Credibility Of The "Others" Theory In The Book Of Mormon

[zerinus]

I have just been reading the series of three articles written by Professor John L. Sorenson for the Ensign magazine in 1984, titled “Digging into the Book of Mormon: Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture”. I found them to be extremely well written and well presented, and partaking of a very high level of good scholarship. Sorenson is a professor of archaeology, and he has done a fantastic job of articulating the nature of archaeological evidences and their limitations, and bringing that to bear on the validation of the Book of Mormon. (They can be found here, here, and here.) In these articles he mainly focuses on archaeological finds, and their bearing on the validity of the Book of Mormon. But at the same time he also has a very balanced and well proportioned interest in LGT, while also arguing for the existence of “others” on the American continent (based on archaeological finds and linguistic analysis), without attempting to “prove” any of this from the text of the Book of Mormon, or trying to establish any kind of “correlation” between the Book of Mormon text and such possible “interactions”. I have also looked at the article by Roper, “Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations”. That is quite a different calibre stuff from the Sorenson articles, and is a highly tendentious and speculative attempt at establishing some kind of a link between the Book of Mormon text and possible mixing with pre-existing populations for which the Book of Mormon does not provide credible evidence. The motive for its writing seems to have been the following remarks made by Elder Dallin H Oaks, quoted in that article:

Speaking for a moment as one whose profession is advocacy, I suggest that if one is willing to acknowledge the importance of faith and the reality of a realm beyond human understanding, the case for the Book of Mormon is the stronger case to argue. The case against the historicity of the Book of Mormon has to prove a negative. You do not prove a negative by prevailing on one debater’s point or by establishing some subsidiary arguments.

For me, this obvious insight goes back over forty years to the first class I took on the Book of Mormon at Brigham Young University. . . . Here I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.

In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none. In other words, in the circumstance I describe, the opponents of historicity must prove that the Book of Mormon has no historical validity for any peoples who lived in the Americas in a particular time frame, a notoriously difficult exercise. One does not prevail on that proposition by proving that a particular . . . culture represents migrations from Asia. The opponents of the historicity of the Book of Mormon must prove that the people whose religious life it records did not live anywhere in the Americas.

Since then it appears that a number of LDS “scholars” have been falling over themselves to “prove” from the text of the Book of Mormon not only the presumed “existence” of “others” on the American continent; but even their interactions with the BoM people—when in fact there is no evidence in the BoM to that effect. I personally find those remarks by Elder Oaks a bit irresponsible. He is an Apostle. If he has received a revelation telling him that there were “others,” and they had interacted with the BoM people, he should be upfront about it, and tell us exactly what the Lord has revealed, and at what point such interactions took place. But if he is just guessing, the fact that he is an Apostle does not make his guesswork superior to anybody else’s. There is no need for LDS “scholars” to fall over themselves to try to find bogus evidences to back up his guesswork.

There were a number posts addressed to me in the other thread that I was not able to reply to; I will therefore take the opportunity to reply to them here:

Conversely, who says that something becomes true because nobody believes it? You are welcome to your opinion.

I don’t claim that it must be true because nobody believes it. if I believe something, it is usually because I have credible arguments to support it, which I am willing to share.

The problem is that you freely admit to not having read any other ancient documents, done any research on population growth, and you have no references from any credible scholars that supports your view. Generally, when an amateur cannot find any support, they are wise to reconsider their hypotheses. You present them, however, as if they are doctrine. What would you say to someone who reads one article in English and then claims to be an expert in English literature? What do you say to someone who reads one book on WWII and claims to be an expert on Nazi Germany? I am not claiming my position is gospel, only that it is the best explanation given what is found in the book, what is known of the writing style, and what is known of the Americas. You quote references that you claim prove there are no 'others' but when we read them, it turns out only that they don't specifically mention others. Your own references contradict your argument.

As I had said before, I don’t believe that familiarity with any other text is required, with the exception of the rest of the standard works, for one to be able to correctly understand and interpret the Book of Mormon.

No; but it doesn't prove that it does exist either. And where the context implies that it should have been mentioned if it existed, it is a bigger stretch to assume that it existed, than to assume that it didn't.

For my PhD, I worked with over 4,000 pages of primary source material in five different languages. I wish I had a dollar for every time I wondered why absolutely no one had mentioned things I was quite certain they should have. This, I’m afraid, is the nature of working with genuine historical texts.

If no one had mentioned them, what gave you the certainty that they had existed, that you should wonder why they had not been mentioned? Can you give us one or two examples of something that you knew for certain had existed, and should have been mentioned but wasn’t; and how you come to the realization that they had existed that they should have been mentioned?

Some of my observations:

1. Zerinus should be included as a vocal critic.

Critic of what exactly?

2. An important argument from the critic, “If there were ‘others’, the BoM authors would have specifically mentioned them as being an important aspect of their history. . . ”

That is not really my argument. My argument is that the balance of probability or evidence in the Book of Mormon text itself, weighs against the supposition that they existed (and interacted with BoM people), than that they hadn’t existed. In other words, the text of the Book of Mormon cannot be used to support such a claim.

3. The defenders gave specific verses which hint at the existence of others, specifically one which includes a reference to domesticated animals shortly after landfall. The critics reject that interpretation, as well as giving alternative interpretations for other hints in the BOM.

To which adequate answers was given.

There is no proof either way, you are correct. My argument is that those who insist there were no others have no frame of reference and must rely entirely on fantasy . . .

I don’t insist that there were no others. I insist that the text of the Book of Mormon does not support such a claim. It is quite possible that they existed. But there is no support in the text of the Book of Mormon that they existed; or if they did, that they interacted with the BoM people.

I am not demanding that they believe it, I am demanding that they stop acting like they are right and the rest of us are, as they have put it, naive and ignorant. . . .

I insist that I am right that there is no proof in the Book of Mormon text that they existed; or that if they did, they interacted with the Book of Mormon people. The Book of Mormon cannot be used to support that claim. You can take that anyway you like. That is what I say.

Edited June 11, 2012 by zerinus

[DBMormon]

I think if one takes the position that the BOM is a historical account of a people who have no interacton with others and are left to themselves, then the story incrues other problems such as population and lack of archeolgical evidence. Only when masked in a larger group do these issues have answers. I understand you are arguing what the text tells us and what it doesn't, but I see that leading to the bigger more problematic issues if one insists on standing that ground.

I enjoyed the perspective though and appreciated the links to Soenson's work in the ensign's. I couldn't find part 3 except in a june/july liahona. Would you mind linking these three articles as I had to search through all of 1984 to find the first 2 and then google part three

[ERayR]

I think if one takes the position that the BOM is a historical account of a people who have no interacton with others and are left to themselves, then the story incrues other problems such as population and lack of archeolgical evidence. Only when masked in a larger group do these issues have answers. I understand you are arguing what the text tells us and what it doesn't, but I see that leading to the bigger more problematic issues if one insists on standing that ground.

I enjoyed the perspective though and appreciated the links to Soenson's work in the ensign's. I couldn't find part 3 except in a june/july liahona. Would you mind linking these three articles as I had to search through all of 1984 to find the first 2 and then google part three

This is a big one for me. I just do not see how the numbers add up unless there were others who bolstered the numbers.

[DBMormon]

Whether the church is true or not depends on if the BOM is true or not. I can read red riding hood and base my entire faith on it and use it as my keystone to my faith, but at the end of the day if it is not a book that on some level is probable...... we are left with fairy tales and perhps good intentions.

Zerinus - can you make the population numbers work in your view? deaths at war? If this group is on it's own and in these large numbers, the likelyhood of finding hebrew, egytpian, christian artifacts becomes much more likely and yet we are empty on that front

Edited June 11, 2012 by reelmormon

[altersteve]

I honestly don't really see why it matters. Who cares if the Book of Mormon supports it or not?

[zerinus]

I think if one takes the position that the BOM is a historical account of a people who have no interacton with others and are left to themselves, then the story incrues other problems such as population and lack of archeolgical evidence. Only when masked in a larger group do these issues have answers. I understand you are arguing what the text tells us and what it doesn't, but I see that leading to the bigger more problematic issues if one insists on standing that ground.

I do not believe that is a credible argument.

I enjoyed the perspective though and appreciated the links to Soenson's work in the ensign's. I couldn't find part 3 except in a june/july liahona. Would you mind linking these three articles as I had to search through all of 1984 to find the first 2 and then google part three.

All three links are provided, and I just checked, and they all work correctly.

[zerinus]

I honestly don't really see why it matters. Who cares if the Book of Mormon supports it or not?

The people here who are arguing to that effect do.

[altersteve]

The people here who are arguing to that effect do.

The very fact that you posted this thread indicates that you care too.

[zerinus]

The very fact that you posted this thread indicates that you care too.

I care to refute their arguments. If nobody argued that way, I wouldn't care either.

[mfbukowski]

This is a big one for me. I just do not see how the numbers add up unless there were others who bolstered the numbers.

Agreed.

It's pretty clear I think in the book of Jacob at the time of Nephi's death that he begins- and states that he is- using the term "Lamanite" to refer no longer to those who are descended from Laman, but to those who are not Nephites in a religious sense.

I recall from previous threads in a discussion with Dan Vogel and some others I had that it came up that the word "Maya" was originally used as a term somewhat equivalent to "foreigners", ie those who were NOT Mayan, but the Spanish began using that word to refer to the people we now know as Mayan and so the meaning was reversed, so that the "Mayans" become the foreigners (from the pov of the Spanish)

It is my uneducated opinion that maybe the term "Lamanite" in the sense of "non-Nephite" was similar in usage to or perhaps identical with, the term "Mayan" as used by the Mayans.

Some scholars think of course that indeed the Nephites existed in the larger Mayan culture as LDS exist in the larger world cultures today and argue that indeed, were LDS existing in those days, we would not leave very many identifiable artifacts as "LDS artifacts" either- they would simply be artifacts of the larger culture.

I mean who has LDS plates and knives and forks that would be identifiable a couple of thousand years from now?

[altersteve]

You haven't refuted anything. All you've done is assert your own opinion.

[zerinus]

Whether the church is true or not depends on if the BOM is true or not. I can read red riding hood and base my entire faith on it and use it as my keystone to my faith, but at the end of the day if it is not a book that on some level is probable...... we are left with fairy tales and perhps good intentions.

Okay, and so?

Zerinus - can you make the population numbers work in your view? deaths at war? If this group is on it's own and in these large numbers, the likelyhood of finding hebrew, egytpian, christian artifacts becomes much more likely and yet we are empty on that front.

I see no problem with population numbers. I don't know why others do. As regards finding artefacts, Professor Sorenson has done an excellent job of discussing that subject, and I refer you to his articles mentioned above.

[zerinus]

You haven't refuted anything. All you've done is assert your own opinion.

That is your opinion.

[JAHS]

"I don’t insist that there were no others. I insist that the text of the Book of Mormon does not support such a claim. It is quite possible that they existed. But there is no support in the text of the Book of Mormon that they existed; or if they did, that they interacted with the BoM people."

There are some hints that there were others. For example, as mentioned in your Mathew Roper article, the antichrist Sherem (Jacob 7) may have been an outsider. Jacob wrote of him, "there came a man among the people of Nephi" (Jacob 7:1). Does this mean that he was not a Nephite? Jacob further notes "that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people" (Jacob 7:4). Don't all native speakers? This would have been remarkable only if the man were not a Nephite, otherwise why mention it?

At the time of Sherem's visit, the entire population of Nephites decended from Lehi could not have exceded a hundred adults. Any Nephite among such a small population would not have been a stranger. So if he was not a Nephite where did he come from?

Edited June 11, 2012 by JAHS

[ERayR]

Agreed.

It's pretty clear I think in the book of Jacob at the time of Nephi's death that he begins- and states that he is- using the term "Lamanite" to refer no longer to those who are descended from Laman, but to those who are not Nephites in a religious sense.

I recall from previous threads in a discussion with Dan Vogel and some others I had that it came up that the word "Maya" was originally used as a term somewhat equivalent to "foreigners", ie those who were NOT Mayan, but the Spanish began using that word to refer to the people we now know as Mayan and so the meaning was reversed, so that the "Mayans" become the foreigners (from the pov of the Spanish)

It is my uneducated opinion that maybe the term "Lamanite" in the sense of "non-Nephite" was similar in usage to or perhaps identical with, the term "Mayan" as used by the Mayans.

Some scholars think of course that indeed the Nephites existed in the larger Mayan culture as LDS exist in the larger world cultures today and argue that indeed, were LDS existing in those days, we would not leave very many identifiable artifacts as "LDS artifacts" either- they would simply be artifacts of the larger culture.

I mean who has LDS plates and knives and forks that would be identifiable a couple of thousand years from now?

Not much more than a little jewelry and a few temples.

Edited to add: And those in a Wal-Mart store and the temples of contemporary architecture interspersed in neighborhoods around the world.

Edited June 11, 2012 by ERayR

[Freedom]

So you have no evidence, but you still insist you are right. You are welcome to your opinion but it is your opinion and it does not hold up to academic scrutiny.

[ERayR]

I care to refute their arguments. If nobody argued that way, I wouldn't care either.

You have refuted nothing. All you have done is to state your opinion and I respect that. It is still however your opinion and other people, reading the same book, have found a reason to think there were others.

For me, as I have stated, population number don't add up and there are evidences, that no matter what model you subscribe to, shows continuous habitation in both American hemispheres.

[phaedrus ut]

Of all the descriptions of the contents of the "promised land" offered by the Book of Mormon I can't imagine a scenario where it's important to note that the land contains the ox, horse, (donkey "a" word), & wild goat yet failing to mention encountering a civilization. And if we are to put them in Mesoamerica we're talking about one of the classic civilizations of the ancient world who's very existence should be mind blowing to Lehi and family not to mention their cities, architecture, language, culture, art, music, sciences and religion.

It's hard to imagine that in 2012 modern people are discussing the Mayan civilization more than the Book of Mormon authors who essentially discovered them.

Phaedrus

Edited June 11, 2012 by phaedrus ut

[zerinus]

There are some hints that there were others. For example, as mentioned in your Mathew Roper article, the antichrist Sherem (Jacob 7) may have been an outsider.

“May have been” is not the same as saying that he was, which is what some people have been arguing. But let us see what justification there is for claiming that he may have been.

Jacob wrote of him, "there came a man among the people of Nephi" (Jacob 7:1). Does this mean that he was not a Nephite?

Not really. The link, if exists at all, is so weak as to be nonexistent. Even assuming that he was an outsider, it would be more reasonable to assume that he had been a Nephite defector among the Lamanites, who had decided to come back and subvert the Nephites. There is no reason to assume that he had been a totally alien outsider—especially given his knowledge of the language and religion of the Nephite people.

Jacob further notes "that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people" (Jacob 7:4). Don't all native speakers? This would have been remarkable only if the man were not a Nephite, otherwise why mention it?

“Language” means that he was well educated. The word language is used in several places in the BoM with that meaning:

Enos 1:

1 Behold, it came to pass that I, Enos, knowing my father that he was a just man—for he taught me in his language, and also in the nurture and admonition of the Lord—and blessed be the name of my God for it

Mosiah 1:

2 And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which were delivered them by the hand of the Lord.

Mosiah 9:

1 I, Zeniff, having been taught in all the language of the Nephites, and having had a knowledge of the land of Nephi, or of the land of our fathers' first inheritance, and having been sent as a spy among the Lamanites that I might spy out their forces, that our army might come upon them and destroy them—but when I saw that which was good among them I was desirous that they should not be destroyed.

So by your logic one would have to argue that Enos, the sons of King Benjamin, and Zeniff had all spoken foreign languages, that they needed to be taught in the language of the Nephites. That of course is silly. It means that they were educated. In those days that is what education was.

At the time of Sherem's visit, the entire population of Nephites decended from Lehi could not have exceded a hundred adults. Any Nephite among such a small population would not have been a stranger. So if he was not a Nephite where did he come from?

First of all the population estimates is not correct. In the other thread it was shown that it wasn’t. Secondly, it is not true that Sherem didn’t know Jacob. This is what the scrtiptre actually says:

Jacob 7:

1 And now it came to pass after some years had passed away, there came a man among the people of Nephi, whose name was Sherem.

2 And it came to pass that he began to preach among the people, and to declare unto them that there should be no Christ. And he preached many things which were flattering unto the people; and this he did that he might overthrow the doctrine of Christ.

3 And he labored diligently that he might lead away the hearts of the people, insomuch that he did lead away many hearts; and he knowing that I, Jacob, had faith in Christ who should come, he sought much opportunity that he might come unto me.

4 And he was learned, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people; wherefore, he could use much flattery, and much power of speech, according to the power of the devil.

5 And he had hope to shake me from the faith, notwithstanding the many revelations and the many things which I had seen concerning these things; for I truly had seen angels, and they had ministered unto me. And also, I had heard the voice of the Lord speaking unto me in very word, from time to time; wherefore, I could not be shaken.

6 And it came to pass that he came unto me, and on this wise did he speak unto me, saying: Brother Jacob, I have 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.

7 And ye have led away much of this people that they pervert the right way of God, and keep not the law of Moses which is the right way; and convert the law of Moses into the worship of a being which ye say shall come many hundred years hence. And now behold, I, Sherem, declare unto you that this is blasphemy; for no man knoweth of such things; for he cannot tell of things to come. And after this manner did Sherem contend against me.

I see nothing in there to suggest that he was a complete outsider. He speaks the same language; he knows Jacob; he knows the religion, the doctrines, the rites. What ground is that he was a total stranger? I see none.

[zerinus]

Of all the descriptions of the contents of the "promised land" offered by the Book of Mormon I can't imagine a scenario where it's important to note that the land contains the ox, horse, (donkey "a" word), & wild goat yet failing to mention encountering a civilization. And if we are to put them in Mesoamerica we're talking about one of the classic civilizations of the ancient world who's very existence should be mind blowing to Lehi and family not to mention their cities, architecture, language, culture, art, music, sciences and religion.

It's hard to imagine that in 2012 modern people are discussing the Mayan civilization more than the Book of Mormon authors who essentially discovered them.

Phaedrus

Thank you. It is good to hear the voice of sanity for a change.

[ERayR]

Of all the descriptions of the contents of the "promised land" offered by the Book of Mormon I can't imagine a scenario where it's important to note that the land contains the ox, horse, ***, & wild goat yet failing to mention encountering a civilization. And if we are to put them in Mesoamerica we're talking about one of the classic civilizations of the ancient world who's very existence should be mind blowing to Lehi and family not to mention their cities, architecture, language, culture, art, music, sciences and religion.

It's hard to imagine that in 2012 modern people are discussing the Mayan civilization more than the Book of Mormon authors who essentially discovered them.

Phaedrus

A fair point. As this discussion, as a discussion such as this can only be, is based on maybes from both sides. I find it is possible that it was mentioned in the original but Mormon saw fit not to include it in his abridgement.

[zerinus]

A fair point. As this discussion, as a discussion such as this can only be, is based on maybes from both sides. I find it is possible that it was mentioned in the original but Mormon saw fit not to include it in his abridgement.

The deafening silence does not even fit that paradigm, especially when we note that the Mulekites, the Jaredites, and even the solitary Coriantumr have been mentioned.

[ERayR]

The deafening silence does not even fit that paradigm, especially when we note that the Mulekites, the Jaredites, and even the solitary Coriantumr have been mentioned.

Your answer is still a maybe. Yet you see fit to dismiss anything but your own view with a regal wave of your scepter. Why are you so incensed as to dismiss someone elses ideas. When all is said and done it doesn't matter one way or the other. The Book of Mormon is true which ever scenario is true. If it is easier for you to read and understand without "others" then read it that way. If it is makes more sense for some to read it with "others" then they can read it that way. Either way both should come away with a greater testimony of Jesus Christ.

[zerinus]

Your answer is still a maybe.

My answer is not "maybe". My answer is a definitive yes to the irrationality of trying to prove the existence of the "others" out of the BoM text.

Yet you see fit to dismiss anything but your own view with a regal wave of your scepter. Why are you so incensed as to dismiss someone elses ideas. When all is said and done it doesn't matter one way or the other. The Book of Mormon is true which ever scenario is true. If it is easier for you to read and understand without "others" then read it that way. If it is makes more sense for some to read it with "others" then they can read it that way. Either way both should come away with a greater testimony of Jesus Christ.

Okay, I am crazy enough to waste my time here; why are you doing the same?

Edited June 12, 2012 by zerinus

[ERayR]

My answer is not "maybe". My answer is a definitive yes to the irrationality of try to prove the existence of the "others" out of the BoM text.

Okay, I am crazy enough to waste my time here; why are you doing the same?

It has to do with semi-retirement and too much time.

Edited to add: Incidentally I agree with you that one cannot prove the existence or non-existence of "others" using only the Book of Mormon. As for it being irrational, well that might be a little much. As I said above I don't think that in the grand scheme of things that it really matters.

Edited June 11, 2012 by ERayR