KevinG Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 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 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 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 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 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- 2
zerinus Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) 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 March 13, 2012 by zerinus
JDave Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 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 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) 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 March 13, 2012 by cinepro
wenglund Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 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 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 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 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Dave,You wrote: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 March 13, 2012 by Rob Bowman
KevinG Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 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.mormondialogue.org/topic/57217-mormonism-101-faq-on-church-newsroom-website/page__view__findpost__p__1209100069
KevinG Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) 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 March 13, 2012 by KevinG
Rob Bowman Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 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:God.Apparently, a number of prophets failed to follow this advice.
KevinG Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) 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 March 13, 2012 by KevinG
Bikeemikey Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) 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 March 13, 2012 by Bikeemikey
Bikeemikey Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) God.Here is a great point in the Mormonism 101 thread: http://www.mormondia...__p__1209100069Is it ironic that your answer is God, with a link to a apologetics debate site to back it up? Edited March 13, 2012 by Bikeemikey
KevinG Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Is it ironic that your answer is God, with a link to a apologetics debate site to back it up?The link is to this site.
Bikeemikey Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 The link is to this site.The link is to this site.This site is more or less an apologetics debate site, that is my point.To say the answers come from God then link to a location where the majority of the ideas expressed and debated here are not present with in the mainstream LDS community would suggest A) this site expresses views closer to Gods, and B) those LDS on this site are also closer to expressing Gods opinions on things.
JDave Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 To say the answers come from God then link to a location where the majority of the ideas expressed and debated here are not present with in the mainstream LDS community would suggest A) this site expresses views closer to Gods, and B) those LDS on this site are also closer to expressing Gods opinions on things.Or it would suggest, upon actually reading the post that was linked to, that much of our musings are not doctrinal and making an emphasis on scriptural statements and revelations from God will help alleviate that.The juxtaposition was mildly ironic, but not in any way suggesting what you state here.
Rob Bowman Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Kevin,You wrote:You might want to revisit your studies on continuing revelation and the inerrancy of prophets.Apparently, the last word on a subject is not the last word on the subject, even when received by a prophet from God.
altersteve Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Secondly, the BOM does preclude anyone left behind from previous migrations:Church spokesman Stewart Reid disagrees with you:As to whether these were the first inhabitants...we don't have a position on that. Our scripture does not try to account for any other people who may have lived in the New World before, during or after the days of the Jaredites and the Nephites, and we don't have any official doctrine about who the descendants of the Nephites and the Jaredites are. Many Mormons believe that American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites, but that's not in the scripture.Stewart Reid, LDS Public Relations Staff, quoted by William J. Bennetta in The Textbook Letter (March-April 1997), published by The Textbook League (P.O. Box 51, Sausalito, California 94966).
altersteve Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Kevin,You wrote:Apparently, the last word on a subject is not the last word on the subject, even when received by a prophet from God.That's pretty much the idea behind continuing revelation. 1
zerinus Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 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.No I don't. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that definitively leads to that conclusion.You also realize that one of the survivors of the "destruction" was found by the descendants of Nephi and hung out for a while.Coriantumr was the sole survivor or the Jaredites who survived according to prophecy to tell the tale. That proves what exactly?I don't know why people insist on forming such definitive conclusions from what is clearly figurative language.I do seriously object when some people insist that their way of understanding the scriptures is the only right way.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.Amazing! Did you want to tell me about it?
altersteve Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 I do seriously object when some people insist that their way of understanding the scriptures is the only right way.You mean when people do exactly what you're doing?
zerinus Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 You mean when people do exactly what you're doing?I don't believe I do actually.
Recommended Posts