Book of Mormon and honey bees

[Paul_G]

One can imagine the mighty Tapir (uhem, “horse”) trotting into battle with the Nephite armies.

search.live.com/images/results.aspx?q=tapir&mkt=en-US

I do recall hearing about some evidence of Barley, somewhere around Phoenix, Arizona. Can we place that as the area of the BOM now?

So they’ve found some elephants?

The problem isn’t just that there is no realistic archeological evidence for the BOM. You are correct that much of the Bible can’t be confirmed that way either. But the theology of Mormonism, and most importantly the doctrines about the very nature of God flat out contradicts what the Bible and the ECF’s tell us. So in my opinion, you can believe in the Bible, or you can believe in Mormonism, but not both. And thats really why I left.

Not only can may things that we believe as true can not be confirmed or shown to be true, if it was not for the on going cultural and linguistic presences in the land we would not have any idea about the cities or the people the bible was talking about. The Book of Mormon land had a complete severing of any cultural or language continuance. When the Spanish arrived the people they encountered had no idea of the cultures that existed before.

Since many of the Book of Mormon cities were destroyed we may never find the evidence we need. So it is true we have only have things that hint at the things described in the Book of Mormon. I am also aware that anything can be interpreted in different ways. One dot is meaningless, but many dots can form a picture. I believe there is enough for anyone who wants to interpret these single points of interest in favour of the Book of Mormon.

The restored Gospel of Jesus Christ by its very existence must contradict the so called orthodox interpretation of the Bible. From what I have read, the ECF’s of the 1st century appear to be more inline with LDS in terms of the Father and the Son being two distinct, numerically different and separate beings. I am sorry that you left.

Paul

 

[truthsilence]

Not only can may things that we believe as true can not be confirmed or shown to be true, if it was not for the on going cultural and linguistic presences in the land we would not have any idea about the cities or the people the bible was talking about. The Book of Mormon land had a complete severing of any cultural or language continuance. When the Spanish arrived the people they encountered had no idea of the cultures that existed before.

Since many of the Book of Mormon cities were destroyed we may never find the evidence we need. So it is true we have only have things that hint at the things described in the Book of Mormon. I am also aware that anything can be interpreted in different ways. One dot is meaningless, but many dots can form a picture. I believe there is enough for anyone who wants to interpret these single points of interest in favour of the Book of Mormon.

The restored Gospel of Jesus Christ by its very existence must contradict the so called orthodox interpretation of the Bible. From what I have read, the ECF’s of the 1st century appear to be more inline with LDS in terms of the Father and the Son being two distinct, numerically different and separate beings. I am sorry that you left.

Paul

Paul,

I’m not sure I’m getting your first paragraph. Could you please rephrase or elaborate for me?

If you’ll read the ECF’s, you will discover they believed in ONE God, the Triune God. One Nature, Three Persons. That connects perfectly with what is revealed to us in the Bible. The ECF’s also believed in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Again, connects perfectly with what Jesus taught at the last supper.

I can appreciate when you say you are sorry that I left. I can assure you I have more clarity and feel closer to the Lord than I ever did as a LDS. Because of the conflicts I mentioned above, I could not accept the teachings of Eternal Progression; especially the teaching that God himself progressed from man to God even if current leaders deny teaching it. (in public interviews at least) As a LDS, I didn’t know who I was worshipping. Thank heavens, now I do.

Peace,
ts

 

[zerinus]

One can imagine the mighty Tapir (uhem, “horse”) trotting into battle with the Nephite armies.

search.live.com/images/results.aspx?q=tapir&mkt=en-US

I do recall hearing about some evidence of Barley, somewhere around Phoenix, Arizona. Can we place that as the area of the BOM now?

Two points here: Firstly, evidence of horses (real horses) have been found in ancient America. Read my blog on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon to find out. Secondly, who said anything about horses “trotting into battle with the Nephite armies”? The Book of Mormon is full of accounts of warfare, yet there is one instance recorded that the Nephites rode into battle on horseback. The horse apparently was not used by the Nephites in warfare. Try getting your facts straight for a change before typing out so much trash.

So they’ve found some elephants?

They have indeed (or “mammoth,” which is an elephant like creature). See above.

The problem isn’t just that there is no realistic archeological evidence for the BOM. You are correct that much of the Bible can’t be confirmed that way either. But the theology of Mormonism, and most importantly the doctrines about the very nature of God flat out contradicts what the Bible and the ECF’s tell us. So in my opinion, you can believe in the Bible, or you can believe in Mormonism, but not both.

Are we talking theology or archaeology here? On the subject of the Mormon concept of the deity, that too has been discussed at length in my blog posts on the subject; you can read them here and here. Why do you think I created that blog? I did it so that I wouldn’t have to keep answering repeat questions over and over again.

And thats really why I left.

That is not why you “left”. I have read your posts, and you have never been able to give a valid, sensible, reasonable explanation why you “left” that makes any sense. You didn’t just “leave”; you apostatized; and there is nothing unusual about that. There have been apostates from the beginning, and will be to the end of time.

zeirnus

 

[truthsilence]

Two points here: Firstly, evidence of horses (real horses) have been found in ancient America. Read my blog on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon to find out. Secondly, who said anything about horses “trotting into battle with the Nephite armies”? The Book of Mormon is full of accounts of warfare, yet there is one instance recorded that the Nephites rode into battle on horseback. The horse apparently was not used by the Nephites in warfare. Try getting your facts straight for a change before typing out so much trash.

Trash huh? sigh You must enjoy yourself, hurling so many personal insults around here, Zerinus. Did you learn that on your mission, or are you still preparing? It isn’t very effective, btw. I doubt you’ll get any converts that way. I have no intention of visiting your blog. I see enough of you here. I’ll do my own research on these “real horses”, thank you. I’ll get back to you.

As to your “who said anything about” comment…I never said anything about anyone saying anything! LOL! I said: “One can imagine”. It was a funny picture in my mind.

Quote:
So they’ve found some elephants?

They have indeed (or “mammoth,” which is an elephant like creature). See above.

An elephant is an elephant. A mammoth is a mammoth. A horse is a horse. Sheesh, I remember why this was so darn frustrating. Don’t you get tired of all the mental gymnastics?

Quote:
The problem isn’t just that there is no realistic archeological evidence for the BOM. You are correct that much of the Bible can’t be confirmed that way either. But the theology of Mormonism, and most importantly the doctrines about the very nature of God flat out contradicts what the Bible and the ECF’s tell us. So in my opinion, you can believe in the Bible, or you can believe in Mormonism, but not both.

Are we talking theology or archaeology here? On the subject of the Mormon concept of the deity, that too has been discussed at length in my blog posts on the subject; snip…

I am talking about both. All the silliness about BOM archeology was irritating to me, but I kept thinking there must be some reason God didn’t want any real evidence to be found. When the DNA work was done it was frustrating to learn the results of those as well, but I thought maybe God was testing us to see if we’d continue to trust what the LDS church taught, no matter what. I lived in that state of cognitive dissonance for several years. The final straw for me though, was an answer to my internal struggle with theological problems. When GBH denied LDS church teaching that God was once a man, it was a direct answer to my prayer. I had placed my trust in God that He would reveal to me whether or not GBH (or Joseph Smith) was a “prophet”. I admitted to God in prayer that I didn’t know if he was, but I knew God knew, and I believed he (GBH) knew whether he was a prophet or not, and I didn’t believe he would lie and let everyone believe he was if he wasn’t. I was *that *desperate to know! It wasn’t long after that particular prayer when I learned about the television and magazine articles that included GBH’s denials. I knew he was flat-out lying.

So, when I talk about Mormonisn, I have major problems with both archeology and theology. Apparently even GBH has problems with Mormon theology, otherwise why wouldn’t he just tell the truth about it?

Quote:
And thats really why I left.

That is not why you “left”. I have read your posts, and you have never been able to give a valid, sensible, reasonable explanation why you “left” that makes any sense. You didn’t just “leave”; you apostatized; and there is nothing unusual about that. There have been apostates from the beginning, and will be to the end of time.

I couldn’t be more sure of the path God has placed me on if He were to return right now and tell me to my face. I left because God never gave me ANY reason to stay, but He gave me plenty of reasons to leave. And He also gave me the answer where I should go and that is why I am Catholic. The reason my words don’t make sense to you is because of your own arrogance and spiritual blindness.

 

[zerinus]

As to your “who said anything about” comment…I never said anything about anyone saying anything! LOL! I said: “One can imagine”. It was a funny picture in my mind.

Your imagination is leading you astray. The significance of that is that it may very well be that the horses that the Nephites had discovered in America were not large enough to make them suitable for warfare. The horses that were used in ancient times for warfare were specially bred to become very large and powerful, to make them suitable for such a purpose. If my memory serves me right, it was the Persians who first learned to breed large horses that could be used for that purpose. The modern large horse is a descendent of those.

An elephant is an elephant. A mammoth is a mammoth. A horse is a horse. Sheesh, I remember why this was so darn frustrating. Don’t you get tired of all the mental gymnastics?

The Mammoth is an elephant. It is a specially large species of elephants that is now extinct.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

The significance of that is that it may very well be that the horses that the Nephites had discovered in America were not large enough to make them suitable for warfare. The horses that were used in ancient times for warfare were specially bred to become very large and powerful, to make them suitable for such a purpose. If my memory serves me right, it was the Persians who first learned to breed large horses that could be used for that purpose. The modern large horse is a descendent of those.

zerinus

I did a bit more research about the history of the development of the horse in warfare, and here is some more information I found (both articles from Wikipedia):

As early as 490 BC a breed of large horses was bred in the Nisaean plain in Media to carry men with increasing amounts of armour (Herodotus 7,40 & 9,20). But large horses were still very exceptional at this time. Excepting scythed chariots the use of chariots in battle was obsolete by the time of the Persian defeat at the hands of Alexander the Great, but chariots remained in use for ceremonial purposes such as carrying the victorious general in a Roman triumph, for chariot racing, and among the Gallic and Germanic tribes. Source

Light horses were used by many cultures, including the Scythians, the Parthians, the Ancient Egyptians, the Mongols, the Arabs, and the American Indians. Throughout the Ancient Near East, because the first domesticated horses were small, light animals, . . . teams of two or more horses were often used to pull chariots. In the European Middle Ages, the light type of horse became known as a Palfrey. Light horses sometimes carried Dragoons and Mounted infantry, depending on the amount of weight required to be carried by each soldier.

---

Medium-weight horses developed with the needs of most civilizations to pull heavier loads and to carry heavier riders, beginning as early as the Iron Age. . . . As light cavalry evolved into heavy cavalry, a larger horse was also needed to carry the increased weight of a more heavily-armed and armored rider.

---

Large, heavy horses, . . . the ancestors of today’s draft horses, were used, particularly in Europe from the Middle Ages onward. They pulled heavy loads, having the muscle power to pull weapons or supply wagons and to remain calm under fire. Source

zerinus

 

[truthsilence]

QUOTE=zerinus The Mammoth is an elephant. It is a specially large species of elephants that is now extinct.

zerinus

Ok, the Mammoth is in the elephant family just has the Tapir is in the horse family. Yes, these “elephants” are now extinct. They have been extinct since several thousand years before the earliest BOM accounts.

 

[truthsilence]

Light horses were used by many cultures, including the Scythians, the Parthians, the Ancient Egyptians, the Mongols, the Arabs, and the American Indians.

I don’t have enoough time at the moment to read all of your source material very carefully. Do you have a time frame for the use of these light horses by the American Indians?

 

[zerinus]

Ok, the Mammoth is in the elephant family just has the Tapir is in the horse family. Yes, these “elephants” are now extinct. They have been extinct since several thousand years before the earliest BOM accounts.

Mammoths were elephants. All the sits I have looked at identifies them as elephants. Here is an example:

elephant.se/mammoths.php

Archaeological dating is not that accurate. It does not rule out the possibility of their existence during the Jadeite period in the Book of Mormon; although they did not exist during the Nephit period, and the Book of Mormon does not say that they did.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I don’t have enoough time at the moment to read all of your source material very carefully. Do you have a time frame for the use of these light horses by the American Indians?

I don’t. I only noticed it in that article. I haven’t searched to find more information about it.

zerinus

 

[lukewarm]

Mammoths were elephants. All the sits I have looked at identifies them as elephants. Here is an example:

elephant.se/mammoths.php

Archaeological dating is not that accurate. It does not rule out the possibility of their existence during the Jadeite period in the Book of Mormon; although they did not exist during the Nephit period, and the Book of Mormon does not say that they did.

zerinus

Mammoth’s were extinct 11,000 years ago, that wouldn’t make the cut for any events in the Book of Mormon. The Jadeite period is thousands of years later (I want to say 8,000). The Mammoth theory is a red herring.

 

[BartBurk]

Mammoth’s were extinct 11,000 years ago, that wouldn’t make the cut for any events in the Book of Mormon. The Jadeite period is thousands of years later (I want to say 8,000). The Mammoth theory is a red herring.

Most Mormons believe that man was created in 4000 B.C. They are not likely to be impressed when you tell them that an animal went extinct 11,000 years ago. The Jaredite period in the Americas is supposed to have started around 2000 B.C. according to Mormons. Archaeologists and others insist the Native Americans migrated to the Americas well before Mormons even think humans existed. This is one reason they are inclined to ignore what scientists say about archaeology, DNA, etc.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Mammoth’s were extinct 11,000 years ago, that wouldn’t make the cut for any events in the Book of Mormon. The Jadeite period is thousands of years later (I want to say 8,000). The Mammoth theory is a red herring.

As are horses. A very small horse existed but also went extinct many thousands of years before the BoM stories.

There were NO pre-Columbian horse societies in the Americas. Horses were introduced into indigenous cultures by the Spanish.

The reference to “Hebrew writing” has no base in scientific fact. A rock was found with writing on it. There is nothing available that makes it possible to date the writing.

This is the usual mormon apologetics. Take the BoM stories and lay them over the top of little tidbits of information. Never look at the whole of the information and how it all inter-relates to all the known facts. And fill any gaps with speculation.

And yes, all of the same type of reasoning can be applied to the Bible. The oldest part of the OT especially is hard to accept as anything but allegorical stories that were passed on verbally, and eventually put into writing.

 

[zerinus]

I don’t. I only noticed it in that article. I haven’t searched to find more information about it.

zerinus

I looked a bit more, and found the following additional information. Not sure if it answers your question or not:

Early Indian ethnologists believed the feral Spanish mustangs that roamed the Plains descended from Spanish horses lost by Cortez, and that the Plains Indian horses came from these wild Spanish horses. Roe and others have shown this was not the case. The North American Plains Indians acquired their first horses, and the knowledge of how to handle them, through trade with the Indians of the Southwest. American Indians had to learn to ride and handle horses just like everybody else. Source.

zerinus

 

[truthsilence]

QUOTE=zerinus I looked a bit more, and found the following additional information. Not sure if it answers your question or not

It doesn’t, but thank you for trying anyway.

I don’t see where any of what you’ve posted so far backs up in any way your assertion that there is evidence of “real horses” in ancient America, specifically BOM times.

As I said, I will continue to look as well, but I’m not holding my breath.

 

[zerinus]

It doesn’t, but thank you for trying anyway.

I don’t see where any of what you’ve posted so far backs up in any way your assertion that there is evidence of “real horses” in ancient America, specifically BOM times.

I didn’t say that it proves that there were real horses in ancient America, or in the Book of Mormon times. But it does not disprove it either. What it does show is that that kind of information is neither 100% reliable, nor scientifically “provable”. As I said before, Mormonism, like any other religion, is a matter of faith. I accept its claims on faith. I don’t need any “scientific fact” to either “prove” it or “disprove” it. If your belief in your religion is based on that, then I would venture to say that it rests on shaky ground.

zerinus

 

[lukewarm]

I gotta agree with Zerenius on this one, at the end of the day all religions are faith. When we as Catholics line up for Communion believing that the Host is literally the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of my Lord Jesus Christ, I assure you I am believing something seemingly impossible and scientifically impossible. More impossible than horses in America pre 1492…

Then factor in Christians belief in a literal Genesis until science essentially proved we came from chimps. Then we had to change our tune to make our religion made sense in light of modern discoveries.

Faith is faith, religion is based almost 100% on it, no matter which religion you are.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I gotta agree with Zerenius on this one, at the end of the day all religions are faith.

Without reason a person can believe any number of things based on “faith”.

-Suicide pacts to get to a space ship that is in a passing comet.

• David Koresh was Jesus.

Most people in this forum I would wager see these ideas as unreasonable. Those who had faith in them, did not.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Then factor in Christians belief in a literal Genesis until science essentially proved we came from chimps. Then we had to change our tune to make our religion made sense in light of modern discoveries.

Science has not “essentially proved we came from chimps.”

If you are discussing carbon based lifeforms with over 90% similarity in DNA structure, well, then we are descended from each other in an endless circle of nonsense (like the ouroborous of antiquity). Rats from pigs from fish from humans from rats from pigs from fish from humans…

Faith is NOT faith.

As much as your version of the ‘truth’ is not the same as my version of the ‘truth.’ There is, arguably and within current scientific scholarship, a ‘truth’ of creation and subsequent variation in the Earth’s history. Not classic Darwinism. Not that ‘synthesis’ amalgam, either.

As to that literal Genesis: it correlates EXACTLY with modern science and even mentions ‘dinosaurs’ being created BEFORE mankind.

Also, as to Genesis; you need to re-read it in light (post 1971 Scientific American articles) of recent and current theories about the universe; cell structures; impossibility of mathematical chances of randomness resulting in design across the phyla (the eye for example); as well as microbiological findings of design at the MOLECULAR level (built in ‘variations’ which the early Darwinists termed ‘mutations.’)

What did Jesus say in the Gospels about something being neither hot nor cold?

Robert

 

[lukewarm]

Science has not “essentially proved we came from chimps.”

If you are discussing carbon based lifeforms with over 90% similarity in DNA structure, well, then we are descended from each other in an endless circle of nonsense (like the ouroborous of antiquity). Rats from pigs from fish from humans from rats from pigs from fish from humans…

Read “The Language of God” by Dr. Francis Collins and you can rest assured that if the head of the Humane Genome project believes that evolution from a common ancestor between man and chimps is most certainly what happened I will believe him over you (no offense I’m sure you’re a bright guy but you’re no world leading geneticist.)

Faith is NOT faith.

I don’t know what that even means…

What did Jesus say in the Gospels about something being neither hot nor cold?

Robert

Jesus said a lot of things, you’re like the tenth person to comment on my name what’s up with that? yes yes I know what Jesus said, that’s why I picked the name.