Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

From Idaho State Journal


rabanes

Recommended Posts

Guest Just Curious
What, please, has that got to do with anything mentioned on this thread?

Tangents, rabbit trails, irrelevancies, sidetracks. Dead threads. Doomed discussions.

I'll leave it to your superior powers of intellect to figure it out...

Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is; [O the earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.] A Hebrew; Haueloheem yerau; a Greek, O theos phos esi; a Roman, Dominus regit me; a German, Gott gebe uns das licht: a Portugee, Senhor Jesu Christo e libordade; a Frenchman, Dieu defend le droit: but as I am, I give God the glory...

Times and Seasons, November 1, 1843

Link to comment
Dan, perhaps in the length of this thread, you have misread something, because here, in your latest post, you have switched subjects. My remark "this LDS apologist's argument is a NEW, contemporary, modern spin necessitated by the problems raised by DNA studies, lack of archaeological evidence for the BOM, etc." has nothing to do with limited geography (LGT), but instead, was in reference to the assertion by Matt that the DNA evidence shows "The Book of Mormon people were quite small compared to other groups in the Americas." (see Matt's post at http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...y%20true&st=15).

That has always been my subject. The Limited Geography Theory entails a relatively small population, most likely surrounded by other populations.

I should point out that I also think that the number of the children of Israel who participated in the exodus out of Egypt was probably considerably smaller than a lot of people imagine, and probably smaller than the biblical text seems to say it was.

That early Latter-day Saints believed in vast numbers of Jaredites and Lamanites is probably true. That their assumptions rested on revelation, however, is unlikely. Hence, I'm not bound by them. Particularly since the Book of Mormon itself contains population figures that surely take precedence over nineteenth and twentieth century speculations.

Whether or not the LGT is valid or new is an entirely separate issue from whether or not the number of BOM was small. I can see nothing in Roper's article that would suggest that 19th century Mormons, or very many 20th/21st century Mormons believe such a thing. Recently, however, this notion has started becoming quite popular thanks to FARMS. The old classic notion of Nephites, Jaredites, and Lamanites filling North and South America just cannot hold anymore. So, we are talking about BOM people populations, not where they lived (although that would certainly come into play at some point).

The fact that the LGT is not "an entirely separate issue from whether or not the number of BOM [people] was small" is demonstrated by your very paragraph above, when you contrast the idea that Book of Mormon populations were small with "the old classic notion of Nephites, Jaredites, and Lamanites filling North and South America."

DCP: (quoting me -"even today, the vast majority of LDS, I think, although I have no numbers to give you, consider all/most Native Americans to be Lamanites descended from Israelites.") As do I.

RA: Then, I am not sure what we are arguing about. How in the world can "all/most Native Americans to be Lamanites descended from Israelites" when we know that such a thing is not possible. I am surely missing something here, and I am open to hearing your thoughts.

How do we know that it is impossible? I'm assuming that you've read Brian Stubbs's article in FARMS Review 15/2, as well as Matt Roper's "Swimming in the Gene Pool," in the same issue. Both stress the rapidity of the process by which "descent" can be spread throughout a population. Roper's citation of the work of the Yale statistician Joseph Chang is particularly interesting.

DCP: But that does not mean that I reject the identification, by Joseph Smith and the Doctrine and Covenants, of the "western tribes of Indians" as Lamanites.

RA: here is where most EVs and LDS hit that place of mutual "huhhhhh?" But I'll stick around and keep reading and keep trying to understand how you can hold these apparent contradictions of thought. I figure I won't learn nothin' if I don't ask and listen.

You have read Stubbs and Roper, haven't you?

RA: Well, Dan, if, just for the sake of discussion, Smith had actually WANTED to simply say that our western tribes were descended from Israelites and that from father Abraham came the Redman, how in the world would he have said it any differently than how he said what he said? How do you know he did not mean what I think he meant?

Because human descent from only one ancestor is biologically impossible.

RA: Uhm, I think Joseph's point was simply that the Native Americans were descended from the house of Israel.

Of course he was. And I'm aware of no proof that he was wrong.

Are you indeed claiming that most/nearly all Native Americans (North & South), as well as Pacific Islanders, are actually, gulp, Israelites?? I just want to be sure here. And if so, please explain. And keep it simply
Link to comment

Enough!

Not really. You have yet to produce anything that converts "the gates of Hades" to your claim that the words should be changed to "powers of death." You have produced a lot of incompletely referenced commentary...but aren't you the one who does not allow commentary over the "plain meaning" of the Bible? Nor have you or the commentators explained how gates can prevail.

How does an inanimate object dominate, RA?

Link to comment

Confidential Informant Previously Posted: Nailing NHM on the head could be coincidence. Nailing NHM and Wadi Sady [sic](Bountiful) is pushing the limits of coincidence. Nailing NHM, Bountiful AND the Valley of Lemuel (complete with river of water) goes beyond coincidence to the point where you've got to establish that Smith had source materials to aid him.

Now, some critics have claimed that this was the case (SR over on ZLMB is one of them). He has an elaborate theory about how this was accomplished. It involves maps and texts discovered in disparate parts of the world. In order for Smith to have gotten this right, he'd have had to have access to any number of elite libraries and literary collections and would have had to spend months, if not years, of study to get it just right.

Ken Responds: "[M]onths, if not years, of study"? Nonsense! All he had to do was jump on "Ye Olde Information Superhighway" and he could have accomplished the task of finding all of that information in minutes, hours, or days--weeks, at most! :P<_<:unsure: (Boy, that Joseph Smith sure was a crafty fellow! :ph34r: )

Link to comment

The Venerable Professor Hamblin Previously Posted: See my forthcoming intellectual autobiography of Joseph Smith entitled, Joseph Smith: The Cambridge Years. <_<

Ken Responds: Which will, no doubt, have roughly the same basis in reality as Fawn Brodie's psychobabbl--Uh, I mean, psychobiography--of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History. :unsure: (Cf. Nibley's "No Ma'am, That's Not History.") :P [Why are so many otherwise-intelligent people so fascinated by Ms. Brodie's pretended ability to read Joseph Smith's mind (a feat which would have been hard enough had she been one of the man's contemporaries, not to mention the fact that she did it 100 years after he died)???]

Link to comment

RA: Then, I am not sure what we are arguing about. How in the world can "all/most Native Americans to be Lamanites descended from Israelites" when we know that such a thing is not possible. I am surely missing something here, and I am open to hearing your thoughts.

Richard,

You might be interested in short article that discusses this issue here: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/WhoAreLamanites.pdf

Mike Ash

MormonFortress.com

Link to comment

DCP: That early Latter-day Saints believed in vast numbers of Jaredites and Lamanites is probably true. That their assumptions rested on revelation, however, is unlikely. Hence, I'm not bound by them. Particularly since the Book of Mormon itself contains population figures that surely take precedence over nineteenth and twentieth century speculations.

RA: ok. fair enough. I don't get it. But ok. I mean, these are the people who started your restored church. If they didn't know what was going on, or what the BOM taught, I'm not quite sure why I or anyone else should believe you either.

DCP: The fact that the LGT is not "an entirely separate issue from whether or not the number of BOM [people] was small" is demonstrated by your very paragraph above, when you contrast the idea that Book of Mormon populations were small with "the old classic notion of Nephites, Jaredites, and Lamanites filling North and South America."

RA: yeah, I get it. ok. Agreed. i wasn't really looking at it that way, but I can see how/why you tied them together. And I suppose, indeed, they are. But I was really focusing more on just the numbers/origins of the populations. Teh references to filing North and South America, apart from the obvious allusion to their locations, also says something about their numbers.

DCP: I'm assuming that you've read Brian Stubbs's article in FARMS Review 15/2, as well as Matt Roper's "Swimming in the Gene Pool," in the same issue. Both stress the rapidity of the process by which "descent" can be spread throughout a population. Roper's citation of the work of the Yale statistician Joseph Chang is particularly interesting.

RA: no. sadly. I am sure I have missed a lot of material since there is a seemingly endless stream of stuff that you guys pump out. I certainly can't keep up with it all

Link to comment
DCP: That early Latter-day Saints believed in vast numbers of Jaredites and Lamanites is probably true. That their assumptions rested on revelation, however, is unlikely. Hence, I'm not bound by them. Particularly since the Book of Mormon itself contains population figures that surely take precedence over nineteenth and twentieth century speculations.

RA: ok. fair enough. I don't get it. But ok. I mean, these are the people who started your restored church. If they didn't know what was going on, or what the BOM taught, I'm not quite sure why I or anyone else should believe you either.

When Joseph Smith or one of the other early leaders of the Church spoke as a man, without claiming revelation for what he was saying, I'm under no obligation to genuflect before his opinions. I take them very seriously, but I'm free to disagree. I worship God. I don't worship Joseph Smith.

Remember, Joseph is supposed to be "pure Ephraimite" (according to Brigham Young, JOD 2:269). This is the case with most LDS, I would assume you, too.

I don't assume that at all. Brigham Young seems to have regarded Joseph's status as a "pure Ephraimite" as something uncommon.

Are you of Ephraim? If so, is it just by adoption and in a figurative sense? Or, are you truly an Israelite that has had your blood transformed into Israelite blood, per the teachings of early Mormons about converts.

I've been assigned to Ephraim. Whether or not that is by literal descent or by adoption is both unknowable and immaterial.

From what i have read, all we have when it comes to the golden plates, are people who said they saw Smith carrying around a heavy box, and/or, something covered with cloth.

You can reach that conclusion only after rejecting numerous statements to the contrary.

Link to comment
RA: ok. fair enough. I don't get it. But ok. I mean, these are the people who started your restored church. If they didn't know what was going on, or what the BOM taught, I'm not quite sure why I or anyone else should believe you either.

Excuse me while I comment on just one point...

There is an interesting assumption here on your part. That Joseph Smith should know everything that existed in the BofM implies, for you, that he should know because he wrote it, like an author who wrote a novel.

However, if you take the LDS assumption, that Joseph Smith TRANSLATED an ancient book, all bets are off. Because there MAY be things in there that JS overlooked, or his early followers overlooked.

This is actually an argument in FAVOR of the ancient origins for the text.

What FARMS is doing is founded on the latter assumption. They just look at the text itself, rather than what someone in the past 150 years has SAID about the text.

And the answers that come out (which early LDS adherents generally failed to notice) include: a limited geography, political delineations between Nephite and Lamanite rather than racial, hints (unspoken) of other peoples in the land, and alignment with pre-Josiah theology (Dr. Peterson's Nephi and His Asherah is recommended reading, if you have not seen it yet)

Beowulf

Link to comment

Dan,

hey man, go to work. Yo're killing me. Do you work from home or something? Go teach a class or fill out some papers, or something! <_<

DCP: When Joseph Smith or one of the other early leaders of the Church spoke as a man, without claiming revelation for what he was saying, I'm under no obligation to genuflect before his opinions. I take them very seriously, but I'm free to disagree. I worship God. I don't worship Joseph Smith.

RA: ok. point taken. But I wonder if that's how it worked in tho good old days of Smith and Young, or if that is a new twist on things. I have a feeling you would not have gotten away with that in the mid-1800s. Perhaos you would have been likened to salt that has lost its flavor, gfood for nothing but to be trampled under foot. Or, maybe, such isolence would have qualified you to be killed like Judas was killed by the apostles. Or, maybe, you would have just been mocked by Smith and described as someone who was being ridden like a dumb ***. Hmmm, :P

DCP: I don't assume that at all. Brigham Young seems to have regarded Joseph's status as a "pure Ephraimite" as something uncommon.

RA: Hmm. Well, if JS was pure Ephraimite, then his blood and DNA would have been wholly Israelite. Maybe we should do some DNA studies on Joseph's descendants. Surely there would be some undiluted Israelite DNA in his descendants

Link to comment
hey man, go to work. Yo're killing me. Do you work from home or something? Go teach a class or fill out some papers, or something! :P

Whenever possible, these days, I'm working from home. Which means that I'm going to have to do something to circumvent the temptation of looking in on this board.

DCP: I don't assume that at all. Brigham Young seems to have regarded Joseph's status as a "pure Ephraimite" as something uncommon.

RA: Hmm. Well, if JS was pure Ephraimite, then his blood and DNA would have been wholly Israelite. Maybe we should do some DNA studies on Joseph's descendants. Surely there would be some undiluted Israelite DNA in his descendants

Link to comment
Guest Just Curious
But I wonder if that's how it worked in tho good old days of Smith and Young, or if that is a new twist on things. I have a feeling you would not have gotten away with that in the mid-1800s. Perhaos you would have been likened to salt that has lost its flavor, gfood for nothing but to be trampled under foot.

Yup didn't work for those nasty Expositor publishers...

Link to comment

Okay I'm scared....... cool.gif:ph34r::unsure:<_<:angry::P

Moderator note: I just cleaned out a string of nonsensical banter between you and Just Curious. You only get in trouble for that when that is about all you do. I suggest that the two of you start upping your substance to noise ratio real fast.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...