Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Where is the archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    [ATTACH=CONFIG]1924[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]1925[/ATTACH]

    I knew I recognised that name. Took me all this time to remember.
    I know how to land.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      It's the last ditch attempt to score cheap points when he knows he has been completely decimated.
      It just makes him look petty and dumb as a sack of hammers.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #48
        7up: Again more assumptions.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        No it isn't. It is simple fire science. In order to melt limestone, a very high heat source with very directed heat escape is necessary. Your ignorant squirming aside.
        You don't know anything about it. Limestone does not "melt". It decomposes at 900 degrees.

        7up: You assume that different burning materials (whether they be twisted or not) could not be used.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        It's no an assumption. Limestone has a pretty fixed melting point (even impure limestone like they have in Belize), and only specific configurations of timber are capable of achieving that level of heat for the duration of time necessary to melt the limestone. Claiming otherwise is just plain foolishness.
        It does not have to be a specific configuration of timber. A furnace can achieve the desired conditions.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        You also get to conveniently hide behind the fact that there is no "official" book of Mormon land location to even compare supposed methods to, so you get to sit behind the fable and snipe based on differences in real world locations that had different materials to work with.
        This is true that we do not know exactly where, but I fully expect that we will. The very fact that there are differences in real world locations is precisely why I argue against your faulty assumptions.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        No I am not. What I AM claiming is that the concrete that you and the hacks at FAIR love to bandy about WAS created like that, and any archaeologist who knows anything about the area and time knows that.
        Wrong Bill. You misrepresent the argument made. Critics of the LDS church said that concrete/cement did not exist in the Americas AT ALL. They were absolutely incorrect. We can cite many different kinds of cement used in the Americas. The point is that as time continues and archeology advances, the Book of Mormon has and will continue demonstrate itself to be more convincing, not less. This is a testimony to its truthfulness. Here is an example from FAIR:

        It is claimed that the Nephites in the land northward building out of cement in Helaman 3:7-11 (circa 47 B.C.) is not valid. As John L. Smith put the claim, "There is zero archaeological evidence that any kind of cement existed in the Americas prior to modern times" (Smith, 8).

        The examples found in mesoamerica are cited as examples of a more developed product:

        While the earliest known samples are from the first century A.D., scholars believe that "their degree of perfection could not have been instantaneously created, but rather would have required a considerable period of development" before then. Hyman asks, "Were these materials invented by indigenous unnamed people far preceding the occupation of Teotihuacan, or were they introduced by an exotic culture." In its references to "cement," the Book of Mormon anticipates what has now been well established.[1]

        So Bill, how long did it take to develop cement? What primitive methods did they use when developing this product over perhaps hundreds of years and what methods developed in various locations in the Americas?

        7up: Furthermore, when Joseph Smith translated to the word, "cement" the definition at that time was much more loose than the modern technical sense that you attempt to use here.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        So, that brings up other issues, such as why Grant, and FAIR, love to claim that the cement in Mexico and Belize is corroborating evidence for the Book of Mormon. If the "cement" isn't really "cement", but was actually something like stucco or terracotta, why claim that there was real cement used in the temple complexes?
        Because there are SO MANY examples of cement that LDS can point to, that no critic can possibly claim that "cement" is anachronistic. EVEN IF you try to claim that it must be a modern technical version of "cement", then that is a very good possibility as well because those products were being developed in the Americas as well.

        Here is another example for how the argument is laid out on pro-Book of Mormon websites:

        Concrete in the Book of Mormon: The noun concrete could not appear in the Book of Mormon because it didn't exist in the English language until 1834, four years after the book was published. Up until that first appearance as a noun it existed as an adjective only.[5]
        Cement use in Mesoamerica: Today we know that lime based cement was a common material used in ancient America for mortar, stucco, and what we now define as concrete. The most famous archeological sites where cement was used are the cities of Teotihuacan and El Tajin.


        As you can see, those examples of "famous archeological sites" are given, however, that does not mean that the cement mentioned in Helaman is exactly the same as what was used at those sites. So, you have misrepresented the point that LDS apologists are making.

        7up: Perhaps you can claim that the man was not as "learned" as he claimed to be. But, calling President Grant a liar make YOU look to be the one with just a big axe of bias to grind.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        No it doesn't. When the evidence is laid out, it is Grant who is found wanting. He made a bold claim about some anonymous man who supposedly had "received a doctor's degree" making a claim about Mesoamerican archaeology that was completely false, and had been for decades before Grant was even born. While it may, or may not, have been a lie, it was certainly either an exaggeration or grandstanding by Grant.
        It was not "common knowledge" Bill. More importantly, the Book of Mormon was published in 1830. The book you cite was based on a journey made in 1839 and was not published until 1845. The story by Grant is entirely believable, because many people remained unaware of cement in the Americas, which is why critics of the LDS church attempted to claim that it was anachronistic even loooong after 1845 when that book was published. Even 13 years ago when I began investigating the LDS church, it was a criticism of the Book of Mormon that I read on anti-Mormon websites I was researching before I even joined this religion.

        Anti-Mormons are infamous for using arguments that have been debunked long, long ago.

        -7up

        Comment


        • #49
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
            7up: Again more assumptions.



            You don't know anything about it. Limestone does not "melt". It decomposes at 900 degrees.
            It technically "bakes". I'd take the time to describe the process, but such diligence is lost on your moronic hair splitting. While I used an imprecise term, the point remains. A specific configuration of timber is necessary to generate the 800-900 degrees C heat to produce the CaO powder that is used to make the cement. And archaeologists know what type of blast furnace configuration the Mayans used.

            7up: You assume that different burning materials (whether they be twisted or not) could not be used.



            It does not have to be a specific configuration of timber. A furnace can achieve the desired conditions.
            Well, how 'bout that! You know more than Mesoamerican archaeologists! When are you picking up your Nobel Prize?



            This is true that we do not know exactly where, but I fully expect that we will.
            An d I fully expect they won't because Joseph made it all up.

            The very fact that there are differences in real world locations is precisely why I argue against your faulty assumptions.
            You use fabricated arguments that have as little basis in reality as the fictional Book of Mormon. Face it, 7, Joseph said there was a shortage of timber, yet he claimed they had plenty of cement to make houses despite timber being necessary to make that cement. He was ignorant, and you lap up his lies like a street dog at a buffet.



            Wrong Bill. You misrepresent the argument made.
            No I don't. You and your ilk claim that the existence of cement in Mesoamerica is archaeological proof that the events in the Book of Mormon were plausible. I am continuing to show that the two situations are completely different. One had plenty of material to make cement while the other lacks the basic method to make it.

            Critics of the LDS church said that concrete/cement did not exist in the Americas AT ALL.
            So what? They were ignorant too, then.

            They were absolutely incorrect. We can cite many different kinds of cement used in the Americas.
            But none of them can support the supposed events of the Book of Mormon

            The point is that as time continues and archeology advances, the Book of Mormon has and will continue demonstrate itself to be more convincing, not less.
            No. Not even a little. The more we find in Belize and Mexico, the more we realize that there was no civilization with an army 10 times the size of the largest Mayan city's overall population. Face it. This is not the place.

            This is a testimony to its truthfulness.
            No it isn't. It's a coincidence that has been shoehorned by Mormon apologists via the vague references in the BOM that allow you to hide behind the "we don't know exactly where it was".

            Here is an example from FAIR:

            It is claimed that the Nephites in the land northward building out of cement in Helaman 3:7-11 (circa 47 B.C.) is not valid. As John L. Smith put the claim, "There is zero archaeological evidence that any kind of cement existed in the Americas prior to modern times" (Smith, 8).
            Again, anyone claiming that is ignorant. So, set up the ignorant claim and knock it over all you like. It doesn't change the fact that cement use in Mesoamerica was well known to anyone with a passing knowledge of archaeology at the time that Grant was born.


            The examples found in mesoamerica are cited as examples of a more developed product:

            While the earliest known samples are from the first century A.D., scholars believe that "their degree of perfection could not have been instantaneously created, but rather would have required a considerable period of development" before then. Hyman asks, "Were these materials invented by indigenous unnamed people far preceding the occupation of Teotihuacan, or were they introduced by an exotic culture." In its references to "cement," the Book of Mormon anticipates what has now been well established.[1]

            So Bill, how long did it take to develop cement?
            Completely irrelevant. This is just an exercise in smoke screening. The fact remains that the Mayans used cement and had the timber to make it. They were also ignorant of any fictional Book of Mormon people. It's no more evidence than a pot from Alexandria is proof of the existence of Atlantis based on Plato saying Atlanteans used pots.

            What primitive methods did they use when developing this product over perhaps hundreds of years and what methods developed in various locations in the Americas?
            Yet another attempt to hide behind the "It's somewhere, so I get to use everywhere" shtick. And no archaeologist outside your brainwashed group of stooges buys it.

            7up: Furthermore, when Joseph Smith translated to the word, "cement" the definition at that time was much more loose than the modern technical sense that you attempt to use here.



            Because there are SO MANY examples of cement that LDS can point to, that no critic can possibly claim that "cement" is anachronistic.
            Cement without timber is. And that is what you are conveniently dodging.

            EVEN IF you try to claim that it must be a modern technical version of "cement", then that is a very good possibility as well because those products were being developed in the Americas as well.
            No one is claiming that. Mayan cement was made a certain way, and that way was impossible with the conditions described in Helaman.

            Here is another example for how the argument is laid out on pro-Book of Mormon websites:

            Concrete in the Book of Mormon: The noun concrete could not appear in the Book of Mormon because it didn't exist in the English language until 1834, four years after the book was published. Up until that first appearance as a noun it existed as an adjective only.[5]


            The Book of Mormon does not contain the word "concrete", so this part is a red herring. The word "Cement" (Which IS in the Book of Mormon) exists as a noun in the Dictionary of the English language by Samuel Johnson (1768, 3rd edition), and Table Alphabetically by Robert Crawdrey (1604): the first English dictionary.

            Cement use in Mesoamerica: Today we know that lime based cement was a common material used in ancient America for mortar, stucco, and what we now define as concrete. The most famous archeological sites where cement was used are the cities of Teotihuacan and El Tajin.
            So, are you using this to make the positive claim that the BOM lands were in Mesoamerica? Or is this another "Proof of Atlantis" type claim?

            As you can see, those examples of "famous archeological sites" are given, however, that does not mean that the cement mentioned in Helaman is exactly the same as what was used at those sites. So, you have misrepresented the point that LDS apologists are making.
            There is no real point they are making other than "They had cement, the Nephites had cement" and they think that is evidence for the Book of Mormon. It's a pathetic smokescreen.

            7up: Perhaps you can claim that the man was not as "learned" as he claimed to be. But, calling President Grant a liar make YOU look to be the one with just a big axe of bias to grind.



            It was not "common knowledge" Bill.
            Yes it was. John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood's book was widely circulated in the US and England within a year of it being published, and it became the textbook for several colleges within a decade, which would have been well before Grant was born.

            More importantly, the Book of Mormon was published in 1830. The book you cite was based on a journey made in 1839 and was not published until 1845.
            So what? I've already shown that the term was used in the dictionary over a century before Joseph was born. Englishman, Joseph Aspdin patented Portland cement in 1824 just hours from Joseph Smith's house.

            The story by Grant is entirely believable, because many people remained unaware of cement in the Americas,
            But, again, he purposefully did not say anything about the identity or actual credentials of this supposed "learned doctor", so he could not be refuted. He was grandstanding for his flock.

            which is why critics of the LDS church attempted to claim that it was anachronistic even loooong after 1845 when that book was published. Even 13 years ago when I began investigating the LDS church, it was a criticism of the Book of Mormon that I read on anti-Mormon websites I was researching before I even joined this religion.
            So, stupid parrots repeat stupid claims without investigating them. Big deal. And you bought the smokescreen, hook, line, and stinker.

            Anti-Mormons are infamous for using arguments that have been debunked long, long ago.
            And Mormons are famous for inventing parallels, using vague innuendos, and general gullibility. Oh, and thorough brainwashing.
            Last edited by Bill the Cat; 11-27-2014, 08:25 PM.
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            Stephen R. Donaldson

            Comment


            • #51
              Bill, I appreciate your responses. While they're probably totally wasted on 7, some of the rest of us get a lot out of them.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Bill, I appreciate your responses. While they're probably totally wasted on 7, some of the rest of us get a lot out of them.
                Thanks CP. I've been studying Mesoamerican archaeology as a hobby for well over a decade, so I do know some stuff. And it really irritates me when 7 acts like he knows more than those I have studied, and who actually have credentials in the field... when all he is really doing is copy/paste from FAIR and a few other Mormon apologists with no credentials in the field at all.
                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  Thanks CP. I've been studying Mesoamerican archaeology as a hobby for well over a decade, so I do know some stuff. And it really irritates me when 7 acts like he knows more than those I have studied, and who actually have credentials in the field... when all he is really doing is copy/paste from FAIR and a few other Mormon apologists with no credentials in the field at all.
                  The sad thing is, for the moment, 7 is the best we've got!
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Just out of curiosity, you are calling Bill the Cat Bob the Cat.... is this an honest mistake? OR is this some goofy childish attempt at demeaning him (though I can't imagine how that would demean him).
                    It was an honest mistake.

                    I was on another forum debating someone named "Bob".

                    It had been a while since I posted here and I mixed them up.

                    -7up

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      It technically "bakes". I'd take the time to describe the process, but such diligence is lost on your moronic hair splitting. While I used an imprecise term, the point remains. A specific configuration of timber is necessary to generate the 800-900 degrees C heat to produce the CaO powder that is used to make the cement. And archaeologists know what type of blast furnace configuration the Mayans used.
                      The Mayan configuration can get temperatures even up to 1600 degrees C. 800-900 degrees is easier to achieve.

                      7up: It does not have to be a specific configuration of timber. A furnace can achieve the desired conditions.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      Well, how 'bout that! You know more than Mesoamerican archaeologists! When are you picking up your Nobel Prize?
                      Your argument appears to be that all furnaces had to be made exactly like the Mayan configuration that you mention and in that diagram you posted. It simply isn't necessary. Some ancient Americans simply dug furnaces into the side of a hill, mound or mountain. 800-900 degrees is achievable in different ways.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      You use fabricated arguments that have as little basis in reality as the fictional Book of Mormon. Face it, 7, Joseph said there was a shortage of timber, yet he claimed they had plenty of cement to make houses despite timber being necessary to make that cement. He was ignorant, and you lap up his lies like a street dog at a buffet.
                      Again, even if you insist that the "cement" mentioned in the Book of Mormon must be the modern technical term for cement, the timber diagram that you show from the Mayans is not the only method for achieving the temperature necessary for decomposing limestone. A blast furnace built into the side of the hill would not require quality timber. Again, the temperature they needed to achieve is 800-900 degrees C. The timber configuration is not the only possibility.

                      7up wrote : The examples found in mesoamerica (like the Mayans) are cited as examples of a more developed product:

                      While the earliest known samples are from the first century A.D., scholars believe that "their degree of perfection could not have been instantaneously created, but rather would have required a considerable period of development" before then. Hyman asks, "Were these materials invented by indigenous unnamed people far preceding the occupation of Teotihuacan, or were they introduced by an exotic culture." In its references to "cement," the Book of Mormon anticipates what has now been well established.[1]

                      7up wrote: So Bill, how long did it take to develop cement? What primitive methods did they use when developing this product over perhaps hundreds of years and what methods developed in various locations in the Americas?

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      Completely irrelevant. This is just an exercise in smoke screening. The fact remains that the Mayans used cement and had the timber to make it.
                      It is absolutely relevant. Many Maya cities reached their highest state of development during the Classic period (c. AD 250 to 900). Helaman cement is estimated to be referring to About 49–39 B.C. The Mayan configuration you refer to did not enter that civilization out of nowhere. It was likely developed over hundreds of years and it is foolish for you to assume that the timber layout you refer to was the first and only method. No technology develops in the way you are attempting to claim.

                      7up: EVEN IF you try to claim that it must be a modern technical version of "cement", then that is a very good possibility as well because those products were being developed in the Americas as well.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      No one is claiming that. Mayan cement was made a certain way, and that way was impossible with the conditions described in Helaman.
                      The cement that was described in Helaman doesn't have to be made in the same way Mayan cement was made. That is why the pro-LDS site says:

                      Cement use in Mesoamerica: Today we know that lime based cement was a common material used in ancient America for mortar, stucco, and what we now define as concrete.

                      There are many examples of "cement" given, not just the specific process and furnace configuration that you claim it must be. You are essentially claiming that the argument must be that the LDS claim that Helaman cement must be exactly the same kind of cement and process used by Mayans in the Classic period, or when they had perfected their technique, or when they developed the specific layout with the timber furnace that you posted. You have created a straw man argument, and a dumb one at that.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      There is no real point they are making other than "They had cement, the Nephites had cement" and they think that is evidence for the Book of Mormon.
                      When Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, cement use in ancient America was unknown.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood's book was widely circulated in the US and England within a year of it being published, and it became the textbook for several colleges within a decade, which would have been well before Grant was born.
                      A textbook for what kind of classes and at which colleges? That is a specific niche Bill and the topic of "cement" is a specific detail, not "common knowledge". The idea that "several colleges" had it means nothing.

                      7up: More importantly, the Book of Mormon was published in 1830. The book you cite was based on a journey made in 1839 and was not published until 1845.

                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      So what? I've already shown that the term was used in the dictionary over a century before Joseph was born. Englishman, Joseph Aspdin patented Portland cement in 1824 just hours from Joseph Smith's house.
                      Yes. Cement was patented in the 1800s. But Joseph Smith said that ancient americans used cement almost 2000 years before that. And this was BEFORE John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood even went on their expedition, BEFORE they published anything about it. Get it?

                      -7up
                      Last edited by seven7up; 11-27-2014, 11:23 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        Bill, I appreciate your responses. While they're probably totally wasted on 7, some of the rest of us get a lot out of them.

                        Yes. They were always wasted on me.

                        A long time ago and many posts ago, I had already made the point that the specific diagram of the timber blast furnace that Bill posted is not absolutely necessary in order to get cement, even a "lime based" cement. It appears to be the pinnacle of the Mayan method, but 800-900 degrees does not require that specific set-up.

                        -7up

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                          Yes. They were always wasted on me.
                          Yet you continue to spew forth the Mormon party line and attempt to engage each point.

                          A long time ago and many posts ago, I had already made the point that the specific diagram of the timber blast furnace that Bill posted is not absolutely necessary in order to get cement, even a "lime based" cement. It appears to be the pinnacle of the Mayan method, but 800-900 degrees does not require that specific set-up.

                          -7up
                          None of which makes Smith any less a liar and the BoM any less a work of fiction.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                            The Mayan configuration can get temperatures even up to 1600 degrees C. 800-900 degrees is easier to achieve.
                            And of course you assume that because it IS easier, that's how the fiction al BOM people did it, right? It still needs a substantial amount of wood to do so. Which was scarce according to Helaman.


                            7up: It does not have to be a specific configuration of timber. A furnace can achieve the desired conditions.



                            Your argument appears to be that all furnaces had to be made exactly like the Mayan configuration that you mention and in that diagram you posted. It simply isn't necessary. Some ancient Americans simply dug furnaces into the side of a hill, mound or mountain. 800-900 degrees is achievable in different ways.
                            And your argument is that you believe it happened SOMEWHERE, so you get to claim from the methods used EVERYWHERE. Until you can point to those "ancient Americans" who "dug furnaces into the side of a hill, mound or mountain" and correlate them with the Book of Mormon people, you are simply trying to use the same method as proving Atlantis existed based on the existence of Greece.


                            Again, even if you insist that the "cement" mentioned in the Book of Mormon must be the modern technical term for cement, the timber diagram that you show from the Mayans is not the only method for achieving the temperature necessary for decomposing limestone. A blast furnace built into the side of the hill would not require quality timber. Again, the temperature they needed to achieve is 800-900 degrees C. The timber configuration is not the only possibility.
                            Then anything the Mayans have is completely irrelevant to proving the Book of Mormon. Thank you for your roundabout admission of that.

                            7up wrote : The examples found in mesoamerica (like the Mayans) are cited as examples of a more developed product:

                            While the earliest known samples are from the first century A.D., scholars believe that "their degree of perfection could not have been instantaneously created, but rather would have required a considerable period of development" before then. Hyman asks, "Were these materials invented by indigenous unnamed people far preceding the occupation of Teotihuacan, or were they introduced by an exotic culture." In its references to "cement," the Book of Mormon anticipates what has now been well established.[1]

                            7up wrote: So Bill, how long did it take to develop cement? What primitive methods did they use when developing this product over perhaps hundreds of years and what methods developed in various locations in the Americas?



                            It is absolutely relevant.
                            No it isn't. Unless you are going to claim the Mayans either 1) used methods taught to them by the Nephites, or 2) That the Nephites ARE the Mayans. Otherwise, how they developed the self-consuming timber furnace is no more proof of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon than Greek pottery is evidence for Atlantis.

                            Many Maya cities reached their highest state of development during the Classic period (c. AD 250 to 900). Helaman cement is estimated to be referring to About 49–39 B.C. The Mayan configuration you refer to did not enter that civilization out of nowhere. It was likely developed over hundreds of years and it is foolish for you to assume that the timber layout you refer to was the first and only method. No technology develops in the way you are attempting to claim.
                            And the cement usage had been long perfected by the beginning of the Classic Period. So, you have to again assume the Mayans either 1) used methods taught to them by the Nephites, or 2) That the Nephites ARE the Mayans. Or you can admit that Mayan cement has nothing at all to do with the Book of Mormon aside from its claim that cement was used by the fictional Nephites.

                            7up: EVEN IF you try to claim that it must be a modern technical version of "cement", then that is a very good possibility as well because those products were being developed in the Americas as well.



                            The cement that was described in Helaman doesn't have to be made in the same way Mayan cement was made.
                            Then using Mayan cement as evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a fallacy of equivocation.

                            That is why the pro-LDS site says:

                            Cement use in Mesoamerica: Today we know that lime based cement was a common material used in ancient America for mortar, stucco, and what we now define as concrete.

                            There are many examples of "cement" given, not just the specific process and furnace configuration that you claim it must be. You are essentially claiming that the argument must be that the LDS claim that Helaman cement must be exactly the same kind of cement and process used by Mayans in the Classic period, or when they had perfected their technique, or when they developed the specific layout with the timber furnace that you posted. You have created a straw man argument, and a dumb one at that.
                            The key to my argument is WOOD. Helaman said it was scarce. Wood is needed to attain those temperatures, regardless of configuration. Therefore, it would have been impossible to make cement to the volume described in Helaman. It's a fallacy of equivocation. And a bad one at that, considering absolutely nothing at all is provable about the location of the BOM people.



                            When Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, cement use in ancient America was unknown.
                            Then you should have no problem pointing to the numerous cement houses used by a people group that matches the Book of Mormon time and description. This also assumes that what Joseph was referring to was actually cement (using your own argument against you) and not some generic term for stucco, which WAS known well before he wrote the fictional novel.


                            A textbook for what kind of classes and at which colleges?
                            Mesoamerican archaeology at the few who taught the subject.

                            That is a specific niche Bill and the topic of "cement" is a specific detail, not "common knowledge". The idea that "several colleges" had it means nothing.
                            If you are making that claim, then I can continue it by saying that Grant's boast meant just as little because either 1) the "learned doctor" knew about Mesoamerican archaeology and made a knowingly false claim, or 2) he didn't, and was speaking out of his posterior on a subject he was unqualified to speak on, or 3) Grant was a boasting braggart and a liar. I claim that it was #3.

                            7up: More importantly, the Book of Mormon was published in 1830. The book you cite was based on a journey made in 1839 and was not published until 1845.



                            Yes. Cement was patented in the 1800s. But Joseph Smith said that ancient americans used cement almost 2000 years before that.
                            But you already claimed that Joseph could have meant stucco or some other known "common use" of the word cement in his time. So, your claims are circular.

                            And this was BEFORE John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood even went on their expedition, BEFORE they published anything about it. Get it?
                            But Grant's supposed encounter with the "learned doctor" was WELL after, so this supposed doctor was either ignorant about his education or speaking outside of it. Either way, it makes Grant's story implausible at the very best. Get it?
                            Last edited by Bill the Cat; 11-28-2014, 09:42 AM.
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                              Thanks CP. I've been studying Mesoamerican archaeology as a hobby for well over a decade, so I do know some stuff. And it really irritates me when 7 acts like he knows more than those I have studied, and who actually have credentials in the field... when all he is really doing is copy/paste from FAIR and a few other Mormon apologists with no credentials in the field at all.
                              A new theory, not really new really, but a resurrected old one, is called the heartland theory - that the mound builders were really the Nephite civilization. This is currently espoused by Robert Meldrum and his followers. The problem with this theory is that the anthropological data negates the possibility that these people were Jewish or of Jewish descent. They were idolaters, and had as their chief idol, Spider woman, a deity worshiped by other American Indians. It's a long jump from being a monotheistic Jew to a polytheistic idolater worshiping a spider.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X