cdowis Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Besides, that 's just one generation of polygamy. In the long run, that's not going to make much of a difference in population size, unless we are talking about a lot of wives--like numbers of wives on the order of David, Solomon, or the Persian kings. And if that were the case, how did they all fit on the boat? And where did they come from? Maidens don't grow on trees in the Arabian desert. I agree that they were not polygamists, but they may have brought entire families. And tell us about that ship. What was so special about that ship that they were astonished, so different from the other boats that they have seen. Perhaps its size?I should ask you to name one isolated human colony that did not have a high mortality rate. Jamestown was settled in 1607 with 104 men, but 2/3 of them died the first year (see any history of Jamestown). Among the women who came on the Mayflower, 72% of them died (58% of the men died). The death rate and infant mortality rate of such colonies has to be higher than the rate would be had they not tried to colonize, because where they came from they had much easier access to safe food, they were not immune from new diseases that were circulating in the new country, they had better shelter, and they were wealthier as a result of trade resources in the old world which were not available in the new.What kind of weather did Jametown have, compared to Mesoamerica?What kind of preparation did they have -- e.g. seeds and animals. Now read about Lehi's preparation.What specific revelatory resources did Jamestown have -- prophets who received revelation, the Liahona, etc.
dougtheavenger Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Mormon introduces himself as a pure descendant of Lehi. (3 Nephi 5:20) Edited February 17, 2012 by dougtheavenger
altersteve Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Mormon introduces himself as a pure descendant of Lehi. (3 Nephi 5:20)That doesn't mean everybody else was.
Calm Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 That doesn't mean everybody else was.Would there be a need to even mention it if everyone else was?
Cobalt-70 Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Mormon introduces himself as a pure descendant of Lehi. (3 Nephi 5:20)What does that even mean, a "pure descendant" of a man? Cloning aside, it takes more than just a man to have descendants.
thesometimesaint Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Dup Edited February 17, 2012 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Lehi:That's not what the stats say. 77 of the 194 countries listed are outside of Africa.Also remember that male child birth rates are slightly higher than female birth rates. But males have a lower survival rate.See http://en.wikipedia....cs_in_antiquity for the ancient world. Edited February 17, 2012 by thesometimesaint
stemelbow Posted February 17, 2012 Author Posted February 17, 2012 In reading this thread so far, I see there is no mention of the fact that there is no archeological or genetic evidence whatsoever that the Jaredite or the Lehite migrations, as described in the Book of Mormon, ever occurred.Before making wild and unfounded speculations as to Nephite and Lamanited population numbers would it not make sense to first establish that the namesake progenitors of these groups actually existed?The quesiton this poses is how do you do that? What archeological or genetic evidence would you expect to find?
thesometimesaint Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 He knows that that is impossible, with any technology that modern science has, to do. That is why he keeps making his rediculus requirements/demands be met.For the believer no lack of evidence will convince them, and for the critic no evidence will convince them.
robuchan Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 He knows that that is impossible, with any technology that modern science has, to do. That is why he keeps making his rediculus requirements/demands be met.For the believer no lack of evidence will convince them, and for the critic no evidence will convince them.Not true. Believers are falling like flies as the evidence (or lack thereof) stacks.
ERMD Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Not true. Believers are falling like flies as the evidence (or lack thereof) stacks.Serious allegation.CFR.
thesometimesaint Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Robuchan:That's why we're building almost two new Ward buildings every day, were losing members like dropping flies.
stemelbow Posted February 17, 2012 Author Posted February 17, 2012 Let's look at some things: 1. It is very unlikely that Lehi was a polygamist. Just read Jacob's sermon. I cannot imagine that his father practiced polygamy within the context of his speech. 2. There are those who mention that that Lehi, et al, took families from the Arabian peninsula. There may have been dozens of families who were converted during their wanderings and came along. 3. Nephi mentioned they came across domesticated goats and the ox when they landed. 4. There was a recent discovery in Costa Rica that their 1500 year burial rites had suddenly changed around 600 BCE. They moved their burial sites from within the village to outside the village, which would correspond to Hebrew custom. I am suggesting that these natives joined the Nephites very soon after Lehi landed. 5. Perhaps as part of their conversion, the "others" became familiar with the Brass Plates and found out about polygamy. That could have been a very large group consistent with the Jacob's comments. 6. As part of the Mosaic law, the Nephites were unlikely to have intermingled with the "others", but the Lamanites would have no such compuction.Interesting post, thanks. CFR on point 3.
stemelbow Posted February 17, 2012 Author Posted February 17, 2012 Mormon introduces himself as a pure descendant of Lehi. (3 Nephi 5:20)What does pure descendant mean to Mormon? How would he possible know whether he was a pure descendant of someone 1000 years before him? We struggle now-a-days getting that type of information. Perhaps he thought since he was nephite that must mean he is a pure descendant, or that his race is like that of Lehi's?
LeSellers Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 What does pure descendant mean to Mormon?According to Brigham Young (speaking of Joseph Smith's being a "pure descendant of Ephraim"), Mormon would be a direct descendant, father to son to son to son ... , of Lehi.Lehi
cdowis Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 What does pure descendant mean to Mormon?How would he possible know whether he was a pure descendant of someone 1000 years before him? We struggle now-a-days getting that type of information.Perhaps he thought since he was nephite that must mean he is a pure descendant, or that his race is like that of Lehi's?Me thinks you are unfamiliar with Hebrew culture, where they kept careful records of their genealogy. Also check out the first chapter of Ether. You cannot compare their culture with our modern culture.
stemelbow Posted February 17, 2012 Author Posted February 17, 2012 According to Brigham Young (speaking of Joseph Smith's being a "pure descendant of Ephraim"), Mormon would be a direct descendant, father to son to son to son ... , of Lehi.LehiCan I doubt that Mormon, or BY, or JS actually knew this and still be a man of faith and Mormon? I simply don't know how Mormon could have known this. 1000 years is a long time. To know from father to son for a 1000 years without any male being non-Lehite, seems near impossible know. Indeed, it could have been a wife of one man at 258 BC had an affair, didn't tell her husband, had a son, and that son was said to be a direct descendant of Lehi, even if he wasn't.
stemelbow Posted February 17, 2012 Author Posted February 17, 2012 Me thinks you are unfamiliar with Hebrew culture, where they kept careful records of their genealogy. Also check out the first chapter of Ether. You cannot compare their culture with our modern culture.You're probably right. I simply don't see any indication in the Bible to indicate that after a 1000 year period anyone can say they are a purely male descendant of someone. My guess is, the people in the BoM weren't nearly as vigilant. I guess its all very possible. I just doubt it.
ERayR Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Can I doubt that Mormon, or BY, or JS actually knew this and still be a man of faith and Mormon? I simply don't know how Mormon could have known this. 1000 years is a long time. To know from father to son for a 1000 years without any male being non-Lehite, seems near impossible know. Indeed, it could have been a wife of one man at 258 BC had an affair, didn't tell her husband, had a son, and that son was said to be a direct descendant of Lehi, even if he wasn't.There may have been a lot of "coulda beens" but all we have is the record so accept or reject is the choices. Choose.
LeSellers Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Can I doubt that Mormon, or BY, or JS actually knew this and still be a man of faith and Mormon? As far as I know, there is no question related to Mormon's (or Joseph Smith's ancestry in either a Temple Recommend or Baptismal Recommend interview. Believe what you like.As to Brother Brigham's statement, I recall that he said it by inspiration. That's good enough for me.Further, as brother Dowis stated, it is not a good thing to equate today's lax standards for genealogy with what the ancients did. Recall that, when returning from the Babylonian exile, Nehemiah and Ezra insisted that those claiming lineal right to officiate in the Priestly offices were required to demonstrate their lineage. And they did, even though they'd been slaves in captivity for nearly a century. If maintaining the records was as difficult as their condition implies, and they kept them nonetheless, it seems a reasonable assumption to say that Mormon would have known.Further, while Nephi explicitly tells us that he was not going to trace his father's line on the Small Plates, he also explicitly noted that this record was on the Large Plates, even though it was a part of the Brass Plate record, too. Keeping a family tree was a passion of the Jews/Israelites, and Nephi was an Israelite. There seems to be no reason to doubt that Mormon knew, irrespective of what we do (or fail to do) in our time. In the same chapter you cite for Mormon's claim of "pure decendancy", we read the following.9 But behold there are records which do contain all the proceedings of this people; and a shorter but true account was given by Nephi.It seems a safe assumption that Mormon, having access to the records containing all the proceeding of the Nephites, including their civil records, including his own lineage, would only have made this claim with a firm basis for doing so.Lehi 1
stemelbow Posted February 17, 2012 Author Posted February 17, 2012 As far as I know, there is no question related to Mormon's (or Joseph Smith's ancestry in either a Temple Recommend or Baptismal Recommend interview. Believe what you like.As to Brother Brigham's statement, I recall that he said it by inspiration. That's good enough for me.Further, as brother Dowis stated, it is not a good thing to equate today's lax standards for genealogy with what the ancients did. Recall that, when returning from the Babylonian exile, Nehemiah and Ezra insisted that those claiming lineal right to officiate in the Priestly offices were required to demonstrate their lineage. And they did, even though they'd been slaves in captivity for nearly a century. If maintaining the records was as difficult as their condition implies, and they kept them nonetheless, it seems a reasonable assumption to say that Mormon would have known.Further, while Nephi explicitly tells us that he was not going to trace his father's line on the Small Plates, he also explicitly noted that this record was on the Large Plates, even though it was a part of the Brass Plate record, too. Keeping a family tree was a passion of the Jews/Israelites, and Nephi was an Israelite. There seems to be no reason to doubt that Mormon knew, irrespective of what we do (or fail to do) in our time. In the same chapter you cite for Mormon's claim of "pure decendancy", we read the following.It seems a safe assumption that Mormon, having access to the records containing all the proceeding of the Nephites, including their civil records, including his own lineage, would only have made this claim with a firm basis for doing so.LehiI don't doubt that it was a high priority for Nephites to keep such records. I just doubt they were that well-kept. I certainly could be wrong. When Mormon says "pure descendant" of Lehi it seems like more of a passing comment. Perhaps he was trying to indicate that he has ancestors that came from Lehi's party. I don't know.
stemelbow Posted February 17, 2012 Author Posted February 17, 2012 There may have been a lot of "coulda beens" but all we have is the record so accept or reject is the choices. Choose.Certainly I can choose. I can choose to accept the record, but accepting it doesn't mean there are not misunderstandings by the author himself. Ah well.
Mariner Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) The quesiton this poses is how do you do that? What archeological or genetic evidence would you expect to find?Starting with the genetic evidence, one would expect to find mtDNA in the pre-Columbian genome that could not be mapped back to the Siberian-Beringian founding lineages that migrated to the New World between approximately 30,000 and 12,000 - 15,000 years ago.In other words, one would want to see genetic information that refuted the conclusions of the papers cited below. "Here we show, by using 86 complete mitochondrial genomes, that all Native American haplogroups, including haplogroup X, were part of a single founding population, thereby refuting multiple-migration models." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2427228/?tool=pmcentrez Below are a few more easily accessed papers that support the "no trans-oceanic migration" conclusion.http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000829http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001764http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025160653.htmhttp://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193In terms of archeological evidence dating from the Book of Mormon period, one could include:Evidence for smelting of iron ore for steel production and or evidence of the existence of steel;Evidence of the presence of flax or the extraction of flax fibers for making of linen;Bones of horses, cattle, goats, or swine;Depictions or mention of horses, cattle, goats, or swine in art or surviving codices;Depictions of honeybees;Evidence for silkworm culture or production of silk;Any evidence whatsoever of reformed Egyptian;Evidence for chariots, either in art or as artifacts;Demonstration that eight unpowered wooden semisubmersibles (essentially large hunks of driftwood) could leave from the Middle East and make a transoceanic voyage, all ending up in the New World at essentially the same place and the same time;Any evidence that this maritime "technology" ever reached the New World, in terms of depictions in art or artifacts. Edited February 17, 2012 by Mariner
robuchan Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Serious allegation.CFR.Marlin K Jensen. "Largest apostasy since Kirtland"
robuchan Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Me thinks you are unfamiliar with Hebrew culture, where they kept careful records of their genealogy. Also check out the first chapter of Ether. You cannot compare their culture with our modern culture.But they didn't follow Hebrew culture. Isn't the story line that they were quickly absorbed into a larger culture, and that's why we've never found any Hebrew culture remnants in Mesoamerica?
Recommended Posts