Are there anachronisms in the Book of Mormon? Ep. 62 

From the beginning of Roper's original presentation: "Today I’d like to share some of the results of that work, which I expect to publish and make generally available along with all the relevant documentation. So hopefully by the end of the year we’ll be able to do that for you." That research still has yet to be published, but it seems he has every intention of doing so. Stay tuned.

@@davidjanbaz7728 haha I could do a video, but there wouldn't be much to say. As this video mentions, those 34 are still outstanding.

@@davidsnell2605 Ok, did he publish it?

I think you speak for everyone when you say that. I don't think this video would continue to be faith promoting if the specific anachronisms were discussed.

@@darrencollinwood142 Well, I mean it’s lame they didn’t mention them by name in the video, but I just went onto quora (which, of course, is not exactly the most friendly to pro-lds discussion 😅) and just saw some lists there, so it didn’t really effect me further than just having to put in extra effort to find out for myself

The link shows all the information….

@@Elmorr562 That is very true

If you want to see them listed specifically, one handy place to see them is in Mr. Roundy's excellent youtube presentation on his "Latter-day Saints' Q&A" website. Please see the episode entitled "Book of Mormon Evidences". He shows the chart at the 21 minute timestamp. He doesn't discuss each anachronism specifically, but at least you can see the entire list there. Matt Roper, who put the chart together, also likely has this chart available but I have not looked for it yet.. looking further down on the comments list, I see that Matt has an hour long presentation on fairmormon, so you can likely see his list there as well. I haven't yet seen that presentation.

I’ve never laughed so hard at a comment on RU-vid 😆😆😆

Mormons lol

It is literally in TBS edited every weekend

Thats great but why then isn't there a very large MesoAmerica school at BYU. You would think that with all the money that the Mormon church has that they could produce some really good archeologists to begin those digs.

@@blusheep2 Why would the Church care about archeology more than any other academic discipline?

@@JoshSteimle I'm not saying that it shouldn't care about other academic disciplines but if the church could demonstrate that the Nephites or Lamenites actually existed, then the number of people that turned to the LDS teachings would be astronomical. Since there are evidently all these unexcavated sites throughout the New World then you would think the Mormons would be all in to show the world that they aren't gullible cultists. I understand how hard it can be to find good archeologists. Even in Israel there are well known cities that are hardly touched because they don't have an archeologist to do the work, or the money to do it. But an honest question.... Is there any archeological sites being dug by the Mormons right now?

@@blusheep2 How many people have been converted into sincere followers of Christ based on Bible-area archeology? My guess is the number is quite small. Conversion based on physical evidence will always be weak. True conversion, powerful conversion, must start with desire and faith in the absence of proof. Someone who is merely convinced isn't converted, and being convinced first can actually impede conversion. Otherwise, God would just send angels flying around to convince everyone. So the answer to why the Church doesn't invest in Book of Mormon archeology is that it wouldn't support the primary purpose of the Church.

@@JoshSteimle Its a good question. I don't know how many people have been converted into Christianity based on Bible archeology. The difference is that there is no evidence of anything within the BoM is true. One could look at the Levant and know that there were civilizations there that match the Bible but that isn't the same for the BoM. So one could clearly say that Joseph Smith would have absolutely no clue about them at the time of his writing. Its wouldn't be just a historical validation but a validation of the means of the revelation. And, I'm not talking about proof for every detail of the story. Just the two nations being discovered would be enough. You see, you are right in that trust in God is not going to come through ruins in the ground but right now, all of us on the outside of Mormonism feel its quite clear that there never was any of these groups in the Americas. If tomorrow these nations were discovered there might be a lot more desire to consider the religion. If I could prove God tomorrow to the world I would definitely do so. If the LDS church isn't even trying its because they fear or know they won't find anything.

Dude! That's pretty interesting, you may have right.

👍

One major problem David. The swords in the BoM rusted. How did wooden bats with Obsidian teeth rust? The swords in the BoM were iron, if they rusted.

Sooo he should do a video about 140+ debunked things?? There are researchers like he referenced at the beginning doing that

Check out the link provided in the description of this video. Here it is again so you can read the entire presentation it refers to. bit.ly/2TKL6kT

The research is out there, check Fairmormon they have a lot of details but warning it is long. You might have to put some effort in.

@@rockartalan I just read through it and he doesn't go into a single claim. He just shows the same charts and says "see all that red? Well turns out it's green!". We need substance.

@@josephcowan6779 Also provided in the description under this video are other links. Sorry the one I shared wasn't what you wanted. This link, also available to you in the description, is to the presentation Roper gave 2 years earlier where he goes into the specific details of examples of several of the criticisms that turned out to support the Book of Mormon. Let me know what you think. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-kGSEBwZMpsA.html

I’m pretty sure steel is one of the big ones that still hasn’t had evidence come up for it in that place and time

Oh! Also the deutero-Isaiah or however you spell it

So if there's no steel, that means the Book of Mormon is false, right?

Lucas Yates I’m pretty sure? The way you’re asking that is scaring me 😂. However people could still argue that “the Book of Mormon shouldn’t be taken literally” or that “steel doesn’t really mean steel.” It really depends. Why do you ask?

@@lucasyates5804 Well steel is really hard to find. It not only decays into rust, rust itself is still chemically active and continues to decay. For over 200 years it was assumed by archeologists that no one had the technological infrastructure to manufacture steel on a consistent basis before about 1 CE. When traces of steel were found the common consensus that it was an accident not reflective of intentional industry. History books used to say the earliest Damascus steel dated to about 100-200 CE. In the last 20 years the old model is being thrown out. The earliest Damascus now extent dates to 300 BCE, over 400 years earlier. The Jericho sword dates to 600 bce and shows signs of advanced techniques, obviously not the result of accident but true steel forging. High carbon rust that was dismissed fifty years ago is being reevaluated. New theories suggest that steel was more common in ancient greece than previously thought, and perhaps China and even the British isles. These theories state that previous assumptions were flawed because they didn't take into account how fragile steel is geologically speaking. So how about Steel in the BoM, it is mentioned as pocessed by the Jaredites, at over 2000 BCE. Steel just does not last that long. Even if it was used, finding traces that old would require a miracle in and of itself. So how about Nephite usage? Most Nephite mentions of steel date to the Old World period, the journey in the wilderness of Lehi's group. Fifty years ago that was considered an anachronism because items like Laban's Sword and Nephi's bow did not belong in Bronze Age Jerusalem. The discovery of the Jericho sword, which is not only steel, but of a length matching the BoM description clearly shatters that criticism. How about after the arrival to the New World? Nephi makes swords after the manner of the Sword of Laban. But after that first settlement period, no more mention of steel. Other mineral wealth like gold, silver, iron, and copper continue to be mentioned, but no more steel. It seems the Nephites lost the skill after about a hundred years or so. Critics like to claim that according to the BoM steel should be widespread, and thus its lack counts as an anachronism. But if it was only used in a limited geographic area for about 100 years, then it becomes a needle in a hay stack. Because of its fragile nature, steel artifacts more than 1000 years old are incredibly difficult to find. Basically it requires hermetically sealed low moisture low oxygen environment. Scientifically lack of steel in this context is inconclusive. Thus citing lack of steel is not as dispositive as many critics make it out to be.

Will you be researching for that evidence?

I want a steel horse! Where can I find one! (set sarcasm = on)

3D Printing Professor reminds me of the scene in Indiana Jones where they exclaim about the Nazi’s “They’re digging in the wrong spot!” The old guard is on it’s way out with this one. It’s only the scholars that have kept to Meso myth alive.

3D Printing Professor yes, it’s lie-dar.

You bring up a good point, but even jospeh beleives in further Revelation and understanding line upon line. I'm sure some of it could have taken place where your speaking. But we also have yet to know the full story. And revelation.

Joseph Smith didn't author the Book of Mormon, why would he know better where it was located? Did an angel tell him? Or was he simply assuming?

​@@systematicrisk Good point. However, the way populations mix, most likely you only need a few thousand years to go back for most groups indigenous to the Americas to share a common ancestor. I can’t remember the exact math, but if a single foreigner is introduced into a large population and begins to reproduce with members of that population, it doesn't take long before every person in that population is descended from them. Assuming that the Book of Mormon is about a small group of people that settled somewhere in central America, in a thousand or so years, most likely almost every inhabitant in the America's would probably include that small group as being part of their ancestry. This article explains this idea nautil.us/issue/56/perspective/youre-descended-from-royalty-and-so-is-everybody-else Also, I don't think the Lord is interested in biological relatedness when he talks about belonging to tribes or being descendants of people. For example, the scriptures emphasize Jesus's line going through Joseph despite Joseph not being his biological father. In fact, all that region where Jesus lived and taught most likely descended from David, probably the whole middle east did. One perspective is that the Lehites sacralized the land of North and South America thereby causing all peoples of the continent to be adopted into the covenant God made with the Lamanites, regardless of ancestry. We already see that Nephite and Lamanite quickly stopped being groups based on actual genetic ancestral lineage. People all over Latin America are designated by the tribe of Manasseh in their patriarchal blessing, adding credence to this idea. And if you don't like this idea, regardless all peoples of the America's most likely could count Lehi as an ancestor by the time Joseph Smith came on the scene, including Native Americans.

He listed actual criticisms critics have made against the Book of Mormon. Obviously, some will appear silly to us today, but these were actual criticisms of anachronisms people then believed showed the Book of Mormon to be a fake.

​@@rockartalan That's not the major problem I had with him listing criticisms. The major problem is that the effectiveness of his claims all hinge on the number of negative claims to positive ones. So I'll try and write this clearly: Is every critical or postive claim about the Book of Mormon equal? That is to say: 1 Positive Claim (The Book of Mormon mentions corn- and we know native americans had corn) is equal to a negative claim (no evidence of non-coper metallurgy)? If you think they are, then I could say something like- Scientology is true. Positive Claim: other galaxies exist which is an important basis of Scientology. VS. Negative Claim: Elron Hubbard was recorded saying that the fastest way to become rich was to start your own religion. Now we have 1 claim for Scientology, and 1 claim against Scientology. Therefore, if that's all the evidence that we consider, then we should be neutral about whether scientology is true. However, I think that the negative claim is much more strong than the positive one. I think him admitting that he could get rich starting a religion is more significant a criticism than the fact that space exists. So, if claims are unequal in how strong they are-- then it is silly for the author to treat all of the many different weak criticisms that were eventually proven correct as an equal point against Mormonism as the strong claims (no refined metal or Eurasian animal evidence). That's why the whole thing is silly, becuase if all that matters is the final tally, and the one determining what is actually a valid criticism or not is the actually author himself-- then it's obvious that because his reasoning is motivated in a way that is unconstrained by his methodology (nothing double blind here- not even really a study) then of course it's going to be bogus. Honestly, it's just so members can look at and pat themselves on the back.

@@bobbilderson8556 I think you are missing the point of Roper's research. You say, "the effectiveness of his claims all hinge on the number of negative claims to positive ones." I would say no, that is not the point of his presentation. You need to go to the link and read the whole presentation if you haven't yet. Roper's paper is not just making a tally of how many details are supportive to the Book of Mormon compared to against it. The importance of identifying criticisms at certain times in history is that this shows the general knowledge of of the culture at that time. Joseph Smith's knowledge of such things was probably equal to the more naive of his day. As time went on, the critics had access to more information than Joseph did. So any apparent anachronism criticism that was later found to be supported by science, makes it less likely that Joseph could have made it up. This is not silly at all, but serious scholarship and strong evidence. Here's a link to Matthew Roper’s original research: bit.ly/2TKL6kT

They were thought to be a relatively peaceful people, not always using warfare all of the time like in the BoM. It was later discovered that warfare was a common occurrence. They made a temple in the manor of Solomon's- much less grand but serves the same purpose. A sword in the manor of Laban's- what would much less grand but serving the same purpose look like? A long sharp weapon with a handle?

No. You need to check out the link. When they say debunked it means by non-LDS sources. You need to do research with the intent to understand before using it to disprove or you will remain in your own echo chamber. Here's the link: bit.ly/2TKL6kT Check it out and you will understand that the question of anachronisms in the Book of Mormon overwhelmingly supports its claims.

@@rockartalan So let me get this straight, you claim it is from non-LDS sources, but you cite a LDS source, that doesn’t cite non-LDS sources. Where are these supposed non-LDS sources?

@@adoramay9410 Sorry for not being more clear. The source I provided is the presentation of the study referred to in this video. It presents in more detail the methodology and where the data came from. In a nutshell, the anachronisms were claims made by critics against the Book of Mormon, and debunked means that the general scientific consensus in and out of the church now agrees that a particular assumed anachronism can no longer be considered an anachronism. The purpose of this study was not to document the specific debunking of individual anachronisms. Most of the people at this conference had already seen the individual evidence for many of the items listed, so there was no need in this context to show evidence of things being debunked. Many items listed are commonly known to an average educated person. In many cases, what is more surprising to most than these things being discovered is that they were ever assumed to be anachronisms in the first place. For example many critics early on argued that it was ridiculous to think that the savage native people of the Western Hemisphere could ever have had advanced civilizations with large cities and organized cultures as the Book of Mormon claims. Now everyone knows that the assumptions of these critics were naive because common knowledge now makes them sound silly. Another example is the claim in the Book of Mormon that there could be steel swords in the 6th century BC Old World. But a few years ago a long bladed weapon made of steel was discovered in the Near East that predates that time. Anyone can observe it in a modern museum. workingtheflame.com/ancient-swords/#:~:text=(7th%20Century%20BC%2C%20Israel)&text=The%20Vered%20Jericho%20Sword%20is,the%20center%20of%20the%20blade. Another example is how critics scoffed at the idea that any ancient people anywhere in the world ever recorded things on metal plates. But many decades later we have several discoveries in the Old World of important documents being recorded in ancient times written on metal and even golden plates. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apadana_hoard These discoveries are not just claims of Mormons, but of secular scholars. You can research any of Roper's claims if you want, but they can all be confirmed by non-LDS scholars. Do you understand now? What other evidence do you need?

That will be what happens to some but what most people that reject the BoM want is evidence of the broad story. Show us the Nephites. Show us Zarahemla. If you provided proof for the existence of these large people groups then that would change the way the BoM was viewed over night, AND I'd bet that you would find a whole new interest among the archeological community in these ancient ruins.

Ummmm, might want yo take a minute and watch the video. You’ll probs want yo delete your comment. 😉

What do you think the purpose of science is? Whenever a scientific discovery is made it changes the course of history as we understand it. This is happening all the time, especially in archaeology. That is the point of this video. Did you even watch and listen to this video? Of the 204 anachronisms pointed out by critics since the Book of Mormon was published, over 70% of them have been discovered to not be anachronisms. So our understanding of history has already been changed quite a bit as it applies to the Book of Mormon. You mentioned horses. At the time of the publishing of the Book of Mormon it was believed that horses never lived in the Western Hemisphere. Many decades ago fossils were found proving that they actually were here up to 10,000 years ago, therefore changing our understanding of history. More recently remains of horses have been found even later, changing our understanding of history again. This trend is favorable to the Book of Mormon. Nowhere in this video does it suggest that we should “just have faith”. Why would you say this? The whole point of this video is to provide academic evidence that shows that anachronistic claims against the Book of Mormon are actually working out to be strong evidence for its authenticity. The church has always taught that the faith required for authentic belief must include rational thinking.

Romans having steam engines is a bad example, look into the Aeolipile. Greek not Roman but still.

@@alanbylund2659 It did feel to me that his end message was "don't worry about the other 34 anachronisms because you prayed and god told you that the Book of Mormon is true." It was an odd addition, in my opinion. It was an appeal to emotion when he could have left it with, "out of the 200 anachronisms, all but 34 have been shown to be debunked. I am willing to wait in expectation that the other 34 will be demonstrated as well." I could actually accept that kind of statement... maybe. I think the appeal to emotion is used to subconsciously push people away from investigating any further. I think the video would have been more credible to the skeptic if some of the debunked anachronisms were mentioned and how they were debunked as well as some of the 34 that still exist.

@@blusheep2 I agree that it would have been worth the extra minute on this video if he would have given a couple examples of how anachronisms have been debunked. However, in the description below the video there are some good links that do just that. I especially recommend the first one of Matt Roper. The details are specific and very relevant. Your first comment is understandable coming from a person not well acquainted with the full Gospel of Jesus Christ and how it works. Actually this talk about anachronisms is more about dispelling a red herring brought up by critics to distract from the real issue of whether the Book of Mormon is of God or not. As is pointed out in the video, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore, such arguments are not legitimate arguments against the Book of Mormon's authenticity. They are actually only real evidence for it's authenticity rather, because they show the potential knowledge available to Joseph Smith at the time of its publication, thus showing how extremely unlikely Joseph Smith could have just made all this stuff up. But it was important for this video to point out that no matter how compelling the academic evidence is for the Book of Mormon, the only sure way to know of its truth is by a divine witness directly from God. The word emotion is not ever used in this video, probably because appealing to God through prayer is not about emotions. This is a false assumption. When one receives a witness from the spirit, such can trigger emotions, but the emotion is not the witness. What pushes people away is lack of understanding and the lack of desire to gain understanding.

@@alanbylund2659 Well written response but that being said, it is all about emotion. When people pray about their particular religion and seek God's confirmation, in nearly every instance the "communication" is through one's emotions. You feel at peace... or confident... or secure... or a sense of knowing. All these come through the medium of emotion. What nobody talks about is discernment. So you take someone without faith yet. They are already poised to believe, otherwise they wouldn't be at the point of prayer or of reading the text. They are asked to pray for confirmation, yet they have never heard the voice of God before. They have no discernment for what that voice should sound like. So they pray, and after doing so, they feel very strong emotions towards it and say it must be God confirming the message when it may just be a self fulfilling prophecy. They have no experience to judge the voice of God from their own imagination. BUT... once they accept that what they felt is of God then they no longer need to ask God that question again. Every person I have asked why they believe their particular faith is true responds the same way. "I prayed about it and I feel that God has confirmed it to me." The Christians, the Muslims, the Jehovah Witnesses, and the Mormons. ______________ I agree that this is low hanging fruit. I wouldn't agree that this is a distraction of any sort. There must be a way to verify or falsify Joseph's claim and if he speaks of things in the past using things that only came about in more recent times, then that is a very good way to know of Joseph's false credibility. The issue of anachronisms are at the heart of the question about the Book of Mormon's accuracy. The "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be abused. The problem the book of Mormon has is that there is absolutely no evidence of any of its people groups or cities ever existing. So as a comparison lets look at Ur. For decades, the ancient Biblical city was doubted to ever have existed. It was used in opposition to the Bible by secular scholars, BUT, the people groups surrounding the story are known to exist. The cultural context was known to exist. The other cities mentioned in the stories surrounding it are known to exist. The customs are known to exist. There is a plethora of evidence for the broad story. Ur becomes a detail that is absent and so the "absence of evidence" concept is aptly applied. There comes a time when an "absence of evidence..." is no longer a valid response. What if in a 1000 years there is still no evidence of these peoples and these cities? Are you guys still going to be using "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence?" At some point you have to call a spade a spade. Now one last thought. When we look at the credibility of a book, we aren't just looking at the evidences for it but also weighing those evidences against it. So anachronisms play a roll in this. What does the comparison look like when we do this?

There are only perceived or alleged anachronisms. You are missing the point of the video. Listen again and notice the fact that the nonLDS scholar pointed out -- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

@@alanbylund2659 There are ACTUAL anachronisms. Sometimes, a lack of evidence IS evidence. Have a great day.

@@mikez1114 Examples please.

@@alanbylund2659 Google them. There are a lot of them. Confirmation bias will make it difficult for you to accept them.

@@mikez1114 I'm well aware of the alleged anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. That is not the issue. What you seem to be claiming is that there are anachronisms that are proven beyond doubt. All anachronisms I'm aware have initially been identified by critics. This video points out very clearly that such anachronisms are only alleged at this point. In other words they are all things that could possibly be discovered in the future and therefore no longer be considered as anachronistic. The evidence in the video shows that the overwhelming trend is for this to happen. Indeed it has happened to over 70% of the items initially perceived, alleged or claimed by critics. So can you identify any of these claimed anachronisms that are absolute and impossible to disappear from the list of anachronisms?

We've been waiting for 200 years. Lies are lies. 1 anachronism is all it takes to prove something false. The highly optimistic claims of believers that there are only 34 proven anachronisms seem to be taken as a victory for belief when in fact they merely point to your inability to accept truth/facts/evidence when you have 34x more evidence than you need. Are these 34 anachronisms counted before or after the over 3000 textual changes? Several key ones were not included in the list, such as using the name of Christ 100s of years before his birth (or including his name prior to the angle giving his name in the first edition of the text). Of course, Joseph got rid of that blatant anachronism in the 1837 update. Research has not been kind to the Book of Mormon. As Richard Bushman (mormon apologist) has pointed out, it's pseudepigrapha.

@@scottvance74 What Joseph Smith Saw of the Father and Son in the grove wasn't a lie. They stepped out from behind the curtain to reveal themselves. That Book of Mormon isn't a Lie, for the Bible also contained alot of errors when they translated it... John The Revelator foretold of its coming. That record that was hid up by God and revealed by the angle is now here on the earth among many nations, kindreds, tongues and people just as John saw that this record from the angle containing the everlasting gospel would in the last days get all spread out across the whole planet... Rev 14:7 So The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints with its distribution of the Book of Mormon is fulfilling John's prophecy. God has a habit of hiding things. God can easily cause earthquakes and floods to uncover things if he wants to, but God also wants to test the faith of his people. Isaiah also said that The Law of God would distributed out out of Zion in the last days from two locations on the planet. From Zion in America and from Zion in Jerusalem. Isaiah 2:2-3 The Bible is already in three thirds of the whole planet. But Isaiah says that in the last days the law of God will be issuing forth from just two locations out to all the nations, and they will come to Zion.

@@germanslice "God has a habit of hiding things." On this at least we can agree. The church has a habit of hiding things too - which makes sense because they're just following the example set by God. It took the church 180 years to reveal the brown seer stone. Will it take them another 180 before they show the white one? How about the green one? Yes, the church is very much like a trickster God who likes to hide things and play games with it's children/followers.

@@scottvance74 No, you misunderstood me. The Church has the truth. But God is not going to reveal all of the truth all at once to us because he works Line by Line, Precept, by Precept. God dosen't work the way as you demand him to, coming from your own lack of faith and judgement and perspective coming from the natural man.. He expects his children to have faith in the things that hes already has revealed.....The truth comes in a little bit at a time so the water is shallow at first, but later on it comes rushing in as a flood as torrents of water keep on pushing in. For the truth will continue to sweep and roll forth across the planet whether you like it or not.. Because God has decreed it, John the Revelator has seen the gospel roll all forth, he has seen our day and time. God knows the past, present and future. The Father will fulfill his covenant with the House of Israel.

@@germanslice Please consider getting counseling. A good therapist could really help you.

Thomas Ferguson was a lawyer with a BS in Political Science, not even a minor in either Archeology or even History. He spent his free time raising money for digs in Mexico, but rarely participated in the actual work. He spent far more time becoming a partner in his law firm than digging for evidence. You are misrepresenting his area of expertise.

Epic fail that reflects the natural, normal nature of language? Mmmmmkay. Are you going to complain, now, that hippos aren’t really river horses?

@@towardcivicliteracy we’re speaking of claims being made and then either changed or weak excuses for why they claim isn’t so. A turkey is not a duck, both have wings, both have beaks and both are birds BUT they are not the same. Wheat is not mais and mais is not wheat even both are a grass. Justification and excuses doesn’t make something so just because ones faith wants it to be

@@atheistapostate7019 But the Book of Mormon is an artifact of some mix of Hebrew and Egyptian language culture, probably with in an Aramaic literary style. It's not a book on zoological classifications. Normal language adopts words to new ideas all the time. I really don't understand what you're trying to say. Maybe something like, "Well, I would believe if God would have gotten His zoology right." I have to say, you're certainly not going to appeal to religious people that way. I certainly don't believe in God because he would bow to relatively arbitrary, man-made zoological classifications, which are mostly just worthwhile because they standardize things. Religious people are primarily drawn to what I, and the Greeks, call "eudaimonia"--really the art (though the softer sciences often reflect the underlying truths involved) of living the ethically upstanding, peaceful, kind, just, merciful and happy life. They want to be better, and God appeals to them because of his perfect attributes, that they wish to emulate.

@@atheistapostate7019 LDS scholars have differing views on what the language culture probably means by what it says. But, that's a very slippery game, anyway. Not surprising they disagree on it, at all.

@@towardcivicliteracy "LDS scholars have differing views on what the language culture probably means by what it says." Well OF COURSE they say differently, they are trying to DEFEND the churches stances BUT the ironic thing is that LDS scholars do NOT use a lot of LDS materials they spout at the members, when they are dealing with other academics who happen to be none LDS. ;) LDS Scholars and Historians AVOID using the Church History collection when speaking to other scholars because they know it's been heavily edited to omit historical facts and not creditable as a source.

But wouldn’t god know what they were called? And if it was translated by the power of god why use the actual names of those animals? Edit: Not an anti trying to rile you up btw. Just curious for people’s thoughts on that.

You bring up a good point. It's good and important to remember tho when Brigham young said that Joseph Smith could translate the book of Mormon it could be different and things more brought to by the spirit. So I can see why or how the spirit might guide the readers of 19th century with things they might understand verses better with, with their times understanding. It's interesting to note the book of Mormon was not just for our generation but the 19th century generations as well in a way they could read the book and understand it, and have the spirit confirm it's truth to their world and time.

How about there was never such thing as reformed Egyptian? If JS could not translate actual Egyptian as been proved with the Book of Abraham, what makes you think that he translated a reformed Egyptian which never existed? Wake up

@@purestyle8857 Better example, when Europeans came to the americas they already had words for lions and buffaloes. Cougars and Bison are different animals that look similar, and so the Europeans used the names they knew. The french word for potatoe is earth apple. If the nephites called lamas horses, or what ever that is the word they would choose.

@@purestyle8857 I am really trying to understand the point you are making. If I understand you correctly, then when JS translated the BoM, God should have changed reformed egyptian/hebrew words from the cognates used by ancient writers into terminology more common in the 21st century than the 19th? Because that sounds like a strawman argument to be, attributing intent to the BoM that it does not claim for itself.

According to the Book of Mormon Jesus visited after his death a resurrection, not before his death.

Nice burn!🔥🔥🔥

Or they realize that Mormonism is a form of brainwashing that they were able to escape from and want others to follow their example?

Light a lightbulb

This is exactly true.

My dad works in the archeology field and trust me it’s a lot harder to just to hide evidence than you think.

@@Tomjohnson188 Ask him about the Jericho sword and how it up ended contemporary beliefs about steel.

Which is also a high bar. Archeologist rarely debate possible versus impossible, but likely versus unlikely. None of the anachronisms associated with the Book of Mormon are impossible, so if that is your standard of evidence we are doing pretty good.

@@brettmajeske3525 There are at least three in Steel, Horses, and Lamanite DNA.

@@bradensorensen966 Neither of those three are considered impossibilities. Absence of evidence is not itself evidence of absence. There is a minority of non-LDS archeologists who feel horse did not go extinct in the Americas prior to Columbus. While most others think such an interpretation is unlikely, none claim it to be impossible. Same with steel. In the Upper Peninsula of Michigan evidence has been found or iron mines predating European invaders. Steel is extremely fragile, geologically speaking, and if not carefully preserved easily fades after 1000 years. Archeologists are currently reevaluating many bronze age cultures in Egypt and in the British Isles as having had Steel hundreds or perhaps thousands of years earlier then previous believed. Such Bronze Age Steel would represent lost techniques and knowledge. Again, some early American cultures certain had more knowledge of iron work than had been previously understood, though we still do not understand all of the details. Again with DNA, while its existence is considered dispositive, its lack is not. We do not know what markers we should be looking for. Lamanites were not from the tribe of Judah. Given an estimate 90% genicide rate among native Americans, and it gets even more tricky. There is certainly room for possibility.

@@brettmajeske3525 so steel from thousands of years before 1492 could have been gone... what about the steel that would have been made after then? Why didn’t natives have steel post Book of Mormon times? Or did they just suddenly stop producing it for literally no reason?

@@bradensorensen966 It does not seem you understand the claims of the Book of Mormon. Steel is always listed with other precious metals like gold and silver, and then only for the first 100 years of Nephite history. It is used as a sign of wealth, power, and prestige. It is never described has being in common usage. In fact, 90% of the times it is mentioned it is in relation to the old world, the lands around Jerusalem, before journeying to the new. Historians tell us the primary source of iron during the bronze and early iron ages was from meteorites, not mining. This happened in the British Isles, where the ability to forge steel was lost for around a 1000 years, and only returned when iron mines were found. Steel based technology can easily disappear when a limited source of iron becomes depleted or unavailable. We do not know why they stopped, only that all mentions stop after the immigration to Zarahemla. Gold, Silver, and other precious substances still exist, it is only steel that disappears from the narrative. We only know that Native Tribes in North America used iron/steel tools because we have found traces of primitive iron mines, no actual tools have survived. Given the geological fragility of iron and steel, this lack is not remarkable. I have explained this all before in detail on other threads you have commented on, did you not read my posting?

No, there are things that some people currently believe are anachronisms. You can lean extremely heavily into that belief and disregard everything else, or you can keep an open mind, knowing that things that people had previously thought were anachronisms have been debunked, and it's entirely possible that others will be debunked as well, because we simply don't know everything right now.

@@lyletaylor3728 That is a position to take. I think it depends on the anachronism. Some things sure. Maybe one day we will find a furnace for smelting iron. Something that is missing entirely in the Americas. The statement is still true. There are anachronisms and we should ignore them. I have a better way. If these anachronisms exist then what else exists that would suggest that not all these anachronisms will be answered? Is there anything else that would suggest the book was a fraud or its author a fraud? The anachronisms should at least, inspire us to take a closer look at the BoM and Joseph Smith. For me, the anachronisms are just icing on the cake. The two main reasons I know the Book to be a fraud is 1)There is absolutely no suggestion in the historical record that these people or places existed. 2)Mormonism and its prophet teach the ambition of Lucifer as spelled out in Isaiah.

@@blusheep2 Yes, that approach on how to approach anachronisms is fair. But then you also need to be open to looking at things that seem to promote the authenticity of the record at the same time. It generally feels like those that hang onto anachronisms are opposed to that. While I suppose it may also feel to you that those ignoring anachronisms are doing the same thing but the other way around. Concerning point 1, the historical record is extremely empty in general, and what does exist is always subject to interpretation. So, that doesn't mean much to me - meaning, point 1 is not currently a sore spot for me. For point 2, I'm not sure what you mean, but that is a topic for a separate discussion.

@@lyletaylor3728 I agree. I often tell Mormons, when they are willing to talk which is rare nowadays, that they can't just look at what they think supports the BoM but what doesn't. So what do you think supports it? My guess is that if we create a list side by side my list is going to be astronomically longer then yours. For point 1) I agree that there is a lot of unexcavated areas. These areas though are generally understood in the sense that they are identified as belonging to one group or another. The Book of Mormon doesn't just tell of two undiscovered groups of people or more but it tells of a culture that is completely absent from the historical record. Not just the people but the cities, and the culture and even language. You would think that BYU would have a large archeological school so that it could produce quality archeologists to dig these ruins in hopes of finding some quantity of evidence. As rich as the Mormon church is, you would think they would be itching to give out grants for these digs, especially if they are in areas that fit the description of land in the BoM. You would expect the tribes to pour tons of money into such excavations so they could learn more about their own ancestors. One has to wonder why that isn't the case. Could it be that they are afraid of what they won't find? For 2) This is easy enough to explain. In Isaiah 14 we are told of Lucifer's exile from heaven. In 14:14 it sums up what his sin was. It says that Lucifer said in his heart, "I will rise above the clouds. I will be like the Most High." "Rise above the clouds" is an ancient idiom found throughout the Levant, Egypt and Mesopotamia, along with similar phrases like, "above the clouds," "coming on the clouds of heaven," or "riding on the clouds." We find it in Egypt. Baal was said to be riding on the clouds, and in Daniel we see Yahweh "riding on the clouds of heaven." Something Jesus repeats for Himself before the Sanhedrin. The term was only applied to the God or the gods. With this in mind we can rephrase the verse into something we would say today, Lucifer said in his heart, "I will become a God. I will be like the Most High." This ambition is the very ambition that Joseph Smith taught and is the focus of many of your temple ceremonies today. The teaching of the church is that you to can become a god. You can be like the most high. Your teachings are the very teachings of Lucifer himself. Later in Isaiah 43, God makes it clear. He said, "...that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." What Joesph taught was from the pit of hell and I'm afraid hes there now because of it. Have you ever read rough stone rolling? Remember the list I said we should compare. Even in Rough Stone Rolling the character of Joseph couldn't be hidden.

Good point I never even thought of that 😂😂😂

Where in the americas did the entire book of mormon take place at the same time? Not just one place? Huh.

@@juliopenaloza5655 - Palmira New York In Joseph Smith's head seems the most likely, but I'd like to hear your timeline that fits the data used in this research... Honestly this research allows for very loose geographical bounds in dismissing anachronisms which leads to very inflated numbers of "debunked" anachronisms. You can't submit archeological evidence of something found in Alaska and another thing found in Chile to debunk two alleged anachronisms in a single verse of the book of Mormon. At most you can claim to satisfy one or the other.

There is plenty of evidence still for headplates, at least. Describe the swords you say were found.

KevlarX2 I feel ya. Sadly the mounds are government property and won’t let archeologists dig them for the natives sake

yes thats a possibilty. I think they were throughout all americas yet concentrated in the south

Who knows it's hard to tell! It could be in alot od places people have discussed over the church's history. But alot of research and archeology is needed to be done, to know weather some of these events happened their or elce where.

It’s okay to state this as more than an opinion at this point. There is plenty of proof for the American setting including the words of the prophet.

Words of prophets still learn by line upon line. And understanding. Places could have occured in multiple places. We don't have the full story yet on where things took place in their exacta, more research is needed.

Wow, there is so much misinformation in this post I do not know where to start. Since it literally has nothing to do with the video topic though, maybe It should just let it be.

That's totally cool to have a different belief on this. And we understand we don't agree with each other on this, and that's okay 💜

it's really the only place the church at can go

@@coalhouse1981 It wouldn't be the truth tho, so the church would never go their. But that's a cool opinion. nice:)

@@brendanwilsonvfx5705 well the case against Historicity is quite strong

@@coalhouse1981 The Case "Against" the Book of mormons Authenticity is weak itself, when you've got direction from God that its true and how it's true, by obedience and faith to the lords commandments.

Sebastian J. I have never heard they studied it out and asked God. Can you provide a link to them saying that. I suspect you are making things up.

@@davidjanbaz7728. I didn't say or hint that Sebastian was saying that Heaven's Gate prayed about The Book of Mormon. He claimed they prayed about their leader like we (believers in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) pray about The Book of Mormon. I just read an account of Heaven's Gate and didn't see anything in their about praying to know if the leaders were truly guided by God. I am claiming those crazy cults don't have their investigators pray to God like LDS investigators are encouraged to do.

@@davidjanbaz7728 Thank you for the question. I am an RM. I have knowledge because of that and 42 years of always going to meetings. I have never been a Bishop or other calling higher than that on the totem pole. You correctly defined "investigators". The Book of Mormon being the records of an actual ancient civilization is dogma or our doctrine. One reason for that is one of those people being sent to Joseph Smith as an angel. I'm not sure if one would be disciplined for saying it never happened but is a beautiful parable. People can be disciplined and have been disciplined for believing things contrary to church teachings. I never had someone tell me they wanted baptism but wanted to believe The Book of Mormon stories didn't happen. I don't know what I would have done.

@@davidjanbaz7728 I just rewatched the video. I think David's position isn't that the Book of Mormon isn't historical. His position is that there isn't proof against it. The Holy Ghost has told him it is true and he is giving a large weight to that evidence in his mind.

All religions appeal to sentimentalism as a tool to manipulate people. Truth is truth, it’s logic, it’s rational. God doesn’t play games with us, religions do

Joshua Webster maybe in the realm of apologetics, sure. Regardless, a Christian is warned not to follow any gospel or any Christ not presented by either Himself or His Apostles, and the doctrine of the BoM does not mesh well with the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. I’m not sure even a limna would change the core issues of Mormon theology when presented alongside mainstream Christianity

@@BrendonKing what is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

@@BrendonKing come on! that claim has the same level of credibility as the long list of anacronisms. You are awaiting people show you whats already out there on the subject. And then i guess you will point out the anacronisms once more, you are lacking ram memory, and a good use of the internet.

The LDS Church claim through the bom that the descendants of the Nephites and Lamanites are the native Americans , which group of native Americans exactly? Where did they live? No evidence of their language to compare with Hebrew or even Egyptian so we can see a relation? In contrast examples of older languages like Sanskrit and Latin can be compared and it can be concluded that one came from the other . You LDS people will never admit, that besides claims, you have zero evidence to prove the Book Of Mormon true.

@@katog watch the video again. Correction: watch their video on DNA

david janbaz this is embarrassing. I wrote a short-tempered response, but then I realized I mixed you up with someone else who’s replied angrily to me! Upon further reflection, and after I dug up another comment, I actually admire you and your honesty. In short, please forgive me. I have a hot head sometimes.

david janbaz which post?

david janbaz it was a while ago, on an old video, so it’s extra sad that I confused you with the angry commenter!

Have you read the text? Because the answer to your third point is clearly in the text. No pre-Christian theology is taught in the Book of Mormon until that point at which it was revealed to the people writing it. For the first several chapters, they don't know anything about grace, Holy Ghost, etc. The concepts understood by Christians today are revealed over time to the ancient civilization. You should try reading it. As for your second point, what impact does that have on the Book of Mormon? Not sure how the Deutero-Isaiah theory matters either since it's just a theory. Dead Sea Scrolls back that up.

@@JacobWGowans what do you mean? yes I've read the text. the triple authorship of Issiah is accepted by almost all scholars in the field.. be them Athesist Christain or Jew. it's not some fringe theory. The second point has a lot to do with the BOM ... Mormon 9 contains verses that are similar to the the Longer Ending of Mark. now most Mormons may answer this by saying the God would teach the same thing to both people... but the problem with the Longer Ending of Mark is that if Jesus never said these words than its problem. since The BOM would be qouting verses that were added by later scribes rather than the words of Jesus himself. And like the Deutro Issiah problem this isn't a fringe theory even among Christain scholars it's accepted that Mark 16: 9 through 24 were added by later scribes most modern Bibles make a note of this. as for your claim that no pre Christain theology is taught in the BOM...youve got to be kidding me. I'm going try and me charitable here but even Mormons like Royal Skousken and Richard Bushman admit that there is ton of 19th century protestant lanaquene in the book . according to the BOM, the Nephites new the name of messiah, beileved the messiah was God, Alma teaches about Salvation by Grace and being spiritually born again...none of these concepts existed in pre Christain thought .... I mean go ahead and show me....

You bring up a good point. It's good and important to remember tho when Brigham young said that Joseph Smith could translate the book of Mormon it could be different and things more brought to by the spirit. So I can see why or how the spirit might guide the readers of 19th century with things they might understand verses better with, with their times understanding. It's interesting to note the book of Mormon was not just for our generation but the 19th century generations as well in a way they could read the book and understand it, and have the spirit confirm it's truth to their world and time.

It's also interesting how it contains verses from the dead sea scrolls in accuracy. Same with the book of Enoch in Moses as well.

@@brendanwilsonvfx5705 I find the three issues I brought very problematic for the BOM... the question of whether the BOM came from God is ultimately an untestable claim. However questions like "we're there lamanites?" "what time period was the text likely written in?" are questions we can investigative. I think Deutro Issiah and the Longer Ending of Mark are the death knell for the BOM

Lol no they haven't.

This never happened. There were no steel swords in pre-Columbian America.

Seems like you missed the point of the video

You said it better then i could, he just said they were debunked without showing how at all