Michael Sanders Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 While I acknowledge the likelihood of "others" being present in the new worlds before, during, and after the timeframe of the Nephites - I don't think Sherem was one of them: Who Was Sherem? Mike Sanders Book of Mormon Believer Independence, MO
cdowis Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 3 hours ago, theplains said: From this speech, it appears the land was void of other nations. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/marion-g-romney_americas-fate-ultimate-destiny/ No, it appears that he thought it was empty and clearly he was mistaken.
PeterPear Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 On 4/6/2016 at 8:45 AM, Kevin Christensen said: There is no such thing as a "straight-forward" reading. You can read with an awareness of your background ideological expectations, or not. If you are aware of the critical implications of an assumption that there was no one here, or with an awareness that that is just an assumption. When I read with the notion that archeology says that there were people here, and contextualize with that in mind, I immediately saw all sorts of things and have published my findings. I was not the first. Nibley went into that in Since Cumorah. And Matt Roper has been good at showing that there were many LDS readers who did allow for others being around, not the least of whom was Joseph Smith. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1457&index=7 Sorenson and Roper: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1402&index=2 Sorenson in JBMS 1 http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1378&index=2 Brant Gardner at FAIR http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2001-fair-conference/2001-a-social-history-of-the-early-nephites Nibley in Since Cumorah and published serially in the Improvement Era in the Early 60s: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1113&index=10 From yours truly in Paradigms Crossed in RBBM 7/2 in 1995. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1436&index=8 For starters. Note that the generalization about LDS teaching for 180s is an inaccurate overgeneralization. One key example, among several cited in Roper: FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA It's laughable how Kevin Christensen quotes as an authority for the "Others" claim, the very people who started the "Others" claim. Yup. That's reliable. The "Others" claim only began when the LDS Mesoamericanistas self-anointed Apologists who started F.A.R.M.S. with the sole intent of proving and convincing others (no pun intended) that Mesoamerica was the location for the Book of Mormon in the Promised Land failed - when they fianlly realized the Maya were not the Nephites. Oops! We goofed! Quick! Find the "Others" in The Book of Mormon so we can continue to promote our LTD Mesoamerica Theory! We invested too much of our time and pride to abandon it now! Then they wrote articles quoting each other as authorities - as Kevin Christensen is now continuing to do. Yubba Yub Yibby! Poster removed
Rajah Manchou Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 31 minutes ago, PeterPear said: It's laughable how Kevin Christensen quotes as an authority for the "Others" claim, the very people who started the "Others" claim. Yup. That's reliable. The "Others" claim only began when the LDS Mesoamericanistas self-anointed Apologists who started F.A.R.M.S. with the sole intent of proving and convincing others (no pun intended) that Mesoamerica was the location for the Book of Mormon in the Promised Land failed - when they fianlly realized the Maya were not the Nephites. Oops! We goofed! Quick! Find the "Others" in The Book of Mormon so we can continue to promote our LTD Mesoamerica Theory! We invested too much of our time and pride to abandon it now! Then they wrote articles quoting each other as authorities - as Kevin Christensen is now continuing to do. Yubba Yub Yibby! Honest question. How does the Heartland Model explain the presence of other populations that were not Nephites within the New World?
morgan.deane Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 Kevin C and others have already done a very good job of describing some of the problems with adopting your "straight" forward reading and then comparing it to the supposedly twisting and strained reading of apologists. Leaving that aside, my research focuses a great deal on military conflict and the Gadianton Robbers within the text. I focus on insurgency in my secular academic studies, and have done some ground breaking research on Mao Zedong's early insurgency. http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2015/01/research-grant-long-road-to-long-march.html My first book on the BoM, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents: Ancient Warfare in the Book of Mormon, (http://www.amazon.com/Bleached-Bones-Wicked-Serpents-Ancient/dp/1456622862/ref=as_sl_pc_ss_til?tag=legsavnin-20&linkCode=w01&linkId=DFU3R5J6R56UAF4L&creativeASIN=1456622862) includes some great analysis of the Gadianton Robbers. (If I can say so myself.) The text has many clues that we can use. Based on weakening political control of the Nephites, impotency of the Nephite military, the type of language used to describe the robbers, and their role within the text, I find that they represent the description of ethnic others very well. This reading has only been enhanced through an extensive study of insurgencies. Including the one above I've studied the early medieval period of Europe and the Chinese period of disunion and I'm even more convinced my reading is correct. In short then, my plain straight forward reading of the text sees them in a variety of places without much effort. I'd love to offer more detail but I have to run out the door right now. Thanks. 3
RevTestament Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 13 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: A straight forward reading of the Book of Mormon infers an America left untouched by the hand of mankind, a land set aside by God for His chosen people the Jaredite party who first arrived in the Americas. Following an epic final battle of certainly historic consequences, America [land of promise] was once again left devoid of human population with the exception of a single Jaredite survivor in preparation for the arrival of the Lehite party. One good assumption deserves another... The Book of Mormon never infers the land of promise is all the American continent. That is like saying the Jewish promise land is Asia because Jerusalem was in Asia. BTW when Joseph Smith said "west" he meant Ohio and Illinois as did everyone else in his day. The land of the BoM was obviously small, as the armies would travel a few days here and a few days there to battle. To infer a couple hundred thousand Nephites covered the whole continent based on the BoM really is a stretch imho.
cdowis Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 2 hours ago, PeterPear said: The "Others" claim only began when the LDS Mesoamericanistas self-anointed Apologists who started F.A.R.M.S. with the sole intent of proving and convincing others (no pun intended) that Mesoamerica was the location for the Book of Mormon in the Promised Land failed - when they fianlly realized the Maya were not the Nephites. I already told you. The "others" claim began for me when an antiMormon pointed out the problem of an forest ox, which is clearly a domesticated animal, when Lehi first landed. He thought that it was very funny. I then noticed the phrase "goat and wild goat", clearly implying the domesticated goat. The "others" came from a straight forward reading of the Book of Mormon text, regardless of the geographic model. Of course this does not fit your agenda, so you will simply brush it off, but the BOM clearly tells us that there were others there who had domesticated animals when Lehi landed. 2
Maedros Posted April 7, 2016 Posted April 7, 2016 23 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: A straight forward reading of the Book of Mormon infers an America left untouched by the hand of mankind, a land set aside by God for His chosen people the Jaredite party who first arrived in the Americas. Following an epic final battle of certainly historic consequences, America was once again left devoid of human population with the exception of a single Jaredite survivor in preparation for the arrival of the Lehite party. For nearly 180 years this unpopulated America perspective was the dominant viewpoint held by a majority of the membership of the church, one supported by countless conference addresses by church general authorizes and even supported in the books introduction. This viewpoint supported by the direct reading of the Book of Mormon and the addresses of General Authorities faced little challenge until the advance of molecular science and the emergence of DNA as a tool to trace the spread of the human family out of Africa through DNA. This new science posed a direct scientific conflict with the truth claims of the Book of Mormon and its claim of being the history of a band of Israelite people who first populated the America’s and from whom the native populations descended. Faced with this problem, Mormon apologists began to adopt a minority viewpoint and promote it slowly into the conversations of the believing majority…that not only had the Americas been populated when these various Israelite migrations occurred but that the Book of Mormon itself, speaks of these “Others” and is in complete harmony with the scientific findings. The Mormon equivalent of the virtual rabbit out of the hat trick. I have personally read the Book of Mormon cover to cover numerous times throughout my life and have yet to find this claimed solid evidence confirming the existence of “others”. While I’m sure something is there, I’m of the opinion that it requires some kind of Jedi mental mind trick in order to accept it as credible. The book does not give name to these “others” other than perhaps to offer inference, innuendo, speculation or assumptive insinuations. While I understand the need now, in light of reality, to show believers that the book has always inferred “Others” I would like to see for myself the strength of this argument…so where exactly are the “Others” claim to have always existed within the pages of the book of Mormon and how strong is this claim. I thank you in advance for your time and consideration. I never believed that Coriantumr was the last surviving Jaredite or that every single Jaredite fought in the war - that is highly unlikely. Coriantumr was the last Jaredite descendent from the line of Jared and his brother but not necessarily the last of that people - you must remember they brought 'friends' with them as well. Also, the Lord has a pattern of leading people away, so I would say that He lead away (most likely) some of the Jaredites to other parts of the Americas like Chile - there's no doubt in my mind that the Inca's were an offshoot of either the Nephites or Jaredites or a whole other group all together. These things don't need to be proved by science; also, the BoM doesn't contain everything; the Lord said: 6 Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews? 7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? 8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of twonations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. 9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am thesame yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. 10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written. 11 For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written. 12 For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it. 13 And it shall come to pass that the Jews shall have the words of the Nephites, and the Nephites shall have the words of the Jews; and the Nephites and the Jews shall have the words of the lost tribes of Israel; and the lost tribes of Israel shall have the words of the Nephites and the Jews. 14 And it shall come to pass that my people, which are of the house of Israel, shall be gathered home unto the lands of their possessions; and my word also shall be gathered in one. And I will show unto them that fight against my word and against my people, who are of the house of Israel, that I am God, and that I covenanted with Abraham that I would remember his seed forever. 2
JAHS Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 Dan Peterson offers another (somewhat weak in my opinion) evidence of "others" being there besides the Nephites and Lamanites "Among other things, Mosiah 25 is interesting for what it tells us about the demographics of the Book of Mormon peoples. For example, we learn from verses two and three that the descendants of Mulek outnumbered the people of Nephi, but that, even taken together, the Nephites and Mulekites were less than half as numerous as the Lamanites. Which allows us to deduce that the Nephites proper were outnumbered more than four to one by the Lamanites. Which, in turn, strongly suggests, since the Lamanites began as a group not significantly larger than the Nephites, that the Lamanites, too, had most likely merged with other peoples, just as the Nephites had. (We simply don’t have a solid history of the Lamanites.) And, by the way, this is turn strongly implies the presence of other peoples in the Americas who go unmentioned in the Nephite record. From verse four, we can probably safely infer that the division between Nephites and Mulekites persisted under King Mosiah. In verses 19-23, we sense that the combined Nephite/Mulekite population is still fairly small, because, for the first time, they have to divide the group up so that everybody can hear the unamplified teaching of the priests. Even so, however, only seven sub-units are formed. We can’t know exactly how big they are, but, knowing the limits of the human voice, we can comfortably assume that they aren’t enormous." http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2016/04/bom-mosiah-25.html 1
JarMan Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 Nephi never mentions other people during the eight years they spent on the Arabian peninsula either. But there obviously had to be others there. Also, the whole struggle with polygamy in Jacob doesn't make sense unless there are others. Nor do the wars Nephi mentions.
JarMan Posted April 10, 2016 Posted April 10, 2016 On April 7, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Michael Sanders said: While I acknowledge the likelihood of "others" being present in the new worlds before, during, and after the timeframe of the Nephites - I don't think Sherem was one of them: Who Was Sherem? Mike Sanders Book of Mormon Believer Independence, MO Interesting and compelling article. But it doesn't adequately address the primary reason the whole story is suggestive of others. Jacob apparently had never met Sherem, which would have been unlikely in a community consisting only of family members. One possibility is that Sherem was a grandson or even a great grandson of Zoram but was of mixed ancestry being also descended from the "others."
Rajah Manchou Posted April 10, 2016 Posted April 10, 2016 I've wondered why Zeniff, like Sherem, needs to clarify that he speaks the Nephite language.I, Zeniff, having been taught in all the language of the Nephites, and having had a knowledge of the land of Nephi, or of the land of our fathers’ first inheritance, and having been sent as a spy among the Lamanites that I might spy out their forces, that our army might come upon them and destroy them—but when I saw that which was good among them I was desirous that they should not be destroyed. Zeniff was a Nephite, why would he not speak all the language of the Nephites? Makes me think that there are different forms of the Nephite language, one northern "Zarahemla" dialect and one southern dialect spoken by??? why does Zeniff say that speaking Nephite somehow contributed to his role as a spy in the land of first inheritance? Were there still Nephites down there? 1
theplains Posted April 10, 2016 Posted April 10, 2016 On 07/04/2016 at 10:03 PM, cdowis said: No, it appears that he thought it was empty and clearly he was mistaken. In the same speech, he also said "America received her first consecration as a favored land when the Lord planted here the Garden of Eden as a habitation for Adam and Eve. A thousand years later Enoch’s Zion flourished here. And then some six hundred years thereafter this land was deluged by the Flood and left uninhabited, so far as human beings were concerned,..." Is he also mistaken here? Thanks, Jim 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2016 Posted April 10, 2016 1 hour ago, theplains said: In the same speech, he also said "America received her first consecration as a favored land when the Lord planted here the Garden of Eden as a habitation for Adam and Eve. A thousand years later Enoch’s Zion flourished here. And then some six hundred years thereafter this land was deluged by the Flood and left uninhabited, so far as human beings were concerned,..." Is he also mistaken here? Thanks, Jim We allow mortals to have incorrect ideas.
cdowis Posted April 10, 2016 Posted April 10, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, theplains said: In the same speech, he also said "America received her first consecration as a favored land when the Lord planted here the Garden of Eden as a habitation for Adam and Eve. A thousand years later Enoch’s Zion flourished here. And then some six hundred years thereafter this land was deluged by the Flood and left uninhabited, so far as human beings were concerned,..." Is he also mistaken here? I understand the difference between doctrinal issues and issues which are based on factual research, and investigation. This was an expression of his opinion which was not based on doctrine, so, as a factual issue, he was mistaken. Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency(the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, theDoctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine Edited April 10, 2016 by cdowis
cdowis Posted April 10, 2016 Posted April 10, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: why does Zeniff say that speaking Nephite somehow contributed to his role as a spy in the land of first inheritance? Were there still Nephites down there? That was precisely what he was trying to ascertain. Remember that Mosiah and a number of the Nephites left this land because of the Nephite's wickedness, and came into Zarahemla. They "were anxious" to find out what happened to those they had left behind. Edited April 10, 2016 by cdowis
cinepro Posted April 10, 2016 Posted April 10, 2016 4 hours ago, cdowis said: I understand the difference between doctrinal issues and issues which are based on factual research, and investigation. This was an expression of his opinion which was not based on doctrine, so, as a factual issue, he was mistaken. Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency(the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, theDoctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine The idea that the land was totally uninhabited when the Jaredites arrived, and that only the Jaredites, Mulekites and Lehites were on the land during Book of Mormon times, has been consistently proclaimed in official Church publications, and is found in the standard works. These are not isolated statements.
cdowis Posted April 11, 2016 Posted April 11, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, cinepro said: The idea that the land was totally uninhabited when the Jaredites arrived, and that only the Jaredites, Mulekites and Lehites were on the land during Book of Mormon times, has been consistently proclaimed in official Church publications, and is found in the standard works. These are not isolated statements. "The prophet has spoken and the thinking has been done." Basically you are telling us that this is based on direct revelation, a settled doctrinal issue, official doctrine of the LDS church. I am speechless except to say that you appear to be satisfied , indeed to rejoice that you have proven that the church leaders are false prophets, with no recourse to common sense. "The prophet has spoken and the thinking has been done." Edited April 11, 2016 by cdowis
cinepro Posted April 11, 2016 Posted April 11, 2016 32 minutes ago, cdowis said: "The prophet has spoken and the thinking has been done." Basically you are telling us that this is based on direct revelation, a settled doctrinal issue, official doctrine of the LDS church. I am speechless except to say that you appear to be satisfied , indeed to rejoice that you have proven that the church leaders are false prophets, with no recourse to common sense. "The prophet has spoken and the thinking has been done." No, I'm just telling you that according to the criteria you posted, there is a strong argument for the issue being based on doctrine.
cdowis Posted April 11, 2016 Posted April 11, 2016 (edited) Huh? Your lips are moving but I don't understand what you are saying. Edited April 11, 2016 by cdowis
Recommended Posts