BoM Generations - oops!

[Hagoth]

Here's a quick TikTok video of yet another reason the BoM is obviously fiction:
https://www.tiktok.com/@actuallyitwasam ... meYYWxioVH
Summary: the lengths of generations is too long. The likelihood that that many consecutive fathers would have children that late in life is quadrillions to one against. But, for you BoM faithful, it IS possible. Just as possible as winning the lottery 6 times in a row using the same numbers.

Or as possible as the likelihood of Israelites, horses, steel swords, and Martian vacationers in Mesoamerica.

[moksha]

But, for you BoM faithful, it IS possible. Just as possible as winning the lottery 6 times in a row using the same numbers.

So you say there is a chance!!! That will be enough to sustain many True Blue Saints (formerly Mormon until it was declared a devil word by President Russell Nelson).

Shulem at Discuss Mormonism has delved into this age problem.

https://discussmormonism.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=946

[deacon blues]

I remember reading the BOM in seminary, looking down at the dates/years, and thinking this doesn't seem right. there were too many years and not enough generations. RFM goes into detail about it. If it's not a smoking gun, it is one more nail in the coffin.

[wtfluff]

Hold on there a minute or three folks. Remember how Noah lived for 900 years?

Maybe those Nephites and Lamanites just lived a lot longer than us modern humans, and their generations were stretched out.

We can't judge scripture based on our modern understanding today!

[/End Sarcasm/Apologist Hat Removed]

[Jeffret]

I noticed this one years ago, probably even way back when I was trying to find a way to maintain some belief in Mormonism. The generations don't work.

There are so many flaws in the BoM that make it a virtual certainty that the BoM is not an ancient document and is instead the product of one (or slightly more) men in the early 19th century.

There are things that it claims we should be able to find in reality, but remain elusive. Horses. All of the geography issues. Perhaps these could be resolved by searching harder to find them, but that likelihood continues to become vanishingly small.

And then there are all the issues internally with the book. Many of these involve how it is just too consistent. There is no way it could have retained the level of understanding and consistency it has from so many different authors across such a large time period. With the Bible, we get multiple ancestries for Jesus Christ. With the Book of Mormon, we have hundreds of years of consistent, unbroken ownership and authorship, all of a consistent time period.

Another one I noticed long, long ago, is how the final, great battle in the BoM is just wrong. It just doesn't work like that. People try to excuse the flaws, but it still doesn't work. It reads wholly like a fantasy idea of a great battle. (Not to mention, how the idea is repeated twice in the book.)

[Hagoth]

There are things that it claims we should be able to find in reality, but remain elusive. Horses. All of the geography issues. Perhaps these could be resolved by searching harder to find them, but that likelihood continues to become vanishingly small.

There is not one single piece of evidence that an archaeologist could point to and say "this is a Nephite artifact." Not one. Compare that to ANY known people or civilization anywhere and at anytime in human history, even going back millions of years before recorded history.

[moksha]

There is not one single piece of evidence that an archaeologist could point to and say "this is a Nephite artifact." Not one. Compare that to ANY known people or civilization anywhere and at anytime in human history, even going back millions of years before recorded history.

The turning point in the famous debate between BYU professor William Hamblin and church historian Philip Jenkins was over when Jenkins said he would concede to the Mormon position if Hamblin could show a single shard of Nephite pottery. Of course, Hamblin could not show the shard of Nephite pottery because it did not exist. Fictional civilizations do not produce real artifacts. So Jenkins won the debate.

[Hagoth]

The turning point in the famous debate between BYU professor William Hamblin and church historian Philip Jenkins was over when Jenkins said he would concede to the Mormon position if Hamblin could show a single shard of Nephite pottery. Of course, Hamblin could not show the shard of Nephite pottery because it did not exist. Fictional civilizations do not produce real artifacts. So Jenkins won the debate.

Was this a formal debate or an online discussion, Moksha? I have heard about it but did not witness it directly.

It reminds me of a discussion I had on another board many years ago where I got dogpiled by several BoM apologists. One of them got really nasty toward me. He kept calling me an idiot for being too ignorant and narrowminded to acknowledge the overwhelming mountain of BoM evidence. I finally asked him to produce ONE SINGLE Nephite artifact and the conversation fell instantly silent. He reappeared a week later and said that he had been forced to take a vacation from the forum because he had become so angry at my stupidity. He never produced an artifact and refused to engage with me further. I guess there is power in stupidity.

[moksha]

He kept calling me an idiot for being too ignorant and narrow-minded to acknowledge the overwhelming mountain of BoM evidence. I finally asked him to produce ONE SINGLE Nephite artifact and the conversation fell instantly silent.

You produced his Kryptonite, which was a call for evidence. The apologists can bluster and insult all they want, but the proof of their claims is empty.

Can you imagine taking as a place name a small group of three letters (NHM) at the bottom of an altar, indicating the name of the guy who paid for that stone, but ignoring the fact that it was in the Temple of Sheba (an important person mentioned in the bible?

That would be equivalent to a wanderer passing through Salt Lake and recording the location as Bowser Barkswell, Attorney at Law, because Mr. Barkswell had his name painted on a bus bench for advertising purposes. It is pathetic that this mistaken claim is the only archeological proof of Mormonism

[moksha]

Was this a formal debate or an online discussion, Moksha? I have heard about it but did not witness it directly.

It was a debate printed in academic journals: One hosted by Jenkins at Baylor University and one with Hamblin at BYU. They would go back and forth arguing. Several of the junior apologists on the BYU side tried to intervene to bear their testimony, but Jenkins swatted them aside as lacking relevance to the discussion.

Being in Journals, it can still probably all be found online.