John Sorenson On Motivation For Others Theory

[robuchan]

from Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 1985.

"Latter-Day Saints are not used to the idea that other people than Lehi's immediate descendants were on the Book of Mormon scene. Abundant evidence archaeological and linguistic studies assures us that such people were indeed present, so we need to understand how the Book of Mormon account accommodates that fact."

And you guys told me the Others Theory came long before the scientific evidence backed LDS apologists into a corner. You guys know this stuff way better than me, and I have to trust you on stuff. I'm willing to trust you unless you keep lying to me like this.

[cursor]

Don't "trust" anyone. Find out for yourself through responsible study.

What might you mean by, " I'm willing to trust you unless you keep lying to me like this"? What lies are being told, from your perspective?

[robuchan]

Don't "trust" anyone. Find out for yourself through responsible study.

What might you mean by, " I'm willing to trust you unless you keep lying to me like this"? What lies are being told, from your perspective?

And you guys told me the Others Theory came long before the scientific evidence backed LDS apologists into a corner.

One of the quickest ways to get escorted out is to call other posters liars.

[Calm]

I am getting tired of doing research for people who accuse others of lying, etc. when all it would take was just a little research of their own before making that accusation to find out it was false. It is very immature.

For example, here's a place to start, I am not going to take it any further though. Took me a minute to find it by doing a search on FAIRlds.org with the term "others":

Orson Pratt, B.H. Roberts, Anthony Ivins, John Widtsoe, and other prominent LDS have all made comments suggesting the possibility that other non-Book-of-Mormon-peoples may have inhabited the New World.

http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ash-Were_the_Lehites_Alone.pdf Edited July 5, 2012 by calmoriah

[ANACO]

I can only guess at Dr. Sorenson's motivation.

It's possible he learned the Nephite civilzation does not match the Maya civilization.

So instead of looking elsewhere in the Americas, an "others" theory is very important for a Book of Mormon theory in Mesoamerica.

Kind regards.

[SamIam]

from Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, 1985.

"Latter-Day Saints are not used to the idea that other people than Lehi's immediate descendants were on the Book of Mormon scene. Abundant evidence archaeological and linguistic studies assures us that such people were indeed present, so we need to understand how the Book of Mormon account accommodates that fact."

And you guys told me the Others Theory came long before the scientific evidence backed LDS apologists into a corner. You guys know this stuff way better than me, and I have to trust you on stuff. I'm willing to trust you unless you keep lying to me like this.

I would think that just considering the implications of Joseph Smiths own statement concerning who were the descendents of the Book of Mormon peoples would be adequate to resolve this question:

"The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians... our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph who was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 17).

In other words, Joseph recognizes that there are all kinds of Indians in the land who came from somewhere. However they are not all descended from Book of Mormon Lamanite / Nephite stock. By extrapolation they must have been here before and or during the same time frame. Instead there is one group that remains in the land that is in the western part of the United states and these - and these - I repeat myself ...and these are the descendents of the Book of Mormon peoples.

Why are you blaming others for your failure to think it through? Not everything is going to be packaged and wrapped with pretty paper and a nice little bow on top. You may actually have to hold yourself accountable for your own testimony and stop letting every detractor lay claim to your brain cells. In fact, don't believe my interpretation either - think it through on your own and see what is most agreeable to you and then get a spiritual sense of its rightness or wrongness. Thereafter, never give it up to anyone else again. Neither supporter or detractor - make it yours and then no one gets to "carry you about with every wind of doctrine"

[Anijen]

I can only guess at Dr. Sorenson's motivation.

It's possible he learned the Nephite civilzation does not match the Maya civilization.

So instead of looking elsewhere in the Americas, an "others" theory is very important for a Book of Mormon theory in Mesoamerica.

Kind regards.

the "others theory" is relevant no matter where the setting of the Book of Mormon is placed.

Fact: There were others.

Speculation: If Mulekites, Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites were true and did migrate from the Old World (which I believe they did), odds are they did have some type of relations with the indigenous people of the New World.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[ERayR]

I can only guess at Dr. Sorenson's motivation.

It's possible he learned the Nephite civilzation does not match the Maya civilization.

So instead of looking elsewhere in the Americas, an "others" theory is very important for a Book of Mormon theory in Mesoamerica.

Kind regards.

Before you make uninformed statements such as this do as Calmoriah has suggested and at the very minimum do a Google search. However, a good place to start would be at fairlds.org.

[The Nehor]

So one quote about it definitively establishes when the theory was first promulgated.

I would like to say that I believe the world is round.

There. You can tell everyone that no one believed the world was round before 2012.

[ANACO]

Before you make uninformed statements such as this do as Calmoriah has suggested and at the very minimum do a Google search. However, a good place to start would be at fairlds.org.

Would NAMI be ok?

"it is important to emphasize that the Nephites were not the Maya"

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=66&chapid=738

[ANACO]

the "others theory" is relevant no matter where the setting of the Book of Mormon is placed.

Fact: There were others.

Speculation: If Mulekites, Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites were true and did migrate from the Old World (which I believe they did), odds are they did have some type of relations with the indigenous people of the New World.

And who were these indigenous people of the New World which the "Lehites" and "Mulekites" had relations with?

And yes, I believe in the Book of Mormon.

[ERayR]

Would NAMI be ok?

Couldn't hurt but don't stop with one paper where you can glean a few words to support you. Look up John Sorenson's work in this are for one well informed perspective.

I did not attempt to find the quote you picked but would like some context. I to think it is important to emphasize that the Nephites were not the Maya but some of the Maya may have been Nephites.

[Freedom]

Even if nobody every speculated prior to 2010 that there may have been 'others', what difference does this make? Peoples opinions are not a concern. What matters is what the book says. The book is consistent with the presence of others.

[ERayR]

And who were these indigenous people of the New World which the "Lehites" and "Mulekites" had relations with?

And yes, I believe in the Book of Mormon.

If we knew that for sure we wouldn't be having this conversation. To reiterate one possibility I to think it is important to emphasize that the Nephites were not the Maya but some of the Maya may have been Nephites.

[cinepro]

I am getting tired of doing research for people who accuse others of lying, etc. when all it would take was just a little research of their own before making that accusation to find out it was false. It is very immature.

For example, here's a place to start, I am not going to take it any further though. Took me a minute to find it by doing a search on FAIRlds.org with the term "others":

http://www.fairlds.o...hites_Alone.pdf

I know you're just quoting the paper, but it should be pointed out that the paper doesn't actually tell us what "Orson Pratt, B.H. Roberts, Anthony Ivins, John Widtsoe" actually said. For example, did they say that these "others" were here at the same time and place as the Book of Mormon peoples? Because that's a pretty important distinction, and it isn't clear from the wording of your quote whether or not that's the case.

[cinepro]

In other words, Joseph recognizes that there are all kinds of Indians in the land who came from somewhere. However they are not all descended from Book of Mormon Lamanite / Nephite stock. By extrapolation they must have been here before and or during the same time frame. Instead there is one group that remains in the land that is in the western part of the United states and these - and these - I repeat myself ...and these are the descendents of the Book of Mormon peoples.

No, that's not what the logical extrapolation is, since "others" are only an issue for the time and place of the people in the Book of Mormon. We can acknowledge other people coming here after Moroni buries the plates without speaking to the possibility of "others" being here when the Jaredites or Lehites show up.

To that end, here is what Joseph Smith said in the Wentworth letter:

I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people was made known unto me.

----------------------------------------------

In [The Book of Mormon] the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country.

(emphasis added)

[ANACO]

Couldn't hurt but don't stop with one paper where you can glean a few words to support you. Look up John Sorenson's work in this are for one well informed perspective.

I did not attempt to find the quote you picked but would like some context. I to think it is important to emphasize that the Nephites were not the Maya but some of the Maya may have been Nephites.

I believe I left a link to the article: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=66&chapid=738

Warfare in the Book of Mormon

Cautiously examining Classic Maya art of a few centuries after the Book of Mormon can thus be useful in order to obtain some ideas about armor several centuries earlier. Also bear in mind that most Maya art depicts royalty and that the clothing, armor, and headdresses of the average Maya would have been much simpler.¹⁹ Finally, despite the basic similarities, it is important to emphasize that the Nephites were not the Maya, and, although the basic pattern of armor may have been similar, there were undoubtedly numerous important differences. With these caveats in mind, I will examine some of the Mesoamerican evidence for each of the four classes of Nephite armor mentioned above.

• Wasn't Dr. Sorenson's book "An Ancient American Setting.." all about the Maya being the Nephites?
  
• Yet later, the Nephites were not the Maya? [quote above]
  
• Now it's the Nephites lived among the Maya?
  
• And now there are "Others" in the Book of Mormon to prove the Nephites lived among the Maya?
  
• And now we have to prove that early leaders also believed in an Others theory because the Nephites were not the Maya but lived among them because the Nephites were not the Maya?
  

Do you see an evolution of excuses in the Mesoamerica Theory? I do.

Kind regards.

[ANACO]

If we knew that for sure we wouldn't be having this conversation. To reiterate one possibility I to think it is important to emphasize that the Nephites were not the Maya but some of the Maya may have been Nephites.

If you don't know for sure, then why propose and defend the theory?

Because you don't know for sure?

Kind regards.

[Calm]

I know you're just quoting the paper, but it should be pointed out that the paper doesn't actually tell us what "Orson Pratt, B.H. Roberts, Anthony Ivins, John Widtsoe" actually said. For example, did they say that these "others" were here at the same time and place as the Book of Mormon peoples? Because that's a pretty important distinction, and it isn't clear from the wording of your quote whether or not that's the case.

I meant it as a very limited starting point, not an end point. It is why I used that one. He now has some names from much earlier to go and check out.

[SamIam]

No, that's not what the logical extrapolation is, since "others" are only an issue for the time and place of the people in the Book of Mormon. We can acknowledge other people coming here after Moroni buries the plates without speaking to the possibility of "others" being here when the Jaredites or Lehites show up.

To that end, here is what Joseph Smith said in the Wentworth letter:

So, the way you are reading the Wentworth letter quote is to add an element of exclusivity that is not precisely made and then to ignore the second quote entirely? Or would it be more prudent, in light of the fact that he is dead and unable to clarify, to take all comments he made and try to create as complete a picture as possible. Why would we as LDS only acknowledge that others only came after Moroni buried the plates when the scientific record is able to validate the presence of many distinct populations of people. It would be intellectually dishonest for the LDS to claim they all came after the Book of Mormon times when there is a rich historical record to the contrary. Joseph obviously knew enough to make the distinction and chose to do so in the quote I provided. I have never seen a stance taken by Joseph that indicates that all of the Indians on the American continent were exclusively descendents of Lehi. I have seen where others mistakenly take such an approach but Joseph seems to have a handle on something of greater understanding just in the explanation and distinction of defining "Western Tribes of Indians".

In other words write me a summary of how both of those thoughts can be reflected as quotes from the same man about the same situation. Merge them according to precisely what they each say and how do you get around not realizing that Joseph obviously was making a distinction in the quote I provided that was simply not made in the more general approach of the Wentworth letter? If I was trying to piece together the mosaic of all he know upon the subject would I not presume he was being honest on both occasions and simply sharing particulars in one situation that he chose not to share in the other? Or are you saying that you believe that he was telling the truth in the Wentworth letter (which does not exclude the implications of the second quote) or are you saying he was lying in the second quote and we should just ignore the implications of his distinctions?

Definition of ABORIGINAL

1

: being the first or earliest known of its kind present in a region - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aboriginal

Since the record speaks to no other peoples, it would appear the Book of Mormon peoples were isolated in their region of existence - thus aboriginal. At the end of their record we don't know how much integrating or absorption occurred but what we do know is that Joseph knew that in some fashion we could reference the WESTERN TRIBES of Indians specifically as having origins from Book of Mormon peoples.

I'm missing your logic here.

Edited July 5, 2012 by SamIam

[Brant Gardner]

And you guys told me the Others Theory came long before the scientific evidence backed LDS apologists into a corner. You guys know this stuff way better than me, and I have to trust you on stuff. I'm willing to trust you unless you keep lying to me like this.

Since I am one of those who made the statement, it is fortunate that I can remember what I said and why. You seem to forget that your statement was about DNA backing LDS writers into a corner. The very date of 1985 (which is over 15 years later than he wrote that statement) should tell you that the DNA issue is confirmed as being significantly later (Murphy's article that brought the information to light as an "issue" was published in 202).

There was information available about other methods of arriving in the New World long before that and blood type studies had made similar connections as did DNA.

Now, if you wonder if LDS scholarship interacts with secular scholarship and responds to increasing information, then you are quite correct that there is a dialectic relationship (and that can be traced to the earliest reactions to the Book of Mormon while Joseph was alive). That isn't being backed into a corner. Integrating new information is not being backed into a corner any more than the archaeology of the Holy Land in the last 50 years has backed the Bible into a corner. It has altered (and improved) understanding, but not created a defensive "corner."

Edited July 5, 2012 by Brant Gardner

[robuchan]

Since I am one of those who made the statement, it is fortunate that I can remember what I said and why. You seem to forget that your statement was about DNA backing LDS writers into a corner. The very date of 1985 (which is over 15 years later than he wrote that statement) should tell you that the DNA issue is confirmed as being significantly later (Murphy's article that brought the information to light as an "issue" was published in 202).

There was information available about other methods of arriving in the New World long before that and blood type studies had made similar connections as did DNA.

Now, if you wonder if LDS scholarship interacts with secular scholarship and responds to increasing information, then you are quite correct that there is a dialectic relationship (and that can be traced to the earliest reactions to the Book of Mormon while Joseph was alive). That isn't being backed into a corner. Integrating new information is not being backed into a corner any more than the archaeology of the Holy Land in the last 50 years has backed the Bible into a corner. It has altered (and improved) understanding, but not created a defensive "corner."

OK, I get it. You and Christensen are very clever. What you said was a technical truth.

[robuchan]

Orson Pratt, B.H. Roberts, Anthony Ivins, John Widtsoe, and other prominent LDS have all made comments suggesting the possibility that other non-Book-of-Mormon-peoples may have inhabited the New World.

This comes from Roper's article, apparently. I didn't go any deeper than that. It appears though all of these mention the presence of Others, none of them mention the possibility of the mixing between Others and Lehites. Ivins is talking about the Jaredites living on. Roberts and Pratt are talking about post-BOM, pre-Columbian migrations. George Ottinger in 1875 did propose a mixing of Others with Lehites, but it appears no one took him seriously until Sorenson came along. It also should be noted that ALL of these theories came as a response to science and an attempt to retrofit the text into the science, not the other way around, which was the original issue.

[Anijen]

And who were these indigenous people of the New World which the "Lehites" and "Mulekites" had relations with?

And yes, I believe in the Book of Mormon.

Some say the Mayan, Olmec and other indigenous people of Mesoamerica. Those who might side with the Heartland theory (Great Lakes setting) say they were the Hopewell, or Mississippi Valley people, basically the mound builders.

[cursor]

Whoa! Looks like I went to bed too early last night. I guess I watched the wrong fireworks show!

I have some reading to do.