Scott Gordon--CES Letter: Proof or Propaganda

[carbon dioxide]

On 8/20/2019 at 6:55 AM, Duncan said:

This is what drives me batty about Archaeology, how would someone like myself or Jeremy Runnells even know there was a BOM artifact?

Something like a "Made in Zarahemla" would be nice silly

[carbon dioxide]

On 8/20/2019 at 9:15 AM, churchistrue said:

 

a. Combat the new information to settle back into the initial perspective, or a slightly nuanced version that’s essentially the same. But basically retaining the notion that God is involved in a way that’s nearly 100% certain and inerrant. 

b. Accept the new information and come to believe the Church is not “true” and either leave or try to stay in a state that’s very uncomfortable.
c. Accept the new information and reprocess the view of the Church into a version that’s less certain and more humanistic and built on true faith. This new view may not retain beliefs such that LDS is the one and only exclusively true church. But it does retain beliefs that God is in this Church in some way, and that it’s worthy of us devoting ourselves to.

I have a hunch that Scott Gordon and most of FairMormon would agree with me on this. But it’s very scary to say directly, considering that this more humanistic more epistemologically humble perspective is not the one taught over the pulpit at General Conference or on Sundays in our wards. It’s much easier to snipe around the borders of the CES Letter without really taking it on.

What "new" information does the CES bring to the table.  I have not read the whole thing in part that it pretty much covers the same ground have read in other anti sources.  The CES is effective in a world where people are lazy and looking for a reason to find problems with the Church.  It can provide all the excuses one needs.  Sure there are difficult issues but lets not pretend that there is anything "new" presented.  Its the same stuff that has been around for decades.  It is like a cancer.  If you ignore it, it does not go away.  It can get worse with time.  I believe that someone, somewhere in the Church decided to ignore most of this for a long time and the cancer has spread much farther than if the Church decided to start addressing it 20 or 30 years ago. Things will change but it will take some time to catch up.

Edited August 22, 2019 by carbon dioxide

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

What "new" information does the CES bring to the table.

Maybe nothing for you.  But for others, it’s new material (at least some of it).

[Avatar4321]

On 8/20/2019 at 7:34 AM, Calm said:

I would be more impressed with these appraisals of Scott’s presentation if some specific examples were given of his claimed misjudgments, etc.

But there wont be. There never is

[Avatar4321]

On 8/20/2019 at 8:21 AM, JulieM said:

But Jeremy was right.  There is no archeological evidence that has been found at the Hill Cumorah in NY.  That’s true.

Now will there be any found in the future?  I hope so!!!  But for now, he’s right.  

Why would there be?

[Avatar4321]

On 8/20/2019 at 9:21 AM, ALarson said:

Is it true that there is no archaeological evidence that has been found in the area of the Hill Cumorah in New York?

(Yes or no....that's what members want to know.  Not, "Yes...but....but....there might be another HIll Cumorah and there maybe could be evidence found there in the future", and so on....).

Now, does Runnells give ALL the facts or speculation surrounding this topic?  No.

But then members complained that a lot of facts were left out of the church essays too.  It's normal procedure on both sides to do this, IMO.  That's why each member needs to take what they read and then dig in and do their own research so they can come to their own conclusions.

Has anyone even looked for archaeological evidence there? Moreover why would they?

[sunstoned]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

You can pound the table all you want counselor.  I'm pounding the facts.😉

[rodheadlee]

On 8/20/2019 at 7:05 AM, ALarson said:

No, he's still right    Also, it's not wrong to ask about archaeological evidence around the Hill Cumorah in NY.  Many of were taught that is where the battles took place that were recorded in the Book of Mormon.  I know others have different theories now, but none of those have been proven yet.  Even the church leaders have no official opinion on where it all took place.  So of course, it's a valid question, IMO.

And that's how members think (for the most part).

A great deal of the membership still believe that the Hill Cumorah is in New York and this is where much of the history recorded took place.  They believe this statement (and others from our leaders about this):

 

I guess it's a cultural thing. When I first came up on the Book of Mormon I never once thought it did not take place in mesoamerica. There was no internet at the time but from my study of various ancient histories I just assumed it took place in mesoamerica.

I had been studying the lost 10 tribes with some EVs at the time I discovered the Book of Mormon. I was told that Israel meant governed by God so I looked for a similar situation in the Americas and decided that El Salvador was the Israel of America.

Long before I came across this message board I had decided that the Olmec were the jaredites. I also decided that the Nephites and lamanites were among the Mayans.

Trying to find Nephites and lamanites among the Mayans would be like trying to find Mormons among Americans.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

You can pound the table all you want counselor.  I'm pounding the facts.😉

😁

[churchistrue]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

What "new" information does the CES bring to the table.  I have not read the whole thing in part that it pretty much covers the same ground have read in other anti sources.  The CES is effective in a world where people are lazy and looking for a reason to find problems with the Church.  It can provide all the excuses one needs.  Sure there are difficult issues but lets not pretend that there is anything "new" presented.  Its the same stuff that has been around for decades.  It is like a cancer.  If you ignore it, it does not go away.  It can get worse with time.  I believe that someone, somewhere in the Church decided to ignore most of this for a long time and the cancer has spread much farther than if the Church decided to start addressing it 20 or 30 years ago. Things will change but it will take some time to catch up.

"New" in the sense that it is new a lot of times to the person reading the CES Letter.

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Has anyone even looked for archaeological evidence there? Moreover why would they?

Some might be interested given the reports of the room underneath it.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I guess it's a cultural thing. When I first came up on the Book of Mormon I never once thought it did not take place in mesoamerica. There was no internet at the time but from my study of various ancient histories I just assumed it took place in mesoamerica.

I had been studying the lost 10 tribes with some EVs at the time I discovered the Book of Mormon. I was told that Israel meant governed by God so I looked for a similar situation in the Americas and decided that El Salvador was the Israel of America.

Long before I came across this message board I had decided that the Olmec were the jaredites. I also decided that the Nephites and lamanites were among the Mayans.

Trying to find Nephites and lamanites among the Mayans would be like trying to find Mormons among Americans.

If you were around at the time of Smith, and around him giving his mission calls, there's a chance you'd have heard the local native Americans referred to by him as Lamanites, as he did so to those in his company. "This" America of Joseph Smith's day was "their" [the Lamanites] land, and Smith had the key to return the people he called Lamanites to the truth through the Book of Mormon.

[champatsch]

10 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

On 8/20/2019 at 8:34 AM, Calm said:

I would be more impressed with these appraisals of Scott’s presentation if some specific examples were given of his claimed misjudgments, etc.

But there wont be. There never is.

I've mentioned this before, but the main problem with part 1 of Scott's presentation is that he isn't thorough and he attacks some weak points of the letter while failing to admit that the Book of Mormon text certainly incorporates a number of KJV translation errors. So we aren't given an accurate picture of KJV translation errors. There are quite a few more than the ones the letter points to, although some specific items the letter mentions aren't errors, as Scott addresses in his discussion of "pleasant pictures". And I've mentioned that seraphims is not a KJV translation error either. But prudent and eloquent orator are reasonable candidates for being KJV translation errors. And there are quite a few more that are in the Book of Mormon.

Of course Runnells preys on weak minds with the stupid tag-on question "A purported ancient text?" The Book of Mormon as we have it isn't an ancient text, it's a modern English text (mostly early modern, but some late modern) that is a creative/dynamic translation of an ancient text. Also his stupid "Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?” probably worries uninformed or non-analytical readers. All editions of the King James Bible between 1611 and 1829 have these translation errors, so "unique" is the wrong word to use, but put in there to worry the reader. And Joseph didn't even consult a King James Bible in dictating the Book of Mormon (as dictation eyewitnesses consistently attested and as the original manuscript indicates), which is implied in this loaded question.

So why didn't Scott Gordon give a fairer presentation on this point? You'll have to ask him. One thing I'll mention here is that most FairMormon contributors only accept that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from revealed ideas. They maintain this position even though it is a very weak one, unworkable in many ways, and quite problematic in the area of biblical quotation and biblical blending. It's a position that ends up confusing many Latter-day Saints. The whole matter is quite unfortunate.

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Trying to find Nephites and lamanites among the Mayans would be like trying to find Mormons among Americans.

Not according to many past leaders and Prophets (who even received revelation regarding them) :
 

Quote

The Lamanites [Native Americans], now a down-trodden people, are a remnant of the house of Israel. The curse of God has followed them as it has done the Jews, though the Jews have not been darkened in their skin as have the Lamanites.

Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, v. 22, p. 173

 

 

Quote

 

Verily, I say unto you, that the wisdom of man, in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my hold priesthood, but ye shall know when ye receive a fullness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous then the gentiles.

Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., 1831 revelation

 

Quote

After the people again forgot the Lord and dissensions arose, some of them took upon themselves the name Lamanites and the dark skin returned. When the Lamanites fully repent and sincerely receive the gospel, the Lord has promised to remove the dark skin. The Lord declared by revelation that, ‘before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as a rose.' The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. Many of these converts and delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord. Perhaps there are some Lamanites today who are losing the dark pigment. Many of the members of the Church among the Catawba Indians of the South could readily pass as of the white race; also in other parts of the South.

Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, v. 3, p. 123, 1953

 

Quote

The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation…. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl-sixteen sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents on the same reservation, in the same Hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference, Oct. 1960

 

Quote

We are now going to the Lamanites, to whom we intend to be messengers of instruction… We will show them that in consequence of their transgressions a curse has been inflicted upon them – in the darkness of their skins. We will have intermarriages with them, they marrying our young women, and we taking their young squaws to wife. By these means it is the will of the Lord that the curse of their color shall be removed and they restored to their pristine beauty…

Brigham Young

 

There are many more I could post....but as you see, past Prophets and leaders had not problem identifying who the Lamanites were.....

Edited August 22, 2019 by ALarson

[rodheadlee]

10 hours ago, ALarson said:

Not according to many past leaders and Prophets (who even received revelation regarding them) :
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are many more I could post....but as you see, past Prophets and leaders had not problem identifying who the Lamanites were.....

Yes all peoples in the land who are not Nephites are Lamanites.Jacob makes this clear in chapter 1. I should have made myself more clear I was speaking of their civilizations at the time of Christ visit to the Americas.

[mrmarklin]

11 hours ago, ALarson said:

Not according to many past leaders and Prophets (who even received revelation regarding them) :
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are many more I could post....but as you see, past Prophets and leaders had not problem identifying who the Lamanites were.....

Good stuff. I married a “lamanite” girl. Sixty percent according to DNA testing. 

As our marriage progressed, my mother was one hundred percent sure that my wife’s skin was getting lighter as time went on. She subscribed to the Kimball view of things. But no.  Looking at old pics it’s about the same now as when we married.😊

If anything, BY and JS had it correct. Our kids are much lighter!😀

Edited August 23, 2019 by mrmarklin

[Stargazer]

On 8/20/2019 at 10:21 AM, Bernard Gui said:

To Abanes’ credit, he came here to defend his work and received many well-deserved lumps.

I really liked his avatar, by the way!  A moving juggernaut of some kind.  It was awesome.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 8/21/2019 at 8:59 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Of course, there was Jacob 1:14, where a first generation record keeper explains that Lamanites from that time on will be a political designation, rather than lineage, a label applied to those who "seek to destroy the people of Nephi" and that Nephite from that time forth refers to friendlies.

Except people aren’t upset that people are called Lamanites when they were actually Zoramites are they? The only way to read other people into the Book of Mormon is to really really want them to be there and then to ignore a straight forward reading of the text. Here is the verse you cite in context:

13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

[Note Jacob here gives no indication that there are any other people. A straight forward reading shows this to be an exhaustive list]

14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names [i.e. the names in verse 13], but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

Edited August 24, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Kevin Christensen]

If you really are seeking understanding, then you ought to demonstrate more seeking, more extensive, comprehensive, and open-ended seeking.  Less enthno-centric, presentist, knee-jerk obstructive reading.  Reading the Book of Mormon as though no one else was around when they arrived is an ideological reading, not determined by the text, not "straight-forward" and unquestionable, and not consistent with archeology.  On the topic of Nephi's neighbors, essential reading at this point is Matt Roper's "Nephi's Neighbors" which was not the first essay on this topic, but his is the best and most comprehensive and remains the gold standard.  Ignore it at your peril.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol15/iss2/8/

Among many other things, Roper discusses just why Nephi has Jacob lecture his people on the relevance of "I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and set my hand up to the standard of my people; and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried on their shoulders" and that "the promises of the Lord are great unto the Gentiles" and "the Gentiles shall be blessed and numbered among the house of Israel" (2 Nephi 10:18" and "I will consecrate this land unto thy seed and them who shall be numbered among thy seed" 2 Nephi 20:19. 

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA