Lehi's story begins in the *first* year of the reign of Zedekiah, while the LL and background to them, actually happened in the *last* year of the reign of Zedekiah, so we're clearly in the same time frame and same place. The two sets of documents (BofM and the LL) ought to match up pretty good. (see also, Hayim Tadmor, "Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah" in *Journal of Near Eastern Studies*, Vol. 15, 1956, p. 229-230)So, the Time frame of the destruction was wrong and is corrected by the Lachish Letters to now agree with the Book of Mormon, which had the date right first and was criticized for it.
They actually match up more perfectly than anything in the Bible and outside archaeological discoveries. The LL are nigh unto perfect for archaeological proof that Joseph Smith was *not* kidding when he said the BofM was real history.
LL # 6 says "The words of the [prophet] are not good [and are liable] to loosen the hands." This is a Bible phrase as Torczyner points out at Jer. 6:24, 38:4, Isa. 13:7, Ezekiel 7:17, etc. (Torczyner, p. 112f). Note how the BofM fits right in here "In that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city of Jerusalem must be destroyed." (1 Ne. 1:4) Disheartening news indeed. (Nibley, "The Lachish Letters: Documents From Lehi's Day" in "Ensign", Dec. 1981, p. 50).
Lehi's story begins in the *first* year of the reign of Zedekiah, while the LL and background to them, actually happened in the *last* year of the reign of Zedekiah, so we re clearly in the same time frame and same place.Read slowly, you 'll get it eventually. (Now we jump back to Los Lunas again)
A) If you want to find evidence, you can, if you try hard enought to invalidate it by any means, you can.you deny these points at the peril of looking silly.
B) Corrupted evidence, like a corrupted DNA sample will be rejected by anyone who does not want to agree with you.
Blah, blah, blah.....Blah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahvvBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahvvvvvBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahvvBlah, blah, blahvvvBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahzzzzzzzzzzzBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blahBlah, blah, blah
Let thy speech be short, comprehending much in a few words.
Well said!
Yep, I can see that by all the UFO sites you go to in order to support your theories.
You are the one who brought up Nibley as if he was infallible and I just "Had to accept anything he said as Authoritative", I searched for Godzilla in the Bible and didn't find you there... So?
The Nibster and FARM/Maxwell are the closest things to an official pronouncement from lds central. The fact that nether one accept(ed)s the los lunas stone as authentic speaks volumes to the lack of credability as an ‘artifact’.
Paleo Hebrew and Phonetician are very close, but there are differences, call it what ever you want, they couldn't read it when the stone was discovered, or when the Indians say they first discovered it
Close is only good in horseshoes and hand-grenades. Well, then there goes your whole paleo-hebrew argument doesn’t it DU. The fact that your sources seem to prefer Phoenician says volumes against the authenticity of this artifact. If it is from some other source, it cannot be only from bom peoples.
then you can get an accurate result from a DNA sample that is corrupted. (Hey, I actually brought us back on topic!)
Hold that thought. The one argument invalidates the other, and that is why I went with the Los Lunas stone, I knew you'd go there.
Apples to oranges DUh, you just invalidated it your self above.
Boy you can say that again. The DNA evidence by a guy who's a plant Biologist which started this whole thing is certainly not equal to the evidence of a Population Geneticist who pioneered the science, who finds the plant biologist's work to be in error.
Poisioning the well again, he is a molecular biologist. If he were the only one involved, then your argument might hold water. Unfortuantely for you, the science keeps coming in to disprove your theories and assertions. That I have already shown that this vaunted population geneticist greatly erred regarding the real scientific evidence surrounding the hap X occurances in central america. Mormon Scott R. Woodward former scientific director of the Molecular Genealogy project at BYU and DNA expert now head of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, (as well as other mormons associated with the foundation) along with other researchers reported - in an article published in 13 January 2009 issue of Current Biology (volume 19 issue 1) stated Haplogroup D4h3 spread into the Americas along the Pacific coast, whereas X2a entered through the ice-free corridor between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets. The examination of an additional 276 entire mtDNA sequences provides similar entry times for all common Native American haplogroups, thus indicating at least a dual origin for Paleo-Indians. This was published with the full force and weight of the mormon Sorensen lab behind it.
Additionally, Wang showed that in a larger study, Crandall’s statenement that hebrew dna was present and represented in Rosenberg’s data was further incorrect. Additionally, Wang showed that in a larger study, Crandall’s statenement that hebrew dna was present and represented in Rosenberg’s data was further incorrect. As much as you hate to face it DU, these reports are not from anti sites, but established science journal outlets who could care less the religious aspects of the results.
Um, don't you have that backwards? I have already invoked Mark Hoffmann, the forger, who's documents have not all been tracked down.
Go ask your buddies at the UFO convention, unless you are claiming that Hoffman forged the los lunas stone too.
If this were a court trial your DNA evidence would be bounced for the same reason (which was my point!)
Your argument for a ‘pure’ sample has only to do with the actual laboratory work itself, and not the genetics of the individual. While you might accept (in fact cling to ) that obfuscation and misdirection, in a court room, as well as scientific research, proper laboratory procedures are documented throughly and if the DNA bearing material could not be properly extracted, the scientists would not use that data as a proof. And we are talking about people like the Sorenson Institute DU, who do this daily. Sorenson Inst. has one of the largest Central and South American DNA databases in the country. Are you willing to accuse them of not having pure samples? Stick to ufo sites.
So do all legitimate DNA Experts...
Then you are accepting the that the report linked above is legitimate as Woodward held the seat Crandall currently has.
Lurkers note, DU sourcing only from a pro-mormon site, not a professional journal of any sort.
Kind of like a wonderful self proclaimed expert on DNA... and as for the Sources, Lurkers note, Godzilla has not yet quoted any source... (Point set match, would you care to play again? LOL!)
What DUh would have you not to know that I’ve cited those objections on several occasions in previous posts.
DU Quoted It is time to ask the critics to quit dwelling on the silly Spaulding idea or View of the Hebrews and see where the *real* background to the BofM is, namely, Jerusalem, 600 - 587 B.C.
GZ I’ve not brought up spalding or VTTH in this thread.
I don't edit my quotes because I try to keep them in context, try it sometime!
I did not edit your quote above in the slightest – If you want to argue about your quotes that I cut and pasted intact, go find a mirror.
The Lachish Letters agree with the Book of Mormon about so many things that used to be places where anti's would attack us for being outrageously wrong (Godzilla kept trying to say Nephi and his brothers would have been dragged to Babylon before Lehi left Jerusalem in this thread), the Lachish letters set the time and the period perfectly, in that the deportation had not happened yet!
Now who is editing my comments? I said specifically within the context of the Lachish Letters is that the time frame is before the exile. DU wants to say that the prophet who disappears into the wilderness is Lehi. So lets look at the timing.
The first conquest of Jerusalem too place in 597 BC. Another deportation took place upon the downfall of the kingdom of Judah (586 B.C.).
Nebuchadnezzar placed Zedekiah on the throne at about 597 BC.
Then a few years later three inscribed potsherds were also found at the site, and like the others, they contained names and lists from the period just before the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC.
It is this second deportation that the Lackish letters are associated with. Now what does the bible have to say about this period?
From the first conquest (597 BC), Nebuchadnezzar ordered Jehoiakim, together with the most distinguished men of the land, and the most valuable treasures of the Temple and the palace, to be sent to Babylonia.
2 Kings 24: 11 And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it.
12 And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign.
13 And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the LORD, as the LORD had said.
14 And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.
15 And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon.
16 And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.
17 And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father’s brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah.
If Lehi/Nephi were present in Jerusalem, the way the bom ascribes to them as being wealthy and definitily Nephi and Laban would have been considered mighty of the land and hauled off. The prophet Jeremiah spoke of those people left behind under Zedekiah’s reign (which would have theoretically included Lehi/Nephi)
Jer 24: 8 And as the evil figs, which cannot be eaten, they are so evil; surely thus saith the LORD, So will I give Zedekiah the king of Judah, and his princes, and the residue of Jerusalem, that remain in this land, and them that dwell in the land of Egypt:
9 And I will deliver them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth for their hurt, to be a reproach and a proverb, a taunt and a curse, in all places whither I shall drive them.
10 And I will send the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, among them, till they be consumed from off the land that I gave unto them and to their fathers.
If one bothers to read the whole chapter, Jeremiah is saying those taken to Babylon were the “good” figs – those upon whom His blessing rested. Therefore, for Nephi and Lehi to be left behind (if they existed at all) would represent those who God cursed. Jer 24:14 states clearly , save the poorest sort of the people of the land. Is this how the bom portrays Lehi, et al during this period?
And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, . . .” 1 Nephi 2:4 “ . . . for behold they did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man, and had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance, and their gold, and their silver, and their precious things, . . .” 1 Nephi 2:11 “ . . . for behold he left gold and silver, and all manner of riches.” 1 Nephi 3:16 “ . . . we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things.” “ . . . we went up again unto the house of Laban.” “ . . . we would give unto him our gold, and our silver, and all our precious things.” “ . . . when Laban saw our property, and that it was exceedingly great, . . .” 1 Nephi 3:22-25
Does this describe the poorest sort of the poor? Then either Nephi or 2 Kings is lying about the setting.
Jeremiah make it very clear, he was the only prophet for the Lord during the entire period. Lehi is completely absent from the scene. Lehi’s so called call to Jerusalem to repent and it would be spared. There was no space to repent ‘or the city of Jerusalem would be destroyed’. Jeremiah chapter 4 shows that God’s anger and fury were already erupting in punishment, and God refused to change his mind:
Jer. 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
Jer. 4:28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.
Jer. 4:29 The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.
Thus for Lehi / Nephi to be in Jerusalem at the time of Zedekiah’s reign indicates that they were the very unbelieving and unrepentatant idolators that God condemned through Jeremiah. Those who stayed enjoyed their sin. The words of Jeremiah condemn them.
Which is when the Book of Mormon exodus was taking place... (people kept telling us we had the time wrong, this moved that time archeologists used to use to match our time line...)
If DU bothers to read the bible and the above links, he will find his timeline sorely lacking and false.
They actually match up more perfectly than anything in the Bible and outside archaeological discoveries. The LL are nigh unto perfect for archaeological proof that Joseph Smith was *not* kidding when he said the BofM was real history.
Once again, from the bible, those of Lehi/Nephi’s wealth and stature would be category 1 to be removed, as demonstrated above – regardless of the Lachish letters – that is what the bible says about them.
LL # 6 says "The words of the [prophet] are not good [and are liable] to loosen the hands." This is a Bible phrase as Torczyner points out at Jer. 6:24, 38:4, Isa. 13:7, Ezekiel 7:17, etc. (Torczyner, p. 112f). Note how the BofM fits right in here "In that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city of Jerusalem must be destroyed." (1 Ne. 1:4) Disheartening news indeed. (Nibley, "The Lachish Letters: Documents From Lehi's Day" in "Ensign", Dec. 1981, p. 50).
Jer 6: 24 We have heard the fame thereof: our hands wax feeble: anguish hath taken hold of us, and pain, as of a woman in travail.
Jer 38: 4 Therefore the princes said unto the king, We beseech thee, let this man be put to death: for thus he weakeneth the hands of the men of war that remain in this city, and the hands of all the people, in speaking such words unto them: for this man seeketh not the welfare of this people, but the hurt.
Is 13: 7 Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man’s heart shall melt:
Ez 7: 17 All hands shall be feeble, and all knees shall be weak as water.
What do DU’s cited verses have to do with 1 Nephi 4? Absolutely nothing. The book of Jeremiah stands in condemnation of 1 Nephi, as he and he alone was called to preach to those in Jerusalem. For Lehi and Nephi et al, to have remained behind in Jerusalem was an indication of God’s condemnation of them and they were specifically cursed by God through Jeremiah.
So, the Time frame of the destruction was wrong and is corrected by the Lachish Letters to now agree with the Book of Mormon, which had the date right first and was criticized for it.
Biblical archaeology and the Bible clearly indicated that there were two seiges, nothing new from the Lachish letters that wasn’t already known.
Actually, that's the old Archeological information, See the Lachish Letters, they talk about Prophets still prophesying this in the last year of the reign of Zedikiah (the sixth year)...
Actually, Jeremiah preached about 11 years into the reign of Zedikiah, until the final destruction of Jerusalem.
In summary
The first conquest of Jerusalem too place in 597 BC
All of the men of valor, skilled craftsmen, leaders, valuables taken out of the city. Only the poorest of the poor remained, those cursed by God through Jeremiah (bad figs)
Zedikiah placed on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar
During the 1st year of Zedikiah’s reign, the rich Lehi and family remain in Jerusalem. Jeremiah is the only prophet of God left in the land.
589 BC Lachish letters as Nebuchadnezzar attacks Jerusalem again and is destroyed.
BZZT! Wrong! Yes you are, there are two sieges and exiles from Jerusalem, see time line and links above.
GZ Oh but the other evidence found in assocation with the pyramids more than confirmed what was lost or obscured due to outsiders. There are other associated ruins - The builders' villages boasted bakers, butchers, brewers, granaries, houses, cemeteries, and probably even some sorts of health-care facilities—there is evidence of laborers surviving crushed or amputated limbs. Bakeries excavated near the Great Pyramids could have produced thousands of loaves of bread every week. Are similar associated with Los Lunas – NO. Secondly, real archeologists have studied the site (how many real archaeologists have studied Los Lunas? (crickets).
LOL! Clearly for you, Experts make the evidence "real" except for when those experts are now Mormons, or agree with Mormons, or...
What DU wants you to miss is his challenge that the pyramids were ‘contaminated’ too. My point was that many associated archaeological findings are also present that confirm and provide information about the pyramids. Los Lunas – nada, zero, zilch. So how many real archeologists have studied los lunas DU?
Do you know how many Frauds have been perpetrated in Archeology on the "experts", LOL! Google Archeology Fraud, for some fun.
Yep, and listed within the very first site on the list are the Los Lunas and Bat Creek stones. Thanks for finding additional support for those items being frauds :)
A) If you want to find evidence, you can, if you try hard enought to invalidate it by any means, you can.
Evidence to be valid must be able to withstand investigation to prove or disprove it. DU’s evidence – the Los Lunas stone. Why – just because it has proto hebrew writing of an abridgement of the ten commandments with a discovery in the early 1800’s. What he doesn’t say or want you to know so you can fully evaluate it as a mormon artifact or not -
1. It has been rejected as a fraud by mormon investigators
2. DU’s own sources counter the proto Hebrew by saying it is Phonecian.
3. The writer inserted Greek Letters into the words – a highly unlikely practice
4. Use of caret , not known to be used in Hebrew until the middle ages
5. The author is extremely clumsy. The reading of the writings goes line 1 – line 3 – line 2 – line 4. . . . If the writer was fluent in the language and writing, he would not have made the mistake of forgetting line 2 and have to squeeze it between 1 and 3. Common mistake if some one is copying something down from paper.
Now, DU would like to you ignore this equally valid evidence. If true it will pass examination. Viewed dispassionately, the 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.
B) Corrupted evidence, like a corrupted DNA sample will be rejected by anyone who does not want to agree with you. you deny these points at the peril of looking silly.
Remarkably, DU is a one note Johnny on this. He is unable to disprove the other DNA studies. Rather he would have you examine laboratory procedures. Well these laboratory procedures are those used world wide both in forensics as well as genetic studies. Mormon Scott R. Woodward former scientific director of the Molecular Genealogy project at BYU and DNA expert now head of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation actually conducts these studies and has probably the largest data bank of DNA data around. DU’s mythical corrupted DNA sample is dealt with by labs like Sorenson. If corrupted DNA completely invalidate genetic studies, then all of the studies like conducted at Sorenson and the hundreds of other DNA / Genetic research facilities around the world are invalid too. That is a mighty big claim by DU on Crandall’s behalf. However, DU is completely vague as to which studies are plagued with corrupted DNA - come on DU, the world is waiting. No, even Crandall relies upon these genetic studies to do his work. The presence of proper extraction requirements for laboratories – yes. Controls and procedures in place to validate the extraction (normally extracting many DNA strings from the same donor), commonly called quality control – yes. DNA data used by scientists world wide based upon laboratory work – yes. Stick to programming DU, you are drowning in your half inch deep apologetic on this one as the very ones you claim reject DNA data because it is corrupted are the same ones who use that same data on a daily basis.
I will address your comment that I am Dissing the Bible by pointing out that the Smithsonian does not consider it a Historical guide. This note was offered as a direct comparison to the Book of Mormon not being recognized by the Smithsonian that way either. The point was not to "diss" the Bible, but to point out that Archeology is not Religion and Vice Versa.
> What DU has snipped out were his comments-
As to the statement about the Book of Mormon by the Smithsonian, I guess were in Good company... The Bible—‘it’s not historical’ contains these quotes: ‘The Smithsonian’s Department of Anthropology has received numerous inquiries in recent years regarding the historicity of the Bible in general, and the Biblical account of Noah’s flood in particular. The following statement has been prepared to answer these questions: . . . . They also make the statement that the bible is a religious and not a historical document
So he tries to make the comparison that the Smithsonian looks at the bible in the same way as it does the bom. It also states On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the Old Testiment, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian or Greek Histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. Take the time to scroll down at the same link above, and you can compare the Smithsonian’s statement on the bom to their statement on the Bible.
This is the normal mormon tactic of dissing the bible – try to go to atheist/agnostic sites and drag up what ever they can find. Well in this case DU has blatantly quote mined the document – which says the opposite what he was trying to prove – that the Smithsonian views the bible as not a source for archaeological studies. In DU’s case he hoisted himself by his own petards by trying to attack the credability of the Bible to enhance the credability of the bom.
I submit that anyone who believes in the Bible only because of archeological evidence has a weak testimony and needs to spend more time in prayer and with the Bible and less time with the Smithsonian.
I will go one further, my faith in the testimony of Jesus, the Apostles and the writers of the books of the Bible are enhanced through the suupport of archaeological finds. It links REAL persons to REAL events at REAL locations. One of the first witnesses related to the empty tomb – a verificable location, for a verifiable event.
Similarly, anyone who disbelieves the Book of Mormon because they have not seen a peer reviewed paper saying it is true needs to spend more time on their knees and with the Book of Mormon and less time with the Smithsonian.
“After many years of careful study, the real importance of Book of Mormon archaeology has dawned on me. It will take but a moment to explain. The Book of Mormon is the only revelation from God in the history of the world that can possibly be tested by scientific physical evidence.... To find the city of Jericho is merely to confirm a point in history. To find the city of Zarahemla is to confirm a point in history but it is also to confirm, through tangible physical evidence, divine revelation to the modern world through Joseph Smith, Moroni, and the Urim and Thummim. Thus, Book of Mormon history is revelation that can be tested by archaeology.” - Thomas Ferguson to the First Presidency, April 10, 1953, Ferguson Collection, BYU
“One cannot fake over 3000 years ... of history and have the fake hold water under the scrutiny given the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is either fake or fact. If fake, the cities described in it are non-existent. If fact – as we know it to be – the cities will be there. If the cities exist, and they do, they constitute tangible, physical, enduring, unimpeachable evidence that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and that Jesus Christ lives.” - Thomas Ferguson to the First Presidency, March 15, 1958, Ferguson Collection, BYU
Fergunson, a mormon, makes the argument very plainly for the science of mormonism. If the cities do not exist – the bom is a fake. If the tomb was found to have Jesus’ body in it – Christianity would be fake.
Archeology will never teach you eternal truth because it comes from man. The Gospel teaches eternal truths because it comes from God. I promote people putting the trust in God, not man.
The question one must evaluate is the man who brought forth the bom – joseph smith. He was known to be a treasure seeker, bilking people of their money for his services. Was he a prophet? What verified his visions - no one but his word. Who saw the plates, no one but him. He used the same seer stone he used for treasure seeking to translate the bom. With the absence of the plates his only other verifiable translation was the papyrus that in the 20th century was shown to be a fraudulant translation. Same with the kinderhook plates – fraudulant. Does the bible support his revelations (do even the other books of the mormon canon ?) support his numerous and changing theology – no. Does the Bible warn of false prophets in the latter days – yes. Christians are called to use both spiritual discernment as well as practical discernment to identify these false prophets. Line upon line smith has been shown to be a false prophet, biblically, internally (within mormon canon) and externally (no archaeological, DNA, anthropological, linguistic) or other piece of evidence that would show the bom to be true. These items are not speculation, but what we are required from DU’s favorite misquoted verse – 1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
The word try here is dokimazo, meaning to: 1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals 2) to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy.
See, DU would have you pray to get a warm and fuzzy feeling as proof of the bom. John says otherwise – to put it to the test, scrutinise to see whether a thing is genuine or not. That is not accomplished by warm fuzzies, but comparing line by line Christianity from the bible with mormonism from smith, to compare the factual support of the bible (which DU tries to diss), with any factual support for the bom. To the spiritually immature – it makes like the song of the Sirens to lure people to their deaths. To the mature, mormonism is found to be that condemned by Jesus Depart for I never knew you.
Jesus of the Bible is far larger than anything joseph smith could even imagine. Why accept a substitute dreamed up by a man, when you can have the Real Jesus. Mormonism would place you under the impossible task of being perfect with the pie-in-the-sky hope of godhood. Jesus’ way is far better and far more reasonable. And He has paid for it all.