Jaredites And "others"

[Arandur]

I do remember seeing a map of the continents that a non-LDS scientist put together showing the pre-division continent of Pangaea. The Gulf of Mexico is an anomaly. Nothing fits there.

At any rate, drawing maps of things and finding that something does not belong does not do justice to the truth of the situation.

If I understand MormonMason correctly, then I agree. It also doesn't seem like much of an anomaly from encyclopedia entries, Wikipedia having a pretty good entry on it. Apparently scientists have some pretty good ideas from the evidence about it already to have developed some detailed descriptions of its formation.

[John Williams]

If there were oxen and domesticated goats that are distinguishable from wild goats, there were people there when they arrived.

Oxen generally are castrated bulls. If such was the case, one would have to imagine humans castrating the bulls to make them more docile for plowing and agriculture. I cannot imagine bulls doing it to themselves.

That's assuming, of course, that "goat" and "wild goat" and "oxen" mean what we think they do. We already know that there were no oxen in the Americas, so one would assume that, like "horse," this word may not mean a castrated bull, per se.

As to prophets making claims about the inhabitants as described in the Book of Mormon:

1. A prophet is not always a prophet except when he is functioning as such.

Is an angel always an angel except when he's not functioning as an angel? It was Moroni who said they were the first and aboriginal inhabitants. Do you consider the words of an angel authoritative or just "personal angelic opinion"?

2. If a statement of a General Authority, no matter how substantial or authoritative it might sound, high or low, can be discarded if it conflicts with the Standard Works.

In what way do Moroni's and Joseph Smith's statements on the origins of Native Americans conflict with the Standard Works? It seems to me that these statements conflict only with some people's interpretations of the Standard Works.

There are other bullet points I could make but that is possibly another thread for another time. However, the two given above were themselves stated by General Authorities and held valid by the Church in official publications.

Neither of your bullet points apply to the issues we're discussing.

[Zakuska]

Right. I understand where Charles and others are seeing "others," but it's far from explicit, and one has to discount the fairly explicit statements in the book itself and from the prophets about who the original inhabitants of the continent were.

Ignoring all the places where "others" are specificaly refered to. Yes.

[MormonMason]

That's assuming, of course, that "goat" and "wild goat" and "oxen" mean what we think they do. We already know that there were no oxen in the Americas, so one would assume that, like "horse," this word may not mean a castrated bull, per se.

We do know they were not here? Really??? How do "we" know this? Years ago it was said that there were no cities of cement in the Americas. They were found, some dating to Book of Mormon times.

Years ago it was said that there was no such thing as domesticated barley anywhere in the Americas. Domesticated barley was found in a Hohokam site dating to precolumbian times.

We knew that cotton did not exist in the Americas until brought here by the white man. Then, a form of domesticated cotton was found dating to precolumbian times.

Some years ago we knew that bees were not kept by the Native Americans in Mesoamerica. Then, carvings of beehives and of gods keeping the honey of the gods were found. Religious iconography often has basis in fact.

Some years ago, everyone knew the Maya were a peace-loving people who patiently looked at the skies. Then we found their paintings, their carvings, their weapons and their fortifications of war.

So, please! Spare us the platitudes extolling the virtues of and the sophistry concerning what archaeologists know about what was and was not in the Americas in Book of Mormon times.

Is an angel always an angel except when he's not functioning as an angel? It was Moroni who said they were the first and aboriginal inhabitants. Do you consider the words of an angel authoritative or just "personal angelic opinion"?

An angel is always an angel but do people always record their words correctly, even if from memory years after the fact in every detail? As to whether the actual words "first and aboriginal inhabitants" was used by Moroni, I should like to see the actual source material for the claim before commenting further. In other words, CFR.

In what way do Moroni's and Joseph Smith's statements on the origins of Native Americans conflict with the Standard Works? It seems to me that these statements conflict only with some people's interpretations of the Standard Works.

Well, lets see what the original sources say before commenting further, shall we? Your CFR is above.

Neither of your bullet points apply to the issues we're discussing.

Oh, but they most certainly do. We are discussing whether others were here when the Jaredites and when the Lehites arrived. You brought up all the statements of General Authorities which we would have to conflict with in accepting an LGT. So, you yourself actually made the bullet points relevant. Thanks for playing, though, but the goalposts cannot move once the game is in play.

[John Williams]

We do know they were not here? Really??? How do "we" know this? Years ago it was said that there were no cities of cement in the Americas. They were found, some dating to Book of Mormon times.

So, please! Spare us the platitudes extolling the virtues of and the sophistry concerning what archaeologists know about what was and was not in the Americas in Book of Mormon times.

Thanks for playing, though, but the goalposts cannot move once the game is in play.

Yeah, I should know better than to respond to someone who's just "playing." It's Friday, and I've had enough sneering and sarcasm for one week.

As for the CFR, I already cited the Wentworth letter.

Talk to you later. Hopefully next time you can be a little more civil.

[Zakuska]

I have to say I agree that these scriptures suggest that the Jaredites were the first people to inhabit the Americas, as they were sent to a place "where there never had man been" which God "had preserved for a righteous people."

The Limited Geography Theory rests on the presence of others when the Book of Mormon peoples arrived. But this scripture, along with others and the statement of Joseph Smith that the Angel Moroni told him the Jaredites/Nephites were the "aboriginal" and "first" inhabitants, suggests that there could not have been others.

What say ye?

I disagree completely with your cherry picked reading.

"The Quater where never had men been" is a desert located in oman and is well attested to by ancient maps of the region.

See George Potters book and Videos. http://www.nephiproject.com

Read the verse in Ether 2 again.

1. Jared Came from "The Tower of Babel" (AKA Iran)

2. Went to the valley of Nimrod and picked up some of Noahs animals and provisions.

3. Was driven into a "wilderness" (aka desert waste land) "where never had man been"

4. Was driven to a sea shore where they made bardges and crossed the ocean to their promised land.

These verses say NOTHING about the status nor the Inhabitants of the Americas, But they do talk about a region of wilderness next to the tower of Bable that was devoid of man. The Ancient Name on the maps even translates to "zone where never had man been" (ie "empty Quarter")

1 And it came to pass that Jared and his brother, and their families, and also the friends of Jared and his brother and their families, went down into the valley which was northward, (and the name of the valley was Nimrod, being called after the mighty hunter) with their flocks which they had gathered together, male and female, of every kind.

2 And they did also lay snares and catch fowls of the air; and they did also prepare a vessel, in which they did carry with them the fish of the waters.

3 And they did also carry with them deseret, which, by interpretation, is a honey bee; and thus they did carry with them swarms of bees, and all manner of that which was upon the face of the land, seeds of every kind.

4 And it came to pass that when they had come down into the valley of Nimrod the Lord came down and talked with the brother of Jared; and he was in a cloud, and the brother of Jared saw him not.

5 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded them that they should go forth into the wilderness, yea, into that quarter where there never had man been. And it came to pass that the Lord did go before them, and did talk with them as he stood in a cloud, and gave directions whither they should travel.

6 And it came to pass that they did travel in the wilderness, and did build barges, in which they did cross many waters, being directed continually by the hand of the Lord.

He's just summarized the complete Journey.

1. Traveled in a wilderness (Quarter where never had man been)

2. Built Bardges on the sea shore (Probably at the same location that Nephi did)

3. Came to the Promised Land

7 And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness,[Remember they where being lazy and the Lord chastized them for not building their barges faster] but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.

8 And he had sworn in his wrath unto the brother of Jared, that whoso should possess this land of promise, from that time henceforth and forever, should serve him, the true and only God, or they should be swept off when the fulness of his wrath should come upon them.

That last verse even says that some one might have possesed the land before the Jaredites, its inherent in the words (from that time henceforth), it inferse that some one might have possed the land before who had not served the Lord.

[John Williams]

I disagree completely with you cherry picked reading.

"The Quater where never had men been" is a desert located in oman and is well attested to by ancient maps of the region.

See George Potters book and Videos. http://www.nephiproject.com

"Cherrypicked"? Sheesh.

I looked it up, Zak. It's called the Empty Quarter, which has a connotation much like "Land of Desolation" in the Book of Mormon, as in a desolate place where no one lives, not a place where no one had ever been.

But that's certainly interesting. Besides, I've already said that I agree with this reading that I had not noticed on first reading.

Some people certainly are snippy today.

[Zakuska]

The reason I said 'cherry picked' is that you had them quoted and connected together as if they bolstered each other, but where actually talking about 2 totally seperated things.

[Brant Gardner]

If there were oxen and domesticated goats that are distinguishable from wild goats, there were people there when they arrived.

This is precisely the place in Book of Mormon apologetics where I get frustrated. If we are going to say that a "horse" is the result of a linguistic mislabeling, then we can't use domesticated/wild goats as a proof of anything, because they are just as likely to be linguistic mislabeling (which John W rightfully pointed out).

There are lots of good arguments for the Book of Mormon. The problem is, I suppose, that when we get on a board and there are so many of us with different opinions, we are likely to promote different things.

Anyone who believes that a horse is a horse and a chariot is a chariot can use the domesticated goat/wild goat distinction. If, however, you use the idea of linguistic mislabeling for anything you have moved far enough away from a literal translation model that reliance on any vocabulary item is inconsistent.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

This is precisely the place in Book of Mormon apologetics where I get frustrated. If we are going to say that a "horse" is the result of a linguistic mislabeling, then we can't use domesticated/wild goats as a proof of anything, because they are just as likely to be linguistic mislabeling (which John W rightfully pointed out).

There are lots of good arguments for the Book of Mormon. The problem is, I suppose, that when we get on a board and there are so many of us with different opinions, we are likely to promote different things.

Anyone who believes that a horse is a horse and a chariot is a chariot can use the domesticated goat/wild goat distinction. If, however, you use the idea of linguistic mislabeling for anything you have moved far enough away from a literal translation model that reliance on any vocabulary item is inconsistent.

Bravo! I agree 100%. I think it's important to not build a mountain out of an ant hill. Goat versus wild goat? Maybe there's something there, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[MormonMason]

This is precisely the place in Book of Mormon apologetics where I get frustrated. If we are going to say that a "horse" is the result of a linguistic mislabeling, then we can't use domesticated/wild goats as a proof of anything, because they are just as likely to be linguistic mislabeling (which John W rightfully pointed out).

There are lots of good arguments for the Book of Mormon. The problem is, I suppose, that when we get on a board and there are so many of us with different opinions, we are likely to promote different things.

Anyone who believes that a horse is a horse and a chariot is a chariot can use the domesticated goat/wild goat distinction. If, however, you use the idea of linguistic mislabeling for anything you have moved far enough away from a literal translation model that reliance on any vocabulary item is inconsistent.

But, I am not one of those who thinks linguistic mislabeling is the end-all and be-all of the idea of a horse in the Book of Mormon. I certainly believe that such is possible. Such things do, after all, happen and have happened in ancient times. However, I also maintain the hope that one day horse bones will be found and actually dated instead of being shoved aside in a Mexican museum store-room because everybody "knows" that there were no pre-Columbian horses in the Americas.

Look at what they did with the Loltun relics! They found horse bones in a human occupation layer in a dig there. Gophers must have done it! They must have dragged bones from the post-columbian surface layer down to the Pre-Columbian occupation layer being studied. So claimed some of the archaeologists involved and others who have since studied the data. But, did anyone actually go ahead and test the bones to figure out their dating? If someone is aware of it, please do let me know where I can see the data.

But as for my part, I am holding out hope for future finds.

[MormonMason]

Yeah, I should know better than to respond to someone who's just "playing." It's Friday, and I've had enough sneering and sarcasm for one week.

Sneering? From me? I do not recall doing that. I was just trying to drive home a point about what we supposedly know about what was and was not here in ancient America.

But, if you really want to regard what I have said as sneering, would you like a little cheese with that whine?

As for the CFR, I already cited the Wentworth letter.

The Wentworth Letter contains no direct quotations of Moroni and is a bare summary of what he was told. Fine. However, "aboriginal inhabitants of this country" does not leave out the potential of others. The rest of the letter contains Joseph Smith's understanding of the contents of part of the text. No indication of the angel even speaking to him there.

Would you like to try another source?

Talk to you later. Hopefully next time you can be a little more civil.

A little more civil? Hmmm.... I promise I had a smile on my face when I wrote what I did. Come on, John W., I just wanted you to know that pontification on archaeological grounds is based on fallacy, particularly when we have seen people over the years tell us what was and was not here in the Americas, only to find out later that such things really were here just like the Book of Mormon says they were.

But, I suppose it is difficult to forcefully get a point across without seeming uncivil when one cannot see the body language of the other. Perhaps it is better for you to take a break since you seem a bit oversensitive this evening.

[Brant Gardner]

But, I am not one of those who thinks linguistic mislabeling is the end-all and be-all of the idea of a horse in the Book of Mormon.

As long as you are consistent, you can argue from a stable position.

I certainly believe that such is possible. Such things do, after all, happen and have happened in ancient times.

Right. However, as soon as you let that possibility enter the argument, you either have to find really good reasons for accepting certain lexical items and not others. That is a tough position. It may, in fact, turn out to be correct. However, from the position of a logical approach to the issue, it is extremely hard to argue until the acceptable evidence proves that the "sometimes yes/sometimes no" has a more solid basis.

However, I also maintain the hope that one day horse bones will be found and actually dated instead of being shoved aside in a Mexican museum store-room because everybody "knows" that there were no pre-Columbian horses in the Americas.

I know that there have been tests done which C-14 date horse bones to the pre-Columbian era. Since nothing is yet published, it isn't particularly useful knowledge. Since the Book of Mormon "horse" never does horse-like things, it will still be true that the horse had minimal impact (whether a true horse or only a lexical "horse").

But as for my part, I am holding out hope for future finds.

As do I. There are often parts of an archaeological/ethnohistorical reconstruction that will predict certain data which are yet to be found. Good theses are demonstrated whenever the predicted evidence is found. Sometimes what is found rewrites the theory (as San Bartolo did for the timing of developed art and writing).

[Tarski]

I guess I see this as a totality of evidence:

1. Land is "preserved" and "reserved" according to the text.

2. There is no explicit or implicit mention of others in the text.

3. The angel told Joseph Smith that the Jaredites and Nephites were the first inhabitants of the land.

4. The church taught for generations that such was the case.

So, no, I don't think it's necessarily a "modern reading" but a reasonable reading. As I said, finding others is not impossible but requires a great deal more dexterity.

The "dexterity" wouldn't even have been dreamed of if it wasn't for what science has learned about the ancient Americas and thier inhabitants.

Once again, revelation fails to give the correct picture if read in a straightforward way (thats why the members and leaders believed in the hemispheric model in the first place). Eventually, the ideas that are formed on the basis of supposed revelation (BoM, Moroni, Prophets etc) need to be reinterpreted to accommodate the science and modern sensibilities. Then, the claim is made that the modern, science influenced interpretations were the ones intended all along. To bolster this, the historical scene is scoured for evidence of someone somewhere who may have said something more in line with the modern modified version (speculation is cheap so there will usually be something to find somewhere).

It's an old pattern. Science chases reluctantly after science and when there is no more room to deny the evidence, we hear the religionists say "That's what we meant all along! We said it first".

[MormonMason]

Problem is, not all of them believed in a hemispheric geography. We know this from the editorial in the Times and Seasons so your entire argument is undermined thereby--even if you do not realize it.

[Brant Gardner]

The "dexterity" wouldn't even have been dreamed of if it wasn't for what science has learned about the ancient Americas and thier inhabitants.

Were is not for the requirements of advancing understandings of science and history, we would all believe the world to be a very different place. Even where the impetus to change is not science, social conditions alter the perception of reality over time. This is the process that all humanity has used for its entire history, so it seems rather odd that you would think it the wrong process here.

The only reason I can think of is that a religion based on prophecy should be different. That, however, is another historically inaccurate assumption that would require "dexterity" to hold.

The implication of the "dexterity" phrase for the Book of Mormon suggests that the current interpretations are the result of a retrenching because of contradictory information and a need to "save" the text. That is another assumption that is unsupportable if you know the history of LDS scholarship on the subject.

It is, in fact, inflammatory and empty rhetoric that demonstrates that the assumptions behind the statement cannot stand up to the pretended science that are supposed to support it.

Once again, revelation fails to give the correct picture if read in a straightforward way (thats why the members and leaders believed in the hemispheric model in the first place).

And here it is in a clear statement. The argument is this:

1) Current LDS scholarship uses science and modern history.

2) This is bad because they are supposed to believe in prophecy.

3) Prophecy must the foundation of every statement ever popular in the church.

4) If scholars differ from prophecy, then they can't be right, even if their scholarship is.

This is a tortuous logic that falls apart at every seam, including (most importantly) the nature of prophecy and the nature of communal belief systems.

Eventually, the ideas that are formed on the basis of supposed revelation (BoM, Moroni, Prophets etc) need to be reinterpreted to accommodate the science and modern sensibilities.

Continuation of the predicted assumption. The part of this that is correct is that the more one understand of the world, the more it is applied to other areas of knowledge. In this there is no problem. In fact, if LDS scholars ignored science, that would be a problem.

The implication here, however, is that LDS scholarship is reactionary to threats against religion. That statement is historically inaccurate. It betrays modern assumptions, but is not based on the kind of historical accuracy that it tries to imply is good. It is, interestingly, precisely the kind of reactionary statement that it accuses LDS scholarship of being.

Then, the claim is made that the modern, science influenced interpretations were the ones intended all along.

Claim? This is information that is actually available and amenable to historical research. The position, of course, isn't that "this is what we always believed." That statement is a convenient characature of the actual position, and as a characature, has a resemblance that is distorted. The position is that the process of LDS scholarship has a long tradition of openness on a question that this "dexterity" assumption presumes should not have existed at all until it was externally forced.

To bolster this, the historical scene is scoured for evidence of someone somewhere who may have said something more in line with the modern modified version (speculation is cheap so there will usually be something to find somewhere).

Another characature. Stripped of inflammatory rhetoric, this is what this sentence says: "modern historians have looked at the data and found that the process of open investigation on the Book of Mormon geography has a long history and began prior to the supposed modern controveries that are supposed to require it." Of course, this last statement is what the LDS scholars are saying. It is the rhetorical "translation" of that statement that we have in the statement above. As I keep noting, such statements are the express denial of the process it is supposed to be invoking as support.

It's an old pattern. Science chases reluctantly after science and when there is no more room to deny the evidence, we hear the religionists say "That's what we meant all along! We said it first".

Fascinating assertion. I've studied a bit of the history of religion, and I don't see this as much of an old pattern. The most important issue for modern religion is the relationship of Darwinism to religion. I read through quite a bit of literature on this argument from the 1800's and none of it follows this "old pattern."

My research in religion tells me that the statement "it's an old pattern" is historically incorrect for other major religion/science issues. My research in the histori of LDS scholarship tells me it is also incorrect for this particular issue.

This is inflammatory rhetoric. Empty rhetoric at that. I am unaware of any facts that support it.

I propose a different process. Let's use science and history instead.

[cdowis]

The "dexterity" wouldn't even have been dreamed of if it wasn't for what science has learned about the ancient Americas and thier inhabitants.

Once again, revelation fails to give the correct picture if read in a straightforward way (thats why the members and leaders believed in the hemispheric model in the first place). Eventually, the ideas that are formed on the basis of supposed revelation (BoM, Moroni, Prophets etc) need to be reinterpreted to accommodate the science and modern sensibilities. Then, the claim is made that the modern, science influenced interpretations were the ones intended all along. To bolster this, the historical scene is scoured for evidence of someone somewhere who may have said something more in line with the modern modified version (speculation is cheap so there will usually be something to find somewhere).

It's an old pattern. Science chases reluctantly after science and when there is no more room to deny the evidence, we hear the religionists say "That's what we meant all along! We said it first".

The NT tells us that, in marriage, a man and woman would become "one flesh".

According to your logic, we are impelled to take a "straight forward" interpretation, and accept that they physically become one person. But we are not stupid or ignorant, as you claim. We are human beings, like scientists, and make certain assumptions.

In this case the hemispheric model was universally accepted because we *assumed* that the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the BOM is the same one in the state of NY.

BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue, but a factual issue.

So we look at the evidence, just like scientists.

Scientists base their ideas on assumptions on their observations. For example, they looked in the sky and saw the sum moving from east to west across the sky. They *****assumed*** that it was the sun that was moving, and built a model of the universe upon that assumption.

Just as we based our view of BOM geography on an assumption.

Now, once we discovered that there could be another physical hill cumorah, that broadened our view of BOM geography. When scientists discovered that the earth revolved around the sun, that also changed their view of the solar system, and, eventually, the universe.

We make no claim that we "knew this all the time", as you cynically claim. We pursue knowledge, new discoveries, and are willing to evaluate our assumptions about what the BOM actually says, rather than what we think it means.

We change our interpretation based on new evidence.

Just like scientists.

Your logic is tragically flawed and based on arrogance and a sense of superiority ==> "I am soooooo smart, and you Mormons are ignorant and stupid."

[cinepro]

It looks like it has been referenced but not quoted, so I present here Joseph Smith's recollection of what Moroni told him about "others" in the Wentworth Letter:

On the evening on the 21st of September, A.D. 1823, while I was praying unto God, and endeavoring to exercise faith in the precious promises of Scripture, on a sudden a light like that of day, only of a far purer and more glorious appearance and brightness, burst into the room, indeed the first sight was as though the house was filled with consuming fire; the appearance produced a shock that affected the whole body; in a moment a personage stood before me surrounded with a glory yet greater than that with which I was already surrounded. This messenger proclaimed himself to be an angel of God, sent to bring the joyful tidings that the covenant which God made with ancient Israel was at hand to be fulfilled, that the preparatory work for the second coming of the Messiah was speedily to commence; that the time was at hand for the Gospel in all its fullness to be preached in power, unto all nations that a people might be prepared for the Millennial reign. I was informed that I was chosen to be an instrument in the hands of God to bring about some of His purposes in this glorious dispensation.

I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was made known unto me; I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient Prophets that had existed on this continent. The angel appeared to me three times the same night and unfolded the same things. After having received many visits from the angels of God unfolding the majesty and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days, on the morning of the 22nd of September, A.D. 1827, the angel of the Lord delivered the records into my hands.

These records were engraven on plates which had the appearance of gold, each plate was six inches wide and eight inches long, and not quite so thick as common tin. They were filled with engravings, in Egyptian characters, and bound together in a volume as the leaves of a book, with three rings running through the whole. The volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed. The characters on the unsealed part were small, and beautifully engraved. The whole book exhibited many marks of antiquity in its construction, and much skill in the art of engraving. With the records was found a curious instrument, which the ancients called "Urim and Thummim," which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rims of a bow fastened to a breast plate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God.

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country. This book also tells us that our Savior made His appearance unto this continent after His resurrection; that He planted the Gospel here in all its fulness, and richness, and power, and blessing; that they had Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, and Evangelists; the same order, the same priesthood, the same ordinances, gifts, powers, and blessings, as were enjoyed on the eastern continent, that the people were cut off in consequence of their transgressions, that the last of their prophets who existed among them was commanded to write an abridgment of their prophecies, history, &c, and to hide it up in the earth, and that it should come forth and be united with the Bible for the accomplishment of the purposes of God in the last days. For a more particular account I would refer to the Book of Mormon, which can be purchased at Nauvoo, or from any of our Traveling Elders.

The Wentworth Letter

Emphasis added, although I'm sure if Joseph Smith had any idea the kinds of arguments apologists would be coming up with, he would have written "first" real big too.

I understand that the standard apologetic reaction to this letter is that Joseph Smith didn't know what the heck he was talking about (and this somehow only proves the Book of Mormon to be more true.) If this is indeed your reaction to reading this letter, I applaud you, and thank you for seeking the common ground with the critics.

[LeSellers]

It looks like it has been referenced but not quoted, so I present here Joseph Smith's recollection of what Moroni told him about "others" in the Wentworth Letter:

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people.

Emphasis added, although I'm sure if Joseph Smith had any idea the kinds of arguments apologists would be coming up with, he would have written "first" real big too.

I understand that the standard apologetic reaction to this letter is that Joseph Smith didn't know what the heck he was talking about (and this somehow only proves the Book of Mormon to be more true.)

There are other ways of reading this passage. It may very well not have been Joseph, but you who do not know what the heck he was talking about.

The "its" in your highlighted excerpt above does not necessarily refer back to "ancient America". It could very easily be a reference to "the history" contained in "this interesting and important book". The first settlement in the history of the Book of Mormon was, indeed, that of the Jaredites, those who came from the tower of Babel. The book only deals with two civilizations, the Lehites and the Jaredites, just as Joseph states.

Pronouns are very useful, but they (especially in a language like English with neither case nor strong gender) lend themselves to misunderstanding as often as they enhance the discussion.

Lehi

[hagoth7]

I guess I see this as a totality of evidence:

1. Land is "preserved" and "reserved" according to the text.....

John,

Understood. Before combining bits of evidence, I sometimes find it worthwhile to take a careful look at each item first, to make sure I'm not compounding misinterpretations. For example, with your first item, if something is preserved or reserved for me, although I might like to think that means no one else has ever had access to that promise, (something which might make me feel more special), reality usually runs contrary to that ideal. Fx., if I have reserved seats at the theater, that doesn't mean the seats were installed just prior to the showing I opted to visit. Instead, it just means that that geographic space is reserved for my use for a very specific and limited period of time. And sometimes a reservation isn't even exclusive in time. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the Promised Land given to Israel was (and still is) also occupied by others. Same goes for reserving rental cars, airline seats, or a number of other things.

Fair enough?

Regards,

Hagoth7

[hagoth7]

It looks like it has been referenced but not quoted, so I present here Joseph Smith's recollection of what Moroni told him about "others" in the Wentworth Letter:

I understand that the standard apologetic reaction to this letter is that Joseph Smith didn't know what the heck he was talking about (and this somehow only proves the Book of Mormon to be more true.) If this is indeed your reaction to reading this letter, I applaud you, and thank you for seeking the common ground with the critics.

Or, Joseph knew exactly what he was talking about, but later readers added gloss to his intended meaning. Let's examine the quote you emphasized as relevant:

...In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph....

If one is actively looking for error, one might claim that the word "first" is a blatant error, since one might choose to read this passage as a claim that the Jaredites were the first colony in the new world.

However, there is another extremely viable alternative.

"the history of ancient America from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel" does not require the reading you imply. It can also merely mean the first settlement from the Tower of Babel in the Americas.

Much ado about nothing, if you ask me.

[MormonMason]

...

I understand that the standard apologetic reaction to this letter is that Joseph Smith didn't know what the heck he was talking about (and this somehow only proves the Book of Mormon to be more true.) If this is indeed your reaction to reading this letter, I applaud you, and thank you for seeking the common ground with the critics.

The fourth paragraph in your above quotation is the words of Joseph Smith about the Book of Mormon, not the words of Moroni. The first paragraph and first part of the second paragraph are paraphrases of Moroni. The remainder are Joseph Smith's own thoughts and understanding.

[maupayman]

Yes, I would agree that this is all there is for that particular reading.Indisputable for the words. The question is what that means. Meaning may be imposed from the modern perspective, or we may place the text in the ancient world and ask what it would mean to an ancient author. This is the issue to be decided, not a datum that makes the decision.In the NT the apostles are to go to "all the world." How big was that to them? Does that mean their "all" or the modern understanding of "all"?True in that it cannot be explicitly separated. The implicit mentions are several. Again, the question is what happens in ancient documents. Do ancient documents make sure that they mention everyone that was there? When we read origin stories, do they admit to the others that were there? The answer is that "others" are often missing. Ergo, if we read the text as having been produced in the ancient world, this modern expectation of the text is anachronous.These two are part of the same issue. That the church taught something for generations is interesting history, but not declarative as fact. There were any number of things believed by many people for a very long time which were not actually correct. Easy reference can be made to the early to middle period christian church's belief in a geocentric universe. There were great theological reasons for thinking as they did, and even longer tradition. It was still not correct.In this case, rather than simple declarations of what we think the angel told Joseph, we need to examine all of those occasions with the eye of a historian. They typically don't read precisely the way they have been traditionally interpreted.None of these items, which are the totality of the reason for the modern reading of the verse, has any actual bearing on what the meaning would have been if the text is genuinely ancient. All of them (and especially the traditional readings) come from a modern perspective of what such a writer would have meant if they had written today. They might hold water if Joseph Smith actually were the author. However, if the text is ancient (and that has to be determined from other data) this traditional reading is incorrect.

Great thread John, could you please post the relevant portion of the Wentworth letter John? If Moroni told Joseph that the Jaredites and Nephites were the first people in North America, that would be a pretty big blow for the LGT. It doesn't require a historian's eye to reinterpret the statement, Moroni was there and told Joseph to his face. The fact that Brant and others just kind of brush this off is troubling to me.

Great thread John, could you please post the relevant portion of the Wentworth letter John? If Moroni told Joseph that the Jaredites and Nephites were the first people in North America, that would be a pretty big blow for the LGT. It doesn't require a historian's eye to reinterpret the statement, Moroni was there and told Joseph to his face. The fact that Brant and others just kind of brush this off is troubling to me.

never mind, i just saw that Cinepro posted the letter, thanks Cinepro.

[Bernard Gui]

... we also don't know what is meant by the term "quarter". IMO, that sounds like a larger expanse of land. But I know others will believe it to mean a much smaller tract. If the term means a larger area of the Earth it's tougher to imagine there never having been man there. A smaller area - sure.

Depends on which meaning of "quarter" you want. Either is perfectly acceptable usage.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary

QUARTER, n. quort'er. [L. quartus, the fourth part.]

...

5. A region in the hemisphere or great circle; primarily, one of the four cardinal points; as the four quarters of the globe; but used indifferently for any region or point of compass. From what quarter does the wind blow? Hence,

6. A particular region of a town, city or country; as all quarters of the city; in every quarter of the country or of the continent. Hence.

Bernard

[cinepro]

I understand that the standard apologetic reaction to this letter is that Joseph Smith didn't know what the heck he was talking about (and this somehow only proves the Book of Mormon to be more true.)There are other ways of reading this passage. It may very well not have been Joseph, but you who do not know what the heck he was talking about.

The "its" in your highlighted excerpt above does not necessarily refer back to "ancient America". It could very easily be a reference to "the history" contained in "this interesting and important book". The first settlement in the history of the Book of Mormon was, indeed, that of the Jaredites, those who came from the tower of Babel. The book only deals with two civilizations, the Lehites and the Jaredites, just as Joseph states.

Pronouns are very useful, but they (especially in a language like English with neither case nor strong gender) lend themselves to misunderstanding as often as they enhance the discussion.

Lehi

Sorry, but MormonMason is the only one with a plausible duck and weave (which I anticipated in the last sentence of my post; we've been down this road before). But the first bolded sentence which is directly attributed to Moroni does argue against "others". Perhaps Joseph's recollection of Moroni's words had been altered by his personal opinions over the years, but that lays a dangerous precedent to doubt the efficacy of Joseph's memory for the spiritual epiphanies of his youth. Remember, so many of the arguments in favor of the Church's preferred rendition of the First Vision rely on Joseph remembering more accurately as the years go by, not less.

"Its" is most certainly referring to "ancient America".

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from [ancient America's] first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era.

That works.

Nothing else makes any sense. You don't have to "read into" the sentence. It says what it says. If the Book of Mormon were just one of many histories, then it would say "a history of ancient America is unfolded".

Certainly, I'm always game for a "Joseph was wrong" discussion. I absolutely agree he was wrong about this.