<snip for focus>
The foregoing will be immediately rejected because it is based on a Mormon source. Besides, the critics are certain we know all there is to know about the pre-Columbian environment in the Americas. That reminds me of the question I recently asked: If we know all there is to know, why are there—even as I write this—numerous digs underway involving pre-Columbian sites in various parts of the Americas?
You continue to claim that some have said that "we know all there is to know" about the pre-colombian americas, which is a disingenuous attempt to reverse the onus. It is your book that makes the positive assertion (an assertion as yet unsupported by any evidence) of the presence of the horse (in such numbers that it was used to wage chariot war [with steel weapons]). The onus lies on the one making the claim. When I point out that there is no evidence of the kinds of roads built for the horse; or of pasturage, silage, or fodderage appropriate for the horse; to say nothing of tack, artistic representation, or any of the other acoutrements of horse culture; that is properly pointing out that the evidence to support your claim has not yet been demonstrated. Further, much negative evidence has, in fact, been demonstrated. You really ought to consider abandoning your dishonest pose that anyone has said that we "know all there is to know" about the pre-colombian americas.
No offense meant to Mormons, but SR44 is really no longer debating in good faith, IMHO, of course, so I can no longer take this thread seriously. My parting shot.
I can't imagine how undeniable evidence was overlooked by historians.
They even had color photography to document their battles.
We are at the honeymoon stage right now with gay marriage. It may be that what you write will prove to be true when gay marriage data become available for all states. That will take some time.
Riiiight. Keep telling yourself that bub. You'll be on your deathbed disowning your great-grandson for getting engaged to a gay doctor, because "the data isn't in yet."
As I recall, barley is on your list of BoM anachronisms. Note:
"Recent archaeological evidence suggests that pre-Columbian Americans cultivated barley over a long period of time. A 1983 article in Science 83 describes archaeological work at the Hohokam site of La Ciudad, near downtown Phoenix, AZ. The writer states, 'Perhaps the most startling evidence of Hohokam. . .came last year when salvage archeologists found preserved grains of what looks like domesticated barley, the first ever found in the New World.' Shortly thereafter, additional samples turned up at other archaeological sites in Oklahoma and Illinois. Of the discoveries made in Illinois, one recent study states that a 'previously unidentified seed type . . . has now been identified as little barley (Hordeum pusillum, and there are strong indications that this grain must be added to the list of starchy-seeded plants that were cultivated in the region 2,000 years ago.' (Nancy B. Asch and David L. Asch, "Archebotany," Center for American Archeology, 1985,
p, 78) (Source for the entire excerpt is http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/100126-Barley_and_wheat_in_th...)
The foregoing will be immediately rejected because it is based on a Mormon source. Besides, the critics are certain we know all there is to know about the pre-Columbian environment in the Americas. That reminds me of the question I recently asked: If we know all there is to know, why are there—even as I write this—numerous digs underway involving pre-Columbian sites in various parts of the Americas?
. . .Now, to get back on track, we were discussing the complete lack of any evidence to support the existence of horses in pre-Columbiam America, and the fact that the one vague claim of there maybe having been traces of a new world grain came from an essay written in 1985 with no apparent followup or further research.
You, SV, and others would do well to get up to speed on your much-trumpeted claims about anachronisms in the BoM. Note the following:
1) "Given the inherent advantages (cultural continuity, toponyms, etc.) of Old World studies compared to New World studies, it's interesting to note some recently discovered correlations from between the early chapters of the BoM and the archaeological record of the Old World in ways that would have been unknown at the time the book was translated. In other words, it is impossible that Joseph Smith could have known any of the Old World archaeological finds that have come to light since his death--finds that do not contradict the BoM and, in many instances are consistent with it stories
[emphasis added]."
2) "It is worth noting that there is a growing body of evidence from New World archaeology that supports the BoM. Dr. James Clark of the New World Archaeological Foundation has compiled a list of sixty items mentioned in the BoM. The list includes such items as 'steel swords,' 'barley,' 'cement,' 'thrones,' and literacy. In 1842, only eight (13.3%) of those sixty items were confirmed by archaeological evidence. Thus, in the mid-19th century, archaeology did not support the claims made by the BoM. As efforts of archaeology have shed light on the ancient New World, we find in 2005 that forty-five of those sixty items (58%) have been definitively confirmed by archaeological evidence, and ten items (17%) have received possible-tentative, yet not fully verified confirmation. Therefore, as things stand at the moment, current New World archaeological evidence tends to verify the claims made by the BoM [emphasis added]. To dismiss the BoM on archaeological ground 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 BoM studies." (Sources: Fair Mormon, "Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon.)
The critics' list of anachronisms appears to be based on the assumption that we already know all there is to know about the pre-Columbian environment in the Americas. I made that statement in a previous post, and I stand by it. If we already know all there is to know, what are archaeologists at numerous digs in the Americas looking for right now—Cracker Jack?
You, SV, and others would do well to get up to speed on your much-trumpeted claims about anachronisms in the BoM. Note the following:
1) "Given the inherent advantages (cultural continuity, toponyms, etc.) of Old World studies compared to New World studies, it's interesting to note some recently discovered correlations from between the early chapters of the BoM and the archaeological record of the Old World in ways that would have been unknown at the time the book was translated. In other words, it is impossible that Joseph Smith could have known any of the Old World archaeological finds that have come to light since his death--finds that do not contradict the BoM and, in many instances are consistent with it stories
[emphasis added]."
2) "It is worth noting that there is a growing body of evidence from New World archaeology that supports the BoM. Dr. James Clark of the New World Archaeological Foundation has compiled a list of sixty items mentioned in the BoM. The list includes such items as 'steel swords,' 'barley,' 'cement,' 'thrones,' and literacy. In 1842, only eight (13.3%) of those sixty items were confirmed by archaeological evidence. Thus, in the mid-19th century, archaeology did not support the claims made by the BoM. As efforts of archaeology have shed light on the ancient New World, we find in 2005 that forty-five of those sixty items (58%) have been definitively confirmed by archaeological evidence, and ten items (17%) have received possible-tentative, yet not fully verified confirmation. Therefore, as things stand at the moment, current New World archaeological evidence tends to verify the claims made by the BoM [emphasis added]. To dismiss the BoM on archaeological ground 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 BoM studies."
(Sources: Fair Mormon, "Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon.)
Once again, thank you so very much for your honesty and helpfulness in providing actual links to the actual sources from which you have cherry-picked your mined quotes.
Where, precisely, might this claim be found, and read (preferably online)?
Where, precisely, might the attestations form neutral scholars be found?
(If you were serious in providing a balanced treatment, wouldn't you produce both sides, hmmm?)
What, precisely, are you claiming represents "evidence consistent with" the BoM?
I still anxiously await the clear demonstration of a horse-using culture in the pre-colombian americas (clear, unambiguous, empirical, non-anecdotal, non-fudged, non-proven-hoax-dependent, practical, objective evidence, attested to by neutral scholars...and all that); futher, evidence that that particular pre-colombian civilization waged chariot war with autochtonous steel weapons, and fed its troops with cultivated barley and wheat. No such has been found.
"Thrones", "literacy", and the like are herring sprats of the palest pink, particularly given the low standard of "evidence" offered. Who here has used them as an issue? You seem to be prevaricating. Again.
Do consider proving actual links to actual sources, there's a lad.
Where are the exciting events so convincingly recounted the BoM to be supposed to have taken place?
When are the exciting events of so convincingly recounted the BoM to be supposed to have taken place?
The critics' list of anachronisms appears to be based on the assumption that we already know all there is to know about the pre-Columbian environment in the Americas. I made that statement in a previous post, and I stand by it. If we already know all there is to know, what are archaeologists at numerous digs in the Americas looking for right now—Cracker Jack?
This is, as has been pointed out to you by multiple posters, simply untrue. You have used up your deontological presumption of innocence--I wonder why it is that you feel that falsehood is a viable vehicle for your assertions.
Once again, thank you so very much for your honesty and helpfulness in providing actual links to the actual sources from which you have cherry-picked your mined quotes.
Where, precisely, might this claim be found, and read (preferably online)?
I assume your computer has a search engine. Simply enter the title of the source into that elongated white box and click "go." There's nothing particularly challenging about it.
Where, precisely, might the attestations form neutral scholars be found? (If you were serious in providing a balanced treatment, wouldn't you produce both sides, hmmm?)
Well, since you asked, some of the big questions are about how and why the megafauna in the Americas went extinct and what role if any did humans play in that. I've just read some interesting stuff about specialization of labor in Mississipian civilization. I'm doing a field school related to early contact between Europeans and Native Americans in the Chesapeake Bay. That's going to be mostly pre development rescue archaeology so no one is going to really try to digest the finds and publish until the excavation is complete.
I really have to tell you that most archaeologists don't know what's in the BoM and would probably laugh if they read it. The things we are talking about here, iron, wheeled vehicles, domesticated horses don't exist in vacuums. These things gave profound impacts on how people live. They also leave huge impacts on the landscape. It's not just that the items haven't been found, the lifeways of civilizations with these items haven't been found.
I assume your computer has a search engine. Simply enter the title of the source into that elongated white box and click "go." There's nothing particularly challenging about it.
It is one thing to make a mistake. It is another to continue to make the mistake when you know it is wrong. If you are honest you will stop shifting the burden of proof to others.
You, SV, and others would do well to get up to speed on your much-trumpeted claims about anachronisms in the BoM. Note the following:
1) "Given the inherent advantages (cultural continuity, toponyms, etc.) of Old World studies compared to New World studies, it's interesting to note some recently discovered correlations from between the early chapters of the BoM and the archaeological record of the Old World in ways that would have been unknown at the time the book was translated. In other words, it is impossible that Joseph Smith could have known any of the Old World archaeological finds that have come to light since his death--finds that do not contradict the BoM and, in many instances are consistent with it stories
[emphasis added]."
2) "It is worth noting that there is a growing body of evidence from New World archaeology that supports the BoM. Dr. James Clark of the New World Archaeological Foundation has compiled a list of sixty items mentioned in the BoM. The list includes such items as 'steel swords,' 'barley,' 'cement,' 'thrones,' and literacy. In 1842, only eight (13.3%) of those sixty items were confirmed by archaeological evidence. Thus, in the mid-19th century, archaeology did not support the claims made by the BoM. As efforts of archaeology have shed light on the ancient New World, we find in 2005 that forty-five of those sixty items (58%) have been definitively confirmed by archaeological evidence, and ten items (17%) have received possible-tentative, yet not fully verified confirmation. Therefore, as things stand at the moment, current New World archaeological evidence tends to verify the claims made by the BoM [emphasis added]. To dismiss the BoM on archaeological ground 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 BoM studies." (Sources: Fair Mormon, "Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon.)
The critics' list of anachronisms appears to be based on the assumption that we already know all there is to know about the pre-Columbian environment in the Americas. I made that statement in a previous post, and I stand by it. If we already know all there is to know, what are archaeologists at numerous digs in the Americas looking for right now—Cracker Jack?
#2 is a book review where the "evidence" about the BoM amounts to speculation derived from unverifiable claims. For example, the second article has the text:
Miller cites several examples from the scientific literature on this subject before reporting on the unpublished dates of several bone specimen which he has collected and sent out for independent testing. The range of dates on these specimens goes from ca. 6,000 bc to ad 1,400 [Page 130](see dates given on p. 82). Hence, Miller concludes that “small scattered populations” of horses “probably survived in North America until shortly before they were reintroduced by the Spaniards” (p. 82).
Notice the bolded parts. The "evidence" offered for horses in the Americas during the BoM's time frame consists of "bone fragments" an author CLAIMS to have collected and CLAIMS to have sent out for testing. The actual research is unpublished, and no data is given as to which Carbon-14 dating method was used or who did the testing. More to the point, this claim about mystery bone fragments is coming from a BOOK REVIEW, not even the person claiming to have collected the samples and sent them out for testing.
I encourage everyone to read both articles in their entirety. Both are an excellent study in cognitive dissonance.
Oh, that's easy. The ONLY possible explanation for the "horses and chariots" mentioned in the BoM is Llamas and sledges, used not in actual combat but for transporting supplies. Based upon the mentioned of these being "prepared" for battle, we can decisively conclude that, if the BoM reflects realty AT ALL almost all the "New World" events happened in South-Western South America.
There is even some support for this in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Nephi details a long, arduous journey on foot to get from Israel to where they eventually sailed to the New World. The sea voyage itself is an incredibly brief one. Now, the BoM tells us Nephi's construction was divinely inspired, but unless God was pushing, no wooden sailing vessel could have made the journey in the time frame described. HOWEVER, if instead of disembarking from Spain or the Northern end of Africa as is often assumed, they instead departed from what is now Liberia and landed on the Easternmost edge of what is modern day Brazil...
Well, the trip is still impossible, but it's short enough that God could have pushed the boat to make it in the time frame described in the BoM without shearing it to pieces in the water.
Frankly, you can't read the BoM and think ANY of it happened in North America unless you're just being ethnocentric and insisting it HAD to be in what would become the good 'ole US of A.
Is it my imagination, or are my apologetics better than the ones from "real" Mormons?
#2 is a book review where the "evidence" about the BoM amounts to speculation derived from unverifiable claims. For example, the second article has the text:
Notice the bolded parts. The "evidence" offered for horses in the Americas during the BoM's time frame consists of "bone fragments" an author CLAIMS to have collected and CLAIMS to have sent out for testing. The actual research is unpublished, and no data is given as to which Carbon-14 dating method was used or who did the testing. More to the point, this claim about mystery bone fragments is coming from a BOOK REVIEW, not even the person claiming to have collected the samples and sent them out for testing.
I encourage everyone to read both articles in their entirety. Both are an excellent study in cognitive dissonance.
Mike Ash first pares archeology down to just language then points out the scarcity of writings and finally produces some questionable interpretations of some inscriptions.
All of it is pure assertion, backed up by other Mormon apologists assertions.
Mike Ash first pares archeology down to just language then points out the scarcity of writings and finally produces some questionable interpretations of some inscriptions.
All of it is pure assertion, backed up by other Mormon apologists assertions.
The argument boils down to assuming words mean what he WANTS them to mean, regardless of what actual scholars who study the texts think the words mean.
You exercise no caution at all in telling lies about my words.
You altered my position; you misstated my position in what you hoped to get away with calling a "hyperbolic characterization" (a characterization of words I did not say, and cannot be honestly said to have implied)...
Mike Ash first pares archeology down to just language then points out the scarcity of writings and finally produces some questionable interpretations of some inscriptions.
All of it is pure assertion, backed up by other Mormon apologists assertions.
(Update 10/26/2013) My conference presentation was just uploaded to youtube. In it I gave a sneak preview of the Big Data research Duane and I are conducting on over 100,000 pre-1830′s texts...
The argument boils down to assuming words mean what he WANTS them to mean, regardless of what actual scholars who study the texts think the words mean.
It's interesting watching the apologists move the locale of the BoM to South America when the whole book implies that it took place around where the plates were found.
The Mormon church is addressing the mystery that has long surrounded undergarments worn by its faithful with a new video explaining the practice in-depth while admonishing ridicule from outsiders about what it considers a symbol of Latter-day Saints' devotion to God.
The four-minute video on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' website compares the white, two-piece cotton "temple garments" to holy vestments worn in other religious faiths such as a Catholic nun's habit or a Muslim skullcap.
Last month I visited a B movie festival here in the Netherlands, where the guest of honor was Utah based filmmaker Trent Harris. One of the films shown there was his Plan 10 From Outer Space, a kind of Mormonism meets Ed Wood science fiction movie. Really silly, but amusing. He did a Q&A afterwards and also talked a bit about growing up in Salt Lake City.
These are first few minutes, and it only gets weirder after that:
ETA: Thanks Olowkow, this link should work too now
The critics' list of anachronisms appears to be based on the assumption that we already know all there is to know about the pre-Columbian environment in the Americas. I made that statement in a previous post, and I stand by it. If we already know all there is to know, what are archaeologists at numerous digs in the Americas looking for right now—Cracker Jack?
Here's the difference in how you're looking at it and how others are looking at it.
Others are investigating to see what they can find. Individuals may have their own theories, but overall there's no target. The goal is to discover the truth, whatever it is, not to hope for one particular thing.
You have a target in mind. The most you can say is that it might still be proven true. You can hope it turns out to be true, you can have faith it turns out to be true, but until the evidence shows it is true, it's just a figment of hope and faith.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
