What are the chances of a Shoshone Indian Cheif assuming a Book of Mormon name within 16 years of Mormon Pioneers entering the Salt Lake Valley?
We all know that Mormon Pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley on July 22, 1847.
At the Time there were 4 Shoshone Indian cheifs who lead the tribes of the Shoshone Indians. We learn that the name of one of the Cheifs who died in the Bear River Massacre of 1863 (16 years after the LDS entered the Valley) was Lehi.
"Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life.” -- Martin Luther "Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" -- Martin Luther
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
"Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life.” -- Martin Luther "Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" -- Martin Luther
"Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life.” -- Martin Luther "Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" -- Martin Luther
What are the chances of a Shoshone Indian Cheif assuming a Book of Mormon name within 16 years of Mormon Pioneers entering the Salt Lake Valley?
We all know that Mormon Pioneers entered the Salt Lake Valley on July 22, 1847.
At the Time there were 4 Shoshone Indian cheifs who lead the tribes of the Shoshone Indians. We learn that the name of one of the Cheifs who died in the Bear River Massacre of 1863 (16 years after the LDS entered the Valley) was Lehi.
I'd say the chances were pretty slim. unless sub-chief Lehi was an early Schoshone convert to Mormonism, and intentionally took the name Lehi to reflect his new-found faith.
Is there any historical evidence that he or his people were practicing Mormons at the time of the Bear River Massacre?
here is no difference between the two names except how you write it. Is it possible that cinepro is unaware that one looks at the consonants, and ignore the vowels?
Fort Lemhi was a mission approximately two miles (3 km) north of present-day Tendoy, Idaho, occupied by Mormon missionaries from 1855 to 1857.
Approximately twenty-seven Mormon men left the Salt Lake Valley on May 18, 1855, as instructed by Brigham Young with Thomas S. Smith serving as the leader of this group and George Washington Hill as their main Shoshonean language interpreter.[1] The party reached the Salmon River valley (then in Oregon Territory) on May 27 and selected a permanent site for its mission on June 15, 1855.
The mission was named Fort Limhi for King Limhi who was one of the kings cited in the Book of Mormon. In Mormon scripture, King Limhi organized an expedition that lasted 22 days, the same duration it required the Mormon missionaries to reach the Salmon River Country. Consequently, they named their mission after King Limhi, and Limhi eventually became "Lemhi" .
------------------------------------------------------------
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
And the answer to the two questions in the OP would be "really, really good chances" and "not a coincidence".
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.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
Random chance in languages creates false cognates. Linguists assume up to a 5% similarity in two languages can be due to chance and not connection. A perfect case in point is Lamanai, which is actually a sentence meaning "submerged crocodile." With out that particular sentence construction, the nouns themselves would be unimpressive. One I remember is that Spanish for hand is mano. In Aztec it is noma. That seems pretty similar, but the similarity is deceptive. The word for hand in Aztec is actually a root ma, which must have a possessive. The no- is the possessive "my." So the Aztec is actually "my hand." The Aztec language can only have my hand, your hand, our hands--never a disembodied, unrelated hand.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
Random chance in languages creates false cognates. Linguists assume up to a 5% similarity in two languages can be due to chance and not connection. A perfect case in point is Lamanai, which is actually a sentence meaning "submerged crocodile." With out that particular sentence construction, the nouns themselves would be unimpressive. One I remember is that Spanish for hand is mano. In Aztec it is noma. That seems pretty similar, but the similarity is deceptive. The word for hand in Aztec is actually a root ma, which must have a possessive. The no- is the possessive "my." So the Aztec is actually "my hand." The Aztec language can only have my hand, your hand, our hands--never a disembodied, unrelated hand.
One of the Shoshone chiefs was called "Bear Hunter", obviously a name given him by English speakers. Another Shoshone was "One-eyed Tom." Unless one can demonstrate that "Lehi" was his name prior to contact, then I don't see any evidence beyond what occurred in these other instances of name adoption.
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
Random chance in languages creates false cognates. Linguists assume up to a 5% similarity in two languages can be due to chance and not connection. A perfect case in point is Lamanai, which is actually a sentence meaning "submerged crocodile." With out that particular sentence construction, the nouns themselves would be unimpressive.
Actually, that is exactly why I am impressed with the name. The Amerindians, among others, take on animal names to denote their fierceness, courage, etc. Unless you have see a submerged crocodile attack a large animal at a watering hole, you would be unaware that this phrase takes on such a fierce meaning. It is totally invisible in the watering hole, when the animal stoops down to drink, it suddenly comes out of the water and can take down very large animals.
The name indicates a dangerous predator who silently waits in hiding for its prey, and suddenly attacks with deadly force. Surely that name would be appropriate for a warrior king. It is also a play on the name "Laman" which makes it the perfect name for a Lamanite king.
The other thing to remember is that when we talk about coincidences, it matters whether the case is predictive or not. Not long ago, there was a lottery drawing with a record prize of around 650 million dollars. Three tickets won. We might look at the winners and talk about how unlikely it was that they won. But, it isn't unlikely at all that someone won. Had we picked (as they did) the winning numbers ahead of time, it is a surprisingly rare event (for us individually). But the fact that in this case there were three winners is actually very likely (particularly given the number of people playing). For us to start talking about similarities being something other than coincidental, we have to establish a way to make the argument predictive. We might set up a baseline and see how well the total number of similarities match up to that baseline. That is, if there is statistically larger correspondence than what we would expect to see (5% lets say to use Brant's figure), then we have a greater chance that it isn't mere coincidence. If the overlap falls into a range that we might consider normal for generally unrelated languages, then we have to assume that it is coincidence. Isolating all of the similarities and only using them, or even using just a couple of particularly interesting looking similarities do not make useful predictive arguments.
Ben M.
Edited by Benjamin McGuire, 27 April 2012 - 10:04 AM.
... suppose, contrary to legend, that Oedipus, for some dark oedipal reason, was hurrying along the road intent on killing his father, and, finding a surly old man blocking his way, killed him so he could (as he thought) get on with the main job. Then not only did Oedipus want to kill his father, and actually kill him, but his desire caused him to kill his father. Yet we could not say that in killing the old man he intentionally killed his father, nor that his reason in killing the old man was to kill his father. (Davidson)
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
In spite of the world's arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God's prophets.
One that continues to impress me is the mentioning of sheum in the text which was actually an Akkadian word for grain. I will also have to double check, but the Book of Mormon mentions "Ramah" and it is also a word in the Navajo language (in the same context too I think, referring to a sacred hill). I think someone else may have posted it, but I will mention again that Brian Stubbs did an interesting paper on some connections between Hebrew, Egyptian, and Uto-Aztecan language (I hope I said that right!)
0
