The Elephant in the Livingroom, no, sorry, In the Kitchen

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Maybe that's for the best, all things considered.

I guess I am supposed to have a problem with that article.

I don't.  I do not fully accept that paradigm for myself but I don't see anything wrong with it.  It is an adequate description for the person who wrote it.  It accepts modern science for modern times. He is not a philosopher either.

My point was that the church does not teach science as presently accepted.  Neither does he. Religious beliefs are not about science.

[Rajah Manchou]

Uhhh....

Quote

At the Florida site, the researchers analyzed twigs in fossilized mastodon dung to date the bones and artifacts, finding them to be about 14,550 years old. The timing casts the Bering Strait theory into doubt, Halligan said: the ice-free land bridge was only open for a few thousand years.

“So the ice-free corridor is not our answer for how the Americas were initially colonized,” she told the Smithsonian.

“The logical way people could have come to Florida by 14,600 years ago is if their ancestors entered the Americas by boat along the Pacific Coast,” Waters told Discovery News.

“They could have travelled by boat to central Mexico, crossed and come along the Gulf Coast. They could have entered the Americas via the Columbia river and then travelled inland to the Mississippi river and followed it down and entered the Gulf Coast, eventually making their way to Florida.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/14/archaeology-florida-sinkhole-ancient-humans-mastodon-knife-bones-bering-strait

OK, so now the first colonizers of the Americas logically travelled by boat to central Mexico?

Say whaa?

Edited May 15, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

The salient point?? People were living in Florida more than 14,000 years ago.

Yes.  Most of them were retired people from those ancient civilizations long ago.

[canard78]

12 hours ago, omni said:

No reason?  Then why has that been the dominant view within Mormonism from its inception?

 

12 hours ago, cinepro said:

Miraculously, those finds even pre-date the Fall of Adam!

 

 

Stop being so literal guys. Didn't you know we're now in the era of moving your beliefs to suit the evidence. 

Those poor yokel prophets and seers didn't actually see anything. It was all cultural bias and naivety.

You must realise that you're completely misunderstanding what a prophet does.

To quote Napolean Dynamite: "Gosh!"

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The same reason evolution was not accepted.  Your point?

We see as children until further information is given, then the paradigm changes- as it has always been

See... Like this!

(I mean, all Mormons are on board with this, right? The fact that the church's official publications still teach otherwise doesn't mean we should consider that to be what Mormonism actually teaches...

Again: Gosh!)

[bcuzbcuz]

6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes.  Most of them were retired people from those ancient civilizations long ago.

Good one. I think the idea of retired pensioners from Canada (Snowbirds) holds more water than the idea that merely because the find pre-dates the Clovis culture that they therefore arrived by a charter ship across the Pacific.

[Rajah Manchou]

5 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Good one. I think the idea of retired pensioners from Canada (Snowbirds) holds more water than the idea that merely because the find pre-dates the Clovis culture that they therefore arrived by a charter ship across the Pacific.

Nobody is suggesting some proto-Columbus sailing across the ocean blue. More likely Austronesians were pushed out by rising seas around 15 KYA BP and took rafts up the East Asian coast and all the way around. A long journey for sure, but not impossible. I suppose it could be argued that they island hopped through the Polynesian islands but there isn't evidence of that until around 8000 BC.

Anyway, both of these scenarios are far more likely than three different groups of Semites sailing at different intervals all the way from the Middle East to America, somehow managing to land within 300 miles of each other. That's by far the biggest challenge to a New World BOM geography.

 

[omni]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Decades from when? I joined the Church in 1982 and from the day I first got my hands on a BoM I always thought the Jaredites were the Olemec. Now, do you know anyone who thinks the Olemec were the first Americans?

I was referring to the fact that the Land Bridge Theory has been widely accepted by the scientific community since the 1930s.  In general, the members have been slow to accept this and the institutional church even slower.

[omni]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

 

What some Mormons used to believe is irrelevant.  News flash: Mormons used to also practice polygamy!!

We're not just talking about "some Mormons" here.  From the Church's beginning, the belief has permeated throughout the entire organization, from official publications and conference talks to the average Sunday school classroom.  

Reading this board one could quite easily get the idea of an "empty continent" as some sort of fringe doctrine, but I remember well just 15 years ago being in an MTC classroom and literally being laughed at by my fellow missionaries for even bringing up the possibility of "others".

[canard78]

18 minutes ago, omni said:

We're not just talking about "some Mormons" here.  From the Church's beginning, the belief has permeated throughout the entire organization, from official publications and conference talks to the average Sunday school classroom.  

Reading this board one could quite easily get the idea of an "empty continent" as some sort of fringe doctrine, but I remember well just 15 years ago being in an MTC classroom and literally being laughed at by my fellow missionaries for even bringing up the possibility of "others".

I remember discussing the "empty continent" with a companion on my mission in '98 and he was indignant at the idea of "others."

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Nobody is suggesting some proto-Columbus sailing across the ocean blue. More likely Austronesians were pushed out by rising seas around 15 KYA BP and took rafts up the East Asian coast and all the way around. A long journey for sure, but not impossible. I suppose it could be argued that they island hopped through the Polynesian islands but there isn't evidence of that until around 8000 BC.

Anyway, both of these scenarios are far more likely than three different groups of Semites sailing at different intervals all the way from the Middle East to America, somehow managing to land within 300 miles of each other. That's by far the biggest challenge to a New World BOM geography.

Hi Rajah,

Are you saying you believe the Austronesians were the Jaredites? 15 KYA BP would put the time in the throws of the last Ice Age. There is substantial evidence that the seas were rising as short as 8000 yrs BP. I suppose it is possible the seas were rising for four K yrs. Anyway, my understanding of the Austronesians is that they were pushed out of Taiwan by more modern immigration into Micronesia and eventually formed the first Polynesians, which helps explain why Polynesians are so different from Micronesians. I believe they formed a more modern immigration into S. America, which there is DNA and archaeological evidence for in the area of Peru. It is really kind of silly to believe they found the speck of Easter Island, but not the great wall of S. America. Your time table for the settling of the Polynesian islands seems much older than the archaeological evidence I have seen would allow. You always seem to have scientific papers at the ready - do you have some to support your earlier dating?

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

Elder Holland and Joseph Smith?

if the Jaredites were the first, how did the church come up with the idea that Adam was?

Not that I believe that personally - I believe that misconstrues scriptures like:

Doctrine and Covenants 116:1

1 Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

Mind you it does not say "because that is where the garden of Eden was."

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And the very first edition of the BOM I saw had pictures of the Mayan temples all through it.

The painted art work looked like Mayan temples.  Now we say that the Nephites lived among the Maya and everyone is shocked.

That implication was clearly there for years and years- I fail to see why it is even noteworthy.  Some also believe in a world wide flood- good for them.  I never have- so what difference does that make in getting us closer to Christ??

I think some see the various long held claims of truth....Adam's fall about 6000 years ago, a world wide flood about 4000 years ago, claims that the Americas were not inhabited before the Jaradites and Lehi's family came to the Americas and so on....that the evidence of science seems to refute cast severe doubts on accepting other truth claims that the Church or even religion in general makes.   They find them suspect.

Personally if your own spiritual experiences trump  such things and you simply are focused in getting closer to Christ that's fine.   For others that just may not work.   For me personally the verdict is out.   Because of some of these things that have challanged my LDS testimony I am pursuing many other truth claims including the foundations of Christianity.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

I heard one scientist make the claim that Adam and Eve would have emerged from the Garden of Eden in 300,000 B.C. not 4,000 B.C. to make historical sense.

[bcuzbcuz]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

I remember discussing the "empty continent" with a companion on my mission in '98 and he was indignant at the idea of "others."

During my mission, in the sixties....that's 60's, as in a "long, long time ago", I believed, and taught, that the Jaredites arrived to an empty continent, that Lehi and family arrived at an equally empty continent and that the native aboriginals of the Americas were the Lamanites. How times have changed.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think some see the various long held claims of truth....Adam's fall about 6000 years ago,

The Bible does not anywhere claim Adam was the first homo sapien. He was the first man of God through whom God revealed himself to man. After Adam came agriculture, writing, etc.

Quote

a world wide flood about 4000 years ago,

Another interpretation. But when speaking of the "he goat" which came from the west on the face of the whole earth" we see a different meaning than the whole world. Daniel is prophesying Alexander the Great who did not conquer the whole world. "the whole earth" is just speaking of all the known peoples.

Quote

claims that the Americas were not inhabited before the Jaradites and Lehi's family came to the Americas and so on

I'm am unfamiliar with whether this was a "doctrinal claim" or just a general belief among members. I have never seen a claim by a GA that such was the case as a matter of revelation. GAs have inferred rather that Adam and his posterity lived in the Americas, which would certainly qualify as being before the Jaredites - not that I accept that on its face.

Quote

....that the evidence of science seems to refute cast severe doubts on accepting other truth claims that the Church or even religion in general makes.   They find them suspect.

Personally if your own spiritual experiences trump  such things and you simply are focused in getting closer to Christ that's fine.   For others that just may not work.   For me personally the verdict is out.   Because of some of these things that have challanged my LDS testimony I am pursuing many other truth claims including the foundations of Christianity.  

The Bible does not make historical accounts designed for scientific interpretation, but for spiritual interpretation. So you are rejecting claims based on generally held "orthodox" beliefs which have often been wrong - such as a belief that the earth was the center of the universe...etc. The fact that others have misinterpreted the Bible does not make it false.

[Teancum]

25 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The Bible does not anywhere claim Adam was the first homo sapien. He was the first man of God through whom God revealed himself to man. After Adam came agriculture, writing, etc.

Another interpretation. But when speaking of the "he goat" which came from the west on the face of the whole earth" we see a different meaning than the whole world. Daniel is prophesying Alexander the Great who did not conquer the whole world. "the whole earth" is just speaking of all the known peoples.

I'm am unfamiliar with whether this was a "doctrinal claim" or just a general belief among members. I have never seen a claim by a GA that such was the case as a matter of revelation. GAs have inferred rather that Adam and his posterity lived in the Americas, which would certainly qualify as being before the Jaredites - not that I accept that on its face.

The Bible does not make historical accounts designed for scientific interpretation, but for spiritual interpretation. So you are rejecting claims based on generally held "orthodox" beliefs which have often been wrong - such as a belief that the earth was the center of the universe...etc. The fact that others have misinterpreted the Bible does not make it false.

These are typical gyrations believers go through to maintain their testimony.  If that works for you fine.  But it is pretty clear that historically the LDS church has NOT viewed these things as you postulate above.   It's a constant moving target for those who claim to have the truth

 

 

[RevTestament]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

These are typical gyrations believers go through to maintain their testimony.  If that works for you fine.  But it is pretty clear that historically the LDS church has NOT viewed these things as you postulate above.   It's a constant moving target for those who claim to have the truth

If you believe that  the truths of the scriptures are always revealed to the vocal majority, that's fine, but God doesn't seem to do all things by majority vote,

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, canard78 said:

 

Stop being so literal guys. Didn't you know we're now in the era of moving your beliefs to suit the evidence. 

Those poor yokel prophets and seers didn't actually see anything. It was all cultural bias and naivety.

You must realise that you're completely misunderstanding what a prophet does.

To quote Napolean Dynamite: "Gosh!"

See... Like this!

(I mean, all Mormons are on board with this, right? The fact that the church's official publications still teach otherwise doesn't mean we should consider that to be what Mormonism actually teaches...

Again: Gosh!)

Surely you are smart enough to come up with a real criticism or refutation with the paradigm I am expressing instead of this cutsie drive by to the peanut gallery.

Or maybe not.

Oh wait.  Perhaps you do know the reference.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut_gallery

Quote

Didn't you know we're now in the era of moving your beliefs to suit the evidence.

Golly gee, I thought they called that approach "science".

Edited May 15, 2016 by mfbukowski

[bcuzbcuz]

40 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I'm am unfamiliar with whether this was a "doctrinal claim" or just a general belief among members. I have never seen a claim by a GA that such was the case as a matter of revelation. 

That's a good point. When doctrine is not specified and opinions are neither endorsed nor dismissed, then anything goes. Members are then free to spout ideas of any nature. Should evidence arise that clearly blocks a possible line of thought, well then, there was never a "doctrinal claim". There is a factor of deniability.

I have relatives who "adopted" Lamanite children. Now we know these children weren't Lamanite. When I was on my mission I had a companion who taught that blacks were cursed by God. Now we know that wasn't true. Neither idea was doctrine. Neither idea was ever rebuked. So members can be right and wrong at the same time, just so long as there is no "doctrinal claim".

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, omni said:

We're not just talking about "some Mormons" here.  From the Church's beginning, the belief has permeated throughout the entire organization, from official publications and conference talks to the average Sunday school classroom.  

Reading this board one could quite easily get the idea of an "empty continent" as some sort of fringe doctrine, but I remember well just 15 years ago being in an MTC classroom and literally being laughed at by my fellow missionaries for even bringing up the possibility of "others".

Your point?

Both sentences are in the past tense.  The statement in the frontispiece implies something different now.

That statement is present tense.  If you really are asserting that our knowledge doesn't progress, fine with me.  I disagree.  Now make your point, if you have one.

[UtahTexan]

16 hours ago, cinepro said:

Maybe that's for the best, all things considered.

I never had one in the Catholic Church, either...also a good thing.

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

That's a good point. When doctrine is not specified and opinions are neither endorsed nor dismissed, then anything goes. Members are then free to spout ideas of any nature. Should evidence arise that clearly blocks a possible line of thought, well then, there was never a "doctrinal claim". There is a factor of deniability.

I have relatives who "adopted" Lamanite children. Now we know these children weren't Lamanite. When I was on my mission I had a companion who taught that blacks were cursed by God. Now we know that wasn't true. Neither idea was doctrine. Neither idea was ever rebuked. So members can be right and wrong at the same time, just so long as there is no "doctrinal claim".

Who has said they were not "Lamanite"??

How is that logically entailed by the idea that there were others among the Nephites and Lamanites?  The implication is that they DO have "Lamanite" and "Nephite" and "Other" DNA just like everyone in the world comes from mixed nationalities

Are we now advocating racial purity or something??

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

That's a good point. When doctrine is not specified and opinions are neither endorsed nor dismissed, then anything goes. Members are then free to spout ideas of any nature. Should evidence arise that clearly blocks a possible line of thought, well then, there was never a "doctrinal claim". There is a factor of deniability.

I have relatives who "adopted" Lamanite children. Now we know these children weren't Lamanite. When I was on my mission I had a companion who taught that blacks were cursed by God. Now we know that wasn't true. Neither idea was doctrine. Neither idea was ever rebuked. So members can be right and wrong at the same time, just so long as there is no "doctrinal claim".

Today we see through a glass darkly.  Do not see things as a child but as an adult

1 Thess 5:

Quote

 

18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

19 Quench not the Spirit.

20 Despise not prophesyings.

21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

 

And then there is Alma 32 and D&C 93:30

Truth only exists in a context.  The context has changed

If you don't like it, refute it.

Edited May 15, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

If you believe that  the truths of the scriptures are always revealed to the vocal majority, that's fine, but God doesn't seem to do all things by majority vote,

Why should we trust you over past apostles and prophets?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think some see the various long held claims of truth....Adam's fall about 6000 years ago, a world wide flood about 4000 years ago, claims that the Americas were not inhabited before the Jaradites and Lehi's family came to the Americas and so on....that the evidence of science seems to refute cast severe doubts on accepting other truth claims that the Church or even religion in general makes.   They find them suspect.

Personally if your own spiritual experiences trump  such things and you simply are focused in getting closer to Christ that's fine.   For others that just may not work.   For me personally the verdict is out.   Because of some of these things that have challanged my LDS testimony I am pursuing many other truth claims including the foundations of Christianity.  

Of course- you should!

We all need to do that.  I have done it in my life.  The unexamined life is not worth living.