Calm

Why would ancient Lamanites care about DNA when they had no awareness of it? Lineage was about who you belonged to, what family you were part of, not what percentage of their DNA you carried. If they did come from Israel, it makes sense to look at how lineage was determined to see what would be meaningful. In rabbical times Jewish ethnicity was determined primarily through the matrilineal line (a convert would also be considered fully Jewish I believe). If a Jewish woman married a nonjewish man, all her children would be considered Jewish. If her daughters married nonjewish men, all their children were considered to be Jewish. And so on. No matter how diluted the genetics for, since it reset every generation with the children being considered fully Jewish no matter the ethnicity of the father, no doubt there are many who are Jewish who have no definable Jewish DNA. They have in fact found the DNA of Jewish populations tend to reflect the local genetic profiles. Are you saying these Jewish descendants are not actually meaningfully Jewish after all, even though the ethnic community defines them as Jewish? https://www.jewishboston.com/read/ive-heard-that-judaism-is-passed-down-through-the-mother-is-it-true-does-it-matter/ “According to traditional Jewish law, a person’s Jewish status is passed down through the mother. It is perhaps worth noting that in the biblical period, evidence points toward the custom of patrilineal descent, where children received their Israelite and tribal affiliation through their fathers. Patrilineal descent continues to be the practice of the community of Karaite Jews, whose Jewish legal framework differs significantly from rabbinic law and practice.” If Nephites and Lamanites followed the patrilineal descent tradition, then it wouldn’t matter what ethnicity the mother was, only the father. However, even with that one is viewed as meaningfully Jewish as far as I am aware with all that means as far as heritage if one goes through the conversion process, so no DNA needed to tie into the covenant that God has with Israel according to Jewish tradition and law. Doesn’t matter what genetics you have if you are accepted as a member of the community. There are Jewish communities who accept either parent for descent lineage claims, so might have even happened in the past.

And weights that are assigned certain sizes like Chinese taels have the same advantages without being coins if I understand your point.

This question itself is going to push it to assume it is possible to evaluate in this way.

I haven’t read all of his recent posts, so that might explain my confusion.

I am missing where marineland is teaching a lesson. To whom on what?

Why not a more recent event (2nd mill) shifted to an earlier time period (3rd mil) either purposefully or not? btw, what biblical timeline are you using for this, traditional modern (Usher?) or one based on modern scholarship trying to match to confirmed events or something else?

And you were right.

Iow, the same question we have to ask ourselves in the here and now when expected blessings don’t appear as expected….

“Restored” meaning what in your own personal perspective? I admit to being confused at times because I get mixed up on your premises, underlying assumptions. I know they have changed over time and I may be not updating enough. “Mormons” aren’t monolithic enough for me to trust guessing…look at me, lol. If you have a summary of your approach on your Urtext site, that probably works. When my brain clears up, I may get this book as it’s a tenth of what the other book I wanted on the subject: https://www.ivpress.com/the-lost-world-of-the-flood The contents look dreamy. Part I: Method: Perspectives on Interpretation Proposition 1: Genesis Is an Ancient Document Proposition 2: Genesis 1–11 Makes Claims About Real Events Proposition 3: Genesis Uses Rhetorical Devices Proposition 4: The Bible Uses Hyperbole to Describe Historical Events Proposition 5: Genesis Appropriately Presents a Hyperbolic Account of the Flood Proposition 6: Genesis Depicts the Flood as a Global Event Part II: Background: Ancient Near Eastern Texts Proposition 7: Ancient Mesopotamia Also Has Stories of a Worldwide Flood Proposition 8: The Biblical Flood Story Shares Similarities and Differences with Ancient Near Eastern Flood Accounts Part III: Text: Understanding the Biblical Text Literarily and Theologically Proposition 9: A Local Cataclysmic Flood Is Intentionally Described as a Global Flood for Rhetorical Purposes Proposition 10: The Flood Account Is Part of a Sequence of Sin and Judgment Serving as Backstory for the Covenant Proposition 11: The Theological History Is Focused on the Issue of Divine Presence, the Establishment of Order, and How Order Is Undermined Proposition 12: The “Sons of God” Episode Is Not Only a Prelude to the Flood; It Is the Narrative Sequel to Cain and Abel Proposition 13: The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) Is an Appropriate Conclusion to the Primeval Narrative

So if we assume there was actually a Moroni writing in 400ish AD/CE (which do you prefer?) something like what we have now, what does the above imply for you on how Moroni views both the continent and the local area of settlement of the Jaredites at the time they first land? Other groups somewhere, maybe within a few days travel, maybe closer, maybe further? No one at all? How did he possibly understand what he wrote?

That looks like fun. Unfortunately tonight is not the night to attempt it, hopefully I won’t forget (I don’t trust my brain at all right now as it has apparently decided I need to feed it sodium in a precise, yet unpredictable dilution…who knew mixing electrolytes and water and trying to stay hydrated could be so tricky). Hey, I just dipped into it and it’s well written so far, easy for me to digest. And it’s catching my attention like any good puzzle. But I am someone who likes things built orderly, I do the edges first and then usually work in by color blocks. I prefer reading prequels first even if written later….though I also read the end of fiction books first so I can see better how the author develops the plot and pick up on foreshadowing, etc…..so where’s the best place for me to start in your opinion? In my younger days it would have been fun to piece it together if you jump around, can’t handle that very well now as it interrupts focus.

My premise I am starting with for this discussion (and it’s the one I hold personally) is the first text source is ancient in origin, so I am trying to look at the current English text when referring to likely biblical narratives as having an external contextual framework of 600 BC Israel, though the Brass Plates might be in part from much earlier than that if Lehi’s description is a valid hint about what it is (which may have issues with timing of the development of records according to scholarship, I have never been good at keeping timelines in my head even if I managed the order). I just think we should be cautious if treating the Book of Mormon on its own terms not to make assumptions on exactly what was in the brass plates exactly (as in details of the stories). I can understand why your response is what it is given what I believe are at least some of your premises from how you have described. Have enjoyed the discussion. That looks like fun. Unfortunately tonight is not the night to attempt it, hopefully I won’t forget (I don’t trust my brain at all right now as it has apparently decided I need to feed it sodium in a precise, yet unpredictable dilution…who knew mixing electrolytes and water and trying to stay hydrated could be so tricky).

I don’t get this. Why would Jews from 600 BC get thrown in the dungeon for believing in a local or theological or cosmic flood rather than a geographical one that killed every human in existence off except for 8 people when the latter wasn’t their religious or cultural belief?

I think we agree on this, but if so the hemisphere doesn’t have to be empty of people if I understood what you said here: I don’t believe the Mosaic accounts we currently have force a reading that only 8 people existed on the entire planet after the Flood given how I have seen scholars describe the likely development and understanding of the Genesis Flood myth (which label I do not assume means fictional, it serves a different purpose than history texts though).

I cringe when I use it that way, to summarize things (I use it to find sources, but usually check them unless in a real hurry and find the quotes I like myself). Some days that’s all I am up to and if I know the knowledge already, so I can tell how accurate it is at least in a basic way….yeah, I cheat.

That we have…and only our relatively modern interpretation of it since as Chat points out and I have read in books that I returned to the library for decades so I can’t cite as it wasn’t originally understood in a geographical sense of total coverage, possibly in a cosmic sense (Hamlet’s Mill covers this, I believe) We also have no reason to assume the brass plates are identical to what we currently have, do we? Why would Moroni have a more modern understanding than the Jews his people had the records of? PS: kind of want to get this book as it has been a few decades since I looked into this stuff, but my brain just doesn’t focus well enough to get through most books these days. 300 pages might be doable if well written and not heavily academic so I have to track too many ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_They_Severed_Earth_from_Sky

The Nephites skip out on their original covenanted land pretty quickly to avoid conflict with the Lamanites. Nothing in the text says the land of promise was sea to sea that I can remember and given they came from a land of promise for their ancestors that was about the size of New Jersey if Alexa is right, why would they assume it was a continent or hemisphere?

The idea of movement upwards teaching us to come closer to God is present, imo, in the moving upstairs as one moves through the parts of the endowment in some temples. Also the frequent references to the Mountain of the Lord, being taken up into high places….

Can we include how the Bible talks about the promised land and covenants in comparison to what we know of that time period? (That’s what I would be asking)

That’s not what the “literal meaning” was when Joseph dictated it. It was ‘And it came to pass that the Lord commanded them that they should go forth into the wilderness, yea, into that particular region where there never had man been.’ Ah…sorry…I didn’t process you were talking post flood. I just don’t think of the flood as global anymore, so it blew past me. I need to check something. added: I am relatively certain this is the only reference to Noah’s flood in Ether and while it suggests turbulent waters at least somewhat deep, it says nothing of the extent (covering the entire planet). How can we be sure they understood Noah’s experience the same way it is usually described today (the entire planet covered)? In checking out exactly what is said, I notice Moroni limits the Jaredites to “inhabitants….upon the face of this north country”. Moroni believes the Jews have this creation info, but seems he is assuming here, rather than knowing. I wonder if he checked the brass plates, can’t remember what’s on them except the genealogy of Lehi. I don’t think we should assume either the Jaredite plates and/or Moroni understood the flood to be global even if they believed it was massive. Even if the story/experience was shared by the ancestors of the Jews and the ancestors of the Jaredites, we don’t know how they each taught it (many cultures have flood stories, lots of overlap in some, but not all in the ones I have seen, I was really into reading different countries’ mythology back in my youth and my middle school has the best collection of at least a dozen books that covered the globe). I don’t have the books and these weren’t the ones I read about it anyway, so using Chat to offer summaries. I am sorry I don’t have better. (I really don’t like using Chat summaries for new, not commonly known or in public documents easily checked information.) Will try and see if I can find quotes from these sources online if you would prefer. So I don’t think you should make assumptions of what the literal reading is based on information you have gotten from outside the text. PS: I have tried to be careful to avoid assumptions about how scriptures were meant by the earliest participants, authors/scribes and readers/listeners since I learned the early commentaries of the Jews did not have the earth splitting up into continents, that such an interpretation didn’t pop up till much, much later. I learned that in my teens on reading an anthology of Jewish mythology way before I got into apologetics. It had nothing to do with trying to defend the scriptures, only trying to understand them (I couldn’t get anyone to engage with me about religious beliefs besides my mom—she wasn’t really into those kinds of things, but more the psychology and spiritual side—until my mid 20s and even then minimal, really didn’t get going until ‘95 when I read FARMS books on my laptop while in Russia, mid30s; before 2001 no one cared what I chose to believe about scriptures as I was too shy to speak in front of other adults and I kept things traditional as a Primary teacher, so I chose what made sense to me given the info I found).

How can it be the entire New World when “quarter” means part, not whole? (And not necessarily 1/4) https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Quarter

Anywhere with anyone who encounters the divine. I wish I could say anytime someone seeks for it, but I know that isn’t true since it occurred to me (at least I wasn’t consciously aware of it, probably due to the drug I was taking at that time as the sensation I identified as connecting with the spirit came back after 3 days being off it). I trust many others when they say they aren’t receiving anything after sincerely asking, others not so much when they appear to have minds already made up and have ridiculed others’ claims of revelation. How…depends on the person and purpose of the revelation. I believe it’s happened to me by a voice telling me “your daughter has diabetes”, when a RS President showed up at our door minutes after we rose after praying about what we should do about two roommates that were making our llives miserable because of their feud, when two young women shared an experience with me that met my needs perfectly during that time mentioned above when my receiver was left off the hook (I think you are old enough to understand that reference), as well as the more obvious First Vision and lifting of the priesthood Ban, receiving of modern scripture and infinite number of variations. Now binding revelation for the world (at least once individuals can actually receive it so they can make a choice to accept or reject)…that follows a more traditional, consistent path through prophets appointed by God so we don’t have to struggle with second guessing ourselves quite so much, though I think asking ourselves how sure we are that an interpretation is what we need to hear is always wise.

Even if Canaan and Cain look and sound alike in English, not that way in Hebrew, not etymologically related, so you are going to need more to support your clam. Too lazy to look up an academic source, so you are getting Quora: https://www.quora.com/Is-there-an-etymological-relationship-between-Canaan-and-Cain

I agree it’s not direct, but implied information

By my definition and perception, yes. I believe he likely filled in gaps where he lacked info or the ability to define at the very least. He may not have been aware of it, the brain compensates and adapts quickly. Iirc, he did at times voice his struggles to share his divine experiences. Joseph’s vision of the afterlife in D&C 76: ”which surpasses all understanding….neither is man capable to make them known”. Others have as well. “Words cannot describe…” seems like it’s not uncommon to be attached to revelatory experiences even when the person then goes on to use words to describe them. I tend to accept the first valuation as accurate in those cases and treat what follows as an approximation and probably not that good of one. Paul (2 Cor 12:4): heard “inexpressible things” (NIV) Ineffability is, imo, to be expected when a limited being interacts with an unlimited one (at least in comparison). Ants communicate. We can see that by their behaviour. How accurate in detail or even broad framing would be ants’ descriptions of human behaviour, not only what we did, but our ideas and feelings we express, our motivations? Does their ‘language’ even have the capability to convey more than the broadest, the most basic bit of information about these with their use of pheromones, touch, taste, and sound? While they might get the basics of alarm and territory with their signals of recognition and alarm, etc, gather a very limited understanding of family given their language includes signals to suppress and promote reproduction and care of ‘children’, could they even begin to convey the concepts of attending school, having bank accounts, shopping, recipes and cooking, dating and everything that follows, building homes and decorating them, collecting art, driving cars, having pets, etc. There would be some very rudimentary parallels (they prepare food, build shelters, mate, use aphids), but any detail would be lost. Who knows if anything that was filled in by Joseph or other prophets is critical to a teaching or interpretation of our faith. This is one of the reasons I believe continuing revelation is necessary. Multiple people sharing their experiences presents us with a fuller picture than we would receive if we considered revelation more one and done.