the incredible expanding, shrinking, and disappearing Lehites

[Zakuska]

Yes, I did read this post. This does not answer my point, from the thread I posted. So, yes, it is interesting, but does not answer the problems I see with the whole idea that the "coinage" from the BoM was actually explaining weights and measures. I think the verses make far more sense, if referring to coinage. I think i'm in good company in reading the verses this way too.

And yet the very verse you used to support some sort of "coinage" speaks of weighing something?!

15 A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of barley.

[maupayman]

And yet the very verse you used to support some sort of "coinage" speaks of weighing something?!

15 A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of barley.

and? why say half a measure of something, if you have just gone to great pains explaining what all these measurements names are? this makes sense if a shiblon is like a nickle. a nickle is half of a dime. therefore, a dime for half a measure of barley. If shiblon is a measurement, than a shiblon of what can be traded for half a measure of barley?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

and? why say half a measure of something, if you have just gone to great pains explaining what all these measurements names are? this makes sense if a shiblon is like a nickle. a nickle is half of a dime. therefore, a dime for half a measure of barley. If shiblon is a measurement, than a shiblon of what can be traded for half a measure of barley?

One word, presentism. I don't understand how weights and measure work, but that is what the system used.

A shiblon is not a coin that you use to get a measure of barley, in the sense that you would put a nickle in a bubble gum machine to get gum. It would more than likely (I'm guessing) be a stone of gold or some such thing that physically weighed as much as a measure of barley.

[maupayman]

One word, presentism. I don't understand how weights and measure work, but that is what the system used.

A shiblon is not a coin that you use to get a measure of barley, in the sense that you would put a nickle in a bubble gum machine to get gum. It would more than likely (I'm guessing) be a stone of gold or some such thing that physically weighed as much as a measure of barley.

regardless if its a stone, a piece, or a minted coin, the verse doesn't make sense as a unit of measurement.

[steelyray]

Then let me say that I have received enough evidence that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to believe it is correct beyond any resaonable doubt.

I wasn't speaking of tapirs. And what exactly does the BoM describe as Nephite currency (notice that the word "coin" is not used)? How does it fail to match archaelogical evidence.

Then please provide a reference, preferably secular, that corroborates or hypothesizes the existence of elephants and horses in the Americas during a BoM time period. Note that 'secular' means preferably not SHIELDS, BYU, FAIR, or the Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS), or any other church-defending zealot.

Where does the Book of Mormon say that the Nephites mass-produced steel?

Who said 'mass produced? I said steel, period.

The Olmecs would not be the Nephites. They are too early - better identified with the Jaredites.

And the Jaredites were not nice people (nor were they Israelites).

Why should a religious text describe a ball game?

You obviously haven't read up on much Mesoamerican culture if you discount the importance of pitz or ullamaliztli to the local religion.

If "goosepimply" is the best you can come up with then you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. But how could you, really? You don't have access to my experiences and thus cannot evaluate them beyond what I say about them. Second-hand hearsay, as it were.

Why don't you describe it, then, if your experience was so 'different.' I still say it is at best a self-created psychological or physiological state, as reproduced time and again in a number of ways, all well-documented by science today. Again, not a reliable method for obtaining objective truth.

[mfbukowski]

However isn

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

regardless if its a stone, a piece, or a minted coin, the verse doesn't make sense as a unit of measurement.

Again you have a present view that prevents from seeing it make sense. That is irrelevant to what the text says or implies.

[Jason]

Then please provide a reference, preferably secular, that corroborates or hypothesizes the existence of elephants and horses in the Americas during a BoM time period. Note that 'secular' means preferably not SHIELDS, BYU, FAIR, or the Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS), or any other church-defending zealot.

It's pretty easy to say there is no evidence when you have already classified the available evidence as the work of "church-defending zealot".

Who said 'mass produced? I said steel, period.

Alright. Where in the Book of Mormon does it say they produced any steel at all?

You obviously haven't read up on much Mesoamerican culture if you discount the importance of pitz or ullamaliztli to the local religion.

Let me ammend my statement. Why would a Christian religious text spend time describing a ball game? Especially one that is strongly associated with a pagan religion?

Why don't you describe it, then, if your experience was so 'different.'

Because your posts to this point give me no reason to beleive you would respect my account, and I am not in the mood to have things I consider sacred mocked.

I still say it is at best a self-created psychological or physiological state, as reproduced time and again in a number of ways, all well-documented by science today. Again, not a reliable method for obtaining objective truth.

And again, I say you have no understanding of the phenomena.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have read numerous threads on the subject, yet have not noticed the many many holes you referenced. Help get me started, since you've obviously read through them as well.

Why don't you start a new thread so we don't hijack it and we can go from there. Clearly you think that theory is a sound one.

[mfbukowski]

And yet the very verse you used to support some sort of "coinage" speaks of weighing something?!

15 A shiblon is half of a senum; therefore, a shiblon for half a measure of barley.

I have a friend from Guatemala who has a set of measures used in native markets which correspond exactly to the proportions shown in the BOM and they vary from thimble size on up.

[steelyray]

And isn't it interesting that Einstein developed another theory when Newtonian physics no longer met the evidence.

Nothing evidential would convince you. Religious texts cannot be proven historically. Period. End of story.

You could have an angel appear to you personally and you would rationalize it away as a psychological aberration. I don't know why you are wasting your time here. Go take up knitting or something.

Read Kevin Christiensen's post above

As for myself, I am quite convinceable. If I were to personally witness any miracle, which could be shown to not be anything otherwise, and that this miracle were the direct result of Mormon activity, then I might be convinced.

If both myself and another person witnessed an angel in the same circumstance, so that we could not so easily discredit the visitation as psychological aberration, paranoia, or insanity, I would be convinced.

If I were to hear a voice from the clouds, saying, FOLLOW JOSEPH SMITH! and I could retrace enough of my history at that point to be certain that I wasn't just hearing things, wasn't on drugs, and wasn't experiencing a hallucination, I might be convinced. I am not frequently given to hearing things, hallucinations, or drugs, and so this would be easier than you suspect.

If an amputee were to suddenly grow their limb back, and this could be traced in a way that most probably points to the Mormon God, I would be convinced.

But you never hear about any amputees growing their limbs back.

Never.

Ever.

Despite hearing about miraculous healing stories every other day, God doesn't ever want to heal an amputee. Why is that? Why does God discriminate against amputees, if sometimes he does in fact heal sicknesses and diseases (and blindness at least while Jesus was here)?

You can rationalize it as not being in God's plan. But why do amputees get such a short end of God's plan, statistically, if He heals cancer and such?

[Kevin Christensen]

Sorry but I just could let this post go without some response...

I understand the need for the LDS apologist community to create

[Craig Paxton]

Where does the Book of Mormon say that the Nephites mass-produced steel?

Ah right here...

14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban,[a'Steel Sword' see 1 Ne. 4: 9] and after the manner of it [suggesting that he made swords like laban's steel sword] did make many swords,[or Mass-Produced swords]

So yeah one could interpret that to mean that Nephi "Mass-Produced" Steel Swords after the manner of Laban's steel sword...but hey I think you could also interpret it to mean that he mass produced wooden hitty thingies with sharp bone projectiles protruding from them that weren

[Craig Paxton]

In this argument, the use of the word "create" should actually be "recognize." If you've read and considered Roper's and Gardner's essays, you ought to respond to their observations. If you've not read them, you are way behind.

The history of science demonstrates repeatedly that that paradigms don't change until people start taking a closer look. In the sciences, a closer look always changes things. Why should it be different for readers of the Book of Mormon? You ought to be aware that the first serious attempt to read the Book of Mormon carefully enough to create a comprehensive internal map did not happen until 1938. (The Washburn's book.) For the first 109 years, NO one bothered to locate, study, and interpret all the relevant passages. For more recent work, see Sorenson's Mormon's Map, and Clark's Key for Assessing geographies in RBBM 1. For a realistic view of how paradigms change, see Thomas Kuhn's the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. His model applies very nicely to what goes on in LDS paradigm debates, including those involving Book of Mormon geography.

Like it or not, the longest journey in the Book of Mormon, from near Nephi to Zarahemla, takes about 22 days, by a mixed group of men, women, children, and flocks. Like it or not, King Benjamin can ask the people the Land of Zarahemla to gather on "the morrow." It's easy to defend the limited geography in comparison to a comprehensive look at specific passages, travel times, and the relationships of specific locations. It is not easy to make sense of the story of Limhi's explorers against a hemispheric geography. However, as Larry Poulson has shown, it makes wonderful sense in Mesomerica.

http://bomgeography.poulsenll.org/grijalvasidon.html

So, if there were those in the LDS hierarchy who read more carefully, shouldn't their opinions count more than those who just absorbed and repeated pop culture myths? D&C 1 says of LDS leadership, "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest... inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed." It nowhere says that callings bestow instant infallibility and omniscience.

Ethnocentric readers of ancient texts often make the same kind of erroneous assumptions and weak readings that you demonstrate here. More careful readers do not have to lard their interpretations with "miraculous" in order to justify them.

Personally, I'm very impressed with the arguments of Sorenson, Gardner, Mark Wright, John Clark, and other LDS Mesoamericanists who demonstrate a great deal of careful thought in their contextualization and reading of Book of Mormon texts. Kuhn observes that paradigm choice involves deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved." You've mentioned some of your concerns, but you've shown no awareness of many other issues. If we didn't have a Sidon candidate that happens to be the only river the Western Hemisphere that matches the textual description (see Larry Poulson's website), I might worry far more about steel or horses, which, it happens, are not mentioned often. And for that matter, sneers don't account for interesting corrolations in the Old World portions of the Book of Mormon, which include the Nahom altars as just part of an elaborate convergence in the right time and place to support the account.

A great obstacle to recognizing what is there is always a demand to see something else.

Brant's essay on Production Culture, is enlightening:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Case_for_Historicity.html

As is John Clark's essay on trends over time.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=14&num=2&id=376

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin, you are a credit to your religion...thank you for your even tone and thoughtful response...you impress even me

[steelyray]

It's pretty easy to say there is no evidence when you have already classified the available evidence as the work of "church-defending zealot".

And again I say that there are plenty of secular archeologists that believe that the Bible describes real places and real happenings from a religiously and politically-opinionated point of view. These people have no problem with treating much of the Bible as history or approximate history. I would settle for something of the same in regards to the Book of Mormon. So, are there secular archeologists out there that believe the book might be of legitimate value with regards to Mesoamerican history? If so, then bring them on.

Alright. Where in the Book of Mormon does it say they produced any steel at all?

Well, they acquired it somehow, didn't they? Maybe it was aliens. Maybe it was Joe's travelling steel supply and sword show.

Let me ammend my statement. Why would a Christian religious text spend time describing a ball game? Especially one that is strongly associated with a pagan religion?

The Bible describes all sorts of pagan religions followed by the neighbors of the Israelites, so why all of the difficulty?

Because your posts to this point give me no reason to beleive you would respect my account, and I am not in the mood to have things I consider sacred mocked.

That's fair enough. My mocking is not so much in jest as to create a jolt so as to cause some thinking in a different direction.

And again, I say you have no understanding of the phenomena.

I guess that point is going to have to remain unproven in either direction.

[mfbukowski]

As for myself, I am quite convinceable. If I were to personally witness any miracle, which could be shown to not be anything otherwise, and that this miracle were the direct result of Mormon activity, then I might be convinced.

If both myself and another person witnessed an angel in the same circumstance, so that we could not so easily discredit the visitation as psychological aberration, paranoia, or insanity, I would be convinced.

If I were to hear a voice from the clouds, saying, FOLLOW JOSEPH SMITH! and I could retrace enough of my history at that point to be certain that I wasn't just hearing things, wasn't on drugs, and wasn't experiencing a hallucination, I might be convinced. I am not frequently given to hearing things, hallucinations, or drugs, and so this would be easier than you suspect.

If an amputee were to suddenly grow their limb back, and this could be traced in a way that most probably points to the Mormon God, I would be convinced.

But you never hear about any amputees growing their limbs back.

Never.

Ever.

Despite hearing about miraculous healing stories every other day, God doesn't ever want to heal an amputee. Why is that? Why does God discriminate against amputees, if sometimes he does in fact heal sicknesses and diseases (and blindness at least while Jesus was here)?

You can rationalize it as not being in God's plan. But why do amputees get such a short end of God's plan, statistically, if He heals cancer and such?

I don't think it will help, but I know of people right on this board who could testify of such experiences if it would help.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ah right here...

14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban,[a'Steel Sword' see 1 Ne. 4: 9] and after the manner of it [suggesting that he made swords like laban's steel sword] did make many swords,[or Mass-Produced swords]

So yeah one could interpret that to mean that Nephi "Mass-Produced" Steel Swords after the manner of Laban's steel sword...but hey I think you could also interpret it to mean that he mass produced wooden hitty thingies with sharp bone projectiles protruding from them that weren

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Kevin, you are a credit to your religion...thank you for your even tone and thoughtful response...you impress even me

Does that mean you take back your comments about "others" as being unjustifiable?

[Jason]

And again I say that there are plenty of secular archeologists that believe that the Bible describes real places and real happenings from a religiously and politically-opinionated point of view. These people have no problem with treating much of the Bible as history or approximate history. I would settle for something of the same in regards to the Book of Mormon. So, are there secular archeologists out there that believe the book might be of legitimate value with regards to Mesoamerican history? If so, then bring them on.

The Bible can be accepted as being of secular origin. The Book of Mormon cannot.

Well, they acquired it somehow, didn't they? Maybe it was aliens. Maybe it was Joe's travelling steel supply and sword show.

You failed to answer my question. Where in the BoM are the Nephites described as producing steel?

The Bible describes all sorts of pagan religions followed by the neighbors of the Israelites, so why all of the difficulty?

Actually no, it doesn't describe them. The Bible mentions the names of some other idols, the fact that some sacrificed their children to them, and that's about it. You won't find a description of how to conduct a Dagon worship service in the Bible.

That's fair enough. My mocking is not so much in jest as to create a jolt so as to cause some thinking in a different direction.

No, your mocking is for the sake of mocking.

[Jason]

God heals amputees all the time. It's just that He usually doesn't restore their limbs as well.

[Jason]

Oh nothing like making the text say something it does not. Nothing in the text demands that they were replicas of Laban's sword. In fact it is not even suggested that the materials used were the same. Consider Nephi's temple, was it the same as Solomon's temple? No the text says that it was created like unto Solomon's. That suggest that it was similar in function. The text further tells us that it lacked many things that Solomon's temple had. If that is that case that Nephi's temple lacked manything Solomon's temple did, is it inconceivable that Nephi's swords lacked many things that Laban's sword had. No were does the text state that Nephi's sowrds were made of steel. That is you forcing an interpretion onto the text.

Can a sword be like unto Laban's with out being made of steel? The answer is yes.

As the man (Mola Ram) says, your (Craig Paxton's) argument rests on the obviously false premise that swords can only be made of steel.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As the man says, your argument rests on the obviously false premise that swords can only be made of steel.

Obviously, it is a false premise. I see, I am the close minded one too.

[Jason]

Obviously, it is a false premise. I see, I am the close minded one too.

Sorry, Mola, that came out rather wrong. See my edited post.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sorry, Mola, that came out rather wrong. See my edited post.

I see, I just figured you were being tongue in cheek. I get it.

I responded with a bit of sarcasim that Craig might pick up on.

[Bernard Gui]

If an amputee were to suddenly grow their limb back, and this could be traced in a way that most probably points to the Mormon God, I would be convinced.

But you never hear about any amputees growing their limbs back.

Never.

Ever.

My oh my.

Bernard