Mixing Population Theory, Analysis Of Roper'S Evidences

[robuchan]

You don't actually address every single one. It's a very sketchy, hasty, and incomplete dismissal. No one who has read only your response would have a clear idea of what Roper (and Sorenson, and Brant Gardner, and I) have noticed in the Book of Mormon regarding others.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Yes, I did address every single one. I went through his article and pulled out every single point he made with respect to internal evidence of others. I didn't repeat his argument clearly for each verse/point. My audience is intended to be those familiar with Roper's article. But I covered every point. What does it say that you refuse to address my points?

[Kevin Christensen]

Suggesting alternative "could be" for a few things is not a refutation. It is presenting an alternative. I don't find the alternatives at all persuasive. I'd written up my own reading of many passages that indiciate others around back in 1995 in RBBM 7:2. The abbreviated treatment of Roper's interconnected arguments leaves out the logic behind why another reading remains viable and worth consideration. You've ruled nothing out by saying "could be."

For instance, regarding the covenant curse of "other nations."

Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me [Lehi], and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries. (2 Nephi 1:5)

Notice that from the start, possession of the promised land is not just conditional, as we have seen, but also nonexclusive. Note also that there is no requirement that the "other countries" be located in the Old World.

Lehi's promise that his children would possess the land unmolested was conditional on their keeping the commandments (2 Nephi 1:9). The next verses say that "when . . . they shall dwindle in unbelief" (not "long afterwards," but "when"), the Lord "will bring other nations . . . and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten. Yea, as one generation passeth to another, there shall be bloodsheds" (2 Nephi 1:10-12).

Second Nephi 5:2-5 reports that soon after the death of Lehi—the passing of a generation—Nephi's brothers plotted against his own life. Nephi and those he called "his people" fled the land. Despite the report that those who initially left "were those who believed" in God (2 Nephi 5:6), such passages as 2 Nephi 32:7 and 2 Nephi 33:1-3 suggest strongly that Nephi's people had problems of their own. For example, Jacob reports on the necessity for "diligent" labor among them on the part of the prophets (Jacob 1:7) even before Jacob 2:15 describes the beginning of extreme tendencies. Prior to the departure of Nephi's people, the Lamanites had already acted in a role as "a scourge to [Nephi's people], to stir them up in remembrance of me" (2 Nephi 5:25). Although neither Nephi nor Jacob provides details, Jacob 1:10 describes Nephi as having "wielded the sword of Laban" in defense of his people. Thus we have no record of the conditions for blessing being fully kept, and significant information suggesting that the covenant curse was in effect almost from the time of the death of Lehi. That is, immediately after the death of Lehi (the passing of that generation), we see the loss of lands and scattering (2 Nephi 5:5), and smiting and bloodsheds (2 Nephi 5:25, 34, Jacob 1:10). What about the "other nations"?

All you do is to read the text based on the assumption that the book is false, and as though the many indications that others were around should be read on the assumption that any alternate suggestion provides a refutation. An option is not a refutation. It is just personal preference made public.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[robuchan]

Suggesting alternative "could be" for a few things is not a refutation. It is presenting an alternative. I don't find the alternatives at all persuasive. I'd written up my own reading of many passages that indiciate others around back in 1995 in RBBM 7:2. The abbreviated treatment of Roper's interconnected arguments leaves out the logic behind why another reading remains viable and worth consideration. You've ruled nothing out by saying "could be."

For instance, regarding the covenant curse of "other nations."

Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me [Lehi], and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries. (2 Nephi 1:5)

Notice that from the start, possession of the promised land is not just conditional, as we have seen, but also nonexclusive. Note also that there is no requirement that the "other countries" be located in the Old World.

Lehi's promise that his children would possess the land unmolested was conditional on their keeping the commandments (2 Nephi 1:9). The next verses say that "when . . . they shall dwindle in unbelief" (not "long afterwards," but "when"), the Lord "will bring other nations . . . and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten. Yea, as one generation passeth to another, there shall be bloodsheds" (2 Nephi 1:10-12).

Second Nephi 5:2-5 reports that soon after the death of Lehi—the passing of a generation—Nephi's brothers plotted against his own life. Nephi and those he called "his people" fled the land. Despite the report that those who initially left "were those who believed" in God (2 Nephi 5:6), such passages as 2 Nephi 32:7 and 2 Nephi 33:1-3 suggest strongly that Nephi's people had problems of their own. For example, Jacob reports on the necessity for "diligent" labor among them on the part of the prophets (Jacob 1:7) even before Jacob 2:15 describes the beginning of extreme tendencies. Prior to the departure of Nephi's people, the Lamanites had already acted in a role as "a scourge to [Nephi's people], to stir them up in remembrance of me" (2 Nephi 5:25). Although neither Nephi nor Jacob provides details, Jacob 1:10 describes Nephi as having "wielded the sword of Laban" in defense of his people. Thus we have no record of the conditions for blessing being fully kept, and significant information suggesting that the covenant curse was in effect almost from the time of the death of Lehi. That is, immediately after the death of Lehi (the passing of that generation), we see the loss of lands and scattering (2 Nephi 5:5), and smiting and bloodsheds (2 Nephi 5:25, 34, Jacob 1:10). What about the "other nations"?

All you do is to read the text based on the assumption that the book is false, and as though the many indications that others were around should be read on the assumption that any alternate suggestion provides a refutation. An option is not a refutation. It is just personal preference made public.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

On your assertion that the timing of "other nations" is immediate, I don't see that at all. And that's not the way it was interpreted for the better part of 200 years.

On the points concerning Nephi's enemies in 2 Ne, give me some time to process that. This argument wasn't in Roper's article.

[Hamba Tuhan]

And that's not the way it was interpreted for the better part of 200 years.

Ironically, I just earnt a PhD in history demonstrating to the satisfaction of very critical examiners that a series of historical texts have been interpreted incorrectly for far longer than the past 200 years...all by approaching the texts critically and piecing together internal, textual implications.

[Kevin Christensen]

One my favorite things about being LDS is that I'm not bound to erroneous interpretations, no matter who made them for how long. See D&C 1 on "inasmuch as they erred..."

If you want to interpret the timing of the other nations as 2,000 years later, that is your preference. It strikes me as rather pointless for a covenant curse designed to prod a people into repentence, particularly when it should arrive as one generation passeth to another, and when all of the other covenant curses are demonstrated as fulfilled at that point. If Lehi had said, "as two or more millenia pass to another" then that might provide a refutation, rather than just an alternate interpretation. But as a meaningful motivation for righteous living, it lacks power. Try it on your own children: "If you misbehave, I will take it out on your remote desendants 2000 years from now."

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[bcuzbcuz]

Speaking of China. No one believed in Marco Polos' account of how large the population of China was and assumed he was massively inflating those figures.

Speaking of China.

Marco Polo was considered to be a teller of tall tales, a liar. Despite modern opinions Marco Polo told of nothing that he could not have picked up as second hand stories. Not one single piece of Chinese goods has ever been attributed to Polo and he missed little details in his story, such as chopsticks and the Great Wall of China.

Marco Polo never went to China.

[robuchan]

One my favorite things about being LDS is that I'm not bound to erroneous interpretations, no matter who made them for how long. See D&C 1 on "inasmuch as they erred..."

If you want to interpret the timing of the other nations as 2,000 years later, that is your preference. It strikes me as rather pointless for a covenant curse designed to prod a people into repentence, particularly when it should arrive as one generation passeth to another, and when all of the other covenant curses are demonstrated as fulfilled at that point. If Lehi had said, "as two or more millenia pass to another" then that might provide a refutation, rather than just an alternate interpretation. But as a meaningful motivation for righteous living, it lacks power. Try it on your own children: "If you misbehave, I will take it out on your remote desendants 2000 years from now."

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I don't find your explanation compelling at all. It's relevant that it's been interpreted that way for 200 years by many men including prophets and Bible scholars because you and the modern apologists aren't using any new information or techniques unavailable to previous people to evaluate the logic. Is it coincidence that this new interpretation came at a time when apologists became desperate to establish the existence of Others?

[zerinus]

For instance, regarding the covenant curse of "other nations."

Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me [Lehi], and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries. (2 Nephi 1:5)

Notice that from the start, possession of the promised land is not just conditional, as we have seen, but also nonexclusive. Note also that there is no requirement that the "other countries" be located in the Old World.

Agreed; but there is no evidence in the Book of Mormon itself that if such migrations had taken place during or prior to the Book of Mormon period, that they had come into contact with the Book of Mormon people; and whatever evidence there is in the book points to the contrary. In other words, the text of the Book of Mormon text cannot be used to argue either that such migrations had taken place, or if they had, that they had come into contact with the BoM people during the period that the BoM history was written.

Lehi's promise that his children would possess the land unmolested was conditional on their keeping the commandments (2 Nephi 1:9). The next verses say that "when . . . they shall dwindle in unbelief" (not "long afterwards," but "when"), the Lord "will bring other nations . . . and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten. Yea, as one generation passeth to another, there shall be bloodsheds" (2 Nephi 1:10-12).

This is what it says:

2 Nephi 1:

5 But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.

11 Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.

12 Yea, as one generation passeth to another there shall be bloodsheds, and great visitations among them; wherefore, my sons, I would that ye would remember; yea, I would that ye would hearken unto my words.

There is no way this prophecy can be construed to have been fulfilled during the BoM history. Its fulfilment came with the arrival of the Europeans to the New World; and there is plenty of other passages in the BoM to support that interpretation:

1 Nephi 13:

12 And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.

13 And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters.

14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.

15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

1 Nephi 22:

7 And it meaneth that the time cometh that after all the house of Israel have been scattered and confounded, that the Lord God will raise up a mighty nation among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land; and by them shall our seed be scattered.

Mormon 5:

17 They were once a delightsome people, and they had Christ for their shepherd; yea, they were led even by God the Father.

18 But now, behold, they are led about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they.

19 And behold, the Lord hath reserved their blessings, which they might have received in the land, for the Gentiles who shall possess the land.

20 But behold, it shall come to pass that they shall be driven and scattered by the Gentiles; and after they have been driven and scattered by the Gentiles, behold, then will the Lord remember the covenant which he made unto Abraham and unto all the house of Israel.

So all the evidence suggests that the prophecy was to receive its fulfilment in the latter days with the arrival of the Europeans. It was not meant to be fulfilled during the period of the BoM history.

Second Nephi 5:2-5 reports that soon after the death of Lehi—the passing of a generation—Nephi's brothers plotted against his own life. Nephi and those he called "his people" fled the land. Despite the report that those who initially left "were those who believed" in God (2 Nephi 5:6), such passages as 2 Nephi 32:7 and 2 Nephi 33:1-3 suggest strongly that Nephi's people had problems of their own. For example, Jacob reports on the necessity for "diligent" labor among them on the part of the prophets (Jacob 1:7) even before Jacob 2:15 describes the beginning of extreme tendencies. Prior to the departure of Nephi's people, the Lamanites had already acted in a role as "a scourge to [Nephi's people], to stir them up in remembrance of me" (2 Nephi 5:25). Although neither Nephi nor Jacob provides details, Jacob 1:10 describes Nephi as having "wielded the sword of Laban" in defense of his people. Thus we have no record of the conditions for blessing being fully kept, and significant information suggesting that the covenant curse was in effect almost from the time of the death of Lehi. That is, immediately after the death of Lehi (the passing of that generation), we see the loss of lands and scattering (2 Nephi 5:5), and smiting and bloodsheds (2 Nephi 5:25, 34, Jacob 1:10). What about the "other nations"?

That is an entirely incorrect interpretation of these verses; see the passages quoted above. Although the Nephrites had “problems” among themselves throughout their history, it was not such as to trigger the conditions required for the fulfilment of the above prophecies. The conditions were fulfilled at the end of the Book of Mormon period when the Nephites had totally rejected God and been annihilated; and there were “none left but the Lamanites” who had also rejected Jesus Christ.

All you do is to read the text based on the assumption that the book is false, and as though the many indications that others were around should be read on the assumption that any alternate suggestion provides a refutation. An option is not a refutation. It is just personal preference made public.

I agree that he is arguing from the point of view that the book is false! But he happens to be putting forward much more cogent arguments against the thesis you guys are pursuing than you are putting forward against him. You are not doing yourselves or the Book of Mormon any favors by so doing.

Edited June 15, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

On your assertion that the timing of "other nations" is immediate, I don't see that at all. And that's not the way it was interpreted for the better part of 200 years.

Agreed!

I don't find your explanation compelling at all. It's relevant that it's been interpreted that way for 200 years by many men including prophets and Bible scholars because you and the modern apologists aren't using any new information or techniques unavailable to previous people to evaluate the logic.

Agreed also!

Is it coincidence that this new interpretation came at a time when apologists became desperate to establish the existence of Others?

I am a TBM, and I am not "desperate to establish the existence of Others;" and I don't think that the validity of the Book or Mormon requires it. Your arguments would become much more potent if you actually believed in the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

[zerinus]

Ironically, I just earnt a PhD in history demonstrating to the satisfaction of very critical examiners that a series of historical texts have been interpreted incorrectly for far longer than the past 200 years...all by approaching the texts critically and piecing together internal, textual implications.

Too bad people aren't doing that for the "others" theory in the Book of Mormon.

[Kevin Christensen]

I don't find your explanation compelling at all. It's relevant that it's been interpreted that way for 200 years by many men including prophets and Bible scholars because you and the modern apologists aren't using any new information or techniques unavailable to previous people to evaluate the logic. Is it coincidence that this new interpretation came at a time when apologists became desperate to establish the existence of Others?

I often quote Kuhn on the notion that paradigm change cannot be compelled. I'm posting on this thread to demonstrate that your perspective is not the only option, that your firm pronouncements are opposed. That some people don't find your readings and argumentation at all compelling.

My readings come from the way I contextualize and from the background assumptions I make. The soil in which I plant the words, and the care and nurture and patience I give them. For instance, I understand that the term "land" as used throughout the narrative is typically quite localized. Land of the first inheritance, land of Nephi, narrow neck of land, land of Zarahemla, land Northward, land of many waters, etc. Those who put that language in our text did not have modern maps or modern concepts of geography. The repetition of the Exodus pattern, as remnants move from one land to another, escaping, or being driven by violence, or running from trouble typically involves going from one land to another land, and the covenant on the "land" goes with the people. The promised land is where ever the covenant people happen to stop. for a while. So I understand that if the Exodus pattern is repeated in the Book of Mormon, the the pride and prosperity cycle is repeated in the Book of Mormon, and certain type scenes are repeated with variations in the Book of Mormon, certain prophesies might be fulfilled to a significant degree in more than one time and place. Certain Nephites move from land to land to land to land to ultimate destruction and demonstrate a pattern that repeats.. And that pattern was given to us on the principle that the pattern repeats. So Zerinus arguing that a prophecy being fulfilled later precludes it being fullfulled earlier does not persuade me that my reading is invalid. Brant has elsewhere argued that the patterns is fulfilled in South and Central America as well as it was in North America.

I also pay attention to cultural issues in the text, like the different language of the Zarahemlites, the arrival of Jaredite names in the Nephite accounts, the tendencies demonstrated among the peoples who become Lamanites, or Gaddianton Robbers. I pay attention to implications of the physical settings, Old and New World, and I try to take note of the best scholarship. I note Roper's observations of Biblical prophecies that the branches of the House of Israel are to be scattered among other peoples, that the grafting of branches requires a root to be grafted into. And I found that once I was open to seeing others in the text, I could see indications quite easily.

The history of science and scholarship demonstrates that the questions that never get asked and the passages that never get analyzed, and the assumptions that never get questioned are not notable for unlocking the doors of perception. It does not matter whether a person holds an office or got revelations on other topics or how long an unexamined opinion was repeated and by whom. D&C 1 bluntly and correctly and insightfully sets expectations for LDS members. Old interpretations may be wrong. If we acknowledge our errors, and make inquiries, we will be blessed with new knowledge from time to time. We don't have all knowledge on the shelf.

Even so, Roper demonstrates that the notion of "others" goes back a long way. Joseph Smith was comfortable with the idea. Those who have assumed that the Book of Mormon accounts for everyone have only demonstrated that they not have asked and answered all relevant questions.

Robuchan,

It's odd to see someone who does not believe in prophets or the historicity of the Book of Mormon citing prophets as authorities on interpretation. Presumably someone who does not accept a prophet as a real prophet, or the Book of Mormon as having a real basis ought not to argue that their readings ought to be definitive and final and binding. You clearly do not see them that way. I believe the Book of Mormon, but I don't see evidence of ominscience or final perfection in anyone's writing on the topic, mine included. Some readers are more careful and perceptive than others. I seek wisdom from the best books, realizing that "best" may be a temporary designation when something better comes along.

On another thread, zerinus had claimed this:

The Book of Mormon as a divinely commissioned book is self-sufficient for its own interpretation with the possible exception of the Bible and other modern scriptures of the Church. That is all that one needs to interpret and understand the book correctly.

I stand all amazed at this kind of thinking. Not persuaded. Just amazed.

In "Text and Context" Margaret Barker observes that: "All the texts in the chosen canon would have had an original context, which presupposed a certain pattern of shared

beliefs within which the text was set. The context was as much a part of the meaning as the words themselves. Set in a new context, the same text would soon acquire a new meaning."

Lacking knowledge of the culture and setting in which a text was originally placed, we tend to default to our own background assumptions and concerns. It was Nibley's work that opened my eyes to the difference that reading in a specific cultural context can make. The same seed (words) produce a hundred fold more. Of the Parable of the Sower, Jesus says, "Know ye not this parable? How then can ye know all parables?" If we don't read in the proper contexts, we can't know what a difference that a better context might make.

There are armies of scholars in and out of the LDS faith tradition that are extending the kind of enlightening contextualization the scriptures that I first discovered with Nibley. 2 Nephi 25:1-5 talks about the importance of reading in the cultural context of the Jews. Part of the cultural context of the New World setting is that people were here already. A reading that accounts for their known presence has that clear advantage over any reading that does not.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[zerinus]

I stand all amazed at this kind of thinking. Not persuaded. Just amazed.

In other words, you have no real answer to my post #33. Why am I not surprised.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Is it coincidence that this new interpretation came at a time when apologists became desperate to establish the existence of Others?

As has already been pointed out to you more than once on the other thread, you're getting your chronology completely backward here.

[Calm]

One my favorite things about being LDS is that I'm not bound to erroneous interpretations, no matter who made them for how long. See D&C 1 on "inasmuch as they erred..."

If you want to interpret the timing of the other nations as 2,000 years later, that is your preference. It strikes me as rather pointless for a covenant curse designed to prod a people into repentence, particularly when it should arrive as one generation passeth to another, and when all of the other covenant curses are demonstrated as fulfilled at that point. If Lehi had said, "as two or more millenia pass to another" then that might provide a refutation, rather than just an alternate interpretation. But as a meaningful motivation for righteous living, it lacks power. Try it on your own children: "If you misbehave, I will take it out on your remote desendants 2000 years from now."

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

We cant even get the government to balance its books and cut the fat so that our own children won't suffer unnecessary hardships in their more advanced years.

[Anijen]

Speaking of China.

Marco Polo never went to China.

If you believe that Marco Polo never visited China then you are in a small majority. Most Chinese experts contrary to your opinion do. Some notable Chinese history experts such as Shane Strate, Stephan G. Haw, and Jacques Gernet all experts in China have written peer reviewed books on China and have mentioned Marco Polo (in China) in their writings. A quick search on Wikipedia will confirm that most Chinese experts also concur that Marco Polo was in China.

In Gernet's excellent book the Daily Life in China on the Eve of the Mongol Invasion 1250-1276 Marco Polo is mentioned on 48 pages. I can supply the page numbers if you need them.

In Marco Polo's own writings he describes in detail customs that one could only know if he visited there; such as every Representative wrote their names over their door (including their wife, children, and any slave names).

Marco Polo was considered to be a teller of tall tales, a liar.

Yes he was. The reason being is what I stated. I will clarify; Europe believed themselves to be the civilized, top notch, cream of the crop of humanity. Marco Polos' family was very respected and educated, yet the people of Europe could not believe that a barbaric country such as China could have the best trade system in the world, the best infrastructure, and largest population numbers. To Europeans in the late 13th century that would be mind boggling. Marco Polos' own description of China is what made other Europeans believe he was a liar not because he was, but because they in their jingoist attitude they could not believe another people and barbaric at that could be better. Note the Chinese were not barbaric at all but Europeans thought they were.

I can go on and on. Marco Polo did go to China

Anijen

Edited June 7, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Mansquatch]

14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, lest by any means the people who were now called Lamanites should come upon us and destroy us; for I knew their hatred towards me and my children and those who were called my people. (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi, Chapter 5)

I always thought the phrase "the people who were now called Lamanites" was interesting and perhaps demonstrated that others had mixed with Laman and Lemuel's group. Especially since it appears next to the talk about skin changes for mixing seed. Before that Nephi always said something like "my brethren".

One must also wonder if a group who may not have qualms about mixing with natives could acheive more than double the numbers of not 1 but 2 groups of people who had the same amount of time to reproduce.

1 And now king Mosiah caused that all the people should be gathered together.

2 Now there were not so many of the children of Nephi, or so many of those who were descendants of Nephi, as there were of the people of Zarahemla, who was a descendant of Mulek, and those who came with him into the wilderness.

3 And there were not so many of the people of Nephi and of the people of Zarahemla as there were of the Lamanites; yea, they were not half so numerous. (Book of Mormon, Mosiah, Chapter 25)

I also have definitive proof of people mentioned in the BoM already here before the Nephites:

8 And they were lost in the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land of Zarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters, having discovered a land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous as the hosts of Israel. (Book of Mormon, Mosiah, Chapter

Couldn't resist.

[robuchan]

As has already been pointed out to you more than once on the other thread, you're getting your chronology completely backward here.

Tell me when this Others argument started picking up steam in the LDS community. And tell me when the knowledge that Asians populated the Americas over 10,000 years ago started to become a widely accepted fact.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Wait, do you honestly believe that academically trained Latter-day Saints who apply their critical reading skills to the Book of Mormon do so in direct response to the concept that the Bering Land Bridge allowed for migrations into North America?

(By the way, the issue of others in the Book of Mormon was addressed in a 1929 General Conference. The Bering Strait Theory became popular in the 1930s.)

[Brant Gardner]

Tell me when this Others argument started picking up steam in the LDS community.

The integration between the Others argument and a limited geography were being worked out by at least 1950, perhaps earlier. The basic arguments were presented and developed in a small circle. The dissemination of the idea follows the lines of the dissemination of the rest of the aspects of the LGT, with a major watershed occurring in the early 70's when John Sorenson presented the information to a number of General Authorities and the idea of publishing in both the Ensign and a separate book were discussed. Both publication events occurred, though about a decade later. That probably increased the speed of information dissemination.

DNA evidence as part of the controversy dates from Thomas Murphy's article published in a book in 2002.

[Freedom]

Tell me when this Others argument started picking up steam in the LDS community. And tell me when the knowledge that Asians populated the Americas over 10,000 years ago started to become a widely accepted fact.

This criticism is a double standard. Nobody would fire an expert if new research comes out to contradict their ideas. This how we learn. We have science and religion. Our understanding of religion is enhanced through science. The religions community used to believe that the world was flat. today, about 2/3rd still reject evolution. Advances in science do not contradict the scriptures, they only challenge long held beliefs about the scriptures. I have no doubt that more information will come out about the ancient inhabitants of this continent and it will add (and likely change) how we read the Book of Mormon. We are reading it with very limited external data. The doctrines remain pure. the history is rather irrelevant to understanding much of the doctrine. I would not be concerned if, in 20 years, all that we are saying about the culture and genetic make up of the children of Lehi is completely wrong. We are guesting as best we can with the information we have available. Medicine, engineering, history, linguistics and a host of other specialties work the same way.

[Aliwe]

I also have definitive proof of people mentioned in the BoM already here before the Nephites:.

Gosh, maybe they were Jaredites.

Marco Polo was considered to be a teller of tall tales, a liar. Despite modern opinions Marco Polo told of nothing that he could not have picked up as second hand stories. Not one single piece of Chinese goods has ever been attributed to Polo and he missed little details in his story, such as chopsticks and the Great Wall of China.

Nowadays the Great Wall of China is a big tourist trap, and people might doubt Marco Polo went to China if he failed to do what even Grandma Doris did on her 2009 trip to China, but in the 13th and 14th Century, the Great Wall was used as a, I don't know...wall. It was a military structure. If a Chinese traveler came to America I don't think we'd show him our torpedo depot.