Jump to content

Viable Nephite colonies (part two)


notHagoth7

Recommended Posts

I hope everyone has had an awesome Christmas.

There are a few things I've been wanting to expand upon from the previous Nephite colonies thread.

1) Extensive nautical knowledge of Atlantic ocean currents long before the Age of Discovery

2) Cicero & Tiro - and their extensive impact on the shaping of western civilization

3) Nephite society/gov't mirrored in ancient Europe

I'll get to those three items in a bit.

For now, I've also added a private poll - (myself and other participants cannot see your choices.)

If you followed the previous thread, please feel free to participate in the poll.

Link to comment

I am undecided, but find some of the evidence to be intriguing and voted that way (in blatant disregard of your instructions).

For me, the most powerful evidence is linguistic. However, historical artifacts (e.g., measures) are more than merely indicative.

The commonality of god traditions across the entire western world (from Egypt to Norway) makes tracing those to their origins more problematic, although I believe they originated from Adam and Noah, albeit in corrupted form.

Lehi

Link to comment

Extensive nautical knowledge of Atlantic Ocean currents

In the other thread, I touched upon the extensive nautical knowledge implied in some of the European origin accounts.

More specifically, this knowledge apparently included the western Atlantic.

(Ocean currents, Sargasso Sea, Gulf Stream, etc.)

To expand upon that here, I was reading earlier this month in free republic. They had an article, citing a British article, that explained how a modern oceanographer was stunned to see how an early European map of the Atlantic Ocean correlates so dramatically with currents made visible by enhanced satellite imagery.

The map in question is the 1539 Carta Marina, which was begun in 1527, 35 years after Columbus' first voyage.

The mapmaker was Olaus Magnus, an exiled Swedish priest living in Italy.

His brother was the last Catholic archbishop at Uppsala (Sweden), until the Protestant Reformation ousted him.

(Their father was Mons...making their last name, interestingly enough, Monsson or Monson.)

The map is said to be "the most accurate depiction of its time."

800px-Carta_Marina.jpeg

But as suggested above, what's interesting is some of the detail placed out further west in the Atlantic, detail which was originally assumed to be nothing more than artistic license.

However, when comparing those swirls to satellite imagery, here's what Tom Rossby, an oceanography professor said:

"When I turned the page and saw the map I said, 'holy s**t! These are identical to our satellite images'."

As the article continues:

"Dr Peter Miller from the Remote Sensing Group at Plymouth Marine Laboratory provided more accurate satellite information on water temperatures. 'Things got exciting when I was able to provide Tom with an image of the eddy field. The data confirmed Tom's theory that the swirls on the map were not artistic license,' he said."

If such nautical detail came from a 16th-century priest, where did he get it?

And what might it imply about the earlier nautical knowledge embedded in the much older European origin accounts?

Why would their knowledge of the west Atlantic be so extensive?

And why would they see fit to include such knowledge in their origin accounts?

What is the relationship between their origin accounts and the west Atlantic?

Link to comment

I am undecided, but find some of the evidence to be intriguing and voted that way (in blatant disregard of your instructions).

Super. Thanks for the feedback.

For me, the most powerful evidence is linguistic.

I may provide more linguistic evidence in this thread - as I've recently been re-reading a linguistics book that I don't think I've cited here yet.

The commonality of god traditions across the entire western world (from Egypt to Norway) makes tracing those to their origins more problematic, although I believe they originated from Adam and Noah, albeit in corrupted form).

I don't quite follow.

Specifically which "god traditions" are you referring to?

Link to comment

The poll isn't fair. You have to find the idea intriguing in order to vote on the second question, and if you don't vote on the second question it won't accept your vote.

I sort of think it is intriguing, but that is too strong. I could go along with some Nephite influence on Europe, if you conceded that the Nephites went from the middle east to meso-America, and any European thing happend from America back to Europe. Are you saying that?

Link to comment
I may provide more linguistic evidence in this thread - as I've recently been re-reading a linguistics book that I don't think I've cited here yet.

I look forward to it.

Specifically which "god traditions" are you referring to?

The commonality of gods (even to names, in some cases) among the various cultures of the (western) world: Odin <= El => Zeus. Adonis <= Adonai.

We see the same stories again and again, repeated so the owning culture descends from the gods in some way or another. The creation stories usually involve the god's taking something (e.g., a cow's skull) and making the universe or the world from it. There's often an element of the god's sacrificing something (e.g., his eye) to gain wisdom. There is a pre-existing kingdom of gods from which the "current" gods descend and supplanted.

Now, none of this has anything to do directly with Haggoth or Shield, but I believe the these traditions and myths (which does not mean "false") muddy the waters to some degree.

Lehi

Link to comment
I sort of think it is intriguing, but that is too strong. I could go along with some Nephite influence on Europe, if you conceded that the Nephites went from the middle east to meso-America, and any European thing happend from America back to Europe.

The intrigue for me goes beyond the possible "Nephite influence on Europe" to the potential geneological tie-in of Joseph Smith, if not much of the Church, to Book of Mormon people. :P

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

The intrigue for me goes beyond the possible "Nephite influence on Europe" to the potential geneological tie-in of Joseph Smith, if not much of the Church, to Book of Mormon people. :P

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Lehi was of the tribe of Mannasseh. Most of the European Saints have patriarchal blessings which say their are of Ephraim.

Link to comment

Lehi was of the tribe of Mannasseh. Most of the European Saints have patriarchal blessings which say their are of Ephraim.

Aside from Mulek himself (a Jew), do we know who came with him?

Was Ishmael also Mannassite? (I recall reading he was of Ephraim.)

Since a remnant of the doomed Nephite nation of the third century BC united with the more populous people of Zarahemla (Mulek's colony), we may expect to find representatives of the tribe of Ephraim (through Ishmael), of Manasseh (through Lehi), and of Judah (through Mulek) among so-called modern Lamanites. Other Israelitish tribes may also be represented as well, for although the tribe of Judah is identified with the people of Zarahemla, there is no justification for assuming that the blood of other Israelitish tribes was not also found among both them and Lehi's group.

Second Nephi: The Doctrinal Structure
, p.150; Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., eds.

Lehi

Link to comment

The poll isn't fair. You have to find the idea intriguing in order to vote on the second question, and if you don't vote on the second question it won't accept your vote.

Thanks for the tip.

I've added an "N/A" option for the second question - hopefully that resolves things.

I sort of think it is intriguing, but that is too strong.

I don't follow your meaning. ?

I could go along with some Nephite influence on Europe, if you conceded that the Nephites went from the middle east to [the Americas] and any European thing happened from America back to Europe. Are you saying that?

Yes. That's precisely what I'm saying.

Here's one of the earlier posts that made that more clear.

VectorAthruC.jpg

Link to comment
I don't follow your meaning. ?

Yes. That's precisely what I'm saying.

My meaning was that I think it more than highly probable that the Lehite party came to the Americas from their exodus from Jerusalem, and settled in the meso-American area. So, if you had been saying they went to Europe instead, then I wouldn't find that very interesting, because I wouodn't think it very likely to have happened.

BUT since you were saying that the European influence came from the Lehites in America makes it very intriguing. So now I will go and vote.

Link to comment

The commonality of gods (even to names, in some cases) among the various cultures of the (western) world: Odin <= El => Zeus. Adonis <= Adonai.

I don't think that's much of an issue. (I believe Odin was a flesh-and blood 1st century AD person.)

I wrote something on that several years back that I'll be publishing in the next few weeks.

But I'm not arguing that their gods were actually divine...with a notable exception:

What's relevant, in my opinion, is their claim in the 1st century AD to have been visited by the earth-born son of God.

Now, none of this has anything to do directly with Haggoth or Shield, but I believe the these traditions and myths (which does not mean "false") muddy the waters to some degree.

I see what you're saying. I'm not claiming that Nephites were the only cultural influence on northern Europe.

Which is why I focus in on European traits that were more specific to Nephite culture.

Link to comment

Lehi was of the tribe of Mannasseh. Most of the European Saints have patriarchal blessings which say their are of Ephraim.

Two important questions:

1) When determining which tribe one inherited their lot through, was it through the maternal (female) line, or through the paternal (male) line?

2) When we're told Lehi descended through Mannasseh, which line was that through?

Link to comment

Two important questions:

1) When determining which tribe one inherited their lot through, was it through the maternal (female) line, or through the paternal (male) line?

2) When we're told Lehi descended through Mannasseh, which line was that through?

I'll answer the second question here. Lehi descended through Mannasseh in his paternal (male) line.

From 1 Nephi 5 (compare Alma 10):

And it came to pass that my father, Lehi, also found upon the plates of brass a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of Joseph; yea, even that Joseph who was the son of Jacob, who was sold into Egypt, and who was preserved by the hand of the Lord, that he might preserve his father, Jacob, and all his household from perishing with famine.

So important question #3

3) What were the Nephite maternal lines?

Answer: Supposedly, according to Lehi's book...the 116 lost pages...Ishmael was of Ephraim.

(See page 40 of this link.)

And, Nephi and his brothers married Ishmael's daughters.

Which brings us back to question #1.

1) When determining which tribe one inherited their lot through, was it through the maternal (female) line, or through the paternal (male) line?

Link to comment

Paternal.

In many cases, that is true. But not exclusively so.

For example, why do Jewish laws assert that a mixed marriage, one's Jewishness is determined through the mother. Not through the father?

And why does the New Testament provide two separate genealogies for Christ?

Link to comment

In many cases, that is true. But not exclusively so.

I think you are making assumptions.

For example, why do Jewish laws assert that a mixed marriage, one's Jewishness is determined through the mother. Not through the father?

Post-exilic, if not fairly late rabbinic. At any rate, familial and tribal lineage is always through the father, even today.

And why does the New Testament provide two separate genealogies for Christ?

the most convincing explanation I've heard is that the triple-fourteen generation list is meant to show that God has a timetable and a grand plan for everything and that it is set up to emphasise Joseph's role.

Also, they were probably using private genealogical lists, or copies of such, so details could be wrong.

Link to comment

the most convincing explanation I've heard is that the triple-fourteen generation list is meant to show that God has a timetable and a grand plan for everything and that it is set up to emphasise Joseph's role.

Also, they were probably using private genealogical lists, or copies of such, so details could be wrong.

I had read once that one genealogy is Joseph's, who if there had been a legitimate king at the time, would actually have been Joseph. And the double genealogy showed that either through Mary, or through Joseph, Jesus was the legitimate king of the Jews.

And this was also along with the idea that Joseph was not a carpenter in the sense with think of today, with hammers and saws, but more an architect and of much higher standing in the community.

Is this all wrong?

Link to comment

I had read once that one genealogy is Joseph's, who if there had been a legitimate king at the time, would actually have been Joseph. And the double genealogy showed that either through Mary, or through Joseph, Jesus was the legitimate king of the Jews.

I'm sure that is what NotHagoth was refering to. Cute, but not sure how well it holds up.

And this was also along with the idea that Joseph was not a carpenter in the sense with think of today, with hammers and saws, but more an architect and of much higher standing in the community.

Is this all wrong?

Not quite an architect, more like a contractor. They put doors and windows in, as well as other repair jobs.

There were no glass windows, only wooden slats to be opened or shut.

Such carpenters were often among the few professionals to be paid with money.

Link to comment

I find it completely speculative at this point with cherry picked ideas that seem to strengthen a European connection but looked into a little closer it is, well, unimpressive.

were you vote #3 for the first question? I'm vote #1, for the same reasons as you.

Link to comment

...and the double genealogy showed that either through Mary, or through Joseph, Jesus was the legitimate king of the Jews.

So with the importance of female lineage here, does it make sense how the Ephraimite lineage through Ishmael's daughters, if that was also their maternal lineage, could answer part of your earlier concern?

Here's a wiki article that addresses it to some degree.

And this was also along with the idea that Joseph was not a carpenter in the sense with think of today, with hammers and saws, but more an architect and of much higher standing in the community.

While the text certainly allows for that - a builder in the broader sense - it's a conclusion that would be drawn from multiple passages - not just from the 'carpenter's son' verse.

There's another thread that discussed that briefly a few days back - in the Social folder, if memory serves.

Link to comment

The intrigue for me goes beyond the possible "Nephite influence on Europe" to the potential geneological tie-in of Joseph Smith, if not much of the Church, to Book of Mormon people.

:P

Link to comment

I think you are making assumptions.

Let's be honest. You and I are both making assumptions.

To imply that only one of us is making assumptions is disingenuous. Hopefully, that wasn't your intent.

The question is, which assumption is better grounded? And, more importantly, which assumption is correct?

(You can each seek your own answers on those.)

Post-exilic, if not fairly late rabbinic. At any rate, familial and tribal lineage is always through the father, even today....the most convincing explanation I've heard is that the triple-fourteen generation list is meant to show that God has a timetable and a grand plan for everything and that it is set up to emphasise Joseph's role.

Hmm. You know full well that if one's father is a Gentile, but one's mother is Jewish, one is considered a Jew through the mother.

But if one's father is Jewish, but one's mother is a Gentile, one is not considered a Jew, but would have to convert.

So it's not always paternal.

And the dueling genealogies in the New Testament suggest that Mary's genealogy was equally important.

Which suggests that maternal lineage was also considered important at least 2,000 years ago.

So feel free to be dismissive of maternal lines - if that suits you.

From where I sit, they suggest an important part of the puzzle.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...