• Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

87 Excellent

About probablyHagoth7

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

122 profile views
  1. Understood. My intent is not to belittle the good that people of any faith are doing. Let them keep on keeping on. A sense of tribe is currently what some men seek, as you pointed out. That said, the day will come when boundaries and nationalities and all sense of "-ites" and "-isms" will fade away, just as the Berlin wall came down. As part of that, I hope you can appreciate the long-term value of setting the record straight as to who and what Odin/Wodin was (Roman-imposed ruler/dynastic worship). If any of the early Germanic chieftains should be respected, it should be Flavus' brother (Arminius the freedom fighter). That said, Wednes-day is still typically an awesome day. Thanks for contributing to the thread. Thoughts?
  2. Yep. Which is largely why I have engaged in good faith for the last 20 years.
  3. I respectfully disagree with your reasoning, with your assessment of the data, and with your apparent unwillingness to either address or reconcile the contradiction in what you've previously asserted about such DNA. There are also gaps in standard DNA reasoning/assumptions, revealed by outliers in the data. Might publish some of that in the near future. Gonna consider this thread done. (Had I anticipated this becoming a debate thread, rather than a collaborative thread, I would have launched it elsewhere.)
  4. How reasonable is it to accept an assertion that is based on extremely limited data, when there is a very sizeable amount of evidence (from a broad array of other disciplines) supporting a competing conclusion? Yet it is true. And lack of DNA evidence for that reality is irrelevant, just as lack of DNA evidence that people actually signed the Declaration of Independence has zero bearing on the matter. Germans showed up for the first time in the historical record precisely in that year. And in that same account were said to have recently arrived. Prior to that: zero mention of "Germans" in northern Europe. Peoples of other names? Sure. But zero mention of Germans. Our key difference derives from what we each mean when we say Germanic peoples. To be more crystal clear, I'm referring specifically to newcomers first encountered by Julius Caesar in 58 BC....and their descendants. Meanwhile, you're likely referring to a much broader set of people who lived before and after 58 BC in what we now happen to call Germanic regions. While there is some overlap, they are not one and the same. (Living in Utah obviously does not make someone a Ute Indian. Yet when it comes to ancient Germanic issues, most people assume the exact opposite, and make a conflation error.) Hence our [temporary?] disconnect. More on DNA in a moment. Then I will reiterate your "of course not." :0) ...and your assertion that such a small group would have had no material effect on the DNA of Europe. That being the case, why defer earlier to *the lack* of supportive DNA evidence as supposed cause to wave away such an immigration, when we needn't expect material evidence from such a relatively small influx? (Seems atypically inconsistent of you,.) As to your claim that relatively small numbers of people somehow can't/don't make dramatic cultural waves, I invite you to reconsider. It only took a handful of legions starting in 58 BC to dramatically change the culture in northwestern Europe. Ditto with other regions of Rome's expanding borders. They were vastly outnumbered. Ditto with the relatively few Jews who migrated south from Palestine almost 2,000 years ago and quickly dominated the region culturally. Ditto with numerous other influxes. People that create a distinct impression, including those with innovative cultures/technologies, can and often do leave a lasting impact upon the peoples/cultures they interact with. Fair enough? Brings to mind what Nephi said about the people from Europe who would take possession of a Nephite land of promise. ....like unto my people before they were destroyed... You appear to be asserting an either/or. I'm not. Alma 63 (and Helaman) allow for voyages into different seas, sailing in different directions. Lehi's descendants scattered to the four corners of the world. Jesus had yet other sheep to visit. Grafted olive branches. etc. So I'm AOK if you opt to reject what I offer here. So far, I simply find what you offer in its place to be both inconsistent and lacking sufficient substance. If I've somehow misunderstood your assertions, please let me know. As to linguistic evidence for such an influx into Europe, it's actually there too. However I don't speak a linguist's jargon, and would be dismissed by such for attempting, so generally comment very little about what I've found in that specialized field. (Awkwardness of words and such.) ;0)
  5. Click text by paper clip on bottom. Then click Documents, and select saved image file name
  6. Thanks for sharing/clarifying Robert. Are you asserting that based on Johannes' initial DNA study, that it is thereby more reasonable & faithful to conclude that Nephites never set foot in Europe? If so, I respectfully object. 1. Johannes spoke of generalities drawn from a DNA sampling of only 100 ancient remains. For me and my house, a sampling that small, in a region that large, in a span of time that long, isn't anywhere near as conclusive as some might prefer (or assume). 2. Johannes said very little about DNA outliers, and nothing of early DNA findings beyond the scope of his 100 samples. 3. As to the Indo-European language family, a surprisingly large portion of the vocabulary of the Germanic languages (including English) is not of Indo-European origin, even though the Germanic languages were categorized as Indo-European. (Linguists are still scratching their heads as to where much of that vocabulary originated.) And the groupings of such supposedly-orphan words fall into categories such as nautical technology, agriculture, warfare, government, and family....things that ancient Nephites just happened to have been quite adept at, which aligns with the repeated assertion in north-European origin accounts (and mythology) that attest to a cultural infusion into ancient northern Europe from a seafaring people across the ocean. And their origin accounts/chronologies place that arrival during the century before Christ, aligning precisely with eyewitness testimony from ancient contemporaries such as Julius Caesar and Cicero. For such reasons and more, I'm respectfully not buying what you seem to be selling...that an initial absence of supporting DNA evidence (from a surprisingly small sampling) from a lone, nascent research discipline is somehow supposed to be accepted as conclusive evidence of Nephite absence. Given the long period of time (thousands of years) that Johannes' ancient DNA samples claim to represent, a chronological distribution suggests that less than 10% of his small sampling relates to the specific period in question (after 60 BC). If that's sufficiently accurate for purposes of initial discussion, by buying into your apparent assertion, you and others would be drawing sweeping conclusions from fewer than ten samples, not even a full quorum. Meanwhile, with reams of all the other available evidence, including Nephite & latter-day prophecy, which is the more reasonable / faithful conclusion? That Nephites died out in the Americas centuries ago? Or that a remnant was initially scattered to the four corners of the earth? Or have I misunderstood your meaning/intent?
  7. Earlier this week, while waiting for a Jiffy Lube to convert a pumpkin into a chariot, I glanced through a Christian magazine that had the exact same topic.
  8. Hmm. I finished reviewing it earlier today. Although interesting, what part of that content did you feel was relevant to the OP...or to subsequent discussion?
  9. Thank you. About half way through it so far, and enjoying it very much.
  10. 1. Feel free to be forthright about where you feel the evidence and/or reasoning are weak. I consider *that* level of specific input more charitable than silence. 2. I make no case for a traveling mortal Jesus. I instead believe he visited northern Europe as a resurrected being, immediately after visiting Nephites in the Americas...to whom he said he yet had other sheep.... 3. Insufficient to do what? Convince someone? I'm OK w/that, and will let such things simply infer/suggest, and allow the Spirit to confirm, if need be
  11. How about we check to see if we can *get* sure about reasonable? Your exaggerated premise, has an important point. Do similar (though adapted) forms of worship mean there was *no* continuity? We agree that the answer is no. As in most things, there is some continuity. That said, your specific example allowed for extensive adaptation of those earlier forms of worship to suit the ego and/or political expediency of king and kingdom. Which is what faiths and political powers do repeatedly. In later centuries, the Roman Catholic church followed suit. So when it encountered a popular pagan spring or some other location important to the people's faith, the church simply appropriated and adapted the location. They would dedicate the pagan site to a Christian saint, and build a church there, or chop down a sacred tree and use its wood to build an adjacent church...as an intentional draw to keep people returning. A site combining burial mounds and pagan/Christian runestones with a later christian church. I believe something very similar happened with Flavus/Odin and that *some* preexisting lore predated him but was repurposed into a newly minted god (Odin/Flavus) in the northern pantheon...a legend intentionally fashioned with such renown that future rulers would claim descent from him. Note that in contrast to what you and Hal seem to be asserting, there was considerable change in the tradition. By way of example, the earliest Roman accounts make no mention of Germanic peoples claiming descent from Mercury, but later generations deemed it fashionable (and crucial to job security) to claim descent from Odin. There were other changes, but that should suffice for initial discussion.
  12. Yes.
  13. Understood now. In my quick scan of a long paragraph, I happened to overlook that earlier clarification. Apologies for the oversight.
  14. A variant no-true-Scotsman fallacy. May we defer instead to Merriam-Webster's plain English? Institute (verb): 1: to establish in a position or office 2a : to originate and get established : organize : to set going : inaugurate instituting an investigation (noun): something that is instituted: such as (1) : an elementary principle recognized as authoritative (2) institutes plural : a collection of such principles and precepts; especially : a legal compendium : an organization for the promotion of a cause : association a research institute institute for the blind : an educational institution and especially one devoted to technical fields : a usually brief intensive course of instruction on selected topics relating to a particular field an urban studies institute Quick questions: Does that little website originate, get established, organize, set going, and/or inaugurate investigation into early north-European heritage? Does it initiate and/or provide one or more elementary principles from authoritative (historical/cultural) sources? Is it an organization for the promotion of a cause? Is it a research and/or educational institution? As part of the latter, does it provide a brief intensive course of instruction on selected topics relating to a particular field? (The answer in each instance is yes.) You're presuming an either/or argument, as is Nehor. I'm not. False dichotomy. I'll address your parallel concern when I address his. Yes. And I intentionally alluded to that very thing earlier. So we're agreed that different peoples with different names lived in the north prior to the appearance of those we now call Germans. That doesn't mean the Cimbri and Teutoni were Germanic, any more than it means I'm a Ute Indian. (Many assert that the Cimbri and Teutones were instead Celtic.)
  15. When it comes to the issue of Roman politics,, the phrase "Roman plot" is beyond redundant. "Byzantine politics" have their root in the source from which that Eastern portion of the Empire sprang, the main Roman Empire. Ancient Roman writers gloated when the Roman Empire succeeded through intrigue (instead of war) in getting Germanic people to do the Empire's bidding. The Odin/Flavus connection is simply a logical/reasonable extension of that reality.