"Others" In The Book Of Mormon - Mosiah And The Mulekites

[zerinus]

Completely insufficient. See above. And CFR.

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

[Log]

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 May 2, 2012 by Log

[Log]

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

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 May 2, 2012 by Log

[zerinus]

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]

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 May 2, 2012 by Log

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[Mark Beesley]

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

I'm not sure they killed any prophets prior to John the Baptist.

I guess you've elected to ignore the questions I posed. Ok.

Edited to add:

After further research and some good posts from other in another thread, the Jews undoubtedly killed some prophets prior to John.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[ksfisher]

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.

The idea of Mormon being a great military commander is an interesting one. Where does it come from? He seems to have lost more than he won. He was constantly fighting with inferior forces, never able to obtain a local superiority of forces. He got himself boxed in at Cummorah and left no place for his army to retreat to. This doesn't sound like the work of a great general.

Contrast this with what we know of the career of Captain Moroni. While the two situations may have been vastly different militarily, it is still an interesting comparison.

[Mark Beesley]

The idea of Mormon being a great military commander is an interesting one. Where does it come from? He seems to have lost more than he won. He was constantly fighting with inferior forces, never able to obtain a local superiority of forces. He got himself boxed in at Cummorah and left no place for his army to retreat to. This doesn't sound like the work of a great general.

Contrast this with what we know of the career of Captain Moroni. While the two situations may have been vastly different militarily, it is still an interesting comparison.

I guess greatness is relative.

[zerinus]

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.

I don't know whether you are LDS or not; but from my point of view as LDS, I see the Book of Mormon as inspired history, not biased history. It is sacred history, and scripture. It is not like saying, "We have heard the story of the war from the Greek side, let us now see how it looks like from the Persian side". I trust the book to tell me the unbiased history truthfully as it occurred, not slanted unfairly from the point of view of the narrator. The Nephites were the smaller community of the two. Numerically they were inferior, and therefore not in a position to impose their will on the other side. There is nothing in the book to suggest that there had been a contest or conflict over the leadership. Both sides knew where they were coming from, and apparently the decision was reached amicably in the interest of all concerned, and by a mutual agreement.

[ksfisher]

I don't know whether you are LDS or not; but from my point of view as LDS, I see the Book of Mormon as inspired history, not biased history. It is sacred history, and scripture. It is not like saying, "We have heard the story of the war from the Greek side, let us now see how it looks like from the Persian side". I trust the book to tell me the unbiased history truthfully as it occurred, not slanted unfairly from the point of view of the narrator. The Nephites were the smaller community of the two. Numerically they were inferior, and therefore not in a position to impose their will on the other side. There is nothing in the book to suggest that there had been a contest or conflict over the leadership. Both sides knew where they were coming from, and apparently the decision was reached amicably in the interest of all concerned, and by a mutual agreement.

Scripture can contain the gospel as well as the biases of the authors. Prophets are human. They are the products of their cultural environment. Statements by Brigham Young concerning blacks should teach us that. The beauty of the scriptures, prophets, and even ourselves is how God is able to use imperfect means to bring about great works. The Book of Mormon obtains the bias of it's Nephites authors. This by no means diminishes the gospel contained within it.

[zerinus]

Scripture can contain the gospel as well as the biases of the authors. Prophets are human. They are the products of their cultural environment. Statements by Brigham Young concerning blacks should teach us that. The beauty of the scriptures, prophets, and even ourselves is how God is able to use imperfect means to bring about great works. The Book of Mormon obtains the bias of it's Nephites authors. This by no means diminishes the gospel contained within it.

I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you on that. I don't believe that scripture gives us a biased, prejudiced, unfaithful account of history.

[ksfisher]

I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you on that. I don't believe that scripture gives us a biased, prejudiced, unfaithful account of history.

I respect that position. But I believe that scripture can both reflect the men who wrote them as well as the God they believe in. I don't believe that the Book of Mormon contains anything deliberately unfaithful to history. It does contain history as it's Nephites authors understood it. Was their understanding perfect and completely without bias? Just as much as any history can be.

[Log]

I guess greatness is relative.

Literally. Mormon's genealogy was probably known.