Nephite research - and the source(s)

[probablyHagoth7]

I'd like to share/discuss something I have waited a long time to address. About a decade ago, I started to make public several things regarding Nephites in Europe. The feedback has been very helpful.

One complaint that was repeated a few times was that the scholarship was poor...in large part decrying the lack of footnotes. I nodded each time, and intentionally let that complaint sit quietly. (I am generally a fan of footnotes.) Time for an initial response to that feedback. Here goes:  http://www.candlestickstudio.com/Footnotes.html

 

Those who have read the [initial] response referenced above:

• For those of you who appreciate the non-annotated version of the Book of Mormon, and/or who gravitate towards non-annotated books, what's your take on the value vs. distraction of source footnotes?
• Ditto please for those who believe that documentation should be the/a primary concern. 

Edited May 23, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

For clarity, this thread is not a discussion of the research/premise itself, but is instead focused on weighing the relative value of a message, compared to the corroborating value of sources, compared to the importance of the *source* of the message, especially when assessing something for the first time. 

Edited May 23, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[cinepro]

Just so I'm clear, are you asking about the value of sources when making a claim?  Obviously it depends on the nature of the claim and who is making it.

If someone tells me that the Giants won the Super Bowl in 1987, I might be willing to take their word for it. 

If they also tell me that they are sure there were horses living on the moon 1,000 years ago, I might ask for a source or two.

[probablyHagoth7]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

Just so I'm clear, are you asking about the value of sources when making a claim?  Obviously it depends on the nature of the claim and who is making it.

Understood. It also depends on the nature of the observer.

We're all wired differently, so we approach and process things differently.

If someone tells me that the Giants won the Super Bowl in 1987, I might be willing to take their word for it. 

If they also tell me that they are sure there were horses living on the moon 1,000 years ago, I might ask for a source or two.

Agreed. 

This touches upon a brief exchange we had a few days ago, about the truth or falsehood of something being largely independent of the number of evidences arrayed for or against it. Doesn't matter how many or how few secular sources we cite. The weight of evidence doesn't budge the scale of truth one iota.

All it might budge is our perception/assessment of it. So what't the right level of citation to provide, by default?

As suggested above, the answer hinges largely on who you deem to be your *initial* audience.

A recent talk discussed the diminishing returns of repeated lawn mowing. More to the point, with sources, more [mowing] can actually detract from the outcome. Because some find citing sources to be distracting from the message itself, and they feel equipped to assess the truth or error of a message minus any secular scaffolding. So when it comes to external citations, that extra yardwork *can* detract from some people's experience of taking in the view - just as the Book of Mormon was effective with many for gaining a living testimony long before cross references and aids  were added.

That's basically what I was trying to say. Thoughts?

(And no, I'm not at all denouncing the value that such cross references have for *study*.)

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

 More to the point, with sources, more [mowing] can actually detract from the outcome. Because some find citing sources to be distracting from the message itself, and they feel equipped to assess the truth or error of a message minus any secular scaffolding. So when it comes to external citations, that extra yardwork *can* detract from some people's experience of taking in the view - just as the Book of Mormon was effective with many for gaining a living testimony long before cross references and aids  were added.

While there could be some theoretical "detraction" from having "too many sources", the risk of baloney is too great.  You can certainly write anything you want, but don't complain if no one believes you if you make an unusual claim (as they shouldn't).

[theplains]

6 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

I'd like to share/discuss something I have waited a long time to address. About a decade ago, I started to make public several things regarding Nephites in Europe. The feedback has been very helpful.

How can you tell the difference between people in Europe who are Nephites and those who are not? A similar
question for the Native American Indians in America. The Doctrine and Covenants makes several references
to the Lamanites in the early beginnings of the LDS Church. Did the LDS leadership consider all the Native
American Indians the Lamanites or were they able to tell the difference between an Indian who was a Lamanite
and an Indian who was not?

Thanks,
Jim

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

While there could be some theoretical "detraction" from having "too many sources", the risk of baloney is too great.

The risk is too great for what? For most people to be able to discern what is true and what isn't, without a secular scaffolding?

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

...but don't complain if no one believes you if you make an unusual claim (as they shouldn't).

The point wasn't to complain. Was that perceived as the intent of the OP? 

 

More to what the point actually is, I don't follow your assertion that people should disbelieve a claim simply *because* it happens to be unusual. (Or did I misunderstand you?) 

Even closer to the point, there are a number of unusual claims that have little (or no) secular scaffolding. *Many* of which are true. And it wouldn't matter what mountain of evidence surfaced.  Even though one rose from the dead, some will *not* believe. While some will without *any* visible/tangible evidence. Others require varying degrees of evidence before desiring or becoming willing to believe.

So the point isn't whether one believes something. Isn't the point more whether something is true/useful - and how one reliably comes to determine that?

Edited May 24, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

I'd like to share/discuss something I have waited a long time to address. About a decade ago, I started to make public several things regarding Nephites in Europe. The feedback has been very helpful.

One complaint that was repeated a few times was that the scholarship was poor...in large part decrying the lack of footnotes. I nodded each time, and intentionally let that complaint sit quietly. (I am generally a fan of footnotes.) Time for an initial response to that feedback. Here goes:  http://www.candlestickstudio.com/Footnotes.html

Those who have read the [initial] response referenced above:

• For those of you who appreciate the non-annotated version of the Book of Mormon, and/or who gravitate towards non-annotated books, what's your take on the value vs. distraction of source footnotes?
• Ditto please for those who believe that documentation should be the/a primary concern. 

Documentation is never a primary concern, nor should it be a distraction.  Extraordinary claims demand hard evidence, and that is often provided in footnotes.  The notes do not need to be at the bottom of the page.  If it seems a distraction, then relegate the footnotes to the end of the document, the way Interpreter does.  Those who are interested in the notes can look at them.  Those who don't want to be bothered just don't need to look.

Your research report need not be peer reviewed, but the material cited in the footnotes should be.  That is the only sure way to validate the claims made in the research report.  Think of it like going into court and presenting evidence to a jury.  Are you presenting hard evidence, or merely opinion and speculation?  Merely citing Caesar's Gallic War (which I read in second year Latin class in High School) is not enough.  One must cite particular passages, along with learned interpretation by scholars who agree with the interpretation being claimed in the research report.

[probablyHagoth7]

15 hours ago, theplains said:

How can you tell the difference between people in Europe who are Nephites and those who are not?

The either/or paradigm isn't all that productive. (Most people of European descent are some variant of Heinz 57.) Nor do I think most need to know, especially at this time, every detail of thousands of years of one's own family history.

That's in part because actual ancestry doesn't matter in the eternal scope of things quite as much as some might make of it, because those who believe *become* Lehi's seed, according to the Book of Mormon. 

We are all fellowcitizens, and can draw strength from the best parts of one another's heritage.

15 hours ago, theplains said:

A similar question for the Native American Indians in America. The Doctrine and Covenants makes several references
to the Lamanites in the early beginnings of the LDS Church. Did the LDS leadership consider all the Native
American Indians the Lamanites or were they able to tell the difference between an Indian who was a Lamanite
and an Indian who was not?

That would be between you and God and them. You can obviously ask God now, or ask them when you see them.  With the latter option, you just might be told something similar to what I've suggested in response to your Nephite question.

15 hours ago, theplains said:

Thanks

You're very welcome. :0)

Your posts suggest you are of First Nations / Native American heritage. Is that accurate? 

Edited May 24, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[RevTestament]

12 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

I'd like to share/discuss something I have waited a long time to address. About a decade ago, I started to make public several things regarding Nephites in Europe. The feedback has been very helpful.

One complaint that was repeated a few times was that the scholarship was poor...in large part decrying the lack of footnotes. I nodded each time, and intentionally let that complaint sit quietly. (I am generally a fan of footnotes.) Time for an initial response to that feedback. Here goes:  http://www.candlestickstudio.com/Footnotes.html

 

Those who have read the [initial] response referenced above:

• For those of you who appreciate the non-annotated version of the Book of Mormon, and/or who gravitate towards non-annotated books, what's your take on the value vs. distraction of source footnotes?
• Ditto please for those who believe that documentation should be the/a primary concern. 

My honest assessment is that extraordinary claims like that need at least bibliography/sources to be taken credibly since it's an apparently an archaeological claim. I disagree with Robert that they need to be peer-reviewed sources. If you have those, they will probably be your primary sources, but if you have nothing else for a particular point, I would not hesitate to use a non-peer reviewed source. Obviously, I would try to use the most credible sources. If you don't want footnotes clogging up your pages, I suggest using endnotes.

I know you are not asking for this opinion, but even with sources I am not going to believe that Nephites were in Europe. However, I might believe Hebrews were in Europe, and actually, I do believe that. I further believe they left a trail of Haplogroup X mt-DNA as they traveled with the 10 Teutonic tribes around Europe and N. Africa conquering pieces of the Roman Empire. That DNA is still found in these Western European countries at rates from 1-5% of the population.

I will also take this opportunity to tell you that I will be self-publishing my own assessment of Nephite civilization, and it will contain copious notes, and bibliography. Otherwise, I feel readers would be hopelessly lost, and probably dismissive of my efforts. If I am going to go through all that work, I want to document it for the reader. I also feel that I should credit the many people who put in many hours to find the information I am using - even if they don't want that credit. If I understand what you are saying, not to list sources I feel is akin to plagiarizing, which I don't want to get labelled with.

[RevTestament]

ProbablyHagoth7 - just an fyi - on my pdf reader what it calls p. 53 has some incomplete paragraphs with sentences that are chopped off midstream. These are just above your section entitled "Colonial Numbers" on the same page. 

Thanks for the read. I find the history of the Teutons interesting - unfortunately what little history we have of them seems to come almost strictly from the Romans.

[probablyHagoth7]

 

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Extraordinary claims demand hard evidence...

For some people, yes. For others, no. 

In a forum where almost everyone is somewhat familiar with the Book of Mormon, there's nothing really *extraordinary* about ancient Nephite migrations (by land or by sea), or about an ancient Nephite diaspora. 

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The notes do not need to be at the bottom of the page.  If it seems a distraction, then relegate the footnotes to the end of the document, the way Interpreter does.  Those who are interested in the notes can look at them.  Those who don't want to be bothered just don't need to look.

I will likely continue to add another note (or occasional chord) for such an audience.   

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your research report need not be peer reviewed, but the material cited in the footnotes should be.  That is the only sure way to validate the claims made in the research report.  

It is *not* the only way. Nor is it a sure way. 

And of course you know that, as do most here. People can read the exact same citation(s) and arrive at different interpretations. Because of that, neither a mountain of evidence nor a mountain of agreement proves a thing.

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Merely citing Caesar's Gallic War...is not enough.

What  *would* be deemed enough?...to accomplish *what*?....to whose satisfaction?  (Caesar was called to the stand in part because his record *is* one of the most widely read Roman accounts.)

[probablyHagoth7]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

...cite particular passages, along with learned interpretation by scholars who agree with the interpretation being claimed in the research report.

?! While I have respect for the work that scholars do, I do *not* concede this issue to the domain of scholars. That they'll have worthwhile input to consider, yes please. But the premise that they are self-appointed umpires of such things runs *directly* contrary to the OP.  We can all take our seat (or stand) cozily in the peanut gallery together (or any reader can opt to sit in a scholar seat, if they wish), because this issue can be easily understood, pondered, and assessed by everyman/woman/child. 

To proceed with plainness, how about we all start with a few straightforward facts, from sources that any typical reader from elementary school on up can view and consider?

1.  According to Nephite reckoning , during which year of the reign of the judges did Hagoth's first ship of emigrants sail out of Nephite history?

2. According to Nephite reckoning, during which year of the reign of the judges was Christ born?

3. Simple math (#2 minus #1): how many years before Christ's birth did Hagoth's first ship sail out of Nephite history? 

Now, to convert the timing for the start of the Nephite exodus to modern Western reckoning:

4. According to the NT, Jesus's birth, and the later visit of the wiseman to "the young child" both occurred during whose reign?

5. What year in our reckoning did that king die? (Acknowledging that .) 

6. Simple math (#5 plus #3): what year *in our reckoning* is a viable approximate date for when Hagoth's first ship sailed?

Now to consider the relevance of Caesar's account:

7.  What year  did Caesar leave Roman-controlled territory and march north into non-Roman Gaul?

8. How early  in Caesar's account  of his march into northern Europe were a German people first mentioned as residing there? (you

9. And a simple fact. Caesar was *the first* ancient writer to mention a people he referred to as Germans residing in northern Europe. 

That is a sufficient framework for many readers to arrive at initial inklings/stirrings of belief/increased faith. For others, it may serve as framework for a discussion here (or elsewhere) that might help others onramp to belief/increased faith.

Thoughts? Impressions?

Edited May 24, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

My honest assessment is that extraordinary claims like that need at least bibliography/sources to be taken credibly...

That will be the case for some. And isn't for others. But understood completely.

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

...it's apparently an archaeological claim.

Not really. It isn't an archaeological claim any more than matters pertaining to family history, or scripture study, or folklore/mythology studies, or linguistics are archaeological claims. That there is currently some overlap into archaeology I would readily concede, as there is of several such disciplines. But again, the assertion that gauging the truth of this issue is the domain of scholars doesn't sit too well with me in an egalitarian society - especially an egalitarian society based on thing like James 1:5 and Moroni 10.

That said, I believe archaeology (and other disciplines) will continue to shed additional light on the matter.

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

If you don't want footnotes clogging up your pages, I suggest using endnotes.

It's not an issue of clogging up. Or whether notes are at the bottom of each page, the end of the chapter/book, or mailed in a separate 3-ring binder.

It's rather an issue of who my initial audience was during the first decade. (People who don't need footnotes to reach a conclusion.)

So it was a melody intended for an audience that primarily discerns truth different from the way that many others initially process things. Which goes back to the OP.

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

My honest assessment is that extraordinary claims like that need at least bibliography/sources to be taken credibly......even with sources I am not going to believe that Nephites were in Europe.

Those 2 phrases seem to be claiming exact opposites assertions. Willing to reconcile them for me?

Your second phrase there is why footnotes have been a very low priority in my list of things to do. Three hundred reliable references would be waved away by some. So mowing that lawn a few hundred more times wasn't something I was in any rush to do, when other things needed attention more urgently. (Any who have done the style formatting and reference triple checking of a hundreds sources or more knows full well it's a labor of love that relatively few actually use or appreciate.) Law of [rapidly] diminishing returns. 

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I will also take this opportunity to tell you that I will be self-publishing my own assessment of Nephite civilization, and it will contain copious notes, and bibliography. Otherwise, I feel readers would be hopelessly lost, and probably dismissive of my efforts. If I am going to go through all that work, I want to document it for the reader.

Sounds like a worthwhile project. I wish you well with that. 

I'm of the opinion that relatively few readers would be lost, hopelessly or otherwise, without reference notes. (That said, having previously published several things *with* extensive notes, and with many of the books I read having notes, I fully understand their niche use/value.)

Again, to get back to the OP, I'd suggest that other potential authors at least consider the benefit some gain from reading the Book of Mormon edition that has zero notes and cross references. That's not to say that notes and references have no value/purpose, but rather that they're a tool for *a very different* kind of learning. 

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I also feel that I should credit the many people who put in many hours to find the information I am using - even if they don't want that credit. If I understand what you are saying, not to list sources I feel is akin to plagiarizing, which I don't want to get labelled with.

No one had previously written about Nephite colonization in ancient Europe, so there was no one for me to plagiarize. And only one person to credit for a suggested interpretation of a brief passage from Nephi.

Edited May 24, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

...on my pdf reader what it calls p. 53 has some incomplete paragraphs with sentences that are chopped off midstream. These are just above your section entitled "Colonial Numbers" on the same page.

Thank you very much.

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Thanks for the read. I find the history of the Teutons interesting - unfortunately what little history we have of them seems to come almost strictly from the Romans.

You're welcome.

I don't believe Teutons (who invaded Rome long before Christ) and Germans (who are first encountered/mentioned by Julius Caesar) were one and the same. Although most people conflate the two. 

As to history of the region coming from the Romans, there are actually a surprising number of insightful Celtic and especially Germanic sources. Most of my favorites are among the latter.

Edited May 24, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

..........................................................................

Not really. It isn't an archaeological claim any more than matters pertaining to family history, or scripture study, or folklore/mythology studies, or linguistics are archaeological claims. That there is currently some overlap into archaeology I would readily concede, as there is of several such disciplines. But again, the assertion that gauging the truth of this issue is the domain of scholars doesn't sit too well with me in an egalitarian society - especially an egalitarian society based on thing like James 1:5 and Moroni 10.

................................................................  

It's not an issue of clogging up. Or whether notes are at the bottom of each page, the end of the chapter/book, or mailed in a separate 3-ring binder.

It's rather an issue of who my initial audience was during the first decade. (People who don't need footnotes to reach a conclusion.)

So it was a melody intended for an audience that primarily discerns truth different from the way that many others initially process things. Which goes back to the OP.

................................................

Your second phrase there is why footnotes have been a very low priority in my list of things to do. Three hundred reliable references would be waved away by some. So mowing that lawn a few hundred more times wasn't something I was in any rush to do, when other things needed attention more urgently. (Any who have done the style formatting and reference triple checking of a hundreds sources or more knows full well it's a labor of love that relatively few actually use or appreciate.) Law of [rapidly] diminishing returns. 

......................................................

I'm of the opinion that relatively few readers would be lost, hopelessly or otherwise, without reference notes. (That said, having previously published several things *with* extensive notes, and with many of the books I read having notes, I fully understand their niche use/value.)

Again, to get back to the OP, I'd suggest that other potential authors at least consider the benefit some gain from reading the Book of Mormon edition that has zero notes and cross references. That's not to say that notes and references have no value/purpose, but rather that they're a tool for *a very different* kind of learning. 

.................................................................

You completely misunderstand the purpose of footnotes/endnotes.  And there might be no need for citations of any kind (except perhaps to Scripture), if you intend merely to make prophetic or intuitive assertions about history -- without any actual historical claims, which is impossible.  Indeed, you already make claims about sources, such as Caesar's Gallic War, so that it is very relevant to find out whether your interpretations of that text are forced and inaccurate, by appealing to actual Latin/Roman scholarship.  Furthermore, if your assertions fly in the face of objective archeological, historical, linguistic, and genetic evidence, all the more reason to cite credible, peer-reviewed sources which allow for your otherwise wild assertions.  You seem to assume that all your audience will simply and naively assume that your assertions are correct, and are not at all interested in factual backing (in the notes).

This has nothing to do with egaiitarianism, but rather with the honesty and integrity to back up one's claims with actual fact.  That is how one shows respect for the serious reader.  Or for a jury hearing a case.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

........................................ any reader can opt to sit in a scholar seat, if they wish), because this issue can be easily understood, pondered, and assessed by everyman/woman/child. 

To proceed with plainness, how about we all start with a few straightforward facts, from sources that any typical reader from elementary school on up can view and consider?

1.  According to Nephite reckoning , during which year of the reign of the judges did Hagoth's first ship of emigrants sail out of Nephite history?

The 37th year goes from July 59 to July 58 BC, and that first ship sails up the West coast (Pacific Ocean).  Hardly amenable to European destinations.  California, yes, Europe, no.

3 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

2. According to Nephite reckoning, during which year of the reign of the judges was Christ born?

The birth of Jesus comes in Sept 5 BC (most likely on Thursday Sept 28, 5 BC, Julian), at the beginning of the 92nd year.

3 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

3. Simple math (#2 minus #1): how many years before Christ's birth did Hagoth's first ship sail out of Nephite history? 

Approx. 53 years before.

3 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Now, to convert the timing for the start of the Nephite exodus to modern Western reckoning:

4. According to the NT, Jesus's birth, and the later visit of the wiseman to "the young child" both occurred during whose reign?

5. What year in our reckoning did that king die? (Acknowledging that .) 

Herod the Great, who died in early 4 BC.

3 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

6. Simple math (#5 plus #3): what year *in our reckoning* is a viable approximate date for when Hagoth's first ship sailed?

Now to consider the relevance of Caesar's account:

7.  What year  did Caesar leave Roman-controlled territory and march north into non-Roman Gaul?

8. How early  in Caesar's account  of his march into northern Europe were a German people first mentioned as residing there? (you

9. And a simple fact. Caesar was *the first* ancient writer to mention a people he referred to as Germans residing in northern Europe. 

That is a sufficient framework for many readers to arrive at initial inklings/stirrings of belief/increased faith. For others, it may serve as framework for a discussion here (or elsewhere) that might help others onramp to belief/increased faith.

Thoughts? Impressions?

The notion that Caesar's mention of Germans suggests that they have only recently arrived is utterly without justification.  All the evidence indicates otherwise.  Indeed, there is nothing about Germans which would lead any serious person to believe that they are Nephite.  Why?  Because there is simply no factual backing for such an assertion.  If you know otherwise, this is where footnotes would come in and are genuinely needed.

[probablyHagoth7]

 

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This has nothing to do with egaiitarianism, but rather with the honesty and integrity to back up one's claims with actual fact.

Please withdraw the unkind assertion.

(And/or send reinforcements....One-man band here.)

Triage.

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is how one shows respect for the serious reader. 

I acknowledge that you're a serious reader. And more importantly  that I have a wee bit of a chip on my shoulder for the academic world...please bear with me as I genuinely seek to feel/be more charitable here...(In thinking about it now, that friction likely traces to years of unvoiced pain/frustration at losing family over this research...when academics enjoy a comfortable home with family, and regular vacations with family, and are paid a healthy salary to research and write what they happen to love.) I don't regret my path, but now that I have clarity for the beam in my heart, I need to get over that jealousy asap. Apologies for letting that flavor my posts, and for offending you in the process.

My core concern/ministry is for those who *aren't* scholars, and who don't have the time/interest/need to become such. Eye. Hand. Foot. And many of them are serious readers too.

Please don't take umbrage that a dish prepared for someone else's tastes/diet wasn't to your liking.

More is on the way, soon, to your liking.

As something of a small appetizer, as some might be aware, on the board that must not be named, there was a fair amount of discussion about Nephite writing and TIronian (much of which is encapsulated on one of my websites). There's also some worthwhile documentation from Cicero and his brother on the site that must not be named. From those two suggestions alone, you and your colleagues (and the rest of us in the peanut gallery) have extensive veins of gold to follow, bring to light, and publish.  

And while typing this, I got a tip from a new friend reading Ivanhoe - that relates directly to Nephite tactics and European/American archaeology. Anglo-Saxon enclosures. Anyone with a passion/interest in archaeology, the Book of Mormon, and English literature might appreciate that project. Would be interested in seeing more than one perspective on that come to light.

There's lots to do, so if any wish to roll up their sleeves, please do.

Edited May 25, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

38 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

Please withdraw the unkind assertion.

(And/or send reinforcements....One-man band here.)

............................

I acknowledge that you're a serious reader. And more importantly  that I have a wee bit of a chip on my shoulder for the academic world...please bear with me as I genuinely seek to feel/be more charitable here...(In thinking about it now, that friction likely traces to years of unvoiced pain/frustration at losing family over this research...when academics enjoy a comfortable home with family, and regular vacations with family, and are paid a healthy salary to research and write what they happen to love.) I don't regret my path, but now that I have clarity for the beam in my heart, I need to get over that jealousy asap. Apologies for letting that flavor my posts, and for offending you in the process.

Sorry, buddy, but I have no academic position at all, and I don't get paid for my research.  Costs me an arm & a leg to do this stuff.  Always has.  If I had wanted to get rich, I'd have done something far different.

38 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

My core concern/ministry is for those who *aren't* scholars, and who don't have the time/interest/need to become such. Eye. Hand. Foot. And many of them are serious readers too.

Please don't take umbrage that a dish prepared for someone else's tastes/diet wasn't to your liking.

More is on the way, soon, to your liking.

..................................................................   

One need not be a scholar to be a discerning consumer of worthwhile info.

[probablyHagoth7]

 

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The 37th year goes from July 59 to July 58 BC, and that first ship sails up the West coast (Pacific Ocean).  Hardly amenable to European destinations.  California, yes, Europe, no.

The validity of that assertion hinges entirely on one's perspective.

While America is currently a great place for many to live, the world doesn't revolve around our geographic paradigm, and the Pacific isn't everyone's west sea.  

I've addressed the west sea paradigm elsewhere in this forum over the years, more than once - with maps.  
Also addressed in this short chapter: http://www.candlestickstudios.com/files/Nephites.pdf#page=14

(Those using a smartphone might need to manually jump to the chapter on geography that starts on page 14.)

For some american, their west sea *is* part of the Atlantic, if one is willing to see it.

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The birth of Jesus comes in Sept 5 BC (most likely on Thursday Sept 28, 5 BC, Julian), at the beginning of the 92nd year.

Approx. 53 years before.

53? By my reckoning, the distance between Alma 63 and the 1st chapter of 3 Nephi is a bit longer - at ca. 55 years.

And 55 years before 5 BC (if we opt to accept that as a valid reckoning point) brings us to an initial departure northward from a Nephite port during 60 BC, approximately. Two years before Caesar began his march north.

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The notion that Caesar's mention of Germans suggests that they have only recently arrived is utterly without justification.  All the evidence indicates otherwise.  Indeed, there is nothing about Germans which would lead any serious person to believe that they are Nephite.  Why?  Because there is simply no factual backing for such an assertion.  If you know otherwise, this is where footnotes would come in and are genuinely needed.

I've addressed this issue in a few places.

For starters, see footnotes 2 & 3 here: http://www.candlestickstudio.com/EarliestGermans.html 

Edited May 25, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sorry, buddy, but I have no academic position at all, and I don't get paid for my research.  Costs me an arm & a leg to do this stuff.  Always has.  If I had wanted to get rich, I'd have done something far different.

Thank you very much for sharing that.  

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One need not be a scholar to be a discerning consumer of worthwhile info.

Understood.

Edited May 25, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[RevTestament]

16 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

I don't believe Teutons (who invaded Rome long before Christ) and Germans (who are first encountered/mentioned by Julius Caesar) were one and the same. Although most people conflate the two. 

As to history of the region coming from the Romans, there are actually a surprising number of insightful Celtic and especially Germanic sources. Most of my favorites are among the latter.

Are you saying the Tuetons invaded the city of Rome or the Roman empire long before Christ? There were 3 teutonic tribes that invaded the city of Rome, but that was 100s of years after Christ. Seven others divided up the rest of the Western Roman Empire over the course of several decades. The Suevi confederation took over what became Portugal. The Visigoths took over Spain. The Franks conquered France. The Saxons took England to be later joined by the Angles and the Jutes. The Bergundians took over an area around what became Bergundy, and the same with the Lombards who took northern Italy. The Alemanni got Germany. The Vandals occupied the breadbasket of Rome in Northern Italy, until they decided to sack Rome itself, and as a result were later defeated by the Eastern Empire at the apparent behest of the bishop of Rome. The Heruli tried to rule Rome itself, and were also defeated. Their attempt was followed by the Ostrogoths who were slightly more successful, but the Catholic priests eventually coordinated their fall by leaving the city gates open for an invasion. Thus, as the prophecy of Daniel states, three of the horns were plucked up by the little horn. These tribes were a mix of peoples. It seems the Germanic tribes had invaded the area around the Black Sea hundreds of years earlier, and absorbed the Alani, and perhaps the Sarmatians, who I believe some to the lost 10 tribes were mixed in with. By this means the Teutons assisted in spreading Ephraim throughout Europe which is how we see the small amounts of haplogroup X mtDNA in these Gentile nations.

While I concede there is a possibility that Hagoth's people went back across the Atlantic, I have completely different notions, which comport with archaeological timelines, and account for most of the people who left on foot. I have entertained the notion that at some point Nephites did go back to the Atlantic shores of France or Spain, but there is precious little proof of that besides some curious relics showing up in America. Most archaeologists dismiss these as frauds.

Anyway, I believe the evidence for small amounts of Hebrews spread through Europe is best accounted for by a more straightforward immigration with the Teutonic tribes from the East, than by Hagoth's tiny band.

Edited May 25, 2017 by RevTestament

[probablyHagoth7]

Hmm / Argh 

The bulb may be [?temporarily?] fading. Or extended lack of sleep is taking its toll. 

The heavily-annotated version of Nephites in Europe *is* online, and has been for some time. Thanks very much for the heads up Robert. 

Back in around 2010/2011, the extensively annotated version of NiE and its backups were [temporarily] lost. The shorter version with few secular footnotes was the first version rediscovered and reposted, and was the one that took a fair amount of heat for not having a reasonable amount of historical references. 

I located and reposted the longer version at some point after that. (And I rarely re-read my own things.) So the more emotionally-charged memories of (i) losing the annotated backup, and (ii) taking some heat for the shorter/older version not having many historical footnotes conflated into a false memory that the annotated version was never posted and/or never survived.

Oops.  

Thanks to those who patiently bore with me during that brain cloud.

Edited May 25, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Are you saying the Tuetons invaded the city of Rome...long before Christ?

Yes. An invasion that ended 101 BC, which was still fresh and dreaded on the memory of Romans when Caesar marched into northern Europe - a nagging fear which Caesar repeatedly played upon for political/personal/financial gain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbri

Edited May 25, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

...These tribes were a mix of peoples. It seems the Germanic tribes had invaded the area around the Black Sea hundreds of years earlier, and absorbed the Alani, and perhaps the Samartians, who I believe some to the lost 10 tribes were mixed in with. By this means the Teutons assisted in spreading Ephraim throughout Europe which is how we see the small amounts of haplogroup X mtDNA in these Gentile nations.

While I concede there is a possibility that Hagoth's people went back across the Atlantic...I believe the evidence for small amounts of Hebrews spread through Europe is best accounted for by a more straightforward immigration with the Teutonic tribes from the East, than by Hagoth's tiny band.

Understood.

I believe in both migrations:

1) An early migration of the 10 tribes - as attested by Joseph and Brigham, which an SUU linguistics professor wrote a few interesting thing about back in the 80's. 

2) And a later Nephite migration. 

Edited May 25, 2017 by probablyHagoth7