Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

[Nietzsche]

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.

Erm, unless I'm extremely mistaken, haven't the latest genetic findings of the past decade just further solidified the claim that Native Americans are descended from peoples from North Asia rather than the Middle East?

 

[Sapiens]

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

Johnson:Men and Elephants in America:1952: "Probably it is safe to say that American Proboscidea have been extinct for a minimum of 3000 years."

SAFE! MINIMUM! and that for a relic population on Wrangle Island, Alaska.

 

[Intojoy]

Willful ignorance. Mormonism.

There is also Islam that incorporates a total disregard of historical facts.
Unfortunately for the world, the Islamic faith requires conversion by the sword.

Never the less, Mormonism and Mormons are without excuse in today's informational age.

What's the difference between a Jehovah witness and a used gremlin car?

You can still shut the door on a jw

 

[rrosskopf]

Never the less, Mormonism and Mormons are without excuse in today's informational age.

Which was started, in part, by a Mormon with the invention of the cathode ray tube...
I think it is willful ignorance to assume that scientific theories are historical facts. I think it is also willful ignorance to assume that things in a highly corrosive environment should be found 3000 years after their death or abandonment. The most compelling scientific theory of all is that we have much to learn. This open minded treatment of scientific discovery is at the very heart of science. Many discoveries have been made by assuming that the prevalent theories were wrong. It turns out that they often are wrong. A steel sword in 600 BC Jerusalem, Barley in pre-Columbian America, cement in pre-Columbian American, temples, thrones, towers and highways in pre-Columbian America were all considered to be ridiculous in 1830 by the scientific community, but now are not. It wasn't the Book of Mormon that changed. The popular theories of the scientists were all wrong. Mormons would have been wise to take bets in 1830 on the information in the Book of Mormon, and people would be wise to take bets on it today.

One of the things upon which the Book of Mormon is very specific, is that it was exactly 600 years from the time they left Jerusalem to the birth of the Savior. They left Jerusalem shortly after the 1st year of the reign of Zedekiah. According to the experts of the day, the 1st year of the reign of Zedekiah was in 595 BC. Now it is placed at 598 BC, which if I understand it correctly is exactly 599 years before 1 AD. Add to that the strong possibility that Zedekiah started his reign towards the end of the year, and we discover that the Book of Mormon is 100% accurate, unlike the experts of the day. We find stuff like this all the time.

Another verse strongly suggests that anchors were onced used for sailing. What a silly idea! Yet anchors were once used for sailing. Large rocks were suspended into the ocean to catch the current and counteract a wayward wind. The Book of Mormon contains a surprising amount of information, as if every word was carefully measured before etching it onto metal plates.

The University of California at Berkeley invented software to determine authorship of literary works. BYU got hold of it and tested the Book of Mormon. The conclusion was that there were 20 separate authors, and that not one of them was Joseph Smith or any known contemporary. The authors of the software at UCB were skeptical, and reran the test themselves, arriving at the same conclusion. Should we only trust science when it casts doubt on the Book of Mormon? To admit as much is to say that one doesn't trust science at all.

 

[rrosskopf]

Erm, unless I'm extremely mistaken, haven't the latest genetic findings of the past decade just further solidified the claim that Native Americans are descended from peoples from North Asia rather than the Middle East?

That's never really been the issue. The Jaredites were not from the Middle East, and they were the earliest population mentioned in the Book of Mormon. We have no problem at all ascribing the Jaredites to North Asia. The question concerns whether other people followed, much later, and intermingled with the descendants of the Jaredites. The Emory University study showed about 6% or 7% DNA from a European or Northern Israelite source. The National Geographic study concluded that the Majority of Native American DNA looks just like the DNA in Europe, with some mixture from North Asia. The Scandinavian study, which tested for generational changes, discovered that after only a few hundred years, the resulting population no longer resembled the initial population; some genetic markers entirely disappeared, while others were skewed heavily in one direction or another. The world of DNA is far more fuzzy than previously imagined. DNA does give us information, but it doesn't give us all the information.

 

[rrosskopf]

It should be noted here that the art of the Olmecs was very distinct from the art of the Maya; the Olmecs had different facial characteristics, and I believe that most have concluded that they were different races, although the whole concept of race has gotten fuzzier over the years. So when we test Mesoamericans for DNA, which part is Mayan, and which part is Olmec?

 

[Nietzsche]

Willful ignorance. Mormonism.

There is also Islam that incorporates a total disregard of historical facts.
Unfortunately for the world, the Islamic faith requires conversion by the sword.

Never the less, Mormonism and Mormons are without excuse in today's informational age.

What's the difference between a Jehovah witness and a used gremlin car?

You can still shut the door on a jw

Sapiens is hardly the most polite person(and neither am I), but at the very least we've brought up points to go with our barbs. Barbs without a point is simply in poor taste.

 

[Sapiens]

Which was started, in part, by a Mormon with the invention of the cathode ray tube...

What that has to do with this discussion is unclear ... another logical fallacy perhaps ... appeal to authority?

I think it is willful ignorance to assume that scientific theories are historical facts.

You are displaying ignorance of both science method and historical method. whilst appealing to both, it would be funny were it not so sad.

A steel sword in 600 BC Jerusalem, Barley in pre-Columbian America, cement in pre-Columbian American, temples, thrones, towers and highways in pre-Columbian America were all considered to be ridiculous in 1830 by the scientific community, but now are not.

There's the argument from ignorance or strawman or red herring again, take your pick.
A steel sword in 600 BC Jerusalem (so what?)
Barley in pre-Columbian America (wrong species)
cement in pre-Columbian American, temples (so what)
thrones, towers and highways in pre-Columbian America (all found by Cortez, anyone who considered that "ridiculous" had not read his letters, mega-strawman)

It wasn't the Book of Mormon that changed. The popular theories of the scientists were all wrong. Mormons would have been wise to take bets in 1830 on the information in the Book of Mormon, and people would be wise to take bets on it today.

Not really, holding today's science hostage to the foolishness of the early 1800s is a form of stawman argument, "scientists" as we use the word today were nonexistent and much of what made up "popular theories" back then was based far more in the Bible and prejudice than in reality.

One of the things upon which the Book of Mormon is very specific, is that it was exactly 600 years from the time they left Jerusalem to the birth of the Savior.

Interesting, basing a date on a occurrence for which there is no evidence ... typical, but that's another discussion.

They left Jerusalem shortly after the 1st year of the reign of Zedekiah. According to the experts of the day, the 1st year of the reign of Zedekiah was in 595 BC. Now it is placed at 598 BC, which if I understand it correctly is exactly 599 years before 1 AD. Add to that the strong possibility that Zedekiah started his reign towards the end of the year, and we discover that the Book of Mormon is 100% accurate, unlike the experts of the day. We find stuff like this all the time.

First you need to demonstrate the historicity of Zedekiah, something you can not do. Again, typical, but that's another discussion.

No one claims the "experts of the day" were 100% accurate, and it is easily shown that the BoM is not 100%. That's what this thread is about. I show you the errors and you make the excuses.

Another verse strongly suggests that anchors were onced used for sailing. What a silly idea! Yet anchors were once used for sailing. Large rocks were suspended into the ocean to catch the current and counteract a wayward wind. The Book of Mormon contains a surprising amount of information, as if every word was carefully measured before etching it onto metal plates.

That's just a rather poor form of a sea-anchor ... what's that supposed to prove?

The University of California at Berkeley invented software to determine authorship of literary works. BYU got hold of it and tested the Book of Mormon. The conclusion was that there were 20 separate authors, and that not one of them was Joseph Smith or any known contemporary. The authors of the software at UCB were skeptical, and reran the test themselves, arriving at the same conclusion. Should we only trust science when it casts doubt on the Book of Mormon? To admit as much is to say that one doesn't trust science at all.

It would be good if you could get things right, but that's the reason why proper citations are used rather than vacuous claims. In fact computer aided "Wordprinting Studies" were first applied to the BoM in the 1980s at BYU. The technique was taken by Hilton to Berkeley and refined. Hilton himself says that to work you must be comparing an unknown sample of about 4,000 free-flow words to a similar sample of known authorship. Free-flow words are written without outside influence or superimposed structures that change an author's word selection. Aside from some glaring statistical issues, I think you can see the problem here ... the BoM (if Smith is to be believed) was not produced without outside influence or superimposed structures. It is clearly written with an attempt at Faux-King James word usage and structure. Hilton reaches the conclusion that Nephi and Alama were the authors of the texts that were attributed to them (where Hilton obtained verifiable originals of the writings of these two mythical gentleman is never clarified) and that the overall the BoM is multi-authored, the result expected had Smith plagiarized the text of the BoM from other sources.

 

[Sapiens]

That's never really been the issue. The Jaredites were not from the Middle East, and they were the earliest population mentioned in the Book of Mormon. We have no problem at all ascribing the Jaredites to North Asia. The question concerns whether other people followed, much later, and intermingled with the descendants of the Jaredites. The Emory University study showed about 6% or 7% DNA from a European or Northern Israelite source. The National Geographic study concluded that the Majority of Native American DNA looks just like the DNA in Europe, with some mixture from North Asia. The Scandinavian study, which tested for generational changes, discovered that after only a few hundred years, the resulting population no longer resembled the initial population; some genetic markers entirely disappeared, while others were skewed heavily in one direction or another. The world of DNA is far more fuzzy than previously imagined. DNA does give us information, but it doesn't give us all the information.

In March 2000 , Scott Woodward, Professor of Microbiology at Brigham Young University (BYU), launched a multi-million dollar human molecular genealogy study funded by philanthropists Ira Fulton and James Sorenson.[The Molecular Genealogy Research Group (MGRG) uses DNA evidence to identify genealogical connections between present and past humans. Increasing interest in using DNA to trace family histories and linkages between human populations offers considerable promise to Latter-day Saint genealogical endeavors. It also constitutes a boost to broader scientific research into the history and geography of human genes as well as global migration and world population histories. While the embrace of human molecular research at a university owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is likely a welcome development for most well-educated Mormons, this burgeoning interest may provoke some reconsideration of assumptions about human geography and history long held by many, if not most, Mormons

The Molecular Genealogy Research Group (MGRG) uses DNA evidence to identify genealogical connections between present and past humans. Increasing interest in using DNA to trace family histories and linkages between human populations offers considerable promise to Latter-day Saint genealogical endeavors. It also constitutes a boost to broader scientific research into the history and geography of human genes as well as global migration and world population histories. While the embrace of human molecular research at a university owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is likely a welcome development for most well-educated Mormons, this burgeoning interest may provoke some reconsideration of assumptions about human geography and history long held by many, if not most, Mormons.

So far, DNA research lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs about the origins of Native Americans. Genetic data repeatedly point to migrations from Asia between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago as the primary source of Native American origins. DNA research has substantiated the archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and biological evidence that also points overwhelmingly to an Asian origin for Native Americans. While DNA evidence shows that ultimately all human populations are rather closely related, to date no intimate genetic link has been found between ancient Israelites and the indigenous peoples of the Americas—much less within the time frame suggested by the BoMor. After considering recent research in molecular anthropology, summarized here, I have concluded that Latter-day Saints should not expect to find validation for the BoMor in genetics. My assessment echoes that of geneticist and former LDS Bishop Simon Southerton whose survey of the literature on Native American DNA also "failed to find anything that supported migration of Jewish people before Columbus." He concluded "the truth is that there is no reliable scientific evidence supporting migrations from the Middle East to the New World."

This essay outlines two significant insights into the geography and history of human genes and their implications for Mormon thought. If the new embrace of DNA research has an impact on Mormon views of the world, it will likely propel new approaches to scripture and history already underway in Mormon intellectual circles. First, the genealogical data inscribed in human genes suggest to current researchers that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that lived in Africa between five and seven million years ago. This genetic data adds to the abundance of archaeological, fossil, and anatomical data pointing to ancient human origins in Africa and adds to difficulties in upholding scriptural literalism. Second, genealogical data inscribed in genes of modern humans and ancient American skeletons not only helps researchers to identify ultimate origins but also provides clues to ancient migration patterns. Current genetic data suggest that ancestors of Native Americans separated from their Asian neighbors about 40-50,000 years ago and from each other in what may have been three or more separate waves of migration by 7-15,000 years ago. No support for Mormon beliefs linking American Indians to ancient Israelites is evident in the data.

 

[Sapiens]

It should be noted here that the art of the Olmecs was very distinct from the art of the Maya; the Olmecs had different facial characteristics, and I believe that most have concluded that they were different races, although the whole concept of race has gotten fuzzier over the years. So when we test Mesoamericans for DNA, which part is Mayan, and which part is Olmec?

Your are true to form: "We don't know ... so let's make it up as we go. Who cares what the experts say? What matters is what the church tells us to believe. Since you love using Natural Geographic as a source: "Experts have traditionally believed that when the Olmec were busy building their civilization at large sites such as La Venta, near the Gulf coast in modern Mexico, the people who would become the Maya were living in loosely associated nomadic groups in the jungles to the east and southeast. This theory holds that the Maya derived their entire society—including their architecture and social structure—directly from the Olmec."

 

[outhouse]

Willful ignorance

Yes it is.

 

[Intojoy]

Sapiens is hardly the most polite person(and neither am I), but at the very least we've brought up points to go with our barbs. Barbs without a point is simply in poor taste.

Mohamed was a pedophile, there is no Allah

 

[Sapiens]

Mohamed was a pedophile, there is no Allah

While I think that you are correct I also think that you are way off topic.

 

[Nietzsche]

Mohamed was a pedophile, there is no Allah

What're you doing here? What purpose does this serve? Take it somewhere relevant.

 

[rrosskopf]

the BoM is multi-authored, the result expected had Smith plagiarized the text of the BoM from other sources.

No such sources have ever been found. The twenty different styles are so distinct, that given a couple of passages, a computer can pick the author with a 70% probability of success. All the main suspects have been tested. None of them are even close to a match. No stories of Nephi, Lehi, Laman, Lemuel, Ammon, Zenos, Alma, Mormon, Moroni, etc. appear anywhere outside of the Book of Mormon, at least not in any known work. What is your view? That Joseph Smith stole the stories from 20 different unknown authors and then memorized them word for word so he could spend three months translating them? And that none of them ever came forward? Now that would be a conspiracy theory. I don't believe anyone who has actually read the Book of Mormon has suggested that. It is utterly ludicrous. For one thing, later authors sometimes quote earlier authors, word for word, so now you have authors that have memorized each others writings, or have the books of the other authors. The theory quickly becomes large and unwieldy. It also doesn't explain the historicity. As Hugh Nibley and others have pointed out, the first 40 pages are unusually accurate in everything that can be tested, researched, or discovered. Whoever wrote that portion has lived in Arabia, and traveled extensively. Whoever wrote the first books in the Book of Mormon knew Egyptian and Hebrew. The research is solid. The influence is obvious. Neither Joseph Smith nor any contemporary could have written the first two books. So if the Book of Mormon states that the Jaredites had iron swords and that there were horses and elephants, then I believe it.

 

[rrosskopf]

Your are true to form:

Did you mean "you're true to form."?

"We don't know ... so let's make it up as we go. Who cares what the experts say?

So if I study and make an informed conclusion, then I'm making it up? So thinking for myself is bad? I'm pretty sure I can find many experts that agree with me. A quick perusal turned up two books that propose the idea that the Olmecs were black, that they came from Africa. They certainly have some of the same features. It isn't a Mormon idea. So yeah - I believe that the Mayans and Olmec were two different races. If you have some proof that they are the same race, then by all means share it, so I can evaluate the strength of your evidence.

 

[rrosskopf]

It is clearly written with an attempt at Faux-King James word usage and structure.

Actually, it isn't. The translators of the KJV did a remarkable job smoothing out the clumsy Hebrew grammar into smooth English. For example, the Hebrew word for "it came to pass" is used over a thousand times, yet it is translated many different ways to break up the monotony. The Book of Mormon employs no such artifice; the phrase appears over a thousand times. In English, we have an if then structure; if you repent of your sins and pray to God then God will hear your prayer, etc, but in Hebrew they use a If And structure; if you do such and such AND God will hear your prayer. The original translation of the Book of Mormon had to be altered to turn a perfectly understood Hebrew grammar into meaningful English. The Book of Mormon is a very literal translation. There are many Hebreisms in the Book of Mormon that do not appear in the KJV of the Bible. There are also Hebrew and Egyptian idioms, which do not appear in the Bible. I don't know how you could possibly explain all of that. In the Isaiah portion of the Book of Mormon is a phrase wholely absent from the KJV; it only occurs in the Latin. Did Joseph Smtih know Latin?
I think the evidence for the authenticy of the Book of Mormon is overwhelming, so I am not concerned that we haven't found 3000 year-old steel swords in Mesoamerica.

 

[outhouse]

So if I study and make an informed conclusion

When will you start to do this?????

 

[rrosskopf]

A steel sword in 600 BC Jerusalem (so what?)
Barley in pre-Columbian America (wrong species)
cement in pre-Columbian American, temples (so what)
thrones, towers and highways in pre-Columbian America (all found by Cortez, anyone who considered that "ridiculous" had not read his letters, mega-strawman)

Forgive me, I sometimes assume you know more than you actually do. One of the early criticisms of the Book of Mormon was that Laban could not have had a steel sword in 600 BC Jerusalem. The criticism was still leveled in my lifetime. Now there is just such a sword sitting in a museum in Jerusalem. If we wait long enough, everything the Book of Mormons states will be found.
The Book of Mormon never states that they brought barley with them; only that they had barley. This was another supposed anachronism that was laid to rest in my lifetime.
The Book of Mormon states that the Nephites were building houses out of cement in 100 AD. Joseph Smith couldn't build a house out of cement. I can't believe it is just a coincidence that the Mayans started building cement houses in 100 AD.
Neither Joseph Smith, nor any of his associates spoke Spanish, so I doubt that they had read the letters of Cortez. It doesn't sound like the sort of thing one might find at the local Palmyra library. From what I have been able to gather, knowledge of Central and South America was practically unknown. In fact, several books that were written by the early Spanish chroniclers were never published until after the Book of Mormon came out. The first English book in New England that talked about the Mayan Civilization came out after the Book of Mormon.

 

[Sapiens]

Did you mean "you're true to form."?

Since "you're" is just a contraction, an informality for "you are," I'll stick with the latter. When you are (you're) reduced to correcting my English (especially when it is already correct), then I think the conversation has reached an end.

So if I study and make an informed conclusion, then I'm making it up? So thinking for myself is bad? I'm pretty sure I can find many experts that agree with me. A quick perusal turned up two books that propose the idea that the Olmecs were black, that they came from Africa. They certainly have some of the same features. It isn't a Mormon idea. So yeah - I believe that the Mayans and Olmec were two different races. If you have some proof that they are the same race, then by all means share it, so I can evaluate the strength of your evidence.

No, you are (you're) not making it up, nor are you studying and reaching and informed conclusion. You are (you're) just spouting what you have (you've) been brainwashed to think. It's not your fault, but I can get those opinions, in clearer form and better construct, straight off the Mormon apologist websites ... I do not (don't) need you as a middle man.[/QUOTE]

Neither Joseph Smith nor any contemporary could have written the first two books. So if the Book of Mormon states that the Jaredites had iron swords and that there were horses and elephants, then I believe it.

The utter lack of logic, and stubbornness of the construct you present, one that any grade schooler, regardless of their faith or lack there of, should be able to dismiss, leaves me breathless: REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS, IF THE BOOK OF MORMON SAYS IT, THEN I BELIEVE IT.

At least now we can end the conversation, knowing who is reasonable, logical, and dedicated to scientific inquiry and who is a dogmatic ideologue dedicated to the proposition that there is an infallible book and that any thing in that book that is demonstrably false can be made true through the hocus pocus of Mormon apologetics.