mormonism racist?

[Katzpur]

She

Yeah. "Head Lesbian."

 

[Autodidact]

Not all of that is true. Anyway, like I said, it depends on what kind of evidence you're talking about. There is no physical, archeological evidence that Jesus himself ever existed.

Almost true, but irrelevant. Most historians do believe that there was once a preacher in Israel named Yeshua, and that a cult religion was based on Him and His life. In any case, it has nothing to do with the BoM, which not only has no archeological evidence to support it, but:
(1) If true, we would expect to find some.
(2) There is tons of evidence that directly contradicts it.
<...snip irrelevant digression into historicity of Jesus.>

But guess what. No credible historian would ever tell you they didn't think Jesus was a real person. Why? Because of the evidence that exists in the gospels themselves.

Actually, a substantial minority of credible historians to assert that, but it isn't only because of the gospels. No, it's not circular to use the gospels as evidence for the existence of Jesus, it's just insufficient evidence, primarily because it's not contemporary. <...snip more irrelevant digression into the historicity of Jesus>

What we're discussing at this point is external, archeological evidence for the many claims in the BoM which, if true, would reasonably be expected to leave such evidence, such as:
use of forged metal in the Americas
fossils of cattle, elephants, and was it culiroms or some other made-up thing?
evidence of horses pulling chariot in the Americas
DNA of Native Americans indicating they are descended from people in the ANE
archeological remnants of huge battles involving chariots, swords, shields, not to mention human remains--millions of them
evidence of wheat, barley and other plants in the New World before European immigration
and so forth and so on. There isn't any.

Meanwhile, there is extensive archeological evidence of many civilizations that did exist here, which do not resemble the book in any way. They had turquoise and traded in Quetzleocal feathers, grew potatoes, domesticated llamas, etc. etc. Almost none of the flora or fauna resemble in any way the world described in the BoM. I'll repeat that. There is no evidence for the people, plants, animals, implements and buildings described in the BoM. And we're not talking about a few dozen people--the book describes millions of people and extensive cities, none of which left an iota of archeological evidence behind.

That's your problem, and the one that you're twisting sideways to avoid.
[/quote]

 

[Autodidact]

I think that the disappointment to be found in exploring the evidences for the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith is that they are entirely underwhelming from an intellectual/scholarly standpoint. Trying to pursue faith in that direction is, by very definition of the nature of faith, doomed to fail.

I guess as a lifelong Mormon I hardly qualify as objective, though I was largely a skeptic throughout my late teens when I began pursuing this kind of information and evidence. However I think the evidence against Joseph Smith is also rather underwhelming if viewed as critically as anti-mormons view the 'proofs'. I have talked with people who loathe the church who concede he was an extraordinary man. He simply had to be to achieve what he did.

The point is, the view you hold before looking into the evidence is by and large going to be the same coming out. There is nothing particularly profound out there unless you are particularly lacking in knowledge about church history, in which case there are a variety of instances you will find interesting. Beyond that there is no holy grail for either pro or anti.

Not proof, misanthrope, evidence. What's missing is evidence. There isn't any.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, you're since you're talking to the chief axe grinder, I can assure you that your words will fall on deaf ears. As far as Auto's concerned, Jesus was every bit as much a fairy tale character as Nephi was.

No, not true. Not being an expert in the history of the Middle East, I have to follow the mainstream scholarship here, which is that there was such a person. There is no evidence, however, that that person bore much resemblance to the Biblical character of the same name. In other words, the Jesus myth seems to have a basis in an actual person. That makes sense, if you think about it.

The BoM does not appear to have such a kernel of truth as its basis.

 

[Autodidact]

That's too bad. Maybe he just hasn't read enough books by actual historians who practice the historical critical method. There is overwelming evidence for Jesus' existance as a real historical figure. No reputable Bible scholar denies it.

I agree. And generally prefer to speak for myself. And am not a he, not that it matters.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Not proof, misanthrope, evidence. What's missing is evidence. There isn't any.

Oh there are plenty of evidences which lend some sense of credulity to aspects of the Book of Mormon. I recognise most people are inclined to either ignore them or view them as insignificant (and they largely are underwhelming) but to the believer they do lend some weight to claims of authenticity - though they fall far short of anything to be regarded as proof.

Have a gander if you are interested, though I am inclined to believe Jeff Lindsay is probably not completely unfamiliar to you.

Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility

 

[Autodidact]

Oh there are plenty of evidences which lend some sense of credulity to aspects of the Book of Mormon. I recognise most people are inclined to either ignore them or view them as insignificant (and they largely are underwhelming) but to the believer they do lend some weight to claims of authenticity - though they fall far short of anything to be regarded as proof.

Have a gander if you are interested, though I am inclined to believe Jeff Lindsay is probably not completely unfamiliar to you.

Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility

You mean Jeff Lindsay, the chemical engineer and professional liar? Here's what the unbiased experts say:

1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book. 2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World - probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age - in a continuing series of small migration beginning from about 25,000 to 35,000 years ago.
3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.
4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with the Old World, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)
5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for the occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
6. There is a possibility that the spread of cultural traits across the Pacific to Mesoamerica and the northwestern coast of South America began several hundred years before the Christian era. However, any such inter-hemispheric contacts appear to have been the results of accidental voyages originating in eastern and southern Asia. It is by no means certain that such contacts occurred; certainly there were no contacts with the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, or other peoples of Western Asian [sic] and the Near East.
7. No reputable Egyptologist or other specialist on Old World archeology, and no expert on New World prehistory, has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.
8. Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland.



(Smithsonian.)


Here's one thing that helps understand all this. The archeologists and other scientists who study these issues aren't on a mission to disprove the BoM. There isn't some anti-Mormon bias. They're just using scientific methods to try to figure out what happened. And it just happens to turn out that looks nothing--absolutely nothing--like what the BoM says. Smith, an uneducated rural guy, guessed wrong in almost every particular. The food, crops, animals, implements, weapons, transportation, ethnicity, etc. None of it looks anything like what life in America looked like before the Europeans got here.



As a result, the LDS leadership has been reduced to hoping that somewhere in the Americas, (no idea where, except somewhere that hasn't been explored yet) there will one day be found a tiny group of people as described in the BoM. So BoM defenders have to argue and hope for increased ignorance, claiming that the evidence will one day be found where we haven't looked yet.


And of course the problem with that is that we're not talking about Antarctica. Almost every part of America is now inhabited by descendants of Europeans who have excavated, explored and studied the artifacts of that region. Even the Amazon is at least yielding to exploration and study, and evidence of ancient civilizations have recently been found there. Which, once again, bear no resemblance to BoM people, plants, animals or implements.

 

[Katzpur]

Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility

Jeff Lindsay's site has an incredible weath of information. It's easy to read, contains only information that has well-supported evidence. While he is not personally an archeologist, a historian or a linguist, he quotes extensively from LDS and non-LDS professionals whose credentials are valued by their peers. He's also got a great sense of humor and some of his satirical pages are hilarious. I know a lot of people (both LDS and non-LDS) who have learned a lot by reading him. Some people, of course, are so bull-headed that absolutely nothing that comes out of the mouth of any Latter-day Saint could have any validity. To me, that's the ultimate in stupidity. When someone's ignorance on a subject is surpassed only by his closed-minded approach to considering the validity of anything he doesn't want to hear, it's just proof that he's afraid to be wrong. What truly intelligent person would not want to gain as much knowledge on a subject as possible?

 

[Autodidact]

Let's cut to the chase. There's lots and lots and lots of archeology about Native American cultures. None of them resemble the people described in the BoM. Period. They don't eat the same food, grow the same crops, use the same implements, smelt the same metals, or have the same genetics. The people described in the BoM, supposedly millions of them, have left no trace anywhere in America that has ever been found.

That is why, when you ask a Mormon where they lived, they will say, "We don't know." They lived somewhere in America we haven't found yet. By wild coincidence, all of the archeological study that has been done so far just happens to have found other people completely.

So, when absolutely and repeatedly confronted with these inconvenient facts, many Mormons will resort to hoping--and believing--that we will find this evidence some day. I've had Mormons right here at RF assert this, that they have faith this evidence will some day be found.

An alternative is to concede that the BoM is not literal; it's a myth with no relationship to factual reality. That works, but makes you wonder what they heck it's supposed to be telling us, and why we would care about this myth any more than say the Norse sagas.

 

[Enlil-An]

Autodidact, you seem to know alot about this stuff. What about Joseph Smith's claims that ancient people wrote on metal plates before anyone else was aware that the ancients did so?

How would you respond to the LDS scholars in this video (I still can't post links yet)? Go to Youtube.com and type in horses, chariots, elephants in the Book of Mormon. The video is only 5 minutes long.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't know anything about the factual basis at that. It does seem to me, like much of the Mormon apologetics in this area, to be "drawing the target around the bullet-holes." What I mean is, if you objectively make a prediction from Joseph Smith's story, one that would corroborate it, it would, reasonably, include some of:

The markings are verified by an outside expert to be actual Egyptian.
We will find archeological evidence of the plants, animals, and artifacts mentioned in the BoM.
We will find archeological evidence of massive battles with chariots, metal weapons, etc.
The DNA of American Indians will demonstrate a relationship to people of the ANE
Smith demonstrates an ability to recognize actual "Reformed Egyptian" and translate it.
There actually is such a language as "Reformed Egyptian."
And stuff like that.
Wouldn't you agree these would be reasonable predictions?

None of these panned out, so we go combing through the story for something, anything, that matches something real. I'm guessing we could go through Lord of the Rings and find something resembling something someone actually did. But if LOTR were true, we would expect to find certain other things, none of which we do. So Smith said plates, and someone used plates. It's kind of "even a broken watch is right twice a day" thing. Just so weak and unpersuasive, and absolutely swamped by the above.

There's something about some funeral oration in there being in the same form as some ancient funeral poem from somewhere, or something. Well, if you write 2000 pages, eventually something in it is going to resemble some ancient literary form, just by sheer luck.

In the same way, if you invent enough crap: magic rocks, imaginary languages, etc., etc., eventually something will happen to match up with something (metal plates) that someone actually did.

Anyway, what's the allegation, is it that actual ancient Egyptians (or Americans, as the case may be) actually created books in the form of modern books, bound by rings, written on pure gold?

 

[Watchmen]

An alternative is to concede that the BoM is not literal; it's a myth with no relationship to factual reality. That works, but makes you wonder what they heck it's supposed to be telling us, and why we would care about this myth any more than say the Norse sagas.

Myths are culture specific. A person will care about the myth if they are a part of its culture. I'm not a party of Norse culture so their sagas lack meaning for me individually, but I accept they have value for those of Norse culture. I am a Mormon - that means I find value in Mormon myths. Further, because I find value in Mormon myths, I share them with others. If they want to become part of the Mormon culture...great. If not...that's fine too because I recognize the myth doesn't have value for them.

 

[Autodidact]

So clearly, it would be inappropriate for the LDS church to expect their myths to have any meaning for non-Mormon Californians? And it's wrong of them to try to make their myths have meaning for others, as by political activism?

 

[Autodidact]

Have you ever noticed how many religionists devolve into post-modern, contructivism, relativism when push comes to shove?

 

[Watchmen]

So clearly, it would be inappropriate for the LDS church to expect their myths to have any meaning for non-Mormon Californians? And it's wrong of them to try to make their myths have meaning for others, as by political activism?

The myths are full of examples of prophets interacting with government. Nice try though.

 

[Watchmen]

Have you ever noticed how many religionists devolve into post-modern, contructivism, relativism when push comes to shove?

No. I haven't.

And I don't think anyone here feels pushed or shoved by you. Your posts reek of personal bias and animosity so most of us take whatever you say with a grain of salt.

 

[Autodidact]

The myths are full of examples of prophets interacting with government. Nice try though.

I'm confused. I thought "participating in Mormon culture" was optional. Now you're saying that it's O.K. to make the rest of us "participate in your culture?"

 

[Autodidact]

No. I haven't.

See post #292 .

And I don't think anyone here feels pushed or shoved by you. Your posts reek of personal bias and animosity so most of us take whatever you say with a grain of salt.

Watchmen: I would appreciate it if you would try to address the topic and the issues, rather than attack me personally.

 

[Watchmen]

I'm confused. I thought "participating in Mormon culture" was optional. Now you're saying that it's O.K. to make the rest of us "participate in your culture?"

Participating in politics per our culture isn't making the rest of you participate in our culture. Get over it. Organizations have the right to participate in the political process. Run a better campaign next time.

 

[Watchmen]

See post #292 .

Watchmen: I would appreciate it if you would try to address the topic and the issues, rather than attack me personally.

It's not a personal attack, it's an observation. If anything, you're the one on the attack, comparing Mormon beliefs to belief in leprechauns, and so on.