Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

paulpatter

What's the Latest on Archaeology Evidence for BoM?

Recommended Posts

yeah that was what they were called.

Oh and here is the image of bats on Mayan pottery. I have to admit they look like elephants but they are bats.

gw_kear1.jpg

They really really really do not look like bats =P.... If I may ask, how do they know they are bats? It seems like it would be something else indeed.

Share this post


Link to post

Not true, Alma 24:13 states

You cannot stain a metal sword it wipes clean but a wooden one can and does absorb blood and would stain a macuahuitl.

It is my belief that the steel swords were no longer made because of either lack of ingredients (such as useable ore) or the knowledge was eventually lost.

I've never understood this argument. The stain referred to isn't wiped clean with a cloth, it's wiped clean with the blood of the lamb.

"if we should stain our swords again they can no more be washed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins."

It's clearly a symbolic reference. If we use your argument, then how can a Macuahuitl be made bright if not made of metal? How can it retain it's brightness, even when buried in the ground?

"And now behold, since it has been as much as we could do to get our stains taken away from us, and our swords are made bright,"

Also, since Joseph was translating what the word sword meant, he defines Nephi's sword, and later says they patterned it after the same. His reference to sword is even followed in the next verse when he describes his people working in iron. To assume they did not is just assuming.

2 Nephi2:

14And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people.

15And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance.

Then, all the way at the end at the final battle, Moroni describes them using swords at Cumorah.

To think Joseph didn't translate sword across the board as meaning sword just doesn't make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post

That said, I do think the macuahuitl has a place in the debate, but not the way you might think. To me, it looks very much like an evolved or modified threshing tool used in ancient Egypt. Here's the two side by side.

Egyptian threshing tool

uc2936.jpg

Macuahuitl

codex1b0bp.jpg

It's easy to see how they could have adapted it to be part of "all manner of weapons of war". I believe the sword is it's own animal...

Share this post


Link to post

I hear you.

I would hate for someone to reject the Book of Mormon just based on genetics. They have that right of course, but unfortunately miss the whole point of how to truly know if the Book of Mormon is true.

In addition, BIble believing Christians can't be taken seriously when they give the Bible an automatic free pass in regards to science, yet so easily reject the Book of Mormon based on the same scientific standards. = double standard.

Since the topic was Archaeological evidence, and the quote I gave was from an ex-mormon scholar of the field of genetics, I thought it was relevant to the thread.

If the BoM was actual history of an actual group of people, then the evidence would be there. It doesn't appear that the evidence is there, this obviously doesn't look good for the BoM being historically accurate.

Shoot! I had to look up what a "red herring" was, but figured much that he wasn't too serious.

I guess I will have to have a serious discussion with him about "skateboards".

Good luck. Not too many serious discussions happen about skateboards, unless people are not wanting a skatepark near them. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post

Of course, change your original argument when evidence is presented.

CFR where the Book of Mormon states your claim?

Hey Bookofmormontruth, the book of mormon makes the claims 200 years of peace in Christ, thousands of years and millions of people, buildings, Hebrew, ect.in the Americas..PROVE IT right here right NOW!!

Where is: archaeological evidence for Lamanites/Nephites? Christ? Hebrew? Reformed Egyptian?

Where is: anthropological evidence for Lamanites/Nephites?

Where is: linguistic evidence for Lamanites/Nephites? Christ? Hebrew? Reformed Egyptian?

Joseph Smith taught that the native Americans were a lost part of the House of Israel brought to the Americas by the hand of the Lord for His own purpose. The Book of Mormon was the record of this people and their dealings with God. Despite years of archaeological studies by both Mormon and non-Mormon scientists and archaeologists, no correlation exists between the Nephite/Lamanite nations and reality. There is no archaeological, anthropological, linguistic or historical evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon despite the best efforts of many good LDS scientists such as Thomas Ferguso

Share this post


Link to post

Hey Bookofmormontruth, the book of mormon makes the claims 200 years of peace in Christ, thousands of years and millions of people, buildings, Hebrew, ect.in the Americas..PROVE IT right here right NOW!!

Where is: archaeological evidence for Lamanites/Nephites? Christ? Hebrew? Reformed Egyptian?

Where is: anthropological evidence for Lamanites/Nephites?

Where is: linguistic evidence for Lamanites/Nephites? Christ? Hebrew? Reformed Egyptian?

Joseph Smith taught that the native Americans were a lost part of the House of Israel brought to the Americas by the hand of the Lord for His own purpose. The Book of Mormon was the record of this people and their dealings with God. Despite years of archaeological studies by both Mormon and non-Mormon scientists and archaeologists, no correlation exists between the Nephite/Lamanite nations and reality. There is no archaeological, anthropological, linguistic or historical evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon despite the best efforts of many good LDS scientists such as Thomas Ferguso

"Mormonism is simply a community of people who gather together on a regular basis to reassure each other that it is okay to continue believing in absurdities. But for me and my family it is far better to see the world and true history as it really exists, rather than persist in delusion, no matter how comforting that may seem."

Sorry, not right now, I am too busy reassuring other members that it is okay to believe in absurdities because in the end it just gives us all great comfort.

When I take off my delusional lenses, I will get back with you asap. good.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Hey Bookofmormontruth, the book of mormon makes the claims 200 years of peace in Christ, thousands of years and millions of people, buildings, Hebrew, ect.in the Americas..PROVE IT right here right NOW!!

Where is: archaeological evidence for Lamanites/Nephites? Christ? Hebrew? Reformed Egyptian?

Where is: anthropological evidence for Lamanites/Nephites?

Where is: linguistic evidence for Lamanites/Nephites? Christ? Hebrew? Reformed Egyptian?

Joseph Smith taught that the native Americans were a lost part of the House of Israel brought to the Americas by the hand of the Lord for His own purpose. The Book of Mormon was the record of this people and their dealings with God. Despite years of archaeological studies by both Mormon and non-Mormon scientists and archaeologists, no correlation exists between the Nephite/Lamanite nations and reality. There is no archaeological, anthropological, linguistic or historical evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon despite the best efforts of many good LDS scientists such as Thomas Ferguso

What would such proof/evidence look like?

Share this post


Link to post

I think apologists and others should stop trying to find "evidence" for the Book of Mormon. Non-believers don't accept their research and believers don't need it.

A lot of the "evidence" is more about understanding the historical and literary context of the text than trying to demonstrate the reality of the book. I would hate for those type of researchers to stop what they were doing because "believers don't need it"....a lot of us may not need it, but we very much enjoy it when we've get the chance to learn more about the world from which the Book of Mormon came.

Share this post


Link to post

How do you guys deal with this:

that this conflicts with current thinking in the church regarding the whereabouts of the Lamanites today.
I would like to see the exact quote from Dr. Woodward as opposed to the paraphrase given by Dr. Southerton. "Current thinking" varies quite a bit among church members I know.

Share this post


Link to post

To bring Tango out of the 1950s and into the current discussion of New World Archeology and the Book of Mormon:

Brant Gardner at the 2006 FAIR Conference:

Defenders of the Book: Surveying the New World Evidence

for Book of Mormon Historicity

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2006-Brant-Gardner.pdf

Gardner again, The Case for Historicity: Discerning the Book of Mormon's Production Culture

http://youth.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Case_for_Historicity.html

Mark Wright: Deification in the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica

A very enlightening approach, showing how to read the Book of Mormon as through Mesoamerican Culture.

Brian Stubbs, comparing Hebrew and Uto Aztecan, linguistic information that Tom Ferguson, for one, did not consider and did not have the capacity or training to observe.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=848

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=5&num=1&id=112

An interesting geographical and linguistic corrolation from Larry Poulson:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=2&id=655

The eastern edge of the passage through the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is formed by an uninhabited mountain wilderness. This wilderness is sparsely inhabited even now. Meleseo Ortega Martinez, in his Reseña Historico de Tehuantepec, recounts the origin of the word Tehuantepec.10 It is derived from the Nahuatl words tecuanitepec. Tecuani has the meaning of "wild beast," and tepec translates as "hill." According to the Nahuatl dictionary, tecuani also means "man-eating beast." The composite has the meaning "Hill of the Fierce Beasts." Alma 2:36—38 describes the fate of a Lamanite army after its defeat by the Nephites:

And they fled before the Nephites towards the wilderness which was west and north, away beyond the borders of the land; and the Nephites did pursue them with their might, and did slay them. Yea, they were met on every hand, and slain and driven, until they were scattered on the west, and on the north, until they had reached the wilderness, which was called Hermounts; and it was that part of the wilderness which was infested by wild and ravenous beasts. And it came to pass that many died in the wilderness of their wounds, and were devoured by those beasts and also the vultures of the air; and their bones have been found, and have been heaped up on the earth.

The almost exact correlation in meaning for Tehuantepec and Hermounts suggests that the wilderness of Tehuantepec is an ideal candidate for the Book of Mormon wilderness of Hermounts. A line drawn from this wilderness to the headwaters of the Grijalva River intersects with the Grijalva River near the ruins of Santa Rosa and never comes near the Usamacinta River except at its headwaters. The probable identification of Tehuantepec with Hermounts gives strong support to Sorenson's identification of the Grijalva River as the Book of Mormon river Sidon.11

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/insights/?vol=8&num=1&id=807

More Larry Poulson on Book of Mormon locations in the New World:

http://youth.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2008-Mark-Wright.pdf

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Share this post


Link to post

An interesting geographical and linguistic corrolation from Larry Poulson:

This is quite a creative stretch, especially given that there is no indication in the text that the word "Hermounts" had a meaning related to wild beasts, (or, unless I misread, that the area was mountainous).

I dare say almost any uninhabited part of a jungle region like Central America would have had plenty of wild and hungry beasts.

Also, Stubbs's conclusions look like a lot of cherry picking to me, with the kinds of parallels that a dedicated researcher with an agenda might identify between just about any pair of language families. I don't see the clear relationship he claims. He still has not published these findings for review anywhere but the JBMS, right?

Share this post


Link to post

Also, Stubbs's conclusions look like a lot of cherry picking to me, with the kinds of parallels that a dedicated researcher with an agenda might identify between just about any pair of language families. I don't see the clear relationship he claims. He still has not published these findings for review anywhere but the JBMS, right?

The last I heard, he was working on publishing his finds at book-length. He's had a number of scholars review it with most approving of it. Roger Williams Westcott, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, New Jersey and former president of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States had this to say about Stubbs' work:

Perhaps the most surprising of all Eurasian-American linguistic connections, at least in geographic terms, is that proposed by Brian Stubbs: a strong link between the Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic (or Hamito-Semitic) languages. The Uto-Aztecan languages are, or have been, spoken in western North America from Idaho to El Salvador. One would expect that, if Semites or their linguistic kinsmen from northern Africa were to reach the New World by water, their route would be trans-Altantic. Indeed, what graphonomic evidence there is indicates exactly that: Canaanite inscriptions are found in Georgia and Tennessee as well as in Brazil; and Mediterranean coins, some Hebrew and Moroccan Arabic, are found in Kentucky as well as Venezuela [citing Cyrus Gordon].

But we must follow the evidence wherever it leads. And lexically, at least, it points to the Pacific rather than the Atlantic coast. Stubbs finds Semitic and (more rarely) Egyptian vocabulary in about 20 of 25 extant Uto-Aztecan languages. Of the word-bases in these vernaculars, he finds about 40 percent to be derivable from nearly 500 triliteral Semitic stems. Despite this striking proportion, however, he does not regard Uto-Aztecan as a branch of Semitic or Afro-Asiatic. Indeed, he treats Uto-Aztecan Semitisms as borrowings. But, because these borrowings are at once so numerous and so well "nativized," he prefers to regard them as an example of linguistic creolization - that is, of massive lexical adaptation of one language group to another. (By way of analogy, . . . historical linguists regard the heavy importation of French vocabulary into Middle English as a process of creolization.)

Of the various Afro-Asiatic languages represented in Uto-Aztecan vocabulary, the following occur in descending order of frequency:

  1. Canaanite (cited in its Hebrew form)
  2. Aramaic
  3. Arabic
  4. Ethiopic
  5. Akkadian (usually in its Assyrian form)
  6. Ancient Egyptian

Among the many Semitic loan-words in Uto-Aztecan, the following, listed by Stubbs, seems unexceptionable as regards both form and meaning:

Hebrew
baraq
lightning
>
Papago
berok
lightning
Aramaic
katpa
shoulder
>
Papago
kotva
shoulder
Hebrew
hiskal
be prudent
>
Nahua
iskal
be prudent
Hebrew
yesïväh
sitting
>
Hopi
yesiva
camp

Lest sceptics should attribute these correspondences to coincidence, however, Stubbs takes care to note that there are systematic sound-shifts, analogous to those covered in Indo-European by Grimm's Law, which recur consistently in loans from Afro-Asiatic to Uto-Aztecan. One of these is the unvoicing of voiced stops in the more southerly receiving languages. Another is the velarization of voiced labial stops and glides in the same languages.

Share this post


Link to post

The last I heard, he was working on publishing his finds at book-length. He's had a number of scholars review it with most approving of it. Roger Williams Westcott, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, New Jersey and former president of the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States had this to say about Stubbs' work:

Yes, I am familiar with this, and it does not change my opinion.

Westcott's reference to the Bat Creek stone doesn't do much for his credibility.

Share this post


Link to post

This is quite a creative stretch, especially given that there is no indication in the text that the word "Hermounts" had a meaning related to wild beasts, (or, unless I misread, that the area was mountainous).

I dare say almost any uninhabited part of a jungle region like Central America would have had plenty of wild and hungry beasts.

Here is what a few have written on Hermounts:

Hermounts was a place that was overrun with wild beasts, Mormon even thought it necessary to add “ravenous beasts”. Tehuantepec would seem to fit this description nicely, as the Nahuatl word for Tehuantepec literally means “hill of the Jag uar”, or hill of the wild beast. Lawrence Poulsen writes “The almost exact correlation in meaning for Tehuantepec and Hermounts suggests that the wilderness of Tehuantepec is an ideal candidate for the Book of Mormon wilderness of Hermounts.” Another interesting point is that the jaguars, or “wild beasts” of Tehuantepec were known to be more ravenous than other jaguars. There is a legend about the hill which Tehuantepec is built contained “Jaguars of a particularly bloodthirsty type infested the hill, killing and terrorizing the inhabitants.” Miguel Covarrubias, Mexico south: The Isthmus of Tehuantepec, (Routledge, 1986) pg. 153 It would make sense that Mormon made it a point to say that this area was “infested by wild and ravenous beasts” and “devoured” human flesh, if in fact, it was the same area.

“Hermounts in The Book of Mormon is the wild country of the borderlands, the hunting grounds, “that part of the wilderness which was infested by wild and ravenous beasts” (Alma 2:37). The equivalent of such a district in Egypt is Hermonthis, the land of Month, the Egyptian Pan—the god of wild places and things. Hermounts and Hermonthis are close enough to satisfy the most exacting philogist. The Egyptian Month of Hermonthis was an extremely popular figure in Lehi’s day, to judge by the great frequency with which his name occurs in composition of proper names in various forms:Montu, Mendes, Menti, etc; it is the Book of Mormon Manti, next to Ammon the commonest name element in the Nephite onomasticon.” (Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967), 192)

“Now where does the word Hermounts come from? This is certainly not a Latin word. It's not a Greek word, a Hebrew word, or a Semitic word. Where was it? It was the land on the borders that was infested at times by wild beasts, at certain seasons of the year. It was way up in the borders. They went way up there. So it is the Egyptian word hr-Mntw, obviously. Month or Monthis was the Egyptian Pan; he was the god of wild places, wild animals, and the wild country. Hr-Mntw was the outmost part of Egypt where the land was sometimes visited by lions and crocodiles and things like that. It was under cultivation, but it was a place that was in danger from animals. They called it hr-Mntw because it was Month's country, wild animal country.” (Teachings of the Book of Mormon, lecture 44, p. 242)

Share this post


Link to post

Also, Stubbs's conclusions look like a lot of cherry picking to me, with the kinds of parallels that a dedicated researcher with an agenda might identify between just about any pair of language families. I don't see the clear relationship he claims. He still has not published these findings for review anywhere but the JBMS, right?

Brian Stubbs is a brilliant linguist and has not come at it with a preconceived notion to find Hebrew and Egyptian in UA. He has presented his research to many of his non-LDS colleagues, as well as the worlds leaders in Uto-Aztecan, and they have agreed with his research and didn't find any problems with it. I would think that the nucleus of experts in this language who all agree with Stubbs, should be fairly convincing.

From a link that was provided above, John Sorenson notes:

"Linguistic evidence is partially confirmatory. Agrinier, an archaeologist working under

the guidance of linguist Morris Swadesh, the originator of lexicostatistics, made a study of

“Sawi-Zaa,” a major language grouping that includes Zapotec in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico,

although he never published the result fully (see Agrinier 1969 and Reed 1966, 7–14). Swadesh

was quoted by Reed as saying about Agrinier’s study, “I was surprised at the number and

closeness of the parallels between the Sawi-Zaa and the Semitic languages”; 18 to 20 percent of

the few hundred Zapotec words examined were said to have recognizable parallels in Hebrew.

The late Mary LeCron Foster, a linguistic scholar for many years associated with the

Department of Anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley, proposed in 1992 that

“Afro Asiatic” (Semitic and Egyptian) languages had been influential in the formation of some

Mesoamerican tongues. “Specifically,” she said, “the Mixe-Zoquean languages of southern

Mexico … as well as the Mayan languages of Mexico and Central America, are demonstrably

closely related to, and probably descended from, ancient Egyptian” (Foster 1992a, 1992b). Based

in part on linguistic and ethnographic fieldwork among the Popoluca people in southern Veracruz

6

(Foster 1943; Foster and Foster 1948), she also noted that “a Zoque myth tells of the life and

death of Homshuk, the maize god, bearing much similarity to Egyptian tales of Osiris” (Foster

1992b). Moreover, she noted, the Popol Vuh of highland Guatemala “tells of a group of four

great sages (Q’uq’-kumatz, Tepev, Tzakol, Bitol) who arrived on the sea coast….” The names of

these in Mayan she related to Egyptian roots, both phonologically and semantically (Foster

1992a). Unfortunately she did not publish all her “extensive” linguistic analyses supporting these

assertions before her death in 2001."John L. Sorenson, “A Complex of Ritual and Ideology Shared by Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East”

Sino-Platonic Papers, 195 (December 2009)

Since Robert Smith is on this board, I am sure he could add to this conversation quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post

Hamblin has an excellent article about swords that is far from "apologetic grasping". What I find instead is that your "summary" of the apologetic position compared to what his article actually states are two very different things with the former being described in such a way as to make the latter look foolish. http://maxwellinstit...d=66&chapid=734

As I have the entire book you linked to and read it with interest many years ago, my observation about apologetics "grasping" for connections of BoM references with the extant archeological record is hardly foolish, but rather, informed. Virtually nothing has been advanced to further these hypotheses since "Warfare in the Book of Mormon" was first published....

Share this post


Link to post

As I have the entire book you linked to and read it with interest many years ago, my observation about apologetics "grasping" for connections of BoM references with the extant archeological record is hardly foolish, but rather, informed. Virtually nothing has been advanced to further these hypotheses since "Warfare in the Book of Mormon" was first published....

Translation: Any direct evidence presented to me, I will reject it automatically because that is how I roll.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I am familiar with this, and it does not change my opinion.

Westcott's reference to the Bat Creek stone doesn't do much for his credibility.

I haven't spoken with Stubbs in a while, though he has his largest compilation of Uto-Aztecan/Hebrew words getting ready for publication soon.

And attack on Wescott's credibility through citing Cyrus Gordon's research is simply ad hominem. Gordon was a well-respected Near Eastern Scholar, with rather unorthodox views regarding the Bat Creek Stone's validity (there was still considerable debate in this matter at the time Wescott published Across Before Columbus).

Whether the Bat Creek Stone has any Hebrew on it is inconsequential to Stubbs' research.

Share this post


Link to post

Are you just messing with me?

"Tailings, mounds of them, all over the place" does not = "mighty heaps of earth" or Nephi making one sword. This is a classic example of the "normal way of dealing with the Book of Mormon 'scientifically' has been first to attribute to the Book of Mormon something it did not say, and then refute the claim by scientific claims that have not been proven".

The link you provided is as good as wikipedia, try finding the time to read it in depth and you will see the bias oozing out.

And who made this so called "requirements"? In addition, you started off with "mining" and was shown evidence in the now "required" timeline, yet you just ignored it and went to another argument. So I am just going to assume you are just messing with me.

I don't "mess" with anyone.

Everyone is biased. My bias is truth, and determining truth is dependent on physical evidence. Mormonism's history is singularly dependent on physical evidence. Truth must fit all the evidence. Twisting/grasping to make it fit does not impress anyone. Thus far, we have assertions in the text of the BoM that do not have any evidence to support them; specifically in this instance advanced metallurgy and the "heaps of earth" ("mighty", even) required to show said-advanced metallurgy. The resulting weapons and armor have no basis in fact. That is a problem, one among many created by the BoM text.

The Olmec iron, tons of it, referred to by Peterson is bogus as it pertains to evidence for advanced metallurgy, much less as evidence for iron used as tools and weapons....

(EDIT - link won't take, so I deleted it)

Share this post


Link to post

Translation: Any direct evidence presented to me, I will reject it automatically because that is how I roll.

"Direct evidence" = applicable to the assertion. Nothing shown on this thread addresses "IN PERIOD" evidence for advanced metallurgy for Jaredites or Lehites. Later metallurgy including the requisite mining deposits is non sequitur as evidence of BoM metallurgy.

So by all means point out this "direct evidence" to me. I'll wait patiently....

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone is biased. My bias is truth,

Good grief! Here's a man has intellectual humility "by the quart in every vein".

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone is biased. My bias is truth, and determining truth is dependent on physical evidence.

Alas, yet another "champion of truth" who continually misrepresents both Mormonism and the actual physical evidence.

Mormonism's history is singularly dependent on physical evidence. Truth must fit all the evidence. Twisting/grasping to make it fit does not impress anyone.

Does the absence of evidence constitute no evidence? Exactly what is being twisted/grasped here? CFR.

Thus far, we have assertions in the text of the BoM that do not have any evidence to support them; specifically in this instance advanced metallurgy and the "heaps of earth" ("mighty", even) required to show said-advanced metallurgy. The resulting weapons and armor have no basis in fact. That is a problem, one among many created by the BoM text.

I fear you're reading too much into the text than is actually there. Are you saying there is no evidence suggestive of Mesoamericans using earthworks in warfare? Are you saying the Mesoamericans had no knowledge or skill in advanced metallurgy?

The Olmec iron, tons of it, referred to by Peterson is bogus as it pertains to evidence for advanced metallurgy, much less as evidence for iron used as tools and weapons. And 'round and 'round we go....

Blocked link. I wonder why? We Mormons must be terrified of the "

."

Share this post


Link to post

As I have the entire book you linked to and read it with interest many years ago, my observation about apologetics "grasping" for connections of BoM references with the extant archeological record is hardly foolish, but rather, informed. Virtually nothing has been advanced to further these hypotheses since "Warfare in the Book of Mormon" was first published....

uh huh. You were so well informed that you couldn't even summarize his arguments correctly. Specifically you over generalize the abundance of ore and you take an excessively narrow interpretation of Nephi's activities. So a critic takes over generalizations and pet interpretations of the BoM, then demands evidence to support that straw men, and then claims he is on the side of "truth" when nothing supports it.

I've never seen that before.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...