Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Robert F. Smith

Peopling of the Americas by Boat, Not Land

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Annalee Newitz, “Most scientists now reject the idea that the first Americans came by land,” Ars Technica, Nov 4, 2017, online at https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/majority-of-scientists-now-agree-that-humans-came-to-the-americas-by-boat/ , with map,

Todd J. Braje, et al., “Finding the first Americans,” Science, 358/6363 (3 Nov 2017):592-594, online at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/592 ,

It now appears that coming to America by boat was normal even from earliest times.  There is no longer any reason to credit the Beringia Land Bridge hypothesis, except in a much later period.

Yes, I saw this cited in a Facebook post. 

But Robert, why are you shouting?

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But Robert, why are you shouting?

Either it was a ' caps lock ' error, or he is shouting to be heard over the din of decades of scientists who went to their graves knowing that the Bering Straight theory was the correct one , and are just now spinning .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, I saw this cited in a Facebook post. 

But Robert, why are you shouting?

I try to put titles and headlines in all caps.  It's a habit.

No problem. We took on a new mod assigned to fix them. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Too bad none of this fits with a BoM scenario. The boat arrivals are supposed to be even earlier (up to 20,000 years). And it doesn't say the Bering Straight migration didn't happen, it just says they weren't the earliest. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Palerider said:

Too bad none of this fits with a BoM scenario. The boat arrivals are supposed to be even earlier (up to 20,000 years). And it doesn't say the Bering Straight migration didn't happen, it just says they weren't the earliest. :P

It could fit a BoM scenario. The Dene (Navajo) arrived by boat around 3000 BC. Unless they swam across the Bearing Strait.

Ancient DNA Refines New World Settlement Paradigm

 

Edited by Rajah Manchou
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Palerider said:

Too bad none of this fits with a BoM scenario. The boat arrivals are supposed to be even earlier (up to 20,000 years). And it doesn't say the Bering Straight migration didn't happen, it just says they weren't the earliest. :P

Wrong, Palerider.  What it says is that coming to America at all times and all periods by boat was entirely normal.  It also notes that the Bering Strait (not Straight) Landbridge was blocked by ice in the early period and was not amenable to crossing then.  Plenty of crossings took place in other periods by both animals and humans.

For non-Mormon scientists like Mike Coe and Betty Meggars that helps explain the tight parallels between Asian, Pacific, and American cultures.  For Mormon scholars like John L. Sorenson, it clearly demonstrates that ocean voyaging to the New World across the Pacific was not only theoretically possible, but in fact all too common -- the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites did nothing strange.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Annalee Newitz, “Most scientists now reject the idea that the first Americans came by land,” Ars Technica, Nov 4, 2017, online at https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/majority-of-scientists-now-agree-that-humans-came-to-the-americas-by-boat/ , with map,

Todd J. Braje, et al., “Finding the first Americans,” Science, 358/6363 (3 Nov 2017):592-594, online at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/592 ,

It now appears that coming to America by boat was normal even from earliest times.  There is no longer any reason to credit the Beringia Land Bridge hypothesis, except in a much later period.

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

Quote

350px-Spreading_homo_sapiens_la.svg.png

Map showing the generally accepted model of human spread over the world. Numbers indicate years before present. The indigenous peoples of the Americas are held by modern scientists to descend from the Paleo-Indians, who migrated from North Asia to Alaska via the Beringia land bridge, and not from the Middle East as claimed by the Book of Mormon.

I wonder if Wikipedia will allow updates to this.

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Wrong, Palerider.  What it says is that coming to America at all times and all periods by boat was entirely normal.  It also notes that the Bering Strait (not Straight) Landbridge was blocked by ice in the early period and was not amenable to crossing then.  Plenty of crossings took place in other periods by both animals and humans.

For non-Mormon scientists like Mike Coe and Betty Meggars that helps explain the tight parallels between Asian, Pacific, and American cultures.  For Mormon scholars like John L. Sorenson, it clearly demonstrates that ocean voyaging to the New World across the Pacific was not only theoretically possible, but in fact all too common -- the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites did nothing strange.

Just goes to show that some people can be just as dogmatic on the pretext of science and scholarship as others are on the pretext of religion.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Annalee Newitz, “Most scientists now reject the idea that the first Americans came by land,” Ars Technica, Nov 4, 2017, online at https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/majority-of-scientists-now-agree-that-humans-came-to-the-americas-by-boat/ , with map,

Todd J. Braje, et al., “Finding the first Americans,” Science, 358/6363 (3 Nov 2017):592-594, online at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/592 ,

It now appears that coming to America by boat was normal even from earliest times.  There is no longer any reason to credit the Beringia Land Bridge hypothesis, except in a much later period.

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

Quote

350px-Spreading_homo_sapiens_la.svg.png

Map showing the generally accepted model of human spread over the world. Numbers indicate years before present. The indigenous peoples of the Americas are held by modern scientists to descend from the Paleo-Indians, who migrated from North Asia to Alaska via the Beringia land bridge, and not from the Middle East as claimed by the Book of Mormon.

I wonder if Wikipedia will allow updates to this.

-Smac

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Annalee Newitz, “Most scientists now reject the idea that the first Americans came by land,” Ars Technica, Nov 4, 2017, online at https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/majority-of-scientists-now-agree-that-humans-came-to-the-americas-by-boat/ , with map,

Todd J. Braje, et al., “Finding the first Americans,” Science, 358/6363 (3 Nov 2017):592-594, online at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/592 ,

It now appears that coming to America by boat was normal even from earliest times.  There is no longer any reason to credit the Beringia Land Bridge hypothesis, except in a much later period.

Thanks for sharing this, its so interesting to find how new evidence is changing our paradigms on this subject.  

From what I'm reading in your first link, this doesn't mean the Clovis people didn't come over the Beringia Land bridge, this is just saying those people weren't the first inhabitants of the continent. 

Also, the hypothesis is that people traveled along the coastal regions on the Pacific coast in smaller boats while foraging along the coast.  No evidence to suggest they had the technology to build large boats that could traverse the vast ocean on a single voyage.  

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing this, its so interesting to find how new evidence is changing our paradigms on this subject.  

From what I'm reading in your first link, this doesn't mean the Clovis people didn't come over the Beringia Land bridge, this is just saying those people weren't the first inhabitants of the continent. 

Also, the hypothesis is that people traveled along the coastal regions on the Pacific coast in smaller boats while foraging along the coast.  No evidence to suggest they had the technology to build large boats that could traverse the vast ocean on a single voyage.  

I think the Book or Mormon, being an abridgement, allows it to leave out voyage details such as stops along the way.

Share this post


Link to post

 

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Wrong, Palerider.  What it says is that coming to America at all times and all periods by boat was entirely normal.  It also notes that the Bering Strait (not Straight) Landbridge was blocked by ice in the early period and was not amenable to crossing then.  Plenty of crossings took place in other periods by both animals and humans.

For non-Mormon scientists like Mike Coe and Betty Meggars that helps explain the tight parallels between Asian, Pacific, and American cultures.  For Mormon scholars like John L. Sorenson, it clearly demonstrates that ocean voyaging to the New World across the Pacific was not only theoretically possible, but in fact all too common -- the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites did nothing strange.

Short distances in boats is what scientists believe was possible, not long distances. 

Quote

Humans probably did move from the Bering Land Bridge into the Americas once the ice free passage became available 12,500 years ago, but they would have arrived on a continent that was already populated with people who probably came along the Pacific coast thousands of years before. While it may sound improbable that humans could take boats along the coast from Asia, consider that humans arrived in Australia by boat, island hopping from Asia about 50,000 years ago.

Boat technology is one of our most ancient inventions, and it would have worked admirably for people who were using the vessels to go short distances along the coast, carrying supplies. Considered in this light, it shouldn’t surprise us if humans reached the Americas partly because they had developed fairly sophisticated transportation technology.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/08/time-to-scrap-the-idea-that-humans-arrived-in-the-americas-by-land-bridge/

Is there any theory by Sorensen or other Mormon scholars that talks about the BoM people traveling along the Pacific coastlines using short distances to arrive in the new world?  I'm not aware of one or how this would fit with this view of how the Americas became populated some ~14,000 yrs ago.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the Book or Mormon, being an abridgement, allows it to leave out voyage details such as stops along the way.

These seem like two totally different methods of travel.  Slow and short increments using small boats and foraging as you go would have taken many many years to make these voyages and generations of people likely would have passed away.  See my last post and the quote from the article.  Island hoping down to Australia or short voyages along the Pacific coast would have gradually brought people to the continent.  Its a very different model than what is described in the BoM.  

I'm not saying the BoM method wasn't possible at the time it happened, that was thousands of years later and technology for boating had changed dramatically.  I'm just contesting the comparison between these early migrations and what the BoM describes, as the two are very different.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

These seem like two totally different methods of travel.  Slow and short increments using small boats and foraging as you go would have taken many many years to make these voyages and generations of people likely would have passed away.  See my last post and the quote from the article.  Island hoping down to Australia or short voyages along the Pacific coast would have gradually brought people to the continent.  Its a very different model than what is described in the BoM.  

I'm not saying the BoM method wasn't possible at the time it happened, that was thousands of years later and technology for boating had changed dramatically.  I'm just contesting the comparison between these early migrations and what the BoM describes, as the two are very different.  

I'm saying the Book or Mormon doesn't provide much of a model since it is an abridgement, and this also leaves open the possibility that voyagers stayed near coastlines or passed by islands.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm saying the Book or Mormon doesn't provide much of a model since it is an abridgement, and this also leaves open the possibility that voyagers stayed near coastlines or passed by islands.

The abridgment explanation doesn't make sense to me since the voyages are described in great detail, even the number of days on the sea in the Jaredite version.  They just weren't the same kind of voyages at all in their description.  It wasn't that the details were left out.  The Jaredites were inside their ships, even under the water like submarines.  Lehi's family experienced large storms and didn't see land for many days, the kind of narratives for both stories don't fit the descriptions for these kind of earlier migrations.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The abridgment explanation doesn't make sense to me since the voyages are described in great detail, even the number of days on the sea in the Jaredite version.  They just weren't the same kind of voyages at all in their description.  It wasn't that the details were left out.  The Jaredites were inside their ships, even under the water like submarines.  Lehi's family experienced large storms and didn't see land for many days, the kind of narratives for both stories don't fit the descriptions for these kind of earlier migrations.  

I guess the "great detail" is a matter of opinion. What detail is there is described only as part of an abridgement, and as far as the small plates go, a reflection of limited availability of plates and the priorities (1 Nephi 6:3).

That there were voyages of one kind does not preclude that there were voyages of another kind; the science is interesting that there were voyages to America and that such ancient mode of immigration is considered normal.

I'm glad you can find such certitude in the record, though!

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I guess the "great detail" is a matter of opinion. What detail is there is described only as part of an abridgement, and as far as the small plates go, a reflection of limited availability of plates and the priorities (1 Nephi 6:3).

That there were voyages of one kind does not preclude that there were voyages of another kind; the science is interesting that there were voyages to America and that such ancient mode of immigration is considered normal.

I'm glad you can find such certitude in the record, though!

There is no evidence to support a claim that technology for long voyages across the Pacific or Atlantic oceans existed 14,000 years ago.  This is obvious, I'm confused as to how you are even disputing this.  

By the time of the BoM, either 2500 BCE or 600 BCE, the technology for boating was far different.  It may or may not have been advanced enough for this kind of voyage, but thats not even what I'm saying.  I'm not getting into any claims about what may or may not have been possible during the BoM times.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There is no evidence to support a claim that technology for long voyages across the Pacific or Atlantic oceans existed 14,000 years ago.  This is obvious, I'm confused as to how you are even disputing this.  

By the time of the BoM, either 2500 BCE or 600 BCE, the technology for boating was far different.  It may or may not have been advanced enough for this kind of voyage, but thats not even what I'm saying.  I'm not getting into any claims about what may or may not have been possible during the BoM times.  

Conceptually, the OP articles are about coming to America by boat and that this was normal. My observation is that if people did it in 14,000 (as you say with earlier, different technology), Lehites and Jaredites could also do it in Book of Mormon times (in the Jaredite case, using technology they already had, and in Nephi's case, different, revealed technology). Only the details of their voyages are lacking in the Book of Mormon, not the record that they took voyages, so we have lots of possibilities for the unmentioned details.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Annalee Newitz, “Most scientists now reject the idea that the first Americans came by land,” Ars Technica, Nov 4, 2017, online at https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/majority-of-scientists-now-agree-that-humans-came-to-the-americas-by-boat/ , with map,

Todd J. Braje, et al., “Finding the first Americans,” Science, 358/6363 (3 Nov 2017):592-594, online at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6363/592 ,

It now appears that coming to America by boat was normal even from earliest times.  There is no longer any reason to credit the Beringia Land Bridge hypothesis, except in a much later period.

It is not often, Robert, that I can fault your reasoning, but your with your OP title and your use of the authors conclusion to somehow wrangle a statement that can be construed as some support for the Americas first people coming here by boat, is nothing short of sloppy thinking.

Here, from Inverse.com, using the same source article, but using quotes from one of the authors of the hypothesis is,:

“If we really want to understand how humans got to America, Braje adds that archaeologists need to examine shorelines that haven’t changed dramatically in the last 20,000 years as well as look under the ocean. In 2016, archeologists announced they found evidence of pre-Clovis people by doing just that, discovering human and mastodon remains in a sinkhole 30 feet under the Aucilla River. Earlier this year, an unrelated group of archeologists found what are thought to be the earliest human remains found in the Americas in an underwater cave in Mexico, further supporting the idea that, if we want to understand how humans got here, we need to stick close to the water.

 

“Thirty years ago, we thought we had all the answers,” says Braje. “Now, there are more questions than answers.”

'Kelp Highway' Hypothesis Rewrites History of the First Americans

"Now, there are more questions than answers."

I was born and raised at the west coastline of North America. I’ve spent many hours in the kelp, studying and eating from everything there, from crabs to kelp. The Haida people of Haida Gwai (Queen Charlotte Islands) developed their inital wealth from the resources amongst the kelp. The study you reference has extremely little to do with boats and a whole lot more to do about how communities could string along the ice free coast from Alaska down through BC, Washington, Oregon, etc. for tens of thousands years ago.

Your implication that a coastal boat finding new resources along a coastline has something to do with boats in the BofM is sadly lacking in any correlation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

It is not often, Robert, that I can fault your reasoning, but your with your OP title and your use of the authors conclusion to somehow wrangle a statement that can be construed as some support for the Americas first people coming here by boat, is nothing short of sloppy thinking.

Here, from Inverse.com, using the same source article, but using quotes from one of the authors of the hypothesis is,:

“If we really want to understand how humans got to America, Braje adds that archaeologists need to examine shorelines that haven’t changed dramatically in the last 20,000 years as well as look under the ocean. In 2016, archeologists announced they found evidence of pre-Clovis people by doing just that, discovering human and mastodon remains in a sinkhole 30 feet under the Aucilla River. Earlier this year, an unrelated group of archeologists found what are thought to be the earliest human remains found in the Americas in an underwater cave in Mexico, further supporting the idea that, if we want to understand how humans got here, we need to stick close to the water.

 

“Thirty years ago, we thought we had all the answers,” says Braje. “Now, there are more questions than answers.”

'Kelp Highway' Hypothesis Rewrites History of the First Americans

"Now, there are more questions than answers."

I was born and raised at the west coastline of North America. I’ve spent many hours in the kelp, studying and eating from everything there, from crabs to kelp. The Haida people of Haida Gwai (Queen Charlotte Islands) developed their inital wealth from the resources amongst the kelp. The study you reference has extremely little to do with boats and a whole lot more to do about how communities could string along the ice free coast from Alaska down through BC, Washington, Oregon, etc. for tens of thousands years ago.

Your implication that a coastal boat finding new resources along a coastline has something to do with boats in the BofM is sadly lacking in any correlation.

Your points here are well taken, up to a point, and then you go off the rails.  Hugging the coast does make sense for these early peoples, but there is a much more important principle to be made herewith:  We have a major shift in general scientific thinking about how people traveled to the New World.  Boats are now primary, at least for the earliest immigrants, even if they hugged the coastline.

However, we have already known for many years, courtesy of the late Betty Meggars of the Smithsonian (very early Japanese Jomon pottery in Valdivia, Chile) and of Mike Coe of Yale (who is certain that there is a strong Southeast Asian connection to Mesoamerica), David Kelley (who showed systematically how Asian calendars match those of Mesoamerica), and others (showing tight cultural connections of the Kwakiutl of British Columbia with the Maori of New Zealand, etc.), that travel across the Pacific was quite normal -- and not just for the Polynesians.  All are non-Mormon scholars with no axe to grind.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Conceptually, the OP articles are about coming to America by boat and that this was normal. My observation is that if people did it in 14,000 (as you say with earlier, different technology), Lehites and Jaredites could also do it in Book of Mormon times (in the Jaredite case, using technology they already had, and in Nephi's case, different, revealed technology). Only the details of their voyages are lacking in the Book of Mormon, not the record that they took voyages, so we have lots of possibilities for the unmentioned details.

I don't know if you're intentionally misinterpreting the data to continue your assertion with this poor comparison or if you just don't understand how this the scientific findings don't apply to the BoM transatlantic or transpacific migrations.  The only similarity is that they both used a boat on the water.  

The scientific articles are talking about gradual migration through very small boating expeditions that happen over the course of many many years times.  There is no evidence for an epic boating trip across the wide oceans as described in the BoM at this early time period of 14,000 years BCE.  I don't know of any apologists that would even argue that this could have happened, so I'm not sure why you're saying this is an apt comparison.  

Its akin to saying that the first airplane that the Wright Brothers invented could be used to travel around the globe.  These small boats couldn't make a migration across the wide ocean any easier than the earliest airplanes could travel around the world.  The technology didn't exist.  The way people came to the American continents by boat in 14,000 BCE is completely different than the way described in the BoM, and its not because of a lack of detail in the BoM accounts as you asserted earlier.  Those accounts are quite detailed, enough to see that they weren't taking fishing expeditions of small distances over the course of many many years and eventually making their way to a new continent.  I don't understand the desire to make this comparison.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your points here are well taken, up to a point, and then you go off the rails.  Hugging the coast does make sense for these early peoples, but there is a much more important principle to be made herewith:  We have a major shift in general scientific thinking about how people traveled to the New World.  Boats are now primary, at least for the earliest immigrants, even if they hugged the coastline.

However, we have already known for many years, courtesy of the late Betty Meggars of the Smithsonian (very early Japanese Jomon pottery in Valdivia, Chile) and of Mike Coe of Yale (who is certain that there is a strong Southeast Asian connection to Mesoamerica), David Kelley (who showed systematically how Asian calendars match those of Mesoamerica), and others (showing tight cultural connections of the Kwakiutl of British Columbia with the Maori of New Zealand, etc.), that travel across the Pacific was quite normal -- and not just for the Polynesians.  All are non-Mormon scholars with no axe to grind.

Robert,

I think you're really missing the point.  The type of boating anthropologists are talking about is not long cross-ocean expedition, that is the problem.  They are talking about very small boating trips, see the earlier quote I took from one of the linked accounts.  This comparison between a large ocean crossing and small incremental boating/fishing trips to explore the coastlines that had populations of people gradually making their way to the continents over the course of many years is completely different.  Surely you see the difference between the two.  

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Robert F. Smith
      A symposium on "EGYPT AND THE OLD TESTAMENT" will be held at the Staatliches Museum Ägyptischer Kunst, Gabelsbergerstr. 35, Munich/München, Germany, on 6-7 Dec 2019.
      The proceedings will be published as ÄAT (AEGYPTEN UND ALTES TESTAMENT) volume 100.
      More on the symposium can be found at https://www.freunde-abrahams.de/aegypten-und-altes-testament/  .
      ÄAT's spectrum covers the philological, art historical, and archaeological branches of Egyptology, as well as Old Testament exegesis, the archaeology, glyptics and epigraphy of Israel/Palestine and neighboring regions such as Sinai and Transjordan, literature and history of religions, from the Bronze Ages up to Greco-Roman and early Christian periods, as well as relevant aspects of research history.
       
    • By Bernard Gui
      At the end of Alma 37, Alma gives his final instructions to his faithful young son Helaman. After encouraging him always to be obedient to God’s commandments and to pray to God continually, Alma uses the Liahona as an object lesson to teach Helaman how to obtain eternal life through following the words of Christ. Using analogy, Alma compares the Liahona, the temporal compass provided by God to Lehi, with the words of Christ, the spiritual guide provided to all by God. In this remarkable passage, Alma, like all good teachers, repeats this image three times, and like a good Nephite teacher, he uses a parallelism to increase the impact.
      Alma employs the alternate parallel form, one of the most common and effective forms of poetic parallelism in the Book of Mormon. It appears hundreds of times. An alternate consists of two or more lines that are repeated in parallel order. The simple alternate form is outlined ABAB. Extended alternates are outlined ABCABC, etc. 
       Alma uses three extended alternates in rapid sequence to instruct his son. 
       A   For behold, it is as easy to give heed to the word of Christ, 
          B   which will point to you 
              C   a straight course to eternal bliss, 
      A   as it was for our fathers to give heed to this compass, 
           B   which would point unto them 
               C   a straight course to the promised land.
      The A phrase compares the ease of heeding the words of Christ with the ease of looking at the Liahona. The B phrase describes the purpose of A which is to point the course. The C phrase declares the final destination of those who follow A, salvation and arrival at the promised land.
       A   For just as surely as this director did bring our fathers, 
         B   by following its course, 
             C   to the promised land, 
      A   shall the words of Christ, 
         B   if we follow their course,
             C  carry us beyond this vale of sorrow into a far better land of promise.
      The A phrase again compares the words of Christ with the Liahona, but in reversed order. The B phrase indicates what we should do with A – follow their directions, and the C phrase gives the destination of those who do B – the promised land and a far better place, eternal life. 
       A   for so was it with our fathers; 
         B    for so was it prepared for them,
            C   that if they would look they might live; 
      A   even so it is with us.
         B   The way is prepared, 
            C   and if we will look we may live forever.
      In this last alternate, Alma personalizes the analogies of the first two. The A phrase compares the Nephite fathers (Lehi and Nephi) with Alma and his son Helaman. The B phrase indicates that God prepared the ways of direction for all of them. The C phrase compares the physical salvation of the Nephite fathers by following the Liahona with the spiritual salvation promised to all of us who will look upon Christ.
      Alma concludes his instructions with another impassioned fatherly plea that his son rise to the greatness of his calling.
      This passage indicates deliberate logical planning on the part of Alma in giving crucial instructions to his son prior to his death. This is what Alma thought would be of most worth to his son - look to Christ. It gives us insight into the Nephite mind, especially that of a powerful and gifted leader. I am so grateful for the Book of Mormon and the beautiful intricacies that await in its pages for us to discover. (Thanks to Donald Parry for his marvelous edition of the Book of Mormon. Poetic Parallelism in the Book of Mormon: The Complete Text Reformatted. Maxwell Institute, 2007).
       Your comments are welcomed. 
       Here is the passage in context.
       
    • By Five Solas
      1. Read the Book of Mormon
      2.  Ask God
      3. With a sincere heart
      4. With real intent
      5. Having faith in Christ
      Failure is not an option, if you believe Moroni.  First, you must read.  Next, you must follow with prayer while meeting his remaining 3 prerequisites.  Then the truth of the Book of Mormon will be manifested to you.  Full stop.
      Therefore if the truth is not manifested, the reason is as plain as the nose on your face: One or more of the prerequisites were not met.  There is no alternate possibility.  "It’s very simple"—as President Trump is fond of saying in his press conferences.
      5 possible ways to fail, and only 5.  So here is a question:  With LDS Church growth stalling and 70+% of millennials going inactive/leaving the LDS Church by age 20 (courtesy of Mormonleaks), which of the 5 do you think represents the greatest challenge?  Or are they all equally challenging?  Or do you think it's some combination of them that present difficulty?
      And while we’re on the question, how exactly does one go about achieving the last three prerequisites?  Would any LDS seriously admonish an investigator to read the Bible first in order to attain “faith in Christ” prior to attempting the Book of Mormon?
      --Erik
      _____________________________________________
      For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
      --H.L. Mencken
    • By hope_for_things
      Where did the Book of Mormon come from.  I constantly hear this idea argued from both apologetic and critical sides.  All in an attempt to explain how Joseph could have produced the Book of Mormon.  Yet, when it comes right down to it, both sides should be able to agree on some pretty basic historical facts from the evidence.  
      Joseph Smith dictated the content of the BoM to some scribes Nearly everyone should be able to agree on that statement, and I think that really explains it in a nutshell.  I was thinking about other figures in history that are revered for things they produced.  Newton, Einstein, Beethoven, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, etc.  Do anyone else spend so much time asking where they came up with their masterpiece works?  Where did Einstein get that amazing theory of relativity?  Where did Michelangelo get that amazing statue of David.  How could they have possibly produced these things?  Where did they come from?  
      I think we spend so much time looking for evidence, trying to find parallels, seeking to understand where the BoM came from, that we are missing the answer right in front of our faces and we should all be able to agree on.  The BoM came from Joseph Smith.  This is the clear and straightforward answer that both believers and nonbelievers should be able to agree on, and its the simple answer to a highly debated question.  
    • By Freedom
      I am looking for a list of words used in the Book of Mormon that have a different meaning today. For example 'awful' use to mean full of awe rather than bad. Thanks for the help. 
×
×
  • Create New...