grindael wrote:Even B.H.Roberts...another of those dang "authorities":
B.H. Roberts wrote:I conclude, therefore, that this migration of Nephites at this time extended no further northward than southern parts of Mexico, say about the twenty-second degree north latitude...B. H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Vol.2, Ch.12, p.202 - p.207
hagoth7 wrote:Here is where your earlier assertion (that everything written in the book by Elder Roberts is somehow established, official, and/or authoritative doctrine) falls apart. You know full well that according to the church, there is no such thing as an official or revealed geography for the Book of Mormon. In that context, the fact that Elder Roberts' manuscript was submitted for review by a single apostle and by a single church historian (which you cited as somehow equating to an official stamp of church approval) actually does not establish southern Mexico as the official northern extent of Nephite territory at that time, and is not what you choose to make of it. Feel free to claim otherwise.
This is rich. I mean, I'm pretty stunned by your response here. "A single Apostle and by a single Church Historian". It is amazing to me how when someone like you, who wants to promote their own scriptural interpretations over those of the Mormon Hieararcy, are so ready to throw away with disdain the "authorized" and ordained "Oracles of God," their very own "Prophets, Seers & Revelators". Of course one single apostle wouldn't be good enough for Hagoth7, who has such authority that he can readily dismiss him. Wow. But sadly, Hagoth, you don't comprehend very well, which is what I've been saying over and over again here. Once again, here is what Roberts wrote, and this time, READ CAREFULLY what he said:
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.
The FIRST PRESIDENCY appointed the committee, GENIUS. Roberts work was scrutinized by a committee appointed directly by the First Presidency of the Church, which makes it approved doctrine by them. So really, your argument (as it is) is really lame. What stuns me though, is how willing you are to discredit your own chosen "authorities" as meaningless men who don't have any authority to do such things in your book. I guess your own interpretations are so important to you, that you will ignore those that had the real authority to declare doctrine. And as for the rest of your argument, no one said it is BINDING DOCTRINE. You can choose to not believe it, as you obviously do not. But that doesn't matter, it still trumps ANYTHING you have to say that doesn't agree with it. What Roberts wrote IS "AUTHORITATIVE DOCTRINE". It wasn't presented as BINDING, but that doesn't mean it wasn't authoritative. You are wrong, and they are right. You lost this argument, unless you want to claim that these men are good for nothing but opinions, even when they have the full authorization and approval of the First Presidency. I'll take that as a victory also. Thanks.
Also, the Books declare this publishing stamp:
THE DESERET NEWS
Salt Lake City
1911
Copyrighted by Joseph F. Smith
for
The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints
1911
This means, like Talmage's "Articles of Faith" and "Jesus the Christ" (which had the same stamp) they were published under the auspices of the Church itself. They therefore ARE "AUTHORITATIVE." Why do you think I chose to quote from them? I knew they were. That is why I urged you to read them. But hey, if you want to dismiss a committee and writer authorized and approved and then published by a First Presidency of the Mormon Church, who am I to argue?
hagoth7 wrote:As to the extent of Nephite migrations, the Nephite record repeatedly tells us that some Nephites intermixed and survived in the ancient Americas. We are in agreement there. Later comments say some Nephite descendants survived in the South Pacific. We are also in agreement there. But absolutely no one has authoritatively said that those two locations form the limit or boundaries of where their descendants went - cite three hundred quotations if you wish.
But they have said that all of the Americas and the Pacific Islands are populated by the descendants of the Lamanites, and that the ENTIRE NEPHITE CIVILIZATION became extinct. You can try to wiggle out of that, but everyone knows that you are simply posturing, and not very well. Believe what you wish, but you are contradicting the "authorities" of your own church and that's what counts here. We all know it, and you can keep on trying to claim it's not true all you want, but it won't change the FACTS. The Nephites became extinct, ALL OF THEM, everywhere, therefore your premise is fatally flawed.
hagoth7 wrote:As to whether any Nephites survived elsewhere, I am quite free to believe as I wish, being that what I believe is derived from promises in scripture. And you are quite free to disagree, while doubting those same scriptures. Again, what I believe is certainly not official church doctrine. But your assertion that Tironian is somehow not credible ancient evidence for Nephites is merely that, a personal opinion. (As if any any amount of Nephite evidence would be deemed credible by some in this life.) I'll stick with my beliefs, thank you anyway.
You can sure believe whatever you want, but it is not derived by promises in Mormon scripture, as your own authorites have debunked your pet theory. Sorry, but they trump you, and I really don't care what your individual belief is, when you can't back it up by scripture or authority. Stick with it by all means, but don't assume that anyone else is going to believe it based on what Mormon "authorities" have declared. Of course you may get some Mormon Apologists and those who really don't know much about the subject to back you up and believe you, but that's par for the course.
As Joseph taught:
Joseph Smith wrote:I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things; but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to...
So? Doesn't mean that Jo didn't claim to have NO ERRORS in the "REVELATIONS" he taught. This is irrelevant.
Joseph Smith wrote:It is the constitutional disposition of mankind to set up stakes and set bounds to the works and ways of the Almighty....That which hath been hid from before the foundation of the world is revealed to babes and sucklings in the last days.
So? What does this have to do with Smith's claim of infallibility as to his "revelations"? Nothing.
Joseph Smith wrote:I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.
Again, So? It is YOU who seem to have problems with unbelief here, you threw Roberts, an apostle, church historian (there were two actually and a fellow President of the Council of Seventy) and the First Presidency under the bus. That's FIVE General "Authorities" and a First Presidency. Maybe you might want to apply that last quote by Smith to yourself.
hagoth7 wrote:On the matter of Nephites and the Book of Mormon, I respectfully disagree with your opinion, with your reasoning, and with your more recent incrimination.
It's not mine, it's your own Mormon "authorities" that I've quoted. Once again, you fail to comprehend the conversation, who said what and what points were made. Sheesh. I've proved you wrong. But keep on digging a bigger hole for yourself. I'll gladly keep providing the shovels.
