Alma 43:13,14 No Others

[cdowis]

Many ancient texts are created by someone writing down a collection of verbally transmitted myths and accounts of events which may or may not resemble actual history, depending on the length of time they've been handed down and the motivation of the people passing along and recording the myths. The Book of Mormon is different from those ancient myths in two ways. 1) the events were recorded live as they occurred and translated by the power of God 2) the motivation of the authors were to write truth. Joseph Smith said the book is the most correct book on the face of the Earth.

Your post makes it sound as if you are convinced that you understand the text of the BOM, which you obviously do not.

Mormon took various records and compiled and made an abridgement. Apparently some of the records are exact quotes from those records, while others are clearly not. We honestly do not know the exact nature of some of those stories, and I have given the theory that some of them come from oral history that was later written down. The book of Mosiah, for example, have some of the "heroic" hallmarks of such oral recitals of events. The history of the Mulikites was clearly oral tradition since they had no written records.

Mormon clearly is concerned about controlling his sources, e.g. 3 Nephi 8 "[1] And now it came to pass that according to our record, and we know our record to be true, for behold, it was a just man who did keep the record -- for he truly did many miracles in the name of Jesus; and there was not any man who could do a miracle in the name of Jesus save he were cleansed every whit from his iniquity "

Clearly his narrative was not monolithic, but consisted of many records and sources. Perhaps they were written in "real time", but probably others were written in retrospect. There may even be second and third hand accounts.

So, the BOM itself declares that if there are errors, they are the errors of man. A direct admission of the possibility of errors.

The Lord only gave assurance of the translation, and JS comment is clearly directed to the doctrine found in this book, not specific historical details.

But, of course, you see this as fiction, and it is unnecessary to get into the weeds of an actual historical account, warts and all. Nephi clearly made the decision to exclude the discussion of others in the spiritual history, outside the hints of domesticated animals, etc, and Mormon respected that decision. It is all found in the large plates, where the focus is on the secular history.

Your understanding of the BOM text is about an inch deep, as shown in your various posts and shallow attempts to explain away the comments of those with a deep understanding of the text based on a lifetime of study.

Edited July 10, 2012 by cdowis

[Anijen]

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.

I don't have to open a new thread. I agreed with you see my post;

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

I would disagree that you "skillfully ripped it to shred." Simulation models have there place and can be a good indicator. Edited July 10, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[cdowis]

What do you mean by this?

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

Another indication that you are clueless about the text of the BOM. This has been an issue of discussion among those familiar with the text, both Mormon AND critic, until a close reading of the text offered up the theory of the Others.

It was considered a significant problem for the BOM. The text clearly indicates a large group of adults, and the population numbers just did not make sense.

Edited July 10, 2012 by cdowis

[Anijen]

Which verses are you referencing here?

cdowis point is made with your post.

I was not referring to any verses. I took the dates 610-550 B.C. as a base. I then took the number of people who left with Nephi, I approximated it to be about 35 people.

If you want me to throw a verse in there lets try 2 Nephi 5:5-6

Edited July 10, 2012 by Jeff Holt

[ERayR]

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.

OK

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

All of BoM history takes place within the sphere of the record keepers. I don't understand what you are saying when you say strict LGT. Those whose migrations are noted cease to be part of BoM history.and are no longer relevant to the account.

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.

Here you are just arguing to be arguing. What you are saying is that the BoM gives us a record of what happened to Hagoth's migrations as well as those who went northward overland. It just isn't so their connection is severed and nothing more is included about them. The Book of Mormon only includes those in the close proximity of the record keepers. From the time they migrated they are no longer a part of the record

I have never denied that.

OK

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.

OK then am I to understand you think there might have been others based on archeological evidences of populations in the areas that are candidates for BoM lands?

Edited July 10, 2012 by ERayR

[cursor]

The Composition of Lehi's Family, John L. Sorenson

[cursor]

Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites >> Nephites

Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites >> Lamanites

Also, makes you wonder what happened to Sam.

"Sam was the shy and retiring one of the four brothers, it appears. Though older than Nephi, he followed him consistently (1 Nephi 2:17). He may not have been very assertive; at least one would have thought that when Laman and Lemuel "did smite us [two] even with a rod" (1 Nephi 3:28-29) that he could have combined efforts with Nephi (who was "large in stature") to prevent the beating. Furthermore, Sam was as frightened as Laman and Lemuel when Nephi, dressed in Laban's clothes and accompanied by Zoram, approached them at night (1 Nephi 4:28). Perhaps his retiring if not passive nature is why his father in his final blessing (2 Nephi 4:11), while saluting Sam's good heart and behavior, could see that his descendants would not survive as a distinct entity but would be incorporated into Nephi's tribe."

John L. Soenson

[robuchan]

Another indication that you are clueless about the text of the BOM. This has been an issue of discussion among those familiar with the text, both Mormon AND critic, until a close reading of the text offered up the theory of the Others.

It was considered a significant problem for the BOM. The text clearly indicates a large group of adults, and the population numbers just did not make sense.

Did you come in this thread to insult me or to add to the discussion?

[robuchan]

cdowis point is made with your post.

I was not referring to any verses. I took the dates 610-550 B.C. as a base. I then took the number of people who left with Nephi, I approximated it to be about 35 people.

If you want me to throw a verse in there lets try 2 Nephi 5:5-6

2 Nephi 5:5-6 gives no reference to a population that would be unwarranted without mixing of Others.

[robuchan]

Calmoriah was asking for this:

from the Lehi's family Sorenson article

In the case of Sariah, numerous questions arise about her birth history. This is so because two sets of facts press credibility toward its limit when they are compared: (1) on the one hand, the oldest four sons were all of marriageable age at the time of the family's departure from Jerusalem, which means that the eldest, Laman, could not plausibly be less than twenty-two or twenty-three; yet, (2) Jacob and Joseph were born "in the wilderness," and the probable timing would make Joseph approximately twenty-four to twenty-eight years younger than Laman. For one woman to have had such a long birth career is sufficiently unlikely that we should examine whether Sariah was the sole mother of all Lehi's mentioned offspring.

[robuchan]

Great article.

And then I suppose that the Lord could have picked out of Israel a particular family (Lehi's) to take to the promised land who had biological and spiritual qualities substantially different than "average."

When Sariah is the only woman in the entire book who has a detailed account of her child bearing, and you acknowledge it's extremely rare, and theorize that God had intervention in it, it pretty much blows out all population modeling you want to apply to the book.

[CASteinman]

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

No, but others have. And despite their showing you that evidence you refuse to accept that there is evidence. Its just denial. Its not as though it were legitimate denial.

There is a term for that. It is called "Stacking the deck". When this sort of thing is done by members on a jury, that member can sometimes be excused for "Failure to Deliberate".

[CASteinman]

My argument has been that there were no evidence in the Book of Mormon that there were “others

And yet there is such evidence. Your denial does not change the reality of that fact.

[CASteinman]

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.

This is incorrect. Indeed, BH Roberts as early as 1920 said that the very notion that the people in the Book of Mormon might not have come in contact with others is a key reason to believe in a Limited Geography Theory -- exactly opposite of what you are proposing here -- and more logical as well.

Edited July 11, 2012 by CASteinman

[zerinus]

All of BoM history takes place within the sphere of the record keepers. I don't understand what you are saying when you say strict LGT. Those whose migrations are noted cease to be part of BoM history.and are no longer relevant to the account.

Here you are just arguing to be arguing. What you are saying is that the BoM gives us a record of what happened to Hagoth's migrations as well as those who went northward overland. It just isn't so their connection is severed and nothing more is included about them. The Book of Mormon only includes those in the close proximity of the record keepers. From the time they migrated they are no longer a part of the record.

Except that that begs the question of what is the “sphere of the record keepers”? If that “sphere” includes North America where the Lamanites were in the days of Joseph Smith, and where the hill Cumorah was located, where Moroni hid the records, and possibly extends beyond, then you have already broken out of your LGT. LGT is no longer relevant or applicable if that scenario is accepted. Your argument has become circular:

Q. What is LGT?

A. The sphere of the record keepers!

Q. What is the sphere of the record keepers?

A. LGT!

Do you see the problem there? You can’t define LGT as the “sphere of the record keepers”. You have to define in geographical terms what that “sphere” is.

OK then am I to understand you think there might have been others based on archeological evidences of populations in the areas that are candidates for BoM lands?

No, not quite. What you can understand is as follows:

There is no evidence in the Book of Mormon that there were “others” whom the BoM people came into contact with during the BoM history; and any evidence in the BoM points to the contrary. This suggests that either there were no “others” on the American continent to coincide with the BoM period; or if there were, they lived too far away to come into contact with them during that period; and that if any such contacts were made, it is most likely to have occurred after the BoM period ended--i.e. from approximately AD 400 onward.

[robuchan]

This is incorrect. Indeed, BH Roberts as early as 1920 said that the very notion that the people in the Book of Mormon might not have come in contact with others is a key reason to believe in a Limited Geography Theory -- exactly opposite of what you are proposing here -- and more logical as well.

I've already shown in another thread that the Others theory came as a response to scientific evidence that there were other non-BOM cultures in Mesoamerica during BOM time periods.

[cdowis]

zerinus

My argument has been that there were no evidence in the Book of Mormon that there were “others

The BOM text tells us that there were domesticated animals when Nephi landed. That is sufficient for anyone with an open mind.

Edited July 11, 2012 by cdowis

[zerinus]

No, but others have. And despite their showing you that evidence you refuse to accept that there is evidence. Its just denial. Its not as though it were legitimate denial.

There is a term for that. It is called "Stacking the deck". When this sort of thing is done by members on a jury, that member can sometimes be excused for "Failure to Deliberate".

And yet there is such evidence. Your denial does not change the reality of that fact.

I see those accusations being applicable to you, which you seem to want to project onto me. I do not accept any of the charges you have made against me. They may be applicable to you, but not to me.

[CASteinman]

I've already shown in another thread that the Others theory came as a response to scientific evidence that there were other non-BOM cultures in Mesoamerica during BOM time periods.

Essentially irrelevant to the issue of LGT -- which is what you had talked about.

You are bouncing around and changing the topic.

Edited July 11, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

I see those accusations being applicable to you, which you seem to want to project onto me. I do not accept any of the charges you have made against me. They may be applicable to you, but not to me.

And yet, unlike you, I have not denied that the evidence exists. But you have. Once again you are denying something that is obvious: I have said that there is evidence. You have said there is not.

Yet you say I am doing what you are doing.

Your position turns everything that you have said and that I have said upside down and inside out.

[zerinus]

zerinus

The BOM text tells us that there were domesticated animals when Nephi landed. That is sufficient for anyone with an open mind.

As I recall that has been answered about twenty times before, which you have always ignored, and never given a reply to. In the future it will be completely ignored.

[ERayR]

Except that that begs the question of what is the “sphere of the record keepers”? If that “sphere” includes North America where the Lamanites were in the days of Joseph Smith, and where the hill Cumorah was located, where Moroni hid the records, and possibly extends beyond, then you have already broken out of your LGT. LGT is no longer relevant or applicable if that scenario is accepted. Your argument has become circular:

Q. What is LGT?

A. The sphere of the record keepers!

Q. What is the sphere of the record keepers?

A. LGT!

Do you see the problem there? You can’t define LGT as the “sphere of the record keepers”. You have to define in geographical terms what that “sphere” is.

No, not quite. What you can understand is as follows:

There is no evidence in the Book of Mormon that there were “others” whom the BoM people came into contact with during the BoM history; and any evidence in the BoM points to the contrary. This suggests that either there were no “others” on the American continent to coincide with the BoM period; or if there were, they lived too far away to come into contact with them during that period; and that if any such contacts were made, it is most likely to have occurred after the BoM period ended--i.e. from approximately AD 400 onward.

Except that that begs the question of what is the “sphere of the record keepers”? If that “sphere” includes North America where the Lamanites were in the days of Joseph Smith, and where the hill Cumorah was located, where Moroni hid the records, and possibly extends beyond, then you have already broken out of your LGT. LGT is no longer relevant or applicable if that scenario is accepted. Your argument has become circular:

Q. What is LGT?

A. The sphere of the record keepers!

Q. What is the sphere of the record keepers?

A. LGT!

Do you see the problem there? You can’t define LGT as the “sphere of the record keepers”. You have to define in geographical terms what that “sphere” is.

No, not quite. What you can understand is as follows:

There is no evidence in the Book of Mormon that there were “others” whom the BoM people came into contact with during the BoM history; and any evidence in the BoM points to the contrary. This suggests that either there were no “others” on the American continent to coincide with the BoM period; or if there were, they lived too far away to come into contact with them during that period; and that if any such contacts were made, it is most likely to have occurred after the BoM period ended--i.e. from approximately AD 400 onward.

One final thing, The sphere of the record keepers was how far they could get information in a timely manner to keep an adequate record. It appears from the text that once Hagoth's ships had left they received no further information from that group. It also appears that once a group had left to go north there was no further contact.

There is no evidence in the Book of Mormon that there were “others” whom the BoM people came into contact with during the BoM history; and any evidence in the BoM points to the contrary. This suggests that either there were no “others” on the American continent to coincide with the BoM period; or if there were, they lived too far away to come into contact with them during that period; and that if any such contacts were made, it is most likely to have occurred after the BoM period ended--i.e. from approximately AD 400 onward.

Now who is pulling things out of a hat that is not in the BoM. If they lived too far away to have contact with others where did they live? All the evidence I have seen indicates that anywhere in either American continent had people pretty much everywhere. The definition of insanity that comes to my mind is the one about doing the same thing and expecting different results. I have decided I am not insane and as this is not critical to my salvation I think I will drop discoursing with you on the subject. Have a good time.

[zerinus]

And yet, unlike you, I have not denied that the evidence exists. But you have. Once again you are denying something that is obvious: I have said that there is evidence. You have said there is not.

Yet you say I am doing what you are doing.

Your position turns everything that you have said and that I have said upside down and inside out.

Well, I am not going to get into an endless back and forth with you over this (which you seem to have a tendency to want to do). What I have said is sufficient, and I am going to leave it at that.

[cdowis]

As I recall that has been answered about twenty times before, which you have always ignored, and never given a reply to. In the future it will be completely ignored.

Then why don't you repeat those responses and be prepared to defend them. Let's start with ==>> God magically created an ox as a gift to the Nephites when they landed.

And the next one was equally profound. "Well, there were wild goats, and ..... well... uhhh.. something else. Another type of goat besides wild goats."

Is that something you want to defend? These arguments are too silly for a response. Give me something that makes sense.

Edited July 11, 2012 by cdowis

[CASteinman]

Well, I am not going to get into an endless back and forth with you over this (which you seem to have a tendency to want to do). What I have said is sufficient, and I am going to leave it at that.

Yes, I suppose it is sufficient for you to accuse me of things that are not true -- such as this claim of my "tendency" and your previous psychoanalysis of me that somehow I am projecting onto you my own sins.

I see it this way: I have confronted you on the fundamental aspect of your views: rejection of evidence. You advertise that you reject the evidence and then claim that you really don't. Its a contradiction that undermines your position and affirms mine and is therefore undesirable for you to discuss further.

Edited July 11, 2012 by CASteinman