The enemies of the Church are wrong again

[SamuelTheLamanite]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  The BofM described an ancient New World setting which went against everything early Americans knew.  Cement.  Barley.  Elephants.  Etc. 

That is very interesting Robert. Can you please give me a reference of  barley and elephants discovered in mesoamerica during Book of Mormon times?

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  Why would Lehi & Nephi (and their successors) compose their account on gold plates in Egyptian language? 

I don't know! We can only speculate. Did archaeologist discover a group of Isralites writing Egyptian in a large metal plate book?

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  he BofM described an ancient New World setting which went against everything early Americans knew.

Why would the Nephites mention the Mayan culture and traditions without mentioning the Mayas?  The Maya "Megalopolis" may be a Book of Mormon city, but I think most of the Book of Mormon lands are in what is now known as the gulf of Mexico. I believe there was another great flood in the Americas, and it drowned the book of Mormon cities.

Edited February 26, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[rpn]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

CFR   

 

I read that in the first news article I read on the new finding.   Don't recall which one, and I think it was dated to 526 ad.    Mayan civilization is commonly dated from 250-900 AD and this article mentions that the civilization referred to probably was covered up after 900AD.   Clearly not the book of mormon time line for the Nephites.   I suppose it could have been for the Lamanites, but there were lots of them gone in the bofm battles too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/02/03/mayan-civilization-was-much-vaster-than-known-thousands-of-newly-discovered-structures-reveal/?utm_term=.8e84dcc40d87

[SamuelTheLamanite]

3 minutes ago, rpn said:

I read that in the first news article I read on the new finding.   Don't recall which one, and I think it was dated to 526 ad.    Mayan civilization is commonly dated from 250-900 AD and this article mentions that the civilization referred to probably was covered up after 900AD.   Clearly not the book of mormon time line for the Nephites.   I suppose it could have been for the Lamanites, but there were lots of them gone in the bofm battles too.

So the Megalopolis is not a Book of Mormon city after all. It makes sense because I believe most of the Book of Mormon cities are buried underwater in the gulf of Mexico. I am sure when we start looking underwater we are going to find a lot of Book of Mormon evidences.

Edited February 26, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Gray]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

 You are either 12 years old, or you are a anti-mormon troll.

Pretty sure it's the latter

[SamuelTheLamanite]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Pretty sure it's the latter

A troll is someone who "makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post."  I am not anti-mormon and I am not a troll.

[Five Solas]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A short summary of the contents is contained in a review of it here: https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2014/04/06/book-review-mormons-codex-an-ancient-american-book .  The entire book itself can be downloaded free at https://slideblast.com/queue/mormons-codex-an-ancient-american-book-john-l-sorenson-pdf_59b32b8c1723ddd957fa7ec9.html .

Okay, I'll bite.  Who is Trevor Holyoak and why should his opinion matter to anyone?

--Erik

[rpn]

11 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

So the Megalopolis is not a Book of Mormon city after all. It makes sense because I believe most of the Book of Mormon cities are buried underwater in the gulf of Mexico. I am sure when we start looking underwater we are going to find a lot of Book of Mormon evidences.

I'd say that the most we can say is that our current believe timeline is out of sync with this being BofM related.    It hasn't been excavated so all this is really preliminary anyway.

And those church critics who claim that no BofM ruin is proof that BofM is complete fiction stares in the face that it can take a very long time to find evidence of a big battle (the Viking one discovered last year in England) or a big civilization.

Edited February 26, 2018 by rpn

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

That is very interesting Robert. The critics are finished! Can you please give me a reference of  barley and elephants discovered in mesoamerica during Book of Mormon times?

See Cohen, Claudine, The Fate of the Mammoths: Fossils, Myth, and History, trans. W. Rodarmor (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2002).  The published journal of an 18th century French explorer, Hector St. Jean de Crevecoeur (1735-1813), describes the Indian legends and his personal observation of numerous mammoth bones, mainly in salt marshes and not badly deteriorated (cf. Omni 22, Mosiah 8:8-12, 21:26-27, Alma 16:9-11).  Crevecoeur, Journey Into Northern Pennsylvania and the State of New York, trans. C. S. Bostelmann (1964), II, chapt. 1, nn. 4 & 5.

“Mammoths Hung On Longer? Late-Surviving Megafauna Exposed by Ancient DNA in Frozen Soil,” ScienceDaily, Dec 15, 2009, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091214151946.htm .  “DNA Shows That Last Woolly Mammoths Had North American Roots,” ScienceDaily, Sep 5, 2008, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145058.htm .
“In a surprising reversal of conventional wisdom, a DNA-based study has revealed that the last of the woolly mammoths—which lived between 40,000 and 4,000 years ago—had roots that were exclusively North American,” i.e., as late as 2,000 B.C. In addition, mammoths hung on at St Paul Island, and Wrangel Island (1,650 BC).  In addition, bones of extinct animals (including mammoth) appear in the lowest layers of Loltun Cave in Yucatan (Robert T. Hatt, "Faunal and Archaeological Researches in Yucatan Caves," Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bulletin 33, 1953, even though these are very early examples -- showing that elephants could live in a tropical environment.

See my and John Sorenson, “Barley in Ancient America,” FARMS Update, December 1983 and December 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 130-132.  Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=802 .

5 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I don't know! We can only speculate. Did archaeologist discover a group of Isralites writing Egyptian in a large metal plate book?

What has been found  on the one hand is a large number of metal plate books used in the ancient world -- H. Curtis Wright, Modern Presentism and Ancient Metallic Epigraphy (SLC: Wings of Fire, 2006); John A. Tvedtnes, “Etruscan Gold Book from 600 B.C. Discovered,” Insights, 23/5 (2003):1,6 (6-page 24-carat gold book bound with rings, found in a tomb in Bulgaria ca. 1943); William J. Hamblin, "Sacred Writing on Metal Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean,” FARMS Review,19/1 (2007):37-54.  On the other, it is now known for certain that Israelites of the time of Lehi & Nephi made extensive use of Egyptian hieratic in diplomacy and commerce, something the Bible makes no hint of.  Orly Goldwasser, "An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms," Tel Aviv, 18 (1991):248-253.

5 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Why would the Nephites mention Mayan culture and traditions without mentioning the Mayas?  The Maya "Megalopolis" may be a Book of Mormon city, but I think most of the Book of Mormon lands are in what is now known as the gulf of Mexico. I believe there was another great flood in the Americas, and it drowned the book of Mormon cities.

The Nephites were not Maya, and you are right to place them farther north.  There was no flood.

[Robert F. Smith]

35 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Okay, I'll bite.  Who is Trevor Holyoak and why should his opinion matter to anyone?-.................

I don't know the guy, but I thought you wanted a short summary of the contents, so you don't have to wade through over 800 pages of something which seems irrelevant to you.  If you want a professional review by a couple of anthropologists who are experts in that area, see Brant Gardner and Mark Alan Wright online at https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/john-l-sorensons-complete-legacy-reviewing-mormons-codex/ .

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

You may certainly suggest it. 

But before I would incur the time for 800+ pages, I'd ask you to provide a few bullets points summarizing the evidence Sorenson has found in favor of historical Nephites.  I'd also ask you to share a few words about the peer review process the author subjected himself to.  I trust it was rigorous and that respected non-LDS scholars have weighed in on the work.  So what did they have to say about it?  Lastly, because I'm curious, is the work being used as a classroom text at BYU or elsewhere?

Thanks in advance,

--Erik

You made the assertion --  no evidence for Nephites, so do your own research and decide whether it is credible. 
Get back to us with your conclusions,

One tiny question == who would do the peer review?  Scholars who have never read the Book of Mormon and have no clue what it says.  Can you give us a list of knowledgeable archaeologists who have studied this record.  My guess is that they are are all LDS.

Finally, talking about "no evidence",  how exactly do you identify artifacts such as a jade necklace which can be uniquely identified as Nephite?  All of the written records were destroyed by the Spanish.  What are you looking for -- a statue of the Madonna?

 

I suggest that there are lots of Nephite artifacts, but not identified as such.

Edited February 26, 2018 by cdowis

[Five Solas]

32 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You made the assertion --  no evidence for Nephites, so do your own research and decide whether it is credible. 
Get back to us with your conclusions,

One tiny question == who would do the peer review?  Scholars who have never read the Book of Mormon and have no clue what it says.  Can you give us a list of knowledgeable archaeologists who have studied this record.  My guess is that they are are all LDS.

Finally, talking about "no evidence",  how exactly do you identify artifacts such as a jade necklace which can be uniquely identified as Nephite?  All of the written records were destroyed by the Spanish.  What are you looking for -- a statue of the Madonna?

 

I suggest that there are lots of Nephite artifacts, but not identified as such.

My goodness, cdowis, all this in response to my suggestion there ought to be a little due diligence & some peer review by independent parties. 

You think your attitude is harmless?  You think I'm the real problem?  Then consider this: Utah regularly gets called out for its inordinate share of fraud, Ponzi schemes and various white-collar crime.  Even the Church-owed Deseret News has covered the problem. 

We don't need no facts, we don't need no due diligence.  We can just pray & trust our feelings, that's how we came to believe in the Book of Mormon in the first place, and it's how we'll come to trust Sorenson's 800+ page book is worth our investment of time.

I'm half-joking, but only half.

;0)

--Erik

_____________________________________

See I wanna believe you
And I wanted to trust you
And I wanna have faith to
Put away the dagger
But you lie, cheat and steal

--Tool "Intolerance"

[strappinglad]

I am going through Sorenson's " Codex " for the second time. It's not a difficult read. You might learn a thing or two ,Fivesolas. Of course scholars will disagree on some details and interpretations ,but that is their job. Definitive proof in archeology is a rare thing.

Now , if you are up for a challenge, you can join me as I slog SLOWLY though my Christmas gift, Oxford's  Annotated Bible NSRV . Just 2200+ pages..... Lord help me ! Why oh why did I not take that Evelyn Wood's speed reading course in uni. ?

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

You are either 12 years old, or you are a anti-mormon troll.

I wouldn't rule out both.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

See Cohen, Claudine, The Fate of the Mammoths: Fossils, Myth, and History, trans. W. Rodarmor (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2002).  The published journal of an 18th century French explorer, Hector St. Jean de Crevecoeur (1735-1813), describes the Indian legends and his personal observation of numerous mammoth bones, mainly in salt marshes and not badly deteriorated (cf. Omni 22, Mosiah 8:8-12, 21:26-27, Alma 16:9-11).  Crevecoeur, Journey Into Northern Pennsylvania and the State of New York, trans. C. S. Bostelmann (1964), II, chapt. 1, nn. 4 & 5..

Robert,  I don't see how the observations of a 18th century French explorer is evidence. Other explorers claimed to find Noah's ark, but Noah's ark is no longer on Earth. 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

“Mammoths Hung On Longer? Late-Surviving Megafauna Exposed by Ancient DNA in Frozen Soil,” ScienceDaily, Dec 15, 2009, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091214151946.htm .  “DNA Shows That Last Woolly Mammoths Had North American Roots,” ScienceDaily, Sep 5, 2008, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904145058.htm .

Very interesting Robert. 4,000 years is from the Jaradite period. Do you have a reference for surviving mammoths  in mesoamerica?

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 In addition, bones of extinct animals (including mammoth) appear in the lowest layers of Loltun Cave in Yucatan (Robert T. Hatt, "Faunal and Archaeological Researches in Yucatan Caves," Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bulletin 33, 1953, even though these are very early examples -- showing that elephants could live in a tropical environment.

1953? I thought science was always changing and improving, so how can we know it is still true? Do the bones date to Jaradite times? If the bones date to Jaradite times I would love to see a reference.

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

.  There was no flood.

How do you know? There was a great flood in the Old World known as Noah's flood. How do you know there was not another great flood in Mesoamerica? How do you know the Book of Mormon cities are not underwater in the gulf of Mexico?

9 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I wouldn't rule out both.

If that is the case, then ignore the child. Don't go down to his level.

Edited February 26, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  The hill convenient to Manchester that Joseph Speaks about in JS-H 1:51 is not the hill of the final battle of the Jaredites, and not of the Nephites.  There was never any reason to suppose that they were.

Uh, I think you might be overstating a bit.

It's fine to say you don't think the final battles happened in upper-state New York.  It's fine to say that you don't think the drumlin near Palmyra is the "Hill Cumorah" mentioned in the Book of Mormon.  But it's a little facile to pretend there was never any reason for anyone to suppose they were.

I'll just give one reason.  In the mid-1970s, a member of the First Presidency stood in General Conference and said the following:

Quote

In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” (Morm. 6:6.) On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation.

You who are acquainted with the Book of Mormon will recall that during the final campaign of the fratricidal war between the armies led by Shiz and those led by Coriantumr “nearly two millions” of Coriantumr’s people had been slain by the sword; “two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.” (Ether 15:2.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This second civilization to which I refer, the Nephites, flourished in America between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400. Their civilization came to an end for the same reason, at the same place, and in the same manner as did the Jaredites’.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now my beloved brethren and sisters everywhere, both members of the Church and nonmembers, I bear you my personal witness that I know that the things I have presented to you today are true—both those pertaining to past events and those pertaining to events yet to come. The issue we face is clear and well defined. The choice is ours. The question is: Shall we of this dispensation repent and obey the laws of the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, or shall we continue to defy them until we ripen in iniquity?

Marion G. Romney, America's Destiny, General Conference 1976

(emphasis added)

You may suggest that the church members who listened to this declaration should have known he was totally mistaken about the location of these battles and the "hill Cumorah."  But having a member of the First Presidency declare as much (confirmed by his own "personal witness") in General Conference might be considered at least a sliver beyond "any reason" for many Church members to believe something.

I'll add that Romney's claim was also supported by countless other statements and curriculum over the decades, as well as a plain reading of the Book of Mormon itself.  The reasons for believing that the final battles took place in upper-state New York were numerous and commonly found, and taught without controversy, for generations of LDS.  

Edited February 26, 2018 by cinepro

[strappinglad]

In Central America there is the equivalent of 40 days of rain and then some every year. In minutes there can be a foot of water running in the street. One only needs to stand in the Peten during the rainy season to appreciate how quickly the bones of any animal would disappear in that environment.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

Then don't worry about, and stay away from a discussion with the antiMormons on the BOM.

Okay.  Odd reply.  The OP seems to be claiming that this new finding of the Mayan megalopolis is evidence against a common anti-Mormon argument against the Book of Mormon and yet I don't see anyone here who can explain what that argument is or how it is defeated by this new discovery.  This is worse than a strawman argument... it's like defeating an invisible, unnamed strawman.  So, "well done!" I guess.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Just like all of your postings, this is total rubbish.  No one has claimed there were not large populations of ancient native American populations.  Nothing has changed at all. I hope for the day when Book of Mormon evidences can be found.  I gave 40 years of my life to this church.  I don't want those years and my efforts to be wasted.  I would love it if someone found a sword or a breast plate, or a chariot or horses or some artificial that to be traced to the mid-east.  Anything at all.  I am still waiting.  Your postings do not help the LDS effort at all.  But then, I think you know this.  You are either 12 years old, or you are a anti-mormon troll.

My money is actually now on autism which is why I am nicer to him than I would be anyone else posting like this.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

If that is the case, then ignore the child. Don't go down to his level.

Do you realize you went from being offended by the critics of the Megalopolis findings to saying:

5 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

So the Megalopolis is not a Book of Mormon city after all. It makes sense because I believe most of the Book of Mormon cities are buried underwater in the gulf of Mexico. I am sure when we start looking underwater we are going to find a lot of Book of Mormon evidences.

There's a term for it, and its against board rules for a reason:

Sockpuppeting (Concern Troll): A strawman sockpuppet is a false flag pseudonym created to make a particular point of view look foolish or unwholesome in order to generate negative sentiment against it. Strawman sockpuppets typically behave in an unintelligent, uninformed, or bigoted manner and advance "straw man" arguments that their puppeteers can easily refute. The intended effect is to discredit more rational arguments made for the same position. Such sockpuppets behave in a similar manner to Internet trolls.

A particular case is the Concern troll, a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt (aka FUD) within the group.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Rajah Manchou]

7 hours ago, rpn said:

Mayan civilization is commonly dated from 250-900 AD and this article mentions that the civilization referred to probably was covered up after 900AD.  

I'm not familiar with Mesoamerican history, but a Google search says 250-900 AD refers to the Mayan Classic period. But they were around before that. The starting date I'm seeing is 1000 BC for the preclassic period which collapsed between 50 BC and 250 AD. For reference, this collapse would have been during the 200 years of peace in the Book of Mormon. That's a challenge for the Meso Model that I haven't heard discussed before. A civilization cannot both prosper as a Zion-like society rebuilding cities with their vast wealth while collapsing due to drought and conflict at the same time.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[omni]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

Pretty sure it's the latter

I'm still perplexed that so many here still haven't figured this out.  

It should have been obvious after his first couple of posts.

[stemelbow]

On ‎2‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 12:32 AM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

It is not hard to come up with some "plausible" naturalistic origin theory, what is hard is to disprove the Book of Mormon. No one is going to disprove the Book of Mormon or the Bible because the scriptures are true. For me, the scriptures are a spiritual guide in my life and make me happy.

I'm not sure you're a troll or not.  I don't see the point in me thinking you are if you say you aren't (but isn't that what a troll would do?)  

Doesn't matter.  But, is it not possible that the scriptures are a spiritual guide in someone's life and make that person happy and yet aren't much more than fabricated story telling?  That is, can't Noah's story carry some sort of meaning for someone, even if there was no flood that caused some guy thousands of years ago to build and arc holding all the animals?   I don't know if Noah's story is all that useful an example, but I figured I'd use it anyway.  

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure you're a troll or not.  I don't see the point in me thinking you are if you say you aren't (but isn't that what a troll would do?)  

Doesn't matter.  But, is it not possible that the scriptures are a spiritual guide in someone's life and make that person happy and yet aren't much more than fabricated story telling?  That is, can't Noah's story carry some sort of meaning for someone, even if there was no flood that caused some guy thousands of years ago to build and arc holding all the animals?   I don't know if Noah's story is all that useful an example, but I figured I'd use it anyway.  

Noah is a good example of your point.  Noah's story can still teach us lessons and be meaningful in our lives even though we now know it can't be literally true.

[Exiled]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

Uh, I think you might be overstating a bit.

It's fine to say you don't think the final battles happened in upper-state New York.  It's fine to say that you don't think the drumlin near Palmyra is the "Hill Cumorah" mentioned in the Book of Mormon.  But it's a little facile to pretend there was never any reason for anyone to suppose they were.

I'll just give one reason.  In the mid-1970s, a member of the First Presidency stood in General Conference and said the following:

You may suggest that the church members who listened to this declaration should have known he was totally mistaken about the location of these battles and the "hill Cumorah."  But having a member of the First Presidency declare as much (confirmed by his own "personal witness") in General Conference might be considered at least a sliver beyond "any reason" for many Church members to believe something.

I'll add that Romney's claim was also supported by countless other statements and curriculum over the decades, as well as a plain reading of the Book of Mormon itself.  The reasons for believing that the final battles took place in upper-state New York were numerous and commonly found, and taught without controversy, for generations of LDS.  

What does one do when the above doesn't fit the current research? Historicity must remain viable.

[CA Steve]

16 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Why? Well, at least you didn't think I was an atheist. Some here really think I am a secular atheist, but I have no idea why.  A "One Hill Cumorah" type is much better than a secular atheist. So Thank you!

Why? 

Because you seem more of a throwback type. Your posts appear to be similar to how most Mormons acted and believed before the internet was easily accessible, back when members relied upon a few books outside the scriptures and the words of present and past prophets, rather than complex apologetic arguments primarily developed in the last 20-35 years.

 

I would have expected you to follow along the lines of the post Cinepro wrote on this thread.

I guess I was wrong.

Edited February 26, 2018 by CA Steve