119 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

JDave,

I appreciate your attempt to offer a nuanced criticism of my statement. You say that I should qualify my statement to the effect that the view in question is "according to LDS tradition" rather than according to the Book of Mormon, and you say that "textual evidence in the Book of Mormon" for that view "simply isn't there." But what you neglect to mention is that this "tradition" goes back to Joseph Smith himself and was affirmed by various LDS prophets after him. Is it your position that there is no "textual evidence in the Book of Mormon" to support their view?

[JDave]

Rob Bowman, on 14 March 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

I appreciate your attempt to offer a nuanced criticism of my statement. You say that I should qualify my statement to the effect that the view in question is "according to LDS tradition" rather than according to the Book of Mormon, and you say that "textual evidence in the Book of Mormon" for that view "simply isn't there." But what you neglect to mention is that this "tradition" goes back to Joseph Smith himself and was affirmed by various LDS prophets after him. Is it your position that there is no "textual evidence in the Book of Mormon" to support their view?

That is my position.  Lots of people have opinions and a lack of evidence often leads to opinions.  What textual evidence did any of them cite to support their opinion?

The vintage of any particular opinion has no bearing on the textual evidence to support it, so I didn't see any need to mention it.

[cdowis]

Rob Bowman, on 14 March 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

I appreciate your attempt to offer a nuanced criticism of my statement. You say that I should qualify my statement to the effect that the view in question is "according to LDS tradition" rather than according to the Book of Mormon, and you say that "textual evidence in the Book of Mormon" for that view "simply isn't there." But what you neglect to mention is that this "tradition" goes back to Joseph Smith himself and was affirmed by various LDS prophets after him. Is it your position that there is no "textual evidence in the Book of Mormon" to support their view?

This is not a doctrinal issue, but an issue of research and logic.  A matter of careful study of the BOM text itself, of science and archeology.  We know for a fact that there were other inhabitants in the Americas when Lehi landed, both from archeology, and from the BOM text itself. Facts are facts, and opinions  just don't matter.

I won't attempt to dissuade you from your opinions, since that has been shown to be a futile exercise, a waste of time.  I am very familiar with the BOM text, I understand the doctrines and principles of the church, and you do not.  You should allow us to teach you, take notes, my friend.  You are not the teacher here except for those who foolishly listen to you.

Edited by cdowis, 14 March 2012 - 04:53 PM.

[cinepro]

cdowis, on 14 March 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

This is not a doctrinal issue, but an issue of research and logic.  A matter of careful study of the BOM text itself, of science and archeology.  We know for a fact that there were other inhabitants in the Americas when Lehi landed, both from archeology, and from the BOM text itself. Facts are facts, and opinions  just don't matter.

I won't attempt to dissuade you from your opinions, since that has been shown to be a futile exercise, a waste of time.  I am very familiar with the BOM text, I understand the doctrines and principles of the church, and you do not.  You should allow us to teach you, take notes, my friend.  You are not the teacher here except for those who foolishly listen to you.

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?

[Log]

Just so I'm clear, if someone makes a claim about the content of the text of the Book of Mormon, and they find they have to choose between Joseph Smith (as quoted in the Ensign in 2002), and the text of the Book of Mormon, which should he go with, and why?

Edited by Log, 14 March 2012 - 05:25 PM.

[Nevo]

cdowis, on 14 March 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

We know for a fact that there were other inhabitants in the Americas when Lehi landed, both from archeology, and from the BOM text itself.

Where does the Book of Mormon text state it as fact that the Promised Land was already inhabited by other (non-Jaredite) groups when Lehi's party arrived? I seem to have missed these explicit references.

[Avatar4321]

Rob Bowman, on 13 March 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

KevinG,

You wrote:



You're missing the point, which is that many faithful Mormons think the Book of Mormon does make that claim -- and I agree with them.

So screw what the truth of what the Book of Mormon actually said, you are just going to go with the thought that benefits your position the most.

[KevinG]

Rob,

I know this thread is moving fast and furious and you may have missed this but please answer this...

"When was the last time you went to an LDS service or observed one of our Sunday School classes."

[Rob Bowman]

Avatar,

You wrote:

Avatar4321, on 14 March 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

So screw what the truth of what the Book of Mormon actually said, you are just going to go with the thought that benefits your position the most.

Actually, you are ignoring what I actually said. I am trying to go with whatever best agrees with the evidence. My opinion on the issue at hand happens to agree with most of the LDS prophets and to disagree with most of the BYU profs. Mormons talk a good talk about following the prophets, but they'll throw them under the bus in a New York minute for apologetic purposes. So who is going with the thought that seems to benefit their position the most?

[Rob Bowman]

KevinG,

You wrote:

KevinG, on 14 March 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

"When was the last time you went to an LDS service or observed one of our Sunday School classes."

Your question is irrelevant because how people behave or talk in one of your services or Sunday school classes will shed no light on whether the Book of Mormon allows for the idea that its three migrations accounted for only a very small fraction of the pre-Columbian population of the Western Hemisphere. Your question is analogous to demanding that if I disagree with your view of the fermentation process of beer I reveal to you when the last time was that I went to a pub.

[KevinG]

Rob Bowman, on 14 March 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

KevinG,

You wrote:



Your question is irrelevant because how people behave or talk in one of your services or Sunday school classes will shed no light on whether the Book of Mormon allows for the idea that its three migrations accounted for only a very small fraction of the pre-Columbian population of the Western Hemisphere.

In other words you have not done so.

It is relative to this discussion because you are interpreting our manuals and materials for others without seeing how they are used and what is emphasised.  You do realize we have a long tradition of volunteer teachers who add their own experience and knowledge to the classroom.  How we teach has everything to do with what we teach.

Quote

Your question is analogous to demanding that if I disagree with your view of the fermentation process of beer I reveal to you when the last time was that I went to a pub.

Well I wouldn't trust a Mormon to evaluate the quality of wine used in the Catholic sacrament service.  Your analogy would be more accurate if I asked you to reveal the last time you watched beer being fermented when you were telling me how Sam Adams does it from reading an employee instruction manual.

[thesometimesaint]

Nevo:

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 mentined they didn't exist.

Edited by thesometimesaint, 14 March 2012 - 10:47 PM.

[Bernard Gui]

Rob Bowman, on 14 March 2012 - 03:24 PM, said:

That my statements are "false" is not fact, but only your opinion. I won't ask you to provide proof that they are false, and I am not going to try to provide proof that they are true.

Then I will again ask you formally to provide specific references from the Book of Mormon that the Book of Mormon peoples were aware they were living on and populating two vast continents. I am not asking for you to regurgitate statements by Mormons, but to provide proof from the book itself. That is the claim you have made.

Quote

Demanding that I prove to your satisfaction that the opinion I expressed is correct in order for me to retain the statement in my article will get you nowhere.

Your opinion is expressed as fact in the critique.
See the above call for specific scriptural references.

Here is what you wrote:
"According to the Book of Mormon, the American continents were populated as the result of three separate migrations of people from the Middle East."

Bernard

Edited by Bernard Gui, 15 March 2012 - 12:40 AM.

[JDave]

JDave, on 14 March 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

You often make a special point in your literature of pointing out where Book of Mormon teachings supposedly differ from Church teachings.  So when you make a statement such as "The Book of Mormon teaches ... " or "According to the Book of Mormon", you commonly do this to highlight textual evidence from the Book of Mormon. ...

So while I don't think you are far off with your statement, it would be better stated as "According to LDS tradition" rather than "According to the Book of Mormon".  Your normal use of phrases such as "according to the Book of Mormon", not to mention a straight forward reading of the phrase, cause your readers to assume that there is textual evidence in the Book of Mormon which simply isn't there.

Rob, you made sure you understood my position, but you haven't responded to it.

[Rob Bowman]

KevinG,

I would be happy to attend LDS services and classes if the opportunity arises. But it's still irrelevant. If I went to a hundred such meetings and altered anything I said about Mormonism on the basis of my observations, you know what would happen. I would be treated to several rounds of the popular Mormon chorus "It isn't official." I would be lectured on my naivete in thinking that the way individual Sunday school teachers handle a particular topic is indicative of the authoritative teaching of the LDS Church.

I've attended the religious services of many religious groups outside my evangelical Christian tradition. The services have never overturned the information learned from hundreds and thousands of hours of research in the group's primary sources and conversations with members from all over the country on street corners, in homes, online, at conventions, etc. I still vividly remember one earnest young friend of mine back 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. I am interested and plan to see if I can make arrangements to do so. Meanwhile, if you catch me making baseless speculations about what it's like in a sacrament meeting you can legitimately criticize me for making such speculations without ever attending one. But the interpretive issue before us here won't be settled or even illuminated by attending such meetings.

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

Bernard Gui, on 15 March 2012 - 12:34 AM, said:

Then I will again ask you formally to provide specific references from the Book of Mormon that the Book of Mormon peoples were aware they were living on and populating two vast continents. I am not asking for you to regurgitate statements by Mormons, but to provide proof from the book itself. That is the claim you have made.

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."

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.

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.

[KevinG]

So you have pre-judged that our meetings would conflict with your interpretation of our manuals and therefore don't need to observe actual use of those manuals.  Wow- thats some scholarship.

There are two different issues here Rob.  One is the fact that ongoing revelation sometimes trumps our earlier understanding of our own doctrines and practices.  This usually revolves around practices (like the organization of the 70s, race and priesthood) and our understanding of basic doctrines (Christ, atonement, salvation) remains very consistent.

Two is the correllation of teaching materials to focus on basics and reduce the bulk of materials used to teach and publish.

Your interpretations and opinions of what those materials mean are in error and your lack of experience with how those materials are used compounds your errors.  I would not hire a Master Trainer to run one of my professional courses who had only read the manual and had not first observed then run the course under supervision.

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

You wrote:

JDave, on 15 March 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

Rob, you made sure you understood my position, but you haven't responded to it.

There isn't much to say. I am rendered nearly speechless by your claim that Joseph Smith had no textual basis for his view of the meaning of the book he supposedly was divinely inspired to translate. The claim is absurd on its face.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

KevinG, on 15 March 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

So you have pre-judged that our meetings would conflict with your interpretation of our manuals and therefore don't need to observe actual use of those manuals.

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

[JDave]

Rob Bowman, on 15 March 2012 - 07:40 AM, said:

There isn't much to say. I am rendered nearly speechless by your claim that Joseph Smith had no textual basis for his view of the meaning of the book he supposedly was divinely inspired to translate. The claim is absurd on its face.

The question of how the American continents were populated does not impact "the meaning of the book".  And I would say that to claim that Joseph Smith had textual basis for every statement he made about the Book of Mormon is absurd on its face.

The point that you didn't respond to is that your usage of "According to the Book of Mormon" normally is associated with textual evidence that you can and do cite.  If changing the phrase to "According to LDS tradition" doesn't impact your argument and also renders your sentence more accurate, it seems a simple matter to change it.   Why would you not change it?

Edited by JDave, 15 March 2012 - 09:29 AM.