tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post112527053983467672..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: More from the YucatanJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125538835500767072005-08-31T20:40:00.000-05:002005-08-31T20:40:00.000-05:00Anonymous said, "A history class would show that m...Anonymous said, "A history class would show that most of what you said is baloney." <BR/><BR/>A puzzling post, to say the least. The assumption seems to be that, as an esteemed BYU professor Neil York quipped (Dr. York is a history professor incidentally), BYU professors have their own religion. Don't tell anyone that he's right ;) <BR/><BR/>In seriousness, as a BYU student (a future history professor at that), frankness demands that BYU's academic program be portrayed in its correct light, as intellectually AND faith-promoting (this is blasphemy to the materialists of the materialists). All too often, as seems to be the case with our would -be anonymous historian (Anonymous), folks are far more interested in debunking than in understanding. OFten, such light requires a level of debunking but only the same way that a condemned house needs remodeling. How ridiculous would it be if a house builder just destroyed his work, only to let the gnats hover over it for the next generation! From personal experience (and if Anonymous's experience was difference, he/she was unfortunately cheated out of a quality historical education), BYU does an excellent job of bringing up the "prickly" issues of church history w/o undermining the value of faith. <BR/><BR/>How about dispensing with the Dasterdly Dan/Dudley Do-right version in this debate? It doesn't showcase the intelligence that I know y'all have.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125537630305505962005-08-31T20:20:00.000-05:002005-08-31T20:20:00.000-05:00BOM in Indy makes some good points.I think the coo...BOM in Indy makes some good points.<BR/><BR/>I think the coolest part of these evidences is the confirmation that we get from them. They are the rewards of faithfulness.<BR/><BR/>I will use an analogy to illustrate my point.<BR/><BR/>You are going on a trip. You have mapped the route and identified where you will be passing through and when. As you drive on your trip, you notice landmarks that were on the maps and information you had before your journey. When you come to an intersection you note that the road that is crossing your route matches the one on your map. It gives you the most satisfying feeling that you are on track, and, quite importantly, that your map is correct. You have faith that the next step of your journey will be in the right direction.<BR/><BR/>So it is with the Book of Mormon to those who believe it. We have already accepted it as truth. As we travel along through life, we find landmarks that match what we already have read and understand to be true. When I see new archaeological evidences revealed, I realize that it should not really be a huge surprise. For example, if they uncovered the City of Moroni at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, I would respond, "Great! what an amazing discovery! But we already knew it was there, we just didn't know its exact location." <BR/><BR/>There are other great landmarks in the Book of Mormon that you can confirm without your eyes and ears, and you don't have to wait for scientists to reveal them. I am referring to the spiritual truths that are readily available to those who ask to have them revealed. After all, the Book of Mormon is a spiritual book. Those who wish to know if it is true will receive a great confirmation directly from our Heavenly Father. That confirmation will be much more powerful, personal, and lasting than trying to gain a testimony by pulling together scientific scraps provided by man.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again, Jeff, for the great blog!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125508330373267332005-08-31T12:12:00.000-05:002005-08-31T12:12:00.000-05:00Bill said...That is why posts like this one, which...Bill said...<BR/>That is why posts like this one, which casually pretend to offer evidence of "plausibility", grate on those of us who value the revealed evidences of science, history, archaeology, linguistics, botany, and biology.<BR/>----<BR/><BR/>People who "value" the sciences often assume more and jump to conclusions more readily than the scientists themselves.<BR/><BR/>Example: most people whom I know who work in the sciences will readily point out or admit that evolution is a theory. Yet those who "believe in science" but do not work in the sciences ascribe factual status to the _theory_ of evolution. It's sad that so many people think it is a fact, when in reality it is merely a popular way to explain or interpret the evidences.<BR/><BR/>Those who hold evolution to be a _theory_ are the ones admitting "we don't know everything." Those who hold evolution to be "fact" are assuming more is known than actually is, or else they "value" science so much that they ignore the areas where the evidence is silent, or else they incorrectly assume that the interpretion (of evidence) that leads one to believe in evolution is the only possible interpretation.<BR/><BR/>Those who "value" sciences can end up _worshipping_ science and putting _faith_ in ideas that have consistently changed due to new discoveries.<BR/><BR/>I think it takes _more faith_ in as yet undiscovered evidences, and _leaps_ of faith across key segments that contain no evidence in order to believe in a Godless creation and evolution, than it does to believe that God created the Earth and man.<BR/><BR/>Global warming is another dubious conclusion that is held as fact by many of the unwashed masses. Some climatologists that I've heard, and a couple meteorologists that I know call global warming a bogus story, and point out facts that the global-warming crowd fails to include in their story.<BR/><BR/>There are 5 items of factual evidence _against_ global-warming that the global-warming crowd conveniently and consistently fails to point out.<BR/><BR/>Yet people who only get their news from the TV and have "faith" in the talking heads assume global warming to be a fact, when in reality it is not universally accepted, not even by a majority of climatologists. It's just that those scientists who disagree don't get the air time.<BR/><BR/>A claim that one "values" revealed evidences, merely puts the claimant in the sheepfold of a shepherd wearing a mantle of science. To actually believe their conclusions requires _faith_ in the methodologies, accuracy, fairness, and subjective interpretations of those who are actually doing the scientific work and those who are doing the interpretation thereof.<BR/><BR/>More important in my book are:<BR/><BR/>1. Realizing we don't have _all_ evidence, only a subset.<BR/><BR/>2. How to interpret the evidence.<BR/><BR/>3. Realzing that our assumptions color the way we interpret evidence.<BR/><BR/>(I'm reminded of the absence of steel implements in digs in Iceland(?) causing archeaologists to conclude they didn't have steel, and now they believe they did. The absence of artifacts was because they held steel so precious they didn't abandon or lose any of it.)<BR/><BR/>4. How to draw the correct assumptions or conclusions of the evidence.<BR/><BR/>So there you have four layers of variables in the handling of "revealed evidences of science" And in each layer, you have to put your trust in fallible men. Men who admit they know more than previous generations, and most of whom admit that future generations will know more.<BR/><BR/>Those who have attacked the plausibility of the Book of Mormon have consistently ignored much archealogical evidence in favor of it's plausibility. Plus, they have twisted what the Book of Mormon actually says, in order to create an impression that it contradicts archealogical evidence.<BR/><BR/>To look at "revealed evidences" and conclude that "The Book of Mormon _can't_ possibly be true" takes much more faith than to say "I _believe_ it _might_ be true."Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125505308309620672005-08-31T11:21:00.000-05:002005-08-31T11:21:00.000-05:00Well it's all just a matter of time anyway, right?...Well it's all just a matter of time anyway, right? With the advent of the internet we Mormons now have the tool to access all kinds of 'scholarly' information about our faith. It shouldn't be too much longer and everyone will see the great deception for themselves. Or could it be that the strength of the LDS church comes from the faithfulness of its members, and not the deception of its leaders? But I guess faith and obedience is something you guys no nothing about because it is not scientific. But what do I know, I'm just a brainless, ignorant cookie cutter robot. Excuse me while I go put new batteries in my peep stone.<BR/><BR/>CS<BR/>Fort Worth, TXAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125499169946578102005-08-31T09:39:00.000-05:002005-08-31T09:39:00.000-05:00I think the above poster needs to take a church hi...I think the above poster needs to take a church history class at BYU. Most everything you said is right out of the Church PR handbook. A history class would show you that most of what you posted is Baloney.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125471453803907152005-08-31T01:57:00.000-05:002005-08-31T01:57:00.000-05:00"fables selfishly created by individuals to promot..."fables selfishly created by individuals to promote their power over others is a thin reed to hold on to."<BR/><BR/>the book of mormon could not be created by a young man in 1820s upstate New York. moreover, joseph smith consistently gave to others MUCH MUCH more than he took. he had mobbers beating him and indirectly causing the death of his infant children. he was thrown in jail for months at a time unconstitutionally.<BR/><BR/>all so that what? so he could lead a small group of ragtag, dirt poor saints? so he could lead a militia or own a brick store from which he loses money for giving away goods to the needy?<BR/><BR/>yes, he concocted the book of mormon so that the great majority of the people he would come across would HATE him and eventually kill him. sounds like a great reason to make up the book of mormon. in fact, i think i'll write a sequel. you never know: 175 years down the road, people may love me for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125459944924957412005-08-30T22:45:00.000-05:002005-08-30T22:45:00.000-05:00Sir Jon says: "the truth of the Book of Mormon is ...Sir Jon says: "the truth of the Book of Mormon is validated by other means than historical or archaeological or geographical proof." <BR/><BR/>Agreed. That is why posts like this one, which casually pretend to offer evidence of "plausibility", grate on those of us who value the revealed evidences of science, history, archaeology, linguistics, botany, and biology.<BR/><BR/>If you want to believe in the historicity of the BofM, great, but posts that attempt to sneak in new hard evidences, or draw weak associations, from the scientific realm will continue to be met with opposition, particularly when the evidence doesn't meet the conclusion.<BR/><BR/>So faith and science needn't meet in one's belief system. Fair enough. But it also means that you can believe in Xenu, Body Thetans, Hale Bopp, and Men in the Moon. And I don't think that's what God is revealing to us.<BR/><BR/>God gave us rational minds to sort out the wonders of this world; fables selfishly created by individuals to promote their power over others is a thin reed to hold on to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125458721735091402005-08-30T22:25:00.000-05:002005-08-30T22:25:00.000-05:00From President Faust, "The Keystone of Our Religio...From President Faust, "The Keystone of Our Religion" Ensign, Jan. 2004:<BR/>"President George Q. Cannon (1827–1901), First Counselor in the First Presidency, stated: “The Book of Mormon is not a geographical primer. It was not written to teach geographical truths. What is told us of the situation of the various lands or cities … is usually simply an incidental remark connected with the doctrinal or historical portions of the work.” 6<BR/><BR/>What, then, is the Book of Mormon? It is confirming evidence of the birth, life, and Crucifixion of Jesus and of His work as the Messiah and the Redeemer."<BR/><BR/>I don't think that the argument here is the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. That is a worthwhile argument, but the truth of the Book of Mormon is validated by other means than historical or archaeological or geographical proof. These have never been the bases of determining the truth.<BR/><BR/>The intent of this post, I am sure, is for furthering one's testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. These wonderful details flavor and lighten what is already known. They simply point to things that are true.<BR/><BR/>If one does not have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, or believes it to be untrue, then these details point to nothing, and will not make sense. To use an earlier example from mormanity, "Even if we found a buried Mesoamerican with ancient Hebrew text and writings from a man named Nephi complaining about his brother Laman," is presented to one who does not believe, it will point to someone or something that never existed, at least in nothing but the "fictional" Book of Mormon. <BR/><BR/>The choice to believe or not to believe the Book of Mormon is true is a personal one. I do not find fault with people who do not believe it.<BR/><BR/>The wonderful archaeological details presented here, and elsewhere, are very pleasing and understood by those who hold the Book of Mormon to be true. I am delighted to read them.<BR/><BR/>These same details are empty and meaningless to those who do not believe. And they will remain that way until such a time that they gain a testimony. Just by reading this blog and participating, though, they are showing interest and are being exposed to the truth, and I am thankful for them and their posts.<BR/><BR/>May we all rejoice in the beauty and truth of the Book of Mormon. I hope we can all enjoy the interesting evidences that are coming forth and enjoy them as enriching details to what we already know. Let us not use them as the foundation of our belief, or contentious arguments. These evidences are gifts from our Heavenly Father, and are meant to be shared. Some will reject them, but that is their right.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the discussion! I look forward to more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125453552617599802005-08-30T20:59:00.000-05:002005-08-30T20:59:00.000-05:00One interesting thing I saw reading the Book of Mo...One interesting thing I saw reading the Book of Mormon last night is that Sherem is not a Nephite, as he came among the people grown, and is not a lamanite, as all lamanites are generally stereotyped such in the BOM. Sherem is other.Larke Wittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00446106361530533179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125442122554637402005-08-30T17:48:00.000-05:002005-08-30T17:48:00.000-05:00Sometimes I wonder if God intentionally changed th...Sometimes I wonder if God intentionally changed the Lamanite's DNA when He changed their skin color, 2nd Nephi 5:21-23. I would be surprised if anyone today has DNA that has been unaltered since Adam, or even Noah.<BR/><BR/>But then that's another stumbling block to those who reject the Bible. The genetic diversity of humans leads many to conclude that we could not possibly be descended from one couple (Adam and Eve) or one family (Noah, his wife, his children, and his daughters-in-law.)<BR/><BR/>I believe that to accept the Genesis account (let alone the Nephite record), we must conclude that God somehow caused or allowed changes in human genetic makeup which brought about such genetic diversity.<BR/><BR/>The omniscience of God, and the fact He doesn't explain <I>everything</I> to us, leaves open many possibilities.<BR/><BR/>Here we are arguing over temporal things like the possibilities of genetics, migrations and the mixing of cultures. But once we grant the existance of an omniscient God who is not obligated to reveal to us all of human history, nor to explain any of His actions, then <I>all</I> things are possible. <BR/><BR/>And if "<I>all things are possible</I>" then arguing over disappearing steel swords and horse bones and whose DNA relates to whom, is pointless.<BR/><BR/>Science and religion contradict each other only when one side assumes they know everything there is to know.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125414950163280312005-08-30T10:15:00.000-05:002005-08-30T10:15:00.000-05:00Wow, thanks for the award. I didn't know I could w...Wow, thanks for the award. I didn't know I could win something for posting here. I am going to try my luck at some more awards. What else you got?<BR/> BTW, no one said that any thing about "Any argument, any evidence, no matter what its source, that is offered in favor of the Book of Mormon can be instantly discounted solely because it has been discussed by a Mormon." Sorry Jeff, you read between the lines and got it wrong. But I do sense some hostility there. You always characterize people who don't see things the same as you as anti? Accordong to a frequent poster here, an anti is "Antis" are those who attack the LDS church and its leaders or members with half truths, twisted or incomplete information, and sometimes outright lies." Don't think I did that. But thanks for making broad general statements with no supporting evidence. <BR/>In closing. I would like to share my award with you Jeff. I couldn't have done it without you. Thanks bud.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125407406921524282005-08-30T08:10:00.000-05:002005-08-30T08:10:00.000-05:00Hey Samuel, the point is that the Book of Mormon c...Hey Samuel, the point is that the Book of Mormon clearly does not purport to account for the origins of all peoples on this continent, contrary to the simple assumption that some LDS and non-LDS people have made. It describes a couple of groups in a small part of the continent. In fact, it has many internal clues about the presence of other peoples in the land. Given that, there is no reason to expect that Jewish DNA (whatever that is) should be the dominant DNA found in the Americas. In fact, if Lehi's group was a tiny drop in the bucket of genetic material on the continent in 600 B.C., how much of their genetic influence should we expect to find today? <BR/><BR/>Before one can apply science to examine the validity of a hypothesis, one must have a reasonable grasp about the hypothesis is and how it relates to the scientific tests at hand. The anti-Mormons of late have put great emphasis on the DNA argument, which goes lilke this: "Y-chromosome and mtDNA tests of Native Americans show that Asian haplotypes are dominant. Native Americans do not appear to be Jewish. Therefor the Book of Mormon is false." But this argument is based on many questionable assumptions and a serious misunderstanding of the text. The Book of Mormon does not exclude Asian entry into the New World. In fact, the oldest group entering the new World described in the Book of Mormon, the Jaredites, have long been thought to be Central Asian. The Lamanites may have had one Hebraic ancestor, but it seems clear that they mingled heavily with other locals, and there is no reason to expect that a Y-chromosome from Lehi would have survived. <BR/><BR/>So what does it mean when DNA testing points to Asian origins? It's an important piece of information about the peoples of the continent, but not one that can be used to prove or disprove the actual claims of the Book of Mormon. For details, see <A HREF="http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml" REL="nofollow">my page on DNA and the Book of Mormon</A> (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml).Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125379978621957452005-08-30T00:32:00.000-05:002005-08-30T00:32:00.000-05:00Offendees du jour--gotta love 'em.Offendees du jour--gotta love 'em.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125376630621252392005-08-29T23:37:00.000-05:002005-08-29T23:37:00.000-05:00My nomination for the Funniest Apologist Post of t...My nomination for the Funniest Apologist Post of the year: <BR/><BR/>from Books of Mormon in Indy:<BR/><BR/>"The Book of Mormon is completely silent on, and therefore leaves open, the possibility of pre-Nephite, concurrent, and post-Nephite immigration of Asian peoples. That alone negates all charges that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon."<BR/><BR/>Put another way: The Book of Mormon bears no semblance to the historical record, therefore you can't use facts to demonstrate otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Brilliant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125356696944984652005-08-29T18:04:00.000-05:002005-08-29T18:04:00.000-05:00Looks like it's about time to start handing out th...Looks like it's about time to start handing out the new Mormanity "Mist of Darkness Award" to recognize outstanding examples of anti-Mormon behavior. Two comments above are now vying for this honor. <BR/><BR/>My post on the Yucatan offered examples of several passages that were said to be "of interest" to Book of Mormon issues. Nothing close to a suggestion that anything had now been proven. But Bill thinks I'm claiming to have proved the Book of Mormon to be true by citing evidence with no relevance to my conclusion. <BR/><BR/>Even if we found a buried Mesoamerican with ancient Hebrew text and writings from a man named Nephi complaining about his brother Laman, this would not be proof that the Book of Mormon is true. It would weigh in favor of the plausibility of some parts of it, perhaps, but it would not "prove" the Book of Mormon to be true. And of course, if such evidence is found and I dare to mention it as being "interesting," I'm sure Bill will be there to say that the evidence is irrelevant and that any such discussion "trivializes Mesoamerican civilization." <BR/><BR/>But I think the better candidate for my first "Mist of Darkness Award" is the anonymous commenter who said, <B>"Amazing, more evidence that the BOM is true. Did anyone expect Jeff to draw any other conclusion than that one?"</B> This illustrates one of the most interesting arguments from the anti-Mormons. Any argument, any evidence, no matter what its source, that is offered in favor of the Book of Mormon can be instantly discounted solely because it has been discussed by a Mormon. The writings of Diego de Landa do not need to be studied -- they have been cited by a Mormon, you see, presenting only the pro-Mormon tidbits. In fact, all the evidence cited by Mormons has this problem, so we can safely conclude that all information in favor of Mormon views has been subject to Mormon bias and crafty Mormon manipulation. Ignore it all, close your eyes, take a nap, and rest secure in your bliss. Hey, isn't that what the antis accuse us of doing?Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125328655522863352005-08-29T10:17:00.000-05:002005-08-29T10:17:00.000-05:00Yeah rightPerhaps it's just my deluded senses (whe...Yeah right<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it's just my deluded senses (when the Mormons were deceiving me, they had a special course to make sure all of the senses only perceived the "Mormon way" ;), but where is this contempt for any Latter Day Saint who seeks to validate his/her faith? It's unfortunate that your experiences with Latter Day Saints have been exclusively of the wild-eyed apologist brand. Serious LDS scholars DO exist (I aim to be one of them eventually) <BR/><BR/>Do I have questions about my faith? Absolutely. But the point is that I do not let what I don't know get in the way of what I do. For me, as with any other historical inquiry, the evidence (both secular and spiritual) outweighs the doubts. As Henry Eyring, the acclaimed chemist noted (this is a paraphrase), people asked him why he did not give up religion due to contradiction with science. He responded that he always saw self-contradiction within science, but he hadn't given up on it yet. <BR/><BR/>Chill, friend. There's room for even-handed discussion on this w/o resorting to intellectual nail-spitting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125297653108362572005-08-29T01:40:00.000-05:002005-08-29T01:40:00.000-05:00Amazing, more evidence that the BOM is true. Did a...Amazing, more evidence that the BOM is true. Did anyone expect Jeff to draw any other conclusion than that one? And if he did, would he post it? Don't think so. It's like praying to know if the BOM is true. If you did not get a yes answer, the problem is you. There is only one answer, it is true. Yeah, right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125293578851111422005-08-29T00:32:00.000-05:002005-08-29T00:32:00.000-05:00Bill,Thanks for illustrating another page from the...Bill,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for illustrating another page from the RfM playbook:<BR/><BR/>"Create a strawman by mischaracterizing what someone said, and attack the strawman."<BR/><BR/>Jeff never claimed the things he cited are smoking-guns that prove the validity of the Book of Mormon. In other posts he's claimed that it will never be proven by hard evidence. Perhaps God designed it that way.<BR/><BR/>However, the hard evidence does show that the Book of Mormon is <I>plausible</I>, especially when you take into account what it says, and what it doesn't say.<BR/><BR/>Of course we realize there is no smoking-gun evidence that forces people to accept the Book of Mormon. And it's a shallow and dishonest debate tactic for you to impute that claim to Jeff.<BR/><BR/>The ancient civilizations of Olmecs, Toltecs, etc. predating 600 BC do not disprove anything in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon does not claim to describe <I>all</I> civilizations on this hemisphere. <BR/><BR/>The Book of Mormon clearly states that other groups, in addition to the Jaredites, were led away from Israel at various times by the Lord.<BR/><BR/>The Book of Mormon leaves open the possibility of inhabitants being here when Lehi got here.<BR/><BR/>The Book of Mormon leaves open the possibility of immigrants, even Asian immigrants <I>after</I> Moroni's time at the end of the Book of Mormon. <BR/><BR/>The Book of Mormon is completely silent on, and therefore leaves open, the possibility of pre-Nephite, concurrent, and post-Nephite immigration of Asian peoples. That alone negates all charges that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon.<BR/><BR/>Jeff's last two posts do well in refuting the "There's no evidence!" claims of the naysayers. Of course there's no slam-dunk evidence that forces people to accept the Book of Mormon. But there is <I>plenty</I> of evidence that illustrates the plausibility, and plenty of evidence that refutes the false charges about barley, writing on metal plates, stone boxes, horses, swine, honeybees, steel, DNA, etc.<BR/><BR/>Archaeology is not complete. At best it puts together a few pieces of very big jig saw puzzles. Archaeologists have found plenty of things since 1830, which give plausibility to Joseph Smith and put to bed false charges. He was ridiculed over the idea of writing on metal plates. Then metal plates were found. He was ridiculed over barley, then barley was found. He was ridiculed over horses, then statues of horses from the BoM period were found. Oh, and the antis forget to mention that no horse remains have been found in the Hun empire, even though all historians acknowledge they had plenty of horses.<BR/><BR/>Joseph Smith was ridiculed over the steel issue, but then some steel items from Book of Mormon times have been found. And it's been pointed out that in 1830, "steel" also meant any hardened alloy, and not just carburized iron like we think of it today. Yet, carburized iron implements have been found in the Western Hemisphere and the Middle East dating from Book of Mormon times and earlier.<BR/><BR/>The problem is not that Jeff is trivializing anything. He's not. <BR/><BR/>The problem is that you assume you know everything there is to know about this hemisphere's past. <BR/><BR/>The problem is not that we <I>have</I> to overlay anything. <BR/><BR/>The problem is that you refuse to see how archaelogical finds do <I>not</I> refute what the Book of Mormon actually says. They only refute what <I>you</I> erroneously claim the Book of Mormon says.<BR/><BR/>And you refuse to see the many <I>possibilities</I> where Book of Mormon claims can co-exist quite nicely when <I>all</I> historical and archaeological evidence is taken into account.<BR/><BR/>So in addition to dishonesty about what the Book of Mormon says, and dishonesty about what Jeff says, you conveniently leave out evidence that <I>does</I> match up nicely with the Book of Mormon. <BR/><BR/>Jeff has pointed out some of the history and archaeology that you consistently ignore. Good for him.Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125291491506019652005-08-28T23:58:00.000-05:002005-08-28T23:58:00.000-05:00Bill, Why waste your time reading/commenting on t...Bill,<BR/><BR/> Why waste your time reading/commenting on the blogs of "nuts" people?Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125286056274449272005-08-28T22:27:00.000-05:002005-08-28T22:27:00.000-05:00The reason he brought up steel, honey, and the oth...The reason he brought up steel, honey, and the other "evidences" is because people have been attacking the book of mormon for those very reasons, and they are not valid..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125283743410451002005-08-28T21:49:00.000-05:002005-08-28T21:49:00.000-05:00Very cool, Jeff! ^_^Very cool, Jeff! ^_^Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04335961314830333729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1125282881884883702005-08-28T21:34:00.000-05:002005-08-28T21:34:00.000-05:00You have an amazing ability to cite evidence that ...You have an amazing ability to cite evidence that has absolutely no relevance or connection to your conclusion.<BR/><BR/>You take the approach of throwing up numerous references and drawing the absolute opposite conclusion that any sane, rational individual would come to.<BR/><BR/>Deer, cows, tapirs, chariots, steel, it's all connected, the BofM is true!! Ancient priests had prophesies, just like the BofM! It's true!!<BR/><BR/>The sad thing is that you trivialize ancient mesoamerican civilization - the long, pre-historic origins and life story of the Olmecs, Toltecs, Mayans; in Peru the Incas and their ancient precursors. It is all so rich without having to overlay the BofM fable over the history as the evidence shows it. <BR/><BR/>Archaeology, Botany, Zoology, Paleontology, Immunology, Genetics - all these disciplines, where men and women have devoted their lives to arguing about conflicting evidences, digging deeper, sharing their findings, studying the hard evidence, including DNA and excavated sites, and hashing out an emerging storyline - all of them would say you're nuts. Add me to the list.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com