mfbukowski Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 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.If so, should we not conclude that the next “king” of the Nephites, whom Nephi anointed to succeed him, was also a stranger, because he is also referred to in the same unfamiliar terms, “a man”?You missed the point.It has nothing to do with him being "a man" - it has to do with the words "there came (a man) among the people of Nephi"Where did he come FROM? And he was not OF the "people of Nephi" if he came from somewhere else to be among the people of Nephi.That is the point.
JAHS Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 In addition to the Sherem incident (Jacob 7), again assuming there were perhaps no more than a hundred or so people total, a few years earlier the scriptures say that some of the Nephite men began desiring “many wives and concubines” (Jacob 1:15). If there were no others besides the original Lehite party, would there really have been enough women for the men to consider having "many wives and concubines"? In that same chapter Jacob 1:1 says only 55 years had passed since Lehi left Jerusalem. A few verses later it says:"Now the people which were not aLamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, bZoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites." (Jacob 1:13)After only 55 years how many people could there have been to belong to all those "ites" if no others besides the original Lehite party were involved?
mfbukowski Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 In addition to the Sherem incident (Jacob 7), again assuming there were perhaps no more than a hundred or so people total, a few years earlier the scriptures say that some of the Nephite men began desiring “many wives and concubines” (Jacob 1:15). If there were no others besides the original Lehite party, would there really have been enough women for the men to consider having "many wives and concubines"? In that same chapter Jacob 1:1 says only 55 years had passed since Lehi left Jerusalem. A few verses later it says:"Now the people which were not aLamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, bZoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites." (Jacob 1:13)After only 55 years how many people could there have been to belong to all those "ites" if no others besides the original Lehite party were involved?And remember it took the party a few years to get to the new world as well.Not to mention I wonder why it is that those folks did not have three heads with all the inbreeding. We have kids not wanting to date people who grew up in the same stake because they think of them as brothers and sisters. Need I say more?
jmason Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Earlier in this thread when it was noted that it took Lehi and his party 8 years to go the relatively short distance from Jerusalem to the Red Sea, it was surmised that perhaps this was due to certain winds which only prevailed once per decade or so, or that it was simply the will of the Lord that they wander for this length of time. But I recall a certain passage later in the BOM where it is said they wandered for 8 years because of their unrighteousness; they didn't heed the Spirit and so the Liahona functioned only intermittently, and instead of finding a direct course to their ultimate destination they wandered for 8 years. The idea of the lesson was that we should listen to our own Liahona and thus avoid wandering in the desert.Can anybody direct me to this scriptural passage? I have been unable to find it.
jmason Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Just found it. Here it is: 38 And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the thing which our fathers call a ball, or director—or our fathers called it aLiahona, which is, being interpreted, a compass; and the Lord prepared it. 39 And behold, there cannot any man work after the manner of so curious a workmanship. And behold, it was prepared to show unto our fathers the course which they should travel in the wilderness. 40 And it did work for them according to their afaith in God; therefore, if they had faith to believe that God could cause that those spindles should point the way they should go, behold, it was done; therefore they had this miracle, and also many other miracles wrought by the power of God, day by day. 41 Nevertheless, because those miracles were worked by asmallmeans it did show unto them marvelous works. They werebslothful, and forgot to exercise their faith and diligence and then those marvelous works ceased, and they did not progress in their journey; 42 Therefore, they tarried in the wilderness, or did anot travel a direct course, and were afflicted with hunger and thirst, because of their transgressions.
jmason Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Sorry, I'm new to the board that my last post didn't come thru right. Try the following from Alma 37 beginning vs. 38:"And now, my son, I have somewhat to say concerning the thing which our fathers call a ball, or director--or our fathers called it Liahona, which is being interpreted, a compass; and the Lord prepared it...."And it did work for them according to their faith in God; therefore, if they had faith to believe that God could cause that those spindles should point the way they should go, behold, it was done; therefore they had this miracle...."Nevertheless, because those miracles were worked by small means it did show unto them marvelous works. They were slothful, and forgot to exercise their faith and diligence and then those marvelous works ceased, and they did not progress in their journey."
Freedom Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 One author that discuses this issue also points out that they are called 'wives', indicating that the taking of more than one partner was legal in this society. If polygamy is not practiced, why would the leader of this small band of Nephites call them wives? Would they not all be concubines? And how would such a small group of people already have costly apparel? With such a small group after just 30-50 years it is rather odd that a division of wealth could have already appeared. Some have searched for gold and have become more wealthy than the others. How are they more wealthy if there are so few adults and, with such a small group, there would be enough gold for all to have more than they would ever need. If this gold makes them rich, they must be buying stuff with it but from who? Their poor cousins and sisters? There is also the factor of leading their daughters captive. Captive where? Into one of the 15 tents the are all living in? there are many other examples that scream they were not alone.
jmason Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 And for the record I will state that I also have believed in the presence of "others". I served my mission among "the Lamanites", or people who in the church at that time were referred to as Lamanites, and even then I thought there had to have been others others present at the time of the narrative. I read the BOM over and over again as a missionary and I couldn't make sense of it without assuming the presence of these others.
zerinus Posted June 14, 2012 Author Posted June 14, 2012 You missed the point.It has nothing to do with him being "a man" - it has to do with the words "there came (a man) among the people of Nephi"Where did he come FROM? And he was not OF the "people of Nephi" if he came from somewhere else to be among the people of Nephi.That is the point.By that logic, Enos and Alma were also aliens, because they went about "among the people of Nephi:"Enos 1:19 And now it came to pass that I, Enos, went about among the people of Nephi, prophesying of things to come, . . .Alma 4:19 And this he did that he himself might go forth among his people, or among the people of Nephi, that he might preach the word of God unto them, . . .
ERayR Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 By that logic, Enos and Alma were also aliens, because they went about "among the people of Nephi:"Enos 1:19 And now it came to pass that I, Enos, went about among the people of Nephi, prophesying of things to come, . . .Alma 4:19 And this he did that he himself might go forth among his people, or among the people of Nephi, that he might preach the word of God unto them, . . .They went among the people of Nephi as opposed to going among the people of the others. If there were not any others Enos and Alma would not have had to clarify who it was they went amongst.
zerinus Posted June 14, 2012 Author Posted June 14, 2012 And remember it took the party a few years to get to the new world as well.Not to mention I wonder why it is that those folks did not have three heads with all the inbreeding. We have kids not wanting to date people who grew up in the same stake because they think of them as brothers and sisters. Need I say more?By that logic, we should all have three heads, because we all descended from Adam and Eve (or if you prefer, from Noah).
zerinus Posted June 14, 2012 Author Posted June 14, 2012 They went among the people of Nephi as opposed to going among the people of the others. If there were not any others Enos and Alma would not have had to clarify who it was they went amongst.Sorry, couldn't make sense out of that. No "others" is mentioned anywhere. That is your addition. And there is not a lot of difference between "coming among the people of Nephi" and "going among the people of Nephi". They essentially mean the same kind of thing.
mfbukowski Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 One author that discuses this issue also points out that they are called 'wives', indicating that the taking of more than one partner was legal in this society. If polygamy is not practiced, why would the leader of this small band of Nephites call them wives? Would they not all be concubines? And how would such a small group of people already have costly apparel? With such a small group after just 30-50 years it is rather odd that a division of wealth could have already appeared. Some have searched for gold and have become more wealthy than the others. How are they more wealthy if there are so few adults and, with such a small group, there would be enough gold for all to have more than they would ever need. If this gold makes them rich, they must be buying stuff with it but from who? Their poor cousins and sisters? There is also the factor of leading their daughters captive. Captive where? Into one of the 15 tents the are all living in? there are many other examples that scream they were not alone.Yep!Just read it with that mentality and the stuff just jumps out at you.
ERayR Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Sorry, couldn't make sense out of that. No "others" is mentioned anywhere. That is your addition. And there is not a lot of difference between "coming among the people of Nephi" and "going among the people of Nephi". They essentially mean the same kind of thing.Sigh Goodby.
mfbukowski Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 By that logic, Enos and Alma were also aliens, because they went about "among the people of Nephi:"Enos 1:19 And now it came to pass that I, Enos, went about among the people of Nephi, prophesying of things to come, . . .Alma 4:19 And this he did that he himself might go forth among his people, or among the people of Nephi, that he might preach the word of God unto them, . . .Oh gosh, man you are driving me nuts!The other verse clearly says that he CAME among the people which would not be possible if he was already AMONG the people - which as the above verse shows were "HIS PEOPLE".IT SAYS RIGHT THERE THAT THEY WERE HIS OWN PEOPLE that he "went among"!
ERayR Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 Oh gosh, man you are driving me nuts!The other verse clearly says that he CAME among the people which would not be possible if he was already AMONG the people - which as the above verse shows were "HIS PEOPLE".IT SAYS RIGHT THERE THAT THEY WERE HIS OWN PEOPLE that he "went among"!There is none so blind as he who will not see.
mfbukowski Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 By that logic, we should all have three heads, because we all descended from Adam and Eve (or if you prefer, from Noah).An excellent point. Good evidence for why I am also right about some other things.
mfbukowski Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 There is none so blind as he who will not see.I knowI was going to say that but stopped myself
ksfisher Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 I think the consensus is that the credibility of "others" theory in the Book of Mormon is very credible. 1
zerinus Posted June 14, 2012 Author Posted June 14, 2012 There is none so blind as he who will not see.I thought of that a lot sooner than you did, but decided not to say it because if I had, for sure somebody would have complained about it to the mods, and I would have been thread banned. But I am not a complainer, so you are welcome to say what you want. I can handle you guys. I don't need help from anybody.
zerinus Posted June 14, 2012 Author Posted June 14, 2012 Oh gosh, man you are driving me nuts!The other verse clearly says that he CAME among the people which would not be possible if he was already AMONG the people - which as the above verse shows were "HIS PEOPLE".IT SAYS RIGHT THERE THAT THEY WERE HIS OWN PEOPLE that he "went among"!You forgot the "or". You also forgot Enos.
Freedom Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 By that logic, Enos and Alma were also aliens, because they went about "among the people of Nephi:"I think you have put another nail in your coffin. At this point in their history, they were sufficiently large that there were multiple settlements. This expression fits well with an advanced civilization with a network of city states or scattered groupings. As early as Jacob, a figure who was born prior to the departure, they were of sufficient size to have multiple settlements if you take the slant that everybody was a nephite. The more you find evidence, the more you damage your position. I am astounded that you cling to this position when, in another thread, you find it perfectly acceptable that the Church carefully edits out significant historical events in order to put forward a specific agenda. I do not understand the hypocrisy.
zerinus Posted June 14, 2012 Author Posted June 14, 2012 An excellent point. Good evidence for why I am also right about some other things.Except that it is in direct contradiction to what God has revealed:Moses 5:3 And from that time forth, the sons and daughters of Adam began to divide two and two in the land, and to till the land, and to tend flocks, and they also begat sons and daughters.
Calm Posted June 14, 2012 Posted June 14, 2012 (edited) I thought of that a lot sooner than you did, but decided not to say it because if I had, for sure somebody would have complained about it to the mods, and I would have been thread banned. But I am not a complainer, so you are welcome to say what you want. I can handle you guys. I don't need help from anybody. 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. Edited June 14, 2012 by calmoriah
Recommended Posts