The Book of Mormon Challenge

[Avatar4321]

I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but I'm pretty sure he is talking about archeological evidence in North and South America of the types of civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. As for Nahom/Bountiful, that is shaky evidence of it at best.

Shaky at best? The fact that the Book of Mormon describes a route through Arabia that fits the description in the book is Shaky? How would Joseph have known about a place called Nahom? Or that directly east of there is a location that fits all the requirements for Bountiful?

Ultimately it doesn't matter. Archaelogy is not what will show people the truth. The Spirit will. but to claim there is no archaelogical evidence is just blatantly false.

 

[rosends]

But isn't that self-protecting? If you ask for the random person to

"1)Ponder in your mind and heart and think about what you’ve read and the tender mercies of the Lord. Try to understand the message being taught.
2)Humble yourself before God
3)Ask the Lord with a sincere heart and real intent whether the Book of Mormon is true or not.
4)Believe that Christ can reveal to you whether it’s true or not."

And he claims that he did and came to a different conclusion, can;t you simply say that he didn't do one of the steps right?

What if I were to ask you to do the following:

1. read a koran cover to cover
2. think deeply about its meaning
3. ask allah to open you up to understanding and reveal the truth

if you do that, you will acknowledge islam.

You say that you have done it and still reject islam. So I say that you didn't really do it right because you would be unable to go through the steps "properly" and come up with a different answer.

See how that sounds? Insisting that one theology is so apparent that if someone doesn't accept its veracity the fault is in his process, not the claim?

The only way to determine that is to test it. So why not give it a try?

Because, as I am trying to point out diplomatically, the Challenge is intellectually dishonest and manipulative. I was hoping you could recognize the rhetorical flaw in it so you might back away from it in pursuit of a position of greater integrity.

Note the flawed logic

If you take the challenge properly you will believe. Therefore if you don't believe you must have done the challenge improperly.

The assertion only works if you start from a position of belief.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but I'm pretty sure he is talking about archeological evidence in North and South America of the types of civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. As for Nahom/Bountiful, that is shaky evidence of it at best.

Shaky at best? The fact that the Book of Mormon describes a route through Arabia that fits the description in the book is Shaky? How would Joseph have known about a place called Nahom? Or that directly east of there is a location that fits all the requirements for Bountiful?

Ultimately it doesn't matter. Archaelogy is not what will show people the truth. The Spirit will. but to claim there is no archaelogical evidence is just blatantly false.

Then you should stick with that.

To qualify as blatantly false there must be evidence that is overwhelming. Nahom/Bountiful is disputed even among LDS researchers, not to mention mainstream archeologists. Nahom could only be established as Bountiful by those with a Mormon theological agenda who need it to be so.

The same goes with the lack of evidence of horses, sheep, elephants, chariots, swords, steel, and a number of other anachronisms. Mormon apologists with an agenda to prove the legitimacy of the Book of Mormon will go to any lengths they have to to support their claims, Thus there are quite a few "explanations" and claims of evidence that can only be viewed as such through the eyes of the agenda. Sorry, I don't trust archeologists and historians with an agenda, I don't care what the agenda is.

Blatantly false indeed. Mormon apologists, just like all religious apologists, are blatantly agenda-driven.

 

[konradv]

Unlike the Bible, there's no archaeological evidence for any of stories found in the Book of Mormon. It, like the Bible, has lessons for how to live one's life, but as history it's totally made up.

Do an internet search of Nahom/Bountiful in Arabia. You might be surprised.

BTW I apologize for not responding to this sooner. I did this shortly before the hurricane and pressing matters outside the internet was keeping me occupied. As they should.

Have you read it Konrad?

I haven't read the entire Book of Mormon, but I have read excerpts and critiques about how such a detailed story of a pre-Columbian civilization should have left some archaeological evidence. I also watched a documentary about the Book of Abraham, which I realize isn't part of the BoM but an additional piece of Mormon scripture, which was supposedly translated from Egyptian scrolls by Joseph Smith. Well those scrolls exist and Egyptologists totally debunk Smith's translation. Given that and the fact that the original Golden Tablets were conveniently not available for inspection, I believe the entire book was a fabrication by Smith.

 

[AquaAthena]

I respect all believers and their beliefs.

But i do not believe any of it.

Just wish they'd respect my beliefs .

I so "ditto" this post. Thank you, for expressing my own beliefs in your very eloquent way, Kiki Cannoli. It has surprised me to see Christians drop me from their past support, because of my beliefs, I have most recently expressed.

A great way to see who your friends really are, is to let go of your wealth, in real life, or your reps count on USMB. Talk about eye-openers....

 

[4Horsemen]

the Holy Bible is the one true book on this planet. preferbly the 1661 version Holy Bible. but if that one proves too diffficult to read, then the King James Version will do.

All these new age Bibles, Mormon bible, NIV, ESV, Gay bible, etc.... trash em. Blashphemy. Garbage.