ERayR Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said: 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 Talk about mind numbing games.
Johnnie Cake Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 Honest Question: If the Romans left no evidence of their existence would the believing members of this board believe that Rome existed? Because this is the same exact question that I am asking only directing it toward the existence of the Nephites. I only believe that Rome existed because they left evidence of their existence behind...why should belief in the Nephites be held to a different standard?
Johnnie Cake Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 38 minutes ago, ERayR said: 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? ^^^^^ Direct Quote^^^^^ ERayR You claim that "There is a great deal of evidence" Ok produce it...but then you assume that "you just won't accept it." How the freak do you know what I will or won't accept? If its compelling, if its Nephite, if it exists... dang right I'll accept it... PLEASE, please, pretty please produce the evidence. Please out of this great deal of evidence...just produce a single artifact ... its really a simple request. Then we can all go home to our families and watch the X files Edited January 27, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
mfbukowski Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: 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 Well you have gained at least one new convert. In the business world we are told that it takes being exposed to a new idea or product 6 or 7 times before you even notice that it exists. I guess this must be number 7 for me. At this rate, we will convert the whole world in a billion years or so.
ERayR Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: ^^^^^ Direct Quote^^^^^ ERayR You claim that "There is a great deal of evidence" Ok produce it...but then you assume that "you just won't accept it." How the freak do you know what I will or won't accept? If its compelling, if its Nephite, if it exists... dang right I'll accept it... PLEASE, please, pretty please produce the evidence Yet you will not tell me what you would consider as Nephite. If you wand Nephite city limits signs I can not produce that. If you will accept something less John Sorenson has a very large book full, some better than others. If you are going to insist that it has to be different and unique from te known native populations then it just isn't going to happen. So you see it all depends on what you will accept.
mfbukowski Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Honest Question: If the Romans left no evidence of their existence would the believing members of this board believe that Rome existed? Because this is the same exact question that I am asking only directing it toward the existence of the Nephites. I only believe that Rome existed because they left evidence of their existence behind...why should belief in the Nephites be held to a different standard? Because it is a religious belief like believing in God. It is not a scientific belief. Yes there is some "evidence" which is insufficient to meet scientific standards. You have it backwards We believe what we want to believe. Beliefs are driven by emotions, not "reason" For no apparent reason, you seem to want to believe that one needs empirical evidence to believe in religious propositions. Probably that makes you see yourself as "intelligent" or a "critical thinker" able to show up all these stupid Mormons. That is a baseless belief which cannot be justified, yet you apparently believe it with all your heart. This is not science, it is religion. What I am asking for from you is empirical evidence that one should only base beliefs on empirical evidence. YOU DO BELIEVE THAT RIGHT? Do you have empirical evidence that one should only base beliefs on empirical evidence? If not, what do you base your belief in empirical evidence on? Your argument is circular and you don't even see it, nor can you account for the basis of your belief except for what you feel in your heart apparently. So to be blunt, put up or shut up. You are ignoring my CFR 1
Johnnie Cake Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, ERayR said: some of Yet you will not tell me what you would consider as Nephite. If you wand Nephite city limits signs I can not produce that. If you will accept something less John Sorenson has a very large book full, some better than others. If you are going to insist that it has to be different and unique from te known native populations then it just isn't going to happen. So you see it all depends on what you will accept. FAIR ENOUGH...I appreciate your honest answer...that means a lot to me thank you. I'm familiar with Sorenson's work, some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with. In my humble opinion when you start from the premise that the Book of Mormon is what it claims and then go out from that beginning point to find evidence which support's that premises...you're going about it the wrong way...but thats just me. Sorenson, may he rest in peace, was locked in the conclusion that Polynesians were descended from Nephite ancestors. Even when he was presented with facts that conflicted with this conclusion he held tightly to his beliefs. Fair enough, but isn't that what one would expect to find with someone who begins at the end rather than beginning at the beginning? Edited January 27, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Johnnie Cake Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Because it is a religious belief like believing in God. It is not a scientific belief. Yes there is some "evidence" which is insufficient to meet scientific standards. You have it backwards We believe what we want to believe. Beliefs are driven by emotions, not "reason" For no apparent reason, you seem to want to believe that one needs empirical evidence to believe in religious propositions. Probably that makes you see yourself as "intelligent" or a "critical thinker" able to show up all these stupid Mormons. That is a baseless belief which cannot be justified, yet you apparently believe it with all your heart. This is not science, it is religion. What I am asking for from you is empirical evidence that one should only base beliefs on empirical evidence. YOU DO BELIEVE THAT RIGHT? Do you have empirical evidence that one should only base beliefs on empirical evidence? If not, what do you base your belief in empirical evidence on? Your argument is circular and you don't even see it, nor can you account for the basis of your belief except for what you feel in your heart apparently. So to be blunt, put up or shut up. You are ignoring my CFR Thank you for this post... it is an honest post and very constructive. Thank you. You and I are in about Edit from 99% to 68.3% agreement (on this) As to the CFR...boy where has the day gone? I'll honestly try to repond...if I can find it Edited January 27, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Gervin Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: 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 The author of this 1970 article admits that he isn't a linguist and has "no knowledge" of Hebrew or Egyptian and suggests possible paths forward for more work. If no more has been done - or can't be done - then I think it's safe to assume there's nothing of substance here. FWIW.
Johnnie Cake Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 6 hours 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. ha ha... I honestly at times feel I am having a discussion with a room full of autistics adults You want me to CFR the use of should in a sentence. " No one "Should" ever take anything I post as fact. And while you may be coming to this thread from a position of faith, I am not. I do not live in the world of religious faith. As the word "Should" applies to the science of archaeology however, I misspoke when using the word should...no archaeological dig SHOULD produce what ever assumption is being made. The evidence drives the conclusions. I corrected myself. As I've stated many times in this thread, only through analysis of the evidence left behind can a conclusion be made with respect to that evidence being analyzed. There that Should satisfy your CFR...but I don't want to assume as much. Edited January 27, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
mfbukowski Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 14 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: ha ha... I honestly at times feel I am having a discussion with a room full of autistics adults You want me to CFR the use of should in a sentence. " No one "Should" ever take anything I post as fact. And while you may be coming to this thread from a position of faith, I am not. I do not live in the world of religious faith. As the word "Should" applies to the science of archaeology however, I misspoke when using the word should...no archaeological dig SHOULD produce what ever assumption is being made. The evidence drives the conclusions. I corrected myself. As I've stated many times in this thread, only through analysis of the evidence left behind can a conclusion be made with respect to that evidence being analyzed. There that Should satisfy your CFR...but I don't want to assume as much. Not autistic, just questioning the logic that you do not question. It is called "being skeptical". And you fail to question the relevance of science to religious faith. Failing to question that relevance is taking your own assumption "on faith"; you are not questioning whether or not science CAN apply to religious faith. It cannot. Hume showed that 200 years ago. I am questioning how you have overthrown Hume. It appears you are not even acquainted with the problem here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem 30 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Thank you for this post... it is an honest post and very constructive. Thank you. You and I are in about Edit from 99% to 68.3% agreement (on this) As to the CFR...boy where has the day gone? I'll honestly try to repond...if I can find it How was that post "honest and constructive" and the other one "from a room full of autistic adults" while both made the same points? The issue is on what basis you believe "the evidence drives the conclusions" when the evidence itself is always subject to interpretation. You believe the "evidence " SHOULD "drive the conclusions" - the question is why you think that. What evidence do you have that evidence should drive conclusions? That is circular reasoning. Why did you seem to understand that question in one post and not the other? 1
mfbukowski Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 27 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: No one "Should" ever take anything I post as fact. I see. So then what is it? Religious belief?
Johnnie Cake Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: I see. So then what is it? Religious belief?
mfbukowski Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I see. So then what is it? Religious belief? What?
Robert F. Smith Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 On 1/20/2016 at 10:10 PM, Gervin said: that's why you shouldn't have conversations with anti-mormons Well, if you haven't convinced yourself, then it's probably wise not to try and convince others. You should really avoid talking to anti-mormons. Present your notions to non anti-mormons. you should really stay away from anti-mormons - I can tell they really upset you! Anti-mormons are the worst in the world! Avoid at all costs! They're garbage!! Please take your intelligence to people who are more worthy!! I assume this is a bad thing ... so I agree! Wow. I didn't see that coming. Good then. All of us bad people will be put to shame when you show us how the logic of your beliefs has become widely accepted outside of the anti-mormon world that you despise so much. This is the sum total of your sincere and serious mode of discussion? At least you are consistent, Gervin. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 10 hours ago, Gray said: Quote 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. A sincere and serious inquiry would want to know whether cement was used anywhere in the New World, along with many other cultural features mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Archeologists don't deal in "proof," but rather in indicative cultural complexes. The Book of Mormon requires that any culture contained within it must have certain cultural artifacts and technology: Literacy, large population, cities, temples, sophisticated calendar, cement, etc., at a very high level, and all within specific timelines. Only one area in the New World fills that bill of particulars, Mesoamerica, and it fits it very well. You may not have identified the Nephites, but a number of professional anthropologists have done so, and you need to address their specific claims, rather than make wild, unsupported denials. Name and review the books you have read on the subject, telling why you think they are wrong. Join the discussion, Gray. See Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Kofford, 2015). 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 7 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Honest Question: If the Romans left no evidence of their existence would the believing members of this board believe that Rome existed? Because this is the same exact question that I am asking only directing it toward the existence of the Nephites. I only believe that Rome existed because they left evidence of their existence behind...why should belief in the Nephites be held to a different standard? A similar problem could be posed with the Mycenean civilization, which only existed in fable, and in Homeric Epic -- until the archeological discoveries began. Then it suddenly became clear that Homer was correct about the literacy of the Myceneans, and that the glory of that archaic Greek culture was in fact extraordinary. People who believed that the Heroic era was only a fabulous tale, suddenly had to eat their words and accept that a civilization they did not know about had actually existed. There are plenty of such cultural discoveries worldwide. Belief in the Nephites should not be held to a different standard, even though you apparently want to apply a very different standard, Johnnie.
Kevin Christensen Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 13 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: FAIR ENOUGH...I appreciate your honest answer...that means a lot to me thank you. I'm familiar with Sorenson's work, some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with. In my humble opinion when you start from the premise that the Book of Mormon is what it claims and then go out from that beginning point to find evidence which support's that premises...you're going about it the wrong way...but thats just me. Sorenson, may he rest in peace, was locked in the conclusion that Polynesians were descended from Nephite ancestors. Even when he was presented with facts that conflicted with this conclusion he held tightly to his beliefs. Fair enough, but isn't that what one would expect to find with someone who begins at the end rather than beginning at the beginning? John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, who is not dead, on whether the Polynesians were descended from Nephite ancestors and how he deal with facts that conflicted with his conclusions: "Years ago I compiled a large body of shared cultural traits that indeed suggest historical links between those islands and various parts of the Americas, and this has been supplemented by others. Yet the evidence does not allow our pinning down any single time or place for a migration or trade that would persuasively explain the similarities. It remains impossible to demonstrate a clearcut connection between the two areas, though the debate continues. ... Those who choose to believe that Hagoth reached Polynesia must rely on faith rather than reliable evidence. The Book of Mormon itself, of course, says only that the man and his mates disappeared from the knowledge of the people in Zarahemla. For all they knew he might have died at a ripe old age on the West Mexican coast... And neither do we know." page 269. One cannot help but wonder where Johnnie Cake began to end up where he does? FWIW Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA 1
Kevin Christensen Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 13 hours ago, Gervin said: The author of this 1970 article admits that he isn't a linguist and has "no knowledge" of Hebrew or Egyptian and suggests possible paths forward for more work. If no more has been done - or can't be done - then I think it's safe to assume there's nothing of substance here. FWIW. "These aren't the droids you are looking for....move along." The Jedi mind trick is particularly sad when you see someone performing it on themselves. FWIW Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA 2
Gray Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: A sincere and serious inquiry would want to know whether cement was used anywhere in the New World, along with many other cultural features mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Archeologists don't deal in "proof," but rather in indicative cultural complexes. The Book of Mormon requires that any culture contained within it must have certain cultural artifacts and technology: Literacy, large population, cities, temples, sophisticated calendar, cement, etc., at a very high level, and all within specific timelines. Only one area in the New World fills that bill of particulars, Mesoamerica, and it fits it very well. You may not have identified the Nephites, but a number of professional anthropologists have done so, and you need to address their specific claims, rather than make wild, unsupported denials. Name and review the books you have read on the subject, telling why you think they are wrong. Join the discussion, Gray. See Brant Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Kofford, 2015). Cement being used in the new world does nothing to advance the idea that Nephites existed, though. Even finding steel swords wouldn't help. One can always find professionals who will advocate for fringe theories. And let's be clear, the existence of a pre-Columbian civilization in the Americas that originated from the near east is a fringe theory, with no real evidence to support it. There are convergences to be found for any theory, certainly, but that really isn't enough. One can find many convergences with the Book of Mormon all over the world, which isn't evidence for Nephites in those places either. At best one can theorize that Mesoamerica could be a fit for Nephites if we don't take the BOM completely literally. The idea for people interested in advancing these ideas seems to be to create arguments that leave room for faith. As in, "we can't demonstrate that Nephites are historical, but it might be reasonable to say that they could have existed and not left easily identifiable evidence". That's fine, but that still doesn't give us historical Nephites. The idea remains open to theological exploration, but until some real evidence surfaces, the archaeological approach is a non-starter. There is no real support for it. That is, if the goal is to demonstrate that Nephites existed. Really, the quest to find historical Nephites is something of a distraction from the real value of the Book of Mormon. Its value is, again, theological and not historical. Edited January 27, 2016 by Gray
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 This issue usually gets people all over the board and talking past each other. One side's position is that evidence builds the case for the Book of Mormon. So things like Nahom, those ancient markings, or cement found in Mesoamerica, isn't evidence for the BoM it's just some findings that may or may not relate to the BoM. I think that's fair in its own way. Another side fully believes the Book and thus anything that says it's possible or helps to support it being possible is evidence. Thus, to this side Nahom, those ancient markings, and cement are evidence supporting the BoM story. I can sympathize with both. If one mentions Nahom, for instance, in trying to discuss evidence, the response is, "well Joseph could have found it on a map". Then the question becomes how likely was it that he found it on a map and told his story around that point? Thus, is it evidence he found it on a map and used it, or is it evidence the story is authentically ancient? It could be either/or. It's easy to dismiss both though.
Johnnie Cake Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: A similar problem could be posed with the Mycenean civilization, which only existed in fable, and in Homeric Epic -- until the archeological discoveries began. Then it suddenly became clear that Homer was correct about the literacy of the Myceneans, and that the glory of that archaic Greek culture was in fact extraordinary. People who believed that the Heroic era was only a fabulous tale, suddenly had to eat their words and accept that a civilization they did not know about had actually existed. There are plenty of such cultural discoveries worldwide. Belief in the Nephites should not be held to a different standard, even though you apparently want to apply a very different standard, Johnnie. I've always conceded that this supposed fable before discovery is a possibility with respect to Book of Mormon civilizations, unlikely but certainly within the realm of possibility. And should that day arrive and some archaeologist discovers Zarahemla, with Nephite pottery shards, swords and horse bones laying about (or what ever other Nephite identifiers there may be) within its city walls...I'll eat crow and say...well gosh darn...I was wrong...Time to pay my back tithing...and hope for a seat at the back of the bus
Johnnie Cake Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, who is not dead. I sure he's glad to hear that. My sincere apologies. I misread an article which listed his tenure at BYU and retirement, which I misread as the date of his death.
Glenn101 Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 30 minutes ago, stemelbow said: This issue usually gets people all over the board and talking past each other. One side's position is that evidence builds the case for the Book of Mormon. So things like Nahom, those ancient markings, or cement found in Mesoamerica, isn't evidence for the BoM it's just some findings that may or may not relate to the BoM. I think that's fair in its own way. Another side fully believes the Book and thus anything that says it's possible or helps to support it being possible is evidence. Thus, to this side Nahom, those ancient markings, and cement are evidence supporting the BoM story. I can sympathize with both. If one mentions Nahom, for instance, in trying to discuss evidence, the response is, "well Joseph could have found it on a map". Then the question becomes how likely was it that he found it on a map and told his story around that point? Thus, is it evidence he found it on a map and used it, or is it evidence the story is authentically ancient? It could be either/or. It's easy to dismiss both though. Everything about the Book of Mormon is easy to dismiss for a critic. The evidence does not really matter. Based upon the reactions to the finding of Nahom, and the other things about the journey to Bountiful, the presence of chiasmus, the Hebraisms (or Egyptianisms), etc. I would not be surprised that critics would dismiss the finding of an inscription in the Americas that actually translates to Zarahemla would not sway many if any critics. Johnny Cake said in another post that such evidence would be enough to get him to pay up his back tithing and seek a seat in the back of the chapel or something of the sort. I would hope that would not be the case. If something of the sort would be enough to make a believer out of someone sitting on the fence, some sort of negative find would be enough to send such an one back into the comfort of unbelief. The only real reason to believe in the Book of Mormon is a witness from the Holy Ghost. But then, we get into another debate about that. But that is what the Book of Mormon authors/prophets have decreed that we do. Glenn 1
stemelbow Posted January 27, 2016 Posted January 27, 2016 1 minute ago, Glenn101 said: Everything about the Book of Mormon is easy to dismiss for a critic. The evidence does not really matter. Based upon the reactions to the finding of Nahom, and the other things about the journey to Bountiful, the presence of chiasmus, the Hebraisms (or Egyptianisms), etc. I would not be surprised that critics would dismiss the finding of an inscription in the Americas that actually translates to Zarahemla would not sway many if any critics. Johnny Cake said in another post that such evidence would be enough to get him to pay up his back tithing and seek a seat in the back of the chapel or something of the sort. I would hope that would not be the case. If something of the sort would be enough to make a believer out of someone sitting on the fence, some sort of negative find would be enough to send such an one back into the comfort of unbelief. The only real reason to believe in the Book of Mormon is a witness from the Holy Ghost. But then, we get into another debate about that. But that is what the Book of Mormon authors/prophets have decreed that we do. Glenn I hope for a day when we are more inclusive, less insular, and less esoteric, to tell the truth. There's nothing inherently wrong with someone not being able to accept the historical story of the BoM, for instance. I mean everyone buys into some version of loving one another, what more do we really need? If we could circumvent our own traditional dogma and the like and get people like Johnny Cake back without having to prove the BoM's historicity, we'd be in a good place, I'd say. But as of now, Johnny Cake isn't alone in his place. There are tons of really good people out there who simply couldn't maintain belief. Some may say it's a problem with them--meaning they sinned. Some may say their expectations are off--which is certainly possible. But I say, maybe our expectations are off...maybe we sin in sending people out the door by our own rhetoric and tradition. 1
Recommended Posts