Who Knows wrote: I have no earthly idea how bcspace can say what he's saying with a straight face.
So Smith knows of only two races that have inhabited the country before his time.
Those responsible for the 'first settlement' were the Jaredites, who were eventually destroyed. The rest were clearly (following the Book of Mormon) the descendants of Nephi's party, whose 'principal nation' (from the Book of Mormon , the Nephites) were wiped out by (from the Book of Mormon) the other nation, the Lamanites, at which point, as the Book of Mormon tells us, consistent with the angel's account, "the blessings of God [were] finally withdrawn from them as a people". The Lamanite 'remnant' are the Indians.
I just don't see:
(a) Where the doubt comes from about the Jaredites being the first people in America.
Heck, it was the Jaredites who were, according to Smith, responsible for the 'first settlement'. He had two sources for that fact, one the Book of Mormon and the other the account by the angel, which included, he says information on the origins of the aborigines.
There is no sign that Smith felt his sources were inconsistent - which would have been very remarkable, given the almost certain identification of the angel with Moroni, the last premodern person to possess and read the Book of Mormon.
(b) Why bcspace would find uncongenial the very obvious conclusion that Smith believed and stated that the Jaredites were the first people in America.
the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era.
Chap wrote:I am trying to think of a way that someone can make an argument like that without either being in bad faith or suffering from a state of mental confusion. Can't do it. Charity therefore forbids further comment.
Smith believed and stated that the Jaredites were the first people in America.
What if he did? How does that preclude the existence of others? Neither the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, or the angel state anything of that kind.
bcspace's response is so weak and quibbling as to be hardly worth a reply.Smith says that in the Book of Mormon:the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era.
Apparently, if Smith does not say something like "Course, there weren't no others in this here country before the first settlement", it leaves the way open to vast rafts of humanity to have been pouring in for millennia!
I am trying to think of a way that someone can make an argument like that without either being in bad faith or suffering from a state of mental confusion. Can't do it. Charity therefore forbids further comment.
Smith believed and stated that the Jaredites were the first people in America.
What if he did? How does that preclude the existence of others? Neither the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, or the angel state anything of that kind.
If I tried seriously to reconcile these two posts I think my head would explode.
bcspace wrote:Apparently, if Smith does not say something like "Course, there weren't no others in this here country before the first settlement", it leaves the way open to vast rafts of humanity to have been pouring in for millennia!
Joseph Smith said nothing to preclude it.
Yes, he patently did.
In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era.
In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era.