brightpath Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Amen Robuchan. Finally a voice of reason! There were no Asians prior to Lehi's arrival. The gentiles arrived after Israel rejected the gospel and the Lamanites killed off the Nephites.
Calm Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Amen Robuchan. Finally a voice of reason!Except for the small problem he believes the book to be a work of fiction:
brightpath Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Yes that's bad then but the scripture he quoted is still true. No Asians were here in America until after Israel rejected the gospel then everyone invaded this land. God them permitted the Gentiles to conquer America.
zerinus Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Or, that although I have made it clear, like other instances you have ignored what was said.I think that you just like wasting people's time.
zerinus Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Except for the small problem he believes the book to be a work of fiction:He may believe that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, but he is putting forward good arguments against the "others" theory in the Book of Mormon, and that is what counts in a debating environment. Whoever puts forward the best arguments wins, not whoever has the most acceptable belief. Edited July 11, 2012 by zerinus
Calm Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Whoever puts forward the best arguments wins, not whoever has the most acceptable belief. For me a win is when my beliefs are acceptable to God, not chalking up debate points for a debate that is essentially meaningless in the lives of those who participate in it as soon as it is over with. 1
zerinus Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 For me a win is when my beliefs are acceptable to God, not chalking up debate points for a debate that is essentially meaningless in the lives of those who participate in it as soon as it is over with.Well that is the nature of the game. If you don't like that, then you are playing the wrong game.You seem to be enjoying it though, so you shouldn't be complaining about playing the game by its rules; and the rules of the game are that whoever puts forward the best arguments wins, not whoever has the most acceptable beliefs.
brightpath Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 He does blow the others theory out of the water! That's what I agree with. There were only 3 groups in America. Jaradites, Mulekites, and Lehi's seed.
Calm Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Well that is the nature of the game. If you don't like that, then you are playing the wrong game.You seem to be enjoying it though, so you shouldn't be complaining about playing the game by its rules; and the rules of the game are that whoever puts forward the best arguments wins, not whoever has the most acceptable beliefs.You seem to misunderstand my reasons for posting if you think I think what I am doing is a game. 2
zerinus Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 You seem to misunderstand my reasons for posting if you think I think what I am doing is a game.Like it or not, it is a game. Life is a game. Being a game does not mean that it cannot have a serious purpose; but it does mean that you have to play it by the rules. Have you watched political debates on television? It is a game, but with a serious purpose behind it. And you play it by the rules. The rules are that whoever presents the best arguments wins, not whoever has the best belief. If Romney loses his political debates, he loses votes, no matter how good his beliefs may be.Another rule of the game is that the presenter should be neutral, and not try to use his presenter privileges to tilt the playing field against a strong debater whose views he dislikes, and in favor of a weak debater whose views he prefers. If you go to CARM you will find that that is what they do. Their moderators are biased, and will not shy away from using their moderator privileges to tilt the playing-field in favor of a weak debater whom they consider to be on their side, and against a strong debater whose views they dislike, by giving him repeated bogus warnings, infractions, suspensions, and bannings. That should never happen here. Whoever presents the best arguments wins, not whoever has the best beliefs.
Bernard Gui Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) I am inclined to believe that the word "descendants" in verse 14 is a misprint for "dissenters". He is contrasting the Nephite dissenters with the original Lamanites. That is what he means by "their own brethren" in verse 14. By that he means that those dissenters, as distinct from the original Lamanites. The original Lamanites were already more numerous than the Nephites and the people of Zarahemla combined; whereas those dissenters were almost as numerous as the Nephites themselves. That is the point that he is making.This is a convenient, but curious, way to conduct a debate. It still does not explain the ease with which the Lamanites, and later the Gadiantons, recouped hugelosses of military personnel. Not just recouped but came back over and over againwith even larger forces. I believe they recruited from neighboring tribes whosaw an advantage for them if they helped overthrow the Nephites.Bernard Edited July 11, 2012 by Bernard Gui
cdowis 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 disagree with his "a horse is a tapir" argument. A horse is a horse, a cow is a cow. He is desperately attempting to do damage to the translation where archeologists fail to find the evidence. For example, what are the animals described as "wild goat" and "goat". He makes not attempt to explain this contradiction to his theory.Clearly Nephi is saying that the "goat" was domesticated.Finally, the BOM talks about cureloms, sheum, etc, so why should the names of these unknown animals be translated in this manner. We already have a precedence to call them by the native names, rather than goat and ox.A horse is a horse, an ox is an ox, and a goat is a goat. With all due respect, his argument simply does not make sense and I would be happy to argue the point with him personally.I accept the word of the Lord that said the BOM was translated correctly, and that is the default position. In an attempt to reconcile the BOM to archeology, Sorenson presents a theory that contradicts the scriptural account, and claims that it was not translated correctly. Edited July 11, 2012 by cdowis
jana at jade house Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Noah's ark story is something clearly taken as figurative by any believer with the smallest trust in science. um, really? In it's entirety?
Calm Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Like it or not, it is a game. Life is a game. Being a game does not mean that it cannot have a serious purpose; but it does mean that you have to play it by the rules. Have you watched political debates on television? It is a game, but with a serious purpose behind it. And you play it by the rules. The rules are that whoever presents the best arguments wins, not whoever has the best belief. If Romney loses his political debates, he loses votes, no matter how good his beliefs may be.Another rule of the game is that the presenter should be neutral, and not try to use his presenter privileges to tilt the playing field against a strong debater whose views he dislikes, and in favor of a weak debater whose views he prefers. If you go to CARM you will find that that is what they do. Their moderators are biased, and will not shy away from using their moderator privileges to tilt the playing-field in favor of a weak debater whom they consider to be on their side, and against a strong debater whose views they dislike, by giving him repeated bogus warnings, infractions, suspensions, and bannings. That should never happen here. Whoever presents the best arguments wins, not whoever has the best beliefs. There is only one person I allow to define my life besides me and I can assure you God has never told me once this is just a game. So not only do I not have to play by your rules and with your ball, but I don't even have to play your game if I don't want to. And I bet our mods here are biased against those who try to manipulate others into playing their games.I am under no more obligation to accept your definition of what is happening here as a game than I am under obligation to accept it when an EV informs me I am not a Christian, or when a young man came up and told me in my youth that the spirit had told him he was to marry me. All you guys feel free to go off somewhere else if your game is so important it can't be interrupted and play by yourself with your own set of rules. I think I will stay with the adults who are more interested in sharing information and hopefully growing in respect and understanding each other.Whoever presents the best arguments wins, not whoever has the best beliefs. Yeah, because who really cares about truth. It is all about the competition. Keep telling yourself your game is so important everyone must be playing...and just ignore it if it appears we have no need of silly rules that are about as valuable to you now as your 8 grade debate presentation rules were of value then...though it is likely a win then had more value for you then because it at least got you a better game. A win here gets you....gee, a win. Something of no value once the game is over with. I am grateful I live in a world where it is not contention and manipulation that turns the world around, but love and learning and growth, and where a win means we all have been given something of value added to our lives, not one person proclaiming his might. Edited July 11, 2012 by calmoriah 3
robuchan Posted July 11, 2012 Author Posted July 11, 2012 For me a win is when my beliefs are acceptable to God, not chalking up debate points for a debate that is essentially meaningless in the lives of those who participate in it as soon as it is over with.I don't view it as a game of chalking up debate points. I'm keenly interested in understanding exactly what the Book of Mormon is and where it came from.
robuchan Posted July 11, 2012 Author Posted July 11, 2012 I disagree with his "a horse is a tapir" argument. A horse is a horse, a cow is a cow. He is desperately attempting to do damage to the translation where archeologists fail to find the evidence. For example, what are the animals described as "wild goat" and "goat". He makes not attempt to explain this contradiction to his theory.Clearly Nephi is saying that the "goat" was domesticated.Finally, the BOM talks about cureloms, sheum, etc, so why should the names of these unknown animals be translated in this manner. We already have a precedence to call them by the native names, rather than goat and ox.A horse is a horse, an ox is an ox, and a goat is a goat. With all due respect, his argument simply does not make sense and I would be happy to argue the point with him personally.I accept the word of the Lord that said the BOM was translated correctly, and that is the default position. In an attempt to reconcile the BOM to archeology, Sorenson presents a theory that contradicts the scriptural account, and claims that it was not translated correctly.OK, thanks. I understand better where you're coming from. It's hard to know if people are just blasting FARMS arguments at me or are producing unique logic based on their own critical analysis. OK, then why is it unacceptable to you that the domesticated animals wandered off the farm from Jaredite land? The Jaredites brought huge barges, presumably with animals, and lived within a couple hundred miles of the Lehite landing. (i think. do I have it right?)Domesticated animals gives your problems from Mesoamerica anthropological/archaeological standpoint. If you take ox literally, your best bet is to say the animals came from the Old World and attempt to minimize contact with Others, to avoid explaining why the Mayans and Olmecs didn't have them.
zerinus Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I don't view it as a game of chalking up debate points. I'm keenly interested in understanding exactly what the Book of Mormon is and where it came from.Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.From the title page.
Anijen Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) He may believe that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, but he is putting forward good arguments against the "others" theoryCFR name one good argument in this thread Brightpath has put forward against the theory of others.Just because he is agreeing with you and Robuchan does not make that a good argument.Brightpath how do you explain the tons of archaeological evidence of the Hopewell, Adena, Clovis, Mayan, Olmec etc.? Edited July 11, 2012 by Jeff Holt
Anijen Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Funny that two of the three (Brightpath and Robuchan) do not believe in the Book of Mormon and the other [Zerinius] is so hopelessly unaware on scripture that when two unbelieving posers come a long he props up his very limited opinion theory now dubbed LOT with two people who do not even believe in the book he is trying theorize over.
Freedom Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Funny that two of the three (Brightpath and Robuchan) do not believe in the Book of Mormon and the other [Zerinius] is so hopelessly unaware on scripture that when two unbelieving posers come a long he props up his very limited opinion theory now dubbed LOT with two people who do not even believe in the book he is trying theorize over.What I find most entertaining is that Robuchan and Zerinius refuse to consider any other ancient documents or even any scholarship on the matter, rather they are determined to read of from the perspective of a modern reader and as a modern document. 1
cursor 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.If this is what you think, then I'm totally convinced that you don't at all understand the LGT.This persistent argument that because the Book of Mormon doesn't explicitly mention "others" (besides the Jaredites, the Lehites, and the Mulekites), from your perspective, has very little to do with the very many elements of solid logic behind a Limited Geography Theory (LGT). I recommend that you set aside this anti-"others" stance, and research the complex combination of events (all totally within the text) that jointly contribute to the inexcapable conclusion that the events of the Book of Mormon take place within a small geographic envelope. 3
robuchan Posted July 11, 2012 Author Posted July 11, 2012 What I find most entertaining is that Robuchan and Zerinius refuse to consider any other ancient documents or even any scholarship on the matter, rather they are determined to read of from the perspective of a modern reader and as a modern document.Not true. I'm not skilled in reading ancient documents, this is true. I have to trust you when you tell me how you read an ancient document. I've accounted for this in many of the points. The only issue I bring up on this aspect of the argument is that I ask you to be consistent when using this practice, ie if you have a model for reading the BOM, please apply that model consistently to the whole text, don't pick and choose when you want to apply it based on when it's convenient for your argument.That said, please tell me which verses I've misinterpreted with my modern reading.
robuchan Posted July 11, 2012 Author Posted July 11, 2012 If this is what you think, then I'm totally convinced that you don't at all understand the LGT.This persistent argument that because the Book of Mormon doesn't explicitly mention "others" (besides the Jaredites, the Lehites, and the Mulekites), from your perspective, has very little to do with the very many elements of solid logic behind a Limited Geography Theory (LGT). I recommend that you set aside this anti-"others" stance, and research the complex combination of events (all totally within the text) that jointly contribute to the inexcapable conclusion that the events of the Book of Mormon take place within a small geographic envelope.Your father, Brant Gardner, and the other most involved proponents of the Mesoamerica LGT theory all would agree with the following:Others (people with ancestors that were not Jaredites, Mulekites, or Lehites) populated the area in Mesoamerica the BOM people lived during the same time periodIt's impossible that BOM people and Others would not have mixedThe mixing into the Others and the absorbing of culture, language, etc into Others culture is the best explanation for many of the difficult BOM historical issues
robuchan Posted July 11, 2012 Author Posted July 11, 2012 I recommend that you set aside this anti-"others" stance, and research the complex combination of events (all totally within the text) that jointly contribute to the inexcapable conclusion that the events of the Book of Mormon take place within a small geographic envelope.LGT is not that interesting defined simply by a definition that the BOM took place within small geographic space. I grew up with that, and it's not dramatically different from the understanding I had as a youth, and the understanding the church as a whole has had for almost 200 years.The Others/mixing population theory is completely game changing to me. It forces a completely different view of things. In many ways it's fascinating to me. Mind boggling but also very interesting.Also, IMHO, the Others/mixing population theory is the only thing that's allowing LDS scholars to hang on to a hope of BOM historicity.
cursor Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 Amen Robuchan. Finally a voice of reason! There were no Asians prior to Lehi's arrival. The gentiles arrived after Israel rejected the gospel and the Lamanites killed off the Nephites.You're kidding ... right?There was a base population in the Americas since at least 15,000 years ago that arrived via land (Bering Strait).
Recommended Posts