Changes In Maya Civilization And Nephite Destruction

[John Williams]

You all have to remember that America is a vast land and the topography of Mesoamerica in many parts is rather forbidding...

There were several tribes that lived in these times...but each were seperated just enough that interaction was rather rare in this time period (600 BC)

The Zapotecs lived in present day Oaxaca...the dying Olmecs in SE Veracruz on to Tabasco...The Mayas started out in the Guatemalan highlands and then gradually diffused into Chiapas, Peten, and the Yucatan.

The Nephites did not know the Mulekites existed until they fled from the land of Nephi to the area of Zarahemla...That territory that is Chiapas and Guatemala is very forbidding to pass...no wonder that the huge mountain range that bisects Guatemala is regarded as a possible wilderness...

Are you suggesting that they were somehow separated from the indigenous tribes or were unaware of their presence? Part of the LGT rests on the assumption that there was near-immediate contact and intermingling, hence the large numbers spoken of in the BofM.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Are you suggesting that they were somehow separated from the indigenous tribes or were unaware of their presence? Part of the LGT rests on the assumption that there was near-immediate contact and intermingling, hence the large numbers spoken of in the BofM.

Possibly...but not too seperated...perhaps there was a little intermingling somehow or another...but the genetical differences of the tribes are just striking...

There was trade between the tribes...the Olmecs thrived on it, as did the Zapotec, Maya, Toltec, etc. But it appears that the Book of Mormon must have been written in a rather limited area...with little mention of outside forces or tribes...they are there but are few and far between.

[emeliza]

You all have to remember that America is a vast land and the topography of Mesoamerica in many parts is rather forbidding...

There were several tribes that lived in these times...but each were seperated just enough that interaction was rather rare in this time period (600 BC)

The Zapotecs lived in present day Oaxaca...the dying Olmecs in SE Veracruz on to Tabasco...The Mayas started out in the Guatemalan highlands and then gradually diffused into Chiapas, Peten, and the Yucatan.

The Nephites did not know the Mulekites existed until they fled from the land of Nephi to the area of Zarahemla...That territory that is Chiapas and Guatemala is very forbidding to pass...no wonder that the huge mountain range that bisects Guatemala is regarded as a possible wilderness...

I am not sure one has to do with the other. I don't disagree that the people in the BoM seem to have run into other tribes. What I am stating is this scripture passage doesn't provide any evidence that they did.

[grego]

Emeliza,

those are pretty good summaries--it's possible, but it's just not good evidence.

And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men.

Let's take a look at this a little closer at the verse.

They "journeyed in the wilderness" and found these animals "in the forests". They were not grazing behind fences, or in the pastures, but in the forests! What people let their domesticated herds and flocks run around in the forest?

"...all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men"--wild animals are for the use of men? Or did he mean domesticated animals are for the use of men?

And does that "all manner of wild animals" include "the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and hte goat and the wild goat"? Or does it mean "we found domesticated animals, AND we also found some wild animals"?

Are all these animals exactly what we think they were? I mean, did they no-questions-asked, *really* find cows (the "moooo" kind) and neutered bulls running around in the forest? Where are the bulls to make sure that there is a next generation of cows and bulls, and to protect the cows? Why didn't they see the bulls? Or did Nephi also forget to mention them, like he forgot to mention the people attending the domesticated animals?

-=-=-=

Is there any suggestion in the existing text that suggests "extensive" writings about others on the large plates? Seems like a big assumption to me, but I'm certainly willing to listen.

I'm willing to listen, too.

-=-=-=

I also see that even if there were others, there would be no need, reason, or even desire for Nephites (and probably even Lamanites) to intermingle. For example, in a documentary on Borneo(?--pretty sure, but not absolutely sure), there were two tribes living just hours away that rarely, if ever, even saw each other--much less intermingled, even for trade. One look at some tall Nephites wielding weapons, and that might have been the last glimpse of them.

Nevertheless, I see no need for others to get the large numbers. (Search "pandas" for a thread on numbers.)

[cdowis]

Emeliza,

those are pretty good summaries--it's possible, but it's just not good evidence.

Let's take a look at this a little closer at the verse.

OK

They "journeyed in the wilderness" and found these animals "in the forests". They were not grazing behind fences, or in the pastures, but in the forests! What people let their domesticated herds and flocks run around in the forest?

I was walking in the forest. I saw some houses, with goats and oxen nearby. I continued my walk in the forest and saw some wild goats.

All of this I saw while walking in the forest. Mesoamerica is one very big rainforest.

"...all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men"--wild animals are for the use of men? Or did he mean domesticated animals are for the use of men?

Both are useful, if you hunt down the wild animals, and use the domesticated ones.

And does that "all manner of wild animals" include "the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and hte goat and the wild goat"? Or does it mean "we found domesticated animals, AND we also found some wild animals"?

The second option makes sense to me.

Are all these animals exactly what we think they were? I mean, did they no-questions-asked, *really* find cows (the "moooo" kind) and neutered bulls running around in the forest? Where are the bulls to make sure that there is a next generation of cows and bulls, and to protect the cows? Why didn't they see the bulls?

An ox can be of either sex, but normally a male. During my walk I saw some animals, but did not do an extensive survey of the animal population.

Or did Nephi also forget to mention them, like he forgot to mention the people attending the domesticated animals?

As I said, he forgot nothing. He wrote a detailed account on the large plates, whilst the smaller plates *briefly* mention such items, but was devoted to spiritual affairs.

-=-=-=

I'm willing to listen, too.

-=-=-=

I also see that even if there were others, there would be no need, reason, or even desire for Nephites (and probably even Lamanites) to intermingle.

The Lamanites made warefare on the Nephites. The "many swords" only makes sense if there were more than the handful of people on each side.

For example, in a documentary on Borneo(?--pretty sure, but not absolutely sure), there were two tribes living just hours away that rarely, if ever, even saw each other--much less intermingled, even for trade. One look at some tall Nephites wielding weapons, and that might have been the last glimpse of them.

Nevertheless, I see no need for others to get the large numbers. (Search "pandas" for a thread on numbers.)

You will have to ask Laman and Lemuel why they hated their brother so much that they carried on a constant campaign of warfare. Fraticide.

First Nephi has been made very clear that they made MULITPLE attempts to kill Nephi. If you would actually read the text again, focusing on the relationship between these brothers, many of your questions will be answered instead of referring to some tribes in Borneo.

[grego]

cdowis,

So all the villages and hamlets were in the forests? There was no farming? No "homesteading"? Etc.?

-=-=-=

Mesoamerica is one very big rainforest.

Yeah, and America is all mountains and plains, right?

-=-=-=

And does that "all manner of wild animals" include "the cow and the ox, and the *** and the horse, and hte goat and the wild goat"? Or does it mean "we found domesticated animals, AND we also found some wild animals"?

The second option makes sense to me.

Does it make sense to everyone else? More importantly, is that what the text says, and means?

-=-=-=

Are all these animals exactly what we think they were? I mean, did they no-questions-asked, *really* find cows (the "moooo" kind) and neutered bulls running around in the forest? Where are the bulls to make sure that there is a next generation of cows and bulls, and to protect the cows? Why didn't they see the bulls?

An ox can be of either sex, but normally a male. During my walk I saw some animals, but did not do an extensive survey of the animal population.

Hold on. It was being said (by you?) that an ox was "a castrated bull" by definition. My point was, so Nephi mentions the females and the castrated males, but not the males who should have been taking care of the herds? Surely an ox must be a "castrated bull"? In other words, what you're saying is maybe not, anymore? (And while Nephi does not mention every animal he saw, he does mention a few, eh?)

As the link showed, and as the "horse" discussions showed (remember that?), what you are assuming to be certain things, might not be... Such as, here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...Nephi&st=40

-=-=-=

Or did Nephi also forget to mention them, like he forgot to mention the people attending the domesticated animals?

As I said, he forgot nothing. He wrote a detailed account on the large plates, whilst the smaller plates *briefly* mention such items, but was devoted to spiritual affairs.

As I said, I'm willing to listen to any evidence you have for this--ANY. If you speculate, or assume, I can buy that.

Where do "the smaller plates *briefly* mention such items"?

The Lamanites made warefare on the Nephites. The "many swords" only makes sense if there were more than the handful of people on each side.

Did you read the "panda" thread? Is it off?

-=-=-=

First Nephi has been made very clear that they made MULITPLE attempts to kill Nephi. If you would actually read the text again, focusing on the relationship between these brothers, many of your questions will be answered instead of referring to some tribes in Borneo.

You missed the point. I suggest slowing down and rereading--not the text, which you and I have read about the same number of times, I believe--but what I wrote, and why. At least one place (i.e., an example, a true case, a "precedent", so to say) has people living very close to each other--less than a day away--yet there is no interaction outside of "saw them once" type of thing.

-=-=-=

The whole point being, far from strong evidence of others, this verse in fact has a big staring blank black hole--no mention of others, at the most compelling place it *should* have been.

And the interpretation of the verse also puts a big doubt over "others" being there--"walking through the forest, seeing domesticated animals"... I don't buy it. I guess we'll continue to disagree on this point.

[cdowis]

This discussion has become rather pointless, so I give you the last word.

[ed2276]

Well, it's difficult to find something credible when it's based on a text that does not exist.

Like belief in the Bible when the original manuscripts on which it is based are nowhere to be found?

[John Williams]

Like belief in the Bible when the original manuscripts on which it is based are nowhere to be found?

Charles asserted that the Nephites wrote extensively about "others" on the large plates, but his only evidence for that assertion is his belief that they did. With the Bible, we have a text that we can discuss, even if it's a descendant of many earlier manuscripts no longer extant. With the large plates, we have no text and no descendants. Only Charles's unsupported assertion.

Apples and oranges.

[ed2276]

Charles asserted that the Nephites wrote extensively about "others" on the large plates, but his only evidence for that assertion is his belief that they did. With the Bible, we have a text that we can discuss, even if it's a descendant of many earlier manuscripts no longer extant. With the large plates, we have no text and no descendants. Only Charles's unsupported assertion.

Apples and oranges.

Not really fruit of a different sort. The text of the BoM is an abridgement of the larger plates , which larger plates are more detailed in the account. The mention of the "others" in the BoM and the inferences to be drawn about mixing with other populations in the BoM text are the direct product of the abridgment of the larger plates. So , we can discuss just what might have been in the larger texts relating to other populations already present because they are found in the abridged record. You are right , we can't know just what was in the larger plates from what is mentioned in the abridged because we don't have the larger plates. The whole of the BoM text we have was derived solely from abridgements. I don't believe any of the records used to write the BoM , as we have it , were from full record sources.

In fact we don't have the smaller plates for examination either. That is a point you might want to make. So , we have neither the plates of either the full or abridged record to examine. All we have is manuscript that is claimed to represent a translation of what was on abridged records.

I would ask , do we have the manuscripts Joseph Smith created as he translated from the small plates? If we do , then the same question relating to the BoM that you ask can just as rightly be applied to the Bible. We have manuscript which claims to represent originals of both books , though the originals for both books (Bible and BoM) no longer are in our hands.

[grego]

This discussion has become rather pointless, so I give you the last word.

Sure. The verse doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and you can't show a reference.

-=-=-=

Apples and oranges.

I agree, therefore the CFR--twice. Which I don't expect to come, because there isn't one--no matter how true it might be, it's just an assumption.

-=-=-=

The mention of the "others" in the BoM and the inferences to be drawn about mixing with other populations in the BoM text are the direct product of the abridgment of the larger plates.

Which mention of "others" and "inferences" are these?

But are the small plates of Nephi an abrigment, also?

[ed2276]

Which mention of "others" and "inferences" are these?

Ooops. I did make it sound as if there are passages in the BoM which say explicitly that there were other populations already present , which was a result of clumsy writing. I should say that those of us who believe there were already others present when Lehi arrived make mention of others based on the inferences to be drawn from the BoM text....

John L. Sorenson has a bit about the implicit , not explicit , things in the BoM from which inferences can be drawn. His article is here :

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=3&table=jbms

But are the small plates of Nephi an abrigment, also?

I don't really know for sure. The Explanation of the BoM says :

1. The Plates of Nephi, which were of two kinds: the Small Plates and the Large Plates. The former were more particularly devoted to the spiritual matters and the ministry and teachings of the prophets, while the latter were occupied mostly by a secular history of the peoples concerned (1 Nephi 9: 2-4). From the time of Mosiah, however, the large plates also included items of major spiritual importance....

The Book of Mormon comprises fifteen main parts or divisions, known, with one exception, as books, each designated by the name of its principal author. The first portion (the first six books, ending with Omni) is a translation from the Small Plates of Nephi. Between books of Omni and Mosiah is an insert called The Words of Mormon. This insert connects the record engraved on the Small Plates with Mormonâ??s abridgment of the Large Plates.

The longest portion, from Mosiah to Mormon, chapter 7, inclusive, is a translation of Mormonâ??s abridgment of the Large Plates of Nephi...

It is apparent that an abridgement was made of the large plates , but it is not clear to me whether the smaller plates were translated as a full record or as an abridgement. Mormon wrote concerning the small plates :

3 And now, I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written; for after I had made an abridgment from the (large) plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these (small) plates (of Nephi), which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi.

4 And the things which are upon these plates pleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ; and my fathers knowing that many of them have been fulfilled; yea, and I also know that as many things as have been prophesied concerning us down to this day have been fulfilled, and as many as go beyond this day must surely come to passâ??

5 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.

italics are my insertions.

So , it is not clear to me whether Mormon incorporated his abridgement of the large plates along with the full record on the small plates or if , because he couldn't write " the hundredth part of the things..." of his people that means he also only included an abridgement of the smaller plates too ,including only the most important things from them.

[poulsenll]

Face it folks.

The archaeological record shows that there were a number of cultures here in the Americas during the period covered by the BofM record. Whether the BofM refers to any of them is immaterial as to whether the BofM is a true history. We have the Popul Vue, a history of the Quiche. It only mentions those cultures which it encountered on its journey, There is no mention of the Aztecs, the Huastecas or many of the other cultures present during the time of their migrations.

With the knowledge given by archaeology it is not unreasonable to accept that the Lehites encountered others and to use this information to clarify brief statements in the abridgement or the personal diaries that otherwise make no sense. For example Where did the Nephites find enough women to practice polygamy as mentioned in the book of Jacob?. Another How do you have wars if Lehi's descendents were the only ones there during the third and forth generations? Similarly many other questions are resolved by simply accepting the archaeological evidence about the presence of other cultures in the area.

For those who demand proof before acceptance, I am afraid they will go wanting. For those of us who accept the Book of Mormon as a history as well as a sacred record, these indications in the text of interaction with the local cultures help us to better understand the message that God intended for us to have in these latter days.

Larry P

[grego]

The archaeological record shows that there were a number of cultures here in the Americas during the period covered by the BofM record. Whether the BofM refers to any of them is immaterial as to whether the BofM is a true history.

Agreed.

-=-=-=

We have the Popul Vue, a history of the Quiche. It only mentions those cultures which it encountered on its journey, There is no mention of the Aztecs, the Huastecas or many of the other cultures present during the time of their migrations.

But at least there's that!!

-=-=-=

With the knowledge given by archaeology it is not unreasonable to accept that the Lehites encountered others and to use this information to clarify brief statements in the abridgement or the personal diaries that otherwise make no sense.

I agree, it's not unreasonable they encountered others. That's not the problem. The problem is when one tries to prove they were there through proof that doesn't really hold up. The case is weak, at best.

-=-=-=

For example Where did the Nephites find enough women to practice polygamy as mentioned in the book of Jacob?. Another How do you have wars if Lehi's descendents were the only ones there during the third and forth generations? Similarly many other questions are resolved by simply accepting the archaeological evidence about the presence of other cultures in the area.

That's one way, yes. It's like just accept JS was a prophet and so much more is taken care of. No problem. Just that, that's not the only way, and there are many problems.

For example, I think if you would read the "panda" thread (I'm suggesting this for the third time, I think), you would see another way.

I also ask, have you read the previous threads on others I linked to, and have you read my critiques (that I linked to) of many "other" arguments, including many by Sorenson, Gardner, etc.?

-=-=-=

For those who demand proof before acceptance, I am afraid they will go wanting.

I agree. I only demand decent evidence that the BoM mentions others. And no, I don't accept speculations that they are on the large plates, but not part of the abridgment, as evidence. And yes, while Nephi was writing the small plates as mostly spiritual, they are unabriged, if I am not mistaken.

-=-=-=

For those of us who accept the Book of Mormon as a history as well as a sacred record, these indications in the text of interaction with the local cultures help us to better understand the message that God intended for us to have in these latter days.

Ummm... Larry, I accept the BoM as historical.

Maybe so.

[poulsenll]

I agree, it's not unreasonable they encountered others. That's not the problem. The problem is when one tries to prove they were there through proof that doesn't really hold up. The case is weak, at best.

-=-=-=

I agree. I only demand decent evidence that the BoM mentions others. And no, I don't accept speculations that they are on the large plates, but not part of the abridgment, as evidence. And yes, while Nephi was writing the small plates as mostly spiritual, they are unabriged, if I am not mistaken.

Grego

The small plates are unabridged.

There is no need to prove that they were there, the scientific record leaves little doubt. The question is did the Nephites encounter them and if so what kind of interactions occurred?

We are left with the problem, if the interaction was minor, Why mention it? If it was major, for example the missionary efforts of Ammon and his brothers, here we find a detailed account of what happened and its significance with respect to the people converted and the resulting increase in hostility between the Nephites and the non Nephites (Lamanites as defined by Jacob). The BofM, although historical, is not a history book nor was Mormon charged with writing a history book. He was charged with

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 foreverâ??And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL God, manifesting himself unto all nationsâ??And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ

from the title page of the Book of Mormon.

To me the BofM as a whole is replete with interaction between the Nephites and others. Jacob defined all non Nephites as Lamanites. With this definition there is no way to distiguish between those who came over with Lehi, those that came over with Jared, his brother and his friends or those that came by way of the Bering land bridge.. There were at least 6 boats filled with people who came with Jared and his brother and this group alone had over 2000 years to spread all across the Americas. The only ones we know of that were destroyed were the descendents of Jared and his brother as reported by Ether. We have no information about what happened to the descendents of all the other friends who accompanied Jared and his brother. And probably not of all the descendents of Jared and his brother, only those in the royal line.

Larry P

[grego]

There is no need to prove that they were there, the scientific record leaves little doubt.

I think you're assuming you have the right place. (Which very well might probably be.)

-=-=-=

The question is did the Nephites encounter them and if so what kind of interactions occurred.

If it is the right place, that is an excellent question. That was the part before on this thread about Borneo, etc.--just because there might have been others, doesn't mean there were others interacting and involved.

-=-=-=

The BofM, although historical, is not a history book nor was Mormon charged with writing a history book.

I agree.

-=-=-=

To me the BofM as a whole is replete with interaction between the Nephites and others. Jacob defined all non Nephites as Lamanites. With this definition there is no way to distiguish between those who came over with Lehi, those that came over with Jared, his brother and his friends or those that came by way of the Bering land bridge.. There were at least 6 boats filled with people who came with Jared and his brother and this group alone had over 2000 years to spread all across the Americas. The only ones we know of that were destroyed were the descendents of Jared and his brother as reported by Ether. We have no information about what happened to the descendents of all the other friends who accompanied Jared and his brother. And probably not of all the descendents of Jared and his brother, only those in the royal line.

Here's where we differ for now--on our interpretations of Jacob's "Lamanites", and the Jaredites. I understand the other POV; but I still don't see that anything can be proved, much less strongly supported, by the BoM. There were a few threads on the Jaredites, too, and whether any survived. I don't see (strong) evidence in the BoM for that, either.

-=-=-=

I had written before, that I think this "others" is a wonderful thinking/ study exercise in the BoM. It's almost as if it was completely intentional to never mention it--even regardless of whether there were, or not.

[poulsenll]

I had written before, that I think this "others" is a wonderful thinking/ study exercise in the BoM. It's almost as if it was completely intentional to never mention it--even regardless of whether there were, or not.

I tend to agree with you on this. Mormon was tasked with writing an abridgment of the Nephite history that would serve as a witness of Jesus Christ. If he had included too many potentially provable facts, there would be no need for an exercise of faith in the message of the book. In turn, it would follow that Joseph Smith's testimony and the restoration were true. Again no faith required. Unfortunately, even Mormon could not remove all possible indications of others without severely limiting the spiritual content of the examples he chose to include. In addition, the small plates were not edited.

I sometimes think that this is the same reason that JS either never knew the location of the Nephite culture or if he knew, refused to identify it.

Larry P

[John Williams]

I tend to agree with you on this. Mormon was tasked with writing an abridgment of the Nephite history that would serve as a witness of Jesus Christ. If he had included too many potentially provable facts, there would be no need for an exercise of faith in the message of the book. In turn, it would follow that Joseph Smith's testimony and the restoration were true. Again no faith required. Unfortunately, even Mormon could not remove all possible indications of others without severely limiting the spiritual content of the examples he chose to include. In addition, the small plates were not edited.

I sometimes think that this is the same reason that JS either never knew the location of the Nephite culture or if he knew, refused to identify it.

Larry P

So, just to clarify, you think Mormon specifically left out details, such as others, so that we'd have to go on faith? If that's true, why did he go into such detail about money/measures/"coins," the animals they used, the customs and manner of worship of apostate groups, the manner of construction both of cities and fortifications, and other stuff?

I guess I have a problem with this. When there's a parallel between something in the Book of Mormon and some known fact, this is taken as great evidence, but when something is completely lacking (other than a strained interpretation of a verse or two), this is taken as intentional suppression of facts in the service of faith.

Doesn't make sense to me.

[The Dude]

Mormon was tasked with writing an abridgment of the Nephite history that would serve as a witness of Jesus Christ. If he had included too many potentially provable facts, there would be no need for an exercise of faith in the message of the book.

Sounds like Faith as a Conspiracy Theory. You really think it works that way?

[poulsenll]

So, just to clarify, you think Mormon specifically left out details, such as others, so that we'd have to go on faith? If that's true, why did he go into such detail about money/measures/"coins," the animals they used, the customs and manner of worship of apostate groups, the manner of construction both of cities and fortifications, and other stuff?

I guess I have a problem with this. When there's a parallel between something in the Book of Mormon and some known fact, this is taken as great evidence, but when something is completely lacking (other than a strained interpretation of a verse or two), this is taken as intentional suppression of facts in the service of faith.

Doesn't make sense to me.

Ecercise a little faith and maybe it will make more sense.

I dont have much faith in parallels or expecting to find something we think should logically be there, they are too easily thought of. The points you mention are common to many cultures both old and new and as you and others have pointed out do not constitute proof in any way of the historicity of the BofM. They are however useful information that helps the faithful to understand more fully the context in which the spiritual message takes place.

Larry P

[poulsenll]

Sounds like Faith as a Conspiracy Theory. You really think it works that way?

Yes and no. Take your pick. If it were from man, then it might be conspiracy but from God that is a different story. We chose to come here and be tested by faith not logic.

Larry P

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

Grego

The small plates are unabridged.

There is no need to prove that they were there, the scientific record leaves little doubt. The question is did the Nephites encounter them and if so what kind of interactions occurred?

We are left with the problem, if the interaction was minor, Why mention it? If it was major, for example the missionary efforts of Ammon and his brothers, here we find a detailed account of what happened and its significance with respect to the people converted and the resulting increase in hostility between the Nephites and the non Nephites (Lamanites as defined by Jacob). The BofM, although historical, is not a history book nor was Mormon charged with writing a history book. He was charged with

from the title page of the Book of Mormon.

To me the BofM as a whole is replete with interaction between the Nephites and others. Jacob defined all non Nephites as Lamanites. With this definition there is no way to distiguish between those who came over with Lehi, those that came over with Jared, his brother and his friends or those that came by way of the Bering land bridge.. There were at least 6 boats filled with people who came with Jared and his brother and this group alone had over 2000 years to spread all across the Americas. The only ones we know of that were destroyed were the descendents of Jared and his brother as reported by Ether. We have no information about what happened to the descendents of all the other friends who accompanied Jared and his brother. And probably not of all the descendents of Jared and his brother, only those in the royal line.

Larry P

I've been reading through all your posts on this thread and I couldn't agree more...There will always be a lot of speculation regarding the Book of Mormon and where it took place and everything...no one can deny that there were many cultures down in Mesoamerica or the history that they have...The descendants of these cultures are also remarkable in the customs that they have.

I love the speculation and everything...but speculation is one thing...personal eyewitness is yet another...and during my mission amongst some of these people I saw a lot of stuff that really opened up my eyes, naturally and spiritually...

Many people on these threads look at the Book of Mormon and want to criticise the book on one ground or another (wars, coinage, certain animals(btw found in several of the aforesaid Maya ruins)) but ignore the prophecies that are coming to pass...

The Lamanites are still a stiff necked people, but those that join the church in increasing number are blossoming as the rose...in fact where I was the people with the most faith were the full blooded Lamanites from the San Cristobal de las Casas region in Chiapas. Though financially destitute...they pay their tithing, they walk 3 or 4 hours one way to church every Sunday, they keep the law of chastity, and everything...Heck they even manage to go to the temple in Tuxtla Gutierrez every month despite their problems...they are actively persecuted for their beliefs in many towns...yet they still hold strong to the faith.

Their faith is simple. Their actions are powerful. And they could very well transform the Church in that region of Mexico and elsewhere...

All of this falls down on their testimonies of the Book of Mormon as the Word of God...and not just some historical book...

Keep on posting...I have learned a lot from you as well...

[The Dude]

Yes and no. Take your pick. If it were from man, then it might be conspiracy but from God that is a different story. We chose to come here and be tested by faith not logic.

Larry P

No, from God it is the same logic as a conspiracy theory. You excuse it as something different by special pleading, something you would never do under other circumstances.

I had this discussion recently with my father and brother (both lawyers). My brother was really fascinated by the kinds of conspiracy theories you can find on the internet, whether it's the Bavarian Illuminati, or the US government setting up 9/11, or communists faking the fall of the Soviet Union to put the West off guard. My father and I tried to explain to him why this is nonsense and not worth his time. Every conspiracy theory has a key fallacy: when you ask "if X is true, then why don't we see evidence Y" the answer is always "Because, it's a conspiracy! The people behind it removed that evidence to cover their tracks."

So with your faith. Why does the BoM leave out key details that would help prove the case? Because Mormon was in on it, and maybe God too, because they wanted us to lack any sort of correlations that would move Book of Mormon studies out of its sectarian niche and into the mainstream of human knowledge. Face it: this is faith in a conspiracy theory.

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

No, from God it is the same logic as a conspiracy theory. You excuse it as something different by special pleading, something you would never do under other circumstances.

I had this discussion recently with my father and brother (both lawyers). My brother was really fascinated by the kinds of conspiracy theories you can find on the internet, whether it's the Bavarian Illuminati, or the US government setting up 9/11, or communists faking the fall of the Soviet Union to put the West off guard. My father and I tried to explain to him why this is nonsense and not worth his time. Every conspiracy theory has a key fallacy: when you ask "if X is true, then why don't we see evidence Y" the answer is always "Because, it's a conspiracy! The people behind it removed that evidence to cover their tracks."

So with your faith. Why does the BoM leave out key details that would help prove the case? Because Mormon was in on it, and maybe God too, because they wanted us to lack any sort of correlations that would move Book of Mormon studies out of its sectarian niche and into the mainstream of human knowledge. Face it: this is faith in a conspiracy theory.

Two can play this game...why did Jesus Christ not perform great signs in front of everyone, proclaiming them all to the world to prove that He was really the Messiah? The Jews might have believed in Him according to this logic...

The thing is the Lord works in mysterious ways...ways that the natural man will never be able to gauge...Isaiah 55:8-9 and I Samuel 16:7 show these things...

[The Dude]

Two can play this game...why did Jesus Christ not perform great signs in front of everyone, proclaiming them all to the world to prove that He was really the Messiah? The Jews might have believed in Him according to this logic...

Well, you could argue with an evangelical about whether JC performed miracles and proclaimed himself to be the Messiah. I, on the other hand, do not believe JC was anything but a human man, and I don't believe I am guilty of excusing any of my beliefs from rational examination by this sort of special pleading.

The thing is the Lord works in mysterious ways...ways that the natural man will never be able to gauge...Isaiah 55:8-9 and I Samuel 16:7 show these things...

Oooh, mysterious ways, is it? There's always the escape hatch for these beliefs, and that's why they are still with us today.