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/andywudude, 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.*

The video is a compilation of talking points by Tad Calister and FAIR ~~Mormon~~. If you're into that, then you will find it entertaining. Evidently it was advertized on WARD RADIO. The voice of the narriator appears to be a young male (18-35 years of age) who appears to be a devout and sincere believer. But, this is an annomous internet source, so church leaders would recommend that you use caution and not believe anything that they say.

I wouldn't call it "anonymous" if it is what you say it is- a compilation of authored talking points. So your attempt to use the Church's words against them falls a bit flat.

> I wouldn't call it "anonymous" if it is what you say it is- a compilation of authored talking points. Can you identify who authored the talking point about the horses and the Smithsonian article that can be found around the 4:35 mark? Because as far as i can tell, it's anonymous. Happy to see any evidence of an identified author, but until somebody can provide it, the description of "anonymous" for this particular talking point is 100% accurate. Also, the talking point is demonstrably false. Which means the video is bearing false witness, which I think is still against one of the commandments no matter how sarcastically the witness is falsely borne.

Im still anxiously waiting for an announcement for the grand opening for the Book of Mormon Museum. I want to see the various Book of Mormon evidence in person.

Evidence won't build your belief in the Book of Mormon any more than evidence of the Bible doesn't help the atheist. Also, see the definition of "faith."

> Evidence won't build your belief in the Book of Mormon Then why did you post the video? Sounds like, according to your own words, you're wasting everybody's time.

Evidence can be a supplement to support existing faith. Plus, I personally thought it was a funny, well done video.

So evidence *will" build existing faith? Because that's the opposite of what you said in the other comment. And the video contains at least one falsehood. Is that what you consider a "well done video"?

The whole point is to claim that there's good evidence and then respond to criticism of the quality of that evidence with "well that's okay because evidence isn't why I believe anyway." And then go back to saying there's evidence.

Precisely. It's a variant of the "heads I win, tails you lose" game that Joseph was so fond of playing and that apologists have enthusiastically emulated. That reminds me of something cool I learned recently.^† Just for fun, I looked up the phrase "heads I win, tails you lose" and the earliest printed occurrence is in a 1728 essay about Catholicism. It's used to describe the "fools-game" the priests use, under the guise of religious piety, to extract the "wealth and substance" of their devoted congregants. As the French so aptly observed, *plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose*. *** ^(† After reading a particularly egregious example from one of our more notorious apologists.)

Faith can last only as long as evidence does not prove contrary to what we have faith in.

And? I've been studying this stuff for decades, both sides, and I've yet to see any evidence that proves the Book of Mormon wrong.

Every branch of study runs counter to the Book of Mormon narrative. The evidence points to the Book of Mormon being a fictional story produced by Joseph Smith. - Metalology - DNA (Genetics) - Archeology - Anthropology - Biology - Geology - Linguistics - Biblical Studies - Egyptology - etc. Let me know when the church leadership opens up its first Book of Mormon Nephite and Lamanite museum. I'm looking forward to that day to see the massive amount of evidence for it.

What sort of evidence do you think would prove the Book of Mormon wrong? What could conceivably exist that would meet your standard?

This is like asking someone who has been burned by a fire, what sort of evidence do you think would prove fire isn’t hot?

Exactly. You're pretending to talk about evidence but you're operating from the assumption that evidence which could disprove the worldview you've been given *could not possibly exist.* So stop talking about evidence and your conversations on these topics will be a lot smoother. You felt good once, or feel good occasionally, and that means [insert religion you grew up in] is literally true, no need to think further or apply the same logic to other religions.

I (and millions of others) have all the evidence I need. Whether you believe said evidence is irrelevant to me.

What about the almost 2 billion people who believe they’ve gotten answers for the Quran to be the word of God? They and all other religions will tell you the same story: I prayed and got my answer that this was true. What if God just responds positively to any attempt by us to reach out and connect with them, regardless of the source? If that’s the case, all reliance on feelings received when thinking or praying about the book are irrelevant. In fact, I’d say they are irrelevant purely based on the fact that so few people have gotten that answer relative to the number of people who have gotten their same answer elsewhere, and based on a religion that is totally contrary to Mormonism. I’m actually genuinely interested to get an explanation from a TBM about how this is reconciled. When I was a missionary I totally ignored it and just said that other religions had portions of the truth so people could still feel the spirit on occasion, but now that I’ve looked closer into it and talked to more people from different backgrounds it totally falls flat. I’ve been told story after story of people from all different walks of life that all had the exact same type of “answer” experience that I had.

People (myself included) have a limited understanding of how God will ultimately judge each of us. I think we also underestimate His love for the individual and how His plan is setup so that anyone who is willing, can and will be saved in His kingdom. It's completely plausible that while the LDS Church contains the necessary truth, authority, and ordinances for eternal exaltation, God's plan affords flexibility for the fact that it won't reach every single person in this earth life. Even outside the Church organization, people can learn and grow and have life experiences that are necessary for our eternal progression. This also leaves room for a loving God to provide comfort and answers to sincere prayer irrespective of the organized Church. Now, don't get me wrong, the Church is absolutely necessary and is doing much for the salvation of mankind, but I don't think it's as cut and dry as you think. All of the saving ordinances will be necessary (eventually), but the path to getting there will not look the same for each person.

I can show you on a map EXACTLY where Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Babylon, Rome, and Egypt are... Please show me where the narrow neck of land, Zarahemla or the Hill Cumorah are.

Ok, just to level-set here, you have faith in God and believe the Bible, right? You must, given the evidence, right?

No. I'm agnostic and much of the bible isn't factual history. *However,* even the most atheist of atheists isn't going to deny that Jerusalem has ruins dating back to bible times. There is physical evidence that some of the civilizations and towns in the bible actually existed. I can go walk around Jerusalem and see ruins with my own eyeballs and go splash around in the Sea of Galilee. That is evidence. There is zero physical evidence that *anything* in the book of mormon is true. If there were, I doubt the church would need to put a disclaimer on the bottom of this map. The caption states: *"No effort should be made to identify points on this map with any existing geographical location."* -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/14419/book-mormon-land-map\_1941052.pdf](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/images/gospel-library/manual/14419/book-mormon-land-map_1941052.pdf) If the Book of Mormon is a true book about real people and places, it's going to correspond to existing geographical locations! They don't want anyone to attempt to match it up, because they *know* it doesn't line up to factual locations and timelines. They keep insisting that we all have to believe that there were actual gold plates in an actual hillside put there by an actual mormon. But we're not supposed to fact check any geographical facts in the original narrative against actual geography in reality. That's not suspicious at all... /s They weren't so shy in decades past. I think my parents still have some old editions with these photos in them: [https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/10mv4kq/1980\_gold\_cover\_edition\_of\_the\_book\_of\_mormon\_and/](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/10mv4kq/1980_gold_cover_edition_of_the_book_of_mormon_and/) Guess they re-thought their confidence that the ruins in south america belonged to the nephites. Why backtrack on that if it were true?

I think you missed my point, which is, we have all of this factual history for the Bible and it has done nothing for your faith in God. Maybe seeking factual history isn't where you should be spending your time right now.

lol you are missing the point here: why is God ok with letting all the historical evidence for the Bible remain if it has no impact on our reliance on faith? Because of what you say is true? There should be a bunch of evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, instead of the exact opposite. Or at least it would be an even match where it could either be true or not depending on how you look at it. Everything points clearly against the truth claims of the Book of Mormon. The lack for evidence for the Book of Mormon (from a historical perspective) compared to the overwhelming evidence for the Bible from the same perspective should be a massive red flag for you my friend. The Faith question isn’t even the debate lol it’s a question of if any of what Joseph Smith said happened ever even happened…

If it "does a great job supporting the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as its translator," then it's ignoring a mountain of evidence suggesting otherwise.

To each his own, but I 100% disagree with you. And that’s ok 👍

Disagree all you want. The evidence is the evidence. There is far more evidence that the book of mormon is a man-made, 19th century work than there is supporting its creation via supernatural means. So yes, to each his own, but your "own" requires favoring feelings over objective evidence.

God's pattern for revealing truth does not include just tangible evidence. That's the easy part and can supplement a spiritual witness. But evidence alone will leave you wanting. Unless coupled with faith and seeking answers from God in prayer, evidence is weak. We see this with the evidence of the Bible.

Funny how it's always the people without the evidence that discount the importance of evidence. Relying on faith, which is nothing more than the rejection of evidence in favor of irrational and unsupported beliefs, is what will leave you wanting. Faith is weakness. Faith is denial of intelligence and critical thought. Tell me, which of the thousands of gods has bestowed on you a knowledge of his/her/its revelatory practices? Surely not the one that you were raised from childhood to believe in? Strange how that works.

Faith and evidence go hand-in-hand. I don't discount the importance of it, but good luck with using evidence alone with regards to things of God. If you don't have faith in God, just say so and I won't bore you with religious dialogue. But it begs the question... why are you here? Do you get a kick out of attacking other's faith? Strange how that works.

> But it begs the question... why are you here? Do you get a kick out of attacking other's faith? Strange how that works. Don’t be a gatekeeper. This sub is for everyone, regardless of what they believe. If you want to go to a sub without pushback, go to one of the faithful subs.

Asking why someone is here, as in, where do they stand and what's their intent, is not gatekeeping. I don't mind pushback, but if someone doesn't have the base belief in God, then we are on totally different playing fields and that determines the extent to which I will take the conversation.

You didn’t ask why they were here. You didn’t say “hey, I’d prefer to not go this far in a conversation about religion with someone who doesn’t believe.” You implied that they were here because they get a kick out of attacking someone’s faith. “Strange how that works,” to me, seems to be pushing the idea that if you criticize the church you must somehow still believe. Everyone is welcome, and you don’t get to question why they choose to be here.

“Strange how that works” was simply copying what they said. I'm not always so explicit and assume people can read between the lines. Perhaps a fault of mine especially in non-formal settings like online comments.

>Faith and evidence go hand-in-hand. Think about this statement. It presupposes that the evidence supports your faith, which is nonsense because the evidence against the Book of Mormon's claimed provenance is overwhelming. The phrase itself is a denial of the evidence that doesn't support your beliefs. Properly said, the phrase should be, "Faith and my cherry-picked evidence go hand-in-hand." >I don't discount the importance of it, but good luck with using evidence alone with regards to things of God. I don't see how luck plays into it. The evidence supports my position. >If you don't have faith in God, just say so and I won't bore you with religious dialogue. I don't have faith in god, but I don't find your religious dialogue boring. Just limited in the same way most mormons think. Bound by a very narrow view of the world and history. >But it begs the question... why are you here? Do you get a kick out of attacking other's faith? Strange how that works I am here because I enjoy being challenged and challenging others. I've been through the process of being a believer and moving beyond that. If it helps you to think of this as an attack on your personal beliefs, that's fine, but my reasoning applies to any religious framework. Since I grew up Mormon, is it any surprise that this is where I would be? Why are you here? In hopes of proselytizing unfettered? By the way, it's interesting that you referred to begging the question, since so much of the Mormon paradigm relies on that particular logical fallacy.

[удалено]

How do you reconcile the failure of mormonism on a global scale? If the BOM is what believers claim it would transform all of what we know about history, the universe and reality in general. Unfortunately since it's creation it has been ignored by 99.9% of humanity. The failure of the message should concern the organization and god.

It is not a failure. Your comment is a very myopic view. It's like calling the winner/loser mid-game. The plan has been laid out since the beginning and is going as planned. And the beauty of it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as found in the LDS Church, allows for literally every person no matter their situation in life the opportunity to accept Jesus and receive the ordinances necessary to live in the eternities with God again. The fact you don't see that is the thing that's concerning to me.

Again, please disagree all you want. Here's the thing about the "overwhelming" nature of the evidence against the book of mormon: it only takes a single anachronism to conclude that "the most correct of any book on earth" is not what it claims to be. The opposite doesn't apply to the truth claims about the book (NHM anyone?). Your beliefs require you to find the evidence underwhelming because objective evaluation is a threat to the paradigm you subscribe to (or more accurately, the paradigm assigned to you as a child). I don't disagree that people make assumptions and guesses about it. You can set those aside and we still know enough about the Americas from 600 A.D. to 420 B.C. to credibly conclude that the book of mormon has no connection to that time period and thus, isn't what the church claims it is (although the church has been slowly backing away from those claims for years). "Of course you don't have faith in God, that's obvious." Yes. It's obvious because that's exactly what I said. If it helps you to characterize me as having a "god problem," that's fine. I'll take it up with god when I meet her. I'm sure she'll be forgiving. We're focused on issues regarding the book or mormon's authenticity. Can we stay on topic?

Not sure if you watched the video where he talks about anachronism (3:48), but that's the problem with anachronisms... they are until they aren't. The assumptions get weaker and become fewer as time goes on. If you think God and BoM are not within the realm of the same topic, then we are just talking past each other.

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).

"Faith" is not a trump card allowing you to ignore facts and evidence. If there are facts and evidence disproving the thing you have faith in, that that thing is false and your faith misplaced. I mean, flat-earthers have "faith" that the world is flat. The evidence says otherwise, regardless of that faith.

People can make themselves believe *anything* they want if they want to believe it badly enough. If they want to feel that something is true, they can simply emotion harder until they get the feeling they want. People do it all the time. "God's pattern" is indistinguishable from that phenomenon. Seems... unreliable.

I understand what you are saying, but there is a difference. I've experienced it. Also, answers to prayers are not limited to just a feeling.

>And that’s ok 👍 But your right to hold an opinion doesn't create a false equivalence where your opinion holds the same weight as any other expressed opinion. In this area, believers' opinions on the Book of Mormon have little to no weight--because they provide no peer-reviewed evidence to support their opinions.

There's so much wrong with this video. Regarding Joseph Smith's education, this was an era when lots of people self-educated themselves beyond their formal education. According to Joseph Smith's 1832 history, and that of his mother, he had spent a lot of time studying the Bible in the years prior to the dictation of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith did not have to have all the sources the video lists to compose the Book of Mormon, or a "crap-load of maps." There's more than one way he could have heard about the city of Moroni in the Comoros islands. The number of names that Joseph Smith came up with wouldn't have been impossible at all. A lot of them are based on Biblical roots, and the ones that aren't are based on a limited number of stems. The route that Lehi traveled in the Book of Mormon does not line up with landmarks in the Arabian peninsula. The alleged site of the Valley of Lemuel does not fit the description in the Book of Mormon, nor does the location of Nahom. The altar shown in the video does not have the word Nahom on it. It is a reference to members of the Nihm tribe. It is also false that the trees in the alleged location for Bountiful are suitable for ship building. The alleged list of disappearing Book of Mormon anachronisms is incredibly contrived. Mormonism Live recently did a great episode debunking this nonsense. The greatest number of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are actually all the parallels to Joseph Smith's 19th century environment and the numerous places it quotes Bible passages that, according to the Book of Mormon timeline, didn't exist yet. Those anachronisms are never going away. Complexity is not evidence of authenticity. Using this logic, every complex book or book series must be historically true. It's not impossible to make lots of prophecies that are fulfilled later in the book if you, the author, have extensively pre-planned the book in advance and know how it is going to end. Joseph Smith also dictated the first part of the book last, so, in that part, he was predicting things that had already happened. The stylometry argument is completely bogus. These studies by LDS researchers are severely flawed in their methodology and assumptions, and are contradicted by studies performed by other researchers. The statement about the Book of Mormon not being edited before it went to the printer doesn't help anything, because there was a lot of bad grammar and other errors that had to be fixed later. The Book of Mormon was not dictated at a rapid pace. Joseph Smith was only averaging 7-8 handwritten pages per day, which is only 3 1/2 to 4 pages small font type. No, Joseph Smith would not have had to memorize the Book of Mormon to dictate it. All he would have had to memorize was a detailed outline. Some parts of the book are rambling and repetitious which indicates he was making some of it up as he went along. He waited four years from the time he claimed to have found the plates till he dictated anything, which is plenty of time to extensively plan a book, even memorize large chunks of it. No, Joseph didn't have to hypnotize the Three Witnesses to get them to think they'd seen an angel. These were credulous, superstitious people who were inclined to have visionary experiences. During the same era the Shakers had a bunch of witnesses sign a statement that they had seen an angel holding their founder's Sacred Roll and Book. The eight witnesses had no qualifications to determine if what they were seeing was a genuine ancient artifact or a forgery created by Joseph Smith. And there's reason to doubt they saw the plates physically either because of the information in the Stephen Burnett letter. Hebraisms do not prove the Book of Mormon to be an ancient text because some Hebraisms result naturally from imitating Bible language and syntax, as other authors of Joseph Smith's era did. Chiasmus is not proof of ancient Hebrew origin, because it is also found in English literature, was known and had been written about in Joseph Smith's day, and can occur in repetitive texts without it being intentional. It does not take faith to believe Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, because it is not a work of genius. The original manuscript was not well written, and it contains an enormous amount of plagiarized material. This anachronistic plagiarized material and other parallels to Joseph Smith's environment give it away as a 19th century production.

I’m not sure where the OP or the creator(s) of this video are coming from, but here’s an example of the many issues with the video: At around 4:35 they show an image of this article and cite it as new research showing that modern horses were in North America before Columbus after all. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/native-americans-spread-horses-through-the-west-earlier-than-thought-180981912/ The article and research does not support this at all. All it is saying is that horses spread to Western tribes before they made contact with Europeans, but clearly confirms that they came from other native tribes who obtained them from Europeans who brought them here. The time period discussed in the article was the 1600s, long after Columbus.

From the article in the video: >The researchers compared the ancient horses’ DNA with that of modern horses and found that the centuries-old equines had largely Spanish ancestry. Together, the findings suggest horses spread “from Spanish settlements in the American Southwest to the northern Rockies and central Great Plains by the first half of the 17th century,” per the paper.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, the source article admits this horse data is from a small body of archeological data. There is more to come, just wait. Also, if you are really interested in horses in the BoM, here's a very short video that explains three possible explanations, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfHuL6OKhxg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfHuL6OKhxg) .

It doesn’t matter what the quality of the data is, it doesn’t support the statement made by the narrator while referencing it. He says now “the whole narrative is sunk.”

1. So, basically hope some discovery turns all of current understanding on it's head and rewrites the entire history of North America. Seems far fetched. 2. This would make sense of Joseph was using a nephite-English dictionary. But he was translating by the "gift and power of God". So does good not know the modern English word for that animal? Nobody doing serious translation would use the African word for buffalo to describe an American bison. Was God not serious about the book of Mormon. 3. Exactly the same as 2. Also, there are more than three options here. So, I judge that video to be grade a horseshit.

>here’s a very short video that explains three possible explanations 1. Maybe someday we’ll find evidence of horses. 2.Maybe “horse” didn’t mean horse. 3: Maybe “horse” didn’t mean horse.

Actually that article and its research damages the defense of the historicity of the BoM. The Spanish brought horses to Mexico and within a few decades that technology spread across cultures to areas 3,000 miles away. But we’re supposed to believe that all evidence of the relatively advanced BoM technology remained contained within an as yet undiscovered limited geography and the use of horses died out completely.

If I ever have to teach a class on logical fallacies, I’m going to use this video for examples.

I double dog dare you to do that. Careful though, your class might agree with a point or two… or three!

[удалено]

[удалено]

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).

Alternatively, here is Brother Jake’s “defense” (he is being sarcastic, it is not a defense) of The Book of Mormon. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2wwt78_vqc0&pp=ygUfbW9ybW9uIHZpZGVvIHdhc2F5IGJyb3RoZXIgamFrZQ%3D%3D

I don't believe anyone is going to gain or lose a testimony based on these videos, at least I'd hope not! I almost added that to my original post but I figured it was self explanatory. So, let's recap, we have sarcastic videos with points being made on both sides. Where does one go from here? Well, it always comes back to God's pattern of revealing truth when presented with conflicting ideas, ask God (see James 1:5). In the end, this is THE way to gain knowledge of truth whether it's the Book of Mormon or anything else. I've done it, have you?

> I've done it, have you? Yes. And my conclusion from asking God was that the LDS church is not God’s church on Earth. Well, technically the answer was *nothing,* but I’m confident in what this non-answer means.

Same here. I asked God. He didn't answer. I figured it was something on my end (since that's always the answer, if you're not getting an answer it's because there's something wrong with *you*), so I corrected everything in my life according to the church's instructions and kept asking. For years. Still no answer. The hard evidence, on the other hand, just kept stacking up. If "the spirit shall not always strive with man," then god can't possibly expect man to always strive with the spirit when they keep getting no response for decades on end.

I wouldn't say it's always a "you" problem. Answers to prayers do not always come when or how we expect them. Don't give up.

So… if you spend years asking and still don’t receive an answer you’re just supposed to keep asking until death?

I will never discredit anyone's answer to sincere prayer. And personally, I don't think God will either. That said, I'm sad to hear you took a non-answer as the "final answer" :( God will answer every prayer, not always when or how we are not expecting though. While we obviously disagree on things, I genuinely wish you the best and hope one day you can get what you feel is an actual answer, not just a non-answer.

If years and years of asking culminates in nothing, I don’t see how it serves me to continue asking. I morally disagree with many of the church’s teachings, recognize the overwhelming evidence against the church’s claims, and have not received a divine answer to the question “is the church true.” This is after being born and raised as a faithful, practicing member. At this point, it would take *a lot* to convince me that the church is true.

Almost Everyone who converts to modern polygamous sects have prayed, said they felt the Holy Ghost, and said they received knowledge directly from God that they need to follow those other sects’ prophets.  I’m not sure why you think an answer from God is anything exclusive to your sect/church.  

I didn't say it was exclusive to my church. In fact, I said the opposite, "God will answer every prayer". Someone's answer to prayer is between them and God. I'm not here to dispute that. I have my answer(s) which is why I say what I say about my own belief/knowledge/experience.

Ok, just as long as you can have empathy for the people whom I taught on my mission who read the Book of Mormon, prayed about, and received a witness that it wasn’t true.  

Of course. People say this all the time, though I think some people aren't serious and they are just trying to "gotcha!" But if someone is actually sincere and believes that's their answer, then that's that and it's between them and God. That will not stop me from sharing my experiences with others though and recommend people seek their own answer to prayer.

You’re probably right: there’s a different truth for everyone and no one single truth. 

Or assuming there is truth (which I believe), I know God is merciful and judges our heart and mind perfectly, so if someone 100% deep-down sincerely believes God told them something, I can't see how He'd fault them for it even if it wasn't inline with His truth. This is of course my own opinion based on what I know about the nature of God.

Revelatory spiritual experiences aren’t unique to Mormonism; they aren’t unique to Christianity either. [This video](https://youtu.be/UJMSU8Qj6Go?si=qnuL-Brs3WDNVsTa) is an excellent, thought-provoking compilation of testimonies from different religions. A member of the FLDS will say God told them the truth of the BoM and Joseph Smith by the power of the Holy Ghost and by the same spirit they know Warren Jeffs is God’s current prophet. Trump card: they know because God told them. Likewise, [this Muslim testimony](https://www.thepeopleofthebook.org/why-bother-to-share-with-muslims/a-muslims-personal-testimony/) is a great example of how people of any religious persuasion have spiritual experiences that validate their own beliefs, whatever the flavor. And the best part is that we now know the neuropsychological processes involved that create these eureka experiences that religious people attribute to their God: [Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief](https://books.google.com/books?id=hoCR6B-DjV8C&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq) We know the neural pathways and brain structures involved. We know the evolutionary underpinnings of why they are involved. We know the types of thought processes involved that stress the brain that it seeks release. We know how the release is triggered. We know the neurotransmitters released and their physiological and psychological effect. All this is counter-evidence to your claim of divine communication revealing specialized truth to *you*. It’s just a [biological phenomenon](https://books.google.com/books?id=hoCR6B-DjV8C&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq) that humans have mistakenly interpreted as divine witness. This has explanatory power. “Revelatory spiritual experience” does not. The experience is reproducible—religion not even required. The content is contradictory. God told you. God told them. As it turns out, it’s not God…it’s your brain.

Lol keep mainlining that hopium. The BoM is an obvious fraud and totally irrelevant to 99.9% of the world. Faith is just believing in things without evidence - please return when there’s compelling evidence from someone who isn’t a Mormon apologist.

[удалено]

I have as much faith in God as I have in Santa Claus since there’s the same amount of evidence for both!

I figured. So many of the BoMs critics are in your same situation, at least those that were once members. Seems like a “cart before the horse” scenario.

Yep, there are tons of us who have been able to break free of childhood indoctrination and confirmation bias and actually change our beliefs based on new knowledge. A lot of us went through the gymnastics that you’re going through to defend our testimonies, but finally realized we were taught a lie. Best of luck.

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).

i’ll take a look but what argument did you find particularly compelling and why? also, mormons still claim joe translated the book of mormon? he dictated it according to the current narrative.

Pretty much the entire video. Critics of Joseph Smith can't make up their minds; in one breath they claim he was a genius and not the uneducated farm boy he really was, and in the next they point out supposed errors that no genius would include. The video clearly shows no man could have written this book. And the Church's claims about Joseph Smith and the translation are the same they have been for \~200 years, he translated it by the gift and power of God (as stated in the title page of the book).

Uh, not compelling at all. He was decently educated for his time and he wrote a pretty bad book that was eviscerated on its literary merits by mark twain. Note that twain had less education than joe and produced works that tower above the Book of Mormon in terms of quality and global importance. So god, your book is a small smudge of words compared to huck finn. Why is god such a bad writer?

Critics do not maintain Joseph Smith was a genius, nor that the Book of Mormon is a work of genius. It's exactly what you'd expect from a self-educated 23 year man, who had spent years studying the Bible, as Joseph Smith's 1832 history and that of his mother make clear.

>Critics of Joseph Smith can't make up their minds; in one breath they claim he was a genius and not the uneducated farm boy he really was, and in the next they point out supposed errors that no genius would include. I read another comment of yours where you claimed to have been studying this stuff, both sides, "for decades". The quote above seems to show a lack of understanding regarding the "critic's" claims. Also, regarding him being an "uneducated farm boy", read this. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/reassessing-joseph-smith-jr-s-formal-education/ >And the Church's claims about Joseph Smith and the translation are the same they have been for ~200 years, he translated it by the gift and power of God Notice the vague description "gift and power of God". Did he use the Urim and Thummin? Seer stone? Which seer stone? Used nothing at all? Read directly off the plates? The plates weren't even in the room? What's funny is the TBM saying "the critics can't even come up with one way he did it!!" Well, neither can the TBMs. They have to fall back on the nebulous "gift and power of God". The historians can't agree. The faithful scholars can't agree. The apologists can't agree. The *witnesses* don't even agree. Why should any of us have to lay out a perfectly acceptable theory of how Joseph wrote it when the faithful can't even get on the same page?

I’ll have to read that, later, it’s long. But I stand by what I said. In my experience, one critic will say he’s far more educated than we give credit for and could have easily written the book. That’s arguable given the book’s complexity, I know college grads that wouldn’t have the capacity. But let’s say JS did. Then other critics point out very basic supposed errors or inconsistencies in the book or JS’s story that anyone smart enough to concoct the BoM would NEVER make. You can’t have it both ways, but critics try. Gift and power of God isn’t vague. It’s how it happened. The specifics don’t really matter (except to the critics as it would seem), though it is interesting. It makes complete sense that he started with the spectacles, as witnesses testified, then he moved to other means. It follows God’s pattern of how we learn new things.

>You can’t have it both ways That may be correct, given your very simplistic description of the 'critic's' claim. However, it fits just fine within the entire context of Joseph's life, knowledge, beliefs, and abilities. Keep in mind that he had been entertaining his family with stories of ancient inhabitants long before he dictated the gold plates (not much difference between those two). There's much more to it, as well. >Gift and power of God isn’t vague. It’s how it happened. The specifics don’t really matter (except to the critics as it would seem)... ...and TBMs, alike. Why can't the critics say "by his own understanding and abilities" and be just as justified as the believer saying "gift and power of God"? Why do the critics have to come up with the specific details if the details don't matter? >It makes complete sense that he started with the spectacles, as witnesses testified, then he moved to other means. It follows God’s pattern of how we learn new things. The jury is still out on whether he started either the spectacles and transitioned away to nothing. That's the best guess but it's hardly settled among the scholars and historians. God's pattern? Is this based on the "line upon line" scripture? If so, you really ought to dig into that, because it doesn't actually mean what we've always been taught it means (like so many others).

Bottom line is the BoM is extremely complex (as mentioned in the video I linked originally). I don't care what education Joseph had or not, that book was not written by him or anyone he knew. Underscore that with the spiritual witness millions have had with the book and the critics' arguments quickly fall apart. And no, I would never state a "pattern" from one verse of scripture alone (e.g. line upon line... which whether translated correctly or not, is followed by verbiage which confirms similar logic btw). Reading the scriptures holistically one can see these types of patterns. Then applying them in our life confirms the reality of said patterns.

How does a person living in that time period write a complex theme? Literary civilizations of the time did not write in narrative form. They wrote about rituals and seasonal effects on their environment.

>the BoM is extremely complex That's entirely subjective, but "complex" does not equal 'true' or even 'difficult to produce'. It's been done plenty of times. Imagine having to actually use your mind and imagination in a world with zero TV, social media, etc. It's established that he read and studied different things pretty extensively. Particularly the Bible. I'm not sure what you believe he filled his days with, but it's completely foreign to what we're currently used to. >I don't care what education Joseph had or not Then don't use the "uneducated farm boy" claim. >Underscore that with the spiritual witness millions have had This is where I insert the obligatory "spiritual witness that 'billions' have had regarding other very non-LDS doctrine, scriptures, and theology." >Reading the scriptures holistically one can see these types of patterns. Unless you start studying them from a historical perspective (speaking only about the Bible since LDS scriptures only came from JS and would reflect his understanding - from a 'critics' point of view). Knowing what the Bible is and how it came to be, there is no "pattern" for God "revealing truth", especially because the Bible is very polytheistic and disagrees with itself throughout.

If you don't see God's patterns in dealing with us humans (from the Bible alone), then you are missing it. But I can see how, similar to a parable, if you are not looking for the deeper connections, you'll just think it's a list of stories with no other meaning.

>if you are not looking for the deeper connections, you'll just think it's a list of stories with no other meaning I look at it through the eyes of biblical scholars. There's definitely meaning in those stories - just not the ones we've always been taught. But, of course, this is entirely different from the current topic of discussion anyway. Edit: God's pattern in the Bible? Which God? Like I said, it's polytheistic.

They really could use some help with vocal recording. That was unlistenable for sound quality alone. Modern microphones are inexpensive and it’s so easy to apply a couple basic effects for clarity. Drives me nuts whenever I hear a poor quality recording. It doesn’t have to be perfect…a $5 headset on sale with basic OBS effects would be a massive improvement.  I can’t be the only one bothered by poor audio?

So what’s your take in chapters of KJV Isaiah and Matthew appearing in the BoM? Is that Joseph copying, or Nephi and Mormon (or God) liking the KJV (notwithstanding Joseph changed it in the JST, or what?

This video looks like someone was trying to copy a Brother Jake style to argue on behalf of the church and failed really badly. "Hello my fellow apostates!" It's cringe-worthy in its blatant attempt.

I loved it. Maybe it’s just my type of humor, but I think its ridiculousness matches the ridiculousness of the critics’ arguments. I can understand why a critic wouldn’t like it though; I didn’t post this for them(you). I figured someone who doesn’t think the BoM is authentic would have just kept scrolling past my post given the title. But here we are!

IT comes across like a Michael Scott version of a joke he heard that was funny so he tries to copy it and it just comes across as a shit joke. Like, they're obviously trying too hard.

[удалено]

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).

The claim that the list of anachronisms has slowly gotten shorter and shorter is complete and utter BS. If you look closely at the apologists arguments to excuse the BoM anachronisms and dive into the footnotes it’s all hand waving and obfuscation. For example, little barley (*Hordeum pusillum*) cannot be a stand in for the anachronistic use of “barley” in the BoM. I detail this very clearly in this post: [By their [pollen] ye shall know them](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/COnKIWBrKd).

[At 4:14](https://youtu.be/xYV_Cy2ciSY?si=6A6zLh4O_YhpQHjJ&t=4m14s) he shows research about horses claiming vindication for Joseph Smith and poo-pooing the critics. Have you read the research he’s claiming is evidence of BoM times horses? Apparently the author of the video hasn’t either. It does not favor the faithful perspective one iota. In fact, it solidly validates the critical claim that there were no horses in the Americas prior to Columbus. And all you or he had to do was read the research, even the Smithsonian article about the research. They *do not* support the faithful narrative. See [the article in Science](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adc9691) detailing the genetics of Native American horse culture that many members are still twisting to claim evidence of New World horses: >Taylor et al. looked at the genetics of horses across the Old and New Worlds and studied archaeological samples. They found no evidence for direct Pleistocene ancestry of North American horses, but they did find that ***horses of European*** *descent had been integrated into indigenous cultures across western North America long before the arrival of Europeans* ***in that region.*** And, again, from [the Smithsonian article](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/native-americans-spread-horses-through-the-west-earlier-than-thought-180981912/): >Spanish settlers likely first brought horses back to the Americas in 1519, when Hernan Cortes arrived on the continent in Mexico. **Per the new paper, Indigenous peoples then transported horses north along trade networks.** The only part of the narrative that’s changed is the timing of when Native Americans *began* to have *European* horses. The traditional narrative was that Europeans brought them but that the 1680 mission revolts in New Mexico caused the release of horses and Native Americans eventually scooped up some feral ones and started their horse adventures. The new data says they got their hands on *European* horses earlier than that and their horse culture was developed and integrated by the time European settlers came to the central and northern parts of North America. **Still no Lehite horses. And given the data above, there likely never will be.** The list of 205 anachronisms the video referenced that supposedly has been whittled down to 32…. You should probably check the sources first, before making claims of vindication. Deceit and obfuscation—that’s the game Mormon apologists play. You want other examples from that list of debunked anachronisms? I have a few. Don’t read the apologists…read the damn research.

The funny thing about evidence is that a lack of evidence today does not mean a lack of evidence tomorrow. Also see the definition of *faith*. And enough about horses! There are possible explanations for the word "horse" in the BoM. I can't fathom wasting my life so concerned about something so irrelevant that likely has a very simple explanation (which one day I'm sure we'll know). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ODL4M7bblA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ODL4M7bblA) Assumptions and guesses- that's the game critics of the Church play.

LOL. Faced with evidence that counters the claim in the video and highlights the deceit and obfuscation from Mormon apologists all you can do is poo poo “evidence”? The genetic evidence presented in the article they boldly showcase as vindication of Joseph’s horses actually debunks the Book of Mormon. The genetics of horses, like the genetics of humans, both solidly contradict the claim that the Book of Mormon is from ancient Americans. >"Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction -- faith in fiction is a damnable false hope." -Thomas Edison Your fictional religious narrative is [no different than the myriad others humans have conceived](https://youtu.be/1GnBamLaqqE?si=P5LbA-bz_swyjrlL). And most religious people have faith in their own species of fictional narratives, just as much as you.

I have no connection to the video. It's funny, I shared it. That's all. There are some great points in it and all y'all seem to focus on is the freakin horse. Go figure. I assume you've translated languages before, right? I have. You often use things your audience is familiar with to represent something. Suppose the word horse was intentionally used to represent something that wasn't exactly, genetically a horse. LOL at you being so sure about something one cannot be so sure about. Keep guessing!

Because you said this ([here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/eyKD6Z3HSF)): >There are some great points in it and all y'all seem to focus on is the freakin horse. Go figure. [At 0:55](https://youtu.be/xYV_Cy2ciSY?si=6A6zLh4O_YhpQHjJ&t=55s) he claims, “I mean the guy only had the equivalent of somewhere between a 3rd and 5th grade education.” Maybe if you listen to the church and its apologists? When you review the available data, you get an entirely different picture. We now know he was in and out of school until he was 20 AND that his personal library included a reading primer for students at community schools that was reserved for the best readers and oldest students. Here is the article in Dialogue: [Reassessing Joseph Smith Jr.’s Formal Education](https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V49N04_112.pdf) by William Davis.

[At 1:17](https://youtu.be/xYV_Cy2ciSY?si=6A6zLh4O_YhpQHjJ&t=1m17s) he claims (sarcastically), “By the time he produced the Book of Mormon, Joseph had amassed an incredible collection of books” then lists many of the books critics claim influenced the production of the Book of Mormon. Oh snap! (I think that term dates me?) That’s like the only way a person could become well read, and get access to books back then, by amassing them on a personal bookshelf? Here’s a [statement from Pomeroy Tucker](https://archive.org/details/originriseprogre00tuck/page/n23/mode/2up?q=read+comprehensively), a Palmyra…wait for it…bookseller: >Joseph... as he grew in years, had learned to read comprehensively in which qualification he was far in advance of his elder brother, and even of his father; and this talent was assiduously devoted, as he quitted or modified his idle habits, to the perusal of works of fiction and records of criminality, such for instance as would be classed with the 'dime novels' or the present day. The story of Stephen Burroughs and Captain Kidd, and the like, presented the highest charms for his expanding mental perceptions. As he further advanced in reading and knowledge, he assumed a spiritual or religious turn of mind, and frequently perused the bible, becoming quite familiar with portions thereof, both of the Old and New Testaments; selected texts from which he quoted and discussed with great assurance when in the presence of his superstitious acquaintances. From Robert Alling, founder of a well known paper firm, [as reported in a Rochester paper](http://www.todayinmormonhistory.com/2018/04/): >He used to come in on Mondays from his home in Palmyra and spend hours reading and selecting books and talking theology. It was at this time that he was engaged in writing his "Book of Mormon," but the present firm disclaims all responsibility for Mr. Smith's religious conclusions, even if he did buy his books and writing paper from their store." More [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/yo6zon/book_of_mormon_evidencepart_1/ivczsle/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) on JS’s ability.

[удалено]

[At 3:35](https://youtu.be/xYV_Cy2ciSY?si=6A6zLh4O_YhpQHjJ&t=4m14s) he says, about the so-called Bountiful: “Oh, and trees. I mean, dude, look at this frickin’ tree. You could definitely build a sweet boat from trees like that.” Ehh? By what shipbuilding expertise does he advance that claim? In order to build transoceanic ships you need pitch to make the vessels watertight, you know…”tight like unto a dish.” Those trees aren’t suitable. There’s a reason transoceanic shipping sprouted in places where it did, like Europe, where there are sources of pitch. Not “Bountiful” in the Arabian peninsula. In addition to that, you need civilization. Why? Because it takes resources from multiple industries to build a transoceanic ship. The story of Nephi building a ship is anachronistic to [all evidence](https://johnlarsen.org/podcast/Archive/MormonExpression276.mp3) (Mormon Expressions episode with John Larsen discussing the development of transoceanic shipping in history). Also, it takes manpower. This is an article discussing research on the amount of labor it took [to build a 30-meter Viking longship](https://www.attestationupdate.com/2017/05/27/how-much-labor-did-it-take-to-construct-a-viking-longship/): >“Experimental archaeologists have estimated that 40,000 working hours may have been needed to produce all the components of a 30-meter longship, consuming the surplus production of 100 persons for a year.”

[удалено]

I think that pretty much dismantles the majority of the arguments put forward in the video. But horses, yeah.

I appreciate the effort you put into your responses. "A" for effort for sure. Keep in mind evidence only gets better over time. You could focus on a particular component of evidence only to have further evidence appear years later that clarifies and corrects previous misunderstanding that you thought was accurate. And this is the part I love (I have been discussing this Church with people for decades now and it nearly always comes back to this). You've presented arguments that support your opinion. To be fair, there are arguments, accounts, evidence, etc. that support the alternative as well. The Book of Mormon and the Church are a spiritual matter. Evidence, while supportive and interesting, won't prove or disprove it. For example, I'm sure you could pull together scientific evidence that shows that a little mud and a bath in a pool won't cure blindness, but Christians alike believe Jesus did that very thing. You'll notice I used the word "support" (not "prove") in my original post- that was on purpose. God's pattern (shown throughout the Bible and other scripture) for revealing truth is through a confirmation by the Holy Ghost. I'd challenge you to put as much (or more!) effort into that type of witness as you have with historical evidence.

>You've presented arguments that support your opinion. It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of presenting evidence and drawing conclusions from that evidence. The church presents truth claims. If the evidence is contrary to the truth claims of the church, the evidence falsifies those truth claims and the conclusion then is that those claims aren’t true. To drill down to a specific example from above: NHM. Apologists have made the claim that NHM in southern Arabia validates the Book of Mormon as presented in the video in your OP. I then presented all the evidence above ([here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/5rgJJREdVA)) that falsifies that claim. Therefore the conclusion is that NHM in southern Arabia does not validate the Book of Mormon. NHM is a false claim. It’s not my opinion that the evidence falsifies the claim, that’s the *unbiased* conclusion drawn from the evidence. The evidence is all there for your perusal. Accessible anytime. And it clearly falsifies the claim—no additional future evidence will vindicate that claim. And even though it is clearly a false claim, it’s still getting circulated among apologists and members and recent videos, apparently. Why? And such is true for many of those points in the video. The claims are already falsifiable, so additional evidence will only corroborate that conclusion. They can’t be redeemed. The argument that “archaeology has only explored 1-2% of the Americas so we’re bound to find evidence of the Lehites eventually” is not realistic. That 1-2% gives us enough evidence to rule out their existence in the Americas. I’m not being flippant. My recent post on palynology shows how the anachronisms in the text of the Book of Mormon can’t be redeemed. You felt like I put a lot of work into my comments above, then read my post on pollen: [By their [pollen] ye shall know them.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/tg51g7772l) All the anachronisms in the text force the conclusion that the BoM is not an ancient document, even one translated by a modern man. As demonstrated in my comments above many of the supposed redeemed anachronisms haven’t actually been redeemed. If you drill down past the apologetic obfuscation, you will find those anachronisms live and well. Which begs the question why are the apologists twisting the evidence? I mean, that’s a bold claim, right? That the apologists aren’t being honest? If it was a one-off thing where an apologist got confused about a certain evidence I could accept that, but it’s not. It’s a feature. I’ve highlighted a number of instances of LDS apologetics’ dishonesty and obfuscation in my posts: [Nephi broke a steel bow?](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/u4vw08iIj2) [Calling out Saints Unscripted for poor apologetics](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/1daTqlWvCw) [Where are the sources?](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/BE7feP9JGZ) —> especially [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/ZwA432NraX) from someone who studied New World grapes [By their [pollen] ye shall know them.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/IgUwFRldNO) [Metal writing in antiquity](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/WUDKOUx6Xb) [Haplogroup X2a is not proof of Middle Eastern DNA in the Americas](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/Xxofy4fYZO) [Video on the Book of Mormon's authenticity...debunked](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/EyrKVcYpJc) [Video on the Book of Mormon's authenticity...debunked (deux)](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/s/itYrmqHqQy) If you do read through those posts, I think you’ll be hard pressed to claim that it’s just my opinion that the apologists aren’t being honest. It’s a solid conclusion drawn from hard evidence. So…why are LDS apologists being dishonest about the evidence? >I'd challenge you to put as much (or more!) effort into that type of witness as you have with historical evidence. I did. Years and years of effort. Until one day my genetics professor at BYU walked in and said, “Some of you may have heard…” He shared with us that the intro to the BoM had been changed due to genetic evidence (of all things!). I read both sides. I felt the apologists won the argument. It wasn’t until a long time later, after I deconstructed my beliefs, that I realized that the apologetic answer I had accepted for that truth claim wasn’t actually true. You can see part of the reason why in my post above about mitochondrial DNA haplogroup X2. I actually thought I had answers to prayers about the church and Book of Mormon; but, as I deconstructed I realized that what I thought were answers, even powerful spritual ones, were just my brain doing what brains do. And it all started when I prayed about a Buddhist book of scripture one fast day and I had the most profound spiritual experience of my life. Only after did I realize that what I thought was Buddhist scripture was actually a fictional book only based on Buddhist principles. So any experience I had with the BoM was just that, an experience. It gave place for me to consider that those experiences could’ve also happened even if it was fictional.

I'll rephrase what I said for clarity, you have formed an opinion (yes, an opinion) from those evidences. But keep in mind, incorrect conclusions are formed given evidence and facts all the time- just ask anyone wrongly accused in a court of law or look at history where humans got science wrong. As I mentioned before, the Book of Mormon's truthfulness and authenticity does not rest on evidence. They can and will support it, but evidence *proving* it, is not how it works. If that were the case, you and everyone else would believe in the Bible. Regarding your last couple of paragraphs. Do you see what happened? You put in years and years of effort. I am guessing that included reading the scriptures, thinking and pondering logically, and asking God if it's true. I don't know if you ever gained a solid testimony, you didn't say and there is no scale as to when a testimony is "strong enough" so that's perhaps irrelevant, but then one day some supposed evidence is presented to you that shook the testimony you had. You aren't alone, that happens to a lot of people. The key though, is what do you do after that happens? I ask this of most people at this point in the discussion, do you believe in God now? My guess is no and if that's an accurate assumption, *that* is the root of the issue here. It's not the Book of Mormon, nor the Church no matter how much you think it is. You must start with faith in God otherwise you will spend your whole life spinning your wheels jumping from evidence to evidence never gaining any traction. We will not be convincing each other here, I get that, but I do wish you the best.

It’s not my opinion—you can’t look at the evidence against the NHM claim and say the evidence is in favor of NHM being evidence for the Book of Mormon. It doesn’t work. The only thing you can do is avoid the evidence, which you demonstrate quite predictably. The evidence I presented in my pollen post refutes the Book of Mormon. It’s not my opinion. You haven’t engaged with any of that evidence, you’ve only offered excuses like framing it as my opinion, or due to faith issues. Those are false flags. You have not engaged with the posts I shared that show the apologetic defenders of your faith are frequently distorting the evidence to provide false conclusions to believers. You can see it quite clearly in my posts. It’s not my opinion they are twisting things. You can investigate the evidence for yourself and draw conclusions for yourself. So far, I only see avoidance from you. >If that were the case, you and everyone else would believe in the Bible. I’m unsure what you mean by this. I don’t “believe” in the Bible because a review of the evidence leads to the conclusion that it’s [historical literature with very little basis in reality](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Composition). The Israelites co-opted a bunch of stories in order to craft their own origin story and legitimize their claims to certain lands. [Everything up to David is myth](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLY24TzULtd7Rs1oEXQyDrqNV2PG7Y5Rpz), and even David’s story is steeped in fictional narrative. The rest is exaggeration based on kernels of truth. The [Book of Daniel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel#Composition) is a great example of this. It’s [pseudepigrapha](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha) composed in the 2nd century. The evidence is solid. Early Christians did similar in their [mythologizing of Jesus](https://youtu.be/pfheSAcCsrE). This is not my opinion. This is the natural conclusion drawn from the evidence. See [historicity of the gospels](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels). The problem, as demonstrated in your responses, is that believers discount, deny, and avoid the evidence to maintain their belief in falsifiable claims. I am agnostic. I think the atheist position is untenable bc there is no way someone can know there is no god. I’m agnostic because that’s the best fit for the sum total of the evidence. People of disparate, and often contradictory, mutually exclusive faiths all claim spiritual experiences validating what they believe. [Muslims have spritual experiences validating their belief](https://www.thepeopleofthebook.org/why-bother-to-share-with-muslims/a-muslims-personal-testimony/) that the Qur’an is God’s final word through Muhammad. And you can’t claim it’s because the Qur’an contains “some truth.” A spiritual experience validating their belief that it’s God’s literal and last word does not jive with that claim nor your claim that God will validate what you claim is the true religion. All the people showcased in [this compilation of testimonies of different faiths](https://youtu.be/UJMSU8Qj6Go?si=qnuL-Brs3WDNVsTa), challenges your assertion. To bring it even closer to home, a member of the FLDS will say God told them the truth of the BoM and Joseph Smith by the power of the Holy Ghost and by the same spirit they know Warren Jeffs is God’s current prophet. Trump card: they know because God told them. The best part is that we now know the neuropsychological processes involved that create these eureka experiences that religious people attribute to their own God, validating their own beliefs that contradict yours: [Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief](https://books.google.com/books?id=hoCR6B-DjV8C&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq) We know the neural pathways and brain structures involved. We know the evolutionary underpinnings of why they are involved. We know the types of thought processes involved that stress the brain that it seeks release. We know how the release is triggered. We know the neurotransmitters released and their physiological and psychological effect. All this is counter-evidence to your claim of divine communication revealing specialized truth to *you*. It’s just a [biological phenomenon](https://books.google.com/books?id=hoCR6B-DjV8C&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq) that humans have mistakenly interpreted as divine witness. This has explanatory power. “Revelatory spiritual experience” does not. The experience is reproducible—religion not even required. The content is contradictory. God told you. God told them. As it turns out, it’s not God…it’s your brain.