posted
Please don't assume this is a troll post - it really isn't.
I posted this on the "do you believe in God" thread but then decided maybe I should do a new thread and maybe get more input--
I am just curious if it is true that Mormons believe that Jews came to North America hundreds of years BEFORE Jesus of Nazarath's birth? I had heard something about there being some tie with Native Americans and Mormonism? Are Native folks supposedly these Jews decendents?
I was raised in an agnostic/atheist environment where being Christian was kind of looked down as being ignorant and needing a crutch - so I have no "faith" instilled in me like the majority of Americans = especially in my area of the country! But it left me curious about all religions.
Mormons were always just "The Osmonds" to me until OSC. While I was in love with Donny Osmond as a nine year old, it didn't exactly inspire any desire to understand his religion. I've been reading OSC for years - before he moved here to my home town. I've known he was a Mormon and there were Mormon themes to his work - and I own most all of it. Unlike Donny, OSC has made me curious about Mormonism. Since the only Mormon church here is the Church OSC attends, I don't really feel comfortable going that route for answers. Kind of seems too stalkery to go to the mans church because I'm curious about his religion. I love his books and the columns in our local paper but I'm not out to follow him around town.
Most sites that I've found are either by Mormons for Mormons or by folks who definitely hate Mormons. Can any of you recommend a site (or book) that gives good BALANCED OBJECTIVE info on Mormonism?
Posts: 19 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't really call the church's official website "balanced" and "objective", can you?
Yes, the American Indians are supposedly descended from Jews. Yes, they share a great majority of their genes and traits with Asians.
Yes, there were horses in the Book of Mormon. No, there's no evidence whatsoever that horses ever existed and disappeared in America before the Europeans introduced them 2000 years later.
Yes, the BoM refers to lions in America. No, lions do not live in America.
What did live in America? Lots of people. None of which are referenced to in the BoM.
No, I will not be pulled into a debate about things that bug me about the BoM. I disrupted six years of Sunday school classes doing that, and I'm still tired of getting yelled at, all these years later.
posted
Looks like you did get pulled in, Frisco - and you're still moaning about the same tripe that the underinformed have been quoting for decades. Irrelevant - nay, foolish arguments. If there were anything there to bring the BOM down, it would have been done LONG ago. You will otherwise have to assume that the large number of PhDs and MDs and other educated people (trained in logic and analysis, and reasonably good at exposing cheap phonies after 170 years) who purport to believe this are orchestrating a plot to foist off a phony on the unsuspecting public. Which begs the question "Why?"
Why would the LDS website be anything but unbiased about the beliefs it represents? If you can count on anyone for a correct statement of belief, it'd be the one who believes it. As to their validity - see what follows...
Anon-
Card himeself is a good source. I'd recommend the book "A Storyteller in Zion", for starters - some good comments. One thing about him is that he's willing to think through things (and run the risk of making mistakes) rather than just parroting what he's heard. I think that's a good qualification, if you're looking for someone reasonably unbisased. I don't think there is such a thing as TRULY unbiased, in this case.
What you're going to run into in your search for balance and unbiasedness is the following: people who believe the doctrines and assertions of the church (like me) make efforts to show that everything is internally consistent in the doctrine, and that there is good reason (in addition to faith) to believe and live by the doctrines. People who have a grievance (like Frisco, apparently) will sieze on any point to demonstrate that the doctrines and practices of the church are not only in error, but ridiculous (as you have noticed). There are _very_ few, if any, independent observers who are capable of passing correct information along without spinning it - because most people who don't have either belief or animosity don't care a fig, and don't research or write about it.
So the source I'd recommend is: yourself. Go and see. You don't need to talk to Card or even introduce yourself - just go and seek an opportunity to talk to someone. Anyone. Even OSC. I'll hazard the guess that anyone there would be happy to talk to you and make you feel welcome. There are lots more people there.
This is an interesting issue, as an aside - the flip side of the celebrity stalking issue is that people deliberately anti-stalk - and wind up in connundrums anyway. He's just a guy, for heaven's sake.
Anyway - on the BoM issue - arguing the minutiae doesn't work or matter - small talking points are by their nature easily addressed by apologists. Neither the criticisms nor the responses are very convincing. Debates about fundamentals of the book require a careful reading and some detailed thought. I've been through it 30... (or more, dunno) times, including at least once when I was pretty down on it. I still have some questions about the narrative - but more questions of curiousity than of substance. About the doctrine, my questions are of understanding, at this point - not of proof or disproof.
What I am willing to defend with argument and logic is the fact that it is NOT the product of an 19th-century farmboy - or scholar, or group of scholars, or anyone. What it IS - well, you have the option of believing it is what it claims to be, or not. If not, one has to answer the question - where did it come from. That's a hard question, and people usually skip it and go on to the gratuitous vilification.
Mike - <15 people moving into an area we can only assume is populated. This was not a mass exodous, and there aren't any consistency problems.
I don't know where the genetic backtrace of the native american population leads to exactly, but is generally thought to be asiastic, for what it's worth. Dunno if there's any specific Japanese heritage.
posted
Very interesting. You have any links? I'd love to see that. You say old population. Ainu? If so, common (old) source, or migration from Hokkaido and environs to the Americas?
posted
Likewise. What're you doing up so early/late? I have an excuse - it's lunchtime here.
Yeah - I just paroused some info and I suspect the situation is much more complex... but there is Amerind/Ainu crossover evidence. More so for South American than North. One amidst a bunch of groups, though.
None of these answers are very cut and dried, are they?
posted
Dear AnonymousNC, Guess what -- there are 3 LDS wards in Greensboro, we only go to one If you happen on ours though, we'd be delighted to meet you. Or if that really makes you uncomfortable write to me privately and I'll send you some stuff.
Now, the rest of you. Let's be careful where we tread here, remember whose living room you are in. Thanks, Kristine
Posts: 780 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*gingerly closes door and heads out on the front porch for a breath of fresh air and a clear view of the stars*
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes, there were horses in the Book of Mormon. No, there's no evidence whatsoever that horses ever existed and disappeared in America before the Europeans introduced them 2000 years later.
As a matter of fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that horses existed in the Americas in ancient times. I will have to look something up and get back to you if I can find it.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stradling, I think you're going to have a better answer than "If the BoM weren't true, it would have been brought down long ago." if you're going to ever do any mission work. I mean, the Holy Kitab, Holy Dhammapada, Holy Saddharma Pundarika, Holy Mahayana Texts, Holy Digha Nikaya, Holy Quaran, Holy Bhagavad Gita, and Holy Vedas books and texts have been around much longer. Does that make them more true?
I grew up in the church, and those were just a few of the questions that got me no valid answer. I always wondered why we have so many artifacts from Incan and Mayan civilizations (the Lamanites, of course), and none from the Nephites or Jaredites. And why are so many of the Lamanite artifacts carbon-dated to a time before Lehi ever left for America?
Now, I don't disagree that you'll get an unbiased answer concerning their beliefs at the LDS website. I just noticed that he wanted unbiased info. Two totally different subjects.
Okay...I'm done now. I am truly interested in the LDS sanctioned answers to my questions, though. I never really got ANY. If anyone knows any sites that rebut any scientist's claims like mine, link me up. Even if they're extremely biased, I'd like to see them.
If you stick around, Stradling, you'll realize that I'm not "grieving". I'm just a quiet atheist who usually only pipes up on religion when someone else tries to tell everyone on the site that their beliefs are the only valid ones, regardless of what they're preaching. Mormonism just gets my opinions sometimes because I spent ten years learning about the religion, and at no point did it ring true to me.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
If you were wanting to find out information about the Holocaust, would you contact the Simon Wiesenthal Center, or your local chapter of the KKK? Maybe a couple of skinheads to give a "balanced view."
The problem with most of the people claiming to have "balanced" information about the LDS Church is that they LIE about what the Church believes. And by "lie" I mean deliberate half truths, creative use of elipses ... to ... obscure what people said, and just out and out falsehoods.
If you want to know what the Mormons believe, go to the source. I'm not saying that you have to believe it, just find out from the "horses mouth."
Posts: 258 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It use to irritate me to no end, to see young men dressed in white shirts and ties, standing on the sidewalks outside of temple square, handing out "the evil of Mormonism" pamphlets. They would aggressively approach people entering and try to force the literature into their hands.
Going to the other guy to get an unbiased view of the church, would be like going to the Ford dealer about a GM truck.
Posts: 180 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm like you NC, I'm interested in learning about Mormonism, mostly because of this forum; before I came here I had a vague idea that had something to do with polygamy and Utah. I found the official website helpful as long as I didn't have a specific question, if you just follow it around you can get a pretty good basic idea of what it's all about. I haven't gone to a Mormon temple (church?) for two reasons: a) I go to a fairly conservative Christian church, and I'm already considered a little on the wild side, so I'm trying to lie low for a while. b) I think I'd feel guilty about going and asking to be taught everything when I'm 99% sure I'm not going to convert, it just seems sort of underhanded to me. Instead, I'm going to try to snag the next Mormon missionaries I see, as far as I can tell talking to people like me is part of their job. Am I right? I feel sort of guilty about wasting people's time just to satisfy my curiosity.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Go to the LDS church to learn about their beliefs.
I'm just saying that if you're looking for unbiased information, that is definitely not the place to go. I mean, come on, people. How can one be unbiased about a subject so close to their heart?
Don't come to me expecting an unbiased opinion of left-handed people. I'll surely tell you that we're more intelligent and creative that the right-handed members of our race.
Go to somebody who's ambidextrous. Or, better yet, go to someone who was born with no arms. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Yep, that's what they like. Heck, snagging them is easy - just go here and refer yourself, if you want. They'll drop by. Believe me, nobody will think you're wasting any of their time. Speaking for myself, I get a good deal of satisfaction from people who want to talk about the gospel - it's one of those things that make me happy when I discuss them.
OK, Frisco. Sorry for being snappish. I guess in retrospect, I can see that while your writing style is on the sarcastic side, you're not being deliberately offensive, as I had assumed. Of course, the most embarassing thing about this is that I do the same thing myself all the time. I'll do some digging for sources. In the mean time, several of your comments are answered in Card's essay (in Storyteller, aforementioned) called The Book of Mormon -- Artifact or Artifice?. If you can get your hand on that, he has some very good points. Others resources are available, I think - both obviously apologist and not. I'll try and dig up some links.
When I said grievance, I wasn't implying any grief, but rather anger and disenchantment - the assumption of which stems from my conclusion that you were being deliberately abrasive. Again, sorry.
My implication in saying it would have been brought down long ago is this - the Book of Mormon has been under hostile attack from scholars and laymen since its publication. Experts in Mesoamerican studies have deep reservations, having seen no direct evidence... but they have also seen no disproof. Absence of evidence, though, is not compelling. At the same time, scholars of repute who believe the BoM to be what it claims to be have found lots to work with to support their claims. They are (correctly) labeled as biased - they are working to defend a given thesis, not simply to find out "what's out there". Others write in reference to the validity of the BoM. They are biased as well, but are not labeled accordingly. Their research is not; their opining on the validity of the Book of Mormon is.
I haven't found any good links to works published on the web - places like irr.org try and fail to be analytical (they oppose the BoM) and mormonstudies.com (in favor) tries to be general and instead winds up being a collosal time sink, with too many resources and arguments, and no serious attempt to summarize or synthesize. There are pay journals like FARMS and such, but I don't think that'd be so interesting to you.
posted
pwiscombe, I understand your feelings on the matter, and to an extent I agree with you--there are plenty of hostile people out there.
On the other hand, some years back the International Church of Christ broke away from mine. Several studies have demonstrated seriously abusive practices; but ask them what they believe and practice and they will give you a totally innocuous answer.
I'm not saying you're like that. I'm just pointing out that an organization can't always be trusted to tell the truth about itself.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stradling, I'm afraid you're only half-right. While it's true that scientists have not managed to conclusively PROVE that there wasn't a society in the Americas that was destroyed to the last trace by God -- which, when you think about it, is a pretty hard thing to disprove -- the scientific evidence FOR this theory is pretty thin on the ground, as well.
I've yet to meet someone who's converted to Mormonism because he found the Mormon theory of Native American civilization meshed most closely with his own research; I know SEVERAL people, however, who are willing to tolerate the Mormon theory of Native American civilization because their faith demands it of them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
AnonymousNC, I am a Mormon who just recently moved to the Greensboro area. When I first got here, my brother and I attended a seminar called "Why I Believe" presented by OSC at the local Mormon church. Afterward, we met both OSC and his wife, and I assure you, they are wonderful people who don't consider fans who happen to visit their church as "stalkers." In part because of the warm welcome we had from the Cards and the other local Mormons who also were at the seminar, we decided to make the Greensboro Summit Ward our "home ward" for the summer (a ward is the Mormon term for a local congregation.) I guess what I'm trying to say is you, and anyone else in the Greensboro area who wants to know what Mormons actually believe, are always welcome to visit the Mormon church on Pinetop Road. Services start at 9 o'clock Sunday morning. The people there are really nice, and they certainly make visitors feel welcome.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In preface, I am a Christian. A Christian not in the traditonal southern churchgoing sense, but in the sense of a personal relationship with Christ. My only question is why a person would look past the traditional Bible to accept the Book of Mormon. My other question pertains to whether Mormons believe that Jesus was a man glorfied, or a God incarnated.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I should have checked back in sooner! Thanks for the constructive answers Stradling and others. And thanks to Brian Hill and Ms. Card for the welcome/invite to attend here locally.
I do kind of feel foolish going since, as blacwolve said, I KNOW I am not going to become a Mormon. My nicotine addiction alone rules that out without any theological issues.
I am surprised there are 3 "wards" here. I just assumed the one OSC mentions for plays etc... was the one and only. There is a Baptist church on every corner and while I know we have a larger Jewish population than most southern cities I didn't realize there was a large enough Mormon population for 3. That alone is interesting.
I actually have run into the 2 spanish language missionaries several times - never the english language ones for some reason. Both times I asked for info they happened to be out.
I guess because of the way I was raised, I just have a lot of questions and curiousity about all religions. I do have a basic belief in God but not really in a defined way. I have relatives that are Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, and Jewish but I can't claim to be either.
OSCs view of Mormonism just seems nice. The way "warders" help each other (ie: Lost Boys) and my whole good feeling from Homecoming series WAY before I knew it had anything to do with a "retelling" of the Book of Mormon. So anyway thanks again. I have checked out the official Mormon site but maybe I'll give it another try. I've seen plenty of the "hate" sites and they are a waste of time which was why I added this thread.
Stradling - why I didn't think of going locally WITHOUT mentioning OSC I don't know. Sure makes sense! I guess I was just thinking there were going to be 50 people at this church/temple and I have now been enlightened as to our cities population diversity more!
Posts: 19 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Archaeologists who argue for an initial colonization less than 15,000 years ago note that the late-Ice Age animal bones found in Beringia are predominantly those of grazing animals such as bison, horses, mammoths, camels, and caribou.
quote: Some biological anthropologists have attempted to establish the number of migration events and their timing through studies of Native American dental and blood-group traits. Most of these studies confirm a late date for initial settlement and superficially agree with the linguistic data of a tripartite division among modern Native Americans. For example, dental variation between modern American Indian populations has been interpreted to suggest that members of the Amerind language family share similar dental traits and that they probably represent the descendants of an original Paleo-Indian colonization that occurred less than 15,000 years ago. These dental traits separate this group from a second group, the Na-Dene speakers of northwestern North America. This group is thought to have migrated from Siberia no later than 9,000 years ago. The third group, the Inuits and Aleuts of the Arctic, probably entered the Americas no later than about 8,000 years ago.
Blood-group studies of modern Native American populations generally support this dental and linguistic evidence. On the other hand, analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of modern Native American groups suggest that there are four lineages in this population. Thus the three proposed population groups do not explain all the genetic variation found in modern Native American populations.
quote: Crawford's research indicates that at least four groups migrated into North America from Siberia at least as early as 30,000 years ago and as recently as 9,000 years ago.
quote: The lion once had an even bigger range. During the Ice Age, it hunted across Eurasia and into North America. Today, lions are found only in Africa south of the Sahara Desert, except for a few that survive in India. The brown bear and wolf may be the present range champions, until recently ranging from Mexico north into Alaska, across Eurasia, and south into northern Africa.
quote:For most Americans today, Indian origins in the New World are no longer a theological problem. The controversies which caused so much excitement and speculation in Joseph Smith's day no longer trouble scholars. It is now generally accepted that the American Indians are of Mongolian extraction, representing several different physical types probably originating in northern, central, and eastern Asia. They are thought to have migrated across the Bering Strait sometime between 12,000 and 30,000 years ago. The biological linkage of the Indians to Asia is based on common features such as the characteristic eyefold, the pigmented spot which appears at the base of the spine of infants, and the shovel shape of the incisor. These traits have been found in varying proportions among every Indian group studied.(96)
posted
You're right, Kayla. I may have been a bit hasty in my claims.
Let me change "never" to "in the last 2,000 years."
I'm sure that in the days of the ice age and Pangaea, animals of all kinds covered all continents.
But correct me if I am still wrong, of course, and these animals have inhabited North America in the last 2,000 years.
Unless the google-queen herself has already exhausted her sources and has found no evidence of these animals post-ice age.
Thanks for backing up my points that there were many inhabitants on the continent during Lehi's time and that modern Indians most resemble Asians (although three lines of them). I think you should start your own version of google.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Religion is not about proof. Religion is a personal "journey" that is taken individually.
Proving a specific religion is really an act of futility. Can you prove the bible is true? If so, I want to see remnants of Noah's ark, the ark of the covenant. I want to see the slabs that the ten commandments were written on. I want to see evidence of Sodom and Gamorah.
There is some evidence. The city of Jericho has been found (they think). But they still cannot prove HOW the walls fell.
When it comes down to it all religeons, that I am familiar with, have someone (a prophet, example; Muhammed, Joseph Smith, David, Paul, Buddha.) speaking and recieving instruction from God. How do you prove that. You can't, and I believe it's intentional on God's part.
Faith. It all comes down to faith.
Faith is an important part of just about every religeon. Faith is a "belief in something that is not seen". Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. Knowledge is above faith. If you have perfect knowledge you do not have faith.
In the end, choosing a religeon on scientific proof is defeating the basis of religeon in general. And this is coming from a scientist (me). I do find it facinating when ever evidence for or against Biblical and/or Book of Mormon events or locations comes forth.
As a practising scientist in health care (hospital pharmacist), I want proof before I allow one of my patients under my care to use a medication that hasn't been proven. In this country (US) it is the burden of the drug companies to prove not only effectiveness of drugs, but also safety. Hence the billions of dollars spent on research. This is the main reason that "herbal" therapy is not accepted by the health care community. It's not that herbals may not have benifit, but it has not been proven. Nor has safety.
There is an internal "joke" in health care that goes like this: What is the difference between alternative medicine and modern medicine?
Answer: Proof. As soon as something is proven, it is integrated into modern medicine.
Ok, I'm way off on a tangent now.
To conclude, if you go about finding a religeon by proof, be prepared for disappointment. Just because something can't be proven or disproven, doesn't mean it's not true or not true. (hows that for bad english)
Tullaan
Please forgive me for spelling and gramatical errors. I'm a pharmacist, not an english major. Posts: 98 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the issue isn't proving Religion versus the lack of it, but of one religion to another. What are the Merits of Mormonism to Islam to Christianity to the root of Judaism. That is where quantitative evidence plays an important role.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
The question you asked doesn't contain the answer. Mormons believe that Christ was (and is) a son of God in the sense that we all are literally his children. In terms of how He was different - we believe the Bible's assertion that He was a literal son of the Father in the flesh, and had the attributes He did (like the ability to take up His body again) because of that direct relationship. For that reason, the term "the Only Begotten of the Father" is neither meaningless nor mysterious. We reject the Nicene Creed as inaccurate and incompatible with scripture.
Now, what exactly do you mean by "God incarnated"? Primitive Christianity and those who obeyed the Law of Moses before them understood God to be possessed of a body. We certainly believe so today. Really, what do you mean by God? God is a title, or a job description, in the most mundane and least specific sense. That's where the Nicene doctrines get all tangled - they're trying to map several people onto one because several people are referred to as God in their respective roles. God the Father created us before we were born - he is our father and our God in that sense (and in others). Christ created the Earth on His Father's authority - in that sense he is the God of Creation. And on and on. John chapter 1 becomes much less confusing with that little clarification. No, we don't worship a pantheon. We are monotheistic. God is the one we worship, and His Son is the Savior He sent.
OK - why can we accept the BoM when we have the Bible already?
Well, the Bible itself proves the need for other scripture and revelation.
What is the Bible but a record of the Prophets dragging Israel back into line after innumerable breaks with the truth and the covenants they made? It is clear both that humanity cannot be left unattended for more than a few days, and that God's standard method of dealing with the inevitable diversions from His word is to send prophets to call the people to repentance. When they repent, the prophet is available to teach them more, and lend clarity to the previously recorded teachings of other prophets.
Since God's children live in all places in the world and in all eras of history (by definition), prophets and truth have to show up everywhere, at some point. Since God seems to be a stickler for records, there have to be writings somewhere. Really, it's inevitable. We also have to have prophetic potential today.
Now, since the Book of Mormon's primary purpose is to testify of Christ's mission, atonement and divinity, the Bible's truth is asserted from another, independent source. (Independent at least culturally, historically and geographically). Many are capable of explaining away Christ's assertions of divinity and ressurection as later insertions by zealots who wanted to glorify their good old teacher. The Book of Mormon, once accepted, puts a firm end to these arguments - no teacher, however compassionate and good, will die and then show up to another population in the Americas and teach them the same things. Yeah, I know this won't convince a single "historical Jesus" type - but it serves as another witness to those who are already believers in Him.
quote: In 1587, a Jesuit Nicholas Delttsu was sent to South America by the king of Spain to convert the Indians. In Argentina, he found a tribe with Hebrew names, Abraham, David, Moshe, etc.. When he asked them if they were circumcised, they answered, "Yes, just as our ancestors." In the same area were found knives of stone used for circumcision. Sharpened stone knives are cited in the Bible as used for circumcision.
Of equal interest is the recent find of a tribe in Argentina related to the Incas of Peru. On a stone tablet were found 3 commandments - "Do not steal." "Do not lie." and "Do not murder." Scholars concluded that these commandments come from the Ten Commandments of Moses but existed hundreds of years before the Spaniards arrived.
Also, I think the original premise is faulty in that the BoM says that Nephi et. al. were Joshephites, not Judahites. And to quote someone else. . ."It is important to note that while all Jews are Israelites, not all Israelites are Jews."
While not all migration was in 600 bc, there is some interesting things among some Navive American cultures that are interesting.
quote: In addition to possible pre-Columbian horses from Lake Superior region of Canada and from Wisconsin as described by Glen W. Chapman, James Trimm in message #74 has written about some horses in Mayan areas:
Horse remains have been found in New World excavations. The data is generally ignored, after all every one knows there was no transoceanic contact. Remains of a human and a horse were found at Lolton cave in the Mayan area (Miami Museum of Science Institute of Maya Studies Newsletter 7, no. 11 (Nov. '76) Two lots including horse bones were collected from the bottom strata almost two meters down at Mayapan, Yucatan. They reluctantly concluded that theses remains had to be precolumbian ("Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan," Journal of Mammalogy 38 [1957] :278). also "Notes on Vertebrate Animal Remains from Mayapan," Current Reports 41 (Aug '57) 638 Carnegie Institution, Washington DC Dept. of Archaeology). Mercer also found horse remains asociated with artifacts in southwest Yucatan caves. (The Hill Caves of Yucatan by Henry Chapman Mercer, 1896 p. 172) James Trimm
No link, it's all pretty well annotated and it's just someone on a yahoo thingy.
Also, I thought this was interesting.
quote: It may be naive to assume that the word "horse" necessarily refers to the species of we know today. The Hebrew word for horse , "sus", has a root meaning of "to leap" and can refer to other animals as well - including the swallow (J. L. Sorenson, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 345). Since deer also leap, it is not impossible that the early Nephites might have described them with a word related to "sus" or even the word "sus" itself. (Sorenson notes also that "ss" in Egyptian means horse, while "shs" is antelope). Could the "horse" of the Book of Mormon be Mesoamerican deer?
And this.
quote: Experts agree that the mammoth, and mastodon could have survived in favored spots much later than the time normally assigned for their extinction. The mastodon has already been dated as late as 5000 B.C. at Devil's Den, Florida, and around the Great Lakes to 4000 B.C. Then there is the remarkable discovery of the remains of a butchered mastodon in Ecuador; pottery associated with the find is said to date to after the time of Christ [J. Augusta, The Age of Monsters, Prehistoric and Legendary (London: Paul Hamlyn, 1966), pp. 11-12.]. In its light, the radiocarbon date around 100 B.C. of horse, mammoth and mastodon remains at St. Petersburg, Florida, does not seem impossible [Jim J. Hester, "Agency of Man in Animal Extinction," in Martin and Wright, "Pleistocene Extinctions," p. 185]. The Jaredite mention of the elephant a single time - very early in their lineage history - hints that the creature became extinct in their area soon thereafter. Perhaps the Jaredites themselves killed off the last of the beasts within their zone. But the Jaredites might not have been the only people to record the presence of the big animal. Some North American Indians have recounted legends of "great stiff-legged beasts who could not lie down" and of an animal with a fifth appendage, which came out of its head [H. P. Beck, "The Giant Beaver: A Prehistoric Memory," Ethnohistory 19 (1972):117; William Duncan Strong, "North American Indian Traditions Suggesting Knowledge of the Mammoth," American Anthropologist 36 (1934):81-88]. Possibly, tribes transmitted through oral tradition some vague remembrance of encounters with these "elephants." The later the beasts survived, the easier it is to accept the reliability of the tradition. In any case, it is possible that the mammoth or mastodon hung on in Mexico at least as late as 2500 B.C.
Now, look, I'm not LDS, but I think it's silly to dismiss out of hand claims from any relion. They seem to have a way of being proved true. Maybe the translation was screwed up, maybe the time period it off. Maybe the story underwent normal changes while still an oral tradition, before being written down. Who knows? Besides, if we all came from Africa, why don't we all look alike? Even the Bible is off in it's timeline. There's no reason not to think the BoM is also off in it's timeline. Humans can err in their translations.
All I'm saying is an open mind it a good thing. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: What is the Bible but a record of the Prophets dragging Israel back into line after innumerable breaks with the truth and the covenants they made? It is clear both that humanity cannot be left unattended for more than a few days, and that God's standard method of dealing with the inevitable diversions from His word is to send prophets to call the people to repentance. When they repent, the prophet is available to teach them more, and lend clarity to the previously recorded teachings of other prophets.
Well...this helps explain Sarah's reaction back in high school when I explained to her that (typically) the churches of Christ believe revelation came to a complete end in the first century. (A horrified-sounding "Heavenly Father wouldn't just abandon us!") I must confess she'd left me baffled....
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point I was trying to make, is that trying to find a religeon with intelectual proof is self defeating.
There will always be scientific evidence for and against for all religeon.
So if religeon cannot be overwhelmingly proven or disproven, how do you choose?
I admit, I find it facinating to learn and study about scientific evidence for and against religeons events and people. However, it doesn't change my "conversion". My conversion and belief are supported by evidence but if the evidence suddenly disappeared, my conversion would still be sound.
My reaction is different - my professional life is based around assumptions that the universe is a reasonable place. I just say that it doesn't satisfy symmetry.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I disrupted six years of Sunday school classes doing that, and I'm still tired of getting yelled at, all these years later. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
I'll do some digging for sources. In the mean time, several of your comments are answered in Card's essay (in Storyteller, aforementioned) called The Book of Mormon -- Artifact or Artifice?. If you can get your hand on that, he has some very good points. Others resources are available, I think - both obviously apologist and not. I'll try and dig up some links.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
