Lgt And The Lamanites Of Ammon'S Mission

[robuchan]

I've read and studied the BOM a lot in my life. But that was as a believer, and before I came to learn of many of the new theories, specifically LGT.

I'm rereading the BOM this year and I'm reading things that just don't seem to fit the LGT, or maybe I don't understand the theory correctly.

Ammon goes on a mission to the Lamanites. This seems to be a geographically bounded area. The king is a descendant of Lehi. How does this fit with LGT? If I understand correctly, the Lamanites were absorbed into a larger culture and it would be improbably that the king of a large geographical boundary would be a literal Lamanite. Also, in this passage, they talk of how angry the Lamanites are with the Nephites over the whole plates of Brass thing, such that if Nephites went into a Lamanite city, they would immediately be imprisoned, killed, etc. Why would the non-literal-Lehite "Lamanites" care about this. The culture described in this passage seems very dominated by literal descendants of Lehi. Everything seems to revolve around the distinction they have with the Nephites over religion and heritage.

[DBMormon]

Robuchan - are you no longer a believer?

Also you will know if this is a great question, by if you get no answering replies

[robuchan]

Robuchan - are you no longer a believer?

Also you will know if this is a great question, by if you get no answering replies

I'm no longer a believer.

And do you mean if I get no replies, it's a bad question or a good question? I don't doubt it's a bad question others, but it seems like a good question to me.

This LGT stuff just seems like an impossible reading of the text.

[cinepro]

This LGT stuff just seems like an impossible reading of the text.

Keep in mind that many arguments for the LGT are based on the fact that a Hemispherical reading makes no sense.

I hope both camps aren't correct about the implausibility of the other.

[robuchan]

Keep in mind that many arguments for the LGT are based on the fact that a Hemispherical reading makes no sense.

I hope both camps aren't correct about the implausibility of the other.

I'm not an expert on this. I'm sure there's an angle I haven't thought of.

I'd like one of the super-LGT'ers to describe a hypothetical setting for these chapters in Alma related to the Lamanites. I'm sure this is plausible; there must be something i'm not getting.

[thesometimesaint]

Robuchan:

The distances and time of travel in the BoM argue for a LGT

See Neil A. Maxwell Institute(Formally FARMS) for details.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=555

[Kevin Christensen]

Brant Gardner has an excellent discussion in volume 4 of second Witness how the story fits nicely with the Mesoamerican politics of the time. One of his overall observations is how going Lamanite in many instances means adopting Mesoamerican lifestyles.

Larry Poulson also has an excellent discussion of key geographic details mentioned in the father of Lamoni's kingly proclaimation fits with a specific Mesoamerican location:

The King’s proclamation is found in Alma 22:27-34. It is an insertion by Mormon made while making the

abridgement of the Book of Mormon. It contains three geographic descriptions (In the mouth of three

witnesses.) that serve as a reference point to locate possible areas in the Americas where the Book of

Mormon took place.

A. A narrow strip of mountainous wilderness that runs from east to west.

B. An east sea and a west sea that mark the two ends of this narrow strip of wilderness

C. A major river that has its source in this same narrow strip of wilderness and runs from east to west at the

source point.

Any proposed geographic location for the Book of Mormon must meet these three geographic criteria.

In addition there must be some kind of evidence that a civilization with a written language existed in that

location during the time periods recorded in the Book of Mormon. Although this evidence may not need to be

spectacular ruins, the requirement for a written language can not be ignored.

http://poulsenll.org/bom/kingsproc.html

And it is quite typical of Mesoamerican politics for migrating minority lines to politically dominate larger groups. So King Lamoni and the Father of King Lamoni do make sense in that setting.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[robuchan]

Robuchan:

The distances and time of travel in the BoM argue for a LGT

See Neil A. Maxwell Institute(Formally FARMS) for details.

http://maxwellinstit...16&num=2&id=555

Maybe LGT is the wrong name for the theory I'm speaking of. I'm talking specifically about the theory that says the Lamanites were quickly absorbed into a larger culture, and therefore none of their Near Eastern cultural and language traits were retained, and their DNA was diluted such that it can't be identified now.

[robuchan]

Brant Gardner has an excellent discussion in volume 4 of second Witness how the story fits nicely with the Mesoamerican politics of the time. One of his overall observations is how going Lamanite in many instances means adopting Mesoamerican lifestyles.

Larry Poulson also has an excellent discussion of key geographic details mentioned in the father of Lamoni's kingly proclaimation fits with a specific Mesoamerican location:

http://poulsenll.org.../kingsproc.html

And it is quite typical of Mesoamerican politics for migrating minority lines to politically dominate larger groups. So King Lamoni and the Father of King Lamoni do make sense in that setting.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I thought the idea was that they were dominated by a larger culture, not that their culture and customs dominated over the larger group. If it were the latter, then shouldn't it be easier to identify "bullseyes" in Mesoameric archealogy?

[thesometimesaint]

Robuchan:

LGT specifically is the Limited Geography Theory. Meaning that the Nephite and Lamanite cultures were very close to each other in terms of distance.

While not directly stated in the BoM it does appear that the Lamanites quickly intermarried within the existing population. People just didn't fight wars thousands of miles away until pretty recently.

Architectural desires change over time. No culture that I'm aware of doesn't put to different use the preceding culture.

[Cobalt-70]

I'm no longer a believer.

And do you mean if I get no replies, it's a bad question or a good question? I don't doubt it's a bad question others, but it seems like a good question to me.

This LGT stuff just seems like an impossible reading of the text.

I'm a believer in the Book of Mormon as inspired modern scripture, but not as an ancient document. I think the hemispherical model is the one that Joseph Smtih had in mind, but it doesn't work because of genetics and the distances involved. But each of the limited geographies (be they Mesoamerican, Heartland, Peru, Texas, Malay Peninsula, Africa, or Baja California) don't work either, because of all the reasons the proponents of each of these limited geography theories throw at each other.

[ERayR]

Robuchan:

LGT specifically is the Limited Geography Theory. Meaning that the Nephite and Lamanite cultures were very close to each other in terms of distance.

While not directly stated in the BoM it does appear that the Lamanites quickly intermarried within the existing population. People just didn't fight wars thousands of miles away until pretty recently.

Architectural desires change over time. No culture that I'm aware of doesn't put to different use the preceding culture.

My oh my I am agreeing with you more and more. Better start ducking.

[Freedom]

I think that you are suggesting that, for the LGT to work, the lamanites would have no recollection for the concerns of the earlier civilization. Even though I have no genetic connection to Battle on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec centuries ago, I still consider it part of my heritage as a Canadian. The groups that lived in that small area of mezzo america would naturally maintain this cultural link. It is evidence from anthropology that the tribes of this region would actually fabricate their family line to justify their right to rule, by claiming a significant historical figure as part of their line. DNA and culture are often not related. From my reading, this very story is the most powerful proof of a mezzo american setting.

[Freedom]

Another point to consider is that, being absorbed into an existing population does not mean you no longer have a specific ancestor. There were, in this story both 'lamanites' and 'lamanitish' people. There are clear links to messo america with the concept of cutting off arms and having a religion who's god resided beneath rather than above the earth. In fact, this concept of having a god beneath the earth explains the apparent problem of the sea east and west being north and south from our more modern perspective.

[Kevin Christensen]

I thought the idea was that they were dominated by a larger culture, not that their culture and customs dominated over the larger group. If it were the latter, then shouldn't it be easier to identify "bullseyes" in Mesoameric archealogy?

You mean, easier to identify things like this?

A Complex of Ritual and IdeologyShared by Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East by John L. Sorenson, 2009

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp195_mesoamerica.pdf

Very much work working through. while we wait for Mormon's Codex.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Brant Gardner]

This thread has too many moving targets to answer easily. Let's start with the beginning, which is the "problem" of Ammon's mission for the LGT. This occurs, presumably, because there is a reference to the Lamanites as descendants of Lehi.

So far, I have only found two instances. The first is:

36 Now when Ammon had said these words, he began at the creation of the world, and also the creation of Adam, and told him all the things concerning the fall of man, and rehearsed and laid before him the records and the holy scriptures of the people, which had been spoken by the prophets, even down to the time that their father, Lehi, left Jerusalem.

(Alma 18:36)

That doesn't seem to be an issue since Ammon (who, by the way, is a descendant of Zarahemla, not Lehi - see Mosiah 7:13) is the speaker. Of course he rehearses history from his perspective. That is the point of this verse.

The second is:

3 Behold, two thousand of the sons of those men whom Ammon brought down out of the land of Nephi—now ye have known that these were descendants of Laman, who was the eldest son of our father Lehi;

(Alma 56:3)

This would be a better argument, but it is still in the context of referencing the stripling warriors as descendants of Lamanites. It is simply a different way of stating it. Those lineages haven't provided the major distinction since the time of Jacob, Nephi's brother.

If there are other verses that are causing the heartburn, I would like to see them so I can see what I am missing.

[mrmandias]

In a Nephite text, the Nephites say that the Lamanites are descended from Lehi. This contradicts the hypothesis that the 'Lamanites' were not actually principally descended from Lehi only if you assume a high level of historical accuracy in Nephite assumptions about the Lamanites. Which you should not assume if you treat the Book of Mormon as a conventional ancient text, which is a move Mormon apologists have been willing to make.

In a Nephite text, Nephites ascribe traditional motives to their enemies (hating the Nephites because the stole the brass plates) and tell stories where their enemies mouth these traditional motives. Again, if you treat the B. of M. as an ancient text, this doesn't necessarily persuade you that the Lamanites in fact were all descendants of Lehi because you aren't necessarily persuaded that it actually happened in the way the text says. Although I don't see a necessary contradiction between what the text says and the hypothesis that the 'Lamanites' were not principally Lamanite. A larger group could adopt a smaller or intermingled groups traditional motives for hating an enemy.

Disclaimer: I haven't actually reread the Ammon chapters to see what is and isn't compatible with the 'Lamanite' hypothesis, I'm just going off the items mentioned in the OP.

[webbles]

That doesn't seem to be an issue since Ammon (who, by the way, is a descendant of Zarahemla, not Lehi - see Mosiah 7:13) is the speaker.

I think you got your Ammons mixed up. The one in Mosiah 7 is not the same as the one in Alma 18. The second is the son of King Mosiah and of the same age as Alma the Younger. The first is closer to the age of Alma the Elder and King Mosiah. But that doesn't really change the meaning of what you said.

[webbles]

Alma 21:1-2 is probably an example of what the OP is talking about:

1 Now when Ammon and his brethren separated themselves in the borders of the land of the Lamanites, behold Aaron took his journey towards the land which was called by the Lamanites, Jerusalem, calling it after the land of their fathers’ nativity; and it was away joining the borders of Mormon.

2 Now the Lamanites and the Amalekites and the people of Amulon had built a great city, which was called Jerusalem.

This verse makes it seem like the Lamanites (or at least the ones in Jerusalem) consider themselves descendants of people from Jerusalem.

Alma 24:29 is probably another one:

29 Now, among those who joined the people of the Lord, there were none who were Amalekites or Amulonites, or who were of the order of Nehor, but they were actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel.

Edited to add:

The OP mentioned the Brass Plates and I found that scripture. It is Mosiah 10:12-17. Those versus lead one to believe that the Lamanites that afflicted Zeniff and his people (so this is not the same as Ammon's mission to the Lamanites) are descendants of Laman/Lemuel since they had been taught to hate the Nephites because Nephi had robbed them of their inheritance and the brass plates.

Edited May 31, 2012 by webbles

[Brant Gardner]

Alma 24:29 is probably another one:

29 Now, among those who joined the people of the Lord, there were none who were Amalekites or Amulonites, or who were of the order of Nehor, but they were actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel.

This one is really fascinating. Both the Amalekites and Amulonites are Nephite by heritage (though I suspect Amalekites at least to be from Zarahemla rather than Mosiah's people). Still, we have two peoples, the Amalekites who were Nephite defectors on principal (or because they lost their bid to rule, if you want to use that "principal") and the Amulonites where were from Noah's priests. Both with "Nephite" heritage, but here claimed to be descendants of Laman and Lemuel.

That really should tell us that something is going on with these "descendant" concepts that is different from what we suppose.

[cdowis]

I'm sure you are aware that this is how the Nephites were using the label for "Lamanite" -- the book of Alma was obviously written by the Nephites. This is similar to labeling all of the tribes of Amerindians as "Indians", regardless of tribe and geographic location.

It is interesting that, in the BOM text, this term was only used once by the Lamanites themselves and that was in a letter to a Nephite leader.

Edited May 31, 2012 by cdowis

[ksfisher]

This one is really fascinating. Both the Amalekites and Amulonites are Nephite by heritage (though I suspect Amalekites at least to be from Zarahemla rather than Mosiah's people). Still, we have two peoples, the Amalekites who were Nephite defectors on principal (or because they lost their bid to rule, if you want to use that "principal") and the Amulonites where were from Noah's priests. Both with "Nephite" heritage, but here claimed to be descendants of Laman and Lemuel.

That really should tell us that something is going on with these "descendant" concepts that is different from what we suppose.

The way I read Alma 24:29 is that the "they" in "they were actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel" refers to "those who joined the people of the Lord." This reading is consistent with the theme that Nephites who reject the gospel harden there hearts and are more wicked than Lamanites who do not have the gospel because of the "traditions of there fathers."

If my understanding here is off I'm open to correction.

[Brant Gardner]

If my understanding here is off I'm open to correction.

No, you are correct. I don't know why I didn't read the whole thing. Darn. I wondered why I hadn't seen it that way before, now I know.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Brant Gardner

[rameumptom]

The way I read it, Mormon is abridging the writings of his people, and making assumptions regarding the lineages of certain groups in the days of Alma and Ammon, about 500 years prior to him. I think this is one of the reasons we have Moroni noting that there will be errors in the book, and we should read it charitably.

Imagine having to write a history of a people from centuries before, and only having a handful of books to base it all on. We do not know how extensive the books are, how accurate they may be, etc. We can sometimes find assumptions made by prophets in the Book of Mormon that conflict with later details: Jacob and Esau tell us that the Lamanites are tent dwelling, ferocious people that wear almost nothing and eat raw meat. Later, Ammon finds out that there are more civilized Lamanites with cities and structure, once you move beyond the frontier.

Here we may see that for Mormon, the familial distinctions are either direct descendants of Nephi, Zarahemla, or Lamanite (and not a combination). It may also include assumptions regarding whether Lamanite kings are actual descendants of Lehi or not.

Second, Brant has noted before the concept of sovereign and vassal kings among the Maya. We see this with Lamoni being a vassal king to his father. Given that many Lamanites rise up against the king of the Lamanites, it may be that there was actually a more sovereign king over all of them, who was not a descendant of Laman.

[robuchan]

This thread has too many moving targets to answer easily. Let's start with the beginning, which is the "problem" of Ammon's mission for the LGT. This occurs, presumably, because there is a reference to the Lamanites as descendants of Lehi.

So far, I have only found two instances. The first is:

That doesn't seem to be an issue since Ammon (who, by the way, is a descendant of Zarahemla, not Lehi - see Mosiah 7:13) is the speaker. Of course he rehearses history from his perspective. That is the point of this verse.

The second is:

This would be a better argument, but it is still in the context of referencing the stripling warriors as descendants of Lamanites. It is simply a different way of stating it. Those lineages haven't provided the major distinction since the time of Jacob, Nephi's brother.

If there are other verses that are causing the heartburn, I would like to see them so I can see what I am missing.

Here's a list of the verses and the logic.

Alma 17

[20] And as Ammon entered the land of Ishmael, the Lamanites took him and bound him, as was their custom to bind all the Nephites who fell into their hands, and carry them before the king; and thus it was left to the pleasure of the king to slay them, or to retain them in captivity, or to cast them into prison, or to cast them out of his land, according to his will and pleasure.

Lamanites have a huge hatred for Nephites, so much that it seems to define them.

Alma 17

[36] Now when Ammon had said these words, he began at the creation of the world, and also the creation of Adam, and told him all the things concerning the fall of man, and rehearsed and laid before him the records and the holy scriptures of the people, which had been spoken by the prophets, even down to the time that their father, Lehi, left Jerusalem.

[37] And he also rehearsed unto them (for it was unto the king and to his servants) all the journeyings of their fathers in the wilderness, and all their sufferings with hunger and thirst, and their travail, and so forth.

The king and his servants are all literal descendants of Lehi.

Alma 18

[10] And he also said: Whither art thou going with this Nephite, who is one of the children of a liar?

[13] And now when Lamoni had rehearsed unto him all these things, behold, to his astonishment, his father was angry with him, and said: Lamoni, thou art going to deliver these Nephites, who are sons of a liar. Behold, he robbed our fathers; and now his children are also come amongst us that they may, by their cunning and their lyings, deceive us, that they again may rob us of our property.

The Lamanites anger towards the Nephites stem from their ancestors being robbed and lied to by the Nephites (the robbing is referred to a few times in the BOM and it is a reference to the plates of Brass being taken by the Nephites when they left the Lamanites originally)

Alma 21

[1] Now when Ammon and his brethren separated themselves in the borders of the land of the Lamanites, behold Aaron took his journey towards the land which was called by the Lamanites, Jerusalem, calling it after the land of their fathers' nativity; and it was away joining the borders of Mormon.

[2] Now the Lamanites and the Amalekites and the people of Amulon had built a great city, which was called Jerusalem.

The Lamanites again collectively are referring to their ancestry as Jewish.

Alma 22

[9] And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem?

Alma 23

[8] Now, these are they who were converted unto the Lord:

[9] The people of the Lamanites who were in the land of Ishmael;

[10] And also of the people of the Lamanites who were in the land of Middoni;

[11] And also of the people of the Lamanites who were in the city of Nephi;

[12] And also of the people of the Lamanites who were in the land of Shilom, and who were in the land of Shemlon, and in the city of Lemuel, and in the city of Shimnilom.

Large cities converting en masse to the Nephite religion.

Alma 24

[28] Now the greatest number of those of the Lamanites who slew so many of their brethren were Amalekites and Amulonites, the greatest number of whom were after the order of the Nehors.

Alma 25

[4] And among the Lamanites who were slain were almost all the seed of Amulon and his brethren, who were the priests of Noah, and they were slain by the hands of the Nephites;

The cities that did not convert, also seemed to have consolidarity in this (ie no partial cities were converted--either all or against), and the lineage is defined for these cities. This time they are Nephites. So now we've covered a lot of Lamanite cities (I don't know if it was meant to be a complete list of Lamanite cities, but that's how it reads to me) and every single city and every single inhabitant is defined as a literal descendant of Lehi.

Alma 24

[29] Now, among those who joined the people of the Lord, there were none who were Amalekites or Amulonites, or who were of the order of Nehor, but they were actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel.

Everyone in all the cities listed above involved in the conversion are defined as literal descendants of Laman and Lemuel. Also, notice the distinction. The author defines the ancestry of all the groups as an important fact of the story. NEVER does it say the distinction is between Lehites and existing natives of the land. The distinction is between Nephi and Laman/Lemuel as ancestors.

Edited May 31, 2012 by robuchan