Is the Book of Mormon a Fraud?

[AmandaPS]

ichabod:

This is a long thread. Has anyone yet mentioned the Books of Moses and Abraham? As I understand it, these works by Joseph Smith were translated from actual egyptian artifacts purchased from a travelling exhibit at a time when Egyptology was in its infancy, and no scholarly translation was possible. Some of the original sources have survived and, under modern scholarship, been found to disprove Smith’s interpretations. Even with this existing proof, there are still those who argue that there are other undiscovered texts which support its veracity.

What is acceptable as definitive proof?

I haven’t studied Egyptology since college (many years ago), but looking at the facsimile provided with the Book of Abraham, the first looks like a page taken out of the Book of the Dead. More specifically, it looks like a burial/mummification ritual. The four canopic jars below the body would’ve been used to store the internal organs.

 

[ichabod]

TOmNossor:

Hello all,

I would instead suggest that RoI has shown that your “proof” of falsity is really not proof. And RoI has presented “evidences” of the authenticity of the BOM that have been dealt with almost none.

For me, I have seen the “problems” explained and muted universally. I have seldom seen the “evidences” so soundly addressed. The issue for me is that an authentic paradigm explains the “evidences” and is not toppled by the “problems.” A fraud paradigm has yet to convincingly explain the “evidences” by my BIASED assessment.

Now you may return to your regularly schedule programs.

Charity, TOm

It may have been lost in the quagmire this thread has become, but what evidence do you have that the BOM is legit? All I’ve seen is that Smith may have filled in details left out of accepted scripture and history with alternatives that are at best, unprovable.

In all honesty, I’ve only read parts of my own copy or the BOM, and IMHO, I found it to be questionable, for reasons that could not be answered with repeated readings.

If the book is fraudulent, then drawing evidence for its veracity solely from its contents is a circular argument. Rather, arguments for its origin must be investigated before its contents can even be entertained. For the BOM and other Mormon scriptures, their origins are questionable and the character of their easily-identified authors is questionable as well.

Faith and reason can co-exist in a loving heart. Good luck in your seach for the truth

 

[Sanosuke]

Ichabod:
If the book is fraudulent, then drawing evidence for its veracity solely from its contents is a circular argument. Rather, arguments for its origin must be investigated before its contents can even be entertained. For the BOM and other Mormon scriptures, their origins are questionable and the character of their easily-identified authors is questionable as well.

Thank you, Ichabod. I have been trying to make this argument since I entered this thread. The only reason we can argue about whether or not Bible verse x means y or z is because we accept it as Sacred Scripture. The justification for the Bible being the inerrant word of God goes as follows:

1. The Bible is examined like any other historical document.
2. Through examining the Bible, its historical reliability is ascertained.
3. If its historical claims are true, then the other claims it makes cannot be dismissed out of hand: the authors have already shown that they aren’t simply making stuff up.
4. The books of the Bible state that Christ set up a Church. This Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (as promised by Jesus), is the final interpreter of God’s law.
5. Only one Church has the historical claim to this truth.
6. That Church compiled Sacred Scripture.
7. Therefore, the Bible is God’s word.

Now, I have no intention of starting a debate about the proof I just cited: I simplified it down in order to show everything a person must go through in order to prove that a text contains the word of God. The fact remains that without historical evidence, there is no proof that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God. Without this proof, the believer must retreat into relativism, saying that not believing in the authenticity of the Bible’s divine authorship is okay because it is only a personal opinion. However, with the affirmation of history, the dissenter must explain how a person can be so accurate in the minute details and yet be a bald-face liar on the larger claims. We cannot start debating theology until we debate the facts that are sitting in front of us: enter history.

My question is: what proof is there for the Book of Mormon being the inspired word of God? If we are simply guided by a warm, fuzzy feeling, then we must admit that the Holy Spirit guides thousands of people into thousands of different interpretations of the Bible (or in this case, the Book of Mormon).

Therefore–and I stress this highly–it is up to a supporter of the Book of Mormon to first prove the historical accuracy of the book. No one in their right mind will place the burden of proof on the dissenter because it is up to the assenter to prove what he says. Therefore, examine the archeological finds, the remaining manuscripts, etc. to determine whether or not the Book of Mormon can be trusted.

This is why it is logically absurd to ask us nonbelievers in the BoM to “disprove its accuracy”. The documents’ historical reliability needs to be proved before we can even begin to discuss theology and doctrine. People can ask for “disproof” all they want: the fact remains that without assenting evidence from history, the book is just that: a book.

 

[Veronica_Anne]

Not in the sense that Joseph Smith intended to put out falsehood or fraud.

I think he was “just” mentally imbalanced enough to not suspect that he was.

And there’s enough people out there, sadly, who aren’t certain about the Truth that they fall for that stuff.

 

[OfTheCross]

Sanosuke nailed it. Thanks for that post.

Tom, I’m blown away that you have suggested in other threads that somehow the Catholic Church believes in divinization based on one paragraph out of CCC and some other random quotes. Of course we believe in the partaking of the divine nature, but not becoming gods unto ourselves. The Catholic Church teaching is very different than the divinization the Mormons espouse. I really can’t believe you even made such an argument.

Still the basic flaw with Mormonism is that it is polytheistic. Christianity was a fulfillment of Judaism, which is monotheistic. Orthodox Chrisianity has always been centered on monotheism.
Any claim that the early Christians were polytheists is unable to be substantiated in my opinion. Mormanism is polytheistic, and therefore at odds with the foundational belief of both Judaism and Christianity, and therefore has no claim to continuity. A religion that was monotheistic can not suddenly become polytheistic and be the same religion, it has become so radically different in its major foundational belief (one God vs many gods) that it can only be a new religion unto itself.

If you want to try to argue that the early Christians were polytheists (even though they were believing monotheistic Jews who became believing monotheistic Messianic Jews) have at it. Just start another thread entitled “The Polytheism of the Early Fathers” or “The Statements of Councils on Polytheism” and we’ll go from there. If you try to show that the early Church was polytheistic, be prepared to also show where the Catholic Church radically departed from this polytheism into monotheism. If your only claim is that the Catholic Church always taught and still teaches polytheism, but us silly Catholics just don’t realize it, that would speak for itself as utterly lame. I do enjoy you hanging around though.

Thanks,

Peter John

 

[darcee]

TOmNossor:

Hello all,

I have been generally glad that Rod of Iron has been fielding BOM questions here, but I wanted to add a couple of things.

First, I have read the BOM cover to cover multiple times. Just as Catholics and Protestants recognize that a sola scriptura read on the scriptures can result in either Catholic or Protestant doctrine, a sola scriptura read on the BOM is completely in line with a sola scriptura read of the Bible. This means that there is almost nothing in the BOM that is not also in the Bible or vice versa. The majority of traditional Christian ideas are more clearly explained in the BOM (than in the Bible).

So when RoI says that those who claim the BOM teaches a different Christ have not read the book and pondered it for themselves he is most likely correct.

A few differences that immediately come to mind.

• No Baptism of Infants. The BOM is clear on this. The Bible is not (clear).
• I do not think there is near as much room for an Imputed Righteousness belief within the BOM than within the Bible. Also, Pelegian error is easier to be derived from the BOM, but when one uses both the BOM and the Bible, I believe one must embrace Infused Righteousness.
• The BOM clarifies information about the fall. I believe that the BOM teaches the fallen nature of man very similarly to the Eastern Orthodox Church (rather than like Catholic and Protestants). The BOM is also clear that the fall of Adam and Eve was necessary.

So RoI is very correct in my opinion that the majority of the peculiar beliefs that those addressing him attack are not derived from a sola scriptura read of the BOM.

Second, something that I do not agree with RoI (and I want to bring up in this thread). I do not think that we should embrace the Empress of Cascadia. I do not think that we are in any way bound to believe that which we cannot prove to be untrue or unbelievable. I would instead suggest that RoI has shown that your “proof” of falsity is really not proof. And RoI has presented “evidences” of the authenticity of the BOM that have been dealt with almost none.

For me, I have seen the “problems” explained and muted universally. I have seldom seen the “evidences” so soundly addressed. The issue for me is that an authentic paradigm explains the “evidences” and is not toppled by the “problems.” A fraud paradigm has yet to convincingly explain the “evidences” by my BIASED assessment.

Now you may return to your regularly schedule programs.

Charity, TOm

The problems are only explained when you consciously suspend your disbelief in a desire to accept. There were no bees, horses, chickens or elephants in the New World during BoM times. Joseph Smith wouldn’t have translated Turkey as Chicken or Lama as horse, he was no doubt familiar with all the animals and there is no credible reason to think otherwise. Mastodons were not domesticated animals. Bees are not wasps. No Steel No chariots. It make no sense that parts of the Book of Mormon are EXACTLY copied from the KJV of the Bible. Only a willful acceptance of the most superficial explanations will do to save the BoM from the obvious. It is illogical to believe it to be the truth.
-D

 

[TOmNossor]

ichabod:
If the book is fraudulent, then drawing evidence for its veracity solely from its contents is a circular argument. Rather, arguments for its origin must be investigated before its contents can even be entertained. For the BOM and other Mormon scriptures, their origins are questionable and the character of their easily-identified authors is questionable as well.

I feel like I should mention that there is a spiritual witness that plays a major part in most LDS’s beliefs. This being said, I do not think it is very reasonable to argue this witness over that witness and on boards such as this to point solely or even mostly to spiritual witness. Still we must remember that Paul was pretty darn convinced that Jesus was not the Christ. After one road to Damascus experience, Paul was changed forever. He said, “Lord, what would you have me to do.”

As has been listed on this thread, there are Old World evidences for the validity of the BOM. There are Hebraisms. There are Hebrew poetic structures. There are ancient writing parallels. The internal consistency throughout the story (names, places, and thematic events) is either the product of a literary genius or of a real history. Cultural, political, and military parallels also exist between the BOM and Mesoamerica.

Again, it is not of astronomical importance to me that you investigate the BOM fairly, but when people keep saying that the BOM is proven false and those who believe are in some fantasy land for some reason I feel compelled to respond. I am sure this is a weakness on my part and when I mature I will likely not be so concerned. It is surely false, and it is a demonstration of what one does not know rather than some superior mode of thinking when such criticisms are levied.

When you say that its origin must be ascertained before we can look at what the text says, you are quite confusing me. The BOM is either what it says it is, a religious book from an ancient group designed to come forth in modern times; or it is a fraud. There is really very little in the coming forth of the BOM that would demand it is a fraud. If you really think we can look at its origins without looking at its contents that might be interesting. Upon first thought though, 11 witnesses and a few translators, many of whom would have had reason to repudiate their testimony later in their lives, who seem to have claimed authenticity and/or spoke of miraculous events; would appear to be a pretty strong initial piece of data against the fraud theory.

ichabod:
Faith and reason can co-exist in a loving heart. Good luck in your seach for the truth

I agree and I wish all luck and light in their searches.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

The problems are only explained when you consciously suspend your disbelief in a desire to accept. There were no bees, horses, chickens or elephants in the New World during BoM times. Joseph Smith wouldn’t have translated Turkey as Chicken or Lama as horse, he was no doubt familiar with all the animals and there is no credible reason to think otherwise. Mastodons were not domesticated animals. Bees are not wasps. No Steel No chariots. It make no sense that parts of the Book of Mormon are EXACTLY copied from the KJV of the Bible. Only a willful acceptance of the most superficial explanations will do to save the BoM from the obvious. It is illogical to believe it to be the truth.
-D

Sorry, you are mistaken. There are explanations for these “problems.” They are not hard to find on the internet. However there are few or no explanations for the evidences.

It is also worthy of note that Atheist use the exact same logic (almost the same words) to attack all Christianity and religion in general. The type of logic you ask for LDS to apply results in no belief.

bees:
mormonfortress.com/bees1.html

elephants:
mormonfortress.com/elph1.html

horses:
mormonfortress.com/horse5.html

Charity, TOm

 

[darcee]

BYU scholars don’t impress me as being unbiased or reliable.

All of those things you linked to are either

1 BYU and FARM “scholars”

1. The same old “They weren’t elephants they were mastodons (o turkeys or lamas) and they were just called elephants, because even though Joseph Smith was using some sort of “seer stone” in couldn’t get the right word for Mastodon or Turkey.” type of nonsenses

or

3 the old “just because you can’t find it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.” line of reasoning.

You can only belive that sort of thing if you are highly motivated by a desire to find it so. You have to want to believe so badly that you will put your analytical mind in park, because it just doesn’t work. The simplest explanation is that Joseph Smith made it up and got some things wrong.

-D

 

[pnewton]

darcee:

You can only belive that sort of thing if you are highly motivated by a desire to find it so. You have to want to believe so badly that you will put your analytical mind in park, because it just doesn’t work. The simplest explanation is that Joseph Smith made it up and got some things wrong.

-D

Occam’s razor at work. (All things being equal, the simple explaination is usually true). Joseph Smith being a fraud (who are abundant in society) or the pseudohistory of Mormonism? (unique to all of history/archeology). This has never been a mental challenge for me.

 

[TOmNossor]

pnewton:

Occam’s razor at work. (All things being equal, the simple explaination is usually true). Joseph Smith being a fraud (who are abundant in society) or the pseudohistory of Mormonism? (unique to all of history/archeology). This has never been a mental challenge for me.

Darcee and Pnewton,
How do you explain the detailed knowledge of Old World geography possessed by an unschooled man in New York? Stuff that didn’t exist in western literature in 1830.

Your use of Occam is flawed because it does not account for ALL data. You only wish to account for problems and you continue to ignore evidences.

Also, perhaps you should spend some time with the Atheist and their razor?

Charity, TOm

 

[agname]

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?

Rod,

I must tell you something. I am a cousin of Joseph Smith. Joseph appeared to me…he told me numerous things. First, that his current favorite song is “I wear my sunglasses at night” by Corey Hart…and that if he would have been alive during the time…he would have incorporated some lyrics within the BoM. Second, he told me, “I must confess what I wrote was false. The information I used in my book…well…I must confess…I plagiarized…I borrowed from View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith and of course the Holy Bible. If I would have only had enough time…my rough draft of the BoM wouldn’t have had so many errors.” At that moment he opened the first of two papyrus rolls. He went on to say…

"1. I would have covered up the suspicious link between the hill Cumorah and the angel Moroni…and the Comoros Islands off the eastern coast of Mozambique, the capital of which is Moroni, and has been since before my book.

1. My book makes it clear that the rival Nephite and Lamanite civilizations were centered near the “narrow neck” of land (understood to be somewhere in Central America), it says that they agreed to meet for their epic final battle at the “hill Cumorah” (Mormon 6:1-6). I located this site several thousand miles distant in New York state. It is difficult to find a reasonable explanation for why the armies would travel this immense distance to do battle.
2. The native populations of the vast North and South American continents are the descendents of two tiny groups of transoceanic Semitic immigrants (the Jaredites, who arrived in the New World between 3000 - 2000 B.C. but later battled themselves to extinction, and the Nephites and Mulekites, who arrived beginning about 600 B.C.). Archaeological evidence shows conclusively that the western hemisphere was populated at least as far back as 10,000 B.C. by east Asian peoples who migrated across the Bering Strait. It is these Mongolian peoples who are the ancestors of the American Indians, according to the Smithsonian Institution:

“The American Indians are physically Mongoloids and thus must have originated in eastern Asia. The differences in appearance of the various New World tribes in recent times are due to (1) the initial variability of their Asian ancestors; (2) adaptations over several millennia to varied New World environments; and (3) different degrees of interbreeding in post-Columbian times with people of European and African origins.”

There is no solid evidence for immigration via other routes involving long sea voyages (prior to the Norse arrivals from Greenland and Newfoundland about A.D. 1000), as proposed by my book, and if such voyages did occur, they were not significant for the origins and composition of New World populations.

1. Why do archaeologist take such a dim view of my book?

One of the best answers to this question was offered by former Brigham Young University anthropology professor, Dr. Raymond T. Matheny at an August 25, 1984 Sunstone conference in Salt Lake City. After working in the area of Mesoamerican archaeology for twenty-two years, Prof. Matheny reported his conclusion that the scientific evidence simply does not support the existence of the peoples and events chronicled in my book, be it in Central America or anywhere else in the western hemisphere.

1. 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 the times in my book (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.

 

[agname]

1. My book depicts the Nephites as producing wheat, barley, flax (linen), grapes, and olives, but none of these products existed in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. As with iron, Matheny pointed out that a complex economic and so- cial level is required to produce these products as they are portrayed in my book:

“There’s a whole system of production of wheat and barley . . . It’s a specialized production of food. You have to know something to make flax [the source of linen], and especially in tropical climates. Grapes and olives . . . all these are cultures that are highly developed and amount to systems, and so the Book of Mormon is saying that these systems existed here.”

Matheny noted that a 1983 Science magazine article describing barley found in a pre-Columbian setting is wrongly claimed as support for my book because the grain described was not a domesticated old world barley.

1. Another whole group of anachronisms involve various old world domesticated animals which my book describes as integral to Nephite culture. These include asses, cows, goats, sheep, horses, oxen, swine, and elephants. Here again, Matheny pointed out that these domesticated animals are each specializations that require a specific cultural level not attained in the pre-Columbian Americas:

“You don’t just have a cow or a goat or a horse as an esoteric pet or something. There is a system of raising these things, and the picture that is painted for me as I read this, and others too, is that we have [in Book of Mormon portrayals]. . . domestic animals and so forth in the New World.”

Is it valid to claim, as some defenders of the historicity of my book do say…that these names — cow, horse, etc. — are simply being used as substitutes for native New World animals such as peccaries or tape deer? Matheny argues that this is not legitimate because the descriptions in my book occur in specific literary contexts that assume complex old world systems for the raising and use of the various domestic animals:

“I mean in Alma there, you know he’s using the stable there preparing the horses for King Lamoni, and also he’s preparing the King’s chariots because they’re going to take a trip from one city to another over the royal highway. And also the horses are pastured, no less. So there are contexts within the Book of Mormon itself. These are not just substitutions, it seems to me, but the authors of the Book of Mormon there are providing the context, they’re not trying to describe a tape deer or something else, it seems to me. This is a weak way to try to explain the presence of these names in the Book of Mormon.”

1. Matheny’s overall assessment is that archaeology offers no support for my book as history: “I would say in evaluating the Book of Mormon that it has no place in the New World whatsoever.”

Prof. Matheny is not alone in this assessment. The highly respected Mesoamerican archaeologist Michael Coe has written:

“The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early immigrants to our hemisphere.”"

Look for papyrus roll number 2…I must get through translating it…he left it with me…it’s in primitive Egyptian…will post soon.

 

[agname]

The second roll says…“The Church of Rome is Christ’s Church…Christ founded the Church upon Peter. It holds the fullness of Truth.”

 

[agname]

I’ve always found it interesting…how certain individuals…believe Jesus handed out copies of the Bible to the Apostles…it didn’t happen that way. St. Mark’s gospels were written ~ 42-52 AD. St. Matthew and St. Luke’s ~63-70 AD…St. John’s was not written until at least ~ 97 AD.

It was ~ 64 years before the last Gospel was completed…so how were individuals taught?

The Roman Catholic Church is the mother of the Bible…not the daughter…it wasn’t gathered into one book…until the Roman Catholic Church did it at The Council of Hippo – 393 AD…and confirmed at The Council of Carthage – 397 AD. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ…upon Peter (Matthew 16:18 ) – “Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church.” And, the keys were handed to him. Peter was our first Pope. Simon, whose name means “reed,” is having his name changed by Jesus from a reed that blows in the wind to a “rock” (In Aramaic it’s “kepha”) that stands firm. In John 21:15-18…Peter is forgiven three times…for having denied Jesus three times…and Jesus asks him to “tend” and “feed” his sheep…his Church.

---

Apostolic Fathers:

Irenaeus (Note: Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp
…who had himself been a disciple of St. John the Evangelist):

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 A.D. 189]).

Ignatius of Antioch:
“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

The Little Labyrinth:
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Eusebius of Caesarea:
“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10 A.D. 312]).

Optatus:
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 A.D. 367]).

Cyprian of Carthage:
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition A.D. 251]).

 

[pnewton]

TOmNossor:

Your use of Occam is flawed because it does not account for ALL data. You only wish to account for problems and you continue to ignore evidences.

I do not need to account for all the knowledge on the subject and I have never ignored that to which I have been exposed. There will grant you there is much I do not know. I was only giving my reaction to Mormonism. It is not credible.

Knowing Christ is like a bank teller becoming familiar with dollar bills. If you become well acquainted with the real thing, you will recognize a counterfeit a mile away.

I think you will find many of the Catholics in this forum more rooted in their faith than your standard door-to-door variety.

Knock-knock

 

[rod_of_iron]

After reading a few sentences of Agname’s first post, I quickly skipped over the rest of his or her recent contributions in this thread, because they were merely meant to mock what I believe . Agname’s mockery is of no worth to me.

 

[rod_of_iron]

darcee:

The problems are only explained when you consciously suspend your disbelief in a desire to accept. There were no bees, horses, chickens or elephants in the New World during BoM times. Joseph Smith wouldn’t have translated Turkey as Chicken or Lama as horse, he was no doubt familiar with all the animals and there is no credible reason to think otherwise. Mastodons were not domesticated animals. Bees are not wasps. No Steel No chariots. It make no sense that parts of the Book of Mormon are EXACTLY copied from the KJV of the Bible. Only a willful acceptance of the most superficial explanations will do to save the BoM from the obvious. It is illogical to believe it to be the truth.
-D

Darcee,

The Book of Mormon does not mention anywhere that the Nephites, the Mulekites, the Lamanites, nor the Jaredites had chickens. The Book of Mormon does not say that chickens were had by anyone in the Americas during Book of Mormon times. But you would probably have known that if you had read the book.

 

[rod_of_iron]

It is curious that people will claim that the Hill Cumorah from the Book of Mormon is in the state of New York. It is not. It is in Mexico, south of Mexico City. If the archaeologists would search the correct hill, perhaps they would find the evidence of the final battle between the Nephites and the Lamanites. The hill in New York is just a hill in Manchester, where the plates were found. It is not the Hill Cumorah.

 

[rod_of_iron]

It’s funny. You people who do not believe the Book of Mormon demand evidence from those of us who do. You refuse to accept anything from scholars, historians, and archaeologists who already believe the Book of Mormon to be true. Yet, very few scholars, historians, and archaeologists who do not believe the Book of Mormon to be true have any interest in finding out if it is true or not. So, how can the Book of Mormon believers proceed? By rejecting any research or findings by those scholars, historians, and archaeologists who believe in the Book of Mormon, you are already putting a bias on any evidence that can come forth to prove the Book of Mormon true. How can anyone prove anything on such a remarkably unlevel playing field?

Can you prove the Catholic church to be correct if I will not allow any evidence to be presented by anyone who was or is Catholic? Can you prove the Catholic church if I disallow anything from the early church fathers, saints, or scholars of the Catholic church? Can you prove the Bible to be true without any help from anyone who believes the Bible is inspired scripture (including the Jews who believe only in the Old Testament)? Well, can you?