67 replies to this topic

[cinepro]

Yesterday in Sunday School, we discussed the story of Mosiah (the first) and the discovery of the people of Zarahemla.  And as we discussed the story, I once again had difficulty understanding how the Book of Mormon makes sense if there were "native" populations co-existing with the Book of Mormon peoples.

The problem is how the people interact with each other as distinct, separate and isolated groups.

First, we have Mosiah leading a group of people out of the Land of Nephi.  Keep in mind this is happening around 250 B.C., so it's been almost 340 years since Lehite landfall.  They wander through the wilderness and come upon another group of people (who aren't "Lamanites"),

Now, if there were other indigenous people living in the land and the Book of Mormon peoples were a "subset" of these people, why would it be unusual or unexpected for them to find another group of people?  When I'm driving through central California on I-99, I might not know every town I'm going to encounter, but I'm hardly surprised when I find a new one.  Why weren't Mosiah's people expecting to find other people?

Then, upon encountering the people of Zarahemla, there is some form of communication that tells Mosiah that they had come from the Old World centuries before even though they don't speak the same language.  So we have one group whose ancestors had come from the Old World 300+ years earlier, and they encounter another group of people (among all the other natives living in that land), and they don't speak the same language, but somehow this new group of people is able to communicate that their ancestors also came from the Old World 300+ years earlier!

Even if we believe that there were some people living in the the New World in 300 BC that knew about Jerusalem and the Old World, do we really believe that they could communicate this knowledge to someone who didn't speak their language in such a way that both would be able to figure out they were talking about the same place on the other side of the planet?

Then the people of Zarahemla discover that Mosiah had brought the brass plates with him.  Did the people of Zarahemla have any written records?  Based on Zarahemla knowing his genealogy by memory, apparently not.  So it's been 350+ years since both groups came to the New World, the Zarahemlites don't speak the language and they aren't pre-Christian, but they get really excited over the brass plates (which are written in a language they don't understand).

Then Mosiah teaches them his language.  Enough of them to the point of them wanting Mosiah to be their ruler.  How does that happen?  Do they set up tutoring centers all over the city to learn to speak Mosiaish, and the people sign up for a few hours a week, and they're all really motivated and gifted linguists that it only takes a few days, weeks or months until one day they all speak the same language (and even though there were more Zarahemlites than Mosiahites, it didn't occur to the Zarahemlites that maybe Mosiah's people should learn their language since it was their city).



Here's how Amaleki tells the story in the Book of Omni:

Quote

12 Behold, I am Amaleki, the son of Abinadom. Behold, I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah, who was made king over the land of Zarahemla; for behold, he being warned of the Lord that he should flee out of the land of Nephi, and as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord should also depart out of the land with him, into the wilderness—

13 And it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord; and they were led by many preachings and prophesyings. And they were admonished continually by the word of God; and they were led by the power of his arm, through the wilderness until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla.

14 And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla. Now, there was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla; and also Zarahemla did rejoice exceedingly, because the Lord had sent the people of Mosiah with the plates of brass which contained the record of the Jews.

15 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.

16 And they journeyed in the wilderness, and were 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.

17 And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly 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 understand them.

18 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.

19 And it came to pass that the people of Zarahemla, and of Mosiah, did unite together; and Mosiah was appointed to be their king.

Edited by cinepro, 30 April 2012 - 12:45 PM.

[Log]

Weird.  The text of the scripture does not seem to match your portrayal of it.

[cdowis]

cinepro, on 30 April 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

The problem is how the people interact with each other as distinct, separate and isolated groups.

That is an interesting issue but a correction -- this is in the book of Omni, not Mosiah.

First, we have Mosiah leading a group of people out of the Land of Nephi.  Keep in mind this is happening around 250 B.C., so it's been almost 340 years since Lehite landfall.  They wander through the wilderness and come upon another group of people (who aren't "Lamanites"),

A few observations.

1. Zeniff, Alma and others went basically down the same route and, as far as the BOM record, they did not run into anyone else.

2. Or it is possible that they ran into a few small villages which held no interest to Mosiah.  The reason the Mulekites were mentioned is that they were from Jerusalem while the "others'that they encountered were ordinary inhabitants, of no interest to Mosiah.

Now, if there were other indigenous people living in the land and the Book of Mormon peoples were a "subset" of these people, why would it be unusual or unexpected for them to find another group of people?

It was unusual and notable to find a group who migrated from Jerusalem.

  When I'm driving through central California on I-99, I might not know every town I'm going to encounter, but I'm hardly surprised when I find a new one.  Why weren't Mosiah's people expecting to find other people?

They expected to find others, but not their kinfolk.  

You travel down i-99 and discover a small village of people who have no electricity and drive horse drawn buggies.  Is this something that you expected?  Perhaps something straight out of Stephen King.

Then, upon encountering the people of Zarahemla, there is some form of communication that tells Mosiah that they had come from the Old World centuries before even though they don't speak the same language.  So we have one group whose ancestors had come from the Old World 300+ years earlier, and they encounter another group of people (among all the other natives living in that land), and they don't speak the same language, but somehow this new group of people is able to communicate that their ancestors also came from the Old World 300+ years earlier!

You are surprised that people learn how to communicate into another language.  

Even if we believe that there were some people living in the the New World in 300 BC that knew about Jerusalem and the Old World, do we really believe that they could communicate this knowledge to someone who didn't speak their language in such a way that both would be able to figure out they were talking about the same place on the other side of the planet?

You cannot find an instance in history where this has happened?  Let me suggest that you look at the early history of the pioneers to America and how they communicated with the Amerindians.

Then the people of Zarahemla discover that Mosiah had brought the brass plates with him.  Did the people of Zarahemla have any written records?

The answer is found in the text of the BOM.

  Based on Zarahemla knowing his genealogy by memory, apparently not.  So it's been 350+ years since both groups came to the New World, the Zarahemlites don't speak the language and they aren't pre-Christian, but they get really excited over the brass plates (which are written in a language they don't understand).

Please google "oral tradition".

Then Mosiah teaches them his language.  Enough of them to the point of them wanting Mosiah to be their ruler.  How does that happen?  Do they set up tutoring centers all over the city to learn to speak Mosiaish, and the people sign up for a few hours a week, and they're all really motivated and gifted linguists that it only takes a few days, weeks or months until one day they all speak the same language (and even though there were more Zarahemlites than Mosiahites, it didn't occur to the Zarahemlites that maybe Mosiah's people should learn their language since it was their city).

The Nephites were acknowledged by the Mulekites to be the superior culture because.......they had written records and the Mulekites did not.  Now, can you figure out why the Mukites would want to learn the Nephite language??

I will give you a hint -- what advantage do students have who can read over those who cannot.

Bonus question:  Why did the Lamanites learn the Nephite language.

Edited by cdowis, 30 April 2012 - 01:26 PM.

[Brant Gardner]

First, accepting the proposition that this is history, we therefore accept that we have history through Mormon's interpretation of events. That always puts a possible spin on information that might alter the perception of events had we the holographic account of the meeting.

As for the surprise at finding people, I see no indication that there was any surprise at all. Using Sorenson's geographic correlation, it is both logical that there would be a people there, but that they should speak a different language (even if Hebrew is not being used there would have been a Maya/Zoque interface at that location). For archaeological data, we know that there was already a trade route from highland Guatemala to through that river area. I surmise that the previous trade relations was the reason (in addition to command of the Lord, of course) that they elected to head in that particular direction of all of the places they could have gone (including down a different river). I would think they knew there were people there and that they were not unfriendly.

The Book of Mormon uses Nephites from the endonym and Lamanite for the exonym (with pejorative connotations). The people of Zarahemla were not Nephite (yet, they would become Nephite), but the clearly were not Lamanite because they were not enemies. Hence they were by definition "other." There is no surprise that they are there, but there is a story.

Exactly how things worked out that the Nephites would become the ruling group are very speculative (as if the above isn't speculative enough). There are some decent anthropological reason behind the way things worked out, but they are only plausible reconstructions from the fact that it did.

[Mark Beesley]

Brant Gardner, on 30 April 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

First, accepting the proposition that this is history, we therefore accept that we have history through Mormon's interpretation of events. That always puts a possible spin on information that might alter the perception of events had we the holographic account of the meeting.

Except for the fact that the Book of Omni is before the Words of Mormon, so It isn't really Mormon's interpretation, is it?

[cdowis]

deleted, point already made.

Edited by cdowis, 30 April 2012 - 01:31 PM.

[Brant Gardner]

Mark Beesley, on 30 April 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

Except for the fact that the Book of Omni is before the Words of Mormon, so It isn't really Mormon's interpretation, is it?

Yes, you are correct.

[Mark Beesley]

cinepro, on 30 April 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

Yesterday in Sunday School, we discussed the story of Mosiah (the first) and the discovery of the people of Zarahemla.  And as we discussed the story, I once again had difficulty understanding how the Book of Mormon makes sense if there were "native" populations co-existing with the Book of Mormon peoples.

Have you ever written your autobiography?  If you were to read mine, you would wonder if I had any next door neighors, and if I ever traded or went shopping anywhere.  You'd know I have family and friends and Church acquantainces.  And my autobiography, covering 50 plus years, is about 50 pages long.  The Book of Omni covers a period of about 200 years and is 30 paragraphs long.  So, what exactly is it missing so it makes more sense?

As for Brant's inadvertent reference to Mormon as being the interpreter of the history, his point remains even if we substittue Amaleki for Mormon.  We don't know if Amaleki experienced firsthand the events which he transcribed or if he was reporting that which had been reported to him.

Edited by Mark Beesley, 30 April 2012 - 03:56 PM.

[cdowis]

Mark Beesley, on 30 April 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

As for Brant's inadvertent reference to Mormon as being the interpreter of the history, his point remains even if we substittue Amaleki for Mormon.  We don't know if Amaleki experienced firsthand the events which he transcribed or if he was reporting that which had been reported to him.

Absolutely.  I believe that parts of the BOM history may be based on oral tradition, and, as Brant points out, on Mormon's interpretation of events.

Too often we view the history in the BOM with the same inerrancy as the doctrine.  The story was much more complex than what was recorded in those few sentences.  I have also wondered about Zeniff's account in Mosiah  -- the good guy vs the bad guy.

We should not be shocked to discover that some of these stories are just "too good to be true".   Like the Mosiah/Benjamin error, the Lord would not see fit to make revisions for inconsequential errors in the history.

Edited by cdowis, 30 April 2012 - 10:36 PM.

[zerinus]

cinepro, on 30 April 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

Yesterday in Sunday School, we discussed the story of Mosiah (the first) and the discovery of the people of Zarahemla.  And as we discussed the story, I once again had difficulty understanding how the Book of Mormon makes sense if there were "native" populations co-existing with the Book of Mormon peoples.

The problem is how the people interact with each other as distinct, separate and isolated groups.

First, we have Mosiah leading a group of people out of the Land of Nephi.  Keep in mind this is happening around 250 B.C., so it's been almost 340 years since Lehite landfall.  They wander through the wilderness and come upon another group of people (who aren't "Lamanites"),

Now, if there were other indigenous people living in the land and the Book of Mormon peoples were a "subset" of these people, why would it be unusual or unexpected for them to find another group of people?  When I'm driving through central California on I-99, I might not know every town I'm going to encounter, but I'm hardly surprised when I find a new one.  Why weren't Mosiah's people expecting to find other people?

Then, upon encountering the people of Zarahemla, there is some form of communication that tells Mosiah that they had come from the Old World centuries before even though they don't speak the same language.  So we have one group whose ancestors had come from the Old World 300+ years earlier, and they encounter another group of people (among all the other natives living in that land), and they don't speak the same language, but somehow this new group of people is able to communicate that their ancestors also came from the Old World 300+ years earlier!

Even if we believe that there were some people living in the the New World in 300 BC that knew about Jerusalem and the Old World, do we really believe that they could communicate this knowledge to someone who didn't speak their language in such a way that both would be able to figure out they were talking about the same place on the other side of the planet?

Then the people of Zarahemla discover that Mosiah had brought the brass plates with him.  Did the people of Zarahemla have any written records?  Based on Zarahemla knowing his genealogy by memory, apparently not.  So it's been 350+ years since both groups came to the New World, the Zarahemlites don't speak the language and they aren't pre-Christian, but they get really excited over the brass plates (which are written in a language they don't understand).

Then Mosiah teaches them his language.  Enough of them to the point of them wanting Mosiah to be their ruler.  How does that happen?  Do they set up tutoring centers all over the city to learn to speak Mosiaish, and the people sign up for a few hours a week, and they're all really motivated and gifted linguists that it only takes a few days, weeks or months until one day they all speak the same language (and even though there were more Zarahemlites than Mosiahites, it didn't occur to the Zarahemlites that maybe Mosiah's people should learn their language since it was their city).


Here's how Amaleki tells the story in the Book of Omni:

Thank you cinepro, I entirely agree. The only thing I would add here is that when it says in the Book of Mormon that the two groups did not understand each other, it does not mean that they spoke a completely different language. It simply means that they spoke (or rather had developed) a different dialect of the same language. I don't think that the people of the United Sates really appreciate the meaning and significance of a dialect, because they don't really have them; but in the Old World, whether you are talking about the Far East, the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Africa etc., many languages have different dialects. A dialect is not a different language. It is the same language, but spoken with sufficient differences in pronunciation, voice intonation, and minor differences in grammatical usage and vocabulary so as to make the speaker of one dialect almost incomprehensible to that of another dialect. If somebody speaking one dialect of the language goes to another region speaking a different dialect of the same language, he will struggle to understand and be understood. But if he stayed there a couple of months, he would soon pick it up, and be able to understand and be understood without difficulty; because it is essentially the same language. There are of course variations in how different two dialects can be; but the essence of it is as described above. The reason why the peoples of Mosiah and Zarahemla were not able to understand each other to begin with, but seemed to be able to learn each other's languages so quickly afterwards, is because they spoke different dialects of the same language, rather than two completely different languages.

[cdowis]

zerinus, on 01 May 2012 - 03:07 AM, said:

they spoke different dialects of the same language, rather than two completely different languages.

Good insight.  It does say that the Mulekite language was "corrupt".

Perhaps we could compare it to modern English to the English of Shakespeare or even Anglo Saxon.

Edited by cdowis, 01 May 2012 - 07:58 AM.

[ksfisher]

cdowis, on 01 May 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

Good insight.  It does say that the Mulekite language was "corrupt".

Perhaps we could compare it to modern English to the English of Shakespeare or even Anglo Saxon.

The Mulekite language was corrupt from the Nephite point of view.  I'm sure that if the story was written from the Mulekite point of view we would have a different perspective.

[Areabird]

Doesn't it take about 1,000 years for a language / dialect to evolve?  If they had left Jerusalem only 340 years earlier wouldn't it be unlikely that their dialect had developed to the point that they wouldn't be able to understand each other?

[thesometimesaint]

If we understand the writing in the KJV of the Bible(400 years ago) Elizabethan English isn't all that hard. OTOH Beowulf(about a thousand years ago) is a whole different ball of wax. So I can see the two BoM groups being able to understand each other with difficulty. But Nephi(the original), and Moroni understanding each other not so much.

[Log]

zerinus, on 01 May 2012 - 03:07 AM, said:

The reason why the peoples of Mosiah and Zarahemla were not able to understand each other to begin with, but seemed to be able to learn each other's languages so quickly afterwards, is because they spoke different dialects of the same language, rather than two completely different languages.

1.  There is no indication of the length of time it took to normalize linguistic communications between the two peoples, therefore you cannot use the length of time as evidence to support any position..
2.  "Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them" does not necessarily imply merely differing dialects.

Your conclusion is not a necessary inference from the textual data, if, indeed, it is actually an inference from the data, and other conclusions may be drawn.  I remember bringing this point up before, and you claiming there was evidence against my reading, yet you brought exactly no evidence to bear against my reading.

Edited by Log, 01 May 2012 - 09:00 AM.

[ksfisher]

Areabird, on 01 May 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

Doesn't it take about 1,000 years for a language / dialect to evolve?  If they had left Jerusalem only 340 years earlier wouldn't it be unlikely that their dialect had developed to the point that they wouldn't be able to understand each other?

That's assuming that their language would develop with not external influences.  If there were indeed "others" surrounding the Nephites and Mulekites, or that the Nephites and Mulekites lived alongside indigenous peoples, the language of both groups would have been altered considerably by that contact.  English is, as we know it today, profoundly influenced by contact with Danish and French speaking people, as well as Latin.

[Log]

ksfisher, on 01 May 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

That's assuming that their language would develop with not external influences.  If there were indeed "others" surrounding the Nephites and Mulekites, or that the Nephites and Mulekites lived alongside indigenous peoples, the language of both groups would have been altered considerably by that contact.  English is, as we know it today, profoundly influenced by contact with Danish and French speaking people, as well as Latin.

Excellent point.  As the Nephites had a written record, it stands to reason their language (or, at least, their "high" culture language) would have been less influenced, while the Mulekites would have had their language influenced more.  Moreover, as the two groups were entirely independent, the evolution of their languages could possibly have been along different lines entirely.

Edited by Log, 01 May 2012 - 09:09 AM.

[BCSpace]

Quote

Yesterday in Sunday School, we discussed the story of Mosiah (the first) and the discovery of the people of Zarahemla. And as we discussed the story, I once again had difficulty understanding how the Book of Mormon makes sense if there were "native" populations co-existing with the Book of Mormon peoples.

A mixing could have happened early.  The newcommers technologically dominated the local group and their families became the ruling class.

Quote

The problem is how the people interact with each other as distinct, separate and isolated groups.

Distances and travel times indicate a very localized geographic extent.  Other groups were able to resist assimilation.

[cdowis]

ksfisher, on 01 May 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

The Mulekite language was corrupt from the Nephite point of view.  I'm sure that if the story was written from the Mulekite point of view we would have a different perspective.

Not really.  The Nephites had the records and the language was preserved through the records.  Mulekites were unable to read the records, and apparently did not even have a written language since they preserved their lineage thru oral tradition.

The Mulekites generally conceded that the Nephite language was superior to the point that they gave over the leadership to them, even though, as descendants of Judah, they had the superior claim to the kingship.

Edited by cdowis, 01 May 2012 - 12:22 PM.

[zerinus]

Areabird, on 01 May 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

Doesn't it take about 1,000 years for a language / dialect to evolve?  If they had left Jerusalem only 340 years earlier wouldn't it be unlikely that their dialect had developed to the point that they wouldn't be able to understand each other?

No it doesn't. It depends on how isolated the groups have become from each other, and whether they have a literary tradition and written form to create an inertia against change. Where a group becomes totally isolated, and does not have a literary tradition to provide continuity, dialects can develop very quickly. In the modern world, especially in a country like the United States, with pervasive mass-media, radio, television, newsprint, Internet etc, dialects are unlikely to develop at all.