Major Book Of Morman Related Discovery Iron Ore Mine Discovered In Peru

[cdowis]

Another antimormon argument bites the dust.

You resort to logical fallacies such as appeal to authority, and repetition of the argument, rather than giving us proof. You are "tired" and frustrated by my continued insistence on documentation and proof.

If you are going to make such an assertion here on this forum, my dear fellow, be prepared to prove it. You will find that your participation here will indeed be frustrating if you continue to spout the antimormon nonsense.

[cdowis]

I would like to point out that you have a perfectly valid argument if you were able to document it regarding the time period and the number of animals and artworks within the BOM time period. Unfortunately for your argument, most mesoamerican archeology falls later than the BOM period, I suspect that is the case here, so your appeal to authority does not support your argument at all. My disagreement is not with the experts but with the person who has made the assertion that these artworks are revelant to the BOM time period.

It is these half truths that makes antimormonism so incidious.

But perhaps you will get so frustrated and angry that you will do the research, and prove your point. Let's see.

[Wiki Wonka]

Heres some more Mayan Elephant stone art:

The "Mayan Elephant stone art" is actually a portrayal of the rain god Chak, who has a long snout for a nose.

[USU78]

The "Mayan Elephant stone art" is actually a portrayal of the rain god Chak, who has a long snout for a nose.

I loved the old Tarzan movies as a kid. In about half of them they'd show elephants spraying themselves and others with water.

[Zakuska]

The "Mayan Elephant stone art" is actually a portrayal of the rain god Chak, who has a long snout for a nose.

And why would he have a long snout for a nose? Perhaps to give himself a rain bath as Elephants do?

[Wiki Wonka]

And why would he have a long snout for a nose? Perhaps to give himself a rain bath as Elephants do?

Possibly. So far I haven't seen much speculation amongst those who write about the Maya on why Chak with the "elephant nose" is the "rain god," but the obvious connection that you point out has occurred to me as well. Some of the other drawings and representations of Chak really do make his nose look very "elephant-like." Yet, I've never read about anyone speculating that the "elephant nose" may have been inspired by actual elephants at some point in the past. What I have seen is that things that appear to be "elephant-like" are often assigned meanings which fit in with the accepted thinking. A good example is Copan Stela B, which LDS tend tend to think depicts elephants, but non-LDS researchers believe depicts macaws, since elephants do not fit the existing paradigm.

[SeattleGrunge]

Possibly. So far I haven't seen much speculation amongst those who write about the Maya on why Chak with the "elephant nose" is the "rain god," but the obvious connection that you point out has occurred to me as well. Some of the other drawings and representations of Chak really do make his nose look very "elephant-like." Yet, I've never read about anyone speculating that the "elephant nose" may have been inspired by actual elephants at some point in the past. What I have seen is that things that appear to be "elephant-like" are often assigned meanings which fit in with the accepted thinking. A good example is Copan Stela B, which LDS tend tend to think depicts elephants, but non-LDS researchers believe depicts macaws, since elephants do not fit the existing paradigm.

A good way to put it into perspective would be to find out if there are any other images in Maya art that are similar to things that we "know" did not exist in their time. If there is nothing else, then that would have to make this suspect as being influenced by some sort of elephant story, animal, art from another place, etc.

[Wiki Wonka]

A good way to put it into perspective would be to find out if there are any other images in Maya art that are similar to things that we "know" did not exist in their time. If there is nothing else, then that would have to make this suspect as being influenced by some sort of elephant story, animal, art from another place, etc.

Well, there are things like this: A ritual vessel from the Classic Maya showing what appears to be an elephant

With regard to the "ritual vessel," those drawings don't look like Chak - they look like very crazy elephants with fangs.

[MormonMason]

Possibly. So far I haven't seen much speculation amongst those who write about the Maya on why Chak with the "elephant nose" is the "rain god," but the obvious connection that you point out has occurred to me as well. Some of the other drawings and representations of Chak really do make his nose look very "elephant-like." Yet, I've never read about anyone speculating that the "elephant nose" may have been inspired by actual elephants at some point in the past. What I have seen is that things that appear to be "elephant-like" are often assigned meanings which fit in with the accepted thinking. A good example is Copan Stela B, which LDS tend tend to think depicts elephants, but non-LDS researchers believe depicts macaws, since elephants do not fit the existing paradigm.

I am LDS and I believe that Copan Stela B depicts stylized Macaws. However, I do not believe it because elephants do not fit the existing paradigm. I have looked at these and believe they are stylized Macaws because they look like Macaws. Elephants do not have eyes where they are on the Stela and they do not have nostrils on their faces like are readily apparent on the Stela. They are in exactly the positions expected for Macaws, however.

[Wiki Wonka]

I am LDS and I believe that Copan Stela B depicts stylized Macaws. However, I do not believe it because elephants do not fit the existing paradigm. I have looked at these and believe they are stylized Macaws because they look like Macaws. Elephants do not have eyes where they are on the Stela and they do not have nostrils on their faces like are readily apparent on the Stela. They are in exactly the positions expected for Macaws, however.

I believe that the first people to propose that Stela B depicted elephants were not LDS either, although I don't have the reference on hand. So yes, it is incorrect to generalize that "all LDS" think they are elephants or that "all non-LDS" think that they are macaws.

I think that the feature that caused them to think "elephants" were the smaller human figures next to the large "elephant/macaw" figures. Part of the problem in interpretation often seems to be the drawings of the stela that are made to support a particular position. I've seen drawings of Stela B that clearly make the figures look like elephants, and their "handlers" look like they were from India. However, if you look at actual photos, it is not quite so clear. I've also seen the interpretation of the figures as macaws (frankly, I haven't formed an opinion of what I think they are at this point). The same was true with the original drawings of the Izapa "Tree of Life" stone (by Jakeman?), which were drawn in such a way that they seemed to support the interpretation that the figures represented Lehi, Nephi, etc. However, more detailed and accurate drawings made later did not support that interpretation nearly as well.

[Sethbag]

You mean in the "Holy Land" where the Bible speaks of steel bows and so forth?

2 Sam. 22: 35

35 He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.

Far from helping your case, I think this helps illustrate exactly what happened with Nephi and where Joseph got the idea that Nephi had a bow (as in, bow and arrow) made from steel. He read "bow of steel" in the Old Testament, and thought "cool! my Nephi character will have a bow of steel too!" Only, the Old Testament bow wasn't a bow like that at all, was it? Joseph just copied the concept from the KJV and didn't know any better.

I've read the article this thread is about, and find it interesting that some Mormons would jubilate over iron ore being mined, when this had nothing to do with actual metallurgy using smelted iron. They were using the red rock as a coloring agent.

Vaughn hypothesizes that the Nasca people used the red-pigmented mineral primarily for ceramic paints, but they also could have used it as body paint, to paint textiles and even to paint adobe walls.

There was a rock with a fairly strong red color. So they dug some of it up, and used it to color things red. Wow, how well that supports the Book of Mormon claim of steel weaponry!

By the way, for anyone not familiar with it, production of metallic iron from iron ore isn't just a simple process of heating it up. It's not just melting the iron out of the rock. The iron is locked up as various compounds of iron. To take iron oxide and process it to result in metallic iron, the iron oxide must undergo a reduction reaction. This is accomplished heating up the iron oxide with carbon (from coke nowadays, or from charcoal or whatever) in an oxygen-free environment, and the carbon ends up attracting away the oxygen from the iron atoms, leaving metallic iron. Knowing how to do this, from never having known how to do it, isn't a trivial development. It's a long, long way from digging up some nice, strongly colored red pigment from the ground, to smelting metallic iron from that red rock.

I don't see how this addresses Book of Mormon concerns in the slightest.

[Avatar4321]

What a surprise, the critics don't see how this information is relevent. Because nothing ever is relevent. It's all just a big old coincidence. yeah. A coincidence here and there and everywhere. There are just lots of little coincidences.

[why me]

What a surprise, the critics don't see how this information is relevent. Because nothing ever is relevent. It's all just a big old coincidence. yeah. A coincidence here and there and everywhere. There are just lots of little coincidences.

And with Joseph saying the word 'cool' a lot when he researched the bible for the book that he 'wrote'.

[spinner]

What a surprise, the critics don't see how this information is relevent. Because nothing ever is relevent. It's all just a big old coincidence. yeah. A coincidence here and there and everywhere. There are just lots of little coincidences.

How does the discovery of an ancient American mine where iron was extracted for use as red pigment qualify as evidence of the Book of Mormon? Really, what is the significance to the Book of Mormon of iron-based red pigments, because that is the only thing we have evidence of here.

[juliann]

Regardless of the merits of any position, I find these debates interesting on another level....that of the almost fundamentalistic assurance of critics that nothing will change, nothing will be re-evaluated. What we have now is satisfactory and "true". That is not only defies the history of science it defies reason.

As for the horse stuff, all one has to do is look at ancient American rock art to find them. However, they are dated in the usual manner...if it is a horse then it is dated as when they "know" horses were there. It is all very circular...just as insisting ore was only used as pigment.

So the fascinating thing here is not what all of this can be interpreted to mean...it is in watching a group of people so fixated on cementing one interpretation, one set of evidence and one idea as the unchanging truth for all time.