spycam1
Well-Known Member
Why Meso America? The BoM never claims that it takes place there.
John Dehlin on Radio West.
- Thread starter ♪alt13
- Start date
Why Meso America? The BoM never claims that it takes place there.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Because that is traditionally where Mormon scholars/apologists have claimed the events in the BoM took place. Doesn't have to be MesoAmerica, but expand the question to all of Latin America, and it still applies.
Don't be a jerk. He didn't say a significant finding was about to be published. He said, "What if?"
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
No, here is precisely what he said (bolded emphasis mine), "But what if archeological evidence ends up proving that the Nephites were here? I'm not talking about conspiracy garbage, but honest to goodness evidence. I've spent the last year researching the topic and am studying it at Dixie State. It's only a matter of time before it becomes more than just a story that Joseph Smith made up."
Unless I am missing something here, his last sentence goes well beyond "what if" to assert that it's only a matter of time before evidence supporting the BoM emerges.
He further implies that, in his research and studies at Dixie, he has learned something that leads him to this conclusion.
So, I think it's perfectly legitimate for me to ask what this evidence is and where it can be found in the relevant scientific/academic literature.
As far as I know, there's not been a single peer-reviewed publication in any non-LDS scientific, peer-reviewed journal that provides a scintilla of evidence supporting the existence of the pre-Columbian civilizations described in the BoM. It's been years, however, since I've cared about this enough to bother reading anything about it, so if he has new information to show me I'm wrong, I'd love to see it.
spycam1
Well-Known Member
Just because that's where it was traditionally thought of to have taken place doesn't mean anything. You have to look at the text itself.
If you were going to put stock into what anyone thought about the book's location, why not the "author"? Smith said it took place in the heartland of America.
spycam1
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if there is anything of that sort. However, absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. That's not to say that you personally should believe in it, but rather that because there's not sound evidence to disprove it, it's perfectly acceptable to have faith in it for those who choose to do so.
Here's a Wikipedia article on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propo...statements_regarding_Book_of_Mormon_geography
It says, "His published statements indicate that Book of Mormon peoples or their descendants, migrated from “the lake country of America” (near Lake Ontario) to Mexico and Central America." So your statement is not quite correct.
However, it also says, "It is not certain that Joseph Smith placed Book of Mormon lands in Central America," so there's apparently some uncertainty as to what he said and didn't say. Nevertheless that also implies that it's not certain that he DIDN'T place any Book of Mormon lands there.
Anyway, to me it seems likely Smith believed that the Book of Mormon encompassed most if not all of North America--not just the heartland of America.
Well, yes. That means that such evidence has not yet emerged, right?
I'll let him answer for himself, but I didn't read nearly as much into it as you have. I understood it to mean that he's been learning about it and has seen a hint of supporting evidence.
So how about answering his question... what if the non-LDS scientific community finds evidence of, say, horses in Book of Mormon times? Would that change your belief or disbelief?
Frankly, I doubt it... because even right now it's very possible for a scientist such as myself to reconcile the best current scientific evidence with what the Book of Mormon teachers. For example, with the question of horses, it seems very possible that either (a) horses persisted a bit longer than what the current evidence shows (since as spycam1 put it, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"), or (b) what the Nephites called "horses" may reflect some New World animal that reminded them of horses back home (since that is frequently done by immigrants). So believing/disbelieving has nothing to do with the issue of horses. If you want to believe, there's no inherent problem; if you don't want to believe, any new evidence of horses is not going to convince you.
I think the idea of loyal opposition is important to any large institution. The key here is loyal. I don't think anyone believes that Dehlin wanted the church to stop existing or even stop preaching its beliefs. If you eliminate the loyal opposition all you have left is opposition, and that's much less healthy.
I don't think the evidence of absence thing really applies to the larger conversation. It effectively means that apologists believe that the BoM is non-falsifiable because it asks opposing scientists or academics to, in effect, prove a negative. We all know that's essentially impossible. What we can definitively say is that the best archeological and historical evidence available to us at this time tends to point to the non-historicity of the BoM. I don't believe any person who's being objective can really contest that without getting into pretty severe contortions of the text.
For those that want an in-depth discussion re: Abraham I suggest you look at the relevant section at what is known in Exmormon communities as the CES letter. It probably has the most digestible and easiest to understand detail on the subject.
https://cesletter.com/Letter-to-a-CES-Director.pdf
The whole thing is fascinating, but the Abraham section starts on Page 24.
The apologist response can be found on FAIR Mormon (I'll post it so Colton doesn't have to)
https://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism...Director/Book_of_Abraham_Concerns_&_Questions
This is the CES Letter author's "reply" to most of the response.
https://cesletter.com/debunking-fairmormon/book-of-abraham.html#summary
That's pretty much the TL;DR version state of the scholarship on the subject without having to delve into lots of primary texts.
But is/was he loyal? I'm by no means convinced. See post #77 of this thread. If he really was doing the three things mentioned, then my reaction is "don't let the door hit you on the way out".
Playing devil's advocate, can you think of any set of circumstances that it might be ok to lie to your bishop? To record temple rituals(that are normally not available to the public) verbatim?
In either situation, I sure can.
fossilized horse bones were found in a cave a few miles from my ranch, dated to the Lake Bonnevile geological era. They have also been found in the La Brea tar pits dating pre-Spanish time.
I think it's clear there were humans in this hemisphere well before the end of the last ice age, going back to over twenty thousand years ago. The caves overlooking Lake Bonneville, and shoreline sites with human artifacts, go back to more than ten thousand years ago. Human remains of that time indicate a relation of those peoples with European groups.
I consider these issues to be open scientifically, and I refuse to drink the contemporary "scientific coolaid" that some scholars have fed us during the past hundred and fifty years.
Joseph Smith never spoke of Meso-American cultures as being anything to do with the Book of Mormon. He did say the Book of Mormon spoke of the native Americans in the Missouri-western New York area as being the relevant remnants of the people of the Book of Mormon.
Jesus' teachings and conduct, as set forth in the New Testament, includes some admonitions about this subject. Although clearly the Ten Commandments includes the one "Thou Shalt Not bear false witness. . . . ", Jesus teaches his disciples to "Agree with thine adversary quickly whiles thou art in the way with him. . . .".
Another I would consider as possibly related is "Blessed is the peacemaker. . .", as well as negative injunctions like the one about sowing discord among brethren in OT lore. Paul teaches believers to accommodate the sensitivities and consciences of other believers by trying not to be offensive, at least not deliberately.
Another principle taught by Jesus was "Let your communication be yea, yea and nay, nay. . . ." in association with the teaching that we should not "forswear ourselves" but perform unto the LORD our oaths. I would take it that this means we should not put our acceptance by others, including bishops, ahead of personal integrity.
The injunction against "casting pearls before swine" generally refers to exposing ourselves by statements of our belief to the rude abuse of those who just won't appreciate them. Not that people are "swine" but sometimes we have about the same kind of understanding of one another.
It all adds up to using good sense when talking to others.
Getting back to Devlin's case, he reminds me of former President Spencer W. Kimball, who was seriously in love with a young woman he never married, and left a florid pack of letters in her possession attacking the beliefs of the LDS Church in the days of his youth.
Being married to a descendent of that lost love, and having an extensive family connection with the woman he did marry and knowing these people as family, gives me a sense of things that weighs heavily on the side of tolerance for those who have issues with the Church.
Joseph Smith taught that "Bad doctrine does not make a bad man".
It is a fact of our human condition that organized religions are centered on creeds or statements of beliefs which often are not sufficient statements of fact. When people find themselves needing to "move on" somehow past the supposedly settled tenets of the faith, they ask questions, and those among us who find such questions unsettling are prone to react in a way that will push the questioners out.
A guy like Dehlin, as I take the information I've seen, was perhaps a little too aggressive in pushing his preferred ideas. I could dig up scores of scriptures which would tend to indicate he was mistaken, and he is trying to play the part of a "progressive" advocate for a better future. He seriously believes he can help change things.
His case is inherently the same as Spencer W. Kimballs' case was with the girl he wanted to marry. Ultimately, he found a girl who agreed with his views, and in the process of time they became the eulogized standards of right faith and conduct for another generation of Mormons.
I didn't agree with Spencer when he was the "Prophet", and some folks wanted to excommunicate me. Some general authorities had their axes sharpened up and were impassioned to get me out of the Church. It took a moderate minded man named Spencer Kimball to stand up for me and defend me against them, saying I had the right to ask questions.
While in dealing with those elements he also said they had the right to give their answers to my issues, and stood up for their right to their own views as well, I found the graciousness of Spencer W. Kimball quite a balm for my wounds. The man was a peacemaker, and one who cared what "truth" is enough to ask questions and take his best principled stand in his own teachings.
I don't think folks who choose to take a course into GLBT lifestyle issues are on the path to happiness in eternity, but hey, Jesus apparently accepted as a fact of life that some men choose to be "eunuchs". It's just the fact that in a world view that puts a heterosexual marriage relation and procreation/propagation of the human race as a high first command of God, living in GLBT relations will not take you in that direction.
The critical issue in the Dehlin case is that made the stand that he was the superior, more enlightened principled man and he taught that current LDS doctrine was morally reprehensible. If Spencer W. Kimball didn't agree with his leaders, he at least held back from going out to specifically take them on, and his letters were his personal opinions, and not particularly revolutionary opinions. The LDS leaders today would not, I think, go out hunting down folks with opinions to take them out of the Church. You practically have to ask for that kind of attention. Actually, you have to make yourself so obnoxious you force them to take a stand in their own defense.
I had a companion when I was a missionary who organized some "Elders" into an oath-bound little club they called "The Resistance to the President", and for laughs specifically defied and disobey some "mission rules". When the President of the mission called him in to discipline him, he confessed he deserved his punishment.
Dehlin deserves his excommunication, and if he were an honest, principled believer in Mormonism, he would have to confess he deserved his excommunication. Until he does that, I think he is a seriously mistaken person lacking fundamental character attributes or virtues. The modern term "sociopath" applies to his state of mind. Well, if he does have the humility and caring for others to moderate that description, it is still going to be a fact in organized religions and other social institutions, even those with no belief in "God" like the Council of Foreign Relations, that these organizations will exclude the those individuals who rock the boat with such activities inimical to the basic tenets of those organizations.
No band of social progressives today would really be all that nice to someone who intends to take over their organizations and move them into a new direction. There would actually be some serious infighting for control of the groups. . ..
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Is it ok to question the resurrection, the exodus, the virgin birth, etc in your church?
You talk about historicity but the bible's historicity is extremely limited. The entire new testament is just secondary sources and revelation. It isn't much different than Joeseph Smiths stories they're just older. I think it's a little humorous that you seem to think that mormons are the only christians that have beliefs that are from an objective position ridiculous. All of Christianity is premised on revelation and fantastic claims. You can have faith in those things but there is NO WAY to objectively prove them or even make them plausible. Miracles are miracles because they are fanciful and require faith.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
I have never been one to say that any religion is logical...in reality, most things faith based aren't logical. I don't think I've ever said Mormons are the only religion that have beliefs that are ridiculous, every religion has beliefs that are ridiculous. Look, my belief system is pretty simple. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. I believe that Jesus is my Savior. I believe in the Trinity. I believe in the validity of the Bible. I believe that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ, not through my works, but through faith, and that works are a sign of faith but that works do not earn you salvation. There is no way to "earn" salvation. I believe that God is the only true God. I believe in Heaven and Hell, and that everybody will go to one or the other.
As for your first question, if a person has questions/confusion/doubts regarding those things, then yes, it should be ok to question your church leaders about them, and it should be expected for the church leaders to answer and respond to those doubts. If the member decides not to believe in them, and is vocal about it, then yes, membership should be revoked. I don't believe I ever said that Dehlin shouldn't have been kicked out, I understood that...what I didn't understand was the church not responding to his doubts.
I honestly do have a problem with any church that does not allow its members to doubt, to question, to require members to blindly follow what they say. The church should be teaching its members about its views, and why they have those views. I am not saying that continual questioning, continual rejection, etc etc on the same subject is good, nor should it be allowed if it's obvious the member is not doing these things because he truly wants to learn, but I don't think members questioning some things is bad as long as the church teaches them and the members do come to agree with what the church teaches (on major salvation issues).
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
"Absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence," true, but this can be used to support any belief, particularly magical beliefs, e.g., the absence of evidence for UFOs, fairies, big foot, leprechauns, etc. is not evidence of absence. All true, but not really useful.
Over the years, Latin America has undergone extensive archeological and other research that has uncovered much information about previous civilizations/societies. I'm not saying that they have discovered everything, but the absence of any evidence supporting the existence of Nephrite/Lehite civilizations described in the BoM, and taking into account the scale of the civilizations as described, doesn't bode well for BoM authenticity.
Yeah, I suppose that the evidence just hasn't been found yet, but I suspect they'll still be saying that 50 years from now, and someone else will be quoting "absence of evidence . . . "
Personally, I feel that the evidence today in favor of the Book of Mormon is far stronger than the evidence was 50 years ago. Consider Jeff Lindsay's list of "Book of Mormon evidences", for example: https://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml. Whether or not you feel that any of his points are valid, the fact is that nearly all of those evidences would not have existed 50 years ago. So I actually feel pretty good about the chances that the next 50 years will see even more evidence for the Book of Mormon come to light.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Ya know this only seems simple to you because they are your beliefs. Beliefs that I'm guessing you probably grew up with. The trinity alone is a pretty abstract concept. The bible contradicts itself enough that it's impossible to have a literal interpretation of it that is consistent. I would say that your beliefs are fairly complex.
Hantlers
Well-Known Member
It's simple in that it all comes from the Bible. I'm not making up my own beliefs, I'm taking them from the Bible...make sense?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Not really.
How do you interpret it? How do you decide what parts to believe in literally and what parts to view as parable? Which rules do you live by and which do you ignore? It seems to me that what the bible says depends on who's reading it.