Were the Mulekites Actually Jaredite Descendants?

[DeepShadow]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

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.

Semetic peoples usually united tribes with marriages. Asiatic peoples usually united tribes by saying they were united. Jaredites follow the latter style.

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

I've heard of them, I just can't believe you think they qualify. Oaths of fealty were a heterogenous mix of promises, some mentioning God or the Virgin Mary, or sometimes just on "King and Country." God-fearing Christians certainly weren't going to swear by the spirits of the earth, after all.

Asiatic oaths, OTOH, were sworn by heaven above, by the earth beneath, and by the spirits under the earth. They included descriptions of what would happen to the oath-takers if they broke the oath, often in grisly detail.

Moreover, Asiatic oaths were taken by outcast bandits, whereas oaths of fealty were usually taken by landed nobles and gentry.

Jaredite oaths were sworn by God, heaven and earth, and they were sworn by outcast bandits. They included specific details as to the death of the oath-taker. Are you honestly telling me that these oaths are more European than Asiatic?

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.

You speak as if you have more than what I've offered here. You've failed to refute any of these few points I've listed, except to try to blur the lines. Hugh Nibley cites all his sources, are they all wrong? Because that's what you are saying.

He cites non-Mormon scholars saying X,Y, and Z are distinctively Asiatic customs, and you are saying, "No, they aren't." Unless you want to do battle with a lot of established scholarship, you'll want to keep your arguments on the Jaredite side, claiming that X, Y, and Z aren't Jaredite customs. Because I've got a raft of PhD's that says they're Asiatic customs.

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.

That's two kings, taken prisoner by two different groups, at two different times. Oh, and how many kids did they have while they were in captivity?

Asiatic kings frequently had children and even grandchildren, all while in captivity. Jaredite kings did the same thing. You have as yet failed to show any other group that does this.

Haplogroup X was found in Siberia...

I'm fine with that, but I'd like a source anyway. The bottom line is that it was found in Europe and the Middle East, too. So the X group in America might have come from Siberia, or it might have come from the Middle East.

The Problematic Role of DNA Testing in Unraveling Human History - Maxwell Institute JBMS

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

I'm not trying to justify my faith. At all. I'm trying to say that the DNA evidence goes both ways. That's been my position from my second post in this thread, where I said that it goes both ways.

[DeepShadow]

Originally Posted by 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 agree. I said there was a line between the two, not that they were not part of the same culture. You can have a divided culture. The Jaredite culture, OTOH, was undifferentiated, like that of the steppes nomads.

I'll try to post the Science article on it Thursday or Friday.

I look forward to it.

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.

I never denied that hunters and farmers could be part of the same culture. On the contrary, they existed alongside each other in the same culture in many Semetic groups. However, this is not the same kind of homogeneity that was found among the steppes nomads, nor among the Jaredites.

[SoyLeche]

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

All excellent points! What are we to think when it talks about how much the Lamanites outnumbered the Nephites! On the one hand, there's no record of the Lamanites intermarrying with any other group...but on the other hand, why would there be?! How would the Nephites know any details of how this happened, and why would their historians make any mention of it? Long after the Lamanites intermarried with these other people, some of them may have rejoined the Nephites, such as the People of Ammon, but that would have been so far after that it wouldn't be worth mentioning.

As Nibley says, we oversimplify far too much. There is so much unsaid...but it's the part that's said that really matters most, huh?

Bumping from way back

I've been reading Sorenson's book, "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon", and he mentiones that it is especially surprising that the Lamanites grew so quickly, because it says that they were less "civilized" than the Nephites (hunter/gatherer vs farming). You would expect the "civilized" group to grow faster.

He also emphasizes that the Book of Mormon is a lineage history - keeping track of the "ruling line" of the Nephites. The book of Ether is even more clearly a lineage history - you seldom even hear the names of those who were not the ruling class descendants of Jared.

Anyway, it's been a pretty interesting read. I would be surprised if you haven't read it, but if not, it's worth picking up.

[DeepShadow]

Originally Posted by SoyLeche

I've been reading Sorenson's book, "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon", and he mentiones that it is especially surprising that the Lamanites grew so quickly, because it says that they were less "civilized" than the Nephites (hunter/gatherer vs farming). You would expect the "civilized" group to grow faster.

He also emphasizes that the Book of Mormon is a lineage history - keeping track of the "ruling line" of the Nephites. The book of Ether is even more clearly a lineage history - you seldom even hear the names of those who were not the ruling class descendants of Jared.

Anyway, it's been a pretty interesting read. I would be surprised if you haven't read it, but if not, it's worth picking up.

Very good to hear. Beleive it or not, I haven't read AASBoM, but you're the fourth person to bring my attention to it lately, so it's moving up my reading list. I'll probably get it for Christmas.

[Sola'lor]

I think it's interesting that the Jaredites could have been Asian.

Originally Posted by painted wolf

I'm sorry but trying to say that these guys arn't Isralites but now Asians isn't jiving.

The Book of Mormon doesn't say the Jaredites were Isrealites as far as I'm aware.

So an Asiatic Nomadic goup had the same type of "prophectic devices" under the same name as anchent Isrialites? And they just happined to take it with them to the "new world" and not leave a trace of it behind in Asia?
(and I beleive it would be "an Urim and Thummim" )

It wouldn't have been the same name. It would have been named in whatever language they used. Urim and Thummim is the word given to Joseph Smith to use in the english Book of Mormon.

[Sola'lor]

Originally Posted by SoyLeche

Bumping from way back

I've been reading Sorenson's book, "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon", and he mentiones that it is especially surprising that the Lamanites grew so quickly, because it says that they were less "civilized" than the Nephites (hunter/gatherer vs farming). You would expect the "civilized" group to grow faster.

Well from what I understand, countries where there is more poverty have higher birthrates.