The enemies of the Church are wrong again

[SamuelTheLamanite]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 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. 

Robert, I specifically asked if you have a reference of mammoths in Mesoamerica dating to Jaradite times? I know mammoths existed in North America, I don't deny it. Scholars don't know a lot of things. What we don't know we simply don't know.

Edited February 28, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert, I specifically asked if you have a reference of mammoths in Mesoamerica dating to Jaradite times? I know mammoths existed in North America, I don't deny it. Scholars don't know a lot of things. What we don't know we simply don't know.

The mammoth discussion cracks me up.  If you can accept the plausibility of their 340 day journey inside a big wooden football, mammoths are easy. 

[Robert F. Smith]

41 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Robert, I specifically asked if you have a reference of mammoths in Mesoamerica dating to Jaradite times?.......................

And I specifically noted that they are too early in date to coincide with Jaredites.  You need to learn how to read, Sam.  The point is that scholars now know that they became extinct much later than previously supposed, and that they did exist in North America during Jaredite times.  Scholars are now aware that small pockets of them may have existed in a variety of places in the New World -- skeletal remains are only rarely found, in any case, so we don't need to find all examples in order to accept their presence.  And this applies to all the North American megafauna.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And I specifically noted that they are too early in date to coincide with Jaredites.  You need to learn how to read, Sam.  The point is that scholars now know that they became extinct much later than previously supposed, and that they did exist in North America during Jaredite times.  Scholars are now aware that small pockets of them may have existed in a variety of places in the New World -- skeletal remains are only rarely found, in any case, so we don't need to find all examples in order to accept their presence.  And this applies to all the North American megafauna.

In other words the answer is No. Sure it is possible, but we can only speculate.

Edited February 28, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Rich Hansen]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

 

This describes half the posters here.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, Rich Hansen said:

This describes half the posters here.

Rich Hansen,

The scriptures are a spiritual guide in our lives. We don't need to know where the Book of Mormon events happened to get from it valuable lessons for our lives. However, I am very curious about your opinion, and I hope you have the time to answer some of my questions.  Do you believe Mesoamerica is the best candidate for the Book of Mormon geography? Why? How do you feel about Sorenson's work?  Do you believe the Book of Mormon is literally true? Why? What is the best Book of Mormon evidence? Perhaps you don't have an answer to some of my questions, and it would make sense because you have said very little about the Book of Mormon in your career as a professional archaeologist.  I would really appreciate a response because it would help many of us.

Thanks,

P.L.

Edited February 28, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

In other words the answer is No. Sure it is possible, but we can only speculate.

No.  We don't speculate, because we have facts to base our opinions on.  The point in this discussion has been that we have progress in science to call upon, and that in the nearly two centuries since Joseph began his career as prophet, we have been the beneficiaries of many discoveries which refute the many false statements made as soon as anyone read the Book of Mormon.

[Rich Hansen]

8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Rich Hansen,

The scriptures are a spiritual guide in our lives. We don't need to know where the Book of Mormon events happened to get from it valuable lessons for our lives. However, I am very curious about your opinion, and I hope you have the time to answer some of my questions.  Do you believe Mesoamerica is the best candidate for the Book of Mormon geography? Why? How do you feel about Sorenson's work?  Do you believe the Book of Mormon is literally true? Why? What is the best Book of Mormon evidence? Perhaps you don't have an answer to some of my questions, and it would make sense because you have said very little about the Book of Mormon in your career as a professional archaeologist.  I would really appreciate a response because it would help many of us.

Thanks,

P.L.

 

P.L.

I am currently doing research at sites in Guatemala as part of my affiliation with Disney and am pressed for time, but thought I would make a quick response.

Like Stephen Hawking, who famously said that he doesn't answer God questions, I don't answer Book of Mormon questions.   (I wish I could say that the way Hawking does.)   I am sorry I can't give you a better response than that.

I will say, however, that as a consultant to the Indiana Jones movie series, an upcoming movie may include some references to Book of Mormon places or artifacts.  The average viewer may not be able to understand the references, but most Mormons should pick right up on them.

I hope that helps.

Rich Hansen

[Meerkat]

On 2/25/2018 at 12:28 PM, Jeanne said:

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

What did I miss?

[Meerkat]

On 2/25/2018 at 4:06 PM, 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.

Seems relevant to me.  Supports idea of large ancient America civilization-- a large urban area.  Seeing this brings to my mind the idea of larger rural populations.

[cinepro]

On 2/27/2018 at 10:01 AM, 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?
 

Makes about as much sense as God commanding Noah to build an ark and put a bunch of animals and seeds in it, when he could have just packed up and taken his family into the foothills and not worried about all the animals that would have survived just fine outside the boundaries of the localized flood. 

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by cinepro

[Hendrix]

On 2/27/2018 at 7:17 AM, 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.

Perhaps, but my point was that surely there must a limiting principle to what can reasonably (however defined) be believed through faith alone. Not every religious position need or maybe even should be taken on faith alone. I tend to think that God brings about his purposes through mostly natural-looking methods. The requiring faith part to me is that it was facilitated by God instead of being a random biological process. Therefore, my limiting principle is that God more likely than not let something happen through natural-looking methods rather than arbitrary interventions while hiding the evidence. I guess the difference is simply to what lengths we think God will go in testing our faith when it comes to science and the natural world. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Seems relevant to me.  Supports idea of large ancient America civilization-- a large urban area.  Seeing this brings to my mind the idea of larger rural populations.

Well, we've know for some time about that Maya civilization in Mesoamerica.  But, yes, this megalopolis shows that cities, larger than we may have imagined, existed during that time.  And, given the hypothesized population density, it also seems to suggest that there would have been rural populations to provide food to the city.  At least, that's what I would conclude.

But the timeline suggests that the Mayan peoples were in Mesoamerica long before the Nephites arrived.  Is your thought that the Nephites intermingled with the Mayans and helped create these large cities or that the currently accepted Book of Mormon timeline is incorrect?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 2/28/2018 at 6:34 PM, cinepro said:

Makes about as much sense as God commanding Noah to build an ark and put a bunch of animals and seeds in it, when he could have just packed up and taken his family into the foothills and not worried about all the animals that would have survived just fine outside the boundaries of the localized flood.

1 Cor. 1:25 says the foolishness of God is wiser than men 

[Sevenbak]

On 2/26/2018 at 9:48 PM, 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? 

That assumes passing judgment on God's laws forcing them to match our limited understanding.  God works through natural laws, absolutely.  But the use of those laws and his powers throughout history are certainly not limited to our small slice of historic scientific understanding.

[Sevenbak]

On 2/27/2018 at 10:35 AM, stemelbow said:

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?

 

 

 

Or a forth option.  Science looks at the current rate of continental separation and proclaims the rates have always been thus, disregarding the possibility of some  past catalyst that would have changed the math.  The Church teaches a literal separation of the land masses after Noah.  I think it's just one of those things that isn't highly important to the big picture, but is still a tender mercy of knowledge requiring faith.  How can one read D&C 133 about this event reversing at the Millennium and deny the power of God to do such things in a rapid manner?

 

22 And it shall be a voice as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder, which shall break down the mountains, and the valleys shall not be found.

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

24 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.  

 

BTW, follow the footnote for "divided" in verse 24 and see where it goes. (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/133.23-24)

Edited March 3, 2018 by Sevenbak

[Sevenbak]

On 2/27/2018 at 10:45 AM, 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.

 

Frankly, I find the global flood story much much easier to understand by accepting the Peleg divisions as taught.  fI the flood occurred prior to division, then the extreme high mountain ranges wouldn't need to be covered, neither would there be a big problem of animal dispersement after the flood.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

Science looks at the current rate of continental separation and proclaims the rates have always been thus, disregarding the possibility of some  past catalyst that would have changed the math

It is not just the current rate that is at issue, it is what will happen to the material being moved and deformed at higher speeds, such as greater melting.

What catalyst might have changed the rate without producing evidence of the change?  One would have to assume a fundamental change in the laws of  physics, chemistry, etc. that affected the geological earth in major ways, but had no effect on biological life without leaving traces of the anomaly.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Calm

[Sevenbak]

On 3/3/2018 at 3:02 PM, Calm said:

It is not just the current rate that is at issue, it is what will happen to the material being moved and deformed at higher speeds, such as greater melting.

What catalyst might have changed the rate without producing evidence of the change?  One would have to assume a fundamental change in the laws of  physics, chemistry, etc. that affected the geological earth in major ways, but had no effect on biological life without leaving traces of the anomaly

Greater melting due to higher speeds could certainly be indicative evidence of a rapid continental separation, but not necessarily required.  We just don't know how fast it happened, only that it happened during Peleg's lifetime.  That said, however, folded rock layers (with no breakage) along fault lines is an all too common occurance, and would need additional heat to stay malleable.  

The bottom line for me, however is not to place the arm of flesh above what the scriptures and the church teaches about both these events. 

Science doesn't accept a global flood, yet that is what the church teaches. 

Science doesn't accept a division of the continents post-flood, yet that is what the church teaches.

 

 

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 2/28/2018 at 2:25 PM, Rich Hansen said:

 

Like Stephen Hawking, who famously said that he doesn't answer God questions, I don't answer Book of Mormon questions.   (I wish I could say that the way Hawking does.)   I am sorry I can't give you a better response than that.

I respect your decision not to share your views about the Book of Mormon. Perhaps you secretly like An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon by John L. Sorenson, but we will never know. It's okay, it will be fun to speculate about your views on the Book of Mormon  

What about your views on God? I assume you don't agree with Hawkins that God probably doesn't exists.  Rich, can you please share your testimony with us?  Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Edited March 9, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Rich, do you answer questions about the Bible?