So There's No Archaeological Evidence For The Book Of Mormon?

[cinepro]

By leaving out the verse preceding, you miss the context.  It's not about native cultures, it's about specific people and tribes being lumped together.   Here's verse 13.

 

13 Now the people which were not ^aLamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, ^bZoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

 

This happens several times in The Book of Mormon.  Everyone traces their "tribe" to the original group of Nephites.  This is from 4 Nephi, over 600 years after Lehi's group landed in the new world:

 

 

 36 And it came to pass that in this year there arose a people who were called the Nephites, and they were true believers in Christ; and among them there were those who were called by the Lamanites—Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites;

 

 37 Therefore the true believers in Christ, and the true worshipers of Christ, (among whom were the three disciples of Jesus who should tarry) were called Nephites, and Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites.

 

 38 And it came to pass that they who rejected the gospel were called Lamanites, and Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites; and they did not dwindle in unbelief, but they did wilfully rebel against the gospel of Christ; and they did teach their children that they should not believe, even as their fathers, from the beginning, did dwindle.

 

4 Nephi

 

Years ago (in the early 1980s), a friend of mine worked for a media production company.  The Church of Scientology contracted them to create a series of gold-plated records with every known recording of L. Ron Hubbard.  These records were then placed in a bomb-proof vault in New Mexico.

 

The theory of "others" makes the Book of Mormon peoples sound like old-time Scientologists.  They were this small subset of people who thought they were saving the world, when in fact the rest of the people must have thought they were nuts.  And their "gold plates" and records were the equivalent of Dianetics. 

 

The Lehites landed, gave all the groups of people names and preserved an ancient form of writing and language that no one else could understand (or cared about), and in the end they died, all the while 99% of the people on the continent didn't know or care they were there.  The record keepers told of battles and civilizations because that's probably what it felt like to them, but "Zarahemla" was like their Clearwater, and their "wars" were like the fights at Chuch basketball games. 

 

The problem with the theory of "others" isn't that it contradicts the Book of Mormon narrative (which it does), but that it totally destroys it.  It's like burning down a house in order to "save" it.

Edited May 31, 2015 by cinepro

[Kevin Christensen]

Even if you believe the BoM references native populations (which I personally don't) one has to wonder why it is done so implicitly to cause generation after generation of faithful LDS to completely miss it. What is the reasoning for these scriptural "Easter eggs"?

While the logic of "Surely a prophet would know" is seductive, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary, the existence of which is, it happens a demonstration of why faithful LDS completely miss the references to others. This is not a peculiar LDS problem, but is a common human issue.

For instance:

"so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water." 1 Nephi 15:27.

And now, if I do err, even they did err of old" (1 Nephi 19:6).

Alma is especially instructive on the nature and extent and sources for prophetic knowledge:

Now as to this thing I do not know. . . . But behold, the Spirit hath said this much unto me. (Alma 7:8-9)

Now I unfold unto you a mystery; nevertheless, there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself. But I show unto you one thing which I have inquired diligently of God that I might know. . . . Now when this time cometh no one knows. . . . Now, whether there shall be one time, or a second time, or a third time, . . . it mattereth not; for God knoweth all things; and it sufficeth me to know in this case . . . what becometh of the souls of men is the thing which I have inquired diligently to know; and this is the thing of which I do know. . . . Behold it has been made known unto me by an angel. . . . Now, whether . . . I do not say; let it suffice, that . . . I do not say that . . . but behold, I give it as my opinion." (Alma 40:3-5, 9, 11, 19-20)

And there is Jesus explaining "and they understood me not, for they supposed..." 3 Nephi 15:22.

Back in RBBM 2, I went through the Wentworth letter and showed that it is inaccurate on many points, points, it so happens, that were common place discussion points of the Mound Builder Myth. Roper also shows that most of the Wentworth Letter was derives from something Orson Pratt wrote. It's not canon. (corrected spelling thanks to Robert S.)

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 1, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Freedom]

Sevenbak

Sherem 'came among the Nephites' when they had only been there for one generation. They may, at this time, be a group of 200 people at the most. You are making a false comparison. It simply is not possible for him to have come among them an not have met Jacob before this time. It is also unlikely that Jacob would have commented that he had 'a perfect knowledge of the language of the people' if he was one of the original group. He would have to have been a son of Jacob or one of his brothers. They would have been very closely associated. 

 

In terms of your references to Jacob 5, I would recommend you read 'The Allegory of the Olive Tree' published by the maxwell institute. A quick read will show you the flaws in your argument. You have taken verses out of context. 

[Freedom]

 

The problem with the theory of "others" isn't that it contradicts the Book of Mormon narrative (which it does), but that it totally destroys it.  It's like burning down a house in order to "save" it.

This is  strange comment that likely has no support by any scholarship. 

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................................

 It's not cannon.

.........................................................  

cannon -- artillery piece

canon -- rule or standard of measure

[Tacenda]

Is it fiction, but also true? I'm so glad I'm reading it. I'm just past the point where the town of Palmyra spreads rumors that the Smith's dug up Alvin's body and dissected it. Not in those words entirely, I don't think. But not what had actually happened. There was an autopsy before the burial but the rumor mill turned it into something crazy. Then Joseph, Sr. dispelled the rumor when he took an ad out of the paper and rebuked the town gossipers. Then to have the preacher who helped lay him to rest say that Alvin was going to hell was just insult to injury. They threw the preacher out and layed him to rest themselves. Wow, my heart goes out to the Smith family as I'm reading a novel about their lives. Not a plain history. Makes it easier to get engulfed in the story. Which seems to be in the words of Sophronia.

Earlier in the novel Sophronia describes how Joseph eventually memorized the Bible. He didn't like to read and memorize but would listen while others read to him throughout his life, one of the readers was Sally Chase.

Just wanted to verify, that Joseph Smith memorizing the whole Bible is fiction, I emailed the author. But Joseph knew his Bible.

[Robert F. Smith]

This happens several times in The Book of Mormon.  Everyone traces their "tribe" to the original group of Nephites.  This is from 4 Nephi, over 600 years after Lehi's group landed in the new world:

 

 

 

Years ago (in the early 1980s), a friend of mine worked for a media production company.  The Church of Scientology contracted them to create a series of gold-plated records with every known recording of L. Ron Hubbard.  These records were then placed in a bomb-proof vault in New Mexico.

 

The theory of "others" makes the Book of Mormon peoples sound like old-time Scientologists.  They were this small subset of people who thought they were saving the world, when in fact the rest of the people must have thought they were nuts.  And their "gold plates" and records were the equivalent of Dianetics. 

 

The Lehites landed, gave all the groups of people names and preserved an ancient form of writing and language that no one else could understand (or cared about), and in the end they died, all the while 99% of the people on the continent didn't know or care they were there.  The record keepers told of battles and civilizations because that's probably what it felt like to them, but "Zarahemla" was like their Clearwater, and their "wars" were like the fights at Chuch basketball games. 

 

The problem with the theory of "others" isn't that it contradicts the Book of Mormon narrative (which it does), but that it totally destroys it.  It's like burning down a house in order to "save" it.

Freedom thinks this comment "strange," and it is, but it is also strangely on target is a very backward way.  After all, the Bible sometimes does the very same thing:

John Bright says that the

 

Genesis narrative is painted in blacks and whites on a simple canvas with no perspective in depth.  It depicts certain individuals and their families who move through their world almost as if they were alone in it.  Bright, A History of Israel, 1st ed. (London, 1960), 67. 

 

Ethnologist Brant Gardner provides some relevant comments on this board at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57949-lgt-and-the-lamanites-of-ammons-mission/ .

[strappinglad]

Is there such a thing as " canon fodder " ? I swear there are some threads ...

[canard78]

Sevenbak

Sherem 'came among the Nephites' when they had only been there for one generation. They may, at this time, be a group of 200 people at the most. You are making a false comparison. It simply is not possible for him to have come among them an not have met Jacob before this time. It is also unlikely that Jacob would have commented that he had 'a perfect knowledge of the language of the people' if he was one of the original group. He would have to have been a son of Jacob or one of his brothers. They would have been very closely associated.

In terms of your references to Jacob 5, I would recommend you read 'The Allegory of the Olive Tree' published by the maxwell institute. A quick read will show you the flaws in your argument. You have taken verses out of context.

I wrote a long reply to this and then decided it was enough if a tangent to merit its own thread. Which is here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65433-sherem-is-not-a-very-strong-candidate-for-interaction-with-others/#entry1209499988

As I mention in that thread's OP, I think you're stretching the text and making assumptions not supported by it.

[Freedom]

I wrote a long reply to this and then decided it was enough if a tangent to merit its own thread. Which is here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65433-sherem-is-not-a-very-strong-candidate-for-interaction-with-others/#entry1209499988

As I mention in that thread's OP, I think you're stretching the text and making assumptions not supported by it.

Talk about stretching the text. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Is there such a thing as " canon fodder " ? I swear there are some threads ...

I've heard of "cannon fodder," and that is basically what I was as a young Marine over half-a-century ago.

[rodheadlee]

Lack of archaeological evidence is not always a bad thing for the Book of Mormon. Right there on page 67 of Sorenson's Mormon's Codex he quotes MacNeish from Mesoamerican Chronology  :

 

"All in all, the final Archaic Period and or stage in Mesoamerica poses more questions than answers. Where is the evolution to the rich ceremonial complex of the Formative with it's pyramids, figurines, and specialized religious organization? Where is the evidence of the invention and development of the pottery found in the Formative Period? Where is the good documentation of the shift from the incipient agriculture of the Archaic to the subsistence agriculture of the Formative?... Good documentation of the domestication of all Mesoamerican plants is lacking in the incipient agriculture stage, and even the transition from Paleoamerican hunters to Archaic foragers is not adequately understood. In fact, why did the Archaic even happen? The development of the Archaic was a complex evolution for which, as yet, we have only tantalizing fragments of the complete picture."   

 

 

Well it seems to me the a good case could be made that the Jaredites brought this  technology from the Old World with them to the New World. Of course this can not presently be proved, perhaps one day.  But it is kind of a bulls eye, how would Joseph Smith know all of that?

[Tacenda]

http://mormonmisc.podbean.com/

 

Stumbled across this podbean recently.  I'd thought Van had retired.  So exciting to go and listen to so many new podcasts!  In this latest one he mentions that we shouldn't be so worried if the BoM is historical.  I believe he is open to it being not historical but worthwhile.  

[Tacenda]

 

deleted, wrong thread....shoot!

Edited June 1, 2015 by Tacenda

[canard78]

Talk about stretching the text.

Is that your full reply?

You put Sherem up as one of the best evidences for "others." I've shown shown how your conclusions (such as a population of 200 people and Sherem having to be a son or brother of Jacob if he was not "other") are not supported by the actual Book of Mormon. How exactly am I the one stretching the text? I'm just reading the dates and offering a simple conclusion.

[canard78]

Lack of archaeological evidence is not always a bad thing for the Book of Mormon. Right there on page 67 of Sorenson's Mormon's Codex he quotes MacNeish from Mesoamerican Chronology :

"All in all, the final Archaic Period and or stage in Mesoamerica poses more questions than answers. Where is the evolution to the rich ceremonial complex of the Formative with it's pyramids, figurines, and specialized religious organization? Where is the evidence of the invention and development of the pottery found in the Formative Period? Where is the good documentation of the shift from the incipient agriculture of the Archaic to the subsistence agriculture of the Formative?... Good documentation of the domestication of all Mesoamerican plants is lacking in the incipient agriculture stage, and even the transition from Paleoamerican hunters to Archaic foragers is not adequately understood. In fact, why did the Archaic even happen? The development of the Archaic was a complex evolution for which, as yet, we have only tantalizing fragments of the complete picture."

Well it seems to me the a good case could be made that the Jaredites brought this technology from the Old World with them to the New World. Of course this can not presently be proved, perhaps one day. But it is kind of a bulls eye, how would Joseph Smith know all of that?

So when evidence is not found in support of the Book of Mormon, it's because it has just not been found yet in the humid and tangled conditions of Central America.

But when evidence of the evolution of industry has not been found yet it's not because it has also gone the way of the Mesoamerican jungle... It's because it's a bullseye in favour of the Book of Mormon. Is that what you're saying?

[Jeanne]

deleted, wrong thread....shoot!

My whole day has been like this..

[rodheadlee]

So when evidence is not found in support of the Book of Mormon, it's because it has just not been found yet in the humid and tangled conditions of Central America.

But when evidence of the evolution of industry has not been found yet it's not because it has also gone the way of the Mesoamerican jungle... It's because it's a bullseye in favour of the Book of Mormon. Is that what you're saying?

So where do you propose the knowledge came from to build the mesoamerican pyramids? 

Edited June 2, 2015 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

So when evidence is not found in support of the Book of Mormon, it's because it has just not been found yet in the humid and tangled conditions of Central America.

But when evidence of the evolution of industry has not been found yet it's not because it has also gone the way of the Mesoamerican jungle... It's because it's a bullseye in favour of the Book of Mormon. Is that what you're saying?

No I'm saying it's interesting that there appears to be a leap in knowledge, not missing artifacts for the time period in relation to the amount of artifacts found for earlier time periods. 

[canard78]

So where do you propose the knowledge came from to build the mesoamerican pyramids?

No idea. The aliens?!

Are you suggesting Jared or his brother was somehow master builder/architect who also knew how to build pyramids?

[thesometimesaint]

I've heard of "cannon fodder," and that is basically what I was as a young Marine over half-a-century ago.

 

The canon fodder has more victims.

[rodheadlee]

No idea. The aliens?!

Are you suggesting Jared or his brother was somehow master builder/architect who also knew how to build pyramids?

That would be illegal aliens, not from the land round about. I'm suggesting the text says they came from the great tower and knew of the technology.

[Robert F. Smith]

Continued from http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65601-doubting-mormon/page-2 , which is now closed.
 

Robert F. Smith, on 04 Jul 2015 - 9:46 PM, said:
I went back and bolded your own words for you in my post #18. Did you really mean those words, or have you now taken them back? Or is it that you cannot understand my reply? I thought I was fairly clear, but maybe not . . .
 
I suppose one might wonder why you are ashamed of leaders with advanced degrees and vast experience in complex, intellectual fields. I had thought that God gave us brains so that we might use them, rather than showing contempt for them. The sort of "wicked and adulterous generation which seeketh after a sign" could as likely set up yokelism as the sign they seek as to have their object the showing of advanced degrees. One does not seek signs in such things, but uses them for the very practical value which hard work in such technical areas provides for the advancement of the Kingdom of God. I see no difference in offering hard physical labor or hard intellectual labor for the Lord. You, on the other hand, seem to have contempt for intellectual attainment on behalf of the Kingdom -- or do I misunderstand you?

 

Bobbieaware, on 04 Jul 2015 said:
Yes, you misunderstand. Where in the world did you get the idea from my last post that I am ASHAMED of Church leaders with advanced degrees. Could you not see my intent was to say that having an advanced educational degree after one's name is not going to convince any sign-seeker who wants only hard archaeological evidence before he will even begin to believe the Book of Mormon is true? The world of Christian leaders and scholars is awash with advanced degrees of every kind, the Latter-day Saints have no monopoly on such advanced educational degrees. Should I abandon the LDS doctrine on the Godhead because there are more Catholic leaders and scholars than Latter-day Saints with advanced degrees who advocate for the Trinity of the Nicene and Athanasiam Creeds? Should I seek out the religion with the most learned doctors as a surefire way for finding the one true church?

What we have here is a failure to communicate.  You clearly understand nothing of what I said on this subject.  However, if you want to find the religion with the most advanced degrees, you might want to try Judaism, which is an excellent religion.
 

As for the portions of my post you placed in bold: My point is that there is no empirical scientific evidence that, apart from a spiritual witness, proves the Book of Mormon is true. Therefore, considering the absence of any hard evidence, the only way to know for certain that the Book of Mormon is true is by applying Moroni's challenge and gaining a testimony of its divine authenticity through revelation from the Holy Ghost.

This is your false and apriori contention, and you provide no evidence to support it.  Perhaps you would like to critique the real world of archeology and historiography with specific examples supporting your view.
 

If you believe there is unchallengeable hard evidence that proves the Book of Mormon is divinely authentic and historical, in your next post will you please provide me with a list of that hard evidence so I can forward the list to the General Authorities? Hopefully, they can be persuaded to include that hard evidence in revised missionary discussions with a new empirical evidence based approach to helping investigators gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon. The Church should grow by leaps and bounds now that we can use science to prove the restored gospel is true.

In the real world, there is no such animal as "unchallengeable" evidence.  Like "conclusive" evidence, it is silly even to speak in such terms.  We have had an excellent discussion of such issues on this immediate thread, and you should review it for clarification of where you have gone so wrong in so many ways on this subject.

 

Also, your comment about sending a list to LDS General Authorities is impertinent and rude.  The Brethren have known for generations that converts are obtained almost exclusively through the sincere teachings of missionaries witnessed by the power of the Holy Spirit.  They are not about to adopt a list of claims from someone who doesn't know anything about the nature of evidence, whether secular or sacred.  Your snide and sarcastic remarks are indicative that you are not conversant with the nature of available evidence, neither its strengths nor its shortcomings.

 

However, you might want to consider my own pointed opinions on the subject:

 

“The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” illustrated lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

 

“Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review, 22/2 (2010), 125-135, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=807 .

 

“The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278.  Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847 .

 

“'The Land of Jerusalem’: The Place of Jesus Birth,” FARMS Update, May 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 170-172. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=814 . 

 

“New Information About Mulek, Son of the King,” FARMS Update, February 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 142-144. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=806 .

 

If you like those, I can provide more.

[Bobbieaware]

Continued from http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65601-doubting-mormon/page-2 , which is now closed.

 

 

What we have here is a failure to communicate.  You clearly understand nothing of what I said on this subject.  However, if you want to find the religion with the most advanced degrees, you might want to try Judaism, which is an excellent religion.

 

This is your false and apriori contention, and you provide no evidence to support it.  Perhaps you would like to critique the real world of archeology and historiography with specific examples supporting your view.

 

In the real world, there is no such animal as "unchallengeable" evidence.  Like "conclusive" evidence, it is silly even to speak in such terms.  We have had an excellent discussion of such issues on this immediate thread, and you should review it for clarification of where you have gone so wrong in so many ways on this subject.

 

Also, your comment about sending a list to LDS General Authorities is impertinent and rude.  The Brethren have known for generations that converts are obtained almost exclusively through the sincere teachings of missionaries witnessed by the power of the Holy Spirit.  They are not about to adopt a list of claims from someone who doesn't know anything about the nature of evidence, whether secular or sacred.  Your snide and sarcastic remarks are indicative that you are not conversant with the nature of available evidence, neither its strengths nor its shortcomings.

 

However, you might want to consider my own pointed opinions on the subject:

 

“The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” illustrated lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

 

“Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review, 22/2 (2010), 125-135, online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=22&num=2&id=807 .

 

“The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278.  Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847 .

 

“'The Land of Jerusalem’: The Place of Jesus Birth,” FARMS Update, May 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 170-172. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=814 . 

 

“New Information About Mulek, Son of the King,” FARMS Update, February 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 142-144. Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=806 .

 

If you like those, I can provide more.

Fine with me, Robert. I'll wade through your link when I have some quiet time and can adequately concentrate.

But before I do, I must say it was incredibly rude of you to presume I am somehow "ashamed" of those Church leaders who have advanced academic degrees. Your attempt at mind reading is absurdly out of harmony with my actual sentiments, for I have always rejoiced in the fact that we have many bright, well- educated leaders. My ultimate point is simply that revelation trumps worldly knowledge -- without heavenly -- inspiration every time. The truth of this point is demonstrated by the fact that the Lord chose an undereducated mere boy, without any of those prized advanced educational degrees and academic qualifications, to translate the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Abraham, while deliberately ignoring someone with the academic credentials of a likes of Charles Anthon.

Though it may raise the hackles of academics who take great pride (and I mean the kind of pride that produces arrogance) in their educational attainments, they will have to live with the annoying and humiliating fact that the Lord chose one of the weak things of the world (Joseph Smith Jr,), not of one of their own, to confound the worldly wise whem he made young Joseph the presiding prophet, seer, revelator and translator who stands at the head of the Dipensation of the Fullness of Times.

Now, in an attempt to use the same kind of presumptuous mind reading techniques you employed against me, I will say, is it not true when I say you are ashamed that the Lord chose an undereducated farmboy to translate the Book of Mormon instead of properly giving that honor to a renowned and respected luminary of the academic world? ( Of course, I don't believe such absurd nonsense to be true about you, but you rudely and presumptuously jumped to the similarly absurd conclusion about me. You are no gentleman.)

[Robert F. Smith]

Fine with me, Robert. I'll wade through your link when I have some quiet time and can adequately concentrate.

But before I do, I must say it was incredibly rude of you to presume I am somehow "ashamed" of those Church leaders who have advanced academic degrees. Your attempt at mind reading is absurdly out of harmony with my actual sentiments, for I have always rejoiced in the fact that we have many bright, well- educated leaders. My ultimate point is simply that revelation trumps worldly knowledge -- without heavenly -- inspiration every time. The truth of this point is demonstrated by the fact that the Lord chose an undereducated mere boy, without any of those prized advanced educational degrees and academic qualifications, to translate the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Abraham, while deliberately ignoring someone with the academic credentials of a likes of Charles Anthon.

Though it may raise the hackles of academics who take great pride (and I mean the kind of pride that produces arrogance) in their educational attainments, they will have to live with the annoying and humiliating fact that the Lord chose one of the weak things of the world (Joseph Smith Jr,), not of one of their own, to confound the worldly wise whem he made young Joseph the presiding prophet, seer, revelator and translator who stands at the head of the Dipensation of the Fullness of Times.

Now, in an attempt to use the same kind of presumptuous mind reading techniques you employed against me, I will say, is it not true when I say you are ashamed that the Lord chose an undereducated farmboy to translate the Book of Mormon instead of properly giving that honor to a renowned and respected luminary of the academic world? ( Of course, I don't believe such absurd nonsense to be true about you, but you rudely and presumptuously jumped to the similarly absurd conclusion about me. You are no gentleman.)

Perhaps not, but I have yet to see you support your false claims about me (or others) with any evidence, and so I have simply responded with a PM (personal message).