cinepro Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 I am curious as to what you mean by strong evidence of other people before, during and after. Which word did I use that could be misunderstood?
cinepro Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 I have to disagree. I think it does work. I am sure first contact made it into the large plates of Nephi but the history we get from the small plates is VERY compacted. In 1 Nephi we get a reasonably detailed narrative about the fleeing from Jerusalem, the journey in the desery, arrival at Bountiful, building the ship, and then arriving in the Promised Land. Then the narrative is taken over by Lehi's final blessings and the Nephites fleeing the Lamanites. After that almost everything is Nephi (and Jacob) preaching with almost no history at all. We get brief interludes with Jacob at the temple and then Jacob and Sherem and then the history almost entirely stops. We get a personal experience from Enos but nothing much about his ministry or reign except that he had one. Then a bunch of recorders who wrote a couple of verses each and said nothing more then that there were wars. In the end we get King Mosiah's exodus, Coriantumr, and first contact with the Mulekites. That leaves just under 500 years of story that has almost no history. Amaleki obviously thought first contact with the Mulekites was a big deal but that seems to be mostly because of where they came from and the news they brought verifying the fall of Jerusalem and being distant relatives. I would guess that first contact with others happened when Lehi was still alive or early in Nephi's reign. In either case it would have happened when the historical portion of the record was neglected. If someone could get us the 116 pages I am guessing we would have more. I am guessing Mormon included it in his abridgement. Curse you Lucy Harris!!!!!! To take it even further, I'll point out that it isn't a problem of "oh, the Book of Mormon just doesn't mention any others..." The Book of Mormon does mention "others". It mentions them very specifically and explicitly. Because it's not just the Lehites in the New World, in 600 BC, but as we find out, there are also Mulekites and the remainder of the Jaredites. So the Book of Mormon does allow for other people here (and mentions their encounters with the Nephites or Lamanites), but it very specifically explains how those people got here in the context of this being the promised land. The Book of Mormon is also careful to explain the language of these people, and how the Nephites or Lamanites are able to communicate with them (or not). But I would love to see anyone sketch out an even remotely plausible "others" scenario that coincides with the narrative of The Book of Mormon. I'm pretty sure even the most cursory and creative theory can't actually be drafted. Once you get past "oh, Cortez kind of talked to the natives...", the idea of the Lehites mixing (but not mixing) with the natives and converting them (but not to the point that they would change their culture or language) while at the same time the Lamanites totally adopt the ways of the other natives while at the same time convincing them to wage wars against those other natives that we used to hate before we joined up with you and totally abandoned our former language and culture... You know who probably did end up joining with the "others"? Hagoth and his people. You know why? Because no one ever heard from them again. They probably ended up finding a nice group of natives somewhere, learned their language and culture, and totally abandoned their former Nephite ways. And that's why the Nephites never heard from them again. 1
bjw Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 You know who probably did end up joining with the "others"? Hagoth and his people. You know why? Because no one ever heard from them again. They probably ended up finding a nice group of natives somewhere, learned their language and culture, and totally abandoned their former Nephite ways. And that's why the Nephites never heard from them again. I'm just curious, what's the general consensus among LDS about Hagoth? Do others believe as Cinepro suggests here that he may have landed somewhere else and joined in with the natives? Do some believe this was in America or that he may have populated an island? I guess it depends on where the "narrow neck" of land was mentioned in Alma.
The Nehor Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 But I would love to see anyone sketch out an even remotely plausible "others" scenario that coincides with the narrative of The Book of Mormon. I'm pretty sure even the most cursory and creative theory can't actually be drafted. Once you get past "oh, Cortez kind of talked to the natives...", the idea of the Lehites mixing (but not mixing) with the natives and converting them (but not to the point that they would change their culture or language) while at the same time the Lamanites totally adopt the ways of the other natives while at the same time convincing them to wage wars against those other natives that we used to hate before we joined up with you and totally abandoned our former language and culture... I just did sketch one out. The Lehites arrived with an advanced concept of God, some metalworking secrets, written records going WAY back in time, and probably new forms of agriculture and new plants. While this would be enough to attract followers it would probably not subsume the language. The Nephites stayed in charge while the Lamanites adapted to the local culture while possibly bringing some neat things. This eventually degenerated into a vague "the Nephites robbed us of everything" myth that the larger culture picked up. 1
Kevin Christensen Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 The best "others" scenarios that I know came from careful reading of the Book of Mormon, followed by careful contextualization in a real setting. See Matt Roper, Nephi's Neighbors http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1126&index=10 Brant Gardner on the Social History of the Early Nephtites http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2001-fair-conference/2001-a-social-history-of-the-early-nephites Brant on the Gadiantons: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2002-fair-conference/2002-the-gadianton-robbers-in-mormons-theological-history-their-structural-role-and-plausible-identification FWIW Kevin Christensen Pittsburgh, PA
Rob Osborn Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Which word did I use that could be misunderstood?I meant, where is the stong evidence?
Anijen Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) I meant, where is the stong evidence?Are you serious? Do you really think there was no one in the Americas before Lehi? As far as evidence there is plenty and it is plenty "strong." Edited February 20, 2014 by Anijen
Rob Osborn Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Are you serious? Do you really think there was no one in the Americas before Lehi? As far as evidence there is plenty and it is plenty "strong."There was no one in the Americas before the Jaredites.
The Nehor Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 There was no one in the Americas before the Jaredites.Even if you are a crazy fundamentalist who believes that thousands of years of American history is comprehensively covered in a rather short book you are still wrong. If the exit to the Garden was in Missouri where Joseph said then Adam and Eve were there and were not Jaredites.
Rob Osborn Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Even if you are a crazy fundamentalist who believes that thousands of years of American history is comprehensively covered in a rather short book you are still wrong. If the exit to the Garden was in Missouri where Joseph said then Adam and Eve were there and were not Jaredites.The whole topography of the land changed after the flood. In the post flood world the Jaredites were the first to populate the new topography of the land in the Americas. 1
jkwilliams Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 The whole topography of the land changed after the flood. In the post flood world the Jaredites were the first to populate the new topography of the land in the Americas. If you take the Book of Mormon accounts absolutely literally, you are right. Unfortunately, every bit of evidence we have shows that humans have lived in the Americas for tens of thousands of years, since long before the date of the Flood.
The Nehor Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 The whole topography of the land changed after the flood. In the post flood world the Jaredites were the first to populate the new topography of the land in the Americas.Yes, but how do you know that? The Book of Mormon prophets certainly did not say they were the first. Why not?
jkwilliams Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Yes, but how do you know that? The Book of Mormon prophets certainly did not say they were the first. Why not? I wonder why the Jaredites didn't talk about the others they met when they arrived.
The Nehor Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 I wonder why the Jaredites didn't talk about the others they met when they arrived.Probably because of how ridiculously compacted our account of Jaredite history is. It makes the scanty Nephite record look verbose and overwrought by comparison.
Rob Osborn Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 If you take the Book of Mormon accounts absolutely literally, you are right. Unfortunately, every bit of evidence we have shows that humans have lived in the Americas for tens of thousands of years, since long before the date of the Flood.What evidence is that? Faulty C-14 dates?
jkwilliams Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Probably because of how ridiculously compacted our account of Jaredite history is. It makes the scanty Nephite record look verbose and overwrought by comparison. And yet neither bothered to talk about the hordes of Asiatic peoples they met. The small plates had enough room to talk about all kinds of animals they found in the New World, but not the people, villages, and cities that greeted them. Hmmm.
The Nehor Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 And yet neither bothered to talk about the hordes of Asiatic peoples they met. The small plates had enough room to talk about all kinds of animals they found in the New World, but not the people, villages, and cities that greeted them. Hmmm.Well, they didn't like the two tribes they ran into. The Cumoms were a bunch of pretentious snobs and don't even get me started about the Curelom people.
jkwilliams Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 What evidence is that? Faulty C-14 dates? When the C-14 dates coincide with the soil strata, tree dates, genetic data, and a host of other determinants, they are probably not faulty. It amazes me that people are still dismissing carbon dating as if it were the only means of dating the fossil record.
Rob Osborn Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Yes, but how do you know that? The Book of Mormon prophets certainly did not say they were the first. Why not?Extrapolating from logic here- What is given in scripture- 1.The earth was globally flooded, all died except for Noah and family.2. Shortly after the flood the area around the middle east began to be populated and the tower of Babel was built3. Shortly after the flood the lands became separated by oceans.4. God caused the people to be driven and dispersed throughout the whole world.5. The Jaredites left from this tower of Babel and were guided to the promised land.6. Given that it was just shortly after the flood and the division of the lands vessels would be required to cross the ocean7. The Jaredites build vessels and take with them all manner of seeds and animals to help repopulate the new American Continents8. Its highly improbable that inbetween the few hundred years from the time the flood ended to the time the Jaredites were driven from the tower of Babel and then arrived in the Americas that somebody else got there first. 1
jkwilliams Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Just for fun, here's an overview of the various dating methods. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/dating Unfortunately for YECs, the overlapping methods confirm each other, and the procedures have been refined such that there is a high degree of accuracy. If it were just carbon-14 and someone poked holes in that method, we might be justified in dismissing the ages of the fossil record. But it's much more than C-14.
Rob Osborn Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 When the C-14 dates coincide with the soil strata, tree dates, genetic data, and a host of other determinants, they are probably not faulty. It amazes me that people are still dismissing carbon dating as if it were the only means of dating the fossil record.It flat out flies in the face of revelation. The temporal age of the earth is around 6,000 years old. This means there was no death (temporal means dying) before roughly 6,000 years ago.
jkwilliams Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 It flat out flies in the face of revelation. The temporal age of the earth is around 6,000 years old. This means there was no death (temporal means dying) before roughly 6,000 years ago. It flies in the face of a literal reading of scripture. Most LDS I know do not feel bound to accept a rigidly literal interpretation of scripture.
Rob Osborn Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Just for fun, here's an overview of the various dating methods.http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/datingUnfortunately for YECs, the overlapping methods confirm each other, and the procedures have been refined such that there is a high degree of accuracy. If it were just carbon-14 and someone poked holes in that method, we might be justified in dismissing the ages of the fossil record. But it's much more than C-14.And yet we have dinosaur soft tissue found in bones. That defys all of known science.
The Nehor Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Extrapolating from logic here- What is given in scripture- 1.The earth was globally flooded, all died except for Noah and family.2. Shortly after the flood the area around the middle east began to be populated and the tower of Babel was built3. Shortly after the flood the lands became separated by oceans.4. God caused the people to be driven and dispersed throughout the whole world.5. The Jaredites left from this tower of Babel and were guided to the promised land.6. Given that it was just shortly after the flood and the division of the lands vessels would be required to cross the ocean7. The Jaredites build vessels and take with them all manner of seeds and animals to help repopulate the new American Continents8. Its highly improbable that inbetween the few hundred years from the time the flood ended to the time the Jaredites were driven from the tower of Babel and then arrived in the Americas that somebody else got there first.I disagree with 1, 3, and 6 and find 7 to be hilarious.
jkwilliams Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 And yet we have dinosaur soft tissue found in bones. That defys all of known science. ?
Recommended Posts