Looking for " other side " of Mormanism

[zerinus]

Alma chapters 43 and 49 describe the Nephite soldiers as having shields, breastplates and head-plates. Breastplates and head-plates would be made of metal. Otherwise why call them “plates”?

The Nephite authors certainly knew what “plates” were and what they were made of.

“Plate” in this context simply means a protective shield. It need not have been made of metal. There is plenty of precedent for this in antiquity. Here are some links:

nefertiti.iwebland.com/weapons/armour.htm
touregypt.net/featurestories/defense.htm
chromatrix.com/html/armor.html
books.google.co.uk/books?id=TRGtkS3Dj3QC&pg=PR11&lpg=PR11&dq=leather+shields+and+armor&source=web&ots=pL5Lsgs6Sc&sig=_ZGlE_FXLFa3FDupevgwtkEGKcE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
by-the-sword.com/acatalog/Leather_Armour.html
raisonsbrassband.com/medieval-leather-armor-shield-p-390.html

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

“Plate” in this context simply means a protective shield. It need not have been made of metal. There is plenty of precedent for this in antiquity. Here are some links:

nefertiti.iwebland.com/weapons/armour.htm
touregypt.net/featurestories/defense.htm
chromatrix.com/html/armor.html
books.google.co.uk/books?id=TRGtkS3Dj3QC&pg=PR11&lpg=PR11&dq=leather+shields+and+armor&source=web&ots=pL5Lsgs6Sc&sig=_ZGlE_FXLFa3FDupevgwtkEGKcE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
by-the-sword.com/acatalog/Leather_Armour.html
raisonsbrassband.com/medieval-leather-armor-shield-p-390.html

zerinus

From your references:

During the New Kingdom bronze was sometimes used. Metal plate shields were heavier than leather shields with wooden frames, and did not necessarily afford better protection.

Ramesses II fighting as a charioteer was portrayed wearing scale armor with sleeves, covering the whole torso. The scales were bronze, attached through holes to a skirt.

Cuirass
Breastplate which roughly follows the form of the chest, made of massive steel held in place by two crossed leather straps; especially favored by light cavalry and infantry.

 

[BDawg]

let’s not forget the claim that inside the hill cumorah in new york is a whole room full of the records and the sword of laban as well.

This was seen in a vision by (I think) Oliver Cowdery. I imagine people can have visions that show them things that actually reside in other places (e.g., all the visions of heaven in the Bible?)

 

[zerinus]

From your references:

Well, what is your point? I did not say that metal was never used. I made the point that it is not such a farfetched idea to use leather for that purpose, because it was used, and sometimes even afforded better protection.

The Nephites also used “thick clothing” for that purpose (Alma 43:19).

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

That was both untrue and uncalled-for, Paul. At one point, the Lamanites were depicted as much more righteous than the Nephites.

I have no problem with the idea that the Book of Mormon is a bit racist–almost all ancient cultures were. (Read the Old Testament, for crying out loud!) But let’s not exaggerate.

Here’s what I was referring to:

And because of their cursing [the skin of blackness] which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
-2 Nephi 5:24

…their hatred was fixed, and they were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness; feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat; and they were continually seeking to destroy us.
-Enos 1:20

Paul

 

[BDawg]

I know you don’t like Jeff Lindsay’s site, Maj, but here’s why I like it. The Mormons here keep referring to things we think are positive evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. You guys keep referring to things mentioned in the Book of Mormon that archaeologists haven’t found, criticisms based on DNA, etc. Jeff has a page here where he discusses all the best evidences, and he has a page here where he discusses all the major criticisms. He even has a page here where he discusses the nature of evidence and proof, etc., that is fairly sophisticated in its treatment of the issues. I have never, ever, seen a book or web site critical of the Book of Mormon that addresses all of these issues. They tend to just focus on criticisms and maybe take a swipe or two at a couple of the weaker evidences.

I have seen you complain about how you think some of his answers to criticisms are kind of hokey, but you’re entitled to your opinion, and the fact is that life is like that. For a complex issue, you might have 1) strong evidences for your interpretation, 2) weaker evidences, and 3) points that tend to go against your interpretation, but you still try to come up with some possible answers for them. At least Jeff tries to make a complete argument, rather than just ignoring criticisms.

I’ve noticed the same thing in Catholic apologetic literature. You have some really good points (e.g., I think you can make a good argument for the Real Presence in the eucharist from very old Christian literature,) some weaker points (e.g., the philosophical definition of God was adopted pretty early, and there were some Jewish precedents, but I think anthropomorphites like me can make a stronger argument,) and some points where you are clearly fishing for some ad hoc answer to criticisms (e.g., your fishing around for some explanation for rampant early Christian Subordinationism over on the “Nature of God” thread.)

Since Carl is looking at Jeff’s page, why don’t you guys check to see if Jeff has addressed your criticisms already, before you launch them? Then maybe you could criticize his attempts to neutralize the criticism.

 

[BDawg]

Hi Paul,

So where does it say their “curse” involved an inability to write?

 

[PaulDupre]

Hi Paul,

So where does it say their “curse” involved an inability to write?

Okay, it doesn’t explicitly say “inability to write”, but it does indicate a severely darkened intellect as a result of the curse, does it not?

 

[Jerusha]

I have no need to look at Lindsay’s website.

And if you want to believe that someone found sheets of copper inscribed with the story, left by the Vikings and were able to translate them, a very easy task given the similarity in languages, I am unwilling to debate on the issue, because it is a possibility.

Just don’t copy their “ethics”. If you do, the label “Nazi” comes to mind.

Although I am only about 1/4 Native, I know quite a few people of higher BQ whose IQ’s are just as high as my own. Hitler and the Mormons assumed stupidity. And illiteracy and stupidity are NOT synonymous.

 

[Carl_Nicholas]

I have no need to look at Lindsay’s website.

And if you want to believe that someone found sheets of copper inscribed with the story, left by the Vikings and were able to translate them, a very easy task given the similarity in languages, I am unwilling to debate on the issue, because it is a possibility.

Just don’t copy their “ethics”. If you do, the label “Nazi” comes to mind.

Although I am only about 1/4 Native, I know quite a few people of higher BQ whose IQ’s are just as high as my own. Hitler and the Mormons assumed stupidity. And illiteracy and stupidity are NOT synonymous.

Hi Jerusha,

Ewwwww weeee,
I must come to the defense of my " new Morman friends ".

Not appropriate and certainly not very christian ( sorry ) I call it as I see it.

Peace,
Carl

 

[BDawg]

Okay, it doesn’t explicitly say “inability to write”, but it does indicate a severely darkened intellect as a result of the curse, does it not?

The way I read it is that they became lazy and culturally degraded. Sort of like what is happening in the U.S and other countries right now.

 

[PaulDupre]

The way I read it is that they became lazy and culturally degraded. Sort of like what is happening in the U.S and other countries right now.

The text says that it was a result of the curse of black skin.

And because of their cursing [the skin of blackness] which was upon them they did become an idle people…

However, I do apologize that I could not come up with a more charitable way of pointing it out. Mea culpa.

 

[majick275]

I know you don’t like Jeff Lindsay’s site, Maj, but here’s why I like it. The Mormons here keep referring to things we think are positive evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. You guys keep referring to things mentioned in the Book of Mormon that archaeologists haven’t found, criticisms based on DNA, etc. Jeff has a page here where he discusses all the best evidences, and he has a page here where he discusses all the major criticisms. He even has a page here where he discusses the nature of evidence and proof, etc., that is fairly sophisticated in its treatment of the issues. I have never, ever, seen a book or web site critical of the Book of Mormon that addresses all of these issues. They tend to just focus on criticisms and maybe take a swipe or two at a couple of the weaker evidences.

I have seen you complain about how you think some of his answers to criticisms are kind of hokey, but you’re entitled to your opinion, and the fact is that life is like that. For a complex issue, you might have 1) strong evidences for your interpretation, 2) weaker evidences, and 3) points that tend to go against your interpretation, but you still try to come up with some possible answers for them. At least Jeff tries to make a complete argument, rather than just ignoring criticisms.

I’ve noticed the same thing in Catholic apologetic literature. You have some really good points (e.g., I think you can make a good argument for the Real Presence in the eucharist from very old Christian literature,) some weaker points (e.g., the philosophical definition of God was adopted pretty early, and there were some Jewish precedents, but I think anthropomorphites like me can make a stronger argument,) and some points where you are clearly fishing for some ad hoc answer to criticisms (e.g., your fishing around for some explanation for rampant early Christian Subordinationism over on the “Nature of God” thread.)

Since Carl is looking at Jeff’s page, why don’t you guys check to see if Jeff has addressed your criticisms already, before you launch them? Then maybe you could criticize his attempts to neutralize the criticism.

so you choose to believe that obsidian macahuitl’s being wielded by cotton and leather clad, peccary riding pre-columbian peoples is sufficient to meet BoM descriptions? the BoM specifically mentions rust in describing these implements as metal. i’ve read jeff’s page many times. he throws out possibilities in the spirit of oaks “you don’t have to win the battle, a draw will do”. it’s like a defense attorney desperately trying to cause reasonable doubt and oaks is satisfied with a hung jury. what do you think is positive evidence? to date it all seems like “reasonable doubt” attempts. i have yet to see an LDS book claim on the basis of anything other than “spiritual witness” that anything “proves” the BoM is true.

 

[BDawg]

The text says that it was a result of the curse of black skin.

Like I said, I’m ok with the idea that the Book of Mormon is a little racist in some ways. Most ancient cultures were, including the Israelites.

 

[BDawg]

so you choose to believe that obsidian macahuitl’s being wielded by cotton and leather clad, peccary riding pre-columbian peoples is sufficient to meet BoM descriptions? the BoM specifically mentions rust in describing these implements as metal. i’ve read jeff’s page many times. he throws out possibilities in the spirit of oaks “you don’t have to win the battle, a draw will do”. it’s like a defense attorney desperately trying to cause reasonable doubt and oaks is satisfied with a hung jury. what do you think is positive evidence? to date it all seems like “reasonable doubt” attempts. i have yet to see an LDS book claim on the basis of anything other than “spiritual witness” that anything “proves” the BoM is true.

Like I said, critics tend to ONLY focus on the weak points. Case in point… YOU!

 

[ibkc]

Like I said, I’m ok with the idea that the Book of Mormon is a little racist in some ways. Most ancient cultures were, including the Israelites.

Problem is, the Book of Mormon’s racism is the explicit 19th century style based on skin color. That kind of racism did not exist in the real ancient world. People certainly hated each other, but the idea that skin color makes some people physically and intellectually superior than others is a relatively recent development. When I read the BoM back in high school, this was the first clue that it was of modern origins.

 

[PaulDupre]

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica’s article on Race:

Race is the idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences. Genetic studies in the late 20th century denied the existence of biogenetically distinct races, and scholars now argue that “races” are cultural interventions reflecting specific attitudes and beliefs that were imposed on different populations in the wake of western European conquests beginning in the 15th century. (emphasis mine)

The ancient Israelites could not have been racist, as no concept of race existed back then. There were, of course, certain cultures and peoples hated by the Israelites. But this was a matter of nationalism and religious conflict, not race.

Anyone who reads the bible and sees racism is forcing their own values onto the text.

 

[why_me]

Problem is, the Book of Mormon’s racism is the explicit 19th century style based on skin color. That kind of racism did not exist in the real ancient world. People certainly hated each other, but the idea that skin color makes some people physically and intellectually superior than others is a relatively recent development. When I read the BoM back in high school, this was the first clue that it was of modern origins.

The strange thing about the book of mormon is that it is not racist. The lamanites are a chosen people and the gentiles are often told to repent of their wicked ways. Actually, it is the white gentile that is the enemy and not the darker skinned lamanite. This is often overlooked by critics.

It was not the lamanite that was destroyed by the lighter skinned characters but the lamanites who destroyed the nephites because of nephite wickedness. It became of the will of god because of nephite unrighteousness.

Such is my opinion about it all.

 

[why_me]

The Lamanites apparently had no records. According to the BoM their dark skins made them incapable of writing.

The spanish found much to admire when they encountered the Aztecs and Incas. And much was destroyed because of the precious metals that were found by the spanish. I do believe that writings were also found but quickly melted away for their value potential. No one really knows what was lost from those civilizations when the spanish began their looting.

 

[ibkc]

The strange thing about the book of mormon is that it is not racist. The lamanites are a chosen people and the gentiles are often told to repent of their wicked ways. Actually, it is the white gentile that is the enemy and not the darker skinned lamanite. This is often overlooked by critics.

It was not the lamanite that was destroyed by the lighter skinned characters but the lamanites who destroyed the nephites because of nephite wickedness. It became of the will of god because of nephite unrighteousness.

So the Nephites were destroyed, leaving the Lamanites with their curse of dark skin and savagery, waiting long years until Whitey could return and restore them to their former white and delightsome state by converting them to the LDS faith.

Sorry, but that’s pretty racist.