Cumorah

  • Thread starter Thread starter SirThomasMore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catholic20064 said:
And I’ve heard Mormons say the Catholic priests destroyed all of the evidence for Mormonism when they conquered the people in Mesoamerica because they thought the artifacts were demonic.
Click to expand...
At one time, parker made a statement (that he couldn’t back up) that the Smithsonian sanctioned destroying artifacts.

I believe I posted a link to that thread earlier in this thread.
 
lax16 said:
Ah ha - you are paying attention! (as always, the great proofreader - although I didn’t make a mistake it was a “trick” question!)

Think about it - we are doing this backwards! Usually, someone finds a thing or two and it ties in with something here or there…but in this case, we have a record of a people that lived long ago given to a guy in NY in the 1800’s and nothing else to back it up.

Slim remains are good…and mysterious works too. Mentioned in records of other civilizations is really good because that is cross-referencing…

But we know the BoM civilizations were great so there should be something around to prove it! I mean, this was a big battle!
Click to expand...
Ok, Let’s look at another big battle.

Gettysburg.

According to the records, nearlyu 45,000 men were killed there. True, we now have monuments and a park dedicated to it; there has been a continuous knowledge and memory of where it was.

But if you go to that site, and didn’t know about it, you woudn’t be able to tell–unless you dug, and found artifacts that were from the 1860’s…and if you didn’t know precisely where to dig…???

How about the battle of Kalinga, in India; a battle that is said to have resulted in a million casualties, so that the Daya river ran red with the blood of the slain. This battle was well witnessed, well attested to…and took place about 200 BC, more or less. This battle is “PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN FOUGHT” on Dhauli Hill. This cannot be confirmed by archeological digging, though…and that is a battle that was never forgotten by history.

There are many other battles with very large casualty lists that have been mentioned in history…whose precise location cannot be confirmed now.

So why should it be odd that a battle mentioned in a book that has been hidden away for over 1200 years, that took place somewhere in either North or South America, might be difficult to find?
 
Battles don’t occur separate from the civilization they arose from. You don’t have a great battle in upstate NY that arose from a conflict in MesoAmerica.

I would think this obvious.

Cumorah has been p(name removed by moderator)ointed, to a hill in upstate NY. Dig and it should be found. Seems the LDS church has motivations to not go looking for ancient artifacts of war on their “church history site”.

The US history site of Gettysburg has more artifacts of war sitting on the surface, than have been found at Cumorah, which is: zero.
 
dianaiad said:
Ok, Let’s look at another big battle.

Gettysburg.

According to the records, nearlyu 45,000 men were killed there. True, we now have monuments and a park dedicated to it; there has been a continuous knowledge and memory of where it was.

But if you go to that site, and didn’t know about it, you woudn’t be able to tell–unless you dug, and found artifacts that were from the 1860’s…and if you didn’t know precisely where to dig…???

How about the battle of Kalinga, in India; a battle that is said to have resulted in a million casualties, so that the Daya river ran red with the blood of the slain. This battle was well witnessed, well attested to…and took place about 200 BC, more or less. This battle is “PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN FOUGHT” on Dhauli Hill. This cannot be confirmed by archeological digging, though…and that is a battle that was never forgotten by history.

There are many other battles with very large casualty lists that have been mentioned in history…whose precise location cannot be confirmed now.

So why should it be odd that a battle mentioned in a book that has been hidden away for over 1200 years, that took place somewhere in either North or South America, might be difficult to find?
Click to expand...
There are, amazingly enough, many more whose precise location HAS been located through modern archeology. There’s also plenty of archeological evidence to the existense of Ashoka.

No one outside of the LDS faith takes the BoM at face value as a historical document.
 
If the LDS claim that everything occured as described and that all artifacts of these civilations somehow disappeared, then the only proof left that can be relied on as clear and irrefutable evidence that things occured as claimed would be the DNA of peoples ( Amerinds ) that intercoused with them. No matter what, there would always be intermarriages and children as a result.

Yet, in checking the DNA of the Amerind, it bears no relationship to any semitic peoples. After thousands of years of separation, the DNA of the Amerind is akin to that of the Mongols and Manchu.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem Totus Tuus Domini
 
scipio337 said:
There are, amazingly enough, many more whose precise location HAS been located through modern archeology. There’s also plenty of archeological evidence to the existense of Ashoka.

No one outside of the LDS faith takes the BoM at face value as a historical document.
Click to expand...
Nobody outside Mormonism SHOULD.

LDS archeologists should avoid doing so, as well. I do not get giddy about archeological finds and attempt to use them to prove that the BoM is thus ‘proven.’

However, you are backpedaling. It doesn’t matter that there is 'plenty of evidence to the existence of Ashoka." for one thing, there wouldn’t be if all historical records of that era ere destroyed, as other groups have been, and it does not matter if there have been a lot of battles whose precise location has been located through modern archeology. If there remain well known battles that have NOT been so found (like Kalinga, for instance) when there is all the continuous written historical record one could ask for to help, then it is unfair and illogical for anybody to decide that because the BoM battles have not been found, that this 'lack of proof" means 'proof of lack."

All it means is that…they haven’t been found.

Along with a bunch of other such battlefields that have also not been found. The fact that some HAVE is encouraging. Perhaps, then, the BoM battlefields will also be found.

the problem, of course, is that even if they are, our critics will not accept the findings as such. They can’t. As long as there is even the smallest possibility that those fields or that archeology is NOT Book of Mormon based, non-Mormons will have to go with that possibility. To do otherwise would be…problematic.

I understand it. I even think it is proper. That doesn’t mean that the bias won’t be flippin’ obvious. 😉
 
dianaiad said:
Nobody outside Mormonism SHOULD.

LDS archeologists should avoid doing so, as well. I do not get giddy about archeological finds and attempt to use them to prove that the BoM is thus ‘proven.’
Click to expand...
So your admitting LDS members should not look for evidence.
 
dianaiad said:
Nobody outside Mormonism SHOULD.

LDS archeologists should avoid doing so, as well. I do not get giddy about archeological finds and attempt to use them to prove that the BoM is thus ‘proven.’

However, you are backpedaling. It doesn’t matter that there is 'plenty of evidence to the existence of Ashoka." for one thing, there wouldn’t be if all historical records of that era ere destroyed, as other groups have been, and it does not matter if there have been a lot of battles whose precise location has been located through modern archeology. If there remain well known battles that have NOT been so found (like Kalinga, for instance) when there is all the continuous written historical record one could ask for to help, then it is unfair and illogical for anybody to decide that because the BoM battles have not been found, that this 'lack of proof" means 'proof of lack."

All it means is that…they haven’t been found.

Along with a bunch of other such battlefields that have also not been found. The fact that some HAVE is encouraging. Perhaps, then, the BoM battlefields will also be found.

the problem, of course, is that even if they are, our critics will not accept the findings as such. They can’t. As long as there is even the smallest possibility that those fields or that archeology is NOT Book of Mormon based, non-Mormons will have to go with that possibility. To do otherwise would be…problematic.

I understand it. I even think it is proper. That doesn’t mean that the bias won’t be flippin’ obvious. 😉
Click to expand...
Actually, if anything were ever found that might validate the Book of Mormon I would be more than willing to consider it. I am still fond of the Mormon people, but the reality is that so much information exists contradicting Mormon claims that it is hard to even imagine the LDS claims regarding the Book of Mormon could be true. Those of us who have abandoned Mormonism did not do so lightly – in my case it came after years of study and thought. It turned my entire life upside down.
 
“I’m afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon geography… you can’t set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere – because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archaeology.”
  • Thomas S. Ferguson, Mormon archaeologist, and author of Quest for the Gold Plates, “Letter to Mr. and Mrs. H.W. Lawrence,” dated Feb. 20, 1976
“The Book of Mormon talks about ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgical industries. A ferrous industry is a whole system of doing something. It’s just not an esoteric process that a few people are involved in, but ferrous industry…, means mining iron ores and then processing these ores and casting [them] into irons… This is a process that’s very complicated…it also calls for cultural backup to allow such an activity to take place… In my recent reading of the Book of Mormon, I find that iron and steel are mentioned in sufficient context to suggest that there was a ferrous industry here… You can’t refine ore without leaving a bloom of some kind or impurities that blossom out and float to the top of the ore… and also the flux of limestone or whatever is used to flux the material… [This] blooms off into silicas and indestructible new rock forms. In other words, when you have a ferroused metallurgical industry, you have these evidences of the detritus that is left over. You also have the fuels, you have the furnaces, you have whatever technologies that were there performing these tasks; they leave solid evidences. And they are indestructible things… No evidence has been found in the new world for a ferrous metallurgical industry dating to pre-Columbian times. And so this is a king-size kind of problem, it seems to me, for the so-called Book of Mormon archaeology. This evidence is absent.”
  • Ray T. Matheny, Speech at Sunstone Symposium 6, “Book of Mormon Archaeology,” August 25, 1984
 
TikiTokiguy said:
So your admitting LDS members should not look for evidence.
Click to expand...
Nice twisting, there.

I’m saying that it is “a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and there shal no sign be given unto it…” In other words, sir, I feel precisely the same way about the folks who keep looking for Noah’s Ark, or the burning bush on Mt. Sanai, or the pillar of salt that used to be Lot’s wife–or the tomb that held Jesus’ body ever so briefly.

IF, through normal archeological scientific methods, we find things that are consistant with the Book of Mormon (and there are those findings out there) that’s all very nice, but we should use the Book of Mormon–AND the Bible, for the purpose for which both were written and compiled: to serve our spiritual needs and let us know what God wants us to do.

When an archeologist finds that Zarahemla freeway offramp sign, it had better by a non-Mormon.
 
Catholic20064 said:
Actually, if anything were ever found that might validate the Book of Mormon I would be more than willing to consider it. I am still fond of the Mormon people, but the reality is that so much information exists contradicting Mormon claims that it is hard to even imagine the LDS claims regarding the Book of Mormon could be true. Those of us who have abandoned Mormonism did not do so lightly – in my case it came after years of study and thought. It turned my entire life upside down.
Click to expand...
Catholic20064,
You might be interested in the following link to an interesting article about some recent archeological finds in Maryland of the ancient inhabitants there:

americanarchaeologist.com/archives/749

Have a good evening.
 
ParkerD said:
Have you ever read about how many Native Americans were in North America and Central and South America in 1492, or in 1600, or in 1700? Where are all of the evidences that they lived where they lived? Where are all of the evidences of their battles, their commerce, and their origins?
Click to expand...
You’re looking for a blanket statement that wraps all of this up into a neat tiny ball because the facts we’re presenting don’t jibe with what the church is telling you. Us trying to prove you wrong puts you on the defensive and simply reinforces your erroneous assumptions because you don’t like them, not because they aren’t fact. You’re trying to rewrite history to make it fit Mormonism, rather than seeing it as it truly is, Mormonism having rewritten history and presented it to you as fact.

The point is that the ultimate fate of the Anasazi isn’t the same as the Cherokee which isn’t the same as the Shawnee. Some of the history we know and some we don’t, and everything we know up to this point has nothing to do with Lamanites or Nephites.
ParkerD said:
Anyone who thinks they have detailed archeological or even linguistic information about every single tribal group who ever lived in the Americas, must have not done much research or they would realize that such an assertion would be impossible to make with any sense of having probed the subject thoroughly.
Click to expand...
This is what I call the *keep-the-door-propped-open *fallacy; it means anything you can do to cast the shadow of doubt on the facts in order to keep believing the lies that Joseph Smith told is fair game. This includes making ridiculous and increasingly far-fetched claims that push the boundaries of common sense and reason.

What you’re trying to say is echoed by the church having changed the intro of the BOM, saying that the Lamanites were the ‘principle’ ancestor of the American Indians to them being ‘one of’ their ancestors. Like the land that the BOM events supposedly took place on, your claims are forced to get smaller and smaller as more evidence is put forth to refute false prophecies and lies told in the name of God.
 
TikiTokiguy said:
So your admitting LDS members should not look for evidence.
Click to expand...
In spite of what Diana thinks, this is exactly the implication when the members are told not to read anything that isn’t ‘faith promoting.’ Their own materials with their own unique spin, however, are just fine, as long as they uphold the church’s current opinion about itself and its history.

In my BOM student manual, there’s a map with possible location of BOM places and the caption below (I’m paraphrasing because I’m at work now): “No attempt should be made to locate these places with any real-world sites.”

What does that tell you?
 
dianaiad said:
Nice twisting, there.

I’m saying that it is “a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and there shal no sign be given unto it…” In other words, sir, I feel precisely the same way about the folks who keep looking for Noah’s Ark, or the burning bush on Mt. Sanai, or the pillar of salt that used to be Lot’s wife–or the tomb that held Jesus’ body ever so briefly.

IF, through normal archeological scientific methods, we find things that are consistant with the Book of Mormon (and there are those findings out there) that’s all very nice, but we should use the Book of Mormon–AND the Bible, for the purpose for which both were written and compiled: to serve our spiritual needs and let us know what God wants us to do.

When an archeologist finds that Zarahemla freeway offramp sign, it had better by a non-Mormon.
Click to expand...
and there you have it. An admission that there is not any evidence and therefore no attempts should be made.

And wanting evidence of an alleged historical book is not looking for signs. It is looking for evidence
 
ParkerD said:
Catholic20064,
You might be interested in the following link to an interesting article about some recent archeological finds in Maryland of the ancient inhabitants there:

americanarchaeologist.com/archives/749

Have a good evening.
Click to expand...
red herring. Either go dig up Cumorah to prove what your prophets have said or admit it cannot be done because you KNOW there is no proof because you KNOW it was a scam
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top