Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

[rrosskopf]

First you need to demonstrate the historicity of Zedekiah

You don't believe that Zedekiah existed?

 

[rrosskopf]

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

When do I ever stop? Apparently I have studied some things in much greater depth than you.

 

[rrosskopf]

REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS, IF THE BOOK OF MORMON SAYS IT, THEN I BELIEVE IT

That isn't what I said at all. Your only "facts" are largely opinions. I don't know how you become so brainwashed with them. It is not a fact that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century construct. It is an opinion. It is not a fact that the Olmecs didn't know metallurgy. It is an opinion. It is not a fact that there were no elephants in America; it is not only an opinion, it goes against the actual facts that elephants did once walk the Americas. You constantly berate me, and your barbs are not facts either; they are just hastily formed opinions designed to silence facts and opinions with which you do not agree. You criticize me for spelling correction (actually "your are" for "you are"), but you constantly criticize the even the most carefully formed English sentences as if they conveyed no useful information. It is tedious talking to you. It is not logical to force other people to talk in some contrived manner of your own invention. Either information is being communicated, or it isn't.

Your are true to form

This conversation started with the statement of an opinion:

The Olmec, the Zapotec, the Teotihuacan Civilization, and the youngest of the four, the Mayans. They were well-developed cultures & peoples(the Maya less so but only due to their relative youth), with their own traditions and their own technologies. But none of them, NONE of them, had Metallurgy until 600CE.

It may be a well-believed opinion by "experts", but it is still an opinion. It is a fact that one archeologist reported that the Olmecs had mined tons of iron ore. The second "fact" is at odds with the first "opinion". Either the opinion should be reconsidered, or the facts falsified. It is a fact that elephants once roamed Mesoamerica. It is an opinion that they died out 11000 years ago. It is a fact that horses are native to North America. It is an opinion that they died out (but only in North America) 11000 years ago. It is an opinion that the Book of Mormon is infallible, but not an opinion of the Mormon or LDS church. When you attack that theory, you are making straw man arguments. That's funny, because you accused me of making straw man arguments, when I tried to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon with evidence - as if you weren't trying to prove that the Book of Mormon was a 19th century construct.

 

[outhouse]

I have studied some things in much greater depth than you.

Yes true.

You are a professional teacher of pseudohistory

 

[Intojoy]

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

...I'm your father

 

[Sapiens]

You don't believe that Zedekiah existed?

My belief is not relevant, if you want to use him as a milepost, then you need to demonstrate that the milepost is there.

When do I ever stop? Apparently I have studied some things in much greater depth than you.

As far as I can tell you have studied nothing outside of the materials spoon feed to you by Mormon apologists. That is hardly study. I'd suggest that read not just the apologist bumph, but also the critics material, the skeptics material and what scientists who have no dog in the fight have to say.

That isn't what I said at all.

It isn't? What you said, exactly, was, "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."

Since who wrote the two books is irrelevant to whether the Jaredites (if they existed) had iron swords or that there were horses and elephants in the New World, well ... I hate to tell you but, you did say it: REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS, IF THE BOOK OF MORMON SAYS IT, THEN I BELIEVE IT.

Your only "facts" are largely opinions. I don't know how you become so brainwashed with them. It is not a fact that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century construct. It is an opinion. It is not a fact that the Olmecs didn't know metallurgy. It is an opinion. It is not a fact that there were no elephants in America; it is not only an opinion, it goes against the actual facts that elephants did once walk the Americas.

In science there are no "facts" there are only opinions, Some opinions are demonstrably more likely than others, based on the available evidence and the virtual consensus of opinion. What Smith's sources were I have no idea, but he evidence indicates that it was most likely multiple plagiarisms. Similarly, I can't prove that the Olmecs did not have iron and steel technologies, all I can say is there are no signs of such ever being found. In all other cultures with such technologies they were rapid spread and this is also not evident in the Olmecs. Any conclusion otherwise is a pipe dream based upon overactive imagination. Yes, there were once elephants in America, and they were quite widespread. But by the time Lehi & Co. came to the new world (circa 600 BCE) elephant were extinct, or all but extinct, reduced to a tiny remnant population isolated on Wrangle Island, Alaska, north of Ketchakan. Yes that is opinion, but it is shared by virtually every biologist, anthropologist and paleontologist on Earth who has not signed on as a Mormon apologist.

You constantly berate me, and your barbs are not facts either; they are just hastily formed opinions designed to silence facts and opinions with which you do not agree. You criticize me for spelling correction (actually "your are" for "you are"), but you constantly criticize the even the most carefully formed English sentences as if they conveyed no useful information. It is tedious talking to you. It is not logical to force other people to talk in some contrived manner of your own invention. Either information is being communicated, or it isn't.

I don't berate you, I just point out your errors, which are legion. Anyone with manners would thank me. Most universities would charge you several hundred dollars per credit hour.

 

[Sapiens]

This conversation started with the statement of an opinion:

Yes, and that opinion, well backed up with evidence and arguments that you have failed to address is:

This thread is SOLELY about the historical claims put forth by the Mormon branch of Christianity. Not what kind of person Smith was, not whether he was a prophet or a charlatan, not about whether Mormonism is 'really' Christian, not Mormon theology regarding blacks or polygamy, not their metaphysical theology, ect. You wanna discuss those things, **** off to somewhere else, it is completely meaningless here. This is purely about Mormon claims regarding Mesoamerica, and the historical claims laid out in the Book of Mormon and the LDS church in general. What kind of person or such Smith was, Mormonism's place in Christianity and such are utterly irrelevant to that. I also don't want discussions on the plausibility of a boat built by ancient Hebrews making it around India, through the Singapore strait & Indonesia, and across one of the widest & most barren(as in without landmasses) parts of the Pacific Ocean.


So let's begin with Iron, specifically iron-working, as I feel this is without question the most important of them. The era the Book of Mormon claims Lehi was contemporary with is around 600BCE, specifically the reign of Zedekiah. This is not merely within the Iron Age. This is close to the end of the Iron Age in the Near-East. To put that into some perspective, it's only a hundred years(give or take) before the Battle of Thermopylae.

The first real use of iron as weapons was the Assyrians, who despite having been repeatedly thrashed by their neighbours, became nigh-invulnerable But it wasn't really iron. What they had managed to create(without realizing) was in fact steel. Iron itself isn't that much stronger than bronze, and it's far harder to work. But given how metalworking was done back then, each time the iron was melted down and reforged it got more & more carbon added into it, and once it passed the 2% threshold it became steel. And steel? Steel is orders of magnitude harder & stronger than bronze. However, for the sake of the thread, I will continue to refer to it as iron, as this is what contemporaries believed it to be.

Twenty men with iron(even if it's low-quality) weapons and armour can destroy a far, far larger force with relative ease, because the bronze weapons will break themselves against the iron. This allowed the Assyrians to conquer the whole of the Middle East. To give some perspective, I've made this quick map;

On the left is Assyria roughly in 1000BCE(roughly). On the right is the Assyrian Empire of 900BCE(roughly). The only change? They were now using iron. It simply cannot be overstated how overhwelmingly massive an advantage this gives a civilization.

Now, I think we've got a rough idea of how much a game-changer that iron is, so let's move on to contemporary Mesoamerica. There are roughly four societies we're interested in;

The Olmec, the Zapotec, the Teotihuacan Civilization, and the youngest of the four, the Mayans. They were well-developed cultures & peoples(the Maya less so but only due to their relative youth), with their own traditions and their own technologies. But none of them, NONE of them, had Metallurgy until 600CE. That is 1,200 years after the Hebrews were supposed to have arrived. Twelve CENTURIES. And I am not talking about Iron-working. This is Metallurgy at all. They still used wood & stone for tools & weapons.

If a band of Ancient Israelites made it to Mesoamerica, they would've conquered & dominated the indigenous peoples without any manner of serious effort. Even if they somehow found a way to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, the Mesoamericans would've been changed forever by their visit. Specifically they would have metallurgy. But they didn't.

Why?

It may be a well-believed opinion by "experts", but it is still an opinion.

As noted earlier, everything is an opinion.

It is a fact that one archeologist reported that the Olmecs had mined tons of iron ore.

One out of how many? I can find you "outliers" on most any issue and they are not considered creditable until they have amassed sufficient evidence, since science is not "revealed" or thought to be "perfect."

The second "fact" is at odds with the first "opinion". Either the opinion should be reconsidered, or the facts falsified.

No, the second opinion of one crying in the night should be noted and ignored util it is made creditable.

It is a fact that elephants once roamed Mesoamerica. It is an opinion that they died out 11000 years ago.

No, show me elephant remains from somewhere other than Wrangle Island that are not older than 600 BCE. There are none.

It is a fact that horses are native to North America. It is an opinion that they died out (but only in North America) 11000 years ago.

No, show me horse remains from that are not older than 600 BCE. There are none and the claims that there are have all been falsified, often by the finder, and the falsification ignored by Mormon apologists.

It is an opinion that the Book of Mormon is infallible, but not an opinion of the Mormon or LDS church.

Again, you're playing games.

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth" - Joseph Smith on November 28, 1841.

As serious errors have been pointed out, the LDS owners have decided to swim the backstroke, the claim has been changed to: Joseph Smith referred to the Book of Mormon as the "most correct book" because of the principles it teaches. So now, according to rrosskopf, the LDS High Priest, Mormon doctrine is correct only in principle, but not in fact.

I leave it to people to decide what Smith meant and what is just more LDS flip-flopping to cover the uncoverable.

When you attack that theory, you are making straw man arguments. That's funny, because you accused me of making straw man arguments, when I tried to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon with evidence - as if you weren't trying to prove that the Book of Mormon was a 19th century construct.

I do not consider holding the LDS owners to the word of their prime prophet as a strawman, it simply does not fit the definition of a strawman.

Yes true.

You are a professional teacher of pseudohistory

Hear! Hear!

 

[rrosskopf]

No, show me elephant remains from somewhere other than Wrangle Island that are not older than 600 BCE. There are none.

Nephi never reported seeing an elephant. Perhaps you should actually read the Book of Mormon. Elephants are only mentioned in the book of Ether, roughly 2000 - 4000 BC.
Despite that, you should know as well as anyone that archeology can only study what has actually survived the ravages of time. Los Angeles got lucky with the Tar Pits, but such fortune is rare. Isn't that the opinion of the majority of archeologists?

No, show me horse remains from that are not older than 600 BCE.

Once again, absence of horse bones does not prove absence of horses. I did hear that a horse was carbon dated in Florida to 1000 AD. I may have to buy another book to track down the source.

"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth" - Joseph Smith on November 28, 1841.

Yes, but not infallible. I personally know of mistakes. Nothing touched by man is without mistakes. Mormon made mistakes. Oliver Cowdery didn't always spell names correctly (Joseph only spelled them out the first time they were encountered); some words sound alike, and Oliver sometimes misheard; some words sound the same but are spelled differently and have different definitions, like "straight" and "strait".
So, yes... you are tilting a windmills. The Book of Mormon can be the most correct and still have errors. There isn't a logical problem here, unless you can prove another book is more correct.

I do not consider holding the LDS owners to the word of their prime prophet as a strawman, it simply does not fit the definition of a strawman.

It is a strawman when you try to falsify a claim that was never made. The Book of Mormon itself admits to mistakes.
"And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men: wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ." 1830 Book of Mormon title page.
"And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these." (Mormon 8:12)

You are a professional teacher of pseudohistory

Nonsense. I'm a computer programmer. No one pays me to teach history, pseudo or otherwise. I just crave knowledge. But thanks for the pseudo-compliment.

My belief is not relevant, if you want to use him as a milepost, then you need to demonstrate that the milepost is there.

I might as well prove that I exist or prove that you exist first; why try to prove something that isn't in dispute?

As far as I can tell you have studied nothing outside of the materials spoon feed to you by Mormon apologists.

These things are not taught in church. If someone is interested in the science behind the Book of Mormon, they have to search it out on their own. Few are all that interested. When I try to share things that I have learned with friends at church, their eyes seem to glaze over. Rarely does anyone care. You seem to constantly berate Apologists, but these are your closest peers in the LDS church. They genuinely care about learning the truth, even when it contradicts something that they previously believed. In fact, many of our greatest discoveries came from investigations suggested by skeptics, according to one apologist. I listen and consider all of your arguments, and I have learned a few things from you. You could hardly be called anything except a skeptic.

 

[Sapiens]

Nephi never reported seeing an elephant. Perhaps you should actually read the Book of Mormon. Elephants are only mentioned in the book of Ether, roughly 2000 - 4000 BC.

I have read it, at least twice, it is just not worth the effort to commit any of it to memory.

Fact remains ... no Elephants.

Despite that, you should know as well as anyone that archeology can only study what has actually survived the ravages of time. Los Angeles got lucky with the Tar Pits, but such fortune is rare. Isn't that the opinion of the majority of archeologists?

There's plenty of bones about in the 2,000 to 4,000 years old pile, plenty ... but no horse, cow, elephant, etc. None.

Once again, absence of horse bones does not prove absence of horses. I did hear that a horse was carbon dated in Florida to 1000 AD. I may have to buy another book to track down the source.

Fact remains, despite all your wishing, no horses. Save your money, a reputable find of horses at 1000 CE would be easy to find on the web ... it's not there.

Does the absence of horse bones "prove" absence of horses, no ... but it does make it rather unlikely ... not to mention the absence of any representation of any of these animals in the various indigenous arts, very, very, very unlikely.

Yes, but not infallible. I personally know of mistakes. Nothing touched by man is without mistakes. Mormon made mistakes. Oliver Cowdery didn't always spell names correctly (Joseph only spelled them out the first time they were encountered); some words sound alike, and Oliver sometimes misheard; some words sound the same but are spelled differently and have different definitions, like "straight" and "strait".
So, yes... you are tilting a windmills. The Book of Mormon can be the most correct and still have errors. There isn't a logical problem here, unless you can prove another book is more correct.

I'm not talking about grammer and spelling, I'm talking about a whole rasher of history that instead of admitting is the case you are apologizing for.

It is a strawman when you try to falsify a claim that was never made. The Book of Mormon itself admits to mistakes.

Show me the admissions with respect to the fora and fauna of the new world and the technologies of the ingenious peoples and then we can talk about strawmen. Until then, sorry ... no strawman, successful specific refutation of specific claims.

"And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men: wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ." 1830 Book of Mormon title page.
"And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these." (Mormon 8:12)

Yeah ... so what?

Nonsense. I'm a computer programmer. No one pays me to teach history, pseudo or otherwise. I just crave knowledge. But thanks for the pseudo-compliment.

It appears that you crave "approved" knowledge.

I might as well prove that I exist or prove that you exist first; why try to prove something that isn't in dispute?

I'll take you passport and drivers license as sufficient proof. I could care less about Zedekiah, at least right now, I'm just not giving you a free ride on your dating system. I do notice, however, that a website that claims to list, "50 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically" uses his name in the form of other being an, "official during Zedekiah’s reign," but leaves Zedekiah notably absent from the list of "confirmed people".

These things are not taught in church. If someone is interested in the science behind the Book of Mormon, they have to search it out on their own.

Not very hard to do, the approved answers are all there at FARMS and FAIRMORMOM,

Few are all that interested. When I try to share things that I have learned with friends at church, their eyes seem to glaze over.

Sounds like a rather dull crowd.

Rarely does anyone care.

Maybe worse than dull ... incurious!

You seem to constantly berate Apologists, but these are your closest peers in the LDS church.

Hardly ... you do not seem to understand the difference between science and aplogetics, even though it has been explained to you.

They genuinely care about learning the truth, even when it contradicts something that they previously believed.

That is clearly untrue, they start with a "given" and then attempt to force fit reality to support it ... which is all that you've been doing here. The flora, fauna, and technology issues clearly contradict something that you currently believe, but you (collectively) come up with the lamest arguments I've ever heard to attempt to convert, at least among the weak minded, those arguments to far fetched falsifications of what is commonly accepted within the biological, anthropological and paleontological communities.

In fact, many of our greatest discoveries came from investigations suggested by skeptics, according to one apologist.

Please reveal the "greatest discoveries" and the apologist.

I listen and consider all of your arguments, and I have learned a few things from you.

Such as?

You could hardly be called anything except a skeptic.

I would not want to be called anything else.

 

[outhouse]

No one pays me to teach history, pseudo

Obviously

 

[outhouse]

I just crave knowledge

Nope.

You crave pseudohistory and pseudoscience.

Talking to you is quite painful. It is exactly like debating the facts of evolution with a YEC.

 

[rrosskopf]

Fact remains ... no Elephants.

Actually, the fact is that there were elephants. The opinion is that they died out 11000 years ago. The fact is that besides the Book of Mormon, there is little evidence that they survived to 3000 BC. It is also a fact that evidence doesn't always survive, that the archeological record is full of gaps. I suppose next that you will want me to prove that.

Not very hard to do, the approved answers are all there at FARMS and FAIRMORMOM,

Approved? Approved by who? I've talked to the guy who runs the FairMormon website. He is just another working stiff like myself, who runs a website in his spare time. No one grants us approval for anything. You've got the whole apologetics thing backwards. It is because of the church that we thirst for truth. Apologetics has never converted anyone. It doesn't have that power. I have served as a missionary, and discussions about facts were endless and never resulted in a baptism. What did result in conversions was people experiencing something they had never experienced before, something wholly new and eye opening. It is the spiritual experience that converts. We strive to wake up a long dormant faculty of human nature, a capacity to communicate with God. We want to learn more about the things in the Book of Mormon because we find the Book of Mormon to be beautiful. The purpose of our apologetics is not to convert skeptics. Perhaps in some small measure we wish to share something beautiful with the outside world, but we do it knowing that it won't convert anyone. If someone did join the church because of some rational archeological or historical argument, they would likely not stay in the church long, and be more of a burden than anything else. We don't discriminate against the slow-witted, but we don't go after them either. I know that sounds rather harsh, but it is hard to think of someone who is totally bereft of spiritual perception as anything else. We tell ourselves that maybe they just haven't had the opportunity, but a suspicion runs deep that often they have had the opportunity - and have rejected it. I am pleasantly surprised that you have read the Book of Mormon twice, which is twice more than most people.
Why then, you may ask, do we bother with apologetics? It is a question I often ask myself. I suppose in part, it is to make life more fair. There are people - this is not a conspiracy, but an established fact - that are paid to spread propaganda against the LDS church. One can hardly type "Mormonism" into the browswer without finding such propaganda. It just isn't fair that people should have to shoulder the weight of so many clear and obvious lies. Someone should stand up for the truth. So that is what we do. We stand up for the truth. We don't even care whether it comes from skeptics. We just have a different process than most of determining what is true. Our process does not involved popular opinion. Popularity, in and of itself, isn't a reliable source of truth.

That is clearly untrue, they start with a "given" and then attempt to force fit reality to support it ... which is all that you've been doing here.

No, not quite. We start with things that we know are true, and then look for evidence of their truth. In the process, we often discover more truth. For example, one young man was taking a religious history class (I don't remember his name, but this is historically accurate) where they were discussing Hebrew Chiastic verse. He knew the Book of Mormon to be authentic Hebraic literature, so he decided to look for chiasms in the Book of Mormon. Not only did he discover chiastic verse, but he discovered some of the most beautiful chiastic verses known to exist. Some of them span chapters. He would never have discovered them if he didn't already know that the Book of Mormon was authentic; he wouldn't even have looked. They aren't obvious at all, unless one knows what to look for.

 

[rrosskopf]

Please reveal the "greatest discoveries" and the apologist.

Perhaps one obvious one is the jettison of the Hemispheric model, in the face of scientific exploration. It caused a reevaluation of the actual text of the Book of Mormon, which makes no such claim. Southerton and others had a crises of faith when they discovered that the Hemispheric model wasn't tenable, because it had been taught in the church, indirectly if not directly. It was never official doctrine, but it was a widely held belief.
Arguments against metallurgy in Mesoamerica have caused some to look elsewhere for the lands of the Book of Mormon. The Heartland model has significantly gathered advocates in the last several years, because of this problem. The Heartland model, like the South American model have the much greater issue that neither of these people had books. The only known books came from Mesoamerica. The Spanish destroyed almost all of them, but they had books.

The real question, which is fundamental to your line of inquiry, is whether God has lied. Our belief in the Book of Mormon is a spiritual conviction; our certainty is not based on scientific discovery. Our confidence in the Book of Mormon is high, and it is going to take much more than the absence of archeological evidence of metallurgy in one possible locale to dissuade us. Science, overall, has been very kind to the Book of Mormon. Although opinions often run contrary to the acceptance of the Book of Mormon as an accurate historical document, the facts rarely if ever do. 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. Now they are just quibbling about the dates of extinction.

We talked about India, and how no iron swords have been found that date back to 300 BC. The argument was made that at least they continue to have swords, metallurgy, etc. We know for a fact that the Maya had books, yet after 150 years of exploration we have never found one. Sure, we have a handful of Aztec books. We haven't discovered any more of those either. Why do we think we can find a sword, when we can't find a book? Oh and by the way - we can't even find one example of the wooden swords that we know they had. Not one has been preserved for our convenience. Tell me again why we should expect to find swords from a thousand years prior?

 

[Sapiens]

Actually, the fact is that there were elephants. The opinion is that they died out 11000 years ago. The fact is that besides the Book of Mormon, there is little evidence that they survived to 3000 BC. It is also a fact that evidence doesn't always survive, that the archeological record is full of gaps. I suppose next that you will want me to prove that.

Your use of the term "opinion" is a mischaracterization designed to make it appear that you have your opinion and that I have mine and that they deserve, more or less, equal weight,it is what is known as a balance fallacy. Nothing could be further from the truth, I have an "opinion" that is shared by the entire scientific community. You have an "opinion" that is supported only by apologists for your religion. Yes evidence does not always survive, yes there are gaps, but plenty of evidence of horses, elephants, sheep, cattle, etc., from before the Pleistocene Extinction has survived and one would expect that the frequency of such finds would vary inversely with age. But this is not the case, there are no remains in the time-frame specified by the book of Mormon of any of the specified animals, save the aforementioned relic elephant population on Wrangle Island.

Approved? Approved by who? I've talked to the guy who runs the FairMormon website. He is just another working stiff like myself, who runs a website in his spare time. No one grants us approval for anything. You've got the whole apologetics thing backwards. It is because of the church that we thirst for truth. Apologetics has never converted anyone. It doesn't have that power.

Do you really think that we are all that stupid? Truth is not found by back-filling preconceived notions to buttress them, rather, "truth" is found by testing ideas against real evidence and rejecting those ideas that are thus falsified. Your procedure is otherwise, you admit to rejecting all evidence that does not fit you preconceived notions until, through a jump of faith, you can create a logical fallacy that supports non-falsification.

I have served as a missionary, and discussions about facts were endless and never resulted in a baptism. What did result in conversions was people experiencing something they had never experienced before, something wholly new and eye opening. It is the spiritual experience that converts. We strive to wake up a long dormant faculty of human nature, a capacity to communicate with God. We want to learn more about the things in the Book of Mormon because we find the Book of Mormon to be beautiful. The purpose of our apologetics is not to convert skeptics.

You can't convert skeptics, they are proof against your foolishness, but you can concert the uninformed, the naive and the weak-minded ... that is the purpose and utility of apologetics, the use of logical fallacies in the conversion of those who do not know better.

Perhaps in some small measure we wish to share something beautiful with the outside world, but we do it knowing that it won't convert anyone. If someone did join the church because of some rational archeological or historical argument, they would likely not stay in the church long, and be more of a burden than anything else. We don't discriminate against the slow-witted, but we don't go after them either.

The obvious conclusion therefore is that within the population of those converted there is a concentration of the slow-witted, as I earlier noted.

I know that sounds rather harsh, but it is hard to think of someone who is totally bereft of spiritual perception as anything else. We tell ourselves that maybe they just haven't had the opportunity, but a suspicion runs deep that often they have had the opportunity - and have rejected it. I am pleasantly surprised that you have read the Book of Mormon twice, which is twice more than most people.

I take that as a complement, Frankly, I find the the hypothesis of a non-material spiritual world to be without supporting evidence ... but that's another discussion.

Why then, you may ask, do we bother with apologetics? It is a question I often ask myself. I suppose in part, it is to make life more fair. There are people - this is not a conspiracy, but an established fact - that are paid to spread propaganda against the LDS church.

An interesting thought, have you evidence of this? Who are they funded by?

One can hardly type "Mormonism" into the browswer without finding such propaganda.

That is hardly evidence of your claim, it could more easily stem from the ease with which the Mormon beliefs can be falsified.

It just isn't fair that people should have to shoulder the weight of so many clear and obvious lies.

Your making an unsupported claim here. The best you can do is say that they are, in your opinion, lies.

Someone should stand up for the truth.

That is what I do.

So that is what we do. We stand up for the truth.

That is what you claim but fail to demonstrate at every turn.

We don't even care whether it comes from skeptics. We just have a different process than most of determining what is true. Our process does not involved popular opinion. Popularity, in and of itself, isn't a reliable source of truth.

You do have a rather different process, mine is based on empirical evidence, what you do is something different that I would be hard pressed to describe as, "standing uo for the truth."

No, not quite. We start with things that we know are true, and then look for evidence of their truth.

There is your fallacy.

In the process, we often discover more truth.

No, you are tainted by how you start.

For example, one young man was taking a religious history class (I don't remember his name, but this is historically accurate) where they were discussing Hebrew Chiastic verse. He knew the Book of Mormon to be authentic Hebraic literature, so he decided to look for chiasms in the Book of Mormon. Not only did he discover chiastic verse, but he discovered some of the most beautiful chiastic verses known to exist. Some of them span chapters. He would never have discovered them if he didn't already know that the Book of Mormon was authentic; he wouldn't even have looked. They aren't obvious at all, unless one knows what to look for.

The chaismus argument is well falsified as this young man would have known had his education been better to begin with. A dash of Shakespeare would have left him muchh less vulnerable to your logical fallacy.

"Suit the action to the word, the word to the action." Hamlet

"For 'tis a question left us yet to prove, whether love lead to fortune, or else fortune love." Hamlet

"Foul is fair and fair is foul." MacBeth

and even: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address

I use and hear perhaps dozens everyday:

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

"Natural ability without education has more often raised a man to glory and virtue than education without natural ability." - Cicero

"It is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them." - Mark Twain

"Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope." Freewheelin' Franklin of the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers.

Books will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no books"; Anne Herbert in an LA Public Library campaign.

 

[Sapiens]

Perhaps one obvious one is the jettison of the Hemispheric model, in the face of scientific exploration. It caused a reevaluation of the actual text of the Book of Mormon, which makes no such claim. Southerton and others had a crises of faith when they discovered that the Hemispheric model wasn't tenable, because it had been taught in the church, indirectly if not directly. It was never official doctrine, but it was a widely held belief.

Somehow that escaped my top ten of "greatest discoveries." Replacing one apologist set of excuses that have been accepted as wrong by your church with another apologist set of excuses that will soon go down the same path does not really pique my interest.

Arguments against metallurgy in Mesoamerica have caused some to look elsewhere for the lands of the Book of Mormon. The Heartland model has significantly gathered advocates in the last several years, because of this problem. The Heartland model, like the South American model have the much greater issue that neither of these people had books. The only known books came from Mesoamerica. The Spanish destroyed almost all of them, but they had books.

From my vantage point it is more like changing what you call the cookie jar after being caught with your hand in it so that you can, with almost a straight face, deny ever having had your hand in said cookie jar.

The real question, which is fundamental to your line of inquiry, is whether God has lied.

No, that is a complete irrelevancy to me.

Our belief in the Book of Mormon is a spiritual conviction; our certainty is not based on scientific discovery. Our confidence in the Book of Mormon is high, and it is going to take much more than the absence of archaeological evidence of metallurgy in one possible locale to dissuade us.

There is lots more. At every turn of the tale there is scientific evidence that falsifies it and against which, except to a true believer, the Mormon apolgetic evidence does not hold up.

Science, overall, has been very kind to the Book of Mormon.

No, making that claim does not make the case. In point of fact it has not.

Although opinions often run contrary to the acceptance of the Book of Mormon as an accurate historical document, the facts rarely if ever do.

A claim that you have been trying vainly to make and failing at abysmally. It's the "Black Knight Syndrome."

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. Now they are just quibbling about the dates of extinction.

First the barley claim is incorrect, wrong species of grain. Smith made a uniformitarianistic error in spinning his tale and now you are trying to make that error into a plus. The fact is, in his ignorance, Smith assumed all sorts of animals, plants and technologies that were not and are not in evidence, yet you pretend, somehow his ignorance and error helps to make your case.

We talked about India, and how no iron swords have been found that date back to 300 BC. The argument was made that at least they continue to have swords, metallurgy, etc.

In point of fact ALL known iron working cultures have continued to do so, all of them, except all of the New World (were one to believe your unsupported and outlandish claims).
We know for a fact that the Maya had books, yet after 150 years of exploration we have never found one.
[/quote]Might be because the Spanish priests burned all that they encountered, that is what they claim.

Sure, we have a handful of Aztec books. We haven't discovered any more of those either.

Might be because the Spanish priests burned all that they encountered, that is what they claim.

Why do we think we can find a sword, when we can't find a book?

No one is stepping up to the plate to take responsibility for destroying all the iron based items.

Oh and by the way - we can't even find one example of the wooden swords that we know they had. Not one has been preserved for our convenience. Tell me again why we should expect to find swords from a thousand years prior?

Not only is there no sign of the swords, there is no sign of the ability to work iron or steel. There is also no sign of Horses, Elephants, Cattle and cows, Goats, Swine, Barley and wheat, Honey bees, Chariots or wheeled vehicles, Silk, Compasses or Windows. The best and only counter you can make to this is a weak apologetic's construct reaching for possible misinterpretations or exceptions. Even if you are granted a few ... that still leaves enough in the way of false claims to falsify, the "perfect" book.

 

[rrosskopf]

There is also no sign of Horses, Elephants, Cattle and cows, Goats, Swine, Barley and wheat, Honey bees, Chariots or wheeled vehicles, Silk, Compasses or Windows.

Honey bees are only mentioned in the Old World. Why would you leave that on the list?
Windows do not need to be made of glass, as I have already pointed out. A hole with a wooden shutter is still a window. And yes, they can and have been dashed to pieces by waves.
Magnetic compasses are not mentioned, nor implied. Pretending that they are is a straw man argument. The Liahona did not point north. It pointed towards food and water. It was more like playing spin the bottle. Trusting God is often trusting chance.
Ancient artwork showing chariots as the Egyptians and Hebrews defined them are found all over Mesoamerica. In their language, a chariot is a "riding seat". We would call them litters, but I don't believe the 24-year old Joseph Smith knew the word. Remember that he only had three years of public schooling. The modern Hebrew word for litter seems to have been derived from the Egyptian word for Chariot, and does not appear to date to Lehi's day. They would have borrowed the Egyptian word.
The Spanish reported finding silk, although it may have just been really soft cloth. Either way, I don't see how this damages a translation. What word should Joseph have used?
You keep saying that it is the wrong barley, but we are never told what barley they used. You tell me that I don't have a case, but it is you that have no case at all.
The Spanish also reported finding cattle. Certainly bison are close enough to cattle to mate and produce offspring. What word should Joseph Smith have used? What word would the Nephites have used?
I don't know how you justify peccaries and wild pigs as not swine, when any normal person would look at them and call them swine. Again... what word should Joseph Smith have used? Should he have just made up a word for every animal that no one had ever heard of?

Your "evidence" is all but non-existent. Does having a large amount of bad evidence add up to good evidence? I don't think so.

 

[rrosskopf]

Do you really think that we are all that stupid? Truth is not found by back-filling preconceived notions to buttress them, rather, "truth" is found by testing ideas against real evidence and rejecting those ideas that are thus falsified. Your procedure is otherwise, you admit to rejecting all evidence that does not fit you preconceived notions until, through a jump of faith, you can create a logical fallacy that supports non-falsification.

Apparently, I know a method of discovering truth that is alien to you. I wouldn't call it stupid on your part. Ignorance maybe. You are so proud of what you know that you have talked yourself into believing that there couldn't be something else, some other way of learning truth. You say that "truth" is found by testing ideas against real evidence, but that isn't the way that you have discovered most of the truths that you know. You haven't recreated all the experiments that have brought mankind to this day; you rely on the word of others who have tested. That alone falsifies your assertion. So there are at least two ways... I know of a third way, and a forth way, and a fifth way, and a sixth way, and a seventh way. We perceive the world through our senses. Our senses sample and compare light intensity, color, odors, sounds, texture, acidity, and more. All of these are truths. Truth is a knowledge of things in the past, present, or future. Truth is defined by what we can perceive, either directly or indirectly. If I can perceive things that you cannot, then I can be aware of truths which may entirely escape you.

 

[Nietzsche]

You haven't recreated all the experiments that have brought mankind to this day; you rely on the word of others who have tested.

If he wanted to, he could. The option is there. With enough time, you could replicate almost any experiment. But no one has been able to reliably talk to God. It always seems to happen just after something has already happened. Or at least, that's the only time we hear about it.

 

[Sapiens]

Honey bees are only mentioned in the Old World. Why would you leave that on the list?
Windows do not need to be made of glass, as I have already pointed out. A hole with a wooden shutter is still a window. And yes, they can and have been dashed to pieces by waves.
Magnetic compasses are not mentioned, nor implied. Pretending that they are is a straw man argument. The Liahona did not point north. It pointed towards food and water. It was more like playing spin the bottle. Trusting God is often trusting chance.
Ancient artwork showing chariots as the Egyptians and Hebrews defined them are found all over Mesoamerica. In their language, a chariot is a "riding seat". We would call them litters, but I don't believe the 24-year old Joseph Smith knew the word. Remember that he only had three years of public schooling. The modern Hebrew word for litter seems to have been derived from the Egyptian word for Chariot, and does not appear to date to Lehi's day. They would have borrowed the Egyptian word.
The Spanish reported finding silk, although it may have just been really soft cloth. Either way, I don't see how this damages a translation. What word should Joseph have used?
You keep saying that it is the wrong barley, but we are never told what barley they used. You tell me that I don't have a case, but it is you that have no case at all.
The Spanish also reported finding cattle. Certainly bison are close enough to cattle to mate and produce offspring. What word should Joseph Smith have used? What word would the Nephites have used?
I don't know how you justify peccaries and wild pigs as not swine, when any normal person would look at them and call them swine. Again... what word should Joseph Smith have used? Should he have just made up a word for every animal that no one had ever heard of?

Your "evidence" is all but non-existent. Does having a large amount of bad evidence add up to good evidence? I don't think so.

Non-existent, hardly, (with thanks to wiki):

Horses are mentioned fourteen times in the Book of Mormon, and are portrayed as an integral part of the cultures described. There is no evidence that horses existed on the American continent during the 2500–3000 year history of the Book of Mormon (2500 BC–400 AD).

Elephants are mentioned twice in a single verse in the Book of Ether. Mastodons and mammoths lived in the New World during thePleistocene; however, as with the prehistoric horse, the fossil record indicates that they became extinct along with most of the megafauna towards the end of the last ice age.

There are six references to cattle made in the Book of Mormon, including verbiage suggesting they were domesticated. tThere is no evidence that Old World cattle (members of the genus Bos) inhabited the New World prior to European contact in the sixteenth century CE. No species of bison is known to have been domesticated as you are suggesting.

Goats are mentioned three times in the Book of Mormon. In two of the verses, "goats" are distinguished from "wild goats" indicating that there were at least two varieties, one of them possibly domesticated, or tamed. Domesticated goats are not native to the Americas, having been domesticated in pre-historic times on the Eurasian continent. Domestic goats were introduced to the American continent in the 15th century.

Swine are referred to twice in the Book of Mormon, and the narrative of the Book of Mormon says the swine were domesticated. There are no remains, references, artwork, tools, or any other evidence suggesting that swine were ever present in the pre-Columbian New World. Peccaries have never been domesticated

Grains are mentioned twenty-eight times in the Book of Mormon, including barley and wheat. The introduction of domesticated modern barley and wheat to the New World was made by Europeans sometime after 1492. Apologists argue that "barley" could refer to Hordeum pusillum, also known as "little barley", a species of grass native to the Americas. The seeds are edible, and this plant was part of the pre-Columbian Eastern Agricultural Complex of cultivated plants used by Native Americans. But, H. pusillum was unknown in Mesoamerica, where there is no evidence of pre-Columbian barley cultivation.

The Jaredite group carried honey bees (Apis sp.) with them as they traveled in the Old World. Supposedly they brought them to the New World, though this is not completely clear. What is clear is that Old World bees were introduced well after 1492.

The Book of Mormon mentions the use of chariots as a mode of transportation five times. There is no archaeological evidence to support the use of wheeled vehicles in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. Oh, that's right ... they were not chariots, presto-chango ... now they are litters.

The Book of Mormon mentions the use of silk six times. Silk is a material that is created from the cocoon of the Asian moth Bombyx mori, and was unknown to the pre-Columbian Americas.

The Book of Mormon states that a "compass" or "Liahona" was used by Nephi around 600 BC. The compass is widely recognized to have been invented in China around 1100 AD, and remains of a compass have never been found in America.

The Book of Mormon describes that the Jaredite people were familiar with the concept of "windows" near the time of the Biblical Tower of Babel (presumably circa 2000 BCE), and that they specifically avoided crafting windows for lighting in their covered seagoing vessels, because the windows would be "dashed in pieces" during the ocean voyage. But transparent window panes are a more recent invention, dating to the 11th century AD in Germany.

Steel and iron are mentioned several times in the Book of Mormon. There is no evidence of steel (hardened iron) production in North, Central, or South America.

The Book of Mormon makes numerous references to swords and their use in battle. What the swords are made of is mostly ambiguous, except for when the remnants of the Jaredite's final battle were discovered. The Book of Mormon narrative states that "the blades thereof were cankered with rust.", suggesting that the Jaredite's swords were made of iron or steel. Warriors in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica are known to have used wooden clubs with blade-like obsidian flakes, which cannot rust because it is stone.

"Cimiters" are mentioned about ten times in the Book of Mormon. The word "cimiter" (scimitar) is considered an anachronism, since the word was never used by the Hebrews (from which the Book of Mormon peoples came), or any other civilization prior to 450 AD. Also, there is no evidence that native American peoples used scimitar blades.

The Book of Mormon details a system of weights and measures used by the societies described therein. However, the overall use of metal in ancient America seems to have been extremely limited. A more common exchange medium in Mesoamerica were cacao beans.

... and we can go on, and on, and on, with historical anachronisms, linguistic anachronisms, and anachronisms perpetuated from the King James translation.

... and you can go on, and on, and on, inventing excuses and straining credulity with each explanation of why there are all these errors in the book that was called by the man who made it all up whilst reportedly staring at a rock in hat in order to translate from a non-existent language a set of golden tablets that were given to him by an angel.

I mean, really, you've got to be kidding. It doesn't take application of Occam's Razor, to see my way clear of this Mormonic morass.

 

[rrosskopf]

Horses are mentioned fourteen times in the Book of Mormon

I only count 13, 2 of which are in Isaiah, and a 3rd one where Jesus is either quoting a prophecy or making a prophecy. So there are 10 valid references to horses in the New World.

"And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding thy horses. Now the king had commanded his servants, previous to the time of the watering of their flocks, that they should prepare his horses and chariots, and conduct him forth to the land of Nephi;" Alma 18:9, about 90 BC.

So the king has horses and chariots, both of which he uses to travel across the country. I believe the horses were used as pack animals, and the chariots were litters, carried by men.

Now when Lamoni had heard this he caused that his servants should make ready his horses and his chariots. And he said unto Ammon: Come, I will go with thee down to the land of Middoni, and there I will plead with the king that he will cast thy brethren out of prison. - Alma 20, about 90 BC

Once again, it is the king who owns the horses, which he uses to travel as part of an entourage.

"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." - Ether 9:19, aprox. 2600 BC

Apparently, the horses were only marginally useful.

"And now it came to pass that the people of the Nephites did all return to their own lands in the twenty and sixth year, every man, with his family, his flocks and his herds, his horses and his cattle, and all things whatsoever did belong unto them." - 3rd Nephi 6:1, aprox. 26 AD

So, some people owned horses, but there is no indication how many or what they were used for.

"And it came to pass that the people of Nephi did till the land, and raise all manner of grain, and of fruit, and flocks of herds, and flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind, and goats, and wild goats, and also many horses." - Enos 1:21, aprox. 420 BC.

The implication is just the opposite; horses were generally scarce.

The other references are to these same four events, and don't shed any further light on the number of horses or what they were used for.

We may be talking of hundreds of horses, but not thousands. Horses are never mentioned pulling wagons, or used in war. No one is ever mentioned riding a horse. I think they were used as pack animals.