It's not about importance. That's your misunderstanding of the word principal.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel
- Thread starter Nietzsche
- Start date
It's like saying my principal ancestors are from Scotland. That means MOST of my ancestors are from Scotland (although there's other stuff too). It does not mean that my Scottish ancestors are the most important.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
Are you kidding me?
In post #415, I literally shared three different dictionary definitions for the adjective “principal”,
“"first or highest in rank, importance, value, etc.; chief; foremost."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/principal?s=t
"most important, consequential, or influential."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/principal
"First in order of importance; main"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/principal”
Notice how all the dictionaries claim that the adjective “principal” is used to describe the importance of something?
I even shared the definition of the word “primary” (the word you tried to use to explain away the actual definition of the adjective “principal”) which was,
“”first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal:"
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/primary?s=t
"of first rank, importance, or value"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primary
"Of chief importance; principal"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/primary”
How can you honestly claim that the adjective “principal” is not used to describe the importance of something?
I just shared (again) from three different dictionaries that the adjective “principal” is used to describe the importance of something, not the most of something.
The adjective “principal” is used to describe something’s quality, not quantity. Nowhere is it used to describe the “most” of something.
Just for laughs, let me share the definitions of the adjectives “chief” and “foremost” (which you also tried to use to explain away the actual definition of the adjective “principal”),
The adjective “chief” means,
“highest in rank or authority:
most important; principal:”
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/chief?s=t
“most important
Having or denoting the highest rank”
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/chief
"accorded highest rank or office
of greatest importance or influence”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chief
The adjective “foremost” means,
“first in place, order, rank, etc.:”
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/foremost?s=t
“Most prominent in rank, importance, or position:”
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/foremost
“first in a series or progression
of first rank or position”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foremost
Elder Bruce R. McConkie used the adjective "principal" to describe the importance of the Native Americans having a Lamanite lineage, nothing else.
YOU ARE WRONG. GET OVER IT.
Also, in regards to your other questions, present them to me as arguments. Show me all your examples and verses or whatever. I'm not going to do any more work than I have to.
Last edited:
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I've shown you as well that principal means primary, chief, foremost, etc., and you completely ignored the "Scottish" ancestry example I have. Last thing for you to consider. If "principal" meant "most important," why did the Church revise the language to "among"? Among is a reference to numbers. Why did they go from importance to numbers, thereby changing the meaning of the introduction? Doesn't it make more sense that they went from numbers to numbers, and made the revision because the scientific evidence demonstrated the original belief was wrong?
You would have some credibility if you just admitted the introduction page isn't necessarily canon, and that the Church honorably made revisions based on actual evidence and understanding, but you strike me as someone to proud to do that, and I suspect you'll keep playing these word games.
As for my other questions, nice cop out. My questions stand, and if you're afraid to tackle them then so be it. If some of the questions surprised you, feel free to admit you don't know the answer.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
This is not possible. This makes absolutely no sense.
The adjective “principal” means “most important”. That is reality. You “disagreeing” with that makes you delusional. You are denying reality.
No, you have not shown me anything. You just shared your opinion.
I showed you that “principal” is synonymous with “primary”, “chief” and “foremost” – all of which mean “most important”.
The adjective “primary” means “most important”.
The adjective “chief” means “most important”.
The adjective “foremost” means “most important”.
Trying to prove that “principal” does not mean “most important” by referencing synonymous adjectives (which also mean “most important”) makes no sense and also PROVES ME RIGHT!
What’s going on right now? Are you unable to read and process information?
Of course I ignored it. It was completely irrelevant.
Just because you want “principal” to mean “most” DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!
THE ENTIRE WORLD USES THE ADJECTIVE “PRINCIPAL” TO DESCRIBE SOMETHING AS “MOST IMPORTANT”. JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN’T OR WON’T ACCEPT THAT FACT CHANGES NOTHING. YOU ARE DENYING REALITY. YOU ARE DELUSIONAL.
If you actually read my comments you would already know my answer to that question.
I said in post #413,
“I don't know the exact reason, but if I had to guess I'd say that the Church made the change because they were getting a lot of flak from people who did not understand the definition of the word "principal".
Those confused people, members and non-members, erroneously thought that the Introduction to the Book of Mormon was stating that all Native Americans descended from Lamanites.
Since the Church never made that claim and did not want it to appear as if they had, they made the change.”
People like you who do not have a proper grasp of the English language (or reality) must have erroneously come to believe that the Church claimed that most or all of the Native Americans descend from the Lamanites.
The Church never made that claim.
The Church has always claimed that the Lamanites were the “most important’ ancestors of the Native Americans.
If the Church claimed that a specific ancestor was more important than another then the Church must obviously have also claimed that there were other ancestors.
You can’t have a “more important” ancestor if there are no other ancestors to compare them to.
The Church changing that one part of a single sentence in the Introduction from “principal” to “among” does not change the actual claims made by the Church or the Book of Mormon.
You being unable or unwilling to understand that is meaningless.
Why would you assume that?
Why would the Church need to change the “numbers” when the Church never made any claim about numbers?
NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE CHURCH’S CLAIM THAT THE LAMANITES WERE THE “MOST IMPORTANT” ANCESTORS OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS IS WRONG.
First, I already claimed a few times on this thread that the Introduction to the Book of Mormon was not cannon. I even asked you in post #411,
“Also, considering that the Introduction of the Book of Mormon was never considered revelation, how does changing it affect the Church in any way?”
Second, no scientific evidence contested the Church’s claim that the Lamanites were the “most important” ancestors of the Native Americans, so why would you claim that they would have needed to change that claim?
All the scientific evidence has proven is that the false narratives that you and others like have been making about the actual claims of the Book of Mormon and the Church do not stand under scrutiny.
THE CHURCH NEVER CLAIMED THAT MOST OR ALL OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS DESCENDED FROM THE LAMANITES. THAT IS A FALSE NARRATIVE CREATED BY DISHONEST OR CONFUSED PEOPLE.
Lastly, how is clarifying the actual definitions of the adjectives “principal”, “primary”, “chief” and “foremost” playing “word games”?
YOU CANNOT JUDGE THE ORIGINAL WORDING OF THE INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF MORMON BY YOUR INCORRECT DEFINITION OF THE WORD “PRINCIPAL”. ELDER BRUCE R. McCONKIE USED THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF THE ADJECTIVE “PRINCIPAL” TO DESCRIBE THAT THE LAMANITES WERE THE “MOST IMPORTANT” ANCESTOR OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS, NOT MOST OR ALL.
I am willing and able to address them, but I refuse to do more work than I have to.
Having a discussion with you is painful. You lack rationality. You are showing yourself to be more and more foolish with each comment you make. You deny reality and are too proud to admit when you are wrong. Your explanations and examples are senseless.
If I am to put myself through such an unbearable ordeal, you are going to need to put forth some effort, because so far all you have been doing is sharing your opinion, ignoring my sources and denying reality, which is not a discussion.
Basically, if you want an answer you’ll have to present the argument behind your question.
Primary, chief, foreMOST. It's crystal clear. You're being delusional.
Here's an article from Deseret News that quotes LDS scholars, BYU professors and others that all support my correct interpretation of the word "principal."
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ge-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html?pg=all
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
What a juvenile argument. What is this? Schoolyard frolics?
That's like saying that someone will die if they lower their food intake because the word "diet" has DIE in it.
I have shared the actual definitions of primary, chief and foremost from three different dictionaries and none of them agree with your nonsensical and false "definition".
You are wrong and you can't handle it. Plain and simple.
I have always said that many Church leaders and members shared your opinion about Elder Bruce R. McConkie's use of the adjective "principal" in the Introduction. That is not news.
Unfortunately for you, none of these members speak on behalf of the Church and their opinions are meaningless.
I won't be responding to you on this thread anymore. You are wrong and you make no sense. Talking to you is a waste of time.
Anything more you write here will simply make you look worse. I do recommend that you go back and actually read the discussion that has been taking place on this thread and come to know that Sapiens has not "bested" me in the slightest.
Later nerd.
I can't help crazy. Have a nice day.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
Hey, nice reference.
However, I don't understand how you could honestly claim that I am the one with no leg to stand on.
The word "principal" does not mean what you guys want it to mean. I can understand how frustrating that might be, but that's the price you must pay for basing your entire argument on a single word.
That argument is dead.
Also dead is the argument about iron and steel in the Book of Mormon. Both of those metals were rare and were considered to be precious metals by the Nephites. They were used solely for ornamentation and adornment by them.
So, let's let those dead horses lie and have you pick another soon-to-be dead argument.
I'm all ears.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
It's rather simple, when things are inconvenient for you, you deny and redefine. There is not evidence in the New World of all the things that you claim. There were no Nephites, there were no Lamanites, no Jaredites, no Mulekites, no elephants, no horses, no cows, no pigs, no goats, no honeybees, no barley, no wheat, no silk, no chariots, no other wheeled vehicles, no compass, no windows, no steel, no iron, no metal swords which had "rusted," no "cimiters," no system of exchange based on measures of precious metals. Add to that the numerous linguistic anachronisms and the anachronisms perpetuated by plagiarisms of the King James's translation and I've got to tell you, you're in a heap of trouble that even the most bizarre backpedaling, apologistics, distortions and special cases will not, realistically, get you out of. It is clear to any rational outside observer that Smith invented and plagiarized the whole fairy tale and the LDS has been left holding the bag, attempting to rationalize his lies and deceptions ever since. The Black Knight is a perfect representation of the yawning gap between LDS belief and reality.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
I understand that you like sharing these "laundry lists" of concerns so that you feel like you don't need to share any particular examples or sources. Or you do it as a tactic to try to overwhelm your opponent.
However, so far, every time we have focused on one particular claim or argument I easily dismantled it.
"Principal" means "most important". I did not have to "redefine" anything.
The Book of Mormon records that iron was rare and considered a precious metal by the Nephites. The only "denial" I am guilty of is "denying" that the assumptions made about the claims of the Book of Mormon are the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon.
You must concede these two arguments if you desire to remain honest.
I don't feel that there is any reason to stop there. Pick any one of the concerns you have and I will dismantle it as I have those other two I mentioned.
Go ahead. This should be fun.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
You've not dealt effectively with any of the anachronisms. Your approach is, as I detailed earlier, to find one grain of black sand on a white sand beach and then use that combined with a passel of hypotheticals (could have, might have, possibly, etc.) and then, pigeon chess style, you proclaim your inadequate, weasel word based apology to be triumphant. Deal with elephants please.
Last edited:
This.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
If by "important" you mean major contributor and if by "ancestor" you mean group, then you are most assuredly incorrect
Your playing weasel words.
It can identify the contribution to the gene pool.
It can be all those things, but it has been conclusively shown to be none of them, so which one is an unimportant side show.
Where is the issue? One does not negate the other...[/QUOTE]
The issue is that DNA studies fail to find that there ever were any Lamanites, Nephites, Jaredites, or Mulekites. There is no evidence of middle eastern ancestry in the Mesoamerican gene pool, period, end of story.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
I don't know.
I thought proving that what the Book of Mormon records about the Nephite use of iron agreeing with what we know about what ancient peoples in the New World did with it was pretty effective.
If the Book of Mormon records a single "grain of black sand", how does the discovery of a single "grain of black sand" not support the Book of Mormon record?
Your opinion about my refusal to jump to conclusions does not mean that the conclusion you jumped to is correct.
Your refusal to consider other relevant information that could explain other possibilities does not (and should not) reflect negatively on me.
Also, bringing up other possibilities is not an attempt by me to be "triumphant". It just demonstrates that there is no reason to jump to conclusions.
Your behavior in this thread makes you the "pigeon" in the pigeon chess scenario.
Didn't you and rrosskopf go over this already?
It is a fact that mammoths and mastodons existed on the North American continent. When they became extinct is a matter of opinion.
You already know that using the adjective "principal" to describe the quality of having Lamanite ancestry does not mean that the Lamanites were a "major contributor".
Please explain how my using the actual definition of the adjective "principal" (verified by three different dictionaries) is me "playing with weasel words".
Does the term "weasel word" mean "words you don't like" or "words that are inconvenient for you"?
The adjective "principal" does not mean what you want it to mean. Get over it.
You can identify if someone descends from the tribe of Ephraim or Manasseh?
Both tribes were scattered by the Assyrians and later prophets regarded them as lost tribes of Israel who inhabited the "isles of the sea".
There you go jumping to conclusions again.
Have all Native Americans been compared to a member of the tribe of Ephraim or Manasseh from the Middle East of 600 B.C.E.?
To what era of Middle Eastern ancestry is the DNA being compared?
Do you think that Middle Eastern DNA from 600 B.C.E. is the same as Middle Eastern DNA today?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
That is evident.
Had you actually done so that might be true, but all you did (in fact) was play with definitions and create weasel word aplogetics.
Because the claim is not that there is a single grain of black sand, the claim is that there is a black sand beach and the single grain in use with appropriate weasel words to pretend that this single grain is evidence that supports the greater claim, while in fact it does no such thing.
You try to make the jump from one grain to an entire beach (more of that later). I make no jump, I just say that if your claim for the greater does not hold without the weasel words, it simply does not hold.
I will consider any relevant material, you just have none that survives without modifiers like "might" or "perhaps" or "maybe." It is like the old saw, "If my grandmother had two wheels, she might be a bicycle." The problem is that she doesn't and so she isn't.
There a saying for this too since your possibles are improbably far-fetched and fly in the face of the facts on the ground: It is important to keep an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out.
Hardly.
Not really, he, like you, could do naught but post claims that were only differentiated from clear outright lies by modifying weasel words. Claiming that something "might have been" or "could have been" has little relevance when such a claim has a very low base probability and the modifiers are used to paper over the overwhelming improbability of the base claim. In science we use such words also, but when we use them it is to indicate that there is a very small degree of uncertainty. It is deceitful to pretend that the usages are the same or even similar.
He summed his approach to the facts rather clearly, "Our belief in the Book of Mormon is a spiritual conviction; our certainty is not based on scientific discovery." That is a scientific dead end.
Yet he claims that :There was no way for Joseph Smith or anyone else in 1830 to know that elephants and horses and barley are indigenous to North America; yet science has proven that they are." This is a bizarre attempt to turn a clear error in fact, one that was obviously caused by Smith's lack of knowledge and assumption that the world was the same everywhere, into transubstantiated proof of Smith's prescience.
Yes it is a fact that mammoths and mastodons existed in North America. It is also a fact that neither the African nor Indian Elephants ever did. But, for the moment, let's over look that problem. When the became extinct is not really a matter of opinion, it is a matter of the age of the youngest finds. There is only one find, from about 1700 BCE, that gets into they mythical Jaredite times. That is from a remnant, tiny population on Wrangle Island, Alaska, hardly a place that Smith was referencing and most assuredly no meeting the meaning or intent of Ether 9:16 to 9:19, which basically brags on the riches and success of the house of Emer:
9:16 And the Lord began again to take the curse from off the land, and the house of Emer did prosper eexceedingly under the reign of Emer; and in the space of sixty and two years they had become eexceedingly strong, insomuch that they became exceedingly rich --
9:17 Having all manner of fruit, and of grain, and of silks, and of fine linen, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things;
9:18 And also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man.
9:19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.
As an aside, what were the cureloms and cumoms?
Note that they had "horses, and asses" (no they did not) and ESPECIALLY the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.
That clearly requires something more than a few elephants isolated on Wrangle Island and suggest that the remains of two unknown animals should be cosmopolitan.
That was not my claim.
You use weasel words, as described earlier, to deceive. Claiming that something "might have been" or "could have been" has little relevance when such a claim has a very low base probability and the modifiers are used to paper over the overwhelming improbability of the base claim. In science we use such words also, but when we use them it is to indicate that there is a very small degree of uncertainty. It is deceitful to pretend that the usages are the same or even similar.
Irrelevant since the DNA evidence falsifies regardless of the way you choose to define "principal".
Sure, rather easy.
There are no Middle Eastern genetic markers found in precolombian Amerindians.
It has been conclusively shown to be none of them, so which one is an unimportant side show. Denial is not a river in Egypt.
That sort of comparison is not needed, read up on genetic markers.
Your lack of background in genetics and how it works is showing. The extremists' last refuge in these discussions always comes around to the "common sense" of those woefully ignorant of the details of the subject.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
I am seeing that most, if not all, of your concerns can be solved by simply reading the Book of Mormon.
Does the Book of Mormon claim that the Nephites used iron and steel to forge weapons?
Or did they consider them to be precious metals and used them solely for ornamentation and adornment?
Does the Book of Mormon record the scarcity of iron in the Nephite lands?
What does the Book of Mormon record about the Nephite’s use of iron or steel that does not agree with what we have come to know about how the ancient peoples of the Americas used iron and steel?
Can you also share a source that defines what a “weasel word” is? Or that apologetics are inherently incorrect?
The Book of Mormon records that iron was scarce among the Nephites. It was only found and used in one location in the Lehite lands.
The Book of Mormon also records that the Nephites considered iron to be a precious metal and used it solely for ornamentation and adornment of their palaces and temples.
When you claim that ancient Mesoamerican people did not use iron for armor or weapons and the Book of Mormon claims that neither did the Nephites, how is that a “single grain of black sand”?
When archeologists prove that iron ornamentation and adornments were made and used by the ancient peoples of both North and South America, how is that a “single grain of black sand”?
How is mentioning what the Book of Mormon recorded a claim to a “black sand beach”?
I think you are becoming confused by your own black sand beach analogy.
You jump to the conclusion that if we do not have evidence to support a claim then that claim must be false.
There is no possibility of error. There is no hope of future discoveries. No chance that current theories could be challenged by new science or technologies.
There is nothing wrong with using words like “might” or “possibly”, if there is no evidence found that destroys the possibility of a claim.
I believe that there is intelligent life out in the universe. Just because we have not found any evidence of that yet, that does not make my belief false.
There might be intelligent life out there. There is a possibility of that.
If we lived by your example, we would never consider the possibility of intelligent life in the universe because we had not yet found any evidence of it. The improbability would be too high to consider it. The universe is mostly an empty cold vacuum anyway.
If the chances of finding intelligent life aren’t that great, we should just claim that we will never find any.
Not only that, but we would also refuse to even read the actual claims made by someone with a dissenting opinion. We would just make up our own interpretations of what they claimed and combat those false narratives.
Your method doesn’t really sound like the scholarly approach to me.
If you did this then you wouldn’t “stonewall” at the idea of the Jaredites having some elephants.
You see something you disagree with and then say to yourself, “That’s wrong, so everything is wrong and there is no reason to consider anything else, because that first thing was wrong.”
In your mind there is no possibility of you being wrong and no chance that the Book of Mormon might be true.
No wonder you don’t like “weasel words”. You’d hate to think that there is any possibility that you might be wrong.
What about using iron to forge armor and weapons? The scarcity of it? The Lamanites using it?
Did I say that the Book of Mormon might record the answer to these questions or did I say that the Book of Mormon does record the answers to these questions?
Are you talking about my belief that there is other intelligent life in the universe? I know that it is improbable that we will find any, but dang, I just can’t let that fact lead me to believe that we are all alone.
Or wait, are you talking about the possibility of the Book of Mormon being true? You know, we haven’t been able to prove everything about the Book of Mormon yet, but dang, I just can’t let that fact lead me to believe that it all must be false.
There are just too many things right for me to be able to claim it’s all false.
Can you share an example of me doing this in regards to iron and steel in the Book of Mormon?
Does the Book of Mormon claim that the Nephites used iron and steel to forge weapons?
Or did they consider them to be precious metals and used them solely for ornamentation and adornment?
Does the Book of Mormon record the scarcity of iron in the Nephite lands?
What does the Book of Mormon record about the Nephite’s use of iron or steel that does not agree with what we have come to know about how the ancient peoples of the Americas used iron and steel?
Can you also share a source that defines what a “weasel word” is? Or that apologetics are inherently incorrect?
Can you give me an example of me doing this?
The Book of Mormon records that iron was scarce among the Nephites. It was only found and used in one location in the Lehite lands.
The Book of Mormon also records that the Nephites considered iron to be a precious metal and used it solely for ornamentation and adornment of their palaces and temples.
When you claim that ancient Mesoamerican people did not use iron for armor or weapons and the Book of Mormon claims that neither did the Nephites, how is that a “single grain of black sand”?
When archeologists prove that iron ornamentation and adornments were made and used by the ancient peoples of both North and South America, how is that a “single grain of black sand”?
How is mentioning what the Book of Mormon recorded a claim to a “black sand beach”?
Where have I done that? Where have I said that any of the examples I have shared “prove” the Book of Mormon to be true?
I think you are becoming confused by your own black sand beach analogy.
You completely jump. That is all you do.
You jump to the conclusion that if we do not have evidence to support a claim then that claim must be false.
There is no possibility of error. There is no hope of future discoveries. No chance that current theories could be challenged by new science or technologies.
There is nothing wrong with using words like “might” or “possibly”, if there is no evidence found that destroys the possibility of a claim.
I believe that there is intelligent life out in the universe. Just because we have not found any evidence of that yet, that does not make my belief false.
There might be intelligent life out there. There is a possibility of that.
If we lived by your example, we would never consider the possibility of intelligent life in the universe because we had not yet found any evidence of it. The improbability would be too high to consider it. The universe is mostly an empty cold vacuum anyway.
If the chances of finding intelligent life aren’t that great, we should just claim that we will never find any.
Not only that, but we would also refuse to even read the actual claims made by someone with a dissenting opinion. We would just make up our own interpretations of what they claimed and combat those false narratives.
Your method doesn’t really sound like the scholarly approach to me.
Nope. You don’t do this.
If you did this then you wouldn’t “stonewall” at the idea of the Jaredites having some elephants.
You see something you disagree with and then say to yourself, “That’s wrong, so everything is wrong and there is no reason to consider anything else, because that first thing was wrong.”
In your mind there is no possibility of you being wrong and no chance that the Book of Mormon might be true.
No wonder you don’t like “weasel words”. You’d hate to think that there is any possibility that you might be wrong.
Did I say that the Book of Mormon might record that iron was considered a precious metal or did I say that the Book of Mormon does record that?
What about using iron to forge armor and weapons? The scarcity of it? The Lamanites using it?
Did I say that the Book of Mormon might record the answer to these questions or did I say that the Book of Mormon does record the answers to these questions?
Yeah, these sayings aren’t really doing it for me. You should just stick with making up false narratives and not reading the Book of Mormon. At least that provides me a modicum of entertainment.
Are you talking about my belief that there is other intelligent life in the universe? I know that it is improbable that we will find any, but dang, I just can’t let that fact lead me to believe that we are all alone.
Or wait, are you talking about the possibility of the Book of Mormon being true? You know, we haven’t been able to prove everything about the Book of Mormon yet, but dang, I just can’t let that fact lead me to believe that it all must be false.
There are just too many things right for me to be able to claim it’s all false.
No way! You disagree with me? I never saw that coming.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
Oh ok. I need to ask you a question and it’s the kicker!
What do you think the “base claim” is? And how much do you want to bet that what you think the “base claim” is is actually not what the Book of Mormon or the Church claims at all?
Oh yes, because you are one of the “science”, while I and rrosskopf are not?
That’s why you use “we” instead of “they” or just making a statement about what scientists do without including yourself and excluding me and rrosskopf?
So, we disagree on how to interpret the evidence and that means no “Mormon” can be one of the “science”.
How egotistical.
Please provide an example and source for this assertion.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
More like a scientific highway.
It is not bogged down by the arrogance of thinking “we” know everything and have discovered everything that can ever be discovered.
This statement actually hurts your case.
If Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and he did so under the assumption that the world was the same everywhere, then why does the Book of Mormon not describe armor-clad armies wielding steel weapons on horseback or atop wheeled-chariots?
Joseph Smith would have “expected” this to be the “norm” of any advanced civilization, if he had assumed that the world was the same everywhere.
However, the Book of Mormon notes a lack of iron and records that the Nephites considered it a precious metal and never once mentions the Nephites forging any armor or weapons out of it. The Book of Mormon mentions the Nephites making armor out of “thick cloth”, but that was it.
So, if Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and he did so under the false assumption that the world was the same everywhere, why are things in the Book of Mormon not the same?
How is that a problem?
You keep forgetting that the Book of Mormon is a work of translation. Did Joseph Smith even know the words “mammoth” or “mastodon”?
Why would it be a “problem” for him to describe such creatures, which resemble the modern-day elephant, as elephants?
Exactly. We can only base when they became extinct upon what we have found.
Are you claiming that “we” (I am including myself in the “science” despite your ego) have found every single mammoth corpse? Or can you promise me that the youngest find “we” have is indeed the most recent?
Proving that it is possible for mammoths to have survived into Jaredite times.
Considering that the most likely reason that the mammoth became extinct was due to human hunting, what if there was a group or groups of people who decided not to hunt them, but to tame them?
No idea.
Again, you jump to conclusions.
The “especially” that you emphasized was not about the quantity of elephants, but about the quality or value. The elephants, cureloms and cumoms were “especially” useful unto man.
There is no mention of how many of these creatures the house of Emer had and there is “especially” nothing in the text that suggests that the Jaredites had a lot of either or if they were breeding them or anything at all.
They were mentioned only the one time which suggests a scarcity.
Also, the cureloms and cumoms are not necessarily “unknown”. “We” just probably know them by different names.
Yes it was.
In post #420 I said, “Using the word "principal" as an adjective is describing that ancestry as "most important" or "chief" or "foremost".”
In post #436 you quoted my statement above and said, “[You’re] playing weasel words.”
Obviously, your claim was that my using the actual definition of the adjective “principal” was an attempt to play with “weasel words”.
What “base claim”?
That the adjective “principal” means “most important”?
That the Book of Mormon does not describe iron-clad armies wielding steel weapons riding horseback or atop wheeled-chariots?
That the Book of Ether mentioned elephants one time in a location where mammoths and mastodons were known to have lived and at a time that has been proven that mammoths could have lived if left unmolested?
You have provided no evidence that supports this claim.
Easy to say, but impossible to prove.
How does an Ephraimite differentiate from a Manassehite?
How does this claim affect the Book of Mormon’s claim that only members from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh in 600 B.C.E migrated to the New World?
Ignoring the fact that nothing has been “conclusively shown”, you admit that the adjective “principal” means “most important” and that the change made in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon does not affect the claims made by the Book of Mormon concerning the descendants of the Lamanites?
No, you need to show me that that sort of comparison is not needed.
No more claiming that I’m wrong or ignorant. How about you actually show how I am? When I claimed that you were wrong or ignorant about the Book of Mormon, I quoted the relevant verses to educate you.
Show me some incontrovertible evidence. Educate me.
Again, all I need to do is clarify the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon to combat your “evidence”.
Educate me and then I will educate you.