Something all Mormon believers on this board need to answer

[_cognitiveharmony]

*If* the Lehite colony merged with and were swallowed up by an indigenous population, the numerically superior native populations DNA markers would predominant. Vast understatement.

This apologetic approach has never made much sense to me. You want to claim that their genetic presence was completely swallowed up by a numerically superior indigenous population while simultaneously claiming that this numerically superior population surrendered their own longstanding religions and customs to adopt the religion and customs of this small group of Lehites and make them their leaders? It makes no sense at all.

[_moinmoin]

Don't blame the critic for the Book of Mormon bringing up things like horses and steel. These are things that are missing in the Americas during Book of Mormon times, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they don't support the Book of Mormon being historical.

I don't blame the critic, and I'm not surprised. Were I a critic of the Book of Mormon, they are the problems I would emphasize, too.

The problem is not differentiating between a Lehite artifact and a non-Lehite one. The problem is finding artifacts the Book of Mormon says existed and were being used. Items that would be hugely useful and less likely to die out or all the evidence they existed.

Well, the everyday-life items that are the most common are consistent with the Book of Mormon. So are cities, cement, fortifications, etc. Critics are unimpressed, though, because everyday life items don't have a "Made in Ammonihah" label on them. When Mormons ask how one would distinguish between a Lehite artifact and an artifact from the larger culture, critics say, "It's your job to prove they come from Book of Mormon peoples!"

Which items do you have in mind that "would be hugely useful and less likely to die out?" I get metal swords. What else?

Every area has micro environments, and humans are good at creating some of them where we would see artifacts existing long after. Things like steel or iron artifacts would be so popular that trade in them would result in some of them ending up many thousands of miles from where they originated, and past down from one generation to another.

The debate seems to center around iron-based items, like steel. I'm still unconvinced that we can reasonably expect to find them, even if they existed. I have a picture in my slides for the fireside we did of "a meter long steel sword from the time of King Josiah (circa 620 BC) was recovered from a site near Jericho by archaeologists in 1986. Though badly damaged, the sword's bronze haft and pieces of the wooden grip and even the sword's blade tip survive intact, making it the only complete sword of its size and type from this period yet discovered in Israel." It doesn't appear to me that these items are very common even in the Old World, yet we know they existed (primarily from records).

The old world has more types of environments then the new world, and I haven't seen any real movement on finding the items listed in the Book of Mormon that are problematic.

Given the evidence from the Book of Mormon proving Joseph was making things up, you will see the continued movement against the Book of Mormon and Joseph's claims.

We'll have to "agree to disagree" on that. Time will tell.

[_moinmoin]

LDS Inc is proud to have you as a member, and more importantly, raising up future tithe payers..

I try to do my part . . .

[_moinmoin]

I would interpret what he is saying is that the person making the claim is responsible for providing the evidence to support that claim. That is a reasonable requirement for belief.

Completely agree.

This raises the question of what evidence people expect believers to reasonably be able to provide. The Book of Mormon is published and people are invited to read it, ponder it, and pray about it. Since the beginning, believers have attempted to provide people with the best links to physical evidence that they can. Not surprisingly, some people are underwhelmed by this evidence (they don't find it convincing). But it seems like the argument is that if the Mormons' evidence isn't universally compelling to everyone, then they somehow are not "providing evidence to support that claim."

100%? I don't see anyone here saying 100%. Proof is not 100%. I don't know if anything has been proven 100% on anything in this world. Proof has a much less stringent requirement.

I agree (see above). But in this thread, we have comments like:

"We're talking about objective truth claims Mormonism makes that are false, have been proven false, and [are] completely irrational and arbitrary."

or

"There are literally thousands of studies, academic papers, and expeditions conducted by thousands of archaeologists, historians, explorers, geneticists, and everything in between which have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt none of the civilizations and peoples described in the Book of Mormon existed."

I tend to agree that if a person is making a claim they should be willing to back it up. I believe I have provided some for my claims.

I believe you have, too. I have no complaints about you not being willing to back up claims. I'm bemused by claims that I'm not. I'm perfectly willing to, but the fact that people are unimpressed or underwhelmed by it (in some cases, just as pre-emptively as they think my reaction is), that isn't because I refuse to offer proof. They just don't like the proof that I offer.

All I can do is do my best.

[_moinmoin]

Interesting. So do you believe there were humans walking the earth before Adam and Eve?

I don't, personally. But I have no problem with people who do. As you know, there are a wide variety of views within Mormonism on this, and there is no creedal imperative as to what one must believe. Most Mormons with a science background accept the existence of pre-Adamites.

Do you believe Adam had human parents?

I believe what Brigham Young taught (that Adam and Eve were brought here from somewhere else). I believe that they were born the same way we all were, so yes, that would make their parents "human."

[_Lemmie]

You can't be serious. YOU are arguing that the Book of Mormon is historical truth, YOU, not the people who disagree with you, have the burden of proof.

Aren't you insisting on an impossible burden of proof?

Why yes. Yes I am.

Not to be flippant, though, arguing that it is too hard to get to 100% is not a valid reason to assume ZERO percent proof is therefore acceptable.

But it seems like the argument is that if the Mormons' evidence isn't universally compelling to everyone, then they somehow are not "providing evidence to support that claim."

Well, yes again. The definition of "evidence" IS that it's universally compelling.

[_I have a question]

Interesting. So do you believe there were humans walking the earth before Adam and Eve?

I don't, personally. But I have no problem with people who do. As you know, there are a wide variety of views within Mormonism on this, and there is no creedal imperative as to what one must believe. Most Mormons with a science background accept the existence of pre-Adamites.

Do you believe Adam had human parents?

I believe what Brigham Young taught (that Adam and Eve were brought here from somewhere else). I believe that they were born the same way we all were, so yes, that would make their parents "human."

You don't believe there were humans walking the earth prior to 4,000 BCE?
Do you believe in a global flood at around 2,300 BCE?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I appreciate what Moinmoin is doing and his willingness to discuss his faith. It's refreshing, and at least he's honest about his unique view of Mormonism. While I think he doesn't offer any compelling evidence to back up his assertions, and when he does it's demonstrated pretty quickly that it's faulty, he does a good job of showing us that Mormonism is more or less a structure through which people can frame their own narrative that doesn't exactly fall in line with, well, anything except 'the Church is truthy enough for me'.

The only thing that rubs me the wrong way is his statements that he's open to the truth, and when he's presented pretty solid factual links, quotes, statements, and whatnot he just goes in God-of-the-gaps mode to maintain his Mormon-ish take on things.

- Doc

[_spotlight]

When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season after I had retired to bed I had not been asleep, … all at once the room was illuminated above the brightness of the sun an angel appeared before me … he said unto me I am a messenger sent from God, be faithful and keep his commandments in all things, he told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham (The Papers of Joseph Smith, Vol. 2, Journal, 1832-1842, edited by Dean C. Jessee, Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, copyright 1992 Corporation of the President, pp. 69-70, emphasis added).

Moroni was not speaking as a prophet.

Thus saith the Lord to the Twelve, and to the Priesthood and people of my Church: … proceed forthwith and call to your aid any assistance that you may require from among the Seventies to assist you in your labors in introducing and maintaining the gospel among the Lamanites throughout the land (Revelation to John Taylor, 13 October 1882, section 83:1,6, in Unpublished Revelations, compiled by Fred Colier, 1979, p. 138).

Not speaking as a prophet either.

Conclusion: There are no prophets.

http://mit.irr.org/lamanites-no-more-dn ... ather-lehi

[_moinmoin]

This apologetic approach has never made much sense to me. You want to claim that their genetic presence was completely swallowed up by a numerically superior indigenous population while simultaneously claiming that this numerically superior population surrendered their own longstanding religions and customs to adopt the religion and customs of this small group of Lehites and make them their leaders? It makes no sense at all.

The Book of Mormon is a lineage record. The limited geography model has it occurring in a relatively small area north and south of the Isthmus of Tehuantapec. Within this area, the Lehite descendant element (which didn't remain distinct and isolated as a people, but merged with and partook of indigenous culture) at times had disproportionate power and influence, but this waxed and waned during the ~ 1000 years of the Book of Mormon (Jaredites excepted; that was previous, and they underwent a large-scale genocide/population reduction with remnants merging with indigenous people). I think, four times Mormon emphasizes that he can't even give a hundredth part of the proceedings and history of the people. It was written from the perspective and for the descendants of that lineage. A record written from the perspective of predominantly indigenous elements would be vastly different.

The cycle of apostasy/prophets/retrenching indicates a tension between "Book of Mormon religion" and native religion. Like modern Mormonism, this appeared to not be the dominant religion, but rather a minority religion. The "big missionary work era" appears to be in Helaman where numbers like 8000 baptisms are mentioned. To the extent that the Lehites partook of native "pagan" religion, they were in apostasy and needed to be exhorted to return by prophets.

It appears that self-designated "Lamanites" trended much more towards the indigenous people's religion and culture.

There are Mormon military and political leaders in the world today, even though Mormons are a numerical minority (like, 1-3% of the population in the U.S, right?). Mormons largely adopt and reflect the larger culture they find themselves in, despite having some unique things that set them apart. I think that this is a direct analogue for Lehites within the larger indigenous culture.