Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

[rrosskopf]

Then you shouldn't be a member of the LDS since everything you post here created by them is a lie.

You can't prove that any of it is a lie. Are you speaking from emotion? Did Mormonism hurt you in some way? Is there some reason why you must believe it is a lie? What happened to giving someone the benefit of the doubt?

 

[rrosskopf]

There is no DNA evidence to support your wild claims.

That Olmec were the founding population? Really? Or that founding populations have a strong influence on DNA? I'm pretty sure that I could find some...

 

[Shad]

I have to say that I definetely didn't know that he spoke English, or that his notes were required reading in grade school.

Do you know what a translation is? Obvious you must know since you claim Smith translated the Golden Plates. Stop playing stupid.

He notes were not required in grade school. However those that enrolled in post-secondary education programs know how to do proper research unlike yourself. Try it some time...

You can't prove that any of it is a lie. Are you speaking from emotion? Did Mormonism hurt you in some way? Is there some reason why you must believe it is a lie? What happened to giving someone the benefit of the doubt?

The evidence against all your claims and his shows he lied. No speaking from emotions it is a conclusion, again, based on the evidence against LDS claims.

I have never met any member of LDS. You are actually the first one I have ever interacted with.

Why would I give anyone the benefit of the doubt when you posts lies from LDS? I read your claims then fact checked each. Just as Sapians did. He found the claims are unsupported and there is a massive amount of evidence against your claims. Perhaps you shouldn't believe everything you are told otherwise you wont look gullible and uncritical.

 

[Sapiens]

You can't prove that any of it is a lie. Are you speaking from emotion? Did Mormonism hurt you in some way? Is there some reason why you must believe it is a lie? What happened to giving someone the benefit of the doubt?

Benefit of the doubt? It is not a question of doubt, your "obfuscation" is clear to all but you and your fellow travelers.

That Olmec were the founding population? Really? Or that founding populations have a strong influence on DNA? I'm pretty sure that I could find some...

As was noted:

There is no such DNA type, their type is Q3, C3 or a variant of either which are from Asia

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png

 

[Shad]

That Olmec were the founding population? Really? Or that founding populations have a strong influence on DNA? I'm pretty sure that I could find some...

They are not the founders of anything but their own civilization. They didn't found the Mayan civilization as Olmec is a culture that died out before the Mayans. The Mayans are a different culture. It would be like saying there are Romans living in New York city 1500 years after the Roman civilization died out and was replaced with an Italian sub-culture. We do not call Italians Romes no more than we call the French Romans. Again Roman civilization, as the Olmec civilization, died out and was replaced. More so haplogroupings do not vanish as it part of the Y-chromosome. It is pass on by mothers over and over again. There is zero evidence of a middle-eastern haplogroup prior to colonization.

 

[rrosskopf]

Do you know what a translation is? Obvious you must know since you claim Smith translated the Golden Plates. Stop playing stupid.

He notes were not required in grade school. However those that enrolled in post-secondary education programs know how to do proper research unlike yourself. Try it some time...

Who's playing dumb? Obviously Joseph Smith had little to no chance of knowing anything about Diego Lopez Cogollugo. I doubt he knew anyone that spoke Spanish, nor did he have access to Spanish libraries. I am baffled that you completely missed my point. I thought it was obvious. Now if you come back with proof that it was translated into English before 1830, and taught in every schoolroom in New England - well then I will owe you an apology.

The evidence against all your claims and his shows he lied.

You are using the term "evidence" loosely. There is very little real evidence against the claims of Mormonism - what most call evidence are just opinions. There is real evidence in support of Mormonism, quite a bit of real evidence. It is mostly circumstantial, but there is quite a bit of it. Have you read the true story about the law student who decided to put the Book of Mormon on trial? He won his case in the mock trial, as judged by a jury of non-Mormons.
There is no "massive" amount of evidence against the claims of Mormonism, unless you are content with the opinion of atheists. My standards for evidence are a little higher. These are hostile witnesses, and should be treated as such.

 

[Sapiens]

Who's playing dumb? Obviously Joseph Smith had little to no chance of knowing anything about Diego Lopez Cogollugo. I doubt he knew anyone that spoke Spanish, nor did he have access to Spanish libraries. I am baffled that you completely missed my point. I thought it was obvious. Now if you come back with proof that it was translated into English before 1830, and taught in every schoolroom in New England - well then I will owe you an apology.

You are using the term "evidence" loosely. There is very little real evidence against the claims of Mormonism - what most call evidence are just opinions. There is real evidence in support of Mormonism, quite a bit of real evidence. It is mostly circumstantial, but there is quite a bit of it. Have you read the true story about the law student who decided to put the Book of Mormon on trial? He won his case in the mock trial, as judged by a jury of non-Mormons.
There is no "massive" amount of evidence against the claims of Mormonism, unless you are content with the opinion of atheists. My standards for evidence are a little higher. These are hostile witnesses, and should be treated as such.

There is clear evidence, massive evidence against it. Remember? Elephants, horses, pigs, cows, donkeys, chariots, silk, grains, smelted metal, steel, swords, scimitars, etc. That's not opinion ... except to apologists to whom everything is opinion by definition ... also known as willful ignorance.

Who's playing dumb? Obviously Joseph Smith had little to no chance of knowing anything about Diego Lopez Cogollugo.

I have always enjoyed the Mormon claim that Smith was dumb as a box of rocks, knew nothing about anything and yet was chosen as the avatar of their god.

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***

Please keep Rules 1, 3, and 11 in mind while posting.

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

​

3. Trolling and Bullying​

Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.​

11. Subverting/Undermining the Forum Mission
The purpose of the forum is to provide a civil, informative, respectful, and welcoming environment where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare, and debate. Posts while debating and discussing different beliefs must be done in the spirit of productivity. If a person's main goal is to undermine a set of beliefs by creating unproductive posts, threads, or responses to others, said content will be edited or removed and subject to moderation.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It seems to strip out all the spaces. I didn't write it like this.

Hi, rrosskopf (that's quite a unique username ),

I'm an atheist who also happens to be anti-religious, but I like how you are handling yourself here where you are basically alone in a debate versus multiple people. We can always use more genuine members like you.

Cheers.

 

[Shad]

Who's playing dumb? Obviously Joseph Smith had little to no chance of knowing anything about Diego Lopez Cogollugo.

If he is receiving a message from God then God would know and include this information. A human that is ignorant would make this mistake thus Smith's claims are merely a human idea that you treat as if it was from God

I doubt he knew anyone that spoke Spanish, nor did he have access to Spanish libraries. I am baffled that you completely missed my point. I thought it was obvious. Now if you come back with proof that it was translated into English before 1830, and taught in every schoolroom in New England - well then I will owe you an apology.

You are making excuses, nothing more.. Smith's ignorance of Spanish is not a defense no more than someone ignorances of the laws allows one to get away with committing a crime.

You are using the term "evidence" loosely.

No Im not.

There is very little real evidence against the claims of Mormonism - what most call evidence are just opinions.

No there is evidence found in this thread and has been mentioned repeatedly.

There is real evidence in support of Mormonism, quite a bit of real evidence.

Each of your claims has been refuted already so no there is zero evidence.

It is mostly circumstantial, but there is quite a bit of it.

Circumstantial evidence is still valid, you point is irrelevant. More so your own claims are based on such evidence before it was refuted. You used the same source we have. You use a double-standard when it help and/or harms your claims

Have you read the true story about the law student who decided to put the Book of Mormon on trial? He won his case in the mock trial, as judged by a jury of non-Mormons.

Law has a lower standard than science. Let see a reference. Is it modern? If not then new evidence would cause him to lose the case as your claims lost.

There is no "massive" amount of evidence against the claims of Mormonism, unless you are content with the opinion of atheists.

Yes there is. You made claims that have been refuted repeatedly.

My standards for evidence are a little higher.

Hardly. You didn't research your claims, you didn't even attempt to falisify your claims before declaring your claims are correct. You have almost no standards to speak of.

These are hostile witnesses, and should be treated as such.

Considering the evidence is against your claims you have no grounds to suggest this.

 

[rrosskopf]

The DNA issue is a complicated one. As much as I've read on the subject - and I have read several papers - I am not convinced that the science has arrived to that position where it can disprove the Book of Mormon. I have found geneticists on both sides of the fence. I am not claiming that anyone has found, without doubt, Israelite DNA among Native Americans. I am claiming that no one can completely rule it out. The Emory University study from 1998 couldn't rule it out. According to their conculsions, 4 out of 5 haplogroups were Asian, the 5th haplogroup being European or Northern Israelite. Dr. Scott Woodward, microbiologist, did a presentation on MDNA at BYU where he said that we shouldn't be able to find any MDNA from Lehi in current generations; the MDNA from preexisting populations would quickly overwhelm the MDNA of a small influx of people. mtDNA seems to have some problems as well, as known Jewish groups have wildly different mtDNA. The Lemda of North Africa, for example, have mtDNA that is indistinguishable from the other African tribes.

 

[rrosskopf]

If he is receiving a message from God then God would know and include this information.

You've completely lost me. Why would God go off on a tangent? Are you suggesting that God knowingly included truth in the Book of Mormon to throw people off?

 

[Sapiens]

The DNA issue is a complicated one.

No, it is not. Clearly you'd like to pretend that it is.

As much as I've read on the subject - and I have read several papers -

Wow ... a couple of papers! That makes you an expert?

I am not convinced that the science has arrived to that position where it can disprove the Book of Mormon.

I am and I suspect I know a whole lot more about the science than you do.

I have found geneticists on both sides of the fence.

No, all the genetics is one side, e.g., no sign of Hebrew DNA.

I am not claiming that anyone has found, without doubt, Israelite DNA among Native Americans. I am claiming that no one can completely rule it out.

That is the standard argument from ignorance ... it doesn't wash.

The Emory University study from 1998 couldn't rule it out. According to their conculsions, 4 out of 5 haplogroups were Asian, the 5th haplogroup being European or Northern Israelite. Dr. Scott Woodward, microbiologist, did a presentation on MDNA at BYU where he said that we shouldn't be able to find any MDNA from Lehi in current generations; the MDNA from preexisting populations would quickly overwhelm the MDNA of a small influx of people. mtDNA seems to have some problems as well, as known Jewish groups have wildly different mtDNA. The Lemda of North Africa, for example, have mtDNA that is indistinguishable from the other African tribes.

Scott Ray Woodward is a Mormon tool. BYU faculty from 1989 to 2003 and LDS member.

 

[rrosskopf]

You are making excuses, nothing more.. Smith's ignorance of Spanish is not a defense no more than someone ignorances of the laws allows one to get away with committing a crime.

You still give no evidence of following the conversation. The fact is that Joseph Smith, in his translation of the Book of Mormon, included many verifiable assertions, despite being a poorly educated backwoods farmer. God didn't choose some well educated man; he wanted the world to know that this didn't come from Joseph Smith. So if the Book of Mormon talks of an immense raised highway system in America, and it turns out to be true - that is evidence of authenticity. It isn't perfect, but it is evidence. Add it to hundreds of other such evidences, and a picture begins to form. If the Book of Mormon talks about natives building houses out of cement, and it turns out to be true, then that is another evidence, if only circumstantial, that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient American record. Both of these things would be anachronisms if they referred to the US in 1830. But they aren't anachronisms if they refer to the Maya in 100 AD. Then we have the assertion that the natives dyed their skin black. The Mayas did in fact dye their skin black to look fierce in battle. The Book of Mormon is right again - more evidence. The Book of Mormon tells of a special compass, that doesn't point north; it points to the path that God would have one take. Nephi calls it a compass or director. The Maya also had a legend of a round ball called a Giron Gagal, which translates to compass or director; it pointed the way one should go. They used it to gain an advantage over their enemies in war. Not one of these things has been refuted - not one. Then we have the discovery of Nahom in Arabia - right where the Book of Mormon places it. People quibble over how it was pronounced, but the place is real. It even has an ancient graveyard as described in the Book of Mormon, and is the last stop before turning east along the Frankincense trail, a trail that ended along the southern border by the sea. All this was accurately described in the Book of Mormon, and much more. It even mentions the bees that were found along the coast, and the timber. The Book of Mormon is even right about tiny almost inconsequential details. Lehi offered sacrifice three days south of Jerusalem, the minimum distance to offer sacrifice away from the nearest temple. The brass plates were kept in a treasury, and not a library, as one might suspect. Every detail seems to be correct, and that has to be considered when judging authenticity. The plan of city defense included a large earthen berm surrounding the cities, topped with a palisade of timbers. The Book of Mormon is right once again, accurately describing many cities in Mesoamerica. Palanque was so named by the Spanish for precisely this reason. So don't tell me there is no evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. The suggestion is laughable.

 

[rrosskopf]

Scott Ray Woodward is a Mormon tool. BYU faculty from 1989 to 2003 and LDS member.

His is credentialed, and doesn't have the extreme anti-mormon bias of the atheist community. That makes him a good witness. If you rule him out, for being a Mormon, then you should also rule out all the atheists, for their obvious bias,and all the religionists of other churches, for their obvious bias. It is telling that your bias towards scientists and scholars doesn't extend to Mormon scientists and scholars.

 

[Sapiens]

You still give no evidence of following the conversation. The fact is that Joseph Smith, in his translation of the Book of Mormon, included many verifiable assertions, despite being a poorly educated backwoods farmer. God didn't choose some well educated man; he wanted the world to know that this didn't come from Joseph Smith. So if the Book of Mormon talks of an immense raised highway system in America, and it turns out to be true - that is evidence of authenticity. It isn't perfect, but it is evidence. Add it to hundreds of other such evidences, and a picture begins to form. If the Book of Mormon talks about natives building houses out of cement, and it turns out to be true, then that is another evidence, if only circumstantial, that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient American record. Both of these things would be anachronisms if they referred to the US in 1830. But they aren't anachronisms if they refer to the Maya in 100 AD. Then we have the assertion that the natives dyed their skin black. The Mayas did in fact dye their skin black to look fierce in battle. The Book of Mormon is right again - more evidence. The Book of Mormon tells of a special compass, that doesn't point north; it points to the path that God would have one take. Nephi calls it a compass or director. The Maya also had a legend of a round ball called a Giron Gagal, which translates to compass or director; it pointed the way one should go. They used it to gain an advantage over their enemies in war. Not one of these things has been refuted - not one. Then we have the discovery of Nahom in Arabia - right where the Book of Mormon places it. People quibble over how it was pronounced, but the place is real. It even has an ancient graveyard as described in the Book of Mormon, and is the last stop before turning east along the Frankincense trail, a trail that ended along the southern border by the sea. All this was accurately described in the Book of Mormon, and much more. It even mentions the bees that were found along the coast, and the timber. The Book of Mormon is even right about tiny almost inconsequential details. Lehi offered sacrifice three days south of Jerusalem, the minimum distance to offer sacrifice away from the nearest temple. The brass plates were kept in a treasury, and not a library, as one might suspect. Every detail seems to be correct, and that has to be considered when judging authenticity. The plan of city defense included a large earthen berm surrounding the cities, topped with a palisade of timbers. The Book of Mormon is right once again, accurately describing many cities in Mesoamerica. Palanque was so named by the Spanish for precisely this reason. So don't tell me there is no evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. The suggestion is laughable.

In the BOM there are a few things that are correct (and a number that are claimed to be, but that are equivocal or worse) and a lot of things that are demonstrably wrong. It is not a matter of score. Things that are correct are likely so by pure chance, but things that are wrong ... well, they are clearly wrong, they were clearly included in the BOM because they reflected common belief at the time. They prove that the BOM is invented.

 

[Sapiens]

His is credentialed, and doesn't have the extreme anti-mormon bias of the atheist community. That makes him a good witness. If you rule him out, for being a Mormon, then you should also rule out all the atheists, for their obvious bias,and all the religionists of other churches, for their obvious bias. It is telling that your bias towards scientists and scholars doesn't extend to Mormon scientists and scholars.

No, you have told us that several times that Mormons are dedicated to their religion first and truth later, thus Mormon sources are not to be believed, by your own admission.

Back in 1994 Woodward claimed to have extracted DNA from dinosaur bones found in a coal mine. The bones were later shown to not be dinosaurian and the DNA was shown to be contamination from bad lab technique.

In 2000 Woodward was funded by a group of Mormon philanthropists for the expressed purpose of proving that the Lamanites were descended from Middle Eastern Jews. Forgetting about how this is crappy science, Mormon anthropologist Thomas Murphy reported that, "The hope that DNA would link Native Americans to ancient Israelites, buttressing LDS beliefs in a way that has not been forthcoming from archaeological, linguistic, historical or morphological research. For those who held such an expectation, the data collected by the MGRG and results of similar research programs have beenn disappointing. So far, the DNA has lent no support to the traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans."

Now, may we have an end to your falsified claims?

To add a bit more here's the write up from wiki concerning what Murphy found and wrote and how he was treated by the Mormon church:

Murphy drew attention in the media and from the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) after the publication of his essay, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics."[where?][when?] This essay discusses the genetic evidence for the geographic origin and lineage of Native American groups. It relies on evidence regarding mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited directly from the mother; the Y chromosome, inherited from the father; and nuclear DNA.[7]

Murphy posited that DNA evidence suggests that Native Americans are descendents of individuals from northeastern Siberia—corroborating conclusions that anthropologists have long held. He notes the 99.6 percent absence of genetic heritage outside of known indigenous Native American haplogroups. (The remaining 0.4 percent is near universally agreed among anthropologists and biologists studying the issue to represent genetic markers that were introduced after the year 1492.)[citation needed]

In his essay, Murphy writes:

From a scientific perspective, the BoMor's [Book of Mormon's] origin is best situated in early 19th century America, not ancient America. There were no Lamanites prior to c. 1828 and dark skin is not a physical trait of God's malediction. Native Americans do not need to accept Christianity or the BoMor to know their own history. The BoMor emerged from Joseph Smith's own struggles with his God. Mormons need to look inward for spiritual validation and cease efforts to remake Native Americans in their own image.[7]

Murphy concluded that "DNA research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans" and he has likened the Book of Mormon to inspirational fiction. Murphy has reaffirmed this point several times since the initial publication of his essay in interviews and in videos produced by Living Hope Ministries,[citation needed] a Utah-based evangelical Christian ministry that produces literature and films that question and criticize Mormonism.

In a review in 2006, the FARMS Institute responded to Murphy's claims.[8]

Subsequent action[edit]
Murphy's review of genetic research was expanded upon by molecular biologist Simon Southerton, a former Mormon bishop, with his study Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans DNA, and the Mormon Church, Signature Books, 2004, which gives a more complete accounting of the current status of Polynesians and Native Americans in context with national studies, Mormon scholars and concessions by geneticists from BYU. Other researchers such as Scott Woodward are critical of Southerton's work.

In response to the publication of "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics", Murphy's LDS stake president asked him to either recant his position regarding DNA evidenceand the Book of Mormon or resign his membership in the LDS Church. Murphy declined both suggestions, so Latimer scheduled a disciplinary council for December 8, 2002.[9]Such a council might have resulted in Murphy's disfellowshipment or excommunication from the church.[10]

Murphy's situation received widespread media attention and generated protest actions from some Mormon intellectual groups. On December 7, 2002, less than 24 hours before the scheduled meeting time, Latimer indefinitely postponed Murphy's disciplinary council.[10] Finally, on February 23, 2003, Latimer informed Murphy that all disciplinary action was placed on permanent hold.[11] In a note Murphy sent to several supporters for wide public distribution, Murphy expressed hope that other scholars in similar positions might benefit from Latimer's decision:

We hope that other stake presidents will follow this most recent example of President Latimer and likewise refrain from using the threat of excommunication as tool for disciplining scholars.

— -- Thomas Murphy, open letter dated 23 February 2003

 

[rrosskopf]

No, you have told us that several times that Mormons are dedicated to their religion first and truth later, thus Mormon sources are not to be believed, by your own admission.

It must have gotten tangled up in your mind. I never said that. The primary creed of Mormonism is to seek out truth, where ever it leads. The atheists don't believe that. The other religionists don't believe that. That is why Mormons are the most trustworthy.

"The hope that DNA would link Native Americans to ancient Israelites, buttressing LDS beliefs in a way that has not been forthcoming from archaeological, linguistic, historical or morphological research. For those who held such an expectation, the data collected by the MGRG and results of similar research programs have beenn disappointing.

So, you admit then that Woodward was being honest. It is as I said - no evidence for, and no evidence that rules it out. So which of my claims has been falsified? Not one.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It must have gotten tangled up in your mind. I never said that. The primary creed of Mormonism is to seek out truth, where ever it leads. The atheists don't believe that. The other religionists don't believe that. That is why Mormons are the most trustworthy.

So, you admit then that Woodward was being honest. It is as I said - no evidence for, and no evidence that rules it out. So which of my claims has been falsified? Not one.

Um, I'm an atheist and I believe that.

 

[rrosskopf]

Things that are correct are likely so by pure chance, but things that are wrong ... well, they are clearly wrong, they were clearly included in the BOM because they reflected common belief at the time. They prove that the BOM is invented.

The opposite is true. Very little of it reflects the common belief at the time. Atheists always like to pretend that overwhelming evidence is just chance, even when the chances are slim to none. What are the chances that somewhere in America, people would be building houses out of cement in 100 AD? Almost none at all. Joseph Smith couldn't do it in 1830. The native Americans were thought to be savages. The idea was so ridiculous as to be laughable. Scientists did laugh. Yet the Book of Mormon hit it right on target - right place, right time. This one thing alone - without hundreds of other evidences - is a compelling fact.
The parable of the Olive Orchard, a remnant of Middle Eastern scripture brought to America by Lehi, describes in detail Olive husbandry. Joseph Smith was a farmer, but he wasn't an olive farmer. I don't believe there were any olive farms in upstate New York. Yet every detail is accurate; whoever wrote it knew olive husbandry. They didn't know modern olive husbandry, but ancient olive husbandry. If Joseph Smith wrote it, what are the chances that he would have gotten something wrong? 100%? What is the chance that ancient forms of Hebrew prose would be discovered in the Book of Mormon? In ENGLISH? You only think these things are possible because they have already happened. They are strong circumstantial evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, taken separately, and even more so when taken together.