Jump to content

Talk:Lamanites

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TaivoLinguist (talk | contribs) at 09:35, 9 June 2017 (→Around 600 BC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

Why is it that someone has removed the reference to 3 Nephi 2:12-15? That verse provides key background for the statment in the article that some interpret Book of Mormon passages to mean that Lamanites will turn white. Wschiess 14:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skin of blackness The current section on "skin of blackness" says "Several [italics mine] Book of Mormon passages have been interpreted [italics mine] by some Latter-day Saints as indicating that Lamanites would revert to a lighter skin tone . . ." But the text gives as the only example the verse in which "white" was changed to "pure."

A thorough description of the topic "skin of blackness" should include an example of a passage in which Lamanites were reported as turning white, thus giving context to the earlier statement that several passages have been so interpreted. One such passage would be 3 Nephi 2:12, 15: "Therefore, all the Lamanites who had become converted unto the Lord did unite with their brethren, the Nephites . . . And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites".

--Wschiess 17:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This citation must be wrong: 2 Nephi 5:21-21 Perhaps 21-22 is meant?

Hey, you need a paragraph on this: Q. Did the Mormon Church teach that black folks followed Lucifer in the War in Heaven, or were 'fence sitters', or were 'less valiant' in that War? See: Black Mormons & The Priesthood-ban http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/BMPB.html

This is irrelevant for this page. The discussions for Mormon's policy and teachings about Blacks and Native Americans/Lamanites are completely different topics and not viewed the same. Leave a comment at Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. -Visorstuff 00:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I suppose that the NPOV problem could be solved with citations for the linguistic connections. Otherwise, this isn't quite as bad as the Nephite article. 69.51.153.203 21:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is as bad - it fails to mention the most obvious point which is that the existence of the Lamanites have never been independantly verfied, and that no scholar outside the LDS accepts this story as historical. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've changed my mind - I think this article is quite good. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you not cite religious texts when that is the only "evidence" of the definiendum's existence? It would be like ruling you can't cite Shakespeare in the article on Falstaff.Bloomology (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

What does everyone think about merging this article with the Nephite one? (The latter has been updated since the comment by 69.51.153.203). My rationale is that you can't understand Lamanites without understanding the Nephites and that they should be presented together.--Cassmus 07:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as per my comments on the Talk:Nephite page. Matatigre36 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well -Visorstuff 02:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well. see Talk:Nephite Mrmcgibby 04:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is obviously not on my side, so I've removed the merge tag from both articles.--Cassmus 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Nephi 30:6 - "white and delightsome" vs "pure and delightsome"

I've added a line noting that even though some claim that the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon used the word "pure," later editions until 1981 did not. I think that's important. I'd also point out that many dispute the claim that the 1840 edition ever used the word "pure" in that verse, and that a number of testimonies from prominent LDS Churchmen (including the Prophet himself) and official Church publications do include the idea that Lamanite converts will see their skin turn white in, at most, a generation or two. I would like to add a line questioning that claim, but I can't find a reliable cite at the moment. I'll try to come back to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.187.250 (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Unsigned - if you can do this it sounds relevant and interesting. I approve. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added citations to the 1840 edition (which does read "pure") and a clarification for why this was forgotten until 1981. I also added something similar in the similar section at: Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Book of Mormon. I described the issue fully at: Talk:Blacks and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#White vs Pure in 1840. Please reword this if you can figure out how to say it more clearly, without making it into a longer tangent (I'm having trouble striking this balance).
Even though "pure" was used in 1840, "white" was used thereafter and taught by the church for a very long time. It's in many church teachings and explanations during that 140-year period and can't be brushed off just because of the Third Edition. Rich jj (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LDS and Racism

Could whoever added the section which starts 'Statement of LDS Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley concerning racism:' - this is simply not relevant to the article. It is not clear from how this was cited that Hinckley was refering specifically to the LDS doctrine of the Lamanites. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Among

I just noticed this news article: [1] - I'm not sure how to factor it into the article (or if we even should), however it at least shows that the questions surrounding the Mormon doctrine of the Lamanites is still in the public eye. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

I'm thinking of removing the NPOV tag from the "Skin of Blackness" section? This section consists entirely of relevant quotations and references to mormon texts, and I see no reason why this should be considered NPOV, unless of course some mormons here feel that the modern understanding of the text is being mis-represented. I will return in 1 week's time to remove the NPOV tag unless somebody here objects! --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the paragraph reads quite apologetically. I am re-adding the tag. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One example of NPOV problems in the "Skin of Blackness" section:
      • "Dark skin is never referred as the curse itself; rather, the dark skin was only a mark of the curse which God had placed on the Lamanite people." -- this is an interpretation that is more modern in the church. This should have the clause, "today, mormons believe that.." with a citation from one of the more recent prophets (there are sure to be a bunch of quotes). Then there should also be a quote showing that historically this interpretation was different (there should be a bunch of quotes by Brigham Young on this count too if I am not mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Descartes1979 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1831 Revelation

The authenticity of the 1831 revelation cited in this article has not been confirmed. Also, it was never cannonized by the LDS Church. I'm going to mention that briefly in the text. SLCMormon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skin

(Copied from Truthdisciple's Talk Page) You are mistaking accuracy with theological interpretation. The BOM clearly and literally states that the Lamanites were dark-skinned. The BOM is the only source for the existence of such people and its description is all there is. Anything else is secondary interpretation. You can add a section about the interpretive history of the Lamanites, but the only source of information about them is the BOM and it says exactly what it says. Until the middle of the 20th century, mainstream Mormonism believed the literal nature of the BOM concerning the Lamanites. Wikipedia isn't the place to sugarcoat the plain statements in the BOM or to engage in interpretive fancy. We simply report the facts here. 1) The BOM says that Lamanites were dark-skinned. 2) The early Mormons believed that literally. 3) Changes to the interpretation of the BOM passages are a phenomenon of the latter part of the 20th century. Those are the facts as reported by Wikipedia. The verses in Lamentations have nothing to do with the description of Lamanites. It's all in the BOM. (Taivo (talk) 05:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

(Copied from Truthdisciple's Talk Page) Actually, you cannot write a section with only references to the BOM. Wikipedia does not sanction original research based on primary sources. You would need to describe what secondary sources say about it. And it doesn't matter that you are offended by the racism of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The BOM contains that racism. The text might have been changed in 1840, but it was still being printed as late as the 1960s in editions of the BOM. Wikipedia is not a missionary tract--it is simply a reporter of the facts. And that racism was a fact. (Taivo (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Photo

I inserted a public domain photo (circa1 1910) of a Lamanite girl. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no photos of Lamanites. --Taivo (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The author purported that it was a "Lamanite girl." opps on my part. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Revision

This article was extremely biased. I have removed all bias and restated according to fact. I also inserted a rebuttal to the evidence section and included the fact that there is disagreement among scholars relating to evidence for and against. Also, all discussion of color relating to righteousness, the logic of the beliefs of Book of Mormon readers, and LDS church leaders has been removed. It is not relevant to the article, which exists ONLY to tell the reader what a Lamanite is, NOT what everybody thinks about them. Perhaps someone could help with where I put the added reference and link in the expert rebuttal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yippyman (talk • contribs) 00:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary "This article absolutely should be from the Book of Mormon perspective." shows that you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. It should be written from a WP:NPOV perspective and indeed should reflect what non-Mormons think about them as well as the Mormon perspective. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dark skinned should be in lead?

This is covered in the article and important to the history of Mormonism, e.g. [2] Doug Weller talk 05:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Geogene (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Around 600 BC

The dates in the non-canonical headings are added by later Mormon commentators, but there are explicit verses in the BoM that say Lehi left Jerusalem six hundred years before the coming of Christ: 1 Nephi 10:4, 1 Nephi 19:8, 2 Nephi 25:19, 3 Nephi 1:1. The "around" in the statement is inexact enough to allow for the fact that most scholars put the birth of Jesus between 6 and 4 BC. This is also similar to the language used on other Book of Mormon related articles. Therefore, I think we're safe to include "around 600 BC" in the article. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. @9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS: while that depends on what you consider to be "well-attested", the current online Britannica speaks of Zedekiah as a real person and gives his reign at about 600 BC. I think that's good enough. Further, the approximate time period in which the Lamanite culture supposedly began is an important detail that belongs in the article. Just calling it "ancient" is too vague. Geogene (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the Britannica has no NPOV policy, and often presents only one point of view on a subject. That's why we try to avoid such tertiary sources. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon. If we're going to attest to a date for something that never happened, we should do so on the text in the Book of Mormon itself, which, although it contains many anachronisms because of the shoddy work of its writer, does not go as far as to adopt the Dionysius Exiguus year-numbering system. Say, "during the reign of the biblical king Zedekiah" if you want. But stop the over-interpreting. jps (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While it would be better than nothing to say that it was during Zedekiah's reign, that doesn't really work for me, because like most people I know, I just don't carry around Biblical chronologies in my head like that. But 600 BC is something I find meaningful. And, I'm still not sure I understand the objection to assigning dates to things that didn't happen, because in some contexts we do this all the time. If you put the religious stuff aside and consider the Book of Mormon as a historical novel that wasn't particularly well researched, would it still be a problem to give the time period? Clearly the author had a specific timeframe over which the narrative plays out, and while he knew better than to just say 600 BC outright, he's pretty transparent about chronology. As FyzixFighter points out above there are time markers throughout the narrative. Geogene (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a source that is not a Mormon who gives a date of 600 BC and we can put it in. Otherwise, the wikilink suffices for concerns about those who don't know their biblical chronologies. jps (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Every biblical chronology in existence places the reign of Zedekiah about the year 600 BCE. --Taivo (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's tertiary jumps in logic which is not appropriate here. There is no reason to tell the reader the date when Zedekiah reigned for the purposes of this article. jps (talk)
I guess I'm still missing why 600 BC is not acceptable. Maybe I'll be a little more explicit and provide the text of the links I provided above:
  • 1 Nephi 10:4 - "...even six hundred years from the time that my father [Lehi] left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews—even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world"
  • 1 Nephi 19:8 - "[the Messiah] cometh, according to the words of the angel, in six hundred years from the time my father [Lehi] left Jerusalem"
  • 2 Nephi 25:19 - "the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left [Lehi] Jerusalem"
  • 3 Nephi 1:1 - the occurrence of the signs of Christ's birth happen "six hundred years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem"
Yes, the book doesn't adopt the Dionysisu Exiguus year-numbering system, but I would argue that the text in the Book of Mormon itself is sufficient to say 600 BC. What am I missing with this argument? --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the fact that 600 BC itself is a date that is external to the Bible. We aren't dating the Bible here and we certainly aren't dating the Book of Mormon. We can report what the Book of Mormon says and leave it at that. jps (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that the Bible doesn't use the BCE/CE numbering system, but if you take two seconds to actually research the topic you will find that every single article on the Bible and historical figures mentioned in the Bible uses the BCE/CE dates even though by your argument, they should not be used because they are not found in the biblical text itself. Your argument is specious on its face. Alexander the Great and none of the primary sources about his life use the BCE/CE system. Julius Caesar's life wasn't measured that way in his lifetime either. Your argument is simply ridiculous. --Taivo (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking here about an event which did not take place. It is dated by means of textual attribution to an event which did take place. And, crucially, the article is not about that event but about a mythological people who were described as being descended from certain people who participated in the event which did not take place. Since we're talking about what the Book of Mormon says about the event, there is no problem with using what the Book of Mormon says. But as soon as you start to make leaps of logic beyond that you are ascribing a truth-value to the text which it simply does not have. jps (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in question is not saying definitively that the event happened. It is qualified at the start with "According to the Book of Mormon...". Again, based on the verses cited above, I see nothing wrong with saying something along the lines of "According to the Book of Mormon, Lehi left Jerusalem around 600 BC". --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The attempt to attribute to the Book of Mormon (which is indeed the right thing to do in this situation) is precisely the problem because, strictly speaking, "according to the book of Mormon" there is no AD/BC date system. Joseph Smith and anyone else who helped him compose this piece of literature didn't go so far (or make the mistake) of inserting dates like 600 BC into his work. This is an important point. A casual reader should not be misled into thinking that the Book of Mormon includes dates like "600 BC". The Book of Mormon ties itself to biblical events and, to that end, we should describe the time when an event is described as taking place with referent to the biblical events referenced in the Book of Mormomn. But "600 BC" is a reference to a date and dating system that was calculated by extra-biblical third parties to which the Book of Mormon makes no reference. jps (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have now entered the realm of "I didn't hear that". You argue (wrongly in my opinion) that we cannot say "about 600 BCE" because the BOM doesn't use BCE/CE dating and because the text itself only says, "during the reign of Zedekiah". Yet you ignore the verses from the BOM that User:FyzixFighter cited verbatim above that literally provide an "about 600 BCE" date. I agree that the BOM is a work of fiction. That's not the point. If we wrote about A Tale of Two Cities that it was "set during the French Revolution at the end of the eighteenth century" you would not blink an eye even though I don't think the novel ever says "end of the 18th century". If we wrote about some Louis Lamour novel that it was "set during the life of Quanah Parker (1845-1911)" even though there is no actual date in the novel, you wouldn't bat an eye. We write about the time that fictional events take place all the time when dealing with historical fiction. This is no different than saying that Lehi's flight from Jerusalem occurred about 600 BCE. No different. The events of Tale of Two Cities are fictional. They never happened. But we can still date them and do regularly when writing about that novel. --Taivo (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A Tale of Two Cities does not contain any dates describing when the events of the novel takes place. It correctly leaves the time-specificity to the event of the French Revolution. By saying "before and during the French Revolution", the phrasing is much better. Because the novel leaves things ambiguous, we leave things ambiguous. Same principle applies here. jps (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point in order to push your agenda. Read the entire article A Tale of Two Cities. You will see historical dates scattered throughout. Compare that to War and Peace, where historical dates are also scattered throughout the article. How about the Bible? Compare the article on Books of Kings, which, of course only date events by the regnal year of the current monarch of Israel and/or Judah. Yet the Wikipedia article is filled with BCE dating of the events, ignoring your assertion that dates can only exist based on the source's own wording. --Taivo (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, dates can be mentioned if, for example, there is consensus that something happened or it is given in the text. Perhaps you should try arguing positively: what possible purpose does including a particular date in this article serve? We can easily identify the event using the reign of Zedekiah and wikilink. There is no reason to go beyond that. jps (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You ignore one of the primary missions of editing on Wikipedia--to make the information as accessible as possible to the reader. If we're going to mention Zedekiah then we make the information reader-friendly by inserting after his name (reigned 597-586 BCE). Your insistence that fictional events cannot have relative dates attached to them is ridiculous. Reader-friendly design means that when an important bit of information can be easily inserted it should be. The current edit (about 600 years before the birth of Jesus) fits that bill. The same would be true of "during the reign of Zedekiah (597-586 BCE)". Giving a relative date to the fictional events recounted in the BOM, when the BOM itself uses historical figures and events to date itself, is perfectly appropriate and aids the reader in interpreting the information. --Taivo (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A wikilink makes information easily accessible. jps (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that the verses which mention 600 years before the Messiah are intentionally vague as to the identity of the Messiah in question. Let's not over-interpret. There was a reason that the authors chose to be vague about the identity of the Messiah in those verses. The easiest marker that requires the least amount of Mormon faith is just to say that the events are described as occurring during the reign of Zedekiah. jps (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the Mormon faith there is only ONE Messiah. That's the beginning and end of that reference. It's not "vague", it's measured from a precise individual: Jesus of Nazareth. And I will insist on the regnal years following Zedekiah's name if you prefer that historical link over the link to Jesus. --Taivo (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that's the Mormon faith. What does that have to do the text of the Book of Mormon? Are you somehow saying that we should only read it in light of the Mormon faith? jps (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have ever heard anyone say that the Book of Mormon was vague on the identity of the Messiah referred to in it's early chapters. Truly, you have dizzying intellect. A more specific reference to Christ (instead of to a vague Messiah) and when Lehi left Jerusalem is found within the text of the Book of Mormon: 3 Nephi 2:6-7. I believe that, with a bit of WP:CALC, has the specificity you found lacking in the other cited verses. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the Book of Mormon does not identify Jesus of Nazareth in that passage. Try again. jps (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the verses I linked to? The text says "Christ" not "Messiah". Are you really saying that the term "Christ" is vague? @TaivoLinguist: or @Geogene:, could you please provide a third opinion? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The most common meaning of the words "Christ" and "Messiah" in early 19th century English (when the BOM was written) was "Jesus of Nazareth". It's not even an issue for debate. Within the Mormon religion specifically, the words "Messiah" and "Christ" only mean "Jesus of Nazareth". If you've spent five minutes in a religious setting with Mormons you realize that simple fact. jps simply doesn't want to admit that his argument is ridiculous and he has no factual basis for his objections. Here are a couple of links from Mormon reference works: [3], [4], [5]. jps' position, that the terms "Messiah" and "Christ" do not specifically refer to Jesus of Nazareth in the BOM is utterly groundless. Indeed, throughout Christianity those terms also only refer to Jesus of Nazareth--it's not a uniquely Mormon association. --Taivo (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes that 3 Nephi was written in the 19th Century. Should we say that? jps (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. No, we should not say that and that is the opposite of the position that you have taken throughout this debate. The most common name for Jesus of Nazareth throughout Christianity and throughout Mormon writings from the early 19th century on is "Jesus Christ". So to make the claim that the BOM might refer to anyone else other than Jesus of Nazareth with the terms "Messiah" or "Christ" is utterly groundless. Even Mormons, uniformly, who accept the divine authority and authorship of the BOM equate "Messiah" and "Christ" with Jesus of Nazareth without exception. You simply have no argument and no factual basis for any argument you try to make. --Taivo (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point is the person of Jesus of Nazareth is simply not named in that passage. What Mormons think is rather beside the point! jps (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Joseph Smith, as a Christian, writing for a Christian audience, about a supposed pre-Columbian Christian civilization in the New World, understood this to be the popular Jesus of Sunday school fame. There is a very small element of OR in this assumption. I'm okay with that. Geogene (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that should probably be explained rather than WP:ASSERTed, I would argue. This is where the complication arises. Being okay with OR doesn't strike me as the best way forward. jps (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, jps, if I'm reading a 19th century document and come across the name "Old Kinderhook", there is no ambiguity as to whom it refers to and I can then refer to President Martin Van Buren without further clarification necessary. There is only one individual who is referred to with that nickname. The same is true of the words "Christ" and "Messiah" in a Christian context. There is but one referent. Indeed, while "Messiah" might have a different referent in a Jewish context, the term "Christ" never has a different referent other than Jesus of Nazareth. Ever. Indeed, "Jesus" is most often found in the construction "Jesus Christ". I wonder how many people think that "Christ" is simply Jesus of Nazareth's last name. Additionally, your comment "What Mormons think is beside the point" is ridiculous. Of course it matters what they think. We are discussing a text that is their scripture so the way they define the terms in it is absolutely relevant. But even outside the context of Mormonism, you have not a shred of evidence to support your assertion that "Christ" and "Messiah" refer to anyone other than Jesus of Nazareth in either contemporary Christianity or 19th century American Christianity in more than a vanishingly small number of rare and unusual contexts. It's not even really "original research" to equate the English words "Messiah" and "Christ" with Jesus of Nazareth, it's part of the dictionary definition of the terms (see OED, for example). At this point, jps, your comments are simply on the edge of I don't like it. --Taivo (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm trying to point out that the dating suffers from apologetic/exigetical POVs rather than being something that we cannot understand. It takes not much research to figure out that the author of the Book of Mormon wanted to include enough claims of connection between the biblical history and the confabulation to wow the audience. That's why it is problematic for us to engage in that kind of advocacy. It's not "I don't like it!" It's rather "this is a Mormon POV being argued WP:IN UNIVERSE." jps (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's where you are wrong. You are confusing a Mormon POV with the overwhelmingly common meaning of the terms "Christ" and "Messiah" in English in the early 19th century as well as today. Equating "Christ" with Jesus of Nazareth is not a Mormon POV. That's where you are conflating your own attempts to paint the narrative of the BOM as fictional (a POV which we share) with the simple meaning of the word "Christ" in English and using the BOM text itself to place its fictional narrative in time. We already place the fictional narrative in space (somewhere in the Americas) based on less overt internal evidence than we have for placing it in time (beginning in the 6th century BCE and ending several hundred years later). Your argument is that since the narrative is fictional then it cannot be placed in real time. But that argument should be just as valid for space as well since it's a fictional narrative. That's where everyone else disagrees with you and a POV that you carry alone. On the point of OR, this isn't OR at all. OR isn't recognizing the common meaning of a word in English and it's historical timeframe. It is not OR to know that the title "Christ" in English overwhelmingly refers to Jesus of Nazareth uniquely and that when the BOM says 600 years before the arrival of the Christ it is referring to 600 BCE (or BC, "Before Christ"). --Taivo (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lamanites&oldid=784633765"