The Elephant in the Livingroom, no, sorry, In the Kitchen

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

During my mission, in the sixties....that's 60's, as in a "long, long time ago", I believed, and taught, that the Jaredites arrived to an empty continent, that Lehi and family arrived at an equally empty continent and that the native aboriginals of the Americas were the Lamanites. How times have changed.

You never thought it through.

With millions of people with boats and a land bridge, how could a whole continent possibly be empty??

I take what the church teaches spiritually.  Sunday school is not a chemistry class, a DNA class, or an anthropology class.  Testimony can only "verify" personal spiritual beliefs. 

[bcuzbcuz]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Who has said they were not "Lamanite"??

How is that logically entailed by the idea that there were others among the Nephites and Lamanites?  The implication is that they DO have "Lamanite" and "Nephite" and "Other" DNA just like everyone in the world comes from mixed nationalities

Are we now advocating racial purity or something??

Racial purity??? Funny. I don't remember saying anything that could be possibly construed as even insinuating any such thing....other than that I live in Sweden....and that Alva and Gunnar Myrdal also lived in Sweden....and the Myrdals back in the late 1920's and 30's promulgated the idea of sterilizing the weak minded....and....NO. I don't get it. Do you even know what you are talking about? 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

These are typical gyrations believers go through to maintain their testimony.  If that works for you fine.  But it is pretty clear that historically the LDS church has NOT viewed these things as you postulate above.   It's a constant moving target for those who claim to have the truth

 

 

ONLY if you believe in non-contextual truth, when in fact contextual truth is obvious in D&C 93:30 and Alma 32.

What the scriptures actually SAY is opposed to all these "commonly held beliefs" which arose out of cultural Protestantism in the early church.

Sorry folks- study it out a bit and you will see it.  "Things as they are" is how we experience them- in constant flux.  Organic growth is the rule in the world we experience- not absolute stasis and unchanging truth.

Unchanging truth is NOT "things as they are".DC 93

Quote

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

 25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

 26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

 27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

 28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truthand light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

 

Things as they are are obviously always in flux.  

Truth is independent in its sphere and acts for itself through our intelligence- we through our intelligence act to create truth, otherwise there is no existence.  We create "truth" through intelligent action within each sphere in which we act.

But to know truth we need to follow the commandments to receive revelation on a personal basis.  The notion of fixed and unchanging truth is a lie created by pagan Greeks.- Plato and Aristotle.  We believe that in the beginning- the plural "eloheim"- the social council of Gods- organized chaos into reality.  THAT is the biblical doctrine- not Platonic Forms of unchanging substance.

[bcuzbcuz]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Today we see through a glass darkly.  Do not see things as a child but as an adult

1 Thess 5:

And then there is Alma 32 and D&C 93:30

Truth only exists in a context.  The context has changed

If you don't like it, refute it.

Truth only exists in context?? Really? Truth is on roller skates and moves with each new flavour of the month?

And no, I can't refute something that, because it isn't "doctrine", seemingly doesn't/didn't exist.  

[James Tunney]

Didn't God put those so-called fossils in the earth as a test of faith? So what's the big deal? Problem solved.

[bcuzbcuz]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

ONLY if you believe in non-contextual truth, when in fact contextual truth is obvious in D&C 93:30 and Alma 32.

What the scriptures actually SAY is opposed to all these "commonly held beliefs" which arose out of cultural Protestantism in the early church.

Sorry folks- study it out a bit and you will see it.  "Things as they are" is how we experience them- in constant flux.  Organic growth is the rule in the world we experience- not absolute stasis and unchanging truth.

Unchanging truth is NOT "things as they are".DC 93

Things as they are are obviously always in flux.  

Truth is independent in its sphere and acts for itself through our intelligence- we through our intelligence act to create truth, otherwise there is no existence.  We create "truth" through intelligent action within each sphere in which we act.

But to know truth we need to follow the commandments to receive revelation on a personal basis.  The notion of fixed and unchanging truth is a lie created by pagan Greeks.- Plato and Aristotle.  We believe that in the beginning- the plural "eloheim"- the social council of Gods- organized chaos into reality.  THAT is the biblical doctrine- not Platonic Forms of unchanging substance.

OK, I get it. You see "truth" as a verb, not as a noun. And your "council of Gods"? That sounds very ancient Egyptian belief to me.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Why should we trust you over past apostles and prophets?

Which ones said the Americas were empty before the Jaredites? As I have pointed out some even inferred Adam and his posterity lived in the area of central N. America.

The BoM also doesn't mention anyone else in the family's journey through Arabia when there were obviously people there. They even learn the place name Nahom from others. Yet, it doesn't make even a peep about them. That doesn't mean the Arabian peninsula was devoid of people. They traveled right through the Saba'en country which is where the "queen of Sheba" was from.

The Americas were a big place. I believe in fact the Nephites ultimately settled inland where there had been basically no people - besides the Jaredites that is. I personally also believe that the families which did not go with Nephi entered polygamy with natives they encountered in the coastal area, which would explain how they grew in number so much faster than the Nephites, and why their appearance changed - also why the language of the Lamanites became "confounded." From then on any "native" peoples would just be considered Lamanite. Trading with them would be how they got corn -- all quite probable and sensible. 

[omni]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Your point?

Both sentences are in the past tense.  The statement in the frontispiece implies something different now.

That statement is present tense.  If you really are asserting that our knowledge doesn't progress, fine with me.  I disagree.  Now make your point, if you have one.

I've made my point multiple times.  If you still don't get it, well then we've probably reached an impasse.

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You never thought it through.

With millions of people with boats and a land bridge, how could a whole continent possibly be empty??

I take what the church teaches spiritually.  Sunday school is not a chemistry class, a DNA class, or an anthropology class.  Testimony can only "verify" personal spiritual beliefs. 

He never thought it through because there was no need.  He was taught that, just like I was. Regardless of what FAIR and FARMS spins on this, I know what was taught and believed by members.  I went through early morning seminary, all the teaching cycles of Sunday school and the required religion classes at BYU plus all the courses needed to become a LDS seminary teacher.  I was taught in no uncertain terms that the American continent was kept unpolluted except for those who were led there by God. There is no direct statements in the BoM to counter this or to even reference the supposed large populations of "others".  To believe that a 1000 year record would not even reference any other group is ridiculous.  

Apologist note that domestic animals are identified, which they use as evidence as the presents of existing populations.  Rational thinking people discount this because first, there is no evidence at all of these animals being present in the America's prior the the Spanish. Second (and in keeping with Mr. Occam's razor) it is much more believable JS just didn't fully understand livestock when he wrote the BoM. 

 For generations, members of the church grew up being taught that native Americans were the decedents from Lehi.  Please CFR me on this.  I have mountains of data to support this, most of which from General Authorities, much of which is from temple dedications in South and central America.

Edited May 16, 2016 by sunstoned

[Rajah Manchou]

16 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Hi Rajah,

Are you saying you believe the Austronesians were the Jaredites? 15 KYA BP would put the time in the throws of the last Ice Age. There is substantial evidence that the seas were rising as short as 8000 yrs BP. I suppose it is possible the seas were rising for four K yrs. Anyway, my understanding of the Austronesians is that they were pushed out of Taiwan by more modern immigration into Micronesia and eventually formed the first Polynesians, which helps explain why Polynesians are so different from Micronesians. I believe they formed a more modern immigration into S. America, which there is DNA and archaeological evidence for in the area of Peru. It is really kind of silly to believe they found the speck of Easter Island, but not the great wall of S. America. Your time table for the settling of the Polynesian islands seems much older than the archaeological evidence I have seen would allow. You always seem to have scientific papers at the ready - do you have some to support your earlier dating?

Its from a study published earlier this year:

http://phys.org/news/2016-01-austronesian-languages.html

The paper suggests that Austronesian DNA was present in island Southeast Asia before the expansion from Taiwan, and Taiwanese DNA only accounts for around 20% of what we find in Austronesians today. So basically the problem is that Austronesians speak Taiwanese (of the Formosan variety, not Mandarin) but their genes are Indonesian. The study resolves the problem by proposing that rising sea levels pushed the Indonesians out into the Pacific around 8000 years ago. Then a smaller group representing some new religion or philosophy expanded out of Taiwan around 5000-4000 years ago and their language and culture was adopted by everybody else. PS, the 15 KYA BP date was the first of three floodings of Sundaland. I don't think there would have been anybody but Australo-Melanesians at that point, so it is interesting that Australo-Melansesian DNA has been found in South America.

I have no idea about Jaredites in America as I'm not convinced the Book of Mormon is a new world text, but I guess the comparison could be made. After all, the paper is proposing that a small group with a new religion and culture departed from East Asia in boats around 2500 BC. Suppose its possible the Austronesian expansion(s) made it as far as America. The dig in Florida opens up that possibility. There are legends throughout Southeast Asia of ancestors arriving by boat. Their homes are modeled on the boat design and they do look kinda Jareditey.

"And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly airtight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the sides thereof were tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish."

Edited May 16, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[rodheadlee]

On 5/15/2016 at 9:27 PM, cinepro said:

Elder Holland and Joseph Smith?

I guess you missed the part where the Jaredites were post flood and the Floridians antediluvian.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/14/2016 at 2:42 PM, bcuzbcuz said:

Your response simply reflects that you accept the new, revised introduction to the BoM. I was raised during the time that the introduction stated that the Americas were not populated before the Jaredites. It was also commonly held that "Lamanites" referred to the native aboriginals.

I'm not sure the introduction ever did say that.

It said the Lamanites were the "principal ancestors" of the American Indans, but that's not the same thing as saying the Americas were not populated.

And "principal" can have more than one meaning in this context.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Truth only exists in context?? Really? Truth is on roller skates and moves with each new flavour of the month?

And no, I can't refute something that, because it isn't "doctrine", seemingly doesn't/didn't exist.  

A better way to state it is that truth can only be properly understood in context.

[stemelbow]

I honestly struggle to understand what people are arguing about in threads like this.  Everyone seems to agree the Americas were populated before Lehi and co, and it seems most if not all agree the Americas were populated before the Jaredites.  And yet we want to emphasize that's not what leaders have taught and what members have believed?  Let's cut each other some slack here.  Once Joseph Smith first had to start explaining what he perceived to be the reality of the BoM and its history, he was making assumptions.  I see it the same for me.  Once I offer an explanation for something I'm making tons of assumptions, things I might even call givens.  But, likely somewhere along the way I'm wrong in my assumptions.  It'll always be that way. 

Sometimes I feel justified in criticizing the church for wrong assumptions.  But other times I have to say, "well yeah...what do I expect?  We're just a bunch of people making assumptions and trying to work things out?" 

Sorry, I guess I've feeling a little bit like, "what's the point?" today.

Edited May 16, 2016 by stemelbow

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I have no idea about Jaredites in America as I'm not convinced the Book of Mormon is a new world text, but I guess the comparison could be made. After all, the paper is proposing that a small group with a new religion and culture departed from East Asia in boats around 2500 BC. Suppose its possible the Austronesian expansion(s) made it as far as America. The dig in Florida opens up that possibility. There are legends throughout Southeast Asia of ancestors arriving by boat. Their homes are modeled on the boat design and they do look kinda Jareditey.

"And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly airtight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the sides thereof were tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish."
 

Interesting Pic - thanks Rajah.

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I guess you missed the part where the Jaredites were post flood and the Floridians antediluvian.

If you're arguing that in order for the timeline to make sense there has to have been a global flood, then I agree.

[cinepro]

12 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I have no idea about Jaredites in America as I'm not convinced the Book of Mormon is a new world text, but I guess the comparison could be made. After all, the paper is proposing that a small group with a new religion and culture departed from East Asia in boats around 2500 BC. Suppose its possible the Austronesian expansion(s) made it as far as America. The dig in Florida opens up that possibility. There are legends throughout Southeast Asia of ancestors arriving by boat. Their homes are modeled on the boat design and they do look kinda Jareditey.

"And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly airtight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the sides thereof were tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish."

Sorry, but that's not what is described in Ether.  Remember that they had air holes on the top and bottom, so when the boats flipped over (!) they could unplug whichever hole was on top:

 

Quote

 

20 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: Behold, thou shalt make a hole in the top, and also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. And if it be so that the water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/2?lang=eng

Keep in mind that these boats were filled with this stuff while they were flipping over:

 

Quote

 

 4 And it came to pass that when they had prepared all manner of food, that thereby they might subsist upon the water, and also food for their flocks and herds, and whatsoever beast or animal or fowl that they should carry with them—and it came to pass that when they had done all these things they got aboard of their vessels or barges, and set forth into the sea, commending themselves unto the Lord their God.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/ether/6?lang=eng

And the journey lasted 344 days (v.11).  So they had food and water for the people and "flocks and herds" in airtight boats that had only one accessible hole for ventilation, and were flipping over in rough seas.

I think I know why they "shed tears of joy" when they got to the promised land.

Edited May 16, 2016 by cinepro

[canard78]

On 15 May 2016 at 2:42 PM, omni said:

We're not just talking about "some Mormons" here.  From the Church's beginning, the belief has permeated throughout the entire organization, from official publications and conference talks to the average Sunday school classroom.  

Reading this board one could quite easily get the idea of an "empty continent" as some sort of fringe doctrine, but I remember well just 15 years ago being in an MTC classroom and literally being laughed at by my fellow missionaries for even bringing up the possibility of "others".

does anyone else get comments stuck in their text box? Sometimes happens to me and every time I try to reply it just re-opens the same post from a while back. 

[omni]

11 minutes ago, canard78 said:

does anyone else get comments stuck in their text box? Sometimes happens to me and every time I try to reply it just re-opens the same post from a while back. 

Yes, and unfortunately I don't have a good solution for you.  I think I just ended up not posting in that thread again.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

If you're arguing that in order for the timeline to make sense there has to have been a global flood, then I agree.

No there has to be an accepted paradigm accepted for a reason - for it to make sense.  The person needs it to keep his faith.

Since the idea of a "flood" is so ambiguous- could be large, could be small, the "earth" could have been a few square kilometers or the entire planet, etc- the whole assertion that "the earth was covered by a flood" is hopelessly ambiguous.  Each term is itself subject to interpretation including "covered".  Does a good rain storm "cover" the area with rain?  Yes.  Does two inches of water constitute a "flood"?  Possibly.

So if someone needs to accept the phrase "The whole earth was covered by a flood" in order to keep their grip on what gives their life meaning- who am I to argue with what that phrase means?

I don't know what it means myself.  I can take it a hundred possible ways.  What am I going to do?  NOT CARE!  If that's what they need, that's what they need.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not sure the introduction ever did say that.

It said the Lamanites were the "principal ancestors" of the American Indans, but that's not the same thing as saying the Americas were not populated.

And "principal" can have more than one meaning in this context.

 

What it seems that some here do not understand and can never quite "get" is that language is horribly ambiguous, and we end up making endless threads based on semantics about points which have little importance in the first place.

Sigh.

And as far as rep points, keep an eye on your back.   But I never know from day to day when I will get totally fed up with this place!

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, canard78 said:

does anyone else get comments stuck in their text box? Sometimes happens to me and every time I try to reply it just re-opens the same post from a while back. 

Yeah-  You have to delete them line by line before you make the quote

Wish they would fix that.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

does anyone else get comments stuck in their text box? Sometimes happens to me and every time I try to reply it just re-opens the same post from a while back. 

 

1 hour ago, omni said:

Yes, and unfortunately I don't have a good solution for you.  I think I just ended up not posting in that thread again.

Delete the text in that text box and navigate away from that page.

That sometimes works for me.

If not, just delete the text and post it empty. I've seen some do that, and I've done it myself.

One of the glitches to which the "upgrade" software is prone.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And as far as rep points, keep an eye on your back.   But I never know from day to day when I will get totally fed up with this place!

I know you were ahead of me by quite a margin for a long time.

Then you took a hiatus (went to Europe or something) and never regained your lost ground. I thus took over the second-place spot (behind calmoriah/cal).

Until very recently, Nehor was chasing me and, at one point, had overtaken me. I thought all was lost. Then, somehow, I steadily pulled away from him by a couple hundred points.

Edited May 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Delete the text in that text box and navigate away from that page.

That sometimes works for me.

If not, just delete the text and post it empty. I've seen some do that, and I've done it myself.

One of the glitches to which the "upgrade" software is prone.

Yes, that works too, then just "edit" the blank post.  But then you have to manually put in the quote and there is no link to the old post you are quoting as far as I see.

I notice that if I hit "quote" and nothing happens, or if it jumps down to an old post which is not the one you want to quote, I just delete the old post and then go back to the post I wanted to quote and then it usually works- unless it doesn't and then you get to repeat the process.

I spend more time playing with sofware errors than I do writing posts, which is hard to believe with the number of words I put out.