Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Irr Misses Again

Continents?

  • Please log in to reply
119 replies to this topic

#101 Nevo

Nevo

    Fides et Ratio

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,205 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 11:26 AM

It doesn't. The Bible doesn't mention the people in China either, but doesn't mean there weren't any. It is a non sequitur to say that because something/someone isn't mentioned they didn't exist.

I agree. But what does that have to do with what I wrote?

I was questioning cdowis's assertion that "we know for a fact that there were other inhabitants in the Americas when Lehi landed...from the BOM text itself." I had not encountered that "fact" before in my own reading of the Book of Mormon, and apparently neither have you.

To your point, yes it is possible (with a little ingenuity) to read "others" into the Book of Mormon—we can't definitively rule out their existence just because they are nowhere mentioned—but there is nothing in the text that demands such a reading. And I wouldn't presume to accuse someone of misreading or ignoring what the Book of Mormon "really says" if they concluded that the book only knows of three migrations to the New World. In my view, that is a perfectly reasonable position to take.
  • 0

#102 cdowis

cdowis

    Creates Man & Woman

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,120 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 11:30 AM


Just so I'm clear, if someone is creating a web site about LDS beliefs, and they find they have to choose between Joseph Smith (as quoted in the Ensign in 2002), and a guy posting as "cdowis" on an Mormon apologetics message board, which should he go with, and why?


He (or she) should go to lds.org. You will also find the text of the BOM on that site as well.

Hmmmm..... I am somewhat surprised that you are not familiar with that site but you are unclear where one should go to find our beliefs. BTW, look up "false dichotomy" (either/or) among logical flaws. You gave us an excellent example and I look forward to more of your entertaining posts.

Edited by cdowis, 15 March 2012 - 11:35 AM.

  • 0

"Reasoning with cats?  When you want your kitty to do your bidding, it's 
best to skip the small talk and bring out the bribes." Cat Talk

 


#103 KevinG

KevinG

    Outspoken zealot of moderation

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,456 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 11:31 AM

Kevin,

You wrote:



No, I said no such thing, and comments like this will quickly cause any discussion between us to grind to a halt.



Perhaps you can explain this comment if you have not already prejudged that attending an LDS Sunday School will not give you any more insights into how we teach out of our manuals?

...in the late 1970s who had converted to a particular religious sect assuring me that if I attended one of their meetings I would be disabused of my supposed preconceptions about their beliefs. I went, and it was if anything worse than I had supposed -- and he knew it. He then tried in vain to convince me that the particular meeting wasn't typical.

None of this is to say that I am not interested in attending some LDS meetings to experience that particular part of Mormonism...


It is exceedlingly frustrating to see you continually avoid conversation with those you disagree with by taking offense at the slightest misunderstanding of your statements - your unwillingess to move from your preconceived notions of what we believe compounds that frustration. Taking offense does nothing to help bridge gaps in understanding.
  • 0
Please ask me what I believe before telling me what I believe. Hint- start here: http://lds.org/scriptures/

#104 KevinG

KevinG

    Outspoken zealot of moderation

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,456 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 11:34 AM

...and just so we are clear you have made your pronouncements about how we interpret our own manuals without attending any of our meetings where they are used.

I still wouldn't hire a trainer who had only read a manual and never attended a class. It would be folly to assume that trainer knew how to use the materials or comprehended them in full.

To make the point more clearly - I would not hire a preacher who had only ever read the Bible and supporting scholarly works, but had never counseled or actively shepherded a flock of believers.
  • 0
Please ask me what I believe before telling me what I believe. Hint- start here: http://lds.org/scriptures/

#105 cdowis

cdowis

    Creates Man & Woman

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,120 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 12:43 PM

I was questioning cdowis's assertion that "we know for a fact that there were other inhabitants in the Americas when Lehi landed...from the BOM text itself." I had not encountered that "fact" before in my own reading of the Book of Mormon, and apparently neither have you.


Get out your chapstick and read it again.

Hint: what did Nephi encounter in the forest after they landed.

Edited by cdowis, 15 March 2012 - 12:55 PM.

  • 0

"Reasoning with cats?  When you want your kitty to do your bidding, it's 
best to skip the small talk and bring out the bribes." Cat Talk

 


#106 Bikeemikey

Bikeemikey

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,840 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 12:53 PM


May I suggest that you get out your chapstick and try to read it for the second time. It's right there.

Hint: what is an ox? What is an antonym for "wild"?


Whilst I believe that there were "others" in the land prior to Nephi and his Crew getting all promised landy on the beach - it is a wildly imaginative leap to say that such a position can be termed fact based solely on the text references in the Book of Mormon.

It would be reasonable to suggest that the text at times suggests this. It is also very clear that there are a large group that feel the text suggests quite the opposite.

I dont think we are dealing with "fact" here.

The reasons for my belief in others (outside the three referenced migrations) at extra-textual. :-)
  • 0

#107 cdowis

cdowis

    Creates Man & Woman

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,120 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 01:24 PM


Whilst I believe that there were "others" in the land prior to Nephi and his Crew getting all promised landy on the beach - it is a wildly imaginative leap to say that such a position can be termed fact based solely on the text references in the Book of Mormon.

It would be reasonable to suggest that the text at times suggests this. It is also very clear that there are a large group that feel the text suggests quite the opposite.


Indeed, many people interpret the BOM according to tradition and really not interested to change that opinion even in the face of the BOM text and the evidence on the ground (archeology, scientific research). Those traditions have taken on the nature of scripture, prophecy, and doctrine. I have spent my entire life reading and studying the BOM, so I think I know the difference between traditional view and the actual text.

If one of those traditionalists want to discuss this with me, let's open yet another thread on the subject.

I dont think we are dealing with "fact" here.


If there were no migrations outside the BOM, the science of history, and archeology do not exist. We just close our eyes.

The BOM tells us that there was ox and domesticated goats in the forest, but it does not mean what it says -- it is a random scattering of words and phrases. No ox, no domesticated goats, just fiction.

Edited by cdowis, 15 March 2012 - 01:35 PM.

  • 0

"Reasoning with cats?  When you want your kitty to do your bidding, it's 
best to skip the small talk and bring out the bribes." Cat Talk

 


#108 JDave

JDave

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,229 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 01:46 PM

Hint: what did Nephi encounter in the forest after they landed.

Ahh, but what did Jared and his brother find after they landed?
  • 0
You keep using that verse. I do not think it means what you think it means.

#109 cdowis

cdowis

    Creates Man & Woman

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,120 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 02:03 PM

The BOM doesn't tell us, but I can make something up, if you wish. Since the siberians came from the extreme north, there was likely no contact.

However, centuries later they probably came in contact with the Chinese. (This is implied in the text and some archeological evidence)

Edited by cdowis, 15 March 2012 - 02:09 PM.

  • 0

"Reasoning with cats?  When you want your kitty to do your bidding, it's 
best to skip the small talk and bring out the bribes." Cat Talk

 


#110 Nevo

Nevo

    Fides et Ratio

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,205 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 02:48 PM

The BOM tells us that there was ox and domesticated goats in the forest, but it does not mean what it says -- it is a random scattering of words and phrases. No ox, no domesticated goats, just fiction.

A couple points here.

First, I think it's quite reasonable to read the entire list of "beasts of the forest" in 1 Nephi 18:25 as belonging to the category of "wild animals, which were for the use of men."

Second, the Jaredites are said to have had "all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man" (Ether 9:18-19).

So why would "ox and domesticated goats in the forest" necessarily point to non-Jaredite indigenous others?
  • 0

#111 JDave

JDave

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,229 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 02:49 PM

And if the BOM doesn't tell us, then we have nothing in the text. And since the Jaredites could have left the domesticated animals that the Nephites found, then there is room to read the Book of Mormon from multiple views.
  • 0
You keep using that verse. I do not think it means what you think it means.

#112 cdowis

cdowis

    Creates Man & Woman

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,120 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 03:35 PM

There were inhabitants in the Americas when Lehi landed. This is affirmed as a fact by both archeology and the text of the BOM.

It is indeed possible that they were a mixture of scattered colonies of the Jaredites as well as other natives.

Their identity was probably hidden from the Nephites since there is no connection to Jaredites when the Nephites came to the Mulekites. In any case, this destroys the myth that the Americas were empty when Lehi landed, both from the BOM text, and archeology.

That's a fact, Jack.

Edited by cdowis, 15 March 2012 - 03:36 PM.

  • 0

"Reasoning with cats?  When you want your kitty to do your bidding, it's 
best to skip the small talk and bring out the bribes." Cat Talk

 


#113 Bernard Gui

Bernard Gui

    Fears No Kimchee

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,375 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 04:15 PM


I didn't claim that the Book of Mormon peoples were aware of living on and populating two distinct continents. What you quoted me as saying was the following:
"According to the Book of Mormon, the American continents were populated as the result of three separate migrations of people from the Middle East."


"According to the Book of Mormon" means "according to those people that wrote the Book of Mormon," since the book did not write itself. Hence, my CFR for scriptures that show the people who wrote the book were aware they inhabited and populated two vast continents. Simple chapters and verses will do. I'll be happy to look them up on my own.

There's nothing in that statement about what the Book of Mormon peoples might have thought. Of course, I don't think those people even existed.


The fact of their existence is irrelevant. The fact is, the book exists, it has words in it, and neither the word "continent" nor anything resembling it appears in the book. The internal evidence of the book indicates the people lived in a small geographic area, not on the North and South American continents separated by the Isthmus of Panama.

I am willing to spend a little time summarizing for you the kinds of statements in the Book of Mormon that lead me to understand it in the same way that many Mormons traditionally have understood it over the years. Give me some time and I'll post something on it. But I don't expect you to agree with my reasoning, and I would ask you to understand and accept ahead of time that it is not going to be my intention to try to answer every objection that you and others raise to my explanation. If you can agree to that stipulation, I'll get something ready to post on this question.


I really don't want you to put yourself out. Nor am I interested in how many Mormons have traditionally understood it over the years. I've been there personally for 65 years. Just chapter and verse of the passages that prove the peoples of the Book of Mormon understood they were living on two immense continents and that they had populated them.

Bernard

Edited by Bernard Gui, 15 March 2012 - 04:17 PM.

  • 0
 "I can't undertake to explain Brigham Young to your Atlantic citizens, or expect you to put him at his value. Your great men Eastward are to me like your ivory and pearl-handled table knives, balanced handles, more shiny than the inside of my watch case; but, with only edge enough to slice bread and cheese or help spoon victuals, and all alike by the dozen one with another. Brigham is the article that sells out West with us -- between a Roman cutlass and a beef butcher knife, the thing to cut up a deer or cut down an enemy, and that will save your life or carve your dinner every bit as well, though the handpiece is buck horn and the case a hogskin hanging in the breech of your pantaloons. You, that judge men by the handle and sheath, how can I make you know a good BLADE?" Jedediah M. Grant
 
 

#114 Bikeemikey

Bikeemikey

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,840 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 04:39 PM


Indeed, many people interpret the BOM according to tradition and really not interested to change that opinion even in the face of the BOM text and the evidence on the ground (archeology, scientific research). Those traditions have taken on the nature of scripture, prophecy, and doctrine. I have spent my entire life reading and studying the BOM, so I think I know the difference between traditional view and the actual text.

If one of those traditionalists want to discuss this with me, let's open yet another thread on the subject.



If there were no migrations outside the BOM, the science of history, and archeology do not exist. We just close our eyes.

The BOM tells us that there was ox and domesticated goats in the forest, but it does not mean what it says -- it is a random scattering of words and phrases. No ox, no domesticated goats, just fiction.


I fully agree with your interpretation of things regarding "others" predating the migrations mentioned in scripture.

However, the non-textual evidence, science, archeology, etc etc have convinced me that any other idea is a logical improbability. As such, I read the text with this idea already formed and in my mind. The text is largely silent on both sides of this argument.

Those who say there were others argue based on references to whether the goats were wild. Those against the idea claim a BOM inerrancy based about the absolutist narrative of "promised land" as fundamentally exclusionary in nature. (Might I add that in the Biblical promised land others were also present when the Israelites arrived - why should it be different in the Americas. Also, I read the promised land BOM story to read, "I the lord will not bring people here unless the are righteous", not, "no one else will ever be here other than the righteous" - otherwise how can you explain the Spanish ever being allowed to find it.)

The Book of Mormon was never intended to be a textual support for this manner of critical investigation and is poorly fitted to support either of these conclusions. Neither of them can be fundamentally textually substantiated with out additional evidence external to the text itself.

That doesn't mean the BOM can't more closely align itself with other external data. It just means that trying to complete a historical world view of Nephi's time based on a book that by it's own text focuses exclusively on things of religious value over geopolitical and sociological observations.

In fact, I would suggest that the only thing the BOM factually claims, based exclusively on text, is that if you try to extrapolate non-religious or non-spiritual content out of the book you are "wresting the scriptures" and looking for exactly what the BOM openly proclaims it is not attempting to provide.

What does that mean for Rob Bowman. It means the BOM should never be used as a tool to make non-religious/non-spiritual claims. Where people came from and how they lived, based on the BOM own text, is a non-religious/non-spiritual issue. Thus, if Church leaders have argued for a specific geopolitical world view at the time Nephi arrived in the Promised Land, such an argument is beyond the scope of the BOM. Likewise Bowmans claim that the BOM has any thing to say about where each and every person in the promised land came from is a fundamental misrepresentation of even the most basic reading of the textual narrative of the Book.

However, given that church leaders, prophets, Rob Bowman and ourselves are always fundamentalizing our religious texts and trying to have them answer all questions, instead of just the ones the text actually tell us it is trying to answer, why don't we cut him some slack. He is only looking in the BOM for answers to questions the BOM has adamantly told us it is not capable of answering and not willing to take no for an answer.

Edited by Bikeemikey, 15 March 2012 - 04:43 PM.

  • 0

#115 altersteve

altersteve

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,781 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:28 PM

To your point, yes it is possible (with a little ingenuity) to read "others" into the Book of Mormon—we can't definitively rule out their existence just because they are nowhere mentioned—but there is nothing in the text that demands such a reading.

I disagree. Even some critics have pointed out that the number of people in the Lehite colony is much to small to produce the size of the Nephite and Lamanite populations.
  • 0

"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
—Mahatma Ghandi


#116 Bikeemikey

Bikeemikey

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,840 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 08:50 PM

We don't k ow the size of their populations. At best we know the size of a few armies.

We also don't know the number of people who came with the "third migration".

(null)
  • 0

#117 LeSellers

LeSellers

    Redefining excellence upwards, just to make it a challenge.

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,845 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 09:10 PM

We also don't know the number of people who came with the "third migration".

It's interesting that the "third migration" may have arrived before Lehi and Sons.

If Mulek left at roughly the same time as Lehi did, but didn't spend eight years in the wilderness, he may have established his first settlement before Nephi built the first hut in Peru.

Lehi
  • 0
The public school system: "Usually a twelve year sentence of mind control. Crushing creativity, smashing individualism, encouraging collectivism and compromise, destroying the exercise of intellectual inquiry, twisting it instead into meek subservience to authority".
— Walter Karp

#118 Bikeemikey

Bikeemikey

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,840 posts

Posted 17 March 2012 - 05:30 AM

That is interesting. Which could mean the land had the jaredites there as well. That's potentially one massive population base.

(null)
  • 0

#119 cdowis

cdowis

    Creates Man & Woman

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,120 posts

Posted 17 March 2012 - 06:43 AM


I fully agree with your interpretation of things regarding "others" predating the migrations mentioned in scripture.

However, the non-textual evidence, science, archeology, etc etc have convinced me that any other idea is a logical improbability. As such, I read the text with this idea already formed and in my mind. The text is largely silent on both sides of this argument.

Those who say there were others argue based on references to whether the goats were wild. Those against the idea claim a BOM inerrancy based about the absolutist narrative of "promised land" as fundamentally exclusionary in nature.


Such an narrow interpretation would exclude the Jaredite migration. The BOM would be contradicting itself.
  • 0

"Reasoning with cats?  When you want your kitty to do your bidding, it's 
best to skip the small talk and bring out the bribes." Cat Talk

 


#120 thesometimesaint

thesometimesaint

    Is Universe

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,069 posts

Posted 17 March 2012 - 07:58 AM

I think we need to be generous when dealing with any Scripture, ancient or modern. Those people were writing according to their understanding which is in all likelihood not the same as ours. Just becausse something/someone isn't mentioned doesn't mean that it/they didn't/don't exist.
  • 0


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users