Peterson explains why no Book of Mormon archeology found, yet....

[Guest]

...I am aware Kimball repealed the...practice of not allowing black skinned members to hold the Priesthood or attend the temple. My question, do you know why he did?

Since such a discussion has no bearing on the Book of Mormon, I would once again suggest a separate thread.

I disagree. Just because it's uncomfortable to confront past interpretations of "skin of blackness" doesn't remove it from the discussion.

I have absolutely no problem discussing it. Nor do I find it uncomfortable in the least. Such a discussion is simply far beyond the scope of a thread about the Book of Mormon.

Your opinion is only that; others want to be heard.

And I certainly respect that.

This isn't over because of some convenient edits and some public relations campaigns, or because you say it is. The problems remain, just like with polygamy. The story is still being told.

Who suggested that it be over? I didn't suggest a separate thread about blacks and the priesthood, or about IHAQ's other suggested tangent in order to silence the discussion. On the contrary, both topics would actually get MORE attention, rather than less, in their own threads. So you misunderstand. I have absolutely no objection to "the story...being told".

[_I have a question]

I find myself agreeing with Hagoth's suggestion of a separate thread. The Kimball discussion was meant to show that if one chooses to agree with a Prophets words where it suits ones position, yet disavows that same Prophet on a different topic, what one is really doing is promoting what they believe, not the words of the Prophet. I see it's become a distraction to the thread and I apologise for my part in the derail.

[_Maksutov]

I find myself agreeing with Hagoth's suggestion of a separate thread. The Kimball discussion was meant to show that if one chooses to agree with a Prophets words where it suits ones position, yet disavows that same Prophet on a different topic, what one is really doing is promoting what they believe, not the words of the Prophet. I see it's become a distraction to the thread and I apologise for my part in the derail.

I'm happy to abide by the wishes of the OP.

[_hagoth7]

...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...

If that is what you think I am doing, you have drastically misinterpreted me.

I guess your own interpretations are so important to you, that you will ignore those that had the real authority to declare doctrine. ...You are wrong, and they are right. You lost this argument...

Lost? Why do you frequently refer to a discussion as an "argument"? Do you ever actually sit down and have a respectful "discussion" with someone who might have a different viewpoint than you? Or is everything necessarily confrontational and adversarial?

...unless you want to claim that these men are good for nothing but opinions...

No. That is not at all what I have claimed.

I'll take that as a victory also. Thanks.

Claim whatever you wish. You are misinterpreting me to a tremendous degree.

Also, the Books declare this publishing stamp: THE DESERET NEWS...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.

? So everything I read in the Deseret News is now also official church doctrine? Good to know.

The Nephites became extinct, ALL OF THEM, everywhere...

Believe that if you wish. (But then again, you don't believe they ever existed anywhere.)

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,

But it is. By several.

...as your own authorites have debunked your pet theory.

Actually, they have not even commented on my theory. And I don't know if they ever will.

...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....

No actually. You simply choose to interpret it that way.

[_grindael]

As I have said, Grindael was the one who brought up President Kimball, in an attempt to say I was NOT sustaining him. (You've apparently missed that entire tangent.) Feel free to launch another thread (before we make yet another lengthy tangent of this one.)

This is a lie. I quoted Kimball. I absolutely did not bring him up in an attempt to say YOU were not "sustaining him". I quoted him as part of the proof about the descendants of the Nephites/Lamanites. Man you really DO have bad comprehension problems.

A lie? The context is you cited him, and then essentially claimed I was not sustaining what he (and others) had taught. How then is what I said a lie?

You claimed that the PURPOSE of what I quoted was to say you were not sustaining him. That is the lie. The PURPOSE of the quote was to support the doctrine taught by these men about the Nephite/Lamanite descendants. You not agreeing with the plain meaning of his words is a separate issue, and absolutely not the purpose of my quoting Kimball. I quoted Kimball to show that what you postulate about the Nephites according to Mormon "authorities" is incorrect. It is plain as day what I was doing, and for the life of me I can't comprehend how you get that lie out of it.

[_grindael]

...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...

If that is what you think I am doing, you have drastically misinterpreted me.

Your words speak for themselves.

I guess your own interpretations are so important to you, that you will ignore those that had the real authority to declare doctrine. ...You are wrong, and they are right. You lost this argument...

Lost? Why do you frequently refer to a discussion as an "argument"? Do you ever actually sit down and have a respectful "discussion" with someone who might have a different viewpoint than you? Or is everything necessarily confrontational and adversarial?

You obviously don't understand the meaning of words. What we are having is a discussion. There is a difference between having an argument and PRESENTING an argument. Look it up. Your derogatory words towards me at the very outset show where you are coming from.

...unless you want to claim that these men are good for nothing but opinions...

No. That is not at all what I have claimed.

Please note the context of the sentence.

I'll take that as a victory also. Thanks.

Claim whatever you wish. You are misinterpreting me to a tremendous degree.

No, I'm not, but of course you would think so.

Also, the Books declare this publishing stamp: THE DESERET NEWS...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.

So everything I read in the Deseret News is now also official church doctrine? Good to know.

This is so silly that I can't believe you made this comment. You obviously know nothing about how the Church published at the turn of the Century. I suggest (again) that you study more before making such foolish comments.

The Nephites became extinct, ALL OF THEM, everywhere...

Believe that if you wish. (But then again, you don't believe they ever existed anywhere.)

It is not what I believe, but what your "authorities" have taught. Deal with it. I've provided the authoritative doctrine, all you have done is give your non authoritative opinion. I'll let the readers decide.

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 are just repeating yourself. It's already been shown that what you claim about Tironian is not credible evidence for Nephites, and that they were deemed by Mormon "authorities" as totally extinct, and that "white and delightsome" is about SKIN COLOR and therefore racist, but again, go ahead and believe that and good luck selling it to any but Mormon Apologists and those ignorant of the facts or in denial mode.

You can sure believe whatever you want, but it is not derived by promises in Mormon scripture,

But it is. By several.

No, it isn't, as I've shown with evidence.

...as your own authorites have debunked your pet theory.

Actually, they have not even commented on my theory. And I don't know if they ever will.

Yes, they have by their words. In the Ensign Article I quoted they were addressing that very question if any Nephites had survived. But then, I get it that you won't acknowledge any of it and would rather stay ignorant.

...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....

No actually. You simply choose to interpret it that way.

You really are lacking in comprehension skills. It says what it says. And you replied how you replied. (Throwing them under the bus because you could not comprehend that it was approved and authorized by a First Presidency) You've lost this discussion, and now all you have are vapid one sentence replies that do nothing to further your argument.

[_hagoth7]

You really are lacking in comprehension skills.

Are you completely sure that's the issue?

1) I understand that you'd prefer to dismiss the whole idea of Nephites in Europe. So be it. Dismiss it if it offends you. I won't be offended.
2) I understand that you think that statements by several LDS leaders somehow make it impossible for them to be right, and for Nephites to also have survived anywhere, including Europe.
3) I, on the other hand, can see how the survival of Nephites can be true, without making the statements by LDS leaders false.
4) Apparently you can't see #3 yet. No worries.

...you could not comprehend that it was approved and authorized by a First Presidency...

Believe it or not, I can comprehend an individual, individuals, or even an entire committee being appointed to review a document. But if you think that process somehow places a stamp of approval on every word and concept in such a book, including things as specific as distinct coordinates for Nephite geography, you're overstating your case. (As you know, there is as yet no such thing as official Book of Mormon geography.)

You've lost this discussion, and now all you have are one sentence replies that do nothing to further your argument.

If only I had known that the length of a reply was the final arbiter of truth.

[_hagoth7]

Also, the Books declare this publishing stamp: THE DESERET NEWS...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.

So everything I read in the Deseret News is now also official church doctrine? Good to know.

This is so silly that I can't believe you made this comment. You obviously know nothing about how the Church published at the turn of the Century.

You might be surprised to know that I do know the history of Deseret.
Apparently even the slightest attempt to inject mild humor to lighten the tone is lost here.

[_Tobin]

You've lost this discussion, and now all you have are one sentence replies that do nothing to further your argument.

If only I had known that the length of a reply was the final arbiter of truth.

That's classic grindael. He ALWAYS wins (at least in his head). He can do no wrong. He never is mistaken and is purely delusional.

[_grindael]

Samuel the Lamanite was righteous. And there is no relationship between his righteousness and his skin color.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/hel ... lang=eng#1

But that is mentioned as something that happened elsewhere,

On the way to Illinois River where we camped on the west side in the morning, many went to see the big mound about a mile below the crossing, I did not go on it but saw some bones that was brought with a broken arrow, they was layed down by our camp Joseph addressed himself to Sylvester Smith, "This is what I told you and now I want to tell you that you may know what I meant; this land was called the land of desolation and Onendagus was the king and a good man was he, there in that mound did he bury his dead and did not dig holes as the people do now but they brought there dirt and covered them untill you see they have raised it to be about one hundread feet high, the last man buried was Zelf, he was a white Lamanite who fought with the people of Onendagus for freedom, when he was young he was a great warrior and had his th[igh] broken and never was set, it knited together as you see on the side, he fought after it got strength untill he lost every tooth in his head save one when the Lord said he had done enough and suffered him to be killed by that arrow you took from his brest." These words he said as the camp was moving of[f] the ground; as near as I could learn he had told them something about the mound and got them to go and see for themselves. I then remembered what he had said a few days before while passing many mounds on our way that was left of us; said he, "there are the bodies of wicked men who have died and are angry at us; if they can take the advantage of us they will, for if we live they will have no hope." I could not comprehend it but supposed it was all right. Levi Hancock Diary, LDS Church Archives.

While on our travels we visited many of the mounds which were flung up by the ancient inhabitants of this continent probably by the Nephites & Lamanites. We visited one of those Mounds and several of the brethren dug into it and took from it the bones of a man. We visited one of those Mounds: considerd to be 300 feet above the level of the Illinois river. Three persons dug into the mound & found a body. Elder Milton Holmes took the arrow out of the back bones that killed Zelph & brought it with some of the bones in to the camp. I visited the same mound with Jesse J. Smith. Who the other persons were that dug in to the mound & found the body I am undecided. Brother Joseph had a vission respecting the person. He said he was a white Lamanite. The curs was taken from him or at least in part. He was killed in battle with an arrow. The arrow was found among his ribs. One of his thigh bones was broken. This was done by a stone flung from a sling in battle years before his death. His name was Zelph. Some of his bones were brought into the Camp and the thigh bone which was broken was put into my waggon and I carried it to Missouri. Zelph was a large thick set man and a man of God. He was a warrior under the great prophet /Onandagus/ that was known from the hill Camorah /or east sea/ to the Rocky mountains. The above knowledge Joseph receieved in a vision. Wilford Woodruff's Journal, ed. Scott G. Kenney, 9 vols. (Midvale, UT: Signature Books, 1988), 1:10.

This being in the Co of Pike, here we discovered a large quantity of large mounds. Being filed with curiosity we excavated the top of one so[m]e 2 feete when we came to the bones of an extraordinary large person or human being, the thigh bones being 2 inches longer from one Socket to the other than of the Prophet \whi\ who is upwards of 6 feete high which would have constuted some 8 or 9 feete high. In the trunk of this skeleton near the vitals we found a large stone arrow which I suppose brougt him to his end. Soon after this Joseph had a vision and the Lord shewed him that this man was once a mighty Prophet and many other things concerning his people. Thus we found those mounds to have be[en] deposits for the dead which had falen no doubt in some great Batles. In addition to this we found many large fortifications which als[o] denotes siviliseation and an innumberable population which has falen by wars and comotion and the Banks of this Beautiful River became the deposit of many hundred thousands whose graves and fortifications \have\ are overgrown with the sturdy oak 4 feete in diameter. Moses Martin Diary, LDS Church Archives.

Tuesday 3 visited the mounds. A skeleton was dug up. Joseph, said his name was Zelph a great warrior under the Prophet Omandagus. An arrow was found in his Ribs which he said he suposed ocaisoned his death \Said\ he was killed in battle. Said he was a man of God and the curse was taken off or in [p.102] part he was a white Lamanite was known from the atlantic to the Rocky Mountains. Reuben McBride Diary (3 June 1834), LDS Church Archives.

Based on the Zelph vision, is entirely plausible that Samuel the Lamanite was also white skinned. They sure are not claiming here that Zelph was a "pure Lamanite", but that he was WHITE SKINNED and the curse was taken off of him because of righteousness.