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

[zerinus]

So publicly drawing attention to your belief that you would have been threadbanned for doing something that someone else would get away with is not complaining.

Maybe an indirect complaint against the standard of moderation, but not against the guy!

Edited June 14, 2012 by zerinus

[ANACO]

3 Nephi 5:20

I am Mormon,

and a pure descendant of Lehi

. I have reason to bless my God and my Savior Jesus Christ, that he brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem, (

and

no

one

knew

it save it were himself and those whom he brought out of that land

) and that he hath given me and my people so much knowledge unto the salvation of our souls.

This would back up the notion that Lehi's group was alone in the wilderness of Arabia. Laman and Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael were constantly complaining about returning to Jerusalem. If Lehi's group had encountered others on the Frankincense Trail, as earlier hinted, these potential dissenters could have easily joined some caravan back to Jerusalem. Thus because of their afflictions - Laman, Lemuel, Ishmael's sons, not keeping the commandments - it's likely the Lord had the group travel a route wherein they could not be discovered...again giving credence to Mormon's statement that no one knew it. Thus their not building fires and the Lord sweetening their meat.

Also, the verse above indicates that from 600 B.C. to approx. 400 A.D., there were pure descendants of Lehi / Nephites. Hardly likely if the societies in the Book of Mormon dwelt among the Maya. (I don't know of anyone who can even trace their own Family History back 1,000 years.) For Mormon to know that he was a pure descendant of Lehi, indicates a society very good at record keeping and protecting those records - not intermingling with another society into which they disappeared into oblivion or morphed into.

Of the Jaredites, it was important that only Coriantumr survived, to fulfill prophecy. If "Other" Jaredites survived and intermingled with the Mulekites/Nephites, then that would of made a liar out of Ether, and the Lord.

Ether 13:20-21

...the Lord would give unto him his kingdom and spare the people—

Otherwise they

should

be destroyed, and all his household save it were himself. And he

should

only live to see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning another people receiving the land for their inheritance; and Coriantumr

should

receive a burial by them; and

every

soul

should

be destroyed save it were Coriantumr.

• the people would be destroyed
  
• every soul should be destroyed save it were Coriantumr
  
• all his household save it were himself
  
• he should only live to see the fulfilling of the prophecies
  

The Lord promised Lehi the Land of Promise unto his seed. Not to Others. For Lehi to have encountered the Maya/Mesoamericans on arriving, as the theory states, contradicts that promise. He would have been laughed to scorn, for example, by the sons of Ishmael, for Lehi was constantly promising:

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 covenant

ed 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.

As to those led out of other countries, this is verified and taught by Lehi's son, Jacob quoting an Israelite/OT era prophet as recorded in Jacob 5. That chapter refers to 4 or 5 branches of Israel as well as those from other countries: the Jaredites - who were not of the house of Israel. Verse 25 indicates the Nephites/Lamanites were "the last" and *verse 44* indicates that the Lord "cut down that which cumbered this spot of ground" a reference to the Jaredites.

Since all the Jaredites were destroyed, Coriantumr being the last, thus Lehi's group did not encounter others - per verse 44. The spot of ground the Lehites inheritied was un-cumbered. If they had encountered others such as the Maya, Jacob's claim would have made a liar of Jacob, even during his discourse on the Allegory of the Olive Tree, a continuation of that which he gave at the Temple. (Jacob 2)

But since the archeaological record of Mesoamerica indicates the Maya lived there before and after the Nephites, Lehi's group therefore did not encounter them nor live among them.

Yet, the Savior Himself said, speaking to the Nephites:

3 Nephi 16:1

And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have

other

sheep

, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister.

For they of whom I speak are they

who have not as yet heard my voice

; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them.

Now the Lord had revealed himself to the Jaredites, who by then were extinct. So who were these other sheep? The Maya/Mesoamericans? Were they of the branch of Israel? DNA evidence says no.

So did the Lord reveal himself to those other than of the House of Israel? Those "who have not as yet heard my voice"? Possibly.

So yes, the Book of Mormon clearly indicates there were others, before the "Lehites." But it also clearly indicates the Nephites never dwelt among them. Thus, the Mesoamerica location is not the correct location since the Maya were already there. The Maya could have been these other sheep - possibly of the House of Israel - per Jacob 5, or those from other countries "who have not as yet heard my voice."

Those from other countries is also a future reference to the Gentiles from Europe, (the founding of America) and from countries of other continents, as we well know the modern history of the Americas - descendants mainly of Ephraim - through the promise given to Abraham, that they would restore the House of Israel, etc.

Cheers.

[Calm]

But it also clearly indicates the Nephites never dwelt among them.

The promises and prophecies only applied to the Nephites as they were righteous.

Are you suggesting that their periodic righteousness was sufficient to keep them apart from all others save the Lamanites and Mulekites? What about the Lamanites who early on were noted for their lack of righteousness (though later on many became righteous, even more righteous than the Nephites and definitely less wicked than the Nephites at the end)?

The Lord promised Lehi the Land of Promise unto his seed.

Wasn't the same promise made to Abraham in regards to his seed? If so, then since they had contact with others and in fact had to go to war with them to take possession of the land, it would seem to me that such a promise does not prevent others from being there.

He would have been laughed to scorn, for example, by the sons of Ishmael, for Lehi was constantly promising

Why would they laugh when they had the history of the Israelites with their promise of their Land of Promise to reference? Edited June 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[ksfisher]

ANACO, Ether survived as well as Coriantumr. Perhaps we need to understand "destroyed" in these verses in a different sense than meaning every last man, woman, and child was killed. A civilization, a culture, or a city can be destroyed without all the the people dying.

Edited June 15, 2012 by ksfisher

[ANACO]

ANACO, Ether survived as well as Coriantumr. Perhaps we need to understand "destroyed" in these verses in a different sense than meaning every last man, woman, and child was killed. A civilization, a culture, or a city can be destroyed without all the the people dying.

That's not what the text says. It says every soul would be destroyed, with Coriantumr being the only survivor as a witness of other people inheriting the land. Ether was the witness to the events he recorded - he didn't "survive" he was likely translated as he desired and wasn't around when Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Mulek. The fulfillment of that prophecy was revealed to King Mosiah who translated the large stone brought to him. (Omni 1:20)

The text also states of the Jaredites: "both men, women and children being armed with weapons of war."

You also have to take into consideration that Ether hid his plates in a manner that the people of Limhi found them hundreds of years later. This would indicate that Ether didn't fear any survivors would disturb his record - unlike Moroni and Mormon who hid their records in a hill for safekeeping against the Lamanites:

"

having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites

would

destroy

them

) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord," Mormon 6:6

Again, in contrast, Ether did no such thing. His records were found by lost Nephites, hundreds of years later attempting to find the Land of Zarahemla. Yet, somehow the Maya never found them before that in crowded Mesoamerica if the Book of Mormon events had occurred in that tiny area?

Also, the Prophet Moroni stated he found no fault in the record (Mormon 8:17) and it was he, Moroni, who abridge the record of the Jaredites. Moroni would not make such a claim if hadn't been true - as he would have known whether or not Ether's prophecy was fulfilled hundreds of years later - if the allaged surviving Jaredites had been among his people's history.

[inquiringmind]

...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...

CFR?

I'd really be interested in reading what those early Spanish priests said about that.

Edited June 15, 2012 by inquiringmind

[ANACO]

The promises and prophecies only applied to the Nephites as they were righteous.

Are you suggesting that their periodic righteousness was sufficient to keep them apart from all others save the Lamanites and Mulekites? What about the Lamanites who early on were noted for their lack of righteousness (though later on many became righteous, even more righteous than the Nephites and definitely less wicked than the Nephites at the end)?

I'm not sure what you're driving at. I was stating the Nephites never dwelt among people who were there before them - (the Maya for example nor the Jaredites) because the record indicates the land had been "un-cumbered" as stated in Jacob 5.

Wasn't the same promise made to Abraham in regards to his seed? If so, then since they had contact with others and in fact had to go to war with them to take possession of the land, it would seem to me that such a promise does not prevent others from being there.

You need to separate the promise made to Abraham versus the promises made to Lehi's seed. Lehi was promised a land for his children.

It's in the Second Chapter:

And inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall

a

prosper

, and shall be led to a

b

land

of promise; yea,

even a land which I have prepared for you

; yea, a land which is choice above all other lands.

Why would they laugh when they had the history of the Israelites with their promise of their Land of Promise to reference?

That was a figure of speech - but It's obvious they would have found Lehi's promises unfulfilled if the Land Promised to them was already inhabited by a civilization such as the Maya"

Cheers

[zerinus]

The promises and prophecies only applied to the Nephites as they were righteous.

Are you suggesting that their periodic righteousness was sufficient to keep them apart from all others save the Lamanites and Mulekites? What about the Lamanites who early on were noted for their lack of righteousness (though later on many became righteous, even more righteous than the Nephites and definitely less wicked than the Nephites at the end)?

That is a question to which I gave a reply about a week ago in another thread in this post, to which you never replied. Would you like to reply to it now?

Wasn't the same promise made to Abraham in regards to his seed? If so, then since they had contact with others and in fact had to go to war with them to take possession of the land, it would seem to me that such a promise does not prevent others from being there.

Yes, but the situations were different. At the time that the Israelites were about to entered their promised land, the Lord gave extensive warnings and instructions to the Israelites about how they should interact with their heathen neighbours. The Lord not only made no secret of the fact that they existed, He also gave specific instructions on how to deal with them. The ones occupying the land itself were to be destroyed; and as far as the others were concerned, they were not to intermarry with them, nor adopt their customs and traditions, and especially their idolatrous practices. The Pentateuch makes extensive mention of all of this. In the case of the Lehites, on the other hand, not only are they never mentioned anywhere, and no instructions given on how to interact with them (or how not to); but there are specific verses that suggest that they are not there, such as the ones already mentioned. How do you account for that?

[mfbukowski]

3 Nephi 5:20

I am Mormon,

and a pure descendant of Lehi

.

To me, this clearly indicates that there were people who were NOT "pure descendants of Lehi", since he is noting that he has a special ancestry.

If there were no "others" everyone would be "pure descendants of Lehi". That is the only issue- it doesn't matter if the others were Mayan or Chinese- the point is that there WERE others.

(I don't know of anyone who can even trace their own Family History back 1,000 years.)

My wife has a family history going back, allegedly, to Adam. The reason that is possible is that if you happen to hit into a royal line, those royal lines often are traced WAY back and often linked into biblical genealogies. She has a line which goes back to the Mayflower, and that person's line ties into a royal family, and the royal family's line supposedly goes back to Adam.

No one can know how true that is obviously, but it's all there in black and white. It's a lot of fun to look at.

Edited June 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[zerinus]

To me, this clearly indicates that there were people who were NOT "pure descendants of Lehi", since he is noting that he has a special ancestry.

If there were no "others" everyone would be "pure descendants of Lehi".

Sure. He could be a descendant of Zoram, or of Mulek, or of any other unknown people who had accompanied him.

Edited June 15, 2012 by zerinus

[ERayR]

My wife has a family history going back, allegedly, to Adam. The reason that is possible is that if you happen to hit into a royal line, those royal lines often are traced WAY back and often linked into biblical genealogies. She has a line which goes back to the Mayflower, and that person's line ties into a royal family, and the royal family's line supposedly goes back to Adam.

No one can know how true that is obviously, but it's all there in black and white. It's a lot of fun to look at.

Interesting so do I.

[Anijen]

Brant Gardner, on 11 June 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

...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...

CFR? I'd really be interested in reading what those early Spanish priests said about that.

If you accept the origin of the Book of Mormon as an ancient document that is your first source.

Here is another source;

Diego de Landa wrote; "Baptism is not found in any part of the Indies except in Yucatan, where it exists under the Mayan term or name caput sihil which means to be born anew or again" From Landa 102 as quoted from Voices From the Dust, David G. Calderwood, 102

[zerinus]

Thank you ANACO, you have raised some good points.

[cdowis]

That's not what the text says. It says every soul would be destroyed, with Coriantumr being the only survivor as a witness of other people inheriting the land.

Since you are placing yourself as an interpreter of scripture texts, I think it is fair to ask about your background:

For example, how many times have you read the BOM? The Old Testament, the NT? Have you read any of the latter in Greek or Hebrew? Or are you just an authority on cut and paste.

Perhaps you should be listening and taking notes rather than giving advice. You might start with Hugh Nibley and what he has to say on the subject. He read the same passages, and, with his knowledge and experience, came to a very different conclusion than yourself.

Just some friendly advice.

Edited June 15, 2012 by cdowis

[ANACO]

To me, this clearly indicates that there were people who were NOT "pure descendants of Lehi", since he is noting that he has a special ancestry.

If there were no "others" everyone would be "pure descendants of Lehi". That is the only issue- it doesn't matter if the others were Mayan or Chinese- the point is that there WERE others.

My wife has a family history going back, allegedly, to Adam. The reason that is possible is that if you happen to hit into a royal line, those royal lines often are traced WAY back and often linked into biblical genealogies. She has a line which goes back to the Mayflower, and that person's line ties into a royal family, and the royal family's line supposedly goes back to Adam.

No one can know how true that is obviously, but it's all there in black and white. It's a lot of fun to look at.

I agree there were others. The Zoramites, Mulekites and Ishmaelites. Mormon was a "pure" descendant of Lehi. Not of Ishmael, not of Zoram, not of "Mulek, and those who came with him into the wilderness." (Mosiah 25:2)

So Mormon's claim of lineage does not in any way indicate the need for the Maya/Mesoamericans.

Regarding tracing your family's line back to Adam through Medieval European Kings - I agree it's interesting, but suspect. They knew of the Bible. Of course these Kings would claim their ancestry back to Adam using the Bible. How else could they claim they were of royal birth? The UK's Coat of Arms has the symbol of the Lion - the symbol of the tribe of Judah. "British" means "covenant people." The birthright. There may be some truth to that as many of the Tribe of Ephraim came from there-including Joseph Smith's ancestors. The same attempt is described in the PofGP by Pharaoh. Most kingdoms were originally based on a Patriarchal order - being copies after the order of Adam and the ancient Patriarchs. Father to son, etc.

But Mormon knew his lineage.

Cheers!

[ANACO]

Since you are placing yourself as an interpreter of scripture texts, I think it is fair to ask about your background:

For example, how many times have you read the BOM? The Old Testament, the NT? Have you read any of the latter in Greek or Hebrew? Or are you just an authority on cut and paste.

Perhaps you should be listening and taking notes rather than giving advice. You might start with Hugh Nibley and what he has to say on the subject. He read the same passages, and, with his knowledge and experience, came to a very different conclusion than yourself.

Just some friendly advice.

I'm sorry my quoting scripture offended you. How is it I'm interpreting the text when I agree with what is written, "that every soul would be destroyed except Coriantumr"? Those who disagree with that statement are interpreting other than what it says.

As someone who I presume is LDS, don't you believe in absolutes? Such as God knows all things? So why is it difficult to believe the text of the Book of Mormon when it clearly states that every soul would be destroyed except Coriantumr? I believe Dr. Nibley was an excellent individual and worthy of all blessings the Lord will grant a faithful LDS Saint. But I don't need him to tell me what the scriptures contain. The scriptures existed before that fine gentleman and will exist after. But since you appear to be appealing to authority, I'll appeal to the authority of the scriptures. And I quoted them exactly as they are written. I have no need to learn Greek or Hebrew. The Lord gave the Book of Mormon in English - the language of today's world - just as Greek and Hebrew were in their day.

Cheers!

[zerinus]

Since you are placing yourself as an interpreter of scripture texts, I think it is fair to ask about your background:

For example, how many times have you read the BOM? The Old Testament, the NT? Have you read any of the latter in Greek or Hebrew? Or are you just an authority on cut and paste.

I think that is highly offensive. I don't think you have the right to ask that question of anybody. If you think his doctrine or interpretation is incorrect, you may correct it; but you have no business to question his integrity, or cast aspersions on his intelligence or education.

Perhaps you should be listening and taking notes rather than giving advice. You might start with Hugh Nibley and what he has to say on the subject. He read the same passages, and, with his knowledge and experience, came to a very different conclusion than yourself.

He can speak for himself of course; but I don't think he needs any advice from you.

Edited June 15, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I'm sorry my quoting scripture offended you. How is it I'm interpreting the text when I agree with what is written, "that every soul would be destroyed except Coriantumr"? Those who disagree with that statement are interpreting other than what it says.

As someone who I presume is LDS, don't you believe in absolutes? Such as God knows all things? So why is it difficult to believe the text of the Book of Mormon when it clearly states that every soul would be destroyed except Coriantumr? I believe Dr. Nibley was an excellent individual and worthy of all blessings the Lord will grant a faithful LDS Saint. But I don't need him to tell me what the scriptures contain. The scriptures existed before that fine gentleman and will exist after. But since you appear to be appealing to authority, I'll appeal to the authority of the scriptures. And I quoted them exactly as they are written. I have no need to learn Greek or Hebrew. The Lord gave the Book of Mormon in English - the language of today's world - just as Greek and Hebrew were in their day.

Cheers!

[Calm]

How could he be a pure descendant of Lehi when his sons didn't marry his daughters. What was the lineage of the wives?

[zerinus]

How could he be a pure descendant of Lehi when his sons didn't marry his daughters. What was the lineage of the wives?

Presumably they followed the biblical tradition of tracing lineage through the male line of descent. The Book of Mormon tells us that very early on in their history they began to be divided along "tribal" lines (e.g. Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.--Jacob 1:13). So if somebody came from a lineage that were all intermarried within a given tribe (or number of tribes claiming descent from a given ancestor), he might legitimately claim that he was a pure descendant of that ancestor--i.e. Lehi. That would include the female lines as well.

[robuchan]

Since you are placing yourself as an interpreter of scripture texts, I think it is fair to ask about your background:

For example, how many times have you read the BOM? The Old Testament, the NT? Have you read any of the latter in Greek or Hebrew? Or are you just an authority on cut and paste.

Perhaps you should be listening and taking notes rather than giving advice. You might start with Hugh Nibley and what he has to say on the subject. He read the same passages, and, with his knowledge and experience, came to a very different conclusion than yourself.

Just some friendly advice.

The best apologist tactic on BOM issues is to:

--claim some obscure connection between the issue and some other ancient text

--claim that you can only refute the argument if you are a trained scholar in ancient texts

Very clever. I don't think it's fooling a lot of people, but I give points for creativity.

[volgadon]

The best apologist tactic on BOM issues is to:

--claim some obscure connection between the issue and some other ancient text

--claim that you can only refute the argument if you are a trained scholar in ancient texts

Very clever. I don't think it's fooling a lot of people, but I give points for creativity.

You don't have to be formally trained- I'm certainly not- but it would be nice if people were better read on ancient texts and such as the rebuttals would be more nuanced, substantial, and interesting.

I disagree with a lot of Nibley's conclusions, mostly the result of reading the sources used, so I do disagree with cdowis on that.

Edited June 16, 2012 by volgadon

[volgadon]

Also, the verse above indicates that from 600 B.C. to approx. 400 A.D., there were pure descendants of Lehi / Nephites. Hardly likely if the societies in the Book of Mormon dwelt among the Maya. (I don't know of anyone who can even trace their own Family History back 1,000 years.) For Mormon to know that he was a pure descendant of Lehi, indicates a society very good at record keeping and protecting those records - not intermingling with another society into which they disappeared into oblivion or morphed into.

I went to school with people who could trace their lineage that far back and more,over a thousand years, to the Jewish priestly families of Djerba. This despite living on an island where the majority were Muslim Berbers. There is also the famous Dayan family of Aleppo, one of the most respected Jewish families, tracing in detail their line back to David. The Dayans lived in Aleppo, Syria, that is, Haleb, which was earlier called Aram Soba. It was an Aramaic and Greco-Roman city, later becoming Christian and Muslim. The Dayans were just one family among the Jewish community, preserving their unique identity even after the Jewish community became very Sephardicised following the resettlement of Iberian Jews in the Ottoman Empire. R. Moshe Dayan described measures taken to preserve the lineage and their identity.

"Know, kind reader, that concerning this genealogy, there are edicts, excommunications, bans, absolutions and curses on anyone who would copy it for themselves, who is not from the seed of princes, kings and Judges, who is not a prince nor the son of a prince, who is not a judge nor the son of a judge. We declare, by the power of our holy, pure, and perfect Torah, by the decree of the sages that such we excommunicate, ban, cut off, and curse with all the curses written in the Torah." http://www.dayanofal...manuscript.aspx

It doesn't matter if the earliest traditions are spurious or not. What matters is that a detailed tradition is considered authentic by members of that family, who takes pains to preserve it throughout many generations. The existence of genealogical scrolls among the Jews of antiquity is well established, some examples are in the Babylonian Talmud, t. Yebamoth, and Megillat Ahimaatz.

Another family which preserved traditions of descent from a particular ancestor was the ibn Yohai family, known from 16th century sources as far north as Bohemia. They considered themselves descendants of the 2nd century sage R. Shimeon b. Yohai. That is quite over a thousand years!

All you really need is one family with a strong identity in order to preserve traditions of their lineage both among non-family in their own ethno-religious group, and among complete outsiders too.

I could also mention Bedouin and Druze families tracing their descent from certain of Muhammad's followers. This guy is a world-famous example of a descendant of Muhammad's daughter, Fatima.

Edited June 16, 2012 by volgadon

[volgadon]

How could he be a pure descendant of Lehi when his sons didn't marry his daughters. What was the lineage of the wives?

That lineage would have been considered secondary and inferior. Zerinus' post #154 is actually a good explanation.

[volgadon]

That's not what the text says. It says every soul would be destroyed, with Coriantumr being the only survivor as a witness of other people inheriting the land. Ether was the witness to the events he recorded - he didn't "survive" he was likely translated as he desired and wasn't around when Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Mulek. The fulfillment of that prophecy was revealed to King Mosiah who translated the large stone brought to him. (Omni 1:20)

I'm sorry, but this is a specious argument. If Ether remained alive after the battle, he survived. His further history doesn't change that.