The Bible versus the Book of Mormon

[Kevin Christensen]

asciikerr, who wants the LDS to become good Christians:

The whole point of the video is that it takes blind faith to be an LDS Believer.

On the other hand, we have other Christian perspectives:

Paul:

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

(Romans 10:17)

For we walk by faith, not by sight: (2 Corinth 5:7)

And Hebrews 11:1-2

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

For by it the elders obtained a good report.

Would asciiker have us "correct" the New Testament to say "faith cometh by hearing the words of evangelical archeologists" and "for we walk by Bible lands tours, and not by considering dissenting opinons on the authenticity and implications of the proposed sites"

And finally, "Now faith is the substance of things provided by archeology, the evidence of things in museums and tours, which conservative archeologists obtained via good shovel work."

Where, I wonder, is the archeological evidence of the resurrection? I'm not asking for such evidence mind you. I'm personally quite convinced based on other things, such as reading the New Testament and LDS scriptures, and taking seriously Jesus's advice to "continue in my word, and then shall ye be my disciples indeed: and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free," and the process described in Alma 32.

It seems to me that Brant has aptly demonstrated a comical blindness in the Bible vs. The Book of Mormon video, for example, the erroneous use of an Isaiah quotation, the snark hunts for "coins" and "riding horses into battle", the oft refuted "land of Jerusalem" and "temple outside of Jerusalem" arguments. The video is embarressingly lame, and leaves the text of the Book of Mormon untouched. I'm left the the impression that the producers didn't even try to define the problem. I'm reminded of some rarely considered Biblical prophecies such as

Jer. 20: 11

But the LORD is with me as a mighty terrible one: therefore my persecutors shall stumble, and they shall not prevail: they shall be greatly ashamed; for they shall not prosper: their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten.

Stumbling and confusion indeed. Brant, as usual, has provided illumination that makes it clear.

Are we without evidence for the Book of Mormon? I don't think so. I'm not forced to believe, but I do feel invited by many things. I'm impressed by the work of Sorenson and Gardner on the Mesoamerican side of things, from the close readings they use to define the problem, and the details they use to offer solutions.

I like details such as this one, which, I gather is not discussed by the video:

http://www.shields-research.org/General/SE...etter_122-2.PDF

Apparently the video does not discuss the Near Eastern context of the Book of Mormon. Places like the Valley of Lemuel, and Nahom, and Bountiful (the whole Journey of Faith DVD, and the work shown in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, and other books. Why not, I wonder? Why not fly Murphy to this location and have explain it away item by item, perhaps arguing on the basis of Indiginous DNA results.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/bookofmorm...8bountiful.html

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Abulafia]

Okay...

Here goes....

The film clearly intends to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon and the Bible are not comparable by taking a very critical view of the Book of Mormon while presenting the Bible as though it generated no controversy at all. This approach is a fundamental misrepresentation of the scholarly climate for both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Having read more on the Living Hope Ministries to understand where they come from theologically, I would have to agree with this.

The film provides an outline of the stories found in the Bible and declares these stories to be historical. The Book of Mormon is presented as a work that merely claims to be history.

Though I disagree with the Living Hope Ministries claim that all biblical events are necessarily historical I would agree with Murphy that they are placed within a mostly relevant context whether they are real events or not. The bible writers got the culture mostly right. I disagree with the academics who argue evidence will never be found, but feel that Murphy is correct in his opinion, that at present we have very little, and one would expect to find something in terms of swords, coins, writings, place names, skeletal remains, cities, etc.

At least I don't understand despite the ending of the Olmec, Mayan and Inca Civilisations why we shouldn't find these things, somewhere at sometime as outlined in the Book of Mormon????

At this point, the film cuts to an expert witness. William E. Wilson,[4] an erstwhile archaeologist who is described inaccurately as a Latter-day Saint,[5] says:

[Gervin]

From Hamblin

[Brant Gardner]

Gervin:

Does

[Dando]

Would it currently be likely that an educated and open minded individual come to believe in the historicity of the BofM without a spiritual witness of its truthfulness?

[Daniel Peterson]

From Hamblin

[Dale]

Dale: Hamblin quote

That's strange--the FARMS site didn't come up in the search, but the link is available on another page of this thread.

Original site of Hamblin's article

I must have missed it. I did read the article before.

[Pahoran]

Its almost as if the believer has more faith in the apologists and evidences found to support the Book of Morman[sic] than the Church itself.

What a promising beginning that was!

===============A SAMPLE OF WHAT I'M WRITING======

Cities

The Illusion: The film clearly shows how Biblical cities have retained their names throughout Biblical times, which is contrasted with those of the Book of Mormon.  They even enforce this by showing a vast amount of cities still retaining their names: City of David, Jerusalem, Bethlehem etc., This is further enforced with the use of expert archaeologists from Guatemala which states,

[Gervin]

The argument isn't "specious," for the simple, sufficient, and -- one would think -- painfully obvious reason that, while the transmission from antiquity and translation into English and other modern languages of the biblical text occurred by natural means that do not entail belief in the supernatural, the method of transmission and translation claimed for the Book of Mormon entails divine miracles.

Changing the topic to the translation method is feeble. Are you conceding that there there will never be found any identifiable record of the peoples, cultures, or events of the Book of Mormon? If so, then you are right; you have to tie historicity to a fabulous translation story. If, however, the vast cities, temples of Hebrew worship, metal fabrication, etc., wer ever recorded on to a stela, wall painting, potsherd, metal plate, or if they left any trace, then the discovery of such would not carry with it a tag that says "the Book of Mormon is true."

I too have heard accounts of people who wish to accept the antiquity of the Book of Mormon without accepting the claims of Joseph Smith, but I do see how such a stance can, in the end, be logically maintained.

An acceptance of antiquity would require evidence of antiquity. Thar's the rub.

It seems obvious, however, that a person strongly disposed to disbelieve in the existence of God -- or, alternatively, strongly convinced, on other grounds, that revelation ceased with the ancient apostles -- is unlikely, at least at first blush, to give the claims of the Book of Mormon serious, open-minded consideration. It's a matter of what Bayesian analysts call "prior probabilities." Not only does this seem logically obvious, but I've met scores of such people myself, personally.

It's a nice way to deflect the lack of historicity onto a nebulous "many" who lack the proper spiritual open-mindedness. It fails the real world test of how archeological evidence is gathered, processed, analyzed, and contextualized and how historicity is determined. But I understand your problem.

QUOTE (Gervin @ Feb 6 2006, 04:34 PM)

There is a reason that the study of the Book of Mormon has attracted only a

[Daniel Peterson]

Changing the topic to the translation method is feeble.

If so, that merely shows your position to be even weaker than I had thought, since so "feeble" an argument destroyed it.

Please try actually to frame an argument rather than issuing decrees to be taken on your say-so. Why is my point about the claimed miraculous translation of the Book of Mormon "feeble"? If it's really irrelevant, explain why.

Are you conceding that there there will never be found any identifiable record of the peoples, cultures, or events of the Book of Mormon?

Obviously not. And my point about the claimed miraculous translation of the Book of Mormon has absolutely nothing whatever to do with that topic.

I too have heard accounts of people who wish to accept the antiquity of the Book of Mormon without accepting the claims of Joseph Smith, but I do see how such a stance can, in the end, be logically maintained.

An acceptance of antiquity would require evidence of antiquity. Thar's the rub.

No. That's not the "rub." You've plainly failed to grasp my point. By several light years, it would seem.

Here's a suggestion: Try to summarize my argument very carefully before you try to blow it to smithereens. If you want to, you can even run it past me to see whether or not you've gotten it right. I'll be happy to help you in this regard. Once you've actually understood my argument, then you can set about to demonstrate that I'm a blithering idiot. If you move directly to proving me a moron without taking the trouble to understand what you think you're refuting, you run the very distinct risk of demonstrating, instead, that . . . Well, let's just say that it wouldn't be wise.

Besides, "acceptance of antiquity" doesn't necessarily require "evidence of antiquity." There are plenty of believers who accept the antiquity of the Book of Mormon without knowing a thing about such matters. But don't feel smug. There are hundreds of millions of believers in the Bible who accept its antiquity but don't even know what pottery shards are, let alone Iron Age II, the documentary hypothesis, Deutero-Isaiah, or the stratigraphic evidence from Jericho or Ai. For that matter, very, very many readers accept the antiquity of Homer, Virgil, Sophocles, Plato, and Aeschylus who, if challenged on the antiquity of those writers, could not begin to form a coherent argument to support it.

It seems obvious, however, that a person strongly disposed to disbelieve in the existence of God -- or, alternatively, strongly convinced, on other grounds, that revelation ceased with the ancient apostles -- is unlikely, at least at first blush, to give the claims of the Book of Mormon serious, open-minded consideration. It's a matter of what Bayesian analysts call "prior probabilities." Not only does this seem logically obvious, but I've met scores of such people myself, personally.

It's a nice way to deflect the lack of historicity onto a nebulous "many" who lack the proper spiritual open-mindedness.

Oh come on, Gervin. If you really imagine that prior beliefs and assumptions don't affect our openness to logically subsequent issues -- if you don't think that a non-Christian theist who already believes in divine interventions and miracles will have an easier time when first presented with the notion of, say, Jesus' resurrection than would a deeply convinced and dogmatic atheist -- you're going to have to demonstrate that thoroughly counterintuitive claim. I really do suspect that you don't understand what I'm saying (probably, I'm guessing, because your apparently total scorched-earth hostility and scorn won't allow you to concede even the most obviously commonsensical proposition if a Mormon utters it, or if you think it might give aid and comfort to the Mormon enemy) because I can't imagine any rational person, Mormon, agnostic, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Zoroastrian, or even Calvinist, denying so manifestly obvious an idea. It's a truism.

It fails the real world test of how archeological evidence is gathered, processed, analyzed, and contextualized and how historicity is determined.  But I understand your problem.

Actually, with all due respect, you seem totally clueless.

QUOTE (Gervin @ Feb 6 2006, 04:34 PM)

There is a reason that the study of the Book of Mormon has attracted only a

[asciikerr]

Just an update...I'm going through the COINS segment and everything up til now has been a lot of the same thing.

This is what the video presents for the Bible.

Where is the Book of Mormon's Proof in this area?

Writer: Nevermind that, lets reflect upon how dumb Murphy & the others are.

Nevermind that we don't have proof that exists, lets focus on what may be.

Sure we don't have this, that or the other, but look at the great studies in that field.

Metallurgy and Writing was a topic he loosened up on a bit. But not much.

These were the highlights:

[Gervin]

Please try actually to frame an argument rather than issuing decrees to be taken on your say-so. Why is my point about the claimed miraculous translation of the Book of Mormon "feeble"? If it's really irrelevant, explain why.

The definition of "historicity" is very simple: Historical actuality; fact. The idea propigated by you and Hamblin is feeble because, as I have said, historicity has nothing to do with a translation method. If you have evidence of Historical Actuality; Fact then why try to shift the focus into a discussion of an acceptance of miraculous translation processes? Adherents of the Bible claim it was written as God impressed upon men His word. Miraculous. However, the historicity (Historical actuality; fact) of the setting of the Bible isn't dependent on accepting it as a miraculous transmission by God. No need to buy into the miracles contained therein and no need to accept the spiritual testimony of the writers. If the Book of Mormon has an archeological record to support historicity, then you wouldn't need to attempt to link it to an alleged transmission, testimony, or spiritual claim. That's why it's feeble.

QUOTE (Gervin @ Feb 6 2006, 09:03 PM)

Are you conceding that there there will never be found any identifiable record of the peoples, cultures, or events of the Book of Mormon?

Obviously not. And my point about the claimed miraculous translation of the Book of Mormon has absolutely nothing whatever to do with that topic.

My point exactly. Historical actuality; fact has nothing to do with the translation story.

It's a nice way to deflect the lack of historicity onto a nebulous "many" who lack the proper spiritual open-mindedness.

Oh come on, Gervin. If you really imagine that prior beliefs and assumptions don't affect our openness to logically subsequent issues -- if you don't think that a non-Christian theist who already believes in divine interventions and miracles will have an easier time when first presented with the notion of, say, Jesus' resurrection than would a deeply convinced and dogmatic atheist -- you're going to have to demonstrate that thoroughly counterintuitive claim. I really do suspect that you don't understand what I'm saying (probably, I'm guessing, because your apparently total scorched-earth hostility and scorn won't allow you to concede even the most obviously commonsensical proposition if a Mormon utters it, or if you think it might give aid and comfort to the Mormon enemy) because I can't imagine any rational person, Mormon, agnostic, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Zoroastrian, or even Calvinist, denying so manifestly obvious an idea. It's a truism.

Hamblin's article was about archeology and the refusal of "many" to not deal with what he believes to be the obvious historicity (Historical actuality; fact) of the Book of Mormon. You want to introduce elements of faith into the discussion - divine intervention, miracles, resurrection? Fine, but it has nothing to do with the lack of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. You have no evidence (or the evidence you have is beyond the grasp of the nonLDS scholar) so your only validation is a spiritual testimony. Nice, but irrelevant to historical actuality; fact.

QUOTE (Gervin @ Feb 6 2006, 09:03 PM)

It fails the real world test of how archeological evidence is gathered, processed, analyzed, and contextualized and how historicity is determined.

[Mark Beesley]

I have resisted watching the LHM videos, partly because I have a difficult time justifying the time, and partly because I am simply suspicious of any group that is trying to show that things I know to be true are not, i.e. they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of convincing me that the Lord lied when He witnessed to me that the Church is true. (And no, the witness was not just a good feeling in my deceitful heart.)

Nevertheless, after reading Brant Gardner's review of The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon, I decided to bite the bullet and take an hour out of my otherwise busy retirement schedule to watch the video.

I'm glad I did. Not because it opened my eyes to the fraud of the Book of Mormon, but rather because it truly showed how deceitful apostate Mormons can be. At times it was difficult to watch, after having read Gardner's review, because it was so obvious that the producers were working with smoke and mirrors. If one did not know the whole truth, one could truly be taken in by the misrepresentations, lies, and manipulations contained in the video.

There was one particular part of the video that I found very illuminating, and it relates directly to one of the things that Gardner pointed out. The most compelling point that I think Gardner made, and he made it over and over again, was that the lack of correlation of the Book of Mormon to the real world is a function of the absence of written texts. Not only texts that might correlate to Book of Mormon events, but any texts at all. Anyway, at one point in the video Thomas Murphy is asked if his faith in the Book of Mormon would be restored if texts were to be found that correlated to the Book of Mormon.

Murphy hemmed and hawed, shuffled his feet, looked off to the side, and then made an entirley uncommitted response that, well, it might help something, but I'm not sure what. Now, I don't know Murphy from Adam. But in that response I saw a person whose problems with the Church go far beyond a lack of on-the-ground evidence of Book of Mormon events. I saw a person who would not believe, even if an angel from heaven should declare it unto him. I saw a person who is, at his root, dishonest.

Thank you Brant for writing that review. Reading it and watching the video has illuminated the tactics that Satan is perfecting in his battle against the Church in the last days.

[Pahoran]

Just an update...I'm going through the COINS segment and everything up til now has been a lot of the same thing.

This is what the video presents for the Bible.

Where is the Book of Mormon's Proof in this area?

Writer:  Nevermind that, lets reflect upon how dumb Murphy & the others are.

Nevermind that we don't have proof that exists, lets focus on what may be.

Sure we don't have this, that or the other, but look at the great studies in that field.

Metallurgy and Writing was a topic he loosened up on a bit.  But not much.

These were the highlights:

[Pahoran]

Please try actually to frame an argument rather than issuing decrees to be taken on your say-so. Why is my point about the claimed miraculous translation of the Book of Mormon "feeble"? If it's really irrelevant, explain why.

The definition of "historicity" is very simple: Historical actuality; fact. The idea propigated by you and Hamblin is feeble because, as I have said, historicity has nothing to do with a translation method. If you have evidence of Historical Actuality; Fact then why try to shift the focus into a discussion of an acceptance of miraculous translation processes? Adherents of the Bible claim it was written as God impressed upon men His word. Miraculous. However, the historicity (Historical actuality; fact) of the setting of the Bible isn't dependent on accepting it as a miraculous transmission by God. No need to buy into the miracles contained therein and no need to accept the spiritual testimony of the writers. If the Book of Mormon has an archeological record to support historicity, then you wouldn't need to attempt to link it to an alleged transmission, testimony, or spiritual claim. That's why it's feeble.

And the cases are not parallel. That's why your use of "feeble" as a meaningless dismissal is pathetic.

There are essentially only two theories for the origin of The Book of Mormon: (1) ancient origin and (2) modern origin. The modern origin theory has several versions, but the ancient origin theory has only one: that it was inscribed upon golden plates which were delivered to Joseph Smith by an angel, and Joseph then translated them by miraculous means. There is not, and never has been, any explanation for The Book of Mormon that allows for an ancient origin and natural means of transmission.

Thus, it follows that evidence for historicity is ipso facto evidence for the only available theory of ancient origins, i.e. the miraculous transmission explanation.

This is in direct contrast to the case of the Bible, where the transmission route is known, and it has come down to us by natural means. Thus, evidence of Bible historicity is not evidence of its miraculous claims.

Evidence for Book of Mormon historicity is.

This is really quite elementary. It is not at all difficult to understand. Please let us know if you still don't get it, and I'll try again using smaller words.

But, while we're discussing Jacob Neusner: Yes, I'm well aware of his statement about his alleged experience at BYU in the early 1980s. It wasn't his finest hour.

I consider it one of his finest hours.

Really?

And was this despite the fact that he was simply wrong, or because of the fact that he was hostile?

Tell us, Gervin, whom do you hate the most: Latter-day Saints, or those who are nice to us?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cold Steel]

Where is the solid evidence for the Book of Mormon?

What would be "solid" evidence for you -- evidence that would be enough for you to join the LDS church?

Cold Steel

[Mark Beesley]

Pahoran wrote:

But do you seriously believe that the stone inscriptions represent the earliest Mesoamerican writing?

I know when I was first learning to write I got out a slab of granite, a hammer, and a chisel, and went to work . . . Maybe that's why I always got poor scores in handwriting!

[Mark Beesley]

An example of early 21st Century writing. Maybe carvings in rocks aren't the best example of early Mesoamerican writing . . .

[Daniel Peterson]

The definition of "historicity" is very simple:  Historical actuality; fact.

And that obvious and non-controversial point counts against my position . . . how, exactly?

The idea propigated by you and Hamblin is feeble because, as I have said, historicity has nothing to do with a translation method.

Obviously.

If you have evidence of Historical Actuality; Fact then why try to shift the focus into a discussion of an acceptance of miraculous translation processes?

Sigh. See if you can accurately summarize my argument. (Hint: The sentence above misses the point by a mile.)

Hamblin's article was about archeology and the refusal of "many" to not deal with what he believes to be the obvious historicity (Historical actuality; fact) of the Book of Mormon.

No it wasn't. He doesn't think the historicity of the Book of Mormon "obvious," though he does believe both that the Book of Mormon is historical and that cogent arguments can be made for its historicity. You missed the point of his article.

You want to introduce elements of faith into the discussion - divine intervention, miracles, resurrection?

It's rather difficult to discuss the Book of Mormon without introducing such elements. Without them, so goes the narrative, we wouldn't have the Book of Mormon. By contrast, no divine intervention is necessary to explain our possession of the Bible. It might conceivably be merely an ancient text (comparable to the Homeric poems, Hesiod, and Virgil) for which manuscripts survive and for which modern translations have been done.

Fine, but it has nothing to do with the lack of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.

I've never advanced the position that the claimed miraculous origin of the English Book of Mormon has any substantial connection with the existence or nonexistence of archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. That's your straw man.

You have no evidence (or the evidence you have is beyond the grasp of the nonLDS scholar) so your only validation is a spiritual testimony.  Nice, but irrelevant to historical actuality; fact.

Simply, flatly, false.

I grant you that LDS are writing papers about the Book of Mormon at a breakneck speed and that these volumes will soon outweigh large battleships and stack taller than skyscrapers.  When an LDS archeologist has some evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon (i.e., historical actuality; fact), do let us know.

Been there, done that. You're not listening.

But, while we're discussing Jacob Neusner: Yes, I'm well aware of his statement about his alleged experience at BYU in the early 1980s. It wasn't his finest hour.

I consider it one of his finest hours.

You would, of course. But I suspect that you're pretty much on your own in that.

I suppose it's easier to carp about non-Mormon scholars ignoring all the "evidence" than it is to actually solicit their opinion about the Book of Mormon.

Who's "carping"? I certainly haven't been. You routinely invent both arguments and emotions and then attribute them to me. What is the point of that?

I

Incidentally, did you read Professor Clark's talk? Do you have anything to say about its actual content?

No, I haven't read it.

Now that's a surprise!

I'm sure it's chock-full of evidence that scholars ignore .. er.. I mean read and don't understand.

Nobody but yourself has said word one about non-Mormon scholars being somehow mystically unable to understand the evidence. That's yet another of your sneering straw man arguments.

As for their being, on the whole, unacquainted with Mormon arguments, that seems rather obviously true. If you have evidence to the contrary -- say, a few articles or books in which non-LDS scholars seriously engage serious Mormon arguments in an academic way -- I hope you'll share it.

All that historicity (historical actuality; fact) and the dumb ol' academicians are jist tooo stoopid to no how to reed n understand.

I haven't said that. Professor Hamblin hasn't said that. Professor Clark hasn't said that. You've said that, and attributed it to us. I don't see the point of the game.

Amusing and amazing.

Indeed.

When you have something of substance to say, when you actually engage my actual position, and when you can leave off some of the caricaturing, sneering, and preening, you might have something interesting to say.

[Gal 1:8]

I just read the article concerning living hope ministries video on the "Book of Mormon Vs. The Bible." So I guess I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is just as INCORRECT as the Book of Mormon....It did nothing to defend the LDS faith!! It did a lot to punch holes in what is considered to be the word of God. I see the Church do this a lot. Whenever evidience that disqualifies the Church as being accurate is brought to surface the Church always does one of two things:

1) Burry there head in the sand and try to cover it up

2)Resort to finding short comings in the sources own beliefs

If you read the review on this site you will see that it does nothing to prove the Book of Mormon as being the word of God.....but does a whole lot of shooting down the Bible as to whether it is Historically correct. Remember the LDS Church believes in the Bible (as long as it is translated correctly). So according to the review, the Church now has 2 books that are inacurrate. It never brought any light as to how the Book of Mormon is true.... A lie is always sold better when wrapped with some Truth....So dont go disqualifying the Bible people!! Because then the Church is left only to sell the lie, unwrapped, exposing it's stench!!

[Confidential Informant]

You want to introduce elements of faith into the discussion - divine intervention, miracles, resurrection?

Gervin, are you this obtuse intentionally or is it an inbred sort of gift that you exercise without even knowing it?

The moment some hypothetical non-LDS scholar agrees that there is sustainable evidence for the Book of Mormon it begins an entire chain of logical conclusions that must follow. Thus, if your fictional non-LDS scholar agreed that the Book of Mormon was ancient, he must then deal with the source from whence that book came, i.e., Joseph Smith. If the book is authentically ancient then it follows logically (though not necessarily) that Smith's story regarding its finding and translation are also substantially correct. Since those stories invariable involve supernatural events such as theophanies, angelic visits, divine translation aids, etc., it seems impossible to excise the elements of faith from the discussion.

With the Bible, there is no such conundrum for the non-LDS scholar. He can admit (and many do) that the Bible is authentically ancient (which the ALL do) and that it conforms to a certain space and time while at the same time rejecting its historic content such as the list of miraculous events that Dr. Peterson has already provided. Thus, your hypothetical scholar would in no way be compelled to "convert" to Christianity or Judaism by a finding the book is ancient whereas a finding that the Book of Mormon is authentically ancient does not provide that luxury.

C.I.

[Pahoran]

I just read the article concerning living hope ministries video on the "Book of Mormon Vs. The Bible."  So I guess I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is just as INCORRECT as the Book of Mormon....It did nothing to defend the LDS faith!!  It did a lot to punch holes in what is considered to be the word of God.  I see the Church do this a lot.  Whenever evidience that disqualifies the Church as being accurate is brought to surface the Church always does one of two things:

1) Burry there head in the sand and try to cover it up

2)Resort to finding short comings in the sources own beliefs

If you read the review on this site you will see that it does nothing to prove the Book of Mormon as being the word of God.....but does a whole lot of shooting down the Bible as to whether it is Historically correct.  Remember the LDS Church believes in the Bible (as long as it is translated correctly).  So according to the review, the Church now has 2 books that are inacurrate.  It never brought any light as to how the Book of Mormon is true....  A lie is always sold better when wrapped with some Truth....So dont go disqualifying the Bible people!!  Because then the Church is left only to sell the lie, unwrapped, exposing it's stench!!

The only "stench" around here is the stench of your bigotry.

While there are and always will be some who have no compunction in bearing false witness against the Church of Jesus by accusing us of trying to "sell a lie," the pure in heart understand that we teach nothing but what we believe to be true.

It never ceases to amaze me how difficult it seems to be for some people to grasp a very simple argument. The Living Hate Ministries video was called "The Bible versus the Book of Mormon." It represented the Bible as "proven" and The Book of Mormon as "disproven."

The article demonstrates that both claims are false.

You also fail to understand the Latter-day Saints. Unlike you, we are people of faith; something doesn't have to be proven before we believe it. Furthermore, we are Bible believers, not Bible worshippers. We do not require a volume of scripture to be inerrant before we follow its teachings.

The fact that some so-called "Christians" reject The Book of Mormon for reasons which, if honestly applied, would also require them to reject the Bible is not an attack upon the Bible. It is a rebuttal of their stupid argument. We do not reject the Bible on those grounds, and we are not suggesting that anyone else should do so, either. The point, for those too dense to get it, is that the reasons given by the naysayers are not valid reasons for rejecting ANY volume of scripture.

It's really not that hard.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Confidential Informant]

BTW,

Do non-LDS archeologist ever accept the Book of Mormon account and join the Church? Indeed they do:

Please see: Alejandro and Kim Sarabia. They "have spent a good chunk of their lives researching Teotihuacan, a remarkable archeological zone located about 40 miles northeast of Mexico City."

They were introduced to the Book of Mormon, received spiritual confirmations of its truthfulness and were subsequently baptized. He "specializes in ancient settlement patterns and directs the museum at Teotihuacan. [she] holds a Ph.D. and is an expert on clay figurines."

Apparently, there is nothing about the B of M account that they find all that fantastic or out of place despite their own obvious training the relevant sciences.

See Jason Swensen, Testimonies built among the ruins: Conversion brought about by the Spirit, not archeological research, LDS Church News, 206, Saturday, January 10, 2004.

Alejandro Sarabia points out field work at the archeological zone of Teotihuacan, Mexico. The Pyramid of the Sun can be seen in the background.

[Gal 1:8]

I just read the article concerning living hope ministries video on the "Book of Mormon Vs. The Bible."

[Confidential Informant]

I do not bring attacks to Mormons...I bring attacks to the Theology.

And weak ones at that.

If you were to read the Bible for what it is intended and not of your own translation you would find that it does not agree with the Book of Mormon.

And I suppose you are the one to tell us what it was intended for? And guess what, I think it agrees with the Bible very well and your translation is the problem. So neener neener.

I am sorry

On that, we definitely agree.

but according to Scripture, Jesus Christ does not agree with you.

According to what scripture and who are you to declare for Christ what He does and does not agree with? Might presumptuous of you.

Jesus Christ is not the spirit brother of Lucifer...

Funny, that's not what the early Christians like Lactantius taught. He said Jesus and Satan were brothers. Of course, if Christ and Lucifier are not brothers then you are still left to tell us were Lucifer came from. If you say that God created him, well that makes him God's son. If you believe that Christ and the Father are in Trinity, then that makes Christ his father also, thus Christ is the Father of Satan and I fail to see how that distinction is any better than the one you are claiming is incorrect.

There is only ONE GOD and not a panthion of Gods forming a Godhead.

That's not what the ancient Jews and early Christians believe. It appears that you have strayed for their teachings.

And finally, God is not a big man...so let's not make him one!!

Can't God be whatever he wants to be?

Why don't you take your fundamentalism somewhere else? It doesn't play well on this board.

C.I.