Historicity Of The Bom

[Palerider]

I don't believe it. It is possible to know that the Book of Mormon is true; but it is not possible to know that it is not true.

Excuse me!!!!?????

I think that's the most spiritually naive', narrow and outright illogical thing I have read since being on this site.....but it is very insightful and telling in the extreme.

I believe if the Spirit could tell Peter that what Ananais was saying wasn't true, surley the same could be true for the B of M.

Acts 5: 1-3

"But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said , Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? "

Please don't use the "where are you getting your inspiration from?" arguement. It works just as well in my favor regarding your inspirational source.

I've chosen not to question yours but am willing to wait and see........

Edited September 17, 2011 by Palerider

[Palerider]

Atrocious misreading of English grammar. "Is this not the carpenter's son" certainly isn't questioning that the subject is the carpenter's son.

I partially agree and yet it does hold out the possibility that it may not be true. It is very much akin to saying "correct me if I'm wrong but........"

Edited September 17, 2011 by Palerider

[Stargazer]

I'm glad I'm not alone and I suspect there are many more like us out there........

My own experience seemed quite odd to me, once it happened, because "my Answer" came from an unexpected quarter. It was during the time I was getting ready to put in my application to serve a full-time mission. I had already given up a guarantee of a paid-for college education, because my father told me that he would pay for me to go to school AND for a mission, IF I went to college first, but I realized that if I went to college first I would never serve a mission, so I went with the other choice, which was to be responsible for both all by myself. I was pretty committed at that point, but felt that I really needed to get "my Answer" (gosh sounds like a Piers Anthony Xanth novel), just to be able to testify truly.

So I took it in hand to read the BoM all the way through for the first time, and at the end of it I asked Heavenly Father to tell me it was true. No answer. I tried to imitate Enos by way of wearing HF out, but still no answer. I actually started to get rather snippy about it all -- until it occurred to me that here I was trying to intimidate God into giving me something He evidently was withholding. I dropped the attitude and started reflecting upon what I was trying to get and it finally hit me: I already knew it was true. I had known it long before I started my "official" reading of the book. I knew the Church was true and that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and I'd known it since before I had ever gotten baptized at age 15. And upon further reflection I considered the several and in particular the one spiritual experience I had had while reading the Book. And here I was, rock solid testimony and all, asking what amounted to a meaningless question in this case: "OK, Heavenly Father, I know that it is true, so tell me it is true." Talk about tempting the Lord your God.

I had had a very interesting experience just weeks after my baptism, when I decided I wanted a revelation (a vision? an angelic visitation? I wasn't specific). I went to the quietest and most reverent place I could find and presented the request. And in the quiet I had my answer. It was very clear, and if ever I had a living example of the how the Still, Small Voice operates it was then. It was an answer in words, but not in words. It was so quiet as to be unhearable, yet I heard it. The answer was No, but the answer didn't exclude the possibility of such a thing at another time. But I was told I didn't have enough faith yet.

There's more, but I feel constrained that I have written enough. I cannot speak to the lack of revelatory experience which some of you here have reported; I don't know if God expected more from you and didn't get it, or if you were intentionally left out, or some other thing. I note in passing that Alexander Doniphan was a great friend to the Saints and was instrumental in preserving the life of Joseph Smith, among other acts, but never joined the church. He even got a Patriarchal Blessing, in which he was promised that he would never fall in battle -- a promise that was fulfilled during the Mexican War. There may be a reason why you could not receive the blessing of a testimony; I have no insight as to that.

But I pray that you will receive that blessing at some future time. After all, if it is true, then why should Heavenly Father withhold it from you after diligent search? If He does, then certainly He has a reason. Just be sure you really have done all you could do.

---

Edited to fix a fact. Mexican, not Civil War.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Stargazer

[zerinus]

Moroni 10:4 says you're supposed to ask God if the book is "not true." If such an outcome is impossible, then why bother?

Ah, but then it goes on to say that it is true! So he is not expecting you to get a no answer. If you get a no answer, then you know where it comes from, don't you.

[zerinus]

Excuse me!!!!?????

I think that's the most spiritually naive', narrow and outright illogical thing I have read since being on this site.....but it is very insightful and telling in the extreme.

I believe if the Spirit could tell Peter that what Ananais was saying wasn't true, surley the same could be true for the B of M.

Acts 5: 1-3

"But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said , Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? "

Please don't use the "where are you getting your inspiration from?" arguement. It works just as well in my favor regarding your inspirational source.

I've chosen not to question yours but am willing to wait and see........

You see the point is, that I actually know that it is true. That may be hard for you to believe or accept; but like it or not, I do. I know it as surely as I could know anything. Therefore there is no possible way of someone "knowing" that it is not true.

[Cobalt-70]

You see the point is, that I actually know that it is true. That may be hard for you to believe or accept; but like it or not, I do. I know it as surely as I could know anything. Therefore there is no possible way of someone "knowing" that it is not true.

I don't think, as a matter of logic, that you can say that. You know that it's true. However, its just a simple fact that there are many other people that are equally as convinced as you are of the opposite conclusion. Neither of you have any proof, however, because the "truth" of the Book of Mormon is not a falsifiable question.

That's why I think the book is "true" (though fictional), but I also think that asking whether the entire Book of Mormon is "true" is the wrong question. A book, as a physical item, is no more true nor false than a dog or an automobile--it just is. What can be true, however, are the sentences that are written in the book. But each sentence has to be evaluated independently. But there are not many books in which you could say that every single sentence is true. And even as judged by Mormons, not every sentence of the Book of Mormon is true for every Mormon in every circumstance. For example, it's not necessarily always true that "the Holy Ghost will show [baptized Mormons] all things what ye should do." (2 Nephi 32:5).

[Palerider]

You see the point is, that I actually know that it is true. That may be hard for you to believe or accept; but like it or not, I do. I know it as surely as I could know anything. Therefore there is no possible way of someone "knowing" that it is not true.

Good for you.........I actually KNOW that it is not true. Guess we'll just have to wait and see who's right.....

[zerinus]

Good for you.........I actually KNOW that it is not true. Guess we'll just have to wait and see who's right.....

Agreed. I am glad you said something we can agree on.

[Palerider]

My own experience seemed quite odd to me, once it happened, because "my Answer" came from an unexpected quarter. It was during the time I was getting ready to put in my application to serve a full-time mission. I had already given up a guarantee of a paid-for college education, because my father told me that he would pay for me to go to school AND for a mission, IF I went to college first, but I realized that if I went to college first I would never serve a mission, so I went with the other choice, which was to be responsible for both all by myself. I was pretty committed at that point, but felt that I really needed to get "my Answer" (gosh sounds like a Piers Anthony Xanth novel), just to be able to testify truly.

So I took it in hand to read the BoM all the way through for the first time, and at the end of it I asked Heavenly Father to tell me it was true. No answer. I tried to imitate Enos by way of wearing HF out, but still no answer. I actually started to get rather snippy about it all -- until it occurred to me that here I was trying to intimidate God into giving me something He evidently was withholding. I dropped the attitude and started reflecting upon what I was trying to get and it finally hit me: I already knew it was true. I had known it long before I started my "official" reading of the book. I knew the Church was true and that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and I'd known it since before I had ever gotten baptized at age 15. And upon further reflection I considered the several and in particular the one spiritual experience I had had while reading the Book. And here I was, rock solid testimony and all, asking what amounted to a meaningless question in this case: "OK, Heavenly Father, I know that it is true, so tell me it is true." Talk about tempting the Lord your God.

I had had a very interesting experience just weeks after my baptism, when I decided I wanted a revelation (a vision? an angelic visitation? I wasn't specific). I went to the quietest and most reverent place I could find and presented the request. And in the quiet I had my answer. It was very clear, and if ever I had a living example of the how the Still, Small Voice operates it was then. It was an answer in words, but not in words. It was so quiet as to be unhearable, yet I heard it. The answer was No, but the answer didn't exclude the possibility of such a thing at another time. But I was told I didn't have enough faith yet.

There's more, but I feel constrained that I have written enough. I cannot speak to the lack of revelatory experience which some of you here have reported; I don't know if God expected more from you and didn't get it, or if you were intentionally left out, or some other thing. I note in passing that Alexander Doniphan was a great friend to the Saints and was instrumental in preserving the life of Joseph Smith, among other acts, but never joined the church. He even got a Patriarchal Blessing, in which he was promised that he would never fall in battle -- a promise that was fulfilled during the Mexican War. There may be a reason why you could not receive the blessing of a testimony; I have no insight as to that.

But I pray that you will receive that blessing at some future time. After all, if it is true, then why should Heavenly Father withhold it from you after diligent search? If He does, then certainly He has a reason. Just be sure you really have done all you could do.

---

Edited to fix a fact. Mexican, not Civil War.

Interesting experience. Did you happen to see my #26 and #28 posts? There may be a possibility that's what has happened in your case.

[Robert F. Smith]

altersteve, on 13 September 2011 - 02:15 PM, said:

This doesn't answer the question T-Shirt asked. He said, if you lived during the time of Christ, and a missionary came to your door telling you about his Old Testament scriptures, and he had no evidence for those scriptures being ancient, would you turn him away? Answer the question, yes or no.

The question doesn't apply to reality since there is evidence for the OT being ancient.

Well, that is only true relatively speaking, since in fact large parts of the anthology we call the "OT" are considered by many scholars to have been merely legendary or fictitious in composition. The fact that more time has gone by since then than in the case of the BofM is hardly relevant since the very same problems obtain.

[Robert F. Smith]

If you are looking for an unbiased person, then I'm curious if you could point to some that aren't LDS but do agree that the BoM is an ancient book? And exactly what is the basis for their reasoning? Thanks.

Margaret Barker, a prominent non-Mormon biblical scholar from England (former President of the Society for Old Testament Study), said of the Book of Mormon: “This revelation is the ancient wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE.” (Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” May 2005 paper delivered at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, available in J. W. Welch, ed., The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress [Provo: BYU Press, 2006], 69-82).

[Robert F. Smith]

I find it puzzling that to score points in a debate that Mormons would question the authenticity of the Bible, which I thought they believed was the word of God. Afterall, its not as if the Pope had allegedly translated the bible from Golden Plates delivered by an angel, then taken back to heaven. When you have actual ancient manuscripts at hand, I really don't see the need to apply the same standard in evaluating its authenticity of the current English translation of the bible.

He may have been making a plea for simple fairness. For, as the late Rev. Wesley P. Walters said many years ago:

"I don't want people treating the Bible in a cavalier manner, and we oughtn't to treat in a cavalier manner somebody else's sacred literature." ("Discovering Mormon Documents," Cassette Tape 101, Personal Freedom Outreach, St. Louis, MO)

The "actual ancient manuscripts" of the Bible which you mention appear long after the events they describe, and long after they were first composed. The Bible itself is a collection of diverse genres of documents coming from vastly different sources and times, many scholars questioning the authenticity of the events described therein. Pretending that this is not so won't make the problem go away. Indeed, there are no problems which evangelicals have attributed to the Book of Mormon which are not even more numerous in the Bible.

People in glass houses ought not to throw stones.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't agree. Archeologists are amazing when it comes to recreating history and tracing migratory patterns from the ground. Tracing the migration to the new world from the clovis blade found in new mexico is an example.

Anthropologists (including archeolologists, a sub-discipline or anthro) do the best they can with the artifacts they recover, but it is never as cut-and-dried as you make it seem. Take Clovis technology, for example. Dennis Stanford (of the Smithsonian) and others have made important comparisons of Clovis and Solutrean spear points, and have suggested the likelihood that Paleo-Indians (unlike the much later classic Amerinds) were (1) Caucasoid and came to the Americas either (a) by sea around the Pacific Rim after traveling from northeastern Europe into Asia and the Japanese islands (then populated by indigenous Ainu), or (b) were early seal hunters from Iberia or France, and (2) others came from Australia, Melanesia, or subsaharan Africa: As evidence for this, the much older west European Solutrean spear points (19,000 years Before the Present) are clearly ancestral to the Clovis spear points found in the New World, along with an entire constellation of other archeological characteristics-in-common. The only Clovis site in Siberia dates to 11,000 BP, much too late to precede Clovis, New Mexico @ 11,500 BP, as well as the Topper Site in South Carolina, requiring us to go well beyond the typical European or trans-Asian diffusion normally suggested for it – perhaps requiring the peopling of the Americas at least as early as 21,000 BP in light of pleistocene remains at that Topper Site in South Carolina (20,000 BP), or in the Meadowcroft Rock Shelter in Pennsylvania (at 17,000 BP), etc.

I don't know about that. I could be wrong, but its seems intuitive to me then when people migrate from one place to another, they don't abandon their language, culture, or skill sets. I am not an archeologist, or anthropologist, but I would assume that a group migrating from the mideast, would retain their culuture, written language, their religious beliefs, and their skillset. If they knew how to make wine, bread, cheese, steel swords, boats that can cross the ocean, they would retain and pass on and spread those skills. If they knew they were leaving and relocating to a new land, they would take seeds and plants with them.

I would therefore assume that if you believed in the historicity of the BOM, the first thing to look for would be for mideast influence.

Is your statement: "it is a mistake to look for the "ancient middle east" in mesoamerica" based on what experts are telling you, or just the expert apologists.

"Mideast influence," yes. A full-blown Middle East in the Americas, no.

Even in our own time, most immigrants to the USA were German-speaking, yet that culture and language has been entirely replaced by an English-speaking one, with a fully Anglicized legal and educational system. The dominant culture has become normative in a relatively short period of time. The same is true for the once largely Yiddish-speaking Jewish community in the USA, now moving rapidly toward complete absorption and assimilation.

The Nephites were in the Americas for over a thousand years, and there is no reason to see them as the dominant culture. Indeed, at the outset, they were vastly outnumbered by their neighbors during a period and in a general area which has not been well-excavated. What would we expect to find? Adaptation to local customs and building techniques, as has been true for most immigrants to America in our own time?

Edited September 18, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Hughes]

Well, that is only true relatively speaking, since in fact large parts of the anthology we call the "OT" are considered by many scholars to have been merely legendary or fictitious in composition. The fact that more time has gone by since then than in the case of the BofM is hardly relevant since the very same problems obtain.

So you don't think there's "there is evidence for the OT being ancient?" (objectively speaking, not relatively speaking)

Margaret Barker, a prominent non-Mormon biblical scholar from England (former President of the Society for Old Testament Study), said of the Book of Mormon: “This revelation is the ancient wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE.” (Barker, “Joseph Smith and Preexilic Israelite Religion,” May 2005 paper delivered at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC, available in J. W. Welch, ed., The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress [Provo: BYU Press, 2006], 69-82).

For sake of argument, that's one "non LDS" scholar out of how many?

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't think, as a matter of logic, that you can say that. You know that it's true. However, its just a simple fact that there are many other people that are equally as convinced as you are of the opposite conclusion. Neither of you have any proof, however, because the "truth" of the Book of Mormon is not a falsifiable question.

That's why I think the book is "true" (though fictional), but I also think that asking whether the entire Book of Mormon is "true" is the wrong question. A book, as a physical item, is no more true nor false than a dog or an automobile--it just is. What can be true, however, are the sentences that are written in the book. But each sentence has to be evaluated independently. But there are not many books in which you could say that every single sentence is true. And even as judged by Mormons, not every sentence of the Book of Mormon is true for every Mormon in every circumstance. For example, it's not necessarily always true that "the Holy Ghost will show [baptized Mormons] all things what ye should do." (2 Nephi 32:5).

You are wrong to suggest that the Book of Mormon is not falsifiable (a key ingredient in scientific and logical inquiry into any claim).

There may indeed be legitimate differences of opinion on a host of questions about the truth or falsity of given claims. However, if the circumstantial and forensic evidence exists upon which to make a determination, pro or con, it should be possible to carry on meaningful discourse about such claims. Archeologists and crime scene investigators address such questions all the time, even though they do not always agree among themselves.

The Book of Mormon provides plenty of evidence upon which to conduct a substantive inquiry -- evidence which can theoretically be verified or falsified. That is what a discussion of "historicity" is all about.

[Robert F. Smith]

So you don't think there's "there is evidence for the OT being ancient?" (objectively speaking, not relatively speaking).

I was speaking of "relative" in the sense of the time-span of the documents separated from the events they describe, and the fact that the BofM is thus no different in that respect from the Bible.

Of course there is good evidence for both the Book of Mormon and the Bible being ancient -- objectively speaking.

For sake of argument, that's one "non LDS" scholar out of how many?

You asked for one and I gave it to you. You ought to have been gracious enough to accept that. However, if I give you two, will you be satisfied?

In early 1984, at BYU, I had a brief conversation with the late David Noel Freedman (whom I had first met in Jerusalem in 1969, when he was Director of the American School of Oriental Research there). I mentioned Yohanan Aharoni's claim that the name Malkiyahu found on two ostraca from Arad was actually the name of a son of King Zedekiah of Judah, as mentioned in Jeremiah 38:6 (Malchiah son of the King). I noted that the Book of Mormon called that son Mulek (Mosiah 25:2, Helaman 6:10; cf. Omni 15), which would be the short-form of the name. Freedman replied: "If Joseph Smith came up with that one, he did pretty good!" See my full account at http://maxwellinstit...d=71&chapid=806 .

Edited September 18, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Hughes]

I was speaking of "relative" in the sense of the time-span of the documents separated from the events they describe, and the fact that the BofM is thus no different in that respect from the Bible.

Of course there is good evidence for both the Book of Mormon and the Bible being ancient -- objectively speaking.

You asked for one and I gave it to you. You ought to have been gracious enough to accept that. However, if I give you two, will you be satisfied?

In early 1984, at BYU, I had a brief conversation with the late David Noel Freedman (whom I had first met in Jerusalem in 1969, when he was Director of the American School of Oriental Research there). I mentioned Yohanan Aharoni's claim that the name Malkiyahu found on two ostraca from Arad was actually the name of a son of King Zedekiah of Judah, as mentioned in Jeremiah 38:6 (Malchiah son of the King). I noted that the Book of Mormon called that son Mulek (Mosiah 25:2, Helaman 6:10; cf. Omni 15), which would be the short-form of the name. Freedman replied: "If Joseph Smith came up with that one, he did pretty good!" See my full account at http://maxwellinstit...d=71&chapid=806 .

Of course there are mountains of evidence for the OT being ancient, when compared to the BoM.

Even a dead clock is right twice a day. I'm not impressed by Margaret Barker, but that's just my opinion. I'm interested in facts, that's all. Thanks.

It seems you are only interested in insulting posters and references. You can take a short break from the boards. -Ares

[Pahoran]

I think you and I both know where you are trying to take this…( there is no way to measure a drop of red dye dropped into the ocean once its been put in the ocean) and no President Kimball did not claim that what he believed to be Lamanites were descendants “ONLY” of Lehi…even though I personally believe that that is what he believed.

Do you have any evidence for that? Clearly you didn't do what I asked you to do, which was to think about it. Apply it to your own situation. Is there any ancestor in your family tree that you can point to and say, "I am descended only from that person?"

Earth to Craig! Earth to Craig! Come in Craig! Now I don't know what they teach in skewl in Australia, but here in New Zealand, we learn how to count. I have two parents; two is more than one, therefore I cannot be descended from only one of them.

Each of them have two parents; so I have one, two, three, four grandparents. Four is more than one, therefore I cannot be descended from only one of them, either.

And it just gets worse and worse with every generation.

Do you think President Kimball was unaware of this phenomenon? Do you suppose that he never actually did any family history, so that it might escape his notice that it just isn't possible to have only one ancestor in any generation?

At the time he made that statement he had no idea of the major correction the church would have to take as scientific evidence failed to support the then popular premise that all Native Americas were decended from Lehi's party.

I echo the CFR about this "major correction." I haven't seen it.

What he did claim was that all then living Native Americans and Polynesians (who incidentally have no relational connection what so ever with Native Americans other than being members of the human family)

That is the received wisdom, yes.

were descended from Lehi and his fellow Book of Mormon characters.

And why shouldn't they be?

So since you seem to want to run to the rescue and defend President Kimball’s claim…help me understand how any part of it is based in reality. How do you get all 60 million so called Lamanites to be related to one of the Lehite party let alone each other? I just want to understand the mechanics of how 60 million Native Americans and Polynesians could have all had a common fore father from the so-called Lehi immigration. How exactly does an Indian living in Point Barrow Alaska get a common ancestor with a Native American living in Tierra del Fuego and a Polynesian living in New Zealand?

Here is President Kimball’s claim…so you help me understand how it is based in reality?

“Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand.”

Do you really want to know, Craig?

Then I suggest you take a look at this site: http://archiver.root...6-10/0845955102

Charlemagne is believed to have ten times as many descendants as the number President Kimball attributed to Lehi. And Charlemagne (747-814) lived more than thirteen hundred years later than Lehi did.

So if it is possible for Charlemagne, in a 1300-year period to have amassed hundreds of millions of descendants over half the world, why is it so hard to imagine that Lehi's descendants, with twice as much time at their disposal, could have reached the comparatively paltry number of 60 million, and most of them in a single contiguous territory?

Now Pahoran I do not have a fight with President Kimball…I loved him and held him in the highest regard…and for the most part still do. He was only teaching what he believed to be true with his limited understanding. I was merely pointing out to SeattleGrunge that there once was a president of the church who did teach that all Native Americas and Polynesians were descendants of the Lehi party. If however you are suggesting that President Kimball was correct in his claim…help me understand how any part of it is true. Explain exactly how 60 million Native Americas and Polynisians had a common ancestor?

See above.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ERayR]

I just can't let this one go. CFR that the Church has made a "major correction".

just didn't want this to get lost. Craig Paxton you have a CFR to answer. Please answer it or retract your statement.

Edited September 18, 2011 by ERayR

[ERayR]

Even a dead clock is right twice a day. I'm not impressed by Margaret Barker, but that's just my opinion. I'm interested in facts, that's all. Thanks.

Of cours your not impressed with Margaret Barker, she does not support your view.

By the way how does it feel to have a worse record than a dead clock?

Hughes was given a time out from the board for this bad behavior. Please don't respond in kind. -Ares

[altersteve]

I find it puzzling that to score points in a debate that Mormons would question the authenticity of the Bible, which I thought they believed was the word of God. Afterall, its not as if the Pope had allegedly translated the bible from Golden Plates delivered by an angel, then taken back to heaven. When you have actual ancient manuscripts at hand, I really don't see the need to apply the same standard in evaluating its authenticity of the current English translation of the bible.

This is ridiculous. We do not question the authenticity of the Bible, we question the accuracy of certain Bible translations, the completeness of the Bible, and the concepts of biblical infallibility and inerrancy. It has nothing to do with whether or not the biblical text itself is authentic.

[cdowis]

Charlemagne is believed to have ten times as many descendants as the number President Kimball attributed to Lehi.

I happen to be one of them.

Anyway, he is forgetting what the BOM tells us about the Lamanites, the concept of adoption. Pres Kimball, as a church leader, was not teaching science, DNA, but BOM history. These millions of descendants are Lamanites both by direct descent but also by adoption.

As we have repeatedlyh pointed out, the BOM tells us that the "Lamanite" is a generic term, anyone who was not a Nephite.

[Craig Paxton]

I just can't let this one go. CFR that the Church has made a "major correction".

Oh Brother CFR, CFR...OK....I'll use the Introduction page of the Book of Mormon as an example...where only recently it was changed to reflect reality from “… and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” To “...and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians".

It’s also why internet Mormons believe in a limited geography theory rather than the traditional hemispheric geography theory. Incidentally President Kimball was referring to the hemispheric model when he made his statement.

Why do you think there are multiple theories? Because there are multiple beliefs regarding WHO the Lamanites were and who they decended from. If this question had been resolved in the church there wouldn't be multiple theories.

[Craig Paxton]

Do you have any evidence for that? Clearly you didn't do what I asked you to do, which was to think about it. Apply it to your own situation. Is there any ancestor in your family tree that you can point to and say, "I am descended only from that person?"

Earth to Craig! Earth to Craig! Come in Craig! Now I don't know what they teach in skewl in Australia, but here in New Zealand, we learn how to count. I have two parents; two is more than one, therefore I cannot be descended from only one of them.

Each of them have two parents; so I have one, two, three, four grandparents. Four is more than one, therefore I cannot be descended from only one of them, either.

And it just gets worse and worse with every generation.

Do you think President Kimball was unaware of this phenomenon? Do you suppose that he never actually did any family history, so that it might escape his notice that it just isn't possible to have only one ancestor in any generation?

I echo the CFR about this "major correction." I haven't seen it.

That is the received wisdom, yes.

And why shouldn't they be?

Do you really want to know, Craig?

Then I suggest you take a look at this site: http://archiver.root...6-10/0845955102

Charlemagne is believed to have ten times as many descendants as the number President Kimball attributed to Lehi. And Charlemagne (747-814) lived more than thirteen hundred years later than Lehi did.

So if it is possible for Charlemagne, in a 1300-year period to have amassed hundreds of millions of descendants over half the world, why is it so hard to imagine that Lehi's descendants, with twice as much time at their disposal, could have reached the comparatively paltry number of 60 million, and most of them in a single contiguous territory?

See above.

Regards,

Pahoran

Despite your assertion, I'm not stupid….you don’t have to talk down to me. I understand the basis of your argument quite well. When you're willing to have a discussion based on mutual respect between two adults rather than treating me as some silly child....I'll be more than happy to have discussion with you. Sometimes the need to feel you win an argument over rides the opportunity for an honest discussion...stop trying to make points and lets have an honest discussion. We may end up agreeing with each other or agreeing to disagree...but through the process...maybe we can leave the discussion respecting each other

Edited September 19, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Pahoran]

Oh Brother CFR, CFR...OK....I'll use the Introduction page of the Book of Mormon as an example...where only recently it was changed to reflect reality from “… and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” To “...and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians".

I agree with you; the current introduction reflects reality.

The previous version of the introduction you cite, written as recently as 1981 by Bruce R. McConkie, was always seen as at least somewhat problematic by many Latter-day Saints, but please note that "principal ancestors" did not and could not mean, "only ancestors." In fact, even the 1981 introduction, written by Bruce R. McConkie, clearly allowed for modern NA's to have ancestors other than the Lamanites.

It’s also why internet Mormons believe in a limited geography theory rather than the traditional hemispheric geography theory.

Point of order: honest, informed critics of the Church, if such there be, do not cite the baseless "internet Mormon" canard, invented by a notorious internet anti-Mormon for dishonest polemical purposes, as though it has any credibility.

I just thought you ought to know.

But I seem to have lost track of what you are asserting here. What do you think is the reason why informed Latter-day Saints believe the Book of Mormon describes a limited geography? Because whatever the smart set in the great and spacious building have told you, the real reason informed Latter-day Saints believe the Book of Mormon describes a limited geography is because they've read the Book of Mormon and noticed that it describes a limited geography.

Incidentally President Kimball was referring to the hemispheric model when he made his statement.

And you know this -- how, exactly?

Why do you think there are multiple theories? Because there are multiple beliefs regarding WHO the Lamanites were and who they decended from. If this question had been resolved in the church there wouldn't be multiple theories.

No, that's not correct.

The interpretations of informed, thoughtful Latter-day Saints are controlled by the text of the Book of Mormon.

The text, Craig.

Again, I just thought you ought to know.

Regards,

Pahorann