A split thread: Joseph Smith

[outhouse]

But then, it's not like the Mormons are the only ones with this sort of problem,

I define it as fanaticism and fundamentalism.

Its not good when you go against education and knowledge, in favor of unsupported biased opinion.

 

[Midnight Rain]

No, he definitely said that the south would go to war with the north - that's two sides. He even told us where it would start. It would be interesting to see a chart of the wars in the last 300 years, to see if war was poured out upon all nations, as compared to the occasional war of the day.

He didn't state anything about WWI or WWII or Korea, or Vietnam. The ONLY semi-accurate thing in his whole prophecy (so 1 or 2 out of 5?) was that the north and south would go to war which...well that was just about obvious at the time. But of course you won't believe that speculation is possible and that he was a prophet.

 

[rrosskopf]

Julia Guernsey finds that Jakeman's research "belies an obvious religious agenda that ignored Izapa Stela 5's heritage"

As I stated earlier I can easily concoct a story based on Stella Izapa 5 that describes an afternoon at Starbucks as they fairytale that your captive apologist anthropologists have invented.

If Joseph Smith had concocted a tale to explain Stella Izapa 5, then your argument would make sense. When a well known tale practically jumps out at you, but the context seems wrong, then an explanation is needed. If you saw a little girl in a red hooded cloak standing before a wolf wearing grandma's clothes and smiling in bed, you would be an idiot not to notice the story of Little Red Riding Hood. That's with just four major items of correlation. It doesn't matter that you can concoct another story to explain away the picture. Anyone can concoct a story from a picture. What matters is whether you can find a story that already exists, and is a good match in every major aspect. If there were only two people, a man and a women, and a snake, and the women was holding a fruit, people would see the story of Adam and Eve. That's with just 5 major correlations. Jakeman did just that, with far more points of correlation than I have provided for either of the other examples. One can say it is a coincidence, but that doesn't really explain anything. How many coincidences have to add up before one can ascribe a relationship? Our brains sometimes see patterns where they don't exist, but at some point we have to concede that a circle is a circle and a square is a square. I have two things in my driveway. Both things have metal parts and four wheels. Both things have petroleum products. Both things have spark plugs and electric wiring. Are they related, or is it just coincidence? One is a car, and the other is a lawn mower. They are not exactly the same thing, but they are related. At some point the coincidences add up to an obvious relationship. What is that point? You said that you believe things that are more likely than not, so how many correlations are needed before a relationship is more likely than not?

 

[rrosskopf]

Its not good when you go against education and knowledge, in favor of unsupported biased opinion.

Who has the education and knowledge? Who has the unsupported biased opinion? You assume that you have the education and knowledge, but is that just your unsupported biased opinion? I have a different education than you, but it is an education none the less. I am not going against my own knowledge and education. Even if you are the most knowledgeable man in the world, I can boast with utmost confidence that there are things that I know that you do not. I don't pretend this claim is in any way extraordinary - the same could be said about anyone. That is why forums such as this one allow an exchange between people of different world views. An attitude of smug superiority hinders a person's ability to perceive truth, and to expand their understanding. The question isn't "why don't you believe"; I think that is patently clear. The question is "why do I?"

 

[Sapiens]

If Joseph Smith had concocted a tale to explain Stella Izapa 5, then your argument would make sense. When a well known tale practically jumps out at you, but the context seems wrong, then an explanation is needed. If you saw a little girl in a red hooded cloak standing before a wolf wearing grandma's clothes and smiling in bed, you would be an idiot not to notice the story of Little Red Riding Hood. That's with just four major items of correlation. It doesn't matter that you can concoct another story to explain away the picture. Anyone can concoct a story from a picture. What matters is whether you can find a story that already exists, and is a good match in every major aspect. If there were only two people, a man and a women, and a snake, and the women was holding a fruit, people would see the story of Adam and Eve. That's with just 5 major correlations. Jakeman did just that, with far more points of correlation than I have provided for either of the other examples. One can say it is a coincidence, but that doesn't really explain anything. How many coincidences have to add up before one can ascribe a relationship? Our brains sometimes see patterns where they don't exist, but at some point we have to concede that a circle is a circle and a square is a square. I have two things in my driveway. Both things have metal parts and four wheels. Both things have petroleum products. Both things have spark plugs and electric wiring. Are they related, or is it just coincidence? One is a car, and the other is a lawn mower. They are not exactly the same thing, but they are related. At some point the coincidences add up to an obvious relationship. What is that point? You said that you believe things that are more likely than not, so how many correlations are needed before a relationship is more likely than not?

Jakeman went searching for a match and (surprise, surprise) found it, other experts int he field see other things. That was my point about Starbucks. If I want to see a barista serving customers who are going about their daily activities I could make every bit as powerful a case and I could find as many (or more) spurious correlations.

Even a pro-Mormon site (Fair.Mormon) says: Advances in our understanding of Mesoamerican art and iconography have led most LDS researchers with knowledge of the relevant disciplines to be very skeptical about a direct link between the stella and the Book of Mormon.

The history of the stella in LDS thought and writing is available here. We note that while some LDS members embraced this connection, other scholars (such as Hugh Nibley and John L. Sorenson) disagreed with its use even during this idea's "heyday."

Nibley and Sorenson's view seems to have predominated over time; FairMormon has not seen any LDS author with a background in Mesoamerican studies raise this as a "point" for the Book of Mormon recently. A more accurate drawing of the stella has also tempered the initial enthusiasm for this concept (discussed in links above).

Let's look for a moment at some critics say, the Tanners write:

Mormons have published hundreds of books and pamphlets which "prove" the B. of M. One such pamphlet entitled Whence Came The American Indian — America's Ancients Speak From the Dust (Isa. 29:4) begins by saying, "Many Archaeologists agree that: There were two great migrations from Asia to America. The first about 4,000 years ago. The second migration about 600 B.C. They were of the House of Israel. They worshiped one Supreme God. They had a knowledge of early Bible history. They practiced Christianity. They had a knowledge of the Birth and Death of Christ."

But, Dr. Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr., Director of the Bureau of American Ethnology at the Smithsonian Institution in 1963 said in a letter to the author of this book, "The ancestors of the American Indians entered America probably 15,000 years ago and possibly much earlier. It is doubtful if any migrations occurred as late as 600 B.C. There is no evidence whatever of any migration from Israel to America, and likewise no evidence that pre-Columbian Indians had any knowledge of Christianity or the Bible."

Notice that Dr. Roberts contradicted everything in the Mormon pamphlet! Nor have Mormon writers supplied the name and address of a single reputable archaeologist who supports their claims!

Nevertheless, devout Mormons continue to make claims of how the B. of M. has been used as a guide to find ancient ruins in Central and South America. But, the author of this book asked President Joseph Fielding Smith what ancient ruin had been found by using the B. of M. as a guide. In a letter dated March 18, 1966, he replied, "I do not know of any person using the B. of M. as a guide to the discovery of knowledge of these ancestors of the Indian."

For several years, many LDS have made great claims concerning "Stela 5, Izapa" which was found in Chiapas, Mexico, in 1939. In 1941, the Smithsonian Institution and National Geographic Society sent an expedition to study the stone. In a letter to the author of this book, dated May 1, 1963, George Crossette, Chief of Geographic Research at the National Geographic Society, said, "No one associated with our expedition connected this stela in any way with the Book of Mormon." In spite of this, several LDS publications have pictures and comments made by Smithsonian Institute and National Geographic Society which leave the impression that they support the LDS claims.

Mormons like M. Wells Jakeman have published articles in newspapers and periodicals claiming this stone helps prove that the B. of M. is true. LDS usually refer to the stone as "The Lehi Tree of Life Stone," because it supposedly has many similarities to Lehi's vision of the tree of life in I Nephi 8 in the B. of M. Some newspaper articles even claim that the names Lehi, Sariah, and Nephi are on three name glyths on the stone. But, there are no "name glyths" on the stone at all! George Crossette also said in his letter that the stone is almost a duplicate, in every elaborate detail, of the so called "Chapultapec" stone, of unknown provenience, now in the National Museum of Mexico.

Brigham Young University professors like Dr. John Sorenson and Dr. Hugh Nibley never accepted the "Lehi Tree of Life Stone" theory. Dr. Sorenson even said, "Most LDS literature on Archeology and the B. of M. range from factually and logically unreliable to truly kooky" (Dialogue, Summer 1969, p. 81).

LDS frequently refer to stories of Quetzalcoatl or some "new archaeological discovery" which "proves the B. of M. is true." Thus far, every "proof" has turned out to be a forgery or a biased interpretation of some ancient material. There has never yet been one B. of M. name, event, place, or anything else verified through archaeological discoveries! Often LDS claim that the reason nothing in the B. of M. has been verified by archaeologists is because it has not been around as long as the Bible. But, archaeology is a relatively new science. The Archaeological Institute of America was only incorporated in 1906, long after the B. of M. was published. Thus, there has been just as much opportunity to find archaeological and historical evidence to support the B. of M. as there has the Bible. Numerous Biblical sites have been located by using the Bible as a guide — but no B.of M. site has ever been found by using the B. of M. as a guide! If God is the Author of both, why is that true?

Anthropologists also claim that Native Americans are "most closely related to the peoples of eastern, central and northeastern Asia." Their body structure is quite different from the Israelites, who are Semites. If they are descendants of the Israelites, why is their body structure more like the people of Asia? Five different language stocks form the basis for all Native American languages. Each stock is as unrelated to the other as English is to Japanese. Those five stocks are the base of 169 related languages that still differ as much from each other as Latin does from English. Since the B. of M. indicates that "Reformed Egyptian" was used by everyone in America, where did all these other languages come from?

The critical site Mormon.Curtain.com points out:

So is there any substance to this analysis, or is it, after the manner of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, merely a stretch of imagination? On this account, the leading Mormon apologists are not agreeing with Jakeman. Two items in the first 1999 edition of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies ("The History of an Idea" by Stewart Brewer; "A New Artistic Rendering of Izapa Stela 5" by John Clark) make these points, first from Brewer:

• Even at the earliest, Jakeman relied on a little creativity to fit IS5 with the vision. "For example, the large field he believed was represented by a small uncarned segment of the background. He argued that it stood conceptually for a large field but could not be shown larger because the scene was so crowded."
• Norman's later work, which involved extensive photography and examination of IS5, referred to "errors in detecting details" which "plagued" Jakeman's interpretation, and decided that much of his work was thereby "rendered invalid." However, he went on to suggest a "road of life" theme for the IS5 that he felt did not invalidate Jakeman's hypothesis, but rather "deepened its meaning."
• A non-Mormon researcher, Suzanne Miles, provided the first significant non-Mormon look at IS5 and described it as a "fantastic visual myth." Her interpretation did not in any way lend support to Jakeman's. Somewhat before Miles another researcher, Clyde Keeler, offered an interpretation which also disagreed wirth Jakeman's. In 1982, a BYU graduate, Gareth Lowe, interpreted IS5 as a creation myth.
• Hugh Nibley, the premier LDS apologist, dismissed Jakeman's interpretation as wishful thinking, offering criticism for his failure to check for parallels in Far Eastern art and in other Mesoamerican art; ignoring or explaining away contrary evidence; "gross errors in elementary matters of linguistic and iconographic evidence", and offering unlikely interpretations over simple ones.
• More recently, however, popular Mormon apologist Michael Griffith and BYU professor of ancient scripture Alan Parrish have come out in support of Jakeman's interpretation.

None of the problems are perhaps surprising, since Jakeman, Brewer notes, had only limited experience in excavation and analysis of materials. This is ironic, for Jakeman responded to Nibley (and to another Mormon critic of his work, John Sorenson) by stating that neither of them were qualified to make such assessments.

Now the highlights of Clark's item, which notes the advances of interpretation of Mesoamerican monuments since Jakeman and Norman:

• IS5, among the stela at Izapa, is "the most complex scene" in the collection, and perhaps in all of North America from before Christ. Clark notes Norman's report that the scene contains "at least 12 human figures, a dozen animals, over 25 botanical and inanimate objects, and 9 stylized deity masks."
• The 12 "roots" of the tree, which one popular Mormon apologist identifies as perhaps representing the 12 tribes of Israel, is actually "the elongated teeth of a crocodile or earth monster," and the tree trunk "doubles as the crocodile's body..." This is the crocodile upon whose back the earth rested, and who in turn floated on the primordial sea.
• Two of the six human figures, including the woman, hold pointed objects. The woman is using her object to "jab a hole in her tongue to extract blood for an offering to the gods..."
• The study of Irene Briggs in the 1950s is cited, in which comparisons were made for thematic and other parallels to Near Eastern themes and art. She found only five general thematic parallels and showed no connection in terms of artistic style.
• For what it is worth, Clark notes that a connection of IS5 does not correlate with BoM history and geography as it is presently understood, and adds that there is no indication in 1 Nephi that Lehi or the others shared the dream of Lehi with anyone else. He adds that the scene in Nephi tells nothing of who was present and whether incense was burned. "...only two elements mentioned in the text, a fruit tree and water, can be recognized on the stone without resorting to guesswork."
• Jakeman and later writers identified the old man character as Lehi based on a glyph next to the character supposed to be a jawbone (matching with the jawbone hefted by Samson when he called his place "Lehi"). However, what is next to the old man is a skull, and it is "noticeably jawless."
• Fish and hummingbirds in the scene, which one popular apologist states are symbols of resurrection and eternal life, are not: the fish at least Clark says "do not make sense" and we need to check other monuments to clarify their meaning.

Clark ultimately concludes that the Jakeman's work is "too speculative and is based on too many weak points of logic to be accepted" and that the IS5 scene probably has something to do with the king as intercessor for his people, offering no specific BoM connection, though he suggests IS5's art may have a link to the Jaredite peoples of the BoM.

In conclusion: Popular Mormon apologists who use IS5 are at best putting the cart before the horse, and at worst contradicting their best scholarship. Not that this is a uniquely Mormon trait: Skeptics have Nebraska Man, for example, and evangelicals had their share of things like Whisenant's 88 Reasons book. But it is clear that IS5 is not an effective weapon in the Mormon apologetic arsenal and needs to be shelved, at least for the time being

 

[outhouse]

Who has the education and knowledge?

That would be universities and encyclopedias

Who has the unsupported biased opinion?

You do.

You go against education and knowledge.

YOU constantly go against encyclopedias education and knowledge.

 

[outhouse]

I am not going against my own knowledge and education

Of course your not going against YOUR biased opinion.

Your going against the whole world, who is going against your opinion.

Your the one who refuses credible education and knowledge, and flat refuses to accept anything that goes against your religious view no matter how absurd.

 

[outhouse]

Stella Izapa 5

Your other problem is you refuse to address or refute things posted in reply, like this below.

Jakeman's theory was popular for a time among Mormons, but found little support from Mormon apologists

Even your own people do not support your opinion.


I asked for CREDIBLE SOURCES, please stop with your unsubstantiated religiously biased personal opinions, and start providing CREDIBLE SOURCES to substantiate your claims.

YOUR all biased opinion and no substance.

 

[zomg]

A thread about Joseph Smith? YAY!

 

[Sapiens]

Who has the education and knowledge? Who has the unsupported biased opinion? You assume that you have the education and knowledge, but is that just your unsupported biased opinion? I have a different education than you, but it is an education none the less. I am not going against my own knowledge and education. Even if you are the most knowledgeable man in the world, I can boast with utmost confidence that there are things that I know that you do not. I don't pretend this claim is in any way extraordinary - the same could be said about anyone. That is why forums such as this one allow an exchange between people of different world views. An attitude of smug superiority hinders a person's ability to perceive truth, and to expand their understanding. The question isn't "why don't you believe"; I think that is patently clear. The question is "why do I?"

You've been taught lies that were built on top of lies, yet when that is clearly demonstrated to you, you go through incredible circumlocutions of fact in order to continue to take the side of lies. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, ignorance of fact slides into willful ignorance and willful ignorance is tantamount to being a liar yourself.

You'd be well served to take your own advice, "An attitude of smug superiority hinders a person's ability to perceive truth, and to expand their understanding. The question isn't 'why don't you believe'; I think that is patently clear. The question is 'why do I?'"

 

[rrosskopf]

Jakeman went searching for a match and (surprise, surprise) found it, other experts int he field see other things. That was my point about Starbucks. If I want to see a barista serving customers who are going about their daily activities I could make every bit as powerful a case and I could find as many (or more) spurious correlations.

Jakeman went searching for a match and (surprise, surprise) found it, other experts int he field see other things.

I don't know that he went looking for a match. It is more likely that it just jumped out at him. People, underneath a tree, eating fruit near a river... anyone who knows the story would have seen it.

That was my point about Starbucks. If I want to see a barista serving customers who are going about their daily activities I could make every bit as powerful a case and I could find as many (or more) spurious correlations.

You seem to be missing my point. Of course you can make up a story to fit the facts. Jakeman didn't make up a story, he simply saw the similarities to a well known Mormon story. If you are saying that the images are open to interpretation, then I agree completely. There are several problems with Jakeman's theory, and I don't think that is a secret.

Let's look for a moment at some critics say, the Tanners write:

The Tanners are rabid anti-mormons, and notoriously bad at sticking to the facts. If you hate faith-based claims, then you should know that much of what they say is faith-based.

But, Dr. Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr., Director of the Bureau of American Ethnology at the Smithsonian Institution in 1963 said in a letter to the author of this book, "The ancestors of the American Indians entered America probably 15,000 years ago and possibly much earlier. It is doubtful if any migrations occurred as late as 600 B.C. There is no evidence whatever of any migration from Israel to America, and likewise no evidence that pre-Columbian Indians had any knowledge of Christianity or the Bible."

Obviously, Dr. Roberts is ignorant of the Lords of Totonicapan.

Nor have Mormon writers supplied the name and address of a single reputable archaeologist who supports their claims!

Someone is pretending that the entire phamphlet is endorsed by archeologists, as opposed to the single statement. Typical anti-mormon rhetoric. I can give the names of several of the most reputable archeologists who have unwittingly supported one claim or another, although I don't know any that believe in the Book of Mormon who are not already Mormons. That is asking a bit much.

Nevertheless, devout Mormons continue to make claims of how the B. of M. has been used as a guide to find ancient ruins in Central and South America.

I've never heard a single Mormon make this claim. It sounds like a faith promoting rumor, or worse - a straw man. There are Mormons who use the Book of Mormon as a guide to Mesoamerica, but they are not trained archeologists; at least not that I am aware of. I personally know Ainsworth, who is something of a hobbiest. He goes to the Mesoamerican archeology conferences, and studies a great deal. He also has made frequent trips to Mexico, and has taken many photographs of stella and other archeological finds. A shadow was cast over his work when one of the items in his book was determined to be a forgery, but I do not believe that he is the forger. He was illprepared to recognize a forgery, and for that, his esteem in the community has diminished somewhat. I know of others as well who have wandered around Mexico and Guatemala, using the Book of Mormon as a guide, but certainly not the Smithsonian or any reputable archeologist.

But, there are no "name glyths" on the stone at all!

Technically true, but there is some stylized artwork that looks like a glyph. I doubt the artist was doodling.

George Crossette also said in his letter that the stone is almost a duplicate, in every elaborate detail, of the so called "Chapultapec" stone, of unknown provenience, now in the National Museum of Mexico.

That seems irrelevant.

Brigham Young University professors like Dr. John Sorenson and Dr. Hugh Nibley never accepted the "Lehi Tree of Life Stone" theory.

There are some serious problems with the theory. I am sorry if I overstated the case. Still, the bearded man burning incense is an anachronism. The facial features are carved with such detail, that it isn't a stretch to say that two distinct races are represented on the stella. The land-bridge theory doesn't account for that. There is nothing to indicate divine status - this is not a God. This part of the stone would be more at home in the Middle East, than among a people with little to no facial hair.

In spite of this, several LDS publications have pictures and comments made by Smithsonian Institute and National Geographic Society which leave the impression that they support the LDS claims.

I haven't seen any, and I have been around for a long time. Another straw man?

LDS frequently refer to stories of Quetzalcoatl or some "new archaeological discovery" which "proves the B. of M. is true." Thus far, every "proof" has turned out to be a forgery or a biased interpretation of some ancient material.

Another straw man? The official position of the church is that the Book of Mormon cannot be proven archeologically. Still, individual statements of the Book of Mormon can often be corroborated, even by the Smithsonian or National Geographic. It doesn't mean they endorse the book as a whole.

Often LDS claim that the reason nothing in the B. of M. has been verified by archaeologists is because it has not been around as long as the Bible

I haven't heard that claim. Is it another straw man? The reasons I have heard include 1) Biblical sites have been continuously occupied, 2) In the Middle East, writings exist in known languages from the earliest periods, 3) more archeology is focused on Israel than Mexico, and 4) the climate in Israel is more favorable to archeology, both in preservation and in actual work. Few if any Mesoamerican cities have been continuously occupied. We often don't know what the Aztecs called them, let along the Maya, or the Olmec. The Spanish renamed almost everything when they came. There certainly are cities that match Book of Mormon locations, but how would we find the original names through archeology? It hasn't happened yet. One of the few cities where we do know the original name, sounds like it came right out of the Book of Mormon - the city of Lamanai.
The Spanish destroyed the Aztec libraries. One monk said that the Aztec religion was too close to Christianity (?), and the missionaries weren't getting anywhere with the natives. A religious upheaval around 400 AD destroyed thousands of stella, defacing them of religious content. This seems to match the Book of Mormon record, but where are we to find written accounts of ancient mesoamerican history? The few that do exist seem to support the Book of Mormon.
Mexico has shut down almost all archeology. Hundreds of sites remain untouched, as wind and weather do their damage. Only between 1 and 5% have had any significant work done.

Anthropologists also claim that Native Americans are "most closely related to the peoples of eastern, central and northeastern Asia." Their body structure is quite different from the Israelites, who are Semites. If they are descendants of the Israelites, why is their body structure more like the people of Asia?

The Book of Mormon never claims that all the native Americans were Israelites. That is another straw man. The opposite is true. The founding population, according to the Book of Mormon, came from Asia.

Since the B. of M. indicates that "Reformed Egyptian" was used by everyone in America, where did all these other languages come from?

The Book of Mormon never makes such an astonishing claim. Mormon claimed that he used a written language that was reformed from the Egyptian, but he never makes the claim that everyone did. It's another straw man!

 

[outhouse]

If Joseph Smith had concocted a tale to explain Stella Izapa 5, then your argument would make sense. When a well known tale practically jumps out at you, but the context seems wrong, then an explanation is needed. If you saw a little girl in a red hooded cloak standing before a wolf wearing grandma's clothes and smiling in bed, you would be an idiot not to notice the story of Little Red Riding Hood. That's with just four major items of correlation. It doesn't matter that you can concoct another story to explain away the picture. Anyone can concoct a story from a picture. What matters is whether you can find a story that already exists, and is a good match in every major aspect. If there were only two people, a man and a women, and a snake, and the women was holding a fruit, people would see the story of Adam and Eve. That's with just 5 major correlations. Jakeman did just that, with far more points of correlation than I have provided for either of the other examples. One can say it is a coincidence, but that doesn't really explain anything. How many coincidences have to add up before one can ascribe a relationship? Our brains sometimes see patterns where they don't exist, but at some point we have to concede that a circle is a circle and a square is a square. I have two things in my driveway. Both things have metal parts and four wheels. Both things have petroleum products. Both things have spark plugs and electric wiring. Are they related, or is it just coincidence? One is a car, and the other is a lawn mower. They are not exactly the same thing, but they are related. At some point the coincidences add up to an obvious relationship. What is that point? You said that you believe things that are more likely than not, so how many correlations are needed before a relationship is more likely than not?

PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES


Your opinion is not credible.

 

[Sapiens]

I don't know that he went looking for a match. It is more likely that it just jumped out at him. People, underneath a tree, eating fruit near a river... anyone who knows the story would have seen it.

That is an unsupported claim.

You seem to be missing my point. Of course you can make up a story to fit the facts. Jakeman didn't make up a story, he simply saw the similarities to a well known Mormon story. If you are saying that the images are open to interpretation, then I agree completely. There are several problems with Jakeman's theory, and I don't think that is a secret.

Jakeman was a devout so-and-so and thus the description of "went looking" works, even if that drive was subconscious.

The Tanners are rabid anti-mormons, and notoriously bad at sticking to the facts. If you hate faith-based claims, then you should know that much of what they say is faith-based.

There is no doubt that the Tanners do not care for the LDS hierarchy, but denying their positions without a point by point refutation is naught but an ad hominem.

Obviously, Dr. Roberts is ignorant of the Lords of Totonicapan.

Since Título de Totonicapán is one of the two most important surviving colonial period K'iche' language documents I rather doubt that someone of Dr. Roberts stature is not aware of it. Título de Totonicapán describing more how the ancestors of the K'iche' traveled from a mythical location referred to as Seven Caves, Seven Canyons to another place called Tulan Suywa in order to receive their gods. From Tulan Suywa the ancestors traveled west across the sea to the highlands of Guatemala. Pehaps, given Roberts' significantly broader background and lack of preconceived notions he does not see Título de Totonicapán quite the same way that your biases reveal it to you?

Someone is pretending that the entire phamphlet is endorsed by archeologists, as opposed to the single statement. Typical anti-mormon rhetoric. I can give the names of several of the most reputable archeologists who have unwittingly supported one claim or another, although I don't know any that believe in the Book of Mormon who are not already Mormons. That is asking a bit much.

Please supply the names and credentials, please do not include BYU faculty, staff, graduates or affiliates, or member of the Mormon church since their ability to qualify as "reputable" archaeologists in this matter is clearly open to question.

I've never heard a single Mormon make this claim. It sounds like a faith promoting rumor, or worse - a straw man.

Again, I must question either your knowledge set of truthfullness, here it is right from your hero Jakeman: "It must be confessed that some members of the 'Mormon' or 'Latter-Day Saint Church' are prone, in their enthusiasm for the Book of Mormon, to make claims for it that cannot be supported. So far as is known to the writer, no non-Mormon archaeologist at the present time is using the Book of Mormon as a guide in archaeological research. Nor does he know of any non-Mormon archaeologist who. holds that the American Indians are descendants of the Jews, or that Christianity was known in America in the first century of our era. This in itself, of course, does not disprove the Book of Mormon; for not enough is yet known of the actual period of that record in ancient America, or of the origin of the American Indians, for a final judgment at this time, scientifically speaking" (M. Wells Jakeman, "University Archaeological Society Newsletter", No. 57, March 25, 1959, p. 4).

There are Mormons who use the Book of Mormon as a guide to Mesoamerica, but they are not trained archeologists; at least not that I am aware of.

You said "I've never heard a single Mormon make this claim. It sounds like a faith promoting rumor, or worse - a straw man. " But now you say, "There are Mormons who use the Book of Mormon as a guide to Mesoamerica, but they are not trained archeologists;" which is it?

I personally know Ainsworth, who is something of a hobbiest. He goes to the Mesoamerican archeology conferences, and studies a great deal. He also has made frequent trips to Mexico, and has taken many photographs of stella and other archeological finds. A shadow was cast over his work when one of the items in his book was determined to be a forgery, but I do not believe that he is the forger. He was illprepared to recognize a forgery, and for that, his esteem in the community has diminished somewhat. I know of others as well who have wandered around Mexico and Guatemala, using the Book of Mormon as a guide, but certainly not the Smithsonian or any reputable archeologist.

So, there is a Mormon who uses the Book of Mormon as a guide to Mesoamerica ... right?

Technically true, but there is some stylized artwork that looks like a glyph. I doubt the artist was doodling.

and I doubt that the artist was portraying the history that is described in the BofM.

That seems irrelevant.

Then think about it a bit more.

There are some serious problems with the theory. I am sorry if I overstated the case. Still, the bearded man burning incense is an anachronism. The facial features are carved with such detail, that it isn't a stretch to say that two distinct races are represented on the stella. The land-bridge theory doesn't account for that. There is nothing to indicate divine status - this is not a God. This part of the stone would be more at home in the Middle East, than among a people with little to no facial hair.

"Overstated the case," now that's an understatement if ever I hreard one.

I haven't seen any, and I have been around for a long time. Another straw man?

Straw-man, I think not, what do you thing caused the Smithsonian Institution and National Geographic Society to send a letter, dated May 1, 1963, written by George Crossette, Chief of Geographic Research at the National Geographic Society, that said, "No one associated with our expedition connected this stela in any way with the Book of Mormon."

Another straw man? The official position of the church is that the Book of Mormon cannot be proven archeologically. Still, individual statements of the Book of Mormon can often be corroborated, even by the Smithsonian or National Geographic. It doesn't mean they endorse the book as a whole.

You are, once again, a master of understatement. You say, "It doesn't mean they endorse the book as a whole." where the reality is that they reject in detail.

I haven't heard that claim. Is it another straw man? The reasons I have heard include ...

Your "straw-man" accusations are catching fire and blowing away, they are (as has been shown) without substance, I feel no need to even acknowledge them further.
[/quote]

The Spanish destroyed the Aztec libraries. One monk said that the Aztec religion was too close to Christianity (?),

The Aztecs worshiped the heart, they cut it out of live sacrifices and offered it to their gods. They were fascinated by the "sacred heart" pictures of Jesus that the Spaniards had.

This caused a great deal of consternation and confusion on both sides, and condemnation of the Aztecs as a satanic mirror of Catholicism.

and the missionaries weren't getting anywhere with the natives. A religious upheaval around 400 AD destroyed thousands of stella, defacing them of religious content. This seems to match the Book of Mormon record, but where are we to find written accounts of ancient mesoamerican history? The few that do exist seem to support the Book of Mormon.

That's the best circumstantial evidence you can put on the table ... civil strife around 400 CE? Pretty weak.

Mexico has shut down almost all archeology. Hundreds of sites remain untouched, as wind and weather do their damage. Only between 1 and 5% have had any significant work done.

Ah ... we would not be complete without an appeal to ignorance.

The Book of Mormon never claims that all the native Americans were Israelites. That is another straw man. The opposite is true. The founding population, according to the Book of Mormon, came from Asia.

The Book of Mormon never makes such an astonishing claim. Mormon claimed that he used a written language that was reformed from the Egyptian, but he never makes the claim that everyone did. It's another straw man!

Not a straw-man, a falsified Mormon Claim. The Book of Mormon describes itself as having originally been written in reformed Egyptian characters on plates of metal by prophets living in the Western Hemisphere from perhaps as early as 2600 BC until as late as AD 421. You'd have us believe that with all the carving going on not a single solitary example of reformed Egyptian characters would have survived? Straw-man indeed! You don't know the meaning of term, you just spew it about, willy-nilly because you think it make you look as smarter, since your opponents use it often and effectively against you.

 

[Sapiens]

Mormonism

Mormon Archaeology

John McCort
Gladstone, Missouri

The Mormons have deceived many people into believing that archaeological finds in Central and South America have verified the Book of Mormon as being the word of God. To the average Christian the claims of the Mormon "elders" about recent archaeological finds are very difficult to deal with since the average Christian has little or no background to dispute the claims of these self-styled experts. The truth of the matter is that archaeology has produced nothing of any consequence that verifies the Mormon claims.

The Mormons need to listen to their own archaeologists. The few qualified archaeologists that the Mormons have within their ranks violently disagree with the popular Mormon notion that archaeology has verified the Book of Mormon. Dr. Ross T. Christensen, a leading Mormon archaeologist from Brigham Young University, stated,

"The statement that the Book of Mormon has already been proved by archaeology is misleading. The truth of the matter is that we are only now beginning to see even the outlines of the archaeological time-periods which could compare with those of the Book of Mormon. How, then, can the matter have been settled once and for all? That such an idea could exist indicates the ignorance of many of our, people with regard to what is going on in the historical and anthropological sciences" (Dr. Ross T. Christensen, "University Archaeological Society Newsletter", No. 64, January 30, 1960, p. 3).

Many of these zealous Mormon missionaries have boastfully claimed that many non-Mormon archaeologists are now using the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide to help them find ancient civilizations in Central and South America. M. Wells Jakeman, another prominent Mormon archaeologist, had this to say about that claim,

"It must be confessed that some members of the 'Mormon' or 'Latter-Day Saint Church' are prone, in their enthusiasm for the Book of Mormon, to make claims for it that cannot be supported. So far as is known to the writer, no non-Mormon archaeologist at the present time is using the Book of Mormon as a guide in archaeological research. Nor does he know of any non-Mormon archaeologist who. holds that the American Indians are descendants of the Jews, or that Christianity was known in America in the first century of our era. This in itself, of course, does not disprove the Book of Mormon; for not enough is yet known of the actual period of that record in ancient America, or of the origin of the American Indians, for a final judgment at this time, scientifically speaking" (M. Wells Jakeman, "University Archaeological Society Newsletter", No. 57, March 25, 1959, p. 4).

Many of the archaeological proofs that these overzealous Mormon missionaries present to verify their claims are unreliable. Many colorful highly illustrated books have been published by the Mormons to try to verify their assertions. Again, their own scholars reject the evidence that has thus far been presented,

". . . however, we must not overlook the fact that some Mormons have popularized equally mistaken ideas, which they have held, about the book and have thus helped retard the development of Book of Mormon archaeology. For example, some popular 'Mormon' 'books show pictures of classic Maya, Inca, and Aztec ruins and attribute them to the Nephites. Scholars are aware that these civilizations postdate Book of Mormon times. Other gross errors include the use of outdated or other wise unreliable source materials and the tendency to make every piece fit neatly into the Book of Mormon picture, whether it is there or not" (University Archaeological Society Newsletter, No. 54, November 19, 1958, p. 2. The statement was made by Dee F. Green, M.A., Latter Day Saints archaeologist, editor of the U.A. A. Newsletter )

Again,

"The publication of magnificent volumes of photographs of the ruins of buildings and cities located in the area of high civilizations in the Americas is another example. These lavishly illustrated books are frequently written and published in an endeavor to prove that complex civilizations existed in the Book of Mormon period. Unfortunately, their photographs for the most part are of cities that were built after the Book of Mormon period" (Papers of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium On The Archaeology Of The Scriptures, Delivered on April l, 1961).

According to their own admission the Mormons have very few men who are qualified. to speak with authority in the field of archaeology or related fields.

"Latter-Day. Saints who have had any formal training in archaeology are exceedingly few. In other words, the interest which they have in this field has been up to the present largely on an amateur rather than professional level. I am convinced that this sort of archaeology in the church will be no more effective in solving the problems which face us than folk medicine would be in protecting the health of the people" (Christensen, "U. A. S. Newsletter," No. '64, January 30, 1960, PP. 5-6).

The Mormons, are, by their own admission, alone in their claims and interpretation of archaeology. They have taken the proverbial attitude, "The rest of the world is crazy except me and thee, and sometimes I wonder about thee." For years the Mormons claimed that the Smithsonian Institute used the Book of Mormon as a guide in archaeological research. The Smithsonian Institute finally published a letter disclaiming any confidence in the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide. This letter can be obtained by writing a letter to the Institute and requesting a copy.

The Christian public should not be fooled by the confident assertions of over-zealous Mormon missionaries about archaeological finds. Even their own scholars won't and can't back them up. The evidence is not there:

Truth Magazine, XX:9, p. 9-10
February 19, 1976
Warning: Consider the source.

(from wiki) Truth Magazine is a magazine produced by certain preachers within the non-institutional Churches of Christ.

Publication began in the fall of 1956 with Bryan Vinson, Jr. as editor and Leslie Diestelkamp and Gordon J. Pennock as associate editors. Cecil Willis served as editor from August 1962 until May 1977. Mike Willis has edited the paper since that time, with Connie W. Adams as associate editor since 1992.

In 1981, Truth Magazine purchased the Gospel Guardian and renamed itself Guardian of Truth. Similarly, the foundation financing the publication was named the Guardian of Truth Foundation. In December 1992, Searching the Scriptures, a periodical edited by Adams, merged with Truth as well. As of January 1999, the publication reverted to the Truth Magazine name, although the foundation's name did not change

But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[rrosskopf]

You do.

You go against education and knowledge.

YOU constantly go against encyclopedias education and knowledge.

That is a very vague accusation, something that anyone, including yourself, could be accused of. I don't know everything. I have no doubt that some of my beliefs are not strictly true. I just don't know which of my beliefs are false, nor do I have a better idea or understanding to replace them. It is true that I don't rely on popular opinions to define what I believe. I can easily prove that dozens of popular beliefs are false, so I am reluctant to assign credibility based on popularity. I have no reason to believe that yours or anyone else's opinions are better than my own, although I would certainly give due deference to the expert in the field. So far, the only thing that I have learned from you is your own intolerance and close-mindedness. You haven't lifted me up, or shown me the error of my ways. You've only showed me your own deep skepticism.

To top things off, you use words like "constantly" that are inaccurate at best. I eat. I drink. I sleep. I don't "constantly" go against encyclopedias. I can do without the exaggerations, and without the insults.

I can also show you where encyclopedias have printed things that were not true. Relying on encyclopedias for truth is little better than the popular creed "sola scriptura". Why restrict your source of truth? Experts in the field have pointed out that horses probably did not die off at the end of the last ice age as previously supposed. Why should I accept the tired theories of an encyclopedia over more recent scholarship?

You dismiss faith-based knowledge out of hand, but I have seen for myself that faith can be a source of truth.

 

[Sapiens]

That is a very vague accusation, something that anyone, including yourself, could be accused of. I don't know everything. I have no doubt that some of my beliefs are not strictly true. I just don't know which of my beliefs are false, nor do I have a better idea or understanding to replace them.

Sure you do, I've falsified items in your belief system with regularity. Might I ask once again, "Where's the beef?"

It is true that I don't rely on popular opinions to define what I believe. I can easily prove that dozens of popular beliefs are false, so I am reluctant to assign credibility based on popularity.

You are confusing and confusticating "popularity" with "virtual consensus" of an academic discipline, two very different things.

I have no reason to believe that yours or anyone else's opinions are better than my own, although I would certainly give due deference to the expert in the field.

No ... in point of fact you do no give due deference to actual experts, you cherry pick tame LDS approved apologists and then try to prop them up to status that is equal to actual experts.

So far, the only thing that I have learned from you is your own intolerance and close-mindedness. You haven't lifted me up, or shown me the error of my ways. You've only showed me your own deep skepticism.

You are way too far down your path to be turned around with either logic or evidence, so this is just the pot calling the kettle "black."

To top things off, you use words like "constantly" that are inaccurate at best. I eat. I drink. I sleep. I don't "constantly" go against encyclopedias. I can do without the exaggerations, and without the insults.

It would be more accurate to describe your efforts as "at every opportunity" but that is just semantic quibbling not a real argument. You do what so many religionists do, and what I have found Mormons to be past masters at, attacking the opposition for small inconsistencies whilst maintaining belief, even int he face of overwhelming truth by hanging onto shreds of "isn;t it possible" style argumentation.

I can also show you where encyclopedias have printed things that were not true. Relying on encyclopedias for truth is little better than the popular creed "sola scriptura". Why restrict your source of truth? Experts in the field have pointed out that horses probably did not die off at the end of the last ice age as previously supposed. Why should I accept the tired theories of an encyclopedia over more recent scholarship?

There is a perfect example. You say: "Experts in the field have pointed out that horses probably did not die off at the end of the last ice age as previously supposed." That is incorrect. I demonstrated that was incorrect, yet without refutation or acknowledgement of my assertions and evidence you keep maintaining that which you wish to be true as though it were true. Most would call that lying.

Some consider that to be a Mormon tactic (see the thread on Lying for God) though it is oft couched in less stark terms such as the statement of Julia Guernsey Kappelman's (author of a definitive work on Izapan culture) description of Jakeman's research: (His research) "belies an obvious religious agenda that ignored Izapa Stela 5's heritage.

You dismiss faith-based knowledge out of hand, but I have seen for myself that faith can be a source of truth.

Faith based knowledge is an oxymoron on the face of it.

 

[outhouse]

That is a very vague accusation, something that anyone, including yourself, could be accused of. I don't know everything. I have no doubt that some of my beliefs are not strictly true. I just don't know which of my beliefs are false, nor do I have a better idea or understanding to replace them. It is true that I don't rely on popular opinions to define what I believe. I can easily prove that dozens of popular beliefs are false, so I am reluctant to assign credibility based on popularity. I have no reason to believe that yours or anyone else's opinions are better than my own, although I would certainly give due deference to the expert in the field. So far, the only thing that I have learned from you is your own intolerance and close-mindedness. You haven't lifted me up, or shown me the error of my ways. You've only showed me your own deep skepticism.

To top things off, you use words like "constantly" that are inaccurate at best. I eat. I drink. I sleep. I don't "constantly" go against encyclopedias. I can do without the exaggerations, and without the insults.

I can also show you where encyclopedias have printed things that were not true. Relying on encyclopedias for truth is little better than the popular creed "sola scriptura". Why restrict your source of truth? Experts in the field have pointed out that horses probably did not die off at the end of the last ice age as previously supposed. Why should I accept the tired theories of an encyclopedia over more recent scholarship?

You dismiss faith-based knowledge out of hand, but I have seen for myself that faith can be a source of truth.

PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES


Your opinion is not credible.

 

[outhouse]

You dismiss faith-based knowledge out of hand

Faith based means it is not knowledge, it is a belief based on a lack of evidence.

, but I have seen for myself that faith can be a source of truth

How can it be true, if no evidence supports it?

. I have no doubt that some of my beliefs are not strictly true

Then don't post them as true.

 

[outhouse]

You have your personal faith. That is wonderful, im sure you live a full happy life using this "way of life" I don't want to change that.

But when you cross the historical lines to support your faith, you will get called on it.


If you think your faith will raise questions with others education and knowledge, and you wont change your position, why debate your faith?

 

[rrosskopf]

Faith based means it is not knowledge, it is a belief based on a lack of evidence.

That is not my definition of faith. My definition of faith is believing a trustworthy source without a perfect knowledge. It's a key aptitude of intelligence. As a nation, the US didn't know that they could go to the moon, but wise men said that it was possible, so the American people exercised faith.
As a teenager, I saw many people drive cars, but I didn't know that I could drive a car until after I exercised faith, and sat behind the wheel.
As a young man, I didn't believe that I could learn a foreign language. I had tried and my failure was near perfect. It took a leap of faith to move to Peru, where I eventually learned Spanish.
Without faith, there would be little to no science or technology. Without faith, Edison would have quit searching for a substance that would glow with an applied electrical current. Tesla would have stopped looking for a AC motor. Without faith, Christ would never have taught us to love one another, and treat each other with respect. Without faith, there would be no lasting civilization.
I can't understand your definition of faith. Why would anyone believe something because they had no evidence?