robuchan Posted June 2, 2012 Author Posted June 2, 2012 Another thing to add to this discussion is the issue of inconsistency in the text.For example of no "others" are ever mentioned in the BOM, and in 100 different verses, there are clues about whether "others" exist and all the clues point to no existence. But then let's say you have one data point where you have a description of a war with one million people killed and you do the math and it's impossible for there to be such an event unless "others" were involved. At what point do you say, the best interpretation is that there are no "others" and the war description is an internal inconsistency/mistake.
zerinus Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 Another thing to add to this discussion is the issue of inconsistency in the text.For example of no "others" are ever mentioned in the BOM, and in 100 different verses, there are clues about whether "others" exist and all the clues point to no existence. But then let's say you have one data point where you have a description of a war with one million people killed and you do the math and it's impossible for there to be such an event unless "others" were involved. At what point do you say, the best interpretation is that there are no "others" and the war description is an internal inconsistency/mistake.You have provide credible examples. You can't build an argument based on ifs and buts alone.
Anijen Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) When direct descendancy is claimed after a 500 year period. And this descendancy is claimed by a Lamanite (but written down by a Nephite Prophet), could it be that it was written down and taken at face value? Could not the Lamanites who claimed to be directly related to Laman and Lemual say so because of the wedge that had grown between them over that long period of time? After growing up in a tradition of hating a long distant ancestor and feeling like they were the ones who were misled and lied to, isn't it rather a no brainer for this to happen?Has something like this happened before? Yes. The hatred between Jew and Muslim is pretty thick today and depending on who is asked you could get that it was Issac or Ishmael who were almost sacrificed by Abraham.I think all this direct decendent posturing is unimportant compared to the message we should be trying to get out of the text. Edited June 2, 2012 by Jeff Holt
ERayR Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 Another thing to add to this discussion is the issue of inconsistency in the text.For example of no "others" are ever mentioned in the BOM, and in 100 different verses, there are clues about whether "others" exist and all the clues point to no existence. But then let's say you have one data point where you have a description of a war with one million people killed and you do the math and it's impossible for there to be such an event unless "others" were involved. At what point do you say, the best interpretation is that there are no "others" and the war description is an internal inconsistency/mistake.You are definitely overstating the "no others" evidence. There are several places, that while not explicit, point to the probability of others. At no point that I can think of do you say the best interpretation is that there are no others.
ERayR Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 Except that the Book of Mormon is the story of a group of people who emigrated to the Americas and developed as an isolated group. The Book of Mormon itself provides no information about the Nephites (or Lamanites) coming into contact with any other pre-existent groups. Any assumptions made to that effect are just assumptions, and ones which are militated against by the text of the book. The text of the Book of Mormon not only does not give us reasonable justification to make those assumptions, but positively discriminates against making such assumptions.I see the Book of Mormon (as far as Lehi's family is concerned) as an account of a small group of people sometimes struggling to maintain their identity (genetically and religiously) amongst a larger civilization in which the lived and functioned. Some times successful, sometimes not so much. Think of the Italian immigrants or the Chinese on the west coast.
robuchan Posted June 2, 2012 Author Posted June 2, 2012 You have provide credible examples. You can't build an argument based on ifs and buts alone.Sorry for being lazy, but I think one of the "others" main points is that the population numbers mentioned in one of the verses don't match up with the narrative unless Others are involved.
robuchan Posted June 2, 2012 Author Posted June 2, 2012 You are definitely overstating the "no others" evidence. There are several places, that while not explicit, point to the probability of others.At no point that I can think of do you say the best interpretation is that there are no others.Can you refresh me on these places?
Anijen Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) Can you refresh me on these places?The Book of Mormon does not say it directly but implies it. The historical and anthropological record proves it, and early church leaders spoke about others, other than just Jaradites, Mulekites, and Lehi's family.For a essay written on this topic I guide you to the paper Kevin Christensen cited earlier. See Nephi's Neighbors of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations. Farms Review Vol 15 Issue 2 91-128. see here Edited June 2, 2012 by Jeff Holt
ERayR Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 Can you refresh me on these places?I know this is going to sound like one of those "the dog ate my homework" excuses but I have misplaced my scriptures. I may have left them at church or laid them around the house but as of now I just can't find them. Hopefully I can find them soon and will comply with your request as time allows.
zerinus Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 I see the Book of Mormon (as far as Lehi's family is concerned) as an account of a small group of people sometimes struggling to maintain their identity (genetically and religiously) amongst a larger civilization in which the lived and functioned. Some times successful, sometimes not so much.Except that that "larger civilization" is nowhere to be found within the Book of Mormon. It seems to exist only in the imaginations of the proponents of that strange theory.Think of the Italian immigrants or the Chinese on the west coast.Okay, has anybody written a history of those "immigrants," without ever mentioning the "host" country or civilization in which they lived?
zerinus Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 Sorry for being lazy, but I think one of the "others" main points is that the population numbers mentioned in one of the verses don't match up with the narrative unless Others are involved.Again, without a quotation or a reference I cannot comment.
zerinus Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 Others are involved.Without ever being mentioned in the Book.
Freedom Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 Without ever being mentioned in the Book of Mormon.Where do you suppose the events took place, and how do you explain the evidence of a pre-existing population? How do you explain the exchange in Jacob with when a Nephite has never met the leader of the small clan? The Book of Mormon was written with a specific purpose and only specific events were recorded to present this purpose. It is a carefully edited document that excludes anything that distracts from the Exodus motif and the conflict between Nephi and Laban.
ERayR Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 Except that that "larger civilization" is nowhere to be found within the Book of Mormon. It seems to exist only in the imaginations of the proponents of that strange theory.Okay, has anybody written a history of those "immigrants," without ever mentioning the "host" country or civilization in which they lived?One thing that you do not seem to consider. It is not whether it was in the records or if it was not. It is whether Mormon thought it was important enough to include in his abridgement. Remember Mormons stated purpose was: Words of Mormon 4-7. 4 And the things which are upon these plates apleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ; and my fathers knowing that many of them have been fulfilled; yea, and I also know that as many things as have been bprophesied concerning us down to this day have been fulfilled, and as many as go beyond this day must surely come to pass ---5 Wherefore, I chose athese things, to finish my brecord upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the cplates of Nephi; and I cannot write the dhundredth part of the things of my people.6 But behold, I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren.7 And I do this for a awise bpurpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord cknoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he dworketh in me to do according to his ewill.His purpose was not to tell us about others. Others were unimportant to his stated purpose.
Kevin Christensen Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 Another thing to add to this discussion is the issue of inconsistency in the text.For example of no "others" are ever mentioned in the BOM, and in 100 different verses, there are clues about whether "others" exist and all the clues point to no existence. But then let's say you have one data point where you have a description of a war with one million people killed and you do the math and it's impossible for there to be such an event unless "others" were involved. At what point do you say, the best interpretation is that there are no "others" and the war description is an internal inconsistency/mistake.Easy to assert, as long as you don't have to account for where the branches get grafted, and the concepts of being a light to the gentiles being like a father to Nephi's seed, and "the Gentiles being numbered among thy seed," (2 Nephi 10:19), Gentiles being blessed and numbered among the House of Israel" (10:18), Nephite people who "know not concerning the matter of prophesy among the the Jews," (2 Nephi 25:1-5), who would need to be taught "after the manner of the things of the Jews", Jaredites, Mulek and who ever transported him and who they met and who the Mulekites warred and contended with before meeting the Nephites, and which culture had enough influence among them to corrupt their language, Sherem, the notion that as early as Jacob, Nephite and Lamanite become designations polity rather than careful geneology, destroyed people capable of leaving "remnants" (Mosiah 8:121), and the many nations designated by the covenant curse (2 Nephi 1: as being present and capable of overrunning the lands, scattering and smiting, not in a safely remote future but "as one generation passeth to another" (1 Nephi 1:11-12), other people who have also been led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord (1 Nephi 1:5), people who make sense as contributing to "all those who would go with me" (2 Nephi 5:6), who Nephi adds to me and my children "and those who were called my people." (2 Nephi 5:14.) Jacob insists that Isaiah's reference to Gentiles who bring thy sons in their arms and thy daughters shall be carried on their shoulders, and kings shall be thy nursing fathers and their queens thy nursing mothers," (2 Nephi 6:5-7) can be likened the immediate situation of his audience. Jacob insists that "the Gentiles hall be blessed and numbered among the house of Israel" and that the land is consecrated to "thy seed and those who shall be numbered among thy seed." The two non-Nephite people who get the most detailed mention, Mulek and Coriantumr, have two things in common. They are royalty and they are mentioned in prophecies in the Nephite scriptures. Given the explicit statements in the scriptures that presuppose and require the presence of others, the details in their cases makes good sense. Roper cites many important passages, as do John Sorenson, and Brant in his commentary. I've quoted from my 1996 essay. It's way to late to keep claiming that there is nothing.A few months back Mark Wright cited the case of some Mayan records that pointedly ignored people who were there at the same time. FWIW,Kevin ChristensenBethel Park, PA 1
Freedom Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 A few months back Mark Wright cited the case of some Mayan records that pointedly ignored people who were there at the same time.This is a very important consideration. The little record we have suggests that the Mayan were a far reaching centrally controlled empire. The archaeological evidence, however, tells us that there were Mayan influences throughout the region, but that beyond trade items, each region have unique methods of governance, and that there is limited evidence of regime enforcement. Their culture can be compared to American culture. My home could be placed in Florida and anybody visiting it would not know that everything inside and out was purchased and perhaps even manufactured in Canada. People try to judge the Book of Mormon using 21st century literary standards. Those who do, I have found, have never read any ancient text's besides the english translation of the bible. They are arguing from silence. I used the example of the word 'cousin'. In my vernacular, you have to be a child of an aunt or uncle to be my cousin. In Pakistan, however, you could be only distantly related, or not related at all to be considered my cousin. If the narrow minded here read a journal from a indian girl, they would close their mind and insist that this child's grandparents must have had 30 children for the author to claim so many cousins. If I were to write a book on trade relations between Canada and United States, there would only be vague references to other nations, and you would only pick up on them if you had other sources to discern the pattern. I would only pick out trade examples for my thesis. I would ignore evidence of trade with China, India or Mexico. An understanding of both ancient Hebrew and Messo American literature must govern how we map the history.
zerinus Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 The Book of Mormon does not say it directly but implies it. The historical and anthropological record proves it, and early church leaders spoke about others, other than just Jaradites, Mulekites, and Lehi's family.For a essay written on this topic I guide you to the paper Kevin Christensen cited earlier. See Nephi's Neighbors of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations. Farms Review Vol 15 Issue 2 91-128. see hereI just had a look at that article by Roper. What that article is saying is something quite different from what you guys are saying. What that article is saying can be summarised in one sentence:The Book of Mormon does not provided evidence that the Jaredites, Mulekites, and Lehiteswere the only migrants (or existing colonies) in pre-Columbian America.Sure, agreed. But it does not provide evidence to the contrary either. It leaves the question open. What you guys are saying is something quite different. The folks here are arguing definitively that:That there were unquestionably such extra-BOM migrations (or pre-existing colonies) in BOM period.That they came into contact with BOM peoples without leaving any trace of their existence in the BOM.Some even asserting that such traces can be found, while ignoring evidence to the contrary.That is what I cannot understand.
robuchan Posted June 2, 2012 Author Posted June 2, 2012 Easy to assert, as long as you don't have to account for where the branches get grafted, and the concepts of being a light to the gentiles being like a father to Nephi's seed, and "the Gentiles being numbered among thy seed," (2 Nephi 10:19), Gentiles being blessed and numbered among the House of Israel" (10:18), Nephite people who "know not concerning the matter of prophesy among the the Jews," (2 Nephi 25:1-5), who would need to be taught "after the manner of the things of the Jews", Jaredites, Mulek and who ever transported him and who they met and who the Mulekites warred and contended with before meeting the Nephites, and which culture had enough influence among them to corrupt their language, Sherem, the notion that as early as Jacob, Nephite and Lamanite become designations polity rather than careful geneology, destroyed people capable of leaving "remnants" (Mosiah 8:121), and the many nations designated by the covenant curse (2 Nephi 1: as being present and capable of overrunning the lands, scattering and smiting, not in a safely remote future but "as one generation passeth to another" (1 Nephi 1:11-12), other people who have also been led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord (1 Nephi 1:5), people who make sense as contributing to "all those who would go with me" (2 Nephi 5:6), who Nephi adds to me and my children "and those who were called my people." (2 Nephi 5:14.) Jacob insists that Isaiah's reference to Gentiles who bring thy sons in their arms and thy daughters shall be carried on their shoulders, and kings shall be thy nursing fathers and their queens thy nursing mothers," (2 Nephi 6:5-7) can be likened the immediate situation of his audience. Jacob insists that "the Gentiles hall be blessed and numbered among the house of Israel" and that the land is consecrated to "thy seed and those who shall be numbered among thy seed."In my mind, these are pretty easy to account for. I'll type up my thoughts on Roper's article later. I read it for the first time earlier today.
zerinus Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) One thing that you do not seem to consider. It is not whether it was in the records or if it was not. It is whether Mormon thought it was important enough to include in his abridgement.Okay, the most optimistic conclusion that can be drawn from this is that there may have been others; but we have no way of knowing.Remember Mormons stated purpose was: Words of Mormon 4-7.4 And the things which are upon these plates apleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ; and my fathers knowing that many of them have been fulfilled; yea, and I also know that as many things as have been bprophesied concerning us down to this day have been fulfilled, and as many as go beyond this day must surely come to pass ---5 Wherefore, I chose athese things, to finish my brecord upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the cplates of Nephi; and I cannot write the dhundredth part of the things of my people.6 But behold, I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren.7 And I do this for a awise bpurpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord cknoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he dworketh in me to do according to his ewill.His purpose was not to tell us about others. Others were unimportant to his stated purpose.Those verses refer exclusively to the small plates. It is not a statement about the mission and purpose of the entire Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is doctrine combined with history--true history. It is not just about doctrine. If it is just doctrine, what is the purpose of the lengthy (and boring) war chapters in the book of Alma? Edited June 2, 2012 by zerinus
ERayR Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) Okay, the most optimistic conclusion that can be drawn from this is that there my have been others; but we have no way of knowing.Those verses refer exclusively to the small plates. It is not a statement about the mission and purpose of the entire Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is doctrine combined with history--true history. It is not just about doctrine. If it is just doctrine, what is the purpose of the lengthy (and boring) war chapters in the book of Alma?Those lengthy (and boring) war chapters in the book of Alma and elsewhere are a warning of what we are to expect when we get to the point that they were. But that is for another lengthy thread. Go back read it again. Mormon is telling why he is choosing the things he is including in his abridgement. Edited June 2, 2012 by ERayR
volgadon Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 If it is just doctrine, what is the purpose of the lengthy (and boring) war chapters in the book of Alma?What Erayr said, but also it teaches us the proper response to different kinds of war. 1
mrmandias Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 Those lengthy (and boring) war chapters in the book of Alma and elsewhere are a warning of what we are to expect when we get to the point that they were. But that is for another lengthy thread. Go back read it again. Mormon is telling why he is choosing the things he is including in his abridgement.When I was a young man, that was the only part of the Book of Mormon I liked. Same with a decent number of the young men in my ward at the moment. I'm not saying the war chapters are there providentially to keep the interest of sullen adolescent males, but they do have that effect.The other possibility is that Mormon as a military man may have had a passion for the warfare of that period (look what he named his son).
ERayR Posted June 2, 2012 Posted June 2, 2012 When I was a young man, that was the only part of the Book of Mormon I liked. Same with a decent number of the young men in my ward at the moment. I'm not saying the war chapters are there providentially to keep the interest of sullen adolescent males, but they do have that effect.The other possibility is that Mormon as a military man may have had a passion for the warfare of that period (look what he named his son).In reading what he wrote and included in the Book of Mormon I don't see a passion for war but rather a reluctant acknowledgement of it as the ultimate end of a wicked people.
Recommended Posts