Probability and NHM

[Tribunal]

Okay, I just answered my own question and found tons of resources that disprove what many theologians say don't exist, therefore disproving the BoM. What the heck! The more I look into this the more I see that Joseph Smith was more on target in the 1830's with his limited education and knowledge than the modern theological brainiacs with 21st century enlightenment.

[The Dude]

Okay, I just answered my own question and found tons of resources that disprove what many theologians say don't exist, therefore disproving the BoM.  What the heck!  The more I look into this the more I see that Joseph Smith was more on target in the 1830's with his limited education and knowledge than the modern theological brainiacs with 21st century enlightenment.

Why would you believe a theologian's opinion about archaeology?

(And why would you believe an archaeologist's opinion about "revealed" theology? )

[Dan Vogel]

CI,

Are you two done patting each other on the back now?

C.I. (Who doesn't think your contributions will be remembered much beyond the end of this decade as more and more evidence is found).

Thanks for bringing us back to earth. For just a second there we almost believed our efforts might amount to something.

[The Dude]

This brought to mind a conversation I had around 15 years ago with an archeologist who told me that all Native Americans had come via the Bering Strait, and that they arrived no earlier than 11,000 years ago.

His proof? He had been to Alaska, and had carefully surveyed a likely spot for human habitation. He found no sign of humans before 11,000 years ago. Not one. Since this was the most hospitable spot after the Bering Strait (in his mind), it meant that no humans had EVER crossed over earlier.

EVER, I thought? (

[Confidential Informant]

Thanks for bringing us back to earth. For just a second there we almost believed our efforts might amount to something.

Oh that's nothing. YOu should see how I treat defense attorneys!

C.I.

[Daniel Peterson]

At the Joseph Conference in Washington DC a speaker presented a list of archeological items discovered in Meso-America that many of the theologians claimed didn't exist therefore disproving the BoM.  Is there a publication of this list?

Dr. John Clark, one of the leading Mesoamerican archaeologists in the United States, delivered that presentation at the Library of Congress. An article based somewhat upon that presentation, by Professor Clark, is slated to appear in the next issue of the FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies -- not the excellent one that just came from the press featuring, among other very good things, articles on transoceanic contacts prior to Columbus (John Sorenson), the underlying Hebrew text of the Book of Mormon (Thomas Wayment), and, contra Dan Vogel, the literality and reliability of the testimonies of the Eight Witnesses (Richard Lloyd Anderson). I'm guessing that it should appear in late February or sometime in March, though I'm typically wrong on such matters.

[Uncle Dale]

Dr. John Clark, one of the leading Mesoamerican archaeologists in the United States... contra Dan Vogel [on] the literality and reliability of the testimonies of the Eight Witnesses...

Sounds interesting -- for all the contra Dan Vogel fans, at the very least.

I'll buy a copy.

Uncle Dale

[USU78]

Dan V:

I

[thesometimesaint]

USU78:

I think you hit the nail right on the head there.

[Tribunal]

Dude, don't religious scholars say that the BoM is false because evidence doesn't support it? Don't they base their theology on a foundation of evidence then add to that according to what they believe through scripture?

If a non-LDS theologian says the BoM is false because evidence doesn't support the BoM but then what some believe to be evidence is found, what does that do to the foundation of non-LDS theologians?

[Uncle Dale]

Dan V:

I

[Daniel Peterson]

I

[USU78]

Don't tell THAT to the current leaders of Community of Christ in Independence. It seem to me that their "ahistorical" BoM viewpoint has been very much influenced by prophets like Brodie and Vogel -- and that their viewpoint of JS's prophethood is that it falls somewhere between that of Mrs. Brodie and Grant McMurray.

As Josef Sommer said to Lukas Haas in Witness:

2 Cor. 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

USU "Obi Wan about to become Old Ben" 78

[Beowulf]

Where do the LDS assert that there were people in America pre 11,000 years ago? Where in revealed LDS assertions is it even said that there were people on the earth 11,000 years ago?

Seems to me that your story just serves to comfort you that archaeologists are nitwits. It doesn't move anywhere TOWARDS LDS assertions.

I knew someone would say this... (Reminds me of the politician practicing for a press conference: "Thank you for asking that question!")

To address your second statement first: Yes, archeologists are nitwits, as are academics of every other persuasion that I can think of. (As well as businessmen, politicians, plumbers, and engineers, come to think of it.)

Sure it moves toward LDS assertions by blowing up the first and foremost objection to the Book of Mormon: "EVERYBODY knows that ancient migrants to the Americas only came via the Bering Strait."

Once it is established that peoples came at different times and from different directions, it is no longer such an outlandish statement to say that Jaredites and/or Lehites arrived by boat, as well.

As to the first statement: I am not a Young Earth Creationist, so objections that man lived on Earth more than 6,000 years ago do not bother me in the least. (On the other hand, it SHOULD bother those Evangelists who recruited Murphy and Southerton to their anti-BofM crusade video...) As for the Official Church Position about such early humans, I don't think there is one. Just ask any geology or paleontology professor at BYU what he teaches, and he will tell you "what professors at every other university in America teach."

Beowulf

[asbestosman]

Imagine a situation where there is a data set A, consisting of the numbers 1 to 100.  Now, imagine that B is a subset of A; that 90% of the numbers in A are lost, leaving a random set, B, consisting of only 10 numbers between 1 and 100.  Now, imagine that we have a third set of numbers, C, which consists of another 10 number and we want to determine if C is also a subset of A, that is, if our ten numbers are part of the original 1 to 100.  It is quite possible, indeed probable, that our 10 numbers could all be part of A and still not show up at all in B, since 90% of the numbers of A are lost.

I did the math, and actually it is more probable that B and C will have at least one number in common.

90/100 * 89/99 * . . . * 81/91 = .330

There is a 33.0% chance that they share no common elements or 70.0% chance that they do. If you chose a smaller subset (like 5/100), it would work. While your numbers are off, your main point is valid.

[The Dude]

Where do the LDS assert that there were people in America pre 11,000 years ago? Where in revealed LDS assertions is it even said that there were people on the earth 11,000 years ago?

Seems to me that your story just serves to comfort you that archaeologists are nitwits. It doesn't move anywhere TOWARDS LDS assertions.

I knew someone would say this... (Reminds me of the politician practicing for a press conference: "Thank you for asking that question!")

To address your second statement first: Yes, archeologists are nitwits, as are academics of every other persuasion that I can think of. (As well as businessmen, politicians, plumbers, and engineers, come to think of it.)

Sure it moves toward LDS assertions by blowing up the first and foremost objection to the Book of Mormon: "EVERYBODY knows that ancient migrants to the Americas only came via the Bering Strait."

It becomes a strawman when you put the word only into it.

As I see it, the proper form of that objection would be: "The principal ancestors of the Native Americans came via the Bering Strait at least 10,000 ya, not via more recent migrations."

This objection is made against that embarassing, uncannonized claim in the Book of Mormon that Jaredites/Lehites/Mulekites were the principal ancestors. Where that claim is not made, such as here on FMB and in most apologetic writings, the above objection has no logical application.

In other words, if you believe that BoM colonists were a minor contribution to the Native American population as a whole, then you really don't have to worry about the Bering Strait business in the first place. It's not an either-or situation for you. Therefore, seeing that the Bering Strait model is actually a little more complicated has no bearing on your claims one way or another.

So I repeat, "It doesn't move anywhere TOWARDS LDS assertions.

Once it is established that peoples came at different times and from different directions, it is no longer such an outlandish statement to say that Jaredites and/or Lehites arrived by boat, as well.

I think those prehistoric migrations by boat were not trans-oceanic migrations, but instead coast-hugging migrations up and down the Pacific coast of the Americas. So again, I don't see it as particularly relevant to BoM claims.

As to the first statement: I am not a Young Earth Creationist, so objections that man lived on Earth more than 6,000 years ago do not bother me in the least.

Just checking!

[Beowulf]

If the Jaredites used coast-hugging boats rather than trans-oceanic vessels, I would not be too crestfallen about it. The description of the trip is vague enough to allow all sorts of speculations anyway.

"Bering Strait only" may be a strawman (it is certainly easy to knock down ) but that was indeed the received wisdom up until about 10 years ago.

Beowulf

[The Dude]

If the Jaredites used coast-hugging boats rather than trans-oceanic vessels, I would not be too crestfallen about it. The description of the trip is vague enough to allow all sorts of speculations anyway.

And vague enough to allow all sorts of spurious hits. Hey, we're back on topic now.

[Beowulf]

Great, back to you Bill...

[Dan Vogel]

USU78,

I

[Bertram]

Is someone saying that Ocean- Going Ships are a "recent" innovation?

Just out of curiosity I clicked on just a couple of sites:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/aboat.htm

http://www.museumsnett.no/kon-tiki/Researc...dus/modus5.html

????

As they once said about Moses...oh he was just a "basket-case" traveller!

[Dan Vogel]

Dr. P.

I appreciate this frank and helpful admission. Too often, certain vocal secular critics of Latter-day Saint belief have faulted faithful scholars for having an agenda (as if they themselves did not) -- and, thus, have dismissed those believing scholars on the grounds that they are mere "apologists." It's good to see that you recognize the fatuousness of this transparently self-serving maneuver and that you choose not to pretend to objectivity.

The other day I was reading Mark Thomas

[Uncle Dale]

Is someone saying that Ocean- Going Ships are a "recent" innovation?

Just out of curiosity I clicked on just a couple of sites:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/aboat.htm

http://www.museumsnett.no/kon-tiki/Researc...dus/modus5.html

????

As they once said about Moses...oh he was just a "basket-case" traveller!

It depends on what you mean by "ocean-going." Portuguese fishing fleets reportedly

sailed from Portugal each year, to the "Grand Banks" off the Newfoundland coast, as

much as three or four generations before Columbus -- perhaps even earlier. However,

such sailing vessels might have hugged the coasts of Ireland, Iceland, and southern

Greenland, just out of sight of land, most of the way to the North Atlantic and back.

The construction of those ships did not necessarily meet the deep water capabilities

of later Portuguese and Spanish ocean-crossing galleons.

Coast-hugging sailing vessels and ocean-crossing ships are constructed and outfitted

differently. It is extremely doubtful whether there were any true ocean-crossing ships

constructed in Europe, Arabia, or coastal Asia prior to the 1300s.

Could have coast-hugging sailing vessels been blown out to sea by great storms, and

have thus made inadvertant crossings of entire oceans? Maybe. That is perhaps what

happened in the very first Tahitian colonization of Hawaii, around 1200.

Uncle Dale

[charity]

Talk about feeling deceived and shocked and why didn't they tell us this. I was really surprised to find out that Squanto, of "I'll teach you how to grow corn by putting a fish in each planting hole" fame of Pilgrim times spoke English when the Pilgrims first set foot on (or near) Plymouth Rock. Seems he had been to England with fishermen and returned. Ocean going certainly before Columbus.

[Beowulf]

Not Columbus necessarily...

The first English sailor arrived just a few years after Columbus. And Squanto had met English fishermen who were using the Maine coasts as temporary bases, maybe even wintering over on occasion. And he went back with them once.

And these fishermen had MAPS of the coastline too (which the Pilgrims also used).

To Dale: I would seriously doubt a trip around Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Newfoundland should be considered "coasting". They would still be out of sight of land for days at a time. But such a feat was performed by the Vikings hundreds of years earlier than the Portuguese/Galician fishermen.