Smart Ash - Do these idiots have no shame

[_Joey]

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/2101 ... -of-Mormon

WTF - this is absolute idiocy!!!!!!

[_Joseph]

per mr ash: "How sad it would be to reject the restored gospel because of secular finds that could be proven invalid or false in the future."
**************************

Sure is nice to know the spiritual confirmation is the way to go. That is what so many got when Paul Dunn spoke. That spirit guy is such a solid point of reference for the truth.

As for NHM, are you sure it is not an old sign from a straight bar that means NoHoMo's?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Why does this suprise and outrage you?

[_Polygamy-Porter]

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/21010/Many-interconnected-pieces-of-evidence-support-the-Book-of-Mormon

WTF - this is absolute idiocy!!!!!!

It makes perfect sense if you have a need to continue to believe.

[_Gadianton]

I noted these cautions not because I don’t believe there is archaeological or anthropological evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon or in an effort to denigrate science,

That much I buy, but he needs some help with the next part:

I noted these cautions not because I don’t believe there is archaeological or anthropological evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon or in an effort to denigrate science, but to ensure the Book of Mormon never takes a hit; if science ever contradicts the Book of Mormon, it's because either the description contradicted or the science contradicting lacks rigor or is tentative.

[Guest]

Bro. Ash wrote:

I noted these cautions not because I don’t believe there is archaeological or anthropological evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon or in an effort to denigrate science, but because the topic needs to be approached with the best scientific rigor possible and not from a position of naïve misconception.

Dear Bro Ash,

The best scientific rigor possible has been applied, by the best scientists available to do so, from the some of the best funded and scientifically credible institutions on the face of the earth. In case you are not aware of their conclusions, I have reproduced their written statements on the matter for your edification:

Letter from 1988:

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20560

Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Smithsonian's Department of Anthropology.

The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. Accurate information about the Smithsonian's position is contained in the enclosed "Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon," which was prepared to respond to the numerous inquiries that the Smithsonian receives on this topic.

Because the Smithsonian regards the unauthorized use of its name to disseminate inaccurate information as unlawful, we would appreciate your assistance in providing us with the names of any individuals who are misusing the Smithsonian's name. Please address any correspondence to:

Public Information Officer
Department of Anthropology
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560

PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

STATEMENT REGARDING THE Book of Mormon

1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book.

2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World--probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age--in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago.

3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of North America around A.D. 1000 and then settled in Greenland. There is nothing to show that they reached Mexico or Central America.

4. One of the main lines of evidence supporting the scientific finding that contacts with Old World civilizations, if indeed they occurred at all, were of very little significance for the development of American Indian civilizations, is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time when the early big game hunters spread across the Americas.)

But Mormons like yourself, who seem blissfully unaware of the science, keep on asking so another statement was issued, this time by the National Geographic Society in 1996:

Thank you for contacting the National Geographic Society. Our position on the Book of Mormon has not changed, nor have we retracted any statements made previously.

The National Geographic Society has not examined the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. We know of no archaeological evidence that corroborates the ancient history of the Western Hemisphere as presented in the Book of Mormon, nor are we aware of empirical verification of the places named in the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon is clearly a work of great spiritual power; millions have read and revered its words, first published by Joseph Smith in 1830. Yet Smith's narration is not generally taken as a scientific source for the history of the Americas. Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past, and the Society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon. In fact, students of prehistoric America by and large conclude that the New World's earliest inhabitants arrived from Asia via the Bering land bridge. (Lower sea levels during ice ages exposed the continental shelf beneath Bering Strait, allowing generations of ancient Siberians to migrate east.) National Geographic carried "The First Americans" in its September 1979 issue, perhaps on your library's shelf.

You have every right to talk about faith and unfounded belief because that is your job. You have no standing whatsoever to talk about science or scientific research. This should be self-evident from your lack of any scientific credentials, and it is certainly evident from your misguided statements regarding science and the scientific enterprise.

Sincerely,
DrW

[_Joseph]

Golly guys, don't you understand the Smithsonian uses the Book of Mormon for informatin on the peoples and locations of the former inhabitants of the Americas?

[_Simon Belmont]

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/21010/Many-interconnected-pieces-of-evidence-support-the-Book-of-Mormon

WTF - this is absolute idiocy!!!!!!

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18558

[_jon]

Another week goes by...
Another Ash apology for the complete absence of physical support for the fictional work about the literal...errr...principle...errr...those folks who might have been among the ancestors of the Native Americans but who might now have been in South America crammed into a remote, small, previously un-searched peninsula.

'That Hill Cumorah has gotta be around here somewhere...'
(Ash - 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011...)

[_moksha]

Mike Ash is doing a service for those who feel a need to grasp at straws. He should be recognized and appreciated for that effort.