Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Anijen

The Plates Of Nephi

Recommended Posts

You are so hung up on your literalism that you aren't seeing the bigger picture. If something is not "ruled out" how can you say that the ideas expressed by others are so wrong? The fact that the few words we have are "all we have to work with" doesn't rule any theory out. Until something is given that doesn't rule anything out and tells the exact story of what took place we can theorize all we want within the framework of the evidence.

You seem to forget that the BOM we have is a very limited account, not even a historical one at that, but primarily focused on the spiritual doing of the people. It skips hundreds of years and talks about peoples leaving the main body and exploring and never being heard from again. The technical explanations of where and when events happened is left entirely to speculation and scholars have studied this for years. You likely are not acquainted with some of the new evidence that is being produced and some very intelligent and convincing work.

If one believes the BOM to be a true account of the ancient inhabitants of this land, as I do and as many of the scholars do, what is the burr under your saddle that you can't accept that they may have some intelligent and logical ideas about where events took place?

You asked what my point was. All I have done here is tried to show it. The statement: "He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent" was said to support a Meso-American geography. I showed Moroni's words to Joseph Smith that included the American Indian of New York during Joseph Smith's life. I also showed the words of the Savior in the D&C that included all of the American Indian in the United States. My point was that we cannot generalize the words "this continent" while ignoring specific writings from direct sources. Things have to square with each other.

I am very well acquainted with new evidence. One of the difficulties with either the Meso-American or Great Lakes theories is those pesky haplogroups. When folks speculate about migrations from Meso-America into the region of the U.S. this creates a problem. Haplotype x is not found in Meso-America. LDS speculations tend to ignore this. It is a problem because the genetic evidence shows a population of people who were already in the U.S. region before Lehi, before the Jaradites. They are still there. The same problem happens with those supporting the Great Lakes model. If they wrongly try to use haplotype x to claim BofM people, they leave out those people in Meso-America.

The words of Moroni and of the Savior should be important to all LDS. Previous prophets and apostles understood this. That is why a hemispheric theory was applied to all indigenous people in America. The recent speculations imply groups of American indigenous people not being BofM people. This is harmful not only to the faith of LDS members (as previous general authorities warned) but is also harmful to LDS members of enrolled tribes within the U.S. who know from haplogroups that they are not included in the Meso-American model.

I think the previous statements by LDS leaders warning about speculation were wise. Deborah, you seem to have questioned the words of Joseph Smith in his journal. You seemed to doubt that Moroni had said those things. I hope you can see that speculation can be harmful to not only yourself but to members you know nothing about.

Share this post


Link to post
It's interesting to me that in countering rcrocket's assumption that LGT proponents are lacking in faith, you provide a quote in which the writer assumes that those coming to different conclusions than him (in terms of the historicity of the BOM) are lacking in honesty.

I second that. The very first sentence of that speech sets the tone: "Some who term themselves believing Latter-day Saints"

It's a horrible speech. It oversimplifies, polarizes, denigrates, argues from authority, is self-contradictory, applies double standards, uses strawmen, shifts the burden of evidence, is disingeneous (not to say dishonest), is anti-intellectual and anti-scientific while paying lip service to scholarship (so it's hypocritical as well), exhibits black-and-white thinking, makes unsubstantiated claims, attacks the messenger and is thoroughly fundamentalist.

I probably missed a few rethorical devices but this should be enough to ruffle a few feathers. In Elder Oaks' defense, he was preaching to the choir and it was a long time ago - a youthful indiscretion, maybe.

Share this post


Link to post

I showed Moroni's words to Joseph Smith that included the American Indian of New York during Joseph Smith's life.

Actually, I don't think you did. After careful review, I failed to see on that page the words "New York" at all! I also failed to see the phrase "American Indian". What I saw was what appeard to be a paraphrase by Josepth Smith of a part of a communication from Moroni.

I don't know the answer to the Limited vs. Hemispheric models, but I do know that you are appearing to force weight pursuent to a specific issue into what appears to me to be a general paraphrase.

Q

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, I don't think you did. After careful review, I failed to see on that page the words "New York" at all! I also failed to see the phrase "American Indian". What I saw was what appeard to be a paraphrase by Josepth Smith of a part of a communication from Moroni.

I don't know the answer to the Limited vs. Hemispheric models, but I do know that you are appearing to force weight pursuent to a specific issue into what appears to me to be a general paraphrase.

Q

The "general paraphrase" contains the very specific wording "literal descendants of Abraham". "Indians" obviously meant those that Joseph Smith was familiar with in New York. This is much more specific than "ancient inhabitants of this continent". It identified a living people tied to the BofM. D&C 28 was revelation from the Lord to go preach to these living people. The Seneca were the first to be given the Book of Mormon.

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/church-history-institute-student-manual/chft-06-10-7.asp

"The missionaries visited a friendly tribe of Seneca Indians on the Cattaraugus Reservation near Buffalo, New York, where they paused just long enough to introduce the Book of Mormon as a record of their forgotten ancestors. “We were kindly received, and much interest was manifested by them on hearing this news,” Parley reported. Leaving two copies of the book, the missionaries journeyed onward. So far as is known, these were the first American Indians to hear the message of the Restoration in this dispensation."

Share this post


Link to post

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon," Here.

So much for the "faithless" argument.

Share this post


Link to post

"Indians" obviously meant those that Joseph Smith was familiar with in New York.

No - it does not. In fact, I believe the term indian was originally used to describe the natives that Columbus et al found... in the carrribean and then central america and florida.

You continue to assign specific meanings to terms that were not specific when uttered, only to support your theory. Your final idea may even be correct... but your "obviously" type terminology does not sway.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...