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

[ksfisher]

Firstly, volgadon was talking about Amalikiah, not Omni. Secondly, ANACO's observation was correct. The people of Limhi had discovered a land which had been the scene of great destruction, with which the People of Zarahemla apparently were not familiar. If they had been, Limhi would have been too, because his fathers had originated from there. The fact that Mulekites had discovered Coriantumr, and Limhi had discovered a land of great destruction, does not mean that Ammon and Limhi were immediately going to make the connection between the two. They had discovered the ruins of a great civilization, and a set of records from them, and they were just wondering what it all meant. But the main point that ANACO was making was that there is no sign of any surviving Jaredites in any of this, which was a valid point.

Volgadon correctly identified the author of Omni 1:20-23 as Amaleki.

[ksfisher]

Volgadon correctly identified the author of Omni 1:20-23 as Amaleki.

The fact that Limhi and Ammon could not identify the ruins as Jaredite cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence or non existence of Jaredite survivors. We don't have anyway of knowing what Limhi or Ammon knew. Add this to the fact that neither of those two personally saw the ruins, they were going off of the description given to them by others.

Another problem with detecting the presence of Jaredite survivors is that the authors of the Book of Mormon would have called any survivors who were friendly to the Nephites, Nephites. Unfriendlys would be called Lamanites.

Edited June 18, 2012 by ksfisher

[volgadon]

The fact that Limhi and Ammon could not identify the ruins as Jaredites cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence or non existence. We don't have anyway of knowing what Limhi or Ammon knew. Add this to the fact that neither of those two personally saw the ruins, they were going off of the description given to them by others.

Another problem with detecting the presence of Jaredite survivors is that the authors of the Book of Mormon would have called any survivors who were friendly to the Nephites, Nephites. Unfriendlys would be called Lamanites.

Thank you, that is exactly what I was trying to say. I would add that ANACO seemed to be saying that Limhite/Nephite ignorance of the Jaredites and their destruction proved that no Jaredites survived, since had there been survivors they would have told the Nephites their story. What the account in Omni shows is that despite the discovery by the Nephites-Mulekites of the scene of destruction, a live Corinatumr himself, and translated a written history of the Jaredites, not all Nephites-Mulekites or Zenifites were able to make the connection, even at a remove of only a generation or two. This obviously can't be used to disprove the existence of survivors, since there is no indication that all Nephites would have connected the dots anyway.

[volgadon]

Volgadon correctly identified the author of Omni 1:20-23 as Amaleki.

In plain English, too.

[mfbukowski]

Another problem with detecting the presence of Jaredite survivors is that the authors of the Book of Mormon would have called any survivors who were friendly to the Nephites, Nephites. Unfriendlys would be called Lamanites.

Which is precisely the point I have been trying to make since the beginning of the thread.

Jacob 1:

13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish athem by these names, but I shall bcall them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

In other words, Jacob's use of the words are about as precise as the terms "good guys" and "bad guys". All the tribes and peoples are lumped together into these two categories and all else is irrelevant to him

[ksfisher]

Which is precisely the point I have been trying to make since the beginning of the thread.

Jacob 1:

In other words, Jacob's use of the words are about as precise as the terms "good guys" and "bad guys". All the tribes and peoples are lumped together into these two categories and all else is irrelevant to him

Repetition is important, just like General Conference

[Robert F. Smith]

]cdowis, on 16 June 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Sigh.

1. Has it occurred to you that the Jaredites likely would have had multiple colonies hundreds or a thousand miles away, past mountains and tropical jungles.

For example, the BOM records that Nephi encountered domesticated goats and ox when they first landed (on the other side of the continent), which may refer to such a colony, or some group of "others". Over the centuries these colonists would have no contact with main Jaredite culture, and probably lost all recollection of their past.

Thus, there were "genetic" Jaredites, but not associated with them except in the distant past. This scenario resolves all the questions that you posed, including where those domesticated animals came from.

Firstly, the question of domesticated animals has already been answered in post #277 (page 14) in the thread: "LGT and the Lamanites of Ammon's Mission", to which you never replied. Secondly, you are now changing the goal posts. The original argument was that surviving Jaredites had existed and interacted with the Nephites and Mulekits at the point of their arrival, or shortly thereafter.

Of course, the Jaredites did not interact with the Mulekites or Nephites "at the point of their arrival, or shortly thereafter." A great deal of time passed before that happened, and all the while the Mulekites and Nephites were completely unaware of the existence of the Jaredites. These were not close neighbors, and there is little likelihood that when their remains were accidentally discovered that any real knowledge about them was immediately available to the Mulekites & Nephites -- including any knowledge of possible survivors.

That is the theory that his and my replies were based on. Now you are suggesting that they had survived, but in the form of colonies thousands of miles away which would not have brought them into contact with the Israelites. And pray tell, what is the basis of all this conjecture?

They need not be at such great distances away, although it is quite possible, since we have such real world phenomena in that very region.

One basis for such a conjecture as cdowis makes is the real world: It is not at all plausible that an entire people called Jaredites, who existed in enormous numbers, could exist somewhere in the same region (unknown to the Mulekites), have a major war of extermination, and when finally discovered by the Mulekites or Nephites, make a completely unsupported assumption that there were no survivors anywhere. The Mulekites & Nephites knew little of the extent of Jaredite civilization after their discovery of what was left, and we do not need to assume that they actually knew whether there were any survivors.

Indeed, in the actual Mesoamerica, the Olmec disappeared and later generations did not actually know much about them -- including who they were, what they called themselves, and of what significance they had been -- even though we know that there were survivors of that Mother Culture of Mesoamerica.

]Quote

2. The large plates, as opposed to the small plates, recorded the history of the Nephites, and would have recorded the details of the "others", rather than the small plates.

3. Finally and conclusively, we know that inhabitants lived in this area prior to the landing of Lehi, so it is a proven fact that others were living there.

If you want to bury your head in the sand and mumble "The BOM is only fiction" ...... well, whatever floats your boat.I

All kinds of things are possible. The question is whether it happened, and if it did, can we find evidence in the BoM to support it.

He is not doing that at all. See my previous reply to cdowis.

He is not doing that either. If posts #139 and #152 had been addressed to me, I would have been inclined to give a similar reply.

I was trying to reassure the guy that he needn't worry a lot about such suggestions. We all have to start somewhere, and a knowledge of special languages is not necessary -- even if it is helpful.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Bernard Gui]

I wonder with whom the Mulekites had been at war?

Omni 17

And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.

Bernard

[rodheadlee]

I wonder with whom the Mulekites had been at war?

Omni 17

And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.

Bernard

Good point. Who corrupted their language?

[mfbukowski]

I wonder with whom the Mulekites had been at war?

Omni 17

And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.

Bernard

Good one!

[Anijen]

I wonder with whom the Mulekites had been at war?

Others, of course. Thank you for that little gem.

There are many little hints to others embedded in the Book of Mormon. To suggest there were no others is ludicrous because there is so much evidence of others.

To suggest that there was others yet there was no contact is almost as absurd.

To suggest there were others, yet they knew about each other, but did not interact is acceptable, rare, but acceptable.

[mfbukowski]

Well we know that the old adage "you cannot prove a negative" is not always true, but on the other hand, in a case like this, what possible evidence could one have for the belief that there were NO "others"?

What evidence would show the non-existence of "others"?

There are no statements in the BOM that others did not exist, and to the contrary, as we have seen, there is a lot of evidence in favor of their existence.

We are talking about two continents and a few thousand years here.

That's a lot of time and a lot of territory.

To think that the Nephites, Jaredites, et al were the only ones who could have possibly made the voyage or come over the Bering Straits is just absurd.

Edited June 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[zerinus]

I wonder with whom the Mulekites had been at war?

Omni 17

And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them.

Bernard

Already discussed in posts #80 and #81 (pages 4 and 5) of the thread: "LGT And the Lamanites of Ammon's mission".

When none is mentioned, the implication is that they fought among themselves. Who did the Lehites fight their wars against? They fought among themselves. What makes you think the Mulekites should have been any different?

[ERayR]

Already discussed in posts #80 and #81 (pages 4 and 5) of the thread: "LGT And the Lamanites of Ammon's mission".

When none is mentioned, the implication is that they fought among themselves. Who did the Lehites fight their wars against? They fought among themselves. What makes you think the Mulekites should have been any different?

I don't think that is the implication at all. Your assumption but not really the implication. Why is that implication any more valid that the implication of others?

[zerinus]

Good point. Who corrupted their language?

Already discussed at length in the thread: ""Others" In The Book Of Mormon - Mosiah And The Mulekites". Start reading from post #10. The Book tells you why their language was corrupted: "they had brought no records with them" (Omni:1:17).

[zerinus]

I don't think that is the implication at all. Your assumption but not really the implication. Why is that implication any more valid that the implication of others?

If you would read what I had written, instead of just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, you would not need to ask that question.

[cinepro]

Good point. Who corrupted their language?

The implication seems to be that without written records, their language had changed. Otherwise, when the Nephites showed up, they both would have spoken the same language because they both originated from the same place. So they corrupted their language.

Edited June 18, 2012 by cinepro

[ERayR]

If you would read what I had written, instead of just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, you would not need to ask that question.

My but you are an imperious soul aren't you?

[mfbukowski]

Golly gee, it almost seems like it depends on the interpretation you choose doesn't it?

Who woulda thought?

[zerinus]

My but you are an imperious soul aren't you?

D&C 93:

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

1 Samuel 15:

23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

[cinepro]

Good point. Who corrupted their language?

Another point about corrupted languages and others. If it is being theorized that the Mulekites' language was "corrupted" by the influence of native peoples, we would need to ask "corrupted compared to what?" Omni is placed at least 250 years after the Lehites landed, and if they Lehites were intermingling with the native cultures, wouldn't their language also be influenced? Or are we theorizing that the Nephites had maintained their Hebrew-speaking ways during their mingling, and upon encountering the Zarahemlites Mosiah recognized their language as being a corrupted version of his own excellent Hebrew?

[mfbukowski]

D&C 93:

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

1 Samuel 15:

23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

Ah yes, that certainly helps a lot!

[ERayR]

D&C 93:

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

1 Samuel 15:

23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

Proverbs 16:18 ^aPride goeth before destruction, and an ^bhaughty spirit before a fall.

19 Better it is to be of an ^ahumble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.

20 He that ^ahandleth a matter wisely shall find good: and whoso ^btrusteth in the Lord, ^chappy is he.

[mfbukowski]

Another point about corrupted languages and others. If it is being theorized that the Mulekites' language was "corrupted" by the influence of native peoples, we would need to ask "corrupted compared to what?" Omni is placed at least 250 years after the Lehites landed, and if they Lehites were intermingling with the native cultures, wouldn't their language also be influenced? Or are we theorizing that the Nephites had maintained their Hebrew-speaking ways during their mingling, and upon encountering the Zarahemlites Mosiah recognized their language as being a corrupted version of his own excellent Hebrew?

Who knows- it's pretty pointless speculation. On one hand Latin got "corrupted" into Italian and Spanish and French without a whole lot of influence of other languages whereas that same French got "corrupted" by direct contact with Norse and Germanic influences- which influences were already "corrupted", into modern English.

Arguably all languages are "corrupted"- they develop and evolve and I don't think the fact that they become "corrupted" shows much either way about interaction with "others"

Ya unnastan' wha I'm sayin?

Edited June 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

Another point about corrupted languages and others. If it is being theorized that the Mulekites' language was "corrupted" by the influence of native peoples, we would need to ask "corrupted compared to what?" Omni is placed at least 250 years after the Lehites landed, and if they Lehites were intermingling with the native cultures, wouldn't their language also be influenced? Or are we theorizing that the Nephites had maintained their Hebrew-speaking ways during their mingling, and upon encountering the Zarahemlites Mosiah recognized their language as being a corrupted version of his own excellent Hebrew?

Nope just the record keepers.