Hugh Nibley was a fool, come watch

[_Coggins7]

Then wait you will. This stuff is well known, and I'm aware of the Macaw controversy. Some artwork most definitely has been misinterpreted, while others, such as upper area of Copan stela B make the Macaw interpretation seem rather far fetched, as do the numerous pottery shards clearly depicting Elephants (the old TV show In Search Of did an episode on this at one time, showing a number of pottery shards depicting Elephant or Elephant like creatures). Then there is the Elephant pipe

In any case, we know Mammoths and Mastodons existed in ancient Mexico and central America, and there really isn't any particular reason to believe that at least some small population of such creatures could not have survived into Jaradite times. There's nothing implausible about that whatever. And there is, on the face of it, no evidence that they did not.

But again, the Book of Mormon does not rise of fall upon this, as their is a plethora of suggestive external evidence in other areas that is more than adequate as plausible alternatives to critic's claims without every question regarding various plants or animals (some of which have, in fact, been seen to fit the Book of Mormon nicely) having been answered.

[_Blixa]

(the old TV show In Search Of did an episode on this at one time, showing a number of pottery shards depicting Elephant or Elephant like creatures).

Uh. huh.

[_Coggins7]

Nobody cares about the hoaxes. Neither I nor any other serious LDS cares about the obvious hoaxes. Calm down. The Book of Mormon does not rise of fall on elephants or horses. There is mountainous other evidence lending plausibility to very many Book of Mormon claims, that the critics have yet to contend with in a substantive manner (primarily because...they can't).

The critics only present hope is to harp and harp and harp and bang the drum on only those aspects of Book of Mormon archeology that are the most perplexing and difficult, while ignoring those which actual discoveries have show to be plausible.

The central problem here is that the core intellectual dishonesty of the typical anti-Mormon critic simply will not allow a balanced, critically open minded analysis of these matters.

At least, that's been my experience with the typical anti-Mormon critic for as long as I've been reading and studying there work. There are, of course, a few exceptions to that rule.

Just not many.

[Guest]

The Book of Mormon does not rise of fall on elephants or horses. There is mountainous other evidence lending plausibility to very many Book of Mormon claims, that the critics have yet to contend with in a substantive manner (primarily because...they can't).

The critics only present hope is to harp and harp and harp and bang the drum on only those aspects of Book of Mormon archeology that are the most perplexing and difficult, while ignoring those which actual discoveries have show to be plausible.

Coggins: You may have answered this elsewhere and if so, I apologize for asking again. How do you view the Book of Mormon? Do you see it as a literal history? Do you view it as inspired fiction? If you feel it is a literal account of history, where did it take place? Did the events occur during the time period described in the Book of Mormon? The reason I ask these questions is that I don't see the mountainous evidence that you claim exists. You may have some non-empirical evidence (i.e. spiritual witness) for a claim of the book's validity...I'm not questioning that. I guess I just don't understand your position.

[_beastie]

Nobody cares about hoaxes, but you just invoked one yourself:

Then there is the Elephant pipe

So Coggins accuses me of “poor showing” for supposedly offering examples that NO LDS would offer, apparently having ignored the url of the second, and subsequent, examples. Apparently so confident of the wealth of excellent elephant evidence, he bluffs:

No, no Mormon would make that claim. Nice try at a red herring and insulting our intelligence at the same time. Are you really going to force me to post the photos of pottery fragments, art, and carved toys clearly depicting Elephants or very Elephant-like creatures from ancient Mesoamerica?. They're fairly well known Beastie.

Poor showing Beastie, poor showing.

So when I say, yes, please do post all this evidence CLEARLY depicting elephants or elephant like creatures, you say:

Then wait you will. This stuff is well known, and I'm aware of the Macaw controversy.

Well, gee. I guess that bluff was, well, a bluff. Here you have the ideal opportunity to help provide some clear, clear evidence supporting a Book of Mormon claim that is viewed as anachronistic by mainstream academia, and you take a pass.

Some artwork most definitely has been misinterpreted, while others, such as upper area of Copan stela B make the Macaw interpretation seem rather far fetched, as do the numerous pottery shards clearly depicting Elephants (the old TV show In Search Of did an episode on this at one time, showing a number of pottery shards depicting Elephant or Elephant like creatures). Then there is the Elephant pipe

Did you even read or click on any of the links I offered? It’s not just the macaw, it is also the god chac, and tapirs. I have read well over thirty books on ancient Mesoamerica, and almost all of them deal, at length, the royal kingship, since it is such an inherent part of Mesoamerican culture. They discuss kings, like Smoke Shell, (Stela B), and what their costumes mean. Yet not one has ever, ever suggested that any of these representations may be elephantine. Instead, these items represent things like snakes, birds, feathers, earflares, etc. You know, the things that actually existed in ancient Mesoamerica and thus became the material of myths and art…unlike, say, horses and elephants. You see an elephant for the sole reason that someone who WANTED to see an elephant drew a representation of Stela B that made it LOOK like an elephant. (by the way, this is what waldeck did, as well, and is notorious for it now) People who actually understand ancient Mesoamerica, their glyphs, their art, their environment, NEVER see an elephant, and thereby don’t draw a representation of the item that makes it appear elephantine. And then you use as source like “In Search of” and the elephant pipe, which, by the way, was obtained from the 1885 book by Mercer I just linked. In his OWN book, Mercer admits “Figures 2 and 3, the now famous "elephant pipes," the authenticity of which is doubted, however, in the last report of the Bureau of Ethnology, came to light in Louisa County, Iowa.”.



Yes, in fact, the elephant pipe has, indeed, been discredited.

http://www.pseudoarchaeology.org/a05/a05-pinsky.htm

The Davenport Conspiracy:
Revisited and Revised
Randy Pinsky
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Anthropology and Archaeology
Wednesday May 16, 2007.

Primarily, Gass had been arrested before for having dealt with and sold artifacts, specifically presumed as ancient smoking pipes, of doubtful nature, a fact of which he surely was aware (Williams 1991:95, Gass et al 1886:438, McKusick 1971:40). Thus, he was no stranger to this occupation of engaging with fraudulent materials. McKusick (1991) also provides a table demonstrating that the whole Gass family was involved in various aspects of such fraudulent dealings. Table 1 shows how his brother, Edwin Gass and brother–in-law Adolf Blumer, were involved in the ‘discovery’ of many unauthentic pipes. McKusick (1991) makes the shocking statement that “the Gass family was responsible for at least twenty-nine of the thirty-four frauds” (106). While Gass had found fourteen genuine to twelve fake pipes, it is critical to note that the brother and Blumer found a total of seventeen fakes between them, and no genuine ones. This is critical to note and throws suspicion on the family. Interestingly, some sources claim that the relatives were also trying to ‘frame’ the reverend (McKusick 1991:108), but it is curious as to their motive.

So once again, evidence that is touted for the Book of Mormon turns out to be viewed as fraudulent by mainstream academia. Imagine the odds.

[_Coggins7]

I can't answer your question because it would take a book length essay to do it. There is virtually a mountain of suggestive evidence. We could go over one point at a time.

[_beastie]

Come on, Coggins, give me all that clear elephant evidence, one at a time.

[_evolving]

I can't answer your question because it would take a book length essay to do it. There is virtually a mountain of suggestive evidence. We could go over one point at a time.

I am buzzing with joy, am I about to see an actual of mountain of suggestive evidence?

my question is -- why is it suggestive evidence and not real evidence? real evidence would be much better for me.

[_beastie]

Well, until Cog sees fit to grace us with his CLEAR elephant evidence, I shall continue to entertain myself with the evidence presented here:

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photos-page3.html

Note, in particular, the "elephant mound".

(close up)

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/eleph ... nty-wi.jpg

Again, a possible source of this claim is the Mercer book I already linked.

Not only has the elephant mound been debunked, but it was debunked over a century ago. Upon closer inspection of the soil, it was evident that the only thing that made the mound look like an elephant, instead of the probable bear - the "trunk" - was actually the result of soil drift and not a part of the original design.

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bi ... 36&isize=M

[_Loquacious Lurker]

Gazelam, Ray A, etc. -- please tell me whether the space aliens depicted in these petroglyphs predate or postdate the Spanish Conquistadors?