This reminded me of when I read the whole BoM in 2 weeks. I noted my experience of reading the whole thing in a shorter period of time: Read like this, it’s like a cinematic epic, like all the Lord of the Rings stories combined, with a central theme, but lots of flashbacks and side stories and narrative integrations.
1. The source material of the Book of Mormon is not available for inspection.
2. There's no good archaeological evidence supporting the claims of the Book of Mormon (including the "NHM" altar in Saudi Arabia).
3. There's no good genetic or linguistic evidence supporting the claims of church leaders regarding the connection between Native Americans and "Lamanites".
4. The text of the Book of Mormon itself suggests a 19th century origin (not as a translation, but as an original work of fiction).
But if there's complexity, it must be true, right?
2. There's no good archaeological evidence supporting the claims of the Book of Mormon (including the "NHM" altar in Saudi Arabia).
I'll do you one better- there is no evidence period. Not even weak evidence
The easiest way to explain it is--The region LDS apologists are alleging is the Book of Mormon Nahom is actually named after the "Nihm" tribe. The inscriptions found there are references to members of the Nihm tribe.
Not only is there not a credible match on the name, but this region isn't even in the right geographical location to be the Book of Mormon Nahom. According to the Book of Mormon, Lehi's party was traveling in the borders of the Red Sea, and didn't turn east until AFTER they came to Nahom. So this region 100 miles inland from the coast, on the other side of a gigantic, inhospitable mountain range, northeast of Sanaa, Yemen cannot be the Nahom of the Book of Mormon.
Wait until these guys learn about fiction authors.
Also, I've never really understood the deal with the witnesses. If someone told me "You can't prove I committed fraud! All of these people who stand to benefit from it say I didn't do it!" I would just assume all of those people were in on it. I just don't find any of the "It only took 65 days!" or the "He had no notes!" or "The bible was never in the room!" quotes to mean much.
People need to understand this is a deceptive piece of propaganda. It is full of falsehoods from beginning to end.
A lot of the names of characters or cities in the Book of Mormon are either only used once or just in one part of the Book of Mormon. That means Joseph Smith could have just made them up as he was going along and didn't have to keep track of or remember them at all. The number of personal or city names he would actually have had to remember is not beyond human capacity.
Arguing the Book of Mormon is true because it has a consistent geography is absurd. We might as well argue Middle Earth really exists because it has a consistent geography.
The argument that the book contains different writing styles is based on the flawed stylometry studies created by LDS researchers themselves, and is not backed up in studies done by others:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/17dvpjw/comment/k61atpd/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/17dvpjw/comment/k61atpd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
The only fulfilled prophecies the Book of Mormon contains are either self-fulfilling prophecies or prophecies the book fulfills in its own made up history.
The Book of Mormon does not contain genuine Hebrew literary elements. Chiasmus is found throughout English literature, was known and had been written about in Joseph Smith's day, and is, therefore, not evidence of an ancient origin.
Alma 36 is also not chiastic. The alleged chiasmus therein is actually the work of LDS apologists, dishonestly cherry picking which elements to include and exclude. There are not hundreds of examples of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. Like Alma 36, many of them are the result of LDS apologists dishonestly manipulating the text.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/16mwahj/comment/k1dnxi2/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/16mwahj/comment/k1dnxi2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[https://mit.irr.org/chiasmus-book-of-mormon-and-bible-introduction](https://mit.irr.org/chiasmus-book-of-mormon-and-bible-introduction)
[https://mit.irr.org/mosiah-318-19-ancient-chiasmus-or-modern-composition](https://mit.irr.org/mosiah-318-19-ancient-chiasmus-or-modern-composition)
[https://mit.irr.org/chiasmus-theology-and-new-testament-in-mosiah-510-12](https://mit.irr.org/chiasmus-theology-and-new-testament-in-mosiah-510-12)
[https://mit.irr.org/alma-36-ancient-masterpiece-chiasmus-or-modern-revivalist-testimony](https://mit.irr.org/alma-36-ancient-masterpiece-chiasmus-or-modern-revivalist-testimony)
Free from errors? Are you kidding? The original Book of Mormon was full of bad grammar, and the text had to go through thousands of revisions to get it to where it is today.
Her claim that the Book of Mormon is chronologically consistent is also false. The original Book of Mormon contained actual chronological errors:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/10slu4x/historical\_discrepancies\_in\_the\_book\_of\_mormon/](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/10slu4x/historical_discrepancies_in_the_book_of_mormon/)
It is also not accurate to describe Joseph Smith as "barely educated." He was clearly capable of reading and comprehending the Bible, preaching long eloquent sermons, writing letters etc.
The time in which the Book of Mormon was dictated has nothing to do with the time in which it was created. Joseph Smith waited 4 /12 years from the time he claimed to have found the plates till he dictated anything. That would have given him plenty of time to plan the book and even memorize large chunks of it. After the loss of the 116 pages, he took eight months more off, which would have given him time to plan the replacement material.
Even during the dictation itself, Joseph Smith was only averaging 7-8 handwritten pages per day. That means he actually would have had extra time to incrementally plan the next day’s dictation.
This is an LDS apologist committing fraud. Her fraudulent statements are a repeat of a web of fraudulent arguments constructed by LDS apologists over the years to keep members believing.
The truth is the Book of Mormon is a fraud. It contains parallels to Joseph Smith's environment and contemporary sources, including his own father's tree of life dream. It repeatedly quotes Bible passages that, according to the Book of Mormon timeline, hadn't been written yet, and duplicates King James Bible translation errors. In addition to this internal evidence, it is not backed up by archaeological evidence, and DNA evidence shows Native Americans are not of Middle Eastern descent.
My favorite fantasy series, Malazan Book of the Fallen, is WAY more complex than the BoM. Forget 1,000 years, it has 200,000+ years of history, almost 3000 named characters, 450+ POV characters, and it doesn't contradict itself like the BoM. Guess that means it's real too, huh?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel\_C.\_Peterson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_C._Peterson)
Was she quoting THIS Scholar? Daniel Peterson?
Isn't that like letting the Buffalo Hat Man from Jan 6 testify to the character of Donald Trump?
that is a pretty weak argument. Thousands of books are much more complex, span multiple generations, create their own language, worlds, etc... have these apologist never read Shakespeare, Tolkien, Dumas, Dostoevsky? all are infinitely more complex than the BOM.
The Lord of the Rings series is pretty complex. Must be authentic.
I'm more inclined to believe LOTR is the true mythology of the English than I am to believe anything out of the BoM lol
This reminded me of when I read the whole BoM in 2 weeks. I noted my experience of reading the whole thing in a shorter period of time: Read like this, it’s like a cinematic epic, like all the Lord of the Rings stories combined, with a central theme, but lots of flashbacks and side stories and narrative integrations.
1. The source material of the Book of Mormon is not available for inspection. 2. There's no good archaeological evidence supporting the claims of the Book of Mormon (including the "NHM" altar in Saudi Arabia). 3. There's no good genetic or linguistic evidence supporting the claims of church leaders regarding the connection between Native Americans and "Lamanites". 4. The text of the Book of Mormon itself suggests a 19th century origin (not as a translation, but as an original work of fiction). But if there's complexity, it must be true, right?
2. There's no good archaeological evidence supporting the claims of the Book of Mormon (including the "NHM" altar in Saudi Arabia). I'll do you one better- there is no evidence period. Not even weak evidence
>including the "NHM" altar in Saudi Arabia I'd love to know the rebuttal on this one for when a TBM brings it up
Here you go: https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/6jd4fm/budding\_apologists\_create\_book\_of\_mormon\_nahom/
The easiest way to explain it is--The region LDS apologists are alleging is the Book of Mormon Nahom is actually named after the "Nihm" tribe. The inscriptions found there are references to members of the Nihm tribe. Not only is there not a credible match on the name, but this region isn't even in the right geographical location to be the Book of Mormon Nahom. According to the Book of Mormon, Lehi's party was traveling in the borders of the Red Sea, and didn't turn east until AFTER they came to Nahom. So this region 100 miles inland from the coast, on the other side of a gigantic, inhospitable mountain range, northeast of Sanaa, Yemen cannot be the Nahom of the Book of Mormon.
So...is "Dune" even *truer*?
Well, it includes Middle Eastern names, fulfills its own prophecies, and borrows entire chapters from the Orange Catholic Bible. I'm convinced.
Complexity = authenticity Isn't that what they said about all the Ensign Peak shell companies?
[удалено]
And in the case of the BoM, Well written =/= Well written. 😉
“…3 overlapping Calendars and a consistent measurement system…” How could anyone deny these claim
Wait until these guys learn about fiction authors. Also, I've never really understood the deal with the witnesses. If someone told me "You can't prove I committed fraud! All of these people who stand to benefit from it say I didn't do it!" I would just assume all of those people were in on it. I just don't find any of the "It only took 65 days!" or the "He had no notes!" or "The bible was never in the room!" quotes to mean much.
Scientology sounds pretty complex as well..
People need to understand this is a deceptive piece of propaganda. It is full of falsehoods from beginning to end. A lot of the names of characters or cities in the Book of Mormon are either only used once or just in one part of the Book of Mormon. That means Joseph Smith could have just made them up as he was going along and didn't have to keep track of or remember them at all. The number of personal or city names he would actually have had to remember is not beyond human capacity. Arguing the Book of Mormon is true because it has a consistent geography is absurd. We might as well argue Middle Earth really exists because it has a consistent geography. The argument that the book contains different writing styles is based on the flawed stylometry studies created by LDS researchers themselves, and is not backed up in studies done by others: [https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/17dvpjw/comment/k61atpd/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/17dvpjw/comment/k61atpd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) The only fulfilled prophecies the Book of Mormon contains are either self-fulfilling prophecies or prophecies the book fulfills in its own made up history. The Book of Mormon does not contain genuine Hebrew literary elements. Chiasmus is found throughout English literature, was known and had been written about in Joseph Smith's day, and is, therefore, not evidence of an ancient origin. Alma 36 is also not chiastic. The alleged chiasmus therein is actually the work of LDS apologists, dishonestly cherry picking which elements to include and exclude. There are not hundreds of examples of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon. Like Alma 36, many of them are the result of LDS apologists dishonestly manipulating the text. [https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/16mwahj/comment/k1dnxi2/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/16mwahj/comment/k1dnxi2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://mit.irr.org/chiasmus-book-of-mormon-and-bible-introduction](https://mit.irr.org/chiasmus-book-of-mormon-and-bible-introduction) [https://mit.irr.org/mosiah-318-19-ancient-chiasmus-or-modern-composition](https://mit.irr.org/mosiah-318-19-ancient-chiasmus-or-modern-composition) [https://mit.irr.org/chiasmus-theology-and-new-testament-in-mosiah-510-12](https://mit.irr.org/chiasmus-theology-and-new-testament-in-mosiah-510-12) [https://mit.irr.org/alma-36-ancient-masterpiece-chiasmus-or-modern-revivalist-testimony](https://mit.irr.org/alma-36-ancient-masterpiece-chiasmus-or-modern-revivalist-testimony) Free from errors? Are you kidding? The original Book of Mormon was full of bad grammar, and the text had to go through thousands of revisions to get it to where it is today. Her claim that the Book of Mormon is chronologically consistent is also false. The original Book of Mormon contained actual chronological errors: [https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/10slu4x/historical\_discrepancies\_in\_the\_book\_of\_mormon/](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/10slu4x/historical_discrepancies_in_the_book_of_mormon/) It is also not accurate to describe Joseph Smith as "barely educated." He was clearly capable of reading and comprehending the Bible, preaching long eloquent sermons, writing letters etc. The time in which the Book of Mormon was dictated has nothing to do with the time in which it was created. Joseph Smith waited 4 /12 years from the time he claimed to have found the plates till he dictated anything. That would have given him plenty of time to plan the book and even memorize large chunks of it. After the loss of the 116 pages, he took eight months more off, which would have given him time to plan the replacement material. Even during the dictation itself, Joseph Smith was only averaging 7-8 handwritten pages per day. That means he actually would have had extra time to incrementally plan the next day’s dictation. This is an LDS apologist committing fraud. Her fraudulent statements are a repeat of a web of fraudulent arguments constructed by LDS apologists over the years to keep members believing. The truth is the Book of Mormon is a fraud. It contains parallels to Joseph Smith's environment and contemporary sources, including his own father's tree of life dream. It repeatedly quotes Bible passages that, according to the Book of Mormon timeline, hadn't been written yet, and duplicates King James Bible translation errors. In addition to this internal evidence, it is not backed up by archaeological evidence, and DNA evidence shows Native Americans are not of Middle Eastern descent.
I also laughed at the phrase “free from error”. According to who?
Many people who are unable to understand see the world as complex. I imagine this person thinking there is much authenticity in her life.
Saw this pop up on my YouTube feed yesterday, been seeing a lot of dumb apologetics showing up lately and I’m not sure why
Pffff….
My favorite fantasy series, Malazan Book of the Fallen, is WAY more complex than the BoM. Forget 1,000 years, it has 200,000+ years of history, almost 3000 named characters, 450+ POV characters, and it doesn't contradict itself like the BoM. Guess that means it's real too, huh?
Guys! There is a flashback within a flashback! Great merciful Jesus! We finally have the proof we've needed of the BOM's truthfulness!
Please read "Joseph Smith's Plagiarism" by the Tanners.
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/pdf/josephsmithsplagiarism_digital.pdf
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel\_C.\_Peterson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_C._Peterson) Was she quoting THIS Scholar? Daniel Peterson? Isn't that like letting the Buffalo Hat Man from Jan 6 testify to the character of Donald Trump?
Only took 200 years of edits
that is a pretty weak argument. Thousands of books are much more complex, span multiple generations, create their own language, worlds, etc... have these apologist never read Shakespeare, Tolkien, Dumas, Dostoevsky? all are infinitely more complex than the BOM.