The Bible versus the Book of Mormon

[awyatt]

It is logically possible (in the sense of not being self-contradictory) to claim that one agrees with, say, the moral content of the statements ascribed to some personage in the Book of Mormon while disbelieving Joseph Smith's account of how the book came to him. However I think that it would be a very strange person who could disbelieve Joseph Smith on this point, but still accept the Book of Mormon as an independent and authoritative source of moral or religious teaching.

It is not just that the positive authority of the book as a divinely validated text would have been removed if it was not really delivered by an angel and attested by the conferral of miraculous powers of translation; worse, its supposed translator (absent any other explanation of the book's origin) would be exposed as a pious fraudster or at best sadly self-deluded. From such a prophet one would not seek teachings of any kind, even if one happened coincidentally to agree with some of the words he put into the mouths of his fictional characters.

To me it seems that no angel means no LDS church, in the same way that if the angel Gabriel did not deliver the Quran to Mohammmed from God, there can be no Islam.

I tend to agree with your analysis.

-Allen

[Markk]

Hi Allen,

Thanks for your response.

In other words you want me to buy the book, read it, tell you what it says, and then maybe you'll read it. Gottcha. (Although it does confirm why you aren't willing to go to the source and see what the author has to say, preferring, instead, to read anti-Mormon caricatures of what the author said. Cheaper; easier; more comforting.

I really don't read anti Mormon stuff, I haven't read a anti Mormon book in years. Believe it or not the only books I have read in our conversation is the BoM, A BoM concordance by Reynolds, and various LDS publications. My Grandfather was a patriarch and I have some of his stuff but mostly I get books at the DI. And the map I posted and asked questions about I assume is a LDS site. And I asked you so I wouldn't get a anti source, but if you don't know, I assumed you have the book, but that

[awyatt]

Markk said: What do you mean by "sacred history", while you say "We know from the text itself that Nephi (and others) kept other records on which they wrote about the non-religious events among the people." That is a good start, we can use the text as a bench mark, and the text is full of historical data.

Actually, the text is not "full" of historical data, but only clues. As I said, the Book of Mormon is a religious history, not a historical record in the strict sense of the word. Since you asked for references, you might start with 1 Nephi 6:3; 1 Nephi 9:1-4, 19:2-6 (pay particular attention to where it says that Nephi only records those things he thinks to be sacred); 2 Nephi 4:14-15; 2 Nephi 5:29-33; Jacob 1:1-4; Jacob 3:13; Jacob 7:26; Jarom 1:14; Omni 1:11; and 3 Nephi 5:8-10. There are many others, but these will provide a start.

Remember, as well, that if the Lehites ran into other peoples in the New World, it would have been during Nephi's lifetime. Yet he specifically says (in multiple places) that he is only writing things he considers sacred and things that have to do with the salvation of his people. Would he consider interactions with other non-religious peoples to be sacred or important to salvation? Not likely. Other prophets followed suit.

Markk said: But, I do not see how there would not be one reference to other peoples, if they had inter mixed, then they would have been part of the writing and certainly would have included themselves. If only the laminite inter mixed, then it would be a very important part of the story that would have been part of their downfall...

It doesn't matter what you or I think is important, it only matters what Nephi and other prophets thought was important. So, we are left with exactly what we have--an incomplete record that focuses on those items that the writers thought important to our spiritual salvation.

As for the Lamanites downfall, it was exactly for the same reason as the Jaredites and the Nephites downfall--disobedience and rebellion. That is the most important understanding, from a spiritual point, so that is what we get in the record; nothing else.

Markk said: First, I do not agree that it is just a "religious record", I view it as a very historical record of a people who half were religious and half who were not, there is just to much history in the record to say otherwise...

You can choose to view it how you want, but your assessment would seem to disagree entirely with the authors and redactors of the book. Do you have a good reason why your assessment should be accepted in preference to their statements?

Markk said: So textually, the Nephites couldn't have mixed...

That's a big leap. It is not stated in the text, but is an assumption on your part. I don't think that such an assumption is warranted by the evidence.

Markk said: Can I ask you this personal question, Do you personally believe the intermixing therory because of the natural evidence of the actual Americas, or because the BoM actually implys it in some way.

I believe it is an educated assumption based on naturalistic data supported by the stories in the scriptures.

Markk said: The past prophets and teachers and LDS publications teach nothing of a intermixing of the two nations, and they teach the Laminites were the Indians, what do you use as a starting point for the "intermixing" view, archeology or the BoM?

Don't tell me you are going to get into inerrancy here. Do me a big favor--don't try to tell me what I must believe, particularly when you no longer believe it. I'll try not to limit or define your beliefs if you extend to me the same courtesy.

-Allen

[rongo]

I do not want to seem rude or disrespectful, but is not another interpretation of all this that the text is a fiction, written by an author who has not troubled himself overmuch about the plausibility of the numbers in his story?  We must always remember, must we not, that this is a book that can only be believed in if we accept Joseph Smith's story that it was delivered to him by an angel.

Raising this point is neither rude nor disrespectful; as has been repeated several times in this thread, there are essentially two options for the origin of the Book of Mormon. What you said here is the obvious counter-option to the orthodox Mormon explanation.

Interesting in this regard is the fact that opponents of the Book of Mormon have never and don't intend on actually subjecting the Book of Mormon to actual tests to determine its authenticity and historicity, no matter how much they insist otherwise. In order to actually test the Book of Mormon's claims, a critic must operate under the assumption that it is what Mormons claim it to be. Assuming that something is true, as Hugh Nibley pointed out, is actually the only fair and reliable point of departure to truly investigate whether something is true, even if one wishes to prove it wrong. While this seems paradoxical, one must assume that something is true or valid as a starting point if one truly wants to subject it to an objective investigation. Nibley applied forgery expert Friedrich Blass

[rongo]

Actually, the text is not "full" of historical data, but only clues. As I said, the Book of Mormon is a religious history, not a historical record in the strict sense of the word. Since you asked for references, you might start with 1 Nephi 6:3; 1 Nephi 9:1-4, 19:2-6 (pay particular attention to where it says that Nephi only records those things he thinks to be sacred); 2 Nephi 4:14-15; 2 Nephi 5:29-33; Jacob 1:1-4; Jacob 3:13; Jacob 7:26; Jarom 1:14; Omni 1:11; and 3 Nephi 5:8-10. There are many others, but these will provide a start.

Remember, as well, that if the Lehites ran into other peoples in the New World, it would have been during Nephi's lifetime. Yet he specifically says (in multiple places) that he is only writing things he considers sacred and things that have to do with the salvation of his people. Would he consider interactions with other non-religious peoples to be sacred or important to salvation? Not likely. Other prophets followed suit.

Markk said: First, I do not agree that it is just a "religious record", I view it as a very historical record of a people who half were religious and half who were not, there is just to much history in the record to say otherwise...

You can choose to view it how you want, but your assessment would seem to disagree entirely with the authors and redactors of the book. Do you have a good reason why your assessment should be accepted in preference to their statements?

Here are a few of the verses from awyatt's list, with a few others, all of which show that Mormon, Moroni, and Nephi were at great pains to explain that they weren't attempting to give even a "hundredth" part of the social/secular history of their peoples. The Book of Mormon was written specifically for other reasons.

And a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, which now began to be numerous, cannot be written upon these plates; but many of their proceedings are written upon the larger plates, and their wars, and their contentions, and the reigns of their kings. (Jacob 3:13)

Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the plates of Nephi; and I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people. (Words of Mormon 1:5)

But behold, a hundredth part of the proceedings of this people, yea, the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites, and their wars, and contentions, and dissensions, and their preaching, and their prophecies, and their shipping and their building of ships, and their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries, and their righteousness, and their wickedness, and their murders, and their robbings, and their plundering, and all manner of abominations and whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work. (Helaman 3:14)

And there had many things transpired which, in the eyes of some, would be great and marvelous; nevertheless, they cannot all be written in this book; yea, this book cannot contain even a hundredth part of what was done among so many people in the space of twenty and five years; (3 Nephi 5:

And the Lord spake unto Ether, and said unto him: Go forth. And he went forth, and beheld that the words of the Lord had all been fulfilled; and he finished his record; (and the hundredth part I have not written) and he hid them in a manner that the people of Limhi did find them. (Ether 15:33)

[JNclone]

rongo:

This principle forms the basis and rationale for the American legal doctrine of

[rongo]

Surely LDS are much more like someone trying to get one to invest in a business proposition.  In such a case, it is usual to demand that the person seeking the investment (of 10% of one's income, a lot of time and energy, and if you believe in such things your immortal soul) should carry the burden of proof.  This is all the more true if the business proposition depends on a book handed to its translator by an angel.  One would need a whole lot of proof to invest then, would one not?

For purposes of converting others to the LDS Church, the burden of proof is on the believers as you have described. People who are satisfied with the evidences/proof presented by believers then willingly become Mormons.

Discrediting the Book of Mormon is different, isn't it? The aim is to dissuade, not to persuade. I think what Nibley, and Blass, argue is very relevant and applicable here. For critics to really deal a coup de grace to the Book of Mormon, they need to start with the assumption that it's historical and that it's origins are what Joseph Smith said they are, and then put these claims to the test. This is similar to a prosecutor working within a framework of the assumption of innocence of the defendant.

In your examples, Mormons trying to convert someone to their beliefs would represent the presentation of "positive" evidence. The proponents need merely to present evidence/proofs that sufficiently satisfy the investigator to a point where he accepts the commitments/covenants of membership.

Would you agree that critics trying to discredit the Book of Mormon would represent more of a "negative" evidentiary approach? Wouldn't the same standards and assumptions as our judicial system apply here, for the same reasons that Nibley and Blass gave for detecting frauds and forgeries?

[JNclone]

rongo:

Would you agree that critics trying to discredit the Book of Mormon would represent more of a "negative" evidentiary approach? Wouldn't the same standards and assumptions as our judicial system apply here, for the same reasons that Nibley and Blass gave for detecting frauds and forgeries?

Some judiciary systems make the highly artificial presumption of innocence before proof of guilt, on the basis that the citizen needs the maximum protection against the power of the state to deprive him or her of property, liberty and even life. Such safeguards are unnecessary in discussing whether or not a book is true (absent any accusation of lawbreaking), and there is no reason to extend the presumption to such a case.

If LDS were like many Orthodox Jews, who neither proselytise not claim that other people must embrace their religion in order to please God, LDS might perhaps reasonably ask that people who do not believe in the Book of Mormon should refrain from attacking it in public. But the LDS church is a very active missionary organisation, which has been urging belief in the Book of Mormon on the world for over a century and a half. In such a case the burden of proof is (as in a business proposition) surely on the proposer (is it not?), and those who feel the proposal is faulty in its basis are it seems to me entitled to say so vigorously on any grounds they think are cogent.

[asciikerr]

Hello Folks,

I originally asked some help from Mr. Gardner, but I'm sure he's extremely busy. Does anybody else know enough of the subject matter to answer my question?

I haven't been able to pickup Dever's book as of yet (yeah I know!) concerning the matter  , but is this possibly related to:

a "Temple of Yahweh" in Arad excavated between 1962-74 by Yohanan Aharoni & Amiran? Because I believe they found a pair of masseboth (erected stones) that dated around the same time mentioned in your writing (8th-7th B.C). This "confirmed" Israelite temple (by way of 2 small inscribed ostraca/potsherds) in Arad also supposedly housed a pair of deities (Yahweh and Asherah?). They may have even housed their own priests that were outside of the Levitical priesthood or that of Aaron. Some have even compared this temple to an Iron Age fortress more so than a hebrew temple. There was also an article in The Jerusalem Post from the 1970's concerning these artifacts that Dever mentions. There was some mention of how they used these potsherds for business transactions specifically. Is this one and the same place spoken of by Dever? I'm sure once I pickup Dever's book this will all be answered for me...but I'm just trying to do some pro-active studying on the matter.

I won't be able to get my hands on his book (Dever) until after the month, so any info or help on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

What is your understanding of the relationship between the pre-exilic and post-exilic religion?

Would anybody else share in this same understanding as explained below?

The way I see it, The Pre-Exilic polytheistic majority eventually became a Post-Exilic minority after the exile. The Exile was used by God to purge the nation of Polytheism. Monotheism wasn't developed after the exile, but instead flourished from it.

Thanks again...cheers!

[Neighbor]

From the first link:

"Nibley addresses himself to questions that scientists and scholars in many fields are now asking with increasing insistence: Do we really know what the ancients were talking about? Could it be that there was something to their mysteries after all?"

I can but wonder why the discussion when God has already pronounced Egypt's religion as not of Him. God delivered His people from Egypt long ago. Why do some think to go back to that when we have the grace and truth of Christ Jesus? Did Jesus ever say to learn from what the Egyptians believed and follow any of what they said?

I don't recall that He did. Care to supply that verse I missed somewhere?

[asciikerr]

Why do some think to go back to that when we have the grace and truth of Christ Jesus? Did Jesus ever say to learn from what the Egyptians believed and follow any of what they said?

I don't recall that He did. Care to supply that verse I missed somewhere?

2 Peter 2:20-22

For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb:

[Neighbor]

Good one, but I was trying to be more gentle

[David Bokovoy]

Why do some think to go back to that when we have the grace and truth of Christ Jesus? Did Jesus ever say to learn from what the Egyptians believed and follow any of what they said?

I don't recall that He did. Care to supply that verse I missed somewhere

I

[Markk]

Hi Allen'

Thanks for the response.

Actually, the text is not "full" of historical data, but only clues. As I said, the Book of Mormon is a religious history, not a historical record in the strict sense of the word. Since you asked for references, you might start with 1 Nephi 6:3; 1 Nephi 9:1-4, 19:2-6 (pay particular attention to where it says that Nephi only records those things he thinks to be sacred); 2 Nephi 4:14-15; 2 Nephi 5:29-33; Jacob 1:1-4; Jacob 3:13; Jacob 7:26; Jarom 1:14; Omni 1:11; and 3 Nephi 5:8-10. There are many others, but these will provide a start.

I disagree, I read through your proof texts in context and they create more problems for your view than lend evidence to your position. If Nephi and the other prophets write only about things that are "sacred", then general history is sacred to him. While it may not be down to the nitty gritty in specifics, there is more than enough data to put together a historical profile of these people, and what you claim to be what the BoM is just written about, sacred things, is one of then most damaging evidences to your theory. You gave me the quote Jarom 1:14, well, I read the whole book to get the context and it is very clear that these people, the Nephites, were taught and instructed in the Law of Moses, and looked forward to, and knew of the Christ. Read verse 5, how could that be among a mixed population, if indeed they were mixed, which there is no evidence of, there would still be evidence of a Jewish culture deeply embedded into the Law of Moses. In verse 2, the Laminites are called "brethren", if they were of a mixed culture, 200 years later, they would in no way be called brethren by a person imbedded deep in the Law, no way, the Law is clear and the History of this is clear, Jews and the Law did not mix well with gentiles, read the last sentence in verse 5. So while the Nephites and the Lamanites fought war after war in these 30 plus years, the lamanites were still "brethern" to the Nephites who deeply into the Law of Moses

In 1 Nephi 19, you gave me verses 2-6, Well, I think we also have to read verse 1, this verse qualifies the next verses which include the "journeys through the wilderness". In chapter 18 verses speaks of farming and animals and metals, these are hardly a "strict" sacred context. You used Jacob 1:1-4, 3:13 as proof texts, well, what about 1:7-8? These people were have supposed to have..."labored diligently among our people, that we might persuade them to come unto Christ..."

Given that, that they were deeply into the Law of Moses, were living and building great cities, and great commerce, and inter structures, I would venture to say it would be impossible for there not to be a abundance of evidence of these people as told by the BoM story. And that Helaman says in 3:14, this is book, or the small plates are just a 100th of the evidence that should be there that is not, impossible.

Remember, as well, that if the Lehites ran into other peoples in the New World, it would have been during Nephi's lifetime. Yet he specifically says (in multiple places) that he is only writing things he considers sacred and things that have to do with the salvation of his people. Would he consider interactions with other non-religious peoples to be sacred or important to salvation? Not likely. Other prophets followed suit.

Totally wrong, if they indeed ran into other people, don't you think if these Nephites being as pure and noble as the BoM teaches, grounded in the coming messiah, would have put out a massive missionary effort? Wouldn't that be considered "sacred" enough for reference. That would make zero sense to a supposed Christian people who ..."..."labored diligently among our people, that we might persuade them to come unto Christ..." are you saying they were selfish with Christ?

so when you say...

It doesn't matter what you or I think is important, it only matters what Nephi and other prophets thought was important.

They would believe and attempt to bring salvation to a whole new world of "non-religious" people as you called them, were they sacred or "important" enough to mention?

You can choose to view it how you want, but your assessment would seem to disagree entirely with the authors and redactors of the book. Do you have a good reason why your assessment should be accepted in preference to their statements?

That doesn't make sense in light that your argument is based on a argument of silence. What statement do they make that says that there were others besides those who came over whether it be Nephites, lamanites, or any of the other "ites".

I believe it is an educated assumption based on naturalistic data supported by the stories in the scriptures.

I understand why you would have to take a naturalistic approach, but what story would best describe a intermixing?

Don't tell me you are going to get into inerrancy here. Do me a big favor--don't try to tell me what I must believe, particularly when you no longer believe it. I'll try not to limit or define your beliefs if you extend to me the same courtesy.

No, I am just asking you a personal question, if you don't want to answer it fine, I understand, I think,...but, I will never tell you what you believe, that is why I asked the question. That said, past leaders and official publications have taught different from your position, whether it is "official" or not, being taught in a standard work, is pointless, a teaching is a teaching right or wrong. So, my question was in light of these teachings...what do you do with that personally, I am not telling you what you believe but asking why you believe your view and where you put the past LDS teachings that contradict your view....again if you don't want to answer, don't.

Thanks for your time, I am enjoying this conversation, thanks for the references, I read them all, along with the chapters before and after, or more, to get a full context.

Mark

John 1:12

[Brant Gardner]

Markk:

Totally wrong, if they indeed ran into other people, don't you think if these Nephites being as pure and noble as the BoM teaches, grounded in the coming messiah, would have put out a massive missionary effort?

This represents one of the most common kinds of criticism of the Book of Mormon - otherwise known as the "if I were a duck" comment. Someone has an opinion of what ought to have happened and since it didn't, uses the absence of what they expect to see as a condemntaiton of the text. The problem, of course, is that there is rarely any historical grounding in the opinion.

This particular comment has the interesting twist of suggesting not just that Nephites should have mentioned someone else, but that they should have proselyted them. This is fascinating given the Israelite origins of this particular small group of people. Israel was always known as a proselyting nation, wasn't it? (the answer is no, by the way).

As for the proselyting that would certainly have happened, assuming that there were others included in Nephi's statement that "all would go" with him to the new location, those people were obviously proselyted/adopted into the Nephite faith, since that is what we see in the city of Nephi. So, even the text agrees that there was some converting going on, but it appears to have been limited to those willing to join with Israel - a parallel to the process from the Old World.

[JNclone]

Brent Gardner:

Markk:

QUOTE

Totally wrong, if they indeed ran into other people, don't you think if these Nephites being as pure and noble as the BoM teaches, grounded in the coming messiah, would have put out a massive missionary effort?

This represents one of the most common kinds of criticism of the Book of Mormon - otherwise known as the "if I were a duck" comment. Someone has an opinion of what ought to have happened and since it didn't, uses the absence of what they expect to see as a condemntaiton of the text. The problem, of course, is that there is rarely any historical grounding in the opinion.

Oh. Two questions:

(a) Am I right that you do not reject all attempts to deduce anything from statements in ancient texts, other than the fact that certain words are in the document? Certainly this would disable LDS apologists from arguing, for instance, that we can deduce from very sparse instances that there were already millions of non-Hebrew people in America in BoM times.

(b) Assuming (a) is right, by what criteria do you limit the legitimacy of such deductions?

Am I, for instance, entitled to deduce that the surrounding peoples (assuming there were any) must have been passive to a bizarre degree if they did not react in some way to the establishment amongst them of people as numerous as the sands of the sea, driving chariots, smelting metals, building cities and finally massacring one another in a battle at the Hill Cumorah at which nearly a quarter of a million people were killed on one side alone? Or do I have to say, well, we don't know what those people were like ... maybe in their culture you minded your own business more than people would today? But even if they were ducks, would they not have quacked just a little, sometimes?

And as for the suggestion that neighbours would not be mentioned in a 'religious' book, there are certainly no signs from non-miraculously delivered ancient Hebrew literature that the Israelites were given to ignoring their neighbours. Even the most 'religious' bits of the Old Testament talk about them frequently - often complaining of how culturally and religiously unacceptable they are, as well as militarily threatening. Odd, surely that the millions of non-Israelite neighbours said by some to have surrounded the BoM people were so little worthy of mention - if the writer of the text thought there were any, that is, which I take leave to doubt that he did.

[Brant Gardner]

JNClone:

Am I right that you do not reject all attempts to deduce anything from statements in ancient texts, other than the fact that certain words are in the document?

All historians deduce data from texts. It is required. The issue isn't whether or not we deduce information from the "between the lines" evidence, it is the basis on which that information is extracted. Basing the extraction of information on someone's guess isn't a very solid beginning. We start with an unsupported assumption, find nothing, and then make an argument supporting the assumption because we didn't find anything. That isn't a very appealing methodology.

( Assuming (a) is right, by what criteria do you limit the legitimacy of such deductions?

Achaeologists and ethnohistorians base their deductions on an understanding (as much as it can be gleaned) of the culture and history of the people being studied. Frequently, however, there are problems with the availability of texts. In those cases, assumptions are always tested against what might be considered to be appropriately similar instances. For example, if one were to infer a certain kind of kinship structure in a particular historical culture, being able to demonstrate the existence of that structure in a later people in the same area bolsters the probability that it also existed earlier, assuming similar markers.

In the case of what someone might do when they write a historical text, other historical texts become the measuring stick. When those texts similarly are absent the same data that the Book of Mormon is - we aren't all that surprised that it is missing in the Book of Mormon.

Am I, for instance, entitled to deduce that the surrounding peoples (assuming there were any) must have been passive to a bizarre degree if they did not react in some way to the establishment amongst them of people as numerous as the sands of the sea, driving chariots, smelting metals, building cities and finally massacring one another in a battle at the Hill Cumorah at which nearly a quarter of a million people were killed on one side alone?

No. Why not? You have conflated events occurring 1,000 years after the entrance of the Lehites with the events from the earlier time. No historian would assume that the reaction of a people to a migrant population of 30-50 would be the same as a long-time enemy with a much larger population a thousand years later.

No, because you are assuming the driving of chariots, which the text never supports.

No, because your assumption of "bizarre degree" bears no indication of any solid understanding of the text or of history.

Or do I have to say, well, we don't know what those people were like ... maybe in their culture you minded your own business more than people would today? But even if they were ducks, would they not have quacked just a little, sometimes?

What one should do is compare peoples and times. Since you clearly have not done that and prefer quick and somewhat snide remarks to any kind of intelligent analysis, I would have to say that you are welcome to your opinion, but I wouldn't like your "if I were a duck" analysis any better.

And as for the suggestion that neighbours would not be mentioned in a 'religious' book,

Not my argument, of course. However, it is my argument that the nature of the text dictates the type of contents it contains. That, by the way, is a pretty solid assumption for any historical text. William G. Dever notes:

The Bible cannot simply be read at face value as history; not, of course, can any other ancient text be so read. We must begin by acknowledging that our task is made difficult, some would say impossible, by problems in the nature of the literary sources--even the properly historical sources--and the written tradition in which they have been handed down to us. William G. Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1990), 5.

As with the rest of the deductions, we are required to understand historical texts and what they do and do not say. In the case of the missing mentions of neighbors, rather than resort to the useless "if I were a duck" reasoning, we should recourse to actual texts and see what they do. I have cited several where the known history has the people (Quiche and Cakchiquel) coming into an area already inhabited. They don't mention that in their histories.

Can your "if I were a duck" explanation of missing mentions explain why the Quiche and Cakchiquel did not mention "others"? You seem to think they should have. Are you willing to tell historians to throw away the Popol Vuh and the Annals of the Cakchiquels? (In case you were wondering - they wouldn't do it).

[JNclone]

Brant Gardner:

QUOTE

Am I, for instance, entitled to deduce that the surrounding peoples (assuming there were any) must have been passive to a bizarre degree if they did not react in some way to the establishment amongst them of people as numerous as the sands of the sea, driving chariots, smelting metals, building cities and finally massacring one another in a battle at the Hill Cumorah at which nearly a quarter of a million people were killed on one side alone?

No. Why not? You have conflated events occurring 1,000 years after the entrance of the Lehites with the events from the earlier time. No historian would assume that the reaction of a people to a migrant population of 30-50 would be the same as a long-time enemy with a much larger population a thousand years later.

I am indeed addressing the point that in the whole of the Book of Mormon there seems to be a lack of any substantive reference to any other body of people who were not part of the story of the people whose arrival in the North American continent the BoM discusses. That seems legitimate enough to me.

As with the rest of the deductions, we are required to understand historical texts and what they do and do not say. In the case of the missing mentions of neighbors, rather than resort to the useless "if I were a duck" reasoning, we should recourse to actual texts and see what they do. I have cited several where the known history has the people (Quiche and Cakchiquel) coming into an area already inhabited. They don't mention that in their histories.

Can your "if I were a duck" explanation of missing mentions explain why the Quiche and Cakchiquel did not mention "others"? You seem to think they should have. Are you willing to tell historians to throw away the Popol Vuh and the Annals of the Cakchiquels? (In case you were wondering - they wouldn't do it).

Do you mind if we drop the boring old tactic of giving the other person's point of view a silly label? Some might unfairly think you were worried that your argument might be too weak to stand without such tropes.

I notice that you try to divert us away to the literature of non-Israelite people with no proved connection with the Book of Mormon, instead of addressing my point that in non-LDS writings the ancient Hebrews, even at their most religious, say a great deal about their neighbours. Odd that you should do that, since you imply that I fail to realise that "In the case of what someone might do when they write a historical text, other historical texts become the measuring stick." Is not the Old Testament rather relevant here?

[JNclone]

And what's this about no chariots?

Brent Gardner: "you are assuming the driving of chariots, which the text never supports."

Alma, 18:

9 And they said unto him: Behold, he is feeding thy ahorses

[Markk]

Hi Brant

Welcome back to the discussion,

This represents one of the most common kinds of criticism of the Book of Mormon - otherwise known as the "if I were a duck" comment. Someone has an opinion of what ought to have happened and since it didn't, uses the absence of what they expect to see as a condemntaiton of the text. The problem, of course, is that there is rarely any historical grounding in the opinion.

I agree and disagree with that statement, but, the mixed theory is based 100% on this, while my view is in context with the text. These weren't just Jews Brant, these were Jews who KNEW that Jesus was going to be the Messiah before He even was. So not only were they by the Law, they also were propagating the messiah. And my point was, IF, they intermixed, and WHEN, the BoM says...

"..."labored diligently among our people, that we might persuade them to come unto Christ..."(Jacob 1:7)

This would demand that if the people had mixed, they would still be Christian folk and/or under the Law of Moses, or at least a majority as the story folds out.

The view you hold is not backed up at all by the BoM, it is driven by the naturalistic evidence that is here (Mesoamerica) that the people who did live here were not a BOM type of people. That is what I mean when I say your view is "isogenical", you are working backwards and taking a pre-conceived ideology, then going to the BoM and trying to find a place where it works, while ignoring mounds of evidence in doing so.

My "criticism" is based on what the BoM says, that is all I have to work with. Is it a argument of silence? yes, to a degree, but the silence is warranted by context, while your argument of silence was created by geography and lack of evidences of what these people should have left behind.

This particular comment has the interesting twist of suggesting not just that Nephites should have mentioned someone else, but that they should have proselyted them. This is fascinating given the Israelite origins of this particular small group of people. Israel was always known as a proselyting nation, wasn't it? (the answer is no, by the way).

Not because I am saying..."if I were a duck"..., it is based on the fact that the BoM says that they did proselize, this is the fourth time I have quoted the text of this fact, and it is just one of many I could choose, I'm sure,

"..."labored diligently among our people, that we might persuade them to come unto Christ..." (Jacob 1:7)

So I'm not saying they should have, I'm saying the BOM says they did. While you keep using the small group thing, that just doesn't fly. These peoples would have to have generated into the millions, It wasn't just that they were Hebrews, but Hebrews who grew into a nation that was by the Law of Moses and knew of and as the text demands, preached a Christ, and that who so would believe in Him would be saved, even before he came. That demands to be factored in if we are going to be honest with our exegesis. Also, the law of chance and probability has to be factored in here somewhere, the size of the population would have been staggering as described by the context of the inter structures, they covered the land from sea to sea, and given that this is just 1/100th, compounds this 100 fold. So, the chances that no tangible evidence has ever been found, let alone the fact that there should be very large amounts of it. would have to be neal.

So, even the text agrees that there was some converting going on, but it appears to have been limited to those willing to join with Israel - a parallel to the process from the Old World.

That is incorrect, Jarom 1:12 says the opposite...

2 "And as these plates are small, and as these things are written for the intent of the benefit of our brethren the Lamanites, wherefore, it must needs be that I write a little; but I shall not write the things of my prophesying, nor of my revelations. For what could I write more than my fathers have written? For have not they revealed the plan of salvation? I say unto you, Yea; and this sufficeth me."

This is overwhelming evidence that the small plates were written with the intention to convert an dinclude the Lamanites as well. Jarom only wrote a little because it had more or less already been written. And you have to note the fact that Jarom calls the Lamanites "brethren", that is a very, very, important fact.

So you can see that this is based on context, and not a " if I were a duck" theory.

Look forward to your response, thanks for the time.

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Brant Gardner]

Mark:

"..."labored diligently among our people, that we might persuade them to come unto Christ..."(Jacob 1:7)

Thank you for point that out - I hadn't seen it in that context and should have. Isn't it intersting that this group of Israelites had to labor diligently to teach their own people? Why didn't they all believe?

Ancient belief in religion was like the air - you inherited it and couldn't escape it. It formed the way you saw the world. You might have differences of opinion on details, but not on the big stuff. In pre-exilic Israel there were conflicts about details - but not about Yahweh.

So - Jacob shouldn't have had to persuade his own people.

Two points - one, that supports my thesis that it was a mixed group. Two, it supports my thesis that there wasn't a lot of external proselyting.

Now, as for your question about the relevance of Messianic Israelites, I would refer you to Margaret Barker's analysis of temple rituals for the pre-exilic Messianic hope - which was more salvific than militaristic. That appears to have been another interesting effect of the exile, to codify only a part of the early messianic understanding. The Lehites, by the way, would fit quite nicely into that reconstruction of the period of the Josianic reforms.

[Markk]

Hi Brant,

Classic bait and switch. The fact that the BoM reports and implies and says there were multitudes that did believe mutes your point...see Jarom, the Nephites held as long as they did due to there faith and they "were waxed strong in the land".

They 'multiplied and filled the land'. Read Jarom real kwik Brant, they worked hard, the priests and teachers, but they did believe and thus survived and prospered because of that belief.

Ancient belief in religion was like the air - you inherited it and couldn't escape it. It formed the way you saw the world. You might have differences of opinion on details, but not on the big stuff. In pre-exilic Israel there were conflicts about details - but not about Yahweh.

So - Jacob shouldn't have had to persuade his own people.

Then why does the BoM say he did? and that they believed, we need to stick to the context of the BoM, not philosophy. LDS theology teaches free agency, and its obvious that the BoM also teaches free agency. Your above statement doesn

[awyatt]

Markk said: I disagree...

Certainly, this is your right to do. But I don't understand your disagreement completely. You are disagreeing with me when I say that the BoM is a sacred history, right?

Markk said: ...I read through your proof texts in context and they create more problems for your view than lend evidence to your position.

Not really. Let me explain why from your very next sentence:

Markk said: If Nephi and the other prophets write only about things that are "sacred", then general history is sacred to him.

The problem is that this is a huge assumption on your part. It may seem logical to you, but would it seem logical to someone raised in a Semitic culture during the sixth century BC? Doubtful; you have yet to show that what we view as "general history" would be viewed as such by Nephi. I provided evidence, from the text itself, of limits that Nephi placed on what should be included in the text. I provided references from the text that indicate other books that were to be used for non-sacred information. Yet, since you don't agree that such limits fit some notion of "general history," you decide to thrown them away and then proceed to tell me that I have problems with my view.

Understand, Markk: It isn't "my view." It is apparently Nephi's view. If you want to argue with what he wrote, feel free to do so, but you need to provide evidence as to why his statements, as founding author, should be dismissed in favor of yours.

Markk said: ...if indeed they were mixed, which there is no evidence of, there would still be evidence of a Jewish culture deeply embedded into the Law of Moses.

Brant already addressed your "no evidence" of a mixed culture claim, using a scripture that you provided, so I won't address it further. But to claim that there should be evidence of Jewish culture still existing ignores the already provided evidence that (1) there were only a limited number of Nephites--perhaps half of those that came with Lehi, (2) the Law of Moses was fulfilled and no longer practiced after the time of the great destruction when Christ came, and (3) even if some had ignored Christ and continued to practice the Law of Moses, all such people were completely wiped out about 400 A.D. What acceptable evidence would you expect to see survive these three facts, and where would you expect that evidence to be found?

Markk said: so when you say...

It doesn't matter what you or I think is important, it only matters what Nephi and other prophets thought was important.

They would believe and attempt to bring salvation to a whole new world of "non-religious" people as you called them, were they sacred or "important" enough to mention?

So let me get this straight... Your response to my assertion that it only matters what Nephi and other prophets think is important is to say that you know what they think must be important. Interesting.

-Allen

[awyatt]

Markk said: The point again, with the amounts of peoples that were said to have been in this land, and that they were both Messianic and Strict in the Law of Moses would demand a archeological record that would be most likely be in excess of the Biblical record of the Jews and there land. The ruins that are there had no problem leaving a evidence of the peoples that lived there, like wise if the BoM were true, a Jewish culture would exist.

No, that is not the point (again). The point (again) is that you cannot define how we would know when such evidence had been found and what you would accept as convincing evidence. That is the point.

Telling us what we "should" find without defining what that find would look like is seems rather pointless, don't you think?

-Allen

[Markk]

Hi Allen,

Thanks for the response,

No, that is not the point (again). The point (again) is that you cannot define how we would know when such evidence had been found and what you would accept as convincing evidence. That is the point.

Telling us what we "should" find without defining what that find would look like is seems rather pointless, don't you think?

Sure I have, I have made it very clear, they built in the manner of the Jews, the architecture would match, Helaman 3:14 sums it up well If there were millions of believing Jews that Knew and believed in the Messiah, later Jesus, and they wrote records, making them a record keeping people, they were educated, and well versed, we would find much evidence as in the book like I referenced to Brant in one of my first posts on this thread. There would be Hebrew writing and symbolism that would match Old World writing and symbolism. There building were built after the manner of the Jews in countless city's, that is what we would find. So know it is not pointless unless you ignore the BoM text.

Certainly, this is your right to do. But I don't understand your disagreement completely. You are disagreeing with me when I say that the BoM is a sacred history, right?

Yes and no, it is both, there is more than enough data to put together a very structured profile of these people, their wars, their struggles, their ideology, the style of architecture, means and methods of transportation, the food they ate, the ore's they mined, the tools they made, the weapons they forged, the type of buildings they made and the materials they made them with. We know who they worshipped and what they worshipped, and how they worshipped and what they worshipped in. we know they had a thriving shipping industry and great armies. we know there was countless city's and they were from one end of the continent to the other, North, South, East, and West, as the sand of the beach. So to just say that it is a sacred history and just write off everything else, is missing the context of the BoM.

The problem is that this is a huge assumption on your part. It may seem logical to you, but would it seem logical to someone raised in a Semitic culture during the sixth century BC? Doubtful; you have yet to show that what we view as "general history" would be viewed as such by Nephi. I provided evidence, from the text itself, of limits that Nephi placed on what should be included in the text. I provided references from the text that indicate other books that were to be used for non-sacred information. Yet, since you don't agree that such limits fit some notion of "general history," you decide to thrown them away and then proceed to tell me that I have problems with my view.

Understand, Markk: It isn't "my view." It is apparently Nephi's view. If you want to argue with what he wrote, feel free to do so, but you need to provide evidence as to why his statements, as founding author, should be dismissed in favor of yours.

My statement are base don the context of what is written in the whole book, not just taking one verse in a wooden literal sense and denying the data that is provided for us to review and test. There is so much data that is provided that you just can't ignore it. When it tells us what kind of weapons they made, both Lamanite and Nephites, that is data, not sacred, but real hard data on what they went to war with. when it talks of shipping, we know how massive that would have been to do what it says they did, when it says they built in the manner of the Jews, we know what that would be like. So what Nephi calls sacred history is also very telling of how and what these people were and how they lived.

Brant already addressed your "no evidence" of a mixed culture claim, using a scripture that you provided, so I won't address it further. But to claim that there should be evidence of Jewish culture still existing ignores the already provided evidence that (1) there were only a limited number of Nephites--perhaps half of those that came with Lehi, (2) the Law of Moses was fulfilled and no longer practiced after the time of the great destruction when Christ came, and (3) even if some had ignored Christ and continued to practice the Law of Moses, all such people were completely wiped out about 400 A.D. What acceptable evidence would you expect to see survive these three facts, and where would you expect that evidence to be found?

Before I go on, how many Nephites were in the BoM land from first page to last page? I would say countless and can supply evidence both physically described, and prophetically described in the BoM. give me a aprox number so I know were you are coming from?

mark

John

1:12