Difference between revisions of "User:InProgress/Website reviews/B"

(create)
 
(add)
Line 15: Line 15:
 
{{Website response summary}}
 
{{Website response summary}}
  
The positions that this MormonThink article appears to take are the following:
+
'''The positions that the MormonThink article "Book of Mormon Difficulties" appears to take are the following:'''
 
*
 
*
  
Line 23: Line 23:
 
==== ====
 
==== ====
 
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
 
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
+
|claim=Critic's Rebuttal: The first apologist argument that they did not find archeological evidence of lions in Palestine until very recently is not applicable since pictographic and literary evidence of horses in the New World (outside of the Book of Mormon) is unknown. There were writings and drawings of lions in Palestine and horses used by the Huns yet there are no writings or drawings of any modern-day horses by the natives of the Americas. The Native Americans had absolutely no knowledge of horses until Columbus and the Spaniards introduced them to the Old World.
 
|think=
 
|think=
 
|quote=
 
|quote=
Line 30: Line 30:
 
==== ====
 
==== ====
 
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
 
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
+
|claim=The second apologist argument that the horses described in the BOM were really deer or tapirs is absolutely ridiculous. Joseph Smith knew what a horse was and certainly the 'most correct book on earth' wouldn't mistranslate deer for horse 14 times. Can you imagine a tapir pulling the chariots as described in the Book of Mormon? Joseph managed to  come up with proper nouns like Curelom and Cumom and Ziff, Senine...but he couldn't get the real name for whatever he substituted horse for?
 
|think=
 
|think=
 
|quote=
 
|quote=
Line 37: Line 37:
 
==== ====
 
==== ====
 
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
 
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
+
|claim=Our Thoughts: As children, we were all taught in American History classes about the profound impact that horses had on the Indians once they were introduced to the New World by the Europeans. We have a hard time believing that all the history books, scientists, Indian records, etc. are all wrong about something that was so important to the Native Americans. If the ancient inhabitants of the Americas really had the horse as described in the BOM, we can't conceive of how or why they would let this most useful of all animals disappear and of course leave absolutely no trace of its existence.
 
|think=
 
|think=
 
|quote=
 
|quote=
Line 44: Line 44:
 
==== ====
 
==== ====
 
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
 
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
+
|claim=Interesting note: Solomon Spalding, in his fictional piece Manuscript Story, mentions horses in connection with the inhabitants of the New World. So perhaps it's no wonder that the author(s) of the BOM might make the same mistake.
 
|think=
 
|think=
 
|quote=
 
|quote=
Line 51: Line 51:
 
==== ====
 
==== ====
 
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
 
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
+
|claim=Equally curious is why this drawing isn't used by the apologists at FAIR and FARMS. They likely know that the macaw explanation is accepted by serious archeologists (such as Michael Coe). They may also suspect it is not credible like the numerous ancient American horse hoaxes that Daniel Peterson of FARMS use to endorse.
 
|think=
 
|think=
 
|quote=
 
|quote=
Line 58: Line 58:
 
==== ====
 
==== ====
 
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
 
{{MormonThinkIndexClaim
|claim=
+
|claim=It's very interesting that apologist Daniel Peterson of FARMS says that Alma 11, which describes Nephite coinage, is almost certainly wrong.
 
|think=
 
|think=
 
|quote=
 
|quote=

Revision as of 23:33, 1 May 2012

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3


A FAIR Analysis of:
MormonThink
A work by author: Anonymous

A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "Book of Mormon Difficulties"

FAIRMORMON'S VIEW OF THE CRITICS' CONCLUSIONS


The positions that the MormonThink article "Book of Mormon Difficulties" appears to take are the following:

FAIRMORMON'S RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING DATA


On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's Rebuttal: The first apologist argument that they did not find archeological evidence of lions in Palestine until very recently is not applicable since pictographic and literary evidence of horses in the New World (outside of the Book of Mormon) is unknown. There were writings and drawings of lions in Palestine and horses used by the Huns yet there are no writings or drawings of any modern-day horses by the natives of the Americas. The Native Americans had absolutely no knowledge of horses until Columbus and the Spaniards introduced them to the Old World.


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The second apologist argument that the horses described in the BOM were really deer or tapirs is absolutely ridiculous. Joseph Smith knew what a horse was and certainly the 'most correct book on earth' wouldn't mistranslate deer for horse 14 times. Can you imagine a tapir pulling the chariots as described in the Book of Mormon? Joseph managed to come up with proper nouns like Curelom and Cumom and Ziff, Senine...but he couldn't get the real name for whatever he substituted horse for?


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Our Thoughts: As children, we were all taught in American History classes about the profound impact that horses had on the Indians once they were introduced to the New World by the Europeans. We have a hard time believing that all the history books, scientists, Indian records, etc. are all wrong about something that was so important to the Native Americans. If the ancient inhabitants of the Americas really had the horse as described in the BOM, we can't conceive of how or why they would let this most useful of all animals disappear and of course leave absolutely no trace of its existence.


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Interesting note: Solomon Spalding, in his fictional piece Manuscript Story, mentions horses in connection with the inhabitants of the New World. So perhaps it's no wonder that the author(s) of the BOM might make the same mistake.


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Equally curious is why this drawing isn't used by the apologists at FAIR and FARMS. They likely know that the macaw explanation is accepted by serious archeologists (such as Michael Coe). They may also suspect it is not credible like the numerous ancient American horse hoaxes that Daniel Peterson of FARMS use to endorse.


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...
It's very interesting that apologist Daniel Peterson of FARMS says that Alma 11, which describes Nephite coinage, is almost certainly wrong.


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary




On their old website, MormonThink claims...


FairMormon commentary