Lgt And The Lamanites Of Ammon'S Mission

[mrmandias]

God speaks to us in the Book of Mormon and through Joseph Smith according to our understanding.

Not really possible, since Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon both have audiences that have crossed significant cultural divides and even more significant temporal transitions. The 21st century American mind is not the 19th C. Polynesian. As anyone who has been married knows, even people who were raised in the same culture and the same time period and exposed to most of the same influences and experiences do not have an identical understanding.

I also reject the notion that Mormon (as editor) and Joseph Smith were essentially waldos for God whose own conceptions and ideas had no significant impact on their output. I find that conception of divine-human interaction deeply offputting.

Edited June 4, 2012 by mrmandias

[Freedom]

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

I think it demonstrates that this poster has never read any ancient documents and is completely ignorant of the fact that our modern method of presenting history has not been the norm for the past several thousands of years. I wonder what goes through his mind when he hears that evolution is taught at BYU and that this same university encourages legitimate archaeological research in messo america.

[robuchan]

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.

Classic apologist take on this and other similar issues.

Occam's razor: if it doesn't mention other indigenous people, they were none. If the the population seemed to grow too fast, then it was due to poor calculations by the fictional work's author.

[zerinus]

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

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.

That quote was originally from me, not from you; and I was simply reproducing it from memory, rather than quoting it verbatim. It does not invalidate the principle I was pointing out.

[Bob Crockett]

Classic apologist take on this and other similar issues.

Occam's razor: if it doesn't mention other indigenous people, they were none. If the the population seemed to grow too fast, then it was due to poor calculations by the fictional work's author.

There as some odd references in the book which very much suggest others. In terms of population counts, I never trust them in ancient documents.

[zerinus]

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.

There is no evidence in the Book of Mormon itself that there were any pre-existing civilizations that the Nephites, Lamanites, or Mulekites came into contact with; and whatever evidence there is in the book points to the contrary.

Edited June 4, 2012 by zerinus

[robuchan]

There as some odd references in the book which very much suggest others. In terms of population counts, I never trust them in ancient documents.

Which odd references are those?

[Brant Gardner]

if it doesn't mention other indigenous people, they were none.

That is an assertion rather than an accepted fact. How might we test that assumption? We could certainly examine ancient documents to see if they always obey the rule that they only mention what is there and never leave anything out that we know was there. Unfortunately for your assumption, you would find pretty quickly that the documents don't support your clearly stated assumption. Maya documents talk about the history of peoples who moved in to an area, often not mentioning the people they displaced to do so. In some cases, they mention that they all came "from the east." There is a recent paper examining those statements which has discovered that it was a metaphor for origin locations and did not represent actual direction of travel (even when travel occurred). Maya documents often speak of the "western Lords." They are never named by city or nationality. We know who they are because of history and therefore we assign them as the "western Lords." However, they are really northern (the way we would read maps).

If ancient documents do not follow your simple dictum, then why should we apply it to the Book of Mormon it if also claims to be ancient? Don't you think that judging something on the basis of an erroneous assumption is the wrong way to make a decision?

[Brant Gardner]

There is no evidence in the Book of Mormon itself that there were any pre-existing civilizations that the Nephites, Lamanites, or Mulekites came into contact with; and whatever evidence there is in the book points to the contrary.

There is nothing wrong with that statement if you would qualify it as your belief. I an respect that you read the text that way. I do not. Your firm affirmation does not define what I must agree with.

[Anijen]

That quote was originally from me, not from you; and I was simply reproducing it from memory, rather than quoting it verbatim. It does not invalidate the principle I was pointing out.

Then do not use quotations if it represents you paraphrasing my words from memory, and you need to say that is what you are doing. If you use quotations then it needs to be exactly what I wrote, misspellings, etc. You did use brackets correctly. Edited June 4, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[zerinus]

There is nothing wrong with that statement if you would qualify it as your belief. I an respect that you read the text that way. I do not. Your firm affirmation does not define what I must agree with.

Agreed; but since this is also a discussion board, It amounts to a challenge to others who disagree to provide convincing evidence to support their points of view, which so far they have failed to do.

[Brant Gardner]

Agreed; but since this is also a discussion board, It amounts to a challenge to others who disagree to provide convincing evidence to support their points of view, which so far they have failed to do.

Well, they haven't convinced you, but given the beginning point that we both agree that there is no explicit mention of others, then it is a question of how we read implicit evidence. As usual, if you begin by denying that it exists, you tend not to believe that it is there.

[Freedom]

There is no evidence in the Book of Mormon itself that there were any pre-existing civilizations that the Nephites, Lamanites, or Mulekites came into contact with; and whatever evidence there is in the book points to the contrary.

There is also no evidence in the Book of Mormon that the boiling point of water at sea level is 100 degrees Celsius. The lack of mention does not refute the science, contrary to what you may believe. The population numbers, the introduction of people such as Sherem, the overwhelming mountain of archaeological evidence, and many other indicators tell us that there were others here. Also, the fact that you have never read any other ancient documents suggest that you are not an authority on how to read the Book of Mormon.

[Log]

Also, the fact that you have never read any other ancient documents suggest that you are not an authority on how to read the Book of Mormon.

I am not aware that there is a degree in "how to read the Book of Mormon." Such an argument as you have made here is invalid.

I am reasonably sure, in fact, that Z, who is on my ignore list, has read the Bible, which consists of ancient documents.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Log

[Freedom]

I am not aware that there is a degree in "how to read the Book of Mormon." Such an argument as you have made here is invalid.

I am reasonably sure, in fact, that Z, who is on my ignore list, has read the Bible, which consists of ancient documents.

The bible, in English, is not an ancient document. It is a very poor rendition of an ancient document. Nevertheless, judging from his comments, I don't think he has read it in much depth because the very position he holds on the Book of Mormon would also apply to the bible. One can speak with authority without having a degree. It takes experience. Unless someone is familiar with reading ancient documents and how more ancient cultures rendered their history, it is not possible for them to hold a position of any substance.

[Log]

The bible, in English, is not an ancient document. It is a very poor rendition of an ancient document.

Unless someone is familiar with reading ancient documents and how more ancient cultures rendered their history, it is not possible for them to hold a position of any substance.

That is your personal opinion. You are welcome to it. I disagree with your opinion, for the simple fact that Joseph Smith, apparently, could not possibly have held a position of any substance on the Book of Mormon, or the Bible, for that matter, on your view.

[zerinus]

Well, they haven't convinced you, but given the beginning point that we both agree that there is no explicit mention of others, then it is a question of how we read implicit evidence. As usual, if you begin by denying that it exists, you tend not to believe that it is there.

This is a generalized statement that is basically meaningless in the absence of concrete evidence. This is a long thread, and people have had plenty of opportunity to provide credible evidence for their arguments; but it is obvious to me that they haven't.

[robuchan]

That is an assertion rather than an accepted fact. How might we test that assumption? We could certainly examine ancient documents to see if they always obey the rule that they only mention what is there and never leave anything out that we know was there. Unfortunately for your assumption, you would find pretty quickly that the documents don't support your clearly stated assumption. Maya documents talk about the history of peoples who moved in to an area, often not mentioning the people they displaced to do so. In some cases, they mention that they all came "from the east." There is a recent paper examining those statements which has discovered that it was a metaphor for origin locations and did not represent actual direction of travel (even when travel occurred). Maya documents often speak of the "western Lords." They are never named by city or nationality. We know who they are because of history and therefore we assign them as the "western Lords." However, they are really northern (the way we would read maps).

If ancient documents do not follow your simple dictum, then why should we apply it to the Book of Mormon it if also claims to be ancient? Don't you think that judging something on the basis of an erroneous assumption is the wrong way to make a decision?

Can you describe some of these ancient works that don't refer to the natives? Do any of them include groups that traveled from the Old World to the New World? Any of them over 500 pages long or cover 1,000 years of time?

Can you give me a single account of any colonizer throughout the history of time that didn't mention the existence of natives where we know for certain they encountered natives?

Edited June 4, 2012 by robuchan

[Brant Gardner]

Can you describe some of these ancient works that don't refer to the natives?

The Title of the Lords of Totonicapan and the Popol Vuh both speak of all of the known peoples arriving together in the land where they continued to exist. Archaeology tells a different story and there were people in the land before those tribes arrived.

The Lords of Totonicapan speak of wars with a specific tribe, but indicate that it was a tribe that arrived with them--sort of like Lamanites.

Do any of them include groups that traveled from the Old World to the New World?

Both of them claim that they came over the waters from the east. Does that count? (I don't personally think that has anything to do with the Book of Mormon, but others have made that argument.)

Any of them over 500 pages long or cover 1,000 years of time?

Are you asking if the Title of the Lords of Totonicapan or the Popol Vuh are the Book of Mormon? If so, the answer is no.

Can you give me a single account of any colonizer throughout the history of time that didn't mention the existence of natives where we know for certain they encountered natives?

The Totonicapanos and the Quiche. There is a little better information on enemies in the Annals of the Cakchiquel, but generally they are all silent on the people who lived in the are when they arrived. For that matter, the speak of traveling to Tulan for political justification and advice, but never happen to mention that most historians believe that the Tulan they are referring to was a different people and a different language.

They don't mention lots of things like that. Yes they are authentic ancient documents.

[Freedom]

That is your personal opinion. You are welcome to it. I disagree with your opinion, for the simple fact that Joseph Smith, apparently, could not possibly have held a position of any substance on the Book of Mormon, or the Bible, for that matter, on your view.

And Joseph had little to say on the nuances of the text other than the doctrine it contained. We are not talking about the doctrinal truths, we are talking about discerning patterns in poetic structure, understanding what may or may not have been included, and why ect. Reading an english translation of the bible does not provide you with an accurate view of how ancient Hebrews wrote their history. The grammar and word usage has been so modernized to make the original language difficult to discern. The issue is that, unless you are familiar with ancient writing styles, you cannot argue about the subject at hand. If you do not know how other ancient writers addressed 'others', I do not see how you can claim any authority to know how the Book of Mormon authors would have dwelt with others.

[Freedom]

Can you describe some of these ancient works that don't refer to the natives? Do any of them include groups that traveled from the Old World to the New World? Any of them over 500 pages long or cover 1,000 years of time?

Can you give me a single account of any colonizer throughout the history of time that didn't mention the existence of natives where we know for certain they encountered natives?

It is not that the Nephites never mentioned others, it is more that the Book of Mormon excluded mentioning them because of the literary style. It is a book that consistently portrays polar opposites. It stresses King Noah versus King Benjamin, the decedents of Nephi versus the descendants of Laman, the people of Ammon versus the people of Alma. Events in their history involving other indigenous groups were not included because they detracted from the style Mormon was using to teach the gospel message. New Testament writers hand picked passages of scripture (sometimes taking them out of context) to justify their new religion as well. You need to understand the style of writing. It is not a history book; rather, it is a doctrinal book that uses historical events to teach gospel messages. One of the fundamental messages is the fulfillment of the prophesies about the descendants of Nephi and Laman. It is natural, therefore, to find stories that focus on these two groups at the exclusion of all others.

[robuchan]

The Title of the Lords of Totonicapan and the Popol Vuh both speak of all of the known peoples arriving together in the land where they continued to exist. Archaeology tells a different story and there were people in the land before those tribes arrived.

The Lords of Totonicapan speak of wars with a specific tribe, but indicate that it was a tribe that arrived with them--sort of like Lamanites.

Both of them claim that they came over the waters from the east. Does that count? (I don't personally think that has anything to do with the Book of Mormon, but others have made that argument.)

Are you asking if the Title of the Lords of Totonicapan or the Popol Vuh are the Book of Mormon? If so, the answer is no.

The Totonicapanos and the Quiche. There is a little better information on enemies in the Annals of the Cakchiquel, but generally they are all silent on the people who lived in the are when they arrived. For that matter, the speak of traveling to Tulan for political justification and advice, but never happen to mention that most historians believe that the Tulan they are referring to was a different people and a different language.

They don't mention lots of things like that. Yes they are authentic ancient documents.

Please don't provide examples where they are "generally silent". I don't want to waste my time researching this and find out existing natives were mentioned. I will look up your sources. I'm interested in this.

So which one do you think best makes your case?

Edited June 4, 2012 by robuchan

[Log]

The issue is that, unless you are familiar with ancient writing styles, you cannot argue about the subject at hand.

Ignorance has never been a barrier to argument.

If you do not know how other ancient writers addressed 'others', I do not see how you can claim any authority to know how the Book of Mormon authors would have dwelt with others.

That's a much better claim than your original. Carry on.

[Anijen]

Please don't provide examples where they are "generally silent". I don't want to waste my time researching this and find out existing natives were mentioned. I will look up your sources. I'm interested in this.

So which one do you think best makes your case?

As Brant mentioned; The Annals of the Cakchiquels and The Title of the Lords of Totonicapan are great resources and you can get it in one book see here

also Burning water is a good resource see here

[robuchan]

As Brant mentioned; The Annals of the Cakchiquels and The Title of the Lords of Totonicapan are great resources and you can get it in one book see here

also Burning water is a good resource see here

OK, I just looked up Annals of Cakchiquels. Apparently this was written in 1500's and contains myths and legends passed down orally for centuries. Is this correct?