The enemies of the Church are wrong again

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

Orson Pratt answers this charge head on.  No one can say it better...

“Then let no person suppose that all the great events that will hereafter transpire upon the surface of land and sea, have got to take place by reason of some slow progressive changes, occupying hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of years, according to the ideas of modern geologists. Can they show the way the Lord can govern and control these things, bringing about events, in the course of a very short time, that perhaps would take millions of years to accomplish by the mere progressive changes, such as are recognized by geologists?...

... Geologists say it would take some millions of years to effect any changes of the earth in regard to the location of its continents and islands, and a great number of intelligent readers are inclined to this belief. But there is a God who will disappoint them all, who will show forth his power, causing the earth to rock to and fro like a drunken man; a God whose power is able to cause the mountains to be cast down, and the valleys to come up.”  - Orson Pratt

(JD 18:314)

I would be more impressed by this stuff if someone showed interpretation of the Peleg verse as geological prior to maps appearing that looked like the continents were a jigsaw puzzle pushed apart.

As far as I know ancient authors saw it as a social/political division (Wikipedia lists several sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peleg ).

[Hendrix]

18 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

Orson Pratt answers this charge head on.  No one can say it better...

“Then let no person suppose that all the great events that will hereafter transpire upon the surface of land and sea, have got to take place by reason of some slow progressive changes, occupying hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of years, according to the ideas of modern geologists. Can they show the way the Lord can govern and control these things, bringing about events, in the course of a very short time, that perhaps would take millions of years to accomplish by the mere progressive changes, such as are recognized by geologists?...

... Geologists say it would take some millions of years to effect any changes of the earth in regard to the location of its continents and islands, and a great number of intelligent readers are inclined to this belief. But there is a God who will disappoint them all, who will show forth his power, causing the earth to rock to and fro like a drunken man; a God whose power is able to cause the mountains to be cast down, and the valleys to come up.”  - Orson Pratt

(JD 18:314)

To me this kind of reasoning raises the question of why God would suspend otherwise consistent scientific laws for things he seemingly wouldn't need to. I don't know what the limiting principle is in the kind of reasoning in which God arbitrarily suspends scientific laws while 'sweeping up' the evidence. At some point, doesn't it surely become just too ridiculous to believe? 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

How do you know there was not another flood after the Book of Mormon? Just because there is no geological evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, the scientists say the same thing about flood of Noah.

False.  Geological evidence of floods (or lack of it) is key to supposing that one occurred or did not occur.  The Flood of Noah is not an issue in this matter, since it was pre-Jaredite.   If you want to start a new thread on Noah's Flood, please do so, instead of derailing this thread.

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

North America is a continent.  To impress the enemies of the church we need to prove mammoths existed in Mesoamerica during Jaradite times.

We do not need to "prove" something.  Proof is not what scholars do.  And, the enemies of the LDS faith are not impressed by anything.  Facts mean nothing to them.  And when they are confronted by the facts, they change the argument.  First it is that elephants had long since become extinct in the New World. Then when that is shown to be false, they opt for Mesoamerica -- which they have never accepted as the actual BofM region anyhow.  When they are shown the facts, they respond by lying and changing the goal posts.  The whole point, Sam, was that a great deal of info has been gained in the sciences and history since 1830 -- info which refutes so many of the petty arguments made by apostates and unbelievers.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Flood of Noah is not an issue in this matter, since it was pre-Jaredite.  

Okay. Let me clarify. I believe there was another great flood in the Americas after the Book of Mormon, after the final battle of Cumorah, and after Moroni traveled Northward. For me it makes sense that most Book of Mormon cities are underwater in the gulf of Mexico.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_flood_myths For me it is the best theory.

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  Geological evidence of floods (or lack of it) is key to supposing that one occurred or did not occur...  If you want to start a new thread on Noah's Flood, please do so, instead of derailing this thread.

 Look at the Mayan stories of a great flood. Just because the geological evidence is lacking doesn't mean it didn't happen. Geological evidence is also lacking for the flood of Noah, but it did happen. I am not derailing the thread, I simply saying trying to show you that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Some scholars say the Black Sea has the waters of great Noah flood, why can't the gulf of Mexico have the waters of another great flood?

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We do not need to "prove" something.  Proof is not what scholars do

Scientific dating of elephant bones isn't done by scholars. So it seems there are no elephant or mammoth bones in mesoamerica that date to the Jaradites, but it is okay because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  I say there are a lot of mammoth bones deep inside the Gulf of Mexico.

You earlier mentioned barley. Do we defenders of the church have evidence barley in mesoamerica?

Edited February 27, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Rajah Manchou]

8 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do we defenders of the church have evidence of barley in mesoamerica?

"A concern troll is a person who participates in a debate posing as an actual or potential ally who simply has some concerns they need answered before they will ally themselves with a cause. In reality they are a critic."

[Robert F. Smith]

24 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay. Let me clarify. I believe there was another great flood in the Americas after the Book of Mormon, after the final battle of Cumorah, and after Moroni traveled Northward. For me it makes sense that most Book of Mormon cities are underwater in the gulf of Mexico.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_flood_myths For me it is the best theory.

For me another great flood happened. Look at the Mayan stories of a great flood. Just because the geological evidence is lacking doesn't mean it didn't happen. Geological evidence is also lacking for the flood of Noah, but it did happen. The Black Sea is the best candidate for the waters of Noah, but the geological evidence is lacking. I am not derailing the thread, I simply saying trying to show you that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Scholars are well aware of flood myths worldwide.  Nearly all cultures have them, and they are very archaic, having nothing to do with a post-BofM era.  If you choose to believe in such an imaginary flood, you will be quite alone in doing so.  Major floods of the kind you are suggesting always leave geological evidence.  As for Noah's Flood, again you are derailing this thread by discussing it.  There is no geological evidence for such a Great Deluge which covered all mountains on Earth, and that is not what the Genesis and the Mesopotamian flood stories indicate anyhow.  If you wish to discuss it, please start a new thread.

Quote

Scientific dating of elephant bones isn't done by scholars. So it seems there are no elephant or mammoth bones in mesoamerica that date to the Jaradites, but it is okay because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

False.  Dating of elephant bones is regularly done by scholars, and I cited several sources which do just that.  Anti-Mormons and apostates regularly move the goal posts as soon as they find out that their previous statements are false.  Once it becomes clear that elephantine beasts lived in North America during Jaredite times, they immediately claim that the bones in Mesoamerica are too early, thus ignoring the fact that scholars now declare that we do not know when they became extinct in the Americas, nor where small pockets of them persisted.  But it is clear that they continued to exist until very late.  Yokels and trolls have a very difficult time dealing with that honestly.

Quote

You earlier mentioned barley. Do we defenders of the church have evidence barley in mesoamerica?

No.  However, we do have definite evidence of cultivation of barley in the Americas, and we know that the altiplano of Guatemala has just the right soil and weather to grow barley, wheat,and other grains.  Liars used to say that there was no barley in the Americas at all.  Now they move the goal posts, as dishonest people always do.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Juliann made some similar points, but no one accused her of autism. Why only me?

It is not what you say but how you communicate it that makes me suspect this. You have a hyperliteral interpretation of almost everything and expect that your arguments are undeniable when they are not.

The description is NOT intended as an insult. It just seems to fit. I could be wrong and you are a troll or dumb or playing with us in some other way or whatever.

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If you choose to believe in such an imaginary flood, you will be quite alone in doing so.  Major floods of the kind you are suggesting always leave geological evidence. 

But there are several BOM geography models that make this claim of a Nephite civilization being sunk in the Gulf of Mexico during the destruction at Christ's resurrection. I'm sure you've run into Chile model supporters who propose that Biblical time and geology is literal and that South America was an island 2000 years ago. This image on the left was posted just a week ago with a blog post.

Samuel the Lamanite is not alone.

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, Hendrix said:

To me this kind of reasoning raises the question of why God would suspend otherwise consistent scientific laws for things he seemingly wouldn't need to. I don't know what the limiting principle is in the kind of reasoning in which God arbitrarily suspends scientific laws while 'sweeping up' the evidence. At some point, doesn't it surely become just too ridiculous to believe? 

And the answer is as it always has been to require faith.

If science could show with 100% reliability that there was a global flood at the time Noah is presumed to have lived the Bible would be viewed very differently by the world.  Doubt would become belief but by sight instead of faith.

Same for proving the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  Prove the events happened and the need for faith and inquiring of God is greatly diminished.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And the answer is as it always has been to require faith.

If science could show with 100% reliability that there was a global flood at the time Noah is presumed to have lived the Bible would be viewed very differently by the world.  Doubt would become belief but by sight instead of faith.

Same for proving the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  Prove the events happened and the need for faith and inquiring of God is greatly diminished.

Strange that faith has mutated from its original purpose - an injunction to trust in God's love and mercy. Now people use it to mean all kinds of other things, like we should believe, without taking into account historical and scientific evidences, that certain stories in scripture are historical and scientific. Seems like a misuse of faith to me, not to mention a misuse of scripture.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

Strange that faith has mutated from its original purpose - an injunction to trust in God's love and mercy. Now people use it to mean all kinds of other things, like we should believe, without taking into account historical and scientific evidences, that certain stories in scripture are historical and scientific. Seems like a misuse of faith to me, not to mention a misuse of scripture.

Not at all.
Faith is about trusting in God's word as well as his love and mercy.
I know you reject much of scripture as being the word of God.  You cannot trust a God you do not know, and to trust in the mercy and love of a God whose character is described only in scripture while at the same time refusing to trust said scripture seems to be a conflict.

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not at all.
Faith is about trusting in God's word as well as his love and mercy.

The idea that stories in the scripture are "God's word" is a modern Christian fundamentalist notion. A kind of Bibliolotry. In a Biblical context, faith wasn't about "just believe in fantastic things because faith". Everyone believed in fantastic things. It was more about, trust in Jesus, trust in Yahweh.

 

 

Quote

I know you reject much of scripture as being the word of God.  You cannot trust a God you do not know, and to trust in the mercy and love of a God whose character is described only in scripture while at the same time refusing to trust said scripture seems to be a conflict.

The scriptures themselves never claim to be the word of God. What makes you think they are?

Edited February 27, 2018 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But there are several BOM geography models that make this claim of a Nephite civilization being sunk in the Gulf of Mexico during the destruction at Christ's resurrection. I'm sure you've run into Chile model supporters who propose that Biblical time and geology is literal and that South America was an island 2000 years ago. This image on the left was posted just a week ago with a blog post.

Samuel the Lamanite is not alone.

I am well aware of the crazy stuff being put forward out there, for which there is not a scintilla of evidence.  Sam would likely have better luck with claims of volcanic and earthquake events in that area.  In fact, Sorenson makes some very specific claims about certain cities which were destroyed in III Nephi.  Jerusalem in the Land of Nephi, for example, he says is an actual city now found in Lake Atitlán, Guatemala -- J. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 222-224 (map 11); Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex, 133-136.

 

[Thinking]

11 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay. Let me clarify. I believe there was another great flood in the Americas after the Book of Mormon, after the final battle of Cumorah, and after Moroni traveled Northward. For me it makes sense that most Book of Mormon cities are underwater in the gulf of Mexico.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_flood_myths For me it is the best theory.

So...to solidify your belief you reference an article whose title has the word myth in it.

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

I find it impossible to discuss the LDS teachings of a global flood without also talking about the LDS view of Peleg, shortly after the flood.  Noah really didn't have to travel that far to the middle east before the continents were divided.   

The traditional LDS view:  https://www.lds.org/new-era/1971/03/gondwanaland-what-it-means-to-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

 

“He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the islands shall become one land;

“And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.” (D&C 133:21–24.)

 

Additional references to this from prophets.

"That it comes to open the way for Zion to rise and put on her beautiful garments and become the glory of the earth, that her land may be joined, or married (according to the known translation of Isaiah) to Jerusalem again, and they be one as they were in the days of Peleg."   - Joseph Smith

 

"But after the flood, in the days of Peleg, the earth was divided.—a short history, to be sure, of so great an event; but still it will account for the mighty revolution, which rolled the sea from its own place in the north, and brought it to interpose between different portions of the earth, which were thus parted asunder, and moved into something near their present form."  - John Taylor

 

There were not an Eastern and Western Hemisphere at the time of Adam. It is very strange, but nevertheless true, that some of the greatest events that have occurred on the face of the earth have been passed over in the Bible with the slightest mention; for example, in Genesis 10:25 , we read: And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his day was the earth divided.” - Joseph Fielding Smith

 

"...The atheist said, Why, it is preposterous for you to say that you believe in a Bible that teaches about a creation when the land was together and the water was all together.” Then he read to the missionary from the Book of Genesis, and continued, Now look at the earth. Here it is divided into many parts and oceans between. How will you explain the inconsistency in this?”

Well, the missionary did not have the answer, but he bowed his head and silently prayed, Heavenly Father, give me your Spirit to tell me what to say.” Then he raised his tear-stained face, and up above the audience, at the back of the hall, he read these words: Genesis 10:25. In the days of Peleg the earth was divided.” Never in the world had he ever read this scripture. He did not know it was in the Bible, but he saw it there on the wall, and he was able to respond, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, to the atheist’s question.   - Harold B. Lee

We either say:

1.  scientists are way off in determining when the lands separated since humanity wasn't around 50-250 million years ago

or

2.  Scientists are really bad at dating how long humans have existed, and the broken, pieced together genealogy of the people found in the Bible is way off.

Or

3.  God made it so that it appears as though the lands separated millions of years ago even though it happened but a few thousand years ago.  And instead of a gradual change, it happened immediately in the life of one guy named in the Bible, but not in the life of his brother. 

What is our best option?

 

 

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Strange that faith has mutated from its original purpose - an injunction to trust in God's love and mercy. Now people use it to mean all kinds of other things, like we should believe, without taking into account historical and scientific evidences, that certain stories in scripture are historical and scientific. Seems like a misuse of faith to me, not to mention a misuse of scripture.

It's as if the stories found in the Bible often borrowed from other Mesopotamian myths are really just predictions of events that would come and were told as if they had happened elsewhere.  That is to say Noah's worldwide flood did happen, even if the story of it was told in many places and with many variations before it was found in the Bible.  But those tellings were only based off of predictions or prophesies of the event that is to come.  If Noah, the biblical story of him wasn't written down until perhaps thousands of years after him (and maybe as many as hundreds of millions if science has accurately figured out the time the lands were separated).  

"I have faith that Noah lived, was a prophet, and built a boat to escape death from the world wide flood because the bible tells me that it happened.  That is in spite of any real possibility for it happening.  It puts me in God's favor to accept this story."

I'm with you.  I accept that concept of faith.  

 

 

 

[cinepro]

13 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

Orson Pratt answers this charge head on.  No one can say it better...

“Then let no person suppose that all the great events that will hereafter transpire upon the surface of land and sea, have got to take place by reason of some slow progressive changes, occupying hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of years, according to the ideas of modern geologists. Can they show the way the Lord can govern and control these things, bringing about events, in the course of a very short time, that perhaps would take millions of years to accomplish by the mere progressive changes, such as are recognized by geologists?...

... Geologists say it would take some millions of years to effect any changes of the earth in regard to the location of its continents and islands, and a great number of intelligent readers are inclined to this belief. But there is a God who will disappoint them all, who will show forth his power, causing the earth to rock to and fro like a drunken man; a God whose power is able to cause the mountains to be cast down, and the valleys to come up.”  - Orson Pratt

(JD 18:314)

This runs into the same problems as the "global flood" theory.  Sure, God could "govern and control these things" so that the continents drifted from Pangaea to their current position overnight if He wanted to.

The problem is that He would then need to also change every last bit of physical evidence to make it appear exactly as if the changes had occurred over millions of years, so the swiftness of the change would be undetectable to any future geologist. It's not so much a problem of God working miracles as it is Him then rearranging the world to make it appear to any rational person that the miracle didn't even occur.

For example, here are the observations of the good Brother Robert W. Clayton, of the BYU-Idaho Geology Department:

Quote

1) Dinosaurs lived at the time the continents separated.  This is indisputably demonstrated by the interlayering of fossils and the volcanic rocks produced when the separation occurred.  Identical fossil plants and animals are found on opposing shores of continents now thousands of miles apart, and within identical rock sequences.

 2) Movement of the lithospheric plates is driven by convection of solid rock in the mantle.  Convection is achieved through solid state creep, which involves deformation of minerals under pressure.  Creep cannot take place faster than it does, which is inches per year.

3) There are numerous physical limitations to plate motion—heat required to drive rapid convection would melt the planet, frictional heating would destroy the crust, etc. 

The Scriptures:

Genesis Chapter 10 is a description of how Noah’s descendants became fragmented and dispersed.  A description of these divisions is given three times in the chapter, first in verse 5: 

"By• these were the isles• of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.” 

Similar wording is used again in verse 25: “And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg•; for in his days was the earth divided…”

and again in the concluding verse, verse 32: “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by• these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.” 

It’s clear that verse 5 is an introductory description of the chapter’s theme of political divisions, and verse 32 is a conclusion and summary of the same.  So why should we think verse 25 means anything different?

 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

This runs into the same problems as the "global flood" theory.  Sure, God could "govern and control these things" so that the continents drifted from Pangaea to their current position overnight if He wanted to.

The problem is that He would then need to also change every last bit of physical evidence to make it appear exactly as if the changes had occurred over millions of years, so the swiftness of the change would be undetectable to any future geologist. It's not so much a problem of God working miracles as it is Him then rearranging the world to make it appear to any rational person that the miracle didn't even occur.

For example, here are the observations of the good Brother Robert W. Clayton, of the BYU-Idaho Geology Department:

 

What's interesting though, if the Bible is read with some liberal acceptance of metaphor in each of it's big stories, is that there is a metaphorical story that plays into massive changes to the earth's surface.  Perhaps there is something to the notion of when modern humans appeared on earth (some 200,000 years ago), God mentioned in some way to them that the earth has evolved over eons (read millions of years) and it is now in a form that will remain throughout human history.  Fantastical stories then emerged to fill their creative senses, leading to just after Moses' day (well relatively speaking considering the many thousands of years before that), in a small pocket on the earth, Noah's story.  And here we are a couple thousand and a half years later telling each other we must have faith that Noah's story found in the bible is to be accepted as genuine.  

I love humanity.  We are an odd bunch no matter how you slice it.

 

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It's as if the stories found in the Bible often borrowed from other Mesopotamian myths are really just predictions of events that would come and were told as if they had happened elsewhere.  That is to say Noah's worldwide flood did happen, even if the story of it was told in many places and with many variations before it was found in the Bible.  But those tellings were only based off of predictions or prophesies of the event that is to come.  If Noah, the biblical story of him wasn't written down until perhaps thousands of years after him (and maybe as many as hundreds of millions if science has accurately figured out the time the lands were separated).  

"I have faith that Noah lived, was a prophet, and built a boat to escape death from the world wide flood because the bible tells me that it happened.  That is in spite of any real possibility for it happening.  It puts me in God's favor to accept this story."

I'm with you.  I accept that concept of faith.  

 

It's a really strange idea of faith, but it's become this sort of beach ball now that is hit back and forth between atheists and fundamentalists. It's like the Book of Mormon musical line - "Just beliiiiiieeeve." That's not what faith is supposed to be. It's a relationship.

[Rajah Manchou]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There were not an Eastern and Western Hemisphere at the time of Adam. It is very strange, but nevertheless true, that some of the greatest events that have occurred on the face of the earth have been passed over in the Bible with the slightest mention; for example, in Genesis 10:25 , we read: And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his day was the earth divided.” - Joseph Fielding Smith

So the Jaredites built boats to sail 300+ days to a hemisphere that had been within walking distance just a generation or so earlier?



 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

So the Jaredites built boats to sail 300+ days to a hemisphere that had been within walking distance just a generation or so earlier?



 

Perhaps the continents were so close in Jaredite times that their barges only had to cross a body of water about the width of the Mississippi River?  At least that would add some plausibility to the Jaredite story.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It's a really strange idea of faith, but it's become this sort of beach ball now that is hit back and forth between atheists and fundamentalists. It's like the Book of Mormon musical line - "Just beliiiiiieeeve." That's not what faith is supposed to be. It's a relationship.

Agreed.  I wonder if President Nelson would say the best faith is from those who accept Noah's flood story as representing a true real life event.   I tend to think he would, but I can't be sure.  With that said, or suggested, I'd think the church promotes a just accept it and don't think about it method.  It's a really stifling method for religion, if you ask me--very troubling thought.  

 

[stemelbow]

Quote

There is no salvation in a system of religion that rejects the doctrine of the Fall or that assumes man is the end product of evolution and so was not subject to a fall.

True believers know that this earth and man and all forms of life were created in an Edenic, or paradisiacal, state in which there was no mortality, no procreation, no death.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1984/10/the-caravan-moves-on?lang=eng

Does there remain any room for members to disagree with this, among the many other pronouncements over the years?  

[stemelbow]

On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 8:14 AM, rockpond said:

Noah is a good example of your point.  Noah's story can still teach us lessons and be meaningful in our lives even though we now know it can't be literally true.

What good lessons do we get out of Noah's story?  

[Jeanne]

I have been reading this thread off and on...it just seems like everybody is trying to make things fit.  To make it fit so it works for whatever you believe.  There is no right and wrong..not even TBM's or critics..if there is not comparisons..and one is open to those comparisons, we will never be educated enough to know. My answer...I don't know..I don't believe in made up stories ...or floods where there isn't any..and disagree with me if you want...but don't make me an enemy.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Jeanne