| Subject: | Anyone in the mood for dissecting an argument (Hill Cumorah) in New York |
| Date: | Aug 28 19:31 2003 (plus a little on horses in the Book of Mormon at the bottom) |
| Author: | Wanda |
| I sent my husband an email today with all the
quotes that the Hill Cumorah is in NY and there is no archeological
evidence there... even from all the apologists. Here is his reply.
Remember he thinks like a Mormon, so my responses to him must take that
into account. (Specifically in regard to the literal view of the bible).
--- First, I would like to say that I appreciate all the time and effort you have put into this email. You have obviously spent a lot of time to prepare these quotes and summaries. In response to your email, I offer the following. I already told you what I think about Farms and Jeff Lindsay. Really, the point is that the church teaches that there were two major wars around the hill Cumorah before 1000 A.D., but there is no archeological evidence to support that. You say "There is no way they could have ALL disintegrated." I ask, why not? Have you studied how different kinds of materials--such as bones; copper, iron and other metals; and other miscellaneous artifacts stay preserved through time? Have you figured in that any good materials that were left could have been taken away from that site by others (both at that time and in the 1300 years following before Europeans arrived)? Have you figured in that there may still be stuff out there that hasn't been found? -- archeologists tend to find things close to the surface and they find things deeper by luck, like when someone is digging deep into the earth to building the foundation of a large building or something. So I ask you to think outside the box. Some say that if archeologists haven't found it, it is an absolute fact that it didn't happen. I don't call that thinking outside the box. For me, I recognize that science hasn't proven that this occurred. And the reality is, even if stuff was found there, people against the church would simply argue that it wasn't the same thing. If you look at the greatest thinkers and inventors, they realize that there is much that science hasn't discovered, and they try to make those discoveries that no one else has. Or in other words, they understand that much is true that is unproven by science. For me, would I go bear my testimony about Cumorah if artifacts were suddenly found -- no. I also recognize that people take the lack of scientific support at Cumorah and draw conclusions based upon that. That is their right, but that does not make them right or wrong. What makes them right or wrong is what really happened, and we cannot say that we know what happened on the basis that their have been no artifacts, etc. found. The Bible teaches about a Garden of Eden, a world wide flood, a tower of Babel, the Red Sea parting, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Ark of the Covenant, the Resurrection, etc. Where is the proof (outside of the Bible)? Particularly with regards to a world wide flood, the tower of Babel that was trying to reach to heaven, and Sodom and Gomorrah, shouldn't there be more scientific proof? Does the lack of proof mean that they didn't happen? Again, my answer would be the same as my answer about Cumorah. Here's another one for you -- dinosaurs supposedly roamed the whole earth, yet dinosaur fossils are few and they mostly grouped in certain areas of the world. Why aren't there dinosaur bones all over the world? The truth is that certain conditions are necessary to preserve and fossilize bones, and apparently only certain locations had those conditions at that time. |
| Subject: | Oh, well. . .there you have it. . . |
| Date: | Aug 28 19:48 |
| Author: | catholicgirl |
| Still, he's agreeing that it can be done. So the important thing is to determine the parameters of the box, and what is inside it, and what is out. I think it's important to figure out whether or not the LDS Church considers things like the flood as literal and universal. You might put the Smithsonian Institution's letters on the Book of Mormon in front of him (likewise, the one regarding the Bible, if it is helpful for comparison). Have you ever used Tom Donofrio's websites regarding plagiarism and the Book of Mormon? www.mormonstudies.com/early1.htm www.post-mormons.com/tories.htm They might be helpful to you. |
| Subject: | Fallacy of misplaced concreteness... |
| Date: | Aug 28 19:50 |
| Author: | Brian B. |
| He is taking an abstract entity such as the
Nephite-Lamanite claim and making it concrete for you to debunk, when
you are merely proposing what is standard science that already is the
accepted theory. He is negating it all, it seems, without any cause.
Hence his fallacy. [I warn you, however, that this particular fallacy is already over his head--Mormons have no talent for objectivity, because they have learned to personalize this religion to define the entire world with it, and know they will be nobodies without it.] He wrote: >What makes them right or wrong is what really happened, and we cannot say that we know what happened on the basis that their have been no artifacts, etc. found. That is false. We can always assert what DID NOT HAPPEN based on what IS NOT THERE. This is the principle of disproof, the foundation of science. Creationism did not happen. We don't need a solid theory to replace the Genesis version to 'disprove' the Genesis version. See fallacy above. http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/falsification.html |
| Subject: | A few comments..... |
| Date: | Aug 28 20:50 |
| Author: | Randy J. |
| >You say "There is no way they could
have ALL disintegrated." I ask, why not? Have you studied how different kinds of materials--such as bones; copper, iron and other metals; and other miscellaneous artifacts stay preserved through time? Have you figured in that any good materials that were left could have been taken away from that site by others (both at that time and in the 1300 years following before Europeans arrived)? The Book of Mormon states that a series of major wars was fought circa A.D. 400, between opposing tribes numbering in the hundreds of thousands. The BOM describes those peoples' culture in great detail, stating that they were Hebrew-descended, wrote and/or spoke in Hebrew and/or Egyptian, used smelted metal tools and weaponry, made and used chariots, had such animals as horses, cows, sheep, and pigs, and worshipped Jesus Christ. Now, compare that scenario to for instance, the Roman invasion of Britain in the early centuries A.D. Now, imagine if there were no physical evidence that the Romans ever invaded Britain or introduced its culture there----no evidence of paved roads, no aqueducts, no baths, no Roman language, system of government, military organization, etc. That is essentially what BOM apologists are asking us to do: Believe that those hundreds of thousands of people lived those events, a mere 1700 years ago, and that not a single item of physical evidence remains to verify their existence. No local Indian tribes took up the "Book of Mormon peoples" language, religion, metalworking, animal breeding, etc. It all just disappeared without a trace. We must ask ourselves, which scenario is more likely: A) Every single item of physical evidence for the "Book of Mormon people" disappeared without a trace, or B) The Book of Mormon is a work of fiction invented circa 1830. >So I ask you to think outside the box. Some say that if archeologists haven't found it, it is an absolute fact that it didn't happen. Although scientists rarely speak in absolutes, the fact that no evidence whatsoever has been discovered in 170+ years to authenticate the BOM makes it HIGHLY LIKELY that it didn't happen. Like the Roman invasion of Britain---or the short-lived Viking settlement in Newfoundland---evidence should exist where it is EXPECTED to be found. For instance, speaking of the animal anachronisms within the BOM, Stan Larson wrote: "Pre-Columbian Mayan hieroglyphs and ceramic art depict various mammals, such as jaguars, tapirs, deer, monkeys, dogs, peccaries, coatimundis, armadillos, rabbits, gophers, and leaf-nosed bats. The largest mammals alive in Mesoamerica when the Europeans arrived were jaguars, pumas, tapirs, and deer..... Several species of horses existed in prehistoric America, including the Pleistocene horse, 'equus scotti.' At least 130 individuals of 'Equus occidentalis' were trapped in the La Brea tar pits. B. H. Roberts warned that these Pleistocene finds at Rancho La Brea cannot be used to sustain the Book of Mormon claim concerning horses, since there is 'positive and well nigh universal testimony about the absence of the horse from America within historic times.' More recently Bruce J. McFadden, curator of the Florida Museum of Natural History at the University of Florida, stated that the extinction of the horse in the Americas occurred about 11,000 years ago at the close of the Pleistocene era. This is supported by fifteen good radiocarbon dates, with the youngest being 10,370+- 350 years ago. The extinction of the horse before the growth of civilization in Mesoamerica is also supported by the fact that no depictions of the horse occur in any pre-Columbian art..... It was an assumption by common people in early nineteenth-century America that horses---as well as asses, oxen, cows, sheep, goats, and swine---were native to America, though serious scholars were aware that these animals had been imported by the Europeans. After surveying the most up-to-date evidence, Deanne Matheny concluded that 'at this point then there is no convincing evidence that the horse survived until the period of the Mesoamerican civilizations.' B. H. Roberts referred to the difficulties of establishing the existence of the horse in America during historic times as 'our embarrassing problems.' The absence of support for the animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon---at the same time as there exists clear evidence of what the Mesoamerican animals actually were---constitutes a serious obstacle to verifying the historicity of the Book of Mormon." ("Quest for the Gold Plates", pp. 184-194.) To believe that the BOM is authentic, one has to believe that sometime between the first century A.D. and the European invasion of the 15th century, that somehow, all those animals mentioned in the BOM such as horses, cows, sheep, pigs, asses, etc., mysteriously disappeared, to be replaced by jaguars, tapirs, monkeys, etc., as Larson names---and that there is NOT A SINGLE TRACE LEFT OF THEIR EXISTENCE. No fossils, no carvings on stone stele, nothing. So, which scenario is more likely? All trace of those animals mysteriously disappeared, or the BOM is fiction? >The Bible teaches about a Garden of Eden, a world wide flood, a tower of Babel, the Red Sea parting, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Ark of the Covenant, the Resurrection, etc. Where is the proof (outside of the Bible)? Particularly with regards to a world wide flood, the tower of Babel that was trying to reach to heaven, and Sodom and Gomorrah, shouldn't there be more scientific proof? Does the lack of proof mean that they didn't happen? Again, my answer would be the same as my answer about Cumorah. These remarks should answer his own question for him: Since it's highly likely that those events related in the Bible didn't happen (at least the miraculous ones he names), it's highly likely that the events related in the BOM didn't happen either. >Here's another one for you -- dinosaurs supposedly roamed the whole earth, yet dinosaur fossils are few and they mostly grouped in certain areas of the world. Why aren't there dinosaur bones all over the world? And here he reveals his lack of scholarship. Many thousands of dinosaur fossils, of hundreds of types and timeframes, have been discovered in NUMEROUS areas of the world, and continue to be on a regular basis. Gee, one only has to watch The Discovery Channel to be educated on the magnitude of dinosaur evidence. When he has to resort to making such a ridiculously incorrect statement in his defense of the BOM, he destroys his credibility and his case along with it. Incidentally, speaking of dinosaur fossils, I sometimes use them to compare with the lack of "Book of Mormon evidence," to wit: Close to 20 remains of Tyrannosaurus Rex have been unearthed in North America. T. Rex became extinct about 65 million years ago. In contrast, the BOM asserts that the "Nephites" had horses, cows, pigs, sheep, and asses in the 1st century A.D.----but nary a fossil has been found, even though they supposedly existed in great numbers a mere two thousand years ago. That comparison demonstrates the BOM's authenticity problems. |
| Subject: | Thinking outside the box for a moment... |
| Date: | Aug 28 22:02 |
| Author: | Makurosu |
| So, to be truly open-minded, we need to consider the
possibility that many thousands of steel swords and other weapons and
armor used in two different wars, both in the area of the Hill Cumorah/Ramah
where Joseph Smith got the gold plates, have rusted away into oblivion.
Not to mention the bones of the dead, etc. Remember that this is a
farming area that has been completely plowed under with no artifacts
that have turned up. The steel alone is a puzzler. So, not only is the finished steel product missing, but so are the iron ore mines, the furnaces, the foundaries, the coal mines used to obtain coal to process into coke (used to make the furnaces hotter so that iron becomes molten), and the slag piles produced from the process - all these are missing too? And since Steel Age technology wouldn't exist in a vacuum, what about Bronze Age artifacts from before 400AD? And what about other steel products like pots and pans? Did they have steel technology, but only use it to make swords and arrows? Is this sort of thinking really "outside the box"? Or is it just denial? |
| Subject: | There's a wealth of archeological artifacts that has been discovered in |
| Date: | Aug 28 21:10 |
| Author: | steve benson |
| the Central Americas of all sorts, many of them
composed of metal and even more fragile material, that are just as old,
or older, than the armaments and other assorted war litter supposedly
strewn about Cumorah's battlefields. Why not a shred of evidence of them? Even if they had all rusted away, we would find oxidized particles left behind. Nothing. Zilch. El-blanko. As for the dinosaur bones argument, those critters died hundreds of thousands, even millions of years ago. Still, many of their bones have, in fact, been discovered. As to the ones which have dissolved away, well, they were far older than all those heaping mounds of Nephite swords and shields. The only thing your husband is able to grasp here are straws. And they don't last long at all. :) |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone in the mood for dissecting an argument (hill cumorah) |
| Date: | Aug 28 23:28 |
| Author: | mike dalo |
| One concern about the BOM is that when a
civilization decays, the remnants retain vestiges of the original. For
example, we trace our legal system, alphabet, calender, and architecture
to the Roman Empire. Why do we have this today, because it was retained
by the less advanced middle age peoples. One would assume that the
"Lamanites" would have retained some of the language, customs,
calender, etc from the "Nephites." People do not readily
reinvent their language and calenders. Especially since per the BOM,
after Jesus came to the new world, everyone "in the land" had
the same culture and were all "Nephites." I would contend that
current archeological evidence would have reformed Egyptian, roads would
have been maintained as some Roman roads are, the calander would be
similar to one in Jerusalem ca 600 BCE, there would be the presence of
"old world" crops as they allegedly brought over seeds and
crops. In short, the basic and essential aspects of Nephite (aka Hebrew) society would have carried over and would still be in effect. My 2 cents. |
| Subject: | Looking for Nephite remains in the Americas is not the same as looking for Lehi's tent site in the Arabian Desert |
| Date: | Aug 29 00:58 |
| Author: | Sooner |
| The size of the event the archaeologists are looking
for does play an important role in whether evidence of it can be found.
The event of the BoM is occurring on a two Continental scale with 100's
of thousands of people practicing advanced metallurgy and farming
(animals that Europeans imported 1000 years later.) We are not looking
for the proverbial needle in the haystack here. For example, evidence of
where Lehi parked his tent when he was lost in the Arabian Desert upon
leaving Jerusalem. The Bible teaches about a Garden of Eden, a world wide flood, a tower of Babel, the Red Sea parting, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Ark of the Covenant, the Resurrection, etc. Where is the proof (outside of the Bible)? Particularly with regards to a world wide flood, the tower of Babel that was trying to reach to heaven, and Sodom and Gomorrah, shouldn't there be more scientific proof? Does the lack of proof mean that they didn't happen? Again, my answer would be the same as my answer about Cumorah. He's mixing apple seeds and Watermelons. It goes back to my previous argument about the size of the event that we are looking for. We should be able to find evidence of the world wide flood and the BoM peoples. The other events he lists are tent spots in the desert. As for the dinosaurs, I though Mormon Doctrine is that the bones are from other celestial objects brought together to form this world. |
| Subject: | I'd like to take a quick shot at it if you're still interested in responses... |
| Date: | Aug 29 01:03 |
| Author: | brandnewtatoo |
| the church teaches that there were two major wars
around the hill Cumorah before 1000 A.D., but there is no archeological
evidence to support that. Yes, that's the point of the argument. The church claims hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of armed combatants lost their lives at Cumorah. This was not a minor skirmish of ill-equipped warriors from primitive subsistence societies. You say "There is no way they could have ALL disintegrated." I ask, why not? Because it is likely that not every one of the millions present at the scene were armed strictly with iron implements. If there was such a war it is safe to assume that some, among those millions, must have used spears or arrows tipped with stone. It is somewhat less safe to assume that they might also have used weapons of bronze or copper. If so, these should have survived a 1,500 year rest in the earth and be available for excavation at the church's leisure. Have you figured in that there may still be stuff out there that hasn't been found? There is certainly one good way to find out, isn't there? This is a question I first asked my grandfather on my tenth birthday when I visited Cumorah. "Why hasn't the church excavated a single square foot of this region? There must be tons of cool stuff buried directly under our feet." A question probably thought by every single visitor to the Cumorah visitor's center---"why are there no artifacts in this place, but only artwork presentations?" The time has come for the LDS church to settle this controversy once and for all. Dig 'em up, brothers. Archeologists tend to find things close to the surface and they find things deeper by luck, like when someone is digging deep into the earth to building the foundation of a large building or something. There are already several buildings, monuments, and other structures built directly on, or nearby, Cumorah. To my knowledge, not even a single artifact has been uncovered during the foundation digging for those places. I recognize that science hasn't proven that this occurred. It is not science's burden to prove that this occurred. The LDS church is making the claim that an entire civilization was destroyed here, not the archaeological community. It is therefore the church's burden to prove that this really happened. For me, would I go bear my testimony about Cumorah if artifacts were suddenly found -- no. But millions of TBM LDS members have no compunction whatsoever against testifying that the Cumorah battles actually happened in the complete absence of evidence. If you [they?] are willing of testify to these things without any evidence, wouldn't you [they] be much more willing to do so with a wealth of verifiable evidence to back you [them] up? What makes them right or wrong is what really happened, and we cannot say that we know what happened on the basis that their have been no artifacts, etc. found. Again, there is one excellent way to put that controversy to rest. LDS, Inc. needs to hire a crew of college kids with picks and shovels, and sifting screens and get to work proving these claims. Particularly with regards to a world wide flood, the tower of Babel that was trying to reach to heaven, and Sodom and Gomorrah, shouldn't there be more scientific proof? Does the lack of proof mean that they didn't happen? Nope, but it means that no one is obliged to believe in them without proof. It is not the archaeologists burden to prove for you that these things happen. The burden of proof is always on the claimant. That being said, it must be noted that Biblical archaeologists have accepted that burden for generations and have made some interesting finds over the years. Book of Mormon archaeologists however, notwithstanding the untold thousands of dollars spent at FARMS, have yet to find a single piece of verifiable evidence to support their claims. Not a single piece, after all this time. Why aren't there dinosaur bones all over the world? There are, even in Antarctica. In fact, you probably burned up some prehistoric life remains when you started your car engine this morning. Part of the reason that fossils and other remnants of the past are not more evenly distributed is due to simple plate tectonics. As the earth's crust [specifically the continents] drifts around on top of the molten mantle layer underneath the face of the land changes over time. Much of what is dry land today was underwater in the past, and vice versa. Because the overall size of the earth's crust does not change, but is merely recycled through the ages as one plate is subducted under another, much of the land that existed in the past has been has been melted back down to its original elements--and its fossils along with it. The last dinosaur died off around 65 million years ago, and since then the face of the land has changed so much that a visitor from that time would hardly recognize earth today as the same planet. And yet, despite all that we can still find dinosaur fossils all over the world. We can find these fossils, everything from 100 foot long sauropods to early microscopic creatures that lived on the floors of ancient Permian seas, and we can find them repeatedly and predictably in recognized geological layers. Yet you [and other TBMs] are trying to convince us that in a location where millions of people perished along with their fortifications, weapons, and everyday utensils, less than 1,500 years ago there is not one single artifact available for confirmation. Unbelievable. The truth is that certain conditions are necessary to preserve and fossilize bones, and apparently only certain locations had those conditions at that time. So, is it your assertion then that, despite fossil finds of all kinds all over the state over the past 250 years, the state of New York does not actually meet the criteria for fossilization of ancient organic materials or is it just the Cumorah area that is so? Also, fossilization problems would only account for a lack of organic remains, but it has already been noted that anything made out of stone [such as an arrow point, or spear tip, or stone box to hold golden plates] or anything made out of fired pottery [such as drinking vessels or cooking pots] does not need to be fossilized to remain in the earth for many thousands of years. ______ Ok, there's my quick 2 cents worth. |
| Subject: | Worldwide distribution of dinosaur fossils..... |
| Date: | Aug 29 10:53 |
| Author: | Randy J. |
| Wanda's husband wrote: >Here's another one for you -- dinosaurs supposedly roamed the whole earth, yet dinosaur fossils are few and they mostly grouped in certain areas of the world. Why aren't there dinosaur bones all over the world? The truth is that certain conditions are necessary to preserve and fossilize bones, and apparently only certain locations had those conditions at that time. I did a search on the words "dinosaur fossil locations" and found this website immediately: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/locations/Asia.shtml Note that dinosaur fossils have even been found in Antartica. Wanda's husband's assertion is typical of the tactics of many Mopologists: They state things like that with boldness and self-confidence, hoping that readers will just assume that the information is factual and correct, without bothering to check it out for themselves. Statements similar to Wanda's husband's, on a variety of subjects, are repeated in LDS circles on a regular basis, and Mormons who hear such things believe in them like gospel. Such implicit trust in any assertion, regardless of how incorrect or unsupportable, as long as the assertion serves to support Mormonism, comprises a major portion of LDS thought and culture. Of course, since Wanda's husband's argument was intended to attempt to "explain away" the lack of physical evidence for the Book of Mormon---but his argument is completely blown to bits by the abundance of dinosaur fossils----then he has done more to damage the BOM's case for authenticity than to help it. |
| Subject: | Faith VS science |
| Date: | Aug 29 11:18 |
| Author: | Tyler |
| It seems your friend is mixing faith and science
which is akin to oil and water. They don't mix or compliment each other. Having faith that those Biblical and BOM occurances happened is perfectly fine. Having faith in something can give a person anchor and a comfortable cosmological framework. The minute that those assertions are made to be literal and are taught as actual events with physical attributes and are not figurative, metaphorical or allegorical, then the proof shifts from you to them to provide proof of their physical reality. The best argument against your friend is your testimony of its lack of truth. Your statement of faith about how you feel about the book is more powerful than your archealogical evidences (although those are very damning to a rational mind). "I respect your faith and belief in the BOM and support you as my husband and friend. I however, do not believe the story is true and to do so would be lying to myself and to act contrary to all that I know as good and true." Amen. Tyler |
| Subject: | Thanks for all the replies |
| Date: | Aug 29 11:29 |
| Author: | Wanda |
| I've found several websites that show that dinosaur
fossils were found right there in good 'ol New York. This has really helped me write a balanced reply. I agree that faith and science cannot possibly mix. The fact that Mormons take everything in the scriptures so literally is their ultimate demise. It's getting past that big hump of realizing many Bible things couldn't be literal, that will allow him to hopefully re-think the scriptures. Wow, you all have such great insights. Thanks |
| Subject: | Wait, one more: (PG-13) |
| Date: | Aug 29 12:39 |
| Author: | tanstaafl |
| The source of all these supernatural claims that
have no evidence to support them. Joe Smith, an acknowledged con man, claimed that he got the gold plates from a dead guy. Not only that, he claimed, at different times, that the dead guy was Nephi and Moroni. Listen, a dead guy comes to visit me, 3 TIMES, and I think I'm going to get the name right. Depending on which dead guy we are talking about, Nephi or Moroni, dead for about 1400 or 2300 years. SO ask Mr. TBM to provide you some evidence of dead men coming back to life after 1400 years, or the whole story doesn't fly to begin with. And no, the testimony of a man who lies about fucking 14 year old girls who he cons into sleeping with him by promising their families eternal salvation, a more heavily documented liar than Clinton and Nixon combined, who had to flee one state because of his reputation as a con man, another because he set up an illegal banking scam and another because . . . well you get the picture . . . is not going to hold any water. |
| Subject: | Geology 101 |
| Date: | Aug 30 09:37 |
| Author: | Old Scout |
| I live in Central New York State. I have been to
Hill Cumorah many times. The Hill Cumorah is a "drumlin" which
is a glacial deposit of till. The surface of these deposits are fluid. A
stone container as described by Joseph Smith would have migrated
downslope causing the stones to separate. Anyone who is familiar with
cemeteries located in this area can testify that the graves will move
downslope. If there was an army there had to be campfires. If there were campfires there would have been remains. If there were remains large trees would have grown over the campfires. The area was completely forested and only new growth trees remain. The campfires would have been uncovered. There were none. End of story. |
| Subject: | His argument is basically: "Prove that BoM isn't true" |
| Date: | Aug 30 11:47 |
| Author: | brefots |
| and the only answer is: "Nope, you prove that
it is true." His argument is simply to transfer the burden of proof to where it doesn't belong. He is making a claim and then he is making excuses for not being able to produce evidence that would substantiate his claim. That is not an argument, it is an old trick of rethoric. He is pointing out the impossibility to prove a negative as proof of that negative. There is never in science any reliance on such "proofs" or arguments. An assertion or an argument must be able to be verified or falsified or it is completely rejected simply because it falls outside the scoop of human knowledge. Much in BoM and the Bible aren't rejected because we have proofs of their erronius nature (although we in many cases actually do have proofs against) they are rejected simply because they are not possible to verify or falsify. A good example of this is the notion that God did make the sun stand still for 12 hours extra for Josua, which if true would have been recorded and noticed by every civilization then existing on the earth. It wasn't. Appearantly a mysteriously day (or night if you lived on the other side of the globe) was unnoticed or considered to unimportant to record for all other people on the globe. Had it been true we would expect numerous references to it in oral and written traditions from all parts of the world, or atleast a verifiable hypothesis why it wasn't so. Instead we only have speculations about something that is recorded in a book, with no outside indications of it being anything other than a fabrication. And the same goes with the BoM, a writing that is supported by no evidence whatsoever. He is making the claim, that the BoM is a true historical record, and if he is incapable to produce evidence to substantiate his claim it doesn't deserve any consideration whatsoever. It is as simple as that. |
| Subject: | Turn his own arguments back on him |
| Date: | Aug 30 15:21 |
| Author: | Mojo Jojo |
| For example, God revealed to me that a small group of extra-terrestials landed in Salt Lake Valley around 600 BC and created a large civilazation numbered in the millions. The built several large cities stretching from what is today Temonton down to what is now Payson. They drove large space ships, rode tapirs, cultivated papaya,bannanas, and figs, doemsticated camels and yaks, and armed themselves with laser swords and shields made out of pure gold. They worshiped a great Centaur God and built large temples to honor him. They were destroyed around 400 AD in a massive internicene war in which nearly a million were killed. Now, ask you brother to prove I'm wrong. Hold him to the same standards that he holds you to in proving the Book of Mormon. Return and give us word. |
This extra was pasted in about "Horses in the Book of Mormon" - A slightly different topic than Hill Cumorah, but still the same concept. It is all imaginary....
Hamblin is a Mormon apologist and works for the Mormon Church.
| Subject: | Hamblin's thoughts on ancient American horses |
| Date: | Sep 06 13:08 |
| Author: | Makurosu |
| I was searching through some FARMS articles looking
for Dan Peterson's suggestion that ancient Americans might have carried
chariots around on their backs, when I came across this piece of work by
Bill Hamblin: Horses are never said to have been ridden in the Book of Mormon. Chariots are mentioned in association with horses (only in one incident, Alma 18:9-12; 20:6). This may be another indication that the horse was uncommon, since in societies where horseback riding is known the use of chariots rapidly declines. Furthermore, cureloms and cumoms were thought to be more useful to man than horses (Ether 9:19), a clear indication of the relative unimportance of the horse in Book of Mormon societies. Indeed, horses may have been used primarily for food. http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=39&table=transcripts I just roared laughing when I read that and thought I'd share. It's just so surreal that someone with a PhD could say things like this with a straight face. Wouldn't Hamblin's time be better spent trying to prove the existence of hobbits and orcs? LOL! |
| Subject: | In the mormon marketing movie "The Testament" I noticed... |
| Date: | Sep 06 13:15 |
| Author: | EnochIpsen |
| ...that when the evil ruler sent the righteous young
man away on business they all walked there. They didn't ride horses or
chariots. Maybe making them walk was some sort of punishment. Enoch |
| Subject: | We need to ask Hamblin where the fossil evidence of cureloms and cumoms is. |
| Date: | Sep 06 13:30 |
| Author: | Ruth |
| If the were more useful to man it seems that they
would have played into the Book of Mormon story rather than just being
mentioned in passing. There should be engravings and other forms of
artwork depicting these very useful animals as well. Joseph Smith's made up and borrowed names always killed me including cureloms and cumoms. I think my favorite though is the "land of Moron". The land of Moron was any place that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young happened to be;-) |
| Subject: | That is just desperately delusional. |
| Date: | Sep 06 13:49 |
| Author: | Dagny |
| Mail Address: |
| >"Furthermore, cureloms and cumoms were
thought to be more useful to man than horses" Good to know. We'll be expecting then to see cureloms and cumoms in the BoM movie and scenes of people chowing down on horses. ;-) |
| Subject: | How can grown men make such arguments with straight faces? |
| Date: | Sep 06 13:55 |
| Author: | steve benson |
| They are obviously so personally and emotionally
attached to their belief systems that rational thinking or evidentiary
proof is apparently of no concern to them. Perhaps fear that their whole world, along with its social and economic support system, would come crashing down around them keeps them from admitting that such "defenses" are nothing short of farcical. |
| Subject: | Ironically, Hamblin's argument in this paper... |
| Date: | Sep 06 14:58 |
| Author: | Makurosu |
| ...is about how irrational "anti-Mormon"
arguments are. The title of the paper is "Basic Methodological
Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology
of the Book of Mormon." I just noticed that the paper is dated Spring of 1993. I wonder if Hamblin's more recent papers are as outrageous as this one now that people can ridicule his work in public Internet forums. |
| Subject: | Only Fools Laugh! |
| Date: | Sep 06 13:58 |
| Author: | Tyler |
| Mak - you should know that Hamblin is right on.
Horses were used for meat and the stronger, abler, cureloms and cumoms
were used primarily for transportation. Now what is not known to scoffers and unbelievers is that the femur of the cureloms had a certain concave shape that once they died the bone could be fashioned with a strong tensile metallic string to create a bow of a most curious workmanship. All of the mormon archaeologists in the "know" believe this bow to have been used extensively at the final battle at the Hill Cumorah (cumom). The metal string has never been found as it was alloyed with a highly reactive metal to give it flexibility like unto a willow reed. Unfortunately, exposed to the air it oxidizes at a rate three times that of iron. The curelom bones had been filed down to create the bow and thus the remaining bone and marrow was more easily digested by wild animals which preferred cureloms due to the high concentrations of protein found in the marrow. Furthermore, the cumom while useful for tilling the earth and racing chariots for sport, were most beneficial to the people in boatmaking, the complex fatty tissues of the cumom when heated and and mixed with curelom dung created a fast bonding resin excellent for shipbuilding and other sea-faring activities. These "facts" elude the skeptics, but are common knowledge amongst God's scientists. Tyler |
| Subject: | Re: Hamblin's thoughts on ancient American horses |
| Date: | Sep 06 19:49 |
| Author: | melissa |
| Hobbits and orcs! I am crying laughing. And the
insight about how this was written in 1993, before the Internet opened
the barn doors of mass ridicule--one of the most intriguing concepts I
ever read. But Tyler, your post contained the most heart-stopping
sentence I have ever had the luck to peruse. I feel it must represent
some kind of deep-grammar transcendence, where the limits of English
have melted, and suddenly language carries a new level of signification,
a possibility described by Michel Foucalt, I believe (you can say this
about almost anything and throw in Michel Foucalt to punch it up, but
here it's really merited): "Furthermore, the cumom while useful for
tilling the earth and racing chariots for sport, were most beneficial to
the people in boatmaking, the complex fatty tissues of the cumom when
heated and mixed with curelom dung created a fast bonding resin
excellent for shipbuilding and other sea-faring activities." Joseph
Smith probably deserves partial credit. I am trembling, as though
witnessing the eruption of a volcano in my living room! Thanks Mak. |
Recovery from Mormonism - The Mormon Church - www.exmormon.org |