Jaredites And "others"

[Arandur]

There's a bit of a corollary here that puzzles me. Now, I'm asking here, because I don't yet know the specifics of many of the beliefs of this, but if the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, and the City of Enoch in the Gulf of Mexico (LDS believe that, right?), how and at what point did they pass to the "Old World," and how and when did the Americas become uninhabited so as to have to be repopulated by new migrations, whether solely by the Jaredites and late Nephites and Lamanites or by others in addition?

[Sevenbak]

There's a bit of a corollary here that puzzles me. Now, I'm asking here, because I don't yet know the specifics of many of the beliefs of this, but if the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, and the City of Enoch in the Gulf of Mexico (LDS believe that, right?), how and at what point did they pass to the "Old World," and how and when did the Americas become uninhabited so as to have to be repopulated by new migrations, whether solely by the Jaredites and late Nephites and Lamanites or by others in addition?

The flood and transporting of the ark to Ararat took care of that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There's a bit of a corollary here that puzzles me. Now, I'm asking here, because I don't yet know the specifics of many of the beliefs of this, but if the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, and the City of Enoch in the Gulf of Mexico (LDS believe that, right?), how and at what point did they pass to the "Old World," and how and when did the Americas become uninhabited so as to have to be repopulated by new migrations, whether solely by the Jaredites and late Nephites and Lamanites or by others in addition?

Adam-ondi-amon was Missouri. Not the Garden of Eden. The gulf of Mexico is pure speculation too.

However carry on.

[BCSpace]

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."

I don't see evidence of any such thing in those verses or in the Wentworth letter.

The Limited Geography Theory rests on the presence of others when the Book of Mormon peoples arrived.

Or after. Or, since the Jaredites seem to have arrived not many centuries after the flood, it would not be unreasonable to see little or no break in the habitation of this hemisphere. Afterall, if the garden of eden, or at least Adam-ondi-Ahman, is here, this place is populated preflood. Works for a local or a global flood.

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.

Been over this on the other board. It does not follow.

[Brant Gardner]

I guess I see this as a totality of evidence:

Yes, I would agree that this is all there is for that particular reading.

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

Indisputable for the words. The question is what that means. Meaning may be imposed from the modern perspective, or we may place the text in the ancient world and ask what it would mean to an ancient author. This is the issue to be decided, not a datum that makes the decision.

In the NT the apostles are to go to "all the world." How big was that to them? Does that mean their "all" or the modern understanding of "all"?

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

True in that it cannot be explicitly separated. The implicit mentions are several. Again, the question is what happens in ancient documents. Do ancient documents make sure that they mention everyone that was there? When we read origin stories, do they admit to the others that were there? The answer is that "others" are often missing. Ergo, if we read the text as having been produced in the ancient world, this modern expectation of the text is anachronous.

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.

These two are part of the same issue. That the church taught something for generations is interesting history, but not declarative as fact. There were any number of things believed by many people for a very long time which were not actually correct. Easy reference can be made to the early to middle period christian church's belief in a geocentric universe. There were great theological reasons for thinking as they did, and even longer tradition. It was still not correct.

In this case, rather than simple declarations of what we think the angel told Joseph, we need to examine all of those occasions with the eye of a historian. They typically don't read precisely the way they have been traditionally interpreted.

None of these items, which are the totality of the reason for the modern reading of the verse, has any actual bearing on what the meaning would have been if the text is genuinely ancient. All of them (and especially the traditional readings) come from a modern perspective of what such a writer would have meant if they had written today. They might hold water if Joseph Smith actually were the author. However, if the text is ancient (and that has to be determined from other data) this traditional reading is incorrect.

[Arandur]

Adam-ondi-amon was Missouri. Not the Garden of Eden. The gulf of Mexico is pure speculation too.

Right, well, I meant the origin and spreading-out point of mankind. The City of Enoch/Gulf correlation wasn't mentioned in any of your sacred texts? I'll drop it, then

The flood and transporting of the ark to Ararat took care of that.

Afterall, if the garden of eden, or at least Adam-ondi-Ahman, is here, this place is populated preflood. Works for a local or a global flood.

Mythologically, yes. Are we trying to reconcile to knowledge of the physical world, or not?

[Sevenbak]

Right, well, I meant the origin and spreading-out point of mankind. The City of Enoch/Gulf correlation wasn't mentioned in any of your sacred texts? I'll drop it, then

Mythologically, yes. Are we trying to reconcile to knowledge of the physical world, or not?

It's not in any Canon, if that's what you mean, but Wilford Woodruff, the 4th President of the Church wrote this, apparently quoting Joseph Smith on the subject.

"Joseph (Smith) also said that when the City of Enoch fled and was translated, it was where the Gulf of Mexico now is. It left that gulf a body of water" (Waiting for Worldâ??s End, The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, p. 305, published in 1993 by Signature Books, Salt Lake City, UT).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's not in any Canon, if that's what you mean, but Wilford Woodruff, the 4th President of the Church wrote this, apparently quoting Joseph Smith on the subject.

"Joseph (Smith) also said that when the City of Enoch fled and was translated, it was where the Gulf of Mexico now is. It left that gulf a body of water" (Waiting for Worldâ??s End, The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, p. 305, published in 1993 by Signature Books, Salt Lake City, UT).

However I will still remind everybody that this is speculation. It is not in the Canon of scripture nor does it represent offical doctrine. However on another note: if the gulf of mexico is the city of enoch, does that matter one way ore the other?

[cdowis]

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

Only to those who have not studied the BOM.

1. The Jaredites lived there at the same time as the Mulekites, perhaps for centuries.

2. When Lehi landed, they found in the forest the ox, the goat, and the wild goat.

It is very explicit there were people here.

[Gervin]

2. When Lehi landed, they found in the forest the ox, the goat, and the wild goat. It is very explicit there were people here.

You probably mean implicit; explicit would be a precise mention of other people. How very odd that the animals got mentioned but the other people, their beliefs, their culture, their language, their customs ... nada.

[katherine the great]

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."

I think it is just as valid an interpretation to consider the wilderness into which they departed to be the place where man had never been.

[Arandur]

I think it is just as valid an interpretation to consider the wilderness into which they departed to be the place where man had never been.

You mean their final destination? I agree, the text is fairly ambiguous on this point. It lends itself to either the original LDS group's understanding, or the new one proposed here by many. I certainly won't begrudge the idea of unfolding understanding giving more validity to the latter, but it doesn't really work against alternative explanations here of the original intent.

Mola Ram, the City of Enoch doesn't really have bearing on this any more than Adam-ondi-Ahman. I just wanted to know where the civilizations went in the Americas to need to be re-populated, and how the Old World was so populated if the source was in the Americas. I don't accept a literal global flood, by the way.

[MormonMason]

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.

...

I am not sure that you read my post very carefully. I stated above that the date of the Jaredites is unknown. 2500 BCE is just a guess. For all we know it could have been 5000 BCE or even 10,000 BCE! Archaeological evidence accepted by some scholars is that there were people in Japan by around 5000 BCE but further evidence shows that there was no government there except local clan leadership until much, much later--around the early 5th Century CE.

You have to remember that this account of Ether is also from the perspective of the author of the work. It may not have been true in all its parts but appeared so to the author. Alternatively, it could have been absolutely true.

You also have to remember that even in our own modern times there were places which were at one time uninhabited. Much of Antartica still fits that bill, by the way. And even now, there still are areas which remain uninhabited in the world, such as portions of the Himalayas, and so forth. Substantial portions of the Gobi Desert likely still have portions which have never seen the footprint of man even today.

The question also becomes one of "what does the phrase mean?" Does it mean devoid of ever having seen a man pass through, or does it refer to an area that is uninhabited? Since you were not there to witness events or to ask the author what he had in mind, you will not be able to get very much knowledge as to what really happened and what conditions were really like at that early date. I can say that the Book of Mormon is not unique in using the phrase, however. It also can be found in the writings of the Apocrypha, referring to a migration of tribes of Israel:

39 And whereas thou sawest that he gathered another peaceable multitude unto him;

40 Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Salmanasar the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land.

41 But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt,

42 That they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land.

43 And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow places of the river.

44 For the most High then shewed signs for them, and held still the flood, till they were passed over.

45 For through that country there was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arsareth.

(4 Ezra [2 Esdras] 13:39-45; emphasis mine)

[cdowis]

How very odd that the animals got mentioned but the other people, their beliefs, their culture, their language, their customs ... nada.

Again, only to those who have not studied the BOM.

For those who have studied it, they know that there is another group of plates, the large plates, which gives the secular history of the Nephites. The small plates, from which the BOM is derived, restricts itself primarily to spiritual matters.

The Lord specifically forbids the writers from getting into such details on these plates. The Large Plates would contain such details.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't accept a literal global flood, by the way.

I figured. No worries.

[Gervin]

Again, only to those who have not studied the BOM.

For those who have studied it, they know that there is another group of plates, the large plates, which gives the secular history of the Nephites. The small plates, from which the BOM is derived, restricts itself primarily to spiritual matters.

The Lord specifically forbids the writers from getting into such details on these plates. The Large Plates would contain such details.

That sounds more like an excuse than an explanation. Where in the Book of Mormon does it explicitly say that the large plates contain detail information of the cultures, beliefs, and practices of other people in the Book of Mormon lands?

[oceanblue]

I am not sure that you read my post very carefully. I stated above that the date of the Jaredites is unknown. 2500 BCE is just a guess. For all we know it could have been 5000 BCE or even 10,000 BCE! Archaeological evidence accepted by some scholars is that there were people in Japan by around 5000 BCE but further evidence shows that there was no government there except local clan leadership until much, much later--around the early 5th Century CE.

You have to remember that this account of Ether is also from the perspective of the author of the work. It may not have been true in all its parts but appeared so to the author. Alternatively, it could have been absolutely true.

Hmmm...I've never seen it put quite that way. Seems you could say that about any book in the BoM, no?

You also have to remember that even in our own modern times there were places which were at one time uninhabited. Much of Antartica still fits that bill, by the way. And even now, there still are areas which remain uninhabited in the world, such as portions of the Himalayas, and so forth. Substantial portions of the Gobi Desert likely still have portions which have never seen the footprint of man even today.

True. But these are not places one would treck to in order to build boats to travel to another land. One needs water and wildlife and fruits and timber, etc. You have to admit that we're talking about places where man would want to live - even if you suggest that up until that point he did not. Man has existed in some harsh climates and locations. There aren't many coastlines full of edible vegetation and animals and trees and fresh water, etc. where man didn't settle pretty early on (outside of islands, of course).

The question also becomes one of "what does the phrase mean?" Does it mean devoid of ever having seen a man pass through, or does it refer to an area that is uninhabited? Since you were not there to witness events or to ask the author what he had in mind, you will not be able to get very much knowledge as to what really happened and what conditions were really like at that early date. I can say that the Book of Mormon is not unique in using the phrase, however. It also can be found in the writings of the Apocrypha, referring to a migration of tribes of Israel:

All true. Not only do we not know what he meant by man never having "been" there, we also don't know what is meant by the term "quarter". IMO, that sounds like a larger expanse of land. But I know others will believe it to mean a much smaller tract. If the term means a larger area of the Earth it's tougher to imagine there never having been man there. A smaller area - sure. You could find square miles of easily habitable continental land even today where man has not lived (though that would be VERY tough to do).

[Sevenbak]

However I will still remind everybody that this is speculation. It is not in the Canon of scripture nor does it represent offical doctrine. However on another note: if the gulf of mexico is the city of enoch, does that matter one way ore the other?

Perhaps it's speculation on JS's part that President Woodruff passed on, perhaps it was part of relm of knowledge that JS had that he didn't share.

I do remember seeing a map of the continents that a non-LDS scientist put together showing the pre-division continent of Pangaea. The Gulf of Mexico is an anomaly. Nothing fits there.

[Lightbearer]

That sounds more like an excuse than an explanation. Where in the Book of Mormon does it explicitly say that the large plates contain detail information of the cultures, beliefs, and practices of other people in the Book of Mormon lands?

Why should it contain details of the culture, beliefs, and practices of other people in the Book of Mormon, that was not it's purpose. However it does explain what is contained in both sets of plates and it explains the Lord's purposes right here:

(1 Nephi 19:1-7) "And it came to pass that the Lord commanded me, wherefore I did make plates of ore that I might engraven upon them the record of my people. And upon the plates which I made I did engraven the record of my father, and also our journeyings in the wilderness, and the prophecies of my father; and also many of mine own prophecies have I engraven upon them. And I knew not at the time when I made them that I should be commanded of the Lord to make these plates; wherefore, the record of my father, and the genealogy of his fathers, and the more part of all our proceedings in the wilderness are engraven upon those first plates of which I have spoken; wherefore, the things which transpired before I made these plates are, of a truth, more particularly made mention upon the first plates. And after I had made these plates by way of commandment, I, Nephi, received a commandment that the ministry and the prophecies, the more plain and precious parts of them, should be written upon these plates; and that the things which were written should be kept for the instruction of my people, who should possess the land, and also for other wise purposes, which purposes are known unto the Lord. Wherefore, I, Nephi, did make a record upon the other plates, which gives an account, or which gives a greater account of the wars and contentions and destructions of my people. And this have I done, and commanded my people what they should do after I was gone; and that these plates should be handed down from one generation to another, or from one prophet to another, until further commandments of the Lord. And an account of my making these plates shall be given hereafter; and then, behold, I proceed according to that which I have spoken; and this I do that the more sacred things may be kept for the knowledge of my people. Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself. For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul, others set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet; I say, trample under their feet but I would speak in other wordsâ??they set him at naught, and hearken not to the voice of his counsels."

Also if that is not "explicit" enough try this:

(Words of Mormon 1:3-7) "And now, I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written; for after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi. And the things which are upon these plates pleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ; and my fathers knowing that many of them have been fulfilled; yea, and I also know that as many things as have been prophesied concerning us down to this day have been fulfilled, and as many as go beyond this day must surely come to passâ?? Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the plates of Nephi; and I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people. But behold, I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren. And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to his will."

And to top it off consider this:

(1 Nephi 6:3-6) "And it mattereth not to me that I am particular to give a full account of all the things of my father, for they cannot be written upon these plates, for I desire the room that I may write of the things of God. For the fulness of mine intent is that I may persuade men to come unto the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and be saved. Wherefore, the things which are pleasing unto the world I do not write, but the things which are pleasing unto God and unto those who are not of the world. Wherefore, I shall give commandment unto my seed, that they shall not occupy these plates with things which are not of worth unto the children of men."

He that ears to hear let him hear.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Perhaps it's speculation on JS's part that President Woodruff passed on, perhaps it was part of relm of knowledge that JS had that he didn't share.

I do remember seeing a map of the continents that a non-LDS scientist put together showing the pre-division continent of Pangaea. The Gulf of Mexico is an anomaly. Nothing fits there.

Oh.. I completly agree. I dont doubt that is really were the City was located, not for a second.

[John Williams]

Only to those who have not studied the BOM.

1. The Jaredites lived there at the same time as the Mulekites, perhaps for centuries.

2. When Lehi landed, they found in the forest the ox, the goat, and the wild goat.

It is very explicit there were people here.

Are you saying Brant is wrong?

That you have to infer all this from a couple of very sketchy scriptures tends to negate the idea that it is "explicit." And the idea that those who disagree with your explanation just haven't studied enough is laughable.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you saying Brant is wrong?

That you have to infer all this from a couple of very sketchy scriptures tends to negate the idea that it is "explicit." And the idea that those who disagree with your explanation just haven't studied enough is laughable.

Hmm explicit is a strong word here. I would say that it could be plausibly (is that even a word?) interpreted from the text that people were living here, but no were in the text does it say, "And when the Jaradites landed there were other people there."

[John Williams]

Hmm explicit is a strong word here. I would say that it could be plausibly interpreted from the text that people were living here, but know were in the text does it say, "And when the Jaradites landed there were other people there."

Right. I understand where Charles and others are seeing "others," but it's far from explicit, and one has to discount the fairly explicit statements in the book itself and from the prophets about who the original inhabitants of the continent were.

[MormonMason]

Perhaps it's speculation on JS's part that President Woodruff passed on, perhaps it was part of relm of knowledge that JS had that he didn't share.

I do remember seeing a map of the continents that a non-LDS scientist put together showing the pre-division continent of Pangaea. The Gulf of Mexico is an anomaly. Nothing fits there.

Islands such as Cuba in the Gulf of Mexico were not originally there at that time, either. Cuba was originally a Pacific Island before there was what is now Panama. It migrated with the rotation of a techtonic plate and was pulled along with it.

PBS - Nature - Cuba: Wild Island of the Caribbean

In addition, there is an area in what is now Tennessee which has sandstone of the same age range and composition as that found in Arizona. The only thing what would account for that is the rotation of a techtonic plate adjacent to another. Connecticut was once a tropical island before it slammed into what is now the Eastern Seaboard.

The site was here: http://www.geobop.com/paleozoo/World/NA/US/CT/index.htm

However, it has gone 404. Bummer! I liked that site. It discussed fossils and all kinds of rather cool stuff.

At any rate, drawing maps of things and finding that something does not belong does not do justice to the truth of the situation.

[MormonMason]

Right. I understand where Charles and others are seeing "others," but it's far from explicit, and one has to discount the fairly explicit statements in the book itself and from the prophets about who the original inhabitants of the continent were.

If there were oxen and domesticated goats that are distinguishable from wild goats, there were people there when they arrived.

Oxen generally are castrated bulls. If such was the case, one would have to imagine humans castrating the bulls to make them more docile for plowing and agriculture. I cannot imagine bulls doing it to themselves.

As to prophets making claims about the inhabitants as described in the Book of Mormon:

1. A prophet is not always a prophet except when he is functioning as such.

2. If a statement of a General Authority, no matter how substantial or authoritative it might sound, high or low, can be discarded if it conflicts with the Standard Works.

There are other bullet points I could make but that is possibly another thread for another time. However, the two given above were themselves stated by General Authorities and held valid by the Church in official publications.