Alma 43:13,14 No Others

[volgadon]

You're welcome to post in that thread if you didn't think Freedom did an adequate job explaining the issue.

I said YOU caricatured his comment.

Yes, it's based on population numbers. The logic is that the population after that many years would be too small to not know each other. That's the entirety of the argument.

I said EXACT population numbers.

[robuchan]

I said YOU caricatured his comment.

I said EXACT population numbers.

What do you mean by exact?

If a typical mother has at least 8 children grow to adulthood, men live to 130 years old, and generation spans average 77 years, how do you extrapolate a population size with any degree of exactness? How do you even identify the correct year Sherem appeared? How do you even get it within 200 years? None of this stuff means anything. Every single historical reference in the BOM you guys have an answer to take away any meaning (actual descendant, brother, horse, 2 million death battlefied, etc, etc). How can you possibly attempt to be remotely precise about the population at Sherem's time?

[volgadon]

What do you mean by exact?

I thought you a fan of plain words.

If a typical mother has at least 8 children grow to adulthood, men live to 130 years old, and generation spans average 77 years, how do you extrapolate a population size with any degree of exactness? How do you even identify the correct year Sherem appeared? How do you even get it within 200 years? None of this stuff means anything. Every single historical reference in the BOM you guys have an answer to take away any meaning (actual descendant, brother, horse, 2 million death battlefied, etc, etc). How can you possibly attempt to be remotely precise about the population at Sherem's time?

For the lengthy life spans, I already recommended you read Isaiah 65. Have you? If all you are willing to do is fling dirt, am I wasting so much good bandwidth?

[ANACO]

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).

Nice attempt. Now I know your truthful.

This is not a modern forgery. It's an actual skull of Maya Royalty, according to archeologists:

http://www.world-mysteries.com/MSkl4.jpg

It's found in the Merida Museum in Mexico.

"The deformed skull of a Maya, deformed at birth for religious beliefs."

http://www.ratware.plus.com/Travel/mexico_merida.htm

It appeared you excluded that link in my message from your reply.

Kind regards.

[Freedom]

One day i hope robuchan will learn something about ancient documents. sigh.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

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

So their numbers were about equal. In the ensuing war, the Lamanite army is almost annihilated. Yet in just a few

years more Nephite dissenters raise up another Lamanite army in even greater numbers. This could happen only

if they were recruiting from other peoples who hated the Nephites.

Moreover, the description of the tactics used in these wars indicates they took place in a fairly small area.

Bernard

[Brant Gardner]

Nice attempt. Now I know your truthful.

This is not a modern forgery. It's an actual skull of Maya Royalty, according to archeologists:

I can tell the difference between a human skull and a crystal skull. The crystal skulls are forgeries.

[Brant Gardner]

i'm baffled by this.

I thought it was a rather simple question, and one that you did not answer. What do you think is the relationship of ancient texts to history?

If you prefer, a similar question is whether you expect that an ancient text will always report events with the precision a modern writer should?

[DBMormon]

Just to see this was worth reading this thread

[robuchan]

I thought you a fan of plain words.

For the lengthy life spans, I already recommended you read Isaiah 65. Have you? If all you are willing to do is fling dirt, am I wasting so much good bandwidth?

Yes, I read the verses. I didn't understand your point. It seems to #1 in my list, but I wasn't sure.

[robuchan]

I thought it was a rather simple question, and one that you did not answer. What do you think is the relationship of ancient texts to history?

If you prefer, a similar question is whether you expect that an ancient text will always report events with the precision a modern writer should?

The account of war between Nephites and Lamanites in the 18th year of the reign of the judges is so dissimilar to the account of Noah and the ark, in terms of how and when they were recorded relative to the actual event, that I hardly think they're worth comparing.

To answer your question, yes and no. Many ancient texts are created by someone writing down a collection of verbally transmitted myths and accounts of events which may or may not resemble actual history, depending on the length of time they've been handed down and the motivation of the people passing along and recording the myths. The Book of Mormon is different from those ancient myths in two ways. 1) the events were recorded live as they occurred and translated by the power of God 2) the motivation of the authors were to write truth. Joseph Smith said the book is the most correct book on the face of the Earth.

So, no I don't expect the Book of Mormon to be unreliable on any matters: historical or doctrinal.

That said, if you do think the Book of Mormon is so unreliable and imprecise on anything non-doctrinal, then I think you would need to be consistent with that, and give up all the LGT nonsense. How can you cry unreliable about anything that goes against your case, and then throw out theories based on mathematical models of population growth?

[Calm]

One day i hope robuchan will learn something about ancient documents. sigh.

Unlikely as his needs (at least the ones he thinks are important) appear to be well filled by the status quo.....

[Calm]

Just to see this was worth reading this thread

Are you a fan of smilies, I go on a binge from time to time finding oddly appropriate ones.

[robuchan]

Unlikely as his needs (at least the ones he thinks are important) appear to be well filled by the status quo.....

Are you skilled in reading ancient documents? I guess everyone here but me is skilled in reading ancient documents? And when you are and you read the BOM, all historical facts going against LGT are rejected due to this advanced knowledge of ancient documents, and all historical facts going for LGT are accepted also due to this knowledge of ancient documents?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The account of war between Nephites and Lamanites in the 18th year of the reign of the judges is so dissimilar to the account of Noah and the ark, in terms of how and when they were recorded relative to the actual event, that I hardly think they're worth comparing.

To answer your question, yes and no. Many ancient texts are created by someone writing down a collection of verbally transmitted myths and accounts of events which may or may not resemble actual history, depending on the length of time they've been handed down and the motivation of the people passing along and recording the myths. The Book of Mormon is different from those ancient myths in two ways. 1) the events were recorded live as they occurred and translated by the power of God 2) the motivation of the authors were to write truth. Joseph Smith said the book is the most correct book on the face of the Earth.

So, no I don't expect the Book of Mormon to be unreliable on any matters: historical or doctrinal.

That said, if you do think the Book of Mormon is so unreliable and imprecise on anything non-doctrinal, then I think you would need to be consistent with that, and give up all the LGT nonsense. How can you cry unreliable about anything that goes against your case, and then throw out theories based on mathematical models of population growth?

You are perhaps one the the most disingenuous people I have seen. I know that you know that the text, in several places, doesn't claim perfection and acknowledges that there are likely errors.

Your arguments are full of half-truths, cherry-picking, and predetermined conclusions based on your biases rather then fact.

Do you happen to work in the law profession?

[Calm]

That said, if you do think the Book of Mormon is so unreliable and imprecise on anything non-doctrinal, then I think you would need to be consistent with that, and give up all the LGT nonsense. How can you cry unreliable about anything that goes against your case, and then throw out theories based on mathematical models of population growth?

A good author sculps a story around the core of truth in order to present that truth in the most illuminating way....though not always the easiest to be seen...for example Christ's parables, stories that could very well be literal but it is the core of what is being taught that illuminates, not the historical or cultural information if it actually happened.....and yet sometimes those historical/cultural tidbits add extra depth to a teaching that can take you to a whole new level of understanding and spiritual enlightenment.

Nephi, Moroni, Mormon and other authors did not just sit down with a calendar, a map, some demographic lists and a check list of doctrines and wrote stories constructed on pure data with a bit of doctrine thrown in when an event seemed to fit it to make a tidy sermon. Instead they crafted their own sagas that Mormon gathered into an epic, all with purpose, with meaning and to do so required much more than a calendar and all its handy datakeeping fellows that told what they were doing when along with a few choice thoughts they had slapped down when they had the time. The book most certainly doesn't read like that.

Instead the dates, the times, the locations, the wars, the events, everything used by a storyteller to construct the scene are used to create the proper setting for the ultimate creative goal....which is to show the world the results of God acting in concert with Man and what happens when their partnership suffers due to the pride of the mortal side, when they choose instead to cultivate ignorance in the divine, it is a story with a grand scale that is tragedy with constant failures and betrayals, even of those near and dear, but also ultimately a victory of love for those willing to trust in the future because they trust in God and lay their very lives with all that means into God's hands to do with as he would.

The reader will learn what is and isn't reliable by reading well enough to determine what the writer is trying to convey to his audience, what the purpose of his text is. If the reader decides it is a military text, numbers, locations, strategies will likely be quite accurate in order to fulfill that purpose. If the book is to be a anthropological text to examine the culture and interact of the humans within it, then it would be likely that the text would concentrate on every day human actions and events, status symbols, festivals, etc.. If it is a text that is to present how man interacts with God and God with man, if it is to testify to the reality of that relationship over time, then it is likely to present covenantal relationships and how those are played out, doctrinal teachings that elaborate on the relationship and how to refine and develop it, expectations for what one can expect...predictions and blessings and stories within the story demonstrating how all this plays out in real life both in ways to emulate and ways to avoid. Look at what is meant to be achieved by such a text and I can think one can find where the most effort would be put to ensure the book had a reliable core while perhaps some of the more peripheral parts might be used somewhat creatively/symbolically by the author to add emotional or other support here and there or to draw attention to a crucial moment or other secondary part so that his overall structure is both balanced and dynamic to draw the eye and heart and soul and above all to make one think of God and that covenant relationship he offers all so that when the testament has been consumed, the reader is now a seeker of God as were those he read of, attempting to emulate their path in his own life.

[robuchan]

A good author sculps a story around the core of truth in order to present that truth in the most illuminating way....though not always the easiest to be seen...for example Christ's parables, stories that could very well be literal but it is the core of what is being taught that illuminates, not the historical or cultural information if it actually happened.....and yet sometimes those historical/cultural tidbits add extra depth to a teaching that can take you to a whole new level of understanding and spiritual enlightenment.

Nephi, Moroni, Mormon and other authors did not just sit down with a calendar, a map, some demographic lists and a check list of doctrines and wrote stories constructed on pure data with a bit of doctrine thrown in when an event seemed to fit it to make a tidy sermon. Instead they crafted their own sagas that Mormon gathered into an epic, all with purpose, with meaning and to do so required much more than a calendar and all its handy datakeeping fellows that told what they were doing when along with a few choice thoughts they had slapped down when they had the time. The book most certainly doesn't read like that.

Instead the dates, the times, the locations, the wars, the events, everything used by a storyteller to construct the scene are used to create the proper setting for the ultimate creative goal....which is to show the world the results of God acting in concert with Man and what happens when their partnership suffers due to the pride of the mortal side, when they choose instead to cultivate ignorance in the divine, it is a story with a grand scale that is tragedy with constant failures and betrayals, even of those near and dear, but also ultimately a victory of love for those willing to trust in the future because they trust in God and lay their very lives with all that means into God's hands to do with as he would.

The reader will learn what is and isn't reliable by reading well enough to determine what the writer is trying to convey to his audience, what the purpose of his text is. If the reader decides it is a military text, numbers, locations, strategies will likely be quite accurate in order to fulfill that purpose. If the book is to be a anthropological text to examine the culture and interact of the humans within it, then it would be likely that the text would concentrate on every day human actions and events, status symbols, festivals, etc.. If it is a text that is to present how man interacts with God and God with man, if it is to testify to the reality of that relationship over time, then it is likely to present covenantal relationships and how those are played out, doctrinal teachings that elaborate on the relationship and how to refine and develop it, expectations for what one can expect...predictions and blessings and stories within the story demonstrating how all this plays out in real life both in ways to emulate and ways to avoid. Look at what is meant to be achieved by such a text and I can think one can find where the most effort would be put to ensure the book had a reliable core while perhaps some of the more peripheral parts might be used somewhat creatively/symbolically by the author to add emotional or other support here and there or to draw attention to a crucial moment or other secondary part so that his overall structure is both balanced and dynamic to draw the eye and heart and soul and above all to make one think of God and that covenant relationship he offers all so that when the testament has been consumed, the reader is now a seeker of God as were those he read of, attempting to emulate their path in his own life.

I'm fine with this. I'd like to create a model and then stay consistent to the model.

If the model is that the book is meant to teach about God and the historical/anthropological detail is imprecise and unreliable, then let's be honest about it. Let's not pick and choose when it's reliable and when it's not. Let's not reject 70% of the historical detail, which is condemning to the book and LGT, but accept 30% of the historical detail which supports the book and LGT.

[Calm]

Are you skilled in reading ancient documents? I guess everyone here but me is skilled in reading ancient documents? And when you are and you read the BOM, all historical facts going against LGT are rejected due to this advanced knowledge of ancient documents, and all historical facts going for LGT are accepted also due to this knowledge of ancient documents?

I am not skilled in reading ancient documents, but I am well enough aware of what to expect from them, what the original authors intended for their purposes and so am also aware of much of what we can and can't expect from them.

You continue to use the terms "rejected" and "accepted" as if that is what is being done, but it isn't. A skilled reader knows that the author values what he s writing and so no part is considered trivial and appropriate to simply dismiss. Instead what is important is to try and see how it fits in the puzzle so as to bring the greatest clarity to the overall story as well as the subplots. What is happening is the individual bits of the text (those you call "facts" are placed within the larger context of the text so the reader can see better what value those numbers, those descriptions, etc. have for the writer and so why he might choose to convey and frame them in a particular way.

The very questions you are asking here demonstrate that the worldview you have is just so out of place for dealing with how people from 500, 1000, or more years in the past choose to tell of their own stories, how they place themselves within the past, present and future of their world.

You can't treat literature like an accountant treats a list of numbers, just pulling out stuff here and there and expecting it to add up.

[Brant Gardner]

The account of war between Nephites and Lamanites in the 18th year of the reign of the judges is so dissimilar to the account of Noah and the ark, in terms of how and when they were recorded relative to the actual event, that I hardly think they're worth comparing.

OK. So now we know that the way you interpret documents is according to what makes sense to you. Good to know.

To answer your question, yes and no. Many ancient texts are created by someone writing down a collection of verbally transmitted myths and accounts of events which may or may not resemble actual history, depending on the length of time they've been handed down and the motivation of the people passing along and recording the myths. The Book of Mormon is different from those ancient myths in two ways. 1) the events were recorded live as they occurred and translated by the power of God 2) the motivation of the authors were to write truth. Joseph Smith said the book is the most correct book on the face of the Earth.

And there is the answer we have been looking for. You are setting up interpretive rules that you don't believe apply to any text, and then complaining that they don't apply to the Book of Mormon. Of course, you imply that I, being a believer, must believe your two hypotheses. I don't. I think your interpretation is fundamentally flawed.

Since we are coming at these questions so differently, there doesn't seem to be much of a reason to converse. You appear to want to tell me what I must believe, and then try to show me why I shouldn't believe it. Wouldn't it be better to try to come to some basic understanding before dealing in details upon we will never agree because our premises so so different?

That said, if you do think the Book of Mormon is so unreliable and imprecise on anything non-doctrinal, then I think you would need to be consistent with that, and give up all the LGT nonsense.

And now more instruction on what I must believe. Really? Is it really the only purpose you have to attempt to define my belief in ways you already assume? By the way, your caricature of what I have said (first phrase of the above sentence) is not acceptable to me either.

How can you cry unreliable about anything that goes against your case, and then throw out theories based on mathematical models of population growth?

Now you are going to misrepresent what I have said? All along, I have been saying that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an authentic ancient document. My view is that it occurred during the years it claims, and after the Old World section, took place in a region from approximately Guatemala to somewhere north of Chiapas, Mexico. I read it as I would the Bible or any other document produced by a culture mingling their history with a religious message (say the Popol Vuh).

I do reject your declaration that I should treat the text (particularly in English) as an inerrant text that never represents the way actual humans record their history.

[Calm]

I'd like to create a model and then stay consistent to the model......

If the model is that the book is meant to teach about God and the historical/anthropological detail is imprecise and unreliable

I think if you read Brant's and Sorenson's and their colleagues' works you would find that consistency is there. They start out with a methodology developed by experts in the field and they use it to examine the text, which leads to some surprises. If, for example, Brant found everything he expected to find as he meticulously went through the BoM and other texts I would suspect his work to a great deal, but he found quite a few things that he did not expect, that even countered some treasured folklore. Same thing with the others. It is obvious when you read how they have gone about their work, whether or not they are setting themselves up to see a limited world or whether their methods will actually draw out new ideas and possibilities.

And even if historical details are considered by modern standards "imprecise" and would be unreliable to fulfill modern military means, the authors weren't idiots just throwing out numbers randomly or to impress their audience. There is a method to their use of numbers and if that can be uncovered and understood and applied than those historical numbers can be seen as precise and reliable for the purpose their author meant them to be so there is no reason to just discard or ignore them.

Before you continue to critique Brant's and others' models you should study them enough to be able to reliably describe them in a precise and consistent way. At the moment it appears you are just stabbing in the dark without a clue of what the target even looks like, let alone where it is.

Edited July 9, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

The Lamanite population is defined thoroughly.

I don't see that.

[robuchan]

OK. So now we know that the way you interpret documents is according to what makes sense to you. Good to know.

And there is the answer we have been looking for. You are setting up interpretive rules that you don't believe apply to any text, and then complaining that they don't apply to the Book of Mormon. Of course, you imply that I, being a believer, must believe your two hypotheses. I don't. I think your interpretation is fundamentally flawed.

Since we are coming at these questions so differently, there doesn't seem to be much of a reason to converse. You appear to want to tell me what I must believe, and then try to show me why I shouldn't believe it. Wouldn't it be better to try to come to some basic understanding before dealing in details upon we will never agree because our premises so so different?

And now more instruction on what I must believe. Really? Is it really the only purpose you have to attempt to define my belief in ways you already assume? By the way, your caricature of what I have said (first phrase of the above sentence) is not acceptable to me either.

Now you are going to misrepresent what I have said? All along, I have been saying that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an authentic ancient document. My view is that it occurred during the years it claims, and after the Old World section, took place in a region from approximately Guatemala to somewhere north of Chiapas, Mexico. I read it as I would the Bible or any other document produced by a culture mingling their history with a religious message (say the Popol Vuh).

I do reject your declaration that I should treat the text (particularly in English) as an inerrant text that never represents the way actual humans record their history.

Brant, I'm sorry if you think I'm misrepresenting your words. I'm not trying to manipulate your words. I only do this for brevity sake. It would be helpful if you could answer my questions directly instead of forcing me to guess at what you're saying.

1. I offer two assumptions 1) the events were recorded live as they occurred and translated by the power of God 2) the motivation of the authors were to write truth

You say you don't agree with the assumptions. Can you explain why you don't agree?

2. You seem to reject all the historical detail as being imprecise. Do you use the following two logic points to further your LGT theory? 1) Jacob/Sherem population issue 2) Lamanites being larger group than Nephites. If so, could you please explain why you reject the literalness of nearly every other BOM historical detail (is this right? I don't want to put words in your mouth.) , yet you use BOM historical detail in these two cases to support the Others/LGT theory.

[robuchan]

You can't treat literature like an accountant treats a list of numbers, just pulling out stuff here and there and expecting it to add up.

Yet, one of the most common arguments for Others is to pull out a mathematical model to evaluate population size at the time of the Jacob/Sherem account.

[Freedom]

The Book of Mormon is different from those ancient myths in two ways. 1) the events were recorded live as they occurred and translated by the power of God 2) the motivation of the authors were to write truth. Joseph Smith said the book is the most correct book on the face of the Earth.

And you evidence of this claim is what? And what do you consider truth? Is the Pakistani lying about who his cousins are? Honesty is relative. I do not believe the new testament authors were trying to be dishonest, but i doubt very much Jesus fasted for days and nights. How do you feel I can reconcile the two?

[Freedom]

Are you skilled in reading ancient documents? I guess everyone here but me is skilled in reading ancient documents? And when you are and you read the BOM, all historical facts going against LGT are rejected due to this advanced knowledge of ancient documents, and all historical facts going for LGT are accepted also due to this knowledge of ancient documents?

Let me give you a few hints:

1) you interpret details as other documents of similar age presents them

2) you rely on what is known of the source culture and region to guide you

3) You acknowledge that information in the text that seems out of line for how a modern writer would record it as a product of the culture and region

You are not willing to do any of this. You take one example of someone living 100 years and conclude that none of the numbers are believable. You refuse to do even the most basic research on how other ancient documents record genealogy and numbers. You feel compelled to apply a 21st century standard of record keeping on a book written by a people that we know very little about.