What If There Is No Way To Distinguish A Lamanite

[mfbukowski]

Certainly.  But are all such alternative explanations equal?

Well my point was "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still", and the point was kind of that such judgements are rarely based on which is actually "better", and then you have the question of what makes one "better" than another. In your typical religion vs science question for example, if the Bible says so and science says something else, it is up for grabs which is "better" and on what basis that is determined. But my point was just that we decide what is right largely based on preconceptions which are often emotionally determined

 

In his Mormon's Codex, Sorenson extrapolates from known archeological and linguistic data.  The secular data just happen to fit the Book of Mormon chronology of the rise and fall of specific Mesoamerican civilizations.  This should be impossible, if the Book of Mormon is mere fiction.

I think "impossible" is a pretty strong word- we have to remember that what may be convincing to us is not at all convincing to most.  I think most of the world is clearly not be impressed by the chronology, since they have not even been introduced to the idea that BOM civilizations can be seen as "actually" subsets of known cultures.  They are so busy looking for a sign saying "Welcome to Zarahemla" in Reformed Egyptian that they miss the possibility that some known Mayan site was also known as Zarahemla in a parallel culture. 

 

On the other hand of course, parallels in the chronology are also often ignored as "coincidences" or not even noticed.  It is a simple fact that what seems to us to be "impossible to be fiction" is in fact just that to the other 99% of archaeologists in the world.  They just don't see it that way at all.

 

That discussion on Nahom in Wikipedia is carried on mostly by amateurs who take predictable pro & con positions, although Kent Brown is a careful scholar, and none are archeologists.  Some do report on what archeololgists have found, and that is helpful.  No one I know thinks that it is a slam-dunk, but it does fit the ancient context, and should not be considered in isolation.

The point was raised that if the name "Moroni" was found on a Mesoamerican stele, then that would somehow confirm the Book of Mormon.  My point was that it would not confirm it any more than the existence of "NHM" does.

 

 

I often hear of the powerful effect discovery of Zarahamla would have, but archeology seldom provides that sort of result.  In the case of Troy (Ilium), for example, the archeological excavation of that site does not prove that the great siege described by Homer actually took place there (or anywhere).  However, what has been established by generations of serious archeological activity in Greece and Asia Minor, is that the great, literate Mycenean civilization described by Homer certainly existed.  Earlier generations had frankly doubted it.

Agreed.

[thesometimesaint]

The reason why scientist can't posit any God or Godlike force is that God(Supernatural) actions can't be controlled for. IE; God please don't have an effect of my two corn crops. I want to see if it is the fertilizer.

SEE Science is Agnostic

[Robert F. Smith]

The reason why scientist can't posit any God or Godlike force is that God (Supernatural) actions can't be controlled for. IE; God please don't have an effect of my two corn crops. I want to see if it is the fertilizer.

SEE Science is Agnostic

....................................................

Tell that to atheist scientist Richard Dawkins who said that "It's highly plausible that in the universe there are Godlike creatures."

Then too, the late atheist astronomer Carl Sagan "believed in superior beings in space, creatures so intelligent, so powerful, as to resemble gods." 

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................................................................  

Which would lead the apostates to chuckle amongst themselves on their message boards about how the Church was about to completely implode over issues of geography, resulting in even more predictions that within five more years the internet would prove the death of 'Mormonism'.

 

Meanwhile the average Latter-day Saint would never even be aware of the debate -- or only encounter it in passing -- but instead faithfully go on building his life around the teachings of Nephi et al., reaping the sweet fruit thereof.

Quite true.

[mfbukowski]

Tell that to atheist scientist Richard Dawkins who said that "It's highly plausible that in the universe there are Godlike creatures."

Then too, the late atheist astronomer Carl Sagan "believed in superior beings in space, creatures so intelligent, so powerful, as to resemble gods." 

Doesn't it drive you nuts to see that these people are practically Mormons without knowing it?  THIS right here is what I have been trying to show people since I joined the church 35 years ago.  I used to be where these folks are, and I saw it immediately in Mormonism.  Makes me want to grab them by the shoulders and shake them!

 

But I suppose that would be illegal. 

[KARELLBINGHAM]

I don't think that they could tell the difference, only by dress and language, certainly not by skin color.  When they were emersed in un-godlike mannerisms, they were filthy and lazy,  Not to speak of having degenerate life-styles. 

[thesometimesaint]

Tell that to atheist scientist Richard Dawkins who said that "It's highly plausible that in the universe there are Godlike creatures."

Then too, the late atheist astronomer Carl Sagan "believed in superior beings in space, creatures so intelligent, so powerful, as to resemble gods." 

 

So? Science doesn't compel either Atheism or Theism.

Kenneth Miller is a Roman Catholic, and so is Francis Collins. Sir Issac Newton and Charles Darwin were both Anglican.

Also SEE http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1206/index-by-specialty

[tonie]

Who wrote the title page of the Book of Mormon? Which definition of "lamanite" would he be using at the time he wrote? For a hint, take a look at Jacob's first generation redefinition of the term from a lineage definition to a political definition. After Jacob, "lamanites" are those who are unfriendly to the Nephite government. After 4 Nephi, people chose factions and adopted names to suit their political choices.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

 

This is good point to raise. Shortly into the Book of Mormon, Lamanite does not exclusively refer to a blood line.

[DBMormon]

It seems some here in this thread took a "so what if the BOM didn't accomplish one of its purposes, that doesn't mean anything"  that seems to miss the mark and be an unsatisfactory answer.

[Kevin Christensen]

I thought my response made a case that the Book of Mormon is accomplishing its purposes, but that I don't think I need to let Brent Metcalfe interpret those purposes for me, nor declare its failures. I just understand the mark that it aims at differently. I've learned not to blame the Book of Mormon when readers miscontextualize and subsequently, misread it, and as a result create problems. If the Book of Mormon was addressed to a distinct, pristine, easily identifiable and geographically bounded ethnic group, I think it would have provided better directions for finding them, and would not be filled with so much information about the House of Israel as a whole scattering, mixing, transitioning, migrating, marrying, divorcing, transplanting, corruption, pruning, redemption and recovery, more transplanting, labor, harvesting, etc. (See Roper's Nephi's Neighbors for a careful consideration of the problem, rather than a reflexive assumption that obviousness relieves us of the obligation to read carefully.

On the other hand, "Go ye into all the world" and "My sheep hear my voice" seems quite simple and straightforward.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I've learned not to blame the Book of Mormon when readers miscontextualize and subsequently, misread it, and as a result create problems.

 

So... it's the reader's fault. That explains everything.

 

 

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel;

Clearly the reader is making ridiculous assumptions about the book being written to the Lamanites.

[ksfisher]

So... it's the reader's fault. That explains everything.

 

Clearly the reader is making ridiculous assumptions about the book being written to the Lamanites.

 

If you'd kept quoting a little further we could read that the book was also written to the Jew and Gentile.  So it's Lamanites, Jews, and Gentiles that are the intended audience of the Book of Mormon.  Those three groups cover everyone except for the Nephites and the lost ten tribes.  The Nephites aren't mentioned because they were destroyed and the 10 tribes because they were lost.  Other than that everyone falls into the target audience. 

Edited September 27, 2014 by ksfisher

[telnetd]

Search for the word 'Lamanite' in the Doctrine and Covenants. The early LDS Church was more

sure at that time.

 

Gail

[Robert F. Smith]

So? Science doesn't compel either Atheism or Theism.

Kenneth Miller is a Roman Catholic, and so is Francis Collins. Sir Issac Newton and Charles Darwin were both Anglican.

Also SEE http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1206/index-by-specialty

You are not making any sense here.  I responded to your false statement that "The reason why scientist can't posit any God or Godlike force is that God (Supernatural) actions can't be controlled for," by showing you that scientists who are anti-supernaturalists can and do posit god or godlike forces in the universe.  It has become normal for them to do so.

 

That is something which you obviously did not know.  You need to think about that for a few minutes, and then ask whether Mormon rejection of supernaturalism and acceptance of a finite God fits such scientific concerns.

[thesometimesaint]

You are not making any sense here.  I responded to your false statement that "The reason why scientist can't posit any God or Godlike force is that God (Supernatural) actions can't be controlled for," by showing you that scientists who are anti-supernaturalists can and do posit god or godlike forces in the universe.  It has become normal for them to do so.

 

That is something which you obviously did not know.  You need to think about that for a few minutes, and then ask whether Mormon rejection of supernaturalism and acceptance of a finite God fits such scientific concerns.

 

Scientists like everyone else are free to believe or not believe anything they want. Science as a discipline can not be used to posit any God or Godlike force onto the action of matter and energy. God please don't effect my two corn crops. I want to see it I'm wasting my money on this fertilizer or not.

Edited September 28, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[MormonFreeThinker]

. 

Edited September 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker