A split thread: Joseph Smith

[outhouse]

often giving me knowledge beyond my own understanding

Most people call that imagination and the conscious mind. Faith, nothing more.

Communication is strong evidence of a relationship between two people. The scriptures are records that show some of the communications between God and man

It is not credible evidence of any kind. It is faith based, factually it is not strong evidence.

They are not records of any such communication, that is factually unsubstantiated and faith based.

 

[outhouse]

Popularity doesn't really speak to whether or not it is an authentic record of early Native Americans.

Evidence does. And you have ZERO evidence in support.

Everything points to a religion being plagiarized.

 

[outhouse]

They have never said that, to my knowledge. Don't exaggerate.

The existence of the Jaredites is denied by almost all historians and archaeologists; both the Smithsonian Institution[2] and the National Geographic Society have stated that they have seen no evidence to support these claims in the Book of Mormon

You have no evidence, the only thing you possess is faith. That is not exaggerating.

 

[Norman]

The existence of the Jaredites is denied by almost all historians and archaeologists; both the Smithsonian Institution and the National Geographic Society have stated that they have seen no evidence to support these claims in the Book of Mormon.

If you need one person from a credible source, how about: Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 132

Norman: Hi Sapiens, do you have the book or is it something I can look up on the internet. In regards to quoting scripture to you, I will respect your wish
and will not do It anymore.

 

[Norman]

No, what this discussion is about is the claims made by Smith in the BofM, you can not use it to prove itself, that's circular logic.

Norman: Hi Sapiens, ok, out of respect for you I will not quote anymore scriptures to you.

 

[Sapiens]

I can believe something without a horse bone. Apparently, you can't.

Okay, here are the horse bones. Enjoy.

Henry Chapman Mercer, The Hill-Caves of Yucatan: A Search for Evidence of Man's Antiquity in the Caverns of Central America (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1896), 172.
Institute of Maya Studies, Miami Museum of Science, Newsletter 7, no. 11 (November 1978): 2.
Clayton E. Ray, "Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan," Journal of Mammalology 38 (1957): 278; Harry E. D. Pollock and Clayton E. Ray, "Notes on Vertebrate Animal Remains from Mayapan," Current Reports 41 (August 1957): 638 (Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C., Dept. of Archaeology).

You really need to read the papers before you cite them ... that is how science is done, you make claims and then support the claims either through your own work if citations of the peer-reviewed work or others. You do not rip references, unchecked and unvetted from non-peer reviewed publications that have an axe to grind (as you obviously did from "Missing" Plants and Animals in the Book of Mormon ). When you do that you invariably wind up impeached and embarrassed.

Typical of Mormon science analysis (roundly dismissed by real science, and so reminiscent of the lies spred by the YECs) are items like this quote from Category:Book of Mormon/Animals/Horses - FairMormon a wiki style site featuring Mormon apologetics: "Excavations at the Post-Classic site of Mayapan in Yucatan in 1957 yielded remains of horses in four lots. Two of these specimens are from the surface and might have been remains of Spanish animals. Two other lots, however, were obtained from excavation in Cenote [water hole] Ch'en Mul 'from the bottom stratum in a sequence of unconsolidated earth almost 2 meters in thickness.' They were "considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization. Such mineralization was observed in no other bone or tooth in the collection although thousands were examined, some of which were found in close proximity to the horse teeth." Clayton E. Ray somewhat lamely suggests that the fossil teeth were of Pleistocene age and "could have been transported . . . as curios by the Mayans."

But the reality is that Henry Chapman Mercer clearly identifies his equine finds as species that predate the modern horse (e.g., "The horse bones and molars found by Mr. Mercer might, so far as their structural characters go, be referred to the Equus occidentatalis, Leidy, which differs from the E. caballus in characters of the skull, while the molar teeth are closely similar." and "European horses must have been cooked and eaten in the caves ... since the 15th Century, to account for the fragments of bone and teeth discovered there for we find no reason for supposing that the people of the Yucatan knew the American fossil horse, nor scattered its remains ...") You have to take the trouble to go back to the original article to see that.

The Institute of Maya Studies, Miami Museum of Science, Newsletter 7, no. 11 (November 1978): 2, is not available on line, I have requested a reprint, but, it any case it is not a peer-reviewed professional scientific journal, it is a popular publication aimed at the general public. I will report back when I have received the newsletter.

As can be clearly seen, there were no modern horses in North America and the Mormon claims of such can be charitably, at best, described as, "horse puckey."

 

[Sapiens]

Norman: Hi Sapiens, do you have the book or is it something I can look up on the internet. In regards to quoting scripture to you, I will respect your wish
and will not do It anymore.

Smithsonian Institution
During the early 1980s, reports circulated in LDS culture that the Book of Mormon was being used by the Smithsonian to guide primary archaeological research. This rumor was brought to the attention of Smithsonian directors who, by 1982, sent a form letter to inquiring parties stating that the Smithsonian did not use the Book of Mormon to guide any research, and included a list of specific reasons Smithsonian archaeologists considered the Book of Mormon historically unlikely. In 1998, the Smithsonian revised the form letter they sent in response to this issue to take a less controversial stance, specifically replacing detailed allegations of the non-historicity of the Book of Mormon with a simple statement that the Book of Mormon has not been used by the Smithsonian in any form of archaeological research. (New Light: Smithsonian Statement on the Book of Mormon Revised", Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute) 7 (1), 1998: 77, retrieved 2014-12-15) Mormon scholars suggest this may have been because the earlier version of the letter contradicts some aspects of research published by Smithsonian staff members. Non-LDS scholars note that the Smithsonian has not retracted any of its previous statements and feel that the response was toned down to avoid negative public relations with Mormons. Terryl Givens suggests that the change in the statement was "in all likelihood a product of controversy-avoidance."(Givens, Terryl L (2002). By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture That Launched a New World Religion. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513818-X. pg 132)

National Geographic Society
The National Geographic Society, in a 1998 letter to the Institute for Religious Research, stated "Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon."(National Geographic Society Statement on the Book of Mormon". August 12, 1998. Letter from Julie Crain addressed to Luke Wilson of the Institute for Religious Research.)

(thanks to Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

 

[outhouse]

When you do that you invariably wind up impeached and embarrassed.

And what happens when one plagiarizes another groups mythology, is that they repeat known mythology.

The 10-12 tribes have no historicity as ever existing.

So I ask, what "real" evidence do they possess that holds credibility, that could substantiate any of their claims?

 

[Sapiens]

Norman: Hi Sapiens, ok, out of respect for you I will not quote anymore scriptures to you.

Don't do it out of respect to me, do it out of respect to logic and reality.

 

[Norman]

Omphalos Syndrome is a misguided belief is it not?

Norman: Hi outhouse, No, it is not, if you believe in what has been taught to you. I have lived the principles of the
Book of Mormon for years and my life has been centered around it. It has brought me many blessings and knowledge
of so many things. When you live something for so long you come very familiar with it's precepts. There is no other
way to know something unless you have implemented it into your life and have experienced it.

 

[outhouse]

Norman: Hi outhouse, No, it is not, if you believe in what has been taught to you. I have lived the principles of the
Book of Mormon for years and my life has been centered around it. It has brought me many blessings and knowledge
of so many things. When you live something for so long you come very familiar with it's precepts. There is no other
way to know something unless you have implemented it into your life and have experienced it.

Omphalos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Omphalos Syndrome refers to the misguided belief that a place of geopolitical power and currency is the most important place in the world

 

[Sapiens]

And what happens when one plagiarizes another groups mythology, is that they repeat known mythology.

The 10-12 tribes have no historicity as ever existing.

So I ask, what "real" evidence do they possess that holds credibility, that could substantiate any of their claims?

The breaks in the chain of evidence are infinite, I have focused on the horses because it is an easy one to understand. I have alluded to others, not the least of which is the fact that there was no Captivity, no Exodus, no tribes, etc., that leads to the conclusion that it was quite impossible for the BofM to be anything more than historical fiction. Then there's the lack of iron implements and weapons, chariots, etc. It is not a matter of, "where there's smoke there's fire," it is a matter of, "where there is an obvious roaring blaze there's fire."

 

[Sapiens]

Norman: Hi outhouse, No, it is not, if you believe in what has been taught to you. I have lived the principles of the
Book of Mormon for years and my life has been centered around it. It has brought me many blessings and knowledge
of so many things. When you live something for so long you come very familiar with it's precepts. There is no other
way to know something unless you have implemented it into your life and have experienced it.

No one is saying that your attempts to live the BofM have not made you a better person, the same can be said, for some people, of any book from the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" to L. Ron Hubbard's "Dianteics," that people decide to live by. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the BofM is a complete fabrication; but that in no way denigrates the value of how you have lived and who you are. To my point of view it does indicate with a rather high gullibility index, as I expect you would find in most all religionists of any conceivable stripe, but early childhood indoctrination or similar later life crisis conversion belief is rather hard to overcome.

 

[Norman]

No, it would be absolute proof, read up on type one and type two errors.

Norman: Hi Sapiens, I see you have not responded to my Post# 154 about the linguistics of the Book of Mormon, why is that? Is it that you are
not capable or qualified to do so?

 

[outhouse]

I see you have not responded to my Post# 154

Not credible.

Pseudo science, not credible. End of story.

 

[Sapiens]

Norman: Hi Sapiens, I see you have not responded to my Post# 154 about the linguistics of the Book of Mormon, why is that? Is it that you are
not capable or qualified to do so?

Thus, while seventeen words appear on the oSlracon, if one discounts the recurrence of words, only SIX words are written in hieratic (of which four are numerals), and six in Hebrew. The text of the ostracon is integral, rather than a bilinguaL2! Yeivin, who translated and studied the text, wrote, "The two scripts provide supplementary infonnation and they are intermingled. One cannot, however, be sure how the scribe who wrote the text read it, whether in Hebrew throughout, pronouncing all the apparent hieratic signs in their Hebrew equivalents, or in a mixed sort of jargon, giving the Egyptian values to the hieratic signs."22 Because the scription was discovered in Israel, Yeivin never considered the possibility that all the words might have been read as Egyptian, which seems more likely in this case. One thing, however, is certain. The scribe who wrote the text knew both Hebrew and Egyptian writing systems and commingled them in a single text. Perhaps this is what Nephi meant when he said that the language of his record consisted of "the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" (1 Nephi 1:2).23 Additional evidence for the commingling of Hebrew and Egyptian scripts was discovered during archaeological excavations at Tell Ein-Qudeirah (biblical Kadesh-Barnea) in the Sinai Peninsula during the latter half of the 19705. Several ostraca of the sixth and seventh centuries B.C. were uncovered. One ostracon, written mostly in hieratic characters. consists of a column of Egyptian measures and five columns of numbers. Along with the Egyptian, the Hebrew word >iiliiphlm ("thousands") appears twice (with the hieratic "ten" in the numeral "10,000"), while the Hebrew symbol for "shekel" (a weight measure) appears twenty-two times. Because of the order of the numerals in each column, it may be a scribal practice in writing numbers. A second ostracon contains three vertical columns of numbers. The left-hand column has the Hebrew word garah, the smallest unit of Hebrew measure, after each hieratic numeral. Because the numerals are in order, Rudolph Cohen, the archaeologist who discovered the tex.ts, concluded that "this writing is a scribal exercise." This view is supported by the discovery, at the same site, of a small ostracon with several Hebrew [etters, in alphabetic order, evidently a practice text.24 At both Arad and Kadesh-Barnea, there were, in addition to the "combination texts" discussed, other ostraca written entirely in either Hebrew or Egyptian hieratic. The implication is clear: Scribes or students contemporary or nearly contemporary with Lehi were being trained in both Hebrew and Egyptian writing systems. The use of Egyptian script by Lehi's descendants now becomes not only plausible, but perfectly reasonable in the light of archaeological discoveries made more than a century after Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon.

Source:

Title: Notes and Communications: Jewish and Other Semitic.
Texts Written in Egyptian Characters.
Author(s): John A. Tvedtnes and Stephen D. Ricks.
Reference: Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/2 (1996): 156–63.
ISSN: 1065-9366 (print), 2168-3158 (online)
Abstract: An Egyptian script was possibly used to write Hebrew text on the Nephite record. Documents from the correct location and time period have texts and languages in varying scripts that lend credence to this scribal phenomenon.

I will not play Bill Nye to your Ken Ham.

While I think it was clear that Nye "won" the subject matter of the debate, Ham clearly scored by having his "opinions" elevated to at least an appearance of respectability that they are not deserving of.

So, I did not respond, and do not intend to respond, because I do not get involved in pretending apologetics are science. To get involved in a lengthy discussion of this apologetic claptrap is to give it status and place it on the same plane as actual science, which it does not deserve. Find yourself a Jesuit Semanticist for that discussion.

 

[Norman]

Your reaching. The civil war had little to nothing to do with WWI. It did not "spill over" as you suggest. Also world wars have been part of biblical prophecy since Judaism.

Norman: Hi Midnight Rain, I beg to differ with you. Here is some information that will be helpful to you.

D&C 87:1 does not necessarily imply that the rebellion was yet future: if it is describing a contemporary event, then the part about South Carolina makes no pretension to be prophetic, only to describe a current situation. On the other hand, if it is prophetic, then we must note that it was, indeed, at South Carolina that the first Civil War shots were fired on Fort Sumpter in 1861. Could not the earlier rebellion in South Carolina have prompted the revelation? Most of Joseph Smith's revelations (perhaps all of them) did, in fact, come in response to questions he asked of the Lord.

In a subsequent statement dated to 1843, Joseph Smith repeated the prophecy that war between the states would start at South Carolina. He added that a voice had told him this in 1832, while he was engaged in prayer (D&C 130:1213). It is likely that he was praying about the current rebellion in South Carolina. Of interest to us is that he continued to believe civil war would result, even after the 1832/3 crisis had been "solved." I.e., in 1843, he saw that war as still future. Had he been a phony, he could have simply torn up the 1832 revelation, which had not yet been published (and was not published until after his death, appearing in the 1851 Pearl of Great Price and in the 1876 D&C; Sect. 130 was first published in the Deseret News of July 9, 1856).

Since the Civil War did start in South Carolina, we must give Joseph Smith at least some credit even if it is "coincidental." But we must note examination of other points is based on some false assumptions. First, vs. 3 does not say that the Civil War would "result in war being poured out upon all nations." Rather, it states that the Civil War was the start of a series of wars, not necessarily related one to another.
The prophesied sequence and its fulfilment can be outlined as follows: Civil war between the northern and southern states 1861-1865. South calls on Great Britain for help. This occurred during the Civil War. Assistance was prevented by President Lincoln’s blockade. When, in 1863, the British tried to take Alaska (recently purchased from Russia), the Czar sent a fleet to stop them. The Civil War is seen in D&C 87 as the beginning of the great international wars which are to plague the earth in the last days, but not their cause. Since 1865 we have had almost continual war in various parts of the World. This list is to numerous to mention. Only, that between 1863 and 1983 there have been many wars.

Source:

John A. Tvedtnes

 

[outhouse]

John A. Tvedtnes

Not credible. He is a Mormon apologist. He carries no credibility outside faith.

 

[outhouse]

, I beg to differ with you

Not one thing you wrote, refutes what he said about WW1 and the civil war.

 

[Nietzsche]

So England isn't calling upon other nations to protect themselves from the Northern States, but from other nations. This is talking about another war. In fact England did side with the Southern states, and although they didn't send troops, they helped the Southern states in other ways. It caused a rift between the United States and England.

sigh.

This is an oft-repeated myth based on facts that are interpreted through an all-too modern lens. Britain & France's "aid" of the South was never more than gun-running. Past the Trent Affair, which is often over-blown in regards to importance, the odds of Franco-British involvement on the side of the South was next to zero. In Britain in paticular there could be no thought of aid to a slave-holding state. The Royal Navy was, after all, the single most important instrument in the ending of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

The treaties between nations did lead to a world war. Specifically it was England's 1839 treaty with Belgium that forced it to go to Belgium's aid when Germany invaded.

This is a grossly over-simplified view of Britain's entry into the Great War. That Treaty was only as good as the paper it was written on. Had the war began in 1905 rather than 1914, Britain would've thrown Belgium to Germany due to the memory of Leopold and the horrors he inflicted on the Congo being fresh in their minds.