|
|
| (24 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
| + | #REDIRECT [[Main Page]] |
| − | {{Resource Title|A FairMormon Response to Questions Asked in Swedish Fireside with Elder's Jensen and Turley}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{Swedish questions quick jump}}
| |
| − | {{parabreak}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== ====
| |
| − | {{QuestionItem
| |
| − | |claim=We had some Vikings visit North America about 1000 years ago, and today we know exactly where they lived actually, there are archeological evidence that they leave there, etc. So what about all the millions of people who have been Lamanites or Nephites … What kind of evidence can you show that actually exist? Every single small Indian tribe in the whole of America we know about today because they all leave buildings and tombs and anything which we can prove that they are there, have been there. And as far as I know there is nothing prove there have been Lamanites or Nephites in America. If we have time also could you comment on the American Indians and the DNA, and the connection to Lamanites, Nephites, and then back to the Jewish people. Interesting to hear.
| |
| − | |answer=
| |
| − | *'''Question: Are Vikings analogous to the Nephites/Lamanites?''' No. The Viking settlements were discovered because there were ''written'' texts which led investigators on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Anse_aux_Meadows#Discovery_and_significance where to look]. The Vikings established a settlement in an area in where there were no contemporary Amerindian settlements. This means that the Vikings ''imported'' their cultural artifacts, structures, etc., and also not assimilated into the Amerindian population either genetically or culturally. They were an isolated enclave, and though Vikings used it as a base for ranging further, no other evidence of their presence has yet been found. By contrast, Book of Mormon peoples arrived in a densely populated area, lived and intermingled with indigenous peoples immediately, and could bring little of their material culture with them. Viking settlement dates to AD 1000 in an isolated area whose relatively chill climate is conducive to preservation of artifacts. Lehites arrived more than 1,500 years earlier, in areas already thickly settled, in a humid tropical climate that would quickly degrade any distinctive artifacts. The situations are simply not analagous in some important ways.
| |
| − | *'''Question: What about millions of Lamanites and Nephites?" The vast majority of Lamanites and Nephites were not from the Middle East--they were indigenous peoples who were co-opted into the Book of Mormon's Lamanite and Nephite categories.
| |
| − | *'''Question: Is there evidence of "every small Indian tribe" in the Americas? No. How would we know a tribe existed if we don't have artifacts for them? New groups or settlements are constantly discovered; this did not mean they did not exist before we knew about them.
| |
| − | *'''Question: Can we prove Lamanites and Nephites were in America?''' How would we recognize Lamanite or Nephite remains if we found one? How does a Nephite pot (for example) look different from a Lamanite pot or a non-Book of Mormon pot? Without ''written records'' (which are very scarce in the time and place of interest, save the Book of Mormon) such things can be almost impossible to determine. For example:
| |
| − | | |
| − | This problem plagues the New World even more:
| |
| − | | |
| − | <blockquote>were it not for the written record, conquest as the major variable in the expansion of the Aztec state would never have been known [to us]. Aztec history spanned some 200 years, and they conquered 250 major centers. These centers had their own tributaries [dominated communities]; therefore, they in essence conquered approximately 1,000 to 2,500 places. . . . But they placed governors and some of their own population at only eight of these conquered centers. [Only at those eight would there be any archaeological evidence for the Aztec conquest.]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ''Therefore, without the written record, how could we demonstrate [widespread] conquest?'' We could not.
| |
| − | | |
| − | This likewise means that conquests for the earliest states [those for which we have no written history] cannot be documented in the archaeological record. [Terry Stocker, “Conquest, Tribute and the Rise of the State,” in Studies in the Neolithic and Urban Revolutions: The V. Gordon Childe Colloquium, Mexico, 1986, ed. Linda Manzanilla, BAR International Series 349 (Oxford: BAR, 1987), 367; emphasis in original. Cited in Sorenson, ''Mormon's Codex'' (2013). ''NEED PAGES'']</blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | This major theme of Aztec life is invisible in the archaeology; only when combined with written texts can we see it.
| |
| − | *'''Question: What about DNA?''' We know that Vikings inhabited North America. Yet, there is no evidence for "Viking DNA" that has been identified. A key problem is identifying what DNA signature we ought to seek.
| |
| − | | |
| − | }}
| |
