Joseph Smith's true revelations:

[_LCD2YOU]

From Charity:

1: Book of Mormon: Nahom as a place for mourning, with the death of Ishmael
Bullseye: Real place named NHM, where the Book of Mormon says it would be, and it has a large burial ground associated with it. (NHM wasn’t on any maps Joseph could have seen.)

2: Book of Mormon: A valley with a stream that never quit, with fruit trees.
Byllseye: There really is such a place, exactly where the Book of Mormon says it should be.

3: Book of Mormon: Nephi finds metal to smelt for tools.
Bullseye: Yemeni government discovered iron ore in sufficient quantities to be mined in the right area.

Book of Mormon: A son of king Zedekiah survives. Named Mulek.
Bullseye: Lachish letters prove existence of Malkiyah, the “little king.”

Book of Mormon: Egyptian names Paachhi, Pahoran, Pacumeni.
Bullseye: Names confirmed. Not known in Joseph Smith’s time.

Just wanted to open this up here to let her know that I am on this.

Some of these, 1-3, I have heard before, 4-5 are two I haven't.

1: Burial mounds are common in many communities. As for the name, in addition to what was posted by Blixa, Hebrew characters are not uncommon in NY today or 200 years ago. That they could have meant something would be of interest to those who wrote the Book of Mormon. I don't think Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon by himself. He was smart but not as learned as he may have wished to be.

2: In any location where there is human habitation, the idea that there would be fruit trees, especially in a desert area by a river, is not miraculous by any stretch of the imagination. That would describe most areas in the world.

3: Interesting but metal ores are not unknown in the Arabian Penninsula. As for "right where he said it would be", where is that? Where is that said? Are the longitude and lattitude stated? I can go out and in most areas, find metal ores.

the other 2, I have to look into.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

From Charity:

Book of Mormon: A son of king Zedekiah survives. Named Mulek.
Bullseye: Lachish letters prove existence of Malkiyah, the “little king.”

Some thoughts on this point:

Since the throne of the king had been promised to an heir of Judah (of whom Mulek is a descendant) forever, in spite of iniquity:

2 Samuel 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.

16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Why would the kingdom pass to an heir of Manasseh?:

Omni 1:15 Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla came out from Jerusalem at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon.

16 And they journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth.

17 And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.

18 But it came to pass that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language. And it came to pass that after they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory; and they are written, but not in these plates.

19 And it came to pass that the people of Zarahemla, and of Mosiah, did unite together; and Mosiah was appointed to be their king.

It is written that they had denied the being of their creator, but the promise in 2 Samuel seems to indicate that even if the heir should commit iniquity, then he would be chastened, but mercy would never pass from him, and his throne would be in his line forever.

Instead, the House of Judah gives the throne over to the House of Joseph.

How, and why, would and did Mosiah usurp this promise?

[_charity]

1: Burial mounds are common in many communities. As for the name, in addition to what was posted by Blixa, Hebrew characters are not uncommon in NY today or 200 years ago. That they could have meant something would be of interest to those who wrote the Book of Mormon. I don't think Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon by himself. He was smart but not as learned as he may have wished to be.

These were not burial mounds.

2: In any location where there is human habitation, the idea that there would be fruit trees, especially in a desert area by a river, is not miraculous by any stretch of the imagination. That would describe most areas in the world.

Sure, pick one thing and ignore the rest. Nice try.

I can go out and in most areas, find metal ores.

Smeltable? No.

[_charity]

Instead, the House of Judah gives the throne over to the House of Joseph.

How, and why, would and did Mosiah usurp this promise?

You must not be aware that there are actually two "kingdoms." There has been a strong connection bewteen Judah and Joseph (Ephraim) since the days of Jacob. When the brothers wanted to kill Joseph, it was Judah who saved Joseph's life. When the children of Israel were poised, ready in inherit the land the Lord wanted to give them, they sent 12 spies, 1 from each tribe, to see what the situation was. 10 were timid and not willing to accept that the Lord would support them against the inhabitants. Only the representatives of Judah and Ephraim were willing to trust the Lord.

And in the end times, there will be two kingdoms. The Law of the Lord shall go out from Jerusalem through Judah, and the Law of the Land shall go out from Zion, or the New Jerusalem, through Ephraim.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

When the brothers wanted to kill Joseph, it was Judah who saved Joseph's life.

Actually it was Reuben who "delivered him out of their hands." Reuben did lose the birthright as the firstborn, though, the birthright being given to the House of Joseph.

But that wasn't the question. It doesn't really matter all that much, anyway, charity, it's just an oddity I noticed in the Book of Mormon. It's being there doesn't prove anything either way, it's just something I think is interesting to discuss.

[_Valorius]

"Book of Mormon: A son of king Zedekiah survives. Named Mulek.
Bullseye: Lachish letters prove existence of Malkiyah, the “little king.”

Book of Mormon: Egyptian names Paachhi, Pahoran, Pacumeni.
Bullseye: Names confirmed. Not known in Joseph Smith’s time."

Is it being claimed that the Lachish letters report "Malkiyah" as being a son of king Zedekiah?
Or was the claim that the occurrence of "Malkiyah" is evidence that "Mulek" was a valid Jewish name?
In the Book of Mormon, is "Mulek" translated as "little king"?
Was "Mulek" a name or an eponym?

Which of the Lachis letters contains the name, either "Mulek" or "Malkiyah"? (I can not find that name in any of them.

It doesn't matter much to me whether the names are the same in the Book of Mormon and the Lachish Letters or some Egyptian writings. The same names appear in the Bible and Urantia, in the Bible and certain books on Black Magic. Commonality of names, in itself, does not validate a document. Nor does the lack of common names. Ancient peoples used very different renderings for the names of kings.