Thanksgiving, Indians, and the recent change to the Book of Mormon

[_Rollo Tomasi]

God has already told me what the Book of Mormon is.

No he hasn't.

[_charity]

God has already told me what the Book of Mormon is.

No he hasn't.

Rollo, considering that you have stated in the past that you would disobey God if He stood directly in front of your and gave you a commandment, I don't think you can speak for God.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

God has already told me what the Book of Mormon is.

No he hasn't.

Rollo, considering that you have stated in the past that you would disobey God if He stood directly in front of your and gave you a commandment, I don't think you can speak for God.

You forgot the context, my dear. The context was what I would do if God asked me to harm or kill my child (a la Abraham and Isaac). And my response has been, and always will be, no way!

[_beastie]

I am not at all complicated. I will tell you exactly what I am. A faithful believer. A voracious reader. A pretty smart cookie. I consider myself a mid-level apologist. I don't do original research, but I understand the basics of most of what is being done, at least. I can patiently wait for answers. But my patience runs out with continued displays of illogic and hypocrisy.

I know this is how you perceive yourself. In reality, you are incapable of recognizing illogic and hypocrisy when your religion is under the microscope. You’ve displayed that on this thread, and many others. I’m sure you’re quite intelligent in other areas of your life, but to be frank, some part of your brain turns off when it comes to religion.

Actually, you understood, too, that my reference to disputed theories was with those major scientific sea changes, because I gave you those examples. But it suited your purpose to misunderstand.

No, I really didn’t understand that, and I’ll tell you why. I could not believe someone would actually formulate a statement as meaningless and idiotic as:

New theories that were once disputed but resulted in major scientific sea changes “won out”.

Why is this idiotic and meaningless? Because it is self evident. If a theory results in a major scientific sea change, of course it won out. So you were saying NOTHING. NOTHING.

In essence, you were saying “new theories that win out usually win out.”

Meaningless.

And then you admit:

I misspoke when I gave the impression that I thought all theories which dispute accepted theories will eventually win out.

Obviously. Look how long it took you to admit this, and look how many insults you flung out in the meantime.

I think you don't understand Book of Mormon apologetics. We aren't like the Wamu executives in their pen. There are alternative positions. See, this is what happens with the critical apologists. (Yes, you are apologists, because you are arguing for a particular view.) You want to force the opposition into a box. We don't go into boxes. So you scurry around trying to whip us back into a small containable space. It would make your job a lot easier if you could. But it doesn't work.

Ok, so you are on record opposing Clark and Gardner who assert that it is not possible to identify the Lehites.

You have forgotten about the destruction of records. Coe says that there were thousands of records destroyed by the Conquistadores, leaving only a small handful, none of which mention J/L/M populations. But what if we come upon a library one of them days. Like Nag Hammadi. Or the DSS. And those records give us an account of a people we can recognize as Lehites? Keeping records on metal plates and hidden away wouldn't be a major surprise, now would it?

Yes. It would be a big surprise, which is exactly why neither Brant nor Clark expect it to happen.

All I ever said was that the argument that we would know right now from the state of archeolgoical discoveries if there had beena group of 30 Israelites arriving about 600 B.C., give or take a few, was ridiculous. Which was the position you were advancing.

I doubt you have ever, even one time, understood a position I was advancing, including this one.

It isn’t just a question of 30 invisible people. It is thirty people whose leaders were so influential that they immediately became leaders of powerful polities for the time period. Powerful leaders have influence, and leave traces of their existence behind.

Okay. I will agree. They will only have to dig up every square inch in the region about as big as the Aztec polity. When they discover exactly where to start to dig, of course.

It is ridiculous to suggest that “every square inch” will have to be dug up.

You also act as if they could be anywhere in Mesoamerica, anywhere. This is a surprising position for someone who supposedly understands apologetics. Sorenson carefully explained the geographic clues given in the Book of Mormon, and how these clues can only fit certain areas.

by the way, you have ignored two issues:

1 – whether or not your insults mean you’ve lost the argument
2 – the articles I provided that demonstrate LDS teachings that contradict LGT

Given how long it took you to admit what was painfully obvious, that you misspoke when you asserted disputed theories usually win out, I suppose it may take another ten pages and an unknown number of insults from you before you admit to either of these two points, either.

[_beastie]

Oh, one more question for Charity:

What would your reaction be if you visited a board dedicated to discussions of scientology, and the scientologists referred to those who criticized their claims as "minions of satan"?

[_charity]

Rollo, considering that you have stated in the past that you would disobey God if He stood directly in front of your and gave you a commandment, I don't think you can speak for God.

You forgot the context, my dear. The context was what I would do if God asked me to harm or kill my child (a la Abraham and Isaac). And my response has been, and always will be, no way!

You forgot the context. It was would you allow your teenage daughter to enter into a plural marriage if God stood right in front of you and commanded you. You said no.

And I am not your "dear." Please lay off the condescending sexist language.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo, considering that you have stated in the past that you would disobey God if He stood directly in front of your and gave you a commandment, I don't think you can speak for God.

You forgot the context, my dear. The context was what I would do if God asked me to harm or kill my child (a la Abraham and Isaac). And my response has been, and always will be, no way!

You forgot the context. It was would you allow your teenage daughter to enter into a plural marriage if God stood right in front of you and commanded you. You said no.

And I am not your "dear." Please lay off the condescending sexist language.

The more detailed context: the daughter was 14 years old (i.e., Helen Mar Kimball). And I still say no!

You may call me "dear," if you like, to avoid any taint of sexism.

[_charity]

Actually, you understood, too, that my reference to disputed theories was with those major scientific sea changes, because I gave you those examples. But it suited your purpose to misunderstand.

No, I really didn’t understand that, and I’ll tell you why. I could not believe someone would actually formulate a statement as meaningless and idiotic as:

New theories that were once disputed but resulted in major scientific sea changes “won out”.

Why is this idiotic and meaningless? Because it is self evident. If a theory results in a major scientific sea change, of course it won out. So you were saying NOTHING. NOTHING.

I said wasn't as bad as "survival of the fittest." I think you probably subscribe to that one.

In essence, you were saying “new theories that win out usually win out.”

It would probaby be closer to what I meant to say to word it as "New theories that win out are usually disputed for a while first."

Ok, so you are on record opposing Clark and Gardner who assert that it is not possible to identify the Lehites.

I don't oppose. I just believe in a wider range of options, may be a more accurate to describe my position.

Yes. It [finding metal plates in a stone box]would be a big surprise, which is exactly why neither Brant nor Clark expect it to happen.

If putting metal plates in stone boxes has happened in different places in the world, in different cultures, which it has, it isn't outside the possibilities that there are other metal plates in stone boxes somewhere else in meso-America. Maybe the chance of finding any is remote. But not impossible.

I doubt you have ever, even one time, understood a position I was advancing, including this one.

Try to tone down the arrogance a little, please.

It isn’t just a question of 30 invisible people. It is thirty people whose leaders were so influential that they immediately became leaders of powerful polities for the time period. Powerful leaders have influence, and leave traces of their existence behind.

Maybe this is why I have a little trouble dealing with you arguments as logical. "Invisible" people? No one ever said they left no trace. Just that is is difficult to find such a small one. And who are you to say that the influence which was left would have to have "Hebrew" stamped on it?

It is ridiculous to suggest that “every square inch” will have to be dug up.

You also act as if they could be anywhere in Mesoamerica, anywhere. This is a surprising position for someone who supposedly understands apologetics. Sorenson carefully explained the geographic clues given in the Book of Mormon, and how these clues can only fit certain areas.

If we are looking for a stone box with metal plates, then what is that? One foot by one foot? 144 sq inches.

by the way, you have ignored two issues:

1 – whether or not your insults mean you’ve lost the argument
2 – the articles I provided that demonstrate LDS teachings that contradict LGT

1. I am merely calling attention to flaws in your argument.
2. I didn't see any Gospel Doctrine manuals or CES materials. If you are talking about an article by a scholar which appears in a Church magazine, it isn't "teachings from the Church." You can try to shift over from that to LDS teachings meaning anything that somebody who is LDS says, but that doesn't meet the definition we had set up before. Nice try, though.

[_marg]

"New theories that win out are usually disputed for a while first."

Right, however new theories which win out are never old theories resurrected. Theories evolve and move forward to better fit theories of the evidence as additional and better information becomes available.

You don't believe in a new theory. You believe in an old theory. And you don't believe in it because you've reasoned your way to it, you believe based on your conformance to the dictates of your Church. It is a passe theory that "Am. Indians might be/or are of Middle Eastern origin. It existed when there wasn't enough information to reach reliable theories regarding where Am Indians migrated from before reaching America.

Now the only people holding to this idea regarding Am Indians are individuals such as yourself who either are ignorant of the science behind it, or are unable adjust their understanding of the science because they are locked into a faith based religious reasoning system which relies upon religious authority to do the thinking for them.

[_beastie]

It would probaby be closer to what I meant to say to word it as "New theories that win out are usually disputed for a while first.

Do you realize how many times I invited you to make that very clarification?

Let’s count:

1

Actually, you need to go a lot further. You asserted that disputed theories "usually" win out. To prove your assertion that they "usually" win out, you're going to have to do a lot more than you have done.

We all know that new theories that eventually turn out to be correct can be disputed at their origin. You are teaching us nothing new. What I want to know is what your evidence is for "disputed theories usually winning out."

2 –

Do you understand how these two statements are different?

1. New theories that are eventually accepted were normally disputed at their point of introduction.

2. Disputed theories usually win out.

Thus far, all of your defenses have been defenses of number one, when the assertion you need to defend is number 2.

3 -

Just to give you an idea of how ridiculous your assertion is that most disputed theories eventually “win out”, and people only oppose them because they are set in their ways, here are some disputed theories that have never, and will never, “win out”. These are just a few among too many to count.

4 -

You said "disputed theories usually win out." You said this in reference to the theory that maize was in India. This is a very disputed assertion, and it certainly has not supplanted the theory long held.

Now you are claiming what you really meant is that "legitimate theories which have supplanted theories long held" normally win out.

I don't know which is worse, actually - thinking that "disputed theories usually win out" or creating this bit of logic:

"Legitimate theories which have supplanted theories long held usually win out."

In other words, you're saying theories that have won out usually win out.

5 -

In regards to “pseudo” – I don’t care what label you attach to these disrespected theories. The point is that they are theories that are disputed, and they are NOT “winning out” in the end. So, once again, do you wish to modify your statement? When you said that “disputed theories normally usually win out”, did you really mean to say that “theories that supplant previous theories were usually disputed when they were introduced”? They say entirely different things, and you have given me no indication yet you understand the difference.

When disputed theories remain disputed, they are called “pseudoscience”, or, to use your own term, “crackpot”. (and why are you calling a theory you believe in yourself crackpot?)

Five times I asked you to clarify. Five times I specified the difference between the two assertions:

1. New theories that are eventually accepted were normally disputed at their point of introduction.

2. Disputed theories usually win out.

During this time, not only did you refuse to admit you had misspoken, but you hurled insults at me right and left.

Which brings me to this:

Charity:

Try to tone down the arrogance a little, please.

Charity’s earlier statements on this thread:

Until you get on the other side and see the condemnation you will be under if any of your family follows you out of the true Church.

You really had to reach on that one. I was referring to genealogy as you very well know. So this little sideswipe is really dishonest, beastie. I am embarresed for you. It shows a weakness in your own belief in your argument.

Sorry, I thought I was having a rational discussion. Rational people don't need to bring flying spaghetti monsters into the discussion. I will try to remember that next time and dumb down my posts. :(

You must need words of shorter syllables.

marg: You have believed lies told by individuals in whom there is no truth. They are fighting against God and you have bought into it.You ought to at least think about how wrong you have been as evidenced in the post I am responding to. And then look to see where else you have been led astray by Satan's minions.

Charity,

The above examples are why I say you turn off a part of your brain when you discuss religion. Or would you commonly refuse to admit an error and insult the people who bring the error to your attention, and ask other people to “tone down the arrogance” after flinging arrogance and insults all over the place?

I’ll come back to the rest later. I can only take so much water torture at a time.