Alma 43:13,14 No Others

[USU78]

Who were the Kittim?

In 600 BCE?

In 300 BCE?

In 0 BCE?

In 300 CE?

In 600 CE?

[zerinus]

No the LGT is not that they didn't expand beyond that small area. It is that the Book of Mormon record only covers that small area and we don't have the records of those beyond that area. The Book of Mormon explicitly records some of those expansions.

There is more than one LGT. Some have two Cumorahs; some have one Cumorah, but disagree where it is ... etc. That appears to your particular brand of LGT, which is okay. Everybody is free to invent their own version of LGT. I wouldn't try and stop you.

[ERayR]

There is more than one LGT. Some have two Cumorahs; some have one Cumorah, but disagree where it is ... etc. That appears to your particular brand of LGT, which is okay. Everybody is free to invent their own version of LGT. I wouldn't try and stop you.

Then it is your construct that the Book of Mormon includes both Americas from the North Pole to Cape Horn?

[zerinus]

I believe that the Nephites and Lamanites did indeed interact with the indigenous people of America. I do not need the text to specifically point out that interaction for me to accept this idea. I do believe that taking all considerations from the text that it implies others, and therefore I disagree strongly with Robuchan and Zerinous.

One such refrence is the following;

Jacob 1:14

But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

This verse, like many, separate the people into two groups; those that seek to destroy or those that are friendly. In this chapter a careful reading does not name these two groups being only the descendants of Lehi.

I agree with the reply that Rob has already given to that, in posts 115 and 116.

[Anijen]

We're one or two generations into America. How is this not intuitive?

Using a SOCSIM or CAMSIM population program puts the Nephite population below 50 people after 60 years 610-550 B.C. (based on a group of 35 people, who fled with Nephi). These statistics were preformed previously by James E. Smith and my results verify his numbers. These numbers are low and reinforces the theory of others.

[zerinus]

But the logical (and anthropological) necessity for them being there doesn't negate the fact that, when you read the text, they just aren't there.

Thank you. That is exactly the point I am making. I don't know if there were "others" or not. All I know is that the text of the Book of Mormon cannot be adduced to prove that there were--which is what a lot of people are attempting to do.

[Anijen]

I am inclined to believe that the word "descendants" in verse 14 is a misprint for "dissenters". He is contrasting the Nephite dissenters with the original Lamanites. That is what he means by "their own brethren" in verse 14. By that he means that those dissenters, as distinct from the original Lamanites. The original Lamanites were already more numerous than the Nephites and the people of Zarahemla combined; whereas those dissenters were almost as numerous as the Nephites themselves. That is the point that he is making.

Now you are changing the text to support your argument. It appears we can not argue the case for others because it isn't literally in the text but it is alright for you to change the text to support your opinions. hmm........

[Anijen]

Thank you. That is exactly the point I am making. I don't know if there were "others" or not. All I know is that the text of the Book of Mormon cannot be adduced to prove that there were--which is what a lot of people are attempting to do.

No. You were positing that because it isn't in the text proves there were no interaction with the others. Did that sound like an episode from Lost?

[Anijen]

I agree with the reply that Rob has already given to that, in posts 115 and 116.

Then you agree with me. Because to his reply I wrote;

It is a continuation

I also added;

however, to claim the absolute there were no others is unfounded.

[ERayR]

There is more than one LGT. Some have two Cumorahs; some have one Cumorah, but disagree where it is ... etc. That appears to your particular brand of LGT, which is okay. Everybody is free to invent their own version of LGT. I wouldn't try and stop you.

Repost: zerinus please answer

Then it is your construct that the Book of Mormon includes both Americas from the North Pole to Cape Horn?

[Calm]

I see where you are coming from. Are we agreed in principle then and only haggling over a word? If so I surrender.

I win!!!!!

Yes, we are agreed.

[CASteinman]

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

And yet your axe to grind is to disagree with me.

And we do disagree. You believe that there is no evidence. I think that there is.

[CASteinman]

Using a SOCSIM or CAMSIM population program puts the Nephite population below 50 people after 60 years 610-550 B.C. (based on a group of 35 people, who fled with Nephi). These statistics were preformed previously by James E. Smith and my results verify his numbers. These numbers are low and reinforces the theory of others.

The devil is in the assumptions, right?

[CASteinman]

Here is the fundamental disagreement:

Side A: No others are explicitly mentioned. This failure to explicitly mention them is pretty close to proof that they were not there.

Side B: No others are explicitly mentioned, but they are alluded to and both the allusions and the science is pretty close to proof that they were there.

The fundamental disagreement is whether they must be mentioned to have been there.

Anyone who claims that they must be mentioned to have existed is on thin ice as there are many instances in ancient times of texts that do not mention people who "should" have been mentioned.

Anyone who claims that there must be some others in order for the numbers in the Book of Mormon to work are basing this notion not on any historical pre-columbian American facts nor in strict evidence found in the Book of Mormon about population growth -- but entirely upon speculation. (Pick any model... the inputs and assumptions are speculative).

The Book of Mormon neither mentions others nor denies their existence. There is evidence that there were others, but this evidence is not so persuasive as to make their existence mandatory. If someone believes that they existed.. there is plenty of positive (but inconclusive) evidence to support that idea. If someone believes that they did not exist, there is plenty of negative (but inconclusive) evidence to support that idea also.

The argument is silly -- but it is a good excuse for anti-Mormons to come here and get a good lick in and conjure up imaginary reasons to claim the Book of Mormon is a fantasy.

I wonder if one of them would offer up their sense of joy and satisfaction that in some cases, they have members of the Church agreeing with them?

Edited July 10, 2012 by CASteinman

[zerinus]

Then it is your construct that the Book of Mormon includes both Americas from the North Pole to Cape Horn?

Repost: zerinus please answer

Then it is your construct that the Book of Mormon includes both Americas from the North Pole to Cape Horn?

My construct is that in the early centuries of their settlement in the Americas, some version of LGT must necessarily hold true. In the last three or four hundred years of their history, however, strict LGT breaks down, and it becomes an open question how far they expanded, and where they migrated to. The D&C for example identifies the North American Indians as Lamanites, and even Jews (D&C 57:4). So if they went that far, who knows how much further they went? Could it include the Eskimos? Who knows. But it can't be ruled out.

[zerinus]

Now you are changing the text to support your argument. It appears we can not argue the case for others because it isn't literally in the text but it is alright for you to change the text to support your opinions. hmm........

I am not changing the text to disprove the "others" theory. The change I am proposing has no bearing on that particular issue, but relates to a point that Bernard had made.

[zerinus]

No. You were positing that because it isn't in the text proves there were no interaction with the others. Did that sound like an episode from Lost?

Not true. That has not been my argument anywhere. My argument has been that there is no evidence in the BoM that there were "others;" or that if there were, that they interacted with the BoM people at any time during their history as recorded in the Book of Mormon.

[zerinus]

And yet your axe to grind is to disagree with me.

And we do disagree. You believe that there is no evidence. I think that there is.

That is right. I believe that there is no evidence in the BoM; and you haven't shown that there is.

[ERayR]

My construct is that in the early centuries of their settlement in the Americas, some version of LGT must necessarily hold true. In the last three or four hundred years of their history, however, strict LGT breaks down, and it becomes an open question how far they expanded, and where they migrated to. The D&C for example identifies the North American Indians as Lamanites, and even Jews (D&C 57:4). So if they went that far, who knows how much further they went? Could it include the Eskimos? Who knows. But it can't be ruled out.

OK now you are agreeing that at least in some portion of Book of Mormon was in a LGT setting. I have no quarrel with it being an open question as to how far they expanded. I think it is obvious, from the text, that they expanded great distances. Hagoth took ship loads northward. To Where? West Coast of USA? East Coast? Scandinavia? South sea islands? We have no way, at this time, of knowing. The record keepers of the records we have stayed in their limited area. The Book of Mormon account took place in a limited area but it has strings reaching who knows how far. Once the migrations took place they were out of contact and nothing further is recorded in the limited scope of the Book of Mormon.

Now you have agreed to at least a partial LG lets consider the concept of others in that time period. Taking the research we have available of populations, of people in any area you want to accept as the limited area they were in, can't you at least accept the possibility of contact with others?

[zerinus]

Here is the fundamental disagreement:

Side A: No others are explicitly mentioned. This failure to explicitly mention them is pretty close to proof that they were not there.

That has not been exactly my argument. My argument has been that there were no evidence in the Book of Mormon that there were “others,” therefore the book cannot be used as evidence that there were. That is not the same as how you have phrased it.

Side B: No others are explicitly mentioned, but they are alluded to and both the allusions and the science is pretty close to proof that they were there.

And my point has been that there are no such “allusions” to be found in the Book of Mormon. On the contrary, if there are “allusions,” they favor the “no others” theory rather than the reverse.

The fundamental disagreement is whether they must be mentioned to have been there.

Not really, see above.

Anyone who claims that they must be mentioned to have existed is on thin ice as there are many instances in ancient times of texts that do not mention people who "should" have been mentioned.

There is a bit more to it than that. The Book of Mormon is a large text, close to five hundred pages long. There are many instances in the Book of Mormon where if “others” existed, logic dictates that they should have mentioned; which renders the “no others” theory a more plausible one. This, coupled with statements such as 2 Nephi 1:8 and Ether 13:21, combine to make the “no others” theory the more plausible option form the BoM point of view.

Anyone who claims that there must be some others in order for the numbers in the Book of Mormon to work are basing this notion not on any historical pre-columbian American facts nor in strict evidence found in the Book of Mormon about population growth -- but entirely upon speculation. (Pick any model... the inputs and assumptions are speculative).

Agreed.

The Book of Mormon neither mentions others nor denies their existence.

Except that the weight of BoM evidence favors their non-existence rather than their existence.

There is evidence that there were others, but this evidence is not so persuasive as to make their existence mandatory.

I have found no evidence for the “others’” in the BoM, persuasive or otherwise.

If someone believes that they existed.. there is plenty of positive (but inconclusive) evidence to support that idea.

I have found no such evidence; and no one has shown me that there is.

If someone believes that they did not exist, there is plenty of negative (but inconclusive) evidence to support that idea also.

I believe that that evidence is more persuasive of the two as far as the text of the Book of Mormon is concerned.

The argument is silly -- but it is a good excuse for anti-Mormons to come here and get a good lick in and conjure up imaginary reasons to claim the Book of Mormon is a fantasy.

Silly or not, that is what people here are talking about; and I have an opinion about it which I think is worth being heard as much as anybody else’s.

I wonder if one of them would offer up their sense of joy and satisfaction that in some cases, they have members of the Church agreeing with them?

I don’t care if they did or not.

[robuchan]

Using a SOCSIM or CAMSIM population program puts the Nephite population below 50 people after 60 years 610-550 B.C. (based on a group of 35 people, who fled with Nephi). These statistics were preformed previously by James E. Smith and my results verify his numbers. These numbers are low and reinforces the theory of others.

What do you mean by this?

1. I don't agree with using statistical modeling to estimate a population when the reliability of the variables are argued by apologists (ie starting time, ending time, number of people at start time, birth rates). But let's ignore that for now.

2. Why does a population below 50 people after 60 years suggest Others?

Edited July 10, 2012 by robuchan

[Anijen]

What do you mean by this?

As you already guessed it is a program that calculates ancient (and modern) populations.

1. I don't agree with using statistical modeling to estimate a population when the reliability of the variables are argued by apologists (ie starting time, ending time, number of people at start time, birth rates).

I agree. It is impossible to get a degree of accuracy without reliable variables. It isn't like they had a census back then.

2. Why does a population below 50 people after 60 years suggest Others?

Lets figure that Nephi was not born exactly at 600 B.C. so just a guess I started at 610 B.C. and ran it for 60 years about 550 B.C. (about the time of Nephi's death). I used the same variables that James E. Smith used in his data (it made my job easier). So basically you have three generations in sixty years. The number 35 comes from the estimated amount of people that went with Nephi when they left Laman and Lemuel. The resulting population figure were for him [James E. Smith] 24-36 mine was a little higher about 36-48 so to make a long story short (too late);

Why does it suggest others? Because with the relatively normal increase, without others would conflict with the growth that the text indicates. These are just reproductive others so I feel others came into the picture by different ways, such as; conversion, military victories, etc.

[robuchan]

Why does it suggest others? Because with the relatively normal increase, without others would conflict with the growth that the text indicates. These are just reproductive others so I feel others came into the picture by different ways, such as; conversion, military victories, etc.

Which verses are you referencing here?

[robuchan]

As you already guessed it is a program that calculates ancient (and modern) populations.

I agree. It is impossible to get a degree of accuracy without reliable variables. It isn't like they had a census back then.

Lets figure that Nephi was not born exactly at 600 B.C. so just a guess I started at 610 B.C. and ran it for 60 years about 550 B.C. (about the time of Nephi's death). I used the same variables that James E. Smith used in his data (it made my job easier). So basically you have three generations in sixty years. The number 35 comes from the estimated amount of people that went with Nephi when they left Laman and Lemuel. The resulting population figure were for him [James E. Smith] 24-36 mine was a little higher about 36-48 so to make a long story short (too late);

Why does it suggest others? Because with the relatively normal increase, without others would conflict with the growth that the text indicates. These are just reproductive others so I feel others came into the picture by different ways, such as; conversion, military victories, etc.

I skillfully ripped to shred the argument for using statistical models to generate population assumptions in the BOM and ages thread. But I'm banned from the thread. So if you want to discuss points from that we'll have to do it here or in a new thread.

[zerinus]

OK now you are agreeing that at least in some portion of Book of Mormon was in a LGT setting.

I have never denied that or argued against it. In fact, most of my arguments have not been about LGT at all, but only about the “others” theory in the Book of Mormon.

I have no quarrel with it being an open question as to how far they expanded. I think it is obvious, from the text, that they expanded great distances. Hagoth took ship loads northward. To Where? West Coast of USA? East Coast? Scandinavia? South sea islands? We have no way, at this time, of knowing.

Well, strict LGT denies that. It assumes that all of BoM history took place within the limited LGT.

The record keepers of the records we have stayed in their limited area. The Book of Mormon account took place in a limited area but it has strings reaching who knows how far. Once the migrations took place they were out of contact and nothing further is recorded in the limited scope of the Book of Mormon.

That is a contradiction in terms. You want to have your cake and eat it. It is either LGT or no LGT. You want to have it both ways. It can’t be done.

Now you have agreed to at least a partial LG . . .

I have never denied that.

. . . lets consider the concept of others in that time period. Taking the research we have available of populations, of people in any area you want to accept as the limited area they were in, can't you at least accept the possibility of contact with others?

I have never denied that either. All my arguments have been centered on the assertion that there is no evidence in the BoM for the existence of “others;” or that if they existed, they interacted with the BoM people during the BoM history.