Interesting Find For Theories Of Indian Origins And Preadamites

[Anijen]

Hi all.

I'm a genuinely curious non-Mormon. I just joined the site. And this is my first post. I thought I'd post here because of the discussion about the meaning of this girl's death and what it should count as evidence of.

I met with some of your missionaries a few years ago, was given the Book of Mormon, read the passages they recommended, and prayed the prayer for wisdom and revelation pretty fervently for about three days. After that I...not quite heard...but had the powerful "thought"—the kind of thought that really stood out as not being my own, if you know what I mean— and the thought was: "If this is a book of history, where is the evidence?"

So I looked for evidence. But I didn't look as hard as I should have. And I mostly read non-flattering sources about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and I was satisfied that it was all a fiction.

But now I'd like to revisit the issue and do justice to it. I've been reading some writings on Mormon theology by Blake Ostler, B. H. Roberts, and Eugene England, and some of it I find quite compelling. So I'd like to read the very best case for the Books of Mormon and Abraham being history. I know that proof is impossible, but evidence for their historicity should be possible. Can you fellows recommend 5 books or articles that helped confirm your belief in the BofM? Books that go over the kind of minutia discussed in this thread a and several others?

I have John L. Sorenson's "Mormon's Codex" in my shopping cart, as well as "Abraham in Egypt" by High Nibley, and "Exploring the Book of Mormon in America's Heartland" by Meldrum.

 

I'm looking for the kind of details talked about in this post. The evidence might only be circumstantial, but I'd like to at least know what it is.

I appreciate the help!

Welcome Shawn. Tyler Livingston just posted a pretty cool video on youtube a fireside he presented on some evidence, here is the link.

[Shawn_L]

Thanks, Calmoriah, for the heads up about Meldrum. Is there a more reliable advocate for the Heartland theory that you would recommend?

And thanks, Anijen, for the video link.

[ERayR]

USU78, that seemed to be a non answer for a newby non member. But if that's the best you've got...

 

The other side of that answer is that if one chooses not to believe no amount of evidence is enough and they wouldn't be able to connect the dots no matter how plain.

[teddyaware]

I would skip Meldrum. He is a young earth creationist and ignores the time constraints placed on the data if he doesn't like it. Plus he is less than open about some of the "relics" he refers to as evidence being determined to be fakes. He is not professionally trained and is not very good at critiquing his own work.

That's right, Cal. Good thing the Prophet Joseph Smith was "professionally trained." Where would we as a Church be today without his great breadth of professional training? Because as anyone in the know knows, one has to be thoroughly trained in an accredited college seminary before he is able to hold the priesthood and teach the orthodox religion. The same hold's true for Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and the rest. These men all had to be "professionally trained" before they were able to speak with authority on the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham. And as you know, we have all have been taught that when the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is at last translated, that work will be done by one of our professionally trained scholars who has a special knowledge of dead and lost languages. Who needs an untrained "prophet" with Urim and Thummim, seer stones or direct revelation when a professionally trained scholar can do as just well or even better? If the Restoration has taught us anything, it's that professional training trumps all.

 

P.S. The above is not a defense of Meldrum.  

 

[Anijen]

Is there a more reliable advocate for the Heartland theory that you would recommend?

Unfortunately every advocate I know that subscribes to a heartland theory just parrot Wayne May, or Rodney Meldrum's theories. I have studied, and continue to study the Adena, Hopewell, Clovis people and have found no evidence that have any substantial connections to the people in the Book of Mormon. In fact the evidence coming from any of the mound builders would be contrary to that idea.

[ERayR]

That's right, Cal. Good thing the Prophet Joseph Smith was "professionally trained." Where would we as a Church be today without his great breadth of professional training? Because as anyone in the know knows, one has to be thoroughly trained in an accredited college seminary before he is able to hold the priesthood and teach the orthodox religion. The same hold's true for Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and the rest. These men all had to be "professionally trained" before they were able to speak with authority on the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham. And as you know, we have all have been taught that when the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is at last translated, that work will be done by one of our professionally trained scholars who has a special knowledge of dead and lost languages. Who needs an untrained "prophet" with Urim and Thummim, seer stones or direct revelation when a professionally trained scholar can do as just well or even better? If the Restoration has taught us anything, it's that professional training trumps all.

 

P.S. The above is not a defense of Meldrum.

 

 

Glad you cleared that up as it was beginning to sound like a Meldrum defense. 

 

Oh by the way speaking authoritatively on the Book of Mormon need not include anything on Book of Mormon Geography.

Edited May 27, 2014 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

That's right, Cal. Good thing the Prophet Joseph Smith was "professionally trained." Where would we as a Church be today without his great breadth of professional training? Because as anyone in the know knows, one has to be thoroughly trained in an accredited college seminary before he is able to hold the priesthood and teach the orthodox religion. The same hold's true for Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and the rest. These men all had to be "professionally trained" before they were able to speak with authority on the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham. And as you know, we have all have been taught that when the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is at last translated, that work will be done by one of our professionally trained scholars who has a special knowledge of dead and lost languages. Who needs an untrained "prophet" with Urim and Thummim, seer stones or direct revelation when a professionally trained scholar can do as just well or even better? If the Restoration has taught us anything, it's that professional training trumps all.

 

P.S. The above is not a defense of Meldrum.  

 

 

Depends on what that training is in. I'm so glad God never allowed us into space or onto the moon.

[ERayR]

I know what it says. It is not talking about everyone whom came to the Americas. Just the oldest known group.

 

Still some pretty striking conclusions on so little evidence. 

[USU78]

USU78, that seemed to be a non answer for a newby non member. But if that's the best you've got...

 

First off, I am suspending disbelief in the poster's bona-fides.

Second, "newby" has been copyrighted.

Third, "prove the universe's existence" is an all but impossible task, yet your "newby" asks it [pretty much].

Fourth, I've got lots and lots, but this conversation, if it's to be directed, needs to be directed in the direction of "what is evidence and why does it matter."  If you cannot address those questions, nothing we talk about is worth an Austrian Groschen.

Edited May 27, 2014 by USU78

[USU78]

For believer and non-believer alike no amount of evidence is sufficient.

 

Eggsackly

[thesometimesaint]

Still some pretty striking conclusions on so little evidence. 

 

What we've got is what we've got. Personally I have no problem with the Jaredites and the Lehites coming to the America's by boat. But only wrote their own history.

[Calm]

That's right, Cal. Good thing the Prophet Joseph Smith was "professionally trained." Where would we as a Church be today without his great breadth of professional training?

If someone is going to use scientific methodology as opposed to revelation it is wise to be trained in it.

Think of it as using medical knowledge to heal vs. using blessings of faith, both work in their own sphere but for the medical doctor to lay hands on someone to bless them in the role of a medical doctor where he isn't using faith but his medical training makes no more

sense than for someone who heals through faith to attempt to use medical procedures he has not been trained in.

Meldrum claims to be using scientific methodology in some of his work. If that is so, he should first receive training in it so he knows how to use the tools it provides correctly. Otherwise he is like a little boy going into his father's workshop more likely to mar the craftsmanship of a piece his dad is working on rather than aiding in revealing the beauty of the wood.

Joseph Smith was wise enough to know his own limits and sought out an expert to teach him and others Greek and Hebrew. This does not in any way lessen the miracle of when he relied on faith for pure revelation.

I do not remember any scriptures where God gave the knowledge and power that could be learned through hard work and study and dropped it in someone's lap for them to use as if they had been taught for years in an academy. OTOH, through faith the Lord may reveal knowledge to someone. There were many things that Joseph and Brigham etc. did through revelation that no man with man's learning could have achieved...but they never claim they were using man's learning in those cases. There were some cases that church leaders could have benefitted by more professional training when they were not relying on God, but their own experience and learning (such as when the Church went into debt due to unsound business practices).

Meldrum is using science, not revelation in his methodology. It is not where he is talking about the Book of Mormon and other scriptures that I am suggesting he would benefit from professional training, it is when he is discussing genetics and scientific research as if he were a scientist that is problematic. Since he is attempting to make use of science in a scientific manner, he should get training in it to avoid misuse. If he was operating on pure revelation it would be different...but he is not.

Edited May 28, 2014 by calmoriah

[Rob Osborn]

And yet for me, pretty much all I have to hear or read is that this earth has 7,000 years of temporal existence. Based on this revelation by a prophet of God I can thus reject right now any dates that surpass this 7,000 years as automatically being false dates. I take it all on faith too! It doesn't matter that it can fly in the face of geology and mainstream science. So too does the Book of Mormon and yet I am basing my entire testimony on the belief the Book of Mormon is true. Its this thing we call "faith" and it seems that we have less and less of it these days as we tnd to replace it with the thinking and wisdom or should I say "foolishness" of man.

[The Nehor]

And yet for me, pretty much all I have to hear or read is that this earth has 7,000 years of temporal existence. Based on this revelation by a prophet of God I can thus reject right now any dates that surpass this 7,000 years as automatically being false dates. I take it all on faith too! It doesn't matter that it can fly in the face of geology and mainstream science. So too does the Book of Mormon and yet I am basing my entire testimony on the belief the Book of Mormon is true. Its this thing we call "faith" and it seems that we have less and less of it these days as we tnd to replace it with the thinking and wisdom or should I say "foolishness" of man.

 

You can do this.

 

Just don't bring in shoddy quack science in to support your position.

[Rob Osborn]

You can do this.

 

Just don't bring in shoddy quack science in to support your position.

I would never do that. Your quack science is not what I use to support my position.

[thesometimesaint]

Joseph Smith believed the earth to be 2.5 Billion years old. Not bad for living in a culture that accepted Archbishop Ussher's that the time and date of the creation as the night preceding Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC, according to the proleptic Julian calendar. But still off by about 2 Billion years.

[thesometimesaint]

I would never do that. Your quack science is not what I use to support my position.

 

Much better than your infantile "Answers in Genesis" coconut eating Adam and Eve riding T-Rex Bibliolater Ken Ham.

[Rob Osborn]

Much better than your infantile "Answers in Genesis" coconut eating Adam and Eve riding T-Rex Bibliolater Ken Ham.

Well, at least Ken Ham isn't an atheist!

[thesometimesaint]

Well, at least Ken Ham isn't an atheist!

 

Pray tell what that has got to do with science? Does the fact that Newton, an Anglican, make LaPlace, an Atheist, incorrect about what causes the planets to remain in their orbits? Does that fact that Darwin was an Anglican make Ken Ham an Evangelical correct about a coconut eating Adam and Eve riding T-Rex from about 5 thousand years ago?

[Rob Osborn]

Pray tell what that has got to do with science? Does the fact that Newton, an Anglican, make LaPlace, an Atheist, incorrect about what causes the planets to remain in their orbits? Does that fact that Darwin was an Anglican make Ken Ham an Evangelical correct about a coconut eating Adam and Eve riding T-Rex from about 5 thousand years ago?

You bash..I bash..

 

Back and forth all day long. I wonder why we even dialouge- we don't really get anywhere but make cuts on each other.

[thesometimesaint]

You bash..I bash..

 

Back and forth all day long. I wonder why we even dialouge- we don't really get anywhere but make cuts on each other.

 

False Equivalency. False equivalence is a logical fallacy where there appears to be a logical equivalence between two opposing arguments, but when in fact there is none. Journalists use a form of this logical fallacy when comparing two sides of a scientific debate in an attempt to provide a balance between a scientific and denialist point of view. However, there is no equivalence between the two sides, when one is supported by evidence, and the other side with little or no evidence, of which most is of low quality. In other words, in false equivalence, someone will state that the opposing arguments have a passing similarity in support, when, on close examination, there is large difference between the quality of evidence.

[Rob Osborn]

False Equivalency. False equivalence is a logical fallacy where there appears to be a logical equivalence between two opposing arguments, but when in fact there is none. Journalists use a form of this logical fallacy when comparing two sides of a scientific debate in an attempt to provide a balance between a scientific and denialist point of view. However, there is no equivalence between the two sides, when one is supported by evidence, and the other side with little or no evidence, of which most is of low quality. In other words, in false equivalence, someone will state that the opposing arguments have a passing similarity in support, when, on close examination, there is large difference between the quality of evidence.

Blah blah blah.

 

Back and forth we go. We could argue all the day long on quality of evidence perhaps even the quantity of that evidence. Its your biased opinion versus my biased opinion. I will say my evidence is of better quality, you will come back and say its not "science". I will come back and say it is. You will then come back, make a comment about Ken Ham on his dinosaur. I will come back with some cut about how your science is based on atheism. You will come back saying you are not an atheist. I will come back and say something like "well then quit linking athesists". You will come back with some rant about your science is agnostic. I will then reply that my science includes God....and on and on and on. Whats the point?

 

If we really want to try to get somewhere with this dialogue and make positive headway then both of us have to stop the childish arguing and find some common ground "and" respect each others views on science as science. If you can agree to start with that my views are indeed science then perhaps we can get this dialogue headed in the right direction. But if you cant respect that then I am done.

[Rob Osborn]

I repect the idea as a scientific study that man has been around for well beyond 7,000 years. I may disagree but nonetheless we cannot throw it out just because I wish it werent so. My main beef with this theory though is that it is based entirely upon dating procedures that cannot be validated. How are we to know when migrations really occurred from other parts of the world to the Americas?

 

If we believe the scriptures relating to a global flood and all people dispersing from after the flood at the tower of Babel then it stands to reason that the first migrations to the Americas were the Jaredites some 4,500 years ago.

[thesometimesaint]

I repect the idea as a scientific study that man has been around for well beyond 7,000 years. I may disagree but nonetheless we cannot throw it out just because I wish it werent so. My main beef with this theory though is that it is based entirely upon dating procedures that cannot be validated. How are we to know when migrations really occurred from other parts of the world to the Americas?

 

If we believe the scriptures relating to a global flood and all people dispersing from after the flood at the tower of Babel then it stands to reason that the first migrations to the Americas were the Jaredites some 4,500 years ago.

 

While I'm always open to new information I see no necessity to hold onto claims about our natural world that can not withstand critical often pointed examination. Nothing in science makes sense if the Heavens and the earth are only 7000 years old. Our very existence depends on everything from very long ago exploded stars to life being very old. IE; The iron in our blood was from stars that exploded (died) billions of years ago. We accurately determined the rate of genetic mutations to make our species 200,000-250,000 years old.

 

We don't "depend" on radioactive decay alone. Thought that is a very good measure. Radioactive half-life is well understood and accepted by virtually everyone including scientists. Science is very rigorous. If it doesn't work it doesn't work so is modified or abandoned in favor of what does work. 

 

It is not an either or proposition. It is entirely consistent with LDS Theology to accept that Noah was a real person; a real prophet of God; Who did what the Scriptures say he did; Recorded accurately what he actually saw; A huge but regional flood that wipe out the part of the world that he knew. It is also consistent with LDS Theology that the Jaredites and the Lehites were just some of the many peoples that have come to the America's and recorded just their own doings. IE; The Bible claims that Augustus Caesar taxed all the world. It is highly doubtful that the Nephites paid taxes to the Roman Empire. Also neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon mention the Chinese. But it is pretty certain that they had a highly developed civilization before the ancient Jewish state of Israel or the Lehites existed.

[USU78]

While I'm always open to new information I see no necessity to hold onto claims about our natural world that can not withstand critical often pointed examination. Nothing in science makes sense if the Heavens and the earth are only 7000 years old. Our very existence depends on everything from very long ago exploded stars to life being very old. IE; The iron in our blood was from stars that exploded (died) billions of years ago. We accurately determined the rate of genetic mutations to make our species 200,000-250,000 years old.

 

We don't "depend" on radioactive decay alone. Thought that is a very good measure. Radioactive half-life is well understood and accepted by virtually everyone including scientists. Science is very rigorous. If it doesn't work it doesn't work so is modified or abandoned in favor of what does work. 

 

It is not an either or proposition. It is entirely consistent with LDS Theology to accept that Noah was a real person; a real prophet of God; Who did what the Scriptures say he did; Recorded accurately what he actually saw; A huge but regional flood that wipe out the part of the world that he knew. It is also consistent with LDS Theology that the Jaredites and the Lehites were just some of the many peoples that have come to the America's and recorded just their own doings. IE; The Bible claims that Augustus Caesar taxed all the world. It is highly doubtful that the Nephites paid taxes to the Roman Empire. Also neither the Bible nor the Book of Mormon mention the Chinese. But it is pretty certain that they had a highly developed civilization before the ancient Jewish state of Israel or the Lehites existed.

 

Why do we care?

 

Scripture may well be, and mostly is, G-d-breathed, but that doesn't mean that when as-breathed Scripture is rendered in a writer's language, according to the writer's best understanding, then translated into the writer's symbolic written language on a page, what we read is precisely the "as-breathed" version of what was communicated by G-d to our prophetic writer.

 

Thus if it were to be determined that the writer(s)/compiler(s) of Genesis as we have it conflated a folk story about the flood and its hero with the story of Noah, an earlier generation's Father of the Faithful, where Noah was never near any appreciable body of water, it should not trouble us in the least.  The point of the Genesis tale (as we have it) is the Covenant between G-d and Man, with Noah as prophet through whom the Covenant is communicated to the Faithful.  The point is not whether water covered mountains far higher than the writer(s)/compiler(s) could have conceived in their/his limited experience.