Lgt And The Lamanites Of Ammon'S Mission

[webbles]

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).

I don't see what you are getting it. I did say the Book of Mormon was true. To quote myself:

Is the Book of Mormon a true history? Yes.

None of those statements, though, say that the history is a complete history and by virtue of it being a book of a few hundred pages that spans at least 1000 years (ignoring Ether), there's no way it can be a complete history. I can read a book that is a few hundred pages about World War 2 or the Civil War and that book isn't a complete history of less than 10 years.

[zerinus]

I don't see what you are getting it. I did say the Book of Mormon was true. To quote myself:

None of those statements, though, say that the history is a complete history and by virtue of it being a book of a few hundred pages that spans at least 1000 years (ignoring Ether), there's no way it can be a complete history. I can read a book that is a few hundred pages about World War 2 or the Civil War and that book isn't a complete history of less than 10 years.

The answer to that was already given in my post #143.

[Anijen]

Let me get this clear; are you saying that in the thousand year history of Lehi to Moroni the Lamanites and Nephites did not mix, mingle, associate with any outside group of people? If so, do you believe there even were other people?

Zerinius may I just add you are losing future buyers of your book. To be blunt, after reading your arguments I am not inclined to purchase anything of yours especially if you try to sell as any type of academic study.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[zerinus]

Let me get this clear; are you saying that in the thousand year history of Lehi to Moroni the Lamanites and Nephites did not mix, mingle, associate with any outside group of people? If so, do you believe there even were other people?

I am saying that there is no evidence in the book that there were; and whatever evidence there is in the book points to the contrary.

Zerinius may I just add you are losing future buyers of your book. To be blunt, after reading your arguments I am not inclined to purchase anything of yours especially if you try to sell as any type of academic study.

LOL! My book is not "academic;" it is spiritual. People who are looking for "academics" should not read my book.

Edited June 4, 2012 by zerinus

[ERayR]

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.

Sigh by

[Anijen]

I am saying that there is no evidence in the book that there were; and whatever evidence there is in the book points to the contrary.

CFR on the evidence pointing to the contrary, please remember because others are not specifically mentioned, that is not considered evidence.

LOL! My book is not "academic;" it is spiritual. People who are looking for "academics" should not read my book.

Then I will consider purchasing it. I just assumed it was academic due to the title; [The Grammar of Isaiah:A Selective Commentary on the Writings of the Old Testament Prophets]. I did not consider the study of grammar a spiritual ideal, although I admit I could be wrong.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[robuchan]

CFR on the evidence pointing to the contrary, please remember because others are not specifically mentioned, that is not considered evidence.

Have you been reading this thread? No one's given an adequate response to this.

http://www.mormondia...entry1209128214

Edited June 4, 2012 by robuchan

[robuchan]

CFR on the evidence pointing to the contrary, please remember because others are not specifically mentioned, that is not considered evidence.

Then I will consider purchasing it. I just assumed it was academic due to the title; [The Grammar of Isaiah:A Selective Commentary on the Writings of the Old Testament Prophets]. I did not consider the study of grammar a spiritual ideal, although I admit I could be wrong.

this is another good one

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57949-lgt-and-the-lamanites-of-ammons-mission/page__st__20#entry1209127800

[robuchan]

and this

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57949-lgt-and-the-lamanites-of-ammons-mission/page__st__60#entry1209128219

[Anijen]

this is another good one

http://www.mormondia...entry1209127800

Yes, I have read every single post. I find your link deficient, it in no way argues that there were not others (outside the Book of Mormon). I have been to many archaeological digs and I known there were plenty of people here before the people of the Book of Mormon. I travel to Ohio every year and visit the many mounds that are there. I have a Clovis arrow head sitting on my desk that dates back before the Book of Mormon.

Occams Razor Theory tells me that odds are that Lehi's, Mulak, and the Jaredites all had a very high probability that they had interaction with others. I admit I could be wrong. I was not there, I can not prove it. Yet the archaeological evidence weighs heavily on my side, and it would take a very persuasive argument for me to change that opinion. You and Zerinious have not came close to presenting even a mediocre argument let alone a persuasive one.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[webbles]

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.

Does it? What type of government did they have when Mormon was alive? King, judge, or other? What about during 4 Nephi?

It tells us the division of the kingdom between the Nephites and Lamanites.

There are two times a division happens. One is recorded in 2 Nephi and one is in 4 Nephi. Both of them are different. Mormon grew up under the second type and so reading the records (and abridging the records), he would be using his personal understanding more often.

It describes all their wars and contentions in boring detail.

No it doesn't. For the most part, any war/contention is pretty much "we had wars and contentions". It is only during Captain Moroni where we get explicity detail. Even during Mormon's time, we get very little detail about the battles except the very last one. Why is Captain Moroni's time the only one that is explicitly detailed? Maybe it is because there were far more records for Mormon to work with and maybe Captain Moroni was one of his personal heros. Maybe a combination of both. Or maybe something else.

It tells us about all the dissensions, rebellions, and separations from the Nephites and Lamanites.

You honestly think it mentions every single one for the entire 1000 years? There were no rebellions during King Benjamin and King Mosiah? Everybody was perfectly content?

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.

The Mulekites had an origin story from Jerusalem, just like the Nephites. So of course they would mention them. It is a fullfilment of prophecy. It shows that Jerusalem truly was destroyed. These are special "others".

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.

Most of the groups are distinguised separately for only a few generations. The longest one that I could find were the Zoramites and they lasted 70 years.

Your mention of Zoram is incorrect. There were three Zorams and two Zoramites. The first group was only mentioned once by Jacob. The second group is what you read about later in Alma and as I mentioned, it only lasts 70 years.

The Gadianton robbers who form a special society or community of their own are continually mentioned.

There are two Gadianton robber groups. One existed for less than 50 years. The other formed around 250 years later and for some reason took on the same name.

I think the main problem is that the Book of Alma, Helaman, and 3rd Nephi are so descriptive. Yet, if you ignore those books, the rest of the books are rather bland in their mentioning of history. Why is they (which span a total of 120 years) so descriptive? I don't know. But you can't say we know everything about the Nephites/Lamanites just because Mormon was descriptive for 120 years and extremely vague for the other 880 years.

[robuchan]

Occams Razor Theory tells me that odds are that Lehi's, Mulak, and the Jaredites all had a very high probability that they had interaction with others. I admit I could be wrong. I was not there, I can not prove it. Yet the archaeological evidence weighs heavily on my side, and it would take a very persuasive argument for me to change that opinion. You and Zerinious have not came close to presenting even a mediocre argument let alone a persuasive one.

I agree 100%.

They would have met up with existing populations. It's unfortunate for the BOM truth claims that none of these interactions were ever recorded.

[webbles]

this is another good one

http://www.mormondia...entry1209127800

I also find it interesting that Mormon uses that exact same grouping with a completely different meaning in 4th Nephi. Why would he stick with those groups when they don't mean anything like Jacob means?

Also, we know that Nephi became king. That would mean that the ruling class was pretty much the Lehites. So why not name everybody after the ruling class?

Edited June 4, 2012 by webbles

[webbles]

Have you been reading this thread? No one's given an adequate response to this.

http://www.mormondia...entry1209128214

First, do you honestly expect that they documented the ancestry of every single one of the 1000s of converts?

Second, In Omni 1:12, we learn that King Mosiah (the father of King Benjamin) was led out of the land of Nephi with all those that would follow him. Considering it doesn't say all Nephites, that means that some Nephites were left behind. Were they fully destroyed, we don't know. But I would bet that they were unrighteous Nephites and had started to mingle with the Lamanites. Plus this is 200 or more years since the landing so there might have been other dissensions over to the Lamanites. And there could easily have been dissensions of Lamanites going over to the Nephites. So by the time King Mosiah separated, you could easily have Lamanites that were descendants of Nephi and Nephites that were descendants of Laman. Fast forward 300 more years to Ammon's time and you have this statement that all converts were actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel. Sorry, 500 years of possible intermingling makes that kind of difficult to believe. How about a simpler way of looking at it? Mormon was trying to identify why the known Nephite dissentors wouldn't convert and came up with the solution that it was because they were actual descendants of Laman.

[robuchan]

First, do you honestly expect that they documented the ancestry of every single one of the 1000s of converts?

Second, In Omni 1:12, we learn that King Mosiah (the father of King Benjamin) was led out of the land of Nephi with all those that would follow him. Considering it doesn't say all Nephites, that means that some Nephites were left behind. Were they fully destroyed, we don't know. But I would bet that they were unrighteous Nephites and had started to mingle with the Lamanites. Plus this is 200 or more years since the landing so there might have been other dissensions over to the Lamanites. And there could easily have been dissensions of Lamanites going over to the Nephites. So by the time King Mosiah separated, you could easily have Lamanites that were descendants of Nephi and Nephites that were descendants of Laman. Fast forward 300 more years to Ammon's time and you have this statement that all converts were actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel. Sorry, 500 years of possible intermingling makes that kind of difficult to believe. How about a simpler way of looking at it? Mormon was trying to identify why the known Nephite dissentors wouldn't convert and came up with the solution that it was because they were actual descendants of Laman.

More simple solution: skin color signifies Lamanite descendancy.

[zerinus]

CFR on the evidence pointing to the contrary, please remember because others are not specifically mentioned, that is not considered evidence.

See my post #143. robuchan has also provided some good links.

[zerinus]

Yes, I have read every single post. I find your link deficient, it in no way argues that there were not others (outside the Book of Mormon). I have been to many archaeological digs and I known there were plenty of people here before the people of the Book of Mormon. I travel to Ohio every year and visit the many mounds that are there. I have a Clovis arrow head sitting on my desk that dates back before the Book of Mormon.

Why don't you try reading other people's posts properly for a change? This is what I had said, it is what I go by:

"There is no evidence in the Book [of Mormon] that there were any, and whatever evidence there is in the Book [of Mormon] points to the contrary."

Edited June 4, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Does it? What type of government did they have when Mormon was alive? King, judge, or other? What about during 4 Nephi?

There are two times a division happens. One is recorded in 2 Nephi and one is in 4 Nephi. Both of them are different. Mormon grew up under the second type and so reading the records (and abridging the records), he would be using his personal understanding more often.

No it doesn't. For the most part, any war/contention is pretty much "we had wars and contentions". It is only during Captain Moroni where we get explicity detail. Even during Mormon's time, we get very little detail about the battles except the very last one. Why is Captain Moroni's time the only one that is explicitly detailed? Maybe it is because there were far more records for Mormon to work with and maybe Captain Moroni was one of his personal heros. Maybe a combination of both. Or maybe something else.

You honestly think it mentions every single one for the entire 1000 years? There were no rebellions during King Benjamin and King Mosiah? Everybody was perfectly content?

The Mulekites had an origin story from Jerusalem, just like the Nephites. So of course they would mention them. It is a fullfilment of prophecy. It shows that Jerusalem truly was destroyed. These are special "others".

Most of the groups are distinguised separately for only a few generations. The longest one that I could find were the Zoramites and they lasted 70 years.

Your mention of Zoram is incorrect. There were three Zorams and two Zoramites. The first group was only mentioned once by Jacob. The second group is what you read about later in Alma and as I mentioned, it only lasts 70 years.

There are two Gadianton robber groups. One existed for less than 50 years. The other formed around 250 years later and for some reason took on the same name.

I think the main problem is that the Book of Alma, Helaman, and 3rd Nephi are so descriptive. Yet, if you ignore those books, the rest of the books are rather bland in their mentioning of history. Why is they (which span a total of 120 years) so descriptive? I don't know. But you can't say we know everything about the Nephites/Lamanites just because Mormon was descriptive for 120 years and extremely vague for the other 880 years.

Your comments are egregious and do not require further reply.

[zerinus]

I admit I could be wrong. I was not there, I can not prove it. Yet the archaeological evidence weighs heavily on my side, and it would take a very persuasive argument for me to change that opinion.

There is no archaeological evidence that there were Book of Mormon people at all. You need to make up your mind which side of the fence you are going to jump, archaeology or revelation. You can't have one foot in archaeology and one foot in revelation. They don't go together.

[Log]

Great minds come up with stuff like "mixing populations theory"... ONLY when they are backed into a corner.

I call BS.

Also, additional thoughts in regards to finding "others" in the Book of Mormon:

Edited June 4, 2012 by Log

[Stargazer]

Would lineage be easily identified with skin color?

TSS already gave a good response to this in regard to his own skin color, but I would like to add that while I am a descendent of native americans on my father's side, and while he could pass as Mexican/Indian, my brother and I, being half German through our mother, look prototypically Anglo (ironically). Our family name (Clark) is recognizably English, but we're mostly German with some English, French and Indian condiments.

[Anijen]

Why don't you try reading other people's posts properly for a change?

I have, you are the one misrepresenting what I have wrote.

"There is no evidence in the Book [of Mormon] that there were any, and whatever evidence there is in the Book [of Mormon] points to the contrary."

You are using quotations which means it is exactly what I wrote" Please quote me correctly and then I would like you not to take it out of context. Here is what I wrote;

"I am saying that there is no evidence in the book that there were; and whatever evidence there is in the book points to the contrary."

Let me correct the quotation for you, proper use of quotes should be the following;

"there is no evidence in the book [of Mormon] that there were any, whatever evidence there is in the book [of Mormon] points to the contrary."

I did not have "there" capitalized, nor did I have "book" capitalized (twice), you deleted the word "any" and you bolded the font for the words "the Book" (twice) and then you changed the font color. If you use quotes please use them correctly.

Now for the context in which you shifted or could not understand. When I wrote;

"whatever evidence there is in the book points to the contrary"

I meant contrary to the lack of evidence that there were no other people outside Nephites and Lamanites. The demographic growth of the population from the time of Lehi as one demographic statistic that anomaly would not be possible with out an interaction of other peoples.

Other readers have understood what I was implying. Do not twist my words in some elementary trick to change what I meant and then accuse me of not reading the posts.

Because I do not agree with yours or Robuchans' weak arguments, it is a immature reason to be so snarky.

Simple math would help almost anyone to realize there had to be some type of mixing of BofM people with other indigenous people to have the population grow as it did.

Robuchan

I agree 100%.

They would have met up with existing populations. It's unfortunate for the BOM truth claims that none of these interactions were ever recorded.

As the Book of Mormons purpose is to bring us in this day to Christ, Mormon would have no reason to place secular records into the text. The Book of Mormon are excerpts that Mormon chose out of thousands. Who is to say that it was never been recorded? The truth is that many writings were destroyed only (four codex's survived)

Zerinius

There is no archaeological evidence that there were Book of Mormon people at all.

This is untrue. There is no way to know the differences of a persons religion in the archaeological record.

If I were buried next to a Muslim and a Jew and two thousand years later we were dug up the archaeologist would not be able to know.

You need to make up your mind which side of the fence you are going to jump, archaeology or revelation.

Who made you the judge of what I need to do or not? I am an active member of the church. I hold callings, I home teach. I bore my testimony yesterday, I attended the temple last week. I have a strong testimony of the church and I believe in continuing revelation.

There is no "fence" for me "to jump." The archaeological evidence supports the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith said;

"It would not be a bad plan to compare Mr. Stevens ruined [Maya] cities with those in the Book of Mormon. Light cleaves to light and facts are supported by facts. The truth injures no one."

Zerinius

You can't have one foot in archaeology and one foot in revelation.

There you go again telling me what I can and cant have. I tell you what; when I see a Brother Bijhan Nasser Faili [Zerinius] called to be a Seventy and tell the congregation during General Conference that we members are not allowed to use archaeological evidence to add support to our belief in the Book of Mormon then I will be the first in line and personally offer up my sincere apologies.

In the meanwhile stop judging and telling me how I should believe.

Thank you very little

Jeff Holt

[mrmandias]

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.

His reluctance had more to do with the hopeless military situation he found himself in and the people he had to lead to do it, not with warfare per se. Mormon is *really, really* high on Captain Moroni and that whole period of Nephite warfare.

[mrmandias]

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.

This is a truly astounding and dare I say lazy assertion.

[Freedom]

There is no archaeological evidence that there were Book of Mormon people at all. You need to make up your mind which side of the fence you are going to jump, archaeology or revelation. You can't have one foot in archaeology and one foot in revelation. They don't go together.

I find this position to be rather preposterous. Science is truth. All truth comes from God. Archaeology is proving the Book of Mormon to be true. Archaeology helps us dispel misconceptions, and helps bring clarity to the text. Scholars such as John Clark, S. Kent Brown, Neal A. Maxwell, Hugh Nibley, Donald Parry, Dallin H Oaks, John Tvedtnes, John Sorenson, John Gee, John Welch and many others would disagree with you. In fact, I do not know of a single legitimate LDS scholar or authority living today that would agrees with you.

I think you are suggesting that all the scientific evidence we have in the world is a big lie perpetrated by Satan and BYU and its affiliated universities have lost their way by proposing anything different.