Kevin Christensen Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 22 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I want to reiterate that using your logic, Hamba Tuhan, There is just as much support to conclude that aliens from space created the artifacts falsely accredited to the Aztec, Olmec, Inca and Mayan civilizations as there is to conclude that some how they were made by Nephites, Lamanites of Jaradites...wouldn't you agree? Its ok to admit that there is nothing to support a Nephite civilization and instead suggest that you theorize that the Nephites abandoned their culture and adopted the prevailing cultures of Central America in such a manner that in doing so made the Nephite artifacts indistinguishable from the native populations they supposedly merged with while abandoning old world technologies...if that is where you want to lay your head be my guest....but just know that it then places you in the same camp claiming that this same process was used by a small group of space aliens migrating from space who abandoned their space technologies, merged with the native populations, adopted their stone age culture in such a manner that their native alien space culture became indistinguishable from the native populations I don't agree at all. Cultural assimilation of a smaller population by a larger host population has been demonstrated throughout history in a wide variety of contexts. For example, though I have Danish, English, and Icelandic ancestry, I know how to make pizza. Would it be easier to explain my ability to make pizza, or for that matter, my use of a Toyota Prius as due to Alien intervention? It is not, unlike aliens from space making Aztec, Olmec, Inca and Maya artifacts, an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. It is, in fact, an ordinary claim that can be tested to a significant degree by doing exactly what Brant Gardner has done in his work, that is, looking for evidence of Mesoamerican culture in the pages of the Book of Mormon. (See the six volume Second Witness Commentary). Your whole argument here involves the use of an organizing metaphor (that is, LDS apologetic efforts are no better than Aliens) to explain away the need to demonstrate the case that you make by using the metaphor. The metaphor has done all of the work, without any work actually have been done. It's a rhetorical trick, easy to spot if you know what to look for. Notice, for instance, that Aztec and Inca cultures are later that Book of Mormon peoples, and most Book of Mormon dates are pre-Classic. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 4
ERayR Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 14 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: You're stuck on "should"...while I'm at "does". Does any of the ancient American artifacts discovered so far support the existence of a Nephite, lamanites or jaradites civilization? If yes, where is it? If no, then why should I believe any of them ever existed Describe what you envision what such artifacts would look like.
ERayR Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: I'm calling you out.. Hamba...It is YOU who has demonstrated no grasp of what archaeology is or does and your refusal to answer a simple question is my proof. Your bias comes through...it is blinding you and keeping you from being able to see clearly. You can continue to try and avoid answering my question by trying to continuously diverting attention away from the question by trying to marginalize me to draw attention away from the question by suggesting that my questions are rooted in archaeological ignorance. Well I'm calling Bull Crap. The reason you refuse to answer the question is because the answer is NO, there is NONE. No outliers, no black swans nothing that would lead an archeologist to conclude through an analysis of the evidence that they are digging up anything other than the artifacts of indigenous native American civilizations. The hill you have built and the one you are going to die on is the premise that every artifact ever discovered is in fact a misidentified Book of Mormon artifact thus co-opting the art, industry and cultures of indigenous American civilizations to serve your own desire for belief. So let me ask you another question using your logic.. Is there any reason not to conclude that the artifacts discovered in the Americas were not the product of space aliens who merely abandanded their space alien culture and adobted the culture of the indigenous civilizations that they found upon landing in the Americas in their space ship? Aren't all of the artifacts found in todays museums the products of these space aliens...just mislabled? Surely there is just as much support for this bizarre claim as there is to support your premis that Book of Mormon civilizations abandoned their native bronze aged cultures, the helpful technologies of the wheel, smelting and casting of metals and instead adobted the stone aged cultures of the people they supposedly merged with in the Americas. At least Volgadon had the integrity to admit that he believes that Book of Mormon claimed civilizations did just that...abandoned their old world culture and adopted the new world culture that allegedly merged with in this new Book of Mormon world view And I am calling you out. Please describe what you think such artifact should look like.
mfbukowski Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: And, of course, I remain fond of these interesting Mesoamerican artifacts, as compared to the Anthon transcript: http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF Worth a repeat since the first try didn't generate any comments. Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Has more been done with this more recently? Really fascinating stuff. One would expect that such evidence would have received more notice, or is it that I am so ignorant in this area that I have missed it? 2
ERayR Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: What was it that caused archaeologists to conclude that the site they were digging in at L'Anse aux Meadows was NOT the product of the native populations? Evidence? How could these scientist distinguish between the native populations and those of some alien, non native influence? Evidence? Why would they eventually conclude that the site was the result of an incursion by Vikings into North America? Evidence. How could this be? Why didn't these Vikings abandon their own bronze aged culture and adopt the inferior culture of the native populations they possibly encountered? Don't Old world cultures abandon their superior cultures when they encounter inferior cultures? Certainly this is the logic you are putting forth for your BoM migrations. But if the Book of Mormon civilizations did...why didn't the Vikings? For the record...I don't know exactly what you THINK Archaeology is but most people would agree with this definition: If your definition of archaeology is somehow different...then please enlighten me. If it is the same than please disengage with your diversion tactics Does any of the ancient American artifacts discovered so far support the existence of a Nephite, Lamanites or Jaradites civilization? If yes, where is it? If no, then why should I believe any of them ever existed. It is through the analysis of the artifacts and other physical remains of Ancient American civilizations that archaeology has never found artifacts or physical remains that would support the incursion of a non-native population into the Americas from the middle east. There is nothing to support the premise of any Book of Mormon civilization, in other words every archaeological find has been attributed to the native populations. In fact every pre-Columbian archaeological dig, with the exception to the afore mentioned Viking dig, has been attributed to the native population. Does this preclude some future discovery that analysis of the physical remains may attribute to a Book of Mormon civilization...no, that always remains a possibility...and that my friend is where Book of Mormon archaeology exists...in the hope of some yet to be discovered artifact, or physical remains. but lets at least be honest with what has been discovered to date and give honest accreditation to the peoples who created them. The Book of Mormon civilizations were native civilizations. That is the fact that you do not seem to have the capability of seeing.
Johnnie Cake Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: CFR that anyone SHOULD take that position, when it contradicts your own position that there is a problem with "should" I am serious. I want a reference showing that ethically or otherwise that one SHOULD hold that position and why. This is a religious discussion. I want evidence for why someone should believer YOUR religious views above someone else's. I will follow up. Please admit your position is self-contradictory. Oh brother... <face-palm-plant>
ERayR Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: It's not that I have rejected evidence. It's that there is no real archaeological evidence for Nephites. You can find isolated convergences for just about anything, up to and including ancient aliens. But that's not really what I'm talking about. The arguments (based on archaeology) for evidences of the existence of the Nephites don't rise above the level of background noise. The evidence for the existence of the Maya, on the other hand, is massive, well-supported and conclusive. Or to put it this way - there aren't really any non-theological reasons to suppose that Nephites ever existed. It's not that I have rejected evidence. It's that there is no real archaeological evidence for Nephites that I accept. To be accurate you really should have written it this way. 2
mfbukowski Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, volgadon said: Faulty logic. Just because A can establish neither B nor C it does not follow that C has as much support for it as B. If B is earthly civilization known only from literary remains and C is an alien civilization known from neither literary nor physical remains, then B is going to have more support and more evidence than C. You are of course welcome to believe in your alien theory and it cannot be disproved, but the evidence is weaker. Thus your deliberately absurd comparison flops on its face. And Robert F Smith's point is that the whole BOM story, being preposterous on its face (angels, gold plates which no longer exist, magical "translation") ANY coherence of any data at all should be carefully examined and classified as "evidence" of something extraordinary. I think that is a valid point. We are looking at a different standard for "evidence" in such a case. So in this particular discussion, yes, Nephites - or another unknown civilization- are a far better explanation than aliens. Edited January 26, 2016 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Oh brother... <face-palm-plant> Why do you believe that? Why "should" one have empirical evidence for religious propositions? Do you really think we should not believe in God because we do not have his photograph? Now THAT is a good cause for a face palm What were you thinking to assert such a thing? 1
Gray Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, ERayR said: It's not that I have rejected evidence. It's that there is no real archaeological evidence for Nephites that I accept. To be accurate you really should have written it this way. It's not evidence that meets any recognizable scientific (i.e. rigorous, professional) standard. One could posit that the color of the moon is evidence that it is made of mozzarella cheese, but I think we'd both agree that the color of the moon isn't really evidence for the mozzarella hypothesis. But I suppose that wouldn't stop the mozzarella contingent from accusing us of ignoring the evidence. That's if we're talking about archaeology and history. Theology is of course a different matter. Edited January 26, 2016 by Gray 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: The problem here is that we have no confirmed literary artifacts from the Nephites. We currently have no means to establish what is a uniquely Nephite artifact. It isn't like we have a freeway sign saying "Zarahelma Next 5 Exits".
thesometimesaint Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 13 minutes ago, Gray said: It's not evidence that meets any recognizable scientific (i.e. rigorous, professional) standard. One could posit that the color of the moon is evidence that it is made of mozzarella cheese, but I think we'd both agree that the color of the moon isn't really evidence for the mozzarella hypothesis. But I suppose that wouldn't stop the mozzarella contingent from accusing us of ignoring the evidence. That's if we're talking about archaeology and history. Theology is of course a different matter. http://www.evidencesofmormon.org/evidences/book-of-mormon-cement.aspx
Gray Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 47 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: We currently have no means to establish what is a uniquely Nephite artifact. It isn't like we have a freeway sign saying "Zarahelma Next 5 Exits". That accords with what I've been saying
Gray Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) 40 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: http://www.evidencesofmormon.org/evidences/book-of-mormon-cement.aspx The Romans also had cement. Is that evidence for a Roman geography for the Nephites? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete Edited January 26, 2016 by Gray
Johnnie Cake Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 1 hour ago, ERayR said: The Book of Mormon civilizations were native civilizations. That is the fact that you do not seem to have the capability of seeing. No actually, I do understand the argument apologist make...all I'm asking for is some evidence to support it other than the pages of the Book of Mormon and faith.
thesometimesaint Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 46 minutes ago, Gray said: The Romans also had cement. Is that evidence for a Roman geography for the Nephites? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete Red Herring. It is not claimed that the Roman's didn't know about cement. It is claimed that the Nephites did too. Proof wasn't offered until after the Book of Mormon was published.
thesometimesaint Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 21 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: No actually, I do understand the argument apologist make...all I'm asking for is some evidence to support it other than the pages of the Book of Mormon and faith. Asked and answered. Time to move on.
Kevin Christensen Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Has more been done with this more recently? Really fascinating stuff. One would expect that such evidence would have received more notice, or is it that I am so ignorant in this area that I have missed it? The essay was reprinted by FARMS in the '80s, and has been referenced by Sorenson in Ancient American Setting and other places. The essay is thorough and careful enough with what we have so that not much more can be done than the author did. I've never seen critics address the implications or offer any kind of explanation more substantial than mumbling and changing the topic. I've provided links several times while I've been posting on this board. So I've done my bit. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 2
Gray Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 20 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Red Herring. It is not claimed that the Roman's didn't know about cement. It is claimed that the Nephites did too. Proof wasn't offered until after the Book of Mormon was published. Proof of what exactly? Not proof that the Nephites used cement. No one has identified Nephites. 1
stemelbow Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: It is evidence from Book of Mormon times and settings of the use of a set of symbols resembling the set of symbols on the Anthon manuscript. Knowing what they say would be enlightening, and yes there are photographs of the cylinders in the literature. If you don't think of them as evidence of anything much, then explain the elaborate comparative relationship between many symbols on very different documents coming from different times, places, and cultures, without invoking the phrase "just a coincidence." The cylinder seals represent a significant anomaly for the thesis that there is not evidence for Book of Mormon peoples in Mesoamerica. You might prefer more evidence, or bigger evidence. I happen to believe that there is more and bigger evidence, thanks to having read Sorenson, Gardner, Clark, Wirth, Christenson, Wright, and others. Alma 32, I notice, distinguished between that which conveys absolute certain knowledge, and that which supports "cause to believe" that falls short of absolute certain knowledge. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA I don't disagree that it's evidence. I suppose with this and other things it's a matter of how easily it can be dismissed. "Just a coincidence" works for those who don't believe because these symbols have no meaning, at least they have a meaning we can't uncover. That and, somehow they, or similar ones, are found in other cultures--mi-kmaq. The effort by Meldrum and co trying to demonstrate that the charactors are from those ancient peoples of the heartland of North America doesn't carry much weight either on the same grounds. If there is anyway to make a connection between the characters written by Rigdon and the glyphs found in Mexico or the heartland for that matter, then people will listen. Until then all people know is Rigdon copied them from natives.
Johnnie Cake Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, ERayR said: Describe what you envision what such artifacts would look like. I really don't want to play your game. It's mind numbing The Nephites remain a fictional civilization until evidence of their existence confirms their existence. If you want to believe that they exist, good on yeah mate, be my guest. If no evidence is required then I guess any fanciful claim can be real in your world, unicorns, fairy's and leprechaun's...just not in mine. By the standard of NO evidence...anything is possible... If you are instead suggesting that All/Some/Part of the archaeological evidence discovered in the Americas is Nephite...then just go with that and so state. Edited January 26, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
ERayR Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I really don't want to play your game. It's mind numbing The Nephites remain a fictional civilization until evidence of their existence confirms their existence. If you want to believe that they exist, good on yeah mate, be my guest. If no evidence is required then I guess any fanciful claim can be real in your world, unicorns, fairy's and leprechaun's...just not in mine. It is not my game that is mind numbing. It is yours. You insist on evidence that you will accept but refuse to elaborate on what that evidence would look like. There is a great deal of evidence, you just won't accept it. So the ball is back in your court. If you won't accept the evidence given you then what do you have to have?
Johnnie Cake Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 18 minutes ago, ERayR said: It is not my game that is mind numbing. It is yours. You insist on evidence that you will accept but refuse to elaborate on what that evidence would look like. There is a great deal of evidence, you just won't accept it. So the ball is back in your court. If you won't accept the evidence given you then what do you have to have? You have evidence? Present it please. Then we'll all know what Nephite evidence looks like...thank you we're finally getting some where... Show the evidence, I'm sure its compelling and convincing...please lets see it
Johnnie Cake Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Asked and answered. Time to move on. Really? I've read through this thread yet again... sorry to be such a dunce but where exactly was it answered?
Recommended Posts