A common apologetic is to refer to the Lamanites and Nephites as just "political" entities in order to evade science. It turns out plenty of other stuff in the scriptures was also just "political" rather than real.
Remember that one about the earth being divided in the "days of peleg"?
Here is Rudolf Siebach from the FAIR blog:
I fondly recall Professors Morris Peterson, Ken Hamblin, Lehi Hintze and others chatting with us students around campfires during geology field trips. I recall them making the point that there were better interpretations than the highly creative interpretation that it was the continents which were divided during the days of Peleg. These professors were the ones that first introduced me to the plainer understanding that “divided” was more likely intended to communicate a political reality ... They reinforced the fact that there is little biblical and no physical evidence to go out on a geological limb to claim that Gen. 10:25 refers to a catastrophic episode of continental drift.
(Of a secondary curiosity, are "Morris" and "Ken" call names for the senior apologists we all know, or are they distinct individuals who also teach at BYU? I suppose a further curiosity would be, does there exist a Peterson and Hamblin duo of some sort in many BYU departments?)
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
I think this is just a sign of LDS biblical scholarship growing up. Convention biblical scholars have long interpreted the verse as a political division which makes more sense in context. This is one of those scriptures that Joseph just picked up a weird verse and began riffing in a way that doesn't make any sense from the long view. The problem with taking the conventional interpretation is that it is just another sign the Joseph made up long convoluted and improbable stories at least part of the time--and if part of the time why not all of the time?
This makes perfect MormonSense(Trademark Pending).
You see, revelation that the negro was both blessed and cursed with black skin justified and condemned past racism. This too works for the Book of Mormon as well in that you can just pull crap out f your ass and get the faithful to believe it.
Isn't Mormonism wonderful?
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Looks like FARMS will be very busy for some time to come. The workload stemming insider apostasy will become so great that they may no longer have time to answer critics.
Gadianton wrote:(Of a secondary curiosity, are "Morris" and "Ken" call names for the senior apologists we all know, or are they distinct individuals who also teach at BYU? I suppose a further curiosity would be, does there exist a Peterson and Hamblin duo of some sort in many BYU departments?)
Morris is Morris Petersen, author of the short Ensign article on fossils. No relation to DCP. I would guess that Ken is Bill Hamblin's father.
“A scholar said he could not read the Book of Mormon, so we shouldn’t be shocked that scholars say the papyri don’t translate and/or relate to the Book of Abraham. Doesn’t change anything. It’s ancient and historical.” ~ Hanna Seariac
I'm trying to picture how, exactly, Yahweh would have gone about dividing people into different political entities, and I'm not coming up with anything.
If people are separated geographically, political divisions come about naturally, as do language differences.
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton
There are really two ways to keep believing, even when your scriptures are shown to be scientifically untenable - either attack the science, or reinterpret the scriptures to remove the scientific impediment.
The Answers in Genesis people take the former approach, and LDS apologists like to take the latter approach. While I'm happy that LDS apologists do so inasmuch as it points out to their not being totally irrational in the same way the Christian fundies are, I think the reinterpretation to avoid scientific problems eviscerates the claims that this stuff is the word of a God who actually exists.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:There are really two ways to keep believing, even when your scriptures are shown to be scientifically untenable - either attack the science, or reinterpret the scriptures to remove the scientific impediment.
Actually there's at least one more way: stay out of the debate.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
There are really two ways to keep believing, even when your scriptures are shown to be scientifically untenable - either attack the science, or reinterpret the scriptures to remove the scientific impediment.
Actually there's at least one more way: stay out of the debate.
Since I haven't had to do any of those there is a fourth way...the criticisms are wrong.