The Truth about Mormons

[Unkotare]

Filthy bigot asswipe.

 

[Truthspeaker]

I think the major difference is, you can debate whether there was a resurrection or even if Jesus was a real person, but you can't debate the fact that Judea was a real place, that the Roman Empire really existed.

The Mormon books insist this vast civilization existed that lasted just as long as Rome did, but yet left not a single trace of evidence. Therefore, it is logicall to conclude that Joseph Smith was making that shit up....

So you still continue to ignore the archaelogical evidence I showed you. The only response I got back from you was. "Those have been debunked."
Well this seems highly irresponsible to just dismiss without showing any "debunking". I've shown you evidence of civilizations, horses, elephants and Hebrew writing in Ancient America among others. You're not going to impress anyone if you don't address the facts. The evidence is mountainous. But evidence is always open to interpretation, even obvious evidence. Learn knowledge before you try to make statements like "no evidence".

1- Nothing a Mormon produces will ever be treated as ANYTHING but a lie by me.

2- No non-LDS scientist accepts interpretations that there was a Nephite civilization.

3- A mormon wouldn't know a fact if it bit him on his ass.

Truth is truth, no matter who says it... Ever consider that to accept anything that remotely validates the book of mormon in any way endangers their dogmas and whole way of life. They'd have to accept the Book of Mormon. Of course it is dismissed without examination.

Also, do you think we're being just a touch prejudiced if you say "no mormon" would know any facts at all? hmmm. says a little about you there guy.

 

[JoeB131]

Truth is truth, no matter who says it... Ever consider that to accept anything that remotely validates the book of mormon in any way endangers their dogmas and whole way of life. They'd have to accept the Book of Mormon. Of course it is dismissed without examination.

Also, do you think we're being just a touch prejudiced if you say "no mormon" would know any facts at all? hmmm. says a little about you there guy.

Nope. You belong to a cult. You are incapable of thinking for yourself.

Can you name ONE thing in Mormon doctrine you think is bullshit? Just one. No, of course not. Because if you did, you'd be shunned the rest of the cult.

Most Catholics think a lot of what the Church teaches about celibacy, brith control, Papal INfallibility is bullshit, if they think about it at all. I walked away from Catholicism in 1983 and never looked back. Guess what, my family didn't shun me. Didn't stop talking to me.

Thank God (who doesn't exist) that I wasn't brought up a Mormon.

 

[Unkotare]

No, you were brought up a filthy bigoted idiot whose incapacity for faith has left him so insecure that he lashes out blindly like some frightened animal.

 

[Avatar4321]

1- Nothing a Mormon produces will ever be treated as ANYTHING but a lie by me.

Then you are lying to yourself

2- No non-LDS scientist accepts interpretations that there was a Nephite civilization.

That's because if he was convinced that there was a Nephite civilization he would be baptized, thereby becoming mormon and you'd no longer find him credible. You've created a standard that would be impossible to meet simply because if the standard is ever met, you will immediately disbelieve it.

3- A mormon wouldn't know a fact if it bit him on his ass.

That's because facts are usually found by reading, by observing, by listening, etc and not usually by biting us on the ass.

 

[Avatar4321]

Nope. You belong to a cult. You are incapable of thinking for yourself.

And who here is refusing to actually look at evidence because it doesn't fit his worldview?

I think that's you.

Can you name ONE thing in Mormon doctrine you think is bullshit? Just one. No, of course not. Because if you did, you'd be shunned the rest of the cult.

If there was anything we disagreed with, we wouldn't be mormon. If you don't believe something, you don't usually claim to believe it. At least if you are an honest person.

But Believe me, we wouldn't be shunned. We don't shun people. It's not really a Christ-like practice. In fact, more often we are accused of not letting people go. Oddly enough by the same people who say we would shun people who disagree. Go figure.

If you want proof, look at this conversation? Have we at any time tried to shun you? No we are continually dialoguing with you. We are continually trying to reach out to you. We always do and we always will. Even if you do say harsh and untrue things about us. Why would that stop us from caring about you? From always helping you be the best you can be. You think God doesn't love you as much as He does us? I know He loves you. He loves all of us. How can anyone shun someone God loves?

When you finally feel the love of God, I know you will understand. When that will happen, I don't know. But you will.

Most Catholics think a lot of what the Church teaches about celibacy, brith control, Papal INfallibility is bullshit, if they think about it at all. I walked away from Catholicism in 1983 and never looked back. Guess what, my family didn't shun me. Didn't stop talking to me.

As I said, when people don't believe something, they walk away from it. The find things they do believe. You've just proven my previous point. But I know many former catholics who did have their families shun them. Does that mean I think Catholicism is a cult? Nope. It just means there are family dynamics at work that I don't know and that the Atonement will be needed to forgive and reunite that family again someday.

Thank God (who doesn't exist) that I wasn't brought up a Mormon.

I doubt your family would love you any less if you were. You honestly think they would?

 

[Avatar4321]

No, you were brought up a filthy bigoted idiot whose incapacity for faith has left him so insecure that he lashes out blindly like some frightened animal.

Is this really necessary? He is a child of God like everyone else. There is no need to speak that way of him or anyone else.

 

[Unkotare]

It's really necessary to tell him the truth about himself, yes.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's really necessary to tell him the truth about himself, yes.

What's the point of having the truth if it's without charity?

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (1 Cor 13:1-3)

 

[Unkotare]

I can tell you want to feel all peace-y (to masterbate your own ego) but an asshole is an asshole, and if no one is honest with him about it he may never wipe.

 

[JoeB131]

2- No non-LDS scientist accepts interpretations that there was a Nephite civilization.

That's because if he was convinced that there was a Nephite civilization he would be baptized, thereby becoming mormon and you'd no longer find him credible. You've created a standard that would be impossible to meet simply because if the standard is ever met, you will immediately disbelieve it.

.

Why would one follow the other?

I believe that there is overealming proof the Egyptian civilization existed. I don't worship Osiris.

I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Greek civilization existed. I don't worship Zeus.

I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Judean civilization existed. I dont' worship Yahweh or Jesus.

Why would a scientist who found that maybe there was something to the Nephite civilization automatically conclude, "Yup, these folks must have had a special connection to God!"

In fact, science is the exact opposite of faith. Science looks at the evidence and creates the theory. Faith starts with the theory and fits all the evidence.

 

[JoeB131]

Thank God (who doesn't exist) that I wasn't brought up a Mormon.

I doubt your family would love you any less if you were. You honestly think they would?

True, because my family aren't stupid enough to be Mormons... and they always thought the RCC was a bit full of shit... although about half of them work for it.

 

[Truthspeaker]

The detailed history and civilization described in the Book of Mormon does not correspond to anything found by archaeologists anywhere in the Americas.

This is a common response made by skeptics and scientists who are afraid of any information that might validated the Bookf of Mormon. It's understandable and predictable. please pay attention to my following criticisms of your use of the word "anything".

The Book of Mormon describes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America, which was familiar with horses, elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture. But no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas of that period. Nor does the Book of Mormon mention many of the features of the civilizations which really did exist at that time in the Americas.

Let's be careful not to make claims that the text does not. The text does not claim that they were "very common". It mentions their use but we don't know how common they actually were. Also the Book of Mormon does not specify how long it's people lived on the land. We know the children of Lehi were there from 600BC to 421AD and that is where the record ends, but their descendants are still there today. The Maya are the Nephites and Lamanites by all evidence shown. Their rise to prominence is in line with the arrival of the Lehite colony in 584 BC or thereabouts.
Also it is amazing how little you have actually read of the text as you don't even know that coins were never claimed to have been minted anywhere in the book. It has been assumed from their description of money that it was in coin form but there is no evidence that their money was in coin form according to the text itself.
Now as to your points of individual items mentioned. We'll start with the always fun horses:
There have been at least three sets of ancient horse remains found. One set dated between 3 and 12 thousand years ago, another very recently by Henry chapman mercer in which his expedition turned up two sets of very relevant remains. One had horse bones dated between 900 and 400 bc and the other set was horse teeth dated around 200 ad. Please learn of all the findings. Not just the popular dogmatic ones. Some scientists love to ignore findings that don't fit their dogmas. and if you must know or care, yes dr. Mercer is not a mormon.
2. Elephants~ please read this in it's entirety
Elephants are mentioned only once (Ether 9:19) as having been "had" by the ancient Jaredites. This occurrence is at an early point in the history of the Jaredites, probably well before 2500 B.C. based on the chronology proposed by Sorenson in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Is this an obvious blunder? Mastodons and mammoths, a form of elephants, lived across North America and part of South America. It is widely believed that they went extinct before Jaredite times. However, there are other indications:

Experts agree that the mammoth, and mastodon could have survived in favored spots much later than the time normally assigned for their extinction. The mastodon has already been dated as late as 5000 B.C. at Devil's Den, Florida, and around the Great Lakes to 4000 B.C. Then there is the remarkable discovery of the remains of a butchered mastodon in Ecuador; pottery associated with the find is said to date to after the time of Christ [J. Augusta, The Age of Monsters, Prehistoric and Legendary (London: Paul Hamlyn, 1966), pp. 11-12.]. In its light, the radiocarbon date around 100 B.C. of horse, mammoth and mastodon remains at St. Petersburg, Florida, does not seem impossible [Jim J. Hester, "Agency of Man in Animal Extinction," in Martin and Wright, "Pleistocene Extinctions," p. 185]. The Jaredite mention of the elephant a single time - very early in their lineage history - hints that the creature became extinct in their area soon thereafter. Perhaps the Jaredites themselves killed off the last of the beasts within their zone. But the Jaredites might not have been the only people to record the presence of the big animal. Some North American Indians have recounted legends of "great stiff-legged beasts who could not lie down" and of an animal with a fifth appendage, which came out of its head [H. P. Beck, "The Giant Beaver: A Prehistoric Memory," Ethnohistory 19 (1972):117; William Duncan Strong, "North American Indian Traditions Suggesting Knowledge of the Mammoth," American Anthropologist 36 (1934):81-88]. Possibly, tribes transmitted through oral tradition some vague remembrance of encounters with these "elephants." The later the beasts survived, the easier it is to accept the reliability of the tradition. In any case, it is possible that the mammoth or mastodon hung on in Mexico at least as late as 2500 B.C.

3. Cattle~ Again try not to think as a westerner in 2011 when reading this. Even Joseph Smith did not have a word for Buffalo and Bison. He never even knew they existed in 1929 as he had never seen them before.
The Hebrew word b'hemah, sometimes translated as "cattle" in the Old Testament, can refer to "any large quadruped or animal" [Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible, 19]. The Hebrew word s'eh, also translated as "cattle," usually refers to smaller domesticates such as sheep or goats. The Book of Mormon term could easily refer to any small or large quadruped. There are, of course, many New World species that could fall within this description.

(Roper, op. cit. p. 207)

After reading about the discovery of fossilized bison along with the mammoths recently found in Mexico (Associated Press, Oct. 30, 1996), perhaps one could speculate that bison were treated and named as cattle. If buffalo or bison had been in Joseph Smith's vocabulary in 1829, perhaps a more specific term might have been used in the translation, but "cattle" (perhaps as a generic term) may have been the most accurate translation for whatever word was used in the Nephite language. Further, the tapir in Mesoamerica is sometimes called a "cow." In fact, the national animal of Belize, Baird's tapir, is known in Belize as the "mountain cow" It is not a cow, of course, and is actually more closely related to the horse. Interestingly, Wikipedia reports that in Lacandon Maya, Baird's tapir is called cash-i-tzimin, meaning "jungle horse." Interesting, eh? Just shows how species and animal names can be perplexing as we move across cultural and linguistic barriers. Just because someone writes about a horse or cow doesn't mean it's the species we're familiar with.

4. Sheep~ Sheep have been found. Ignoring it or claiming it wasn't found does not eliminate the fact that sheep were there. Big Horn sheep though currently wild are still there to this day.

5. Wheat and Barley~ This has been proven beyond a doubt in 1983:
Barley and wheat are mentioned in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 7:22, 9:9; and Alma 11:7,15). These are not said to be derived from Old World "seeds" that Nephi's group brought with them in 600 B.C. Indeed, plant transfers from one land to another often don't succeed in the long run, and we may assume that many or most references to grains and plants in the Book of Mormon were to New World plants. The complex issue of translating plant and animal names again needs to be considered.

The reference to barley, long derided by critics, received increased plausibility in 1983, when professional archeologists announced the discovery of pre-Columbian domesticated barley found in Arizona (see the Dec. 1983 issue of Science 83). This was a New World species of cultivated (unhulled) barley. Further, it has been known for years that there are several kinds of wild barley native to the Americas (Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 130). You can partially verify this yourself on the new USDA Plants Web site, where a search on barley (enter the search string "*barley*") reveals that "foxtail barley" and "dwarf barley" are native plants in the United States - along with "Arizona barley," "California barley," "Stebbins' barley," and others.

Critics now say that the New World barley has nothing to do with the barley mentioned in the Book of Mormon, which they incorrectly assume must have been Old World barley. The occurrence of "barley" in the Book of Mormon is hundreds of years after Nephi came to the New World. There is no reason to believe this barley was descended from Old World barley that theoretically could have been brought by Nephi's group. The Nephites could easily have been using a similar New World grain that they called barley and that Joseph Smith translated as barley. I am amazed at the critics who, after years of attacking the Book of Mormon for its "anomalous" mention of barley, simply dismiss the recent scientific evidence of ancient, domesticated New World barley as being "inapplicable." Is that intellectually honest?

There are a wide variety of cultivated grains from ancient Mesoamerica that could have been called "wheat" or "barley." Sorenson gives a partial list (Rev. of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1994, pp. 338-339) including amaranth, huauzontle, chia (used heavily by the Aztecs), fox-tail millet, two species of 'perennial corn,' and Chalco teosinte. References are provided to scholarly, non-LDS publications for each of these grains. By entering "*wheat*" as a search string on the new USDA Plants database, I found that there are numerous native North American species with names comprising the word "wheat." Specifically, there are multiple varieties each of "wheatgrass," "buckwheat," and "cowwheat," and one species called "desert Indianwheat." I have no evidence that any of these were cultivated or would even be worth cultivating. The point, though, is that English speakers have used common names for grains (like "wheat" or "barley") to describe some native plant species - something that could easily have happened with other peoples as well.

One interesting plant mentioned in the Book of Mormon is "sheum" (Mosiah 9:9). "This name rather obviously derived from Akkadian (Babylonian) 'she-um,' barley (Old Assyrian, wheat), 'the most popular ancient Mesopotamian cereal name.' A Jaredite source [for that name[ is logical, for that group departed from Mesopotamia, although the Book of Mormon reference is to a plant cultivated by the Zeniffites (a Nephite-'Mulekite' group) in the second century B.C. (Sorenson, op. cit., 1994, p. 338). Sorenson cites this as an example of a name change, for the Nephites at this time had a separate word for barley, and must have been calling some other species by the name "sheum." Perhaps it was one of the several Mesoamerican grains listed above.

6. Steel~ Be very careful about reading this as it destroys your steel argument and puts a firm stamp of authenticity on the book.
How could Laban have a steel sword in 600 B.C.? There was no steel then. (And what about Nephi's steel bow?)
The Book of Mormon mentions a steel sword owned by a military leader named Laban in Jerusalem near 600 B.C., a time when many people believe steel had not yet been discovered. Laban's sword had a hilt of pure gold, a blade "of the most precious steel," and exhibited "exceedingly fine" workmanship (1 Nephi 4:9). An excellent discussion of Laban's sword of steel is offered by Matthew Roper in his article "On Cynics and Swords" in FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1997, pp. 146-158. On pages 148-149, he notes that many critics point to Nephi's description of Laban's sword as evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon:

"Steel," it is argued, "was not known to man in those days" [Stuart Martin, The Mystery of Mormonism (London: Odhams, 1920) p. 44]. Today, however, it is increasingly apparent that the practice of "steeling" iron through deliberate carburization was well-known in the Near Eastern world from which the Lehi colony emerged. "It seems evident that by the beginning of the tenth century B.C. blacksmiths were intentionally steeling iron" [Robert Maddin, James D. Muhly, and Tamara S. Wheeler, "How the Iron Age Began," Scientific American 237/4 (October 1977): 127]. A carburized iron knife dating to the twelfth century B.C. is known from Cyprus [Ibid. The knife shows evidence of quenching. See Tamara S. Wheeler and Robert Maddin, "Metallurgy and Ancient Man," in The Coming Age of Iron (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 121]. In addition to this,

A site on Mt. Adir in northern Israel has yielded an iron pick in association with 12th-century pottery. One would hesitate to remove a sample from the pick for analysis, but it has been possible to test the tip of it for hardness. The readings averaged 38 on the Rockwell "C" scale of hardness. This is a reading characteristic of modern hardened steel [Maddin, Muhly, and Wheeler, "How the Iron Age Began," p. 127].
The importance of this find is echoed by Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000 - 586 B.C.E., New York: Doubleday, 1990, p. 361:

A pick found in the eleventh century B.C.E. fortress at Har Adir in the Upper Galilee is the earliest known iron implement made of real steel produced by carbonizing, quenching, and tempering. This technological revolution opened the way for the widespread use of iron.
Quenching, another method of steeling iron, was also known to Mediterranean blacksmiths during this period. "By the beginning of the seventh century B.C. at the latest the blacksmiths of the eastern Mediterranean had mastered the processes that make iron a useful material for tools and weapons: carburizing and quenching" [Maddin, Muhly, and Wheeler, 131]. Archaeologists recently discovered a carburized iron sword near Jericho. The sword, which had a bronze haft, was one meter long and dates to the time of King Josiah, who would likely have been a contemporary of Lehi [Hershel Shanks, "Antiquities Director Confronts Problems and Controversies," Biblical Archaeology Review 12/4 (July-August 1986): 33,35]. Hershel Shanks recently described the find as "spectacular" since it is the only complete sword of its size and type from this period yet discovered in Israel [Ibid., 33]. Such discoveries lend a greater sense of historicity to Nephi's passing comments in the Book of Mormon.

At Google Books, you can preview Iron and Steel in Ancient Times by Vagn Fabritius Buchwald (Volume 29 of Historisk-filosofiske Skrifter, Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2005) to find interesting information on ancient steel. For example, on page 72, we read:

In the Homerian epic the Odyssey we have an exceptional hint at the blacksmith's cunning treatment of steel, when Odysseus with his men blinded the one-eyed Cyclops Polythemus. "And as when a smith dips a great adze in cold water amid loud hissing to temper it--for therefrom comes the strength of iron--even so did his eye his around the stake of olive-wood" (Odyssey, 9. song: 391. translated by A.T. Murray, Loeb Classical Library).

The archaic period described in the Odyssean narrative is difficult to fit in time, since the Odyssey is a conglomerate of tales, first edited and issues as a total of 24 songs in the 4th century B.C. However, the general scarcity of iron and the common references to weapons of bronze point to the 8th or 7th centuries. No doubt, quench-hardening of steel as described in the epic had been well known for centuries before the poem was conceived. Hardening was, however, restricted to tools, particularly to knives, files, and chisels, only occasionally including a dagger, a sword or an axe.

Thus, the ancient book, The Odyssey, apparently refers to steel manufacturing that was known in the Mediterranean region well before the time of Lehi. Hardened steel was not common, though, and was used for only a few objects, including an occasional sword. A steel sword in Nephi's day may indeed have been rare, but known, and thus it is entirely plausible for the Book of Mormon to mention a sword of a significant and wealthy military leaders that was made of "the most precious steel" (1 Nephi 4:9). Not the whole sword, but the blade, where hard steel would be especially desirable.

The ancients in Nephi's day had the ability to carburize iron, but that does not mean that iron or steel was commonly available. The steel of Laban's sword was "most precious," clearly not a commodity item. In fact, subsequent appearances of iron in the Book of Mormon rate it with precious metals and riches rather than treating it as an ordinary material, as if metallurgical skills were largely lost in Nephite culture sometime after Nephi's era.

Incidentally, a photo of a gold-hilted sword with a blade made of meteoric iron is available in Volume 3 of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism under the article, "Sword of Laban." The sword comes from the tomb of Tutankhamun, who died in 1325 B.C., over 700 years before Nephi saw the sword of Laban. For more information on the ancient use of iron and steel prior to Nephi's time, see Oleg D. Sherby and Jeffrey Wadsworth, "Damascus Steels," Scientific American 252 (February 1985): 112-20; J. P. Lepre, The Egyptian Pyramids: A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1990), 245; Immanuel Velikovsky, Ramses II and His Time (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978), 222-37.

Another useful paper on ancient steel is "Steel in Ancient Greece and Rome" by E.A.Ginzel, 1995, available at the Materials Research Institute Website. Ginzel argues that early forms of steel were known and made by the ancients, though not well understood.

While most ancient works of iron or steel are not likely to survive because of corrosion, one recent well-preserved find of an ancient iron sword from the Middle East is reported by Avraham Eitan, "BAR Interviews Avraham Eitan: Antiquities Director Confronts Problems and Controversies," interview by Hershel Shanks, Biblical Archaeology Review 12/4 (1986): 30-38, as discussed in the new book, Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne, Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1999. A large iron sword, three feet long and about three inches wide was excavated at Vered Jericho (a place near Jericho in Israel). It has a bronze haft with a wooden grip. The strata from which the sword was excavated dates to the late seventh century BC. This sword is unlike the shorter daggers that are normally depicted in art from this part of the world. It provides evidence that iron (steel?) swords of large size were known in Nephi's day. (See also William J. Adams Jr., Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1993, pp. 194-195.)

On the related issue of Nephi's steel bow, a quote from Hugh Nibley is relevant here (Lehi in the Desert, p. 57):

The Arab forager is everlastingly prowling, scouting, tracking, and spying; in fact, some believe that the original root of the names Arab and Hebrew is a combination of sounds meaning "to lie in ambush." "Every Bedawin is a sportsman both from taste and necessity," writes one observer, who explains how in large families some of the young men are detailed to spend all their time hunting. Nephi and his brethren took over the business of full-time hunters and in that office betray the desert tradition of the family, for Nephi had brought a fine steel bow from home with him. Though we shall consider steel again in dealing with the sword of Laban, it should be noted here that a steel bow was not necessarily a solid piece of metal, any more than the Canaanites' "chariots of iron" (Joshua 17:16-18; Judges 1:19; 4:3) were solid iron, or than various implements mentioned in the Old Testament as being "of iron," e.g., carpenter's tools, pens, threshing instruments, were iron and only iron. It was in all probability a steel-ribbed bow, since it broke at about the same time that the wooden bows of his brothers "lost their springs" (1 Nephi 16:21). Only composite bows were used in Palestine, that is, bows of more than one piece, and a steel-backed bow would be called a steel bow just as an iron-trimmed chariot was called a "chariot of iron." Incidentally the founder of the Turkish Seljuk Dynasty of Iran was called Yaqaq, which means in Turkish, says our Arab informant, "a bow made out of iron."
Update: Bronze Arrowheads Inscribed with Steel


I recently encountered the article, "Bronze Arrowheads and the Name Aha" in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1999, p. 83. It reviews a find reported in the May/June 1999 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review by P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. of Johns Hopkins University. This find provides evidence for the use of steel around 1000 B.C. in Israel. McCarter reports on the discovery of three bronze arrowheads from the eleventh century B.C. bearing Hebrew inscriptions, one of which was inscribed with a steel instrument, according to Dr. R. Thomas Chase of the Freer Gallery of Art, a division of the Smithsonian Institution and an authority on ancient bronze artifacts. He discovered that "the inscription had been incised with a steel [emphasized in the original] engraving tool" (P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., "Over the Transom: Three more Arrowheads," Biblical Archaeology Review (May/June 1999, pp. 42-43). This is further evidence for the use of steel in Israel prior to Lehi's time. Also of interest is the name "Aha" that occurs in one of the inscriptions, which McCarter translates as "The arrowhead of 'Aha' son of 'Ashtart.'" This appears to be the same as the name mentioned in the Book of Mormon in Alma 16:5, where we read of two sons of Zoram, chief captain of the Nephite army, whose names were Lehi and Aha. Thus we have evidence authenticating another ancient Hebrew name found in the Book of Mormon but not the Bible, simultaneously providing further support for the use of steel prior to Nephi's day. The case for the plausibility of the Book of Mormon just keeps stronger and stronger - which is no surprise to those of us who know by the power of God that it's true.

7. Wheeled Vehicles~ The book of mormon only mentions "chariots". Not "wheeled vehicles". Critics argue that the wheel wasn't used in those times. This is an insult to the intelligence of those mighty people and my intelligence and the intelligence of those critics who make this argument. See Below
Pre-columbian Wheeled Artifacts from Meso and South America

this link proves the wheel was in use and remains of chariots don't need to be found as ancient old world chariots in the fertile crescent area have not been found either. Erosion wouldn't allow such objects to last that long.

8. Shipbuilding~ Nephi was shown how to build a ship by God himself. This was a miraculous claim and we know it but we still believe it. God can instruct if he feels like it. That being said, if it is true then no doubt they would keep the plans and would have learned how to build ships.

9. Actually it does mention a great deal of details about the people which has been found to be accurate such as: using horses, elephants, building roads, painting faces, shaving heads, wearing animal skins, human sacrifice, constant warfare, temple building. use of swords, bows, arrows etc. to name a few.

The LDS church has spent millions of dollars over many years trying to prove through archaeological research that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record, but they have failed to produce any convincing pre-columbian archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon story.

The reason it is not convincing to you is because you are asking for us to convince you of a spiritual concept with earthly means. This cannot be done. Evidence is only evidence, not proof of either argument. This is what you call looking beyond the mark. If you don't want the Book of Mormon to be true, you can always argue your way around it. It goes both ways.

In addition, whereas the Book of Mormon presents the picture of a relatively homogeneous people, with a single language and communication between distant parts of the Americas,

My how little you know of what the text actually says.
First the Jaredites were here. Different language, different culture. The Jaredite remnants met up with the Mulekites, different language, different culture, who in turn blended with the Nephites and Lamanites, another different language and culture. Their difficulty and mingling with the Mulekites was noted because of their language barrier.

the pre-columbian history of the Americas shows the opposite: widely disparate racial types (almost entirely east Asian - definitely not Semitic, as proven by recent DNA studies), and many unrelated native languages, none of which are even remotely related to Hebrew or Egyptian.

As I just mentioned, there was variety. Also if you check the record again, you seem to have ignored the Hebrew ancient writing found in ancient America, with the ten commandments written as well to boot. The Ohio Decalog, a Hebrew artifact from ancient America
If these links aren't earth shaking proof of the existence of Hebrews in America pre-Columbus, I don't know what is.
Oldest known 10 Commandments is in America, in Ancient Hebrew Script-From time of king Solomon « Godssecret's Weblog

The people of the Book of Mormon were supposedly devout Jews observing the Law of Moses, but in the Book of Mormon there is almost no trace of their observance of Mosaic law or even an accurate knowledge of it.

Nephi remarked on this as they already had the brass plates with the Law of Moses had already and so there was no need to copy it to the small plates. It was also shown to him in a vision that we in modern times already had the record of the Mosaic Law.

Although Joseph Smith said that God had pronounced the completed translation of the plates as published in 1830 "correct," many changes have been made in later editions. Besides thousands of corrections of poor grammar and awkward wording

This is another strong stamp of authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
For example, a pure translation from any language is never going to make perfect grammatical sense in modern english, or even the english used in 1829. The grammatical changes really were added for the reading convenience of the 21st century reader. I wish they never would have made the changes and here's why. Look at the example:
Original~ "The more part of them did take the oath, and the remainder part of the Lamanites fled into the wilderness."
Edited~"The larger part of them took the oath, and the remainder fled into the wilderness.
When reading the original it feels more like the author's language which has different grammatical rules in the original language compared to the modern english edition. I wish none of those had been added.

in the 1830 edition, other changes have been made to reflect subsequent changes in some of the fundamental doctrine of the church. For example, an early change in wording modified the 1830 edition's acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity, thus allowing Smith to introduce his later doctrine of multiple gods. A more recent change (1981) replaced "white" with "pure," apparently to reflect the change in the church's stance on the "curse" of the black race.

I don't know where you got this because nowhere in the text is there doctrine supporting of the trinity nor did Smith author the idea of multiple gods in the heavens. That idea came from the first chapter of Genesis where God uses those annoying words "us" and "our" when making the statement. "Let us make man in our image." The fact that there are many gods in the universe does not change that there is one god we pray to and one God who can save us.

Also there has never been a change in wording with regard to the curse placed upon the Lamanites around 560 BC. This is another example of your failure to even read the book. A crippling argument against your case as you won't even read the text. Here's how it has always read in 2nd Nephi chapter 5 verse 21:
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

That's how it reads and it has never changed. However since you have proven that you do not read the text it is easy to misunderstand this curse of God and somehow place it on people of African descent, instead of where it belonged at the time on the Lamanites. The text also shows that before the events in the Book of Mormon ended, the curse was removed from the lamanites and the people had conglomerated into one. This has nothing to do with people of African descent.

If you should ever decide that you made a mistake in joining the church and then leave it, you will probably find (judging from the experiences of others who have done so) that many of your Mormon friends will abandon and shun you. If you are unable to convince your family members to leave the church with you, you will find that the church has broken up your family and your relationship with them may never recover.

I'm not worried since I know my family better than you do and I have many family members who have left the church and we are still close and no one has been ostracized. Most notably my artsy brother(why is it always the artsy ones?)

Consider very carefully before you commit yourself, and remember that any doubts you may have now will likely only increase.

Fear shoud never govern any spiritual decision.

Examine carefully both sides of the Mormon story. Listen to the stories of those who have been through an unhappy Mormon experience, not just those Mormons who may speak glowingly of life in the church.

Better yet, you should read the Book of Mormon for yourself and pray to God privately to know for sure which way to go. No one can be trusted like God.

The Mormon missionaries are often charming and enthusiastic. They have an attractive story to tell. At first it sounds wonderful. But remember the old saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!"

What a negative outlook on life! wonderful things can be true. And don't listen to whether is sounds good or not, just listen to your heart and see if it has that truthful ring to it or not.

Be careful not to fall into the trap of believing something simply because you want it to be true. Mormons may tell you that those who criticize the church are lying, misquoting and distorting. If you examine the sources used by the critics, however, you will discover that most of their source material is from official or semi-official Mormon writings. You, too, should examine those sources.

Of course don't believe something just because you want it to be true. But also apply the flip side. Don't rule something out because you don't want it to be true.
I also thought it was amusing how you said "semi-official" Jeez, it's either official or it isn't. Please humor me with specifics.

Is Mormonism a "cult"? Many experts on religious cults see in Mormonism the same fundamental characteristics as cults which have entrapped the unsuspecting, even though most people think of "cults" only as small, unknown groups. Use a "cult checklist" to evaluate Mormonism, or any group, before you commit yourself.

You don't need a checklist, you just need a dictionary definition of cult:
cult~ an exclusive set of religious beliefs or practices.

By definition, we're a cult. I've been saying it for almost three years on here. The real question is, who isn't a cult? or rather which cult should I be a part of?

 

[Truthspeaker]

2- No non-LDS scientist accepts interpretations that there was a Nephite civilization.

That's because if he was convinced that there was a Nephite civilization he would be baptized, thereby becoming mormon and you'd no longer find him credible. You've created a standard that would be impossible to meet simply because if the standard is ever met, you will immediately disbelieve it.

.

Why would one follow the other?

I believe that there is overealming proof the Egyptian civilization existed. I don't worship Osiris.

I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Greek civilization existed. I don't worship Zeus.

I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Judean civilization existed. I dont' worship Yahweh or Jesus.

Why would a scientist who found that maybe there was something to the Nephite civilization automatically conclude, "Yup, these folks must have had a special connection to God!"

In fact, science is the exact opposite of faith. Science looks at the evidence and creates the theory. Faith starts with the theory and fits all the evidence.

Because of the way the Book of Mormon came first and it's claims being so polarizing and then the evidence comes later that's what makes the ancient american situation different from Ancient Egypt. Ancient Egypt has already been uncovered, while the claims of the book of mormon will be entirely substantiated in due time. It requires faith and if the book of mormon is substantiated then it means it's true and the teachings and doctrine of Christ inside it are also true. Surely you're smart enough to see the chain reaction.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JoeB, you are mistaken in charity and love, and you will never know peace until you know yourself. Every word you write reveals your self hatred. I am very sorry you feel that way. I don't believe Mormonism is a "true" church but I don't believe any denomination has all of the definitive truth. I do have a relationship with Jesus Christ, with which I am undoubtedly better in my behaviors and actions. I still have a long way to go. I understand Ukotare's anger at you. I also know something Ukotare does not know about you. You feel about yourself as Ukotare described you. That can change if you wish.

 

[Unkotare]

That's Unkotare if you please. It doesn't make sense if you spell it wrong.

 

[Avatar4321]

I can tell you want to feel all peace-y (to masterbate your own ego) but an asshole is an asshole, and if no one is honest with him about it he may never wipe.

What does ego have to do with anything? The love the Spirit gives is truly empowering. and in order to retain that Spirit we have to be humble and full of love for our fellow man. Even those who may be our enemies.

I don't know a single person who has changed who they are because they were insulted by someone. But Ive met many who have had their lives changed because someone shared the love of God with them. The Lord can use those who are willing to share that love with others. I've made a commitment to try to share the love of God with others even if they don't reciprocate. Whether I change a life or don't, whether i know about it or not, I simply want people to have that opportunity.

hatred and bigotry cause nothing but bitterness in ones soul. I'd rather be happy than be mean.

 

[Avatar4321]

2- No non-LDS scientist accepts interpretations that there was a Nephite civilization.

That's because if he was convinced that there was a Nephite civilization he would be baptized, thereby becoming mormon and you'd no longer find him credible. You've created a standard that would be impossible to meet simply because if the standard is ever met, you will immediately disbelieve it.

.

Why would one follow the other?

I believe that there is overealming proof the Egyptian civilization existed. I don't worship Osiris.

I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Greek civilization existed. I don't worship Zeus.

I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Judean civilization existed. I dont' worship Yahweh or Jesus.

Why would a scientist who found that maybe there was something to the Nephite civilization automatically conclude, "Yup, these folks must have had a special connection to God!"

In fact, science is the exact opposite of faith. Science looks at the evidence and creates the theory. Faith starts with the theory and fits all the evidence.

The Book of Mormon is a unique book. If there is a Nephite civilization then you have to explain how a farm boy in rural New York was able to produce documentation from it. Considering critics can't explain away the Book of Mormon while they declare there is no Nephite civilization, I doubt they would have any more success when the Nephites are found to have historically existed.

If there are Nephites, is there an explanation of how the Book of Mormon came about other than the one Joseph gave? If there is, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Unkotare]

I can tell you want to feel all peace-y (to masterbate your own ego) but an asshole is an asshole, and if no one is honest with him about it he may never wipe.

What does ego have to do with anything? .

That's where you need to start being honest with yourself.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB, you are mistaken in charity and love, and you will never know peace until you know yourself. Every word you write reveals your self hatred. I am very sorry you feel that way. I don't believe Mormonism is a "true" church but I don't believe any denomination has all of the definitive truth. I do have a relationship with Jesus Christ, with which I am undoubtedly better in my behaviors and actions. I still have a long way to go. I understand Ukotare's anger at you. I also know something Ukotare does not know about you. You feel about yourself as Ukotare described you. That can change if you wish.

Ukypukey's anger seems to be at everyone. he can't get on a thread without unleashing a load of F-bombs...

Sorry, man, my hostility towards Mormonism is grounded in the fact that it's a lie. Just look at Truthseekers mental gymanstics to deny that the BOM has been repeatedly debunked. These jokers have an excuse for everything. (Come to think of it, kind of like Obama Supporters.)

The truth is simple. Joseph Smith made up a bullshit fake religion to garner money, power and sex with underage girls. The people who run the church continue that, using all the typical things cults do to keep their people under control.

And I dont want members of this cult running my country.

It's just that simple.