A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

[Ryan Dahle]

Deleted 

Edited March 26 by Ryan Dahle

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Here is my best effort at getting ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking to create an unbiased prompt on the big question: what does the Book of Mormon imply about others?

Prompt: I had asked an AI the following: <prompt>An apologist asked Grok, "Let's say that there were 25-50 people that arrived in the Americas in about 590 B.C., and that they were originally from the Jerusalem area. What is the likelihood of genetic traces of these 25-50 people being detectable in today's population groups in the Americas?"

What do you think of this line of apologetic reasoning? Is it consistent with what the Book of Mormon actually says? When answering the question, consider the purpose of the Book of Mormon as stated in its introduction, the most significant covenants that are repeated throughout the book, the narrative within the book, and how the Lamanites described themselves, according to the book.</prompt>

You can correctly infer what the debate is about. Can you rewrite the prompt to answer the underlying question so that it is completely free of biases and presuppositions about the text?

When I put that unbiased prompt into the engine, I got this:

Thesis: On the Book of Mormon’s own terms, the text most naturally presents the Lamanites as the principal descendants of Lehi’s family, a covenant people whose fathers were brought by God to a promised land, and a “remnant of the house of Israel” for whom the record was specifically preserved. A model in which 25–50 migrants from Jerusalem became merely one small component within a much larger preexisting population is not the book’s natural presentation. It is only possible if one adds major assumptions the text itself does not foreground.

The Book of Mormon’s own framing matters from the outset. Its title page says the book is written “to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel,” and that one of its core purposes is to show them “what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers” and help them know “the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever.” That wording strongly suggests that the Lamanites are being addressed as the continuing posterity of the people whose history the book narrates. The book does not introduce itself as a record of one minor Israelite strand that was later submerged in a much larger unrelated population. It presents the history as their fathers’ history.

That same framing appears elsewhere. Lehi tells his family that they have been led to a “land of promise,” “choice above all other lands,” which the Lord has covenanted to give them and their seed. The promises are repeatedly tied to this land, this people, and their seed after them. In 1 Nephi and 2 Nephi, the Lord’s dealings with Lehi’s family are not described as the arrival of a small immigrant enclave into an already peopled landscape whose main civilizations are outside the covenant story. Rather, the narrative treats Lehi’s colony as the relevant human founding group for the story that follows.

The covenant pattern is also important. The book repeatedly links righteousness to prospering “in the land,” and wickedness to being “cut off” from the Lord’s presence in the land. This is not a marginal theme. It is one of the main engines of the narrative. The land is presented as a promised inheritance to Lehi’s seed, with consequences for them and their descendants. The covenant is not framed merely as a private spiritual privilege possessed by a tiny lineage hidden within a much larger society. It has a people-level and land-level scope.

The text also repeatedly emphasizes separation from other nations, especially in early programmatic passages. Lehi says this land is choice above all others and is kept from the knowledge of other nations so that the Lord’s covenant purposes can unfold. 2 Nephi 1 is especially important here: the land is said to be “kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations,” and if other nations come, it will be by the Lord’s later action. That language does not absolutely prove that no one else was present, but the natural force of the passage is that Lehi’s group is being given a divinely reserved land, not joining a large already-known human world whose existence is central to the story. A large-population model can be made possible only by softening the apparent force of this language.

The narrative portrayal of descent is also straightforward. The core peoples are Nephites, Lamanites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Mulekites, and Jaredites. Of these, the central long-running division is between Nephites and Lamanites, both explicitly descended from Lehi’s household. The book regularly describes the Lamanites as the seed of Laman and Lemuel, or more broadly as descendants of Lehi. Enos, Jarom, Omni, Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, Mormon, and Moroni all write in a way that assumes this lineage framework. When the book speaks of “the Lamanites,” it normally means the long-term descendants and successors of the anti-Nephite branch that emerged from the original family split.

That identity is not merely biological in a narrow sense. The book does allow for political and covenant incorporation. “Lamanite” and “Nephite” can function as social, political, and religious categories at points, especially later in the record. For example, dissenters from the Nephites can become “Lamanites,” and converted Lamanites can affiliate with the Nephites. By the end of 4 Nephi, earlier labels blur and then re-emerge. So the text does show that identity is not reducible to pure genetics. But that flexibility operates within the world the book has already established, where the peoples’ basic historical origin still runs back to Lehi’s colony and related record peoples. It does not naturally suggest that the Lamanites were mainly an enormous non-Lehite population among whom a tiny Lehite nucleus survived as a symbolic layer.

The book’s language about “the seed” is especially telling. Promises are made to Nephi about his seed and the seed of his brethren. The curse/blessing language, scattering/gathering language, and future restoration language are tied to that seed. When prophets speak about latter-day Gentiles interacting with “the remnant of our seed,” the natural reading is that the remnant consists of the surviving descendants of the peoples just narrated. Again, that does not exclude mixture. Over a thousand years, mixture is practically unsurprising. But the text does not foreground mixture with large preexisting civilizations as the key to understanding who the Lamanites are.

The scattering and gathering passages point the same direction. Christ in 3 Nephi and Mormon/Moroni in later material speak of the remnant of Jacob, the house of Israel, and specifically the descendants of the peoples in the record as future actors in God’s covenant plan. The Gentiles receive the record so that the remnant may come to know their fathers and the Lord’s covenants. That works most naturally if the remnant is understood as the historical continuation of the peoples in the book. It works less naturally if the Lehites were only a tiny absorbed subgroup whose descendants would be diluted into broader populations that were not themselves the main subject of the narrative.

The title page again sharpens the point. The record is not described as a book to tell one minor Israelite contribution within a much larger ancestry. It is addressed to the Lamanites as a remnant and tells what God did for their fathers. That phrasing strongly implies continuity between the narrated peoples and the intended descendants.

So what does the text explicitly say, strongly imply, or leave unstated?

What it explicitly says:
The Lamanites are a remnant of the house of Israel. The record is for them. Their fathers were brought by God from Jerusalem to a promised land. The main peoples in the central narrative descend from Lehi’s group, with later merger of the Mulekites and eventual awareness of the Jaredites. The land is promised to Lehi’s seed, and their future scattering and gathering are central themes.

What it strongly implies:
The Lamanites are not presented as a minor absorbed colony whose importance is mostly symbolic. They are presented as the continuing historical outgrowth of Lehi’s colony and the principal non-Nephite branch of that lineage. The covenant claims are people-level and land-level, not merely family-tree footnotes. The narrative world most naturally treats Lehite peoples as the foundational human populations relevant to the story.

What would require extra assumptions not stated in the text:
That there were already very large populations throughout the land; that Lehites were quickly absorbed into them; that “Lamanites” became primarily a covenant or political label for mostly non-Lehite peoples; and that the title page’s language about “their fathers” should be read in a looser representative sense rather than as direct historical ancestry. None of that is impossible as a harmonization, but it is not how the book itself most naturally introduces or explains the matter.

There is one qualification worth making. The Book of Mormon does not present a modern genetic treatise, and it does allow identities to function covenantally and politically as well as genealogically. So a defender can argue that covenant identity could survive extensive mixture. That is a real point. But it only gets you to possible with additional assumptions, not to natural reading. The text does not itself highlight a large-scale preexisting host population into which Lehites were absorbed. It keeps speaking as though the peoples under discussion are the descendants, divisions, and remnants of the founding groups it names.

So the small-founder-population model fits the text only weakly unless it is carefully qualified. If by that model one means simply that a few dozen people arrived and later became a numerous people through ordinary descent over centuries, the text is broadly comfortable with that. But if one means that those migrants were only one small component inside a much larger existing population, and that the Lamanites were therefore not principally the descendants of Lehi’s family in any ordinary narrative sense, that does not fit the book naturally. It requires substantial reinterpretation.

Direct answer: On the Book of Mormon’s own terms, the text does not naturally read as describing the Lamanites as descendants of a small migrant group that became one component within a much larger preexisting population. It presents a different picture: the Lamanites are most naturally portrayed as the principal descendants and covenant remnant of Lehi’s family, the people for whom the record preserves the history of “their fathers,” even though some later social and covenant mixing is compatible with the narrative.

 

You should ask it to now double check its work and verify its answers are actually inline with the Book of Mormon and that it isn't bringing in any assumptions.  It will probably pull back from its answer as it questions itself.  You can do it several times and see where it finally lands after it has second-guessed itself.  See if it strengthens its answer or if it softens it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

is it possible to evaluate *without outsized suppositions* whether the message behind these verses is fundamental to the Book of Mormon's overall message?

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

[california boy]

7 hours ago, webbles said:

It's not true that "every other coinage used by other civilizations had some kind of image, symbol, and/or written copy".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacksilver was used by Norsemen and is just weighted silver items.  They would cut up anything with silver to make their coins.  No markings necessary.  In Mesoamerica, there is "axe-monies" - https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/57553.  No inscriptions, just little axe heads that were used as currency.

Also, Alma 11 specifically spell out the Nephite coinage.  It talks about "different pieces of their gold, and of their silver" and their relationship to grain amounts and each other.  It could easily have just been pieces of metal of different sizes and different weights.

I guess that is how a believer figures out a way to make the BoM work for them which is always very interesting for me. Your example of Norsemen just weighing silver items is not the same as a coin.  There are many cultures that use all kinds of different things as currency other than coins.  There are some pretty strange ones out there  including tea bricks, parmesan cheese, animal skins, cattle, shells even instant ramen.  To me, they may qualify as currency, but not coins.  One of the advantages of coins is the weight is known by the size and how precious the metal is.

Edited March 27 by california boy

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We are?  I think this is the first time anyone has referenced this passage.

This passage and its implications have been my main point for two days. When I reentered the conversation with this: 

Quote

 

Prompt: An apologist asked Grok, "Let's say that there were 25-50 people that arrived in the Americas in about 590 B.C., and that they were originally from the Jerusalem area. What is the likelihood of genetic traces of these 25-50 people being detectable in today's population groups in the Americas?"

What do you think of this line of apologetic reasoning? Is it consistent with what the Book of Mormon actually says? When answering the question, consider the purpose of the Book of Mormon as stated in its introduction, the most significant covenants that are repeated throughout the book, the narrative within the book, and how the Lamanites described themselves, according to the book.

 

The AI's response included this:

The most significant recurring covenant in the book is the promise that the Americas are a land of inheritance specifically for Lehi's descendants — that if they keep God's commandments they will prosper in the land, and if not, they will be cut off (2 Nephi 1:9, 20 and many other places). The book's entire theological architecture depends on the Lamanites being Lehi's literal descendants, because the covenant promises run through that lineage. The closing chapters of the book (Mormon 7, Moroni 10) are direct addresses to the future Lamanites, calling them to remember their fathers and the covenants God made with them.

My point is simple; because 2 Nephi 1 presents the promised land as a divinely reserved inheritance for Lehi, his children, and “their seed,” with the book as a whole identifying the future Lamanites as that covenant remnant, the most natural reading is that modern Lamanites were expected to be meaningfully descended from Lehi’s family. So a model in which his lineage became so genetically negligible as to be undetectable is textually strained and not straightforward.

Your response was, "The AI platform is not very familiar with the doctrines of the Church.  Since when does lineage = detectable genetic ancestry?  Patriarchal blessings?  Adoption?"

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I submit that Jesus Christ is more central to the text of The Book of Mormon than the land covenants referenced in the text.

That is true.

But the fact remains that if one takes what the Book of Mormon says about land covenants at face value, then the promised land was "kept as of [590 B.C.] from the knowledge of other nations" and was given to Lehi and to his descendants. God could give the land to them because nobody else was there. We know nobody was there because it was kept from their knowledge. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Not much to do with Nephite demography or DNA, neither of which is in the text's narrative.

Lehi said "a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed." You don't think "seed" in this context implies DNA?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Not sure that "death" was a reference to all things everywhere, or just Adam and Eve and their descendants, but okay.

The Book of Mormon says "all things" without qualification. 2 Nephi 2:22. This is scripture mastery stuff.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Global."

"{D}estroyed everyone not preserved on the ark."

Boy, the impulse for you to smuggle stuff into the text must be really strong.

"we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets." (Donald W. Parry, “The Flood and the Tower of Babel,” Ensign, January 1998)

Everything the Book of Mormon says about Noah is entirely consistent with what "multiple testimonies of God's prophets" have said about the event. But if you don't believe they understood this, then maybe they didn't. Touche. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have no idea what you are referencing here.

 

My basic problem is that I have no idea what you believe. I know some things you believe. You believe in Jesus and priesthood authority. But regarding the gospel as taught in the Book of Mormon and other scriptures? You don't swallow the whole package. You think "the multiple testimonies of God's prophets" are wrong about the flood. You think the creation and fall were local things in a bubble someplace and weren't everywhere. You probably think people came across the bearing straight to the Americas 10,000 years before Adam fell. Or something.

In contrast, the Book of Mormon teaches the hard-core-ultra-conservative-young-earth-creationism-no-death-anywhere-before-the-fall-three-pillars-of-eternity gospel of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie. They believed this because the Book of Mormon teaches it and it is the most correct book on earth. You don't accept all of that. You think there must have been others here because of demographics or warfare or agriculture or something. You probably believe in evolution to some extent. But doing all of this is mingling the philosophies of men with scripture. Don't get me wrong--you are free to believe whatever you want to and Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie were certainly wrong about all of these things, so you're going in the right track. But from my seat, when you claim that we shouldn't expect any of Lehi's seed to show up in DNA tests because of X, Y, and Z, you are really saying that we shouldn't believe what Lehi said in 2 Nephi 1 because either God was lying, Lehi was just spouting out nonsense, or that's just ancient mythology that Mormon wrote down that had no bearing on reality, or it is all symbolic, or something. 

 

 

 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

I guess that is how a believer figures out a way to make the BoM work for them which is always very interesting for me. Your example of Norsemen just weighing silver items is not the same as a coin.  There are many cultures that use all kinds of different things as currency other than coins.  There are some pretty strange ones out there  including tea bricks, parmesan cheese, animal skins, cattle, shells even instant ramen.  To me, they may qualify as currency, but not coins.  One of the advantages of coins is the weight is known by the size and how precious the metal is.

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

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Analytics said:

modern Lamanites were expected to be meaningfully descended from Lehi’s family. So a model in which his lineage became so genetically negligible as to be undetectable is textually strained and not straightforward.

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. 

Edited March 27 by Calm

[california boy]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think it does.  Rather, I think Alma 11 outlines a system of weights and measures.

https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/smith/2023-04-12/ie_57.05_richard_pearson_smith_the_nephite_monetary_system_may_1954_316-17.pdf

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2008/01/17/nephite-money-and-coinage

https://scripturecentral.org/blog/the-nephite-system-of-currency-in-alma-11-and-connections-to-ancient-america

Unless "what the BoM claims" does not include coins in the Pre-Columbian Americas.

Well, no.  There are no coins mentioned or referenced in The Book of Mormon.

Perhaps, perhaps not.  Most writings in antiquity do not survive through the ages.  

Respectfully, I reject the premise.  I think evidence does exist.  See here:

Plausibility is what the Latter-day Saints are seeking, not the proverbial "Smoking Gun."

Our critics seem to be expecting, even demanding, the Smoking Gun.

I agree with this.  I think the evidence in favor of The Book of Mormon is getting stronger.

Meanwhile, our critics are stagnating in absolutist thinking that just does not hold up well.

I concur.  Neal's writing is quite good.

The NHM altars are not per se evidence of New World Nephite civilizations, but I think it's pretty good, albeit circumstantial and inferential, evidence of Lehi and his group.

Huh.  Hadn't heard about this one.

Sorenson's work is worth a read.

It is increasingly difficult to chalk these up as "lucky guesses" by Joseph.

I wonder what the status of this is.

The rest of the article is worth a read.

There is evidence in favor of the plausibility of The Book of Mormon.

Thanks,

-Smac

Did you read the title summary heading written by the Church???????  I put the part in bold that you evidently missed.

Quote

 

The Nephite monetary system is set forth—Amulek contends with Zeezrom—Christ will not save people in their sins—Only those who inherit the kingdom of heaven are saved—All men will rise in immortality—There is no death after the Resurrection. About 82 B.C.

You are kinda making up the idea of this being only about weights and measurements aren't you.  The verses talk about VALUE, not weights.

As far as the throw everything at the wall to see if it sticks to prove there is evidence of the BoM civilization,  I am not impressed.  it doesn't take much for you to consider something to be a remnant of the BoM civilization.  The author listed 60 items mentioned in the BoM and claimed to find 8 of the 60 items.  But get this, these are the 8 items he names that are mentioned in the BoM to support his claim

Wild beasts, stone monuments, large cities, fortifications, bow and arrows, east and west sea.   Yet NONE of those items actually had any writings, drawings, Hebrew or anything that would actually tie them into a BoM civilization.   Pretty low bar you got as proof of a Nephite/Lamonite civilization that lasted 1000 years.  

No one is saying that a civilization didn't existed during that time.  I am saying nothing specifically points to that BoM civilization that existed for 1000 years.  

Rather than a ton of speculation, just one bit of concrete evidence would be of more worth that an entire page of speculation.  

Edited March 27 by california boy

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

Did you read the title summary heading written by the Church???????

Written by anyone who had studied ancient currency?  Or by people who assumed it worked like it does now?  Understandably so as it’s been going that way for a long, long time. 

Edited March 27 by Calm

[webbles]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I guess that is how a believer figures out a way to make the BoM work for them which is always very interesting for me. Your example of Norsemen just weighing silver items is not the same as a coin.  There are many cultures that use all kinds of different things as currency other than coins.  There are some pretty strange ones out there  including tea bricks, parmesan cheese, animal skins, cattle, shells even instant ramen.  To me, they may qualify as currency, but not coins.  One of the advantages of coins is the weight is known by the size and how precious the metal is.

Totally agree that Norsemen hacksilver isn't coin.  But it is a monetary system.  And Alma 11 does not talk about coinage.  It talks about "different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value".  A piece of hacksilver is just a piece of silver of specific weight and size, pretty similar to what Alma 11 describes.  Yes, hacksilver doesn't have different names for the different sizes but I'm not trying to find a perfect example of what the Nephites used.  To say that Alma 11 is "coins" is reading something into it that the text itself doesn't say.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

hacksilver doesn't have different names for the different sizes

 Chinese currency involved weights with different names for different sizes in my understanding.  Tael was the standard size of a silver ingot, though it varied by region and time period.  Not sure exactly how it works as I have just seen it used in historical dramas
 

from Google:

Tael (兩 - Liang): The primary weight unit.

Mace (錢 - Qián): 1/10 of a tael, which is roughly 3.78 grams.

Candareen (分 - Fēn): 1/100 of a tael.

Silver Sycees (Ingots): While a tael is a weight, it was often cast into larger, non-standardized ingots often weighing 1, 5, 10, or 50 taels.

 

 

[Zosimus]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Chinese currency involved weights with different names for different sizes in my understanding.  Tael was the standard size of a silver ingot, though it varied by region and time period.  Not sure exactly how it works as I have just seen it used in historical dramas

This is pretty common across Asian economies. In Burma/Myanmar Chat and Thailand Baht are currencies named after the ancient Tical weights and measurements which was used alongside the Teal anciently and is still used in the markets today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tical_(unit)

If you follow the link in the sources of that wikipedia article) there's an article called The Origin of the Tical that discusses the main theories for origins of the Tikal

Near Eastern "shekel”
Babylonian/Persian to India to Siam/China

Arabic thaqal (“to weigh”)
Proposed by le May, Dodd, some dictionaries.

Chinese/Malay (tael, etc.)
Recognizes tael → Khmer/Thai tamleng → baht (weight structure).

Indian tanka via Mon/Burmese (Campos’ conclusion)
Indian silver weight/coin tanka → Mon t’ke / tacka → Burmese tical (standard silver weight, 1/100 of a viss).

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

 

The traditional dating put the flood at somewhere around 2700 to 2300 BCE.

Even if you move the date we have enough achaeological data on many sites to show there was no gap where large areas were depopulated like we would see in a global flood or an extended local one in the middle of the 3rd millenium BCE or any time after that.

Plus even when the flood story popped up it was presented as something that had happened ‘a long time ago’. The story was formed as a story about the distant past.

[california boy]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

Totally agree that Norsemen hacksilver isn't coin.  But it is a monetary system.  And Alma 11 does not talk about coinage.  It talks about "different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value".  A piece of hacksilver is just a piece of silver of specific weight and size, pretty similar to what Alma 11 describes.  Yes, hacksilver doesn't have different names for the different sizes but I'm not trying to find a perfect example of what the Nephites used.  To say that Alma 11 is "coins" is reading something into it that the text itself doesn't say.

Well I am asking what you believe, so thanks for your answer.  I personally find that explanation as looking for an excuse rather than having any logic.  I have reread that chapter 3 times and can't make it work the way you want it to.  

But let's go with your speculation.   The one thing that would have to occur to give a specific name and value for a piece of metal would be consistent weight.  So wouldn't this then become what Nephite currency looked like since it does state that it was used as payment of wages and goods?  Has there ever been any discovery of a stash, or bag or deposit or anything of ingots that were a consistent weight like they have found for other great civilizations that existed for over 1000 years?  It seems like if that type of currency was in use by a population the size that the BoM talks about, there is no evidence such a currency ever existed.  So we are still back to square one.

[california boy]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Written by anyone who had studied ancient currency?  Or by people who assumed it worked like it does now?  Understandably so as it’s been going that way for a long, long time. 

Do you think the chapter heading is in error?  

How would you title that chapter?

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you think the chapter heading is in error?  

How would you title that chapter?

Not to be rude, but have you really not looked at the apologetic response to this issue? The heading was not original to the text. Headings like this one were inserted by a scripture committee in the mid-20th century as a supplemental help to the scriptures. Within the LDS theological framework, this type of heading is not canonized doctrine. Even if it were, it falls VERY far down the line of revelatory details that are core, crucial, or binding on the Saints. The Book of Mormon itself opens the possibility for errors. Thus, the idea that a scripture committee in modern times could misunderstand/misinterpret the text really isn't very surprising or significant in the landscape of competing claims about the Book of Mormon's authenticity. This argument relies purely on unwarranted assumptions of infallibility on the part of the Church and its leaders/committees. As soon as that assumption is abandoned or significantly modified, the issue goes away. 

As for how one might title the chapter, just look at the modification that was made to the current text: 

Quote

The Nephite monetary system is set forth—Amulek contends with Zeezrom—Christ will not save people in their sins—Only those who inherit the kingdom of heaven are saved—All men will rise in immortality—There is no death after the Resurrection. About 82 B.C.

No mention of coinage there. 

Edited March 27 by Ryan Dahle

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Not to be rude, but have you really not looked at the apologetic response to this issue? The heading was not original to the text. Headings like this one were inserted by a scripture committee in the mid-20th century as a supplemental help to the scriptures. Within the LDS theological framework, this type of heading is not canonized doctrine. Even if it were, it falls VERY far down the line of revelatory details core, crucial, or binding on the Saints. The Book of Mormon itself opens the possibility for errors.

Thus, the idea that a scripture committee in modern times could misunderstand/misinterpret the text really isn't very surprising or significant in the landscape of competing claims about the Book of Mormon's authenticity. This argument relies purely on unwarranted assumptions of infallibility on the part of the Church and its leaders/committees. As soon as that assumption is abandoned or significantly modified, the issue goes away. 

As for how one might title the chapter, just look at the modification that was made to the current text: 

No mention of coinage there. 

I know the chapter headings are not canonized.  But what those headings are is what those in charge of summerizing the BoM believe that is what the chapter is about.  Are you saying that the chapter heading no longer says the chapter is about the monetary system of the Nephites?

 

You are welcome to think that exact measures of precious metal lumps that have a fixed value that are not coins if you want was their currency.  Yet nothing like that also has ever been found even though the BoM claims to be a civilization that existed for 1000 years.  

 

[longview]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you think the chapter heading is in error?

No. You are simply confused on terminology.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

How would you title that chapter?

"The Nephite monetary system is set forth—" could be reworded as "The Nephite commonly accepted metals measured by standard weights but NOT standard SHAPES system of commerce—".

This is clarified in verse 4: "Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value. And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having been established by king Mosiah.

"Pieces of metal" do NOT imply coinage. Neither is monetary system exclusive to coinage. Speaking of the "manner of the Jews" there is an interesting overview of history from AI:

Quote

To clarify the nature of the shekel, consider the following points:

• The shekel originated as a unit of weight in ancient Mesopotamia.
• It was used to measure silver and other commodities.
• Over time, the shekel evolved into a coin used for trade.
• Different regions had their own versions of the shekel coin.
• The shekel remains a significant currency in modern Israel today.

Note in verse 3: "And the judge received for his wages according to his time—a senine of gold for a day, or a senum of silver, which is equal to a senine of gold; and this is according to the law which was given." A Nephite judge was compensated with either a senine of gold OR a senum of silver, both of EQUAL value BUT a senine is NOT the same weight as a senum. Why? Because values of both gold and silver can fluctuate over time in accordance with supply from mines or warfare or whatever circumstances.

16 hours ago, california boy said:

To me, they may qualify as currency, but not coins.  One of the advantages of coins is the weight is known by the size and how precious the metal is.

Not always an advantage. We know from history of people chiseling the edge off coins to steal value (weight) so they can melt the pieces into a lump for "extra income".

[Analytics]

56 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Not to be rude, but have you really not looked at the apologetic response to this issue? The heading was not original to the text. Headings like this one were inserted by a scripture committee in the mid-20th century as a supplemental help to the scriptures. Within the LDS theological framework, this type of heading is not canonized doctrine. Even if it were, it falls VERY far down the line of revelatory details that are core, crucial, or binding on the Saints. The Book of Mormon itself opens the possibility for errors. Thus, the idea that a scripture committee in modern times could misunderstand/misinterpret the text really isn't very surprising or significant in the landscape of competing claims about the Book of Mormon's authenticity. This argument relies purely on unwarranted assumptions of infallibility on the part of the Church and its leaders/committees. As soon as that assumption is abandoned or significantly modified, the issue goes away. 

As for how one might title the chapter, just look at the modification that was made to the current text: 

No mention of coinage there. 

Prompt:  Anti-Mormons say that a lack of coins in ancient America is evidence against the Book of Mormon, and apologists counter that the Book of Mormon doesn't explicitely say "coins", but rather pieces of gold and silver with standardized value that might not have been "coins" proper.

Could you please strong-man the apologetic position? The verse where this comes into play takes place in 82 B.C., and the apologists I'm talking to are describing a civilization somewhere in Mesoamerica.

First, is it accurate to describe these standized units of exchange "money"? Assuming it is, what are the economic benefits of having a system based on money rather than barter? Third, are there examples of civilizations that had money and then permanently decided it wasn't worth the hassle and had a long-term reversion to a barter system?

With those considerations in mind, please list all of the plausible candidates for civilizations in Mesoamerica around the year 82 B.C. who had money consisting of units of gold and silver. Keep the style conversational, +/- 500 words max.
 

Quote

The strongest apologetic version is this: Alma 11 does not explicitly describe minted coinage. It lays out standardized units of value in gold and silver, tied to measures of grain, so an apologist can fairly argue that the text is describing a monetary system in the broad sense—recognized units of account and exchange—without requiring stamped coins in the Greek or Roman sense. That much is a reasonable reading of the passage. FAIR makes the same narrow point about the text itself, and economists commonly define money by function, not by whether it is coin-shaped. (FAIR)

And yes, if the units were standardized and generally accepted in exchange, calling them “money” is accurate. The economic payoff of money over barter is straightforward: it solves the “double coincidence of wants” problem, makes values easier to compare, improves divisibility, and lets people store and transfer value more efficiently. In other words, once a society is using standardized media of exchange, that is usually an advantage, not a nuisance. (OpenStax)

On your third question, I do not know of a clear case where a civilization adopted money, then collectively decided it was not worth the hassle, and permanently reverted to pure barter. What we do see is something messier: coin use can shrink after political breakdown, but societies usually keep using some form of money, credit, bullion, or in-kind payments rather than consciously “going back” to barter. Post-Roman western Europe is a decent example of reduced and reconfigured monetary circulation, not a clean civilizational choice for long-term barter. (Cambridge Repository)

That is where the apologetic case runs into a major Mesoamerican problem. The best archaeological summaries place the arrival of metallurgy in Mesoamerica many centuries after 82 B.C.—commonly around A.D. 650–800 in western Mexico, spreading later into other regions. Cambridge, Britannica, and Maya metallurgy work all place Mesoamerican gold, silver, and copper use in the Classic/Postclassic era, not the Late Preclassic. (Cambridge University Press & Assessment)

So if you ask for plausible Mesoamerican candidates around 82 B.C. that had money consisting of standardized gold and silver units, the honest list is: none that are presently supported by mainstream archaeology. Around that date, plausible major civilizations in Mesoamerica include Late Preclassic Maya polities, Zapotec Monte Albán, Epi-Olmec centers, and Izapa/Chiapa de Corzo spheres—but not societies known to have gold-and-silver money. Later Mesoamerican exchange media did exist—especially cacao beans, cotton cloaks, and copper axe money—but those are much later and are not gold-and-silver systems. (Cambridge University Press & Assessment)

So the strongest apologetic move is: “Alma 11 need not mean coined money.” That is fair. But “therefore a Mesoamerican society in 82 B.C. plausibly had standardized gold-and-silver money” is a much harder claim. Archaeologically, that second step is where the case gets very thin. (FAIR)

 

[Ryan Dahle]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

I know the chapter headings are not canonized.  But what those headings are is what those in charge of summerizing the BoM believe that is what the chapter is about.  Are you saying that the chapter heading no longer says the chapter is about the monetary system of the Nephites?

Oh, it is definitely about a monetary system. It just doesn't involve coins. But you have to realize that virtually any type of advanced civilization is likely going to have some type of system for trading goods that goes beyond simple bartering. Here is a series of articles I have written on this topic over the years: 

• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-pre-columbian-measures
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-near-eastern-weights-and-measures
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/law-of-eshnunna
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-elegant-monetary-system
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-complex-monetary-system
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-market-systems
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-attestation-of-shilum
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-wordplay-on-zeezrom
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-wordplay-on-antion
   

Some of these are summarizing the research of others. Some of these are my own original research. My conclusion is that this monetary system is decently complex and consistent (especially when we consider that Joseph Smith dictated its contents). It is fairly elegant and has utility. It has parallels with ANE precedents as well as systems of weights and measures in the New World. And it has various forms of linguistic support. Once you look at all these lines of evidence together, the authenticity of this systems seems much more plausible, imo. 

[teddyaware]

The reason why this debate will never have a satisfactory resolution is because the naysaying participants refuse to even consider the possibility that there is a God of miracles. The scripture are filled with sacred accounts wherein God tests the faith of his people by placing them in seemingly impossible situations where the only thing they can rely on is his word alone, while every other element with in the narrative points to the absolute impossibility of God’s promises being fulfilled. I’m sure that the Nephite apostates who were about to slaughter the Nephite believers for their refusal to give up on their “foolish” belief that the would be a day, a night and a day of continuous daylight were 100% confident that the promised miracle wouldn’t be fulfilled, yet it was. Personally, I’m equally confident that the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon will be vindicated by God’s own mouth. It will be amazing to see the expressions on the naysayers faces when they finally come to the realization that there is a God, and that he is a God of miracles who gloriously fulfills his promises, and does so against all odds.

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. (2 Nephi 33)

 

 

 

 

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Oh, it is definitely about a monetary system. It just doesn't involve coins. But you have to realize that virtually any type of advanced civilization is likely going to have some type of system for trading goods that goes beyond simple bartering. Here is a series of articles I have written on this topic over the years: 

• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-pre-columbian-measures
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-near-eastern-weights-and-measures
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/law-of-eshnunna
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-elegant-monetary-system
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-complex-monetary-system
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-market-systems
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-attestation-of-shilum
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-wordplay-on-zeezrom
• https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-wordplay-on-antion
   

Some of these are summarizing the research of others. Some of these are my own original research. My conclusion is that this monetary system is decently complex and consistent (especially when we consider that Joseph Smith dictated its contents). It is fairly elegant and has utility. It has parallels with ANE precedents as well as systems of weights and measures in the New World. And it has various forms of linguistic support. Once you look at all these lines of evidence together, the authenticity of this systems seems much more plausible, imo. 

Are you asking the right question here? I'm not very interested in whether this monetary system fits into the ancient near east. I'm very interested in whether it fits into Mesoamerica in 82 B.C.

[Calm]

Just now, Analytics said:

Are you asking the right question here? I'm not very interested in whether this monetary system fits into the ancient near east. I'm very interested in whether it fits into Mesoamerica in 82 B.C.

So you do agree it’s a workable monetary system? (Seems like that needs to be the first step as why bother arguing about where it is found if you think it’s unrealistic in the first place.)

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

We are?  I think this is the first time anyone has referenced this passage.

This passage and its implications

"And its implications."  IOW, assumptions and presuppositions you have about the passage.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

My point is simple; because 2 Nephi 1 presents the promised land as a divinely reserved inheritance for Lehi, his children, and “their seed,” with the book as a whole identifying the future Lamanites as that covenant remnant, the most natural reading

"The most natural reading" = "Analytics' presupposition-laden interpretation of the text."

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

is that modern Lamanites were expected to be meaningfully descended from Lehi’s family.

"Meaningfully" is an interesting word.

I just checked on FamilySearch and see that my "Macdonald" family name can be traced back 23 generations (the 24th generation had a different surname).  

23 generations back → 2²³ = 8,388,608 ancestral "slots."  All sorts of names in these branches of my family tree, but only one of them is "meaningfully" preserved today, namely, my last name of "Macdonald."  The Taylors and Butlers and and Richardsons and Van Cotts and Richardsons and Adams and McCraes and Sacketts and so on, are all present, but "Macdonald" ends up, by tradition and happenstance, as being particularly "meaningful" in that I carry it.  However, numerically, the original "Macdonald" is only one among many many ancestors. 

Most Latter-day Saints receive a Patriarchal Blessing, in which the individual's "lineage" relative to the Twelve Tribes is declared.  "Lineage may be through any of the tribes of Israel, such as Ephraim, Manasseh, or Judah. Though we may not all be literal descendants of Jacob, those who accept the gospel of Jesus Christ are adopted into the house of Israel. Because each of us descends through more than one family line, two members of the same family may have their declared lineage through different tribes of Israel."  Whether by literal or adopted descendance, we are each told of a lineage that is "meaningful" relative to the Restored Gospel.  For many (most?) of us, this lineage is not, and need not be, numerically predominant in our genetic ancestry.

You seem to be using "meaningfully" in a sense of "modern Lamanites" (your phrase) having substantial or predominant genetic descendance from Lehi's family.  I think that is inaccurate.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

So a model in which his lineage became so genetically negligible as to be undetectable is textually strained and not straightforward.

This is derived from your presuppositions, not the text (nor, for that matter, from the Church's broader teachings).

You seem to be reposing much importance on genetic predominance, or enough numerical significance in a person's family tree, to create detectibility of the genetics of Lehi, who was an older man in 1 Nephi, around 600 B.C. (or, more broadly, anyone from Lehi's group).

That is a significant presupposition about the text, which I think you are using to lay claim to what you call "the most natural reading" of the text, and also to critique alternative "readings" as "textually strained and not straightforward."

I question that presupposition and the inferences you are drawing from it.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

Your response was, "The AI platform is not very familiar with the doctrines of the Church.  Since when does lineage = detectable genetic ancestry?  Patriarchal blessings?  Adoption?"

That is true.

And yet you persist in "smuggling" detectable genetic ancestry, and presuppositions about it, into this discussion, and characterizing your inferences drawn therefrom as "the most natural reading" of the text.

I question that.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

But the fact remains

See?  You are presenting your presupposition-laden inferential reading of the text as "the most natural reading" of the text, and now as "the fact" (!) that "remains."

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

that if one takes what the Book of Mormon says about land covenants at face value,

"If" is doing a lot of work.

Mormon did not spend untold time and effort abridging the records of the Nephites to create a narrative about land ownership.  To be sure, land ownership is a part of the narrative, and even an important part, but the text is not "about" that.  

The Civil War is an important part of Little Women, but the text is not about the Civil War.

The Regency Period of England is an important part of Pride and Prejudice, but the text is about particularized people living within that period, not "about" the period itself.

The Roman conquest and governance of Judea is an important part of the context of the New Testament, but the text is not about the Roman conquest/governance.

The lineage of the Lamanites and the Nephites is an important part of the context (and text) of The Book of Mormon, but the text is not about that.

The "land" and covenants relating thereto are an important part of the narrative of The Book of Mormon, but the text is not about that.  Instead, the text is most aptly summarized as being presented

Quote

to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations

And this still seems to have little bearing on the supposed "DNA problem."

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

then the promised land was "kept as of [590 B.C.] from the knowledge of other nations" and was given to Lehi and to his descendants.

Well, that seems to be substantively true.  There is a reason why the history of peoples and civilizations in the Americas are broadly referenced relative to Christopher Columbus ("Pre-Columbian") and his 1492 travels on the ocean blue.

You can, I suppose, interpret "knowledge of other nations" along the lines of "The 'most natural reading' of 2 Nephi 1:8 is that nobody had discovered the Americas until the Lehites (and, I suppose, the Jaredites) arrived there."  I wouldn't, though.

Lehi, speaking around 590 B.C., was speaking prospectively about the preservation of the land so as to avoid it being "overrun" and depriving him and his descendants of their "inheritance" of it.  That "inheritance," though, was conditional (covenants typically are).  See the next verses:

Quote

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.

11 Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.

We could say that the land ultimately was "overrun," but by then the Nephites had come and gone.

The "covenants" in The Book of Mormon center on Jesus Christ, not on land ownership.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

God could give the land to them because nobody else was there.

The text says that?  Nope.

The text requires that interpretation?  Nope.

Your hostile presuppositions are understandable, given how you feel about the Church.  But I don't think they are working here, and they really don't work when you try to smuggle them in under the guise of "the most natural reading" of the text.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

We know nobody was there because it was kept from their knowledge.

Right.

"Kept from their knowledge" = "Nobody on the planet except the Jaredites and Nephites new about the Americas, so both continents were devoid of humans when they arrived."

I get that this, or something like it, is your presupposition-laden interpretation of the text, but I don't think it is anything close to "the most natural reading" of the text.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

Lehi said "a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed." You don't think "seed" in this context implies DNA?

Do I think Lehi was referring to DNA?  No.

Do I think Lehi was referring to his biological descendants?  Yes.

Do I think Lehi was referring only to his biological descendants?  No.  Not by a long shot.

Zoram was not genetically related to Lehi, but I suspect Lehi included his (Zoram's) descendants because he was part of the group.  Same goes for any children of Ishmael who did not intermarry into Lehi's family and had children.

By the time Lehi spoke as recorded in 2 Nephi 1, Jacob and Joseph, Lehi's "two sons {born} in the wilderness," were still quite young.  Did Lehi expect them to grow up and eventually marry and have children?  The text doesn't say, but probably. 

Were there any available daughters (or granddaughters) of Ishmael for them to marry?  The text doesn't say. 

Is it possible that the Lehites had, by 2 Nephi 1, encountered other groups in the area?  Yes, but the text doesn't say whether or not that happened.

Is it possible that Lehi figured that his descendants would intermarry with other groups outside the 25-50 people that had arrived on the boat?  Yes, but the text doesn't say whether or not that happened.

Is it possible that Lehi's reference to his "seed" included people not biologically related to him, but also included people who married into his family, who came to worship his God and share in religious covenants and identity?  Yes, but the text doesn't say whether or not that happened.

Are we justified in construing "a land for the inheritance of my seed" as a declaration that the Americas were wholly devoid of people (apart, perhaps, from the Jaredites) prior to Lehi's arrival?  No, I don't think that is a reasonable reading/interpretation of the text, let alone "the most natural reading" of it.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Yes.  Not sure that "death" was a reference to all things everywhere, or just Adam and Eve and their descendants, but okay.

The Book of Mormon says "all things" without qualification. 2 Nephi 2:22. This is scripture mastery stuff.

The New Testament says that "there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."  Luke 2:1.

"All the world" is, according to you reasoning, "without qualification."

By your reasoning, then, Cæsar intended to tax the inhabitants of what we now call the Japanese archipelago, the aborigines in Australia, the inhabitants of the Americas, and so on.

This exegesis of the text is, in your view, appropriate and necessary and obvious.  "Scripture mastery stuff."

Are you sure about that?

2 Nephi 2:22 states: "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end."

Just as Luke 2:1's reference to "all the world" must be read in a reasoned and contextualized way (to the best of our ability, anyway), I think the same must be said for 2 Nephi 2:22's reference to "all things." 

You presupposition is that "all things," being presented in the text "without qualification," but therefore be taken absolutely literally, and encompassing every living organism that was on the planet at the time of the Fall.  But then, why stop with just this planet?  "All things" lacking qualification, shouldn't we read it as declaring there was no death anywhere in the entire universe prior to the Fall?  Is that, in your view, "the most natural reading" of the text?

Here's my take: The phrase “all things” is limited by context, just as “all the world” in Luke 2:1 doesn’t literally mean Caesar taxed the Aboriginal peoples of Australia or the inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago. It refers to the known/pertinent world of the narrative. Here, I think “all things” describes the paradisiacal order inside the Garden, not a scientific claim that no death of any kind had ever occurred anywhere on earth (or the entire universe) before the Fall.

This contextual reading allows the verse to stand as written while remaining compatible with the scientific record of plant and animal life (and death) stretching back hundreds of millions of years outside the Garden. I think your more absolute interpretation imports a modern literalism that the text itself doesn’t require.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

"we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets." (Donald W. Parry, “The Flood and the Tower of Babel,” Ensign, January 1998).

Elder Widtsoe in 1943 (from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism) :

Quote

THE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us [Widtsoe, p. 127].

See also here:

Quote

Dr. Duane E. Jeffery explains:

A critical issue in the Flood story in the King James Bible has to do with translations of the Hebrew words eretz and adamah as meaning the entire “earth.” What do these terms actually mean? It is widely recognized that Hebrew is a wonderful language for poets, since virtually every word has multiple meanings. But that same characteristic makes it a horrible language for precision. As it turns out, eretz and adamah can indeed be a geographical reference akin to what we usually mean by “the earth.” But it is not at all clear that the ancients had the concept of a spherical planet that you and I do. Many scholars argue that the Bible writers thought in terms of a flat earth that was covered by a bowl-shaped firmament into which the windows of heaven were literally cut..." ^[2]

The concept of a spherical earth "did not appear in Jewish thought until the fourteenth or fifteenth century." ^[3] The word "earth," as used in the Bible, simply refers to solid ground or land, as opposed to water (see Genesis 1:10 — "God called the dry land Earth; and...the waters called he Seas...."). It is, of course, possible that earlier prophets had a more advanced view of the nature of the earth—this perspective could, however, have been lost to later centuries and scribes.

The belief that the flood was either global or local does not constitute a critical part of Latter-day Saint theology. Ideas of a global flood may have resulted from a widespread local problem. A current hypothesis that has been gaining ground since 1998 is that a significant flooding event occurred in the area now occupied by the Black Sea. Evidence has been discovered which has led a number of researchers to believe that the Black Sea area was once occupied by a completely isolated freshwater lake at a much lower level than the ocean. The theory is that the sea level rose and eventually broke through the Bosporus shelf, resulting in a rapid flooding event which would have wiped out all life living along the shores of the lake. Whether this is the source for the Genesis flood remains conjecture.

"The belief that the flood was either global or local does not constitute a critical part of Latter-day Saint theology."

I think that is correct.  I admire Bro. Parry a lot, but I do not agree with him on his declaration of what Latter-day Saints believe on this point.

Nor is Bro. Parry's article decisive.  See, e.g., Elder Andersen's trenchant (and, in my view, nearly axiomatic) point here:

Quote

The doctrine in the scriptures and taught by the prophets includes the principle of multiple witnesses, a principle you’ve heard often in general conference and one I shared more than 10 years ago: “A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.”

Your presupposition-laden interpretation of the text is not, in my view, "the most natural reading" of it.  To the contrary, I find it decontextualized, strained, and even fundamentally unserious.  

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

Everything the Book of Mormon says about Noah

"Everything the Book of Mormon {as filtered and interpreted through the skeptical and hostile lens of the personal opinion of Analytics} says about Noah..."

There.  Fixed it for you.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

is entirely consistent

"Entirely consistent," Roger says.

Without qualification. 

Remember that.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

with what "multiple testimonies of God's prophets" have said about the event.

Including Elder Widtsoe?

Quote

The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us.

Looks like "without qualification" is another petard with which you've hoisted yourself.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

But if you don't believe they understood this, then maybe they didn't. Touche. 

I believe that we need to be reasoned and serious when evaluating important topics, rather than pedantic and sly.

The Title Page to The Book of Mormon states that the text, written by inspired prophets, might nevertheless have some errors ("And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men."). 

In Mormon 9:30, Moroni exhorts us: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

Elder Widtsoe stated: "The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. ... In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us."

As a Latter-day Saint, I sustain the Brethren in all material respects.  I do not think this includes, or needs to include, the particulars about the Flood.  Dr. Duane E. Jeffery, though not speaking in any authoritative capacity, is substantively correct when he states: "The belief that the flood was either global or local does not constitute a critical part of Latter-day Saint theology."

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

My basic problem is that I have no idea what you believe.

"I have no idea what you believe," he said.  Without qualification.

To a Latter-day Saint with whom he has had extensive written communications for many years.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

I know some things you believe. You believe in Jesus and priesthood authority.

I think you know quite a bit more than just those two.  But those two are the main points, so I'm actually appreciative of this.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

But regarding the gospel as taught in the Book of Mormon and other scriptures? You don't swallow the whole package.

Actually, I do.

There are some few things with which I struggle and/or do not fully understand, but those exceptions to not swallow the rule.

You keep conflating the text with presuppositions and eisegetical interpretations of the text.  There is nothing in the text that requires me to believe that the flood was global.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

You think "the multiple testimonies of God's prophets" are wrong about the flood.

Including Elder Widtsoe?

Apart from the scope of the flood (which, in my view, is an unsettled sort of thing), can you identify any other topics about which I have diverged from the collective teachings of the Church?

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

You think the creation and fall were local things in a bubble someplace and weren't everywhere.

I do not know what you are referencing here.  It is not a correct statement of what I believe.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

You probably think people came across the bearing straight to the Americas 10,000 years before Adam fell. Or something.

"Or something."

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

In contrast, the Book of Mormon teaches

You keep conflating the text with presuppositions and eisegetical interpretations of the text.  There is nothing in the text that requires me to believe that the flood was global.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

the hard-core-ultra-conservative-young-earth-creationism-no-death-anywhere-before-the-fall-three-pillars-of-eternity gospel of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie.

It does not. 

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

They believed this because the Book of Mormon teaches it and it is the most correct book on earth.

Again, from Elder Widtsoe:

Quote

The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us.

I can look to him and other Latter-day Saint leaders and thinkers for guidance about the text, or I can look to vividly anti-Mormon critics and their hostile and presupposition-laden interpretations of the text.  I choose the former.  Collectively, they have been far more correct than the Anti-Mormon crowd.

I can also look to my own reasoning.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

You don't accept all of that.

"All of that," he said.  "Without qualification."

Here is my position:

Quote

Quote

What degree of faith and trust is everyone expected to give to apostles and prophets?

I'm not sure what you mean by "degree."

"Substantial, but not unfettered" would be my response.  I addressed this issue previously here (regarding general authorities):

Quote

I would not say that we should "doubt their inspiration."  Perhaps a better verb would be "analyze" or "evaluate" or "determine for ourselves" their inspiration.  I think we should operate from a position of faith.  I also think we should give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt.  That is, I think we should generally "decide that you will believe someone, even though you are not sure that what the person is saying is true."  I think such a presumption would a healthy thing.  I also think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  (There are way too many "I thinks" in this paragraph, I think.)

However, this presumption should not be unthinking or devoid of analysis.  To the contrary, we are supposed to examine the words of our leaders.  Consider these remarks by Kent Jackson:

Quote

The more restrictive view of what constitutes scripture would include only what is called "the scriptures"-that is, the four standard works: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These constitute the canonized, authoritative corpus of revealed writings against which all else is measured. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them…. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine" (DS 3:203).

And these by then-Elder Harold B. Lee of the Twelve:

Quote

It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer and revelator — please note that one exception {when he is speaking as the prophet, taught from earlier in the paragraph} — you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea.” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them “standard” — it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it.

And these remarks by President Lee:

Quote

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.  The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.  And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard  Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, Reports and Discourses, p.69)

So my rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it.  

So if I find the statement to be "beyond" what it is the Standard Works, then I generally either reject it or label it in my mind as a personal opinion of the speaker (and hence I am not bound by it).  If I find the statement to contradict the Standard Works, then I reject it altogether.  

Consider, by way of example, Amasa Lyman, who while serving as an apostle and as a member of the presidency of the Church's European Mission, "preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ," a concept he continued to preach years later even after being corrected and after he apologized for it.  He was subsequently released as an apostle, and within a few years was affiliating with an apostate sect, and was then excommunicated (his membership and status as an apostle were posthumously reinstated).

Imagine the confusion, and perhaps even apostasy, that would be caused if members of the Church today uncritically accepted remarks similar to what Elder Lyman taught.  And then consider the wisdom of the counsel we have received about reliance on "the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine."

So the counsel we have given on this point is, I think, sound and reasonable.  I note, however, that it is susceptible to abuse by dissidents and critics, who may seize upon remarks such as those I have quoted above and use them as some sort of carte blanche to publicly disagree with and defy the Brethren on any issue they (the critics/dissidents) deem significant, and also to work to persuade members of the Church to listen to them rather than the Brethren.  Hence we end up with substantial disagreements over socially popular themes like same-sex marriage, female ordination, and so on.  And with the advent of the Internet, critics and dissidents have markedly increased opportunities to persuade members of the Church to accept their point of view on such issues, and to ignore or disregard the counsel given to us by the Brethren, and to instead adopt the preferences of the self-selected few who have set themselves up as alternative voices of authority.

I don't think this is what the Lord has in mind for His people.  I don't think the wise words given above were intended to give critics and dissidents leave to speak evil of the Lord's anointed, to set themselves up as voices of authority alternative and superior to the Brethren, or to foment discord and disunity in the Church.

Hope this helps.

I am quite comfortable with my perspective on the Brethren.  They are overwhelmingly good and decent men, but they are not perfect.  They are overwhelmingly correct in their pronouncements about the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, but there may be some few errors here and there.

They are not perfect, but I don't expect or need them to be.

I am exceedingly confident that if I were to encounter Pres. Oaks and ask him if I as a faithful Latter-day Saint believe that the Flood was more likely a local (rather than "global") event, he would say yes.  And I think he would be right about that.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

You think there must have been others here because of demographics or warfare or agriculture or something.

There are a lot of data as to why I think it more likely that Lehi did not arrive in the Americas and find the entirety of the continents devoid of any human presence.

I think most Latter-day Saints who have given this question any particular thought and study would agree with me.

And if we're wrong, I'm okay with that.  

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

You probably believe in evolution to some extent.

I do.

I also believe that racialism is morally wrong, even though some past Latter-day Saint leaders and members were influenced by it.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

But doing all of this is mingling the philosophies of men with scripture.

I just can't take you seriously when you say stuff like this.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

Don't get me wrong--you are free to believe whatever you want to and Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie were certainly wrong about all of these things, so you're going in the right track.

I think Elder McConkie was right about this:

Quote

I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

You can, as some critics do, take a "Well, if the leaders of the Church were wrong about X, then they could be wrong about Y and Z, and maybe even everything" tack.  

Latter-day Saints, however, should take the "Don't condemn prophets for their errors, but learn from their errors and give thanks to God" tack encouraged in Mormon 9:30.

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

But from my seat, when you claim that we shouldn't expect any of Lehi's seed to show up in DNA tests because of X, Y, and Z, you are really saying that we shouldn't believe what Lehi said in 2 Nephi 1 because either God was lying, Lehi was just spouting out nonsense, or that's just ancient mythology that Mormon wrote down that had no bearing on reality, or it is all symbolic, or something. 

This is not a correct statement of what I believe.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 27 by smac97

[smac97]

18 hours ago, california boy said:

Did you read the title summary heading written by the Church???????  I put the part in bold that you evidently missed.

Quote

The Nephite monetary system is set forth—Amulek contends with Zeezrom—Christ will not save people in their sins—Only those who inherit the kingdom of heaven are saved—All men will rise in immortality—There is no death after the Resurrection. About 82 B.C.

I think you are a little out of date here.  A "monetary system" does not necessarily refer to coins.

And in any event, the summary is not part of the text, and was added later.

The previous chapter heading to Alma 11 referred to "Nephite coinage."  This was changed in 2013.

18 hours ago, california boy said:

You are kinda making up the idea of this being only about weights and measurements aren't you.  

I am not.  This has been a very widely-discussed topic for many years now.  I didn't originate it or make it up.

• Why You Should Care About the Nephite Weights and Measures System
• Weighing and Measuring in the Worlds of the Book of Mormon
• Wages and Measures in the Book of Mormon
• Weights and Measures in the Book of Mormon
• Senums, Senines and … Barley? Why Alma 11?
• Table Showing Nephite Weights and Measures from Alma 11
• Money and the Book of Mormon
• Book of Mormon Evidence: Pre-Columbian Measures
• John L. Sorenson discusses measurements in pre-classical Mesoamerica; argues that Alma 11 is not speaking of coins or weights, but instead a system of measurements in which volume was counted.

One of the above articles (the second one) was published, I think, in 1999.  From that article (keep in mind that the reference to "coinage" in the chapter heading was still in place at the time) :

Quote

This article addresses the seemingly misplaced discussion of weights and measures in the middle of Alma 11 in the Book of Mormon. 
...
The ancient world in Lehi’s day knew virtually nothing of true coinage.
...
It should be clear from all of the foregoing that we are talking here about weights and measures, not coins.  When the Book of Mormon speaks of “the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver,” as well as naming them “according to their value” (Alma 11:4), we should probably not think that it is referring to minted coins.  Rather, the term pieces most likely refers to metallic weights of some sort.

Again, I did not make any of this up.

18 hours ago, california boy said:

The verses talk about VALUE, not weights.

See the above articles.

18 hours ago, california boy said:

As far as the throw everything at the wall to see if it sticks to prove there is evidence of the BoM civilization,  I am not impressed.  

I'm okay with that.  I continue to give the Church and study of its doctrine and history a lot of time and effort.  I don't think you do.  I don't think you are very familiar with the subject matter.  If you were, you would not have made such an obvious error.

It seems like you left the Church quite a while ago, so it's understandable that you are not familiar with its particulars any more.

18 hours ago, california boy said:

it doesn't take much for you to consider something to be a remnant of the BoM civilization.  

Not sure what you are referencing here.

18 hours ago, california boy said:

I am saying nothing specifically points to that BoM civilization that existed for 1000 years.  

Well, good luck maintaining a negative (to say nothing of demonstrating it).  I fund that to be pretty unserious.

The Latter-day Saints are aiming for, and hitting, "plausibility."  And even then, we only do so as a secondary consideration.  The first is to read the text, ponder its meaning, and pray to God and ask if it is what it claims to be, if it is "true."

18 hours ago, california boy said:

Rather than a ton of speculation, just one bit of concrete evidence would be of more worth that an entire page of speculation.  

Sounds like you are insisting on a Smoking Gun, and anything else is categorically not "evidence."

I respectfully disagree with that assessment.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 27 by smac97