Thanksgiving, Indians, and the recent change to the Book of Mormon

[_beastie]

Almost unanimous? Why not unanimous? Does that strike you a little odd? So there are geologists out there who think it works? Hmmmmm.

You don't have to hire a man with a stick. I never hired one either. His services came free because he was my dad. But he never charged anyone else either.

You have been a mass of contradictions on this thread. You protested that I used theories called pseudoscience to demonstrate that disputed theories do NOT "usually win out". You compared my bringing up those "crackpot" theories to bringing up the flying spaghetti monster.

In the next breath, you defend dowsing, insist we are mistaken if we think it has been DISPROVEN, etc.

It would help those of us of lesser intelligence than you if you would at least figure out what in the heck your stance is and stick with it. You know, we minions of satan have difficulty with words longer than one syllable as it is, so your jumping and shifting confuses us even more.

[_beastie]

Maybe this will count as a “church teaching.

From “background information” on the church’s website, regarding the Book of Mormon:

http://www.LDS.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=
64da8bd9eeb9f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD

Latter-day Saints also consider the Book of Mormon to be a record of great ancient-American civilizations.
According to the record, one of these civilizations stemmed from a man named Lehi who left Jerusalem with his family around 600 B.C. They traveled to the sea, built a boat and continued over sea to the Americas.

Following the party’s arrival in the New World, growing disharmony caused family groups to fragment into clans that evolved eventually into two opposing nations. Conflicts ensued during the recorded 1,000 years, leading to the eventual demise of one of these nations.

Within the context of this story is a series of prophecies and testimonies about Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world, including, strikingly, a visit by the risen, resurrected Jesus to the people in the New World.

The Book of Mormon records that during Christ's ministry to the people of ancient America, He established His church, as in the Old World.

According to the record, the people lived in unity and prosperity for nearly 200 years following Christ's visit.
Then, over time, many people began to abandon Christ's teachings. Wickedness prevailed among them, and a war of extermination resulted in the destruction of an entire nation.

I bolded the phrases incompatible with LGT.

A talk by Mark E. Peterson, “The Last Words of Moroni”, Ensign, Nov 1978

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... RD&locale=
0&sourceId=15d2d0640b96b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Moroni’s father was commander of the armies of this ancient people, known as Nephites. His name was Mormon. The war of which we speak took place here in America some four hundred years after Christ. (See Morm. 6.)
As the fighting neared its end, Mormon gathered the remnant of his forces about a hill which they called Cumorah, located in what is now the western part of the state of New York.

Their enemies, known as Lamanites, came against them on this hill. Of that dreadful event Mormon wrote:

“My people, with their wives and their children, did now behold the armies of the Lamanites marching towards them; and with that awful fear of death which fills the breasts of all the wicked, did they await to receive them.

“… Every soul was filled with terror because of the greatness of their numbers.

“And it came to pass that they did fall upon my people with the sword, and with the bow, and with the arrow, and with the ax, and with all manner of weapons of war.

“And it came to pass that my men were hewn down, yea, even my ten thousand who were with me, and I fell wounded in the midst.” (Morm. 6:7–10.)

Then he spoke of other leaders serving with him in the Nephite army, all of whom had fallen with the forces under their command. He accounted for about a quarter of a million Nephite soldiers killed in that final encounter at Cumorah.

Marion G. Romney, “America’s Destiny”, Ensign, Nov 1975

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... RD&locale=
0&sourceId=314761cb2b86b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

In the western part of the state of New York near Palmyra is a prominent hill known as the “hill Cumorah.” (Morm. 6:6.) On July twenty-fifth of this year, as I stood on the crest of that hill admiring with awe the breathtaking panorama which stretched out before me on every hand, my mind reverted to the events which occurred in that vicinity some twenty-five centuries ago—events which brought to an end the great Jaredite nation.

You who are acquainted with the Book of Mormon will recall that during the final campaign of the fratricidal war between the armies led by Shiz and those led by Coriantumr “nearly two millions” of Coriantumr’s people had been slain by the sword; “two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.” (Ether 15:2.)

As the conflict intensified, all the people who had not been slain—men “with their wives and their children” (Ether 15:15)—gathered about that hill Cumorah (see Ether 15:11).

[_The Dude]

If someone says "Most accepted scientific theories started out as disputed scientific theories" I would agree. New ideas almost always have a rocky start. Charity gave a few examples of this.

If someone says "Most disputed scientific theories become accepted scientific theories" I would not agree. Most new ideas do not survive. Most are discarded.

As usual, Charity thinks the former case best applies to Book of Mormon studies, when actually it is the latter that best applies.

Disputed theories eventually usually win out. Think about the geocentrists vs heliocentrists. Or how about the guys who believed for a lot of years that the dinosaurs gradually declined and went extinct, when we all know now that it was over a period of just a few years. The old hidebound theories give away when new discovered show them to be wrong. This is obviously the case here.

A perfect example: the "old hideout" theory that Native American origins have something to do with the lost tribes of Israel has been shown to be wrong. Joseph Smith made a major boo-boo when he based a novel on that premise and then tried to convince the world it came from ancient scripture. Ooops!

[_charity]

What actually constitutes, in your mind, teachings "in the Church?"

It would actually be "teachings in the Church." Church manuals and publications, CES materials. The Conference Issues of the Ensign. The Prophet and the Quorum of the Twelve speaking in their official capacities of teaching and counseling the members.

That's it. There are a number of places where people get information. Local firesides and seminars. For instance, the FAIR conferences, while attracting top level scholars as presenters, and pretty smart people as attenders, we still don't demand infallibility from them. And people who quote these individuals as sources of doctrine are mistaken in their confidence.

It appears to me that you have plausible deniability for virtually everything that can or has ever been taught within the confines of LDSism, because even if the person considered to be "prophet" says it, it can be denied. Isn't that so?

If it's a past prophet, it's superceded by a present prophet. If it's a lesser GA, it's superceded by a higher up. If it's a CES employee, it's superceded by a GA. If it's God himself, he might have changed his mind.

Your cynicism does not serve you well. The one thing we can't deny is the witness of the Holy Ghost. We do not deny the Prophet's words when he is speaking as a prophet. And no prophet has ever denied what another prophet has said in those circumstances.

And God does not change His mind. He gives different commands for His children according to their needs. That's why a closed canon makes no sense.

I think the point you're continuing to dodge, Charity, is that whatever the church would have done, you'd have found a way to defend. If they'd said the Lamanites never even existed, you'd have claimed that it was simply misinformed members who were doing their own supposing who'd envisioned otherwise.

I firmly believe in the phenomenon of the misinformed. I see it displayed here multiple times in a day. The comment has been made in other forums that one of the problems with the critics is their rigid attitudes. They get an idea in mind and then they are stuck with it. That seems to be your problem.

Even more disturbing, you're like too many other church members who find being creative with the truth an okay thing. That you aren't even aware of it, apparently, or sensitive to it is all the more disturbing.

This is the time you have to put up or shut up. Start another thread and post anything you think falls into the category of "being creative with the truth." Such a bald assertion demands that you back it up. Thanks.

[_charity]

If someone says "Most accepted scientific theories started out as disputed scientific theories" I would agree. New ideas almost always have a rocky start. Charity gave a few examples of this.

If someone says "Most disputed scientific theories become accepted scientific theories" I would not agree. Most new ideas do not survive. Most are discarded.

As usual, Charity thinks the former case best applies to Book of Mormon studies, when actually it is the latter that best applies.

Disputed theories eventually usually win out. Think about the geocentrists vs heliocentrists. Or how about the guys who believed for a lot of years that the dinosaurs gradually declined and went extinct, when we all know now that it was over a period of just a few years. The old hidebound theories give away when new discovered show them to be wrong. This is obviously the case here.

A perfect example: the "old hideout" theory that Native American origins have something to do with the lost tribes of Israel has been shown to be wrong. Joseph Smith made a major boo-boo when he based a novel on that premise and then tried to convince the world it came from ancient scripture. Ooops!

The dude correctly undestood what I was saying. I was going by legitimate theories. Not the crackpot bunch that beastie pulled up.

Too bad you couldn't have left it at that. :)

But I think at your age, you will probably be around when the presence of an Israelith colony is confirmed. I may not live to see it, but then I will have all the details when I get to the other side.

[_The Dude]

The dude correctly undestood what I was saying. I was going by legitimate theories. Not the crackpot bunch that beastie pulled up.

I think the others understood what you were saying. You are utterly delusional, Charity, to think that your crackpot theories are going to become legitimate someday. They've already been debunked. Do you realize that most new ideas don't become legitimate? Yet they retain a few stubborn clingers who literally must die off before the debunked idea can rest in peace? You, Charity, are a stubborn clinger.

But I think at your age, you will probably be around when the presence of an Israelith colony is confirmed. I may not live to see it, but then I will have all the details when I get to the other side.

I repeat: "stubborn clinger, who must literally die off before the debunked idea can rest in peace".

by the way, according to LGT there's no reason to think an Israelitish colony will ever be confirmed. Where do you get such confidence? Does it come from the prophet pipe mentioned in the other thread?

[_charity]

I repeat: "stubborn clinger, who must literally die off before the debunked idea can rest in peace".

You and some others here are going to make it really hard for me to be magnanimous on the other side. I don't know if I will be able to suppress the "I told you so" that will be so obvious. Have your laugh now, the dude.

[_The Dude]

I repeat: "stubborn clinger, who must literally die off before the debunked idea can rest in peace".

You and some others here are going to make it really hard for me to be magnanimous on the other side. I don't know if I will be able to suppress the "I told you so" that will be so obvious. Have your laugh now, the dude.

There's no sense repeating it a third time.

To me, magnanimous at this moment means being able to agree on what is intellectually compelling and what is not. You are way beyond that. It seems that you think you are going to have a big fat "I-told-you-so-laugh" that is going to, maybe, turn the tables and give you a final day in the sun. I have a hard time comprehending your faith in future proofs.

I seem to recall you agreeing with the notion that the Book of Mormon is supposed to be perfectly balanced between evidence for and against. Is it now? Do you think this case will change?

[_charity]

I seem to recall you agreeing with the notion that the Book of Mormon is supposed to be perfectly balanced between evidence for and against. Is it now? Do you think this case will change?

I don't know what I said to give you that impression. There is no evidence against the Book of Mormon. It is pretty hard to prove a negative. You would have to dig up every square inch of the North and South American continents in order to say positively there were no Jaredites/Lehites/Mulekites. I don't see that happening.

And yes, I think the current state will change, because as more and more of meso-America is explored, the existence of the J/L/M population will be discovered.

[_beastie]

The dude correctly undestood what I was saying. I was going by legitimate theories. Not the crackpot bunch that beastie pulled up.

Too bad you couldn't have left it at that. :)

Charity,

You aren't as complicated as you seem to imagine, nor are we as stupid as you seem to imagine. Of course we understood you think the Book of Mormon is a "legitimate theory". All my questioning was designed to help you see the erroneous nature of your statement that "most disputed theories usually win out". That is simply, flat-out wrong, but crackpots often use the fact that new theories that turn out to be legit were disputed at their introduction as a refuge to explain the massive opposition to their crackpot theory.

But I realize you will never, never, admit to me that you either misspoke or were incorrect in your statement that "most disputed theories usually win out".

I don't know what I said to give you that impression. There is no evidence against the Book of Mormon. It is pretty hard to prove a negative. You would have to dig up every square inch of the North and South American continents in order to say positively there were no Jaredites/Lehites/Mulekites. I don't see that happening.

And yes, I think the current state will change, because as more and more of meso-America is explored, the existence of the J/L/M population will be discovered.

You don't even understand Book of Mormon apologetics. How will the "existence" of the J/L/M population be discovered when the entire current branch of apologia rests on the fact that one cannot ever recognize their existence in the first place, because they blended in so completely with the native population? In other words, how would you recognize a "Nephite pot"? Clark says we've already found them, we just call them "Maya" and "Olmec".

In fact, you participated in a very long debate about this very point, in which you argued vociferously that it would not be possible to recognize the Lehites. I provided information demonstrating how archaeologists do, indeed, recognize immigrant populations. You insisted I was too stupid to understand what I was reading. Now, it appears you agree with me after all - you WOULD be able to recognize the Lehite population!!!! Sadly, that puts you outside LDS apologia, and is yet one more example of how you contradict yourself.

It isn't necessary to dig up every square inch. In fact, apologists build their case upon the fact that one can determine the relative geographic size of the Book of Mormon population by the clues given therein. Using Sorenon's analysis, the Book of Mormon story encompassed a region about as big as the later Aztec polity. While this certainly isn't the hemispheric model once imagined, it is a quite significant spread across Mesoamerica. It's not like the Lehite cities would be a teeny, tiny, speck hidden on a hill somewhere, which is what you insinuate with "every square inch".


I think that your main problem is that you don't really have a coherent theory about any of this, you are just reacting on an ad-hoc basis in each conversation.