What say you?

What did I miss?

I saw a documentary last night that claims the Book of Mormon can be entirely discredited based on DNA testing.  Not trying to start a battle here, just wondering what the LDS population thinks of this.

1)    http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom08.html  (read first)

2)    http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom07.html

3)    http://www.fairlds.org/apol/antis/200207.html

video  http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/woodward01/


sst7

Quoted: I saw a documentary last night that claims the Book of Mormon can be entirely discredited based on DNA testing.  Not trying to start a battle here, just wondering what the LDS population thinks of this.

Sometimes my wife and I will be watching some stupid sci-fi movie or some other film which is totally implausable on its face. About two-thirds of the way through the movie some little thing will happen in the film that doesn't make any sense. Invariably one of us will call the film makers on this minor incongruity. At that point the other will say something to the effect of, "was that the first thing you questioned?" . . . Sorry, no point really. I just thought I'd share . . .

Interesting question.  Truth is, I don't think of it much at all.  There are too many ways such a study could be flawed, and I don't base my testimony on scientific discovery anyway, for the Bible or the Book of Mormon.  I'm confident that over time more and more archeological and even DNA type evidence will come to light supporting the Book of Mormon, but it wouldn't change my testimony either way.

This is a very good question.  The simple story is that if, as the Book of Mormon claims, the people of Lehi came from Jerusalem and were descendants of Joseph, there should be some native americans somewhere here that have DNA similar to that of people in Israel.  Numerous studies have been done to investigate this.  Some have concluded that the Book of Mormon is false because they didn't find any Jewish DNA.  Others are still looking.  

While researching the topic myself, I came across an article that had been a story on the Discovery Channel.  The link is now dead,

(http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20040906/firstamerican.html)

but the issue discussed in the article was the ancient remains of a woman's body that was found somewhere in Baja or western Mexico.  It turns out that she had no genetic markers common to the Asian people that came across the Siberian land bridge.  At the time of the article, the people doing the research on her genetics figured that she had come from the western Pacific Islands, southern asia, or the Mediterranean.  

The Discovery channel is in no way connected to the Mormon church.

It really looks like the bottom line is that a lot of people came here from a lot of other places.  The Book of Mormon does not make the claim that everyone here descended from Lehi, nor has any church leader made such a claim to my knowledge.  

People who want to discredit the Book of Mormon will always find a way to do so.  This is no big surprise - people found ways to discredit the Savior too, and they were wrong.  People are wrong a lot, especially about the truth.

-grommet

ETA: I just found a page that has the same dead link I had above, but with a little more information on the same stuff:

www.crystalinks.com/firstamericans.html

Quoted: I saw a documentary last night that claims the Book of Mormon can be entirely discredited based on DNA testing.  Not trying to start a battle here, just wondering what the LDS population thinks of this.

John Browning invented the M2 50 BMG as a counter to the DNA argument, and all other gimmicks to discredit the Book of Mormon (just in case you didn't know, he was Mormon).

All these links are fine and dandy.  However, the fact remains that there is no archeological, genetic or historical evidence to support the Book of Mormon.  The Bible on the other hand DOES have evidence to support it.  Unless I'm missing something...  MODS I'm not trying to BASH the Mormon religion.  I am simply asking a question about their faith and belief system so I can understand it better.

Quoted: All these links are fine and dandy.  However, the fact remains that there is no archeological, genetic or historical evidence to support the Book of Mormon.  The Bible on the other hand DOES have evidence to support it.  Unless I'm missing something...  MODS I'm not trying to BASH the Mormon religion.  I am simply asking a question about their faith and belief system so I can understand it better.

That's ok.  Our faith isn't based on archeological evidence when it comes to the Book of Mormon or the Bible.  Our faith and Testimony come from asking God if these things are true and getting a confirmation from the Holy Ghost.

Besides, if some archeological evidence appeared supporting the Book of Mormon, would you convert to Mormonism?  There's lots of evidence about places and people mentioned in the Bible, yet most of the world's population isn't Christian.

Quoted: All these links are fine and dandy.  However, the fact remains that there is no archeological, genetic or historical evidence to support the Book of Mormon.  The Bible on the other hand DOES have evidence to support it.  Unless I'm missing something...  MODS I'm not trying to BASH the Mormon religion.  I am simply asking a question about their faith and belief system so I can understand it better.

The first 2 books in the Book of Mormon mention Jerusalem many times.  Is there no evidence of Jerusalem to be found on, say, a map?  Many non-Christians bring up similar claims of lack of evidence to "prove" that the Bible is just a pseudo history book. If you are a Christian, and you believe the Bible to be true, then you need to ask yourself if that belief in Christ is based on faith in Him, or whether your belief in Christ is rooted in archeological digs, and historical evidence.

Bottom line- if you want to know about the LDS belief system, I am not convinced that this is the way to learn.  Anyone who has asked me similar questions has never been interested in learning about my religion, but rather interested in trying to discredit it.  

It is fair to ask such questions, but what do you consider to be an adequate answer? Please don't take my response to be hostile, I am just trying to be straight with you.

I think the South Park episode pretty much discredited Mormonism (and did in scientologists in another episode).

There's more evidence that Joseph Smith existed than there is for Jesus.  It's all a question about what you want to believe.

Quoted: Quoted: All these links are fine and dandy.  However, the fact remains that there is no archeological, genetic or historical evidence to support the Book of Mormon.  The Bible on the other hand DOES have evidence to support it.  Unless I'm missing something...  MODS I'm not trying to BASH the Mormon religion.  I am simply asking a question about their faith and belief system so I can understand it better. The first 2 books in the Book of Mormon mention Jerusalem many times.  Is there no evidence of Jerusalem to be found on, say, a map?  Many non-Christians bring up similar claims of lack of evidence to "prove" that the Bible is just a pseudo history book. If you are a Christian, and you believe the Bible to be true, then you need to ask yourself if that belief in Christ is based on faith in Him, or whether your belief in Christ is rooted in archeological digs, and historical evidence. Bottom line- if you want to know about the LDS belief system, I am not convinced that this is the way to learn.  Anyone who has asked me similar questions has never been interested in learning about my religion, but rather interested in trying to discredit it.   It is fair to ask such questions, but what do you consider to be an adequate answer? Please don't take my response to be hostile, I am just trying to be straight with you.

If you want to be "straight" with me, then tell me WHY there isn't ANY evidence whatsoever to support the Book of Mormon.  Like I said before, there IS evidence to support the Bible (battles, locations, people, etc.) but NOTHING physical to support the Book of Mormon.  Yes, faith is a big part of any religion, but there also needs to be SOMETHING of substance or it's nothing but an idea by some guy.  Joseph Smith was known to be deceptive about other things (his marriage, etc.) so doesn't that damage his character?  Mormon's have come to my house to "visit" with me but when I ask them these same questions, they have no answers, they just kind of look at each other with the deer in the headlights look.  If the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ, why isn't there equal evidence to support it?  I would think Christ would treat the Bible and the Book of Mormon equally if HE indeed inspired both books.  Look up prophesy.  What prophesies have taken place from the Book of Mormon?  I too am NOT trying to be hostile, just asking questions that it seems like nobody has the answers to.

Quoted: There's more evidence that Joseph Smith existed than there is for Jesus.  It's all a question about what you want to believe.

This is a flawed statement given that you are comparing Joseph Smith to the Savior Christ. We do not believe Joseph Smith is a Savior, we believe Christ is the Savior of Mankind.
We do however believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. If you believe the same of Christ than your statement above is correct, but if you are Christian and believe that Jesus is the Christ than your comparison is flawed.

Quoted: Quoted: There's more evidence that Joseph Smith existed than there is for Jesus.  It's all a question about what you want to believe. This is a flawed statement given that you are comparing Joseph Smith to the Savior Christ. We do not believe Joseph Smith is a Savior, we believe Christ is the Savior of Mankind. We do however believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. If you believe the same of Christ than your statement above is correct, but if you are Christian and believe that Jesus is the Christ than your comparison is flawed.

IF Joseph Smith was a prophet, tell me what prophesies came true from him.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There's more evidence that Joseph Smith existed than there is for Jesus.  It's all a question about what you want to believe. This is a flawed statement given that you are comparing Joseph Smith to the Savior Christ. We do not believe Joseph Smith is a Savior, we believe Christ is the Savior of Mankind. We do however believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. If you believe the same of Christ than your statement above is correct, but if you are Christian and believe that Jesus is the Christ than your comparison is flawed. IF Joseph Smith was a prophet, tell me what prophesies came true from him.

OK now your being combative, asking me to prove my belief. I was saying that your comparison was flawed in the fact that Christ, not Joseph Smith is the foundation of our beliefs.
There are too many prophecies spoken by Joseph Smith that came true to list here. Me proving that he was a prophet doesn't mean anything, you have to feel it and believe it. You obviously don't have that intention.
If I mentioned his prophecies that came true that could be compared to Nostradomus (sp?) but I know what Joseph Smith prophesied is true, that is why it is important to me, and not to others
ETA: I don't want to fight but you are calling me out on my beliefs and I will not do that in this forum. If you truly want to know read his prophecies with an open heart and you'll find the ones that came true and are coming true today.

Quoted: There are too many prophecies spoken by Joseph Smith that came true to list here.

According to the standard that God gave in the Bible, if just one prophecy fails to pass, God says the prophet was false and His word was not in him.

I am NOT being combative.  I am simply sick of every question I ask about the Mormon religion has the same answer.  It's nothing against you or anyone else on this forum and I apologize if you think I was attacking you or your faith.  Not my intention.  The most puzzling issue is the Book of Mormon being labeld "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" but has little similarity to any other testament of Him.  You have to admit that the DNA issue needs to be addressed by the Mormon church.  Too many LDS elders, bishops, etc. have left the church for it NOT to be an issue of contention.  What about FARM?  Isn't it their function to back the Book of Mormon?

Quoted: Quoted: There are too many prophecies spoken by Joseph Smith that came true to list here. According to the standard that God gave in the Bible, if just one prophecy fails to pass, God says the prophet was false and His word was not in him.

+1

Quoted: I am NOT being combative.  I am simply sick of every question I ask about the Mormon religion has the same answer.  It's nothing against you or anyone else on this forum and I apologize if you think I was attacking you or your faith.  Not my intention.  The most puzzling issue is the Book of Mormon being labeld "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" but has little similarity to any other testament of Him.  You have to admit that the DNA issue needs to be addressed by the Mormon church.  Too many LDS elders, bishops, etc. have left the church for it NOT to be an issue of contention.  What about FARM?  Isn't it their function to back the Book of Mormon?

This is my last response here because I can see it isn't getting anywhere.  Lots of people have left lots of religions, so that means they are all as likely to be false too.  If the LDS church were to answer your demand to have everyone in North and South America DNA tested, and the results came out in favor of the Book of Mormon, I have a sneaking suspicion that you wouldn't jump in line to join the church.  

You are essentially asking Mormons to do what Athiests ask all of us to do: Prove there is a God. Make him appear right in front of us for all to see.  Can you do that? No? Then why do you believe in Him if all you have is some books and a bunch of religions claiming He is real.  Many even question whether Jesus was a real person, or just a fictitious character, and will provide all kinds of evidence why He is the latter.  See where I'm going?

As for having no similarity to any other testament of Jesus Christ, how many are there? You have the Bible, which you can break up into multiple books, written by different authors.  And you have the Book of Mormon, which is also made up of multiple books written by different authors.  Tell me what percentage needs to be similar for them to qualify as bonafide?  Again, I don't get that you want to know more about the LDS church.  Every question you have asked has been loaded.

I don't see you as being combative here, but I sense you don't like the answers given you.  Just try to cope with the answers you are given, even if they aren't the ones you wanted.  I am glad you believe in God and Jesus Christ.  We have that much in common.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There are too many prophecies spoken by Joseph Smith that came true to list here. According to the standard that God gave in the Bible, if just one prophecy fails to pass, God says the prophet was false and His word was not in him. +1

another +1

Here's a link for the LDS community (and any other interested party) to look at.  Notice all the LDS scholars doing the speaking...  WATCH all the videos!

http://www.lhvm.org/dna_sci.htm

This is what got me wondering about the whole thing.

Evidence the Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ is Legitimate ("true" is too vague): This is a topic for a volume of books, not a single post, so I’ll be as concise as possible even while knowing this post is curtain to contain huge gaps.  Hopefully it have enough to give those interested a start in their own research.

Archeology - The BoM claims to be a religious record of a community located in a fairly concentrated area on the American continent. According to statements within the book itself, it concentrates upon the people and their dealings with their God. It does not contain the ample sociological, anthological, political, or geographic information necessary for science to confirm its claims. It doesn’t claim to.

However, scholars have located an area in and around the Yucatan peninsula that has both the geographical and archeological features necessary for the setting of the book. In other words, there are mountains, rivers, ruins, etc. (including Archeological discoveries) that correlate with those in the BoM.

But even proponents say that this is only a guess based upon the best evidence. There are hundreds if not thousands of ruins in Central America that haven't been studied in even the most preliminary fashion… many are known only to the locals. Researchers acknowledge that there just isn't enough detail to nail it down, but they have shown that archeologically speaking there is nothing that proves such a culture did not exist.

Historical – The main tenant of the BoM is that Christ visited people on the American continent after his resurrection. It is commonly known that the history of the native cultures contain a prophecy that the “Great White God” will return to his people.  The Spanish were thought to perhaps be this god… a fact they ruthlessly exploited. There are anecdotal accounts of native Americans who have read the BoM and proclaimed it the history of their people even as they denied that Joseph Smith and the LDS church were what they claimed.

Tangential Evidence – Several literary and linguistic studies have concluded that as far as those disciplines are concerned, there is nothing that suggests the BoM isn’t what it claims. The changes in linguistic and rhetorical styles occur precisely where the book indicates a change of author.

An example of further evidence is the “chiasmus”… a literary device common in the Bible and other Hebrew writing. It is also found in the BoM. Why is this significant? Chiasmus were only identified in the Bible in the 20th century, decades after Joseph Smith made public the BoM.

Orson Scott Card, a best-selling and award-winning science fiction author, wrote an essay explaining why, from a fiction writer’s standpoint, the BoM couldn’t have been invented, especially by someone with the literary background of Joseph Smith and his associates. (In the interest of disclosure I need to mention that Card is a “practicing mormon”)

These aren’t the only modern discoveries or ideas that have bolstered the BoM’s claim to authenticity. The idea of ancient cultural records hidden in the ground was mocked for decades until numerous discoveries of similar records were found. Now it’s accepted that not only were records considered valuable by ancient cultures buried, but it was a common practice in the Near East, the area from which the BoM claims this particular society originated. Even writing on metal plates was considered laughable in the 1800s, but is now accepted as common ancient practice… again in the Near East. There are many more examples but…. See my statement in the first paragraph.

Contrary to common belief, the LDS church strongly encourages scientific (or whatever you want to call the opposite of “spiritual” ) research into all areas. The current president of the church who is considered a prophet in the literal sense by members endorsed this idea saying he does not believe the Lord wants his people to remain in ignorance. LDS members are encouraged to pursue a life-long pursuit of knowledge of all types.

I believe even the recent DNA studies are helpful and have the possibility of shedding new light on the BoM. The only problem is that some have greatly over estimated what these studies have “proven” (a very common problem in all areas of scientific research especially with the “politicalization” of science). Plenty of material on Mormon Apologist websites discusses this in detail, so I’ll just state the obvious: The only thing the studies have shown is that using x criteria with y test on z population does not show indications that z population descended from q population. Is this helpful? Yes.  Does this conclusively prove the BoM is a work of fiction? Of course not.

I have no doubt that research into the BoM will continue, and it will challenge some cultural conceptions Mormons may have about the book. But it will never “prove” anything.

The Last Evidence - Now if you’ll permit an indulgence on a personal level, I’ll tell you what I consider the most critical evidence. In a recent cover story about the LDS church in Newsweek magazine, the author pointed out that thousands of people joined the church in its first 15 years of existence in our time without meeting Joseph Smith, thus refuting the “cult of personality” theory. They joined the church based upon the BoM and the convictions of those missionaries who introduced it to them. Some were even a little shocked when they did finally meet Smith, because by all accounts he did not match anyone’s idea of an Old Testament prophet.  He was young, funny, boisterous, and even had a temper. In other words, he was a man.

These early converts gained their conviction by following the prescription outlined in the BoM itself. Read the book. Contemplate it with an honest heart, and then pray to God and ask him if it is what it claims to be. When anyone does this… for that person the “truth” of the book ceases to be a matter of science and becomes a very personal matter between him and his God. Hundreds of thousands of people every year do this same thing and become believers. Heck, even such opposites as Orin Hatch and Harry Reid have done this.

Ultimately this is all the BoM claims to be… a religious text that will help you discover God and your own relation to Him. According to those who wrote it, translated it, read it and preach it; it doesn’t and never will provide the scientific evidence that it is legitimate. That was never its purpose, and as such it doesn’t contain enough secular details to allow it.

HTHs and hopfully this isn't just a waste of bandwidth! Standard disclaimer - Shooter_Doug's opinion does not necessarliy reflect that of yada yada yda. Needless to say any errors are my own etc. etc. etc

This is my first time venturing into this section of the site.  I think it is difficult to have a good discussion of religion by this medium.  But I don't fault anyone for having legitimate questions.  But where it turns to an ego argument, not constructive criticism, or bashing, no one is going to learn anything from anyone.  Before answering some of the questions, let me place a caveat that I am not a bishop, general authority or anything like that.  I am just a member and have no authority to speak on behalf of anyone but myself.

No one can "prove" any religion by tangible evidence.  Mormons are Christians.  Jesus Christ is referenced more frequently in the Book of Mormon than in the Bible.  There was a guy in Omaha trying to prove or disprove the Book of Mormon by maps and features.  He spent years on it, and I am confident he gave up.  Anyone who needs tangible evidence to prove a religion doesn't have the faith sufficient to withstand the storms of life.  Does this mean we take it blindly? No.  We ask of God as Joseph Smith did, and we know we will receive an answer as promised in the Books of James in the New Testament and Moroni in the Book of Mormon if we exercise sufficient faith.  Some may say it is the work of a frenzied mind or blind hope.  I know that is not the case, and I don't care what anyone else says.  Some say there is no evidence.  The Book of Mormon, in conjunction with the other scriptures, and what I have felt and the impressions I have received are of sufficient evidence to me.  

I suppose the gold plates seen by the three and eight witnesses is evidence and important to some people.  Those men never denied the existence of the gold plates even though not all stayed true to the church.  The structures in Mexico and South America that were occupied at the same time as the event in the Book of Mormon took place are evidence and real places.  As for prophecies, those of Christ appearing to the people on the American continent came true.  "But wait, you didn't see it."  No I didn't.  But I don't need to.  The Book of Mormon is evidence of itself.  Has anyone read it and thought about how difficult it would be to fabricate?  And to expect a young man with little education to have done so is ludicrous.  Why didn't he sell the gold if he were concerned about fame or money rather than truth.  Why did he die a martyr at the hands of a mob and why did the early saints suffer all kinds of deprivations, from murder and rape in Missouri to being driven from their homes in Illinois in winter to bleed and die while crossing the plains?  They could have thrown in the towel as some did to avoid the persecution.  These peoples' faith is some evidence of truth, but I don't rely on this evidence either.  Joseph Smith's statements regarding a civil war came true.  But that doesn't matter to me.  

What matters is what I have received and what no one can take from me.  The Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ.  It is a testament, or a testimony of Christ.  And anyone who reads it will see that, whether they agree with its principles and our beliefs or not.  It contains prophesies, but its primary purpose is to testify.  We believe we have prophets.  Their purpose is not simply to prophesy, but to make known the mind and will of the Lord and to counsel and advise.  That is one of the reasons why we believe in priesthood on earth.  You are invited to listen to conference in April and October of every year and see what you think.  It is broadcast over the internet, to meeting houses, and to some cable stations.  You will find that they generally discuss basics--what we need to be doing as individuals, families, groups and nations to be better and overcome sin.  Why there are not prophecies generally spoken I do not know.  But I do know this, if they generally prophesied of specific fact, let's say the 9/11 tragedy, that would not develop any faith.  It would probably get a lot of press, but it would not make anyone know it was true.  Many people followed Jesus for bread, fish or other benefits, but when he wanted to teach and did not do miracles, most fell away.  I think this also falls in with James Chapter 4:3, where people ask amiss for the purpose of consuming it upon their lusts.  Furthermore, many things we endure as a test.  We believe that this life is a test to, among other things, develop faith, which we could not do in the presence of God.

What about people leaving the church or doing bad things? There have been some.  There will be more.  No one claims Mormons are a perfect people.  All people are here to be tried and proven.  We, like many others, are normal people doing the best we can to help ourselves, our families, and each other.  I am certainly not perfect, but I am trying to at being better.  As stated in Mere Christianity, Christianity makes bad men good and good men better.  Some people stray.  Why did the Israelites turn to idol worship time after time, Solomon turn from the truth, or the prophet in 2 Kings Chapter 13 disobey?  I can't understand it.  There are many instances of disobedience, Satan being chief.  Maybe some never had a testimony or some were tempted, lazy, etc.  This is exemplified by the parable of the sower in Matthew Chapter 13.  Anyone who compares the truth of a religion to no one falling away is setting up a false test.  Every religion has its critics.  People continually criticize Joseph Smith.  They killed him but that didn't stop the work from going forward.  He was a servant, not the head.  They criticize him now for various reasons and books have been written criticizing him, and books have been written showing the falsity and misleading nature of those criticisms.  He was a great man, but the only person on earth that was perfect is Christ.  

As for the DNA evidence.  It means nothing to me.  Assuming the studies are all correct, I am not so presumptuous to think that we know everything necessary to come to correct conclusions about history and races.  I don't know if another people came here, races were mixed, or for some other reason there can be an apparent discrepancy in DNA.  I have never given it any serious thought.  Even if the DNA is indeed not the same as that of the Israelites, it doesn't shake me.  Also note that those in the Book of Mormon were descendants of Joseph, not Judah.  Lehi was a descendant of Mennasah, who was the son of Joseph.  Nevertheless, I would still think their DNA would be similar.  This falls in with many other questions like, how was the earth creatd in six days and the earth to have only a 7,000 year temporal existence according to the seven seals in Revelations when "experts" tell us that the earth is millions of years old.  If God created Adam and Eve, why do experts tell us we came from some kind of subhuman creature.  They'll also tell you that the earth was not completely flooded and a number of other things.  We don't have the answers now, but I am not concerned about that.  Why are they telling us that eggs are good for us, then five years later they are bad, then again good, or is it bad now?  Either the experts are incorrect or there is a misunderstanding that neither side has figure out.

A person can no more prove any Christian religion is correct by evidence than they can stick to their principles through trial by fire without faith.  And until a person is willing to study a religion with an open mind and heart, ask and receive an answer, no one can say they know the truth.  Anyone that has done this and has received an answer, I am not one to argue with them.  

As for the statements of why there was no immediate response and that questions have been posed of members and they are like a deer in the headlights, that is awfully subjective and the description indicates, on at least some level, a bias and interest in confrontation.  I stand corrected if there is no ulterior motivation.  I can't answer for others and I have no personal knowledge of your events.  I might have some reasons, however, why they might respond the way they did.  Perhaps they don't have a testimony.  I am confident that there are some people that like the social aspect of religions.  I think this is a small minority, but I'm sure it happens.  Perhaps they are odd.  I have met members that I don't like and prefer not to associate with.  It doesn't make any difference in terms of truth.  Perhaps they do have a testimony but their knowledge is limited, their testimony weak, they can't express themselves well or are not comfortable doing so.   Members are not all at the same point along the path, and some may not have considered some questions or thought about how they might respond.  I am sure there are questions I have not considered.  On occassion I have difficulty expressing some things.  That doesn't change what I know.  I know where I came from, why I am here and what I need to do, and what happens when we die.  That is the meat, and if I don't know some factoids or peripheral matters, it doesn't change anything.  Perhaps the people you spoke with didn't want a confrontation.  I have had people want to discuss things when they really want to argue.  That does no one any good.  Christ was not that way and it only brings contention.

This addresses the comments that I could think of.  Now, I had better get back to work.  I am going to have to stay late to make up the time.  If anyone has a legitimate interest, shoot me an e-mail or post a message.  I am more than happy to discuss when I have the time.  But if it is a matter of criticism, pure curiosity without any motivation for finding the truth, or bashing, please check it at the door or wait outside.  It does no one any good and results in an "Joseph Smith did this," "No, he didn't because," "there is no authority for that proposition," "that does not change anything," etc.  I have discussed my religion with a number of people who do not become Mormons.  That is their prerogative and I am not going to criticize them or hound them about it.  Neither feels better than the others and we are still good friends.  Everyone has their agency.  We can respect each other and still be on the same side even though we have a difference of opinion on this one.

Extreme caution must be taken when seeking evidence of spiritual things...

Why did the Jews stone so many of the prophets?

Why did almost no one believe Noah?

Why did most of the people in Jerusalem reject the Messiah and kill him?

Why did the apostles not believe at first when they saw the ressurrected Savior?

Why did the two men on the road to Emmaus not recognize Jesus?  At the time he was a glorified, ressurrected, immortal being...

Why did the succession of the apostles and the church started by Jesus die out in the first century?  Why were there no apostles (12 at a time) called during all the middle ages?

Think carefully about the why of all these things.

It is simply that from the beginning, most people have rejected the truth when it was right in front of them.  The truth often comes to us subtly, and almost never obviously.  The things of the Spirit can only be known by the Spirit, and in no other way.  

We are no different today than all those people in the past.  They were on average just as smart as we are, just as capable of reason and study, and just as interested in what was going on around them as we are.  It was no easier then to recognize the truth, nor any more difficult.  

Ask yourself again why so many people in the history of the world have utterly failed to recognize the truth.

Now ask yourself how much like them you are.  

If God shows you the truth, what will you do with it?  

God will show you the truth when he knows you will follow it.  Not before.  When you are shown greater truths, you are bound to live by a higher law.  If you are not prepared to do so, the knowledge you have been given will do only one thing: condemn you.  

Be careful - hindsight is 20/20.  In the heat of the moment, the people in Jerusalem had only one thing to gain a testimony of the Savior - the Spirit.  There was no evidence available for them then.  They had to decide to be his disciples or his killers based only on the promptings of the Spirit.  If you think not, ask yourself again, if it was so obvious, then why did so many want to kill him?  

-grommet

I had a very good friend who was a Mormon.  He used to say that the best way to make money was to write a book slamming the Mormons.  For some reason the Mormons love to read these kind of books.  

The answer lies with the She possibly came from the Medditeranean area, DUH!! Israel might be in the middle east, but it's also in the Mediteranean!!

Besides there were several groups that came to the Americas anciently, not just the people described in the Book Of Mormon, In fact they are mentioned in the Book of Mormon too.

I have serious doubts a Farm Boy from Upstate New York with a 8th grade educationcould have made this all up and it's syntax would be the same as the Bible too!! It ain't happenin'.

CPU fed the best one i can give you as evidence that Joseph Smith Prophesied was the American Civil War. You can argue it was known at the time that it would happen.

BUT.............


He saw the vision in 1830!!!! Not only there would be one but that it would start in South Carolina!!!

In 1830 nobody was thinking Civil War at all but he saw it coming and that it would start in South Carolina.

I guess he was just lucky huh?

I am going to stick with the Bible.    The proof is where it is supposed to be.

Ga 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The Book of Mormon is ANOTHER testament of Jesus Christ?  It was given by an ANGEL to Joseph Smith?  God warned about that in HIS word.

And the BOM is ANOTHER testament of Jesus Christ?  He only dies once folks.  There is no NEED for another testament.

There is a reason why the DNA evidence contradicts the BOM.

Quoted: I am going to stick with the Bible.    The proof is where it is supposed to be. Ga 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. The Book of Mormon is ANOTHER testament of Jesus Christ?  It was given by an ANGEL to Joseph Smith?  God warned about that in HIS word. And the BOM is ANOTHER testament of Jesus Christ?  He only dies once folks.  There is no NEED for another testament. There is a reason why the DNA evidence contradicts the BOM.

+1 and VERY well put.   Here's a question... Did Joseph Smith ever prophesy anything that DIDN'T happen?  If he did, then he was never a prophet.  DNA supports the Bible.   Why doesn't it support the BoM??

Quoted: Quoted: All these links are fine and dandy.  However, the fact remains that there is no archeological, genetic or historical evidence to support the Book of Mormon.  The Bible on the other hand DOES have evidence to support it.  Unless I'm missing something...  MODS I'm not trying to BASH the Mormon religion.  I am simply asking a question about their faith and belief system so I can understand it better. That's ok.  Our faith isn't based on archeological evidence when it comes to the Book of Mormon or the Bible.  Our faith and Testimony come from asking God if these things are true and getting a confirmation from the Holy Ghost. Besides, if some archeological evidence appeared supporting the Book of Mormon, would you convert to Mormonism?  There's lots of evidence about places and people mentioned in the Bible, yet most of the world's population isn't Christian.

Ouch.  I felt that one all the way down here in Florida.

Quoted: Quoted: I am going to stick with the Bible.    The proof is where it is supposed to be. Ga 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. The Book of Mormon is ANOTHER testament of Jesus Christ?  It was given by an ANGEL to Joseph Smith?  God warned about that in HIS word. And the BOM is ANOTHER testament of Jesus Christ?  He only dies once folks.  There is no NEED for another testament. There is a reason why the DNA evidence contradicts the BOM. +1 and VERY well put.   Here's a question... Did Joseph Smith ever prophesy anything that DIDN'T happen?  If he did, then he was never a prophet.  DNA supports the Bible.   Why doesn't it support the BoM??

I guess John the Revelator was also not a prophet because some of his prophesies haven't come true.

I'm going to ask the mods to lock this, as it is clearly obvious that you ARE interested in bashing other people's religious beliefs.

Quoted: I am going to stick with the Bible.    The proof is where it is supposed to be. Ga 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. The Book of Mormon is ANOTHER testament of Jesus Christ?  It was given by an ANGEL to Joseph Smith?  God warned about that in HIS word. And the BOM is ANOTHER testament of Jesus Christ?  He only dies once folks.  There is no NEED for another testament. There is a reason why the DNA evidence contradicts the BOM.

I can understand this interpretation, but try looking at it another way. You assume "gospel" = "bible".  I believe the Gospel is the word of God. The Bible is a collection of religious texts, compiled several centuries after Christ's death, that contain God's Word (Gospel),  So why couldn’t other texts contain gospel?

If you take that passage in Paul's letter to the Galatians literally, you would be forced to claim that no other texts should have been added to his letter.  After all, it wasn’t included in the Bible until several hundred years later.  

Your interpretation also creates a problem with Deut 4:2: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it...."  Should we then ignore anything added after Moses' books? Or the chapters Moses wrote after this?

And Rev 22 18-18 creates another problem.  Many biblical scholars (none LDS) have stated that anywhere from 4-6 books currently in the Bible were written after John wrote Revelations.

For me it's key to remember that the books of the Bible were individual texts until compiled centuries (sometimes millennia) after they were written.

And remember, Christ spoke of "other sheep".

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be cone fold, and one shepherd.

Mormons believe the resurrected Lord appeared to inhabitants of the American continent.  He wasn’t sacrificed a second time.  His atonement was universal. So why wouldn’t he make sure others knew of it? And why wouldn’t they record such a colossal event?

Obviously none of this “proves” anything about the Book of Mormon, but I believe it does show the Bible contains nothing that prohibits additional scripture if the Lord sees fit to reveal it.

And the bottom line remains, if you want to know if the BoM is what it claims to be, read it, thing about it, pray about it. If you believe prayers are answered, this will always be the best (only) way to know if something is of God.

Quoted: I can understand this interpretation, but try looking at it another way. You assume "gospel" = "bible".  I believe the Gospel is the word of God. The Bible is a collection of religious texts, compiled several centuries after Christ's death, that contain God's Word (Gospel),  So why couldn’t other texts contain gospel? No, I don't assume "gospel=Bible."  The gospel is found in 1 Cor 15 vs 1-4: 1 ¶ Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures It is ANOTHER GOSPEL to say that the atonement was made in the garden of Gethsemane, as Mormonism teaches. It is ANOTHER GOSPEL to say that those who are married in a Mormon Temple have an eternal marriage, as Mormonism teaches. It is ANOTHER GOSPEL to say that those Mormons married in the temple can become gods and populate other planets, as Mormonism teaches. And it takes ANOTHER JESUS to come up with these unbiblical doctrines  -  Jesus is NOT the brother of Lucifer, as Mormonism teaches. (2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].) The Bible is not a group or religious texts, it IS the word of God. If you take that passage in Paul's letter to the Galatians literally, you would be forced to claim that no other texts should have been added to his letter.  After all, it wasn’t included in the Bible until several hundred years later. That is a ridiculous claim.  The Bible is the complete compilation of the word of God.  It begins in eternity past, and ends in eternity future.  It is the complete revelation of the word of God.  And I take the passage in Galatians literally, and it certainly is no problem that the Bible is COMPLETED with the rest of God's word, which was given AFTER Paul's death.   Your interpretation also creates a problem with Deut 4:2: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it...."  Should we then ignore anything added after Moses' books? Or the chapters Moses wrote after this? The BIBLE is God's word - not man's.  GOD said He would provide it, GOD said he would preserve it.  He kept his promise. And Rev 22 18-18 creates another problem.  Many biblical scholars (none LDS) have stated that anywhere from 4-6 books currently in the Bible were written after John wrote Revelations. It is Revelation, not RevelationS, and most "biblical scholars" don't believe the Bible to begin with.  They are more interested in putting THEIR opinions out. For me it's key to remember that the books of the Bible were individual texts until compiled centuries (sometimes millennia) after they were written. The Bible is the word of God, and God takes care of it.  The Book of Mormon is NOT the word of God, rather it contradicts the word of God and proves itself false. And remember, Christ spoke of "other sheep". John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be cone fold, and one shepherd. Yes, and the Bible makes it very clear that God was referring to Jews as the first fold, and Gentiles were the second fold. Eph 2: 11 ¶ Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14 ¶ For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us]; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Mormons believe the resurrected Lord appeared to inhabitants of the American continent.  He wasn’t sacrificed a second time.  His atonement was universal. So why wouldn’t he make sure others knew of it? And why wouldn’t they record such a colossal event? Yes, and Mormons believe that said inhabitants were related to the Jews.  And DNA proves that false. Obviously none of this “proves” anything about the Book of Mormon, but I believe it does show the Bible contains nothing that prohibits additional scripture if the Lord sees fit to reveal it. There is no need.  God began in eternity past -  He continued through eternity future.  And, the JEWS are the oracles of God.  God provided his word through JEWS.  And this is the time of the Gentiles.  God will deal with the Jews in the time of Jacob's trouble, which is just before his second coming. And the bottom line remains, if you want to know if the BoM is what it claims to be, read it, thing about it, pray about it. If you believe prayers are answered, this will always be the best (only) way to know if something is of God. No, one does not have to pray about what God has already SAID.  God SAID not to believe something that contradicted his word, even if an ANGEL said to do so.  Joseph Smith did not believe the Bible.  Nor do the Mormons of today.  God also said not to trust FEELINGS of the heart.  This "burning in the bosom" is totally unbiblical.  God gave the warning:   Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? Yet Mormonism tells men and women to trust their heart. That is BAD, ungodly advice according to the scriptures.

Read my post!