The enemies of the Church are wrong again

[SamuelTheLamanite]

A Maya "Megalopolis" discovery in the jungle proves there were millions of Native Americans  during Book of Mormon times. Could Joseph Smith have know this?  No. When anti-Book of Mormon attacks are shown to be wrong the critics simply forget them and move on to a new attack. I feel the critics are wasting their time looking everywhere to attack the Book of Mormon on all possible angles.

Some anti-Book of Mormon arguments may seem to be valid now, but future discoveries always contradict secular assumptions. So my question is: Why are the critics wasting time with anti-Book of Mormon research? 

To this day Mayan scholars know very little about ancient Mesoamerica, so the critics shouldn't be making conclusions about things we don't really know.  The so-called "evidences" against the Book of Mormon are just a complete failure. The so-called "plausible" Book of Mormon origins are just creative speculations.  For me, the critics are just playing "hit" and "miss" games with the hope that something sticks. 

It is not hard to come up with some "plausible" naturalistic origin theory, what is hard is to disprove the Book of Mormon. No one is going to disprove the Book of Mormon or the Bible because the scriptures are true. For me, the scriptures are a spiritual guide in my life and make me happy.

Edited February 25, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[CA Steve]

Man I am surprised.  I would have pegged you for a "One Hill Cumorah" type.

[JLHPROF]

Bottom line is you can't definitely prove or disprove most of the scriptures.  Personally I think God arranged it that way.

If you could completely  prove the scriptures historically the atheist would have a harder time denying God.  

And if you could completely disprove them historically the believer would have a harder time maintaining a testimony.

God wants faith.  So evidence is kept balanced  where faith is required but cannot be eliminated.

[Thinking]

The so called enemies of the church never claimed that there were no people in the Americas from 600 B.C. to 421 A.D., only that the population growth was unrealistic if Lehi and his family were the first to arrive.

[strappinglad]

People who read the scriptures have enough trouble figuring out what they say, let alone what the DON'T say. Between unrealistic expectations and unsubstantiated assumptions it has taken several generations to come to a mild consensus about the idea of " others" in the land when Lehi arrived and perhaps even when Jared et al arrived.

Edited February 25, 2018 by strappinglad

[Jeanne]

Disagreeing with anyone doesn't make one an enemy.  Period.

[Sevenbak]

4 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Man I am surprised.  I would have pegged you for a "One Hill Cumorah" type.

I can only speak for myself, but believing in a one hill cumorah does not demand a prerequisite of disbelieving a Mesoamerican setting.  Both limited geography camps, Meso and Great Lakes, respectively, are relatively newcomers to the game.  

The third and older camp, including myself, believes the great northward migrations of the Nephites at the end of Alma we’re exactly what the text said they were, an exceedingly great distance...

Edited February 25, 2018 by Sevenbak

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Disagreeing with anyone doesn't make one an enemy.  Period.

No, but actions based on the disagreement certainly can.

[Jeanne]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, but actions based on the disagreement certainly can.

True...and so does the actions of one who practices unrighteous dominion.

[USU78]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, but actions based on the disagreement certainly can.

Would one of those actions be antiMormon advocacy?

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

People who read the scriptures have enough trouble figuring out what they say, let alone what the DON'T say. Between unrealistic expectations and unsubstantiated assumptions it has taken several generations to come to a mild consensus about the idea of " others" in the land when Lehi arrived and perhaps even when Jared et al arrived.

Look how long it took to develop  the "two Hill Cumorah" idea, which changed the whole Book of Mormon geography.

Edited February 25, 2018 by cdowis

[SamuelTheLamanite]

7 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Man I am surprised.  I would have pegged you for a "One Hill Cumorah" type.

Why? Well, at least you didn't think I was an atheist. Some here really think I am a secular atheist, but I have no idea why.  A "One Hill Cumorah" type is much better than a secular atheist. So Thank you!

Edited February 25, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[rpn]

The civilization recently found is dated to the 500's, which would make it after the Book of Mormon was written and probably after it was compiled.   Not sure we should be seeing it as a book of mormon civilization.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

4 minutes ago, rpn said:

The civilization recently found is dated to the 500's, which would make it after the Book of Mormon was written and probably after it was compiled.   Not sure we should be seeing it as a book of mormon civilization.

CFR   

[sunstoned]

On 2/24/2018 at 11:32 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

A Maya "Megalopolis" discovery in the jungle proves there were millions of Native Americans  during Book of Mormon times. Could Joseph Smith have know this?  No. When anti-Book of Mormon attacks are shown to be wrong the critics simply forget them and move on to a new attack. I feel the critics are wasting their time looking everywhere to attack the Book of Mormon on all possible angles.

Some anti-Book of Mormon arguments may seem to be valid now, but future discoveries always contradict secular assumptions. So my question is: Why are the critics wasting time with anti-Book of Mormon research? 

To this day Mayan scholars know very little about ancient Mesoamerica, so the critics shouldn't be making conclusions about things we don't really know.  The so-called "evidences" against the Book of Mormon are just a complete failure. The so-called "plausible" Book of Mormon origins are just creative speculations.  For me, the critics are just playing "hit" and "miss" games with the hope that something sticks. 

It is not hard to come up with some "plausible" naturalistic origin theory, what is hard is to disprove the Book of Mormon. No one is going to disprove the Book of Mormon or the Bible because the scriptures are true. For me, the scriptures are a spiritual guide in my life and make me happy.

Just like all of your postings, this is total rubbish.  No one has claimed there were not large populations of ancient native American populations.  Nothing has changed at all. I hope for the day when Book of Mormon evidences can be found.  I gave 40 years of my life to this church.  I don't want those years and my efforts to be wasted.  I would love it if someone found a sword or a breast plate, or a chariot or horses or some artificial that to be traced to the mid-east.  Anything at all.  I am still waiting.  Your postings do not help the LDS effort at all.  But then, I think you know this.  You are either 12 years old, or you are a anti-mormon troll.

poster removed

[rockpond]

16 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

A Maya "Megalopolis" discovery in the jungle proves there were millions of Native Americans  during Book of Mormon times. Could Joseph Smith have know this?  No. When anti-Book of Mormon attacks are shown to be wrong the critics simply forget them and move on to a new attack. I feel the critics are wasting their time looking everywhere to attack the Book of Mormon on all possible angles.

Some anti-Book of Mormon arguments may seem to be valid now, but future discoveries always contradict secular assumptions. So my question is: Why are the critics wasting time with anti-Book of Mormon research? 

To this day Mayan scholars know very little about ancient Mesoamerica, so the critics shouldn't be making conclusions about things we don't really know.  The so-called "evidences" against the Book of Mormon are just a complete failure. The so-called "plausible" Book of Mormon origins are just creative speculations.  For me, the critics are just playing "hit" and "miss" games with the hope that something sticks. 

It is not hard to come up with some "plausible" naturalistic origin theory, what is hard is to disprove the Book of Mormon. No one is going to disprove the Book of Mormon or the Bible because the scriptures are true. For me, the scriptures are a spiritual guide in my life and make me happy.

I'm confused... how does this discovery support Book of Mormon historicity?

Like you, the scriptures are a spiritual guide in my life and make me happy.  But this discovery didn't seem relevant.

[cdowis]

20 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Just like all of your postings, this is total rubbish.  No one has claimed there were not large populations of ancient native American populations. 

Obviously you do not converse frequently with the antiMormons as I do.

Go to youtube, select several antiMormon videos on the Book of Mormon and see what they say about the number killed in the last battle.

[cdowis]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm confused... how does this discovery support Book of Mormon historicity?

Like you, the scriptures are a spiritual guide in my life and make me happy.  But this discovery didn't seem relevant.

Then don't worry about, and stay away from a discussion with the antiMormons on the BOM.

Edited February 26, 2018 by cdowis

[Five Solas]

It's been nearly a century since LDS General Authority B.H. Roberts commenced his controversial work that would only much later be published as Studies of the Book of Mormon.  Think about that.  And we're still no closer to evidence for historical Nephites.  In fact, you could make a case their improbability in Roberts' day--is even more so now. 

I guess we should remind ourselves the-absence-of-evidence-isn't-evidence-of-absence, and then wait patiently to see what the next 100 years brings...

;0) 

--Erik

___________________________________

Nothing's changed
I still love you, oh, I still love you
Only slightly, only slightly less
Than I used to
My love

--The Smiths, 1987

[cdowis]

14 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

It's been nearly a century since LDS General Authority B.H. Roberts commenced his controversial work that would only much later be published as Studies of the Book of Mormon.  Think about that.  And we're still no closer to evidence for historical Nephites. 

You are mistaken and ignorant of progress in this area. May I suggest "Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Book"

 https://www.amazon.com/Mormons-Codex-Ancient-American-Book-ebook/dp/B00F64T8SA/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1519605579&sr=1-1&keywords=mormon+codex

Edited February 26, 2018 by cdowis

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, CA Steve said:

........................ I would have pegged you for a "One Hill Cumorah" type.

Maybe he is.  I am a "One Hill Cumorah" type myself.  Hill Ramah-Cumorah is one hill and one hill only, in Mesoamerica.  The hill convenient to Manchester that Joseph Speaks about in JS-H 1:51 is not the hill of the final battle of the Jaredites, and not of the Nephites.  There was never any reason to suppose that they were.  Instead, Moroni simply spent 20 years or so moving among the various tribal peoples living in North America as he worked his way north from Mesoamerica to what would later become Manchester, New York, in order to bury the BofM plates and other paraphernalia in that hill.  Then he died, was resurrected as an angel, and took care of business when Joseph Smith began his activities.  That hill near Manchester was not called "Cumorah" by Moroni, and did not become known as "Cumorah" until later -- by mistake.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Your postings do not help the LDS effort at all.  But then, I think you know this.  You are either 12 years old, or you are a anti-mormon troll.

Juliann made similar points and nobody is accusing her of being a anti-mormon troll. Why only me?

Quote

This brings me back to the days when one of the proofs against the BOM was that there just weren't enough people for as many deaths as the BOM claimed. And one more anti-BOM defense bites the dust.I find it interesting that the cries for proof still ascend but not once have I ever seen these critics acknowledge how many of their talking points have been quietly dropped, never to be admitted to again. I still remember the ZLMB days when they were insisting that their were no great civilizations when the Nephites arrived, it all happened later. Then the timeline changed.  I've said this for a long time, somebody should be keeping track of all of their oops! because their entire premise rests on their blind faith that the discovering has all been done. And they do not admit to what they used to insist was proof against the BOM.Drag files here to attach, or choose files...Max total size 4.16MB

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70180-scientists-find-massive-society/

Edited February 26, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Five Solas]

21 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You are mistaken and ignorant of progress in this area. May I suggest "Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Book"

 https://www.amazon.com/Mormons-Codex-Ancient-American-Book-ebook/dp/B00F64T8SA/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1519605579&sr=1-1&keywords=mormon+codex

You may certainly suggest it. 

But before I would incur the time for 800+ pages, I'd ask you to provide a few bullets points summarizing the evidence Sorenson has found in favor of historical Nephites.  I'd also ask you to share a few words about the peer review process the author subjected himself to.  I trust it was rigorous and that respected non-LDS scholars have weighed in on the work.  So what did they have to say about it?  Lastly, because I'm curious, is the work being used as a classroom text at BYU or elsewhere?

Thanks in advance,

--Erik

[Robert F. Smith]

39 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

It's been nearly a century since LDS General Authority B.H. Roberts commenced his controversial work that would only much later be published as Studies of the Book of Mormon.  Think about that.  And we're still no closer to evidence for historical Nephites.  In fact, you could make a case their improbability in Roberts' day--is even more so now. 

I guess we should remind ourselves the-absence-of-evidence-isn't-evidence-of-absence, and then wait patiently to see what the next 100 years brings...

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

An extraordinary amount of anthropological data has come forth since Roberts wrote his candid assessment, much of it verifying claims made in the BofM.  In fact the steady progress in knowledge backing up the BofM since Joseph Smith first began dictating it to his scribes has been enormous.  The abysmal state of historical knowledge in Joseph's time led many anti-Mormon critics to make many attacks which could not at that time be refuted.  Some of those claimed problems or anachronisms were really reasonable and important:  For example, why would Israelite Scripture be in Egyptian language on brass plates?  Why would Lehi & Nephi (and their successors) compose their account on gold plates in Egyptian language?  Where was the large native population and high, literate culture in the Americas?  The BofM described an ancient New World setting which went against everything early Americans knew.  Cement.  Barley.  Elephants.  Etc.  Hundreds more details could be added, and the whole complexion of the problem has changed utterly, to the degree now that it is not really possible to account for the Book of Mormon via secular means, such as forgery, since it could not have been composed as such back in Joseph's day.  Not enough was known even a century later, when B. H. Roberts passed on (1833).  Today the shoe is on the other foot, and BofM detractors haven't a leg to stand on.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

You may certainly suggest it. 

But before I would incur the time for 800+ pages, I'd ask you to provide a few bullets points summarizing the evidence Sorenson has found in favor of historical Nephites. .....................

A short summary of the contents is contained in a review of it here: https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2014/04/06/book-review-mormons-codex-an-ancient-american-book .  The entire book itself can be downloaded free at https://slideblast.com/queue/mormons-codex-an-ancient-american-book-john-l-sorenson-pdf_59b32b8c1723ddd957fa7ec9.html .