tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post114031234462703868..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: The LA Times Discovers Another Very Old Story: DNA and the Book of MormonJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-4960338225960625962015-11-22T15:16:42.307-06:002015-11-22T15:16:42.307-06:00I really liked this part of the article, with a ni...I really l<a href="http://masterfilehippo.blogspot.com/2015/11/download-free-pale-moon-2017-latest.html" title="" rel="nofollow">i</a>ked th<a href="http://masterfilehippo.blogspot.com/2015/11/pale-moon-latest-version.html" title="" rel="nofollow">i</a>s part of the art<a href="http://firefox2016freedownloadlatestversion.blogspot.com/2015/11/google-chrome-browser-2016.html" title="" rel="nofollow">i</a>cle<a href="http://downloadoflineinstaller.blogspot.com/2015/11/driverpack-solution-2016.html" title="" rel="nofollow">,</a> w<a href="http://downofflineinstaller.blogspot.com/2015/11/avast-free-antivirus-2016.html" title="" rel="nofollow">i</a>th a n<a href="http://googlechrome2016freedownloadoffline.blogspot.com/2015/11/google-earth-2016.html" title="" rel="nofollow">i</a>ce and <a href="http://linkfromfilehippo.blogspot.com/2015/11/baidu-antivirus-2016.html" title="" rel="nofollow">i</a>nterest<a href="http://canon-epson-hp-alldriversoftdownload.blogspot.com/2015/11/baidu-antivirus-2016.html" title="" rel="nofollow">i</a>ng top<a href="http://acehinfoo.blogspot.com/2015/11/qqplayer-2016.html" title="" rel="nofollow">i</a>cs have helped a lot of people who do not challenge th<a href="http://acehfile.blogspot.com/2015/11/google-chrome-full-offline-installer.html" title="" rel="nofollow">i</a>ngs people should know.<a href="http://easy-photoprint.blogspot.com/2015/11/winamp-full-offline-installer.html" title="" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://carmagazi.blogspot.com/2015/11/smadav-rev-10-4.html" title="" rel="nofollow">.</a> you need more publ<a href="http://epsoncanonbrotherdellhp.blogspot.com/2015/11/telecharger-canon-pixma-mx892-driver.html" title="" rel="nofollow">i</a>c<a href="http://87facebook.blogspot.com/2015/11/winamp-full-offline-installer.html" title="" rel="nofollow">i</a>ze th<a href="http://offlinefilehippo.blogspot.com/2015/11/telecharger-smadav-2016.html" title="" rel="nofollow">i</a>s so many people who know about <a href="http://downprinterdriver.blogspot.com/2015/11/telecharger-hp-officejet-6700-driver.html" title="" rel="nofollow">i</a>t are rare for people to know th<a href="http://toptenreview.edublogs.org/2015/11/20/epson-expression-xp-850-printer-review/" title="" rel="nofollow">i</a>s<a href="http://toptenreview.edublogs.org/2015/11/20/pale-moon-browsers-review/" title="" rel="nofollow">,</a> Success for you<a href="http://toptenreview.edublogs.org/2015/11/20/google-chrome-best-browsers-review/" title="" rel="nofollow">.</a> <a href="http://toptenreview.edublogs.org/2015/11/20/winamp-full-software-review/" title="" rel="nofollow">.</a> <a href="http://toptenreview.edublogs.org/2015/11/20/winamp-full-offline-installer-review/" title="" rel="nofollow">.</a> <a href="http://toptenreview.edublogs.org/2015/11/20/hp-officejet-6700-premium-review/" title="" rel="nofollow">.</a> <a href="http://toptenreview.indonesiaz.com/hp-officejet-6700-premium-review-2016.xhtml" title="" rel="nofollow">.</a> <a href="http://toptenreview.indonesiaz.com/qq-player-review-2016.xhtml" title="" rel="nofollow">.</a> <a href="LINK" title="" rel="nofollow">.</a> <a href="http://toptenreview.indonesiaz.com/qq-player-review-2016.xhtml" title="" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://toptenreview.indonesiaz.com/winamp-full-software-review-2016.xhtml" title="" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://toptenreview.indonesiaz.com/google-chrome-software-review-2016.xhtml" title="" rel="nofollow">.</a><a href="http://toptenreview.indonesiaz.com/google-chrome-best-browsers-review-2016.xhtml" title="" rel="nofollow">.</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06505890956270451445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1141676248081665522006-03-06T14:17:00.000-06:002006-03-06T14:17:00.000-06:00Sorry, looks like I accidentally posted twice. Lo...Sorry, looks like I accidentally posted twice. Looks like this thread is dead anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1141408930285892322006-03-03T12:02:00.000-06:002006-03-03T12:02:00.000-06:00Are you referencing the right place? Verse 21 says...Are you referencing the right place? Verse 21 says "them." Verse 20 refers to the "seed of my brethren." Nephi never says Lamanites, he says "seed." That means progeny, not allies.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I am. These verses clearly refer to the Lamanites, who are certainly seed of his brethren, as Laman and Lemuel were his brothers. I think this is where much of the controversy lies. "Seed of my brethren" often, though not always, applies to the Lamanites. It certainly does in this verse, since he refers to their dwindling in unbelief and their becoming dark and filthy. Hence, this "Gentile" invasion clearly fits into the context of having wars "among them."<BR/><BR/>Right, but one they hadn't violated. They prosper for 55 years as a righteous people (through Jac1:15, when they begin to practice polygamy), but the skin of blackness hits within the first 30 years. So that couldn't have been from "other nations" because "other nations" have no access to the land for at least 55 years. The Lamanites are attacking the Nephites during the righteous 55 years, so they still couldn't have been allied with "other nations."<BR/><BR/>The key chapter here is 2 Ne. 5. When I refer to people apostasizing/intermarrying, I refer to the Lamanites. So when the Nephites left in chpt. 5, the Lamanites took over the land, thus fulfilling 2 Ne. 1:10. Since the Lamanites were in the original land of inheritance, they (assuming they constitute other nations by this poi By now, they had constituted other nations because of their apostasy and intermingling with the natives.<BR/> Of course, the Nephites apostasized too, but they would not have intermarried, as they often convinced themselves they were living according to the covenant.<BR/><BR/>This is new to me--a "Two Promised Lands" model. Unfortunately, the promised land is surrounded by water (2Ne10:10) and includes Missouri (D&C 57:1-2), so reaching another promised land would require a boat. But they went through "the wilderness," not in a boat. "The promised land" is a place, whether it's currently offering blessings or not.<BR/><BR/>I'm not suggesting that they sailed anywhere. I'm suggesting simply that they moved a number of miles away (maybe 10, 20, 100 miles away, who knows). Also, as to Jackson County, Joseph Smith taught that all of NOrth and South America is designated as Zion, and hence a gathering place for the Saints. That does not indicate a geographic model for the BOM, but rather, a doctrinal truth about the future of the Church in AMerica in the Last Days. So when I speak of another promised land, I'm not making a grand leap. Simply that Nephi and his fam needed to move away from the Lamanites, in the same way that some people need to leave home to live the blessings of the gospel (those disowned by parents and the like)<BR/><BR/><BR/>EnjoyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1141408903674394322006-03-03T12:01:00.000-06:002006-03-03T12:01:00.000-06:00Are you referencing the right place? Verse 21 says...Are you referencing the right place? Verse 21 says "them." Verse 20 refers to the "seed of my brethren." Nephi never says Lamanites, he says "seed." That means progeny, not allies.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I am. These verses clearly refer to the Lamanites, who are certainly seed of his brethren, as Laman and Lemuel were his brothers. I think this is where much of the controversy lies. "Seed of my brethren" often, though not always, applies to the Lamanites. It certainly does in this verse, since he refers to their dwindling in unbelief and their becoming dark and filthy. Hence, this "Gentile" invasion clearly fits into the context of having wars "among them."<BR/><BR/>Right, but one they hadn't violated. They prosper for 55 years as a righteous people (through Jac1:15, when they begin to practice polygamy), but the skin of blackness hits within the first 30 years. So that couldn't have been from "other nations" because "other nations" have no access to the land for at least 55 years. The Lamanites are attacking the Nephites during the righteous 55 years, so they still couldn't have been allied with "other nations."<BR/><BR/>The key chapter here is 2 Ne. 5. When I refer to people apostasizing/intermarrying, I refer to the Lamanites. So when the Nephites left in chpt. 5, the Lamanites took over the land, thus fulfilling 2 Ne. 1:10. Since the Lamanites were in the original land of inheritance, they (assuming they constitute other nations by this poi By now, they had constituted other nations because of their apostasy and intermingling with the natives.<BR/> Of course, the Nephites apostasized too, but they would not have intermarried, as they often convinced themselves they were living according to the covenant.<BR/><BR/>This is new to me--a "Two Promised Lands" model. Unfortunately, the promised land is surrounded by water (2Ne10:10) and includes Missouri (D&C 57:1-2), so reaching another promised land would require a boat. But they went through "the wilderness," not in a boat. "The promised land" is a place, whether it's currently offering blessings or not.<BR/><BR/>I'm not suggesting that they sailed anywhere. I'm suggesting simply that they moved a number of miles away (maybe 10, 20, 100 miles away, who knows). Also, as to Jackson County, Joseph Smith taught that all of NOrth and South America is designated as Zion, and hence a gathering place for the Saints. That does not indicate a geographic model for the BOM, but rather, a doctrinal truth about the future of the Church in AMerica in the Last Days. So when I speak of another promised land, I'm not making a grand leap. Simply that Nephi and his fam needed to move away from the Lamanites, in the same way that some people need to leave home to live the blessings of the gospel (those disowned by parents and the like)<BR/><BR/><BR/>EnjoyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1141350095818343782006-03-02T19:41:00.000-06:002006-03-02T19:41:00.000-06:00Addendum to question #5The land here could well re...Addendum to question #5<BR/><BR/>The land here could well refer to the limited area to which Lehi arrived. Following the Lamanite apostasy,however, the land was left to itself, to be overrun by the Lamanites (See Alma chpt. 45 on how the land can become cursed by the Lord; also, see 2 Ne. 5 as to how the land will be cursed via the Lamanites)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1141346244419431132006-03-02T18:37:00.000-06:002006-03-02T18:37:00.000-06:00As far as persuasion goes, the reason I haven't tr...As far as persuasion goes, the reason I haven't tried to prove anything is because, honestly, I'm not terribly bent on doing that. I have indicated that the text is not nearly as explicit as you would have it be. You offer a number of answers, but I find them insatisfactory. For example, the question of Zeniffites. Since Zeniff is of Nephite stock, the guards ought to have recognized their fellow Nephites by language and by race. They did not, indicating that perceptions of the Nephites had shifted in the cultural paradigm of the Zeniffites. indeed, had Zeniff recognized Ammon as a Nephite (which he should have done if he still retained his Nephite beliefs), he would not have bothered to give Ammon a fairly lengthy explanation of who he was (v. 9) Why would that have been, unless there had been some outside influence. <BR/><BR/>Ultimately, though, I would far prefer to allow different schools of thought to accept a parity with their rivals in a kind of balance of power situation (as I believe the evidence so indicates). But to your questions...<BR/><BR/>1. 1Ne13 says the "seed of my brethren" are divided from "the Gentiles" (not "some of the Gentiles") by "many waters." How can the Gentiles be on the same land, intermarrying?<BR/><BR/>Your question seems a little unclear to my feeble mind. However, I'm willing to grant the possibility that the Gentiles referred to in 1 Ne. 13 were largely referring to the European settlers. However (emphasis) however, we need not assume that the European Gentiles are the only ones around. Hopefully, this concession will cut the Gordian knot of this question. <BR/><BR/>2. Those Gentiles come led by one man, then as a bunch of refugees. This group fights a war against the country they left. They are white. They have the Bible. Who are said Gentiles?<BR/><BR/><BR/>See above question.<BR/><BR/>3. If another, unmentioned Gentile invasion occured from Asia between 400 and 1492 CE, how could they be "divided from the Gentiles" a few centuries later? <BR/><BR/>The question is: what was Nephi seeing and what was the purpose of his vision? Ultimately, it is a buildup to the Restoration and the first half of John's revelation (see Chapt. 14). Hence, it would not be a major part of the revelation, other than that mentioned in chapt. 12 (note that, this "unmentioned Gentile" invasion is very much implied in verses 21-23, esp. 21). Also, from the wording of verse 21, we see that the wars were "among them." That does not require that the wars involve strictly the Lamanites, except in the sense that the Nephites view them as a monolith (I've beaten that point to death, so I'll leave it there).<BR/><BR/>4. In 2Ne5 the Nephites are still righteous. If they are being scattered by the aborigines (under the umbrella of Lamanites), how do you reconcile this with 2Ne1:9, which states "they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves?"<BR/><BR/>See first part of the verse--"Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments..." That's the big caveat. <BR/><BR/>5. While you're there, check 2Ne1:8, which says "this land shall be kept as yet from other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land." How could other nations be there when they arrived?<BR/><BR/>That was true, until the Lamanites jumped off the deep end, the reasoning for which Nephi's party even left. <BR/><BR/>6. How could the Nephite's have, as you say, "left the land?" Are you suggesting that part of the Americas is "not promised?" If so, reconcile the initial success of the righteous Nephites (which you would be claiming are not in the promised land) with 1Ne4:14.<BR/><BR/>Promises are based on righteousness. When the Lamanites attacked the Nephites, then the "promise" left. And God saw fit that the best way to solve that was to remove the Nephites to another land of promise, close by.<BR/><BR/>There you go. Hope you like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1141325437320891972006-03-02T12:50:00.000-06:002006-03-02T12:50:00.000-06:00Pardon the misunderstanding on the Gentiles commen...Pardon the misunderstanding on the Gentiles comment. I should have added an adjective that i left out in my haste "European Gentiles." So we need not assume that when Nephi or Lehi refer to "Gentiles" or "other nations" that they refer to European Gentiles.<BR/><BR/>Except they would have found the "others" rather significant, given that the land had been kept from other nations, according to God.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Just a brief comment. By the time the others had overrun the land, the Nephites had exited the area, hence the Nephites would not have been in the know about the doings of the Lamanites. The mere fact that Nephi left the land in 2 Ne. 5 is likely an indication that he believed the Lamanites were apostasizing by flirting with other religions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1141285896539350562006-03-02T01:51:00.000-06:002006-03-02T01:51:00.000-06:00I see that the problem here is not a want of evide...I see that the problem here is not a want of evidence for either side. The problem rests in the assumptions, mine included. <BR/><BR/>In sum, there has been no evidence any internal inconsistency, only that the text is inconsistent with your interpretation. Honestly, since I do not know Jacob's mind and since Jacob's writings are limited, we cannot know precisely what Jacob meant. Similarly, i did not have Nephi's vision, so I cannot say with definitiveness who the "Gentiles" were. However, you seem quite convinced, beyond any power of human persuasion, that the Gentiles were, indeed, must be Gentiles. How can you know this so certainly? Nephi offers little commentary on it. Additionally, why would record keepers even bother with discussing details they considered minor or even obvious? The fact that others were hanging around would be as obvious as the fact they they farmed for a living. It is thus quite daring for us to declare that others COULD NOT exist simply becuase the Nephites do not mention them.<BR/><BR/>Certainly, as I noted, the 2 Nephi prophecy was filled many times, Europeans included. But can you say that those other nations WERE NOT native tribes? Without a vision from God, you cannot. We must be willing to let the text speak for itself, something I've seen you support, but it appears that you only want to speak for itself when you the one pulling the strings--a scriptural ventriliquist at its finest.<BR/><BR/>Lehi's injunction to the Lamanites was clearly violated. Why would Nephi's party have separated in 2 Nephi 5 otherwise? Because, as Nephi notes, the Lamanites had apostasized. Hence, the curses of Lehi would come upon them, that of other nations overruning Lamanite territory. The OT example doesn't quite work either, simply because God chooses to deal with individual cases in his own way does he not? (And please don't use the cliche, "God is unchangeable" approach--it is a narrow approach that uses a phrase or two of scripture incorrectly to build a whole theology)<BR/><BR/>Even 1Ne13 says they'll come. But as of 2Ne1, they weren't there.<BR/><BR/>Again, you view these scriptures far too narrowly, when the text does not require that you do so. Prophecies can be fulfilled in multiple times in multiple ways (see Isa. 9, where Isaiah refers both to the birth of the son of King HEzekiah and to the birth of the Savior, the examples abound) <BR/><BR/>Finally, here are some questions for you. When Alma speaks of the Zoramites, saying that many of them are his brethren (Alma 31:35), what Zoramites weren't his brethren? When Alma was returning to Ammonihah, why was the first thing he told Amulek, "I am a Nephite? (Alma 8:20)" It should have been obvious if the city were strictly Nephite (and the Lamanites were largely separated by this time). Furthermore, why did King Limhi, upon seeing Ammon in Mosiah chapter, ask for Ammon's identity, considering that the Zeniffite Limhi should well have known Ammon's race, dialect from his previous encounters with the Nephites. But he did not. This should indicate that there were some other cultures at work here.<BR/><BR/>And finally, as to the family analogy, so you're saying that if I say that the Pacific Ocean rests between my brother and I, that I'm implying that only brother (or his family) live on the other side of the notion? And to say <BR/> <BR/>Ultimately, I just suggest that your demand for internal consistency is actually a demand for consistency with your previously held notion about a hemispheric model for the BOM. When Joseph Smith himself held a fluid view of BOM geography, we certainly should not become so convinced of any geography that we use our convictions as the standard work for BOM scholarship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1141251901432573982006-03-01T16:25:00.000-06:002006-03-01T16:25:00.000-06:00PUt simply, you ignore important language in 2 nep...PUt simply, you ignore important language in 2 nephi 1:8--'as yet." And there was indeed midstream mixing after 2 nephi 5, since, as Nephi notes, that is when the Lamanites really jumped off the deep end. Lehi's prophecy was fulfilled many times, ultimately with the destruction of the Nephites, but also with the cultural homoginization of the Lamanties. <BR/><BR/>When Nephi says that the waters separate his brethren from the Gentiiles, that is no different from me saying that the ocean separtes me from my family. I am not claiming that my family are the only people who live in their country. Rather, I am simply acknowledging a geographic location. Similarly, Nephi stating that the 'seed of his brethren' live in the land does not preclude others living there as well.<BR/><BR/>As to Lehi's statement that other nations would not know about the land, that was a conditional promise, contingent upon his seed's righteousness which did not last long.<BR/><BR/>The change of tribal names is quite significant. Tribes don't change their names for nothing. Like many names, a tribe pays a great deal of attention to its tribe's name and that of another (for better or for worse). So when Jacob claims to call them just Lamanites, it's likely a commentary on an increased complication of the familial makeup of the Lamanites. And I'm not claiming that Jacobs claim in 1:10 is merely a change in name--it's a change in paradigm. Jacob was indicating that their society had chosen to view the Lamanites as a monolith rather than an alliance of different absorbed tribes (tribes that had joined up with them due to, according to 2 neph. 1, wickedness).<BR/><BR/>As to the Anti-Nephi Lehies, their case indeed does show precisely the complexity of the situation. Notice, the Nephites (for the most part) were quite willing to refer to the A.N.L. by their true name rather than absorb them into their own tribe. Since the A.N.L. were basically allies, the Nephites viewed them favorablly, hence their willingness to call them by the correct name. Not so with the Lamanites.<BR/><BR/>And I don't really know who you were referring to with the Crabtree reference. There's a crabtree building on the BYU campus, but the name's hardly known by anybody, including my parents (who've been around the block on matters of recent church history).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1141188356931297282006-02-28T22:45:00.000-06:002006-02-28T22:45:00.000-06:00ujlapana: "It's only modern challenges to that st...<I><B>ujlapana:</B> "It's only modern challenges to that story (growth-rate analysis, DNA findings, etc.) that have led to looking through the cracks in the BoM to try and justify that the Israelites were bit players in the promised land."</I><BR/><BR/>Really? How do you explain, if that is so, the fact that limited geographical models and General Authority statements about others in the land began to appear in print roughly three decades before Crick and Watson even discovered the structure of the DNA molecule, and roughly seven decades before the earliest demographic growth-rate analyses? (They were arguably in existence even before that, but let's go with a very conservative reading of the evidence.)<BR/> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1141057217959684522006-02-27T10:20:00.000-06:002006-02-27T10:20:00.000-06:00I'm afraid you, like many of us in various discipl...I'm afraid you, like many of us in various disciplines, are stultifying your paradigm to only allow for one interpretation. <BR/><BR/>Example: 2 Nephi chpt. 5, as you acknowledge, can indeed be read to allow for other nations to be present<BR/><BR/>Example: 2 Nephi 1:10. You're saying it couldn't be referring to non-Israelites. Why? Because you have the a priori assumption that the BOM MUST be referring to the English/Spanish. There is nothing in the text limiting the "other nations" to the Europeans, especially since it is not likely that Nephi would have referred to the native tribes individually (for reasons stated previously, a tendency to lump them in with the Lamanites). You also claim because it's referring to the English and Spanish, there must not have been other tribes there. This appears to be circular reasoning, something I would suggest avoiding.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>And how can we assume that "giving the other nations power" means utter military conquest? Apostasy was present from the beginning and considering that the Lamanites are no longer known to much of the world, it is likely that they were absorbed into the other tribal monikers (what happened with Moroni in the final book). Power could very well refer to social and political power by adopting the Lamanites into another tribe (though the Nephites, not being terribly familiar or open with the "heathen" would still have referred to them as Lamanites)<BR/><BR/>Also, you complain of me trying to push something onto the text as far as political mobility (the ability to be referred to under different political titles). However, I pointed out the example of the Anti-Nephi Lehies, who clearly changed political banners and were not known by Jacob's titles in 1:13. These were ethnic Lamanites known as a form of political Nephites. <BR/><BR/>Similarly, my "trying to explain away racist scriptures" is simply loaded language for my offering another interpretation, something that happens in textual readings all the time. Let's not confuse alternative readings for wild-eyed apologetics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1141021501650359612006-02-27T00:25:00.000-06:002006-02-27T00:25:00.000-06:00As far as 2 Nephi 5 goes, I'm not stating that the...As far as 2 Nephi 5 goes, I'm not stating that the Nephites don't apply to the situation. Also, the skin of blackness is not listed by Nephi as being part of the "curse." It was only so that the Nephites would not intermarry. Rather, he states that the cursing was of idleness and subtlety. Hence, this verse could be viewed as stating not only the fate of those Nephites who intermarry, but also those other groups who joined with the Lamanites. This would be likely, since with Nephi writing in retrospect, he likely would not have been concerned with delineating the political/ethnic divisions amongst those who joined the Lamanite political banner, whether those allies were ethnic Lamanites or not. <BR/><BR/>This is an important point: as a lineage history, the Nephites were not stating eternal truth when they referred to the seed of their brethren or even, like Jacob, to the various tribes of the house of Nephi. This can be seen in the next verse: "I call them Lamanites that seek destroy the people of Nephi." Allies and intricacies are unimportant to Jacob. Similarly, those who later joined the faith from Ammon's missionary efforts were likewise numbered as being Anti-Nephi Lehies--no longer Lamanites. Titles were fluid for the Nephites, especially when alliances are involved (as seen in the example below). Since this was an ethnocentric history, Nephi was far more concerned with establishing his lineage then he was with discussing the natives who seemed to blend into a Lamanite borg, due to the skin of blackness.<BR/><BR/><BR/>In this regard, they had a bit of a Manichean worldview of us vs. them. THroughout the BOM (esp. in Jacob 7), the Nephites show this interesting self-consciousness that seems to focus all events around them. This happened with the Mormons in Utah--when one separates him/herself from society, internal distinctions melt away. <BR/><BR/>On 2 Nephi 1:10, the Nephites were not faithful for the most part. Around 400 AD, they were utterly destroyed in divine judgment, around the beginning of the Classical Mayan period. <BR/>You lose me on the Ergo here. Since the blessing was given as a general blessing to his children, given well before he begins the specific blessings in chapter 2. Consequently, "other nations" must refer to someone outside of Lehi's lineage, not the Lamanites.<BR/><BR/>Oy vey, it is late here too. Talk to ya later.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1141018215985635322006-02-26T23:30:00.000-06:002006-02-26T23:30:00.000-06:00Please direct me to the sections of the BoM that "...Please direct me to the sections of the BoM that "clearly indicate the presence of others."<BR/><BR/>2 Ne 5:20-24 describes the Lamanites turning dark, then says whoever intermarries will be dark. Obviously, the Nephites were available to intermarry, as were Gentiles millenia later. This does not refute my earlier passages (which I correct below).<BR/><BR/>I'm not following why you think 1Ne13:10 includes non-Lehite/Mulekite tribes. If you're not an Israelit, you have to be on the other side of "many waters." Further illustrating this, Jacob 1:13 makes an inclusive list (no "and so forth" or "such as") of the member tribes of the Lamanites, all of which were descended from the original landing party.<BR/><BR/>On 2Ne1:10, the Nephites stayed faithful (for the most part), so <I>they</I> would have been protected from "other nations." Ergo, only Israelites could have been harrasing them. A post-Columbus mixing makes perfect sense with Lehi's covenant, a pre-Coumbian one does not.<BR/><BR/>"It is difficult to pinpoint the references from there because many appear to have been mistyped."<BR/><BR/>1 Ne 1:12 should have read 1 Ne 12 (specifically the end of the chapter).<BR/><BR/>You already figured that out 1 Ne 2 references should have been 1 Ne 13. (In my defense, I'm typing in the Eastern hemisphere, so it was 2 AM when I posted.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1141008042448002822006-02-26T20:40:00.000-06:002006-02-26T20:40:00.000-06:00I would have to disagree with this interpretation,...I would have to disagree with this interpretation, as it does not account for other sections in the BOM which clearly indicate the presence of others. Those that do seem to indicate such, as noted by ANon, are quite early indicators, leaving nearly 900 years available for mixing and intermarriage. <BR/><BR/>For example, even as early as 2 Ne. 5, Nephi's curse implies that mixing will indeed take place, as he states that cursed is he who mixeth with their seed (2 Nephi 5:23-24). Also, in this light, it would be well to view Nephi's record as being quite ethnocentric in its approach, as a lineage history rather than a general one as in 1 Nephi 13:10 rather than 2:10, which you cite. Consequently, Nephi does not care to differentiate between Laman/Lemuel's seed and other tribes. They are all part of the "other"--Lamanites.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, Nephi would not be terribly interested in the nations of the non-believing tribes, at least as far as the efficacy of Lehi's covenant is concerned (2 Nephi 1: 9-11). These appear, rather than being indications that only Israelites would inherit the land, that the land would be taken over in the case of wickedness (which certainly took place with the Lamanites) Indeed, it appears that apostasy of the Lamanites invited "other nations" to intermingle with them (v. 10-11 specifically).<BR/><BR/>It is difficult to pinpoint the references from there because many appear to have been mistyped. Let's just recognize that there is certainly a plausible case to be made for the multi-tribal Lamanite model.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1140985930917753942006-02-26T14:32:00.000-06:002006-02-26T14:32:00.000-06:00I'd hardly ascribe the idea that only Mulekites an...I'd hardly ascribe the idea that only Mulekites and Lehites populated the land (All the Jaredites women died, don't forget) as a cultural view, rather than a scriptural one.<BR/><BR/>1 Ne 1:12--Nephi fortells the story of the BoM as his "seed" and the "seed of my brethren." Not allied tribes that have diluted their seed.<BR/><BR/>1 Ne 2:10--waters divided the Gentiles from the "seed of my bretheren." Thay wouldn't be the case if Asians were on the contitent.<BR/><BR/>1 Ne 2:12--by 1492, he still refers to the promised land (as far north as where the Pilgrims arrive) as inhabited by his brothers' seed. He discusses (in v. 30) the mixing of seeds, but only between 2 groups--his and his brothers'.<BR/><BR/>1 Ne 18:25--lots of details about what they found, but no humans.<BR/><BR/>2 Ne 1:9-11--Seems pretty clear that the promised land couldn't be inhabited by anybody other than former Israelites (at least in a peaceful way).<BR/><BR/>So, these "cultural notions" didn't originate in a vacuum. They seem pretty clearly driven by the BoM itself...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1140851689745045042006-02-25T01:14:00.000-06:002006-02-25T01:14:00.000-06:00Happy to help, if I can:http://tinyurl.com/mvgp2Happy to help, if I can:<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/mvgp2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1140829436175956042006-02-24T19:03:00.000-06:002006-02-24T19:03:00.000-06:00Worked fine for me.GrannyWorked fine for me.<BR/>GrannyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1140813195227997212006-02-24T14:33:00.000-06:002006-02-24T14:33:00.000-06:00Mr. Peterson: You need to correct your link. It d...Mr. Peterson: <BR/><BR/>You need to correct your link. It does not work. May I suggest utilizing tinyurl.com?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1140736975808411462006-02-23T17:22:00.000-06:002006-02-23T17:22:00.000-06:00A new article on the issue of Amerindian DNA and t...A new article on the issue of Amerindian DNA and the Book of Mormon, written by the geneticist Dr. John Butler, has been posted on the FARMS web site:<BR/><BR/>http://farms.byu.edu/publications/dna/Butl...DNA_Feb2006.php<BR/><BR/>Very good stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1140453874360242872006-02-20T10:44:00.000-06:002006-02-20T10:44:00.000-06:00Mr. Lindsay likes to make comparisons between the ...Mr. Lindsay likes to make comparisons between the "real" and the un-real that don't make much sense to me.<BR/><BR/>I'm pretty sure the LA Times has reported on the outsourcing news (which may or may not be a national security disaster).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1140390669028332422006-02-19T17:11:00.000-06:002006-02-19T17:11:00.000-06:00Very old story for whom? Most members of the chur...Very old story for whom? Most members of the church I've had contact with before I went inactive still believed what is written in the preface to the BoM, that is, that people from the Middle East are the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. <BR/><BR/>I don't know for sure, but I'd certainly guess, that most of them would also expect to see DNA evidence backing up that assertion. That there isn't any, while not a "mortal blow" to Mormonism, certainly has caused more than one member to reconsider their faith. <BR/><BR/>It's also worth noting that the column where that piece ran is traditionally dedicated to stories like this one--human interest type stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1140361746160863052006-02-19T09:09:00.000-06:002006-02-19T09:09:00.000-06:00I saw the article too and was very disappointed. I...I saw the article too and was very disappointed. I'm a journalist, and I know how hard it is to write about matters I know nothing about, and it's obvious that this writer (and those who edited the story) had the same problem. But the facts and the implications of the story still should have been checked out more.<BR/><BR/>When I first started the story, I was led to believe that there's something out there worthy of shaking my faith. But there was nothing new, and the writer and editors apparently didn't know that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com