Is the Book of Mormon a Fraud?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Katholikos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
You can give excuses…but, the Truth is hard to swallow.
 
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?
Rod, you’re grasping for straws. Protestanism didn’t begin until 1524…and the Orthodox didn’t break off until 1054.

The overwhelming evidence points to the fact that Mormonism is fictitious.

The Smithsonian states (See #7 and #8):

STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON
  1. 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.
  2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World–probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age–in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.
  3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
  4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)
SIL-76
1988

-2-
  1. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
  2. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that even such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asian and the Near East.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
 
Who started your Church?

Name/Year/Founder(s)/Origin

Lutheran / 1524 / Martin Luther / Germany

Episcopalian / 1534 / Henry VIII / England

Presbyterian / 1560 / John Knox / Scotland

Baptist / 1600 / John Smyth / Amsterdam

Congregational / 1600 / Robert Brown / England

Methodist / 1739 / John & Charles Wesley / England

United Brethern / 1800 / Philip Otterbein & Martin Boehm / Maryland

Disciples of Christ / 1827 / Thomas & Alexander Campbell / Kentucky

Mormons / 1830 / Joseph Smith / New York

Salvation Army / 1865 / William Booth / London

Christian Science / 1879 / Mary Baker Eddy / Boston

Four-Square Gospel / 1917 / Aimee Semple McPherson / Los Angeles

Eastern Orthodox Christian / 1054 / Patriarch Michael Cerularius / Constantinople

Catholic / 33 / Jesus Christ / Jerusalem
 
40.png
TOmNossor:
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
Again you pull up this idea that to question Mormonism is to subscribe to the idea of all faiths being undermine. This is an unfounded conclusion. The Bible does not have the issues of the BoM. It is not the work of one man, (nor even one man and his “scribes”. It has history and archeological connections. Cities, animal, peoples, wars mentioned in the Bible have left their archeological evidence exactly where you would expect it to be found. THe logic that destroys the BoM doesn’t touch the Bible or the Christian faith.

This idea that someone found “Bountiful” is absurd. It is not described in great detail in the BoM, it is only vaugely described at all. I could write a vague description of some geographical place in Africa and given enough time find a location to match. With a description with such little detail as Bountiful and the early travels of Lehi and kin in the BoM and an area as large and diverse as the Middle East it is no wonder that someone could find a place that matched well… the only surprise would be if there aren’t dozens of such places.
Find a NON LDS source that really supports any of the so called validations of the BoM. Not someone who teaches Scripture at BYU

-D
 
rod of iron:
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.
I used to teach LDS seminary I have read it several times
O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have nourished you.
. . . how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not" (3 Nephi 10:3-5).
 
TOm wrote:
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.
Logic plays no part in Mormonism. These is no Fides et Ratio. It’s based on some emotional experience such as the “burning in the bosom” or some other kind of spiritual “evidence.” [And, perhaps, a desire to have everlasting sex? Where is Freud when you need him? :p].

There is no accounting for the lengths a man who believes that he will become a god will go to in order to reassure himself that what he believes is true.

Ave Cor Mariae, Jay
 
Just a quick question,

Why would anyone believe the book of Mormon when it claims Christ was born in Jerusalem? Wouldn’t such a glaring error make this a “case” closed kind of deal?
 
Rod of Iron, I have read through your arguments, and you have fallen very short on crediting the BOM. I really don’t blame you since your beliefs are based on feelings not facts.

You believe in the book of Mormon, not because of any evidence, but because you feel it is true. You take Josephs Smith’s word for it.

The evidence we do have is that Joseph Smith contradicted himself when he in the BOM states that God cannot change and 14 years later stated that God was once a man. A contradiction like this, in my mind would easily discredit anyone.
 
40.png
Flower_Charity:
I think the book of mormon works well as tissue paper or toliet paper. it’s handy to have around the house in case you run out.
You discredit the few that really try to engage what BOM believers say in this thread, and do not help those who at least are civil. It takes only three sentences to point to the faulty spirit with which you interact.

I hope you can see this and perhaps interact differently in the future.

Charity, TOm
 
40.png
darcee:
Again you pull up this idea that to question Mormonism is to subscribe to the idea of all faiths being undermine. This is an unfounded conclusion. The Bible does not have the issues of the BoM. It is not the work of one man, (nor even one man and his “scribes”. It has history and archeological connections. Cities, animal, peoples, wars mentioned in the Bible have left their archeological evidence exactly where you would expect it to be found. THe logic that destroys the BoM doesn’t touch the Bible or the Christian faith.
The same arguments that “destroy” the BOM do not touch the Bible, but the type of thinking that does not allow for problems and explanations does decimate Christianity. The Bible is clearly an ancient book, but the resurrection of the Son of God and His role in the salvation of all who follow Him, has many “problems” to be overcome. I have seen a number of ex-Mormons pick up “modern criticism” books, and walk away without the Bible. I have seen atheists who have explained how clear the path was from being an ex-Mormon to rejecting all of this theistic nonsense. It is my opinion that the overwhelming majority of ex-Mormon Christians are those who did not think through this issue to its logical conclusion.

That being said, ex-Mormon Catholics may in fact be the minority that can apply fairly consistent methodologies with fairly similar amounts of pro- and con- evidences utilized for making these decisions. But, see below…
40.png
darcee:
This idea that someone found “Bountiful” is absurd. It is not described in great detail in the BoM, it is only vaugely described at all. I could write a vague description of some geographical place in Africa and given enough time find a location to match. With a description with such little detail as Bountiful and the early travels of Lehi and kin in the BoM and an area as large and diverse as the Middle East it is no wonder that someone could find a place that matched well… the only surprise would be if there aren’t dozens of such places.

Find a NON LDS source that really supports any of the so called validations of the BoM. Not someone who teaches Scripture at BYU

Margaret Barker, Jan Shipps, Rabbi Nissim Wernick and Krister Stendahl are four educated non-LDS who have very interesting things to say about the CoJCoLDS (without being believing members).

Ex-Catholic Priest Jordan Vajda wrote a masters thesis on LDS beliefs in deification. Five years after this he became a LDS. There has also been at least on Jewish Rabbi (not Wernick as I understand) who has also become a LDS.

I have reviewed the 81 evidence book. I believe it is more than coincidence and vague references. I have not generally thought myself to be one who while away would be denying the village of their idiot, but I do recognize my BIASES. To me your outright dismissal is more than just conflicting BIASES from one who thinks different than I do, but perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps have reviewed the 81 evidences. Perhaps you have contemplated the likelihood that mere chance would result in such a description of the virtually unknown Frankincense trail. Perhaps the amount of data we each posses is equivalent and it is our BIASES or my BIAS or your BIAS that prevents us from agreeing.

You are under no obligation to gather additional data, but my initial assumption is that you have not taken the BOM serious enough to read the 81 evidences. I could be wrong though.

Charity, TOm
 
Disturbing…

Mormons Still Baptizing Dead Jews
Church has not removed Jews’ names from database.

Stewart Ain - Staff Writer

Despite a 1995 promise to stop baptizing deceased Jews, the Mormon church has not removed the names of thousands of Jews within its database who were earlier baptized, and a church official admitted that more Jews may continue to be baptized posthumously.

Ernest Michel, a former executive vice president of UJA-Federation of New York who helped broker the 1995 agreement, said his attempt to convince the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to remove Jewish names from its database of 400 million names has been rebuffed by the church. Just a year ago, the church rededicated itself to ending the practice of baptizing dead Jews and to removing the names of those already recorded.

“In accordance with our interpretation of the agreement, they have violated it,” said Michel. “We have reached the point where we are now going public. There is no point in meeting with them again. My hope is that the church will understand we are serious about this and will not just sit by while the church posthumously baptizes Jews — not just Holocaust victims but all Jews, including prominent Israelis.”

He said that among the Jews the Mormons posthumously baptized were David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, and Theodor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement. Anne Frank, Moshe Dayan and Albert Einstein have also been baptized, critics claim.

According to Mormon theology, those who did not convert during their lifetime should be baptized even after death and given a choice of religion. The Church encourages its followers to record their ancestors’ names and baptize them in a sacred ceremony.

Part of the dispute is that Michel wants the church to go through its database and remove the names of all Jews.

“They put them in, let them take them out,” he said.

But a church elder, Todd Christofferson, said that is not feasible. He said the church would, however, investigate and remove any Jewish names it is informed of on an individual basis.

Countered Michel: “The onus should not be on us.”

Christofferson insisted it would be virtually impossible for the church on its own to remove the Jewish names.

“The cost of trying to do that is astronomical,” he said. “You would have to do research on each line. You can’t just say this name sounds Jewish.”

But Michel said there are obvious Jewish names that should be removed, such as persons named Yankel and Chaim.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said the church should endeavor to put this issue to rest by hiring a Jewish genealogist to provide a list of obviously Jewish first and last names.

In addition, he said the church must better educate its members of its policy not to baptize a dead person without the explicit permission of a relative.

Rabbi Cooper pointed out that there have recently been complaints from Armenians and those in the Russian Orthodox Church that their relatives have also been posthumously baptized by the Mormon church.

“The dramatic growth of the Mormon church worldwide and the advent of the Internet age means that what may have been done quietly yesterday is going to be front-page news today,” Rabbi Cooper said. “They may be surprised by the sustained interest and concern from the Jewish community, and are probably surprised to hear from other communities who also don’t like the idea of posthumous conversions. …

“As far as Judaism is concerned, [baptism of the dead] is theologically irrelevant, but emotionally it is quite distressful because it is viewed by many of us as a sign of disrespect.”

Michel, a Holocaust survivor, said he became involved in this issue when he learned that the church posthumously baptized his parents and about 10 other family members, all of whom were killed in the Holocaust.

Christofferson said the church at this time does not have any means of requiring those planning to add a deceased’s name to the database to list the name of the relative who approved the baptism.

“But technology is getting to the point where that would be doable in two or three years,” he said.

Rabbi Cooper said that is not good enough.

“They have to shorten the time period in putting up effective firewalls,” he said. “They are experts. And they have to do a better job in communicating to their fold” the 1995 directive.

(Continue to conclusion)
 
(Conclusion)

He pointed out that the “only reason we are in possession [of the names of Jews who continue to be baptized] is because there are people in the church who see that there is something wrong.”

“The Jewish community is not interested in fighting with them,” Rabbi Cooper added. “We don’t need another enemy. But we need to develop trust.”

Earlier this year, a group of Mormon volunteers organized a cleanup of a Jewish cemetery in Bayside, Queens. While many in the Jewish community welcomed the help, some were skeptical of the participants’ motivation, suggesting the purpose was to collect names for posthumous baptism, a charge denied by leaders of the group.
 
Interesting…

lds-mormon.com/ferg.shtml

Excerpts:

"In 1973, Michael Coe, one of the best known authorities on archaeology of the New World, wrote an article for Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. In this article he addressed the issue in a very forthright manner:

**"Mormon archaeologists over the years have almost unanimously accepted the Book of Mormon as an accurate, historical account of the New World peoples… Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group…

“The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has even 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 migrants to our hemisphere.” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, pp. 41, 42 & 46)" **

From all that we can learn, Thomas Stuart Ferguson was a dedicated believer in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon at the time he founded the New World Archaeology Foundation. He really believed that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. In a letter dated April 23, 1952, Mr. Ferguson said the “the archaeological data now available is entirely inadequate” for testing the Book of Mormon. He predicted, however, that the “next ten years of excavations in Mexico and Guatemala should enable us to make the archaeological tests.” For a number of years he was very excited about the progress of the work and seemed certain that the Book of Mormon would be vindicated soon. In his book, One Fold And One Shepherd, p. 263, he stated: “The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions… referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon.” In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that “Powerful evidences sustaining the book are accumulating”

**EVIDENCE NOT FOUND **

Although many important archaeological discoveries were made, the evidence he had desired to find to support the Book of Mormon did not turn up. In response to a letter Hal Hougey wrote in 1972 which reminded him that he had predicted in 1961 that Book of Mormon cities would be found within 10 years, Mr. Ferguson sadly wrote: “Ten years have passed… I sincerely anticipated that Book-of-Mormon cities would be positively identified within 10 years–and time has proved me wrong in my anticipation.” (Letter dated June 5, 1972)

"The most serious blow to Ferguson’s faith, however, came just after Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. This collection, which had been lost for many years, contained the very papyrus from which Joseph Smith “translated” the Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham is published in the Pearl of Great Price, one of the four standard works of the Mormon Church."

**“In the 1972 edition of Mormonism–Shadow or Reality? pp. 102-103, we told about Mr. Ferguson reaching the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was a spurious work. We noted that Mormon leaders “gave ‘large appropriations’ to support Thomas Stuart Ferguson’s New World Archaeological Foundation. This organization also failed to find evidence to prove the Book of Mormon, and the man who organized it, hoping that it would prove Mormonism, ended up losing his faith in the Church.” ** When Moody Press reprinted this statement in our condensed work, The Changing World of Mormonism, Robert and Rosemary Brown tried to cause trouble by writing a note to our publisher stating that this was “NOT SO!” Since some of our readers had received letters from Mr. Ferguson telling of his lose of faith and had given us copies, we were able to easily convince Moody Press that our statement was correct. The Browns simply did not know the full story.”

At the present time there is a Mormon scholar by the name of Stan Larson who is “writing a biography of Thomas Stuart Ferguson.” He is very interested in knowing the truth about this embarrassing period in Ferguson’s life and has recently published a appeal in the newsletter of the Mormon History Association for copies of any letters readers have which were written by Ferguson during the period 1968-83. If any of our readers had correspondence with Ferguson during this period and want to help Mr. Larson, they can mail it to us and we will see that it is sent to him.
 
40.png
darcee:
I used to teach LDS seminary I have read it several times
Apparently, you were asleep when you read it. You obviously do not know that the Book of Mormon never says that anyone at that time in America had chickens. You can claim that you have read the Book of Mormon, but your absurd claim of chickens being possessed by anyone shows that you don’t know the Book of Mormon much at all.
 
40.png
Flower_Charity:
I think the book of mormon works well as tissue paper or toliet paper. it’s handy to have around the house in case you run out.
Apparently, you are only here to hurt people, and to mock them like Agname does. Yet, you include the word “Charity” in your screen name. I could easily respond to you the same way you have responded to me, but I am a better man than that.
 
Count Chocula:
Just a quick question,

Why would anyone believe the book of Mormon when it claims Christ was born in Jerusalem? Wouldn’t such a glaring error make this a “case” closed kind of deal?
The Book of Mormon claimed that Jesus the Christ would be born in the Land of Jerusalem. I have already covered this in an earlier post in this thread. If the Book of Mormon would have said that He would be born in the City of Jerusalem, you would have a legitimate argument against the book. But the Nephites knew that area where Jesus was born as the Land of Jerusalem, even if it is not called that today. The Nephites that were given the prophecy about Christ obviously did not know about Bethlehem. This is obvious because the Book of Mormon does not contain the word “Bethlehem” even one time. For that town to be mentioned only once in Alma 7:10 would be totally out of context for the Book of Mormon. Therefore, the argument about Jesus being born in the Land of Jerusalem is one of the strongest argument in favor of that book.
 
rod of iron:
The Nephites that were given the prophecy about Christ obviously did not know about Bethlehem. This is obvious because the Book of Mormon does not contain the word “Bethlehem” even one time. For that town to be mentioned only once in Alma 7:10 would be totally out of context for the Book of Mormon. Therefore, the argument about Jesus being born in the Land of Jerusalem is one of the strongest argument in favor of that book.
However, Joseph Smith had 19th century knowledge of all these facts and if you read the title of this discussion, you will see that your “strongest arguement” is a still begging the question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top