Mormon Debate | Evidence for the Book of Mormon?

The Book of Mormon’s Historical Claims and the Book of Abraham

The point is that Joseph Smith is not teaching in the Book of Mormon. What he ends up teaching in the Book of Abraham, which itself is...

You're right, we don't have to...

In fact, I will counter your Book of Mormon statement by saying that the Book of Abraham is one of the clearest evidences that the Book of Mormon is a fraud.

No, it's not, because I think the Book of Abraham is beautiful and true, and I think we have great evidence of that with the Plain of Ol Hashem and with the manner in which Egyptians were sacrificed. We know those things are both true when we're verified.

You can think all you want...

It's true, it's fact, it's fact, it's fact.

Just allow one and then two.

When you can turn an Egyptian funerary document into...

You believe in a talking snake, sir. God can work miracles. You believe in a talking donkey.

God can work miracles.

I will allow that statement to stand, because there is absolutely...

Can God work miracles?

You just...

Can God work miracles?

I didn't pay you to say that, did I?

Can God work miracles? Can God work miracles?

That...

Can God work miracles?

...identify the fraudulent utilization of an Egyptian funerary document...

Can God work miracles?

...as a miracle, similar to what God would do, is unfortunately a level of deception that is very, very frightening to me.

I don't think it is. And I would say to you... Sorry, I think it's a fair comparison.

It would mean that you have absolutely no capacity to be able to check and balance your own statements.

Well, I will let the audience decide. I won't insult you. Here's what we'll say, though, about the Book of Mormon. We know from many evidences that it is an authentic ancient record. It is an objectively true record.

And I know that... And I know that...

It's completely obvious.

Well, hey, can I...

Non-Mormon scholar...

Please, let me finish. We'll let you finish.

Let me finish.

I will.

As an archaeological guide.

Please.

Okay, well, go ahead and finish up.

Let me finish.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Archaeological Evidence for the Book of Mormon

So, in your book, by the way, we talk about... I know that you, in one of your episodes I watched, you actually were quoting Fawn Brody and things like that. Well, that's probably the worst... To get true Latter-day Saint history, you want to get the newest scholarship and not old, crud scholarship that no one likes anymore.

It isn't true. So, and that's... I'm sorry, unfortunately.

That old stuff, yeah.

So, for the Book of Mormon, the way to authenticate it being an authentic, you know, true historical record, we would need to see evidence of it in, you know, linguistic evidence. We need to see that there is a literary parallel to other ancient texts that Joseph Smith did not know about.

We would need to see archaeological evidence. And guess what? We've got that.

Archaeological evidence.

You know what?

So, you have a limna? Could you show me a limna?

I would actually...

I'll actually give you some right now if that's...

Okay. So...

No, no, no, no. A limna. I was looking for a limna.

Well, I don't care what you're looking for. I'm going to give you what I have. So, uh... The point is, there are no limnas, are there? Please.

Is there a limna?

Please let me finish. Please let me finish.

You made a point.

You made a point and I'm interacting with points.

No, no, no.

I haven't even made my point yet.

I didn't give an example.

You made the statement.

Okay.

Well, I'm just going to read it. I'm just going to read. I'm just going to read. February 2018, National Geographic came out with this wonderful new project where they unveiled wonderful information about Guatemala.

And from this, we know... Actually, I'd like to quote Thomas Garethon of Ithaca College, who was on this project. He said, and this is called light detection arranging, where they can basically find what's underground by shooting lasers into it and find what was there.

And this is a wonderful new technology we were using to find out about the ancient world. He said, among the most surprising findings was the ubiquity of defensive walls, ramparts, terraces, and fortresses.

Warfare wasn't only happening toward the end of the civilization. It was large scale and systematic. This matches perfectly with Moroni 4913. Moroni had fortified and built forces security for every city and land roundabout.

I'm not finished. I'm going to continue. Even highways. And there are many highways cast up and roads made.

With horses, right?

Well, I'll get to that later. And guess what? We find that there were highways. So again, this is more Book of Mormon things thought not to be true, which we now know are true. Even with sunken cities.

Heck, we even have a person verified. Zenus of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon prophet. Luckily, we can go to the biblical antiquities written by Philo around the time of Christ, where they talk about Zenus.

And if you would like to learn more about this, I would think you should go to BookofMormonCentral .org.

They're going to know why.

We have a place. We've literally verified a place.

Let's allow interaction.

Swords, bows and arrows being used with armor. Yes or no?

Well, one, we have found metal.

Yes.

Not metal.

Well, what does it mean by armor?

You and I both know that armor is different material in different countries. It isn't just the European sense of armor.

Horses as well.

The people who wrote that article, would they affirm that the people they're looking at engaged in battle on horses with swords to where they could scalp other people the sword? Yes or no?

Does the Book of Mormon say they rode horses?

Yes.

No.

There are no horses in the Book of Mormon.

The horses are in the Book of Mormon. But here's where I think Protestants get wrong. And let me

Did they have swords?

Can I respond?

Did they have swords?

Mr. Dr. White? Please.

I will respond.

You did.

I will respond to your point.

Swords.

You're using, are using sword in the sense of the word sword or in the way the sword we know about, in like in European, in the

If you can scalp somebody with it, you and I can figure out what it is.

I mean, you can scalp someone with a sword with it. You can act with a knife, whatever you want to use. I mean, you can, you can use a

Here's the metal gleam.

I mean, we know what Joseph was explaining. We know what he was describing.

I would love to Because this is actually a beautiful, beautiful thing. I think our evangelical brothers and sisters, I think they would love this information. And I think your audience would like it.

A meerkat is not a meerkat. Hippopotamus in Greek means water hog or water horse. For Joseph Smith to say that these were horses, it's very fair that he saw an animal, which they weren't riding. They use them for meat or they're grazing in the Book of Mormon.

Saw an animal in what? In the seer stone?

When he's translating. And so to say this was a horse, one, it very well could have been an actual horse. And there is some archeology coming to back that up. The other answer is if it wasn't a horse, well, it's been around for a while, but they're still waiting to really present it full force saying we know for a fact, but we're pretty positive there were horses.

And actually most Native American legends would agree with that too. Native Americans know their history. And so we could say it could have been a horse, but it's also fair to say if it wasn't a horse, in the Book of Mormon, they're not riding horses.

They're not riding them, holding swords. They're eating grass or they're using them for clothing. So it's fair to say he may have seen some animal that he would call a horse. And we do that. We've done it with animals so much.

We say, we say buffalo. We're talking about Northern bison. We say a meerkat because it looks like a cat's not a cat. We say a seahorse because it's got like that little spout looks like a horse. So to say that Joseph Smith meant exactly what you think he meant, that isn't fair.

Especially, especially with the context of knowing that there is archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. Nahom, Zenos, Highways, Fortresses. We know these things are true. And so it's fair to say they also had those in China,.

Which means the Book of Mormon actually took place in China. I'm sorry.

That is all okay. No, no, no, no, no. That is not a bad argument. It's not, it's not, it's not, it's not. Because that would mean Joseph Smith was...

I gave you about three minutes there. I gave you about three minutes. Let him, let him...

That would mean Joseph Smith was the best guesser of all time.

He wasn't.

He was a prophet.

The Book of Mormon has archeologically accurate information. The Book of Mormon has archeologically accurate information.

Could you let him respond to...

No, I, I, I'm just simply pointing out that this kind of argumentation could be used to prove anything.

No, it can't. Absolutely cannot.

It is the specificity of the claims of the Book of Mormon.

Yes.

When we, when I just asked the audience, compare the archeological information that we have for both Old and New Testament sites, the cities, the material culture, the, for example, the Book of Mormon gives us a specific currency that was present amongst these people.

Currency, especially when it is made of gold and silver, is the longest lasting element of material culture. We have never found anything anywhere in North America or Central America...

Wrong, not true.

...that has any, well, name it. That's why I asked you for a limit.

So here's what I'm going to say to you. I was actually talking to a Native American friend who, well, I won't say friend, but Native American who is a Latter-day Saint. And he gets, actually gets offended when people go and they try to compare archeology of the Bible to the Book of Mormon.

Why?

And I'll say why. First reason is to, to hold them to the same standard is to pretend that colonization didn't happen and that you, and that Protestant and Catholic people did not murder thousands of Native Americans, destroy culture, and commit genocide amongst people.

So one, we don't have lineages and history of many, many tribes of Native Americans. So to say, oh, the Book of Mormon isn't true because we don't have overwhelming evidence of it. One, we do have evidence.

But two, to say it isn't true because of that is to discount and say that, it's to say that Native Americans and all of these cultures are not...

Historical disconnection.

No, it's not.

It is absolutely not historical disconnection.

Can I demonstrate why it is?

Please.

Will you admit it if you're wrong? Because I'm not getting the feeling that you'll admit to anything that's wrong.

Okay, well, let's not, let's not do personal attacks.

The destruction of the Nephites took place when, according to the Book of Mormon?

It was about 1 ,500 years ago when Moroni buried the place.

And when did the Spanish arrive here?

Oh boy, I don't know if there's, I can give you the exact date.

A good thousand years later? At least 900, 800 years?

I'll give you that.

How in the world could they be responsible for the destruction of the archeological material that you're talking about with lasers?

Let me say...

It has nothing to do with the horrific things that they did.

I'm actually really happy you said that because I have a happy answer for you.

This is astounding to me. This is really astounding to me.

Well, you know what? Good, I'm happy. I'm happy I'm making you happy. So we know when you study civilizations that things are passed down from one civilization to another, especially if it's the same area of land.

So Moroni buried the place, yes. Okay, and we know from new technology that there were these big cities that came to be. So if there were these cities, if there were 15 ,000 more people in Guatemala than they thought before, and there were fortresses and highways, okay, well, that works with the Book of Mormon.

He buries the plates. The Spanish come in. There are all these, there are thousands and thousands, millions of indigenous people. And Europeans commit genocide and murder many of them. I think it's, I think everyone would agree that evidences and stories of, and legends and things that would connect to our Book of Mormon, brothers and sisters, in the text, I think it's fair to say that a lot of that would be taken away and wiped out because of genocide.

Do you know the number of indigenous people that died during the colonialism period? It's estimated to be 130 million. 130 million innocent people, well, I'll say people, I mean, murdered and then diseases spread.

And this is a horrible atrocity. And so it's very right for a Native American who is a Latter-day Saint to say, wait a minute, you're saying this book isn't true because we don't have evidence for it?

Guess what? We can't back up the history of my people with evidence either. You're saying that didn't happen? They were murdered. That's how, that's genocide.

No one is, no one is.

Well, actually, I think many people are saying that.

No one is questioning the existence of these people in the past.

The point, so if a chief comes to you,.

If a chief comes to you, no, no, we're talking about archaeology, which we have.

We're talking about physical reality. We're talking about actual coins. This has nothing to do.

Oh my gosh. Do you think it's easier to find a highway buried or a coin that's buried? A coin is this big. A highway is this big. Which one are you going to find first?

Coins last forever. I have coins from that time period.

How much, how much, how much of ancient Mesoamerica have we dug up?

That's where I find it fascinating.

Do you know?

Is it, percentage wise?

That's where I'd like to bring.

What do you want to know?

The conversation back to something I think that's more fundamental, because this is, I think, an important conversation to have.

I think, well, I think it's,.

But there's something, there's something more.

Yeah.

I haven't talked for about 30 minutes.

You're very, you're very humbled by it and like very nice for letting us spar because it's good. I appreciate it.

Yeah, absolutely. So I think one of the things that strikes me as peculiar in terms of when a Latter-day Saint says that they're representing the same God that gave us the Bible, in terms of the argumentation for the Book of Mormon, for Joseph Smith, is I don't find in anything that you just said in terms of, we need to look at the coins, archeology, the history, the stuff in the Book of Mormon, linguistics, these sorts of things.

And that's how we'll know Joseph Smith's a prophet. That's how we'll know what he's

I think the spirit tells you.

That's how we'll know what he says is true. What I would point out to you is that if you represent the God of this revelation, then I would say that whatever you're saying, your doctrine, your teaching needs to be consistent with what this God actually revealed to us.

So I'll just point out to you