Jaredites And "others"

[William Schryver]

John W:

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.

I think itâ??s a forced reading that you, and those who argue similarly, apply to the text. In fact, I think itâ??s a specifically motivated reading.

As I said, finding others is not impossible but requires a great deal more dexterity.

Not at all. In fact, I and others have identified â?? with not much trouble at all â?? several clear indications of â??others.â? But hey, see what you want. I still find it amazingly ironic that the only people who take this â??fundamentalisticâ? approach towards the Book of Mormon are those who no longer believe it to even be true. Strange.

[cinepro]

John W:

I think itâ??s a forced reading that you, and those who argue similarly, apply to the text. In fact, I think itâ??s a specifically motivated reading.

Not at all. In fact, I and others have identified â?? with not much trouble at all â?? several clear indications of â??others.â? But hey, see what you want. I still find it amazingly ironic that the only people who take this â??fundamentalisticâ? approach towards the Book of Mormon are those who no longer believe it to even be true. Strange.

Maybe without the energy borne of a desperation to salvage a belief in the BoM, the "others" disappear?

[blackstrap]

A thought just occured to me ( some will wish that I kept it to myself) But did Joseph ever state anything specific about the info in the 116 pages?Did he read them after he translated them? Would there have been info about "others" in those pages and if so would that have influenced his opinion on first peoples etc.? Are there any sources that illuminate what was on the 116 pages outside of what is presented in 1st Nephi?

[stemelbow]

Cinepro said:

QUOTE

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from [ancient America's] first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era.

That works.

Nothing else makes any sense. You don't have to "read into" the sentence. It says what it says. If the Book of Mormon were just one of many histories, then it would say "a history of ancient America is unfolded".

Certainly, I'm always game for a "Joseph was wrong" discussion. I absolutely agree he was wrong about this.

I don't get the point of these discussions when someone won't listen, or read, what the person to whom they are replying said.

Instead of just saying "nothing else makes any sense" because you say so, why not actually say why the proposed reading doesn't make sense? This obtuse mode of discussion doesn't make any sense to me--"I'm right because I'm saying I'm right...duh"

Anyway so why can't the preceding be read to say, "...[the book's] first settlement..."? I don't see why it doen't make any sense why the pronoun here isn't in reference to the book being described. It makes less sense to me to suggest the sentence is referencing the entire history of the ancient Americas, since logically such an explanation would be more complicated than a mere sentence. But I ain't exactly opposed to the reading you suggest is the only one that makes sense. I merely question the obtuse mode of discussion you seem bent on. I appreciate in advance a thoughtful reply.

love,

stem

[cinepro]

Anyway so why can't the preceding be read to say, "...[the book's] first settlement..."?

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from [the book's] first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the Tower of Babel.

That still doesn't make sense, since it isn't "the book" that got settled; it was ancient America that got settled. I suppose you could try to stretch the grammar to fit that argument, but only if you ignore what comes next.

Joseph then clarifies that ancient America was inhabited by two distinct races of people (and not the genetic stew of indeterminate cultures and DNA suggested by modern scientists and apologists). If there were people here when the Jaredites showed up, then the Jaredites weren't the first. And having the Lehites intermingle with the various existing cultures and peoples hardly would qualify them as "distinct".

[John Williams]

John W:

I think itâ??s a forced reading that you, and those who argue similarly, apply to the text. In fact, I think itâ??s a specifically motivated reading.

Not at all. In fact, I and others have identified â?? with not much trouble at all â?? several clear indications of â??others.â? But hey, see what you want. I still find it amazingly ironic that the only people who take this â??fundamentalisticâ? approach towards the Book of Mormon are those who no longer believe it to even be true. Strange.

A lo contrario, William. There's no motivation behind it (as I said, I wasn't the one who pointed this out; the person who did is a believer).

And the "you're a fundamentalist, neener neener" trope is really getting old. I'm perfectly open to an alternative reading of the text. I just find it interesting that the most straightforward reading of the text (and the one adopted by all the prophets from the beginning) is the one that you all are trying to dismiss.

[William Schryver]

JW:

I just find it interesting that the most straightforward reading of the text (and the one adopted by all the prophets from the beginning) is the one that you all are trying to dismiss.

I see very little evidence to support your claim made in the portion of your quote which I bolded. Oh, I know it is often claimed that this notion of the Americas being only the domain of BoM peoples was the de facto position of "the Church" since the very beginning. But there is very little, if any, persuasive evidence to support that claim.

And, even if there were, only those who (as believers) possessed what I term a "fundamentalistic mindset" would have believed that everything a president of the church says is the absolute truth, and that it is not potentially subject to elaboration, revision, or even subsequent repudiation. Now, as unbelievers, they want to impose that same mindset on those who continue to believe. But those who continue to believe do so because they rely first upon their own capacity to obtain revelation, and then secondly on those called to lead the church.

Furthermore, I adhere 100% to something I wrote several months ago on a similar thread:

If Joseph Smith had lived to a ripe old age, and had eventually had the opportunity to read the text critically, he would no doubt have come to the same conclusions that many of us have reached, who have been able to read it repeatedly over the course of a leisurely lifetime. Unfortunately, Joseph didn't have that luxury during his life.

Nowadays, serious students of the Book of Mormon have reached a near-consensus on what the text tells us. The only people who attempt to hold us to the antiquated exegesis of some early (and mostly casual) students, are those who are motivated by their disbelief in the book's antiquity.

As also this superbly-concise statement by Larry Poulsen (who will regale us with his erudition at the upcoming FAIR conference!):

It is the text of the Book of Mormon that is the final arbiter in determining what occurred in the Americas relative to the cultures whose records are summarized in its pages.

[John Williams]

JW:

I see very little evidence to support your claim made in the portion of your quote which I bolded. Oh, I know it is often claimed that this notion of the Americas being only the domain of BoM peoples was the de facto position of "the Church" since the very beginning. But there is very little, if any, persuasive evidence to support that claim.

Give it a rest, William. I could dig up a whole lot of statements from the last 180 years or so, and you would go back to "it's just their opinion, and those who take them at their word are fundamentalists." What would be the point?

And, even if there were, only those who (as believers) possessed what I term a "fundamentalistic mindset" would have believed that everything a president of the church says is the absolute truth, and that it is not potentially subject to elaboration, revision, or even subsequent repudiation. Now, as unbelievers, they want to impose that same mindset on those who continue to believe. But those who continue to believe do so because they rely first upon their own capacity to obtain revelation, and then secondly on those called to lead the church.

I must be a prophet, because I figured you'd say that.

Good heavens, William. No one is trying to impose anything on you. As I said, I find it interesting that you are so eager to dismiss the statements of angels and prophets in this matter. And that you take such a tortured approach to the text. I think that says something about the text and its apologists.

Furthermore, I adhere 100% to something I wrote several months ago on a similar thread:

That's downright brilliant. "If Joseph had only lived longer, he would have agreed with me." What's next? "If Joseph Fielding Smith had only lived longer, he would have embraced evolution"?

As also this superbly-concise statement by Larry Poulsen (who will regale us with his erudition at the upcoming FAIR conference!):

Shockingly, I agree with Larry, who, from my point of view, is one of the more reasonable and charitable of apologists.

[cinepro]

I could dig up a whole lot of statements from the last 180 years or so, and you would go back to "it's just their opinion, and those who take them at their word are fundamentalists." What would be the point?

That's the irony. If you quote prophets and not apologists, you are a fundamentalist.

Go figure.

[cdowis]

1. Wentworth letter

In my humble opinion, JS is clearly talking about the doctrines of the church, and the BOM specifically. Nowhere does this indicate a general treatise of the history of ancient America in general.

So, these "killer" statements refer to the BOM text itself.

2. "Others" mentioned in the history of the Nephites.

Jacob 1 [2] And he gave me, Jacob, a commandment that I should write upon these plates a few of the things which I consider to be most precious; that I should not touch, save it were lightly, concerning the history of this people which are called the people of Nephi.

[3] For he said that the history of his people should be engraven upon his other plates, and that I should preserve these plates and hand them down unto my seed, from generation to generation.

The history of the "others" are on the other plates, and not on the small plates.

[MormonMason]

A thought just occured to me ( some will wish that I kept it to myself) But did Joseph ever state anything specific about the info in the 116 pages?Did he read them after he translated them? Would there have been info about "others" in those pages and if so would that have influenced his opinion on first peoples etc.? Are there any sources that illuminate what was on the 116 pages outside of what is presented in 1st Nephi?

There was a source I read some years ago. Unfortunately, I do not recall the source. I thought I had retained the notes I had made from the document, which I had stumbled upon accidentally. I do remember that it was a journal account but I do not recall who wrote it and no longer have the notes therefrom.

In the account, Joseph Smith told of others in the land when they arrived and it had the people of Lehi sending spies to determine a place where they could go to avoid those there where they landed. Apparently, this information came from the 116 pages, if I recall the details correctly. I would most appreciate anyone with further information on this source sharing the source and its location so I could obtain it again. Anyone?

[John Williams]

1. Wentworth letter

In my humble opinion, JS is clearly talking about the doctrines of the church, and the BOM specifically. Nowhere does this indicate a general treatise of the history of ancient America in general.

So, these "killer" statements refer to the BOM text itself.

2. "Others" mentioned in the history of the Nephites.

Jacob 1 [2] And he gave me, Jacob, a commandment that I should write upon these plates a few of the things which I consider to be most precious; that I should not touch, save it were lightly, concerning the history of this people which are called the people of Nephi.

[3] For he said that the history of his people should be engraven upon his other plates, and that I should preserve these plates and hand them down unto my seed, from generation to generation.

The history of the "others" are on the other plates, and not on the small plates.

I've never understood this interpretation. These verses speak only about the people of Nephi, with Jacob saying that he wouldn't spend much time on the history of said people on these plates. He seems to be saying that the history of the people of Nephi would be written on the other plates. There isn't even a hint of a mention of "others."

In all seriousness, this interpretation is just way off in left field. It's like saying that Che Guevara's other, as-yet undiscovered Motorcycle Diaries contain the account of his travels through Finland.

[MormonMason]

Sorry, but MormonMason is the only one with a plausible duck and weave (which I anticipated in the last sentence of my post; we've been down this road before). But the first bolded sentence which is directly attributed to Moroni does argue against "others". Perhaps Joseph's recollection of Moroni's words had been altered by his personal opinions over the years, but that lays a dangerous precedent to doubt the efficacy of Joseph's memory for the spiritual epiphanies of his youth. Remember, so many of the arguments in favor of the Church's preferred rendition of the First Vision rely on Joseph remembering more accurately as the years go by, not less.

The first bolded sentence is a paraphrase of Moroni. It speaks of aboriginal inhabitants but it still does not preclude others being there and mixed into the population. In point of fact, there are a numberof statements in even the Book of Mormon that implies the presence of others. These have been discussed as well, notwithstanding Joseph Smith and others missed the significance of these sayings in the Book of Mormon.

It certainly is possible that his understanding colored the account given him by Moroni, notwithstanding the so-called dangerous precedent set thereby. The fact of the matter is that revelation comes to us colored by the medium by which it comes. We can receive it no other way. See the rather common reference from Dummelow on the subject cited here on this forum from time to time, in the One Volume Bible Commentary.

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from [ancient America's] first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian Era.

Note the words I have bolded here. These bolded words set the context from which Joseph draws his remarks and demonstrates his understanding at the time therefrom. He is getting his information from his perception of the contents of the book. In addition, try making sense of the reference of Mormon being "a pure descendent of Lehi" at 3 Nephi 5:20. Were not all but Zoram himself pure descendents of Lehi? Zoram's descendents mixed with Ishmael and with other Nephite peoples, making them all descendents of Lehi. What would be the point of making such a statement, therefore, unless mixing with "others" had occurred by the time of Mormon and Mormon was aware of it?

...If the Book of Mormon were just one of many histories, then it would say "a history of ancient America is unfolded".

Many histories have been written in the Americas in ancient times. Most of them have been destroyed but a few remain. Even in the Book of Mormon, the text itself states that there were many historical accounts written, which Mormon was abridging for his own record! And, the text is what is most important, not someone's interpretation thereof. In other accounts of the description of the Book of Mormon over the years, the phrase "a history" has been used in respect to the Book of Mormon.

Certainly, I'm always game for a "Joseph was wrong" discussion. I absolutely agree he was wrong about this.

Joseph Smith allowed an editorial to stand in the Times and Seasons, based upon a reading of Stephens' book, which book he had been reading and tying this editorial to him. He excludes South America from the equation in that editorial. It is easy to make much from a paraphrase and personal interpretation. It is not so easy to sort out the evidence and weigh what is said.

[cdowis]

I've never understood this interpretation.

OK, I will be happy to help you.

These verses speak only about the people of Nephi, with Jacob saying that he wouldn't spend much time on the history of said people on these plates.

I can see why you do not understand. Jacob is speaking of the small plates (which happen to be a history of the Nephites. You have the cart before the horse. These plates also mention somewhat the Mulekites, the Lamanites, and, later on, the Jaredites.

Thus, again he is talking about the purpose of the small plates, NOT the "history of the Nephites", which are the large plates.

He seems to be saying that the history of the people of Nephi would be written on the other plates.

These verses are quite clear what he is saying. I can only guess why you have such a convoluted interpretation. There isn't even a hint of a mention of "others."

Sigh. If you don't get it now, I don't think it will happen at all.

[John Williams]

OK, I will be happy to help you.

Why am I reading this as sarcasm?

I can see why you do not understand. Jacob is speaking of the small plates (which happen to be a history of the Nephites. You have the cart before the horse. These plates also mention somewhat the Mulekites, the Lamanites, and, later on, the Jaredites.

So, you're saying that the small plates are a history of the Nephites, even though the verse you cited says that Jacob "should not touch, save it were lightly, concerning the history of this people which are called the people of Nephi."

Thus, again he is talking about the purpose of the small plates, NOT the "history of the Nephites", which are the large plates.

You've lost me, Charles. Above you said the small plates "happen to be a history of the Nephites" but now you say the large plates are the history of the Nephites.

I have always read these verses (and have been taught from seminary to BYU to Gospel Doctrine and in personal study) as follows:

1. The small plates contained the things of God and touched on the history only lightly.

2. The large plates contained the history of the Nephites, not a history of the spiritual things.

Mormon seems to have the same impression I do: he tells us why he included them:

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.

4 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??

5 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.

6 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.

He tells us that the small plates contain prophecies and revelations, which again is what I was always taught.

These verses are quite clear what he is saying. I can only guess why you have such a convoluted interpretation.

If I have such a convoluted interpretation, every teacher and manual I've been taught from had the same interpretation.

Sigh. If you don't get it now, I don't think it will happen at all.

I'll probably figure it out about the time you figure out how to use the "quote" feature.

Seriously, Charles, if you can't explain this clearly, it's best not to assume that it's as obvious as you think it is.

[cdowis]

So, you're saying that the small plates are a history of the Nephites,

No, I am saying exactly what the BOM text tells us on several occasions.

The small plates is a *************religious*************** record which contains a small amount of Nephite history.

Jacob was directly and explicitly instructed to exclude all history, except "lightly", and to include the majority of the history on the large plates.

You are deliberately playing the obtuse game, and I refuse to play this game.

I see no purpose in further explanation.

[John Williams]

No, I am saying exactly what the BOM text tells us on several occasions.

The small plates is a *************religious*************** record which contains a small amount of Nephite history.

Jacob was directly and explicitly instructed to exclude all history, except "lightly", and to include the majority of the history on the large plates.

I completely agree. That has always been my understanding.

You are deliberately playing the obtuse game, and I refuse to play this game.

I see no purpose in further explanation.

I'm not deliberately being obtuse. I am trying to understand your point. It seems to be that, since the small plates don't discuss others, their mention must be on the large plates. Am I understanding you correctly?

[MormonMason]

I completely agree. That has always been my understanding.

I'm not deliberately being obtuse. I am trying to understand your point. It seems to be that, since the small plates don't discuss others, their mention must be on the large plates. Am I understanding you correctly?

I wouldn't presume to speak for him but I would say that such would be the case. The Book of Mormon is an abridgment of the large plates with other records, but not even an hundredfold could be used in his abrigment. So said Mormon, anyway. But, it is of interest as to what he does say. His words only make sense in light of the existence of others. Otherwise, there is no understandable reason as to why being a pure descendant ot Lahi is important for Mormon to bring up at that point. He could not be referring to mixing merely with Lamanites or with Mulekites (even though he mentions relatively little concerning them and spends far more time on the directly related history of his own people). The descendants of these also would have been descendents of Lehi by intermarriage or by direct descent. It only makes maximum sense in light of "others" being present--even if they are not addressed directly.

[John Williams]

I wouldn't presume to speak for him but I would say that such would be the case. The Book of Mormon is an abridgment of the large plates with other records, but not even an hundredfold could be used in his abrigment. So said Mormon, anyway. But, it is of interest as to what he does say. His words only make sense in light of the existence of others. Otherwise, there is no understandable reason as to why being a pure descendant ot Lahi is important for Mormon to bring up at that point. He could not be referring to mixing merely with Lamanites or with Mulekites (even though he mentions relatively little concerning them and spends far more time on the directly related history of his own people). The descendants of these also would have been descendents of Lehi by intermarriage or by direct descent. It only makes maximum sense in light of "others" being present--even if they are not addressed directly.

If Charles were talking about that, it might make sense. I understand your point, though I disagree with it. I think by saying "pure descendant of Lehi" he means just that: not a descendant of intermarriage with Zoramites or Mulekites. But I see how you could interpret it differently.

Charles's explanation seems to rest on the idea of an unknown possibility: "I think they should talk about others on the large plates, so it must be so."

[MormonMason]

If Charles were talking about that, it might make sense. I understand your point, though I disagree with it. I think by saying "pure descendant of Lehi" he means just that: not a descendant of intermarriage with Zoramites or Mulekites. But I see how you could interpret it differently.

Charles's explanation seems to rest on the idea of an unknown possibility: "I think they should talk about others on the large plates, so it must be so."

But, now here is the intersting thing. There is no evidence from our current text that Nephi had sons. The evidence seems to point to his having daughters, particularly in the fact that he handed the plates to his brother, who then passed them from father to son, as the large plates also were handed down from father to son in the beginning. This would mean that anyone from Nephi would be mixed with another line which would or would not be of Lehite descent. We also know that Lehi had daughters who married in with Ishmael's sons, and that Lehi also had other daughters.

The Zoramites may have kept themselves separate for the most part, even making it a matter of pride from what can be observed from their doings. It is possible that the Mulekites may have done the same thing but that cannot be determined from the current state of the text. On the other hand, the Zoramites may have early intermarried with Nephi's children, which would nullify your idea, as did those of Mulek's line, making them also of mixed lineage with direct descent from some line of Lehi. In addition, these Zoramites had some converts that returned to the Nephites and others rebelled and joined the Lamanites (Alma 43:4), although they seemed to maintain their lineage and would later reunite with the Nephites after the time of Christ.

From the looks of it in the text from beginning to end, Nephi's children early on mingled with the children of Sam. Nowhere do we read of Samites as we do of the lineages of the other brothers. I believe from the evidence that these two lines combined as one and garnered the name of Nephite. Sam's name no longer is mentioned after Alma 3:6. His descendants are never mentioned after 2 Nephi 5:6--and even that last reference refers only to "his family" as it does to Nephi's family.

I guess I can see how you could arrive at the interpretation you have but I am not sure that this would apply unless a clear-cut case for lineage isolation in some line can be shown. I have not found such but perhaps I may have missed something.

[cdowis]

Charles's explanation seems to rest on the idea of an unknown possibility: "I think they should talk about others on the large plates, so it must be so."

I am not attempting to prove that others existed, only addressing the issue on why they are not mentioned on the small plates. I agree that the others would be dealt on the Nephite history, but not on the small plates.

As a side note, I think the Nephites would have kept their lineage "pure", not mingling with the others. But the Lamanites would have no such restriction. That is why the Lamanites outnumbered the Nephites from the very beginning.

[John Williams]

I am not "proving" that others existed, only addressing why they are not mentioned on the small plates.

Then you should have said so. Addressing why they are not mentioned is not the same as insisting that "the history of the 'others' are [sic] on the other plates."

[stemelbow]

That still doesn't make sense, since it isn't "the book" that got settled; it was ancient America that got settled. I suppose you could try to stretch the grammar to fit that argument, but only if you ignore what comes next.

*shrug*...hm I disagree. it seems pretty evident to me that the intention was to describe the book not the history of the people. So it wouldn't be suggesting the book got settled but the first settlement described in teh book. In order to use this as a critique seems to be nothing more than skepticism to me. Hence I disagree with you.

Joseph then clarifies that ancient America was inhabited by two distinct races of people (and not the genetic stew of indeterminate cultures and DNA suggested by modern scientists and apologists). If there were people here when the Jaredites showed up, then the Jaredites weren't the first. And having the Lehites intermingle with the various existing cultures and peoples hardly would qualify them as "distinct".

Not much to say again, I guess. It appears all you did here was use your original point to verify your original point. I disagree. It says these records describe two distinct races of people. It does not say "ancient America was only inhabited by two distinct races of people". If there were people here when the Jaredites showed up then the book was not about them, thus the first people described in this book were not necessarily the first people in the americas, although I won't say for certain they weren't, since that isn't necessarily addressed in this brief summation either.

The issue here as with many discussions I've tried to have about these sorts of things is one person is skeptical and they argue from a skeptical slant. That seems evident here. I am not skeptical and I argue from a non-skeptical slant, or perhaps that's how you see it. Could be. I just can't agree with your position as you have laid it out.

But no big deal, because in all of this Joseph could have been innocently mistaken. he does not specify what exactly the angel told him, he gave some idea. But in giving some idea of what another said one may easily make the mistake by adding to what the other actually said. I'm not concerned either way. I just don't think one needs to take it to the obtuse level of only one reading. Thus, I piped up.

love,

stem

[Bernard Gui]

But, now here is the intersting thing. There is no evidence from our current text that Nephi had sons. The evidence seems to point to his having daughters, particularly in the fact that he handed the plates to his brother, who then passed them from father to son, as the large plates also were handed down from father to son in the beginning. This would mean that anyone from Nephi would be mixed with another line which would or would not be of Lehite descent. We also know that Lehi had daughters who married in with Ishmael's sons, and that Lehi also had other daughters.

So, when Mormon says "I am a descendant of Nephi", that would be through a daughter of Nephi?

Is this consistent with the way genealogies were kept? Or could this possibly be considered evidence

that Nephi had at least one son? Perhaps he was deceased when the plates were passed to Jacob?

Bernard

[MormonMason]

So, when Mormon says "I am a descendant of Nephi", that would be through a daughter of Nephi?

Is this consistent with the way genealogies were kept? Or could this possibly be considered evidence

that Nephi had at least one son? Perhaps he was deceased when the plates were passed to Jacob?

Bernard

If there was a survivor of the family who was male, Nephi most likely would have passed the plates to that grandson or other relative. Stating that one is a descendent of Nephi would have been alright if two families had combined together as seems to have been the case for Nephi and Sam. This would have produced a situation where the most important ancestor would have been mentioned. It would technically have been correct enough. Mormon also said that he was "a pure descendent of Lehi," which would have been true in such a scenario.

It is remotely possible that Nephi had sons. Or, did Nephi adopt sons of Sam as his own sons? Adoption sometimes did happen and were listed in the genealogies. Nowhere in the entire Book of Mormon is there said to be Samites or descendents of Sam after mentioning that he had children and a family. But, evidence that Nephi actually had sons is lacking from the Book of Mormon itself, notwithstanding he is stated as having children. Some are of the opinion that Nephi had no sons. Others disagree for varying reasons.

I wish we had the Book of Lehi--the real one--so we could find out such information to some degree, or, better yet, the Large Plates of Nephi. It would be a very cool thing to be able to settle that dispute.