The New Mormon Threat!

[ibkc]

Show me that the book of mormon is false. That cannot be done also.

Um, yes it can, but it takes a basic understanding of

1. geography
2. biology
3. technology
4. history
5. The locations for sites claimed to have existed in the BoM cannot be located
6. The claims made about the Lamanites being from Israel are objectively false, and can be shown so through DNA testing; also the BoM is filled with mentions of animals that either did not exist in the New World prior to European conquest in the 1500s, or were not domesticated; the same goes for descriptions of agricultural crops
7. The BoM describes a society somewhat on the level of the European Iron Age, when there is no archeaological indication that Iron Age technology ever existed in the New World prior to the 1500s
8. Ties all of the above together. Native Americans came from Asia, not Israel, and they were here long before the Hebrew tribe came into existence in the Middle East; there is no evidence that an advanced civilization on the level described by the BoM ever existed in the New World.

The BoM is just a big book of poorly-written fantasy.

 

[why_me]

Not really. All they would have to do is find some Israelite mtDNA. You still wouldn’t know the Book of Mormon is true, but you would at least know there was a possibility it was true. Right now there is no possibility it is true because nothing has ever been found to support its central premise. Even if you were to find that Jesus had visited America, you would have to have faith the Book of Mormon was a true description of his visit. This is not sign-seeking – it is simply using the brain God gave me. I can’t prove Christianity is true or false either, but I can at least find evidence that people in the New Testament really existed.

I don’t know if we can prove that the people in the New Testament actually existed. Can we prove that christ existed? And if so, can we prove that he is the son of God? I don’t think so. Likewise for the bible stories. Can we prove them? No, I don’t think so.

The bible is based on faith. We accept what it says about Christ but we cannot prove it. But with the book of mormon, there are 11 witnesses to the gold plates. And these 11 witnesses never retracted their testimonies of the book of mormon, in fact, many went to their grave with their testimony in tact about what they saw is what they saw.

How to explain it? These men were good men and well respected in their communities after leaving the lds church. A couple returned to membership. But none denied their testimony. And then we have Joseph Smith’s life also never denying her testimony of the book of mormon even after leaving the main body of the church. How to explain it? God fearing people taking a ‘lie’ to the grave to burn in hell for eternity. Difficult to understand.

But we have no other witnesses of christ except what is written in the bible. And that is good enough but it wouldn’t stand up in a court of law.

 

[why_me]

Um, yes it can, but it takes a basic understanding of

1. geography
2. biology
3. technology
4. history
5. The locations for sites claimed to have existed in the BoM cannot be located
6. The claims made about the Lamanites being from Israel are objectively false, and can be shown so through DNA testing; also the BoM is filled with mentions of animals that either did not exist in the New World prior to European conquest in the 1500s, or were not domesticated; the same goes for descriptions of agricultural crops
7. The BoM describes a society somewhat on the level of the European Iron Age, when there is no archeaological indication that Iron Age technology ever existed in the New World prior to the 1500s
8. Ties all of the above together. Native Americans came from Asia, not Israel, and they were here long before the Hebrew tribe came into existence in the Middle East; there is no evidence that an advanced civilization on the level described by the BoM ever existed in the New World.

The BoM is just a big book of poorly-written fantasy.

You can view these videos and tell what you think about them:

FAIR releases online videos (Mormon apologetic organization)
FAIR is releasing short segments from an upcoming video rebutting The Bible vs The Book of Mormon. Here is the list:

BOM Geography Old World:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5358813362888703041

BOM and Temples:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7692616129159333306

Testimonies of the scholars:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4101557833549167256

Scholars views of Bible vs. Book of Mormon:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7922723852365603972

Horses, Chariots, and elephants:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2986196945639217658

Grains in the New World:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1869596632644737431

BOM Geography in the New World:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6630925482362212517

Coins in the Book of Mormon:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8092497671084706362

Archaeology and the Bible:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1640773288196586414

Metallurgy in the New World:
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5998413672485120003

 

[ibkc]

why me, I’ve seen and read tons of Mormon explanations for the huge, gaping holes in the credibility of the BoM. I will watch these particular ones you’ve linked this afternoon, although I cannot imagine they will be different. The real test is whether non-Mormon scientists and historians find something that will prove any of the BoM’s claims to be true. And I mean really find something. I would not trust a Mormon source that claims outside vindication for the BoM’s claims, because it has been shown that Mormon leadership is quite happy to lie about this. They did for years in their claim that the Smithsonian Institution took the BoM seriously and used it for research, which the Smithsonian finally had to publicly deny. (And yes, I have seen the Mormon whining about how the Smithsonian rebuffed you guys unjustly. It’s kind of sad.)

 

[why_me]

why me, I’ve seen and read tons of Mormon explanations for the huge, gaping holes in the credibility of the BoM. I will watch these particular ones you’ve linked this afternoon, although I cannot imagine they will be different. The real test is whether non-Mormon scientists and historians find something that will prove any of the BoM’s claims to be true. And I mean really find something. I would not trust a Mormon source that claims outside vindication for the BoM’s claims, because it has been shown that Mormon leadership is quite happy to lie about this. They did for years in their claim that the Smithsonian Institution took the BoM seriously and used it for research, which the Smithsonian finally had to publicly deny. (And yes, I have seen the Mormon whining about how the Smithsonian rebuffed you guys unjustly. It’s kind of sad.)

The problem is that there is no proof that the bible is true. The same evidence would need to apply to the bible. And that is the rub. Religion is faith based. What we have are books that testify of christ and yet, we have no proof that they are real. Both could just be made up stories. Religion is not based on evidence or reason. It is based on faith and on ‘testimony’.

People believe because they want to believe based on their own understandings. But not on evidence.

 

[Catholic20064]

I don’t know if we can prove that the people in the New Testament actually existed. Can we prove that christ existed? And if so, can we prove that he is the son of God? I don’t think so. Likewise for the bible stories. Can we prove them? No, I don’t think so.

The bible is based on faith. We accept what it says about Christ but we cannot prove it. But with the book of mormon, there are 11 witnesses to the gold plates. And these 11 witnesses never retracted their testimonies of the book of mormon, in fact, many went to their grave with their testimony in tact about what they saw is what they saw.

How to explain it? These men were good men and well respected in their communities after leaving the lds church. A couple returned to membership. But none denied their testimony. And then we have Joseph Smith’s life also never denying her testimony of the book of mormon even after leaving the main body of the church. How to explain it? God fearing people taking a ‘lie’ to the grave to burn in hell for eternity. Difficult to understand.

But we have no other witnesses of christ except what is written in the bible. And that is good enough but it wouldn’t stand up in a court of law.

The Book of Mormon witnesses were not reliable:

exmormon.org/file9.htm

I especially thought this was important:

irr.org/mit/bomwit1.html

I wouldn’t put too much stock in them. As for whether or not these people thought they were going to hell, there is a real strand of Universalism which flows through the thought of Joseph Smith from what I’ve read:

lds-mormon.com/vogel.shtml

The internet is full of information as I’ve found. Mormonism is simply not what it claims to be. You can make your own judgment on the Bible, but my judgment on the Book of Mormon is pretty clear from all that I’ve been reading. It’s a fraud.

 

[ibkc]

The problem is that there is no proof that the bible is true. The same evidence would need to apply to the bible.

Oh, OK. You’re saying there is nothing out there to verify the existence of the personages mentioned by name in the Bible, or the places where events in the Bible occurred. You’re saying that Palestine and Egypt and Rome never existed, or Jerusalem, and neither did the Hebrews, nor the Romans. You’re saying that there was never an Emperor named Augustus, or a governor named Pontius Pilate.

Gotcha.

 

[Catholic20064]

Oh, OK. You’re saying there is nothing out there to verify the existence of the personages mentioned by name in the Bible, or the places where events in the Bible occurred. You’re saying that Palestine and Egypt and Rome never existed, or Jerusalem, and neither did the Hebrews, nor the Romans. You’re saying that there was never an Emperor named Augustus, or a governor named Pontius Pilate.

Gotcha.

Amazing, isn’t it? The Mormons are all in denial. All you have to do is a few Google searches and you can prove them wrong. I just stuck in “Book of Mormon witnesses” in a Google search and found all I needed to know.

 

[why_me]

The Book of Mormon witnesses were not reliable:

exmormon.org/file9.htm

I especially thought this was important:

irr.org/mit/bomwit1.html

I wouldn’t put too much stock in them. As for whether or not these people thought they were going to hell, there is a real strand of Universalism which flows through the thought of Joseph Smith from what I’ve read:

lds-mormon.com/vogel.shtml

The internet is full of information as I’ve found. Mormonism is simply not what it claims to be. You can make your own judgment on the Bible, but my judgment on the Book of Mormon is pretty clear from all that I’ve been reading. It’s a fraud.

True, the internet is full of information. Some good and some bad. Of course, the sites that you linked are established to discredit the lds church. No problem with that except that they may not be the most reliable.

The witnesses are air tight in their testimonies. And they never retrracted their testimonies. That is what is important. No spin, just fact. They went to their deaths with never denying what they saw.

 

[why_me]

The Book of Mormon witnesses were not reliable:

exmormon.org/file9.htm

I especially thought this was important:

irr.org/mit/bomwit1.html

I wouldn’t put too much stock in them. As for whether or not these people thought they were going to hell, there is a real strand of Universalism which flows through the thought of Joseph Smith from what I’ve read:

lds-mormon.com/vogel.shtml

The internet is full of information as I’ve found. Mormonism is simply not what it claims to be. You can make your own judgment on the Bible, but my judgment on the Book of Mormon is pretty clear from all that I’ve been reading. It’s a fraud.

You can also read this:

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Explaining_Away_the_Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses.html

fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Testimony_of_Eight_Witnesses.html

fairlds.org/apol/ai109.html

It is all a question about whom one wants to believe. The anti site or the lds site.

 

[why_me]

Amazing, isn’t it? The Mormons are all in denial. All you have to do is a few Google searches and you can prove them wrong. I just stuck in “Book of Mormon witnesses” in a Google search and found all I needed to know.

I did the same thing and I found all that I needed to know.

Now let me go to an anticatholic site and find all that I need to know too.

 

[Catholic20064]

True, the internet is full of information. Some good and some bad. Of course, the sites that you linked are established to discredit the lds church. No problem with that except that they may not be the most reliable.

The witnesses are air tight in their testimonies. And they never retrracted their testimonies. That is what is important. No spin, just fact. They went to their deaths with never denying what they saw.

Did you even read the sites I suggested? The idea they are airtight is simply ridiculous unless you swallow the LDS spin. Find me a Native American with Israelite mtDNA, and I might consider giving you a hearing. I’ve read the answer the apologists give on that and it is simply laughable. They seem to deny everything the LDS Church has taught about the Book of Mormon in the past to try to restore some credibility to the book’s claims. The reason they have to do so is because all of the evidence is against them.

 

[AgnosTheist]

converts now seem to be coming from Latin America, and other places outside of the US such as the Philippines

thats true.

 

[why_me]

Did you even read the sites I suggested? The idea they are airtight is simply ridiculous unless you swallow the LDS spin. Find me a Native American with Israelite mtDNA, and I might consider giving you a hearing. I’ve read the answer the apologists give on that and it is simply laughable. They seem to deny everything the LDS Church has taught about the Book of Mormon in the past to try to restore some credibility to the book’s claims. The reason they have to do so is because all of the evidence is against them.

Don’t change the goal post. We were discussing the witnesses. It is a wonderful tactic of moving the goalposts to attack on different fronts but the witnesses stories are pretty airtight. And that is for sure. True the anti attempt to twist their words, rely on second hand sources etc. But the horses mouths are pretty consistent on this one. The witnesses never denied their testimony.

 

[ralphinal]

Actually, historically most LDS converts have come form Protestantism. That was in the old days when most Church members were concentrated in the US. But that now may be changing, as most of the new converts now seem to be coming from Latin America, and other places outside of the US such as the Philippines, with large Catholic populations.

From what I know, modern Mormans are a well-educated, higher income group than they may have been in the past. Are the converts from other countries of a similar demographic or are they less educated or lower income?

In Europe, however, the old patterns seem to still prevail; and there are more converts out of Protestant Britain than out of Catholic Europe.

I agree with your last point. I think money, not fear or hate was the cause.

 

[Catholic20064]

Don’t change the goal post. We were discussing the witnesses. It is a wonderful tactic of moving the goalposts to attack on different fronts but the witnesses stories are pretty airtight. And that is for sure. True the anti attempt to twist their words, rely on second hand sources etc. But the horses mouths are pretty consistent on this one. The witnesses never denied their testimony.

I’ve given you all you need to know about the witnesses without the Mormon spin. Your willingness to unquestionably accept the Mormon spin on the witnesses lets me know all I need to know about you. Even if we were to accept the idea that the witnesses never denied their testimonies, their testimonies are suspect because of their world view that allowed them to see things with only their “spiritual eyes.” So the witnesses have no value for me especially in light of the absolute lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon.

 

[majick275]

nor did mohamed deny his testimony. lot’s of people have either been misled or have deliberately deceived and stuck to their story their whole life that means absolutely nothing in this context. these BoM witnesses were a small group with previous connections. they were friends and family. they had nothing to gain be “denying” their testimony and much to gain by sticking to it. look at other things they testified to and you get a lack of credibility. some wanted to start their own church based on the same foundation some testified to a variety of angelic visitations and prophecies from the shakers to seer stones. their stories are NOT “airtight” as their is absolutely no corroborating evidence just their unproven allegations.

 

[Catholic20064]

nor did mohamed deny his testimony. lot’s of people have either been misled or have deliberately deceived and stuck to their story their whole life that means absolutely nothing in this context. these BoM witnesses were a small group with previous connections. they were friends and family. they had nothing to gain be “denying” their testimony and much to gain by sticking to it. look at other things they testified to and you get a lack of credibility. some wanted to start their own church based on the same foundation some testified to a variety of angelic visitations and prophecies from the shakers to seer stones. their stories are NOT “airtight” as their is absolutely no corroborating evidence just their unproven allegations.

And Martin Harris became a Strangite based on his witness of Strang’s translation of some plates!

 

[ralphinal]

Under St. Peter’s in Rome are the old Catacombs. Tradition tells us that Peter himself is under the alter itself. Now, many have laughed at that notion. Several years ago, a resoration process came upon bone intered in a location that was dated to the first century. The markings indicated that it was a Christian and it was Peter. Carbon dating and DNA testing were done on the bones. The date was established as first century. The DNA showed that the bones belonged to a man who was of Palestinian Jewish descent. Now, that does not mean that it WAS Peter, but it is strange that there is a first century Palestinian Jew burried where Peter was supposed to be. By the way, the area had been undisturbed, so these were not planted bones.

Now, what does this have to do with the Mormons? Nothing at all. Unless you talk about historical proof or DNA proof that the timeline laid out is correct. DNA does not support it and archeology doesn’t either. This does not mean that you should quit being Mormon. Go right ahead. Just please do not expect us not to mention it as a reason that we choose not to accept the BoM.

I commend the LDS for all of the good work that they do. I commend them for the good lives they live. I commend them for putting into practice all they claim to hold dear. These are better proofs of the validity of the faith.

Z,
I find it funny that any Mormons who did not live lives beyond reproach left the Church. Something about that seems strange. Did they leave, get left, or after death were they removed from the roles? Is it an argument like the OSAS people: if you sin, you weren’t really saved?

 

[SusanAZ]

Mormanism does stand out from the crowd, because so much of what they teach goes directly against the Bible… I do not consider them a threat to my personal salvation. There can only be one God and I know that God was never a Morman man. I truly do feel sorry for anyone who can be so deceived by Joseph Smith and his story. Instead of feeling threaten by Mormans I would rather educate them on their faith and hopefully save atleast one soul. If a Morman is to defend his faith, I would rather see quotes from the Bible not from their own manmade books.