Jaredites And "others"

[John Williams]

Over on my blog, our old friend Ray A posted the following in response to a post I made about the possible presence of "others" in the land before the Jaredites and Nephites.

The relevant scripture is found in Ether 2:

5 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded them that they should go forth into the wilderness, yea, into that quarter where there never had man been. And it came to pass that the Lord did go before them, and did talk with them as he stood in a cloud, and gave directions whither they should travel.

6 And it came to pass that they did travel in the wilderness, and did build barges, in which they did cross many waters, being directed continually by the hand of the Lord.

7 And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people.

I have to say I agree that these scriptures suggest that the Jaredites were the first people to inhabit the Americas, as they were sent to a place "where there never had man been" which God "had preserved for a righteous people."

The Limited Geography Theory rests on the presence of others when the Book of Mormon peoples arrived. But this scripture, along with others and the statement of Joseph Smith that the Angel Moroni told him the Jaredites/Nephites were the "aboriginal" and "first" inhabitants, suggests that there could not have been others.

What say ye?

[jwhitlock]

The scripture reference doesn't say that the Jaredites were the first there. It simply says that the Lord had preserved the land for a righteous people. Preserved, in this case, probably means kept apart; it certainly doesn't preclude the possibility of other "righteous" people already being there, even when the Jaredites arrived. I don't find it conclusive as an indication that the Jaredites were the first people there - although that may have been the case.

The "never had man been" phrase is talking about the old world, and so is not applicable. As for the Joseph Smith statement, I'd need to see a reference on it before I could respond.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The "never had man been" phrase is talking about the old world, and so is not applicable. As for the Joseph Smith statement, I'd need to see a reference on it before I could respond.

It seems quite clear to me that it is the old world that is being refered too. I concour.

[Duncan]

I think the first two verses are reffering to the old world and the last is reffering to the new world. They had to build barges before they could cross the sea which verse six is talking about.

[oceanblue]

It seems quite clear to me that it is the old world that is being refered too. I concour.

Where in the old world, at that point in history, had man never been? Those better versed in this subject can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of many places (any?) where human evidences do not long predate the Jaredites.

[John Williams]

I think the first two verses are reffering to the old world and the last is reffering to the new world. They had to build barges before they could cross the sea which verse six is talking about.

I can agree with that. That still leaves the issue of the land's having been "preserved" for them, and of course Moroni's statements to Joseph that the Jaredites were the first inhabitants of the New World (see the Wentworth letter).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Where in the old world, at that point in history, had man never been? Those better versed in this subject can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of many places (any?) where human evidences do not long predate the Jaredites.

Im sure it is possible that man still hasnt set foot on certain parts of the earth. So I dont really know what you are trying to get it.

[Lightbearer]

I see no problem in the scriptures about "others" being in the Book of Mormon lands. The scripture you quoted was explained quite well by jwhitlock. The "other" inhabitants could very easily have been a once righteous people, especially since the Gospel was preached to Adam. There could have been other migrations that we have no record of. The following seems to indicate that it is the case:

(2 Nephi 1:5-8 ) "But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a land of promise, a land which is choice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath covenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be led out of other countries by the hand of the Lord. Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord. Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever. And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance."

From that we can suppose that anyone who does the commandments of the Lord can be lead to this land (Israelite or not.) The only distinction the Lord seems to care about is that the people are a righteous people.

[Duncan]

I can agree with that. That still leaves the issue of the land's having been "preserved" for them, and of course Moroni's statements to Joseph that the Jaredites were the first inhabitants of the New World (see the Wentworth letter).

I would say that possibly wherever the Jaredites were here, a specific location, "land of promise, choice above others" was preserved for them and Moroni may be referring to that. Like God bringing them to Alberta where no one had been yet while possibly people were living in Ontario or Quebec. I would be interested to see these Moroni comments if they are available.

[oceanblue]

Im sure it is possible that man still hasnt set foot on certain parts of the earth. So I dont really know what you are trying to get it.

Really? Where would you suppose this place to be? Some place fertile (as there was "wilderness"). Some place on the coast (to build barges). I guess I'm looking for an example. Where might this place have been that as of about 2500 BC man had never set foot?

[John Williams]

Really? Where would you suppose this place to be? Some place fertile (as there was "wilderness"). Some place on the coast (to build barges). I guess I'm looking for an example. Where might this place have been that as of about 2500 BC man had never set foot?

This passage makes sense in terms of a "young earth," meaning that whoever wrote the book of Ether believed that the world was not fully inhabited until the people were scattered from the Tower of Babel, hence the idea that the Jaredites traveled into the wilderness until they reached a place where "there never had man been." They would also have believed that the Americas had not been settled, which is in complete harmony with the other passages in the Book of Mormon and Moroni's statements to Joseph Smith.

These passages become more complicated when one is forced by external evidence to put "others" into the text. It's not impossible, but it certainly requires some creative interpretation.

[Brant Gardner]

I can agree with that. That still leaves the issue of the land's having been "preserved" for them, and of course Moroni's statements to Joseph that the Jaredites were the first inhabitants of the New World (see the Wentworth letter).

It would be very surprising in ancient literature if a people's god didn't "preserve" a land for them - regardless of who was there. Yahweh gave an area to wandering Israel that already had some fat and happy inhabitants. Nevertheless, it was the victorious who had been "promised."

Now, I'm not saying anything about the authenticity of the biblical text here. I am simply pointing out that the concept of preserving a land had virtually nothing to do with a place devoid of humans. It is an modern reading of the text, not an ancient one.

One of the most fascinating interpretive issues I see in discussing the Book of Mormon is that many who argue that it is "historical" insist on reading it ahistorically (and yes, I am speaking of believing members).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Really? Where would you suppose this place to be? Some place fertile (as there was "wilderness"). Some place on the coast (to build barges). I guess I'm looking for an example. Where might this place have been that as of about 2500 BC man had never set foot?

Do I really need to respond to this? Good greif. Is this only reason for not believing the BoM is true? Becuase it claimed that some people 5000 years ago traveld to a corner of the old world we man had not set foot. Is that really that unbelievable?

[John Williams]

It would be very surprising in ancient literature if a people's god didn't "preserve" a land for them - regardless of who was there. Yahweh gave an area to wandering Israel that already had some fat and happy inhabitants. Nevertheless, it was the victorious who had been "promised."

Now, I'm not saying anything about the authenticity of the biblical text here. I am simply pointing out that the concept of preserving a land had virtually nothing to do with a place devoid of humans. It is an modern reading of the text, not an ancient one.

One of the most fascinating interpretive issues I see in discussing the Book of Mormon is that many who argue that it is "historical" insist on reading it ahistorically (and yes, I am speaking of believing members).

I guess I see this as a totality of evidence:

1. Land is "preserved" and "reserved" according to the text.

2. There is no explicit or implicit mention of others in the text.

3. The angel told Joseph Smith that the Jaredites and Nephites were the first inhabitants of the land.

4. The church taught for generations that such was the case.

So, no, I don't think it's necessarily a "modern reading" but a reasonable reading. As I said, finding others is not impossible but requires a great deal more dexterity.

[MormonMason]

Over on my blog, our old friend Ray A posted the following in response to a post I made about the possible presence of "others" in the land before the Jaredites and Nephites.

I have to say I agree that these scriptures suggest that the Jaredites were the first people to inhabit the Americas, as they were sent to a place "where there never had man been" which God "had preserved for a righteous people."

The Limited Geography Theory rests on the presence of others when the Book of Mormon peoples arrived. But this scripture, along with others and the statement of Joseph Smith that the Angel Moroni told him the Jaredites/Nephites were the "aboriginal" and "first" inhabitants, suggests that there could not have been others.

What say ye?

I'd say that this discussion has been had before. I'd also say that you and Ray A. are mistaken since the phrase "where never had man been" does not refer to the Americas. But, this has been covered before elsewhere here, and the particular critic that brought this verse up the last time admitted after consideration that he had been mistaken.

Anyone remember where that thread went?

[John Williams]

I'd say that this discussion has been had before. I'd also say that you and Ray A. are mistaken since the phrase "where never had man been" does not refer to the Americas. But, this has been covered before elsewhere here, and the particular critic that brought this verse up the last time admitted after consideration that he had been mistaken.

Anyone remember where that thread went?

Had you read the other posts in the thread, you might have seen where I agreed with this interpretation.

[Lightbearer]

Really? Where would you suppose this place to be? Some place fertile (as there was "wilderness"). Some place on the coast (to build barges). I guess I'm looking for an example. Where might this place have been that as of about 2500 BC man had never set foot?

Just how do you suppose anyone could prove any such location? 4,500 years is a long time especially to look for "negative evidence" (proving where man wasn't) other than Antarctica it would be a difficult thing to prove. Although I am sure that every square inch of the earth does not contain archeological records of people living there. There could very well be deserts and wildernesses that man had not settled by 2,500 B.C. and since the people were rather primitive technologically I am not so sure they could have combed every section of the earth (as we seem to be able to do today) although just the other day on these boards someone posted a link that told of some uncontacted Indian tribes in the Amazon... so I am not so sure modern man has been "everywhere" on the globe yet!

[oceanblue]

Do I really need to respond to this? Good greif. Is this only reason for not believing the BoM is true? Becuase it claimed that some people 5000 years ago traveld to a corner of the old world we man had not set foot. Is that really that unbelievable?

You don't have to respond to anything you don't want to respond to. Free agency. That was Jesus' plan, right?

Is it the "only" reason? Of course not. There are so very many. Is this point we're discussing really all that unbelievable? Yes. We know the Americas were widely inhabited (even if any given area was not always inhabited at every point in history). The old world? Even more so.

Are we talking about a 5 mile patch of ideal, wooded coastline, where not a single man had ever build a lean-to? I dunno. To me, "that quarter" sounds like an area of land quite a bit bigger than a wee little patch. Sounds like some larger expanse or region of the Earth where man had never lived. Yes, that does sound unbelievable.

[MormonMason]

Really? Where would you suppose this place to be? Some place fertile (as there was "wilderness"). Some place on the coast (to build barges). I guess I'm looking for an example. Where might this place have been that as of about 2500 BC man had never set foot?

Someplace fertile??? Have you ever considered the term wilderness in a Middle Eastern context? These people had just migrated from an area in the Middle East.

As to the area, my best guess is that it was likely some area near the Sea of Japan and then from there to a region in Japan, and then from there across the Pacific Ocean, following the Pacific current, which takes 344 days to get from that region to around Mexico. (344 days is significant because that is the length of time it took the Jaredites to get here from where they left).

As to precise locations, there is not enough geographical information to make such an assessment. But, we do know that the people of Japan came there from elsewhere--some would say around 5000 BCE, but others would differ with a later date--and it would entirely be possible that there were still uninhabited regions even in Japan at the early date (which precise date is unknown but some estimate sometime between 2500 BCE and 3113 BCE or earlier) the Jaredites came to the region.

[oceanblue]

Just how do you suppose anyone could prove any such location? 4,500 years is a long time especially to look for "negative evidence" (proving where man wasn't) other than Antarctica it would be a difficult thing to prove.

I don't intend to prove anything - any more than I'd ask for proof from you. This is a discussion about opinions. Am I wrong?

Although I am sure that every square inch of the earth does not contain archeological records of people living there. There could very well be deserts and wildernesses that man had not settled by 2,500 B.C. and since the people were rather primitive technologically I am not so sure they could have combed every section of the earth (as we seem to be able to do today) although just the other day on these boards someone posted a link that told of some uncontacted Indian tribes in the Amazon... so I am not so sure modern man has been "everywhere" on the globe yet!

Actually, your examples proves my point more than yours, IMO. With each new area we uncover we find that man does indeed live there (or did at some point).

[MormonMason]

Had you read the other posts in the thread, you might have seen where I agreed with this interpretation.

So, then, why bother to bring it up again, or even bring up something on your blog not pertinent to the question if you did agree? Why did you not, then state that you agreed? Or, did you just change your mind like the wind?

[Sevenbak]

Over on my blog, our old friend Ray A posted the following in response to a post I made about the possible presence of "others" in the land before the Jaredites and Nephites.

I have to say I agree that these scriptures suggest that the Jaredites were the first people to inhabit the Americas, as they were sent to a place "where there never had man been" which God "had preserved for a righteous people."

The Limited Geography Theory rests on the presence of others when the Book of Mormon peoples arrived. But this scripture, along with others and the statement of Joseph Smith that the Angel Moroni told him the Jaredites/Nephites were the "aboriginal" and "first" inhabitants, suggests that there could not have been others.

What say ye?

There were people here, Adam and his posterity were here, but that was before the earth was divided. The earth was divided after the flood, in the days of Peleg. So, it was "wiped clean" so to speak.

[John Williams]

So, then, why bother to bring it up again, or even bring up something on your blog not pertinent to the question if you did agree? Why did you not, then state that you agreed? Or, did you just change your mind like the wind?

I hadn't thought of it that way until jwhitlock brought it up.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are we talking about a 5 mile patch of ideal, wooded coastline, where not a single man had ever build a lean-to? I dunno. To me, "that quarter" sounds like an area of land quite a bit bigger than a wee little patch. Sounds like some larger expanse or region of the Earth where man had never lived. Yes, that does sound unbelievable.

You do realise I am just giving you a hard time.

[oceanblue]

Someplace fertile??? Have you ever considered the term wilderness in a Middle Eastern context? These people had just migrated from an area in the Middle East. As to the area, my best guess is that it was likely some area near the Sea of Japan and then from there to a region in Japan, and then from there across the Pacific Ocean, following the Pacific current, which takes 344 days to get from that region to around Mexico. (344 days is significant because that is the length of time it took the Jaredites to get here from where they left).As to precise locations, there is not enough geographical information to make such an assessment. But, we do know that the people of Japan came there from elsewhere--some would say around 5000 BCE, but others would differ with a later date--and it would entirely be possible that there were still uninhabited regions even in Japan at the early date (which precise date is unknown but some estimate sometime between 2500 BCE and 3113 BCE or earlier) the Jaredites came to the region.

Anything is possible. Again - this is about believability. I assert such is low here. You all, of course, will feel differently. I would also suppose that you might have a hard time convinving many non-LDS archaeologists that at AD 2500 there was a "quarter" of the Earth on the coast, with "winderness" that man had never "been" to. Not set foot on. Not stopped for pemmican and said, "this is NOT the place", before moving on. As for Japan - I think occupation of that land goes back WAY before 2500 BC. I know Korea already had a "kingdom" by that point. So I can only imagine Japan was pretty well established by then as well.I'll do some research and get back to you.

You do realise I am just giving you a hard time.

OK. I'll do my best to give you a hard time back!