DiscussMormonism.com

Interesting discussion going on in that board that can not be named.

The Invisible Geography Model.

This quote sums up the new approach.

"Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology."

Basically the Book of Mormon civilization left nothing behind that would distinguish them from Ancient American civilizations...I find this mind blowing but understandable given the lack of anything that would confirm a nephite or lamanite existence.

I always reply: look for the steel manufacturing, horse utilizing, wheeled chariot producing society with strong Hebrew worship relics.

The dna evidence says : olmecs, mayans and Aztec ain't lamanites.

SteelHead wrote:I always reply: look for the steel manufacturing, horse utilizing, wheeled chariot producing society with strong Hebrew worship relics.

The dna evidence says : olmecs, mayans and Aztec ain't Lamanites.

but your forgetting one important fact. Nephi and company abandoned all useful old world technology once they arrived in the Americas. Nephi saw no value in maintaining the wheel...felt it made work too easy and instead invented the Travois which was able to be drug around much easier on Nephite cement roads then a wheeled vehicle.

SteelHead wrote:I always reply: look for the steel manufacturing, horse utilizing, wheeled chariot producing society with strong Hebrew worship relics.

The dna evidence says : olmecs, mayans and Aztec ain't lamanites.

Apologists are grasping at straws, these days. Even they must know that it is a hopeless argument.

The poor guys have nothing left to offer.

Craig Paxton wrote:Interesting discussion going on in that board that can not be named.

The Invisible Geography Model.

This quote sums up the new approach.

"Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology."

Basically the Book of Mormon civilization left nothing behind that would distinguish them from Ancient American civilizations...I find this mind blowing but understandable given the lack of anything that would confirm a nephite or lamanite existence.

I am so relieved that it is only a bookkeeping error, now I need to contact Dr. Jepson, my neighbor, who would be my current Bishop.

Craig Paxton wrote:

SteelHead wrote:I always reply: look for the steel manufacturing, horse utilizing, wheeled chariot producing society with strong Hebrew worship relics.

The dna evidence says : olmecs, mayans and Aztec ain't Lamanites.

but your forgetting one important fact. Nephi and company abandoned all useful old world technology once they arrived in the Americas. Nephi saw no value in maintaining the wheel...felt it made work too easy and instead invented the Travois which was able to be drug around much easier on Nephite cement roads then a wheeled vehicle.

Well that's that, then.

Now we just need to explain the complete dissimilarity between all known ancient Americas cultures and the proposed Book of Mormon peoples (as described by that book itself), as regards worship, work, general architecture, leisure, agriculture, animals, record keeping, tools, timekeeping and language.

Just remember that nothing in the Book of Mormon means what it says. Horse = tapir, and the explaining is done.

SteelHead wrote:Just remember that nothing in the Book of Mormon means what it says. Horse = tapir, and the explaining is done.

And, "true = false", then?

Well when words have no meainig, as is suggested by the mopologists, then yes. Any word can have whatever meaning you want to assign it to keep your testimony intact.

And that's why I keep posting the Apple Analogy. What is apparent isn't apparent. And what is completely absurd is plausible because... Why not? Everything is subjective, anyway? Right? So, the Church is true!

See?

Too easy.

Don't let facts get in the way, mang.

- Doc