Brant Gardner'S New Book

[Robert F. Smith]

Who manned the Nephite Ship? The Phonecians?

One problem is that we have no Mulekite or Zarahemlite history to tell us how they got to the New World. Only in the case of the Nephites do we have a description of the method employed and who was onboard.

One useful factor in suggesting Phoenician help is that they had to get away quickly (perhaps escaping to Egypt, or grabbing a Phoenician crew at a nearby port), since, unlike the Lehites, they were not safely at a great distance from the Babylonian Army -- and you know what happened other members of Zedekiah's family.

Another useful factor is that the Book of Mormon name for Malchiah-son-of-the-King (Jer 38:6) is Mulek, which is not Hebrew pronunciation. Indeed, the late David Noel Freedman told me that it was a good Phoenician style pronunciation of the name in its short form.

Well it does. It says they were brought “by the hand of the Lord”. That speaks for itself.

No it doesn't. Everybody is brought by the hand of the Lord. The question is how did the Lord choose to handle the matter?

If there were any, they would have been mentioned, as Coriantumr was mentioned. He was the sole survivor of the Jaredite civilization. He was allowed to survive to tell the tale; and also to see the prophecy fulfilled, that God would bring “another people receiving the land for their inheritance” (Ether 13:21). There is no logical reason for believing that if others peoples or races of men had been mingled with the Israelites who had been brought to the New World by the Lord, that the Book of Mormon would have failed to mention them, as the Mulekites and Coriantumr were mentioned.

We do not in fact know that Coriantumr was the only survivor. All ancient texts, including the Bible, make hyperbolic statements, and to hold to them absolutely would falsify the fundamental basis of Holy Writ. Moreover, we have so many cultural carryovers (including names and places) from Jaredite times that it would be absurd to imagine that Coriantumr provided them all by himself. He was mentioned because he was a very important person (VIP).

A discussion board is for discussing things, not for sending people on a wild goose chase of reading half a dozen books. If you have read those books and articles, and think that they have a valid argument against what I have stated, then here is your opportunity to make use of your great knowledge to refute my argument; not send me on a wild goose chase of reading other people’s books.

We are all expected to make some sort of effort to learn such matters. Serious study is not a "wild goose chase." It is de rigeur. Otherwise we would have people doing brain surgery who had never studied the discipline. Every discipline is based on serious study. You can't get knowledge on the cheap.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[altersteve]

zerinus, why is everything you say so critical and confrontational?

[zerinus]

zerinus, why is everything you say so critical and confrontational?

Can you give an example?

[Brant Gardner]

While it is true that the Book of Mormon does not categorically assert that no other migrations to the Americas took place (other than the Jaredites and the Mulekites); it does not say that such a migration did take place either. In other words, your assertion that such a migration took place is as much based on conjecture as my belief that it didn’t.

Any argument from silence is problematic. In this case, you are correct that silence doesn't say yes or no. The question is upon what evidence either argument is built.

Yours is based on a fundamentalist reading of scripture that privileges historical writings defined as scripture over historical writings of any other people (including the same people, but not designated as scripture). I find that definition difficult.

My opinion is based on known archaeology of the Americans in general, specific archaeology of the plausible location of the Book of Mormon, comparative literature studies of other ancient histories, an the internal data from the Book of Mormon that indicates actions that have not good explanation without imputing the presence of other peoples.

it is reasonable to conclude that other such interactions would have been considered of sufficient importance to have been mentioned.

Your "reasonable" is defined as reasonable to you. Comparative studies of other ancient historical documents tells us that there are lots of things that aren't told, including the presence of peoples in lands that are occupied (the Maya histories do this, for example). We also have the problem of the nature of the Book of Mormon complicating things. Nephi tells us that he isn't writing history, and that history was in his other record. We don't know what he said there, but when he tells us that there is a different reason for writing what we have it makes it more difficult to suggest that he should have told us a history that he specifically says he isn't writing.

The Book of Mormon itself teaches doctrines that militate against the idea of interactions with other races, especially non-Israelite races—at least for the duration of the BoM history. One example is 2 Nephi 1:8: “And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.”

Please note that your specific example conflates the concepts of race and nation. That is perhaps a modern idea, but one that wouldn't be well accepted even in the modern world. Anciently, "race" wasn't nearly as important - or defined. There was certainly tribe and nation, but not "race." Israelite prohibitions against intermarriage were often pretty specific to nations, but didn't worry about those who became Israelite.

The next problem with the proof text has often been discussed and that is that it creates a modern definition of "land" that has no place in ancient texts. This particular proof text works only when a certain assumption is made about it, and it is actually open to very different (and historically more accurate) interpretations. Matt Roper has written on this in the now-named Mormon Studies Review.

Another example is the constant theme running through the Book of Mormon that those people were the true descendents of Israel,

Please don't forget that anyone adopted into Abraham becomes an inheritor of the blessings. I claim blessings through Israel, but am certainly not a "true descendant." The next issue is that beginning with Nephi (and clearly with Jacob) the terms Lamanite and Nephite are not used as lineages but rather as labels for a people (and Nephites easily became Lamanites and vice versa). The theme running through the Book of Mormon is the blessings to a covenant people, not a lineage. Covenant supersedes lineage.

The same Book of Mormon tells us not only that the Jaredites were completely annihilated, with the sole exception of Coriantumr; but that it was prophesied that it should be. . . .

Even assuming that this still does not rule out the possibility of there having been some survivors, it does nothing to strengthen you presumption that there were any either.

Of course that is true for Coriantumr. However, you seem to forget the example of the destruction of the Nephites. The rest of the issue is how we read an ancient text, and as Robert Smith pointed out, ancient writers so often use such hyperbole that historians always take absolute statements with a grain of salt. The kind of literal accuracy you are assuming simply wasn't their intent in writing. They wrote moral stories, not modern histories.

The Book of Mormon is not secular history. It is a revelation. You either you believe it or you don’t.

Those three sentences could take pages to unpack. First, it is correct that the Book of Mormon isn't a secular history. It is an ancient history in the same way that the Bible is. It is a very complex text, and unique in that so much of it has been consciously shaped by a single writer/historian (Mormon).

The text itself was given to Joseph as a revelation. However, the original text isn't a revelation, though there are some revelations recorded in it. Mormon writes by inspiration, but he tells us that he used records to do it. Everything that can be discerned about his process is understandable without requiring any divine dictation to Mormon--inspiration yes, but not revelation. Next, there Book of Mormon makes to claim to inerrancy. It claims inspiration and value, but not absolute accuracy. So yes, it is a revelation that we have it, but no it was not written as a revelation.

Finally, it is true that one believes it or one does not--at least in a tautological way. However, it is very clear that among those who believe, it is understood very differently, and we need look no further than our own posts to see that.

Well you haven’t given me any yet that might persuade me to change my mind.

Nor did I expect to. As Alma says, the first step is to give place for the seed, and you aren't interested in doing so. There may be others reading who are interested however, and this exchange may help them.

Sorry, but I just believe what scripture says.

I'm sure it seems strange to you, but so do I.

[zerinus]

Any argument from silence is problematic. In this case, you are correct that silence doesn't say yes or no. The question is upon what evidence either argument is built.

Yours is based on a fundamentalist reading of scripture that privileges historical writings defined as scripture over historical writings of any other people (including the same people, but not designated as scripture). I find that definition difficult.

My opinion is based on known archaeology of the Americans in general, specific archaeology of the plausible location of the Book of Mormon, comparative literature studies of other ancient histories, an the internal data from the Book of Mormon that indicates actions that have not good explanation without imputing the presence of other peoples.

Your "reasonable" is defined as reasonable to you. Comparative studies of other ancient historical documents tells us that there are lots of things that aren't told, including the presence of peoples in lands that are occupied (the Maya histories do this, for example). We also have the problem of the nature of the Book of Mormon complicating things. Nephi tells us that he isn't writing history, and that history was in his other record. We don't know what he said there, but when he tells us that there is a different reason for writing what we have it makes it more difficult to suggest that he should have told us a history that he specifically says he isn't writing.

Please note that your specific example conflates the concepts of race and nation. That is perhaps a modern idea, but one that wouldn't be well accepted even in the modern world. Anciently, "race" wasn't nearly as important - or defined. There was certainly tribe and nation, but not "race." Israelite prohibitions against intermarriage were often pretty specific to nations, but didn't worry about those who became Israelite.

The next problem with the proof text has often been discussed and that is that it creates a modern definition of "land" that has no place in ancient texts. This particular proof text works only when a certain assumption is made about it, and it is actually open to very different (and historically more accurate) interpretations. Matt Roper has written on this in the now-named Mormon Studies Review.

Please don't forget that anyone adopted into Abraham becomes an inheritor of the blessings. I claim blessings through Israel, but am certainly not a "true descendant." The next issue is that beginning with Nephi (and clearly with Jacob) the terms Lamanite and Nephite are not used as lineages but rather as labels for a people (and Nephites easily became Lamanites and vice versa). The theme running through the Book of Mormon is the blessings to a covenant people, not a lineage. Covenant supersedes lineage.

Of course that is true for Coriantumr. However, you seem to forget the example of the destruction of the Nephites. The rest of the issue is how we read an ancient text, and as Robert Smith pointed out, ancient writers so often use such hyperbole that historians always take absolute statements with a grain of salt. The kind of literal accuracy you are assuming simply wasn't their intent in writing. They wrote moral stories, not modern histories.

Those three sentences could take pages to unpack. First, it is correct that the Book of Mormon isn't a secular history. It is an ancient history in the same way that the Bible is. It is a very complex text, and unique in that so much of it has been consciously shaped by a single writer/historian (Mormon).

The text itself was given to Joseph as a revelation. However, the original text isn't a revelation, though there are some revelations recorded in it. Mormon writes by inspiration, but he tells us that he used records to do it. Everything that can be discerned about his process is understandable without requiring any divine dictation to Mormon--inspiration yes, but not revelation. Next, there Book of Mormon makes to claim to inerrancy. It claims inspiration and value, but not absolute accuracy. So yes, it is a revelation that we have it, but no it was not written as a revelation.

Finally, it is true that one believes it or one does not--at least in a tautological way. However, it is very clear that among those who believe, it is understood very differently, and we need look no further than our own posts to see that.

Nor did I expect to. As Alma says, the first step is to give place for the seed, and you aren't interested in doing so. There may be others reading who are interested however, and this exchange may help them.

I'm sure it seems strange to you, but so do I.

All I can say after reading the above is that you appear to me to be “arguing from silence” more than I am. The only part that I would like to address more specifically is the following:

Please don't forget that anyone adopted into Abraham becomes an inheritor of the blessings. I claim blessings through Israel, but am certainly not a "true descendant."

I am aware of the of the “adoptive” issue into the lineage of Abraham; but that adoption takes place when one accepts the gospel, not by intermarriage. The BoM people were considered seed of Abraham by lineage, not by adoption, as the following verses show (out of many):

3 Nephi 10:

4 O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have nourished you.

5 And again, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, yea, O aye people of the house of Israel, who have fallen; yea, O ye people of the house of Israel, ye that dwell at Jerusalem, as ye that have fallen; yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not.

6 O ye house of Israel whom I have spared, how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart.

7 But if not, O house of Israel, the places of your dwellings shall become desolate until the time of the fulfilling of the covenant to your fathers.

The next issue is that beginning with Nephi (and clearly with Jacob) the terms Lamanite and Nephite are not used as lineages but rather as labels for a people (and Nephites easily became Lamanites and vice versa). The theme running through the Book of Mormon is the blessings to a covenant people, not a lineage. Covenant supersedes lineage.

It is not an issue of covenant verses lineage. It is merely a stated fact in the Book of Mormon that they (Nephites and Lamanites) were Israelites by lineage. Whether they remained faithful to that heritage or not is not an issue here either.

[Robert F. Smith]

You are not replying to my post. You are saying whatever you want to say.

Actually he was making a reasonable response to your insistence that the KJV is solely and only "a literal translation." It is true that our knowledge of Hebrew grammar has come a long way in the centuries since 1611 when the KJV first came out -- depending of course on earlier centuries of translation efforts.

So it is quite correct to point out that the first two verses of Gen 1 contain a series of circumstantial clauses ending in a conclusion at verse three. Scholars are in agreement on that.

You can learn a great deal about the differences between literal and other kinds of translations by reading The Holy Bible: A Buyer's Guide -- it is a free eBook from the Biblical Archaeology Society at their free Bible History Daily site http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/biblehistorydaily . They have other free eBooks and various articles to read. I think you would find it fun, interesting, and very informative.