Book of Mormon Intro Modified

[woot]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

False? Even with the revision, the claim is still being made that there is Lamanite heritage in the native peoples. The only thing that was changed was a word which would indicate in the vaguest of terms the proportion that hertiage represented.

Yes, false. It is objectively false that the Lamanites represent anything close to the "principle ancestors" of Native Americans. If they are ancestral at all, or ever existed at all, supportive evidence is still absent. That Lamanite blood is still present in some Native Americans isn't entirely disprovable, but the old doctrine of principle ancestry is and has been.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

Yes, false. It is objectively false that the Lamanites represent anything close to the "principle ancestors" of Native Americans. If they are ancestral at all, or ever existed at all, supportive evidence is still absent. That Lamanite blood is still present in some Native Americans isn't entirely disprovable, but the old doctrine of principle ancestry is and has been.

I thought you were saying that claiming ANY Lamanite ancestry was false.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I thought you were saying that claiming ANY Lamanite ancestry was false.

Nope, it's not something that can really be proven false, but it does seem very unlikely. I put it in the same category as any other fantastical idea that isn't disprovable.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Nope, it's not something that can really be proven false, but it does seem very unlikely. I put it in the same category as any other fantastical idea that isn't disprovable.

Given the numerous journeys that occurred throughout the world over time, from the "landbridge", to the 15th Chinese explorations, and other voyages, you find unlikely that peoples from the Middle East also migrated here at one time in the distant past?

I find unlikely they didn't. Seafaring peoples are likely to have stumbled over here. Now whether we have a record of one of those groups falls into the unprovable category, but that doesn't make it fantastical. I find nothing about ancient peoples taking to the seas as fantastical.

You should see the meager craft Polynesians traverse very dangerous seas in. It is quite amazing.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Given the numerous journeys that occurred throughout the world over time, from the "landbridge", to the 15th Chinese explorations, and other voyages, you find unlikely that peoples from the Middle East also migrated here at one time in the distant past?

I find unlikely they didn't. Seafaring peoples are likely to have stumbled over here. Now whether we have a record of one of those groups falls into the unprovable category, but that doesn't make it fantastical. I find nothing about ancient peoples taking to the seas as fantastical.

You should see the meager craft Polynesians traverse very dangerous seas in. It is quite amazing.

The crafts that we speculate that certain peoples may have used to cross the ocean on kelp forests many thousands of years ago were quite meager, so no, I don't find it unlikely in principle.

This is a change of subject though. A specific group of people from a specific place building a specific kind of boat and crossing the ocean at a specific time and for a specific reason is unlikely. People were quite nomadic back then, so it's entirely possible that some of those who crossed over had at one time passed through the middle east. That isn't what we're talking about here.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

The crafts that we speculate that certain peoples may have used to cross the ocean on kelp forests many thousands of years ago were quite meager, so no, I don't find it unlikely in principle.

This is a change of subject though. A specific group of people from a specific place building a specific kind of boat and crossing the ocean at a specific time and for a specific reason is unlikely. People were quite nomadic back then, so it's entirely possible that some of those who crossed over had at one time passed through the middle east. That isn't what we're talking about here.

You made it sound as if ancient Middle Eastern people traveling across the seas was fantastical. That in my mind, shows your bias, and the fact that peoples for thousands of years have been crossing the seas, by design in the case of the Chinese explorations in the early 15th Century, and by many other peoples.

Now you state, because you disbelieve it all, that it is fantastical that Middle Eastern people in the materials available at that point in time couldn't have done it. What, they weren't smart enough?

I agree it is unprovable whether the BoM is an ancient record of one of these journeys, but your claim that the basic journey is highly improbable for such naive and ignorant persons, I dispute.

Have you ever seen the distances Tahitians travel in outriggers? Would want to make the same journey? I'm not certain I would.

If the claim is plausible, that ancient peoples constructed craft watersafe enough, a small number could have bumbled across one or both seas. In most circumstances they would have landed elsewhere, but given the vast numbers that probably tried, some would have succeeded. We have Skandavian successes, Portuguese, Chinese successes and why not others? I imagine the Egyptians or Aryans from the Indic Valley or other peoples traversed the seas in small numbers and landed on the new continent.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You made it sound as if ancient Middle Eastern people traveling across the seas was fantastical. That in my mind, shows your bias, and the fact that peoples for thousands of years have been crossing the seas, by design in the case of the Chinese explorations in the early 15th Century, and by many other peoples.

Now you state, because you disbelieve it all, that it is fantastical that Middle Eastern people in the materials available at that point in time couldn't have done it. What, they weren't smart enough?

I agree it is unprovable whether the BoM is an ancient record of one of these journeys, but your claim that the basic journey is highly improbable for such naive and ignorant persons, I dispute.

Have you ever seen the distances Tahitians travel in outriggers? Would want to make the same journey? I'm not certain I would.

If the claim is plausible, that ancient peoples constructed craft watersafe enough, a small number could have bumbled across one or both seas. In most circumstances they would have landed elsewhere, but given the vast numbers that probably tried, some would have succeeded. We have Skandavian successes, Portuguese, Chinese successes and why not others? I imagine the Egyptians or Aryans from the Indic Valley or other peoples traversed the seas in small numbers and landed on the new continent.

I think you missed the point, but I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. I just acknowledged that all sorts of people may have traveled across the ocean at varying times, including people that may or may not have once lived in the middle east, so I don't know why you're listing examples and making contrary accusations.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

God had already told some people here that word was wrong. He just hadn't gotten around to telling his apostles and prophet yet.

Last to know, first to go ...

You intend this as a criticism? Apparently, some of the evil "free-thinkers" here actually got it right.

Please tell me you don't intend this as a dig at those who "criticize" the church leaders for perpetuating incorrect information.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

I think you missed the point, but I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. I just acknowledged that all sorts of people may have traveled across the ocean at varying times, including people that may or may not have once lived in the middle east, so I don't know why you're listing examples and making contrary accusations.

Trying to see if you will back from your silly claim that a group of travelers migrating from the MidEast to the Western Hemisphere is fantastical. It may not have happened or we may not have the record, even though many believe otherwise, but just trying to get you to back down from your overstated claim.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

You intend this as a criticism? Apparently, some of the evil "free-thinkers" here actually got it right.

Please tell me you don't intend this as a dig at those who "criticize" the church leaders for perpetuating incorrect information.

How dare we get it right! That's an outrage.