Explaining Book Of Mormon Anachronisms

[Rivers]

I have heard three main explanations for Book of Mormon anachronisms:

1. We simply have not yet found everything the Book of Mormon mentions in the right time period and the right place.

2. Loan Shifting(horses are tapirs, swords are macanas, ect).

3. Anachronisms are products of the translation process.

Am I missing any others? Is there any one best explanation?

[canard78]

I have heard three main explanations for Book of Mormon anachronisms:

1. We simply have not yet found everything the Book of Mormon mentions in the right time period and the right place.

2. Loan Shifting(horses are tapirs, swords are macanas, ect).

3. Anachronisms are products of the translation process.

Am I missing any others? Is there any one best explanation?

4. Joseph made it up

[Glenn101]

I have heard three main explanations for Book of Mormon anachronisms:

1. We simply have not yet found everything the Book of Mormon mentions in the right time period and the right place.

2. Loan Shifting(horses are tapirs, swords are macanas, ect).

3. Anachronisms are products of the translation process.

Am I missing any others? Is there any one best explanation?

 

 

4. Joseph made it up

 

 

He was superb, no?

[Uncle Dale]

I have heard three main explanations for Book of Mormon anachronisms:

1. We simply have not yet found everything the Book of Mormon mentions in the right time period and the right place.

2. Loan Shifting(horses are tapirs, swords are macanas, ect).

3. Anachronisms are products of the translation process.

Am I missing any others? Is there any one best explanation?

 

 

Have you ever looked at old Renaissance masters' depictions

of scenes from classical Greek and Roman history, or from

ancient mythology? -- The principal characters in such paintings

are easily identifiable, despite being dressed in 15th century

armor, or set amidst 15th century scenery. It was the STORY

that mattered in the artwork, and not the evident anachronisms.

 

To folks like Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Parley P. Pratt,

what really mattered was "the everlasting gospel," which had

been established on earth six times, and vanished six times.

Each dispensation was essentially like the others. Despite

changes, progressions and the addition of "more light," the

STORY stayed the same.

 

Whatever was "true" in the seventh and final dispensation, had

been true in the past six dispensations.

 

Whatever had been "true" in those earlier dispensations, was

also "true" in the seventh dispensation and in the revealed

scriptures of the latter days (post-1829 standard works).

 

The Renaissance painter was not bothered by the fact that

his archaic subjects were dressed in the clothing of his own

day and age. What was "true" in his artwork, had been "true"

in the past ages -- existential truth -- not objective truth.

 

The first Mormons were not bothered with Nephites saying

"adieu" or riding about in chariots pulled by modern horses.

Those anachronisms were trivial details, when compared to

the restoration of the Priesthood and the One True Church.

 

UD

[Ahab]

Have you ever looked at old Renaissance masters' depictions

of scenes from classical Greek and Roman history, or from

ancient mythology? -- The principal characters in such paintings

are easily identifiable, despite being dressed in 15th century

armor, or set amidst 15th century scenery. It was the STORY

that mattered in the artwork, and not the evident anachronisms.

To folks like Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Parley P. Pratt,

what really mattered was "the everlasting gospel," which had

been established on earth six times, and vanished six times.

Each dispensation was essentially like the others. Despite

changes, progressions and the addition of "more light," the

STORY stayed the same.

Whatever was "true" in the seventh and final dispensation, had

been true in the past six dispensations.

Whatever had been "true" in those earlier dispensations, was

also "true" in the seventh dispensation and in the revealed

scriptures of the latter days (post-1829 standard works).

The Renaissance painter was not bothered by the fact that

his archaic subjects were dressed in the clothing of his own

day and age. What was "true" in his artwork, had been "true"

in the past ages -- existential truth -- not objective truth.

The first Mormons were not bothered with Nephites saying

"adieu" or riding about in chariots pulled by modern horses.

Those anachronisms were trivial details, when compared to

the restoration of the Priesthood and the One True Church.

UD

So that would fall under explanation #3, part of the translation process.

I'm also in favor of an idea under explanation #3, not translating the translation correctly. In the old days they referred to it as missing the mark, or stumbling over a stone.

[Kevin Christensen]

Any judgment of anachronism depends on the information horizon of the observer and the assumptions made about what can or ought to appear in a translation. In RBBM 2, I noted this:

the identification of anachronism in a formulaic literature depends on the assumption of adequate research sources. The significance of anachronism depends on assumptions about translation factors (including the legitimacy of what Ostler calls prophetic expansion). All conclusions regarding anachronism in the Book of Mormon must stand on the validity of both assumptions. If either leg fails, the conclusions cannot stand.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1425&index=28

I've noticed that many so-called anachronisms are the product of reader misjudgment, based on a lack of information about the past combined with their assumptions about what is possible. Sometimes the lack of information is based on a neglect of what is available. For example, the Tanners famously compared the Book of Mormon text to New Testament passages, using computer searches. An essay in the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon pointed out that many of their examples had Old Testament precidents which they had apparently chosen to suppress from their report, since the media they used included the Old and New Testaments. Sometimes the lack of information has to do with the information horizon of the critic. Alexander Campbell complained that the Book of Mormon seemed "too Christian before Christ." Margaret Barker's work on First Temple Theology changes all of that. Of course, she had access to many materials that he could not have known about or imagined. David Wright wrote a detailed essay arguing that the Melchizedek material in Alma 13 is anachronistically derived from Hebrews. I've responded to that claim like this:

In looking to establish the background context for the origins of Christianity, Barker observes that, since "Psalm 110, the Melchizedek Psalm, is the most frequently used text in the New Testament, it seemed an obvious place to start."53 She also remarks that the Qumran Melchizedek text exemplifies a set of ideas regarding "a heavenly priest figure from the cult of the first temple who would bring salvation and atonement in the last days."54 Despite his being mentioned only briefly in the Old Testament, Barker explores the figure of Melchizedek:

Melchizedek was central to the old royal cult. We do not know what the name means, but it is quite clear that this priesthood operated within the mythology of the sons of Elyon, and the triumph of the royal son of God in Jerusalem. We should expect later references to Melchizedek to retain some memory of the cult of Elyon. . . . The role of the ancient kings was that of the Melchizedek figure in 11QMelch. This accounts for the Melchizedek material in Hebrews, and the early Church's association of Melchizedek and the Messiah. The arguments of Hebrews presuppose a knowledge of the angel mythology which we no longer have.55

David Wright argues that the Melchizedek material in Alma 13 is anachronistically derived from Hebrews:

Scholarship recognizes that Hebrews does not create all of its argument by itself but relies on tradition and perhaps even on some unknown written sources (in addition to the Bible) in some of the places where we have seen the epistle parallel elements in Alma 12-13. But these traditions and sources are in general relatively recent developments for the author of Hebrews, not traditions going back 700 years. Moreover, the traditions and sources found or supposed by scholars for the passages in Hebrews relevant to Alma 12-13 are diverse; . . . They are not likely to be found in one traditional source.56

In contrast to Wright's conclusion, Barker's work connects the Melchizedek traditions to the First Temple, which not only moves them back seven hundred years earlier than Hebrews but also argues for the source of unity in those traditions behind Hebrews as being those of the temple.57

With respect to the Melchizedek passages in the Book of Mormon,58 we should note that the Alma 13 discussion is crowded with themes that recur in Barker's books as signs of the preexilic tradition—the Father God (Alma 13:9),59 his Begotten Son as the atoning one (Alma 13:5),60 the council in heaven at the foundation of the world (Alma 13:3),61 the Day of Atonement imagery of garments being "washed white through the blood of the Lamb" (Alma 13:11),62 angels being sent to "all nations" (Alma 13:22),63 judgment (Alma 13:29-30),64 hell, and the second death (Alma 13:29-30).65 This puts the Melchizedek passage in the Book of Mormon in tune with the angel mythology presupposed by Hebrews. None of these themes elicited any notice in Wright's article.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1459&index=4

Its fairly common for commentators, whether skeptics like Vogel or believers like Grant Hardy to off-handly comment that this or that passage is anachronistic. But in giving examples, they seldom provide the perspective that comes with a study of the history of claims about anachronism. Many passages once thought to have been anachronistic have been validated. And frequently the evidence that exists in favor of the Book of Mormon claims has been overlooked. Margaret Barker's essay on Isaiah 53 as having been written about Hezekiah's bout with the plague, is, I think wonderful. It has implications for the Second Isaiah hypothesis, at least with respect to that chapter. (My own approach to the Second Isaiah issue is fairly complex, and actually accepts a Second Isaiah.) I don't mind when Hardy says this or that passage appears to be anachronistic, but I think a little perspective on how such judgments have faired over time is helpful in dealing with open questions.

And there is the act of translating a document from one language and time to another, which inevitably adds some anachronism in order to communicate. The "candlestick under a bushel" passage in the New Testament is a good example of a translation anachronism. And reading across culture and time always brings in elements of that simply due to the fact that modern readers are not ancient readers. And if we educate ourselves to be able to stand where they stood, we have a better chance of seeing what they saw. And in many instances, I have found, what from one perspective seemed a problem, from another, better perspective, is actually very impressive. For example, back in 1987, I was impressed by Blake Ostler's expansion article. He attributed most of the "too christian before Christ" passages to prophetic expansion, almost as a reflex. It wasn't until 12 years later that I obtained and read another 1987 publication, Margaret Barker's The Older Testament, which had this:

The life and work of Jesus were, and should be, interpreted in the light of something other than Jerusalem Judaism. This other had its roots in the conflicts of the sixth century BC when the traditions of the monarchy were divided as an inheritance amongst several heirs. It would have been lost but for the accidents of archaeological discovery and the evidence of pre-Christian texts preserved and transmitted only by Christian hands.

Perspectives and judgments can and do change. That is worth remembering.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited December 30, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Uncle Dale]

So that would fall under explanation #3, part of the translation process.

I'm also in favor of an idea under explanation #3, not translating the translation correctly. In the old days they referred to it as missing the mark, or stumbling over a stone.

 

 

It really -- REALLY -- matters, when the word "translation" is brought

into such discussions. There are possible nuances involved, that

have nothing to do with the mechanical rendering of a word taken

from an earlier language (Nephite "deer") into another language

(English "horse" ?) --

 

Beings who attain eternal life, or who rise to higher spiritual

realms, are said to have been "translated." The basic idea given

in a complex physics text can be "translated" into 3rd grade English.

 

So, two, or three, or four participants in a discussion can all be

talking about a "translation process," and really be taking past

one another -- employing different ideas of what "translation" is.

 

If it is taken to mean rendering the meaning of a once extant,

"real" Nephite word into 1820s upstate New York vernacular,

then I'd say that the exposition or argument is doomed to failure.

 

Take the case of Elder Benjamin Winchester, Branch President in

Philadelphia in Dec. 1839, when Joseph Smith organized the LDS

congregation in that eastern city. Winchester was publishing a

magazine called the "Gospel Reflector," which continually defended

a literal reading of what he took to be an authentic "Nephite" text.

 

Winchester wrote an excited letter back to headquarters, in Nauvoo,

saying that he had obtained the Stephens-Catherwood volume with

details on the ancient ruins of Meso-America. Winchester was truly

excited at the discovery. He and Apostle John E. Page published

references to the Central American ruins in the Philadelphia newspapers,

promising to prove, by those discoveries, that the Book of Mormon

was undeniably true...

 

But, what kind of "truth" was involved? Winchester genuinely believed

the Book of Mormon to be an authentic preColumbian text -- and talked

about it in ways impossible for anybody other than a "true believer" to

talk, write and sermonize. He was not "faking it."

 

And yet, later in life, Winchester left the Mormons, at Council Bluffs,

and ventured no farther westward (other than a brief visit) into the

domains of Deseret. His enthusiastic, literal belief in an ancient

Nephite empire in the Americas was strong, but it was also brittle.

It did not stand the test of time. It broke apart.

 

There were, no doubt, other contemporary Mormons, who were just

as intelligent, learned and articulate as Elder Winchester. But they

retained their "testimonies," even in the face of evidence and compelling

explanations contrary to the early, literalistic views championed by such

LDS writers as Benjamin Winchester and Charles B. Thompson.

 

So... "translation process?

 

OK -- just be aware of the fact that the term will mean something different

to me, than it might mean to other students of this subject.

 

UD

[Ahab]

Yes the word translation has more than one meaning, as most if not all other words do. Words are very tricky that way.

[The Nehor]

Solution: Everyone should learn and speak in lojban.

[Robert F. Smith]

I have heard three main explanations for Book of Mormon anachronisms:

1. We simply have not yet found everything the Book of Mormon mentions in the right time period and the right place.

Over time, fewer such anachronisms of every kind have become apparent.  The initial problem was that we did not know enough about the ancient world in 1830.  However, the intervening years have brought a plethora of discoveries and correlations which have allayed many of our imagined concerns.

 

2. Loan Shifting(horses are tapirs, swords are macanas, ect).

People laugh about such notions, but it must be remembered that it was not Sorenson or some horrid apologist who came up with such comparisons, but it was the Maya who actually referred to Spanish horses as "tapirs," and it was the Spanish Conquistadores who referred to the Mesoamerican and Bolivian macanas and macquahuitls as "swords" (with or without obsidian blades).  History is replete with such odd comparisons, e.g., the hippopotamus "river-horse," which is not at all like a normal, equine horse (but we are stuck with the silly Greek name, which we shorten to hippo "horse").

 

3. Anachronisms are products of the translation process.

Am I missing any others? Is there any one best explanation?

Translation always obscures the original intent to some degree -- particularly when the culture is so distant in time and space.

 

One thing which you may have forgotten here is that all cultures and their literature are rife with anachronisms.  Some are due to our ignorance as readers and interpreters, others due to the etiological folktales and archaic traditions of the writers, editors, and tradents (those who pass it on orally or in writing).  Epic myth and primeval history often get mixed in with later annalistic history, and we may tend to swallow the whole "fish tale" without discriminating about which is which.

 

Initially, we thought it odd that Laban and associates would have an Egyptian Vorlage of the Hebrew Bible (Plates of Brass).  The Book of Mormon doesn't explain why, and the Bible gives no hint that such a thing would ever be created or possessed by Israelites.  Yet, only in the past half-century has it become apparent from archeological discoveries, that professional Hebrew scribes of the 7th & 8th centuries B.C. knew and used hieratic Egyptian.

 

Another example:  A very sophisticated Presbyterian minister who specialized in converting Mormons to normative Christianity explained in print how anachronistic it was for the Book of Mormon to predict the birth of Christ exactly 600 years after Lehi left Jerusalem.  The problem being that Lehi left in the first year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah, which began in early 597 B.C.  Jesus could not have been born later than the winter of 5/4 B.C.  No way to squeeze 600 years inside those two limits.  Yet, as John Sorenson pointed out, the time measurement used by the Mesoamericans, the Long Count, used 360-day years, which resulted in exactly the right length of time for that prophecy.  What appeared to have been an anachronism turned out to be an argument in favor of the tight Book of Mormon chronology.  We are often surprised by such discoveries.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[readstoomuch]

Blake Ostler`s 1987 Dialogue article is available online for free.  It is entitled:  The Book of Mormon, A Modern Expansion of an Ancient Document.  It is really overall the best article about the Book of Mormon history/anachronism questions.  It certainly does the best for me personally.  

 

I also like Know Brother Joseph again, which discusses the translation issues of the BOA and BOM.  Written by Karl Sandberg

 

More recently David Bokovoy`s first book about the Old Testament.  There is a chapter about the BOA and BOM.  I like those chapters also.  

 

Terryl Givens discusses some of these articles or thought in his writings.  Not every one likes these articles and that is fine.  They work well for me and give me understanding.  

[Uncle Dale]

...the time measurement used by the Mesoamericans, the Long Count, used 360-day years

...

 

 

Then again, I've heard that some of those old-time rainforest

Indians had their calenders so fine-tuned that they came up

with better results than our modern 365.25 day count -- at

least they were smart enough to figure out repeating cycles

of astonomical events, like solar and lunar eclipse predictions,

thousands of years into the future and the past.

 

Relying exclusively upon a 360 day year would soon have

the spring planting season falling in the middle of summer or

in the middle of winter. So, I think it may be important for us

to realize that their star-gazing priests knew that the actual

solar year was something more than 360 days.

 

Correct?

 

UD

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The first Mormons were not bothered with Nephites saying

"adieu" or riding about in chariots pulled by modern horses.

Those anachronisms were trivial details, when compared to

the restoration of the Priesthood and the One True Church.

 

UD

But Unk,

The Nephites did not say adieu. No one claimed they did. Exept for you, I guess.

 

Carry on.

[Ahab]

But Unk,

The Nephites did not say adieu. No one claimed they did. Exept for you, I guess.

Carry on.

Right. The reformed Egyptian word that Joseph translated into the word adieu that he was familiar with didn't survive the translation process and now we have no idea what that word was. All we know is that the Nephite word meant something very much like adieu.

And when I say we I'm referring to those of us who don't know the reformed Egyptian language, including those who don't even know it was a known language.

[omni]

Then again, I've heard that some of those old-time rainforest

Indians had their calenders so fine-tuned that they came up

with better results than our modern 365.25 day count -- at

least they were smart enough to figure out repeating cycles

of astonomical events, like solar and lunar eclipse predictions,

thousands of years into the future and the past.

Relying exclusively upon a 360 day year would soon have

the spring planting season falling in the middle of summer or

in the middle of winter. So, I think it may be important for us

to realize that their star-gazing priests knew that the actual

solar year was something more than 360 days.

Correct?

UD

I think a more important question is why would Lehi and his family be using a Mesoamerican calendar?

[Uncle Dale]

But Unk,

The Nephites did not say adieu. No one claimed they did. Exept for you, I guess.

 

Carry on.

 

 

Well, I'm glad to hear that they did not know any French.

One less worry to load my over-burdened mind.

 

Next item on the agenda, an expedition with Harrison Ford,

to dig up the lost ruins of Helorum in Sicily (I already found

Zarahemla -- that forgotten spot was in Lee County, Iowa).

 

UD

[Uncle Dale]

....the Nephite word meant something very much like adieu.

 

 

 

 

 

"Vaya con Eloheim," mayhap?

 

UD

Edited December 31, 2014 by Uncle Dale

[Uncle Dale]

I think a more important question is why would Lehi and his family be using a Mesoamerican calendar?

 

 

That's what you get, when you disobey and "mingle your seed"

with those cursed Lamanites.

 

That, and maize.

At least they didn't take up using Lamanite tobacco.

 

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

Then again, I've heard that some of those old-time rainforest

Indians had their calenders so fine-tuned that they came up

with better results than our modern 365.25 day count -- at

least they were smart enough to figure out repeating cycles

of astonomical events, like solar and lunar eclipse predictions,

thousands of years into the future and the past.

Correct.  Beginning with the Olmec (Jaredites), who developed the sophisticated calendars used by all later Mesoamericans, the peoples of the region had excellent mathematicians and astronomers, and kept excellent records. 

They did eventually come up with more exact calendars than anywhere else in the world before the modern era.  However, emphasis needs to be put on the plural, calendars, since they ran nearly a dozen simultaneous calendars.

 

Relying exclusively upon a 360 day year would soon have

the spring planting season falling in the middle of summer or

in the middle of winter. So, I think it may be important for us

to realize that their star-gazing priests knew that the actual

solar year was something more than 360 days.

 

Correct?

You miss the main point, Uncle Dale, which is plural calendars.  Like the ancient Egyptians, they had an agricultural calendar which followed the annual seasons, but they had a variety of other calendars which followed planetary, lunar, and other cycles.  They used their 360-day calendar (the "Long Count") for long blocks of time in sequence.  And they used such dates on their monuments in vigesimal place-value notation, e.g., the 32nd eclipse station in a table in the Mayan Dresden Codex is dated to 13 Ahau 9.17.0.0.0 (= Gregorian Jan 24, 771 A.D.), when an eclipse was actually visible in the Yucatán – an eclipse coinciding with the katun ending, and hence recorded on Quirigua Stele E and in the Mayan Paris Codex.

 

We are certain about the way in which European and Mayan calendars are correlated, and hence know exactly the European date for any Long Count date -- see “Maya Long Count Calendar Calibrated to Modern European Calendar Using Carbon-14 Dating,” ScienceDaily.com,. Apr 11, 2013, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130411194926.htm  .

 

Here are some typical Mesoamerican counts and cycles:

 

days.......................................... Mayan.............................. Aztec........................English

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1...................................................................kin “sun” ........................................tonalli...................................     day

[5] ...............................................................[uayeb.........................................   nemontemi.....................intercalary days]

13........................................................................................................................ (trecena)

18

20 ...............................................................uinal..............................................   (veintena)..........................month, "man"

 ....................................................................u .............................................         meztli ..............................month, "moon"

260 (13x20= 5x52)   ................................tzol kin..........................................   tonalpohualli.................  Sacred Round

360 (18x20)   ............................................tun“stone”...Long Count..............  metzlipohualli..................."moon-count"

365 (18x20+5) ...........................................haab .........................................     xíhuitl ..........................     vague solar year

584                    Venus cycle

780 (3x260)     Mars cycle

819 (7x9x13)

1800 (5x360)   ...........................................hotun

2920 (5x584= 8x365)

3600 (10x360= ½ katun)  ........................ lahuntun

5400 (15x360) ...........................................holahuntun

7200 (20x360) ...........................................katun

18980 (52x365= 73x260)   ......................hunab.......................................... xiuhmolpilli .................  Calendar Round

37960 (2x52x365= 65x584)     ......................................................................huehuetiliztli......................... Great Cycle

93600 (13x20x360)   ...............................may (13 katuns)    .....................................................................Short Count

144000 (400x360)   .................................baktun (20 katuns)

550420 (29x18,980= 1,508  365-day years= 1,507 tropical years)

1872000 (13x144000) (13 baktuns)     Mayan Era

2880000 (8000x360)   ............................pictun    ...360 "loads" (cacao)

57600000 (160000x360)   .....................calabtun     20x360 "loads"

1152000000   ..........................................kinchiltun (tzotzceh)     360 calabtuns

2.304x1010   ............................................alautun     64,000,000 tuns

 

Edited December 31, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Uncle Dale]

Correct.  Beginning with the Olmec (Jaredites), who developed the sophisticated calendars...

 

 

 

"Hi, guys -- my name is Coriantumr and I'll probably only live for

another moon, or two -- but I have this calendar that I'd like to

give you, oh sons of Mulek..."

 

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

"Hi, guys -- my name is Coriantumr and I'll probably only live for

another moon, or two -- but I have this calendar that I'd like to

give you, oh sons of Mulek..."

 

UD

We don't now whether the Mulekites (people of Zarahemla) adopted any calendar from Coriantumr.  Their counting by moon would be normal for any people in the Americas.  Their lack of records and lack of sophistication in other areas would likely preclude them from calendric knowledge of the deep kind already possessed by nearly all Mesoamerican peoples.  The Olmec (Jaredites) had long since passed on their knowledge centuries earlier, and we have their Long Count inscriptions.

 

Moreover, we don't know what happened to Coriantumr at the end of his stay.  He may have died, or moved on.  The text makes it clear that his people were not all wiped out.  That was simply hyperbole.  However, Olmec-Jaredite civilization had come to an end.

[omni]

We don't now whether the Mulekites (people of Zarahemla) adopted any calendar from Coriantumr.  Their counting by moon would be normal for any people in the Americas.  Their lack of records and lack of sophistication in other areas would likely preclude them from calendric knowledge of the deep kind already possessed by nearly all Mesoamerican peoples.  The Olmec (Jaredites) had long since passed on their knowledge centuries earlier, and we have their Long Count inscriptions.

 

Moreover, we don't know what happened to Coriantumr at the end of his stay.  He may have died, or moved on.  The text makes it clear that his people were not all wiped out.  That was simply hyperbole.  However, Olmec-Jaredite civilization had come to an end.

Why do you believe Nephi would be using a Mesoamerican calendar rather than the one he and his family were raised using?

[Uncle Dale]

Why do you believe Nephi would be using a Mesoamerican calendar rather than the one he and his family were raised using?

 

 

I'm trying to get this supposed chronology straight in my own mind,

(if I may add a word or two here) in order to better understand things.

 

Noah leaves North America in a big boat, just before the entire earth

is inundated with the waters of the deep and the waters of the firmament,

reducing the western hemisphere continent to a muddy mess.

 

About the time things had dried up enough to again support life, the

Jaredites arrive -- bringing with them a 360-day calendar (if I understand

the argument correctly). It becomes one of their several calendars, and

they call themselves Olmecs (or somebody eventually calls them that).

 

The Lehites and Mulekites adopt one of the many Olmec calendars --

perhaps because of Divine commandment (or at least approval), such

that it can be quoted in the sacred records and still be kosher.

 

Then, at some indefinite point, after the Golden Age of Peace mentioned

in 4th Nephi, the American Indians begin crossing over from Siberia, and

end the age of Universal Christianity, when in all of the face of the land

there were no other "ites" than the blessed Nephites.

 

Eventually these Siberians migrate down into MesoAmerica, killing off

(or displacing) those descendants of the Olmec who survived the time

of Coriantumr. The last of the Nephites get exterminated, and these

sons of Siberia adopt the Olmec calendar(s), once used by the Jaredites

and Nephites (r.i.p.)

 

Thus, the first advent of Jesus the Son of Mary is prophesied in accord

with the Jaredite (Olmec) calendar, which is kosher for recording events

of a sacred nature -- not having been derived by heathen Siberians, but

by the Chosen People of the Land of Promise, ere the Aztecs, Navajos,

and others of their ilk ever took up residence in the Inheritance of Joseph.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

UD

[omni]

I'm trying to get this supposed chronology straight in my own mind,

(if I may add a word or two here) in order to better understand things.

 

Noah leaves North America in a big boat, just before the entire earth

is inundated with the waters of the deep and the waters of the firmament,

reducing the western hemisphere continent to a muddy mess.

 

About the time things had dried up enough to again support life, the

Jaredites arrive -- bringing with them a 360-day calendar (if I understand

the argument correctly). It becomes one of their several calendars, and

they call themselves Olmecs (or somebody eventually calls them that).

 

The Lehites and Mulekites adopt one of the many Olmec calendars --

perhaps because of Divine commandment (or at least approval), such

that it can be quoted in the sacred records and still be kosher.

 

Then, at some indefinite point, after the Golden Age of Peace mentioned

in 4th Nephi, the American Indians begin crossing over from Siberia, and

end the age of Universal Christianity, when in all of the face of the land

there were no other "ites" than the blessed Nephites.

 

Eventually these Siberians migrate down into MesoAmerica, killing off

(or displacing) those descendants of the Olmec who survived the time

of Coriantumr. The last of the Nephites get exterminated, and these

sons of Siberia adopt the Olmec calendar(s), once used by the Jaredites

and Nephites (r.i.p.)

 

Thus, the first advent of Jesus the Son of Mary is prophesied in accord

with the Jaredite (Olmec) calendar, which is kosher for recording events

of a sacred nature -- not having been derived by heathen Siberians, but

by the Chosen People of the Land of Promise, ere the Aztecs, Navajos,

and others of their ilk ever took up residence in the Inheritance of Joseph.

 

Did I miss anything?

 

UD

Or Joseph miscalculated the first year of the reign of King Zedekiah. It's a toss up I know.

[Uncle Dale]

Or Joseph miscalculated the first year of the reign of King Zedekiah. It's a toss up I know.

 

A really detailed explication of what was going on in the

"Land of Jerusalem" during the very first stages of the

Babylonian Captivity provides a complex scenario of events.

 

Things back then were not so simple as the writers of

18th century biblical commentaries tried to portray -- so,

anybody relying upon Clarke's Commentary, c. 1827-28,

would not have at hand the knowledge we now possess,

regarding the multiple foreign incursions into Palestine;

the reigns of various rulers; the actual fate of the temple

and the walls of the city, etc.

 

If I understand correctly, Laban would have already been

living under foreign domination (if not actual foreign rule)

at the time Nephi murdered him -- and Jerusalem was not

fated to see an eventual "fall" -- the evolving "fall" was

already an event-in-progress.

 

Oh well...

 

UD