Native American use of Sacred Metal Tablets

[Guest]

Edgoble you are really misinformed. Its true no evidence exist in Meso America that relates to what is described in the Book of Mormon but when it comes to North America there are matching timelines, artifacts, dna, culture, and linguistics etc.

David McKane, your claims are outrageous. Many LDS members believe in alleged evidence in Mesoamerica. That you so boldly state that no evidence exists while claiming that your own cherry picked conclusions are the truth is beyond disturbing. Do you realize that you have no backing from the living prophet and apostles?

What I cannot wrap my head around is why any LDS member would even delve into pseudoarchaeology and alternate history. If Moroni's promise works, there is no need for anything else. No need to search for evidence, no need to cherry pick or promote a position that leads to divisiveness among the membership of the church. No need to dispute over Cumorah in New York vs. two Cumorahs, etc.

If the Holy Ghost bears witness to the truth of the Book of Mormon, none of this distortion of science or cherry picking to arrive at desired conclusions is of any value at all.

On the other hand, if Moroni's promise is just part of that 19th century fictional writing known as the Book of Mormon, then I suppose there is a need to try to fabricate so-called evidence by any means. And that leads me back to you David McKane. Your methods, conclusions, statements and actions are strongly indicating to me that the Book of Mormon is a hoax.

[_Themis]

Repetition of claims WITHOUT EVIDENCE is not only not convincing, you apparently think we are too stupid to realize that's what you're doing.

You won't do the research Ed has mentioned. You aren't doing archaeology or science. You're basically printing gossip, speculation and blatant lies on your site. You may impress those who are already primed with racism and other bigotries to credit your conclusions but you are not convincing anyone here. You're promoting racist pseudoscience and actually making Mormons look bad.

Ed's only a little better. He just cherry picks and misuses real science more often. I always love how they always go back to feelings/sensations and thoughts as a way to know something is true. It is so good that they run away when you start asking questions. I admit to doing the same thing as missionaries. We really couldn't handle serious questions about the HG and how one knows it is communicating, and what the communication is. We would leave the real seekers of truth and look for the gullible. Mind you I didn't see that I was doing this until much later, but that was what we were taught from children on up.

[_bomgeography]

Edgoble you are really misinformed. Its true no evidence exist in Meso America that relates to what is described in the Book of Mormon but when it comes to North America there are matching timelines, artifacts, dna, culture, and linguistics etc.

David McKane, your claims are outrageous. Many LDS members believe in alleged evidence in Mesoamerica. That you so boldly state that no evidence exists while claiming that your own cherry picked conclusions are the truth is beyond disturbing. Do you realize that you have no backing from the living prophet and apostles?

What I cannot wrap my head around is why any LDS member would even delve into pseudoarchaeology and alternate history. If Moroni's promise works, there is no need for anything else. No need to search for evidence, no need to cherry pick or promote a position that leads to divisiveness among the membership of the church. No need to dispute over Cumorah in New York vs. two Cumorahs, etc.

If the Holy Ghost bears witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon to an individual, none of this distortion of science or cherry picking to arrive at desired conclusions is of any value at all.

On the other hand, if Moroni's promise is just part of that 19th century fictional writing known as the Book of Mormon, then I suppose there is a need to try to fabricate so-called evidence by any means. And that leads me back to you David McKane. Your methods, conclusions, statements and actions are strongly indicating to me that the Book of Mormon is a hoax.

Tapir you think any scientific evidence unless you agree with it is fantasy. That's not very scientific.

[Guest]

Ed's only a little better. He just cherry picks and misuses real science more often. I always love how they always go back to feelings/sensations and thoughts as a way to know something is true. It is so good that they run away when you start asking questions. I admit to doing the same thing as missionaries. We really couldn't handle serious questions about the HG and how one knows it is communicating, and what the communication is. We would leave the real seekers of truth and look for the gullible. Mind you I didn't see that I was doing this until much later, but that was what we were taught from children on up.

Actually you are quite wrong, because I have always distinguished between religious evidence and science, and have always made the clear distinction in every post I have made here. Just because you don't accept my epistemology, and just because you don't accept my religious evidence as evidence doesn't mean that I have confused religious evidence with science. On the matter of distinction between these two things has always been very clear. I have never once made some sort of claim that there is a burden or requirement on you to accept religious evidence. And I have never had expectation that you would. I would ask that you respect the fact that I accept certain religious evidences that you do not, but that doesn't mean that I have ever made a claim that they are anything other than what they are. In my worldview they are valid, but I have always respected the limitations of that worldview where it can't be imposed on anyone outside of my head, that is, I have always understood the bounds within which I can make certain claims. It is entirely within the free will of each individual to accept or reject them. If science is all that matters to you, then by all means, reject the religious evidence and accept ONLY science. You have never been fair to me in this, because you have sought to find fault with me, but on the other hand, I have always been fair to you in never trying to require of you to accept my religious evidence, or to suggest that there is some secular way that I could make the case that you ought to. As reasonable, logical people, I think it is incumbent upon you to be fair to reasonable Mormons that are trying to be fair, notwithstanding the ideological divide that exists between us, and notwithstanding the possible bad feelings that may exist in your camp toward the Church.

[_tapirrider]

Tapir you think any scientific evidence unless you agree with it is fantasy. That's not very scientific.

Don't even try to tell me what I think, David McKane. Scientific is accepting the evidence, even if it goes against everything one once thought or believed. Scientific is the willingness to change one's conclusions when evidence clearly demonstrates that those conclusions are wrong. Scientific is most certainly NOT based on accepting only what one agrees with. How dare you accuse me of what you in fact are doing?

David McKane, one of the most difficult things I ever faced in my life was finally accepting that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a work of fiction. Letting go of something that I had so strongly believed was no light-hearted activity, it was no easy thing to do. To put it bluntly, I was devastated.

And one of the most frustrating things that I experienced prior to that was sorting through the pseudoarchaeology claims made by LDS members, searching in hopes that something credible could be found. But all I found once I began real research, without bias or cherry picking, was that claims of evidence never held up. Far too many were wrapped in known hoax artifacts, or surrounded with controversial claims such a a conspiracy among scientists to hide evidence, etc. It does not take much research to realize that no mainstream scholar supports such things and only a little more study to understand why.

It also takes very little effort to realize that members of the LDS church are divided over where the Book of Mormon stories were supposed to have happened. The Mesoamerican crowd and the Heartlanders can't both be right. Such a situation strikes right into the very heart and core of LDS historical claims about the one true church. It is reminiscent of the story of Joseph Smith's own search for which church to join. Why would a church today that is supposed to have the truth based on the allegedly most correct book on earth have its own members divided against each over something as simple as where the stories happened? David McKane, it all begins to unravel when a person approaches this scientifically. But scientific analysis and scholarly research discipline is not your forté. So once again, don't even try to tell me what I think. Just leave the American Indians alone. You don't know them, you don't understand them, and you are promoting a racism that even the leaders of the LDS church are trying to tone down on. Get a grip David McKane.

[_bomgeography]

Tapir you think any scientific evidence unless you agree with it is fantasy. That's not very scientific.

Don't even try to tell me what I think, David McKane. Scientific is accepting the evidence, even if it goes against everything one once thought or believed. Scientific is the willingness to change one's conclusions when evidence clearly demonstrates that those conclusions are wrong. Scientific is most certainly NOT based on accepting only what one agrees with. How dare you accuse me of what you in fact are doing?

David McKane, one of the most difficult things I ever faced in my life was finally accepting that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a work of fiction. Letting go of something that I had so strongly believed was no light-hearted activity, it was no easy thing to do. To put it bluntly, I was devastated.

And one of the most frustrating things that I experienced prior to that was sorting through the pseudoarchaeology claims made by LDS members, searching in hopes that something credible could be found. But all I found once I began real research, without bias or cherry picking, was that claims of evidence never held up. Far too many were wrapped in known hoax artifacts, or surrounded with controversial claims such a a conspiracy among scientists to hide evidence, etc. It does not take much research to realize that no mainstream scholar supports such things and only a little more study to understand why.

It also takes very little effort to realize that members of the LDS church are divided over where the Book of Mormon stories were supposed to have happened. The Mesoamerican crowd and the Heartlanders can't both be right. Such a situation strikes right into the very heart and core of LDS historical claims about the one true church. It is reminiscent of the story of Joseph Smith's own search for which church to join. Why would a church today that is supposed to have the truth based on the allegedly most correct book on earth have its own members divided against each over something as simple as where the stories happened? David McKane, it all begins to unravel when a person approaches this scientifically. But scientific analysis and scholarly research discipline is not your forté. So once again, don't even try to tell me what I think. Just leave the American Indians alone. You don't know them, you don't understand them, and you are promoting a racism that even the leaders of the LDS church are trying to tone down on. Get a grip David McKane.

Scientific evidence matches up with the Book of Mormon wither you want to believe it or not. But I have stated this before evidence it is irrelevant to a witness of the spirit you so willingly mock.

I don't care what you believe but for the large amount of scientific data, cultural, artifact, historical accounts and linguistic stats match up. We can debate this all day you are not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. For everyone who is undecided I think the evidence and historical accounts speak for themselves.

[_Quasimodo]

This image (one of my own photos) is a petroglyph, made by a Lamanite a thousand or so years ago. Most real experts agree that it depicts a big horn sheep passing gas. Stone age humor? The sheep does seem to have a smile on it's face.

I shared this because it exemplifies my opinion of bomgeography's research techniques.

[_tapirrider]

Scientific evidence matches up with the Book of Mormon wither you want to believe it or not. But I have stated this before evidence it is irrelevant to a witness of the spirit you so willingly mock.

I don't care what you believe but for the large amount of scientific data, cultural, artifact, historical accounts and linguistic stats match up. We can debate this all day you are not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. For everyone who is undecided I think the evidence and historical accounts speak for themselves.

I don't mock the spirit. If a person believes that the Holy Ghost has confirmed the truth of the Book of Mormon to them, I at least respect that. But I do call out those who fabricate false evidence, which is exactly what you are doing David McKane. Those who believe the Book of Mormon based on Moroni's promise and leave it at that are in my experience the same ones who avoid the dissension and controversy over where the stories allegedly happened. In their beliefs, it is true and none of this pseudo garbage matters. So why does your so-called research matter so much to you? Perhaps Moroni's promise just isn't enough for you?

There really is no debate, because your entire position is flawed, false, only attainable with biased cherry picking and has no backing from any credible scholars, historians, archaeologists, geneticists, or even your own church's living prophet and apostles. So as for it being a debate, it is not. Your misguided ideas, conclusions and opinions do not even warrant a debate.

You have no evidence David, only speculative garbage that does not hold up to any scrutiny and has no credibility. A few of the times you have asked me for sources to back up my challenges to your claims, you have failed to address them or even to respond. But now you boldly tell me that the evidence matches up to the Book of Mormon. David McKane, you don't even deal with the facts. In my experience, what you are doing does far more harm to truth seeking members of the church than you are even aware of.

[_bomgeography]

This image (one of my own photos) is a petroglyph, made by a Lamanite a thousand or so years ago. Most real experts agree that it depicts a big horn sheep passing gas. Stone age humor? The sheep does seem to have a smile on it's face.

I shared this because it exemplifies my opinion of bomgeography's research techniques.

I think this one is better.

http://bookofmormonevidence.blogspot.co ... welry.html

[_Themis]

Ed's only a little better. He just cherry picks and misuses real science more often. I always love how they always go back to feelings/sensations and thoughts as a way to know something is true. It is so good that they run away when you start asking questions. I admit to doing the same thing as missionaries. We really couldn't handle serious questions about the HG and how one knows it is communicating, and what the communication is. We would leave the real seekers of truth and look for the gullible. Mind you I didn't see that I was doing this until much later, but that was what we were taught from children on up.

Actually you are quite wrong, because I have always distinguished between religious evidence and science, and have always made the clear distinction in every post I have made here. Just because you don't accept my epistemology, and just because you don't accept my religious evidence as evidence doesn't mean that I have confused religious evidence with science. On the matter of distinction between these two things has always been very clear. I have never once made some sort of claim that there is a burden or requirement on you to accept religious evidence. And I have never had expectation that you would. I would ask that you respect the fact that I accept certain religious evidences that you do not, but that doesn't mean that I have ever made a claim that they are anything other than what they are. In my worldview they are valid, but I have always respected the limitations of that worldview where it can't be imposed on anyone outside of my head, that is, I have always understood the bounds within which I can make certain claims. It is entirely within the free will of each individual to accept or reject them. If science is all that matters to you, then by all means, reject the religious evidence and accept ONLY science. You have never been fair to me in this, because you have sought to find fault with me, but on the other hand, I have always been fair to you in never trying to require of you to accept my religious evidence, or to suggest that there is some secular way that I could make the case that you ought to. As reasonable, logical people, I think it is incumbent upon you to be fair to reasonable Mormons that are trying to be fair, notwithstanding the ideological divide that exists between us, and notwithstanding the possible bad feelings that may exist in your camp toward the Church.

I have been very fair with you. You misunderstand what I was asking. I was never asking you to prove your religious evidence to me. I was asking how you prove it to yourself. This is the issue that is the problem. How does one know any sensation or thought is from a divine source or some other source including yourself. Then add in how sensations have no interpretation. Each person adds that interpretation based on what they have been taught and believe. As missionaries we tell investigators how to interpret their sensations and hope they believe us and are able to get some positive feeling. These are not questions believers like to address.

When is come to science you do cherry pick and misrepresent things to fit with what you want to believe.