Lgt And The Lamanites Of Ammon'S Mission

[zerinus]

This is false. Contact with native groups is completely irrelevant to the message of the Book of Mormon. It focuses on covenants and promises made to two specific groups.

Not true. See my post #143.

Then science, according to the many scholars I mentioned, including two apostles, says something much different than what you claim.

Again not true. You are imaging things.

You have given your opinion but no real answers.

I have given real answers.

Yes, this has consistently been your handicap. If you did read some material, you would realize that the book was written in the form of parallels, not a series of venn diagrams. Nephite against Lamanite, Nephi against Laman, King Benjamin against King Noah.

I don't need to read any material (with the possible exception of the Bible) in order to intelligently discuss the contents of the Book of Mormon.

[zerinus]

I read your post. Explain Sherem and population growth.

I believe I have already discussed that, either in this or in another thread.

You are the one who stands alone, virtually every other active LDS that posts here disagrees with you as well as every LDS scholar who writes on the subject such as, need I remind you, the scholars and apostles I listed. Again, your handicap is not having read other ancient books. In order to understand Mexican poetry, you need to read more than just one poem. In order to understand expository essays (a rather modern invention) you need to read dozens to realize that there is an opening thesis. An ancient hebrew scholar would be at a loss to understand a modern academic paper based on his training. Many ancient cultures do not have the thesis at the start. In fact, many have multiple arguments in one document, and they overlap. Jacob 5, for examples, has as many as 5 themes that start and end at different points. The paragraphs, unlike modern writing styles, do not contain a single idea. Ideas and themes start midway and pass over to the next paragraph. Do you even know how to identify the paragraphs? If you do not know how the writing is structured, how can you ever try to understand what it is trying to say?

According to you, a man need only date one woman once to understand the opposite gender.

You are talking nonsense basically, and not adding anything useful to the discussion.

[Bernard Gui]

In 4 Nephi and Mormon, there are 3 warring groups: Nephites (at first the followers of Christ), Lamanites (dissenters from the Nephites), and Gadianton robbers (a more wicked faction of the Lamanites). Several times the Lamanite armies return from defeat with vast numbers of new recruits. It is possible that they had formed alliances with neighboring non-Lehites for the purpose of annhilating a common enemy. Their goal is to eliminate the Nephite society. On the other hand, the robbers seem to be opportunists who strike when they can to obtain plunder.

At the beginning of 3 Nephi, an earlier incarnation of the Gadiantons made war on both Nephites and Lamanites. Again, after being defeated several times, they would return from their mountain and wilderness hideouts with larger and larger armies. This would only be possible if they were recruiting from non-Lehites.

Bernard

[zerinus]

D&C 88:118

Pres Hinkley: 'As we pursue our secular studies, let us also add to our lives the cultivation of the Spirit. If we do so, God will bless us with that peace and those blessings which come from Him alone.'

He admonishes to study. He does not tell us to temper what we learn with what the bible says, but rather, to temper what we learn with spiritual things such as testimony.

He is telling us to cultivate the Spirit. That takes priority.

There are hundreds of references telling us to seek learning.

There are more references that tell us to trust the Lord and His Spirit.

I can quote prophets who argue that we do not need to prove the Book of Mormon true for archeology will do it for us.

Never heard of that before. I can, however tell you, that we don't need to prove the Book of Mormon true because it is the mission of the Holy Ghost to do that.

Edited June 5, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

In 4 Nephi and Mormon, there are 3 warring groups: Nephites (at first the followers of Christ), Lamanites (dissenters from the Nephites), and Gadianton robbers (a more wicked faction of the Lamanites). Several times the Lamanite armies return from defeat with vast numbers of new recruits. It is possible that they had formed alliances with neighboring non-Lehites for the purpose of annhilating a common enemy. Their goal is to eliminate the Nephite society. On the other hand, the robbers seem to be opportunists who strike when they can to obtain plunder.

At the beginning of 3 Nephi, an earlier incarnation of the Gadiantons made war on both Nephites and Lamanites. Again, after being defeated several times, they would return from their mountain and wilderness hideouts with larger and larger armies. This would only be possible if they were recruiting from non-Lehites.

Bernard

I have another suggestion. They had learned to communicate with the planet Mars, and they had hired Martians to fight for them as mercenaries; and paid for their services with earth-made jelly-beans which Martians love, but can't manufacture on Mars. Prove me wrong.

Edited June 5, 2012 by zerinus

[robuchan]

Yet another indication that you need to read more. Would you have a hypothesis as to why a written document would have different contents than an oral document? I can think of several, such as the editorial purposes of the person compiling the text. Oh - that was Nephi and Mormon and Nephi specifically said he was writing for a purpose other than history (because he had history in another place) and Mormon had a completely different purpose (and we have lost what he wrote).

So, now to complicate the fact that you are unfamiliar with ancient written documents, we add that you are unfamiliar with oral tradition. Is there a reason you are so willing to make definite statements concerning things you haven't studied at all?

1. Though there may be aspects of this that have validated historically, certainly not all of it has. The blurb I read was that it is a collection of myth and legend.

2. Let's assume it can be reasonably considered to be historically accurate that this group settled an area and made no mention of existing natives. Do we know for sure this is an omission? Someone has to be the first settlers in an area. It couldn't have been these people? What time period and what area does this story originate?

3. I may have misunderstood you, but did you claim that this group might have come from the Old World by ship, similar to the Nephites?

[robuchan]

I read your post. Explain Sherem and population growth.

What's the minimum population that would satisfy the aspects of the Sherem story?

[robuchan]

This would only be possible if they were recruiting from non-Lehites.

That's the only possibility? What if the Lamanite nation numbered in the millions? What if it were hundreds of millions stretching from Alaska to the tip South America?

[Brant Gardner]

1. Though there may be aspects of this that have validated historically, certainly not all of it has. The blurb I read was that it is a collection of myth and legend.

Surely a blurb will tell you all you need to know. In this case, you need to understand a lot more about the nature of oral histories and the relationship of oral and written traditions.

As for validation, that is the point, is it not. What I am suggesting is that ancient texts have an uneasy relationship to dirt archaeology precisely because they are written for their own reasons, and those reasons are never to completely record an objective history. Archaeology comes at the question from a different perspective.

I have been trying to find an article I read a number of years ago and haven't had any success. The gist is that some archaeologists used the Aztec Codex Xolotl along with their archaeology of the same area. They found a few connections, but a lot that was very different. Supposing that an ancient document must mention everything we want to see, or that we see in archaeology, simply doesn't fit with what we know of ancient documents.

2. Let's assume it can be reasonably considered to be historically accurate that this group settled an area and made no mention of existing natives. Do we know for sure this is an omission? Someone has to be the first settlers in an area. It couldn't have been these people? What time period and what area does this story originate?

We know from the documents about what time these peoples entered the area, and archaeology can see the evidence of Central Mexican influence. Archaeology also sees that there were other people already in the area with the Central Mexicanized newcomers entered. So, yes we know the dates, we know what they put in their own history, and we know what they left out. Suggesting that because they didn't mention the others means that they couldn't be there denies archaeology. There is no reason to do that (unless you are trying to force a fundamentalist reading on the Book of Mormon).

If you are going to suggest that the Book of Mormon be judged against history, then you have to accept what history actually looks like. It isn't a problem with the Book of Mormon when it looks like other ancient texts.

3. I may have misunderstood you, but did you claim that this group might have come from the Old World by ship, similar to the Nephites?

You misunderstood. The texts say that they came over the water from the East. Some LDS authors have used that to say that they arrived in ships. I think there is a different explanation. However, the text says that they came over the water. If you are only going to go on what the text says (and doesn't say) then you have native texts proclaiming that they came over the water from the East.

Suggesting that the text means something else than what it says gives that phrase a different meaning. However, it requires that you read ancient texts more as I do--and that means you would have to adopt my view of the Book of Mormon. In your more literal reading of ancient texts, you are kind of stuck with this oceanic migration (which, by the way, is pretty common in Mesoamerican peoples--There is an Aztec legend of people arriving at Panuco from across the ocean).

[robuchan]

Surely a blurb will tell you all you need to know. In this case, you need to understand a lot more about the nature of oral histories and the relationship of oral and written traditions.

As for validation, that is the point, is it not. What I am suggesting is that ancient texts have an uneasy relationship to dirt archaeology precisely because they are written for their own reasons, and those reasons are never to completely record an objective history. Archaeology comes at the question from a different perspective.

I have been trying to find an article I read a number of years ago and haven't had any success. The gist is that some archaeologists used the Aztec Codex Xolotl along with their archaeology of the same area. They found a few connections, but a lot that was very different. Supposing that an ancient document must mention everything we want to see, or that we see in archaeology, simply doesn't fit with what we know of ancient documents.

We know from the documents about what time these peoples entered the area, and archaeology can see the evidence of Central Mexican influence. Archaeology also sees that there were other people already in the area with the Central Mexicanized newcomers entered. So, yes we know the dates, we know what they put in their own history, and we know what they left out. Suggesting that because they didn't mention the others means that they couldn't be there denies archaeology. There is no reason to do that (unless you are trying to force a fundamentalist reading on the Book of Mormon).

If you are going to suggest that the Book of Mormon be judged against history, then you have to accept what history actually looks like. It isn't a problem with the Book of Mormon when it looks like other ancient texts.

You misunderstood. The texts say that they came over the water from the East. Some LDS authors have used that to say that they arrived in ships. I think there is a different explanation. However, the text says that they came over the water. If you are only going to go on what the text says (and doesn't say) then you have native texts proclaiming that they came over the water from the East.

Suggesting that the text means something else than what it says gives that phrase a different meaning. However, it requires that you read ancient texts more as I do--and that means you would have to adopt my view of the Book of Mormon. In your more literal reading of ancient texts, you are kind of stuck with this oceanic migration (which, by the way, is pretty common in Mesoamerican peoples--There is an Aztec legend of people arriving at Panuco from across the ocean).

So we obviously have apples and oranges. The Book of Mormon was written in real time as the events occurred, and purports to be an actual, accurate portrayal of those events. This piece of literature contains a mixture of myth and legend with no historical validity with some historical descriptions that have some validity. There is absolutely no connection that this provides a precedent for the BOM to ignore preexisting natives.

[Brant Gardner]

So we obviously have apples and oranges. The Book of Mormon was written in real time as the events occurred, and purports to be an actual, accurate portrayal of those events. This piece of literature contains a mixture of myth and legend with no historical validity with some historical descriptions that have some validity. There is absolutely no connection that this provides a precedent for the BOM to ignore preexisting natives.

And this is why I suggest that you learn more about texts and their relationships with oral tradition. What you have written does not accurately represent what scholars believe about either of those subjects. Your statement "there is absolutely no connection" simply says that you refuse to understand the connection. Oddly enough, it is a connection that is entirely separate from religion and simply requires that you understand oral history, written histories, and archaeology. Only without an understanding of those three fields could you make that statement.

At the end of a long conversation, what you are saying is that you have faith in the way you see things, and regardless of actual evidence to the contrary, you prefer to hold on to your faith rather than learn from modern secular scholarship. Fascinating.

This piece of literature contains a mixture of myth and legend with no historical validity with some historical descriptions that have some validity.

There are quite a few secular scholars who would strongly dispute this particular categorization. They actually believe that there is quite a bit of history told in these stories. Amazing that those who actually read and study this area have a different opinion from you, who have read a blurb online.

[mrmandias]

In 4 Nephi and Mormon, there are 3 warring groups: Nephites (at first the followers of Christ), Lamanites (dissenters from the Nephites), and Gadianton robbers (a more wicked faction of the Lamanites). Several times the Lamanite armies return from defeat with vast numbers of new recruits. It is possible that they had formed alliances with neighboring non-Lehites for the purpose of annhilating a common enemy. Their goal is to eliminate the Nephite society. On the other hand, the robbers seem to be opportunists who strike when they can to obtain plunder.

At the beginning of 3 Nephi, an earlier incarnation of the Gadiantons made war on both Nephites and Lamanites. Again, after being defeated several times, they would return from their mountain and wilderness hideouts with larger and larger armies. This would only be possible if they were recruiting from non-Lehites.

Bernard

On the other hand, the 'starve 'em out' strategy implies that they aren't able to draw on food supplies from neighboring farming groups.

[cinepro]

In 4 Nephi and Mormon, there are 3 warring groups: Nephites (at first the followers of Christ), Lamanites (dissenters from the Nephites), and Gadianton robbers (a more wicked faction of the Lamanites). Several times the Lamanite armies return from defeat with vast numbers of new recruits. It is possible that they had formed alliances with neighboring non-Lehites for the purpose of annhilating a common enemy. Their goal is to eliminate the Nephite society. On the other hand, the robbers seem to be opportunists who strike when they can to obtain plunder.

Do you believe that during the first 100 years after Jesus' visit there were any non-Christian "others" living in the area? Because 4 Nephi claims to hit the "reset" button on the divisions among the people, and again, it's pretty clear there weren't any non-Christians in "the land".

2 And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.

-----------------------------------------------

17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.

-----------------------------------------------

20 And he kept it eighty and four years, and there was still peace in the land, save it were a small part of the people who had revolted from the church and taken upon them the name of Lamanites; therefore there began to be Lamanites again in the land.

According to 4 Nephi, the corruption didn't come from outside. It started with a small group inside the population, and at no time does he mention "others" coming into the group. All people are accounted for in the story itself.

[robuchan]

And this is why I suggest that you learn more about texts and their relationships with oral tradition. What you have written does not accurately represent what scholars believe about either of those subjects. Your statement "there is absolutely no connection" simply says that you refuse to understand the connection. Oddly enough, it is a connection that is entirely separate from religion and simply requires that you understand oral history, written histories, and archaeology. Only without an understanding of those three fields could you make that statement.

At the end of a long conversation, what you are saying is that you have faith in the way you see things, and regardless of actual evidence to the contrary, you prefer to hold on to your faith rather than learn from modern secular scholarship. Fascinating.

There are quite a few secular scholars who would strongly dispute this particular categorization. They actually believe that there is quite a bit of history told in these stories. Amazing that those who actually read and study this area have a different opinion from you, who have read a blurb online.

Thanks for the follow up. I don't think secular scholarship supports your point. And I don't think it's a misunderstanding of ancient documents or an ignorance of the nature of oral tradition that leads me to reject this point.

Your point is that the BOM's failure to mention existing natives is a common aspect of ancient documents, and you use Annals as the primary example.

I'm sure secular scholarship might agree that there would be interesting things to analyze between Annals and the BOM. But based on your description of Annals so far, I find it doubtful any non-LDS scholar would see in Annals a legitimate precedent for the BOM to never mention any extra-Lehi people.

[zerinus]

Do you believe that during the first 100 years after Jesus' visit there were any non-Christian "others" living in the area? Because 4 Nephi claims to hit the "reset" button on the divisions among the people, and again, it's pretty clear there weren't any non-Christians in "the land".

According to 4 Nephi, the corruption didn't come from outside. It started with a small group inside the population, and at no time does he mention "others" coming into the group. All people are accounted for in the story itself.

Valid point cinepro. A couple of additional points: Those "Christians" were all identified by the Lord as belonging to the house of Israel. No non-Israelites are mentioned among them. And the Lord did not commission the "Isralites" to take the gospel to any mon-Isralites either, as He did to Peter in the New Testament. Furthermore, when the great destructions preceded the Lord's visit (followed by the three days of darkness), which covered all the face of the land, the Lord addressed all of them as the house of Israel, with no mention of any others. The elusive "non-Israelites" appear to be mysteriously absent no matter where one looks in 1,000 years of BoM history--except in the fertile imaginations of the prolific speculators evidently.

Edited June 5, 2012 by zerinus

[Brant Gardner]

I don't think secular scholarship supports your point.

And yet you don't seem to be familiar with any of it. How is it that you are so sure that it doesn't support what I have said if you haven't read it?

And I don't think it's a misunderstanding of ancient documents or an ignorance of the nature of oral tradition that leads me to reject this point.

Really? Then what is it? It certainly isn't based on understanding ancient documents or the nature of oral tradition. If you understood either of those your opinions would differ [there is an implication here that I have read them--if you are wondering, yes, I have]. If you don't base your understanding on secular scholarship, then I am left with the obvious conclusion that you just have faith that your opinion is correct.

Your point is that the BOM's failure to mention existing natives is a common aspect of ancient documents, and you use Annals as the primary example.

Let us be clear. The point was that we should not expect ancient documents to record history the way we think it should have been recorded. One example is that authentic ancient documents are known to "omit" others in the area when it isn't part of the reason for creating that document. That tells us that there is a known human behavior that explains why the Book of Mormon might act as it does -- particularly if it is an ancient text. The Title of the Lords of Totonicapan is an example from that. I'm sure there are others. You have one referenced from China (which rather parallels the way the Gadianton robbers are treated in the Book of Mormon).

So, what I and others have shown is that there is a known human practice is undisputed texts that does just what the Book of Mormon does. Suggesting that the Book of Mormon isn't ancient because it doesn't do things that other ancient texts also don't do is not a demonstration of anything except historical presentism.

I'm sure secular scholarship might agree that there would be interesting things to analyze between Annals and the BOM. But based on your description of Annals so far, I find it doubtful any non-LDS scholar would see in Annals a legitimate precedent for the BOM to never mention any extra-Lehi people.

I'm sure that many secular scholars wouldn't be interested in making a comparison. However, if you asked a large number of them about whether historical texts always mention other peoples, a very high percentage (if not 100%) would say no.

If you are going to appear to secular history, then you have to live by secular history. They tell you that this particular tack you have taken is mistaken. I do notice that you are asserting what you think non-LDS scholars might say. If I take your sentence as written and ask them a question about the Book of Mormon, I would get the kind of reaction you mention. However, if I took a different position and asked them if there were peoples in place that were not mentioned in the historical records of later peoples who came into the area, then they would say of course there were.

You are trying so hard to deny the Book of Mormon that you are putting yourself in the difficult position of trying to find a way to get around the fact that secular history contradicts your position. Remove the Book of Mormon and replace it with any other text and you have no argument at all. Use that information as a reference for other documents, and as long as the Book of Mormon is not mentioned, secular scholarship contradicts you.

I understand that there are prejudices against the Book of Mormon. That is quite different from evidence, however. If you are going to try to discredit the Book of Mormon by using secular history/archaeology/ethnohistory, then you can't suppose that their arguments are wrong only if applied to the Book of Mormon, but correct everywhere else.

[zerinus]

On the other hand, the 'starve 'em out' strategy implies that they aren't able to draw on food supplies from neighboring farming groups.

Thank you. Valid point also.

[zerinus]

And yet you don't seem to be familiar with any of it. How is it that you are so sure that it doesn't support what I have said if you haven't read it?

The Book of Mormon as a divinely commissioned book is self-sufficient for its own interpretation with the possible exception of the Bible and other modern scriptures of the Church. That is all that one needs to interpret and understand the book correctly.

[robuchan]

And yet you don't seem to be familiar with any of it. How is it that you are so sure that it doesn't support what I have said if you haven't read it?

Really? Then what is it? It certainly isn't based on understanding ancient documents or the nature of oral tradition. If you understood either of those your opinions would differ [there is an implication here that I have read them--if you are wondering, yes, I have]. If you don't base your understanding on secular scholarship, then I am left with the obvious conclusion that you just have faith that your opinion is correct.

Let us be clear. The point was that we should not expect ancient documents to record history the way we think it should have been recorded. One example is that authentic ancient documents are known to "omit" others in the area when it isn't part of the reason for creating that document. That tells us that there is a known human behavior that explains why the Book of Mormon might act as it does -- particularly if it is an ancient text. The Title of the Lords of Totonicapan is an example from that. I'm sure there are others. You have one referenced from China (which rather parallels the way the Gadianton robbers are treated in the Book of Mormon).

So, what I and others have shown is that there is a known human practice is undisputed texts that does just what the Book of Mormon does. Suggesting that the Book of Mormon isn't ancient because it doesn't do things that other ancient texts also don't do is not a demonstration of anything except historical presentism.

I'm sure that many secular scholars wouldn't be interested in making a comparison. However, if you asked a large number of them about whether historical texts always mention other peoples, a very high percentage (if not 100%) would say no.

If you are going to appear to secular history, then you have to live by secular history. They tell you that this particular tack you have taken is mistaken. I do notice that you are asserting what you think non-LDS scholars might say. If I take your sentence as written and ask them a question about the Book of Mormon, I would get the kind of reaction you mention. However, if I took a different position and asked them if there were peoples in place that were not mentioned in the historical records of later peoples who came into the area, then they would say of course there were.

You are trying so hard to deny the Book of Mormon that you are putting yourself in the difficult position of trying to find a way to get around the fact that secular history contradicts your position. Remove the Book of Mormon and replace it with any other text and you have no argument at all. Use that information as a reference for other documents, and as long as the Book of Mormon is not mentioned, secular scholarship contradicts you.

I understand that there are prejudices against the Book of Mormon. That is quite different from evidence, however. If you are going to try to discredit the Book of Mormon by using secular history/archaeology/ethnohistory, then you can't suppose that their arguments are wrong only if applied to the Book of Mormon, but correct everywhere else.

1. The reason I reject your precedent for the lack of mention of "others" is a logical one, not one which requires any further understanding of ancient literature or oral tradition. When a group of people leaves its home and travels a long ways and then meets native people there, it's always a compelling part of the story. The Bible shows this. So does Homer, Marco Polo, Swiss Family Robinson, and King Kong. I waited for your precedent to show why this is natural for the BOM to omit, and you struck out. You served up a very weak example. Weak for many, many reasons. Few of which have prerequisite of becoming an expert in ancient literature to understand.

2. This thread is not an example of me trying very hard not to believe the BOM. I rejected LDS truth claims years ago for at least a dozen major reasons. Lack of evidence for BOM as an historical document is 1 of those 12. And the "others" theory would be a very small part of the larger point of BOM problems. My interest in this thread has more to do with my interest and issues with Mormon apologetics in general, not specifically the truthfulness of the BOM or even the church. I find LDS apologetic scholars twisting and manipulative, and the points I make in this thread are addressing that.

[Brant Gardner]

The Book of Mormon as a divinely commissioned book is self-sufficient for its own interpretation with the possible exception of the Bible and other modern scriptures of the Church. That is all that one needs to interpret and understand the book correctly.

I have seen the same said of the Bible. I understand that there is much to be gained from reading scripture independent of anything else. However, I also am familiar with much to that has been gained by reading the Bible against history and culture. I find the same for the Book of Mormon. In the same way that such information enriches the study of the Bible, it can enrich the study of the Book of Mormon. Of course, both books of scripture stil have much to say to those who read them without any other contextual information.

I would therefore disagree that "that is all one needs to interpret and understand the book correctly." That places way too heavy an interpretation on "correctly."

[Brant Gardner]

1. The reason I reject your precedent for the lack of mention of "others" is a logical one, not one which requires any further understanding of ancient literature or oral tradition.

Right. We disagree. However, you are disagreeing with secular scholarship which does see the lack of mention of "others" as logical. Therfore, you are not just disagreeing with me, but disagreeing with secular scholarship.

When a group of people leaves its home and travels a long ways and then meets native people there, it's always a compelling part of the story.

Demonstrably incorrect according to the documents I cited (and the interesting reference to China).

The Bible shows this.

I wonder if it does. The Bible insists that everyone descends from the people that the Bible mentions. Everyone descends from Noah and there are no non-Noah peoples.

You served up a very weak example. Weak for many, many reasons. Few of which have prerequisite of becoming an expert in ancient literature to understand.

Really? Scholars with decrees in those fields disagree with you.

2. This thread is not an example of me trying very hard not to believe the BOM.

Really? You reject all responses that don't agree with you even when you don't have any good reason for doing so except that they contradict your faith-based position contra the Book of Mormon. You repeat things that you have cribbed from Internet sites, but don't understand their information or what scholarship actually provides.

I rejected LDS truth claims years ago for at least a dozen major reasons. Lack of evidence for BOM as an historical document is 1 of those

And yet you don't seem to be aware of what such evidence might be. So far, your reasons for rejection depend upon ahistorical understandings and a dismissal of what scholarship says about ancient texts and oral history.

My interest in this thread has more to do with my interest and issues with Mormon apologetics in general, not specifically the truthfulness of the BOM or even the church. I find LDS apologetic scholars twisting and manipulative, and the points I make in this thread are addressing that.

But who is twisting what? LDS apologists are saying that the Book of Mormon behaves like other ancient documents. Then you "twist" that response to deny ancient texts (calling them myths and traditions) and then suggest that they cannot be history (denying what secular historians understand about the relationships between texts and oral traditions).

So far, you are the one who is twisting the hardest to get secular understanding to agree with you. It doesn't. You are manipulating and twisting what scholars say about documents to support a position that otherwise has no support save that you believe it.

Please tell me where I am misrepresenting what scholars say about the Title of the Lords of Totonicapan, the Codex Xolotl, or the relationship between oral tradition and written history.

[robuchan]

Please tell me where I am misrepresenting what scholars say about the Title of the Lords of Totonicapan, the Codex Xolotl, or the relationship between oral tradition and written history.

I never claimed you misrepresent what other scholars say. From my understanding of your points, you (and other LDS apologetics) are the only one making a specific point about this literature. This point being that they provide logical, apples-to-apples precedents that would show why it would be natural for the BOM to ignore mention of "others". This is not a matter of scholarship. This is a matter of logical extrapolation. You and other LDS apologetics seem to be the only ones making that logical extrapolation. I reject your logic, not your scholarship.

[thesometimesaint]

Robucan:

Nowhere does the Bible mention China, but we know darn well that China has been around for many thousands of years.

[Brant Gardner]

This is not a matter of scholarship. This is a matter of logical extrapolation. You and other LDS apologetics seem to be the only ones making that logical extrapolation. I reject your logic, not your scholarship.

Except that scholarship depends on that very kind of logical extrapolation. The majority of what we know of Mesoamerica comes from that very kind of logical extrapolation. It is the foundation of ethnohistory. That kind of logical extrapolation and the principles behind it are extremely well accepted. Why do reject secular scholarship?

[robuchan]

Except that scholarship depends on that very kind of logical extrapolation. The majority of what we know of Mesoamerica comes from that very kind of logical extrapolation. It is the foundation of ethnohistory. That kind of logical extrapolation and the principles behind it are extremely well accepted. Why do reject secular scholarship?

Can you direct me to the heaps of non-LDS scholars who say that the BOM's failure to mention the existing natives is a natural, logical extrapolation from the existing Mesoameric literature?