Where are the "others" in the Book of Mormon?

[_Ten Bear]

Forgive if this has been brought up before.

It just hit me lately that the Book of Mormon has one major flaw that I've not seen before. Where are the others?

In any book(not fiction), any journal, any documentation whatsoever that lays out a journey of one people who go to a new area, land, or country, almost the first thing mentioned is the "others" they encounter. Without fail. Maybe its: "We've met the natives and they seem friendly." or "We made contact with locals here and they seem hostile. We need to be on guard."

I would think that there should be some mention of native inhabitants in the Book of Mormon. After all, they had to intermingle in order to get the populations up to where we find them in different sections of the book.

Plus, if a whole race of people were soon named after these "new arrivals", and a whole other line named after the brother, they must have had quite an impact on the locals, right? Enough so that they quickly became rulers and leaders and they named cities and rivers after them. I mean, that's "influence" at it's best, no? I mean, the last thing we can say is that the Lehites wondered around the whole one thousand years and didn't know about the others.

Plus, I don't think we can say, well Moroni just chose to leave out any mention of others in his abridgement to keep it like a "family" journal or cause it isn't pertinent to the subject matter. That doesn't fly. It is extremely important.

My take? Joseph Smith and OC really did intend the book to be about the natives running around in the New England area and maybe the northern continent as a whole. All of them. Joseph Smith and OC set it up in 2 Nephi to where the land was "kept" from other nations and they were to take sole possession of it. No others. All to themselves. I think that was the intent.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

The book explains why there is no mention of others, as you point out, when they wrote that the land was kept from other nations. Of course later they tell the tale of the Jaredites, which contradicts the land being preserved from other nations, but that's just poor writing and not keeping the story straight.

You're correct that most real journals mention others, and most real journals don't include "any mistakes in this journal are the mistakes of men." or "I predict people will reject this journal and say A journal, a journal, we already have a journal." There are a lot of suspicious things in the Book of Mormon. No mention of others is a big one.

[_The Dude]

Ten Bear:

Would you believe that there are now apologists who claim that failing to mention "others" actually makes the Book of Mormon more authentic? Yep. Supposedly, this is what ancient story-tellers did all the time. Supposedly, if the Book of Mormon did explicity mention "others" that would be a clue of modern origins and a blow against its authenticity. Welcome to Wonderland, my friend.

[_Ten Bear]

Ten Bear:

Would you believe that there are now apologists who claim that failing to mention "others" actually makes the Book of Mormon more authentic? Yep. Supposedly, this is what ancient story-tellers did all the time. Supposedly, if the Book of Mormon did explicity mention "others" that would be a clue of modern origins and a blow against its authenticity. Welcome to Wonderland, my friend.

How deep does this hole go?

[_The Dude]

Ten Bear:

Would you believe that there are now apologists who claim that failing to mention "others" actually makes the Book of Mormon more authentic? Yep. Supposedly, this is what ancient story-tellers did all the time. Supposedly, if the Book of Mormon did explicity mention "others" that would be a clue of modern origins and a blow against its authenticity. Welcome to Wonderland, my friend.

How deep does this hole go?

Pretty deep.

We are also supposed to believe that Joseph Smith didn't know the Book of Mormon as well as modern apologists. That's why he had this ludicrous misconception that every bone, ruin and artifact in the Americas came from his Book of Mormon civilizations. He just wasn't a careful reader (or translator, or listener to Nephite angels who told him about their ancient world). Even a cursory look at the Book of Mormon text reveals there had to be non-BoM others in the land from day one... so we are told by apologists. Poor dumb Joseph.

[_Ten Bear]

How deep does this hole go?

Pretty deep.

We are also supposed to believe that Joseph Smith didn't know the Book of Mormon as well as modern apologists. That's why he had this ludicrous misconception that every bone, ruin and artifact in the Americas came from his Book of Mormon civilizations. He just wasn't a careful reader (or translator, or listener to Nephite angels who told him about their ancient world). Even a cursory look at the Book of Mormon text reveals there had to be non-BoM others in the land from day one... so we are told by apologists. Poor dumb Joseph.

No. Poor dumb me.

Sorry. A little shock factor going on here. I can't believe I bought into this scam for so long.

Can anyone produce said "Historical" documents that show writtings where others are purposefully left out? That's crazy.

[_truth dancer]

I recently read, The River Where America Began, (a fabulous book by the way), and it is filled with journal entries of America's first European settlers.

All through the book I found myself noticing how these settlers described their surrounding, the Natives, the environment, the land, animals, fowl, fish, seasons, etc. etc. etc.

Over and over I noticed myself comparing these early writings with those in the Book of Mormon where virtually nothing is mentioned of "others." (Not to mention the fact that there is virtually no authentic, realistic description of the actual environment Lehi & Co, would have encountered).

It was a stark contrast to say the least.

~dancer~

[_Ten Bear]

I recently read, The River Where America Began, (a fabulous book by the way), and it is filled with journal entries of America's first European settlers.

All through the book I found myself noticing how these settlers described their surrounding, the Natives, the environment, the land, animals, fowl, fish, seasons, etc. etc. etc.

Over and over I noticed myself comparing these early writings with those in the Book of Mormon where virtually nothing is mentioned of "others." (Not to mention the fact that there is virtually no authentic, realistic description of the actual environment Lehi & Co, would have encountered).

It was a stark contrast to say the least.

~dancer~

Exactly.

[_The Dude]

It was a stark contrast to say the least.

But those were modern explorers, not ancient Jewish ones. To the ancient mind, speaking like a voice from the dust, anybody who wasn't of your tribe just got lumped into the same category. In this case, the category is "Lamanite". It's totally consistent with an ancient record.

Okay then, how do they deal with the parts in 2 Nephi that say the land was kept from all other nations for the sole possession of the chosen, righteous people? I guess we just aren't meant to take that seriously. Or maybe that was one of Joseph's modern expansions on an ancient record -- he was influenced by manifest destiny thinking, and he worded it in a way that he warned us could happen: there are errors of men in the book, but not the errors of God. Or maybe the promised land was nothing more than the two acres where Lehi built his hut and hung his hammock. I hear it had a great view of the river and some nice guava trees. Definitely a choice piece of land!

[_cinepro]

If you want to see the topic explored in depth (and some would argue, to death), with apologists bringing their best, you can go to the MADB and search for "others".