A split thread: Joseph Smith

[Katzpur]

You do need the book ... rather badly.

Thanks for your concern, but I really don't see it as having much to offer me. As I said before, finding clever ways of putting people down just isn't what I'm all about. Besides, I have plenty on my reading list already.

In conclusion, I really don't feel as if a dialogue between the two of us has any likelihood of going anywhere worthwhile, so I'll just bow out at this point. Have a nice day.

 

[Sapiens]

Where are the fossils, where are the bones, were is the DNA analysis, where is the evidence?

 

[rrosskopf]

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

The question is what kind of fire is producing the smoke. Rumors and gossip haven't been allowed in court since the Salem witch trials. Did anyone really have any evidence of malfeasance, or should we just imprison people for being unpopular? Those people who hated Smith - Did he deprive them of anything? Did he hurt them in any way? As far as I can tell, he didn't deprive any of them of a single thing. They just hated the idea of a modern prophet. Some hated him for no other reason, then that a member of their family loved the faith he started. Some hated him because he was kind to blacks and native Americans. Some hated him because they were afraid of the power and influence of thousands of people that showed up within a year or two, flooding local areas with immigrants. None of these things were against the law. Much of the hate was caused by jealous ministers of other faiths. One Methodist minister in particular led many of the mobs. Joseph Smith was wise to flee, when he could, from the wrath of lawless mobs and corrupt officials. One time he was tarred and feathered, and someone attempted to pour poison down his throat, chipping a tooth. For the rest of his life he whistled as he talked. His youngest suffered exposure that night, and died within days. What was his crime? He converted people. That night his wife peeled the tar from his skin, and the next day he preached a sermon, and baptized more people.

 

[rrosskopf]

My first question, and the starting point of my discover of this pack of lies, was rather simple came from the fact that Mormon sources tell me that horses are mentioned in eight different Book of Mormon episodes that involve an ancient New World setting

No one knows the exact date that horses died out. No one knows for sure that they were never reintroduced. No one can even say for sure, that there were no horses in America at the time of Columbus. The only truthful thing that can be said, is that there isn't much evidence of horses after 10,000 BC. The same thing was said about the mammoth, until just recently, when the period of extinction was adjusted to 8000 BC.

Not everything is preserved in geology. Not everything is found. It is a puzzle with many pieces missing. Sometimes civilizations are so thoroughly wiped out, that hardly a trace remains. Genetic drift destroys the science of tracing ancestry past 300 years or so... it tends to homogenize the dna. If we wait to act until we know the truth of everything - it will be too late. It is better to keep an open mind, and take a leap of faith, when wisdom demands it.

When horse bones are discovered next year, or the year after that, or in 30 or 40 years, it won't change a thing. People without faith will still make excuses, and people with faith will still make leaps, trusting in God.

The Book of Mormon, when judged by science, is far more true today than it was in 1830. Almost all of the scientific findings of the day, that regard the Book of Mormon, have been reversed whereas the Book of Mormon hasn't moved an inch. In every case, it is science that has moved, toward the Book of Mormon.

 

[rrosskopf]

Where are the fossils, where are the bones, were is the DNA analysis, where is the evidence?

There is very little archaeology going on in Mexico, at the present date. A tiny percentage of known sites have been excavated. Despite that, at least two full skeletons of horse bones were found in caves in undisturbed strata. DNA is a bust, because of genetic drift, and also because in some cases, contrary evidence was thrown out, because of assumptions made by the geneticists. So what evidence do we have? Linguistic. Geographic. Cultural. Art History. Testimony of the early chroniclers. Literary. Spiritual. Testimony of the witnesses. Is the evidence compelling? That depends on the person hearing the evidence. The spiritual evidence was enough to set me on a life long pursuit of all the other evidence. My prayer was answered, in no uncertain terms.

 

[outhouse]

Genetic drift destroys the science of tracing ancestry past 300 years or so

Unsubstantiated.


Provide credible sources.

 

[outhouse]

The Book of Mormon, when judged by science, is far more true today than it was in 1830.

That may or may not be.

But that doesn't make the book historically or scientifically accurate.

 

[rrosskopf]

Mainstream history and archaeology now consider the Exodus never to have happened, and the story to be an entirely fictional narrative put together between the 8th and 5th centuries BCE.

So what? Just because they didn't find what they expected, doesn't rule out the historicity of historical records. The Bible is no longer alone in describing some of those events. The Egyptians, like most monarchies, used history as a source of propaganda; they didn't publish anything that would make their king look foolish. Historians were bought and paid by the king.

Another record has been found which dates from the time in question, and talks of the river turning red, a slave revolt where the slaves somehow make off with the riches of Egypt, plagues of fire, a dearth upon the trees and crops of the land, and the death of the firstborn. It is called the Ipuwer papyrus, and it is an Egyptian lamentation that seems to echo the biblical record.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

The question is what kind of fire is producing the smoke.

You appear to be implying that there are different sorts of fire. Please elaborate.

Rumors and gossip haven't been allowed in court since the Salem witch trials.

Is it merely rumors and gossip that Smith was repeatedly hauled into court, or did that actually happen? Was it rumors and gossip that Smith fled from the law on multiple occasions, or did that really happen?

Would you generally recommend fleeing from justice as an appropriate response?

Did anyone really have any evidence of malfeasance, or should we just imprison people for being unpopular?

Smith wasn't fined for being unpopular, was he? He was fined for illegal banking practices, correct? Did Smith opt to become a fugitive from justice simply because he felt unpopular?

...

Please. Spare me.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So what? Just because they didn't find what they expected, doesn't rule out the historicity of historical records. The Bible is no longer alone in describing some of those events. The Egyptians, like most monarchies, used history as a source of propaganda; they didn't publish anything that would make their king look foolish. Historians were bought and paid by the king.

Another record has been found which dates from the time in question, and talks of the river turning red, a slave revolt where the slaves somehow make off with the riches of Egypt, plagues of fire, a dearth upon the trees and crops of the land, and the death of the firstborn. It is called the Ipuwer papyrus, and it is an Egyptian lamentation that seems to echo the biblical record.

In your mind...what is the best way to decipher history? And what sources do you use personally?

 

[Katzpur]

Unsubstantiated.

You're wrong. It's not only substantiated but easily provable. In all honesty, I rather doubt that you even know what the terms means. If you did, it's highly unlikely that you'd have made the comment that you did. Here's a link from Wiki for you and for anyone else who might be interested. Granted, I would never consider Wiki the best source of information on any topic, but in this particular case, it's a good starting point at least. Plus, I found that it contains instructions for an experiment you can do yourself to make the process even more understandable.

 

[outhouse]

. It's not only substantiated but easily provable. In all honesty, I rather doubt that you even know what the terms means. If you did, it's highly unlikely that you'd have made the comment that you did. Here's a link from Wiki

Then kindly show in your link where it states this below is substantiated.

the science of tracing ancestry past 300 years or so...

I have seen 12 generations come up, at creationist sources which have no credibility.

I asked for credible sources. Please supply them

 

[Katzpur]

Then kindly show in your link where it states this below is substantiated.

Are we on the same page here, outhouse? The information in the link I provided explains how this is the case. It doesn't say verbatim what rrosskopt said (which is nice, as I wouldn't want to think he was guilty of plagiarism), but but it clearly proves that what he said is accurate. Other than trying to dumb it down for you, which I'm sure isn't really necessary, I don't know what more you can expect.

 

[outhouse]

Are we on the same page here, outhouse? The information in the link I provided explains how this is the case. It doesn't say verbatim what rrosskopt said (which is nice, as I wouldn't want to think he was guilty of plagiarism), but but it clearly proves that what he said is accurate. Other than trying to dumb it down for you, which I'm sure isn't really necessary, I don't know what more you can expect.

My problem with his quote was the 300 years specifically.


Can you provide a credible quote that even shows he is close?

 

[outhouse]

but but it clearly proves that what he said is accurate

No it does not.

Its why you cannot provide any sources

 

[outhouse]

Ancestry can factually be traced much further back then 300 years.

Genetic drift does not limit how far back we can reliably test for DNA.


One example

AncestryDNA

Your DNA test results also provide information that’s more relevant and recent—targeting your family history a few hundred or even a thousand years ago, as compared to the Y-chromosome or mitochondrial DNA tests, which have a 10,000 to 50,000 year time focus.

 

[Katzpur]

Ancestry can factually be traced much further back then 300 years.

Genetic drift does not limit how far back we can reliably test for DNA.


One example

AncestryDNA

Your DNA test results also provide information that’s more relevant and recent—targeting your family history a few hundred or even a thousand years ago, as compared to the Y-chromosome or mitochondrial DNA tests, which have a 10,000 to 50,000 year time focus.

We're going around in circles here, Outhouse. Of course we can use DNA to trace a person's ancestry further back than 300 years. I don't know if that's what rrosskopf was saying or if you misunderstood him or what. What I'm saying is this:

Lineages simply disappear over time. There can be a tremendous discrepancy between the DNA of people who lived 300 years ago and the people who live now. One very good example of this is found in the "deCODE Project" in Iceland. Recent research shows that the vast majority of today's Icelanders are descended from a tiny percentage of people who lived less than 300 years ago. Many people living there as recently as the mid-1700s have no genetic lineages represented in Iceland's population today. This is due to genetic drifting, the founder effect and population bottlenecks.

The whole issue of the Book of Mormon and DNA is a matter of the wrong claim being made in the first place. When Lehi and one other family were said to have arrived on the American continent roughly 2600 years ago, they were perhaps two dozen or so individuals among thousands of people who already populated this continent. That they intermarried with these people is almost certain. But since mtDNA is traceable only through a female, it is not only possible but highly probable that the few females among that group of people would have left no genetic markers in today's Native American population. That is not proof that they never existed any more than the same essential situation in Iceland today is proof that today's Icelanders are not descendants of people who were around much further back than 300 years.

There may very well be Mormons today who believe that today's Native Americans are of Middle-eastern ancestry. Most educated Mormons would not make that claim. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that a small family from the Middle-east could have settled on the already populated American continent 2600 years ago and left no genetic evidence of their existence. Had Lehi and his family had arrived on an empty continent, it would be a different matter entirely, but we know that wasn't the case.

Or to put it even more succinctly, assuming that it were a fact that a couple of dozen individuals from the Middle-east migrated to somewhere in the Western Hemisphere 2600 years ago, DNA analysis could not prove it to be so.

 

[Sapiens]

No one knows the exact date that horses died out.

An exact date is not know but it was about 10,000 years ago.

No one can even say for sure, that there were no horses in America at the time of Columbus.

To the limit of what science considers absolute, it is safe to say that there were no horses in America at the time of Columbus.

No one knows for sure that they were never reintroduced.

To the limit of what science considers absolute, it is safe to say that they were never reintroduced.

All you are doing here is taking semantic advantage of the fact that science does not deal in 100% absolutes. It can, however, be stated that there is no evidence, of any sort, of horses in the New World that dates between the Pleistocene Extinction and the arrival of the Spaniards.

The only truthful thing that can be said, is that there isn't much evidence of horses after 10,000 BC. The same thing was said about the mammoth, until just recently, when the period of extinction was adjusted to 8000 BC.

No, that is incorrect. The is NO EVIDENCE of horses during that period.

Not everything is preserved in geology. Not everything is found. It is a puzzle with many pieces missing. Sometimes civilizations are so thoroughly wiped out, that hardly a trace remains. Genetic drift destroys the science of tracing ancestry past 300 years or so... it tends to homogenize the dna. If we wait to act until we know the truth of everything - it will be too late. It is better to keep an open mind, and take a leap of faith, when wisdom demands it.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, not geologically, ecologically, paleontological, historically, or anthropologically. NONE WHATSOEVER.

When horse bones are discovered next year, or the year after that, or in 30 or 40 years, it won't change a thing. People without faith will still make excuses, and people with faith will still make leaps, trusting in God.

You are waiting for the Heaven Gate flying saucer or the end of the world. Sorry but, it's not going to happen.

The Book of Mormon, when judged by science, is far more true today than it was in 1830. Almost all of the scientific findings of the day, that regard the Book of Mormon, have been reversed whereas the Book of Mormon hasn't moved an inch. In every case, it is science that has moved, toward the Book of Mormon.

Again, you are incorrect. Very little of science has been reversed. Science has been augmented, strengthened, better understood, more learned, etc, but not reversed. Among the things that were learned since Smith fabricated the BoM is that there were no Horses in the New World between the end of the Pleistocene Extinction and the arrival of the Spanish. I fail to see how that moves science closer to the BofM.

There is very little archaeology going on in Mexico, at the present date. A tiny percentage of known sites have been excavated. Despite that, at least two full skeletons of horse bones were found in caves in undisturbed strata.

I memory serves, that was at Loltun in the Yucatan. There were fossil bones of an extinct American horse species (Equus conversidens) and extinct bison (Bison antiquus) found in layers that also contained lithic tools. Sorry, that does not help your case, it hurts it.

DNA is a bust, because of genetic drift, and also because in some cases, contrary evidence was thrown out, because of assumptions made by the geneticists.

Again, your wishes are making appointments that your mind can't keep. Genetic drift has nothing to do with the issue. You best argument is that there were only a dozen or so Hebrews to begin with and their line died out.

So what evidence do we have?

None ... save Smith's fabrications.

Linguistic. Geographic. Cultural. Art History. Testimony of the early chroniclers. Literary. Spiritual. Testimony of the witnesses. Is the evidence compelling?

There is NO evidence.

That depends on the person hearing the evidence.

No ... there is no evidence

The spiritual evidence was enough to set me on a life long pursuit of all the other evidence. My prayer was answered, in no uncertain terms.

That is no evidence, look the word up.

So what? Just because they didn't find what they expected, doesn't rule out the historicity of historical records. The Bible is no longer alone in describing some of those events. The Egyptians, like most monarchies, used history as a source of propaganda; they didn't publish anything that would make their king look foolish. Historians were bought and paid by the king.

Another record has been found which dates from the time in question, and talks of the river turning red, a slave revolt where the slaves somehow make off with the riches of Egypt, plagues of fire, a dearth upon the trees and crops of the land, and the death of the firstborn. It is called the Ipuwer papyrus, and it is an Egyptian lamentation that seems to echo the biblical record.

I repeat, the historicity of the Captivity and the Exodus is denied by most all the serious scholars in the field.

We're going around in circles here, Outhouse. Of course we can use DNA to trace a person's ancestry further back than 300 years. I don't know if that's what rrosskopf was saying or if you misunderstood him or what. What I'm saying is this:

Lineages simply disappear over time. There can be a tremendous discrepancy between the DNA of people who lived 300 years ago and the people who live now. One very good example of this is found in the "deCODE Project" in Iceland. Recent research shows that the vast majority of today's Icelanders are descended from a tiny percentage of people who lived less than 300 years ago. Many people living there as recently as the mid-1700s have no genetic lineages represented in Iceland's population today. This is due to genetic drifting, the founder effect and population bottlenecks.

The whole issue of the Book of Mormon and DNA is a matter of the wrong claim being made in the first place. When Lehi and one other family were said to have arrived on the American continent roughly 2600 years ago, they were perhaps two dozen or so individuals among thousands of people who already populated this continent. That they intermarried with these people is almost certain. But since mtDNA is traceable only through a female, it is not only possible but highly probable that the few females among that group of people would have left no genetic markers in today's Native American population. That is not proof that they never existed any more than the same essential situation in Iceland today is proof that today's Icelanders are not descendants of people who were around much further back than 300 years.

There may very well be Mormons today who believe that today's Native Americans are of Middle-eastern ancestry. Most educated Mormons would not make that claim. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that a small family from the Middle-east could have settled on the already populated American continent 2600 years ago and left no genetic evidence of their existence. Had Lehi and his family had arrived on an empty continent, it would be a different matter entirely, but we know that wasn't the case.

Or to put it even more succinctly, assuming that it were a fact that a couple of dozen individuals from the Middle-east migrated to somewhere in the Western Hemisphere 2600 years ago, DNA analysis could not prove it to be so.

You are correct, all trace could have been lost, or the whole story could be false. That is not the point, the point is that DNA could have proven Hebrew ancestry and fails to do so.

I repeat my question, "Where are the fossils, where are the bones, were is the DNA analysis, where is the evidence?" Evidently you are still waiting for it too, else you would have provided it. It's not coming, not now, not ever.

 

[Sapiens]

Taking another tack on the authenticity of the BofM, will you grant that if there was no Captivity and no Exodus then no Hebrews went to the New World, etc.?

So what? Just because they didn't find what they expected, doesn't rule out the historicity of historical records. The Bible is no longer alone in describing some of those events. The Egyptians, like most monarchies, used history as a source of propaganda; they didn't publish anything that would make their king look foolish. Historians were bought and paid by the king.

Another record has been found which dates from the time in question, and talks of the river turning red, a slave revolt where the slaves somehow make off with the riches of Egypt, plagues of fire, a dearth upon the trees and crops of the land, and the death of the firstborn. It is called the Ipuwer papyrus, and it is an Egyptian lamentation that seems to echo the biblical record.

Mainstream historical consensus
Despite being regarded in Judaism as the primary factual historical narrative of the origin of the religion, culture and ethnicity, Exodus is now accepted by scholars as having been compiled in the 8th–7th centuries BCE from stories dating possibly as far back as the 13th century BCE, with further polishing in the 6th–5th centuries BCE, as a theological and political manifesto to unite the Israelites in the then‐current battle for territory against Egypt.[2]

Archaeologists from the 19th century onward were actually surprised not to find any evidence whatsoever for the events of Exodus. By the 1970s, archaeologists had largely given up regarding the Bible as any use at all as a field guide.

The archaeological evidence of local Canaanite, rather than Egyptian, origins of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel is "overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40‐year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[3] The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult objects are of the Canaanite god El, the pottery is in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing Israelite villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones.

It is considered possible that those Canaanites who started regarding themselves as the Israelites were joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt, possibly the Hyksos people, possibly carrying stories that made it into Exodus. As the tribe expanded, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps sparking the tales of conflict in Joshua and Judges.

William Dever, an archaeologist normally associated with the more conservative end of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, has labeled the question of the historicity of Exodus “dead.” Israeli archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog provides the current consensus view on the historicity of the Exodus: “The Israelites never were in Egypt. They never came from abroad. This whole chain is broken. It is not a historical one. It is a later legendary reconstruction—made in the seventh century [BCE]—of a history that never happened.”[4]

Egyptian record keeping
It is unlikely that the 603,550 adult males plus women and children mentioned in the Exodus story would have gone unremarked by contemporary Egyptian records. That's easily 2 million people (assuming one man, one woman, 1.5 children, which is very conservative[11]). But no Egyptian account mentions them. Or the plagues, which would be similarly unlikely not to have been recorded. There is no evidence of any of this. Given the standard of Egyptian record keeping of the time, this is an absence that would require explanation.

Bible literalists claim that it did happen, but that the Egyptians destroyed all the records, for reasons generally unspecified, though embarrassment has been offered. This is contrary to the normal archaeological practice of testing a theory against the evidence, rather than the evidence against the theory.

Sinai Peninsula
The Book of Numbers gives a list of sites at which the Hebrews settled in Sinai and the immediate surroundings during the Exodus. Of these sites, some can be pinpointed relatively well by description and deduction. Two such sites are the Biblical Kadesh Barnea, modern Ein Qadis, and Ezion Geber, on the Israeli side of the border between Israel and Jordan, just outside Eilat. Both sites have been investigated archaeologically, and found to have been founded during the Ancient Near Eastern Late Iron Age — no earlier than 700/800 BCE,[12] with the obvious exception of early neolithic/nomadic activity.

Non‐existent cities
Many of the places mentioned in the Exodus did not exist within the same chronological period as one another. Pithom (Per‐Atum/Tckenu) and Raamses (Per‐Ramesses), the two "treasure cities" claimed to have been built by the Hebrews, never existed at the same time. Pithom did not exist as a significant settlement before the 26th Dynasty. Prior to this, the settlment was known as Tckenu, and was still referred to as such in the Ptolemaic period, and was an obscure garrison town which mainly, if not exclusively, served as a waystation for Egyptian expeditions. Even in its enlarged Roman state, the town barely registered on either Egyptian or Greco–Roman accounts.[9] Per‐Ramesses, the Royal Residence of the Ramessides, was abandoned at the end of the New Kingdom, centuries earlier.[9]

Signs of national chaos or collapse
All of the dates put forward by advocates of the historicity of Exodus fail to correspond to any period of national weakness or chaos in Egypt, as would be expected by such a series of disasters.

Ussher's 1491 BCE date corresponds with a time of ambitious Egyptian expansion. The reign of Hatshepsut was stable, peaceful and saw extensive construction projects and trading missions; this is known from actual material remains as well as Egyptian records. Her successor, Thutmose III, took Egypt to its greatest imperial extent, forging an empire from the Euphrates to the 4th and possibly the 5th cataract. These are not the signs of a nation that, just a few years before, had lost its entire harvest, its drinkable water, its army and its sons. There is no archaeological evidence at all of mass death and impoverishment in the early New Kingdom period.

The same holds true for the period of Ramesses II. Although there were a few brief reigns after Merenptah, and what appears to be an attempt to interfere with the line of succession (the Chancellor Bey affair), there is no evidence of national catastrophe. Not long after, during the reign of Ramesses III, the state was still able to construct numerous massive monuments (such as Medinet Habu and the temple of Ramesses III within the Karnak complex) and mount effective military campaigns on both land and sea.

Edom
Edom was not yet a nation. In fact, the region wasn't even inhabited yet. The place the Hebrews stop at wasn't even built until 800 BCE. However, the latest the Exodus could have occurred and still be biblically accurate is in the 13th century BCE.

(with thanks to Rationalwiki)

Debunking "parallels" between Ipuwer Papyrus and the Book of Exodus
The association of the Ipuwer Papyrus with the Exodus as describing the same event is generally rejected by Egyptologists.[20] Roland Enmarch, author of a new translation of the papyrus, notes: "The broadest modern reception of Ipuwer amongst non-Egyptological readers has probably been as a result of the use of the poem as evidence supporting the Biblical account of the Exodus."[21] While Enmarch himself rejects synchronizing the texts of the Ipuwer Papyrus and The Book of Exodus on grounds of historicity, in The reception of a Middle Egyptian poem: The Dialogue of Ipuwer he acknowledges that there are some textual parallels "particularly the striking statement that 'the river is blood and one drinks from it' (Ipuwer 2.10), and the frequent references to servants abandoning their subordinate status (e.g. Ipuwer 3.14–4.1; 6.7–8; 10.2–3). On a literal reading, these are similar to aspects of the Exodus account."[22] Commenting on such attempts to draw parallels, he writes that "all these approaches read Ipuwer hyper-literally and selectively" and points out that there are also conflicts between Ipuwer and the biblical account, such as Ipuwer 's lamentation of an Asiatic (Semitic) invasion rather than a mass departure.[21] He suggests that "it is more likely that Ipuwer is not a piece of historical reportage and that historicising interpretations of it fail to account for the ahistorical, schematic literary nature of some of the poem's laments," but other Egyptologists disagree. Examining what Enmarch calls "the most extensively posited parallel", the river becoming blood, he notes that it should not be taken "absolutely literally" as a description of an event but that both Ipuwer and Exodus might be metaphorically describing what happens at times of catastrophic Nile floods when the river is carrying large quantities of red earth, mentioning that Kenneth Kitchen has also discussed this phenomenon.

(with thanks to wiki)

 

[Katzpur]

That is not the point, the point is that DNA could have proven Hebrew ancestry and fails to do so.

The point is that it would be statistically next to impossible.