Joseph Smith - Prophet of God

[Popeyesays]

Are you really going to throw the Smithsonian card at us?

The Smithsonian Institution's 1996
"Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon"

(This site is very comprehensive on addressing the letter and the Smithsonian "issue".)

Quoted from this page:






A New Evaluation of the Smithsonian Institution "Statement regarding the Book of Mormon"

From this page:

The citation immediately above states:

"The Book of Mormon has never been analyzed as a record reporting ancient cultures on anything like the scale and with the intensity that it deserves, The text needs to be examined in full detail for what it says—and does not say—about customs, the rise of cities, warfare, etc., which it attributes to the peoples it treats. The only analysis even moving in that direction was published in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon,1 but even it only begins the requisite investigation. Meanwhile most Latter-day Saints characterize the cultures of the Nephites and other peoples treated in the volume unsystematically and uncritically, on the basis of informal traditions rather than sound scholarship. Yet what non-Latter-day Saints have claimed the Book of Mormon says about ancient America is equally unreliable. Even the few non-religious scholars, like those on the SI staff, who purport to have looked at the scripture in the light of archaeology sufficiently to make a statement about it have failed to investigate this complex record more than superficially."

i agree with the statement. However, I note that the reason that little attention has been paid is because there is little reason to think of Meso America in terms of a Hebrew settlement.

Regards,

Scott

 

[silvermoon383]

Where does the BoM claim they landed on the East Coast? That's news to me.

 

[Popeyesays]

Where does the BoM claim they landed on the East Coast? That's news to me.

Across the Atlantic from Europe and Africa is a westerly journey that ends on the east coast of the Americas - North, South and Central.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Francine]

Across the Atlantic from Europe and Africa is a westerly journey that ends on the east coast of the Americas - North, South and Central.

If you ever look at a map of Panama, the Atlantic is the north coast, and the Pacific is the south coast, and when you transit the canal you actually go slightly east when you move from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

 

[Popeyesays]

If you ever look at a map of Panama, the Atlantic is the north coast, and the Pacific is the south coast, and when you transit the canal you actually go slightly east when you move from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Perhaps, in a specific geographic sense but Central America is the juncture between the southern end of North America and the northern end of South America.

Why quibble?

Regards,
Scott

 

[Francine]

Why quibble?

That's more or less what I'm down to, having burned through any potential LDS friends here.

 

[nutshell]

That's more or less what I'm down to, having burned through any potential LDS friends here.

The LDS here have many friends here. You seem to have excluded yourself from them. For the reason why, you might want to look inside instead of outside.

 

[Francine]

The LDS here have many friends here. You seem to have excluded yourself from them. For the reason why, you might want to look inside instead of outside.

If I have excluded myself from someone, it is because they have said something to hurt me and I don't want to subject myself to more pain.

 

[nutshell]

If I have excluded myself from someone, it is because they have said something to hurt me and I don't want to subject myself to more pain.

That sounds reasonable, but please let me ask in all fairness: Are you being too sensitive?

For example, I know you felt "reprimanded" when you were told about certain forum rules (i.e. the DIR forum rule). This is something that has happened to everyone and it seems most people move on with a better understanding of the rule. However, you responded by excluding yourself from the person who pointed out the rule to you. Of course, I'm not you and I read everything with my own personal bias. However, it did seem that you may have been a bit sensitive.

 

[DeepShadow]

The first reply to the Smithsonian brings up the possibilities that the Chilean and Olmec civilizations may have had some contact or even initiation by Asians who found their way to the Americas from ASIA. The BoM claim is that those settlers came from Palestine to the EAST coast of the Americas.

The BoM makes several claims, including one that the Jaredites came from ASIA, long before the smaller Palestinian expedition.

Once again, this is a complex claim, and shadow-boxing with summaries doesn't do anyone any good.

 

[Popeyesays]

The BoM makes several claims, including one that the Jaredites came from ASIA, long before the smaller Palestinian expedition.

Once again, this is a complex claim, and shadow-boxing with summaries doesn't do anyone any good.

There is no doubt that the indigenous population of the Americas comes from Asia. Of course they came via the land bridge of which the Aleutians are the remnants, across the Bering Sea and they migrated ever southward.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Francine]

There is no doubt that the indigenous population of the Americas comes from Asia. Of course they came via the land bridge of which the Aleutians are the remnants, across the Bering Sea and they migrated ever southward.

There is a skull called Kennewick Man which dates to around 7,300 BC. He was kicking around in the Land of Promise before the Jaredites ever laid eyes on it.

 

[DeepShadow]

There is no doubt that the indigenous population of the Americas comes from Asia. Of course they came via the land bridge of which the Aleutians are the remnants, across the Bering Sea and they migrated ever southward.

Latest scholarship like that summarized in 1491 says that the Land Bridge Theory is incomplete. There is accumulating peer-reviewed evidence that groups moved from Asia by boat, following the coastlines.

Or course, neither of these precludes the possibility of one or more small groups brought to the Americas, such as the Jaredites from Asia or the Lehites from the Middle East.

 

[nutshell]

There is a skull called Kennewick Man which dates to around 7,300 BC. He was kicking around in the Land of Promise before the Jaredites ever laid eyes on it.

Which is groovy because the BoM doesn't make any claims that the Jaredites were the very first ones here.

 

[Popeyesays]

Latest scholarship like that summarized in 1491 says that the Land Bridge Theory is incomplete. There is accumulating peer-reviewed evidence that groups moved from Asia by boat, following the coastlines. <snip>

That counts as landbridge in my book. Moving along the coast in canoes is not much different than walking, is it.

There are some who consider Folsom Man to have been closely related to tribes in Europe which used similar stone weapon types. The postulate is that they moved along the ice in canoes from floe to floe and wound up in North America.

All this would, of course, have been previous to any lost tribes making there way in the bronze or early iron age.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Francine]

All this would, of course, have been previous to any lost tribes making there way in the bronze or early iron age.

If we believe the Book of Mormon, all of these aboriginal people were absent circa 600 BC when the folks came over with Lehi. There is no mention of any other people besides the Lamanites and the Nephites, until we get to the story of the Jaredites.

 

[Bishka]

If we believe the Book of Mormon, all of these aboriginal people were absent circa 600 BC when the folks came over with Lehi. There is no mention of any other people besides the Lamanites and the Nephites, until we get to the story of the Jaredites.

And perhaps they were in different areas.

 

[nutshell]

If we believe the Book of Mormon, all of these aboriginal people were absent circa 600 BC when the folks came over with Lehi. There is no mention of any other people besides the Lamanites and the Nephites, until we get to the story of the Jaredites.

Logical fallacy: Just because a group isn't mentioned doesn't mean they weren't there. I can think of any number of reasons why the other groups weren't in the BoM. Can't you?

 

[Melissa G]

Latest scholarship like that summarized in 1491 says that the Land Bridge Theory is incomplete. There is accumulating peer-reviewed evidence that groups moved from Asia by boat, following the coastlines.

Yes, but they wern't Jews, but Asiatics.

Or course, neither of these precludes the possibility of one or more small groups brought to the Americas, such as the Jaredites from Asia or the Lehites from the Middle East.

Neither does it support the very remote possiblity they did. As I've pointed out much long ago in ancient threads, there is no way peoples of that age, ie 600 bce could build ocean going vessels, let alone navigate across the Atlantic. The Egyptians were noted for sailing only in sight of the coastline. As for the Jews, hardly a noted sea faring race now.

Melissa G

 

[Reverend Rick]

I am still trying to figure out where the land of Nod was. Did not Adam and Eve's children find mates there? I certainly hope so.