Lgt And The Lamanites Of Ammon'S Mission

[CASteinman]

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.

I don't believe you can produce a citation to support this.

[Brant Gardner]

I think the evidence against the Others is great.

I am aware of your opinion. I am also aware that your opinion requires that you deny the ability to use the same tools that historians use in other subjects to tease unstated information from the documents. Ignoring contrary evidence always makes your position look better.

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)

You didn't answer the question about your opinion of secular history. That is important in this discussion because we need to know if you are only using your faith-based position or appealing to scholarship.

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

Upon that we agree. Of course, I don't think that there should have been, so that is moot at best.

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.

I don't think the data actually support this statement. I'm not sure that he didn't assume that the Book of Mormon peoples were behind all native Americans, but there is no indication that he actively rejected an idea that didn't occur to him.

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.

Then why do you consistently reject any answer that depends upon secular scholarship?

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

Not asked, but an interesting answer.

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

I don't mind that you don't trust them. What I would like to know is why your distrust is always based on your similar distrust of what secular scholarship does. If you disagree with our use of the scholarship, then I would expect that you would disagree with the scholarship and not simply because we are LDS.

You and KC and others like to do the following.

1. Point out some precedent in an ancient document.

Standard process. It is a method used all of the time in ethnohistory and archaeology.

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

"Wild" is your definition. I really don't understand why, save that you disagree. In the cases I have done it, I know precisely what the correlations are and how and why they fit, and that they conform to the way such evidence is used in ethnohistory.

Your suggestion that they are "wild" doesn't seem to come from any understanding of history or ethnohistory at all. Why shouldn't I prefer my process?

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

Translated from your verbiage, we are saying that we are correct because it is an accurate description of the way ancient peoples did things, contrary to the assumption you are making that they must behave like modern populations.

Our assumption is based on research into ancient peoples (and from non-LDS sources). Your opinion does not appear to be informed by anything but your opinion and reading some Internet sites.

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

That is a much better way to state the criticism. Now you can explain why the connections are not appropriate. Your previous response that they weren't comparable because the Title of the Lords of Totonicapan isn't the Book of Mormon is a very useful reason.

Please tell us why histories written by native peoples that do not mention that they replaced other peoples when they arrived in the location where they wrote the documents is not relevant to Book of Mormon peoples who didn't mention peoples they replaced when they arrived in the location where they wrote (especially since we don't have contemporaneous documents, and the one that is closest in time specifically says that it isn't to be seen as history).

[robuchan]

Please tell us why histories written by native peoples that do not mention that they replaced other peoples when they arrived in the location where they wrote the documents is not relevant to Book of Mormon peoples who didn't mention peoples they replaced when they arrived in the location where they wrote (especially since we don't have contemporaneous documents, and the one that is closest in time specifically says that it isn't to be seen as history).

I don't think you've demonstrated the following points that would make me trust your argument.

1. The literature must be accepted as historically accurate and not fable, myth, or legend.

2. The literature must be similarly quality as BOM in terms of detail and breadth (ie BOM covers enough time and has enough detail that you have many opportunities to discuss Others, so it's quite obvious that there is an intentional omission and not just an omission based on lack over covering details)

3. The originators of the literature must not have incentive or some other reason for intentionally omitting "others". For example, as a way of providing legitimacy for their people as the true heirs or originators of a location.

these three would be sufficient to provide a quality precedent. point #4 would provide "proof"

4. Failure to mention "others" is typical, not a one off precedent you found in one piece of literature.

[CASteinman]

1. The literature must be accepted as historically accurate and not fable, myth, or legend.

2. The literature must be similarly quality as BOM in terms of detail and breadth (ie BOM covers enough time and has enough detail that you have many opportunities to discuss Others, so it's quite obvious that there is an intentional omission and not just an omission based on lack over covering details)

3. The originators of the literature must not have incentive or some other reason for intentionally omitting "others". For example, as a way of providing legitimacy for their people as the true heirs or originators of a location.

these three would be sufficient to provide a quality precedent. point #4 would provide "proof"

4. Failure to mention "others" is typical, not a one off precedent you found in one piece of literature.

This list seems way overly restrictive and not at all scholarly or objective.

#1 -- why should that be? There is no good reason for this exclusion since it is hard to find ancient histories from that time that are not at least partially myth or legend.

#2 -- not so unfair really, but the source does not need to be exactly similar. It merely needs to be sufficiently similar.

#3 -- another illegitimate request. How can the reasons of some ancient author be known? And how can it be known that they are different from the writers of the Book of Mormon? Silly requirement.

#4 -- It does not need to be typical. Only attested to for it to be plausible.

Your list is just not very good at all.

[Freedom]

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.

This begs the question, however: where did he receive this training? This group is in survival mode, not training in rhetoric mode

[Freedom]

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

You addressed by arguing that this encounter happened 170 years after arriving. You do not seem to grasp that the encounter is between Jacob and Sherem, not Enos and Sherem.

[Freedom]

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.

I suggest you read a newspaper from 1920 and then re-evaluate your comment. If I were to say 'go to the net', what am I referring to? Where am I? What is 'the net'? If I were to say "I would like to introduce my cousin',how is this cousin related to me if I am from the Punjab, Australia or Mexico? If I were to say the word 'fagot', what would I be referring to in 1780, 1880, and 1990? You cannot read any document separate from the culture from which it originates.

[robuchan]

You addressed by arguing that this encounter happened 170 years after arriving. You do not seem to grasp that the encounter is between Jacob and Sherem, not Enos and Sherem.

We don't know when it took place. Anytime between 50 years and 180 years after arriving. I'm using 150 years. But 120 years would also give similar results.

[Freedom]

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

This is an excellent point, and indicates that, in both situations, there is a much larger and sophisticated society than could exist if there were no others after 2 generations.

[Freedom]

We don't know when it took place. Anytime between 50 years and 180 years after arriving. I'm using 150 years. But 120 years would also give similar results.

Jacob was born prior to arriving in the new world. Your argument requires him to be between 130 or more in age. It was after this encounter that he then began to be old. Are you suggesting that, in 450b.c., 130 would not be considered old? If you are not willing to use basic logic then there is no basis for a discussion.

[Brant Gardner]

I don't think you've demonstrated the following points that would make me trust your argument.

1. The literature must be accepted as historically accurate and not fable, myth, or legend.

Of course you haven't indicated quite why you think the Title of the Lords of Totonicapan is fable or myth. I doubt you know quite what "legend" would be or you wouldn't have it in this list.

The fact, from those who know the two documents I listed (the Title an the Popol Vuh) is that there typically evidence of a peoples religion in their historical documents, but that for both the Title and the Popol Vuh, there are sections that are deemed historical. I was looking at those sections, of course, and reviewed them before posting. There is ambivalent information in the Annals of the Cakchiquels, so I left it out.

So, if you want documents that the scholarly community considers have historical information, they still qualify (rather like the Bible has myth and history in different sections). So, for point 1, I am still with the scholars. You still haven't told my why you are so willing to dismiss oral tradition. I suspect you haven't read the work done of the bard tradition.

2. The literature must be similarly quality as BOM in terms of detail and breadth (ie BOM covers enough time and has enough detail that you have many opportunities to discuss Others, so it's quite obvious that there is an intentional omission and not just an omission based on lack over covering details)

You say similar, and then define things so that they can't be similar--but in ways that are irrelevant. If the question is whether or not people speak of others in the land when they arrive, all we need are texts discussing arrival. What they talk about after that is almost irrelevant. As for opportunity, yes, both the Title and the Popol Vuh had plenty of opportunity. In fact, the reason I left the Annals out is because they may have taken that opportunity (they arrived about the same time as the people covered in the other two documents). So, on the second point, we have similarity.

3. The originators of the literature must not have incentive or some other reason for intentionally omitting "others". For example, as a way of providing legitimacy for their people as the true heirs or originators of a location.

Does anyone else hear the bells sounding? Ding, ding, ding, we have breakthrough! Right. As you admit, there are reasons that a text might intentionally omit others. So, please remove any argument based on the idea that the text should have and didn't. Your number 3 has removed that contention.

Second, and more important, is whether or not the Book of Mormon would be one of those books that was trying to "provid[e] legitimacy for their people as the true heirs or originators of a location." While not claiming to be the originators of a location (and I doubt that as a sole cause from my reading) there is certainly some extra-textual reasons for the way the text is written. We have Mormon writing long after the fact, so the fact that no one remembers anything about "other" from the lost 116 pages has an easy explanation in his reason for writing (just as you suggest it might). Nephi explicitly says that he is writing something that isn't history. I found a description of the Near Eastern ethnogenetic texts and it appears pretty clear that Nephi crafted 1 Nephi to fit that structural mold. That is precisely what you suggest is a reason to not mention the "others."

Thank you.

4. Failure to mention "others" is typical, not a one off precedent you found in one piece of literature.

I gave you two, not one. You have another reference from China where the history has been modified. If we took much time on it, we could find more. Plus, as you have admitted in 3 above, there are reasons why a text might omit "others."

Do you have any argument left? I am really interested to see how you recast number 3 so that it doesn't undermine every other sta

[robuchan]

This is an excellent point, and indicates that, in both situations, there is a much larger and sophisticated society than could exist if there were no others after 2 generations.

Why? Why not something as simple as Zeezrom or Sherem's father had access to the scriptural records and taught their son things in more depth than the average person at the time.

[Freedom]

Why? Why not something as simple as Zeezrom or Sherem's father had access to the scriptural records and taught their son things in more depth than the average person at the time.

That would make them amateurs, not experts. Scriptures don't teach the art of rhetoric. You refuse to consider common sense. All of your arguments are based on wild assumptions that do not have any match in reality.

[robuchan]

See how Enos tells us that Enos was born when Jacob was in his 80's or 90s and he lived 80 years himself.

Did I miss something? Where is this found?

[robuchan]

Of course you haven't indicated quite why you think the Title of the Lords of Totonicapan is fable or myth. I doubt you know quite what "legend" would be or you wouldn't have it in this list.

The fact, from those who know the two documents I listed (the Title an the Popol Vuh) is that there typically evidence of a peoples religion in their historical documents, but that for both the Title and the Popol Vuh, there are sections that are deemed historical. I was looking at those sections, of course, and reviewed them before posting. There is ambivalent information in the Annals of the Cakchiquels, so I left it out.

So, if you want documents that the scholarly community considers have historical information, they still qualify (rather like the Bible has myth and history in different sections). So, for point 1, I am still with the scholars. You still haven't told my why you are so willing to dismiss oral tradition. I suspect you haven't read the work done of the bard tradition.

You say similar, and then define things so that they can't be similar--but in ways that are irrelevant. If the question is whether or not people speak of others in the land when they arrive, all we need are texts discussing arrival. What they talk about after that is almost irrelevant. As for opportunity, yes, both the Title and the Popol Vuh had plenty of opportunity. In fact, the reason I left the Annals out is because they may have taken that opportunity (they arrived about the same time as the people covered in the other two documents). So, on the second point, we have similarity.

Does anyone else hear the bells sounding? Ding, ding, ding, we have breakthrough! Right. As you admit, there are reasons that a text might intentionally omit others. So, please remove any argument based on the idea that the text should have and didn't. Your number 3 has removed that contention.

Second, and more important, is whether or not the Book of Mormon would be one of those books that was trying to "provid[e] legitimacy for their people as the true heirs or originators of a location." While not claiming to be the originators of a location (and I doubt that as a sole cause from my reading) there is certainly some extra-textual reasons for the way the text is written. We have Mormon writing long after the fact, so the fact that no one remembers anything about "other" from the lost 116 pages has an easy explanation in his reason for writing (just as you suggest it might). Nephi explicitly says that he is writing something that isn't history. I found a description of the Near Eastern ethnogenetic texts and it appears pretty clear that Nephi crafted 1 Nephi to fit that structural mold. That is precisely what you suggest is a reason to not mention the "others."

Thank you.

I gave you two, not one. You have another reference from China where the history has been modified. If we took much time on it, we could find more. Plus, as you have admitted in 3 above, there are reasons why a text might omit "others."

Do you have any argument left? I am really interested to see how you recast number 3 so that it doesn't undermine every other sta

for point #1, it's important that the record be considered a true, historical record. Myth which has historical elements is not acceptable. The reason being that the issue is that these people went into a new areas, met Others, and omitted mentioning them. If the people never actually made the long journey from one land to another, or they didn't actually meet new people there, then of course it's not a good comparison. Is the literature you offer up accepted by the scholars as meeting this criteria? I'm willing to accept you at face value (because yes you're right i have no interest in studying this literature in depth), but you seem to be dodging this.

for point #3, my assumption is that a BOM prophet would not intentionally deceive his audience on the existence of Others. If the only precedents you have in the ancient literature are of this variety, then I say they're not similar enough to use as precedents. Unless you believe BOM prophets intentionally deceived its audience on the existence of Others.

[robuchan]

That would make them amateurs, not experts. Scriptures don't teach the art of rhetoric. You refuse to consider common sense. All of your arguments are based on wild assumptions that do not have any match in reality.

When I say scriptures, I mean the material available they took from Laban and brought with them.

[robuchan]

Jacob was born prior to arriving in the new world. Your argument requires him to be between 130 or more in age. It was after this encounter that he then began to be old. Are you suggesting that, in 450b.c., 130 would not be considered old? If you are not willing to use basic logic then there is no basis for a discussion.

What verse says explicitly Jacob was not "old"?

[Freedom]

Did I miss something? Where is this found?

You said:

Assume they all live to be 150 years old, assume they all have a similar child bearing range and number of children of Sariah

I respond by saying

See how Enos tells us that Enos was born when Jacob was in his 80's or 90's and he lived 80 years himself.

I am providing a more reasonable explanation than the highly implausible claim that they each lived 150 years. Nowhere in the text does it suggest they lived that long. All we know is that Jacob's son was still alive 170 years after the arrival in the new world. Nowhere does it suggest that Jacob lived 150 years.

[Freedom]

When I say scriptures, I mean the material available they took from Laban and brought with them.

So you are suggesting that they had with them manuals on how to use manipulative language? The only records they had with them were the scriptures. The further you get into your argument the more fiction you have to employ.

[Freedom]

for point #3, my assumption is that a BOM prophet would not intentionally deceive his audience on the existence of Others. If the only precedents you have in the ancient literature are of this variety, then I say they're not similar enough to use as precedents. Unless you believe BOM prophets intentionally deceived its audience on the existence of Others.

Based on the structure of the books, the layout of its stories, the type of stories it contains, and what we know of the political conflict among the people, how would you classify 1 & 2 Nephi? For example, what do you think of the subtle yet constant references to King David?

[robuchan]

You said:

I respond by saying

I am providing a more reasonable explanation than the highly implausible claim that they each lived 150 years. Nowhere in the text does it suggest they lived that long. All we know is that Jacob's son was still alive 170 years after the arrival in the new world. Nowhere does it suggest that Jacob lived 150 years.

Sariah's child bearing range is not typical. Jacob and Enos's total life span is not typical. A person receiving instructions from God to build a ship that took 30 people from the Middle East to America in the year 600 BC is not real plausible. I find no reason to be bound by what you think is plausible in this matter.

Further If Jacob lived to be 100 or 120, it doesn't change my model that dramatically. There still could be a number in the thousands.

[Freedom]

What verse says explicitly Jacob was not "old"?

After the encounter he references 'that many means were devised to reclaim and restore the Lamanites' suggesting that the encounter with Sherem was not his final act. He mentions missionary work, and then observes many attempts by the lamanites to attack them, compelling the Nephites to build fortifications. Then, after this, he observes that he began to be old. It is most reasonable to presume that he was not very old when Sherem approached him. I think it is reasonable to presume that he would be in his 50's or 60's. Claiming he was 150 years old is just silly. Then we have quite a bit of history transpiring until he finally becomes old. Even in our time of great longevity, 80 is very old.

[robuchan]

So you are suggesting that they had with them manuals on how to use manipulative language? The only records they had with them were the scriptures. The further you get into your argument the more fiction you have to employ.

What are you talking about? I'm saying Zeezrum and Sherem might have been well educated, meaning they had training in reading and writing, based on the scriptures that Nephi took from Laban. Compared to the average Nephite, maybe they had double the vocabulary, spoken in correct grammar, and appeared to the commoner as being advanced in language.

Just curious, what do you think of when Zeezrum and Sherum are described with being advanced in language? Do you think they had law school?

[robuchan]

Based on the structure of the books, the layout of its stories, the type of stories it contains, and what we know of the political conflict among the people, how would you classify 1 & 2 Nephi? For example, what do you think of the subtle yet constant references to King David?

I don't understand your questions.

[robuchan]

After the encounter he references 'that many means were devised to reclaim and restore the Lamanites' suggesting that the encounter with Sherem was not his final act. He mentions missionary work, and then observes many attempts by the lamanites to attack them, compelling the Nephites to build fortifications. Then, after this, he observes that he began to be old. It is most reasonable to presume that he was not very old when Sherem approached him. I think it is reasonable to presume that he would be in his 50's or 60's. Claiming he was 150 years old is just silly. Then we have quite a bit of history transpiring until he finally becomes old. Even in our time of great longevity, 80 is very old.

How old do you think Lehi lived to? Nephi? You're making a lot of unnecessary assumptions.