I've written another post, where I basically just summarize some of the key issues with the Book of Mormon which generally don't get a lot of air time with apologists.

http://www.mormonapologies.com/book-of-mormon/how-can-i-know-the-book-of-mormon-is-not-true/

The part about copying from the Bible reminded me that some of those sections of the BoM that were copied word for word or close to word for word from the Bible were later 'corrected' in the JST of the Bible.

Why were the verses 'corrected' in the JST of the Bible, but when the same verses were translated in the BoM they were again mistranslated identical to the verses in the Bible that were in need of corrections?

You have probably seen this, but I found this article about Thomas Stuart Ferguson's relentless efforts to fund and authenticate BofM archeology fascinating.

(on the Tanner's website)
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no69.htm

Yes, apologists love to ignore his story. Or they just suggest he wasnt looking long enough to find all the great evidence they have found... Such as Nahom! hehe

Very well written....I enjoyed reading it. Thank you for sharing the link.

And offer some minor "nitpicking" editing/grammatical suggestions (I'm up up late waiting for the warm milk to kick in, and my former-life-as-an-English-Teacher is invading my neuroses :-).

The word "corn" predates the staple grain we all know arose from "maize" and its ancient ancestor, teosinte.

http://www.bonappetit.com/test-kitchen/ingredients/article/the-etymology-of-the-word-corn

I'm not a Biblical scholar by any stretch, but the word's use in scripture can lead to confusion. I'm not sure the BOM authors were aware of this fact.

And here were some typos that crept in that "need fixing":

>There are multiple problems with this realization.

I want a colon at the end... The next definitely needs a question mark:

>How can we know who the Lamanites are, if they were intermingled with ancient Asians.

>In fact, in reading the Book of Mormon, it appears that the Nephites subsisted on an European diet, which miraculously left no archaeological evidence.

A European diet; the word begins with a "consonant sound" even if it's the product of two vowels. And "integrate" in the following should be in the past tense. Also, I would leave out the first "that" just to avoid a bit of "wordiness" (same with the sentence above. A very minor "style point").

>Third, the Book of Mormon never suggests that the people integrate with any population that is NOT from the Middle-East.

Thanks! I'll go through and edit. I'm a finance guy by trade and at times make basic mistakes.

As a biologist I disagree, at least about the "corn" issue, Not making clear that that word is ABSOLUTELY NOT an indication of a species native in America where no other indications of American species are found, not any more than "fowl", "poultry", "beasts", "fish", "fruit","trees" or "birds" would be, and even less so in(pseudo) King James English, presents the case against the BoM as weaker than it is.

"A simple example is that the Book of Mormon frequently mentions wheat and barley but mentions corn just three times. Corn was a major crop for the ancient Americans."

You really should change that to something akin to "but never mentions maize, which was a major crop for the ancient Americans. "Corn" is mentioned three times, but that word merely indicates either an unspecified grain or a regionally most common one", and is thus not an indication for the use of Native American crops in the era described by the Book of Mormon."

Can you help me clarify? I think this is a really good point that I'm a little weak on, seeing as how I'm a finance/accounting guy and not a scientist. I'll try to edit based upon what you said.

OK so I tried to trim your comment down and clarify that Maize is not necessarily the same thing as corn.

Thank you, you shouldn't have been so accurately following my example, though. It is quite hard to describe something like this without spending too much text on it and derailing the line of thought of the article. Very well done.

Thanks! I have another article in the wings about the Apocalypse of Abraham that I just finished. I'm holding off publishing because I've gotten such great feedback on this post. I really appreciate those who help me clean up the message.

You need to rewrite this one:

>As a biologist I disagree, at least about the "corn" issue, Not making clear that that word is ABSOLUTELY NOT an indication of a species native in America where no other indications of American species are found, not any more than "fowl", "poultry", "beasts", "fish", "fruit","trees" or "birds" would be, and even less so in(pseudo) King James English, presents the case against the BoM as weaker than it is.

I still haven't figured out what you're trying to say, and my "gut reaction" was "Is this guy PUI?" Or relapsing into "Mormon PH Voice" with that authoritarian tone?

As an old English teacher you should know and do know that "Corn" by itself does neither indicate the American origin nor the species of the crop, not any more than "grain". One might say that Joe Smith, eternal damnation upon him, must have used that word in the sense most common to him, but he tried to use language akin to the KJV and there the word is used many times, but never indicating Zea mays. So if we would accept the golden bible story, we would have no reason to assume that the corn of Mosiah, is Indian corn, it could be, but any old world grain, but those mentioned along with it, would better fit the narrative.
So the BoM agriculture ONLY uses species which MAY be American, but none which are known to come from America, so we are justified in calling its agriculture utter and COMPLETE bull. Sure, once we already have accepted that the BoM is as false as a Pi-dollar bill, we can see that the BoM just transported J.Smith's agriculture back in time and that his corn, though perhaps partially originatingfrom the King James Bible, was probably thought of as that tall American, but QED.

In regards to Isaiah, there is something else you could emphasize. All chapters after 39 are referred to as deutero-Isaiah because they weren't written by Isaiah, and they were written post-captivity, so they didn't exist in 600 B.C.E. JS included several of these chapters, so that alone proves the BofM to be a fabrication.

Yeah I wrote an entire post on the Isaiah problem. I think I wrote it back in June.

I wonder how many Mormons ask if the Book of Mormon is "not true". It might help them get an answer to their prayers. So many of them say they've come up short when asking if it is true.

Never got the burning when I would finish and then pray. Then you always say, "well Ive always known its true..."

The point about distillation seems stretched. If you think it takes hard liquor to make you pass out, I think you haven't tried hard enough with wine or beer.

So I would drop this point from the ten.

Honestly I'm naive on alcohol, and was just citing what that other guy wrote. Part of his point was that wine storage would have been difficult as well.

I'm a never-Mo, but the BH Roberts quotes impressed me most, just because he seems dead-on to me. The whole idea that the Book of Mormon is an impressive text just seems to be a Big Lie in the sense of Goebbels: a ridiculous notion that comes, through constant assertion by authority, to be not just believed, but taken for granted as obvious fact. So Mormons seem to be impressed by the Book of Mormon, to the point where they seriously argue that it's just too good to have been made up by Smith.

As a non-Mormon, I was shocked at how bad it was. BH Roberts got this.

I'm not very interested in whether Roberts thereby lost his testimony, or nonetheless kept it. He may well have been too heavily invested in Mormonism to give it up, but the basic problems he saw in the Book are enough to scare non-Mormons away.

I am curious, though, what kind of conclusions he may have stated in print. Having admitted how dismal the Book of Mormon is as a book, did he ever offer any justification for accepting it anyway as Scripture?

BH Roberts died a leader of the church. The "Studies of the BoM" was not supposed to ever see the light of day. How did he justify it? He had a fortified shelf...

Back when I was the "Bishop's Daughter's Project," a friend of mine made strong claims about the "power and inspiration in the Book of Mormon."

Cabdriver Confession: I gave it my best attempt, and I never made it past the first few chapters. I have a copy in my library I refer to occasionally (I think it was 50¢ at the D.I.); I picked it up because it still has the "principal ancestors" claim.

Given that I was an AP English student--an area where I eventually got my degree and did grad work--I'm inclined to think the fault was the book's and not mine.

Years later I read Mark Twain's "Roughing It" with the immortal "Chloroform in print" comment, and my apostasy was sealed. I recommend that volume for everyone since Twain actually did meet with Brigham Young in the early 1860's...

I salute those who have "uncovered" all of the likely "fraudulent origins" of the BOM. Your tolerance levels exceed my own. (big smiley face)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2016 12:33PM by SL Cabbie.

I admire those smarter than me who figured it was all made up on the first reading. I was blinded by my desires to be super faithful to the cause

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I have a copy in my library I refer to occasionally
> (I think it was 50¢ at the D.I.); I picked it up
> because it still has the "principal ancestors"
> claim.
>
That BOM with the blue cover and Moroni tootin' his horn (c)1963 is solid exmo gold. The pictures of the Mayan ruins in Mexico, the metal artifacts, and the strong "principal ancestors" claim leave zero wiggle room.

I've got one more kid hitting seminary age next year. With TSCC's new youth "inoculation" strategy being rolled out, I need to remember to suggest that she take that blue cover copy for use in class (along with my early 1900s copy of the D&C that still contains the Lecture on Faith). My TBM wife will love that. :)

This is the version of the BOM you want to share: http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-Book-of-Mormon-1977-Gold-Cover-with-Reformed-Egyptian-Hieroglyphics-/

This has the Caractors on it. Which are almost comical now.

OMG! I love it. I've got to add one of those to my collection. :)

Are you familiar with Chris and Duane Johnson's correlation study between the BOM and The Late War? They ran the raw text of thousands of books that Joseph could have had access to through a correlation algorithm. The amount of correlation between The Late War and the BOM is astounding. It's almost as if The Late War was used as a template for several books of the BoM, with phrases munged just enough to not look like straight plagiarism.

Also are the physical impossibilities of parts of the narrative. Lopping off Laban's head, only possible with a razor sharp samurai sword and both hands. Jaredite barges, too much to list. See Packham's site. Two armies fighting to the last two guys, who are the leaders of the opposing forces.

Joe Smith Jr. was never a prophet. He was a money digger who honed his craft into a worldwide religion.

Yes I have. Duane is married to my cousin and I've worked with Chris on other projects. They are involved with my project www.bookofmormonorigins.org

Very well said! Well thought out and articulated.

I especially like your conclusion!

Hey man, you're harshing the Q15's mellow.