• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

LDS II: The Mormons

Why does this thread now seem to be more about gay rights than about the LDS Church?
 
Slowvehicle said:
Because there appears to be a distinct lack of practical, empirical, non, anecdotal, objective evidence that (for instance) Equus caballus was known in the pre-colombian americas...
Click to expand...

That had been a fair target for discussion. We seem to have wondered away from it, though.
 
The cavalier trot-ting out of a Gish-gallop saddl-ing of non-Mormons with hurdles to mare-iage equu-ality seemingly for-ages, has been rein-ed in with equine-imity by the wither-ing Argus-ments of neigh-borly post-ers to mane-tain un-fettered discussion of two grooms or a double bride-le getting hitch-ed to Sherin a bit of joy without being muzzle-d or stifle-d. It would be-hoove some riders to show a tapir-ing off of manure laden claims.
 
Olowkow said:
The cavalier trot-ting out of a Gish-gallop saddl-ing of non-Mormons with hurdles to mare-iage equu-ality seemingly for-ages, has been rein-ed in with equine-imity by the wither-ing Argus-ments of neigh-borly post-ers to mane-tain un-fettered discussion of two grooms or a double bride-le getting hitch-ed to Sherin a bit of joy without being muzzle-d or stifle-d. It would be-hoove some riders to show a tapir-ing off of manure laden claims.
Click to expand...

:bigclap
You sound just a touch "horse", as if you had a bit of a "colt". Perhaps you can find a believer to "bray" for you...
 
Olowkow said:
The cavalier trot-ting out of a Gish-gallop saddl-ing of non-Mormons with hurdles to mare-iage equu-ality seemingly for-ages, has been rein-ed in with equine-imity by the wither-ing Argus-ments of neigh-borly post-ers to mane-tain un-fettered discussion of two grooms or a double bride-le getting hitch-ed to Sherin a bit of joy without being muzzle-d or stifle-d. It would be-hoove some riders to show a tapir-ing off of manure laden claims.
Click to expand...


o wow! ow!

O Olowkow, ow, oi've nominated yow!
 
Olowkow said:
The cavalier trot-ting out of a Gish-gallop saddl-ing of non-Mormons with hurdles to mare-iage equu-ality seemingly for-ages, has been rein-ed in with equine-imity by the wither-ing Argus-ments of neigh-borly post-ers to mane-tain un-fettered discussion of two grooms or a double bride-le getting hitch-ed to Sherin a bit of joy without being muzzle-d or stifle-d. It would be-hoove some riders to show a tapir-ing off of manure laden claims.
Click to expand...

Nicely done.
:)
 
Slowvehicle said:
Because there appears to be a distinct lack of practical, empirical, non, anecdotal, objective evidence that (for instance) Equus caballus was known in the pre-colombian americas...
Click to expand...

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?
 
skyrider44 said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is a a really dishonest argument. Do you read the responses? No one has said "...we know all there is to know". And you were told this.
 
skyrider said:
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?
Click to expand...
We don't know all that there is to know.

What we do know is that the BoM buggers reason. It's supposed to be the most correct book and yet it has been changed time and time again. It makes ugly stereotypes about people of color. It resulted in many people believing that Hebrews were the principle ancestors of Native Americans. It tells an absurd story about the supposed Jaradites crossing the ocean in air tight barges that could flip over and throw animals and their feces all over the place.

Throw into the mix that other than a few chance correlations there just is no significant archeological evidence for the claims in the book.

Bear in mind that we are talking about a book that offers no profound insights into human nature or existence to anyone that isn't Mormon. It has scant little literary or artistic merit to a non-Mormon.

To most non-Mormons it appears to be a very poor work of 19th century fanciful stories that are mostly derivative.
 
Last edited:
skyrider44 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Shall we sing of "hubris"?

The "foregoing" will not be "immediately rejected" "because it is based on a Mormon source", as you assert; nor will it be "immediately rejected" because anyone on this thread has pretended in any way that "we know all there is to know" about the pre-colombian americas.

Instead, it will be pointed out that this very article, and this very issue, were dealt with in the first "LDS" thread. You may have missed that.

The paleobotanist under which I studied at ASU showed us, with actual examples of the actual seeds from Hohokam sites, that the "hull-less" seeds in question were not, in fact, "hull-less" modern barley (Hordeum vulgare (sativa sp.), but processed seeds of a "hulled" wild relative of barley, H. pusillum. Given the differences in the plants, and the less-than ubiquitous distribution of its use, it is a tapir-sized stretch to consider gleaning of wild H. pusillum to be evidence of the cultivation of H. vulgare.

In this case, it does appear that the Maxwell Institute identification is more hopeful that scholarly. Were you ever able to find a copy of the original Science83 article?

The Maxwell institute case is further weakened by the fact that the Hohokam are recorded not to have known the horse, nor the elephant, nor bovine cattle, nor steelmongery. If the "little barley" gleaned (not cultivated) by the Hohokam, in the american southwest, is to be taken to be the cultivated "barley" mentioned (along with, lest we forget, cultivated wheat) in the BoM, one wonders why the other characteristics of the civilizations mentioned are so notable by their absence.

Again I ask: where in the americas, and at what time, would you have us suppose the exciting stories of chariot wars, with steel weapons, among mighty civilizations, to have taken place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom