Did Joseph Smith leave us cues?

[disciple00]

oh one thing i thought i might add, there were well established trade routs between the americans and the old world in ancient times, that has already been proven by the fact that tobacco has been recovered in egyptian tombs, elephant tusks were the only elephant remains found from what i read in post #17 it is quite possible that the tusks were trade items, especially if they were adorned with silver... either way, there are many many animals which once lived in many areas that are now nolonger inhabiting those places..

for example t-rex remains found in texas, they dont live in texas anymore, buy they once did.

disciple00

 

[Breetai]

Elephants are mentioned only once in the Book of Mormon corresponding to about 2500 BC. Two elephant species, mammoths and mastodons, are known to have existed in the New World prior to Book of Mormon times. A recent find uncovered mammoth skeletons from around 2000 B.C. on Rangle Island off the coast of Siberia and the Channel Islands off the cost of southern California, well within the timeperiod mentioned.

Many precolumbian pictograms of elephants have been reported. The two below were in the journals Science and Nature. The title of the Nature article was "PRECOLUMBIAN REPRESENTATIONS OF THE ELEPHANT IN AMERICA"

So my question for you is since it is pretty farfetched to believe that elephants roamed the continent, with no historical evidence to back it up, why did Joseph Smith go out on a limb and say that there were elephants in America 2500 years ago?

I say that yes, he did just go out on a limb and say that there were elephants in America. He was guessing. Personally, I do not say that this is a far-fetched guess. If one literally believes the Bible, it would not be surprising to find remains of animals of any kind in any part of the Earth.

On similar lines, there are also pictograms of different animals that can only be described an dinosaurs to be found.

 

[Doc T]

I say that yes, he did just go out on a limb and say that there were elephants in America. He was guessing.

This is where you, and most everyone else here misses the boat. Certainly considered by itself that fact that Joseph Smith got it right that there were elephants in the Americas is not all that impressive. He could have simply guessed and got it right. The problem arises when you start to look at all the different things that Jospeh Smith got right in the Book of Mormon and then it begins to become statistically impossible for Joseph Smith to guessed them all correctly.

What were some of the things that Joseph got right you ask? Well I'm glad you asked. Let me give you a summary of 18 points that Joseph got right in the BofM. Again, as I said, any of these examined by themselves in isolation my not be all that impressive and could have been guessed by Joseph. But when you look at them in their totality, the probability of Joseph guessing each one of them correctly becomes statistically improbable. These 18 points came from a speach given by Dr. John. E. Clark, a very respected MesoAmerican archaeologist.

1. The first archaeological claims related to the Book of Mormon concern the facts of September 22, 1827, the actuality of metal plates preserved in a stone box. This used to be considered a monstrous tale, but concealing metal records in stone boxes is now a documented Old World practice. Stone offering boxes have also been discovered in Mesoamerica.

2. The warfare described in the book differs from what Joseph could have known or imagined. In the book, one reads of fortified cities with ditches, walls, and palisades. Mesoamerican cities dated to Nephite times have been found with all these features.

3. The Book of Mormon mentions bows and arrows, swords, slings, scimitars, clubs, spears, shields, breastplates, helmets, and cotton armor–all items documented from Mesoamerica.

4. Aztec swords were of wood, sometimes edged with stone knives. There are indications of wooden swords in the Book of Mormon. How else could swords become stained with blood? Wooden swords could sever heads and limbs and were lethal.

5. The practice of taking detached arms as battle trophies, as in the story of Ammon, is also documented from Mesoamerica.

6. The final battle at Cumorah involved staggering numbers of troops and of Nephite battle units of 10,000. Aztec documents described armies of over 200,000 warriors, also divided into command units of 10,000.

7. Mesoamerica is a land of decomposing cities with their pyramids or towers, temples, and palaces–all items mentioned in the Book of Mormon but foreign to the gossip along the Erie Canal in Joseph Smith’s day.

8. Cities show up in all the right places and for the predicted times.

9. One of the more unusual and specific claims in the Book of Mormon is that houses and cities of cement were built by 49 B.C. in the land northward, a claim considered ridiculous in 1830. As it turns out, it receives remarkable confirmation at Teotihuacan, the largest pre-Columbian city ever built in the Americas. Teotihuacan is still covered with ancient cement that has lasted over 1500 years.

10. All Book of Mormon peoples had kings who ruled cities and territories. American prejudices of native tribes in Joseph’s day had no room for kings or their tyrannies. These were crazy claims.

11. The last Jaredite king, Coriantumr, carved his history on a stone about 300 B.C., an event in line with Mesoamerican practices at that time.

12. A particular gem in the book is that King Benjamin labored with his own hands, an outrageous thing for Joseph Smith to claim for a king. It was not until the 1960s that anthropology caught up to the idea of working kings and validated it among world cultures.

13. Even more specific, consider Riplakish, the tenth Jaredite king, an oppressive tyrant who forced slaves to construct buildings and produce fancy goods. Among the items he commissioned about 1200 B.C. was an exceedingly beautiful throne. The earliest civilization in Mesoamerica is known for its elaborate stone thrones. How did Joseph Smith get this detail right?

14. A correspondence that has always impressed me involves prophecies in 400-year blocks. The Maya were obsessed with time, and they carved precise dates on their stone monuments that began with a count of 400 years, an interval called a bactun. Each bactun was made up of twenty katuns, an extremely important twenty-year interval. If you will permit me some liberties with the text, Samuel the Lamanite warned the Nephites that one bactun shall not pass away before they would be smitten. Nephi and Alma uttered the same bactun prophecy, and Moroni recorded its fulfillment. Moroni bids us farewell just after the first katun of this final bactun, or 420 years since the sign was given of the coming of Christ. What are the chances of Joseph Smith guessing correctly the vigesimal system of timekeeping and prophesying among the Maya.

15. Kent Brown and others have shown, the geography of the Arabian peninsula described in First Nephi is precise down to its place names. The remarkable geographic fit includes numerous details unknown in Joseph Smith’s day.

16. In checking correlations between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology, I focus on the rise and decline of cities. The earliest known Olmec city was up and running by 1300 B.C., and it was preceded by a large community dating back to 1700 B.C. Most Olmec cities were abandoned about 400 B.C., probably under duress. In eastern Mesoamerica, Olmec civilization was replaced by the lowland Maya, who began building cities in the jungles of Guatemala about 500 to 400 B.C. As with Olmec civilization, Maya civilization experienced peaks and troughs of development, with a mini-collapse about 200 A.D. In short, the correspondences between the Book of Mormon and cycles of Mesoamerican civilization are striking.

17. Could millions of people have lived in the area proposed as Book of Mormon lands [Mesoamerica]? Yes, and they did. Mesoamerica is the only area in the Americas that sustained the high population densities mentioned in the Book of Mormon and for the time period specified.

18. The earliest developments of the Jaredites and Olmecs are hazy; but from about 1500 B.C. onward, their histories are remarkably parallel. The alternations between city building and population declines described for the Jaredites correspond quite well with lowland Olmec developments. Olmec cities were abandoned by 400 B.C., and the culture disappeared, just as the Book of Mormon describes for the Jaredites. This is a phenomenal correlation.

Reconstructing ancient demography requires detailed information on site sizes, locations, dates, and frequencies. It will take another fifty years to compile enough information to reconstruct Mesoamerica’s complete demographic history.​

For even a more impressive discussion of *Hits* that Joseph Smith got right, please see the book, "Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon" edited by by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, John W. Welch.

Doc

~

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

For even a more impressive discussion of *Hits* that Joseph Smith got right, please see the book, "Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon" edited by by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, John W. Welch.

Doc

I wonder if JS was as accurate as muhammed was in his prophecies.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2929757-miracle-or-coincidence-.html

Miracle of Qur'an or Coincidence ?

In the name of Allah most gracious most merciful

though mankind and the Jinn should assemble to produce the like of this, Quran they could not produce the like thereof though they were helpers one of another

 

[logichopper]

This is where you, and most everyone else here misses the boat. Certainly considered by itself that fact that Joseph Smith got it right that there were elephants in the Americas is not all that impressive. He could have simply guessed and got it right. The problem arises when you start to look at all the different things that Jospeh Smith got right in the Book of Mormon and then it begins to become statistically impossible for Joseph Smith to guessed them all correctly.

What were some of the things that Joseph got right you ask? Well I'm glad you asked. Let me give you a summary of 18 points that Joseph got right in the BofM. Again, as I said, any of these examined by themselves in isolation my not be all that impressive and could have been guessed by Joseph. But when you look at them in their totality, the probability of Joseph guessing each one of them correctly becomes statistically improbable. These 18 points came from a speach given by Dr. John. E. Clark, a very respected MesoAmerican archaeologist.

1. The first archaeological claims related to the Book of Mormon concern the facts of September 22, 1827, the actuality of metal plates preserved in a stone box. This used to be considered a monstrous tale, but concealing metal records in stone boxes is now a documented Old World practice. Stone offering boxes have also been discovered in Mesoamerica.

2. The warfare described in the book differs from what Joseph could have known or imagined. In the book, one reads of fortified cities with ditches, walls, and palisades. Mesoamerican cities dated to Nephite times have been found with all these features.

3. The Book of Mormon mentions bows and arrows, swords, slings, scimitars, clubs, spears, shields, breastplates, helmets, and cotton armor–all items documented from Mesoamerica.

4. Aztec swords were of wood, sometimes edged with stone knives. There are indications of wooden swords in the Book of Mormon. How else could swords become stained with blood? Wooden swords could sever heads and limbs and were lethal.

5. The practice of taking detached arms as battle trophies, as in the story of Ammon, is also documented from Mesoamerica.

6. The final battle at Cumorah involved staggering numbers of troops and of Nephite battle units of 10,000. Aztec documents described armies of over 200,000 warriors, also divided into command units of 10,000.

7. Mesoamerica is a land of decomposing cities with their pyramids or towers, temples, and palaces–all items mentioned in the Book of Mormon but foreign to the gossip along the Erie Canal in Joseph Smith’s day.

8. Cities show up in all the right places and for the predicted times.

9. One of the more unusual and specific claims in the Book of Mormon is that houses and cities of cement were built by 49 B.C. in the land northward, a claim considered ridiculous in 1830. As it turns out, it receives remarkable confirmation at Teotihuacan, the largest pre-Columbian city ever built in the Americas. Teotihuacan is still covered with ancient cement that has lasted over 1500 years.

10. All Book of Mormon peoples had kings who ruled cities and territories. American prejudices of native tribes in Joseph’s day had no room for kings or their tyrannies. These were crazy claims.

11. The last Jaredite king, Coriantumr, carved his history on a stone about 300 B.C., an event in line with Mesoamerican practices at that time.

12. A particular gem in the book is that King Benjamin labored with his own hands, an outrageous thing for Joseph Smith to claim for a king. It was not until the 1960s that anthropology caught up to the idea of working kings and validated it among world cultures.

13. Even more specific, consider Riplakish, the tenth Jaredite king, an oppressive tyrant who forced slaves to construct buildings and produce fancy goods. Among the items he commissioned about 1200 B.C. was an exceedingly beautiful throne. The earliest civilization in Mesoamerica is known for its elaborate stone thrones. How did Joseph Smith get this detail right?

14. A correspondence that has always impressed me involves prophecies in 400-year blocks. The Maya were obsessed with time, and they carved precise dates on their stone monuments that began with a count of 400 years, an interval called a bactun. Each bactun was made up of twenty katuns, an extremely important twenty-year interval. If you will permit me some liberties with the text, Samuel the Lamanite warned the Nephites that one bactun shall not pass away before they would be smitten. Nephi and Alma uttered the same bactun prophecy, and Moroni recorded its fulfillment. Moroni bids us farewell just after the first katun of this final bactun, or 420 years since the sign was given of the coming of Christ. What are the chances of Joseph Smith guessing correctly the vigesimal system of timekeeping and prophesying among the Maya.

15. Kent Brown and others have shown, the geography of the Arabian peninsula described in First Nephi is precise down to its place names. The remarkable geographic fit includes numerous details unknown in Joseph Smith’s day.

16. In checking correlations between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology, I focus on the rise and decline of cities. The earliest known Olmec city was up and running by 1300 B.C., and it was preceded by a large community dating back to 1700 B.C. Most Olmec cities were abandoned about 400 B.C., probably under duress. In eastern Mesoamerica, Olmec civilization was replaced by the lowland Maya, who began building cities in the jungles of Guatemala about 500 to 400 B.C. As with Olmec civilization, Maya civilization experienced peaks and troughs of development, with a mini-collapse about 200 A.D. In short, the correspondences between the Book of Mormon and cycles of Mesoamerican civilization are striking.

17. Could millions of people have lived in the area proposed as Book of Mormon lands [Mesoamerica]? Yes, and they did. Mesoamerica is the only area in the Americas that sustained the high population densities mentioned in the Book of Mormon and for the time period specified.

18. The earliest developments of the Jaredites and Olmecs are hazy; but from about 1500 B.C. onward, their histories are remarkably parallel. The alternations between city building and population declines described for the Jaredites correspond quite well with lowland Olmec developments. Olmec cities were abandoned by 400 B.C., and the culture disappeared, just as the Book of Mormon describes for the Jaredites. This is a phenomenal correlation.

Reconstructing ancient demography requires detailed information on site sizes, locations, dates, and frequencies. It will take another fifty years to compile enough information to reconstruct Mesoamerica’s complete demographic history.​

For even a more impressive discussion of *Hits* that Joseph Smith got right, please see the book, "Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon" edited by by Donald W. Parry, Daniel C. Peterson, John W. Welch.

Doc

~

If any of these points were taken seriously outside of the few isolated mormon apologetics that like to dwell on them in academic and theological isolation, Parry, Peterson, and Welch might be able to get the professional archaeological world to take them with at least a passing minimal interest. Yet all this works remains "IGNORED". Heck, not even BYU takes them sreiously.

Doc, it's nice rhetoric for a message board I suppose. And I can even appreciate your loyalty and need to remain clutched to the shirtail of Peterson. But the rest of the intellectual world has not been and is not buying it. No need to talk louder to a shinking audience!

 

[skylark1]

This is where you, and most everyone else here misses the boat. Certainly considered by itself that fact that Joseph Smith got it right that there were elephants in the Americas is not all that impressive.

I thought that the following might be of interest. The area where this mammoth tusk was discovered in 1757 is in western NY, southeast of Palmyra.

Chemung River (Elmira to the PA border)

Preview: Once you leave the busy Elmira area, you’ll be in rural landscapes, although I-86 is never far from shore. Waters from the Cohocton and Tioga Rivers merge at Corning to form the Chemung River. Downstream the Chemung River joins the Susquehanna on its journey to Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. Early 19th century settlers used these waterways as a major transportation route. Chemung means “big horn” or “place of the horn” in the Algonquin Indian language because in 1757 they discovered a wooly mammoth tusk along the river bank that dated back to the ice ages. Where the Cohocton and Tioga Rivers meet to form the Chemung River is the town of Painted Post. This was a sacred place to the Iroquois Indians who placed a painted post to mark the confluence.

http://www.trails.com/tcatalog_trail.asp?trailid=XFP006-063



​

 

[Doc T]

If any of these points were taken seriously outside of the few isolated mormon apologetics that like to dwell on them in academic and theological isolation, Parry, Peterson, and Welch might be able to get the professional archaeological world to take them with at least a passing minimal interest. Yet all this works remains "IGNORED". Heck, not even BYU takes them sreiously.

Doc, it's nice rhetoric for a message board I suppose. And I can even appreciate your loyalty and need to remain clutched to the shirtail of Peterson. But the rest of the intellectual world has not been and is not buying it. No need to talk louder to a shinking audience!

If you would have taken the time to carefully read my post you would have found that those points were not from Peterson, but from the very well respected Dr. John Clark. Even Michael Coe, MesoAmericanist, highly respects Dr. Clark and his work. In fact, recently when Michael Coe gave a lecture at BYU, he wondered aloud why he was going to speak on the later part of the pre-classic period of Mesoamerican history (the time period the BofM took place) when some of the "world experts [of that timeframe] are here at BYU?" [John Clark, Ray Matheny, and Allen Christenson].

Now I have to admit that these points are not taken serious. Oh, they are not disputed by Mesoamerican scholars, but they are not taken serious by the ignorant, some of whom are more interested in polemics than scholarship.

Now if you would care to comment about any of the points instead of just waving your hand and simply ignoring the facts, perhaps we might get somewhere. But alas, I'm afraid I am going to be sorely dissapointed.

Doc

~

 

[Sherman]

...But alas, I'm afraid I am going to be sorely dissapointed.

Doc

~

Come on DocT, you know better than getting your hopes up like that.

Stop trying to interrupt the assertions with evidences.

 

[logichopper]

Now we got the "tag-team" of Doc T & Sherman!!!

Can I ask you guys/gals a question: Are you related? Based on some of the answers you give, I would swear their is some similar DNA amongst you. Any truth to that observation?

Even Michael Coe, MesoAmericanist, highly respects Dr. Clark and his work. In fact, recently when Michael Coe gave a lecture at BYU, he wondered aloud why he was going to speak on the later part of the pre-classic period of Mesoamerican history (the time period the BofM took place) when some of the "world experts [of that timeframe] are here at BYU?" [John Clark, Ray Matheny, and Allen Christenson].

This is classic Dan Peterson "coatailing". [Doc, how big is the poster that you have of DCP??!! For the record, we recognize and acknowledge your IDOL!!]

Peterson has been boasting Clark's credentials for years in the attempt of building a "bridge of credibilty" between BOM Historicity and Clark. It has failed miserably. Two years ago to this month, Clark made the following statement:

""Charges against the Book of Mormon are serious and require a response," Clark said. "Therefore, archaeology steps in as the only scientific means of authenticity."

See here: http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/50535

Your idol, Dan Peterson quoted two years ago the following with respect to the above statement by Clark:

And it should be realized that John Clark genuinely is "putting his professional reputation on the line." This could cost him.

John has told me, since his forum address on Tuesday, that he expects his archaeological peers to hear about what he said, and that he is prepared to stand by his views. I've known him for fifteen years, and this is the first time that he has been willing to publicly express his opinions on the relationship between archaeological research and the Book of Mormon. The potential costs of being viewed as a Mormon apologist -- not only to him, professionally, but to his excavations and other projects in Mesoamerica -- were simply too high. Clearly, he feels that his status in the profession is now sufficiently well established that he can no longer be seriously damaged. But his move is not without risk.

After countless follow posts and questions to Peterson, as to what this really cost Clark, or who really paid any attention to his comments, the answer was, as usual "SILENCE". Clarks comments, as quoted above, were nothing more the faith promoting posturing for BYU students in a forum outside of his professional peer group. None of his professional peers pays any attention to him when it comes to archaeology and the BOM. HE IS IGNORED, as is Peterson. Clark risked nothing. His comments in the isolated campus of BYU were safe to say without any of his peer group listening. It was nothing more thatn the classsic mormon "testimonial" amongs the faithful. No one in the archaeology community have whispered even a "mouse fart" of his statement.

Now, back to Micheal Coe. You seem to follow the Dan Peterson school of "name dropping without meaning". Yes Coe is one of the worlds pre-eminent meso-american archaeologist and a Yale professor. But let us be direct with what Coe has said about BOM archaeology:

"The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early immigrants to our hemisphere."

"... as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing [that Hebrew immigrants build a civilization in ancient America as described in the Book of Mormon] to be true, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group"

Doc, from some basic training I had once, if your gonna boast about your weapon, you best know how to use it!!!

Come on now, are you and Sherman related?!?!

[Sherman, FWIW: "oppertunity" is really spelled "opportunity"]

 

[Swart]

Now we got the "tag-team" of Doc T & Sherman!!!

Can I ask you guys/gals a question: Are you related? Based on some of the answers you give, I would swear their is some similar DNA amongst you. Any truth to that observation?

I can assure you that I'm not related to either of them, so I'll put my observations up.

This seems to be the classic non-rebuttal we get from many critics. It follows like this:

1. A claim is made there is no evidence for the BoM
2. Evidence is presented
3. The evidence is "dismissed" as apologetics
4. Not attempt is made to interact with the evidence, rather one line out-of-context quotations are made.
5. The assertion that there is no evidence is again made

This is an extremely dishonest tactic and if the evidence against the BoM is so strong and the evidence for it is so weak, why stoop to these tactics?

On the one hand, the works of critics with fraudulent credentials such as "Dr" Martin, Dee Jay Nelson, John Ankerburg and others are lauded and their unverified, error-filled works are hailed as "pioneering". On the other hand, the legitimate credentials from well-respected institutions are discredited, their publications in peer-reviewed academic journals are dismissed and anyone who dares associate themselves with their work is labelled an "apologist".

The very worst criticism is labelled for those who are not LDS who point out that the emperor has no clothes. This was the what Dr Clark was referring to in connection with the efforts of Michael Coe. It's the sort of thing that Mosser and Owen were referring to. For some reason, the evangelicals still seem to have their heads in the sand and their fingers in their ears.

Now that's okay, I don't mind. The difference between the level of academia in the two camps is starkly contrast. Anyone who looks at both sides cannot fail to see te dissimilitude. The honest seeker after truth will not be swayed by the pseudo-scientific polemic rantings that are typically found in anti-Mormon literature.

 

[logichopper]

I can assure you that I'm not related to either of them, so I'll put my observations up.

Great, another emotional testimony that "I know Joseph Smith is a Prophet"

This seems to be the classic non-rebuttal we get from many critics. It follows like this:

1. A claim is made there is no evidence for the BoM
2. Evidence is presented

Sorry, this is where the buck has to stop with this mormon nonsense. Evidence is and has been presented which has been of absoluteley zero credibility. That is what most of these threads have been about. "CREDIBILITY" [Swart, if you're not related to Doc T and Sherman, you may want to check "cloning records"!!!!!!]

There has been no "CREDIBLE OR CONVINCING EVIDENCE" by third party professional standards that even the most naive will accept. Will mormons accept it? ABSOLUTELY, look at Doc T's "ringed nosed" followiing of ignored apologists like Daniel Peterson!!!! Swart, time to come to the table with 'credibility".

3. The evidence is "dismissed" as apologetics.
4. Not attempt is made to interact with the evidence, rather one line out-of-context quotations are made.
5. The assertion that there is no evidence is again MADE.

Swart,

Ignorance can be a blessing if the scociety is mutual. But on this board, you have to give credit to a bit more intellectual than "shrimp on the barbie"!!

There is no evidence that the names or arguments that either you, Doc T, Sherman [Mr. Oppretunity], nor any other mormon poster have risen to a level or even remote respectibility.

This is an extremely dishonest tactic and if the evidence against the BoM is so strong and the evidence for it is so weak, why stoop to these tactics

Simple. Show us one scholar that is not of the mormon apologetic group with credible credentials who will agree with you, Doc T, Sherman[Mr. Oppertunity], Dan Peterson, John Clark or any of the other numerous heros!!!

On the one hand, the works of critics with fraudulent credentials such as "Dr" Martin, Dee Jay Nelson, John Ankerburg and others are lauded and their unverified, error-filled works are hailed as "pioneering". On the other hand, the legitimate credentials from well-respected institutions are discredited, their publications in peer-reviewed academic journals are dismissed and anyone who dares associate themselves with their work is labelled an "apologist".

The very worst criticism is labelled for those who are not LDS who point out that the emperor has no clothes. This was the what Dr Clark was referring to in connection with the efforts of Michael Coe. It's the sort of thing that Mosser and Owen were referring to. For some reason, the evangelicals still seem to have their heads in the sand and their fingers in their ears.

Simple time here! Quit pontificating on things that make no sense and have no impact on this thread.

Michael Coe, the most pre-eminent meso-american archaeologist, completely dismisses the works of Clark and his band of mormon coat-tailers. BYU and the LDS church will not stand up to the works on any mormon apologist.

What is it about the word "NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE" that the likes of you and the relatives [Doc T & Sherman] can't seem to comprehend??????

Hey, if someone suckered me out of some bucks and said everything was OK, I would have two choices. Go through life believing them and hoping everything was all right. Or take matters into my own hands and and see if the claim was good to begin with.!!!

 

[Sherman]

Now we got the "tag-team" of Doc T & Sherman!!!

Can I ask you guys/gals a question: Are you related? Based on some of the answers you give, I would swear their is some similar DNA amongst you. Any truth to that observation?

Do you mean more than brothers in the gospel?

If I told you we were, you would have some DNA theory on how DNA disproves the relationship "tag-team" of DocT and Sherman.

This is classic Dan Peterson "coatailing". [Doc, how big is the poster that you have of DCP??!! For the record, we recognize and acknowledge your IDOL!!]

Peterson has been boasting Clark's credentials for years in the attempt of building a "bridge of credibilty" between BOM Historicity and Clark. It has failed miserably. Two years ago to this month, Clark made the following statement:

""Charges against the Book of Mormon are serious and require a response," Clark said. "Therefore, archaeology steps in as the only scientific means of authenticity."

See here: http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/50535

Your idol, Dan Peterson quoted two years ago the following with respect to the above statement by Clark:



After countless follow posts and questions to Peterson, as to what this really cost Clark, or who really paid any attention to his comments, the answer was, as usual "SILENCE". Clarks comments, as quoted above, were nothing more the faith promoting posturing for BYU students in a forum outside of his professional peer group. None of his professional peers pays any attention to him when it comes to archaeology and the BOM. HE IS IGNORED, as is Peterson. Clark risked nothing. His comments in the isolated campus of BYU were safe to say without any of his peer group listening. It was nothing more thatn the classsic mormon "testimonial" amongs the faithful. No one in the archaeology community have whispered even a "mouse fart" of his statement.

Now, back to Micheal Coe. You seem to follow the Dan Peterson school of "name dropping without meaning". Yes Coe is one of the worlds pre-eminent meso-american archaeologist and a Yale professor. But let us be direct with what Coe has said about BOM archaeology:



Doc, from some basic training I had once, if your gonna boast about your weapon, you best know how to use it!!!

Come on now, are you and Sherman related?!?!

Attack the individual and dismiss the message. Did you learn this at basic?

[Sherman, FWIW: "oppertunity" is really spelled "opportunity"]

Psst... hey Dan, do you think they are on to us? With the sloppy spelling and the "tag-team" ploy, I doubt they will ever figure us out.

Bill

 

[logichopper]

Do you mean more than brothers in the gospel?

If I told you we were, you would have some DNA theory on how DNA disproves the relationship "tag-team" of DocT and Sherman.






Attack the individual and dismiss the message. Did you learn this at basic?




Psst... hey Dan, do you think they are on to us? With the sloppy spelling and the "tag-team" ploy, I doubt they will ever figure us out.

Bill

Now there's a response that would garner some respect from the intellectual members here!!!!!

 

[Doc T]

What is that saying...roll up the pant legs, it's too late to save the boots!

None of his professional peers pays any attention to him when it comes to archaeology and the BOM. HE IS IGNORED,...

And your evidence for this is...? Oh that's right, you belong to the "lack of evidence is evidence" crowd.

...as is Peterson.

Right. That is why his article "Nephi and his Asherah: A Note on 1 Nephi 11:8-23" was used recently by Harvard Divinity School. And why he was asked to participate in several conferences on Mormon theology at non-LDS Universities.

Now, back to Micheal Coe. You seem to follow the Dan Peterson school of "name dropping without meaning". Yes Coe is one of the worlds pre-eminent meso-american archaeologist and a Yale professor. But let us be direct with what Coe has said about BOM archaeology:

Thank you for bringing up Michael Coe's article from Dialogue that was published 33 years ago. Hmmm makes one wonder if anything has happened in the world of Mesoamerican archaeology since then? Did FARMS exist then? No. Had John Sorenson written his book, "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon"? No. Dr. Clark was just an undergradutate at BYU then.

I wonder how long Dr. Coe's article will continue to be regarded as the latest up-to-date scholarship on the question of the BofM. I also wonder if Dr. Coe has kept up on the latest scholarship on the BofM...somehow I doubt that.

Doc, from some basic training I had once, if your gonna boast about your weapon, you best know how to use it!!!

Would that be the basic training you got on how to use the Anti-Mormon fieldguide?

Doc

~

 

[Doc T]

Psst... hey Dan, do you think they are on to us? With the sloppy spelling and the "tag-team" ploy, I doubt they will ever figure us out.

Bill

Sh-h-h, keep it down Bill...you might give us away...

Dan

~

 

[Doc T]

Michael Coe, the most pre-eminent meso-american archaeologist, completely dismisses the works of Clark and his band of mormon coat-tailers.

Do you plan on offering any evidence for this claim? As I pointed out Dr. Clark was an undergraduate when Dr. Coe wrote the Dialogue article.

What is it about the word "NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE" that the likes of you and the relatives [Doc T & Sherman] can't seem to comprehend??????

Oh, I understand a bald assertion when I see one. You have made several of them.

Maybe you can understand this.

You have made "NO CREDIBLE ARGUMENTS" against the evidences presented.

Doc

~

 

[Sherman]

What is it about the word "NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE" that the likes of you and the relatives [Doc T & Sherman] can't seem to comprehend??????

You have made "NO CREDIBLE ARGUMENTS" against the evidences presented.

Doc

~

He has not even made a "CREDIBLE ARGUMENT" Ad hominem

 

[Swart]

Great, another emotional testimony that "I know Joseph Smith is a Prophet"

You'll have to point out that part of my post. I can't see it, can you?

I think you need to rethink your handle.

Sorry, this is where the buck has to stop with this mormon nonsense. Evidence is and has been presented which has been of absoluteley zero credibility.

Then point out why it isn't credible. Something other than "Well, they're Mormon's so they can't be trusted." would be good.

Thanks for a textbook example of what I was trying to say. I don't need to give examples of an illogical response anymore, I can just bookmark this post.

 

[Guyver]

Would that be the basic training you got on how to use the Anti-Mormon fieldguide?

Doc

~

Hey, I didn't know they had one of those., and a basic training camp too ! who runs it the Tanners ?

 

[baker]

Thank you for bringing up Michael Coe's article from Dialogue that was published 33 years ago. Hmmm makes one wonder if anything has happened in the world of Mesoamerican archaeology since then? Did FARMS exist then? No. Had John Sorenson written his book, "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon"? No. Dr. Clark was just an undergradutate at BYU then.

Doc,

I don't follow this at all. Michael Coe still maintains his position that no professional "non-mormon" archaelogist finds any merit to the works of Clark, Sorenson, et al. If you believe he has rejected this position, please provide evidence. The fact that he concluded this over 33 years ago simply means that's when he addressed it.

Given that he still turns up in mormon cirlcles, I'm quite sure he is up on the latest work of his former students. The fact that Clark may have studied under Coe gives absolutely zero credibility to his BOM "archaeology claims" if these claims and his supposedly "scholarly" work in this area continues to be rejected/ignored by his objective peer group.

I think this is the real point here. WHO HAS IT CONVINCED? It is easy to "claim scholarship". The proof is always in its "acceptance".

So, has any non-mormon archaeologist or anthropologist accepted or taken sreious any of the work of Clark & Sorenson in the area of BOM archaelogy?

Coe most certainly has not changed his position.