|
Post by skyfire on Mar 27, 2009 19:21:17 GMT -5
A basic cultural anthroplogy class would deal with the entire thing. It goes over the archaeological record of North and Central America in fully documented detail. I've had a basic anth course; it didn't say too terribly much about specific cultures as a whole, although that could have been due to the book selected (the authors went into at least one pet peeve a chapter, with the chapter on gender and sexuality being almost unreadable after a certain point). Even the odd Mormon biker I've met still let fly at times.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 27, 2009 19:21:46 GMT -5
It would also appear that you are the only one who does such things, given my experiences with Mormons spans the US. They're all the same, and the indoctrination principles are all the same. You might fancy yourself a maverick, but it proves nothing about the way your Church officially does things.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 27, 2009 19:24:32 GMT -5
A basic cultural anthroplogy class would deal with the entire thing. It goes over the archaeological record of North and Central America in fully documented detail. I've had a basic anth course; it didn't say too terribly much about specific cultures as a whole, although that could have been due to the book selected (the authors went into at least one pet peeve a chapter, with the chapter on gender and sexuality being almost unreadable after a certain point). You had a cultural anthropology class on MesoAmerica and you didn't discuss specific cultures? Then you didn't take a cultural anthropology course unless you were taking a "methods" class, which would not go into specific cultures except by example. If that was not the case, and you signed up for Northern and Central American cultural anthropological studies and no one told you of the Mississippi period, the Olmec or anything like that, you should pursue getting your money back. And your point is? Saying something is fucking stupid doesn't mean it's any less stupid because "fuck" is in front of it.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 27, 2009 19:28:57 GMT -5
Produce evidence to show the truth of the BoM, or leave, simple, no? You yourself have already stated that unless any evidence I put forth meets your exacting requirements you won't bother touching it. Yet you yourself were also calling me out on page 2 despite not having mentioned to me anywhere else that you were even starting this thread in the first place. Thus, you've set it up so that nothing I ever post will be good enough yet any perceived failure on my part to respond will be automatically regarded by yourself as an instant victory. If this was me doing it to you, I'd be hearing complaints about me stacking the deck or moving goalposts right now. This, of course, leads me to question if your own personal research is as definitive as you claim it to be; the previous critics I've seen who have acted in such a fashion did so because they knew their research had some sort of flaw and thus put on a bluff to try and keep people from digging too deeply. That you've begun to increasingly rely on obscenities and less on actual citations doesn't help your case any. And speaking of citations, all the way back on the first page you alleged that BYU's archeological efforts have all failed. Yet here we are, page 8, and you've not put up the first bit of proof. By your own standard, you've faltered and should leave.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 27, 2009 19:30:57 GMT -5
It was, however, enough to bug the hell out of the priests. Thus, Jon's claims that there's not a single trace of Christian theology isn't as solid as he would like for them to seem. As I said, those sources are very old. One must consider the conditions and times extant when those accounts originated. The priests that accompanied the Conquistadors had no experience outside of their own religious context. They would find superficial paralells where no real paralell existed. It is all about their frame of reference. They did not speak the native language, except through interpreters, for the most part. They forcefully converted the natives, often killing them afterwards to ensure that they wouldn't backslide. This was a common practice, particlulary for the Spaniards. Fear of death is a strong motivator for natives and their interpreters to not be completely forthcoming in their answers to inquiries about their religion to the priests, who were their conquerers, essentially. Combine the fear of the priests by the natives, the language barriers, the complete culture disorientation of the priests and it is unsurprising that the priests found paralells. This doesn't alter the fact that the archeological evidence refutes this claim, as it does the claims of the BoM. The Mayan glyphs, which correspond roughly with the BoM story timeline, are absolutely silent on ANY of the events that take place in said book. The glyphs also show a fairly comprehensive history of the Mayans and their rulers, whose language bears no resemblence to any Indo-European language. Are we to believe that a Hebrew speaking group completely lost their language and culture and any reference to holy writ in the space of perhaps 1500 years, and learn or create a whole new language in that time frame and leave not one whit of evidence of it ever being used in the region? It beggars the imagination, truly. \ Unrefuted.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 27, 2009 19:31:34 GMT -5
JonE's "exacting requirements" are no different from what is required to be considered scholarly work in any academic discipline, which you should know as a former tutor. Peer reviewed and verified work is the standard.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 27, 2009 19:32:40 GMT -5
And by the way, what's wrong with bikers? **Polishes ride** We cuss too much for the little candyass. **removes bug splatterd jacket and helmet** He'd cuss too if he ever caught a Junebug in the throat riding something faster than a moped.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 27, 2009 19:34:24 GMT -5
Also, think about this. If "Old World" people colonized Mesoamerica, why were there large-scale infections amongst the natives, brought by the Spaniards. If the antescedents of N.American natives were indeed, at least in part, "Lamanites", who would have been immune to Old World diseases, as well as carriers. Why is there no archeological evidence of widespread disease prior to the Spaniards. The Great Plague killed 10% of Europe. The plagues of smallpox, influenza, syphillis and so on, were unknown in Mesoamerica, indeed, throughout the pre-Columbian Americas. It has been estimated that up to 90% of the native population died out in many areas, and the average death rate as high as 50%. There is no pre-Columbian evidence of mass death by epidemic. There is evidence for death by starvation, but none for epidemic. This is a strange paradox, actually, considering that if there were inhabitants in the Americas, they would have been decimated or worse by old world disease epidemics, had Old World colonizers arrived. Conversely, there were massive epidemics, rampant amonst the N. American natives, often preceding the actual first contact by decades. What I mean by that statement, because it is clear, but a little foggy, is that the epidemics that proceeded from the first contact points along the Atlantic coast, proceeded inland without further need of infection from actual contact with Old World people. There is no evidence of this in the archeological record. Ignored.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 27, 2009 19:35:45 GMT -5
This doesn't alter the fact that the archeological evidence refutes this claim, as it does the claims of the BoM. The Mayan glyphs, which correspond roughly with the BoM story timeline, are absolutely silent on ANY of the events that take place in said book. The glyphs also show a fairly comprehensive history of the Mayans and their rulers, whose language bears no resemblence to any Indo-European language. The glyphs and their contents are also usually described in a basic book on cultural anthropology of MesoAmerica. Two great places to start, Sky, would be Images of the Past by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman and P rehistory of the Americas, by Stuart J. Fiedel. These are representative texts from any cultural anthropology class on MesoAmerican cultures and the artifacts and historical record they left behind. Edited to add: These books also back up the percentages and issues JonE raised in the other post he quoted above.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Mar 27, 2009 19:39:58 GMT -5
Mind your manners, please. You don't get to lecture others on proper conduct. Nothing in the post was out of line or character for this board. There is no moral high ground here.
Consider YOURSELF warned. You are not a mod. I am. If you have a poblem with the way you are spoken to, then address that concern to a mod.
Besides, scolding him is just an evasion tactic.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 27, 2009 19:41:49 GMT -5
Thank you, DV.
I refuse to give citations for information that even a basic course in athropology would make self-evident. I assumed that we were all talking from the same perspective, and that basic information that I outlined would be considered "common knowledge" to even a laymen with a mediocre interest in the subject. I will continue to make that assumption.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Mar 27, 2009 19:44:09 GMT -5
A basic cultural anthroplogy class would deal with the entire thing. It goes over the archaeological record of North and Central America in fully documented detail. I've had a basic anth course; it didn't say too terribly much about specific cultures as a whole, although that could have been due to the book selected (the authors went into at least one pet peeve a chapter, with the chapter on gender and sexuality being almost unreadable after a certain point). Even the odd Mormon biker I've met still let fly at times. Do you even know the difference between "anthropology" and "cultural anthropology?" Did you even know there was a difference?
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 27, 2009 19:43:57 GMT -5
Thank you, Sandman.
I was mostly trying to overlook his "tactics" and had hoped that this was obvious to readers. I appreciate the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 27, 2009 19:44:39 GMT -5
You can continue to do so, because even an internet "layman" knows how to use fucking Google to find out more. You don't even need the books. (Those are good ones, though!)
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Mar 27, 2009 19:47:31 GMT -5
Since when are "unbiased sources," "empirical evidence," and "scholarship" too "exacting" of a standard for discussion?
|
|