Lgt And The Lamanites Of Ammon'S Mission

[Anijen]

Not all that alone. Those verses at the beginning of this thread made a credible point at least to me.

Mathilde what of these verses I had quoted earlier. I will post them here to save those the time of looking it up;

Here are some of the verses which hint of others;

· 2 Nephi 5:5

And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me. 6 Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words. 7 And we did take our tents and whatsoever things were possible for us, and did journey in the wilderness for the space of many days. And after we had journeyed for the space of many days we did pitch our tents.

· All family members who are alive at this point is mentioned yet he still adds “And all those” The larger number decided to follow Nephi, yet we read time after time how the Lamanite’s outnumbered the Nephite’s. This implies they [the Lamanite's] interacted with an outside group.

· Alma 31:35 "O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of them are our brethren."

This is when Alma is discussing the rebellious Zoramite’s. Why does he make a separate distinction"many of them are our brethren” It implies some were not, hence others.

· Alma 50:32 mentions that Moroni feard of others joining Morianton. These others were not part of Morianton’s group.

· All groups of people who seek to destroy the people of Nephi are called Lamanite’s regardless if they are related.. (Jacob 1:14).

and finally consider; that when Laman and Lemual left Nephis' group it is obvious that at this split those who followed Nephi had a much larger group. Here is the kicker The Lamanites always outnumbered the Nephites in later battles often by huge margins. So how did the population boom explode for the Lamanites who were at the beginning a much smaller party than the Nephites? Either the Lamanites interacted with others and grew that way or as Zerinus states the [wicked] Lamanites were so blessed by the Lord that they had so many children. I wonder how blessed they must have been to out number their enemy by so much, 200 kids each?

Edited June 7, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[zerinus]

Mathilde what of these verses I had quoted earlier. I will post them here to save those the time of looking it up;

Here are some of the verses which hint of others;

· All family members who are alive at this point is mentioned yet he still adds “And all those” The larger number decided to follow Nephi, yet we read time after time how the Lamanite’s outnumbered the Nephite’s. This implies they [the Lamanite's] interacted with an outside group.

This is when Alma is discussing the rebellious Zoramite’s. Why does he make a separate distinction"many of them are our brethren” It implies some were not, hence others.

· Alma 50:32 mentions that Moroni feard of others joining Morianton. These others were not part of Morianton’s group.

· All groups of people who seek to destroy the people of Nephi are called Lamanite’s regardless if they are related.. (Jacob 1:14).

and finally consider; that when Laman and Lemual left Nephis' group it is obvious that at this split those who followed Nephi had a much larger group. Here is the kicker The Lamanites always outnumbered the Nephites in later battles often by huge margins. So how did the population boom explode for the Lamanites who were at the beginning a much smaller party than the Nephites? Either the Lamanites interacted with others and grew that way or as Zerinus states the [wicked] Lamanites were so blessed by the Lord that they had so many children. I wonder how blessed they must have been to out number their enemy by so much, 200 kids each?

Which has already been replied to in post #225.

Edited June 7, 2012 by zerinus

[Anijen]

Which has already been replied to in post #225.

Yes, I read your post. My opinion is that your opinion is wrong. IOW I disagree.

[Freedom]

Assuming that they had any (which is not at all certain, given the blessings promised them by the Lord), what makes you think that it would have been seen as a major historical event equivalent to coming into contact with a pre-existing native civilization that is worth reporting?

Quite simple. It would have been miraculous beyond anything anybody could have imagined. 12-15 children each, zero infant mortality, no problems with fertility. You are talking about a miracle on such a grand scale that it would have become an anchor to their faith for generations to come. Yet it gets no mention at all. Curious. But of course, they do mention others all the time, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

[zerinus]

Yes, I read your post. My opinion is that your opinion is wrong. IOW I disagree.

Perhaps, but mathilde also needs to know that an answer has already been given, and be able to make up his own mind about it.

[robuchan]

Quite simple. It would have been miraculous beyond anything anybody could have imagined. 12-15 children each, zero infant mortality, no problems with fertility. You are talking about a miracle on such a grand scale that it would have become an anchor to their faith for generations to come. Yet it gets no mention at all. Curious. But of course, they do mention others all the time, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

Not really. It would require same level of fertility Sariah had. Maybe one of the purposes of the Sherem story was to show that miracle? Do I sound like a Mormon apologist yet? That's no more twisted than a lot of the stuff you guys come up with, including "Others". And one more time, "Others" are not mentioned all the time. They are possibly, indirectly maybe referred to a few times over a 500 page book if you look at it through certain eyes and make a lot of wild assumptions.

[mathilde]

The verse in 2 Nephi 5:5 about "all those who would go with me" does not necessarily, in my opinion, point towards others, as in indigenous others. By this point in the narrative, give or take around 30 years has passed, according to the rough dates provided, right? We don't clearly know the time frame here. He mentions his sisters, but not his sisters' families as he mentions his brothers Jacob's and Joseph's families. Maybe his sisters were married, and he meant his sister's husbands and brothers&sisters&children. Maybe some of them did not want to come with him. I'm not saying this is clear. But I am saying that from that phrase, assuming he meant indigenous others is just as much a stretch as the other theories shared here.

The broader question I have is that if the land was full of others, to the point that Lehi and his descendants are impossible for us to trace now, in what way was this a promised and "kept from the knowledge of other nations" land for them? In 2 Nephi 1:5, this land is called "a land in which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord." Those who are led there by the hand of the Lord must be in the future, otherwise the problem at least in how I see this is that if there are indigenous peoples already populating the land, why is there so little (as we can see from this discussion there are people who can understand the text to suggest that there were none) mention of these people who ALSO would have been the Lord's people? If you have indigenous people there, what is their faithful story? They were led there by the hand of the Lord. So they are also the people of the Lord. Yet any real knowledge of them is lost to us despite this Book of Mormon which was brought to the knowledge of the world by the very hand of the Lord?

Not to mention that if it is true as Asian DNA markers seem to suggest of the people who inhabited this continent for the last 10,000 or more years, skin color would have been already visibly different from Lehi's family as they arrived pre-curse/mark of the Lamanites. So this mark given as a sign that the Lamanites were being wicked would have made them look more like everyone that was already on the land? Yet no record whatsoever, no mention, of the original "others" being wicked, or righteous for that matter. At some point these people had to be led there by the hand of the Lord. Why don't we know more? Why did we not even think about them as a possibility until relatively recently?

[Anijen]

The verse in 2 Nephi 5:5 about "all those who would go with me" does not necessarily, in my opinion, point towards others, as in indigenous others.

All good points you make. I would just state that mentioning by name would be atypical for that culture at that time, only six women are mentioned by name in the entire book. The second idea I would like to put out there is if he mentions a person in his family one would accept that the family would naturally follow. Since Nephi does mention everyone in his family, (he mentions his sisters just not by name), I take up the view that “all those others” were just that, others. Another reason this is a strong argument for others because after mentioning his family he then designates these others as;

“those that believed in the warnings and revelations of God, wherefore they did hearken to my words.”

We already knew that those members of his family already followed and believed in Nephi’s words. It would be redundant to again state who followed him when he had already stated that his brother and sisters and their families had followed him. They hearkened to his words not because of familial obligations but for the very reason Nephi designates, which were those others who believed as he did.

By this point in the narrative, give or take around 30 years has passed, according to the rough dates provided, right? We don't clearly know the time frame here. He mentions his sisters, but not his sisters' families as he mentions his brothers Jacob's and Joseph's families.

The date indicator in this chapter does not come until verse 28. This is well after their separation from Laman and Lemual, after he taught his people to build buildings, after they began to prosper exceedingly, and after they had built a temple. It comes after he is elected by his people to become a king. From the context it is very convincing that the separation from Laman and Lemual was soon after their arrival, after all there was much animosity between him and Laman and Lemual even before they had left the Old World.

Maybe his sisters were married, and he meant his sister's husbands and brothers&sisters&children. Maybe some of them did not want to come with him.

You make a good point, if I could ask you to bear with me and hear me out (by the way thank you for a civil discussion on the topic). You say maybe his sisters were married this we both can agree on, in fact I would argue they were married. Which in a critical thinking exercise one must ask who did they marry? My argument is others.

I'm not saying this is clear. But I am saying that from that phrase, assuming he meant indigenous others is just as much a stretch as the other theories shared here.

I agree these are theories, and it is delightful and educational to study these verses. Zerinous is adamant his view is the only correct view while I will not go that far but I do believe a serious study of the book weighs towards there being others. I take this position because as it is a book of the fullness of the gospel it is written to reflect more spiritual lessons than secular and I believe others were not mentioned because it was not important or relevant to the message. See for example The Words of Mormon, Mormon when he abridges the record tells us he does so to tell us of Christ and to tell us to remember his people [Nephites].

The broader question I have is that if the land was full of others, to the point that Lehi and his descendants are impossible for us to trace now, in what way was this a promised and "kept from the knowledge of other nations" land for them?

An excellent question, we should know what “this land,” and what “promised land” means. Does it mean like it did with Abraham where the Promised Land was just a small part in Israel, or did it mean the entire hemisphere? Does it mean just the United States or is it a limited area in Mesoamerica? No one knows for sure and it is all speculation. We can read more papers on this subject;

http://maxwellinstit...16&num=2&id=548

http://maxwellinstit...14&num=2&id=375

http://maxwellinstit...124&chapid=1467

http://maxwellinstit...d=51&chapid=429

http://maxwellinstit...127&chapid=1509

My personal believe is that land in this sense is a concept not an actual place and it applies to all the lands He has promised to those who keep his commandments. Like the term Zion has become to be identified as where the Saints gather.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[cinepro]

In Dan Peterson's recent Deseret News article, he presents the history of Book of Mormon peoples in Mosiah this way:

By the end of the second century before Christ, during the generation or so following the abdication of King Benjamin, Nephite society had undergone several major upheavals. Having already absorbed the numerous and linguistically foreign Mulekites, they then learned of the earlier Jaredites and had to assimilate separate groups led by Limhi and Alma.

What's missing from that paragraph?

Edited June 7, 2012 by cinepro

[Freedom]

Not really. It would require same level of fertility Sariah had. Maybe one of the purposes of the Sherem story was to show that miracle? Do I sound like a Mormon apologist yet? That's no more twisted than a lot of the stuff you guys come up with, including "Others". And one more time, "Others" are not mentioned all the time. They are possibly, indirectly maybe referred to a few times over a 500 page book if you look at it through certain eyes and make a lot of wild assumptions.

The difference is the my argument takes into fact what is known through archaeology, population growth models, ancient texts and so forth. The other argument lives in a vacuum.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

OK. Martians don't eat sugar.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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?

1. Distances are too great to mobilize such massive forces..

2. No known effective methods of transportation for military forces, ie., horses, road systems, water transportation, wheeled vehicles.

3. The devastating effects of disease on extended military campaigns.

4. Lack of effective long distance communication capabilities.

5. Lack of long-term provisioning.

5. No indication that such long distances were involved. In fact, just the opposite.

How long would it take for military forces to travel from your extreme locations to a battle in

which they would have no probable interest? Is there any real world evidence of such

massive military expeditions crossing the Americas?

Bernard

Edited June 8, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Removed...bernard

Will repost soon

Edited June 8, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Freedom]

The fundamental disagreement is between using real world boundaries versus fantasy. Claiming that apologists make up any argument they want is a strawman argument. The principle in interpreting any texts that provides limited context is to compare it to other real word situations. This is the only method available to us. This is how we interpret the words of people like Joseph Fielding Smith and Ezra Taft Benson. Knowing the cultural context of their time and the opposing views of contemporary church leaders, it becomes very apparent that the phrases, examples, and opinions they expressed were very much influenced by their environment. We are bound to apply the same rules to Nephi and Alma. They were real people, not prophet-zombies.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Do I sound like a Mormon apologist yet? That's no more twisted than a lot of the stuff you guys come up with, including "Others".

Claiming that apologists make up any argument they want is a strawman argument.

I work as an editor at an academic journal, and today I've been preparing for future publication an article written by a brilliant researcher in North America. The topic is purely secular history, but s/he has included an observation which I found very topical, expressing 'frustration' with 'holier-than-thou' responses to scholarship which dismiss 'nuance' as some kind of twisted 'apologetics'.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[robuchan]

1. Distances are too great to mobilize such massive forces..

2. No known effective methods of transportation for military forces, ie., horses, road systems, water transportation, wheeled vehicles.

3. The devastating effects of disease on extended military campaigns.

4. Lack of effective long distance communication capabilities.

5. Lack of long-term provisioning.

5. No indication that such long distances were involved. In fact, just the opposite.

How long would it take for military forces to travel from your extreme locations to a battle in

which they would have no probable interest? Is there any real world evidence of such

massive military expeditions crossing the Americas?

Bernard

So we have outlandish claims of military battles in ancient America, and somehow you twist it into a bullseye for the Others, though there's no mention of them anywhere and indeed there is specific mention of them not existing.

Occam's Razor: the author of this fiction goofed on the numbers.

[robuchan]

The difference is the my argument takes into fact what is known through archaeology, population growth models, ancient texts and so forth. The other argument lives in a vacuum.

Your model's clearly ignoring the text.

[zerinus]

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

Wrong. The Book of Mormon tells us where they got their recruits from. They got them from Nephite and Lamanite defectors.

[zerinus]

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?

None of that is necessary. As I explained above, the book of Mormon tells us where they got their recruits from; they got them from Nephite and Lamanite defectors; e.g. Helaman 11:25.

Edited June 8, 2012 by zerinus

[Freedom]

I work as an editor at an academic journal, and today I've been preparing for future publication an article written by a brilliant researcher in North America. The topic is purely secular history, but s/he has included an observation which I found very topical, expressing 'frustration' with 'holier-than-thou' responses to scholarship which dismiss 'nuance' as some kind of twisted 'apologetics'.

and these same critics hypocritically accept such nuances in modern literature because, perhaps due to ignorance, the nuances are surrounded by context that old literature lacks.

[Freedom]

So we have outlandish claims of military battles in ancient America, and somehow you twist it into a bullseye for the Others, though there's no mention of them anywhere and indeed there is specific mention of them not existing.

Occam's Razor: the author of this fiction goofed on the numbers.

Please provide a reference that indicates that 'others' do not exist. And provide scholarly evidence that the Book of Mormon should have mentioned others. You will come up empty on both counts. I do not know why I am debating with someone who freely admits a complete lack of knowledge on ancient documents, messo america, and religious texts. Alas, I come for the entertainment and to get a chuckle.

[robuchan]

and these same critics hypocritically accept such nuances in modern literature because, perhaps due to ignorance, the nuances are surrounded by context that old literature lacks.

probably not, but have fun beating that boogey man up.

[Freedom]

probably not, but have fun beating that boogey man up.

Your lack of familiarity with reading documents outside of your own place in time is preventing you from seeing it. Of course, your admittance of complete ignorance on the subject makes your sarcastic comments all the more entertaining. When someone says they traveled to Europe, our modern context assumes they traveled by plane. If they traveled by other means, they would state it because it would be unusual. If someone says they went to McDonalds, our modern context assumes they went for dinner. Written 100 years ago, the context would assume it was a family name and that you visited someones home. If I said I went to New York to see the memorial, a thousand words of context would flood into your mind. I would not need to mention traffic, hot dogs, a fountain, or million other details. If my comment was later dated to 1990, a whole different image would come to mind. If I said I was Korean the image changes again. I suggest you study ancient Hebrew literature to get a grasp of how documents like the Book of Mormon are organized.

I earlier used the example of Jacob 5 which contains the allegory of the olive tree. This document has several overlapping themes. Can you identify them and explain their significance in an ancient hebrew setting? Can you explain why they do not make sense for a modern setting? Can you explain the contrasts between the word 'master and the words 'evil', 'end' and 'nethermost'? Can you then show how this ties into the two groups mentioned in the Book of Mormon? Understanding this allegory, as you should know, is critical to understanding the Book of Mormon. It provides the context that, I think, you and zerinus are missing. In fact, zerinus completely rejected any relevance of this foundation document in understanding the book.

[Anijen]

None of that is necessary. As I explained above, the book of Mormon tells us where they got their recruits from; they got them from Nephite and Lamanite defectors; e.g. Helaman 11:25.

This interpretation is not true. Hel 11:25 is all about the Gadianton Robbers. Unless your position is all Lamanites were Gadianton robbers. Still even if you are right (your not), if this were true how did the Lamanites outnumber the Nephites long before this time?

[ksfisher]

Helaman 11:24 states that this new band of robbers had it's beginnings in "a certain number of the dissenters from the people of Nephi who had..gone over unto the Lamanites...and also a certain number who were real decendants of the Lamanites."

These dissenters/Lamanites/robbers "...commenced a war with their brethren."

The war at this point seems to be confined to Lamanite territory, involving Lamanites and Nephite dissenters.

v 25 relates that they received "...daily an addition to their numbers, inasmuch as there were dissenters that went forth unto them."

The dissenters mentioned in v25 seem to be coming from the Lamanites. These verses in Helaman do not seem to give any indication of people other than Lehites involved in this particular conflict.