Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Where is the archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Here is how the Mayans used the wood to make cement:



    http://www.theoldexplorer.com/index....hnology/cement

    If you lack sufficient wood to make this 4 meter high kiln, you can't melt the limestone. Bushes are insufficient.
    Like I said, the plants that exist on the high desert where I live have low twisted branches, which would be terrible for construction purposes, but have trunks that can be 6 inches thick and burn very well. All they would need is a fuel that burns well.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Sorry, but your claim (and the BOM's) is that they had cement buildings,...
    The text doesn't specify exactly how the cement was used. Again you are being unreasonable by insisting that the "houses of cement" mentioned only in passing in the Book of Mormon text, supposedly had to be made of 100% cement.

    When the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith, nobody even knew that ancient people in the Americas used cement at all. Then it turned out that they did. And the reason why we must use a looser term for "cement" is because we have to use the term as used and understood in the early 1800s, when Joseph Smith was using the term. In fact, in his description of how he found the plates, his term for "cement" was obviously not a 20th or 21st century technical term, "The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates."

    Source: amazon.com

    Stephens's book, first published in two volumes in 1841, has been abridged by Karl Ackerman, a freelance writer. Stephens made his journey in 1839-40, accompanied by an artist, Frederick Catherwood, who made detailed drawings of the Mayan ruins. The book was extremely popular upon publication;
    - George M. Jenks, Bucknell Univ., Lewisburg, Pa

    © Copyright Original Source



    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Again, any "learned doctor" worth their salt would have known of this book. Not that I buy Grant's fable anyway...
    Perhaps a learned doctor of anthropology or archeology, but there are many "learned" people who are not aware of the book, not even today.

    -7up

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
      Like I said, the plants that exist on the high desert where I live have low twisted branches, which would be terrible for construction purposes, but have trunks that can be 6 inches thick and burn very well. All they would need is a fuel that burns well.
      Twisted branches are not sufficient because they allow too much air flow to escape in the middle and top of the structure, which would ruin the negative pressure of the combustion chamber. The construction was very specific so as to minimize the air flow from anywhere except the very bottom of the furnace. Additionally, soil core samples show no known shortage of tree pollen from the general time frame of this fictional setting of the Book of Mormon. The only known massive deforestation around Teotihuacan was well after the end of the main period of cement construction efforts, and well toward the very end of the fictional time frame of the BOM narrative. Tikal's agricultural deforestation problem didn't happen until 100 years after the end of the fictional BOM adventures.

      The text doesn't specify exactly how the cement was used. Again you are being unreasonable by insisting that the "houses of cement" mentioned only in passing in the Book of Mormon text, supposedly had to be made of 100% cement.
      So now you fall back on plan B now that I've shown that houses and temples in Mesoamerica were not made of cement, nor were they peopled by Jews living as Christians, nor was there a problem with the availability of wood in the fictional time frame.

      When the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith, nobody even knew that ancient people in the Americas used cement at all.
      And all this does is make a giant assumption that Mesoamerica is the location for the setting of the Book of Mormon.

      Then it turned out that they did.
      A civilization did. One that shows no similarities to the fictional Book of Mormon people, nor showed any indication that they were aware of a powerful civilization over 5 times larger in their own back yard.

      And the reason why we must use a looser term for "cement" is because we have to use the term as used and understood in the early 1800s, when Joseph Smith was using the term.
      So, now you are backing off and claiming that the cement used by the Mayans was possibly not the same as the fictional characters of the Book of Mormon used?

      In fact, in his description of how he found the plates, his term for "cement" was obviously not a 20th or 21st century technical term, "The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates."
      So why are you now using Mayan cement to bolster your claim about cement supposedly found by Joseph Smith in New York?

      Source: amazon.com

      Stephens's book, first published in two volumes in 1841, has been abridged by Karl Ackerman, a freelance writer. Stephens made his journey in 1839-40, accompanied by an artist, Frederick Catherwood, who made detailed drawings of the Mayan ruins. The book was extremely popular upon publication;
      - George M. Jenks, Bucknell Univ., Lewisburg, Pa

      © Copyright Original Source





      Perhaps a learned doctor of anthropology or archeology, but there are many "learned" people who are not aware of the book, not even today.

      -7up
      The why brag that someone who knew absolutely nothing about a subject was bested by someone else who knew nothing about it? Grant made the story up. It's rather obvious.
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      - Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        Twisted branches are not sufficient because they allow too much air flow to escape in the middle and top of the structure, which would ruin the negative pressure of the combustion chamber. The construction was very specific so as to minimize the air flow from anywhere except the very bottom of the furnace.
        So, your assertion is that every time that any group of ancient people in the Americas created cement, they all followed this very specific diagram? That is quite a big assumption on your part.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        So now you fall back on plan B now that I've shown that houses and temples in Mesoamerica were not made of cement,..
        No. I am tossing out your assertion that when a person says, "houses of cement", it MUST be 100% cement. That is not a reasonable interpretation. When the major binding material used in making the structure, is cement, then it can properly be considered to be made of cement. Even in modern times, people say "cement" when they are actually referring to asphalt, concrete, mortar, etc.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        ...nor were they peopled by Jews living as Christians, nor was there a problem with the availability of wood in the fictional time frame.
        You are discounting possibilities without the proper evidence.

        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        And all this does is make a giant assumption that Mesoamerica is the location for the setting of the Book of Mormon.
        Agreed.

        -7up

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by seven7up View Post
          So, your assertion is that every time that any group of ancient people in the Americas created cement, they all followed this very specific diagram? That is quite a big assumption on your part.
          No, I am saying that in order to create the necessary heat and to sustain the containment of the heat to the top section in order make the cement found in Copan and Palenque, twisted sticks were completely insufficient.


          No. I am tossing out your assertion that when a person says, "houses of cement", it MUST be 100% cement. That is not a reasonable interpretation. When the major binding material used in making the structure, is cement, then it can properly be considered to be made of cement. Even in modern times, people say "cement" when they are actually referring to asphalt, concrete, mortar, etc.
          You truly are desperate. A vinyl house is not "made of glue" or nails. A brick house is not "made of mortar". No, 7, that's not how normal people speak. When something is made of cement, it is made of cement as the primary building material.



          You are discounting possibilities without the proper evidence.
          I am discounting the prevailing theory on the location of the BOM lands, to which there is ample evidence.



          Agreed.

          -7up
          Which is exactly the assumption Heber Grant made in his fictional story.
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          - Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            You truly are desperate. A vinyl house is not "made of glue" or nails. A brick house is not "made of mortar". No, 7, that's not how normal people speak. When something is made of cement, it is made of cement as the primary building material.
            Wow. Yeah, he's really sounding desperate.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
              You are discounting possibilities without the proper evidence.
              The less radical Mormons always mock the need for evidence.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                No, I am saying that in order to create the necessary heat and to sustain the containment of the heat to the top section in order make the cement found in Copan and Palenque, twisted sticks were completely insufficient.
                Again more assumptions. You assume that all cement in the Americas was made the same way. You assume that different burning materials (whether they be twisted or not) could not be used. You are stuck to the idea that ancient people in different locations and cultures all followed the same specific diagram. That is ludicrous.

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                You truly are desperate. A vinyl house is not "made of glue" or nails. A brick house is not "made of mortar". No, 7, that's not how normal people speak. When something is made of cement, it is made of cement as the primary building material.
                Even a "brick" house has all kinds of other materials. Is the roof made of "brick" in a "brick house". No it is not.

                Furthermore, when Joseph Smith translated to the word, "cement" the definition at that time was much more loose than the modern technical sense that you attempt to use here. In his time, "cement" was anything that glued things together. For example, from an Oxford dictionary of his time cement was: "any substance applied in a soft or glutinous state to the surfaces of solid bodies to make them cohere firmly".

                So, your attempt to paint Joseph as incorrectly using your modern definition falls flat, not only because there technically was cement used by native americans (even full concrete slabs), but also all kinds of other cement materials. So, perhaps it is you who is "desperate".

                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                Which is exactly the assumption Heber Grant made in his fictional story.
                There is no reason why he would make such a thing up. "Cement" in the Americas had yet been found when he told the story.

                Perhaps you can claim that the man was not as "learned" as he claimed to be. But, calling President Grant a liar make YOU look to be the one with just a big axe of bias to grind.

                -7up

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  The less radical Mormons always mock the need for evidence.
                  Cow Poke, please tell me why, based on the language at Joseph Smith's disposal, that this this could not be called a cement house:

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_M...iro_mounds.jpg

                  Keep in mind that this is just a general example.

                  -7up

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Here is one point of view:

                    According to Helaman 3:7, the people who went into the lands northward became "expert in the working of cement" and built "houses of cement." According to David Palmer, the use of cement and concrete spread throughout Mesoamerica in a time span from at least as early as 100 B.C. through A.D. 400. The tourist sees it in great abundance at Teotihuacan (near Mexico City). At Kaminaljuyu (Guatemala City) the concrete mix was similar. Tiny pieces of volcanic stone, 0.5 to 2 millimeters in diameter, were mixed with clay and lime. After drying, a very smooth and durable surface is formed. An early manifestation of the use of cement is at Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas where it was used to surface the temple known as Mound 1. This can also be seen at Monte Alban (Oaxaca).

                    Step by Step Through the Book of Mormon by Alan C. Miner citing from [David A. Palmer, In Search of Cumorah, pp. 121-122]

                    Against Bob the Cat's wishes, it looks like not everyone in ancient America used the same method and diagram that Bob the Cat presented here.

                    -7up

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                      Cow Poke, please tell me why, based on the language at Joseph Smith's disposal, that this this could not be called a cement house:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_M...iro_mounds.jpg

                      Keep in mind that this is just a general example.

                      -7up
                      I have no interest in the cement house claims --- but it's entertaining to watch BTC blow this house down.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                        Against Bob the Cat's wishes, it looks like not everyone in ancient America used the same method and diagram that Bob the Cat presented here.

                        -7up
                        Just out of curiosity, you are calling Bill the Cat Bob the Cat.... is this an honest mistake? OR is this some goofy childish attempt at demeaning him (though I can't imagine how that would demean him).
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                          Again more assumptions.
                          No it isn't. It is simple fire science. In order to melt limestone, a very high heat source with very directed heat escape is necessary. Your ignorant squirming aside.

                          You assume that all cement in the Americas was made the same way.
                          No I don't. I know it wasn't. In areas that didn't have volcanic rock to use as the agent to be bound, other forms of stone was used. You also get to conveniently hide behind the fact that there is no "official" book of Mormon land location to even compare supposed methods to, so you get to sit behind the fable and snipe based on differences in real world locations that had different materials to work with.

                          You assume that different burning materials (whether they be twisted or not) could not be used.
                          It's no an assumption. Limestone has a pretty fixed melting point (even impure limestone like they have in Belize), and only specific configurations of timber are capable of achieving that level of heat for the duration of time necessary to melt the limestone. Claiming otherwise is just plain foolishness.

                          You are stuck to the idea that ancient people in different locations and cultures all followed the same specific diagram.
                          No I am not. What I AM claiming is that the concrete that you and the hacks at FAIR love to bandy about WAS created like that, and any archaeologist who knows anything about the area and time knows that.



                          Even a "brick" house has all kinds of other materials. Is the roof made of "brick" in a "brick house". No it is not.

                          So what? The house is STILL called a "house of bricks", not a "house of mortar". Joseph used a very specific phrase to describe what the houses were supposedly made of.


                          Furthermore, when Joseph Smith translated to the word, "cement" the definition at that time was much more loose than the modern technical sense that you attempt to use here.
                          So, that brings up other issues, such as why Grant, and FAIR, love to claim that the cement in Mexico and Belize is corroborating evidence for the Book of Mormon. If the "cement" isn't really "cement", but was actually something like stucco or terracotta, why claim that there was real cement used in the temple complexes? It's a smoke screen diversion from the elephant in the room... there is no Book of Mormon lands.

                          In his time, "cement" was anything that glued things together.
                          So, again, this is a begged question. FARMS research quite clearly states "Once labeled by critics as anachronistic, references to cement in the Book of Mormon (Helaman 3:7, 9, 11) can now be seen as further evidence of the authenticity of the text. This is because today the presence of expert cement technology in pre-Hispanic America is a well-established archaeological fact."


                          So, your attempt to paint Joseph as incorrectly using your modern definition falls flat, not only because there technically was cement used by native americans (even full concrete slabs), but also all kinds of other cement materials.
                          So, yet again, you get to sit behind the fable and take pot-shots while FARMS claims that the actual cement used in Copan and Palenque is "evidence" for the BOM's authenticity. Their assumption is that Joseph used the term "cement" exactly how science used it to describe the composition of the binding material at places like Teotihuacán. If he simply meant some other type of binding agent, then the cement in Mesoamerica would not really be "evidence" for the BOM's authenticity, now would it?


                          So, perhaps it is you who is "desperate".
                          Nope. You are utterly ignorant on this subject, and all you can do is parrot FAIR articles and take cheap shots at real archaeology based on a fictional location that can not ever be verified.



                          There is no reason why he would make such a thing up.
                          Yes there is. He was a liar and a braggart just like the other Mormon "prophets"

                          "Cement" in the Americas had yet been found when he told the story.
                          Yes it had. I already told you in post 21. "Of course. Your point was that some Mormon leader claimed that some "learned man" (unidentified to be sure) in the late 1800s was making fun of him for the BOM claim of cement existed in Mesoamerica . The funny thing is that before Heber Grant was even born, John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood had already noted the cement in the temple complexes of Copan and Palenque in Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan."

                          Perhaps you can claim that the man was not as "learned" as he claimed to be. But, calling President Grant a liar make YOU look to be the one with just a big axe of bias to grind.

                          -7up
                          No it doesn't. When the evidence is laid out, it is Grant who is found wanting. He made a bold claim about some anonymous man who supposedly had "received a doctor's degree" making a claim about Mesoamerican archaeology that was completely false, and had been for decades before Grant was even born. While it may, or may not, have been a lie, it was certainly either an exaggeration or grandstanding by Grant.
                          Last edited by Bill the Cat; 09-04-2014, 08:52 AM.
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          - Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seven7up View Post

                            Against Bob the Cat's wishes, it looks like not everyone in ancient America used the same method and diagram that Bob the Cat presented here.

                            -7up
                            So, which part of the continents did the BOM events occur? And where exactly were these "houses of cement" (or mud, or stucco, or terracotta, or whatever Joseph supposedly meant by "cement") located so we can compare the archaeological records of those people with the supposed Nephites? Oh, and my brother's name is Bob, not mine.
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            - Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Just out of curiosity, you are calling Bill the Cat Bob the Cat.... is this an honest mistake? OR is this some goofy childish attempt at demeaning him (though I can't imagine how that would demean him).
                              It's the last ditch attempt to score cheap points when he knows he has been completely decimated.
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              - Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Just out of curiosity, you are calling Bill the Cat Bob the Cat.... is this an honest mistake? OR is this some goofy childish attempt at demeaning him (though I can't imagine how that would demean him).
                                greatest_american_hero_deluxe.jpg tumblr_n3s6bu5OQf1ri74e4o1_500.jpg

                                I knew I recognised that name. Took me all this time to remember.
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X