LDS Zarahemla Nonexistent

dzheremi said:

The problem is not the confessional identities of the persons doing the research in and of themselves, but the boundaries of the research itself, in that it is beholden to a religious narrative.

Click to expand...

When I first started out as a movie critic, two things happened:

1. I decided to ignore the hype around the adaptation of "Ender's Game" and review the film on its own merits... whereupon I rated it highly because I regarded it as a good movie.

2. I noted that "The Saratov Approach" was getting praise from both right-wing and left-wing outlets, and so I was hoping the film would make it down my way.

In response, several "progressive" individuals spent the next several days mocking me, accusing me of having an agenda, and even gay-bashing me on a public message forum.

I say this as your post reminded me of the fact that since I was Mormon, people were automatically presuming that my religion would define anything and everything I did, something that they used as an excuse to mock me and write me off.

You pretty much did the same thing just now with Mormon archaeologists: they can be the most neutral, professional, and respected person around, but you've just declared that it doesn't matter as you automatically do not trust anything they have to say.

(FYI - I saw "The Saratov Approach" a few months ago when I received the DVD as a gift. Ended up panning it because of the shaky camera work; I've had to learn how to track motion due to working as a driver, and so past a certain point I literally couldn't focus on the film itself for all of the shaking. The "retro" review is ready and in the hopper; it just needs to be printed.)

Ironhold said:

When I first started out as a movie critic, two things happened:

1. I decided to ignore the hype around the adaptation of "Ender's Game" and review the film on its own merits... whereupon I rated it highly because I regarded it as a good movie.

2. I noted that "The Saratov Approach" was getting praise from both right-wing and left-wing outlets, and so I was hoping the film would make it down my way.

In response, several "progressive" individuals spent the next several days mocking me, accusing me of having an agenda, and even gay-bashing me on a public message forum.

I say this as your post reminded me of the fact that since I was Mormon, people were automatically presuming that my religion would define anything and everything I did, something that they used as an excuse to mock me and write me off.

You pretty much did the same thing just now with Mormon archaeologists: they can be the most neutral, professional, and respected person around, but you've just declared that it doesn't matter as you automatically do not trust anything they have to say.

(FYI - I saw "The Saratov Approach" a few months ago when I received the DVD as a gift. Ended up panning it because of the shaky camera work; I've had to learn how to track motion due to working as a driver, and so past a certain point I literally couldn't focus on the film itself for all of the shaking. The "retro" review is ready and in the hopper; it just needs to be printed.)

Click to expand...

I would not expect an atheist to have the same view on archeological findings as a
Bible believer.

I'm not mocking or writing anyone off. I am explaining why Mormon research into academic subjects is generally not taken seriously. I did specify that this is not the case with all Mormon researchers (e.g., Richard Bushman is, as far as I can tell, a respected historian, even though he is a Mormon writing about Mormonism), only in those cases where the integrity and quality of their research takes a back seat to their commitment to their religious narrative. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell from what you folks have shared with me, this includes all of the examples coming from my particular field. Read: No disinterested non-Mormon linguist attests to the existence of something called "Reformed Egyptian", or takes NHM carved on a rock somewhere in Arabia to be evidence of anything in the BOM, etc. These are leaps in logic that definitely place the supposed 'research' conducted by the people involved under intense and well-deserved scrutiny, and lead to their conclusions being rightly rejected for being unfounded apologetics attempting to masquerade as legitimate research. It's not appreciated, again, not because they are Mormons and I am not, but because they're not doing what they claim to be doing.

Think about it: If I presented myself as a legitimate film critic, but filled my reviews with unrelated jabs at Mormonism and exhortations that the reader ought to join Orthodox Christianity, you as an actual film critic would not be very appreciative of that, right? And your criticism of my activities would presumably not be made because I am Orthodox, but because of what am I actually doing under the cover of 'film criticism'. I could just as easily be Orthodox (or anything else) and not fill my reviews with a bunch of nonsense that ought not be in them, in the same way that any Mormon who wants to do actual linguistic, anthropological, etc. research is free to do so, but they would have to meet the standard that everyone else has to meet, and leave the 'faith-promoting' non-science out of it.

Ironhold said:

You pretty much did the same thing just now with Mormon archaeologists: they can be the most neutral, professional, and respected person around, but you've just declared that it doesn't matter as you automatically do not trust anything they have to say.

Click to expand...

Are there Mormon (I thought you guys weren't supposed to use that term??) archaeologists who have had their research and/or findings peer reviewed by the greater archaeological community and have been accepted on its merits? I doubt it. Credibility is lacking from what I can tell, especially any peoples or events that relate to the BoM being even remotely true. Just the usual apologetic hacks saying "perhaps", "likely", "may have", etc.

Peter1000 said:

And even if there is limited archaeological evidence, the Holy Spirit has told me that the BOM is true. If I can now see any evidence that backs up my spiritual knowledge, that is just icing on the cake, but if little icing, I still love the cake.

Click to expand...

Did this spirit tell you the Garden of Eden is in Missouri?

BigDaddy4 said:

Are there Mormon (I thought you guys weren't supposed to use that term??) archaeologists who have had their research and/or findings peer reviewed by the greater archaeological community and have been accepted on its merits? I doubt it. Credibility is lacking from what I can tell, especially any peoples or events that relate to the BoM being even remotely true. Just the usual apologetic hacks saying "perhaps", "likely", "may have", etc.

Click to expand...

I already explained *why* there's such a hesitance for peer-review sources to touch this material.

Ironhold said:

I already explained *why* there's such a hesitance for peer-review sources to touch this material.

Click to expand...

Do you ever get tired of making excuses for this *non-existant* material? Is it because the world has yet to understand the "milk" of the "restored gospel" and wouldn't understand this "meat" of material, if it really existed?

The truth of the matter is, there is no such evidence or material to present to a peer-review. If you were to hold to your Article of Faith #13 (We believe in being honest, true,...), you would admit your church has no credible claims to peer review instead of making poor excuses.

If you basically assume that the academic establishment is against you because of your confessional identity, then the academic establishment is not going to take you seriously. You could have good research to share (in this case, you don't; I'm just saying it's possible), but how would anyone know if you approach everything with the attitude of "Nobody's going to seriously consider what we have to say because we're XYZ"? Also that attitude predisposes you to seeing conspiracies against you when there aren't any. "Oh, they refuse to touch our findings on _____!" No they don't. You don't have any findings. You have things that you think may point to this or that, but no scientifically rigorous method of defending or fleshing out your claims. That's why they're so easy to shoot down -- because they're not scientifically motivated in the first place (they're religiously motivated).

"Motivation", just by the way, is not to be understood like it's some kind of underhanded scheme or ideological imperative to keep Mormons out of academic research. It just means "supported by evidence", i.e., my conclusions in postulating X are motivated by the trend in the data which shows that X is the more likely explanation for the observed phenomenon than the counter-explanations of Y and Z" (again, that's falsifiability -- the essence of any scientific endeavor, which destroys Mormon attempts at research because their religiously-bound narrative is by its very nature not falsifiable: it can't be proven that NHM is not Nahom, and their book says Nahom, therefore it's Nahom...nevermind that that's not how things work...).

Solomon Smith said:

Exactly, the BOM is a fable. It’s a work of fiction.

Click to expand...

I want you to think about this:

Jesus says that he was sent to the House of Israel. So he was sent to the area of Jerusalem to perform his ministry. And from that ministry and the calling of apostles we have the Bible.

We know that there were people from the House of Israel in many places in the world. One of those places was Central America. If Jesus was sent to preach to the House of Israel, he would come to the Americas too and preach. He would call his apostles here too. There were also prophets before Jesus came to the Americas, and prophets after. That is how we get the BOM.

Jesus went other places too that we do not have record of yet, but they are coming in due time.

So the BOM is a fable, it is the Word of Jesus to the people of the House of Israel in the Americas, just like the Bible is the Word of Jesus to the people of the House of Israel in the Jerusalem area.

Peter1000 said:

I want you to think about this:

Jesus says that he was sent to the House of Israel. So he was sent to the area of Jerusalem to perform his ministry. And from that ministry and the calling of apostles we have the Bible.

We know that there were people from the House of Israel in many places in the world. One of those places was Central America. If Jesus was sent to preach to the House of Israel, he would come to the Americas too and preach. He would call his apostles here too. There were also prophets before Jesus came to the Americas, and prophets after. That is how we get the BOM.

Jesus went other places too that we do not have record of yet, but they are coming in due time.

So the BOM is a fable, it is the Word of Jesus to the people of the House of Israel in the Americas, just like the Bible is the Word of Jesus to the people of the House of Israel in the Jerusalem area.

Click to expand...

Are you sure that we're the ones who need to think about this?

mmksparbud said:

And that is the problem with putting feeling above a "it is written"---feelings can be manipulated, by Satan, and by our own inclinations.

Click to expand...

So you think it is more important that 'it is written', than you do in the witness of the Holy spirit to your spirit? The written word of God says that the Holy Spirit is the truth teller and that he talks to the spirit that is in you. Far more powerful and important.

Solomon Smith said:

Uh...No...

Click to expand...

Uh....No.... and what evidence do you have that what you say is true?

Peter1000 said:

So you think it is more important that 'it is written', than you do in the witness of the Holy spirit to your spirit? The written word of God says that the Holy Spirit is the truth teller and that he talks to the spirit that is in you. Far more powerful and important.

Click to expand...

Not powerful nor important when it is a pack of lies and not the Holy Spirit at all but some sort of feeling--it's some spirit all right---Just not the Holy Spirit from God. And if JS had done what the bible says and tested this spirit of his--the angel of light--he would have seen it.

2Co_11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

The true Holy Spirit will never lead you away from the bible---only towards it, for it is the word of God.

dzheremi said:

Are you sure that we're the ones who need to think about this?

Click to expand...

Do you not believe in the Jewish diaspora? Do you not believe in the dispersion of the House of Israel all over the globe.

What happened to Israel in 722bc? The 10 tribes were conquered and taken off to Assyria, never to return. Where did they go? Could some of them have actually made it to the Amercas?

Read Genesis 49:22-26 about the prayer that Jacob gave to his 12 sons, and particularly Joseph. It says 2 important things about the House of Joseph.
1) Joseph would be a fruitful bough by a well, and its branches run over the wall.
2) The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills:

The Church of Jesus Christ believes this blessing has reference to part of Joseph's branches (family) going over the ocean to a place of the everlasting hills. The place of the 'everlasting hills' is on the American hemisphere.
So we believe that part of the House of Israel (particularly Joseph) was brought to America by God.

Lehi was of the House of Joseph, and his fathers were directed by the Lord to leave the Northern tribes, just before their fall to Assyria and go to Judah, that was still righteous at that time. Lehi as well as his son Nephi were born around Jerusalem and grew up knowing the Lord Jehovah. As Judah sunk into depravity, Lehi was called by the Lord to prophecy to the people that if they did not repent, they would be conquered just like Israel. The people did not like prophecies that they would be conquered, so they tried to kill Lehi. The Lord then told Lehi around 600bc to leave Jerusalem and the Lord would guide him to a promised land, away from the destruction that would soon come to Jerusalem.

So the dispersion of Israel in this case took the form of the Lord leading a group of Israelites (from the House of Joseph) out of Jerusalem before the destruction, and over the wall of the well (the ocean) and to the Americas and the land of the 'everlasting hills'.
This group fulfilled the prophecy by Jacob to Joseph.

There they were for 600 years until Christ came to Jerusalem and was eventually crucified for our sins and was resurrected and went to his God and his Father who was in heaven
(John 20:17).

Then Jesus came to the earth again (similar to him coming to see Paul) and visited other people of the house of Israel that had been scattered to other parts of the earth (Remember that was his mission to go to the House of Israel). One of these places was the Americas. And from that visit, we know that he taught the same gospel to these people as to the people in Jerusalem. The BOM records this visit and the wonderful things that he taught.

There are evidences that Jesus did come to the Americas, but one day you will know without doubt that Jesus did in fact visit many places around the globe to fulfill his mission to bring his gospel to the House of Israel.

mmksparbud said:

Not powerful nor important when it is a pack of lies and not the Holy Spirit at all but some sort of feeling--it's some spirit all right---Just not the Holy Spirit from God. And if JS had done what the bible says and tested this spirit of his--the angel of light--he would have seen it.

2Co_11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

The true Holy Spirit will never lead you away from the bible---only towards it, for it is the word of God.

Click to expand...

satan can be an angel of light, but he can also be the dark satan that is his more comfortable nature. JS knew satan as the dark person he was, as he tried to pray in the grove, satan tried to take his life. But JS also knows the Holy Spirit who came at that time along with the appearing of the Father and the Son to dismiss satan and give JS the glorious knowledge that his sins were forgiven and that he would be a prophet in the land to help restore the true Church of Jesus Christ to the earth again, through the administration of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

JS was not lead away from the Bible, but through revelations and translations he added mighty words to the canon of Scripture, and the Word of God, that confirmed the Bible and gave us more information about God and his Son, Jesus Christ.

Why would you limit God and Jesus to the words of the bible. You are capping God to be only able to say things that are in the Bible, which is about 1/10,000 of the words he gave to us during his ministry on earth. 1/10,000 of his words are recorded for our enlightenment. Wow, would it not be interesting to know the other words he spoke.

Has he not spoken in over 2,000 years? Yes, he has, you just have to go to where he is still speaking to his people.

Peter1000 said:

satan can be an angel of light, but he can also be the dark satan that is his more comfortable nature. JS knew satan as the dark person he was, as he tried to pray in the grove, satan tried to take his life. But JS also knows the Holy Spirit who came at that time along with the appearing of the Father and the Son to dismiss satan and give JS the glorious knowledge that his sins were forgiven and that he would be a prophet in the land to help restore the true Church of Jesus Christ to the earth again, through the administration of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

JS was not lead away from the Bible, but through revelations and translations he added mighty words to the canon of Scripture, and the Word of God, that confirmed the Bible and gave us more information about God and his Son, Jesus Christ.

Why would you limit God and Jesus to the words of the bible. You are capping God to be only able to say things that are in the Bible, which is about 1/10,000 of the words he gave to us during his ministry on earth. 1/10,000 of his words are recorded for our enlightenment. Wow, would it not be interesting to know the other words he spoke.

Has he not spoken in over 2,000 years? Yes, he has, you just have to go to where he is still speaking to his people.

Click to expand...

I don't limit Him---a Prophet of God does not add scripture or contradict what is already there--he reveals what is already there.
2Ti_3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

His adding of scripture, his adding of stuff that is not verified by the bible, his lack of his prophecies to come true, the manner of his death, his stating that God wanted polygamy when the NT said one wife, his concept that God was a man before He became God, the blatant lie had it not been for the fall we would never have had children, his saying that Jesus is the brother to Satan when Jesus is His Creator and therefore more his father, that he thinks we existed before being born, that we are the product of the Father and the heavenly mother, that we will have our own planet where we will be God and have to then be a savior to those people that we have fathered just as God did for us---all this and much more are why he is not a prophet of God. Your prophets contradict each other. There has been not one bit of evidence for anything that he has written. Garden of Eden in Missouri!

God is more than able to keep His word safe and has
Isa 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

This is such ridiculous logic on the part of our friend Peter.

Peter, if I told you I had a revelation from God that the LDS Church is a cult, and that JS and all other Mormon leaders are religious charlatans, and everyone should flee from them and their organization lest they be taken in by Satan, who is the real controlling power behind the LDS religion, would you believe me?

No, right? Because you presumably don't believe that "God" would say such things.

And if I responded to your dismissive reply by saying "Why are you limiting what God can say? Why are you silencing God? Do you think God doesn't speak to people anymore? Do you think it's impossible that God spoke to me and told me that? Why are you muting God?", you wouldn't suddenly turn around and say "Well, I guess I don't want to say that God is limited, or that He is silent, so I'll have to agree with you that God did tell you those things, and then do whatever it is that you say, since you say these are things God told you."

Please grant other people here the same courtesy and do not reply as though they making an argument that they are not making just because doing so makes it easier for you to respond according to what you've made out of their replies.