zerinus Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 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?His question related specifically to (what you had said about) the Gadianton robbers. I was answering his question.
Bernard Gui Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 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.No, of course there were no military battles in ancient America. Bullseye...that's' your word, not mine. Using the Occam's Razor dodge again?Bernard
zerinus Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 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.Agreed, thank you.
Bernard Gui Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 Wrong. The Book of Mormon tells us where they got their recruits from. They got them from Nephite and Lamanite defectors. Indeed they did. Who is arguing against that? Somehow, the Gadiantons gained enough force to challenge the combined forces of the Nephites and Lamanites. This does not account for the magnitude of their threat, though.I believe they recruited from other warrior/hunter clans living near their strongholds...other opportunists who wouldjoin in plundering and stealing, not subjugation, as was the practice of the Gadiantons.Bernard
Bernard Gui Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 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.See above.Bernard
Bernard Gui Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) 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?This also implies that the numbers involved and the distances traveled were not continental but regional,and a small region, at that.Hence, supporting the limited geographic theory.Bernard Edited June 8, 2012 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 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.They were a powerful force, but to achieve the numbers sufficient to challenge both Nephites and Lamanites, it is indeed possible they recruited fromother peoples. That's all I'm saying....Bernard
zerinus Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 Indeed they did. Who is arguing against that? Somehow, the Gadiantons gained enough force to challenge the combined forces of the Nephites and Lamanites.This does not account for the magnitude of their threat, though.I believe they recruited from other warrior/hunter clans living near their strongholds...other opportunists who would join in plundering and stealing, not subjugation, as was the practice of the Gadiantons.BernardI think you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
zerinus Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) They were a powerful force, but to achieve the numbers sufficient to challenge both Nephites and Lamanites, it is indeed possible they recruited from other peoples. That's all I'm saying....BernardExcept that the book says they came from Nephite and Lamanite defectors. The context implies no other, otherwise they should have been mentioned. Edited June 8, 2012 by zerinus
Freedom Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land.This accusation would hold some credibility if you could find a single scholar that would agree with you. Just one. Generally, when one person says that shirt is blue and everybody else says it is red, the shirt is most likely red. 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 Except that the book says they came from Nephite and Lamanite defectors. The context implies no other, otherwise they should have been mentioned.Do you hold the position that anything that is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon did not exist?Bernard
zerinus Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 This accusation would hold some credibility if you could find a single scholar that would agree with you. Just one. Generally, when one person says that shirt is blue and everybody else says it is red, the shirt is most likely red.I doubt that every LDS scholar supports the "others" theory in the Book of Mormon. But supposing that they did; who says that something becomes true because everybody believes it?Anymore snide posts using words like cuckoo will result in removal.
ksfisher Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 They were a powerful force, but to achieve the numbers sufficient to challenge both Nephites and Lamanites, it is indeed possible they recruited fromother peoples. That's all I'm saying....BernardAnd the Book of Mormon definition of Lamanite does not limit the Lamanites to only descendants of Lehi. Because of this wide open definition the exact make up of the robbers cannot be proven by the information Mormon gives us. We can only infer. I would imagine that by the end of Book of Mormon times all people living in the areas described in the book would have Lehite as well as indigenous ancestors due to inter-marriage.
ksfisher Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) Agreed, thank you.But with the Book of Mormon defines Lamanites as those "...that seek to destroy the people of Nephi." and Nephite as "...those who are friendly to Nephi" (Jacob 1:14) This leaves the exact ancestry of these people wide open. Edited June 8, 2012 by ksfisher
Anijen Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 And the Book of Mormon definition of Lamanite does not limit the Lamanites to only descendants of Lehi. Because of this wide open definition the exact make up of the robbers cannot be proven by the information Mormon gives us. We can only infer. I would imagine that by the end of Book of Mormon times all people living in the areas described in the book would have Lehite as well as indigenous ancestors due to inter-marriage.exactly, and this was my point.
ksfisher Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 exactly, and this was my point.That's how I understood your post as well.
zerinus Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 Do you hold the position that anything that is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon did not exist?No; but it doesn't prove that it does exist either. And where the context implies that it should have been mentioned if it existed, it is a bigger stretch to assume that it existed, than to assume that it didn't.
zerinus Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 Anymore snide posts using words like cuckoo will result in removal."Cloud cuckoo land" is a legitimate metaphor for an imaginary world, where things are imagined rather than being real. It is a valid metaphor for the kind of "others" theory that some people are advancing. It is not a snide remark.And on that final note you are removed from the thread.
zerinus Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 But with the Book of Mormon defines Lamanites as those "...that seek to destroy the people of Nephi." and Nephite as "...those who are friendly to Nephi" (Jacob 1:14) This leaves the exact ancestry of these people wide open.Yes, but it still confines it to the descendants of the original Hebrew migrants. This is what it actually says:Jacob 1:12 And it came to pass that Nephi died.13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they [all] were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.I see no mention here of "Jaredites" or any other names except those who came with Lehi.
zerinus Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 And the Book of Mormon definition of Lamanite does not limit the Lamanites to only descendants of Lehi. Because of this wide open definition the exact make up of the robbers cannot be proven by the information Mormon gives us. We can only infer. I would imagine that by the end of Book of Mormon times all people living in the areas described in the book would have Lehite as well as indigenous ancestors due to inter-marriage.Except that no "indigenous ancestors" are ever mentioned anywhere in the Book of Mormon.
ksfisher Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 I don't think that the existence, or nonexistence, of others can be proven directly from the text of the Book of Mormon. Mormon was not writing a history book, tour guide, or an atlas of his world. He was crafting a narrative that would bring people to Christ.But to try and imagine a land in which only the descendants of Lehi (and I guess Ishmael and Mulek and those who came with Mulek) lived seems out of sync with the gospel. God desires all his children to receive the blessings of the gospel. To that end missionary work by the Lord's covenant people has always taken place. The Lord doesn't isolate his people, but places them in situations where the gospel can be spread to all nations. We have a record of God's dealing with all of his children yet, but branches are always being grafted onto the tree that is the house of Israel.I think we need to give Mormon the benefit of the doubt. He left a lot of things out that maybe we would like to know. But, his testimony of Christ shines throughout the entire book.
zerinus Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 I don't think that the existence, or nonexistence, of others can be proven directly from the text of the Book of Mormon. Mormon was not writing a history book, tour guide, or an atlas of his world. He was crafting a narrative that would bring people to Christ.But to try and imagine a land in which only the descendants of Lehi (and I guess Ishmael and Mulek and those who came with Mulek) lived seems out of sync with the gospel. God desires all his children to receive the blessings of the gospel. To that end missionary work by the Lord's covenant people has always taken place. The Lord doesn't isolate his people, but places them in situations where the gospel can be spread to all nations. We have a record of God's dealing with all of his children yet, but branches are always being grafted onto the tree that is the house of Israel.I think we need to give Mormon the benefit of the doubt. He left a lot of things out that maybe we would like to know. But, his testimony of Christ shines throughout the entire book.That is largely irrelevant to what we are talking about. Either the Book of Mormon supports the claim that "others" existed within its historical framework, or it doesn't. Some people claim that it does. It appears to me that they haven't proved their case. It doesn't.
Freedom Posted June 9, 2012 Posted June 9, 2012 I doubt that every LDS scholar supports the "others" theory in the Book of Mormon. But supposing that they did; who says that something becomes true because everybody believes it?Conversely, who says that something becomes true because nobody believes it? You are welcome to your opinion. The problem is that you freely admit to not having read any other ancient documents, done any research on population growth, and you have no references from any credible scholars that supports your view. Generally, when an amateur cannot find any support, they are wise to reconsider their hypotheses. You present them, however, as if they are doctrine. What would you say to someone who reads one article in English and then claims to be an expert in English literature? What do you say to someone who reads one book on WWII and claims to be an expert on Nazi Germany? I am not claiming my position is gospel, only that it is the best explanation given what is found in the book, what is known of the writing style, and what is known of the Americas. You quote references that you claim prove there are no 'others' but when we read them, it turns out only that they don't specifically mention others. Your own references contradict your argument. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 9, 2012 Posted June 9, 2012 (edited) Mormon didn't write the word descendant. He wrote a word in Reformed Egyptian which was later defined as descendant. If the Reformed Egyptian word for descendant is "jomomma", but "jomomma" in Reformed Egyptian has alternate definitions like football in English, it shouldn't matter. Joseph wouldn't even be aware of that. Joseph translated it into English by the power of God. Further, he translated the following words or phrases in this passage."their father, Lehi""he robbed our fathers""Jerusalem, calling it after the land of their fathers' nativity"" brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem"" actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel" "it shouldn't matter," robuchan, but it does very much matter: In Alma 24:29, for example, why bother to say "actual descendants" unless it matters? Such a phrase is not used elsewhere possibly because the descent was less actual in some other cases.Moreover, these linguistic speculations of yours are something to examine much more closely, because they may indeed be very helpful:For example, in the Jaredite record, we find the use of “descendant” (Ether 1:6,16,23, 10:1,9) instead of “son of” (elsewhere throughout the same genealogical list), leaving us to speculate on the actual relationship and amount of time at issue (Ether 10:9 “after the space of many years”), even if some initial instances of “descendant” are replaced by “begat” later in the book of Ether. This is very important since Hebrew ben, and Sumerian DUMU = Akkadian aplu all mean “son; eldest son; descendant; heir,” in such a way that the actual relationship is not necessarily direct. In the case of childless Abraham, of course, he adopts an heir (Eliezer) who is not even related to him (Gen 15:2-3). That heir there is called in Hebrew ben-mesheq or ben-beyti, the heir under Hurrian law in effect there at that time. So, if a "son" need not be direct, or even blood-related, why must we tie ourselves in knots over the matter? Edited June 9, 2012 by Robert F. Smith
Freedom Posted June 9, 2012 Posted June 9, 2012 "Cloud cuckoo land" is a legitimate metaphor for an imaginary world, where things are imagined rather than being real. It is a valid metaphor for the kind of "others" theory that some people are advancing. It is not a snide remark.And on that final note you are removed from the thread.So then this would apply to yours where you have this imaginary continent where nobody lived prior to the Nephites and Lamanites arriving in 600 bc. Where is this continent? I do not know of any.
Recommended Posts