The problem with Limited Geography,

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm sure the Mayans/Aztecs/etc. developed pyramid "technology" in a vacuum and independent of the Egyptians, Chinese and many others.

I'm sure the presence of cocaine in Egyptian mummies was from extraordinarily effective jetstreams rather than the ability to sail between continents.

Your point being that Lehi's descendants built those pyramids?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

That's my point. There are in the New World, and they are thousands of years old, though not as densely primarily because of lack of domesticable food and geographic barriers. We can make educated guesses about the origins of these cultures. It has nothing to do with Israel.

Such as, say, lack of domesticated corn? Oh wait, that's the first domesticated crop.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Your point being that Lehi's descendants built those pyramids?

That's not my point. My point is merely to show that there is circumstantial evidence that a Middle Eastern/Mesoamerican connection of some form existed, even if it wasn't necessarily a strong or enduring one.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Such as, say, lack of domesticated corn? Oh wait, that's the first domesticated crop.

"Most importantly, as Jared Diamond shows in Guns, Germs, and Steel, the Fertile Crescent possessed the wild progenitors of the eight Neolithic founder crops important in early agriculture (i.e. wild progenitors to emmer wheat, einkorn, barley, flax, chick pea, pea, lentil, bitter vetch), and four of the five most important species of domesticated animals — cows, goats, sheep, and pigs — and the fifth species, the horse, lived nearby."

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

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Even though I consider you a friend, rote arguments such as this make me believe you don't understand the arguments such as AA or SEIQ are making. Instead of thinking through the thoughtful arguments you merely mouth the thoughtless attacks of disbelievers. Frankly, I expect more of you.

I can condense their arguments and still do them complete justice: The Book of Mormon is obviously not a historical account and Mormonism is going to have to adopt it on new and different terms.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Of course it's uncertain. That's what science is all about. Why is that so hard for you to get? As soon as someone tells me they have all the answers I stop listening. But you need to give me a platform, some basis on which to discuss Book of Mormon historicity, or I'm not interested and I'm not going to hold out the possiblity of historicity any more than I would of Lord of the Rings', especially with all the impeaching evidence, as I have noted. If you want to see an example of what I'm talking about go to the Israel as occupiers thread and see Oxcoug's and my debate about historicity of the Pentateuch and the Iliad.

Let me as you a question: If your mantra is nothing is certain, why are you so certain the Book of Mormon is a historical account, absent even a mustard seed of evidence? Your certainty there's something out there (in the face, as I have noted, of a great deal of evidence impeaching the B of M), doesn't seem to jibe with "nothing is certain." Are you saying you're agnostic on the issue, just hoping?

Your lack of comprehension of my understanding of science is due to your inability to appreciate the abstract nature of my reasoning, due in part to my deficiencies in articulation and your condescension.

In general I greatly enjoyed reading the thread in the politics forum and reassert as I have elsewhere that the political forum is the most valuable forum on this message board. As an aside I think your Pentateuch and Iliad historicity comparison is a weak analogy.

Regardless, I am certain that the Book of Mormon is what it is because of a profound personal witness. For all your boasting, you, nor any other person has offered even a mustard seed of evidence to impeach it’s veracity. Supposition is not evidence.

Joseph’s hidden education or supposed genius is not evidence. A lack of genetic markers is not evidence. The literary quality of the writing is not evidence. Lack of specific book of Mormon narrative in hieroglyphics is not evidence etc. etc.

I am a complex abstract thinking human being whose ideas and beliefs cannot easily be prosecuted, codified or dismissed. I am an actively engaged member of the LDS faith that I assert was founded by a prophet of God, called to establish the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the earth.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

... The Book of Mormon is obviously not a historical account ...

The Book of Mormon admitted as much, mentioning the historical account was in the sealed portion of the plates.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Your point being that Lehi's descendants built those pyramids?

Listen to yourself ... well, there's certainly evidence that ancient peoples crossed oceans BUT IT WASN'T LEHI! lol

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Your lack of comprehension of my understanding of science is due to your inability to appreciate the abstract nature of my reasoning, due in part to my deficiencies in articulation and your condescension.

In general I greatly enjoyed reading the thread in the politics forum and reassert as I have elsewhere that the political forum is the most valuable forum on this message board. As an aside I think your Pentateuch and Iliad historicity comparison is a weak analogy.

Regardless, I am certain that the Book of Mormon is what it is because of a profound personal witness. For all your boasting, you, nor any other person has offered even a mustard seed of evidence to impeach it’s veracity. Supposition is not evidence.

Joseph’s hidden education or supposed genius is not evidence. A lack of genetic markers is not evidence. The literary quality of the writing is not evidence. Lack of specific book of Mormon narrative in hieroglyphics is not evidence etc. etc.

I am a complex abstract thinking human being whose ideas and beliefs cannot easily be prosecuted, codified or dismissed. I am an actively engaged member of the LDS faith that I assert was founded by a prophet of God, called to establish the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the earth.

I have professional expertise in what is and is not evidence, and you are wrong. There is a lot of evidence against the Book of Mormon including some to which you allude and baldly dismiss as not constituting evidence. Some we haven't even mentioned here such as JS's proven history for claiming he translated historical documents and coming up with something not remotely accurate in place, time or content to what we know the document says with the aid of the Rosetta Stone (I'm suspending my rule of not debating such things to show how a case might be made against the Book of Mormon in court, since we're talking bout what is and is not evidenc).

Even a post-modernist view, and I appreciate very much sophisticated post-modernism such as Cormac McCarthy's, does not do violence to the evidence. It's about recognizing the continuing vitality of mystery. Not denying reality.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Listen to yourself ... well, there's certainly evidence that ancient peoples crossed oceans BUT IT WASN'T LEHI! lol

In the first place, I don't think it's far fetched that ancient Americans and ancient Egyptians independently came up with pyramids. If you have evidence of Old World peoples migrating to the Americas in 600 B.C. out with it! Cough it up.