From Idaho State Journal

[Confidential Informant]

Who originally colonized the New World? How many of them were there? Who filled this land with people? I don't think Pratt said what FARMS is now saying.

ORSON PRATT, JOD, vol. 12, 12/27/1868 (emphasis in text added, personal comments from me in brackets):

• "This Continent was FIRST settled, after the Flood, by a colony from the Tower of Babel, who were a righteous people [everyone say hello to the Jaredites]. see p. 338.

• "They landed to the south of this, just below the Gulf of California, on our western coast. THEY INHABITED NORTH AMERICA, AND SPREAD FORTH ON THIS CONTINENT . . . . they became a mighty people (p. 341).

• "After the destruction of the Jaredites, the Lord brought to other colonies to people this land. One colony landed a few hundred miles north of the Isthmus [of Darien] on the western coast; the other landed on the coast of Chili." (p. 342).

• "[Today's millions on the continent] are nothing compared with the numerous hosts of the Jaredites that once spread over all the face of North America" (p. 343).

So what? You don't get it, do you? FIRST, no one denies that this was the dominant belief. But Mormons aren't inerrantists, so again I ask: SO WHAT.

On the other hand, Richard, Peter specifically states that the flood was global and only 8 people lived. That is also the single most dominant view among Christians and Jews for several milenia, but it's also contradicted by every scientific discipline that I'm aware of.

So you see, Richard, your position is much more tenuous than ours. You either have to step up to the plate and insist that Peter was right, the Bible is right, and that ever bit of modern science which contradicts it is wrong, or you have to claim that despite the fact that the Bible is supposed to be inerrant and despite the fact that Peter was an Apostle of God and supposedly in direct contact with Christ, they got it wrong, thus contradiction your inerrantist leanings.

So, Richard, what's it gonna be?

C.I.

[Matt Andrews]

...nearly ALL Mormons I have ever spoken to, and just about every popular LDS book I have on my shelf, state that all Native Americans, as well as South Americans, and many Islanders are descended from Israelites and that these Israelites were the colonizers of the New World, and that they were the primary colonizers of the New World. . . .

I think it would be safe to say that this is/has been the most common, prevailing, and historic LDS view...

To add to just this point:

This has been my experience as well. As a life-long, very active member, I have never heard anyone suggest otherwise, except here on the internet.

My entire mission was trained to teach that Native Americans and Pacific Islanders were decended from the Lamanites. This doesn't make it doctrine, by any means, (I think my mission president got a lot of things wrong, so add this to the pile, bless his heart.) My point is that this is the widely held postition, in my experience. If the Limited Geography Theory is now anything near a majority view, this would be a new development, as far as I can tell.

Clearly, this may not be the case for everyone, and I suspect many people on this board (Peterson, surely) move in circles where other views are more common.

[Bill Hamblin]

Sorry, Dan, I would never be able to base my eternal destiny on zero proof of my main book of scripture

This to me is the most bizarre contradiction of modern Evangelicalism. A religion that proclaims man is saved by faith alone, yet insists they will not believe unless they have "proof." How can such a one be saved by faith alone?

[brugsch]

DCP: Richard, are you serious? [regarding archaeological remnants of BOM battles]. Do you really think that we've found archaeological evidence of the battles of Thermopylae or Manzikert or Carchemish such that we would know what they were if we didn't have written accounts of them? Do you really imagine that there isn't evidence, in Mesoamerica, of military activity, conquests, and depopulations?

RA: You mentioned the battles of Thermopylae or Manzikert or Carchemish. Well, our material from those battles may be lacking, but we certainly have evidence that tells us:

THERMOPYLEA: There really was a place named Thermopylae, people known as the Greeks and Persians really existed, persons said to be involved existed (e.g., Xerxes). And various places were known to exist (e.g., Sparta). All of these things are attested to by mainstream historians and archaeological evidence. For example, even a cursory search on the Internet will bring up a Channel 4 TV history website called "The Spartans" on which there are links to other sites discussing "Ancient Spartan Society," "Sparta, the Valley, Taygetos Mountains," "Sparta: The Spartan Spirit," as well as various book recommendations from mainstream authors about Sparta. Such is not the case with any aspects relating to BOM battles. As of yet, I do not recall seeing any TV specials on "The Nephites," or secular web links to "Ancient Nephite Society," "Bountiful, the Land, Yucatan Peninsula," or "Zarahemla: The Nephite Spirit." The BOM story, Dn, in my opinion, is just that

[rabanes]

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT: BTW, nice to see you back Richard:

RA: Nice to be back.

CONFIDENTIAL: I always get a kick out of this type of response. In fact, if Richard truly thought about it, he'd drop this argument . . . . the current DNA evidence also contradicts teachings about the Bible which almost every Christian and Jew, including Peter the Apostle, have believed. For example, Peter the Apostle obviously believe that the flood of Noah was a universal event which only 8 people survived. (See 1 Pet. 3:18-20). However, DNA evidence proves that the flood could not have been a universal event with only eight survivors.

RA: Regarding 1 Pet. 3:20, it reads: "God waited in the days of Noah, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." A few things.

1. Can you point out to me, please, where it says the flood was universal

[Bill Hamblin]

What I am asking for, waiting for, is ANYTHING. Truly, Dan, ANYTHING, that might give significant, incontrovertible, definitive evidence of any BOM battles, or stories, or cultures, or peoples, or society.

The vast majority of battles in history have left absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they occurred. No surviving accounts, no texts, no art work, no archaeological evidence.

By the way, Dan is talking about ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence, a quite different category than the type of evidence Richard came up with.

Finally, can you name the ten most important battles that occurred in Mesoamerica before 400 AD?

How many of these battles are described in detailed texts?

How many of these battles have left art work?

How many of the battlefields have been identified archaeologically?

[rabanes]

DCP: They [i.e, the plates], and the very powerful Witness testimonies confirming their existence, constitute an unswallowable lump in the throats of those who wish to explain the Book of Mormon as something merely spun out of the (dishonest or insane) mind of Joseph Smith.

RA: Of course, it was really only "powerful" because they were seen via spiritual second sight in a vision (per the words of such non-important Mormons like Martin Harris, David Whitmer, ya know, no one special). I'm afraid this means little to those of us who wish somebody other than Joseph would have actually seen them as you or I would see a chair, or a desk, or anything in the physical world of hard objects. I do think, however, that everyone physically saw the little closed box the plates were carried in, and most certain ly "hefted" something that was covered by a cloth. But goodness, Dan, anyone can see anything in a visionary state. So, I fail to see how the visionary experiences of the so-called "witnesses" do much of anything.

RA

[rabanes]

DREVIN: re you promoting an anti mormon book in the middle of your post? Is this your book or did i read your post wrong?

RA: Ask Peterson for his opinion of whether or not this is an anti-Mormon book. Yes, this is my book. But DCP has a little contribution he made to it, so ask him what he thinks of it. He has a copy. Maybe he will review it in FARMS. Personally, I do not think it is "anti" as most LDS would think of that word.

RA

[Bill Hamblin]

But goodness, Dan, anyone can see anything in a visionary state.

You mean like the resurrected Jesus? Or god flying around in a chariot pulled by strange bimorphic creatures (Ezek 1)?

You are, however, seriously misrepresenting what the witnesses claim. Read the testimonies again. You are (falsely) inserting many qualifications on what they actually claimed. You should be wiser than to think you can get away with this on this Board.

[Drevan]

DREVIN: re you promoting an anti mormon book in the middle of your post? Is this your book or did i read your post wrong?

RA: Ask Peterson for his opinion of whether or not this is an anti-Mormon book. Yes, this is my book. But DCP has a little contribution he made to it, so ask him what he thinks of it. He has a copy. Maybe he will review it in FARMS. Personally, I do not think it is "anti" as most LDS would think of that word.

RA

If it's not uplifting and supportive of the Church, then it's against, thus Anti, that's pretty petty to be promoting a book in the middle of a thread. Sounds to me that you're only concerned about people reading your book for fame, attention, and gain. Pretty worldly.

[Calm]

DCP and other authors (books, articles, websites) refer posters to these all the time.

They do this, I assume, in most part to avoid repetition or to provide the type of detail that can't be posted on a message board for a variety of reasons--one being time, another being effort.

rabanes has before explained pointing people toward his books for this reason of providing sufficient detail to understand his points.

It is possible that his second book is anti, I consider his first one that way. However, a book about LDS doesn't have to be either pro or con, it can be both or neutral.

[rabanes]

CI: Gee Richard. Your fingers must be tired.

RA: You have NO idea. ouch ouch ouch ooh ooh ooh.

CI: I have one question for you: Why don't all the men in the world have the Y Chromosome? If Noah and his 3 sons were the only male survivors of the Flood, as the Bible, Christ and Peter all insist that they were, then you and I and Dan and Hamblin should all have the exact same Y chromosome since that gene passes only from father to son and is unaffected by the genes recevied via the female side. So, why do you and I have different Y chromosomes?

RA: Hmm, well, I am not a geneticist. But as I understand it, we all do have a Y-Chromosome. In females, the sex chromosomes are the 2 X chromosomes. Males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. The Y chromosome is decisive in making us males. Uhm, er, I hope all of you have one. Now, there is a lot of information there, but I think the actual trip switch is the SRY gene on the chromosome.

I am a bit confused by your question since we all do have the Y chromosome, or else we woul dnot be men. And you say, "you and I and Dan and Hamblin should all have the exact same Y chromosome since that gene passes only from father to son" but the Y chromosome is not a gene, a gene for maleness (SRY) is ON the Y chromosome. Sorry, maybe I am just a bit ditsy today. Why do we have different Y chromosome???/ Sorry, I just don't get it. Maybe you shoudl talk to someone else.

RA

[Drevan]

DCP and other authors (books, articles, websites) refer posters to these all the time.

They do this, I assume, in most part to avoid repetition or to provide the type of detail that can't be posted on a message board for a variety of reasons--one being time, another being effort.

rabanes has before explained pointing people toward his books for this reason of providing sufficient detail to understand his points.

It is possible that his second book is anti, I consider his first one that way. However, a book about LDS doesn't have to be either pro or con, it can be both or neutral.

A book called "becoming gods" i highly doubt that it's neutral.

[Confidential Informant]

A: Regarding 1 Pet. 3:20, it reads: "God waited in the days of Noah, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." A few things.

1. Can you point out to me, please, where it says the flood was universal—i.e., that no one on earth existed anymore except for these eight people? From what I see here, it merely is talking about the story as a reality, and that eight souls were saved. You may not be aware of this, but a significant number of Christians hold to belief in a localized flood of the Mesopotamian Valley. This is a perfectly acceptable view within Christendom, and so, for those who hold such a view, your argument would mean very little.

Ah, finally. So, Richard, are you positively avering that Peter knew the Flood was a regional event? I wonder why he never bothered to correct his followers on their erroneous views, seeing as how the Jews of the day certainly did consider it a global event and Christians have viewed it as such since time immemorial also.

Of course, you also ignore the Bible the (god-breathed) actual word of God which clearly indicates that it was a global event. Moreover, seeing as how this is the case, how likely is it that Peter understood it any differently?

As to all of your DNA arguments, they're lame. So what if all of our leaders thought that Amerindians were direct descendants of Lehi? Peter and all the Jewish and Christians leaders thought the flood was universal (for you to assert otherwise is ballsy, but laughable).

Finally, the whole kept from other "nations" argument is fallacious. IN fact, this continent was kept from the knowledge of other "nations." The term "nation" has reference to a politcal entity and the people who live under it. It doesn't have reference to small group of refugees. Thus, it's quite true that this continent didn't become the knowledge of other "nations" until about 500 years ago. And guess what happened when it became the knowledge of the "nation" of Spain, and Britian and Portugual and France? It was overrun.

In other words, Richard, it appears to me that all you've proven is a fact that we've readily conceded anyway: The hemispheric model of the book of Mormon was the generally accepted model for Mormons for many decades. So what? The "global model" was the accepted model for Christians and Jews for millenia.

C.I.

[rabanes]

BILL: This to me is the most bizarre contradiction of modern Evangelicalism. A religion that proclaims man is saved by faith alone, yet insists they will not believe unless they have "proof." How can such a one be saved by faith alone?

RA: Sorry you find my views bizarre. Perhaps if you sought some clarification before launching into viewing my sacred beliefs as bizarre, then we would getg farther a lot quicker. I do indeed believe that faith is necessary. For without faith, no one can please God. I'll let you look that up. But when I say "ZERO," I mean just that

[Confidential Informant]

RA: Hmm, well, I am not a geneticist.

And this answer proves it.

But as I understand it, we all do have a Y-Chromosome

Indeed, but the Y chromosome passed to you by your father is different from the one passed to me by my father. However, if Noah was our great, great, great, great, great, great, great, et al., Grandfather (as the Bible asserts that he is) then you and I should have the exact same Y chromosome.

In females, the sex chromosomes are the 2 X chromosomes. Males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. The Y chromosome is decisive in making us males. Uhm, er, I hope all of you have one. Now, there is a lot of information there, but I think the actual trip switch is the SRY gene on the chromosome.

Very good, Richard, but you are (as usual) missing the point. Our Y chomosomes are particular to us and can be used to identify relationships.

I am a bit confused by your question since we all do have the Y chromosome, or else we woul dnot be men.

You seem to be confused on a great many issues.

Sorry, I just don't get it. Maybe you shoudl talk to someone else.

You are quite hilarious. You just get done writing a whole tome to Dan in which you discuss in detail genetic concepts (which you clearly don't understand) and then claim ignorance as to my question.

You should be careful, your ignorace of the topic is showing.

C.I.

[rabanes]

DREVAN: Sounds to me that you're only concerned about people reading your book for fame, attention, and gain. Pretty worldly.

RA: yeah, that's a classic ad hominum attack against critics of the church. how predictable. But, as I said, if you want to go there, then fine, DCP and other FARM dudes here are just as interested in "fame, attention, and gain" since they recommend there own works and those of fellow FARMS folk. Good observation.

RA

[Calm]

A book called "becoming gods" i highly doubt that it's neutral.

I have my doubts as well, especially considering his last book and what he has said elsewhere. But I'm not going to label it 'anti' until I hear more about it than its title and Dan's ending piece (and a little discussion on it at ZLMB awhile back).

But that is really off my point. Whether it's anti or not, since it houses his arguments/information, there is no reason why he should be condemned for pointing people to it for further information. Unless you think we should be condemning people for pointing towards FARMS, FAIR or other pro-lds material as well.

[Bill Hamblin]

I am a bit confused by your question since we all do have the Y chromosome, or else we woul dnot be men.

What he means is that if all living men on earth were descended from a single male (Noah) who lived c. 5000 years ago, then all males would exhibit very close similarities in their Y-chromosome. What we find, in fact, is a great deal of diversity that is explicable (assuming steady rates of genetic change) only with much longer periods of time between shared ancestors.

[Drevan]

BILL: This to me is the most bizarre contradiction of modern Evangelicalism. A religion that proclaims man is saved by faith alone, yet insists they will not believe unless they have "proof." How can such a one be saved by faith alone?

RA: Sorry you find my views bizarre. Perhaps if you sought some clarification before launching into viewing my sacred beliefs as bizarre, then we would getg farther a lot quicker. I do indeed believe that faith is necessary. For without faith, no one can please God. I'll let you look that up. But when I say "ZERO," I mean just that

[rabanes]

CI: Ah, finally. So, Richard, are you positively avering that Peter knew the Flood was a regional event? I wonder why he never bothered to correct his followers on their erroneous views, seeing as how the Jews of the day certainly did consider it a global event and Christians have viewed it as such since time immemorial also.

RA: What are you talking about? I only offered #1 to indicate that for some Christians teh issue is not at all whether or not it was global. To these local flood Christians, Peter is merely seeking to make reference to the Noahic flood being a literal event, and he is not necessarily making any statement at all as to its extension. And did you miss #2 and the rest of my entuire post? Geepers, CI.

CI: Of course, you also ignore the Bible the (god-breathed) actual word of God which clearly indicates that it was a global event. Moreover, seeing as how this is the case, how likely is it that Peter understood it any differently?

RA: Again, what in the world are you talking about??? I said I believe it was global. And then discussed the ramifications of it being global, which would fit perfectly with Peter believing it was global, although he never said as much. Geepers, again.

CI: As to all of your DNA arguments, they're lame.

RA: Well, there it is. Have a good life. More power to ya. Just sharing m y opinions, FYI. Take it for what its worth, which apparently is not much. So, ok. We can still be fellow deists seeking to discover truth and enjoying a good debate now and then about interesting things.

CI: So what if all of our leaders thought that Amerindians were direct descendants of Lehi? Peter and all the Jewish and Christians leaders thought the flood was universal (for you to assert otherwise is ballsy, but laughable).

RA: Uhm, er, well, this leads me to actual question how closely you even care to read my responses since, well, I said the very opposite. I said I believe the flood is universal. In case you missed it, I said "Personally, I believe in a worldwide flood, so how do I personally deal with your argument?"

CI: The hemispheric model of the book of Mormon was the generally accepted model for Mormons for many decades. So what? The "global model" was the accepted model for Christians and Jews for millenia.

RA: Ok. spentg enough time on this one. We certainly see where the other one is coming from.

peace to ya,

RA

[Bill Hamblin]

RA: Sorry you find my views bizarre. Perhaps if you sought some clarification before launching into viewing my sacred beliefs as bizarre,

I didn't say your beliefs are bizarre. I said the contradiction was bizarre.

In other words, if there were as little evidence (negative evidence) relating to the Bible as there is relating to the BOM, then I would not, indeed could not, believe the Bible. and I do not thiknk God would have me believe it.

Suppose you lived in 1600 AD. At that time there was absolutely no corroborative evidence for the Bible. Should all people at that time have rejected the Bible?

There are still many places, people and events described in the Bible for which we have no corroborative evidence--the resurrection of Christ, for example. Should we therefore reject those parts of the Bible which cannot be corroborated? (If your response is that corroboration of one part of the Bible corroborates the whole, then I will respond that, by that logic, we should all worship Zeus because the city of Troy has been discovered, corroborating Homer's descriptions of Zeus and the Greek Gods.)

runs contrary to well-established facts and evidence.

Sorry, the young earth and universal flood both "run contrary to well-established facts and evidence"

And you are simply wrong that there is no corroborative evidence for the BOM. You are simply dead wrong. I agree there is no proof, but proof and evidence are two quite different things.

[rabanes]

Bill: And you are simply wrong that there is no corroborative evidence for the BOM. You are simply dead wrong. I agree there is no proof, but proof and evidence are two quite different things.

RA: Terryl Givens says, "not one single archaeological artifact has been found that conclusively establishes a direct connection between the record [that is, the Book ofMormon] and any actual culture or civilization of the Western hemisphere" (By the Hand of Mormon, p.155). IMO, "archaeological artifact" would fall into the realm of evidence. Argue with Givens.

RA

[Bill Hamblin]

I think we may be overwhelming Richard by too many simultaneous arguments spinning off in too many directions, rather like a pack of wolves harrying a poor deer. We should try to take this one issue at time, or Richard will have to back out from sheer weight of numbers. How to do this is a different question.

[Bill Hamblin]

RA: Terryl Givens says, "not one single archaeological artifact has been found that conclusively establishes a direct connection between the record [that is, the Book ofMormon] and any actual culture or civilization of the Western hemisphere" (By the Hand of Mormon, p.155). IMO, "archaeological artifact" would fall into the realm of evidence. Argue with Givens.

I agree with Givens. You misunderstand him. "Conclusively establishes" = proof. I agree we cannot prove the BOM is true through historical or archaeological evidnece. (I also believe we cannot "prove" the Bible either.) Evidence is quite different than proof. Take the name Nahom, discovered at the correct time and place in Arabia, matching the BOM description. This is evidence supporting the BOM, is it not? It is not, however, proof of the BOM.

But you ignored my other questions, which are more to the point. I really would like an answer. Every time I get into this type of discussion with an Evangelical, the discussion stalls at precisely this moment.

So I'll repeat my questions:

Suppose you lived in 1600 AD. At that time there was absolutely no corroborative evidence for the Bible. Should all people at that time have rejected the Bible?

There are still many places, people and events described in the Bible for which we have no corroborative evidence--the resurrection of Christ, for example. Should we therefore reject those parts of the Bible which cannot be corroborated? (If your response is that corroboration of one part of the Bible corroborates the whole, then I will respond that, by that logic, we should all worship Zeus because the city of Troy has been discovered, corroborating Homer's descriptions of Zeus and the Greek Gods.)