Irr Misses Again

[altersteve]

I should also point out what the Church itself says about the matter:

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is exactly what it claims to be — a record of God's dealings with peoples of ancient America and a second witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The strongest witness of the Book of Mormon is to be obtained by living the Christ-centered principles contained in its pages and by praying about its truthfulness.

Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/dna-and-the-book-of-mormon

[altersteve]

I don't believe I do actually.

And nobody else thinks that's what they're doing either. So stop using double standards.

[zerinus]

I should also point out what the Church itself says about the matter:

Yes, that could have taken place after the Book of Mormon history had ended (i.e. around 400 AD). The predictions about no migrations in the Book of Mormon applies to the period when the Nephites were righteous, and God's true Church was operational among them. There are also predictions in the Book of Mormon that state that after the Nephites had fallen from grace, Gentiles would be allowed to invade the land. But there is no migrations or mixing of populations during the period of their history that is recorded in the Book of Mormon.

[zerinus]

And nobody else thinks that's what they're doing either. So stop using double standards.

Who are "they"?

[altersteve]

But there is no migrations or mixing of populations during the period of their history that is recorded in the Book of Mormon.

But there were migrations before then -- long before then, actually. Take a history class. The Church has said that there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that precludes such migrations, before or after the events described in the book.

Who are "they"?

I have a feeling that you know exactly what I'm talking about.

[zerinus]

But there were migrations before then -- long before then, actually. Take a history class. The Church has said that there is nothing in the Book of Mormon that precludes such migrations, before or after the events described in the book.

The Church has made no such statements. There is only one migration recorded in the Book of Mormon prior to the arrival of the Lehites, and that was the Jaredites. I am not aware that the Church recognizes any other migrations apart form that.

I have a feeling that you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I have a feeling that I don't. Once again, who are "they"? I don't know of any "they".

[KevinG]

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.

I do think one will come closer to the knowledge of ultimate truth by coming unto God. A fundamental Mormon teaching by the way. Coming unto God directly will gain you eternal knowledge moreso than following a prophet, apologist or counter-cult minister (in that order). But for accurate presentations of Mormon thought and Doctrine you can do worse than asking Mormon apologists and scholars.

Edited March 13, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

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.

Ding! Give the man a cookie.

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way” ( Discourses of Brigham Young, 135).

[altersteve]

The Church has made no such statements. There is only one migration recorded in the Book of Mormon prior to the arrival of the Lehites, and that was the Jaredites. I am not aware that the Church recognizes any other migrations apart form that.

Again, as Church spokesman Stewart Reid said, "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." As I said before, take a history class. We know, from history, that people were migrating to the New World long before the Jaredites were here, and there is absolutely nothing in the Book of Mormon that precludes this. You take these obviously figurative statements and use them to prove your point, when there are clearly other interesting and reasonable interpretations of the same passages.

Edited March 14, 2012 by altersteve

[zerinus]

Again, as Church spokesman Stewart Reid said, "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." As I said before, take a history class. We know, from history, that people were migrating to the New World long before the Jaredites were here, and there is absolutely nothing in the Book of Mormon that precludes this. You always take these obviously figurative statements and use them to prove your point, when there are clearly other interesting and reasonable interpretations of the same passages. And when anyone tries to disagree with you, you simply dismiss everything they have to say with your own opinion. That's not exactly a respectful way to have a discussion. It makes people perceive you as being very rude.

Look Mr, if you have a problem with me, that is your problem. I am here to discuss the topics, not me or you. If you think I have broken any board rules, you are free to report it to the mods. But I do not intend to reply to posts of a personal nature.

If you expect people to respect you show them the same courtesy. This post is nothing but board nannying and personal in its own right. Your continued insistance that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation is turning off many posters. -Ares

Edited March 13, 2012 by Ares

[Grundelwalken]

being very rude.

When I read this I started to chuckle. But then I realized that my eyes had failed me again. I thought I saw nude but ......... I was wrong. Age matters, especially in the eyes and ears. Sorry. MW

[zerinus]

If you expect people to respect you show them the same courtesy. This post is nothing but board nannying and personal in its own right. Your continued insistance that your interpretation is the only correct interpretation is turning off many posters. -Ares

Thank you, but I am not really sure what you are suggesting that I should do. Are you suggesting that I should just agree with other people's interpretations for the sake of agreeing, against my own better judgement?

[altersteve]

Don't get personal. If you take out the orange highlighted portions your post is fine. - Ares

Done. I apologize.

[Ares]

Thank you, but I am not really sure what you are suggesting that I should do. Are you suggesting that I should just agree with other people's interpretations for the sake of agreeing, against my own better judgement?

You should not present opinion as church doctrine or the only possible interpretation and then callinto question others faith or intelligence when they disagree. You are excused from this thread.

[Bernard Gui]

Mr Bowman, the Book of Mormon says nothing about North and South America. It nevers uses the word continent. There is no indication the Lehites were aware of the vast areas beyond their own homelands. Please provide a scripture quote that supports your claim.

Bernard

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

Let's restore the context of my remark about prophets and the last words. Cinepro had asked:

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

KevinG had replied:

God.

KevinG's reply makes no sense if even the Prophet of the Restoration could not go to God for the "last word" on Mormonism. So when you say:

That's pretty much the idea behind continuing revelation.

You are jumping into the middle of a discussion and not getting the point. KevinG says if we go to God we can get the last word on something. But the evidence shows this isn't true, at least not in the case of the Mormon prophets, who went to God and got something other than the last word.

Get it?

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Gui,

You wrote:

Mr Bowman, the Book of Mormon says nothing about North and South America. It nevers uses the word continent. There is no indication the Lehites were aware of the vast areas beyond their own homelands. Please provide a scripture quote that supports your claim.

Mr. Gui, the Book of Mormon says nothing about America. It never uses the word America. Does this mean that the Book of Mormon says nothing that modern readers cannot properly understand to be about America?

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

If you want what the Church teaches about its own doctrines/beliefs the best(only) place to go is the Church.

IE; Ask me what I believe I'll tell you in no uncertain words. If you want what the Church believes go to the Church.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

If you want what the Church teaches about its own doctrines/beliefs the best(only) place to go is the Church.

IE; Ask me what I believe I'll tell you in no uncertain words. If you want what the Church believes go to the Church.

That's exactly what I do. I go to the Church to find out what it teaches.

[Damien the Leper]

KevinG,

You wrote:

Okay, but you should already know this. Here are two examples that should be sufficient to document that what i said accurately represents a popular, traditional LDS view.

"The book which I hold in my hand (the Book of Mormon) contains nearly as much information as the Old Testament. It is a book of five or six hundred closely printed pages. This book, the Latter-day Saints believe to be the Bible of the western hemisphere; a compilation of sacred books, books delivered by divine inspiration in ancient times to prophets, revelators and inspired men who dwelt upon this continent, both in North and South America." Orson Pratt, JD 14:326. (Continue reading for several pages and you'll find that Pratt elaborates on this claim in some detail.)

"Who are the Lamanites? The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people. There are no blessings, of all the imaginable ones, to which you are not entitled -- you, the Lamanites -- when you are righteous. You are of royal blood, the children of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Lehi. Lamanites share a royal heritage. I should like to address my remarks to you, our kinsmen of the isles of the sea and the Americas. Millions of you have blood relatively unmixed with gentile nations. Columbus called you "Indians," thinking he had reached the East Indies. Millions of you are descendants of Spaniards and Indians, and are termed mestizos, and are called after your countries, for instance: Mexicans in Mexico; Guatemalans in Guatemala; Chilianos in Chile. You Polynesians of the Pacific are called Samoan or Maori, Tahitian or Hawaiian, according to your islands. There are probably sixty million of you on the two continents and on the Pacific Islands, all related by blood ties. The Lord calls you Lamanites, a name which has a pleasant ring, for many of the grandest people ever to live upon the earth were so called." The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 596-97.

Come on Rob! We all know that those statements may or may not be inspired. It gives us the benefit of the doubt. We also know that not everything the prophets and apostles teach or say is true.

[Rob Bowman]

Valentinus,

You wrote:

Come on Rob! We all know that those statements may or may not be inspired. It gives us the benefit of the doubt. We also know that not everything the prophets and apostles teach or say is true.

Right. Something about plausible deniability....

[Damien the Leper]

Valentinus,

You wrote:

Right. Something about plausible deniability....

You like that, huh?

Knock it off. Contribute something beyond inflammatory one-liners or leave the thread.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Minos

[KevinG]

Steve,

Let's restore the context of my remark about prophets and the last words. Cinepro had asked:

KevinG had replied:

KevinG's reply makes no sense if even the Prophet of the Restoration could not go to God for the "last word" on Mormonism. So when you say:

You are jumping into the middle of a discussion and not getting the point. KevinG says if we go to God we can get the last word on something. But the evidence shows this isn't true, at least not in the case of the Mormon prophets, who went to God and got something other than the last word.

Get it?

We can receive revelation and so can the Prophet but it is line by line, precept by precept. I do not know exactly why Father has set it up this way but I suspect it is part of our capacity to grow and know + part of our mortal test. We see through a glass but darkly.

[KevinG]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

That's exactly what I do. I go to the Church to find out what it teaches.

When was the last time you went to an LDS service or observed one of our Sunday School classes. Picking through our literature is not going to our church. You have serious gaps in your knowledge of how we apply and understand our doctrines. Your cyncial comments regarding our Prophets not geting it right from God is a prime example.

At this point I don't know if the ignorance is willing or accidental - but it is obvious.

Some of this can be forgiven as even Latter-day Saints sometimes confuse "all knowledge" with "all knowledge that God has revealed to us". But as a professed Scholar with knowledge of Mormonism you should know better.

Edited March 14, 2012 by KevinG

[cdowis]

I am aware of the fact that Mormon scholars and apologists in the BYU/Maxwell/FAIR tradition dispute this claim. In the article you quote, I discuss their view that the people of the three Middle Eastern migrations mixed with larger populations already in the Americas. So I didn't "miss" this. The question is disputed even among faithful Mormons. I cannot reasonably be faulted for stating a position shared by many faithful Mormons, especially if I also mention the alternative position.

Members disagree on how to interpret the BOM on this matter. It is not a doctrinal issue, but a matter for research and careful study of the BOM text itself. To pretend that the BOM unequivocally limits itself to the three migrations is not based on the BOM text itself.