A lot of Scholors don't Acknowledge the "Book Of Mormon"...

[poulsenll]

I stand corrected in using the quick click of the keystroke [The 116-pages were found and printed back in 2002"].

Larry, you may have contact him on how received the pages.

I do caution anyone in using a superciliousness statement, ‘LDS scholarly community or in the church believes him’, it is not up FARMS, or using the term church as a whole, or your own subjectiveness, what should be for the masses, but the individual Saint to make a thorough humbling spiritual determination on the content.

If you are into people who claim to have found the lost pages, check these guys out. Christopher Marc Nemelka claimed to have found the lost pages in 1980 and some guy in Africa made a similar claim.

Here is a link to Fairs criticism of lost pages.

Lost Truth Found.com ~ William C. Chappell | My Books

Have fun.

Larry P

[Hemidakota]

No link to FAIR's review.

I already read Chappell works. Seriously requires the spirit for guidance or 'taken with a grain of salt'; as to other writers from FAIR, FARMS, blogs, forums, and any other works. The best part of reading these papers, is broadening the mind in searching out the truth or questioning a topic for self-edification.

[poulsenll]

No link to FAIR's review.

I already read Chappell works. Seriously requires the spirit for guidance or 'taken with a grain of salt'; as to other writers from FAIR, FARMS, blogs, forums, and any other works. The best part of reading these papers, is broadening the mind in searching out the truth or questioning a topic for self-edification.

Sorry about that but I can just blame it on the computer's residiual memory:(. Here is the correct link

Christopher Marc Nemelka - FAIRMormon

One should not take writings other than the scriptures too seriously but use them along with the scriptures to, as you say, broaden our knowledge and understanding.

Larry P

[Ray A]

I do caution anyone in using a superciliousness statement, ‘LDS scholarly community or in the church believes him’, it is not up FARMS, or using the term church as a whole, or your own subjectiveness, what should be for the masses, but the individual Saint to make a thorough humbling spiritual determination on the content.

These claims have been around for a long time. Copycat attempts at revelation have also been made, and this even goes back to when Joseph Smith was alive, deceiving some sincere people. Ask yourself, in the first place, why such revelations would come through unauthorised channels.

D&C 43:

1 O hearken, ye elders of my church, and give ear to the words which I shall speak unto you. 2 For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations from my hand.

3 And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me.

4 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power except to appoint another in his stead.

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

7 For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

"Any" means all except those who are "at the gate", which is those appointed and authorised to receive revelation "for the Church". I knew a lady who claimed, in all sincerity, that she was going to receive a portion of the sealed plates by revelation. She claimed to have seen Jesus Christ, and conversed with angels, and was "appointed" to this, outside of PH channels. If members paid attention to all such claims, there would be chaos in the Church.

Concerning Hiram Page:

D&C 28:

11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him; 12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.

13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.

[poulsenll]

These claims have been around for a long time. Copycat attempts at revelation have also been made, and this even goes back to when Joseph Smith was alive, deceiving some sincere people. Ask yourself, in the first place, why such revelations would come through unauthorised channels.

D&C 43:

"Any" means all except those who are "at the gate", which is those appointed and authorised to receive revelation "for the Church". I knew a lady who claimed, in all sincerity, that she was going to receive a portion of the sealed plates by revelation. She claimed to have seen Jesus Christ, and conversed with angels, and was "appointed" to this, outside of PH channels. If members paid attention to all such claims, there would be chaos in the Church.

Concerning Hiram Page:

D&C 28:

Thanks, well said.

There have been several Book of Mormon geographys proposed based on the claim that it was revealed by inspiration and therefore had to be correct. Until the actual geography is revealed through proper priesthood channels, all else depends on scholarly studies and/or opinion and their inherent bias.

Larry P

[Dale]

I was watching on DVD tonight Living Hope Ministries Bible Verses The Book of Mormon. I studied up to the point on its comments on cities in the Book of Mormon. They had a lot of experts in the film trying to make the Book of Mormon look like it did not stand up to the experts.

i feel every time i watch it that they had no good case against the book. If they had some ancient maps, histories, place names, people names they could tell me Nephite cities were never here. But all they had was the argument they never heard the names of various Book of Mormon cities they were asked about. But they could not if asked tell me what the names were during the proposed Book of Mormon times.

If they could say Dr. Sorenson proposed maps were not good based on such stuff they would do it. Yet Tom Murphy accused Dr. Sorenson of distorting the text and Meso-American geography in his proposal maps. I have read some of Signature Books attempts to rebut his maps, but so far remain convinced Dr. Sorenson did not do good research. The critics need to provide direct proof other people inhabited those cities not just say they wern't Nephite.

At this point if a text turned up with a lost peoples name on it they could not prove they existed. The film puts standards on the Book of Mormon if put on this lost people's record we would have to treat it as fiction. At this point you can't find a surrounding people that mentions these lost people. They left traces they were around no doubt. We would have to wait for more lost texts to turn up.

[rameumptom]

I was watching a program on the History Channel the other night, where they were studying Mayan ruins and talking about Xibalba, the underworld. One place they went to was a site that was only found recently, named Lamanai. This is the ancient name it gives itself in some of the site stelae.

So, it is possible that we have city named after Laman, or perhaps Lamoni?

[rameumptom]

If you are into people who claim to have found the lost pages, check these guys out. Christopher Marc Nemelka claimed to have found the lost pages in 1980 and some guy in Africa made a similar claim.

Here is a link to Fairs criticism of lost pages.

Lost Truth Found.com ~ William C. Chappell | My Books

Have fun.

Larry P

Actually, Nemelka claimed that while working as a security guard in the SLC temple, the Lord handed him the original plates, and commanded him to transcribe the Lost 116 pages.

Nemelka was later interviewed and claimed it was a scam (newspaper has him on tape making this admission), which he later claimed he never said. He was a big part of the polygamous cults for a while, and they jumped on his 116 pages, until they found him to be a scam artist, as well. He's been in jail for fraud before.

Chappell's stuff is not considered the actual 116 pages by FARMS (and by extension, the Church). Clearly, if it was the actual writings, the Church would have investigated it and obtained it for Church use.

[Hemidakota]

Well put.

Whether or not it was a copy or calling it as one that is ‘out there in the north forty’, concerning the missing 116 pages, it matters not. I have read many materials from GA, to BYU Professors, some material seen stand in error. For me, the error is not what I can ‘glean’ for my own edification. It is matter of ‘what can I learned via the spirit.’ Believe or not, there is something in that material, which was a learning moment that have commonality with the former prophets of old – Abraham is one. It is a small obsession of man Lehi but significant in striving for that eternal life. Could I have learned that precious truth? Perhaps! Perhaps not! Yes, to clarify to his unwavering faith, there are errors in his book. Yet, that was not the point I am stating.

Something notable in life, we do allow at times, using our personal academic attitudes to come between the translation and what could be a teaching moment.

I do know, even our canonize scriptures have errors, notable, between authors of the same era. It comes down to observational perspective and how we perceive what is being seen; finishing it by putting it in words on a parchment. Again, our ‘gleaning; of such writings should be of a self-edification.

[rameumptom]

While I suppose I could learn things from the Satanic Bible, I choose to focus on books and writings that are more reliable. I have read Nemelka's version of Lehi's writings, and while they aren't terrible; they also have some serious errors in them. And some of the teachings could and can lead people away from greater truths. As it is, I have a friend whose mother and brother have joined Nemelka's group and are convinced that he's the new prophet of God.

It isn't that these are bad people, but they are not well-educated in doctrinal issues, either. Swaying people away from the greater truth (IMO, anyway), is not a good thing. The Book of Mormon had witnesses to its translation and to the gold plates. Nemelka has only his own testimony, which includes an admission to a newspaper that he was a fraud! No good can come out of this, especially when he has already stated he made the whole thing up.

[Hemidakota]

I was referring to Chappell book.

[Hemidakota]

While I suppose I could learn things from the Satanic Bible, I choose to focus on books and writings that are more reliable. I have read Nemelka's version of Lehi's writings, and while they aren't terrible; they also have some serious errors in them. And some of the teachings could and can lead people away from greater truths. As it is, I have a friend whose mother and brother have joined Nemelka's group and are convinced that he's the new prophet of God.

It isn't that these are bad people, but they are not well-educated in doctrinal issues, either. Swaying people away from the greater truth (IMO, anyway), is not a good thing. The Book of Mormon had witnesses to its translation and to the gold plates. Nemelka has only his own testimony, which includes an admission to a newspaper that he was a fraud! No good can come out of this, especially when he has already stated he made the whole thing up.

If that is the case with your friends mother and brother, testimony foundation is an issue.

[goofball]

I will admit that i have not read in detail all the posts. I have scanned through them to see if it would change my rather sarcastic comment that is to follow:

I remember reading about a time in history where "scholars" thought the world was flat and believed that you would fall of the edge of the world and die. SO much so that they persecuted anyone who though differently.

The validity of the Book of Mormon can be made know to any man, woman or child who really wants to know. And what I love about that statement is that it is independent of level of education or "scholarly" knowledge. It requires sincere and honest prayer.

To the original poster- I believe that you have been provided with sufficient names of scholars who believe in the Book of Mormon. Back to my original comment-Just because men here on earth study their whole and believe something does not mean it is not true. It often means that we do not know enough yet about that particular subject. Being a man of science and medicine we continually find things we thought were not true only years later to discover that it is indeed true.

[Barter_Town]

I remember reading about a time in history where "scholars" thought the world was flat and believed that you would fall of the edge of the world and die.

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

SO much so that they persecuted anyone who though differently.

They did??

The validity of the Book of Mormon can be made know to any man, woman or child who really wants to know. And what I love about that statement is that it is independent of level of education or "scholarly" knowledge. It requires sincere and honest prayer.

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.

To the original poster- I believe that you have been provided with sufficient names of scholars who believe in the Book of Mormon.

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.

Back to my original comment-Just because men here on earth study their whole and believe something does not mean it is not true.

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.

It often means that we do not know enough yet about that particular subject. Being a man of science and medicine we continually find things we thought were not true only years later to discover that it is indeed true.

Right, and we come to that kind of knowledge through observation and empirical evidence, not prayer. Prayer has no place in the sciences, really.

[Barter_Town]

People used to laugh at this script:

Ether 9

19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; all of which were useful unto man, and more especially the elephants and cureloms and cumoms.

Elephants???!!!!???

Well, yes, actually there were elephants.

This is a typical type of rebuttal to critics. They think they find something wrong, then they laugh about how "The BoM thinks there were elephants ROFL", and then you show them, that yes, there were elephants, what is so funny? and then they leave the thread and try to find something else..

Honestly, I see no problems with the BoM. Please name a specific one if you think you have found any. (PS - please check FIAR.LDS or FARMS first so you don't embarrass yourself first.)

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.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Barter_Town

[goofball]

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.

Why would you "doubt any of the people listed above became convinced of the historicity of the Book of Mormon through their own studies" Do you know them or their stories? How do you know they did not apply the same research into the Church as they did their secular research? You cannot say that but only project your own feelings about religion and science.

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.

For the scientific method you take a stand in your hypothesis long before you reach any conclusion. So it is absolutely correct for someone hypothesizing the Book of Mormon is true in the early part of their research before entering into the research phase. Surely you know this though about the scientific method or you would not have brought it up.

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.

This is where you and I will disagree. I can think of no greater evidence for an individual than to receive personal revelation that something is true. Also there is no "scientific" evidence that resurrection is possible and it defies all known science. I and millions of others except this as fact even though "science" may never prove it possible in this lifetime

Right, and we come to that kind of knowledge through observation and empirical evidence, not prayer. Prayer has no place in the sciences, really.

Once again I strongly disagree with you. John A Widtsoe, a famous Mormon scientist, who graduated summa cum laude from Harvard in three years, came up with a formula while praying for an answer in the Logan Temple. Out of this came two books on agrarian chemistry (page 5 of The Temple Where Heaven Meets Earth by Truman Madsen) There are other examples that I can think of but cannot reference due to a new child proof lock I put on the bookcase that is keeping me out as well. I would recommend key to theology

Edited October 18, 2009 by goofball
adding content

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

The fun thing about Wikipedia is, you can actually look this kind of thing up rather than throw around irresponsible accusations.

The 400 CE bit was added in an edit dated November 24, 2007 by a user called Anaxial, who purports to be a "skeptic", a nonbeliever in the supernatural, and the possessor of zoology and historopathology degrees. His/her Wikipedia contribution history--which appears at first glance to be free of Mormon-related subjects--is here.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Barter_Town]

Why would you "doubt any of the people listed above became convinced of the historicity of the Book of Mormon through their own studies"

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.

Do you know them or their stories?

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.

How do you know they did not apply the same research into the Church as they did their secular research?

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.

You cannot say that but only project your own feelings about religion and science.

This isn't really about "feelings" though; it's about evidence and reason.

For the scientific method you take a stand in your hypothesis long before you reach any conclusion. So it is absolutely correct for someone hypothesizing the Book of Mormon is true in the early part of their research before entering into the research phase.

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.

Surely you know this though about the scientific method or you would not have brought it up.

Yep.

This is where you and I will disagree. I can think of no greater evidence for an individual than to receive personal revelation that something is true.

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.

Also there is no "scientific" evidence that resurrection is possible and it defies all known science. I and millions of others except this as fact even though "science" may never prove it possible in this lifetime

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.

Once again I strongly disagree with you. John A Widtsoe, a famous Mormon scientist, who graduated summa cum laude from Harvard in three years, came up with a formula while praying for an answer in the Logan Temple. Out of this came two books on agrarian chemistry (page 5 of The Temple Where Heaven Meets Earth by Truman Madsen) There are other examples that I can think of but cannot reference due to a new child proof lock I put on the bookcase that is keeping me out as well. I would recommend key to theology

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.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Barter_Town

[Barter_Town]

The fun thing about Wikipedia is, you can actually look this kind of thing up rather than throw around irresponsible accusations.

The 400 CE bit was added in an edit dated November 24, 2007 by a user called Anaxial, who purports to be a "skeptic", a nonbeliever in the supernatural, and the possessor of zoology and historopathology degrees. His/her Wikipedia contribution history--which appears at first glance to be free of Mormon-related subjects--is here.

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).

Edited October 18, 2009 by Barter_Town

[TheJoker]

Do you believe there is hard evidence supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon? If the evidence was obvious, then lots and lots of people would be joining the Church. And why would anyone leave, in the face of such convincing evidence?

Do you think God designed it this way?

Well. If Jesus did truly exist. And so everything people believe. He showed some pretty convincing evidence.

But nowadays. Nono. It would never happen.

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

Maybe it was the latest thing when he got his degrees.

I think it does show a point to bear in mind, though: scientific "consensus" is always evolving. Neither side to this discussion should get to comfortable thinking their position has been scientifically "proven" once and for all.

[Barter_Town]

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..

[Barter_Town]

Let me guess - that is not an elephant either, it's a parrot?

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.

A very large parrot that people have decorated and ride around on.

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.

LOL! People dig up elephant bones,

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.

publish article after article on it,

Really? Peer-reviewed? In archaeological journals? Can you provide these articles?

mesoAmericans carve pictures on walls of them,

Source please?

make statues of them,

What statues are you referring to? And can you provide sources for any archaeologists who say they are elephants? Thanks.

design gods/idols after them...

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?

but they must not have never existed there.

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.

You think that is a bear? just a shape?

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?

one of their Gods? Where did they get the idea to put a long snout on their god?

If you insist that the elongated nose corresponds to something in the animal kingdom, then armadillos, anteaters, and tapirs are all prime candidates.

(PS - it is not a snout, it is called a trunk).

Says who? You?

No matter how much evidence you show an anti,

Excuse me? An "anti"..? So, anyone who doesn't accept the spurious claims of Mormon apologists is by default an "anti"?

they have their mind set,

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.

the earth is flat to them,

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.

there is no amount of anything that will ever change their stubborn mind.

See above.

LOL! Everyone else here sees the elephant in the room.

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.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Barter_Town

[pam]

This thread is now closed.