Prophets can't explain the Book of Mormon, they ask the experts to, scholars!

[Markk]

I listened to this podcast today while commuting. Start at 48:00 minutes to about 54:10. 'Prophet's ask the experts (scholars) instead of trying to become experts themselves.' When I got home I had to listen to this part again to make sure I heard him correctly.

I am having a little trouble putting this into words. I guess as a member I put too much into trusting these men, when I should have been trusting scholars. All those years trusting SWK on what a Lamanite was, when all along I should have been trusting, I guess, Nibley, Ferguson, and Dewy Farnsworth?

Also I kept wondering through the video if Brant really believed what he was saying, like Lamanite was another word for gentile (a dog). That is until when he more or less stated he (a scholar) knew more than them (prophets, seer's, and revelators) and it was not their job but his (scholarship). I guess that SWK and the church had an "adopt a dog" program.

These guys are something else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQTZ_hU1aKs

[drumdude]

He says the prophets are "declarers" not "explainers." But that is a modern change in order to add plausible deniability. They were "explainers" plenty of times before the last decade or so. They just realize now that their explanations are easily criticized with the Internet and not just taken at face value anymore.

As the Internet and availability of critical knowledge has increased, the amount of "prophesy" coming from these "prophets" has gone down dramatically. In other words, they realize they can't just make $h1T up on the fly anymore like they did in the 80's and before.

They've offloaded that responsibility to scholars, who can be easily denounced as unofficial sources when they turn out to be wrong.

[Markk]

He says the prophets are "declarers" not "explainers." But that is a modern change in order to add plausible deniability. They were "explainers" plenty of times before the last decade or so. They just realize now that their explanations are easily criticized with the Internet and not just taken at face value anymore.

As the Internet and availability of critical knowledge has increased, the amount of "prophesy" coming from these "prophets" has gone down dramatically. In other words, they realize they can't just make $h1T up on the fly anymore like they did in the 80's and before.

They've offloaded that responsibility to scholars, who can be easily denounced as unofficial sources when they turn out to be wrong.

With the folks becoming more and more progressive....they can't toe a hard line, either way.

What bugged me more was Brant's almost caviler assertion that they are the experts.

[huckelberry]

I listened to this podcast today while commuting. Start at 48:00 minutes to about 54:10. 'Prophet's ask the experts (scholars) instead of trying to become experts themselves.' When I got home I had to listen to this part again to make sure I heard him correctly.

I am having a little trouble putting this into words. I guess as a member I put too much into trusting these men, when I should have been trusting scholars. All those years trusting SWK on what a Lamanite was, when all along I should have been trusting, I guess, Nibley, Ferguson, and Dewy Farnsworth?

Also I kept wondering through the video if Brant really believed what he was saying, like Lamanite was another word for gentile (a dog). That is until when he more or less stated he (a scholar) knew more than them (prophets, seer's, and revelators) and it was not their job but his (scholarship). I guess that SWK and the church had an "adopt a dog" program.

These guys are something else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQTZ_hU1aKs

gentile, a dog
Markk that is an odd association, one that has not crossed my mind before. In the past Mormons would sometimes refer to people who were not members as gentiles.

from wikapedia on gentile

Gentile (/ˈdʒɛntaɪl/) is a word that usually means "someone who is not a Jew".[1] Other groups that claim Israelite heritage, notably Mormons, have historically used the term gentile to describe outsiders.[2][3][4] More rarely, the term is used as a synonym for heathen or pagan.[4] As a term used to describe non-members of a religious/ethnic group, gentile is sometimes compared to words used to describe the "outgroup" in other cultures[5] (see List of terms for ethnic out-groups).

In some translations of the Quran, gentile is used to translate an Arabic word that refers to non-Jews and/or people not versed in or not able to read scripture.[6]

The English word gentile derives from the Latin word gentilis, meaning "of or belonging to the same people or nation" (from Latin gēns 'clan, tribe, people, family'). Archaic and specialist uses of the word gentile in English (particularly in linguistics) still carry this meaning of "relating to a people or nation."[4] The development of the word to principally mean "non-Jew" in English is entwined with the history of Bible translations from Hebrew and Greek into Latin and English. Its meaning has also been shaped by Rabbinical Jewish thought and Christian theology[7] which, from the 1st

I guess that does not clarify the role of the church president. Brant Gardner probably knows more on the subject of the Book of Mormon.

[Rivendale]

So the priesthood ban was symbolic? I have never heard the shaved head idea. If the Lamanites were black why would he mention the shaved head? Really? If white is a symbolic word for divine then black must be to? False dichotomy?eta. The church is revelatory not explanatory. I thought prophets were granted to be an authority on anything.

Elder John A. Widtsoe wrote: “Whenever moved upon by the Spirit of the Lord, the man called to the prophet’s office assumes the prophetic mantle and speaks as a mouthpiece of the Lord. He may then interpret the word of God, apply it to the conditions of the day, governmental, social, or economic, warn against impending evil. … Such inspired deliverances are binding upon all who believe that the latter-day work came and is directed by revelation.” (Evidences and Reconciliations, 1:182.)

Elder Ezra Taft Benson said: “If we are living the gospel, we will feel in our hearts that the First Presidency of the Church not only have the right, but are also duty bound under heaven to give counsel on any subject which affects the temporal or spiritual welfare of the Latter-day Saints” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1950, p. 148

[Markk]

I listened to this podcast today while commuting. Start at 48:00 minutes to about 54:10. 'Prophet's ask the experts (scholars) instead of trying to become experts themselves.' When I got home I had to listen to this part again to make sure I heard him correctly.

I am having a little trouble putting this into words. I guess as a member I put too much into trusting these men, when I should have been trusting scholars. All those years trusting SWK on what a Lamanite was, when all along I should have been trusting, I guess, Nibley, Ferguson, and Dewy Farnsworth?

Also I kept wondering through the video if Brant really believed what he was saying, like Lamanite was another word for gentile (a dog). That is until when he more or less stated he (a scholar) knew more than them (prophets, seer's, and revelators) and it was not their job but his (scholarship). I guess that SWK and the church had an "adopt a dog" program.

These guys are something else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQTZ_hU1aKs

gentile, a dog
Markk that is an odd association, one that has not crossed my mind before. In the past Mormons would sometimes refer to people who were not members as gentiles.

from wikapedia on gentile

Gentile (/ˈdʒɛntaɪl/) is a word that usually means "someone who is not a Jew".[1] Other groups that claim Israelite heritage, notably Mormons, have historically used the term gentile to describe outsiders.[2][3][4] More rarely, the term is used as a synonym for heathen or pagan.[4] As a term used to describe non-members of a religious/ethnic group, gentile is sometimes compared to words used to describe the "outgroup" in other cultures[5] (see List of terms for ethnic out-groups).

In some translations of the Quran, gentile is used to translate an Arabic word that refers to non-Jews and/or people not versed in or not able to read scripture.[6]

The English word gentile derives from the Latin word gentilis, meaning "of or belonging to the same people or nation" (from Latin gēns 'clan, tribe, people, family'). Archaic and specialist uses of the word gentile in English (particularly in linguistics) still carry this meaning of "relating to a people or nation."[4] The development of the word to principally mean "non-Jew" in English is entwined with the history of Bible translations from Hebrew and Greek into Latin and English. Its meaning has also been shaped by Rabbinical Jewish thought and Christian theology[7] which, from the 1st

I guess that does not clarify the role of the church president. Brant Gardner probably knows more on the subject of the Book of Mormon.

The Gentiles were ritually unclean, and referred to as dogs through out the The Old Testament and New Testament, they were not part of the covenant. You can google it and find all sorts or information on it. It is a symbolic term. It lightened up in the New Testament, but even Christ and Paul used the term Dog to describe those outside the new covenant.

What Brant said, if I understood him correctly, is that to explain a LGT, and an already heavy populated America/s, the Mayans, Olmec's, Aztec's, Inca's, Hopewell, Polynesians', and all Native Americans.... were all Lamanites.

He equated it with the Jews and their use of the term gentile, with the Nephites referring all other people in the Americas as Lamanites, which in his mind explains why no other peoples but Lamanites and Nephites are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

However he did not mention, or I did not here him mention that the term "gentile" is also mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

If he wants to associate the name/term gentile as the Jews used it with the name/term Lamanite.... then he owns the whole meaning, not just part of it. At least in my opinion. After all Leigh was a very educated Jew....right?

This was a hit when I just googled this subject, it is from a Messianic Jew/Rabbi....it found it interesting and a easy read. But like I wrote there is a lot written on this and it gets heavy. When I left Mormonism I took a Old Testament survey class at a local Bible College and this jumped out at me, in that as a saint I often referred to all others as gentiles...., and now after listening to Brant, ironically never as Lamanites.


https://www.emethatorah.com/blog/are-ge ... eally-dogs

[Philo Sofee]

He says the prophets are "declarers" not "explainers." But that is a modern change in order to add plausible deniability. They were "explainers" plenty of times before the last decade or so. They just realize now that their explanations are easily criticized with the Internet and not just taken at face value anymore.

As the Internet and availability of critical knowledge has increased, the amount of "prophesy" coming from these "prophets" has gone down dramatically. In other words, they realize they can't just make $h1T up on the fly anymore like they did in the 80's and before.

They've offloaded that responsibility to scholars, who can be easily denounced as unofficial sources when they turn out to be wrong.

But when what the prophets declare is so obviously wrong and wrong headed, then what? If apologists defend those wrong headed declarations, how will that help out?

[Philo Sofee]

Markk
What bugged me more was Brant's almost caviler assertion that they are the experts.

They are experts at attempts to make the prophets sound accurate, which is virtually impossible. They have to change the meanings of words to do so, and it obviously flops. Their recontexting a miscontexted quote in scriptures by the prophets and books don't help either. What they are not experts in is following the evidence where it leads. They can't do so, their own ignorant prophets won't let them.

[Markk]

Markk
What bugged me more was Brant's almost caviler assertion that they are the experts.

They are experts at attempts to make the prophets sound accurate, which is virtually impossible. They have to change the meanings of words to do so, and it obviously flops. Their recontexting a miscontexted quote in scriptures by the prophets and books don't help either. What they are not experts in is following the evidence where it leads. They can't do so, their own ignorant prophets won't let them.

Yeah you got that right, but there has been so many "opinions" that if one was right, three were wrong. It is indeed Impossible.

Back in the day on the old boards I used to ask Brant to discuss what is actually being found in the digs, what the museums and papers show us, and not what we (as saints) need it to show us....I could never get a straight answer, usually a bailout of the thread or me getting suspended.

When you were in the "club"....did you feel you had to bail out the GA? Did you feel like you knew more than they did? What was your personal feelings on this?

Kerry I would love for you to do a episode on your podcast on how you honestly felt, from the inside out, on how you approached your time as a mopologist. Was it ego, duty, pity, for the challenge of winning the argument? Was it for merit in your advancement in the kingdom? Just a open honest look back on how you processed all that. It would be interesting to discuss all that, improv, with RFM and Reel. Tell some stories ? We are not getting younger your stories need to be on record.

[Rivendale]

They are experts at attempts to make the prophets sound accurate, which is virtually impossible. They have to change the meanings of words to do so, and it obviously flops. Their recontexting a miscontexted quote in scriptures by the prophets and books don't help either. What they are not experts in is following the evidence where it leads. They can't do so, their own ignorant prophets won't let them.

Yeah you got that right, but there has been so many "opinions" that if one was right, three were wrong. It is indeed Impossible.

Back in the day on the old boards I used to ask Brant to discuss what is actually being found in the digs, what the museums and papers show us, and not what we (as saints) need it to show us....I could never get a straight answer, usually a bailout of the thread or me getting suspended.

When you were in the "club"....did you feel you had to bail out the GA? Did you feel like you knew more than they did? What was your personal feelings on this?

Kerry I would love for you to do a episode on your podcast on how you honestly felt, from the inside out, on how you approached your time as a mopologist. Was it ego, duty, pity, for the challenge of winning the argument? Was it for merit in your advancement in the kingdom? Just a open honest look back on how you processed all that. It would be interesting to discuss all that, improv, with RFM and Reel. Tell some stories ? We are not getting younger your stories need to be on record.

Excellent idea. I always wonder how it was done. Brian Hauglid gave some insight but not much. Same with David Bokovoy although I think he was always nuanced.