Someone Explain This Fairlds 'Direct Hit' For Me

[Doug the Hutt]

Mr. fairldsorg has a nifty little video which he calls a "direct hit" for the Book of Mormon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyjiYm5MTN8&feature=channel_video_title

Here's how I interpreted his video:

1. The Maya used plaster.

2. Mayan plaster could be considered the cement of the Book of Mormon mentioned in Helaman chapter 3.

3. The Maya, in making their plaster-laden cities, managed to deforest the jungle.

4. The Book of Mormon mentions a timber-less land (Helaman 3):

* "rendered desolate and without timber"

* "no part of the land was desolate, save it were for timber"

* "And there being little timber upon the land"

And that proves the Book of Mormon is true?

Now read --

Helaman 3:5-11:

5 Yea, and even they did spread forth into all parts of the land, into whatever parts it had not been rendered desolate and without timber, because of the many inhabitants who had before inherited the land.

6 And now no part of the land was desolate, save it were for timber; but because of the greatness of the destruction of the people who had before inhabited the land it was called desolate.

7 And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell.

8 And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east.

9 And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings.

10 And it came to pass as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping.

11 And thus they did enable the people in the land northward that they might build many cities, both of wood and of cement.

The video describes how the Maya used freshly-cut timber to heat the limestone to make plaster. The deforestation came as a result of making plaster.

The Helaman chapter 3 (49BC-39BC) describes a timber-less land into which the Nephites expanded. These Nephites, ever so environmentally-aware, let the tress "grow up" so they would have them later on. They became experts in cement-making but apparently it was without the employ of our arboreal friends.

Is he making a strained Maya=Nephite comparison? How are the Nephites making their cement in an already timber-depleated land? What energy source are they using to heat their cement? Is Mr. fairldsorg saying that the Maya showed up and de-forested the land before the Nephites waltzed on in and found it without trees? Are the Maya the Jaredites? It's hard to identify the directness of the hit when the true players are just a blurr in the jungle and the target seems to have been grapheto-tagged after the hit was performed. Someone help make some sense out of the video. Thanks.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And that proves the Book of Mormon is true?

No that is not the point of the video. What the video shows is that is backs up a portion of the BoM with actual evidence.

It is a hit, it is something the BoM got right.

There is no way to prove the BoM true other than the spiritual test in Mor 10. Of course that may change in the future

but I am not holding my breath.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Doug the Hutt]

Sorry --- WHAT was it that the video backed up?

[KevinG]

No that is not the point of the video. What the video shows is that is backs up a portion of the BoM with actual evidence.

It is a hit, it is something the BoM got right.

There is no way to prove the BoM true other than the spiritual test in Mor 10. Of course that may change in the future

but I am not holding my breath.

Neither is Elder Oaks... http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=30

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sorry --- WHAT was it that the video backed up?

Come on Doug, your a smart guy. You know exactly what it backed up. The sole reason you do not accept it is because it runs

counter to your world view.

See, the BoM is false. So there for there is nothing in it that could ever be a hit. JS made it up and he was a bumbling fool.

I see you making strained reason to reject the evidence.

"These Nephites, ever so environmentally-aware, let the tress "grow up" so they would have them later on. They became experts in cement-making but apparently it was without the employ of our arboreal friends.

Is he making a strained Maya=Nephite comparison? How are the Nephites making their cement in an already timber-depleated land? What energy source are they using to heat their cement? Is Mr. fairldsorg saying that the Maya showed up and de-forested the land before the Nephites waltzed on in and found it without trees? Are the Maya the Jaredites?"

Nothing is talked about the Nephites being "environmentally aware". Nothing in the text about the employ of "arboreal friends" one way or the other. Argument from silence.

Are the Nephites, Mayan? Perhaps. Maybe it was more like this, were some of the Mayans Nephites? Are the Nephites making their cement in an already timber depleted land? That is an irrelevant question. Does it matter one way or the other?

Who says they need an energy source to heat their cement?

I know of no one that claims the Mayan are Jaredites.

BTW I am not necessarily agreeing with all aspects of this video. Just that there are some very plausible hits or correlations.

I tend to agree with what Pedro posted in his other thread about it being in Mexico. That seems even more plausible than this video.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[BCSpace]

My understanding is that the Mayan deforestation occurred well after BoM times so they could have gotten away from the principle of replanting or their usage of "cement" outstripped their replanting efforts (obviously). In any case, I think it's not a major hit in the BoM archeological proof area in and of itself. What is a major hit for BoM archeology is the slow and steady build up of evidence that what happened or existed in the BoM can be explained by what happened or existed in the Mesoamerican geographical area.

[Ariarates]

I don't know what it proves about the BoM in a Mesoamerican setting but I do know that around 1830, New England was about as deforested as it would get (until farming and the need to clear forest land started to decline mid-century). This is not an unlikely theme for a rural 19th-century origin scenario of the BoM either, if we're just looking at this tiny, isolated aspect of the BoM text.

If your standards are low enough, it's easy to score a hit (and that goes for both sides, of course).

Edit: hey, this is my 1,111th post!

Edited October 4, 2011 by Ariarates

[Glenn101]

I don't know what it proves about the BoM in a Mesoamerican setting but I do know that around 1830, New England was about as deforested as it would get (until farming and the need to clear forest land started to decline mid-century). This is not an unlikely theme for a rural 19th-century origin scenario of the BoM either, if we're just looking at this tiny, isolated aspect of the BoM text.

If your standards are low enough, it's easy to score a hit (and that goes for both sides, of course).

Edit: hey, this is my 1,111th post!

It was the use of cement as a building material that makes this the hit.

From Jeff Lindsay's Book of Mormon Evidences site I quote:

"In 1929, Heber J. Grant (former President of the Church) told the story of a man with a doctorate who had ridiculed him for believing in the Book of Mormon. That learned man cited the mention of cement work as an obvious lie "because the people in that early age knew nothing about cement." President Grant, who was a young man at the time of that conversation, said:

"That does not affect my faith one particle. I read the Book of Mormon prayerfully and supplicated God for a testimony in my heart and soul of the divinity of it, and I have accepted it and believe it with all my heart." I also said to him, "If my children do not find cement houses, I expect that my grandchildren will." He said, "Well, what is the good of talking with a fool like that?" (April 1929 Conference Report, p. 128 ff.)

President Grant's statement was prophetic. Today, tourists to Mesoamerica can find ancient cement work in abundance at Teotihuacan (which is clearly "in the land north" according to modern models for Book of Mormon geography). Mesoamerican cement was being used at least by the first century B.C. (David A. Palmer, In Search of Cumorah, Horizon Publishers, Bountiful, UT, 1981, p. 121). Palmer shows a photograph of cement used to surface a temple at the Chiapa de Corzo site. Palmer also cites Monte Alban, which is south of Teotihuacan but still in the "land north," as another example of ancient cement work. Several examples of cement work use tiny volcanic stones (0.5 to 2 mm diameter) mixed with clay and lime to produce the cement. Cement was also used in the ancient city of Kaminaljuyu (modern Guatemala City). "

Of course the answer now is that no one actually derided the book of Mormon about that cement. With all that Joseph Smith should have known about Central America, he should have known about the cement already.

Glenn

[Kenngo1969]

And that proves the Book of Mormon is true?

The only people I've ever heard talk in terms of proof are the critics/skeptics. By contrast, most every believer I've ever heard talk about such things talks in terms of evidence. No one piece of evidence can prove (or, for that matter, no one piece of evidence can disprove) the Book of Mormon. The decision of what to accept as evidence, and what weight one chooses to accord that evidence, is a highly individual one.

P.S.: By the way, Dougie, thanks for inspiring me to put that link in my signature line.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Kenngo1969

[Robert F. Smith]

I know of no one that claims the Mayan are Jaredites.

Actually, Rob Osborn made that claim recently on this board.

[mfbukowski]

Edit: hey, this is my 1,111th post!

You blew it. You should have waited until 11-11-11 to make that post.

[LeSellers]

[Ariates] blew it [by posting his 1,111^th message on 20111004]. You should have waited until 11-11-11 to make that post.

There's still time. Since 11-11-11 -> 111,111 he need only post 110,000 more times between now and Armistice Day. That would be significant!

Lehi

Edited October 5, 2011 by LeSellers

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, Rob Osborn made that claim recently on this board.

Doh. I should have qualified this to say, "I know of no scholar that claim that the Jaradites are Mayan." Oh well.

[Calm]

There's still time. Since 11-11-11 -> 111,111 he need only post 110,000 more times between now and Armistice Day. That would be significant!

Lehi

Well, I suppose he might be able to do this with the Three Word story thread, it would only involve coming up with 330,000 words of semi-coherent text. Just think how many pages it would be up to by then....

Edited October 5, 2011 by calmoriah

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Mr. fairldsorg has a nifty little video which he calls a "direct hit" for the Book of Mormon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyjiYm5MTN8&feature=channel_video_title

Here's how I interpreted his video:

1. The Maya used plaster.

2. Mayan plaster could be considered the cement of the Book of Mormon mentioned in Helaman chapter 3.

3. The Maya, in making their plaster-laden cities, managed to deforest the jungle.

4. The Book of Mormon mentions a timber-less land (Helaman 3):

* "rendered desolate and without timber"

* "no part of the land was desolate, save it were for timber"

* "And there being little timber upon the land"

And that proves the Book of Mormon is true?

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” –Stuart Chase--

[cinepro]

10 And it came to pass as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping.

That's an interesting point. Did the Mayans have a means to ship large amounts of timber to the north? Enough to build "many cities"?

Edited October 5, 2011 by cinepro

[frankenstein]

many years ago, when I first learned how the ancient peoples of the Western Hemisphere made plaster I thought "Huh, well I be, deforestation for the sake of opulence could have been what happened in the Book Of Mormon". THough I do not know the time lines, so I wager Bcspace is correct.

However, despite my own feelings about "maybe that is what happened" and the term in the Mayan language which is very close if not exact in meaning to "and it came to pass", I still believe that "science" will not prove anything religious. That is, science will not demonstrate proof of God or the truthfulliness of any religion.

[cinepro]

However, despite my own feelings about "maybe that is what happened" and the term in the Mayan language which is very close if not exact in meaning to "and it came to pass", I still believe that "science" will not prove anything religious. That is, science will not demonstrate proof of God or the truthfulliness of any religion.

You say that like it's a good thing.

[frankenstein]

You say that like it's a good thing.

More so that religion requires faith and if their were proof theiir would be no need for faith.

[Doug the Hutt]

Ok.

So the "direct hit" is that the Mayans used plaster, which could be considered cement (not that I would know the difference between cement, concrete, plaster, polymers, pottery, adobe or etched silicon).

And the Book of Mormon mentions cement in Helaman 3 -- circa 49BC - 39BC, putting this direct hit a few hundred years before the end of the Mayan Pre-Classic period.

How does this standard-of-direct-hits work again?

Cement is apparently a direct hit.

Is the deforestation of the land a direct hit? (fairldsorg went out of his way to mention those things and compared it to the BOM)

Is the use of tents a direct hit?

Is the use of food a direct hit?

Is the practicing of spirituality a direct hit?

Is the burial of the dead a direct hit?

Is the concept of zero a direct hit?

Is the domestication of grain a direct hit?

Is the use of metal plates for record keeping a direct hit?

Is the concept of sinning/crossing deity a direct hit?

Is the concept of royalty a direct hit?

Is war a direct hit?

Is slavery a direct hit?

Is imprisonment a direct hit?

Is deathmatch-soccer a direct hit?

Is the activity of public-speaking a direct hit?

Is the exchange-of-goods-and-services a direct hit?

Is the use of alcohol a direct hit?

Is the recognition of flooding a direct hit?

I guess it would be great to see how we separate the mundane hits from the direct hits.

[Calm]

I guess it would be great to see how we separate the mundane hits from the direct hits.

You should study how Brant Gardner uses "convergence" to determine the significance or lack of significance of parallels. I believe there is a FAIR presentation posted of his that deals with this. A search on his name or "convergence" on the site should bring it up.

[thesometimesaint]

Doug the Hutt:

Portland cement is an essential ingredient in concrete.

Plaster of Paris is unrelated to cement.

Polymers can be natural or man made.

Pottery is generally made of clay the fired in some type of kiln.

Adobe is essentially mud and straw dried in the sun until hard.

[cdowis]

Is he making a strained Maya=Nephite comparison? How are the Nephites making their cement in an already timber-depleated land? What energy source are they using to heat their cement?

Look up "timber" in the dictionary. It does not mean what you think it does.

You do not use timber to make plaster, to make fires, etc. You can have plenty of wood, but no timber.

[Doug the Hutt]

Per Calmoriah's advice I found this video on convergence:

[Doug the Hutt]

Side note: I really like listening to Brant Gardener. He's obviously brilliant, I've never felt like he's disingenuous or an intellectual bully or any sort of anti-anti-mormon. We need more people like him in the world.