Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

8 Strong Arguments / 8 Evidences Of Mormonism


Recommended Posts

8 Best Arguments / 8 Best Supporting For Mormonism

ARGUMENTS

1.)- Prophets and Apostles who are supposed to be special witnesses for God have made several errors stating Doctrine or appendages along the way. Those who are critics expect a much less of these instances then what occurs. They see LDS accepting the BOM and even the Bible (as long as translation is correct) as having prophets who share the truth on the Lord's doctrine. If Ammon words can always be used as ascripture and an assumption is made that they are right then Why Can't Bruce R McConkie's words always be held to the same standard. Did Ammon write a separate set of personal books that contained a preface in the beginning saying these are my views and not the views of Alma or the church?

Examples of Errors

Race issues, Age of the Earth, mode of creation, origin of man, evolution, great and abominable church.

While some of you will ask for examples only one is needed to prove the point -

When Elder McConkie said “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.” he was wiping away multiple statements made by multiple prophets and apostles. How many other things do we hold to that perhaps will be corrected at some future point?

So large amounts of time can pass before God corrects false ideas among his prophets and apostles. Ideas that offend, hurt, and cause pain.

Pro response – New Testament contains examples of similar type issues. One is where Peter wanted only to give the gospel to the Jews and it took Paul and others calling him out and the Lord some time later giving him a revelation where this false idea gets corrected.

2.)Book Of Mormon Anachronisms

Critics claim that certain items in the BOM are out of place. Certain Metals, plants, and animals. Apoligist explain this with stating that a horse is not a horse or perhaps finding a drawing of a horse on a cave from many thousands of years earlier or a skeleton found on the other side of the continent. Critics do not find these explanations as valid and see this as an error on Joseph's part.

Some of this is better handled if one leans on a limited geography of the Book of Mormon.

3.) Open Cannon that really isn't

Mormons see this Doctrine as a much smaller list of things then critics. Critics want to hold the church to every statement that a LDS leader makes from the pulpit, in a authored book, or even in his home to friends. The church though considers Doctrine only those things that have been approved by common consent or find their way into the Scriptures and specifically the D&C. But that poses a problem too. Critics also play the other side of the fence as well stating that if the Church Is led by revelation and there is an open cannon, how come the prophets since Joseph have received very little that has been included in the D&C. While the Church may claim multitudes of inspiration in the day to day affairs, nothing earth shattering has been revealed in a manner that would please the critics. They see Church leaders not taking any big chances and playing safe. One comment I came across recently stated (I am parphrasing”, “if you watch Conference, it is almost a sure bet that the President of the church will give the most open armed, least controversial talk; one that takes very little risk. Meanwhile everyone lines up waiting for a dramatic revelation form their Prophet”


While the cannon in theory is open it is true very little has been added over the last 100 years.

Pro Response – The doctrine of the Kingdom has for the most part been established not including some revelations that will be needed to usher in the second coming and thereafter. With the Kingdom mostly set, there is very little need for additonal Earth-shattering revelations

4.) Book of Abraham

While Apoligists will see authentic themes in the translation and will argue that we may possibly not have the original Papayri in their whole form, we find critics here not budging. They see from what we do have that rather then a document tied in any way to abraham, it is a common egytpian funeral text.

It is almost incredulous to critics that the Church claims this is an inspired translation.

Pro Response – some apoligist take the stand that this is not normal translation as you and I understand it. That essentially the papryi acted as a prompt to initiate the revealing of the book of Abraham from God to Joseph and that the papryi very well may have been unrelated, though Joseph may have assumed otherwise.

5.) Polygamy and Polyandry

While many Mormons are unaware that their prophet practised polygamy, he was sealed to at least 31 women and perhaps as many as 43. This alone can be set aside by looking to polygamy in the old testament and seeing that God permitted and even gave wives/concubines to his prophets. The real issue comes in once we learn that many of these sealing were to women who were already married to another man. Some of these men were active members of the church, some inactive, and some nonmembers. It also is a fact that some of these men were sent on missions for the church just before Joseph was sealed to their wives. Sec132 of the D&C even states that if a women be married by God's covenant and then be with another man that God has given her then it is not adultery.


Pro Response – Some apoligist claim none of these polyandrous cases involved sex though in at least one of the cases (Sylvia Sessions) there is evidence it did. Apoligist claim that while Jospeh was obviously fertile and yet we to date have no confirmed offspring from Joseph based on DNA. They would further claim that these selaings were a form of adoption linking families and were not for the purpose of quenching Joseph's appetite for women.

6.) First Vision Accounts

With 7 actual First Vision Accounts one is left to read each and find the differences. The first two given in 1827 are third hand from individuals writing down what Martin Harris and Joseph Smith Sr. had told them. These stories do not involve Christ but rather mention Toads turning into angels, Joseph using his seer gift to find the plates in spite of the angel's warnings, and neither mention any religious revival in the area. The 1832 account leaves out God the Father completely. The 1834 account has his age at 17 though some confusion on if this relates to the first vision or Moroni's appearance. The 1835 is the first to mention two beings considting of the Father and the Son. The later accounts differ slightly in details but for the most part consistent in basic storyline. The main issues seem to be his changing of the story regarding his seeing an ange, Christ, or both the Father and the son. It also brings into question as one goes through the dates and tries to validate a Religious revival that Joseph claimed to have occurred


pro response – As with any time one tells an event, details are bound to be at least slightly different. Also one may withhold information depending on their trust level with who the story is being told to. In regards to the revival – years later Joseph may have struggled to place the events in their appropriate order and may have not recognized the gaps of time as being the same as he recalled later in life.

7.) Masonry / Temples

Masonic ritual has obvious tie ins to Mormon Temple ritual. It is apparhent on some level that Joseph borrowed the outward methodology to teach a different set of information. Critics claim he stole it and passed it off as revelation.


Apoligist respond by taking 2 theories.

One – that Masonry has divine christian/jewish methods to its symbols and signs and that Joseph simply was restoring these to their ancient correctness. Many early leaders in the church are quoted as saying Joseph had told them this was the case. There have been references in church history from leaders stating that these methods find their antiquity in early Christian practices and possibly as far back as Solomon's Temple

Two – That the information to be learned in the endowment was revealed by God and that Joseph came to the conclusion either on his own or from God that the Masonic methodolgy would be a good way to transfer this information to those receiving the endowment. Most Experts add weight to this theory by showing that Masonry has no actual historical connection to either Solomon's temple

The issue at heart is that the Early Leader's quotes strongly support theory 1 while the best evidence available regarding the origins of Masonic symbolism and signs strongly supports theory 2. They both can't be right

8.) DNA

DNA is too intricate for me to comment on as any kind of expert but in Layman's terms. Israelite DNA has been reported by critics to have not been found in Native Americans. This is a giant issue if one takes the hemispheric model of The Book of Mormon. Critics claim if there are 1000's of nephites and lamanites that even with one side wiping out the other that there should be some remanant of Israelite DNA

Apoligist confront this by stating that if one starts on the premise of limited Geography, it becomes very unlikely to find Lamanite DNA across the entire hemisphere. There has also been some research that shows certain tribes do have the X halpogroup which is the marker for Israelite DNA (Sak, FOX, Ojibwa tribes are examples of this).

Evidences

1.) Chiasmus

While the debate rages on what exactly Chiasmus indicates, one cannot look at Alma 36 and simply explain it as a coincidence. I think if critics are honest with themselves it is highly unlikely that Joseph placing it in the translation did so intentionally. It is also unlikely that a Chiasm of the length and intricacy could have done so by accident as well. There are dozens of Chiasms in the BOM though Alma 36 seems the most intricate and least likely accidental

2.) Nehem/Nahom

This seems like a direct hit on the coincidence scale. Following the old incense trails The Book of Mormon mentions the journey of Lehi's Family and their turns on the land. Buring Ishmael at Nahom, building the boat at Bountiful. These places have very strong parallels in the Incense trails and coast of the Arabian Pennisula that seem to give substance to Lehi's family and their story of their journey along with the resources they encountered in each area.

3.) Witnesses

While critics try to pick apart the witnesses and their testimonies regarding things such as “Spiritual eye”, it is amazing that these 11 individuals are not shown on a authentic proven document to have recanted their testimonies. Pick it apart all you want, these 11 men seem to hold onto their believing something divine occurred and that the Book of Mormon is an actual divine work. Then you couple that with many of them being excommunicated or leaving the church in other fashions and still clinging to some divine occurrence. If this work was a fraud, there were multiple opportunies to expose it through these witnesses and yet there is not clean break from their testimonies.

Critics respond by pointing out how this group of 11 men are all tied into 3 or 4 families including Smith's and point out that some witnesess state they saw things in a vision or with their spiritual eye.

4.) Book of Mormon Authorship

I am personally not aware of a authorship anaylsis that confirms a single author. I am aware of one that states Sidney Rigdon is the most likely author though that is deceptive as the % of likelyhood was still low, just that of all the modern possible authors, Sidney was the best chance. I am also aware of several studies that find multiple authors for the Book of Mormon. We seem to be left in some way having to deal with a book at the very least that has several different voices within it's covers. Is that part of the fraud, an intentional change in writing style? Also in the same discussion it must be mentioned that while critics find multiple themes from Joseph's time in the Book Of Mormon story, the book itself uses a wording, tenses, structure, mode of speaking, that would be very foreign to Joseph and other contemporaries of his time. The book must be dealt with seriously and while there are explanations that give insight into how it could have been authored as a fictional work it also doesn't speak to the whole of the book and the immense challenge this still provides.

5.) Other ancient documents

While there are way too many the discuss here. I will mention a few. In the “apocalypse of Adam”, Adam and Eve are visited by three messengers who teach him of God's ways. For those who have been to the temple this is a dead on direct hit of “coincidence”. Origen in his writings seemed to agree with much of LDS theology including his understanding of Paul's scriptures on the three glories to mean just that when he says “Our understanding of the passage indeed is, that the apostle, wishing to describe the great difference among those who rise again in glory, i.e., of the saints, borrowed a comparison from the heavenly bodies, saying, "One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars.". Baptism for the dead was recognized by many early Christians including “Pastor of Hermas”

6.) Some fullfilled prophecies

While some of the prophecies of Joseph seemed to have failed or at the least take quite a stretch to make them seem fulfilled there are several that were fulfilled in what would seem quite majestic.

The Cival War Prophecy seems to be one that while some details are still debated. There is much of this revelation that is very profound in it's happening just as stated. The start of the war in South Carolina among others. The other I will mention is his journal recording “I told Stephen Markham that if I and Hyrum were ever taken again we should be massacred, or I was not a prophet of God.” With all the times he had been arrested and tried and persecuted it seems strange that he saw his next arrest as different then the first hundred. Lucky guess? Possibly but it seems out of place compared to history with the law. We must be careful with prophecies by the way. Some of them can be labeled by critics as self fulfilling prophecies. Joseph says something will happen ex: Bro. Smith will go to England on a mission. Then Joseph or Brigham Young or some other Leader knowing this was stated then sends Bro. Smith to England. And you have a fulfilled prophecy.

This could also be #9 for the arguments as well as many prophecies are unfullfilled and the people involved in fulfilling them or the time stated have passed and are long gone.

7.) The success of the church

While critics will confront this by accusing the church of “brainwashing” and the “abuse” of it's tithing it's members and the “guilt” associated, it is truly amazing and perhaps miraculous how far the church has come. Look at how much land, buildings, money, connections, growth of wards and stakes. When Joseph looked at a few Priesthood Brethren at the Isaac Moorley Farm and prophesied “It is only a little handful of Priesthood you see here tonight, but this Church will fill North and South America — it will fill the world"

What it has accomplished in so little time is truly a marvelous work and a wonder.

8.) The Holy Spirit

Moroni 10:3-5

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

While some say they just knew though had not had a marvelous experience with the spirit, many LDS have had extradornary experiences with the Holy Ghost as they have prayed to know the truth of the restored Gospel. While every faith has marvelous occurences, these can not simply be discounted or ignored. Many have claimed visits of angelic visitors, audible voices, tramatic spiritual events that have wrought this understanding upon them.

Edited by reelmormon
Link to comment

Reel-

I probably lean on evidences more than the average bear, and consider the internal, textual evidences of the BOM to be compelling. But I concluded years ago that we will never find a road sign saying "Zarahemla, this way", something similar that would prove to a disblieving, secular world tha tthe claims of the gospel are true. Why, because that would eliminate the aspect of faith. Why lean on faith in Christ when if we have a Stella that talks about Ammon and King Lamoni? So conclusive "proof" of the gospel would, in a strange but certain way, diminish it.

So I will be amazed and appreciative that modern scholarship helps confirm my testimony, but that testimony, in the end, has to come from above.

Link to comment

Buzzard,

You wrote:

I probably lean on evidences more than the average bear, and consider the internal, textual evidences of the BOM to be compelling. But I concluded years ago that we will never find a road sign saying "Zarahemla, this way", something similar that would prove to a disblieving, secular world tha tthe claims of the gospel are true. Why, because that would eliminate the aspect of faith. Why lean on faith in Christ when if we have a Stella that talks about Ammon and King Lamoni? So conclusive "proof" of the gospel would, in a strange but certain way, diminish it.

So I will be amazed and appreciative that modern scholarship helps confirm my testimony, but that testimony, in the end, has to come from above.

By this reasoning, God should not have allowed archaeological finds confirming the historicity of so many figures, geographical locations, and events mentioned in the Old and New Testaments. Yet he did. Such finds do not "prove the gospel true," but they do substantiate the credibility of the texts.

Link to comment

just trying to put out both sides... see the criticism of both and get feedback on other strengths and weaknesses of both sides

general comments are welcome as well

Link to comment

Buzzard,

You wrote:

By this reasoning, God should not have allowed archaeological finds confirming the historicity of so many figures, geographical locations, and events mentioned in the Old and New Testaments. Yet he did. Such finds do not "prove the gospel true," but they do substantiate the credibility of the texts.

You miss my point. There are objective evidences of both the Bible and the BOM. The BOM's are, for the most part, internal and textual. You are aware, I presume, that there is no archeological evidence of Adam, Noah and the Flood, Abraham, Joseph in Egypt, Moses and the Exodus, and many other Biblical events? Yet both you and I believe-because of Faith. Scientific research helps buttress our testimony, but it is not why we believe. As an Evangelical Protestant, and thus a professor of the overpowering power and importance of Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, I would think you, of all people would understand this.

Link to comment

I have been caught off guard with how vehemently both sides stand their ground. I think both sides have fair arguments and supporting evidence. I can't stand how one sided both are. It seems to me like the church can still be true and there be some issues and instances where things do not go they way one would hope. I am frustrated that on a "discussion" board anytime I state that it is possible a church leader messed up, everyone calls my memebership into question. If this is the true church we have nothing to hide, and if it isn't then we should draw it from the dark into the light of day. I am not in favor of nitpicking because Elder Thompson yelled at his kids or picking on normal mess ups each of us have, but when prophets and apostles speak and indicate they are speaking under their oath and office and make a mistake, we certainly need to point it out. If we don't then that generation and each following generation will adopt it in their mind as truth and doctrine. I have a right to dissent and still be an active member of the church. I am not to speak evil of Lord's annointed but there is a difference between speaking evil of a person and disagreeing with their stance or statement.

On the other hand I also get frustrated with critics who take things like Chiasmus and mock it by showing Dr. Seuss did Chiasmus. or that it can be found almost anywhere. Yes it can be found all over, and yes most of it is unintentional. Dr. Seuss though is intentional in case you didn't pick up on that....lol. Joseph on the other hand has no possible reason to try to do it or even have it cross his mind. Alma 36 is at least to me so intentionally apparent that any excuse to sweep under the rug or dismiss doesn't hold water.

So I am hopeful both sides can see there is value in the discussion and in understanding without all of you resorting to name calling and unChristlike treatment of others.

This should never be a church of only 3 options A.)absolute conformity b.)lie C.)leave

As one who doesn't see every issue from the apologetic soapbox nor am I a an Apostate as some have accused I am asking for more respect from both sides. Address the issue. I was taught long ago, One who has no argument will resort to personal attacks. While some of you may feel I participate in this, I would ask for an instance where I called any of you out specifically and said you are not what you claim, are lying about your credentials, or mock who you say you are. The only instance I am aware of that even comes close was yesterday when in a thread someone said something along the lines of those who are truly serving Christ, their community, and their family to the fullest aren't here on the internet messing around on boards like these and I told him that was the pot Calling the kettle black since all of us are here insinuating that isn't a fair statement.

Anyway. Clean it up. And share your two cents on what I am missing in the OP or what should come off because the argument is too weak.

Edited by reelmormon
Link to comment
You miss my point. There are objective evidences of both the Bible and the BOM. The BOM's are, for the most part, internal and textual.

Buzzard - Do you concede that the Nahom/Nehem is at least one exception? Do you see this as a strong case for mormonism?

Also I agree with you the bible has many more external evidences for places and events but you would hopefully admit part of that is the nature of the beast of these two books. The bible in most instances works with known geographic locations. The BOM is just in the last 40 years being for the most part unanimous on in regards to location. Also in The bible we have a better grasp on particpant cultures in the society along with the details of the general culture at specific times. Essentially we know what we are looking for in more instances. We also know the languages and that goes a long way to indentfying places and things and events. do you agree?

Link to comment

Buzzard - also you indicate in one post that you are LDS when you say

I concluded years ago that we will never find a road sign saying "Zarahemla, this way", something similar that would prove to a disblieving, secular world tha tthe claims of the gospel are true. So I will be amazed and appreciative that modern scholarship helps confirm my testimony, but that testimony, in the end, has to come from above.

then you state

As an Evangelical Protestant, and thus a professor of the overpowering power and importance of Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, I would think you, of all people would understand this.

I would be curious to know your background, what is your interest in the church and are you a member?

Link to comment

Apoligist confront this by stating that if one starts on the premise of limited Geography, it becomes very unlikely to find Lamanite DNA across the entire hemisphere. There has also been some research that shows certain tribes do have the X halpogroup which is the marker for Israelite DNA (Sak, FOX, Ojibwa tribes are examples of this).

X haplogroup has been on the Americas for 10,000 years, too old to fit the BOM timeline.

A better defense would be that 33% of Cherokee have Israelite DNA, but current molecular clocks cannot tell if a Native American's grandmother came from Israel, or his ancestor from 600 BC did.

Link to comment

Buzzard,

You wrote:

By this reasoning, God should not have allowed archaeological finds confirming the historicity of so many figures, geographical locations, and events mentioned in the Old and New Testaments. Yet he did. Such finds do not "prove the gospel true," but they do substantiate the credibility of the texts.

No, the nature of the two books make them incomparable. If you prove Balaam existed you don't prove his donkey was talking to him, or that some guy was living in a fish for 3 days. The BOM is the supernatural recovery of a lost civilization. Just proving Nephi existed is proof of divine authorship.

Link to comment

Buzzard - also you indicate in one post that you are LDS when you say

then you state

I would be curious to know your background, what is your interest in the church and are you a member?

Rob Bowman is the EV, not me. At the risk of tooting my own horn, I am a descendant of pioneers on my moms side, and RLDS for the most part on my fathers side until my grandmother converted to the gospel. As for me, I'm a high priest living in Utah County, and a proud BYU alum. They don't get much more dyed-in-the-wool LDS than me.

Link to comment

Buzzard - Do you concede that the Nahom/Nehem is at least one exception? Do you see this as a strong case for mormonism?

Back in my investigating days, this seemed like the best physical evidence for the BoM. For Catholicism, I always thought the best physical evidence for Catholics are the Incorruptible Saints. I've learned long ago that there needs to be some degree of wanting the physical evidence to be true for it to be accepted. I've seen enough board members not to be moved by the 'incorruptible saints' evidence. For myself, the NHM evidence gives the possibility that the BoM story may be possible but the incredible part of the story is that the voyage could even be made at that time and need the evidence in the Americas so I've noted the discovery but need further relevent evidence. It's all a matter of faith what one accepts for members and non-members.

Edited by blueadept
Link to comment

Buzzard - Do you concede that the Nahom/Nehem is at least one exception? Do you see this as a strong case for mormonism?

Also I agree with you the bible has many more external evidences for places and events but you would hopefully admit part of that is the nature of the beast of these two books. The bible in most instances works with known geographic locations. The BOM is just in the last 40 years being for the most part unanimous on in regards to location. Also in The bible we have a better grasp on particpant cultures in the society along with the details of the general culture at specific times. Essentially we know what we are looking for in more instances. We also know the languages and that goes a long way to indentfying places and things and events. do you agree?

Sure. And I find the fact that we can pretty much track Lehi's journey until he set sail from Oman yet another evidence. But the strongest case for "Mormonism" is the doctrine and spirit found in the pages of the BOM. I am utterly convinced, for many reasons, that the BOM is exactly what it says it is.

Link to comment

Buzzard

sorry but where you wrote evangelical, it could have been understood both ways

Link to comment

Prophets and Apostles who are supposed to be special witnesses for God have made several errors stating Doctrine or appendages along the way.

Examples of Errors

... Age of the Earth ...

The introduction notes of Doctrine and Covenants 77 says that this earth has a temporal existence of 7,000 years and

that Christ will come in the beginning of the seventh thousand years.

Do you believe Joseph Smith's revelation in the seals representing 1,000 year periods was wrong?

Thanks,

Jim

Link to comment

Critics fail to realize that the fast majority of discourses in the are not earth shattering new revelations. They are repetition of the same old mantra. Paul does not bring anything profound to the table, just constant reminders to follow the bretheren. Old Testament prophets give stern warnings, but rarely give specific qualifiers. An open canon does not mean new doctrine, it means continued guidance. the doctrines are established from the start, and from then onward we are guided according to the demands of the times. Moses failed to understand insects, and codified slavery. I don't believe this was ever corrected in the bible. Is slavery less offensive than restricting the priesthood or stating an opinion on a specific race?

I think the criticisms you bring forward are based on false premises, even strata man arguments. They want DNA? If we must find DNA, then why have we not located all the lost tribes of Israel? Nephi, after all, was not jewish. He was from the tribe of Joseph. If the DNA is to survive the scattering of Israel, why have we not found the tribe of Dan and his many brothers? It is, in my opinion, a preposterous argument.

The anachronisms exist, but they are getting fewer in number. The very fact that the so-called anachronisms are becoming few proves that there are, in fact, no anachronisms. Rather, there is still lots of discoveries yet to be made. They once mocked us over barley but this accusation has evaporated. There are three olmec sites with food items that have not been found anywhere else in the region sugesting that these plants longer exist there. Three sites. It shows you how rare a find is down there.

Link to comment
Do you believe Joseph Smith's revelation in the seals representing 1,000 year periods was wrong?

no Is it a thousand years in God's Time or mine. Did the time begin at the completion of the creation or once Adam fell?

Question for you - referring to the second coming, Christ prophesied

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

Was Christ wrong?

Link to comment

I can't stand how one sided both are.

In many cases this is simply because of the way the question or argument has been constructed. Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

The introduction notes of Doctrine and Covenants 77 says that this earth has a temporal existence of 7,000 years and

that Christ will come in the beginning of the seventh thousand years.

Do you believe Joseph Smith's revelation in the seals representing 1,000 year periods was wrong?

The seven thousand years refer to the time after the fall of Adam, specifically to the seven prophetic periods, and not to a precise number of years. A thousand years refers to a single day, for example. This revelation refers to the six days prior to the return of Christ.

The "creation periods" were six days, and so will the "temporal periods".

Link to comment

no Is it a thousand years in God's Time or mine. Did the time begin at the completion of the creation or once Adam fell?

Question for you - referring to the second coming, Christ prophesied

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

Was Christ wrong?

Which generation?

Link to comment

X haplogroup has been on the Americas for 10,000 years, too old to fit the BOM timeline.

CFR, please.

Requesting specific proof, and not just one of those "estimates" based on a guess.

I had spoken with Dr. Brown of Emory University who first discovered haplogroup x, and he admitted that this was only an estimate.

So, let's see if you have any definitive research on the dating.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment

reference:

Ancient DNA in pre-Columbian archaeology: a review Journal of Archaeological Science Volume 30, Issue 5, May 2003, Pages 629–635.

Haplotype X markers found in several thousand year old specimens from South America.

Although 'for a brief time, the identification of mtDNAhaplotype X fueled European origin theorists', the European haplotype X is unrelated phylogenetically to the Amerindian haplotype X.

Edited by bu11fr0g
Link to comment

By this reasoning, God should not have allowed archaeological finds confirming the historicity of so many figures, geographical locations, and events mentioned in the Old and New Testaments. Yet he did. Such finds do not "prove the gospel true," but they do substantiate the credibility of the texts.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, it would not only substantiate the credibility of the text, but also "prove" the Book of Mormon to be true, including the miraculous story of its origin, and everything else that flows from that. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are two different kettles of fish from that point of view. Nobody claimed to have found the Bible with the help of an angel, and translated it by the gift and power of God.

Link to comment

No, the nature of the two books make them incomparable. If you prove Balaam existed you don't prove his donkey was talking to him, or that some guy was living in a fish for 3 days. The BOM is the supernatural recovery of a lost civilization. Just proving Nephi existed is proof of divine authorship.

Ah! You said it first. You beat me to it.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...