"Others" in the BoM: Michael Ash and MormonTimes

[dblagent007]

We are fortunate to have Elder Holland still among us. Perhaps someone could write him and ask about this statement.

I have found that church leaders sometimes oversimplify things to make a point, and I suspect this may be the case here.

Yeah, that is a head scratcher. I can't imagine why he gave the commonly accepted and widely taught chapel Mormon answer.

[dblagent007]

It's hardly surprising that Elder Holland, who, at the time was not a General Authority, would write an article reflecting a commonly understood paradigm among the Latter-day Saints at the time the article was written (1976).

Ah, now we have the answer. He gave that response before he became an Internet Mormon (and before the DNA studies that pretty much put the final nail in the coffin).

Edit: the "final nail in the coffin" remark is a reference to the hemispheric theory.

[smac97]

Ah, now we have the answer. He gave that response before he became an Internet Mormon (and before the DNA studies that pretty much put the final nail in the coffin).

I chuckle everytime I see a critic crow about how the Limited Geography Theory and the assumptions on which it is based (such as the presence of "others" in the Americas prior to Lehi's arrival) are supposedly reactions to recent "DNA studies" (to the extent Murphy's derivative "scholarship" can be designated as such).

Matthew Roper has shown that the LGT was around long before Murphy's "Galileo Event" (a label that is amusing in its own right, as DCP has demonstrated).

The suggestion here (that "DNA studies" have "killed" the hemispheric theory) is just silly. Murphy brought attention to an assumption about the text (a hemispheric model), not the text itself. And that assumption has never been anything other than a theory (not doctrine, not revelation), and it's been receding in favor of the LGT for quite a long time now.

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

I chuckle everytime I see a critic crow about how the Limited Geography Theory and the assumptions on which it is based (such as the presence of "others" in the Americas prior to Lehi's arrival) are supposedly reactions to recent "DNA studies" (to the extent Murphy's derivative "scholarship" can be designated as such).

Matthew Roper has shown that the LGT was around long before Murphy's "Galileo Event" (a label that is amusing in its own right, as DCP has demonstrated).

-Smac

If anything, the "nail in the coffin' cliche is more appropriately applied to what happened to the supposed "Galileo Event" after the limited geography theory became more widely known and entertained among the rank-and-file Church membership.

[cinepro]

If anything, the "nail in the coffin' cliche is more appropriately applied to what happened to the supposed "Galileo Event" after the limited geography theory became more widely known and entertained among the rank-and-file Church membership.

Were you referring to a particular "limited geography", or just limited geographies in general?

[Scott Lloyd]

Were you referring to a particular "limited geography", or just limited geographies in general?

I'm referring to the fact that the Latter-day Saints need not bind themselves to any theory in particular when the question is still open and the Church itself has not taken an institutional position on the matter.

[dblagent007]

I chuckle everytime I see a critic crow about how the Limited Geography Theory and the assumptions on which it is based (such as the presence of "others" in the Americas prior to Lehi's arrival) are supposedly reactions to recent "DNA studies" (to the extent Murphy's derivative "scholarship" can be designated as such).

Matthew Roper has shown that the LGT was around long before Murphy's "Galileo Event" (a label that is amusing in its own right, as DCP has demonstrated).

The suggestion here (that "DNA studies" have "killed" the hemispheric theory) is just silly. Murphy brought attention to an assumption about the text (a hemispheric model), not the text itself. And that assumption has never been anything other than a theory (not doctrine, not revelation), and it's been receding in favor of the LGT for quite a long time now.

-Smac

I chuckle every time someone misreads what I wrote as saying that the LGT was a reaction to recent DNA studies. I love it when we can all chuckle together.

By the way, could you clarify your comment about "The suggestion here (that 'DNA studies' have 'killed' the hemispheric theory) is just silly?" You are either saying that something else killed the hemispheric theory or you still feel that the hemispheric theory is still alive. Which is it?

[dblagent007]

If anything, the "nail in the coffin' cliche is more appropriately applied to what happened to the supposed "Galileo Event" after the limited geography theory became more widely known and entertained among the rank-and-file Church membership.

Has the nail been put in the coffin of the hemispheric theory (i.e., is it dead)?

[Scott Lloyd]

Has the nail been put in the coffin of the hemispheric theory (i.e., is it dead)?

I will only reiterate that the question regarding specific geographic locale for Book of Mormon events remains open.

[MAsh]

Cinepro, after all the years you've spent on this board I'm amazed that you still haven't got a clue. If you've been following my MT series you'll need to reread my aritlces 6-18 which you can find starting here: http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/michael_r_ash/?showAll=1&startAt=31

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ah, now we have the answer. He gave that response before he became an Internet Mormon (and before the DNA studies that pretty much put the final nail in the coffin).

I'm interested in your response to the information provided to you regarding DNA not being the "nail in the coffin," and that LGT's have been discussed by LDS from an earlier date than you suppose.

[Lloyd Dobler]

Cinepro, after all the years you've spent on this board I'm amazed that you still haven't got a clue. If you've been following my MT series you'll need to reread my aritlces 6-18 which you can find starting here: http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/michael_r_ash/?showAll=1&startAt=31

I think the whole point of this thread is that your articles are lacking in fairness and full disclosure. Why whould Cinepro ever want to REREAD them? Your articles are like these little happy pills that are designed to innoculate strong members from looking further into challenging issues. Just create enough reasonable doubt with a short one sided (in this case you dismissing the "other side" of the "others" issue)article and someone who is desperate to retain their testimony will buy in.

This is my first post ever here so let the ripping of me begin. I am not highly educated with advanced degrees but have spent a lifetime in sincere service to the Church.

My testimony is running on fumes and I get pissed when I think people are just not being totally honest about these issues. Regular members deserve simple honesty and full disclosure. We are not members of the Lions Club or something. The Church is our life and our world view.

In my ward, a black and family man just found out about the racist past of our Church. He and his wife recently had gone through the temple. He has some great kids. Well, he is outraged and he has pulled his family from the church. Why? Because of the internet. Because he found out the truth, the whole story. This is where the rubber is meeting the road Mash. This is the real world where really good sincere people are getting their lives ripped apart by this stuff. If I gave him one of your short little happy articles on how the racist past of the church is "ok" and not a "deal breaker" or whatever, he would read it and likely punch me in the face. However, don't fear, there is a person in our ward reading your shaken faith syndrome and getting ready to go talk to the guy......

Cinepro is making a good point about your articles on the "others". You need to state the important FACTS on BOTH SIDES and let your audience make up their own mind. Not ALL the facts, I mean you know what is going on, state the important facts on both sides. I remember reading your article on the rock and the hat and thinking, wow, if I did not know better this article almost makes me feel embarrassed as a member to have not known this. Then I realized there were very basic and simple reasons why over 90% of the members in my ward don't know how the Book of Mormon was translated either.

Maybe you should clarify who your articles are really designed to help. Who is the real audience you are writing for? Like I said, this is my first post and I have read this board for quite a long time so.................let the ripping begin my fellow saints.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think the whole point of this thread is that your articles are lacking in fairness and full disclosure. Why whould Cinepro ever want to REREAD them? Your articles are like these little happy pills that are designed to innoculate strong members from looking further into challenging issues. Just create enough reasonable doubt with a short one sided (in this case you dismissing the "other side" of the "others" issue)article and someone who is desperate to retain their testimony will buy in.

This is my first post ever here so let the ripping of me begin. I am not highly educated with advanced degrees but have spent a lifetime in sincere service to the Church.

My testimony is running on fumes and I get pissed when I think people are just not being totally honest about these issues. Regular members deserve simple honesty and full disclosure. We are not members of the Lions Club or something. The Church is our life and our world view.

In my ward, a black and family man just found out about the racist past of our Church. He and his wife recently had gone through the temple. He has some great kids. Well, he is outraged and he has pulled his family from the church. Why? Because of the internet. Because he found out the truth, the whole story. This is where the rubber is meeting the road Mash. This is the real world where really good sincere people are getting their lives ripped apart by this stuff. If I gave him one of your short little happy articles on how the racist past of the church is "ok" and not a "deal breaker" or whatever, he would read it and likely punch me in the face. However, don't fear, there is a person in our ward reading your shaken faith syndrome and getting ready to go talk to the guy......

Cinepro is making a good point about your articles on the "others". You need to state the important FACTS on BOTH SIDES and let your audience make up their own mind. Not ALL the facts, I mean you know what is going on, state the important facts on both sides. I remember reading your article on the rock and the hat and thinking, wow, if I did not know better this article almost makes me feel embarrassed as a member to have not known this. Then I realized there were very basic and simple reasons why over 90% of the members in my ward don't know how the Book of Mormon was translated either.

Maybe you should clarify who your articles are really designed to help. Who is the real audience you are writing for? Like I said, this is my first post and I have read this board for quite a long time so.................let the ripping begin my fellow saints.

No ripping from me, just an observation and an invitation.

My observation: your tone seems somewhat aggressive, some ALL CAPS and snarky comments about rocks and hats. You expect "ripping" by your "fellow saints," as well, and ripping happens a lot on message boards. In this case, though, it seems the ripping was started by you. Keep that in mind when people begin responding in kind. Further, it doesn't seem like you are reading the articles in the way they were intended, either. The articles are short, they are more introductory, and their points deserve response in and of themselves. A discussion of comparative points would also be interesting, but the articles as they are aren't invalidated by that.

My invitation: perhaps getting into some specific points would be useful for discussion rather than generalizing.

All the best!

[dblagent007]

I'm interested in your response to the information provided to you regarding DNA not being the "nail in the coffin," and that LGT's have been discussed by LDS from an earlier date than you suppose.

My "nail in the coffin" comment was directed at the hemispheric theory. As for LGT's, I don't believe I supposed any date for when they first began to be discussed. I think, however, that the DNA studies put the nail in the coffin on the hemispheric theory - and I think the Church reacted accordingly.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Did you understand what I said? Did I qualify my "nail in the coffin" statement or was it unbounded? Also, did I "suppose" any particular date for when LGT theories first began to be discussed?

Are you referring to your smart-aleky response to smac? Seemed like a dodge. I suppose I can safely assume that you realise LG theories have been around in the church for quite a while, decades and decades before "DNA" came up. If that's the case, though, I am still confused as to why DNA would be a "nail in the coffin."

I assume many members haven't considered the possible options, in regards to your question about the vital signs of Hemispheric theories.

[Lloyd Dobler]

No ripping from me, just an observation and an invitation.

My observation: your tone seems somewhat aggressive, some ALL CAPS and snarky comments about rocks and hats. You expect "ripping" by your "fellow saints," as well, and ripping happens a lot on message boards. In this case, though, it seems the ripping was started by you. Keep that in mind when people begin responding in kind. Further, it doesn't seem like you are reading the articles in the way they were intended, either. The articles are short, they are more introductory, and their points deserve response in and of themselves. A discussion of comparative points would also be interesting, but the articles as they are aren't invalidated by that.

My invitation: perhaps getting into some specific points would be useful for discussion rather than generalizing.

All the best!

It is not aggressive, it is frustration. This is my definition of snarky, MAsh:

"Cinepro, after all the years you've spent on this board I'm amazed that you still haven't got a clue." Please know there was nothing snarky about the rock and hat comment. It was devastating to me to learn that JS searched for treasure with it and by the same means produced the Book of Mormon.

With a wave of the hand, these articles in a real sense to real people simply dismiss 150+ years of thinking. I agree that they are in some way introductory etc. but for the vast majority of the audience, it is my opinion there is nothing introductory about them. Does he end the articles with invitations for the reader to now jump off and conduct their own independant research and come to their own conclusions? Does he have any disclaimers that what he is writing is not the "whole story" and is infact what it is, a one page incomplete intorduction to an issue?

I am just trying to keep this simple. I think most of his readers do not regard what he is writing as an introduction. I think for most they are like these litte shortcuts that circumvent years of history or belief at the exepense of honesty and full disclosure. I think people are reading these articles and then breathing a huge sigh of relief and then just moving on. I guess its the tone. Like this is how MAsh begins the "others" artice:

Last week it was explained that the Lehites were a small incursion into a larger existing New World population. Such a position raises at least two questions:

1. If the Lehites met "others" in the New World, why are they not mentioned?

2. What about those verses that imply that the Lehites were alone in the Americas?

He is stating this like it's a fact or something. At the very least he is giving the lay reader the distinct impression that he just completely handled that question last week. To me there is nothing introductory or any perspective given about this statement and the following tone of the article. In one matter of fact type sentence he dismisses years of common LDS thought on the subject and uses that as a statement of fact to plow onward. Am I the only one who thinks this may not be a healthy way to go about this?

Also, I must apologize for my tone about getting ripped. It is incredibly intimidating for me to post here and that intimidation revealed itself in my pre judgemental tone. My bad. I am a little out of my depth here.

[ttribe]

Please know there was nothing snarky about the rock and hat comment. It was devastating to me to learn that JS searched for treasure with it and by the same means produced the Book of Mormon.

Why?

With a wave of the hand, these articles in a real sense to real people simply dismiss 150+ years of thinking.

How so?

I agree that they are in some way introductory etc. but for the vast majority of the audience, it is my opinion there is nothing introductory about them.

What is the basis for this opinion?

Does he end the articles with invitations for the reader to now jump off and conduct their own independant research and come to their own conclusions? Does he have any disclaimers that what he is writing is not the "whole story" and is infact what it is, a one page incomplete intorduction to an issue?

Why does he need to do such things? Is the reader not able to think for himself/herself?

I am just trying to keep this simple. I think most of his readers do not regard what he is writing as an introduction.

What is the basis for your "thought" regarding "most" readers?

I think for most they are like these litte shortcuts that circumvent years of history or belief at the exepense of honesty and full disclosure.

Are you accusing Mike Ash of intentionally deceiving his readers? Furthermore, what shall the bright line test be for the inclusion of information or not given the pragmatic issues of space limitations and quality of evidence?

I think people are reading these articles and then breathing a huge sigh of relief and then just moving on.

Do you actually know of anyone who is doing such a thing?

I guess its the tone. Like this is how MAsh begins the "others" artice:

Last week it was explained that the Lehites were a small incursion into a larger existing New World population. Such a position raises at least two questions:

1. If the Lehites met "others" in the New World, why are they not mentioned?

2. What about those verses that imply that the Lehites were alone in the Americas?

He's talking about his own conclusion and addressing natural follow-on questions. I don't understand why this bothers you.

He is stating this like it's a fact or something. At the very least he is giving the lay reader the distinct impression that he just completely handled that question last week. To me there is nothing introductory or any perspective given about this statement and the following tone of the article. In one matter of fact type sentence he dismisses years of common LDS thought on the subject and uses that as a statement of fact to plow onward. Am I the only one who thinks this may not be a healthy way to go about this?

I guess I'm failing to understand why it is you seem to think you are the only one who can think critically about the information at hand.

Also, I must apologize for my tone about getting ripped. It is incredibly intimidating for me to post here and that intimidation revealed itself in my pre judgemental tone. My bad. I am a little out of my depth here.

No big deal.

[cdowis]

Such a position raises at least two questions:

1. If the Lehites met "others" in the New World, why are they not mentioned?

Just curious, how much have you actually read the BOM? Are you familiar with the differences between the large plates and the small plates of Nephi?

Such details unrelated to the purpose of the small plates, e.g. "others", are relegated to the large plates.

2. What about those verses that imply that the Lehites were alone in the Americas?

This is very tiring. The BOM makes no such statement, as we have pointed out many many times.

The answer to your question is that your arguments are based on ignorance of the BOM text, and what others have told you. The BOM makes several very clear references to others.

[Lloyd Dobler]

It is not aggressive, it is frustration. This is my definition of snarky, MAsh:

"Cinepro, after all the years you've spent on this board I'm amazed that you still haven't got a clue." Please know there was nothing snarky about the rock and hat comment. It was devastating to me to learn that JS searched for treasure with it and by the same means produced the Book of Mormon.

With a wave of the hand, these articles in a real sense to real people simply dismiss 150+ years of thinking. I agree that they are in some way introductory etc. but for the vast majority of the audience, it is my opinion there is nothing introductory about them. Does he end the articles with invitations for the reader to now jump off and conduct their own independant research and come to their own conclusions? Does he have any disclaimers that what he is writing is not the "whole story" and is infact what it is, a one page incomplete intorduction to an issue?

I am just trying to keep this simple. I think most of his readers do not regard what he is writing as an introduction. I think for most they are like these litte shortcuts that circumvent years of history or belief at the exepense of honesty and full disclosure. I think people are reading these articles and then breathing a huge sigh of relief and then just moving on. I guess its the tone. Like this is how MAsh begins the "others" artice:

Last week it was explained that the Lehites were a small incursion into a larger existing New World population. Such a position raises at least two questions:

1. If the Lehites met "others" in the New World, why are they not mentioned?

2. What about those verses that imply that the Lehites were alone in the Americas?

He is stating this like it's a fact or something. At the very least he is giving the lay reader the distinct impression that he just completely handled that question last week. To me there is nothing introductory or any perspective given about this statement and the following tone of the article. In one matter of fact type sentence he dismisses years of common LDS thought on the subject and uses that as a statement of fact to plow onward. Am I the only one who thinks this may not be a healthy way to go about this?

Also, I must apologize for my tone about getting ripped. It is incredibly intimidating for me to post here and that intimidation revealed itself in my pre judgemental tone. My bad. I am a little out of my depth here.

And this is how the article ends:

Ethnohistory specialist Brant Gardner calls the Small Plates an "ethnogenesis" of the Nephite people. The people of God are no longer Israelites or Lehites but are a new people who identify themselves as "Nephites." This new people would have been the blend of Old World Nephites and New World "others" (who were adopted into Israel's blessings) but formed a "new community" that "required an emphasis on the new community, not its non-Israelite components. Nephi doesn't mention the 'others' because he considers them already part of the new ethnicity by the time he writes"

(Brant Gardner, Second Witness 1:352-3).

Again, to me this is coming off as a point of fact for MAsh to his audience. MAsh obviously agrees with the part in bold. I mean he ends the article with it. There is no invitation to now jump off and do more research. No references give to go and get a balanced look at this particular issue. No statement saying that there are many other ways to look at it etc. The statement in bold blows my mind and as regular Mormon. Like it just blew my mind and yet now this statement will begin making its way into the fabric of lay mormon thought as possibly a new "truth" or "fact". It's like a new reality is being established and to do it in this way seems to be to border on dangerous irresponsibility. Is there anyone out there who can look past my poor writing and see where I am coming from?

[cdowis]

In my ward, a black and family man just found out about the racist past of our Church. He and his wife recently had gone through the temple. He has some great kids. Well, he is outraged and he has pulled his family from the church. Why? Because of the internet. Because he found out the truth, the whole story.

He should read the OT before joining *any* Christian religion. His outrage should extend to any religion that accepts the OT.

One can easily find racism everywhere in the Bible if they look for it.

[volgadon]

It was devastating to me to learn that JS searched for treasure with it and by the same means produced the Book of Mormon.

Why? What about it is any more devastating than the 'interpreters'?

[volgadon]

He should read the OT before joining *any* Christian religion. How can he belong to a Christian church that accepts the "racism" found in the OT?

One can easily find racism everywhere in the Bible if they look for it.

or a Christ that called a woman of a different ethnicity and her sick child dogs.

[volgadon]

There is no invitation to now jump off and do more research.

Very few articles do, be they LDS or non-LDS. It is assumed that people have at least a modicum of brains and curiosity.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It was devastating to me to learn that JS searched for treasure with it and by the same means produced the Book of Mormon.

Why? What about it is any more devastating than the 'interpreters'?

I have always scratched my head at this one. Why is this devastating? What is more devastating this or that the bible reports that mana fell from hevean? Or that Noah built an ark? Or that Jesus rose from the grave?

I think some one else says " It should be devestating to you because you were unaware of this inane detail". And thus it becomes devestating.

[volgadon]

Or Joseph (son of Jacob) divining with a cup.