New Archaeological Tool Could Find Zarahemla...it's Only a Matter of Time

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

That contradicts what JS's mother said about her son and his abilities to understand ancient inhabitants and their animals. She said:

"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.^"

Not to state the obvious, but isn't that a rather odd phrasing? If it was just riding horses, why would she find it so amusing? The very way she phrases it suggests it as odd and an animal that wasn't a horse. Otherwise by your logic, why not simply say horse? That is what would be expected. Instead she remarks that Joseph talked of that "animals upon which they rode."

Quote

If JS had such experiences before or after he received the golden plates, clearly he knew that a horse and tapir were different animals.

Did Joseph ever say their horses were the same as our horses? Earnestly curious as to what evidence you're referring to.

Edited March 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

That contradicts what JS's mother said about her son and his abilities to understand ancient inhabitants and their animals. She said:

"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.^[1]"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/"Amusing_recitals"_of_ancient_American_inhabitants

If JS had such experiences before or after he received the golden plates, clearly he knew that a horse and tapir were different animals.  Also, JS used instruments, on which words appears (on the seer stone), to translate the BoM, so that would mean the power of God was allowing those mistakes/anachronisms to be channeled/translated to JS on these instruments.  

"Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.^26"

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&old=true

This means that he words "horse," chariot," "wheel" etc. (or other mistakes) would appear as English words on the instrument.  This is what is so problematic with the translation process, IMO, because, if JS was translating by the spirit/power of God, then such mistakes/anachronisms should have been avoided.  How do King James Bible errors appear as words on the seer stone for a text that is thousands of years older?  

 

 

Right, but what if the plates contained say, the Hebrew word for horse?  Should the translator translate the word directly into it's English equivalent?  If so then "horse" would seem to be the proper translation regardless of what kind of animal Nephi or whomever was looking at when they originally wrote the word.

And just because Joseph could see animal in a vision doesn't necessarily mean that he would know the name for that animal.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Actually, there have been thousands of changes to the original version of the BoM. 

"Yet, the book which Joseph Smith declared was "the most correct of any book on earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 461) has been revised in over 3900 places. Most of these changes were made to correct embarrassing spelling and grammatical errors (this will be examined in more detail later in this article). However, there are numerous other changes which affect the doctrinal teachings of the Book of Mormon."

http://mit.irr.org/changes-latter-day-scripture

 

 

But not thousands of "significant changes" which is what TSS was speaking to.  

I looked at the link you provided and it shows a clear lack of understanding of the BOM in general.  One such example is where it claims that a wording change in 1 Ne. chapter 11 from "...behold the Lamb of God, the Eternal Father" to "...behold the Lamb of God, even the Son of the Eternal Father" implies a change in doctrine, with JS first teaching that Christ and God were the same being and then changing it to where they are separate.  

Apparently the author of the link doesn't know that Christ retains His designation of 'the eternal Father' in Mosiah 16:15  and Alma 11: 38-39.

This is a better article that talks about the changes by someone who knows the BOM better.  It includes other links for more in-depth articles for those interested. 

[ksfisher]

41 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Actually, there have been thousands of changes to the original version of the BoM. 

"Yet, the book which Joseph Smith declared was "the most correct of any book on earth" (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 461) has been revised in over 3900 places. Most of these changes were made to correct embarrassing spelling and grammatical errors (this will be examined in more detail later in this article). However, there are numerous other changes which affect the doctrinal teachings of the Book of Mormon."

http://mit.irr.org/changes-latter-day-scripture

 

 

The most correct in the gospel that it teaches.

[Ouagadougou]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not to state the obvious, but isn't that a rather odd phrasing? If it was just riding horses, why would she find it so amusing? The very way she phrases it suggests it as odd and an animal that wasn't a horse. Otherwise by your logic, why not simply say horse?

She says horse...not another word...

[Ouagadougou]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

The most correct in the gospel that it teaches.

So correct that for over 150 years the church claimed in the BoM intro that the Lamanites were the principle ancestors of the Native Americans (and other groups).   

So accurate that it was written for the Lamanites; however, nobody really knows who the Lamanites are or where they went (no DNA).

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

She says horse...not another word...

No she says animal, which is most definitely an other word.

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

So correct that for over 150 years the church claimed in the BoM intro that the Lamanites were the principle ancestors of the Native Americans (and other groups).   

So accurate that it was written for the Lamanites; however, nobody really knows who the Lamanites are or where they went (no DNA).

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html

Not following your logic here. What does the correctness of the book have to do with errors in the introduction? It'd be much better if you'd fill in your reasoning as to why you think the texts you quote have the interpretation you give them. It seems pretty common you just quote texts as if everyone reads them the way you do with no reasoning going on.

As for where the Lamanites went, they'd have merged into the populations of southern Mexico and northern Guatamala I'd presume. I'd guess with trade there'd have been influence on US native peoples as well although not to the same degree. The main problem with the Lamanites is of course we don't know what their DNA was like. 

Edited March 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Ouagadougou]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

No she says animal, which is most definitely an other word.

My bad:  She says animals.  😀

But if JS had such a knowledge of these animals, why would he use horse and not another word?

[Ouagadougou]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

Not following your logic here. What does the correctness of the book have to do with errors in the introduction? 

As for where the Lamanites went, they'd have merged into the populations of southern Mexico and northern Guatamala I'd presume. One presumes with trade there'd have been influence on US native peoples as well although not to the same degree. The main problem with the Lamanites is of course we don't know what their DNA was like. 

IMO, the change in the intro is problematic because it shows for over 100 years the church was wrong on who were the descendants of the Lamanites.  

And where does it say in the BoM that they merged into other groups of people and abandoned the language of their fathers?  

I doesn't...it actually says the opposite.  

 

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

So correct that for over 150 years the church claimed in the BoM intro that the Lamanites were the principle ancestors of the Native Americans (and other groups).   

So accurate that it was written for the Lamanites; however, nobody really knows who the Lamanites are or where they went (no DNA).

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html

What you've written above has nothing to do with the gospel.  The gospel teaches us to have faith in the Savior, repent, and be baptized in His name.  This is the purpose of the Book of Mormon, to bring souls to Christ. 

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

IMO, the change in the intro is problematic because it shows for over 100 years the church was wrong on who were the descendants of the Lamanites.  

And where does it say in the BoM that they merged into other groups of people and abandoned the language of their fathers?  

I doesn't...it actually says the opposite.  

 

How would the authors of the Book of Mormon record this if it happened during post Book of Mormon times?  Why does it matter if the church is right or wrong about who they Lamanites are?  You're getting hung up on things that have nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

My bad:  She says animals.  😀

But if JS had such a knowledge of these animals, why would he use horse and not another word?

Haven't I already answered that? You can translate the word they were using or the reference they were referring to. Both are completely acceptable choices in translation. In the same way that the Spanish called Macuahuitls swords (espada) and when translating the Spanish documents typically translators use the word sword rather than Macuahuitl.

It does seem rather remarkable though that the single account we have of what the things they rode were explicitly doesn't use the word horse.

What seems odd to me is that despite these answers being given numerous times you continue as if they haven't. I get that you don't like the answers. You have a view of what a proper translation should have been and anything that doesn't match that expectation is wrong. However surely you can at least see not everyone shares your expectations.

Edited March 20, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

IMO, the change in the intro is problematic because it shows for over 100 years the church was wrong on who were the descendants of the Lamanites.  

And where does it say in the BoM that they merged into other groups of people and abandoned the language of their fathers?  

I doesn't...it actually says the opposite.  

Again (how many times have I repeated this?) you're creating a strawman. No one is claiming the language was fully abandoned. Rather the claim is it becomes a priestly language known just by a small group and not the principle language. And you've been given quite a few examples in the text that demand that interpretation. So I know you know people have answered you.

To the intro, why is the church being wrong on some things problematic? I see it doesn't meet your expectations which presumably is prophets have to be infallible. For those of us who don't believe in infallibility we should expect some errors as people try to figure things out on their own.

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

What you've written above has nothing to do with the gospel.  The gospel teaches us to have faith in the Savior, repent, and be baptized in His name.  This is the purpose of the Book of Mormon, to bring souls to Christ. 

"Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile."

A book written to the Lamanites has nothing to do with the gospel?

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

How would the authors of the Book of Mormon record this if it happened during post Book of Mormon times?  Why does it matter if the church is right or wrong about who they Lamanites are?  You're getting hung up on things that have nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

"Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile."

[theplains]

On 17/03/2017 at 0:23 AM, clarkgoble said:

Again to get back to the original topic, what do you expect you could find that would be relevant to the Book of Mormon? Honest question.

It's a tricky question. One could find anything on the American continent and insinuate it might have been the
Nephites/Lamanites or the Jaredites. Because if nothing if conclusively found, the Book of Mormon is proven
to be a false historical account and the Mormon Church collapses.

Jim

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Haven't I already answered that? You can translate the word they were using or the reference they were referring to. Both are completely acceptable choices in translation. In the same way that the Spanish called Macuahuitls swords (espada) and when translating the Spanish documents typically translators use the word sword rather than Macuahuitl.

It does seem rather remarkable though that the single account we have of what the things they rode were explicitly doesn't use the word horse.

What seems odd to me is that despite these answers being given numerous times you continue as if they haven't. I get that you don't like the answers. You have a view of what a proper translation should have been and anything that doesn't match that expectation is wrong. However surely you can at least see not everyone shares your expectations.

If English words appeared on the seer stone (and JS was so familiar with these people, culture, etc.) and he translated by the power of God, how could he get certain words wrong?

Millions killed in battle?  Does a million just mean thousands?  Horse is a tapir?  A wheel/chariot are something else...and the list goes on a on. 

So a "proper translation" by the power of God means tons of anachronisms, words with alternate meanings and numerous changes (for the most correct book)?

[theplains]

On 17/03/2017 at 1:51 PM, thesometimesaint said:

2. Even if found how could you distinguish them from other ruins, by satellite pictures?

The archaeologists might have a better answer.  Unless of course every city name in the Book of
Mormon changed over time. The Mormon Church doesn't even have a clue on where the Land of
Bountiful was. Saying Lehi came to 'America' covers quite a bit of land mass. If you have an official
teaching from the Mormon Church stating something more specific, please share. 

Thanks,
Jim 

[Ouagadougou]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again (how many times have I repeated this?) you're creating a strawman. No one is claiming the language was fully abandoned. Rather the claim is it becomes a priestly language known just by a small group and not the principle language. And you've been given quite a few examples in the text that demand that interpretation. So I know you know people have answered you.

To the intro, why is the church being wrong on some things problematic? I see it doesn't meet your expectations which presumably is prophets have to be infallible. For those of us who don't believe in infallibility we should expect some errors as people try to figure things out on their own.

Not one verse in the BoM says they abandoned their language; direct opposite really...

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

"Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile."

A book written to the Lamanites has nothing to do with the gospel?

You've twisted what I've written.  Are you trying to purposefully misunderstand?

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

You've twisted what I've written.  Are you trying to purposefully misunderstand?

This is what you said:

"How would the authors of the Book of Mormon record this if it happened during post Book of Mormon times?  Why does it matter if the church is right or wrong about who they Lamanites are?  You're getting hung up on things that have nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ."

Why would it matter?  Because the book is written to the Lamanites...

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

This is what you said:

"How would the authors of the Book of Mormon record this if it happened during post Book of Mormon times?  Why does it matter if the church is right or wrong about who they Lamanites are?  You're getting hung up on things that have nothing to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ."

Why would it matter?  Because the book is written to the Lamanites...

The book is written to the Lamanites, the Jews, and the Gentiles.  In other words everyone.  I don't think a geneological or anthropological definition of who belongs to which group is really important at all.  The book, and the gospel, is for everyone.

[Ouagadougou]

21 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The book is written to the Lamanites, the Jews, and the Gentiles.  In other words everyone.  I don't think a geneological or anthropological definition of who belongs to which group is really important at all.  The book, and the gospel, is for everyone.

Ok. But it was written specifically to the Lamanites, who are non-existent at this point--lost in some remote jungle in Central America, along with their DNA and any archeological and linguistic evidence.  

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Ok. But it was written specifically to the Lamanites, who are non-existent at this point--lost in some remote jungle in Central America, along with their DNA and any archeological and linguistic evidence.  

So does that make Christ's command to have faith, repent, and be baptized in His name any less imperative?

(Not saying that there is no archeological or linguistic evidence at present, and no DNA evidence that will be discovered in the future.)

Edited March 21, 2017 by ksfisher