tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8033478806920011838.post8396306768786690090..comments2023-10-20T05:44:54.991-07:00Comments on Book of Mormon Consensus: Frauds and Hoaxesjonathan3dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05379975395372054926noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8033478806920011838.post-88682764570449836892016-08-02T06:44:40.500-07:002016-08-02T06:44:40.500-07:00There's an old saying that "the answers y...There's an old saying that "the answers you get depend on the questions you ask." In this case, the "answer" was an extensive state-level society in Mesoamerica that includes massive stone pyramids, cities, written records everywhere, etc. To get that answer, you have to frame a question by reading into the Book of Mormon an extensive state-level society with each of these features. <br />But if you read the Book of Mormon first, you realize that the "state-level" society described actually existed for only about 100 years, among a minority population that was in a state of war and political revolution before disintegrating into tribes. Ultimately, the remnants of the state-level society were completely annihilated by the tribal society. <br />Once again, what the Book of Mormon describes we find in North America, not in Central or South America.jonathan3dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05379975395372054926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8033478806920011838.post-90500712029856978672016-08-01T22:08:48.430-07:002016-08-01T22:08:48.430-07:00Oh, crud, I thought the Izapa Stella 5 (so that...Oh, crud, I thought the Izapa Stella 5 (so that's what it's called) that my parents brought us back from their BofM cruise -- I told them that they took the wrong trip :) -- showed that the Tree of Life vision WAS in Mesoamerica! I feel deceived. :o And I definitely have to agree about those articles in the Times and Seasons!!! Genuine artifacts MAY relate to their surroundings in discernible, reproducible ways. Sounds more accurate to me. Who gets to decide these things anyway?!littlerascohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615353996674116835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8033478806920011838.post-55530198540148929432016-08-01T13:56:49.854-07:002016-08-01T13:56:49.854-07:00The out-of-context argument is perfectly circular....The out-of-context argument is perfectly circular. "Why are they hoaxes? Because they don't belong here. Why don't they belong here? Because they are hoaxes." It's not a very good argument and ultimately anti-scientific.<br /><br />To explain what I mean, consider the much better argument put forward by Richard B. Stamps who dismissed the Michigan relics *because* they were produced using technology to which he understood native peoples lacked access. For instance, he dismissed the swords, which were smelted, on the belief that the various groups of mound builders lacked the ability to perform that type of advanced metallurgy. <br /><br />When the article was published, that was a solid conclusion. More recently we've discovered that the Mann Hopewell (near Evansville, Indiana) had smelting. So, that basis for the conclusion is no longer solid. But that's fine -- Because now we can reexamine the metal instruments and determine if there is another objective basis on which to question their authenticity, or not. And if not, then not. That's how science is supposed to work.<br /><br />The problem with the "out-of-context" argument is that it begins with the conclusion, and so derails this whole process. It does not follow the evidence; it dictates what evidence will be considered.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05263912077675667154noreply@blogger.com