Mixing Population Theory, Analysis Of Roper'S Evidences

[robuchan]

I find absolutely nothing substantive in Matthew Roper's Nephi's Neighbors article as far as evidence supporting the "others/mixing populations" theory.

2 Nephi 1:8—9 "other nations"

clearly talking about future migrations from Europe

Jacob condemns Nephites "having many wives and concubines"

Sorenson estimates the Nephite population to be about 50 at this point. Jacob's son, Enos, died 179 years after Lehi left Jerusalem. This verse could have come at any time during that period. It's easy to show the Nephite population could be in the thousands in year 150. Further, assuming the Book of Mormon is not inspired, historically accurate literature, we are not bound by accurate population modeling techniques. Lehi was very old when the city left Jerusalemn, and he has a grandson live and die 179 years later. Obviously, we are dealing with population modeling that doesn't follow commonly held assumptions. The author of the Book of Mormon likely believed Adam lived to be 1,000 years old and had hundreds of children.

Jacob 7, Sherem: "sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you; for I have heard and also know that thou goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ"

See the point above about population modeling. "sought much opportunity" cannot be assumed that he went to the temple everyday looking for Jacob. It could be something as simple as Sherem kept putting it on his to do list and never got around to it, or even he spent a lot of time thinking and preparing for that future moment. "thou goest about much, preaching" could mean that Jacob did nothing more than a bishop does, visiting the members in his ward. Further, and this is the point that can't be stressed enough. The assumption for non-believers is that this book is fiction with numerous conflicts with proven science, historical anachronysms, lingual and grammar mistakes, internal consistencies, and logical errors. There is no need to make wild extrapolations to explain slightly illogical or confusing passages, when the book is full of them.

allegory of the olive tree

The olive tree allegory describes different peoples involved in the BOM and inhabiting America: Jaredites, Nephites, Lamanites, and future settlers from Europe. They are compared to branches on an olive tree, and each group is described in detail and how they fit into the history of America. The allegory was borrowed from Romans, and since the comparison is borrowed and not created specifically to describe the BOM peoples, it should be assumed there is a need to retrofit the example. An existing branch is required to make the comparison work. Yet unlike the other branches, no thought is given to this existing branch, no detail about it, no description, no evidence to suggest it's an important part of the story.

"all other nations under heaven" if they will serve God (Ether 2:12)

"And he raiseth up a righteous nation, and destroyeth the nations of the wicked. And he leadeth away the righteous into precious lands, and the wicked he destroyeth, and curseth the land unto them for their sakes" (1 Nephi 17:37—38)

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. (2 Nephi 1:7)

Cursed shall be the land, yea, this land, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, unto destruction, which do wickedly, when they are fully ripe. (Alma 45:16)

And I said unto them, that it should be granted unto them according to their faith in their prayers; yea, and this was their faith—that my gospel, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the Lamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions. Now, this is not all—their faith in their prayers was that this gospel should be made known also, if it were possible that other nations should possess this land; and thus they did leave a blessing upon this land in their prayers, that whosoever should believe in this gospel in this land might have eternal life; yea, that it might be free unto all of whatsoever nation, kindred, tongue, or people they may be. (D&C 10:47—52)

BOM specifically mentions Christopher Columbus and future European settlement of America. The most natural interpretation is these "other" references are of future settlers of America.

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. 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. (2 Nephi 5:5—6)

This is approximately 30 years after the opening scenes of the BOM. At this time, any of his older siblings (Sam and possibly his sisters) are assumed to be at least age 50 and maybe over 100 years old, using an extrapolation based on Enos dying 179 years after the Jerusalem exodus. They could have grandchildren or great-grandchildren. The unnamed "all those who would go with me" could be referring to these. Or it could be referring to children, grandchildren, or great grand children of Laman, Lemuel, or Ishael's sons joining with Nephi. Further, it could be an example of a redundant “and” clause which are numerous in the BOM test.

"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" (2 Nephi 5:14)

It's clear there are other people grouped with Nephi already besides his own children (Jacobites, Zoramites, etc). This is an obvious reference to them.

"And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done" (2 Nephi 5:23).

Roper says the "it was done" is referring to non-Lamanites being cursed because they mix seed sith Lamanites. It most likely refers to the original cursing of the Lamanites. But if not, it would most naturally apply to one of the Nephites switching sides, since that is what happens in other places in the BOM.

[thesometimesaint]

Far too many assumptions.

[Brant Gardner]

2 Nephi 1:8—9 "other nations"

clearly talking about future migrations from Europe

BOM specifically mentions Christopher Columbus and future European settlement of America. The most natural interpretation is these "other" references are of future settlers of America.

What you are declaring "clear" is simply a way of reading the text. Supposing that your interpretation is authoritative is a bit presumptious (particular since Christopher Columbus is certainly not "mentioned"). Many have read Columbus into the text, but that is hardly the only way to read it, has some interesting problems, and is far from a reason to read the text in only one way.

In short, your "analysis" is that everyone has to understand it the way that you do. Personally, I don't think so.

[robuchan]

What you are declaring "clear" is simply a way of reading the text. Supposing that your interpretation is authoritative is a bit presumptious (particular since Christopher Columbus is certainly not "mentioned"). Many have read Columbus into the text, but that is hardly the only way to read it, has some interesting problems, and is far from a reason to read the text in only one way.

In short, your "analysis" is that everyone has to understand it the way that you do. Personally, I don't think so.

Are you saying you believe future European settlers of America are nowhere mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

[thesometimesaint]

It doesn't mention Europe at all.

[robuchan]

It doesn't mention Europe at all.

It doesn't mention previous populations either. So if you all can withdraw your silly notion that they were there and mixed with the Nephites and Lamanites, I'll withdraw my notion that the BOM refers to future European settlers.

[thesometimesaint]

robuchan:

Sorry no deal.

The Bible doesn't mention China. Should the assumption be make that China didn't exist?

[cdowis]

The assumption for non-believers is that this book is fiction with numerous conflicts with proven science, historical anachronysms, lingual and grammar mistakes, internal {in}consistencies, and logical errors. There is no need to make wild extrapolations to explain slightly illogical or confusing passages, when the book is full of them.

Could you open a thread and give us specific examples and details. The errors in grammar and language have already been dealt with in detail, and DNA has been handled in this thread and others.

So let's see what else you got. Perhaps you got something new that hasn't been refuted at least a dozen times already.

Thanks.

Edited June 3, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Lehi was very old when the city left Jerusalemn, and he has a grandson live and die 179 years later. Obviously, we are dealing with population modeling that doesn't follow commonly held assumptions.

Well, let's take a look:

Jacob was born in the wilderness. Now, he may have had a son in his old age: with a young wife (his previous wife was deceased), or an adopted son. This son lived to be around 100 years old. These are not common situations but certainly within the realm of possibility.

Anyway, let's see that thread and we will help you out with questions that you are unable to figure out on your own.

Edited June 3, 2012 by cdowis

[Anijen]

Forget for the moment the scriptures. There is so much evidence of the Americas being populated with people long before the Book of Mormon migrations. This is not contested in academia. In every school in America students are learning how the Beringia land bridge was the major source of early migration. Church leaders today even do not contest this. A demographic analysis alone of the Book of Mormon suggests other people, (a example of this would be population growth from the time Lehi arrived). When the Savior came to America he even tells the people there are other people he must visit.

I am left questioning now the credibility of others who cannot accept that other people were present in the Book of Mormon. The argument because they were not mentioned is not saying they were not there.

[Anijen]

The Bible doesn't mention China. Should the assumption be make that China didn't exist?

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.

Edited June 3, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[Calm]

Rob, how do you get Lehi being very old when they left Jerusalem?

[cdowis]

Rob, how do you get Lehi being very old when they left Jerusalem?

Look at his picture when he discovered the Liahona.

[robuchan]

No serious responses to this?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, you know, in order to have a serious response to your question one needs to have a serious thread with serious questions asked.

[Anijen]

No serious responses to this?

Are you willing for open dialogue and discussion or will you just say I am wrong and dismiss me? If you would like to have a respectful academic discussion then I am sure there will be participation.

[Freedom]

Robuchan,

What exactly is your argument then? Is it that these two groups existed here but never interacted with other groups? Or is it that they were the only two groups on the entire landmass of the Americas? Or is it that the Americas were already populated when they arrived, the book of mormon does not mention others, therefore the Book of Mormon is false?

For any of these arguments, can you explain to me the story of Sherem in Jacob 7?

[robuchan]

Are you willing for open dialogue and discussion or will you just say I am wrong and dismiss me? If you would like to have a respectful academic discussion then I am sure there will be participation.

Take a chance.

[robuchan]

Robuchan,

What exactly is your argument then? Is it that these two groups existed here but never interacted with other groups? Or is it that they were the only two groups on the entire landmass of the Americas? Or is it that the Americas were already populated when they arrived, the book of mormon does not mention others, therefore the Book of Mormon is false?

For any of these arguments, can you explain to me the story of Sherem in Jacob 7?

I address Sherem in the original post.

My stance in this thread is to refute Roper's article that attempts to show internal evidence in the text of the BOM for preexisting population in America that mixed with Lehites.

[robuchan]

I go through point by point refuting Roper's article, and no one is willing to address it?

[Kevin Christensen]

I didn't see a point for point refutation. Just a wave of the hand and a declaration of victory. Not much awareness that all data is theory laden (N. R. Hanson).

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[robuchan]

I didn't see a point for point refutation. Just a wave of the hand and a declaration of victory. Not much awareness that all data is theory laden (N. R. Hanson).

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

I address every single one of Roper's internal proofs. I have awareness that data is theory laden. My theories are much more natural and internally consistent.

[semlogo]

What you are declaring "clear" is simply a way of reading the text. Supposing that your interpretation is authoritative is a bit presumptious (particular since Christopher Columbus is certainly not "mentioned"). Many have read Columbus into the text, but that is hardly the only way to read it, has some interesting problems, and is far from a reason to read the text in only one way.

In short, your "analysis" is that everyone has to understand it the way that you do. Personally, I don't think so.

It's the official position of the Church and the position of its prophets is that the text refers to Columbus. See:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1987/10/our-divine-constitution?lang=eng&query=nephi+columbus

In the Lord’s due time His Spirit “wrought upon” Columbus, the pilgrims, the Puritans, and others to come to America. They testified of God’s intervention in their behalf (see 1 Ne. 13:12–13). The Book of Mormon records that they humbled “themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them” (1 Ne. 13:16).

The Church might be interpreting it wrong. If so, perhaps you can help them change their minds. But I think most readers also see the text clearly pointing to Columbus.

I suppose from a certain point of view you can read anything you like at all into the text, but that seems to defeat the purpose of "text."

[semlogo]

Forget for the moment the scriptures. There is so much evidence of the Americas being populated with people long before the Book of Mormon migrations. This is not contested in academia. In every school in America students are learning how the Beringia land bridge was the major source of early migration. Church leaders today even do not contest this. A demographic analysis alone of the Book of Mormon suggests other people, (a example of this would be population growth from the time Lehi arrived). When the Savior came to America he even tells the people there are other people he must visit.

I am left questioning now the credibility of others who cannot accept that other people were present in the Book of Mormon. The argument because they were not mentioned is not saying they were not there.

Perhaps the Nephites never encountered them? Surely there were pockets of uninhabited land.

Obviously it's clear that the Americas have been continuously inhabited for 15,000 years or so.

Edited June 6, 2012 by semlogo

[Kevin Christensen]

I address every single one of Roper's internal proofs. I have awareness that data is theory laden. My theories are much more natural and internally consistent.

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