Lgt And The Lamanites Of Ammon'S Mission

[zerinus]

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.

You are ignoring the evidence of the entire text of the Book of Mormon. It is sacred history, combined with Gospel knowledge and teaching.

Edited June 2, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

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).

The most obvious "possibility" as far as I see is that he was writing history as well as preserving the gospel.

[ERayR]

The most obvious "possibility" as far as I see is that he was writing history as well as preserving the gospel.

Quite honestly I don't see history as having any purpose in Mormon's narrative other than to provide a chronological framework to deliver his message of Jesus Christ as our savior. That is not to say his history is faulty but that it is secondary. His primary purpose was to deliver the message that God had revealed to must go to this the latter days. I believe it is used as a warning. See what happens when you forget God it happened to.... back when... It will happen to you unless you repent. That is the pattern I see.

[Brant Gardner]

The most obvious "possibility" as far as I see is that he was writing history as well as preserving the gospel.

Was Mormon's idea of history the same as yours? Why or why not?

[zerinus]

Quite honestly I don't see history as having any purpose in Mormon's narrative other than to provide a chronological framework to deliver his message of Jesus Christ as our savior. That is not to say his history is faulty but that it is secondary. His primary purpose was to deliver the message that God had revealed to must go to this the latter days. I believe it is used as a warning. See what happens when you forget God it happened to.... back when... It will happen to you unless you repent. That is the pattern I see.

The Book of Mormon is history:

Title Page:

An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—

 An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, . . .

1 Nephi:

1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, . . . therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.

2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

3 And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.

[zerinus]

Was Mormon's idea of history the same as yours? Why or why not?

I go by what he says. He says that he is making an abridgement of the records of the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites. That is pretty clear to me. I think there is a universal "idea of history," and I don't see why his should be different fromine.

[volgadon]

I go by what he says. He says that he is making an abridgement of the records of the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites. That is pretty clear to me. I think there is a universal "idea of history," and I don't see why his should be different fromine.

Really? What is this "universal idea of history" like and who are some proponents across the ages.

[ERayR]

The Book of Mormon is history:

Title Page:

An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, . . .

1 Nephi:

1 I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, . . . therefore I make a record of my proceedings in my days.

2 Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

3 And I know that the record which I make is true; and I make it with mine own hand; and I make it according to my knowledge.

Of course he was writing history but was history his focus. Any time one writes a true narrative such as the Book of Mormon it has to be historical but the detail of that history can be very broad. I say that history was not his focus and he even tells us it is not his focus. His focus was a testimony of Jesus Christ and a warning to his descendants and the people of this day. Details of history were only important as they pertained to his purpose.

Go ahead and finish the first chapter of First Nephi, Mormon through Nephi sets the historical stage for the Testimony of Jesus Christ that was to be bestowed upon Nephi and Lehi. He doesn't go into any enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and we know at that time there were several nationalities with representative populations there. He tells Lehi's and Nephi's narrative of God's dealings with them against the historic backdrop of Jerusalem. No historical detail other than what is necessary to tell their narrative. This pattern continues throughout the book. Example: He doesn't tell the back history of the people that the sons of Mosiah went on a mission to and converted beyond the extent necessary to deliver the message of their conversion. There is a couple of people in that story whose back history could be interesting. Samuel the Lamanite is another whose back history I would like to read. I think you can see the point. Yes it is history but history with a purpose and the purpose was not to give us the intricacies of population origins and densities.

I am sure that had it been pertinent to his purposes he would have. In fact he did in the case of the Mulekites and Coriantumr Their stories were germane to the account of God's dealings with man and the results of ignoring those warnings and teachings, hence they were included.

Edited June 3, 2012 by ERayR

[poulsenll]

As declared by modern prophets and Printed on the cover of all recent editions, it is another testament of Jesús Christ. It contáins history but is not history book.

Larry P

[Brant Gardner]

I go by what he says. He says that he is making an abridgement of the records of the Nephites, Lamanites, and Jaredites. That is pretty clear to me. I think there is a universal "idea of history," and I don't see why his should be different fromine.

That explains a lot. Thank you.

[zerinus]

As declared by modern prophets and Printed on the cover of all recent editions, it is another testament of Jesús Christ. It contáins history but is not history book.

Larry P

The Book of Mormon is sacred history. It preserves prophetic teaching in the context of history. That does not mean that its history is flawed, or that it ignores vital historical detail. If it mentions what kind of metals it finds in the land. If it mentions what kinds of animals are there. If it mentions the sole survivor of the Jatedites by name. If it mentions the discovery of the Mulekites. If it mentions what kind monetary system they were using. If it mentions countless other such detail unrelated to the teaching of the gospel per se, what would be the basis for assuming that it completely ignores the extremely significant occurance of coming into contact with larger pre-existing communities and civilisations, and even being assimilated by them, without ever making the slightest mention of them? I am left scratching my head at the naïveté of the mind capable believing such an assption.

[ERayR]

The Book of Mormon is sacred history. It preserves prophetic teaching in the context of history. That does not mean that its history is flawed, or that it ignores vital historical detail. If it mentions what kind of metals it finds in the land. If it mentions what kinds of animals are there. If it mentions the sole survivor of the Jatedites by name. If it mentions the discovery of the Mulekites. If it mentions what kind monetary system they were using. If it mentions countless other such detail unrelated to the teaching of the gospel per se, what would be the basis for assuming that it completely ignores the extremely significant occurance of coming into contact with larger pre-existing communities and civilisations, and even being assimilated by them, without ever making the slightest mention of them? I am left scratching my head at the naïveté of the mind capable believing such an assption.

Goodby

[Freedom]

I am left scratching my head at the naïveté of the mind capable believing such an assption.

Well, I will assume that the greatest minds that this church has ever produced are naive. If that is what you want to call them then this proves our point. It is apparent that you have not properly read the bible nor any other ancient documents to understand how different cultures compose and use language to express ideas.

[zerinus]

Well, I will assume that the greatest minds that this church has ever produced are naive.

Would you like to name some, with references please?

Edited June 3, 2012 by zerinus

[robuchan]

Well, I will assume that the greatest minds that this church has ever produced are naive.

The greatest minds of this church have been backed into a corner by anthropology and DNA science.

[Kevin Christensen]

The greatest minds of this church have been backed into a corner by anthropology and DNA science.

Backed into a corner implies no place to go and no options. The greatest minds I know are the ones who are best at seeing options and opportunities. I describe my experiences in researching this topic as trying successful experiments, mind expansion and enlightenment, soul enlarging, unexpectedly fruitful discoveries, and increasingly bright future promise.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[zerinus]

Backed into a corner implies no place to go and no options. The greatest minds I know are the ones who are best at seeing options and opportunities. I describe my experiences in researching this topic as trying successful experiments, mind expansion and enlightenment, soul enlarging, unexpectedly fruitful discoveries, and increasingly bright future promise.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I don't believe we have any "great minds". The greatest "minds" are the spiritual minds--the ones that are led by the Spirit of God.

Edited June 3, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

. . . This pattern continues throughout the book. Example: He doesn't tell the back history of the people that the sons of Mosiah went on a mission to and converted beyond the extent necessary to deliver the message of their conversion. There is a couple of people in that story whose back history could be interesting. Samuel the Lamanite is another whose back history I would like to read. I think you can see the point. Yes it is history but history with a purpose and the purpose was not to give us the intricacies of population origins and densities.

I am sure that had it been pertinent to his purposes he would have. In fact he did in the case of the Mulekites and Coriantumr Their stories were germane to the account of God's dealings with man and the results of ignoring those warnings and teachings, hence they were included.

It tells us what kind of government they ruled under. It tells us the transition from the reign of kings to the rule of judges. It tells us the division of the kingdom between the Nephites and Lamanites. It describes all their wars and contentions in boring detail. It tells us about all the dissensions, rebellions, and separations from the Nephites and Lamanites. It tells us about the only non-Lehite community we know of that they come into contact with--the Mulekites. It even tells us of the sole survivor of the Jaredites that they come into contact with. Furthermore, those communities who thus become separated (or discovered), and thus become distinguished as separate tribes or communities continue to be mentioned and discussed as the history of the Book of Mormon developes. Even someone like Zoram whose descendents form a tribe continue to receive a mention in the Book of Mormon. The Gadianton robbers who form a special society or community of their own are continually mentioned. Yet you want me to believe that this great society of Nephites and Lamanites came into contact another indegenous culture or civilisation in the New World, intracted with them, were influenced by them culturally and linguistically, intermarried with them, had wars and contentions with them, and left absolutely no trace of it in the 1,000 year history of the Book of Mormon. Sorry, you are alone on that one. I am not buying it.

[robuchan]

Great minds come up with stuff like "mixing populations theory", Book of Breathing as a necessary prop, ancient American warriors riding tapirs into battle, peepstones and diving rods as God approved translation techniques,etc ONLY when they are backed into a corner.

Edited June 3, 2012 by robuchan

[webbles]

The Book of Mormon is sacred history. It preserves prophetic teaching in the context of history. That does not mean that its history is flawed, or that it ignores vital historical detail. If it mentions what kind of metals it finds in the land. If it mentions what kinds of animals are there. If it mentions the sole survivor of the Jatedites by name. If it mentions the discovery of the Mulekites. If it mentions what kind monetary system they were using. If it mentions countless other such detail unrelated to the teaching of the gospel per se, what would be the basis for assuming that it completely ignores the extremely significant occurance of coming into contact with larger pre-existing communities and civilisations, and even being assimilated by them, without ever making the slightest mention of them? I am left scratching my head at the naïveté of the mind capable believing such an assption.

I recently saw an interesting NOVA episode about the finding of possibly the first gunshot wound in the Americas (The Great Inca Rebellion). In it, it shows the history that we "know" about the conquest of the Incas. One of the key events of the conquest was apparently the siege of Lima. According to the written histories, Pizarro and a few cavalry defeated thousands of Incan forces. But apparently, people have recently (last 50 or so years) found evidence that shows that it was most likely a large Incan force against another large Incan force allied with a few Spanish cavalry. That's only 500 years ago and yet we had incorrect information that we didn't know was incorrect.

Mormon lived roughly 1000 years after Nephi reached the land. The origin of their people was pretty shrouded in myth. They could easily have created a myth that said that everybody was a descendant of Lehi. So when Mormon is abridging the records, why would he consider it super important to talk about others when according to his belief they aren't others, but just other descendants?

Also, the "kind of metals", "kind of animals" were written by Nephi and they are showing the result of a promise by God. God promised that they would go to a bountiful land and so Nephi is showing how bountiful it was. Those are not insignificant items. Nephi also wrote that at least 20 years after reaching the promised land (2 Nephi 5:31-32).

The discovery of the Mulekites and the discovery of Coriantumr were both not abridged by Mormon (and neither was the listing of the metals and animals). They were written by a man that lived 250 years after Nephi landed. The Mulekites were different enough to be explicitly mentioned on the small plates (which was almost out of space) because they also came from Jerusalem. Coriantumr was named because King Benjamin translated a record that they had found. Having another record would be pretty important. This record was important enough to later be abridged by Moroni and incorporated into the gold plates.

The other part that you mentioned is actually part of the plates that was abridged by Mormon. Considering that he lived 400-500 years after that story, the monetary system was probably pretty different. I would bet that when he came across the story and had to figure out what the money words meant, he thought it would be useful to include so that others would understand. If I was the one writting, that's what I'd do

You mentioned earlier on why Alma is full of wars and how that means that Mormon was very specific. Yet you fail to mention how 4th Nephi spans 300 years in 49 versus. Did nothing really occur during that time? Also, the wars during Captain Moroni's time is the most specific description of war. The wars during Alma the younger's time, King Mosiah's time, etc are briefly mentioned. Maybe it could be because Captain Moroni was a prolific writer and so Mormon actually had records to use? He also apparently thought very highly of Moroni to the point of naming his son after him.

Is the Book of Mormon a true history? Yes. Is it a complete history? No. It is very one sided and most of it is abridged through the eyes of one man (Mormon) who had his own ideas about history.

[zerinus]

Great minds come up with stuff like "mixing populations theory", Book of Breathing as a necessary prop, ancient American warriors riding tapirs into battle, peepstones and diving rods as God approved translation techniques,etc ONLY when they are backed into a corner.

The only "great minds" I recognize are the humble servants and prophets of God whose minds are enlightened by the Spirit of God, and who by their faith are able to accomplish great things.

Edited June 3, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Is the Book of Mormon a true history? Yes. Is it a complete history? No. It is very one sided and most of it is abridged through the eyes of one man (Mormon) who had his own ideas about history.

The Book of Mormon is also “. . . Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, . . . —To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof” (BoM Title Page); and of which the Lord Himself has said, “. . . and as your Lord and your God liveth, it is true” (D&C 17:6).

[morgan.deane]

Great minds come up with stuff like "mixing populations theory", Book of Breathing as a necessary prop, ancient American warriors riding tapirs into battle, peepstones and diving rods as God approved translation techniques,etc ONLY when they are backed into a corner.

CFR please on anybody that said "ancient American warriors riding tapir into battle".

[Brant Gardner]

Great minds come up with stuff like "mixing populations theory", Book of Breathing as a necessary prop, ancient American warriors riding tapirs into battle, peepstones and diving rods as God approved translation techniques,etc ONLY when they are backed into a corner.

You really should read a little more history. The "mixing populations theory" preceded the "corner" by at least 50 years. It isn't being "backed in" if you are ahead of the curve.

The New World Book of Mormon never has anyone riding a horse, and the "riding a tapir" meme is from anti-Mormon material only, and then only from people who really don't understand the argument or the text. Repeating it does not put you in good company if you hope to establish that you believe things based on solid academic understanding.

Since the church has known about and talked about the translation of the Book of Mormon with seer stones for a long time, I have no idea what "corner" you think anyone has been pushed in to.

[morgan.deane]

You really should read a little more history. The "mixing populations theory" preceded the "corner" by at least 50 years. It isn't being "backed in" if you are ahead of the curve.

The New World Book of Mormon never has anyone riding a horse, and the "riding a tapir" meme is from anti-Mormon material only, and then only from people who really don't understand the argument or the text. Repeating it does not put you in good company if you hope to establish that you believe things based on solid academic understanding.

Since the church has known about and talked about the translation of the Book of Mormon with seer stones for a long time, I have no idea what "corner" you think anyone has been pushed in to.

I was getting to this. But I wanted him to do a little searching and then admit that, if we were extremely charitable, he was exaggerating. Even then it isn't a great way to establish credibility.