Polynesia Populated from S.E. Asia NOT the America's in Direct Conflict with LDS Tradition

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Other then some South American DNA that was introduced after the Book of Mormon timeline, in approximately 1200 AD ...

By the way, in which year what this strand of South American DNA actually discovered?

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Yup.  The iodine drop in the ocean apologetic theory is always a safe harbor to maintain belief. Non detectable but counter to LDS traditional claims. But hey it wouldn’t be the first and won’t be the last prophetic claim thrown under the bus to protect belief. 

The iodine analogy is your yours too, and you brought it up in this discussion. How would this run counter to the Book of Mormon? if Hagoth and his group(s) ended up in SEA in 60 BC and generated descendants among and with these peoples for 8 or 9 centuries before the migration sequence covered in your linked study, the modern people are still the descendants of the whole. It is a leap to insist your articles suggest otherwise.

[Fair Dinkum]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

I would say no.  I don't recall ever being taught that all Polynesians are Lamanites.  I've been taught that Polynesians have Lamanite ancestry, but that they are also descendant from other sea voyagers.  I also don't believe the Polynesian culture center promotes that Polynesians are Lamanites (I haven't been there so I don't know first hand).

Did some members believe that all Polynesians are Lamanites, sure.  Just like some members believe that the Book of Mormon talks about the North and South America continents and that some members believe that the American continents were practically empty when the Lehites reached the Americas (neither of which I believe the Book of Mormon attests).  That doesn't mean the "church promotes" those ideas.  It would be like saying that caffeine is against the Word of Wisdom just because many (possibly a majority) of members believe that caffeine is against the Word of Wisdom.

Interesting that you would say No.  Are you unaware of past LDS leaders pronouncements on this subject?

Quote

With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem some 600 years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea…they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand…Today we have many Lamanite leaders in the Church. For example, in Tonga, where 20 percent of all the people in the islands belong to the Church, we have three large stakes. Two of them are presided over wholly by Lamanites and the other almost wholly by them. There are three stakes in Samoa and another is to be organized in those small Samoan islands. Four more stakes with Lamanite leaders! - Spencer Kimball 

 

[Fair Dinkum]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

Anytime you do science, you start with a theory or hypothesis and then work to prove/disprove it.

 

Exactly.  Through observation science forms a theory and then rigorously challenges that theory to either prove or disprove its validity as a truth.  Religion does just the opposite.  It starts with the conclusion and then rigorously fights to support that conclusion irrespective of non confirming evidence right up until overwhelming, embarrassingly evident evidence makes it impossible to retain that conclusion.

[Fair Dinkum]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

One current case related to DNA that I find interesting is the matrilineal line that is in Iceland and appears to be from the Americas.  It also appears to be old enough to be pre-Columbus.  So, the best hypothesis is that a Native American women was taken back to Iceland in 1000AD.  But there is a little evidence that the same matrilineal line might exist in Europe pre-Columbus or that a post-Columbus women was transported to Iceland.  But if a Native America women was taken back to Iceland, what about the situation of an Icelander man leaving a pregnant Native American women behind in America.  There is a possibility but no one has yet found any DNA evidence that can prove it and that DNA will be hard to find at this point.

So you're saying that a single human's DNA that was merged with a larger isolated population can be detected in the descendants of that same population's DNA  even after a 1,000 years?  Fascinating.

Oh oh, don't tell anyone at the Maxwell Institute, they'll have to come up with some other apologetic explanation for why we can't seem to find and Lehite DNA in the America's.

[Fair Dinkum]

9 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

That doesn't  respond to the logic of my argument or demonstrate its incorrectness. Just saying "your argument is associated with intelligent design" is basically the intellectual version of reductio ad Hitlerum. In other words, an association fallacy. 

As usual @webbles is quite right. I can't help but feel that the mindreading fallacy might be in play here.  

Also I can't help but feel that pretty much all origin of life research would fall under this same interdict, no? Shall we condemn them too? Or does the gravitas of academia rescue them from the seemingly obvious inconsistency? But that implies a clear double standard, which is also fallacious...so your condemnation is probably not safe to uphold. 

CFR please. On both the "standing on a scientific island" and the mindreading portion. Just because Sorenson's ideals haven't become the mainstream (yet) doesn't mean that he's on an island. 

CFR that Sorenson is NOT standing on a scientific island, a lone wolf crying in the wilderness.   Surely you must have volumes of non-LDS, peer reviewed studies that support Sorenson's conclusions to disprove my assertion.

I note that the Sorenson links that Mr Smac provided are ancient in and of themselves. Several from the 1980's.  The most current is from 1993 and they were written in support of an oceanic voyage from the old world to the America's (yes I've now viewed them)  not from the Americas to Polynesia.  But back to your CFR, Surely after nearly 30 years, entire libraries must be filled in support of his ground breaking, evidence based claims of Oceanic voyages to the America's from the ancient pre-Christ migrations? If not then YES he is standing deserted and alone on a scientific island.

Edit to Add:  Sorenson's isolated island is actually shrinking with the passage of time, not growing.  He's claims have not found support nor have non-LDS sources flocked to his tiny little shrinking island.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Fair Dinkum]

8 hours ago, why me said:

However, your premise does not prove the book of mormon false. The church's foundation is the book of mormon. Is it true or false? This is the heart of the matter. How one interprets who were the lamanites or nephites is a secondary issue. If the book was to be proven false, it would have come when it first appeared. It was under investigation at the time. And certain theories were presented. But the witnesses remained firm in their conviction, even on their death beds or even when they left the church. Not to mention Emma who remained firm about the book of mormon and her husband. Emma had the power to destroy the church when BY moved west with the saints and began polygamy in earnest. But she did not deny the book of mormon. This is what matters. The people directly involved held firm.

I've never made that claim that this alone disproves the Book of Mormon, it merely casts a shadow.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Fair Dinkum]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

By the way, in which year what this strand of South American DNA actually discovered?

From the article I posted:

Quote

We find conclusive evidence for prehistoric contact of Polynesian individuals with Native American individuals (around A.D. 1200)

 

[Fair Dinkum]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

The iodine analogy is your yours too, and you brought it up in this discussion. How would this run counter to the Book of Mormon? if Hagoth and his group(s) ended up in SEA in 60 BC and generated descendants among and with these peoples for 8 or 9 centuries before the migration sequence covered in your linked study, the modern people are still the descendants of the whole. It is a leap to insist your articles suggest otherwise.

I agree in principle with your assessment.  However genetic science has become ever more precise over the years.  Science now has the capability to detect that iodine droplet in the ocean (to continue my metaphor) in human DNA.  As of yet the only pre Columbian - South American Polynesian DNA detected dates to the 13th century.   If there had been any intermingling before 1200 AD, it would be detected.  The indigenous American DNA detected in the Polynesian population 800 years ago, likely came from a single individual. Yes science can find that DNA iodine droplet. https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/08/17/study-reveals-contact-between-native-americans-and-polynesians-occurred-800-years-ago/

Edited September 24, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

From the article I posted:

In which year what this strand of South American DNA from c. AD 1200 actually discovered?

Edited September 24, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I agree in principle with your assessment.  However genetic science has become ever more precise over the years.  Science now has the capability to detect that iodine droplet in the ocean (to continue my metaphor) in human DNA.  As of yet the only pre Columbian - South American Polynesian DNA detected dates to the 13th century.   If there had been any intermingling before 1200 AD, it would be detected.  The indigenous American DNA detected in the Polynesian population 800 years ago, likely came from a single individual. Yes science can find that DNA iodine droplet. https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/08/17/study-reveals-contact-between-native-americans-and-polynesians-occurred-800-years-ago/

And in principle, detecting a droplet (or its effects) in modern peoples does not render them unrelated to earlier generations/generators than those "likely" used for the immediate study at hand.

[Fair Dinkum]

I just want to state that I take NO pleasure in being right. (my opinion not yours I'm guessing) I want the church to be everything that it claims to be.  I've been criticized here for pulling at loose threads and causing ripples on the calm cool waters of MD&D.  I fully recognize that my presence is not fully welcomed by all or maybe anyone for that matter.  I want to be challenged, I want your push back and rigorous counter arguments to my assertions. Be patient but don't cut me any slack.

I am not here to be difficult but nor will I take any of your counter arguments at face value or on mere faith.  I've been down that faith road before and it came back to bite me. 

So if there is non-apologetic evidence in support of our traditional claims of Polynesians being Lamanites,I would love to see it.  I've taken @smac97 posts and read through them. I've click the links and while compelling, their is a part of me that questions the motives of Sorenson.  He was a believer and needed to protect the Book of Mormon.  He had an agenda.  So yes I appreciate you @smac97 but I need to see non-LDS support.  I've spent more than 5 min (your chide) on google Mr Smac searching for evidence to support our prophets past claims and frankly I just don't see any.  

Edited September 24, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Fair Dinkum]

38 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In which year what this strand of South American DNA from c. AD 1200 actually discovered?

Here is the link from my OP here in case you would actually like to read the article but to answer your question this research is from last year, 2020.

NOTE: Our analyses suggest strongly that a single contact event occurred in eastern Polynesia.  Imagine that?  DNA can be detected from a single contact event that took place well over 1,000 years ago in a large population.  Huh.    Lehi?  Are you paying attention?

I'm only speculating, but I suppose that within a few years geneticist will be able to break through the protective cover provided by the bottle neck apologetic defense and dismiss BoM claims of a pre-Christ oceanic migration from the old world once and for all...at least for those not invested in BoM claims.  At least that is where it appears we are headed. So buckle up folks this is going to be a wild and fun ride.

Edited September 24, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[OGHoosier]

56 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

CFR that Sorenson is NOT standing on a scientific island, a lone wolf crying in the wilderness.   Surely you must have volumes of non-LDS, peer reviewed studies that support Sorenson's conclusions to disprove my assertion.

Nah, you go first. Plus there's that whole thing about proving negatives which presents a problem for your Uno-reverse-esque demand.

 

56 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

But back to your CFR, Surely after nearly 30 years, entire libraries must be filled in support of his ground breaking, evidence based claims of Oceanic voyages to the America's from the ancient pre-Christ migrations? If not then YES he is standing deserted and alone on a scientific island.

The relevant expert class for this topic is, like, 30 people. Good luck "filling libraries" on any topic of such a niche nature. With respect, I consider this expectation to be unsound, along with the philosophy that underlies it. Nevermind that you still haven't adequately defended the validity of your chosen heuristic. Reductio ad creationisti is not a valid argument. 

56 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Edit to Add:  Sorenson's isolated island is actually shrinking with the passage of time, not growing.  He's claims have not found support nor have non-LDS sources flocked to his tiny little shrinking island.

I copy the following from the Book of Mormon Central bibliography on the topic. 

Quote

For more recent publications, see Charles E.M. Pearce and Frances M. Pearce, Oceanic Migration: Paths, Sequence, Timing and Range of Prehistoric Migration in the Pacific and Indian Oceans (New York, NY: Springer, 2010); Terry L. Jones, Alice A. Storey, Elizabeth A. Matisoo-Smith, and José Miguel Ramírez-Aliaga, eds., Polynesians in America: Pre-Columbian Contact with the New World (New York, NY: AltaMira Press, 2011); Alice Beck Kehoe, ed., Traveling Prehistoric Seas: Critical Thinking on Ancient Transoceanic Voyages (Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2016); Stephen C. Jett, Ancient Ocean Crossings: Reconsidering the Case for Contacts with the Pre-Columbian Americas (Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 2017); Alexander G. Ioannidis, et al., “Native American Gene Flow into Polynesia Predating Easter Island Settlement,” Nature 583 (2020): 572–577.

All of these support pre-Columbian contact between Polynesia and the Americas. I note that the piece you cite as part of the beginning of this thread is also on here, which should tell everyone that "our side" (as it were) does not consider this a valid threat. Where is it needed for American-Polynesian contact to have occurred during the Book of Mormon timeline? I know of no such stipulation, please kindly provide one that is not arbitrary. 

19 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So if there is non-apologetic evidence in support of our traditional claims of Polynesians being Lamanites,I would love to see it.  I've taken @smac97 posts and read through them. I've click the links and while compelling, their is a part of my that questions the motives of Sorenson.

Why does it matter, if the evidence is sound? You have assumed that you have justification in dismissing him because you find motivation. This is not a sound epistemic strategy because people with motivations can still be right, and only an insane society would forbid people from defending things they believe in through argument. I personally consider it insane to assume that somebody's evidence and argumentation is unsound for the sole reason that they have an investment in the topic. Yet I do not see any evidence that you have any other reason for rejecting his work. You have assumed you are justified. I ask you to prove it. Defend yourself and your methodology. 

Edited September 24, 2021 by OGHoosier

[Fair Dinkum]

14 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Nah, you go first. Plus there's that whole thing about proving negatives which presents a problem for your Uno-reverse-esque demand.

 

The relevant expert class for this topic is, like, 30 people. Good luck "filling libraries" on any topic of such a niche nature. With respect, I consider this expectation to be unsound, along with the philosophy that underlies it. Nevermind that you still haven't adequately defended the validity of your chosen heuristic. Reductio ad creationisti is not a valid argument. 

I copy the following from the Book of Mormon Central bibliography on the topic. 

All of these support pre-Columbian contact between Polynesia and the Americas. I note that the piece you cite as part of the beginning of this thread is also on here, which should tell everyone that "our side" (as it were) does not consider this a valid threat. Where is it needed for American-Polynesian contact to have occurred during the Book of Mormon timeline? I know of no such stipulation, please kindly provide one that is not arbitrary. 

Why does it matter, if the evidence is sound? You have assumed that you have justification in dismissing him because you find motivation. This is not a sound epistemic strategy because people with motivations can still be right, and only an insane society would forbid people from defending things they believe in through argument. I personally consider it insane to assume that somebody's evidence and argumentation is unsound for the sole reason that they have an investment in the topic. Yet I do not see any evidence that you have any other reason for rejecting his work. You have assumed you are justified. I ask you to prove it. Defend yourself and your methodology. 

Thank You for sharing these sources.  I'll check into each one.

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

Nah, you go first. Plus there's that whole thing about proving negatives which presents a problem for your Uno-reverse-esque demand.

 

The relevant expert class for this topic is, like, 30 people. Good luck "filling libraries" on any topic of such a niche nature. With respect, I consider this expectation to be unsound, along with the philosophy that underlies it. Nevermind that you still haven't adequately defended the validity of your chosen heuristic. Reductio ad creationisti is not a valid argument. 

I copy the following from the Book of Mormon Central bibliography on the topic. 

All of these support pre-Columbian contact between Polynesia and the Americas. I note that the piece you cite as part of the beginning of this thread is also on here, which should tell everyone that "our side" (as it were) does not consider this a valid threat. Where is it needed for American-Polynesian contact to have occurred during the Book of Mormon timeline? I know of no such stipulation, please kindly provide one that is not arbitrary. 

Why does it matter, if the evidence is sound? You have assumed that you have justification in dismissing him because you find motivation. This is not a sound epistemic strategy because people with motivations can still be right, and only an insane society would forbid people from defending things they believe in through argument. I personally consider it insane to assume that somebody's evidence and argumentation is unsound for the sole reason that they have an investment in the topic. Yet I do not see any evidence that you have any other reason for rejecting his work. You have assumed you are justified. I ask you to prove it. Defend yourself and your methodology. 

Source #1: Has nothing to do with the OP question.  It examines Indian ocean and pacific oceanic migration post BoM timeline. Again migration emanating from the west eastward (no one is disputing this reality)

Source #2: uses chicken bones and Polynesian skulls discovered in an archeological sight on a South American island dated to he 13th century AD.  Again Polynesians making contact with South American West to East not East to West as the LDS tradition claims.

Source #3: Again this study supports west to east migration not east to west.

Source #4:  not available,

Source #5: As you indicated same source I provided in OP

So thanks for the effort but honestly none of your sources support LDS truth claims of Lamanite migration to the Pacific islands East to West.  Might you have others I came check? I can't find any that support our traditions of a westward migration from the Americas to the Pacific Islands during BoM timelines. Nothing that might help us in supplanting Polynesian culture with the Lamanite tag

I'll concede a little room.  Sorenson seems to have been ahead of his time.  In the 1980's he was a lone wolf promoting an Oceanic defusion from the old world to the Americas.  While his theory are still very controversial, I'll give him credit for thinking outside of the box.  Still nothing I've been able to see supports the BoM Lamanite migration to the pacific islands claims popular with the LDS church.

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Here is the link from my OP here in case you would actually like to read the article but to answer your question this research is from last year, 2020.

NOTE: Our analyses suggest strongly that a single contact event occurred in eastern Polynesia.  Imagine that?  DNA can be detected from a single contact event that took place well over 1,000 years ago in a large population.  Huh.    Lehi?  Are you paying attention?

I'm only speculating, but I suppose that within a few years geneticist will be able to break through the protective cover provided by the bottle neck apologetic defense and dismiss BoM claims of a pre-Christ oceanic migration from the old world once and for all...at least for those not invested in BoM claims.  At least that is where it appears we are headed. So buckle up folks this is going to be a wild and fun ride.

A single contact event observed within one timeframe in one direction by definition overlooks, and thus can mask, the earlier timeframes and origin(s) of the identified contacting element.

 

Edited September 24, 2021 by CV75

[Fair Dinkum]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

A single contact event observed within one timeframe in one direction by definition overlooks, and thus can mask, the earlier timeframes and origin of the contacting element.

 

Just to be clear, you are asserting that lack of evidence IS evidence?

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Just to be clear, you are asserting that lack of evidence IS evidence?

No. A single contact event observed within one timeframe in one direction by definition overlooks, and thus can mask, the earlier timeframes and origin(s) of the identified contacting element.

You said a couple of posts above that you are speculating. 

I am saying the study you linked uses parameters that do not include the origin of the contacting element. So of course it would lack evidence for a "Hagoth." This cannot rightly (scientifically) be used to assert that there was no "Hagoth." 

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I can't find any that support our traditions of a westward migration from the Americas to the Pacific Islands during BoM timelines.

Why must it be during BoM timelines? From whence comes this stipulation?

Edited September 24, 2021 by OGHoosier

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I just want to state that I take NO pleasure in being right.

I don't think that is the problem here.  I think the critique is that you are not demonstrating or explaining the reasoning, evidence, etc. that gets you to "being right."

Again, I've seen this schtick a lot in litigation.  Sometimes lawyers do it, but more often I see it in pro se litigants.  They have a position, a conclusion reached.  They are absolutist in their perspective on it.  That conclusion becomes the lens through which they view the facts and the law.  But this posture doesn't really work in an adversarial construct because there are rules, laws, procedures, etc. in place to compile, vet and examine evidence and arguments, and a (presumptively) impartial judge who gets to make the final call.  The litigant can't merely insist that everyone else take his conclusions and say-so as definitive.  Instead, the legal process requires him to actually prove his case.  To present the facts, to lay out the evidence, and to summarize the law and persuade the judge to apply it in his favor.

FD, with genuine respect and affection, I gotta tell you: you haven't done any of that.  You haven't even come close to making your case, to presenting evidence, argument, analysis, etc. such as could persuade others that you are "right."  Instead, you periodically post a gripe-of-the-week, drop a link or two, and then present a conclusory "prove me wrong" request.

Before you declare your lack of "pleasure in being right," I encourage you to give the Restored Gospel a fair shake. 

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I want the church to be everything that it claims to be. 

I don't see that in your posts.  As I noted previously:

Quote

This year I will be celebrating my 25th anniversary to my wonderful wife.  She is a very good person.  However, I have known many other couples who have likewise had seemingly strong marriages that break down.  If I was bound and determined to destroy my marriage, I would do what Fair Dinkum is doing here.  I would I would utterly refuse to consider any of her many fine attributes, and would instead emphasize and magnify her every actual or apparent weakness/flaw.  I would not listen to her.  I would refuse to consider any evidence or reasoning that could dissuade me from my intention of destroying our marriage.  I would not listen to any friends and family who might have something good to say about her.

Would pursuing this course of conduct be indicative of whether a divorce is appropriate?  No.  It is not remotely reflective of any reasoned analysis or fair-minded evaluation of things.  There may well be legitimate grounds for divorce, but the foregoing course of conduct will not help me identify them. 

The course of conduct you are pursuing is pretty much guaranteed to lead you to the conclusion that the Church is not "everything that it claims to be."  There is no institution or individual that could withstand the sort of relentless faultfinding campaign you have been pursuing against the Church.  To paraphrase the (entirely fictitious) quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "When you look for the bad in [the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] expecting to find it, you surely will."

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I've been criticized here for pulling at loose threads and causing ripples on the calm cool waters of MD&D. 

Not really.  You've been criticized for endless faultfinding, for presenting complaints and adverse conclusions about the Church without having meaningfully reviewed or interacted with or addressed substantive scholarship about the issues you find problematic.

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I fully recognize that my presence is not fully welcomed by all or maybe anyone for that matter. 

Your presence is very welcome.  This board is valuable precisely because there are a diversity of viewpoints present on it.  Presumably you don't come here because you want to speak in an echo chamber.  You are presenting points and ideas and conclusions.  You are being engaged, sometimes critically, on those points and ideas and conclusions.  Rather than take that engagement as an indictment of you as a person, I hope you can take it as a substantive treatment/rejoinder to your comments.  And to the extent someone goes "personal" (it happens, I fall prey to that tendency as well as anyone), I hope you can ignore and/or forgive such instances and proceed to address the merits of the arguments and evidence.

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I want to be challenged, I want your push back and rigorous counter arguments to my assertions. Be patient but don't cut me any slack.

Sounds good.  I encourage you to alter your current approach.  Substantially. 

Stop assuming the worst about the Church and its teachings. 

Hold off on conclusory declarations that the Church's claims are false, or have been falsified, etc. 

Quick stacking the deck.

Quit moving the goalposts.

Take some time and effort to give the Church and its defenders a fair hearing.  Less "The Church's claims are false, prove me wrong."  More "Are the Church's truth claims plausible?"

Read the literature and try to consider it in an open-minded kind of way.  

Set aside the prejudice you are exhibiting against scholarship from Latter-day Saints, and instead study and investigate and respond to that scholarship based on its merits or lack thereof. 

Re-visit your assumptions and expectations about how much secular investigation and evidence can prove or disprove.  

Go back to the fundamentals.  Study, pondering, prayer.  Hope.  Faith.  Real intent.

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I am not here to be difficult but nor will I take any of your counter arguments at face value or on mere faith.  I've been down that faith road before and it came back to bite me. 

That's okay.  I don't think anyone is expecting that.

The thing is, you aren't presenting arguments to be countered, you are presenting mostly unadorned and barely substantiated conclusions.  There's a world of difference.

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So if there is non-apologetic evidence in support of our traditional claims of Polynesians being Lamanites, I would love to see it. 

See above comments about deck-stacking and goal-post-moving.

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I've taken @smac97 posts and read through them. I've click the links and while compelling, their is a part of my that questions the motives of Sorenson. 

And I have sometimes questioned the motives of John Dehlin, Consig, Bill Reel, Will Bagley, and other critics and opponents of the Church.  But if they have substantive evidence and argument, I still review and respond to what they have to say.

You are not doing that.  You are stacking the deck.  Shifting the goalposts.  Relying on logical fallacies (No True Scotsman ("if there is non-apologetic evidence...").  Argumentum ad populorum.  Argumentum ad hominem.  And so on).

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

He was a believer and needed to protect the Book of Mormon.  He had an agenda. 

Oh come on.  Would you be okay with a Latter-day Saint summarily dismissing all of Robert Ritner's scholarship with that reasoning?  "Ritner was a non-believer and needed to undermine the Book of Abraham.  He had an agenda."  Do you find that persuasive?  

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So yes I appreciate you @smac97 but I need to see non-LDS support.  I've spend more than 5 min (your chide)  Mr Smac searching for evidence to support our prophets past claims and frankly I just don't see any.  

No True Scotsman?  Again?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 24, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

All of these support pre-Columbian contact between Polynesia and the Americas. I note that the piece you cite as part of the beginning of this thread is also on here, which should tell everyone that "our side" (as it were) does not consider this a valid threat. Where is it needed for American-Polynesian contact to have occurred during the Book of Mormon timeline? I know of no such stipulation, please kindly provide one that is not arbitrary. 

Yes, I asked that question too:

Quote

Quote

That claim has basically been reduced to now only being able to say that well there was contact in outside of the BoM timeline. Nothing supports a mass migration sweeping west from America.

Which may speak more to your assumptions about the text of the Book of Mormon, rather than the text itself.  Nowhere in the Book of Mormon is there a description of "a mass migration sweeping west from America."  Further, what is this "BoM timeline" you are referencing?  The Book of Mormon speaks of the Nephite civilization being wiped out around 385 A.D.  The Lamanites continued on their way.  So what is it that requires exclusivly BOM-era migrations in order for the Church's narrative to work?  Couldn't the Lamanites have continued to survive past 385 A.D.?  In fact, isn't that what the text says happened?  If so, then why is it impossible for some of their descendants to have later migrated to the Polynesian islands?  

That's not to say that migrations during "the BOM timeline" are not feasible (personally, I'm quite open to the idea of Hagoth-like explorers migrating to the islands, or islanders visiting the Americas and returning to the islands with some of those natives), only that the text doesn't require them.

FD, could you address this?  You want us to hold your feet to the fire, so...

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Just to be clear, you are asserting that lack of evidence IS evidence?

No.  That is what you are doing, remember?  @OGHoosier previously compiled your statements:

Quote

Quote

But I am quite aware of the augments they make and I am also quite aware that they are isolated conclusions with little support outside of the small Mormon bubble, Dr. Coe not withstanding.

 

Quote

You're suggesting that there to wide spread support of Sorenson's assertions? Pray do share.  I am obviously unaware of this wide spread support and acceptance , outside of Mormonism, of his theories.

 

Quote

As I stated earlier I am very aware of the arguments made by Sorenson, what I don't see is the scientific community clamoring over themselves to line up in support of his assertions.  In fact just the opposite.  Where his claims compelling, the scientific community would be massing in his support but instead he remains a lone wolf in the wilderness.

 

This seems to be a combination of the Argumentum ab Auctoritate ("Argument from Authority") fallacy, the Argumentum ad Populorum fallacy, the No True Scotsman fallacy, the Special Pleading fallacy ("Dr. Coe notwithstanding..."), and probably a few more.

The "it's not evidence until some nebulous group of 'experts' agrees on it" line of reasoning really does not work well in this context.  Scholars agree and disagree about all sorts of things.  And scholarship can be affected by controversy (such as scholars avoiding certain topics).  And sometimes scholars, despite their expertise in a given field, just don't know much about the particulars of the Book of Mormon (as evidenced by John Sorenson's taking Michael Coe to the proverbial woodshed a few years back).

Meanwhile, you have not presented any substantive response to or evaluation of the scholarship that has been presented to you.  Just conclusory stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

On 9/23/2021 at 10:32 AM, Fair Dinkum said:

The evidence seems overwhelming that Pacific Islanders are not descendants of Lehi, in direct conflict with LDS tradition. 

Meh. This isn't a tradition I was raised with. My understanding is that the Church's official position is that there has been no revelation stating this is actually the case.

Nor is there any scriptural evidence which would tell us exactly where these people originated. In fact, the people closest to the events recorded in scripture believed that everyone who left with Hagoth...went down with the ship (Alma 63:8).

Absent revelation or scriptural support, all we've got to go on are theories and speculation. Heber J. Grant thought they ended up in Japan. Others have favored Hawaii or the Polynesian Islands.

Of all the prophets who have opined on the subject, I'm inclined to think Mormon's guess was probably the most accurate, grim though it may be.

 

Quote

The church seems to have supplanted the actual culture of the Pacific Islanders with one found in the Book of Mormon of which this island population had no connection to.

Meh. Again.

If you want to see cultural appropriation, pull up your Disney+ subscription tonight and watch Zombies (the teenage musical).

As for "supplant[ing] the actual culture of Pacific Islanders," what exactly are you talking about here? Like, are guys from Samoa now swapping out their tribal tattoos for feathered head-dresses and doing rain dances or something?

Also, I think you have to distinguish between 'supplantation' and 'adoption.'

I've known plenty of Native Americans and Polynesians over the years, and I've talked to many who have read the Book of Mormon and see themselves, their culture, their traditions, etc. in there. In other words, it's them doing the adoption - not the Church.

 

 

[why me]

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I've never made that claim that this alone disproves the Book of Mormon, it merely casts a shadow.

But does it? What shadow does it cast on the book of mormon? I see no shadow. Now how people were classified by church leaders may show a fault. But this would have nothing to do with the book of mormon and its truth claims.