29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?Now, lets create some example arguments using this style for sins to promote righteousness you allege... Examples:
What shall they do which commit adultery if marriages were never made, why then do they commit adultery?I hope the lurkers get the point.
What shall they do which murder if no one is born, why then do they murder?
What Shall they do which steal if there are none who labor to earn, why then do they steal?
Most anti-Mormon attacks on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon suffer from several severe logical flaws. The authors are inadequately informed about Latter-day Saint history, doctrine, and scripture; they have not read the text of the Book of Mormon carefully; they distort both what the text of the Book of Mormon says and the variety of Latter-day Saint interpretations of the text; they attempt to make all Latter-day Saint scholars responsible for the private opinions of some Latter-day Saint authors or General Authorities; and they frequently argue solely from the authority of selected authors or scholars, rather than providing evidence, analysis, and argumentation to support their case. They seldom advance the discussion by dealing with current Latter-day Saint thinking on the matter, being content instead to rely on an ad nauseum repetition of anti-Mormon arguments, many of which have been around—and have had adequate Latter-day Saint responses—for over a century.U Said: 1. Have any of the cities in the BOM been located?
Exciting and fairly recent discoveries in Mesoamerica which have caused a complete paradigm shift in the thinking of scholars. Until recently, experts believed ancient Central America and southern Mexico (Mesoamerica) to have been a peaceful, tranquil place during the times that the Book of Mormon speaks of frequent, large-scale wars. Now it is known that warfare was relatively common. Further, the discoveries of ancient fortifications that fueled the paradigm shift are remarkably consistent with descriptions of fortifications given in the Book of Mormon. Together, the evidence about ancient warfare and fortifications in Mesoamerica strengthens the case for the plausibility of the Book of Mormon as an ancient text. For details, see my Mesoamerican Fortifications page.U Said: 2. Have any BOM names in New World inscriptions been found?
South of Albuquerque, and west of Los Lunas, New Mexico, an ancient inscription was carved into the face of a boulder centuries ago. It is the text of the Ten Commandments, written in Hebrew! Of particular interest is the fact that the type of Hebrew writing that was used was Paleo-Hebrew, which is the form of Hebrew writing that was used for approximately a one-thousand-year period, ending about 500 BC. This means that we can fairly conclude that the inscription of the Ten Commandments was engraved on the face of a boulder in New Mexico, North America, sometime prior to 500 BC! This is one proof that Hebrew people were on the land of America many centuries before the birth of the Messiah.U Said: 4. Well, any Egyptian inscriptions in America been found? "No".
Very interestingly, a cross-link has been found between a modified style of ancient Egyptian writing, a tribe of North American Indians, and the characters that were used to write the ancient Nephite Scriptures! A modified or reformed style of Egyptian writing has been in use for many centuries by the Micmac [Mi-kmaw] Indians, of Northeastern America, a division of the Algonquin people. When the first Europeans made contact with the Micmacs, they discovered that they, unlike almost all other Native American tribes, already had a written language! That, in and of itself, was remarkable. But, what is most remarkable is the fact that the written language of the Micmac people of North America contains a very high percentage of characters that are either identical to, or slightly modified from an ancient style of Egyptian writing, known as hieratic! Not only are several characters the same, but the meaning of the words translates exactly the same! This proves that there was, at some ancient time, connection between someone who wrote in a modified form of Egyptian hieratic writing, and the Micmac Indian people of North America! [This is also consistent with the history presented within the Record of the Nephites.]U Said: 5. How about anything even resembling Egyptian even been found in America?
BaptismThe records of the ancient Indians in the Americas are replete with stories that are very obviously Christian in origin, the great white God, and Baptism are only two such evidences.
The most remarkable thing the Catholic priests discovered after the Indians were conquered was their affinity with the stories and customs of the Bible.
They described a 'baptism' in one of the temples of Tenochtitlan, when a child was sprinkled with water and given a name, just as in the churches of the Old World. The priest said: "Take and receive, for on this earth you will live on water, water makes you grow and flourish, water gives us what we need for our life - receive this water." The Aztecs also used incense (so did the Incas). They received large quantities of resin for incense, as can be seen from their tribute lists.
The Spaniards saw the Aztec priests 'forgive sins'. At this ceremony small pieces of bread were distributed among the faithful in the temple. They ate the bread in a very devout manner, thereby propitiating the gods - so one of the Indians explained the ceremony. In the time of the first Spaniards a form of 'confession' was still going on in the Indian temples; they watched the priests blessing a marriage, saw the sacred crosses in the temples, and heard of the White God of the Indians, said to be born of a virgin of immaculate conception.
In the Americas, too, data have come to light about unexpected human achievements. In a critical reexamination of past research on the pottery of the Amazon basin, North American archaeologist Anna C. Roosevelt has put together a plausible argument that the making of pottery in that area dates much earlier than has been acknowledged before. To support her case, she has published 22 radiocarbon dates that were done at the Smithsonian laboratory between 1972 and 1986 but were never published. It seems that Amazonian pottery began between 5000 and 6000 BC (some have suggested that it came from Africa) and is now the most securely dated New World ceramic tradition, existing at least 1,000 years before the next earliest, from Colombia.So, they found an ancient body that had a parasite that couldn't have been there unless it came by boat from the middle east...
Furthermore, a dried-up human corpse, radiocarbon dated to around 5200 BC, has been found in northeastern Brazil, not far from the early pottery center. There was evidence that the intestinal tract of this person had been infested with hookworms. The nature of the reproductive cycle of the hookworm rules out their having reached the New World via a cold country (the Bering Strait, as is usually supposed). Specialists on parasites are absolutely sure that the only way for those organisms to have reached the Americas from the Far East, where they are known much earlier, was inside human hosts who traveled from East Asia by boat.9
The whole idea of ancient religious communities preserving and hiding sacred records for future times seemed a lot less ridiculous after the find of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The community at Qumran took careful steps to "embalm" their records before they were buried, seeking to preserve hidden sacred records for future generations. Details on ancient practices to hide and preserve documents, including whole libraries of buried documents, and in particular the use of metal documents in stone boxes, are given by H. Curtis Wright in "Metal Documents in Stone Boxes," in John M. Lundquist and Stephen R. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith, Vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990), pp. 273-334. One noteworthy example from Qumran is the Copper Scroll (3Q15), which provides a list of temple treasures. As William Hamblin points out, "it is a clear example of an attempt to preserve an important sacred record by writing on copper/bronze (Heb. nechushah) plates and then hiding the document" ("Sacred Writing on Bronze Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean," FARMS Paper HAM-94, FARMS, Provo, Utah, 1994).The Book of Mormon speaks of the use of Cement by the ancient Americans Helaman 3:9-11 How about Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon? Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon Like I said before, you will be able to trot out some beleagered "expert" to refute my experts, so no one can know form "Expert testimony" who to believe here. If you really think about it, what's at stake, possibly your soul...
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.So, the test works like this...
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Paul used a lot of things the audience he addressed would understand. It is not an uncommon teaching method, if you bother to study PaulÂ’s teaching methodology and rabbinical background.
Let's look at the scripture in question: 1 Cor. 15: 29
Rather lets look at the scripture in question within its proper CONTEXT as it is CONTEXT that provides meaning to any conversation. I’ll summarize so DU doesn’t get indigestion over long posts. For those who would read the section off line, the words from verses 1 – 28 Paul is talking inclusively -us, we, you, brothers, sisters, etc
1 Cor 15: 1&2 – Introduction to the next section of the letter with Paul reminding them of the Gospel he preached to them. Within verse two is a rebuke to those who may not have truly believe the gospel.
15:3-4 Paul reaffirms the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus
15:5-9 Paul recites the appearances of Christ to His followers after the resurrection, placing himself at the last, identifying that he once persecuted the Christians.
15:10 For it was GodÂ’s grace to Paul that he was forgiven of those sins.
15:11 Paul restates in a slightly different fashion verses 1&2, including others who preached the same gospel
15:12 Paul moves into the next phase of his argument. With the preceding verses as a foundation, he addresses the issue (immediate context of the passage) that some Christians were being swayed by someoneÂ’s teachings that there was no resurrection. Within the cultural context, the Greek culture and cult system had nothing resembling resurrection, which is why they reacted so strongly at times to PaulÂ’s teaching. The remainder of PaulÂ’s argument focuses upon answering this through multiple lines of attack.
15:13 ChristÂ’s resurrection and the future resurrection of all the dead cannot be separated; you cannot deny one without denying the other.
15:14-19 Paul points out that if there is no resurrection, then Christ Himself wasnÂ’t resurrected either and that he is preaching a lie and the faith of the Corinthian church was in vain. This obviously is a strawman rhetorical argument since in verses 5-9 he already gave eyewitness proof of ChristÂ’s resurrection. So he is just following to the logical conclusion of those who taught that no one else would eventually be resurrected.
15:20-24 Paul triumphantly reinstates that Christ has indeed risen, breaking the curse of sin
15:24-28 Paul makes clear that because of the resurrection, even death will have to yield.
15:29 Paul continues with a rhetorical argument. The original makes clear that Paul did not include himself among the “people” being baptized for the dead. This is the importance of understanding the passage in context of what Paul was saying. The 28 preceding verses use inclusive terms. Only the 29th verse uses an exclusive reference.
15:30-58 Paul goes into description of the resurrection and that our bodies will become like that of ChristÂ’s. Paul closes with an encouragement that their faith and labor is not in vain, they will be resurrected if they believe in the resurrection of Jesus.
One can quickly see that
1) Paul is not teaching or even endorsing baptism for the dead in the context of the passage.
2) Those practicing it were outside the Christian community
3) Every teaching Paul wrote referencing baptism was that it was for the living, not the dead.
4) Of the 58 verses that cover the immediate context of the verse, the only exclusive wording is found in verse 29.
5) Paul’s teaching is in perfect agreement with Heb 9:27 “And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; “ There is no opportunity for ‘baptism’ after death as the time of judgment has come and gone.
The cutie little interpretive method DU proposed takes the verse further out of context.
Yet, even after falling away from the church, none of the witnesses ever recanted their witness of the Book of Mormon.
More stuff mormonism has swept under the rug. Brigham Young, the second president, stated: "Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.164).
In CowdreyÂ’s case G. J. Keen gave an affidavit in which he stated:
... Mr. Cowdery expressed a desire to associate himself with a Methodist Protestant Church of this city.... he was unanimously admitted a member thereof. At that time he arose and addressed the audience present, admitted his error and implored forgiveness, and said he was sorry and ashamed of his connection with Mormonism. (Affidavit of C. J. Keen, as quoted in The True Origin of the Book of Mormon, by Charles A. Shook, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1914, pp.58-59)
David Whitmer never returned to the Mormon church. Toward the end of his life he was a member of the "Church of Christ"—another small group which believed in the Book of Mormon. Just before his death, Whitmer published An Address To All Believers In Christ in which he stated:
If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by His own voice from the heavens, and told me to 'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.' In the spring of 1838, the heads of the church and many of the members had gone deep into error and blindness (An Address To All Believers In Christ, by David Whitmer, 1887, p.27).
In a thesis written at Brigham Young University, Wayne Cutler Gunnell stated that on December 31, 1844,
"Phineas H. Young [Brigham Young's brother] and other leaders of the Kirtland organization" wrote a letter to Brigham Young in which they stated: "There are in this place all kinds of teaching; Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was of the Book of Mormon" ("Martin Harris—Witness and Benefactor to the Book of Mormon," 1955, p.52).
Thus according to Young, and the three witnesses, they recanted their experience. Sorry the lds church has lied to you on this DU.
LOL! "Sorry, my browser won't let me read HTML form a website that actually supports what you have said, but let me refute it anyway"
Statement of simple fact.
You (again) think that prophets are infallible, God told Joseph what th say, the scribes wrote it, and the spelling, punctuation and grammar was up to them. The doctrine contained in the Book of Mormon is perfect, even if the spelling is not.
I wonÂ’t go further, your premise was destroyed in another post. It is your written church history.
Some of us are to paid to come on this forum and bash. I believe you stated earlier that you are a professional theologian, I am not, I have a day job.
I never said I was a professional theologian, but if it makes you feel better to think that, then be my guest. BTW, whereÂ’s my paycheck then.
When your posts exceed reasonable sizes most here will not readÂ…Â…Â….
DU, you yourself are as guiltier of this than I. Note, this is a part 2 posting for a reply that you found no difficulty burning up bandwidth with your replies and allegations. Once again, quit your crying, it is unbecoming.
There are have been many attacks on the Book of Mormon from an "Archeological perspective". Â…..
As I put forth earlier, FARMS related articles are generally worthless as they are not peered reviewed. Secondly, they are designed to be obfuscation to cloud matters. Finally, I can and have said IÂ’ve accessed FARMS website before.
travels of Nephi and his family through the different camp sites that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
More FARMS non-peered reviewed propaganda. The locations could be derived by multiple means such as using a map. That aside, the account is not geographically accurate.
1. There are no rivers running into the Red Sea along their route, the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba, at this or any other point. There are not even any traceable ancient river systems in this part of Arabia. This part of the world was well known and well traveled in 600 BC. Had there been a river as Nephi describes, the area would have been one of the best known in the world of its day. It would have supported a sizably populated civilization, as always happened where fresh water was scarce. The mouth of such a river would have been a world-renowned port, if not a capital city, in 600 BC.
2. It would have been impossible for an old man (Lehi), women and children to travel the 175 mile journey from Jerusalem to the Red Sea in 3 days. Traveling 3 miles per hour, you would need to travel for 20 hours each day non-stop for 3 days. This would have been quite impossible.
3. They find a bountiful, fruitful land on the Persian Gulf. Alexander's troops in 330 BC avoided this as desert area.
4. They then built a ship sufficiently seaworthy to carry them 2/3 around the world in rough seas to the west coast of America, now known as Peru. This in a area largely void of timber.
Once again, when it comes to the nitty-gritty detail, the bom fall on its face and proves internally it is a fable.
When it comes to the America's, many artifacts and matching city-scapes have been found, although most bear Spanish names now.
Jeff Lindsey is hand in hand with FARMS and relies on them heavily, his writings are not peer reviewed. However, beyond the similarities, no indisputable links of these structures to Book of Mormon civilizations have been found. It is not as if there was warfare between tribes is was something new either – it had been going on for the whole period of man’s existence. Furthermore, nothing at these locations bear any resemblance to Hebrew or even Egyptian origin. So as far as showing me where bom cities are in the Americas (which was the original challenge), you struck out.
U Said: 2. Have any BOM names in New World inscriptions been found?
Not to my knowledge, but the inscriptions are usually scriptures, so that is not surprising, what were you expecting, Nephi was here?
More lack of evidence. No ‘Positive’ support here.
The Lakish lettersÂ…..
More non-peer review propaganda. NibleyÂ’s original forms LindseyÂ’s basis for his little internet post. NibleyÂ’s theory is decimated here:
http://www.irr.org/mit/nibley.html
In short, "All of the parallels given [by Nibley] are invalid either because of a lack of a proper understanding of the Lachish Letters or because they can be explained more easily through parallels with the KJV.". Mormon obfuscation parading as proof.
The Dead sea scrolls contain the name Â…Â…Â…
References to the DSS (as well as most other archaeological ‘claims’) by mormons utilize a faulty syllogism along the lines of: "Nobody is perfect; I am a nobody; therefore I am perfect." In a similar fashion the Mormons claim: "The scrolls validate the Bible; the Book of Mormon contains parts of the Bible; therefore the scrolls vindicate the Book of Mormon."
Once again, no evidence beyond speculation and faulty logic.
U Said: 3. Have any any Hebrew inscriptions been found in America? The Uto-Aztecan Â…..
Mormon linguist Stubbs he admits “While no UA [Uto-Aztecan] language shows the same level of derivation from Hebrew as Spanish does from Latin, there are still many traces of similarity suggesting some degree of contact or derivation. (http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml). Notice the wording – he compares Spanish to latin, who’s development period would be similar to the time frame associated with his theory. Secondly, though listed as about a thousand common features, this is only a trace. Stubbs’ publications have not been in peer reviewed journals.
South of Albuquerque, and west of Los Lunas, New Mexico, an ancient inscription was carved into the face of a boulder centuries ago. It is the text of the Ten Commandments, written in Hebrew!
Here it is straight off the pages of the Weekly World News equivalent of the internet – the best of mormon apologists – right next to the space alien shaking hands with Joseph Smith.
The Decalogue is one of the best-known passages of the Bible and for anyone whose native tongue was Hebrew, it ought to have been all but impossible for the inscriber to make elementary errors.
The authenticity of the writing is further condemned by the inscriberÂ’s use of what is known as a ‘caretÂ’. This is the upside-down V placed under a piece of text where something has been missed out. Sometimes found in ancient Latin and Greek texts, it is not known in Hebrew until the Middle Ages. To make matters worse, it is above a dot that seems to be a full stop (or period); full stops did not exist in ancient Hebrew. Moreover, there are Greek letters of a slightly later date mixed in with Hebrew forms and some eccentric uses. For instance, Hebrew א (Â’aleph) is treated as a vowel – the letter shape became our letter A – but in Hebrew it was a consonant; the writer muddles כ (kaph) and ק (qoph), sounds that are distinct in Hebrew but both of which are approximately rendered by English K. The inscription uses Greek δ (delta), ζ (zeta), κ (kappa (reversed)) and τ (tau) in place of their Hebrew counterparts ד (daleth), ז (zayin), כ (kaph) and ת (taw). The greatest problem is that the inscription uses an archaic form of א Â’aleph. Also, the letters י (yodh), ק (qoph) and ש (the flat-bottomed shin) are said to be Samaritan in form.
Tests conducted by in the 1980s George E Morehouse are said to have confirmed that it is between 500 and 2000 years old. These tests consist of measuring the polish produced on the surface of rock by wind-blown sand, the so-called ‘desert varnish’. However, the technique is highly suspect and the wide range of dates suggested by it gives rise to considerable disquiet about its accuracy. First off, it was admitted that the rock face had been altered with ‘wire brushes’. Secondly, far less was known about the process and rates of creation of desert varnish in 1980 than today, and even today there are no concise models for varnish development.
So why such silence from the true archaeological community, based upon the internal evidence of the writing alone and the questionable dating, Los Lunas inscription is a clear, but well constructed forgery (for its day). Despite the claims of high antiquity, there are features of the text (such as the mixing of letter forms between two separate alphabets) that are much more likely to derive from the work of a modern forger than from an ancient Hebrew or Samaritan scribe. The evidence for its origin is poor, but a comparison with the Bat Creek Stone suggests that it was a Mormon forgery. The ‘Mormon Battalion’, which was part of the US Army during the Mexican War, is known to have marched from Santa Fe down the Rio Grande Valley, passing close by, and it is possible that this is the date of the inscription.
A modified or reformed style of Egyptian writing has been in use for many centuries by the Micmac [Mi-kmaw] Indians, of Northeastern America, a division of the Algonquin people.
Ah, so well founded was it? Truth is found here:
http://www.native-languages.org/mikmaq.htm
Language: The Mi'kmaq language, MÃkmawÃsimk, is an Algonquian language spoken by 8000 Indians in the Canadian Maritimes (particularly Nova Scotia) and a few US communities. The Mi'kmaq dialect spoken in Quebec is called Restigouche (or Listuguj) and can be hard for other native speakers to understand. Mi'kmaq is written alphabetically today, but in the past it was written in pictographs. Though these pictographs were modified by Jesuit missionaries, who used them to teach Christian prayers to Micmac people, they probably predated European contact. Micmac hieroglyphics do not resemble Ancient Egyptian or Mayan hieroglyphs; see here (http://www.native-languages.org/iaq3.htm#5 ) for an explanation of these different writing systems. Mi'kmaq is not linguistically related to Ancient Egyptian or any other semitic languages. The Mi'kmaq language is entirely native to the New World and is related to other major North American Indian languages like Lenape, Ojibwe, and Cree.
Another swing and a miss DU. IsnÂ’t it a bummer when your sources lie to you DU? Are these the BEST that mormonism can offer?
Why would there be? The Sacred records were handed down from one keeper to the next, they were not printed in duplicate and passed around.
Not only that, nothing that even RESEMBLES the bom has been found, in a culture that the bom states was in the millions that spread from sea to sea, with cities, and chariots, and lots of other stuff archaeologist normally find huh.
Columbus? When he arrived, the Indians worshiped him as the Great white God who was to return someday...
Ah yes, the ‘ol Quetzequatal mythos, again. Students of ancient Mesoamerica do not accept this claim for several reasons: Quetzalcoatl, the Feathered Serpent deity, is depicted in Mesoamerican art dated several centuries before Jesus. The King Quetzalcoatl who promised to return to Mexico dated almost 1,000 years after the life of Jesus.
Here is a section from a web site about the ancient Americas In Search of the Roots of Ancient American Civilizationhttp://www.webb.com/Starfire/native.html
Right next to the other paranormal links. You should be embarrassed to post this kind of nonsense as fact in this kind of forum. Again, nothing from an authentic peered reviewed document, journal or the like? This kind of stuff is laughable and damages you presentation rather than advance it.
See my earlier post on In Search of the Roots of Ancient American Civilization
And destroyed earlier.
U Said: 9. Is there proof that Native Americans are really of Semitic stock?
American archaeologist Anna C. Roosevelt has put together a plausible argument that the making of pottery FARMS report not peered reviewed. That pottery may have been started earlier is not proof that native Americans are of Semitic stock, nor from a jewish migration.
Your report cited --->Specialists on parasites are absolutely sure that the only way for those organisms to have reached the Americas from the Far East, where they are known much earlier, was inside human hosts who traveled from East Asia by boat.
Your assumption: So, they found an ancient body that had a parasite that couldn't have been there unless it came by boat from the middle east...
The following report makes it clear that the solution is fishermen from Japan or SE Asia as the hookworm originates from tropical and subtropical climates.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X1988000200006
U Said: 10. If the BOM is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision)
Um, it was recorded then as sign from God, do you xpect God to always give the same signs? Are you seeking after a sign?
Bom promises this would happen – it doesn’t happen as promised. Bom is a lie.
In Joseph's day, "Archaeologists" laughed at the idea that Gold plates might be buried as a way to preserve a record...How about, another set of Gold plates having been buried as a way to preserve records? Unique book goes on display
So what. Found copper scrolls at the DSS site. DoesnÂ’t prove bom authenticity one bit. See the faulty syllogism above FARMS debunks the idea that they were gold, did you know that. We know that gold weighs about 1200 pounds per cubic foot. Given the dimensions by Smith, some have concluded that the plates could have weighed as much as 234 pounds to as little as 100 pounds. Try to run like Smith did carrying 100lbs, hah. The heavier weight is based on what would probably be the total weight of a solid block of gold measuring the size of Smith's plates. The FARMS' article supports the tumbaga theory by referring to William Smith, Joseph's brother, who was quoted in the Saints Herald (31, 1884, p. 644) as stating that the plates were a mixture of gold and copper. FARMS insists that tumbaga plates would have weighed only about 53 pounds. In other words, it would be like carrying a sack of redi-mix concrete.
Despite the effort from FARMS to change LDS history, it appears that the tumbaga theory is not being taken too seriously. As recently as May 15, 1999, the LDS Church News ran an article entitled "Hands-on opportunity." Speaking of Joseph Smith, it read, "He had also been instructed by an angel, Moroni, who had met with him each year for four years. On his last visit, he was entrusted with plates of solid gold, which he had been translating by the power of the Spirit."
The Book of Mormon speaks of the use of Cement by the ancient Americans Helaman 3:9-11
Non-Mormon Mayan scholar Michael Coe wrote:
"Moreover, the Maya of the lowlands had discovered as far back as Mamom times that if limestone fragments were burnt, and the resulting powder mixed with water, a white plaster of great durability was obtained. And finally, they quickly realized the structural value of a concrete-like fill made from limestone rubble and marl." (The Maya, Michael D. Coe, 1980 ed., Thames and Hudson Inc., p.57)
But this hardly sounds like Helaman 3:7—"...the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell."
How about Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon? Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon
I deflated the Chiasmus argument in an earlier post. It is found in multiple cultures and languages and not solely Hebrew. Therefore it is not a proof to bom in the slightest.
Like I said before, you will be able to trot out some beleagered "expert" to refute my experts, so no one can know form "Expert testimony" who to believe here. If you really think about it, what's at stake, possibly your soul...
It would seem that your ‘experts’ are the beleaguered ones LOL.
The Bible, a book that has been substantiated archaeologically dozens upon dozens of times, has shown to be trustworthy. The bom calls itself a superior testimony. We have explored that testimony from many angles.
1. The author is a convicted man of shady character, who cannot give the story of his revelation (first vision) the same way, but gives multiple accounts and contradictions.
2. The theology of mormonism is polytheistic – worshiping multiple gods. 3. The prophet Smith taught a wide range of doctrines that are uncomfortable to modern mormons because it exposes the flaws of their belief system. However, the supreme council of mormonism – the general authorities – continue to endorse and promulgate these teachings.
4. The bom was dictated on almost a letter-by-letter basis with the translation stopping if the scribe copied it down incorrectly (mormon history). The mormon church documents that there were only minor typeset errors. With those accounted for, thousands of changes have been made, with significant changes as recent as 1964.
5. The changes in the bom were made without the ability to consult the ‘gold’ plates. No justification for the changes in light of the original plate MS is given.
6. The bom claims that millions of jews occupied America for a substantial number of years and built large cities. Such activity should have left considerable amounts of relics for evaluation. As seen in this post, these so called ‘relics’ are frauds and poor scholarship that is grasping at straws.
7. The inspired writings of Smith (Book of Abraham) do have one extant MS – the Smith papyri. His notes and hand written ‘translation’ leave very little room to say that he used some other papyrus. The true translation of the papyri is completely different from Smith’s ‘translation. It is a pagan prayer for the dead.
Is it worth the risk?
Yes, is it worth the risk? Internally and externally, the bom is a fraudulent fairy tale. Since the book itself is a lie, one must consider the validity of the spiritual message contained therein. Should such a flawed, fraudulent book, be the basis to place oneÂ’s salvation in? Should such a contorted maze that is mormonism, with its polytheism, bazaar secret hidden rituals and Gnostic-like knowledge quest be a part of a ChristianÂ’s life? These teaching of mormonism are not compatible with what Jesus and the apostles taught. You want to bet your (eternal) life, bet your life on the Jesus of Christianity, not the jesus of mormonism.