LDS II: The Mormons

[skyrider44]

As you are aware, I have never advanced such a claim.

Why then in Post 1643 do you suggest that there is no evidence for the existence of specific items among the peoples of the PC Americas? As I have said before, it's difficult not to get the impression that you suppose you know everything (at least everything of any relevance) about the people of the PC Americas.

 

[Minoosh]

Now, to counter that video, I offer what appears to be the height, the absolute peak of Mormon apologetic on the BoM.

Thank you for posting that (the first video). It was fascinating. to see intelligent, likeable people making a case for a specific area and chronology as the place and time of Book of Mormon events. Most were BYU faculty who seemed to understand scholarly investigation.

This is probably the closest I'll ever come to reading the Book of Mormon.

Now: There are some sketches presented as visuals to break up the talking heads. I really liked them. I"m assuming they are not from the Book of Mormon. Do you know where they came from? (It just occurred to me I could look at the credits but I'm asking anyway).

 

[Dissolution]

My point was that if the LDS Church can be characterized as engaging in superstition, why are the Church and its doctrine worthy of discussion? Why spend time on it? Do you spend time discussing Satanism?

If a Satanist had a good run at the Presidency, then I think it'd be discussed more.
Are you talking theistic Satanism or the more common atheistic branch, by the way?

 

[Minoosh]

To Halley's Comet: I can't edit the post above ... when I refer to "first video" maybe I got it wrong. I mean the BYU one. Clear from context I hope.

 

[Slowvehicle]

It's necessary to look in the stall more than once. You seem to prefer to rush to judgment.

You have not even pointed pout a stall...

 

[Pacal]

I'm forced to conclude, then, that you believe everything about the pre-Columbian Americas has been discovered . . . that there is nothing more to be learned about that era. I raised the question before, but it merits repeating: If we already know everything about the PC Americas, why are numerous digs taking place in the relevant countries? Could it be that, contrary to your insistence, we don't know all there is to know about the PC Americas?

Science has been wrong about important issues in the past, and it's likely they are wrong about some important issues even as you read this. Note:

Scientific Facts That Have Changed Since you were in Grade School
elitedaily.com/life/8-surprising-scientific-facts-changed-since-grade-school

7 Historical Facts That Have Changed Over Time
http://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ss1#safe=active&q=scientific+facts+that+have+changed+over+time

Even Theories Change
(Link doesn't work. Enter "Even Theories Change" into your search engine, which will take you to Berkeley's home page. Then enter "Even Theories Change" in the home page search box.)



As the record shows (I could have posted more links), science is fallible, though given sufficient time, it eventually corrects itself. It's obvious that you are unwilling to grant that time; hence, in that context, it's fair to say your mind is closed. It seems to me your position is anti-science. Despite extensive digs throughout the Americas, you insist there is nothing more to learn about the PC Americas. Why are all those archaeologists wasting their time and their sponsors' resources?

Some of the supposed "Facts" in your links that have been altered or refuted over time are not even "facts". For example the "fact" that the Salem alleged "witches" were burned was never a widely accepted historical "fact". It was well known to historians and people familiar with early American history that the "witches" were hung not burnt. (One accused "witch" was pressed to death for refusing to plead.)

Some of the others like the Flat Earth notion and Marie Antoinette saying let "them eat cake" are not historical "facts" but popular misconceptions and have been known to be such for quite sometime. Has for the Great Wall of China being visible from space that too is popular misconception and was never a scientific "fact".

 

[Pacal]

Here's something odd: I remember a citation that carts with wheels were found at some point in (Aztec? Mayan?) pre-Columbian artifacts, but that they were toys. Maybe in one of Jared Diamond's books.

Actually the Mesoamericans did use the wheel. Excavations have uncovered in Mesoamerica wheeled toys. There is however NO evidence of any other use of the wheel in Mesoamerica or anywhere else in Americas before Columbus. If I remember correctly such wheeled toys have been mainly found in sites along the gulf coast of Mexico and they are all of toys. No depiction of anything with a wheel, even a toy, has been found in pre-Columbian art. (Note pictures of circles etc., are not wheels.) So I suspect the use of the wheel was probably confined to toys.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Why then in Post 1643 do you suggest that there is no evidence for the existence of specific items among the peoples of the PC Americas? As I have said before, it's difficult not to get the impression that you suppose you know everything (at least everything of any relevance) about the people of the PC Americas.

Because (and do at least pretend to listen this time)...

There.

Is.

No.

Evidence.

There simply is not evidence of the existence of a mighty civilization thhat "covered the land" for "thousands of years", replete with the acoutrements JS invented for verisimilitude. No evidence of a horse culture (much less a horse culture that "covered the land" for "thousands of years"). No evidence of cultivation of european barley (much less evidence of cultivation so pervasive that european barleycorns could have been used as the basis for the valuation of minted coinage {for which, BTW, there is no eividence}). No evidence of steelmongery, or even steel artifacts.

Nowhere have I made the claim you falsely and dishonestly attribute to me.

I will accept your apology, as long as you promise not to do it again.

The honest counter to the reality that there is no evidence would be to present actual evidence. If you were to show that a minted coin was discovered in Pre-colombian Ecuador, clearly bearing a representation of european barley, and clearly dating from whenever-it-is-you-persist-in-being-coy-about that the exciting stories in the american chapters of the BoM are to be supposed to have taken place, I would be intrigued, If a similar coin of equally respectable provenance were to be discovered in a did in Puyallup, I would take that as an indication that we were on to something. Were a similar coin of equally respectable provenance unearthed in Yellowhouse Draw, or Blackwater Canyon, or Calakmul, I would take it as demonstrated that minted coinage based on the value of european barleycorns did, in fact, exist in the pre-colombian americas (indicating much earlier minted coinage than previously suspected, among other things).

Note several things: That piece of evidence would have no bearing on the fact that the horse has never been demonstrated to have existed in the pre-colombian americas. Neither would that piece of evidence have any bearing on the 'god'-superstitions of the BoM.

Even more important, the mere fact that such a discovery can be imagined, and theorized; does not change the fact that there has yet to be any such evidence discovered. The fact that it, and other as-yet-undiscovered facets of the pre-colombian might be discovered in the future should, in fact, drive continued exploration and investigation.

None of which changes the demonstrable fact that no such evidence has yet been presented.

 

[tsig]

Actually the Mesoamericans did use the wheel. Excavations have uncovered in Mesoamerica wheeled toys. There is however NO evidence of any other use of the wheel in Mesoamerica or anywhere else in Americas before Columbus. If I remember correctly such wheeled toys have been mainly found in sites along the gulf coast of Mexico and they are all of toys. No depiction of anything with a wheel, even a toy, has been found in pre-Columbian art. (Note pictures of circles etc., are not wheels.) So I suspect the use of the wheel was probably confined to toys.

The BoM portrays a civilization that looks a lot like 19th century Protestant American life much like Joe saw around him.

 

[Minoosh]

Can anyone tell me why the YouTube videos of ex-Mormons are all so long and circumspect?

It may be that YouTube is offering me feature-length videos because I watched one yesterday. Many are over an hour long and describe a process where adherents gradually fell away from their literal belief. I see people stressing what good friends they had in the church.

Maybe there is some very deep conditioning I'm not aware of - or could they be protecting family members? Can you be cast out for, say, continuing to love and emotionally support excommunicated members?

I've heard that with Scientology, it's a fear of legal action.

 

[Craig4]

<snip>

The problem is that you move from repeated statements re. "no evidence" to a conclusion that is unavoidable: the BoM is a fraud.

It really isn't all that complicated, is it?

Look, the contents of the Book of Mormon are just laughably absurd. You're just in for disappointment if you think anything in that book is going to proven accurate. This isn't uncharted territory we are talking about here. The extinction of horses with the megafauna and their reintroduction by the Spanish isn't exactly controversial. Added to the fact the Smith had already been a fraud calling the book such isn't out of line. I'll concede the point that it is likely in the extreme the book was a fraud being as all evidence points in that direction. The odds of Smith's claims being accurate are some insanely remote that's not something I'm worried about being proven wrong on.

Are you going to even attempt to grasp the scope of what Smith claimed?

 

[skyrider44]

I think the main reason that some of us atheists care about religious beliefs is that we clearly see how these ideas, based in ancient myths and superstition, can do great harm to a variety of people. It isn't just the LDS Church that is attempting to insert itself into our secular government, it's the whole idea of some god, defined by thousands of groups of with their agendas, being imposed on non-believers.

In the interest of fairness, you might consider what organizations founded the first universities and hospitals in America.

Why not Satanism? Probably because Satanists aren't running amok trying to impose their beliefs on non-Satanists.

And just how has the LDS Church imposed its beliefs on you?

 

[skyrider44]

Look, the contents of the Book of Mormon are just laughably absurd. You're just in for disappointment if you think anything in that book is going to proven accurate. This isn't uncharted territory we are talking about here.

You might want to produce a credible answer to this question: How could Joseph Smith (an uneducated young man) have been able to include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles (idioms and chiasmus) in the Book of Mormon— elements that were not discovered until after his death?

Try grasping the scope of that.

 

[skyrider44]

Because (and do at least pretend to listen this time)...

There.

Is.

No.

Evidence.

That response doesn't answer my question, which was, in effect, why do you think you know minute details of how the peoples of the PC Americas lived? Of course you are free to speculate, but lack of evidence doesn't axiomatically prove your claim.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Nowhere have I made the claim you falsely and dishonestly attribute to me.

I will accept your apology, as long as you promise not to do it again.

I have never called you dishonest or a liar, but I have lost track of the number of times you have pejoratively applied those terms to me. And you seek an apology? Amusing.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I have never called you dishonest or a liar, but I have lost track of the number of times you have pejoratively applied those terms to me. And you seek an apology? Amusing.

You continue to make the dishonest, and demonstrably false, claim that I have said that "all there is to know" about the pre-colombian americas is known. You continue to tell a lie about what I have said, in the face of repeated correction. What would your boy Pirie say about attempting tp "win" an argument by adopting mendacity?

(As a learning exercise, you should try to honestly state what I have actually said, over and over.)

You continue to dishonestly alter my words, and continue to unethically edit my posts without admitting it, or making clear when you have done so. Scholars of any respectable stripe consider that as dishonorable an act as your propensity for quote-mining, and cherry-picking (I'm giving you a pass on your sloveny habit of "research"-by-title).

"Lying for Jesus" may allow you to skirt your club's rules about false witness, but, oddly enough, actual scholarship has higher standards for ethics and honesty.

 

[Slowvehicle]

That response doesn't answer my question, which was, in effect, why do you think you know minute details of how the peoples of the PC Americas lived? Of course you are free to speculate, but lack of evidence doesn't axiomatically prove your claim.

And your lie continues.

I should adopt one of your techniques from earlier in this thread (or it may have been in the C"JC"LDS I, or [/I]C"JC"LDS II[/I] thread), and post in capshout. I encourage you to indicate precisely where I have ever said that I "know minute details of how the peoples of the PC Americas [sic] lived". Be so kind as to link to the exact post where I have made such a claim.

As a five-finger exercise in the practice of intellectual honesty, you could indicate what I have, in fact, been saying. (Hint: it is not the lie you keep telling.)

Once again:

What are the dates that you would have us suppose the mighty civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years" can be demonstrated to have done so? What evidence do you offer, beyond superstition and fairy tales?

Where would you have us suppose that the mighty civilization that "covered the land" for "thousands of years" was located? What evidence do you offer, beyond superstition and fairy tales?

 

[Craig4]

You might want to produce a credible answer to this question: How could Joseph Smith (an uneducated young man) have been able to include ancient Hebrew literary writing styles (idioms and chiasmus) in the Book of Mormon— elements that were not discovered until after his death?

Try grasping the scope of that.

It's not evidence if it ends in a question mark.

 

[skyrider44]

You continue to make the dishonest, and demonstrably false, claim that I have said that "all there is to know" about the pre-colombian americas is known.

Then why don't you simply admit that you don't know all there is to know about the PC Americas, including the fact that at least some of the items you characterize with certitude as anachronisms in the Book of Mormon may not be anachronisms at all. You deny claiming that you know all there is to know, yet you are adamant about deficiencies in the BoM—even deficiencies of a minute nature. You come across as a world-class expert on the PC Americas.

 

[skyrider44]

It's not evidence if it ends in a question mark.

Answers to question marks establish the foundation for producing evidence. It's clear that you have no answer to my question.