Thinking clearly about archaeology and the Book of Mormon

[_selek]

Typical Peterson style:

- Remind everyone he's smarter than you
- Name drop
- Avoid answering the question or topic at hand

[_huckelberry]

Typical Peterson style:

- Remind everyone he's smarter than you
- Name drop
- Avoid answering the question or topic at hand

Back some years ago on a message board named Utah lighthouse Mr Peterson spent time daily posting all sorts of responses to critics messages. I was impressed by his willingness to do so so extensively. I was also impressed by his ability to craft a logical and clear response. he definitely has been one of the better stylists to fill these message threads with words. I remember however that after a while he pictured himself as addicted to the process, returning to the message board like a drunkard returning to the bar. He has made an concerted effort to break that addiction. I think that that decision makes enough sense that I respect it.

Now before people decide I am a fan of his I should add that though he was capable of making posts more interesting than many I was not converted to his point of view. I was not always charmed by him nor was he always charmed by the critics he responded to.He could then as well as later be abrasive. In fact I got a little tired of his tendency to dominate the discussion. Wierd how often he is able to do that now without even posting.

[_selek]

Typical Peterson style:

- Remind everyone he's smarter than you
- Name drop
- Avoid answering the question or topic at hand

Back some years ago on a message board named Utah lighthouse Mr Peterson spent time daily posting all sorts of responses to critics messages. I was impressed by his willingness to do so so extensively. I was also impressed by his ability to craft a logical and clear response. he definitely has been one of the better stylists to fill these message threads with words. I remember however that after a while he pictured himself as addicted to the process, returning to the message board like a drunkard returning to the bar. He has made an concerted effort to break that addiction. I think that that decision makes enough sense that I respect it.

Now before people decide I am a fan of his I should add that though he was capable of making posts more interesting than many I was not converted to his point of view. I was not always charmed by him nor was he always charmed by the critics he responded to.He could then as well as later be abrasive. In fact I got a little tired of his tendency to dominate the discussion. Weird how often he is able to do that now without even posting.

He is articulate, I'll give you that. I don't hate the guy - I've never met him. What I can't stand is his inability to answer the freaking question! Four pages of flowery prose that dance around the topic and fail to apply logical reason can get tiring.

[_robuchan]

The "Others" theory (ie there was massive population of Others in America when the Lehites came and they quickly became absorbed in that population, tossing out all their Old World culture, language, food, practices, etc, leave no trace of it behind) aggravates me so much.

520 pages in the Book of Mormon, and not a single mention of these Others. Brant Gardner: "why would they?" Forehead smack.

In the Book of Mormon text, there are quite a few references to the impossibility of "Others". Of course the apologists have twisted answers for all of them. OK, yeah if you bend this and twist that and move this around and completely ignore logical reasoning, then I can kinda see your point... "Good, now let's do the same for the other dozen references."

It's an impractical theory to begin with. How does the small, insignificant culture become kings in the larger culture? If they became kings, why wouldn't they retain their culture? Why would they dump Old World culture which was so much more advanced? We build ships, make metal tools and weapons, write on metal plates. But I like this way you do things better.

The only evidence they ever use to support the Others theory is related to numbers in the Book of Mormon that seem inconsistent. Oh God that infuriates me. Joseph Smith slapped a book together with dozens of anachronisms and neglects to do mathematical modeling to support the numbers he uses to describe populations, and butchers it like so many other things in the book, and apologists actually attempt to use it in their favor to promote this trumped up theory.

[_Tobin]

The "Others" theory (ie there was massive population of Others in America when the Lehites came and they quickly became absorbed in that population, tossing out all their Old World culture, language, food, practices, etc, leave no trace of it behind) aggravates me so much.

520 pages in the Book of Mormon, and not a single mention of these Others. Brant Gardner: "why would they?" Forehead smack.

In the Book of Mormon text, there are quite a few references to the impossibility of "Others". Of course the apologists have twisted answers for all of them. OK, yeah if you bend this and twist that and move this around and completely ignore logical reasoning, then I can kinda see your point... "Good, now let's do the same for the other dozen references."

It's an impractical theory to begin with. How does the small, insignificant culture become kings in the larger culture? If they became kings, why wouldn't they retain their culture? Why would they dump Old World culture which was so much more advanced? We build ships, make metal tools and weapons, write on metal plates. But I like this way you do things better.

The only evidence they ever use to support the Others theory is related to numbers in the Book of Mormon that seem inconsistent. Oh God that infuriates me. Joseph Smith slapped a book together with dozens of anachronisms and neglects to do mathematical modeling to support the numbers he uses to describe populations, and butchers it like so many other things in the book, and apologists actually attempt to use it in their favor to promote this trumped up theory.

That is NOT the "others" theory. If you don't understand it, then don't pretend to try to refute it. It just makes you look silly.

[_tapirrider]

The "Others" theory (ie there was massive population of Others in America when the Lehites came and they quickly became absorbed in that population, tossing out all their Old World culture, language, food, practices, etc, leave no trace of it behind) aggravates me so much.

520 pages in the Book of Mormon, and not a single mention of these Others. Brant Gardner: "why would they?" Forehead smack.

In the Book of Mormon text, there are quite a few references to the impossibility of "Others". Of course the apologists have twisted answers for all of them. OK, yeah if you bend this and twist that and move this around and completely ignore logical reasoning, then I can kinda see your point... "Good, now let's do the same for the other dozen references."

It's an impractical theory to begin with. How does the small, insignificant culture become kings in the larger culture? If they became kings, why wouldn't they retain their culture? Why would they dump Old World culture which was so much more advanced? We build ships, make metal tools and weapons, write on metal plates. But I like this way you do things better.

The only evidence they ever use to support the Others theory is related to numbers in the Book of Mormon that seem inconsistent. Oh God that infuriates me. Joseph Smith slapped a book together with dozens of anachronisms and neglects to do mathematical modeling to support the numbers he uses to describe populations, and butchers it like so many other things in the book, and apologists actually attempt to use it in their favor to promote this trumped up theory.

I'm with you. The "others theory" is an attempt to rewrite LDS doctrine. Pay no attention to Tobin, he's an asshole.

[_GR33N]

The basis of the argument is based on the Book of Mormon assertion that no other people were to be found on the American continent prior to the arrival of the Jaredites (who all perished) and the Nephites/Mulekites.

I don't see an assertion that no other people were to be found on the American continent. The verse says that: the people brought to America would be by the hand of the Lord.

2nd Nephi 1, vs 5-9:


5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

vs. 5-6: People brought to America by the hand of the Lord.
vs. 7: If they keep the commandments it shall be a land of liberty.
vs. 8: Many countries would be kept from the knowledge of the Promised Land.
vs. 9: Those who are brought out of Jerusalem are required to keep his commandments to prosper.

Did they keep his commandments after the time of the Book of Mormon? Yeah, I don't know either. It think since the Native Americans who were here when Columbus showed up were molested and they lost their lands then according these verses its possible they were not keeping the commandments.

These verses make it clear that the American continent was devoid of other peoples, up to the time of this writing (600 BC), when Lehi and his family arrived, and that it was God's plan that this be the case.

If the Book of Mormon is correct about the continent being kept from other nations, from where did these Mayans come who spoke an unrelated language?

I still don't see any verse where it makes it clear that the American continent was devoid of other peoples when Lehi arrived. These verses indicate that the Lord would bring people from a few other countries to America but not the many other countries referred to in verse 8.

The Book of Mormon is correct. Where in the Book of Mormon does it refer to Mayans? To assume these verses quoted state that the American continent was kept exclusively from other nations is false. It says the exact opposite.

[_Bazooka]

Doesn't the verse 8 that you quote state clearly that it was uninhabited at the point Lehi arrived?

[_canpakes]

He is articulate, I'll give you that. I don't hate the guy - I've never met him. What I can't stand is his inability to answer the freaking question! Four pages of flowery prose that dance around the topic and fail to apply logical reason can get tiring.

That's what happens when the actual answer will in no way support the LDS narrative.

[_Tator]

Typical Peterson style:

- Remind everyone he's smarter than you
- Name drop
- Avoid answering the question or topic at hand

You forgot to mention he constantly reminds everyone of his extensive travel plans and uses that (your third bullet) as an excuse to never answer a question.