"Others" in the BoM: Michael Ash and MormonTimes

[cinepro]

Can you think of a modern example of a similar feud that has lasted several thousands of years? Your lack of knowledge is breathtaking.

Again, we're talking about The Book of Mormon.

I'm not arguing that people (and cultures) have never in the history of the world had feuds. I'm not saying feuds can't last for a very, very long time.

What I am saying is that in the context of the Book of Mormon story, the idea of the Lehites introducing such a feud (based on what The Book of Mormon actually says about their story, and God's promises for the people who live in the New World) is really, really far fetched.

That's fine if you think it fits, but I will point out that so far, no one has really presented a theory of "Others" that integrates with the "text". There is an appeal to scientific evidence to show that there had to be Others, but there's no attempt to actually show that they fit with the story.

From what I can tell, they don't fit with the story, and everyone knows it, which is why they remain the Others, and we talk about how they were in the New World, but we don't talk about how they could be in The Book of Mormon.

But prove me wrong. Sketch out the story of the Lehite landing and division of the peoples in a way that involves the Others. I'd be curious to see if it can even be done.

[Lloyd Dobler]

Again, we're talking about The Book of Mormon.

I'm not arguing that people (and cultures) have never in the history of the world had feuds. I'm not saying feuds can't last for a very, very long time.

What I am saying is that in the context of the Book of Mormon story, the idea of the Lehites introducing such a feud (based on what The Book of Mormon actually says about their story, and God's promises for the people who live in the New World) is really, really far fetched.

That's fine if you think it fits, but I will point out that so far, no one has really presented a theory of "Others" that integrates with the "text". There is an appeal to scientific evidence to show that there had to be Others, but there's no attempt to actually show that they fit with the story.

From what I can tell, they don't fit with the story, and everyone knows it, which is why they remain the Others, and we talk about how they were in the New World, but we don't talk about how they could be in The Book of Mormon.

But prove me wrong. Sketch out the story of the Lehite landing and division of the peoples in a way that involves the Others. I'd be curious to see if it can even be done.

This is the whole point of the thread for me. The whole point. Thanks for saying what I could not. Good thing this important point of perspective and context is covered in words 801-900 in MAsh's articles. Wait.....

[cdowis]

Again, we're talking about The Book of Mormon.

Really.

I'm not arguing that people (and cultures) have never in the history of the world had feuds. I'm not saying feuds can't last for a very, very long time.

OK.

What I am saying is that in the context of the Book of Mormon story, the idea of the Lehites introducing such a feud (based on what The Book of Mormon actually says about their story, and God's promises for the people who live in the New World) is really, really far fetched.

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion. I happen to disagree with it based on my knowledge of the real world of Mideastern politics and history, which is the context of the BOM.

I suspect your opinion is based on the context of fictional stories in western culture, and your assumption that the BOM is just another work of fiction, an imaginary story.

That's fine if you think it fits, but I will point out that so far, no one has really presented a theory of "Others" that integrates with the "text". There is an appeal to scientific evidence to show that there had to be Others, but there's no attempt to actually show that they fit with the story.

Tell me what you mean by theory. This is a very strange use of this word.

Can I assume you are actually asking for someone to tell a fictionalized account of the BOM which includes elements of others. The text of the BOM gives clear evidence of others, specifically from the day they landed in the Americas. We have had discussion of these details in several places, and I have no desire to repeat myself.

From what I can tell, they don't fit with the story, and everyone knows it,

This is the silliest statement I have ever read in this forum. I know no such thing, and you are ignoring several thread and articles on this very subject.

which is why they remain the Others, and we talk about how they were in the New World, but we don't talk about how they could be in The Book of Mormon.

But prove me wrong. Sketch out the story of the Lehite landing and division of the peoples in a way that involves the Others. I'd be curious to see if it can even be done.

First you need to demonstrate that you have read and studied the materials already in this forum and published elsewhere. I am not your mother.

[cdowis]

Early evidence for the others:

When Lehi landed, they found an ox, and domesticated goats. Almost immediately there were extensive wars between the Nephites and Lamanites, where Nephi made "many" swords. The Nephites built a temple similar to the temple of Solomon.

Jacob's speech decrying polygamy implied a relatively large number of unrelated families rather than a small group of closely related individuals.

Any detailed details of contacts with the others would probably be found in the large plates of Nephi.

[Kevin Christensen]

Roper's essay on Nephi's Neighbors is one of the best at extracting telling details regarding others in the text.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=505

I'm also fond of Brant's FAIR essay, The Social History of the Early Nephites. Brant also makes the point that when the Nephite prophets complain about particular lapses in Nephite behavior, those lapses converge with Mesoamerican culture.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Social_History_of_the_Early_Nephites.html

Personally I'm very impressed with such work. Biographically, after reading Sorenson's essay in JBMS 1, on whether the land was empty, I started reading more carefully, and spotted all sorts of indications about the presence of others. I wrote up some of my observations in my RBBM 7/2 essay. I added some things Sorenson didn't, and Roper and Gardner have since surpassed what I did. Such evidence seems very clear and obvious to me now. The trick was simply adjusting my assumptions, and not deciding before reading the text what the text should say.

I also think that Mike is doing a great job. I was glad to see his column begin, and hope it continues for a long time.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Tchild2]

Cinepro asks Cdowis:

"But prove me wrong. Sketch out the story of the Lehite landing and division of the peoples in a way that involves the Others. I'd be curious to see if it can even be done.

And Cdowis repsonds??

Any detailed details of contacts with the others would probably be found in the large plates of Nephi.

That is your answer? That sounds like an admission of failure to me.

[cinepro]

Roper's essay on Nephi's Neighbors is one of the best at extracting telling details regarding others in the text.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=505

I'm also fond of Brant's FAIR essay, The Social History of the Early Nephites. Brant also makes the point that when the Nephite prophets complain about particular lapses in Nephite behavior, those lapses converge with Mesoamerican culture.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2001_Social_History_of_the_Early_Nephites.html

Personally I'm very impressed with such work. Biographically, after reading Sorenson's essay in JBMS 1, on whether the land was empty, I started reading more carefully, and spotted all sorts of indications about the presence of others. I wrote up some of my observations in my RBBM 7/2 essay. I added some things Sorenson didn't, and Roper and Gardner have since surpassed what I did. Such evidence seems very clear and obvious to me now. The trick was simply adjusting my assumptions, and not deciding before reading the text what the text should say.

I also think that Mike is doing a great job. I was glad to see his column begin, and hope it continues for a long time.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Roper's article is especially interesting, since it draws out an important distinction.

As scholars of the Book of Mormon have been faced with evidence of non-Book of Mormon peoples and immigrations, they seem to have a few options:

1. Ignore them, and continue to believe an "empty-land" theory.

2. Accept their presence, but only on the condition that they Book of Mormon peoples didn't know about them (and they certainly didn't intermingle with them when they first arrived). This seems to be the belief expressed in the quotes from the 1920's and 1930's..."We accept there were probably other migrations of people...but the Book of Mormon authors didn't know about them."

3. Theorize intermarriage and a wholesale conversion and cultural takeover (within the first generation) by the Jaredites and Lehites.

Footnote 62 is also interesting in regards to this verse:

Ether 13:2

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this bland it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

The footnote reads:

62- I interpret the "waters" in this passage to refer to the waters of creation (Genesis 1:9

[MAsh]

So the issue of "others" touches on several other traditional teachings that will also have to be forsaken (and hopefully expunged from the footnotes!).

It doesn't present a problem if we recognize that the BoM people _believed_ there was a world wide flood even if there wasn't.

[cinepro]

It doesn't present a problem if we recognize that the BoM people _believed_ there was a world wide flood even if there wasn't.

As one who believes it doesn't present a problem if Joseph Smith and others believed the Book of Mormon were historical even if it wasn't, I agree with you.

[MAsh]

As one who believes it doesn't present a problem if Joseph Smith and others believed the Book of Mormon were historical even if it wasn't, I agree with you.

Cute but with your model you still have to explain away the pesky plates. In my model we simply have to reconize that ancient people (even prophets) didn't know everything about everything.

[cinepro]

Cute but with your model you still have to explain away the pesky plates. In my model we simply have to reconize that ancient people (even prophets) didn't know everything about everything.

I don't really have to "explain away the pesky plates" any more than I have to explain away the "pesky papryi".

The only difference being that we still have some of the papyri, so the apologists are doing most of the heavy lifting for me.

[Brant Gardner]

As scholars of the Book of Mormon have been faced with evidence of non-Book of Mormon peoples and immigrations, they seem to have a few options:

In the interest of accuracy, this statement should be revised. It makes it seem that LDS scholars on the Book of Mormon have reacted to evidence of immigration and that their position is therefore one of retrenching in the face of contrary evidence.

That has not been the case since at least the 70's, and from what I have heard discussed, isn't true back to the 50's.

1. Ignore them, and continue to believe an "empty-land" theory.

I am aware that there are those that take this position. I can't imagine that they could be considered scholars, unless their expertise didn't involve anything related to ancient history and the Americas.

2. Accept their presence, but only on the condition that they Book of Mormon peoples didn't know about them (and they certainly didn't intermingle with them when they first arrived). This seems to be the belief expressed in the quotes from the 1920's and 1930's..."We accept there were probably other migrations of people...but the Book of Mormon authors didn't know about them."

I'm glad you pointed out the dates on those responses. I wasn't familiar with them.

3. Theorize intermarriage and a wholesale conversion and cultural takeover (within the first generation) by the Jaredites and Lehites.

There are actually two branches to this one, with the "wholesale conversion and cultural takeover" being the older (and probably still more prevalent).

I hope that the newer understanding gains more traction. It has intermarriage and interaction without massive alterations in the population and without contributing material culture in any significant way. That runs against the long-held opinion of how important Book of Mormon peoples were, but it is more consonant with the known results of population immigration and certainly more comparable to the situation of the Bible (which also gives the impression of being much more important that history bears the Israelites out to be).

[cdowis]

Cinepro asks Cdowis:

"But prove me wrong. Sketch out the story of the Lehite landing and division of the peoples in a way that involves the Others. I'd be curious to see if it can even be done.

And Cdowis repsonds??

>>Any detailed details of contacts with the others would probably be found in the large plates of Nephi.

That is your answer? That sounds like an admission of failure to me.

I agree that we have no detailed account of the others, that is found on the Large Plates, but the BOM text clearly tells us that they existed. And archeologists and historians agree -- there were many inhabitants when Lehi landed.

I have mentioned in this forum several times one particular example where archeology and BOM text coincide -- a significant change in a 1500 year burial practive which occurred around 500BCE. Archeologists have been unable to find an explanation for this change, but the BOM provides a plausible explanation. This is perhaps only one example where the archeologists find evidence for the BOM, but, because they are unfamiliar with the text, they cannot see the parallel.

Here is the text of my post.

http://cartss.colora...aysonsheets.htm

In the link, it is interesting that the villiagers were burying their dead in graves near their homes, and around 500BC they suddenly changed their 1500 year old practice when they put their cemetaries several kilometers away from the village.

By some coincidence, this is about the time that Lehi landed. Is it possible that these people were influenced by Jewish customs -- burial ground is unclean and need to be moved away from the common traffic? He admits he has not found any reason why they began to separate their cemetaries from the villiages.

Of course, he is likely not familiar with the book delivered by an angel, but if he were serious about the BOM, he may have found some indirect evidence of Jewish culture and religion influencing the natives.

He has not discovered a reason for the change, and the BOM could provide him an explanation on why a practice over 1000 years old was changed.

As you so cleverly pointed out, I do admit we do not find the details of that interaction in the Small Plates, but..... perhaps we will find additional examples on the ground.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Interesting. I had read the Book of Mormon more than a dozen times and had been repeatedly struck by all the passages/events/societal divisions which seemed to suggest the presence of numerous unnamed others. When I finally read something (I believe by Sorenson) on this topic, it immedediately matched up for me with what the text itself had demanded.