342 replies to this topic

[robuchan]

[13] And the people of Ammon did give unto the Nephites a large portion of their substance to support their armies; and thus the Nephites were compelled, alone, to withstand against the Lamanites, who were a compound of Laman and Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, and all those who had dissented from the Nephites, who were Amalekites and Zoramites, and the descendants of the priests of Noah.
[14] Now those descendants were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites; and thus the Nephites were obliged to contend with their brethren, even unto bloodshed.

The Lamanite population is defined thoroughly.  

Lamanites who were a:

• compound of Laman and Lemuel
  
• sons of Ishmael
  
• all those who dissented from Nephites

all those who dissented from Nephites broken down:

• Amalekites
  
• Zoramites
  
• descendants of the priests of Noah

That's a pretty thorough description. No Others mentioned.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Again, conclusions  according to robuchan that are not supported by evidence.

We do not know who the Lamanites, Zoramites, Amalekites, or descendents of the priests of Noah may have encountered after their dissensions since we only have the records of the Nephites, which can only give a limited and biased view of the others.

[volgadon]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 08 July 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

Again, conclusions  according to robuchan that are not supported by evidence.

We do not know who the Lamanites, Zoramites, Amalekites, or descendents of the priests of Noah may have encountered after their dissensions since we only have the records of the Nephites, which can only give a limited and biased view of the others.

I never thought I would, but I gave you a rep point.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

volgadon, on 08 July 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

I never thought I would, but I gave you a rep point.

Booyah!!

[ERayR]

robuchan, on 08 July 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

[13] And the people of Ammon did give unto the Nephites a large portion of their substance to support their armies; and thus the Nephites were compelled, alone, to withstand against the Lamanites, who were a compound of Laman and Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, and all those who had dissented from the Nephites, who were Amalekites and Zoramites, and the descendants of the priests of Noah.
[14] Now those descendants were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites; and thus the Nephites were obliged to contend with their brethren, even unto bloodshed.

The Lamanite population is defined thoroughly.  

Lamanites who were a:

• compound of Laman and Lemuel
  
• sons of Ishmael
  
• all those who dissented from Nephites

all those who dissented from Nephites broken down:

• Amalekites
  
• Zoramites
  
• descendants of the priests of Noah

That's a pretty thorough description. No Others mentioned.

You are not that obtuse so I must conclude you are deliberately misunderstanding that phrase.  Read it again.  Think alone as in without the help of the Ammonites.

[robuchan]

BookofMormonLuvr, on 08 July 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

Again, conclusions  according to robuchan that are not supported by evidence.

We do not know who the Lamanites, Zoramites, Amalekites, or descendents of the priests of Noah may have encountered after their dissensions since we only have the records of the Nephites, which can only give a limited and biased view of the others.

It specifically states all the groups: original breaks of Laman, Lemuel, and sons of Ishmael and then the groups that "mixed" in with them: Zoramites, Amalekites, and descendantas of priests of Noah.  A fairly detailed description of all the groups of people who mixed with the Lamanites, yet no Others, Jaredites, Martians, or Eskimo Indians.

[robuchan]

ERayR, on 08 July 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

You are not that obtuse so I must conclude you are deliberately misunderstanding that phrase.  Read it again.  Think alone as in without the help of the Ammonites.

Which phrase?

[ERayR]

robuchan, on 08 July 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

Which phrase?

and thus the Nephites were compelled, alone, to withstand against the Lamanites,

Lamanites who were a:

• compound of Laman and Lemuel
  
• sons of Ishmael
  
• all those who dissented from Nephites

all those who dissented from Nephites broken down:

• Amalekites
  
• Zoramites
  
• descendants of the priests of Noah

These are family and political designations.  It nowhere tells us who made up these families.  Just because someone was included with the family doesn't mean they were of pure desent.  I have a daughter who married a person of Mexican desent and he is part of our family.  I have an acquaintance who married a Chinese lady.  She is part of their family.  You are grasping at straws.  Your not thinking logically.

[BCSpace]

It's not unreasonable to see Lehi's family or children or even grandchildren being aborbed into a larger population as leaders due to technological and/or literary and/or spiritual superiority.  The family split would have then split that population and Hebrew and other Middle Eastern influences would still have been transmitted or erased as the case may be.

Also, using the same level of evidence as the OP, whence cometh Sherem?  Surely he would have been easily identified (or identified himself) as a son, grandson, or great grandson of Laman/Lemuel despite the spilt.  He's likely a member of "the others".

Edited by BCSpace, 08 July 2012 - 07:52 PM.

[Brant Gardner]

Just as the Lamanites only descended from Laman, Lemuel, or Ishmael, there was never anyone in the world who was not a descendant of Ham, Shem, or Japeth.

Quote

32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
(Old Testament | Genesis 5:32)


Adam Clarke’s Bible commentary, written between 1798 and 1825, underscores this belief: “Eusebius and others state (from what authority we know not) that Noah was commanded of God to make a will and bequeath the whole of the earth to his three sons and their descendants in the following manner:--To Shem, all the East; to Ham, all Africa; to Japheth, the Continent of Europe with its isles, and the northern parts of Asia.”



Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments: The Text Carefully Printed from the Most Correct Copies of the Present Authorized Translation, Including the Marginal Readings and Parallel Texts with A Commentary and Critical Notes Designed as a Help to a Better Understanding of the Sacred Writings, 6 vols. (Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, N.D.), 1:84. Italics in original silently removed.

And yes, I suspect that it happened in just the same way (and no, I don't believe that there were no other peoples save the descendants of Ham, Shem, or Japeth).

[robuchan]

ERayR, on 08 July 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

and thus the Nephites were compelled, alone, to withstand against the Lamanites,

Lamanites who were a:

• compound of Laman and Lemuel
  
• sons of Ishmael
  
• all those who dissented from Nephites

all those who dissented from Nephites broken down:

• Amalekites
  
• Zoramites
  
• descendants of the priests of Noah

These are family and political designations.  It nowhere tells us who made up these families.  Just because someone was included with the family doesn't mean they were of pure desent.  I have a daughter who married a person of Mexican desent and he is part of our family.  I have an acquaintance who married a Chinese lady.  She is part of their family.  You are grasping at straws.  Your not thinking logically.

The author clearly defines the original group and the new additions.  Original: Laman, Lemuel, sons of Ishmael.  New additions: Zoramites, Amalekites, descendants of priests of Noah.  There are several points in the narrative that if there were Others, they would be defined.  This is one.  This is not a case of them throwing out a label like Lamanites and letting you assume what gets folded into the group.  All the sub-groups are clearly defined.

[ERayR]

robuchan, on 08 July 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

The author clearly defines the original group and the new additions.  Original: Laman, Lemuel, sons of Ishmael.  New additions: Zoramites, Amalekites, descendants of priests of Noah.  There are several points in the narrative that if there were Others, they would be defined.  This is one.  This is not a case of them throwing out a label like Lamanites and letting you assume what gets folded into the group.  All the sub-groups are clearly defined.

Sigh  

[robuchan]

Brant Gardner, on 08 July 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

Just as the Lamanites only descended from Laman, Lemuel, or Ishmael, there was never anyone in the world who was not a descendant of Ham, Shem, or Japeth.




And yes, I suspect that it happened in just the same way (and no, I don't believe that there were no other peoples save the descendants of Ham, Shem, or Japeth).

How does the Noah ark story relate to Alma chapter 43?  Do you think they are both meant to be taken figuratively and not literally?  Do you think they are both myths that have little historical accuracy and only religious value?

[ANACO]

BCSpace, on 08 July 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

It's not unreasonable to see Lehi's family or children or even grandchildren being aborbed into a larger population as leaders due to technological and/or literary and/or spiritual superiority.  The family split would have then split that population and Hebrew and other Middle Eastern influences would still have been transmitted or erased as the case may be.

Also, using the same level of evidence as the OP, whence cometh Sherem?  Surely he would have been easily identified (or identified himself) as a son, grandson, or great grandson of Laman/Lemuel despite the spilt.  He's likely a member of "the others".

That makes sense.

The Lord would lead them from the wicked city of Jerusalem, then send them to live among another civilization that didn't have the Gospel. This because the Lord wanted to raise a righteous branch of the House of Israel by sending them to a far off place among another civilization that would potentially corrupt them.

But to counter any corruption argument, Lehi's group was absorbed into the larger group and became the larger group's leaders, and the larger group kept the Law of Moses for 600 years because the people of Lehi had technological superiority, such as wooden clubs embedded with obsidian chips vs clubs without, and due to their spiritual superiority; This is why the Maya now Nephite Royalty worshiped multiple gods or dieties, such as the sun god, the jaguar god and the corn dog.

And the Maya royalty, being the leaders from Lehi's group, deformed their childrens' heads into egg-shapes. This is because everyone knows if you're superior spiritually and technologically, by worshiping Jesus Christ, along with worshiping the corn dog, you would become leaders and deform your children's heads into an egg shape.  LOL.

You have seen the latest "Indiana Jones" movie about the crystal skulls? Those were not alien skulls from green men from flying saucers as the movie would have you believe. Those are considered Aztec or Maya skulls of royalty. The same was known to be done among Egyptian royalty. This is why the Maya Royalty could wrap those elaborate coverings on their heads - they had narrow skulls - a smaller hat-size, if you will.

See http://www.world-mys...s.com/MSkl4.jpg

I can tell you haven't studied much about the Maya Civilization as you think it's similar to the Nephite civilization.
You should. It's fascinating.

Kind regards.

[Brant Gardner]

robuchan, on 08 July 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

How does the Noah ark story relate to Alma chapter 43?  Do you think they are both meant to be taken figuratively and not literally?  Do you think they are both myths that have little historical accuracy and only religious value?

How do you think scriptural texts related to world history?

[Brant Gardner]

ANACO, on 08 July 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

You have seen the latest "Indiana Jones" movie about the crystal skulls? . . . Those are considered Aztec or Maya skulls of royalty.

Just a note. The crystal skulls are not Aztec or Maya. They are modern forgeries, some of the more famous likely from Germany (and bearing the marks of modern tools).

[calmoriah]

Quote

The Lord would lead them from the wicked city of Jerusalem, then send them to live among another civilization that didn't have the Gospel. This because the Lord wanted to raise a righteous branch of the House of Israel by sending them to a far off place among another civilization that would potentially corrupt them.

It is what happened with the Israelites.

[robuchan]

BCSpace, on 08 July 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Also, using the same level of evidence as the OP, whence cometh Sherem?  Surely he would have been easily identified (or identified himself) as a son, grandson, or great grandson of Laman/Lemuel despite the spilt.  He's likely a member of "the others".

This point has already been refuted.

http://www.mormondia...9-bom-and-ages/

[livy111us]

ANACO, on 08 July 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

You have seen the latest "Indiana Jones" movie about the crystal skulls? Those were not alien skulls from green men from flying saucers as the movie would have you believe. Those are considered Aztec or Maya skulls of royalty. The same was known to be done among Egyptian royalty.
I can tell you haven't studied much about the Maya Civilization as you think it's similar to the Nephite civilization.
You should. It's fascinating.

Kind regards.

Brant Gardner, on 08 July 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

Just a note. The crystal skulls are not Aztec or Maya. They are modern forgeries, some of the more famous likely from Germany (and bearing the marks of modern tools).

Wow. That is just too funny!

[robuchan]

Brant Gardner, on 08 July 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

How do you think scriptural texts related to world history?

i'm baffled by this.  Noah's ark story is something clearly taken as figurative by any believer with the smallest trust in science.  Are you suggesting the BOM is myth not  to be taken literal?