grindael wrote:...To say that specific people are "Nephite" is so laughable that it doesn't even deserve further comment....
Yet you continue to comment...
grindael wrote:As to Hagoth, the Book of Mormon claims that they supposed they were wrecked at sea after going to the land "northward" (in the Americas) after they returned once. So much for that theory. That is what the Book of Mormon actually says.
Well, what they supposed reveals nothing more than what they supposed. It doesn't establish their supposition as fact. The only facts we can derive from that is that the ship never returned, and that the Nephites assumed the worst (right or wrong). That ship may have instead landed safely far beyond the scope of Nephite history, The Nephites back in the Americas would have had no way of knowing what became of them either way since it never returned to report. The Book of Mormon says Hagoth built
several ships (Alma 63:7). As I have said previously in this forum and elsewhere, a Nephite diaspora that extends to an area greater than just the South Pacific doesn't necessarily require the largest ship, but could have involved one or more of Hagoth's
other ships. (And as to your claim that the land northward supposedly excludes Europe, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I happen to believe for a number of reasons that the "land northward" actually included ancient Europe.) Since Hagoth had several ships, it doesn't much matter which ship or ships it was. Also, the Book of Mormon attests that the condensed Nephite record we have received doesn't describe even one percent of their shipping and shipbuilding. (
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/hel ... ang=eng#13) So be dismissive about one, two, or three ships if you prefer. I don't mind. There are more than a hundred others to choose from.
...Even BH Roberts confirms that
Actually, no. BH Roberts didn't confirm it. He merely told us
what the remaining Nephites concluded. Specifically, BH Roberts said, "the Nephites believed them to have been wrecked at sea." That is not by any stretch of the imagination a confirmation one way or the other of what actually happened to that one ship. It merely tells us what the Nephites assumed. It doesn't tell us what BH Roberts thought, which doesn't really matter, since what he thought isn't authoritative in any sense of the word.
Even though Roberts does concede that the people with Hagoth (if they survived which he doubts) would have peopled some of the South Pacific Islands, NOT IRELAND.
I don't need BH Roberts to say anything about Ireland. He is not an authoritative source.
And those people were called Lamanites by Mormon "prophets", so that theory is actully defunct. You are looking at this through a narrow lens. Your "authorities" supposedly speak by the power of the "Holy Ghost".
Sometimes they do. And sometimes they speak their opinion. You've quote-mined LDS statements enough to know that to be the understanding in the church. Furthermore, for clarity, B.H. Roberts, who you cited repeatedly, was president of the first quorum of the seventy. He was never apostle or prophet, or church patriarch, so citing him repeatedly doesn't even come close to demonstrating an authoritative doctrine of the church, although the repeated attempt to do so is duly noted. Finally, even if he had received one of those other callings, you know full well that not everything uttered or written by an apostle or a prophet is considered official doctrine.
I sustain what President Kimball said about the South Pacific islanders. But the South Pacific only accounts for one of Hagoth's ships. That leaves the other ships that Hagoth built, plus at least a hundred other Nephite ships. As to some of your other citations from other people, I am under no requirement to accept as official doctrine anything where someone merely stated their opinion or belief. (Go back and see some of your citations, where in my reply, I underlined where they repeatedly said "I believe," and perhaps you'll see what I mean. Those are not authoritative statements in the least, no matter how much you might want them to be.)
They claim the Nephites are an EXTINCT RACE OF PEOPLE. That means NONE LEFT.
We've been through this already. "Extinct" and "none left" is true in the context of the Nephite nation in the Americas coming to a tragic end. But those who left in the life rafts prior to the destruction of their nation are the exception, and their survival is a completely separate matter, as the same sources you cite attest. To demonstrate how both realities can be true, the Book of Alma said the Nephites would become extinct. Yet chapters later, the same book attests to a Nephite diaspora under Hagoth. Both their destruction (in the Americas) and their survival (elsewhere) can clearly be true. Likewise D&C 3 says the Nephites were destroyed. Yet a few verses earlier, it also says the Book of Mormon would soon go to Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, etc. Again, both their destruction and their survival can clearly be true.
They don't qualify their statements at all. You are doing that. Kimball names all of the races all over the Americas and doesn't claim that ANY are Nephites, but that ALL OF THEM are Lamanites. Another nail in the coffin of your theory. And to claim that God led people away from his promised land in America is ridiculous. Where did they go?
You're saying that God leading them away from his promised land of America to the South Pacific is ridiculous? How so? (You're essentially mocking what President Kimball said.) And where did they go? According to some, some went to the South Pacific. Reportedly according to another, some went to the North Pacific. I firmly believe they also crossed the Atlantic, but my opinion is not church doctrine, so continue to be dismissive about it if you prefer. I'm certainly not offended.
Forget context. Forget contrary data. Forget the consensus of experienced and documented scholars. In the universe where "prophets" receive "knowledge" from their imaginary friends and are not to be questioned, it's business as usual.