Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

[Sapiens]

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.

Easy to think that since there were none there as also demonstrated by their complete lack of representation in any frescoes or carvings. As to the number of times ... tell the editors at wiki, I'm sure they'll appreciate the input. All I need is one mention.

 

[rrosskopf]

Easy to think that since there were none there as also demonstrated by their complete lack of representation in any frescoes or carvings.

Of course, there are both wall paintings and carvings that look like horses. Not many, but a few.

 

[rrosskopf]

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.

That often is not the case; they don't always vary inversely with age. Often one needs a tar pit or a sacrifice pit, or something of that nature, something rare. Imagine if we had never found the La Brea Tar Pits; where would our science be? It is normal for bones and tissue to deteriorate within a few years. Archeologists depend on the few occasions when something surconvents normality. Some things will last millenia without much detereration, like pottery shards or arrow heads, but most animal remains will never be found, and most iron implements will never be found. Archeologists also tend to focus on areas of inhabitation; they don't just take random samples throughout the world hoping to discover something. This narrow focus causes gaps. I think farmers are largely responsible for many of the worlds' major finds. But farmers don't till the soil all that deeply; unless they dig a well they don't really know what lies a hundred feet down. So there are great gaps in the Pleistocene as well. We note the similarity of certain extinct animals, but often there are no known intermediaries. The number of "missing links" has grown substantially over the years. Darwin expected the gaps to close over time, but the opposite has happened.
I agree that expert opinion holds more sway than non-expert opinion. But conclusions drawn from a lack of archeological evidence, even if held by a majority, are suspect at best. Hardly a year goes by that the opinion of experts has to be changed.

 

[Sapiens]

That often is not the case; they don't always vary inversely with age. Often one needs a tar pit or a sacrifice pit, or something of that nature, something rare. Imagine if we had never found the La Brea Tar Pits; where would our science be? It is normal for bones and tissue to deteriorate within a few years. Archeologists depend on the few occasions when something surconvents normality. Some things will last millenia without much detereration, like pottery shards or arrow heads, but most animal remains will never be found, and most iron implements will never be found. Archeologists also tend to focus on areas of inhabitation; they don't just take random samples throughout the world hoping to discover something. This narrow focus causes gaps. I think farmers are largely responsible for many of the worlds' major finds. But farmers don't till the soil all that deeply; unless they dig a well they don't really know what lies a hundred feet down. So there are great gaps in the Pleistocene as well. We note the similarity of certain extinct animals, but often there are no known intermediaries. The number of "missing links" has grown substantially over the years. Darwin expected the gaps to close over time, but the opposite has happened.I agree that expert opinion holds more sway than non-expert opinion. But conclusions drawn from a lack of archeological evidence, even if held by a majority, are suspect at best. Hardly a year goes by that the opinion of experts has to be changed.

Concentrators like a tar pit have nothing to do with the issue. There are plenty of surviving "elephant" remains in all sorts of climates out side of tar pits, in fact, about 20 such sites come easily to hand in all sorts of environs, from the arctic down into the South American tropics ... but all are older than the Pleistocene Extinction. But you have any number of false or misleading statements in your paragraph, including:

1. Use of "weasel words" such as "often," "most" or "usually." It is quite impossible to deal with such claims except to say that they fly in the face of accepted science. No post extinction elephant (etc.) material has ;yet" to be found and none is expected; and that no smelted iron material has ever been found and none is expected.
2. While farmers may have found a lot of specimens, fossil hunting to day has become far more purposeful and much less random. Sediments of specific ages and histories are targeted (witness the success of the search for the Elpistostegid Tiktaalik) but still, no elephant (etc.) material younger than the extinction.
3. While archaeologists may tend to focus on areas of habitation, they focus on kitchen middens, yet still ... elephant (etc.) material older than the extinction is found, but none younger.
4. While archaeologists may tend to focus on areas of habitation, paleontologists do not, yet still ... elephant (etc.) material older than the extinction is found, but none younger.
5. Your entire claim concerning "no known intermediaries" and that .the number of "missing links" has grown substantially over the years, is BS, at least as applied to Pleistocene mammals (e.g., horses are one of the most complete lineages known to science)

.Ir you agree that "expert opinion holds more sway than non-expert opinion" you must agree that mainstream science clearly support the claim that the book of Mormon contains numerous unaccounted for anachronisms

Your statement that, "conclusions drawn from a lack of archeological evidence, even if held by a majority, are suspect at best. Hardly a year goes by that the opinion of experts has to be changed,." is a red herring. Archaeological, paleontological, ecological, and all other rational fields of study each, independently, reach the same conclusions, that the book of Mormon contains numerous unaccounted for anachronisms.

Your claims concerning the longevity of iron are also specious. Extant artifacts include, a bead from the 5th millennium BCE, spear tips and ornaments going back to 4000 BCE, and a Chinese axe head from the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE and the Oak Island Roman Sword that appears to have survived more than two millennia underwater.

 

[rrosskopf]

Your claims concerning the longevity of iron are also specious. Extant artifacts include, a bead from the 5th millennium BCE, spear tips and ornaments going back to 4000 BCE, and a Chinese axe head from the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE and the Oak Island Roman Sword that appears to have survived more than two millennia underwater.

Out of how many originally? Are those all that were ever made? Or is it less than 1%? What do the experts say?

 

[Sapiens]

Of course, there are both wall paintings and carvings that look like horses. Not many, but a few.

Please show us a few, be sure they have not been identified as lamas.

Out of how many originally? Are those all that were ever made? Or is it less than 1%? What do the experts say?

That's not the point. I have shown that such materials can survive, yet none have been found in the New World, NONE! What do the experts say? The experts say that all your apologetics are without rational basis, that's what the experts say.

 

[prometheus11]

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? ;-)

Good grief!! Defensive much? Maybe the claims are such that an outside source is warranted. If one newspaper claimed that a movie star died, you wouldn't wxpect confirmation?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

The way you describe it, the only way what you can be saying is true is if you have access to knowledge that nobody else has access to, or you are the only one who can perceive things that others are not capable of perceiving?

 

[rrosskopf]

Good grief!! Defensive much? Maybe the claims are such that an outside source is warranted. If one newspaper claimed that a movie star died, you wouldn't wxpect confirmation?

I expect people to use their eyes, and weigh the evidence for themselves, not dismiss it out of hand because it is an unpopular idea. After all, we are talking about photographic evidence long before Photoshop was invented. All of it is easily verified. Either the characters from the Anthon script can be found in the Demotic, or they can't.

 

[rrosskopf]

The way you describe it, the only way what you can be saying is true is if you have access to knowledge that nobody else has access to, or you are the only one who can perceive things that others are not capable of perceiving?

I'm nothing special. There are many others who have access to the same knowledge. It just takes practice and perseverance. When Joseph Smith opened up the heavens, he started something that continues to this day. Receiving revelation from God is a skill like any other. It can be learned. The difficulty is that most people balk at the first step. If they can't get past the first step, then what hope do they have of mastering the other steps?

 

[prometheus11]

I'm nothing special. There are many others who have access to the same knowledge. It just takes practice and perseverance. When Joseph Smith opened up the heavens, he started something that continues to this day. Receiving revelation from God is a skill like any other. It can be learned. The difficulty is that most people balk at the first step. If they can't get past the first step, then what hope do they have of mastering the other steps?

What's the first step?

Also, I see no evidence that any human is "receiving revelation" from God. Do you have such evidence?

 

[Sapiens]

I'm nothing special. There are many others who have access to the same knowledge. It just takes practice and perseverance. When Joseph Smith opened up the heavens, he started something that continues to this day. Receiving revelation from God is a skill like any other. It can be learned. The difficulty is that most people balk at the first step. If they can't get past the first step, then what hope do they have of mastering the other steps?

This is just another variant on the 'if you don't believe you can't see" scam. Belief will not produce elephants, horses or steel or any of the other myriad of missing things, though it may produce a delusional belief in the existence of evidence of such items, grounded solely in the premise that you can't prove a negative, which while true, does nothing what-so-ever to actually demonstrate the positive.

 

[rrosskopf]

What's the first step?

Also, I see no evidence that any human is "receiving revelation" from God. Do you have such evidence?

It is best to ask this in a new topic or privately, as it is off topic. But yes, I have seen for myself many times.

 

[prometheus11]

It is best to ask this in a new topic or privately, as it is off topic. But yes, I have seen for myself many times.

You brought up the issue of a first step. I simply asked you what the first step was.

As to evidence, what people claim to have seen for themselves is only evidence for themselves. Do you have verifiable evidence?

 

[rrosskopf]

This is just another variant on the 'if you don't believe you can't see" scam.

Skeptics may see it as a scam, but for many of us it is as obvious as anything else. "Seeing is believing", goes the old adage, but that isn't really true. I have presented photographic evidence, and it doesn't seem to have made a bit of difference. Religious conviction doesn't come from photographs; but from one's efforts to gain a relationship with God. It is only after the trial of one's faith, that faith turns to knowledge.

You brought up the issue of a first step. I simply asked you what the first step was.

The first step towards receiving revelation is to study the question. There must be a question, and it can't be trivial. When Joseph Smith went into the forest, he wanted to know which church to join. Before he went, he attempted to find the answer for himself by attending various churches, and listening to their views on the Bible. He did his due diligence, but concluded that there was no way for him to find an answer to the problem, as the various churches understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy any hope of an appeal to the Bible.
The second step towards receiving revelation is to prepare oneself with the proper attitude. One has to be sincere, with real intent. God doesn't respond to people who don't really care about the answer, or who don't intend to do anything with the information. Joseph Smith really wanted to know the truth of the matter, and was willing to join which ever church that God indicated. One must also prepare the mind by remembering the things that God has done to benefit mankind, in order to have a feeling of gratitude.
The third step, is to humble oneself and pray. Joseph Smith selected a private spot in the woods, where he wouldn't be interrupted, and when he had no other chores to do. He chose a peaceful spot where nothing would distract him. Then he knelt down, and prayed outloud, pettitioning God the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ. In his case, he was immediately attacked by a dark presence that had such power as to stop him from talking outloud. He continued to pray with all of his heart silently, until he was released from the being who had him bound. At that moment, he saw two beings standing above him in the air.
These steps are the basic steps to receive revelation from God, and I believe they will work with almost anyone. I know that they work for me. I haven't seen any visions, but visions are only one form of revelation. There are others. Perhaps the most common is the burning in the bosom, when the Holy Ghost testifies to our heart that something is true. If something is not true, a feeling of emptiness ensues. Less common, is hearing a voice in one's mind. Even less common, is hearing an audible voice. Another type of revelation, requires one to learn the language of the Holy Ghost. This takes a great deal of time and practice.

To answer your second question, the evidence of a relationship between any two people, whether one is God or not, is the exchange of something. We can exchange pleasantries, for example, without much of a relationship at all. We carry groceries to the checkout, at which point the clerk asks for money, and then we exchange the money for the groceries. It isn't very personal, but it is a relationship. Couples exchange intimacies, and talents, and positive energy. My relationship with God is evidenced by my service and devotion to him, and the service and devotion that he has given me. We call it charity, the pure love of Christ. You may ask me what service and devotion God has given me, but it is an intensely personal question, and I am reticent to give a detailed answer. On a daily basis, he encourages me and comforts me. He helps me face life, particularly when I really don't want to. I talk to him, and he talks to me; there is often an exchange of ideas. He has taught me things that I never would have thought of on my own. I bring questions to him, which he usually answers, and I sometimes ask for special favors, which he also grants. I was afraid that my life was over, when I was diagnosed with an incurable and fatal disease. I still had so much more that I wanted to do in life. So I asked for, and received, a special blessing. The disease was taken away entirely. That was 15 years ago. Today, I continue to feel fine. I am deeply grateful, but I am not astonished. I have seen many people with serious ailments healed by the power of a blessing. When the heavens are open, miracles become common place. I have experienced greater things than these, but I can't - won't - share them over a public forum such as this. Go into any LDS meetinghouse, when services are held, and ask the members for their stories; you will find out that my stories are not unusual. You may have trouble believing their stories, but if you look into their eyes, you will know that they believe them.

 

[outhouse]

Skeptics may see it as a scam

You cannot make excuses for peddling pseudoscience and pseudohistory because of what most call religious mythology.

 

[rrosskopf]

You cannot make excuses for peddling pseudoscience and pseudohistory because of what most call religious mythology.

Harsh. I'm not making excuses. Excuses imply that I have done something wrong. I make no apologies for sharing the things that I know. If one wants to be difficult, they can call any science pseudoscience and any history pseudohistory. Clearly, you want to be difficult. Nothing that I say is going to persuade you that the Book of Mormon is a true history, and nothing that you say is going to persuade me that it isn't. I've seen too much to be taken in by ill-mannered skeptics. If one tries to scrub LDS history of all revelation, miracles, etc., they will end up with a history that doesn't make any sense, and doesn't relay anything of importance. History is a continual stream of cause and effect. A deer jumps out into the road, the driver swerves, the car hits a tree. Take out the deer, and the remaining events don't add up. The first vision, the vision where the 3 witnesses saw the gold plates and the angel Moroni, the vision where Joseph Smith and Olver Cowdery saw Peter, James and John, the vision where Sydney Rigdon and Joseph Smith saw Jesus standing in the Kirtland Temple; take these away or call them "religious mythology", and LDS history suddenly becomes incomprehensible. The unusual conviction of the members of the LDS church are a direct result of those spiritual experiences and many others. When Joseph Smith healed Mary Johnson's withered arm, her two friends, one an avowed atheist, and the other a minister, were standing right there. They both knew that she had been unable to use that arm for many years. Nothing explains the sheer audacity of Joseph Smith to command the arm to be made whole, unless he had already experienced the aforementioned visions and revelations. Take away the spiritual, the miracle, the revelations, and LDS history becomes a "pseudohistory", and no other explanation satisfies. Joseph Smith, knowing that he was going to his death, sought comfort by reading the Book of Mormon. Without the visions, the revelations, the miracles, the visitation of angels, his actions make no sense at all. No comfort would be sought from a fake. His whole life, from the time he was 25, was a living testimony to those things that he held most dear, and it wasn't money or power. He struggled every day to establish the kingdom of God on earth, as directed by God. He was constantly persecuted, both by mobs and by the legal system; as he was sued over 39 times. He spent months in prison, without so much as a hearing before a judge, and yet even then he was busy directing the affairs of the fledgling church, receiving revelations from God to guide the leadership of the church. Without revelation, without visions, without the visitation of angels, nothing in Joseph Smiths actions make much sense. So don't talk to me about selling "pseudohistory". It is you that is peddling a history that completely ignores the pertinent facts, if you don't acknowledge the effects of such spiritual phenonema.

 

[rrosskopf]

By the way, does anyone know why "alcohol" is mentioned in the title of this thread? It was mentioned in the Book of Mormon, and alcoholic beverages weren't unknown in Mesoamerica.

 

[outhouse]

Harsh. I'm not making excuses

Either does scientology, but people have faith in that to.

 

[rrosskopf]

Either does scientology, but people have faith in that to.

I don't have faith in Mormonism. That ended a long time ago when it was replaced with a sure knowledge. No one has a sure knowledge that scientology is the one true church of Jesus Christ. Not one. No one has a sure knowledge that Catholoicism is true, or Protestentism, least of all those who have worked as priests most of their lives. Even Mother Teresa didn't have a sure knowledge, and acknowledged as much. They may have convictions of certain true principles, as truth can be found in many places, but they do not know nor claim that their churches are led by Jesus Christ through revelation given to living emissaries.