Popular Post Stargazer Posted January 17, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 17, 2016 13 hours ago, sunstoned said: Do you think they would really forget how to do something as important as metal working? How many metallurgists do you personally know? How many do you know about? A small group of people cross a vast ocean in a single ship. They have only one or two people who know how to extract metal ores and work them into metal tools. In a survival situation, how easy do you think it is to lose such a skill, especially if it is difficult to locate a source of ore from scratch? I am actually rather fascinated by swordmaking, and there are a number of YouTube videos showing how it can be done from scratch. I'm posting these to demonstrate just how much work it takes to do this kind of thing, and the amount of specialized knowledge required. In the interest of saving space on the page, I'm not going to paste the links into this post, but here's a video on Making a Sword from Meteroritic Iron. This video shows a process that involves using modern mechanical trip-hammers as well as manual hammers. This is a video on the making of a Japanese katana from scratch. This is a video showing a traditional Japanese swordmaker, who does not use modern mechanics, but only traditional hand tools and a forge. Another one is a video on a modern swordmaker reproducing a thousand-year old medieval sword, called an Ulfbehrt, an especially high quality sword used by some Viking warriors. This video spends a great deal of time on describing the swords and their history (so far as is known), and only a small amount of time showing the making of one. I put all these here not just because I find the subject very interesting, but also because I want to show how much craft and work it requires to do a decent job of this. And if Nephi has to simultaneously administer his people, along with all that goes along with it, just how much time can he devote to metallurgy? Oh, yes, this is going to be a skill that is likely to die off among the Nephites. 6
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted January 17, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) On 1/17/2016 at 6:32 AM, sunstoned said: You and your buddy Robert are both very predictable. Instead of addressing the topic, you attack the messenger. Now, how about a name of non-Mormon scholar who buys into the Book of Mormon narrative? You have, of course, read Margaret Barker's comments at the Joseph Smith Conference at Washington DC in 2005. https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/viewFile/7066/6715%22%5Dhere The assumption that there are objective, disinterested scholars out there who can offer final and reliable judgments against the Book of Mormon is actually a silly myth, a bedtime story for skeptics. That is most useful lesson of the Coe interview with Dehlin. Coe claims that the lack of evidence for iron arrow heads and brass helmets is damning with respect to the claims of the Book of Mormon, and never mind that the Book of Mormon never describes or implies iron arrow heads or brass helmets. Coe cites the prominence of the Mesoamerican Great Mother figure compared to the well known, exclusively Male God of the Israel, and never mind the existence of Patai's The Hebrew Goddess, Dever's Did God Have a Wife? and Barker's more recent but relevant, "The Mother of the Lord. The whole interview is a reminder and demonstration of why we ought not trust our faith to the objectivity and insight of the skeptics. And Coe has at least read the Book of Mormon at some point in the distant past, but that did not make him a dispenser of profound insights. It was a sad and pathetic spectacle. Ian Barbour in Myths Models, and Paradigms, observes that: "There are no bare uninterpreted data. Expectations and conceptual commitments influence perceptions, both in everyday life and in science. Man supplies the categories of interpretation, right from the start. The very language in which observations are reported is influenced by prior theories … The presuppositions which the scientist brings to his inquiry are reflected in the way he formulates a problem, the kind of apparatus he builds, and the type of variable he considers important. Here the emphasis is on theory and the way it permeates observation." In N. R Hanson’s oft quoted words, ‘All Data are theory-laden.’ The procedures of measurement and the interpretation of the resulting measurement and interpretation of the resulting numerical values depend in implicit theoretical assumptions. Most of the time, scientists work within a framework of thought which they have inherited … But, says Feyerband, when the background theory itself is an issue, when the fundamental assumptions and basic concepts are under attack, then the dependence of measurement on theoretical assumptions is crucial." When Peter Novick spoke at Sunstone at SLC in the 1980s his remarks on objectivity were never formally published in the journal. It seems that they were not welcome: "I will only report that to an ever-increasing number of historians in recent decades it has not just seemed unapproachable, but an incoherent ideal; not impossible, in the sense of unachievable (that would not make it a less worthy goal than many other goals that we reasonably pursue), but meaningless. This is not because of human frailty on the part of the historian (that, after all, we can struggle against), not because of irresistible outside pressures (these too we can resist with some success, if not complete success). No, the principal problem is different, and it is laughably simple. It is the problem of selecting from among the zillions and zillions of bits of historical data out there the handful that we can fit in even the largest book, and the associated problem of how we arrange those bits that we choose. The criterion of selection and the way we arrange the bits we choose are not given out there in the historical record. Neutrality, value-freedom, and absence of preconceptions on the part of the historian would not result in a neutral account, it would result in no account at all, because any historian, precisely to the extent that she was neutral, without values, free of preconceptions, would be paralyzed, would not have the foggiest notion of how to go about choosing from the vast, unbelievably messy chaos of stuff out there." Even TTs recent review of Brant's work at Faith Promoting Rumor turns out to be another demonstration of what happens when you assume that ideology is what happens to other people. With the eye-beam firmly in place to obscure the vision, we do not get a clear picture of anything except what happens with one's vision is obscured. We get a demonstration of how ideology drives selectivity and generalizations from those selections. If you happen to know enough to see what is selected and what the generalizations overlook and do not explain, the effect is rather different than intended. FWIW Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA Edited January 18, 2016 by Kevin Christensen Touch up on word choice. 10
Russell C McGregor Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 9 hours ago, sunstoned said: You and your buddy Robert are both very predictable. Instead of addressing the topic, you attack the messenger. Said he, piously. Because, of course, the nasty insinuation that people only disagree with you because they are unprincipled mercenary hacks isn't attacking anyone. Right? 9 hours ago, sunstoned said: Now, how about a name of non-Mormon scholar who buys into the Book of Mormon narrative? Again: what do you call someone who believes the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be? Take your time. Think it over. 2
Popular Post Calm Posted January 17, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Quote I was a believer once, for almost 30 years I was a believer. So I know where you are coming from. Believing is not a one size fits all experience. The claim that just because someone was a believer they understand the still believing other's thought processes (and have discarded them) is presumptuous. Edited January 17, 2016 by Calm 5
Robert F. Smith Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, sunstoned said: Quote Robert F. Smith said: This is a contemptuous and classic non sequitur. It is a fact that the majority of scholars who have discussed the path across the sea taken by clan Lehi was the Pacific ocean. You responded with a red herring CFR completely unrelated to that question. Is that because you are incapable of addressing the original question? For shame. You are long on personal attacks, but you did not answer my question. This is a typical apologist response. Make a lot of noise and obfuscate. Now, how about a name of non-Mormon scholar who buys into the Book of Mormon narrative? A typical anti-Mormon response: You ignore the actual question, and substitute a very different, tendentious one instead. No effort toward having an actual discussion, because that is not your objective. When have you ever acknowledged the positive comments by non-Mormon scholars about the Book of Mormon? Never. You just change the subject, throw out a red herring, or change the goal posts. Address the issues in an honest, civil, and scholarly manner, and you will find plenty of people ready to tango with you. Edited January 18, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 12 hours ago, sunstoned said: You and your buddy Robert are both very predictable. Instead of addressing the topic, you attack the messenger. Now, how about a name of non-Mormon scholar who buys into the Book of Mormon narrative? I have never met Mr. McGregor, so you are as usual peddling nonsense. When will you get serious? When someone presents the names to you of non-Mormon scholars who take the Book of Mormon seriously, your only conceivable response is contempt and disrespect -- then changing the goal posts to exclude the evidence.
Gervin Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 On 1/17/2016 at 1:42 AM, Robert F. Smith said: Probably not "the find of a lifetime," but very important nonetheless. Most of those viewing Hezekiah's seal will miss the prime significance of the 'ankh signs and the winged sun-disk, and be unable to place it in the proper context of the many Israelite seals with Egyptian iconography. They will be still less able to reflect on the Egyptian language and characters used for the Brass Plates of Laban, and of the Book of Mormon itself. Context is everything, but without training one cannot place anything in context. Excavations in Israel - a country relatively small in area - reveal cultures going back to the Bronze Age. Scholars can distinguish between an Edomite vs a Canaanite pottery sherd by relating it to material, workmanship, style, functionality, markings/inscriptions, cross-referenced to other finds, other locations, offered up for scrutiny, etc.. It's simply their business to find and note distinguishable characteristics. Since Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, Israelites, and Phoenicians are all Canaanites, and speak Canaanite dialects, it is often difficult to distinguish among them. The moreso since much of their material culture is virtually the same. One can see this in the Book of Ruth and elsewhere in the Bible. Of course, excavations in Israel go back at least to paleolithic times, and I participated in such an excavation at Tell el-'Ubeidiyah in the Jordan Valley. If you posit a Hebrew culture in an American setting - a culture that brought with it religion, language, agricultural skills, a writing system, engineering knowledge, etc, etc, - then I think it's fair to expect that that culture left traces distinguishable from the cultures they encountered. Correct. And adequate excavation should show that at the proper time and place. I hope they would teach that at any of the schools Mr. Smith might recommend. ..................................................................... You will note that I did not recommend any particular school in which to study anthropology, archeology, and genetics. The standards are pretty much the same regardless of which school and which country in which such study is sought. However, an understanding of those disciplines is necessary before a meaningful conversation can take place on the issues you, sunstoned, and Johnnie Cake have raised. By the "find of a lifetime", I meant for the person making the discovery. An understanding of the context to which you refer - Egyptian iconography in Israelite seals - is readily available to anyone who is interested. As a matter of fact, I purposefully didn't link the BAR reference because I wanted a more straight forward article. Here's more detail related to the find and iconography. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/king-hezekiah-in-the-bible-royal-seal-of-hezekiah-comes-to-light/ However, an understanding of those disciplines is necessary before a meaningful conversation can take place on the issues you, sunstoned, and Johnnie Cake have raised. Disagree. I could do nothing but ask questions to satisfy my own curiosity and you, a person with Understanding, could proceed to engage in a meaningful conversation by informing me of all your proofs.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 18, 2016 Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Gervin said: Quote Robert F. Smith said: However, an understanding of those disciplines is necessary before a meaningful conversation can take place on the issues you, sunstoned, and Johnnie Cake have raised. .................................... Disagree. I could do nothing but ask questions to satisfy my own curiosity and you, a person with Understanding, could proceed to engage in a meaningful conversation by informing me of all your proofs. Trouble is that, aside from the notion of "proofs" as a nonstarter, in all of my conversations with unschooled anti-Mormons, I receive automatic rejection of any archeological data as well as any logical interpretations thereof. Lack of familiarity with the requisite disciplines leaves them without a workable context for meaningful conversation. One is left trying to overcome skepticism about the science itself, as well as about the conclusions drawn from it. After all, I have already written about many of the issues, and so have many other Mormon commentators, without much acknowledgment from the anti-Mormon community that anything has even been said. It would be far more interesting if we could have a substantive exchange on the issues, rather than the same old "tis so, tis not" discourse. Edited January 18, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 3
Gervin Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 On 1/18/2016 at 4:12 PM, Robert F. Smith said: Trouble is that, aside from the notion of "proofs" as a nonstarter, in all of my conversations with unschooled anti-Mormons, I receive automatic rejection of any archeological data as well as any logical interpretations thereof. I see the source of your troubles: you're never going to convince an "anti-Mormon of anything. Don't waste your time. My guess is that there are way more people in the world interested in startling and off-the-grid archaeological claims than there are "anti-Mormons." Do those who aren't anti-Mormon reject your archaeological data or logical interpretations?
Robert F. Smith Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 28 minutes ago, Gervin said: Quote Robert F. Smith said: Trouble is that, aside from the notion of "proofs" as a nonstarter, in all of my conversations with unschooled anti-Mormons, I receive automatic rejection of any archeological data as well as any logical interpretations thereof. I see the source of your troubles: you're never going to convince an "anti-Mormon of anything. Don't waste your time. My guess is that there are way more people in the world interested in startling and off-the-grid archaeological claims than there are "anti-Mormons." Do those who aren't anti-Mormon reject your archaeological data or logical interpretations? Anti-Mormons make a regular practice of deliberately misstating what someone has said. You will note that I said nothing about convincing anyone of anything. That is your obsession. Having a meaningful conversation about a subject does not mean to me that anyone gets convinced of something, but rather that meaningful exchange has taken place -- possibly learning more about the opinions of others. Automatic rejection of views on a Mormon subject is a common characteristic of anti-Mormons. They are not even interested in discussion or understanding. Rejection is their beginning and ending position. No discussion is even possible for them. They are apriorists. That is why you are uninterested in real discussion. 3
Gervin Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Anti-Mormons make a regular practice of deliberately misstating what someone has said. that's why you shouldn't have conversations with anti-mormons 20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: You will note that I said nothing about convincing anyone of anything. Well, if you haven't convinced yourself, then it's probably wise not to try and convince others. 20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Automatic rejection of views on a Mormon subject is a common characteristic of anti-Mormons. You should really avoid talking to anti-mormons. Present your notions to non anti-mormons. Quote They are not even interested in discussion or understanding. you should really stay away from anti-mormons - I can tell they really upset you! Quote Rejection is their beginning and ending position. Anti-mormons are the worst in the world! Avoid at all costs! Quote No discussion is even possible for them. They're garbage!! Please take your intelligence to people who are more worthy!! Quote They are apriorists. I assume this is a bad thing ... so I agree! Quote That is why you are uninterested in real discussion. 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.
volgadon Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 30 minutes ago, 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. Are you attempting to show how correct his claim is? If so, it is definitely working. 4
ERayR Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 On 1/16/2016 at 5:11 PM, Johnnie Cake said: I for one would LOVE some archeological, genetic, anthropological or really just about anything...a trinket, a coin, a Nephite pottery shard... basically the same stuff used to support the reality of other civilizations to also support Book of Mormon claims...but alias...we are left with nothing to support its claims other than faith It is there but it is recognized by some other name than Nephite. 2
nosmelone Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 I personally feel the archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon is stronger in the Old World at this time with the alters found at the Temple of Marib making the Nahom connection as well as being a well known burial area for ancient civilizations of the area. This seems to be to be a pretty nice piece of evidence that can't just be brushed off as a coincidence. I admit that the New World archaeological evidence isn't quite as forth coming but with linguistic ties being made between Egyptian, Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan by Brian Stubbs and Jerry Grover http://www.bmaf.org/sites/bmaf.org/files/image/Egyptian-Semitic-in-Uto-Aztecan-by-Brian-Stubbs-Jerry-Grover.pdf and insights pointed out by John Sorenson in his book Mormon's Codex http://www.amazon.com/Mormons-Codex-Ancient-American-Book/dp/1609073991/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453315258&sr=8-1&keywords=Mormons+Codex and Brant Gardner's Traditions of the Fathers book. http://www.amazon.com/Traditions-Fathers-Book-Mormon-History/dp/1589586654/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453315311&sr=8-1&keywords=Brant+Gardner we could easily have already seen much evidence for the Book of Mormon it is just not recognized as Nephite/Lamanite but rather as Mayan or Mesoamerican. We have to keep in mind that the Central American civilizations were known for destroying their conquered foes histories/monuments/stelaes and building right on top of their predecessors temples or previous stages of that cities civilizations. This is evident in many locations one in particular is Copan where there are 4km of tunnels with two of them open to the public: Rosalila that includes the remains of the temple with the same name and Los Jaguares, which travels through a system of aqueducts, tombs, and former baths. In the tunnels you can see earlier stages of Copan civilization. I do believe that as we gain a better understanding of the civilizations of Central America we will begin see more reasonable evidences. Also as pointed out by many others on this board the history of archaeology in Central America is very young. I also think that a focus for evidence should be focused on the Pueblo of the Southwest not just due to the Uto-Aztecan linguistic ties noted above but the similarities of their traditional stories and migrations to those held in the Book of Mormon. 3
Russell C McGregor Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 14 hours ago, Gervin said: that's why you shouldn't have conversations with anti-mormons Starting with you?
strappinglad Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) "And again they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust" (Mosiah 8:10-11) wood and obsidian don't rust. You do realize they were describing swords from the Jaredite civilization , which had basically ended several decades if not longer before. Also, it is one thing to dig around in a land that is quite open and dry compared to a highly forested and very wet one. ( Yes, I know I make assumptions here ). Edited January 21, 2016 by strappinglad 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 On 16/1/2016 at 9:55 AM, sunstoned said: "And again they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust" (Mosiah 8:10-11) wood and obsidian don't rust. So in approximately 120 BC the hilts of these swords were already gone and their blades were well on their way to being consumed by rust, but it's supposed to be a problem that we can't find them 2,135 years later? 4
Johnnie Cake Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 On January 16, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Hamba Tuhan said: Honest question: what exactly would 'a Nephite pottery shard' look like? Don't know, ones never been discovered. But I have seen pottery shards from Ancient Greece, Rome, Israel and Egypt. Civilizations generally do produce pottery shards. The BoM civilizations may be the exception
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Don't know, ones never been discovered. So if you don't know what one would look like, how on earth do you know that one has never been discovered??? We certainly have all kinds of pottery shards from all over the New World, no? Edited January 21, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan 1
Johnnie Cake Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 On January 16, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Stargazer said: So... just how do you think an archaeologist would recognize a pottery shard as "Nephite" when (a) he didn't know anything about Nephites, (b) if he did know anything would consider them fictional, and (c) for that matter, WE have no way to know how to distinguish a Nephite pottery shard from any other kind? Or how he would recognize any kind of trinket as Nephite? But from your posting history, JC, I would have to say that you wouldn't believe it if an archaeologist did find any kind of artifact and labeled it as Nephite. So, no, I don't think you would LOVE it. Honest question, are you suggesting that Nephite artifacts have been found and merely mislabeled as coming from some other American civilization? Just as archeologist can distinguish between Greek Roman and Etruscan...wouldn't a Israelie inspired Nephite artifact standout from an Aztec Mayan or Navaho?
Johnnie Cake Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: So if you don't know what one would look like, how on earth do you know that one has never been discovered??? We certainly have all kinds of pottery shards from all over the New World, no? See post above...but surly you're not suggesting an archeologist can't distinguish between pottery from different civilizations are you?
Johnnie Cake Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 Assuming the Book of Mormon civilizations existed....surly they left some evidence of their existence right? A garbage dump, a building foundation, one of their cement buildings, a zenon of gold...something? Anything?
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Honest question, are you suggesting that Nephite artifacts have been found and merely mislabeled as coming from some other American civilization? We don't even know the names of many of the civilisations that left behind artefacts in the New World. We name them based on where they were located or based on what other, later Native Americans called their ruins/artefacts. For example, the Anasazi ruins/people were so named by the much-later Navajo; it merely means 'ancestors of enemies'. We have no idea what they may have called themselves. This pattern is repeated across the Americas. Quote wouldn't a Israelie inspired Nephite artifact standout from an Aztec Mayan or Navaho? It depends. On what basis have you concluded that a) the Lehites produced their own Old World-style pottery; b) that they maintained this style over time despite being in a new physical and cultural environment? In addition, are you aware that material culture does not automatically equal ethnicity? For example, one of the debates in Oceanic prehistory is whether the presence of Lapita-style pottery indicates the presence of Lapita peoples or merely the adoption of the pottery style by non-Lapita peoples. No one knows. Edited January 21, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan 3
Guest Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 Trying to reverse engineer such a book to be able to know where things occurred, does not give any Book, even the Book of Mormon. Just as with the Bible, you may be able to locate about 85% of the cities and places, but knowing where something took place, does mean the stories spoken of or the supernatural events actually took place. Just as with the Book Of Mormon, knowing where will not bring forth faith.
Johnnie Cake Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: We don't even know the names of many of the civilisations that left behind artefacts in the New World. We name them based on where they were located or based on what other, later Native Americans called their ruins/artefacts. For example, the Anasazi ruins/people were so named by the much-later Navajo; it merely means 'ancestors of enemies'. We have no idea what they may have called themselves. This pattern is repeated across the Americas. It depends. On what basis have you concluded that a) the Lehites produced their own Old World-style pottery; b) that they maintained this style over time despite being in a new physical and cultural environment? In addition, are you aware that material culture does not automatically equal ethnicity? For example, one of the debates in Oceanic prehistory is whether the presence of Lapita-style pottery indicates the presence of Lapita peoples or merely the adoption of the pottery style by non-Lapita peoples. No one knows. I'm just trying to wrap my head around what you are proposing. I know current LDS worldview is that both the jaradites and nephite lamanites civilizations left an extremely small footprint...but are you suggesting they left no footprint? Archeologists can distinguish Mayan artifacts from Aztec or Cherokee. That's archeology 101 surly a nephite artifact would be distinguishable from other American civilizations unless your suggesting all unique nephite artifact characteristics were abandoned...but the BoM suggests a vibrant Nephite civilization Edited January 21, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Recommended Posts