when you prayed over the BoM...

[Hemidakota]

"Where else would I go? This Church has the Words of Eternal Life." Totally agree...it transforms lives and give hope for those who are seeking GOD.

[rameumptom]

When i 1st started to earnestly enquire about the validity of th BoM, stress was not even a factor. THe burdons of trying to live a good life although hard I just accepted so I had a sound, calm mind back then. So that was not clouding ant kind of answer I can assure you.

As for what I feel when I do read it well, I dont feel anthing. Does it make sense? Got to be honest not a chance, how can it when it contains so many errors and incorrect statements? It just cannot be correct. Sorry, just being honest with you with my beliefs.

Perhaps you were pondering the errors, rather than seeking to see if it really were true?

Just what are some of these "errors and incorrect statements" that you refer to? I find the BoM to be an amazing document. I've studied it dozens of times, and continually find deep and correct doctrines, fascinating links to both the Middle Eastern world, as well as the ancient worlds of America. I would recommend you take a few weeks or months and read the articles at fairlds.org. Some are better than others, but many are well thought out and well written evidences of LDS teachings. While I've found some critics of the Book of Mormon who have attempted to attack it on one or another issue, none sofar have looked at the hundreds of internal evidences and considered them as a group or stack of evidences to deal with.

Statistically, the number of names that Joseph Smith got right in the Book of Mormon makes it extremely unlikely that he guessed. And that doesn't include other evidences that were not available in 1829 when he translated the plates: Arabian locations (Nahom, Bountiful, Valley of Lemuel), written language in hieroglyphs (such as Mayan), large cities, concepts of a bearded white god, major ties between Semitic languages and Uto-Aztecan, and the list goes on and on and on.

[bytor2112]

The witness of the Holy Spirit is awesome and is a very "tangible" feeling. A Holy presence that one can literally feel. Sometimes it makes me weep with joy, other times it feels like a warm blanket being draped over me. Always, it makes me want to be better and is very familiar and comforting. I experienced this when learning about the Church, long before I ever read the Book of Mormon cover to cover. I knew the Church is true and it logically follows that the BOM is true as well. I have these same experiences and others as I study the scriptures or tell someone else about the BOM or church. Sharing your testimony can help bring the Spirit and will also to know that the BOM is true!

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Agency or Inspiration-Which?

This is a devotional that I read once, it helped me understand and realize much more clearly how to ask God things. I can't really describe it without going into lots of detail, but Elder McConkie does so, so I won't.

[mike_uk]

When I pondered it's truthfulness the fact that it may just be an elaborate story never even occured to me. At that time I was "Converted" in as much as I believed that Joseph Smith had that vision. I am a very open minded person. The BoM had to be true because how could any man write such a book? Extensive research has shown me he could. Still I persevered with my attempts to gain a testimony of this book becasue of what the leaders told us. Years passed and I was still devoted to the church but still that testimony never came. I taught from the BoM as Gosepl Doctrine teacher which I served in for 2 years which I was excited to do becasue I thought that would be my way of getting that testimony. I tried to read it along with the student manual. I even asked the relief society in my Ward if I could gatecrash their scripture study institute class they were running. So I really did try I think.

As to the errors in the book that Jospeh said is "the truest book on the earth". It just amazes me how something so true can contain so many factual errors. Things that cannot be proved at all. However these are the problems:

DNA genetic studies have proven that 98.9% of the American Indians came from Asia, not the Middle East as the Book of Mormon claims

The entire pretext, basic story line, for the Book of Mormon was written by Ethan Smith (unrelated to Joseph Smith) in 1823 and taken from a book called "View of the Hebrews"

The Book of Mormon states they used what amounts to “coins” and even describe the different sizes, weights and values relative to food. The Gold and Silver pieces even had names such as “Senine, Seon, Strum, Limnah, Shiblon, amnor, ezrom etc.”. They were exchanged for goods and services just as we exchange our coinage/money today. Yet to date not one single “coin” has ever been found in all the archeology on the American Continent. (Alma 11:5-10)

Horses and chariots, pulled by horses, are all through the Book of Mormon, yet horses did not exist on the Pre-Columbian American continent

Not a single steel sword, breastplate, metal sheild, helmet or “metal” arrow tip has ever been found on the American continent. No evidences of the wastes that go along with this complex insdustry has been unearthed.

Elephants did not exist

Not one single city has ever been located that is mentioned within the Book of Mormon. Now look at the big cities in the Bible. Those places still stand,

The Book of Mormon claims domesticated cattle, oxen, sheep, swine and goats. “None” of these animals existed in the American in the pre-Columbian era.

The Book of Mormon has “3,100” direct and near direct quotes from the King James Version of the Bible. Not only a obvious plagiarism, but another anachronism as well.

I am sorry but if it was directly translated from God and is the truest book then these problems would not exist. I dont care if he was only human God is not.

You know, I could go on and I have spent a long time pondering and researching this. It is not something that happened over night. I have read as I stated apologists views on these along with many other problems with early history of the church. The problem with aplogist views is that to the devoted member it sounds great ans strenghtens them but to the open minded doubter who have read all the details see that these apologists miss out valuable words which change the meaning of a paragraph by a huge amount. A Typical example would be the 1981 Ensign defense of the Kinerhook plates which again proves Jospeh was not who we think.

Sorry. These are my views and just doing as requested.

[Misshalfway]

Hey mike. Just curious. As you look at these historical evidential pieces and struggle with them, do you also struggle with the doctrine in the BofM as well? Or have you just determined that it may be truth but just copied truth from other sources?

Thanks.

[Hemidakota]

Thanks Mike in being candored on this subject....

[rameumptom]

When I pondered it's truthfulness the fact that it may just be an elaborate story never even occured to me. At that time I was "Converted" in as much as I believed that Joseph Smith had that vision. I am a very open minded person. The BoM had to be true because how could any man write such a book? Extensive research has shown me he could. Still I persevered with my attempts to gain a testimony of this book becasue of what the leaders told us. Years passed and I was still devoted to the church but still that testimony never came. I taught from the BoM as Gosepl Doctrine teacher which I served in for 2 years which I was excited to do becasue I thought that would be my way of getting that testimony. I tried to read it along with the student manual. I even asked the relief society in my Ward if I could gatecrash their scripture study institute class they were running. So I really did try I think.

As to the errors in the book that Jospeh said is "the truest book on the earth". It just amazes me how something so true can contain so many factual errors. Things that cannot be proved at all. However these are the problems:

Rameumptom: Let's take a look at your misconceptions one by one, and we'll see that at least most of them are because you really have not done the research.

DNA genetic studies have proven that 98.9% of the American Indians came from Asia, not the Middle East as the Book of Mormon claims

Rameumptom: So how do we know just what DNA for a Lehite is? As it is, DNA is a very poor way to determine lines like this. Why? Because we do not receive all the DNA from all of our ancestors. Within a couple generations, a person could have DNA from only half their ancestors. Does that mean they are not related to their grandparents? Of course not.

Second, the Book of Mormon text shows that it is speaking of a small group of people, not the entire Indian nation. Small distances between Lamanite lands and Desolation, evidences of other groups, etc., are in the text. To ignore them and pretend to believe in a Hemispheric model is to set oneself up for a fall.

Finally, the BoM shows time and again that we are talking about cultural Nephites, and not genetics. Nephites knew nothing about genetics and DNA. They culturally adapted into other groups, and others adapted into them. This same common trait of the Nephites is found to have been a trait in Mesoamerica, where Olmecs were absorbed by Mayans and others, both absorbing culture and transmitting culture. Cultural absorption is very common in the BoM, and Mesoamerica. This should be evidence FOR the BoM, not against it.

The entire pretext, basic story line, for the Book of Mormon was written by Ethan Smith (unrelated to Joseph Smith) in 1823 and taken from a book called "View of the Hebrews"

Ram: I've read the View of the Hebrews, and they are nothing alike - regardless of what Sandra Tanner insists. The names are different, the story lines are different. The BoM is much more complex than the VoH. To state that it was "taken" from the VoH is like saying the Little Mermaid was taken from Moby Dick, because they are both about a fish.

If you study the evidences, you'll find that the BoM fits in 600BC Jerusalem and in Mesoamerica's pre-Classic era; but the VoH does not. Even non-LDS Biblical scholars, like Margaret Barker have stated that Joseph Smith got the culture and ideas of 600BC Jerusalem spot on.

The Book of Mormon states they used what amounts to “coins” and even describe the different sizes, weights and values relative to food. The Gold and Silver pieces even had names such as “Senine, Seon, Strum, Limnah, Shiblon, amnor, ezrom etc.”. They were exchanged for goods and services just as we exchange our coinage/money today. Yet to date not one single “coin” has ever been found in all the archeology on the American Continent. (Alma 11:5-10)

Ram: Wrong. The BoM used weights, not coins. And it is a system that is extremely efficient and ancient in nature. But Joseph would not have known that.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Anachronisms6.pdfhttp://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Anachronisms6.pdf

Horses and chariots, pulled by horses, are all through the Book of Mormon, yet horses did not exist on the Pre-Columbian American continent

Not a single steel sword, breastplate, metal sheild, helmet or “metal” arrow tip has ever been found on the American continent. No evidences of the wastes that go along with this complex insdustry has been unearthed.

Ram: There are definite archaeological disagreements with your insistence here. Obviously, you do not have an open mind, or you haven't really studied much more than the anti-LDS material available. There are articles that discuss all of these at the fairlds.org website. Some evidences are better than others. In any case, lack of evidence does not disprove the BoM.

Beyond some ancient stories, we have no evidence of a global flood, a Garden of Eden, an earth created 6000 years ago with Adam as first man, or even Abraham! We barely have evidence of King David. Yet there have been more archaeologists crawling over the hills of Palestine for a much longer time than over all the hills of North and South America combined. Just this past year, archaeologists stated they "think" they've found David's palace. We're talking about a very small area around Jerusalem, but it has taken them over a century of digging to find it?

And then we wonder why people are so impatient with BoM archaeology? First, most archaeologists are not looking for evidence of the BoM, while they may seek evidence of Biblical stories. Second, most Mesoamerican digs have only gone to the Classic Mayan era, which is post-Book of Mormon. In Maya lands, it is very common to build one civilization on top of the next, with some 5 and more levels deep. Instead of building new temples, kings would often just build a new level on an old temple. Just how can we find things if we do not clear everything down to bare rock, and be looking at things in terms of BoM?

As for the things you mentioned, they may have been rarer than you think, with the majority of weapons being of wood and obsidian, perhaps with metal decoration.

Not one single city has ever been located that is mentioned within the Book of Mormon. Now look at the big cities in the Bible. Those places still stand,

Ram: This PROVES that you have not done any research, but only looked at anti-LDS sites. Of the hundreds of Biblical place names, only about 25% have been discovered. Those places still stand in the Bible, simply because they've never gone away. It is a red herring or strawman argument you make here.

As it is, the Book of Mormon DOES have evidence here. In the Arabian peninsula, we've found the place Nahom, which was primarily lost to the world for centuries.

LDS scholars are pretty sure they've discovered the Valley of Lemuel and the Arabian Bountiful, as well.

Then, place names in Mesoamerica have been found, such as "Lamanai" and "Qumarkah" (sounds like Cumorah), as well as others.

The Book of Mormon claims domesticated cattle, oxen, sheep, swine and goats. “None” of these animals existed in the American in the pre-Columbian era.

Ram: It is possible that limited numbers of these animals were available. Or it is possible that names used in the BoM were approximated to what the Nephites recognized from the Old World. When Pizarro arrived with his horses, they were called, "deer" or "llama" by the Incans. Llamas did extend into Mesoamerica centuries ago, as did tapirs, bison, goats, boar, and other animals that could have qualified.

The Book of Mormon has “3,100” direct and near direct quotes from the King James Version of the Bible. Not only a obvious plagiarism, but another anachronism as well.

Ram: Plagiarism occurs only when there is no attribution. So you are wrong here, as well. As for the Isaiah and other quotes, I've noted in other threads how this is actually evidence FOR the BoM. Nephi and others used the writings in the Brass Plates as a witness for their teachings. Nephi said he had three witnesses of Christ: himself, his brother Jacob, and Isaiah. Then he quotes Jacob and Isaiah, and then expounds upon their writings with his own.

This is also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where many of the writings are expansions of Biblical writings. These scrolls, such as the Hosea Commentary, quote a prophet, then explains it according to the understanding of the Qumran community.

The Bible also uses this format, such as when Jude quotes the Book of Enoch, or Isaiah 2 quotes Micah 4.

So, if you are going to use this as evidence that the Book of Mormon is false, then you may as well discredit the Dead Sea Scrolls and Bible, as well.

I am sorry but if it was directly translated from God and is the truest book then these problems would not exist. I dont care if he was only human God is not.

You know, I could go on and I have spent a long time pondering and researching this. It is not something that happened over night. I have read as I stated apologists views on these along with many other problems with early history of the church. The problem with aplogist views is that to the devoted member it sounds great ans strenghtens them but to the open minded doubter who have read all the details see that these apologists miss out valuable words which change the meaning of a paragraph by a huge amount. A Typical example would be the 1981 Ensign defense of the Kinerhook plates which again proves Jospeh was not who we think.

Sorry. These are my views and just doing as requested.

Sorry, but I'm not convinced that you studied anything beyond the anti-LDS writings. Too many of the things onyour list show a lack of any study whatsoever, but continue to be spouted by the anti-Mormon crowd.

I have no problem with someone actually doing the research and stating that some LDS "evidences" are weak or missing. But you actually included areas that are totally falsifiable (such as no cities/locations being found) by archaeological standards.

[Hemidakota]

When I was questioned by my brother in-law over a few animals that were not found in Americas, I did enough research to account for some of those animals that Antis claimed otherwise:

Interesting to note is the phrase ‘Cureloms and Cumons’. My assumption based on this animal relationship grouping, it may have belonged to the Elephant line. I will get to this latter portion of this comment.

Another interesting factoid to note xxxx [name removed], it was Cortez's party in their long conquest of the new found world, roaming the Yucatan peninsula, the group observed herds of docile deer that scholars think were domesticated by the Mayans [Lamanites]. Even Mazahua Indians of El Salvador, during the same conquest, were described as a pastoral people by Cortez’s party, who owned and cared for herds of deer. I think Cortez was quite surprised to see any kind of herding of animals in the new world and noting some cultural historians, who had generally conceived a total absence of this type of practice. It was noted back a few years ago, scientists agreed that a full pastoral tradition based on domesticated llamas existed in pre-Columbian Peru for thousands of years. So, beside cows, what was left of the Lamanites that spread from Central America to South America and North America, herded such animals as the bison, the deer, the llama, and perhaps many others types.

Now on to the horses (Equus), were present in the western hemisphere long ago prior to the Spaniards arrival. It has been assumed that they did not survive the time when settled peoples inhabited the New World; referring to the Jaredites and Lamanites. XXXXX, do you know that actual horse bones have been found in a number of Yucatan Peninsula archaeological sites; noting one of those finding artifact was buried six feet beneath the surface? XXXX, you may remember the word Chariot was used in the Book of Mormon (read Alma 20; 3 Nephi 20) used as a pulling vehicle? Thus, we simply do not understand what might have been the nature of the "chariot" mentioned in the Book of Mormon in connection with "horses."

Alma 20:6 - Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused that his servants should make ready his horses and his chariots.

3 Nephi 20:22 - And it came to pass in the *seventeenth year, in the latter end of the year, the proclamation of Lachoneus had gone forth throughout all the face of the land, and they had taken their horses, and their chariots, and their cattle, and all their flocks, and their herds, and their grain, and all their substance, and did march forth by thousands and by tens of thousands, until they had all gone forth to the place which had been appointed that they should gather themselves together, to defend themselves against their enemies.

XXXXX, there is only two references that mentions this combination of both horse and chariot in the Book of Mormon and was found in the area of between Zarahemla and Bountiful. Perhaps, this type of mode of transportation may have not been widely used as to other cultures of the old world. When it comes to studying the Book of Mormon, we need always to be mindful of the author’s viewpoint, location of event, what is being presented, why it is being presented, and can it be cross referenced outside of that location.

Another tidbit of information is the war between the Gadianton Robbers who were cut off from the local food source as indicated in 3 Nephi 4:4, it reads:

Therefore, there was no chance for the robbers to plunder and to obtain food, save it were to come up in open battle against the Nephites; and the Nephites being in one body, and having so great a number, and having reserved for themselves provisions, and horses and cattle, and flocks of every kind, that they might subsist for the space of seven years, in the which time they did hope to destroy the robbers from off the face of the land; and thus the eighteenth year did pass away.

Gadianton Robbers subsisted upon others live stock for food. There were numerous as much as the Nephites. Perhaps some animals may have met their fate at their hands and perished from the land. Clearly, from the verse, you can see the Nephites under these harsh conditions that lasted for more than seven years used horses as a food source.

Another case in point, Eurasian sheep is not supposed to have been in pre-Columbian America either. Someone forgot to tell the historians that real sheep's wool was found in a burial site at Cholula, Puebla, Mexico. Analysis of this archaeological setting gave no other indication of dating after the Spaniards arrival in the area.

Finally, what about the Book of Ether's elephant? We do know, both the Mastodons and mammoths once lived throughout North America and part of South America. From today’s zoologists viewpoint and perhaps the Jaredites same viewpoint, they are unquestionably elephants. Our question today is how late they lived upon these lands. Cumons and Cureloms are only mentioned in the Book of Ether, near the beginning of that record. Scientists today agree that the mammoth and mastodon could have survived in favorable locations much later than the time normally assigned for their claimed extinction. Searching fossil records, a mastodon has already been dated as late as pre-Adam 5000 B.C. at Devil's Den, Florida, and around the Great Lakes to 4000 B.C. Another remarkable discovered remains of a butchered mastodon in Ecuador; pottery associated with the find is said to date to after the time of Christ [A.D.].

When we look locally in our own land, there was a discovery of a horse, mammoth and mastodon fossil remains that was radiocarbon dated around 100 B.C. around St. Petersburg, Florida. Then we have the Brea Tar Pits that have several findings of the same. It seems impossible for many to grasp this fact. Again, we are looking at the Prophet Moroni who was abridging Ether writings he held in his possession; condensing two thousand year history into a few plates. We simply don’t have all the records from Jared to Ether time for further clarity of what was brought. It is only mentioned one time in Ether 9:19 and no other location in the scriptures. We can only assume, hinting that all three animals became extinct and perhaps the Jaredites killed off the last of the beasts. We have to note here, the Jaredites might not have been the only people to record the presence of the big animal here upon the land. The North American Indians have recounted legends of great stiff-legged beasts that could not lie down and of an animal with a fifth appendage, which came out of its head. XXXX, here is a possibility; these tribes transmitted oral traditions of remembrance with encounters of elephants. Again, it is possible that the mammoth or mastodon were around in Mexico at least as late as 2500 B.C. timeframe. Key here to prove that point, Moroni, who translated the Book of Ether, did not translate these names from the original tongue of the Jaredites only indicates that the animals were probably extinct in his day.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Hemidakota

[justamere10]

When I pondered it's truthfulness the fact that it may just be an elaborate story never even occured to me....Sorry. These are my views and just doing as requested.

Thanks again for openly sharing with the members of this community Mike.

Ultimately there is faith involved in all things in the physical world where our choices regarding them can have eternal consequences.

My personal experience with concerns such as you have listed is that there is already a valid response to the concern, or that the time isn't ripe and that a valid response will come. (Similar to the criticism that early Americans did not know cement. That has apparently been proven false now.) It appears to me though from the familiar things you list that you have been doing more reading on anti-Mormon websites than you have at LDS FAIR Apologetics Homepage where you are much more likely to find truth.

For me, NOTHING arm of flesh is going to dent my spiritually gained testimony. But my testimony is not entirely faith-based.

Rameumpton has already responded to most of your concerns but I'll add what little I can to that for all it may be worth to anyone reading this thread.

Regarding metal swords, Dr. Jerry L. Ainsworth addressed that in last month's "Nephite Evidences" newsletter from Mormon Sites. Mormon Sites - rising from the dust...

I copied the entire article into Ainsworth's forum on the Mormon Sites board Ask a Mormon - LDS Cyber Missionaries Forum lds1.org • Index page. Here are some abbreviated extracts:

"Having said that, Maya archaeologists report that no metal of any kind has ever been found among the Maya, during the time period of the Book of Mormon, (600BC to 400AD). Not only do they not find iron, steel, brass or copper, but no gold or silver either...

Therefore, when the Book of Mormon talks about swords in the many battles mentioned, it creates a problem that begs an explanation. As is my wont, I therefore...

When Lehi’s family reached a land they referred to as Bountiful, Nephi made metal tools, with which he built the boat in which they sailed to this continent. (See 1 Nephi 17:9-11). That is a substantial number of references to the use of metal, and we are still in 1st Nephi, the first book in the Book of Mormon. Having said that, once you get past the two books of Nephi and the book of Jacob, something interesting happens...."

It's an interesting read. Among other things, if I remember correctly, Ainsworth presents his views that there is no mention of metal swords (other than the sword of Laban) being used except in the early years after Lehi's arrival. And we know from the condition of the Jaredite swords that metal wastes away much faster than the obsidian weapons that probably replaced metal after the weapons from Jerusalem were no longer useful.

Here's a link to a copy of Ainsworth's article on swords.

Ask a Mormon - LDS Cyber Missionaries Forum lds1.org • View topic - Swords in the Book of Mormon

As for horses, evidence for ancient horses was recently uncovered near Lethbridge, Alberta in Canada. But I think that evidence is really ancient.

Regarding no Book of Mormon cities having been found, nothing's proven but there's a huge website full of information on that kind of thing:

Mormon Sites - rising from the dust...

Here's an extract from the Mormon Sites front page:

"Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology." John E. Clark, Professor of anthropology, BYU, Director of NWAF, Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol 14, No. 2, 2005 p.42 The entire article is titled "Archeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief" published by FARMS 2005.

These are exciting times in which to live. Many more records will be brought to light possibly in the near future. And there's a whole lot more known than is commonly published about the Book of Mormon because the ultimate proof of it's truthfulness is from God, not from arm of flesh learning.

.

[mike_uk]

Rameumtum, please dont asume that I have not done the research. I have stated many times that I have read both arguments. You do not know me and do not know of my struggles. You call my views miscoseptions. I also think your views are misconseptions, typical TBM/Apologist reponses tbh. When I read your thought on VoTH, all credibility went out the window. Even BH. Roberts could see the huge parallels. You just refuse to look beyond your testimony. It is fact that the parallels are startling and your statement proves you have done no research. Actually, you are pretty darned insulting. You have a very closed mind and will stop at nothing to hold on to your belief no matter the overwhelming evidences. Try digging deeper regarding Jospeh and you will see he isnt the man you have been taught about. Just think for a sec, you may have been deceived!

I do not know you and do not pretent to even know of your chosen profession but I can only assume that you are not a leader in the field of Genetics, Archaeology and Anthropology. If you are then I take that all back. However I have read, viewed and listened to such people (I really have you know!), people without any problems against the church and they all conclude the things I have mentioned are serious issues for the church.

The problem is that the "Valid responses" to my issues are from Mormon apologists and not independant professionals, unlike much of the information I use. Heck, the church need more people like B.H Roberts that openly admitted to these problems. Poor old Thomas Ferguson, dedicated much of his adult life trying to archaelogically prove the BoM. He even got funding to set up an Archaeology unit at BYU. He was absolutely positive that in 10 years he would have all he needed. Guess how much he unearthed? Thats right nothing.

You know, I had a really long response ready but now I just cannot be bothered. You stand by your testimonies and that I respect.

At the end of the day we will have to agree to disagree on our issues.

I am not going to come back here, I see little point. I am fed up with people assuming far too much and pretending their answers are all the proof that is needed.

Those are my departing words. Goodbye.

Edited June 18, 2008 by mike_uk

[justamere10]

I'm beginning to wonder if he is even LDS?? One poster on the lds1.org board claims he has been a member for 30 years but now is "struggling" etc. And he goes into some of the usual stuff designed to deceive that looks merely ridiculous to active LDS. He didn't even get the events of the First Vision right. I suppose he thinks he can sow seeds of doubt among LDS who haven't yet put in 30 years of faithful living. (The other guy, not Mike.)

I certainly don't know if Mike fits that category but his story seems a bit far fetched to me, it seems certain that he has been supping at the feast spread by the anti-Mormon publishing industry to make money and deceive "even the very elect".

But I guess now that he's gone forever, we'll never know for sure...

[Misshalfway]

I'm beginning to wonder if he is even LDS?? One poster on the lds1.org board claims he has been a member for 30 years but now is "struggling" etc. And he goes into some of the usual stuff designed to deceive that looks merely ridiculous to active LDS. He didn't even get the events of the First Vision right. I suppose he thinks he can sow seeds of doubt among LDS who haven't yet put in 30 years of faithful living. (The other guy, not Mike.)

I certainly don't know if Mike fits that category but his story seems a bit far fetched to me, it seem certain that he has been supping at the feast spread by the anti-Mormon publishing industry to make money and deceive "even the very elect".

But I guess now that he's gone forever, we'll never know for sure...

What? You can't be serious?

[justamere10]

What? You can't be serious?

I am serious. But notice the question marks. I could very well be completely wrong on Mike, that's mere speculation; but I'm pretty sure about the other guy.

One thing that troubles me about Mike's story is that when he finally comes up with his reasons for doubting the Church after apparently so many years of activity, they are just the basic stuff anyone can pick up on anti sites, nothing new, nothing thoughfully studied out. And he gives up so easily when confronted with it.

But then I'm no expert on that, maybe others care to speculate along with me...

Edited June 18, 2008 by justamere10

[Hemidakota]

There are elements in Mike's writing I often see with selection of quizzical principles in the church, even after twenty years of serving. This isn’t new for anyone who reside in a leadership or teaching calling. Even one who been in the church [Priesthood lesson], made mentioned of a battle at the Hill of Cumorah, state of New York, afterward with correction that it was not church doctrine or historical fact, this was the hill. He has been serving in the church for more than 65-years.

[justamere10]

It is you who is wrong Mike, not the millions of faithful others whose testimonies burn bright because they keep the commandments and their sacred covenants with God. They draw daily closer to Him in humble sincere prayer, forgetting themselves and serving others.

There is no reward at the end of the trail you have chosen to follow, only a lifetime of sorrow for your wife and children, and most likely an eternity of regret for yourself. A few words in a few history books are not essential to your salvation, you already know what is.

The choices are still yours, as are the consequences. The Church is true, God will not be mocked, repentance is real.

Is your rebellion worth it?

“In the very nature of things, the signs of the times will not cease until the Lord comes. Those that involve chaos and commotion and distress of nations will continue in the future with even greater destructive force. Men’s hearts will fail them for fear in greater degree hereafter than heretofore. Wars will get worse. Moments of armistice and peace will be less stable. Viewed in the perspective of years, all worldly things will degenerate. There will be an increasing polarization of views.

There will be more apostasy from the Church, more summer saints and sunshine patriots who will be won over to the cause of the adversary. Those who support the kingdom because of the loaves and the fishes will find other bread to eat.

While the faithful saints get better and better, and cleave more firmly to the heaven-sent standards, the world will get worse and worse and will cleave to the policies and views of Lucifer” (McConkie, Millennial Messiah, 404).

[rameumptom]

Rameumtum, please dont asume that I have not done the research. I have stated many times that I have read both arguments. You do not know me and do not know of my struggles. You call my views miscoseptions. I also think your views are misconseptions, typical TBM/Apologist reponses tbh. When I read your thought on VoTH, all credibility went out the window. Even BH. Roberts could see the huge parallels. You just refuse to look beyond your testimony. It is fact that the parallels are startling and your statement proves you have done no research. Actually, you are pretty darned insulting. You have a very closed mind and will stop at nothing to hold on to your belief no matter the overwhelming evidences. Try digging deeper regarding Jospeh and you will see he isnt the man you have been taught about. Just think for a sec, you may have been deceived!

I do not know you and do not pretent to even know of your chosen profession but I can only assume that you are not a leader in the field of Genetics, Archaeology and Anthropology. If you are then I take that all back. However I have read, viewed and listened to such people (I really have you know!), people without any problems against the church and they all conclude the things I have mentioned are serious issues for the church.

The problem is that the "Valid responses" to my issues are from Mormon apologists and not independant professionals, unlike much of the information I use. Heck, the church need more people like B.H Roberts that openly admitted to these problems. Poor old Thomas Ferguson, dedicated much of his adult life trying to archaelogically prove the BoM. He even got funding to set up an Archaeology unit at BYU. He was absolutely positive that in 10 years he would have all he needed. Guess how much he unearthed? Thats right nothing.

You know, I had a really long response ready but now I just cannot be bothered. You stand by your testimonies and that I respect.

At the end of the day we will have to agree to disagree on our issues.

I am not going to come back here, I see little point. I am fed up with people assuming far too much and pretending their answers are all the proof that is needed.

Those are my departing words. Goodbye.

Well, goodbye to you, as well. Once again, you showed no evidence for your statements. As I said, I have read the View of the Hebrews and there are no "Big" similarities. VoH does not have chiasmus. It does not have evidence of ancient things. No one has found a Nahom for the VoH. Margaret Barker has stated that Lehi's Dream of the Tree of Life is spot on with Jerusalem of 600BC. I can go on and on. Only a cursory look would give a person the idea that one was taken from the other.

And the insistence on certain things that were proven a decade ago by LDS scholars shows research has not been done on both sides. I've dealt with this stuff for about 30 years, and while there aren't answers to everything, there are more answers coming about each year suggesting the BoM is correct.

I gave evidences. You gave your opinion, and now you feel insulted that I backed up my statements, and disregarded your opinions. Better to not have you here, than to have you harming your own reputation. Still, when you want to have an honest and vigorous discussion, you will be welcome back.

[Hemidakota]

It is you who is wrong Mike, not the millions of faithful others whose testimonies burn bright because they keep the commandments and their sacred covenants with God. They draw daily closer to Him in humble sincere prayer, forgetting themselves and serving others.

There is no reward at the end of the trail you have chosen to follow, only a lifetime of sorrow for your wife and children, and most likely an eternity of regret for yourself. A few words in a few history books are not essential to your salvation, you already know what is.

The choices are still yours, as are the consequences. The Church is true, God will not be mocked, repentance is real.

Is your rebellion worth it?

“In the very nature of things, the signs of the times will not cease until the Lord comes. Those that involve chaos and commotion and distress of nations will continue in the future with even greater destructive force. Men’s hearts will fail them for fear in greater degree hereafter than heretofore. Wars will get worse. Moments of armistice and peace will be less stable. Viewed in the perspective of years, all worldly things will degenerate. There will be an increasing polarization of views.

There will be more apostasy from the Church, more summer saints and sunshine patriots who will be won over to the cause of the adversary. Those who support the kingdom because of the loaves and the fishes will find other bread to eat.

While the faithful saints get better and better, and cleave more firmly to the heaven-sent standards, the world will get worse and worse and will cleave to the policies and views of Lucifer” (McConkie, Millennial Messiah, 404).

If members could view a few minutes of the Celestial glory, they would give up the world and sin to reap those rewards.

[HiJolly]

Ah! I see mike_uk is NOT gone! He's viewing the thread right now...

BTW, I read the View of the Hebrews many years ago, and was quite excited to do so, it being the 'latest and greatest' anti-Mormon barrage. I was SOOOOoooo disappointed. What a anticlimactic let-down. Yet another "anti-" flop.

Polyandry had MUCH more "umph" to it.

HiJolly

[rameumptom]

Thanks again for openly sharing with the members of this community Mike.

Here's an extract from the Mormon Sites front page:

"Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology." John E. Clark, Professor of anthropology, BYU, Director of NWAF, Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol 14, No. 2, 2005 p.42 The entire article is titled "Archeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief" published by FARMS 2005.

These are exciting times in which to live. Many more records will be brought to light possibly in the near future. And there's a whole lot more known than is commonly published about the Book of Mormon because the ultimate proof of it's truthfulness is from God, not from arm of flesh learning.

.

I would add the same thing has occurred with Pre-Clovis people. For decades, archaeologists refused to consider the idea that there were people in Americas before the Clovis people. Then a group of important archaeologists went to a location in Chile that was found more than a decade before and came back convinced that there are Pre-Clovis. Suddenly, everyone was looking in museum collections. Skulls and skeletons were being found that were not Clovis, such as Kennewick man - a Caucasoid.

So, we have the exact same thing occurring in other areas of archaeology. If no one knows what to look for, they won't notice if they have it or not.

[mike_uk]

Ok ok Im still here. I ws too hasty in my decision to leave. There is no way I could leave this and not back up my statements. Infact all I was asked for was my concerns over the BoM. Not an actual explanation. But it appears that is the info Rameumptom wants from me so I will do my best.

But please do me a favour and don't quote from FAIR/FARMS becasue that will be no help to the doubters at all.

Finally, its late so I wont tackle everyting this evening. Call it a work in progress.

I also suggest we just take a breather and try to get along now. We ae all adults with strong opinions and beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_uk

When I pondered it's truthfulness the fact that it may just be an elaborate story never even occured to me. At that time I was "Converted" in as much as I believed that Joseph Smith had that vision. I am a very open minded person. The BoM had to be true because how could any man write such a book? Extensive research has shown me he could. Still I persevered with my attempts to gain a testimony of this book becasue of what the leaders told us. Years passed and I was still devoted to the church but still that testimony never came. I taught from the BoM as Gosepl Doctrine teacher which I served in for 2 years which I was excited to do becasue I thought that would be my way of getting that testimony. I tried to read it along with the student manual. I even asked the relief society in my Ward if I could gatecrash their scripture study institute class they were running. So I really did try I think.

As to the errors in the book that Jospeh said is "the truest book on the earth". It just amazes me how something so true can contain so many factual errors. Things that cannot be proved at all. However these are the problems:

Rameumptom: Let's take a look at your misconceptions one by one, and we'll see that at least most of them are because you really have not done the research.

Quote:

DNA genetic studies have proven that 98.9% of the American Indians came from Asia, not the Middle East as the Book of Mormon claims

Rameumptom: So how do we know just what DNA for a Lehite is? As it is, DNA is a very poor way to determine lines like this. Why? Because we do not receive all the DNA from all of our ancestors. Within a couple generations, a person could have DNA from only half their ancestors. Does that mean they are not related to their grandparents? Of course not.

Second, the Book of Mormon text shows that it is speaking of a small group of people, not the entire Indian nation. Small distances between Lamanite lands and Desolation, evidences of other groups, etc., are in the text. To ignore them and pretend to believe in a Hemispheric model is to set oneself up for a fall.

Finally, the BoM shows time and again that we are talking about cultural Nephites, and not genetics. Nephites knew nothing about genetics and DNA. They culturally adapted into other groups, and others adapted into them. This same common trait of the Nephites is found to have been a trait in Mesoamerica, where Olmecs were absorbed by Mayans and others, both absorbing culture and transmitting culture. Cultural absorption is very common in the BoM, and Mesoamerica. This should be evidence FOR the BoM, not against it.

Rameumptom, sorry but you simply are wrong with your assumptions. Inheritance studies like this look at mitochondrial DNA, not nuclear DNA. The mitochondria in your cells replicate and divide at their own pace, apart from the normal activity of the cell, and do not typically recombine DNA the way human gametes do (thus the bit about having "half their ancestors' DNA" is flat WRONG). Additionally, the mitochondria you have in your cells come exclusively from your mother - the developing offspring gets theirs from the female egg. So, inheritance can be followed with very high precision simply by examining the mtDNA.

The wikipedia page isn't very detailed, but it at least is a start.

Quote:

The entire pretext, basic story line, for the Book of Mormon was written by Ethan Smith (unrelated to Joseph Smith) in 1823 and taken from a book called "View of the Hebrews"

Ram: I've read the View of the Hebrews, and they are nothing alike - regardless of what Sandra Tanner insists. The names are different, the story lines are different. The BoM is much more complex than the VoH. To state that it was "taken" from the VoH is like saying the Little Mermaid was taken from Moby Dick, because they are both about a fish.

If you study the evidences, you'll find that the BoM fits in 600BC Jerusalem and in Mesoamerica's pre-Classic era; but the VoH does not. Even non-LDS Biblical scholars, like Margaret Barker have stated that Joseph Smith got the culture and ideas of 600BC Jerusalem spot on.

Fair enough you dont see the parallalls but I certainly do, as do many others. The book "Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon" by David Persuitte contains page after page of parallels between the BoM and VTH. As Persuitte emhasizes, some verses from the Book of Mormon are almost verbatim from VTH. Persuitte also discusses Oliver Cowdery and his family's ties to Ethan Smith.

In addition, B.H. Roberts -- a general authority and prolific writer -- found the similarities between the BoM and VTH startling enough to seriously challenge his testimony. As to the claim that Joseph Smith got the culture and ideas of 600BC spot on, one of the chief criticisms of the BoM is that although the Nephites were supposedly devout Jews observing the Law of Moses, the BoM evidences almost no trace of their observance of Mosaic law or even an accurate knowledge of it.

As to the storyline, at least one Mormon GA argued that the similarity between the BoM's storyline and that of VTH prove the genuineness of the BoM:

"...remarkable from the fact that [View of the Hebrews] produces such strong evidences in favor of the genuineness of the Book of Mormon. ... [the author] in more than one place, refers to a tradition among the various tribes that in former times they possessed a book of great value, which they had lost, but which would at some time be restored to them. ... This is exactly the story, from the Lamanites standpoint, which the Book of Mormon records."

Elder George Reynolds of the Seventy, 1902

Finally, no one claims that the BoM was "taken" from VTH. The claim is that Joseph Smith plagiarzed portions of VTH in the BoM. VTH sets forth Ethan Smith's Biblical based theories, arguments and beliefs about Native American origins. The BoM incorporates some of Ethan Smith's ideas into its storyline and embellishes upon them. The BoM also plagiarizes from other sources in addition to VTH.

Quote:

The Book of Mormon states they used what amounts to “coins” and even describe the different sizes, weights and values relative to food. The Gold and Silver pieces even had names such as “Senine, Seon, Strum, Limnah, Shiblon, amnor, ezrom etc.”. They were exchanged for goods and services just as we exchange our coinage/money today. Yet to date not one single “coin” has ever been found in all the archeology on the American Continent. (Alma 11:5-10)

Ram: Wrong. The BoM used weights, not coins. And it is a system that is extremely efficient and ancient in nature. But Joseph would not have known that.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Anachronisms6.pdfhttp://www.fairlds.org/FA...

Quote:

Horses and chariots, pulled by horses, are all through the Book of Mormon, yet horses did not exist on the Pre-Columbian American continent

Not a single steel sword, breastplate, metal sheild, helmet or “metal” arrow tip has ever been found on the American continent. No evidences of the wastes that go along with this complex insdustry has been unearthed.

Ram: There are definite archaeological disagreements with your insistence here. Obviously, you do not have an open mind, or you haven't really studied much more than the anti-LDS material available. There are articles that discuss all of these at the fairlds.org website. Some evidences are better than others. In any case, lack of evidence does not disprove the BoM.

Beyond some ancient stories, we have no evidence of a global flood, a Garden of Eden, an earth created 6000 years ago with Adam as first man, or even Abraham! We barely have evidence of King David. Yet there have been more archaeologists crawling over the hills of Palestine for a much longer time than over all the hills of North and South America combined. Just this past year, archaeologists stated they "think" they've found David's palace. We're talking about a very small area around Jerusalem, but it has taken them over a century of digging to find it?

And then we wonder why people are so impatient with BoM archaeology? First, most archaeologists are not looking for evidence of the BoM, while they may seek evidence of Biblical stories. Second, most Mesoamerican digs have only gone to the Classic Mayan era, which is post-Book of Mormon. In Maya lands, it is very common to build one civilization on top of the next, with some 5 and more levels deep. Instead of building new temples, kings would often just build a new level on an old temple. Just how can we find things if we do not clear everything down to bare rock, and be looking at things in terms of BoM?

As for the things you mentioned, they may have been rarer than you think, with the majority of weapons being of wood and obsidian, perhaps with metal decoration.

Quote:

Not one single city has ever been located that is mentioned within the Book of Mormon. Now look at the big cities in the Bible. Those places still stand,

Ram: This PROVES that you have not done any research, but only looked at anti-LDS sites. Of the hundreds of Biblical place names, only about 25% have been discovered. Those places still stand in the Bible, simply because they've never gone away. It is a red herring or strawman argument you make here.

As it is, the Book of Mormon DOES have evidence here. In the Arabian peninsula, we've found the place Nahom, which was primarily lost to the world for centuries.

LDS scholars are pretty sure they've discovered the Valley of Lemuel and the Arabian Bountiful, as well.

Then, place names in Mesoamerica have been found, such as "Lamanai" and "Qumarkah" (sounds like Cumorah), as well as others.

Sorry again this is a weak argument and your opinion. Where is your evidence here? You still have not addressed my point. Finding 25% of Biblical sites seems like a pretty good number to me. How many BoM sites have been found? Have these Arabian peninsula "finds" been documented in scholarly journals or do we find discussion about them only in Meridian Magazine and the websites of touts who run "Book of Mormon Land" cruises? Youknow what sounds even MORE like Cumorah? The Comoros Islands (called Camora in Joseph Smith's time), the capital of which is Moroni. Oh, and JS, Sr. had an investment in goods that he lost because the ship carrying the goods was shipwrecked on the Comoros Islands. But, yeah, "Qumarkah" in Mesoamerica is a far more likely source for the Book of Mormon name.

Oh and lets not forget JS's fascination with pirates and buried treasure. Oh, and did you know that Captain Kidd, a pirate that JS read widely about, once took on crew and repaired his ship at Comoros? Hmmmm.

Quote:

The Book of Mormon claims domesticated cattle, oxen, sheep, swine and goats. “None” of these animals existed in the American in the pre-Columbian era.

Ram: It is possible that limited numbers of these animals were available. Or it is possible that names used in the BoM were approximated to what the Nephites recognized from the Old World. When Pizarro arrived with his horses, they were called, "deer" or "llama" by the Incans. Llamas did extend into Mesoamerica centuries ago, as did tapirs, bison, goats, boar, and other animals that could have qualified.

Quote:

The Book of Mormon has “3,100” direct and near direct quotes from the King James Version of the Bible. Not only a obvious plagiarism, but another anachronism as well.

Ram: Plagiarism occurs only when there is no attribution. So you are wrong here, as well. As for the Isaiah and other quotes, I've noted in other threads how this is actually evidence FOR the BoM. Nephi and others used the writings in the Brass Plates as a witness for their teachings. Nephi said he had three witnesses of Christ: himself, his brother Jacob, and Isaiah. Then he quotes Jacob and Isaiah, and then expounds upon their writings with his own.

This is also found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where many of the writings are expansions of Biblical writings. These scrolls, such as the Hosea Commentary, quote a prophet, then explains it according to the understanding of the Qumran community.

The Bible also uses this format, such as when Jude quotes the Book of Enoch, or Isaiah 2 quotes Micah 4.

So, if you are going to use this as evidence that the Book of Mormon is false, then you may as well discredit the Dead Sea Scrolls and Bible, as well.

Quote:

I am sorry but if it was directly translated from God and is the truest book then these problems would not exist. I dont care if he was only human God is not.

You know, I could go on and I have spent a long time pondering and researching this. It is not something that happened over night. I have read as I stated apologists views on these along with many other problems with early history of the church. The problem with aplogist views is that to the devoted member it sounds great ans strenghtens them but to the open minded doubter who have read all the details see that these apologists miss out valuable words which change the meaning of a paragraph by a huge amount. A Typical example would be the 1981 Ensign defense of the Kinerhook plates which again proves Jospeh was not who we think.

Sorry. These are my views and just doing as requested.

Sorry, but I'm not convinced that you studied anything beyond the anti-LDS writings. Too many of the things onyour list show a lack of any study whatsoever, but continue to be spouted by the anti-Mormon crowd.

I have no problem with someone actually doing the research and stating that some LDS "evidences" are weak or missing. But you actually included areas that are totally falsifiable (such as no cities/locations being found) by archaeological standards.

[HiJolly]

Whew, mike_uk, that was a formatting mess! I did pick up one thing - you said FAIR/FARMS didn't help doubters - I have to say, you are wrong. I know, I have been, and *am* a doubter, from time to time.

I love reading FAIR & FARMS articles, they answer doubts over and over again. Good stuff, can't recommend them highly enough.

HiJolly

[Jenamarie]

Mike_uk: Just curious, and please don't take this as accusatory in anyway, I just couldn't tell exactly from your post. :) Have you read the View of the Hebrews book, or just the book comparing it with the BoM?

[mike_uk]

Whew, mike_uk, that was a formatting mess! I did pick up one thing - you said FAIR/FARMS didn't help doubters - I have to say, you are wrong. I know, I have been, and *am* a doubter, from time to time.

I love reading FAIR & FARMS articles, they answer doubts over and over again. Good stuff, can't recommend them highly enough.

HiJolly

Not the best formatting but I am not a forum expert at all but it seems eligible to me. Me being wrong is YOUR OPINION so dont call me wrong here please. Problem with FAIR/FARMS is its Mormons defnding mormonism. So of course they are going to defend the faith.

I think this is the time to leave this thread. It's not going to lead anywhere is it?

[rameumptom]

Mike,

There are some of the head biologists and DNA experts that have written on the topic of both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. They all say the same thing, which is how I stated it.

And your insistence that FARMS/FAIR not be used is really an insult. They are peer reviewed for the most part, while most of the anti-LDS stuff has not been. If I were to tell you to back up your statements without going to any authorities of your choosing, that would really show a lack of desire for me to discuss things.

Here is a microbiologist's discussion on DNA and the BoM.

Finding 25% of Biblical sites in an area that has always been populated and accounted for doesn't say anything at all. Finding a few sites from the Book of Mormon IS an important issue, because if it were fraudulent, you shouldn't find anything.

BH Roberts wrote almost a century ago. His ideas were based upon ideas of his day, and were not based upon modern research and technology.

More recent discussion is given by John Tvedtnes, who discusses things brought up by modern scholars and LDS thought. (BTW, great article. I ought to know, as I edited it for FAIR).

So, give us a break, and please stop pretending to be an expert in these things.