Bom Witnesses: Vogel Responds To Apologists

[Dan Vogel]

The bottom line is that the people we now term the "Maya" did not think of themselves as an ethnicity or as a "people" but were more concerned with being from a family line, or a specific village, or what we may now call something like a "tribe", and in fact the term "Maya" itself usually applied to group other than the speaker's own group.

As a total rank amateur in this area, I think that is consistent with the use of the words Nephite and Lamanite in the BOM, and also consistent with this passage:

In fact, the Jacob passage is exactly what Restall describes in his article on Mayan ethnogenesis. In this context, in Jacob's arbitrary designation of all these other groups by the name "Lamanite", Jacob uses that word exactly as Restall says that the word "Mayan" was used.

I don't see any non-Israelite people in this passage. Sort of reminds one of the ten tribes forming the nation of Israel, and two others the nation of Judah.

[Gervin]

I have no expectations in that regard, because the BOM is a personal decision between yourself and Deity. I consider that decision as probably the most important one in our life, since it has eternal consequences for our life in immortality.

The Book of Mormon can be strictly treated as "a personal decision" regarding the veracity of its spiritual claim. But the claims of the book itself speak to a history - as recorded by a "prophet-historian" that begs for its own veracity. I don't see anything wrong with testing a "prophet-historian" on his claimed history. From the introduction:

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Gervin

[mfbukowski]

I don't see any non-Israelite people in this passage. Sort of reminds one of the ten tribes forming the nation of Israel, and two others the nation of Judah.

I am seeing the term "Lamanite" being used, as the article says the pre-columbian people now known as "Maya" would have been used the term "maya" for something like "foreigner" or "people other-than-us"

If that is the case, and if Jacob lived in that region among the tribes who used that kind of terminology, there would be one word for all of those who were "other-than-us" and I am suggesting that that word might have been translated "Lamanite"

So he mentioned this group and that group and the other group and then "foreigners"= ("Lamanites") as a generic term for all of them.

I think his purpose was to define "Nephites" as "us" and the "Lamanites" as "other-than- us", as a generic term in addition to mentioning specific groups which were also "other than us".

[Dan Vogel]

I am seeing the term "Lamanite" being used, as the article says the pre-columbian people now known as "Maya" would have been used the term "maya" for something like "foreigner" or "people other-than-us"

If that is the case, and if Jacob lived in that region among the tribes who used that kind of terminology, there would be one word for all of those who were "other-than-us" and I am suggesting that that word might have been translated "Lamanite"

So he mentioned this group and that group and the other group and then "foreigners"= ("Lamanites") as a generic term for all of them.

I think his purpose was to define "Nephites" as "us" and the "Lamanites" as "other-than- us", as a generic term in addition to mentioning specific groups which were also "other than us".

I don’t see your definition operating in Jacob at all. It’s simply saying that the seven founding families were formed into two groups designated by the names of the two leading families. This is how the Lehite colony divided. There is no mention of native populations.

[mfbukowski]

I don’t see your definition operating in Jacob at all. It’s simply saying that the seven founding families were formed into two groups designated by the names of the two leading families. This is how the Lehite colony divided. There is no mention of native populations.

Yep, the words "native populations" don't appear anywhere. But that of course is not the point.

I did not expect them to. But I really don't expect that you would agree on this point anyway.

[wenglund]

Of course, Troy existed before it was found, but don't commit the fallacy of possible proof as well as the fallacy of proof by analogy.

I won't, if you promise not to commit the fallacy of argument from silence or the fallacy of special pleading or the straw man fallacy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Prior to Homer's Troy being found, then based on the absence of archaeological evidence prior to that time, what reasonable conclusions could have been drawn about the historicity of that city?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

Prior to Homer's Troy being found, then based on the absence of archaeological evidence prior to that time, what reasonable conclusions could have been drawn about the historicity of that city?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

CFR that there was no archeological evidence prior to the discovery of the City of Troy. If they found the city, then I expect that the archeologists had more evidence to lead them to the correct site than the reference to the city in an authentically ancient poem.

[wenglund]

CFR that there was no archeological evidence prior to the discovery of the City of Troy. If they found the city, then I expect that the archeologists had more evidence to lead them to the correct site than the reference to the city in an authentically ancient poem.

This CFR makes little sense to me. The discovery of Homer's Troy (which is what I referred to) was a function of archaeological evidence. The discovery of the archaeological evidence for Homer's Troy was, essentially, the discovery of Homer's Troy. Said logically another way, prior to the discovery of Homer's Troy, the archaeological evidence for Homer's Troy had not been discovered.

Even still, you can read about it HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Jaybear]

This CFR makes little sense to me. The discovery of Homer's Troy (which is what I referred to) was a function of archaeological evidence. The discovery of the archaeological evidence for Homer's Troy was, essentially, the discovery of Homer's Troy. .

Even still, you can read about it HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Again ... CFR that there was no archeological evidence supporting the existence of Troy prior to the discovery of the City of Troy.

Are we really to believe that, prior to this discovery, the only knowledge that the world had of the existence of Troy and of Trojans was found in an ancient poem by Homer? Doubt it. So I am issuing a CFR.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

As I'm the one who made the initial claim I get to respond to your CFR. I made no claim as to any evidence for or against the existence of ancient Troy. My only question was and is did Troy exist before it was found?

[rodheadlee]

CFR that there was no archeological evidence prior to the discovery of the City of Troy. If they found the city, then I expect that the archeologists had more evidence to lead them to the correct site than the reference to the city in an authentically ancient poem.

There were people that thought Troy would be found in Britian.

http://www.troy-in-england.co.uk/

[mfbukowski]

Jaybear:

As I'm the one who made the initial claim I get to respond to your CFR. I made no claim as to any evidence for or against the existence of ancient Troy. My only question was and is did Troy exist before it was found?

You are starting to sound like me.

[wenglund]

Again ... CFR that there was no archeological evidence supporting the existence of Troy prior to the discovery of the City of Troy.

Are we really to believe that, prior to this discovery, the only knowledge that the world had of the existence of Troy and of Trojans was found in an ancient poem by Homer? Doubt it. So I am issuing a CFR.

I have answered the CFR for what I actually said. Read the link and learn (it is obvious from your response that you either didn't read the linked article or you failed miserably to comprehend it), or not. It really doesn't matter to me. I am not going to cater to your inanity.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 27, 2012 by wenglund

[Dan Vogel]

Prior to Homer's Troy being found, then based on the absence of archaeological evidence prior to that time, what reasonable conclusions could have been drawn about the historicity of that city?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It was assumed be be a fable, so until Schliemann no one bothered to find it.

[Dan Vogel]

I won't, if you promise not to commit the fallacy of argument from silence or the fallacy of special pleading or the straw man fallacy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Then, withdraw your Troy analogy.

[why me]

Going back to the witnesses, it does seem that their case is very strong that they saw something unique and experienced something powerful. Joseph, if a fraudster, had wonderful luck with picking 11 people that would be duped and remain duped for the rest of their lives. Also, we need to remember that the witnesses were also experiencing the theories of antimormonism of their time. And I am sure that if they did experience a fraud, their doubts would have increased that they had a spiritual experience. But they all soldiered on. No antimormon theory had any influence over them. Amazing.

When we compare this to all the former members who have been influenced by antimormon theories, we see that the witnesses were certainly unshakable in their belief and experience.

Edited March 28, 2012 by why me

[wenglund]

Then, withdraw your Troy analogy.

There is no logical reason to withdraw the Troy analogy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

There is no logical reason to withdraw the Troy analogy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course there is.

It logically makes anti-Mormons look bad.

[wenglund]

Of course there is.

It logically makes anti-Mormons look bad.

You have a point there. LOL

So, let me rephrase: there is no logical reason for me to withdraw the Troy analogy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

mfbukowski:

Great minds think alike.

[Jaybear]

As there seems to be a consensus brewing, can someone in this echo chamber explain why the Troy analogy makes "anti-mormons" look bad.

I just don't see it.

[wenglund]

As there seems to be a consensus brewing, can someone in this echo chamber explain why the Troy analogy makes "anti-mormons" look bad.

I just don't see it.

It isn't something that can be seen within the confines of your own echo chamber. Otherwise, it would already be self-evident to you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 28, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

As there seems to be a consensus brewing, can someone in this echo chamber explain why the Troy analogy makes "anti-mormons" look bad.

I just don't see it.

It was light-hearted banter.

Shirley, you jest.

It was assumed be be a fable, so until Schliemann no one bothered to find it.

See if you can rack your brain until you find another example of a city or cities assumed (by some) to be fables which are yet unfound, but could well be found in the future.

Think real hard now, ok?

[Dan Vogel]

It was light-hearted banter.

Shirley, you jest.

See if you can rack your brain until you find another example of a city or cities assumed (by some) to be fables which are yet unfound, but could well be found in the future.

Think real hard now, ok?

That Troy was found with little effort doesn't mean the same will be true for the BOM. That's why I referred to Atlantis. Which analogy best fits the BOM? Archaeologically, we know far more about Central America than Schlemann knew about the area where Troy was found.