I'm probably going to be asking a lot of questions on here since I am trying to get to learn all aspects of Mormon 'proof' before I come out to my parents as atheist. I want to be able to defeat any argument they bring up.

So it would be nice if I could get some comments on the list of Mormon evidence in the link below.

http://mybigquestions.info/My_Big_Questions/BOM_Archeology.html



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2015 05:34PM by whiteandelightsome.

Might I suggest some books that may answer many of your questions.

"Losing a Lost Tribe"
"1491" and its sequel "1493"

As an atheist, I don't think it's necessary to refute Mormonism, Christianity or anything else. Religion is a matter of belief and faith, and I simply don't believe in any of them or have faith that they're real -- which is exactly how Mormons or Christians feel about other religions. "I disbelieve Mormonism the same way you disbelieve Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, or whatever."

When they say, "(Insert argument here)," I reply, "I don't believe that." And when they say, "But, (insert another argument here)," I reply, "I don't believe that either." And so on.

I am definitely not an atheist but totally agree with SM.

Just basically say 'I don't believe that and therefore can't put my time or effort into doing anything associated with that which I just don't believe is true".

When I left Mormonism I still believed in God but basically stated the above ------ everyone, even Mormons, seemed to understand what I was saying and left me alone.

You can believe whatever you want and don't need to defend it to anyone.As you don't want your beliefs attacked, it might be best if you don't attack their beliefs.

If you are under 18, your parents still can insist on activity in the LDS church.

If you are over 18 and dependent on your parents, they can cut all support for your lack of shared beliefs.

they can cut support, even if your under 18. I don't know if it is legal or not, but my parents had no problem kicking my brother and sister out of the house into homelessness at 15 years of age.

...for simply being argumentative.

It may interest you to know that back in the seventies there used to be a BYU Department of Ancient Archeology. Yep.

Then the accreditation organization announced it would pull BYU's accreditation if they did not close down an archeology department with no body of evidence for the students to examine.

That pretty much sums it up. BYU could not produce any evidence, just apologetics, so the Dept was closed.

If you are an atheist, or atheist-leaning, I'd like to recommend some great debates to further inform you. For mind refreshment, I go to the Sound Reason roku channel and listen to Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris debate the Jesuits. It freshens one perspective. https://channelstore.roku.com/details/21741/sound-reason.


Kathleen

First of all: the burden of proof is on them !!! It is NOT on you or others who do not believe MORmON claims. Before anything else is done, a person needs to make this abundantly clear to the MORmONS.

As long as they are saying that a person must follow their prescribed (MORmON) course of action based on their MORmON based authority, and you are not advocating any special course beyond just living, then THE burden of proof is entirely on the MORmONS to validate their "THE" church.

Others have already pointed out that the "burden of proof" is on mormons who claim the book is "true," not on those who don't believe their claims. And they haven't met their burden of proof. In any way.

The claimed "evidence" in the link you provided all fits the same pattern. It goes like this:

The Book of Mormon refers to some "thing."
Somewhat similar "things" have been found (some of the similarities are a real stretch, though).
Therefore the Book of Mormon is plausible, even though not one of the "things" found can be identified with any Book of Mormon culture, person, or place.

None of that is evidence for the Book of Mormon. It's evidence that some of the "things" mentioned in the Book of Mormon may, in some forms, have existed in the "old world" or "new world." But since Smith knew of many of those "things" before writing the book, and even if he didn't, none of them are spectacularly unusual or unique, they could all have been Smith simply writing based on what he knew about the Americas.
And since none of them can be linked to any Book of Mormon culture, person, or place, NONE of them are evidence for the Book of Mormon being "true."

The rest of the claims, almost entirely arguments from incredulity and/or ignorance, ("Joseph Smith was uneducated, and so couldn't have written this book! Therefore it must be true!") aren't even worth bothering with, they're fallacious on their face.

Evidence for the Book of Mormon would be evidence for the Book of Mormon -- not evidence for similar things in other cultures or from other people. If, say, an inscription were found somewhere in Mesoamerica that clearly translated to "Zarahemla," THAT would be evidence for the Book of Mormon. If a chariot were unearthed in Mexico, or a steel sword was found in upstate New York and shown clearly to date to pre-Columbian times, those would be evidence for the Book of Mormon. No such artifacts or inscriptions have been found. No evidence has been found. Which only leaves mormon apologists with claimed "parallels" (many of which aren't parallel at all), and arguments from ignorance and incredulity.

There is no evidence for the Book of Mormon being "true." There is a huge amount of evidence of the cultures of the Americas during the claimed BoM times, and none of them have anything to do with the BoM.

There is no reason to consider the BoM "true," and massive evidence showing it false. End of story.

Thank you for your intelligent reply as always! What were the things that Joseph likely already knew about?

whiteandelightsome Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for your intelligent reply as always!
> What were the things that Joseph likely already
> knew about?

One of the ones I've seen apologists making a "big deal" of recently are "large earthen fortifications." They claim the BoM describes these, and Joseph couldn't possibly have known that peoples of the ancient Americas used them, so it must be true. Then sometimes they point to archeological finds in the 1970's that 'prove' their point.

The thing is, though, the "mound builder culture" was well known in Smith's time -- in fact, the unknown "mound builders" were the subject in his time (and before) of much speculation, and it was the same unknown "mound builders" that inspired Ethan Smith to write "View of the Hebrews."

The "mounds" that inspired such speculation were all over the areas Smith and others lived and visited. And there are numerous claims, from before and during his time, that these "mounds" were the remains of ancient city walls, temples, fortifications, burial sites, all sorts of things.

Most of them weren't archeologically studied until fairly recently (although some work began on them in the late 1800s), so there wasn't science establishing some of them were "fortifications" until after Smith lived. But there was a lot of speculation that's what they were, from the time the first American colonists found them. At most, they show that for SOME of them, Smith guessed right from the speculations of his time. That's it.
And, of course, not a one of them can be identified with any BoM people or culture, and most of them are from the wrong time period anyway. That doesn't keep the apologists from claiming them as evidence, though. :(

Interestingly the "fortifications" etc. described in the BOM are not described in much detail UNTIL the narrative reaches the Hill Cumorah region. Then it mentions that they heaped up earth and then put wooden stakes at the top of them.

This is exactly what was known in Joseph Smith's time about ancient fortifications found in the very area where Joseph Smith lived. These things were studied and descrbed in printed accounts in books, newspapers etc. Some of these "mounds" would have been very close to areas through which the young Joseph Smith traveled.

Mormon apologists want to make out Joseph Smith to be some ignorant boy, rather than a studious man (which he was when the Book of Mormon was produced). They also grossly underestimate the information that was available to him.

For example, here is a quote from "View of the Hebrews." In "View of the Hebrews" Ethan Smith argues that the Indians were descended from Hebrews. Tell me if this doesn't sound like an abstract for the Book of Mormon:


"The probability then is this; that the ten tribes, arriving
in this continent with some knowledge of the arts of civilized
life; finding themselves in a vast wilderness filled with the
best of game, inviting them to the chase; most of them fell
into a wandering idle hunting life. Different clans parted
from each other, lost each other, and formed separate tribes.
Most of them formed a habit of this idle mode of living, and
were pleased with it. More sensible parts of this people
associated together, to improve their knowledge of the arts;
and probably continued thus for ages. From these the noted
relics of civilization discovered in the west and south, were
furnished. But the savage tribes prevailed; and in process of
time their savage jealousies and rage annihilated their more
civilized brethren. And thus, as a holy vindictive Providence
would have it, and according to ancient denunciations, all
were left in an “outcast” savage state. This accounts for
their loss of the knowledge of letters, of the art of
navigation, and of the use of iron. And such a loss can no
more operate against their being of the ten tribes, than
against their being of any other origin. Yea, we cannot so
well account for their evident degeneracy in any other way, as
that it took place under a vindictive Providence, as has been
noted, to accomplish divine judgments denounced against the
idolatrous ten tribes of Israel.

"It is highly probable that the more civilized part of the
tribes of Israel, after they settled in America, became wholly
separated from the hunting and savage tribes of their
brethren; that the latter lost the knowledge of their having
descended from the same family with themselves; that the more
civilized part continued for many centuries; that tremendous
wars were frequent between them and their savage brethren,
till the former became extinct."

--Ethan Smith, "View of the Hebrews" 2nd edition, 1825,
Poultney Vermont, P. 130.

No way did the BoM come from "View of the Hebrews"!

According to JS, God TOLD him ALL ABOUT the BoM in Sept 1822, which just so happened to be a few months before VoTH was published in 1823.

Now the BoM wasn't published until years later, but God had already revealed it's EXISTENCE months before VoTH. So we therefore know for a fact that the BoM came first.

Don't we?

Even if it were somehow proved that ancient Jews populated the New World, that still doesn't mean the contents of the BoM are factual. The populations in the Bible actually existed, but much of the content of the Bible is fictional. Modern fiction refers to actual places and civilizations all the time, but it's still fiction. Fiction can present wonderful, uplifting, edifying, inspiring messages and truths, but it's still fiction. It's one thing for a religion to say their cherished stories, though fictional, are useful tools for teaching spiritual concepts. It's something else to insist the fictions are factual.

I don't care one way or the other, but you can imagine how TBMs can expire in paroxysms of joy when they read the likes of this, from Wikipedia:

"Circumcision is practiced by some groups amongst Australian Aboriginal peoples, Polynesians, and Native Americans. Little information is available about the origins and history of circumcision among these peoples, compared to circumcision in the Middle East.

"For Aboriginal Australians and Polynesians, circumcision likely started as a blood sacrifice and a test of bravery, and became an initiation rite with attendant instruction in manhood in more recent centuries. Often seashells were used to remove the foreskin, and the bleeding was stopped with eucalyptus smoke.

"Christopher Columbus reported circumcision being practiced by native Americans. It was also practiced by the Incas, Aztecs, and Mayans. It probably started among South American tribes as a blood sacrifice or ritual mutilation to test bravery and endurance, and its use later evolved into a rite of initiation."

- - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

Now obviously a TBM is going to stop there and smugly tell you that this PROVES the BofM is true. And you might not get your typical TBM to move any further on this issue, since at this point the joy is complete: Abraham covenanted with Yahweh and this splendid ghawd said, in his best Flip Wilson impersonating a Black female judge's voice said, "Cut off your pee-pees!", and only Jews and their descendants practiced this noble act.

But further research (Yay Wikipedia!!) indicates that circumcision has sprung up independently all over the world. The first record of the practice is found in Egypt, dating to the Sixth Dynasty, 2300-2100 BC. The article on male circumcision details a host of unconnected locales and cultures where circumcision exists/existed, all independent of a loving ghawd.

- - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision

And then amusingly, there is no record of Judah or Israelites in the archaeological record until roughly 1200 BC, in the person of Haibiru tribes in the hill country around the Jordan River. Modern Israel accepts the proposition that the book of Exodus is right up there with our current veneration of the ghawd, Santa Claus.

"most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about the Exodus recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence due to the complete lack of direct evidence for its historicity.

"Historically, there were no Jews in Bronze Age Egypt (the setting of Exodus and, long before that, of the pyramids' erection), because there were no Jews at all until the rise of the kingdom of Judah in the Iron Age. Israelites first appear in the archaeological record on the Merneptah Stele from between 1208-3 BC."

- - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Egypt

But none of the above is sufficient to dent the certainty of "I know the church is twoo!"

No matter which cultures it began in, I've always wondered...

What guy looked down at his member, and decided, "Hey, let's cut a piece of this thing off and see what happens?"

I'd like to punch him in the face. Idiot.

C.Hitchens: what can be presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

It might be helpful to keep in mind that no amount of factual evidence or logical argument will prevail against pure emotion. Most TBMs are operating on faith which is entirely based on traditions and emotions. You can't change those things in other people, if they choose not to think.

They may, someday, be moving toward a more rational life, themselves. Then, you can help them with facts and logic. But until that happy day dawns, you may need to learn to live with the idea that your truth is not their truth. And it may never be, dang it.

Find ways to make your own life, regardless of what your parents think. If necessary, temporarily, if you are very young, go along with what your parents demand --- but only in outward form. As soon as you are legally able, make yourself independent.

Is a civilization whose ruins and writings we know about but cannot decipher. It is the perfect opportunity to write a pseudoscripture about a lost tribe, because we don't have to say anything to substantiate our claims: all we have to do is prove that the critics have definitely not proven that our claims are unsubstantiated or that they couldn't be substantiated in future discoveries. Even if they could, we would just wave our hand in indifference and say "ya, but look at these strained parallels and hooky logic that we DO have! We should have faith."

Think about that, and then search through their logic again and you'll see what I'm talking about plain as day.

I am going to suggest you take a little different approach.
This is not a test about who is right and who is wrong. Right Fighters have a difficult time maintaining a relationship.

Religious beliefs are not about facts. There is no need to prove anything or disprove anything. It won't matter to the believer anyhow. There is an old saying: "don't confuse me withe facts, my mind's all ready made up."

Also, I have found there is no need to share personal beliefs or non beliefs. Relationships can do very well with general decent behavior of kindness.

Nobody needs to know that you are a ...... fill in the blank. Personally, I only use the term:agnostic as I want to preserve relationships. Too many folks tend to go "off the rails" when they hear the word--atheist, so I just don't use it out of a necessity to deal with people "where they are."
Religion in general as a belief system is an emotional attachment to the beliefs.
There is another saying that applies here: you can't reason yourself out of something you didn't reason yourself into.


My view is to tell as little as possible about my personal beliefs at any given time as I am constantly changing and evolving. My belief, opinion, perspective changes as I have new experiences.

In short: I'd say very little. I like to say: "I changed my mind." and let it go with that. I am not interested in anyone's testimony or beliefs, or getting into any argument. Our belief systems are about our personal rights. We all have the same rights to those beliefs that create our world view.

I changed my mind about my religious beliefs after over 35 years of marriage, husband did not. So we made an agreement to agree to disagree. That got us through the 50 + years of marriage until he passed away in Jan of 2013.

Ultimately, if religious beliefs are a deal breaker, there is not much you can do about the relationship. Time to move on and keep like minded people in your life and limit those that are not supportive.

If you are determined to counter the LDS beliefs, there are dozens of articles and web sites that can handle every single facet of the religion.

Remember: beliefs and opinions are not facts.
Religion is not based on facts, it's based on a belief with an emotional bond.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2015 10:21AM by SusieQ#1.

Always refer back to "Who Said?"

Eventually you get back to JS said.

So a guy says god talked to me and told me, etc, etc,

Really?

Then look at JS before and during his lifetime.

Really?

The starting of the LDS religion was ( according to JS ) to be a new dispensation of gods true teaching. To clean up the convoluted mess Christianity had become. because to true order of things were lost when the prophets of old died off.

Yet, from the beginning it has been a train wreck. lies, cover-ups, deceit, polygamy, polyandry, ever changing doctrine. racism. the list goes on.. Of all the people on the world at anytime and in JS's time, this freak is the best god can come up with? Really?

Fact is, he and his butt buddies came up with a plan to write a book and sell it for money. This didn't work out. In pushing this book, JS being the charismatic person that he was started to get a following. Somewhere in that he claimed he was a prophet and this book came directly from god. For whatever reason this took hold and his following increased. he was making money and mostly he gained power over people which he loved. This is when he started making "prophesies" and claiming to have a direct channel to god. and it went from there.

This is also why the first vision(s), the keys (priesthood) and other "doctrine" were back dated. He made it all up later to have a history. If you look into JS after he started the church you will see that he mostly ignored the BOM. He started having a lot of visions which resulted in the book of commandments, later to become the D&C. If you will notice the D&C greatly contradicts the BOM (the most correct book) as JS kept changing his mind on things. As his head grew bigger and bigger as the "prophet" mentality took over.

The LDS church is not governed by the teaching of the BOM, but by the D&C. All of which are JS and company's thoughts and visions.

http://mormonstories.org/michael-coe-an-outsiders-view-of-book-of-mormon-archaeology/

Dr. Michael Coe is the Charles J. MacCurdy professor emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University and curator emeritus of the Division of Anthropology at the school’s Peabody Museum of Natural History. He is an expert on the Maya, who inhabited the same part of Mexico and Central American where Mormon scholars say the events of the Book of Mormon took place.

Stick to the big picture, not the nit picky - cherry picky stuff they will bring up.

Basically all you need to say is that you have strengthened your standards for what you accept as factual evidence.

The things that you no longer accept as factual are things like:

Faith
Feelings
2nd hand experiences
Authority figures

Therefore, you do not believe LDS claims (or religious claims). In fact, since they depend on this kind of evidence, that is even more reason to reject them. A God that operates like that is not something you will arbitrarily accept.

If God wants to show up, that's fine. However, one way conversations, holy books, and self appointed spokesmen are not cutting it with your new standards. These are the tools of cons.

Honestly, this can be a huge issue with your parents. Your mother is likely to feel like a failure. If you can't be elusive about your lack of belief, be sure and thank her for encouraging you to study and think independently (even if she didn't).


(Read Sagan's Demon Haunted World for more information.)

I agree with others that suggest not even getting into it. But if YOU DID get into it, I wouldn't worry about being able to defend or counter everything right there on the spot. You can always disagree, but plan to research that further.

There are tons of historical facts that condemn JS, the BoM and many points in LDS church history, but I can't keep all that straight or recall which ones are well documented and which ones are not as well documented.

So I tend to stick with basic modern issues that I totally disagree with. I don't agree with the LDS church's view on homosexuality, nor it's treatment of Blacks, which only changed in the late 70's, nor it's view on women's roles.

So. You want to learn all aspects of Mormon proof.

Well here's my two cents worth of advice. There is none! None! Nothing! No TRUTH whatsoever!!!

There is only one aspect of TSCC's TRUTH, it is verifiably FALSE.