The Book of Mormon DOES say "others" where there.....

[_DarkHelmet]

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

The problem is, nobody knows when the prophet is speaking as a prophet, not even the prophet.

[_Zub Zool oan]

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

I think there has been so much absoluteness that has been brought along in Mormonism. The arrogance has been palpable and statements such as Oaks talking about never apologizing indicate a power structure that has been increasingly moving toward ideas about itself being infallible. The Catholic church found out all about this and it's funny that it is rare to see religious groups can learn through others mistakes. With very conservative leaders Oaks, Monson, Kimball, M. E. Peterson, Mcconkie and very many more, the trend has been hard authoritarian. The Prophets not writing books would be something I would think would be safer, or, like the essays, they could just not sign them.

MG, we are talking about the all knowing, seeing, understanding creator of everything for 14 billion light years to the edge of what we can detect. Billions or perhaps trillions of galaxies. I can't for the life of me understand why good people can accept that if this God exists, his communication is so sloppy and screwed up. He has presided over the establishment of tens of thousands of Christianities that you couldn't give a fair hearing to in a hundred lifetimes. So often the places where the Church and prophets have been wrong, end up lining up with what the scientists are telling us about how things came to be. Science doesn't preclude any life or existence beyond this, but the traditional stuff looks worse and worse as more is discovered and understood. I think the institutional church has a difficult time to impossible time saying "I don't know." The memberships wants authority and absolute statements because otherwise for them their world falls apart. Many believe like that.

I conclude from a mission and all the human stuff I have seen and the questions about history and provenance etc. that there just isn't enough information to make a decision. I am no longer caspable of just deciding to believe something because I like the sound of it and what it implies for an afterlife. I have to deduce that if a founder or creator or force exists, it is so much larger than the often small petty human rule-bound stuff. Whatever it may be, it has to be truly, fully egalitarian, open to everyone, perhaps it just happens and we can't store up blessings in a heavenly bank account.

[_Themis]

Just look up a few posts. 2 Nephi 1:9

What about vs. 5,6 in that same chapter?

Regards,
MG

What about them? You know full well the story has another group that had already come from the old world and destroyed. You also know another group came around the same time as Lehi's. It also says none will be brought here except by the hand of God. The text only ever talks about these groups. It never says anything about those who would have already been there for thousands of years. Shouldn't be a surprise for a text that views the flood as global so no humans would be there previous to the Jaredites. You still ignore verse 9 where it specifically says keep from other nations. Funny to watch apologists argue what most member's can easily see what the text says.

[Guest]

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

The apologetic to believe what ever you like. If you don't have an accurate method to know the difference then you cannot trust them.

I would add that the speaking as a man is code for being wrong.

[Guest]

I think there has been so much absoluteness that has been brought along in Mormonism. The arrogance has been palpable and statements such as Oaks talking about never apologizing indicate a power structure that has been increasingly moving toward ideas about itself being infallible. The Catholic church found out all about this and it's funny that it is rare to see religious groups can learn through others mistakes. With very conservative leaders Oaks, Monson, Kimball, M. E. Peterson, Mcconkie and very many more, the trend has been hard authoritarian. The Prophets not writing books would be something I would think would be safer, or, like the essays, they could just not sign them.

MG, we are talking about the all knowing, seeing, understanding creator of everything for 14 billion light years to the edge of what we can detect. Billions or perhaps trillions of galaxies. I can't for the life of me understand why good people can accept that if this God exists, his communication is so sloppy and screwed up. He has presided over the establishment of tens of thousands of Christianities that you couldn't give a fair hearing to in a hundred lifetimes. So often the places where the Church and prophets have been wrong, end up lining up with what the scientists are telling us about how things came to be. Science doesn't preclude any life or existence beyond this, but the traditional stuff looks worse and worse as more is discovered and understood. I think the institutional church has a difficult time to impossible time saying "I don't know." The memberships wants authority and absolute statements because otherwise for them their world falls apart. Many believe like that.

I conclude from a mission and all the human stuff I have seen and the questions about history and provenance etc. that there just isn't enough information to make a decision. I am no longer caspable of just deciding to believe something because I like the sound of it and what it implies for an afterlife. I have to deduce that if a founder or creator or force exists, it is so much larger than the often small petty human rule-bound stuff. Whatever it may be, it has to be truly, fully egalitarian, open to everyone, perhaps it just happens and we can't store up blessings in a heavenly bank account.

This.

To the point of making a decision that is 100% verifiably right and/or correct. I take that back, I mean, True.

by the way, I agree with most of what you said.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...verse 9...specifically says [to] keep [Lamanites/Nephites] from other nations. Funny to watch apologists argue what most member's can easily see what the text says.

I suppose I'd have to hand you vs. 9 as being about as close as you can come to proving your point. But I don't see it as absolute proof. by the way, I hope you're not making the claim that I'm an apologist? Like I've said many times, I'm just a regular guy. Regular guys aren't apologists are they?

Apologists are rather nerdy/quirky...and rather set in stone. They have pocket pen holder pocket protectors (say that quickly ten times in a row ) in their shirt pockets and actually put sharpened pencils in them.

I don't see myself that way.

Regards,
MG

[_hagoth7]

...But what more can you expect from the folk who brought us west = north, and horse = tapir?

For the record, not everyone believes that west = north, and horse = tapir.

[Guest]

I suppose I'd have to hand you vs. 9 as being about as close as you can come to proving your point. But I don't see it as absolute proof.

I am not asserting it as absolute proof. What we have from the text is a lack of mentioning any group other then the three from the old world. Then add where the text says others were absent and why. You could also add the Book of Mormon reference to the flood waters receding from Book of Mormon lands. This is the world view the Book of Mormon and early church Joseph created is set in.

[_moksha]

Think I've located both the Lamanites and the lost tribes.

[Guest]

I suppose I'd have to hand you vs. 9 as being about as close as you can come to proving your point. But I don't see it as absolute proof.

I'm inclined to say verse 9 is clear in limiting those in the land of promise at that time to those God has led out from Jerusalem (In other words, the Lehites and Mulekites) and that they are it with the promise the land is theirs to be kept separate from the world unless they fall. Absolute proof? No. But between this and Jacob's descriptions of the Nephite people after Nephi's death a TBM has to really be grasping at straws to keep the possibility afloat if one wishes to also accept the DNA issues which give rise to this particular line of apologetics.

Jacob 1:13-14

13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

Jacob on the parable of the Vineyard (Jacob 5: 43-45)
43 And behold this last, whose branch hath withered away, I did plant in a good spot of ground; yea, even that which was choice unto me above all other parts of the land of my vineyard.

44 And thou beheldest that I also cut down that which cumbered this spot of ground, that I might plant this tree in the stead thereof.

45 And thou beheldest that a part thereof brought forth good fruit, and a part thereof brought forth wild fruit; and because I plucked not the branches thereof and cast them into the fire, behold, they have overcome the good branch that it hath withered away.

Jacob 7:26
26 And it came to pass that I, Jacob, began to be old; and the record of this people being kept on the other plates of Nephi, wherefore, I conclude this record, declaring that I have written according to the best of my knowledge, by saying that the time passed away with us, and also our lives passed away like as it were unto us a dream, we being a lonesome and a solemn people, wanderers, cast out from Jerusalem, born in tribulation, in a wilderness, and hated of our brethren, which caused wars and contentions; wherefore, we did mourn out our days.

Jacob seems very explicit in describing the Nephite peoples and Lamanite peoples in a way that would have given ample opportunity to mention others if there were such. You and I have already gone down the Sherem rabbit hole, and I hope we've reached agreement that the apologetic explanations for the description of Sherem do not hold up when taking the implications for archeology into account.

If we prioritize the information available, the material that is explicitly for the traditional view (The Book of Mormon peoples are the primary peoples to inhabit the Americas) is entirely consistent with the most direct reading of the text itself and what it claims is the case. The apologetic is a response to external pressure that seeks gaps in the narrative that allow for these others without the text explicitly making mention of the Nephites as a minority group. Ever.

But once one goes down that road, one has to answer very serious questions about why the Nephites then left zero archeological impact on the neighboring cultures despite bringing advanced old world technologies with them related to a whole spectrum of developments. It really isn't even close to being a 50-50 proposition.