robuchan Posted July 12, 2012 Author Posted July 12, 2012 Provide an example where mentioning others would strengthen the message, and examples of unimportant matters.off the top of my headWhere mention of Others would strengthen the message1. Mass conversion of non-Christians to the gospel of Jesus Christ2. Conquering and dominance over this society to where Nephi gained kingship, ie how great is our God in raising us up.3. Amplifying the power of the devil or the evil of the Lamanites in joining with another enemy (Others) in attempting to persecuting and warring with the Nephites and the great odds the Nephites were up againstTrivial matters less relevant or important than the mentioning of Others1. Mention of animals, crops, weapons of war2. Detailed description of battle movements3. Reference to money system
cdowis Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Meeting the Jaredites would be a little less noteworthy because they would have common cultural, linguistic, religious, and racial background. There is no record in the BOM that they ever met the Jaredites. They are only mentioned because of the book of Ether. 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 repeat, they did mention the mayans, the others, on the large plates, not in their religious record. The book of Ether was judged to be a significant part of the religious record, and, thus, the mention of the Jaredites.
cursor Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) instead, will respond mañana. Edited July 12, 2012 by cursor
Anijen Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) ... Mesoamerican researchers on the board. I'm not one. I'm specifically looking for the clues from the text.Why is it so wrong to strengthen ones testimony of the Book of Mormon by science?If you close your mind to all outside influences, and all inside influences except for those that conform only to your ideology, then you remain closed minded, have not grown and in a worse case scenario without growth you might just be causing weakness in your faith in the Book of Mormon rather than trying to plant that seed of faith. Edited July 12, 2012 by Jeff Holt
robuchan Posted July 12, 2012 Author Posted July 12, 2012 Why is it so wrong to strengthen ones testimony of the Book of Mormon by science?If you close your mind to all outside influences, and all inside influences except for those that conform only to your ideology, then you remain closed minded, have not grown and in a worse case scenario without growth you might just be causing weakness in your faith in the Book of Mormon rather than trying to plant that seed of faith.You all are looking at this Others thing outside in. I'm looking inside out.In my mind, science has already very nearly shut the door on the BOM. This Others thing is the BOM's last breath, IMHO. I'm looking at the text, inside out, to determine if the this Others theory has any validity. I'm not looking at Mesoamerica and trying to determine how I need to modify my view of the BOM to make it fit.
CASteinman Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 The Bible mentions Egyptians, Babylonians, and all the other neighbors of the Israelites.This is not exactly so. But more importantly, it is very clear that the Bible does not mention all of the people with whom the Israelites had contact. It mainly mentions other Hebrews and Egyptians.
CASteinman Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 *****************They were recorded in the secular history of the Nephites.*******************That is a reasonable theory but it is not something we know to be true.
CASteinman Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 You all are looking at this Others thing outside in. I'm looking inside out.That is not really true.In my mind, science has already very nearly shut the door on the BOM. This Others thing is the BOM's last breath, IMHO. What is the point of this exercise if you don't really have a testimony of the Book of Mormon? The fact that you can justify it in your mind by excluding positive evidence and giving excessively heavy weight on negative evidence (and thus conclude that science has very nearly shut the door) is not what God has asked. He has asked you to read it. ponder its meaning and the way God had worked with men through all ages and then pray to know it is true. That is the challenge. All this other stuff is fluff. 2
robuchan Posted July 12, 2012 Author Posted July 12, 2012 That is not really true.What is the point of this exercise if you don't really have a testimony of the Book of Mormon? The fact that you can justify it in your mind by excluding positive evidence and giving excessively heavy weight on negative evidence (and thus conclude that science has very nearly shut the door) is not what God has asked. He has asked you to read it. ponder its meaning and the way God had worked with men through all ages and then pray to know it is true.That is the challenge. All this other stuff is fluff.If you don't see any value in discussing LDS apologetics with non-believers, then I suggest you only respond to other believers. This board is for the discussion of LDS apologetics issues, and I assume LDS many people find value in discussing these mattes with non-believers.
CASteinman Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) If you don't see any value in discussing LDS apologetics with non-believers, then I suggest you only respond to other believers. But you are not discussing apologetics. You are discussing justification for the Book of Mormon for yourself. Which is a different topic.And I was discussing apologetics. I said it was "fluff". Did you not find it interesting? If not, maybe you don't find the discussion of apologetics interesting -- when discussing it with a believer eh? Edited July 12, 2012 by CASteinman
ERayR Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) 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.I am sure that you can see times when it is "extremely relevant". I can pick out things I would like to know more about and they would be relevant in my mind. The problem is that the prophet Mormon had is own agenda and it did not match yours or mine and he wins because he was doing the editing. Just to give you some idea.From the Words of Mormonpleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ; and my fathers knowing that many of them have been fulfilled; yea, and I also know that as many things as have been bprophesied concerning us down to this day have been fulfilled, and as many as go beyond this day must surely come to pass—these things, to finish my brecord upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the cplates of Nephi; and I cannot write the dhundredth part of the things of my people.7 And I do this for a awise bpurpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord cknoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he dworketh in me to do according to his ewill. Edited July 12, 2012 by ERayR
cdowis Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) That is a reasonable theory but it is not something we know to be true.You are missing the point.Robuchan insists that the Nephites absolutely would record their encounters with the others. He concludes that, since the BOM makes no such record, there were no others.His logic is flawed, based on a false assumption, because he is unable to produce the totality of the Nephite records. This would have been recorded in the secular history of the Nephites. Edited July 12, 2012 by cdowis
Glenn101 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 God has muddied the waters enough that we have to take the Bible and Book of Mormon on faith. Of course a critic would laugh at such a belief, or maybe sneer. But God has shown that He must have a sense of humor. Such as the information unearthed by Royal Skousen on the language of some parts of the Book of Mormon not being in King ja,es English but in the English of the previous century. It is something that critics dismiss, but it nevertheless is a problem for critics to explain rationally.If God had wished, the Bible could have contained details enough, could have shown us exactly where to dig to find incontrovertible evidence of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt.Likewise, God could have included information in the Book of Mormon that would show us exactly where to dig to find unquestionable evidence for the existence of Zarahemla and other cities. This would not, of course, prove that the miraculous events in the Bible or Book of Mormon actually happened, but finding such evidence would remove one element of faith with one of knowledge.Glenn
robuchan Posted July 12, 2012 Author Posted July 12, 2012 Such as the information unearthed by Royal Skousen on the language of some parts of the Book of Mormon not being in King ja,es English but in the English of the previous century. This is interesting. Where can I read more?
CASteinman Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) Robuchan insists that the Nephites absolutely would record their encounters with the others. He concludes that, since the BOM makes no such record, there were no others.His logic is flawed, based on a false assumption, because he is unable to produce the totality of the Nephite records. This would have been recorded in the secular history of the Nephites.Yes, his logic is flawed. But, (assuming that there were others in contact with the Nephites - not a ridiculous conclusion but not confirmed) we do not know that they ever wrote about them in any record. Claiming facts not in evidence is also a logical flaw. Suppose we had a much larger set of all their records and still did not see such people mentioned. Does that mean that they did not exist? No, it does not.Neither does it mean that they did not exist in a much smaller and very focused set of records.I think what you are trying to assert is that because we do not have all of the records we cannot say that they are unmentioned. Your point is valid. But we also cannot say that they were mentioned -- as you did. Edited July 12, 2012 by CASteinman
cdowis Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) I think what you are trying to assert is that because we do not have all of the records we cannot say that they are unmentioned. Your point is valid. But we also cannot say that they were mentioned -- as you did.You still don't get it, do you. Go back and carefully read my previous post, give it more thought and you will figure it out. It would help if you were to go on the assumption that I really do know what I am talking about, and take the approach that you may learn something.Hint-- I am NOT making an assertion but I am responding to his assertion.Anyway, Robuchan and I continued the discussion elsewhere and he gets it, so I know that you can do it. Edited July 13, 2012 by cdowis
CASteinman Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) You still don't get it, do you. Go back and carefully read my previous post, give it more thought and you will figure it out. It would help if you were to go on the assumption that I really do know what I am talking about, and take the approach that you may learn something.Hint-- I am NOT making an assertion but I am responding to his assertion.Anyway, Robuchan and I continued the discussion elsewhere and he gets it, so I know that you can do it.I don't really understand how it benefits you, me, the board or anyone to play a "catch me if you can" sort of dialogue. But here is what he said and here is what you said:Robuchan: The BOM if it mixed with Others, should tell these accounts.CDowis: 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.*******************I don't care if you call it blue cheese and bacon, an assertion is still an assertion. The assertion you made is that the information is recorded in the secular history of the Nephites. Which is speculation.But, as I am some sort of imbecile and unable to understand the complexities of your thought, why not spell it out rather than make vague shadowed references to veiled meanings? It seems you know I am stupid and yet you make it a puzzle too hard for me to solve. Edited July 13, 2012 by CASteinman
cinepro Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) This is not exactly so. But more importantly, it is very clear that the Bible does not mention all of the people with whom the Israelites had contact. It mainly mentions other Hebrews and Egyptians.Just to be clear, if the "others" theory of The Book of Mormon is correct, that would mean that we have two scriptural stories of God leading his chosen people to a "Promised Land", one in the Old Testament and one in The Book of Mormon.In both of those stories, the Chosen People arrive at their Promised Land and find it inhabited by pagan gentiles. Yet we must now believe that in the case of the Old Testament chosen people, they were told to eliminate these "others", with strict penalties for intermarriage, while in The Book of Mormon, they were told to convert and intermarry with the natives, preserving their religion and language as a sub-culture to the larger population.Truly God works in mysterious ways... Edited July 13, 2012 by cinepro
CASteinman Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Just to be clear, if the "others" theory of The Book of Mormon is correct, that would mean that we have two scriptural stories of God leading his chosen people to a "Promised Land", one in the Old Testament and one in The Book of Mormon.That would be true even if the "Others Theory" is not true.In both of those stories, the Chosen People arrive at their Promised Land and find it inhabited by pagan gentiles.This is not required to be true either with a theory of "Others" or without it.Yet we must now believe that in the case of the Old Testament chosen people, they were told to eliminate these "others", with strict penalties for intermarriage, while in The Book of Mormon, they were told to convert and intermarry with the natives, preserving their religion and language as a sub-culture to the larger population.If that is how you want to imagine it, it can be that way in your imagination. Edited July 13, 2012 by CASteinman
cursor Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 the Chosen People arrive at their Promised Land and find it inhabited by pagan gentilesHow might you know what the lifestyle of the indigenous folk was like in Mesoamerica?while in The Book of Mormon, they were told to convert and intermarry with the nativesAnd ... exactly where does it say this?Just to be clear"Clear" ... really?
robuchan Posted July 13, 2012 Author Posted July 13, 2012 How might you know what the lifestyle of the indigenous folk was like in Mesoamerica?And ... exactly where does it say this?"Clear" ... really?Interesting, so are you saying the Nephites intermingled with these people, but they never intermarried?
cursor Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 No. That is not at all what I am saying. cinepro directly suggested that the Lehites were "told to convert and intermarry with the natives." How does he know this? Or, why might he suggest that anyone else is declaring this?
cinepro Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 No. That is not at all what I am saying.cinepro directly suggested that the Lehites were "told to convert and intermarry with the natives." How does he know this? Or, why might he suggest that anyone else is declaring this?I apologize if I assumed your theory was similar to the theories that apologists usually present here.If you can clarify, in your theory of "Others", do you argue that the Nephites converted indigenous people to their pre-Christian, Mosaic-law living culture and intermarried with them, or do you propose some other form of interaction? And how does that compare to how the Israelites interacted with the Canaanites in the Old Testament?
cursor Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 =Interesting, so are you saying the Nephites intermingled with these people, but they never intermarried? What an absolutely nonsensible response.
robuchan Posted July 13, 2012 Author Posted July 13, 2012 What an absolutely nonsensible response.Sorry, I was just trying to interpret your response to cinepro. I'll bow out and let you explain to him. Sorry.
Recommended Posts