Per Stormin Mormon:
And the Mormons who are scientists or doctors find
that science matches nicely with Mormon teachings.

Seems like they're walking back the patently-loony stuff like Lamanites
and Nephites being descended from the people of Israel and the Lamanites
being the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

To me that bespeaks a more vital and adaptable organization than those
who cling to the crazy stuff no matter how clearly crazy it is in light
of what people have learned since it supposedly happened....
--
Pete Cresswell

On 12/16/2015 09:13 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Seems like they're walking back the patently-loony stuff like Lamanites
and Nephites being descended from the people of Israel and the Lamanites
being the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

I don't think that's an option. FARMS could be disbanded when their
theories of a mesoamerican site never bore fruit but that was just a
particular location not the entire narrative. When you're in the prophet
business vagueness is a good idea not a highly detailed story.

On 12/16/2015 11:13 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Stormin Mormon:
And the Mormons who are scientists or doctors find
that science matches nicely with Mormon teachings.

Seems like they're walking back the patently-loony stuff like Lamanites
and Nephites being descended from the people of Israel and the Lamanites
being the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

To me that bespeaks a more vital and adaptable organization than those
who cling to the crazy stuff no matter how clearly crazy it is in light
of what people have learned since it supposedly happened....


I'm not aware of any "walking back". If you
find a link, I'd be mildly curious.

My finding is that most of what people call
crazy stuff, eventually comes to light as
being correct and true.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 1:42:01 AM UTC-6, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 12/16/2015 11:13 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Stormin Mormon:
And the Mormons who are scientists or doctors find
that science matches nicely with Mormon teachings.

Seems like they're walking back the patently-loony stuff like Lamanites
and Nephites being descended from the people of Israel and the Lamanites
being the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

To me that bespeaks a more vital and adaptable organization than those
who cling to the crazy stuff no matter how clearly crazy it is in light
of what people have learned since it supposedly happened....

I'm not aware of any "walking back". If you
find a link, I'd be mildly curious.

My finding is that most of what people call
crazy stuff, eventually comes to light as
being correct and true.
--
.
That's why I'm a fan of science fiction. ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Fictional Monster

Per Stormin Mormon:
Seems like they're walking back the patently-loony stuff like Lamanites
and Nephites being descended from the people of Israel and the Lamanites
being the principal ancestors of the American Indians.


I'm not aware of any "walking back". If you
find a link, I'd be mildly curious.

I might have been talking out of my butt on that one because
I do not really know how strongly the LDS asserted in past years
that the Lamanites were from Israel and were also the ancestors
of American Indians....

My assumption had been that the LDS had, in the past, made that
assertion strongly... but I can't back that up with citations.

But here-and-now,
https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-m...udies?lang=eng
seems to me like they are walking it back (if, in fact, there is
anything to walk back)... although they're leaving themselves some
wiggle room.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 12/17/2015 10:13 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Stormin Mormon:
I'm not aware of any "walking back". If you
find a link, I'd be mildly curious.

I might have been talking out of my butt on that one because
I do not really know how strongly the LDS asserted in past years
that the Lamanites were from Israel and were also the ancestors
of American Indians....

My assumption had been that the LDS had, in the past, made that
assertion strongly... but I can't back that up with citations.

But here-and-now,
https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-m...udies?lang=eng
seems to me like they are walking it back (if, in fact, there is
anything to walk back)... although they're leaving themselves some
wiggle room.


Thanks for the link. And from a LDS source,
also (which is appreciated). It doesn't surprise
me that science hasn't yet made conclusions about
DNA in the early Americas. Science can only do
just so much. Which is more than before, and less
than in the future. Unless the govenment regulates
science, of course.
--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 12/17/2015 08:13 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
But here-and-now,
https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-m...udies?lang=eng
seems to me like they are walking it back (if, in fact, there is
anything to walk back)... although they're leaving themselves some
wiggle room.

I read that as a log winded statement that DNA analysis can neither
confirm of deny that any extant Native Americans can be linked to the
Near East. After unsuccessful attempts to confirm the link one has to
fall back to DNA does not deny the Truth either. So I guess there is a
little wiggle room by moving from the Lamanites were the principal
ancestors of the modern Native Americans to they were among the
ancestors although we can't prove it.

To attempt to treat the vivid descriptions of the Nephites, Lamanites,
and Jaredites as allegory or metaphor would go against Joseph Smith's
explicit statements. Start down that path and soon there's nothing left.
The Book of Mormon isn't a supplemental text that can be shuffled of to
Apocrypha.

Then there are the apologetics for the various anachronisms. Like most
religious apologetic writings it's preaching to the choir.

On 12/17/2015 08:39 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Thanks for the link. And from a LDS source,
also (which is appreciated). It doesn't surprise
me that science hasn't yet made conclusions about
DNA in the early Americas. Science can only do
just so much. Which is more than before, and less
than in the future. Unless the govenment regulates
science, of course.

That sounds like a conversation at work today that came close to being
heated. A defender of the young earth theory was taking the commonly
accepted archaeological dating to task. In all fairness, both camps are
telling Just So stories because 'who the hell knows?' is not an
acceptable answer.

On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 10:50:37 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 12/17/2015 08:39 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Thanks for the link. And from a LDS source,
also (which is appreciated). It doesn't surprise
me that science hasn't yet made conclusions about
DNA in the early Americas. Science can only do
just so much. Which is more than before, and less
than in the future. Unless the govenment regulates
science, of course.

That sounds like a conversation at work today that came close to being
heated. A defender of the young earth theory was taking the commonly
accepted archaeological dating to task. In all fairness, both camps are
telling Just So stories because 'who the hell knows?' is not an
acceptable answer.

One camp has scientific proof, that is verifiable, can be demonstrated,
repeated, etc. The other camp has handed down stories from thousands of
years ago that require supernatural forces that none of us have ever
seen and other than the handed down stories, there is no proof at all to
believe are true. Some of the are just plain silly, like Noah somehow
acquiring two of every animal from the whole planet and putting them on
a boat he built. If you went into a court of law with fossil evidence,
carbon dating, DNA evidence, it would be accepted. They wouldn't accept
handed down stories as evidence. There is a difference.

Per rbowman:
the young earth theory

Is that the latest euphemism for Creationist ?
--
Pete Cresswell

On 12/18/2015 08:01 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
the young earth theory

Is that the latest euphemism for Creationist ?


Young earth is a subset of creationism, although it's often what people
mean by creationism. The young earthers use variations of Ussher's
chronology, although Newton, Kepler, and other more or less scientists
of the time came up with approximately the same number -- 6000 years.

That compressed a time frame needs some fancy tap dancing. Then there's
the old earth, gap, evolutionary, and a few other flavors that are
basically 'God made the world...' with extensive footnotes.

There was a Gallup poll that concluded about 40% of the US believes in a
young earth but the question was incredibly lame;

1. Humans evolved, God guided the process
2. Humans evolved, no God in sight.
3. God created humans in the last 10,000 years

I don't know about the protestant denominations but the Catechism of the
Catholic Church has three types of statements

1. Catholics believe this
2. Catholics do not believe this
3. It's your call

The age of the the earth, evolution, and so forth are the third type.
iirc, the young earth is treated like "Well, if you really want to
believe that, go ahead." Catholic schools teach evolution and geology
just like the (except for Alabama or wherever) public schools. Francis
is in line with the popes that preceded him back to Pius IX:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...h-a-magic-wand

"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining
God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is
not so"

Muggles would have a problem with the pope.


The polygenetic theories are the exception and are off the table. The
problem there is you need one Adam and Eve and one Original Sin or the
wheels start to fall off the wagon.

On 12/18/2015 10:58 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 12/18/2015 08:01 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per rbowman:
the young earth theory

Is that the latest euphemism for Creationist ?


Young earth is a subset of creationism, although it's often what people
mean by creationism. The young earthers use variations of Ussher's
chronology, although Newton, Kepler, and other more or less scientists
of the time came up with approximately the same number -- 6000 years.

That compressed a time frame needs some fancy tap dancing. Then there's
the old earth, gap, evolutionary, and a few other flavors that are
basically 'God made the world...' with extensive footnotes.

There was a Gallup poll that concluded about 40% of the US believes in a
young earth but the question was incredibly lame;

1. Humans evolved, God guided the process
2. Humans evolved, no God in sight.
3. God created humans in the last 10,000 years

I don't know about the protestant denominations but the Catechism of the
Catholic Church has three types of statements

1. Catholics believe this
2. Catholics do not believe this
3. It's your call

The age of the the earth, evolution, and so forth are the third type.
iirc, the young earth is treated like "Well, if you really want to
believe that, go ahead." Catholic schools teach evolution and geology
just like the (except for Alabama or wherever) public schools. Francis
is in line with the popes that preceded him back to Pius IX:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...h-a-magic-wand


"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining
God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is
not so"

Muggles would have a problem with the pope.

Well, I agree that God *isn't* a magician with a magic wand. One
problem with trying to understand God and His ways is we try to describe
him in comparison to humans. It just doesn't work, imo, to do that
because according to the Bible humans were made in God's image, not made
as a clone of God. An image is a representation of the original minus
many of the (for example) 3 dimensional attributes of the original. Only
some details of the original will be represented in the image.

The polygenetic theories are the exception and are off the table. The
problem there is you need one Adam and Eve and one Original Sin or the
wheels start to fall off the wagon.

--
Maggie

ave a problem with the pope.

Well, I agree that God *isn't* a magician with a magic wand. One
problem with trying to understand God and His ways is we try to describe
him in comparison to humans. It just doesn't work, imo, to do that
because according to the Bible humans were made in God's image, not made
as a clone of God. An image is a representation of the original minus
many of the (for example) 3 dimensional attributes of the original. Only
some details of the original will be represented in the image.

The polygenetic theories are the exception and are off the table. The
problem there is you need one Adam and Eve and one Original Sin or the
wheels start to fall off the wagon.

I guess Biblical writers used the word father more like
we would use ancestor.
This leads to the God and Science site:
http://preview.alturl.com/cf8jc


--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On 12/19/2015 05:40 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
I guess Biblical writers used the word father more like
we would use ancestor.
This leads to the God and Science site:
http://preview.alturl.com/cf8jc

I've said it more or less tongue in cheek but at times I think the
Catholic Church had the right idea in not letting Bibles in the
vernacular lie around untended. Turning loose a segment of the
population that can't read the directions for a Mr. Coffee and get it
right with a Bible scares me.