Lgt And The Lamanites Of Ammon'S Mission

[Freedom]

Ignorance has never been a barrier to argument.

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

Ignorance is a barrier to an argument if your argument is that, despite being ignorant, you are right and everybody else is naive. It is not the argument concerning 'others' that is the issue. My argument has always been that, unless you are familiar with ancient documents, you can not claim to know how an ancient document should behave. Mormon compiled a volume that supports the original promise: if you are obedient you will prosper, and if you are not obedient, you will be cut off. He is also supporting the promise that the descendants of Nephi will ultimately be destroyed but the descendants of Laman will come to accept the gospel. The stories he selects carefully support this theme. He is focusing his narrative on these two groups, nevertheless there is an abundance of evidence of other groups being present.

To reject the science because of dogma is to reject the doctrines of the LDS faith that instructs us to seek knowledge from all good books and that we learn line upon line.

[Log]

Ignorance is a barrier to an argument if your argument is that, despite being ignorant, you are right and everybody else is naive.

One could hardly consistently claim to be informed and then simultaneously claim that one is both ignorant and right while everyone else is naive!

My argument has always been that, unless you are familiar with ancient documents, you can not claim to know how an ancient document should behave.

There is no logical nor rational barrier to claiming to know how an ancient document should behave despite unfamiliarity with ancient documents. I mean, ancient documents mostly lie on tables and counters and stuff. Sometimes bookshelves. That's how I think they should behave, anyways.

To reject the science because of dogma is to reject the doctrines of the LDS faith that instructs us to seek knowledge from all good books and that we learn line upon line.

I will simply note that your position is itself a dogma.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Log

[Anijen]

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?

The Annals were written at the end of the 16th century by several Cakchiquels who had learned to write (Spanish). The Title of the Lords of Totonicapanin was written originally in the Quiche language (mid 16th century). Both corroborate the legends from the Popol Vu which you can also get, see here

There are some similarities to the Book of Mormon in these books (Annals of Cakchiquels and in The Title of the Lords of Totonicapan).

Edited June 4, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Freedom]

One could hardly consistently claim to be informed and then simultaneously claim that one is both ignorant and right while everyone else is naive!

yes, you are seeing my point.

There is no logical nor rational barrier to claiming to know how an ancient document should behave despite unfamiliarity with ancient documents. I mean, ancient documents mostly lie on tables and counters and stuff. Sometimes bookshelves. That's how I think they should behave, anyways.

Riiiiiiiiight

I will simply note that your position is itself a dogma.

But the dogma I am presenting is the standard upon which the entire discussion is based. An LDS view of the scriptures must be based on LDS doctrine.

[zerinus]

There is also no evidence in the Book of Mormon that the boiling point of water at sea level is 100 degrees Celsius.

That is a false comparison. The boiling point of water is not a piece of data we should expect to find in the Book of Mormon, but coming into contact with native populations is.

The lack of mention does not refute the science, contrary to what you may believe.

There is no science. When the same "science" tells that there were no Book of Mormon people at all, it makes that "science" suspect. "Science" also tells me that men descended from monkeys, whereas God tells me something different. Some people worship science, and some worship God.

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.

These have all been answered as far as I can recall.

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.

That is rubbish. I don't need to have read anything else in order to make sense of historical content of the Book of Mormon.

[zerinus]

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.

That is nonsense. I refer you again to my post #143.

[cdowis]

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.

Show me where you have responded to 1 Ne 18:25. Tell us what is an ox, and what is a "goat" vs a "wild goat". Those are statements in the BOM text which clearly indicate people inhabiting the area where Lehi landed -- specific and concrete.

Thanks.

Edited June 5, 2012 by cdowis

[zerinus]

Show me where you have responded to 1 Ne 18:25. Tell us what is an ox, and what is a "goat" vs a "wild goat". Those are statements in the BOM text which clearly indicate people inhabiting the area where Lehi landed -- specific and concrete.

Thanks.

How do they indicate that? I fail to see the connection. Please explain.

[robuchan]

The Annals were written at the end of the 16th century by several Cakchiquels who had learned to write (Spanish). The Title of the Lords of Totonicapanin was written originally in the Quiche language (mid 16th century). Both corroborate the legends from the Popol Vu which you can also get, see here

There are some similarities to the Book of Mormon in these books (Annals of Cakchiquels and in The Title of the Lords of Totonicapan).

I'm not seeing yet why this is a compelling piece of evidence. Oral histories passed down over centuries certainly can't be taken as reliable on something so esoteric and specific as this point about them failing to include mention of existing populations in the area they migrated to.

[robuchan]

Show me where you have responded to 1 Ne 18:25. Tell us what is an ox, and what is a "goat" vs a "wild goat". Those are statements in the BOM text which clearly indicate people inhabiting the area where Lehi landed -- specific and concrete.

Thanks.

The text implies these were gifts from God.

[Anijen]

Zerinus please tell us specifically what you believe;

Is it that there were others yet they never had contact with any of the Book of Mormon people?

Is it that there were no other inhabitants in America when those in the Book of Mormon came?

[Log]

But the dogma I am presenting is the standard upon which the entire discussion is based. An LDS view of the scriptures must be based on LDS doctrine.

I deny your view is "LDS doctrine," in so many words.

[mrmandias]

Just a few months ago, I was reading a history of China, if memory serves, and the text mentioned a controversy among historians about whether references to a conventional enemy hundreds of years apart could really be the same group. Apparently there's considerable evidence that they weren't, but texts still describe them as the same group and ascribe to them conventional behavior of the prior enemy group. If I were obsessed with Mormon apologetics I would have made more of a note. Alas.

[Brant Gardner]

I'm not seeing yet why this is a compelling piece of evidence. Oral histories passed down over centuries certainly can't be taken as reliable on something so esoteric and specific as this point about them failing to include mention of existing populations in the area they migrated to.

Yet another indication that you need to read more. Would you have a hypothesis as to why a written document would have different contents than an oral document? I can think of several, such as the editorial purposes of the person compiling the text. Oh - that was Nephi and Mormon and Nephi specifically said he was writing for a purpose other than history (because he had history in another place) and Mormon had a completely different purpose (and we have lost what he wrote).

So, now to complicate the fact that you are unfamiliar with ancient written documents, we add that you are unfamiliar with oral tradition. Is there a reason you are so willing to make definite statements concerning things you haven't studied at all?

[Brant Gardner]

Just a few months ago, I was reading a history of China, if memory serves, and the text mentioned a controversy among historians about whether references to a conventional enemy hundreds of years apart could really be the same group. Apparently there's considerable evidence that they weren't, but texts still describe them as the same group and ascribe to them conventional behavior of the prior enemy group. If I were obsessed with Mormon apologetics I would have made more of a note. Alas.

That is interesting, and certainly not surprising. If ever you remember more, please let me know. Thanks.

[morgan.deane]

Just a few months ago, I was reading a history of China, if memory serves, and the text mentioned a controversy among historians about whether references to a conventional enemy hundreds of years apart could really be the same group. Apparently there's considerable evidence that they weren't, but texts still describe them as the same group and ascribe to them conventional behavior of the prior enemy group. If I were obsessed with Mormon apologetics I would have made more of a note. Alas.

I would love to see the reference as well.

[Anijen]

Zerinus, the Book of Mormon does not mention baptism for the dead by your logic baptism for the dead cannot exist since it was never mentioned.

Please explain how the population grew so large in such a short time with Lehi’s group?

There is much in the scriptures that indicate others and no matter how you argue against others your opinion is weak in its premise.

Here are some of the verses which hint of others;

· 2 Nephi 5:5

And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me. 6 Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words. 7 And we did take our tents and whatsoever things were possible for us, and did journey in the wilderness for the space of many days. And after we had journeyed for the space of many days we did pitch our tents.

· All family members who are alive at this point is mentioned yet he still adds “And all those” The larger number decided to follow Nephi, yet we read time after time how the Lamanite’s outnumbered the Nephite’s. This implies they [the Lamanite's] interacted with an outside group.

· Alma 31:35 "O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of them are our brethren." This is when Alma is discussing the rebellious Zoramite’s. Why does he make a separate distinction "many of them are our brethren” It implies some were not.

· Alma 50:32 mentions that Moroni feard of others joining Morianton. These others were not part of Morianton’s group.

· All groups of people who seek to destroy the people of Nephi are called Lamanite’s regardless if they are related.. (Jacob 1:14).

Edited June 5, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Freedom]

]That is a false comparison. The boiling point of water is not a piece of data we should expect to find in the Book of Mormon, but coming into contact with native populations is.

This is false. Contact with native groups is completely irrelevant to the message of the Book of Mormon. It focuses on covenants and promises made to two specific groups.

There is no science. When the same "science" tells that there were no Book of Mormon people at all, it makes that "science" suspect. "Science" also tells me that men descended from monkeys, whereas God tells me something different. Some people worship science, and some worship God.

Then science, according to the many scholars I mentioned, including two apostles, says something much different than what you claim.

These have all been answered as far as I can recall.

You have given your opinion but no real answers.

That is rubbish. I don't need to have read anything else in order to make sense of historical content of the Book of Mormon.

Yes, this has consistently been your handicap. If you did read some material, you would realize that the book was written in the form of parallels, not a series of venn diagrams. Nephite against Lamanite, Nephi against Laman, King Benjamin against King Noah.

[Freedom]

That is nonsense. I refer you again to my post #143.

I read your post. Explain Sherem and population growth. You are the one who stands alone, virtually every other active LDS that posts here disagrees with you as well as every LDS scholar who writes on the subject such as, need I remind you, the scholars and apostles I listed. Again, your handicap is not having read other ancient books. In order to understand Mexican poetry, you need to read more than just one poem. In order to understand expository essays (a rather modern invention) you need to read dozens to realize that there is an opening thesis. An ancient hebrew scholar would be at a loss to understand a modern academic paper based on his training. Many ancient cultures do not have the thesis at the start. In fact, many have multiple arguments in one document, and they overlap. Jacob 5, for examples, has as many as 5 themes that start and end at different points. The paragraphs, unlike modern writing styles, do not contain a single idea. Ideas and themes start midway and pass over to the next paragraph. Do you even know how to identify the paragraphs? If you do not know how the writing is structured, how can you ever try to understand what it is trying to say?

According to you, a man need only date one woman once to understand the opposite gender.

[Freedom]

I deny your view is "LDS doctrine," in so many words.

D&C 88:118

Pres Hinkley: 'As we pursue our secular studies, let us also add to our lives the cultivation of the Spirit. If we do so, God will bless us with that peace and those blessings which come from Him alone.'

He admonishes to study. He does not tell us to temper what we learn with what the bible says, but rather, to temper what we learn with spiritual things such as testimony.

There are hundreds of references telling us to seek learning. I can quote prophets who argue that we do not need to prove the Book of Mormon true for archeology will do it for us.

[Log]

D&C 88:118

Pres Hinkley: 'As we pursue our secular studies, let us also add to our lives the cultivation of the Spirit. If we do so, God will bless us with that peace and those blessings which come from Him alone.'

He admonishes to study. He does not tell us to temper what we learn with what the bible says, but rather, to temper what we learn with spiritual things such as testimony.

There are hundreds of references telling us to seek learning. I can quote prophets who argue that we do not need to prove the Book of Mormon true for archeology will do it for us.

You may quote whomever you wish. It doesn't say what you said.

To wit: "To reject the science because of dogma is to reject the doctrines of the LDS faith that instructs us to seek knowledge from all good books and that we learn line upon line."

God creating man, for example, is a dogma. The resurrection of Christ is a dogma. And so forth.

Also, I have nowhere seen it proven that "the science," whichever it is you are referring to, is part of the corpus of "all good books."

Edited June 5, 2012 by Log

[Freedom]

You may quote whomever you wish. It doesn't say what you said.

To wit: "To reject the science because of dogma is to reject the doctrines of the LDS faith that instructs us to seek knowledge from all good books and that we learn line upon line."

God creating man, for example, is a dogma. The resurrection of Christ is a dogma. And so forth.

Also, I have nowhere seen it proven that "the science," whichever it is you are referring to, is part of the corpus of "all good books."

Doctrine, not dogma.

[Log]

Doctrine, not dogma.

dogma [dawg-muh, dog-]  

Origin

dog·ma   [dawg-muh, dog-] Show IPA

noun, plural dog·mas or ( Rare ) dog·ma·ta  [dawg-muh-tuh] Show IPA.

1.

an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Log

[zerinus]

Zerinus please tell us specifically what you believe;

Is it that there were others yet they never had contact with any of the Book of Mormon people?

Is it that there were no other inhabitants in America when those in the Book of Mormon came?

This is what I am saying:

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.

Tell me why that is hard for you to understand.

[zerinus]

Zerinus, the Book of Mormon does not mention baptism for the dead by your logic baptism for the dead cannot exist since it was never mentioned.

Which leads us to the obvious conclusion that baptism for the dead most likely did not exist among the BoM people; or if it did, we have no way of knowing except by a new revelation from the Lord. Also, baptism for the dead is an esoteric doctrine which does not compare with major historical event such as coming in contact with a pre-existing indigenous civilization.

Please explain how the population grew so large in such a short time with Lehi’s group?

They were blessed of the Lord with loads and loads of kids!

There is much in the scriptures that indicate others and no matter how you argue against others your opinion is weak in its premise.

Here are some of the verses which hint of others;

· 2 Nephi 5:5

· All family members who are alive at this point is mentioned yet he still adds “And all those” The larger number decided to follow Nephi, yet we read time after time how the Lamanite’s outnumbered the Nephite’s. This implies they [the Lamanite's] interacted with an outside group.

We don't know the numbers. There is no indication that the "larger number" followed Nephi. "And all those" could mean anything from two to two hundred.

· Alma 31:35 "O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of them are our brethren." This is when Alma is discussing the rebellious Zoramite’s. Why does he make a separate distinction "many of them are our brethren” It implies some were not.

That depends on how you want to define "brethren". It could mean Nephites, or people who had been faithful and just defected, or something else. Your interpretation is not a foregone conclusion.

· Alma 50:32 mentions that Moroni feard of others joining Morianton. These others were not part of Morianton’s group.

It means other possible defectors. It does not mean non-indigenous populations.

· All groups of people who seek to destroy the people of Nephi are called Lamanite’s regardless if they are related.. (Jacob 1:14).

Sure; it includes original Lamanites and Nephite defectors. No indication of non-indigenous populations.

Edited June 5, 2012 by zerinus