Lgt And The Lamanites Of Ammon'S Mission

[Hamba Tuhan]

Out of the 4,000 pages in five languages how many times did they mention things that you thought they should have. I'll bet it was more frequent than the times they didn't.

I'm afraid you've lost this bet. In fact, my entire thesis is based on close and critical readings which identified and then pieced together 'traces of indigenous presence' and 'cryptic and muffled countersigns' of indigenous agency in these texts. Without such an approach, the indigenous others in these documents are almost invisible.

One of my examiners wrote in his report that I'd constructed a 'well-presented and well-written thesis', with 'something new and and significant to say', the argument being 'well sustained by the evidence adduced. The thesis is, if you will, established'.

The other examiner wrote that 'this dissertation is well-researched, and well-written. The very close reading [of the texts] provided a wealth of information that [Hamba] has used well on the whole'.

Ironically, when LDS scholars bring an identical approach to the Book of Mormon, they are accused of dishonestly 'twisting' and misreading the text -- supposedly motivated out of some imagined sense of desperation.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[cdowis]

Having read this whole thread over the course of several hours, I think it goes something like this:

snip

Have I pretty much understood the matter? That it is a matter of argument about assumptions and that there is no agreement or even much sincere communication on the matter?

Some of my observations:

1. Zerinus should be included as a vocal critic.

2. An important argument from the critic, "If there were 'others', the BOM authors would have specifically mentioned them as being an important aspect of their history", apparently ignoring the different roles (purpose) of the small and large plates in the BOM narrative. The defenders argue that the large plates would contain such important historical information, not the small plates.

3. The defenders gave specific verses which hint at the existence of others, specifically one which includes a reference to domesticated animals shortly after landfall. The critics reject that interpretation, as well as giving alternative interpretations for other hints in the BOM.

Edited June 10, 2012 by cdowis

[Brant Gardner]

Ironically, when LDS scholars bring an identical approach to the Book of Mormon, they are accused of dishonestly 'twisting' and misreading the text -- supposedly motivated out of some imagined sense of desperation.

Nicely summarized. It is amusing that the initial premise supposes that scholarly methods must deny the Book of Mormon, and then when they are actually used and support the text, then the methods become suspect.

Scholarship is apparently only useful when it says what you want it to say.

[CASteinman]

Thank you.

1. Zerinus should be included as a vocal critic.

Yeah. But he was sent off.. and I think its bad form to address or speak for someone who cannot be here..

2. An important argument from the critic, "If there were 'others', the BOM authors would have specifically mentioned them as being an important aspect of their history", apparently ignoring the different roles (purpose) of the small and large plates in the BOM narrative.

I agree that is an important part of the assumptions. I had that in mind when I said "the intuitive and practical qualities of his objections they are an affirmative 'argument out of ignorance'."

The defenders argue that the large plates would contain such important historical information, not the small plates.

Now, maybe I'm wrong on this but I think that this was not so much a universal claim.. nor even asserted so strong, but only that it might be possible (I don't think it is that likely).

3. The defenders gave specific verses which hint at the existence of others, specifically one which includes a reference to domesticated animals shortly after landfall. The critics reject that interpretation, as well as giving alternative interpretations for other hints in the BOM.

Yes, I thought that was an interesting quote. However, I was sort of including that in this statement: " there is extensive and reasonable research behind alternative possible assumptions that make them credible".

Thank you for your response.

I'm thinking, that really, the issue is that the Defenders want to look closely at assumptions and clues and robuchan thinks that is weak and irrelevant. (I do not think he is giving enough credit to some of this)

[Brant Gardner]

3. The defenders gave specific verses which hint at the existence of others, specifically one which includes a reference to domesticated animals shortly after landfall. The critics reject that interpretation, as well as giving alternative interpretations for other hints in the BOM.

. . . which involves the interpreting the text in other than "plain" ways--which is the reason that they reject the readings that support "others." Apparently what is good for the goose is completely wrong for the gander.

[Freedom]

1. I do not know how you can be so sure that all these requirements exist. There are several countries that seem to be experiencing growth rates like that now -- Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and they don't seem to fit your model.

These countries already have vast populations, and the growth has been closer to 2%. Also, this growth has been as much from migration as from child birth (which of course proves my argument). Some are experiencing dramatic growth, but if you look at their population over the past 50 years, it is only in the past 3 years that they had population growth, and in most cases it is not just from births over deaths.

The nephites came with two generations: Lehi and Lehi's children. The children were not married when they left Jerusalem. The second generation all go married at the same time. The third generation would not have started having children for at least 15 years. You cannot compare a country like Liberia to a clan of 30 people. Besides, none of this addresses the problem of Sherem where within two generations these two adults have never met. Sherem, according to the 'no others' argument would have to be a child, grandchild, cousin or nephew of Jacob. This just does not make sense. You have to create a factor, that of miraculous reproduction, to satisfy the numbers. The Book of Mormon never suggests this, despite finding many other opportunities to showcase Gods blessings. If we are unwilling to accept that these events occurred to real people under real circumstances than it is impossible to debate the matter. We could argue that they were, in fact, cloned by aliens. After all, the Book does not say this is not a possibility. It just becomes preposterous.

So, in the absence of an explanation, I appeal to science.

[CASteinman]

These countries already have vast populations, and the growth has been closer to 2%. Also, this growth has been as much from migration as from child birth (which of course proves my argument). Some are experiencing dramatic growth, but if you look at their population over the past 50 years, it is only in the past 3 years that they had population growth, and in most cases it is not just from births over deaths.

According to various sources the growth rates are much higher than you state, but the real issue is that you are arguing it is very hard to achieve this. Indeed, you are arguing it is impossible.

But it is not impossible. It maybe unlikely but not impossible.

Moreover (and this is important) the 10,000 number is robuchan's number and is 12 to 25 times larger than what the best Book of Mormon demographic scholars have estimated. Reaching the numbers estimated by other, more competent analysts requires a growth rate of 1.8%. Not even an exceptional rate.

Bottom line is this: Sure... maybe they met some other people but it is not necessary that any other people were involved for populations to grow to the levels that seem plausible in the first few hundred years. So maybe they did... maybe they didn't. Either way is not so strange and it is not necessary that someone believe that they met others for their believe in the Book of Mormon to be consistent with reasonably scientifically derived estimates.

[Freedom]

According to various sources the growth rates are much higher than you state, but the real issue is that you are arguing it is very hard to achieve this. Indeed, you are arguing it is impossible.

But it is not impossible. It maybe unlikely but not impossible.

Moreover (and this is important) the 10,000 number is robuchan's number and is 12 to 25 times larger than what the best Book of Mormon demographic scholars have estimated. Reaching the numbers estimated by other, more competent analysts requires a growth rate of 1.8%. Not even an exceptional rate.

Bottom line is this: Sure... maybe they met some other people but it is not necessary that any other people were involved for populations to grow to the levels that seem plausible in the first few hundred years. So maybe they did... maybe they didn't. Either way is not so strange and it is not necessary that someone believe that they met others for their believe in the Book of Mormon to be consistent with reasonably scientifically derived estimates.

You are ignoring one important point. they would have to reach this size in just 80 years, not the first few hundred years. This is impossible. There is no model that even remotely suggests that a group of 30 people could become 10,000 in 80 years. Even at 6% growth they would only reach 3,000 and just 1000 would be over the age of 20. But of course, growth of this amount assumes that every year there are an equal number or women bearing children which requires far more women at far more varied ages than this small group allows for. Also, you are forgetting, these growth amounts for these nations include immigration. Immigration means 'others'. The sources you are referencing are current growth rates, not historic rates. Liberia, according to 6 different sites I looked at, has had an average growth rate of 1.9%.

[CASteinman]

You are ignoring one important point. they would have to reach this size in just 80 years, not the first few hundred years. This is impossible. There is no model that even remotely suggests that a group of 30 people could become 10,000 in 80 years. Even at 6% growth they would only reach 3,000 and just 1000 would be over the age of 20. But of course, growth of this amount assumes that every year there are an equal number or women bearing children which requires far more women at far more varied ages than this small group allows for. Also, you are forgetting, these growth amounts for these nations include immigration. Immigration means 'others'. The sources you are referencing are current growth rates, not historic rates. Liberia, according to 6 different sites I looked at, has had an average growth rate of 1.9%.

I am confused. Why do they have to be 10,000 in 80 years? Other Demographers I have read do not see this.

[cdowis]

Even at 6% growth they would only reach 3,000 and just 1000 would be over the age of 20.

This would also require that they have children mature enough to understand and to be upset over the multiple wife issue.

[Freedom]

I am confused. Why do they have to be 10,000 in 80 years? Other Demographers I have read do not see this.

Did you read my response? You need to explain Sherem's greeting of Jacob, the brother if Nephi. If you have read the Book of Mormon, you will know that they did not practice polygamy. How it is that after no more than 2 generations there so many people that two adults never had the opportunity to meet?

[CASteinman]

Did you read my response? You need to explain Sherem's greeting of Jacob, the brother if Nephi. If you have read the Book of Mormon, you will know that they did not practice polygamy. How it is that after no more than 2 generations there so many people that two adults never had the opportunity to meet?

I have tried to go through this whole thread to find the original source of this 10,000 and I thought it was someone else. In any case I may well have missed what you are referring to.

But as for Sherem, I do not see how this pertains. His existence or the account of his meeting Jacob do not require 10,000 people. It sounds like maybe they had never met each other, but it isn't clear. After all, he calls him "Brother Jacob" which is a term of familiarity. And he knows all about the Law of Moses, so it seems he had been around the community for a while. Even if he had been a visitor, he was there long enough to learn the Law and to preach to people, and yet even in that scenario, you might suppose that Jacob and Sherem had not met. So that evidence is not particularly strong either way.

I see nothing in the text that logically requires someone to believe that there was outside interaction or that the population was 10,000 people 80 years later. At the same time, I see nothing in the text that requires someone to reject it either.

As for polygamy -- I am not sure what your point is. It seems that maybe some might have practiced it as Jacob taught against it.

Edited June 11, 2012 by CASteinman

[Freedom]

One has to present any evidence that, after two generations, a group would be so large that two adults would not meet. The passage states that he came among the people of Nephi. I cannot think of any way to read this other than understanding that, prior to arriving, he was not among the Nephites. He came from another non-Nephite group. It explains that he was learned and had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people. If there is only one language, why would this person have to be described as having a perfect knowledge of the people? This could only be so if there were other languages. And where did he get this education? Did they set up a university for all 50 adults? This strongly suggests that his native tongue is something different and that the society was sufficiently large and advanced to support the study of languages. He then says he sought much opportunity to speak with Jacob. How hard could it be if Jacob is their ecclesiastical leader and the group, at the very larges and the time frame at longest would make the combined population of both Nephites and Lamanites to be about 1,000 people but more likely around 300. They would be seeing each other every day in a normal frame of reference. Then you have mention of the Lamanites delighting in warfare. So, we have two groups, each starting from a size of about 30 people. Both groups combined after two generations would be at their larges 1,000 but more likely around 300. That is, the Nephites had about 150 to 500 and the Lamanites had about 150 to 500. I had 150 at my house one August afternoon. 150 is a very small number. With such a small number, who exactly are they going to war with? Jacobs group, it says, successfuly repells their assault but I suppose we are to assume that nobody ever gets killed on either side. And with 150 adults, how many would be in your army. Perhaps 50? Also, they delight in the shedding of Blood. So who are they killing? it can't be the Nephites because that would make their clan of 150 even smaller. If they killed one adult/week the Nephites would cease to exist in a very short time. It is rather difficult to delight in shedding blood if you are never able to shed any.

There is no proof either way, you are correct. My argument is that those who insist there were no others have no frame of reference and must rely entirely on fantasy. The text eludes to others, and the archaeology shouts about others. The DNA proves others. The position of the church in changing the title page of the Book of Mormon provides ecclesiastical support for others. The study of other ancient texts provides a patter for finding others. To me, everything points towards others. The and story of Sherem makes it very difficult, of not impossible, to reject it.

[CASteinman]

There is no proof either way, you are correct. My argument is that those who insist there were no others have no frame of reference and must rely entirely on fantasy. The text eludes to others, and the archaeology shouts about others. The DNA proves others. The position of the church in changing the title page of the Book of Mormon provides ecclesiastical support for others. The study of other ancient texts provides a patter for finding others. To me, everything points towards others. The and story of Sherem makes it very difficult, of not impossible, to reject it.

Its not just that there is no proof. Its that the evidence does not demand that someone believe it. A person can be entirely rational and intelligent -- they can have at their disposal all of your justifications -- and still, logically and reasonably not believe that they were, at that time, a mixed culture.

Edited June 11, 2012 by CASteinman

[Freedom]

Its not just that there is no proof. Its that the evidence does not demand that someone believe it. A person can be entirely rational and intelligent -- they can have at their disposal all of your justifications -- and still, logically and reasonably not believe that they were, at that time, a mixed culture.

I am not demanding that they believe it, I am demanding that they stop acting like they are right and the rest of us are, as they have put it, naive and ignorant. People can believe what they want, but they have no proof they are right, and the evidence is stacked against them. I am not pushing for my opinion, I am demonstrating that the evidence proves that I am not naive and ignorant.

[robuchan]

One has to present any evidence that, after two generations, a group would be so large that two adults would not meet. The passage states that he came among the people of Nephi. I cannot think of any way to read this other than understanding that, prior to arriving, he was not among the Nephites. He came from another non-Nephite group. It explains that he was learned and had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people. If there is only one language, why would this person have to be described as having a perfect knowledge of the people? This could only be so if there were other languages. And where did he get this education? Did they set up a university for all 50 adults? This strongly suggests that his native tongue is something different and that the society was sufficiently large and advanced to support the study of languages. He then says he sought much opportunity to speak with Jacob. How hard could it be if Jacob is their ecclesiastical leader and the group, at the very larges and the time frame at longest would make the combined population of both Nephites and Lamanites to be about 1,000 people but more likely around 300. They would be seeing each other every day in a normal frame of reference. Then you have mention of the Lamanites delighting in warfare. So, we have two groups, each starting from a size of about 30 people. Both groups combined after two generations would be at their larges 1,000 but more likely around 300. That is, the Nephites had about 150 to 500 and the Lamanites had about 150 to 500. I had 150 at my house one August afternoon. 150 is a very small number. With such a small number, who exactly are they going to war with? Jacobs group, it says, successfuly repells their assault but I suppose we are to assume that nobody ever gets killed on either side. And with 150 adults, how many would be in your army. Perhaps 50? Also, they delight in the shedding of Blood. So who are they killing? it can't be the Nephites because that would make their clan of 150 even smaller. If they killed one adult/week the Nephites would cease to exist in a very short time. It is rather difficult to delight in shedding blood if you are never able to shed any.

There is no proof either way, you are correct. My argument is that those who insist there were no others have no frame of reference and must rely entirely on fantasy. The text eludes to others, and the archaeology shouts about others. The DNA proves others. The position of the church in changing the title page of the Book of Mormon provides ecclesiastical support for others. The study of other ancient texts provides a patter for finding others. To me, everything points towards others. The and story of Sherem makes it very difficult, of not impossible, to reject it.

I've addressed this thoroughly, but you choose to ignore my points.

There is no need for you to make these assumptions.

The main point concerning the population is that it could have been much larger and more diverse than you're assuming.

The time period could have easily been 3-5 generations into the arrival in the New World. (The very next chapter is 180 years in to it, and we don't know how much time passed) And you could have already had a generation or two prior, ie it's likely Zoram or one of Nephi's sisters would have been grandparents by the time they arrived.

All the other points, you're taking a lot of assumptions that are improbable and unnecessary.

Question for you: how likely would it be for an "Other" to become converted to the Law of Moses doctrine that Sherem was preaching? And I know I'm opening the door for Kevin Christensen to write 10 long paragraphs on how if I could read this through an ancient perspective I could see that it's very logical.

[CASteinman]

I am not demanding that they believe it, I am demanding that they stop acting like they are right and the rest of us are, as they have put it, naive and ignorant. People can believe what they want, but they have no proof they are right, and the evidence is stacked against them. I am not pushing for my opinion, I am demonstrating that the evidence proves that I am not naive and ignorant.

Well, you are right about that. There is reasonable and intelligent evidence that there was interaction. It is just not explicit. But to utterly reject it as possible is, itself, not rational and is probably the result of extreme bias.

[CASteinman]

There is no need for you to make these assumptions.

And there is no need to reject them either. The points he raises are not bad ones. Perhaps not conclusive but they are not unreasonable.

[Brant Gardner]

Question for you: how likely would it be for an "Other" to become converted to the Law of Moses doctrine that Sherem was preaching? And I know I'm opening the door for Kevin Christensen to write 10 long paragraphs on how if I could read this through an ancient perspective I could see that it's very logical.

That is a question worth a response. One of the important things to understand about the ancient world is that religion wasn't a separate entity from economics and politics as it is today. Therefore, if one begins exporting desirable goods, the religion and politics tend to follow (we see that in Mesoamerican with both Olmec and Teotihuacano influences through trade).

Therefore, if the Nephites have begun to trade profitably (and their increase in size would suggest that there were economic benefits to being in the group), then it is reasonable that trading partners would be affected by the exported ideas as well as goods. It happened often in the ancient world.

So, the answer to your question is that it is quite likely.

[cdowis]

It explains that he was learned and had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people. If there is only one language, why would this person have to be described as having a perfect knowledge of the people? This could only be so if there were other languages.

While I agree with your other points, I do not think it means that he was learning the language as a foreign language speaker. To me it implies training in rhetoric, a sophisticated use of the language as evidenced by his flattery and cleaver speech.

[robuchan]

That is a question worth a response. One of the important things to understand about the ancient world is that religion wasn't a separate entity from economics and politics as it is today. Therefore, if one begins exporting desirable goods, the religion and politics tend to follow (we see that in Mesoamerican with both Olmec and Teotihuacano influences through trade).

Therefore, if the Nephites have begun to trade profitably (and their increase in size would suggest that there were economic benefits to being in the group), then it is reasonable that trading partners would be affected by the exported ideas as well as goods. It happened often in the ancient world.

So, the answer to your question is that it is quite likely.

Of course, highly likely. How could it not be?

To me (uneducated/modern perspective) it seems very odd that Sherem, as an Other, just one generation into the mixing of the populations, would be adopting a historical version of Nephi's religion.

But to the trained scholar, it's very natural?

Why does it seem very fishy to me that all these issues can be blamed on a modern vs ancient perspective? I really wonder if non-LDS scholars agree with all this logic.

[robuchan]

While I agree with your other points, I do not think it means that he was learning the language as a foreign language speaker. To me it implies training in rhetoric, a sophisticated use of the language as evidenced by his flattery and cleaver speech.

Later in the BOM, we see Zeezrum described in a similar way.

[Brant Gardner]

Why does it seem very fishy to me that all these issues can be blamed on a modern vs ancient perspective?

Perhaps it is because you don't seem to understand the ancient world? Are you really suggesting that the only way to read an ancient document is to toss everything we know about the ancient world and assume that they were really modern people who lived a while ago?

Let me ask a simple question with two follow-up possibilities.

Question: Do you still maintain that not mentioning the "others" means that there were none, and that one should not discover the unmentioned "others" by reading the textual clues?

If no, then you must have abandoned the problem of "others," in which case, why keep talking about it?.

If yes, then please explain why we should listen to anything you say about history when you adamantly deny the methods that historians use to create that history?

I really wonder if non-LDS scholars agree with all this logic.

They do. That is where I got the information, from the study of the spread of religion along with trade artifacts.

Are you really suggesting that secular scholarship is great and that the only time it fails is when the accepted techniques and ideas worked out in secular history are applied to the Book of Mormon? Really?

[robuchan]

Perhaps it is because you don't seem to understand the ancient world? Are you really suggesting that the only way to read an ancient document is to toss everything we know about the ancient world and assume that they were really modern people who lived a while ago?

Let me ask a simple question with two follow-up possibilities.

Question: Do you still maintain that not mentioning the "others" means that there were none, and that one should not discover the unmentioned "others" by reading the textual clues?

If no, then you must have abandoned the problem of "others," in which case, why keep talking about it?.

If yes, then please explain why we should listen to anything you say about history when you adamantly deny the methods that historians use to create that history?

They do. That is where I got the information, from the study of the spread of religion along with trade artifacts.

Are you really suggesting that secular scholarship is great and that the only time it fails is when the accepted techniques and ideas worked out in secular history are applied to the Book of Mormon? Really?

I think the evidence against the Others is great.

1. No mention of them in the text (I've been engaged in this argument mostly discussing the verses some people say others are alluded to)

2. There are internal evidences that no other non-Israelite population existed. I've given those evidences in this thread.

3. Joseph Smith, who translated the book including Nephi's large plate record, and also spent time talking to Moroni about the whole thing, clearly didn't believe in the "Others" theory.

Do I think the omission of referencing Others is proof they didn't exist? I think it's a very strong data point in the case against Others, but I'm open to hear the arguments.

Do I trust your and other LDS apologists' scholarship? Yes.

Do I trust your and other LDS apologists' interpretations and logical inferences? No.

You and KC and others like to do the following.

1. Point out some precedent in an ancient document.

2. Make a pretty wild logical extrapolation from that precedent to the issue in hand related to BOM

3. Assert that your view is the correct view because it includes ancient perspective

That's very clever, because 99% of your critics can't go with you past #1 and just have to trust that you're making a proper logical extrapolation.

You haven't made the proper connections in the ancient documents that show why I should trust your logical extrapolation.

[CASteinman]

While I agree with your other points, I do not think it means that he was learning the language as a foreign language speaker. To me it implies training in rhetoric, a sophisticated use of the language as evidenced by his flattery and cleaver speech.

I could easily see it either way. When I first read the passage that was how I took it -- that it was rhetoric. When I saw an alternative explanation, I realized that my first impression was not necessarily the best explanation.