Darren10 Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 On 1/21/2016 at 9:37 PM, Johnnie Cake said: Honest question, are you suggesting that Nephite artifacts have been found and merely mislabeled as coming from some other American civilization? Just as archeologist can distinguish between Greek Roman and Etruscan...wouldn't a Israelie inspired Nephite artifact standout from an Aztec Mayan or Navaho? Could you tell me the true name of the Olmecs? 3
ERayR Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: You are correct...I am struggling to accept the notion of the Nephite nation being some how indistinguishable from the people that they supposedly merged with. To me this concept is in complete and utter conflict with what the Book of Mormon claims... The Book of Mormon is a religious narrative. It would be similar to writings of a religious group in the US. 1
Kevin Christensen Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Sorry you'll have to forgive my frustration...but it seems that Ancient American civilizations are the Children of Lehi until its no longer convenient for them to be the Children of Lehi...so please clarify something for me cuz I was under the impression that the church considered Polynesians to be the children of Lehi thereby referring to them as Lamanites...has this understanding and past expressions of such by Mormon Prophets been changed recently? Are Polynesians Lamanites or not? When you say that... and I say that... What exactly am I missing here...I feel as if I've left reality and fallen into crazy town where up is down and down is up so please enlighten me. Could it be that you and Sorenson are talking about plausibility's? FWIW Johnnie Cake Salt Lake City, UT It looks to me like you have been extrapolating from an old LDS pop culture notion that associates Polynesians with Lamanites by means of the Hagoth story (nevermind that Hagoth was a Nephite, which ought to signal that LDS don't always read carefully before talking loudly and at length) and what a trained anthropologist named John Sorenson has published on the topic. There is a pop culture notion associating the Polynesians with the Book of Mormon via Hagoth, but I quoted Ancient American Setting, and then Mormon's Codex to show that John Sorenson does not accept that notion, and does not believe it to be supported either by the Book of Mormon text, or various kinds of evidence. When I was quite young I heard one of the Seventy telling a story of a Polynesian friend who traced his geneology back to Adam by incorporating Hagoth and the Book of Mormon. But just because Sorenson served a mission in Polynesia, and knows those LDS traditions does not mean you ought to uncritically assume that he agrees with them or promotes them. Sorenson does accept and present evidence that there has been some contact between Polynesia and Ancient America, and other places like China and Indonesia. That has to do with the larger question of cultural diffusion and transoceanic contacts, rather than the Book of Mormon. Yes, he is arguing for the plausibility of transoceanic contacts as a means of suggesting that Lehi's story and Jared's story and the Mulek story are plausible. But he does not support calling the Polynesians Lamanites by exclusive descent because, as he expressly points out in Ancient American Setting and Mormon's Codex, neither the Book of Mormon text nor the weight of the evidence supports that notion. And it would help if Book of Mormon readers realized that very early on, Jacob, first generation, changes the term Lamanite from a family group designation to a political one. You said "I am struggling to accept the notion of the Nephite nation being some how indistinguishable from the people that they supposedly merged with. To me this concept is in complete and utter conflict with what the Book of Mormon claims... " It helps to take a very close look at what the Book of Mormon itself claims, and with the notion of how our expectations of the text can color our interpretation. The Book of Mormon offers text to be accounted for, but that text does not interpret itself. If you haven't I suggest reading Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Personally, I found that when I changed my assumptions in approaching the text, it became easy to see all sorts of indications for others. Consider Matt Roper's essay "Nephi's Neighbors." And consider D&C 1, a formal statement of "mine authority... and the authority of my servants" which bluntly states "And inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known; And inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed; And inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened that they might repent; And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high and receive knowledge from time to time." We ought not to treat Mormon thought as though it is a static block that came down all at once, complete and perfect in every detail. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited January 28, 2016 by Kevin Christensen 3
Robert F. Smith Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 3 hours ago, Gray said: ............................................................................. If there were a case to be made for historical Nephites from an archaeological perspective, that case would be discussed in mainstream archaeological circles. The fact is, the discussion is not being had there, because a rigorous, evidence-based case cannot be made. All of the evidences I've seen from various sources for the historical Nephites has been oblique. As in, "within this space, Nephites could have operated, because of a certain number of convergences" (the most obvious counter-convergences tend to be dismissed). It's always possibilities, never direct evidence. You provide a quote, but no citation -- probably because it is a fake quote. Your comments on archeology and evidence are very self-assured, but not based on any sources or knowledge of archeology. As usual. There is no substitute for real discussion, Gray. Given the technologies and civilization levels discussed in the BOM, you'll find much stronger convergences in the old world (including steel, horses, wheat) than you find in the new world. So clearly convergences are not enough to establish the case here. Regarding the value of the BOM, theological or historical, that is obviously a subjective value judgement. But we have church leaders on record saying the BOM is not a history book, so my value judgement shouldn't strike any orthodox member as coming out of left field .............. And who are these "church leaders"? Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian (Wes Walters used to say something like that), Roman Catholic, etc.? CFR
Bob Crockett Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: It looks to me like you have been extrapolating from an old LDS pop culture notion that associates Polynesians with Lamanites by means of the Hagoth story (nevermind that Hagoth was a Nephite, which ought to signal that LDS don't always read carefully before talking loudly and at length) and what a trained anthropologist named John Sorenson has published on the topic. There is a pop culture notion associating the Polynesians with the Book of Mormon via Hagoth, but I quoted Ancient American Setting, and then Mormon's Codex to show that John Sorenson does not accept that notion, and does not believe it to be supported either by the Book of Mormon text, or various kinds of evidence. When I was quite young I heard one of the Seventy telling a story of a Polynesian friend who traced his geneology back to Adam by incorporating Hagoth and the Book of Mormon. But just because Sorenson served a mission in Polynesia, and knows those LDS traditions does not mean you ought to uncritically assume that he agrees with them or promotes them. Sorenson does accept and present evidence that there has been some contact between Polynesia and Ancient America, and other places like China and Indonesia. That has to do with the larger question of cultural diffusion and transoceanic contacts, rather than the Book of Mormon. Yes, he is arguing for the plausibility of transoceanic contacts as a means of suggesting that Lehi's story and Jared's story and the Mulek story are plausible. But he does not support calling the Polynesians Lamanites by exclusive descent because, as he expressly points out in Ancient American Setting and Mormon's Codex, neither the Book of Mormon text nor the weight of the evidence supports that notion. And it would help if Book of Mormon readers realized that very early on, Jacob, first generation, changes the term Lamanite from a family group designation to a political one. You said "I am struggling to accept the notion of the Nephite nation being some how indistinguishable from the people that they supposedly merged with. To me this concept is in complete and utter conflict with what the Book of Mormon claims... " It helps to take a very close look at what the Book of Mormon itself claims, and with the notion of how our expectations of the text can color our interpretation. The Book of Mormon offers text to be accounted for, but that text does not interpret itself. If you haven't I suggest reading Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Personally, I found that when I changed my assumptions in approaching the text, it became easy to see all sorts of indications for others. Consider Matt Roper's essay "Nephi's Neighbors." And consider D&C 1, a formal statement of "mine authority... and the authority of my servants" which bluntly states "And inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known; And inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed; And inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened that they might repent; And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high and receive knowledge from time to time." We ought not to treat Mormon thought as though it is a static block that came down all at once, complete and perfect in every detail. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Once more I find myself in substantial disagreement with you. Fundamentally, Dr. Sorenson has never published his work about Book of Mormon peoples in a manner which can receive peer review from fellow anthropologists. Nor am I aware of a single LDS anthropologist who has ever agreed with him in a professional setting. But the inspired tradition of Hagoth populating the south seas is not error, as there has been no indication of it being error anywhere in Church literature. Indeed, the temple dedicatory prayers for Hawaii and New Zealand both indicate that the descendants of Lehi are the principal beneficiaries of those then-new temples. I set forth below a number of links, including links to those temple prayers, which basically say the same thing. (I omit from my collection temples in Central America.) San Diego: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/sandiego/prayer/; Bolivia: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/cochabamba/prayer/; Mesa, AZ: Snowflake: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/snowflake/prayer/; http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/mesa/prayer2/; New Zealand: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/hamilton/prayer/; Hawaii: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/laie/prayer/; Colonia Juarez: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/coloniajuarez/prayer/; Monticello, UT: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/monticello/prayer2/http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/monticello/prayer2/; Buenos Aires: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/buenosaires/prayer/; Cardston: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/cardston/prayer/ These prayers show consistent and unflinching support for the LDS view, found in its manuals, that the Lamanites are not a small geographic political collection of people, but genetic descendants of Lehi scattered through Polynesia and the Americas. The Church News on July 25, 1992 published an article summarizing the positions of various presidents of the Church on the relationship between Hagoth, Lehi and Polynesia. I quote from the first paragraph of that article: " In 1991, Robert E. Parsons, emeritus professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU, presented a paper at the Sixth Annual Book of Mormon Symposium. The paper, "Hagoth and the Polynesians," is reprinted as a chapter in The Book of Mormon: Alma The Testimony of the Word, published by BYU's Religious Studies Center." See also a July 9, 1988 Church News article asserting that the population of the south seas by Hagoth is a matter of revelation obtained from President Joseph F. Smith as well as other presidents of the Church. Particularly illogical is this argument: "And consider D&C 1, a formal statement of "mine authority... and the authority of my servants" which bluntly states "And inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known; And inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed; And inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened that they might repent; And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high and receive knowledge from time to time." We ought not to treat Mormon thought as though it is a static block that came down all at once, complete and perfect in every detail." Your particular argument is that since the Lord allows for error, then there is error in this particular subject of Hagoth and the Polynesians. The reality, and the logical rebuttal to your position, is that given repeated emphasis by modern Presidents of the Church that Polynesians are the descendants of Lehi, if that were incorrect, then we'd see some statement support retrenchment in a church sermon, a manual, a general authority book, a First Presidency statement. There isn't. Dr. Sorenson's theory may be interesting and somewhat persuasive, but it hasn't been peer reviewed and, indeed, peers are lacking. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 3 hours ago, Darren10 said: Could you tell me the true name of the Olmecs? I got the message: Quote "The logical challenges with the first assertion, that no “cities have been located,” are more subtle. Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology."
Kevin Christensen Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 Sorenson has published his books in such a manner than anyone, peer or not, who wants to can review and comment on them, whether in a peer-reviewed Journal, academic press, or Message board. He has published on a range of topics, and a wide variety of contexts, passing through, I venture, a wide range of reviewers. He did manage to teach at BYU, and publish in the Ensign, and through Deseret Book, surving whatever passes for Peer Review in those contexts. I notice that Jacob 1:13-14, on the use of Nephite and Lamanite from his time, does not use the word to indicate genetic descent but friendliness or hostility to Nephi. Until D&C 1 is formally excised from the scriptures, I will have to assume that it's formal statement on the 'authority of my servants' is correct. FWIW Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA 1
Bob Crockett Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: Sorenson has published his books in such a manner than anyone, peer or not, who wants to can review and comment on them, whether in a peer-reviewed Journal, academic press, or Message board. He has published on a range of topics, and a wide variety of contexts, passing through, I venture, a wide range of reviewers. He did manage to teach at BYU, and publish in the Ensign, and through Deseret Book, surving whatever passes for Peer Review in those contexts. I notice that Jacob 1:13-14, on the use of Nephite and Lamanite from his time, does not use the word to indicate genetic descent but friendliness or hostility to Nephi. Until D&C 1 is formally excised from the scriptures, I will have to assume that it's formal statement on the 'authority of my servants' is correct. FWIW Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA I have read a few of Dr. Sorenson's works, including his diffusionist material. That has been peer-reviewed and is occasionally cited. It is on the fringes of accepted science, and it met with some criticism, but it isn't cold fusion. My impression of Dr. Sorenson's professional pursuits is that he is regarded as an authority in a field which is just a hair short of being Atlantean. BYU's Ray Matheny made some revealing and unguarded comments about Dr. Sorenson's life work at a Sunstone conference which has somewhat pushed me to the point at which I now find myself. But, Dr. Sorenson knows the difference between the scientific method and what is not. Codex and Ancient are so far removed from the scientific method that it is a deep flaw in his work to contend that his work is scientific. It is not scientific to, as Codex does, try and distance Joseph Smith''s conclusions as those of a mere man in one section, and then have another section digging deep into multiple hearsay to invoke Joseph Smith for the Mesoamerican LGT. My point about D&C 1 is to demonstrate that one should not conclude that a particular view of the Presidents of the Church is error merely because D&C 1 says there may be error as a general matter. Just because we know that pipeline welders occasionally make errors in their welds does not mean that a particular pipeline segment has a defective weld. If there were support for your anti-Hagoth view, we'd see it in the manuals, conference reports and sermons to displace what the Church said in published articles is revealed doctrine. There isn't. Quote I notice that Jacob 1:13-14, on the use of Nephite and Lamanite from his time, does not use the word to indicate genetic descent but friendliness or hostility to Nephi. I notice that the temple dedicatory prayers refer to the children of Lehi and not to Lamanites, and my post above did not refer to the "Lamanites." Somehow I just don't think that Presidents Smith, McKay and Kimball were deluded. Edited January 29, 2016 by Bob Crockett
Johnnie Cake Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: It looks to me like you have been extrapolating from an old LDS pop culture notion that associates Polynesians with Lamanites by means of the Hagoth story (nevermind that Hagoth was a Nephite, which ought to signal that LDS don't always read carefully before talking loudly and at length) and what a trained anthropologist named John Sorenson has published on the topic. There is a pop culture notion associating the Polynesians with the Book of Mormon via Hagoth, but I quoted Ancient American Setting, and then Mormon's Codex to show that John Sorenson does not accept that notion, and does not believe it to be supported either by the Book of Mormon text, or various kinds of evidence. When I was quite young I heard one of the Seventy telling a story of a Polynesian friend who traced his geneology back to Adam by incorporating Hagoth and the Book of Mormon. But just because Sorenson served a mission in Polynesia, and knows those LDS traditions does not mean you ought to uncritically assume that he agrees with them or promotes them. Sorenson does accept and present evidence that there has been some contact between Polynesia and Ancient America, and other places like China and Indonesia. That has to do with the larger question of cultural diffusion and transoceanic contacts, rather than the Book of Mormon. Yes, he is arguing for the plausibility of transoceanic contacts as a means of suggesting that Lehi's story and Jared's story and the Mulek story are plausible. But he does not support calling the Polynesians Lamanites by exclusive descent because, as he expressly points out in Ancient American Setting and Mormon's Codex, neither the Book of Mormon text nor the weight of the evidence supports that notion. And it would help if Book of Mormon readers realized that very early on, Jacob, first generation, changes the term Lamanite from a family group designation to a political one. You said "I am struggling to accept the notion of the Nephite nation being some how indistinguishable from the people that they supposedly merged with. To me this concept is in complete and utter conflict with what the Book of Mormon claims... " It helps to take a very close look at what the Book of Mormon itself claims, and with the notion of how our expectations of the text can color our interpretation. The Book of Mormon offers text to be accounted for, but that text does not interpret itself. If you haven't I suggest reading Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Personally, I found that when I changed my assumptions in approaching the text, it became easy to see all sorts of indications for others. Consider Matt Roper's essay "Nephi's Neighbors." And consider D&C 1, a formal statement of "mine authority... and the authority of my servants" which bluntly states "And inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known; And inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed; And inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened that they might repent; And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high and receive knowledge from time to time." We ought not to treat Mormon thought as though it is a static block that came down all at once, complete and perfect in every detail. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Yeah silly me, I wasn't smart like you Keven, I actually followed the prophets and apostles and believe that they actually knew what they were talking about when they taught us all of that fanciful pop culture stuff, who knew than that it would just turn out to be pop culture that the Polynesian's were of Lamanite ancestry...boy was I dumb. If only Sorenson had spoken up then and set the GA's straight we wouldn't have had generations of Mormons believing that Polynesians descended from main land Lamanites nor have had all of those Polynesians lose their native cultures to a false pop culture notion taught to them by Mormon prophets...yeah we were all dumb. FWIW Johnnie Cake Salt lake City, UT https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/07/of-royal-blood?lang=eng Edited January 28, 2016 by Johnnie Cake 1
Johnnie Cake Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said: Once more I find myself in substantial disagreement with you. Fundamentally, Dr. Sorenson has never published his work about Book of Mormon peoples in a manner which can receive peer review from fellow anthropologists. Nor am I aware of a single LDS anthropologist who has ever agreed with him in a professional setting. But the inspired tradition of Hagoth populating the south seas is not error, as there has been no indication of it being error anywhere in Church literature. Indeed, the temple dedicatory prayers for Hawaii and New Zealand both indicate that the descendants of Lehi are the principal beneficiaries of those then-new temples. I set forth below a number of links, including links to those temple prayers, which basically say the same thing. (I omit from my collection temples in Central America.) San Diego: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/sandiego/prayer/; Bolivia: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/cochabamba/prayer/; Mesa, AZ: Snowflake: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/snowflake/prayer/; http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/mesa/prayer2/; New Zealand: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/hamilton/prayer/; Hawaii: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/laie/prayer/; Colonia Juarez: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/coloniajuarez/prayer/; Monticello, UT: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/monticello/prayer2/http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/monticello/prayer2/; Buenos Aires: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/buenosaires/prayer/; Cardston: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/cardston/prayer/ These prayers show consistent and unflinching support for the LDS view, found in its manuals, that the Lamanites are not a small geographic political collection of people, but genetic descendants of Lehi scattered through Polynesia and the Americas. The Church News on July 25, 1992 published an article summarizing the positions of various presidents of the Church on the relationship between Hagoth, Lehi and Polynesia. I quote from the first paragraph of that article: " In 1991, Robert E. Parsons, emeritus professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU, presented a paper at the Sixth Annual Book of Mormon Symposium. The paper, "Hagoth and the Polynesians," is reprinted as a chapter in The Book of Mormon: Alma The Testimony of the Word, published by BYU's Religious Studies Center." See also a July 9, 1988 Church News article asserting that the population of the south seas by Hagoth is a matter of revelation obtained from President Joseph F. Smith as well as other presidents of the Church. Particularly illogical is this argument: "And consider D&C 1, a formal statement of "mine authority... and the authority of my servants" which bluntly states "And inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known; And inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed; And inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened that they might repent; And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high and receive knowledge from time to time." We ought not to treat Mormon thought as though it is a static block that came down all at once, complete and perfect in every detail." Your particular argument is that since the Lord allows for error, then there is error in this particular subject of Hagoth and the Polynesians. The reality, and the logical rebuttal to your position, is that given repeated emphasis by modern Presidents of the Church that Polynesians are the descendants of Lehi, if that were incorrect, then we'd see some statement support retrenchment in a church sermon, a manual, a general authority book, a First Presidency statement. There isn't. Dr. Sorenson's theory may be interesting and somewhat persuasive, but it hasn't been peer reviewed and, indeed, peers are lacking. I hate to correct you Bob...but you fell into the same pop culture trap that I did....thankfully Keven has set us straight. FWIW Johnnie Cake Salt Lake City,UT
canard78 Posted January 28, 2016 Posted January 28, 2016 5 hours ago, Darren10 said: Could you tell me the true name of the Olmecs? Olmecs 1
Bob Crockett Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 35 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I hate to correct you Bob...but you fell into the same pop culture trap that I did....thankfully Keven has set us straight. FWIW Johnnie Cake Salt Lake City,UT Well, so much of Dr. Sorenson's opinion turns upon an exceedingly tortured view of "narrow neck of land," and further that North isn't North.
ksfisher Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 15 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: Well, so much of Dr. Sorenson's opinion turns upon an exceedingly tortured view of "narrow neck of land," and further that North isn't North. North is north when placed in a proper cultural context. http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/from-the-east-to-the-west-the-problem-of-directions-in-the-book-of-mormon/
Bob Crockett Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) 49 minutes ago, ksfisher said: North is north when placed in a proper cultural context. http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/from-the-east-to-the-west-the-problem-of-directions-in-the-book-of-mormon/ Unfortunately that is an absurdly weak argument, and the argument seems manufactured to support an a priori assumption. It also depends upon the false proposition that Polaris cannot be observed in southern Mexico. Edited January 29, 2016 by Bob Crockett
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) Oops, misread. Edited January 29, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan
ksfisher Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 56 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: Unfortunately that is an absurdly weak argument, and the argument seems manufactured to support an a priori assumption. It also depends upon the false proposition that Polaris cannot be observed in southern Mexico. I don't think anyone is claiming that Polaris cannot be observed from southern Mexico. The main argument in the article is that the European cardinal direction system is not universal. Other cultures solved the problem of how to orient themselves in space with other systems. The argument is not absurd, but based on directional systems used by real people in mesoamerica. 2
Bob Crockett Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) 20 hours ago, ksfisher said: I don't think anyone is claiming that Polaris cannot be observed from southern Mexico. The main argument in the article is that the European cardinal direction system is not universal. Other cultures solved the problem of how to orient themselves in space with other systems. The argument is not absurd, but based on directional systems used by real people in mesoamerica. What LDS anthropologist agrees with this analysis in a professional setting? What General Authority agrees in a sermon, book or publication with the Sorenson view? Again, my objection to the Sorenson model is not that there is better view out there. There isn't. It is that it is unsupportable from either the text of the Book of Mormon or real-world geography. Or scientific principles. Or from the statements of Joseph Smith. Sorenson in Codex even admits that Joseph Smith likely had a hemispheric view. Moreover, the Sorenson model conflicts with statements of the First Presidency. I predict that with the mild push back on the Sorenson model you'll see it fade into obscurity as the years go by. Edited January 29, 2016 by Bob Crockett 1
Gray Posted January 29, 2016 Posted January 29, 2016 (edited) On 1/28/2016 at 3:13 PM, Robert F. Smith said: If there were a case to be made for historical Nephites from an archaeological perspective, that case would be discussed in mainstream archaeological circles. The fact is, the discussion is not being had there, because a rigorous, evidence-based case cannot be made. All of the evidences I've seen from various sources for the historical Nephites has been oblique. As in, "within this space, Nephites could have operated, because of a certain number of convergences" (the most obvious counter-convergences tend to be dismissed). It's always possibilities, never direct evidence. You provide a quote, but no citation -- probably because it is a fake quote. Your comments on archeology and evidence are very self-assured, but not based on any sources or knowledge of archeology. As usual. There is no substitute for real discussion, Gray. Given the technologies and civilization levels discussed in the BOM, you'll find much stronger convergences in the old world (including steel, horses, wheat) than you find in the new world. So clearly convergences are not enough to establish the case here. Regarding the value of the BOM, theological or historical, that is obviously a subjective value judgement. But we have church leaders on record saying the BOM is not a history book, so my value judgement shouldn't strike any orthodox member as coming out of left field .............. And who are these "church leaders"? Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian (Wes Walters used to say something like that), Roman Catholic, etc.? CFR Hi Robert, my quote was meant to represent the typical arguments I hear for the plausibility of historical Nephites. Hopefully from context you can tell that it is not intended to represent a direct quote from any single party. My comments on archaeology and evidence are simply representative of the complete lack of any indication from mainstream archaeologists that there is reason to believe that a group of Hebrew settlers arrived in the Americas before Columbus (Nephites or not). Of course I can't prove a negative, so the counter to that claim would be to provide an example of a mainstream archaeological theory of pre-Columbian Hebrew settlement. Regarding which church leaders have said that the BOM is not a history book: Quote "You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel or a history book. It is another testament of Jesus Christ." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/be-thou-an-example-of-the-believers?lang=eng Edited January 29, 2016 by Gray
Popular Post volgadon Posted January 30, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 30, 2016 Not being a history book does not mean it is not historical. 6
Vance Posted January 30, 2016 Posted January 30, 2016 On 1/16/2016 at 7:21 AM, Gervin said: If you posit a Hebrew culture in an American setting - a culture that brought with it religion, language, agricultural skills, a writing system, engineering knowledge, etc, etc, - then I think it's fair to expect that that culture left traces distinguishable from the cultures they encountered. I hope they would teach that at any of the schools Mr. Smith might recommend. Where do you get the idea that "engineering knowledge" would have been transmitted? 1
bcuzbcuz Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 On 28 January 2016 at 7:39 PM, Darren10 said: Could you tell me the true name of the Olmecs? the Olmec were called Olmec by the Aztecs. What they called themselves we do not know yet but something different but not Nephite because the time record doesn´t (1200 BCe to 400 AD) The giant Olmec heads do not in anyway reflect a Jewish culture.
volgadon Posted January 31, 2016 Posted January 31, 2016 3 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: the Olmec were called Olmec by the Aztecs. What they called themselves we do not know yet but something different but not Nephite because the time record doesn´t (1200 BCe to 400 AD) The giant Olmec heads do not in anyway reflect a Jewish culture. The giant heads also do not prove that it wasn't a Jewish culture, though I don't go in for a simplistic identification of Nephites with Olmecs. I suspect that the same holds true for Darren. 2
mfbukowski Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: .... What they called themselves we do not know yet but something different Yeah that is the point. So? Quote but not Nephite because the time record doesn´t (1200 BCe to 400 AD) The giant Olmec heads do not in anyway reflect a Jewish culture. My understanding of those who put forth the thesis is that Olmecs are identified with the Jaredites, not Nephites And I believe the thesis is that since the Jaredites are said to come from the time of the Tower of Babel, they would not be "Jewish". 1
Johnnie Cake Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 14 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yeah that is the point. So? My understanding of those who put forth the thesis is that Olmecs are identified with the Jaredites, not Nephites And I believe the thesis is that since the Jaredites are said to come from the time of the Tower of Babel, they would not be "Jewish". CFR that Olmec's were Jaradites I won't hold my breath
Kevin Christensen Posted February 1, 2016 Posted February 1, 2016 42 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: CFR that Olmec's were Jaradites I won't hold my breath http://ancientamerica.org/library/media/HTML/3yw5nrh2/06.%20SAN%20LORENZO%20AS%20THE%20JAREDITE%20CITY%20OF%20LIB.htm?n=0 And from John E. Clark: 11. Cycles of Civilization in Mesoamerica I mentioned that the Book of Mormon’s claim of civilized peoples was verified in Joseph’s lifetime. This claim is actually twofold because the book describes an earlier Jaredite civilization that overlapped a few centuries with Lehite civilization. The dates for the Nephite half of Lehite civilization are clearly bracketed in the account to 587 years before Christ to 386 years after. But those for the earlier civilization remain cloudy, beginning sometime after the Tower of Babel and ending before King Mosiah fled to Zarahemla. Jaredites were probably tilling American soil in the Land Northward at least by 2200 BC, and they may have endured their own wickedness until 400 BC. The two-civilizations requirement used to be a problem for the Book of Mormon, but it no longer is now that modern archaeology is catching up. I emphasize that I am interpreting “civilization” in the strict sense as meaning “city life.” In checking correlations between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican archaeology, I focus on the rise and decline of cities. The earliest known Olmec city was up and running by 1300 BC, and it was preceded by a large community dating back to 1700 BC.[40] Most Olmec cities were abandoned about 400 BC, probably under duress.[41] In eastern Mesoamerica, Olmec civilization was replaced by the lowland Maya, who began building cities in the jungles of Guatemala about 500 to 400 BC. As with Olmec civilization, Maya civilization experienced peaks and troughs of development, with a mini-collapse about AD 200.[42] In short, the correspondences between the Book of Mormon and cycles of Mesoamerican civilization are striking. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1383&index=6 FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 2
Recommended Posts