119 replies to this topic

[cinepro]

KevinG, on 13 March 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

The bottom line - why do you persist in telling the LDS what the LDS believe while picking and choosing which side of the story you want to tell?  (Not boiler plate if its true).

I don't know any LDS who would look to IRR as a resource for "what the LDS believe", but I do know lots that would look to Church publications such as those found on the Church website.

I also don't know that on this particular subject IRR is publishing only "one side of the story" when it comes to what the Church has taught in its official publications.    Since apologists aren't "the Church", how can they be the "other side of the story"?

Or to put it another way, I have provided a quote from Joseph Smith, as found on the Church's website, that seems to support IRR's summary.  Can you provide any quotes from the Church's website that contradict this (i.e. present the "other side")?  If not, I don't know how you can accuse him of anything other than simply presenting what the Church has published on the subject.  

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

KevinG, on 13 March 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

Your job is that of scholar not congregation or church leader.  Even so - it is a good thing we review our past teachings and sort out where we may have been wrong - don't you think?  That does not take away from the great work President Kimball did as a Prophet or his understanding of the important saving doctrines of Christ.

So let's see some transparency and candor from your prophets. Let's see an article in Ensign explaining that Joseph Smith and most of the other LDS Church leaders in the past were mistaken about this issue. Let's see Monson present a clear message that frankly acknowledges that the older, traditional understanding of the Book of Mormon was wrong and cannot be reconciled with the facts.

You wrote:

Quote

At the very least you might want to clarify that there was a possibility of more immigrations or an existing population according to current understanding in LDS circles.

You're not paying attention. I did so in the very article in question.

[BCSpace]

Quote

and excludes any others (2 Nephi 1:8.).

I disagree.  It does not preclude nations that might already be there.

[KevinG]

cinepro, on 13 March 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

I don't know any LDS who would look to IRR as a resource for "what the LDS believe", but I do know lots that would look to Church publications such as those found on the Church website.

I'm more concerned about those investigators who find Rob's musings and assume they are the last word on Mormonism when they are indeed a very smooth packaged version of telling people "what they really believe".

[KevinG]

BCSpace, on 13 March 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

I disagree.  It does not preclude nations that might already be there.

Exactly - that is what I wish Rob would clarify in his statement.  Instead he has chosen to use ad hominem attacks to defend the indefensible.

[KevinG]

Rob Bowman, on 13 March 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

So let's see some transparency and candor from your prophets. Let's see an article in Ensign explaining that Joseph Smith and most of the other LDS Church leaders in the past were mistaken about this issue. Let's see Monson present a clear message that frankly acknowledges that the older, traditional understanding of the Book of Mormon was wrong and cannot be reconciled with the facts.

I would think updating the curricula to eliminate some of the speculation would be sufficient along with the admonition that we follow living prophets before dead ones.

I didn't know we required a mea culpa every time we gained a better understanding or a different view of our own scriptures.

[cinepro]

KevinG, on 13 March 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

I'm more concerned about those investigators who find Rob's musings and assume they are the last word on Mormonism when they are indeed a very smooth packaged version of telling people "what they really believe".

So if someone were looking for the "last word on Mormonism", should they go to the Church website, or an apologetics website?

[wenglund]

It is important to understand that we are dealing here again with one of Rob's evident pathologies. I don't know whether he is capable or not of understanding the important distinction between what the Book of Mormon (or the Bible for that matter) actually states, and what he and others may extrapolate from what the book states, but he has a bad habit of privileging his "interpretation" by conflating the two. This problem has been and may yet be driven repeatedly home, but I see no signs of him changing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[zerinus]

BCSpace, on 13 March 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

I disagree. It does not preclude nations that might already be there.

First of all that is an irrelevant comment, because the question centered on how many migrations are recorded in the Book of Mormon, and not how many people were left behind from previous migrations.

Secondly, the BOM does preclude anyone left behind from previous migrations:

Jacob 5:

43 And behold this last, whose branch hath withered away, I did plant in a good spot of ground; yea, even that which was choice unto me above all other parts of the land of my vineyard.
44 And thou beheldest that I also cut down that which cumbered this spot of ground, that I might plant this tree in the stead thereof.

The "tree" mentioned in verse 43 is a metaphor for the people of Lehi, and the one mentioned in verse 44 is a metaphor for the Jaredites, or the people who occupied the land before Lehi's arrival. The Lord destroyed the first in order to make room for the second.This, coupled with 2 Nephi 1:8, excludes anybody from competing for the land with the Israelites who were brought to the land with Lehi and later with Mulek.

It stands to reason that if the Lord was careful to prevent anyone from discovering the land after the Israelite migrations, that He would be equally concerned about leaving anyone behind in the land from previous migrations who might have the same undesirable effect.

Edited by zerinus, 13 March 2012 - 12:42 PM.

[JDave]

wenglund, on 13 March 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

It is important to understand that we are dealing here again with one of Rob's evident pathologies. I don't know whether he is capable or not of understanding the important distinction between what the Book of Mormon (or the Bible for that matter) actually states, and what he and others may extrapolate from what the book states, but he has a bad habit of privileging his "interpretation" by conflating the two. This problem has been and may yet be driven repeatedly home, but I see no signs of him changing.

You state that upon studying this particular issue or because Rob is pathologic therefore he gets it wrong every time?  I don't see any real issue with the point brought up in this thread and cinepro makes a pretty good case why there really shouldn't be any problem.

I take serious issue with some things that Rob claims or states, and it is annoying when his apparent satisfaction with his own view seems inflexible.  But there are certainly some things that Rob is correct on, and others that he is fairly correct on even if you would phrase things differently than he does.

[cinepro]

JDave, on 13 March 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

I take serious issue with some things that Rob claims or states, and it is annoying when his apparent satisfaction with his own view seems inflexible.  But there are certainly some things that Rob is correct on, and others that he is fairly correct on even if you would phrase things differently than he does.

You make a good point, JDave, but when it comes to pathological behavior, I have to defer to Wade's expertise on the subject.

Edited by cinepro, 13 March 2012 - 12:36 PM.

[zerinus]

double

Edited by zerinus, 13 March 2012 - 12:39 PM.

[wenglund]

JDave, on 13 March 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

You state that upon studying this particular issue or because Rob is pathologic therefore he gets it wrong every time?

Neither. This isn't about a difference of opinion (something about which I have no problem). Rather, it is about Rob confusing his opinion with fact. In this case, the Book of Mormon does not explicitly state what he claims. Rather, he extrapolated his interpretation, and posits his extrapolation as thought that is what the book actually says. It is an illegitimate rhetorical slight-of hand in hopes of privileging his interpretation. In my perception, he has been repeatedly called on this, but persists nevertheless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JDave]

JDave, on 13 March 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

I take serious issue with some things that Rob claims or states, and it is annoying when his apparent satisfaction with his own view seems inflexible.

It is probably appropriate to point out that Rob still needs to modify, at the least, the list of scriptural citations for his assertion that the Book of Mormon teaches that God the Father is a Spirit.  He didn't agree that the entire assertion was unsupported, but he seemed to agree that not all the citations were valid.  This has not been reflected on the IRR website yet.

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

You wrote:

JDave, on 13 March 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

It is probably appropriate to point out that Rob still needs to modify, at the least, the list of scriptural citations for his assertion that the Book of Mormon teaches that God the Father is a Spirit.  He didn't agree that the entire assertion was unsupported, but he seemed to agree that not all the citations were valid.  This has not been reflected on the IRR website yet.

FYI, our organization has been working on a thorough overhaul of our website for the past three months. I am hoping the unveiling will take place before this month is out, but it's been a very big process.

With regard to the flurry of other posts here (not yours), I'll just say that I have been trying to limit my time on this forum during the past several days and will continue to try to exercise some restraint on that participation. This means I won't have time to carry on endless exchanges with people that want to flog deceased tapirs.

Edited by Rob Bowman, 13 March 2012 - 01:02 PM.

[KevinG]

cinepro, on 13 March 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

So if someone were looking for the "last word on Mormonism", should they go to the Church website, or an apologetics website?

God.

Here is a great point in the Mormonism 101 thread:  http://www.mormondia...__p__1209100069

[KevinG]

Rob Bowman, on 13 March 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

I won't have time to carry on endless exchanges with people that want to flog deceased tapirs.

If you have time to raise them from the dead you should set aside time to exchange ideas about them.  Although I look forward to your list of corrections and accompanying mea culpa.

Edited by KevinG, 13 March 2012 - 01:03 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

Regarding where to go for the last word on a matter such as the identity of peoples of the Book of Mormon, you wrote:

KevinG, on 13 March 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

God.

Apparently, a number of prophets failed to follow this advice.

[KevinG]

Rob Bowman, on 13 March 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Kevin,

Regarding where to go for the last word on a matter such as the identity of peoples of the Book of Mormon, you wrote:



Apparently, a number of prophets failed to follow this advice.

Nice.

You might want to revisit your studies on continuing revelation and the inerrancy of prophets.

Edited by KevinG, 13 March 2012 - 01:08 PM.

[Bikeemikey]

zerinus, on 13 March 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

First of all that is an irrelevant comment, because the question centered on how many migrations are recorded in the Book of Mormon, and not how many people were left behind from previous migrations.

Secondly, the BOM does preclude anyone left behind from previous migrations:

Jacob 5:

43 And behold this last, whose branch hath withered away, I did plant in a good spot of ground; yea, even that which was choice unto me above all other parts of the land of my vineyard.
44 And thou beheldest that I also cut down that which cumbered this spot of ground, that I might plant this tree in the stead thereof.

The "tree" mentioned in verse 43 is a metaphor for the people of Lehi, and the one mentioned in verse 44 is a metaphor for the Jaredites, or the people who occupied the land before Lehi's arrival. The Lord destroyed the first in order to make room for the second.This, coupled with 2 Nephi 1:8, excludes anybody from competing for the land with the Israelites who were brought to the land with Lehi and later with Mulek.

It stands to reason that if the Lord was careful to prevent anyone from discovering the land after the Israelite migrations, that He would be equally concerned about leaving anyone behind in the land from previous migrations who might have the same undesirable effect.

You do realize that the Jaredite "destruction" did not take place until a hundred years or so after the arrival of Lehi and his crew. You also realize that one of the survivors of the "destruction" was found by the descendants of Nephi and hung out for a while.

I don't know why people insist on forming such definitive conclusions from what is clearly figurative language.

Scripture is not scienctific recordings, nor is it factual observation of events. It is a narrative based around faith from a perspective of faith. Stop trying to fill parable with absolutism. The metaphor is used so abundantly in scriptural contexts is to avoid people forming absolute conclusions from relative propositional narrative.

Edited by Bikeemikey, 13 March 2012 - 01:12 PM.