hagoth7 wrote:grindael wrote:
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.
Ok, then tell me exactly when they do and don't. If it is so easy for you to spout that they are speaking OPINION. When? Where? How? Why? Please enlighten us. Unless they SPECIFICALLY SAY they are speaking OPINION, then the default is they are speaking WITH AUTHORITY BY THE POWER OF THE "HOLY GHOST".
Ah, quote mined?
Very funny. 
To quote is to quote. But you don't like what I'm quoting, so you put a derogatory spin on it. That just makes you look petty. I don't see you REFUTING ANY of those quotes. Know why? You don't seem to be able to. You only give your own opinions that contradict Mormon "authorities" and publications. It is obvious that you really don't understand the Church Hierarchy, what an "authority" is, or really much about priesthood authority. I advise studying more to make less a fool out of yourself by such idiotic claims as you are making about Roberts and the First Council of the Seventy. Anything spoken by the "power of the "Holy Ghost" is the word of God in Mormonism. Men with the authority of the Priesthood in the three presiding quorums are "special witnesses" and the ORACLES OF GOD, with authority to teach and preach doctrine. And there is a difference between BINDING doctrine and doctrine. So really, go peddle your BS somewhere else. I actually have the quotes to back up what I say, you have not given any. hagoth7 wrote: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.)
You need to study what an "oracle of God" is and why they would say, "I believe". Of course someone believes what they say if they are preaching by the power of the "Holy Ghost". They don't say "this is simply my opinion". If they ACTUALLY do, (As Brigham Young did on occasion) then yes, that is their opinion. What are they going to say, I'm saying these things but I really don't believe it? Now that's funny stuff. This is what an Oracle of God is according to a Mormon Apostle authorized to say so:
Marion G. Romney wrote:“What we get out of general conference is a build-up of our spirits as we listen to those particular principles and practices of the gospel which the Lord inspires the present leadership of the Church to bring to our attention at the time. He knows why he inspired Brother Joseph F. Merrill to give the talk he just gave. He knows why he inspired the other brethren who have talked in this conference to say what they have said. It is our high privilege to hear, through these men, what the Lord would say if he were here. If we do not agree with what they say, it is because we are out of harmony with the Spirit of the Lord.” (Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1950, p.126)
That is why I quote from Conference Addresses and from material authorized by the "authorities" of the Church. Since you claim it is all opinion, it is YOU who must prove that it is.
The other ships went to the land NORTHWARD on the AMERICAN CONTINENT. Roberts said so. I believe him over you, he had authority to write and speak about it, you do not. All of the descendants ON EVERY SINGLE ISLAND AND ON THE AMERICAN CONTINENT WERE PROCLAIMED BY KIMBALL AS BEING LAMANITES.
They claim the Nephites are an EXTINCT RACE OF PEOPLE. That means NONE LEFT.
hagoth7 wrote: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.
Once again you seem to be purposefully NOT COMPREHENDING anything written above Read it again. You are totally wrong and being incredibly obtuse and stupid about this.
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?
hagoth7 wrote: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.
I'm not mocking Kimball, I'm quoting him, but you have massive comprehension problems and it is YOU who said that God led them away from the Americas. THAT IS WHAT I SAID IS RIDICULOUS. He said there are NO NEPHITES on any of those Islands. They are ALL LAMANITES. Why? Because the Nephites became EXTINCT, ALL OF THEM as explained at LDS.ORG, by Roberts, Kimball and a host of others. All of them disagree with YOU. Since they are the "authorities" and you are not, it is you who are wrong here.
ADDENDUM. Oh, I forgot this, prefaced in Roberts "New Witnesses for God" which I've extensively quoted:
B.H. Roberts wrote:To guard against error or inaccuracy in doctrine the writer applied to the First Presidency of the Church for a committee of brethren well known for their soundness in the faith, and broad knowledge of the doctrines of the Church, to hear read the manuscript of this book. Whereupon Elder Franklin D. Richards, one of the Twelve Apostles of the New Dispensation, and Church Historian; Elder George Reynolds, one of the author's fellow-Presidents in the First Council of the Seventy, and Elder John Jaques, Assistant Church Historian, were appointed as such committee; and to these brethren, for their patient labor in reading the manuscript, and for their suggestions the writer is under lasting obligations.
This Volume I. of New Witnesses was first published in 1895; it is now, in its second edition, 1911, published in uniform style with its companion volumes of New Witnesses, the two volumes which treat of the Book of Mormon as a Witness for God, and which issued from the press in 1909. (B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Vol.1, p.iv)
B. H. ROBERTS.
Salt Lake City, January, 1911.
Actual reading of the source material might help you from making further mistakes in the future regarding what is doctrine and what isn't and who is actually authorized to preach it. My advice is put in more time studying and less time spouting silly opinions.