LDS II: The Mormons

[RandFan]

Oh.

I thought the "Planet X cannot be found" link was the right one.

Do you know if there is a transcript to Johnson's video available?

I don't know. I don't see one on his site. He provides a summary of the experiments.

http://askreality.com/hidden-in-plain-sight/

 

[dudalb]

The Mormon "Scholars" make a big deal about how remains of Horses have been found in North America with a date of thousands of years ago, but they do a nice song and dance when it is pointed out that ,yes, horses did exist in prehistoric times in North America, but they died out thousands of years before man first came to the continent,and did not return until the Spanish came

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't know. I don't see one on his site. He provides a summary of the experiments.

http://askreality.com/hidden-in-plain-sight/

TYVM. I'll look for one when I'm at home tonight.

 

[Craig4]

The Mormon "Scholars" make a big deal about how remains of Horses have been found in North America with a date of thousands of years ago, but they do a nice song and dance when it is pointed out that ,yes, horses did exist in prehistoric times in North America, but they died out thousands of years before man first came to the continent,and did not return until the Spanish came

They wouldn't make a big deal about it if they'd read any of the literature on the topic. Why the horses and megafauna died out is a hotly contested topic among archaeologists, evolutionary biologists and zoologist. The discussion is about why they died and what role humans may have played in their extinction. There's no serious exploration of horses surviving, being domesticated and pulling chariots.

 

[SezMe]

You can begin to get yourself up to speed on the issue at hand by reading William J. Hamblin's 1993 article "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon." To read the article, simply enter the title into your browser's search box. In one of the opening paragraphs, Hamblin makes an observation that I think has special relevance to you: "Most anti-Mormon attacks on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon suffer from severe logical flaws. The authors are inadequately informed about LDS history, doctrine, and scripture; they have not read the text of the Book of Mormon carefully; they distort both what the text of the [book] says and the variety of LDS interpretations of the text; they attempt to make all LDS scholars responsible for the opinions of some LDS authors or General Authorities; and they frequently argue solely from the authority of selected authors or scholars, rather than providing evidence, analysis, and argumentation to support their case. They seldom advance the discussion by dealing with current LDS thinking on the matter, being content instead to rely on an ad nauseam repetition of anti-Mormon arguments, many of which have been around--and have had adequate LDS responses--for over a century," [emphasis added].

This looks like the inverse of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. As soon as research hits the bulls eye of some Mormon belief, some other "variety" of LDS interpretation will move the bulls eye somewhere else. Ergo, the BoM cannot be falsified.

*Cheers to the Mormons* Your faith is now an impregnable fortress. Where do I sign up.

 

[halleyscomet]

The authors are inadequately informed about LDS history, doctrine, and scripture; they have not read the text of the Book of Mormon carefully; they distort both what the text of the [book] says and the variety of LDS interpretations of the text;

The text claims thee were horses, chariots, elephants, large scale steel production as well as the mining and processing of a number of metals. This is in addition to specific claims about specific food crops being grown. Those claims aren't exactly ones needing that much in the way of interpretation. Either the claims are supported by the archeological evidence or they aren't.

If you need to research gobs of LDS theology to interpret the claims, you might as well flat out declare the text to be an allegory.

What claims are we ignoring? You made a bunch of vague accusations but you gave no specifics. More to the point, if we're ignoring the "current LDS thinking on the matter" why have you not linked to some examples of it? So far, the most credible explanation for the "horses and chariots" discussed in this thread has been mine. It's a sad state of affairs when a man who describes your "prophet" as a con artist does a better job writing apologetic for your faith than your actual theologians.

 

[dudalb]

This looks like the inverse of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. As soon as research hits the bulls eye of some Mormon belief, some other "variety" of LDS interpretation will move the bulls eye somewhere else. Ergo, the BoM cannot be falsified.

*Cheers to the Mormons* Your faith is now an impregnable fortress. Where do I sign up.

I also note the use of Straw Men on a epic scale in skyrider's world. Any criticism of the BOM automaticaly make you a Evil Anti Mormon.

 

[dudalb]

The text claims thee were horses, chariots, elephants, large scale steel production as well as the mining and processing of a number of metals. This is in addition to specific claims about specific food crops being grown. Those claims aren't exactly ones needing that much in the way of interpretation. Either the claims are supported by the archeological evidence or they aren't.

.

To my mind that is the kicker. If everything the BOM says existed in Pre Columbian America actually existed, there would be lots of archelogical evidence for them. There is absolutley none, nada.
Some of the attempts of the LDS "Scholars" is prove connections between some of the Native American Ruins in America and Civilizations in the Mideast at the time the migrations in the BOM allegedly took place are drop dead funny.

 

[RandFan]

I also note the use of Straw Men on a epic scale in skyrider's world. Any criticism of the BOM automaticaly make you a Evil Anti Mormon.

You hit the nail on the head. Any academic research we provide by experts in their field is dismissed as bias. Of course bias is a real possibility. There is plenty of that on the Mormon side. However, it would be wrong to dismiss research by Mormons by simply assuming bias. Given the totality of the evidence, the leaps of logic to justify Mormon apologetics, and the admission by a number of Mormon academics that these are in fact anachronisms then there simply isn't an equivalency which I think is what Mormons cling to.

 

[Slowvehicle]

To my mind that is the kicker. If everything the BOM says existed in Pre Columbian America actually existed, there would be lots of archelogical evidence for them. There is absolutley none, nada.
Some of the attempts of the LDS "Scholars" is prove connections between some of the Native American Ruins in America and Civilizations in the Mideast at the time the migrations in the BOM allegedly took place are drop dead funny.

Right.

It will not do to claim that the discovery that the Hohokam, in what is now Arizona, gleaned and cooked a wild relative of barley for 200 years demonstrates that the pre-colombian mesoamericans, 2500 miles away, cultivated domestic barley to the extent that the value of barley was the basis for their currency "for thousands of years".

And so on...

And you can see how hard it is to get a believer to commit to where in the pre-colombian americas the exciting events of the BoM are to be supposed to have taken place, or when.

 

[RandFan]

Right.

It will not do to claim that the discovery that the Hohokam, in what is now Arizona, gleaned and cooked a wild relative of barley for 200 years demonstrates that the pre-colombian mesoamericans, 2500 miles away, cultivated domestic barley to the extent that the value of barley was the basis for their currency "for thousands of years".

And so on...

And you can see how hard it is to get a believer to commit to where in the pre-colombian americas the exciting events of the BoM are to be supposed to have taken place, or when.

We haven't explored every inch of South America. Come to think of it we haven't explored every inch of the Moon either. Brigham Young could still be right and we might find evidence of people dressed like the Amish and living on the Moon.

Kidding aside, the thing about advanced technology is that it tends to spread. The Nephites and Lamanites were ostensibly very large populations. How is it that they kept all of their technology hidden in an area not yet explored in South America?

 

[Slowvehicle]

We haven't explored every inch of South America. Come to think of it we haven't explored every inch of the Moon either. Brigham Young could still be right and we might find evidence of people dressed like the Amish and living on the Moon.

Kidding aside, the thing about advanced technology is that it tends to spread. The Nephites and Lamanites were ostensibly very large populations. How is it that they kept all of their technology hidden in an area not yet explored in South America?

Compounded, of course, by the fact that the BoM speaks of kine, and horses, and swine, and barley-based minted currency, and wheels, and steelmongery in the same civilization, which "covered the land" for "thousands of years". One wheeled toy here; one horse skull hoax 3000 miles away; one pot of gleaned wild barley in another place; these do not "support" the exciting stories in the BoM.

 

[dudalb]

This looks like the inverse of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. As soon as research hits the bulls eye of some Mormon belief, some other "variety" of LDS interpretation will move the bulls eye somewhere else. Ergo, the BoM cannot be falsified.

*Cheers to the Mormons* Your faith is now an impregnable fortress. Where do I sign up.

Sign up now and you can take advantage of a special offer that you can have the Planet of your choice when you get promoted to Godhood......

 

[dudalb]

Compounded, of course, by the fact that the BoM speaks of kine, and horses, and swine, and barley-based minted currency, and wheels, and steelmongery in the same civilization, which "covered the land" for "thousands of years". One wheeled toy here; one horse skull hoax 3000 miles away; one pot of gleaned wild barley in another place; these do not "support" the exciting stories in the BoM.

Well, I could debate the stories in the BOM being exciting.......

The Bible,whatever you might think of it vis a vis it's accuracy and reliablity, has some truly brilliant stories in it. The BOM, not so much.....

 

[halleyscomet]

I now present: the Nephi Project, a site that says "Is the Book of Mormon a true history? We believe it is" on the same page where they have a logo proclaiming them to be an "Independent Research Group." Apparently the idea that much of the Book of Mormon happened in Peru is a common enough theory that there's a tour company offering a Mormon vacation in Peru.

If there are people who already concluded the BoM HAD to be set in Peru, perhaps the state of Mormon apologetic isn't QUITE as bad as I thought. It seems Slyrider44 has been doing a poor job of finding the more articulate and intellectually curious Mormon apologists.

Are we SURE Slyrider44 isn't a deep cover Lutheran or something? Every time I do any kind of research I find better sources than the ones he presents, and his most recent attempt linked to sites I'd ALREADY linked to.

 

[tsig]

Right.

It will not do to claim that the discovery that the Hohokam, in what is now Arizona, gleaned and cooked a wild relative of barley for 200 years demonstrates that the pre-colombian mesoamericans, 2500 miles away, cultivated domestic barley to the extent that the value of barley was the basis for their currency "for thousands of years".

And so on...

And you can see how hard it is to get a believer to commit to where in the pre-colombian americas the exciting events of the BoM are to be supposed to have taken place, or when.

In a place far, far away in a time long, long ago somewhere over the rainbow.

I read an interesting paper on place names in the book of Mormon and there was an eerie correspondence between the ones in NY and the ones in the BoM.

Of course the real locale of the BoM is Joe Smith Jrs' fertile brain.

 

[halleyscomet]

Well, I could debate the stories in the BOM being exciting.......

The Bible,whatever you might think of it vis a vis it's accuracy and reliablity, has some truly brilliant stories in it. The BOM, not so much.....

Mark Twain's Review of the Book of Mormon

All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the “elect” have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so “slow,” so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle—keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, accourding to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.

The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James’s translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel—half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern—which was about every sentence or two—he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as “exceeding sore,” “and it came to pass,” etc., and made things satisfactory again. “And it came to pass” was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet.

Please, click the link to read on. That's only the beginning of the review and the entirety is insightful, entertaining and well worth the read, be you Mormon or not.

 

[dudalb]

Mark Twain's Review of the Book of Mormon



Please, click the link to read on. That's only the beginning of the review and the entirety is insightful, entertaining and well worth the read, be you Mormon or not.

Dammit, I thought about digging the Twain review of the BOM up on the Internet and linking to it, but was too lazy.
Joe Smith was not very good at writing imitation 17th Century English prose. His total lack of education tripped him up.
One good example is how he had his 6th century BC Hebrews use a compass to navigate to North America,basing the idea that they had compases back then on the use of the term "Fetched a Compass" in the book of Acts when Paul was making a voyage on a ship.. "Inspired Prophet" Joe had no idea that Compass, in Elizabethan English,meant "Circle" (it is used that way in Some of Shakespeare's plays as well as the KJV bible) and "fetched a Compass" meant "Make A Circle".
But Ignorant Joe thought it meant getting a Compass to navigate, and thus,when he was writing..excuse me, tranlsating..the BOM he thought that compasses existed in the 6th century. Pathetic.

 

[Craig4]

Dammit, I thought about digging the Twain review of the BOM up on the Internet and linking to it, but was too lazy.
Joe Smith was not very good at writing imitation 17th Century English prose. His total lack of education tripped him up.
One good example is how he had his 6th century BC Hebrews use a compass to navigate to North America,basing the idea that they had compases back then on the use of the term "Fetched a Compass" in the book of Acts when Paul was making a voyage on a ship.. "Inspired Prophet" Joe had no idea that Compass, in Elizabethan English,meant "Circle" (it is used that way in Some of Shakespeare's plays as well as the KJV bible) and "fetched a Compass" meant "Make A Circle".
But Ignorant Joe thought it meant getting a Compass to navigate, and thus,when he was writing..excuse me, tranlsating..the BOM he thought that compasses existed in the 6th century. Pathetic.

This is offensive to me. A con man should respect the intelligence of his mark and put some effort into the deceit.

 

[halleyscomet]

This is offensive to me. A con man should respect the intelligence of his mark and put some effort into the deceit.

I've reached the conclusion he put as much effort into it as his intellect could manage.