Alma 43:13,14 No Others

[CASteinman]

LGT is not that interesting defined simply by a definition that the BOM took place within small geographic space.

Your sense of what is interesting or not interesting does not change the theory.

it's not dramatically different from ...the understanding the church as a whole has had for almost 200 years.

This is not true.

[cursor]

Also, IMHO, the Others/mixing population theory is the only thing that's allowing LDS scholars to hang on to a hope of BOM historicity.

Then you should study more. Quality supportive materials are available.

[robuchan]

Then you should study more. Quality supportive materials are available.

We can disagree on the interpretations and analysis. I'd rather discuss the facts and assumptions of the argument. Can you respond to my post 223?

[cursor]

He does blow the others theory out of the water! That's what I agree with. There were only 3 groups in America. Jaradites, Mulekites, and Lehi's seed.

You could benefit emmensely from even a small amount of serious reading.

[Freedom]

That said, please tell me which verses I've misinterpreted with my modern reading.

Your presumption, for example, that the author would have mentioned others. This is a huge blight on your record. I do not pick and choose, and it is not a matter of being an expert. It is a matter of knowing more than a 5th grader. Do you apply the same standard to the bible? How about to the Mayan records? What about those of ancient egypt? You are looking for a history record. The Book of Mormon is not a history record. It is a religions text that uses historical events to teach gospel principles.

One of the core techniques that Mormon uses to teach gospel principles is parallelism, that of comparing two opposites. He carefully included events that build upon the theme of the promise to two groups: the Nephites and the Lamanites. Mention of others detracts from this theme so he would never mention them. He provides stark contrasts between Nephi and Laman, King Benjamin and King Noah, the people of Lamoni and the people of Alma ect. The books of Nephi are carefuly crafted to establish and justify Nephi as King over his people. As such, Nephi also focuses on these two groups of people. The historical text would have mentioned others, but the purpose of Nephi's record as we have it was very specific.

[ERayR]

He may believe that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, but he is putting forward good arguments against the "others" theory in the Book of Mormon, and that is what counts in a debating environment. Whoever puts forward the best arguments wins, not whoever has the most acceptable belief.

Wins what? The debate? Again what have they won that is of value?

[ERayR]

He does blow the others theory out of the water! That's what I agree with. There were only 3 groups in America. Jaradites, Mulekites, and Lehi's seed.

Either you are being sarcastic or you are grossly misinformed.

[Freedom]

Others (people with ancestors that were not Jaredites, Mulekites, or Lehites) populated the area in Mesoamerica the BOM people lived during the same time period

This is what the science indicates, and this is what the parable of the olive tree suggests. Just as there is no clear mention of others, there is no clear mention that were were not others. You want the text to mention them because you do not understand religions texts.

It's impossible that BOM people and Others would not have mixed

No, but based on the text, it appears clear that they did mix with others.

The mixing into the Others and the absorbing of culture, language, etc into Others culture is the best explanation for many of the difficult BOM historical issues

I am not aware of any difficult historical issues. The book of Mormon describes a population growth and make up that is consistent with a group of people joining an indigenous group.

[zerinus]

Wins what? The debate? Again what have they won that is of value?

"Value" is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't believe this debate is of "value," you should not participate.

[cursor]

• Others (people with ancestors that were not Jaredites, Mulekites, or Lehites) populated the area in Mesoamerica the BOM people lived during the same time period
  
• It's impossible that BOM people and Others would not have mixed
  
• The mixing into the Others and the absorbing of culture, language, etc into Others culture is the best explanation for many of the difficult BOM historical issues
  

Allow me to rephrase:

When each of the major three groups of people arrived in Mesoamerica (the Jaredites, the Mulekites, and the Lehites) there were preexisting cultures. Naturally, there was cultural interaction. I disagree with the intensity of your final point.

[robuchan]

Allow me to rephrase:

When each of the major three groups of people arrived in Mesoamerica (the Jaredites, the Mulekites, and the Lehites) there were preexisting cultures. Naturally, there was cultural interaction. I disagree with the intensity of your final point.

That's fine if you don't agree with the intensity of that last point. But am I right, in that LGT and Others/Mixing Populations Theory are inseparably connected by most apologetic scholars?

[zerinus]

Allow me to rephrase:

When each of the major three groups of people arrived in Mesoamerica (the Jaredites, the Mulekites, and the Lehites) there were preexisting cultures.

Let me quote you a verse from the Book of Mormon:

Ether 13:

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

According to this verse, the flood was universal, and covered the continents of America, meaning that there were no prior inhabitants when the Jaredites came. Now you either believe this or you don't. I think that you don't. I think that you and Rob are both in the same situation; you both believe that the Book of Mormon is fiction; except that he has the honesty to admit it, and you don't.

Edited July 11, 2012 by zerinus

[ERayR]

"Value" is in the eye of the beholder. If you don't believe this debate is of "value," you should not participate.

I appologize for getting into your "game". I was under the impression it was a discussion to exchange ideas that all may be edified.(paraphrase from D&C 50) Now that I understand that it is a game with you, and it is all about winning at any cost, I understand your posting style. (constantly combative). Hope you are having fun but please take time out to read D&C 50.

[cursor]

As I previously indicated, whether or not there were preexisting cultures in the Book of Mormon lands is only a single consideration that points to the LGT, Have you examined the geographical constraints that are detailed within the Book?

[zerinus]

I appologize for getting into your "game". I was under the impression it was a discussion to exchange ideas that all may be edified.(paraphrase from D&C 50) Now that I understand that it is a game with you, and it is all about winning at any cost, I understand your posting style. (constantly combative). Hope you are having fun but please take time out to read D&C 50.

Have a look at my previous post addresses to cursor. It might enlighten you a bit more. It gives you a practical illustration of the kind of game I am playing.

Edited July 11, 2012 by zerinus

[ERayR]

Red

Ether 13:

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

Have a look at my previous post. It might enlighten you a bit more. It gives you a practical illustration of the kind of game I am playing.

Have a look at my previous post it gives an insight to God's approach.

[cursor]

I think that you and Rob are both in the same situation; you both believe that the Book of Mormon is fiction; except that he has the honesty to admit it, and you don't.

You're joking, right?

[zerinus]

You're joking, right?

Not at all. I am dead serious.

You are out of the thread and if you keep it up you are off the board.

[ERayR]

You're joking, right?

No he is playing a game.

[cursor]

you both believe that the Book of Mormon is fiction

Then you either have no clue as to how to interpret my posts, or you are being entirely disingenuous.

[cursor]

One of the first things Nephi did when he/they settled in the land of Nephi was to build "a temple” that he compared to the temple of Solomon (2 Nephi 5:16). But there were only 3 – 5 adult immigrant males (himself, bro. Sam, Zoram, and younger bros. Jacob and Joseph, maybe not fully grown) in his party at the time! That many hands couldn’t even have got out materials (in an unfamiliar land) and built a sizable house! Obviously locals under their sway were involved, who were also called “Nephites” because they were ruled over by kings called by the title “Nephi” (Jacob 1:11).

[Freedom]

Let me quote you a verse from the Book of Mormon:

Ether 13:

2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

According to this verse, the flood was universal, and covered the continents of America, meaning that there were no prior inhabitants when the Jaredites came. Now you either believe this or you don't. I think that you don't. I think that you and Rob are both in the same situation; you both believe that the Book of Mormon is fiction; except that he has the honesty to admit it, and you don't.

No, it simply states that the water receded from off the face of this land. It does not indicate what 'this land' entails, nor does it indicate how deep the water was.

[Freedom]

You're joking, right?

The common tactic of zerinus is to attack anybody who disagrees with him by questioning their testimony, their mental capacity, or their moral standing. If you do not agree with him, you are wrong and an idiot. By using this tactic, he does not have to apply the scientific method or to actually read the relevant material.

[cinepro]

One of the first things Nephi did when he/they settled in the land of Nephi was to build "a temple” that he compared to the temple of Solomon (2 Nephi 5:16). But there were only 3 – 5 adult immigrant males (himself, bro. Sam, Zoram, and younger bros. Jacob and Joseph, maybe not fully grown) in his party at the time! That many hands couldn’t even have got out materials (in an unfamiliar land) and built a sizable house! Obviously locals under their sway were involved, who were also called “Nephites” because they were ruled over by kings called by the title “Nephi” (Jacob 1:11).

How many adult males did it take to build a wooden ship (with hand tools) capable of transoceanic voyages?

Also, as Shields notes:

Some have misconstrued this to mean the Nephites built their temple to be the same size as Solomon's and that it had the same kind of ornamentation. Nephi's statement, however, that they built their temple "after the manner of" Solomon's temple, does not mean it was built the same size or with the exact same ornaments, but rather that it was arranged in the same fashion. One individual has suggested that if he were to build a 1/44th scale model of the temple, it could still be said to be built "after the manner of" Solomon's Temple. B. H. Roberts explained:

Since this temple [of the Nephites] was built about thirty years after the colony departed from Jerusalem, the Nephite division of it could not have included more than one hundred adults . . . . Nephi's description of his temple . . . does not warrant the conclusion that Nephi's temple was a duplicate of Solomon's except as to the 'manner of construction,' from which it is to be inferred that the general plan of the structure followed that of Solomon's, but it does not follow that it was anything like Solomon's in the extent or largeness of it; but in the arrangement of its courts; its several divisions and subdivisions were built "after the manner" and for the purposes for which Solomon's temple was constructed. It was only like unto Solomon's temple in its arrangement and uses, but doubtless by this colony was regarded as a very great achievement . . . .

2

So when you say "Obviously locals under their sway were involved", I'm not sure the word "Obviously" is entirely appropriate. Maybe "hopefully", "theoretically" or "possibly" would fit better.

Edited July 11, 2012 by cinepro

[robuchan]

Your presumption, for example, that the author would have mentioned others. This is a huge blight on your record. I do not pick and choose, and it is not a matter of being an expert. It is a matter of knowing more than a 5th grader. Do you apply the same standard to the bible? How about to the Mayan records? What about those of ancient egypt? You are looking for a history record. The Book of Mormon is not a history record. It is a religions text that uses historical events to teach gospel principles.

One of the core techniques that Mormon uses to teach gospel principles is parallelism, that of comparing two opposites. He carefully included events that build upon the theme of the promise to two groups: the Nephites and the Lamanites. Mention of others detracts from this theme so he would never mention them. He provides stark contrasts between Nephi and Laman, King Benjamin and King Noah, the people of Lamoni and the people of Alma ect. The books of Nephi are carefuly crafted to establish and justify Nephi as King over his people. As such, Nephi also focuses on these two groups of people. The historical text would have mentioned others, but the purpose of Nephi's record as we have it was very specific.

1. This notion that universally all historical accounts have a common trait in that they never mention foreign peoples, sorry I just reject that completely. The Bible mentions Egyptians, Babylonians, and all the other neighbors of the Israelites. The BOM if it mixed with Others, should tell these accounts. How surprised they were to first meet them. How they had conflicts with them. How they converted them. How they ruled over them. The Bible does this. Is the Bible unique? Are you telling me if I look at old historical accounts written by Persians or Egyptians or Chinese or Indians or Romans or Greeks, they would completely ignore all interactions with outside cultures?

2. This parallelism concept. I think you're stretching it a bit. Sometimes they just told what was happening for whatever random reason, just like a historical record does. "my father dwelt in a tent". But let's just assume you're completely right. There would be great examples of parallelism within their interactions with Others. Mass conversion of the natives? Cultural dominance and being made kings over these people? All great witnesses of their God. Fits in perfectly with the rest of the BOM.