Simon Southerton's New Book

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

I wonder sometimes if some faithful LDS have selective amnesia about what was taught not too long ago.

I think substantive analysis along these lines is a tertiary, perhaps even quaternary, consideration for those Latter-day Saints who have chosen to pay attention to such things.

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

"When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians as they were soon to be designated, were a people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly they were Lamanites...The American Indians, however, as Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their veins...But with it all, for the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 32-33)

Emphases added, yes?

Elder McConkie acknowledged the Native Americants as being "a people of mixed blood and origin." Doesn't that rather undermine your . . . well, what point are you making, anyway?

As for words like "chiefly" and "dominant blood lineage," was he necessarily speaking of some sort of "blood quantum" or genetic preponderance?  It seems fairly ambiguous.  And in any event, I don't think there is any particular doctrinal significance there.  

AFAICS, the only element of the Restored Gospel that could theoretically have an inherent "genetic" requirement is the right of the firstborn of Aaron to the office of bishop.  And even that doesn't seem to require any particular "blood quantum."  As for any other lineage-related issue in the Gospel, there is no requirement for a demonstrated blood quantum.  Membership in one of the Tribes of Israel can be either literal descendancy, or else through adoption.

If Latter-day Saints from some generations ago harbored incorrect notions about the intricacies of blood quantum issues, I'm okay with that.  We live and learn. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Fair Dinkum]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thank you for finally getting the point!

My academic training is in history. I spent my masters and PhD research reading historical documents and piecing together bigger pictures from fragmentary evidence. (Seldom do historical texts write out all the details one would wish!)* Latter-day Saint scholars (and others) who approached the Book of Mormon this way reached the conclusion that Lehi's descendants were a small group in a vast sea of others many, many decades before Dr Southerton started tilting at this particular windmill.

I'm glad you now understand why his 'research' doesn't faze us at all. He's trying to argue from the science that we shouldn't believe something we already don't believe based on close, critical readings of the text itself. In fact, it seems to me that he rather desperately needs his readers to accept his caricature of Latter-day Saint beliefs specifically so that he has something he can attack. The chronology on this is clear and demonstrates that faithful Book of Mormon scholars and serious readers of all stripes got there before he did.

-----

* For example, my PhD thesis, which rests upon c. 4,000 pages of primary source materials, argues that the Europeans who created those documents never understood the reality they were encountering and therefore produced accounts which do not accurately portray the situation at all. They were, essentially, blinded by a shared narrative that caused them to misreport and in many cases completely overlook what was really going on in the societies they lived amongst. At the same time, the Indigenous populations still managed to leave traces in these texts that can be identified and which allow a tentative reconstruction that is far more accurate and inclusive. Archaeology, historical linguistics, anthropology and other disciplines have helped force us to read these texts against the grain, but to be honest, this is just what good scholars do as a rule -- despite the fact that some in this thread, yourself included, feel the need to dismiss this approach as 'apologetic', even reactionary, in nature.

I'm sorry, it was my understanding that the point was discussing Dr. Southerton's book.  I have no other point to get to.  But if the apologetic solution to the non existence of pre columbian middle eastern DNA is to shrink the Lehite footprint to such an infinitesimally small level so as to make its detection impossible, one has to consider the implications.

The Book makes substantial claims about what it purports to be.  By reducing Lehi's footprint to run counter to those claims, exposes the book to the logical conclusion of being fiction. 

It is my opinion and I could be wrong here, Dr. Southerton's book has made credible arguments against the hemispheric, limited, and Meldrum's heartland theory.  His book brings into question each of these arguments for the placement of the Book of Mormon as a logical setting based on the DNA evidence or lack there of.  Of course his arguments are based on the assumption that Lehi actually left a footprint behind. If modern LDS apologetics has now even removed that footprint then there is no further need to discuss the matter.  The Book of Mormon, as actual events, must exist in the luminiferous ether. (no relation to the BoM charactor)

Edited January 16, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[Fair Dinkum]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't see it either, and I see no "apologetic need" to make such an assumption.  We should be solely and only interested in what makes scholarly sense.

This is what Southerton admitted years ago on the Signature Books website, but later denied.  Bear in mind that most of the Bible concerns itself with Classical Israel occupying a very small territory in which most of the action takes place.  Still a very small area even today.

The Bible likewise is puffed up with self-importance galore, even though it all takes place within a very small space and time. Compared to the great empires of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome, it has had an outsized impact.  How is that even possible?

I see no problem with someone taking the BofM as a pseudepigraphon.  Or even as straight fiction like that of J. R. R. Tolkien, which has a carefully crafted geography.  It is pretty incredible or even preposterous.

The problem is that, if you take it at all seriously, even just for the sake of empirical testing of a wild hypothesis, you are left with the tight historical and archeological correlation of the Jaredite culture with Las Olmecas, the only literate civilization in the New World of that time, followed by Nephite-Mulekite culture fitting nicely into the Grijalva River Valley of southern Mexico.  The massive populations (in the millions) and their complex cultures fit the BofM all too well.  Non-Mormon scholars in Mexico even found evidence of Hebrew language in a family of languages (Sawi-Zaa) in Oaxaca and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, which I summarize and exemplify online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/56696298/SAWI-ZAA  .

I appreciate your response.  You make a lot of sense and I can find threads were I would whole heartedly agree with you.

One of the important points that Dr Southerton made in his book is the co-oping of the native American culture and heritage and replacing it with the pseudo-history in the Book of Mormon.  Suggesting, as the book does, that the great nations of the Americas were not solely responsible for their own agricultural, architectural and technological advancement themselves is a great crime, in my humble opinion.  Plus imposing these people with the narrative that their skin colour is a curse is just down right evil.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

One of the important points that Dr Southerton made in his book is the co-oping of the native American culture and heritage....

So Dr. Southerton agrees with the religious myths*** explaining the history and culture of the various tribes?

***I use myth as a technical religious term meaning more traditional story involving meanings, purposes, perceptions of reality by a culture and not as makebelieve story.

.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Calm

[stemelbow]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, but I think those assumptions are more substantiated than assumptions made in order to suggest that The Book of Mormon posits a people-free continent prior to Lehi's arrival.

It is definitely true that the previous church teachings that the two continents were unpopulated until Jaredite arrival was terrible assumption-making.  

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Ten or so years after their arrival the Nephites had split into so many different groups that they didn't know each other any more (as evidenced by Sherem not having previously met Jacob)?  That seems pretty unlikely. 

I don't think 10 years after their arrival makes any sense, and neither does the time estimator for the Book.  

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

From Roper's article (emphasis added):

These seem like fair questions.

Moreover, what do you make of Jacob 7:4, in which Jacob notes that Sherem "had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people"?  John Tvedtnes argues that this verse only makes sense if Sherem "were not a Nephite" (although Matthew Bowen notes the possibility of this suggesting he was a son or near descendant of Zoram (see here)).

I dont' find Tvedtnes' assumption a safe one.  We don't even know what language they supposedly spoke.  If a youngster from the group got good at the language better than perhaps the elders, then I think it'd make sense to say he had a perfect knowledge of the language.  

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Isn't this board pretty good evidence of people being able to read the same text and come away with disparate interpretations of it?

That's not what I"m driving at.  If Sherem came from outside the group to preach to the group that they have it all wrong, then it'd be absurd to think he adopted their scripture, which he likely could not read if it were a language different then the spoken language.  The ten years guess only makes this whole story more problematic.  

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sorenson posits that the Sherem story took place ten or so years after Lehi's arrival, such that the group numbered perhaps fifty.  How likely is it that Sherem had not, in all those ten years, never encountered Jacob?

It is absolutely absurd to think 10 years into their arrival a foreign person came upon them, gained perfect knowledge of their language, and came to believe their scripture, which he likely and most others in the group likely could not read, and he not have some encounter with one of the leaders of the crew, if there were but 50.  10 years after their arrival Lehi was likely still alive.  Nephi most likely was, and the Nephites would not have left the majority group yet.  It presents a silly rendition.  By the time Jacob's telling of the Sherem story, in the Book itself, Nephi is gone and there are Lamanites.  

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

And if assimilation into the larger culture had started by this point, it was likely in its nascent stages.  Jacob 7:6 has Sherem noting that he knew that Jacob "goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel."  Where was it that Jacob was "go{ing} about much"?  That sounds quite a bit like missionary work.  

I'm not sure about that.  Again, from Roper's article (emphases added):

Again, these are fair questions.

The questions point out the silliness of this all happening 10 years after their arrival.  It points out the silliness of a foreign person coming among them and becoming expert in their language and scripture without encountering Jacob.  After Nephi left Laman and Lemuel he said he got his people operating basically like a small settlement.  He also indicated he was a ruler over the for decades after this separation.  But this Sherem story has no Nephi.  It is Jacob who is leader, after Nephi had died.  At the end of 2 Ne 5, he indicates 40 years had passed with him as ruler and they had already warred with the Lamanites in that time.  Jacob didn't start recording his stuff until 55 years after Lehi left Jerusalem.  If there were but 50 people and Jacob did has he said he did--he ministered among his people.  There is zero chance he did not encounter a foreign person who was in the midst of them trying to learn their language and scriptures.  Its not that there had to be foreign people amongst the groups, its that the story is not workable with or without foreign people amongst them.   

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

If Lehi left Jerusalem around 600 B.C. (1 Nephi 1), Jacob would have been born between then and 592 B.C.  He was Lehi's "firstborn in the wilderness" (2 Nephi 2:2), and Lehi was in the wilderness for eight years (1 Nephi 17:4).  So let's split the difference and suggest, arguendo, that Jacob was born in 596 B.C.

The Church's estimate of Sherem's interaction with Jacob puts it at 544 B.C. or so.  That would make Jacob about 52 years old at the time, not "over 140."

Perhaps your math is off?  Or am I missing something?

The range is 544 B.C. and 421 B.C.  I think I"m misunderstanding what you're putting down.  You say Sorenson estimated the Sherem story happened 10 years after their arrival ("Sorenson posits that the Sherem story took place ten or so years after Lehi's arrival").  Here you estimate the Jacob was born in 596 B.C.  Lehi's arrival was around 554 B.C.?  
Where was Nephi when the Sherem story hit?  I mean when Jacob started his portion of the record he announced Nephi was old and had died.  So apparently this happened after Nephi died, right?  How could that be but 10 years after their arrival?  Are you misreading Sorenson?  

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure anyone is saying that Sherem was definitely an outsider.  As noted above, Matthew Bowen has apparently argued that he arrived with Lehi (but was a descendant of Zoram, and hence a kinda-sorta "outsider," but not in the context we are discussing).

That makes far more sense.  It'd be impossible for a foreign person come to a group, become expert in their language, religion and scripture, the group numbering around 50 and not encounter Jacob.  Two things--1.  the story doesn't add up, no matter how you slice it.  2.  Sherem saying he had sought opportunity to speak with Jacob does not suggest they did not know each other.  I often seek much opportunity to speak with people I already know.  What is apparent is they hadn't discussed Sherem's religious views.  The story comes off as, to me anyway, that Sherem was a younger person than Jacob and in time as he matured, developed his own way of viewing the religion which they all embraced.  There is no sign, absolutely none, that Sherem was an outsider.  

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

However, Roper and Sorenson and Gardner and others have made a pretty solid argument that Sherem could be "from a civilization that was in the land before Lehi and company arrived."

Not an assumption.  A conclusion.

A conclusion based on a number of assumptions.  

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand the distinction in this context.  After all, the topic at hand is whether today's population genetics can necessarily and definitively preclude the possibility that thirty or so ancient Israelites migrating to the Americas 2,600 years ago.  It seems hard to get down to "specifics" about something like that.

The text of what?

Thanks,

-Smac

The BoM text. 

[Fair Dinkum]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

So Dr. Southerton agrees with the religious myths*** explaining the history and culture of the various tribes?

***I use myth as a technical religious term meaning more traditional story involving meanings, purposes, perceptions of reality by a culture and not as makebelieve story.

.

For the record, I am not Simon Southerton, so everything I post here are my own perceptions from my reading of his book(s). 

One of the last chapters in his most recent book addresses the supplanting of the real history, culture and accomplishments of the native American populations with (I'm trying to be kind) the alternative one put forth in the Book of Mormon.  The defusionist history that the Book of Mormon places on the native American population gives all of their great accomplishments to some, yet to be discovered, middle eastern family.  The notion that these people didn't accomplish all that they did on their own with NO assistance from some foreign immigrant people is a cultural sin that the Book of Mormon is guilty of.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

One of the last chapters in his most recent book addresses the supplanting of the real history, culture and accomplishments of the native American populations with (I'm trying to be kind) the alternative one put forth in the Book of Mormon

I wonder how many Native Americans believe most scientists and historians are respecting the real History, culture, and accomplishments of their people as opposed to just choosing to impose a different story upon them.

[Fair Dinkum]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wonder how many Native Americans believe most scientists and historians are respecting the real History, culture, and accomplishments of their people as opposed to just choosing to impose a different story upon them.

This is a fair point. Many North American natives refuse to participate in DNA studies because they already have their traditional beliefs on their origins and don’t want science to impose sciences origins on them. 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

I think it does.  If, several decades ago, members and leaders held to a belief that later turned out to be wrong (or that we believe now to be wrong) than we ought to try to understand why so we don’t repeat that type of error. 

We get back to the church doesn't apologize for mistakes strategy.  Instead, they just quietly move the goal posts and hope that that people slowly forget what earlier leaders taught.  Its the apologists job to not allow any slam dunks.  Big problem is that we have all these statements in writing, you can't erase history in a modern world.  These ghosts of the past will continue to haunt the present until authoritative disavowal of past teachings happens in a meaningful way.  Until then, you'll have missionaries telling prospective members that they are Lamanites and you'll have those people believing they are descendants of the BoM along with all the racist ideas perpetuated around skin color with its accompanied dark and loathsome descriptors.  

Viewing the BoM as metaphor, rather than history, is a quick way of explaining the negatives, as you can easily see these ideas as influenced by Joseph's 19th century culture.   Thinking of the BoM as accurate history requires more work, because then you have to question whether or not there were people who actually had their skin color changed by God as a marker of some kind.  You also have to reconcile the idea that a whole race of people was physically label by deity as punishment, and that the many generations of descendants after are all impacted by a God who did this, even though this runs contrary to the 2nd article of faith that people are only punished for their own sins.  Its really a mess when you interpret the BoM literally and its theological implications about God.  

[Kevin Christensen]

Then there was my "Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon" thread  thread from a couple of years ago (2017):

I recently got round to reading Ethan Sproat's essay, "Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon" in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2015. 

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=3592&index=6

It's very interesting, and I'm sympathetic with the thesis and impressed by the work, having noticed and on occasion commented informally here on the equivalent use of skins and garments in several Book of Mormon passages, such as Alma 5:21-22 and others.  In looking around the web to see how much discussion that essay has generated, I notice only a couple of footnotes at Book of Mormon central. And one mention during a discussion of a Michael Austin post on Feb 3 2016 at BCC on Laman's Curse.  One reader there pointed to the essay and asked whether anyone had read it.  The discussion goes on for a while but apparently no one bothered to read it or consider the essay and it's profound implications for the discussion.  Only one commentator made this statement in what I assume was a direct response to the recommendation Sproat's essay be considered:

Quote

I’ve seen arguments by those who try to explain that “skin” in the Book of Mormon really means a “spiritual skin,” something metaphorical. But that is what we might call wresting the scriptures. It’s an attempt to take the inherent racist attitudes that are plain in the book and twist them to something more politically correct. It’s very obvious that “skin” in the Book of Mormon means “skin.” Just as “north” means “north,” not some other direction.

That particular comment stands out to me in relation to this leading point in Sproat's essay:

Quote

Alma 3:5–6 is comprised of two sentences, in each of which the word skin(s) appears. Commentaries handle the two sentences in one of three ways: (1) by treating both of them independently, as if two very different things were at issue; (2) by commenting on only the second of the two sentences, remaining silent about the first; or (3) by failing to comment on either sentence.³ All three of these approaches miss the fact that, when read in context, the use of skins in the second sentence appears to form part of a historical explanation of the use of skin in the first sentence. Here is the text:

“Now the heads of the Lamanites were shorn; and they were naked, save it were skin which was girded about their loins, and also their armor, which was girded about them, and their bows, and their arrows, and their stones, and their slings, and so forth. And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.” (Alma 3:5–6)⁴

According to a reading I will defend in the course of this article, this passage suggests the possibility that “the skins of the Lamanites” are to be understood as articles of clothing, the notable girdle of skin that these particular Lamanites wear to cover their nakedness. Significantly, these are the only two references to skins in Alma 3, which contains the Book of Mormon’s most thorough explanation of the Lamanite curse and the curse’s relationship to skins. Thus situated, Alma 3:5–6 might serve as an interpretive Rosetta stone. If both instances of skins in Alma 3:5–6 refer to clothing, then the other five references to various-colored or cursed skins in the Book of Mormon could also refer to clothing and not—as traditionally assumed—to human flesh pigmentation.

Notice the knee-jerk argument I quoted earlier, that "skin means skin" and the appeal to "obviousness", the charge of "wresting the scriptures" and no evidence that the one who made the objection had read or considered the scriptural evidence cited in Sproat's essay.  Notably in Alma 3:5-6, that the "skin girded about their loins" contradicts the objection that "skin means skin", that is the word "skin" always refers to human epidermis.  Skins can also be garments.

The parable of the sower explains that the same words can yield very different harvests, depending on the context in which they are placed, and the care and nurture given.  "Know ye not this parable?  How then shall ye know all parables?"  And Joseph Smith has some choice comments about how the LDS often resist anything that goes against their traditional reading. 

It's a very good essay with several fresh insights, very much worth careful reading deserving of more discussion that it has apparently received. I think it could have been strengthened by more comparison with the several passages discussing filthy and clean garments that directly parallel the passages about white, pure and filthy skins.  It's clear from Austin's BCC essay on Laman Curse, and various discussions by Gardner, Nibley, Sorenson, and others that there are cultural aspects to both the ancient patterns of language that we have in the text, as well as 19th century cultural assumptions at work in the early LDS interpretations.  Words do not speak for themselves, pointing unambiguously to some uninterpreted object, but must be interpreted.  And sometimes we misinterpret, like Nicodemus talking to Jesus about being born again.  Misinterpretation is a hazard of our common humanity.  But to recognize that 19th century, and sometimes 21st century assumptions have colored our readings, does not mean that we ought to be bound to mistakes and misreadings.  If we dare to seek for greater light and knowledge, it can often be found in the most unexpected places, or even the most familiar words.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

 

I think it does.  If, several decades ago, members and leaders held to a belief that later turned out to be wrong (or that we believe now to be wrong) than we ought to try to understand why so we don’t repeat that type of error. 

There's wrong, and then there's wrong.  Can reasonable minds differ when no one's salvation is at issue, particularly when salvation is a matter between the person and his Savior?  You may disagree, I believe they can.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It is definitely true that the previous church teachings that the two continents were unpopulated until Jaredite arrival was terrible assumption-making.  

Funny how often these disparagements about "church teachings" seldom involve actually quoting such teachings.

Easier to caricature and malign, perhaps.

Quote

I don't think 10 years after their arrival makes any sense, and neither does the time estimator for the Book.  

An assertion of lacking "sense" is not self-evidently true.

I'm relying on calculations made by Sorenson and others.  If you have countervailing arguments and calculations, let's see 'em.  Simple contrary assertions won't do.

Quote

I dont' find Tvedtnes' assumption a safe one. 

I think it's a reasonable one, though I agree it's a bit overstated (I think Bowens proposal makes sense in a prima facie sort of way).

Quote

We don't even know what language they supposedly spoke. 

We can draw reasonable inferences, though.

Quote

If a youngster from the group got good at the language better than perhaps the elders, then I think it'd make sense to say he had a perfect knowledge of the language.  

A fair point.  I think Tvedtnes has the better argument, though.  Conjecture on such fine points is all we can do, really.

Quote

Quote

Isn't this board pretty good evidence of people being able to read the same text and come away with disparate interpretations of it?

That's not what I"m driving at.  If Sherem came from outside the group to preach to the group that they have it all wrong, then it'd be absurd to think he adopted their scripture,

That's a significantly overstated assumption there.  And conclusory.  And not reasoned from the evidence.  

Reasonable people can have divergent points of view about such conectural topics, so you labeling views you don't hold as "absurd" doesn't help.  It may just end up poisoning the well.

Quote

which he likely could not read if it were a language different then the spoken language. 

"Likely."

"If."

We're delving into conjectural topics.  I'm quite willing to give you and yours latitude in presenting your argument.  I hope you will reciprocate.  Labeling other views "absurd" doesn't help.

Quote

The ten years guess only makes this whole story more problematic.  

Conclusory.  

If you have a beef with this or that calculation, lay it out.  I'm willing to listen.  But unadorned, conclusory assertions like "more problematic" do not advance the discussion.

Quote

It is absolutely absurd to think 10 years into their arrival a foreign person came upon them, gained perfect knowledge of their language, and came to believe their scripture, which he likely and most others in the group likely could not read, and he not have some encounter with one of the leaders of the crew, if there were but 50. 

"Absolutely absurd." 

You're just poisoning the well here.  And you're not making an argument.  You aren't presenting evidence or reasoning.

Quote

10 years after their arrival Lehi was likely still alive.  Nephi most likely was, and the Nephites would not have left the majority group yet.  It presents a silly rendition. 

"Silly."

Yawn.

Quote

By the time Jacob's telling of the Sherem story, in the Book itself, Nephi is gone and there are Lamanites.  

Well, then present an argument for adjusting the timeline.  You're the one with the beef about it.  You're the one suggesting, without evidence or explanation, that it requires Jacob to have been "over 140 years old" when he encountered Sherem.

This article, published in the Church News in 1996, puts Lehi's arrival at about 589 B.C.  Then we get this:

Quote

Between 588-570 B.C. – Lehi 1 dies (2 Ne 4:12); Nephites separate from the Lamanites (2 Ne. 5:5-14); Lamanites remain in land of Lehi; Nephi 1 leaves with followers and goes to a land, called land of Nephi (2 Ne. 5:8), and builds a temple after the manner of the temple of Solomon (2 Ne. 5:16).

c. 569 B.C. – Nephi 1 is commanded to make another set of plates (2 Ne. 5:30), later referred to as the small plates of Nephi, upon which is recorded the sacred records of the Nephites for approximately 440 years.

Beginning about 544 B.C. – Lamanites swear in their wrath to destroy the Nephites and their records (Enos 1:14); the beginning of contentions and wars between the two groups that occur periodically until the death of Moroni 2 and the ultimate destruction of the Nephites nearly 1,000 years later.

c. 544 B.C. – Nephi 1 dies (Jacob 1:12); is succeeded as keeper of the records by his brother Jacob 2 (Jacob 1:1).

After 544 B.C. – Sherem is one of first avowed anti-Christs, setting the pattern of teachings for later anti-Christs (Jacob 7:1-2).

c. 500 B.C. – Jacob 2, in his old age, delivers sacred plates to his son Enos 2 (Jacob 7:27).

At 544 B.C., Jacob would have been around 52 years old.

I'm not presenting anything new here.  The extrapolated timeline for The Book of Mormon has been around for a long time.  So when you came along and suggested that this timeline presents Jacob as being "over 140 years old" when he encountered Sherem, I simply attributed it to an error or misunderstanding on your part.

Quote

The questions point out the silliness of this all happening 10 years after their arrival. 

Ah.  I think I messed up there.  My apologies.  

I misquoted Sorenson.  He says:

Quote

The account of Sherem's encounter with Jacob reiterates the question. "Some {ten more?} years had passed away," and Jacob was now verging on "old" (cf. Jacob 7:1, 20-26). At that time "there came a man among the people of Nephi whose name was Sherem" (Jacob 1:1). 

Somehow I got my wires crossed and thought that the reference here to "{ten more} years had passed away" was in reference to then years from their arrival in the Americas.

Sorenson walks through the timeline, but doesn't give dates.  

So if we remove my error, does that resolve your question?  If not, please explain what you find problematic about the proposed timeline of Sherem interacting with Jacob around 544, when Jacob would have been about 52 years old.  How is that a problem?

Quote

It points out the silliness

"Silliness."

Sigh.

Quote

of a foreign person coming among them and becoming expert in their language and scripture without encountering Jacob. 

You're just poisoning the well here.  And you're not making an argument.  You aren't presenting evidence or reasoning.

Quote

After Nephi left Laman and Lemuel he said he got his people operating basically like a small settlement.  He also indicated he was a ruler over the for decades after this separation.  But this Sherem story has no Nephi.  It is Jacob who is leader, after Nephi had died. 

Nephi's death is mentioned in Jacob 1:12, which the timeline puts at around 544 B.C.  

How is this a problem?

Quote

At the end of 2 Ne 5, he indicates 40 years had passed with him as ruler and they had already warred with the Lamanites in that time.  Jacob didn't start recording his stuff until 55 years after Lehi left Jerusalem. 

Okay.  I'm with you.

Quote

If there were but 50 people and Jacob did has he said he did--he ministered among his people. 

And he may have been ministering to others as well.  Isn't that Sorenson's point?  

Quote

There is zero chance he did not encounter a foreign person who was in the midst of them trying to learn their language and scriptures. 

And yet the text indicates that Jacob had not previously met Sherem.  So rather than continue to poison the well, perhaps further analysis and discussion would be in order.

Let's consider what Sorenson has to say (since he directly addresses this point):

Quote

The account of Sherem's encounter with Jacob reiterates the question. "Some [ten more?] years had passed away," and Jacob was now verging on "old" (cf. Jacob 7:1, 20-26). At that time "there came a man among the people of Nephi whose name was Sherem" (Jacob 1:1). Upon first meeting Jacob, he said, "Brother Jacob, I have sought much opportunity that I might -speak unto you; for I have heard . . . that thou goest about much, preaching" (Jacob 7:6). Now, the population of adult males descended from the original group could not have exceeded fifty at that time. This would have been only enough to populate one modest-sized village. Thus Sherem's is a strange statement. Jacob, as head priest and religious teacher, would routinely have been around the Nephite temple in the cultural center at least on all holy days (see Jacob 2:2). How then could Sherem never have seen him, and why would he have had to seek "much opportunity" to speak to him in such a tiny settlement? And where would Jacob have had to go on the preaching travels Sherem refers to, if only such a tiny group were involved. Moreover, from where was it that Sherem "came ... among the people of Nephi" (Jacob 1:1)? The text and context of this incident would make little sense if the Nephite population had resulted only from natural demographic increase. 

Sorenson attributes the lack of contact between Jacob and Sherem to population increasing more than "only from natural demographic increase."  Is he wrong?  Is this impossible?  Implausible?  If so, how?

Quote

Its not that there had to be foreign people amongst the groups, its that the story is not workable with or without foreign people amongst them.   

Again, you're not making an argument.  You aren't presenting evidence or reasoning.  Sheer assertion just won't do.

Quote

The range is 544 B.C. and 421 B.C. 

Yes.  And?  What is the problem here?

Quote

I think I"m misunderstanding what you're putting down.  You say Sorenson estimated the Sherem story happened 10 years after their arrival ("Sorenson posits that the Sherem story took place ten or so years after Lehi's arrival").  Here you estimate the Jacob was born in 596 B.C.  Lehi's arrival was around 554 B.C.?  

I erred.  I apologize.  See above.

Quote

Where was Nephi when the Sherem story hit? 

Probably either dead or very elderly.  The same timeframe (544–421 B.C.) covers Jacob 1, when Nephi's death is noted.

I'm not certain that the Book of Jacob is a strictly chronological narrative, but seems likely that Jacob's interaction with Sherem in chapter 7 was subsequent to Nephi's death in chapter 1.

Quote

I mean when Jacob started his portion of the record he announced Nephi was old and had died.  So apparently this happened after Nephi died, right?  How could that be but 10 years after their arrival?  Are you misreading Sorenson?  

Yes.  Flat-out mistake on my part.  Mea maxima culpa.

Quote

Quote

I'm not sure anyone is saying that Sherem was definitely an outsider.  As noted above, Matthew Bowen has apparently argued that he arrived with Lehi (but was a descendant of Zoram, and hence a kinda-sorta "outsider," but not in the context we are discussing).

That makes far more sense. 

I think it's plausible.  But I don't see how it makes "far more sense" than Sherem being a genuine outsider.

Quote

It'd be impossible for a foreign person come to a group, become expert in their language, religion and scripture, the group numbering around 50 and not encounter Jacob. 

But isn't that Sorenson's point?  That by the time Sherem chatted up Jacob, the population had increased through the Lehites assimilating with, and marrying, folks who were already here?

Quote

Two things--1.  the story doesn't add up, no matter how you slice it. 

Again, you're not making an argument.  You aren't presenting evidence or reasoning.

Quote

2.  Sherem saying he had sought opportunity to speak with Jacob does not suggest they did not know each other.

Yes, it does.  Or, if you really want to split hairs, it could be reasonably construed as suggesting they did not know each other.

Bowen seems to be offering an alternative reading that is also plausible (I haven't familiarized myself with his argument).

We're pretty deep into conjectural territory here, so unequivocal (and unsubstantiated, and conclusory) declarations about what must be (such as "the story doesn't add up, no matter how you slice it") are not persuasive.

Quote

I often seek much opportunity to speak with people I already know. 

Presentism.

Because you think X in 2020, that must also have been what Sherem was thinking in 544 B.C. (or so).  That's it.  End of discussion.  It's Stemelbow's way, or the highway.  Either you agree with Stemelbow, or you're an idiot or a liar.  Because he says so.  Because "the story doesn't add up, no matter how you slice it."

Quote

What is apparent is they hadn't discussed Sherem's religious views. 

I actually chuckled when I read this.  So you can offer conjecture all the live long day, but nobody else can.  Your conjecture is the only one that makes sense.  There is no room for disagreement with you.  Any divergence from your unsubstantiated say-so fails, "no matter how you slice it."

Quote

The story comes off as, to me anyway, that Sherem was a younger person than Jacob and in time as he matured, developed his own way of viewing the religion which they all embraced.  There is no sign, absolutely none, that Sherem was an outsider.  

"Absolutely none."

I invite you to dwell on that statement, particularly in light of your next one:

Quote

A conclusion based on a number of assumptions.  

I'm increasingly confused as to what your beef is.  

I erred in my citation of Sorenson's chronology.  That's on me (though I apparently also erred in thinking that you were familiar with Sorenson's work, or that you had perhaps at least read the relevant excerpt from the link I had provided).

But I'm really not getting your point here.  You are acting as if you have discovered something significant, apparently a flaw in the conjectural timeline used by the Church, Sorenson, etc. relative to the events in the Book of Mormon.  But your post is chockablock full of because-I-say-so assertions and well-poisoning jabs, while simultaneously being devoid of meaningful effort to marshal evidence and present reasoned argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 16, 2020 by smac97

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

There's wrong, and then there's wrong.  Can reasonable minds differ when no one's salvation is at issue, particularly when salvation is a matter between the person and his Savior?  You may disagree, I believe they can.

Correct, nobody's salvation is at issue over the ancestry of Native Americans.  Nor was I referring to people having differences of opinion.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

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

One of the important points that Dr Southerton made in his book is the co-oping of the native American culture and heritage and replacing it with the pseudo-history in the Book of Mormon.  Suggesting, as the book does, that the great nations of the Americas were not solely responsible for their own agricultural, architectural and technological advancement themselves is a great crime, in my humble opinion.

A good anthropologist isn't going to downplay the great Amerind heritage, which begins long before the arrival of any Jaredites, Manassites, or Judahites (and associated peoples) -- which affects a very small area of Mesoamerica.  The domestication of unique crops alone is a huge accomplishment, which had already taken place.  However, it is no more true to fault theoretical late-comers, than to fault the late Mike Coe, a great non-Mormon scholar who focused on Mesoamerica, and who believed that Maya civilization (at least) had entailed powerful diffusion from Southeast Asia -- especially Cambodia.  Other non-Mormon scholars have found strong comparisons with Chinese culture (especially David Kelley writing on calendar deities, jade ideology, and the like).  Art historians are particularly intrigued.

3 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

  Plus imposing these people with the narrative that their skin colour is a curse is just down right evil.

Of course racism is evil, and being woke is politically correct.  However, the charge is unfair based on a careful reading of the text, as shown by the late John A. Tvedtnes, “The Charge of ‘Racism’ in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review of Books, 15/2 (2003):183-197, online at  https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1555&context=msr .

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Thinking said:

I wonder sometimes if some faithful LDS have selective amnesia about what was taught not too long ago.

"When Columbus discovered America, the native inhabitants, the American Indians as they were soon to be designated, were a people of mixed blood and origin. Chiefly they were Lamanites...The American Indians, however, as Columbus found them also had other blood than that of Israel in their veins...But with it all, for the great majority of the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere, the dominant blood lineage is that of Israel." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 32-33)

The very words of that great anthropologist, Bruce McConkie.  Oh, wait, he wasn't an anthropologist.  He was a lawyer.  And David O. McKay didn't like his book, Mormon Doctrine, for very specific reasons.  Indeed, he was not an apostle when he wrote his baleful but influential book.  Unfortunately, he frequently employed his personal speculations as fact, instead of consulting with scholars.  Being a faithful Mormon has nothing to do with believing false, non-canonical claims.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’m not referring to what Joseph said, my question was if you feel the Lord was employing hyperbole when he, through Joseph, referred to the Native Americans (circa mid 1800’s) as Jews and Lamanites.

Well, for the third time, you might want to cite the specific items you have in mind, quote them exactly, and provide a reasonable interpretation.  If you can do that in a broader biblical context, that would also be helpful.  As for the term "Native Americans," there are no such people.  Everyone in the Western Hemisphere is a migrant from somewhere else.  Some merely came earlier than others.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

Or, is it your assertion that Joseph was not able to accurately dictate/transcribe what the Lord was telling him?

Correct.  No human is able to perfectly transcribe or reflect the intentions of the Lord, and scribes are as subject to mistakes as the prophet who is speaking.  The Book of Mormon itself begs pardon for human faults in getting the word of the Lord right.  The Bible and Book of Mormon manuscripts are rife with errors.  I recently recounted on this board the multiple attestations of patriarchs that they edited their own blessings to better reflect the message as originally received.  Joseph edited his own revelations -- we have the manuscripts for comparison, and they are published for all to see.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Funny how often these disparagements about "church teachings" seldom involve actually quoting such teachings.

Easier to caricature and malign, perhaps.

An assertion of lacking "sense" is not self-evidently true.

I'm relying on calculations made by Sorenson and others.  If you have countervailing arguments and calculations, let's see 'em.  Simple contrary assertions won't do.

I think it's a reasonable one, though I agree it's a bit overstated (I think Bowens proposal makes sense in a prima facie sort of way).

We can draw reasonable inferences, though.

A fair point.  I think Tvedtnes has the better argument, though.  Conjecture on such fine points is all we can do, really.

That's a significantly overstated assumption there.  And conclusory.  And not reasoned from the evidence.  

Reasonable people can have divergent points of view about such conectural topics, so you labeling views you don't hold as "absurd" doesn't help.  It may just end up poisoning the well.

"Likely."

"If."

We're delving into conjectural topics.  I'm quite willing to give you and yours latitude in presenting your argument.  I hope you will reciprocate.  Labeling other views "absurd" doesn't help.

Conclusory.  

If you have a beef with this or that calculation, lay it out.  I'm willing to listen.  But unadorned, conclusory assertions like "more problematic" do not advance the discussion.

"Absolutely absurd." 

You're just poisoning the well here.  And you're not making an argument.  You aren't presenting evidence or reasoning.

"Silly."

Yawn.

Well, then present an argument for adjusting the timeline.  You're the one with the beef about it.  You're the one suggesting, without evidence or explanation, that it requires Jacob to have been "over 140 years old" when he encountered Sherem.

This article, published in the Church News in 1996, puts Lehi's arrival at about 589 B.C.  Then we get this:

At 544 B.C., Jacob would have been around 52 years old.

I'm not presenting anything new here.  The extrapolated timeline for The Book of Mormon has been around for a long time.  So when you came along and suggested that this timeline presents Jacob as being "over 140 years old" when he encountered Sherem, I simply attributed it to an error or misunderstanding on your part.

Ah.  I think I messed up there.  My apologies.  

I misquoted Sorenson.  He says:

Somehow I got my wires crossed and thought that the reference here to "{ten more} years had passed away" was in reference to then years from their arrival in the Americas.

What the....? You just spent half your post arguing about the 10 years later thing.  You could have just went back and deleted all of that once you realized you were wrong.  Of course the ten years afterward notion was absurd.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sorenson walks through the timeline, but doesn't give dates.  

So if we remove my error, does that resolve your question?  If not, please explain what you find problematic about the proposed timeline of Sherem interacting with Jacob around 544, when Jacob would have been about 52 years old.  How is that a problem?

"Silliness."

Sigh.

You're just poisoning the well here.  And you're not making an argument.  You aren't presenting evidence or reasoning.

Nephi's death is mentioned in Jacob 1:12, which the timeline puts at around 544 B.C.  

How is this a problem?

Okay.  I'm with you.

And he may have been ministering to others as well.  Isn't that Sorenson's point?  

And yet the text indicates that Jacob had not previously met Sherem.  So rather than continue to poison the well, perhaps further analysis and discussion would be in order.

Let's consider what Sorenson has to say (since he directly addresses this point):

Sorenson attributes the lack of contact between Jacob and Sherem to population increasing more than "only from natural demographic increase."  Is he wrong?  Is this impossible?  Implausible?  If so, how?

Again, you're not making an argument.  You aren't presenting evidence or reasoning.  Sheer assertion just won't do.

Yes.  And?  What is the problem here?

I erred.  I apologize.  See above.

Probably either dead or very elderly.  The same timeframe (544–421 B.C.) covers Jacob 1, when Nephi's death is noted.

I'm not certain that the Book of Jacob is a strictly chronological narrative, but seems likely that Jacob's interaction with Sherem in chapter 7 was subsequent to Nephi's death in chapter 1.

Yes.  Flat-out mistake on my part.  Mea maxima culpa.

I think it's plausible.  But I don't see how it makes "far more sense" than Sherem being a genuine outsider.

But isn't that Sorenson's point?  That by the time Sherem chatted up Jacob, the population had increased through the Lehites assimilating with, and marrying, folks who were already here?

How much of an increase? 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, you're not making an argument.  You aren't presenting evidence or reasoning.

Yes, it does.  Or, if you really want to split hairs, it could be reasonably construed as suggesting they did not know each other.

Bowen seems to be offering an alternative reading that is also plausible (I haven't familiarized myself with his argument).

We're pretty deep into conjectural territory here, so unequivocal (and unsubstantiated, and conclusory) declarations about what must be (such as "the story doesn't add up, no matter how you slice it") are not persuasive.

Presentism.

Lol

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because you think X in 2020, that must also have been what Sherem was thinking in 544 B.C. (or so).  That's it.  End of discussion.  It's Stemelbow's way, or the highway.  Either you agree with Stemelbow, or you're an idiot or a liar.  Because he says so.  Because "the story doesn't add up, no matter how you slice it."

I can't help your mistake.   The 10 years later thing threw this all off.  

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I actually chuckled when I read this.  So you can offer conjecture all the live long day, but nobody else can.  Your conjecture is the only one that makes sense.  There is no room for disagreement with you.  Any divergence from your unsubstantiated say-so fails, "no matter how you slice it."

I'm pointing out why I disagree.   Nothing more. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Absolutely none."

I invite you to dwell on that statement, particularly in light of your next one:

I'm increasingly confused as to what your beef is.  

I can see.   I'm pointing out how the story doesn't make sense if we're assume sherem and Jacob had never met (the text doesn't say that) and if we assume new people joined the group.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I erred in my citation of Sorenson's chronology.  That's on me (though I apparently also erred in thinking that you were familiar with Sorenson's work, or that you had perhaps at least read the relevant excerpt from the link I had provided).

Lol.  My fault?  I didn't know where you were getting that.  How was I supposed to know you made the mistake?  Sorenson could have said anything at any point.  Did you expect me to know everything he ever said?  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

But I'm really not getting your point here.  You are acting as if you have discovered something significant, apparently a flaw in the conjectural timeline used by the Church, Sorenson, etc. relative to the events in the Book of Mormon.  But your post is chockablock full of because-I-say-so assertions and well-poisoning jabs, while simultaneously being devoid of meaningful effort to marshal evidence and present reasoned argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

I welcome reasoned comments.  Of course the hole 10 yr timeline was absurd.  And of course the assumption they did not know each other makes no sense all things considered.  There's no easy sherem could have become expert in their religion and language and not have met Jacob before.  Even if they had 100 or 200 people its be impossible.  

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What the....? You just spent half your post arguing about the 10 years later thing.  You could have just went back and deleted all of that once you realized you were wrong.  Of course the ten years afterward notion was absurd.  

I spent about three minutes cobbling together a timeline.  I made a mistake.  I have owned up to making a mistake.

And that mistake has no apparent connection to your . . . whatever gripe it is you seem to have (Jacob being older than 140?).

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

But isn't that Sorenson's point?  That by the time Sherem chatted up Jacob, the population had increased through the Lehites assimilating with, and marrying, folks who were already here?

How much of an increase? 

You are at liberty to research the matter.  I already provided a link to Sorenson's article.

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Lol

I can't help your mistake.   The 10 years later thing threw this all off.  

So on this topic you only know as much as I offer up on a silver platter.

Lesson learned.

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

I actually chuckled when I read this.  So you can offer conjecture all the live long day, but nobody else can.  Your conjecture is the only one that makes sense.  There is no room for disagreement with you.  Any divergence from your unsubstantiated say-so fails, "no matter how you slice it."

I'm pointing out why I disagree.   Nothing more. 

"Nothing more."

Boy, ain't that the truth.

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Lol.  My fault?  I didn't know where you were getting that.  How was I supposed to know you made the mistake?  Sorenson could have said anything at any point.  Did you expect me to know everything he ever said?  

Well, I expected you to at least be marginally familiar with the relevant scholarship (I even provided links).

I stand corrected.

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I welcome reasoned comments. 

A pity you aren't providing reasoned comments.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I spent about three minutes cobbling together a timeline.  I made a mistake.  I have owned up to making a mistake.

And that mistake has no apparent connection to your . . . whatever gripe it is you seem to have (Jacob being older than 140?).

You are at liberty to research the matter.  I already provided a link to Sorenson's article.

So on this topic you only know as much as I offer up on a silver platter.

Lesson learned.

"Nothing more."

Boy, ain't that the truth.

Well, I expected you to at least be marginally familiar with the relevant scholarship (I even provided links).

I stand corrected.

A pity you aren't providing reasoned comments.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think my points apply.  I'm happy to move past th 10 yr thing.  

-it is unreasonable to conclude Sherem represents one who came from those already in the land because:

1.  Suggesting an outsider is perfect in the language and knows the scriptures is unlikely if that one had not met Jacob previously.  It would have taken many years of association to get there.  Even if they numbered 200 or 1,000, I'd say that's true.   

2.   It would require this small band of Nephites to be called leaders among a much larger group.  That's simply unlikely.  Forced them to change their language, religion and writing system?  Doesn't make sense.   

3.  The text fails to indicate any other people,  which is odd if the "other" people outnumbered the original Lamanite deserters.  Why would the others want Nephi then Jacob to lead them?  

4.  If Sherem were from the outside suggesting they were wrong in their religion then it makes no sense that he would believe their scriptures.  

I'll leave it at those 4 for now.   

[Fair Dinkum]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think my points apply.  I'm happy to move past th 10 yr thing.  

-it is unreasonable to conclude Sherem represents one who came from those already in the land because:

1.  Suggesting an outsider is perfect in the language and knows the scriptures is unlikely if that one had not met Jacob previously.  It would have taken many years of association to get there.  Even if they numbered 200 or 1,000, I'd say that's true.   

2.   It would require this small band of Nephites to be called leaders among a much larger group.  That's simply unlikely.  Forced them to change their language, religion and writing system?  Doesn't make sense.   

3.  The text fails to indicate any other people,  which is odd if the "other" people outnumbered the original Lamanite deserters.  Why would the others want Nephi then Jacob to lead them?  

4.  If Sherem were from the outside suggesting they were wrong in their religion then it makes no sense that he would believe their scriptures.  

I'll leave it at those 4 for now.   

I agree.  There is nothing in the story of Sherem that would suggest he is anything but an insider, member of the Nephite/Lamanite people. That he was familiar with Christ is evidence that he was an insider.  The use of Anti Christs are a familiar story theme in Smiths BoM .  Having an antagonist is central to many of his stories.

1 And now it came to pass after some years had passed away, there came a man among the people of Nephi, whose name was ^aSherem.

2 And it came to pass that he began to preach among the people, and to declare unto them that there should be ^ano Christ. And he preached many things which were flattering unto the people; and this he did that he might ^boverthrow the doctrine of Christ.

[Rajah Manchou]

10 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The notion that these people didn't accomplish all that they did on their own with NO assistance from some foreign immigrant people is a cultural sin that the Book of Mormon is guilty of.

The Book of Mormon isn't to blame. The text makes no claim to a geography. If anything the text goes out of its way to inform us that the intended setting was not in the Americas:

BOM: "We've got horses, goats, sheep, pigs and cattle."
Us: Must be Upstate New York.
BOM: "Er, but this land we speak of is within sailing range of the Arabian Peninsula. Three groups followed the currents and landed at the exact same spot."
Us: Is it Chile?
BOM: "Hmm...we live near a river that runs from south to north".
Us: Oh, must be the Mississippi.
BOM: "Well, the river is near a narrow neck of land that runs north/south, a peninsula, that takes about 1 day and half to walk across"
Us: Mexico, definitely.
BOM: But we've got elephants. Elephants are useful to us.
Us: There were wooly mammoths found in Arizona.
BOM: Iron, chariots, scimitars and silk.
Us: Meteorites, palanquins, macuahuitls and pineapple fiber.
BOM: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Kenngo1969]

Quote

 

Jacob 7:4

4 And he was learned, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people; wherefore, he could use much flattery, and much power of speech, according to the power of the devil.

 

Stemelbow,

I draw exactly the opposite conclusion you do from that verse. If Sherem came from among the Nephites rather than being an outsider to them, why bother mentioning his proficiency with their language at all? Wouldn’t such proficiency simply be a given? It’s true that one needs to do a certain amount of learning to acquire one’s native language, but trust me: I know from personal experience that the effort required to acquire one’s native language pales in comparison to the amount of learning one must do even to become somewhat proficient in a second language, much less to acquire a “perfect knowledge” of that language, as Sherem did.

Quote

If Sherem were from the outside suggesting they were wrong in their religion then it makes no sense that he would believe their scriptures.

Sherem says he believes their scriptures, but his continuing dialogue with Jacob seems to put the lie to that assertion:

Quote

 

Jacob 7:

9 And I said unto him: Deniest thou the Christ who shall come? And he said: If there should be a Christ, I would not deny him; but I know that there is no Christ, neither has been, nor ever will be.

10 And I said unto him: Believest thou the scriptures? And he said, Yea.

11 And I said unto him: Then ye do not understand them; for they truly testify of Christ. Behold, I say unto you that none of the prophets have written, nor prophesied, save they have spoken concerning this Christ.

 

 

[Rajah Manchou]

54 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Sherem says he believes their scriptures, but his continuing dialogue with Jacob seems to put the lie to that assertion:

Apologies, I'm not familiar with the "Sherem as Other" discussion. 

Is the argument that Sherem was a Mayan? 

[Kenngo1969]

6 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Apologies, I'm not familiar with the "Sherem as Other" discussion. 

Is the argument that Sherem was a Mayan? 

Is whose argument that "Sherem is a Mayan"?  I'm not trying to guess Sherem's ethnicity.  I'm simply reading what the text says.  Verse 1 of Jacob 7 says Sherem "came among" the people of Nephi.  Why would he have to "come among" them if he were already among them?  And, as I've already pointed out, why make a point that Sherem "was learned" in the language of the people if it were his native tongue (v. 4)?