DiscussMormonism.com

On the other board Cinepro started a thread called The Book of Mormon Challenge.
Here is his OP.

In another thread, cdowis made the following observation:


"Even to suggest that [The Book of Mormon] is possibly historical is to admit the possibility of existence of a deity and angels. Atheists can accept parts of the Bible, but it is impossible to give any quarter to a book delivered by an angel.

Even if the Nephites had recorded absolute proof of [The Book of Mormon's] historicity, this is a fool's errand to try to convince the world to even read it, to take it seriously. It is in the realm of religion and cannot be considered as a historical document, as the Smithsonian states."

Well, to be fair, most people couldn't care less about the history of ancient America (meso or heartland), so you're already in the realm of stuff people don't care about. But for those who are interested, what are they missing out on by not accepting the Book of Mormon as an ancient history?

So here's the challenge: suppose you got a phone call from Richard Adams, author of the textbook "Prehistoric Mesoamerica", and he said he was updating his book and wanted to include the information in the Book of Mormon as part of the history in the textbook. What would you tell him to include?

To keep it simple, what would be the five facts about ancient America that would be included in the new version of the textbook based on the historical reading of the Book of Mormon? For the sake of argument, these claims in the textbook will be referenced as "Indisputable Fact", and footnoted as such. This information will be presented as historical truth for the students.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Certainly if this book is historical there should be at least five facts that could be so stated.

Crickets so far.

Fence Sitter wrote:On the other board Cinepro started a thread called The Book of Mormon Challenge.
Here is his OP.

In another thread, cdowis made the following observation:


"Even to suggest that [The Book of Mormon] is possibly historical is to admit the possibility of existence of a deity and angels. Atheists can accept parts of the Bible, but it is impossible to give any quarter to a book delivered by an angel.

Even if the Nephites had recorded absolute proof of [The Book of Mormon's] historicity, this is a fool's errand to try to convince the world to even read it, to take it seriously. It is in the realm of religion and cannot be considered as a historical document, as the Smithsonian states."

Well, to be fair, most people couldn't care less about the history of ancient America (meso or heartland), so you're already in the realm of stuff people don't care about. But for those who are interested, what are they missing out on by not accepting the Book of Mormon as an ancient history?

So here's the challenge: suppose you got a phone call from Richard Adams, author of the textbook "Prehistoric Mesoamerica", and he said he was updating his book and wanted to include the information in the Book of Mormon as part of the history in the textbook. What would you tell him to include?

To keep it simple, what would be the five facts about ancient America that would be included in the new version of the textbook based on the historical reading of the Book of Mormon? For the sake of argument, these claims in the textbook will be referenced as "Indisputable Fact", and footnoted as such. This information will be presented as historical truth for the students.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Certainly if this book is historical there should be at least five facts that could be so stated.

Crickets so far.

1. There are entire sunken cities the Caribbean waters. (somebody put the kibosh on the discovery off Cuba?????) (3 Nephi)
2. The Amazon Basin was filled with water and a far out to sea delta (not really called a delta, I forgot the actual word) of immense size proves that water escaped underground for thousands of years before a collapse opened up the Amazon river. (Book of Mormon we are on an island of the Sea, the entire face of the land was changed. Amazon began to drain after the time of Christ)
3. The Asian ancestry of most Native Americans settled in Peru first in the America's oldest known city culture. (Book of Mormon Jaredites established China before America.)[They were followed by a huge camp who did not make the voyage. Ancient Chinese tradition speaks of a leader obtaining lighted stones from a mountain top.]
4. The city of Zarahemla and the River Sidon (Book of Mormon) are the city of Cajamarca, Peru and the Marana River of Peru.
5. One Book of Mormon city was buried in the sea, three became lakes of water, five were buried in the earth, six were burned with fire. Eight of the Twelve greatest volcanic eruptions of all time took place in the Parana River area of Northern Argentina. These were are so enormous that nothing recent can compare. The Book of Mormon claims all of South America was disrupted by earthquake and whirlwinds and volcanic ash and debris that buried at least five cities. The Patagonia uplift and the drainage of the Amazon may have both taken place at the time of Christ's Crucifixion and made for the catastrophe recorded in the Book of Mormon.
Off the tippy top of my head. Amen.

Cinepro's gambit:

1) Lure an eager-beaver Mopologist into providing five "indisputable" clams of Book of Mormon archaeology.
2) Watch the rest of the Mopologists tear him to shreds.

So Nightlion, how 'bout you go over to the Other board and post your five indisputable claims. I'd love to see how that goes down.

Nightlion, you may be interested in this article about the possibility that the Amazon basin is man-made and other interesting information about native civilizations.

The Dude wrote:... eager-beaver Mopologist ...

I like this site. The best place to learn the language.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=beaver
1. beaver
another word for vagina or pussy

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ger+beaver
1. Eager Beaver
A girl, usually ranging in age from 14 to 21 who is very interested and ancious to explore her sexual promiscuity. Often times regarded as an easy hookup.


Before this, for me the word "beaver" was a synonym of "dam builder".
[#img] http://wumocomicstrip.com/img/strip/Bea ... 110401.jpg[#img] (real beavers, no pussy - You can open it without risk...)

The Dude wrote:Cinepro's gambit:

1) Lure an eager-beaver Mopologist into providing five "indisputable" clams of Book of Mormon archaeology.
2) Watch the rest of the Mopologists tear him to shreds.

So Nightlion, how 'bout you go over to the Other board and post your five indisputable claims. I'd love to see how that goes down.

My ultimate point was to show just how successful apologists have been at neutering the Book of Mormon.

Once they realized they weren't going to find the Book of Mormon in the "dirt" (i.e. artifacts and anthropology), they changed tack to try and find the "dirt" in the Book of Mormon. That has worked well to argue for the plausibility of the Book of Mormon (giving believers the mental "space" to believe), but it has made the Book of Mormon totally useless for understanding the ancient American peoples.

It's like that scene in "Get Shorty" where the gangster Bo is trying to convince Chili that they should produce a movie together. Bo argues to convince Chili how easy it is, at which point Chili responds "Then what do I need you for?"

Likewise, apologists do a great job arguing that mesoamerica is in the Book of Mormon, but to a non-LDS researcher, the logical response is "What do I need the Book of Mormon for?" They already know there were Mayans and Olmecs and macuahuitls and tapirs. They don't need the Book of Mormon to tell them that.

cinepro wrote:My ultimate point was to show just how successful apologists have been at neutering the Book of Mormon.

Once they realized they weren't going to find the Book of Mormon in the "dirt" (i.e. artifacts and anthropology), they changed tack to try and find the "dirt" in the Book of Mormon. That has worked well to argue for the plausibility of the Book of Mormon (giving believers the mental "space" to believe), but it has made the Book of Mormon totally useless for understanding the ancient American peoples.

It's like that scene in "Get Shorty" where the gangster Bo is trying to convince Chili that they should produce a movie together. Bo argues to convince Chili how easy it is, at which point Chili responds "Then what do I need you for?"

Likewise, apologists do a great job arguing that mesoamerica is in the Book of Mormon, but to a non-LDS researcher, the logical response is "What do I need the Book of Mormon for?" They already know there were Mayans and Olmecs and macuahuitls and tapirs. They don't need the Book of Mormon to tell them that.

I saw a faithful LDS argument that rejected Chis Smith's article on the Dependendence of Abraham 1:1-3 on the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammer by accusing him of reverse engineering his results. My thought at the times was "well there goes all the physical 'evidence' for the Book of Mormon."

The Dude wrote:Cinepro's gambit:

1) Lure an eager-beaver Mopologist into providing five "indisputable" clams of Book of Mormon archaeology.
2) Watch the rest of the Mopologists tear him to shreds.

So Nightlion, how 'bout you go over to the Other board and post your five indisputable claims. I'd love to see how that goes down.

The entire reason FAIR began was to exclude me from their sandbox as I so easily dominated them back in the days of ARM. Thus was if fulfilled that "they shut their mouths at him." Any wiff of me gets me immediately put out of doors.

That guy against whom the world shuts their mouths is NOT Christ as even Christ prophesied of him coming in the days of the Gentiles. They shall not harm him means that it was NOT Joseph Smith by the way.
3 Nephi 21:8-10
8 And when that day shall come, it shall come to pass that kings shall shut their mouths; for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
9 For in that day, for my sake shall the Father work a work, which shall be a great and a marvelous work among them; and there shall be among them those who will not believe it, although a man shall declare it unto them.
10 But behold, the life of my servant shall be in my hand; therefore they shall not hurt him, although he shall be marred because of them. Yet I will heal him, for I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.

I do wish it were somebody else, my being so bad at it for forty years, being marred because of them. Oh well. But, it's is me because I am up there with all the rest of the great on The Apocalrock and that quite prominently so. lol man howdy!

Spanner wrote:Nightlion, you may be interested in this article about the possibility that the Amazon basin is man-made and other interesting information about native civilizations.

Thanks, it was worth reading. I knew already about the mounds and canals in the Bolivian Amazon. The delta on the Orinoco River of Venezuela suggests a high water mark drainage of the Amazon Basin. Certainly the Book of Mormon Sea East was nothing like the open ocean. It would not have a benchmark like Lake Bonneville in the American West. Here the lake was at a certain level maintained at two and possibly three consistent levels until evaporation ebbed on down to the Great Salt Lake presently consistent level. In the Amazon the rainfall and snow melt would never allow for a lake level consistent over time enough to leave the Benchmark effect.

The underwater fan the extends out into the Atlantic is the best "tell" that the Amazon River is a recent occurrence in geological time. Therefore I accept that as proof that the Amazon Basin was mostly filled with water during most of the Book of Mormon time.