The Book of Mormon

[RebeccaJ]

That’s an odd thing to teach. It’s not impossible, but it seems unlikely. Assuming that Lehi’s followers didn’t cross the Arabian Peninsula but rather crossed Asia, it seems as though it would have taken more than 8 years to complete the journey. I mean, that’s a long way. But, then again, who knows?

Well, I don’t think he made up the idea himself. It is an idea that is documented in LDS historical documents, and found in early Mormonism. BoM location speculation has its popular ideas, that come and go. This isn’t a popular idea today, but at least one person still likes it.

The silk road, from Jerusalem to Xi’an took about a year to traverse. Obviously, I’m not saying Lehi’s group took the silk road, since it didn’t exist at the time period of the story. Just an example of how long it took to get from Jerusalem to eastern Asia.

 

[batman1973]

Just like there’s zero proof for the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah, there’s zero proof for the cities described in the BOM. However, just like there’s evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah, there’s evidence for the BOM cities. You can’t put your faith solely in Earthly discoveries, because discoveries made by man can be very unreliable. Rather, you have to have faith in God and his prophets that the scriptures are 100% true.

Sodom and Gomorrah:christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a007.html
biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/04/the-discovery-of-the-sin-cities-of-sodom-and-gomorrah.aspx

Book of Mormon archeology:
watchman.org/lds/bomarch.htm
Sad to say, there are no credible archeologists that aren’t Mormon who back the claim that there’s any proof to the BoM. Nice try though.

 

[compuadam]

I get it. I asked for ANY non-LDS geographer, scientist, historian, linguist or archaeologist and the best you can get me is a discredited Jeff Lindsey. We have already discredited your comments here. Why can’t you provide what I asked for?

Hang on a second, I can’t believe what I just read. Here is my argument, exactly as it appears in my last response:

There’s plenty of evidence for the book of Mormon being true. How do you explain a stream in Bountiful exactly as described in the BOM, after decades of the idea of a stream in the Arabian Peninsula being mocked by Anti-Mormons? How do you explain Joseph Smith’s unexplained knowledge of Mesoamerican technology? Yet again, none of these offer definite proof of the BOM being true, they just offer physical evidence of it’s truth. Now, I know that your opposed to links, but here is a link to a list of these pieces of evidence, written by Jeff Lindsay.
jefflindsay.com/myturn.shtml

And here’s how it looks in your response:

There’s plenty of evidence for the book of Mormon being true. Now, I know that your opposed to links, but here is a link to a list of these pieces of evidence, written by Jeff Lindsay.
jefflindsay.com/myturn.shtml

Do you believe that this is good debate tactic? You dumb down my argument and then only respond to that? Considering that you’ve already said that I’ve “lost all credibility”, this seems fairly hypocritical on your part. In your next response, I would appreciate it if you would give me some kind of defense for this.
Why is it so important to you that the archeologist isn’t a Mormon? Do you think a non-LDS archeologist would be looking for these cities in the first place? I understand what you mean when you say that that could have been discovered while looking for something else, but doesn’t it make more sense to trust a Mormon archeologist considering that *they were the one looking for it in the first place?*Also, how have FAIR and Jeff Lindsay been discredited? I’ll move forward now, as you’ve cut out my points rather than respond to them.

Red Herring Alert! You mentioned ONE city in the Bible we can’t find and it is the ONE city GOD DESTROYED. And you try to compare it with the fact you can find ZERO cities from the Book of Mormon after they left Jerusalem. Can you please not be intellectually dishonest with me and just provide me with ANY non-LDS geographer, scientist, historian, linguist or archaeologist who agrees with you? I can find many non-Christian geographers, scientists, historians, linguists and archaeologists who with will agree with me on Biblical city locations…

Here’s my original response:

Just like there’s zero proof for the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah, there’s zero proof for the cities described in the BOM. However, just like there’s evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah, there’s evidence for the BOM cities. You can’t put your faith solely in Earthly discoveries, because discoveries made by man can be very unreliable. Rather, you have to have faith in God and his prophets that the scriptures are 100% true.

And here’s my response as it appears in your response:

Just like there’s zero proof for the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah, there’s zero proof for the cities described in the BOM.

What could possibly justify doing this, and still calling me “intellectually dishonest”? You cut out two integral parts of my response. Number one: “However, just like there’s evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah, there’s evidence for the BOM cities.” and number two " You can’t put your faith solely in Earthly discoveries, because discoveries made by man can be very unreliable. Rather, you have to have faith in God and his prophets that the scriptures are 100% true." Number one is integral because it is entirely true. There are multiple theories as to the whereabouts of Sodom and Gomorrah, just like the BOM cities. If you disagree with this, why not respond to it? Why just cut it out? Now, I’m very perplexed as to why you would have cut number two. Do you not believe in it? Do you believe that ever changing discoveries and theories made by man are more reliable than the scriptures?

The points were addressed. First, what he described matches many areas. Second, non-LDS geographer, scientist, historian, linguist or archaeologist have discounted your theory. But, hey, at least Jeff Lindsey agrees with you.

Give me a reference to a credible archeologist that says he has discounted “my theory”.

Not true. I provided other examples where he said blacks would become white. I have provided other verses dealing with blacks becoming white. The verse in question said blacks would become white…but…when it was discovered that was not happening, the verse was changed from white to pure. And all I get from you is your now-famous “it is simply a coincidence” argument. You are so blind to the truth that you will come up with anything to avoid facing it.

Your original claim was that JS taught that black people would become white upon converting, and that the 1840 BOM edit was made because this never happened. As of yet, you haven’t given me any evidence to support this. Instead, you reference a verse in the BOM where God changed the skin color of Lamanites upon converting. I also gave you an argument for this verse not being racist. Also, my “now famous” “it is simply a coincidence” argument (which I will address later) wasn’t applied to any of these points, but rather to an argument relating to “A View of the Hebrews”. If the BOM is so racist, how do you explain verses that explicitly say that all races and all walks of life are equal under God? (2 Nephi 26:33) If JS was such a racist, then why did his presidential platform include the abolition of slavery?

Part two coming up

 

[compuadam]

Continued from last post:

I will ask you again…do you want me to post you prophets’ horribly racist statements or will you just agree with me to drop your silly defense that they were not racists? Do not dodge this challenge again, please.

I’ve never dodged this challenge; you’ve never offered it before. If you disagree, give me a quote of yourself from an earlier argument that says otherwise.
Anyway, go ahead. Find me a racist statement that is:

1. From Joseph Smith
2. From a reputable and confirmable source
3. Not taken out of context

Sigh…you again make contentions you cannot support. SHOW ME where they contradict. We have already posted where they do not and how they are similar and that even your apologist BH Roberts ADMITTED this was a problem…all you can do is refuse to acknowledge that while failing to provide any support for your contentions. We DO provide.

Well, they contradict on who the Indians were, their method of getting to America, names, etc. Now, list some specific similarities between the BOM and the and “A View of the Hebrews”. I’m not saying that there aren’t any, I just want to respond to them.

Now, for my famous “it was simply a coincidence” argument. As much as I appreciate you rewriting my quotes to make them sound awkward, are you really going to say that I’m the only LDS that believes this is a coincidence? You’re really going to claim that this is such an extraordinary occurrence that it has gained any degree of fame?

God Bless

By the way, to everyone beside TexanKnight that’s been posting replies to my arguments, I really do enjoy debating with you guys, and I will get around to all of your arguments. I’m just on a really tight schedule at the moment, and I don’t get much free time. Just stay patient with me, I’ll respond to all of your arguments eventually

 

[TexanKnight]

Hang on a second, I can’t believe what I just read.

that is odd. I figured anyone who could believe the Book of Mormon could believe ANYTHING they read…

Do you believe that this is good debate tactic? You dumb down my argument

Hang on…I did not dumb down your argument YOU did! I asked you to provide ANY non LDS apologist who accepts your locations as historical and geographical as fact and all you can do is give me a discredited Jeff Lindsey. Then you throw red herrings and shift the argument. I get it. YOU CAN’T DO IT.

What could possibly justify doing this, and still calling me “intellectually dishonest”?

Because your arguments are intellectually dishonest. I have been asking for something over and over and you can’t provide it, but yet you CAN go into long-winded explanations that move the argument away from your inability to produce.

You cut out two integral parts of my response. Number one: “However, just like there’s evidence for Sodom and Gomorrah, there’s evidence for the BOM cities.” and number two " You can’t put your faith solely in Earthly discoveries, because discoveries made by man can be very unreliable.

And the intellectual dishonesty rears its ugly head again. You use Sodom and Gomorrah as an argument for also not finding Zerehemla (for example) KNOWING that God Himself wiped S&G off the map. Then you state discoveries made by man can be unreliable, because you can’t produce even the COUNTRY where the Book of Mormon takes pkace, yet you hang your hat on Jeff Lindsey’ (a man) and his “Bountiful” which has not been substantiated by ANY reputable scientist or geographer.

Give me a reference to a credible archeologist that says he has discounted “my theory”.

Ah…NICE EFFORT! It is an old, tired tactic that comes from people who have zero evidence. They try to shift the burden of proof. YOU made a claim that you cannot support. YOU cannot provide the evidence I have asked for now for several days so you try to get ME to produce evidence. Sorry. Your B of P. Not mine. Just man up and admit you have zero credible evidence for the Book of Mormon and I will continue going with the Bible…where we can STILL walk the streets of its cities. They did not magically disappear

Your original claim was that JS taught that black people would become white upon converting,

No. It was not a claim. I provided quotes and proof. Did you ignore that or did it escape you?

and that the 1840 BOM edit was made because this never happened. As of yet, you haven’t given me any evidence to support this.

lolol…that is like me telling you “it snowed last night and someone walked across the yard” because I see footprints…and you saying “you have not given me any evidence because you did not show me a photo of the man.”

Joe taught blacks would become white. They did not become white. Book changed to reflect that. Ignore it if you must. I could care less. But do NOT insult my intelligence.

 

[TexanKnight]

Continued from last post:

I’ve never dodged this challenge; you’ve never offered it before. If you disagree, give me a quote of yourself from an earlier argument that says otherwise.
Anyway, go ahead. Find me a racist statement that is:

1. From Joseph Smith
2. From a reputable and confirmable source
3. Not taken out of context

Ah…ANOTHER famous tactic. I claim LDS leaders have made horribly racist statements. You deny it. I offer to prove it to you. You dodge it. Finally, I corner you, and so you accept the challenge, but only under your narrowed parameters. Sorry…either accept my challenge or run from it, but son;t change my parameters.

Well, they contradict on who the Indians were, their method of getting to America, names, etc. Now, list some specific similarities between the BOM and the and “A View of the Hebrews”. I’m not saying that there aren’t any, I just want to respond to them.

lol…we have listed…and can do so again, if you require, the similarities that had even BH Roberts worried. You have been unable to list any major differences. But I wil, acknkowledge there are some. There HAS to be. Joe was not stupid enough to make it all exactly the same.

Now, for my famous “it was simply a coincidence” argument. As much as I appreciate you rewriting my quotes to make them sound awkward, are you really going to say that I’m the only LDS that believes this is a coincidence? You’re really going to claim that this is such an extraordinary occurrence that it has gained any degree of fame?

I never said you were the only person fooled. Heck, even I was fooled and served a mission, in the bishopric, in the EQ presidency and stake missionary. I just finally did what I hope you do someday…take off the blinders and think for yourself…

God Bless

By the way, to everyone beside TexanKnight that’s been posting replies to my arguments, I really do enjoy debating with you guys, and I will get around to all of your arguments. I’m just on a really tight schedule at the moment, and I don’t get much free time. Just stay patient with me, I’ll respond to all of your arguments eventually

I appreciate your conversations with me.

 

[Porknpie]

Comp,

What are your thoughts to post 135…

What type of boat did the ancient Jews use to get to America? Did they oar their way across the Pacific?

 

[compuadam]

This is getting ridiculous. I call you out on editing my arguments, and in response, rather than offer any explanation or excuse for doing this, you step it up a notch and pull only bits and pieces out of my arguments to respond to. I’m not even going to address all of the points you’ve missed. What happened? Even a simple “I don’t know” is better and earns you more credibility than just deleting the point. You even deleted all of the points I’ve given you about deleting my points. You gave me such strong arguments in your first posts, and now they’ve degraded into this. Did you get bored of our debate?
Well, I guess you did give me this.

Hang on…I did not dumb down your argument YOU did! I asked you to provide ANY non LDS apologist who accepts your locations as historical and geographical as fact and all you can do is give me a discredited Jeff Lindsey. Then you throw red herrings and shift the argument. I get it. YOU CAN’T DO IT.

You didn’t dumb down my argument? You don’t consider removing points from my arguments to be dumbing down my argument?
Oh, I get it. I did, I dumbed down my own argument for not giving you a non LDS archeologist. I’ll ask you again, why is an archeologist invalid if he’s a Mormon? I can point to many LDS archeologists that have set out to find BOM cities, and many have come back successful. None have come back with absolute proof, of course, but many have come back with good evidence. Also, you never answered why Jeff Lindsay has been discredited. Rather, you deleted the point.

Because your arguments are intellectually dishonest. I have been asking for something over and over and you can’t provide it, but yet you CAN go into long-winded explanations that move the argument away from your inability to produce.

The quote that you used here ( "What could possibly justify doing this, and still calling me “intellectually dishonest”) was taken out of context. The question was asking why you found it acceptable to water down my arguments and then respond to them as if they were my entire point, a question which you never actually answered. Rather, you delete any points that refer to it. My “long-winded arguments” are well planned and researched replies to your argument. At least, until you reduce them to sentence fragments.

And the intellectual dishonesty rears its ugly head again. You use Sodom and Gomorrah as an argument for also not finding Zerehemla (for example) KNOWING that God Himself wiped S&G off the map. Then you state discoveries made by man can be unreliable, because you can’t produce even the COUNTRY where the Book of Mormon takes place, yet you hang your hat on Jeff Lindsey’ (a man) and his “Bountiful” which has not been substantiated by ANY reputable scientist or geographer.

You’ve missed my point. What I’m saying is that evidence isn’t always needed for something to be true. I mean, don’t you think that a city destroyed by The Lord would leave ruins? I’m NOT debating the bible here, I’m just saying that there isn’t always going to be absolute proof.

Ah…NICE EFFORT! It is an old, tired tactic that comes from people who have zero evidence. They try to shift the burden of proof. YOU made a claim that you cannot support. YOU cannot provide the evidence I have asked for now for several days so you try to get ME to produce evidence. Sorry. Your B of P. Not mine. Just man up and admit you have zero credible evidence for the Book of Mormon and I will continue going with the Bible…where we can STILL walk the streets of its cities. They did not magically disappear

That’s funny, I vaguely remember you making another claim.
(taken from your response given at 4:47 am on 2-22-13)

Second, non-LDS geographers, scientists, historians, linguists and archaeologists have discounted your theory. But, hey, at least Jeff Lindsay agrees with you.

In this needlessly hostile response, you can clearly see who made the claim, and thus carries the B of P. Thus, this entire point is rendered invalid.

No. It was not a claim. I provided quotes and proof. Did you ignore that or did it escape you?

What quotes? What proof? You’ve only given me a verse from the BOM, which I’ve already addressed. I’ve also given an argument for this verse not being racist, and for the entire BOM not being racist, and for Joseph Smith not being racist, but as usual they are nowhere to be found.
So, let’s recap! While we will never know exactly what this verse (3 Nephi 2:15-16) means, it doesn’t necessarily have to be taken exactly at face value. It could have a deeper meaning behind it. A change in skin color can symbolize many things. Not politically correct, but I doubt that’s what Nephi had on his mind.

If the BOM is as racist as you believe it to be, then how do you explain verses like this one: “For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” -2 Nephi 26:33
Lastly, if Joseph Smith was as racist as you charge, then why was he a radical abolitionist throughout his life? Why did his presidential policies include the abolition of slavery? I’ve asked this three times and have yet to get a response.

continued in next post

 

[compuadam]

lolol…that is like me telling you “it snowed last night and someone walked across the yard” because I see footprints…and you saying “you have not given me any evidence because you did not show me a photo of the man.”

Joe taught blacks would become white. They did not become white. Book changed to reflect that. Ignore it if you must. I could care less. But do NOT insult my intelligence.

It’s funny how you’re arguments have gotten progressively less informative and mature as the debate has gone on. But, I digress.
If you want me to believe your claim, provide actual, credible evidence that would lead me to believe this. Not the same verse of the BOM that I’ve already responded to three times.

Ah…ANOTHER famous tactic. I claim LDS leaders have made horribly racist statements…

Correction: you claimed Joseph Smith made racist statements.

You deny it. I offer to prove it to you. You dodge it. Finally, I corner you, and so you accept the challenge, but only under your narrowed parameters. Sorry…either accept my challenge or run from it, but don’t change my parameters.

Even though I’m not quite sure how you cornered me when I responded immediately after you offered to give me quotes, this explains quite a bit. Were you afraid that you wouldn’t be able to find any quotes that weren’t both credible and used in context? If so, you would be absolutely right. Joseph Smith was not a racist.

lol…we have listed…and can do so again, if you require, the similarities that had even BH Roberts worried. You have been unable to list any major differences. But I will, acknowledge there are some. There HAS to be. Joe was not stupid enough to make it all exactly the same.

You haven’t listed any specific similarities, specific being the key word. Yet again, I won’t say that there aren’t any, just give me something to respond to.

I never said you were the only person fooled. Heck, even I was fooled and served a mission, in the bishopric, in the EQ presidency and stake missionary. I just finally did what I hope you do someday…take off the blinders and think for yourself…

Okay, so I guess you didn’t really mean that whole “famous” thing anyway.

God Bless

 

[Porknpie]

Comp,

Did they use a Sea of Galilee fishing boat to sail to the Americas? See link below.

michaelminn.net/israel/galilee_boat.php

What you think? What you believe?

 

[Phntm]

comp,

non-mormon archaeologists go to the credibility of the find. Mormons in search of Mormon evidence is like, and I apologize for the potential demeaning nature of this, finding your horoscope to be “true”. You want it, you believe it, you see what you want to see. In the best-case scenario, a Mormon archaeologists conclusions on Mormon archaeology would be suspect because they are proving their own supposition - even if that is just the outside perspective. I can see the potential problem, if a non-Mormon archaeologist finds truth to Mormon claims, they could become Mormon and no longer be seen as “valid” for this test. However, even Mormon archaeologists cannot agree on the archaeological findings, so this just goes to other’s assertions that the BoM can not be proved through archaeological evidence.

God can provide proof. It need not exist in the human realm. However, how much evidence exists for all the archaeological claims thus far? Who’s history does it support? Also, would you suggest that we base our salvation on someone else’s subjective experience? That is what we would be doing to see the evidence as you see it and/or take a “leap of faith” on things we do not or can not know but you claim to be true. We need to stick to the details that we all can agree exist and then argue for its meaning, suggesting your truth is the the truth 'cause of your subjective experience will not work for the rest of us. I for one have my own subjective experiences, my own objective research, and I can not take your experiences on “faith” when my salvation and relationship with God is on the line.

About the assertions of Joseph Smith being an abolitionist. You want Tex to give you evidence that he is a racist, you claim he wasn’t (and very publicly so). Would you provide links and such to your sources of these claims? Would you find it plausible that in certain surroundings Joseph could hold different views than he would present to the secular public? How many politicians do that? I know, I appear to already be discounting any evidence you may produce from those questions, sorry, it is worth considering, though.

 

[gazelam]

Comp,

What are your thoughts to post 135…

What type of boat did the ancient Jews use to get to America? Did they oar their way across the Pacific?

The record states that the ship was not like the ships commonly in service at the time. 1 Nephi 18:2 states:

Now I, Nephi, did not work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men, neither did I build the ship after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men.

Here’s a youtube video discussing the journey from Jerusalem to the New World. Discussion of the ship starts about minute 65.

youtube.com/watch?v=i_M_Faw_s3s

Just a friendly Quaker here helping clarify LDS issues…

 

[Stephen168]

By using DNA, scientists have proven that the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be, therefore Joseph Smith lied.

 

[Porknpie]

The record states that the ship was not like the ships commonly in service at the time. 1 Nephi 18:2 states:

Now I, Nephi, did not work the timbers after the manner which was learned by men, neither did I build the ship after the manner of men; but I did build it after the manner which the Lord had shown unto me; wherefore, it was not after the manner of men.

Here’s a youtube video discussing the journey from Jerusalem to the New World. Discussion of the ship starts about minute 65.

youtube.com/watch?v=i_M_Faw_s3s

Just a friendly Quaker here helping clarify LDS issues…

Thank you Gazelam. So there is a belief that some type of boat was built that never existed before in ancient Israel maritime history. And there is no recording of this boat in history or of anyone sailing on it, Nor is there any evidence that additional boats were built. History is silent. Archeology is silent. What is one to conclude?

 

[TexanKnight]

Thank you Gazelam. So there is a belief that some type of boat was built that never existed before in ancient Israel maritime history. And there is no recording of this boat in history or of anyone sailing on it, Nor is there any evidence that additional boats were built. History is silent. Archeology is silent. What is one to conclude?

Science has been used to prove that the trip described by Nephi could have never occurred.

 

[KathleenGee]

Gazelam…

We are Christians. We apply ourselves to the Bible, which is likewise the history of salvation peoples.

Mormons primarily use their texts that are separate and have no relation to the reality of our history and faith.

So you will have a never ending problem trying to connect the two, because even theologically, Mormonism is operating on its own construct.

That is why I say Mormonism would have credibility if it would just leave Judaism and Christianity alone and stick to its own beliefs. You get in trouble when you don’t.

 

[twopekinguys]

Thank you Gazelam. So there is a belief that some type of boat was built that never existed before in ancient Israel maritime history. And there is no recording of this boat in history or of anyone sailing on it, Nor is there any evidence that additional boats were built. History is silent. Archeology is silent. What is one to conclude?

History has not only proven, but it has predicted there will be great silence on this matter from our mormon friends.

 

[CarolNoel]

Good one!!

 

[gazelam]

So there is a belief that some type of boat was built that never existed before in ancient Israel maritime history.

This isn’t the first time God gave a prophet instructions how to build a new type of ship.

Genesis 6:14-16 (KJV)

1. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; brooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

And there is no recording of this boat in history or of anyone sailing on it, Nor is there any evidence that additional boats were built. History is silent.

Are you looking for 2600 year old maritime log of ship passage? And why is ship replication important in this case? Was Noah’s ark replicated?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Catholics aren’t required to believe there was a literal flood. The building of the ark isn’t the point of the story. But if you want to make it the point, it describes methods of ship building that existed in ancient times. These methods did not exist in isolation, for the building of the ark, and the ark alone.

So, where are the ships of the pre-Columbian new world? If/when a man learned such a marvelous skill as shipbuilding, he would have passed on the skills to his sons, and his sons, and his sons.