How many people does it take to have a "war"?

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by T Blue

Went to a relatives wedding in the temple this AM and the officiator said something along the lines of:

If you were to have five children and they in turn have five and so on, and so on, in around 250 years there would be over 10 million people who are your offspring.

If correct, in 40 years worth of people you could very easily have wars.

What do you mean, "If correct"?

It was said by a temple officiator in the temple. Can you honestly doubt the truth of his statement in that setting? I'm disappointed in your lack of faith.

[Sleeping in EQ]

The quick "solution" that the Nephites and Lamanites were substantially intermixed with other populations is full of problems.

B.H. Roberts goes into this in Studies of the Book of Mormon, and even though his book is 80 or so years old now, it is the place to begin any serious investigation of such issues. So much of what FARMS puts out is in the shadow of Roberts that it isn't even funny. Shot birds flutter.

The glib assertion that is sometimes put forward that Roberts was just playing "devil's advocate" seems to me like trying to put up a smoke screen to keep people from actually reading Roberts' book. My edition of SoBoM, which was edited by Brigham Madsen and with a forward by Sterling McMurrin, includes lots of personal correspondance from Roberts, comments from those who knew him, and even the presentation put forward by Roberts' son in the 40s. It is obvious to most anyone who has actually read SoBoM that Roberts is wrestling with the Book of Mormon's historicity on a very deep level. It is not just some "devi's advocate" academic game for him.

[Jim Swarthout]

Originally Posted by T Blue

Went to a relatives wedding in the temple this AM and the officiator said something along the lines of:

If you were to have five children and they in turn have five and so on, and so on, in around 250 years there would be over 10 million people who are your offspring.

If correct, in 40 years worth of people you could very easily have wars.

FAIL.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by T Blue

Went to a relatives wedding in the temple this AM and the officiator said something along the lines of:

If you were to have five children and they in turn have five and so on, and so on, in around 250 years there would be over 10 million people who are your offspring.

If correct, in 40 years worth of people you could very easily have wars.

If I have 5 kids and I assume 3 of them are female, and each of them have 5 children by the time they are 20, then that is 15 children after 20 years. Assuming 8 of those 15 are female and they each have 5 offspring by the time they are twenty, then that is another 40 children. So, after 40 years you have myself and my spouse (2), plus our 5 children, plus their 15, plus their 40, then that is 62 people. Let's assume no on dies and that half of my progeny are male -- the ones that would do the warring -- then that only leaves 31 people for the war. That's not much of a war.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The quick "solution" that the Nephites and Lamanites were substantially intermixed with other populations is full of problems.

B.H. Roberts goes into this in Studies of the Book of Mormon, and even though his book is 80 or so years old now, it is the place to begin any serious investigation of such issues. So much of what FARMS puts out is in the shadow of Roberts that it isn't even funny. Shot birds flutter.

The glib assertion that is sometimes put forward that Roberts was just playing "devil's advocate" seems to me like trying to put up a smoke screen to keep people from actually reading Roberts' book. My edition of SoBoM, which was edited by Brigham Madsen and with a forward by Sterling McMurrin, includes lots of personal correspondance from Roberts, comments from those who knew him, and even the presentation put forward by Roberts' son in the 40s. It is obvious to most anyone who has actually read SoBoM that Roberts is wrestling with the Book of Mormon's historicity on a very deep level. It is not just some "devi's advocate" academic game for him.

B.H. Roberts came from a completely different generation. It was a generation that assumed that if it looked hard enough and thought hard enough about problem areas that logical solutions, supported by hard evidence, would appear. For that reason many were not afraid to reach tough conclusions because, I believe, they assumed that with further work a better answer would appear. This includes the brethren who were free with access to the documents in their possession. Ultimately I think the realized that some of these things were more powerful weapons in the hands of their adversaries than in the hands of apologists.

I don't know what Roberts believed in his heart, but I don't see apologists fighting almost at all on the ground of what the evidence supports any longer, they now fight on the ground of what cannot be disproved. Roberts did a lot to chase them off the evidentiary field of battle. Since I think FARMS and others are counter productive, I would love to see them get run off of it completely.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

B.H. Roberts came from a completely different generation. It was a generation that assumed that if it looked hard enough and thought hard enough about problem areas that logical solutions, supported by hard evidence, would appear.

It worked for Reeves in that horrendous film Somewhere in Time. Perhaps Roberts mistake was that he had a penny minted in the current year in his pocket too.