Viable Nephite colonies

[notHagoth7]

In the middle of discussing physical evidence, it's time to turn back to some of Charity's comments.

None of this evidence, as extensive as it may be, holds a candle to the strength of a spiritual witness from God.

If the physical evidence detracts from THAT reality, it will do the intent of the Nephite record a disservice.

A core intent in presenting this evidence is to help people recognize their heritage - as an onramp to prayerfully reading/considering/pondering the Nephite account.

[notHagoth7]

From another chapter:

A Bear Story

Another account about Shield:

As a young man, he encountered a bear.

But rather than being killed, or killing...

he instead found a way to capture the bear alive - he tied it with his belt.

(Similar to an Old Testament account or two.)

Whether one believes the story to be an ancient embellishment or not, the preservation and telling of it actually says quite a bit to tie Shield's arrival with the overall evidence. For the story itself could not be told in the Germanic tongues without the word "bear." And "bear" was one of many words introduced into the Germanic languages by a seafaring people who didn't speak IndoEuropean. Reasonable implication: The newcomer Shield was among those foreigners.

This is not to claim that other people didn't have a word for bear (if they lived in bear country, they certainly did). However, when we look at the key events that are said to relate to Shield's early arrival on Europe's strand, just mentioning his name, or his wife, or describing his arrival (or his burial), or his heirs, or the bear account - ALL of those stories have, as their centerpiece, words from a seafaring non-IndoEuropean people (strand, ship, sail, keel, shield, king, wife, bear). Each of the stories told about Shield, especially the centerpieces for each story, are evidence which suggest his cultural, linguistic surroundings (and perhaps thereby his cultural origins).

[Bearded Infidel]

Ok, I am sick today, so I am going to jump into the conversation.

In context, however, the claim of strength is, well, relative. Can it light a candle to the weight of European testimony?

You seem to be stating that your Nephite migration theory is strong. It seems to me that all you have done is present an argument that allows for the possibility of said migration. I do not find your European testimony to be very convincing.

"The sailing ships he encountered "were built and rigged in a different manner from ours. They were made with much flatter bottoms, to help them to ride shallow water caused by shoals or ebb-tides. Exceptionally high bows and sterns fitted them for use in heavy seas and violent gales, and the hulls were made entirely of oak, to enable them to stand any amount of shocks and rough usage. The cross-timbers, which consisted of beams a foot wide, were fastened with iron bolts as thick as a man

[cdowis]

You continue to try to absolve yourself from showing that reformed Egyptian existed in Mesoamerica by stating that you don't subscribe to the theory that this is where the Nephites were. Ok, so lets assume they weren't in Mesoamerica. Lets just say that they resided somewhere in north or south America. The presence of reformed Egyptian or any writing of a semitic origin has never been found anywhere in this hemisphere. Not only have these languages not been found, but neither has any of the technologies quoted above in Ceaser's account.

Please tell us how many books (codices) have survived from the BOM time period. 100.... 50....10....one... less than one?

Don't have the source, but several scripts have been found in mesoamerica, and one of them was specific to record keeping, so these records may have been written in a specialized script.

Finally the BOM itself does not support your demand for semitic language in the BOM time period. Mormon made it clear that they did not use Hebrew, but a language unknown to any other nation. And that is indeed what we find in mesoamerica.

You really should read the actual BOM, rather than the antimormon version.

[Bearded Infidel]

Please tell us how many books (codices) have survived from the BOM time period. 100.... 50....10....one... less than one?

Don't have the source, but several scripts have been found in mesoamerica, and one of them was specific to record keeping, so these records may have been written in a specialized script.

Finally the BOM itself does not support your demand for semetic language in the BOM time period.ting. Mormon made it clear that they did not use Hebrew, but a language unknown to any other nation. And that is indeed what we find in mesoamerica.

First of all, if the above arguments are correct, then Mormon didn't know what he was talking about, because the Irish knew their language (or at least parts of it).

The bigger questions are those regarding the points I made regarding the technology Ceaser points out. What about these questions?

[cdowis]

First of all, if the above arguments are correct, then Mormon didn't know what he was talking about, because the Irish knew their language (or at least parts of it).

AS I said, he knew the language, even as we know Latin and ancient Greek (did you read my post?). But Latin is not the venacular. Of course they knew Hebrew -- it was the language of the scriptures, but they did not use it as the venacular, just as Polish and Russian, and German Jews did not use Hebrew as the venacular. I think Mormon knew what he was talking about.

Why don't you think about things for just a few moments before hitting the send key. You are making yourself look very silly.

[notHagoth7]

Exceedingly Large Ships (with sails)

"When our own fleet encountered these ships [our fleet] proved its superiority only in speed and oarsmanship; in all other respects, having regard to the locality and the force of the tempests, the others were more suitable and adaptable. For our ships could not damage them with the ram (they were so stoutly built), nor by reason of their height, was it easy to hurl a pike....Moreover, when the wind began to rage and they ran before it, they endured the storm more easily, and rested in the shoals more safely, with no fear of rocks or crags if left by the tide; whereas our own vessels could not but dread the possibility of all these chances.

"...For our commanders knew the enemy could not be damaged by the ram; while, even when turrets were set up on board [the Roman ships], the lofty sterns of the native ships commanded even these, so that from the lower level missiles could not be hurled properly, while those discharged by the Gauls gained a heavier impact."

"One device our men had prepared to great advantage - sharp-pointed hooks let in and fastened to long poles, in shape not unlike siege-hooks. When by these contrivances, the halyards which fastened the yards to the masts were caught and drawn taut, the [Roman] ship was rowed hard ahead and they snapped short. With the halyards cut, the yards by necessity fell down; and as all the hope of the Gallic ships lay in their sails and tackle, when those were torn away, all chance of using their ships was taken away also."

Exceedingly large? Yep. Nephites? Not enough evidence in that single account to say - but it is evidence of tall, sturdy ships in the northern Atlantic, contemporary with Hagoth, that suggest transatlantic capabilities.

With those evacuation ships captured/disabled, the Veneti of the eastern seaboard quickly surrendered, the Romans executed the local "Senate", and all their men were sold into slavery.

That these tall, study sailing ships were engaged in the region adjacent to the people referred to as the Venelli (the ringleaders in that 56 BC fight for independence) gives us cause to explore the Venelli in greater depth.

Caesar's small sea battle in this region suggests we a possible origin of the seafaring terms in the Germanic languages.

By exploring the Venelli, we'll see that their own accounts suggest they travelled eastward, and settled :

1) Near the mouth of the Rhine river.

2) And later deeper into Germania, near the mouth of the Elbe river.

Both settlements happen to be in the region referred to as the Nordwest Block - the coastal region of northwestern Europe said by a growing number of scholars to have been inhabited by a people who did not speak an IndoEuropean language. (I.e. originally, the inhabitants didn't speak Latin, Greek, Celtic, Germanic, etc...) As mentioned earlier, some have asserted that the region adopted the Germanic tongue around the beginning of the Christian era.

As we follow the evidence, in 56 BC, we have the seafaring peoples on the North Atlantic seaboard, exceedingly large sailing ships, a people retreating eastward into the Nordwest Block / Germania, where there was a language with some origin other than IndoEuropean. Where did these Venelli come from?

[Bearded Infidel]

AS I said, he knew the language, even as we know Latin and ancient Greek (did you read my post?). But Latin is not the venacular. Of course they knew Hebrew -- it was the language of the scriptures, but they did not use it as the venacular, just as Polish and Russian, and German Jews did not use Hebrew as the venacular. I think Mormon knew what he was talking about.

Why don't you think about things for just a few moments before hitting the send key. You are making yourself look very silly.

No need to get nasty. Nothagoth7 is trying to make the case that the language introduced by these non-Europeans was the Nephite language. Mormon stated no other nation new this language. If you assume Nothagoth7 is correct, then Mormon was incorrect, other nations knew their language. Simple deductive logic.

And still no reply to the other questions I raised?

[notHagoth7]

Ok, I am sick today, so I am going to jump into the conversation.

Welcome!

You seem to be stating that your Nephite migration theory is strong.

Relatively, yes. I've already presented more comprehensive suppporting data than anything Stout's argument has mustered. And I've only just begun the fight.

It seems to me that all you have done is present an argument that allows for the possibility of said migration.

If you mean it won't convince anybody against their will. Yep. I have no reason to want the argument to be any stronger than that.

I do not find your European testimony to be very convincing.

I'm OK with that.

You continue to try to absolve yourself from showing that reformed Egyptian existed in Mesoamerica by stating that you don't subscribe to the theory that this is where the Nephites were. Ok, so lets assume they weren't in Mesoamerica. Lets just say that they resided somewhere in north or south America.

OK. Sounds fun.

The presence of reformed Egyptian or any writing of a semitic origin has never been found anywhere in this hemisphere.

Not so. Brian Stubbs' work demonstrates Semitic in the Americas. If interested, give his work a gander, and let us know what you think.

Added: I answered a bit too quickly, and have to qualify that. He provides evidence of Semitic. But I don't recall any evidence of writing. Can anyone refresh me? Some have posited Semitic elsewhere, for example in Peru. And some have posited Semitic influence in North America. But you may be right about writings systems...so far. As I've mentioned earlier today, I don't expect to find evidence of reformed Egyptian script in the Americas, unless the Nephite plates are found, as I believe they were an art form specifically designed for record keeping on metal plates.

The Nephite record specifically states that it was an awkward way to write.

And that they had other means of writing.

Not only have these languages not been found, but neither has any of the technologies quoted above in Ceaser's account. Iron chains? Iron bolts an inch in diameter? The swords and shields that your man Shield showed up with? Enormous ships capable of traversing the seas as Ceaser describes? None of those things are found anywhere in pre-Columbian America.

For one, Hagoth's shipbuilding is described as a Nephite aberration. And his enormous ship sailed northward, never to return. If Hagoth left with that migration, and the size of his shipbuilding was unusual for Nephite culture, and there is no further mention of ships that size, why would one expect to find further evidence for that in the culture he left behind?

The Nephite record attests to iron smelting and metal working. So Caesar's account aligns with Nephite capabilities. Whether you choose to allow for that or not. I can't speak to the American archaeology issue - it's not my area of study. But I would suggest the book on transatlantic contact. Extensive evidence. It basically requires such things to have been happening long before Columbus.

You also make the hasty assumption that the new cultural influx into Europe must have come from the Americas.

It won't seem as hasty once I get to the evidence from the origin accounts which speak of such things.

Where is the evidence of this?

Great question. We're getting there.

There are plenty of other non-European places such an influx could have originated from.

I'm listening. Present your case. What advanced seafaring civilization existed in the first century BC, with access to the Atlantic, that was of some linguistic origin outside the Indo-European language family? Go ahead and present a list that matches those parameters, and present a viable case for one or more of them. (Ideally, the argument would align with testimony in the origin accounts...but for now, we can make that a separate matter if that simplifies things.) Fair enough?

[Arc]

Yes, I see the problem. You have absolutely no clue what is contained in the text of the BOM.

The BOM does not contain a detailed cultural description of mesoamerica, or even of the Nephites and Lamanites. In fact, we don't even know what language they spoke. Mormon made it clear that it was not Hebrew, even through they were familiar with it, just as we have a knowledge of ancient Greek and Latin.

We have hints of religious beliefs, but the majority of the Nephites/Lamanites were not Christian -- that much we do know, but we don't know their religious practices except for a reference to a tower used in religious services, and specialized buildings. We know that they had a formal religious organization with priests.

We know that they had a calendar, they had a written language, and extensively wrote on books (codex). We know that human sacrifice was practiced. We know that the Lamanites had a hierarchy of kings. We do know that there were extensive warefare.

We could be excavating an authentic Nephite city, but there is nothing in the BOM which would give us any method for identifying it as such, especially after the war of extermination.

These details were found in the other Nephite records (no longer extant), and the BOM only contained a religious record of these people, with the purpose, not to satisfy your curiousity of the culture of these people, but to bring people to Christ. It does not pretend to completely describe Nephite culture, much less the culture of mesoamerica.

I trust that you now see the problem -- your deep and profound ignorance of the Book of Mormon. You need to read the BOM itself, rather than the cartoon version.

If you had read this thread, you would have seen that I, in fact, have read the Book of Mormon, several times over many years. The more I read it, the more problems I found, until at some point I had to admit that it could not be what Joseph Smith claimed.

And, with regard to Mesoamerica as the location of Nephite cities, I can show you written statements by Joseph Smith himself claiming that Nephite cities were located in Mesoamerica.

In any case, all I asked for was simple selection between two alternative hypotheses. If you do not like one, then select the other. If you do not like either, you are welcome to construct your own, so long as it is falsifiable.

[notHagoth7]

First of all, if the above arguments are correct, then Mormon didn't know what he was talking about, because the Irish knew their language (or at least parts of it).

Again, Tironian is not a language. It is instead a form of shorthand that can be used in any language.

Modern version of shorthand (Gregg and others) are believed to owe their existence to Tironian.

So one could very well use shorthand without knowing the language it derived from.

In addition, due to language drift, Mormon or Moroni was likely quite correct that no other nation could understand their language.

Because it had been over four centuries since Hagoth's migration. And the two branches of Nephite would no longer have been intelligible to one another. And that's only IF the colonists had retained the Nephite language.

Furthermore, Mormon or Moroni said that they had continued to re-shape or re-form their shorthand character set (similar to stenographic innovation in the 19th century). So based on changes to the language itself, and in the shorthand characters used in the plates it is highly unlikely that Nephite writing of 400 AD would have been readable by any descendants of Hagoth's migration.

Your argument is similar to suggesting that if we both know Gregg shorthand, and if I capture a Danish conversation using Gregg, you would somehow be able to read and understand what was said. And/or that you should be able to read Beowulf in the original Anglo-Saxon, without any further training, and somehow be able to understand it.

Does that explanation make sense?

The bigger questions are those regarding the points I made regarding the technology Ceaser points out. What about these questions?

Again, I invite you to locate an advanced civilization, bordering the Atlantic, outside the Indo-European language family which accounts for what Caesar witnessed.

[notHagoth7]

And, with regard to Mesoamerica as the location of Nephite cities, I can show you written statements by Joseph Smith himself claiming that Nephite cities were located in Mesoamerica.

As you're likely aware, Nephite geography is a much debated issue in this setting (and others). It's nowhere near a settled issue. And you're dealing with an LDS audience that knows full well that the official line is that there is **no** established or revealed geography for the Book of Mormon.

That said, there's nothing to stop you from arguing from a Mesoamerican assumption.

But it's somewhat like attempting to **push** a rope, since, within Mormon circles, it's arguing from a foundation that isn't based on established belief or fact.

As a genealogist, I know that when trying to locate one's heritage, it is methodologically sound to start with known, recent generations, and carefully work one's way backwards. I believe the same is true of Nephite research. It's arguably more sound to work from more recent, known history, and work our way backwards from there. I think it's the most likely approach of triangulating in on the American Nephite homeland(s) with any reasonable degree of plausibility.

[notHagoth7]

Nothagoth7 is trying to make the case that the language introduced by these non-Europeans was the Nephite language.

Yes. As it existed ca. 60 BC.

Mormon stated no other nation new this language.

Well, that statement was four and a half centuries after the migration.

Languages drift over time. (If you read of the meeting between Nephites and Mulekites, the Mulekite language was said to have been corrupted in the several centuries since leaving Jerusalem, and the Mulekites had to be taught the Nephite tongue.)

And people adopt new languages. None of my children, nephews, or nieces speak the language that their Scandinavian forefathers spoke 450 years ago. How about yours?

These things make Mormon's statement not only plausible, but the most likely reality for an isolated culture, regardless of a previous diaspora.

If you assume Nothagoth7 is correct, then Mormon was incorrect, other nations knew their language. Simple deductive logic.

Unfortunately, the logic doesn't take actual language issues into account, as demonstrated above. Fair enough?

[Bearded Infidel]

It seems to me that all you have done is present an argument that allows for the possibility of said migration.

If you mean it won't convince anybody against their will. Yep. I have no reason to want the argument to be any stronger than that.

I am not looking to be convinced against my will, I am a reasonable person. But many things are possible, showing that something is simply possible is not a strong argument, there must be evidence to support the theory.

The presence of reformed Egyptian or any writing of a semitic origin has never been found anywhere in this hemisphere.

Not so. Brian Stubbs' work demonstrates Semitic in the Americas. If interested, give his work a gander, and let us know what you think.

I am unfamiliar with this work, I will check it out.

For one, Hagoth's shipbuilding is described as a Nephite aberration. And his enormous ship sailed northward, never to return. If Hagoth left with that migration, and the size of his shipbuilding was unusual for Nephite culture, and there is no further mention of ships that size, why would one expect to find further evidence for that in the culture he left behind?

The BOM does not say his ship building was an aberration, it only states that it was an

[Bearded Infidel]

Well, that statement was four and a half centuries after the migration.

Languages drift over time. (If you read of the meeting between Nephites and Mulekites, the Mulekite language was said to have been corrupted in the several centuries since leaving Jerusalem, and the Mulekites had to be taught the Nephite tongue.)

And people adopt new languages. None of my children, nephews, or nieces speak the language that their Scandinavian forefathers spoke 450 years ago. How about yours?

These things make Mormon's statement not only plausible, but the most likely reality for an isolated culture, regardless of a previous diaspora.

Unfortunately, the logic doesn't take actual language issues into account, as demonstrated above. Fair enough?

You can't read Chaucer? Or Shakespeare? 450 years is not enough time to change a language from something that a person understands into something completely unintelligible. Especially a language that is written.

[notHagoth7]

Languages drift over time. (If you read of the meeting between Nephites and Mulekites, the Mulekite language was said to have been corrupted in the several centuries since leaving Jerusalem, and the Mulekites had to be taught the Nephite tongue.)

In fact language drift, as attested to in the Book of Mormon, is kind of hard to account for. What's the likelihood that an early 19th-century farmer would have known that two Semitic peoples, separated by four or five centuries, wouldn't be able to understand one another?

And, how likely would he have known that the camp which preserved/retained their written record would be the one with the more closely preserved spoken language?

From 1 Nephi 3:

And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers;

Language morphology...an extremely obscure field in 1830.

From Wiki:

In time the [Grimm] brothers became interested in older languages and their relation to German. Jacob began to specialize in the history and structure of the German language. The relationships between words became known as Grimm's Law. They gathered immense amounts of data. In 1830, they formed a household in G

[LeSellers]

You can't read Chaucer?

Heere bigynneth the Knyghtes Tale

Whilom, as olde stories tellen us,

Ther was a duc that highte Theseus;

Of Atthenes he was lord and governour,

And in his tyme swich a conquerour,

5 That gretter was ther noon under the sonne.

Ful many a riche contree hadde he wonne,

What with his wysdom and his chivalrie;

He conquered al the regne of Femenye,

That whilom was ycleped Scithia,

10 And weddede the queene Ypolita,

And broghte hir hoom with hym in his contree,

With muchel glorie and greet solempnytee,

And eek hir yonge suster Emelye.

And thus with victorie and with melodye

15 Lete I this noble duc to Atthenes ryde,

And al his hoost, in armes hym bisyde.

And certes, if it nere to long to heere,

I wolde have toold yow fully the manere

How wonnen was the regne of Femenye

20 By Theseus, and by his chivalrye,

And of the grete bataille for the nones

Bitwixen Atthenes and Amazones,

And how asseged was Ypolita

The faire hardy queene of Scithia,

25 And of the feste that was at hir weddynge,

And of the tempest at hir hoom-comynge;

But al the thyng I moot as now forbere,

I have, God woot, a large feeld to ere,

And wayke been the oxen in my plough,

30 The remenant of the tale is long ynough.

I wol nat letten eek noon of this route,

Lat every felawe telle his tale aboute,

And lat se now who shal the soper wynne;-

And ther I lefte, I wol ayeyn bigynne.

35 This duc of whom I make mencioun,

Whan he was come almoost unto the toun,

In al his wele and in his mooste pride,

He was war, as he caste his eye aside,

Where that ther kneled in the hye weye

40 A compaignye of ladyes, tweye and tweye,

Ech after oother, clad in clothes blake;

But swich a cry and swich a wo they make,

That in this world nys creature lyvynge

That herde swich another waymentynge;

It's not as easy as it looks.

Lehi

[notHagoth7]

I am not looking to be convinced against my will, I am a reasonable person. But many things are possible, showing that something is simply possible is not a strong argument, there must be evidence to support the theory.

OK. I'm genuinely interested to see if, in your opinion, we ever arrive at "evidence to support the theory".

The BOM does not say his ship building was an aberration, it only states that it was an

[notHagoth7]

You can't read Chaucer? Or Shakespeare?

You're talking about a literary culture.

The Mulekites did not preserve their record, and thereby experienced more language drift.

From Omni:

And at the time that [the Nephite king] Mosiah discovered [the Mulekites], they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.

18 But it came to pass that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language.

450 years is not enough time to change a language from something that a person understands into something completely unintelligible. Especially a language that is written.

True in some contexts. Not true in others. One of the core theories of language contact is that a language will change relative to the languages it comes into contact with. For example, the Viking influx into England beginning around 800 AD, and the Norman intrusion beginning in 1066 altered the English language considerably. So the language one speaks hinges on the languages of one's neighbors, and one's ruling class. Two groups speaking the same language who are surrounded by completely different languages, will shift considerably - even more so if they don't have a standardized written tradition that helps anchor their language to some degree. If the Nephite disapora didn't preserve a written record, their language would have shifted more rapidly. In the case of English, it shifted substantially between 750 AD and 1200 AD. That's why the one is called Old English, and the other is called Middle English.

And that's assuming they preserved their language for more than a few generations. I'm not insisting that to be the case.

If you're aware of LDS emigration patterns, it was standard LDS policy to encourage foreign-speaking immigrants to surrender their native language to assimilate quickly with the saints. A missionary-minded people like the Nephites would have had similar cause to adopt the language of their neighbors - so they could interact with them and share the message they deemed urgent. Based on that, why would one assume a Nephite diaspora would have preserved their original tongue beyond the first generation or two?

The only reason I can think that they would have tried to preserve their original language would be if they had Nephite plates that they needed to preserve a reading comprehension for. But I don't have a reason to believe that to be the case. I believe the other issues suggest that they assimilated relatively quickly - an assertion that is substantiated by modern language studies of the region, which would make Moroni's statement true long before 400 AD.

[Bearded Infidel]

I can see your point. I would posit, however, that since its size was what made it so noteworthy, and that its size was "exceedingly" big, that it was an aberration in Nephite shipbuilding of his day. (Otherwise there'd be little reason to mention its size.)

Actually, they do. Shipbuilding is a prime example. The Roman cargo ships that carried grain from Egypt to Rome during the Empire dwarfed the hauling capacities of the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria fourteen centuries later. A number of such technologies have been lost over time, only to be rediscovered through archaeology, ancient manuscripts, or independent invention.

Sure, the size of the ship may have been an aberration, but the building of ships was not. The account you gave by Ceaser states that not only did these people know how to build ships, they knew how to build them better than anyone he had ever seen. This suggests that the construction of ships of this sort was commonplace (albeit perhaps the size was not.)

That's assuming such knowledge was widely disseminated, instead of jealously guarded. The latter happens to be the case in many ancient trades. That was the premise around which guilds (and some monasteries/religious orders) functioned.

This is true, but even though such practices were guarded in Europe, Archaeological evidence of their existence is abundant. This is not the case in America. In fact, not only is it not abundant, it is non-existent.

Per one of the resident professors here, it demonstrates extensive pre-columbian transatlantic contact.

pre-columbian transatlantic contact is not the same thing as pre-columbian americans visiting Europe. Sure Columbus was not the first to visit the new world. But that wasn't my question. The question is did Americans visit Europe? Could you provide a link to something backing this claim up?

Actually, I have begun presenting such evidence, but you probably haven't had time/cause to review it.

For example, one of the chapters in the book I linked to talks about evidence of knowledge of the Gulf Stream and the Sargasso Sea in European origin accounts. Beowulf's allusion to "whale path" in the context of Shield's return to his homeland offers a potential glimpse of that potential context. But we'll get to more of that when we talk about the Lombards, and about early Ireland.

Your right, I have not read that chapter. Can you provide the link again?

You also keep stating that you will not address the problem that no evidence exists in America that Nephites had the technology to do what you are suggesting, but that you will leave this to the "American Experts". Can't you see that your entire argument hinges on this problem? Why are you willing to ignore it and instead rely on circumstantial evidence that only allows for the possibility that you may be right? If you could just show that Americans had the means to do what you suggest, then your argument would be rock solid. But that piece is conspicuously missing.

But hey, why not. On with the Lombards!

[Bearded Infidel]

You're talking about a literary culture.

The Mulekites did not preserve their record, and thereby experienced more language drift.

I am not talking about the Mulekites, I am talking about the Nephites. And the Book of Mormon specifically states that the Mulekites adopted the Nephite language. The Nephites were a learned people, who could read. Even during King Benjaman's address, he has people write down what he said and disseminate it to all of those who couldn't hear him. This means that by and large these people could read.

True in some contexts. Not true in others. One of the core theories of language contact is that a language will change relative to the languages it comes into contact with. For example, the Viking influx into England beginning around 800 AD, and the Norman intrusion beginning in 1066 altered the English language considerably. So the language one speaks hinges on the languages of one's neighbors, and one's ruling class. Two groups speaking the same language who are surrounding by completely different languages, will shift considerably - even more so if they don't have a standardized written tradition that helps anchor their language to some degree. If the Nephite disapora didn't preserve a written record, their language would have shifted more rapidly.

And that's assuming they preserved their language for more than a few generations. I'm not insisting that to be the case.

If you're aware of LDS emigration patterns, it was standard LDS policy to encourage foreign-speaking immigrants to surrender their native language to assimilate quickly with the saints. A missionary-minded people like the Nephites would have had similar cause to adopt the language of their neighbors - so they could interact with them and share the message they deemed urgent. Based on that, why would one assume a Nephite diaspora would have preserved their original tongue beyond the first generation or two?

Who were these Nephite neighbors? Where are they spoken of in the Book of Mormon? And even if there were neighbors, the early church made others change their language to english, not the other way around.

The only reason I can think that they would have tried to preserve their original language would be if they had Nephite plates that they needd to preserve a reading comprehension for. But I don't believe that to be the case.

The reason they brought the Brass Plates was so that they wouldn't forget the Law of Moses. And as I stated above, these were a reading people.

[notHagoth7]

Sure, the size of the ship may have been an aberration, but the building of ships was not.

OK. However, per Caesar's direct testimony, and as many sailors might attest (Arc?) the size of a ship can be a factor in its survivability in the north Atlantic winds/waves.

The account you gave by Ceaser states that not only did these people know how to build ships, they knew how to build them better than anyone he had ever seen.

Yep.

This suggests that the construction of ships of this sort was commonplace

I don't quite follow. How so?

This is true, but even though such practices were guarded in Europe, Archaeological evidence of their existence is abundant. This is not the case in America. In fact, not only is it not abundant, it is non-existent.

I'll leave that for American experts to respond.

Again, this thread isn't about the existence of Nephite in the Americas. It's about exploring the evidence for the existence of their descendants in Europe. One step at a time.

pre-columbian transatlantic contact is not the same thing as pre-columbian americans visiting Europe. Sure Columbus was not the first to visit the new world. But that wasn't my question. The question is did Americans visit Europe? Could you provide a link to something backing this claim up?

Although that's something of a tangent, how about Plato and Atlantis? (hold off your snickers for a moment).

Plato's testimony was that Atlantis was simply the size of two continents. Not some small island. Hence: the Americas...across the Atlanti-c.

Most Atlantis advocates overlook that fact and attempt to make something mysterious about it all.

(I'm not insisting that every detail in Plato accurately represents that civilization.)

Your right, I have not read that chapter. Can you provide the link again?

Sure. Here. Fast forward to the "Lost Road" chapter that starts on page 154.

You also keep stating that you will not address the problem that no evidence exists in America that Nephites had the technology to do what you are suggesting, but that you will leave this to the "American Experts". Can't you see that your entire argument hinges on this problem?

While I agree it's an issue, it's one that can (and will have to) wait. I like solving problems one step at a time.

Once we know what to look for, American experts will have a better opportunity of identifying likely candidates for Nephite origins. Until then, the other is premature.

Why are you willing to ignore it

Oh, I'm not ignoring it. (It's an important issue.) I'm just choosing my battles.

and instead rely on circumstantial evidence that only allows for the possibility that you may be right? If you could just show that Americans had the means to do what you suggest, then your argument would be rock solid. But that piece is conspicuously missing.

But it will remain missing until American experts have a chain of custody to help them trace back to Nephite centers.

I'm not insisting that's what this exploration WILL provide.

But I'd be surprised if it doesn't.

But hey, why not. On with the Lombards!

Sounds good. Coming soon, to an LCD screen near you.

And, for the record, I genuinely appreciate your contribution to the discussion here.

[notHagoth7]

I am not talking about the Mulekites, I am talking about the Nephites. And the Book of Mormon specifically states that the Mulekites adopted the Nephite language. The Nephites were a learned people, who could read. Even during King Benjaman's address, he has people write down what he said and disseminate it to all of those who couldn't hear him. This means that by and large these people could read.

Then I've clearly lost the point of your argument here. Can you briefly restate what it is?

Who were these Nephite neighbors? Where are they spoken of in the Book of Mormon?

Again, this all traces to your assertion that Mormon or Moroni was lying when he said nobody else spoke their language.

I've demonstrated how, by Nephite emigrants adopting Germanic and Celtic, that would make such a statement true LONG before 400 AD.

So I don't follow why this argument is still simmering. Am I missing something?

And even if there were neighbors, the early church made others change their language to english, not the other way around.

Non sequitor? I think you've missed my point. They wanted the newcomers to discard their foreign language in order to unify the people under one tongue. A similar mindset in ancient Europe would have encourage Nephites to assimilate with the surrounding cultures/languages, in order to fulfill their role in "teaching the gospel." (Along the lines of the tradition of the sons of Mosiah who served among the neighboring Lamanites).

The reason they brought the Brass Plates was so that they wouldn't forget the Law of Moses.

While true, it doesn't negate what I said.

Per the passage I cited, the plates were also to help them preserve the language of their fathers.

In essence, the Book of Mormon implies that without such a written record, they would have lost the language of their fathers over time - a surprisingly mature understanding of language drift, in something that is claimed by some to be a frontier American fraud, written before the term linguistics was even coined. But this is all a tangent in response to your assertion that Moroni/Mormon was lying when he said around 400 AD that no one else could understand their language. Nephites that had integrated into Europe centuries prior make such a statement beyond reasonable - even if one may not like it's source.

[Bearded Infidel]

I don't quite follow. How so?

Because a society does not get that good at something only doing it occasionally.

Although that's something of a tangent, how about Plato and Atlantis? (hold off your snickers for a moment).

Plato's testimony was that Atlantis was simply the size of two continents. Not some small island. Hence: the Americas...across the Atlanti-c.

Most Atlantis advocates overlook that fact and attempt to make something mysterious about it all.

(I'm not insisting that every detail in Plato accurately represents that civilization.)

Really, all you can provide is Atlantis? I thought you said there is extensive evidence?

While I agree it's an issue, it's one that can (and will have to) wait. I like solving problems one step at a time.

Once we know what to look for, American experts will have a better opportunity of identifying likely candidates for Nephite origins. Until then, everyone's whistling in the dark.

You mean everyone is fearing the worse and hoping for the best? But there should be nothing to fear right?

[Bearded Infidel]

Then I've clearly lost the point of your argument here. Can you briefly restate what it is?

I was responding to your statement that 450 years is enough to make a language unintelligible, I think we lost each other in translation and I misunderstood the point you were making, but I think we have got side tracked. On with the Ilse of Erin?