Traveler

Cal I am not talking about good or bright students. I am talking about true genius, say of the level of Nikola Tesla. Since you teach physics you should have an idea who Nikola Tesla was? In your classes, how would you identify a Nikola Tesla that may have some disagreements with many teachers conclusions (including yours) and be vocal about it? How would you identify true genius that disagrees with you from a bright student (above average but not exceptional) that agrees with you? Is it possible that a Nikola Tesla would learn to keep his mouth shut in your class? As for TV you missed the point. TV is intended to be intertaining - in contrast to talks by GA's. I thought you would pick up that idea and expand on it. Since you are a teacher maybe you would like another shot at it. The Traveler

Intelligence spoken of in Abraham is spirit and is eternal and cannot die. Only that which is physical can be corrupted in death. A thought - the word salvation comes from the same root as salvage. Could it be that - that which is spiritual is salvaged and that which is physical must be cleansed by various processes - such as burning? Thus the symbol of the mediator that comes with a sword and/of fire - that keeps the way to the tree of life with a flaiming sword. Once made clean that which was corruptable will be come incorreptable. The Traveler

Contrary to what may be the popular opinion of the world, I would like to introduce the notion of logic to the consideration of human biological processes. This should not be difficult to a person possessing normal intelligence – to begin with, note how the term logical fits in the word biological (not to be confused with biostupidity). Consider first the biological process of eating and digestion. This biological process begins by introducing food into the mouth where it is chewed and mixed with saliva and then swallowed down the esophagus to the stomach. In the stomach food is broken down as part of the digestive process then passed to the small intestine. The entire process is completed as the digesting food continues through the large intestine and the unused product is expelled. Most of the process occurs under the control of what is known as the sympathetic nervous system. To humans, this means that we are not completely cognizant of the process. The part with which we have the most conscious control is during the chewing and initial stages of swallowing and at the end during the relaxing of the mussel that allows the waste to be ejected. The biological process of eating is part of the survival of any individual human. A normal healthy person can go several days without eating but to survive, eating is eventually necessary. Just because a human can survive for a few days without eating is not a logical basis to conclude that eating is not really necessary and can be eliminated or deemed unnecessary. Even if someone is overweight – eating is still necessary for long-term health and survival. Any logical understanding that concludes that eating is not a bio necessity is biostupidity. Eating and digestion is part of the logic in the biological process of survival. Consider the importance of salivating as part of eating in the overall biological process of digestion. The logic of saliva is directly related to eating and digestion. If this one little processes is altered significantly the bio-logic of eating can be interrupted and eventually become a threat to survival. That any individual has discovered other fun things to do with saliva has little to do with the logic of saliva in the biological process of eating. Pavlov demonstrated that by introducing outside stimulation in correlation to eating, that a dog could learn to anticipate eating and salivate even when no food is present or eating taking place. Sometimes this is referred to as drooling. This process of learning and altering of behavior is known as the lowest cognitive level of learning. Humans with their enterprising intelligence have learned to do all sorts of creative things with extra saliva produced from non-eating learning, such as spitting. Some humans males have learned to drool when introduced to a particularly good looking lady. Others have learned to drool for a variety of other reasons. But the logic or biological logic of saliva remains directly connected to eating. All other logical uses of saliva for non-eating processes are in reality non-natural, not bio-logical and are learned. Consider another biological processes necessary for survival of a species. Instead of eating and digestion lets look at the biological process of reproduction. Like eating some of the biological activities of reproduction are cognitive and can be controlled and altered through the same lowest level of learning involved with salvia and some activities are controlled by the sympatric nervous system and are not cognitively controlled. For example, in human males during their climax of pleasure in reproductive biological activity, sperm is released in great quantities. The logic of this biological process of releasing male sperm during reproduction activity is directly dependent to the logic of reproduction and survival of the human species. This is the logical reason for its occurrence. It is the logic of the reproductive biological process. So pronounced is the necessity of this logic in the biological process of releasing sperm that the human species cannot continue to exist without it and we all (humans) owe our existence to this biological process. However, just like the experiment of Pavlov where he demonstrated that the logic of saliva while eating could be cognitively altered to occur without the eating so can the male learn to release sperm without being involved in actual reproductive activity. But the logic of altering biological reproductive activities for non-logical or non-reproductive activity is not bio-logical. Therefore it must be learned. For some reason the first step in this reproductive biostupidity is to change the definition of terms in an attempt to disguise that fact that the bio-logical process is in reality and at it core a reproductive activity. This is done by denying that the biological activity is in essence a reproductive – this is done by ignoring the logic of the function as reproductive and calling it just a sexual activity. No sane person is going to fall for the biostupid term “homo-reproduction”. This alternate process is not bio-logical but a learned logical process and has nothing to do with logic of survival in any species. For whatever reason it seams that the only way homosexual activity can be justified among human society – even by those that have learned to logically enjoy that activity - is to convince themselves and everyone else that homo-reproductive behavior is as bio-logical as actual reproductive behavior. And that my friends – despite all the hand waving and trying to say otherwise – is why I find the arguments for homo-reproduction amusing and completely stupid. In fact, the harder the sell and the more determined the attempt to convince the public that such biostupid activity is necessary, the more I am convinced that the salesman is incapable of comprehending bio”logical” activity – or for that matter any other real or intelligent logic. There is no logic or intelligence in any homo-reproduction activities. I do not doubt that some find the activities fun and entertaining – but please, homo-reproduction is not “biological” or “natural”. The Traveler

Thank you Snow this has been a rather interesting thread. It is interesting the color according to the poster. When I say color I refer to the spectrum of what a person thinks is important, what has value, what is the basis of believable, what is desired, what is boring ect. Just a side note. Many years ago I attempted to become a teacher (never could pass the spelling test). I specilized in exceptional learners. In other words the very bright and how to teach them. One of the great problems is that most teachers do not know how to identify exceptional learners. One thing, contrary to popular opinion the very bright are seldom bored and find stuff of great intrest to them out of almost nothing or things that would bore normal people. The shorter the attention span the less sharp the brain. It can be funny when a very birght person attempts to explain something they find of great importance. The less inteligent become so lost in the boring details that there is almost no communications. The opposit happens when a less intellilgent person explains something to a bright person. The bright person will start filling in all the gaps until the slower person gives up becomes bored and wants to change the subbject. In short - what someone finds intertaining is a major indication of their intelligence. BTW 90% of TV programming is directed toward lower that average inteligence. Asking a person about their favorit music, TV program and other intertainment is a major indicator of their intelligence. Is this not fun? The Traveler

No. see Ecs 1:9-11 There is nothing new under the sun. That is why the LDS church is "RESTORED". The Traveler

It is interesting to me to consider the various types and shadows of the anti Christ provided in ancient scripture. Judas as a type of Anti Christ that was once a close and trusted friend of the Christ that joined with other Anti to Christ inorder to take Jesus at night under the cover of darkness. It has always been of great interest to me that many that claim to be close to Christ then in another breath deny the necessity of being obedient to all of his commandments. Jesus also said that not every one that says "Lord, Lord" unto Jesus and claims to do great things in his name were ever authorized by Jesus. Jesus says of such that he will provess he never knew them. This phrase can also be translated as he never authorized them. I believe Judas is a type and shadow of Anti Christ among us in our current day. The Traveler

Critics of the Book of Mormon love to say that there is no proof to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate for the time and place from which it came. In 1Nephi I have personally counted over 100 facts mentioned in the Book of Mormon that indicate historical, geographical, political, social and religious accuracy for both time and place of the Book of Mormon in the Middle East. None of the 100 plus facts were known in America when the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith. That is astonishing proof for anyone on a quest for truth. In a quick review of a few facts I have previously mentioned on this forum, there is the accurate naming of ancient trails, several places where water is to be found in Arabia, the identification of “borders” near the Red Sea, a river the flows year round into the Red Sea, the “Tree of Life”, and a extremely accurate description of a place known as the valley of Lemuel and also the “land Bountiful”. I can tell that many are exerting great effort in order to not be impressed with this astonishing display of accuracy. If Joseph had a one in two chance of guessing right (which in predicting water in Arabia is hardly one in two) that the probability of the Book of Mormon being correct on so many facts is actually less that two separate individuals walking on to a beach in southern California and randomly picking up a single grain of sand and discovering they had chosen the exact same grain of sand. Not likely to anyone intelligent enough to calculate such probabilities. Snow thinks anyone can think of white fruit of a tree of life as a religious symbol without any connected experience but he has not given a single example of such a symbol without any known reference. My point is that the tree of life symbol was created by example that was demonstrated by the time and place of Lehi and the Book of Mormon uses the symbol in a manner that is 100% consistent with the time and place of Lehi. Why is this such a difficult concept? And why do those that oppose this concept not give any historical counter examples to demonstrate how it could all be based on luck? I submit the reason is because there are no such examples. In addition there are numerous collateral facts that are not directly involved with the Book of Mormon that still indicate it’s accuracy. Once again I will give an example. When a Christian pilgrim explores the many places to see throughout the Holy Land they will get a feel for a time and a place quite foreign to our American society. One place of interest in our discussion is a cave on the outskirts of Jerusalem. It is called the cave of Lehi. It is not called the cave of Lehi because of the Book of Mormon. In fact there is almost no reason to even associate the cave directly with the Book of Mormon or anything to do with the LDS. Then why is it called the cave of Lehi and how does it help the Book of Mormon? The naming of the cave comes from an ancient picture graph of a jawbone of a horse, mule or donkey in the cave. Such a jawbone is an Egyptian hieroglyphic of the Hebrew name Lehi. The one thing this cave demonstrates is that the name Lehi was anciently known and used with an Egyptian base by the Hebrews that occupied Jerusalem. How did Joseph Smith know of such proper Hebrew names in 1830 in America? And how did he know that there is an Egyptian hieroglyphic connection (reformed Egyptian) among the Hebrews that had their own written language? But the jawbone mystery only begins with the symbolic representation in a cave near Jerusalem. This same jawbone symbol is everywhere among the ancient ruins in the Americas. Remember that the B of M critics insist that there is no evidence of horses in Americas prior to the arrival of the Spanish. Will these same critics produce any authorized published opinion that these jawbone symbols are not related to horses? They will not because there is no such published opinion. There is in addition other deceptions of animals the B of M critics claim was unknown in the Americas that illiterates their view of ancient America is seriously skewed in a false manner. In connection with this jawbone symbol I draw particular attention to a stone carving called the “Stela #5", known among LDS as the Lehi Tree of Life. There are two things I would point out of the many collateral facts of this carving that support the Book of Mormon. First in the presents of the jawbone labeling the patriarch as a Lehi on the Stone. No one knows that this is a Lehi designation but with the same token no one knows for sure that it is not. But there is also something else of interest and that is the “Tree of Life” carved into the rock. The tree is a palm tree with fruit. In the Americas palm trees produce only two kinds of fruit. Coconuts and bananas. The fruit on the Palm tree on the Stela #5 is obviously not coconuts or bananas. The configuration of fruit of that palm tree is only consistent with the date palm tree that does not exist in the Americas. How is this possible with isolated indigenous people know about date palms in order to have created the Stela #5? How can any one say there is no indication of any historical migration to the Americas from the middle east having influence on rapid changes to the ancient culture in the Americas? You have all seen the responses of the anit’s on this forum. Have they disputed any facts relating to the physical evidence of Book of Mormon? Have they disputed the accuracies of the Book of Mormon concerning Arabia? Are the facts concerning Lehi’s cave false as I have presented them? Anti’s have not given a single exception to the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon as it relates to exact known places in Arabia. Only excuses. And in light of the facts will they admit that the Book of Mormon revealed true historical fact about Arabia that was not known in America in 1830? With the truth in front of them they will refuse it. Where is the evidence that Joseph made up the story of Lehi leaving Jerusalem? Where are the obvious historical flaws that are out of time and place of Arabia? There are none. And there is a mountain of facts - of which I have just scratched the surface - Yet I have not even mentioned the most significant and important facts concerning the historical relevance of the Book of Mormon. The Traveler

Before we can dicuss homosexuality one important question must be answered. 1. Are humans intelligent. Though this question appears simple the answer touches the entire spectrum of complex human behavior. The question should be - can humans learn and modify their behavior based on an intelligent learning process. If humans are locked into behavior based on some preset parameters then there is no debate. We all act as we have been programmed. Murder, rape, justice, honor, lies, love and everything else are nothing but manifestations of an individual's presets. Likewise sexual behavior would be nothing more than another preset. There is nothing to debate not even the justification of our individual opinions because even that would be a preset. This theory would make any discussion meaningless. Which from most arguments that favor homosexuality seen to favior the theory of preset behaviors. If on the otherhand if humans are intelligent and capable of modifying their behavior by a learning process then the justification of what a person does, is in the merrit of their ability to learn and modify their behavior to conform to the greatest good. If a person is capable of learning then decission would be part of a learning process and therefore reasonable. Two thing I am convinced of having considered homosexual behavior: 1. Humans are intelligent and capable of modifying their behavior, including sexual behavior by various learning methods and processes. Therefore society is justified in holding individuals accountable for their sexual behavior. 2. Homosexuality is not the expression of the greatest good (sexual behavior) for society. As with all behaviors any society would be well advised to support (teach by various methods) behaviors that best support and maintain that society. I am convinced that our society can exist on a long term basis without any homosexuality. Teaching that homosexuality is not a benifical behavior does not appear to me to be something that will destroy society. I am not convinced that our society will last beyond one more generation should all of society modify their sexual behavior and become homosexuals. I am not convinced that encouraging homosexual behavior benifits society. I am convinced that not holding individuals accountable for their sexual behavior will destroy civilized society. The Traveler

I have begun two threads to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon is both a historical and accurate document indicating cultural and historical facts correctly. I have presented data that has been shown to be true despite so called experts writing otherwise in scientific publications. I have given proof the Book of Mormon is an accurate source and critics are wrong - especially those that say there is no proof the Book of Mormon is historical accurate.. What is the reaction on this forum by the LDS critics? Have they shown that I was the one mistaken? Have they demonstrated that I have misrepresented any fact? NO! And what has been their counter arguments. Well, in the words of Sargent Shultz of the famed TV series “Hogan’s Heroes. They have countered with their claim of “I see nothing!” This is an argument? Does any one find their excuses for the accuracy of the Book of Mormon entertaining? These experts in logic that criticize the LDS for lack of it? I for one find their kindergarten logic shameful and ignorant. If anyone thinks they have demonstrated any depth of reason or intelligence - I truly fill sorry for the lot of you. The only reason I can see that they deny facts in the light of truth is their bigotry and prejudice. How can we possibility move forward and discuss any possible theory of how Joseph Smith produced a historical and culturally accurate description when they cannot even identify any accurate description of anything to start with. The Traveler

The Point I wish to make is that we know exactly where Lehi started and we have the Book of Mormon to compare to true facts concerning Arabia. I am not talking about speculation I am talking about facts! The facts are right and exact. Then lets admit them. If anyone can get facks right by chance perhaps someone could show me of such an example. Without an example - I don't believe the logic. If there is such an example of such chance where there is accuracy and no error - I would like to see it. As of yet I see no facts that the Book of Mormon got anything wrong about Arabia. The Traveler

The eagle is symbolic of many things. But even though it is a symbol it also exist and its existance adds to the symbolic meaning. I am sorry if something real being used as a symbol upset you.The Traveler

You should learn before you think. If Joseph had done as you suggested there would have been no "Tree of Life" in the Book of Mormon. You are very wrong on two points. First: Plants growing in the 1500 have nothing to do with time of the Book of Mormon Second: There are no historical references to a "Tree of Life" in any publication in our western culture prior to around 1940. Outside of LDS references and the Garden of Eden I doubt you can find a reference of historical fact of a tree that produces "white" fruit. Though you may not realize it, your objection also proves that the Book of Mormon is based on true historical fact rather that someone like yourslef that thinks only to manufacture non-truth. If you were a little smarter you might consider a study of the time and palce you wish to lie about. But if there was no information (and the Tree of Life was not available to Joseph) a smart lier would at least pick a topic they know something about. What the Tree of Life means is that the Book of Mormon is more based on historical fact than critics like yourself who do not seem to care at all about historical facts. The Traveler As an expert please tell us a historical fact about Arabia that the Book of Mormon has wrong. Do you have one or not? I contend the Book of Mormon is accurate - I presented evidence and proof. And you have presended .... What .... NOTHING? Please tell me what is this glaring problem in the Book of Mormon about Arabia. Why do you hide it? I believe you do not know anything about Arabia and that you cannot handel the truth. Am I wrong about the Tree of Life? Am I wrong about Bountiful. Am I wrong about "borders" and the Hebrew and Arabic words for Borders? Am I wrong about the wadi Tayyib al-Ism? NO my friend that can't stand truth. I am right any you can't handel it. Sorry but that is your problem. The Traveler

Whether or not that was the exact route taken is not the point. The point was that the presence of places like that lend credence to that part of the story. Not proof, but credence. One thing for certain. The more one speaks on a subject they do not know anything about the more it is evident they do not know what they are talking about.Cal: Though you have an opinion - for the life of me I do not know why. This subject does not appear to be something you know much about. The Traveler

I though to add another fact at this point. If one were to leave Jerusalem to the east there are two ancient trails. One was known anciently as "The Kings Highway" the other way was known as the "Wilderness way". Guess which one Lehi took. This ancient history is not so well know in our part of the world but to someone that is knowledgable of that area the Book of Mormon is very descriptive. I could describe a trail from Arches to the Henery Mts. Someone ignorant of the area would think it sketchy but someone that had been there would know exactly if I was accurate or not. The Traveler

Because you cannot find something does not mean it is not there. For example what is meant by "borders" associated with the Red Sea. The Hebrew word for borders is gebul in Arabic the word is jebel or djebel. Anybody know what is being talked about here? Cal ought to consider talking to someone from Araba that speaks Hebrew or Arabic. How about the wadi "Tayyib al Ism" which is 3 days from the mouth of the Red Sea? What the Book of Mormon describes in terms used by Lehi is exactly what is at the wadi of "Tayyib al Ism" and the Book of Mormon says the Valley of Lemuel is 3 days from the mouth of the Red Sea. Tayyib al Ism is unlike other wadi in the area. The only way the Book of Mormon could be so accurate on such matters and in such a way is if the acount was written by someone that had been there. (which Joseph Smith had not) and so it appears our friend Cal is also ignorant. Skeptical out of ignorance.No wonder Cal thinks there are no facts to support the Book of Mormon. The Traveler

There is also a document from what is now Iran that has been carbon dated to the time of Christ and DNA tested to show it came from Jerusalem that was written by the hand of a person claiming to be the Jesus that is thought to be the Christ.The Traveler

You should learn before you think. If Joseph had done as you suggested there would have been no "Tree of Life" in the Book of Mormon. You are very wrong on two points. First: Plants growing in the 1500 have nothing to do with time of the Book of Mormon Second: There are no historical references to a "Tree of Life" in any publication in our western culture prior to around 1940. Outside of LDS references and the Garden of Eden I doubt you can find a reference of historical fact of a tree that produces "white" fruit. Though you may not realize it, your objection also proves that the Book of Mormon is based on true historical fact rather that someone like yourslef that thinks only to manufacture non-truth. If you were a little smarter you might consider a study of the time and palce you wish to lie about. But if there was no information (and the Tree of Life was not available to Joseph) a smart lier would at least pick a topic they know something about. What the Tree of Life means is that the Book of Mormon is more based on historical fact than critics like yourself who do not seem to care at all about historical facts. The Traveler

To answer the question - The greatest proof in our time of the scriptures that have been perserved as the Bible is the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is also the greatest proof since the writtings of the "Gospels" that Jesus really is the Christ. The problem the world has is that the Book of Mormon is too powerful of a proof - therefore it must be opposed - even with violence and the murder if necessary. There is nothing new under the sun. The Traveler

About 5 years ago I was invited to spend a week at a home in the Persian Gulf area of a devout Moslem and a very friend. The event was for his sister’s wedding. A Moslem wedding lasts for a week and I was honored by the invitation. I learned a most interesting thing from my hosts. Something known throughout Arabia but completely lost and unknown in our western civilization. In the center of my friends home town is a giant statue devoted to “The Tree of Life” of Arabia. This statue is famous throughout Arabia and the Islamic people. The reason is because this tree is a powerful symbol of Allah’s love of the people that live in Arabia. The Tree of Life is the second of 3 great gifts from Allah to those that live in Arabia. The First gift is water. This is the greatest treasure in Arabia. The third gift is the domestication of the camel. The second gift is a special palm tree that grows in Arabia and some places of Northern Africa. This is the date palm tree. The reason this tree is so important is because the dates of this particular tree are rather good to eat and are one of the only foods that will last for weeks on end without spoiling in the heat of Arabia for anyone traveling. It is survival and life. Anciently there was no other food that would sustain someone traveling for any distance in Arabia. It has been called the “Tree of Life” for good reason for thousands of years. But there is not even of hint of this tree in western sources prior to Laurence of Arabia who was the first to note it from out side middle eastern society. Although the date palm is mentioned in the Bible its importance is lost to our place and time. For the most part the date tree’s fruit ranges in color from brown to pale yellow when it is ripe and the lighter the color the sweeter the taste of the fruit. There is however, one variety of this date palm tree whose fruit is almost white. It is the tree with the white fruit that is the model for the statue in my friends home town. It is the most highly valued and believed to be the one most similar to the “Tree of Life” in the Garden of Eden”. This tree grows naturally only in Western Arabia and has been found as far north as the area where the Book of Mormon describes the “Valley of Lemuel”, which by the way there really is such a valley exactly where the Book of Mormon says there is. And there is a river of water flowing rear-round into the Red Sea. It is the only place where there is a river of water in Arabia that flows year-round into the Red Sea.. How many trees do you know that produce “white fruit”? And how many of them are called “The Tree of Life”? Where in 1830 could anyone in the West find a historically accurate document that mentions this fact and others about Arabia (for example the year-round river flowing into the Red Sea)? Once again this is proof that the Book of Mormon is a historically accurate account. Our western accounts including computers internet and other access still lacks the depth of understanding given in the Book of Mormon almost 150 years ago. Poor Antishock can’t even find where the frankincense trail went so he can pretend to manufacture criticism that Lehi used the frankincense trail. It is my impression that even on this forum the critics are worse than just pretenders. Convincing me of their utter ignorance and foolishness. It is likely they have never been to Arabia or ever befriended anyone that has been to Arabia. But they are still experts when it comes to history that could apply to the Book of Mormon. When they say there is nothing to support the validity of the Book of Mormon they say their criticism in complete ignorance of obvious things like the “Tree of Life” or of a place Nephi called “Bountiful” or “Nahor” in Arabia. And it is my impression that they love their ignorance and prefer it to truth. And that my friends, is why they come across to me as prejudice and bigots. And that is why I believe that when facts are placed before them they deny it supports the Book of Mormon and they dream up some other reticules argument, like nobody in 600 BC could cross Arabia even though it had been going on for over a thousand years along the very trail Lehi took his family. In truth there are many facts of the Book of Mormon that are demonstrated to be historical and accurate. I have presented but a few. Everything I presented was not known by Joseph or during his time. Lehi’s Tree of Life is still not understood. I have yet to see an accurate LDS depiction that is not made inaccurate because of our western culture. How much more is there that even we LDS do not yet understand? The Traveler

You have got to be kiddin. Some little girl writes in her personal journal in 1892 that Joseph (who has been dead for almost fifty years) said something about men on the moon and you accept it as authority? This establishes doctrine? You are right about one thing your post does demonstrate exactly who is a complete moron and it is not Peace!!! WHAT A JOKE!!!! I cannot believe you posted this. The Traveler

Let me explain this a manner that might be a little clearer for you. Let us say that someone will pick up something from some obscure nook of history about Joseph Smith and suddenly claim that he taught of Men on the moon. This without any additional research or official published material.Then let them read the latest material published about a point concerning the Book of Mormon that indicates it accuracy and they say there is nothing to vindicate Joseph Smith. Can you give me a better example of a religious bigot? The Traveler

You proved nothing. Sheer conjecture on the part of FARMS or someone associeated with the "Nephi Project" (got that last one off the internet...). So you wrote a few paragraphs griping about BoM critics and how we don't believe in your "proof". Big deal. Well. Let's see what a quick internet search shows us: 1) Taqah was once a prosperous port and has been a significant trading centre of the ancient world. Ok... 2) There's some trees. No mention of being able to use them for ship building. Ok... 3) Frankincense route through the area. Ok... Do you have any idea where Taqah is located? It's at the bottom of the Arabian Peninsula. You're telling me an elitist Jewish family is going to make it across the Arabian peninsula, crossing through one tribal territory after another, all the while hunting and gathering...in a desert...for EIGHT YEARS? You're out of your mind, friend. Thank you so much from demonstrating exactly what I want all to see from my post. You are such an awesome example. First for fun. I challenge anyone to provide a more accurate account including geological or historical reference from any modern or ancient time, of travel along the ancient frankincense trail than the account given in the Book of Mormon. Of course all the lazy armchair experts will say as my friend Anti that an accurate account proves nothing. Nothing? You mean that a farm boy in New York with no experience and no references knows more than all the critics that say there is not proof that the farm boy knows something? This is rich. Where in Arabia can one find "wild honey". When you find the answer you will have proven that Joseph Smith knew more about Arabia than all his critics. You see my friends Arabia is one place we can prove the Book of Mormon for we know where Lehi and his family began and Nephi described exactly where they went. Anti thinks that it is impossible for anyone to have anciently passed along the frankincense trail in the days of Lehi. What support did he give of such a palpability absurd statement? I would guess he would have us believe no one ever traveled such a trail. Obviously he has never talked to anyone that is from that region. This is such a kick - Thank all you critics of the Book of Mormon for you input - you are soooo predicable. The Traveler

Like Traveler stated...it could be pushed right under your noses and you would still work at finding a way to claim they were fake. Thank you Peace: For some people there still is not enough evidence that the world is not flat. Go figure. The Traveler.

I thought I would clarify a “Christian Concept”. Jesus is the “Mediator” between mankind and the Father. No one come unto the Father but by Jesus. This also means that no blessings come to man from the Father but by Jesus. Since the Fall of Man any heavenly blessings that are possible for man come through Jesus. To teach another doctrine denies the Christ. The blessings of eternity come only through Jesus and all other thins of “good” fortune have an end in this life. It is LDS doctrine that only by the Priesthood of Jesus can anything be sealed for eternity. The Bible tells us that Peter was given such keys of the Priesthood. The D&C tells us that such priesthood authority can only be exercised in righteousness. The Traveler

First off I write this post to my LDS friends that need no such proof of the Book of Mormon. The reason is to demonstrate for them the complete insensibility of proof. Not because there is any lack of such proof but in spite of it. You see my friends - those that say there is no proof of the Book of Mormon will lie about anything. They will say it is night at noon day. For them the door of proof swings only one way. Against the Book of Mormon and the people that have come to believe it. Even if G-d will grant them the very proof they demand they will still deny the truth of the Book of Mormon and simply demand something more to prove it to them. In 1985, such a critic of the Book of Mormon, Thomas Key wrote in the Journal of American Scientific Affiliation that since Pleistocene times there has been no “Bountiful Land” in Arabia with “much fruit and also wild honey” (see 1 Nephi 17:5). He claimed that there was “no timber that Nephi could have used to build a ship” (see 1Nephi 18:1). The logic of Mr. Key is that if there is no such proof of such a place in Arabia and that Joseph simply made up the facts of fantasy and therefore, the Book of Mormon is false. In all the western libraries there is no record of any such place so Mr. Key justified his conclusions based on research done from an easy chair. In nearly 150 years since Joseph Smith not a single shred of evidence ever surface in western culture to support land of Bountiful in Arabia. Therefore with all the rhetoric of logic Mr Key and others denounce the Book of Mormon as not being historically or geographically accurate. But if it turns out that a poorly educated farm boy of New York frontier of the early 19th Century provided a more accurate account than the best scholars of western civilization for over 150 years that there might be some truth to the Book of Mormon? Not a chance my friends. For if such a “Bountiful” place was found in Arabia the critics will deny that it is any proof at all, implying that anyone could of guessed such a thing. But they didn’t. As it turns out there is such a place in Arabia on the Eastern cost of Oman on the Arabian Sea. The place is today called Taqah/Khor Rori. Not only does it exist but it possesses all the elements described in the Book of Mormon in case anyone is keeping score. Including an ancient method of building ships that dates back to 1000 BC which is before Lehi. And there are accurate ancient records of the place because it was an important place to the ancient world because of the export of frankincense from there. Some speculate that king Solomon’s ships called at the port anciently known as Dhofar. And as Paul Harvey would say “And now you know the rest of the story.” But as I said - don’t hold your breath. To bigots the doors of proof swing only one direction. Such a discovery which they claimed was proof when it was not known suddenly when it becomes known is no longer valid. The Traveler