All this Mormons v "Christians" stuff has me cracking up. You're saying the devil has inspired a whole "cult" of people to live decent, kind, generous, Christ like lives, they even worship Christ, but the grand deception is in the fine print?
Lol.
When Protestants interact with LDS they be like:
“You are not Christian unless you accept the definition of God not explicitly stated in the Bible that came from a 300 year debate that was authoritatively settled by Catholic Bishops.”
LDS: “So you’re Catholic?”
Prot: “No. The Catholic Church is the church of the devil and the Pope is the antichrist. But you must accept the Catholic definition of God to be Christian.”
New York area sports fans ranked from least annoying to most annoying:
8. Islanders
Cool guys! Will give you a ride in their dad’s Porsche and not even make a big deal out of it.
7. Knicks
Could all change with a title victory but they’ve been so bad for so long and took it all in stride.
6. Mets
Lovable losers. Heartily boo and heckle their own team.
5. Rangers
Yeah yeah “Original Six” who cares. You haven’t won a Cup since 94. Get over yourselves.
4. Giants
We’re starting to get into People You Actively Try to Avoid territory. Finance bros. Decent coke but take a day off dude.
3. Jets
There’s different TYPES of metro area annoying people: elite trash and poor trash. These are the low rent mouth breathing Jersey trash. They are incapable of talking without yelling.
2. Nets
Hoopster trust fund failson Communists. Absolutely worthless people who could vanish off the face of the planet and no one would miss them.
1. Yankees
Somehow combines the worst of the high rent and low rent trash. Hedge fund dad, Mamdani super fan, for Obama but still uses the n word. They should all be jailed.
Your entire argument is "modern archaeology has not conclusively verified every detail of the Book of Mormon, therefore false"😂
Let's look at your list...
DNA? You attack a position many Latter-day Saints no longer hold. The Book of Mormon does not explicitly say that Lehi's family were the sole ancestors of all Native Americans. If a small Near Eastern group entered a continent already populated by millions, their genetic signal could be diluted beyond recognition. You've disproved a popular assumption, not necessarily the text.
Cities? You say no Nephite city has been identified. Neither has any archaeologist identified "Nephite territory" to excavate. That's like claiming Troy never existed before archaeologists found Troy. Lack of identification is not disproof.
Horses? You present this as a slam dunk. It isn't. At most you've identified an unresolved question. Historians constantly revise conclusions based on new discoveries. The history of archaeology is littered with confident declarations that later collapsed.
Steel? The Book of Mormon does not describe an industrial steel civilization. It describes specific steel objects. Critics often inflate the claim to make it easier to attack.
Chariots? The text never says "wheeled military chariots pulled by horses." That's your interpretation, not the Book of Mormon's wording.
Barley? Critics spent decades claiming barley was impossible in pre-Columbian America. Then pre-Columbian barley was discovered. The lesson should have been humility. Instead, critics simply moved on to the next objection.
Silk? Again, you assume that Joseph Smith's English translation must refer to Chinese silkworm silk. Why? Ancient translators routinely use familiar terms to represent unfamiliar materials.
Animals? Same problem. You assume that every English animal term must refer to the exact species known by modern readers. That's a huge assumption, not a proven fact.
Babel? This objection is irrelevant unless you've already decided that biblical revelation is false. If God can reveal scripture, the Jaredite story is no harder than any other miracle recorded in scripture.
Cumorah? Your argument assumes the traditional New York hill must be the battlefield location. Many LDS scholars reject that assumption. So you're attacking a particular interpretation, not necessarily the text itself.
Reformed Egyptian? The Book of Mormon never claims Egyptologists should recognize the term. It describes a modified writing system used by a small group. Ancient peoples adapted scripts all the time.
Hebrew influence? If a tiny Israelite colony mixed with larger populations over a thousand years, why would we expect a massive, easily identifiable Hebrew civilization to survive intact? The Book of Mormon itself describes cultural mixing, warfare, and assimilation.
The bigger problem with your argument is that it treats unresolved questions as if they were refutations. They are not.
A refutation would demonstrate that the Book of Mormon could not possibly be true. You haven't done that. You've assembled a list of things mainstream archaeology has not yet confirmed. Those are very different claims.
The irony is that critics often demand certainty from believers while offering none themselves. Archaeology has not proven the Book of Mormon. But neither has archaeology disproven it. What you've presented is not a demolition. It's a collection of debated issues accompanied by a great deal of confidence and considerably less proof than advertised.
You start by appealing to bishops at Nicaea and apostolic succession, but then abandon historical argument altogether and switch to calling Joseph Smith a "lunatic" and a "psycho."
Is that because you're afraid to engage the evidence? 😂
You say Joseph Smith never produced the plates. That's misleading. The actual historical dispute is not whether he claimed to have plates - it is whether his claims about them were true.
Multiple witnesses testified that they saw or handled the plates, and several maintained that testimony even after falling out with Smith. You can argue they were mistaken. You can't honestly pretend they never existed as a historical claim witnessed by others.
You say he was run out of every town. Why leave out the fact that mobs drove Latter-day Saints from their homes, burned property, assaulted members, and that Missouri literally issued an extermination order against them?
If being hated by mobs disproves a prophet, then you've accidentally created an argument against Jesus, Paul, and most of the early Christians.