Mormons; the Problem of Iron, Alcohol & the Wheel

[Shad]

Even though I do believe that that will eventually happen that is not the same as claiming that the Scotsman's comment was evidence for the Book of Mormon.

Never said it was. I said you were hedging your bet on later developments.

You assumed, because of my affiliation, that I had said something that I did not.

You said it clearly.

I am only responsible for what I say, not what you assume I am thinking but did not say.

You still said it, read your own comments

AKA "making stuff up"

Ignoring your own post

Again that is "making stuff up"

Ignoring your own post

Are you sure?

Yup

Because even when you have been caught flat-footed putting words in my mouth you still cannot admit you were wrong to do so.

Ignoring your own post

You look like an ego-junkie to me.

Ignoring your own post and making claims to dodge your own post.

Examples of the Reformed Egyptian characters can be found on the Anthon Transcript which remarkably resemble the Hieratic and Demotic (which was derived from the Hieratic) Egyptian.

This is written by Smith himself and does not exist in archaeological records of, you know... Egypt.

The Demotic Egyptian was widely used during Lehi's time in the Old World.

Which isn't Reformed Egyptian.

The Book of Mormon claims that the language used to inscribe the record was unique to the Nephites and would not be found elsewhere, however, the Coptic Egyptian is an example of an Egyptian/Greek hybrid, or in other words, a reformed Egyptian.

Except it isn't as it is a completely made up language by Smith. You are parroting apologetic not Egyptology. Try again.

Admittedly, yes.

Yet you deny this the whole time until this point. Hilarious

But it was an example given after you had assumed that I had interpreted the Scotman's comment as evidence for the Book of Mormon.

An example which confirmed my claims.....

Even though I believe that more evidence to support the Book of Mormon will eventually be found, I did not claim that the Scotman's comment was such.

Irrelevant as I never said you did....

 

[Sapiens]

No, that is not it.
You are reminding me of so many of the run-o-the-mill "Christians" who pick one verse in the Bible that they like and then build a little fort around it. They claim that that verse says whatever they want it to say without considering mistranslations, misinterpretations or other Biblical verses that may conflict with it.

You have the roles reversed.

You have a blind belief that these genetics studies somehow disprove the claims of the Book of Mormon without considering the actual claims made by the Book of Mormon or the LDS Church and other very relevant factors like genetic drift and bottlenecking.

You are showing your ignorance concerning genetics and your blind faith in the demonstrably fallacious.

Am I to understand (since you have not brought them up again) that you are no longer contesting that "most perfect" does not equal "most correct" or that you had applied a false definition to the word "principal"?

I think that worrying about the difference is specious..

Also, where is that quote and source that I had requested?

[/quote]It's all in the thread, do your own work.

That's awesome. I believe that we will find more and more evidence of a variety of peoples that came to the Americas. We just need to be patient.

So when you have no actual evidence in the here and now you rely on faith and belief concerning what is going to be discovered someday. That's ignorance raised to the power of two.

 

[Prestor John]

Could you please share what you mean by “hedging my bets”, I think I have a different understanding of that idiom than you do.

Never said it was. I said you were hedging your bet on later developments.

You assumed that I had claimed that the information that The Greased Scotsman had shared was evidence for the Book of Mormon. This assumption caused you to claim that I had been “grasping at straws”.

I later claimed that more evidence for the Book of Mormon will be discovered in the future. The discovery of that evidence, however, has no bearing on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

You said it clearly.

I never claimed that the information presented by The Greased Scotsman was evidence for the Book of Mormon. I merely stated that it was “awesome” and that more evidence of various peoples migrating to the Americas would eventually be discovered.

You made an incorrect assumption.

You still said it, read your own comments.

I said something to that effect after you jumped to your incorrect conclusion.

You are confused on the sequence of events.

All of your comments about me “ignoring my own post” are based on your confusion of the sequence of events.

This written by Smith himself and does not exist in archaeological records of, you know... Egypt.

The characters of the Anthon Transcript are very similar to Demotic Egyptian, which exists in Egypt.

The reason it is not exactly similar is because the Nephites had altered the Egyptian causing them to refer to it as a reformed Egyptian.

Which isn't Reformed Egyptian.

No one claimed that the Demotic Egyptian was a reformed Egyptian (even though it technically could be considered such because it was derived from the Hieratic).

Yet the point remains that the characters of the Anthon Transcript are very similar to the Demotic Egyptian, which would have been the Egyptian used by Lehi if he came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C.E.

It testifies to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Except it isn't as it is a completely made up language by Smith. You are parroting apologetic not Egyptology. Try again.

Why are you ignoring the Anthon Transcript?

Yet you deny this the whole time until this point. Hilarious.

I denied that my initial comment about what The Greased Scotsman shared was any attempt by me to prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Only after you had erroneously claimed that I had tried to use the information presented did I claim that more evidence for the Book of Mormon will be discovered in the future.

An example which confirmed my claims.....

You had claimed that my initial comment was me “grasping at straws”, which it was not.

My initial comment had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

I admit that I have faith that the Book of Mormon is true. My faith is based upon a spiritual witness as well as discernible evidence.

My claim that more evidence will eventually be found may be “hedging my bet” (if I understand that idiom the same way you do), but that does not negatively affect the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon or my faith in its truthfulness.

Irrelevant as I never said you did....

Yes you did. Your initial comment to me was about my “grasping at straws” because the information shared by The Greased Scotsman was not evidence of the Book of Mormon.

You began your pointless involvement in this thread with the claim that I viewed the information shared by The Greased Scotsman as evidence of the Book of Mormon when I never made that claim.

Just admit that you were wrong and leave.

 

[Prestor John]

You have the roles reversed.

You are the one ignoring the facts concerning genetics.

Bottlenecking and genetic drift eventually cause the plateauing of genetic ancestors which makes all your “evidence” inconclusive.

You are showing your ignorance concerning genetics and your blind faith in the demonstrably fallacious.

I never claimed to be a geneticist but it is easy to discover the relevant obstacles that you so readily ignore.

Neither you nor anyone else has “demonstrated” that anything written in the Book of Mormon is “fallacious”.

I think that worrying about the difference is specious.

Of course you would think that because you were the one that made the mistake.

The fact that no one has ever claimed that the Book of Mormon was “perfect” hurts your core arguments.

It would be so much easier for you to rationalize the “demise” of the Book of Mormon if it were considered infallible, wouldn’t it?

Also, your inability to accurately quote the Prophet casts doubt on whether or not you actually know what you are talking about.

It's all in the thread, do your own work.

I read the thread and I did not find anything you shared to be damning of the Book of Mormon.

I thought that your claims about having evidence that disproves the Book of Mormon was in reference to something you had not yet shared.

If all you have to “disprove” the Book of Mormon is what you have already shared, then you have not demonstrated that anything claimed by Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon to be fallacious.

So when you have no actual evidence in the here and now you rely on faith and belief concerning what is going to be discovered someday. That's ignorance raised to the power of two.

There is a lot of evidence for the claims made in the Book of Mormon. There is no way that Joseph Smith could have written the book, unless he knew of things that his contemporary historians and scientists did not know about the Old and New Worlds.

You just can’t see those evidences from that fort you built around your misguided views on genetics.

 

[Shad]

Could you please share what you mean by “hedging my bets”, I think I have a different understanding of that idiom than you do.

You assumed that I had claimed that the information that The Greased Scotsman had shared was evidence for the Book of Mormon. This assumption caused you to claim that I had been “grasping at straws”.

I later claimed that more evidence for the Book of Mormon will be discovered in the future. The discovery of that evidence, however, has no bearing on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

I never claimed that the information presented by The Greased Scotsman was evidence for the Book of Mormon. I merely stated that it was “awesome” and that more evidence of various peoples migrating to the Americas would eventually be discovered.

You made an incorrect assumption.

I said something to that effect after you jumped to your incorrect conclusion.

You are confused on the sequence of events.

All of your comments about me “ignoring my own post” are based on your confusion of the sequence of events.

The characters of the Anthon Transcript are very similar to Demotic Egyptian, which exists in Egypt.

The reason it is not exactly similar is because the Nephites had altered the Egyptian causing them to refer to it as a reformed Egyptian.

No one claimed that the Demotic Egyptian was a reformed Egyptian (even though it technically could be considered such because it was derived from the Hieratic).

Yet the point remains that the characters of the Anthon Transcript are very similar to the Demotic Egyptian, which would have been the Egyptian used by Lehi if he came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C.E.

It testifies to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Why are you ignoring the Anthon Transcript?

I denied that my initial comment about what The Greased Scotsman shared was any attempt by me to prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Only after you had erroneously claimed that I had tried to use the information presented did I claim that more evidence for the Book of Mormon will be discovered in the future.

You had claimed that my initial comment was me “grasping at straws”, which it was not.

My initial comment had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

I admit that I have faith that the Book of Mormon is true. My faith is based upon a spiritual witness as well as discernible evidence.

My claim that more evidence will eventually be found may be “hedging my bet” (if I understand that idiom the same way you do), but that does not negatively affect the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon or my faith in its truthfulness.

Yes you did. Your initial comment to me was about my “grasping at straws” because the information shared by The Greased Scotsman was not evidence of the Book of Mormon.

You began your pointless involvement in this thread with the claim that I viewed the information shared by The Greased Scotsman as evidence of the Book of Mormon when I never made that claim.

Just admit that you were wrong and leave.

I will get back to you later this week as a reply would take a bit of time. Im trying to brain drain before bed. This would get my mind spinning again.

 

[Shad]

Could you please share what you mean by “hedging my bets”, I think I have a different understanding of that idiom than you do.

In this context I am talking about you waiting for new developments that would validate what you already believe in. It is a counter balance to the fact that evidence does not support the BoM at present.

You assumed that I had claimed that the information that The Greased Scotsman had shared was evidence for the Book of Mormon. This assumption caused you to claim that I had been “grasping at straws”.

I later claimed that more evidence for the Book of Mormon will be discovered in the future. The discovery of that evidence, however, has no bearing on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

I never claimed that the information presented by The Greased Scotsman was evidence for the Book of Mormon. I merely stated that it was “awesome” and that more evidence of various peoples migrating to the Americas would eventually be discovered.

You made an incorrect assumption.

I said something to that effect after you jumped to your incorrect conclusion.

You are confused on the sequence of events.

All of your comments about me “ignoring my own post” are based on your confusion of the sequence of events.

The characters of the Anthon Transcript are very similar to Demotic Egyptian, which exists in Egypt.

The reason it is not exactly similar is because the Nephites had altered the Egyptian causing them to refer to it as a reformed Egyptian.

No one claimed that the Demotic Egyptian was a reformed Egyptian (even though it technically could be considered such because it was derived from the Hieratic).

Yet the point remains that the characters of the Anthon Transcript are very similar to the Demotic Egyptian, which would have been the Egyptian used by Lehi if he came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C.E.

It testifies to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Why are you ignoring the Anthon Transcript?

I denied that my initial comment about what The Greased Scotsman shared was any attempt by me to prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Only after you had erroneously claimed that I had tried to use the information presented did I claim that more evidence for the Book of Mormon will be discovered in the future.

You had claimed that my initial comment was me “grasping at straws”, which it was not.

My initial comment had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

I admit that I have faith that the Book of Mormon is true. My faith is based upon a spiritual witness as well as discernible evidence.

My claim that more evidence will eventually be found may be “hedging my bet” (if I understand that idiom the same way you do), but that does not negatively affect the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon or my faith in its truthfulness.

Yes you did. Your initial comment to me was about my “grasping at straws” because the information shared by The Greased Scotsman was not evidence of the Book of Mormon.

You began your pointless involvement in this thread with the claim that I viewed the information shared by The Greased Scotsman as evidence of the Book of Mormon when I never made that claim.

Just admit that you were wrong and leave.

Again no, no and no.

You confirmed my point with your later comments.

You brought up Demotic Egyptian. If it had no relevance why bring it up? Reformed Egypt may look like but this does not mean it is Egypt, no more than if I made a bunch of marks that looked Egyptian make it Egyptian. I do not ignore the transcript I just consider it fraud just as every other non-Mormon Egyptologist has already concluded. You only have speculation for this transcript, nothing more.

 

[Prestor John]

I will get back to you later this week as a reply would take a bit of time. Im trying to brain drain before bed. This would get my mind spinning again.

I get that.

And unfortunately, most of the stuff I'm bringing up is just "fluff" anyway.

I'm super over it.

 

[Prestor John]

In this context I am talking about you waiting for new developments that would validate what you already believe in. It is a counter balance to the fact that evidence does not support the BoM at present.

I understand.

However, I have always made the claim that there already is a lot of evidence for the claims of the Book of Mormon.

My main claim, in the here and now on this thread, has been that there will be more evidence for the Book of Mormon discovered in the future.

I personally have received enough validation for the Book of Mormon to know that it is true.

Again no, no and no.

You confirmed my point with your later comments.

I suppose that I did, but I still want to make it clear that my comment to The Greased Scotsman were not me "hedging my bets".

I know that the "Siberian Land bridge Only" theory has been disproven for over a decade and I was just glad that that fact was getting some mainstream attention.

I personally believe that ancient peoples were much more advanced and innovative than mainstream historians claim.

You brought up Demotic Egyptian. If it had no relevance why bring it up?

I brought up the Demotic in my responses to you, not the one to The Greased Scotsman. My comments to you were definitely about sharing evidence of the Book of Mormon.

I just got hung up on the idea that you thought that my comment to The Greased Scotsman was me trying to prove the Book of Mormon when it was not.

Reformed Egypt may look like but this does not mean it is Egypt, no more than if I made a bunch of marks that looked Egyptian make it Egyptian.

I feel that you are oversimplifying the claims made by the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith knew as much about Egypt and the Egyptian languages as I do about Martians and Martian languages.

His claims about his work of translation would have been just as absurd to the residents of mid-19th century New England as my claiming to have translated a book that had been written anciently in a "reformed Martian" language today.

However, let's imagine that I wrote down many of these "Martian" characters and then a hundred years from now a Martian civilization is discovered and the characters I wrote resemble the writing system found there. They are either very close or exactly similar.

You wouldn't consider that as some proof of authenticity?

I mean, c'mon, you really think I could just do some doodles and have them magically resemble many characters of some language I know nothing about?

Not only the same language, but the language located where I said it would be located and at the same exact time that it had been used anciently?

People told him, "No one outside of Egypt wrote using an Egyptian language", yet that has since been disproven.

People told him, "No Israelite would write in Egyptian.", yet that has since been disproven.

People told him, "Nephi could not have had a brother named 'Sam'", yet that has been proven to be an Egyptian name.

The first book of Nephi begins just as many other Egyptian narratives have been discovered to do, " I "blank" having been born of goodly parents and having been taught in the language of my father..."

Joseph Smith had no education. No one knew much about Egyptian, especially in New England. Who would have known that there were various forms of Egyptian?

Even if you claim that Joseph Smith did somehow miraculously know something of Egyptian, why did his characters resemble the Demotic instead of the hieroglyphics, which would have been more well-known? How did he pick the exact Egyptian language that would have been used by Lehi? How did he know that the Demotic was widely used during that time?

Also, consider, why he would use any form of Egyptian to write a Hebrew narrative. You know, the characters on the Anthon Transcript that didn't resemble the Demotic actually look a lot like Hebrew? There are also a few more Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon.

No, I don't think you have properly weighed the claims made by Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

I do not ignore the transcript I just consider it fraud just as every other non-Mormon Egyptologist has already concluded. You only have speculation for this transcript, nothing more.

How could an Egyptologist decipher a "reformed" Egyptian?

 

[Sapiens]

You are the one ignoring the facts concerning genetics.

No,

Bottlenecking and genetic drift eventually cause the plateauing of genetic ancestors which makes all your “evidence” inconclusive.

Neither would account for the complete lack of any markers indicating Hebrew origins.

I never claimed to be a geneticist but it is easy to discover the relevant obstacles that you so readily ignore.

Good thing you made no such claim, you'd look very, very foolish. The obstacles you've "discovered" are "readily ignored" by every major genetics authority out there.

Neither you nor anyone else has “demonstrated” that anything written in the Book of Mormon is “fallacious”.

Horse pucky, the BoM makes hash of all that is known of the ecology, fauna, technology, linguistics, history and genetics of Mesoamerica.

Of course you would think that because you were the one that made the mistake.

My mistaking one word for one with a similar meaning pales in the light of your rejection of almost every discipline of modern academics.

The fact that no one has ever claimed that the Book of Mormon was “perfect” hurts your core arguments.

Not in the least, it simply points out how unimportant I see it as being. I know that's hard for you to grasp.

It would be so much easier for you to rationalize the “demise” of the Book of Mormon if it were considered infallible, wouldn’t it?

Not really, it contains so many errors that one more, one way or the other, is of little import.

Also, your inability to accurately quote the Prophet casts doubt on whether or not you actually know what you are talking about.

Quoting your prophet is of little import to me.

I read the thread and I did not find anything you shared to be damning of the Book of Mormon.

I wouldn't expect you to, you spend too much time trying to sea-lawyer your way around that which is obvious to everyone else.

I thought that your claims about having evidence that disproves the Book of Mormon was in reference to something you had not yet shared.

I'll stand with what I wrote in post 20: "If you examine the internally consistent and cross fields consistent evidences that falsify the Mormon claims of Hebrews in North America, evidences that come from archaeology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, sociology, linguistics and damn near every other professional scientific discipline know to man it is obvious that there is no rational basis. If you similarly examine all the support from all these disciplines for the Mormon claims of Hebrews in North America you find them to be few and far between and they are, often as not, modified by phrases such as "could have" and "possibly." In any case, the claims never display robust consistency but rather demand reliance on anecdotes or singular observations that the Mormons attempt to inflate to generalities. For example, when the zoologist say that horses and elephants were extinct in North America the Mormon apologists try to conjure up a world where horses and elephants were widespread citing rare and singular bone finds that may, indeed, represent tiny relic remnant groups of such animals. The Mormons want to pretend that evidence that a tiny surviving herd of horses or mastodons falsifies what is know of the Pleistocene extinction and make likely the claims of the Book of Mormon. It doesn't wash."

If all you have to “disprove” the Book of Mormon is what you have already shared, then you have not demonstrated that anything claimed by Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon to be fallacious.

Clearly you are wrong.

There is a lot of evidence for the claims made in the Book of Mormon. There is no way that Joseph Smith could have written the book, unless he knew of things that his contemporary historians and scientists did not know about the Old and New Worlds.

But he got so much so wrong.

You just can’t see those evidences from that fort you built around your misguided views on genetics.

Not to mention what you must think are the mainstream's misguided views on archaeology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, sociology, linguistics and damn near every other professional scientific discipline know to man.

 

[Shad]

His claims about his work of translation would have been just as absurd to the residents of mid-19th century New England as my claiming to have translated a book that had been written anciently in a "reformed Martian" language today.

Thus infalsifiable and dismissed on this ground. You can not support that it is a language outside face value assessment (worst kind) and faith

However, let's imagine that I wrote down many of these "Martian" characters and then a hundred years from now a Martian civilization is discovered and the characters I wrote resemble the writing system found there. They are either very close or exactly similar.

You wouldn't consider that as some proof of authenticity?

No as face value assessments are not the final criteria of language studies. Heck its not even an important one

I mean, c'mon, you really think I could just do some doodles and have them magically resemble many characters of some language I know nothing about?

Why not? Anyone can make doodle and find a close enough match when the criteria is so low that misalignment, drawing errors, etc, are ignored.

Not only the same language, but the language located where I said it would be located and at the same exact time that it had been used anciently?

Yet for the Anthon script there is still no evidence beyond face value assessment and faith. Neither are major criteria in language studies.

People told him, "No one outside of Egypt wrote using an Egyptian language", yet that has since been disproven.

Too bad demotic Egyptian was had been worked on prior to Smith's clams. It was deciphered in 1814. Beside who told him this? At the very least you have established the people he talked to didn't know much at all.

People told him, "No Israelite would write in Egyptian.", yet that has since been disproven.

Who told him this? The same buffoon from the above?

People told him, "Nephi could not have had a brother named 'Sam'", yet that has been proven to be an Egyptian name.

Who said this?

You have made 3 statements so far without providing a source as to who these people are.

The first book of Nephi begins just as many other Egyptian narratives have been discovered to do, " I "blank" having been born of goodly parents and having been taught in the language of my father..."

So what? Also lets see some source behind this statement.

Joseph Smith had no education. No one knew much about Egyptian, especially in New England. Who would have known that there were various forms of Egyptian?

Making up a language and making claims about it does not mean he knew anything. It is still a fake language.

Even if you claim that Joseph Smith did somehow miraculously know something of Egyptian, why did his characters resemble the Demotic instead of the hieroglyphics, which would have been more well-known?

Except there are errors all over his writing making it not match at all. Demotic was already known about in his time. Again you ignore the errors in the Anthon script pointing to fraud.

Also education wise he had more of an education than most people of his time did including Presidents. His father and grandmother were school teachers themselves. He could not only read the Bible but debated, provide sermons, commentary, etc. Heck he bragged about his education and ability to learn Talking about Smith as if he were an uneducated person is a false position to make him look better. You paint Smith as someone that is incapable only in order to bolster his claims yet biographies of Smith made by your fellow Mormon show otherwise.

How did he pick the exact Egyptian language that would have been used by Lehi?

Except he didn't. You have no evidence that this was the language used by the Lehi. You have no evidence of the Lehi themselves. You treat a fraud as a fact because it is part of your faith nothing more.

How did he know that the Demotic was widely used during that time?

He didn't as the Lehi were a century removed from it's use.

Also, consider, why he would use any form of Egyptian to write a Hebrew narrative.

A good fraud will take steps to avoid being caught. As per your point. No one can match it to a real language.......

You know, the characters on the Anthon Transcript that didn't resemble the Demotic actually look a lot like Hebrew?

Another language known at the time, and far more established.

There are also a few more Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon.

So what?

No, I don't think you have properly weighed the claims made by Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

I see statements of faith, not evidence. Figure it out

How could an Egyptologist decipher a "reformed" Egyptian?

Apparently you can enough to claim symbols match as a non-expert. Yet taking these matches to create a language that one can read turns the Anthon script in gibberish when experts look at it. You put yourself into a corner with your grandstanding. The symbol look similar but in no way are Egyptian thus fraud or it is Egypt thus can be deciphered showing it was not Egyptian. Either way "Reformed" Egyptian becomes fraud.

 

[Prestor John]

Neither would account for the complete lack of any markers indicating Hebrew origins.

That is not accurate.

If a certain female ancestor in the maternal line was not Hebrew, then it will not show up in the mtDNA.

If a certain male ancestor in the paternal line was not Hebrew, then it will not show up in the Y-chromosome.

Genetic testing produces both false negatives and positives and is not conclusive at all.

Even if you screened every single Native American you could still miss genetic ancestors.

That is fact. That is the reality that you need to face and come to terms with.

Good thing you made no such claim, you'd look very, very foolish. The obstacles you've "discovered" are "readily ignored" by every major genetics authority out there.

Would you mind actually quoting a “major genetics authority” which claims that bottlenecking and genetic drift should be ignored?

Horse pucky, the BoM makes hash of all that is known of the ecology, fauna, technology, linguistics, history and genetics of Mesoamerica.

Thank you for sharing your opinion and the opinions of others.

My mistaking one word for one with a similar meaning pales in the light of your rejection of almost every discipline of modern academics.

The “I’m not as bad as you” game. Fun.

Anyways, I have not rejected any facts, only certain professional opinions.

It is a fact that horses and elephants lived on the North American continent. It is an opinion that they all died out long before Book of Mormon times.

Claiming that a book is “perfect” is worlds different than claiming that it is the “most correct”.

Not in the least, it simply points out how unimportant I see it as being. I know that's hard for you to grasp.

Are you sure?

You seem to commit a lot of time and effort to trying to refute the claims made by Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church.

You claiming that you find it “unimportant” pales in comparison to what you are actually doing.

Actions speak louder than words.

Not really, it contains so many errors that one more, one way or the other, is of little import.

It does contain errors, this is true. Admitted by Book of Mormon writers and Joseph Smith.

That does make it any less a true account or a book of scripture. Yet none of them are damning.

I challenge you to come up with a single bit of “evidence” that incontrovertibly proves that the Book of Mormon is in error.

So far…nothing. Just opinion.

Quoting your prophet is of little import to me.

It should be. Are you not trying to prove him wrong?

If you believe that you can prove the falsehoods of the Prophet Joseph Smith, then you’d think that you’d be able to quote him accurately?

Wouldn't you need to know his claims in order to disprove them?

I wouldn't expect you to, you spend too much time trying to sea-lawyer your way around that which is obvious to everyone else.

You are the one toting professional opinions as if they were facts.

I'll stand with what I wrote in post 20: "If you examine the internally consistent and cross fields consistent evidences that falsify the Mormon claims of Hebrews in North America, evidences that come from archaeology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, sociology, linguistics and damn near every other professional scientific discipline know to man it is obvious that there is no rational basis. If you similarly examine all the support from all these disciplines for the Mormon claims of Hebrews in North America you find them to be few and far between and they are, often as not, modified by phrases such as "could have" and "possibly." In any case, the claims never display robust consistency but rather demand reliance on anecdotes or singular observations that the Mormons attempt to inflate to generalities. For example, when the zoologist say that horses and elephants were extinct in North America the Mormon apologists try to conjure up a world where horses and elephants were widespread citing rare and singular bone finds that may, indeed, represent tiny relic remnant groups of such animals. The Mormons want to pretend that evidence that a tiny surviving herd of horses or mastodons falsifies what is [known] of the Pleistocene extinction and make likely the claims of the Book of Mormon. It doesn't wash."

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

So, since you have nothing new to offer, we are just going to have to agree to disagree because nothing you shared disproves the Book of Mormon.

You just believe that it is false. That does not make it false.

Clearly you are wrong.

Hahaha. “Clearly you are wrong”

I love how you are so sure of yourself even though you shared absolutely zero conclusive evidence.

But he got so much so wrong.

I have seen no evidence of this.

But let us assume for a moment that he did get a lot wrong. Why would that even matter? He never claimed that he or the Book of Mormon were “perfect”. He never claimed to know all things.

How would his getting some things wrongs somehow magically make all the stuff he got right null and void?

Not to mention what you must think are the mainstream's misguided views on archaeology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, sociology, linguistics and damn near every other professional scientific discipline know to man.

I’ve seen no evidence of this, but I’d just like to point out that the “mainstream” of every field has been proven wrong over and over again throughout history.

Science continues to grow and develop. It sure isn’t perfect, so I’m not about to revere scientists as prophets or view their opinions as anything more than that.

 

[Prestor John]

I think you are under the false notion that I am trying to prove the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon to you. I’m not.

Thus infalsifiable and dismissed on this ground. You cannot support that it is a language outside face value assessment (worst kind) and faith.

Read and pray about the Book of Mormon.

That is how you test the claims made by Joseph Smith.

No as face value assessments are not the final criteria of language studies. Heck its not even an important one.

You should look at the claim in its totality.

Similar characters used at the exact time and place that they have been proven to have been used.

Why not? Anyone can make doodle and find a close enough match when the criteria is so low that misalignment, drawing errors, etc, are ignored.

That is oversimplification to the extreme.

Yet for the Anthon script there is still no evidence beyond face value assessment and faith. Neither are major criteria in language studies.

You can’t look at the Anthon Transcript and the reformed Egyptian in a vacuum.

Too bad demotic Egyptian was had been worked on prior to Smith's clams. It was deciphered in 1814.

Yeah. Too bad as soon as it was deciphered it was taught to all grade schools in Palmyra, New York.

Too bad every Tom, Dick and Harry in New England knew about and could decipher the Demotic Egyptian.

Note: Sarcasm

Beside who told him this? At the very least you have established the people he talked to didn't know much at all.

You assume that the citizens of New England had the same access to information as we do today?

The Prophet’s critics were from every walk of life in mid-19th century U.S. and many such critiques were hurled at him.

You cannot judge them or the Prophet based on the information we have today. In his time in New England no one knew, including himself, much of anything concerning Egypt or Egyptian.

As I said before, everything about the Prophet’s claims were considered absurd by those who knew him.

Who told him this? The same buffoon from the above?

Most likely, but you do them a disservice by judging their ignorance based on our modern standards of historical education.

Who said this?

Many people even today may still say this one. Have you ever read an anti-Mormon book?

The point I want to drive home is that Joseph Smith and other inhabitants of New England knew next to nothing about Egypt and its languages.

You have made 3 statements so far without providing a source as to who these people are.

There is no need. This is bread and butter stuff. These critiques have been there since before the inception of the Church made by common folk and religionists alike.

So what? Also lets see some source behind this statement.

http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/content/1-nephi-1

If he wrote the Book of Mormon, how did Joseph Smith know about the “colophon” which was used in Egyptian works?

Making up a language and making claims about it does not mean he knew anything. It is still a fake language.

Yeah. That’s a closed mind right there.

The Book of Mormon claims that Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 B.C.E and that he had a knowledge of the Egyptian language. Both the Egyptian and the Hebrew among the Lehites were altered over time and the gold plates were later written in a “reformed Egyptian”. Characters copied from the plates closely resemble the Demotic Egyptian that had been used in Egypt and other regions in 600 B.C.E., which would have been the Egyptian that Lehi had known if he lived in the Middle East at that time.

If Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, how did he know so many characters that closely resemble the Demotic Egyptian? How did he know that that form of language had been used in the Middle East during 600 B.C.E?

Except there are errors all over his writing making it not match at all. Demotic was already known about in his time. Again you ignore the errors in the Anthon script pointing to fraud.

No. How could there be any issue of fraud when no one claimed that the characters of the “reformed Egyptian” were Demotic Egyptian characters?

No one made that claim.

The claim is that the Demotic Egyptian had been altered by a nation of people and that after a millennia, it resembled but did not completely match the original.

Demotic being known by experts in Egypt does not mean that a farm-boy in Palmyra, New York knew it.

Also education wise he had more of an education than most people of his time did including Presidents. His father and grandmother were school teachers themselves. He could not only read the Bible but debated, provide sermons, commentary, etc. Heck he bragged about his education and ability to learn Talking about Smith as if he were an uneducated person is a false position to make him look better. You paint Smith as someone that is incapable only in order to bolster his claims yet biographies of Smith made by your fellow Mormon show otherwise.

Ok, so where are all your sources Mr. Hypocrite?

Joseph Smith had only a 5th-6th grade formal education. Everything else he acquired through instruction received by God and other heavenly beings.

He was brilliant and could stump his contemporaries, but that does not mean he had an education.

Except he didn't. You have no evidence that this was the language used by the Lehi. You have no evidence of the Lehi themselves. You treat a fraud as a fact because it is part of your faith nothing more.

Do I need to prove the existence of Christ in order to claim that he spoke in Aramaic?

The Book of Mormon claimed that Lehi was in Jerusalem in 600 B.C.E and that he knew Egyptian. He know that the Demotic Egyptian was widely used at that time in that region of the world.

The characters copied from the plates closely resemble the Demotic Egyptian.

C’mon bro, this isn’t rocket science.

He didn't as the Lehi were a century removed from it's use.

That is inaccurate.

A good fraud will take steps to avoid being caught. As per your point. No one can match it to a real language.......

It closely resembles the Demotic Egyptian from which it is derived.

Another language known at the time, and far more established.

Yes it was and the Book of Mormon clams that the people had altered the Hebrew among themselves as well.

So what?

It is interesting that a book translated by some ignorant farm-boy in rural New England that claimed to have ancient Egyptian origins would also contain examples of ancient Egyptian names.

You couldn’t just “google” examples of ancient Egyptian names back then.

I see statements of faith, not evidence. Figure it out

Using your eyes to compare the Anthon Transcript to the Demotic Egyptian and see the similarities is no act of faith.

Apparently you can enough to claim symbols match as a non-expert. Yet taking these matches to create a language that one can read turns the Anthon script in gibberish when experts look at it. You put yourself into a corner with your grandstanding. The symbol look similar but in no way are Egyptian thus fraud or it is Egypt thus can be deciphered showing it was not Egyptian. Either way "Reformed" Egyptian becomes fraud.

Just because the characters are similar, that doesn’t mean it is the same language. The system was completely different. Spanish and English use the same characters, but they are different languages.

You are trying to find an exact copy of Egyptian on the plates, when no one claimed that they were there.

 

[Sapiens]

That is not accurate.

Such is your claim, based on ignorance and belief.

If a certain female ancestor in the maternal line was not Hebrew, then it will not show up in the mtDNA.

True on an individual basis, but not on a population basis. mDNA of Amerindians show no Hebrew origins.

If a certain male ancestor in the paternal line was not Hebrew, then it will not show up in the Y-chromosome.

True on an individual basis, but not on a population basis. The Y-chromosomes of Amerindians show no Hebrew origins.

Genetic testing produces both false negatives and positives and is not conclusive at all.

Conclusive? No. You can not prove a negative, but highly indicative? Yes. The fact remains the mDNA, Y-chromosome and autosomal studies all fail to provide even a single indicator of ant Hebrew origins.

Even if you screened every single Native American you could still miss genetic ancestors.

Sure, and it is possible, unlikely but possible, for a blind man to walk the length of Manhattan Island, unassisted and unaided and not trip once or be hit by a car.

That is fact. That is the reality that you need to face and come to terms with.

You are clutching at straws and confusing infinitesimal probabilities with likely events based on a semantic game withi "weasel words" like "could."

Would you mind actually quoting a “major genetics authority” which claims that bottlenecking and genetic drift should be ignored?

Again you are asking for proof of a negative, a waste of time. The honest question is, "Where is the evidence that bottlenecking or genetic drift removed all traces of Hebrew DNA from the Mesoamerican population and how likely is it that this might have occured?"

Thank you for sharing your opinion and the opinions of others.

You are welcome.

The “I’m not as bad as you” game. Fun.

You don't get it, the specific words of the con-man are not particularity relevant. My criticisms are based not on such foolishness but on (as preciously stated and standing unrefuted), "... the internally consistent and cross fields consistent evidences that falsify the Mormon claims of Hebrews in North America, evidences that come from archaeology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, sociology, linguistics and damn near every other professional scientific discipline know to man"

Anyways, I have not rejected any facts, only certain professional opinions.

Again, a semantic game that relies on the fact that an honest scientist will never state that anything is fact, only that there is an extreme likelihood. You see, science makes no pretense at b..eing "revealed" knowledge.

It is a fact that horses and elephants lived on the North American continent. It is an opinion that they all died out long before Book of Mormon times.

Yes, but that "opinion" is one shared by the entire non-Mormon zoological, archaeological and paleontological communities.

Claiming that a book is “perfect” is worlds different than claiming that it is the “most correct”.

Sure, "perfect" is a higher standard, but since neither standard is met, the point is moot.

Are you sure?

You seem to commit a lot of time and effort to trying to refute the claims made by Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and the LDS Church.

You claiming that you find it “unimportant” pales in comparison to what you are actually doing.

Actions speak louder than words.

It does contain errors, this is true. Admitted by Book of Mormon writers and Joseph Smith.

That does make it any less a true account or a book of scripture. Yet none of them are damning.

I challenge you to come up with a single bit of “evidence” that incontrovertibly proves that the Book of Mormon is in error.

So far…nothing. Just opinion.

Elephants, horses, steel, etc.

It should be. Are you not trying to prove him wrong?

If you believe that you can prove the falsehoods of the Prophet Joseph Smith, then you’d think that you’d be able to quote him accurately?

Wouldn't you need to know his claims in order to disprove them?

Are you trying to transmute a misquote into a falsification of the Pleistocene extinction? Good trick if you can pull it off.

You are the one toting professional opinions as if they were facts.

Now you are clearly lying. I am the one who has been noting all along that science does not deal in nor produce "facts." But the fact is that you are failing to recognize that the probability of each of the noted claims (Elephants, horses, steel, etc.) are passing small and the the probability of all of the claims taken together (the quotient) does bear consideration.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

You are welcome.

So, since you have nothing new to offer, we are just going to have to agree to disagree because nothing you shared disproves the Book of Mormon.

Again, in science there no such thing as "proof .' "Disproof," on the other hand, is known as "falsification," and it is clear that many aspects of the BoM have, for all practical purposes, been falsified.

You just believe that it is false. That does not make it false.

Belief is your bailiwick, I deal in likelihood. The likelihood of the BoM being fraudulent is so high as to be sure thing.

Hahaha. “Clearly you are wrong”

Yep ... clearly you are wrong.

I love how you are so sure of yourself even though you shared absolutely zero conclusive evidence.

You demand "conclusive" evidence, science deals in likelihood. To you conclusive evidence is a probability of 1.0, in science conclusivity is in the range of 090 to 0.95. So, in scientific terms there is highly conclusive evidence, only contradicted by the lies spread by a convicted con-man who is caught in a trap of his own making.Clearly you are wrong

I have seen no evidence of this.

Sure you have, you just can't acknowledge it.

But let us assume for a moment that he did get a lot wrong. Why would that even matter? He never claimed that he or the Book of Mormon were “perfect”. He never claimed to know all things.

How would his getting some things wrongs somehow magically make all the stuff he got right null and void?

If he can't get the ordinary claims right, and since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Smith is hardly creditable, even if you ignore his history as a liar. However, if you grant that past behavior is the best predictor of future performance, then the only reasonable thing you can do is discount any suspicious claims that Smith advanced.

I’ve seen no evidence of this, but I’d just like to point out that the “mainstream” of every field has been proven wrong over and over again throughout history.

Sure you have, I've brought it up here. You just prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and run screaming in circles to admitting it. Each to their own.

As far as the "mainstream of every field has been proven wrong over and over again throughout history" is concerned, the "history" of science, as it is practiced today (factoring in publication and speed of dissemination), only goes back (at most) into the 19th Century and has proven to be both a rapid and robust self correcting undertaking.
.

Science continues to grow and develop. It sure isn’t perfect, so I’m not about to revere scientists as prophets or view their opinions as anything more than that.

Instead you'll swallow whole fairy tails of angels, golden tablets and mighty cultures that left no trace of any sort ... makes really good sense.

 

[Prestor John]

Such is your claim, based on ignorance and belief.

True on an individual basis, but not on a population basis. mDNA of Amerindians show no Hebrew origins.

True on an individual basis, but not on a population basis. The Y-chromosomes of Amerindians show no Hebrew origins.

It is your ignorance of the claims made (and the claims NOT made) in the Book of Mormon that has led you to believe that there should be Hebrew genetic evidence in the Native American population today in order for the claims of the Book of Mormon to be true.

The Book of Mormon claims that:

1.) Two families – the family of Lehi and the family of Ishmael – migrated to the Americas on a single ship. The exact number of individuals was not recorded, however it can be estimated based on who were recorded as well as the mention of Lehi having daughters and Ishmael having sons (who also brought their families) that approximately 20-40 people came on that one ship.

2.) Another group of Hebrews came to the Americas and landed north of the Lehites and founded the city of Zarahemla. The exact number of these Hebrews was not recorded. A few centuries after their arrival they were introduced to the Nephites and they became one people.

3.) There were indigenous peoples living in the Americas before the arrival of the aforementioned Hebrews.

The Book of Mormon does NOT claim that:

1.) A mass migration or exodus of Hebrews to the Americas took place.

2.) The aforementioned Hebrews were the first or only people to inhabit the Americas.

3.) The aforementioned Hebrews bred only amongst themselves or did not breed with any of the indigenous peoples that inhabited the Americas.

The fact that the Book of Mormon records very few Hebrews migrating to the Americas may account for the lack of Hebrew genetic evidence in the Native America populations today. The mtDNA and Y-chromosomes of the Hebrews would have been replaced only after a few generations.

This may be why they decided to refer to themselves after a new name (Nephites) rather than refer to themselves as Mannassehites after the custom of the Hebrews.

Remember the marble analogy given to you by rrosskopf? That analogy explains “genetic drift” and applies to the history of the Hebrews recorded in the Book of Mormon.

We need to also consider many events recorded in the Book of Mormon as well as what is known to have happened to the Meso-American peoples that would have caused a “bottle-neck” effect. This also may have attributed to the lack of Hebrew genetic evidence among the Native American populations today:

1.) The many wars, plagues and famines that had been recorded to have been wrought upon the Lehites throughout their history in the Americas.

2.) The great destruction by fire and natural disaster among the Lehites recorded to have happened immediately preceding the visitation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

3.) The genocide of the Nephite people recorded at the end of the Book of Mormon as well as the wars that were mentioned to have begun amongst the Lamanites after the Nephites were no more.

4.) The many millions of deaths among the Meso-American people caused by plague and violence upon the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors.

5.) The replacement of Native mtDNA and Y-Chromosomes with Spanish and other European mtDNA and Y-Chromosomes during the colonization of the Central and South American lands.

Conclusive? No.

Then why have you been trumping around as if it was?

You [cannot] prove a negative, but highly indicative? Yes. The fact remains the mDNA, Y-chromosome and autosomal studies all fail to provide even a single indicator of [any] Hebrew origins.

The mtDNA and Y-Chromosomes of a small group of people mingling with the indigenous population could be completely replaced after only a few generations.

What you have shared may be “highly indicative” of doubt concerning the ignorant assumptions you made about the claims of the Book of Mormon, but it does not disprove the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon.

Sure, and it is possible, unlikely but possible, for a blind man to walk the length of Manhattan Island, unassisted and unaided and not trip once or be hit by a car.

Yes, the false narrative that you devised is very unlikely.

You are clutching at straws and confusing infinitesimal probabilities with likely events based on a semantic game with "weasel words" like "could."

Again, your false assumptions about the claims of the Book of Mormon may be an “infinitesimal possibility”.

I don’t understand your vehemence concerning the word “could”.

I never claimed to know everything and the Book of Mormon claims that not everything about the Lehites had been recorded, so a lot of what we are discussing dwells within the “realm of possibility”.

If the Book of Mormon does not record something I cannot claim that that something did or did not happen, so I use the word ”could”. It could have happened or it could not have happened.

Again you are asking for proof of a negative, a waste of time.

You were the one who claimed that “The obstacles you've "discovered" are "readily ignored" by every major genetics authority out there.”

I was merely asking you to supply evidence of that claim. Which geneticist claimed that “genetic drift” and “bottle-necking” could be ignored?

The honest question is, "Where is the evidence that bottlenecking or genetic drift removed all traces of Hebrew DNA from the Mesoamerican population and how likely is it that this might have [occurred]?"

That is a good question and the answer could be found in the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon clearly states that very few Hebrews were introduced to the Americas.

The Book of Mormon clearly states that there were other indigenous peoples living in the Americas before the introduction of those Hebrews.

The Book of Mormon recorded many events that led to massive loss of life among the Lehites which would generate a “bottle-neck” effect.

You don't get it, the specific words of the con-man are not particularity relevant. My criticisms are based not on such foolishness but on (as preciously stated and standing unrefuted), "... the internally consistent and cross fields consistent evidences that falsify the Mormon claims of Hebrews in North America, evidences that come from archaeology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, sociology, linguistics and damn near every other professional scientific discipline know to man"

So, what you are saying is, you don’t care to correctly quote the Prophet or to accurately present the claims made in the Book of Mormon?

It is just like what I said then. You are creating false narratives concerning LDS beliefs and the claims of the Book of Mormon and then “disproving” them.

You keep mentioning all these “professional scientific disciplines” without quoting them.

Is that because you don’t know how to correctly quote someone, like how you are unable to do so for the Prophet?

Again, a semantic game that relies on the fact that an honest scientist will never state that anything is fact, only that there is an extreme likelihood. You see, science makes no pretense at being "revealed" knowledge.

Then why have you been acting as if you have established facts?

Besides, if all the “professional scientific disciplines” are busy focusing on the false narratives generated by you and others – then their opinion doesn’t really matter.

Anyways, I don’t mind waiting for science to catch up while you can’t wait to make the claim that everything we believe in is nonsense.

This leads me to believe that your conclusion is not based solely on science (as you claim), but also upon your personal preference.

 

[Prestor John]

Yes, but that "opinion" is one shared by the entire non-Mormon zoological, archaeological and paleontological communities.

Even if that were true this “opinion” is based on either:

- false narratives generated by you and others like you

- ignorance of the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon, or

- their findings, the “opinion” of which are subject to change based on new findings or developments.

Sure, "perfect" is a higher standard, but since neither standard is met, the point is moot.

“Perfect” is the highest standard and nothing you have shared proves that the Book of Mormon does not reach the standard of “most correct”.

Elephants, horses, steel, etc.

Yes, like these.

These may be examples of some of the “errors” mentioned in the Book of Mormon or an “error” made during the translation process.

Is it not possible that Mormon used a word in his language to describe a “lama” that came across as a “four-legged, load-bearing hairy animal” which Joseph Smith translated as “horse”?

What if Moroni could not accurately explain the “large animal” described in the Jaredite plates, because he had never seen one, so the description he recorded for Joseph Smith made him think of an “elephant”?

We already know that references to “steel” do not necessarily mean the same today as it did in ancient cultures.

If these are errors then the Book of Mormon might not reach the standard of “perfect”, but it is still well within the standard of “most correct”.

That is why it is important to correctly quote your sources so you can tell if you are actually combatting their claims or not.

Are you trying to transmute a misquote into a falsification of the Pleistocene extinction? Good trick if you can pull it off.

No, not really. I am just demonstrating how different a claim of “perfection” is from “most correct”.

You misquoting the Prophet caused you to create a false narrative which then made you feel that if any errors were found in the Book of Mormon you could then dismiss it entirely.

Although, I am not claiming that we have all the answers and I would not be surprised if this “extinction” was not as complete as people believe it to be.

Now you are clearly lying. I am the one who has been noting all along that science does not deal in nor produce "facts." But the fact is that you are failing to recognize that the probability of each of the noted claims (Elephants, horses, steel, etc.) are passing small and the the probability of all of the claims taken together (the quotient) does bear consideration.

No, I am not. You have been toting professional opinions as if they were facts and you have used them to dismiss the claims of the Book of Mormon and the LDS faith.

All the things you have mentioned have been, should be and are being considered, but that is not to say that all the evidence for the claims made in the Book of Mormon should be ignored or that anyone should dismiss the claims of the Book of Mormon.

You are unwilling to look at the evidence for the claims of the Book of Mormon because, like I said, you built yourself a fort and are unable to see anything outside of it.

Again, in science there no such thing as "proof .' "Disproof," on the other hand, is known as "falsification," and it is clear that many aspects of the BoM have, for all practical purposes, been falsified.

Not really because you refuse to consider relevant possibilities.

Belief is your bailiwick, I deal in likelihood. The likelihood of the BoM being fraudulent is so high as to be sure thing.

There you go equating opinion with fact again. You wonder why I keep mentioning it.

You created a false narrative and then tried to combat it. That is all that has happened here.

You demand "conclusive" evidence, science deals in likelihood.

I demand conclusive evidence because you are coming to conclusions.

To you conclusive evidence is a probability of 1.0, in science [conclusively] is in the range of 090 to 0.95. So, in scientific terms there is highly conclusive evidence, only contradicted by the lies spread by a convicted con-man who is caught in a trap of his own making.

There you go creating a false narrative again.

Joseph Smith was never convicted of anything. He was charged, but never convicted.

Your opinion of Joseph Smith may be where you are placing a lot of your conclusions about the Book of Mormon.

You believe that any supposed flaws found in Joseph Smith should also be applied to the Book of Mormon.

If he can't get the ordinary claims right, and since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Smith is hardly creditable, even if you ignore his history as a liar. However, if you grant that past behavior is the best predictor of future performance, then the only reasonable thing you can do is discount any suspicious claims that Smith advanced.

This opinion is based on the assumption that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and did not translate it.

No wonder you are unwilling to consider that errors in translation may have been made.

Your poor opinion about Joseph Smith based on falsehoods has clouded your mind to any reasonable consideration of the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

I don’t believe that your opinion of Joseph Smith will ever change because you don’t even care about what he actually said in regards to the Book of Mormon and are willing to misquote him in support of your argument.

That is not the scholarly approach.

As far as the "mainstream of every field has been proven wrong over and over again throughout history" is concerned, the "history" of science, as it is practiced today (factoring in publication and speed of dissemination), only goes back (at most) into the 19th Century and has proven to be both a rapid and robust [self-correcting] undertaking.

I agree. That is why I am willing to wait for more excavation of the supposed Book of Mormon sites before I jump to any conclusions like you have.

Instead you'll swallow whole fairy [tales] of angels, golden tablets and mighty cultures that left no trace of any sort ... makes really good sense.

If Meso-America is where the Book of Mormon events took place then I do not know how you can claim there is no trace of “mighty culture”.

It has been proven that ancient peoples inscribed upon metal plates, including brass and gold.

I have had personal experience that has led me to believe in the existence of angels.

 

[Shad]

I think you are under the false notion that I am trying to prove the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon to you. I’m not.

You have been this whole thread.

Read and pray about the Book of Mormon.

That is how you test the claims made by Joseph SmithThat is how you test the claims made by Joseph Smith

The answer I got was still it is fraud. Want to try your projection again? You standard is awful.

You should look at the claim in its totality.

When individual parts of the claim do not line up with any facts the whole is dismissed.

Similar characters used at the exact time and place that they have been proven to have been used.

Except that when put to the test these characters do not match, do not make a language, are pure gibberish when compared to Egyptian. Swing and a miss.

That is oversimplification to the extreme.

Except this is exactly the case when put to the test.

You can’t look at the Anthon Transcript and the reformed Egyptian in a vacuum.

Exactly. When looked at it is gibberish that has nothing to do with Egyptian.

Yeah. Too bad as soon as it was deciphered it was taught to all grade schools in Palmyra, New York. Too bad every Tom, Dick and Harry in New England knew about and could decipher the Demotic Egyptian.

You made a claim that such information was unknown at the time. I showed otherwise.

Note: Sarcasm

Backpedaling noted.

You assume that the citizens of New England had the same access to information as we do today?

No you assumed that the language was unknown when it in fact was. Backpedaling and strawman notednoted

The Prophet’s critics were from every walk of life in mid-19th century U.S. and many such critiques were hurled at him.

As were charges of fraud using the same techniques you believe in.

You cannot judge them or the Prophet based on the information we have today.

Yes I can as it shows fraud that ignorant and gullible people thought was fact.

In his time in New England no one knew, including himself, much of anything concerning Egypt or Egyptian.

You can not show this claim to be true so dismissed as the strawman it is.

As I said before, everything about the Prophet’s claims were considered absurd by those who knew him.

And absurd to experts....

Most likely, but you do them a disservice by judging their ignorance based on our modern standards of historical education.

I was showing the Smith wasn't an uneducated person.

Many people even today may still say this one. Have you ever read an anti-Mormon book?

So what?

And no.

The point I want to drive home is that Joseph Smith and other inhabitants of New England knew next to nothing about Egypt and its languages.

There are things called books, son. Have you heard of books? You treat NE like it is in vacuum then use a doublestandard claiming I have done the same, when I didnt, when you point is shown to be nonsense.

There is no need. This is bread and butter stuff. These critiques have been there since before the inception of the Church made by common folk and religionists alike.

So what? You still made statements without sources.

http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/content/1-nephi-1

If he wrote the Book of Mormon, how did Joseph Smith know about the “colophon” which was used in Egyptian works?

It has been used in many languages for millennia. Your ignorance is not an argument for your case, only that you are clueless.

Yeah. That’s a closed mind right there.

Typical nonsense used as a defense when you arguments can not stand scrutiny. You use slander those that rejected your nonsense, nothing more. Beside it is a made up language as it is only treated as a language by Mormons, not linguistic experts.

The Book of Mormon claims that Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 B.C.E and that he had a knowledge of the Egyptian language. Both the Egyptian and the Hebrew among the Lehites were altered over time and the gold plates were later written in a “reformed Egyptian”. Characters copied from the plates closely resemble the Demotic Egyptian that had been used in Egypt and other regions in 600 B.C.E., which would have been the Egyptian that Lehi had known if he lived in the Middle East at that time.

You can not support this claim without already assuming your made up language is not the fraud it is. Dismissed due to unstated premises that are untenable and unsupported.

If Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, how did he know so many characters that closely resemble the Demotic Egyptian? How did he know that that form of language had been used in the Middle East during 600 B.C.E?

A lot of the character resembled English, Latin, Greek, etc, etc. This goes further to show your face value assessment is horrible.

No. How could there be any issue of fraud when no one claimed that the characters of the “reformed Egyptian” were Demotic Egyptian characters?

No one made that claim.

The claim is that the Demotic Egyptian had been altered by a nation of people and that after a millennia, it resembled but did not completely match the original.

This is the claim made by Smith himself to Anthon. Hence why he went to "educated" people to confirm his claims.... Opps seems like you are ignorant of what Smith did himself

The claim is that the Demotic Egyptian had been altered by a nation of people and that after a millennia, it resembled but did not completely match the original.

Demotic being known by experts in Egypt does not mean that a farm-boy in Palmyra, New York knew it. [/quote]

So what. I was showing your claim that the language was unknown is false.

Ok, so where are all your sources Mr. Hypocrite?

Look up Demotic Egyptian and you can see my claim is true. After all my point was specific that anyone can figure it out.... Your laziness is not a defense.

Joseph Smith had only a 5th-6th grade formal education. Everything else he acquired through instruction received by God and other heavenly beings.

Yet this own biographies made by Mormons show he did sermons, could read the bible and even debated people on biblical topics. Your faith is not a statement of fact, projection again.

He was brilliant and could stump his contemporaries, but that does not mean he had an education.

Yet you showed right above he did have one...... Opppps..

Do I need to prove the existence of Christ in order to claim that he spoke in Aramaic?

Yes... After all if you can not show this person exists you can not say they spoke at all...

The Book of Mormon claimed that Lehi was in Jerusalem in 600 B.C.E and that he knew Egyptian. He know that the Demotic Egyptian was widely used at that time in that region of the world.

Except it wasn't as it was first used in Egypt in 600 BCE. The source showing wide spread use were from the 26th dynasty which was around in 525 BCE....

The characters copied from the plates closely resemble the Demotic Egyptian.

Resembles does not mean it is.... Just as English and French use the same script but are different languages.....

C’mon bro, this isn’t rocket science.

You having low standards does not mean I am obligated to hold your low standards as my own.

That is inaccurate.

Except I showed otherwise per the above.

It closely resembles the Demotic Egyptian from which it is derived.

Then the language can be link to Demotic Egyptian. Too bad experts make no such leap of faith as they are not obligated to since they are no Mormons...

Yes it was and the Book of Mormon clams that the people had altered the Hebrew among themselves as well.

Which wasn't my point. My point that Hebrew was already know during Smith's life.

It is interesting that a book translated by some ignorant farm-boy in rural New England that claimed to have ancient Egyptian origins would also contain examples of ancient Egyptian names.

You still have no show this is a translation rather than the fraud it is outside of your religion.

You couldn’t just “google” examples of ancient Egyptian names back then.

Names that are within the OT among other books in circulation at the time. Herodotus wrote about Amun, Amoon, in the 400s BCE.

Using your eyes to compare the Anthon Transcript to the Demotic Egyptian and see the similarities is no act of faith.

Again demanding I use your horrible standard rather than consult the opinions of experts.... This is not convincing and further shows how low your standards are as your faith demands it.

Just because the characters are similar, that doesn’t mean it is the same language.

Bingo, we have a winner. Did I not tell you this days ago? Now apply this to your own argument....

The system was completely different. Spanish and English use the same characters, but they are different languages.

Bingo, we have a winner. Too bad there is not only a history but evidence show how the languages are related and how each developed. While your argument has none of this, just speculation...

You are trying to find an exact copy of Egyptian on the plates, when no one claimed that they were there.

Smith did..

 

[Sapiens]

It is your ignorance of the claims made (and the claims NOT made) in the Book of Mormon that has led you to believe that there should be Hebrew genetic evidence in the Native American population today in order for the claims of the Book of Mormon to be true.

The Book of Mormon claims that:

1.) Two families – the family of Lehi and the family of Ishmael – migrated to the Americas on a single ship. The exact number of individuals was not recorded, however it can be estimated based on who were recorded as well as the mention of Lehi having daughters and Ishmael having sons (who also brought their families) that approximately 20-40 people came on that one ship.

2.) Another group of Hebrews came to the Americas and landed north of the Lehites and founded the city of Zarahemla. The exact number of these Hebrews was not recorded. A few centuries after their arrival they were introduced to the Nephites and they became one people.

3.) There were indigenous peoples living in the Americas before the arrival of the aforementioned Hebrews.

The Book of Mormon does NOT claim that:

1.) A mass migration or exodus of Hebrews to the Americas took place.

2.) The aforementioned Hebrews were the first or only people to inhabit the Americas.

3.) The aforementioned Hebrews bred only amongst themselves or did not breed with any of the indigenous peoples that inhabited the Americas.

Not only did they evidently not breed, they also did not speak with the indigenous populations nor did the share any old world technologies. Taken as a whole that's a pretty damning indictment.

If, as the Book of Mormon claims, there were Israelite migrations to the New World or to Mesoamerica, they have left essentially no trace. The molecular research on Mesoamerican populations is in complete harmony with the Mesoamerican archaeological research. The lack of evidence of any Middle Eastern influence in Mesoamerica is telling given the example of the brief visits to the New World by Scandinavians that took place not long after the Book of Mormon period, that have been detected in North America.

“Ten centuries ago a handful of Norse sailors slipped into Newfoundland, established small colonies, traded with local natives, then sailed back into the fog of history. In spite of the small scale of their settlements and the brevity of their stay, unequivocal evidence of their presence has been found, including metalwork, buildings, and Norse inscriptions. Just six centuries earlier, the Book of Mormon tells us, a climactic battle between fair-skinned Nephites and dark-skinned Lamanites ended a millennial dominion by a literate, Christian, Bronze Age civilization with a population numbering in the millions. Decades of serious and honest scholarship have failed to uncover credible evidence that these Book of Mormon civilizations ever existed. No Semitic languages, no Israelites speaking these languages, no wheeled chariots or horses to pull them, no swords or steel to make them. They remain a great civilization vanished without a trace, the people along with their genes.” —Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe, 2004

The fact that the Book of Mormon records very few Hebrews migrating to the Americas may account for the lack of Hebrew genetic evidence in the Native America populations today. The mtDNA and Y-chromosomes of the Hebrews would have been replaced only after a few generations.

This may be why they decided to refer to themselves after a new name (Nephites) rather than refer to themselves as Mannassehites after the custom of the Hebrews.

Remember the marble analogy given to you by rrosskopf? That analogy explains “genetic drift” and applies to the history of the Hebrews recorded in the Book of Mormon.

We need to also consider many events recorded in the Book of Mormon as well as what is known to have happened to the Meso-American peoples that would have caused a “bottle-neck” effect. This also may have attributed to the lack of Hebrew genetic evidence among the Native American populations today:

1.) The many wars, plagues and famines that had been recorded to have been wrought upon the Lehites throughout their history in the Americas.

2.) The great destruction by fire and natural disaster among the Lehites recorded to have happened immediately preceding the visitation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

3.) The genocide of the Nephite people recorded at the end of the Book of Mormon as well as the wars that were mentioned to have begun amongst the Lamanites after the Nephites were no more.

4.) The many millions of deaths among the Meso-American people caused by plague and violence upon the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors.

5.) The replacement of Native mtDNA and Y-Chromosomes with Spanish and other European mtDNA and Y-Chromosomes during the colonization of the Central and South American lands.

Then why have you been trumping around as if it was?

The mtDNA and Y-Chromosomes of a small group of people mingling with the indigenous population could be completely replaced after only a few generations.

Your knowledge of genetic techniques appears to be limited to that approved for dissemination by Mormon apologists. I'm guessing that you've never heard of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SMPs)? Sure, years ago, we could only study simple configurations of the Y chromosome and mDNA. But science marches on and there are new methods now. We can now examine the most complex areas of an individual's complete nuclear DNA. Using what is called 'admixture mapping,' thousands of variant SNPs can be studied. This is the technique that revealed the H. sapiens/H. neanderthalensis crosses, that proved European and African Jews had a common origin in the Middle East, migrated to northern Italy and then separated, and that Ameridians are the result of only one migration to the New World from Siberia.

Tian, Chao; et.al, (A Genomewide SNP Panel for Mexican American Admixture Mapping in the American Journal of Human Genetics, June 2007 ) reported on the examination of four hundred thousand SNPs for ancestry-informative markers in the process of looking for the ethnic origins of indigenous diseases, SNPs show more than the dominant heritage, they are also indicative of ancestors from other ethnic backgrounds, as well as the time frame that those other ethnic backgrounds entered the gene pool. So, it is no longer creditable for Mormon apologists to claim that the genetic evidence is unavailable because it became extinct. If there were Lamanites in the Americas, they will be found. If there weren't, we're going to learn that as well. The recent technological advances have changed everything.

The cost of analyzing for SNPs has fallen dramatically, now scientists can do what was formerly unthinkable, identify millions of points of difference in nuclear DNA among thousands of humans. The results are impressive. You Mormons best hold onto you seats because you're in for a ride.

It will take time for scientists to sort out which SNPs are indigenous to which regions, but a comprehensive database is emerging. Tien's study identified 8,144 SNPs common to Pimas and Mayas that distinguish them from Europeans. These SNPs can be used to determine when 'other DNA' (European or Book of Mormon) entered the gene pools of American Indians. In all, of 24 Mexican Americans studied by Tien, the foreign DNA in their pedigrees: 'originated within the last 10-25 generations. If any of these individuals had pre-Columbian DNA from elsewhere in the world, it would have been virtually impossible to miss.'

Two Mormon-oriented groups contend that previous assumptions, based on a limited amount of genetic evidence, that one would not expect to find Israelite DNA in the Americas is in fact consistent with a literal reading of the Book of Mormon. The Foundation for Indigenous Research and Mormonism (FIRM), led by Rod Meldrum, has argued that the mitochondrial X haplotype that is concentrated in New England Indians shows there was a pre-Columbian arrival of Israelites there, for instance. But, the consensus is that the mitochondrial X haplotype came to the Americas by way of Siberia, and there's no serious controversy over this among scientists. It most likely originated in Central Asia and left a trace as it spread to Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and then into the Americas about 15,000 years ago. Meldrum may think the jury is out on this question, but there is no evidence to support his case.

Another group, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Research at BYU, argues a Central American setting for the Book of Mormon, contending that the absence of genetic evidence, which they say is what one would expect from a small group of thirty or so people leaving little genetic impact on millions of Siberians in the Americas, is actually positive evidence for the Book of Mormon account. The people at the Maxwell House didn't count on was the explosion in additional genetic information, which puts the lie to their apologetic. The genetic tests are now so sensitive, that it is possible through admixture mapping to detect a tiny fraction of a percent of the mixed ancestry in a person's DNA. If a small family of Jews mixed with American Indians 3,000 years ago, the Jewish nuclear DNA would spread throughout the adjacent populations like a drop of ink in a bucket. It would be virtually impossible for it to go extinct. If it is there, we can now find it.

A 2010 study by Katarzyna Bryc and others, "Genome-wide Patterns of Population Structure and Admixture among Hispanic/Latino Populations," in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science show that the earlier the introduction of foreign DNA in a Native American's ancestry the more the genetic material is fragmented: it tells a genealogical story. If there were a lot of very short segments of foreign DNA on the admixture map that would indicate a pre-Columbian entry of that DNA. It would stand out like a sore thumb. There is also, according to the article: "a disproportionate contribution of European male and Native American female ancestry, as well as confirmation that the European genes came primarily from the Iberian peninsula."

To date, about 250 American Indians have been examined in admixture studies looking at thousands of SNPs. Not one of those people had any European or African admixture that looked like it may have occurred prior to Columbus. It all looked recent. Within the next 2-3 years enough American Indians will have been tested to be pretty much certain that there was no pre-Columbian admixture with Europeans or Israelites. This technology is so sensitive it could easily detect even one in ten million of European DNA, so a totally negative result for the 250 Amerindians is already compelling evidence that any early European admixture was vanishingly small at most and most likely zero. Once a few thousand individuals have been examined we should be able to consider the case closed. and we will await the apologists claim that "God changed the DNA".

(thanks to: http://signaturebooks.com/new-science-impacts-book-of-mormon-dna-studies/)

 

[Sapiens]

What you have shared may be “highly indicative” of doubt concerning the ignorant assumptions you made about the claims of the Book of Mormon, but it does not disprove the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon.

Yes, the false narrative that you devised is very unlikely.

I take umbridge at your unsupported claim that I make "ignorant assumptions." Please detail the false narrative you claim that I presented, or retract your base canard.

Again, your false assumptions about the claims of the Book of Mormon may be an “infinitesimal possibility”.

Please detail the false assumptions that you claim I presented.

As usual, you are avoiding the actual issue. There is no DNA evidence of any contact what-so-ever between indigenous populations and Hebrews.

I don’t understand your vehemence concerning the word “could”.

Because "could" is a weasel word used when the actual probability is passing small. "Could" is an intellectual coward's word, it covers all errors, they "could" have been aliens from outer space, they "could" have been satanic beings, they "could" have been anything you can imagine.

I never claimed to know everything and the Book of Mormon claims that not everything about the Lehites had been recorded, so a lot of what we are discussing dwells within the “realm of possibility”.

"Realm of possibility" is another weasel word like "could." Please see above.

Things that are well outside of the realm of probability, regardless of how unlikely, are still within the realm of possibility. It is, after all, possible that I could be dealt a dozen royal flushes in spades in a row ... possible but improbable.

 

[Sapiens]

If the Book of Mormon does not record something I cannot claim that that something did or did not happen, so I use the word ”could”. It could have happened or it could not have happened.

You were the one who claimed that “The obstacles you've "discovered" are "readily ignored" by every major genetics authority out there.”

I was merely asking you to supply evidence of that claim. Which geneticist claimed that “genetic drift” and “bottle-necking” could be ignored?

See the discussion of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (above)

That is a good question and the answer could be found in the Book of Mormon.

Could be, might be, but isn't. More weasel words pointing nowhere.

The Book of Mormon clearly states that very few Hebrews were introduced to the Americas.

... and that makes what point in light of modern science?

The Book of Mormon clearly states that there were other indigenous peoples living in the Americas before the introduction of those Hebrews.

So what?

The Book of Mormon recorded many events that led to massive loss of life among the Lehites which would generate a “bottle-neck” effect.

"Would" or "could?" In any case ... irrelevant, as has been shown.

So, what you are saying is, you don’t care to correctly quote the Prophet or to accurately present the claims made in the Book of Mormon?

No, what I am saying is that in this case it is irrelevant and you are trying to use it as a distraction.

It is just like what I said then. You are creating false narratives concerning LDS beliefs and the claims of the Book of Mormon and then “disproving” them.

Please detail the "false narratives."

You keep mentioning all these “professional scientific disciplines” without quoting them.

Now you have references ... feel better?

Is that because you don’t know how to correctly quote someone, like how you are unable to do so for the Prophet?

Another red herring.

Then why have you been acting as if you have established facts?

I have repeatedly dealt with the question of facts in science, you are the one who keeps misrepresenting the claims and then who uses weasel words to introduce extremely low probability claims solely based on the representation that they are "possible."

Besides, if all the “professional scientific disciplines” are busy focusing on the false narratives generated by you and others – then their opinion doesn’t really matter.

But ... while you make the claim, you don't make the case, typical apologetics.

Anyways, I don’t mind waiting for science to catch up while you can’t wait to make the claim that everything we believe in is nonsense.

Science has passed you by and you got a whole lot of 'splainin' to do Lucy.

This leads me to believe that your conclusion is not based solely on science (as you claim), but also upon your personal preference.

My personal preference is based on science, your personal preference is based on fairy tales. An irresistible force meets a flyweight claim.

Even if that were true this “opinion” is based on either:

- false narratives generated by you and others like you

- ignorance of the actual claims made in the Book of Mormon, or

- their findings, the “opinion” of which are subject to change based on new findings or developments.

A false dichotomy, perhaps, ... as it appears, it is based on cold hard fact.

“Perfect” is the highest standard and nothing you have shared proves that the Book of Mormon does not reach the standard of “most correct”.

It doesn't meet even the standard of a poorly written, highly unlikely, historical novel.

Yes, like these.

These may be examples of some of the “errors” mentioned in the Book of Mormon or an “error” made during the translation process.

Is it not possible that Mormon used a word in his language to describe a “lama” that came across as a “four-legged, load-bearing hairy animal” which Joseph Smith translated as “horse”?

What if Moroni could not accurately explain the “large animal” described in the Jaredite plates, because he had never seen one, so the description he recorded for Joseph Smith made him think of an “elephant”?

We already know that references to “steel” do not necessarily mean the same today as it did in ancient cultures.

so, elephants are not elephants, horses are not horses, horses are not horses, steel is not steel, (etc.) or the BoM is a crock ... I vote crock. What's next? God changed the DNA?

If these are errors then the Book of Mormon might not reach the standard of “perfect”, but it is still well within the standard of “most correct”.

Hardly, neither spec is met.

That is why it is important to correctly quote your sources so you can tell if you are actually combatting their claims or not.

I have accepted your correction and, by the way, shown it to be irrelevant, or did you not notice?

No, not really. I am just demonstrating how different a claim of “perfection” is from “most correct”.

I'll grant you either, or both, it matters not since neither is true.

You misquoting the Prophet caused you to create a false narrative which then made you feel that if any errors were found in the Book of Mormon you could then dismiss it entirely.

No, the actual evidence still damns you, for the BoM is not "perfect," nor is it "most correct," but rather it is a demonstrable pack of lies that requires a whole colony of weasel words and animal misidentification a child would not make, to present itself as "possible" but it never reaches the level of anything near "probable." Remember that multiple probabilities are multiplicative.

Although, I am not claiming that we have all the answers and I would not be surprised if this “extinction” was not as complete as people believe it to be.

Here we go again, "not as complete as" ... more weasel words to pretent that possible small remnant populations support Smith's tapestry of lies. That dog doesn't hunt.

No, I am not.

Actually, you are "failing to recognize that the probability of each of the noted claims (Elephants, horses, steel, etc.) are passing small and the the probability of all of the claims taken together (the quotient) does bear consideration." That is clear as day even if you are in denial.

You have been toting professional opinions as if they were facts and you have used them to dismiss the claims of the Book of Mormon and the LDS faith.

There you go again, misstating my representation of fact. But yeah, it's kinda like shooting fish in a barrel. Have you not got any better arguments or evidence?

All the things you have mentioned have been, should be and are being considered, but that is not to say that all the evidence for the claims made in the Book of Mormon should be ignored or that anyone should dismiss the claims of the Book of Mormon.

And why not? Are we to search for pearls of wisdom buried in what is clearly provable lies? Please tell us what in BoM can be actually presented as fact.

You are unwilling to look at the evidence for the claims of the Book of Mormon because, like I said, you built yourself a fort and are unable to see anything outside of it.

Not a fort, but a tower. One that permits me to see much further than you can and to know things that you have yet to begin to consider.

Not really because you refuse to consider relevant possibilities.

Again with the weasel words: "possibility." Let's not deal in "possibilities: but rather in "probabilities." That is what intelligent people do. I have considered the relevant probabilities and find them passing small. That reduces your "possibilities" to infinitesimal.

There you go equating opinion with fact again. You wonder why I keep mentioning it.

You are the classic one trick pony, once again you are misusing the concept of fact and denying the difference between "possible" and "probable." Is that all really all that you've got?

 

[Sapiens]

You created a false narrative and then tried to combat it. That is all that has happened here.

You're so big on the idea of facts, please prove my "narrative" factually false. If you can't do that, just show it to be improbable. Failing that, let's try for impossible.

I demand conclusive evidence because you are coming to conclusions.

Not even a good try at shifting the burden. You're the one with the extraordinary claims and I have provided more than sufficient evidence to place your conclusions in such serious jeopardy that all you have left is faith and apologetics.

There you go creating a false narrative again.

What is the false narrative? Is it: "To you conclusive evidence is a probability of 1.0, in science [conclusively] is in the range of 090 to 0.95. So, in scientific terms there is highly conclusive evidence," or is it: "only contradicted by the lies spread by a convicted con-man who is caught in a trap of his own making."?

BTW: Joseph Smith, was arrested and convicted in New York and was found guilty of being a con-artist. Court documents prove he was a convicted criminal. In point of fact, He was convicted on two occasions: In 1826, he was found guilty of glass-looking for the purpose of deceiving (That is the "convicted con-man"), and he second case was the Kirtland Safety Society case where he was convicted of bank fraud and fined $1000. That's two findings of "Guilty"

Joseph Smith was never convicted of anything. He was charged, but never convicted.

That's your party line, I guess it is "possible" that the records are in error ... but is it "probable?"

Your opinion of Joseph Smith may be where you are placing a lot of your conclusions about the Book of Mormon.

No, my conclusions about the BoM started when I noted the problems concerning the Pleistocene Extinction and traveled extensively in Mesoamerica. The rest just falls neatly and consistently in place.

You believe that any supposed flaws found in Joseph Smith should also be applied to the Book of Mormon.
]

No, you have it backwards. It is clear to me that the flaws in the BoM are the result of the flaws in Joseph Smith.

This opinion is based on the assumption that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and did not translate it.

It is reasonable to infer that that was the case. The magnitude of the errors could only have sprung from a fertile imagination that knew nothing of the actual zoology and history of Mesoamerica. Then there's the matter of the lost and irreproducable first 116 pages of the BoM. Again the story is possible but is it probable?

No wonder you are unwilling to consider that errors in translation may have been made.

If you cross out the clear errors (regardless of source) there's not much left. Again, the story is not creditable, seer stone, heads in hats, blankets concealing the process. Again the story is possible but is it probable?

Your poor opinion about Joseph Smith based on falsehoods has clouded your mind to any reasonable consideration of the claims made in the Book of Mormon.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you don't even have ordinary evidence and you have a whole lot of contradictory evidence to explain. When are you going to tell us that it is just god's way of testing our faith?

I don’t believe that your opinion of Joseph Smith will ever change because you don’t even care about what he actually said in regards to the Book of Mormon and are willing to misquote him in support of your argument.

That is not the scholarly approach.

The scholarly approach is to admit error and examine the possible effects of that error. This I have done.

I agree. That is why I am willing to wait for more excavation of the supposed Book of Mormon sites before I jump to any conclusions like you have.

You're closing the barn door long after the horses (and elephants, and steel simitars) are gone.

If Meso-America is where the Book of Mormon events took place then I do not know how you can claim there is no trace of “mighty culture”.

There is evidence of several cultures ... just no evidence of the mighty culture Smith described.

It has been proven that ancient peoples inscribed upon metal plates, including brass and gold.

Sorry, metallurgy did not spread to Central America till 800 CE, long after the Book of Mormon record closes. To make that fly you'd have to move the tale to South America.

I have had personal experience that has led me to believe in the existence of angels.

Given your laundry list of impeachable beliefs, I do not find that strange at all.