|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 26, 2009 16:55:08 GMT -5
Though this is an excellent example how religions are generally full of shit, it does make me wonder if there are any mormon anthropologists out there. They exist, it's just that at present there's more people going into the social sciences, theology, and linguistics right now. If they exist, name one and post his findings please.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 26, 2009 17:11:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Mar 26, 2009 17:24:41 GMT -5
Wow - running down here to start another thread, Jon? There's places where you'd be called out for trolling for trying to have two discussions going at once for the sake of trying to hammer on an individual member. One, it would have been buried by utter shit in the ongoing thread in R&P, and two, it wasn't created to bait you. He's presenting information. Contrary to what you seem to think, we're not all out to persecute you.
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Mar 26, 2009 17:38:26 GMT -5
Reconstructing pots and cleaning artifacts doesn't get on your nerves? To be fair I have never had to to that; the reconstruction of flint lithics to recreate the original core was tedious. I'm not actually an archaeologist, I just find it interesting and I've taken four semesters of courses. They exist, it's just that at present there's more people going into the social sciences, theology, and linguistics right now. Newsflash, anthropology is a social science.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Mar 26, 2009 17:49:55 GMT -5
Reconstructing pots and cleaning artifacts doesn't get on your nerves? To be fair I have never had to to that; the reconstruction of flint lithics to recreate the original core was tedious. I'm not actually an archaeologist, I just find it interesting and I've taken four semesters of courses. Ah, I did a couple summers of historical archaeology while in college, hoped to do it professionally, but found out I was terrible at it. Cleaning artifacts was fun for me, nobody else seemed to enjoy it that much. But I hated reconstructing pots, just have a big box of potsherds to work from. Suspect it's like reconstructing lithic tools, like trying to do a jigsaw puzzle without the benefit of the box showing you how it's supposed to look.
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Mar 26, 2009 17:53:27 GMT -5
To be fair I have never had to to that; the reconstruction of flint lithics to recreate the original core was tedious. I'm not actually an archaeologist, I just find it interesting and I've taken four semesters of courses. Ah, I did a couple summers of historical archaeology while in college, hoped to do it professionally, but found out I was terrible at it. Cleaning artifacts was fun for me, nobody else seemed to enjoy it that much. But I hated reconstructing pots, just have a big box of potsherds to work from. Suspect it's like reconstructing lithic tools, like trying to do a jigsaw puzzle without the benefit of the box showing you how it's supposed to look. I reckon it is actually a little bit easier than pottery because there is a lot of evidence to be found on the stone itself. Strike marks for example or variations in the flint or obsidian that occur on the surface but not the interior. It is also possible to line up striations and the like. To be more specific, reconstructing a core might be like reconstructing a pot with a distinctive pattern or motif; there are some external clues that help. What I really liked about it was seeing flakes and cores that had been worked on the novices or just plain incompetent people. You see all these strike marks and broken bits but no usable flakes. It's quite hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Mar 26, 2009 17:56:17 GMT -5
Heh, so it was just a ton of debatouge(sp?)?
|
|
|
Post by deliciousdemon on Mar 26, 2009 18:38:36 GMT -5
There would be a few flakes here and there will tons of white pock marks from where the stone was struck multiple, multiple times to obtain a flake. There would be lots of shards and fragments and rubbish as well, so yes lots of debitage
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 26, 2009 19:37:50 GMT -5
I'll get to the rest of your post later as I have time (I need to leave for class soon), but I do want to note this before I go: There is no evidence for any sort of religion that even vaguely resembles Christianity in pre-Columbian Meso-American culture. Wrong.The entire first half of this page here is a recounting of descriptions given by Catholic clergy of instances wherein Native beliefs that they encountered in the Americas bore resemblance to elements of Christian theology. Footnotes are even offered to show source citations. Note that the page is yellow text on a black background, and so people might have trouble reading it. [stuffy British accent]Once more, we see the critic of the church resorting to one of its most instinctive actions when engaged in combat: demeaning the intellect of any and all Mormons. [/stuffy British accent] Shall I start referencing the apologetics websites now? Or would you even bother reading what they had to say? You really are stupid. You lecture about the study of history, and quote stuff from that site. It is laughable. There is NO, repeat NO, evidence in the archeological record of anything that even resembles Christianity. The Mayans, whom the LDS claimed for years were the most probable descendants of the BoM peoples, were shown to NOT be, once their language was deciphered. In fact, their history mentions NOWHERE about Jews, Jesus, Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, and any of the other BoM characters. The "paralells" argument has been shown to be totaly and completely bogus by the archeological evidence. From their religious practices to their burial rituals and everything in between, not a single concept of MesoAmerican religion resembles Christianity in thought or process, and even less resembles the "true" church, Mormonism. You need more than what you posted on the "Wrong" link, dumbass, since not only is there not a single reference to the Mayan laguage, but generally the "evidence" given is total hearsay and is not borne out by the archeological record. As you liked to point out in the other thread, you must consider historical evidence in light of the times it was written in. The conquistadors and their accompanying priests spoke neither the language nor had any inkling of the nature of MesoAmerican religion. In fact, they killed countless thousands of natives as heretics after they baptised them. It is little wonder, a hundred years later, that the objects of the heretical revenge would try to outline "paralells" with the religion that was forced upon them at swordpoint, on pain of being burned alive. Hmmm... Tell me again how you are such a brilliant student of history? Show me some actual, published, peer reviewed research on MesoAmerican archeology that supports the BoM, or even a link to Christianity. You can't because there is none. I don't give a hairy rat's ass what an"apologist" has to say on the matter. Show me published, peer reviewed papers that show any evidence for the veracity of the BoM. You're laughable.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 26, 2009 20:07:20 GMT -5
*giggles* Geosites? Really? Geosites? Dude, that's worse than fucking wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 26, 2009 21:00:27 GMT -5
And remember, those golden plates he used? Ironbite-dissapeared mid-translation. Conflation of two different incidents. There was a brief period where the plates were taken up during the process; this was punishment for him letting go 116 pages of translated text despite being told not to, something that resulted in the pages being lost. The plates were handed back a few months later, and translation continued. Once the work was done and several people had a witness of the plates themselves, they were taken right back up.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 26, 2009 21:01:51 GMT -5
The BoM was written long before the breaking of the Mayan language. JS seems to have based much of his writings (the BoM) on the idea that the original occupiers of North America were the refugees from the Middle East. The archeological evidence says that massive cultures predate the supposed events of the BoM by half a millenium. The Olmec culture and its predecessors, predate the BoM story by at least 500 years. As Julian points out, there is not a single thread of evidence for any of the events in the BoM, and the lack of reference to any of the characters contained in the BoM should dispel the notion that there will ever be any supportive evidence found. The Mayans were, for a time, up until the language was deciphered, touted by apologists as possibly being the culture that resulted from the Nephite-Lamanite split and the destruction of the Nephites. The written record of the Mayas blows this out of the water. Perhaps god will miracle some evidence... If I was to show you any citations from an LDS source, would you believe it? Or would you reject them out-of-hand?
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Mar 26, 2009 21:05:31 GMT -5
The plates were handed back a few months later, and translation continued. Once the work was done and several people had a witness of the plates themselves, they were taken right back up. I have several friends that if asked will swear that I could once fart the theme music to the A-Team and make Unicorns with Leprechaun riders appear each one carrying a two pound bag of the Devils Lettuces. .......but I bet you don't believe that now do you.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 26, 2009 21:09:36 GMT -5
And now that we know enough about those ancient cultures and peoples (helped by modern technology such as DNA analysis) we can safely and correctly say that these native inhabitants were not from the Middle East nor did they have use of the wheel, horses, iron and the like, and that they are in no way what Smith said they were. This nonsense in the BOM should have been abandoned long ago. Rich, J. Milton. The Book of Mormon: Another Witness of Jesus Christ on Trial. ISBN 097266700-8 Rich spends two entire chapters on the issues you've raised, and as part of it noted that, even if one is to regard them as OOPARTs (out-of-place artifacts) such things as horse bones and wheeled toys have been recovered dating from the proper period. As for the iron, other apologists have raised the prospect of meteoric deposits.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 26, 2009 21:10:37 GMT -5
Skyfire, can you show us ANY evidence in the archeological record that doesn't negate the story? I'm posting it as fast as I can pull up the material. It'd have been nice for you to let me know you were starting this thread, though. I only found it because someone pushed it to the top.
|
|