67 replies to this topic

[Log]

ksfisher, on 01 May 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

Other factors, unmamed by Amaleki, must be at work here.

An excellent insight.

[zerinus]

ksfisher, on 01 May 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

When talking about the Israelite "high esteem...for the prophetic office" we should recall that many prophets were killed by these Israelites.

Although they might have killed them in their times of wickedness, culturally they still held them in high esteem. For example, the Nephites in their time of greatest wickedness, choose a prophet, Mormon, to be their leader.

Quote

Omni 1:17 says that the people of Zarahemla "denied the being of their creator." If they are not believers why would they change with the appearance of Mosiah's Nephites?

For the same reason that they "rejoiced exceedingly" at the preservation of the Nephite sacred records.

[Log]

zerinus, on 01 May 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

For example, the Nephites in their time of greatest wickedness, choose a prophet, Mormon, to be their leader.

Not because he was a prophet, but because he was a big guy.

"And it came to pass in that same year there began to be a war again between the Nephites and the Lamanites. And notwithstanding I being young, was large in stature; therefore the people of Nephi appointed me that I should be their leader, or the leader of their armies."

Edited by Log, 01 May 2012 - 10:04 PM.

[zerinus]

ksfisher, on 01 May 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

It is not plausible that Zarahemla would turn over rulership of his people to a group of refugees just because one of them claims to be a prophet of a god that he, Zarahemla, doesn't believe in.  Nor do I believe that Zarahemla would be in such awe of the Nephites language, ability to write, or their written records, that he would disinherit his own family and hand the kingdom over to Mosiah.  

Other factors, unmamed by Amaleki, must be at work here.

See above.

[Log]

zerinus, on 01 May 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

See above.

Insufficient.  See above.

Edited by Log, 01 May 2012 - 10:06 PM.

[zerinus]

Log, on 01 May 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

Not because he was a prophet, but because he was a big guy.

"And it came to pass in that same year there began to be a war again between the Nephites and the Lamanites. And notwithstanding I being young, was large in stature; therefore the people of Nephi appointed me that I should be their leader, or the leader of their armies."

But still, he was a prophet, and a great one, and they knew it.

[Log]

zerinus, on 01 May 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

But still, he was a prophet, and a great one, and they knew it.

Show me in the text where that is supported.

[zerinus]

Log, on 01 May 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Insufficient.  See above.

Plenty sufficient, see above.

[Log]

zerinus, on 01 May 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

Plenty sufficient, see above.

Completely insufficient.  See above.  And CFR.

[zerinus]

Log, on 01 May 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

Show me in the text where that is supported.

Moroni 9:

4 Behold, I am laboring with them continually; and when I speak the word of God with sharpness they tremble and anger against me; and when I use no sharpness they harden their hearts against it; wherefore, I fear lest the Spirit of the Lord hath ceased striving with them.

[zerinus]

Log, on 01 May 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

Completely insufficient.  See above.  And CFR.

Your question has been answered, and will not be answered again.

[Log]

zerinus, on 01 May 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

Moroni 9:

4 Behold, I am laboring with them continually; and when I speak the word of God with sharpness they tremble and anger against me; and when I use no sharpness they harden their hearts against it; wherefore, I fear lest the Spirit of the Lord hath ceased striving with them.

Was that before, or DECADES after, they chose him to be the chief of their armies?

Once again - you said they chose him because he was a prophet.  You have yet to meet the evidentiary burden.

And you can't, because the text appears to contradict you.

"16 And I did endeavor to preach unto this people, but my mouth was shut, and I was forbidden that I should preach unto them; for behold they had wilfully rebelled against their God; and the beloved disciples were taken away out of the land, because of their iniquity.

17 But I did remain among them, but I was forbidden to preach unto them, because of the hardness of their hearts; and because of the hardness of their hearts the land was cursed for their sake."

MANY YEARS after being chosen, he begins to preach.

"2 And it came to pass that the Lord did say unto me: Cry unto this people—Repent ye, and come unto me, and be ye baptized, and build up again my church, and ye shall be spared.

3 And I did cry unto this people, but it was ain vain; and they did bnot realize that it was the Lord that had spared them, and granted unto them a chance for repentance. And behold they did harden their hearts against the Lord their God."

Edited by Log, 01 May 2012 - 10:30 PM.

[Log]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but your claim:

zerinus, on 01 May 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

Although they might have killed [the prophets] in their times of wickedness, culturally they still held them in high esteem. For example, the Nephites in their time of greatest wickedness, choose a prophet, Mormon, to be their leader.

is without textual support in the Book of Mormon.  They picked him, again by his own account, because he was a big guy, and not because he was a prophet.

Edited by Log, 01 May 2012 - 10:28 PM.

[zerinus]

Log, on 01 May 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

Was that before, or DECADES after, they chose him to be the chief of their armies?

Once again - you said they chose him because he was a prophet.  You have yet to meet the evidentiary burden.

And you can't, because the text appears to contradict you.

"16 And I did endeavor to preach unto this people, but my mouth was shut, and I was forbidden that I should preach unto them; for behold they had wilfully rebelled against their God; and the beloved disciples were btaken away out of the land, because of their iniquity.

17 But I did remain among them, but I was forbidden to apreach unto them, because of the hardness of their hearts; and because of the hardness of their hearts the land was bcursed for their sake."

MANY YEARS after being chosen, he begins to preach.

"2 And it came to pass that the Lord did say unto me: Cry unto this people—Repent ye, and come unto me, and be ye baptized, and build up again my church, and ye shall be spared.

3 And I did cry unto this people, but it was ain vain; and they did bnot realize that it was the Lord that had spared them, and granted unto them a chance for repentance. And behold they did harden their hearts against the Lord their God."

Those scriptures support what I was saying, not what you are saying.

[Log]

zerinus, on 01 May 2012 - 10:30 PM, said:

Those scriptures support what I was saying, not what you are saying.

If you were saying that the Nephites coincidentally picked a prophet to be the leader of their army, not knowing him as a prophet, then I would have to concede you were correct.

However, the claim you appeared to be making - that the Nephites picked a prophet to be the leader of their army because they knew he was a prophet and held him in high cultural esteem as a prophet - is false, contradicted at every possible point by the text itself, as I show above.

Edited by Log, 01 May 2012 - 10:34 PM.

[thesometimesaint]

Zerinus:

I have enough problems with American English of the 21st Century. I have no clue as to what it will be in the 31st Century. If we last that long.

[Carborendum]

Areabird, on 01 May 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

Doesn't it take about 1,000 years for a language / dialect to evolve?  If they had left Jerusalem only 340 years earlier wouldn't it be unlikely that their dialect had developed to the point that they wouldn't be able to understand each other?

Sometimes it can.  But most of the time it doesn't.  Factors include:
1) Literacy.
2) Isolation.
3) Impetus for linguistic change.

The Nephites had a high degree of literacy.  The Mulekites did not.  They had only oral tradition, not written records (reciting geneology from memory).  That is why Mosiah called the Mulekites' language corrupt.  Mosiah had written records by which to measure how much their language had been preserved vs the Mulekites.
Both societies were isolated from their parent language as well as from each other.
I see evidence for neither impetus nor lack of impetus.

Consider how much our language has changed in just the last 100 years or 200 years.  And we've had high levels of literacy and lots of communication (postal service, and mass communications later).  So much so that most people have difficulty reading our founding documents with any significant understanding.  Can you imagine how bad it would have been if each state had been isolated from each other with no interaction?  It's bad enough if you were to take someone from the Bronx and them talk with a California surfer dude.

How often have you taken a look at the Urban Dictionary?
Do you follow all the texting acronyms today?
Many parents don't even understand their own teenagers when they talk the new teen talk of the decade.

[Mark Beesley]

zerinus, on 01 May 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

Although they might have killed them in their times of wickedness, culturally they still held them in high esteem. For example, the Nephites in their time of greatest wickedness, choose a prophet, Mormon, to be their leader.

What does that mean, that the Jews "culturally" held prophets they killed in high esteem?  Do the Jews "culturally" hold Jesus Christ in high esteem?

Do you think the Nephites chose Mormon to be their military commander because he was a prophet, or because he was a great military commander?  If Mormon Mitt Romney is elected President will it be because Americans view him as a Mormon or as a potentially good President?

I think the answer to both questions is the same - the men are chosen in spite of their religious nature, not because their religiosity is held in high esteem.

[zerinus]

Mark Beesley, on 02 May 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

What does that mean, that the Jews "culturally" held prophets they killed in high esteem?  Do the Jews "culturally" hold Jesus Christ in high esteem?

Do you think the Nephites chose Mormon to be their military commander because he was a prophet, or because he was a great military commander?  If Mormon Mitt Romney is elected President will it be because Americans view him as a Mormon or as a potentially good President?

I think the answer to both questions is the same - the men are chosen in spite of their religious nature, not because their religiosity is held in high esteem.

Do you think that all the Jews always killed all of their prophets?

[ksfisher]

The point that I was trying to make I my first post in this thread is that we only have the history of how the Nephites and Mulekites came together from the point of view of the winners.  The Nephites ruling class seems to have won the battle for the leadership of the city of Zarahemla.  Would't it be fascinating to have another history, but from the point of view of the Mulekite rulers.  We would have a completely new perspective.

On a completely different subject, it occurs to me that one very good reason for Mormon being chosen to be the Nephites leader was that the previous leader was killed and Mormon was next in line.  Being large may refer more to his social standing than his physical size.