Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

[Thief]

I never really thought about it this way. I always thought about it more in terms of a lack of historical record, including artistic.
Early Muslim traders in Australia predated European 'discovery' and there is substantial artistic (both oral and physical) and artifact-based evidence of their visits. There is also technological introductions, despite these not relying on any particular material improvements (eg. canoe design changed) I'll readily admit this was in a much later period (1600's) but the introduction of a new, completely alien culture is a substantive event, and the lack of record seems...curious.

there's a lot of 'artifact' out there.....so much of it not having a signature....

 

[Nietzsche]

Why? Because all Mormons are liars? Do you think the pictures are photoshopped? Perhaps we have a mole that put the Anthon characters into the Demonische Grammatik? Shall we just wait for all the die-hard atheists to get baptized Mormon before we open our eyes? ;-)

Liars? No, not at all(genuinely, I don't assume people are lying just because I think they're wrong, I don't doubt that you and others are telling me the truth to the best of your ability). Just, there is a vested interest in a certain result, and I cannot find even if the article has been peer-reviewed.

 

[rrosskopf]

Making it to North or South America from Arabia is a wholly different beast from making it just to Africa.

True enough. Nephi's brothers rebelled against him saying that he was crazy and didn't know anything about building a ship. Nephi claims to have been instructed by God to build a new type of ship, something wholly different than the other ships of the day. Anyone who balks at the idea of God will certainly have trouble with believing in revelation from God. Personally, I don't have a problem with revelation. I've learned many things through revelation. Clearly I don't live in your world, and you don't live in mine. I believe revelation is as real as water. I have no doubt at all that the Lord could show me how to build a better ship.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes - and none of these criticisms refute any of his work. They are vague, and reek of sour grapes. Anyone who has done any research knows the difficulty in maintaining proper references. These criticisms are vague because the skeptics couldn't find anything more substantial to say. It is ridiculous to suggest that we can't compare the Book of Mormon to other ancient texts. Their criticism is that he did too good of a job.

Actually I find: "The number of parallels that Nibley has been able to uncover from amazingly disparate and arcane sources is truly staggering. Unfortunately, there seems to be a neglect of any methodological reflection or articulation in this endeavor." to be quite a refutation as well as to the point, sorry about your grapes.

 

[Tumah]

The Hebrew word for "steel" can refer to any hard alloy, whether iron or bronze or brass, so it is illogical to assume carbon steel.

Can you site a source for this bit of information? Or perhaps a word? I don't believe there is a Biblical word for "steel" or "alloy". In the Bible, iron is ברזל and copper is נחושת.
Thanks.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

there's a lot of 'artifact' out there.....so much of it not having a signature....

Sorry, not quite sure what you mean.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

True enough. Nephi's brothers rebelled against him saying that he was crazy and didn't know anything about building a ship. Nephi claims to have been instructed by God to build a new type of ship, something wholly different than the other ships of the day. Anyone who balks at the idea of God will certainly have trouble with believing in revelation from God. Personally, I don't have a problem with revelation. I've learned many things through revelation. Clearly I don't live in your world, and you don't live in mine. I believe revelation is as real as water. I have no doubt at all that the Lord could show me how to build a better ship.

But don't you think others would copy the design? Or that there would be record of it?
To re-iterate, early Muslim landings in Australia resulted in modified canoe-design, despite them not requiring any modified material at all. And the type of boat required here would have been quite out of the ordinary.

 

[Thief]

Sorry, not quite sure what you mean.

some religions develop some the most odd of restrictions....
I've heard of some chicken farmers have electric lights in the coop.....but not the house....

 

[rrosskopf]

Unfortunately, there seems to be a neglect of any methodological reflection or articulation in this endeavor.

Methodological Reflection? I'm glad that one of us understands the statement. If only he had reflected more... then the critics would have said... what?

 

[Sapiens]

The reformed Egyptian characters are one of the strongest evidences of authenticity. Almost every character had either an exact match or a close match to the Egyptian Demotic. Even the word "Mormon" was found spelled out in the Demotic.
http://www.shields-research.org/Scriptures/BoM/Anthon_Transcript-Crowley/1942_02-IE.PDF

Sorry, but you are way off base.

Professor Charles Anthon (for whom the Anthon Transcript was named) wrote: "The whole story about my pronouncing the Mormon inscription to be reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain, apparently simple-hearted farmer called on me with a note from Dr. Mitchell, of our city, now dead, requesting me to decipher, if possible, the paper which the farmer would hand me. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick—perhaps a hoax.... I have frequently conversed with friends on the subject since the Mormon excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained anything else but Egyptian hieroglyphics." Here's Anthon's complete letter.

It should also be noted that the only written language developed by the American Indians was Mayan, which bears absolutely no similarity to the Anthon script. Professor Michael D. Coe, Yale University, wrote: "Of all the peoples of the pre-Columbian New World, only the ancient Maya had a complete script: they could write down anything they wanted to, in their own language." (Breaking the Maya Code, by Michael D. Coe, Thames and Hudson, 1992). No sample of the Anthon type of writing has ever been found in the Americas.

Methodological Reflection? I'm glad that one of us understands the statement. If only he had reflected more... then the critics would have said... what?

I would have expected that ridiculing that which you do not understand would be beneath you. I advise careful consideration of Thomas Aquinas, with respect to both the anti-intellectualism you aim at Douglas F. Salmon (without even addressing his criticism citing "parallelomania") and the lack of necessary scientific learning that you express:

"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."

Do have a look at: Galileo on the World Systems: A New Abridged Translation and Guide, Galileo Galile, University of California Press, Apr 25, 1997

and, "Methodological Reflection" is also know as Meta-cognition. See: Chapter 6 in Practical Reasoning: International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, FAPR'96, Bonn, Germany, June (3-7), 1996. Proceedings.

 

[rrosskopf]

The whole story about my pronouncing the Mormon inscription to be reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics is perfectly false.

Charles Anthon was later caught in this lie, when he changed his story. I believe Martin Harris's account. It was his money that was at stake. Charles Anthon was more concerned with his reputation.

It should also be noted that the only written language developed by the American Indians was Mayan, which bears absolutely no similarity to the Anthon script

That is not true. Symbols from an older language have been found which do resemble characters on the Anthon transcript. I have photographs in my collection. A friend and amateur archeologist has one or two of the actual stones that were found in Mexico.

I would have expected that ridiculing that which you do not understand would be beneath you.

I think you are purposely being obtuse to avoid acknowledging an obvious point. You are just parroting the statements of others without using that clever mind of yours to evaluate their statements. I think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. You've presented nothing new. I've read all of these statements before. The skeptics are using an old trick called propaganda; one takes a positive and turns it into a negative. Like you, they didn't want to admit that they were impressed with Nibley's scholarship.

The number of parallels that Nibley has been able to uncover from amazingly disparate and arcane sources is truly staggering.

What higher praise, than to accuse someone of studying a staggering amount of disparate and arcane sources, while investigating something? It's called being thorough. Nibley was a genius who devoured books, often quoting passages written in ancient languages from memory. Parallelomania is misused here; it refers to quality, not quantity. It infers trifling parallels, not an abundance of parallels. The critics were trying to save face; they were in way over their heads, and they tried to put the blame of their own inadequacy to investigate the topic on Nibley.

 

[rrosskopf]

Can you site a source for this bit of information? Or perhaps a word? I don't believe there is a Biblical word for "steel" or "alloy". In the Bible, iron is ברזל and copper is נחושת.
Thanks.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. My mistake. It is bronze, brass and copper that all share the same word (נְחוּשָׁה), which is sometimes translated as "steel" in the KJV. The word refers to copper and its alloys, but doesn't refer to alloys in general. Iron is a separate word.

 

[Sapiens]

Charles Anthon was later caught in this lie, when he changed his story. I believe Martin Harris's account. It was his money that was at stake. Charles Anthon was more concerned with his reputation.

Logic argues for Anthon:

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash. 'Tis something, nothing:
'Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands.
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him
And makes me poor indeed.
- William Shakespeare, Othello, Act 3, Scene 3

That is not true. Symbols from an older language have been found which do resemble characters on the Anthon transcript. I have photographs in my collection. A friend and amateur archeologist has one or two of the actual stones that were found in Mexico.

If that is the case, you'd think it would be all over the non-apologist Mesoamerican archaeology journals. Got a citation or is this just another of your claims, to be made and then ignored, in the faint hope of piling a mass of trash so high and so large that it will be confused for real evidence rather than and edifice of purification.

I think you are purposely being obtuse to avoid acknowledging an obvious point. You are just parroting the statements of others without using that clever mind of yours to evaluate their statements.

I strongly resent the implication of thoughtlessness. I make arguments that that others have made before me and the fact that we all, all trained scientists agree should be seen as mutually supporting not degenerated as parroting. If any should be accused of merely parroting is the apologist amateur who mouths predigested conclusions without ever having conducted an objective inquiry concerning the facts.

I think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. You've presented nothing new. I've read all of these statements before. The skeptics are using an old trick called propaganda; one takes a positive and turns it into a negative. Like you, they didn't want to admit that they were impressed with Nibley's scholarship.

You are making claims that you are ill prepared to support. Let's hear your scholarly rebuttal of Kent P. Jackson, Ronald V. Huggins and Douglas F. Salmon criticisms. That will be interesting considering that you lack, by your own admission, the understanding of one of the basic tools of the investigation., You do not even know what the word "propaganda" actually means, and in your next paragraph you commit just that which you accuse me of under the misnomer of "propaganda" (perhaps you meant "doublethink"?):

What higher praise, than to accuse someone of studying a staggering amount of disparate and arcane sources, while investigating something? It's called being thorough. Nibley was a genius who devoured books, often quoting passages written in ancient languages from memory.

No, in this case it is not thorough, it is more akin to finding bogeymen under every bed in the town.

Am I to take it that Nibley's alleged IQ, appetite for books and ability to quote ancient passages from memory infers something outside of your everyday experience? I'd say those three attributes are characteristic of any number of people I know.

Parallelomania is misused here; it refers to quality, not quantity. It infers trifling parallels, not an abundance of parallels. The critics were trying to save face; they were in way over their heads, and they tried to put the blame of their own inadequacy to investigate the topic on Nibley.

You make a claim, and in doing so libel well respected scholars. You appear to be unable to support your claim, unable to reference refutations of their critiques, unable to even produce Nibley's own defense of himself. All you can do is say that his critics were "trying to save face." You fail to even make a case that they had lost face.

But enough of this distraction. Distraction is all you seem to be able to serve up. There are any number of factual issues here on the table that you have failed, woefully, to address ... the problems of iron, alcohol and the wheel as raised by Nietzsche and the biological issues that I raised.

I paraphrase Thomas Aquinas this time: "The truth of the Book of Mormon becomes a matter of ridicule among the gentiles if any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false."

 

[rrosskopf]

Logic argues for Anthon

There is no doubt that Charles Anthon and Martin Harris met and discussed the transcription of characters from the Book of Mormon. Their memories of the event focus on different parts of the conversation, and are not entirely mutually exclusive. Charles Anthon stated in his testimony that "...the paper contained any thing else but 'Egyptian Hieroglyphics.' " I believe him. I don't believe there was a single Egyptian Hieroglyphic on the transcription. Perhaps Martin Harris did ask if they were "hieroglyphics"; he was a simple farmer after all. What Charles Anthon doesn't say, in his testimony, is that there is no Egyptian Demotic on the plates. I have already submitted photographic proof that there was, in fact, Egyptian Demotic on the plates. So Anthon was completely truthful, in that regard, but it is totally irrelevant.
Anthon goes on to say that he believed it to be a hoax, perpetrated on the farmer, and advised the farmer to "beware of rogues". According to Harris, it isn't until the mention of angels that the conversation takes a turn, and the characters become a "hoax". So although he leaves out a large segment of the conversation (they both do), Anthon could still be telling the truth from his point of view. To a man of science, nothing screams hoax like a visit from an angel. The only real testimony that seems at odds is whether or not Anthon initially provided a written statement. According to Harris, he tore it up, so in Anthon's mind he can truthfully say that he didn't (ultimately) supply a written statement - certainly not suggesting that there were Hieroglyphics on the transcription. In a second letter, Anthon stated that he did in fact supply a written statement - that it was a hoax, perjuring his own earlier testimony.

In any regard, Harris went and got a written statement from another expert, that the characters were genuine, and then went home and mortgaged his farm to pay for the printing of the book.

Charles Anthon was an expert on Greek and Latin; I haven't been able to ascertain whether he even knew about the Egyptian Demotic. The Rosetta Stone had been discovered almost 30 years prior, and it contained both the Demotic and Hieroglyphic, so there were people who were working on a translation of the Demotic, but I don't know how far they had gotten. According to Harris, Anthon remarked that "the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian." That is a real problem. Nothing in Anthon's history would suggest that he could translate it, let alone comment on someone else's translation. Few people have perfect memories of conversations, so we can't rely on it being word for word. If Anthon had made any remarks regarding the "translation", as mentioned by Harris, then it was likely hubris, or misconstrued, or a combination of both. Perhaps Anthon gave the impression of expertise that he didn't really have. Pride is no stranger to academics.

If that is the case, you'd think it would be all over the non-apologist Mesoamerican archaeology journals. Got a citation or is this just another of your claims, to be made and then ignored, in the faint hope of piling a mass of trash so high and so large that it will be confused for real evidence rather than and edifice of purification.

Mormons are pariahs. No non-Mormon archeologist wants to get involved. Photographs of Nephite script on stella can be found in the book "The Lives and Travels of Mormon and Moroni" by Ainsworth. You can also find photographs in American Antiquity, Volume 31, Number 5, Part 1 JULY 1966, page 744 of an Olmec cylinder seal that displays unknown script.

Let's hear your scholarly rebuttal of Kent P. Jackson, Ronald V. Huggins and Douglas F. Salmon criticisms. That will be interesting considering that you lack, by your own admission, the understanding of one of the basic tools of the investigation., You do not even know what the word "propaganda" actually means

Ouch. According to Dictionary.com, "Propaganda" is "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc" I thought of it more as a spinning of a positive thing into a negative thing, designed to harm a person, group, etc. Certainly, accusing Nibley of parallelomania qualifies as propaganda, albeit marginally.

Kent P. Jackson has said both positive and negative things about various published works of Nibley. That is what honesty looks like; it sees both the good and the bad. Propaganda, on the other hand, is usually easy to recognize because it is all bad. Jackson praised “The Passing of the Primitive Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme” (Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol 4) as among Nibley’s finest works. He also stated "It is an honor for me to include a discussion of the apostasy in a volume that celebrates the contributions of Hugh W. Nibley, whose writings contain numerous references to the fall of the Early Christian Church. Over the years he has demonstrated that the Latter-day Saint position on this matter is defensible by an appeal to the earliest Christian documents, including the New Testament itself. In his studies in early Christian history he has pointed out convincingly that the Christian church of the second century was not the same as that of the first."
So Jackson was a fan of Hugh Nibley. He criticism was for the book "The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley. Vol. 1, Old Testament and Related Studies". I haven't personally read this book, so I can't comment on his opinions regarding Nibley's methodology in discussing the Old Testament. As he himself points out; some of these articles were originally speeches and not meant to be printed. His main complaint seems to be with the editor, who insisted on including everything that Nibley ever said or wrote about the Old Testament. He also complained about not being able to find some of the more obscure references. At no time did he suggest the references were faked.

Here is a review of Ronald V Huggins comments. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/20/2/S00011-5176a42ef25e111Ricks.pdf
Here is a review of Douglas F. Salmon's criticism. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/13/2/S00011-51ba01bc21b9c11Hamblin.pdf

 

[Sapiens]

There is no doubt that Charles Anthon and Martin Harris met and discussed the transcription of characters from the Book of Mormon. Their memories of the event focus on different parts of the conversation, and are not entirely mutually exclusive. Charles Anthon stated in his testimony that "...the paper contained any thing else but 'Egyptian Hieroglyphics.' " I believe him. I don't believe there was a single Egyptian Hieroglyphic on the transcription. Perhaps Martin Harris did ask if they were "hieroglyphics"; he was a simple farmer after all. What Charles Anthon doesn't say, in his testimony, is that there is no Egyptian Demotic on the plates. I have already submitted photographic proof that there was, in fact, Egyptian Demotic on the plates. So Anthon was completely truthful, in that regard, but it is totally irrelevant.
Anthon goes on to say that he believed it to be a hoax, perpetrated on the farmer, and advised the farmer to "beware of rogues". According to Harris, it isn't until the mention of angels that the conversation takes a turn, and the characters become a "hoax". So although he leaves out a large segment of the conversation (they both do), Anthon could still be telling the truth from his point of view. To a man of science, nothing screams hoax like a visit from an angel. The only real testimony that seems at odds is whether or not Anthon initially provided a written statement. According to Harris, he tore it up, so in Anthon's mind he can truthfully say that he didn't (ultimately) supply a written statement - certainly not suggesting that there were Hieroglyphics on the transcription. In a second letter, Anthon stated that he did in fact supply a written statement - that it was a hoax, perjuring his own earlier testimony.

In any regard, Harris went and got a written statement from another expert, that the characters were genuine, and then went home and mortgaged his farm to pay for the printing of the book.

Charles Anthon was an expert on Greek and Latin; I haven't been able to ascertain whether he even knew about the Egyptian Demotic. The Rosetta Stone had been discovered almost 30 years prior, and it contained both the Demotic and Hieroglyphic, so there were people who were working on a translation of the Demotic, but I don't know how far they had gotten. According to Harris, Anthon remarked that "the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian." That is a real problem. Nothing in Anthon's history would suggest that he could translate it, let alone comment on someone else's translation. Few people have perfect memories of conversations, so we can't rely on it being word for word. If Anthon had made any remarks regarding the "translation", as mentioned by Harris, then it was likely hubris, or misconstrued, or a combination of both. Perhaps Anthon gave the impression of expertise that he didn't really have. Pride is no stranger to academics.

All this is just a side show, a red herring that you dragged across the trail to put everyone off the scent. The fact is that, very few, if any non-Mormon experts have anything except disdain for any claim concerning Reformed Egyptian, they all say that it is a fraud.

Mormons are pariahs. No non-Mormon archeologist wants to get involved. Photographs of Nephite script on stella can be found in the book "The Lives and Travels of Mormon and Moroni" by Ainsworth. You can also find photographs in American Antiquity, Volume 31, Number 5, Part 1 JULY 1966, page 744 of an Olmec cylinder seal that displays unknown script.

Ah, now we get down to it ... paraniod delusions in place of acceptance that Reformed Egyptian is fraudulent. Good show!

Ouch. According to Dictionary.com, "Propaganda" is "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc" I thought of it more as a spinning of a positive thing into a negative thing, designed to harm a person, group, etc. Certainly, accusing Nibley of parallelomania qualifies as propaganda, albeit marginally.

About as marginally as the issues already raised about iron, steel, wheels and bio-geography.

Kent P. Jackson has said both positive and negative things about various published works of Nibley. That is what honesty looks like; it sees both the good and the bad. Propaganda, on the other hand, is usually easy to recognize because it is all bad. Jackson praised “The Passing of the Primitive Church: Forty Variations on an Unpopular Theme” (Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Vol 4) as among Nibley’s finest works. He also stated "It is an honor for me to include a discussion of the apostasy in a volume that celebrates the contributions of Hugh W. Nibley, whose writings contain numerous references to the fall of the Early Christian Church. Over the years he has demonstrated that the Latter-day Saint position on this matter is defensible by an appeal to the earliest Christian documents, including the New Testament itself. In his studies in early Christian history he has pointed out convincingly that the Christian church of the second century was not the same as that of the first."

So Jackson was a fan of Hugh Nibley. He criticism was for the book "The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley. Vol. 1, Old Testament and Related Studies". I haven't personally read this book, so I can't comment on his opinions regarding Nibley's methodology in discussing the Old Testament. As he himself points out; some of these articles were originally speeches and not meant to be printed. His main complaint seems to be with the editor, who insisted on including everything that Nibley ever said or wrote about the Old Testament. He also complained about not being able to find some of the more obscure references. At no time did he suggest the references were faked.

Here is a review of Ronald V Huggins comments. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/20/2/S00011-5176a42ef25e111Ricks.pdf
Here is a review of Douglas F. Salmon's criticism. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/13/2/S00011-51ba01bc21b9c11Hamblin.pdf

Those links don't work, but that doesn't matter, let's get back to facts that can be demonstrated and leave the reinterpretation of what people said and might have thought a century ago to the apologists. What about iron, steel, wheels and bio-geography? Your case(s) there are still exceedingly weak.

 

[Nietzsche]

An individual I've recently stumbled upon;

Thomas W. Murphy, a Mormon anthropologist.

Any thoughts on this individual from the Mormons here?

 

[rrosskopf]

All this is just a side show, a red herring that you dragged across the trail to put everyone off the scent. The fact is that, very few, if any non-Mormon experts have anything except disdain for any claim concerning Reformed Egyptian, they all say that it is a fraud.

After 50 years, why has no one come forward claiming the article is a fraud? It should be easy to look at the actual book and see if the photos are real. Fill free to do so, if you think there is a chance. I'm betting that the photos are real and the reason that no one has refuted this evidence is because they can't. I know for a fact that everything the church produces is scrutinized for error by hundreds of critics, skeptics and exmormons. The change of a single word in the introduction to the Book of Mormon caused an uproar. Yet all I hear are crickets.

Ah, now we get down to it ... paraniod delusions in place of acceptance that Reformed Egyptian is fraudulent. Good show!

Paranoid delusions? Everytime your open your mouth, evil things fall out. Did anyone ever tell you how tedious it is to talk to you?

Those links don't work, but that doesn't matter, let's get back to facts that can be demonstrated and leave the reinterpretation of what people said and might have thought a century ago to the apologists. What about iron, steel, wheels and bio-geography? Your case(s) there are still exceedingly weak.

It's too bad that the links don't work. I copied them faithfully, but they must have a redirect setup on their server. I found the articles quite revealing. Hugh Nibley has never made a secret of his modis operandi when it comes to the Book of Mormon. He only focuses on the first 40 pages. Those 40 pages happened in the old world, so it is fairly easy to verify its claims. Joseph Smith knew as much about Arabia as you or I might know about the far side of the moon. There is no need at all to try and guess where in American the Book of Mormon might have taken place. We have the exact location of the Middle East.

From what I have been able to discover about swords dating to the bronze age, they were generally made of either iron or bronze, were hammer hardened, and subject to oxidization. The pure science of the thing puts the chance of finding a 2500 year old bronze or iron sword in Central America, even if there were once thousands, as extremely small. According to Wikipedia, "Given sufficient time, oxygen, and water, any iron mass will eventually convert entirely to rust and disintegrate." Even worse, if the land is near an ocean, salt quickens the oxidation. "If salt is present, for example in seawater or salt spray, the iron tends to rust more quickly, as a result of electrochemical reactions." We know for a fact that the Olmecs mined iron ore. So it is your presumption - that the Olmecs couldn't have iron swords - which is weak. My case is only weak if I pretended to be able to prove that they had carbon steel, which I have never claimed.

I don't believe the Book of Mormon ever mentions wheels.

As far as biogeography, I believe the Book of Mormon will eventually be proven to be accurate, if not genetically specific. If horses survived the Pleistocene, and I believe evidence is overwhelming that they did, then it is likely that other large animals did as well. The Mastondon, aka Mammut, for example, could hardly be called anything else except an elephant. Elephants can be found in artwork from Utah to Mexico. I believe the artwork.

 

[rrosskopf]

An individual I've recently stumbled upon;

Thomas W. Murphy, a Mormon anthropologist.

Any thoughts on this individual from the Mormons here?

It is very sad. We have learned much more about genetics since he became disillusioned with the claims of the Book of Mormon. He should have waited. His faith in God just couldn't keep up with his faith in science.

 

[rrosskopf]

What about iron, steel, wheels and bio-geography?

Elephants may have survived in the Americas up to 1000 BC.
Men and Elephants in America, by Ludwell H. Johnson, The Scientific Monthly, Volume 75, Issue 4, pp. 215-221

 

[outhouse]

It is very sad.

Why? the truth bother you?

his faith in science.

Sounds like he told the truth and caught your church red handed