Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Themis]

One of the purposes was to shame you into backing up what you claimed. You had plenty of time to respond, especially when we see you posting on other threads frequently. You are staring to try and back them up, so now maybe a real discussion can start.

You admit trying to bait me, interesting. Appreciate that honestly and will keep it in mind. As for having plenty of time, you can get in line behind Cartman. Maybe you have endless time to troll, I don't, and I've wasted far too much time on this forum this week.

It's not baiting, but I can see you only want to see others in a certain light. I, like others, just think it is honest if people will try and back up what they claim. I try to do it, so I see no reason you shouldn't if you want to have any credibility. I also brought up that you seem to have plenty of time by seeing how often you are posting elsewhere. You are spending more time then I do here.

[_Runtu]

Really not interested in games.

Nor am I. You have made some assertions with absolutely nothing backing them up.

Either you didn't understand what I said, at all, or you are choosing to ignore it. Your understanding of the history is clearly flawed. We can agree to disagree. I see no compelling argument from you whatsoever that the Book of Mormon is explainable by early 19th century american indian mythology. I have explained why. I provided numerous specific examples and counter argument, all of which you have ignored.

Which examples? All you did was appeal to View of the Hebrews, which I am not talking about. And you have not responded at all to my essay, which shows rather clearly how a lot of the details are indeed explainable by contemporary moundbuilder mythology. If you want to dispute what I wrote, please address what I wrote. Is that too much to ask?

This is where the fallacy of Spanner's argument comes into play as well. He is partially correct that one solid argument could end the whole debate. But you can't claim victory on one argument by appealing to another.

I'm not claiming victory. I'm asking you to support your assertions, which you have steadfastly refused to do.

Each either stands or falls on its own. You do not have a credible argument with regards to mythological source material. Period. You need to either produce a suitable source which really does parallel the Book of Mormon or provide a sound argument for why Joseph Smith would have chosen to piecemeal the available source material to create something like the Book of Mormon.

Again, I'm not arguing for a source. Never have. I'm saying that the historical details in the Book of Mormon dovetail nicely with 19th-century moundbuilder mythology. I think my essay established that quite nicely. That's a different thing from saying that this is "proof" of anything.

Why would Joseph Smith have drawn on current mythology? Because it would make sense to his intended audience, as I have already said.

In addition to the depictions of the indians you also neglect the theological details. The Book of Mormon contains complicated Christian and Jewish themes formulating in a very new understanding of the gospel. Where did this come from? The limited theology in View of the Hebrews is completely different.

Again, please acknowledge that I do not consider View of the Hebrews a "source."

We could have a separate discussion about whether the "theological details" come from ancient sources or current theological debates of the 19th century, but that's not what I'm talking about. Alexander Campbell had some ideas about that.

[_Runtu]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect people to backup their statements.

I backed up mine. My essay is specific and, if I may say so, quite clearly written. I am waiting for you to back up your statements. "It's not in View of the Hebrews" doesn't count.

[_Themis]

You're missing the point, again. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect people to backup their statements. Give them a chance to respond though, no need to be a jackass.

I see you really like to name call. I don't really see you back up much yet so it appears the only way is for people to remind you again and again. I remeber equality doing his little chirp chirp post long before I reminded you.

I have spent a bunch of time here this week as I've had a lot of free time and got sucked in. It will change next week. I'll be back, but not with such frequency. So if you want an answer, you may have to wait days, hope you can handle that.

yes you have spent a lot of time here, indicating you could have responded to these reasonable questions about your assertions. Your posts indicated you were not really going to. Even your newer ones are not really getting there yet. Maybe a start. by the way we waited days for you to even acknowledge people wanted you to back up these assertions.

[_Runtu]

Well, I decimated it and you have nothing to say in reply other than "read it again" so apparently not.

When and how did you decimate it? Your only response was to tell me that "View of the Hebrews" didn't contain those details.

[_Runtu]

Yep. I just reread our exchange, and your only response was to say that, since the Book of Mormon didn't take exactly the same form and features of View of the Hebrews, it must not have been related to moundbuilder mythology. Does that respond to my essay? No. Does it decimate it? Obviously not.

Unsupported assertions are not arguments.

[_Themis]

You like to make authoritative assumptions about things which you know nothing. Do you know my schedule and how I've spent my time? The truth is I arrived solely with interest in discussing The Late War as I found the Johnson's statistical analysis interesting. Side topics arise, and that's good and well, but I was still mostly focused on the original topic. I actually sat down and read most of the book. I've spent a lot of time on this one issue, so forgive me for not abandoning that so you could control the conversation. I'll be sure to get permission from you next time.

I just based it on your posting. On these forum, it is expected that one will back up what they assert. I know people like to assert many things they don't really want challenged.

The late war is interesting. Especially how many connections to the Book of Mormon. It destroys some Fair and farms claimed evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

[_Runtu]

If that's your take away perhaps try reading again. Maybe you're missing the post.

Perhaps you can show me what I'm missing. Last I heard, saying "try reading again" is bad manners, at least if I do it. :)

[_Brad]

Poor Waterdog. He's so enmeshed in the trees of parallels and hits and misses, he can't see the forest. He's trapped in the quicksand of confirmation bias and sinking fast. Someone throw the poor guy a rope.

He's described himself as a lesser informed Jeff Lindsay. i think that says it all.

[_Kishkumen]

I was unaware that the archaeological community had arrived at a place where its view of ancient America is more in line with the Book of Mormon narrative about a small band of Hebrews colonizing America.

Interesting!