The Book of Mormon DOES say "others" where there.....

[_honorentheos]

Book of Mormon is clear all non-Nephites that came on the boat with Lehi were called Lamanites. Where does it say there were Others who are called Lamanites?

1. Actually, the Book of Mormon is clear that everyone non-Nephite were called Lamanites, including many who were called other names.
Lamanite is the Book of Mormon's version of the Bibles Gentile.

The Book of Jacob first describes the list of peoples around and then says they are shortened into just Lamanites and Nephites.

Jacob 1:13-14

13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.

14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

2. Read the links I posted. They address this question, showing the verses etc..

Your links attempt to find gaps in the text that allow for Others. The text itself is often explicit in excluding others. The Parable of the Vineyard in Jacob 5 goes so far as to say god cleared that patch of his vineyard to plant the Lehite tree, referring to the destruction of the Jaredites.

Not sure you have much of a case to say people are liars. We may disagree. But lying because we take the text at face value while rejecting the weak arguments in your links? Hardly.

[_Brackite]

The Parable of the Vineyard in Jacob 5 goes so far as to say god cleared that patch of his vineyard to plant the Lehite tree, referring to the destruction of the Jaredites.

Yes it does, and Jacob 5:44 is cross referenced to Moroni 9:23.

LDS Apostle LeGrand Richards stated that the Jaredites became extinct.

The Book of Mormon gives a very definite account of who the American Indians are and how they came to the western hemisphere. The first people of whom we have record who occupied the western hemisphere were the Jaredites, who left the tower of Babel at the time of the confounding of their language and the scattering of the people. They were led to America by the Lord:

And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. (Genesis 11:6-8)

In view of the statement "the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth," it is not unreasonable to assume that some of the people were scattered to the land of America, for certainly it is a part of "all the earth."
The Jaredites became extinct through their failure to keep the commandments of the Lord. For an account of this people, see the book of Ether in the Book of Mormon.

[LeGrand Richards: A Marvelous Work And A Wonder: Deseret Book Company: 1976: Page 72.]

[_Bret Ripley]

1. First of all, you create a strawman. They were sent to a promised land, they weren't necessarily were sent to "conquer" it in total.
They clearly took over the highlands while the Philistines etc. had control of the lowlands, and it is clear that it wasn't a total conquest, but one of mingling also with those of Canaan. So, your representation of the history is a bit false.

Not sure why I am bothering, but the archeological record clearly shows that no Israelites were "sent" to conquer the Canaanites. No mass conquest at one time took place when and where it was supposed to happen. What happened is the Canannites, over a period or several hundred years, evolved into the Israelites. There was no Exodus, no Moses, no 40 years of wandering by millions of displaced Jews and so on.

One other very minor point: the Philistines didn't control the lowlands. The Philistines had not yet settled in Canaan at the time of the hypothetical conquest. Besides, at its peak (a few centuries after the 'conquest') the Philistine population was only around 30,000. So even at its peak it is difficult to imagine that such a population could raise an army capable of controlling the lowlands against Israel's half-million man army. ;)

[_Brackite]

2. Sherem believed in an Old Testament Law of Moses Hebrew religion. And he read and was familiar with Hebrew scripture. This theory requires one to believe Sherem, a native Mesoamerican, was converted to the Lehites Hebrew Christianity, read their scriptures, determined the prophesy of Christ was false, and came to believe the original form of Old Testament religion was true. That's a real stretch. And opens a can of worms. Why does the Book of Mormon never make mention of other non-Lehite converts or ministries to the non-Lehite population? They speak a lot about ministries to the Lamanites and Lamanite converts.

The story would Not make any sense if Sherem was a Non-Israelite.

Sherem's Accusations against Jacob

...

“I, Sherem, declare unto you that this is blasphemy; for no man knoweth of such things; for he cannot tell of things to come.” (Jacob 7:7)

An interesting encounter is reported in Jacob 7 between Sherem and Jacob. In light of the ancient Israelite criminal law that was in force among the Nephites at this time and at least up to the time of the reforms of Mosiah (see 2 Nephi 5:10; Jarom 1:5; Mosiah 17:7–8; Alma 1:17), it is evident that Sherem’s accusations were serious allegations. On three accounts, he accused Jacob of offenses punishable by death:

Ye have [1] led away much of this people that they pervert the right way of God, and keep not the law of Moses which is the right way; and convert the law of Moses into the worship of a being which ye say shall come many hundred years hence. And now behold, I, Sherem, declare unto you that this is [2] blasphemy; for no man knoweth of such things; for he [3] cannot tell of things to come. (Jacob 7:7)

Each of Sherem’s accusations can be traced to specific provisions in pre-exilic Israelite law:

1. Causing public apostasy. Leading other people or a city into apostasy was recognized as a serious infraction under the law of Moses and the Talmud. Deuteronomy 13:1–18 condemns to death any person, whether a prophet, or brother, or son, or wife, who says to the inhabitants of their city, “Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known” (Deuteronomy 13:13; see 13:2, 6). “Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; . . . but thou shalt surely kill him” (Deuteronomy 13:8–9).

Moreover, Sherem’s point that Jacob had converted the observance of the law of Moses into the worship of an unknown future being seems to have been based on the Deuteronomic prohibition against turning to serve new gods “which ye have not known” (Deuteronomy 13:2, 6, 13).

2. Blasphemy. Sherem’s second accusation also raised a capital charge. It was a felony under the law of Moses to blaspheme (see Exodus 20:7; Leviticus 24:10–16). Leviticus 24 established that any person who blasphemed, even in a brawl, was to be stoned to death. Sherem raised the charge of blasphemy against Jacob when he formally accused him, saying, “I, Sherem, declare unto you that this is blasphemy” (Jacob 7:7).

While the ancient history of the crime of blasphemy is obscure, this offense apparently embraced many forms of insolent or seditious speech, whether against God, against the king (see 1 Kings 21:10), against another man, or against holy places or things, including the law (compare Acts 6:13).

3. False Prophecy. Sherem’s words also advanced a claim of false prophecy. The test for whether a prophet had spoken truly or falsely was usually to see “if the thing follow not, nor come to pass” (Deuteronomy 18:22). Apparently Sherem tried to preclude this defense when he objected that Jacob had spoken of things too far distant in the future. When Sherem asserted categorically that “no man knoweth of such things” (Jacob 7:7), he seems to be arguing that prophecies of that nature should not be easily tolerated under the law. With shorter-term prophecies, one has the chance to test them within a reasonable time.

Deuteronomy 18:20 requires that a man shall be put to death if he speaks “in the name of other gods.” One can understand how Jacob’s “preaching . . . the doctrine of Christ” (Jacob 7:6) could have been deviously characterized by Sherem as a form of speaking “in the name of” another god, for the Nephites had begun worshipping God in the name of Christ (see 2 Nephi 25:13–19; Jacob 4:5). Perhaps Book of Mormon prophets insisted so emphatically that God and his Son were but “one God” (2 Nephi 31:21; Alma 11:28–29, 35), partly to affirm that speaking in the name of one was not to be construed legally as speaking in the name of any other god.

Thus Sherem’s allegations were not merely vague rhetorical criticisms; they were well-formulated accusations, logically derived from specific provisions of the ancient law. Sherem’s words put Jacob’s life in jeopardy. If allowed to stand, these accusations would have justified Jacob’s execution.

At the same time, Sherem also put his own life on the line. The ancient punishment for a false accuser was to suffer that which “he had thought to have done unto his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19). Not only does this show that Sherem was deeply committed to his views and dead serious about the charges he raised against his “brother Jacob” (Jacob 7:6), it also explains the sense of legal justice that exists in the fact that, in the end, Sherem was smitten by God and he himself soon died.

viewtopic.php?p=729761#p729761

[Guest]

The problem for the critics with the Sherem account is the story seems to indicate that the Nephites were not familiar with this person. His ancestry is not listed (i.e. they don't say he's a Nephite) or seemingly among the first children mentioned. Time is also a problem. The story states it was within some years seeming to indicate that not a great deal of time had passed since they arrived. Let's say within 2 or 3 generations. How many people could there really be IF there were no others? Maybe 100 or 200? If that is the case, wouldn't everyone be rather familiar with everyone else?

Now, one explanation is this is just a way of saying he was from the land of Nephi like a man from Provo. But does that really make sense even if that is the case? Provo has a large number of people in comparison. Yet in all that time, Jacob and Sherem never had a chat proior to this incident? That strains credulity.

It seems to me the story indicates this is someone foreign to the Nephites, yet very familiar with the language and traditions. He was likely a Lamanite, but was not a descendant of the intermarried group that had gone fully native. Why do I say that? This person was clearly not a person with "dark" skin or following in the Lamanite traditions because the Nephites at this point would have noted that.

[_honorentheos]

The problem for the critics with the Sherem account is the story seems to indicate that the Nephites were not familiar with this person. His ancestry is not listed (i.e. they don't say he's a Nephite) or seemingly among the first children mentioned. Time is also a problem. The story states it was within some years seeming to indicate that not a great deal of time had passed since they arrived. Let's say within 2 or 3 generations. How many people could there really be IF there were no others? Maybe 100 or 200? If that is the case, wouldn't everyone be rather familiar with everyone else?

That's what's funny about the apologetics when you get down to it. They start out with, "Here is something that clearly doesn't work in the Book of Mormon narrative when taken at face value. So...others."

The parsimonious response is, "Joseph/whomever else was involved in authoring the story in the 19th century screwed up."

It's not a problem for critics.

[_Chap]

The problem for the critics with the Sherem account is the story seems to indicate that the Nephites were not familiar with this person. His ancestry is not listed (i.e. they don't say he's a Nephite) or seemingly among the first children mentioned. Time is also a problem. The story states it was within some years seeming to indicate that not a great deal of time had passed since they arrived. Let's say within 2 or 3 generations. How many people could there really be IF there were no others? Maybe 100 or 200? If that is the case, wouldn't everyone be rather familiar with everyone else?

That's what's funny about the apologetics when you get down to it. They start out with, "Here is something that clearly doesn't work in the Book of Mormon narrative when taken at face value. So...others."

The parsimonious response is, "Joseph/whomever else was involved in authoring the story in the 19th century f****d up."

It's not a problem for critics.

Precisely.

[_I have a question]

8. So what.... I once left the Church because of the Priesthood ban primarily as one of my big three issues, but I was ignorant, when I learned more, I changed my mind. The church, it's scriptures, the priesthood ban, ALL have zero to do with racism, at least by the Church anyway. It is the small minded and ignorant that see's racism where there is none actually there or intended.

Actually, the Church has fessed up to the Priesthood Ban being explicitly to do with racism in its appropriately named "Race and the Priesthood" apologetic article.

The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion. Many Christian churches of that era, for instance, were segregated along racial lines. From the beginnings of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity could be baptized and received as members. Toward the end of his life, Church founder Joseph Smith openly opposed slavery. There has never been a Churchwide policy of segregated congregations.3

...........


In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

https://www.LDS.org/topics/race-and-the ... d?lang=eng

This essay then throws under the bus every Prophet from Brigham Young to SWK.

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24

In so doing, the Church also throws the Book of Mormon under the bus by disavowing what Nephi claimed:

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/2-ne/5?lang=eng

Remember, this verse of scripture was so important to the world that Nephi wrote it onto plates, Moroni and Mormon abridged those plates, protected the abridgement and lugged it all the way to New York State where God hid it up until Joseph came along to dig the plates up, safeguard them, and then ignore them whilst he read the exact words off a rock he'd previously dug up to use to try and scam money out of local farmers who wanted buried treasure.

Ldsfaqs, I understand that you can justify to yourself that this isn't racism.
But the Church explicitly admits it was/is.
Despite that admission and subsequent disavowel, the Church propagates the theory of a black skin being a sign of divine disfavour by maintaining that scripture in the Book of Mormon. It's a racist statement and I'm surprised they haven't been sued for continuing to publish it. If that phrase was used in a newly printed children's book it would be banned before publication.

But carry on justifying to yourself that there ain't no racism to see here and everyone who disagrees with is is a liar...

[_Tobin]

The problem for the critics with the Sherem account is the story seems to indicate that the Nephites were not familiar with this person. His ancestry is not listed (i.e. they don't say he's a Nephite) or seemingly among the first children mentioned. Time is also a problem. The story states it was within some years seeming to indicate that not a great deal of time had passed since they arrived. Let's say within 2 or 3 generations. How many people could there really be IF there were no others? Maybe 100 or 200? If that is the case, wouldn't everyone be rather familiar with everyone else?

That's what's funny about the apologetics when you get down to it. They start out with, "Here is something that clearly doesn't work in the Book of Mormon narrative when taken at face value. So...others."

The parsimonious response is, "Joseph/whomever else was involved in authoring the story in the 19th century f****d up."

It's not a problem for critics.

Not in this case. Critics are using the argument to discredit the Book of Mormon against proponents that are agreeing with the facts. The fact of the matter is that other people WERE here. The story does seem to make sense if there was a larger set of people than just the initial Lehite colonists.

[_robuchan]

The problem for the critics with the Sherem account is the story seems to indicate that the Nephites were not familiar with this person. His ancestry is not listed (i.e. they don't say he's a Nephite) or seemingly among the first children mentioned. Time is also a problem. The story states it was within some years seeming to indicate that not a great deal of time had passed since they arrived. Let's say within 2 or 3 generations. How many people could there really be IF there were no others? Maybe 100 or 200? If that is the case, wouldn't everyone be rather familiar with everyone else?

That's what's funny about the apologetics when you get down to it. They start out with, "Here is something that clearly doesn't work in the Book of Mormon narrative when taken at face value. So...others."

The parsimonious response is, "Joseph/whomever else was involved in authoring the story in the 19th century f****d up."

It's not a problem for critics.

Exactly, internal consistencies (or bullseyes). So...Joseph's not that smart, must be divine!

Internal inconsistencies. So...a fraud would never make that mistake, must be divine!