LDS II: The Mormons

[Craig4]

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.

Yeah, I'm not claiming a complete knowledge of every bit of archeological research but there's just no one who cares about the BoM out there working in the mainstream. There may be some religiously motivated types but that's pretty much it.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

I wonder what rhetorical advantage you think to gain for yourself with this bit of arrant, errant, condescension.

You boasted of a source (a source, BTW, that has, IIRC, been dealt with before--I will get back to you on that). The least scruple of scholastic and academic honesty would compel you to provide a link to the source, if one were available. I would do your efforts the honor pf pursuing the source you used, in the version you used, as a starting point (as I have done in other threads).

Unless you are hoping that on-one will pursue your "sources", and comment on them...

I am attempting to produce both sides.

I see. I must have missed your sources quoting neutral, non-LDS scholars; and your links to mainstream archaeological, paleontological, anthropological, and historic research. Perhaps you would be so kind as to re-post your links to sources of empirical, practical, non-anecdotal, not-based-on-admitted-hoax, objective evidence.

Would you be so kind as to provide citations to peer-reviewed sources that support the claim that steel was wrought in the pre-colombian americas?
Would you be so kind as to provide citations to peer-reviewed sources that support the claim that mesoamericans demonstrate semitic descent in their DNA?
Would you be so kind as to provide citations to peer-reviewed sources that support the claim that horses were raised and ridden, or that domestic cattle were husbanded, or that domestic pigs were kept, in the pre-colombian americas?
Would you be so kind as to provide citations to peer-reviewed sources that support the claim that domestic barley was cultivated in the pre-colombian americas?

There's a lad.

If such has been found, and published, and subjected to scrutiny, do be so kind as to link to it.

Or, consider answering, instead of evading, my questions.

Stalling, are you?

No, not in the least, and it is dishonest of you to suggest it.

Your "source", offered without any support,makes the claim:"To dismiss the BoM on archaeological ground is short-sighted, as continuing discoveries provide ever more evidence that is consistent with the book." Given the quality of Maxwell's other work, I am interested in what you, personally, consider "evidence consistent with" the BoM.

You may not be aware that there has yet to be presented the least bit of evidence of the existence of a horse-using culture of any kind in the pre-colombian americas, as described in the exciting stories of the BoM (a horse-using culture that would, to be "consistent", have to be demonstrated [for instance] to practice autochtonous steelmongery, and the cultivation of wheat and barley, at a minimum. What, then, do you, personally, accept as "consistent"?

And so it goes.

Yes, but you are not so far gone that you could not reverse the trends you have begun to exhibit, even depend upon. I have confidence.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

Well said! The more often this point is raised, the better.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Quote #1 is from an essay by Mike Ash:
http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/archaeological-evidence-and-the-book-of-mormon

Quote #2 is from this article:
http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-scientist-looks-at-book-of-mormon-anachronisms/

#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:

<respectful snip for space and focus>

Ta ever so! Looks like a bit of post-prandial light reading is on tonight's agenda.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

I am shocked. Shocked, I say!

 

[Slowvehicle]

snip for focus>
You boasted of a source (a source, BTW, that has, IIRC, been dealt with before--I will get back to you on that). The least scruple of scholastic and academic honesty would compel you to provide a link to the source, if one were available. I would do your efforts the honor pf pursuing the source you used, in the version you used, as a starting point (as I have done in other threads).

I correct myself. I was, in fact, remembering this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8965278#post8965278

...which discusses the John Clark chart, which (for instance) lists "steel" as "confirmed" in the pre-colombian americas, because:

...Laban's "steel sword" is not anachronistic; Middle Eastern smiths were making steel by the tenth century B.C....

Same point, but it does not address the "evidence consistent with" issue. Sorry.

I'll keep looking.

<remainder snipped for space and focus>

 

[skyrider44]

I wonder what rhetorical advantage you think to gain for yourself with this bit of arrant, errant, condescension.

You boasted of a source (a source, BTW, that has, IIRC, been dealt with before--I will get back to you on that). The least scruple of scholastic and academic honesty would compel you to provide a link to the source, if one were available. I would do your efforts the honor pf pursuing the source you used, in the version you used, as a starting point (as I have done in other threads).

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].

I assume you did see Dr. John Clark's list of disappearing Book of Mormon anachronisms.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip of much dishonesty, condescension, failure of basic academic niceties, and special pleading>

Hmm.

Nothing left.

I wonder what rhetorical advantage you presume to win for yourself, with your continuing habit of dishonestly editing my posts with no indication that you are not responding to, but redacting, my words?

When did you decide dishonesty was the only option left you?

I have asked, repeatedly (and you have dishonestly edited out, with no indication that you were so doing) a serious series of questions. I wonder why you are ignoring them.

Again, I ask in all seriousness:

Would you be so kind as to provide citations to peer-reviewed sources that support the claim that steel was wrought in the pre-colombian americas?
Would you be so kind as to provide citations to peer-reviewed sources that support the claim that mesoamericans demonstrate semitic descent in their DNA?
Would you be so kind as to provide citations to peer-reviewed sources that support the claim that horses were raised and ridden, or that domestic cattle were husbanded, or that domestic pigs were kept, in the pre-colombian americas?
Would you be so kind as to provide citations to peer-reviewed sources that support the claim that domestic barley was cultivated in the pre-colombian americas?

It does you no honor to pretend that the questions stem from an "anti-mormon" approach, as practical, physical, empirical, objective evidence knows no masters, and puts not its faith in 'gods'. There is either evidence for each of these things, or any of these things, or none.

Which is it?

It does you no honor to repeat the lie that the questions stem from a claim you imply that I have made, that I know "all there is to know" about the history of the pre-colombian americas (a claim I have never made or implied); instead of making false accusations, why not produce, or direct me to, whatever evidence you think there has been presented? There has been presented either evidence for each of these things, or any of these things, or none.

Which is it?

I have asked, repeatedly, for you to identify where in the americas you would have it supposed that the exciting events in the BoM were to have taken place. You have not even deigned to admit to the question, much less to enlighten me as to the correct understanding of the BoM take on geography.

I wonder if it is because you are concerned that concrete claims (such as the "language" in which what apologists would sell as the autographic account of "Abraham's time in Egypt") stand or fall on concrete evidence (which has led, for instance, to no actual Egyptologist, hieroglyphicist, historian, archaeologist, anthopologist, or linguist endorsing "reformed Egyptian", or using Smith's "primer" to "translate" any other texts).

I have asked, repeatedly, for you to identify when you would have it supposed that the exciting events in the BoM were to have taken place. You have not even deigned to admit to the question, much less to enlighten me as to the correct understanding of the BoM take on chronology.

I wonder if it is because concrete dates stand or fall on concrete evidence.

At any rate, be so kind as to assert a position in response to the questions you continue to ignore, there's a lad.

Further, be so kind as to observe the least scruple of honesty in redacting my words.

I assume you missed the analysis of the "Clark Chart" in LDS I.

 

[Craig4]

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].

I assume you did see Dr. John Clark's list of disappearing Book of Mormon anachronisms.

Swing and a miss. I don't care about the state of modern LDS thinking. The Book says horses and no horse civilizations. I don't care about any mental gymnastics to turn tapirs and llamas into horses. Please show me a horse culture in the Pre Colombian Americas.

 

[halleyscomet]

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].

I assume you did see Dr. John Clark's list of disappearing Book of Mormon anachronisms.

Rhetorical masturbation is no substitute for evidence of a pre-Columbian horse culture. Insults based upon said rhetorical masturbation are even less useful.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I first read Hamblin's article (here's a .pdf for anyone who has not yet read it: http://publications.maxwellinstitut...s/jbms/2/1/S00011-50aa647b4598211 Hamblin.pdf) in the late 90s. Re-reading it now, it still fails to indicate the first skerrick of evidence for (for instance) the existence of a viable horse culture (or, for that matter, the presence of the horse at all) in the pre-colombian americas. It is, instead, a list of excuses as to why such has not yet been found.

These are also fun, and repeat points raised by posters here:

Comments on William J. Hamblin's article "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon".
http://packham.n4m.org/hamblin.htm

Horses
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com/horses.html

Book of Mormon Anachronisms
http://mormonbookshelf.com/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_Anachronisms

It does not do to say that the evidence will be found; or, worse, to say that acknowledging that the evidence has not yet been found is to presume to "know everything about the pre-colombian americas".

The truth is that there is not only no evidence of (for instance) the existence of the kind of horse culture described in the BoM, in the pre-colombian americas, there is a wealth of evidence that there was no such. No roads. No wheeled vehicles. No silage or fodderage. No artistic representations. No tack.

 

[RandFan]

No horse culture.

What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[RandFan]

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."

You can begin to get yourself up to speed here.

For those who are not already Mormon the case against the BoM gets worse every year.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No horse culture.

What's so hard to understand about that?

And that's just the start.

To make an honest claim that "archaeology supports the BoM" would require:

1. Evidence of a horse culture; and

2. Evidence of the cultivation of barley, to the extent that the same culture could be reasonably said to have based their currency upon the value of barleycorns; and

3. Evidence that the same culture husbanded bovine kine, and swine, and

4. Evidence that the same culture had wheeled vehicles, and

5. Evidence that the same culture wrought steel.

It does not serve to claim that the Hohokam, in what is now Arizona, gleaned and processed wild barley; while a mesoamerican tomb might have a wheeled toy artifact; ad a modern horse skull was salted in a dig in Wisconsin,; taken together, are "not inconsistent" with the BoM.

All of which ignores the problem of "covering the whole land for thousands of years" with, evidently, no idea at all of which way "north" is...

 

[Craig4]

Whoa, wait a minute, there's steel in there? So these Israelites showed up and were alloying iron to make steel? Um that's pretty out there. It's not quite aliens built the Pyramids but it's pretty close.

 

[halleyscomet]

Whoa, wait a minute, there's steel in there? So these Israelites showed up and were alloying iron to make steel? Um that's pretty out there. It's not quite aliens built the Pyramids but it's pretty close.

They were also raising a bunch of European grains which hadn't even reached Palestine.

And the elephants. They found elephants in the new world.

My "Llamas and sledges and it all happened in Peru" theory makes a LOT more sense than the desperate and, frankly pathetic, excuses made by actual Mormon apologists.

 

[tsig]

They were also raising a bunch of European grains which hadn't even reached Palestine.

And the elephants. They found elephants in the new world.

My "Llamas and sledges and it all happened in Peru" theory makes a LOT more sense than the desperate and, frankly pathetic, excuses made by actual Mormon apologists.

You sure they were in America and not the island that the Swiss Family Robinson were stranded on?

I'm sure Joe Smith Jr would be surprised that the BoM took place in Peru but it is funny imagining Mormon elders in skins and conducting human sacrifice.

I am still wondering how the gold plates got to where Joe found them from South America.

 

[halleyscomet]

I am still wondering how the gold plates got to where Joe found them from South America.

GodDidIt.

This can even offer an explanation for why racism was so integrated into Mormon theology until the 1970's.

Let's assume for a moment that God's design is to raise up a prophet to form the "true" church. The European population in North America has flourished economically in a way the people in the South simply had not yet achieved. God moves the plates from Peru to a location near a likely prophet and exploits the prophet's deep seated racism to spread the religion, letting people believe (inaccurately) that the events in the plates happened in the areas in which they live. Ethnocentrism becomes a key component of early Mormon evangelism.

Fast forward to the 1970's. Overt racism is unfashionable, so God sends a revelation that the ban on dark skinned people in the hierarchy should end. This sets things in motion for the next generation to figure out that the BoM isn't set in North America AT ALL, but in South America.

It all makes sense!

 

[RandFan]

You can begin to get yourself up to speed here.

For those who are not already Mormon the case against the BoM gets worse every year.

Bad link. Sorry

Chris Johnson - "How the Book of Mormon Destroyed Mormonism"

 

[Slowvehicle]

Bad link. Sorry

Chris Johnson - "How the Book of Mormon Destroyed Mormonism"

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?