Contradiction in the Book of Mormon?

[Guest]

So why didn't God inform Nephi that the land had in fact been inhabited before and hadn't been kept from all other nations as a Land of Promise pending Nephi's groups arrival?

The land he was in was not supposed to have been inhabited by the Jaredites. The real problem is the Book of Mormon does not mention any of the nations that would already have been living in these areas. There is no way Nephi was going to miss this, especially if you want it in Meso-america. NE states doesn't make it any better. Europeans coming over never had a problem finding many nations of Natives.

[_son of Ishmael]

Contradiction in the Book of Mormon? What? How is that possible? Next thing you are going to tell me is that the Book of Abraham wasn't translated from the papyri either.

[_consiglieri]

I think you make an interesting point.
Can you point me in the right direction to research the chronology of the translation of the Book of Mormon? (when Joseph did which bit etc)

Thanks! I wouldn't have thought of it if you hadn't asked the question.

I think this is commonly called the "Mosiah first" theory. I found an article that deals with it a bit from a 1988 Ensign article by John Welch. He gives lots of cites in the footnote.

Oliver arrived in Harmony as the sun was going down on Sunday, 5 April 1829. After a day for Oliver to get settled, Joseph began translating on Tuesday, April 7, with Oliver as his scribe. They continued with the work day after day, more or less “uninterrupted.” They probably began translating at the beginning of the book of Mosiah, where Joseph had last left off. Thus, the Prophet Joseph actually began translating at the middle of the book; it is probable that he did not work on 1 and 2 Nephi until later—in June. 6


6.
There are several historical and textual reasons why this is almost certainly the case. Only if Mosiah was translated first would there be a reasonable amount of text to be translated at the Whitmer farm after the translation of the title page, before 11 June. The “Mosiah first” theory has been viewed favorably by George Reynolds, in “History of the Book of Mormon” (Contributor, Jan. 1884, 5:121–25); Stan Larson, in “‘A Most Sacred Possession’: The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon,” (Ensign, Sept. 1977, pp. 87–91); Max H Parkin, in “A Preliminary Analysis of the Dating of Section 10” (Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, Provo: Brigham Young University, 1979, pp. 68–84); and Richard Bushman, in Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana, Ill.: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1984). See also W&R-86, pp. 33–37.

(I would expect Bushman probably reprinted the same in his Rough Stone Rolling which came out in 2005, after this 1988 article was written.)

Here is a link to the article:


http://www.LDS.org/ensign/1988/01/i-hav ... a-question

I think it is not universally agreed upon, but it appears to be advocated by a substantial majority of those who have actually studied the issue.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

So, in circa 590bc God tells Nephi He has kept the America's uninhabited, knowing full well that He hasn't. And that's not a problem?

I think it is problematic, though nowhere near as problematic as entire chapters of KJV Old and New Testament passages showing up inexplicably.

I went back and checked 2 Nephi 1 for context.

First, it is Lehi talking.

Second, a few verses before, Lehi says he will prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit in him.

He then makes some prophetic statements, and then comes to this verse, where he says it is wisdom in God that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations. I suppose one could split syntactical hairs, but it does sound like it is something that hasn't occurred yet, from Lehi's point of view.

What is not so clear is whether Lehi is still claiming prophetic authority for saying something about the past (which would seem odd to prophesy about the past), or whether it is just his own idea.

Regardless, I am totally open to the idea of prophets getting things wrong while thinking God's Spirit is working on them. Or having incorrect ideas and notions canonized as scripture.

I think it is an interesting issue, and I am thankful to Drifting for bringing it to my attention.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Drifting]

So, in circa 590bc God tells Nephi He has kept the America's uninhabited, knowing full well that He hasn't. And that's not a problem?

I think it is problematic, though nowhere near as problematic as entire chapters of KJV Old and New Testament passages showing up inexplicably.

I went back and checked 2 Nephi 1 for context.

First, it is Lehi talking.

Second, a few verses before, Lehi says he will prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit in him.

He then makes some prophetic statements, and then comes to this verse, where he says it is wisdom in God that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations. I suppose one could split syntactical hairs, but it does sound like it is something that hasn't occurred yet, from Lehi's point of view.

What is not so clear is whether Lehi is still claiming prophetic authority for saying something about the past (which would seem odd to prophesy about the past), or whether it is just his own idea.

Regardless, I am totally open to the idea of prophets getting things wrong while thinking God's Spirit is working on them. Or having incorrect ideas and notions canonized as scripture.

I think it is an interesting issue, and I am thankful to Drifting for bringing it to my attention.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig, this is from the footnotes at the bottom of the article you linked to.

  6. There are several historical and textual reasons why this is almost certainly the case. Only if Mosiah was translated first would there be a reasonable amount of text to be translated at the Whitmer farm after the translation of the title page, before 11 June.

I don't understand this, can you shed any light on it or expand on it any?

Cheers

[_subgenius]

So, in circa 590bc God tells Nephi He has kept the America's uninhabited, knowing full well that He hasn't. And that's not a problem?

did He actually tell Nephi it was "uninhabited"?

BUMP to Drifting

[_subgenius]

Are we to assume that you consider Nephi's group a "nation" in the context of this post?

Clearly we read your reference stating that this land is being kept from being known of OTHER nations...thus meaning that some nation(s) must already know, since the use of the word "other" implies such.

BUMPITY BUMP to Drifting

[_consiglieri]

I don't understand this, can you shed any light on it or expand on it any?

Cheers

This is not my area of expertise, I am afraid.

I think the article itself, which deals primarily with the chronology of Book of Mormon translation, gives clues as to some parts of the Book of Mormon that can be pinpointed (with some degree of speculation) to different times and different locations.

Because the article doesn't deal primarily with the "Mosiah first" theory, it relegates it to a footnote with other sources.

I have none of the books on the list, though I did once have (and read) Bushman's Beginnings of Mormonism. My understanding is that he incorporated pretty much all of that book, dealing with Joseph Smith's early years, into the first part of his Rough Stone Rolling, which I do have.

If you want, I can try to remember to pull it off the shelf when I get home this evening and take a look.

Let me know.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

Are we to assume that you consider Nephi's group a "nation" in the context of this post?

Clearly we read your reference stating that this land is being kept from being known of OTHER nations...thus meaning that some nation(s) must already know, since the use of the word "other" implies such.

If we are to view the Book of Mormon as written by actual ancient Jews, the word "nations" would likely have a similar mearning to its use in the Old Testament, where it frequently is a translation of "goyim," or non-Israelite groups.

The Jaredites were non-Israel in that they are purported to have existed well before Israel, and well before Abraham, and even before Shem--so technically they would be non-Israelite.

On the other hand, because of their proclaimed affiliation with the being who would become the God of Israel, it is possible Lehi would not consider the Jaredites to have been "goyim," or "nations."

At the least, such a usage of "nations" would not include the Mulekites, or the Nephites and Lamanites themselves, for that matter.

Although I don't personally find this argument (which I just made up) persuasive, it is an argument that could be made.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_subgenius]

Are we to assume that you consider Nephi's group a "nation" in the context of this post?

Clearly we read your reference stating that this land is being kept from being known of OTHER nations...thus meaning that some nation(s) must already know, since the use of the word "other" implies such.

If we are to view the Book of Mormon as written by actual ancient Jews, the word "nations" would likely have a similar mearning to its use in the Old Testament, where it frequently is a translation of "goyim," or non-Israelite groups.

The Jaredites were non-Israel in that they are purported to have existed well before Israel, and well before Abraham, and even before Shem--so technically they would be non-Israelite.

On the other hand, because of their proclaimed affiliation with the being who would become the God of Israel, it is possible Lehi would not consider the Jaredites to have been "goyim," or "nations."

At the least, such a usage of "nations" would not include the Mulekites, or the Nephites and Lamanites themselves, for that matter.

Although I don't personally find this argument (which I just made up) persuasive, it is an argument that could be made.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Interesting but in Hebrew the term "other" would not have been used. When goyim was used it simply meant 'nations' and the idea of "other" was inherent - for example in Exodus we read "I will cast out the nations before thee" - no need for the word "other", because when "goy" was used in its plural form it excluded the Israel nation.
Nevertheless, Drifting has not yet addressed this glaring deficiency in is argument, nor the inaccuracy of his statement regarding what the Lord may or may not have said about the land being "uninhabited"