Alma 43:13,14 No Others

[ERayR]

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

Also, as Shields notes:

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.

Don't know we have never found the payroll records for Nephi's shipbuilding company.

[ERayR]

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?

The records very well may have contained mention of them. Mormon however heavily edited these records and included only what he saw as important in a work designed to testify of Christ. He does lament that he doesn't have room for but an hundredth part.

[robuchan]

The records very well may have contained mention of them. Mormon however heavily edited these records and included only what he saw as important in a work designed to testify of Christ. He does lament that he doesn't have room for but an hundredth part.

I wonder what Freedom would say about this. Watch out, he'll probably tell you you have 5th grade knowledge of ancient records. Ancient records intentionally omit these things.

[ERayR]

I wonder what Freedom would say about this. Watch out, he'll probably tell you you have 5th grade knowledge of ancient records. Ancient records intentionally omit these things.

I have no quarrel with Freedom. I do, however, think that a lot of what you want to see in the Book of Mormon is peripheral to Mormons purpose and only gets alluded to as it relates to the theme of his abridgement. In other words others per se are not significant to a testimony of Christ. On the other hand one of them may get a passing mention because of his anti-Christ work among the nephites and then his linage is not important but his activities.

Edited July 11, 2012 by ERayR

[cursor]

cinepro']

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

How many males were in Lehi's party on the south Arabian coast, where they built the ship?

h i n t

How many workers/ship-builders might there have been at that coastal location who might have been recruited? Oh wait ... since there is no mention of others on that shoreline (in the BofM), there must not have been anyone to lend a hand.

Edited July 11, 2012 by cursor

[robuchan]

The records very well may have contained mention of them. Mormon however heavily edited these records and included only what he saw as important in a work designed to testify of Christ. He does lament that he doesn't have room for but an hundredth part.

I think this is a much more reasonable approach that to try to claim ALL ancient documents exclude mentioning foreign peoples.

[ERayR]

I think this is a much more reasonable approach that to try to claim ALL ancient documents exclude mentioning foreign peoples.

It is true in a way. All ancient documents exclude mentioning foreign people when they arr irrelevant to the purpose of the document. So do modern documents. One must first ascertain what the authors intent is before we can have any idea what to expect to be included. With the BoM we can do that because Mormon tells us why he is writing.

[robuchan]

It is true in a way. All ancient documents exclude mentioning foreign people when they arr irrelevant to the purpose of the document. So do modern documents. One must first ascertain what the authors intent is before we can have any idea what to expect to be included. With the BoM we can do that because Mormon tells us why he is writing.

I suppose, but what is and is not relevant and purposefully excluded is not knowable to your or me or Freedom or Brant Gardner. A lot of stuff is included that might seem irrelevant to the purpose of the document. Much more irrelevant than the discovery of people they never knew existed and the relations they had with these people, especially the mass conversion and rise to kingship over them.

Edited July 11, 2012 by robuchan

[ERayR]

A lot of stuff is included that might seem irrelevant to the purpose of the document. Much more irrelevant than the discovery of people they never knew existed and the relations they had with these people, especially the mass conversion and rise to kingship over them.

To you from your point of view it might seem so but to a fellow named Mormon who is witnessing the destruction of the core of his civilization and needing to get a message to future generations it just may not seem very relevant who their ancestors were but how they impacted what was happening.

[cursor]

I think this is a much more reasonable approach that to try to claim ALL ancient documents exclude mentioning foreign peoples.

The Mulekites (the term never actually occurs in the BofM), or the [original] people of Zarahemla (Or, at least they are the first people mentioned as having occupied the land. That certainly doesn't mean that they were not preceded by some previous culture, nor that they might have mixed in with a previous culture's inhabitants ... [gasp, say it ain't so!]). were mentioned only very briefly in the record. If they had not been mentioned, might that mean that they could not have ever existed?

Since the Lehites nor the Mulekites are mentioned in the Jaredite record, does that mean that they could not have existed?

[cursor]

The Bible mentions Egyptians, Babylonians, and all the other neighbors of the Israelites

If the record inadvertently fails to mention an old world group, does that mean that they could never have never existed?

[robuchan]

If the record inadvertently fails to mention an old world group, does that mean that they could never have never existed?

No

[cursor]

Also, as Shields notes:

For general purposes the response by B.H. Roberts is as good as any. Of course I would add that the Nephites consisted of both native people and Israelite persons (as is shown in the language of the account of Sherem in Jacob chapter 7: implied in verse 4: “And he was learned, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people”: clearly it was different from “the language” of Jacob; and the population was much greater than could have come from Nephi’s original party of no more than a dozen as shown by Sherem’s statement in verse 6, “I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you.” Within Jacob’s lifetime, the population of descendants of the less-than-a-dozen immigrants could not have exceeded a few dozen (not even Roberts’ “hundred”) How much “searching” would Sherem have had to do in the one small village with its temple? There must have been multiple villages, at least.

[ERayR]

The Mulekites (the term never actually occurs in the BofM), or the [original] people of Zarahemla (Or, at least they are the first people mentioned as having occupied the land. That certainly doesn't mean that they were not preceded by some previous culture, nor that they might have mixed in with a previous culture's inhabitants ... [gasp, say it ain't so!]). were mentioned only very briefly in the record. If they had not been mentioned, might that mean that they could not have ever existed?

Since the Lehites nor the Mulekites are mentioned in the Jaredite record, does that mean that they could not have existed?

An example of how relevance affects what gets recorded. Tell me how many wagon trains passed through Utah to California during the gold rush. You can't because most are not recorded anywhere despite the fact that it is recorded that the Mormons were able to trade for expensive clothing of current fashion and other expensive possessions for cheap prices because the travelers needed to resupply and trade for fresh horses and oxen. Also many of those travelers chose to end their journey in the Utah valleys and make their homes among the Mormons. Many of us have ancestors who were not members of the church but lived and married and raised families in the valleys of Utah.

However there was one wagon train that is recorded in Utah and US histories. The Fancher wagon train and the impact of the ensuing events were very relevant to civil and religious issues

Edited July 11, 2012 by ERayR

[cursor]

Here, by the way, is Nephi's temple, as envisioned through a collaborative effort between John L. Sorenson (anthropologist) and Al Rounds (artist). The original painting (very nicely framed) is in my father's possession (... and is for sale, by the way):

Nephi's Temple

[cursor]

It there were no "others" ...

How could Nephi have known about the mineral deposits unless he relied on “natives” for the information, or else (in addition to being “king”!!) he had personally wandered around prospecting?? How would he even learn what were suitable trees for the temple and how to fell them, and how to carry and saw them into lumber? Would you or I “simply know” such things without guidance? Of course not. At the same time they had to learn how to plant and cultivate crops, etc. (The Puritans in Massachusetts might not have survived had they not had friendly help from Indians about such practical matters.) Same logic applies.

[Freedom]

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.

You are jumping to conclusions. I never said no other documents mention others, I said that you insist that they must mention others when there are examples of texts not mentioning them, and that the literary style of the book explains why they would not be mentioned by name. To stretch the parallelism concept would be to mention other non-Lehites. The point of parallelism is to keep to the core message, and this core message is driven home over and over and over again. It is a battle between good and evil, Nephi and Laman, good kings and bad kings, service and servitude. In the Book of Mormon, it is made very clear that it focuses on two generic groups: Nephites and Lamanites, or any other affiliated group that would be part of the covenant. It has been demonstrated quite clearly that the title Nephite and Lamanite were rather generic terms that did not determine a specific family line. There is very little if any random bits of information. The matter of stating they dwelt in a tent speaks volumes. I suggest you research this specific so-called random insight. There is mention, for example, of the greatest battle that the Nephites ever fought but it gets a few verses, where as other not so significant battles take up multiple chapters.

This article gives one example of how every detail is important, and it also helps explain the structure and content of the books of Nephi. These books were very carefully crafted and followed strict poetic rules. The type of material included was very limited, and the value of the information was not determined by historical significance. Looking for accurate history in Nephi's book is like looking for accurate history in Shakespeare's sonnets.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=16&num=1&id=430

[cursor]

Digging, even if only moderately below the surface,.is imperative ... if truth is the target.

[robuchan]

You are jumping to conclusions. I never said no other documents mention others, I said that you insist that they must mention others when there are examples of texts not mentioning them, and that the literary style of the book explains why they would not be mentioned by name. To stretch the parallelism concept would be to mention other non-Lehites. The point of parallelism is to keep to the core message, and this core message is driven home over and over and over again. It is a battle between good and evil, Nephi and Laman, good kings and bad kings, service and servitude. In the Book of Mormon, it is made very clear that it focuses on two generic groups: Nephites and Lamanites, or any other affiliated group that would be part of the covenant. It has been demonstrated quite clearly that the title Nephite and Lamanite were rather generic terms that did not determine a specific family line. There is very little if any random bits of information. The matter of stating they dwelt in a tent speaks volumes. I suggest you research this specific so-called random insight. There is mention, for example, of the greatest battle that the Nephites ever fought but it gets a few verses, where as other not so significant battles take up multiple chapters.

This article gives one example of how every detail is important, and it also helps explain the structure and content of the books of Nephi. These books were very carefully crafted and followed strict poetic rules. The type of material included was very limited, and the value of the information was not determined by historical significance. Looking for accurate history in Nephi's book is like looking for accurate history in Shakespeare's sonnets.

http://maxwellinstit...16&num=1&id=430

I'm glad we pushed it to this length, because I understand your position. You're not saying that all ancient texts intentionally omit the mention of other peoples. You're saying they omit mention of other people when it doesn't fit the context or purpose of their writing. This is a lot like modern writing, so I can relate. So we're left with your assumptions about the relevance and significance of mentioning Others and why or why not it would make sense to mention them. I completely disagree with the assumptions you make. I see several times when it would be extremely relevant and further the purpose of the authors--even the parallelism you mention. I also see a lot of random and relatively unimportant matters discussed which further cement this in my mind. We can agree to disagree on why it would be relevant to mention Others. That's a value judgment.

[cdowis]

OK, thanks. I understand better where you're coming from. It's hard to know if people are just blasting FARMS arguments at me or are producing unique logic based on their own critical analysis.

Yeah. I think very independently from my associates. I challenge those who write FARMS articles to participate in the forum to test their ideas.

OK, then why is it unacceptable to you that the domesticated animals wandered off the farm from Jaredite land? The Jaredites brought huge barges, presumably with animals, and lived within a couple hundred miles of the Lehite landing. (i think. do I have it right?)

I was hoping somebody would ask this. I think the "others" were Jaredite colonies. They probably had little specific knowledge of their own history after centuries of separation, and lived a great distance from the main group.

Domesticated animals gives your problems from Mesoamerica anthropological/archaeological standpoint. If you take ox literally, your best bet is to say the animals came from the Old World and attempt to minimize contact with Others, to avoid explaining why the Mayans and Olmecs didn't have them.

Well, we actually know little from mesoamerica in 400BCE. Bones are not like buildings, especially in a tropical climate. We need to be careful to avoid the logical fallacy, "not find, not exist", especially under these circumstances of no extant records, and relative few excavations going back to this early time period.

We do a search on these animals in the BOM -- cattle, sheep, horses. It is interesting that that sheep are not mentioned as a domesticated animal, and no mention of cattle and horses later than about 100AD.

Herds and flocks are mentioned, but no animals are identified -- perhaps llamas? A careful reading of the BOM shows that horses were used as a food animal.

Anyway, I'm patient. Over the years, discoveries have been made which confirm the authenticity of the BOM, so what's a few bones.

[cdowis]

robuchan's brilliant observation

The Bible mentions Egyptians, Babylonians, and all the other neighbors of the Israelites

**All** of the neighbors of the Isralites? You are absolutely certain about that, are you. There are no groups which are not mentioned.......

The BOM if it mixed with Others, should tell these accounts.

Once again, you show your abject ignorance of the BOM text.

I have said this a dozen times ==>>>>

*****************They were recorded in the secular history of the Nephites.*******************

The BOM focuses on the religious history while the large plates were devoted to the secular history, unlike the Bible which conflated both histories. It does mention the Mulekites and the Jaredites who were significant to the religious history of the BOM text. The "shock"of the Nephites with the Mulekites was that they were from Jerusalem, not that they had two legs and were humanoid. This made them a significant contribution to the BOM record because they brought proof of the fall of the city of Jerusalem, under the bondage of the Babylonians.

This was proof that Lehi's prophecy, which was the basis for them to leave Jerusalem and become wanderers in a strange land, had been shown to be fulfilled.

Edited July 12, 2012 by cdowis

[Freedom]

I completely disagree with the assumptions you make. I see several times when it would be extremely relevant and further the purpose of the authors--even the parallelism you mention. I also see a lot of random and relatively unimportant matters discussed which further cement this in my mind. We can agree to disagree on why it would be relevant to mention Others. That's a value judgment.

Provide an example where mentioning others would strengthen the message, and examples of unimportant matters.

[robuchan]

Others = Jaredites stuff

Meeting the Jaredites would be a little less noteworthy because they would have common cultural, linguistic, religious, and racial background. I think they would mention them, because they went out of their way to explain the Mulekites--Coriantumr crossover, in both the Nephite and Jaredite records. But not as obvious omission as not mentioning Mayans.

I think the people that would have a bigger problem with your explanation are the Mesoamerican researchers on the board. I'm not one. I'm specifically looking for the clues from the text.

[volgadon]

Sometimes they just told what was happening for whatever random reason, just like a historical record does. "my father dwelt in a tent".

Randomn?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/48080-and-my-father-dwelt-in-a-tent

See especially #13, 18, and 28.

[Anijen]

The Puritans in Massachusetts might not have survived had they not had friendly help from Indians

They might would not have.

Freedom in response to Robuchan said;

You are jumping to conclusions. I never said no other documents mention others,...

Don't worry. that is Robuchan/Zerinius M.O. they build up strawmen then attack that, or they use circular reasoning, but not much critical thinking at all. I knew what you said and meant.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Jeff Holt