Were the Mulekites Actually Jaredite Descendants? (Earth, virgin, blood, evolution)

[gnostic]

I am very rusty with the Book of Mormon and all (have touch it a long time), but can I ask a few questions?

Is LDS's Jared the same the Genesis' "Jared", as the father of Enoch? Or is the LDS Jared just a namesake of the older Jared?

What are the Jaredite time-frame?

And how did the Jaredites die out in the Book of Mormon?

[jonny]

This is what the Book of Mormon says about Jared:

Ether 1:33 - "Which Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth; and according to the word of the Lord the people were scattered."

I think that would put them at around 3500 B.C.

I'm not really familiar with the story with the Jaredites dying out. It is one of the more graphic stories in the Book of Mormon. If I remember correctly they were divided against each other and ended up killing themselves out. It ends with Coriantumr, the king, beheading Shiz, one of the rebel army leaders, and Coriantumr "fell to the earth, and became as if he had no life."

The story of the Jaredites is found in the Book of Ether.

[jonny]

Here's a link to learn more about the Jaredites

http://www.onlymormon.com/Results/?cx=002912200619586055156%3Argcnsb6amuy&cof=FORID% 3A9&safe=active&q=jaredites

[gnostic]

Thanks Jonny

I think that would put them at around 3500 B.C.

If it is at the time of Tower of Babel, then I would date that to between 2100-1850 BCE.

If the Tower of Babel is in the city of Babylon, then 3500 BCE is too far back, because Babylon would not have existed. In fact all the Sumerian cities wouldn't have exist at 3500 BCE.

Babylon was a minor town 2100, and didn't became great until city after 2000 BCE.

There are on 367 years difference between the time of Flood to Abraham leaving Ur. See Timeline of the Patriarchs, especially the 2nd table.

The incidence at the Tower of Babel is not given any frame of reference. Since Abraham left Ur rather late in life (at 75, according to Genesis 12:4), there's a great possibilities that the Tower of Babel may have happened before Ur left. Ur was no longer the great Sumerian city in Abraham's time, since Babylon has risen to supplant it. Since God scattered everyone after Babel, then it could possibly be the reason Abraham was ordered to leave as well.

Does that make any sense?

[painted wolf]

the MormonWiki makes some mistakes about the Olmec's.
They date from 1200 to 400 BCE not 2700 to 600 BCE like the Jaredites were supposed to have lived.
the Zapotec civilization lasted from 2500 BCE untill the Spanish took them out in in the.

wa:do

[jonny]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

the MormonWiki makes some mistakes about the Olmec's.
They date from 1200 to 400 BCE not 2700 to 600 BCE like the Jaredites were supposed to have lived.
the Zapotec civilization lasted from 2500 BCE untill the Spanish took them out in in the.

wa:do

Yeah. You gotta take anything on a wiki with a grain of salt. Anyone can be an expert in anything these days...

[DeepShadow]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

actually the purported ties with asian cultures are just as workable for ancient Isralites.
Hunters, farmers and herdsman....
egads thats all of us at some point in our hisrory.

Everything that I've ever read about ancient Israelites says that these three were separate roles, especially hunters and farmers. Can you cite a source that says these roles were undifferentiated among Israelites?

"McGovern repeatedly points out that the tribes of the steppes have at all times been hunters, herdsmen, and farmers all at once. 15 And in my recent studies on the state I have shown that they were the original city builders to the bargain. All the tribes we have just mentioned, for example, were expert hunters, though none lacked animals in plenty. Typical is the case of the Manchu-Solons who when murrain destroyed their herds took to farming, yet they "plough no more than hunger compels them to, and in years when game is plentiful they do not plough at all," 16"

or any other tribal people.

Actually, that's not true. That's part of a juxtaposition between Lehi--who took only those he was specifically told to take--and Jared--who took everone who would go. The latter is much more Asiatic.

"Here is another striking contrast with the Lehi story: unlike the people of the sands, these ancients do not form their societies on the basis of blood relationship—the friends of Jared and the friends of his brother are two separate groups, as they would not be if they were relatives. Apparently whoever is a friend is a supporter and member of the tribe, and this rule, significantly enough, has been a basic law of Asiatic society from the earliest recorded times, when the formula "I counted them among my people" was applied to whatever people a king could subdue, regardless of race or language."

This last quote is from Western Political Quarterly III (1951), 245f. Can you refute it?

or England during the war of the roses. Or any other troubled area with heridtary rule. Heck look at modern gurilla conflicts in Central America, South Asia and Africa.

Interesting. What are some of the oaths that were used to bind outcasts to the rebellion cause in the War of the Roses? The oaths of steppes nomads sounded a lot like the Jaredite oaths, but the WoR oaths might give you a case for Joseph Smith's fraud if there's a strong resemblance.

sorry but this is one of the odest tricks in the book of warfare... it certenly isn't indicitive of one geographical location.

You don't seem to grasp what Hugh has done here. He's found over twenty-five specific points of resemblance between Asiatic nomads and Jaredites. Some are not very indicative of anything, others are very specific and rare, but it's the mass of them that makes his case. You found one point of correspondence with the War of the Roses. What about the other twenty-four? Even if you assign a 50% chance to each of these points, the mass of them together exceeds the .005% statistical significance requirements for social sciences. What are the chances that Joseph would pull each of these points from a different source, and put them all together in one group?

I make you the same deal I made with Linwood: you find another culture that has a habit of taking kings captive and letting them live in captivity, have kids, etc. I consider that the most distinctive of the twenty-five customs. Find another culture that has done that again and again, and I'll capitulate.

Add to this that they still would have left genetic markers ammong the modern population, there arn't any anomolous genetic markers.

Actually, there are. There's haplogroup X, for one, discovered when scientists cast a wider net than the ten samples (!) used for the much-touted Santo study. From Virginia Morell's article in Science (1998):

Researchers had already identified four common genetic variants, called haplogroups A, B, C, and D, in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of living Native Americans (Science, 4 October 1996, p. 31). These haplogroups turned up in various Asian populations, lending genetic support for the leading theory that Native Americans descended primarily from these peoples. But researchers also found a handful of other less common variants, one of which was later identified as X.
Haplogroup X was different. It was spotted by Torroni in a small number of European populations. So the Emory group set out to explore the marker's source. They analyzed blood samples from Native American, European, and Asian populations and reviewed published studies. "We fully expected to find it in Asia," like the other four Native American markers, says Brown.
To their surprise, however, haplogroup X was only confirmed in the genes of a smattering of living people in Europe and Asia Minor, including Italians, Finns, and certain Israelis. The team's review of published mtDNA sequences suggests that it may also be in Turks, Bulgarians, and Spaniards. But Brown's search has yet to find haplogroup X in any Asian population. "It's not in Tibet, Mongolia, Southeast Asia, or Northeast Asia," Schurr told the meeting. "The only time you pick it up is when you move west into Eurasia."

Emphasis mine.

[painted wolf]

Everything that I've ever read about ancient Israelites says that these three were separate roles, especially hunters and farmers. Can you cite a source that says these roles were undifferentiated among Israelites?

I find this difficult to beleive, can you cite a source that says hunters never farmed and herders never hunted?

Here is another striking contrast with the Lehi story: unlike the people of the sands,

you're telling me that Arabs, Egyptions and so on never formed alliances outside of blood relationships? I've never heard such a thing. Not everyone in a tribe is related by blood, otherwise that would be one inbred tribe.

Interesting. What are some of the oaths that were used to bind outcasts to the rebellion cause in the War of the Roses?

you've never heard of an oath of fielty? They were all the rage in Europe.

You don't seem to grasp what Hugh has done here. He's found over twenty-five specific points of resemblance between Asiatic nomads and Jaredites.

yes, and many of these points of resemblance are ify at the very best. Most of them are tenuous and some of them are clearly more wishfull than diagnostic.

I make you the same deal I made with Linwood: you find another culture that has a habit of taking kings captive and letting them live in captivity, have kids, etc. I consider that the most distinctive of the twenty-five customs. Find another culture that has done that again and again, and I'll capitulate.

King Fancois was taken prisoner and eventually released by the Spanish.
King Richard was taken prisoner and eventually released by the Germans. His brother tried to sieze the throne but when Richard was reinstated he was allowed to live out his life in peace.

Haplogroup X was found in Siberia...

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/disp...le=jbms&id=231

*just so you know I have no problem with the LDS, I just don't like people trying to justify faith with questionable science. *

wa:do

[DeepShadow]

My apologies, PaintedWolf. I thought I responded to this post, but I was mistaken. Since you seem interested in renewing our discussion (I hope), I'll reply now.

Originally Posted by painted wolf

I find this difficult to beleive, can you cite a source that says hunters never farmed and herders never hunted?

In Western worlds, there was a marked division between nomadic "hunters" and agrarian "farmers." This division was especially strong in Semitic peoples, where we have the archetypes of Nimrod (hunter) and Abraham (farmer). Examples of this can be found in general texts such as World History: Perspectives on the Past (Krieger, Neill, Jantzen) and specific works such as Nibley's The Arrow, the Hunter and the State.

Computer's quitting, I'll get back to the rest.

[painted wolf]

New reserch shows that the Agricultural revolution was a slow drawn out affair. Many groups both hunted and farmed in the fertile cresent during the same time.
I'll try to post the Science article on it Thursday or Friday. Its out in my truck and I don't want to run out there so late at night.
I admit it I'm lazy and I have wierd reading habits.
Hunters and farmers are both parts of the same culture. Its like saying that fishermen today are not the same people as those who live inland.

wa:do