How Do Apoolgists Address This One?

[_Aristotle Smith]

Thanks for all of the suggestions on how apologists would deal with this.

Has anyone seen an apologist actually deal with this? I know there are several of you who have good memories and have participated on these boards for a long time. Can anyone provide a link to how this has been handled in the past?

Thanks in advance.

[_Kevin Graham]

I doubt most apologists are even aware of it. An internet search brought up only a few links to the citation, none of which were apologetic.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I doubt most apologists are even aware of it. An internet search brought up only a few links to the citation, none of which were apologetic.

Thanks for the search. I did a quick search as well and didn't find much either. It's pretty hard to find the document itself, I don't even remember where I first heard about it.

[_bcspace]

He has revealed the origin and the records of the aboriginal tribes of America, and their future destiny.-And we know it.

That quote doesn't seem to offer much wiggle room. They are obviously referring to the Book of Mormon. They are also claiming that it reveals the origin of the aboriginal tribes of America. They also seem pretty sure about this, they are not content to just proclaim it, they also emphasize that they know it.

Why should there be a problem with it? Relative to someone living in the nineteenth century A.D., the Book of Mormon peoples would certainly have been considered aboriginal.

[_zzyzx]

All the lamanites populated the land but got mad at racial stife, got on their horses and rode away. That is why we can't find Lamanites today or horses from that time. spaceKadet can confirm this I am sure.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Why should there be a problem with it? Relative to someone living in the nineteenth century A.D., the Book of Mormon peoples would certainly have been considered aboriginal.

Thanks, I forgot that one can always redefine terms when necessary. Though I confess I don't see how that helps at all in this case.

[_bcspace]

Why should there be a problem with it? Relative to someone living in the nineteenth century A.D., the Book of Mormon peoples would certainly have been considered aboriginal.

Thanks, I forgot that one can always redefine terms when necessary. Though I confess I don't see how that helps at all in this case.

It's not a case of redefining anything at all. It's a case of Fortigurn's Lazy Research on your part:

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:

aboriginal: being the first or earliest known of its kind present in a region

I simply used existing and extant definitions to drop your chestnut to the ground.

[_Aristotle Smith]

It's not a case of redefining anything at all. It's a case of Fortigurn's Lazy Research on your part:

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:

aboriginal: being the first or earliest known of its kind present in a region

I simply used existing and extant definitions to drop your chestnut to the ground.

And yet it still doesn't help your case. Because by your definition the 12 apostles of that time period would be referring to the Native Americans of North America. So something from the ancient near east (language, culture, writing, metallurgy, DNA etc.) should be present among that group of people. But there's nothing. In fact, your new definition makes the case worse because it would mean that we would now know where to look for this stuff, whereas now FARMS and co. can just treat finding this stuff like some ill defined wild goose chase. No DNA here? Look over there. Oh, it's not there? Well try this other place. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.

[_bcspace]

Because by your definition the 12 apostles of that time period would be referring to the Native Americans of North America.

Quite likely. So?

So something from the ancient near east (language, culture, writing, metallurgy, DNA etc.) should be present among that group of people.

Except that you're forgetting the definition of "aboriginal" again which simply means that we ned not find anything at all in North America by your own logic.

No DNA here? Look over there.

There is no science that shows we must see it in the DNA.

[_Danna]

It's not a case of redefining anything at all. It's a case of Fortigurn's Lazy Research on your part:

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary:

aboriginal: being the first or earliest known of its kind present in a region

I simply used existing and extant definitions to drop your chestnut to the ground.

So you are claiming that the term aboriginal refers only to the BoMor peoples and not to the native Americans around in the 1800s. However, remember the new apologetic is that when the BoMor arrived in America it was already occupied.

He has revealed the origin and the records of the aboriginal tribes of America, and their future destiny.-And we know it.

You can't have it both ways. If the Lamanites were not the Native Americans, they still were not the aboriginals. And you can't wiggle the Jaredites into the picture as the statement clearly is talking of the Lamanites. The Jaredites were extinct, they had no future destiny. It was the Lamanites who were to 'blossom as a rose'