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

[cinepro]

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?

I'm sure that in between their kingships, mass conversions to Mosaic-law living pre-Christian monotheistic baptists, wars of extinction, and Temple-building, they just blended right in.

Edited June 11, 2012 by cinepro

[zerinus]

I'm sure that in between their kingships, mass conversions to Mosaic-law living pre-Christian monotheistic baptists, wars of extinction, and Temple-building, they just blended right in.

LOL!

[Minos]

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:

Do not start another thread to complain about an ongoing thread. Respond to the posts there.

[zerinus]

Do not start another thread to complain about an ongoing thread. Respond to the posts there.

Thank you Minos for unlocking my thread. I think that the OP is an important topic that deserves to be discussed.

[Freedom]

That is your opinion.

how many times can we walk around in a circle. You have an opinion based on how you read the text. I have an opinion based on how I read the text, archaeology, other ancient texts, anthropology, and the opinions of experts. So we both have opinions. I just think mine is a little more well supported. I don't care to prove you wrong, I am just here to make the point that you are not right. You will never be right unless the prophet stands up and gives new revelation on the matter that supports your opinion. You can only say that you have an opinion that is a hypothesis, not even a theory. To demand that you are right is, in my opinion, patently absurd.

[zerinus]

how many times can we walk around in a circle. You have an opinion based on how you read the text. I have an opinion based on how I read the text, archaeology, other ancient texts, anthropology, and the opinions of experts. So we both have opinions. I just think mine is a little more well supported. I don't care to prove you wrong, I am just here to make the point that you are not right. You will never be right unless the prophet stands up and gives new revelation on the matter that supports your opinion. You can only say that you have an opinion that is a hypothesis, not even a theory. To demand that you are right is, in my opinion, patently absurd.

You are talking vague generalizations which don't mean anything. The only reply I can give to that is that I disagree, which doesn't enlighten anybody.

[Brant Gardner]

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?

Historical documents are not created in a vacuum. If we know anything about when and where a document was produced, then we can compare that document to what was happening there and then. Regardless of the nature of the document, there should be internal signs that reveal something about the people who produced it, and the longer the text the more certain that is.

What Hamba Tuhan's documents might have been I do not know, but I do know that there are very few places in the world where Lehi and his family could have landed that would not have had people already there. That information comes from archaeology. The only places no one lived were places where no one really wanted to live. Population densities changed, but not basic settlement.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, there is no place that fits the geography of the Book of Mormon where there were not people when Lehi arrived. That suggests that either the text cannot be correct (clearly robuchan's position), or that there were people here that didn't get mentioned. That leads to reading the text to find the clues that tell us about the un-named others. The search for the subtle information in documents is pretty standard stuff. It is admittedly more difficult that when the text does us the favor of spelling everything out clearly. Unfortunately, we rarely get that.

[Brant Gardner]

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.

We shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that Post Classic Maya culture existed in the earlier Pre Classic. At 600 B.C. along the Guatemalan coast there were no major cities such as those that display the great aspects of later Maya civilization. What there are, are smaller towns with dwellings, but not monumental architecture.

Meeting someone with a different language and culture in a different place wouldn't be that surprising for Lehi. They had seen it before, at least as they journeyed to Bountiful (and they didn't mention meeting others on that trip either--again a facet of the trip that would have been impossible to avoid).

[robuchan]

Historical documents are not created in a vacuum. If we know anything about when and where a document was produced, then we can compare that document to what was happening there and then. Regardless of the nature of the document, there should be internal signs that reveal something about the people who produced it, and the longer the text the more certain that is.

What Hamba Tuhan's documents might have been I do not know, but I do know that there are very few places in the world where Lehi and his family could have landed that would not have had people already there. That information comes from archaeology. The only places no one lived were places where no one really wanted to live. Population densities changed, but not basic settlement.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, there is no place that fits the geography of the Book of Mormon where there were not people when Lehi arrived. That suggests that either the text cannot be correct (clearly robuchan's position), or that there were people here that didn't get mentioned. That leads to reading the text to find the clues that tell us about the un-named others. The search for the subtle information in documents is pretty standard stuff. It is admittedly more difficult that when the text does us the favor of spelling everything out clearly. Unfortunately, we rarely get that.

ie brilliant minds come up with some crazy stuff when boxed into a corner.

[Brant Gardner]

I'm sure that in between their kingships, mass conversions to Mosaic-law living pre-Christian monotheistic baptists, wars of extinction, and Temple-building, they just blended right in.

Pretty much everyone there had a king, and the way I read the evidence, the pressure to have kings was more external than internal (in that the internal pressure resulted from comparisons to the external communities).

Both the Maya and the Aztecs had rites that resembled baptism--enough so that early Spanish priests used those activities to suggest that they had once been Christians.

There was only one war of extinction. Nevertheless, the later Aztecs were known to have that as one of the options for those who did not capitulate to their rule. The war came, and extinction resulted. That blends in.

There was temple-building all over. Of course not LDS temples, but temples understood and conceived as such.

Yep, blend right it.

[Brant Gardner]

ie brilliant minds come up with some crazy stuff when boxed into a corner.

If we are down to this level of logic, we don't need to continue the exchange. I will not be responding to your further.

[zerinus]

Historical documents are not created in a vacuum. If we know anything about when and where a document was produced, then we can compare that document to what was happening there and then. Regardless of the nature of the document, there should be internal signs that reveal something about the people who produced it, and the longer the text the more certain that is.

That post was addressed specifically to Hamba Tuhan, and related to his PhD thesis. I am interested in his own answer to that question. I hope that he will take the time to reply.

What Hamba Tuhan's documents might have been I do not know, but I do know that there are very few places in the world where Lehi and his family could have landed that would not have had people already there. That information comes from archaeology. The only places no one lived were places where no one really wanted to live. Population densities changed, but not basic settlement.

I don’t think that the archaeological information available is sufficient to be able to make such sweeping general assertions. Professor Sorenson who has expertise in the field does not make such sweeping general assertions about pre-existing populations. Furthermore, the text of the BoM militates against it. it doesn’t make sense that the animals should be mentioned, the edible plants should be mentioned, metals should be mentioned, Mulekite and Jaredite finds should be mentioned, but never one human soul should be mentioned in 1,000 years of history. That just is not credible.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, there is no place that fits the geography of the Book of Mormon where there were not people when Lehi arrived.

That is a big assumption which like I said, finds no support in the BoM; and even Sorenson who has expertise in the field does not claim it.

That suggests that either the text cannot be correct (clearly robuchan's position), or that there were people here that didn't get mentioned. That leads to reading the text to find the clues that tell us about the un-named others. The search for the subtle information in documents is pretty standard stuff. It is admittedly more difficult that when the text does us the favor of spelling everything out clearly. Unfortunately, we rarely get that.

See above.

[zerinus]

Meeting someone with a different language and culture in a different place wouldn't be that surprising for Lehi. They had seen it before, at least as they journeyed to Bountiful (and they didn't mention meeting others on that trip either--again a facet of the trip that would have been impossible to avoid).

Not according to the Book of Mormon itself:

1 Nephi 17:

12 For the Lord had not hitherto suffered that we should make much fire, as we journeyed in the wilderness; for he said: I will make thy food become sweet, that ye cook it not;

The Lord didn't want them to come into contact with others on the way, because their journey was to be a secret one. They journeyed in the wilderness. Normally there aren't people wondering around in the wilderness.

[mfbukowski]

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

[ERayR]

Not according to the Book of Mormon itself:

1 Nephi 17:

12 For the Lord had not hitherto suffered that we should make much fire, as we journeyed in the wilderness; for he said: I will make thy food become sweet, that ye cook it not;

The Lord didn't want them to come into contact with others on the way, because their journey was to be a secret one. They journeyed in the wilderness. Normally there aren't people wondering around in the wilderness.

zerinus with this post you have exhibited your lack of understanding of what you are reading. Your determination to ignore anything that opposes your mind set leaves me no choice but to put you on ignore. Have fun.

And oh by the way maybe the fie ban was to keep them from starting a range fire.

Edited June 11, 2012 by ERayR

[mfbukowski]

I'm sure that in between their kingships, mass conversions to Mosaic-law living pre-Christian monotheistic baptists, wars of extinction, and Temple-building, they just blended right in.

Well of course there was that Grand Causeway play called the Book of Mormon that that the critics in the Tikal Times loved, but most of the Nephites thought was terrible. Unfortunately the Tikal Times didn't do too well since virtually everyone except the scribes were illiterate, and copying it over and over by hand meant they only published three or four copies a day. Not a great business plan, that.

But I am not the one who came up with the ideas about kingship - you will have to ask Mark Wright about that. He is not the only who is putting forth the theory, at least to LDS audiences.

http://byu.academia...._Maya_Rulership

Edit: oops- put the word "not" in that last sentence. Makes a slight difference!

Edited June 12, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

LOL!

I know. It IS pretty funny after all.

Clearly the Maya did not even exist since they are not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. I don't know where these alleged "scholars" get this stuff.

That goes for the Olmecs, Toltecs, Aztecs and all the others as well. I think it is a satanic conspiracy that all these scholars pretend these people existed just so they can suppress the scientific and clear historic truth of the Book of Mormon.

[zerinus]

zerinus with this post you have exhibited your lack of understanding of what you are reading. Your determination to ignore anything that opposes your mind set leaves me no choice but to put you on ignore. Have fun.

And oh by the way maybe the fie ban was to keep them from starting a range fire.

No; the most logical reason for the fire ban was so they would not be discovered by others, especially the Jews:

1 Nephi 4:

36 Now we were desirous that he should tarry with us for this cause, that the Jews might not know concerning our flight into the wilderness, lest they should pursue us and destroy us.

[Freedom]

Not according to the Book of Mormon itself:

1 Nephi 17:

12 For the Lord had not hitherto suffered that we should make much fire, as we journeyed in the wilderness; for he said: I will make thy food become sweet, that ye cook it not;

The Lord didn't want them to come into contact with others on the way, because their journey was to be a secret one. They journeyed in the wilderness. Normally there aren't people wondering around in the wilderness.

And you think we make sweeping assumptions. But of course, you can make this assumption because you refuse to read any scholarship. This is a wonderful way to keep your head in the sand. Refuse to read research, refuse to read other similar texts, and still maintain you are right. You insist that meeting others should not have been omitted from the text. Why? Are you an expert in ancient Nephite culture and literature? What qualifies you to make this assumption?

[mfbukowski]

The Lord didn't want them to come into contact with others on the way, because their journey was to be a secret one. They journeyed in the wilderness. Normally there aren't people wondering around in the wilderness.

Nope.

Those Bedouin traders and caravans usually stay right in the cities as I recall.

[Freedom]

No; the most logical reason for the fire ban was so they would not be discovered by others, especially the Jews:

1 Nephi 4:

36 Now we were desirous that he should tarry with us for this cause, that the Jews might not know concerning our flight into the wilderness, lest they should pursue us and destroy us.

Another unjustified assumption. It says that they did not want to be discovered by the Jews. It nowhere says they were not to encounter others along the way.

[Freedom]

Nope.

Those Bedouin traders and caravans usually stay right in the cities as I recall.

But lets say they did hide, why didn't they ever mention having to avoid others? That seems strange, in fact that is an example of something that should have been in the text. If they wondered through a region teeming with people, and they never encountered any of them, should't they have mentioned this? It would have been a constant struggle to remain isolated. Hmmmm.

[Darren10]

"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?

Thanks for that. I really like it when someone points out something I've missed all these years. Especialy the small, subtle ones. You make a good point. Obviously he would not be a Lamanite either for the same reasons. The Nephite / Lamanite split was very recent at the time of Jacob and so they would very likely to have a knowledge ofthe Nephite language, thus it would be unremarkable (as you correctly put it) if he were Lamanite as well.

[mfbukowski]

But lets say they did hide, why didn't they ever mention having to avoid others? That seems strange, in fact that is an example of something that should have been in the text. If they wondered through a region teeming with people, and they never encountered any of them, should't they have mentioned this? It would have been a constant struggle to remain isolated. Hmmmm.

What he doesn't mention is that the Lord eventually lifted the ban- so clearly he had another purpose. Remember finding the ore and making the bellows and forging the tools etc?

I suppose he made the bellows for the "secret" fire he made.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for that. I really like it when someone points out something I've missed all these years. Especialy the small, subtle ones. You make a good point. Obviously he would not be a Lamanite either for the same reasons. The Nephite / Lamanite split was very recent at the time of Jacob and so they would very likely to have a knowledge ofthe Nephite language, thus it would be unremarkable (as you correctly put it) if he were Lamanite as well.

Oh yeah, I mention that earlier and now JAHS gets all the credit!

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.

Just because he was more specific and brought in all those other good points that I left out? Cheesh!