There is no archaeological evidence to the book of mormon. There is to the bible.
13 comments
Well, c'mon, he's got a point that at least some basic features of ancient civilization around which the Biblical stories were written actually did exist, like Egypt, the Romans, etc., whereas the Book of Mormon talks about millions of white people living and fighting huge battles in North America long before Columbus, and America teeming with elephants and other wildlife that would not actually have even been found on the continent. I mean, horny old Joe Smith didn't even get the basics straight so that anyone could argue that any of it MIGHT be true. Probably too busy thinking about which teenage girl he was going to nail next.
Some of these comments strike me as plain ignorant, verging on anti-Semitic. Much of the Old Testament is Jewish history: granted it's seen through the distorting lens of religious conviction and credulousness towards the supernatural, but the sites are there for tourists to see, the kings really reigned, the cultic worship was practised.
Mormonism, by contrast, is 24 carat fantasy from start to finish so of course there's no archaelogical evidence for its claims, how could there be?
Batshit as Mormonism is, doesn't it still use the old Testament? Hasn't it just added a sequel to the works and added another prophet? Isn't it in the end the same as those that followed Haggard, The Bakers or Pat (making shit up as he goes) Robertson?
When people say Mormons are even more nuts then other Christians I think they're ignoring many other Christians. The practise of adding to Biblical scripture and talisman sales looms large in American Fundamentalism.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
