Amazing new Book of Mormon Evidence!!!!!

[_Bond...James Bond]

Hello silly person...oops sorry beastie :-)

I read that thread....it made my brain hurt. They have no idea how ridiculous they appear on that board. I've pretty much given up reading it (due to the migraines and stupidity overload it forces upon my senses)...but I searched it out and have to say that Juliann's flailing around with the "critics think everything has been found" is the dumbest sounding horn to ever be tooted....and she won't stop playing the damn thing.

[_ajax18]

Beastie in your opinion how much has DNA evidence and recent discovery strengthened the argument against the Book of Mormon historicity. I grew up in the 80s and it was very common for people to stand at the pulpit and bring up different archaeological evidence in support of the Book of Mormon. I have not heard such claims for as long as I can remember seeing as I still have to go to Church weekly. If the old archaeological evidence was just as compelling, the Mormon Church didn't seem nearly as afraid of it as the current research.

Some people say that the Book of Abraham problems are worse and that the Church has gone through worse than proof that the Book of Mormon is not historical. I just can't conceive it. I can't see how the Church would survive if this conclusion became as scientifically sound as say any evolution or other new discoveries that challenged false beliefs.

I think proof that leaders are in fact fallible men has forced the Church leadership to loosen its grip upon the members to an extent, but perhaps I'm wrong. What do you think?

[_beastie]

DNA evidence, as well as contradictory archaeological evidence, have ensured the death knoll for the formerly largely accepted hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon. Apologists pretty much admit as much. John Clark said that LGT is the last hope in his BYU devotional:

Well, for example, you had this flap about DNA recently. ... The DNA question is never going to be a problem. It only works one way, and in our favor. But the only reason that it looked like a flap or a problem is because they say: Well, Mormons believe (first of all they tell us what we believe) Mormons believe that all Indians in North and South America descended from these people who came over that are described in the Book of Mormon. I grew up believing that—but that's false, that's absolutely wrong.
And so once you say there were other people here, you say: OK, where were the Nephites, and how many more people were here. We have all kinds of other DNA signatures to worry about all of a sudden. It may be that we never find any Hebrew DNA (whatever that looks like) in the New World. ... But if we do find some, that's fine; if we don't find some, that's fine too. There's no way that negative evidence on that hurts the Book of Mormon whatsoever once you believe in a limited geography. If you believe in a global geography, you're basically done, toasted, game over.

So DNA and growing understanding of ancient America has certainly forced the "intelligentsia" of the LDS church to change strategies and overwhelmingly embrace LGT.

in my opinion, LGT is demanding in that it demands a complete "re-writing", so to speak, of what the Book of Mormon actually means. It may talk about a huge civilization, an empire that controlled far flung polities, but that's not what it REALLY means. It really is talking about such a small group of people they had no effect on the larger culture AT ALL.

This is a very difficult sale, but it is one that apologists, and, eventually leaders, are going to be forced to make in the future. Right now there is enough ignorance about ancient America and DNA issues that leaders can get away with largely ignoring the issue, but they won't be able to continue the "head in the sand" routine. But, yes, I think it is significant that there has been a movement away from "faith inspiring" talks that dwell on archaeological findings.

[_beastie]

Hello silly person...oops sorry beastie :-)

I read that thread....it made my brain hurt. They have no idea how ridiculous they appear on that board. I've pretty much given up reading it (due to the migraines and stupidity overload it forces upon my senses)...but I searched it out and have to say that Juliann's flailing around with the "critics think everything has been found" is the dumbest sounding horn to ever be tooted....and she won't stop playing the damn thing.

She rarely lets go of her favorite cliches, but why should we expect her to? Meaningless cliches that she cannot support are about the extent of her abilities.

This bit about critics formerly claiming there was NO METALLURGY at all in ancient america, and now having to restate that to "none in the correct time period" is truly a new level of stupidity. Everyone with even a cursory level of education about American history knows, for example, that gold lust was a major impetus in conquering the New World. But even aside from that elemental level of knowledge, I simply have never seen a critic make this claim.

I went back as far as 2004 and found a lengthy thread devoted to the metallurgy problem in the Book of Mormon, and no critic made such a claim. In fact, we referenced material that explained WHEN metallurgy actually did develop in Mesoamerica.

You would think that, after the years of dealing with Juliann, I would stop expecting her to actually process what critics really are saying, versus what she wishes they would say.

Old Metallurgy Conversation on ZLMB:

http://p079.ezboard.com/fpacumenispages ... =1&stop=20

[_beastie]

I read that thread....it made my brain hurt. They have no idea how ridiculous they appear on that board. I've pretty much given up reading it (due to the migraines and stupidity overload it forces upon my senses)...but I searched it out and have to say that Juliann's flailing around with the "critics think everything has been found" is the dumbest sounding horn to ever be tooted....and she won't stop playing the damn thing.

No kidding. Obviously they have no idea how ridiculous they appear, otherwise Charity wouldn't talk about persuasive logic, for example. And Juliann wouldn't talk about "silly people" revising their statements and changing benchmarks. But I long ago realized that Juliann is the least self-transparent individual I have ever met. She wouldn't recognize herself if she were posting to herself. ;)

[_Bond...James Bond]

No kidding. Obviously they have no idea how ridiculous they appear, otherwise Charity wouldn't talk about persuasive logic, for example. And Juliann wouldn't talk about "silly people" revising their statements and changing benchmarks. But I long ago realized that Juliann is the least self-transparent individual I have ever met. She wouldn't recognize herself if she were posting to herself. ;)

I guess dealing with Juliann is the Cross critics bear.

[_Runtu]

This is getting rich.

Juliann's latest claim about what the "silly people" do:

So they have to move from no metallurgy/smelting/whatever to no whatever in MesoAmerica during the Book of Mormon timeline.

Of course, I can't recall a single critic - whoops, I mean "silly person" - ever claim that there was no metallurgy/smelting/whatever in Mesoamerica.

This is proof positive that Juliann doesn't really read what critics write - she reads what she has decided, in their minds, the critics are saying.

Runtu, you're over there talking to her about this. Challenge her to produce evidence of the "silly people" saying what she has just attributed to them.

I've said repeatedly that I haven't heard anyone say what she's attributing to the critics. But, if you want me to get into a tit-for-tat with Juliann about what someone else did or did not say, I will politely decline.

[_Blixa]

It's pointless. The whole thread revolves around an emply pit: no one is making the arguments that are attributed to "the antis" or "the exmos." And when someone points that out, the response is, "I didin't mean you, I meant those other antis/exmos..."

Sheesh.

[_Runtu]

It's pointless. The whole thread revolves around an emply pit: no one is making the arguments that are attributed to "the antis" or "the exmos." And when someone points that out, the response is, "I didin't mean you, I meant those other antis/exmos..."

Sheesh.

Exactly. I don't see the point.

[_beastie]

Yes, you're right, there is no point. What harm is there in letting people bask in ill-merited self-satisfaction. Life can be hard, maybe that's all they've got.