OPEN CHALLENGE

Your challenge is faulty. You claim that "ALL of the Bible's cities" have been archaeologically verified, but such simply isn't the case. Good grief, there are several possible sites for Mt. Sinai. If you think some scientific researchers' theories are so devastating regarding Mormon theology, how can you ignore scientific findings on the Old Testament? Do you believe critical data only when it supports your emotional presuppositions? Consider professor Ze'ev Herzog, of Tel Aviv University, who said, "Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it."

You challenge is bogus for several reasons:

1. It rests on ignorance or a double standard. If you are aware that many cities referenced in the Bible have never been identified, you apparently embrace scientific claims against Mormonism while you dismiss scientific claims against the Bible. Ignorance isn't a very potent weapon.

2. It employs logical fallacies such as "poisoning the well" by claiming that Mormons are neither literate nor curious and so they cannot be taken seriously by others. Given that this argument appears in a discussion about Mitt Romney, (JD, MBA, Harvard) makes such a claim all the more absurd.

3. It cites highly polemic and flawed works as though they represented scientific research. For those of us who have viewed them and know the facts they distort, their value is largely comedic. See http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml for data that might be over the heads of the producers from Living Hope Ministries.

Educate yourself on the topic of DNA.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071018145955.h tm

Despite the identification of some biblical sites, many important Bible locations have not been identified. The location of Mt. Sinai, for example, is unknown, and there are over twenty possible candidates. Some scholars reject the claim that the city of Jericho existed at the time of Joshua. The exact route taken by the Israelites on their Exodus is unknown, and some scholars dispute the biblical claim that there ever was an Israelite conquest of Canaan.9

William Dever is a non-LDS biblical archaeologist, a professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, and head of the university's Near Eastern Studies Department. He claims that archaeology should never be supposed to prove the Bible in any sense.10 "After a century of modern research," writes Dever, "neither Biblical scholars nor archaeologists have been able to document as historical any of the events, much less the personalities, of the patriarchal or Mosaic era."11 After more than a century of modern research, archaeology has never substantiated a variety of biblical narratives, including the existence of Abraham, Joseph of Egypt, Moses, or an Israelite presence in Egypt.

Those who make claims that there is no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon are right in one respect--we don't know where the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon are located. Such information may yet be discovered, but not discovering it is just as likely given the lack of cultural continuity and toponyms, as well as the epigraphic and iconographic uncertainties. To dismiss the Book of Mormon on archaeological grounds is short-sighted, as continuing discoveries provide ever more evidence that is consistent with the book. Archaeology is not a dead science, and it continues to make new inroads that are applicable to Book of Mormon studies.

"I just do not like the secretive, and seemingly deceptive foundations of his religion- of which, maybe he is not even aware."

I challenge you to go to LDS.org and get as much info as possible, your sources are decieving and sensationalizing.

You do need to research DNA.