Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica

John t

Super Member
I agree that when someone is in that mindset, they will usually see things the way they want to see them. And jump at anything that even remotely looks like it could be proof.
The B I G name for that is confirmation bias. People see what they want to see, and disregard the inconvenient facts. That is why one LDS poster provided me with so many belly laughs.There were so many flaws in what he posted (and I tried to point them out) that the only healthy response was ridicule of the contents of his posts and avoid ridiculing the poster himself.

So egregious were his errors that one "sane thinking LDS poster" ceased being in the peanut gallery cheering him on.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
No. But one cannot say that the BoM is true from one stone carving of someone who appears to have a beard
Lol. That is not the argument. We have a fact that the olmecs met with a foreign group of people. That is a fact. It is preserved in stone. It just happens to agree with the Book of Mormon narrative. We've never argued that that makes the Book of Mormon true. But as some of our critics like to say, Evidence is proof.

I continue to wonder how many coincidences will occur before you guys will eventually realize that it's no coincidence.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
So, why should we trust anything posted on here from a pro-Mormon site?
Well, since we're arguing Mormonism, I would think that material from a Mormon website would be more accurate. That makes sense to me. Far more sense than going to a non-Mormon propaganda website that doesn't accurately quote its sources. I have demonstrated this. It's not worth it.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
Not possible. They could only speculate as u r doing. Only Smith and God knows what was going on inside that hat.
Did you read what you wrote? That’s funny.

His scribes were supposedly with him all day and into the night, every day. He told them what was going on. There was no curtain between them. Unless they were all lying. Now why do you suppose they would do that?
 

imJRR

Well-known member
I agree that when someone is in that mindset, they will usually see things the way they want to see them. And jump at anything that even remotely looks like it could be proof.

Yes - Which means that the argument of, "The BoM has the word 'God' in it, and so does the Bible - That proves that the BoM comes from God too!", would be offered as evidence/proof.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
I agree that when someone is in that mindset, they will usually see things the way they want to see them. And jump at anything that even remotely looks like it could be proof.
They look at the "evidence" through Mormon-colored lenses, and so see only what they wish to see, rather than what is really there.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Did you read what you wrote? That’s funny.

His scribes were supposedly with him all day and into the night, every day. He told them what was going on. There was no curtain between them. Unless they were all lying. Now why do you suppose they would do that?
And who else in the world uses a magic rock in a hat to "translate" ancient writings? It doesn't even appear that Smith needed the plates to translate anything. He had his magic rock and hat. The plates were superfluous.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Here is one quote from your link:



Here it twice mentions the Laminites. And one says that the Indians are their descendants.
You're reading into it. I specifically asked for a quote that says, "thus sayeth the Lord God, native Americans are all descendants of lamanites". Individuals can have opinions and be leaders of the church. It doesn't make it doctrine. I believe, at one time it was commonly accepted that all the American Indians were descendants of Lehi. But I don't see where it was sanctioned by God thus making it a doctrine that we changed when it didn't fit anymore. I believe that your claim and I just don't see it. What I see is the opinions of men who, it would seem logical at first, would assume that no one was here when Lehi arrived. But it has been demonstrated that the Book of Mormon doesn't make that claim nor does God.

Did the quote specify when the lamanites over around the country? No.

And words like "who we understand" are not the same as, "thus saith the Lord..." 🙄
 

Bonnie

Super Member
You're reading into it. I specifically asked for a quote that says, "thus sayeth the Lord God, native Americans are all descendants of lamanites". Individuals can have opinions and be leaders of the church. It doesn't make it doctrine. I believe, at one time it was commonly accepted that all the American Indians were descendants of Lehi. But I don't see where it was sanctioned by God thus making it a doctrine that we changed when it didn't fit anymore. I believe that your claim and I just don't see it. What I see is the opinions of men who, it would seem logical at first, would assume that no one was here when Lehi arrived. But it has been demonstrated that the Book of Mormon doesn't make that claim nor does God.

Did the quote specify when the lamanites over around the country? No.

And words like "who we understand" are not the same as, "thus saith the Lord..." 🙄
There is no exact quote you are asking for. But that is just your way to keep from having to deal with the fact that your church has taught that the Indians are the descendants of the Lamanites. And Maggie proved it from that link that she posted and I showed where it did in fact say something like that.

In fact, doesn't the forepart of the BoM say that the Lamanites are one of the ancestors of the American Indians? Or something similar?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
I already explained about the chiasmus.
Yes, you did. utlm.org also has a page about chiasmus:

Issue 113 - Salt Lake City Messenger (utlm.org)

It gives a few examples from the Bible:

Here is an example from Genesis 9:6 showing how the elements in the first half are mirrored in reverse order in the second half:

A. Whoever sheds
B. the blood
C. of man
C. by man shall
B. his blood
A. be shed
Here is an example from the New Testament, Matthew 19:30:

A. But many that are first
B. shall be last,
B. and the last
A. shall be first.
An example of this from the Book of Mormon would be 2 Nephi 29:13:

A. The Jews
B. shall have the words
C. of the Nephites
C. and the Nephites
B. shall have the words
A. of the Jews;

A. and the Nephites and the Jews
B. shall have the words
C. of the lost tribes of Israel;
C. and the lost tribes of Israel
B. shall have the words of the
A. Nephites and of the Jews.

I fail to see how this could be proof that the BoM is true. The site thus quotes:

LDS scholars also point out that this style was not identified as chiasmus until after the time of Joseph Smith. Thus, they reason, his use of it in the Book of Mormon demonstrates that it is a translation of an ancient text. However, a brief investigation shows there are other explanations.

First, this poetic style has always been in the Bible. In Joseph Smith's day this was usually referred to as parallelism.

In the October 1989 Ensign article, "Hebrew Literary Patterns in the Book of Mormon," there is mention of a book on Hebrew poetry, dated 1787, which discusses the poetic style of parallelisms. The term chiasmus is never used, but this book clearly shows that Hebrew poetic styles were recognized and studied even before Joseph Smith's time.

LDS scholar Blake Ostler, in reviewing the book, Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, commented:

Book of Mormon Authorship has made a prima facie case for the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon. It fails, however, to respond to scholarly criticism in some crucial areas. For example, since Welch first published his study on chiasmus in 1969, it has been discovered that chiasmus also appears in the Doctrine and Covenants (see, for example, 88:34-38; 93:18-38; 132:19-26, 29-36), the Pearl of Great Price (Book of Abraham 3:16-19; 22-28), and other isolated nineteenth-century works. Thus, Welch's major premise that chiasmus is exclusively an ancient literary device is false. Indeed, the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon may be evidence of Joseph Smith's own literary style and genius. Perhaps Welch could have strengthened his premise by demonstrating that the parallel members in the Book of Mormon consist of Semitic word pairs, the basis of ancient Hebrew poetry. Without such a demonstration, both Welch's and Reynold's arguments from chiasmus are weak (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 16, No. 4, Winter, 1983, p. 143).

Second, as Ostler pointed out, the Doctrine and Covenants has examples of the same pattern. Since Joseph Smith dictated the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, and it is not claimed that they were translations of ancient writings, obviously this pattern was part of Smith's style. The Pearl of Great Price and Joseph Smith's diary exhibit similar patterns.

A thesis at BYU by Richard C. Shipp, "Conceptual Patterns of Repetition in the Doctrine and Covenants and Their Implications" (Masters Thesis), arrives at a similar conclusion. Although Mr. Shipp was not trying to disprove chiasmus claims in the Book of Mormon, his study shows that Joseph Smith had picked up both the rhythm of chiasmus and parallelism. In his 1832 first vision account, Joseph claimed that he had studied the Bible since he was twelve, so it is quite conceivable that he picked up this style from his studies.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
You're reading into it. I specifically asked for a quote that says, "thus sayeth the Lord God, native Americans are all descendants of lamanites". Individuals can have opinions and be leaders of the church. It doesn't make it doctrine. I believe, at one time it was commonly accepted that all the American Indians were descendants of Lehi. But I don't see where it was sanctioned by God thus making it a doctrine that we changed when it didn't fit anymore. I believe that your claim and I just don't see it. What I see is the opinions of men who, it would seem logical at first, would assume that no one was here when Lehi arrived. But it has been demonstrated that the Book of Mormon doesn't make that claim nor does God.

Did the quote specify when the lamanites over around the country? No.

And words like "who we understand" are not the same as, "thus saith the Lord..." 🙄
I thought you knew the BoM and had read it....? Because in my 1981 edition of the BoM, it says, under the "Introduction" part says that "This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the PRINCIPAL ANCESTORS of the American Indians."

No, "who we understand are..." But exactly as I put down on here. Your claim about "who we understand are" is just sheer desperation to avoid seeing what you do not wish to see.

So, if it isn't true, then why is it in the BoM? And BTW--no one claimed here that I know of, that your church teaches that ALL the Indians are descendants of the Laminites. But the BoM does say that the Lamanites are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of the American Indians.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
That's not what I said. Quit putting words in my mouth.
Where did I say you wrote those things? Show me where I claimed you DID. You need to read me more carefully. I was asking you questions, which you have not answered, no surprise there. So this is just so much deflection maybe to keep from having to deal with what I posted--especially what I bolded. But DO note--again--what I posted earlier:

” And finally, regarding the original manuscript, Joseph Smith himself claimed that he and the three witnesses were told by God: “These plates have been ...translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct” (History of the Church, 1:54-55, emp. added).

your former President Joseph F. Smith also said that God gave Joseph every word of the translation (slightly paraphrased). Did he lie? Do you need to see his quotes again?

But I never said Smith got the plates from God--we are talking about the TRANSLATION of the BoM, and how Smith did get it. But then, the angel supposedly came from God, did he not? So, wouldn't that be getting the BoM from God? However, we are discussing how Smith translated it, not how he got the supposed plates. Focus, boJ. :)
 
Last edited:

Magdalena

Well-known member
You're reading into it. I specifically asked for a quote that says, "thus sayeth the Lord God, native Americans are all descendants of lamanites". Individuals can have opinions and be leaders of the church. It doesn't make it doctrine. I believe, at one time it was commonly accepted that all the American Indians were descendants of Lehi. But I don't see where it was sanctioned by God thus making it a doctrine that we changed when it didn't fit anymore. I believe that your claim and I just don't see it. What I see is the opinions of men who, it would seem logical at first, would assume that no one was here when Lehi arrived. But it has been demonstrated that the Book of Mormon doesn't make that claim nor does God.

Did the quote specify when the lamanites over around the country? No.

And words like "who we understand" are not the same as, "thus saith the Lord..." 🙄

You’ve been ignoring my post about that...


”He has revealed...” Who do you think “He” is?

“He has revealed the origin and the Records of the aboriginal tribes of America, and their future destiny. —And we know it. He has revealed the fulness of the gospel, with its gifts, blessings, and ordinances. —And we know it. He has commanded us to bear witness of it, first to the Gentiles and then to the remnants of Israel and the Jews. —And we know it. He has commanded us to gather together his Saints on this Continent, and build up holy cities and sanctuaries.”

That says God revealed who the native Americans are. It’s referring to the Book of Mormon. It says exactly what you asked. You can’t weasel out of that.
 
Last edited:
Top