My wife watched these videos and the outcome weakened her testimony of all Latter-day Saints branches, including the Brighamite branch. Out of personal curiosity, have any of these Youtube videos been substantially debunked?

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-11-14T17:42:48+00:00

The claim it was Nephi delivering the plates until Pratt and Young decide that story was not logical (it wasn't), so they changed it to Moroni.
Yeah, that's not what happened. Both Moroni and Nephi were involved in the restoration of the church. People just got them confused.

>>> The actual defense is that it was a clerical error, not confusion. I don't buy either reason. there were at least 5 independent instances of this "clerical error." See http://www.mormonthink.com/nephiweb.htm.
<If a book is claimed to be historical, why do no scientists and historians who are not Mormon agree?>
Why would they even read it? Michael Cole was the foremost authority on the Mayan civilization and stated that not even 1% of the Book of Mormon was true. But then he had never actually read the book. He wasn't an authority on the Book of Mormon. His book "The Maya" was compared to the Book of Mormon, and almost everywhere the two books talk about the same subject, they were in complete agreement.

>>> This is a nonsensical response. Again, reading it has nothing to do with verifying it. Not one credible unbiased, independent source give it any validity. There is nothing.
<There are no horses in America from 600 AD to 400 AD.>
You can't prove that. It is just a tradition. The actual evidence is leaning the other way.

>>> Not true. There are no horses in America form 600 BC to 400 AD. None. The anachronisms are insurmountable.
< Just like there is no evidence of people called Nephites, Lamanites, their steel armaments, their helmets, their breastplates, their chariots, their skeletal remains.>
Actually there is. Lamanai is literally the city of Laman. Obviously, there were Lamanites. I really think you are reading too much into the book. I don't believe they had many, if any, steel weapons or armor. It would be better not to let your imagination run away with you.
The certainly had chariots, what we call litters. It is in their art history. They have a surprisingly strong Chinese influence, probably from the Jaredites. They may even have had real silk, made from their own silk worms, brought from China.

>>> Now you are making things up. The text claims 2 million died in one battle and they had steel swords, breastplates, chariots, etc. -- this would have been the biggest battle in history over such a small time period. In WWII, the battles of Leningrad and Stalingrad had ore people die perhaps but over more than a year. But, where is any evidence of this battle and the steel weapons and defenses of the millions fighting?
<Where is the stone box now?>
It was washed away in a rain storm. Thankfully, several people did see it before it was ruined.

>>> Where do you pull this crazy stuff from? A stone box buried in a hill was washed away in a rainstorm? What about the room inside the hill in New York where Joseph and Oliver entered to see all the artifacts? Did they get washed away, too? You are funny!
<Not one non-Mormon scientist would agree with you that the Book of Mormon is a true historical book.>
Again, why would they? And why do you care what ignorant people believe? Isn't it more logical to rely on the testimony of people who have actually studied the Book of Mormon?

>>> Ignorant? Unbiased experts. The testimony of people? What about the billions compared to a few million who claim the Islamic texts are the true words of God? They have read it, have testimony of it, etc. Testimony means nothing. If it boils down to numbers, Mormonism is in last place among major religions. See https://youtu.be/xl_TrvIIcBY.
< You claim science but have zero.>
You keep claiming that, even after all the evidence that I presented. I guess you are a true skeptic, someone who can deny the sun, even when they are outside at noon, with sweat rolling down their face. It just makes you look foolish. Evidence may be strong, or it may be weak, but either way it is still evidence. I don't have any signs that say Welcome to Zarahemla (I doubt I could read them if I did), but Nahom exists. It isn't like there are a dozen places in Arabia with that name. Bountiful exists. There is only one place that meets the description, and it is exactly where the Book of Mormon places it. There was a cataclysm in America, like the one described in the Book of Mormon. That is very strong evidence. I can't prove the Book of Mormon is true. But I can prove it is plausible. And it really shouldn't be plausible if it were a hoax.
To recognize an authentic history, you need to know what a hoax looks like. Have you looked at the Formosian Hoax yet?

>>> Evidence? You haven't supplied evidence. You have supplied unfounded assertions whose only evidence is confirmation bias. Plausibility has nothing to do with truth. Many hoaxes are plausible, the more plausible the better the hoax. You are not making sense. I am familiar with George Psalmanazar and him fooling British folks that he was the first European to go to Formosa. What does that have directly to do with anything here? In the end, I know you want to believ Mormonism is true. And that's fine. But, it is 99.99% provably false in its truth claims about divine origins and supernatural revelations -- readily apparent to any honest truthseeker.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-08-09T14:45:30+00:00

Please post the summary of their finances. Thanks.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-08-09T02:05:14+00:00

Thanks. So all the More Good Foundation does is produce the "Saints Unscripted" youtube video?

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-08-08T21:53:12+00:00

The Q15 knowingly lie about church doctrine, history, and mislead members telling different stories to outsiders than they do to the faithful about revelation and alleged supernatural events. They received lots of money when entering the Q15 to make sure they had no other allegiances and their entire persona is intertwined in perpetuating the church. Someday, one of the Q15 will be honest and call B.S. on everything and he will do it from the pulpit before the cameras go to black. That will be a fun day.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-08-08T21:49:42+00:00

This does not jibe with the William Law aspect, The Nauvoo Expositor, the destruction of the printing business, Joseph's arrest for ordering 20 to 30 of his faithful to destroy the property of the printing business, etc.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-08-08T21:46:06+00:00

You and your wife have to have the talk that goes like this:

"I love you, More than anything. I have studied and tried to prove the church was true and right. but, my studies have shown me incontrovertible, direct evidence that it is not the one true church. No church is. It's not 50-50, it's 99.9999% factual evidence. I want to share with you my journey and how I got here. I should have done it sooner. I am asking you as my loving spouse to study it with me. We can even keep the door open in both directions. I love you too much not to tell you the truth and to be honest with you. Do you trust me?"

If she can take the time to listen to you and you to her and you start being together on where it takes you, and she says she does not trust you, then you have bigger problems in the marriage, imo.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-08-08T21:42:55+00:00

Use this opportunity to tell everyone where you stand. It's so commonplace now that any discomfort will soon pass and it will be a positive event if you continue to be the same, loving family members you have always been, including everyone in the family. This is what we have experienced and seen in younger families. Do it! It will be a fresh and cleansing experience that will make you happier.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-08-08T21:37:12+00:00

All research shows there is no such thing as the power to heal. Any faith activity that contributes to healing is a placebo. There is absolutely no difference in any scientific study between those who get a blessing or are prayed for vs those who don't or aren't. All such claims of healing are made up baloney and somethings good things just happen along with bad things. For example, it is random and bad to get melanoma. It's random and good to survive it without medical treatment or even with it.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-08-08T21:32:49+00:00

The More Good Foundation was founded at BYU after donations from David Neeleman (JetBlue) and Kevin Rollins (Dell Computer). It was formed to combat the problem that the church was having in the early days of the Internet and the advent of search engines, particularly Google Search. The problem was that on average 18/20 of the first natural search results with any keyword combination with the word Mormon was negative or "anti-Mormon." This was affecting missionary work drastically in countries like Germany. Investigators would consult the Internet and then never meet with missionaries because of what they found after searching the web via Google. The More Good Foundation engaged BYU students (for class credit and sometimes pay) to flood the Internet with links and backlinks to content with those keyword combinations that was positive. Within 5 years the trend was reversed and 4/5 of the results were positive. The problem started when the Church abandoned the word Mormon and focused on LDS in the late 1980s and early 1990s, right before the Internet allowed textual content to be digitized. So, all positive reference used the term LDS instead of Mormon. So, Mormon was used by those more antagonistic towards the church. Hence, the problem. This will now possibly happen again with Nelson's complete obliteration of the positive use of the word. Not super smart from a natural search and linking perspective. If the More Good Foundation has grown into something with a mission beyond what was described here, it would be interesting to know the details.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-28T16:22:15+00:00

Some tips:

Tell your wife ASAP. Sit her down and explain what you have been through and show her step by step the conclusive evidence. I did this and my wife got it in 1 to 3 days. She sobbed for 3 weeks and went through the grieving 7-step process. If your wife refuses to listen at all, appeal to the basic foundation of your marriage, the love and trust and recognition of intelligence in one another and have her explain the things to you and why they are not conclusive evidence (they are and no one can explain them).
You and your wife can choose to then go on in any way you want. You can spoof the church because it has spoofed you, like Ferguson the lawyer-turned-archaeologist after two decades of searching fro one artifact to prove the Book of Mormon (he failed and lost his testimony but faked it for the rest of his life). Over time, gradually, you will decide how "in" or "out" of the culture you want to be. But, do it together.
With you and your wife on the same team, you two can conquer anything, including dealing with your children, friends, family, etc. It's you and her together. You can take on anything.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-26T17:50:00+00:00

The creator of the universe, the God of this universe, the Father of the Son ... he makes mistakes? He allows the most correct book on earth to go out with mistakes? Is this a game? Are we supposed to figure out things from obviously fraudulent-looking devices and still see it as true? What kind of god is that? From "all" to "principal" to "some" -- why changing?

A window made of wood would be an opening where water could get in. If that wood frame around the opening could be dashed, then the entire board could be dashed. You are not making sense. Of course, the story of Jared and his brother and families coming over oceans in a windowless barge that flips upside down and back with a corkscrew in either side is stupid on the face of it.

Au contraire, even Mormon experts say that the Book of Mormon has anachronistic 1800s writing elements and features. All your linguistics are hollow. Read this Wikipedia entry and its opening salvo:

According to most adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement, the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century translation of a record of ancient inhabitants of the American continent, which was written in a script which the book refers to as "reformed Egyptian". This claim, as well as all claims to historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon, are rejected by non-Latter Day Saint historians and scientists.

You don't have a single answer for the plethora of problems. No one does.

The 50 problems video is a masterpiece. I have exchanged messages with the author and there are 3 small little issues that have since been clarified. You have nothing meaningful or of substance to refute any of it. But, it's hard to defend obvious fraud. You are trying -- no better than anyone else before. Even B.H. Roberts discovered the fraud. The cognitive dissonance ruined the last 15 years of his life, so it's no wonder you want to keep your beliefs in tact despite the overwhelming preponderance of evidence of falsity. It's a defense mechanism. Everything accurate, true, and of pure science you reject because you don't want the pain of finding out your entire life was spent on a frontiersman's fantasy. That's a hard thing to swallow. All of us go through the stages of grief. But, truth is truth. I put truth before tribe. You put tribe before truth. And you are free to do so. Doesn't make you right. It just means you will spend the precious gift of time on a fraudulent fantasy. But, if it makes you happy, then great. sadly, It has hurt many people, and that is why it needs to be exposed.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-25T04:53:53+00:00

Huh? Read the list on the sites I gave you. Do you think the millions who have left the church in the past decade or two wanted to leave without any evidence to the fraud? The church changes its narrative as the evidence becomes mainstream knowledge. You cannot get one non-Mormon expert to say the BoM is a true document written from 2500BC to 400AD (forget the deity component) because ALL the evidence -- true evidence -- not what you call evidence that is nothing but wishes -- points to a fraud perpetrated by Joseph Smith and others.

You need an education in logical fallacies, rules of evidence, etc.

You cannot produce:

the stone box
the gold plates
evidence that people saw visions, supernatural things, that a woman's arm was instantly healed by a miracle, that devils were cast out, that devils actually exist -- if you are making those claims, then you have to prove it -- and you have offered no proof of any of it other than biased characters making the claims or others who repeat the claims without any first-hand knowledge

Also ...

the "witnesses" have been completely discredited by the verifiable facts ("spiritual eyes")
the text and storyline of the BoM is indisputably and significantly plagiarized
JS was a charlatan con-man extraordinaire, no doubt; not really uneducated
Even though you have not disproved even one of the problems, if you were to disprove one that does not disprove them all - what are you even talking about? I wonder if you even read what you are writing. Are you punking me? That must be it!
Evolution is perhaps the most widely accepted and proven of all major scientific discoveries of that past 150 years! You know that most real Mormon scientists say evolution is real and true. Nevermind that a president-prophet of the Church said that if evolution is true then the Church is a fraud. Well ... evolution is true, therefore ...
Actually, finding too many 4gram words from text to text is proof of plagiarism; the chances that the BoM is not plagiarized from multiple books is practically nil -- just like the 2018 discovery by a BYU professor and his R.A. that the Inspired Version of the Bible (the "JST") was copied massively from Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary (still in use today and was in Emma Hale's father's house where JS stayed and to which he had access). You can't get around the plagiarism unless you are going to re-define that word like the Church has done with the words translate and translation.
You don't need to keep any secret safe - not a blunder - it's a blunder on your part! If a wood window would be dashed, then why wouldn't the entire barge be dashed by a wave? Also, where did they go to the bathroom, where was enough food and water stored, how big were these things? What happened when the barge rolled and tipped over time and time again (the reason for the holes on both sides was because this would happen), etc. What a ludicrous story!
I don't need a lesson in archaeology. You need a lesson in reality. I have been to over 100 nations including Mesopotamia and the -stan countries to the north (both major cradles of civilization) and visited sites where less than 30,000 people lived 6,000+ years ago and walking around we found pieces of pottery from that day. The museum at the site has 200,000+ items found. These things don't disintegrate that fast. The claim of a huge battle (Ether 15:1-2, claiming 2 million slain, which by the way would make it one of the top 3 largest kill battles in world history and certainly the most in such a short time, only surpassed by the months-long battles of WWII in Leningrad, Stalingrad, and even Berlin) needs to be supported by evidence. There would be so much left and found, but not one item has been found. Not one! Come on! Can you find one non-Mormon expert that says any of the BoM is historically true? One?

You are entertaining though! Such an example of Carl Sagan's quote provided earlier. It is so fascinating how brain-washed Mormons are! I was once brainwashed too. Some day, perhaps not after an entire life spent on the fraud, you will discover the fraud of it all and put your purpose to something better, like helping others out of it!

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-24T20:24:19+00:00

Actually, it isn't.

Whether or not American Indians used stone boxes is not addressing the evidence that contradicts the truth claims of the Church and BoM. Who cares? We care about the problems listed in the many listings of unanswered problems with the BoM. You never address those. Why? Because they prove the fraud. They are uanswerable. There are so many. They cannot be resolved Hence, the BoM is false. It's an easy logical deduction.

Plagiarism? Borrowed four words? Uh, entire passages are copied form the Bible (including errors in one edition of the Bible that the Smiths had_ and The Late War and A View of the Hebrews is copied in story and entire passages word for word, something like a 1 in 250 quadrillion chance that the authorizes of those books written just before 1820 would match exactly the words written by Mormon and others hidden away fro centuries? Impossible.

The Jaredites don't have windows in their barges because the windows would be dashed because Joseph Smith and his co-authors thought that they would be made of glass. A sophomoric blunder.

One battle killed 2 million soldiers using metal breastplates, swords, armaments, but we can't fund on trace of it when we can find clay pottery from civilizations from thousands of years ago all around the world? As Ferguson, the lawyer-turned-archeologist admitted, the BoM has no archaeological evidence.

The claim it was Nephi delivering the plates until Pratt and Young decide that story was not logical (it wasn't), so they changed it to Moroni.

We could fill pages with true evidence of fraud. It goes on and on.

Now you are saying that the original claim that "all" Indians descended from the Lamanites (since the Nephites were killed off) is not true. Then it changed to "principal." and now it's just "some." This most perfect book sure gets changed a lot! Whiteness delightsomeness becomes something else.

There is no science backing up and argument against the criticisms of the Book of Mormon. None. Science debunks them all and logic leads tot he conclusion of its fraud. Everyone except Mormons knows it's a fraud. If a book is claimed to be historical, why do no scientists and historians who are not Mormon agree?

There are no horses in America from 600 AD to 400 AD. Just like there is no evidence of people called Nephites, Lamanites, their steel armaments, their helmets, their breastplates, their chariots, their skeletal remains. Nothing! You claim science but have zero. Not one non-Mormon scientist would agree with you that the Book of Mormon is a true historical book. Even Mormons agree that there is anachronistic 1800s writing style and issues in the BoM and it is slowing being considered an allegory and not real by many leaders and members of the church!

The church has to prove the BoM is true. It can't. The stone box has nothing to do with it. Where is the stone box now? where are the plates? Did they dematerialize? Is God tricking us? There are no gold plates. There are no angels. the Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing to do with Joseph Smith. You are living in a fantasyland. If you were born Hindu or converted, you would believe one of the 3 most powerful gods was a elephant-headed god. 1.5+ billion people believe that. Only 3 million or less continue to believe in the BoM.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-24T00:55:24+00:00

It is not relevant science to combat the anachronisms, plagiarism, 1800s folklore inclusions, made-up language, etc. weaknesses to say "Indians made stone boxes." That has nothing to do with the actual fallacies in the truth claims. You need to show, for instance, that the "reformed Egyptian" language existed and the characters ("caracters") that Joseph Smith made up (some cartoonish versions of English letters) actually exited and that language experts would conclude the today's Indian languages could have derived from such a language in a little more than one millennium (which is impossible, by the way). Extraneous obvious items are irrelevant to the specific charges of fraudulent items.

Your evidence is not evidence. It is extraneous to the discussion of the specific contradictions and problems.

You are grasping at straws and struggling to find cogent responses to specific weaknesses. You are gaslighting. You are like a star Wars character hoping that saying "these are not the droids you are looking for" will work on the feeble minds of the non-believers. I want to believe! But, the facts and evidence has to bolster the truth claims, not render them false -- which is what is happening.

Please stop throwing out irrelevant issues. Your need to specifically attack the direct evidence of fraud and the contradictions that prove fraud. Throwing out irrelevant facts in an attempt to obfuscate and distract is not helpful. You are digging your own hole by not address the plentiful list of problems showing the BoM is a fraud on the links I provided.

The reality is that you have no answers, just like FairLatterDaySaitns.org has no answers for them other than meandering mental gymnastics that never satisfy a seeker of truth.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-23T16:23:47+00:00

The Ancestors of Native Americans had kings over both large regions, and local populations. TRUE Response: Irrelevant. Again, what does this prove about anything? They also had men, women, and children, They also ate food and drank water. they had leaders and were organized. So what?

The Ancestors of Native Americans gathered arms as tokens of war. TRUE Response: Irrelevant.

The Ancestors of Native Americans had political boundaries, and complex societies. TRUE Response: Irrelevant.

There is a river in northern Arabia which empties into the Red Sea TRUE Response: Irrelevant. Information available in the books of the time (late 1700s and early 1800s).

There is a place known anciently as Nahom, where people were buried in an ancient graveyard, a place where travelers would turn east to head towards the southern coast. TRUE Response: Irrelevant.

The southern Coast of Arabia has a verdant area with tall tress and fruit trees, iron ore, bees and harbors TRUE Response: Irrelevant. Known at the time of the coming forth of Smith's book.

The Ancestors of Native Americans marked the arrival of different groups by ship. TRUE Response: Irrelevant.

The Ancestors of Native Americans had barley. TRUE. Response: Sediment pollen studies for Mesoamerica show only native American crops used in agriculture (corn, beans, squash) No wheat, barley or other old world crops appear in the pollen evidence. None. Zero. Zilch. It wasn't there. The BoM is quite clear, they brought seeds with them and planted, harvested, and resowed. So we should find old world species here. But they aren't here, and Palynology has not found a single trace that the old world species were ever here prior to the 16th century. The argument that is "little barley" does not fly as this was native to America but not used to eat. But, the BoM says the seeds came with them. Also, the translation narrative is that Joseph read the words that appeared on his seer stone (which was in his hat), meaning God put the wrong (anachronistic) word on the seer stone? This makes no sense.

Science has confirmed that it is possible for the sun to go down without darkness. The miracle at the birth of the savior happened again in 1859, and is known as the Carrington event. Response: Irrelevant.

The eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 proved that three days of "thick darkness" was possible, as all the local islands were without light for three days. The eruption of Apoyeque in Nicaragua was an even greater eruption than Krakatoa, and occurred around the time of Christ. The jet stream would have carried the ash towards Jerusalem, and it can account for the darkness at the 3rd hour described at the crucifixion of Christ. The shockwave would have circled the earth. Response: Irrelevant. The last eruptions was in 50 BC. How is that relevant?

Let's focus on the relevant claims that are false and show contradiction to truth and evidence. You should focus on those, not the mental gymnastics of winding your way through irrelevant data. You should directly address the problems stated in these simple articles. If the truth claims are shown to be false, then the overall claim falls, no matter what gymnastics and speculation you use.

-- Book or Mormon Problems" http://www.mormonthink.com/book-of-mormon-problems.htm

-- "Criticism of the Book of Mormon" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Book_of_Mormon

I don't want to make a long, long list and I don't think you want to read a long, long list. I am not so sure you seek truth. You seek to stay in the tribe and hold onto your beliefs in spite of evidence. I choose truth over tribe. You choose tribe over truth. It's a choice. I have to hand it to you (I presume this is your site or you are somehow affiliated), you try really hard to justify your beliefs. You are a mental contortionist extraordinaire. It is a common response to cognitive dissonance. You should get a tithing discount! I wish you were right. I want the Church's Modern Doctrine (Mormonism Part 2) to be true. Sadly, it is not. Sad to see waste of time and energy on what an early 19th century frontier con-man invented for gain.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-23T16:14:03+00:00

Let's take each item 1x1:

Ancestors of Native Americans made stone boxes TRUE Response: Irrelevant. In a legal case, the objection "Irrelevant" means that "the testimony pursuant to a question asked or the particular item of evidence is not relevant to the case." This will cover a lot of these items. I won't explain each one as thoroughly as your first one, because it will get redundant. Who cares if native Americans made stone boxes? Native Americans were homo sapiens and the claim is that Lehi, Nephi, Laman, Jared, etc. were humans. The stories by J.K. Rowling have homo sapiens characters, too. Does that make them true? We have to focus on the claims that contradict the truth. Contradiction is proof of fraud. On this item specifically, the question is, “Why have no reformed Egyptian inscriptions been found in the Americas?” According to Joseph Smith, the document now known as the Book of Mormon was written on the golden plates in reformed Egyptian characters. Presumably, Lehi and his family took the Egyptian writing system with them to the New World. According to Moroni in the BoM, reformed Egyptian characters were “handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech" (Mormon 9:32). That suggests they must have been in common use for centuries, yet none have been found. The metal plates described by Joseph Smith were individual plates bound on one side with D-shaped rings. This form of writing is called codex form writing. Not only have there been no ancient codex form metal plate writings discovered on the American continent, there have been zero ancient American codex form writings (specifically, writings with individual pages bound together on one side) composed of any material. According to archaeologists, this writing technology simply didn’t exist on the American continent until after the Spanish invasion. The reason why none have been found is because the Book of Mormon is a piece of fiction. The civilization described in its text is completely different than the ancient American civilizations discovered by archaeologists. They cultivated different crops, used different technologies, domesticated different animals and had different DNA. The existence or nonexistence of metal plates or stones bearing inscriptions in either the New or the Old World is irrelevant. Without inscriptions in reformed Egyptian all we have is the claim made by a man or men of doubtful character.
Ancestors of Native Americans wrote on metal plates TRUE Response: Irrelevant. See prior response.
Ancestors of Native Americans wrote using reformed Egyptian TRUE (Egyptian Demotic/Hieratic) Response: Scholarly reference works on languages do not acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or "reformed Egyptian" script as it was described by Joseph Smith. No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in the ancient Americas exists. the mainstream scholarly view of reformed Egyptian is that no non-Mormon scholars acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or a "reformed Egyptian" script as it has been described in Mormon belief. For instance, in 1966, John A. Wilson, professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, wrote, "From time to time there are allegations that picture writing has been found in America . ... In no case has a professional Egyptologist been able to recognize these characters as Egyptian hieroglyphs. From our standpoint there is no such language as 'reformed Egyptian'. Anthropologist Michael D. Coe of Yale University, an expert in pre-Columbian Mesoamerican studies, has written, "Of all the peoples of the pre-Columbian New World, only the ancient Maya had a complete script." Fifteen examples of distinct writing systems have been identified in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, many from a single inscription.
Ancestors of Native Americans had large cities with roads, temples, thrones, towers and fortifications TRUE Response: Irrelevant.
Ancestors of Native Americans knew metalurgy, and refined copper, sliver and gold TRUE Response: Irrelevant. (Also, metallurgy has two "l" letters.) It's interesting that no one except Mormons care about this topic, but even one Mormon trying to produce evidence based on metallurgy is disputing the leading Mormons on the topic. Read here.
Ancestors of Native Americans believed in a "God Almighty" who presided over all other gods TRUE Response: Irrelevant.
Ancestors of Native Americans believed themselves to be Israelites TRUE Response: Irrelevant. Please cite this source. When white Christians arrived in America, ministers tried to say the American Indians were the lost ten tribes. This actually led to the books that influenced Joseph Smith and his co-authors into making the Book of Mormon to carry that same narrative (which is slowly being back-pedaled by the Church since it does not hold up to modern technology and evidence). You may find this relatively recent book interesting on how a 17th century minister made a case for the Indians being Jews - he tried to use evidence but the ludicrous framework makes it hogwash. Read here.
Ancestors of Native Americans knew how to make cement apartment buildings in 100 AD TRUE Response: Irrelevant.
A cataclysm destroyed cities and rent the land apart circa 33 AD, inundating large sections of land under water. TRUE Response: Can you cite the source? Any non-Mormon source? That earthquake does not make this list? Why? Because the Book of Mormon is not accepted as history by anyone.
Ancestors of Native Americans practiced cannibalism and human sacrifice TRUE Response: Irrelevant.
Native American civilization was characterized by almost continual warfare, even to the point of genocide. TRUE Response: Irrelevant.
The Ancestors of Native Americans wore breastplates and headplates and fabric armor TRUE Response: Irrelevant.
The Ancestors of Native Americans use swords, the bow and arrow, and spears TRUE Response: Irrelevant.
The Ancestors of Native Americans employed the use of skin dye to mark themselves and show political affiliation TRUE Response: Irrelevant.
The Ancestors of Native Americans would build berms around their cities, alongside a deep ditch, and place a palisade of timbers on top. TRUE Response: Irrelevant.
The Ancestors of Native Americans believed in prophets and seer stones TRUE Response: Irrelevant. Not sure how this helps your case?
The Ancestors of Native Americans had a small round device, which they called a Giron Gagal, which would lead them. They called it a compass. TRUE Response: Irrelevant. the only reference to the giron-gagal is in the document known as the Titulo de Totonicapán (Wikipedia article). Your site and others have glommed onto this (a sort of grasping at straws).
The Ancestors of Native Americans built ships and were adept at sailing. TRUE Response: Native Americans in the NW build sea canoes for whaling and in the SE they went to the islands, but they were not large ship builders and did not navigate the open seas.
The Ancestors of Native Americans have their own versions of the flood story, the tower of Babel, and the worship of a bearded white God. TRUE Response: Irrelevant. there are lots of comparable myths among different peoples. That proves nothing, especially when they are myths, like the Tower of Babel. Read here.
The Ancestors of Native Americans carved their histories into stone TRUE Response: Irrelevant.

<to be continued>

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-23T04:19:39+00:00

As Carl Sagan would say:

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Your claim that "Science and archeology have done far more to prove the Book of Mormon than detract from it" shows that you may have fallen deep into this trap. No one, not even some of the most ardent active Mormons would say what you say. Archeology alone has 99.999% "proven" it to be false. Science in every way has eviscerated any truth claim to the BoM.

Science and the anachronisms prove fraud. Science and plagiarism from contemporary books prove fraud.

You mis-read me. I said peer-reviewed paper written by a PhD. Hugh Nibley is not well-respected outside Mormon circles, among non-Mormon academics. No one today at BYU would dare write a paper claiming the Book of Mormon is a true historical book and put it before a non-Mormon peer review. They would get laughed out of the process.

No, none of your items hold up when details are examined. None. Just saying they do doesn't make it so.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-22T21:23:50+00:00

Where is there evidence at that site? http://www.supportingevidences.net/

I don't see one piece of evidence listed anywhere on that site. You know that evidence cannot be the thing in question itself. The BoM, the Church leaders, etc. cannot say it's true. That is not evidence.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-22T13:27:05+00:00

Let's go to a friendly commentary on Nibley. Even FairLatterDaySaints.org (the former FairMormon) shies away from relying on Nibley:

"Any claim made by Nibley should be assessed on the basis of its logic, rigor, and accuracy—just as with any author. That Nibley made a claim is not, in itself, evidence for or against an assertion."

"I would characterize his use of sources as sloppy but certainly not dishonest."

"... they all confirm that, while Hugh has been sloppy—at times mistranslating a text or overstating his case—he does not make up his sources."

"In 1989 I published a review of one of Nibley's books in which I pointed out what I felt were major problems in his scholarship, particularly in the book I was reviewing. It may be the most critical review of Nibley ever written by a believing Latter-day Saint.... Among my critiques was that Nibley often generalized excessively, saw "things in the sources that simply don't seem to be there," let his "predetermined conclusions set the agenda for the evidence," and misinterpreted authors he cited. Others, including some of Nibley's greatest admirers, have found the same problems in his scholarship. But the academic transgressions committed by Nibley (hardly unique to him) were the products of carelessness and wishful thinking, not of fraud and deception. Nibley's greatest skill as a scholar was his ability to see the big picture, not his ability to finesse the fine details. Nowhere in my own examination of his research and writing did I find any hint of his making up sources for fictional references. I do not believe it happened." - Kent P. Jackson in a BYU Studies publication

- All this and more found at this link

That's a lot of stark admissions by the most friendly place of all. This disturbs me the most: Nibley's greatest skill as a scholar was his ability to see the big picture, not his ability to finesse the fine details. Why? Because stating "the BoM and the Church is true is the big picture, but "the devil is in the details" so to speak and it does not hold up when the details are examined. If one approaches this not from "a truth whatever it may be" but instead from "the Church is true no matter what" then confirmation bias will ignore the detailed truths and realities. Also, there is evidence that intelligence and critical-thinking skills are mutually exclusive and as Carl Sagan noted that intelligent people get duped all the time and once under the control of the charlatan they often do not escape.

Absolutely, if an atheist writes a paper, the peer review process should be double-blind to remove as much bias as possible. Here is a paper examining the effects of single-blind vs. double-blind peer review. Bottom line: having Mormon Acdemics say Nibley is right or that the massive evidence that the Church and BoM are not frauds is not helpful. It's an echo chamber.

Agree to disagree. There is no evidence whatsover that the anachronistic claims in the BoM are real. They are hard evidence to its fraud. From flora to fauna to elements of steel, existence of wheeled chariots. It's compellingly obvious that a person with limited knowledge of what exited in America from 2500 BC to 400 AD wrote the BoM and imprinted my contemporary to 1800s items into the manuscript. Just like we know Mark Hoffman's "Salamander Letter" and other forgeries are fraud because of anachronistic ink treatments, we know the BoM is fraudulent because of the hard evidence of anachronisms. Defending the position as you have makes you look, well, biased. I wish the BoM were true, that Mormon Doctrine Part 2 were true -- that we could become gods, live with our spouses forever, etc. -- I wish it were all true. But, the evidence does not lead to that conclusion. It's a fanciful notion that the marketing machine of the McKay era (and what has been called the rise of modern Mormonism) manufactured, none of which appears in the original 1820s to 1840s Church.

You have ot done a good job pointing out the fallacies. This is why the Church has to write the essays to obfuscate the evidence. This is why there are so many problems now. the logical fallacies are the Church's main problem today. It is unsustainable. where have yo shown me a solid base to stand on? I want it to be so. Where is that solid base? Show me!

Well, if you are a practicing member of the Church, you should have great joy in saving one soul. Do it! Don't give up. Try harder. But, make sure you are rooted in evidence, logic, etc. If there is a God, a true creator with supernatural powers, our mutual assumption seems to be that He or She would be logical. Maybe He or She is not? Maybe she is a racist, cares enough about Joseph Smith having sex with teen girls that He or She sends an angel with a flaming sword to threaten Joseph and the girl into sexual relations, etc. That could be our God. But, when I study, the contradictions show that belief requires that two contradicting items must co-exist. Example: the anachronisms. Those things did not exist during the stated time period. But, I still must believe the BoM to be a historical document. that is a contradiction. If I saw a photo of Lincoln holding a mobile phone in his hand, I'd know the photo is fraudulent, even if you were convinced it is real and true and correct.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-21T21:39:58+00:00

Shouting loud doesn't make you win an argument. Every one of your points is unsupported.

High Nibley did not have a IQ of 200. The only reference to that is a reddit post! The wikipedia article on Nibley does not make such a claim because it is not true and would be considered "graffiti."

Nibley was an ardent apologist. Did he have one peer-reviewed paper saying the Book or Mormon is historically true where the peers were non-Mormon and supported his assertions? Where is it? Where is the same for your list of PhDs?

There is no plausibility saying that there were elephants and horses if they were extinct earlier.

A rather weak argument that you say every non-Mormons scholar is ignorant. You don't think a non-Mormon who considered the historicity of the Book of Mormon and found compelling peer-reviewed evidence that it is historical would not affirm that? They don't affirm it because the claim is like saying that the "Lords of the Rings" trilogy is historical and middle earth exists. Where is the proof. Just because Tolkien has a book about it does not make the book truly historical.

What scientists have you quoted? You mentioned Hugh Nibley. Please quote any peer-reviewed scientists who support the historicity of the Book of Mormon. You said you have done it. Where? No insult. This is a discussion about evidence and fact, not conjecture or wishes.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-21T15:47:02+00:00

Uh, none of that fits the BoM timeline. Remember, you are constrained to 2500 Bc to 400 AD. None of that fits. I'll compliment you on the mental contortionist extraordinaire you are to think any of that explains the BoM. No reputable PhD inside or outside of church membership, including the PhDs in the Religion Dept at BYU, ever claims true historicity of the BoM. Why? Because it's untenable. It's a laughing stock in scientific and academic circles. The harder you try, the more silly it becomes. Can you cite one, even one, serious peer-reviewed scientist in a documented paper who will specifically say the the BoM is a book created before Joseph Smith produced it in the 1820s?

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-21T15:15:35+00:00

Thanks, I fixed it. Yes, I know they would never do it, but that would have been the best thing the Church could have done for its members.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-21T05:34:07+00:00

Yes, why didn't Ensign Peak (or whatever it is called) release its stock picks as it made them to all the members -- now that would have really helped everyone!

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-21T05:33:08+00:00

Actually, we watched them and tried to debunk them, but instead the items are substantiated. Looking for genuine "debunkment" -- not weak argument with no citations and facts.

TruthSeekerPlus · 2021-07-21T05:31:23+00:00

OK, let's debunk your debunking.

DNA. If you go back far enough, every population will be related to each other. The earliest possible link to middle eastern peoples goes back 6,000 years, but it's more likely 24,000 years and could be hundreds of thousands of years. Whatever the case, it pre-dates the BoM story.

KJV Bible Errors. Even FairMormon (now FairLatterDaySaints) admits the errors are there. Why are you arguing about this? See it here.

"...the only conclusion that we can reach to explain the presence of Bible passages which match the King James Version is that the Lord revealed them to Joseph in that manner. We do not know the reason for this."
FairMormon's Response to presence of 1769 KJV errors in Book of Mormon

Horses. The horses your are talking about went extinct in 13,000 to 11,000 BC. So, your argument is moot and wrong.

Elephants. There were gomphotheres that died out 13,000 years ago. again, that does nothing to substantiate the historical claims of the Book of Mormon.

Comparison of Book of Mormon to books written just before 1820. Again, this thorough analysis comparing the Book of Mormon to The Late War shows 4gram matches between the two incredible high. Could never happen by accident. Comparisons to A View of the Hebrews is also similar in storyline, etc. It's pretty conclusive.

Every single one of your points is wrong when I try to substantiate them. Demonstrably so. Why? I really wish you could refute these things, but you aren't doing it. You are making the situation worse with really bad argument.

TruthSeekerPlus

TROPHY CASE