Lgt And The Lamanites Of Ammon'S Mission

[Brant Gardner]

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?

You do realize that this hasn't been your argument? Twisting again?

Edited June 5, 2012 by Brant Gardner

[Freedom]

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.

To interpret what? The doctrine, or the culture, language and lifestyle? It is not sufficient to understand the latter. Even the doctrine is not completely clear without additional scripture. Without the D&C, the nature of the Godhead is not at all clear.

[Freedom]

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

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

Yes, this is a common strategy of yours. If someone provides proof that you are wrong, you dismiss it as nonsense.

[robuchan]

You do realize that this hasn't been your argument? Twisting again?

I honestly don't understand what you mean.

[Brant Gardner]

I honestly don't understand what you mean.

As I remember the conversation, we began:

1) The Book of Mormon doesn't mention others and therefore there couldn't have been others. The response was that other texts do.

2) There are no other texts that neglect to mention others because real histories always would. The response that others do, with examples as requested.

3) The examples aren't really history. The response was that they are so considered by secular scholars.

4) The can't be used to be parallel to the Book of Mormon because the Book of Mormon is different. The response was that the same principles exist and therefore they can.

5) Real scholars don't compare those stories to the Book of Mormon. Response was that this is essentially a red herring argument. The principles are the same, even if secular scholars haven't made the connection. They have verified that this is a correct principle (see numbers 1 and 2.

6) LDS apologists twist things. Response: applying the same techniques as secular scholars, and using their conclusions about whether or not histories must mention others.

7) Now the argument is that secular scholars don't say this about the Book of Mormon, so it can't be true.

Your argument has shifted multiple times and morphed into something different every time a response has been given.

If we return to the actual issue, which is whether or not there is a problem if the Book of Mormon does not explicitly mention others, the response is the same. Secular scholarship says that it happens that way in other ancient texts.

Since that response you have tried very hard to find some other argument, or shift away from the point into something else entirely, resulting in this most recent suggestion that because secular scholars aren't believers in the Book of Mormon that therefore we must conclude something about the Book of Mormon. I hope you understand the logical fallacies in that position.

[zerinus]

As I remember the conversation, we began:

1) The Book of Mormon doesn't mention others and therefore there couldn't have been others. . . .

* * *

I don't recall that that is how his conversation began. He quoted credible verses which weigh against the supposition that there may have been others.

[mrmandias]

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.

Well, no. You have to speak a language, and that brings in all sorts of experience and meaning from outside the text. The Book of Mormon isn't the Koran.

[mrmandias]

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?

Secular scholars will reject the Book of Mormon a priori. The real question is what results you get when you apply the techniques of secular scholarship to the Book of Mormon. This is a question you are avoiding assiduously, which is to your credit since you don't seem qualified to comment on it.

[Freedom]

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

A population where Jacob is not a cousin, uncle, grandfather or other such direct relative since the population you envision is entirely made up of descendants of either Nephi or Laman. But of course, Laban's servant is considered a Nephite despite not being part of this family, thereby defeating your argument from the start but I will let that one go. They have been in the new world for, say, 30 years. An adult Sherem comes and introduces himself to Jacob. Sherem would have to be either his son, cousin or nephew yet they have never met in the many decades they have lived together in this tiny community on a continent that is, according to you, un-populated. Of course, all of science disagrees with this assertion, as do pretty much every LDS scholar that has written on the subject; a conundrum that you consistently fail to address. And when your assertion is challenged, you simply shift your argument or add impossible standards without any credible expertise on the matter. You are welcome to your opinion, but your opinion is based on nothing but your own imagination. Consequently, as does Mr Gardner, I find your arguments to be shifting like sand. You appear to be arguing just for the point of arguing rather than providing any substance.

[Freedom]

I don't recall that that is how his conversation began. He quoted credible verses which weigh against the supposition that there may have been others.

There is a difference between a verse that doesn't mention others and a verse that weighs against there being others. This is a reality, among many others, that continues to elude you.

[robuchan]

As I remember the conversation, we began:

1) The Book of Mormon doesn't mention others and therefore there couldn't have been others. The response was that other texts do.

2) There are no other texts that neglect to mention others because real histories always would. The response that others do, with examples as requested.

3) The examples aren't really history. The response was that they are so considered by secular scholars.

4) The can't be used to be parallel to the Book of Mormon because the Book of Mormon is different. The response was that the same principles exist and therefore they can.

5) Real scholars don't compare those stories to the Book of Mormon. Response was that this is essentially a red herring argument. The principles are the same, even if secular scholars haven't made the connection. They have verified that this is a correct principle (see numbers 1 and 2.

6) LDS apologists twist things. Response: applying the same techniques as secular scholars, and using their conclusions about whether or not histories must mention others.

7) Now the argument is that secular scholars don't say this about the Book of Mormon, so it can't be true.

Your argument has shifted multiple times and morphed into something different every time a response has been given.

If we return to the actual issue, which is whether or not there is a problem if the Book of Mormon does not explicitly mention others, the response is the same. Secular scholarship says that it happens that way in other ancient texts.

Since that response you have tried very hard to find some other argument, or shift away from the point into something else entirely, resulting in this most recent suggestion that because secular scholars aren't believers in the Book of Mormon that therefore we must conclude something about the Book of Mormon. I hope you understand the logical fallacies in that position.

The way I see that it turned down this road is that you said I was wrong in my assumptions and expectations about the BOM. Something about it should be expected that the BOM should not mention the others because that is common in historical texts. I wanted to know the source and reasoning. I would expect for your source to be applicable to the BOM that it would have to have some attributes that would make it an apples to apples comparison. Only then could it be considered a logical precedent. You say it does and all the scholars agree. I want to know who these non-LDS scholars are.

The attributes that I think could be important to show a precedent about omitting comments about others:

--historical narrative deemed to be reasonable accurate and not myth or legend. why? because a group of people could have motivation to intentionally omit others in a false myth, ie they want to be shown as God's people or the true original settlers of an area though they may not be

--reasonable amount of detail to the narrative, reasonable amount of time period and events portrayed. ie the Book of Mormon has over 500 pages and multiple interactions between groups of people seen through many different perspectives. I would expect a precedent to have somewhat the same level of scope.

--enough detail explained in the history that it can be documented that these people truly did come from land A and travel to land B and meet the tribe C and intentionally omitted it from the story.

That would be enough to convince a non-believer that it's at least a worthwhile precedent for what you say the BOM is doing.

[robuchan]

A population where Jacob is not a cousin, uncle, grandfather or other such direct relative since the population you envision is entirely made up of descendants of either Nephi or Laman. But of course, Laban's servant is considered a Nephite despite not being part of this family, thereby defeating your argument from the start but I will let that one go. They have been in the new world for, say, 30 years. An adult Sherem comes and introduces himself to Jacob. Sherem would have to be either his son, cousin or nephew yet they have never met in the many decades they have lived together in this tiny community on a continent that is, according to you, un-populated. Of course, all of science disagrees with this assertion, as do pretty much every LDS scholar that has written on the subject; a conundrum that you consistently fail to address. And when your assertion is challenged, you simply shift your argument or add impossible standards without any credible expertise on the matter. You are welcome to your opinion, but your opinion is based on nothing but your own imagination. Consequently, as does Mr Gardner, I find your arguments to be shifting like sand. You appear to be arguing just for the point of arguing rather than providing any substance.

In the very next chapter, Enos says 179 years has passed. Where do you get the 30 years?

[zerinus]

There is a difference between a verse that doesn't mention others and a verse that weighs against there being others. This is a reality, among many others, that continues to elude you.

I repeat: He quoted credible verses which weigh against the supposition that there may have been others.

[ERayR]

The way I see that it turned down this road is that you said I was wrong in my assumptions and expectations about the BOM. Something about it should be expected that the BOM should not mention the others because that is common in historical texts. I wanted to know the source and reasoning. I would expect for your source to be applicable to the BOM that it would have to have some attributes that would make it an apples to apples comparison. Only then could it be considered a logical precedent. You say it does and all the scholars agree. I want to know who these non-LDS scholars are.

The attributes that I think could be important to show a precedent about omitting comments about others:

--historical narrative deemed to be reasonable accurate and not myth or legend. why? because a group of people could have motivation to intentionally omit others in a false myth, ie they want to be shown as God's people or the true original settlers of an area though they may not be

--reasonable amount of detail to the narrative, reasonable amount of time period and events portrayed. ie the Book of Mormon has over 500 pages and multiple interactions between groups of people seen through many different perspectives. I would expect a precedent to have somewhat the same level of scope.

--enough detail explained in the history that it can be documented that these people truly did come from land A and travel to land B and meet the tribe C and intentionally omitted it from the story.

That would be enough to convince a non-believer that it's at least a worthwhile precedent for what you say the BOM is doing.

Edited June 5, 2012 by ERayR

[Freedom]

In the very next chapter, Enos says 179 years has passed. Where do you get the 30 years?

Are you suggesting that Jacob lived over 180 years? Lets say that at the most it would have been 80 years. This would make Sherem his grandson or great grandson. The population would be about 200 people. 300 at the most, but this is being very generous and not at all consistent with what we know about population growth. Are you suggesting that two adults of a group of some 300 people never met even though they are closely related?

[Freedom]

I repeat: He quoted credible verses which weigh against the supposition that there may have been others.

I repeat, he quoted verses that do not mention others. You clearly lack the capacity to critically read a text. you keep accusing others of standing alone in their opinion but you fail to realize that you are the one that stands alone.

[zerinus]

I repeat, he quoted verses that do not mention others.

Wrong! He quoted credible verses which weigh against the supposition that there may have been others.

[cinepro]

The real question is what results you get when you apply the techniques of secular scholarship to the Book of Mormon. This is a question you are avoiding assiduously, which is to your credit since you don't seem qualified to comment on it.

I suspect that if one applied "the techniques of secular scholarship" to the Book of Mormon without bringing along the firm conviction of its truthfulness, you would find results similar to applying a sledgehammer to an egg.

[robuchan]

Are you suggesting that Jacob lived over 180 years? Lets say that at the most it would have been 80 years. This would make Sherem his grandson or great grandson. The population would be about 200 people. 300 at the most, but this is being very generous and not at all consistent with what we know about population growth. Are you suggesting that two adults of a group of some 300 people never met even though they are closely related?

Enos died approximately 170 years after Jacob was born. Sariah had minimum seven children over a minimum 25 year time period. All this suggests you can't use standard population models. But even if you did, you could easily show the population to be in the thousands in the year this even might have taken place.

Edited June 6, 2012 by robuchan

[mrmandias]

I suspect that if one applied "the techniques of secular scholarship" to the Book of Mormon without bringing along the firm conviction of its truthfulness, you would find results similar to applying a sledgehammer to an egg.

I suspect that if you didn't bring along a firm conviction of its falsity, you wouldn't. Why you thought your suspicion worth relating, I don't know.

[Log]

I suspect that if one applied "the techniques of secular scholarship" to the Book of Mormon without bringing along the firm conviction of its truthfulness, you would find results similar to applying a sledgehammer to an egg.

I think not.

Nibley somewhere related that a world-renowned scholar picked up the Book of Mormon with an eye towards sledging the egg, as you apparently think would happen, only to drop the project as unfruitful - the egg, it seems, cannot be sledged.

[Freedom]

Enos died approximately 170 years after Jacob was born. Sariah had minimum seven children over a minimum 25 year time period. All this suggests you can't use standard population models. But even if you did, you could easily show the population to be in the thousands in the year this even might have taken place.

No, you could easily show that the population would be in the hundreds. Even if it was in the thousands, you will need to visit a small town and live there for one year. You will find that you will meet everybody before long. You will most certainly meat the mayor. It is not about standard models, it is about reality. You are grasping at straws here.

[Freedom]

Wrong! He quoted credible verses which weigh against the supposition that there may have been others.

I'm afraid not. You can keep stamping your feet but you are quite alone in this bazaar if not creative paradigm.

[Freedom]

That would be enough to convince a non-believer that it's at least a worthwhile precedent for what you say the BOM is doing.

So you have created a very narrow qualifier of what is required, despite having no knowledge of ancient texts. You keep changing your standards every time your argument is shot down. there is no such text because the Book of Mormon is the only one. All the records of messo america were destroyed so we can only rely on what remains.

[cdowis]

zerinus

How do they indicate that? I fail to see the connection. Please explain.

These are domesticated animals, unless you accept robuchan's statement below.

The text implies these were gifts from God.

Ah, you are claiming neo-creationism, then. Domesticated goats and the ox (also a domesticated animal) just appeared ex nihlo.

Please give us the reference.