The Nahom Follies

[_mentalgymnast]

The issue I see is finding, mining, and then refining the ore, that is a job and process.

Granted.

The way the Book of Mormon describes the folks they were metal masters, due to Nephi teaching them...

I think that we can agree that Nephi would have already needed to have had experience in metallurgy.

My take away so far from this thread is that we are not looking at impossibilities here. We are looking at real possibilities. I've actually come to have a greater confidence in the Book of Mormon text giving us the basics as to how the Lehite journey could have actually happened/transpired within the realm of possibility. Although, with the caveat, God would have been watching out for them and guiding them along the way with the Liahona, etc.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

I don't see why that [a 19th century story]is the only possible and reasonable way to go.

And here lies the reason we probably will never agree.

I am not sure if you saw or read the Life of Pi but it "concludes in a Mexican hospital bed – where he is interviewed by a pair of Japanese Ministry of Transport officials. The agents tell Pi that his story – which includes multiple animal companions and a carnivorous island – is too unbelievable for them to report, so Pi tells them a different version of the story: one that paints a much darker and emotionally disturbing variation of events. After both stories have been shared, Pi leaves it up to the viewer (or reader) to decide which version they “prefer.”"

I am pretty sure in your life, the version where God steps in anytime the story you prefer doesn't make sense, is preferable, and I am okay with that because I am surrounded with friends and family who are comfortable not even trying to make sense of what they believe, it just works for them. It's when people expect that others should accept that a story that makes extraordinary claims is just as reasonable as one that does not, that I have problem.

You know the version of the story that Pi told about the animals and carnivorous island could be just as probable were the story teller available to sit around and make up "possibilities" on the spot when plot holes were pointed out. Given enough time I am sure enterprising fans could create extensive literature explaining why the 'preferable" version was possible.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Arguing with someone who hasn't bothered to research the basics of building a ship like the one that could support the Lehi troupe is pointless. They're ignorant of the tools, infrastructure, mechanics, processes, and manpower required to pull off such a feat within the timeframe the Book of Mormon allows.

I get the feeing Mo's think it's akin to making a canoe.

- Doc

[_mentalgymnast]

Arguing with someone who hasn't bothered to research the basics of building a ship like the one that could support the Lehi troupe is pointless. They're ignorant of the tools, infrastructure, mechanics, processes, and manpower required to pull off such a feat within the timeframe the Book of Mormon allows.

I get the feeing Mo's think it's akin to making a canoe.

- Doc

C'mon. It's easy peasy.

http://oneclimbs.com/2011/05/30/constru ... phis-ship/



Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Arguing with someone who hasn't bothered to research the basics of building a ship like the one that could support the Lehi troupe is pointless. They're ignorant of the tools, infrastructure, mechanics, processes, and manpower required to pull off such a feat within the timeframe the Book of Mormon allows.

I get the feeing Mo's think it's akin to making a canoe.

- Doc

Here are some ideas to consider:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7053 ... tml?pg=all

http://www.bmaf.org/articles/another_id ... ship__carr

http://www.nephicode.blogspot.com/2014/ ... art-i.html

http://www.nephicode.blogspot.com/2014/ ... rt-ii.html

Differing views. But there has been a lot of research in this area.

No canoe. A fancy dancy raft? Possibly.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I am not sure if you saw or read the Life of Pi...

Read the book and saw the movie. One of the most enjoyable books I've read.

...but it "concludes in a Mexican hospital bed – where he is interviewed by a pair of Japanese Ministry of Transport officials. The agents tell Pi that his story – which includes multiple animal companions and a carnivorous island – is too unbelievable for them to report, so Pi tells them a different version of the story: one that paints a much darker and emotionally disturbing variation of events. After both stories have been shared, Pi leaves it up to the viewer (or reader) to decide which version they “prefer.”"

I am pretty sure in your life, the version where God steps in anytime the story you prefer doesn't make sense, is preferable, and I am okay with that because I am surrounded with friends and family who are comfortable not even trying to make sense of what they believe, it just works for them. It's when people expect that others should accept that a story that makes extraordinary claims is just as reasonable as one that does not, that I have problem.

You know the version of the story that Pi told about the animals and carnivorous island could be just as probable were the story teller available to sit around and make up "possibilities" on the spot when plot holes were pointed out. Given enough time I am sure enterprising fans could create extensive literature explaining why the 'preferable" version was possible.

Here's the thing, Fence Sitter. What is it about the Lehi and Co. expedition/journey doesn't make sense? The possibility that God would relocated a group from the Old World to the New World isn't that far fetched...is it? Put God into the equation, just for kicks. Jerusalem is going to heck in a handbasket. God reaches in to take a group of people, and some records for them to have as a resource, and then sets them in a different part of His vineyard to see how things go...with hopes that they might create a Zion like society. Well, there were ups and downs on that score. But isn't that the track record almost no matter where you look? But God gave them a chance, and for many it turned out to be a good thing. Maybe better than if they'd hung around in the land of Jerusalem.

Within the realm of 'God belief', doesn't that make sense? I realize that if you pull God out of the picture then this is all just a bunch of hooey. I would look at it that way too...if I didn't keep my options open in 'God belief'...and that now and then He directs the course of world history/religious history.

Don't ask me to tell you how to know when He is and when He isn't doing his thing in this regard though. I don't know the answer to that...and I don't think anyone does.

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

MG, what are your thoughts on why Hamblin et Al are unable to produce one piece of credible evidence in support of the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

[_mentalgymnast]

MG, what are your thoughts on why Hamblin et Al are unable to produce one piece of credible evidence in support of the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

I think both Jenkins and Hamblin are 'right'. Jenkins is operating on the assumption that something...anything with the stamp of 'Nephite' and/or 'Lamanite' ...ought to be found in the dirt. He's right in the sense that 'shards' from the Nephite civilization should show up...and maybe they have. Hamblin is right, in my opinion, that it would be difficult to tell what a Nephite/Lamanite 'shard' looks like relative to an Olmec/Mayan shard would look like. It's not like the shard/pottery is going to have "Made in Zarahemla" stamped on it. That's the simple wrap up of what I see going on in the back and forth between these two guys. Obviously, there's more going on...but in my mind it basically reduces to that. So I'm not convinced that any 'shards' are going to be found that identify Nephite/Lamanite civilization. I am convinced, however, that there are reasons to continue to look within the covers of the Book of Mormon for 'truth' and for evidence of God's stamp on that book.

This current discussion, for me, acts as a reinforcement that there may be something more than meets the eye and first glance in regards to the narrative we read in 1 Nephi 16-17. I've enjoyed going through it again and looking at it in a bit more depth.

One other thing. Earlier in the thread I posted this:

Ruben:
Hello Professor Jenkins:

You write: “Can anyone cite any single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon? One sherd of pottery? One tool of bronze or iron? One carved stone? One piece of genetic data? And by credible, I mean drawn from a reputable scholarly study, an academic book or refereed journal, not some cranky piece of pseudo-science.”

Interesting question, worth investigating.

Addressing a related issue, but not really directly addressing your question, I would like to inquire: Can you assume, for the sake of a thought experiment, that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be? Namely a book brought forth by the power of God that is a record of a people that actually existed?

If you can assume that much, just for a moment, I would ask, what would you see to be the impact on humanity of the discovery of archaeological evidence that every non-Mormon archaeologist agrees establishes, without question, for example, the historical existence of a city having the name of Zarahemla in Meso-America, that fits descriptions in the Book of Mormon? Would such a discovery serve as a mandate that every single person in the world, not only believe in God, but believe in the Book of Mormon, and in Joseph Smith?

If your answer to that last question is no, why would you answer so?

philipjenkins :
Let me give you an honest answer.

If really credible evidence supporting the claims of Book of Mormon started showing up - in the form of, say, archaeological sites, inscriptions etc - I would have no obligation but to take the LDS very seriously indeed. If you assume a case (again as a thought experiment) where such claims became simply irrefutable, then I would approach that church as a very serious option. I can't speak for the whole world, just for myself.

The thought of joining the LDS church itself does not appall or terrify me, and I observe many people living very well and happily under its auspices, and leading excellent lives.

I have already said that if a member of my family joined the church, I would wish them well.

I might ask for an exemption about coffee…

But here is my problem. After many years of digging and seeking, nobody has ever made what I consider a vaguely plausible case for a single aspect of the Book of Mormon, or the claims of that church. That gives me terminal doubts about its claims.


Ruben:
Thanks for the response. I appreciate your fastidious responses to the many visitors on your blog.

Begging your indulgence again, in the thought experiment I proposed, if the archaeological claims for the existence of say, Zarahemla, were simply irrefutable, how could belief in the Book of Mormon be only "a very serious option"? What is the rationale for there being room for any doubt from anyone, anywhere?

philipjenkins:
In the scenario you offer, there would be no doubt.

Ruben:
Yes, I would agree with your take on that.

Again, thanks for your indulgence.

Continuing along that line of thought experiment (Book of Mormon is what it claims to be) -- Believing what you do about the nature of God, and God's ways and purposes and expectations with respect to the events and human experience on this earth, what would you think (I understand it is speculative) would be the will of God with respect to mankind's discovery of irrefutable archaeological evidence unquestionably establishing the existence of, for example, Zarahemla? Would you say that God would be neutral on that issue? Or, that such a discovery would actually be contrary to his will? Or, rather, that God would want such discoveries to be made? What would be the reason(s) for your choice?

philipjenkins:
My final word here: I believe that Reason and inquiry are divinely inspired, and we are here to discover the Creation.

Ruben:
Okay, thanks for that thought, I think it worthy of consideration. However, I don't see it as an answer to my questions. I assume that you don't contend that it is, and I take it that you are not interested in answering the questions. Correct me if I am wrong on those points.

philipjenkins :
I did answer. My answer means that I think God does not mean there to be insoluble mysteries out there.

Ruben:
While you did answer, I do not see your answer to be a response to the questions I posed. I also do not see a general principle stated that, if applied, could suggest an answer to the questions I posed.

As I understand your statement, to say that God does not mean for there to be insoluble mysteries, is to indicate your position about whether God desires for it to be impossible for mankind to come to knowledge of mysteries.

However, my questions, in the context of the thought experiment I introduced, addressed the complete opposite extreme of the spectrum: whether God would desire or care about a scenario where it would be, in essence, impossible, considering the irrefutable archaeological evidence available, for mankind NOT to come to a knowledge of, in this case, the existence of Zarahemla.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousben ... m-follies/

I think there may me some merit in what Ruben is saying. Of course, like others said, it might just be a dodge.

But then, what if?

Regards,
MG

[_I have a question]

Jenkins to Hamblin...

But let’s pursue this to its logical conclusion. What Dr. Hamblin is arguing is simply that no forms of objective proof or evidence should be demanded for the Book of Mormon’s view of the New World, because none exist. There is nothing open to examination discussion by historians or scholars, and almost certainly, that situation will never change. This is just not a matter for any kind of scholarly examination or discussion.
So why should you believe a word of it? And I stress that question. Without such solid objective evidence, why should I, or anyone, believe a view that is utterly at odds with the views of pretty much the entire academic profession dealing with New World history and archaeology, American history, Biblical studies, genetics, linguistics, and so on, not to mention all measures of plausibility? Why should anyone go so very far out on a limb? The answer is simple. Faith. He believes it on religious grounds of faith, from which all follows.
As I say, I come close to sharing his view entirely. I agree that no objective evidence exists for the Book of Mormon, not a word, and it never will. While he has not yet said it explicitly, his answer to my persistent requests for one single form of credible proof for any aspect of the Book of Mormon is that no, he will not and never will supply it, because none exists. I can hammer as hard as I like on that point, but he will not produce. While his refusal to answer my questions might seem like waffling and prevarication, he really believes that what he is arguing is outside the realm of provable objective fact. It is all a matter of individual faith, which is immune to proof or testing. And I wholeheartedly agree.

[_Themis]

Here's the thing, Fence Sitter. What is it about the Lehi and Co. expedition/journey doesn't make sense? The possibility that God would relocated a group from the Old World to the New World isn't that far fetched...is it?

To some extent it is. The few other stories are not even considered true but made up fiction like Israel in Egypt.

I think both Jenkins and Hamblin are 'right'. Jenkins is operating on the assumption that something...anything with the stamp of 'Nephite' and/or 'Lamanite' ...ought to be found in the dirt. He's right in the sense that 'shards' from the Nephite civilization should show up...and maybe they have. Hamblin is right, in my opinion, that it would be difficult to tell what a Nephite/Lamanite 'shard' looks like relative to an Olmec/Mayan shard would look like.

Then you need to study up a lot more. Pottery shards are one of the best pieces of evidence archaeologists look at. They are very particular for time periods and the groups that made them. Down in south america pottery shards were found that had similarities to ones in an area of Japan. This gave rise to the idea of some Japanese landing there about 6k years ago. This was later confirmed from DNA. The two groups from Israel and the jaradites group would need to make pottery when they arrived and it would be like the pottery from the area and culture they came from. You show extreme ignorance of this and many other areas like DNA, ship building, etc. All you want is to see some possibility no matter how unlikely and you go with it, while other members will go with the evidence. This is really just the absolute game. Nothing can be proven absolutely, which you use to maintain belief in any possibility that has the church as being true. You may be more flexible then the literalist, but you are still staying within the borders of the church has to be true, instead of just going with the facts. That's the difference between us. You are still a great guy though.