robuchan Posted July 11, 2012 Author Posted July 11, 2012 Essentially irrelevant to the issue of LGT -- which is what you had talked about. You are bouncing around and changing the topic.The Others theory is necessary for the Mesoamerica LGT theory. Ask the guys in these threads that are more knowledgeable than me about it if you're confused why.
CASteinman Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 The BOM text tells us that there were domesticated animals when Nephi landed. That is sufficient for anyone with an open mind.Maybe not. I can see someone with an open mind saying that it is possible that they were domesticated animals -- but that it is also possible that they were strange animals being given names that were associated with familiar animals.Which means it might not be sufficient, even for a person with an open mind.
robuchan Posted July 11, 2012 Author Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) zerinusThe BOM text tells us that there were domesticated animals when Nephi landed. That is sufficient for anyone with an open mind.I think you're the only that uses this argument. John Sorenson as recently as this week argued against it.http://www.johnlsore...enLetterCoe.pdf Edited July 11, 2012 by robuchan
zerinus Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) One final thing, The sphere of the record keepers was how far they could get information in a timely manner to keep an adequate record. It appears from the text that once Hagoth's ships had left they received no further information from that group. It also appears that once a group had left to go north there was no further contact.You simply cannot define LGT as the "sphere of the record keepers" no matter how you try to fit it, because it is circular as explained above. LGT can only be defined in geographical terms.Now who is pulling things out of a hat that is not in the BoM. If they lived too far away to have contact with others where did they live? All the evidence I have seen indicates that anywhere in either American continent had people pretty much everywhere. The definition of insanity that comes to my mind is the one about doing the same thing and expecting different results. I have decided I am not insane and as this is not critical to my salvation I think I will drop discoursing with you on the subject. Have a good time.LGT is defined in terms of a very small area in Central America. The alternative to rejecting LGT is not to cover every square inch of North and South America. The population of no country does that. Have you ever travelled by car between major cities in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, etc.? You pass through miles and miles and miles of wilderness with no civilization sight. Brigham Young used to say that he could hide the Latter-day Saints in the rocky Mountains and nobody would be able to find them! The alternative to rejecting LGT is not to cover every square inch of the American continent. You can reject LGT, and still have "others" living in the Americas without ever coming into contact with the Nephites and Lamanites, or coming into contact with them after the BoM period. You can also have immigration into the continent following that period, and thus contact being made with "others" after the BoM period (as it did following the European migrations). Edited July 11, 2012 by zerinus
CASteinman Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 The Others theory is necessary for the Mesoamerica LGT theory. Ask the guys in these threads that are more knowledgeable than me about it if you're confused why.First of all.. I notice another shifting position from you. Previously it was LGT theory. Now its the more narrow "Mesoamerican LGT Theory".The second shift I see is that you no longer want to defend your own position but are insisting, instead, that others do it.Perhaps you have detected a weakness in your approach and believe that others can do a better job of supporting your views. However, I do not see others who are doing that.If you think that there is someone -- or perhaps 2 or 3 someones -- on this board who are better at articulating and defending your ideas than you are, please direct me to them by the nom de plum they use on this board rather than leave them as an anonymous crowd of support -- and me as the lone ignoramus. But, if there are no such people around please reply directly -- and if you are pretty sure I am thick in the head, make the answer simple so I might understand it.
ERayR Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 You simply cannot define LGT as the "sphere of the record keepers" no matter how you try to fit it, because it is circular as explained above. LGT can only be defined in geographical terms.LGT is defined in terms of a very small area in Central America. The alternative to rejecting LGT is not to cover every square inch of North and South America. The population of no country does that. Have you ever travelled by car between major cities in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, etc.? You pass through miles and miles and miles of wilderness with no civilization sight. Brigham Young used to say that he could hide the Latter-day Saints in the rocky Mountains and nobody would be able to find them! The alternative to rejecting LGT is not to cover every square inch of the American continent. You can reject LGT, and still have "others" living in the Americas without ever coming into contact with the Nephites and Lamanites, or coming into contact with them after the BoM period. You can also have immigration into the continent following that period, and thus contact being made with "others" after the BoM period.I said I had said my last on this subject to you. By your definition my definition is circular and you refuse to see any other. I don't know why. Perhaps you have hung your faith on your construct of this subject. If so I would not want to take that away from you and so, as this is not critical to anybody's salvation, I am backing off from any other discussion with you.
zerinus Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Then why don't you repeat those responses and be prepared to defend them.How many times am I supposed to repeat them (without ever receiving a response from you)? I am the one who must decide when enough is enough, and I have already passed that stage with you!
CASteinman Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I think you're the only that uses this argument. John Sorenson as recently as this week argued against it.http://www.johnlsore...enLetterCoe.pdfIt appears you have misrepresented what John L. Sorenson actually said. He did not argue against it. In fact, he did not address it directly and alludes to domestication by "by means and hands not described". This is not a refutation the way you have colored it. 1
zerinus Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Maybe not. I can see someone with an open mind saying that it is possible that they were domesticated animals -- but that it is also possible that they were strange animals being given names that were associated with familiar animals.Which means it might not be sufficient, even for a person with an open mind.LOL! Nothing more to say!
CASteinman Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 LOL! Nothing more to say! Do you realize that my statement does not support your position?
zerinus Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I said I had said my last on this subject to you. By your definition my definition is circular and you refuse to see any other. I don't know why. Perhaps you have hung your faith on your construct of this subject. If so I would not want to take that away from you and so, as this is not critical to anybody's salvation, I am backing off from any other discussion with you. Good thing too. I am trying to get back to my scripture studies, and you guys are holding me back! See you in three months time. That is how long it normally takes me to read through all the standard works, once I put my mind to it.
robuchan Posted July 11, 2012 Author Posted July 11, 2012 It appears you have misrepresented what John L. Sorenson actually said. He did not argue against it. In fact, he did not address it directly and alludes to domestication by "by means and hands not described". This is not a refutation the way you have colored it.??He's saying the Lehites found native American species some of which that later became domesticated. CDowis refuted.
zerinus Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Do you realize that my statement does not support your position?I realize that the Book of Mormon does not support your position.
robuchan Posted July 11, 2012 Author Posted July 11, 2012 zerinusThe BOM text tells us that there were domesticated animals when Nephi landed. That is sufficient for anyone with an open mind.Also, not that this point needs any more addressing (because of the numerous problems it causes LGT), but if not for the standard apologetic answer (those animals weren't really ox, goat, etc), why wouldn't you be satisfied with an answer that the Jaredites had domesticated animals that wandered off the reservation? The Mayans didn't have these animals.
CASteinman Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 He's saying the Lehites found native American species some of which that later became domesticated. CDowis refuted.Maybe later. Maybe not. He said "At length" some "ended up domesticated". This is not a clarion statement that the domestication was later. It is a statement that they 'ended up domesticated'. It could be that at length they were FOUND to be domesticated. This is certainly no refutation of CDowis. And not a distinctive argument on the issue in any case. It is a minor statement in a larger discussion about something else entirely, and thus NOT the counter argument as you have declared it to be.
CASteinman Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I realize that the Book of Mormon does not support your position.I don't think so. I don't think you even realize what my position is, though I have made it clear.
CASteinman Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (because of the numerous problems it causes LGT)Imaginary problems never described.
robuchan Posted July 11, 2012 Author Posted July 11, 2012 Imaginary problems never described.Mayans didn't have ox, etc.
robuchan Posted July 11, 2012 Author Posted July 11, 2012 First of all.. I notice another shifting position from you. Previously it was LGT theory. Now its the more narrow "Mesoamerican LGT Theory".The second shift I see is that you no longer want to defend your own position but are insisting, instead, that others do it.Perhaps you have detected a weakness in your approach and believe that others can do a better job of supporting your views. However, I do not see others who are doing that.If you think that there is someone -- or perhaps 2 or 3 someones -- on this board who are better at articulating and defending your ideas than you are, please direct me to them by the nom de plum they use on this board rather than leave them as an anonymous crowd of support -- and me as the lone ignoramus.But, if there are no such people around please reply directly -- and if you are pretty sure I am thick in the head, make the answer simple so I might understand it.When I say LGT/Others, I think it's clear to most people what I mean. It's the LGT theory most of the FARMS types and closer followers are going by. Mesoamerica. Quickly absorbed into larger culture. Lamanites were most likely a subset of Mayans. Nephites were not. Read some John Sorenson or Brant Gardner or Matt Roper or just about anything from FARMS recently which addresses LGT or follow along what the main posters arguing against me in these LGT threads are saying.
zerinus Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I don't think so. I don't think you even realize what my position is, though I have made it clear.If you have made it clear, then I have realized it. If I haven't, that means that you didn't make it so clear as you think.
Anijen Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) I think you're the only that uses this argument. John Sorenson as recently as this week argued against it.http://www.johnlsore...enLetterCoe.pdfI think you need to reread the article. To me it sounds like Dr. Sorenson is arguing for domesticated animals. The newcomers [Lehi and family] did see these animals, including the horse). However it is very clear Dr. Sorenson believes in others.See above regarding horses. Immediately after landing (probably in coastal Guatemala) they “did find” “beasts in the wilderness” (“cow,” “ox,” “***,” “horse,” “goat,” “wild goat”). At length some of those creatures ended up domesticated, by means and hands not described. Clearly the animals would have consisted of native American species to which the newcomers, by a process familiar to other groups encountering exotic fauna, applied “nearest look-alike names” to the newly encountered critters. (In my book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 1985, 288-99, I suggest candidate native American species that might have been those listed/labelled animals.)The Book of Mormon is largely about the minority who constituted the Nephite elite class, the record keepers, not about the mass of the population.The tiny numbers of immigrants from overseas could never have multiplied on a scale to account for the later populations engaged in wars and so on. Clearly, indigenous populations were incorporated as nominal “Nephites,” “Lamanites” and “Jaredites.” Little-noticed parts of the text actually confirm such situations Edited July 11, 2012 by Jeff Holt 1
Anijen Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 For Zerinius and for Robuchan from Dr Sorensons paper;Clearly, indigenous populations were incorporated... Little-noticed parts of the text actually confirm such situationsRobuchan you cite a source that goes against your own argument.
CASteinman Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 When I say LGT/Others, I think it's clear to most people what I mean.How could it be all that clear? You have not clarified it until now. Apparently you have conflated multiple ideas into one and become extremely confused by not organizing your thoughts correctly.I suspect it is on purpose. It's the LGT theory most of the FARMS types and closer followers are going by. So you suppose. When did you take a poll of most of the FARMS types on this matter? In truth, I don't think you actually understand this stuff at all.Again, possibly on purpose.Mesoamerica. Quickly absorbed into larger culture. Lamanites were most likely a subset of Mayans. Nephites were not. Read some John Sorenson or Brant Gardner or Matt Roper or just about anything from FARMS recently which addresses LGT or follow along what the main posters arguing against me in these LGT threads are saying.Since you claim that they have this theory, why not quote them agreeing to this mishmash of ideas? Not bits of it, but one just one of these people who puts all of this together, in this level of detail, in one comprehensive theory the way you have done. Make sure it includes the Maya.
CASteinman Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 If you have made it clear, then I have realized it. If I haven't, that means that you didn't make it so clear as you think.Or, that although I have made it clear, like other instances you have ignored what was said.
Recommended Posts