon contain the gospel of Jesus Christ and His doctrine? Yes, definitely.

No, definitely not. Jesus Christ was not the devil’s spirit brother. Nor was he “Jehovah” of the planet Kolob. He was not a man who became a God, one among many, as Mormonism teaches. He is the One, the Only, God of the universe, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Will it lead people to the Christ of the Bible? Yes, definitely.

No, definitely not. It will lead them to the false Christ of Mormonism and the “corrected” KJV of Joseph Smith Jun.

Are the principles of the doctrine of Christ, such as faith, repentance, and baptism, spoken of in that book? Yes, definitely.

I could write a book about faith, repentance, and baptism – but it wouldn’t be “Scripture” anymore than the BOM is scripture. Your doctrines are false. Mormons use the same terms but have very different beliefs – to perpetrate the illusion that you are Christians.

No kidding?

Does the Book of Mormon teach you of Jesus Christ and encourages you to have faith in Him, trust in Him, put your hope in Him, repent of your sins, and be baptized? Yes, most definitely.

You’re teaching a false idea of who Jesus is and why He is our Savior. Mormonism is not a Christian religion.

But I do find your post most interesting, especially about linguistics. I have already told you that the Book of Mormon is written in Hebrew syntax with various forms of Hebraisms, parallelisms, and complex chiasms, which could not have been known by a young man in New England in the 1820s, even if he had the Bible memorized. Some of the chiasms in the Book of Mormon are more complex than what is found in the Bible, but it is indeed Hebrew syntax. I love linguistics. That is why I have a B.A. in Linguistics.

Good for you. There’s no accounting what some people will believe, even educated people. Have you ever counted the number of times “And it came to pass” appears in the BOM? Is that a Hebraism? “And behold” is another of God’s favorite expressions. Is your degree from Yale or BYU?

To be continued

 

[Katholikos]

Part 2

Genetics cannot be ruled out unless you know for sure if you are testing the descendents of the exact same people that the Book of Mormon speaks of.

Get a copy of The Real Eve from the Discovery Channel, and Journey of Man from PBS. – These videos trace the migrations of man through genetic markers. These genetic studies come to the same conclusion. We are all brothers and sisters, the children of one set of parents, and we all came WITH BLACK SKINS from Africa. Some of us became “white and delightsome” as ole Joe Smith put it . American Indians are not semetic – they’re mongoloid. Their teeth also prove it. They came over the Bering Strait land bridge between 15,000 and 12,000 years ago.

You cannot rule out history based on the limited knowledge of the present historians.

A man who’ll believe he’s gonna become a god will believe anything.

You cannot rule out archaeology or metallurgy unless you have overturned every square inch in the exact location that the Book of Mormon speaks of. If you look in the wrong area, you will never find what you are looking for.

Archaeologists have looked. The cupboard is bare.

As for husbandry, if there were no horses or elephants, why have pre-Columbian cave paintings been found of those two animals? In fact, there are paintings showing those animals being used as beasts of burden. But you and others will just shoo-shoo that away, because you do not want to believe it.

Yes, I have a strange prediliction for the truth. Cave art is sometimes imaginitive art. So what if cave artists portrayed animals that had horse and elephant characteristics? No bones, no tracks, no evidence, no animals. Mastadons and woolly mammoths came over the land bridge first, chased by Big Game Hunter.

If you did believe it, you would be forced to believe in the Book of Mormon, which might lead to you leaving the Catholic church. I guess to avoid that possible danger, you just choose to ignore and reject evidence that would make you doubt what you believe.

chuckle chuckle. Me leave the Church founded by Christ – “which is the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of Truth” (2 Tm 2:15) – for a religion started by a con man who made his living digging for buried treasure for a price, with the aid of magic spectacles? A guy who was convicted of fraud in New York? No way.

As I have already said, opinions do not establish facts. Facts establish facts. Having nothing does not establish the truth, and from where I am sitting, that is what you have: Nothing conclusive by which to reject the Book of Mormon.

It’s a law of logic – one cannot prove a negative. But there is evidence as high as the Hill Cumorah that the Book of Mormon is a fraud perpetrated by Joseph Smith Jun. The absence of a single shred of evidence after two million people were allegedly killed and their bodies left there is plenty, plenty.

The yarn about how Smith “translated” the BOM is fairy tale enough for any thinking man. So why do people believe it? It’s as old as Adam and Eve – everybody wants to be god, and Mormonism promises it to them. For 10% of their income.

Oremus pro invicem, Jay

 

[agname]

I saw this…this is interesting…

3 February 1999

Public Information Officer
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560

Dear Sir or Madam:

It has come to my attention that the Smithsonian Institution has issued a new “Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon.” I would appreciate it very much if you would provide me a copy of this Statement using the enclosed pre-addressed, pre-stamped envelope.

I would also like to know what has precipitated the necessity of a new Statement. Is there anything in the Smithsonian Institution’s previous “Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon” (the copy I have is designated SIL-76 1988) which has been proven inaccurate by subsequent research? If so, would you please instruct me on what those inaccuracies may be?

Thank you very much for your help and kind attention to my inquiry.

Sincerely,
(Signed) Sharon A. Lindbloom

 

[agname]

Response from Smithsonian…

9 February 1999

Dear Ms. Lindbloom:

Thank you for your letter. We still stand by our former statement on the Book of Mormon. It was a decision of the Smithsonian’s central Office of Public Affairs to simplify the statement to respond to general questions regarding the Smithsonian’s use of the Book of Mormon. Below is the statement we presently distribute for these general inquiries.

Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution’s alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonian’s Department of Anthropology.
The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you may have received to the contrary is incorrect.
I hope I have answered your question.

Sincerely,
(Signed) Ann Kaupp, Head
Anthropology Outreach Office
National Museum of Natural History

 

[agname]

godandscience.org/cults/smithsonian.html

Excerpt(s)…

“The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.”

“No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.”

“Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to hare occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.”

 

[darcee]

rod of iron:

Where is the parallel? Neither David Koresh nor Jim Jones wrote a book, especially one comparable to the Book of Mormon. David Koresh was attacked because he had shut himself and others into a compound in Waco, and he was stockpiling guns. That is why the ATF came against him. It had nothing to do with what he believed or any book he might have written. Jim Jones poisoned his followers with tainted Kool-aid. I am not sure if he drank it also or not. He did not die for what he believed either. He was a nutcase who killed his own people. Neither one can reasonably be compared to Joseph Smith.

The parallel is painfully obvious.
Martyrdom does not equal truthfulness.
You contention was that no one would die for something they created. Both Jones and Koresh died as a result of following cults they created. It is a perfect parallel.
People die, as martyrs for false beliefs at quite an alarming pace. Smith didn’t die because of a book, he died because he was arrested on charges of treason and conspiracy and a lynch mob attacked the jail. It isn’t as though if he had denounced his book his life would have been spared. The mob wasn’t there to talk.
-D

 

[darcee]

rod of iron:

If he did not make up everything on the spot, he must have been a genius to keep all those ideas floating around in his head for so long. His wife even testified after his death that he was so uneducated that he could not dictate or compose a simple letter on his own.
By the way, what hat? His wife was one of his scribes, and she testified that she could see him while he was reading aloud the interpretation of the plates to her. She said that there was no way that he could have had any notes or books to read from without her being able to see them, especially in a hat. She would have asked, “Honey, why are you looking in your hat?”
Anyway, if he already had his ideas for the Book of Mormon written down on paper, why would he need to dictate it to someone else so that they could write it down on a separate piece of paper? Why not just hand over his notes to the other person?
As for his co-conspirators, as you call them, what lies would they have told?

Oh yes, Emma Smith is going to come out and undermine her son’s control of the RLDS by saying anything that would not support the BoM? I seriously doubt it. To say Smith couldn’t dictate a simple letter on his own is obviously not true. Several of his sermons survive, as does the D&C which there is not doubt that he authored. The claim of Smith’s ignorance that you attribute to her is at least an exaggeration.

Don’t get stuck o the word “hat” I could just as easily have said “shirt pocket”. He could have wished to dictate the BoM to include more people in it’s authorship, perhaps his penmanship was not great. Considering the numerous grammatical errors that have been corrected since the first printing one could hardly say that it was dictated perfectly even if his claim was true.

-D

 

[rod_of_iron]

Katholikos:

No, definitely not. Jesus Christ was not the devil’s spirit brother. Nor was he “Jehovah” of the planet Kolob. He was not a man who became a God, one among many, as Mormonism teaches. He is the One, the Only, God of the universe, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Wow, Katholikos! You have just proven your complete and utter ignorance of the Book of Mormon. You have clearly shown that you do not have one inkling of what is in that book. The Book of Mormon in no way even suggests that Jesus is the spirit brother of the devil, nor will you find any support for “Jehovah being from the planet Kolob”, or man having the ability to become a God. The Book of Mormon clearly teaches that Jesus the Christ is God come to Earth in the flesh to redeem us from our lost and fallen state.

Katholikos:

No, definitely not. It will lead them to the false Christ of Mormonism and the “corrected” KJV of Joseph Smith Jun.

The false Christ of Mormonism is completely foreign to the Christ of the Book of Mormon. The LDS church does not derive its beliefs of Christ from the Book of Mormon, but rather from other writings written by leaders from Brigham Young onward. They will deny that they accept these other writings, such as the Journal of Discourses, as being scripture, but they believe most of what these other writings say. The Book of Mormon teaches the same Christ as is in the Bible. If you don’t agree, show me where these false doctrines you spoke of can be found in the Book of Mormon.

Katholikos:

I could write a book about faith, repentance, and baptism – but it wouldn’t be “Scripture” anymore than the BOM is scripture.

Perhaps, you could “write a book about faith, repentance, and baptism”, but you could never write a book like the Book of Mormon. What does it take for a book to be considered scriptural? An official stamp from the Catholic church? The Bible tells us in 2 Peter 1:2 – “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

If the Catholic church is needed to establish scripture, then it is being done by the interpretation of man. If I was so moved by the Holy Ghost to speak, would the result of my speech be prophetic? If prophetic, upon writing it down, would it not be scriptural? How can you determine what is scriptural and what is not? What test do you use? Do you rely on other people to tell you what passes as scripture? Or do you rely on the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth? Do you depend on man to lead you, or the Holy Spirit?

Katholikos:

Your doctrines are false. Mormons use the same terms but have very different beliefs – to perpetrate the illusion that you are Christians.

How can you declare that my doctrines are false? You do not even know what I believe to be true. You can declare the beliefs of the Mormon church to be false, because you know what they believe. But you don’t know what I believe unless you ask me. Instead of assuming what I believe, why not ask me what I believe?

Katholikos:

You’re teaching a false idea of who Jesus is and why He is our Savior. Mormonism is not a Christian religion.

Again you do not know what I personally believe about “who Jesus is and why He is our Savior.” You assume that I believe just like the Mormons believe, just because I believe in what the Book of Mormon teaches. Again, don’t assume what I believe. Ask me what I believe.

Katholikos:

Good for you. There’s no accounting what some people will believe, even educated people. Have you ever counted the number of times “And it came to pass” appears in the BOM? Is that a Hebraism?

I’m glad you asked. Yes, “and it came to pass” is very much a Hebraism. Even though English speakers are taught when they are writing to never begin a sentence with “and”, Hebrew writers do it all the time, because it is part of Hebrew syntax. Have you not noticed how many verses in the Bible begin with the word “and”? That is very Hebrew.

Katholikos:

“And behold” is another of God’s favorite expressions.

Is your degree from Yale or BYU?

Neither. My degree is from a state university. The university is in no way connected with any church, especially the LDS church. Why would I go to BYU? I am not Mormon.

 

[darcee]

One long theme I am seeing here is the idea that the BoM should be believed because it CAN’T be proven false. Honestly, that is one of the most absurd and illogical thought processes I could conceive of no matter how it is spun.
-D

 

[darcee]

rod of iron:

Neither. My degree is from a state university. The university is in no way connected with any church, especially the LDS church. Why would I go to BYU? I am not Mormon.

Why are you so cagey about what you are? Saying you are not Mormon while defend the BoM and Smith seems rather incongruous unless you are RLDS. At any rate your reluctance to say what you are is detrimental to your credibility.
-D

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

Oh yes, Emma Smith is going to come out and undermine her son’s control of the RLDS by saying anything that would not support the BoM? I seriously doubt it.

You claim that Emma lied about what she said just because of her son? If you have a son or daughter, are you suggesting that you would lie for him or her? Can you so easily assume that just because she was the wife of Joseph Smith and the mother of Joseph Smith III, that she had to be a liar? What proof do you have that she was a liar? What proof do you have that she lied at all? You cannot rightfully assume that a person is a liar just because of his or her association with another person. Before you slander Emma’s name, you should have some conclusive proof first.

darcee:

To say Smith couldn’t dictate a simple letter on his own is obviously not true. Several of his sermons survive, as does the D&C which there is not doubt that he authored. The claim of Smith’s ignorance that you attribute to her is at least an exaggeration.

How do you know that these sermons are actually Joseph Smith’s? Perhaps they are. But I was not saying that Joseph Smith could not deliver a sermon. A person does not need to know how to read or write to preach a sermon. If the sermons you speak of are his and they exist in written form, they were written down by someone else while the sermon was being given. This is different from dictating a letter, because the one doing the dictating has to pause frequently for the other person to write it down. When giving a sermon, a relatively illiterate man would be speaking either by the Holy Spirit or by his own ideas in his head.

You say that Joseph Smith was not uneducated. Please show me the proof of his schooling. He was a farm boy. When the crops were ready to harvest, farm children did not attend school. They had to help their parents on the farm. Where was Joseph Smith formally schooled? What evidence do you have?

darcee:

Don’t get stuck on the word “hat” I could just as easily have said “shirt pocket”. He could have wished to dictate the BoM to include more people in it’s authorship, perhaps his penmanship was not great.

You are just speculating here. We can say, perhaps this or perhaps that. But without evidence of these so called notes in his hat or in his shirt pocket, you can only speculate. If he did have notes to read from, why didn’t any of his scribes ever declare this? When Oliver Cowdery, some years later, was excommunicated from the church, why didn’t he then declare that Smith read from notes he had in his hat or shirt pocket? No one from that time period that I am aware of has ever testified that Smith read from notes, not even his scribes.

darcee:

Considering the numerous grammatical errors that have been corrected since the first printing one could hardly say that it was dictated perfectly even if his claim was true.

Grammatical errors? What grammatical errors?

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

Why are you so cagey about what you are? Saying you are not Mormon while defend the BoM and Smith seems rather incongruous unless you are RLDS. At any rate your reluctance to say what you are is detrimental to your credibility.
-D

Darcee,

I already said what I am early in this thread. Did you overlook it?

 

[Calvin]

Hey Rod,

What do you accept as Scripture? Bible and BOM? What about D/C? Does your church have a creed or constitution?

-C

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

One long theme I am seeing here is the idea that the BoM should be believed because it CAN’T be proven false. Honestly, that is one of the most absurd and illogical thought processes I could conceive of no matter how it is spun.
-D

It is not absurd or illogical. If you claimed to be the King of Siam or the Queen of England, and no one could prove otherwise, wouldn’t it be logical to believe that you are who you say you are?

 

[darcee]

rod of iron:

It is not absurd or illogical. If you claimed to be the King of Siam or the Queen of England, and no one could prove otherwise, wouldn’t it be logical to believe that you are who you say you are?

NO! It would not be logical to believe me.
I am in fact the Empress of Cascadia. It is my sovereign right that I receive $100 as a “free love offering and penance” from all those who fail address me “Most dignified and beloved, right honorable ladyship”. Do be so kind as to deposit these funds into my paypal account today.

BTW could you quote the post where you explained your beliefs? I have seen you asked them several times, but I am afraid I have missed the explanation

-D

 

[pnewton]

rod of iron:

It is not absurd or illogical. If you claimed to be the King of Siam or the Queen of England, and no one could prove otherwise, wouldn’t it be logical to believe that you are who you say you are?

Like Santa Claus? (Miracle on 34th Street)

I have to agree with darcee. I find it illogical.

 

[PaulDupre]

rod of iron:

Darcee,

I already said what I am early in this thread. Did you overlook it?

You merely said that you are not Mormon, but believe the BOM to be divinely inspired. That tells us very little. You could be unchurched, or you could be RLDS, a Strangite or a member of “Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Time” or some other violent splinter cult. It makes a difference because it tells us what influences your perceptions.
We Catholics are straightforward about our affiliations. Why can’t you be? What are you hiding?
Paul