I see. I guess I agree that overuse of quotes when you aren't quoting what someone said can be annoying. I try to CAPITALIZE things I really want to emphasize. I guess my thinking about putting quotes around "darker" was because I find the idea that God changes skin color as a curse a rather silly and amusing notion.honorentheos wrote:I should have included the third post as well. When I started reading the thread, the "not", "others", "dark" etc., etc., was amusing. The third post when faqs scare-quoted "dumb" and "assumptions" was almost parody of the earlier use of scare quotes. So, I apologize that your one scare-quote of "dark" got you lumped in. Still, it stands to reason there is an internet law somewhere regarding overuse of scare quotes. Oh well. If only someone invented a searchable and accessible way to query the vast Library of Babel that is the internet.
The Book of Mormon DOES say "others" where there.....
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8417
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm
Re: The Book of Mormon DOES say "others" where there.....
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8574
- Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm
Re: The Book of Mormon DOES say "others" where there.....
Themis wrote:I don't see anywhere the text mentions other groups. I do see the text mentioning a lack of other groups.
Now, you're not saying that IF there isn't any evidence in the Book of Mormon of 'other groups' that THEN the text DOES mention specifically the 'lack of other groups', right?
I'm a bit lazy right now. Could you point out some of those passages showing that there weren't 'other groups'?
Regards,
MG
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 4:22 pm
Re: The Book of Mormon DOES say "others" where there.....
http://publications.maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1402&index=2 [/quote]
From That Article:
However, Here is this full Quote in its actual context:
So General Authority/Apostle who are those that came to America between the time the Book of Mormon closed and the discovery of America? Is he saying that the crossing from Asia to the New World happened during that time?
What fascinates me about this and so many issues in Mormonism is the ease with which they jettison the statements of prophets of God. Joseph was giving the people revelation concerning the background of the Indians they encountered around them. He called missionaries and is straightforward about who these people are and where they came from. This is absolutely plain in what was said. Isn't this stuff written in the D & C? When it doesn't work then he was just speaking as a man? How do you know that? What authority do any apologists or explainers have to refute Joseph Smith? Goodness me, in a church that hammers away about authority and who has the power and the structure, exactly where do Sorenson and the rest derive the calling, mantle or priesthood to change the given, revealed understanding of these things? Can any believer give me a set of standards or rules where I can tell when the Prophets speak as men - BEFORE - it becomes obvious what they said was wrong? A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as one. Satan is only Satan when he is acting as Satan. This is the ultimate "Get out of jail free" card cubed!
From That Article:
In the 5 April 1929 general conference of the church, Anthony W. Ivins, first counselor in the First Presidency, urged: "We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples . . . who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. . . . We do believe that other people came to this continent."41
However, Here is this full Quote in its actual context:
We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon teaches the history of three distinct peoples, or two peoples and three different colonies of people, who came from the old world to this continent. It does not tell us that there was no one here before them. It does not tell us that people did not come after. And so if discoveries are made which suggest differences in race origins, it can very easily be accounted for, and reasonably, for we do believe that other people came to this continent. A thousand years had elapsed from the time the Book of Mormon closed until the discovery of America, and we know that other people came to America during that period.
So General Authority/Apostle who are those that came to America between the time the Book of Mormon closed and the discovery of America? Is he saying that the crossing from Asia to the New World happened during that time?
What fascinates me about this and so many issues in Mormonism is the ease with which they jettison the statements of prophets of God. Joseph was giving the people revelation concerning the background of the Indians they encountered around them. He called missionaries and is straightforward about who these people are and where they came from. This is absolutely plain in what was said. Isn't this stuff written in the D & C? When it doesn't work then he was just speaking as a man? How do you know that? What authority do any apologists or explainers have to refute Joseph Smith? Goodness me, in a church that hammers away about authority and who has the power and the structure, exactly where do Sorenson and the rest derive the calling, mantle or priesthood to change the given, revealed understanding of these things? Can any believer give me a set of standards or rules where I can tell when the Prophets speak as men - BEFORE - it becomes obvious what they said was wrong? A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as one. Satan is only Satan when he is acting as Satan. This is the ultimate "Get out of jail free" card cubed!
18 And the man said: The woman thou gavest me, and commandest that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit of the tree and I did eat. Moses 4:18
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8574
- Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm
Re: The Book of Mormon DOES say "others" where there.....
Zub Zool oan wrote: Can any believer give me a set of standards or rules where I can tell when the Prophets speak as men - BEFORE - it becomes obvious what they said was wrong? A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as one. Satan is only Satan when he is acting as Satan. This is the ultimate "Get out of jail free" card cubed!
Why must there be 'standards' and/or 'rules' that are strictly adhered to? The world and its ways being messy/convoluted as they are, I think it would be difficult to make up strict rules and regulations for God to adhere to come rain or shine.
If there are two choices to made in every instance that a prophet opens his mouth;
1. He is speaking as a prophet.
2. He is speaking as a man.
I think it would be safe to assume that number two is what's happening nine times out of ten. We need to pay attention for that one time where he IS speaking as a prophet. Might be important.
I wonder whether it's a smart thing to do for prophets to publish books. There are folks that are hanging onto every word. And then they're quoted on a board like this.
Regards,
MG
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 13426
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm
Re: The Book of Mormon DOES say "others" where there.....
mentalgymnast wrote:Themis wrote:I don't see anywhere the text mentions other groups. I do see the text mentioning a lack of other groups.
Now, you're not saying that IF there isn't any evidence in the Book of Mormon of 'other groups' that THEN the text DOES mention specifically the 'lack of other groups', right?
I'm a bit lazy right now. Could you point out some of those passages showing that there weren't 'other groups'?
Regards,
MG
Just look up a few posts. 2 Nephi 1:9
42
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8574
- Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm
Re: The Book of Mormon DOES say "others" where there.....
Themis wrote:Just look up a few posts.
CFR on those scriptures you're referring to. It shouldn't take too much time to do that.
Thanks,
MG
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8574
- Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm
Re: The Book of Mormon DOES say "others" where there.....
Themis wrote:
Just look up a few posts. 2 Nephi 1:9
What about vs. 5,6 in that same chapter?
Regards,
MG
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 11784
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am
Re: The Book of Mormon DOES say "others" where there.....
mentalgymnast wrote:Zub Zool oan wrote: Can any believer give me a set of standards or rules where I can tell when the Prophets speak as men - BEFORE - it becomes obvious what they said was wrong? A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as one. Satan is only Satan when he is acting as Satan. This is the ultimate "Get out of jail free" card cubed!
Why must there be 'standards' and/or 'rules' that are strictly adhered to? The world and its ways being messy/convoluted as they are, I think it would be difficult to make up strict rules and regulations for God to adhere to come rain or shine.
If there are two choices to made in every instance that a prophet opens his mouth;
1. He is speaking as a prophet.
2. He is speaking as a man.
I think it would be safe to assume that number two is what's happening nine times out of ten. We need to pay attention for that one time where he IS speaking as a prophet. Might be important.
I wonder whether it's a smart thing to do for prophets to publish books. There are folks that are hanging onto every word. And then they're quoted on a board like this.
Regards,
MG
What's the point of calling someone a Prophet if you can't trust what he says?
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8574
- Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm
Re: The Book of Mormon DOES say "others" where there.....
Quasimodo wrote:What's the point of calling someone a Prophet if you can't trust what he says?
Like I said, if the prophet IS speaking as a prophet it might be important. More likely, IS important.
Regards,
MG
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 11784
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am
Re: The Book of Mormon DOES say "others" where there.....
mentalgymnast wrote:Quasimodo wrote:What's the point of calling someone a Prophet if you can't trust what he says?
Like I said, if the prophet IS speaking as a prophet it might be important. More likely, IS important.
Regards,
MG
If he talks as a man there is no reason to think he is a Prophet. He is just guessing, like the rest of us.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.