The Apologetic Efforts with Gazelem = Stone Cut By God

[_grindael]

And he appointed teachers of the brethren of Amulon in every land which was possessed by his people; and thus the language of Nephi began to be taught among all the people of the Lamanites.

Oh, come now. This speaks of "multiple" languages? It says no such thing. It implies that some "Lamanites" didn't know the "language of Nephi". But WHY? Because they spoke Latin? or Akkadian?

Nephi,

I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians

Book of Omni,

Behold, it came to pass that Mosiah discovered that the people of Zarahemla, came out from Jerusalem, at the time that Zedekiah, king of Judah, was carried away captive into Babylon. And they journied in the wilderness, and was brought by the hand of the Lord, across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth. And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceeding numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could not understand them.

But it came to pass that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language. And it came to pass that after they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory: and they are written, but not in these plates.

And it came to pass that the people of Zarahemla, and of Mosiah, did unite together; and Mosiah was appointed to be their king. And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him, with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings, by the gift and power of God.

And they gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his people. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine Moons. It also spake a few words concerning his fathers. And his first parents came out from the Tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people; and the severity of the Lord fell upon them, according to his judgments, which is just; and their bones lay scattered in the land northward. The Book of Mormon, 1830, p.150

Book of Mosiah

AND now there was no more contention in all the land of Zarahemla, among all the people which belonged to king Benjamin, so that king Benjamin had continual peace all the remainder of his days. And it came to pass that he had three sons; and he called their names Mosiah, and Helorum, and Helaman. And he caused that they should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies, which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers, which was delivered them by the hand of the Lord.--And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, saying, my sons, I would that ye should remember, that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God: for it were not possible that our father Lehi could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates: for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians, therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to the present time.

Zeniff,

I, ZENIFF, having been taught in all the language of the Nephites, and having had a knowledge of the land of Nephi, or of the land of our father's first inheritance, and I having been sent as a spy among the Lamanites, that I might spy out their forces, that our army might come upon them and destroy them; but when I saw that which was good among them, I was desirous that they should not be destroyed

Like the people of Zarahemla, the language of the Lamanites had probably become "corrupted" from that of the Nephites. That is all. It consistently speaks of a "language of the Nephites" which was tied to Egyptian. There were the group in Zarahemla that spoke some "corrupted" language, but it was discarded and they were taught Nephi's language.

[_ClarkGoble]

Oh, come now. This speaks of "multiple" languages? It says no such thing. It implies that some "Lamanites" didn't know the "language of Nephi". But WHY? Because they spoke Latin? or Akkadian?

Two is multiple. Is it not? Not quite sure what you're complaining about here. Could you be more clear? It doesn't say what the non-Nephite language was just that it was a different language.

The argument was just against there being a single language which the quote seems more than sufficient to establish. Do you disagree?

You then quote a few other texts which establish even more languages. Egyptian (in some sense - it's not clear which), the Mulekites who have an unknown language, and then the Jaredites who also have an unknown language.

So without even the postulate that this is taking place in the real world we have multiple languages demanded by the text. Throw in an actual location where we'd have multiple non-semitic language and it becomes exceedingly likely they'd have encountered other languages.

Like the people of Zarahemla, the language of the Lamanites had probably become "corrupted" from that of the Nephites. That is all. It consistently speaks of a "language of the Nephites" which was tied to Egyptian. There were the group in Zarahemla that spoke some "corrupted" language, but it was discarded and they were taught Nephi's language.

As soon as you say "probably" you're creating conjecture. I'm fine with mine being conjecture. For some reason you aren't fine with yours being so. Why? The text underdetermines the interpretation. So multiple readings are possible. There's no reason based upon the text to say yours should have precedence.

I think the reading of Mosiah 1 that treats the teaching of his children the language of the fathers as unusual is quite compelling. After all if everyone spoke that language as their lingua franca why mention it? To my reading it strongly implies that knowing that language is unusual. Now is that certain? Of course not. Again the text underdetermines the reading - not at all helped by the missing history between Jacob and Benjamin that covers a few centuries. Quite a bit could have transpired during that period. While you're free to assume that meant no merging of peoples nor changes of language let's be clear that you're simply adding what the text doesn't speak to.

[_grindael]

Oh man, are you really that dense? Here is you ORIGINAL premise,

Because most apologists assume the Nephites were a relatively small population that merged with a relatively large population with several different pre-existing languages.

That does not go BY THE TEXT. I was making assumptions BASED ON THE TEXT, you were not. There were not OTHER multiple languages that account for the text you reference. There was the Nephites and their language, the Jaredites and their language, and the people of Zarahemla and their language, that was "corrupted", so they discarded it. The Lamanites had to learn the Nephite language. The text claims that they originally spoke it, so why would then need to relearn it?

This is all simple stuff. It is when apologists posit wild theories not in the text that things get complicated.

[_I have a question]

Lots of baseless assumptions there. Instead of assumptions, let's stick with the evidence.
God kept the land the Nephites populated from all other nations. So no merging, no dilution of the language. Ergo, the evidence (the book itself) tells us the Nephites would still have spoken the language of their fathers from Jerusalem.

Umm why are mine assumptions and yours not?

because what he said is written in the Book of Mormon and what you said isn't.

Umm, this^

[Guest]

Oh man, are you really that dense? Here is you ORIGINAL premise,

Because most apologists assume the Nephites were a relatively small population that merged with a relatively large population with several different pre-existing languages.

That does not go BY THE TEXT. I was making assumptions BASED ON THE TEXT, you were not.

That is one potential interpretation of what is in the text. The text does not say there were no other people and indeed, as the earlier quotes note, the Nephites encounter other populations. To assume that there were no other people is thus explicitly against what the text says. The text lists several groups but that doesn't mean there weren't others unlisted. The main issue is, as I said, the historical gap between Jacob and Benjamin and the complete lack of information about the history of the lamanites and muelikites and whom they were encountering.

To say the text says there were no other people is just an egregiously bad reading.

Now if you wish to say that because the text doesn't positively describe groups other than the lamanites (as only the Lehite dissenters), the mulekites and the jaredites that it entails that's all there is, that's fine. But be aware that is completely an argument from silence - and a rather weak one.

So yes, apologists assume that the Nephites were a small population mixing in with a big one. But they have good arguments for that. It's not just made up. It comes from the rather obvious archaeological record that there were peoples in the Americas well before the Nephites landed as well as clues within the text.

Now if you prefer to argue against some caricature of thoughtful Mormon belief - one in which the Americas were completely empty except for a small group of jaredites and then later a small group of mulekites that's fine. But guess what. You are then arguing against a bad reading regardless of how many people ignorantly believed it. Further and most importantly you are not arguing with me. Rather you are tilting after windmills.

There were not OTHER multiple languages that account for the text you reference. There was the Nephites and their language, the Jaredites and their language, and the people of Zarahemla and their language, that was "corrupted", so they discarded it. The Lamanites had to learn the Nephite language. The text claims that they originally spoke it, so why would then need to relearn it?

Oh my gosh. Do you even read what you write? I can tell you don't read what I've written. But I assumed you at least pay attention to your own.

You just listed several languages. That's more than one. That's what I claimed.

Now if you want to claim all the languages are either Jaredite or Nephite Hebrew or corruptions from that, that's fine. Just be aware the text does not say that.

[_ClarkGoble]

because what he said is written in the Book of Mormon and what you said isn't.

Umm, this^

LOL. No. Maybe your preconceptions of what the text says. Probably informed by a horrible experience with some ill informed seminary teacher when you were young.

[_I have a question]

Probably informed by a horrible experience with some ill informed seminary teacher when you were young.

That's a pretty poor comment. Seminary teachers here are volunteers, giving up their time for free, sacrificing time every morning that they should be spending with their families, in an attempt to do the bidding of some well paid suit in SLC, to indoctrinate young people enough so that they'll stay active in the Church. Shame on you.

[_ClarkGoble]

Probably informed by a horrible experience with some ill informed seminary teacher when you were young.

That's a pretty poor comment. Seminary teachers here are volunteers, giving up their time for free, sacrificing time every morning that they should be spending with their families, in an attempt to do the bidding of some well paid suit in Salt Lake City, to indoctrinate young people enough so that they'll stay active in the Church. Shame on you.

You're joking right?