The Noose again begins to tighten on the critics...

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Some of us discussed the idea of Joseph Smith not understanding the Book of Mormon himself on an earlier thread.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=2229

I think the only way that Joseph Smith could NOT have understood the Book of Mormon is under the tight translation theory. Otherwise, text itself is the product of his understanding via the "loose" translation theory. What Joseph Smith understood about the text is what became the text.

I've stated many times that in the attempt to salvage the historicity claim, Book of Mormon apologist have rendered the text practically meaningless. It can mean anything you need it to mean. So Alma 8 makes it clear that Zarahemla politically controlled Ammonihah. (see verse 12: And now we know that because we are not of thy church we know that thou hast no power over us; and thou hast delivered up the judgment-seat unto Nephihah; therefore thou art not the chief judge over us.)

This is a problematic claim for this time period in ancient Mesoamerica. Try to discuss this with an apologist like Brant who actually understands why it is problematic, and you will find out how this LGT/loose translation theory renders the text meaningless.

But apologists do not like to present the text in this neutered way, in my opinion, so when discussing these issues with other believers who do not possess adequate background knowledge to recognize the contextual anachronisms, they just pretend that a traditional reading of the text is coherent with ancient Mesoamerica. So while Brant would argue with me on FAIR and insist I was "misreading" the text to insist that it states that Zarahemla had political control over Ammonihah, and this is an anachronism, on his website, he actually reads the text in a traditional way.

http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli ... /Alma8.htm



We learn two important lessons from these verses, one spiritual and one historical. The spiritual lesson follows form Alma’s example in the exercise of his mission to Ammonihah. Even though he finds resistance, he pleads with God “in might prayer” to find a way to reach the people. However, he clearly does not stop at prayer, and still make still makes the attempt to teach them, else they would not be able to provide the very specific rejection that Mormon lists.

The historical lesson deals with the nature of the political and religious alliances of Zarahemla. Clearly Ammonihah recognizes the authority of Zarahemla over it. They reject Alma because he has no political authority over them. While they are aware of his religious authority, they feel no need to heed that authority as the do not recognize it. The separation of Nephite religion from the political structure is complete, and sufficiently separate that Ammonihah can proclaim political dependence while rejecting the religious dependence.


This commentary certainly is coherent with the text. There was a separation of church and state in Nephite politics. And this fact makes it severely anachronistic to ancient Mesoamerica, where religion and state were one. If Brant were here to defend this, I have no doubt he would find a way to insist that my comprehension of the text (both the Book of Mormon and his own commentary) is indefensible. It becomes straining at words, and can we comprehend them, in these discussions, the way we would comprehend the same words in any other discussions? The answer is apparently no.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

I wonder if the Olmec heads could be a style of art, not necessarily faithful representations of what the people looked like. Kind of like the Picasso-esque style of ancient egypt, where human figures stand at right angles and have eyes on the sides of their heads.


This is likely the case. The heads were their leaders, in particular, and stylized elements were included to indicate that. Richard Diehl says that "chubby, bald, "baby-faces," with puffy cheeks" was a common style for figurines, and this is probably what looks "negroid" to us.

Drawings of the time period portray people looking more like the later Maya. Ever noticed how slanted their heads were? They did believe slanted heads were beautiful and did things to their infants to make their foreheads more slanted, but no doubt the art is still exaggerated to notify royalty.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

Loquacious Lurker wrote:
Coggins7 wrote:You have Celts, Vikings, Africans, Chinese, other Caucasians of various types, Jews (we know they were here, as they left a stone carving mentioning the fact) and any other number of possible groups.


I would very much like to know what evidence you are relying upon when you speak of a Celtic visit to the New World.


I think that's Barry Fell's baliwick. More In Search Of style wondering and wandering...
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

I think that's Barry Fell's baliwick. More In Search Of style wondering and wandering...


No doubt. Barry Fell is the perfect source for LDS.

snicker
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

by the way, the same person whom LDS apologists refer to as a reliable source for the Bat Creek Stone, also defends the legitimacy of other discoveries supposedly demonstrating ancient writings from the Old World in the ancient New World. (such as in the mounds of the moundbuilders). The artifacts McCulloch defends are widely viewed as fraudulent by experts in the fields. (note, McCulloch is an economist.)

Kenneth Feder, in his excellent book discussing known pseudo-archaeological claims, discusses some of these same artifacts that McCulloch defends here:

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/decalog.html

From Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries – Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology
By Kenneth Feder

Page 162-165

Though the myth of a vanished race of Moundbuilders was based largely on misinterpretation of actual archaeological and ethnographic data, hoaxes involving inscribed tablets were also woven into its fabric.

For example, in 1838, during an excavation of a large mound in Grave Creek, two burial chambers were found containing three human skeletons, thousands of shell beads, copper ornaments, and other artifacts. Among these other artifacts was a sandstone disk with more than twenty alphabetic characters variously identified as Celtic, Greek, Anglo-Saxon, Phoenician, Runic, and Etruscan (Schoolcraft 1854). Translations varied tremendously and had in common only the fact that they were meaningless. The disk was certainly a fraud.

Given the popularity of the notion that the Indians may have descended from one of the Lost Tribes of Israel, it is not surprising that suggestions were made that at least some of the Moundbuilders themselves represented a group of ancient Jewish immigrants from the Holy Land. The so-called Newark Holy Stones seemed to support this notion. (Applebaum 1996)

In the summer of 1860, David Wyrick, a professional land surveyor and ardent amateur archaeologist, continued his ongoing explorations of an impressive group of mounds and enclosures in Newark, Ohio (Lepper and Gill 2000). Immediately to the east of the large octagonal enclosure, Wyrick discovered a 6-inch by 2 and half inch, polished stone object with clearly recognizable Hebrew letters etched onto its surface. Wyrick must have been ecstatic at this discovery because it seemed to supply proof for his own deeply held belief that the New World Moundbuilders were members of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Hebrew writing found in a mound in Ohio would have seemed to confirm this hypothesis.

Unschooled in the Hebrew language, Wyrick took the object, called the Keystone, to a local minister who could translate it. The Reverend John W. McCarty determined that on each of its four faces, the messages read, respectively, “the laws of Jehovah,” “the Word of the Lord,” “the Holy of Holies,” and “the King of the Earth.”

Several months after the discovery of the Keystone, none other than David Wyrick discovered yet another stone with Hebrew writing on it in a mound located just a few miles south of Newark. This was a far more elaborately carved object: a limestone tablet, covered on all of its many faces with Hebrew letters of an entirely different vintage from the characters of the Keystone. This stone became known as the “Decalogue” when its translation revealed it to be a version of the Ten Commandments; the person around whom the commandments were carved was identified as Moses.

Some hailed these artifacts as proof of an ancient Jewish presence in Ohio. Others claimed the inscribed stones were proof of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and still others thought the stones were proof that not ancient Jews, but ancient Masons had built the mounds. Many others were skeptical. The Keystone was written in a modern version of Hebrew, and the alphabet on the Decalogue stone seemed to reflect a more ancient script that, nevertheless, contained anachronisms indicating it had been carved in the nineteenth century. Besides this, if both stones were legitimate, how is it that ancient Jews in North America were, at the same time, writing in two different versions of Hebrew traceable to different time periods in their homeland? Or, if the first stone was a fraud, how likely was it that a genuine stone with ancient Hebrew writing would coincidentally be found just a few miles from the spot where hoaxsters had recently planted a fake stone with modern Hebrew on it? These questions do not even begin to touch on broader, cultural issues: there is no ancient (or modern) Jewish practice of constructing burial mounds, yet it was being proposed that the ancient Jews had built the burial mounds found in North America; neither the Keystone or the Decalogue bear any resemblance whatsoever to any artifact ever found associated with Jewish culture.

In a wonderful piece of detective work, Brad Lepper and Jeff Gill have traced the cast of characters in this story and unraveled what was clearly a hoax. They point out that in 1839, Reverend McCarty’s bishop, Charles Petit McIlvaine, had predicted that artifacts linking the Moundbuilders to the Bible would one day be found. The ambitious Reverend McCarty was deeply involved after the discovery of the Holy Stones; he may also have been deeply involved before they were “found.” As Lepper and Gill conclude, in a general sense, the purpose of the hoax may have been “to encompass the prehistory of the New World with the biblical history of the Old” and to show that all people could be connected to the first people whom God had created and placed in the Garden of Eden. There had been no ancient Israelites in Ohoi, after all, but only nineteenth-century hoaxsters intent on convincing people of the accuracy of the Bible.

In another hoax, the Reverend Jacob Glass discovered two inscribed tablets, in 1877, in a mound on a farm in Davenport, Iowa. One of the tablets had a series of inscribed concentric circles with enigmatic signs believed by some to be zodiacal. The other tablet had various animal figures, a tree, and a few other marks on one face. The reverse face had a series of apparently alphabetical characters from half a dozen different languages across the top, and the depiction of a presumed cremation scene on the bottom. Glass discovered or came into possession of a number of other enigmatic artifacts ostensibly associated with the Moundbuilder culture, including another inscribed tablet and two pipes whose bowls are carved into the shape of elephants.

Thomas launched an in-depth investigation of the tablets. He believed he had identified the source of the bizarre, multiple-alphabet inscription. Webster’s unabridged dictionary of 1872 presented a sample of characters from ancient alphabets. All of the letters on the tablet were in the dictionary, and most were close copies. Thomas suggested that the dictionary was the source for the tablet inscription.

Beyond this, McKusick has discerned the presence of lowercase Greek letters on the Davenport tablet. Lowercase Greek letters were not invented until medieval times. McKusick has also identified Arabic numbers, Roman letters, musical clefs, and ampersands (&) on the Daventport tablet. Their presence is clear proof of the fraudulent nature of the stone. In fact, no genuine artifacts containing writing in any Old World alphabet have ever been found in any of the mounds.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Post by _Chap »

Blixa wrote:
Loquacious Lurker wrote:
Coggins7 wrote:You have Celts, Vikings, Africans, Chinese, other Caucasians of various types, Jews (we know they were here, as they left a stone carving mentioning the fact) and any other number of possible groups.


I would very much like to know what evidence you are relying upon when you speak of a Celtic visit to the New World.


I think that's Barry Fell's baliwick. More In Search Of style wondering and wandering...


Perhaps this is about the 'Voyage of St. Brendan', which some believe may be based on an actual trip from Ireland to Newfoundland?

See:

http://www.lamp.ac.uk/celtic/Nsb.htm

and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan

For a modern attempt at a re-enactment, see

http://www.castletown.com/brendan.htm

It seems there has even been what one might call a 'Celtic Bat Creek Stone', to which Coggins the Credulous is perhaps referring. See the debunking here:

http://cwva.org/ogam_rebutal/wirtz.html

You may enjoy this extract. Could it be that Fell (the person whose work on alleged Ogham inscriptions in West Virginia has been comprehensively dismissed by experts) is in fact Coggins? There is something remarkably similar in the reaction to critics:

A professional conference was convened in 1977 at Castleton College in Vermont to consider the "evidence" reported in America B.C. Fell was one of the conference participants. A verbatim transcript of the proceedings was kept (Cook, 1987: 85-96). After others of those present had expressed doubts about America B.C. findings, Fell responded - with vehement invective. He charged his critics with being too "damn lazy" to read what he had written, so "ignorant" that they "can't even hold a Phoenician inscription the correct way up," and with being united in a jealous desire to protect their professions' conventional wisdom against the conflicting theories he has been developing. Displaying pictures of petroglyphs he claimed to have found in American caves and deciphered in Celtic Ogam, Fell refused to disclose their location. "As long as I am an unpronounceable person, I am not going to say where they are.

A 1977 review of America B.C. in the New York Times Book Review, by Glyn Daniel, Professor of Archaeology at the University of Cambridge, England, described Fell's contention as "ignorant rubbish," reflecting a "set attitude of mind" that is "almost indistinguishable from a delusion" (Daniel, 1977). In characteristic fashion, the Smithsonian Institute in Washington published in 1978 a calm, reserved, meticulously careful Statement regarding America B.C. Authors Dr. Ives Goddard and Dr. William W. Fitzhugh, of the Institution's Department of Anthropology, listed five different sets of basic factual errors and anachronisms in the controversial volume that make it totally incredible (Goddard and Fitzhugh, 1978).

Professor F. H. Wilhelm Nicolaisen of the State University of New York at Binghamton, recognized expert on place names, has analyzed Fell's claims in America B.C. that the names of various New England towns and rivers are of Irish Celtic origin. Nicolaisen traces these names meticulously and irrefutably back to American Algonquin derivations (Nicolaisen, personal communication).

During the past five years, a number of widely recognized and respected archaeologists and linguists have had an opportunity to review the 1983 Wonderful West Virginia report of the Wyoming and Boone County petroglyphs. So far as appears, they all reject, on what seems to be solid ground, the Fell decipherment and interpretation.
_Blixa
_Emeritus
Posts: 8381
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm

Post by _Blixa »

At least this thread has yielded this bit of fun:

He [Fell] charged his critics with being too "damn lazy" to read what he had written, so "ignorant" that they "can't even hold a Phoenician inscription the correct way up," and with being united in a jealous desire to protect their professions' conventional wisdom against the conflicting theories he has been developing. Displaying pictures of petroglyphs he claimed to have found in American caves and deciphered in Celtic Ogam, Fell refused to disclose their location. "As long as I am an unpronounceable person, I am not going to say where they are."
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
_silentkid
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:50 pm

Post by _silentkid »

The Dude wrote:So, in addition to (1) seeing the Book of Mormon as open to new interpretations, and (2) accepting alternative origins delivered by secular sources, these modern LDS scientists must also accept the fact that (3) Joseph Smith had a tendency to speak out of his ass on Book of Mormon topics (at least!). Given those three things, I can understand how LDS scientists do not see their shifting stance as an ad hoc hypothesis. If neither Joseph Smith nor the Book of Mormon ever had the full story, then it is perfectly alright for them to update their beliefs as new information comes to light. That's how science should work.


I think this is a fair assessment. I may have jumped the ad hoc gun a little early (I was thinking of it more in terms of Whiting's adherence to parsimony in phylogenetic analyses...he seems to be leaning towards a maximum likelihood approach here). I have great respect for the work of these LDS scientists (especially Dr. Whiting) outside of the realm of Mormon apologetics. I also know that there are LDS scientists (two specifically with whom I worked) who have accepted the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a literal history and that no migration took place. Sure, they may update their positions as new information comes to light (a virtue of the scientific method). But they deal with the issue based on probablilities rather than possibilities. They aren't as free to speak out on the issue because of their postitions at BYU. So what we end up with is apologists (like Coggins in this thread) proclaiming that LDS scientists have settled this issue, while there are still LDS scientists that don't agree.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Post by _moksha »

KimberlyAnn wrote:
Oh, good grief. The Bat Creek stone is a fraud.

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/bat2.html

KA


Interestingly from that link:

McCarter (1993: 55) also notes that McCulloch's "translation" of the sequence lyhwd as "to Yehud/Judea" is "ruled out by other considerations." Namely:
"Yehud was a name used in the late Persian period (538-332 B.C.) for the district of the Persian empire that corresponded to Judea in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, and though it appears commonly as yhwd on coins and seals of the late Persian period (i.e., the fourth century), it would be out of place on an artifact from the time of the First Jewish Revolt. McCulloch's appeal to a personal name in a paleo-Hebrew tomb inscription (the Abba inscription) is beside the point, since it is not simply a question of orthographic convention, as he seems to understand it, but of the currency of the name itself. It would be as if a contemporary citizen of New York should refer to his home as New Amsterdam."


The usage of that older expression would actually be appropriate from a Book of Mormon timeline, would it not?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

The usage of that older expression would actually be appropriate from a Book of Mormon timeline, would it not?


Yes, but the problem is that it is inconsistent with the other attributes of the inscription.

From its supporters:

Almost 80 years later, however, the late Semitic scholar Cyrus H.
Gordon, then of Brandeis University and later of New York University,
argued that when inverted from Thomas's orientation, the inscription in
fact uses the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet of the first or second century A.D.
,
and that the longest word can be read, from right to left as in Hebrew,
LYHWD, "for Judea," or LYHWDM, "for the Judeans," if the broken final
letter is reconstructed as mem (1971:appendix, 1972). Hebrew scholar and
archaeologist Robert R. Stieglitz of Rutgers University concurs with this
reading (1976, 1993).


https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail ... 16744.html

So there's a fundamental inconsistency between the type of script being used and the terminology used.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Post Reply