Barter_Town

Or a tapir, or an anteater. All have long, curved snouts. Or again, Chaac, the long-nosed God of rain. Why are you insisting it's an elepant? (Oh, right. Because you need something to prove that the Book of Mormon is a historical record). What's curious to me is why you choose to believe the claims of Mormon apologists over the wealth of current research from virtually every professional in the field of Mesoamerican archaeology. We know how the Mayans (and other Mesoamericans) have depicted macaws, anteaters and tapirs. Anyone with a passing interest in Mesoamerican archaeology has seen many of them. Sorry, but the fact remains that the only people claiming these images to be elephants are crackpot Mormon apologists or non-professional hobbyists. You see nothing of the sort coming from professional, responsible and objective scholars in their respective fields of expertise. For example, let me point out the problems with the following: "Dr. Verrill, a well-known (non-Mormon) archaeologist describes one of these figures as “‘so strikingly and obviously elephantine that it cannot be explained away by any of the ordinary theories of being a conventionalized or exaggerated tapir, ant-eater or macaw. Not only does this figure show a trunk, but in addition it has the big leaf-like ears and the forward-bending knees peculiar to the elephants. Moreover, it shows a load or burden strapped upon its back. It is inconceivable that any man could have imagined a creature with the flapping ears and peculiar hind knees of an elephant, or that any human being could have conventionalized a tapir to this extent’”... To begin with, why are you citing the opinion of someone who wasn't even an archaeologist? Don't you think that might be a little bit relevant when it comes to archaeology? Check out Dr. Verrill's credentials, as cited in 'Who Was Who in America': Verrill, Alpheus Hyatt, author, illustrator, naturalist, explorer and science fiction writer of the 20s and 30s, was born in New Haven, Conn., 23 July 1871. http://www.fossickerbooks.com/AHVerrill.html He studied plants and animals, and wrote science fiction. He was NOT an archaeologist. He did quite a bit of "exploring" in his day, and went on a handful of "archeological expeditions" in the 1920's and 1930's (before much archaeology had been done in Mesoamerica), but that hardly makes one an archaeologist. On top of that, his books were published in the 1930's. No one could read Mayan in the 1930's. So why are you accepting his unqualified, non-professional and outdated opinions over the current assessments of professionals in their fields? Where is your respect for scholarship? Citing some random person's irrelevant opinion from the 1930's is not only intellectually dishonest, but underscores the weakness of the Mormon apologist position. Mayan design is highly stylized and not drawn to scale. Otherwise, humans larger than the sun most certainly existed, and jaguars several times larger than humans onced roamed the earth as well. The fact that you assume that these depictions of animal-gods are drawn to scale only demonstrates how uninformed you really are on this subject. Correction: Mammoth (not elephant) bones have been found, and dated using highly sophisticated and very reliable dating methods. That is how we know they lived no later than 11,000+ years ago, at the end of the last ice age -- several thousand years before the era descibed in the Book of Mormon. Really? Peer-reviewed? In archaeological journals? Can you provide these articles? Source please? What statues are you referring to? And can you provide sources for any archaeologists who say they are elephants? Thanks. So, because a god has a long nose, it must have been modeled after elephants? Why not anteaters, tapirs or macaws, which ARE indigenous to Cental and South America? So far, you've provided precious little evidence to support your claim. The evidence you have provided is wholly unconvincing to any fair-minded observer. To begin with, all you've provided is a drawing. Can you provide the source for this image, or a photograph? What is the opinion of archaeologists on this piece? If you insist that the elongated nose corresponds to something in the animal kingdom, then armadillos, anteaters, and tapirs are all prime candidates. Says who? You? Excuse me? An "anti"..? So, anyone who doesn't accept the spurious claims of Mormon apologists is by default an "anti"? I'm afraid that if anyone's mind is already "set", it is you. I am quite open to any and all evidence, and will readily change my mind if the evidence is convincing. So far, the evidence you've provided to support the claim that domesticated elephants once lived in the recent ancient Americas has not only failed spectacularly, but flies in the face of all professional, responsible and objective historical and archaeological consensus. Terrible analogy. We know the earth is flat because we have the evidence to prove it. You've provided nothing of the sort. If anyone is akin to flat-earth believers, it would sadly be you. See above. You've already made up your mind (that the Book of Mormon is a historical record), therefore you are not willing to consider the stunning lack of evidence to support anything it describes. Instead of keeping with current and relevant archaeological research, you resort to citing non-archeologists from the 1930's to help support your claims. The only elephant in the room here is the lousy state of Mormon apologetics.

Thanks for the efforts, Changed, but there was no mention in your post as to whether or not Gomphotheres was domesticated. I've certainly never heard from any credible researcher that these prehistoric animals were domesticated. Sounds like science fiction to me. As for the rest of your post. The first pic (of the Native American pipe) looks like a bear to me, not an elephant. Just because the snout is carved into its base does not make it a trunk. The second pic (of the ruins of Chichen Itza) is a depiction of the Mayan god Chaac, who is always portrayed with a long snout. The only people claiming these are elephants are Mormon apologists. No professional archaeologists are saying these are elephants. It's a shame to see such irresponsible "scholarship" on the part of Mormon apologists. The third pic (of the burial mounds) is simply selective observation. If you panned the camera further back, you'd see it is connected to a larger network of mounds which render it into shapes that could be interpreted any way you like. It's like looking at only part of a puzzle and ignoring the rest, when looking at the bigger picture completely changes the meaning or shape of the smaller piece. Also, just because something resembles something else does not mean it represents the thing it resembles. I've never heard any archaeologists saying that these mounds represent elephants. Once again, crackpot Mormon apologists lead the way in irresponsible scholarship. This is the problem with beginning with your conclusion and then selectively choosing your "evidence" to support your conclusion. Inevitably you will find all sorts of "parallels" and "resemblances" that seemingly support your conclusion (if you use your imagination enough), when in reality there is no relationship whatsoever. Sorry, but I'm going to stick with credible research, not the claims of crackpots. As for the rest of your post (copied and pasted from FAIR, preeminent Mormon apologist website), you've only reasserted what the previous poster said. FAIR cites the same outdated book for children (Marshal Encyclopedia) as the Wiki article. Again, current research places the extinction of Gomphothere at 11,000 years ago at the latest. There is no evidence that this creature (which wasn't even an elephant) lived as recently as 400 AD. That's why I'm wondering where the author of this book was getting his evidence. Because it certainly doesn't jive with current research. I mean if there was credible evidence that elephants (or closely related creatures) lived as recently as Book of Mormon times, great, I'd gladly accept it. Unfortunately all I'm seeing is wishful thinking on the part of Mormon apologists. I mean there's a reason why current research puts its extinction at 11,000 years ago, you know? There's a reason why archaeologists do not believe that man domesticated Woolly Mammoths (it's called "lack of evidence"). And there's a reason why the only place you're getting this sort of info is in Mormon apologist websites. Think about it..

Hey that's pretty neat! Thanks for showing me that. Perhaps I was a little too hasty in attributing shenanigans to Mormon apologists (although I've certainly seen it in the past!). I still have to wonder why he would cite such an outdated book. And I still have to wonder what evidence the author of that book is basing his assertion on that this creature lived as recently as 400 AD, given that the scientific consensus is that it died out several thousand years before that time. Also, is there any evidence that these things were domesticated? The Book of Mormon says they were. But I have never heard of any paleontologists or zoologists saying that Gomphotheris was domesticated. Sounds pretty far-fetched to me (but when has that ever stopped a religious apologist, lol).

Because the evidence is so scant and unconvincing. I'm sorry, but "NHM" is hardly enough to hang your hat on. These people are obviously convinced of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon through spiritual means, not academic means -- which virtually all forum members here will be the first to admit in regards to their own experience. Any reasonable person could safely assume the same. Chances are, these people are lifelong members. Most of them probably attended BYU as students. Many of them probably have careers at BYU, or did at some point. And most likely none of their papers on the historicity of the Book of Mormon have been published for peer-review, except among their own LDS colleagues. Because if they had, they would not have concluded that the Book of Mormon is a historical record. There is virtually no evidence that the civilizations described in the Book of Mormon ever existed -- no DNA, no archaeological evidence, no linguistic evidence. The best Mormon scholars can come up with is "NHM", and that isn't even in the Americas. This isn't really about "feelings" though; it's about evidence and reason. Which is precisely what I and countless others, including the Smithsonian, have done. We began with the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is a historical record of a lost civilization. We asked ourselves, "if the Book of Mormon is a historical record, what kind of evidence can we expect to find?" Well, for starters we could expect to find archaeological evidence of the kind of civilizations described within the Book of Mormon's pages -- civilizations which were culturally and scientifically advanced far ahead of their time, compared to other populations in the same area. We should find metal swords, helmets and breastplates, usage of the wheel, chariots, domesticated Old World animals such as cattle, horses, pigs and goats (or at least depictions of them), domesticated crops such as wheat and barley (or depictions of them), writing related to Semitic writing, synagogues, coin currency, evidence of usage of a seven day week calendar, Semitic DNA in Native American populations, etc. etc. etc. I mean, these are highly anachronistic things for the ancient Americas. These would have absolutely transformed the landscape and affected every other culture which came into contact with these people. I mean, the wheel? Domesticated animals? Steel? Hello! There should be mountains of evidence to support this civilization which numbered in the millions, as recently as 1600 years ago. But we have nothing of the sort. Instead, all the evidence supports mass migrations from Asia several thousands of years before the period described in the Book of Mormon. When Europeans began arriving to the Americas only 1000 years after the events described in the Book of Mormon, Native Americans did not have domesticated Old World animals, they didn't use the wheel, and they certainly didn't have steel, or the Spaniards wouldn't have conquered them so easily. I mean, this stuff isn't rocket science. There simply isn't good evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Simple as that. If there were, I'd be the first to accept it. Yep. Well if personal revelation was a little more consistent, you might have a point. Instead we have people getting contradictory revelations. That is why revelation and authority are not good reasons for believing anything. Who knows, maybe someday it will be possible. But if it is, it will be by our understanding of biology and the body's restorative properties. Prayer likely won't have anything to do with it. Plenty of scientists have likewise attributed solutions to the problems they wrestled with to dreams. Or to ideas they stumbled upon, or fortunate accidents, or in collaborations with others, or simply to their own hard work. Obviously Widtsoe had been working on this particular problem for some time, or he wouldn't have been thinking about it (or praying about it). Eventually he came up with the formula. If he wants to attribute that to prayer, great. More power to him. If that's how prayer worked for everyone, we'd have scientists praying for solutions every time they needed one. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Evidently prayer has proven to be unreliable or ineffective in all fields of scientific research.

Actually, the book your Wiki article cites, the Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals, is an old, outdated book full of inaccuracies (some of which are listed in the Wiki link below): The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I'm curious as to what the evidence is that the author bases his claim (that the Gomphothere lived as recently as 400 AD), since that is certainly not the current scientific consensus, which generally places its demise several thousand years before the period described in the Book of Mormon: Cuvieronius, the last genus of New World gomphotheres to become extinct, was widely distributed in North, Central, and South America. All elephant species in these regions became extinct 11,000 years ago. GOMPHOTHERE FOSSILS TEETH JAW FOSSIL Be honest, are you the one who inserted the bit about Gomphotheres living as late as 400 AD into the Wikipedia article? If it wasn't you, I'm sure it was some Mormon or other. A paleontologist wouldn't cite an outdated book intended for a mass audience like the Marshall Encyclopedia, and no one else would care enough to edit the Wiki article. Leave it up to Mormon apologists, lol.

Actually, scholars have known the world was round at least as far back as the early Greeks. Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia History of geodesy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They did?? That's great but that isn't really the kind of "knowledge" scholars are talking about, and praying certainly isn't the kind of method scholars rely on to determine the truth of anything. But they're all Mormon scholars, right? So, it isn't very helpful. The OP has a valid point. Most mainstream archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, etc do not consider the Book of Mormon to be a historical document. Even the Smithsonian does not consider the BoM to be a historical record. Why? Because the evidence does not support the claim. I mean, I doubt any of the people listed above became convinced of the historicity of the Book of Mormon through their own studies. Chances are, they already believed from childhood that the Book of Mormon was "true", and spent their subsequent studies in adulthood in "proving" what they already believed in the first place. That is the difference between religious apologetics and real, intellectually honest scholarship. These people began with their conclusion first (that the Book of Mormon is true) and then searched for evidence to support their conclusion, instead of taking the rational, scientific approach to first examine the evidence, and then draw your conclusions. There are good and bad reasons for believing anything. Evidence is the best reason for believing whether something is true. Authority and revelation are not good reasons for believing anything, as they are too unreliable. Right, and we come to that kind of knowledge through observation and empirical evidence, not prayer. Prayer has no place in the sciences, really.

Interesting. I'm not sure that Muslims consider Christians their leaders, or that they feel compelled to adopt their tactics, but interesting nonetheless. Well, Muslims say the existence of God is obvious, but the Qur'an does say that God will give you "signs", which I would think qualify as "spiritual experiences". For example, in surah 27:93: "Praise be to God. He will show you signs and you will recognize them. Your Lord is not heedless of anything you do." The Ability to See the Signs of God - The Religion of Islam So, when I hear Muslims inviting me and other non-Muslims at Ummah.com to read, ponder and pray, it sounds awfully familiar. Interesting theory, but I wonder if it holds considering that most of the users / contributers at Ummah.com are British, and as such, probably not much influenced by American-style Christian evangelicalism. I am sure a Muslim would say otherwise. After all, what leads up to the "declaration"? It doesn't just happen spontaneously. People become convinced of its authenticity prior to conversion, obviously. And given that Muslims believe that the Koran in itself is a revelation from God, I'm pretty sure that its entire purpose is precisely that -- to guide, give insight, and reveal God. Not sure why you think they're American.. Ummah.com is based in the UK and most of its users are British, most of which are first generation English-speakers. Most have family in the ME and spend time in the ME as well. Go and familiarize yourself there, you'll see. But here you go: From Wiki: "The Islamic website Ummah.com, formerly the Islamic Gateway, is best known for the Ummah Forum, a large English Muslim internet forum. Ummah.com is based in the UK, as are the majority of its voluntary contributors and active forum users. It is fully owned by Waha Media Limited, and is financed entirely through donations." Ummah.com - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I would think their understanding of Islam would have more to do with their own families and culture than this supposed emulation of American-style Christian evangelicalism that you seem to think of it as (not sure how you arrived at that conclusion anyway). I would think that if anything is "dangerous and misleading", it would be attempting to speak on behalf of a religion that is not even your own and attempting to discount their spiritual experiences as being derivative and not as legitimate as your own.

Plenty of others have. Very true. Great. So have I. Well every religion can claim converts. I've heard Muslim converts saying the same sorts of things you are here. Been there, done that. If only "the source" was a little more reliable.

If Mormons were the only people getting affirmative answers to their prayers as to whether X religion is true, you might have a point. Obviously that is not the case. Exactly. Hence the importance of evidence. Yep. That's great. That hasn't happened to me. Or, at least not sufficiently enough to convince me that I'm not just talking to myself in my head and giving myself nice feelings. Again, hence the importance of evidence. For example, people also claim to see UFOs on a fairly regular basis. Am I going to accept their claims without some sort of verifying evidence? No, I'm going to go by my own experience. I personally haven't seen a UFO, so I have no reason to believe in them. Similarly, I haven't had a member of the Christian godhead (or Allah, or Shiva, or Ahura-Mazda, or my Buddha-self, etc.) appear and explain the "truth" to me. I may have thought I had in the past, but it is just as likely that I was convincing myself of what I'd wanted to be true. Which is the same phenomena experienced by adherents of virtually every religion on earth. Yes, frankly. But given the fact that religion is so common and widespread, the insanity of it is seemingly benign. Yeah, well. Not to discount your personal experiences, but you shouldn't underestimate people and their ability to convince themselves of virtually anything. People in general are extremely gullible. If only it were, my friend. Like I said, if Mormons were the only people getting a "yes" answer to their prayers, you might have a point. But that simply isn't the case.

Take a little trip over to the Muslim boards over at Ummah.com and see for yourself all the English-speaking Muslims saying the same sorts of things you are here, i.e. citing scripture, sharing personal anecdotes and encouraging people to pray about whether or not their scriptures are true. It all sounds very nice, but it isn't essentially any different from what you're saying here. In fact any adherent of any religion could make the same claims, but again, they can't all be true given that their doctrines are mutually exclusive.

Which is perfectly reasonable speculation. I wouldn't have a problem with this idea were it not for the identical, competing claim that the core doctrine of each of these religions promotes -- that Islam / Catholicism / Mormonism / etc. is the only true religion, and the only religion by which one may hope for salvation. Therein lies the problem; they all claim to be the only path to God. But they can't all be true. None of them are okay with their claims being relative; they are each claiming absolutes -- "the only true religion". And yet the only way we can know which religion is true is to read their claims and pray for spiritual confirmation. Inevitably we have everyone getting a "yes" answer in direct proportion to the particular religion they were praying about in the first place. If you want an affirmative answer to your prayers, you'll inevitably get one -- regardless of the religion in question.

No, I'm just Barter Town. I don't know who Snow is. Sorry. He must be the other rational thinker on this board But I can't say I'm surprised that we apparently "sound" alike; I'm hardly the first to point these problems out, and this stuff isn't exactly rocket science.

The problem is that this is the same method Muslims use to find out whether or not the Koran is the word of God -- "study it and pray to know if it's true". Evidently their studies pay off and their prayers are likewise answered in the affirmative, since one-fifth of the world's population is Muslim.

This is correct. Sure there is. We have the science that proves it. There you go, you said it yourself -- "evidence". Surely you're not referring to me; I made no such demands and I would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my posts like this. If archaeologists found a "10 miles to Zarahemla" road sign (never mind that Native Americans didn't measure in miles, or, to my knowledge, use road signs), I would think yes, this would qualify as evidence to support the Book of Mormon's historicity regardless of the script in which it is written. But this is all quite moot since a) Egyptian script has never been discovered in America, let alone "reformed Egyptian" and b) Mayan is the only complete writing system developed by Native Americans, and it is in no way related to Egyptian. Which is why in my previous post (page 4) I had said, "a road sign written in what, Mayan?" Again, if anything, let alone a road sign, was discovered in "reformed Egyptian" script it would certainly bolster the claim that the Book of Mormon is a historical record. To date, nothing of the sort has been found. Egyptologists. Considering that Egyptian would be its parent script, this shouldn't be difficult. There is no relation between the Egyptian and Mayan scripts. Well considering that their ancestors (Lehi and kin) were Hebrew and recent transplants from Jerusalem, one could reasonably assume their spoken language / common script would reflect their Semitic origins. So, any road sign they produced would likely bear this stamp. Actually, I am quite happy to examine any evidence to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon. It is too bad that the "evidence" produced thus far has been so flimsy. I mean, these were civilizations far, far advanced from any other Meso-American civilization at that time; they reigned for a thousand years, numbered in the millions, had domesticated Old World animals and crops, were Christian, smelted steel, used a seven-day week calendar, spoke a Semitic language, used a coin-based currency, and used the wheel. On top of that, their entire civilization was killed off suddenly in a huge battle down to the last man. And all this was not long ago at all, archaeologically speaking. One would expect there to be an abundance of evidence to support these people and events. We have no problem locating coins, texts, epigraphs, weapons and other artifacts proving that Romans were in Britian, for example, which dates from the same era as the events described in the Book of Mormon. And yet I'm the unreasonable one for expecting there to be some sort of evidence left behind by this civilization? The thing is, we actually know quite a lot about the inhabitants of the Americas dating before, during and after the periods described in the Book of Mormon; the reality of the ancient Americas is a world apart from the descriptions found in the Book of Mormon. That's just how it is. Sorry. So, anyone who might expect there to be evidence of the Book of Mormon's peoples (a quite reasonable expectation, I might add) is spiritually akin to the one-dimensional bad guys of the Book of Mormon? I thought honest inquiry would be something encouraged in the church.. apparently not.

Actually, I got them from the same Fawn Brodie Wikipedia article I had cited earlier. The Brodie Wikipedia article pertains to her work, not Bushman's book. Therefore I didn't "fail to mention" anything. But thanks for trying. Also if you'll review my posts, I never said Bushman's book was without merit. It is a perfectly acceptable biography for believers, if that's your thing. Just take Brodie's secular approach, whitewash and spin the controversies through a believer's lens and, viola, you have Bushman's book. Which is probably better than nothing, for church members. Church members needed something, after all, and it's amazing that it took so long for someone to produce a biography from the LDS perspective. True, the Fawn Brodie book didn't exactly reinforce LDS beliefs. But it doesn't disparage them, either. It simply presents the evidence and draws the most reasonable conclusions. The Bushman book, however, does reinforce everything that church members want to hear, and provides pat answers to (or glosses over) every single controversy, by the numbers. Which is a step forward for the church, at least. If reinforcement of faith is what you need from a biography of Joseph Smith, then by all means, stick with the Bushman book. But don't misrepresent or slander the Brodie book simply because you take exception to her secular approach. Jan Shipps has no qualms recognizing its value, importance, objectivity and accuracy, so, why do you? Interesting that you'll apparently accept her opinion of Bushman's book, but not of Brodie's.