Meldrum's Book Back on the Shelves at DB

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What's on the flag representing the Country of Lebanon? And you don't think Lehi and his family knew of the Forests of Lebanon? And that the Solomon's Temple which Nephi built a Temple after the manner of, didn't use Cedar Trees as recorded on the Brass Plates and easily viewed in Jerusalem?

Maybe Lehi was never worthy of a Temple Recommend?

[sigh]

Nothing like arguing from silence and even a nifty strawman.

[Tiberius]

There are approx. 23 posts asking me questions since returning from Monday. Amazing.

I haven't tried defending the scriptures this much since my full-time mission in South America. Hey, "Guyana" or "Guiana" means "pale-face" in essence. (I bet you didn't know that.) Told to me by a citizen, now subject of Hugo Chavez. This tradition lives in an area where FARMS hasn't studied(?) But there's no meaningful ruins near The Orinoco or in The Lost World. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would be disappointed in you.

Would Northern South America fit into your Mesoamerica theory? Or were the Caribes too cannibalistic for you?

According to this site, the Caribes navigated the Mississippi River, as well. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribe_(etnia)

In referring to the scriptures, I don't correct them or presume the student of them should change their meaning, whether they refer to a Horse or to the Savior. That's my main beef with FARMS, as if you didn't know.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Which has led me to a few questions for all of you?

• Which part and portion of the Book of Mormon should be "loan-shifted" - as used by FARMS?
  
• Which parts of the scriptures should be considered exclusive from this technique, and which should not?
  
• And who decides?
  
• Or is it a consensus reached upon by a committee of your peers?
  

Mabye this question should be answered by Dr. Peterson, and a contributor of FARMS, unless I'm mistaken.

CFR!!!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Here is the critical flaw in the "loan shifting" argument.

If we remember that Nephi was writing in a different language, then that would mean that he had some word (let's say "sus") that he applied to the New World animal (let's hypothesize a "tapir"). So in 590BC, we can make the argument that "sus" = "tapir". Great, that makes sense. Problem solved.

But then, when Enos uses the word "sus" 170 years later, does the Nephite word "sus" mean "horse", or does it mean "tapir"?

Then, when Alma uses the word several hundred years later, does the Lamanite use of the word "sus" mean "horse", or "tapir"?

And so on.

Lets say that "sus" was a word taht Nephi would use to mean "horse", when Nephi comes to the new world and sees what we call a "Tapir" he calls that a horse as there would have been no such word as "Tapir" known to Nephi to use. It would have been anachronistic for Nephi to use the word tapir. So what did the Mayans call a tapir? That would be the real question.

Note: I am not for or against loan shifting, I just don't think you had the correct udnerstanding of what loan shifting is. Perhaps I am wrong, some one can correct me.

[Tiberius]

Nothing like arguing from silence and even a nifty strawman.

Oh. Ok. The scriptures are a strawman. Nephi wrote forests. He meant jungles. He wrote horse. It was lost in translation by The Prophet and it could have been tapir. Amazing.

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=3&num=1&id=63

The opening essay, entitled "The Law and the Light," is Elder Boyd K. Packer's carefully reasoned testimony about the origin of man. I have chosen my words with care here

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Oh. Ok. The scriptures are a strawman. Nephi wrote forests. He meant jungles. He wrote horse. It was lost in translation by The Prophet and it could have been tapir. Amazing.

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=3&num=1&id=63

The opening essay, entitled "The Law and the Light," is Elder Boyd K. Packer's carefully reasoned testimony about the origin of man. I have chosen my words with care here

[cinepro]

Lets say that "sus" was a word taht Nephi would use to mean "horse", when Nephi comes to the new world and sees what we call a "Tapir" he calls that a horse as there would have been no such word as "Tapir" known to Nephi to use. It would have been anachronistic for Nephi to use the word tapir. So what did the Mayans call a tapir? That would be the real question.

Note: I am not for or against loan shifting, I just don't think you had the correct udnerstanding of what loan shifting is. Perhaps I am wrong, some one can correct me.

If you continue the chain of usage after Nephi all the way through the translation, you would need to explain why the divine translator would maintain Nephi's incorrect naming throughout the book. At some point, that word "sus" changes in meaning as it is used through the subsequent centuries, and the translator who was familiar with Reformed Egyptian would know that a "sus" isn't a "horse" as understood in English, but is a "tapir" as understood in English.

Or, if the word "tapir" isn't to be used, then the original "sus" would be maintained as it was for Curelom and Cumom.

[volgadon]

Tiberius, I asked you 2 simple questions. What would YOU have called a tapir, that is the first question.

The second question is what is a Nile, or river horse.

And as for jungles, Hebrew has no native word for jungle. In older writings, jungles were called forests. Of course that you had to bring up the forests of lebanon, a place Nephi probably never saw, instead of the forests which were around Jerusalem, shows what you know.

[Scott Lloyd]

I find it amazing that I have been referred to on these boards by the pejoratives "sockpuppet" and now "Meldrumite" - yet I'm the one threatened with being cast off into Outer Darkness.

It appears to me you are being warned because of your continued neglect to respond to questions and calls for reference.

For instance, my question remains unanswered: Will you explain why it is that you apparently think Joseph Smith's mission to North American Indian tribes contradicts a Meso-American or limited geography theory for Book of Mormon locales?

[volgadon]

If you continue the chain of usage after Nephi all the way through the translation, you would need to explain why the divine translator would maintain Nephi's incorrect naming throughout the book. At some point, that word "sus" changes in meaning as it is used through the subsequent centuries, and the translator who was familiar with Reformed Egyptian would know that a "sus" isn't a "horse" as understood in English, but is a "tapir" as understood in English.

Or, if the word "tapir" isn't to be used, then the original "sus" would be maintained as it was for Curelom and Cumom.

Why is it an incorrect naming? Anyway, by your logic Joseph Smith should have used the scientific, Latin names, and be specific as to genus.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If you continue the chain of usage after Nephi all the way through the translation, you would need to explain why the divine translator would maintain Nephi's incorrect naming throughout the book. At some point, that word "sus" changes in meaning as it is used through the subsequent centuries, and the translator who was familiar with Reformed Egyptian would know that a "sus" isn't a "horse" as understood in English, but is a "tapir" as understood in English.

Or, if the word "tapir" isn't to be used, then the original "sus" would be maintained as it was for Curelom and Cumom.

Wait, I think you have most of it. Here is the crux of it all, you think that we would need to explain beyond what was already given for a devine translator saying horse when it was a tapir. The answer is simple, because there was not word in Nephi's original language that is used that described a tapir, so he just called it something he was familiar with, a horse. That is the explination.

Could God have said "What Nephi really saw was not a horse as you know it but is a Tapir". I think that is the question people bring up. The answer is because the original text did not translate as Tapir but Horse.

Any way what I think is when the BoM states horse, I think it means horse as we understand it. That is my opinion. I can see the value though in discussin loan shifting. It does happen and has happened in the past.

[Scott Lloyd]

Manti in the Land of Missouri, so declared Joseph Smith during (?)Zion's March(?)

P.109 Porter, Meldrum, Prophecies & Promises Footnotes 67, 68

(It's only $24.95 before tax, S&H)

Footnotes:

67; Andrew Jenson, The Historical Record, Vol 7, 601.

68; Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:239.

Actually, the statement is by Samuel D. Tyler, a member of Zion's Camp, taken from his journal. Perhaps he heard Joseph say such a thing, but the journal entry doesn't indicate so.

Seems like a rather tenuous basis for such a matter-of-fact assertion.

[Daniel Peterson]

There are approx. 23 posts asking me questions since returning from Monday. Amazing.

I haven't tried defending the scriptures this much since my full-time mission in South America.

You're not "defending the scriptures."

You're defending your particular reading of the scriptures against a reading of the scriptures favored by other believers. That you apparently see it as a defense of the scriptures against apostates probably explains your unwarranted aggressive rhetoric against me and against my friends at FARMS (better, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship) and FAIR.

Mabye this question should be answered by Dr. Peterson, and a contributor of FARMS, unless I'm mistaken.

Fifth time: Do you reject the idea that the Amerindians of Central and South America are descendants of the peoples of the Book of Mormon?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You're not "defending the scriptures."

You're defending your particular reading of the scriptures against a reading of the scriptures favored by other believers. That you apparently see it as a defense of the scriptures against apostates probably explains your unwarranted aggressive rhetoric against me and against my friends at FARMS (better, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship) and FAIR.

I agree. I find it interesting that he thinks he is defending the scriptures. I had to get involved when I heard that, because that is not what he is doing in this thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree. I find it interesting that he thinks he is defending the scriptures. I had to get involved when I heard that, because that is not what he is doing in this thread.

I see some similarity here to the arguments of strident Evangelicals who assert that Mormonism contradicts the Bible, when what they really mean is that it contradicts certain of their Protestant interpretations of Bible passages.

I am again inclined to quote President J. Reuben Clark Jr.:

When any man, except the President of the Church, undertakes to proclaim one unsettled doctrine, as among two or more doctrines in dispute, as the settled doctrine of the Church, we may know that he is not "moved upon by the Holy Ghost," unless he is acting under the direction and by the authority of the President.

Of these things we may have a confident assurance without chance for doubt or quibbling.

[cinepro]

Why is it an incorrect naming? Anyway, by your logic Joseph Smith should have used the scientific, Latin names, and be specific as to genus.

It's an incorrect naming because if it was a tapir, it wasn't a horse. Since those are different animals, that would make it incorrect.

By my logic, whichever entity knew both Reformed Egyptian and English and did the translation would have known that hundreds of years after Nephi landed, whatever word he used to describe the tapir would now mean "tapir", regardless of what that word may have meant 1000 years earlier half-way around the world.

[cinepro]

FARMS (better, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship)

It's too long to type that out. It would probably help if you came up with an acronym.

[volgadon]

It's an incorrect naming because if it was a tapir, it wasn't a horse. Since those are different animals, that would make it incorrect.

By my logic, whichever entity knew both Reformed Egyptian and English and did the translation would have known that hundreds of years after Nephi landed, whatever word he used to describe the tapir would now mean "tapir", regardless of what that word may have meant 1000 years earlier half-way around the world.

The question is, did the author consider them entirely different animals.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't horses and tapirs cousins of sorts?

[Scott Lloyd]

It's too long to type that out. It would probably help if you came up with an acronym.

"Maxwell Institute" as a shortened form works for me. And it's not too awfully onerous to type out. Acronyms often do more harm than good in that their meaning is not always clear.

[volgadon]

If Tiberius won't accept that Hebrew has no native word for jungle, perhaps he'd be interested in the following quotes, relating to the English use of the word.

From Webster's 1828 dictionary:

JUN'GLE, n. In Hindoostan, a thick wood of small trees or shrubs.

Why would Joseph Smith use an obscure and unusual word relating to India? He wouldn't, because jungle did not carry quite the same meaning as it does today.

According to the online etymology dictionary, the current use of the word isn't attested before 1849:

jungle

1776, from Hindi jangal "desert, forest, wasteland, uncultivated ground," from Skt. jangala-s "arid, sparsely grown with trees," of unknown origin. Specific sense of "land overgrown by vegetation in a wild, tangled mass" is first recorded 1849; meaning "place notoriously lawless and violent" is first recorded 1906, from Upton Sinclair's novel (cf. asphalt jungle, 1949; blackboard jungle, 1954). Jungle gym was a trademark name, 1923, by Junglegym Inc., Chicago, U.S. Jungle bunny, derogatory for "black person," attested from 1966.

[Zakuska]

Why is it an incorrect naming? Anyway, by your logic Joseph Smith should have used the scientific, Latin names, and be specific as to genus.

But of Course... Since Joseph Smith was just a DUMB TERMINAL that repeated everything God told him word for word.

[volgadon]

And to clinch it, here is a description of the countryside around Palenque, from John Lloyd Stephens's Incidents of Travel in central America, Chiapas and Yucatan.

OBSTACLES TO EXPLORATION. Pg. 305.

The whole country for miles around is covered by a dense forest of gigantic trees, with a growth

of brush and underwood unknown in the wooded deserts of our own country, and impenetrable in any direction except by cutting a way with a machete. What

lies buried in that forest it is impossible to say of my

own knowledge ;

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's an incorrect naming because if it was a tapir, it wasn't a horse. Since those are different animals, that would make it incorrect.

By my logic, whichever entity knew both Reformed Egyptian and English and did the translation would have known that hundreds of years after Nephi landed, whatever word he used to describe the tapir would now mean "tapir", regardless of what that word may have meant 1000 years earlier half-way around the world.

For arguments sake, there is no evidence one way or the other (it is an argument from silence both ways) that God did know the difference but He chose to reveal the words and the meanings as the author had written them.

Any way I am moving on to more about were JS thought the BoM lands were.

[consiglieri]

Actually, the statement is by Samuel D. Tyler, a member of Zion's Camp, taken from his journal. Perhaps he heard Joseph say such a thing, but the journal entry doesn't indicate so.

Seems like a rather tenuous basis for such a matter-of-fact assertion.

And, if I remember correctly from the first page of this thread, the account was published in 1854.

If so, that is 20-years after the march.

Do you know if the journal entry claims to be contemporaneously recorded, or whether it is actually a 20-year old recollection?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Tiberius]

This link mentions the City of Manti being declared as being in Missouri.

You can read it. I'll only copy a portion.

WHERE IS THE HILL CUMORAH? Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3:232

[volgadon]

Tiberius, are you going to evade my questions?