Hmm. A 16-year-old-or-less sub-chief and enemy to the Mormons whose tribe/family/parents named him Lehi in honor of the Mormon patriarch, or an older-than-16-year-old sub chief and enemy to the Mormons, taking upon himself the name of Lehi, the Mormon patriarch.
Tell me again why those chances are really, really good? Please be as detailed as you like.
Did the Shoshone have written records? Otherwise, we have to theorize that they preserved the name "Lehi" through 1400 years of oral tradition. If this sub-chief "Lehi" is the only record we have of any Shoshone with that name, then not only do we have to theorize that it was preserved orally, but that they weren't actually using it.
Or we can theorize that the name was picked up from the contemporary Mormon culture somehow. Without more information about his life and the origin of his name (for example, where did the original source for the story about the battle get this name?), it's hard for me to look at this as having anything to do with ancient Book of Mormon peoples.
Personally, the "contemporary culture" theory seems much more likely to me. But I'm willing to accept that it might just be me
Also what Brant and Benjamin McGuire said.
Edited by cinepro, 27 April 2012 - 12:49 PM.
It is not uncommon in gospel discussions for someone to challenge what is being said with the question, "Is that official Church doctrine?" This question often means the one asking it does not like what is being said and is seeking a reason not to be bound by it. The question is generally successful in putting the one being challenged on the defensive because of the difficulties associated with defining "official Church doctrine." - Joseph Fielding McConkie, Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions