Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[Katzpur]

Who cares if it "really" happened???

Uh... I do.

It's about the Truth in the book - not whether events portrayed were real or not.

We can't very well claim the Book of Mormon to be a history of the ancient inhabitants of the American continent and then say, "Well, maybe it's not, but it does contain a good message." To me, that's kind of like saying, "Who cares if the account of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection is accurate. What matters is that we're supposed to strive to follow His example."

Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[nutshell]

Uh... I do.

We can't very well claim the Book of Mormon to be a history of the ancient inhabitants of the American continent and then say, "Well, maybe it's not, but it does contain a good message." To me, that's kind of like saying, "Who cares if the account of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection is accurate. What matters is that we're supposed to strive to follow His example."

Or am I misunderstanding you?

So you're a literalist?

 

[Katzpur]

So you're a literalist?

No, far from it. I actually believe that much of the Old Testament is figurative or allegorical in nature. I can't tell you exactly where I draw the line. I guess it would be based on what makes logical sense to me. I have an easier time believing that a group of Israelites were led to a promised land and grew to flourish there than that Noah literally collected two of every kind of animal on the earth and herded them into a boat.

 

[lilithu]

Who cares if it "really" happened???

It's about the Truth in the book - not whether events portrayed were real or not.

Wow, you sound like a UU.

 

[DeepShadow]

Obedience is the first law of heaven. . . . In fact without obedience there could be no union or order, and chaos and confusion would prevail. (Joseph F. Smith, JD 16:247-248 (1873)

Obedience is the first law of heaven, the cornerstone upon which all righteousness and progression rest. It consists in compliance with divine law, in conformity to the mind and will of Deity, in complete subjection to God and his commands. (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 539)

jesus tap dancing christ, get the doctrine straight mister! :slap:

I've got my doctrine straight. According to the latest press release from the church, "doctrine" comes from the Standard Works: the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. What do they have to say about the first law?

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself says that the first two great commandments are to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. He later subordinates obedience when he says "If ye love me, keep my commandments." That's an if-then statement, putting love in a causal position. Why do you think he says it that way?

Later in the NT, Paul says that though he keeps all the commandments (obeys) and has not charity, he is as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal--in other words, nothing but noise. Mormon says the same thing in Moroni, in the BoM.

Love is the prime directive. All other things are subordinate to it.

 

[Bathsheba]

I've got my doctrine straight. According to the latest press release from the church, "doctrine" comes from the Standard Works: the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. What do they have to say about the first law?

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself says that the first two great commandments are to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. He later subordinates obedience when he says "If ye love me, keep my commandments." That's an if-then statement, putting love in a causal position. Why do you think he says it that way?

Later in the NT, Paul says that though he keeps all the commandments (obeys) and has not charity, he is as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal--in other words, nothing but noise. Mormon says the same thing in Moroni, in the BoM.

Love is the prime directive. All other things are subordinate to it.

Yeah, what the heck do I know? I like your take on it much better. I should think Jesus had it right vs. the guys that said "obedience is the first law of heaven".

Plus, the Beatles had it going on with "all you need is love".

 

[DeepShadow]

Why don't you put it in context for all the honest investigators of the Mormon church? On its face it sounds pretty extreme.

That was from a PBS documentary not too long ago. Oaks was talking about publicly denouncing the leaders while remaining in the church. We are free to have our private opinions, and even share them with other in the right circumstances, as long as we don't attack the church.

For example, many people anticipated the priesthood being given to blacks, but anyone who criticized the current administration for not moving quick enough was chastised. A change had to be made, but to get up at the pulpit and say that the administration was out of sync with the Lord would be out of line.

Is that so hard to understand? Suppose a ship at sea is off course. A great deal of sailing is course correction, it's practially a constant thing. I've heard estimates that ships are off course for over 50% of the trip, and planes over 90%. It's only by constant course correction that anything gets to its destination. But who corrects? The captain, or his authorized proxy. Unless he's delegated the job to me, it's not my place to correct the course. I can tell my shipmates that we're drifting pretty close to a reef, or I can share concerns about the last time we sailed these waters, But when I get up on deck and sieze the wheel, I'm the one who's out of line.

Apostates aren't just people who have doubts. They aren't jut people who express their doubts out loud. They are people who spread those doubts with the express intent of changing the church. And such a person cannot remain in the church while they do so.

 

[DeepShadow]

Yeah, what the heck do I know? I like your take on it much better. I should think Jesus had it right vs. the guys that said "obedience is the first law of heaven".

Plus, the Beatles had it going on with "all you need is love".[/quote]

"Love is all you need."

 

[Bathsheba]

Apostates aren't just people who have doubts. They aren't just people who express their doubts out loud. They are people who spread those doubts with the express intent of changing the church. And such a person cannot remain in the church while they do so.

Actually, I quite understand this perspective.

I am reminded of the Groucho Marx quote, "I would never belong to a group that would accept someone like me as a member."

I saw the PBS special. Did you watch it, what did you think of it overall?

.........

On the one hand, it seems reasonable that a group can declare that they are exclusive and then maintain that exclusivity.

On the other hand, I think the mythologized Jesus had bigger things in mind. My take on the message from Jesus was that he was much more inclusive than the LDS church can manage.

But I get it, if the LDS say Jesus is running the show, then my take on his message is meaningless.

 

[DeepShadow]

My point is about fruits. Some people, reading Joseph Smith's works, took them as an authorization, even a directive, to slit other people's throats. You may disagree with them, but they still have to be included as fruits, however rotten.

But you're still cherry picking, only off longer branches. So some crackpot took Joseph's words as an excuse, that's Joseph's fruit? The nut who shot John Lennon said he needed to do so after reading Catcher in the Rye. Is J.D. Salinger really to blame for Lennon's death? Is that the fruit of his work?

Let's say that it is. What are we to make then of the geneology, large families and clean living that have made Utah a gold mine for genetics research? Seriously, google "Utah gold mine genetics" and see what you get. Please.

Are the latest genetics discoveries also the fruit of Joseph Smith? Can he now be credited with saving thousands, even millions of lives, and improving the quality of life for a small but significant fraction of the world?

 

[DeepShadow]

Actually, I quite understand this perspective.

I'm glad. Seriously.:yes:

I am reminded of the Groucho Marx quote, "I would never belong to a group that would accept someone like me as a member."

It's apt, really.

I saw the PBS special. Did you watch it, what did you think of it overall?

Overall, I thought it was as good as we'd ever get from outside out church. It was thorough, even in the embarassing spots, and that's tough to do while remaining unbiased. I think it was good.

To be honest, it don't know if I could do as well. The Mormon phenomenon is far larger than the Mormon church, and while I try to be aware of my bias, I am still biased.

On the one hand, it seems reasonable that a group can declare that they are exclusive and then maintain that exclusivity.

Makes sense, don't it?

On the other hand, I think the mythologized Jesus had bigger things in mind. My take on the message from Jesus was that he was much more inclusive than the LDS church can manage.

I can see why you might think so, but please remember that the LDS church accounts for others outside of them being saved! If an apostate is forced out of the church, we aren't saying he/she is going to burn forever. We are saying he/she cannot be allowed to represent the church. They can still go it alone, and I fully expect to shake hands with many of them in the Celestial Kingdom...assuming I make it myself.:angel2:

But I get it, if the LDS say Jesus is running the show, then my take on his message is meaningless.

To our church, yes, it's meaningless. The real question is whether it's meaningless to you. If Jesus has meaning to you, we'd encourage you to explore that. It says in Alma that the word is a seed, and we plant portions of it in our hearts, and if it enlightens our understanding, it is a good seed, and we keep it.

Plant it, water it, try it out. If it doesn't give you anything good, toss it out and try a different seed. It's more important that you follow what is true because you feel it that because we say so.

 

[DeepShadow]

Who cares if it "really" happened???

It's about the Truth in the book - not whether events portrayed were real or not.

Not you, apparently.

Not all the LDS here are going to agree with you, but that's a different discussion. In the mean time, you might consider changing your relgious title to UU Mormon.

You do sound like a UU. I mean that in a good way.

Oh, and BTW, asking if Katz is a literalist is assuming there are only two ways to read scripture--literal and figurative. That's called an either-or fallacy.:yes: Obviously scriptures are full of symbols, so we have to take some things figuratively. Jesus was not a vine, nor was he a door. OTOH, there are things that are stated as facts that may yet be facts. That does happen even in a symbolic work.

 

[Bathsheba]

The real question is whether it's meaningless to you. If Jesus has meaning to you.

I have Mormon friends that I count as some of my closest friends. They have consistently been authentic loving friends. I have never thought that I was some kind of project, or a potential convert. I believe we see each other as "thou", not "it". Our relationship is quite independent of the Mormon church. They relate their Mormon experience to me and I never feel judged or sense an ulterior motive. We are open about our respective beliefs and not threatened by them.

There are a bunch of things that historical Jesus said that resonate with me. Some of the message doesn’t compute and even offends my modern sensibilities. Trust me, I wouldn’t make a good Mormon.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Even the Hill Cumorah location is debated by LDS archeologist.... Sorry to say so... but that's the truth...

It's interesting you mention that. I was always told by LDS friends that the Hill Cumorah in New York IS the site of the two big battles (i looked it up, it looks like around 2,230,000 died there). It was on that basis alone I completely rejected the BoM. I also studied the history of Joseph Smith. My first impression of him as a Godly, spiritual man ended when I read various accounts of the Kinderhook and Egyptian papyri debacles, including those of his closest friends - hardly anti-mormon sources.




The first problem I have with these BoM stories is demographics: all these millions of people, multitudes, etc. produced by the original migrants could only have been the result of a mind boggling, impossible population growth rate never seen in the history of earth until our lifetime, totally unsupported by any credible evidence and therefore entirely unbelievable.

Population growth during this pre-agricultural period was virtually nonexistent, roughly .0001 percent per year or less. This is an established fact that can easily be confirmed. (Parsons, Jack. Population versus Liberty. London: Pemberton, 1971, 33; Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. 4th Ed. Belmont, MA: Belmont, 1985, 88-91; Ehrlich, Paul R., and Anne H. Ehrlich. Population Resources Environment. 2d ed. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1970, 6)​

Archeological studies of the continent before and after this period confirm these demographics; there is no evidence of an astounding .2 percent growth rate at any time prior to 1960 here or anywhere else in the world.

Also any archeologist will tell you it is impossible to hide 2 million bodies, there is no natural disaster, not even an atom bomb can obliterate the huge mountain of evidence a civilization like that leaves strewn behind, from pottery to dwellings, burial places, breastplates, metal weaponry, coins, buttons, chariot parts, etc. etc. - after all, these same types of artifacts are still popping out of the ground thousands of years after major Biblical battles which occurred well before these battles the BoM recounts. Roman coins minted during Christ's lifetime are fairly common finds around Jerusalem digs. The idea that this civilization flourished and the was annihilated in upstate NY is ... absurd. Yet it has been church history from the beginning.

"The great and last battle, in which several hundred thousand Nephites perished was on the hill Cumorah, the same hill from which the plates were taken by Joseph Smith, the boy about whom I spoke to you the other evening." (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt, Feb. 11, 1872 Journal of Discourses Vol. 14, pg. 331)

"The passages quoted from the Book of Mormon and Elder B. H. Roberts comments in The Deseret News of March 3, 1928, definitely establish the following facts: That the Hill Cumorah, and Hill Ramah are identical; that it was here the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records... and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them. " (President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1928-Morning Session) ​

"The hill, which was known by one division of the ancient peoples as Cumorah, by another as Ramah, is situated near Palmyra in the State of New York ." (Apostle James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith , chapter 14)

"It must be conceded that this description fits perfectly the land of Cumorah in New York... Moreover, the Prophet Joseph Smith himself is on record, definitely declaring the present hill called Cumorah to be the exact hill spoken of in the Book of Mormon.

"Further, the fact that all of his associates from the beginning down have spoken of it as the identical hill where Mormon and Moroni hid the records, must carry some weight. It is difficult for a reasonable person to believe that such men as Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, David Whitmer, and many others, could speak frequently of the Spot where the Prophet Joseph Smith obtained the plates as the Hill Cumorah, and not be corrected by the Prophet, if that were not the fact. That they did speak of this hill in the days of the Prophet in this definite manner is an established record of history...." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation , Vol.3, Bookcraft, 1956, p.232-43.)

"Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and many of the early brethren, who were familiar with all the circumstances attending the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in this dispensation, have left us a pointed testimony as to the identity and location of Cumorah or Ramah."(Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, page 174-175, Bookcraft 1966)​

"One of the most noted places in ancient American history was the land in which was situated the hill known to the Jaredites as Ramah and to the Nephites as Cumorah. In its vicinity two great races were exterminated; for it was there that the last battles were fought in the history of both peoples. There also the sacred records of the Nephites found their final resting place." (Elder George Reynolds, The Story of the Book of Mormon, Ch.69, p.325)​

 

[DeepShadow]

I have Mormon friends that I count as some of my closest friends. They have consistently been authentic loving friends. I have never thought that I was some kind of project, or a potential convert. I believe we see each other as "thou", not "it". Our relationship is quite independent of the Mormon church. They relate their Mormon experience to me and I never feel judged or sense an ulterior motive. We are open about our respective beliefs and not threatened by them.

I'm glad...did you think I was trying to convert you? :sarcastic

That's not what I was saying at all.

There are a bunch of things that historical Jesus said that resonate with me. Some of the message doesn’t compute and even offends my modern sensibilities.

Okay, great! Follow the first part.

Trust me, I wouldn’t make a good Mormon.

I trust you. But that's not what I was trying to encourage. I was trying to encourage you to be a good *anything,* up to and including a good person.

 

[DeepShadow]

It's interesting you mention that. I was always told by LDS friends that the Hill Cumorah in New York IS the site of the two big battles (i looked it up, it looks like around 2,230,000 died there).

Many other LDS disagree with your friends. IMHO, the Book of Mormon disagrees with your friends.

It was on that basis alone I completely rejected the BoM.

You rejected it without praying? That's too bad. A spiritual witness is the only way to really know.

I also studied the history of Joseph Smith. My first impression of him as a Godly, spiritual man ended when I read various accounts of the Kinderhook and Egyptian papyri debacles, including those of his closest friends - hardly anti-mormon sources.

Many of his closest friends betrayed him. That is the definition of anti-Mormon.

The first problem I have with these BoM stories is demographics: all these millions of people, multitudes, etc. produced by the original migrants could only have been the result of a mind boggling, impossible population growth rate never seen in the history of earth until our lifetime, totally unsupported by any credible evidence and therefore entirely unbelievable.

I'd agree, except that a mind-boggling population explosion is not the only way that could have happened. They could have, for example, intermarried with existing people. Plenty of scholars were suggesting this over the last fifty years, and now nearly all of them are on the side of such intermarriage.

Population growth during this pre-agricultural period was virtually nonexistent, roughly .0001 percent per year or less. This is an established fact that can easily be confirmed. (Parsons, Jack. Population versus Liberty. London: Pemberton, 1971, 33; Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. 4th Ed. Belmont, MA: Belmont, 1985, 88-91; Ehrlich, Paul R., and Anne H. Ehrlich. Population Resources Environment. 2d ed. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1970, 6)

That's a lot of footnotes for something that's totally irrelevant.

Archeological studies of the continent before and after this period confirm these demographics; there is no evidence of an astounding .2 percent growth rate at any time prior to 1960 here or anywhere else in the world.

Also irrelevant, but also false. Read 1491 to see how the demographic data has changed for the Americas. A lot. But that's neither here nor there, because if there was intermarriage, there's no need for such a population boom.

Also any archeologist will tell you it is impossible to hide 2 million bodies,

Also false. Again, read 1491. It's not by a Mormon, BTW, but it summarizes a series of changes in archaeological thinking, mostly dealing with demographics. Suffice it to say that the vast majority of mainstream archaeologists now claim that over ten times that man people vanished from America between Columbus and the Pilgrims. The "high counters" are winning every battle in archaeological circles.

there is no natural disaster, not even an atom bomb can obliterate the huge mountain of evidence a civilization like that leaves strewn behind, from pottery to dwellings, burial places, breastplates, metal weaponry, coins, buttons, chariot parts, etc. etc. - after all, these same types of artifacts are still popping out of the ground thousands of years after major Biblical battles which occurred well before these battles the BoM recounts.

This is a great summary of the kinds of assumptions people make when reading the Book of Mormon. Were the breastplates metal? Victor von Hagen and other preeminent non-LDS scholars have found all manner of breatplates from wood and een stone. Does the BoM say they were metal? Moreover, the Book of Mormon doesn't mention coins or buttons. It mentions "Ontis" of silver, "limnahs" of gold, and many people assume they are coins--including the people who wrote the chapter summaries of the Book of Mormon--when they just as easily could have been weights.

As for chariots, there are several answers, but perhaps the best is to remind you what the leading authority on the Maya said about decomposition in the Americas. Victor von Hagan said that the Mayan roads had been so absorbed into the jungle that there would never be any way to know what kind of vehicles road on them. He bemoaned the disparate state of the world that would preserve a body for centuries in the hot desert and devour it within days--bones and all--in the jungle.

Is this really the kind of thing you base your testimony on? Why didn't you pray to find out the spiritual value of the book instead of committing yourself to a sea of shifting hypotheses?

Roman coins minted during Christ's lifetime are fairly common finds around Jerusalem digs. The idea that this civilization flourished and the was annihilated in upstate NY is ... absurd.

I agree.

Yet it has been church history from the beginning.

You oversimplify.

"The great and last battle, in which several hundred thousand Nephites perished was on the hill Cumorah, the same hill from which the plates were taken by Joseph Smith, the boy about whom I spoke to you the other evening." (Talk given by Apostle Orson Pratt, Feb. 11, 1872 Journal of Discourses Vol. 14, pg. 331)

Wow, like that wasn't one opinion among thousands.

"The passages quoted from the Book of Mormon and Elder B. H. Roberts comments in The Deseret News of March 3, 1928, definitely establish the following facts: That the Hill Cumorah, and Hill Ramah are identical; that it was here the armies of both the Jaredites and Nephites, fought their great last battles; that it was in this hill that Mormon deposited all of the sacred records... and that it was from this hill that Joseph Smith obtained possession of them. " (President Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report, April 1928-Morning Session)

That might be telling, if it wasn't the middle of an ongoing debate. You are cherry picking.
​

Oh, my mistake, you are probably getting this from that video you watched. It's cherry picking. Funny it doesn't quote Joseph in the Millennial Star saying the Lehite people were not the only ones here when they arrived, nor does it quote the many, many LDS scholars who beleived the Hill Cumorah was in Mesoamerica. Y'know, the ones on either side of that Ivins comment?

If you are really going to trust your testimony to archaeology, why are you leaving out paleolinguistics, the strongest archaeological evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon?

 

[Bathsheba]

Okay, great! Follow the first part.

I trust you. But that's not what I was trying to encourage. I was trying to encourage you to be a good *anything,* up to and including a good person.

You are so sweet, I feel like I just won a really good personal cheerleader in Christ. :yes:

 

[DeepShadow]

I try. I'd frubal you again, but i have to wait. You made me laugh when you offered to kiss Comprehend in the other thread.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Many other LDS disagree with your friends. IMHO, the Book of Mormon disagrees with your friends.

Then you would be wrong. This attempt by the church to distance itself from the statements expressed by its founder and original apostles is a recent LDS phenomenon.

You rejected it without praying? That's too bad. A spiritual witness is the only way to really know.

Of course I did. It's a matter of intellectual honesty and moral integrity to ask first and pray later. If my rational mind - given to me by the one who created me - is assaulted by blatant evidentiary contradictions who am I to test God in such a manner? It would be an insult to the author and essence of truth.

Many of his closest friends betrayed him. That is the definition of anti-Mormon.

In this particular instance I'm tempted to say something a little more direct than I'd like. Suffice it to say independent investigation into the historical record provides plenty of evidence to the contrary. The incidents were widely reported both within and outside of the church. That documentation is still in existence and very easily accessible to anyone interested in the truth.

I'd agree, except that a mind-boggling population explosion is not the only way that could have happened. They could have, for example, intermarried with existing people. Plenty of scholars were suggesting this over the last fifty years, and now nearly all of them are on the side of such intermarriage.

No, you don't understand the scientific basis of demographics. It has nothing to do with WHO they married or had children with. It has everything to do with the impossibility of such a large population explosion at that time in history, based on world wide population studies and the quality of life in an agrarian society without benefit of modern medicine and nutrition, high infant mortality rates, and average lifespan.

That's a lot of footnotes for something that's totally irrelevant.

I'm sorry to say it seems you have missed the point entirely.

Also irrelevant, but also false. Read 1491 to see how the demographic data has changed for the Americas. A lot. But that's neither here nor there, because if there was intermarriage, there's no need for such a population boom.

Yes, the demographic data has changed for the Americas due to giant migrations, and their effects on indigenous people. That has nothing to do with what happened in the BoM times. How many people do you think came here? It's right there, count them up. A cheap calculator and a glance at worldwide demographic tables for the period proves the BoM populations could not, would not, did not exist. Coupled with lack of physical evidence of their existence and DNA studies of indigenous people it's a no-brainer.

Also false. Again, read 1491. It's not by a Mormon, BTW, but it summarizes a series of changes in archaeological thinking, mostly dealing with demographics. Suffice it to say that the vast majority of mainstream archaeologists now claim that over ten times that man people vanished from America between Columbus and the Pilgrims. The "high counters" are winning every battle in archaeological circles.

There are heated debates on the subject. Even so, it does not account for the "bump" that would have to be explained by the populations described in the BoM based on what was said earlier, imho.

This is a great summary of the kinds of assumptions people make when reading the Book of Mormon. Were the breastplates metal? Victor von Hagen and other preeminent non-LDS scholars have found all manner of breatplates from wood and een stone. Does the BoM say they were metal? Moreover, the Book of Mormon doesn't mention coins or buttons. It mentions "Ontis" of silver, "limnahs" of gold, and many people assume they are coins--including the people who wrote the chapter summaries of the Book of Mormon--when they just as easily could have been weights.

As for chariots, there are several answers, but perhaps the best is to remind you what the leading authority on the Maya said about decomposition in the Americas. Victor von Hagan said that the Mayan roads had been so absorbed into the jungle that there would never be any way to know what kind of vehicles road on them. He bemoaned the disparate state of the world that would preserve a body for centuries in the hot desert and devour it within days--bones and all--in the jungle.

And yet we have plenty of actual evidence for the existence of the Mayan civilization - and zilch for, say, the Nephites. Go figure!

Is this really the kind of thing you base your testimony on? Why didn't you pray to find out the spiritual value of the book instead of committing yourself to a sea of shifting hypotheses?

Okay here's my testimony: I worship Christ. I don't worship a church, I don't worship a book.

And i'm sorry but the sea of shifting hypotheses belongs to the LDS church. It is their modus operandi.

I agree.



You oversimplify.



Wow, like that wasn't one opinion among thousands.

That might be telling, if it wasn't the middle of an ongoing debate. You are cherry picking.​

No, not at all, I showed restraint. I could have posted many, many more such statements from official mormon documentation. The point is this. There should BE NO debate about something as critical to LDS beliefs as the site of Hill Cumorah. It's as plain as day, really - according to Joseph Smith.

What should be of concern though is the furious backpeddaling and attempted coverups. It's problematic and endemic in the church.

Oh, my mistake, you are probably getting this from that video you watched.

What are you trying to imply, that I am a moron who can't think for myself, read, study and research any area I wish to turn my attention to out of curiosity? As a matter of fact, that I would tend to be less biased than any Mormon apologist should go without saying.

It's cherry picking. Funny it doesn't quote Joseph in the Millennial Star saying the Lehite people were not the only ones here when they arrived, nor does it quote the many, many LDS scholars who beleived the Hill Cumorah was in Mesoamerica. Y'know, the ones on either side of that Ivins comment?

That's the second time you have accused me of cherry picking. What's wrong, did I touch a nerve? Let me ask you. Which would you believe to be more accurate, contemporaries of Joseph Smith, or contemporary apologists who weren't there to walk and talk with him? It's not like it happened thousands of years ago. There is no translation problem. It's all in English and all easily available. It's not that hard to piece together, if one is honest. The farther in time an opinion is removed from the actual events, the less accurate it will tend to be.

If you are really going to trust your testimony to archaeology, why are you leaving out paleolinguistics, the strongest archaeological evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon?

The Book of Mormon is false. Joseph Smith was a false prophet. I have logical reasons (the least of them scientific) for believing that is the truth. If you can prove to me using paleolinguistics, DNA evidence, archeology, or any other scientific discipline that I am wrong I will recant and ask God for guidance.

 

[SoyLeche]

Because they are very common large mammals in North and South America, where these people supposedly immigrated to. Much of the Book of Mormon takes place in America, yet the animals described are entirely different from the actual animals present here.

Most of the book probably took place in an area about 300 miles by 150 miles in southern mexico and Guatemala. I may be wrong, but I don't believe there are llamas, alpacas or bison in that area.