So you're just going to ignore the fact that the BoM decribes swords with hilts and pointed ends and your obsidian studded clubs lack those things?

Very telling.

Mar 14, 2012 -- 11:19PM, Ironhold wrote:

Mar 14, 2012 -- 2:17PM, wohali wrote:

Ironhold, how could "critics of the church" not think that Mexica "swords" did not exist?

"Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing The Battle And Not Even Knowing It" by Carl Mosser and Paul Owens.

Back in 1997, two Evangelicals did up a graduate thesis in which they surveyed both pro- and anti-Mormon literature.

In the process, they officially declared what most Mormon apologists of the day already knew: the average critic of the LDS faith was several years, if not decades, behind the current research due to an alarming tendency to rely on the writings of others rather than do their own independent research. The end result was that arguments which had long since been debunked were still in circulation, as the critics honestly didn't know that they'd already been addressed or that new advances had taken place.

You see, all too often, what will happen is that a critic will get their hands on one or two pieces of hostile literature, take the literature at face value, and declare the battle to be over. At the extreme, we'll literally encounter people who try to lecture us on the Bible and the Early Christian Church despite not having read their Bibles cover-to-cover and being ignorant of entire centuries' worth of Christian history.

Some of the more honest critics will knuckle under when presented with the counter-evidence, at which point the discussion moves on and we try to teach them the truth. For example, back around 2004 I had a discussion with a World Net Daily reporter who admitted that his references regarding the church were, indeed, well out of date and that he was legitimately unaware of some major developments that had taken place since he stopped actively keeping tabs on the matter.

Other critics, however, will immediately reject anything that contradicts their world view. Some go into outright denial, while others accuse us of lying to them, claiming that their source knows the actual truth and we don't. This latter phoenominon has become a punchline among Mormon circles, and in fact we actually had a thread about this on the old forums.

Thus, critics who persist in making obviously incorrect assertions like "there were no swords in Central America before Columbus" or "Mormons have horns!".

This is laughable, really laughable. Having read a bit on Mosser and Owens, and what their 'thesis' actually entailed, I have to say that their work basically serves as an apologetic for argumentative discourse rather than whether such argumentative discourse is actually basis of fact.

This entire line is exceedingly disingenuous. What difference does it matter whatsoever how 'outdated' one could be said to be in the process?  They officially declared (Just upon exactly what basis does two college students declarations serve to establish an 'officialism'? )what most Mormon apologists of the day already knew: the average critic of the LDS faith was several years, if not decades, behind the current research due to an alarming tendency to rely on the writings of others rather than do their own independent research. The end result was that arguments which had long since been debunked were still in circulation, as the critics honestly didn't know that they'd already been addressed or that new advances had taken place. (So?? The fact that FARM and other Mormon apologetics view an issue as 'debunked' when they publish their response serves in absolutely no way to classify such as being so.)

What new advances? What new evidence? What new science? Far from being 'anti'-Mormon, many would actually like to see such embarrassing Mormon strictures of grasping at straws be supported by some actual evidence fo,r as of now, defending Mormonism requires a completely no-brainer of it's adherents.

Are you suggesting that new advances in science has supported the Mormon archaeological and lineage claims? To the contrary, it has over the decades simply provided nail after nail after nail in the coffin of the claims. Can you show any for support?

www.equip.org/articles/lds-apologetics-a...

As follows:

The severity of this problem has been brought to the forefront in recent years as scientists confirmed that there is no genetic link between American Indians and Jews. According to the story told in the Book of Mormon, a Jewish man named Lehi came to America with his family around 600 BC. His offspring quickly divided into primarily two people groups known for their loyalty to two of Lehi’s sons, Laman and Nephi. The narrative tells how the Lamanites and the Nephites constantly battled each other until the white-skinned Nephites were completely dominated and destroyed by their dark-skinned counterparts. Mormon leaders have historically insisted that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. According to those who hold the doctrinal purse strings, the people mentioned in the Book of Mormon numbered in the millions; however, scientific data has compelled Mormon scholars to reject such a notion.

Southerton looked to Mormon apologetics works for answers when he was confronted with this dilemma as a church member. “I was amazed at the lengths that FARMS went to in order to prop up faith in the Book of Mormon,” he said.⁵⁴ “I felt that the only way I could be satisfied with FARMS explanations was to stop thinking. On the other hand I was also surprised at how readily the declarations of the prophets, including Joseph Smith, could be overlooked in order to salvage the wreck.”⁵⁵

In his book, Southerton notes,

Most LDS apologists now accept that the Americas were widely and heavily populated at the time the Lehites arrived on the continent. FARMS writers propose that while Lehi and his small group quickly dominated the native populations soon after they arrived in the New World, their own populations may never have been numerically significant. The shift from a macro-history of all ancient peoples of the continents of North and South America to a micro-history of a few people who lived somewhere in Mesoamerica corresponds with the exponential growth in secular research revealing an overwhelming connection to Asia. For all the criticism leveled at mainstream dogma, the thinking of Mormon scholars is now more aligned with their Gentile colleagues than the teachings of latter-day prophets.⁵⁶

Southerton sees modern interpretations regarding Book of Mormon geography as equally unimpressive since they ignore the dominant literal interpretation of the text as well as the many unambiguous statements of all church presidents since the time of Joseph Smith. He dismisses the popular “limited geography” theory espoused by John Sorenson, a retired BYU professor and longtime supporter of FARMS.⁵⁷ Southerton’s conclusion about FARMS is quite direct: “They should come out and say, ‘There’s no evidence to support your Israelite ancestry.’ I don’t have any problem with anyone believing what’s in the Book of Mormon. Just don’t make it look like science is backing it all up.”^{58     Emphasis mine.}

TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES

History is supposed to deal with facts, yet much of the history the LDS Church presents is filled with notions that are not accurate. So-called revisionists such as D. Michael Quinn, Grant Palmer, and Simon Southerton seem to be placing their cards on the table and calling LDS leadership to quit doctoring up their “official” history. The church leaders’ reaction to this challenge, especially in light of the tactics taken by its orthodox scholars, will be instrumental in showing just how seriously Mormonism should be taken in this information-laden twenty-first century.

Mar 14, 2012 -- 11:11PM, Ironhold wrote:

Mar 14, 2012 -- 3:17PM, li47 wrote:

1. Steel actually comes up in the KJV rendering of the Old Testament, so arguing that the reference is anachronistic isn't going to work.

Is "steel" the word used in the original Hebrew or Aramaic text? Or is that word the one chosen by the King James era translators?

That's my point - the KJV translators seemingly stumbled upon a word meaning some sort of metal alloy they didn't recognize and substituted "steel" in there for the translation.

As I've been trying to tell people, translating isn't an exact art. As part of it, you often have words, phrases, or concepts that just don't translate well; generally speaking, at that point it's either "leave it as it stands" or "try to find something comparable and pray people don't notice."

For example, when 4Kids! was translating Pokemon into English, they ran into an issue trying to localize different Japanese elements that they felt North American audiences might not be able to catch on to. This led to a rather infamous episode in which the characters were visibly eating rice cakes yet kept referring to them as "jelly donuts" - most North American kids would probably not be familiar with rice cakes, but the average kid likely would (they hoped) be familiar with the notion of filled pastries.

So, you're conceding that JS got it wrong.  Okay, I can live with that.  You can't; but that's fine. 

Mar 15, 2012 -- 12:09AM, Esdraelon wrote:

This is laughable, really laughable. Having read a bit on Mosser and Owens, and what their 'thesis' actually entailed, I have to say that their work basically serves as an apologetic for argumentative discourse rather than whether such argumentative discourse is actually basis of fact.

If I was to actually recommend some apologetic works to be reading, would you have the courage to read them?

Or would you continue to ignore them?

As it is, you need to quit doing your extended cut-and-pastes from other websites. It's against BNet RoC, and can actually get both you and BNet sued in court for intellectual property theft.

Mar 15, 2012 -- 11:54AM, Esdraelon wrote:

I have been all over your apologetic sites on the web, but you are welcome to recommend some of your own.

Define "all over".

Which supposed pro-LDS sites have you been to, then?

I think you for your concern, however, after your 'JC NotFor Me' travesty, your esteem in my eyes is absolutely zero.

You're still bitter about getting shown up, aren't you?

The sad, simple truth is that a lot of counter-cult and anti-cult arguments can easily be spun back around at mainline Christianity. If you had a little more experience and had actually read a little more, you'd know that. 

As to cut and pastes, I don't make them a habit, by any means, the web site is highlighted on the post, and the moderator will remove the post if it violates RoC.

It's SOP on most message boards, now, really. Just presume that unless you wrote or co-wrote the article in question that you can't directly cite more than a paragraph or two.