Who Are Indians Really?

[_The Dude]

Brent's article is fabulous. I was particularly interested in the original text of the Book of Mormon, in regards to certain verses apologists now insist refers to the "others".

Okay, I don't see how the original Book of Mormon text is less open to apologetic reaching than the current. If it used to say "many of them are our 'near' brethren" that could still be selectively interpreted as referring to "others", right? If there are 'near' brethren then there could also be 'less near' brethren, or in other words more distant relatives, i.e. Asian/Lamanite mixedbloods. The apologetic logic, sucky as it is, does not suddenly unravel when applied to the original text. Am I missing something?

Mrs Strawman, I don't think Brent covered the whole gamut of scriptures because they are more of the same quality. And I don't think he picked the weakest. This example is representative of what Roper and others have offered.

[_beastie]

Okay, I don't see how the original Book of Mormon text is less open to apologetic reaching than the current. If it used to say "many of them are our 'near' brethren" that could still be selectively interpreted as referring to "others", right? If there are 'near' brethren then there could also be 'less near' brethren, or in other words more distant relatives, I.e. Asian/Lamanite mixedbloods. The apologetic logic, sucky as it is, does not suddenly unravel when applied to the original text. Am I missing something?

Well, it's a given that apologists who are determined to believe no matter what can selectively interpret just about anything in just about anyway. That's a given.

It seems to me that it is easier to interpret "many of them are our brethren" to mean that many share their Israelite background, while others to do not. Of course, what makes the most sense is that the brethren referenced are the Nephite brethren who joined the Lamanites, but we all know that current Book of Mormon apologia does not necessarily (or even usually) go with what makes the most sense.

The insertion of the word "near" makes it more difficult to make the argument that those NOT referenced were not related to them at all (ie, the indigenous others), because of the obvious "more distant" brethren.

Of course this won't stop the apologists, and I'm sure Charity is ready to give us a demonstration. But I thought it was extremely interesting.

[_charity]

Mrs Strawman, I don't think Brent covered the whole gamut of scriptures because they are more of the same quality. And I don't think he picked the weakest. This example is representative of what Roper and others have offered.

Not of this one. The link for this paragraph out of an article by Dr. Sorenson follows.

"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 7:1). 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 7:1)? The text and context of this incident would make little sense if the Nephite population had resulted only from natural demographic increase."
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... =jbms&id=3

Our ward has about 350 active members. And never once has anyone said, "Gosh, bishop, I have heard you preside over this ward. I have tried and tried to get an appointment to speak to you."

Doesn't this really sound to you like Sherem didn't know Jacob? And then of course the question is, why not in such a small group?

[_beastie]

Charity.

This reasoning only works if you assume the historicity of the Book of Mormon as a given. If you consider that it may be a work of fiction, the reasoning falls apart, because fiction does not always make sense.

As BH Roberts noted, there are other elements of the Book of Mormon that seem to indicate it was written by a somewhat immature mind, so this lack of ability to reason about population growth would be expected.

[_charity]

Charity.

This reasoning only works if you assume the historicity of the Book of Mormon as a given. If you consider that it may be a work of fiction, the reasoning falls apart, because fiction does not always make sense.

So, the argument against the Book of Mormon is that it makes sense as it should if it is what it says it is?

Thanks for the laugh, beastie. It has been a grim day. Dental appointment and all.

[_cksalmon]

Mrs Strawman, I don't think Brent covered the whole gamut of scriptures because they are more of the same quality. And I don't think he picked the weakest. This example is representative of what Roper and others have offered.

Not of this one. The link for this paragraph out of an article by Dr. Sorenson follows.

"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 7:1). 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 7:1)? The text and context of this incident would make little sense if the Nephite population had resulted only from natural demographic increase."
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display ... =jbms&id=3

Our ward has about 350 active members. And never once has anyone said, "Gosh, bishop, I have heard you preside over this ward. I have tried and tried to get an appointment to speak to you."

Doesn't this really sound to you like Sherem didn't know Jacob? And then of course the question is, why not in such a small group?

Charity--

My concern is as follows:

I'm absolutely open to learning of a source for your purported Murphy claim. I think it's definitely within the realm of possibility. If you can't find it, though, I'll be sorely tempted to conclude that yours was an "overblown," "crackpot" claim unsubstantiated by the actual evidence. Where does Murphy state what you allege he has? (And bear in mind that "proof" is a different animal than opinion [Book of Mormon as inspired fiction] or currently-factual statements [DNA evidence lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs.])

CKS

[_The Dude]

Mrs. Strawman,

Sorenson's example is more of the same. He has to literally invent parameters that are not found in the passage in order to present a need for the existence of "others". For example:

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?

It doesn't say Sherem never saw him. Jacob merely says "I have sought much opportunity that I might speak unto you...."

My lab group consists of only seven people, and at least once a day someone says "I've been looking all over the place for you because I have a question about blah, blah, blah." Jacob's brief statement does not demand huge numbers of people.

And where would Jacob have had to go on the preaching travels Sherem refers to, if only such a tiny group were involved.

There are no preaching travels. Merely, "for I have heard and also know that thou goest about much, preaching that which ye call the gospel...."

If you ever watch Survivor then you know how much gossip and "preaching" goes on behind other peoples' backs when the tribe is only 10 people. Once again, this brief statement does not demand huge numbers of people.

Moreover, from where was it that Sherem "came . . . among the people of Nephi" (Jacob 7:1)?

It just says "there came a man among the people", not that Sherem came from outside the colony or from another city.

The text and context of this incident would make little sense if the Nephite population had resulted only from natural demographic increase."

Bull crap. The text and the context make perfect sense as long as you don't bite Sorenson's bait of invented parameters.

[_charity]

Charity--

My concern is as follows:

I'm absolutely open to learning of a source for your purported Murphy claim. I think it's definitely within the realm of possibility. If you can't find it, though, I'll be sorely tempted to conclude that yours was an "overblown," "crackpot" claim unsubstantiated by the actual evidence. Where does Murphy state what you allege he has? (And bear in mind that "proof" is a different animal than opinion [Book of Mormon as inspired fiction] or currently-factual statements [DNA evidence lends no support to traditional Mormon beliefs.])

CKS

Dialogue: Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 2003, V. 36, #4

Murphy was responding to a claim that Michael Whiting had said MUrphy has announced that DNA research has conlcusively proved that the Book of Mormon is false and Joseph Smith is a fraud.

Murphy then states, "To the contrary, I have only maintained that a 19th century origin of the Book of Mormon is the best explanation of historical and scientific evidence. The scripture may be historical fiction and still contain spiritual truths emanating from a propeht of God."

Murphy's logic is pretty strange if he really believes he hasn't said that DNA proves the Book of Mormon to be false.

So what scientific evidence is Murphy relying on for his "explanation" of the Book of Mormon as 19th century fiction?
DNA
And if the Book of Mormon is 19th century fiction when Joseph Smith told an entirely different story, then Joseph Smith is a
FRAUD.

And he didn't say that DNA disproved the Book of Mormon and that Joseph was a fraud?

[_charity]

Moreover, from where was it that Sherem "came . . . among the people of Nephi" (Jacob 7:1)?

It just says "there came a man among the people", not that Sherem came from outside the colony or from another city.

This is such a stretch. If you are already one of the bunch, then you don't refer to him impersonally. You say, "then Sherem (because we all know him) walked up to Jacob and said 'I've been looking for you all day.' "

But like beastie says, if it is too logical it probably isn't right, but then fiction doesn't make sense. Or something like that. It was sort of twisted.

[Doctor Steuss]

This is such a stretch. If you are already one of the bunch, then you don't refer to him impersonally.

What I said was a stretch?

Holy heck. Here is the scripture:

Jacob 7: verse 1 (first verse in the last chapter)
And now it came to pass after some years had passed away, there came a man among the people of Nephi, whose name was Sherem.

Do I understand that you are insisting that the narrator must instead say, "Sherem came among the people"... or else this verse demands the inference of a whole surrounding civilization? That is weak if that's the logic. You'll certainly tell me if I'm wrong....

I notice that Sorenson put this forced reading last in his argument after he had already invented two points of context: 1) Sherem and Jacob had never met one another and 2) [Jacob] had been a traveling preacher. It is among the most bogus apologetic I have ever seen. I had to get out my scriptures for once and see it for myself. Unbelievable.

Edit: fix typo []