BOM questions?

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW, the High Priest of Israel was as crooked as a dog's hind leg by the time of Jesus' ministry; but that didn't prevent Caiaphas from receiving and repeating inspired prophecy by virtue of his office.

[cdowis]

 

has nothing to do with the actual chronology of Christ's birth.

 

 

And you know this.... how?  While you may be correct, it is pretty specific when it says "since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh,"  and you are saying, "Nah, it doesn't really mean what it says."

 

There has been several textual changes in the D&C, especially those which are questionable,  but somehow this phrase has survived.  Perhaps you can share your source with us.

 

Perhaps you are simply repeating some of the speculative comments by historians and apologists, but  I have missed seeing anything authoritative., 

Edited September 22, 2015 by cdowis

[Vort]

And you know this.... how?  While you may be correct, it is pretty specific when it says "since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh,"  and you are saying, "Nah, it doesn't really mean what it says."

 

I am not saying that isn't what it says. I am saying that isn't what it means. This is very obviously a formalistic opening, a fancy and common (at the time) way of saying "April 6, 1830".

 

This sentence was written by John Whitmer, not by Joseph Smith, and was prefactory material, never portrayed as a part of the revelation. Whitmer apparently liked this expression of the year; on another occasion, he wrote, "It is now June the twelfth, one thousand eight hundred and thirty one years, since the coming of our Lord and Savior in the flesh."

 

It may interest you to know that J. Reuben Clark and Bruce R. McConkie both believed that Jesus was born about 5 or 6 BC, according to our Gregorian calendar. Hyrum M. Smith of the Council of the Twelve even wrote:

 

"The organization of the Church in the year 1830 is hardly to be regarded as giving divine authority to the commonly accepted calendar. There are reasons for believing that those who, a long time after our Savior's birth, tried to ascertain the correct time, erred in their calculations, and that the Nativity occurred four years before our era, or in the year of Rome 750. All that this Revelation means to say is that the Church was organized in the year commonly accepted as 1830, A.D."

 

The recently discovered manuscript of the Book of Commandments and Revelations shows that this revelation was actually received on April 10, not April 6. So the flowery wording at the beginning (added by John Whitmer) is not even correct. It most certainly does not constitute some sort of divine revelation on Jesus' True Birthday®.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Vort

[cdowis]

Interesting.  You have done your homework.

 

Can we now conclude that we must adjust the entire dating system in the Book of Mormon, which would then give us the correct date of Christ's birth.

[Vort]

Interesting.  You have done your homework.

 

Can we now conclude that we must adjust the entire dating system in the Book of Mormon, which would then give us the correct date of Christ's birth.

 

No, I don't believe we can. I think that we simply have to accept that we do not know the exact year (or day) of Christ's birth. We can surmise that it was just a bit over two thousand years ago, but that's probably the best we can do at this time. Other historical evidences and dates are inconclusive and even contradictory; for example, Herod's historical death date seems to fix Jesus' birth at no later than 4 BC according to the Gospels, while Zedekiah's historic installation date coupled with the Book of Mormon's 600-year prophecy indicates that Jesus' birth can be no earlier than 3 or 4 AD. I see no good way to reconcile these dates, so I just assume mistakes were made in the records.

 

Our histories are obviously inexact, which to my mind is just The Way Things Are® and nothing to be concerned about. I would not even be greatly bothered to discover that the Book of Mormon chronology is a few years off, though I would be surprised, since the Nephites seemed to take great care to keep their timeline accurate. I would be much less surprised to find out that the Biblican chronologies and our profane historical timelines are off by some years.

[Traveler]

Interesting.  You have done your homework.

 

Can we now conclude that we must adjust the entire dating system in the Book of Mormon, which would then give us the correct date of Christ's birth.

It is my opinion that scripture and revelation as given to the general body of mankind is intended to be general and vague.  I believe this is for several reasons but I will use and ancient serpent on a pole created during the prophetic area of Moses to be a type and shadow of Christ to save Israel from a plague of poisonous serpents.  As the rank and file began to apply specifics to the general symbolism they began to stray from the intent so much so that it became necessary to completely absolve the creation of the symbolism and destroy it.

 

Scripture is not authority.  This is why a living prophet is necessary - but even the general understanding of prophets and sacred revelation can get out of hand.  This is why Jesus stated that "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath."

 

The Book of Enoch tells us the importance of the divine influence on calendars.  That the cycles of stars and planets indicate spiritual season concerning the plan of G-d through the epochs of man from his beginning to the end.  But then the Book of Enoch goes on to say that as mankind became corrupt thinking that the knowledge of time could save them from the calamities to overturn the wicked.  So with the flood - G-d changed slightly the revolutions of the stars so that those following the authority of ancient revelations and rejecting the direction of living prophets would be caught in their own demise.  That when the flood came those so thinking that they could out smart the living prophets would be caught in their own mistake.

 

Now I am not going to say that the Book of Enoch is the authority in understanding calendars and spiritual times and seasons.  In fact I am trying to say just the opposite.  That the specifics of revelation needs to come through the order of the priesthood as given in D&C 84.  Not because D&C 84 is the authority but because it designates the priesthood as that authority.  But the world will reference a different authority - as we see in the ordain women movement.  Not necessarily that women will not be ordained but that the order by which such things are to come to pass is being rejected.

 

And so it is in understanding spiritual times and seasons - even when Jesus will come again - the hour and the day will be different throughout the world because of time zones and the international date line.  But many think to interpret thing to be that revelation of such things, will not be known.  Just that those that look to authority outside of G-d's priesthood look to false authority and can easily be deceived - even by holy scripture just as the Scribes and Pharisees that rejected Christ based on their understanding and interpretation of holy scripture.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I was hoping this thread wouldn't turn into a contentious debate since none of my questions can possibly have a definitive answer. It's all just speculation, but I've found the speculation interesting for the most part.

 

Here's another something I've always wondered about?

Alma 43:14 has always intrigued me.

"Now those descendants were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites..."

 

The descendants spoken of here are the descendants of the priests of King Noah, and Mormon tells us that these descendants are nearly as numerous as the Nephites! 

Think about this.

While we are never told how many priests Noah had, we are told that they kidnapped 24 of the daughters of the Lamanites, and eventually made them their wives. 

Perhaps there were more priests than there were kidnapped women, but it seems unlikely there were TOO many more.

According to the record, the priests of King Noah come on the scene around 148 B.C. We know that these priests had "wives and concubines" at this point, and we know that after they kidnapped and married the Lamanite daughters (approx. 145 to 120 B.C.) they had children by them. 

How many children at this point we don't know, but it seems unlikely that it was more than several hundred.

And yet just 50 to 60 years later (two or three generations) we read that these descendants were nearly as numerous as the entire Nephite nation! 

 

I've always thought that was a little odd. How many Nephites were there? Did Mormon exclude the people of Zarahemla (the descendants of Mulek) when he referred to "Nephites"? If so, it means there must have been only a small handful of righteous Nephites who fled out of the land of Nephi with King Mosiah around 200 to 150 B.C.

Maybe the Nephite nation had to essentially start all over again around this time? 

Maybe when Amaron wrote around 280 B.C. that God had visited the Nephites with "great judgment" and only the righteous were spared, he wasn’t kidding!

 

Any thoughts?

[Vort]

 

I was hoping this thread wouldn't turn into a contentious debate since none of my questions can possibly have a definitive answer. It's all just speculation, but I've found the speculation interesting for the most part.

 

Here's another something I've always wondered about?

Alma 43:14 has always intrigued me.

"Now those descendants were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites..."

 

The descendants spoken of here are the descendants of the priests of King Noah, and Mormon tells us that these descendants are nearly as numerous as the Nephites! 

Think about this.

While we are never told how many priests Noah had, we are told that they kidnapped 24 of the daughters of the Lamanites, and eventually made them their wives. 

Perhaps there were more priests than there were kidnapped women, but it seems unlikely there were TOO many more.

According to the record, the priests of King Noah come on the scene around 148 B.C. We know that these priests had "wives and concubines" at this point, and we know that after they kidnapped and married the Lamanite daughters (approx. 145 to 120 B.C.) they had children by them. 

How many children at this point we don't know, but it seems unlikely that it was more than several hundred.

And yet just 50 to 60 years later (two or three generations) we read that these descendants were nearly as numerous as the entire Nephite nation! 

 

I've always thought that was a little odd. How many Nephites were there? Did Mormon exclude the people of Zarahemla (the descendants of Mulek) when he referred to "Nephites"? If so, it means there must have been only a small handful of righteous Nephites who fled out of the land of Nephi with King Mosiah around 200 to 150 B.C.

Maybe the Nephite nation had to essentially start all over again around this time? 

Maybe when Amaron wrote around 280 B.C. that God had visited the Nephites with "great judgment" and only the righteous were spared, he wasn’t kidding!

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

Coincidentally, my wife and I just read this a day or two ago. The previous verse reads:

 

And the people of Ammon did give unto the Nephites a large portion of their substance to support their armies; and thus the Nephites were compelled, alone, to withstand against the Lamanites, who were a compound of Laman and Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, and all those who had dissented from the Nephites, who were Amalekites and Zoramites, and the descendants of the priests of Noah.

 

"These descendants" at first seems to refer to the aforementioned "descendants of the priests of Noah." On further reflection, I decided that it probably refers to the "compound of Laman and Lemuel, and the sons of Ismael...[the] Amalekites and Zoramites, and the descendants of the priests of Noah" -- that is, all of the above. This is a plausible reading that makes a lot more sense to me than that two dozen priests of Noah could out-reproduce the entire Nephite population in a generation or two -- especially since those priests' descendants were hunted nearly to extinction (Alma 25).

 

Here is another question to ponder: Who were the Amalekites? They suddenly pop up out of nowhere, springing as it were fully formed from the head of Zeus (or Nephi). Interesting that we are given no information at all about their background, except that they were Nephite dissidents. I don't believe that Amalek, their inferred leader, is anywhere mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

 

The Nephites had the higher Priesthood, so they did not need the Levitical Priesthood to perform Priesthood rites.

 

 

I'm not aware of any specific reference to the higher priesthood in the Book of Mormon. However, we do know that Lehi performed burnt offerings and Lehi was not a Levite nor a direct descendant of Aaron. We can infer, therefore, that Lehi held the higher priesthood in order to perform burnt offerings. As to his line of authority, he either received it from another prophet in Jerusalem before leaving (i.e. Jeremiah) or directly from God in the course of his early visions.

 

Our histories are obviously inexact, which to my mind is just The Way Things Are® and nothing to be concerned about. I would not even be greatly bothered to discover that the Book of Mormon chronology is a few years off, though I would be surprised, since the Nephites seemed to take great care to keep their timeline accurate. I would be much less surprised to find out that the Biblican chronologies and our profane historical timelines are off by some years.

Tangent: Inca and Aztec calendars even compensated for leap year. Though I agree, I wouldn't be surprised or bothered if we were to learn that Book of Mormon chronology had a few errors.

 

Scripture is not authority.  This is why a living prophet is necessary - but even the general understanding of prophets and sacred revelation can get out of hand.  This is why Jesus stated that "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath."

OMG SOMEBODY SAID IT!!!! Scripture is only authoritative as it comes unchanged from an authoritative source (the Priesthood) accompanied by personal revelation to the hearer/reader.

 

 

I was hoping this thread wouldn't turn into a contentious debate since none of my questions can possibly have a definitive answer. It's all just speculation, but I've found the speculation interesting for the most part.

 

Here's another something I've always wondered about?

Alma 43:14 has always intrigued me.

"Now those descendants were as numerous, nearly, as were the Nephites..."

 

The descendants spoken of here are the descendants of the priests of King Noah, and Mormon tells us that these descendants are nearly as numerous as the Nephites! 

Think about this.

While we are never told how many priests Noah had, we are told that they kidnapped 24 of the daughters of the Lamanites, and eventually made them their wives. 

Perhaps there were more priests than there were kidnapped women, but it seems unlikely there were TOO many more.

According to the record, the priests of King Noah come on the scene around 148 B.C. We know that these priests had "wives and concubines" at this point, and we know that after they kidnapped and married the Lamanite daughters (approx. 145 to 120 B.C.) they had children by them. 

How many children at this point we don't know, but it seems unlikely that it was more than several hundred.

And yet just 50 to 60 years later (two or three generations) we read that these descendants were nearly as numerous as the entire Nephite nation! 

 

I've always thought that was a little odd. How many Nephites were there? Did Mormon exclude the people of Zarahemla (the descendants of Mulek) when he referred to "Nephites"? If so, it means there must have been only a small handful of righteous Nephites who fled out of the land of Nephi with King Mosiah around 200 to 150 B.C.

Maybe the Nephite nation had to essentially start all over again around this time? 

Maybe when Amaron wrote around 280 B.C. that God had visited the Nephites with "great judgment" and only the righteous were spared, he wasn’t kidding!

 

Any thoughts?

 

I remember having a conversation once about why we (historically) send men off to war and not women.  One of the responses I got was that "It only takes one rooster in a hen house". We know that the righteous Nephites did not practice polygamy, but the unrighteous dissenters (i.e. Noah et al and Lamanites et al) did. It would take a very lopsided gender ratio, and a lot of late nights, but I do think it's possible that Noah's priests' descendants could have caught up with the Nephite population in 3 generations.

(Mathematically, if there were a dozen priests, and each had 6 kids, and each of them had 6 kids, and each of them had 6 kids - that last generation would be nearly 2600 people. If 3 generations of descendants are all alive at the same time, then there's over 3000 people. 12 priests with 2 wives each could easily produce more than 6 kids each...)

[Average Joe]

 

I was hoping this thread wouldn't turn into a contentious debate since none of my questions can possibly have a definitive answer. It's all just speculation, but I've found the speculation interesting for the most part.

 

lol, I definitively answered your question about the names of the 4 spies in Alma chapter two. I told you it was meant as a numeric place holder in a pattern - or to be more precise, a numeric place holder in pattern within a pattern (Its spiritually inspired genius).The Book of Mormon is true, and truly awesome. :)

[Traveler]

In ancient Middle Eastern Society often the terms "children of", "descendants of" or "seed of" does not mean quite what we think or try to translate that into modern society.  In stead of biological offspring this was actually an indication of covenant standing or law and a reference to a proctor.   Thus the children of Abraham are not necessarily biological descendants of Abraham but those that are bound and ruled by a covenant or law with G-d through which Abraham was the proctor.

 

If the Book of Mormon was translated into modern lingo to be understood as we understand in our society - critics would say that the Book of Mormon is not a "real" translation.  That argument would be true - and at this point - I would point out that our modern bibles are not "translations" but "versions".  Thus it is called the King James Version and not the King James Translation.  But the Book of Mormon is given to us - not as a version but as a translation - as so stated in the title page.  Not bad for a farm boy with a 3rd grade education.  There is a lot more to this - but lets move on.

 

It is possible that when the Lehits came to the Americas that they brought others with them that were not biological descendants.  This could account for the Laminites being more numerous and having a darker skin than the Nephits.  An ancient look at the land Bountiful when Nephi built a ship and found "wild" honey and much fruit - was according to modern archaeology a land populated with a darker skinned people during the era of Lehi that may have been brought to Americas as slaves or servants by some of the son of Lehi.   This also helps account for the large population and rapid growth - which some critics claim as impossible.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Traveler

[cdowis]

  This also helps account for the large population and rapid growth - which some critics claim as impossible.

 

Perhaps, but I think a more likely explanation is that the Lamanites intermarried and were more successful in joining with the inhabitants 

 

The Nephites would have been less likely to intermarry with them, and  less..."flexible" with adapting their customs.  

 

A few years ago (don't have the reference now), archaeologists found that a certain group of inhabitants buried their dead within the village for thousands of years.  But approximately 300-400BCE that practice suddenly stopped and the burial s were then far outside the village.  I felt this was possibly under the influence of the Nephites, based on the Hebrew custom of respecting the graves from defilement 

 

I seem to remember that this discovery was in Costa Rica.

Edited September 25, 2015 by cdowis

[hagoth]

No, I don't believe we can. I think that we simply have to accept that we do not know the exact year (or day) of Christ's birth. We can surmise that it was just a bit over two thousand years ago, but that's probably the best we can do at this time. Other historical evidences and dates are inconclusive and even contradictory; for example, Herod's historical death date seems to fix Jesus' birth at no later than 4 BC according to the Gospels, while Zedekiah's historic installation date coupled with the Book of Mormon's 600-year prophecy indicates that Jesus' birth can be no earlier than 3 or 4 AD. I see no good way to reconcile these dates, so I just assume mistakes were made in the records.

One way to reconcile all this is to consider that something akin to the tun (360-day year) of the Mayan calendar, (or even a slightly-shorter lunar year like that still used by Muslims), may have been involved in Nephite reckoning. A shorter year of such a duration would allow us to reconcile what we believe we know of Zedekiah's reign with what we believe we know of Herod's death. 600 of those shorter years can fit between the start of Zedekiah's reign and some point in time shortly before Herod's death.

Edited September 26, 2015 by hagoth

[cdowis]

We know that the righteous Nephites did not practice polygamy, but the unrighteous dissenters (i.e. Noah et al and Lamanites et al) did

Jacob said that the Lamanites were NOT practicing polygamy, which is evidence of the existence of the "others".  The Lamanites included a large group of "others", with whom they intermarried.  The Nephites could not compete with the Lamanites in assimilating the others.