Gazelam wrote:You guys are missing the whole larger picture here, these things ar efound all over the world because they were taught to Noah, then they spread out at the Tower of Babel.
Someday, when you grow up Gaz, you're going to have to learn to provide a thing people around the world call "evidence" instead of believing that a "fable" from thousands of years ago among a very small group of insignificant people, was the origin of the notion of this or that other "fable".
Stella 5 isn't Joseph Smith senior's, Lehi's dream.
Try again.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
Gazelam wrote:You guys are missing the whole larger picture here, these things ar efound all over the world because they were taught to Noah, then they spread out at the Tower of Babel.
Someday, when you grow up Gaz, you're going to have to learn to provide a thing people around the world call "evidence" instead of believing that a "fable" from thousands of years ago among a very small group of insignificant people, was the origin of the notion of this or that other "fable".
Stella 5 isn't Joseph Smith senior's, Lehi's dream.
Try again.
No, his theory is called "diffusion," and it is a valid theory. Consider temples. Temples from Iraq to China to the Americas to the South Pacific Islands all rely on the same ideology and operated pretty much identically. Diffusion is the best explanation for this, but other theories include the idea that the human mind developed the same religious dogmas simultaneously as a result of consistently evolving brains. This spontaneous generation theory is kind of a joke, and it doesn't account for Hebrew words in Native American traditional dances and chants, worldwide flood pericopes and other correlations, but it doesn't buck traditional theories about migration patterns, so it is accepted. There is a lot going on that we're not aware of, and traditional theories are going to have to be altered in the coming years. For example, did you know the Chinese reached the Americas almost a century before Columbus? People still get upset about this, but the evidence is pretty clear.
Gazelam wrote:You guys are missing the whole larger picture here, these things ar efound all over the world because they were taught to Noah, then they spread out at the Tower of Babel.
Someday, when you grow up Gaz, you're going to have to learn to provide a thing people around the world call "evidence" instead of believing that a "fable" from thousands of years ago among a very small group of insignificant people, was the origin of the notion of this or that other "fable".
Stella 5 isn't Joseph Smith senior's, Lehi's dream.
Try again.
No, his theory is called "diffusion," and it is a valid theory. Consider temples. Temples from Iraq to China to the Americas to the South Pacific Islands all rely on the same ideology and operated pretty much identically. Diffusion is the best explanation for this, but other theories include the idea that the human mind developed the same religious dogmas simultaneously as a result of consistently evolving brains. This spontaneous generation theory is kind of a joke, and it doesn't account for Hebrew words in Native American traditional dances and chants, worldwide flood pericopes and other correlations, but it doesn't buck traditional theories about migration patterns, so it is accepted. There is a lot going on that we're not aware of, and traditional theories are going to have to be altered in the coming years. For example, did you know the Chinese reached the Americas almost a century before Columbus? People still get upset about this, but the evidence is pretty clear.
Since when do hebrew words show up in native american dances and chants? Sources please.
When I was in Brazil I saw many things that were simply names for a product or a business that didn't really mean anything to them. But to an american, it does mean something and is quite often humerous. For example, there's a brand of juice name SUKS. Or a brand of chocolate candies named anuss. There's a few words that we use in english that are totally innocuous here, but profanity there. Why? Coincidence.
maklelan wrote:No, his theory is called "diffusion,"...
No it's not. It's call "delusion" and is very pronounced in the types of people who are desperately trying to sell their mythologies as facts.
maklelan wrote:There is a lot going on that we're not aware of...
I know there is a lot going on that most religious people are not aware of...that's for sure. For example, most are not aware how easily they are duped by unscrupulous scoundrels. It's always a happy day for me when they finally become aware of that fact.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
Gazelam wrote:You guys are missing the whole larger picture here, these things ar efound all over the world because they were taught to Noah, then they spread out at the Tower of Babel.
That fact dilutes your belief, it does not strengthen it. If its found all over the world, which it is, this counters the belief that it came from the Bible but instead reaffirms the fact that the Bible si a bunch of folk tales from the middle east that were then cobbled together.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Having read the papers produced by FARMS concerning the stella I am appauled now to believe that the document is even taken seriously by Mormonism. It stands as yet another laughable assumption from the pseudoscientific approach taken by FARMS.
And once again, the board witnesses yet another example of Vegas embarrassing himself by speaking out on a subject that he clearly knows nothing about. If Vegas had really read the FARMS articles, he would have known that Clark does not view the stela as a serious piece of Book of Mormon evidence.
What is “laughable” about the perspective articled by John Clark in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies?
In what way is the FARMS analysis an example of a “pseudoscientific approach”:
“Without belaboring the point, it is clear that many of Jakeman’s identifications of the monument’s features were forced to fit what he wanted to find. This applies to parallels he claimed between features on the stone and both Near Eastern art and references to the Book of Mormon
text.”
John E. Clark, “A New Artistic Rendering of Izapa Stela Five: A Step Toward Improved Interpretation,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies ; vol; 8(1999): 32.
I generally stay outside these discussions and simply read, but this one I can maybe add to:
In what way is the FARMS analysis an example of a “pseudoscientific approach”:
FARMS is unable to ever approach any subject of study with anything but a pseudoscientific approach, because for FARMS, the conclusion (the Book of Mormon is true) is first, not last. Their mission statement allows nothing else. Every subject is approached from that conclusion.
While it is true that most (but certainly not all) of the authors who appear in FARMS publications believe in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, Vegas is guilty of raising the all too familiar Anti-FARMS criticism. Namely, that the institution will take any piece of evidence, no matter how trivial and present it as legitimate to the “more than willing Mormon public.”
Even after allegedly reading the articles, Vegas still states that the stela stands as “yet another laughable assumption from the pseudoscientific approach taken by FARMS.”
In his criticism, Vegas either did not read the FARMS articles or did not understand them. As the quote I provided demonstrates, John Clark’s essay is anything but “pseudoscientific.” The entire article illustrates that the idea that the stela portrays Lehi’s Dream and can therefore serve as evidence for the Book of Mormon is simply not true.
Hence, John Clark’s essay illustrates that the only thing “laughable” in this discussion is the demonstrably false claim that the FARMS institution will publish any pseudoscientific piece of evidence and present it as “legitimate" to the “more than willing Mormon public.”
Sadly, this assertion is simply another ad hominem attack raised by critics who hope readers will simply dismiss everything published by FARMS as worthless.
No need to counter any of the arguments, in fact, why read anything at all from FARMS when it's pseudoscientific!!!
Enuma Elish wrote: No need to counter any of the arguments, in fact, why read anything at all from FARMS when it's pseudoscientific!!!
This is exactly my point. Trusting FARMS for scientific evidence/conclusions is like trusting an Iranian conference on the holocaust for Jewish holocaust history.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning