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

[_ludwigm]

...

...
If it's a past prophet, it's superceded by a present prophet. ...

... The one thing we can't deny is the witness of the Holy Ghost. We do not deny the Prophet's words when he is speaking as a prophet. And no prophet has ever denied what another prophet has said in those circumstances. ...

For example, BY has said he were always prophet and his words were scripture.
And, for example, GBH has denied BY about Adam-God case.

Please, please Charity, tell us one case when any prophet from Joseph Smith up to GBH, said: "Now, I am not speaking as a prophet!"

[_the road to hana]

And people who quote these individuals as sources of doctrine are mistaken in their confidence.

Yourself included, I would assume.

The one thing we can't deny is the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Charity, you throw around the phrase "witness of the Holy Ghost" as though "Holy Ghost" (or witness thereof) was a trademarked term exclusive to LDS. Most Christian religions believe in the Holy Ghost, and the witness of the Holy Ghost, whether they call it Holy Spirit (in recent decades) or Holy Ghost. Again, you're speaking from a point of lack of familiarity with things outside your own realm, and it doesn't strengthen your position.

We do not deny the Prophet's words when he is speaking as a prophet.

You mean at the time, or later? Or are you simply saying "we don't deny he said it?"

And no prophet has ever denied what another prophet has said in those circumstances.

Absolutely, unequivocally, not true.

And God does not change His mind. He gives different commands for His children according to their needs.

How do you know that's not man imposing his own will and disguising it as God's?

That's why a closed canon makes no sense.

For most religions, there's no connection between "closed canon" and whether or not God continues to address, instruct or edify his people.

The comment has been made in other forums that one of the problems with the critics is their rigid attitudes. They get an idea in mind and then they are stuck with it. That seems to be your problem.

Actually, most people you identify as "critics" were much like you are now at one time (well, maybe not just like you), but sincerely believing and faithful members of the church you currently espouse. It hardly strengthens your argument that the same are "rigid" in their thinking," anymore than suggesting that people who leave other religions to convert to Mormonism, and then are critical of their former religions, are "rigid in their thinking." It actually defies critical thinking skills to suggest it.

[_charity]

For example, BY has said he were always prophet and his words were scripture.

But was he speaking as prophet when he said that? :)

And, for example, GBH has denied BY about Adam-God case.

The Adam-God theory has been wildly misunderstood. I know what Brigham Young was saying, as does every other person who has studied the issue. It has to do with delegation. Birhgam Young never said Adam was Heavenly Father. It is that notion that President Hinckley corrected. Not Brigham Young, just the misuse of what President Young said.

Please, please Charity, tell us one case when any prophet from Joseph Smith up to GBH, said: "Now, I am not speaking as a prophet!"

They don't have to. Because we know when they are conveying revelation. Those who are in tun with the spirit, receive a confirmation when revelation is being given. It is really meant as a blessing for those not in tune. Because if you don't KNOW, you aren't held accountable for obeying.

[Guest]

There is no evidence against the Book of Mormon.

Actually, that's not necessarily true.

It's possible there exists somewhere a document, letter or diary that conclusively establishes that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be. You just don't know of it's existence, because it hasn't surfaced.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If the church you love suddenly distances itself from the Book of Mormon, you'll be coming up with evidence galore that it never really was considered sacred scripture, except to the woefully misinformed, and that any prophet who said it was wasn't really speaking as a prophet at the time. Or if the Holy Ghost whose witness you cherish suddenly witnesses to you that it's not true, you'll take that as evidence, apparently.

So evidence could exist. You just might not be aware of it. To say there is "no evidence" is an absolute you are unable to correctly claim.

[_charity]

Charity,

You aren't as complicated as you seem to imagine, nor are we as stupid as you seem to imagine.

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.

See, that isn't at all complicated.

Of course we understood you think the Book of Mormon is a "legitimate theory". All my questioning was designed to help you see the erroneous nature of your statement that "most disputed theories usually win out". That is simply, flat-out wrong, but crackpots often use the fact that new theories that turn out to be legit were disputed at their introduction as a refuge to explain the massive opposition to their crackpot theory.

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.

But I realize you will never, never, admit to me that you either misspoke or were incorrect in your statement that "most disputed theories usually win out".

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

You don't even understand Book of Mormon apologetics.

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.

How will the "existence" of the J/L/M population be discovered when the entire current branch of apologia rests on the fact that one cannot ever recognize their existence in the first place, because they blended in so completely with the native population? In other words, how would you recognize a "Nephite pot"? Clark says we've already found them, we just call them "Maya" and "Olmec".

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?

In fact, you participated in a very long debate about this very point, in which you argued vociferously that it would not be possible to recognize the Lehites. I provided information demonstrating how archaeologists do, indeed, recognize immigrant populations. You insisted I was too stupid to understand what I was reading. Now, it appears you agree with me after all - you WOULD be able to recognize the Lehite population!!!! Sadly, that puts you outside LDS apologia, and is yet one more example of how you contradict yourself.

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 think there will be discoveries in the future which will show the Book of Mormon accounts to be correct. Remember, I am a patient person. Critics have the "right now right here or else it will never happen" kind of logic.

It isn't necessary to dig up every square inch. In fact, apologists build their case upon the fact that one can determine the relative geographic size of the Book of Mormon population by the clues given therein. Using Sorenon's analysis, the Book of Mormon story encompassed a region about as big as the later Aztec polity. While this certainly isn't the hemispheric model once imagined, it is a quite significant spread across Mesoamerica. It's not like the Lehite cities would be a teeny, tiny, speck hidden on a hill somewhere, which is what you insinuate with "every square inch". ;/quote]

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.

I think that your main problem is that you don't really have a coherent theory about any of this, you are just reacting on an ad-hoc basis in each conversation.

My coherent theory is based on the following propositions:

1. Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites migrated to the New World.
2. We don't know where any of their landing points were.
3. They interracted with people already here.
4. We have a very incomplete record for interractions from either side.
5. Archeology and anthropology rely heavily on luck, with all their methodology.
6. Discoveries which can change the picture anthropolists and archeologists have occur suddenly and out the blue.
7. There are ways to prove their existence which won't be found in ruins and stone monuments.

My coherent theory is that the migrations occurred, there will be evidence discovered at some time, but it won't be easy to understand because of the misconceptions and preconceived notions that plague the science.

[_charity]

There is no evidence against the Book of Mormon.

Actually, that's not necessarily true.

It's possible there exists somewhere a document, letter or diary that conclusively establishes that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be. You just don't know if it's existence, because it hasn't surfaced.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If the church you love suddenly distances itself from the Book of Mormon, you'll be coming up with evidence galore that it never really was considered sacred scripture, except to the woeful misinformed, and that any prophet who said it was wasn't really speaking as a prophet at the time. Or if the Holy Ghost whose witness you cherish suddenly witnesses to you that it's not true, you'll take that as evidence, apparently.

So evidence could exist. You just might not be aware of it. To say there is "no evidence" is an absolute you are unable to correctly claim.

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

[_the road to hana]

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

And God has told several other people what it isn't. So you're back to a "my God can beat up your God" or "my Holy Ghost can beat up your Holy Ghost" argument.

I sure hope he didn't tell you anything that the church will later change, because then you'll have to decide whether to believe God, or the church.

[_ludwigm]

For example, BY has said he were always prophet and his words were scripture.

But was he speaking as prophet when he said that? :)

Was Joseph Smith speaking as prophet when he said "The prophet is a prophet when ..."
By the way, where was THIS said by Joseph Smith? Was that a revelation?

And, for example, GBH has denied BY about Adam-God case.

The Adam-God theory has been wildly misunderstood. I know what Brigham Young was saying, as does every other person who has studied the issue. It has to do with delegation. Birhgam Young never said Adam was Heavenly Father. It is that notion that President Hinckley corrected. Not Brigham Young, just the misuse of what President Young said.

OK, BY has said it clearly, GBH has said it clearly, You understand it clearly, only we, sinful anti's misuse and misunderstand it.

Fine.

Please, please Charity, tell us one case when any prophet from Joseph Smith up to GBH, said: "Now, I am not speaking as a prophet!"

They don't have to. Because we know when they are conveying revelation. Those who are in tun with the spirit, receive a confirmation when revelation is being given. It is really meant as a blessing for those not in tune. Because if you don't KNOW, you aren't held accountable for obeying.

They don't have to.
- - Then, they never do it. Then, they are speaking ALWAYS as a prophet.

Because we know when they are conveying revelation.
- - Do You know, when they are not conveying revelation? One case, please (as above).

Because if you don't KNOW, you aren't held accountable for obeying.
- - This is my luck.

[_The Nehor]

There is no evidence against the Book of Mormon.

Actually, that's not necessarily true.

It's possible there exists somewhere a document, letter or diary that conclusively establishes that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be. You just don't know of it's existence, because it hasn't surfaced.

But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If the church you love suddenly distances itself from the Book of Mormon, you'll be coming up with evidence galore that it never really was considered sacred scripture, except to the woefully misinformed, and that any prophet who said it was wasn't really speaking as a prophet at the time. Or if the Holy Ghost whose witness you cherish suddenly witnesses to you that it's not true, you'll take that as evidence, apparently.

So evidence could exist. You just might not be aware of it. To say there is "no evidence" is an absolute you are unable to correctly claim.

By the same token it is also possible that there is evidence out there somewhere (documentation) by a mad Guatemalan apostate scientist that proves that he built a devil robot to tear down the Church on random message boards. And that that robot is YOU!!!!!! We may find it some day.

Until proven false though, I will call you El Diablo Robotico.

[_charity]

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

And God has told several other people what it isn't. So you're back to a "my God can beat up your God" or "my Holy Ghost can beat up your Holy Ghost" argument.

I sure hope he didn't tell you anything that the church will later change, because then you'll have to decide whether to believe God, or the church.

I am not feeling particularly tactful today.

It wasn't God that told "several other people" what it isn't. So the argument is actually, God can beat up Satan.