Because the Italian Geography Theory has greater explanatory power and requires far fewer ad hoc assumptions and self-serving changes to the plain meaning of the text of the Book of Mormon.
How so?
He has demonstrated that the parallels between the Book of Mormon and ancient Italy are FAR, FAR GREATER than any location in the Americas.
How so?
This theory, despite it's flaws, beats any of yours hands down.
This theory, despite it's flaws, beats any of yours hands down.
Read the thread. There is no location in the Americas that is a closer match. In fact, most of the anachronisms in the Book of Mormon melt away with an Italian setting. Embrace the future of mopologetics!
Pedro A. Olavarria wrote:The main jist of the interview consisted of Dehlin asking Coe questians about chariots, swords, flora and fauna and, what I understand them to mean when discussing Zarahemla, a virtual Crown Heights in the Mesoamerican heartland.
Coe is a grandmaster of mesoamerican archeology but I'm not sure he or Dehlin really have a grasp for the current state of Book of Mormon apologetics. For example, when Dehlin asks him about Lehi's trail and honey bees in Arabia, Coe respeonds by stating that the NW be and the OW bee are two different species that evolved independantly of one another. When Dehlin asks Coe about possible loan shifts in Nephite vocabulary that might explain equating something like a tapir with a horse, Coe describes how the Spanish brought actual bovine to the NW and together with the natives applied the Mayan word for tapir, tsimin, to the new animal but then insists that linguists know where and how the Mayan language developed etc. When talking about the Jaredites and the Olmec, all Coe says is that there is nothing in the Olmec that comes from the Middle East, it's all native american.
My problem with this is that NO ONE is claiming that NW bees came from the OW or that the Mayan word for tapir came from Hebrew. Similiarly, no one is claiming that the Olmec are the Jaredites but rather that the Jaredites are a dynasty who's founders originated in the OW and that they participated in Olmec culture. That's a very different thing. Coe reminds us that we'll never find chariots because they didn't exist, but doesn't seem to realize that most apologists agree with him on that point.
So I'm not sure either Coe or Dehlin are familiar with the arguments made by people like Clark, Gardner or Sorenson. Nothing written about the Book of Mormon by Gardner, Clark or Sorenson is mentioned or discussed BUT there's a whole lot of Ancient America Speaks and Izapa 5.
In other words, Coe isn't up with the latest apologetic fad of rejecting most of what the Book of Mormon actually says about Nephites, Jaredites and Lamanites and trying to invisibly insert them into pre-existing Native American populations.
I also note with interest that yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore. :D
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
I dunno. While Moroni did have all those decades after the last battle to work with, I don't see him carrying the plates from Italy to NY in that time. No report of a ship or walking on water either. The civilization of the Roman Empire or any of it's sub-cultures don't seem to be a good match. You might be able to come up with a good explaination for the disappearance of the Legio Nona Hispana though.
Shakespeare's Italian plays certainly got imported to the US, along with the rest of his works. Although I don't think bcspace would understand such a comment.
Huckelberry said: I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.
Shakespeare's Italian plays certainly got imported to the US, along with the rest of his works. Although I don't think bcspace would understand such a comment.
I think such a comment could show a complete lack of understanding on your part what a translation is. But we'll wait and see how it plays out.....
Buffalo wrote:yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore. :D
sig worthy
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
Bill Hamblin wrote: For those interested, I've put a couple of my slides showing Greek dexiosis (ritual right handclasp). The "Deification of Antiochus" is particularly interesting since it shows the celestial ascent of king Antiochus I of Commagene (in Turkey) being accepted as god by Hercules with the right handclasp. Link to dexiosis slides
I should note that newborn human infants have a few basic instinctive behaviors--crying, sucking, (pooping, of course), grasping and being comforted by the mother's embrace. The handclasp and embrace are thus fundamental and primordial human instincts and are universal among all peoples, and have many ritual and religious manifestations.
Yes, Bill, they do. The reason babies instinctively grasp, however, is not because they were engaging in celestial masonry in the pre-existence or whatever superstitious nonsense you were thinking of here. It's a vestigial reflex left over from our furry ape days.
The palmar grasp reflex is supported to be a vestigial behavior in human infants. When placing a finger or object to the palm of an infant, it will securely grasp it. This grasp is found to be rather strong.[39] Some infants—37% according to a 1932 study—are able to support their own weight from a rod,[40] although there is no way they can cling to their mother. The grasp is also evident in the feet too. When a baby is sitting down, its prehensile feet assume a curled-in posture, much like what is observed in an adult chimp.[41][42] An ancestral primate would have had sufficient body hair to which an infant could cling unlike modern humans, thus allowing its mother to escape from danger, such as climbing up a tree in the presence of a predator without having to occupy her hands holding her baby.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Storm Rider wrote:I agree. It is a never-ending, arrogant position that does not seem to stop. Somehow they feel entitled to dictate to us what we believe, what we emphasize in our teachings, while maintiaining a closed position of never hearing they are wrong. Strange set of circumstances LDS are forced to deal with. I suspect it may just be a common problem of the minority-majority positions, but it seems more than that; something visceral.
As a group I dislike EVs; they are the type of people that would be ready to hang Jesus on the cross again without any understanding of their actions. I am reminded of Ionescos' Rhinoceros. I think they run totally on emotion without rational thought and move in large groups mindlessly.
Apparently they're immune to irony over there.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
selek1 wrote:Considering that your starting point utterly dismisses the Temple as an anachronism of Jewish worship and the endowments as a man-made fabrication rather than a vital part of true Christian faith, I can't conceive of any method by which we might achieve an honest meeting of the minds.
Nor can I see any way (short of our utter capitulation and obeisance to your ideology) by which you would concede that we might actually be correct.
How on Earth could you possibly know that? You are an avowed opponent (if not avowed enemy) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You are not even remotely qualified or entitled to a Temple recommend nor to acces about what goes on therein.
So how could you possibly know with any accuracy what is actually discussed therein?
I find your generalization to be untenable, inaccurate, and to border on the deliberately offensive. It specifically contradicts my own experience, and those of other faithful members with whom I've spoken.
"We as members"? Who are you quoting here Bowman?
"My own experience", "Our system"?
Who's line are you parroting? And why should we give any credence to your rendition of thier words?
The operative word in the cut-and-paste diatribe is "in my opinion."
And when one considers the source....
Man, what a dick. Selek thought he was responding to Rob Bowman, the evangelical guy (who happens to be a very polite person), but it was Rob Osborn, a TBM. It just goes to show, internet mopologists tend to be rage addicted persecutors. It doesn't matter what the substance is of what you're saying, they're going to treat you like dirt if they think you're an "anti-Mormon." If a GA were to show up and bear his testimony, but do it under the moniker of S. Tanner, he'd be attacked and persecuted just like this poor guy was.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.