This is MAD (Book of Mormon evidences escalate, critics humiliated!)

[_The Nehor]

What is enjoyable about this is how low the bar is for the MADdite. All that must be proven is that there were civilizations in Mesoamerica during the right time frame. They were populated by human beings who walked on four legs, had families, a religion, and fought wars.

The mesoamerican humans walked on all 4's?

[_Runtu]

Sometimes I think that board exists so that certain people can make themselves feel better by mocking unbelievers. I mean, good heavens, in the last 3 days I've been told I am intellectually arrogant, have a spiritual sickness, am a binary thinker, and am foolish for following my conscience. Apparently, they think this is a good missionary tactic.

Sounds like here with a role reversal.

Yep. It sucks when either side does it.

[_beastie]

The mesoamerican humans walked on all 4's?

LOL. Even more evidence I shouldn't post on mondays.

[_beastie]

Sounds like here with a role reversal.

Hey, this thread is purely academic. ;)

[_beastie]

Who knows. It isn't like she means to have a discussion or anything.

Truer words were never spoken.

[_Polygamy Porter]

...last 3 days I've been told I am a binary thinker, and ....

"There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't"

[_beastie]

Because the Lord wants his saints to be forced to exercise faith, once the hopes of the faithful were dashed. Mind you, those hopes were very easily raised in the first place since there appeared to be no legitimate reason to postulate the horse bones in CA were actually evidence of preconquest horses, but anyway:

a poster named Ron Beron took it upon himself to engage in an "email campaign" and recently posted this:

QUOTE(Ron Beron @ Sep 24 2007, 05:13 PM) *
I recently emailed Mr. Gallegos from the archaeological firm that excavated the animal bones and today received an email back.

Mr. Gallegos stated that "Given the radiocarbon dates, the bones from two horses and one mule are for all intents and purposes recent, post Spanish Occupation and likely post 1850s American Period."
I suppose this will probably settle the issue.

A bit more. I also emailed Dr. Demere who is in charge of paleo-studies at San Diego Museum of Natural History and he just now emailed me the following,

QUOTE
"Although the initial news reports about the site suggested that the horses were historic (and in fact some initial C14 dates indicated an age of 300 years BP), in the final analysis the C14 dates showed the horses to have died within the last 100 years."

So, I guess we will have to continue to hold the Book of Mormon as an article of faith.

Oh, well, this is a minor bump in the road, hardly mattering a smidgen when one considers the mounds of evidence supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Horse bones were discovered dating to the 1850s? It doesn't mean it wasn't a Book of Mormon horse. It might have been one of the Three Nephite's horses. Or it could've been the ghost of Moroni that visited Joseph Smith's horse.

[_Zoidberg]

Sometimes I think that board exists so that certain people can make themselves feel better by mocking unbelievers.

Bingo! I'm pretty sure that's the only reason for its existence in its current form, at least.

[_dartagnan]

On Feb 24 2006, Juliann posted a thread called, “Has any countermo apologist admitted, church statements on the "LGT"?

This would be the first time she and I went head to head, and things only got worse from there.

She posted:

We persistently read that all Mormons believe that Native Americans/Meso-Americans are Lehi's literal progeny. Explanations from alternative voices on an official level that relate to this.... throughout the last century have not been acknowledged as far as I am aware. It seems that to acknowledge this would:
1. Demonstrate that research has been faulty.
2. Weaken the conclusion that "scholars" are running the church, a conclusion necessary to bolster the "false prophet" mantra that every countermo accusation begins and ends with.

The best example was in the recently closed thread where Metcalfe insisted he had acknowledged statements by admitting to some at the "dawning of the 20th c.) This is, of course, inaccurate. Statements were made throughout the 20th c. Metcalfe will not acknowledge this even though several such quotes were provided.

So where are we at this point? Does anyone find a countermo position based on withholding and denying any more convincing than the Mormons who are accused of this continually?

I responded:

Just as a strawman precaution, could we get a quote from an example of those who claim "all" Mormons believe this. And maybe a link to the recent thread where Metcalfe bailed out.

I'd never say all Mormons believe this, but I'd certainly agree the vast majority do - even after the DNA fiasco as of late.

I am also ify on the officiality of the comments made by Mormon authorities proposing an alternative. Of course, this just opens up the can of worms about official statements and opinion. I don't think the Church has made any official declaration on any particular theory. I know various theories have been proposed throughout the twentieth century, but these didn't seem to resonate well with the LDS majority who don't follow the LGT. Mormons still seem to equate Lamanites with Indians, with Jews; especially here in S. America.

Juliann got defensive as usual and the “discussion” deteriorated from there. Go look it up and read it all. Juliann never looked so stupid.

It just amazes me that she keeps doing this straw man nonsense all the while accusing everyone who responds, of making a straw man! She never names names or details specifics. We're just supposed to believe the anti-Mormon world is a collective front with one big psychological denial problem. Apparently, to people like Juliann and Kerry, it keeps coming up with arguments and never concedes points when it turns out some arguments don't hold water. The entire group of "coutermos" is to be raked over the coals and ridiculed accordingly. She cannot debate one on one with anyone, so she feels safer attacking this boogeyman creation, which can never truly respond back.

It makes it even more hypocritical in light of Book of Abraham apologetics where nothing is conceded because the evidence is so crucial that the slightest giving in means Joseph Smith was a fraud and one's theological world-view collapses. What she and others over there can't seem to get through their heads is that Mormon apologists need the Church to be true more than "countermos" need it to be false.