Alma 43:13,14 No Others

[robuchan]

Not trying to be insulting. Sorry it came across that way. I was responding to this:

robuchan, on 09 July 2012 - 03:03 PM, said: Which again I'm fine with, as long as you don't pick and choose which historical details you're going to use or not use.

I am seriously asking, using my premise, which historical information do you think is usable.

Ages/birth dates - Ive never paid much attention to. Maybe I should but I have never considered them central to the message of Jesus Christ.

Linage declarations - I am assuming you are talking about Nephite, Lamanite, etc. Mostly those declarations are similar to us declaring we are republicans or democrats, etc. Example of how loosly these terms are used is when the large lamanite group was converted by Ammon they dropped the name they had been going by and called themselves Ammonites. They were not Ammon's relatives but were brothers in the gospel.The name became a tribal/political designation. Same with Nephite, Lamanite, etc.

Battlefield casualty estimates are always suspect. Depending on who is reporting them. Battlefield casualty estimate probably accurate to an extent with room for margin of error.

I don't accept some of the criticism of the BOM the apologists throw out. I accept two assumptions of the BOM that apparently the apologists reject. 1) that the BOM is a collection of records of live events (with the large plates being a summary by a prophet and historian of the actual live-records), translated into English by the power of God . 2) everything the prophets recorded was true, including historical details.

I don't reject words and phrases, like ages, generation spans, "actual descendants", two million, or horse or barley.

I understand the logic behind the apologists rejecting the literalness of these words and phases. I believe if you go down that road, then you really have to be consistent with it. If horse means tapir when you need it to be tapir, then an ox doesn't mean an ox when you want it to. If 2 million means 100,000, then 100 years might mean 1,000 years and it might mean 20 years. If it says a king is the son of another king, but it really means he's the grandson or the great grandson, then you have to reject any kind of precise calculations about populations size at the time of Jacob and Sherem.

[robuchan]

Congratulations

Wait, I thought you just said you were reading it because you were teaching it in primary. So you are reading it to teach something to children, something you yourself admit you do not believe in, plan on doing it with a Limited Geography Theory in mind. I am shocked, utterly unbelievable.

Yet you feel it is okay to teach this to your primary kids?????? You already admitted that you haven't read the Book of Mormon in a long time yet you have the audacity to lecture us on the Book of Mormon and the double chutzpah and insolence to start reading it again because you are teaching primary but at the same time your reading it with the LGT in mind. So you are saying you will be teaching primary kids from a book you no longer believable in, and to top it off a geographical theory for this book you don't agree with. Really???

No wonder most responses you get on this board are against you. Just wow. But look on the bright side you might be able to mold a young very impressionable mind with your "hogwash"

I'm not teaching LGT.

The insults are duly noted.

[cursor]

The more contentious the exchange (internet, or otherwise), the least constructive the results. If all sides (however many there might be in any particular exchange) can moderate their argumentative approach, the better the end results will be. "Nice" is good, but a joint constructive approach is always the best.

[robuchan]

Longevity was a key aspect of the messianic age.You keep parrotting 'unreliable,' but rarely seem to look at context.

I don't mean unreliable in a derogatory way. I just mean it to describe for example, the way Brant Gardner would describe words like horse, actual descendant, the precision of numbers, etc. Non-literal?

Anyway, what you say here is interesting. What time period exactly is the messianic age? Do you believe ages were extended during this time period and could be scientifically measured?

[robuchan]

I would be fired from the NAMI because I believe that teeth are needed when defending the faith. I am not saying ad hominems are needed (they are not). One can be assertive in the defense of our faith without an ad hominem attack.

Yet to be mamby-pamby toward critics is allowing yourself to be walked over. When a non believing Mormon who turns critic, and admits he hasn't read the Book of Mormon in a long time and then tells me I do not know what I am talking about is frankly insulting.

I never told you you don't know what you're talking about. I might have told you I disagree with your interpretation. I've requested information from many, including you. And I've read and studied all the material given me.

[robuchan]

ftr, I'm not playing victim here. I know I've been snarky and sarcastic. I didn't think it raised to the level of getting banned from threads, but I guess it did. Most of my stuff I meant to be taken with playful tone not aggressive. I have respect for the people here, especially the ones with education and study that far surpasses me on these subjects. The topics do get emotional from time to time. You guys take it personal as you feel your beliefs are being assaulted. I take it personal because I shared these beliefs before but feel I was duped. I'll do my best to take emotion out of it.

[Calm]

I am a Mormon but am no longer a believer. I've read the BOM a dozen times. I'm rereading it this year for the first time in quite a while, as I'm teaching it for a Primary class.

While I assume you are keeping to the manual in your teaching and not trying to deconvert the children under your care, I am wondering if the leaders who called you are aware of your unbelief? If not, it seems appropriate to me for you to inform them as there is an assumption that our teachers in the Church are also believers.

[robuchan]

While I assume you are keeping to the manual in your teaching and not trying to deconvert the children under your care, I am wondering if the leaders who called you are aware of your unbelief? If not, it seems appropriate to me for you to inform them as there is an assumption that our teachers in the Church are also believers.

Thanks. That's between me and them. I don't wish to get into it publicly here.

edit to add: deconverting the children in my Primary class would be the last thing in the world I would want. For the most part I love Mormonism, and I think being a believing Mormon is a great life. I want it for my own kids also, not just the youth I interact with.

Edited July 10, 2012 by robuchan

[Calm]

That's what I thought (about your attitude towards the children).

I didn't mean you needed to say whether or not you did, just was expressing my opinion....probably shouldn't have, it is pretty much a given for most LDS on the board, I bet.

Edited July 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

I don't accept some of the criticism of the BOM the apologists throw out. I accept two assumptions of the BOM that apparently the apologists reject. 1) that the BOM is a collection of records of live events (with the large plates being a summary by a prophet and historian of the actual live-records), translated into English by the power of God . 2) everything the prophets recorded was true, including historical details.

I don't reject words and phrases, like ages, generation spans, "actual descendants", two million, or horse or barley.

I understand the logic behind the apologists rejecting the literalness of these words and phases. I believe if you go down that road, then you really have to be consistent with it. If horse means tapir when you need it to be tapir, then an ox doesn't mean an ox when you want it to. If 2 million means 100,000, then 100 years might mean 1,000 years and it might mean 20 years. If it says a king is the son of another king, but it really means he's the grandson or the great grandson, then you have to reject any kind of precise calculations about populations size at the time of Jacob and Sherem.

I can't and am not arguing with most of what you have written in this post. The Book of Mormon is a collection of records of different authors. It has, however, been heavily edited by Mormon.

We do disagree in places as to what are details or at least in what those details mean.

If you are speaking of war casualties I think it means 2 million more or less for a small margin of error. These people knew how to count but 2 million is a lot of counting and it wouldn't take much to have a small percentage of error. So no I don't think 2 million is an exact number but a very close estimate. In other words I see a 1, 2, 3, ...2,000,000 + or- maybe 5%.

As for which animals were named what well I tend to believe on the literal side but again all these things are peripheral. They are unimportant except in the eyes of critics and anti-Mormons. I don't see much purpose in speculating as to what they are/were. Again what is important is the witness of Jesus Christ and my spiritual confirmation of it.

You, as they put it, are unable to see the forest for the trees. Go read 3Nehhi chapter 11 through 4 Nephi. That in my opinion is what the whole Book of Mormon is about. The rest is a warning of what happens when you get sidetracked.

[robuchan]

If you are speaking of war casualties I think it means 2 million more or less for a small margin of error. These people knew how to count but 2 million is a lot of counting and it wouldn't take much to have a small percentage of error. So no I don't think 2 million is an exact number but a very close estimate. In other words I see a 1, 2, 3, ...2,000,000 + or- maybe 5%.

Agree.

As for not seeing the forest for the trees, don't let my LGT/Others related posts lead you to believe the topic means more to me than it does. It's something I'm pursuing at an intellectual level, to understand it completely and challenge it where I see it deficient. The truthfulness of the LDS foundational claims have very little to do with the veracity of this Others theory. That ship sailed for me several years ago.

Edited July 10, 2012 by robuchan

[ERayR]

Agree.

As for not seeing the forest for the trees, don't let my LGT/Others related posts lead you to believe the topic means more to me than it does. It's something I'm pursuing at an intellectual level, to understand it completely and challenge it where I see it deficient. The truthfulness of the LDS foundational claims have very little to do with the veracity of this Others theory. That ship sailed for me several years ago.

I have come to the LGT and others theories from a long investigation. While I will concede the evidences are not conclusive on an individual basis I find that together they certainly, to me, reach the level of proof from a preponderance of evidence. There is stated distances, in terms of time to travel, and there are statements that are awkward if others is not accepted. There is also the scientific evidences of populations in most every area one looks. I don't see how Lehi's family could have been alone anywhere in the Americas.

Again to me it is not crucial to my faith whichever it turns out to be.

I certainly hope you can resolve your faith issues.

From a brother with differences of opinion.

[webbles]

I accept two assumptions of the BOM that apparently the apologists reject. 1) that the BOM is a collection of records of live events (with the large plates being a summary by a prophet and historian of the actual live-records), translated into English by the power of God . 2) everything the prophets recorded was true, including historical details.

I don't agree with you second premise mainly because it feels too much like making the prophets infallible. I have no problems with them making mistakes. In fact, the Book of Mormon allows that possibility. The doctrinal parts are accurate but the historical parts can be massaged to fit a message. Take the four gospels as an example. It is really hard to make a perfect harmony between the four. Does that mean they are false? No, it just means the writers were massaging the story to tell the message of Jesus Christ.

[zerinus]

Yes but I still do not see that.

These are the verses which he had quoted:

[13] And the people of Ammon did give unto the Nephites a large portion of their substance to support their armies; and thus the Nephites were compelled, alone, to withstand against the Lamanites, who were a compound of Laman and Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, and all those who had dissented from the Nephites, who were Amalekites and Zoramites, and the descendants of the priests of Noah.

[14] Now those descendants were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites; and thus the Nephites were obliged to contend with their brethren, even unto bloodshed.

I agree with him that the description is sufficiently thorough that if there had been "others" involved, that one would expect them to have been mentioned. This argument is strengthened further when the phenomenon is observed consistently throughout the whole of the Book of Mormon.

From reading those verses one gets the impression that the author is trying to account for all the major ethnic strands which define the specific populations. He is not trying to leave any out--unless perhaps they are so small as to be insignificant contributors--which would exclude the "Others" theory as promulgated in this forum.

Edited July 10, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I don't accept some of the criticism of the BOM the apologists throw out. I accept two assumptions of the BOM that apparently the apologists reject. 1) that the BOM is a collection of records of live events (with the large plates being a summary by a prophet and historian of the actual live-records), translated into English by the power of God . 2) everything the prophets recorded was true, including historical details.

I don't reject words and phrases, like ages, generation spans, "actual descendants", two million, or horse or barley.

I understand the logic behind the apologists rejecting the literalness of these words and phases. I believe if you go down that road, then you really have to be consistent with it. If horse means tapir when you need it to be tapir, then an ox doesn't mean an ox when you want it to. If 2 million means 100,000, then 100 years might mean 1,000 years and it might mean 20 years. If it says a king is the son of another king, but it really means he's the grandson or the great grandson, then you have to reject any kind of precise calculations about populations size at the time of Jacob and Sherem.

I am on your side with that.

[zerinus]

I don't agree with you second premise mainly because it feels too much like making the prophets infallible. I have no problems with them making mistakes. In fact, the Book of Mormon allows that possibility. The doctrinal parts are accurate but the historical parts can be massaged to fit a message. Take the four gospels as an example. It is really hard to make a perfect harmony between the four. Does that mean they are false? No, it just means the writers were massaging the story to tell the message of Jesus Christ.

The question is not about whether the prophets infallible or not, or whether they can make mistakes or not; the question is about whether they meant what they said or not.

[CASteinman]

I agree with him that the description is sufficiently thorough that if there had been "others" involved, that one would expect them to have been mentioned.

Well of course you agree with him. You have said over and over that you do not believe that there were others and you find evidence to prove your case.

In a way I agree with what you have said though. One would expect to find mention of them. Another "one" would not.

From reading those verses one gets the impression that the author is trying to account for all the major ethnic strands which define the specific populations.

I absolutely do not see that at all.

And unlike you, I have no ax to grind in this issue. I do not know and do not care if there were any "others" in this mix. I do not think it is impossible. I also do not think it is necessary.

Edited July 10, 2012 by CASteinman

[webbles]

The question is not about whether the prophets infallible or not, or whether they can make mistakes or not; the question is about whether they meant what they said or not.

You can mean what you say and still not be 100% accurate.

[webbles]

[13] And the people of Ammon did give unto the Nephites a large portion of their substance to support their armies; and thus the Nephites were compelled, alone, to withstand against the Lamanites, who were a compound of Laman and Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, and all those who had dissented from the Nephites, who were Amalekites and Zoramites, and the descendants of the priests of Noah.

[14] Now those descendants were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites; and thus the Nephites were obliged to contend with their brethren, even unto bloodshed.

After thinking and re-reading, I think those verses do not make sense if you take them absolutely literally. In verse 14, its says the "descendants" are nearly as numerous as the Nephites. Who are these "descendants"?

It can't be the Lamanites because they are always depicted as having far more people than the Nephites (Helaman 4:25, Jarom 1:6).

Verse 13 does mention "descendants" in one place and that is talking about the priests of Noah. This scripture is about an event in 74BC. The people of the priests of Noah was founded between 145-121BC (Mosiah 23). There were 24 wives of that original group (Mosiah 20:5). And between 90-77BC (Alma 25), almost all of the descendants of the priests of Noah was destroyed. So it is a real stretch to say that a group that started with 24 women became as numerous as the Nephites in 70 years after they were almost destroyed 10 or so years ago.

The Zoramites were one city of the Nephites and they were founded 74BC (Alma 31). They can't be nearly as numerous as the Nephites unless the Nephites had only one city.

Of the groups, the only one that is possible is the Amalekites since we have no history of them. But the way that the verses are worded makes it really hard to accept that verse 14 is only about the Amalekites.

So who are the "descendants" in verse 14?

As a side note, why is the descendants of the priests of Noah named specifically when there couldn't have been more than a few hundred of them by this time, the Lamanites were hunting them, and they had fled into the east wilderness (Alma 25: 8 )

Edited July 10, 2012 by webbles

[Bernard Gui]

Let's try again.

robuchan, on 09 July 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

Yet, one of the most common arguments for Others is to pull out a mathematical model to evaluate population size at the time of the Jacob/Sherem account.

Now those descendants were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites; and thus the Nephites were obliged to contend with their brethren, even unto bloodshed.

The Lamanite population is defined thoroughly.

That's a pretty thorough description. No Others mentioned.

So their numbers were about equal. In the ensuing war, the Lamanite army is almost annihilated. Yet in just a few

years more Nephite dissenters raise up another Lamanite army in even greater numbers. This could happen only

if they were recruiting from other peoples who hated the Nephites.

Moreover, the description of the tactics used in these wars indicates they took place in a fairly small area.

Bernard

[zerinus]

Well of course you agree with him. You have said over and over that you do not believe that there were others and you find evidence to prove your case.

I have said over and over that there is no evidence in the Book of Mormon that there were others; or that if there were, that they came into contact with the BoM people during the BoM history. Apart from that, I have no idea if there were others or not; and I have never argued otherwise. My argument has been with those who have tried to use Book of Mormon text as evidence that there were others. I have never argued flatly that there were no others.

In a way I agree with what you have said though. One would expect to find mention of them. Another "one" would not.

How about a bottle of Scotch Whisky, would "one" expect to find one of those mentioned in the Book of Mormon? At what point would you say such an "expectation" becomes unreasonable, whoever that "one" is?

I absolutely do not see that at all.

And unlike you, I have no ax to grind in this issue.

The only axe I have to grind in this issue is to disagree with you, which is the same axe that you are grinding--in the reverse, that is.

I do not know and do not care if there were any "others" in this mix. I do not think it is impossible. I also do not think it is necessary.

Hmmm, I seem to agree. I wonder what it is we are disagreeing about.

[zerinus]

You can mean what you say and still not be 100% accurate.

I agree, but that is not the issue in this thread.

[robuchan]

I also do not think it is necessary.

It's necessary for LGT. According to LGT, BOM people lived in the same area and times as well defined civilizations that don't fit with the BOM. The way to make this work is the Other/mixing population theory: Lehites were quickly absorbed into larger cultures.

[robuchan]

After thinking and re-reading, I think those verses do not make sense if you take them absolutely literally. In verse 14, its says the "descendants" are nearly as numerous as the Nephites. Who are these "descendants"?

It can't be the Lamanites because they are always depicted as having far more people than the Nephites (Helaman 4:25, Jarom 1:6).

Verse 13 does mention "descendants" in one place and that is talking about the priests of Noah. This scripture is about an event in 74BC. The people of the priests of Noah was founded between 145-121BC (Mosiah 23). There were 24 wives of that original group (Mosiah 20:5). And between 90-77BC (Alma 25), almost all of the descendants of the priests of Noah was destroyed. So it is a real stretch to say that a group that started with 24 women became as numerous as the Nephites in 70 years after they were almost destroyed 10 or so years ago.

The Zoramites were one city of the Nephites and they were founded 74BC (Alma 31). They can't be nearly as numerous as the Nephites unless the Nephites had only one city.

Of the groups, the only one that is possible is the Amalekites since we have no history of them. But the way that the verses are worded makes it really hard to accept that verse 14 is only about the Amalekites.

So who are the "descendants" in verse 14?

As a side note, why is the descendants of the priests of Noah named specifically when there couldn't have been more than a few hundred of them by this time, the Lamanites were hunting them, and they had fled into the east wilderness (Alma 25: 8 )

You can't use Jarom's description of the relative size of Lamanites vs Nephites to mean anything by the time you get to Alma 43 because you have large groups switching sides. Several sub-groups moving from Nephites to Lamanites and a large group, the people of Ammon, moving from Lamanites to Nephites.

[robuchan]

Let's try again.

robuchan, on 09 July 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

Yet, one of the most common arguments for Others is to pull out a mathematical model to evaluate population size at the time of the Jacob/Sherem account.

Now those descendants were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites; and thus the Nephites were obliged to contend with their brethren, even unto bloodshed.

The Lamanite population is defined thoroughly.

That's a pretty thorough description. No Others mentioned.

So their numbers were about equal. In the ensuing war, the Lamanite army is almost annihilated. Yet in just a few

years more Nephite dissenters raise up another Lamanite army in even greater numbers. This could happen only

if they were recruiting from other peoples who hated the Nephites.

Moreover, the description of the tactics used in these wars indicates they took place in a fairly small area.

Bernard

Can you provide source for this:

"So their numbers were about equal"

Also, I don't think you can say the Lamanites were annihilated. Captain Moroni took mercy on them.