I don't understand why all the anti Book of Mormon people care so much about disproving it. Just go say some prayers for the people you think are gone astray, and while you are at it, ask God if the Bookof Mormon is true. He will answer you
Thank you. I am a professional handspinner with interest in historical handspinning. I have grown and processed flax for 13 years. I agree that lots of plant fibers could be used for textiles. Flax is the specific plant from which only after the fibers are spun does the name change to linen. So, omitting the word flax and using linen as the term could widen possibilities. I agree that in wet, tropical conditions textiles will disintegrate. Also, 'wild silk' is known as tussah silk. Just another moth other than bombyx from those moths eating mulberry leaves in particular. Spinning is an incredibly widespread in the globe. So, migrants would likely have brought the skill with them from elsewhere.
That’s not the issue. The issue is that flax, what linen is made of, didn’t exist in the Americas until Europeans introduced it during the Columbian exchange after 1492. That’s why this apologetics video was made because the Book of Mormon says there was linen when there wasn’t so they’re trying to explain it away.
I have always assumed that the word silk in the Book of Mormon was only an approximation. My thinking always includes nettle, while it was generally not spun and made a course fabric it can be spun and made into a very fine, delicate, and durable fabric. just my 2 cents worth.
There is no linen in my linen closet. And cayenne pepper has no relation to _piper nigrum._ Nor does Jamaica Pepper, aka Allspice. Names for commodities are volatile, especially when exploration and settlement are involved.
Actually hundreds of thousands of inca and pre inca clothing items have been found in south american burial sites, along with mummies. this video could have been done so much better!
I am not an expert, but it’s not more credible they used the natural fabrics such as linen and silk than any other type of fabrics like synthetic fabrics?
I have never been a fan of members of the church going out to find archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. It should be non members who should be the ones making these discoveries, why? Because itll have a greater impact and be more believable.
Let’s just please take the Book of Mormon at face value. No need to entertain alternative meanings for the words like silk or linen. Plus, the native Americans will tell you they had silk long before Europeans landed here. Let’s ask them for once.
This video is needed because there was no actual linen in the Americas before 1492 because flax was not introduced until the columbian exchange. That’s why there is need for the parallels. If we take the Book of Mormon at its word then it becomes a liar hence the parallels are needed.
Why do we waste our time trying to reconcile the historical issues in the BofM, what is important is that the BofM is another testament of Christ. All of the historical nonsense for or against the BofM will not change its message or it’s testimony of Christ. Even if isn’t 100% historical who really cares? We don’t know Gods ways, they are a mystery. The literal historicity of the BofM is a non issue.
What always annoys me though, is we are always having to explain or use some version of an explanation for stuff like this...like horses too... what would be nice to have better archaeological proof to get people on board.. Without it, the book of mormon becomes more of a parable book.Not a historical document.
The anachronisms in the BofM are abundant. Currently if you weigh all the evidence in the balance it is heavily in favor that the BofM is not historical.
With all this supposed evidence, why can't you guys even pick a continent where the BOM happened? why is not a single city confirmed from the BOM? furthermore, if we are going to use the physical parts of the BOM as a way to prove it it true, explain how Nephi built a boat with wood from saudi arabia. None of the wood at his location was capable of making an oceanic journey.
@@bobocomments once again, even if wood was there, it was not strong enough to make that journey. Furthermore, Nahom has not been confirmed. 3 letters NHM were found. And if I remember correctly, they were not found where Nephi said it was.
We are not trying to prove it true using the physical evidence. That is not possible, because even if you found signs with names of cities from the Book of Mormon on it, you wouldn't have proof of the most important parts of it, which are spiritual. That only comes by humbly asking God for that confirmation, examples of which are given in the Book of Mormon as an invitation to us to follow. What all this accumulating evidence has done is to make it more and more indefensible to simply ignore the Book of Mormon. A long memory is what is needed to understand how remarkable the evidences bring discovered for the Book of Mormon are. You see, objection after objection has been raised against the Book of Mormon since it first came forth, and one by one pieces of evidence are falling in favor of the Book of Mormon instead of the objectors. And since the beginning, no explanation proposed for the origins of the Book of Mormon has stuck. Many have been shown with further evidence to be increasingly unlikely, while evidence for the Book of Mormon peoples, cultures, etc. keeps on becoming *more* plausible. Are you interested in details?
I don't think that she is trying to prove the book of Mormon, she is countering the attempt to disprove it. There is plenty of archeological evidence to support the bible and yet how many people don't believe it? If you truly want proof of the Book of Mormon, that evidence is granted by God, through the Holy Ghost. Seek that answer through study and prayer, not youtube.
I don't understand why all the anti Book of Mormon people care so much about disproving it. Just go say some prayers for the people you think are gone astray, and while you are at it, ask God if the Bookof Mormon is true. He will answer you
You have changed your manner of presentation and it is much softer and appealing. Love it.
Very informative and an explanation for the
existence of the many
mis-understandings in relation to fabrics.
Thank you 🙏🙏🙏
Thank you. I am a professional handspinner with interest in historical handspinning. I have grown and processed flax for 13 years. I agree that lots of plant fibers could be used for textiles. Flax is the specific plant from which only after the fibers are spun does the name change to linen. So, omitting the word flax and using linen as the term could widen possibilities. I agree that in wet, tropical conditions textiles will disintegrate. Also, 'wild silk' is known as tussah silk. Just another moth other than bombyx from those moths eating mulberry leaves in particular. Spinning is an incredibly widespread in the globe. So, migrants would likely have brought the skill with them from elsewhere.
Very calm presentation 🙏👍🇦🇺
Great video yet again! Thank you!!!
Have you ever heard of South America? The best weavers in the ancient world.
That’s not the issue. The issue is that flax, what linen is made of, didn’t exist in the Americas until Europeans introduced it during the Columbian exchange after 1492. That’s why this apologetics video was made because the Book of Mormon says there was linen when there wasn’t so they’re trying to explain it away.
I have always assumed that the word silk in the Book of Mormon was only an approximation. My thinking always includes nettle, while it was generally not spun and made a course fabric it can be spun and made into a very fine, delicate, and durable fabric. just my 2 cents worth.
both silk and linen types of fabrics were found in the New world. The natives were wearing them when Columbus landed. good job.
Thank you ❤
There is no linen in my linen closet.
And cayenne pepper has no relation to _piper nigrum._ Nor does Jamaica Pepper, aka Allspice.
Names for commodities are volatile, especially when exploration and settlement are involved.
Wow. Thank you ♥️
Actually hundreds of thousands of inca and pre inca clothing items have been found in south american burial sites, along with mummies. this video could have been done so much better!
Part 2
🙏😇
Are there any supernatural claims in the BOM? If so, how would you substantiate those supernatural claims?
Why can't students major in book of Mormon studies at BYU?
Mrs. Rappleye has a new doo!
I am not an expert, but it’s not more credible they used the natural fabrics such as linen and silk than any other type of fabrics like synthetic fabrics?
Reals
I have never been a fan of members of the church going out to find archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. It should be non members who should be the ones making these discoveries, why? Because itll have a greater impact and be more believable.
Let’s just please take the Book of Mormon at face value. No need to entertain alternative meanings for the words like silk or linen. Plus, the native Americans will tell you they had silk long before Europeans landed here. Let’s ask them for once.
This video is needed because there was no actual linen in the Americas before 1492 because flax was not introduced until the columbian exchange. That’s why there is need for the parallels. If we take the Book of Mormon at its word then it becomes a liar hence the parallels are needed.
Why do we waste our time trying to reconcile the historical issues in the BofM, what is important is that the BofM is another testament of Christ. All of the historical nonsense for or against the BofM will not change its message or it’s testimony of Christ. Even if isn’t 100% historical who really cares? We don’t know Gods ways, they are a mystery. The literal historicity of the BofM is a non issue.
Count me as one who cares. Truth matters.
lol yeah ok
What always annoys me though, is we are always having to explain or use some version of an explanation for stuff like this...like horses too... what would be nice to have better archaeological proof to get people on board.. Without it, the book of mormon becomes more of a parable book.Not a historical document.
The anachronisms in the BofM are abundant. Currently if you weigh all the evidence in the balance it is heavily in favor that the BofM is not historical.
Anachronisms WERE abundant. They have been knocked down from about 200 to about 20. Get with the times and stop spouting nonsense.
Yeah, that’s an old argument. You can do better than that. Maybe try studying pamphlet material that didn’t originate from the 20th century.
Strange my response disappeared. The BofM is still the word of God even if it is not historical, we can have a more nuanced view in the 21st century.
With all this supposed evidence, why can't you guys even pick a continent where the BOM happened? why is not a single city confirmed from the BOM? furthermore, if we are going to use the physical parts of the BOM as a way to prove it it true, explain how Nephi built a boat with wood from saudi arabia. None of the wood at his location was capable of making an oceanic journey.
Nahom has been confirmed and dofar region where bountiful probably was was deforested in the 1800s-early 19000s
@@bobocomments once again, even if wood was there, it was not strong enough to make that journey. Furthermore, Nahom has not been confirmed. 3 letters NHM were found. And if I remember correctly, they were not found where Nephi said it was.
Why do you care so much?
We are not trying to prove it true using the physical evidence. That is not possible, because even if you found signs with names of cities from the Book of Mormon on it, you wouldn't have proof of the most important parts of it, which are spiritual. That only comes by humbly asking God for that confirmation, examples of which are given in the Book of Mormon as an invitation to us to follow.
What all this accumulating evidence has done is to make it more and more indefensible to simply ignore the Book of Mormon.
A long memory is what is needed to understand how remarkable
the evidences bring discovered for the Book of Mormon are.
You see, objection after objection has been raised against the Book of Mormon since it first came forth, and one by one pieces of evidence are falling in favor of the Book of Mormon instead of the objectors.
And since the beginning, no explanation proposed for the origins of the Book of Mormon has stuck. Many have been shown with further evidence to be increasingly unlikely, while evidence for the Book of Mormon peoples, cultures, etc. keeps on becoming *more* plausible. Are you interested in details?
I don't think that she is trying to prove the book of Mormon, she is countering the attempt to disprove it.
There is plenty of archeological evidence to support the bible and yet how many people don't believe it? If you truly want proof of the Book of Mormon, that evidence is granted by God, through the Holy Ghost. Seek that answer through study and prayer, not youtube.
John Sorensen is a bit of an embarrassment to be perfectly honest, he needs to apply more academic rigor in his arguments to be taken seriously.