Lgt And The Lamanites Of Ammon'S Mission

[Aliwe]

I'm not sure why you assumed this to be sequential. King Zarahemla wasn't Mulek. He was a descendant. Working out the relative chronology puts the end of the Jaredites around 200 B.C. The descendants of Lehi (and Mulek) had been around for about 400 years by then.

Well, reading the Book of Ether is confusing when it comes to dates. Ether himself talks about Christ rising from the dead in the past tense (12:7), and also Alma and Amulek getting out of prison in 82 BC (again past tense), and the three apostles who obtained a promise they would not taste death, which was circa 34 AD, and the liner notes of the book of Ether in the BoM do not give any estimated dates. But I'm here to learn.

[volgadon]

Well, reading the Book of Ether is confusing when it comes to dates.

To be fair, so is the Bible.

[Aliwe]

To be fair, so is the Bible.

Actually, not difficult at all. One may start with a date known from archeology and secular history of 587 B.C. for the destruction of Jerusalem, and work backward. From the sack of Jerusalem add the reigns of sixteen kings of Judah back to King Jehoram and one comes up with 894 B.C. Then, knowing that Jehoram became King of Judah in the fifth year of the reign of King Joram of Israel, one may jump horses mid-stream and start tracking back through nine kings of Israel to Joroboam in 980 BC, when the two kingdoms were split north and south. Then one may ad 40 years for the reign of King Solomon, and subtract four years because the Temple was built in the fourth year of his reign. This gives one 1017 B.C. After that the numbers really start to pile up. Using the bible's own figures, it is 480 years from the beginning of the construction of the temple back to the Exodus and 430 years from the Exodus back to the migration of the house of Jacob to Egypt, when he was 130 years old. Going back to Jacob's birth gives a date of 2057 B.C. Finally it is straight path following the genealogies from Jacob back to Adam, created in 4163 B.C. As a side benefit, the exact year of the worldwide flood was 2507 B.C.

[Kevin Christensen]

Well, reading the Book of Ether is confusing when it comes to dates. Ether himself talks about Christ rising from the dead in the past tense (12:7), and also Alma and Amulek getting out of prison in 82 BC (again past tense), and the three apostles who obtained a promise they would not taste death, which was circa 34 AD, and the liner notes of the book of Ether in the BoM do not give any estimated dates. But I'm here to learn.

In Ether 12:7, the speaker is not Ether, but Moroni a much later editor, who was writing after the resurrection and as a personal witness of the reality of that event. (See Ether 12:39). The story of the three apostles in 3 Nephi 28 is clearly a post resurrection event.

For Nephite calendars, http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=7&num=1&id=170

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Aliwe]

In Ether 12:7, the speaker is not Ether, but Moroni a much later editor, who was writing after the resurrection and as a personal witness of the reality of that event.

Ah, I see my error, a curious transition between 12:5 and 12:6. Thanks. My own scriptures describe a great person thus:

When she makes a mistake, she realizes it.

Having realized it, she admits it.

Having admitted it, she corrects it.

She considers those who point out her faults

as her most benevolent teachers.

[ksfisher]

Well, reading the Book of Ether is confusing when it comes to dates. Ether himself talks about Christ rising from the dead in the past tense (12:7), and also Alma and Amulek getting out of prison in 82 BC (again past tense), and the three apostles who obtained a promise they would not taste death, which was circa 34 AD, and the liner notes of the book of Ether in the BoM do not give any estimated dates. But I'm here to learn.

The Book of Ether contains material that Moroni interjected into the narrative of Ether. So, to use your first example of Christ rising from the dead in the past tense, Moroni begins by relating Ether's teachings about faith. But, he then begins to use examples of faith from Nephites history to further illustrate this sermon.

The switch over in chapter 12 between Jaredite history and Moroni's sermon happens in verse 6:

"And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat..."

Moroni breaks up the narrative many times in Ether to elaborate on some doctrine that is being taught in the plates that he is abridging. This makes the story of the Jaredites somewhat more difficult to read, but gives us fascinatings insights into the doctrines that Moroni felt were important.

[Calm]

Because I find the correlation between existing or historical place names and certain place names called out in the BoM to be far too coincidental. So to me the land was NOT empty when Lehi colonized it. Then again, I'm interested in following out the logical consequences of the text without regard to my personal views on the matter.

You need to check the sources of the names to see it they are really too coincidental or not. For example, eliminate all names that were from after the time the BoM was written, eliminate names whose source was likely the shared source bible. And then start over comparing with that list.

[robuchan]

The elements are certainly correct. There are Amalekites/Amlicites (two names for the same group, just spelled differently, see Skousen) and the Amulonites. They are now considered Lamanites because of their defection from the Nephites. There are other Lamanites who are other than the Amalekites/Amlicites or Amulonites. Why would the non-Nephite deserters be "actual Lamanites"? Well, it might be because of descent. That is certainly an option. Of course, since the intent of this section it to distinguish between the kind of Lamanite who was and was not converted, it could also refer to a Lamanite who had never been a Nephite.

How would we know which one. We could elect to say that "actual descendant" means traceable lineage. That is a possible reading, and certainly a literal one, and a "plain" one. The problem is, who declared them to of that lineage? Where do we have the record or the person (or persons) who recited lineage so that the Nephite annalist would know that they were "actual Lamanites?" If we assume that the Book of Mormon references real people, then there was no point at which the people called Lamanites would have demonstrated their lineage. Therefore, the most likely source of this label is from the Nephite recorder, and that person's assumption of what a person's heritage was. Considering that we are, at this time about 500 years later, it would be surprising if anyone took the time to provide the necessary genealogy to the Nephite recorder.

So, our literal reading is correct only if we posit that there was divine inspiration that made it correct on the plates and then assured that it was translated without change to the Book of Mormon. That is a faith position, but not one for which I can accumulate any actual evidence.

Given the impossibility of any recorder actually knowing the Lamanite lineages of all people who converted, it is therefore more likely that you are dealing with the literary necessity of distinguishing "old Lamanites" from "new Lamanites."

Brant, I saw this old thread.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/45690-nephis-children/

You said, regarding the phrase "descendant of Nephi,"

Since we have no other indicator, I think that gives us the best answer. I suppose I could argue that the descent from Nephi was figurative, (I am Nephite, not Zoramite) but then that forces a reading on the text that is not necessarily there.

Did you change your way of thinking on this since 2009 on this?

[ERayR]

If I were to jump ship and become a Mormon, I would probably come down on the side of those who believe the Book of Mormon only includes lands in upstate New York, and Ontario, with the two "seas" a couple of Great Lakes, and the "narrow neck of land" that place where you find Niagara Falls and such. Because I find the correlation between existing or historical place names and certain place names called out in the BoM to be far too coincidental. So to me the land was NOT empty when Lehi colonized it. Then again, I'm interested in following out the logical consequences of the text without regard to my personal views on the matter.

Where are the references to winter weather. It can get quite bitter up there in winter. Just one problem with that model there are more.

[ERayR]

Problem: Ether 15:12 says, "And it came to pass that they did gather together all the people upon all the face of the land, who had not been slain, save it was Ether."

Then later, "And it came to pass that when they had all fallen by the sword, save it were Coriantumr and Shiz, behold Shiz had fainted with the loss of blood."

Then Coriantumr prevailed after some one-on-one action with Shiz, and lived with the Zarahemlans for a space. But that was it for a remnant of Jaredites. One guy. If you marry into the Zarahemlite clan, your kiddies are Zarahemlites, not Jaredites.

Question - where was Ether. He had to be alive to finish his record. Also knowing people as I do I am sure those that didn't take part in these wars of extinction added up to a great many. So you see total annihilation does not work for me.

[Calm]

Question - where was Ether. He had to be alive to finish his record. Also knowing people as I do I am sure those that didn't take part in these wars of extinction added up to a great many. So you see total annihilation does not work for me.

There are always defectors in any war and not just to the other side as mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but those who try to completely remove themselves from the conflict.

[ERayR]

There are always defectors in any war and not just to the other side as mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but those who try to completely remove themselves from the conflict.

Yes that is my point and they are never just a few. The represent a large portion of any population on both sides of a war. Once leaders are deposed and armies decimated the come in and reclaim the land. They are the fathers and mothers sheltering their families, grand parents to old to fight and people who just don't see themselves as having a dog in the fight.

[Calm]

Yes that is my point and they are never just a few. The represent a large portion of any population on both sides of a war. Once leaders are deposed and armies decimated the come in and reclaim the land. They are the fathers and mothers sheltering their families, grand parents to old to fight and people who just don't see themselves as having a dog in the fight.

I had forgotten the correct term in my above post and that is "refugees". One only needs to look at every war that has ever taken place...well, at least those I know about, to see that refugees are always present as you have pointed out.