mnn727 Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Look at the book "1491", there were millions of them when Columbus landed. Amazon description Then there was smallpox and other diseases which devistated the populations.Of course where is your proof they were the descendants of L&L
Bob Crockett Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Look at the book "1491", there were millions of them when Columbus landed. Amazon description Then there was smallpox and other diseases which devistated the populations.More along these lines, among American anthropologists there are "high population counters" and "low population counters." Mann, the author of the book that you cite, is not an anthropologist. As I recall he is merely a reporter. His other works are quite flawed, but he does strive for true facts. For instance, he asserts that the Nez Perce horse stock predates Columbus. The Nez Perce were extraordinary horsemen, as the Lewis & Clark expedition recounts. He theorizes that the Nez Perce horses are from Asia. He also cites a high-counter, Eleanor Roosevelt, who asserts that the Amazon forest is not virgin growth, and that at the time of Columbus it was managed. She points to huge ceramic waste mounds in South America as partial evidence. Mann also asserts the Great Plains are not virgin; they were a managed grazing area for Buffalo to support large populations, and that before they were managed they were forests. Mann also asserts that New England supported very high populations, and that the hardwood forests in New England were managed. He asserts that in the early days of the European conquest a horse and buggy could negotiate most of New England's forests without difficulty, because the Natives kept the brush at bay to support better agricultural production. I have my doubts about some of the stuff he writes, particularly his book about pre-Columbian Chinese contacts.There certainly are many anomolies. I have a book published in 1820 by a Tennessee Supreme Court justice, an amateur archaeologist, who documents finds of Roman coins in mounds. Whatever.
mfbukowski Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 Of course where is your proof they were the descendants of L<he same place your proof is that they were not.
foster Posted September 7, 2013 Author Posted September 7, 2013 On the other hand as a skeptical pessimist, always looking at the "worst case" scenario, I have no problem believing that even if the BOM is NOT "historical", whatever that is supposed to mean in a world of interpretations, that its value as inspired scripture is undiminished by that fact. As has been pointed out, billions of people in the world do not think they need historical verification to make their scriptures credible, and it is a shame to me that people in this church actually think these things are necessary. It is a complete mystery to me and will probably remain a mystery until God decides to take me from this earth. And to quote Forrest Gump, that is about all I have to say about that.The entire post is worthy of notice. As for the part quoted, i see no reason why any member would treat another member as anything other than fellow Saint, simply because of differences of opinion on the Book of Mormon. Also, it is very unfortunate that some members attempt to influence others by creating artificial test(s) as of means of excluding fellow Saints. The sifting process is the Lords, in my opinion, it is not up to us to assume that role without His authority.
mfbukowski Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 The entire post is worthy of notice. As for the part quoted, i see no reason why any member would treat another member as anything other than fellow Saint, simply because of differences of opinion on the Book of Mormon. Also, it is very unfortunate that some members attempt to influence others by creating artificial test(s) as of means of excluding fellow Saints. The sifting process is the Lords, in my opinion, it is not up to us to assume that role without His authority.What part?What quote?Who was criticizing members because of their view of the BOM?Who was testing someone?
foster Posted September 7, 2013 Author Posted September 7, 2013 The part quoted was the part of yours I quoted. I should have divided up the rest of my post as it was just my own musings. I hope you did not think i was saying you created a test. What I find notable for this thread, is that you seem accepting of those who may not regard the BOM a literal history of early peoples of the western hemisphere.
Robert F. Smith Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 (edited) The Lamanites? Are we talking about the group defined as "not Nephite" or blood descendants or something else?mnn 727 said:Descendants of Laman and Lemuel Of course where is your proof they were the descendants of L<he problem is that the "Lamanites" who exterminated the "Nephites" were not blood descendants of Laman & Lemuel.The term "Lamanite" took on an entirely new meaning a couple of centuries after Christ (you'll recall that everyone was united after Christ came to the New World) due to a bifurcation in society in which "Lamanites" were the unbelievers and the "Nephites" were the believers in Christ. Indeed, as the final religious war took its toll, any "Nephite" who took the "Lamanite" view became a "Lamanite."This has nothing to do with ethnicity or blood descent, but with one's religious beliefs.Thus, the term "Lamanite" includes the blood of all the original immigrants (Mulekites, Nephites, and Lamanites), and any others of the native Amerind population who decided to become part of that great civilization. Edited September 7, 2013 by Robert F. Smith 1
Tacenda Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 (edited) I'm reading about my ancestor's trek with the Martin Handcart, and their run in with the Indians along the way. She brings up the fact that these Indians were the descendants of the Lamanites, how far off is she I wonder. Maybe pretty far? Edited September 7, 2013 by Tacenda
EllenMaksoud Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 (edited) If there were no Jaredites, Lamenites, or Nephites can the Church still go on? Must the Book of Mormon be a historical account of early civilizations for the Church to survive or for Joseph Smith to have restored the gospel? Can Joseph Smith be a Prophet if the "factual claims" in the Book of Mormon were not fact?Would the creation story, Job, Jonah, the 10 plagues, provide a basis that not everything of God or written under the inspiration of God is actual historical fact?Actually, the most powerful thing that changed my life was living Mormons. Sadly, Mormons often do not realize or appreciate the uniqueness of our culture. In my opinion there is nothing like it in the world. And, Heavenly Father acts in my life in a way that never happened before. I would be fine with the Book of Mormon being allegorical, but it is not. Edited September 7, 2013 by EllenMaksoud 2
Tacenda Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 (edited) Actually, the most powerful thing that changed my life was living Mormons. Sadly, Mormons often do not realize or appreciate the uniqueness of our culture. In my opinion there is nothing like it in the world. And, Heavenly Father acts in my life in a way that never happened before. I would be fine with the Book of Mormon being allegorical, but it is not. It's the only thing that keeps me going in the LDS faith. Either it's in my head or there is something to this religion. The other day I wondered if it's the higher plane that some walk on. I'm just hoping God doesn't think that we rely too much on the goodness of the people and not the relationship with the Saviour enough. It's my fear that we don't worship fully the way we should, that we can have that love affair with Jesus that so many evangelicals have, even though some of them are not as nice acting. Maybe they know they are sinners and don't want to appear that they are anything special as a way of showing that they rely so much on the Lord's saving Grace. Maybe LDS really don't think they are sinners but believe they sin and then are able to get the forgiveness. They put themselves up on a higher plane, not out of being haughty or not humble but because we teach that we are children of God right from the get go. Edited September 7, 2013 by Tacenda
EllenMaksoud Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 (edited) It's the only thing that keeps me going in the LDS faith. Either it's in my head or there is something to this religion. The other day I wondered if it's the higher plane that some walk on. I'm just hoping God doesn't think that we rely too much on the goodness of the people and not the relationship with the Saviour enough. It's my fear that we don't worship fully the way we should, that we can have that love affair with Jesus that so many evangelicals have, even though some of them are not as nice acting. Maybe they know they are sinners and don't want to appear that they are anything special as a way of showing that they rely so much on the Lord's saving Grace. Maybe LDS really don't think they are sinners but believe they sin and then are able to get the forgiveness. They put themselves up on a higher plane, not out of being haughty or not humble but because we teach that we are children of God right from the get go. Most LDS and the organization culture are hopelessly optimistic, defying all logic, and it is a good thing. I mean who in their right mind would think they could walk 1200 miles, in winter, starving, dragging a hand cart, prey to predators, and arrive in SLC with their faith intact? Seriously? Is there one single non Mormon American that would try it today? Now that is Chutzpah, I think. Then these crazies get to the valley and somehow raise enough food to survive! Then they just walk up into the hills, slice off a bunch of rock and build the Temple? I mean, who would have thought? It was a great surprise to come to SLC and find that the temple is of grey stone, not the white that I see in photos. However, I think that most Mormons hold the Temple in such a high place in their minds that to them it is white, and astonishingly, I am becoming like that. Yes the glass is half full, not half empty. At first the Mormon optimism was impish delusion to me, but I have seen so much, and had Heavenly Father show me so much mercy, that I am become Impishly happy. Edited September 7, 2013 by EllenMaksoud 3
Anti-NOMunistJackMormon Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 The real message of the BOM is what's in it. The real meesage of JS is what was in heart and his faith. Both take a historical/scientific beating when looked upon through secular eyes. The fact is one can see these messages and judge for themeselves to find truth or falsehood. As for history the BoM just has so much against it it's possible however so slight but possible. History changes constantly and we know the Americas and thier traditional history changes all the time. Many civilizations have visited the Americas long before Columbus. The problem for years has been that Mormons have espoused assumptions about the Americas as absolute fact in trying to promote the faith. Now with further knowledge they have painted the BoM into a corner scientifically and historically. I believe in the message of the BoM to be true. I believe JS to be a prophetic man of God. I think though in the end trying to use the sciences of men to prove our own ideas is a recipie for failure.
mfbukowski Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 What I find notable for this thread, is that you seem accepting of those who may not regard the BOM a literal history of early peoples of the western hemisphere.There are many who believe that it is not necessary to be literal history any more than the bible is literal history, but that does not mean it is NOT literal history. No one can or ever will prove that either the bible or BOM were literal history, but that doesn't matter. 1
Questing Beast Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 @Anti-: That was the core message of Carl Sagan's story "Contact". In the movie version Ellie Arroway is before Congress testifying that she "had an experience", and not only does she have no proof, all the evidence the whole world can look at says that she only got her "experience" from a bump on her head. Her preacher boyfriend says he believes her anyway because he knows her character, he knows that she believes what she testifies happened, even though she can't explain it. And so the story ends on that note, with everyone having to decide for him/herself whether Arroway was delusional or dishonest or actually experienced something metaphysical, i.e. outside of science's capacity to examine. JS remains in the exact same position, and so too is every "investigator" of Mormonism: was JS a fraud, or delusional, or was he an honest man who had experiences outside of empirical reality that are nevertheless just as real and true? There is much about the BoM that defies explanation with simple assertions. No matter what the explanatory assertion is, there is something that doesn't jive with it, something that gives JS an "out" and keeps him from being pinned down and dismissed. Room for belief and room for doubt: that is proof enough that "God" is involved, and that believers are not fools, but also, that disbelievers are not condemned for their lack of belief. Mormonism is just one of a myriad ways to seek after "God". It is a good one, and a growing one, and who knows how big it may still get? Regardless of its size or influence in the world at large, it is clearly genuine stuff and joined to the "club" of mankind's religious paradigms seeking and offering answers.... 1
Anti-NOMunistJackMormon Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) @Anti-: That was the core message of Carl Sagan's story "Contact". In the movie version Ellie Arroway is before Congress testifying that she "had an experience", and not only does she have no proof, all the evidence the whole world can look at says that she only got her "experience" from a bump on her head. Her preacher boyfriend says he believes her anyway because he knows her character, he knows that she believes what she testifies happened, even though she can't explain it. And so the story ends on that note, with everyone having to decide for him/herself whether Arroway was delusional or dishonest or actually experienced something metaphysical, i.e. outside of science's capacity to examine. JS remains in the exact same position, and so too is every "investigator" of Mormonism: was JS a fraud, or delusional, or was he an honest man who had experiences outside of empirical reality that are nevertheless just as real and true? There is much about the BoM that defies explanation with simple assertions. No matter what the explanatory assertion is, there is something that doesn't jive with it, something that gives JS an "out" and keeps him from being pinned down and dismissed. Room for belief and room for doubt: that is proof enough that "God" is involved, and that believers are not fools, but also, that disbelievers are not condemned for their lack of belief. Mormonism is just one of a myriad ways to seek after "God". It is a good one, and a growing one, and who knows how big it may still get? Regardless of its size or influence in the world at large, it is clearly genuine stuff and joined to the "club" of mankind's religious paradigms seeking and offering answers.... I have tremendous loyalty to the LDS church and find the BoM inspiring and have tremedous faith in scripture. I find JS to be a quintessential American anti-hero and yes God-inspired prophetic man. I find myself being able to relate him on so many levels. I also find BY to be the same. I just cannot find myself able to believe historically in the BoM and it makes me sad. I once belonged to a Lamanite ward and I was so proud of having that lineage and knowledege that somehow I was a part of it. As I got older and even in my middle-school years I had doubts due to my love of history and archaeology but the more I studied the more things went against my faith in the BoM as a historical perfect document. I have been through so much study for years for and against the church and it's teachings, and find myself never coming to any solution. I find myself anrgily critical of the church at times but at the same time wanting to valiantly defend it against much of the absolute venom coming from the secular and religious anti-Mormons in and outside of the church. I have tried going to other churches and do not feel the spirit there even though they might be fine faithful people and that is their pathway to the Lord and Heavenly Father. I struggle at church when I have gone and have bounced back and forth in activity for years since I was a child. I wish I could feel comfortable at church and not feel like a hypocrite with my doubts of the BoM. I feel like my beliefs are simply not compatible with any faith or organized religion. I would love to be able to enjoy going to worship with my Mormon brothers and sisters but simply feel unable and don't know if I ever will. My only solace is that I hope when I pass on to the other side God and Jesus will know my heart and that I have earnestly sought to follow Christ. Edited September 11, 2013 by Anti-NOMunistJackMormon
Gervin Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 There are many who believe that it is not necessary to be literal history any more than the bible is literal history, but that does not mean it is NOT literal history. No one can or ever will prove that either the bible or BOM were literal history, but that doesn't matter.The Bible doesn't make a claim to be a historical text, yet there are events, cultures, places and locations that have been proven to be literal history.The Book of Mormon makes claims of being, in part, a history yet nothing in it has yet been proven to be literal history.
Questing Beast Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 ... I wish I could feel comfortable at church and not feel like a hypocrite with my doubts of the BoM. I feel like my beliefs are simply not compatible with any faith or organized religion. I would love to be able to enjoy going to worship with my Mormon brothers and sisters but simply feel unable and don't know if I ever will. My only solace is that I hope when I pass on to the other side God and Jesus will know my heart and that I have earnestly sought to follow Christ.Imho, there is no reason to doubt that God will know your heart and intentions. Doubts never condemned anyone. They are a cross to bear. I hope that both of us find the answers we are looking for....
Glenn101 Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 The Bible doesn't make a claim to be a historical text, yet there are events, cultures, places and locations that have been proven to be literal history.The Book of Mormon makes claims of being, in part, a history yet nothing in it has yet been proven to be literal history. Ah, but there are many events that the Bible has narrated for which there is no clearcut evidence. The 400 year sojourn of Israel in Egypt and the Exodus. There are many who believe that the Israelites were indiginous to Caanan and that there was no Jacob/israel in secular history. The events, languages, and cultures that are portrayed only indicate that the authors lived in or were cognizant of those places and times. Glenn 1
mfbukowski Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 The Bible doesn't make a claim to be a historical text, yet there are events, cultures, places and locations that have been proven to be literal history.The Book of Mormon makes claims of being, in part, a history yet nothing in it has yet been proven to be literal history.That all depends on the scholar you want to believe in. And there are no difference whatsoever in what either book "claims". 1
why me Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 I'm reading about my ancestor's trek with the Martin Handcart, and their run in with the Indians along the way. She brings up the fact that these Indians were the descendants of the Lamanites, how far off is she I wonder. Maybe pretty far? I don't think that she was that far off. To my understanding all those who were left were considered lamanites. The nephites disappeared.
why me Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) It's the only thing that keeps me going in the LDS faith. Either it's in my head or there is something to this religion. The other day I wondered if it's the higher plane that some walk on. I'm just hoping God doesn't think that we rely too much on the goodness of the people and not the relationship with the Saviour enough. It's my fear that we don't worship fully the way we should, that we can have that love affair with Jesus that so many evangelicals have, even though some of them are not as nice acting. Maybe they know they are sinners and don't want to appear that they are anything special as a way of showing that they rely so much on the Lord's saving Grace. Maybe LDS really don't think they are sinners but believe they sin and then are able to get the forgiveness. They put themselves up on a higher plane, not out of being haughty or not humble but because we teach that we are children of God right from the get go. It seems to me that the lds do have a 'love affair' with the savior. If one thinks about it the lds pray in his name several times a day. Plus, they do seem to talk about him in sacrament meetings. Also, he is in the name of the lds church. The chruch is a world wide church and people are different. But it seems that the lds believe strongly in jesus christ but not just in word but also in action. Not to mention the fact, that the book of mormon is the second witness that christ lived on this earth. Edited September 12, 2013 by why me
foster Posted September 12, 2013 Author Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) There are many who believe that it is not necessary to be literal history any more than the bible is literal history, but that does not mean it is NOT literal history. No one can or ever will prove that either the bible or BOM were literal history, but that doesn't matter. I agree. Edited September 12, 2013 by foster
canard78 Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 @Anti-: That was the core message of Carl Sagan's story "Contact". In the movie version Ellie Arroway is before Congress testifying that she "had an experience", and not only does she have no proof, all the evidence the whole world can look at says that she only got her "experience" from a bump on her head. Her preacher boyfriend says he believes her anyway because he knows her character, he knows that she believes what she testifies happened, even though she can't explain it. And so the story ends on that note, with everyone having to decide for him/herself whether Arroway was delusional or dishonest or actually experienced something metaphysical, i.e. outside of science's capacity to examine. JS remains in the exact same position, and so too is every "investigator" of Mormonism: was JS a fraud, or delusional, or was he an honest man who had experiences outside of empirical reality that are nevertheless just as real and true? There is much about the BoM that defies explanation with simple assertions. No matter what the explanatory assertion is, there is something that doesn't jive with it, something that gives JS an "out" and keeps him from being pinned down and dismissed. Room for belief and room for doubt: that is proof enough that "God" is involved, and that believers are not fools, but also, that disbelievers are not condemned for their lack of belief. Mormonism is just one of a myriad ways to seek after "God". It is a good one, and a growing one, and who knows how big it may still get? Regardless of its size or influence in the world at large, it is clearly genuine stuff and joined to the "club" of mankind's religious paradigms seeking and offering answers....I like this a lot QB and I agree with pretty much the whole lot. I'd be happy if the church used this rhetoric more often.
foster Posted September 12, 2013 Author Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) Having never really questioned whether it is historically accurate, I would not know.where to start on the "what if" of it not being historical.This is incredibly troubling. Let me put it to you this way. During my life, I have seen things here and there that confirm the Book of Mormon to me. I have not really questioned the history of it, because I have always had little confirmations of the Book of Mormon. Others may not be so lucky as I have in this regard. Edited September 12, 2013 by foster
Gervin Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 That all depends on the scholar you want to believe in. And there are no difference whatsoever in what either book "claims".I wonder how many secular scholars, with no stake in the religious claims of the Bible, would claim that Herod wasn't a real person, the Jordan River has never been accurately located, and that Hezekiah's Tunnel mentioned in 2 Kings has not been found? Are these types of scholars you don't believe in? re "claims" I don't know of any Biblical prophets that are identified as "historian-prophets" as is Moroni - perhaps I've missed that.
Recommended Posts