"Others" in the Book of Mormon

[The Dude]

Were the Hebrews the only culture to practice polgyny, you might have a point.

But, since polygyny is a quasi-universal practice, there is no reason to assume anyone would have sole resort to the Old Testament to initiate the practice.

Anthropological consensus is that man is a polygynous species. One evidence for this is that men are larger (on average) than women. All "other" primates with this characteristic are polygynous, ergo, man is naturally polygynous.

Lehi

Oh-kay then. Where to start?

The sin of Jacob's people was "committing whoredoms", not practicing polygamy. There are lots of ways to make a whoredom for yourself without invoking a milieu of advanced Civilizations that are not otherwise mentioned in the Book of Mormon. ---> that's the point of the thread.

And before you go on, all you can say about David and Solomon is that Jacob's people used such examples to justify their whoredoms, not that the whoredoms were the same or that many, many, many women were needed to commit them.

[LeSellers]

Also, aren't "marrying heathens" and "polygamy" kind of mutually exclusive? Doesn't someone kind of have to be a believer to go along with polygamy, especially if it is justified with an appeal to the Old Testament?

Were the Hebrews the only culture to practice polgyny, you might have a point.

But, since polygyny is a quasi-universal practice, there is no reason to assume anyone would have sole resort to the Old Testament to initiate the practice.

Anthropological consensus is that man is a polygynous species. One evidence for this is that men are larger (on average) than women. All "other" primates with this characteristic are polygynous, ergo, man is naturally polygynous.

The sin of Jacob's people was "committing whoredoms", not practicing polygamy. There are lots of ways to make a whoredom for yourself without invoking a milieu of advanced Civilizations that are not otherwise mentioned in the Book of Mormon. ---> that's the point of the thread.

And before you go on, all you can say about David and Solomon is that Jacob's people used such examples to justify their whoredoms, not that the whoredoms were the same or that many, many, many women were needed to commit them.

Whoa!

I do not disagree with this part of your premise. I have written several messages here and elsewhere that make this very point.

Lehi

[The Dude]

Whoa!

I do not disagree with this part of your premise. I have written several messages here and elsewhere that make this very point.

Lehi

Oh, sorry man.

So how do people usually respond when you make this point?

[LeSellers]

So how do people usually respond when you make this point?

There is a wide diversity of opinions. Most, however, look at me as if I've just disembarked from a flying saucer.

Lehi

[Bender]

Brant Gardner Posted Today, 09:33 PM

Since the text uses "Lamanite" as a generic term and not a lineage term, your assertion doesn't match the text. Lamanite is used generically as early as the book of Jacob. When the book wants to deal with specific peoples, it associates them by their city (appropriately, as I noted).

I said the text uses Lamanite generically as Nephite, but on occasion it gets more specific but only mentions one of two groups which is the point.

Are you saying that when you read something into the text it must be right, and if I read something else into it I must be wrong? Could you suggest some way that we could use some actual methodology that might allow us to get past reading the text the way we want to and discover what it actually says?

I'm not the one reading something into the text. I stated that it mentions only three groups, all of which are supposed to be from the old world. Everyone of the people who live in a certain city like Amulek or say King Lamoni and others who mention there ancestry mention only one of these three groups. It's you and others who are making inferences from the text about other groups. I'm only making note that the text does not mention any groups we can say represent some other groups then the three already mentioned. if one or more of those city states comes from some other group the text is silent on it.

I suggest that we won't get anywhere until we know how to read "Lamanite" and "Nephite." You are using them as if they are lineage designators in the text. Based on the way they are used in the text and the ability of a people to be Nephite one day and Lamanite the next (though specifically defined by a different designation, such as the name of a person who leads the group) the do not function as lineages at all.

Based on the uses of the terms in the text, the evidence does not support the conclusion you draw from those words.

Incorrect. I've stated before that they can have loose uses, which is what the text tells us. All I've said is that when lineage is mentioned in the text whether it be from one of the two groups that only those of Lehite or Mulkite lineage are mentioned. No other groups. Again if they are there the text is silent on the matter.

Fascinating example. Since most ancient texts don't provide assumed knowledge, but only exceptions (the Bible is this type of text) you are suggesting that the being a Nephite had to be declared because it wasn't the common assumption. That was my point, wasn't it... or do you read that differently?

You could read it as other groups there then the Lehites or Mulekites, but that would be unwise. The text doesn't give any information on that, which again is the point. You don't have any evidence from the text to support this reading. He could have just as easily be saying I'm a direct or pure descendant of Nephi. maybe many other there didn't have a direct father to son lineage to Nephi or had Mulekites for their descendants.

Then you do not understand the redaction of either the Bible or the Book of Mormon. The Bible was written as separate works and many of the individual books had different redactors. The Book of Mormon was conceived by a single mind and most written by a single person. You have some possible comparability in the Nephi-Omni sections, but even those are holographic in the Book of Mormon and in the Bible would not be so tightly ascribed to the writer.

Editor may have been the wrong word to use for Mormon or Moroni.

I do think the most likely reading of the text is more hemispheric with no others there. Considering that most members over the years come up with this reading seems to support that particular reading of the text. It's only after scientific findings making it unreasonable that many now may have a bias or strong motivation to reinterpret the text. This change hasn't come from reading the text, but a strong motivation to reinterpret the text to conform better with what we have learned from scientific research. Not a good way to do scholarly research.

[cinepro]

And, as Brant Gardner and others have often noted (in reference to the notion that the Book of Mormon is a tribal/lineage record), the authors of the Book of Mormon deliberately avoiding any mention of those outside their tribe is entirely consistent with an ancient record of this type, and is in fact more evidence of its antiquity.

But the Nephites do mention "others"- but it's always the Lamanites. The Lord does forbid intermarriage- but it's with the Lamanites. The Book of Mormon even goes into great detail about how the Lord makes the Lamanites look different to ensure the Nephites know not to marry them. Nephi never explains why they were forbidden to intermarry with the Lamanites, but the pagan natives were OK.

And since we have an explicit prohibition against intermarrying in 2 Nephi, I am going to assume that if Jacob were going to chastize his people, he wouldn't just refer to some Old Testament stories from half a world away, but he would also probably refer to Nephi's commandment from just a few decades earlier. So I'm really going to argue that Jacob's people weren't intermarrying with anyone they shouldn't; it was just polygamy.

(Another thought on "others": I will even be so bold as to suggest that if there were "others" here when the Lehites showed up, we wouldn't need Laman and Lemuel to break away and form a contentious tribe; there would be many, many people already here to fulfill that role (as there were in Canaan).

[cdowis]

The BoM doesn't mention any group except for three that were supposed to come from the old world. When details of peoples or groups heritage are mentioned that were considered part of the larger group of Lamanites or Nephites, they always are from the Mulekites or Lehite lineage. No mention of any other group we can identify without inferring from the text what I think we want from it.

The BOM tells us that there were "ox" and domesticated goats in the location where Lehi landed.

Please tell us what that implies, without injecting "what we want from it". Appears to me a pretty explicit reference to "others" but I await your response.

[The Dude]

The BOM tells us that there were "ox" and domesticated goats in the location where Lehi landed.

Please tell us what that implies, without injecting "what we want from it". Appears to me a pretty explicit reference to "others" but I await your response.

Which scriptures do you have in mind?

never mind. i found it

[The Dude]

The BOM tells us that there were "ox" and domesticated goats in the location where Lehi landed.

Appears to me a pretty explicit reference to "others" but I await your response.

1 Nephi 18:25

25 And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were abeasts 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.

A pretty explicit reference to "others"?

I see a few problems with your interpretation.

1. It doesn't say they found domesticated goats, just "goats" and "wild goats".

2. The list of animals is flanked by phrases in bold which point to wild animals. Maybe the "ox" was something else (like a Tapir).

3. Even if you insist on believing this is talking about domesticated animals, we later learn that the Jaredite civilization was not long gone. It is possible to explain these animals through people that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon, without invoking "others".

(Bonus: Archaeological evidence provides no evidence for these animals as indigenous or as used by humans during BoM/Mesoamerican periods.)

I am surprised at the weakness of scriptural arguments for "others" in the Book of Mormon. Again and again when I look at the scriptures I see that apologist interpretations cannot be taken at face value. As someone else has pointed out, these are only inferences (not "evidences") at best -- when they aren't completely nonsensical or unsupported by the actual scriptural passage.

[cdowis]

Cinepro gives his bold opinions on others in the BOM. Let's see what he has to say.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

But the Nephites do mention "others"- but it's always the Lamanites.

====== Yep, the BOM tells us that anyone who is not a Nephite, is labeled a Lamanite. I think we have mentioned this several times. It also tells us that the Nephite/Lamanite terms are generic, and includes such groups as the Zoramites, the Lemuelites, the Mulekites, etc. Lamanite is a generic term.

The Lord does forbid intermarriage- but it's with the Lamanites.

==== Can we assume that you have never read the OT. You are such a profound scriptorian, who apparently knows little about the scriptures. The Lord forbade the Israelites from marrying "strangers".

The Book of Mormon even goes into great detail about how the Lord makes the Lamanites look different to ensure the Nephites know not to marry them. Nephi never explains why they were forbidden to intermarry with the Lamanites, but the pagan natives were OK.

====== Sigh. You cover yourself with glory over your ignorance. You make things up, you add your own text to the scriptures. A truly profound scriptorian. The Lamanites were changed as a one time process. When rebel Nephites joined them, there was no change in skin colour. They marked themselves but there was no physical change. If "others" were Lamanites, obviously they were easily identified as opposed to the Nephites, so no change was necessary.

And since we have an explicit prohibition against intermarrying in 2 Nephi,

======= The Lord already had a prohibition against marriage with strangers, so it was necessary to include another prohibition against marriage with the Lamanites since they were "brothers" and not included in the first prohibition.

snip

(Another thought on "others": I will even be so bold as to suggest that if there were "others" here when the Lehites showed up, we wouldn't need Laman and Lemuel to break away and form a contentious tribe; there would be many, many people already here to fulfill that role (as there were in Canaan).

======= Yep, that is certainly true if the BOM were a fictional story. Anyway, I agree that Jacob's sermon is not strong evidence for others. However since the Lamanites always outnumbered the Nephites, and, at one time, the Nephites practiced polygamy, why did the Lamanites have such a numerical advantage? Now that IS evidence for others, that the Lamanites intermarried with the natives, and the natives joined with the Lamanites. Otherwise, the polygamist Nephites should have had an advantage over the monogamous Lamanites. The concept of "others" would explain the apparent contradition.

[Brant Gardner]

I am surprised at the weakness of scriptural arguments for "others" in the Book of Mormon. Again and again when I look at the scriptures I see that apologist interpretations cannot be taken at face value.

You are suggesting that there is a preferred way to read scriptural texts and that your reading is that one. Pray tell, how do you come to that conclusion and upon what evidence?

If the text is the source of the information, upon what principles can we and should we read that text?

[cdowis]

1 Nephi 18:25

A pretty explicit reference to "others"?

I see a few problems with your interpretation.

1. It doesn't say they found domesticated goats, just "goats" and "wild goats".

2. The list of animals is flanked by phrases in bold which point to wild animals. Maybe the "ox" was something else (like a Tapir).

Sigh.

3. Even if you insist on believing this is talking about domesticated animals, we later learn that the Jaredite civilization was not long gone. It is possible to explain these animals through people that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon, without invoking "others".

I agree. The "others" could very well be surviving colonies of Jaredites who survived the great war in the central cities. There were distant colonies, even as Greece, Rome, and the other great civilizations often had distant colonies.

It really does not matter who they were. They still fall under the category of "others", since they were not Israelites.

(Bonus: Archaeological evidence provides no evidence for these animals as indigenous or as used by humans during BoM/Mesoamerican periods.)

Your bonus shows that your understanding of archeology is flawed.

I am surprised at the weakness of scriptural arguments for "others" in the Book of Mormon.

I have read it over 40 times, and I see plenty of evidence.

Again and again when I look at the scriptures I see that apologist interpretations cannot be taken at face value.

"Again and again" implies multiple readings. Please give us an approximation of how many times you have read the BOM. It must be in the dozens, so just an approximation.

As someone else has pointed out, these are only inferences (not "evidences") at best -- when they aren't completely nonsensical or unsupported by the actual scriptural passage.

And you are an expert on the BOM text.

Speaking as an expert, tell us about "wild oxen", please. And what about "goats". What exactly is a goat when it is not wild (undomesticated? What does the text mean when it places goats into two separate groups.

It is YOUR interpretation that is refusing to accept the clear meaning of the text. Your "surprise" is based on obdurance and a stubborn refusal to accept the BOM text as it stands.

Now, give us YOUR interpretation of this text, please.

[The Dude]

You are suggesting that there is a preferred way to read scriptural texts and that your reading is that one. Pray tell, how do you come to that conclusion and upon what evidence?

If the text is the source of the information, upon what principles can we and should we read that text?

Principles? Gee, I don't know Brant. I prefer to talk about the specific examples and look at the text myself. Let's talk about your favorite piece of BoM text that points to "others".

[Bender]

cdowis Posted Today, 07:10 AM

The BOM tells us that there were "ox" and domesticated goats in the location where Lehi landed.

Please tell us what that implies, without injecting "what we want from it". Appears to me a pretty explicit reference to "others" but I await your response.

The Dude has covered that fairly well. I might add that Nephi doesn't describe people when he is cataloging what he sees. Very odd.

Can we assume that you have never read the OT. You are such a profound scriptorian, who apparently knows little about the scriptures. The Lord forbade the Israelites from marrying "strangers".

I wouldn't assume that of Cinepro. I'm not sure that Jacob mentions strangers. Maybe they didn't think the lamanites were strangers.

Sigh. You cover yourself with glory over your ignorance. You make things up, you add your own text to the scriptures. A truly profound scriptorian. The Lamanites were changed as a one time process. When rebel Nephites joined them, there was no change in skin colour. They marked themselves but there was no physical change. If "others" were Lamanites, obviously they were easily identified as opposed to the Nephites, so no change was necessary.

I thought according to some apologists that the nephites skin colour would also have to be changed through intermarrying with the natives to get the numbers described in the text. Ah well I guess we can't agree on everything.

Yep, that is certainly true if the BOM were a fictional story. Anyway, I agree that Jacob's sermon is not strong evidence for others. However since the Lamanites always outnumbered the Nephites, and, at one time, the Nephites practiced polygamy, why did the Lamanites have such a numerical advantage? Now that IS evidence for others, that the Lamanites intermarried with the natives, and the natives joined with the Lamanites. Otherwise, the polygamist Nephites should have had an advantage over the monogamous Lamanites. The concept of "others" would explain the apparent contradition.

Polygamy is not an effective method of faster population growth, unless you have a shortage of men or you steal from those natives. Plus maybe the Lamanites had more people from the start, and the story tells us there were always more people from the nephites going over and joining the lamanites. The story doesn't need and infusion of natives to the lamanites to get a number advantage, and it seems the apologists are suggesting both groups joined with native groups.

Brant Gardner Posted Today, 07:45 AM

You are suggesting that there is a preferred way to read scriptural texts and that your reading is that one. Pray tell, how do you come to that conclusion and upon what evidence?

If the text is the source of the information, upon what principles can we and should we read that text?

You and others are the ones reading into the text. The responsibility is yours to provide the evidence from the text of others. So far that has been lacking. No point in getting upset when some of us mention that you don't have any evidence from the text to support your view, even though I agree that there is plenty of evidence from the scientific community of people occupying the Americas before and during the BoM time frame. It seems that is the catalyst for rereading the text. If you have evidence I'm willing to look at it.

[The Dude]

I agree. The "others" could very well be surviving colonies of Jaredites who survived the great war in the central cities. There were distant colonies, even as Greece, Rome, and the other great civilizations often had distant colonies.

It really does not matter who they were. They still fall under the category of "others", since they were not Israelites.

Actually it does matter, because you (Mesoamericanist apologists) are tied to a piece of geography with a history of civilizations that were current at 600bc. The challenge for you is to show some bit of textual evidence that Lehites interacted with, intermarried with, and converted these civilizations that were known to exist in archaeology, but nowhere mentioned in the BoM. A dead Jaredite civilization can explain a remnant of domesticated oxen and goats (that's why I offered that interpretation, cdowis!), but thus it fails to give evidence that the Lehites interacted with then-current civilizations of Mesoamerica ---> those are the "others" you need to find in the text.

Speaking as an expert, tell us about "wild oxen", please. And what about "goats". What exactly is a goat when it is not wild (undomesticated? What does the text mean when it places goats into two separate groups.

You mean when the text also flanks goats and oxen with language about wild animals? I don't know what it means but it doesn't mean domestic.

It is YOUR interpretation that is refusing to accept the clear meaning of the text. Your "surprise" is based on obdurance and a stubborn refusal to accept the BOM text as it stands.

I gave my interpretation in post #34 which you responded too by touting your expertise as a BoM reader and dismissing me if I haven't read the BoM at least a dozen times. I read the passage you cited, however, and it doesn't say what you claim.

It doesn't say domestic, the list of animals is indicated to be wild, and besides that, if the animals came from the destroyed Jaredites (described in the BoM) then they didn't come from real Mesoamericans (which aren't described in the BoM anyway). The passage you cited is easily contained within a BoM world that had only Jaredites and Israelites, not with real Mesoamericans.

[Ipso Facto]

When OT-era Israelites start listing animals, it's never an exercise in producing an inventory of the local fauna. It has everything to do with establishing a list of kosher items -- or non-kosher, as the case may be. All your objection amounts to is another example of how rigidly non-believers approach the text of this putatively ancient book. They consistently apply modernistic assumptions to the text. They seldom, if ever, stop to consider how an ancient Israelite/Mesoamerican would craft his own lineage history.

Thus we invariably reach a rapid impasse in these discussions ...

[charity]

A leap? Me?

Charity, read the scripture. It says only that the people engaged in whoredoms and iniquities which they excused by misunderstanding Solomon and David. You infer that the whoredoms and iniquities were polygamy, but that's not specified in the text. Don't trust the apologists to read the scriptures for you!

This much-touted scripture is not evidence of non-Israelite "others" because it does not require a any non-Lehite women to create a mere whoredom.

Prove me wrong.

I take it you aren't really familiar with Jacob 2. He very specifically ties in David and Solomon's actions to the practice of plural marriage. Read verses 23 and 24. Then read 27 and 28.

A full understanding of the text along with the Biblical scripture, shows as Her Amun stated, that it wasn't polygamy that was wrong, but the practice of taking "strange" wives in plural marriages. Where do strange wives come from in Jacob's time? Remember, they started out with an adult company of about 30 people. Even if you think we are now talking about a group which would include grandchildren of the original gorup, that is not a large enouhg group that everybody doesn't know everybody else. And if you accept the almost 50-50 male female birth ratio, where do extra women come from?

You are a scientist. You know these things.

[The Dude]

I take it you aren't really familiar with Jacob 2. He very specifically ties in David and Solomon's actions to the practice of plural marriage. Read verses 23 and 24. Then read 27 and 28.

A full understanding of the text along with the Biblical scripture, shows as Her Amun stated, that it wasn't polygamy that was wrong, but the practice of taking "strange" wives in plural marriages. Where do strange wives come from in Jacob's time? Remember, they started out with an adult company of about 30 people. Even if you think we are now talking about a group which would include grandchildren of the original gorup, that is not a large enouhg group that everybody doesn't know everybody else. And if you accept the almost 50-50 male female birth ratio, where do extra women come from?

You are a scientist. You know these things.

It doesn't say "strange wives" in Jacob, and it doesn't say the peoples' iniquity was the same thing as David's and Solomon's -- only that the people tried to justify their "whoredoms" by appealing to the examples of David and Solomon. It's not necessarily polygyny. That would be your bias appearing in your reading of the text, exactly what you like to accuse me of. We don't know what the "whoredoms" really were so I don't see a reasonable demand for a "large enough group that everybody doesn't know everybody else"... where does that inference come from? Wife swapping or something like it satisfies "whoredom", could be rationalized by appealing to David/Solomon (it doesn't have to be a good rationalization, and obviously the Lord doesn't accept it), could reasonably be denounced in the language of verse 27 ("For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;"). In sum, these verses could be talking about polygyny but another fully consistent reading of the text is possible that does not point to contact with strange "other" civilizations.

[a_little_taller]

Jacob 2:23-24

23) But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24) Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Its interesting how niether the Lord or Jacob mention the wives and concubines of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. The Patriarchs were rightous polygamists that the BoM honors and sets up as examples(Alma 5: 24). The problem isn't just practicing polygamy contrary to the revelations given to Father Lehi(Jacob 2:34). That is bad enough.

The bigger problem was Solomon-style polygamy. These guys were excusing their polygamous lifestyles based on the example of Solomon, not the example of the Patriarchs. What was so unique about the polygamy of Solomon?

1 Kings 11:1-3

1) But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;

2)Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

3) And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

Two things to note about Solomon: 1)He married woman outside the covenant, non-Israelite women who worshipped other gods. 2)Solomon had many, many,many wives.

So here is my thinking:

a)Solomon married non-Israelite heathens.

b)Nephite polygamists were imitating Solomon.

Conclusion: Nephite polygamists were marrying non-Israelite heathens.

and/or

a)Solomon married many, many,many wives.

b)Nephite polygamists were imitating Solomon.

Conclusion: Nephite polygamists were marrying many, many,many wives.

Q:Where did the descendants of Nephi, Sam, Zoram, Jacob and Joseph get all these wives?

A: The unnamed "others".

I think your reasoning is sound. The D&C also adds to the discussion:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:38

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

The Reogranites on my mission loved to quote Jacob, but they didn't like D&C 132. The truthful understanding is resolved in 1 Kings.

[Bender]

Ipso Facto Posted Today, 11:47 AM

When OT-era Israelites start listing animals, it's never an exercise in producing an inventory of the local fauna. It has everything to do with establishing a list of kosher items -- or non-kosher, as the case may be. All your objection amounts to is another example of how rigidly non-believers approach the text of this putatively ancient book. They consistently apply modernistic assumptions to the text. They seldom, if ever, stop to consider how an ancient Israelite/Mesoamerican would craft his own lineage history.

Thus we invariably reach a rapid impasse in these discussions ...

The point is that there is no clear mention of any others in the text, and one must infer based on their bias that the text does mention others. This does nor provide good evidence of others being mentioned in the text, and a game to often played. I can take the BoM , bible, Koran, etc and infer all kinds of meaning into the text that I want to. When those inferences benefit my already held beliefs I must wonder whether I am letting my bias get in the way, especially if others who don't share my bias disagree with my conclusions.

[Ipso Facto]

The point is that there is no clear mention of any others in the text, and one must infer based on their bias that the text does mention others. This does nor provide good evidence of others being mentioned in the text, and a game to often played. I can take the BoM , bible, Koran, etc and infer all kinds of meaning into the text that I want to. When those inferences benefit my already held beliefs I must wonder whether I am letting my bias get in the way, especially if others who don't share my bias disagree with my conclusions.

I not only disagree -- strongly -- with your assertion that there is no "clear mention" of "others" in the text. It is as clear as one's ability to interpret will permit. Furthermore, as Matt Roper demonstrates clearly in his paper(s) on the topic, not only are there "mentions" of "others" -- but there is a long-established pattern and precedent in church history for leaders and others who see it just so. It is not a modern innovation, in response to recent criticisms. It dates back to the time of Joseph Smith himself and has been discussed, to one degree or another, since that time.

Again, I challenge people like you and the "Dude" to address the specific arguments in the paper. I also have another paper in mind along these lines, but we'll start with Nephi's Neighbors, and see where that takes us.

[The Dude]

Again, I challenge people like you and the "Dude" to address the specific arguments in the paper. I also have another paper in mind along these lines, but we'll start with Nephi's Neighbors, and see where that takes us.

Please see my post in the other thread.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208574087

Thanks.

[Ipso Facto]

Please see my post in the other thread.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...mp;p=1208574087

Thanks.

At this point I'm getting these two similar threads confused. And I think it's time I went outside into the warm Dixie sunshine. I will probably revisit this discussion at some later point in time ...

[Calm]

You mean when the text also flanks goats and oxen with language about wild animals? I don't know what it means but it doesn't mean domestic.

I agree that "wild animals" definitely means "wild animals", but would challenge "beasts in the forests" to mean "wild animals" as well.

First off, "beast" is not qualified as wild (think of "beasts of burden" if you don't want to take the time to look in the dictionary.) And while "forest" tends to mean the "wild" for Americans, it is not automatically so (think of the cultivated forests of England where so-called wild animals are often raised by hand and then released 'into the wild' when it's time for the hunt). This is a case where assumptions about the language is taking you further than the text itself. It may or may not mean what you claim depending on what was understood by those terms by the author, editor or translator.

I think this is a good example why only dealing with specifics without first establishing a general approach can be problematic.

[Calm]

When those inferences benefit my already held beliefs I must wonder whether I am letting my bias get in the way, especially if others who don't share my bias disagree with my conclusions.

This is something both critics and apologists need to guard against.