Keys of the kingdom and the roots of the Nauvoo endowment

[probablyHagoth7]

44 minutes ago, William Jones said:

• I'm sorry clark gobel didn't value your theory.

? Thanks. Meanwhile, life is AOK whether he agrees or not.

44 minutes ago, William Jones said:

Maybe you could benefit from some advice I received from a current G.A. when I was active and in his ward. He said that spiritual reasoning doesn't work well outside of church....

The NT apostles reasoned with unbelievers. God asks that we reason with him. In the beginning was Logos (a cognate of logic/reasoning). Persuasion/reasoning is what we're counseled to do in the D&C. You either misunderstood the person in question, or his counsel was specific to your unique needs in that moment. Thanks though for caring enough to share.

44 minutes ago, William Jones said:

I think you relied too much on faith and wishful thinking and not enough on reason...

On what basis do you reach that conclusion?

I'm primarily analytical. (INTP in Meyers-Briggs assessments.) So you've rashly mis-pegged me, my approach, and a large array of evidence...and reasoning... that you have yet to even consider.

Are you sure that in your rash dismissal of such things, that you haven't relied too much on wanting to wave evidence away with the wave of a hand? ;0)

44 minutes ago, William Jones said:

Do you think your nephites in europe theory might suffer from your wanting to believe too much?

No.

I think it suffers more from: 

• some people not caring much for their heritage...
• or for God's promises related to such...
• or for Malachi's assurance in the closing book of the OT of how important it would become that the hearts of the children need to turn to their fathers,
• or for Jesus citing that same passage/reality 2000 years ago when appearing to the Nephites
• or for angel Moroni citing that same crucial passage/reality to Joseph Smith...chronologically the founding/first revelation in the D&C...adding the important facet that there was a need for children's hearts to turn to the promises made to their fathers

You've asserted that I simply want to believe it. ? On what basis do you make that assertion? My life would be much simpler were it not true. Unless you think my wishing such a thing allows me to time travel and write the surprising amount of evidence into hundreds of ancient and medieval manuscripts, I don't follow where/how you presume that my supposedly wishing something determines whether the evidence warrants/sustains such a belief. Why divert the discussion into an ad hominem, instead of address/discuss the actual evidence?

I await your initial foray into the earliest glimpses of such evidence....in the other thread.

Edited April 17, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

1. Strawman. I never claimed (nor do I believe) that Nephites sailed from America to the Mediterranean. 

You've not specified your particular assertions so it's hard to criticize them. You've been very vague. I was more going on your prior claim that Roman shorthand came from a Nephite using glyphs used for Nephite writing. That entails Nephites in the mediterranean region. I assume you meant they sailed there but if you don't it might be helpful to actually give your claims.

Quote

1. Bizarre mental gymnastics to exclude transatlantic Nephite travel. Water is water. If people can use stars, currents, winds, sails, and paddles to navigate the Pacific, or Lake Superior, or Aunt Bertha's pond, what holds them from doing something similar in the Atlantic, or your bathtub? And then right after citing Irish and Viking transatlantic voyages (both directions)...which clearly demonstrate the viability of early transatlantic travel...you then suggest it's unreasonable that Nephites did likewise? (In this matter, you have a dizzying intellect.) If you simply prefer to have your Masonic theories undisturbed, have a great week.

That people sail isn't in question. That people sailed the route is. Therefore we need evidence that this is a possible trip. Again defending the Book of Mormon we can point to pacific voyages. The only place we have evidence of sailing is the north atlantic but we don't have evidence of boats capable of doing that from northeastern United States. If you know of some evidence other than Irish/Viking please let me know.

Quote

If you don't want to believe it, then don't, and simply move on to other matters you deem to be more pressing.

It's not just a matter of "want" but evidence. While Book of Mormon apologetics aren't perfect they can point to evidence. A vague "sailing is possible" isn't much of an argument. Apologists can point to polynesian outriggers and limited (if mildly controversial) evidence of Chinese and polynesian contact.

Quote

And some would say that they have a Bible, and have no need for any other Bible. If you're fully satisfied with what's on your plate, I bid you adieu and wish you an awesome week. 

But we do have a Book of Mormon. That's significant. Do you have something equivalent? By your rejoinder I'm assuming you don't.

Quote

Then I suggest that you and Bruno become fast friends. Meanwhile, as to your assertion that there is no evidence for early masonic activity, I'd suggest doing a careful recheck on that theory with masonic friends. I look forward to hearing what you find.

I've no idea what you're claiming here. All mason scholars I'm aware of accept the standard history I mentioned. Bruno of course lived centuries ago during the end of the Renaissance, but he's a pretty well studied figure. There are of course people who prefer the conspiracy oriented works like Dan Brown made use of in his books. But I've not met any serious masons who interpreted things that way - although at one point such things were common.

Edited April 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[probablyHagoth7]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

You've not specified your particular assertions so it's hard to criticize them.

Hard to criticize? A key question as to your general intent:  have you determined to criticize regardless of what particular assertions might be presented? 

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I assume you meant they sailed [to the Mediterranean]...

A reasonable assumption, but no. 

Based on the surprisingly large amount of historical evidence for that narrow window of history, the scribe in question arrived first in *northern* Europe, was temporarily enslaved there, and was then brought south to Italy.

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That people sail isn't in question. That people sailed the route is. Therefore we need evidence that this is a possible trip. Again defending the Book of Mormon we can point to pacific voyages. The only place we have evidence of sailing is the north atlantic but we don't have evidence of boats capable of doing that from northeastern United States. If you know of some evidence other than Irish/Viking please let me know.

Do you likewise demand to know the precise water trail taken by the earliest Nephites, the Mulekites, and the Jaredites? If not, why the special pleading/extra demands on *this* migration?

Meanwhile, feel free to glance at both the location and direction of the Gulf Stream, and/or ask the much-sailed rodheadlee (or search his previously posted comments here on this matter).

There's also content online at the website provided which addresses this issue in considerable detail.

Finally, there is really no need for precedent for any such route. With any path, someone has always had to step forward and pioneer, whether we're talking land travel, sea travel, space travel, or doctrinal expansion. Also, depending on things like season, oars/crew, and rigging of sail, one can eventually go most directions from most locations during at least one point of the year.

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

A vague "sailing is possible" isn't much of an argument.

It actually is. Since with God, *all* things are possible.

In such a context, it is instead the assertion that something *is impossible* that isn't much of an argument

Fair enough?

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

...I've not met any serious masons who interpreted things that way...

So all the serious masons agree with you. Those few in the clown car are the only ones who disagree? ;0)

No true Scotsman....A logical fallacy.

Edited April 17, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[clarkgoble]

11 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Hard to criticize? A key question as to your general intent:  have you determined to criticize regardless of what particular assertions might be presented?

I consider part of inquiry criticizing all ideas, especially the ones I believe in.

Quote

Based on the surprisingly large amount of historical evidence for that narrow window of history, the scribe in question arrived first in *northern* Europe, was temporarily enslaved there, and was then brought south to Italy.

What evidence? I confess you throw out the idea of this individual but I still don't see any evidence for their existence.

Quote

Do you likewise demand to know the precise water trail taken by the earliest Nephites, the Mulekites, and the Jaredites? If not, why the special pleading/extra demands on *this* migration?

Again I think the evidence of the Book of Mormon goes a long ways. You've not provided anything akin to that. But no, I don't need a precise trail merely that such a trip is somewhat plausible.

Quote

Meanwhile, feel free to glance at both the location and direction of the Gulf Stream, and/or ask the much-sailed rodheadlee (or search his previously posted comments here on this matter).

I'm from Nova Scotia so I'm quite familiar with that part of the Atlantic. But that's not what I'm asking for.

Quote

Finally, there is really no need for precedent for any such route. With any path, someone has always had to step forward and pioneer, whether we're talking land travel, sea travel, space travel, or doctrinal expansion. Also, depending on things like season, oars/crew, and rigging of sail, one can eventually go most directions from most locations during at least one point of the year.

But we need some evidence. Since you believe this I'm honestly flummoxed as to why you aren't just posting the best evidence you think applies. Were someone to ask me about why I think mesoAmerica is the likeliest spot for Nephites I could do that rather quickly.

Quote

So all the serious masons agree with you. Those few in the clown car are the only ones who disagree? ;0)

The masons making evidentiary arguments rather than just throwing out a few parallels without making arguments for them. i.e. what counts are arguments.

[probablyHagoth7]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

But we do have a Book of Mormon. That's significant. Do you have something equivalent?

Do I? Yep. The same spirit of prophecy that moved the writers of ancient scripture. As do any with a living testimony of Jesus Christ. If you question the veracity of such a Nephite migration, simply ask of God. (That's what Christ told the ancient Nephites would need to happen.)

Also, I have known for decades where a written equivalent is located.

And have a reasonably good idea of the location of a second one. 

Not that having such a thing in my hand would make me any more certain of what I've shared here.

Fair enough?

Edited April 17, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Do I? Yep. The same spirit of prophecy that moved the writers of ancient scripture. As do any with a living testimony of Jesus Christ. If you question the veracity of such a Nephite migration, simply ask of God. (That's what Christ told the ancient Nephites would need to happen.)

Also, I have known for decades where a written equivalent is located.

And have a reasonably good idea of the location of a second one. 

Not that having such a thing in my hand would make me any more certain of what I've shared here.

Fair enough?

That's fine. Not sure why you didn't say that at first. Of course my having had no such revelation it halts discussion quite a bit. Especially if there's no positive evidence.

[probablyHagoth7]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's fine. Not sure why you didn't say that at first. Of course my having had no such revelation it halts discussion quite a bit. Especially if there's no positive evidence.

? No positive evidence? Spiritual witness is the most important one, wouldn't you agree?

We can discuss other types of evidence as you wish, if you opt to engage with the content previously provided here and elsewhere.

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

? No positive evidence? Spiritual witness is the most important one, wouldn't you agree?

We can discuss other types of evidence as you wish, if you opt to engage with the content previously provided here and elsewhere.

But I haven't had those experiences so I don't have positive evidence. As you know from other threads I'm fine with private evidence. But there are limits in how we can discuss such evidence. I have no way of testing your claims.

If you have other evidence I'm all ears. Thus far it seems like you've been very reticent to provide such evidence.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, William Jones said:

Well I don't think the bible or the book of mormon are relevant to science or history. They are religious stories invented for various purposes but clearly aren't real, historical accounts. Mr. probablyhagoth7's faith based theory of nephites in europe is along the same lines.

One is certainly entitled to his opinion, but what has that to do with your prejudicial question-begging remark:  "Frankly, I'm not surprised given the seer stone origins of the book of mormon."  And now you raise a false equivalency with a Nephites-in-Europe theory?  For both Bible & BofM?

On what basis do you declare that the Bible and Book of Mormon are "invented . . . but clearly aren't real, historical accounts"?  That is a lot of territory to take in, William.  Can you clarify what you are really saying here?  With substantive evidence?

[probablyHagoth7]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If you have other evidence I'm all ears. Thus far it seems like you've been very reticent to provide such evidence.

No. Not reticent.

I provided immediate access to well over a hundred pages of content. With no reply to any such content. And I'm somehow the one being reticent?  

On that dissonant note, I retire from this thread for good, and this forum for at least the rest of the day. 

[clarkgoble]

28 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

I provided immediate access to well over a hundred pages of content. With no reply to any such content. And I'm somehow the one being reticent?  

Umm. You provided a link to a large web page with no clear explanation. That's not really engaging. That would be like me giving a link to Brant Gardner's book for my evidence. While I don't mind linking to books or large sites if people are interested, for discussion I will pick out the two or three strongest arguments.

[William Jones]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One is certainly entitled to his opinion, but what has that to do with your prejudicial question-begging remark:  "Frankly, I'm not surprised given the seer stone origins of the book of mormon."  And now you raise a false equivalency with a Nephites-in-Europe theory?  For both Bible & BofM?

On what basis do you declare that the Bible and Book of Mormon are "invented . . . but clearly aren't real, historical accounts"?  That is a lot of territory to take in, William.  Can you clarify what you are really saying here?  With substantive evidence?

It's already been debated and debated and debated on this site and others. I looked at it and come down on the side of non-belief. I'm not here for a gotcha conversation and if I came across that way, that was not what I meant to convey. Additionally, if probablyhagoth7 has something substantive tying europe with the nephites, I would be definitely interested in learning about it. However, from his paper, it looks like it's merely conjecture.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, William Jones said:

It's already been debated and debated and debated on this site and others. I looked at it and come down on the side of non-belief. I'm not here for a gotcha conversation and if I came across that way, that was not what I meant to convey. ................

.....................

Yes, we have often debated some issues connected with Bible and Book of Mormon on this board, but this is not a scholarly venue, and we usually can do no more than refer to actual scholarly work pro or con.  I have no problem with someone coming down on the side of non-belief, supposing that they are referring to the lack of formal evidence for certain miraculous events -- which require faith.  However, tarring and feathering whole books as completely wrong historically I thought was going a bit far.  Especially since we have hard historical evidence (that cannot be coincidental) for events described in both Bible and Book of Mormon.  I don't play zero-sum "gotcha" games, and prefer to deal in hard forensic evidence.

If all you are saying is that it is not possible to prove that the Exodus, Resurrection, or Joseph's First Vision actually occurred, I am with you 100%.  If you are saying that we cannot know whether the Bible and Book of Mormon describe actual historical events, then I am raising forensic objections.

[Rajah Manchou]

9 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

So all the serious masons agree with you. Those few in the clown car are the only ones who disagree? ;0)

[probablyHagoth7]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If all you are saying is that it is not possible to prove that the Exodus, Resurrection, or Joseph's First Vision actually occurred, I am with you 100%.

There is some interesting evidence for the Exodus. 

http://www.netflix.com/watch/80058067

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

There is some interesting evidence for the Exodus. 

http://www.netflix.com/watch/80058067

Thank you for calling attention to that:  “Patterns of Evidence: Exodus,” Netflix (Dir. Tim Mahoney, 2013), narrated by Ken Sorbo, online at http://www.netflix.com/watch/80058067 .  preview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peOj0DmS9YA .  I have only seen the preview.

However, they opt for pretty much what scholars have been saying about the matter for some time now, i.e., that the Exodus must be dated centuries earlier that traditionally.  See my own study of the matter:  "“Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu .

 

Edited April 18, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[probablyHagoth7]

23 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Umm. You provided a link to a large web page with no clear explanation. That's not really engaging....I will pick out the two or three strongest arguments.

While juggling 3 threads with very similar topics, and 2 non-related projects, and juggling a separate stressful situation, I conflated our discussion with similar ones that have happened within the same window of time. (There have been at least three different discussions about Nephites in Europe over the last 3 days)

For 2 of them, I was quite specific about which page #'s I recommended. And in my rush to also get non-forum things done, I didn't realize our discussion wasn't really part of the other two forum discussions, and therefore thought I *had* engaged this thread with specific info/explanation.

Apologies for not addressing your concern in a manner you might prefer.

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Apologies for not addressing your concern in a manner you might prefer.

No problem. Could you briefly outline the argument and I'll go to the reference for more detail.

[probablyHagoth7]

On 4/17/2017 at 3:25 PM, clarkgoble said:

...for discussion I will pick out the two or three strongest arguments.

I no longer try to boil Nephites in Europe down to two or three supposedly-mighty assertions. I instead let each reader/viewer/listener make that selection for themselves. Here's why:

1. There's a surprising amount of *very* good evidence within each of several categories (history, politics/gov't, linguistics, archaeology, prophecy/religion/mythology/prophecy/folklore, genealogies, military tactics, geography/hydrography, commerce, trades, laws,  etc.)
2. People tend to value the same evidence very differently, even drastically, hinging on variables including personality and temperament. 

Because of such considerable differences in personalities/temperaments *and* the range of available evidence, I no longer presume to say which evidence should be deemed most significant, since what you deem to be meaty, your neighber might deem to be thin broth.  (I happen to deem *all* evidence relative to Nephites in Europe to be meaty.)

Edited April 19, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

No problem. Could you briefly outline the argument and I'll go to the reference for more detail.

What I submit is that by the mid 1st century BC, thousands of Nephites had transplanted to Europe...and subsequently influenced Western civilization for millennia to come.

Edited April 19, 2017 by probablyHagoth7