Swords Cankered with Rust...How Exactly do Wooden Swords Rust?

[thesometimesaint]

20 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

The church used to teach a hemispheric model for the book of mormon.  I guess you don't remember that?  Do you remember when "principle" was changed to "among" in the introduction?

I remember it quite well. I just never agreed with it. The "principle" was never part of the Book of Mormon itself. That was added many years later by Bruce R. McConkie, and never accepted by the Church.

Ps; SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_What_is_the_Hemispheric_Geography_Theory_regarding_the_location_of_Book_of_Mormon_lands%3F

Edited June 26, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, James Tunney said:

A straw man is falsely attributing an easily refuted argument to an opponent when the opponent didn't make the argument.  I believe you were trying to do that by claiming that I want to have a religious test for scientists or the supreme court.  I never said that. 

So, if you know the definition, why are you unable to apply it accurately?  You had said:

 

Quote

On 6/24/2016 at 1:29 PM, James Tunney said:

Isn't the current debate among archaeologists about whether there were waves of migration to the americas from asia or one migration around 25,000 years ago? http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-native-american-origins-dna-20150721-story.html

These archaeologists and anthropologists, except the mormon ones, believe the Native Americans came from asia and not Israel. So, isn't it possible that the bias of needing a faithful conclusion governs the mormon scientist in this area?

Once again, you beg the question (a fallacy) by selectively applying a phony straw man to the Mormons.  That way you don't have to deal with the evidence, which you are unable to come to grips with anyhow.  Very convenient, James.

My point is and has been that the question of historicity is so sacrosanct with the believing mormons that perhaps there is a little bias in their conclusions?  At this point, experts like Dr. Coe and Dr. Thomas Murphy rightly point out that there isn't evidence that supports historicity.  According to Dr. Murphy, no one other than mormon scientists even bother with the historicity question because the conclusion against it is already reached.  All that is left is a hope that some day there will be something found.  While anything is possible, maybe it's not too probable at this point?

The problem with that facile statement is that the conclusion was reached before any evidence was considered.  In the case of Mike Coe (whom I regularly cite as an expert), he goes out of his way to make silly and utterly biased statements which he would never consider making in a professional capacity -- as pointed out by John L. Sorenson, "An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Coe," Interpreter, 1 (2012):91-109, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/ .  I have read Coe's articles on this matter, and have always been amazed that he so blithely ignores his own professional work in Mesoamerica when speaking of the BofM.  Outside the Book of Mormon, Coe is at the same time always ready to see diffusion from southeast Asia to Mesoamerica -- Michael D. Coe, “Parallel Civilizations: Ancient Ankor and the Ancient Maya,” UCTV, his Third Hitchcock Lecture delivered Oct 12, 2000, at UCB, online at https://youtu.be/hBB__YXYpOc --analogies of Ankor with the Maya.  @ 5.40, certainly were connections between them, and he plans to work on that in his dotage.  Has visited at Ankor many times since the first time in 1954.

 

Edited June 26, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[James Tunney]

45 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

What do you make of the debate last year between Dr. Hamblin and Dr. Jenkins? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/07/debating-book-of-mormon-apologists/  Here was the question Dr. Jenkins asked over and over and Dr. Hamblin could not answer:

“Can anyone cite any single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon? One sherd of pottery? One tool of bronze or iron? One carved stone? One piece of genetic data? And by credible, I mean drawn from a reputable scholarly study, an academic book or refereed journal, not some cranky piece of pseudo-science.”

Can you answer it without burying the answer in a reading assignment?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, James Tunney said:

Your reading of the text is clearly possible as is the limited geography theory.  I think the shrinking evidence for historicity definitely warranted a shrinking geographical theory.

The limited geography theory was warranted only by substantive considerations: (1) the only civilizations which had the elements of the BofM civilizations were in Mesoamerica; (2) the distances of travel explicitly given in the BofM text could only be accommodated within a small region (such as Palestine for the Bible).  Since the evidence for the historicity of the BofM grew enormously since 1830, your "shrinking" theory is nonsense, and even includes a false analogy (another fallacy).

However, I am old enough to remember that the church used to teach a hemispheric model, and that the Jaredites were the first peoples here, and that the Lamanites were the "principle" ancestors of the native americans, and not merely among them.  You may want to "gaslight" that fact away now, or put it down the memory hole, but the bofm did say "principle" in the introduction and was changed to "among" due to the facts not supporting the prior church position.  Nevertheless, I will take "serious stock" if you will too.

The LDS Church never had an official geography theory for the BofM and did not teach one.  However, a lot of Mormons (me included) had a hemispheric model in mind when we first read the BofM.  Orson Pratt even included hemispheric footnotes in his 1879 edition of the BofM (removed in 1920).  You put too much stock in folklore, James.

It is true that Elder McConkie wrote an introduction to the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon, including the word "principal" (which you misspelled), which was later removed.  However, that is not canonical.  No introduction, footnote, or extra headings are canonical.  For substantive discussion, we need to turn to the actual text of the BofM, something you seem unready to do, James.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

What do you make of the debate last year between Dr. Hamblin and Dr. Jenkins? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/07/debating-book-of-mormon-apologists/  Here was the question Dr. Jenkins asked over and over and Dr. Hamblin could not answer:

“Can anyone cite any single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon? One sherd of pottery? One tool of bronze or iron? One carved stone? One piece of genetic data? And by credible, I mean drawn from a reputable scholarly study, an academic book or refereed journal, not some cranky piece of pseudo-science.”

Can you answer it without burying the answer in a reading assignment?

My friend Bill Hamblin is a historian, not an archeologist or genticist.  He teaches history at BYU.  I did follow that written debate between him and Jenkins last year, but thought it rather disorganized and not particularly substantive.  Not a real debate in my view.

Since you show no interest in scholarly studies, academic books, or refereed journals (just boring "reading assignments" to you), it doesn't seem possible to communicate anything substantive to you.  I cited some papers for you which contain plenty of evidence, but you have no time to read any of it, and cannot respond to any of it.  Real debate entails actual give and take, in which statements are made and substantive responses are given.  You seem clearly unhappy with those facts.  Once again, I would suggest a couple of semesters of anthropology/archeology at a university near you so that you could be capable of even understanding what the debate is about.

[James Tunney]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Thanks for the spelling correction.  Anyway, how about answering the Jenkins question? As for dealing with the text, Ive read it probably over 50 times and listened to it on cd another 30.  Ive dealt with the text.  Have you?  Have you an answer to the impossibilities like improbable population increases, building a trans-oceanic vessel, Shiz rising up after his head was cut off, the trinitarian belief of the 1830 edition, etc., etc.?  Also, at some point, the goal posts need to be cemented and fixed.  The hemispheric geography was the standard theory until evidence forced the change.  When will the inspired fiction model become reality?  20 years? Earlier, Later?  

[Robert F. Smith]

36 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Thanks for the spelling correction.  Anyway, how about answering the Jenkins question? As for dealing with the text, Ive read it probably over 50 times and listened to it on cd another 30.  Ive dealt with the text.  Have you?  Have you an answer to the impossibilities like improbable population increases, building a trans-oceanic vessel, Shiz rising up after his head was cut off, the trinitarian belief of the 1830 edition, etc., etc.?  Also, at some point, the goal posts need to be cemented and fixed.  The hemispheric geography was the standard theory until evidence forced the change.  When will the inspired fiction model become reality?  20 years? Earlier, Later?  

Glad to see that you want to stop moving the goal posts.  So far, you have been using the scatter-gun approach instead of dealing with substantive evidence..  It might help to focus on single subjects at a time (or class of subjects).  Most of the items you mention here have been dealt with repeatedly on this board.

I  think it nice that you have read the BofM so many times, but I wonder (based on your regular misinterpretation of the text)  whether reading it wrong repeatedly is any help.  With some professional training you might in future be enabled to read it for actual meaning.  This is true for those who have read the Bible many times over during their lives.  They may be very sincere, and have no idea what they are reading about.  I recall still the amazement I felt in my first class on "Biblical History & Archaeology" at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in the summer of 1966.  The Bible began to make sense to me for the first time.  I actually began to understand the ancient Near Eastern context.  Our class visited actual excavations under the tutelage of an archeologist (Dr Gideon Foerster).  You too can learn to begin to take the scholarly approach to holy texts, James.

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, James Tunney said:

Shiz rising up after his head was cut off

Other accounts of similar occurences:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/bom_shiz.htm

Medically plausible due to something called "decerebrate":

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Shiz_struggles_to_breathe

[Calm]

Decerebrate posturing:

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003299.htm

[Gervin]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 0:47 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Another non sequitur.  C'mon Gervin:  Can't you at least address the substance of his argument?

A non sequitur is an argument with a conclusion that does not follow from its premises.  I didn't make an argument; I simply asked a question. 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

On 6/27/2016 at 4:30 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I have read Coe's articles on this matter, and have always been amazed that he so blithely ignores his own professional work in Mesoamerica when speaking of the BofM.  Outside the Book of Mormon, Coe is at the same time always ready to see diffusion from southeast Asia to Mesoamerica -- Michael D. Coe, “Parallel Civilizations: Ancient Ankor and the Ancient Maya,” UCTV, his Third Hitchcock Lecture delivered Oct 12, 2000, at UCB, online at https://youtu.be/hBB__YXYpOc --analogies of Ankor with the Maya.  @ 5.40, certainly were connections between them, and he plans to work on that in his dotage.  Has visited at Ankor many times since the first time in 1954.

Coe flat out says that the similarities between Khmer and Maya civilizations would suggest that the Maya "got in their canoes" and paddled across the ocean. Of course before and after saying it he's also careful to say that he doesn't believe it  

I'll mention it again because I've learned more since last time I posted about this. The founding legend of the Khmer tells of a man named Hun Tien or Kaundinya who had a dream that he should board a ship to rule over a new land. He woke up the next morning to find a divine bow after which his god lead him to an island nation over which he became the ruler. Kaundinya, according to some accounts, was also named Kambujiya which is the old Persian and Akkadian name for Cambyses, the father of Cyrus the Great who lived during the times of Lehi and Mulek's flight. This places the founding legend of the Khmer (and also Funan and Zhenla) firmly in the Biblical world right around 550-600 BC. Other variations of the legend say that Kambu (Cambyses) was an exiled prince from the west fleeing assassination. If there were any references to variations of the names Mulek and Lehi in the region I might think there was a connection. Ta da.

I wonder if Michael Coe realizes he sees parallels between the Maya and a civilization that claims to have been founded by (1) a man led across the waters by a divine vision, and (2) an exiled prince who shares a name with the king who was ruling over the sea ports of Anshan as Mulek skipped town.


 

Edited June 28, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

On 6/27/2016 at 4:30 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

In the case of Mike Coe (whom I regularly cite as an expert), he goes out of his way to make silly and utterly biased statements which he would never consider making in a professional capacity -- as pointed out by John L. Sorenson, "An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Coe," Interpreter, 1 (2012):91-109, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe/ .  I have read Coe's articles on this matter, and have always been amazed that he so blithely ignores his own professional work in Mesoamerica when speaking of the BofM.  Outside the Book of Mormon, Coe is at the same time always ready to see diffusion from southeast Asia to Mesoamerica -- Michael D. Coe, “Parallel Civilizations: Ancient Ankor and the Ancient Maya,” UCTV, his Third Hitchcock Lecture delivered Oct 12, 2000, at UCB, online at https://youtu.be/hBB__YXYpOc --analogies of Ankor with the Maya.  @ 5.40, certainly were connections between them, and he plans to work on that in his dotage.  Has visited at Ankor many times since the first time in 1954.

A couple of months ago I met Arthur Demarest, one of the leading experts on Mayan collapse. He was giving a lecture in Malaysia of all places, and was gushing about how excited he was to have just visited Angkor Wat. He informed me that he is planning a comparative studies conference of Maya and Khmer scholars to take place in Cambodia. Why are all these Mayan scholars so interested in Southeast Asia?

“It may therefore be of interest to Mayanists to summarize what is now known of the settlement pattern of that other great tropical forest civilization, the Khmer Empire, which bears so many puzzling similarities to the Classic Maya”. - Michael Coe (The Khmer Settlement Pattern: A Possible Analogy with That of the Maya)

"With respect to aboriginal civilizations, Michael Coe (1965) points to generic similarities between the Classic lowland Mayan and the Classic Khmer state of Angkor, Cambodia (A.D. 802–1431) (see also Fernández-Armesto 2001). The two civilizations shared such features as highly ceremonial political centers that formed architectural cosmograms of the divine world, surrounded by peasant villages that replicated such civilized features as writing, elaborate art styles, monumental buildings, and ritual authority. In both cases the state was integrated through belief in divine rulers deemed to have direct links to ancestors and deities. Rulers were glorified by temple cults officiated by loyal, priestly subalterns in capital and provincial centers. Arthur Demarest (1992) finds similar parallels between the Classic Mayas and so-called Southeast Asian ‘galactic’ polities." (Source)

If scholars like Coe and Demarest see parallels between the Maya and the Khmer and are actively researching these relationships, could not Mormon scholars also benefit from crossing the pond every now and again? We know the Lamanite remnant is scattered. Are we missing the big picture by focusing so intently on Guatemala?


 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/27/2016 at 3:11 PM, Gervin said:

A non sequitur is an argument with a conclusion that does not follow from its premises.  I didn't make an argument; I simply asked a question. 

On 6/24/2016 at 1:39 PM, thesometimesaint said:

The BoM is a record of a people some 2,700 year ago. Not 25,000. No archaeologist that I know doesn't accept that some Vikings sailed to the New World in about 1100 CE.

Not wanting to deal with this direct falsification of the data, Gervin, you instead replied with the following non sequitur.

Quote

How many archeologists do you know - and how many of these support a Hebrew migration to the New World?  Just curious.

Why are you afraid here to deal with his comment on Vikings and on BofM chronology?  Too inconvenient for you? Why are you so fearful of engaging with substantive argument?

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

.........................................................

I wonder if Michael Coe realizes he sees parallels between the Maya and a civilization that claims to have been founded by (1) a man led across the waters by a divine vision, and (2) an exiled prince who shares a name with the king who was ruling over the sea ports of Anshan as Mulek skipped town.
 

Of course not, and therein lies the hypocrisy.  At the same time, he is blissfully unaware of the seaborne commercial ties of Classical Israel with India:  

Rabin, Chaim, “The Song of Songs and Tamil Poetry,” Studies in Religion, 3/3 (1973-74):205-219.

Rabin, Chaim, "Lexical Borrowings from Indian Languages as Carriers of Ideas and Technical Concepts," in Hananya Goodman, ed., Between Jerusalem and Benares: Comparative Studies in Judaism and Hinduism (Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications/SUNY, 1997), 25-32.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course not, and therein lies the hypocrisy.  At the same time, he is blissfully unaware of the seaborne commercial ties of Classical Israel with India:  

Rabin, Chaim, “The Song of Songs and Tamil Poetry,” Studies in Religion, 3/3 (1973-74):205-219.

Rabin, Chaim, "Lexical Borrowings from Indian Languages as Carriers of Ideas and Technical Concepts," in Hananya Goodman, ed., Between Jerusalem and Benares: Comparative Studies in Judaism and Hinduism (Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications/SUNY, 1997), 25-32.

Speaking of seaborne ties between classical Israel and India, I was just reading some of your research on Irreantum in the BOM Onomasticon and had a question. 

Stephen Ricks said the following about Irreantum:

"The word Irreantum that is given to us as many waters, it’s quite likely South Arabian or South Semitic in origin. We have a root, RWY, with the basic meaning of watering, related to the Hebrew raba, which means to overflow with water and to another word, Arway, to the word pronounced either Arway or Irway. In addition to that, you have the suffix end that gives you the sense of a place name, Arawayan. And in addition to that, Arawayan, which is a place name, a place of flowing and then we have the roots, Tum, which means whole or complete or abundance, so Arwayantum/Irwayantum has this meaning. A place of abundance or rich waters thus many waters, Arwayantum."

In Indian mythology Irawati (and her son Airavana or Erawan) is the giver of water, and a few large waterways in the region are based on the name. The Ayeyarwady/Irrawaddy in Burma stands out as relevant.

Arwayantum/Irwayantum ("abundant watering of completeness") ‎= Ayeyarwady/Irrawaddy (irāvatī, “granting drink or refreshment")
Airavana/Erawan = Arawayan

I'm no onomasticist. Are these plausible cognates?
 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Speaking of seaborne ties between classical Israel and India, I was just reading some of your research on Irreantum in the BOM Onomasticon and had a question. 

Stephen Ricks said the following about Irreantum:

"The word Irreantum that is given to us as many waters, it’s quite likely South Arabian or South Semitic in origin. We have a root, RWY, with the basic meaning of watering, related to the Hebrew raba, which means to overflow with water and to another word, Arway, to the word pronounced either Arway or Irway. In addition to that, you have the suffix end that gives you the sense of a place name, Arawayan. And in addition to that, Arawayan, which is a place name, a place of flowing and then we have the roots, Tum, which means whole or complete or abundance, so Arwayantum/Irwayantum has this meaning. A place of abundance or rich waters thus many waters, Arwayantum."

In Indian mythology Irawati (and her son Airavana or Erawan) is the giver of water, and a few large waterways in the region are based on the name. The Ayeyarwady/Irrawaddy in Burma stands out as relevant.

Arwayantum/Irwayantum ("abundant watering of completeness") ‎= Ayeyarwady/Irrawaddy (irāvatī, “granting drink or refreshment")
Airavana/Erawan = Arawayan

I'm no onomasticist. Are these plausible cognates?
 

They might be, Rajah.  They are at least intriguing and worthy of follow-up.

The Semitic etymology which you attribute to Ricks is actually the work of both him and Paul Hoskisson (who heads the Book of Mormon Onomasticon project you refer to).  I have called your comments to their attention.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

They might be, Rajah.  They are at least intriguing and worthy of follow-up.

The Semitic etymology which you attribute to Ricks is actually the work of both him and Paul Hoskisson (who heads the Book of Mormon Onomasticon project you refer to).  I have called your comments to their attention.

At the very least 'ira' is a term for water in Sanskrit, so the root is similar to the south semitic rwy. Although I'm not sure if it comes from another indo-iranian source, or dravidian or otherwise. 

Thanks for passing that along.

[Gervin]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Why are you so fearful of engaging with substantive argument?

Fearful?  Give me a break.  Let's have a substantive discussion based on your response to the question asked.  Specifically,

“Can anyone cite any single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon? One sherd of pottery? One tool of bronze or iron? One carved stone? One piece of genetic data? And by credible, I mean drawn from a reputable scholarly study, an academic book or refereed journal.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Gervin said:

Fearful?  Give me a break.  Let's have a substantive discussion based on your response to the question asked.  Specifically,

“Can anyone cite any single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon? One sherd of pottery? One tool of bronze or iron? One carved stone? One piece of genetic data? And by credible, I mean drawn from a reputable scholarly study, an academic book or refereed journal.

In other words, no matter what is said by any scholar, you will automatically reject it, just as you have in the past.  Why are you so afraid of substantive discussion?  We have been over this many times before, and you always change the goal posts, ignore scientific data, and basically thumb your nose at anything which falsifies your apriori position that there is nothing positive to say.  When given facts and sources, you regularly reject them out of hand, never engaging the concrete issues.  Give me a break, Gervin.

[jkwilliams]

On June 26, 2016 at 1:18 PM, thesometimesaint said:

I remember it quite well. I just never agreed with it. The "principle" was never part of the Book of Mormon itself. That was added many years later by Bruce R. McConkie, and never accepted by the Church.

Ps; SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_What_is_the_Hemispheric_Geography_Theory_regarding_the_location_of_Book_of_Mormon_lands%3F

The introduction to the Book of Mormon was written by a committee under the direction of the First Presidency and was approved, along with the rest of the 1981 edition, by Correlation, the Twelve, and the First Presidency. In short, the wording was indeed "accepted by the church."

To suggest that it was Elder McConkie who on his own added something erroneous is to betray an ignorance of how the church operates. 

[thesometimesaint]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The introduction to the Book of Mormon was written by a committee under the direction of the First Presidency and was approved, along with the rest of the 1981 edition, by Correlation, the Twelve, and the First Presidency. In short, the wording was indeed "accepted by the church."

To suggest that it was Elder McConkie who on his own added something erroneous is to betray an ignorance of how the church operates. 

Please show me in the D&C where such changes were accepted by the Church.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Please show me in the D&C where such changes were accepted by the Church.

Oh, by "accepted by the church" you mean it was accepted as revelation. You should have said that. I suppose you could argue that a committee headed by apostles of the church could have been uninspired.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Please show me in the D&C where such changes were accepted by the Church.

None of the updates to the Book of Mormon (introduction or otherwise) were accepted by common consent. Almost nothing seems to be done that way anymore. 

[Gervin]

On ‎6‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 5:02 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

In other words, no matter what is said by any scholar, you will automatically reject it, just as you have in the past.  Why are you so afraid of substantive discussion?  We have been over this many times before, and you always change the goal posts, ignore scientific data, and basically thumb your nose at anything which falsifies your apriori position that there is nothing positive to say.  When given facts and sources, you regularly reject them out of hand, never engaging the concrete issues.  Give me a break, Gervin.

Meh. Call me a snob but (for me) it's not a substantive discussion until someone answers the questions in the affirmative (“Can anyone cite any single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon? One sherd of pottery? One tool of bronze or iron? One carved stone? One piece of genetic data? And by credible, I mean drawn from a reputable scholarly study, an academic book or refereed journal.).  Until then, papers written by Book of Mormon enthusiasts and their esoteric connections to far-flung associations can remain the purview of church members who want to elevate the credibility of the Book.  Since there is no consensus among Book of Mormon believers, Church leaders, or BOM-believing scholars as to the historic setting for the book, I figure you have a lot of work to do before the substantive discussion can begin.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Gervin said:

Meh. Call me a snob but (for me) it's not a substantive discussion until someone answers the questions in the affirmative (“Can anyone cite any single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon? One sherd of pottery? One tool of bronze or iron? One carved stone? One piece of genetic data? And by credible, I mean drawn from a reputable scholarly study, an academic book or refereed journal.).  Until then, papers written by Book of Mormon enthusiasts and their esoteric connections to far-flung associations can remain the purview of church members who want to elevate the credibility of the Book.  Since there is no consensus among Book of Mormon believers, Church leaders, or BOM-believing scholars as to the historic setting for the book, I figure you have a lot of work to do before the substantive discussion can begin.

What I said.  You know nothing of ceramics, DNA, inscriptions, archeology, or linguistics, and so make your ignorance the measure of everything, out of fear that the discussion might not go your way if it got serious.  A typical, malicious anti-Mormon position.  Your opinionated mind is closed like a steel trap, your ignorance invincible.