Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 9, 2007 11:55:20 GMT -4
He had some serious issues with the BoM and privately felt conflected about some things that were difficult to explain away. It's impossible to prove what Elder Roberts privately felt, but his public statements up until the time of his death show full confidence in the truth of the Book of Mormon. Certainly he never left the church. The letter to the First Presidency I quoted above was written directly after the studies anti-mormon critics show as proof that Elder Roberts had private doubts. Speaking of the studies he says, "Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine...I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it." If the studies represented real doubt on Elder Robert's part then he was lying in this letter. Elder Roberts wrote many books that fully supported the church and the truth of the Book of Mormon during his lifetime (such as A Comprehensive History of the Church). The three studies that he wrote in the '20s were titled "Book of Mormon Difficulties: A Study", "A Book of Mormon Study" and "A Parallel". They were prompted by a special conference of the General Authorities of teh Church that was held late in 1921 to discuss how the Church should respond to attacks on the Book of Mormon based on scientific approaches. They were never submitted for publication, and that's why they were not published during his lifetime. After his death his family eventually donated his papers to the University of Utah, and they were then published in the early nineties. But of course, if you had read the link I provided you would know all this. Nothing. The truth does not depend on how many or what kind of people believe or disbelieve it. The idea that B.H. Roberts lost his testamony is one I have encountered in anti-mormon writings before, and so I felt the need to set the record straight, but it doesn't really matter to me whether prominent members of the church have fallen away.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 9, 2007 12:00:58 GMT -4
Only what the National Geographic Society has said and I am fairly sure I posted their letter explaining their position. The BoM does not present a historical view that is regarded as genuine with main-line historians, archaeologists, and linguistics. And so since the story does not mesh with the rest of human knowledge we have to wonder if Smith could have the character to have just made it up. We search for this and we find it is possible. Is their motivation for rejecting the Book of Mormon because it's a religious instead of a historical text, or because of its stated origins (which may cause them to reject it even before they examine it), or simply because it doesn't provide a great deal of material that would be useful in archaeological research (as that is not its object)? Any of those reasons could be used to reject it before the idea that it somehow "doesn't mesh" with what is already theorized by archaeologists. I maintain that there are no serious conflicts between the BoM and what science knows, and that where there appear to be conflicts it is in areas where science is really only guessing. You have yet to present evidence of a real conflict between the two. And for the record, I believe Apollo is authentic and that the Earth is not at the center of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 9, 2007 16:30:48 GMT -4
Only what the National Geographic Society has said and I am fairly sure I posted their letter explaining their position. The BoM does not present a historical view that is regarded as genuine with main-line historians, archaeologists, and linguistics. And so since the story does not mesh with the rest of human knowledge we have to wonder if Smith could have the character to have just made it up. We search for this and we find it is possible. Is their motivation for rejecting the Book of Mormon because it's a religious instead of a historical text, or because of its stated origins (which may cause them to reject it even before they examine it), or simply because it doesn't provide a great deal of material that would be useful in archaeological research (as that is not its object)? It is the story itself. The story INSIDE the BoM conflicts with a long list of accepted facts in a long list of fields of study. It isn't regarded as being accurate, truthful, or authentic in the mainstream. Their motivations are not devious or questionable at all.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 9, 2007 17:00:35 GMT -4
It is the story itself. The story INSIDE the BoM conflicts with a long list of accepted facts in a long list of fields of study. It isn't regarded as being accurate, truthful, or authentic in the mainstream. Their motivations are not devious or questionable at all. A) Do you have statemtents to that effect, or is this just your opinion? B) Which facts in particular does it conflict with?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 11, 2007 0:15:35 GMT -4
It is the story itself. The story INSIDE the BoM conflicts with a long list of accepted facts in a long list of fields of study. It isn't regarded as being accurate, truthful, or authentic in the mainstream. Their motivations are not devious or questionable at all. A) Do you have statemtents to that effect, or is this just your opinion? B) Which facts in particular does it conflict with? Shall we take them one by one? #1 Elephants ::)were not in the Pre-Columbian New world. #2 Now, if horses where, tell me why the Mormon apologists,F.A.R.M.S, have said that Smith meant tapirs? And to you think tapirs were rode into combat? #3 Archeologists have said that cities always leave ruins. Always.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 11, 2007 1:05:35 GMT -4
#1 Elephants ::)were not in the Pre-Columbian New world. Mastodons and Mammoths were present in the Americas, and other elephant remains have been found, including american artifacts bearing images of elephants. Elephants are mentioned in the Book of Mormon in relationship to the Jaredites who journeyed to the Americas from Asia around 2500 BC. They are not mentioned after that point, and there is no real indication of how common they were. www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/elephant.htmlCan we be sure there were no elephants in the Americas at the time? Not at all. Is your beef with the Apologists or with the book? One possible apologist theory is that the Nephites saw the tapir and used the word horse to describe an unfamiliar animal. When Joseph Smith translated the book he translated the Nephite word "horse". Now, it's just a theory - a workable one, but just a theory. It's supported by the fact that the Book of Mormon never describes people riding horses at all, let alone in combat. Chariots are mentioned, but not riding horses. Since pre-Colombian horse remains have been found in America this theory may be unnecessarily complex. Again, we can't say with certainty that there were no horses in America at the time. No Mormon I'm aware of has ever claimed that the cities described in the Book of Mormon completely disappeared, and there certainly are lots of ruins in meso-America. We've discussed all of these points on this thread already. Do you have anything new?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 13, 2007 3:25:46 GMT -4
This is interesting: PROVO — College students should not put off creating families until they have completed all of their studies, an LDS Church apostle said Sunday... Using examples from his life, Elder Nelson, a surgeon and medical researcher, said he and his wife struggled financially early in his career while he earned medical degrees. By the time he set up his practice his wife had given birth to five of their 10 children... He urged his listeners to seek first to follow the teachings of the church before seeking wealth, which includes the commandment to create families... see: "deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600110324,00.html"
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 13, 2007 3:29:07 GMT -4
He had some serious issues with the BoM and privately felt conflected about some things that were difficult to explain away. It's impossible to prove what Elder Roberts privately felt, but his public statements up until the time of his death show full confidence in the truth of the Book of Mormon. Certainly he never left the church. Beyond a reasonable doubt it is convincing he had serious doubts.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 13, 2007 3:31:39 GMT -4
No Mormon I'm aware of has ever claimed that the cities described in the Book of Mormon completely disappeared, and there certainly are lots of ruins in meso-America. [/quote] Wait a second. I am pretty sure YOU did. When I mentioned earlier in this discussion thread this topic your reply was that they were not found because they had been destroyed in battles. You are contradicting yourself.
Your take on this is new.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 13, 2007 3:39:30 GMT -4
#1 Elephants ::)were not in the Pre-Columbian New world. Mastodons and Mammoths were present in the Americas, and other elephant remains have been found, including American artifacts bearing images of elephants. Elephants are mentioned in the Book of Mormon in relationship to the Jaredites who journeyed to the Americas from Asia around 2500 BC. They are not mentioned after that point, and there is no real indication of how common they were. www.2s2.com/chapmanresearch/elephant.htmlCan we be sure there were no elephants in the Americas at the time? Not at all. Jason, are you saying that Mastodons and Mammoths were alive during the time-line described in the BoM? These animals are and were extinct in the Americas. These animals were not given a chance to evolve into Elephants in North America. There are very clear evidence of them being hunted to extinction. Native Americans would use hunting practices where they were herded off of cliffs. What Americans of European decent almost did with the buffalo, the Native Americans did with the Mammoths. Yes, Jason, I am very sure Elephants were NOT around in the Americas at that time. If they were around, noone would be resorting to wasting their time using the buffalo as thier man source of survival.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 13, 2007 12:48:59 GMT -4
It's impossible to prove what Elder Roberts privately felt, but his public statements up until the time of his death show full confidence in the truth of the Book of Mormon. Certainly he never left the church. Beyond a reasonable doubt it is convincing he had serious doubts. To you perhaps, not to me. The man gave his whole life in service to the church, including ten years of service after he produced the studies in question. Would he really do that for something he didn't believe in?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 13, 2007 12:56:41 GMT -4
I beleive I said that one civilization (the Lamanites) had destroyed the other (the Nephites), which would make identifiable cultural artifacts from the destroyed civilization such as writings or art pieces that were identifiably Nephite much more difficult to find - not something as substantial as the ruins of cities. Cities would have been overrun and destroyed in the sense that their people would be killed or driven out and their records destroyed, but the Lamanites would not have bothered disassembling all the buildings and walls. Some cities no doubt were later re-built and occupied by the conquerors. Substantial ruins would therefore still remain - just without the most obvious clues as what culture constructed them originally. My point was not that the cities had completely disappeared, but to point out why identification of Nephite cities as such would be more difficult than if they had simply been abandoned.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 13, 2007 13:00:32 GMT -4
I'm saying that it's a possibility that Mammoths and Mastadons were still around in 2500 BC when the Jaredites arrived in the Americas and that Elephants may have been around as well.
Elephants are not mentioned at all during the Nephite period of the record (600 BC to AD 420), so they may well have disappeared by that time.
I'm not making any claims contrary to those ideas.
How then do you explain the obvious elephant-related American artifacts pictured in the link I posted?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 13, 2007 13:12:20 GMT -4
I'm saying that it's a possibility that Mammoths and Mastadons were still around in 2500 BC when the Jaredites arrived in the Americas and that Elephants may have been around as well. Elephants are not mentioned at all during the Nephite period of the record (600 BC to AD 420), so they may well have disappeared by that time. I'm not making any claims contrary to those ideas. How then do you explain the obvious elephant-related American artifacts pictured in the link I posted? There are UFO-related artifacts and Dragon related artifacts too. Besides, your "artifacts" are clearly open to interpretation. Like looking at clouds, you see what you imagine to be there. Rather than search for any tiny clue that could possibly hint that you might be right, it is more logical to go with what is most likely. This is what science does. Now, what about the tapirs?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 13, 2007 13:27:51 GMT -4
I think it's pretty obvious that the pipe found in Iowa and the illustration from Nature are elephants (not matadons or mammoths). Some of the others might be something else.
And what about the tapirs? Go read my post.
|
|