Thinking clearly about archaeology and the Book of Mormon

[_GR33N]

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

No

[_Bazooka]

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

No

And yet it states....

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.

"this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations....."
Were the other nations that you claim were living there when Lehi's party arrived completely unaware that they were living there?
Where did the indigenous, but unaware, population think they were living.....Europe?

[_GR33N]

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

And yet it states....

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.

"this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations....."
Were the other nations that you claim were living there when Lehi's party arrived completely unaware that they were living there?
Where did the indigenous, but unaware, population think they were living.....Europe?

You may decide what you think this verse means to you but in my opinion it says that nations will be kept from knowledge of the promised land. It does not mean that no one will know of the land. As it states in the earlier verse #5 "all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord" ...so there are some people(s) who were lead to the Promised Land by the Lord but nations as a whole did not have (public) knowledge of the land.

On that note here is an interesting link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2769708/Map-shows-Marco-Polo-discovered-America-13th-century-200-years-Christopher-Columbus.html

[_Bazooka]

You may decide what you think this verse means to you but in my opinion it says that nations will be kept from knowledge of the promised land. It does not mean that no one will know of the land. As it states in the earlier verse #5 "all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord" ...so there are some people(s) who were lead to the Promised Land by the Lord but nations as a whole did not have (public) knowledge of the land.

so you're saying that although the verse says God promised the land was being kept from the knowledge of all other nations, He didn't mean it was being kept from the knowledge of all other people's.

Can you differentiate between a 'people' and a 'nation' for us?

[_DrW]

You may decide what you think this verse means to you but in my opinion it says that nations will be kept from knowledge of the promised land. It does not mean that no one will know of the land. As it states in the earlier verse #5 "all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord" ...so there are some people(s) who were lead to the Promised Land by the Lord but nations as a whole did not have (public) knowledge of the land.

so you're saying that although the verse says God promised the land was being kept from the knowledge of all other nations, He didn't mean it was being kept from the knowledge of all other people's.

Can you differentiate between a 'people' and a 'nation' for us?

Unfortunately, the disingenuous, confused, doublethink-laden, denial of reality reflected in GR33N's comments are all that faithful Mormons are left with when it comes to the hard questions about the Book of Mormon.

If DCP has any talent at all, it is the ability to dance around a hard question until the faithful pay more attention to the dance than to the fact that DCP never honestly answers a question.

When someone does try to answer the tough questions, as GR33N has done here, it never ends well.

To bad that more faithful Mormons aren't willing to sit down and write out the best answers the have to the hard questions, put the answers aside for a few days, and the come back and read them again - aloud if possible.

Such an exercise would surely generate a great deal of personal embarrassment for many faithful Mormons.

[_Bazooka]

What would be even better is if the top 15 leaders of the Church were able to provide clear answers to these hard questions.

But they are too busy building Malls and praying for the wellbeing of banks....

[_Fence Sitter]

So if there were other people here when Lehi arrived, how is it 2400 years later Joseph Smith, in a revelation from God, is able to define exactly where the Lamanite boarder lies (D&C 28:9) and who the Lamanite people are (D&C 32)?

Before someone suggests that the term 'Lamanites' expanded to include all the native populations in the Americas, one need to remember that every genealogical statement in the Book of Mormon traces directly back to Lehi. In other words the Book of Mormon itself defines direct ancestry as what defines a Lamanite.

So on one hand in order to defend against the overwhelming DNA evidence against an intrusion of foreign DNA from the middle east one has to suggest that there was a large population which the Lehites immediately took over and controlled for 800 years and at the same time explain how nowhere in the Book of Mormon is a single interaction with these peoples mentioned, and how God still knows who the Lamanites are hundreds of years later even mixed in with all these other people.

The only way to explain this is to destroy the concept of the Lamanites as a separate people, which is specifically laid out in both the Book of Mormon & D&C. But when you do that you no longer believe in core concepts, critical to the early church, like a literal gathering and the specific reasons for preserving the Book of Mormon. (Why did Nephi have to murder Laban then?) In order to defend the Book of Mormon, it now seems necessary to throw Joseph Smith under the bus.

More and more in order to defend the modern day LDS church one has to deny what Joseph Smith believed and taught. What will be left, when all is said and done, is just anther Christian denomination with very little to distinguish it from any other.

[_GR33N]

so you're saying that although the verse says God promised the land was being kept from the knowledge of all other nations, He didn't mean it was being kept from the knowledge of all other people's.

Can you differentiate between a 'people' and a 'nation' for us?

Where do the verses say 'all other peoples' or 'all other nations'? Trying to move this discussion into absolutes that do not exist isn't conducive to honest discussion.

[_Bazooka]

so you're saying that although the verse says God promised the land was being kept from the knowledge of all other nations, He didn't mean it was being kept from the knowledge of all other people's.

Can you differentiate between a 'people' and a 'nation' for us?

Where do the verses say 'all other peoples' or 'all other nations'? Trying to move this discussion into absolutes that do not exist isn't conducive to honest discussion.

So you now want verse 8 to mean "as yet kept from other nations...but not all of them, some nations know about it and some already live here". ?

And I note you haven't differentiated between "nation" and "people"....

[_Bret Ripley]

Where do the verses say 'all other peoples' or 'all other nations'?

There can be little doubt that the land had been kept from the knowledge of Montenegro and Burundi. That's a Book of Mormon archaeological bulls-eye right there.