John Sorenson On Motivation For Others Theory

[robuchan]

ftr, this is how the original exchange went

first I said

The greatest minds of this church have been backed into a corner by anthropology and DNA science.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57949-lgt-and-the-lamanites-of-ammons-mission/page__st__120#entry1209128621

Brant Gardner responded with

You really should read a little more history. The "mixing populations theory" preceded the "corner" by at least 50 years. It isn't being "backed in" if you are ahead of the curve.

I thought KC went into more detail on the sequence, but I can't find that quote.

"Anthropology" should cover all the non-DNA scientific evidence suggesting populations in America, right?

[livy111us]

I believe I left a link to the article: http://maxwellinstit...d=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.

That's weird. It would seem that anyone who believes The Book of Mormon to have taken place in Mesoamerica would ALL share the EXACT same beliefs down to every detail on who the Nephites were and where every BOM city was. Who would have thought that there would actually be differing ideas among this group. Novel idea. But at least I'm comforted to know that other theories don't have this problem of independent thinking and those who believe in, say, the Heartland model all agree with each other 100%. Because, I for one, have *not* seen disagreements among that group that would qualify according to your definition of "excuses."

Edited July 5, 2012 by livy111us

[Brant Gardner]

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

Are you suggesting that rather than respond to what you actually say I should respond to what I think you are going to change to after you have more information?

I specifically deny that I made any attempt to provide a "technical truth" that obfuscated "real" truth.

[Brant Gardner]

"Anthropology" should cover all the non-DNA scientific evidence suggesting populations in America, right?

There is a major difference between applying increasing information and being backed into a corner. The historical development of ideas about the Book of Mormon clearly has a dialectic relationship with the increasing about of available information---just as it should. None of that development shows any of the theoretical desperation that would arise from being backed into a corner.

Note that you are using a 1985 statement that acknowledges information that was well known and incorporated over 35 years before (with indications of having been around for a lot longer than that). If you take the time to understand the development of these ideas, you will find that they obviously respond to information, but is a slow development process and never as a reaction to anything perceived as a threatening problem or "corner."

[ERayR]

I believe I left a link to the article: http://maxwellinstit...d=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.

Please read what I said/wrote. 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.

[Brant Gardner]

I missed this earlier, hence the late response.

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?

There was a period of time when there were some who believed that there was a direct correlation between Nephites and Maya. Much of that came from the idea, current at the time, that the Maya began at 600 B.C. That correspondence was too juicy for speculation. Of course, more recent information has clarified that they had a much deeper time depth, so that should no longer be a temptation.

I have seen quite a few who are being less careful assume a connection, but I believe there is a very strong push to make sure that such simplistic correlations are not promulgated.

And now there are "Others" in the Book of Mormon to prove the Nephites lived among the Maya?

That isn't, and hasn't been, the nature of that particular discussion.

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

Your simple representation of the intellectual history is not correct, and certainly has never been about excuses. However, there as been a refinement over time, and I hope it isn't over.

[ERayR]

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

Because you don't know for sure?

Kind regards.

Gee I thought that was the scientific method to knowledge. Idea -> hypothesis -> Theory -> evidence -> revise and repeat

[cinepro]

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?

I guess it depends on how you understand Joseph's use of the words "ancient America", "first settlement" and "two distinct races". If you think that wording is open to there having been existing cultures and cities when the Jaredites or Lehites showed up, with them subsequently mingling, converting and ruling them, then more power to you.

The problem is that there are two kinds of theories about "others." The theory that seems to be supported by the simplest reading of the BOM is that the lands of the BOM were being hidden and preserved during the time of the BOM, and that there weren't any "others" allowed in the Americas until after the events of the BOM. So by the time of Joseph Smith, there were "others", but they had settled after the destruction of the Nephites. I suspect if the quotes referred to in the FAIR article were researched, these would be the "others" that were referred to.

The other "others" theory is that there were existing cultures and cities when the Jaredites or Nephites showed up, and they converted, ruled, intermingled, fought with, ignored and otherwise lived among these people. As Sorenson noted, any attempt to set The Book of Mormon in "reality" must deal with these people, so this theory is a logical necessity. But that doesn't mean it is supported by the "text" of The Book of Mormon, or the statements of Joseph Smith or anyone else, no matter how badly we want it to be.

So if you also believe that when Joseph Smith said this:

The Book of Mormon is a record of the forefathers of our western tribes of Indians; having been found through the ministration of an holy angel, and translated into our own language by the gift and power of God, after having been hid up in the earth for the last fourteen hundred years, containing the word of God which was delivered unto them. By it we learn that our western tribes of Indians are descendants from that Joseph which was sold into Egypt, and that the land of America is a promised land unto them, and unto it all the tribes of Israel will come with as many of the Gentiles as shall comply with the requisitions of the new covenant.

...he was tacitly acknowledging the existence of existing pagan civilizations on the American continent when the Jaredites or Lehites showed up, I think your powers of creativity may be overpowering your powers of comprehension. But like you said, he's dead, so he can say anything we want him to have said (or not said).

Edited July 5, 2012 by cinepro

[robuchan]

There is a major difference between applying increasing information and being backed into a corner. The historical development of ideas about the Book of Mormon clearly has a dialectic relationship with the increasing about of available information---just as it should. None of that development shows any of the theoretical desperation that would arise from being backed into a corner.

Note that you are using a 1985 statement that acknowledges information that was well known and incorporated over 35 years before (with indications of having been around for a lot longer than that). If you take the time to understand the development of these ideas, you will find that they obviously respond to information, but is a slow development process and never as a reaction to anything perceived as a threatening problem or "corner."

The word lying I used was too strong. I meant it playful. I do think you were obfuscating. And I am a little disappointed, because I've always thought you were a straight shooter. But that's OK. All apologists do it. And as you say, I guess there's a reason to do it. It's not your responsibility if the critic uses imprecise language.

It is a relatively minor point. If apologists come up with theories as a reaction to scientific evidence, it doesn't necessarily mean the theories are wrong.

[Brant Gardner]

I do think you were obfuscating.

I'm sorry you think so. I wasn't.

All apologists do it.

Really? Are you suggesting that there is some sort of causation there? You do realize that you are an apologist for your position, and therefore (according to your definition) you obfuscate?

Doesn't that seem a bit over the top?

[mrmandias]

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.

This was originally about DNA; it was in response to that the claim was made. It's also clear from reviewing your posting that you haven't trusted LDS apologists one inch. Frankly the material you quote is the only material in your post that I am willing to credit.

Edited July 5, 2012 by mrmandias

[robuchan]

I'm sorry you think so. I wasn't.

Really? Are you suggesting that there is some sort of causation there? You do realize that you are an apologist for your position, and therefore (according to your definition) you obfuscate?

Doesn't that seem a bit over the top?

Obfuscating seems to be a common tactic for FARMS apologists.

[mrmandias]

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

Yes, if "technical truth" means "a response to the argument I made, instead of responding to the argument I decided several weeks later I really should have made."

[cinepro]

Obfuscating seems to be a common tactic for FARMS apologists.

Not to be too picky, but I think the term "FARMS apologists" is EOL.

[robuchan]

This was originally about DNA, which is when the claim was made. Frankly the material you quote is the only material in your post that I am willing to credit.

Actually it was never about just DNA. That's part of the obfuscation. My original assertion in the other thread a few weeks ago was that "Anthropology and DNA science backed LDS apologists into a corner." At first I was told I was wrong, and I didn't challenge it. I'm ignorant when it comes to the history and popularity of Native American anthropological science. But it appears that as more info comes out in these threads, and I do a little more digging, the noise level of the LDS Apologist Others theory is perfectly lagging the noise level of Native American anthropological science related to the existence of Others.

If you cannot have a respectful conversation that does not include calling people liars and ad hominem attacks on all apologists you will be removed from the board. You are so out of line that this will be your only warning.

[robuchan]

It's also clear from reviewing your posting that you haven't trusted LDS apologists one inch.

Not true at all. I don't trust the interpretation or conclusions, but I'm not a scholar, and don't have the time or ability to follow up on every fact stated by apologists or critics. There are some who I give more trust to than others. But my natural inclination by default is to accept all stated facts.

[SamIam]

I guess it depends on how you understand Joseph's use of the words "ancient America", "first settlement" and "two distinct races". If you think that wording is open to there having been existing cultures and cities when the Jaredites or Lehites showed up, with them subsequently mingling, converting and ruling them, then more power to you.

The problem is that there are two kinds of theories about "others." The theory that seems to be supported by the simplest reading of the BOM is that the lands of the BOM were being hidden and preserved during the time of the BOM, and that there weren't any "others" allowed in the Americas until after the events of the BOM. So by the time of Joseph Smith, there were "others", but they had settled after the destruction of the Nephites. I suspect if the quotes referred to in the FAIR article were researched, these would be the "others" that were referred to.

The other "others" theory is that there were existing cultures and cities when the Jaredites or Nephites showed up, and they converted, ruled, intermingled, fought with, ignored and otherwise lived among these people. As Sorenson noted, any attempt to set The Book of Mormon in "reality" must deal with these people, so this theory is a logical necessity. But that doesn't mean it is supported by the "text" of The Book of Mormon, or the statements of Joseph Smith or anyone else, no matter how badly we want it to be.

So if you also believe that when Joseph Smith said this:

...he was tacitly acknowledging the existence of existing pagan civilizations on the American continent when the Jaredites or Lehites showed up, I think your powers of creativity may be overpowering your powers of comprehension. But like you said, he's dead, so he can say anything we want him to have said (or not said).

Lets just skip to the chase...you tell me what Joseph meant in the Western Indians quote. Then explain if that agrees with only Lehites on this continent at the time or if it permits that there could have been other populations in unencountered locations on this continent.

[cinepro]

Lets just skip to the chase...you tell me what Joseph meant in the Western Indians quote. Then explain if that agrees with only Lehites on this continent at the time or if it permits that there could have been other populations in unencountered locations on this continent.

After the destruction of the Nephites and the close of The Book of Mormon, the promise of the Lord in 2 Nephi was nullified (or fulfilled, depending on how you look at it), and "others" were then allowed into this land:

[8] And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

[9] Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

[10] But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord -- having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise -- behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.

[11] Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.

So to the degree that Joseph Smith's statement could be read as acknowledging non-Lehitic "others", they are the people that came after the death of Moroni. But I'm not even sure his statement is implying that much.

[Calm]

If you take the time to understand the development of these ideas, you will find that they obviously respond to information, but is a slow development process and never as a reaction to anything perceived as a threatening problem or "corner."

How could one avoid responding to information if one is aware of it? Reading/study does not occur in a vacuum, not even reading the scriptures. For those interested in anthropology and archaeology, who are studying such independently of the Book of Mormon, it is unreasonable to expect them to put their brains on hold and compartmentalize their experiences with each. And then once they notice some correspondence, should they resist following through with researching it simply because it occurred to them because of their previous acquaintance due to academic endeavours? And the reverse goes for finding things related to the Book of Mormon in one's study of anthropology, etc. based on one's familiarity with the Book of Mormon.

[Calm]

And I am a little disappointed, because I've always thought you were a straight shooter.

He is. You are wrong.

[Calm]

Not true at all. I don't trust the interpretation or conclusions, but I'm not a scholar, and don't have the time or ability to follow up on every fact stated by apologists or critics. There are some who I give more trust to than others. But my natural inclination by default is to accept all stated facts.

Then you should consider there is a significant disconnect between how you are writing up your responses and what you describe as your natural inclination.

Absolute statements about apologists obfuscating does not indicate trust on much of any level in my experience.

Edited July 5, 2012 by calmoriah

[SamIam]

After the destruction of the Nephites and the close of The Book of Mormon, the promise of the Lord in 2 Nephi was nullified (or fulfilled, depending on how you look at it), and "others" were then allowed into this land:

So to the degree that Joseph Smith's statement could be read as acknowledging non-Lehitic "others", they are the people that came after the death of Moroni. But I'm not even sure his statement is implying that much.

I'm as much a purist as anyone on this board, however, I make every effort to bring the facts under the umbrella of the gospel. I can see the Lord providing for a region of indeterminate size as being preserved for Lehite expansion. However, I cannot ignore that there were peoples on this continent other than Jaredites and Lehites and Mulekites for the physical evidence of various populations obviously in existence. Based on what you are stating above it makes it seem like you are stating that there were none others allowed on this land as an entire land mass - Arctic to tip of South America until after the demise in 400 AD or so of the Nephite Nation. I do not believe the records sustain that conclusion nor is it required to do so. They do not need to be in large populations but they need to be here to represent the historical record which validates small populations of people. They may become seed populations and expand to greater numbers after the BOM peoples lose their inheritance.

The point as I see it is simply that Joseph Smith lived in the era of Indians. He understood that there were different tribes of Indians. He determined that not all Indians were descendents of the BOM peoples. Otherwise he never would have made a statement limiting those descendents with a group of people that it appears he had very little potential for actual knowledge of in a first hand way that would have made them a point of delineation. In other words, it was revealed to him that some Indians in the west were descendants of the Nephites and Lamanites. He did not maintain that all Indians were descendents of Nephi and Laman but only some in the West. This is very reasonable and I keep thinking we must be missing something in the semantics.

To clarify your perspective for my confused mind:

Are you stating that Joseph did not mean to limit it to the Western tribes of Indians and that he was including all Lamanites into the descendants mix?

This is a yes or no answer if you wish.

[cursor]

I just took a couple minutes to read through this thread. It's incredible how unjustified, blanket insults are loosely flung about. My vote we all be just a bit more diplomatic, a lot more courteous, and that we all do a little bit more intellectual digging before hitting the Add Reply button.

The original post of this thread included a two sentence quote from An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon.

"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 from 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."

(page 146)

To frantically hit the brakes and yell, "what the ..." is hardly what should most constructively be done. Continuing through the paragraph, we read

"We saw earlier the nature of the Book of Mormon as a lineage history of Nephi's descendants. It does not claim to be, and clearly is not, a history in our modern sense of that term; it never purports to give a systematic picture of what happened" throughout its geographical area."

That very small addition takes me about 30% through a single paragraph. There is much more meat here. If you own a copy of the book, read it through ... no, study it.

Edited July 5, 2012 by cursor

[robuchan]

I just took a couple minutes to read through this thread. It's incredible how unjustified, blanket insults are loosely flung about. My vote we all be just a bit more diplomatic, a lot more courteous, and that we all do a little bit more intellectual digging before hitting the Add Reply button.

The original post of this thread included a two sentence quote from An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon.

"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 from 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."

(page 146)

To frantically hit the brakes and yell, "what the ..." is hardly what should most constructively be done. Continuing through the paragraph, we read

"We saw earlier the nature of the Book of Mormon as a lineage history of Nephi's descendants. It does not claim to be, and clearly is not, a history in our modern sense of that term; it never purports to give a systematic picture of what happened" throughout its geographical area."

That very small addition takes me about 30% through a single paragraph. There is much more meat here. If you own a copy of the book, read it through ... no, study it.

I read it. I don't know why you think the extra sentence adds significant meaning. The point is that the Others theory trailed the scientific evidence, not vice versa.

[KevinG]

I read it. I don't know why you think the extra sentence adds significant meaning. The point is that the Others theory trailed the scientific evidence, not vice versa.

Imagine that! Latter-day Saints adding to their knowledge and understanding from scientific finds. The critics who believe we are unthinking and suffer blind faith will be shocked I tell you. SHOCKED!