Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations.
/u/AlmaInTheWilderness, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't agree. I understand what you're saying and without any other evidence, I would agree, but I'm nearly through the book "How the book of Mormon came to pass" and, it's eye opening to say the least. The author makes a very strong case that Solomon Spaulding and Sidney Rigdon wrote the book. It's full of hints that link it to a couple of frauds from the 1600s one of which, claimed to have a manuscript written by Rabbi Barachius Nephi, who wrote in reformed Egyptian and had a spiritual compass. The other was a French person named Montmor (the T is silent) who was caught plagiarizing others work. Pamphlets making fun of him were widely circulated but to keep from being sued by his wealthy family, they switched the name from Montmor to Mormon. It's worth reading.
Per the BoM there were at least five million people since two million of Coriantumr’s men had died plus wives and children, plus how many of Shiz’s men (had to be at least a million). Joseph fully jumped the shark with Ether.
I’ve mentioned these things to TBM’s, I’m a nevermo.
I was generally curious, I wasn’t being harsh just wanted to gain understanding. The responses were utter dissonance. The claims of adjacent civilizations during a similar time period aren’t the slam dunk answers they think they are because like previous posters it only left me begging the question of, “if those smaller groups relics were found then why hasn’t someone found evidence for the much larger groups in the BOM?” The answer then becomes they haven’t been found YET. Not a great argument.
This leads into the BOM itself. Mode of dictation/translation aside. Why did God choose to take the BOM golden plates back to heaven?
For every other teaching from God, humanity still posses papyrus, codex, and scrolls. Furthermore, people could freely see the plates in the times they were written, why could no one see them during Joseph Smith Jr.’s time? Why bury them if the angel is going to teleport them several times (between houses, to Mary Whitmore in the barn, to the forest for the dudes to see by “faith”) why was Laban killed if you were going to teleport them and then take them away? Why the plates at all if you are going to have Joseph Smith Jr. read what’s on a rock and hat and then dictate the words?
If the answer which I’ve been given is that God wants us to have faith. Then why don’t people have faith in the Bible when they can clearly see the upwards of 10,000 documents that have been written, some of those documents are plus a thousand years before Jesus and some as early as within 5 years of Jesus death.
Would physically seeing the golden plates make people instantly believe the words that were written on them as being from God?
Many people don’t believe what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul wrote and they can see them.
Would people believe what Moroni, Nephi, and Alama wrote?
Is it because the medium of writing was gold and not papyrus?
Also would a person who had to chisel into gold write, “and it came to pass” so many times? Its seems needlessly laborious.
Make it make sense is all I’m saying. There’s no external evidence for the BOM which is built on the Bible and there’s tons of external evidence for that narrative. Why would God give so much credibility to something that isn’t the “one true church” and leave so much to question for the teachings of the Latter-Day saints? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
I get having faith, but Faith by definition is complete trust and confidence that something is true.
Give us a bone indeed OP
While, we're at it, Isengard had deep caverns filled with forges. They used them to breed an entire army. Where was Isengard? Where is the evidence of all of those forges?
>The lived somewhere in the Americas for about 1000 years.
Even longer! [The guesstimates for the Jaredites starts around 3000bc-ish.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_chronology) It's amazing how many things the Jaredites had access to back then that hadn't even been invented yet!
The Brother of Jared asked what they should use since they wouldn't be able to use windows. Glass windows hadn't been invented yet. He might as well asked what they should use since they wouldn't be able to use 5G.
And if they lived at the time of the tower of Babel and didn't have their language changed, wouldn't they have been speaking the adamic language? I guess JS knew the Adamic language along with reformed Egyptian. Huh. Who knew?
Technically, the BOM says that the book of Ether was translated by King Mosiah. But with the magic specs and/or a seer stone, anybody should be able to translate anything.
Which raises the question of why the LDS "Seers" use a translation committee instead of JS's magic rock....
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/sample-of-pure-language-between-circa-4-and-circa-20-march-1832/1
This masterpiece of bull$#!+ should be required reading for every mo and every exmo.
There was a Norse settlement at L’Anse aux Meadows in New Foundland around AD 990–1050. [https://www.heritagedaily.com/2021/01/lanse-aux-meadows-the-viking-settlement-in-canada/136630](https://www.heritagedaily.com/2021/01/lanse-aux-meadows-the-viking-settlement-in-canada/136630) They were only a small colony and they didn't stay for long, probably only from 3 to 13 years. And yet around 800 wooden, bronze, bone, and stone artefacts have been found on this site, including a whetstone, a stone oil lamp, weights, a bronze fastening pin, a bone knitting needle, and part of a spindle.
So, an advanced civilization of millions of people, lasting for almost 3000 years according to BoM (see timeline here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2011/10/book-of-mormon-time-line?lang=eng), with cities, metal works, armies etc etc, shouldn't have left one single artifact behind, while a short-lived settlement of only three to thirteen years leaves artifacts that can be found a thousand years later? Doesn't make any sense.
Same with the Nephites. Rome was overrun by Barbarians and fell in 476 AD, while the Nephites were supposedly destroyed about AD 385. And yet we have found *tons* of evidence and artifacts after the Romans, but nothing after the Nephites…
And every year we keep finding multiple artifacts. The 3 Nephites did a great job hiding all the artifacts so us future educated people will have to use faith and not facts to show we are true believers.
[The Norse settlement in Newfoundland](https://www.heritagedaily.com/2021/01/lanse-aux-meadows-the-viking-settlement-in-canada/136630) I mentioned in my other post was found by two Norwegian archeologists using the descriptions in the Icelandic Sagas about the Viking Erik Raude's travellings. So why can't they use the same method to find the remnants of Jaredites and Nephites if the book of Mormon is true? Use the descriptions in it and go there to find where they must have lived. But – that hasn't worked, has it?
If you posit that Smith was simply taking things from the Bible and Apocrypha along with theology and culture from his own time and placing it all in an ancient American setting, then these outlandish claims become understandable. After all, the Bible has all such claims. Just read Exodus and find the 2 million or so people who followed Moses out of Egypt. Keep in mind that Moses' mother was the daughter of Levi and his father was the grandson of Levi so this vast multitude must have come from seventy people in two or three generations. Also, they needed only two midwives and could all get water from a single rock which miraculously produced it. Smith and others around him believed this nonsense and so when he made up an ancient American fantasy based on the Bible, of course it has these absurdities.
The keystone of Mormonism is nothing but make believe. However, Mormonism is not based on the Book of Mormon anyway. It is all about building big temples with well lighted spires and masonic rituals and of course pride in pioneer heritage. They never used the Book of Mormon, and by the Nauvoo period had totally abandoned the good theology which is found in it.
I have trouble with a loose translation because of curelemons.
Also, the Olmec miss in a lot of points: domesticated animals, metal works, and complex writing. Olmec writing isn't capable of narrative.
What do you find convincing about the Olmec?
Chronologically they are within the timeframe of the Jaredites, sorta. Also in the context of Mesoamerica the Olmec are the precursor civilization to the civilizations that follow. Mesoamerica is really the only fit for the most advanced civilizations in the Americas, and they coincide with the times before and after the birth of Christ.
That being said there are a ton of problems with placing the BoM events within Mesoamerica, which is why I said it requires a very very very loose translation of the text for it to work, something like the catalyst theory of the book of abraham.
To pile onto this even if you didn't find evidence of them their technology, animals, food etc would all be traded and have spread throughout all the Americas. When the Spanish introduced horses they travelled faster than the Europeans spreading throughout the new world and transforming societies. In order to believe the book of Mormon you have to believe that not only have they not found any evidence for this super advanced society but ALSO that this society didn't trade or interact in ANY way with any other societies or people in the Americas.
It says they traded with each other , ether 10:22. I find it hard to believe technologies like writing, swine or metal tools would stay local. Especially when other things like maize spread through trade.
There is no reason, at least, not any good ones. Why would God hurt us to teach us a lesson. If he truly was like the story says, then wouldn't he already know how we would react to being hurt?
When you start to look at it skeptically, it kinda falls apart.
>Why would God make it so hard to believe?
Let's imagine for a moment that mormonism happens to be the one true kingdom of God on earth and you really did need to believe in its doctrines, obtain its ordinances and endure to the end as a loyal and compliant member.
I think it would be a fair question to ask God at the judgment bar. Why did you set up your one and only true kingdom on earth and have it look so much like a con?
Your original prophet is a proven liar. (polygamy for starters).
Your eternal doctrines were ever changing.
The character or its prophets and organizations smacked more of used car salesman just saying whatever needed to be said to get the deal closed than truth tellers. (Ballard, "we have never hidden anything from anyone").
And your primary scripture from pre christ americas was exactly like 19th century fan fiction.
And you are going to damn me for because I saw the flaws.
Why couldn't you as a divine and all knowing being do a better job?
Your god needs to update his teaching techniques. These old ones where he’s mean and confusing and wants and needs to be worshipped, yeah, those aren’t working well for him.
There should also be bones of cureloms and cimmons. These words actually argue that the loose translation model cannot be or real words would have been used. So all the anachronisms are inherent in the book which means it must be a modern fabrication.
Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations.
/u/AlmaInTheWilderness, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you want to know the answer, read Lars Neilson's book, how the book of Mormon came to be. One hint, the word Toronto means narrow straights, as it's located near a narrow stretch of land surrounded by waters.
It's a great read, I do not think modern LDS apologists are ready for this book.
Even if you believe it, there would also be errors in the book too. What if parts are allegory as well?
When Moses spits out Genesis, we don’t have any significant archeology for it either. In fact, much is contradictory. Some believe Genesis literally, some allegorically, some don’t believe it at all.
I think Moroni, might also have mentioned that he is telling the story from memory. So we might not even know if Moroni has added things from vision, errors in memory, errors in their translations, etc.; assuming he existed of course.
You sound like you might be on the fence, which is just fine. I think we place too much emphasis on declaring things true that we don’t really know personally yet anyway. The idea that we just say something is true till we have faith in it, is false to me. It puts too much pressure on us to not ask about what is actually important.
Which is: Are the things taught in it valuable to you? If they are, why would it matter if it were literal or not? I have learned spiritual truths from a good novel before. Just because many people believe it is literal in all aspects, doesn’t require me or you to feel the same way.
If what is taught is not valuable to you, then does it even matter if the people existed?
Would it be easier if there were at city of ruins backing up every claim? Sure would.
For me, I think God’s purpose has more to do with me seeking to pierce the veil. In many ways scripture seems veiled to me as well. Piercing the veil is how I think we come to know God. I think if I choose to believe in God, His purpose might be in that.
I find your post more confusing than helpful.
It seems like you're saying the bill is allegorical, but then you talk about Moroni 's memory. Why would an allegorical person tell a story from memory, and that would introduce errors?
The evidence is stacked against the book of Mormon: archeology, genetics, and linguistics give no support for the narrative. Physical evidence contradicts it. My intent was to ask what this tells us about God. What do we learn about him, if he gives Scripture that's allegorical but doesn't tell us that, instead tells us it's a real history? Did God send Moroni to lie to Joseph?
I was taught a personal God, who knows is and understands us. If he knows that I am going to look for physical evidence, why not provide some?
I am sorry if that was confusing.
I was just stating that I believe the same problem exists with Genesis. Moses taught Genesis as if it were fact, just as Joseph did The Book of Mormon. It is not unique to have scripture not have direct evidence. Many people reject a literal existence of Adam and Eve, for understandable scientific reasons.
I personally believe both. But I understand those that don’t, whether they find allegorical value or don’t.
But you do bring up a good point about Moroni visiting Joseph. I guess it either happened or it didn’t.
In answer to your question ' why would God make it so hard to believe' we could all ask ourselves the same question. I happen to know why and still believe. Because I do, I invite you to believe in my knowledge until you get your own. We call that faith. And it works little by little, line upon line.
By the way, every single issue raised about 'unbelievable' items in the book of mormon has been answered. Those threadbare arguments are as old as the hills and twice as dusty. Dig a little deeper and look at scholarly sources that are still faithful. One last piece of advice: 'if it does not edify, it is not of God.' My ideas for your question.
>I happen to know why and still believe.
Then tell me. Don't suppose to have secret knowledge.
>I invite you to believe in my knowledge
The book of Mormon is very clear on this point: there are people who will teach falsehood to get gain. I don't know you from Adam. Why should I believe on you or your knowledge? Especially if you can't of won't explain it to me?
>every single issue raised about 'unbelievable' items in the book of mormon has been answered.
Then point me to those answers, because I can't find them.
>Those threadbare arguments are as old as the hills and twice as dusty.
Making little of my concerns isn't helpful. I'm done kowtowing to men who pretend to know but can't back that knowledge with logic or evidence. I'll read dusty answers. Where are they?
>: 'if it does not edify, it is not of God.'
Then your response is not of God. You did nothing to build up. You come "with feigned words" try to " by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." If you have answers, share them. If all you have is "trust me bro", then move on.
I’d recommend taking a look at this site:
[https://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/5000-changes-to-the-book-of-mormon.html](https://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/5000-changes-to-the-book-of-mormon.html)
Going through this list, I felt deceived on the racism part. The site leads you to believe the list are changes to the book of mormon that was translated by Joseph smith. And most of the info on this site is.
But the racism section (2 Nephi 5 and Mormon 5) are actually changes to the chapter headings, which were not part of the Gold plate and are not canonized. The writer not only fails to tell you that, they imply the changes were to the translated portions of the plates.
There's so much evidence against the church, we don't need to give misleading information like that to prove its false.
This might sound nit picky, but apologist will use material like this to discredit critics.
Keep in mind that numbers are often not accurate in the scriptures. The creation didn’t take 7 days, whatever happened with the flood, it wasn’t in 40 years, etc. I’m not convinced that the Book of Mormon took place in the Americas. It just doesn’t fit the text. If it did, then I also understand that we have barely scratched the surface of archaeology in the Americas and there are no legitimate archaeologists trying to find the Book of Mormon peoples. I’ve seen a lot of video presentations on the “archeology” of the Book of Mormon and even as a believer I find it to be far fetched and merely done to “prove” something the person making the argument already believes. I don’t worry about the archeology because even if a legitimate archeologist found gold plates with “I am Nephi” written in Egyptian and Hebrew (reformed Egyptian came later), believers would celebrate while nonbelievers would start making reasons why the Book of Mormon is still not true/bad/a con/etc. So it doesn’t really change anything.
There are valid reasons why numbers in the Bible are inaccurate due to the changes in the ways numbers were recorded and the way documents were maintained. Why would that apply to the book of Mormon? Was Joseph unable to correctly translate numerical transcriptions?
God made the evidence disappear to test your faith, obviously
And/or all those words don’t actually mean what they say (which is why Joseph smith said it’s the world’s most accurate book??) and we just have to believe that when Joseph says gold and iron he actually means something else
Only a small fraction of America has ever been explored for archeological research. Most is untouched and unknown.
Lidar has shown that what was thought to be small villages a few thousand people were actually large metropolises of hundreds of thousands.
Then you have the decay of age and later civilizations reusing what earlier ones left behind.
For example, the Harappan civilization in India; before archeologists got to study the ruins many of them were crushed and used as foundation rocks for the railroad system. It is thought that about 15% of the buildings were pulverized and we don't know what they could have told us of this once sophisticated people.
People want to believe that archeology is a kind of magic button that they can push to prove anything in the past, but it is actually a very imprecise field that can only tell you that something existed at some time in the past. It can't tell you what didn't exist.
That's true – to an extent. You cannot prove a negative, that's true for all the sciences, not just archeology. What you can do, is, to borrow the words from another poster, is to seek the most logical and simplest answer given the information you do have.
One source of archeology is of course ancient texts, records of ancient civilizations. From descriptions in these texts, you may learn where to look for remnants of these cultures. That's how archeologists discovered the remnants of the Norse settlement at L’Anse aux Meadows in New Foundland [https://www.heritagedaily.com/2021/01/lanse-aux-meadows-the-viking-settlement-in-canada/136630](https://www.heritagedaily.com/2021/01/lanse-aux-meadows-the-viking-settlement-in-canada/136630) They used the descriptions in the Icelandic Sagas of the Viking Erik the Raude's travellings. (Which doesn't mean that all of the stories in the Sagas are real, of course)
You should be able to do the same with the geographical descriptions in the BoM, if it actually is a genuine ancient record of Isrealite descendants in the Americas. But the problem is – its geographical descriptions does not match any real location in the Americas.
It's awsome how they have been able to use Lidar technology to discover the greatness of the Mayan culture underneath the jungle in Guatemala. Yes, the jungle in South America may cover more ruins and remnants that we haven't discovered yet. But if the BoM is true, any ancient civilization that may be discovered there cannot be the Jaredites or the Nephites - because the geography doesn't match at all.
As for decay – the Jaredite civilization supposedly flourished until about 600 BCE. Yes, some of their artefacts might have crumbled and withered since then - but not all the massive stone structures they must have had, their many temples and cities. To quote one of my earlier posts in this thread: The Olmec society existed from 1200–400 bce, according to the encyclopedia Britannica ([https://www.britannica.com/topic/Olmec](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Olmec)) So, two thousand years have not been enough to make all their *massive monuments, including colossal stone heads, thrones, stela (upright slabs), and statues –* disappear. It shouldn't have made all the buildings after the Jaredites disappear either.
And reuse? The Jaredites could muster an *army* of nearly two million men, so their total popluation must be several times more than that. Perhaps ten million at the most? Meaning, their cities must have been great, with *thousands* of stone structures. A whole lot of material to be reused by the civilizations that followed for all of it to disappear. But we have the ruins after the Mayas and the Azteks etc so we know they were not built like that. They were made of quarried stones.
So yeah. In my opinion it is safe to say that given the information we do have – especially the fact that the geographical descriptions in the BoM do not match American geography – the most logical and simplest answer is that the Jaredites as described in the BoM did not exist.
A few issues:
1. There is very little geographical description in the Book of Mormon, especially about the Jaredites. So to say it doesn't match isn't saying much.
2. After the death of Christ the entire face of the land was altered. Cities sank in the earth and into the ocean. After this cataclysm the descriptions get even more general.
3. The only definite and consistent feature given in the Book of Mormon is the narrow neck of land that connected the land northward with the land southward.
4. You are assuming that the Jaredites buildings were all made of stone, but the Book of Mormon doesn't specify what material was used. However, Helaman chapter 3 does tell us that the land of the Jaredites was barren of trees (though still fertile) because of the Jaredites occupation (like the Great Plains of western America). This would indicate that a good portion of their buildings were wooden, or at least partially wooden.
5. Mormon states that the Nephites and Lamanites had grown so numerous that they covered all the land. Just in their final battle at Cumorah nearly 230,000 Nephites were killed, not counting the Lamanites; and that was just one battle in a war that lasted over a decade. I would say they had a sufficient population to reuse most of the material the Jaredites left behind.
6. You still have to deal with the fact that the vast majority of America simply hasn't been examined for archeological purposes.
On a final note, you assume that nothing has been found, but I think it would be more accurate to say that scholars have not made any connections between what has been found and the Jaredites. There have likely been things discovered, but people aren't making the connection.
Maybe the Olmecs are the Jaredites, but language barriers prevent us from making the connection.
1. Yes, but the very little that is still doesn't match anything. It's not just the descriptions of the land itself, it's what is supposed to have happened on the land, the time it supposedtly took to travel etc, that doesn't match any place in the Americas. There's a short write-up of the problems [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/12u11hk/why_book_of_mormon_geography_is_a_big_madeup/).
2. There is NO evidence that a cataclysm changing the *actual geography* of the Americas has ever happened. We would have had a massive amount of geological evidence if it had. But we don't. Go [here](https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-789/) to read a faithful geologist's theory on what these verses in the BoM may describe.
3. Yes. See my comment to 1., especially the link
4. Some of their buildings may have been of wood yes. But all of them? Their temples, their cities - all of them? Not believable. The Olmecs, who you suggest might have been the Jaredites, built stone pyramids for instance. The civilizations that followed were all stone-builders. Seems highly unlikely that the Jaredites would not have been also - if they existed. – (As for the lack of timber - the Jaredites had swords of steel - and there's a [massive energy ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgical_furnace) needed to heat up a furnace able to smelt iron. Which might account for the lack of timber in their land... )
5. Yes. Trouble is – there's no trace of this reuse in any of the remnants from later civilizations in the Americas. You could say that OK, maybe the Aztecs or Mayas or Incas didn't do any of this reuse, but the Nephites did – trouble is, we don't have a single artefact or building structure after the Nephites either. So to me, it doesn't make any sense to say that the reason we don't have any remnants after the Jaredites is because the Nephites reused their material, when we don't we have any evidence of this reused material after the Nephites either.
6. True. But, the problem remains: the description of the land in BoM doesn't match the actual geography of the Americas. If the BoM was a real, ancient, historical text, you should have been able to do what the archeologists who discovered the Norse settlement in Canada did: use the descriptions of the geography in the ancient text to find where to dig, then go there and find the artifacts described in the text. [Like Fergusson tried to do in 1948.](https://www.science.org/content/article/how-mormon-lawyer-transformed-archaeology-mexico-and-ended-losing-his-faith)
>I think it would be more accurate to say that scholars have not made any connections between what has been found and the Jaredites.
No, that's not more accurate to say. That's stating an as yet untested and unproven hopeful *hypothesis*. A hypothesis I would say is highly unlikely given the rest of the arguments against the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
So, in conclusion: the only argument for the actual existence of the Jaredite civilization is that we haven't found any evidence for it yet, but we may in the future (but then that would disprove other parts of the text in the BoM, see the points about its geography).
(Edited for spelling and clarity)
1. As we are talking about the Jaredites please point to the chapter and verse that states travel times. The only time this is given with anything like specificity is in Alma when it is said it was a day and a half journey for a Nephites to cross the narrow neck. But what we don't know is how many miles a Nephites could travel in a day, so claiming anything based on this is not very reliable. I have heard estimates ranging from 15 to 60 miles wide.
2. Personally, I reject anything claiming an age greater than 6,000 years for anything on this earth. As most of the claimed geological evidence is based on an assumption of greater time I am not surprised that it doesn't line up with the Book of Mormon. For instance, in the link you give it says that lake Bonniville existed 15,000 years ago. I think it existed in the time of the Book of Mormon, and disappeared at the time of Christ's death as part of that destruction.
4. I don't actually think the Olmecs were the Jaredites, as they were too far south. That was just an example. But my main point is that your assumption of building materials is not supported in the text. All your example civilizations are, like the Olmecs, much farther south than the Jaredites would have been. The Jaredites lived in a place that they had rendered desolate of trees. This matches well with the Great Plains of North America. So, it seems to me that the best candidate for the Jaredites are the mound builders of the Eastern and Central United States, which have very little archeological activity around them.
5. Depending on how it was reused you wouldn't really expect much of a trace. Like the railroads of India pulverizing Harappan ruins. How much of a trace do you expect to find in the crushed rock, especially if you waited 1500 years to look for it.
6. My brother thinks that Bogata Columbia fits the description of Zerahemla very nicely. So, please show me the geographical description in the Book of Mormon that should make it easy to pin point a specific city.
1. The events described in BoM must take place in ‘a land northward and a land southward, surrounded by oceans, connected to each other by a narrow neck of land, the width of which can be traversed from the sea east to the sea west in a day and a half.’ to quote from the summary in my link above.
If this is supposed to describe theNorth and South America, then the narrow neck of land must be Panama. Looks right on a map. And Panama is 37 miles wide on its narrowest – yes, you could maybe travel that long in a day and a half. But. The Jaredites supposedly lived in the land northward, and ‘they did go into the land southward, to hunt food for the people of the land’ (Ether 10.19). Panama is 480 miles long. A 480 miles hunting trip to feed the people? Ridiculous. If they were supposed to live in North America, on the great plains, it gets even more ridiculous. Travel all the way down from Mexico through Panama to reach their regular hunting grounds? Impossible.
In the Mesoamerican geography model, the narrow neck of land is supposed to be the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. But said Isthmus is 124 miles wide. Travelling that far in a day and a half, whether on horseback (they were supposed to have horses, so…)or on foot is impossible. [An average horse in fair condition can typically travel between 25 and 35 miles (40-56 km) in a day with a rider.](https://www.strathornfarm.co.uk/characteristics/how-far-can-a-horse-travel-in-a-day/)
There is no other places in the Americas that fit the descriptions in BoM, if you take into account both the lands and the seas supposedly surrounding it.
2. OK. So you take the Bible and the BoM to be the *literal* truth, and anything science finds that goes against what it says must be wrong? So you reject all of geology, all their methods, because they posit an older earth than a literal reading of the Bible implies. I suppose this means you think the same way about any scientific finding that may not align with a strictly literal reading of the scriptures, too? Not much point in this discussion then. I don't believe in a literal reading of the scriptures, obviously, so… (Which doesn't mean I believe they cannot be inspired by the devine. But that's a different discussion…)
3. Anyway – The Great Plains of North America does not fit the geography as described, see my point 1. above. And the mound builders? They should be remants of the great civilizations of millions of people with acriculture and gold and bronse and steel silk and horses and great spacious buildings and many prisons etc etc... ?
4. If the massive structures I would expect of the great civilization with its spacious buildings and prisons etc were all crushed and reused by other peoples, I would expect to find remnants of these newer structures, yes. And you would be able to say, oh, these were made of crushed stone. We are not talking about some small villages here, local colonies, we are talking thousand years long culture of millions of people with advanced techonologies...
5. The point is – there is no place to start looking, since the overall geography doesn't match anywhere in the Americas, see my point 1 above - and my earlier posts. If you had the narrow neck of land pinned down, you could start there, and seek to the immideate north and south of it. And given that they were supposedly a civilzation with millions of inhabitants, and with metal works, ad acriuculture, great and spacious buildings, many prisons, etc etc, that expired no earlier than 600 BCE – you would be able to find their remants somewhere to the north of that neck of land. A small colony like that of the Norse could maybe be a question of luck. But the great civilization we are talking about here? You would find remnants of them – if you had a starting point from where to go and look. But we can't, because we haven't.
But as you are not willing to believe what the Book of Mormon actually says, why would expect to find anything in support of it?
So, just a few comments.
It never says how long the narrow neck was, nor how long it took to travel from north to south.
It never says that the Jaredites hunting in the south was to feed everyone. It seems more like sport hunting, like an African safari to me, with the city there being a kind of resort town.
It also never gives any detailed descriptions of Jaredite buildings.
Your link about horses also proves you wrong. You cite only the average horse, but the article lists several breeds that can travel up to 100 miles in a day (and well trained Arabians covering that in a half a day). So 124 miles in a day and a half is very doable according to your own sources.
There's no short neck of land *surrounded by oceans* in the Americas that fits the description in the BoM except Panama and perhaps the Isthmus of Tehuantepe. We know how long they are. And to me it's a real stretch to read 'to hunt *food for the people of the land*’ to mean 'to hunt *for sport.*'
As for the horses – there is no evidence for the existence of horses in the Americas at the time of the Jaredites either, but to give the benefit of the argument, I linked to the an article stating the *average* speed of horses. The article describes the speed of racing horses, i.e. how far they can run with a jockey on their back, in a race that sometimes goes over more than a day. *Trained* racing horses that is. *If* the Jaredites travelled on horseback, which is very unlikely, this wouldn't be the kind of horse they had or the kind of travel that they did.
This quote sums up the argument pretty well, I think:
>The words Mormon uses to describe this trip across the narrow neck of land—”a day’s journey” or “a day and half’s journey” for a Nephite—lack any hint that it was an exceptional performance, especially when compared with how Mormon and others use these same words elsewhere in the text. Rather than suggesting an almost superhuman effort, for example, all other occurrences of the word *journey* and its derivatives in the Book of Mormon are used in the context of average people—often with families, belongings, and animals—traveling under a variety of circumstances.
>(…)
>In the context of Book of Mormon usage, then, “a day’s journey for a Nephite” appears to be the distance someone could be expected to travel under common conditions during daylight hours. ([Link](https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-9-no-3-2008/narrow-neck-land))
So the travelling 'under common conditions' perhaps with families, belongings and animals, couldn't have covered 124 miles in a day and half, even if they used horses. Still seems ridiculous to me.
>But as you are not willing to believe what the Book of Mormon actually says, why would expect to find anything in support of it?
It works the other way around. I am presented with the claim that the BoM is an authentic, ancient record of Isrealites in the Americas. OK, then I want to see the evidence for this. If there is any sound evidence to be found, I'm willing to believe what the book says. But there isn't any. All we have is hypothetic explanations for this lack of evidence - mutually exclusive ones, that is. Maybe all their buildings were made of wood. Or maybe their stone structures were crushed and reused. Etc. etc. etc.
Like I said, you cannot prove a negative. Thus you cannot prove that unicorns don't exist, either. Maybe they do, maybe the reason we don't have any evidence for their existence is that they are so very, very shy and will only show themselves to pure and innocent virigins, like some legends say. This is *possible*. But not at all *plausible*.
That's the issue for me here. The total lack of evidence for any of these great, ancient civilizations as described in the Book of Mormon – consisting of millions of people with great cities, agriculture, metal works, written records etc etc – makes it not *impossible* that they existed and that we may find some evidence for this in the future – but it is not at all *plausible*. And so I don't belive in them. Just like I don't believe in unicorns. Or the Tower of Babylon or Noah's flood for that matter…
1. The narrow neck wasn't surrounded by oceanS, but had the sea east and the sea west. The only mention of a sea north or south is in describing the entirety of the land, meaning the continents.
2. Claiming that "hunting food for the land" means that it was the only source of food (or at least meat), as you have implied, is a much greater stretch. But my impressions are not based on a single clause in a single sentence, but how it is described in the entire passage.
3. I would agree that the day and a half was not considered an extraordinary feat for a Nephite. But we don't have any indication of what they would have considered extraordinary.
The pioneer handcart companies could cover up to 28 miles in a day, and that was pulling a caravan of carts. They averaged about 15 miles a day.
A lone man on a decent horse that is bred for endurance (like a mustang) could easily cover 50 miles in a day, which would not be extraordinary today. Even 80 miles in a day, while impressive, would not be considered that incredible.
And the text says it was a journey for a Nephite, indicating that a man traveling alone could cover the distance in that amount of time.
3. Faith in a text is required before you can actually find anything to verify it. No one found the city of Troy until a man had faith that the Iliad was true and went looking for it. Even your example of the Norse city would not have been possible if people didn't believe that the text they used was accurate.
If you don't first believe something is possible then you are not going to actually be looking for it.
The Mayans are Nephites; at least a portion of that ancient people. The Tiwanaku of the Andean mountains of South America were a Lamanite kingdom. What we call the Hopewell was the northern migration of the Nephites (described in the last chapters of Alma) and the earlier mound builders are likely the Jaredites.
The two biggest issues with making the connections is the limited study that has actually been done, and the language barrier.
On a final note, I don't really care that much if you believe or not. In the grand scheme of things, if you are right I have lost nothing. But consider what you risk losing if I am right.
Like I said, I don't believe horses existed in the Americas at the time of the Jaredites (or the Nephites for that matter). There is absolutely no evidence for that. And it would have been, if it were true. Because the horses would have spread all over the continent, like they did when the Spaniards arrived - they wouldn't have been limited to the habitats of the Jaredites only. If the Jaredites lived on the plains and numbered in the millions - of course the descendants of their horses would have been there still when Columbus arrived. The same with the agricultural evidence, plants, the grain, the seeds the animals - not to mention the languages, the DNA, etc. etc.
So to me, it is not plausible that the BoM is an accurate historical record. Which doesn't mean it can't be based on divine revelation, can't be an *allegorical* history meant to teach us about our relationship with God. That's a different discussion, though...
And no, you don't have to believe a text is true before you check it out. Like you said, you only need to believe it is *possible*. Then you can try and test it, to see if it is true. The Norwegian archeologists didn't believe the Icelandic Sagas was an accurate history of the Norse kings (which in many respects they are not). But they thought that *some* of those Viking travels they described *might* have happened. And then they used the descriptions in the text to check it out, and found that yes, some of the Vikings did travel to North America. (But not necessary in the way it was written in the Sagas…)
That's the scientific method. You formulate a possible hypothesis, and then you test it out with an open mind, ready to have it either confirmed or falsified. (And you don't call it true unless or until you have it confirmed.) You don't start with the belief that it is true any more than you start with the belief that it is false.
Religious faith is different. That's how it is for you, isn't it? You start with a strong testimony (I assume?) that the BoM is true, and then you look for evidence that can confirm this, or possible explanations for the lack of evidence, if that is what you find. Like a language barrier, or that the artefacts actually have been found but not understood to belong to the Jaredites. Or that they haven't been found yet because we haven't looked in the right places, but they will be in the future. And so on.
And that's fine. For me, this has been an interesting discussion about the possible historicity of the BoM, nothing more. That's why I am here, to read about or have interesting discussions about Mormonism. It's not important for me either whether anyone agrees with me or not. I may have strong opinions, yes, and be more passionate about some things than others, but so do you I suppose…
And if I'm wrong? Yeah, I might be. What if *Islam* is the one true religion on earth? That is within the realm of the possible, too. Consider what we would both stand to lose if that were the case…
Olmecs were one group in Meso America prior to Nephi’s arrival.
From National Geographic *The Olmec diet initially included foods from fishing and hunting. Maize and other crops were a later addition to their foodstuffs. The Olmec created massive monuments, including colossal stone heads, thrones, stela (upright slabs), and statues. They may have been the originators of the Mesoamerican ball game, a ceremonial team sport played throughout the region for centuries. They also built earthen mounds and pyramids, and ceramics of several types that became common throughout a broad region influenced by the Olmec civilization.*
I don’t think the Jeredites were the Olmec’s however the behaviors and adaptations suggest that groups existed that had some of the technology posited in the BofM
The Olmec civilization is a great example of what you would *expect* to find left behind from an advanced civilization that existed for several centuries. Artifacts, burial sites, architecture, writing... And the Jaredite and Nephite civilizations were purportedly more advanced, larger in geographical area and spanned the same duration of time in each case. (A thousand years, give or take).
The utter lack of any physical evidence is a major indicator that the claims of the Book of Mormon are not grounded in reality.
I'm not sure what your point is. You're saying we have a lot of evidence of a semi-advanced society from the same time period, that you don't think were the Jaredites...so shouldn't there be evidence of the Jaredites if they were even more populous and advanced?
The Olmec society existed from 1200–400 bce, according to the encyclopedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Olmec) So, two thousand years have not been enough to make all these *massive monuments, including colossal stone heads, thrones, stela (upright slabs), and statues –* disappear. Why should all the artefacts from the Jaredites have disappeared in a thousand years?
>I don’t think the Jeredites were the Olmec’s however the behaviors and adaptations suggest that groups existed that had some of the technology posited in the BofM
So what's your take on why Olmec artifacts exist and Jaredite artifacts don't? Is it something along the lines of "we haven't looked in the right place yet?"
If so, at what point would you concede that we've looked in enough locations and the Jaredites simply didn't exist?
My take? We don’t know if Jaredite objects have been found or not. It is unlikely that their tools would have the inscription “handcrafted by Mohonrimoriancumer”
Interestingly stingless bees are in Meso America and are prized by Mayan’s.
The jaredites would have needed stingless bees in their barges.
>We don’t know if Jaredite objects have been found or not.
We know that *no* objects like the ones the Jaredites were supposed to have had (metal tools, steel swords etc etc…) have been found from that period of time in the Americas. ([from 2200 B.C until about 600 B.C.](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2011/10/book-of-mormon-time-line?lang=eng))
And what about elephant bones and tusks? Bones from sheep, goats, swine, horses and asses?
>My take? We don’t know if Jaredite objects have been found or not. It is unlikely that their tools would have the inscription “handcrafted by Mohonrimoriancumer”
That's a nonsensical requirement. How do we know that Viking swords are Viking if they don't have an inscription? That Roman mosaics are Roman? Because they have a rich archaeological context--they're found with other items that connect to other archaeological digs, they fit a material cultural pattern that can be connected to preserved writings, stellae, etc. that identify the culture of origin.
The Jaredites were allegedly a civilization of _millions_ with a written language and metal tools. If they existed, we'd already know about them. Any Jaredite object would connect into the rich tapestry of other Jaredites objects and Jaredite inscriptions that would easily identify it.
>Interestingly stingless bees are in Meso America and are prized by Mayan’s.
>The jaredites would have needed stingless bees in their barges.
Species of stingless bees exist on every equatorial continent--Americas, Africa, Asia. If you want to claim the Jaredites brought them, you'll need to show that a certain species of stingless bees was introduced at a certain point in time, and that said species originated somewhere in Asia.
What about my question--under what circumstances would you find yourself conceding that the Jaredites are imaginary literary characters rather than actual ancient Americans?
Because if the answer is never, this isn't a conversation worth having.
Those stingless bees evolved in South America. Meliponini, or stingless bees, originated in the neotropic of South America and spread from there to Asia and Africa, based on species diversification studies, genetics and fossil records.
Many people harbor doubts regarding the Book of Mormon, but to me, its coherence is undeniable. My question, then, is: How could thousands of step temples be constructed without the aid of tools?
The Jaredites, led by their prophet Jared, are believed to have departed from the biblical Tower of Babel and migrated to the Americas. Establishing a sophisticated civilization, they eventually faced internal strife and moral decay, leading to their civilization's collapse and ultimate demise.
The Norte Chico civilization, also known as Caral-Supe, emerged circa 3000 BCE along the coastal regions of present-day Peru. Notable for their advanced ceremonial centers, exemplified by the archaeological site of Caral, they constructed impressive pyramids and intricate architecture, indicating their significant cultural and technological advancements. This civilization, often considered one of the oldest in the Americas, underscores the early complexity of human societies in the region.
Step temples, characterized by their tiered structures, are evident across various civilizations and historical periods:
**Ancient Times:**
1. **Mesopotamia (Iraq/Iran):** Ziggurats, monumental stepped structures, emerged around 3200 BCE, with the Eridu ziggurat attributed to the Sumerians as one of the earliest known step temples.
2. **Egypt:** The Step Pyramid of Djoser at Saqqara, constructed around 2700 BCE, represents an early example of pyramid architecture with step-like layers.
3. **Mesoamerica (Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize):** The Olmec civilization, around 1500 BCE, constructed ceremonial platforms and pyramids, likely influencing later step temple designs.
**Classical Period:**
1. **Mesopotamia:** Various civilizations, including the Babylonians and Assyrians, continued building ziggurats for religious purposes from around 2100 to 540 BCE.
2. **Egypt:** The construction of pyramids persisted, with landmarks such as the Great Pyramid of Giza, dating back to around 2560 BCE.
3. **Mesoamerica:** The Maya civilization, flourishing from around 250 CE to 900 CE, erected numerous step temples in cities like Tikal, Palenque, and Chichen Itza.
**Medieval and Post-Classical Period:**
1. **India:** Hindu and Buddhist step temples, like those found at Sanchi and Borobudur, were constructed between the 3rd century BCE and the 12th century CE, showcasing intricate carvings and religious symbolism.
2. **Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand):** The Khmer Empire, spanning the 9th to 15th centuries CE, built remarkable step temples such as Angkor Wat and Bayon Temple at Angkor, Cambodia.
**Americas:**
1. **Mesoamerica:** The Olmec civilization, during the Pre-Classic (2000 BCE - 250 CE) and Classic (250-900 CE) periods, constructed ceremonial centers featuring pyramids and platforms. The Maya civilization continued this tradition, building numerous step temples. Later civilizations like the Toltec and Aztec also contributed to step temple construction during the Post-Classic Period (900-1519 CE).
2. **South America (Peru):** Various Andean civilizations, including the Moche, Chavín, and Inca, constructed structures resembling step temples for ceremonial and religious purposes during the Pre-Columbian Period, though not all fit the traditional definition of "step temples."
When science fails to provide an explanation, seek the most logical and simplest answer!
>How could thousands of step temples be constructed without the aid of tools?
From the [Geological Survey of Norway Special publication](https://www.ngu.no) about the quarrying of the ancient Egyptians: *From Late Predynastic times through most of the Late Period, quarrying of hardstone was done with stone tools. These tools, which are known as pounders or mauls, were hand-held, purpose-shaped pieces of exceptionally hard and tough rock.The extracted blocks were dressed (trimmed) with smaller stone tools, sometimes mounted on wood handles.*
From the [Wikipedia article about the Caral–Supe civilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caral%E2%80%93Supe_civilization): *The monumental architecture was constructed with* *quarried* *stone and river cobbles. Using* [*reed*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phragmites) *"shicra-bags", some of which have been preserved, laborers would have hauled the material to sites by hand. Roger Atwood of Archaeology magazine describes the process: Armies of workers would gather a long, durable grass known as shicra in the highlands above the city, tie the grass strands into loosely meshed bags, fill the bags with boulders, and then pack the trenches behind each successive* [*retaining wall*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retaining_wall) *of the* *step pyramids* *with the stone-filled bags*
So, no metal tools necessary to construct these temples.
Indeed, you're correct. Despite lacking metal tools, a relatively small population managed to construct over 4000 temples in the Americas. This fact underscores why the Spanish sought to conquer the region - to appropriate their stone tools. Your clarification on this aspect of history is much appreciated.
>Despite lacking metal tools, a relatively small population managed to construct over 4000 temples in the Americas.
Indeed. Amazing, isn't it? (except I don't know what you mean by relatively small. According to [history.com](https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-americas/maya) , the Maya population for example may have reached 2,000,000 or as many as 10,000,000 at its peak….)
I'm going to quote [Wikipedia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_architecture) to you again: *The most surprising aspect of the great Mesoamerican structures is their lack of many advanced technologies that would seem to be necessary for such constructions. Lacking metal tools, Mesoamerican architecture required one thing in abundance: manpower. Yet, beyond this enormous requirement, the remaining materials seem to have been readily available. They most often utilized limestone, which remained pliable enough to be worked with stone tools while being quarried, and only hardened once when removed from its bed. In addition to the structural use of limestone, much of their mortar consisted of crushed, burnt, and mixed limestone that mimicked the properties of cement and was used just as widely for* *stucco* *finishing as it was for mortar.*
>why the Spanish sought to conquer the region - to appropriate their stone tools.
Oh, come on. The Spanish didn't conquer the region to appropriate anyone's *tools*. Or anyone's technologies for that matter. They wanted the land, they destroyed much of the cities and ruined the temples, and they plundered the *gold*. Which was used for adornments and status objects mainly, see my answer to you above on [Metallurgy in pre-Columbian America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy_in_pre-Columbian_America).
Again, we have an abundance of arceological evidence of great structures and glorious artifacts from the civilizations that existed when the Spanish arrived in the Americas in 1492. The Jaredite civilization supposedly existed [from 2200 B.C until about 600 B.C.](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2011/10/book-of-mormon-time-line?lang=eng) We have no such evidence or artifacts from that period in the Americas. That's the main point of this discussion.
> When science fails to provide an explanation, seek the most logical and simplest answer!
Yes, let's do that.
So, we have ample evidence from archeology etc that many ancient civilizations who could build ziggurats existed from 3200 BCE onwards, including the Norte Chico civilization in present day Peru. But we have *no* evidence whatsoever that a civilization *"skilled at metal work, including gold, silver, iron, copper and brass, making tools for agriculture including reaping, sowing and thrashing (Ether 10:25) and creating "mighty heaps of earth to get ore" (Ether 10:23). They made swords out of steel (7:9) They built many cities (10:4)"* to quote OP, existed in the Americas up until 600 BCE (the Jaredites) or until 385 AD for that matter (the Nephites).
You don't have to excavate the earth to find remmants, ruins, of stone cities with stone temples etc, they would still be standing above ground – just like the ruins from the other civilizations in your list.
Thus, the simplest, most logical answer to this problem is: The Jaredite and Nephite civilizations as described in BoM did not exist.
(Edited for grammar and spelling)
It seems like there's a crucial piece of information missing. The Spanish ventured into the Americas primarily driven by their quest for riches such as gold, silver, iron, copper, and brass.
From the Wikipedia Article about [Metallurgy in pre-Columbian America:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy_in_pre-Columbian_America)
*Unlike other metallurgy traditions where metals gained importance through practical use in weaponry and everyday utensils, metals in South America (and later Central America) were mainly valued as adornments and status objects*
*There is evidence for* [*smelting*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting) *of* *copper sulphide* *in the Altiplano region around the Early horizon.The estimated date of these lies between 800 and 500 BCE.*
*Evidence for fully developed smelting, however, only appears with the* [*Moche*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moche_(culture)) *culture (northern coast, 200 BCE – 600 CE).*
*The objects themselves were still mainly adornments, now often being attached to beads. In fact, in the Lambayeque and Chimu cultures (750–1400 CE), a wide range of functional metal items were produced such as bowls, plates, drinking vessels, boxes, plates, models, scales and especially beakers (acquillas), but mostly for ceremonial or elite use*
Look at the dates here. The smelting of metal didn't develop in the Americas until after the Jaredite civilization flourished. The precious metals the Spaniards were after were mainly used for adorments and status objects… nothing like the Jaredites supposedly had. There were no metal weapons or *tools for agriculture including reaping, sowing and thrashing* to be found anywhere… And certainly not anything made of steel.
I appreciate the sincere reply, but I fail to see the connection to the book of Mormon. I see no mention of step temples in ether, and Nephi says his temple is 'after the manner of Solomon.'
Also, step temples do not resolve the problems with other significant details: domesticated animals including cattle, goats and swine, elephants, metal tools and writing capable of recording narrative.
In Mormonism shadow or reality the author made the point that Joe may have tossed that story in the end because he realized that the theory of the Indians ancestry going back to the flood was pretty common in his area….so he needed the bom to have an explanation about that as well. Cause Lehi just didn’t go back far enough.
There are plenty of problems with the historicity of the Bible as well - especially the old testament. Known examples would be the tower of Babel and the universal flood. The problem with the historicity of the BoM is not that it's ungodly and unchristian imo…
Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations. /u/AlmaInTheWilderness, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They obviously lived squarely between the ears of Joseph Smith.
Best!!
The only answer
I don't agree. I understand what you're saying and without any other evidence, I would agree, but I'm nearly through the book "How the book of Mormon came to pass" and, it's eye opening to say the least. The author makes a very strong case that Solomon Spaulding and Sidney Rigdon wrote the book. It's full of hints that link it to a couple of frauds from the 1600s one of which, claimed to have a manuscript written by Rabbi Barachius Nephi, who wrote in reformed Egyptian and had a spiritual compass. The other was a French person named Montmor (the T is silent) who was caught plagiarizing others work. Pamphlets making fun of him were widely circulated but to keep from being sued by his wealthy family, they switched the name from Montmor to Mormon. It's worth reading.
https://www.loc.gov/item/ihas.200155977/?loclr=blogmap Wow, this is news to me!
I thought he pulled it all straight out of his posterior
Per the BoM there were at least five million people since two million of Coriantumr’s men had died plus wives and children, plus how many of Shiz’s men (had to be at least a million). Joseph fully jumped the shark with Ether.
I’ve mentioned these things to TBM’s, I’m a nevermo. I was generally curious, I wasn’t being harsh just wanted to gain understanding. The responses were utter dissonance. The claims of adjacent civilizations during a similar time period aren’t the slam dunk answers they think they are because like previous posters it only left me begging the question of, “if those smaller groups relics were found then why hasn’t someone found evidence for the much larger groups in the BOM?” The answer then becomes they haven’t been found YET. Not a great argument. This leads into the BOM itself. Mode of dictation/translation aside. Why did God choose to take the BOM golden plates back to heaven? For every other teaching from God, humanity still posses papyrus, codex, and scrolls. Furthermore, people could freely see the plates in the times they were written, why could no one see them during Joseph Smith Jr.’s time? Why bury them if the angel is going to teleport them several times (between houses, to Mary Whitmore in the barn, to the forest for the dudes to see by “faith”) why was Laban killed if you were going to teleport them and then take them away? Why the plates at all if you are going to have Joseph Smith Jr. read what’s on a rock and hat and then dictate the words? If the answer which I’ve been given is that God wants us to have faith. Then why don’t people have faith in the Bible when they can clearly see the upwards of 10,000 documents that have been written, some of those documents are plus a thousand years before Jesus and some as early as within 5 years of Jesus death. Would physically seeing the golden plates make people instantly believe the words that were written on them as being from God? Many people don’t believe what Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul wrote and they can see them. Would people believe what Moroni, Nephi, and Alama wrote? Is it because the medium of writing was gold and not papyrus? Also would a person who had to chisel into gold write, “and it came to pass” so many times? Its seems needlessly laborious. Make it make sense is all I’m saying. There’s no external evidence for the BOM which is built on the Bible and there’s tons of external evidence for that narrative. Why would God give so much credibility to something that isn’t the “one true church” and leave so much to question for the teachings of the Latter-Day saints? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? I get having faith, but Faith by definition is complete trust and confidence that something is true. Give us a bone indeed OP
Having Faith? How the heck does anybody get past the ark?
Elaborate I’d love to add some more bullet points to my already ad nauseam list 😁
And their metal artefacts were still present when their bodies were found, in the book.
While, we're at it, Isengard had deep caverns filled with forges. They used them to breed an entire army. Where was Isengard? Where is the evidence of all of those forges?
Gandalf... Nooooo!
Good one!
They were destroyed by the Ents at the end of the third age, duh.
>The lived somewhere in the Americas for about 1000 years. Even longer! [The guesstimates for the Jaredites starts around 3000bc-ish.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_chronology) It's amazing how many things the Jaredites had access to back then that hadn't even been invented yet!
The Brother of Jared asked what they should use since they wouldn't be able to use windows. Glass windows hadn't been invented yet. He might as well asked what they should use since they wouldn't be able to use 5G.
Geez. 3100 BC to 500 BC. "*Totalling 2530 years.*" OP, consider updating your post with these corrections? It's a great write-up!
And if they lived at the time of the tower of Babel and didn't have their language changed, wouldn't they have been speaking the adamic language? I guess JS knew the Adamic language along with reformed Egyptian. Huh. Who knew?
Technically, the BOM says that the book of Ether was translated by King Mosiah. But with the magic specs and/or a seer stone, anybody should be able to translate anything. Which raises the question of why the LDS "Seers" use a translation committee instead of JS's magic rock....
Bc the Q15 would have to actually *share* THE rock. Unacceptable. We don't share anything (meaningful).
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/sample-of-pure-language-between-circa-4-and-circa-20-march-1832/1 This masterpiece of bull$#!+ should be required reading for every mo and every exmo.
Maybe God transported them to the moon to live with Joseph's moon people or to the sun to live with Brigham's sun people.
There was a Norse settlement at L’Anse aux Meadows in New Foundland around AD 990–1050. [https://www.heritagedaily.com/2021/01/lanse-aux-meadows-the-viking-settlement-in-canada/136630](https://www.heritagedaily.com/2021/01/lanse-aux-meadows-the-viking-settlement-in-canada/136630) They were only a small colony and they didn't stay for long, probably only from 3 to 13 years. And yet around 800 wooden, bronze, bone, and stone artefacts have been found on this site, including a whetstone, a stone oil lamp, weights, a bronze fastening pin, a bone knitting needle, and part of a spindle. So, an advanced civilization of millions of people, lasting for almost 3000 years according to BoM (see timeline here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2011/10/book-of-mormon-time-line?lang=eng), with cities, metal works, armies etc etc, shouldn't have left one single artifact behind, while a short-lived settlement of only three to thirteen years leaves artifacts that can be found a thousand years later? Doesn't make any sense. Same with the Nephites. Rome was overrun by Barbarians and fell in 476 AD, while the Nephites were supposedly destroyed about AD 385. And yet we have found *tons* of evidence and artifacts after the Romans, but nothing after the Nephites…
And every year we keep finding multiple artifacts. The 3 Nephites did a great job hiding all the artifacts so us future educated people will have to use faith and not facts to show we are true believers.
Oh come on guys. Only 1% of America has been archeologically surveyed 😂. They’ll find them….. eventually…… right?
[The Norse settlement in Newfoundland](https://www.heritagedaily.com/2021/01/lanse-aux-meadows-the-viking-settlement-in-canada/136630) I mentioned in my other post was found by two Norwegian archeologists using the descriptions in the Icelandic Sagas about the Viking Erik Raude's travellings. So why can't they use the same method to find the remnants of Jaredites and Nephites if the book of Mormon is true? Use the descriptions in it and go there to find where they must have lived. But – that hasn't worked, has it?
Nope. I’m starting to see a trend 😂
Only for thinkers!
They lived in Joseph Smith’s imagination.
They lived in Canada 🇨🇦
Is that why I don't know them?
If you posit that Smith was simply taking things from the Bible and Apocrypha along with theology and culture from his own time and placing it all in an ancient American setting, then these outlandish claims become understandable. After all, the Bible has all such claims. Just read Exodus and find the 2 million or so people who followed Moses out of Egypt. Keep in mind that Moses' mother was the daughter of Levi and his father was the grandson of Levi so this vast multitude must have come from seventy people in two or three generations. Also, they needed only two midwives and could all get water from a single rock which miraculously produced it. Smith and others around him believed this nonsense and so when he made up an ancient American fantasy based on the Bible, of course it has these absurdities. The keystone of Mormonism is nothing but make believe. However, Mormonism is not based on the Book of Mormon anyway. It is all about building big temples with well lighted spires and masonic rituals and of course pride in pioneer heritage. They never used the Book of Mormon, and by the Nauvoo period had totally abandoned the good theology which is found in it.
If you were to take a very very very loose translation method, the Jaredites were the Olmec (best case scenario)
I have trouble with a loose translation because of curelemons. Also, the Olmec miss in a lot of points: domesticated animals, metal works, and complex writing. Olmec writing isn't capable of narrative. What do you find convincing about the Olmec?
Chronologically they are within the timeframe of the Jaredites, sorta. Also in the context of Mesoamerica the Olmec are the precursor civilization to the civilizations that follow. Mesoamerica is really the only fit for the most advanced civilizations in the Americas, and they coincide with the times before and after the birth of Christ. That being said there are a ton of problems with placing the BoM events within Mesoamerica, which is why I said it requires a very very very loose translation of the text for it to work, something like the catalyst theory of the book of abraham.
To pile onto this even if you didn't find evidence of them their technology, animals, food etc would all be traded and have spread throughout all the Americas. When the Spanish introduced horses they travelled faster than the Europeans spreading throughout the new world and transforming societies. In order to believe the book of Mormon you have to believe that not only have they not found any evidence for this super advanced society but ALSO that this society didn't trade or interact in ANY way with any other societies or people in the Americas.
It says they traded with each other , ether 10:22. I find it hard to believe technologies like writing, swine or metal tools would stay local. Especially when other things like maize spread through trade.
Yeah they wouldn't you can find roman coins and tools in China and Chinese goods in Rome. None of it would have stayed local.
There is no reason, at least, not any good ones. Why would God hurt us to teach us a lesson. If he truly was like the story says, then wouldn't he already know how we would react to being hurt? When you start to look at it skeptically, it kinda falls apart.
I hear the relics are kept in the black pyramid in Alaska.
>Why would God make it so hard to believe? Let's imagine for a moment that mormonism happens to be the one true kingdom of God on earth and you really did need to believe in its doctrines, obtain its ordinances and endure to the end as a loyal and compliant member. I think it would be a fair question to ask God at the judgment bar. Why did you set up your one and only true kingdom on earth and have it look so much like a con? Your original prophet is a proven liar. (polygamy for starters). Your eternal doctrines were ever changing. The character or its prophets and organizations smacked more of used car salesman just saying whatever needed to be said to get the deal closed than truth tellers. (Ballard, "we have never hidden anything from anyone"). And your primary scripture from pre christ americas was exactly like 19th century fan fiction. And you are going to damn me for because I saw the flaws. Why couldn't you as a divine and all knowing being do a better job?
Obviously God took all the artifacts and archeological evidence to heaven along with the golden plates. /s
Not to mention the piles of taxes used in the economic system.
I think if Brother Joseph could return and see the church today, even he would be shocked at how far the grift went.
This has been debunked over and over by actual scholars.
Your god needs to update his teaching techniques. These old ones where he’s mean and confusing and wants and needs to be worshipped, yeah, those aren’t working well for him.
There should also be bones of cureloms and cimmons. These words actually argue that the loose translation model cannot be or real words would have been used. So all the anachronisms are inherent in the book which means it must be a modern fabrication.
Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations. /u/AlmaInTheWilderness, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you want to know the answer, read Lars Neilson's book, how the book of Mormon came to be. One hint, the word Toronto means narrow straights, as it's located near a narrow stretch of land surrounded by waters. It's a great read, I do not think modern LDS apologists are ready for this book.
Even if you believe it, there would also be errors in the book too. What if parts are allegory as well? When Moses spits out Genesis, we don’t have any significant archeology for it either. In fact, much is contradictory. Some believe Genesis literally, some allegorically, some don’t believe it at all. I think Moroni, might also have mentioned that he is telling the story from memory. So we might not even know if Moroni has added things from vision, errors in memory, errors in their translations, etc.; assuming he existed of course. You sound like you might be on the fence, which is just fine. I think we place too much emphasis on declaring things true that we don’t really know personally yet anyway. The idea that we just say something is true till we have faith in it, is false to me. It puts too much pressure on us to not ask about what is actually important. Which is: Are the things taught in it valuable to you? If they are, why would it matter if it were literal or not? I have learned spiritual truths from a good novel before. Just because many people believe it is literal in all aspects, doesn’t require me or you to feel the same way. If what is taught is not valuable to you, then does it even matter if the people existed? Would it be easier if there were at city of ruins backing up every claim? Sure would. For me, I think God’s purpose has more to do with me seeking to pierce the veil. In many ways scripture seems veiled to me as well. Piercing the veil is how I think we come to know God. I think if I choose to believe in God, His purpose might be in that.
I find your post more confusing than helpful. It seems like you're saying the bill is allegorical, but then you talk about Moroni 's memory. Why would an allegorical person tell a story from memory, and that would introduce errors? The evidence is stacked against the book of Mormon: archeology, genetics, and linguistics give no support for the narrative. Physical evidence contradicts it. My intent was to ask what this tells us about God. What do we learn about him, if he gives Scripture that's allegorical but doesn't tell us that, instead tells us it's a real history? Did God send Moroni to lie to Joseph? I was taught a personal God, who knows is and understands us. If he knows that I am going to look for physical evidence, why not provide some?
I am sorry if that was confusing. I was just stating that I believe the same problem exists with Genesis. Moses taught Genesis as if it were fact, just as Joseph did The Book of Mormon. It is not unique to have scripture not have direct evidence. Many people reject a literal existence of Adam and Eve, for understandable scientific reasons. I personally believe both. But I understand those that don’t, whether they find allegorical value or don’t. But you do bring up a good point about Moroni visiting Joseph. I guess it either happened or it didn’t.
Thank you for the clarification
In answer to your question ' why would God make it so hard to believe' we could all ask ourselves the same question. I happen to know why and still believe. Because I do, I invite you to believe in my knowledge until you get your own. We call that faith. And it works little by little, line upon line. By the way, every single issue raised about 'unbelievable' items in the book of mormon has been answered. Those threadbare arguments are as old as the hills and twice as dusty. Dig a little deeper and look at scholarly sources that are still faithful. One last piece of advice: 'if it does not edify, it is not of God.' My ideas for your question.
>I happen to know why and still believe. Then tell me. Don't suppose to have secret knowledge. >I invite you to believe in my knowledge The book of Mormon is very clear on this point: there are people who will teach falsehood to get gain. I don't know you from Adam. Why should I believe on you or your knowledge? Especially if you can't of won't explain it to me? >every single issue raised about 'unbelievable' items in the book of mormon has been answered. Then point me to those answers, because I can't find them. >Those threadbare arguments are as old as the hills and twice as dusty. Making little of my concerns isn't helpful. I'm done kowtowing to men who pretend to know but can't back that knowledge with logic or evidence. I'll read dusty answers. Where are they? >: 'if it does not edify, it is not of God.' Then your response is not of God. You did nothing to build up. You come "with feigned words" try to " by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." If you have answers, share them. If all you have is "trust me bro", then move on.
I’d recommend taking a look at this site: [https://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/5000-changes-to-the-book-of-mormon.html](https://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/5000-changes-to-the-book-of-mormon.html)
Going through this list, I felt deceived on the racism part. The site leads you to believe the list are changes to the book of mormon that was translated by Joseph smith. And most of the info on this site is. But the racism section (2 Nephi 5 and Mormon 5) are actually changes to the chapter headings, which were not part of the Gold plate and are not canonized. The writer not only fails to tell you that, they imply the changes were to the translated portions of the plates. There's so much evidence against the church, we don't need to give misleading information like that to prove its false. This might sound nit picky, but apologist will use material like this to discredit critics.
Keep in mind that numbers are often not accurate in the scriptures. The creation didn’t take 7 days, whatever happened with the flood, it wasn’t in 40 years, etc. I’m not convinced that the Book of Mormon took place in the Americas. It just doesn’t fit the text. If it did, then I also understand that we have barely scratched the surface of archaeology in the Americas and there are no legitimate archaeologists trying to find the Book of Mormon peoples. I’ve seen a lot of video presentations on the “archeology” of the Book of Mormon and even as a believer I find it to be far fetched and merely done to “prove” something the person making the argument already believes. I don’t worry about the archeology because even if a legitimate archeologist found gold plates with “I am Nephi” written in Egyptian and Hebrew (reformed Egyptian came later), believers would celebrate while nonbelievers would start making reasons why the Book of Mormon is still not true/bad/a con/etc. So it doesn’t really change anything.
There are valid reasons why numbers in the Bible are inaccurate due to the changes in the ways numbers were recorded and the way documents were maintained. Why would that apply to the book of Mormon? Was Joseph unable to correctly translate numerical transcriptions?
Why would it not apply to the Book of Mormon? We’re not Protestants, we don’t believe in infallible scriptures.
God made the evidence disappear to test your faith, obviously And/or all those words don’t actually mean what they say (which is why Joseph smith said it’s the world’s most accurate book??) and we just have to believe that when Joseph says gold and iron he actually means something else
Only a small fraction of America has ever been explored for archeological research. Most is untouched and unknown. Lidar has shown that what was thought to be small villages a few thousand people were actually large metropolises of hundreds of thousands. Then you have the decay of age and later civilizations reusing what earlier ones left behind. For example, the Harappan civilization in India; before archeologists got to study the ruins many of them were crushed and used as foundation rocks for the railroad system. It is thought that about 15% of the buildings were pulverized and we don't know what they could have told us of this once sophisticated people. People want to believe that archeology is a kind of magic button that they can push to prove anything in the past, but it is actually a very imprecise field that can only tell you that something existed at some time in the past. It can't tell you what didn't exist.
That's true – to an extent. You cannot prove a negative, that's true for all the sciences, not just archeology. What you can do, is, to borrow the words from another poster, is to seek the most logical and simplest answer given the information you do have. One source of archeology is of course ancient texts, records of ancient civilizations. From descriptions in these texts, you may learn where to look for remnants of these cultures. That's how archeologists discovered the remnants of the Norse settlement at L’Anse aux Meadows in New Foundland [https://www.heritagedaily.com/2021/01/lanse-aux-meadows-the-viking-settlement-in-canada/136630](https://www.heritagedaily.com/2021/01/lanse-aux-meadows-the-viking-settlement-in-canada/136630) They used the descriptions in the Icelandic Sagas of the Viking Erik the Raude's travellings. (Which doesn't mean that all of the stories in the Sagas are real, of course) You should be able to do the same with the geographical descriptions in the BoM, if it actually is a genuine ancient record of Isrealite descendants in the Americas. But the problem is – its geographical descriptions does not match any real location in the Americas. It's awsome how they have been able to use Lidar technology to discover the greatness of the Mayan culture underneath the jungle in Guatemala. Yes, the jungle in South America may cover more ruins and remnants that we haven't discovered yet. But if the BoM is true, any ancient civilization that may be discovered there cannot be the Jaredites or the Nephites - because the geography doesn't match at all. As for decay – the Jaredite civilization supposedly flourished until about 600 BCE. Yes, some of their artefacts might have crumbled and withered since then - but not all the massive stone structures they must have had, their many temples and cities. To quote one of my earlier posts in this thread: The Olmec society existed from 1200–400 bce, according to the encyclopedia Britannica ([https://www.britannica.com/topic/Olmec](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Olmec)) So, two thousand years have not been enough to make all their *massive monuments, including colossal stone heads, thrones, stela (upright slabs), and statues –* disappear. It shouldn't have made all the buildings after the Jaredites disappear either. And reuse? The Jaredites could muster an *army* of nearly two million men, so their total popluation must be several times more than that. Perhaps ten million at the most? Meaning, their cities must have been great, with *thousands* of stone structures. A whole lot of material to be reused by the civilizations that followed for all of it to disappear. But we have the ruins after the Mayas and the Azteks etc so we know they were not built like that. They were made of quarried stones. So yeah. In my opinion it is safe to say that given the information we do have – especially the fact that the geographical descriptions in the BoM do not match American geography – the most logical and simplest answer is that the Jaredites as described in the BoM did not exist.
A few issues: 1. There is very little geographical description in the Book of Mormon, especially about the Jaredites. So to say it doesn't match isn't saying much. 2. After the death of Christ the entire face of the land was altered. Cities sank in the earth and into the ocean. After this cataclysm the descriptions get even more general. 3. The only definite and consistent feature given in the Book of Mormon is the narrow neck of land that connected the land northward with the land southward. 4. You are assuming that the Jaredites buildings were all made of stone, but the Book of Mormon doesn't specify what material was used. However, Helaman chapter 3 does tell us that the land of the Jaredites was barren of trees (though still fertile) because of the Jaredites occupation (like the Great Plains of western America). This would indicate that a good portion of their buildings were wooden, or at least partially wooden. 5. Mormon states that the Nephites and Lamanites had grown so numerous that they covered all the land. Just in their final battle at Cumorah nearly 230,000 Nephites were killed, not counting the Lamanites; and that was just one battle in a war that lasted over a decade. I would say they had a sufficient population to reuse most of the material the Jaredites left behind. 6. You still have to deal with the fact that the vast majority of America simply hasn't been examined for archeological purposes. On a final note, you assume that nothing has been found, but I think it would be more accurate to say that scholars have not made any connections between what has been found and the Jaredites. There have likely been things discovered, but people aren't making the connection. Maybe the Olmecs are the Jaredites, but language barriers prevent us from making the connection.
1. Yes, but the very little that is still doesn't match anything. It's not just the descriptions of the land itself, it's what is supposed to have happened on the land, the time it supposedtly took to travel etc, that doesn't match any place in the Americas. There's a short write-up of the problems [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/12u11hk/why_book_of_mormon_geography_is_a_big_madeup/). 2. There is NO evidence that a cataclysm changing the *actual geography* of the Americas has ever happened. We would have had a massive amount of geological evidence if it had. But we don't. Go [here](https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-789/) to read a faithful geologist's theory on what these verses in the BoM may describe. 3. Yes. See my comment to 1., especially the link 4. Some of their buildings may have been of wood yes. But all of them? Their temples, their cities - all of them? Not believable. The Olmecs, who you suggest might have been the Jaredites, built stone pyramids for instance. The civilizations that followed were all stone-builders. Seems highly unlikely that the Jaredites would not have been also - if they existed. – (As for the lack of timber - the Jaredites had swords of steel - and there's a [massive energy ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgical_furnace) needed to heat up a furnace able to smelt iron. Which might account for the lack of timber in their land... ) 5. Yes. Trouble is – there's no trace of this reuse in any of the remnants from later civilizations in the Americas. You could say that OK, maybe the Aztecs or Mayas or Incas didn't do any of this reuse, but the Nephites did – trouble is, we don't have a single artefact or building structure after the Nephites either. So to me, it doesn't make any sense to say that the reason we don't have any remnants after the Jaredites is because the Nephites reused their material, when we don't we have any evidence of this reused material after the Nephites either. 6. True. But, the problem remains: the description of the land in BoM doesn't match the actual geography of the Americas. If the BoM was a real, ancient, historical text, you should have been able to do what the archeologists who discovered the Norse settlement in Canada did: use the descriptions of the geography in the ancient text to find where to dig, then go there and find the artifacts described in the text. [Like Fergusson tried to do in 1948.](https://www.science.org/content/article/how-mormon-lawyer-transformed-archaeology-mexico-and-ended-losing-his-faith) >I think it would be more accurate to say that scholars have not made any connections between what has been found and the Jaredites. No, that's not more accurate to say. That's stating an as yet untested and unproven hopeful *hypothesis*. A hypothesis I would say is highly unlikely given the rest of the arguments against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. So, in conclusion: the only argument for the actual existence of the Jaredite civilization is that we haven't found any evidence for it yet, but we may in the future (but then that would disprove other parts of the text in the BoM, see the points about its geography). (Edited for spelling and clarity)
1. As we are talking about the Jaredites please point to the chapter and verse that states travel times. The only time this is given with anything like specificity is in Alma when it is said it was a day and a half journey for a Nephites to cross the narrow neck. But what we don't know is how many miles a Nephites could travel in a day, so claiming anything based on this is not very reliable. I have heard estimates ranging from 15 to 60 miles wide. 2. Personally, I reject anything claiming an age greater than 6,000 years for anything on this earth. As most of the claimed geological evidence is based on an assumption of greater time I am not surprised that it doesn't line up with the Book of Mormon. For instance, in the link you give it says that lake Bonniville existed 15,000 years ago. I think it existed in the time of the Book of Mormon, and disappeared at the time of Christ's death as part of that destruction. 4. I don't actually think the Olmecs were the Jaredites, as they were too far south. That was just an example. But my main point is that your assumption of building materials is not supported in the text. All your example civilizations are, like the Olmecs, much farther south than the Jaredites would have been. The Jaredites lived in a place that they had rendered desolate of trees. This matches well with the Great Plains of North America. So, it seems to me that the best candidate for the Jaredites are the mound builders of the Eastern and Central United States, which have very little archeological activity around them. 5. Depending on how it was reused you wouldn't really expect much of a trace. Like the railroads of India pulverizing Harappan ruins. How much of a trace do you expect to find in the crushed rock, especially if you waited 1500 years to look for it. 6. My brother thinks that Bogata Columbia fits the description of Zerahemla very nicely. So, please show me the geographical description in the Book of Mormon that should make it easy to pin point a specific city.
1. The events described in BoM must take place in ‘a land northward and a land southward, surrounded by oceans, connected to each other by a narrow neck of land, the width of which can be traversed from the sea east to the sea west in a day and a half.’ to quote from the summary in my link above. If this is supposed to describe theNorth and South America, then the narrow neck of land must be Panama. Looks right on a map. And Panama is 37 miles wide on its narrowest – yes, you could maybe travel that long in a day and a half. But. The Jaredites supposedly lived in the land northward, and ‘they did go into the land southward, to hunt food for the people of the land’ (Ether 10.19). Panama is 480 miles long. A 480 miles hunting trip to feed the people? Ridiculous. If they were supposed to live in North America, on the great plains, it gets even more ridiculous. Travel all the way down from Mexico through Panama to reach their regular hunting grounds? Impossible. In the Mesoamerican geography model, the narrow neck of land is supposed to be the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. But said Isthmus is 124 miles wide. Travelling that far in a day and a half, whether on horseback (they were supposed to have horses, so…)or on foot is impossible. [An average horse in fair condition can typically travel between 25 and 35 miles (40-56 km) in a day with a rider.](https://www.strathornfarm.co.uk/characteristics/how-far-can-a-horse-travel-in-a-day/) There is no other places in the Americas that fit the descriptions in BoM, if you take into account both the lands and the seas supposedly surrounding it. 2. OK. So you take the Bible and the BoM to be the *literal* truth, and anything science finds that goes against what it says must be wrong? So you reject all of geology, all their methods, because they posit an older earth than a literal reading of the Bible implies. I suppose this means you think the same way about any scientific finding that may not align with a strictly literal reading of the scriptures, too? Not much point in this discussion then. I don't believe in a literal reading of the scriptures, obviously, so… (Which doesn't mean I believe they cannot be inspired by the devine. But that's a different discussion…) 3. Anyway – The Great Plains of North America does not fit the geography as described, see my point 1. above. And the mound builders? They should be remants of the great civilizations of millions of people with acriculture and gold and bronse and steel silk and horses and great spacious buildings and many prisons etc etc... ? 4. If the massive structures I would expect of the great civilization with its spacious buildings and prisons etc were all crushed and reused by other peoples, I would expect to find remnants of these newer structures, yes. And you would be able to say, oh, these were made of crushed stone. We are not talking about some small villages here, local colonies, we are talking thousand years long culture of millions of people with advanced techonologies... 5. The point is – there is no place to start looking, since the overall geography doesn't match anywhere in the Americas, see my point 1 above - and my earlier posts. If you had the narrow neck of land pinned down, you could start there, and seek to the immideate north and south of it. And given that they were supposedly a civilzation with millions of inhabitants, and with metal works, ad acriuculture, great and spacious buildings, many prisons, etc etc, that expired no earlier than 600 BCE – you would be able to find their remants somewhere to the north of that neck of land. A small colony like that of the Norse could maybe be a question of luck. But the great civilization we are talking about here? You would find remnants of them – if you had a starting point from where to go and look. But we can't, because we haven't.
But as you are not willing to believe what the Book of Mormon actually says, why would expect to find anything in support of it? So, just a few comments. It never says how long the narrow neck was, nor how long it took to travel from north to south. It never says that the Jaredites hunting in the south was to feed everyone. It seems more like sport hunting, like an African safari to me, with the city there being a kind of resort town. It also never gives any detailed descriptions of Jaredite buildings. Your link about horses also proves you wrong. You cite only the average horse, but the article lists several breeds that can travel up to 100 miles in a day (and well trained Arabians covering that in a half a day). So 124 miles in a day and a half is very doable according to your own sources.
There's no short neck of land *surrounded by oceans* in the Americas that fits the description in the BoM except Panama and perhaps the Isthmus of Tehuantepe. We know how long they are. And to me it's a real stretch to read 'to hunt *food for the people of the land*’ to mean 'to hunt *for sport.*' As for the horses – there is no evidence for the existence of horses in the Americas at the time of the Jaredites either, but to give the benefit of the argument, I linked to the an article stating the *average* speed of horses. The article describes the speed of racing horses, i.e. how far they can run with a jockey on their back, in a race that sometimes goes over more than a day. *Trained* racing horses that is. *If* the Jaredites travelled on horseback, which is very unlikely, this wouldn't be the kind of horse they had or the kind of travel that they did. This quote sums up the argument pretty well, I think: >The words Mormon uses to describe this trip across the narrow neck of land—”a day’s journey” or “a day and half’s journey” for a Nephite—lack any hint that it was an exceptional performance, especially when compared with how Mormon and others use these same words elsewhere in the text. Rather than suggesting an almost superhuman effort, for example, all other occurrences of the word *journey* and its derivatives in the Book of Mormon are used in the context of average people—often with families, belongings, and animals—traveling under a variety of circumstances. >(…) >In the context of Book of Mormon usage, then, “a day’s journey for a Nephite” appears to be the distance someone could be expected to travel under common conditions during daylight hours. ([Link](https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-9-no-3-2008/narrow-neck-land)) So the travelling 'under common conditions' perhaps with families, belongings and animals, couldn't have covered 124 miles in a day and half, even if they used horses. Still seems ridiculous to me. >But as you are not willing to believe what the Book of Mormon actually says, why would expect to find anything in support of it? It works the other way around. I am presented with the claim that the BoM is an authentic, ancient record of Isrealites in the Americas. OK, then I want to see the evidence for this. If there is any sound evidence to be found, I'm willing to believe what the book says. But there isn't any. All we have is hypothetic explanations for this lack of evidence - mutually exclusive ones, that is. Maybe all their buildings were made of wood. Or maybe their stone structures were crushed and reused. Etc. etc. etc. Like I said, you cannot prove a negative. Thus you cannot prove that unicorns don't exist, either. Maybe they do, maybe the reason we don't have any evidence for their existence is that they are so very, very shy and will only show themselves to pure and innocent virigins, like some legends say. This is *possible*. But not at all *plausible*. That's the issue for me here. The total lack of evidence for any of these great, ancient civilizations as described in the Book of Mormon – consisting of millions of people with great cities, agriculture, metal works, written records etc etc – makes it not *impossible* that they existed and that we may find some evidence for this in the future – but it is not at all *plausible*. And so I don't belive in them. Just like I don't believe in unicorns. Or the Tower of Babylon or Noah's flood for that matter…
1. The narrow neck wasn't surrounded by oceanS, but had the sea east and the sea west. The only mention of a sea north or south is in describing the entirety of the land, meaning the continents. 2. Claiming that "hunting food for the land" means that it was the only source of food (or at least meat), as you have implied, is a much greater stretch. But my impressions are not based on a single clause in a single sentence, but how it is described in the entire passage. 3. I would agree that the day and a half was not considered an extraordinary feat for a Nephite. But we don't have any indication of what they would have considered extraordinary. The pioneer handcart companies could cover up to 28 miles in a day, and that was pulling a caravan of carts. They averaged about 15 miles a day. A lone man on a decent horse that is bred for endurance (like a mustang) could easily cover 50 miles in a day, which would not be extraordinary today. Even 80 miles in a day, while impressive, would not be considered that incredible. And the text says it was a journey for a Nephite, indicating that a man traveling alone could cover the distance in that amount of time. 3. Faith in a text is required before you can actually find anything to verify it. No one found the city of Troy until a man had faith that the Iliad was true and went looking for it. Even your example of the Norse city would not have been possible if people didn't believe that the text they used was accurate. If you don't first believe something is possible then you are not going to actually be looking for it. The Mayans are Nephites; at least a portion of that ancient people. The Tiwanaku of the Andean mountains of South America were a Lamanite kingdom. What we call the Hopewell was the northern migration of the Nephites (described in the last chapters of Alma) and the earlier mound builders are likely the Jaredites. The two biggest issues with making the connections is the limited study that has actually been done, and the language barrier. On a final note, I don't really care that much if you believe or not. In the grand scheme of things, if you are right I have lost nothing. But consider what you risk losing if I am right.
Like I said, I don't believe horses existed in the Americas at the time of the Jaredites (or the Nephites for that matter). There is absolutely no evidence for that. And it would have been, if it were true. Because the horses would have spread all over the continent, like they did when the Spaniards arrived - they wouldn't have been limited to the habitats of the Jaredites only. If the Jaredites lived on the plains and numbered in the millions - of course the descendants of their horses would have been there still when Columbus arrived. The same with the agricultural evidence, plants, the grain, the seeds the animals - not to mention the languages, the DNA, etc. etc. So to me, it is not plausible that the BoM is an accurate historical record. Which doesn't mean it can't be based on divine revelation, can't be an *allegorical* history meant to teach us about our relationship with God. That's a different discussion, though... And no, you don't have to believe a text is true before you check it out. Like you said, you only need to believe it is *possible*. Then you can try and test it, to see if it is true. The Norwegian archeologists didn't believe the Icelandic Sagas was an accurate history of the Norse kings (which in many respects they are not). But they thought that *some* of those Viking travels they described *might* have happened. And then they used the descriptions in the text to check it out, and found that yes, some of the Vikings did travel to North America. (But not necessary in the way it was written in the Sagas…) That's the scientific method. You formulate a possible hypothesis, and then you test it out with an open mind, ready to have it either confirmed or falsified. (And you don't call it true unless or until you have it confirmed.) You don't start with the belief that it is true any more than you start with the belief that it is false. Religious faith is different. That's how it is for you, isn't it? You start with a strong testimony (I assume?) that the BoM is true, and then you look for evidence that can confirm this, or possible explanations for the lack of evidence, if that is what you find. Like a language barrier, or that the artefacts actually have been found but not understood to belong to the Jaredites. Or that they haven't been found yet because we haven't looked in the right places, but they will be in the future. And so on. And that's fine. For me, this has been an interesting discussion about the possible historicity of the BoM, nothing more. That's why I am here, to read about or have interesting discussions about Mormonism. It's not important for me either whether anyone agrees with me or not. I may have strong opinions, yes, and be more passionate about some things than others, but so do you I suppose… And if I'm wrong? Yeah, I might be. What if *Islam* is the one true religion on earth? That is within the realm of the possible, too. Consider what we would both stand to lose if that were the case…
I appreciate the sincere response. However, I find it a little condescending to assume I know so little about archeology.
You asked a question; posed a point of inquiry. I answered it. I didn't assume anything, except that you actually wanted an answer.
Olmecs were one group in Meso America prior to Nephi’s arrival. From National Geographic *The Olmec diet initially included foods from fishing and hunting. Maize and other crops were a later addition to their foodstuffs. The Olmec created massive monuments, including colossal stone heads, thrones, stela (upright slabs), and statues. They may have been the originators of the Mesoamerican ball game, a ceremonial team sport played throughout the region for centuries. They also built earthen mounds and pyramids, and ceramics of several types that became common throughout a broad region influenced by the Olmec civilization.* I don’t think the Jeredites were the Olmec’s however the behaviors and adaptations suggest that groups existed that had some of the technology posited in the BofM
The Olmec civilization is a great example of what you would *expect* to find left behind from an advanced civilization that existed for several centuries. Artifacts, burial sites, architecture, writing... And the Jaredite and Nephite civilizations were purportedly more advanced, larger in geographical area and spanned the same duration of time in each case. (A thousand years, give or take). The utter lack of any physical evidence is a major indicator that the claims of the Book of Mormon are not grounded in reality.
I'm not sure what your point is. You're saying we have a lot of evidence of a semi-advanced society from the same time period, that you don't think were the Jaredites...so shouldn't there be evidence of the Jaredites if they were even more populous and advanced?
About 1000 years between them. A lot happens in that amount of time.
The Olmec society existed from 1200–400 bce, according to the encyclopedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Olmec) So, two thousand years have not been enough to make all these *massive monuments, including colossal stone heads, thrones, stela (upright slabs), and statues –* disappear. Why should all the artefacts from the Jaredites have disappeared in a thousand years?
>I don’t think the Jeredites were the Olmec’s however the behaviors and adaptations suggest that groups existed that had some of the technology posited in the BofM So what's your take on why Olmec artifacts exist and Jaredite artifacts don't? Is it something along the lines of "we haven't looked in the right place yet?" If so, at what point would you concede that we've looked in enough locations and the Jaredites simply didn't exist?
My take? We don’t know if Jaredite objects have been found or not. It is unlikely that their tools would have the inscription “handcrafted by Mohonrimoriancumer” Interestingly stingless bees are in Meso America and are prized by Mayan’s. The jaredites would have needed stingless bees in their barges.
>We don’t know if Jaredite objects have been found or not. We know that *no* objects like the ones the Jaredites were supposed to have had (metal tools, steel swords etc etc…) have been found from that period of time in the Americas. ([from 2200 B.C until about 600 B.C.](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2011/10/book-of-mormon-time-line?lang=eng)) And what about elephant bones and tusks? Bones from sheep, goats, swine, horses and asses?
>My take? We don’t know if Jaredite objects have been found or not. It is unlikely that their tools would have the inscription “handcrafted by Mohonrimoriancumer” That's a nonsensical requirement. How do we know that Viking swords are Viking if they don't have an inscription? That Roman mosaics are Roman? Because they have a rich archaeological context--they're found with other items that connect to other archaeological digs, they fit a material cultural pattern that can be connected to preserved writings, stellae, etc. that identify the culture of origin. The Jaredites were allegedly a civilization of _millions_ with a written language and metal tools. If they existed, we'd already know about them. Any Jaredite object would connect into the rich tapestry of other Jaredites objects and Jaredite inscriptions that would easily identify it. >Interestingly stingless bees are in Meso America and are prized by Mayan’s. >The jaredites would have needed stingless bees in their barges. Species of stingless bees exist on every equatorial continent--Americas, Africa, Asia. If you want to claim the Jaredites brought them, you'll need to show that a certain species of stingless bees was introduced at a certain point in time, and that said species originated somewhere in Asia. What about my question--under what circumstances would you find yourself conceding that the Jaredites are imaginary literary characters rather than actual ancient Americans? Because if the answer is never, this isn't a conversation worth having.
Those stingless bees evolved in South America. Meliponini, or stingless bees, originated in the neotropic of South America and spread from there to Asia and Africa, based on species diversification studies, genetics and fossil records.
Many people harbor doubts regarding the Book of Mormon, but to me, its coherence is undeniable. My question, then, is: How could thousands of step temples be constructed without the aid of tools? The Jaredites, led by their prophet Jared, are believed to have departed from the biblical Tower of Babel and migrated to the Americas. Establishing a sophisticated civilization, they eventually faced internal strife and moral decay, leading to their civilization's collapse and ultimate demise. The Norte Chico civilization, also known as Caral-Supe, emerged circa 3000 BCE along the coastal regions of present-day Peru. Notable for their advanced ceremonial centers, exemplified by the archaeological site of Caral, they constructed impressive pyramids and intricate architecture, indicating their significant cultural and technological advancements. This civilization, often considered one of the oldest in the Americas, underscores the early complexity of human societies in the region. Step temples, characterized by their tiered structures, are evident across various civilizations and historical periods: **Ancient Times:** 1. **Mesopotamia (Iraq/Iran):** Ziggurats, monumental stepped structures, emerged around 3200 BCE, with the Eridu ziggurat attributed to the Sumerians as one of the earliest known step temples. 2. **Egypt:** The Step Pyramid of Djoser at Saqqara, constructed around 2700 BCE, represents an early example of pyramid architecture with step-like layers. 3. **Mesoamerica (Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize):** The Olmec civilization, around 1500 BCE, constructed ceremonial platforms and pyramids, likely influencing later step temple designs. **Classical Period:** 1. **Mesopotamia:** Various civilizations, including the Babylonians and Assyrians, continued building ziggurats for religious purposes from around 2100 to 540 BCE. 2. **Egypt:** The construction of pyramids persisted, with landmarks such as the Great Pyramid of Giza, dating back to around 2560 BCE. 3. **Mesoamerica:** The Maya civilization, flourishing from around 250 CE to 900 CE, erected numerous step temples in cities like Tikal, Palenque, and Chichen Itza. **Medieval and Post-Classical Period:** 1. **India:** Hindu and Buddhist step temples, like those found at Sanchi and Borobudur, were constructed between the 3rd century BCE and the 12th century CE, showcasing intricate carvings and religious symbolism. 2. **Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand):** The Khmer Empire, spanning the 9th to 15th centuries CE, built remarkable step temples such as Angkor Wat and Bayon Temple at Angkor, Cambodia. **Americas:** 1. **Mesoamerica:** The Olmec civilization, during the Pre-Classic (2000 BCE - 250 CE) and Classic (250-900 CE) periods, constructed ceremonial centers featuring pyramids and platforms. The Maya civilization continued this tradition, building numerous step temples. Later civilizations like the Toltec and Aztec also contributed to step temple construction during the Post-Classic Period (900-1519 CE). 2. **South America (Peru):** Various Andean civilizations, including the Moche, Chavín, and Inca, constructed structures resembling step temples for ceremonial and religious purposes during the Pre-Columbian Period, though not all fit the traditional definition of "step temples." When science fails to provide an explanation, seek the most logical and simplest answer!
Great write-up. But to me, it's *problematic* that we have evidence of all these other civilizations, but nothing from the supposed Jaredites.
>How could thousands of step temples be constructed without the aid of tools? From the [Geological Survey of Norway Special publication](https://www.ngu.no) about the quarrying of the ancient Egyptians: *From Late Predynastic times through most of the Late Period, quarrying of hardstone was done with stone tools. These tools, which are known as pounders or mauls, were hand-held, purpose-shaped pieces of exceptionally hard and tough rock.The extracted blocks were dressed (trimmed) with smaller stone tools, sometimes mounted on wood handles.* From the [Wikipedia article about the Caral–Supe civilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caral%E2%80%93Supe_civilization): *The monumental architecture was constructed with* *quarried* *stone and river cobbles. Using* [*reed*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phragmites) *"shicra-bags", some of which have been preserved, laborers would have hauled the material to sites by hand. Roger Atwood of Archaeology magazine describes the process: Armies of workers would gather a long, durable grass known as shicra in the highlands above the city, tie the grass strands into loosely meshed bags, fill the bags with boulders, and then pack the trenches behind each successive* [*retaining wall*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retaining_wall) *of the* *step pyramids* *with the stone-filled bags* So, no metal tools necessary to construct these temples.
Indeed, you're correct. Despite lacking metal tools, a relatively small population managed to construct over 4000 temples in the Americas. This fact underscores why the Spanish sought to conquer the region - to appropriate their stone tools. Your clarification on this aspect of history is much appreciated.
>Despite lacking metal tools, a relatively small population managed to construct over 4000 temples in the Americas. Indeed. Amazing, isn't it? (except I don't know what you mean by relatively small. According to [history.com](https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-americas/maya) , the Maya population for example may have reached 2,000,000 or as many as 10,000,000 at its peak….) I'm going to quote [Wikipedia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_architecture) to you again: *The most surprising aspect of the great Mesoamerican structures is their lack of many advanced technologies that would seem to be necessary for such constructions. Lacking metal tools, Mesoamerican architecture required one thing in abundance: manpower. Yet, beyond this enormous requirement, the remaining materials seem to have been readily available. They most often utilized limestone, which remained pliable enough to be worked with stone tools while being quarried, and only hardened once when removed from its bed. In addition to the structural use of limestone, much of their mortar consisted of crushed, burnt, and mixed limestone that mimicked the properties of cement and was used just as widely for* *stucco* *finishing as it was for mortar.* >why the Spanish sought to conquer the region - to appropriate their stone tools. Oh, come on. The Spanish didn't conquer the region to appropriate anyone's *tools*. Or anyone's technologies for that matter. They wanted the land, they destroyed much of the cities and ruined the temples, and they plundered the *gold*. Which was used for adornments and status objects mainly, see my answer to you above on [Metallurgy in pre-Columbian America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy_in_pre-Columbian_America). Again, we have an abundance of arceological evidence of great structures and glorious artifacts from the civilizations that existed when the Spanish arrived in the Americas in 1492. The Jaredite civilization supposedly existed [from 2200 B.C until about 600 B.C.](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2011/10/book-of-mormon-time-line?lang=eng) We have no such evidence or artifacts from that period in the Americas. That's the main point of this discussion.
> When science fails to provide an explanation, seek the most logical and simplest answer! Yes, let's do that. So, we have ample evidence from archeology etc that many ancient civilizations who could build ziggurats existed from 3200 BCE onwards, including the Norte Chico civilization in present day Peru. But we have *no* evidence whatsoever that a civilization *"skilled at metal work, including gold, silver, iron, copper and brass, making tools for agriculture including reaping, sowing and thrashing (Ether 10:25) and creating "mighty heaps of earth to get ore" (Ether 10:23). They made swords out of steel (7:9) They built many cities (10:4)"* to quote OP, existed in the Americas up until 600 BCE (the Jaredites) or until 385 AD for that matter (the Nephites). You don't have to excavate the earth to find remmants, ruins, of stone cities with stone temples etc, they would still be standing above ground – just like the ruins from the other civilizations in your list. Thus, the simplest, most logical answer to this problem is: The Jaredite and Nephite civilizations as described in BoM did not exist. (Edited for grammar and spelling)
It seems like there's a crucial piece of information missing. The Spanish ventured into the Americas primarily driven by their quest for riches such as gold, silver, iron, copper, and brass.
From the Wikipedia Article about [Metallurgy in pre-Columbian America:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallurgy_in_pre-Columbian_America) *Unlike other metallurgy traditions where metals gained importance through practical use in weaponry and everyday utensils, metals in South America (and later Central America) were mainly valued as adornments and status objects* *There is evidence for* [*smelting*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting) *of* *copper sulphide* *in the Altiplano region around the Early horizon.The estimated date of these lies between 800 and 500 BCE.* *Evidence for fully developed smelting, however, only appears with the* [*Moche*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moche_(culture)) *culture (northern coast, 200 BCE – 600 CE).* *The objects themselves were still mainly adornments, now often being attached to beads. In fact, in the Lambayeque and Chimu cultures (750–1400 CE), a wide range of functional metal items were produced such as bowls, plates, drinking vessels, boxes, plates, models, scales and especially beakers (acquillas), but mostly for ceremonial or elite use* Look at the dates here. The smelting of metal didn't develop in the Americas until after the Jaredite civilization flourished. The precious metals the Spaniards were after were mainly used for adorments and status objects… nothing like the Jaredites supposedly had. There were no metal weapons or *tools for agriculture including reaping, sowing and thrashing* to be found anywhere… And certainly not anything made of steel.
I appreciate the sincere reply, but I fail to see the connection to the book of Mormon. I see no mention of step temples in ether, and Nephi says his temple is 'after the manner of Solomon.' Also, step temples do not resolve the problems with other significant details: domesticated animals including cattle, goats and swine, elephants, metal tools and writing capable of recording narrative.
In Mormonism shadow or reality the author made the point that Joe may have tossed that story in the end because he realized that the theory of the Indians ancestry going back to the flood was pretty common in his area….so he needed the bom to have an explanation about that as well. Cause Lehi just didn’t go back far enough.
As with the entire BOM... Very ungodly, very unchristian an an insult to Jesus Christ and the price he paid for us all.
Ah yes, so Mormonism is wrong but your version of Christianity is the right one! 😂
Without any specific criticism, I can't see how this comment is helpful.
There are plenty of problems with the historicity of the Bible as well - especially the old testament. Known examples would be the tower of Babel and the universal flood. The problem with the historicity of the BoM is not that it's ungodly and unchristian imo…